Dan Olinger

"If the Bible is true, then none of our fears are legitimate, none of our frustrations are permanent, and none of our opposition is significant."

Dan Olinger

 

Retired Bible Professor,

Bob Jones University

home / about / archive 

Subscribe via Email

When You’re Really Scared, Part 2: Panic

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: Background

David begins with his thesis statement in verse 1. I’ll get to that eventually, but first I’d like to take a look at what his advisors are telling him.

They begin with the action item: Run!

Flee as a bird to your mountain! (Ps 11.1b).

They’re going to explain the danger in a minute, but it’s as if they need to call for action immediately—as if they’re in a panic. That idea is reinforced by their simile; birds skedaddle in a hurry. And where should the bird that is David skedaddle to? A mountain, a place of strength, high ground, with a tactical military advantage.

David knows about fleeing like a bird. The second time that he confronts Saul and refuses to harm him, he describes the king as “one who hunts a partridge in the mountains” (1S 26.20). He also knows about taking refuge in a mountain; earlier in his flight from Saul, he “lived in the strongholds of Engedi” (1S 23.29). Many scholars think this refers to Masada, the mesa-top fortress used as a refuge through the years of Roman domination around the time of Christ.

Now his advisors give him the reason: You’re in immediate danger!

For, lo, the wicked bend their bow,
They make ready their arrow upon the string,
That they may privily shoot at the upright in heart (Ps 11.2).

Here’s another sign of panic: Lo! Look! Pay attention! This is serious!

The wicked, David’s enemies, are “stepping on the bow”—that’s the literal Hebrew—and they’re notching the arrow. In modern terms, they’re pulling back the hammer, they’re racking the round. This is an act of naked aggression, and evidence that they mean to harm him.

And they’re preparing to shoot “privily.” This is an Elizabethan-era word that means “secretly.” ESV renders it “in the dark”; CSB and NIV render it “from the shadows.”

This is an ambush, a sneak attack. You may not be able to see them just yet, but the threat is real and imminent. This is no idle threat, and it’s certainly no joke.

David’s advisors wrap up their presentation with an assessment: It’s hopeless!

If the foundations be destroyed,
What can the righteous do? (Ps 11.3).

This is a scream, a cry of despair. AAAAGGGGGHHHH!

I’ve seen this verse used fairly frequently by Christians who mean it as a warning against apathy and complacency, a call for alertness and stewardship in the face of danger. I once spoke at a Christian school convention that chose this verse as their organizing theme that year.

I wouldn’t deny that the Scripture calls God’s people to alertness, to stewardship. God called Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and for much of the construction period the workers labored with a sword hanging from their belt, because of the imminent threat from the enemies of Israel (Ne 4.18). David himself chided Saul’s bodyguard for sleeping on duty during that second confrontation (1S 26.15-16). Paul tells Christians to “walk circumspectly [looking around], not as fools, but as wise” (Ep 5.15). Jesus himself repeatedly commanded his disciples to watch, to be alert (Mt 24.42; 25.13; Mk 13.37) and chided them when they didn’t (Mt 26.38-41).

But this is a different context, making a different point entirely. My friends at the conference were using the words of the godless to motivate the godly.

And David’s response to them tells us that. To this point I’ve skipped most of verse 1; it’s time to recall it here. David says to his advisors, “How can you even say this to me?! What are you thinking?! I have put my trust in the LORD! He is my refuge! How can I seek another?”

Of what use is a rocky Judean mesa when the Almighty God is your protector?

Here, halfway through the psalm, we already know where David is headed. We’ll see him develop his thesis more thoroughly in the next post.

Part 3: Presence | Part 4: Response

Photo by Alexandra Gorn on Unsplash

When You’re Really Scared, Part 1: Background

by Leave a Comment

Last week I preached on Psalm 11 in my school’s chapel service. Since this passage of Scripture is clear, counterintuitive, and timely, I’d like to repurpose the message here.

