Beyond The Four Spiritual Laws

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:13-15 . . Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for The Lord's
sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that
are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do
well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men.

Every ordinance of man of course includes traffic laws like J-walking, unsafe lane
changes, drifting through stop signs, tailgating, road rage, exceeding speed limits,
feeding parking meters, crossing streets against the light, blocking driveways,
failure to yield the right of way, illegal U-turns; etc.

"ignorance" can be defined as a lack of knowledge, education, and/or awareness.
Used the wrong way; labeling someone ignorant is an effective insult. But to us it
means that someone hasn't been catechized sufficiently to know any better.

For example: during the civil rights era back in the decade of the 1960s, quite a few
Christians were led by their pastors to believe that civil disobedience in the cause of
injustice was the right thing to do. Had those congregations been familiar with the
New Testament epistles, they would've disagreed.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:16a . . Live as free men

Some of Christ's believing followers in the Roman empire were slaves; so it was
legally impossible for them to live as free men without risking severe consequences.
I think what we're looking at here is that Peter is encouraging the Christians to
whom he wrote to voluntarily accept their status as slaves instead of resenting it.
In other words: free men have choices; and even though some of the Christians
were slaves against their will, they were free to choose to make the best of it or let
it get to them.

A pretty useful platitude that I once heard goes like this: Bloom where you're
planted. So; if you should find yourself planted in adverse circumstances; make up
your mind to make the best of it. This is something wherein you have a choice;
even though you have no choice about being stuck. It's really all about attitude
adjustment.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:16b . . Do not use your freedom as a cloak for evil; live as servants of God.

That passage is likely a reiteration of the one below:

"You were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an
opportunity for the flesh" (Gal 5:13)

No sin that a believer commits will ever again put them in danger of the wrath of
God.

"I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me
have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have
already passed from death into life." (John 5:24)

However, believers should never regard John 5:24 as a license to steal, so to
speak. It's freedom to steal, but certainly not license because theft is just as wrong
for God's servants as it is for His opponents (Rom 6:1-15). Just because believers
won't suffer the sum of all fears for theft is not an eo ipso exemption for them to
have a go at it.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:17a . . Honor all men.

The Greek word translated "honor" is timao (tim-ah'-o) which basically means to
prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon and/or to revere

The first place that timao shows up in the New Testament is Matt 15:4 which reads:

"God said: Honor your father and mother."

Right after the Flood, God outlawed murder; and the reason given for the ban was
not because murder is necessarily wrong, but because people are made in the
likeness of God. (Gen 9:5-6)

James criticizes the use of language that expresses a wish that someone be sent to
Hell. The reason given is not because that sort of language is necessarily wrong,
but because people were made in the likeness of God. (Jas 3:8-9)

I gather that failure to treat everyone with dignity-- regardless of age, race, or
gender --not only dishonors men but by extension also dishonors God in whose
likeness all men were made.

Faq: Does that mean even serial killers, mass murderers, and monsters like Osama
Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and crooks
like Al Capone and Bernie Madoff have to be treated humanely and with dignity the
same as everyone else?

A: Yes, absolutely because the honor that Peter is talking about doesn't have to be
earned, merited or otherwise deserved, i.e. it's divine.

Take for example Lev 19:32 which reads like this:

"Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your
God. I am The Lord"

Senior citizens don't have earn your respect, i.e. it's neither merited nor otherwise
deserved. The only requirement is age; and failure to dignify senior citizens fails to
satisfy God's expectations.

Note: I've seen young Christians in Sunday school treat senior citizens as equals,
and sometimes even as children. That kind of conduct is not only disturbing, but it's
also very unbecoming for Christian people.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:17b . . love the brotherhood

The Greek word translated "brotherhood" is adelphotes (ad-el-fot'-ace) which
appears in only two places in the entire New Testament; both are in the apostle
Peter's epistles: one here and the other in 1Pet 5:9.

It's a curious word because it doesn't specifically refer to "the church which is his
body". Adelphotes basically means a fraternity; defined by Webster's as a group of
people associated or formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or
pleasure; i.e. persons of the same class, profession, character, or tastes: for
example leagues, guilds, societies, and trade unions.

