The Walk Per Day

[WebersHome]

-
437) Jas 4:11a . . Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.

The koiné Greek word for "speak evil" is katalaleo (kat-al-al-eh'-o) which means: a traducer, a slanderer.

Webster's defines "slander" as: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and/or damage another's reputation and/or a false and defamatory oral statement about a person; viz: libel.

Webster's defines "libel" as: 1) a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, and 2) a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt.

According to Webster's, a statement (or a photograph) need not be untrue to qualify as libel. If the statement, and/or the photograph, is unnecessarily denigrating and/or embarrassing to someone, though it be 100% true, then it qualifies as libel.

For example: When President Donald Trump was in the process of procuring land in Scotland for a golf course, there was a low-income man living on the land in a ratty hovel. Trump ran that man into the ground for living like that and even took a camera crew out to the man's home to film it. Afterwards, in a news conference, he said: "I'm only telling the truth". Yes, the man's place was a rat's nest; but was it really necessary to expose that poor man to public embarrassment? No. Mr. Trump wasn't being honest, he was being cruel; and that's exactly the kind of evil speaking that Jas 4:11 prohibits.

Is Jas 4:11 saying that I cannot criticize someone? No; it isn't saying that at all. I mean, after all, the Lord was, and is, very critical. The important thing is (1) to make very sure that the statements are true, and (2) that they really matter; or otherwise, keep it to yourself.

What I'm talking about here is "tact" which Webster's defines as: a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense.

There are some things we could say about others that, though true, aren't necessary. For example, if you were to inadvertently see one of the ladies in the office scratching an itch on her derriere; is it really necessary to go blabbing about it all over the office? No; and in point of fact, to do so would be libelous, not to mention possibly in violation of local labor laws banning the fomentation of a hostile workplace. If that lady ever found out you were blabbing about her derriere she might be so mortified as to make it difficult for her to show up for work.

One evening, at a single's group meeting, I overheard a friend seated behind me comment that a certain woman in the group was very attractive; and I could tell by the look in his eyes that he was seriously considering making a move on her. Well, having had personal contact with that woman, I told my friend that he could do better because that particular lady was conceited, cruel, insensitive, and mean-spirited; in other words she was somewhat psychopathic; which Webster's defines as: a mental disorder marked by egocentric and antisocial activity.

Was I wrong for saying what I did about that lady? No. I knew for my own self that woman was bad news and it was my honest intention to spare my friend the emotional pain he was sure to endure by approaching her. In that particular case, the ugly truth about someone mattered.

Some years ago when I was working as a welder/ship fitter in a family-owned boatyard on Shelter Island in San Diego, one of the boss' adolescent sons came out on a skiff I was helping to construct. He remarked to one of the men standing there, in my hearing, that I looked stupid.

Do I look stupid? Yes, I do. It's been a curse my entire life. If you were to meet me, your first impression would be that I'm a lummox. Some people look intelligent, and some people look just the opposite. I'm among the ones who look just the opposite; and I was looking low-brow way before Weird Al Yankovic came out with a rock parody in 1985 titled: Dare To Be Stupid.

So then, what the boss' son said was true. But was it necessary? No; it was thoroughly unnecessary, and in point of fact his thoughtless remark cut me deeply; but what could I do? He was the boss' son. Anon, that boy grew up to become one of worst cases of male vanity it has been my misfortune to encounter in life. Though he came of a good family, the boss' son had the nature of a churl; through and through.

"Words are weapons,
Sharper than knives."
The Devil Inside
Andrew Farriss and Michael Hutchence
INXS

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
438) Jas 4:11b-12 . . He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?

Someone is sure to jump to the conclusion that James is referring to Matt 7:1-5 but this has nothing to do with that. What we’re talking about here is a kangaroo court which Webster’s defines as: (1) a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted, (2) a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures, and (3) judgment or punishment given outside of legal procedure.

One way to speak evil of the law, and judge the law, is to misrepresent the law by construing it to mean things it doesn't say in writing; in other words: to overrule it and/or criticize the law as out of date.

When a group of beer buddies, and/or a coffee clutch of girl friends, get together and rake somebody over the coals behind their back, those buddies and girl friends are conducting a kangaroo court in which the evidence presented is typically hear-say, feelings, thoughts, and impressions. I believe the common colloquialism for that activity is "character assassination."