What do you do when you’re really, really scared? Everybody gets scared; that’s no evidence of cowardice. The key is how you respond to being scared—and how you respond depends primarily on your worldview, specifically what you believe about God.

The Psalm reads as follows:

1      In the Lord put I my trust:


How say ye to my soul,
Flee as a bird to your mountain?
2      For, lo, the wicked bend their bow,
They make ready their arrow upon the string,
That they may privily shoot at the upright in heart.
3      If the foundations be destroyed,
What can the righteous do?


4      The Lord is in his holy temple,
The Lord’s throne is in heaven:
His eyes behold,
His eyelids try, the children of men.
5      The Lord trieth the righteous:
But the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6      Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone,|
And an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
7      For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness;
His countenance doth behold the upright. (KJV)

I’ve inserted vertical space to show the psalm’s three divisions: the opening thesis statement (Ps 11.1a), David’s report of the advice he’s getting (Ps 11.1b-3), and then his response to that advice with wisdom of his own. But we should begin by trying to figure out the historical context—why he’s getting the advice in the first place.

His advisors tell him that he’s in danger, that he has enemies who want to kill him. Anyone who knows the story of David knows that there were many times in his life when that would have been the case. Long before he became king, the nation’s prophet, Samuel, anointed him for kingship (1S 16.13)—while Saul was still king, and while this king was planning to have his son Jonathan succeed him (1S 20.30-31). We know that Saul pursued David for a decade, seeking to eliminate him as a claimant to the throne—during which time, ironically, David expressed no interest in seizing the throne and even passed up multiple opportunities to do so. On at least two occasions (1S 24.1-4; 26.3-12) Saul was within a few feet of David, unawares, and David was in a position to kill him on the spot.

This psalm could well have been written at almost any time during those final years of Saul’s reign.

We also know that David faced a rebellion from one of his sons, Absalom, which led to civil war, with David and his closest advisors being exiled from Jerusalem (2S 15.10-16) and from Israel (2S 17.22-24), to seek refuge across the Jordan River in northern Ammon.

The psalm could well spring from that period as well. While we can’t place it more narrowly than that, we can note that David was someone who knew what he was talking about when he spoke to personal physical danger; his experience made him a much more reliable judge of both the danger he faced, and an appropriate response to it, than his advisors were. Even if he weren’t inspired, he’d be well worth listening to.

Next time we’ll look at the psalm’s first stanza, which reports the counsel of his advisors; in the third post, we’ll consider the second stanza, in which he responds to them.

Part 2: Panic | Part 3: Presence | Part 4: Response

Photo by Alexandra Gorn on Unsplash

On Protest, Part 1: Initial Thoughts

by 2 Comments

I’ve lived all my life in an environment of protest. I came of age in the 60s, so it started early. Activist writers in those days noted that public protest is a way to get on the political agenda; it’s a way to overcome government inertia and stimulate otherwise uninterested authorities to pay attention. Just as Jesus described a presumably fictional unjust judge (Lk 18.1-8)—I guess governmental inertia was a thing in his day too—politicians will often be unmoved by citizens’ problems unless the citizens find a way to make inertia inconvenient in the lives of the leadership.

So people protest. This is de rigeur in democratic societies, of course, where officials face the prospect of being voted out of office, and where the protesters find it reasonably safe to raise their voices. But it happens in totalitarian societies as well, where the risk is considerably higher. The Soviet Union saw public protests in Czechoslovakia in 1968—that didn’t turn out well for the protesters—and in East Berlin in 1989. (That turned out better.) The Chinese Communists saw a confrontation in Tiananmen Square that same year. The people of Iran rose up against the mullahs just last year. And there are many, many more examples.

Over the course of my life I’ve seen many causes promoted by protest: civil rights (both racial and women’s rights), war and peace, economic policy, criminal justice, right to life (as considered in both abortion and capital punishment), terrorism, tax policy, environment, and others. Most recently there have been protests worldwide against Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s response in Gaza. Many have expressed the opinion that this one seems bigger, more volatile than what has typically preceded; some are talking seriously about the end of the world.

Well, I don’t know when the end of the world is coming, and neither does anybody else. I think it would be unwise to try to predict it even if Jesus hadn’t told us not to. (If he didn’t know the date when he was walking amongst us, how likely are we to get it right?)

But the protests are ubiquitous, and they’re intense. People are expected to take a side.

Sometimes—often—taking a side is precisely the right thing to do. As an acquaintance of mine commented decades ago, the middle of the road is where the yellow stripe is.

I don’t think the protests are going to get quieter, or the issues simpler, as time rolls on. It’s our duty, I’d suggest, to think through a philosophy of protest, something that can guide us through emotional, murky, and rapidly moving times. As a Christian, I need to base my philosophy of protest, like anything else, on the Scripture. I’d like to take a few posts to offer some suggestions and to invite feedback.

I’ll begin with the overarching biblical principle: we live for the glory of God (1Co 10.31). We pattern our thinking after his, as expressed in his Word; we decide our actions, from choosing a vocation to deciding whether to speed up or stop for that deeply pink traffic light, on the same basis. And we establish our priorities, including the decision to join a particular protest movement, based on his. Only he is worth all our love, all our loyalty, and all our devotion. God is the only person we can follow blindly—and He doesn’t ask us to (Is 1.18).

Next time, we’ll tease out other biblical principles that we need to consider in developing our philosophy of protest.

Photo by Teemu Paananen on Unsplash

Part 2: Biblical Principles | Part 3: What Now? | Part 4: Tactics | Part 5: The Long View

On “Literal” Interpretation, Part 2: Sometimes You Shouldn’t Translate

by 1 Comment

Part 1: Nobody Does That

There’s an argument among conservative Christians over whether we should translate the Bible “literally”—by which the proponent usually means “word for word, so much as is possible in translating from one language to another”—or “loosely”—by which the proponent means “concept for concept.” The technical term for the latter is “dynamic equivalence.”

Of the popular English translations today, the most “literal” is, in my opinion, the NASB, while the most representative of dynamic equivalence is the NIV—though I hasten to say that the NIV frequently goes beyond dynamic equivalence to interpretation, seeking to “clarify” ambiguous original language. That makes the NIV in some respects more of a commentary than a translation.

Some may be surprised that I didn’t identify the KJV as the most “literal.” Well, I didn’t because it isn’t. The KJV translators did occasionally render in dynamic equivalence, although the term wasn’t around in those days. Probably the clearest example is the way they translate the Greek exclamation μη γενοιτο (me genoito), which literally means “May it never come to pass!” The KJV translates this expression “God forbid” in all 16 occurrences, thereby introducing the name of God where it does not appear in the Greek. I’m not criticizing this translation choice; I think it’s a perfectly good one for the culture of 1611. But it’s indisputably not a literal translation.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both “literal” and dynamically equivalent translations, and a I make a point of consulting multiple translations, across the spectrum of translation philosophy, when I study a passage.

I ended the previous post by promising a consideration of when we shouldn’t translate the original language at all—when translating is to miss the whole point. I would direct you to a passage that may sound familiar:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little: …
But the word of the Lord was unto them
Precept upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little;
That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken,
And snared, and taken
(Is 28.10, 13).

But what if Isaiah’s point isn’t the words?

Here’s the transliterated Hebrew. (I need to show it to you to make the point.)

tsaw ltsaw tsaw ltsaw qaw lqaw qaw lqaw

“line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept”

Do you see what Isaiah—and the Lord—are doing here? I’d suggest that there’s a strong possibility that the message is not about the meaning of the words; it’s about the sounds of the words. Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada.

It’s worth noting that the context bears this out. In verse 11 God says that he’ll speak to his people “with stammering lips and another tongue”; in verse 12 he says, “yet they would not hear.” God’s point is not that the Israelites are slow learners and need pedagogical scaffolding; his point is that they just don’t listen to what they already know—the Torah and the words of the prophets are just a bunch of noise to them.

Nearly all the English versions miss the point, I would suggest, by translating the Hebrew. There are a few that get it, in my opinion:

You don’t even listen— all you hear is senseless sound after senseless sound (CEV).

They speak utter nonsense (GW).

CEV is a paraphrase rather than a translation; GW is a translation originally designed to meet the needs of deaf readers and often used with ESL readers.

Some would caution against taking this approach, given the doctrine of verbal inspiration. I would agree that we should approach this idea with caution. But I also think that the evidence of sound and context are strong in this case.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

On “Literal” Interpretation, Part 1: Nobody Does That

by 1 Comment

I’ve noticed that our culture seems to think that conservative Christians believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally. I say “our culture seems to think” this because the expression occurs frequently in popular media, whether journalistic or social. I’ve even seen some conservative Christians describe themselves that way.

That’s unfortunate.

Nobody today or in the past has ever interpreted the Bible literally. We’re not Amelia Bedelia.

I wonder sometimes whether those who question the authority of Scripture describe conservatives that way because it makes us sound, well, stupid. But I’ve learned over the decades that impugning motives is a bad idea for many reasons. Although it’s a question the critics should ask themselves.

There’s been a lot written throughout the centuries of church history on the topic of hermeneutics, or biblical interpretation. The preferred approaches have varied considerably over that time, from the imaginative allegorical approach common in earlier times—an approach that is often and rightly ridiculed (see Epistle of Barnabas 9.7)—to word-based approaches common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to the more linguistically mature thinking thankfully more common since James Barr published his seminal work The Semantics of Biblical Language forty years ago.

But for centuries, no conservative Christian author on hermeneutics has advocated interpreting the Bible literally. Rather, the standard approach has been to read the Bible the same way you read any other written work: with understanding of stylistic practices, of the idiosyncrasies of translated works, and with attention to the culture from which the document comes—as well as, obviously, the context in which isolated biblical statements are presented.

Thus instruction in hermeneutics routinely includes these sorts of caveats:

  • Context is king. You know what the author intended a statement to mean by studying and evaluating its context. It’s not legitimate to claim that the Bible says that Judas “went and hanged himself” (Mt 27.5) and “Go, and do thou likewise” (Lk 10.37). Aw, come on, Dan; nobody would actually do that! Well, actually, I’ve seen perversions of context every bit as bad.
  • The Bible contains false statements. “Ye shall not surely die” (Ge 3.4) is a lie, spoken by the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and is contextually identified as such.
  • The Bible contains phenomenological language, which describes things as they appear to the human senses. Solomon, the wisest man in history, says, “The sun also rises” (Ec 1.5)—and is cited by no less an authority than Ernest Hemingway!—and that is not a scientific error but a figure of speech. A figure, incidentally, that the weatherman uses every day without being characterized as a scientific ignoramus.
  • The Bible uses pretty much all the recognized figures of speech. (Note that the linked volume runs 1160 pages and was first published in 1898! Nobody takes the Bible literally.) As just one example, Isaiah says that when God consummates history, “all the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Is 55.12). Now this clearly does not mean that one day trees will have hands (Ents? Baum’s trees along the way to Oz?) and will also have emotions of joy that they express by clapping. It also doesn’t mean that the wind will blow the leaves of the trees together in ways that sound like clapping. Rather, it’s metaphorical language on multiple levels:
    • It uses anthropomorphism in speaking of trees as having hands.
    • It uses anthropopathism in speaking of trees having emotions and expressing them by clapping.
    • It then uses synecdoche in presenting trees as representing the whole of creation. Paul expresses the idea of the verse in Romans:
      • 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now (Ro 8.18-22).

So we interpret the Bible like any other work of literature—though that does not imply that it is merely an ordinary work.

Next time: when translating at all is to miss the whole point.

Part 2: Sometimes You Shouldn’t Translate

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Worth It, Part 5: Making It Worth It

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Greatest Cause | Part 2: The Greatest Consequences | Part 3: Another Greatest Consequence | Part 4: The Greatest Cost

Paying a price in suffering for belonging to Jesus is to be expected, and it’s well worth it, for multiple reasons.

