2 Peter 3

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Day of the Lord Will Come (v. 1-13)

You should remember the prophecies that said that heaven and earth would perish and be replaced by a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This type of thing I find interesting, I'm not really even sure what to make of it. I remember hearing this as a kid and just being confused, and never really getting a good answer to what it means. Heaven is eternal, so why do we need a new heaven? Is the new earth where we go when we go to "heaven"? Does heaven have it's own sky and that is the new heaven of the new earth? Perhaps the confusion comes from the double use of the word heaven, for the place we go when we die and also for the sky. That's the best explanation I can come up with, but I really don't get this. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Christian commentaries have to say here.

Well, I'm disappointed, Guzik basically says nothing here. Gill just talks about things dissolving away and being replaced with something that isn't corrupted like our earth, but what about heaven? Matthew Henry similarly doesn't really explain this. Maybe I'm just missing something.

Scoffers will come in the last days and ask why Jesus hasn't returned yet. But for the lord 1000 years is like a day.

This is an answer I have seen a few times out in 'the wild' and also it has come up at least once before in the bible itself as well. It is a defense for the fact that the return of Jesus is talked about in the bible as if it was about to happen, and yet it has been 2000 years and nothing. It seems like some pretty obvious patchwork trying to cover up an obvious problem, but apart from that, I would argue that if it is correct it is still a problem.

Think about their claim, the argument is that it was the bible does indeed say that Jesus is going to come back soon, but for the lord a thousand years and a day are basically the same thing, so soon for him might be a long time for us. This demonstrates a pretty huge communication failure. Jesus was trying to tell people that he was coming back in thousands of years, and he gave them the impression that he was returning in their lifetimes. How can we trust anything else that is written in this book if such a basic thing cannot be communicated properly? You might come back at me with "He wasn't trying to tell them he was coming back in thousands of years, he wanted them to think he was coming back sooner", in that case, he was lying to them and my question still stands.

These scoffers also had something else to say that interested me, "For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation"

I'm not completely sure what this means, but I'm guessing the claim is that no miracles happen any more. If that is correct I think it is a very good question. Also, who are those fathers?

Gill says that these fathers are the first men to walk on the earth. If I'm understanding correctly, he is saying that before that time, things were different as God was creating the world, but after that things settled into business as usual which is what we see now.

Final Words (v. 14-18)

As you wait for Jesus, make sure that when he finds you, you will be without blemish and at peace.

I like the idea of being at peace, and always trying to be "without blemish" is good, sort of a catch all "be good all the time" command. Not particularly instructive but good nonetheless.

Consider the fact that he is taking so long to come back as patience on his part to let more people be saved.

I suppose there might be some logic to this idea, still hard to imagine the immense amount of time that has passed for this to still hold.

The letter of Paul, as well as the other scriptures, are sometimes hard to understand, and so the lawless can twist them to their own ends, be careful not to be swept up with those people.

This is a defense mechanism for the religion. I would also argue that it is an admission that the book is not perfect and divinely inspired. If it were, I would expect it to be constructed in such a way that it can't be used for nefarious ends.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

3:14 Be good and at peace at all times

"Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace."

Bad:

3:8 God can't tell a day from a millenium

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

1 Peter 4

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Stewards of God's Grace (v. 1-11)

Jesus suffered and so should you, for if you suffer in the flesh you will cease from sin and you will live the rest of your live for the will of God rather than for human passions.

Here we go again, suffering for sufferings sake. Jesus suffered so you should too, what the hell kind of message is that? Futhermore, what does this even mean? From v1 "for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin". does suffering in the flesh not mean what it sounds like? Because I'm pretty sure that every suffers in some manner. Some people have chronic pain and suffer all the time, is it impossible for them to sin?

