Tag Archives: Government

If we make a god of government

14 Wednesday Oct 2020

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

God is not placated if we make a little room for him on the shelf beside our other gods. He demands exclusive sovereignty in our lives. He will not share his reign with idols, but ruthlessly casts them down and smites those who serve them.

On the national level, if we make a god of government, then God will send corrupt and incompetent leaders. If we make a god of the economy, God is able to make the stock market plummet. If we use science to violate his laws, then God will make our technology a curse to our lives.

God demands that all things—presidencies, corporate earnings, fighter planes, and microscopes—be submitted to his sovereign rule. “I am God, and there is no other,” he decrees; “I am God, and there is none like me” (Isa. 46:9). Likewise, on the personal level, God calls for us to submit all things to his service. He is not willing to share sovereignty in our hearts with false gods such as fame, pleasure, and wealth

Richard D. Phillips, 1 Samuel, ed. Philip Graham Ryken and Richard D. Phillips, Duguid Iain M., 1st ed., Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2012), 105.

Submission to Unjust (or perhaps Foolish) Authority and the Lockdown Order

16 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in 1 Peter, Apologetics, Culture, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

How seriously should I take the lockdown orders from my county? How seriously should I consider the consequence of disregarding the orders? Is it a trivial matter? It is there any real sin at stake?

[First caveat: I am considering a mere disregard for the law — not appropriate challenges to the law. There are a number of appropriate challenges to a law.  For instance, a lawsuit against the local authority on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional on equal protection for first amendment grounds would not be disregard of the law. Petitioning the local authority to revise the law would not be disregard. 

[Second Caveat: There is a moral case to be made against the law on the economic cost. There could even be a case to be made that in some circumstances, disregard of the law is necessary to preserve life. The moral case would require a different analysis and presents different consideration.]

The easiest way out would be merely to say this is no big deal. And perhaps as an ultimate matter, the stakes are inconsequential and no one will be immediately hurt by disobedience. But that decision was not given to me to make. First, I am not tasked with the civil authority to make such a decision. Second, there is plain direction from Scripture on my duty to obey the law. So, I cannot merely say this is at most a “little sin” (I will come back to this point, below.)

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the lockdown orders are unfair, poorly conceived and poorly executed. What is my responsibility as a Christian?

As an American, ignoring leaders and laws I dislike seems like a fundamental right. “Don’t Tread on Me” is in the history of the country. To be submissive to authority sounds like weakness or foolishness.

There is also the innate human desire for autonomy. When we first come into this world, we come as tyrants demanding submission from all whom come near.

And so adhering to rules which I think are foolish or wrong makes me feel like a sucker. Why would I willingly surrender any authority to the petty tyrants who see fit to control my life?

And so, the wisest response seems to be to just disregard the rule when it seems overwhelming ridiculous.

In addition, when the rule sees ridiculous or unwarranted, the easiest understanding of the rule is that is simply too silly to be obeyed.

In the instance of the lockdown, the stakes are ostensibly life-and-death. Whether the rules instituted actually will help in that regard; and whether the threat is actually life and death (or at least sufficiently dangerous that extraordinary measures are needed). Thus, the concern is extreme; even if the means to protect against that concern are absurd.

Perhaps it will be learned that the lockdown regime was as effective as smoke was in protecting against the Black Plague.

So for argument’s sake let us stipulate that the rules are somewhere between non-effective to excessively restrictive. Perhaps the rules are brilliant, but the argument will be clearer if the rules are simply wrong.

And so, may I disregard laws which I think are foolish, ineffective, or annoying? My political instincts and education and the default positions of Americans (as is readily apparent from both sides of the aisle, depending upon the ruler and the law) is that I may and perhaps should disregard the dumb laws – or at least laws I dislike.

That is one side of the argument, but I don’t believe it can be supported from the Scripture.

In First Peter, the apostle begins a long discussion of submission in verse 13 of chapter two. The general rule is given in verse 13,

1 Peter 2:13–14 (ESV)

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

The command is exceedingly clear: submit, put yourself in subjection to the authorities.

As Paul writes in Romans 13, all governmental authority has been instituted by God. Rom. 13:1. It is sufficient to observe that Peter and Paul both set down this rule with respect to a government which condemned both Peter and Paul to death:

Nero was emperor when St. Peter wrote. Christians were to obey even him, wicked tyrant as he was; for his power was given him from above, as the Lord himself had said of Pilate

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 73. Unless some other rule specifically makes for an exception, this rule stands absolute.

And yes there is an exception to the law: the government has no right to make us sin. The example of Daniel continuing to pray even when the law forbade his prayers is the right example. Daniel prayed despite the law; and Daniel accepted the consequence of his disobedience.

The command is quite clear, and so is the rationale, “For the Lord’s sake.” There are two aspects of this rationale. First, our obedience to a governmental authority “for the Lord’s sake” is ultimately obedience to the Lord. This aspect is made plain in verse 16:

1 Peter 2:16 (ESV)

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

Our obedience to the authority is not because we consider our primary allegiance to that authority: we are free people. But our freedom also makes us servants of God. Or as the NASB has it “bondslaves of God.” The Christian is absolutely bound to the direction of Christ. And thus, if the Lord has given a command, we have no discretion in the matter. [An issue in the lockdown order is whether the stay home orders conflict with a duty to corporate worship.]

This leads to the rationale for obedience found in Paul. As he explains in Roman, obedience to the authority is grounded on the proposition that God has instituted the authority.

Peter, however, adds an additional rationale: as a witness to the authorities and to the world.

In verse 15, Peter writes:

1 Peter 2:15 (ESV)

For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Peter’s concern is for the public witness of the Christian. This is a thought that goes back to verse 12:

1 Peter 2:12 (ESV)

Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

The “Lord’s sake” of verse 13 is the public demonstration that we willing lay down even our freedom for the sake of something more important, our testimony that our concern is God’s glory “on the day of visitation.”

The concept here is that by our obedience to human authority, we remove any ground that anyone could speak ill of our behavior.

Peter’s point is that Christians are called upon to be as obedient to the government as possible so as to remove any argument against Christ:

By submitting to government, Christians demonstrate that they are good citizens, not anarchists. Hence, they extinguish the criticisms of those who are ignorant and revile them. Such ignorance is not innocent but culpable, rooted in the foolishness of unbelievers.

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 130. As Christians we are called upon to willingly set aside ground for disobedience to governing authorities because have a duty to remove any possible ground for anyone to speak ill of us.

Do I really want to violate an inconvenient law if the effect would be give anyone a reason to slander Christ?