So how do we proceed? How do we prepare for the hardships that will likely come along the way?

There are two sections of this passage that address this question. The first is in verses 13 through 17; the second is in verse 22. This is where the passage becomes largely imperative. How does Peter command us to prepare for the opposition and suffering that so often come to God’s people?

  • Get serious (1P 1.13a). Peter’s metaphor, “gird up the loins of your mind,” means simply to get ready to get to work. And with that comes the command to “be sober,” or serious. This is serious business; we don’t approach it as something trivial or a sideline issue. This is focused on the coming “revelation” of Jesus Christ himself. The New Bible Commentary comments, “This phrase pictures not so much the return of one who is absent as the unveiling of one who has been with us all the time” (p 1375). As Daniel’s three friends can testify, God is with us in the fire. We face it with serious determination.
  • Take the long view (1P 1.13b). To “hope to the end” is to be focused on a confident expectation of a positive outcome, and an endurance until it comes. This means, of course, that you focus not on the trial, but on Christ, who has sent the trial and who is using it to accomplish his good purposes. As they say, keep your eyes on the prize.
  • Reject the past (1P 1.14). You’ve already turned away from the sins that defined your life before salvation; now don’t go back. Remember Lot’s wife.
  • Cross the line (1P 1.15-16). You’ve left those old ways to join a new team—or to put it more bluntly and biblically, to become God’s servant and son or daughter. You’ve changed sides; you’re over here now, and you’re not going back; so identify clearly and publicly with your new Master, and take whatever hardship comes.
  • Stay serious (1P 1.17). This is a new life, and a lifelong commitment. You’re in for the long haul. So plan to stay on this path, in this relationship, committed to the lifestyle, all the way to the end. Peter says to pass the time “in fear.” Not cowering, defensive, expecting blows and punishment from a master who despises and abuses you—that was the old master, not this one. But rather reverently, delighted with God’s awesomeness, and determined not to think, do, or say anything that that would disappoint or misrepresent him.
  • Live out love (1P 1.22). Your new relationship involves more than just God—though he would be more than enough. He has placed you into the body of Christ, the church. And bodies have multiple parts, useful for different purposes, which all work together to accomplish the goals of the head. We’re teammates in the largest project ever conceived. So we cherish one another, help one another, encourage one another, support one another. Peter will develop this concept more in the next paragraph, which is also the next chapter and thus a different series. Which you can read here.

Maybe we’ll face persecution like that faced by the ancient saints, and by our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. Maybe we won’t. But we’re not promised immunity, and we should be prepared should it come. We make that preparation now, before the time. And as we prepare we determine, with absolute certainty, that whatever hardships may come, the cause is Worth It.

Photo by Jose P. Ortiz on Unsplash

Worth It, Part 4: The Greatest Cost

by 1 Comment

Part 1: The Greatest Cause | Part 2: The Greatest Consequences | Part 3: Another Greatest Consequence

Peter now takes some time to develop the concept of the price paid to rescue us from our sin and to secure us as the Father’s particular people.

He begins with a surprising fact: the suffering and then the exaltation of the Christ is so profound, and so incomprehensible, that the prophets themselves didn’t understand what they were writing:

10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow (1P 1.10-11).

They wrote what the Spirit drove them to write, but they didn’t understand it—what Christ’s suffering and consequent glory were accomplishing, and when those things would be accomplished. We see an example of that in Daniel, where the prophet expresses his puzzlement, asks for an explanation, and is told to stop asking questions (Da 12.4, 8-9).

It is indeed an enormously incomprehensible thing, calling to mind the words of Charles Wesley:

Amazing love! How can it be
That thou my God shouldst die for me!

Peter may well be thinking of Daniel’s experience when he writes,

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into (1P 1.12).

This is the kind of thing that can’t be comprehended ahead of time; we can make sense of it only in retrospect. The plan of God is like that.

And what is at the center of this great plan?