Typically the accused is never informed of the trial, nor given an opportunity to confront their accusers, nor are they granted the right to an appeal. Sadly, yet all to commonly, once kangaroo courts reach a consensus, the condemned person’s reputation among those kinds of “judges” is ruined forever with no chance of repair.

439) Jas 4:13-16 . . Come now, you who say: Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.

. . . Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say: If The Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that. But as it is, you boast in your self confidence; all such boasting is evil.

There are two benefits to my association with God that I value very highly. One is the ransom that His son paid to rescue my soul from the death depicted at Rev 20;11-15; viz: the destination spoken of at Isa 66:23-24, Mark 9:43-48, and Luke 16:19-31.

The second benefit that I value very highly is providence; which is the thing that James is getting at. His criticism is directed towards overly ambitious Christians who deliberately neglect to take into consideration God's thoughts about their schemes.

They also neglect to take into consideration the brevity of life. In other words: if you're getting by alright in your present circumstances, don't seek better circumstances. Instead, live out the remaining days of your fragile life where you are now unless circumstances beyond your control force you to relocate and make some changes.

"Piety, with contentment, is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with much grief." (1Tim 6:6-10)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
440) Jas 5:1-3 . . Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.

Gold doesn't react with oxygen so it won't rust. However, under certain conditions gold will tarnish, e.g. long-term storage in boxes, bins, and or environments containing organic sulfur compounds. In other words; James condemns the rich for stockpiling their gold and never putting any of it to a use beneficial to their fellow man.

The worst case scenario is the hoarding of gold that rightfully belonged to laborers who worked to earn it.

● Jas 5:4 . . Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.

James' final comment actually accuses unfair labor practices of murder because they deprive the working man of a living wage; and of course most of the world's working men do not challenge unfair labor practices in court because they simply cannot afford to; and in some countries, they would risk severe political reprisals if they dared.

● Jas 5:6 . .You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.

The "righteous man" in this context refers to people putting in an honest day's work and not being fairly compensated for it and/or employers contriving tricky ways to short change them by deducting trumped up expenses from their pay. There's a lot of that goes on in the garment industry.

It's still true even in our day that only the rich and powerful can afford justice. However; there's a day coming when that imbalance will all come to an end.

● Ps 72:4 . . He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor.

● Isa 11:4 . . But with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
441) Jas 5:7-8 . . Persevere, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; be strong, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

The koiné Greek word for "at hand" is eggizo (eng-id'-zo) which means: to make near; viz: approach

So then, "at hand" doesn’t necessarily mean the Lord is poised to drop in any second now, but rather, his arrival is approaching and getting nearer by the minute.

Although James' encouragement no doubt applies to all believers, it especially applies to his Jewish countrymen. They have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for God to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and to restore David's kingdom as per the voices of the prophets. I'm told that many have given up hope of the promises and the predictions ever coming to pass. But James says don't give up; God is reliable; and He and the kingdom are both worth waiting for no matter how long it takes.

The problem is: according to 2Pet 3:9, the Lord is actually reluctant to return; primarily because an awful lot of people are going to lose their lives when He does.

Take for example Rev 16:18-19 where there's predicted a world-wide earthquake preceding the Lord's return so severe on the Richter scale that cities all over the world will collapse at once. Something like 2,829 lost their lives when the World Trade Center was demolished by a terrorist attack in 2001. Well that was only a small portion of New York City. Just imagine the body count when all of Manhattan comes down at once. along with other major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mexico City, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, et al. The carnage will be beyond belief. Surely nobody in a right mind is in a rush to see all of that start happening.

442) Jas 5:9 . . Do not complain against one another, brethren, that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.

Although watching inappropriate content, quarrelling with a spouse, mistreating the kids, road rage, J-walking, coasting through a stop sign, spray-painting graffiti on a subway car, or cussing the neighbor’s dog, is bad enough; kangaroo-courting is even worse.

If there’s a personality clash between you and a fellow believer; God forbid you should drag other people into the middle of it! And keep in mind that God is an eavesdropper. He hears and sees everything we do, think, or say. Don't let Him catch you maliciously shredding a fellow believer's reputation, assassinating their character and/or running them into the ground behind their back.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
443) Jas 5:10 . . For an example of suffering and patience, brethren; take the prophets who spoke in the Lord's name.