If we Christians are hated, then we must not be hated because we have disobeyed the authorities. If we suffer, then let us suffer as a Christian for being a Christian:

1 Peter 4:14–15 (ESV)

14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

To underscore and explain his point concerning obedience to authorities Peter sets out a series of examples. First, he speaks of slaves who are mistreated, even physically beaten for unjust cause:

1 Peter 2:18–20 (ESV)

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

Notice how Peter describes the master: “unjust” (NASB, “unreasonable”). The suffering is “unjust”. The result is a “beating.” The cause of the beating is having done “good.” The slave did what was “good” and was beaten by an unjust master.

The slave is called upon to endure the beating in patience, “because this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.”

The second example given is Christ suffering unjustly. Christ did not revile when he was reviled (1 Peter 2:23). Rather, Christ turned the response over to God:

1 Peter 2:23 (ESV)

When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

In verse 21, Peter specifically says that Christ has given us an “example” which we are required to follow.

Peter then gives a third example, a wife being “submissive” to an unbelieving husband. The position of a woman in the ancient world was very difficult. Peter specifically mentions that she is to be submissive to her husband (the same command given to all and to slaves with their own masters) and do so without fear of “anything that is frightening.” (1 Peter 2:6). These are very hard words.

Why is the wife called upon to engage in such extraordinary conduct? To “win” her husband:

1 Peter 3:1 (ESV)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

The demand being made upon Christians is extraordinary. It by nature unreasonable and at times even dangerous. Why would Christians lay aside their defense? For the Lord’s sake. We are called upon to suffer injustice so that none may have a cause to speak against our Lord.

Before going further, someone could say that bearing up under unjust or difficult orders is one thing, but dealing with silly or foolish orders is quite another. There are three responses to this. First, if we must maintain our submission even when being beaten for doing good. If we must do the greater thing, then we must do the lesser.

Second, this makes the bad testimony even worse: you are willing to disobey on the slightest cause. You have must have a very low regard for those in authority.

Thomas Brooks in his Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices list as device number three of Satan, “extenuating and lessening the sin.” To bring us to sin, the Devil tells us the sin is a very small thing. He makes a number of points about small sins, such as the fruit in the garden may seem a very small sin; small sins lead to greater sins; a small hole can sink a great ship; many saints have suffered death rather than commit the smallest sin, such as just offering up a pinch of incense upon a pagan altar.

Speaking of refusing to follow because the law is so silly, “That it is sad to stand with God for a trifle.” If this thing is so small and insignificant, then it is especially foolish to refuse to obey. For instance, the lockdown does not require heroic acts; it is merely very inconvenient. And yes there are very serious economic issues for many people, but that is a different argument than the law is silly.

Two more that bear consideration: Your soul cannot stand the weight of guilt which is inherent in even the smallest sin. Nothing less the death of Christ was necessary to preserve you from the guilt of this “small sin”. If God were to set the full weight of this guilt upon your soul and you were to understand it aright, it would put you into a horror of madness.

Also, “there is more evil in the least sin than in the greatest affliction.” If it is a sin, then it is inherently worse than death itself.

And lest you think that perhaps I am seeing something new, the Venerable Bede in 7th Century England wrote:

This there is the praise which good men receive, when they act properly and obey the king’s servants, even when it means putting up with ignorance of unwise governors.

As he notes, there is no, but my governor is a fool exception to the rule.

In the Second Century, Justin writing to the Roman Emperor sought clemency for Christians. In his argument, Justin explained – based upon these propositions in Peter and Paul – that Christians were the best of citizens:

And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments. For those who, on account of the laws and punishments you impose, endeavour to escape detection when they offend (and they offend, too, under the impression that it is quite possible to escape your detection, since you are but men), those persons, if they learned and were convinced that nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God, would by all means live decently on account of the penalties threatened, as even you yourselves will admit. But you seem to fear lest all men become righteous, and you no longer have any to punish. Such would be the concern of public executioners, but not of good princes.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 166.

We Christians obey the laws because we are concerned the judgment of God – not the judgment of the king. You have nothing to fear from Christians, we are your best of servants.

The importance of obedience to the civil authorities – even bad civil authorities – as a means of testimony, and the willingness to accept the consequences for disobedience when to obey would be sin, was eloquently stated by Pastor Wang Yi of the Early Rain Church in China in a statement released after his imprisonment:

As a pastor, my firm belief in the gospel, my teaching, and my rebuking of all evil proceeds from Christ’s command in the gospel and from the unfathomable love of that glorious King. Every man’s life is extremely short, and God fervently commands the church to lead and call any man to repentance who is willing to repent. Christ is eager and willing to forgive all who turn from their sins. This is the goal of all the efforts of the church in China—to testify to the world about our Christ, to testify to the Middle Kingdom about the Kingdom of Heaven, to testify to earthly, momentary lives about heavenly, eternal life. This is also the pastoral calling that I have received.

For this reason, I accept and respect the fact that this Communist regime has been allowed by God to rule temporarily. As the Lord’s servant John Calvin said, wicked rulers are the judgment of God on a wicked people, the goal being to urge God’s people to repent and turn again toward Him. For this reason, I am joyfully willing to submit myself to their enforcement of the law as though submitting to the discipline and training of the Lord.

At the same time, I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws.

But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ.

As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world.

When placed in the matrix of life of the apostles and martyrs, when measured against the life of men like Wang Yi, our rebellion against inconvenient orders seems terribly misplaced.

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.9

26 Tuesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The prior post may be found here.

In this chapter, Kuyper considers the issue of whether Genesis 9:6 provides the basis for imposition of civil government:

Genesis 9:6 (AV)

6Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The argument is essentially this: The primary (and ultimate) act of the civil government is the enforcement of law, by the (ultimate) act of capital punishment. See, Romans 13:1, et seq.

It is the Reformed position that the right of capital punishment conveys the power of civil government. However, there are those who hold that this verse is not a command but rather a promise of punishment by God on the last day, or perhaps God in providence will provide for an untimely death of the miscreant. And while the Reformed position would agree that God will punish on the Last Day, and that providence may provide for the untimely death of the murderer, the quotation is in the form of an imperative: Thou shalt punish the murderer.

But is this the correct understanding? Are those who refuse the imperative more accurate?

Kuyper begins by assessing the structure of the proposition: He notes that the final clause is explanatory: “for in the image of God made he man.”

What conclusion should we draw from this: Does the taking of the murder’s life rest upon the dignity of the victim? Or does the right to impose capital punishment rest upon the dignity of man to be a judge of such things (in accord with God’s direction)?

We must realize that all created things belong to God, and human beings have no independent position to exercise any dominion over any creature – except as God ordains. This is inherent in the Genesis 1 creation account of human beings: to be created in God’s image & to exercise dominion over creation were two distinct propositions:

Genesis 1:26–28 (AV)

[First] 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Second] 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thus, no one human being has the right to take another human being’s life without express direction from God.

When we consider this proposition it helps to decide between the two possible readings of the concluding clause of Genesis 9: being in the image of God could not give a human being the right to kill another human. But, killing a human being would give us a rationale for God’s ordinance of capital punishment: it is correct because a human being has been killed.