Just to be on the safe side, assume that Peter's instructions apply to anyone and
everyone identifying themselves as a Christian regardless of their denominational
affiliation.

One thing to our advantage is that the Greek word for "love" in 1Pet 2:17 is
impersonal, viz: it requires neither fondness nor affection; it only requires that we
be humane, e.g. civil, courteous, friendly, peaceable, hospitable, sympathetic,
tolerant, lenient, forgiving, charitable, and generous. In other words; we don't
especially have to like everyone identifying themselves as Christians; we just have
to be friendly.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:17c . . fear God, honor the king.

Webster's defines kings as 1) monarchs, 2) paramount chiefs and/or 3) one that
holds a preeminent position; e.g. monarchs, sovereigns, presidents, prime
ministers, czars, chairmen, etc.

This command applies to everyone in high authority no matter how honorable nor
how lacking in scruples they might be.

In other words: an official's position lends them a measure of dignity that their
personality might not otherwise deserve; and refusal to accept this principle
dishonors God.

"My son, fear The Lord and the king; have nothing to do with those who hate
them." (Prov 24:21)
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 2:18-19 . . Servants, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not
only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it
is commendable if a man bears up under the grief of unjust suffering because he is
conscious of God.

The Greek word for "servants" in that verse is oiketes (oy-ket'-ace) which means: a
fellow resident, viz: a menial domestic.

Menial domestics are in the same category as the household staff in the Hollywood
movie "Remains Of The Day" in which a master butler supervises everyone in
service, including the under-butlers, and all the women. The home owner typically
communicates with his staff by means of the master butler rather than doing so
personally. So the “masters” of 1Pet 2:18 probably correspond to the master
butler; viz: a supervisor.

Master butlers are like a ship's first officer, who, as far as the crew is concerned, is
God to them when all hands are on board and the vessel under way. First officers
can't be expected to be sweet little diplomats all the time in the performance of
their duties and responsibilities. It has to be expected that they are going to
become curt, cross, imperious, and demanding on occasion.

And then again, some supervisors are just naturally rude. They're that way with
everybody. Though they might be very competent in the performance of their
duties and responsibilities, some are imbalanced; viz: they're somewhat lacking in
social skills. In other words; it could be said of some: The man is a pig.

Some employees chafe under the supervision of abusive supervisors; and there are
certain labor laws on the books that permit employees to pursue grievances.
However that may be, it is far better for a Christian to take advantage of a
disagreeable situation to prove himself because Peter says it is “commendable” to
bear up under unjust suffering.

The Greek word for "commendable" is surprising. It’s charis (khar' ece) which is
commonly translated "grace". In other words, bearing up under abuse-- while in
the performance of one's duty as a service person (employee) --is the conduct of a
gracious Christian as opposed to one that's ill-bred; viz: the belly-achers and the
thin skinned cry-babies have some growing up to do.

"Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have
grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear." (Heb
12:28)

The gracious Christians are the ones serving God acceptably. The rest, no matter
how lofty their goals, and no matter what they attempt to do for God, are just
spinning their wheels because they are "ungracious" which Webster’s defines as:
disagreeable; viz: lacking propriety.

For Christians who're compliant by nature, 1Pet 2:18-19 is very easy to obey. But
for those who are proud, arrogant, conceited, overly indignant and/or easily
insulted; I can only say you have my sympathy because this is something you're
going to have to work at. Why? Because this is not optional; no, it's a "calling"

"Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps
. . who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return" (1Pet 2:21-23)

There's a couple of Greek words translated "revile" in that passage. The first is
loidoreo (loy-dor-eh'-o) which means to reproach, i.e. vilify; in other words: insult;
defined by Webster's as to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt.

The second word is antiloidoreo (an-tee-loy-dor-eh'-o) which means to rail in reply;
i.e. toxic rejoinders, viz: unkind retorts.

What we're looking at is the apostle Peter testifying to Christ's practicing what he
preached about turning the other cheek; which some apparently seem to honestly
believe has gone out of vogue.

In this day and age of assertiveness, Luke 6:29 is very unpopular with some
Christians. Oh, they'll vote for turning the other cheek alright and agree it's good
Christian character. But you know, good Christian character is sort of like the
Classics: everybody says we ought to have the Classics in our libraries, but who
actually reads them?
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:1-2 . . In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands
so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a
word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful
behavior.