In rock music, role models are called influences. But whatever your preference, role models and/or influences are handy for providing a pattern for the kinds of people we wish to be and/or the kinds of people we think we ought to be.

One of my favorite prophets was Noah. Can you just imagine the mockery, and the cruel remarks that poor man must have endured while he was constructing the ark? And the feelings of futility? He was a preacher of righteousness for 120 years (2Pet 2:5) and the only converts Noah won were his own wife, his three sons, and their wives. When the ark embarked, there was only a paltry eight human beings aboard.

According to Gen 6:1-2, there were other holy men on earth during Noah's days but they sold their souls for sex and subsequently died in the Flood right along with everybody else.

Noah was an oak; he never caved to the pressures of his era’s social customs nor duplicated their spiritual hypocrisy. Noah held his ground, remained true to the Bible’s God; and as a result, survived the Flood totally unharmed. He’s listed in the Bible as one of the most righteous men who ever lived.

● Ezek 14:13-14 . . Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent unfaithfulness, I will stretch out My hand against it; I will cut off its supply of bread, send famine on it, and cut off man and beast from it. Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness: testifies Yhvh God.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
444) Jas 5:12 . . Above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no be no; so that you may not fall under judgment.

Does this mean Christians shouldn’t even take an oath in court to tell the truth? No, it doesn’t mean that at all; I mean, after all, Christ took an oath in court. (Matt 26:62-64, Mark 14:61-62)

God takes oaths. (Gen 22:15-18, Heb 6:13-18, Heb 7:20-21)

Angels swear (Rev 10:5-6)

Paul swore. (Rom 1:9)

Israel's covenanted law, which Christ came to defend (Matt 5:17-19) requires oaths on special occasions. (e.g. Ex 22:10-11, Lev 5:1, Num 5:19, Deut 29:10-15)

So then, not all oaths are wrong.

The problem is, people are too careless with their oaths. They’re wont to say “I swear to God” and/or "Hand to God" for just about everything. And they make promises sealed with the same words. Those promises are a snare because like Jesus said “you cannot make one hair white or black”. Sure enough, when you seal a promise with an oath, the forces of heaven and hell, the stars in their courses, dumb luck, brute force, circumstances beyond your control, and the neighbor's dog are going to make it impossible for you to keep that promise. Will God grant you an excuse? No. In order to grant you an excuse, He would have to compromise not only His integrity; but also the dignity of the name by which you swore; and that He will never do.

Some years ago I cosigned a loan for a fellow welder who was down on his luck. Sure enough, he fell behind on a payment and the finance company telephoned me. I went down and made good on the payment (and all the rest after that one too) because my name was on that contract; ergo: my credit reputation was at stake. The co-worker was thunderstruck and protested that he intended to make the payment: it would just be a little late; that’s all. (sigh) Dead-beats just don’t get it.

It’s one thing to break your word, or default on a loan, or breech a contract; but it is a whole other thing to break an oath; so if at all possible; don’t swear with God’s name.

Quite a few municipalities have taken God's name out of their oaths and simply require the testifier to swear in court to tell the truth; and leave out the "so help me God" part. An oath like that goes on record just as binding as one's signature on a legal document. But if your courts require you to include "so help me God" during the swearing-in process, do it because that's for keeps rather than a chit-chat bull session.

The US President is not required by the Constitution to include the phrase "so help me God" in the oath of office; so when one is sworn in, it's his prerogative to leave it out.

Considering the gravity of an oath taken with God's name in it, I would be scared to death to accept an office that requires any such oath; especially an appointment to the US Supreme Court. Though all nine members are supposedly experts in Constitutional law; they seldom, if ever, are unanimous on anything. That means somebody on that court is dishonoring God and they will one day be called into account for it. Those judges might be the highest court in the land, but they are not higher than the God of their oath of office. But Supreme Court appointees are typically not interested in God's feelings about anything; they're only interested in the appointment; and these days, an appointee need not be an expert at law at all since they're only required to render opinions rather than absolutes. No, their politics need only be in line with the President who appointed them in order to qualify for recommendation.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
445) Jas 5:13 . . Is anyone among you undergoing hardship? Let him pray.

446) Jas 5:13-14 . . Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises.