The ordinance rests ultimately upon God’s sovereignty. God alone has the right and power to impose such a rule. Anyone who kills without God’s mandate, makes himself liable to being executed by other men. The judicial motive of the act is the honor and sovereignty of God. This then makes sense of the whole.

Exodus 21:12 (AV)

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Kuyper makes an interesting observation about the sound of the first clause of Genesis 9:6. The sound “dam” means blood in Hebrew. The sound a-dam means human being, man. Thus, the clause sounds like this: dam ha’adam ba’adam damo. There is a fourfold repetition of the sound for blood.

He ends with an interesting observation about authority. Prior to this institution, there was authority within the family – but this included no authority to take a life. Here we have something new, and with that the post-flood world included the institution of a civil government.

 

 

 

 

 

Lex Rex.3 (Do we need a king?)

24 Wednesday Jul 2013

Posted by in Samuel Rutherford, Sovereignty

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Question III: Whether Royal Power and Definite Forms of Government be From God?

Answer:

This question concerns whether the particular form of government be from God.  Rutherford notes the argument of Bellarmine that God generally appointed the fact of some kind of government, but the precise form of that government be something wholly in human hands.

This issue ultimately touches upon the matter of divine sovereignty and the freedom of human will. Rutherford would hold a compatibilist position. Crudely stated, Human beings choose what they want, but they will choose exactly what God requires:

Proverbs 16:1 (ESV)

The plans of the heart belong to man,

but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.

 

Proverbs 21:1 (ESV)

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;

he turns it wherever he will.

 

Acts 2:23 (ESV)

23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

 

Rutherford first considers a number of scriptural passages which indicate God appoints rulers. He then summarizes and concludes:

So, if the king be a living law by office, and the law put in execution which God hath commanded, then, as the moral law is by divine institution, so must the officer of God be, who is custos et vindex legis divinæ, the keeper, preserver, and avenger of God’s law.

Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince (Edinburgh: R. Ogle, 1843), 4.

Rutherford then turns to an objection: If God appoints monarchs, then every other form of government must be “wrong.”  Rutherford rejects that position. First, the actual forms of government are not more less acceptable from a Christian perspective: God does not mandate that a country have a monarchy rather than a republic.

Second, even a king is subject to law:

and wherever God appointed a king he never appointed him absolute, and a sole independent angel, but joined always with him judges, who were no less to judge according to the law of God (2 Chron. 19:6,) than the king, Deut. 17:15. And in a moral obligation of judging righteously, the conscience of the monarch and the conscience of the inferior judges are equally under immediate subjection to the King of kings;

Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince (Edinburgh: R. Ogle, 1843), 5. Thus, “All three forms [of government] are from God” (5).

How then does a country choose a government? Don’t they choose independently of God?  No. The moral law of nature requires a government: without a government there will be anarchy and loss of life (consider how quickly anarchist movements develop some “council” to make decisions). Human beings simply will not long tolerate no government of any sort.

How then do they choose a particular form? Rutherford gives the analogy from one’s marital status:

so then, the aptitude and temper of every commonwealth to monarchy, rather than to democracy or aristocracy, is God’s warrant and nearest call to determine the wills and liberty of people to pitch upon a monarchy, hic et nunc, rather than any other form of government, though all the three be from God, even as single life and marriage are both the lawful ordinances of God, and the constitution and temper of the body is a calling to either of the two; nor are we to think that aristocracy and democracy are either unlawful ordinances, or men’s inventions, or that those societies which want monarchy do therefore live in sins (5)

It is in the nature of the particular country as which government it will choose – and God has sovereignty over the nature of the country, also

Ecclesiastes 8:2-4, Translation and Comments

03 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Ecclesiastes, Hebrew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

CCLESISATES 8:2

2אֲנִי֙ פִּי־מֶ֣לֶךְ שְׁמ֔וֹר וְעַ֕ל דִּבְרַ֖ת שְׁבוּעַ֥ת אֱלֹהִֽים׃

 

Murphy draws the following connection to the preceding verse:

We may regard the following verses (2–4) as traditional court wisdom, but also as having relevance for Qoheleth’s own day. However, he is not simply transmitting a body of sayings. He is relativizing the role and prestige of the sage (v 1) by following up with (wise!) admonitions that in fact are humiliating for the sage at court, even if they also save him from trouble. The wise advisor, for all his gifts, is confronted by royal power and is totally dependent upon the royal pleasure. It is all very well to praise the wisdom of the wise (v 1), but one must attend to the risks they run at court (vv 2–4). Hence Qoheleth’s admonitions serve to qualify v 1, even though they are themselves derived from traditional wisdom. He pits traditional wisdom against itself.

Roland Murphy, vol. 23A, Ecclesiates, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 82-83.

 

אֲנִי֙

“I”:  it is not followed by any matching verb. Seow notes that this I “makes no sense as it stands” (Seow, 279). Fredericks thinks it a textual error (189). Like Seow, Fredricks does not translate the pronoun. Longman note the problem, but having no textual basis for dropping the pronoun he assumes it to be a shorthand for “I say” (or something similar).  Gordis rejects dropping the word and takes as a shorthand “I declare” (288).

פִּי־מֶ֣לֶךְ שְׁמ֔וֹר

Keep the king’s command

Vers. 2, 6. LUTHER:—It is enough for you to do so in the state, that you should obey the king’s commands, and listen to him who is ordained of God. Here you see how civil obedience is comprehended in obedience to God. So Paul would have servants obey their masters, not as submitting to men, but as to God.—MELANCHTHON:—Thus is obedience ordained. Obey the Divine voice first; then the king commanding things not repugnant to the Divine law.—This will be in conformity with the rule given Acts 4:19.—STARKE (ver. 3):—The powerful ones of this world have among men no higher one over them, to whom they must give an account, but in heaven there is One higher than the highest. Wisdom of Solomon 6:2–4.—(Ver. 5): He who keeps the commandments of God will, for the sake of God and his conscience, also obey the salutary commands of authority, Col. 3:23.—

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Otto Zöckler et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Ecclesiastes (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 121.

 

פִּי־מֶ֣לֶךְ

Literally, “the king’s mouth”  “mouth of the king”, that is, the words which come from the mouth of the king.  Therefore, the king’s command:  “metonomy for command, which is probably the correct reading” (Barton, 152).