A sacrifice of infinite worth: the sin offering of the Son himself.

Not temporal, corruptible things like silver and gold (1P 1.18). Not the blood of an earthly lamb, however hale and healthy and perfect.

Not the blood of a fallen human, even an unusually good and kind one—for “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Ro 3.23).

The blood of Christ, the Lamb of God (1P 1.19).

The blood of a perfect human, who is perfect only because he is also God himself. Divine blood.

We’re well beyond our depth here, speaking of things internal to the Godhead, the mysterious triunity of God. If you think you understand it, there’s something you haven’t included in your model. It’s utterly beyond us.

I don’t know how God could become man, and neither do you. Nor did the church fathers, some of the smartest people in history, who wrestled with this question for four centuries and finally chose to state what happened without explaining it, in what’s called the Creed of Chalcedon.

Peter notes one more fact. This plan, this commitment to rescue, was hatched “from the foundation of the world” (1P 1.20). God did not avoid creating us, though he knew what the cost of rescuing us from our eventual rebellion would be. He did not hesitate. He was all in, from the very beginning.

What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross!
(Stuart Townend)

This cost should give us some sense of the weight of our sin.

I see “deconstructionists” today criticizing the atonement as unnecessary, especially unnecessarily violent. In making that charge they demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the sinfulness of sin, of the holiness of God, and most especially of the love of God, that he would pay such a price to redeem those who had declared themselves, starkly and viciously and repeatedly, to be his enemies. They blame the only person in the entire picture who is completely not to blame.

And, I add, it is for such people that Christ chose to die.

Peter has one more point to make.

Next time.

Part 5: Making It Worth It

Photo by Jose P. Ortiz on Unsplash

Worth It, Part 3: Another Greatest Consequence

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Greatest Cause | Part 2: The Greatest Consequences

So far in the passage Peter has presented four great consequences of God’s work in us: great mercy, great confidence, a great inheritance, and great protection. But as I noted in the previous post, he’s just getting started.

Joy—in Trial

In the next verse he identifies another consequence, one that should not surprise us, at least initially: Wherein ye greatly rejoice (1P 1.6).

In what? In the salvation mentioned in verse 5—the certain, final salvation toward which God’s protection is ultimately keeping us. That’s certainly something in which we can rejoice.

But the verse doesn’t end there, and what it says next surprises us:

Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations (1P 1.6).

At the moment, Peter says, we’re “in heaviness” (“you have been distressed” NASB; “you suffer grief” CSB // ESV NIV). Now, who on earth would rejoice under those circumstances? Has Peter lost his mind? Does he really mean that we can rejoice in the midst of trials? Especially trials such as Peter will describe in this epistle: “suffering wrongfully” (1P 2.19), suffering as Christ our example did (1P 2.21), suffering “evil” and “railing” (1P 3.9), suffering “for righteousness’ sake” in “terror” (1P 3.14), when “they speak evil of you, as of evildoers” (1P 3.16), suffering a “fiery trial” (1P 4.12), being “reproached for the name of Christ” (1P 4.14)?

How can he say this?

I note that Peter is in a position to speak knowledgeably about this; he is “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(1P 5.1), and he knows that suffering awaits him at the end as well (Jn 21.18-19).

In an act of grace, Peter doesn’t leave us in the dark; he tells us why we can rejoice in suffering:

