WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD SET TO MUSIC
SILENCE
And when we return we’ll attempt to wrap chapter four up of 1st Peter.
PRAYER
1st Peter 4.11
MEAT
November 1st 2015
Okay we left off last week covering 1st Peter 4:7-8 where Peter said:
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.”
And we talked about what these things potentially meant. In light of the fact that “the end of all things” was, according to Peter, “coming to an end,” he begins to give some pragmatic advice, beginning with
Be sober
Watchful unto prayer
Above all things have fervent charity which he added, “covers a multitude of sins.”
And we talked about what this meant. At verse nine he continues with his end-time advice and says:
9 Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
10 As every man hath received
the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
We’ll cover these and then move into the remaining verses of the chapter thereafter.
Alright back to verse 9
Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
I really hate the Kings English here because where it says “use hospitality one to another without grudging” all the Greek says is FILOXENOS – which means, “be fond of guests.”
Other translations says
“Be hospitable,” “practice hospitality,” “extend hospitality one to another . . .” without grudging.
I Paul’s instructions from Romans he says believers ought to be:
“Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.”
In Hebrews 13:2 we read:
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”
I think this was especially important in that day and age as modes of travel and transportation were very different as was the world in which they lived.
We have had several discussions about hospitality here in Meat since we have done a verse by verse now of Romans and Hebrews and James and now Peter and while I admit that the Spirit of hospitality ought to thrive in the Christian heart our present circumstances seem to make it more difficult and quite frankly the actual application can be dangerous and in opposition to our being simultaneously wise.
This may be yet another area where Christians today do not take the New Testament directive as literally as it was intended to the believers then.
I do find the addition of the words, however “without grudging,” humorous as having guests back in the day and having them now seems to open human beings to getting resentful.
The Greek for without grudging is, “without murmuring;” meaning, without complaining of the hardship of doing it; of the time, and expense, and the trouble required.”
To approach hospitality “grudgingly” seems to means that we are hospitable “unwillingly,” “regretfully” or with ill will.
The interesting thing here, is Peter seems to begin in verse nine by speaking of literal hospitality (as in having other people as guests in our home) but in verse 10 he appears to take the term and apply it to any or all interactions we have with others.
I say this because in verse 9 he says:
“Use hospitality one to another without grudging,” and then adds in verse 10:
“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”
Another way to read this is:
“Whatever be the gifts which each has received, you must use them for one another’s benefit, as good stewards of God’s many-sided kindness.”
OR
“As each has received a gift, employ it in serving one another, as good managers of the grace of God in its various forms.”
OR
“Making distribution among one another of whatever has been given to you, like true servants of the unmeasured grace of God.”
In other words Peter seems to say, Whatever gift God has given us use it hospitably in the service of others.
I like this because when we are in the service of others – no matter what it is – we can render the service hospitably or we can be extremely inhospitable even when we are doing something apparently good.
I have a tendency to be inhospitable toward people who relate toward my person with entitlement.
It does not include any of you but people who take constant and relentless demands upon my person and time as if they are entitled to receive them.
I will do what they need – I have convinced myself that that is the least I can do – but when the demands get to be too much I have the tendency to become less hospitable toward them and more direct.
I have to watch myself because this directness can easily transform itself into being rude – the antithesis to a hospitable attitude – but I am going to actually justify this approach as a means to recommend it to others.
I feel I am in a place to do it due to the unique way we have had to do ministry here in the state.
Let me explain.
Ours is a ministry that has long existed on the fringe. Most of the people we engage with have been disenfranchised by life in one way or another – either socially, religiously, emotionally and sometimes even physically.
Many of the people I have dealt with directly have faced some really difficult challenges which are often a combination of several factors rather than just one or two:
People who have been to prison who were former LDS and are missing a foot,
OR
People who have made some incomprehensibly bad choices in their lives but continue to blame everyone but themselves – and love Jesus.
OR
People who have suffered tremendous abuse at the hands of almost everyone they have ever trusted – and therefore learn to abuse others in return.
The cast of characters that have flowed in and out of this ministry since 2005 would cause Willy Wonka to quit the chocolate business – with almost all of them needing urgent emotional, spiritual and often immediate material care.
The difficulty is that most of them have learned to take as much advantage of others as they can when they discover a listening ear, a ride downtown or an open wallet.
Where is the balance between open hospitality and being taken advantage of? I would suggest that balance lies in truthful communication supported or underwritten by unconditional love.
That is what I wanted to share with you all – the idea of “truthful communications supported by unconditional love.”
In this way we are able to serve people without allowing them to utterly use and abuse us over and over again.
Are they still using and (somewhat) abusing us – sure. But we are helping them to face the reality of their actions and requests and demands in the face of our unconditioned assistance.