For the idiom, see, e.g.,

41וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֛ה אַתֶּ֥ם עֹבְרִ֖ים אֶת־פִּ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וְהִ֖וא לֹ֥א תִצְלָֽח׃

Numbers 14:41 (BHS/WHM 4.2)

But Moses said, “Why now are you transgressing the command of the LORD, when that will not succeed? Numbers 14:41 (ESV)

 

וְעַ֕ל דִּבְרַ֖ת

Because of the words (of)

The waw before the preposition ‘al

Before עַל the וְ is inserted by way of explanation, and may be rendered even, or, as Eng. Vers., “and that,” conf. Latin idque, et quidem (Gesen. Lex. (c) p. 234). עַלדִּבְרַת, on account of, conf. 3:18. Note that the prep. עַל (which is in fact a noun in construction) has here a disjunctive accent, and so also דִּבְרַת. This is sometimes the case when several nouns succeed one another, each in construction with the following one: see a parallel instance in the last clause of Numb. 3:32, and Lee’s Heb. Gram. Art. 247, 14.

J. Lloyd, An Analysis of the Book of Ecclesiastes: With Reference to the Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius, and With Notes Critical and Explanatory (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1874), 106.

On the accents

      4 a. (֕) זָקֵףגָּדוֹל Zâqēph ḡdôl, and

      4 b. (֔) זָקֵףקָטוֹן Zâqēph qāṭôn. The names refer to their musical character. As a disjunctive, Little Zâqēph is by nature stronger than Great Zâqēph; but if they stand together, the one which comes first is always the stronger.

5. (֖) טִפְחָא Ṭiphḥā or טַרְחָא Ṭarḥā, a subordinate disjunctive before Sillûq and ʾAthnâḥ, but very often the principal disjunctive of the whole verse instead of ʾAthnâḥ; always so when the verse consists of only two or three words (e.g. Is 2:13), but also in longer verses (Gn 3:21).

 

Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 60.

 

שְׁבוּעַ֥ת אֱלֹהִֽים׃

Oath of (construct state) Elohim.

The nature of the oath has caused much debate. Is it an oath by one standing before the king, or an oath of the king – or some other oath? Seow defines it only as an oath sworn in the name of the Lord – even though the word “God” is substituted for “YHWH” (see, e.g., Exodus 22:10 (English 22:11),  שְׁבֻעַ֣ת יְהוָ֗ה  “an oath by the Lord” ESV). Fredericks proposes and oath to YHWH and the king, e.g., 1 Kings 2:43.  So, also, Barrick, “Solomon exhorts people to be faithful in their sworn allegiance to their king” (142).

Having submitted that this prudent view of life will make us adapt ourselves and cheerfully yield to the pressure of circumstances, Coheleth deduces therefrom the lesson of submission and obedience to the authority reigning over us for the time being, and especially as submission and obedience have been solemnly promised with an oath invoking the name of God. The oath referred to alludes to the covenant at the coronation of the king, when the sovereign solemnly promises to govern the people according to the law of God, and the people in return swear fealty and allegiance to their monarch (comp. 2 Kings 11:17; 1 Chron. 11:3, 29:24). Hence we are told by Josephus, that when Ptolmey Lagi settled the captive Jews in Egypt, he made them take an oath of allegiance (Antiq. xii. 1.)

Christian D. Ginsburg, Coheleth, Commonly Called the Book of Ecclesiastes: Translated from the Original Hebrew, With a Commentary, Historical and Critical (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861), 391-92.

ECCLESIASTES 8:3

 

3אַל־תִּבָּהֵ֤ל מִפָּנָיו֙ תֵּלֵ֔ךְ אַֽל־תַּעֲמֹ֖ד בְּדָבָ֣ר רָ֑ע כִּ֛י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַחְפֹּ֖ץ יַעֲשֶֽׂה׃

Ecclesiastes 8:3

אַל־תִּבָּהֵ֤ל מִפָּנָיו֙ תֵּלֵ֔ךְ

Do not quickly from his face(s) go.  Or, do not be dismayed in his presence – go ….

תִּבָּהֵ֤ל

Here is an example where some thinking is needed for the translation: HALOT gives the primary gloss of the niphal verb “to be horrified” to “be out of one’s senses”. There is a secondary meaning, “to hurry”. Most translation take this to mean “to hurry”.[1] However, the NRSV translates it:

3 Do not be terrified; go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he does whatever he pleases. Ecclesiastes 8:3 (NRSV)

Seow translates it “do not be stupefied” with references to Genesis 45:3:

Genesis 45:3 (BHS/WHM 4.2)

3וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

 

3 And Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph! Is my father still alive?” But his brothers could not answer him, for they were dismayed at his presence. Genesis 45:3 (ESV)

And Job 23:15. Genesis 45:3 & Job 23:15 are the two uses of the verb when coupled with the word “presence”.

Fredricks compares Proverbs 28:22, “A stingy man hastens after wealth ….” Which does not seem parallel in concept.

In 5:2 the phrase “do not be dismayed” actually means “Do not be rash.” It describes a hasty or ill-considered action, which would be typical of a fool. So rather than advising a person to leave the king’s presence, this verse warns against leaving unless you consider carefully what you are doing. It advises against abandoning the king or refusing to support him. “Do not be dismayed” is a figurative expression meaning “Do not be in a hurry.” This is not advice about literally walking slowly (rather than running) from the throne room. Rather, it has in mind a wise person who carefully weighs actions before carrying them out. From his presence is literally “from his face” or “from before him.”

Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 281-82.

Weiss translates it as “dread”:

      Dread not his countenance as thou walkest:

      Nor persist thou in an evil matter;

      For He doeth whatsoever pleaseth Him.

Benjamin Weiss, New Translation and Exposition of the Book of Ecclesiastes: With Critical Notes on the Hebrew Text (Edinburgh; London: William Oliphant and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1858), 259.

I think it best to take the translation as given in the NRSV and/or Seow and Weiss: do not be dismayed: 1) It is the most common and “natural” translation of the passage; 2) the translation makes good sense of the clause;  3) it makes good sense of the section. The section ends with the idea that no one has absolute power over life – implicitly, except for God.  A king does have power which must be considered and respected, but not absolute power.  4) An overarching theme of the book is that God has absolute power over all, therefore, we are to fear God.  Having feared God, we have no need to give such fear to human beings. 5) Thus, the theme ties into the a biblical theme:

22 Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he? Isaiah 2:22 (ESV)[2]

25 The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe. Proverbs 29:25 (ESV)

10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13–14 (ESV)

 

אַֽל־תַּעֲמֹ֖ד בְּדָבָ֣ר רָ֑ע

Do not stand in an evil thing/matter/word

Stand not in an evil thing, (Ger., “evil word”); i.e., when the king speaks an angry word (דָּבָררַע) do not excite his anger still more by foolishly standing still, as if thou couldst by obstinately remaining in thy place compel his favor. EWALD and ELSTER correctly give the general sense of the admonition as follows: In presence of a king, it is proper to appear modest and yet firm, to show ourselves neither over timid nor obstinate towards him. The Vulgate, LUTHER, STARKE, etc., are less consistent: “Stand not in an evil thing,”  i.e., remain not in evil designs against the king, if you have become involved in such;—HENGSTENBERG gives the same. VAIHINGER: “Do not appear in an evil thing.”