  • First, these hardships are temporary; they are “for a season” (1P 1.6).
  • Second, they are necessary—“if need be” (1P 1.6). That is, they are not random or purposeless; they are accomplishing something in us; specifically,
    • They test the quality of our faith (1P 1.7); they show us how we’re doing in the trust department. I’m sure that you occasionally are completely surprised by some reactive word or action that you demonstrate under stress. I am, and I’ve written about that before. We need those experiences to direct our growth; if we don’t know we’re sick, we’re not likely to buy the prescription.
    • They purify that faith, the way a fire purifies molten metal (1P 1.7). As the weaknesses and imperfections are brought to the surface, they can be dealt with and removed. To put it bluntly, the trial makes us a better product.
    • Because the trials are more than we can deal with naturally, they drive us to Christ for grace and strength, thereby demonstrating our faith in him and strengthening in us the habit of seeking him first (1P 1.8). In so doing, they demonstrate the genuineness of our faith and thereby strengthen it. In truth, then, the trials aren’t the direct cause of our rejoicing; our rejoicing is in Christ, and our trials, by driving us to him, drive us to the source of our joy.
    • Let’s not pass over an important phrase in this passage: Whom having not seen, ye love (1P 1.8). Underlying our reaction to our trials—our rejoicing in our trials—is the world-changing fact of a loving relationship. Another accomplishment of trials is that they reinforce the solidity of our relationship with Christ, just as a difficult experience in a marriage—injury, illness, death of a family member—can strengthen the marriage bond well beyond that experienced by those with light, easy lives.

We rejoice when we are in the embrace of Christ. It should be no surprise, then, that we can rejoice when trials come. As Spurgeon supposedly* said,

“I have learned to kiss the waves that throw me up against the Rock of Ages.”

* I have been unable to find this quotation in Spurgeon’s writings. If any reader can, I’d be delighted to know where it is.

Part 4: The Greatest Cost | Part 5: Making It Worth It

Photo by Jose P. Ortiz on Unsplash

Worth It, Part 2: The Greatest Consequences

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Greatest Cause

It shouldn’t surprise us that a plan devised by the triune Godhead should have unequaled consequences. Peter lays out a series of these in the ensuing verses in 1Peter 1.

Great Mercy

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1P 1.3).

Peter’s opening salvo is that the Father has, and has demonstrated, “abundant mercy.” In biblical terms, mercy is typically the withholding of deserved punishment. In the face of our brokenness and consequent rebellion, God has chosen not to demand from us the negative consequences that our rebellion so richly deserves. Instead of death—the appropriate consequence of sin—God has opted to give us life, new life, abundant life, eternal life. He has called out to millions of long-dead and putrid Lazaruses, “Come forth!”—and we have been born again, able to see and hear and taste and smell and touch the spiritual realities with which we have always been surrounded but to which we were completely insensitive. This is a great mercy indeed.

Great Confidence

The same verse identifies the next consequence: hope. As Bible teachers have often said, biblical hope is not a feeble, unfounded wish; it is the confident anticipation of something that is certainly coming. By raising his Son from the dead, the Father has demonstrated the certainty of our resurrection as well, giving us firm confidence in his promise and joyous anticipation of its coming.

And what a day that will be, when millions of the dead are reunited with their reconstituted bodies and raised, never to die again.

Great Inheritance

To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you (1P 1.4).

To our astonishment God has not only withheld deserved punishment (mercy); he has poured out undeserved blessings and benefits (grace). Not only have we been delivered from hell, but we have been promised an inheritance—unimagined wealth from our infinitely wealthy Father.

Peter uses three adjectives to describe this inheritance, all of them negations: incorruptible, undefiled, unfading. An inheritance that’s incorruptible can’t die or decay; one that’s undefiled can’t be soiled; one that’s unfading can’t wilt like a cut flower. This inheritance is for good, in every sense of the word.

You add an inheritance like that to the confidence that it will certainly come, and you really have something significant.

Great Protection

Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1P 1.5).

Now Peter adds to the certainty by noting that we are being looked after by God himself, infinitely powerful, to ensure that we arrive at this inheritance. This word “kept” is a military word, used of a watchguard, a group of soldiers assigned to keep something secure. Paul uses it of the guard that was placed on Damascus to keep him from escaping (2Co 11.32). As we know, he did escape, being lowered over the wall in a basket in the middle of the night (2Co 11.33). Soldiers are not omniscient, and they don’t see everything. But God is not like that; he knows, he sees, and so he protects perfectly. If you are a believer, my friend, you will be kept; you will receive your inheritance when the earthly journey is complete.

