Bible Study: 1 Peter

Chapter 1 - a reminder of who we are. "Be ye holy for I am holy" v.16

Chapter 2 - How men in general behave in public

Chapter 3 - How family: wives and husbands behave in general.

Chapter 1

This entry was posted in Theologization. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bible Study: 1 Peter

  1. timlyg says:

    Chapter 2

    v.5: 活石,灵宫,灵祭

    v.8: double predestination...他们这样绊跌也是预定的

    v.9: Peter was calling out the Jews to become the TRUE ISRAEL, which is the Church in the full revelation of the Messiah!

    v.10: The great mystery of what being an Israelite is, is revealed in this verse...the people of God.

    v.16: Do not live as hypocrite, think that the understanding of the Gospel was a way out for you to enjoy yourself. Nay, but enjoy God in being His servants, FOREVER. This is true freedom.

    v.17-19: Peter really laid it out there for honoring those who are above us (emperor - masters/bosses/managers, etc.), even to the unjust. Being mindful of God.

    v.18: ...also to the froward. Therefore, be subject to even the froward masters with all fear. Obviously here fear refers to the fear of the Lord, not of men. Thus comes wisdom in such fear so as to be prepared and not surprised by your submission to the froward, that your good was returned with evil, thus the path you chose to suffer is not a vain foolish one.

    v. 18-24: The worthiness in suffering. With Christ as an example (v.21). Material/worldly things, revile not again, leave it to the Righteous Judge v.23.

  2. timlyg says:

    Chapter 3

    v1-2: This is wisdom, for wives to be in subjection to their husbands in order to win their unbelieving husbands by conversation (which is coupled with chaste and fear). This wisdom is also applicable to other kinds of relationships that has to do with subjection (servants to masters, etc. from previous chapter) or even temporal subjection (victims of wars - Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, etc.) This is ultimately referring to our subjection to God who unlike others, is perfectly holy. However, here Peter focuses on the role of wives.

    v.6: ...calling him lord. (Genesis 18:12). Sarah's obedience was also shown in her following Abraham moving from rich to poor (Gen 12:5), running tasks for Abraham (Gen 18:6). Obviously this is not the status of a slave nor servant, but of a inwardly adorned (v.5) wife (not outward adorning, v.3).
    "...not afraid with any amazement": Not obedience out of fear of men or their husbands (a recurring theme in v.14). Wicked men do enjoy collecting obedience out of fear, but a self-adorned Godly woman is impervious to that, yet she maintains her obedience to her husband before the Lord in either a good testimony or heirs together of the grace of life with her husband.

    v.7: Peter deals now with husbands and coining honour of wives with "weaker vessel". This coinage is incredible such that it has multiple layers: Husbands suit himself to the wives' capacity and weakness (John Gill's commentary from Jewish custom). This obviously can be applied to other than marital relationships, as long as they are done before a righteous and holy God (not promoting wickedness of the sinful and spoilt). Many (husbands) fail in this by retracting honour when provoked. These husbands or the likes, unlike Christ (1Pe 2:23), reviled even more against their wives when reviled by them, threatened when suffered. When done according to Christ, it cannot be patronizing but truly honouring to the wives and the likes.

    v.8: It would seem that Peter here move from marital relationship to a more public relationship and revisiting chapter 2.

    v.13-14: These two verses create the paradox. For the true harm in v.13 is not the same as the temporal suffering in v.14.

    v.14: a reflection of "...not afraid with any amazement" for the wives in v.6.

    v.15: This verse may have been overly misapplied by many: "Just keep smiling in time of peace and wait passively for others to be curious enough of your happiness to ask you of your faith of your religion, of the opportunity for you to preach them the Gospel". The context here is not a peaceful one, on the contrary, this verse sits between bombardment of terror from one's enemies. Moreover, the error mentioned is not in the passivity of it for a passive person is still in the right to share the Gospel when opportunity comes, but this error is in the principle of it: That you are selling them happiness coupons and not the Gospel.

    ἀπολογία (plea, defense) is not simply just giving an "answer" (and certainly the opposite of sigḗ(G4602)/hēsuchía(G2271) that is waiting silently/peacefully before passively giving an answer), but it works hand in hand with challenges with a active attitude. For this, it is good to pray for challenges, especially in evangelism, for only so, is God's glory shone before sinful and wicked men. To not pray for challenges in this context is basically harboring the belief that sinful men are NOT the enemies of God and even yielding to sinful men which is the only alternative (v.17-which is better, suffer for well doing or suffer/yielding to evil?). And certainly, this prayer is asking opposition against God, a twisted assessment on the prayer for challenges, for let us know deceive ourselves, we do not preach the Gospel to saints in evangelism, we preach the Gospel to sinful and wicked enemies of God.

    And yes, this is the favorite verse of the so called "apologists" of today, but it is more than just doing apologetics or Q&A in the lecture halls. It is facing the challenges of the Lord's enemies with a godly heart, in meekness and God-fearing (fear here is not the same as "afraid" used in v.6 & 14). Consider the great evangelist Stephen Tong's example when being robbed.

    v.18: ...quickened by the Spirit. David Tong would be happy with this verse on the passive and not active resurrection of Christ.

    v.21: Calvin here reckoned that baptism was performed by immersion.
    Although, Calvin does not care much about the modes of baptism:
    But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water -these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.” (Book IV, Ch. XV.19)
    Nor WCF:
    “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.” (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.3)

    Should the Baptists use this verse against paedobaptism: One must exhibit good conscience toward the Gospel before baptism, I rebut with this: That this interpretation is more than scripture allows, which does not make reference good conscience to every individual being baptised, the understanding of a covenantal family is lacking, perhaps replaced erroneously by tribal family instead. For paedobaptism is not done to the infant alone, but to the infant with the federal guardianship (i.e. Noah himself, parents, etc.) of him/her who answers with a good conscience toward God. Such is the importance of covenant that resonates with scripture. Because it is important, that the infant is shown that not only grace precedes human answer, but is laid upon an obligation to walk in newness of life at the moment of infancy in a Christian home. This obligation is not withheld until the moment the infant became an adult or reached the so called "age of accountability". Covenantal family is God-centered. Tribal family (as Christian as one pretends it to be) can never be God-centered, but only men-centered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.