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Otto Zöckler et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Ecclesiastes (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 117.

A “bad cause” (בְּדָבָררָע, v. 3) is not a morally evil cause but a cause that is politically impossible, i.e., one that the king will never accept. Alternative interpretations (e.g., Scott, Ecclesiastes, 240; Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, 340) are unlikely. אַלתַּעֲמֹדבְּדָבָררָע could be paraphrased, “Do not champion an idea the king opposes.” See Garrett, “Qoheleth,” 169.

Duane A. Garrett, vol. 14, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993).

כִּ֛י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַחְפֹּ֖ץ יַעֲשֶֽׂה

For all that he pleases he will do.  ESV: he does whatever he pleases.

(ii) Provides the reason for a preceding expression or expressions by marking with כִּי the motivation given by speakers to explain something they have said. The causal relation is thus not due to natural laws but is due to the speaker’s own reasoning. כִּי can usually also be translated for.

…

  In cases where it is clear that speakers consider the grounds on which they base their motivation are difficult to contest, thus suggesting the force of their conviction, one can translate כִּי ‘in fact, the fact of the matter’.

…

  If speakers believe that their motivation contains information that is generally known, כִּי may be translated after all,

Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie Naudé, Jan Kroeze et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, electronic ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 302-03.

It may be appropriate, therefore, to translate the phrase, “after all, he does whatever he pleases”.

יַחְפֹּ֖ץ

The nominative form was used earlier, Ecclesiastes 3:1 where the ESV translates it “matter”, “for every matter under heaven”.  It makes for an interesting echo: the thing which the king pleases he will do: the thing which God pleases, he will do.

This should be understood as the non-perfective of possibility, “denotes the possibility that the subject may perform the action” (Waltke & O’Connor, 31.4e, p. 508).

ECCLESIASTES 8:4

4בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דְּבַר־מֶ֖לֶךְ שִׁלְט֑וֹן וּמִ֥י יֹֽאמַר־ל֖וֹ מַֽה־תַּעֲשֶֽׂה׃

בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר

Baron, “for, because”. (152).

דְּבַר־מֶ֖לֶךְ שִׁלְט֑וֹן

The word of the king [is] power/mighty.

שִׁלְט֑וֹן

Barton considers this an Aramaic loan word (152).

וּמִ֥י יֹֽאמַר־ל֖וֹ

And who may/can say to him.

(2) To express the definite expectation that something will not happen. The imperfect with לֹא represents a more emphatic form of prohibition than the jussive1 with אַל־ (cf. § 109 c), and corresponds to our thou shalt not do it! with the strongest expectation of obedience, while אַל־ with the jussive is rather a simple warning, do not that! Thus לֹא with the imperfect is especially used in enforcing the divine commands, e.g. לֹאתִגְּנׄב thou shalt not steal Ex 20:15; cf. verses 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 ff. So לֹא with the 3rd pers. perhaps in Pr 16:10.

Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 317.

מַֽה־תַּעֲשֶֽׂה

What are you doing? What will you do?

Interesting cross-references:

“מַֽה־תַּעֲשֶֽׂה“

 

Isa 45:9

            ה֗וֹירָ֚באֶת־יֹ֣צְר֔וֹחֶ֖רֶשׂאֶת־חַרְשֵׂ֣יאֲדָמָ֑ההֲיֹאמַ֙רחֹ֤מֶרלְיֹֽצְרוֹ֙מַֽה־תַּעֲשֶׂ֔הוּפָעָלְךָ֖אֵין־יָדַ֥יִםלֽוֹ׃ס

            “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?

 

Job 9:12

            הֵ֣ןיַ֭חְתֹּףמִ֣ייְשִׁיבֶ֑נּוּמִֽי־יֹאמַ֥ראֵ֝לָ֗יומַֽה־תַּעֲשֶֽׂה׃

            Behold, he snatches away; who can turn him back? Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’

 

Job 35:6

            אִם־חָ֭טָאתָמַה־תִּפְעָל־בּ֑וֹוְרַבּ֥וּפְ֝שָׁעֶ֗יךָמַה־תַּעֲשֶׂה־לּֽוֹ׃

            If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him? And if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to him?

 

Prov 25:8

            אַל־תֵּצֵ֥אלָרִ֗במַ֫הֵ֥רפֶּ֣ןמַה־תַּ֭עֲשֶׂהבְּאַחֲרִיתָ֑הּבְּהַכְלִ֖יםאֹתְךָ֣רֵעֶֽךָ׃

            do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame?

 

Eccles 8:4

            בַּאֲשֶׁ֥רדְּבַר־מֶ֖לֶךְשִׁלְט֑וֹןוּמִ֥ייֹֽאמַר־ל֖וֹמַֽה־תַּעֲשֶֽׂה׃

            For the word of the king is supreme, and who may say to him, “What are you doing?”

 

In three instances, one faces the inability to stop or question God.  The use in Proverbs underscores the inability to respond to a judgment. The usage in Ecclesiastes points to one’s inability to stop a king.

[1] For an argument in favor of “hasty” see:

 

3. Do not go away hastily, &c. This obedience must not be restricted to ordinary occasions, when everything demanded on the part of the sovereign is in accordance with the feelings of the subject; but we are to be submissive even when the king treats us harshly. If he chooses to rebuke us, we are not, in consequence of this insult, hastily to quit his service and throw off our allegiance to him; nor are we to manifest our disapprobation of it, since he can do with the resenter whatever he likes. הָלַךְמִפְּנֵי, i.q., יָצָאמִלִּכְנֵי, to go away from one’s presence (Gen. 4:16), i.e., to withdraw from him, to quit his service, to throw off allegiance to him comp. הָלְכוּמִפְּנֵיהֶם, they withdrew from their pretence (Hos. 11:2; and see infra, 10:4). אַל־תִּבָּהֵלמִפָּנָיותַּלֵךְ, do not be hasty, withdraw from his presence, stands for אַל־תִּבָּהֵללָלֶכֶתמִפָּנָיו, do not hastily withdraw from his presence; תִּבָּהַל, the first verb, as frequently, is used adverbially, to qualify תַּלֵךְ, the second verb (comp. נֵדְעָהנִרְדְּפָה, we shall know, we shall pursue, i.e., we shall know to pursue. Hos. 6:3; אַל־תַּרְבּוּתְדַבְּרדּ, do not multiply speak, i.e., do not multiply to speak, 1 Sam. 2:3; see also supra, 1:16; and infra, 10:1, 12:9)

 

Christian D. Ginsburg, Coheleth, Commonly Called the Book of Ecclesiastes: Translated from the Original Hebrew, With a Commentary, Historical and Critical (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861), 392-93. See, also, Gordis, 288-289.