Try it. Stick your neck out a bit and offer to help someone who you know is taking or is going to take advantage of you.
Then point their abuses out as they come while continuing to do what you promised. It is one of the most amazing exchanges you will have in life and will enable you to serve with hospitality while not letting people take the title deed to your home.
Anyway, Peter here tells us to be hospitable, “As every man hath received the gift,” meaning, according the the gifts God has bestowed upon us.
So if we are gifted by God with helping, help hospitably. If we are gifted by God with discernment discern hospitably. If we are gifted with giving, give hospitably – whatever it is.
The word translated “gift,” here in the Greek is “charisma,” and without the article, it means an endowment of any kind but especially one that is conferred upon us by the Holy Spirit.
Use them for the hospitable good of others, Peter says, because it is a gift given us from God, and not something we own or possess in ourselves.
Peter adds, “As good stewards as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”
In other words by His grace and goodness and foreknowledge God has bestowed gifts upon each of us and Peter is telling us to exercise these gifts hospitably on others, as
“good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”
We tend to think of being good stewards of material blessings God bestows upon us – money management, etc.
But the implication here is we ought to be good stewards of our gifts as we share them openly with others.
We can suppose, from the parable of the Talents taught by our Lord that there will be an accounting of how we used or employed our gifts – and this seems to be to what he is alluding.
In first Corinthians 4:1 Paul writes:
“Let any man look upon us (the Apostles) as servants of Christ, and stewards of the secret truths of God. “
He goes on, saying:
2 Now it is required of earthly stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But to me (Paul) it matters very little that I am judged by you, or by any earthly court.
I love that attitude not because it appears rebellious but because Paul places all of his actions on God to judge and not man – love it . . .
4 Indeed I do not even judge myself; for though I know nothing against myself, yet that does not vindicate me; for he who judges me is the Lord.
Isn’t that radical – the man says, “I don’t even judge myself!” then adds, “not that I have anything against myself but that still doesn’t vindicate me because the one who judges me is the Lord” – wow! The he says some application to the whole matter saying:
5 So make no hasty judgment until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make plain the purpose of men’s hearts. Then each man’s due praise will come to him from God.
In any case, back to 1st Peter 4 – be hospitable stewards of the gifts the Lord has bestowed upon you, then (at verse 11) he seems to now address people called to the ministry, either as preachers or administrators and says:
11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
If any man speak. As a preacher, referring here particularly to the office of the ministry.
The first line –
“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;
Can be (and is) interpreted in two main ways –
Some translations interpret it as the King James, saying, “If a man decides to speak, let his language be as the language of the Oracles of God (or “be in harmony with the prophets of Old who spoke with the mouth of God”).
The second way it is interpreted (which is the majority stance, by the way, is) “If any man preaches or speaks let him do it as AN oracle of God” OR “as someone who is speaking for God.”
In either case the end result would be if a man speaks or preaches he needs to so do in harmony with the truth – in harmony with God – which is what the prophets of Old did and would be what anyone would do today if they were speaking with God in mind.
The word translated “oracles” here in the King James is “logia” and it means, “something spoken or uttered,” add as a suffix to the word” “of God” and you have:
“Let him speak as something uttered of God.”
Let it be a divine communication. Let it reflect Him and His will.
Because this is tied to speaking I personally believe that the better word is preaching. We all speak without the words being as if from the mouth of God, but when someone chooses to preach I believe Peter is saying, “preach your words as if they came from God Himself.”
That is a gigantic responsibility. The means by which we are to do this (or the manner) is alluded to in the last line of the verse – which we’ll cover in a minute.
These passages echo the words of Paul in Romans 12:6-7 where he says:
“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.”
Again, we might suggest that Peter was inspired by some of the writings of Paul in light of these similarities.
After talking about how men are to preach he adds:
“if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth,” again, echoing closely the words of Paul in Romans that we just read.
Because of the context of him saying, “If any man speak let him utter the words of God I think when he says, “If any man minister,” he is speaking of people ministering in God’s name as a “diakonos” or what we would call a deacon.
I make this distinction because diakonos is a non-religious word for servant.
So Peter COULD be saying, “to anybody who serves ANYBODY . . . but this is not in harmony with the previous line.
Therefore his advice must be to those who are serving in the church.
And he adds:
“As of the ability which God giveth.”
That is a fantastic addendum – if anyone serve in the church let them serve according to the “iskoos” – ability, strength, or power IN THEIR FLESH?
Nope.
According to the ability that God has given them. A great barometer on how we serve – not by compulsion, not by comparison, not by demand – but according to the ability and strength a person has been given by God.