Peter began his instructions with the words “in the same way” which refer back to
1Pet 2:18-25 wherein he taught Christ's followers the Christian way to cope with
abusive management practices.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:3-5 . . Wives, let not your adornment be merely external-- braiding the
hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses --but let it be the hidden
person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which
is precious in the sight of God.

Some of the more ascetic Christians have attempted to use that passage to insist
it's wrong for women to wear cosmetics. No, the apostle Peter is only reflecting an
old Portuguese proverb that goes something like this: A beleza não ajusta a tabela.
(Beauty doesn't set the table) which simply means a pretty girl might be amazing in
yoga pants but quite ineffective as a homemaker.

Hollywood movies often portray "spirited" women as somehow desirable. No, they
aren't desirable; they're feral, they demean men and make them miserable.
Hollywood also commonly portrays women slapping men in the face and getting
away with it. That is NOT what Peter means by a "gentle and quiet spirit" and
besides, slapping is the criminal act of assault and battery-- not what I would call
setting a good example for growing girls.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:3)

"Blessed are the peaceable: for they shall be known as God's kin." (Matt 5:9)

An assertive, confrontational woman is neither peaceable nor poor in spirit; no, in
point of fact she's quite militant, obnoxious, chafing, critical, temperamental,
impudent, and arrogant. Those might be desirable characteristics for strong females
in television and movie roles but clearly not desirable in a Christian wife.

When a Christian wife gets all dressed up to her nines, but yet lacks a "gentle and
quiet spirit" then her ensemble is incomplete. In point of fact, an assertive,
confrontational wife is, in reality, nothing less than a domesticated beast.

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without
discretion." (Prov 11:22)

So then, by all means Christian women should continue to shop at SEPHORA, but at
the same time make an effort to be agreeable too.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:7a . . You husbands, dwell with your wives according to knowledge

The Greek word translated "knowledge" is gnosis (gno'-sis) which means knowing
(as information) in other words: facts and/or ideas acquired by study, investigation,
observation, or experience.

Gnosis is different than "intuition" which Webster's defines as: the power, or
faculty, of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational
thought and inference.

Gnosis is different than "instinct" too, which Webster's defines as: (1) a natural or
inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity, (2) a largely inheritable and unalterable
tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental
stimuli without involving reason, and (3) behavior that is mediated by reactions
below the conscious level; viz: a mental and/or emotional knee-jerk reflex.

So then, Peter is talking about husbands applying instructed knowledge of Christian
social skills to their marriages.

There are young boys being brought up by macho (a.k.a. toxic) fathers teaching
their sons to "control their women". Well, that might be an acceptable marriage
philosophy in the home of a Muslim fundamentalist and/or a club-toting
Neanderthal, but not in the home of a man passing himself off as one of Christ's
followers. In a pious home, Christian husbands are neither required nor expected to
tame their Christian wives seeing as how the onus is upon the wives themselves to
exercise self control.

Note: It's required of Christ's followers to love their enemies, but it's not required
to like their enemies nor is it required to always have a good opinion about them. If
a man's enemies include his wife, then of course Jesus' instructions apply.

However, though a Christian husband's love for his wife need not include the
elements of affection and/or fondness; the love he extends to his wife does need to
include the element of benevolence, along with diplomacy; which Webster's defines
as skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility, viz: tact. Benevolence is
defined as the disposition to do good, i.e. kindness.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:7b . . Give honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,

The Greek word for "honor" is time (tee-may') which means: a value, i.e. money
paid.

The word for "weaker" is asthenes (as-then-ace') which means: having no strength,
i.e. fragile.

And the word for "vessel" is skeuos (skyoo'-os) which can indicate anything from a
soup bowl to a cardboard box; in other words: a container.

Peter isn't saying women are physically weaker than men; but that Christian
husbands should exercise the same care with their wives as they would a fragile
antique worth thousands of dollars like, say, a Ming vase. Nobody in their right
mind handles a Ming vase like a farmer handles a 5-gallon bucket. Not that some
women couldn't take that kind of handling; it's just that its unbecoming for a
Christian man to lack sensitivity for his wife's feelings.