[2] The alternative translation of “hasty” leads to a very different conclusion:

 

Inasmuch as the word, &c. This verse assigns a reason for the assertion made in the second half of the foregoing verse, “the king can do whatever he pleases,” because, or inasmuch as (בַּאֲשֶׁר), his royal mandate (דְּבַרמֶלֶךְ) is power itself, and no one can call into question his doings, or bring him to account for them. How useless and hazardous, therefore, for a subject to disrespect or bid defiance to the person or power of a sovereign.

 

Christian D. Ginsburg, Coheleth, Commonly Called the Book of Ecclesiastes: Translated from the Original Hebrew, With a Commentary, Historical and Critical (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861), 393-94. Adams, writes, “But he [the counselee] is not to rebell again legitimate command weven when the thinks that they are unwise. So long as he is not required to sin, he must obey. Counselees will protest; but that is exactly what Solomon is warning against. They have no right before God to do so. Explain this and call them to submit to rightful authority” (83).

A Bible Study on 1 Peter 4:1-11

25 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by in 1 Peter, Discipleship, Study

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

 TEXT:

 

Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you; but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint. As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:1-11, NASB95)

 

 

ANALYSIS:

 

I.          CONTEXT:

 

            A.        Why is context important?

 

                        1.       

 

                        2.        Give examples where context can change the meaning of a passage.

 

            B.        General elements of context:

 

                        1.        Define “near” context and “far” context.

 

                        2.        Who is the author?

 

                        3.        What is the type of literature?

 

                        4.        Where does this text come (beginning, middle, end)?

 

            C.        Specific elements of context:

 

                        1.        How does the passage begin?

 

                        2.        To what does the “Therefore” refer?  Everything which has gone on before, what has just passed?

 

                        3.        Look at verse one: What follows immediately after the word “therefore”?

 

                        4.        Does that information, “Christ has suffered in the flesh” provide you any clues about what elements in the preceding section are relevant to the section we are going to examine?

 

                        5.        What are elements of the specific near context (the preceding section) which are to keep in mind when reading the current section?

 

                                    a.        

 

                                    b.       

 

                                    c.        

 

                        6.        Summarize in a short sentence the gist of the teaching in verses 4:1-11.

 

                        7.        Without making any general analysis, what connection do you suppose could exist between Christ’s suffering and our obedience (hint: verse 1)?

 

Help: Outline from the MacArthur Study Bible

 

            Salutation (1:1, 2)

            I.          Remember Our Great Salvation (1:3:2:10)

                        A.        The Certainty of Our Future Inheritance (1:3:12)

                                    1.        Preserved by the power of God (1:3:5)

                                    2.        Proven by the trials of persecution (1:6:9)

                                    3.        Predicted by the prophets of God (1:10:12)

                        B.        The Consequences of Our Future Inheritance (1:13:2:10)

                                    1.        Perseverance of hope (1:13:16)

                                    2.        Persistence of wonder (1:17:21)

                                    3.        Power of love (1:22:2:3)

                                    4.        Praises of Christ (2:4:10)

            II.        Remember Our Example Before Men (2:11:4:6)

                        A.        Honorable Living Before Unbelievers (2:11:3:7)

                                    1.        Submission to the government (2:11:17)

                                    2.        Submission to masters (2:18:25)

                                    3.        Submission in the family (3:1:7)

                        B.        Honorable Living Before Believers (3:8:12)

                        C.        Honorable Living in the Midst of Suffering (3:13:4:6)

                                    1.        The principle of suffering for righteousness (3:13:17)

                                    2.        The paragon of suffering for righteousness (3:18:22)

                                    3.        The purpose of suffering for righteousness (4:1:6)

            III.       Remember Our Lord Will Return (4:7:5:11)

                        A.        The Responsibilities of Christian Living (4:7:11)

                        B.        The Rewards of Christian Suffering (4:12:19)

                        C.        The Requirements for Christian Leadership (5:1:4)

                        D.        The Realization of Christian Victory (5:5:11)

            Conclusion (5:1:14)

 

II.        DETAILED ANALYSIS:

 

            A.        Verse one:

 

                        1.        Analysis of the primary verb:

 

                                    a.         What is the primary verb in the sentence?

                       

                                    b.        What kind of verb is it?

 

                                    c.         To whom is it directed?

 

                                    d.        What are you required to do as a response to this command?

 

                                    e.         What sort of implications are involved in the concept of becoming “armed”?  Does this overstate the Christian’s life?  1 Peter 5:8.

 

                                    f.         If we are involved in fighting, then what are we fighting against (see 1 Peter 4:1-2)?

 

                        2.        The basis for the command:

 

                                    a.         Rationale for the command:

 

                                    b.        Implied promise for keeping the command.

Excursus: What is the context between the “suffering in the flesh” and “ceas[ing] from sin”? 

There are four primary views as to the connection between suffering in the flesh and ceasing from sin.

 

First View: The “he” refers to Jesus.  Thus, the suffering referred to is the suffering of Christ.  The correspondence to us is that if we die, like Christ, we will be freed from sin.  A problem with this view is that it may imply that Christ “ceased from sin”, which contains an implication that Christ previously sinned, then suffered, then ceased from sin.

 

Second view: This is a related view: The one who suffers is the disciple, “you”.  The suffering would thus be our own suffering. 

 

Third view: The one who suffers is the disciple, “you”.  The suffering is our own suffering.  Thus, one who suffers physically (in the flesh) is participating in something which entails the sanctification process.

 

Fourth view: The participation of the disciple in the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ has “ceased from sin”.  The comparison is made to Romans 6 generally and Romans 6:7 specifically, which reads, “for he who has died is freed from sin.”  We are freed from sin as a matter of control over our lives.  It does not mean that we are utterly freed from sin, only that we are freed from the dominion of sin.

 

            B.        Verse two:

                       

                        1.        This verse further defines the concept of “arm”.  What two explanations are given to the concepts of verse 1?

 

                                    a.        

 

                                    b.       

 

                        2.        Does anything in verse two help you understand what is required by verse one?

 

            C.        Verse three:

 

                        1.        Summarize, paraphrase the meaning of verse three:

 

                        2.        What is commended in this verse?

 

                        3.        What is commanded in this verse?

 

                        4.        Note that certain actions are condemned in this passage.  What is given as the basis for these actions?

 

                        5.        There is an implication that “you” had been engaging in some pattern of life prior to the time you became a Christian. 

 

                                    a.         Does Peter think that all of his readers had stopped engaging in sinful behavior?

 

                                    b.        What do you call a behavior/pattern which has existed over a longish period of your life?

 

                                    c.         How does the concept of “habit” help us to understand the nature of a Christian continuing in sin?

 

                                    d.        Compare the idea of “will of God” (v. 2) and “desire of the Gentiles” (v. 3).  What means is given to us to break the pattern of sinful habits?