Never ask the ones undergoing hardship to sing. They're really not in the mood. They should pray while the cheerful sing.

447) Jas 5:14 . . Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord

It's all too common for religious fanatics to allow their underage children to die from treatable medical conditions on the basis of that verse. Where do we draw the line with the so-called "freedom of religion" guaranteed in the US Constitution's first amendment? Answer: We draw the line at the child's inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; which, according to America's Declaration of Independence; are not only God-given rights, but also a self evident truth that men were created with those rights.

The DOI goes on to say that all men are created equal. It doesn't say grown-up men; it says all men, which means that women and children have just as much right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anybody else. Parents who deny the truth of those rights are nothing in the world but wicked despots; and in point of fact the very kinds of twisted monarchs the DOI targets.

Christ addressed this issue indirectly by means of his teachings on the seventh day Sabbath; which, in a nutshell, says that the seventh day was made for man, not the other way around. (Mark 2:27)

● Matt 12:11-12 . . And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath days.

The sanctity of human life trumps the sanctity of the Sabbath. So then, hospitals, doctors, nurses, firemen, law enforcement, soup kitchens, rescue missions, Red Cross, Haiti emergency workers, etc. who are busy on the Sabbath do not sin. Do they break the Sabbath? Yes; but the sanctity of the Sabbath is secondary to the sanctity of human life.

So then, I would have to say, in accordance with Matt 12:11-12, that people who deny their children adequate medical care in the name of religion regard the value of their own flesh and blood as something less than that of a beast.

It's okay to have elders pray for your child, and it's okay to anoint them with oil as per James 5:14. But after that, parents really should take their children to a doctor because the sanctity of human life is far more important than strict observance of one's religious rituals.

There used to be an old saying going around in Christian circles that went something like this: When a farmer prays for a crop, he should say amen with a hoe. In other words, don't just sit back and wait for a miracle when it's in your power to take some action; and if you don't, then in my opinion, you deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when a child in your care dies from a treatable condition.

● 1Tim 5:8 . . If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Children aside; the real purpose of summoning elders is not so much to conduct a healing service, but rather, for a discussion of the possible reasons behind a church member's ailment (Jas 5:15). A believer's infirmity may be just the normal round of human existence, but then again, maybe the Lord is trying to get their attention. Well-trained, experienced elders can sleuth that out and assist a fallen brother (or sister) to rectify their association with the Lord if perchance that's the case. (cf. 1Cor 11:17-30, Gal 6:1, 1John 5:16)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
448) Jas 5:16 . . Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

The word "sins" is an arbitrary editorial insertion rather than a translation; viz: it isn't in the Greek manuscripts so somebody penciled it in. So we could safely re-translate that verse to read "Confess to one another".

There's quite a number of key words in the Bible that sometimes trigger a knee-jerk-reflex in people's minds and "confess" is one of them. It would seem to me that James isn't commanding Christians to confess their sins to one another as Father Confessors for the purpose of absolution; but rather: to simply man-up and admit when they're wrong; and to do so without recriminations, without rejoinders, and without feigned indignity. (cf. Matt 18:15-17)

The prayer for healing is for the ones whose ego is so big and bloated that they cannot bring themselves to admit when they're wrong even if their very lives were to depend on it.

449) Jas 5:19-20 . . My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

Not all sins are worthy of death (1John 5:16-17). And a sin that's fatal for one believer may not be lethal for another. I mean, look at David; he committed the awful sins of premeditated murder and adultery, yet God allowed him to live (2Sam 11:1-2Sam 12:14). But when Ananias and his wife Sapphira lied about the proceeds from the sale of their property, they were summarily executed. (Acts 5:1-10). And in Corinth, the health of only some was struck after desecrating the Lord's supper; while others were executed for the same reason (1Cor 11:17-30).

This indicates that the Lord disciplines His loved ones on an individual basis rather than an indiscriminate, class-action basis. Some kids are easily corrected simply by a cross glare and a stern scolding; while other kids require a stronger hand. The outside world can't understand this kind of disparity because they cannot relate to Christianity's God as an intelligent parent; they can only see Him as a dispassionate judge; which is appropriate for their status as fugitives.

I once heard a cute story of a man who used to whack his mule upside the head with a wooden stake prior to getting up on the seat of his buckboard. Someone asked him why he hit the animal. The man replied: That was to get his attention, otherwise he won't budge when I snap the reins and yell giddyup.

● Ps 32:8-9 . . I wish to instruct you, and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you. Don't be like the horse or the mule, which have no discernment, but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not obey you.

For some believers, a whack up alongside the head is all it takes to motivate them to straighten up and fly right. Others are so incorrigible that only a brush with death finally convinces them that God is serious.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
450) 1Pet 1:13-18 . . Gird up your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The koiné Greek word for "gird up" is anazonnumi (an-ad-zone'-noo-mee) which means: to gird afresh; viz: re-gird. Webster's defines gird as: to encircle or bind with a flexible band (as a belt).

The re-girding Peter is talking about is sort of like a man putting his pants on in the morning and tightening his belt to hold them up. He does that every day before he goes out the door for the day. But here we're putting on pants in one's mind; viz: it's a daily attitude adjustment.

A purposeful life is a life with an objective; and the one objective that every believer should keep in their mind's sights is that this life is only a stop-over. Their permanent destination is yet to come (cf. Heb 11:8-16). So they shouldn't get too attached to this life; rather, get themselves attached to the next; and the next is a world ruled by a monarch who has very different ideas than the world's in regards to good citizenship.

There used to be a popular term going around in Christian circles regarding the "purposeful life". It's a good term, and quite the opposite of a drifter's life; which is a life that has no purpose. Webster's defines a drifter as one that travels and/or moves about aimlessly. In other words, a drifter is a vagabond, which Webster's defines as somebody who leads an unsettled, irresponsible, or disreputable life. Though believers inhabit the current earth as pilgrims (1Pet 2:11) they're not to do so as vagabonds and/or drifters.

I have, on occasion in the past, recommended that unbelievers take a time-out to consider the possibility of their going to hell, and begin using what time they have remaining to prepare themselves for the worst when they pass on. Well; believers would be wise to take a time-out to consider just the opposite; viz: their going to heaven, and begin using what time they have remaining to prepare themselves for it when they pass on.

451) 1Pet 1:14-16 . . As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.

"conformed" is speaking of habits. Take for example alcoholism. The popular diagnosis these days is that it's a disease. Well; it if is, then it's the only disease I know of practiced by fools.

● Prov 20:1 . . Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Alcoholism isn't a disease; it's a habit, and one of the habits that Christ's believing followers are commanded to make a habit of avoiding.

● Eph 5:18 . . Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation,

452) 1Pet 1:17-18 . . And if you address as "Father" the one who impartially judges according to each man's work, conduct yourselves in reverential fear during the time of your stay upon earth

I once heard of a preacher complain that he wished his congregation were as afraid of the Devil as they are of holiness. (chuckle). Well, obviously his congregation lacked purpose; their attitude was that of drifters and vagabonds. They were all believers; they had that much going for them. They just needed somebody to throw cold water in their faces and wake them up to getting their eyes off the ground and getting their eyes up on the brass ring.

● Col 3:1-4 . . So then, since you have been resurrected with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then will you also appear with him in glory.

People in heaven no doubt make a habit of treating God with reverential fear; that is: they respect both Him and His wishes. Down here, people make a habit of insolence and rebellion; even some of the people wearing a Christian ID tag.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
453a) 1Pet 1:22a . . Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit

The grammatical tense of the words "have purified" is past rather than future. So it isn't "when" you purify your souls. In other words, the souls of the Christians to whom Peter penned his epistle were already purified before it arrived; and they did it not by means of a denominational affiliation; but rather, by obeying the truth; and their obedience was "through the Spirit" rather than through human artifice.

Q: What is soul?

A: The Greek word for "soul" is very similar in meaning to the Greek word for "spirit" except that "soul" refers a tad more to one's creature existence. In other words: soul speaks of humanity's creation from the dust of the earth; and into whose body God aspirated the breath of life as per Gen 2:7.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh) which isn't limited to human life. Several varieties of created life are categorized as nephesh in the book of Genesis; and in point of fact, all life that was aboard Noah's ark, including human life, is categorized as nephesh.

In reality: human souls are little more than primates whose minds are produced by a 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within their bony little skulls-- and not even all three of those pounds are devoted to cognitive processes.

The Greek word for "purified" in 1Pet 1:21a is hagnizo (hag-nid'-zo) which speaks of a peculiar kind of physical hygiene; for example:

● John 15:3 . . Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

● Heb 10:22 . . Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

In other words: people whose organic human bodies have not yet undergone the peculiar kind of physical hygiene about which Christ spoke in John 15:3, and about which the author of Hebrews wrote at Heb 10:22; are too unsanitary to associate with God on a personal basis.

Of course that peculiar hygiene is only a temporary expedient for Christ's believing followers seeing as how they're in line for an intrinsically super clean human body similar in all respects to his own glorious human body. (Php 3:21)

Bottom line is: There will be no human bodies in the heaven depicted in the 21st chapter of Revelation whose origin is the dust of the earth as per Gen 2:7.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
453b) 1Pet 1:22b . . See that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently

The Greek word translated "love" in that passage is agapao (ag-ap-ah'-o) which is actually a very easy love to practice because it doesn't consist of things like affection and/or sentiment; which are components of the other love in the New Testament translated from the Greek word phileo (fil-eh'-o).

Agapao is impersonal; commonly expressed in things like charity, kindness, sympathy, lenience, and tolerance; viz: agapao isn't expressed by liking people; rather, it's expressed by being nice to people, i.e. civil; defined by Webster's as adequate in courtesy and politeness: mannerly.

Phileo, on the other hand, is personal and not as common as agapao because phileo is felt rather than expressed; viz: phileo refers to emotional attachments.

An excellent contrast between the two loves is seen by comparing John 3:16 and John 16:27.

In the first; God is shown sympathetic.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

In the latter, God is shown affectionate.

"The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

Obtaining God's sympathy is very easy because that's on Him; whereas winning His affections is not so easy because that's on us.

"If you obey my commands, you will abide in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and abide in His love." (John 15:10)

Anyway; 1Pet 1:22b only requires Christians to be civil, which I'm convinced is within every Christian's capabilities; even for Christians whose sensitivities are those of a catcher's mitt or a wooden nickel.

A pure fervent heart refers to taking Peter's requirement seriously enough to make a conscientious effort to comply with it; viz: every Christian, even the bi-polar ones, really ought to be doing their level best to be good people not just some of the time, nor even most of the time; but all the time-- at the very least among themselves and with each other.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
454) 1Pet 2:1-3 . .Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking; as newborn infants, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.

Oftentimes it's a good idea to read the Bible with a dictionary at hand because words like malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and envy tend to fly right past our eyes without giving them much thought.

Anyway, in order to be successful with item #453b --which commands to love one's fellow believers fervently with a pure heart-- it's necessary to comply with item #454. Things like malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and defamatory remarks are not love; no, they're cruel and mean-spirited.

Here in 1Pet 2:1-3 those toxic behaviors are categorized as junk food, which is not the kind of nourishment one should be feeding a growing child; as if they could even digest it. So then, believers who neglect to study the Bible --and learn what is and what is not appropriate behavior for a believer --are certain to end up stunting the spiritual growth of the new self they obtained via their second birth as per Jesus' testimony at John 3:3-8.

An especially ugly behavior Peter listed is envy; which Webster's defines as: painful, or resentful, awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, coupled with a desire to possess the same advantage. In other words, envy is the root of rivalry which is one of the most destructive human passions there is. Cain killed his brother Abel out of a spirit of rivalry.

● 1John 3:12 . . Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It was a spirit of rivalry that led to the Lord's crucifixion.

● Matt 27:16-18 . . And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them: Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.

Webster's defines "rivalry" as: 1) to be in competition with and, 2) to strive to equal or excel.

Envy not only breeds rivalry, but other toxins too like spite; which Webster's defines as: petty ill will, malice, or hatred coupled with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; which is defined as: to defeat the hopes and aspirations of another. In other words, thwart's intent is to discourage someone, to break their spirit and make them lose heat and/t lose respect for themselves. Needless to say, a spiteful person is a person so bitter that they're unable to feel pity, compassion, or sympathy; which is a bad thing because pity, compassion, and sympathy are highly blessing-worthy.

● Matt 5:7 . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

People prone to envy share a very common denominator: they simply must be either equal to, or better than, others. It's that simple. And if they cannot be equal to, or better than others, then nothing would make them happier than to see those others dead, maimed, silenced, disfigured, dishonored, disgraced, humiliated, and/or handicapped for life.

The singles group I attended prior to meeting my wife played volleyball on Sunday afternoons. One day, I sustained a pretty good elbow to the temple and had to step out of the game for a moment or two till I got my senses back and the pain subsided enough that I could return to the game.

Nobody stopped playing even long enough to ask me if I was alright; not one person; and every one of us all knew each other. What does that tell you about the spiritual condition of the Christians playing volleyball with me that day? Well, if you haven't guessed it yet, I'll tell you. They were infected with a spirit of envy; which is a hard-hearted spirit-- thoughtless, cruel, and insensitive.

What made them that way? Well, some of them were out of work, while I had a good job as a professional welder in a boatyard on beautiful Shelter Island in San Diego. Some of them were divorced, while I was never married. Some of them were single parents, while I had no children burdening my life. Some of them were paying alimony and/or child support, while all the money I earned was mine to do as I pleased. Some of them had gotten laid too soon in life, while I was still a virgin. Some of them were rank and file pew warmers, while I sang bass in a church choir of 90 voices in a church with 4,000 members on the books.

You see, many of those Christians playing volleyball with me that day were losers while I was a winner-- their lives were a mess, while mine was promising. It's pretty easy to see why no one felt the slightest concern for my safety when I got elbowed in the temple; isn't it?

Yes, envy is a very, very ugly beast: there's no love in envy, only hatred mingled with malicious feelings and imaginations. Where's the Good Samaritan in that? A cute fable. Where's turning the other cheek? Out of vogue. Where's the golden rule? A cliché.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
455) 1Pet 2:11 . . Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul.

The words "fleshly lusts" are derived from 1) sarkikos (sar-kee-kos') which pertains to the base nature, and, 2) from epithumia (ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah) which means: a longing.

What Peter is talking about there is giving in to whatever comes natural: viz: doing what's instinctive and reactive as opposed to one's better judgment. (cf. 1Pet 4:1-2)

Webster's defines instinct 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.

Fleshly lusts are not what you might call "reasonable behavior" because they are basically gut passions that require no thinking. When people fly off the handle, sleep with somebody on the first date, utter an epithet, make a smart-aleck remark, and/or act on impulse and such; they are only doing what comes natural to the beast residing within themselves. People are, in the final analysis, little more than human wildlife; just naked apes ruled by the nature of an ape; and I've a sneaking suspicion that's what God meant at Gen 6:3 when He said "Man is flesh".

456) 1Pet 2:12 . . Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as malefactors, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

The koiné Greek word for "visitation" is: episkope (ep-is-kop-ay') which is an ambiguous word that means, among other things, inspection and/or evaluation.

Webster’s defines "inspection" as a checking or testing of an individual against established standards; for example: the avoirdupois ounce is a standard, the meter is a standard, and the inch is a standard.

In the old days, merchants used a balance to count out monies like gold and silver. They would put a "standard" weight in one of the balance's pans and then begin placing gold and/or silver in the other pan until the pans balanced; viz: until the pans were at the same elevation on either side of the scales' fulcrum point. Justice is often depicted as a blindfolded woman holding a balance in one hand, and a sword in the other. The law is in one pan, and the defendant's conduct is in the other; for example:

● Dan 5:27 . .You have been weighed on the balances; and came up short.

If it turns out that the criticism that the lost hurled at believers was unjustified, then they will have to pay. In so doing, how will they glorify God? Well, the slanderers themselves may not pay their respects to God, but their retribution will certainly honor His standards.

457) 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 pertains to all manner of citizenship, including civil disobedience; which is defined as the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, e.g. protests, tax revolts, draft card burning, anti-war movements, occupancy, demonstrations, blockades, etc. Civil disobedience typically has to do with rebellion against State, Local, and Federal policies.

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.

People who disregard the ordinances of man are described by the apostle Peter as ignorant and foolish. God forbid that any of Christ's followers fall into that category!

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
458) 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 cool 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.

459) 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:

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

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

● John 5:24 . . 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.

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.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
460) 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)

In other words; murder and cursing dishonors the likeness of God, and by extension dishonors God too.

From that 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 everyone was 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.