This particular assessed value isn't an intrinsic value, nor is it a deserved value
either; but rather, it's a gratuitous value. In other words: Christ commands
Christian husbands to categorize their wives up there with Dresden china even if
she's as tough as a female cop and/or a UFC mixed martial artist the likes of
Rhonda Rousey-- and this is not a choice; no, it's not a choice; it's an order.

Christian husbands who treat their Skil saws and their tomato plants with more
care and concern than they treat their wives can just forget about associating with
God on any meaningful level.

• 1Pet 3:7c . . as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not
hindered.

Note the word "together" which is quite the opposite of autonomy and/or
independence.

Couples sometimes assert themselves with words like "What I do is between me
and The Lord." No; not when you're married. Marriage changes everything between
one's self and The Lord because people become one flesh in marriage: no longer
two independent individuals.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:8a . . Finally, all of you be of one mind,

Peter’s not talking about the nerve center of a Borg-hive collective. The Greek word
for "one mind" is homophron (hom-of'-rone) which means: harmonious; and this is
the only place in the entire New Testament where that word appears.

Webster’s defines "harmonious" as: 1) musically concordant, 2) having the parts
agreeably related; viz: congruous, and 3) marked by accord in sentiment or action.

Peter's instructions emphasize the third element-- "marked by accord in sentiment
or action". Head-strong Christians, domineering Christians, and those for whom
every disagreement is either an affront or an act of war to win at any cost-- those
for whom the words diplomacy and tact have no meaning --of course have trouble
complying with 1Pet 3:8a; that is: if they even consider it worthy of their notice.

Anyway; Peter's instructions relate to a timeless complaint that goes something like
this: Why can't we all just get along?
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:8b-9 . . Have compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be
courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise
blessing.

"compassion" is from the Greek word sumpathes (soom-path-ace') which means:
having a fellow-feeling; viz: sympathetic, i.e. (by implication) mutually
commiserative.

One of the meanings of commiserate is condole: like when we share someone's
grief at the passing of a loved one, or their job has been outsourced to cheap labor
in a foreign country, or they've lost their entire retirement fund to an unscrupulous
corporation like ENRON, or their life savings to a crooked Ponzi schemer like Bernie
Madoff, or when there's news from their doctor they have to begin chemo-therapy
for a recently detected advanced cancer, or when the car of a single mom with
limited income needs expensive repairs.

People in those predicaments are in sore need of condolences, and they are in no
mood for philosophical platitudes.

The Greek word for "railing" is loidoria (loy-dor-ee'-ah) which means slander or
vituperation; which Webster's defines as 1) to abuse or censure severely or
abusively; viz: berate, and 2) to use harsh condemnatory language.

Rejoinders fall into that category; which are defined as a usually rude or angry
reply to something written or said; viz: insensitive retorts deliberately meant to
hurt people's feelings; viz: tit for tat. That kind of behavior doesn't go unnoticed.

"I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render
account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and
by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt 12:36-37)
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:10-11 . . Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his
tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. And let him turn away from evil
and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.

Webster's defines "guile" as duplicity which is defined as: contradictory doubleness
of thought, speech, or action; especially in the belying of one's true intentions by
deceptive words or action; in other words, speaking with a forked tongue and/or
saying one thing while meaning another.

Quite a bit is said in the Bible about the words people speak, whereas little to
nothing is said about the words they write. That could be because so many people
back in the day were illiterate. But surely one's written words have just as much
voice as one's spoken words; else we couldn't justify calling the Bible the word of
God.

Good and evil are here juxtaposed as benevolence vs malevolence, i.e. good will vs
ill will.

To "seek peace and pursue it" is blessing-worthy.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (Matt
5:9)

If it's true that only peaceable kinds of people qualify to wear the label "children of
God" then the opposite is just as true: difficult Christians are unworthy of the
distinction.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:14a . . If you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.

The Greek word translated "blessed" means fortunate.

Peter isn't talking about one's religious beliefs per se, but about one's own
righteousness; in other words, one's conduct and their moral values, i.e. their
personal convictions about what's right and what's wrong in thought, word and
deed.