 

            D.        Verses four & five:

 

                        1.        This verse speaks about what will happen with the Gentiles.  What sort of implication is there in this verse about “you”?  What does this verse imply about the nature of “your” life?

 

           

                        2.        If our life is not characterized by our not engaging in overt sin, then what would be the effect on (compare 1 Peter 2:13-15):

 

                                    a.         Our testimony?

 

 

                                    b.        God’s reputation?

 

                        3.        The Gentiles reaction:

 

                                    a.         What will be the Gentiles reaction to your abstaining from sin?

 

                                    b.        Why does it make other people angry to see that you are not engaged in overt sin?

 

                                    c.         Read Romans 1:32.  Why do sinners approve & encourage other people to engage in the same sins?

 

                        4.        What will be the end of the Gentiles? 

 

            E.         Verse 6

 

                        1.        The clause “the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead” is a fascinating line which could (and has) engendered a great deal of speculation1.  While there are some hints as to what is meant here, there is a great deal more which we simply cannot know.  Heretical teachers will fasten on these odd sorts of statements and develop extremely complex systems around the words.  However, it is possible to get the most important information from this text without speculating as to the sermon to the dead.  When you find odd sorts of things like this (which are uncommon) look to see if you can make sense of the entire sentence or section without understanding all of the details.  Feel free to make a note about these things and ask questions later.

 

                        3.        Check a few different translations.  This can help you see the problem more clearly (here, with the wide difference in the translations, you’ll see that the Greek language is difficult at this point).

 

                                    a.         “For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.” (1 Peter 4:6, NASB95)

 

                                    b.        “For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.” (1 Peter 4:6, ESV)

 

                                    c.         “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.” (1 Peter 4:6, NIV)

 

                                    d.        “Now it was for this very purpose that the gospel was preached to those who are now dead, so that though they were judged in the flesh by human standards they may live spiritually by God’s standards.” (1 Peter 4:6, NET)

 

                                    e.         “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.” (1 Peter 4:6, NRSV)

 

                                    f.         “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 4:6, NKJV)

 

                        2.        Look at the general flow of the argument prior to this verse.  Peter has been explaining how a Christian should live, despite temptations, habits, desires.  Verse 7 continues with the concept of sanctification.    Therefore, what do you think this verse is probably going to concern?

 

            F.         Verse 7:

 

                        A.        What commands are given in this passage?

 

                                    1.       

 

                                    2.

 

                        B.        What reasons are given for the commands?

 

                                    1.        (Cf. 1 Peter 1:13)

 

                                    2.        (Cf. 1 Peter 3:7)

 

 

            G.        Verses 8-11a:

 

                                    1.        List all of the commands given in this passage:

 

                                                a.         (Bonus:  what is the rationale for this first command)

 

                                                b.       

 

                                                c.        

                                               

                                                            i.         

 

                                                            ii.         (Bonus: what is the source of strength for service)

 

            H.        Verse 11b:

 

                        1.        What is the overall thrust of the Christian’s life?

 

III.       APPLICATION:

 

            A.        Are there thoughts, ideas, opinions in the passage which should form the basis for your life (thoughts, actions, feelings)?

 

 

            B.        Are there particular thoughts you should entertain?

 

                        1.        If you do not hold these ideas in mind, will it be easy to live in the manner in which you are required?

 

                        2.        What can you do to cultivate right thoughts and attitudes?

 

Note: If you merely try to stop engaging in some behavior or try to start engaging in some other behavior, you are not ceasing from sin.  You are merely trying to alter your behavior.  Sin is dealt with by cultivating a right relationship with Christ.  An entire explanation of sanctification is beyond this lesson, but there is an example which may help here: The best way to protect a marriage from infidelity is to increase the strength of the marriage bond.  The thing which keeps a husband faithful to his wife, a wife to her husband is their love.  We are married to Christ (the Church being the Bride of Christ).  The thing which will keep us from sin (which is unfaithfulness to Christ) is a deep abiding love for Christ.  The more we love him, the more we will freely abstain from sin. 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           

 

1Blum, Edwin A. “1 Peter Note 4:6” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12. 245. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, © 1981.

 

Dalton (p. 42) outlines the history of the interpretation of this passage and finds four main solutions:

1. Christ, while in his three-day death, went and preached salvation to all the dead, offering salvation to those who lived in pre-Christian times.

2. Christ, while in his three-day death, went and preached salvation to the just of OT times.

3. The theme is the preaching of the gospel by the apostles and others on this earth to those who were spiritually dead.

4. The dead are Christians, who had the gospel preached to them and who then died (or were put to death). In the judgment of God, the opinions of men will be reversed and they will live in the new resurrection realm. I have adopted view 4, which is held by Dalton, Kelly, Moffatt, and Selwyn. The main advantages are (1) it takes “dead” in vv. 5-6 in the same physical sense. (2) The terms sarki; (sarki, “flesh”) and pneuvmati (pneumati, “spirit”) are taken in the same sense as in 3:18. (3) It solves the problem of a “second chance” (or opportunity after death) for conversion, which seems quite contrary to NT theology. (4) The men (men, “on the one hand”) and the de; (de, “on the other”) are given full weight as contrasting man’s view with God’s judgment.

 

William Pemble, Ecclesiastes 10:12-15 & 20

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by in Ecclesiastes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

A Wise Person is Careful With His Words in Response to Bad Government: Ecclesiastes 10:12-15 & 20

 

 

 

            In this section, Solomon discusses how to get on with bad government.  This section seems particularly apt for those people coming after Solomon, who were to suffer under diminished stature and poor government.

 

 

 

TEXT:

 


 

The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him? The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city. . . .  Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. (Ecclesiastes 10:12-15 & 20)

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

COMMENTARY:

 

 

 

            In words, when inferiors use discontented, contumelious threatening, and seditious speeches, of or to their rulers.  This fault of perverse and harsh words uttered against a prince is set down with its opposite virtues of mild and gentle speech, and both expressed:

 

            In a similitude, wherein the wise persuasion and gentle language which a discreet man will use to a vicious governor, are compared to a charm or enchantment used over a serpent that keeps him from biting and poisoning.  But a fool in the lawless liberty of his tongue in rash, unseasonable and furious reproofs and reproaches of ]the[ governor’s faults, is like him that handles a serpent and uses no art to charm him, by which means he is sure to be bitten and stung, Surely the serpent will bit without enchantment, and a babbler, a tongue-master, a great talker, and fault finder in state matters, is no better, verse 11.

 

           

 

            The Difference Between the Speech of the Wise and the Foolish

 

 

 

            Plainly in certain sentences clearly expressing the difference between a wise man and a fool in this matter of speech.

 

 

 

            In the event and fruit, The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, wine favor and acceptance with his prince and others, appease displeasure and procure reconciliation with them.  But the lies of a fool swallow up himself, by perverse speeches he brings himself in danger of life and limb, incurs the prince’s displeasure and falls into his powerful revenge.  He undoes himself, not only in part but utterly, his words swallow him up, verse 12.

 

            In the nature of it.  The words of a foolish man are

 

 

 

            Evil: Bad in the first entrance and beginning of his talk.  The beginning  . .  .is foolishness, his tongue runs before counsel, advice and reason send it.  Stark naught in the end and conclusion, The end of his take is mischievous madness.  He grows unto rage, choler and threatening, and outrageous speeches, which drive him further to mischievous practices and resolutions.  Ex contra, a wise man’s words are good in the beginning, and best in the upshot, verse 13.

 

            Many: A fool is full of words, he is talkative, and uses many word to defend the possibility and likelihood of his foolish and witless enterprises: Which custom of his is expressed, in his vain tautologies.  A man cannot tell what shall be: and, again, And what shall be after him, who can tell?  You know not how things may fall out, it may chance thus, and why not so, hope well, put it to the venture, verse 14.

 

           

 

            The Fool’s Conduct

 

 

 

            After the foolish man’s attempts both in deed and word, thus severally described, Solomon sets down jointly the issue of both together, which is much ado to no purpose, the labor of the foolish wearieth one of them, his enterprises and discourse prove labor in vain to him and others that heed and follow them.  The general reason of all, which is, because he knoweth not how to go to the city, i.e., he is utterly ignorant of how to behave himself wisely in matter of policy and civil government, verse 15.

 

 

 

            Direction

 

            In thought or words secretly, curse not the king, wish not evil to his life & state, no not in thy thought, in thy conscience, secretly when no man knows but thyself, and curse not the rich, nobles and men of high place and government, in thy bedchamber, privily in secret, the reason is advanced form the certain degree of discovery:

 

                                   

 

                        (a)        By the unlikely means that we dream not of, The bird of the air shall carry thy voice. 

 

 

 

                        (b)        Speedily and swiftly, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter, verse 20.

 

 

 

William Pemble, Ecclesiastes 10:8-11

17 Saturday Mar 2012

Posted by in Ecclesiastes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

A Wise Person is Careful With His Conduct in Response to Bad Government: Ecclesiastes 10:8-11

                       

            The remedy, submission and yielding, seeking reformation by all fair and loving means.  To which duty Solomon exhorts subjects by a dehortation ]an argument to dissuade[ from the contrary, viz., discontentment, rebellion, innovation, and sedition.  This undutiful and rebellious affection against princes is discovered in three particulars, from all which are divided:

            In fact:

 

            First, secret treachery: the punishment whereof is, that the mischief lights upon the traitor.  He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it, a simile from unwary huntsmen, that making pits to catch wild beasts (usual in eastern countries) and covering them over with leaves & c., fall into the same themselves as they pass that way, verse 8.

                                   

            Second, open violence and rebellion: which how ill it succeeds, Solomon shews: By similitudes which are three:

            Image one: Pulling up old hedges, wherein serpents, ests, adders, snakes & c., usually lurk, that endanger the hands and feet of him that goes about it.  He that breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him so that he he that seeks to overthrow the government of a commonwealth, and breakdown the fences and mounds of rule and subjection, & c., verse 8.

            Image two: Removing of great stones, in pulling down of stone walls and old buildings, and lifting, carrying & c. wherein without much care men are greatly endangered: Who so removeth stones shall be hurt therewith73 so that he attempts to lose and remove the joints and pieces of settled government, there is danger that like Sampson, he’ll be crushed in the ruin, verse 9.

            Image three:  Cleaving of knotty and hard timber with ill tools, wherein there is danger of breaking our tools and maiming ourselves: and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby, so is he that uses violent means against a prince, verse 9.

            Third, by the contrary, a wise and gentle carriage of matters, whereby all disorders and government are sooner reformed than by rough and furious courses.  This inferred upon occasion of the last similitude of cleaving of wood, If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge: If the axes and wedges be not sharp, he must put to more strength, yea, but what shall he be better for that?  Not a whit, such a woodcleaver shall but weary himself, sweat out his strength, endanger his limbs by recoiling of the ax or wedge,  so in the former sin, he that will by main strength remove stones shall strain his back, break his joints.  He that rashly and furiously will pluck down a hedge shall scratch himself, put out his eyes, gore his legs.

            So that in sum, the more violence and wilfulness subjects use against rulers, the greater danger they bring themselves into.   But now on the other side, Wisdom is profitable to direct, if art and skill be used, it is not hard for a hedger to new make the oldest hedge, or mason to remove the greatest stones, or carpenter to cleave the most bony and churlish piece of timber: So for subjects by wise and moderate courses to procure reformation of a princes foulest errors and disorders.

73 Prov. 26.27.

Ecclesiastes Comparison and Contrast.5

28 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Ecclesiastes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Proverbs 28:

2 When a land transgresses, it has many rulers, but with a man of understanding and knowledge, its stability will long continue.
3 A poor man who oppresses the poor is a beating rain that leaves no food.
4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.
5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely.

Ecclesiastes
3:16

16 Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness..

Ecclesiastes 4:1:

Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them.

Ecclesiastes 11:

16 Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, and your princes feast in the morning!
17 Happy are you, O land, when your king is the son of the nobility, and your princes feast at the proper time, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

Government and the Right of Punishment

15 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Genesis, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

The Government and the Sword:

Oftentimes we read Romans 12:19 as a reference to the Last Judgment (and certainly there will be judgment directly by God at the last judgment). However, in context, Paul connects the vengeance of God with the government:

Romans 12:18–13:6 (ESV)

18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.

I am well aware of the complications which come from this passage. Yet, it must be noted that Paul was writing at the time of a wicked, abusive government (the Roman Empire; as was Peter in 1 Peter 2:17). That government killed Paul (and Peter).  However, the following comment by Murphy writing on Genesis 4 and the judgment of Cain makes an interesting observation concerning Paul’s commands:

We are also to bear in mind that God still held the sword of justice in his own immediate hands, and had not delegated his authority to any human tribunal. No man was therefore clothed with any right from heaven to call Cain to account for the crime he had committed. To fall upon him with the high hand in a wilful act of private revenge, would be taking the law into one’s own hands, and therefore a misdemeanour against the majesty of heaven, which the Judge of all could not allow to pass unpunished. It is plain that no man has an inherent right to inflict the sanction of a broken law on the transgressor. This right originally belongs only to the Creator, and derivatively only to those whom he has entrusted with the dispensation of civil government according to established laws.

James G. Murphy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 173-74.

The entire matter of Christian and government is far more complex than is outlined here. Yet, while is not a complete theology of government, it does include certain elements which must be included in a theology of government.

I write none of this in a thoughtless belief that government is good (or even usually good). As a Christian, the abuse of power of “governments” can never be far from my mind. However, I must constantly be aware of the place of government and the limitations upon the right of private punishment.