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"

The honor required for senior citizens doesn't have to be earned, merited or otherwise deserved. The only requirement is age; and failure to dignify senior citizens is all the same as failure to dignify God.

NOTE: You can tell a lot about people by the way they treat senior citizens. Now that I myself am old and gray-haired, I'm sensitive to things like that.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
461) 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 essentially refers to a fraternity; defined by Webster's as 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.

"We're all in this together" pretty much sums up adelphotes; for example 1Pet 5:8-9 which reads:

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings."

But now; exactly who is in this frat about which Peter speaks? Well, the apostle identifies them by his greeting in 1Pet 1:1-2 which reads:

"To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood"

Just to be on the safe side, assume that Peter's greeting applies to anyone and everyone calling themselves a Christian regardless of their denominational affiliation. This can be done very easily just by following his instructions to honor all men. (see post No.195)

One thing to our advantage is that the Greek word for "love" in 1Pet 2:17 is impersonal, viz: it doesn't require 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 actually have to like our fellow Christians, we only have to allow them the dignity that the image and likeness of God deserves.

462) 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.

There is currently throughout America a wave of hate, hysteria, and disrespect for the U.S. President the intensity of which is unlike anything I've ever seen in my 75 years on this planet. I should hope that none of Christ's followers get caught up in it.

Christians don't have to particularly like Mr. Trump as a person, but we do have to render him the dignity and the respect that a president's position has been given by God. Failure to do so not only fails to comply with the apostle Peter's instructions, but also fails to fear God.

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
463) 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 koiné 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 koiné 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.

● Heb 12:28 . .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.

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"

● 1 Pet 2:21-24 . . For to this you were called, because 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; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously

The koiné Greek word for "reviled" is loidoreo (loy-dor-eh'-o) which means: to reproach; viz: vilify.

Webster’s defines vilify as: 1) to lower in estimation or importance; viz: demean, and 2) to utter slanderous and abusive statements against; viz: defame; denigrate.

"Reviling in return" (e.g. retorts, rejoinders, and recriminations) is a common knee-jerk reflex; a natural reaction of the base nature (the flesh) and contrary to one of The Lord's fundamental teachings in the Sermon On The Mount.

● Luke 6:29 . . And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other.

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 really reads them? I have to chuckle sometimes at Christians when one says: The Sermon On The Mount is all the religion I need. Okay, fine; so when did you plan on beginning to exemplify its principles?

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
464) 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.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
465) 1Pet 3:3-5 . . And 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. An interpretation of that nature would mean putting on dresses is wrong too and thereby Christian women would be in danger of being arrested for indecent exposure whenever they went out. No, he's 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 the bedroom but quite useless as a homemaker.

Hollywood movies often portray "spirited" women as somehow desirable. No, they aren't desirable; they're feral, they attack 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.

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

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

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 barnyard animal.

● Prv 11:22 . . As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

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.

● 1Pet 3:5-6 . .That is the way the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and were subordinate to their husbands. For instance : Sarah submitted to her husband, Abraham, when she called him her master. You are her daughters when you do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do.

Sarah, as you might recall, was a stunning girl not only in her youth, but even later on after menopause. But from what I gather from their association, Sarah's physical attributes are not why Abraham chose to live with her, and in point of fact, I really don't think Abraham paid all that much attention to Sarah's looks at all. No, Sarah was special in other ways; and even when she couldn't bear Abraham a child, he stuck with her; though in that day, he didn't have to.

What is it that a Christian wife might fear from her husband? Well, that's pretty easy. No doubt her biggest concern is that he might take advantage of her affable personality. Well, that's insufficient grounds to stop a Christian woman from being the kind of woman that Christ can approve. If it's any comfort; we're all in the same boat. People are naturally predatory, and can't help but take advantage of Christianity's good nature. What can I say: it comes with the turf.

● Php 1:29 . . For you have been given not only the privilege of trusting in Christ but also the privilege of suffering for him.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
466) 1Pet 3:7a . . Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge

The koiné Greek word for "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 Christian wives themselves to exercise self control.

NOTE: It's required of Christ's followers to love their enemies but it's not required of Christ's followers to like their enemies nor is it required to always have a good opinion about them. However, though Christian love need not include the element of fondness; Christian love does need to include the element of diplomacy; which Webster's defines as skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility, viz: tact.

/