It’s worth noting that in the previous verse Peter has told us that our inheritance is “reserved in heaven for [us].” That means that our Father, whose power is infinite, is watching both ends of this situation; he’s guarding the inheritance that’s waiting for us, and he’s guarding us as well, to see that we get where we’re going. This calls for great confidence.

Peter’s just getting started. More on this next time.

Part 3: Another Greatest Consequence | Part 4: The Greatest Cost | Part 5: Making It Worth It

Photo by Jose P. Ortiz on Unsplash

It’s Worth It, Part 1: The Greatest Cause

by Leave a Comment

Life can be hard.

It’s harder for some people than for others, of course. I’ve been privileged to grow up in a country that’s relatively free, in areas of that country (the Northwest, New England, and post-Jim Crow South Carolina) that have been untouched by violent upheaval. My early years were in the middle class—lower middle class, certainly, but we always had a place to live and food to eat and clothes to wear.

David expressed frustration that “the wicked” seemed to have easier lives than God’s people (Ps 37, 73). I wonder whether he was just noticing those “wicked” who indeed had easier lives, and not taking into account the many “wicked” whose lives were utterly miserable.

In our day, and particularly in the US, it’s hard to make the case that believers as a group have a harder go of it than non-Christians do. I’ve written on that before.

But it’s also true that following Jesus does cost something; Jesus taught that principle himself (Lk 14.25-33). Of the biblical passages that address the problem of “suffering for Jesus,” none is more explicit or encouraging than Peter’s first epistle. Though I’ve written a series on a portion of that book as well, I’d like to look at a different portion and talk about a different lesson from the letter.

The pervading theme of 1 Peter is suffering, and specifically suffering because of one’s obedience to Jesus. Peter matter-of-factly reports the fact of suffering and then applies it in the three institutional spheres of life: the state (1P 2.13-20), the home (1P 3.1-12), and the church (1P 5.1-11).

In the first chapter he spells out the reasons why this hardship is worth it. He begins with the primary cause of the suffering: we as God’s people have been called to live for him (1P 1.2).

  • We have been chosen by the foreknowledge (or, more likely, foreordination; the same Greek word occurs in 1P 1.20) of God the Father—which choosing occurred, Paul tells us elsewhere, even before the foundation of the world (Ep 1.4).
  • We have been set apart by the Holy Spirit as God’s own special people, what Peter calls in the next chapter (1P 2.9) God’s “peculiar people” (KJV) or “a people for [God’s] own possession” (NASB // ESV).
  • We have been sprinkled—cleansed—with the very blood of Christ, at the cost of his own life. Peter’s use of the term “sprinkling” is theologically and culturally significant; the Mosaic Covenant was ratified with Israel by the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offerings on the altar and then on the people themselves, as evidence that they were part of the Covenant (Ex 24.3-8). Peter, then, is clearly tying the death of Christ to the Mosaic Covenant and identifying his audience as participants in the New Covenant.

We are the objects, then, of the greatest work possible: a united and certain plan of the entire Godhead to form a covenant relationship with his people. This is much greater than my life circumstances, or yours, or those of all of us put together, and it is a worthy investment of our time and resources, regardless of the personal cost to us.

And that is not abusive, because it is consensual. We come to Christ willingly, and we determine that the cost of discipleship is a price worth paying.

Let me spend a few lines on a related issue.

We do not come to Christ simply because it’s a wise investment for us, because the payback is so much greater than the cost—and it truly is. If this is our primary motivation, then we are worshiping ourselves and not God; we are transacting business with God because it’s in our own best interests.

No.

We come to God because we should, because he is our Creator, because he is our Redeemer, because he is our Life and our Hope and our Goal. We live for him because he deserves it. We live for him as an acknowledgement of his greatness, his glory, and his right.

Next time, we’ll look further into Peter’s reasons that suffering for Christ is worth it.

Part 2: The Greatest Consequences | Part 3: Another Greatest Consequence | Part 4: The Greatest Cost | Part 5: Making It Worth It

Photo by Jose P. Ortiz on Unsplash