My Current Situation and 1 Peter, Pt. 1
While reading The Politics of Jesus, I was shocked by a blitzing of Bible verses that deal with the Christian call to suffering. There's a lot more than I anticipated. Now, verse blitzing is not fundamentaly wrong, but it is often used for selflish interpretations that ignore the actual specific context for each given verse. I was particularly affected by one from 1 Peter 3, which denotes that one should not make a virtuous note of suffering for their own sins, but rather for suffering for the sake of righteousness. That concept is easy enough to understand, regardless of the context. But I thought it would be a good idea to review the book and see what it has to say to my current situation. The situation is weighty, and I need to be diligent about my motivations. I grant that the book originally applied to a specific historical context, which is none of ours, here in our present time. But, with the proper understanding of that original communication, I can certainly find out what I should do for my slice of history.
I've never studied 1 Peter, specifically, on an in-depth, academic level before. And I don't intend to at this time (I'm stuyding Genesis and Mark currently). But I do think a lot of fruit can be had by taking in an amateur understanding of what the overaching themes are. So today I'll go through chapters 1 & 2.
><><><><
Right from the greeting, Peter is appealing to the readers as sojourners who are "scattered" throughout the lands. The repeated language of being "born again," of being "obedient children," of "inheritance/ inherited," and of recieving what is "imperishible," all seek to mark a life-and-death contrast between that which is normative to the Christ-less world, and that which is provided by "the revelation of Jesus Christ." Basically, the first chapter reminds the reader that the gracious salvation rendered by Christ has given the children of God a hope to live and die by.
In Chapter 2, Christ is described as a "stone of stumbling and a rock of offense," which was "rejected," but which is nonetheless "a precious cornerstone" in the eyes of God. As Jesus is revealed to men, men reveal to Jesus where their loyalties ultimately lie. Jesus is foundational (to honor the building imagery) to the identity of any person. Those who build on the stone of Jesus are a "holy/ royal priesthood" who "offer spiritual sacrifices" and "proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." Mercy is reitirated, as is the abstaining from worldly ways. And both of these are specifically understood within the context of being "among the Gentiles." So the theme of gracious separation from the rest of the world, which was well established in Chapter 1, continues strongly.
Now the context is specified (v13-20). And it specified as being under the political rule of the rest of the world (there was no concept of a "Christian nation," in the sense of an earthly political entity, at that time- especially as Jesus had not accepted a crown when the crowds offered it.) The rule at that time came from Rome, and it wasn't always the leading example of morality. In fact, it would crucify Peter and persecute many who first read this letter. Yet, whatever justice is administered by government is praised and recognized as coming from God. This would probably remind the original readers of the disciplining that came from foreign oppresors in Old Testament times, through which God was able to nonetheless speak. The point is made clear that the believer is free of government dictates, having God instead as master, but that cooperation is appropriate as it will "silence the ignorance of foolish men," and as it "finds favor, if for the sake of consceince toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly." And so the spirit of submission here presented is one that 1) harshly rebukes the Christian whose actions aren't even acceptable by the World's standards and 2) encourages a Sermon-on-the-Mount-styled spiritual leadership in the cheerful acceptance of abuse. The focus is then redirected from the worldly political context of the Christian's life to the suffering example of that Christ who claimed to Himself be the Life.
So far, I think my desire to separate from the combative aspect of the military is in line with the estrangement from the world, based on the gracious suffering of Christ, here prescribed. I am attempting to become a non-combatant through the established policies of the army, thus seeking to be agreeable and just, even in the eyes of the world. And I am doing more to demonstrate my sincerity than the military's doctrine of conscientious objection requires (selling possessions, giving away all money not needed for required bills for the sake of peace causes, refusing future educational benefits, etc.) since I am cheerfully able to do so, being truly free, as I only belong to God.
However, I am quite guilty for joining the military in the first place. It had been in accordance with my interpretation of Jesus, at that time, but I am responsible for having held that imperfect interpretation. Jesus did, afterall, make Himself clear so that we could follow His example. And so I have to appeal to grace. Thankfully, that's all I'm appealing to anyway. Or is it? If it's not, I am in need of serious correction.
><><><><
Yours,
Jake
I've never studied 1 Peter, specifically, on an in-depth, academic level before. And I don't intend to at this time (I'm stuyding Genesis and Mark currently). But I do think a lot of fruit can be had by taking in an amateur understanding of what the overaching themes are. So today I'll go through chapters 1 & 2.
><><><><
Right from the greeting, Peter is appealing to the readers as sojourners who are "scattered" throughout the lands. The repeated language of being "born again," of being "obedient children," of "inheritance/ inherited," and of recieving what is "imperishible," all seek to mark a life-and-death contrast between that which is normative to the Christ-less world, and that which is provided by "the revelation of Jesus Christ." Basically, the first chapter reminds the reader that the gracious salvation rendered by Christ has given the children of God a hope to live and die by.
In Chapter 2, Christ is described as a "stone of stumbling and a rock of offense," which was "rejected," but which is nonetheless "a precious cornerstone" in the eyes of God. As Jesus is revealed to men, men reveal to Jesus where their loyalties ultimately lie. Jesus is foundational (to honor the building imagery) to the identity of any person. Those who build on the stone of Jesus are a "holy/ royal priesthood" who "offer spiritual sacrifices" and "proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." Mercy is reitirated, as is the abstaining from worldly ways. And both of these are specifically understood within the context of being "among the Gentiles." So the theme of gracious separation from the rest of the world, which was well established in Chapter 1, continues strongly.
Now the context is specified (v13-20). And it specified as being under the political rule of the rest of the world (there was no concept of a "Christian nation," in the sense of an earthly political entity, at that time- especially as Jesus had not accepted a crown when the crowds offered it.) The rule at that time came from Rome, and it wasn't always the leading example of morality. In fact, it would crucify Peter and persecute many who first read this letter. Yet, whatever justice is administered by government is praised and recognized as coming from God. This would probably remind the original readers of the disciplining that came from foreign oppresors in Old Testament times, through which God was able to nonetheless speak. The point is made clear that the believer is free of government dictates, having God instead as master, but that cooperation is appropriate as it will "silence the ignorance of foolish men," and as it "finds favor, if for the sake of consceince toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly." And so the spirit of submission here presented is one that 1) harshly rebukes the Christian whose actions aren't even acceptable by the World's standards and 2) encourages a Sermon-on-the-Mount-styled spiritual leadership in the cheerful acceptance of abuse. The focus is then redirected from the worldly political context of the Christian's life to the suffering example of that Christ who claimed to Himself be the Life.
So far, I think my desire to separate from the combative aspect of the military is in line with the estrangement from the world, based on the gracious suffering of Christ, here prescribed. I am attempting to become a non-combatant through the established policies of the army, thus seeking to be agreeable and just, even in the eyes of the world. And I am doing more to demonstrate my sincerity than the military's doctrine of conscientious objection requires (selling possessions, giving away all money not needed for required bills for the sake of peace causes, refusing future educational benefits, etc.) since I am cheerfully able to do so, being truly free, as I only belong to God.
However, I am quite guilty for joining the military in the first place. It had been in accordance with my interpretation of Jesus, at that time, but I am responsible for having held that imperfect interpretation. Jesus did, afterall, make Himself clear so that we could follow His example. And so I have to appeal to grace. Thankfully, that's all I'm appealing to anyway. Or is it? If it's not, I am in need of serious correction.
><><><><
Yours,
Jake