Guzik argues that we are talking about suffering for Jesus' sake. If you suffer persecution for the sake of Jesus, it will change your outlook on sin. He also quotes Grudem who said "Whoever has suffered for doing right, and has still gone on obeying God in spite of the suffering it involved, has made a clear break with sin." I don't see any reason to think this is true. I guess it falls back to the definition of "suffer for Jesus" and we are open to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but I find it hard to believe that suffering for Jesus would keep your from sinning forever.

We are passed the time of doing what the gentiles what to do (living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry). When you do not join them they will malign you.

So much wrong in so little space. First, he is implying that all outsiders do these things all the time. Second, he's saying that sex and alcohol are inherently bad. Taken to extreme they can cause some problems, but they can be very good things. And why would they malign you for not joining in? Sometimes people can be a bit pushy trying to get everyone in the party to have a good time, but I don't think they'd malign them. I suppose people would argue that times were different back then.

They will be judged by Jesus, who judges the living and the dead. The gospel is preached to even the dead, so that even though they have already been judged in the flesh, they might live in the spirit as God does.

This is interesting, the gospel is preached to the dead as well. They are talking about dead people who were judged, it sounds like they were judged poorly (last verse we were talking about people who died in the great flood) and yet there is the hope that they will live as spirits the way God wants. Where are these spirits? I think it's pretty obvious that the view of the afterlife from these people is much different from what we think of today. Clearly you can't be Godly if you are being tortured in hell, and if you are in heaven you are already being Godly. I'm guessing their image of the afterlife is more like Sheol.

I honestly tried really hard to find an answer to this in the Christian commentaries. Guzik said nothing useful, I looked at Gill's and came across a wall of text. If you scroll down to verse 6, there is just a huge paragraph which seems to go on and on about all of the groups of dead who this verse does not apply to. I could try reading it again to better parse it, but fuck it, this particular chapter of the bible has be doing enough of that already.

The end is near, so before that happens you should continue to love each other and be hospitable to each other. You all have gifts, use them to help one another.

This is generally a message of generosity, which is good, but it is also saying the end is near, which was obviously incorrect.

Guzik says that if you believe that you live in the last days, then it is appropriate that you should give yourself over to prayer. However, he hilariously ignores the fact that 2000 years have passed and the end has not come.

Gill talks about a few different ways to interpret this, from the perspective of a single person, the end is death. It could be various states, or the world, or the universe. He said those could be said to be "at hand" because "because that was the last time, and the last dispensation of things", so I guess he's saying that God has come down directly for the last time so any time after that counts as "at hand", seems very shaky to me. But then Gill gives everything away by saying the following:

whereas they knew not the exact time when it would be, they frequently spoke of it as near, in order to stir up the saints to the more diligent discharge of duty, and fervent exercise of grace

And that is really the whole damn point, isn't it? The religious leaders of the time were talking about the apocalypse to manipulate people, and the same thing happens even today.

Love one another earnestly, as it covers a multitude of sins.

This confuses me somewhat, I like that the message is to love one another, that's good. But reasons are important, and it seems to be saying that you should do it to cover up sins, which love is good at doing apparently. I suppose another interpretation could be that the covering of sins is the rationale for giving the instruction and keeping the idea in our heads, but we shouldn't love each other because it covers sins. I'm not really sure how much I like that explanation, but it is all I can think of, and it is the only way I can reconcile loving earnestly and "because it covers sins".

Guzik's take on this is that love will heal wounds caused by sins. For example, if I have sinned and caused a rift between us, love has the power to heal that rift. I actually like that interpretation.

Show genuine hospitality to one another and use your personal gifts to help one another.

This sounds good.

Suffering as a Christian (v. 12-19)

Rejoice if you share Christ's suffering, but none of your should suffer for doing bad things. "If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and God rests upon you"

This is the same old thing, suffering itself is talked about as a good thing. You are blessed if you suffer for Christ. I am fine with putting yourself in danger of suffering for the sake of Christ. And if those people wind up suffering they have done a great thing by risking danger for their morals. But the fact that they actually had to suffer should be seen as a bad thing. Necessary perhaps, but the actual suffering should not be a positive.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

4:8 Love has the power to repair rifts caused by sin

"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."