This makes us directly and eternally responsible to God for our services in the Body and not to anyone else.
Peter now shares with us the aim of approaching teaching and serving in this way, saying:
“That God in all things may be glorified.”
And from this we are reminded of the purpose for Him gifting us, and the focus of our sharing such gifts – that God may be glorified – and not us and then another degree of separation –
“through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever.”
And with the addition of this we have that hierarchy presented to us again –
First, “that GOD may be glorified”
Second, “through Jesus Christ”
And third, “by (us believers) using the gifts He has given us hospitably on others.”
That is the New Testament Hierarchy.
All glory is always given to God. 1st Corinthians 10:31 says:
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
“Through Jesus Christ,” meaning because of Him as our mediator to “the invisible God” (through His victories over life, death and sin) we are able to have and live by the Spirit which moves us to love in such a way on earth that God is honored.
This hierarchy is difficult to understand and relate to at times and as a result many people, as a means to simplify matters, focus on only one element of it.
The LDS tend, having made Jesus their elder brother, to diminish His capacity down to being man’s perfect example who gave His life for us while the total focus is on Heavenly Father and their desire to live with Him again.
At the other end of the spectrum are sold out Jesus people who make Him the focal point of all things to the point that when they speak of God it is Jesus, when they worship God it is Jesus, and when they pray it is to Jesus – to the point that Yahway (whom we call the Father) is almost lost in the mix entirely.
The subject is large and as stated, not the easiest to tease apart but there are some passages that help us better delineate the system and order and make-up of God and things.
I want to start in on this with a clear simple passage from John and from the Words of Jesus Himself who said in John 17:3:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
It is LIFE ETERNAL to know both “the Only True God AND Jesus Christ whom (the only True God) has sent.
I would strongly, strongly, strongly suggest that when Jesus was speaking these words that He was NOT referring to ontologically knowing the make-up or construction of God) but to our epistemological knowledge (or knowing them in and from the Spirit and with the mind and heart and soul).
Religious minded men have long tried to take the words of Jesus in John 17 and force all people to comply to an accepted standard (agreed upon by the masses and supported by tradition) relative to the ontological make-up of God.
But the actual ontological knowledge of God is very difficult and it is why there are so many variations and differences among people who DO know God epistemologically . . . but disagree about Him ontologically.
I have always maintained that there are people who are His – saved Christians – who have a messed up ontological view of God even to the point that they may not even know the name “Jesus.”
I would zealously maintain that knowing Jesus epistemologically is everything to “life eternal,” EVERYTHING – and that He is the reason anyone ever enters the presence of God – no skipping around this biblical fact.
But when we take our impressions of His and the Father’s physical make-up (and then draw lines in the sand to establish tenets of conformity) we have missed the mark we ought to be seeking, which is epistemological understanding.
One of the most quoted lines defenders of pet ontologies use on others who differ with them is,
“You worship a different Jesus,” a line which automatically erects enormous barricades, creates a defensive attitude in those to which it is said and establishes an idea that says, “I am right and you are wrong.”
Admittedly, there are false Christ’s in the world, but when it comes to the ontology of God I would suggest we have to be very, very careful to avoid arrogance and presupposition.
So where Jesus words could not be more true regarding a persons epistemological knowledge of God, saying “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” we have to be cautious in thinking we have an ability to concretely establish His ontological make-up and demand it of others.
(beat)
That being said, I want to take a stab at explaining what I believe is the reasonable ontological description of God (using the Bible) just to help clear the way for better understanding among us – whatever that understanding winds up being.
I have learned a great deal in this area from Jason Dulle and I have to express my gratitude for his work in this specific area.
So why don’t we start with the first verse in the Bible that is used to support the idea that God is a plural – twenty six verses into chapter 1 of Genesis we read:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness….”
Who is being referred to by the use of the plural pronoun “our?”
Does this imply that God is more than one?
Does it indicate that Jesus pre-existed the incarnation as the second person of the Trinity?
Considering the strict monotheism of the Old Testament this does not seem likely.
Now, this is not the only time in the Bible where a plural pronoun is used of God. The plural usage is found in . . . five hundred other places? No.
A hundred other places? Nope.
Ten other places? No again. Three – three other places we discover the plural noun as it relates to God.
In Genesis 3:22
“God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
And at the building of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7) God said,
“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech”
Then Isaiah heard the Lord say in Isaiah 6:8, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”
All through the Bible God is described as one, one, one God and yet in these four places we discover a plurality mentioned relative to Him.
Generally speaking there are four theories that have been proposed to explain this plural usage in reference to God.
The first theory claims that God counseled with His own will, or deliberated within His own mind as to what He would do.
This theory is based on passages like Ephesians 1:11 where it is said that God works “all things after the counsel of his own will,” and the thinking is that these four passages are reflecting his thought process, sort of like we would say to ourselves, “Okay, what should we do, what should we do?”
Unfortunately the Hebrew grammar does not allow for this theory because it indicates that God was speaking to somebody besides Himself.
The second theory is that the plural pronouns are used as a “majestic plural.”
Most scholars – even Trinitarians – seem to believe this is the case. “Majestic plural” language is typically used by royalty but not exclusively.
Biblical examples of “majestic plural” language include Daniel’s statement to Nebuchadnezzar when he said,
“We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king” (Daniel 2:36).
However Daniel was the only one who gave the king the interpretation of his dream.
Again, King Artaxerxes wrote in a letter,
“The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18).
But according to Ezra 4:11 the letter was sent to Artaxerxes alone. Going to Ezra 7:13 and 24) we see that when Artaxerxes penned another letter to Ezra he used the first person singular pronoun “I” in one place and the first person plural pronoun “we” in another.
However, this view, while somewhat satisfying and not beyond the realm of possibility, does not seem very credible.
We have to wonder why God would use singular pronouns of Himself in thousands of places in the Bible, yet would choose four places to use plural pronouns in a majestic plural sense?
It would seem that God would either use singular pronouns exclusively, or plural pronouns exclusively when speaking of Himself.
In other words these few instances where plural pronouns are used seems to suggest that there is some special reason they are used.
This is one of my problems with Trinitarian doctrine – I think if the teaching was true than God would constantly use plural pronouns to describe Himself instead of four.
The third theory explains these passages by saying that although not present physically in the flesh at these times, God was speaking to Jesus (and I guess we might supposed the Holy Spirit too) in a prophetic manner, having foreknowledge of His (or their) future arrival.
It is thought that since God calls those things which are not as though they were (Romans 4:17), that He spoke to the Son even though He was not physically present yet.
The thought is that God could do so because He does not live in time as we do, and does not view time as we do and that the literal Son of flesh was present in the mind of God eternally as the Word.
As a support of this position I Peter 1:19-20 and Revelation 13:8 are used to show that the incarnation and crucifixion were always in the plan and mind of God before even the foundation of the world.
The basis of this third theory is extended out specifically as it relates to the creation of man meaning God “made man in the appearance that Jesus would have in the future.” In other words, God made man in the image of what He knew Jesus would look like.
This relegates God’s reference to “our” to be speaking to Jesus in a prophetical sense.
He (the actual Son of Man in flesh) was not actually there, but because He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, His presence had always been in the mind of God and therefore can be spoken of as being present at the creation (which I Peter 1:19-20 and Revelation 13:8 support).
Another support for this theory comes from the Biblical teaching that Jesus “created the worlds, and that all things were created for His purpose” doctrine clearly supported by John 1:1-3, 10; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3.
The thinking is that since “Jesus created the worlds,” He was present at the creation and therefore must have been the One God was speaking to.
When the Bible says that Jesus created all things, it cannot mean that “Jesus the incarnate man was present at the creation.” This existence did not begin until His incarnation in approximately 6-5 B.C.
Again Jesus (God made flesh) did not exist before this time.
However, Jesus did preexist the incarnation as it pertains to His deity, (LISTEN) for Jesus’ deity is none other than that of Yahweh Himself, the omnipresent self-existing Spirit.
Remember, John called this preexistence of Jesus “the Word”:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him [Word]; and without him was not any thing made that was made. … And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-3, 14 italics mine).
The same Word that existed at the creation of the worlds was the Word that became flesh (Jesus Christ). (LISTEN) John identifies “the Word” as being “God Himself,” (and the Word was God) not some other God or person.
Even in our world our words are an expression of our person. They are formed in us and come out of us and reveal us.
It doesn’t seem like God’s words can be separated from Him any more than our words can be separated from us.
Again John did not stop with saying, “ and the Word was with God, but went on to point out that the Word was in fact God Himself.
I would suggest strongly that Jesus existed at the creation in His deity as God, but not in flesh as a human. Therefore these scriptures have nothing to do with another “person” of the Godhead being present at the creation the way the LDS or the Trinitarians suggest.
(LISTEN) They merely assert Jesus’ preexistence as Yahweh.
Admittedly, and although not beyond the realm of possibility, there is not much Biblical merit to the idea that God was speaking to the Son “prophetically.”
If Jesus was not physically at the creation, and God was not speaking to Him in some prophetic foreknowledge, and if He was not “deliberating in His own mind,” or “speaking of Himself in a majectic plural sense,” who was God speaking to?
We’ll supply what I believe is the most reasonable and rational theory of them all . . . next week.
Q and A