The Greek word for "righteousness" in that passage is dikaiosune (dik-ah-yos-oo'
nay) which means: equity (of character or act). Webster's defines equity as: justice
according to natural law or right; specifically freedom from bias, partiality, disparity,
favoritism, and/or hypocrisy and double standards.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:14b . . And do not fear their intimidation, nor be shaken,

Peer pressure, mob rule, cultural influences, group-think, survival, ostracism, changing
customs, and political powers are always at work seeking to manipulate Christians and
tone down their moral values.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:15a . . Dedicate your hearts to The Lord God

A word not commonly heard in Christian circles is loyalty; variously defined by
Webster's as allegiance, faithfulness, and fidelity.

This goes much further than just merely believing in God; it includes following His
instructions.

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46)

The Greek word for Lord in that passage is kurios (koo'-ree-os) which is a title
applied to just about anybody considered a superior and/or an authority figure.
People often called Jesus "master" and sometimes "rabbi" which refers to teachers,
especially spiritual counselors.

We might paraphrase Luke 6:46 to say: "If you are convinced that the words I
preach are true and reliable, then why are you not complying with them?"
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 3:15b . . Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a
reason of the hope that is in you.

Christ limits "every man" is to sincere men.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they
may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt
7:6)

The Greek word for "hope" in that passage is elpis (el-pece') which means
expectation; viz: elpis isn't wishful thinking, nor crossing your fingers; no, elpis is a
confident kind of hope that looks forward to something that's already in the bag,
ergo: elpis is an anticipating hope; viz: it doesn't pray for the best, while in the
back of its mind dreading the worst.

When people are uncertain what the future has in store for them-- if there is even
the slightest anxiety or unease --they can't possibly comply with 1Pet 3:15b for the
simple reason that the hope that is in them, if any, is the wrong kind of hope.

"Rejoicing in hope." (Rom 12:12)

When people are unsure of their afterlife destination, they have absolutely no cause
for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

Know-so hope is a calling.

"You were called to one hope when you were called" (Eph 4:4)

FAQ: What is this so-called one hope?

A: One of its components is a new body. (Acts 2:26-27, Acts 23:6, Rom 8:23-25,
and 1John 3:2)

Having a new body to look forward to is comforting, and helps me cope with my
current one's deterioration. Death is bad enough, but the aging process to my
thinking is worse. Thank heavens we only have to get old just the one time and
never again.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 4:1-2 . .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.

The Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the meaty parts of
either man or beast; i.e. the body. The meaty parts of course consist of not only
muscle and fat; but also the brain and nervous system along with the body's
chemistry, e.g. its hormones.

The "lusts of men" is speaking of lusts that are common to everyone. (cf. 1Cor
10:13)

The Greek word for "lusts" is epithumia (ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah) which means: a
longing, defined by Webster's as a strong desire, i.e. a craving.

Cravings aren't necessarily bad. Problems arise when we let our cravings rule us to
the point of acting contrary to good scruples and/or our better judgment especially
when it comes to making God frown upon our conduct as unbecoming, i.e.
inappropriate for His son's followers.

NOTE: It offends some Christians to even so much as suggest that Christ might've
had human longings just like everybody else. They truly believe he should have
been above all that-- he wasn't. Much of Jesus' suffering in the flesh came from
suppressing his body's natural cravings. (Heb 5:7-8)

As the Word in heaven above, Jesus knew by omniscience that it's tough to be an
H.sapiens; but now he knows for himself by personal experience just how tough it
is. (Heb 2:16-18, Heb 4:15)
_

 

[Beetow]

• 1Pet 4:7 . . The culmination of all things is approaching; therefore be serious, and
watchful in your prayers.

I think we can safely apply some of the parable of the ten virgins to this passage.
(Matt 25:1-13)

The big mistake that the five foolish virgins made was abandoning their post to go
in pursuit of something far less important than the arrival of the bridegroom.

Seeing as how we know neither the date nor the hour of Christ's arrival spoken of
in 1Thess 4:13-17, then it's smart to avoid getting too absorbed in worldly pursuits
lest the Lord suddenly appear unexpected right over our heads yelling "All aboard!"
and we be mentally and emotionally unprepared to drop everything and go with
him.
_