4:9-10 Help each other out

"Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another..."

Bad:

4:1,13 suffering (for Christ?) makes you sin free

"...for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin"

"But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings..."

4:3 Sex is bad, drinking is bad, and all non-Christians do it

"For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry."

4:7 the end is near!

"The end of all things is at hand..."

1 Peter 3

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Wives and Husbands (v. 1-7)

Wives should "be subject" to their husband, even if he doesn't obey the word. They should see your good conduct and be won back over to the lord. You should submit to your husband as Sarah obeyed Abraham.

Nothing surprising here, just the same misogyny as we've seen a number of times. I wonder, if you are a good Christian woman, how do you wind up being married to a man who isn't? Did she choose poorly when marrying (or possibly did her father choose poorly) or has a good husband fallen away from the faith? At any rate, this is ridiculous as usual, is the wife supposed to submit no matter what? Does this include if he is beating her? It's also interesting why the wife should do this, she is supposed to submit and be good so that her husband can be saved. All of the focus is on him, it really shows where society was at the time.

From Guzik: "This submission isn’t a reward for the husband’s good behavior, it is commanded by God as the proper order for the home." I'm not sure what to add here, these ideas from the bible are clearly holding us back as a society.

Then I saw this from him "Wives may want to shape their husbands - either to Christ or in Christ - through their words. Peter reminds them that God’s plan is that wives impact their husbands not through persuasive lectures, but through godly submission, chaste conduct, and the fear of God." I had to go back and look at the verse again, and sure enough it says that women should win their husbands over without a word. Guzik seems to interpret this to say that women should shut up. And you know, this seems to be consistent with other teachings of the bible.

Don't focus your attention on your outward appearance, you should develop your inner beauty.

This is good advice, of course the text is talking about developing spiritually, but I think it is easy enough to take it as developing a good personality in many other ways as well. 

Husbands should understand and honor their wives, for they are weaker than you.

Same old thing, wives have to submit, husbands have to 'honor'. Problem is, honor can mean almost anything, so ultimately the man can do whatever he wants. "I beat my wife to teach her what is right so she will act properly in the future, in this way I have honored her." 

Suffering for Righteousness' Sake (v. 8-22)

You should all have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil.

Other than the unity of mind, I like all of these things. Unity of mind might sound good on the surface, but it is important for everyone to think for themselves.

It is better to have a good conscience and suffer for doing good than to do evil.

Usually I am against the ideas of suffering offered up in the bible, but that is because the suffering itself usually takes center stage. Here, we aren't talking about suffering for its own sake, we are talking about doing good in the face of evil and if suffering happens, so be it. This is a good message, stand up for your principles even if you face negative consequences.

Jesus also suffered, he died and was revived in the spirit, then he went to talk to spirits in prison because they did not obey. When Noah was preparing the ark, God waited patiently to save those 8 people while he flooded the rest of the world. Baptism corresponds to this even.

So yeah, this last paragraph is a little hard to parse. The punctuation is all weird and the ideas jump a bit. It goes from Jesus to Noah's ark to baptism without catching a breath. I don't really get the whole thing, but I think the basic idea is that Jesus suffered so you can too. If I'm wrong here feel free to correct me.

Guzik suggests that Jesus is talking to spirits who have been imprisoned since the great flood. He is preaching to them because they didn't have a chance to be saved back then. That makes a little bit of sense, I guess the prison is supposed to be hell, or purgatory, or something. Too cryptic to be useful as far as I'm concerned. 


For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

3:3-4 spend time developing a good personality and not just outer beauty

"Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear-- 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious."

3:8-9 good values

"Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. 9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling...

3:17 Do good, even if you risk personal suffering

"For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil."

Bad:

3:1,5 wives submit to your husband no matter what they do

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands..."

"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands"