Meat

Okay, Peter does not have a lot of nice things to say about the false teachers of his day. Last week we left off with him telling us that if God did not spare the angels who rebelled against Him, and if He didn’t spare the unfaithful of Noah’s day, and if he didn’t spare the salacious people of Sodom and Gomorrah, then He would certainly not spare the false teachers of his day. But amidst his examples, he clearly pointed out that God did, in fact, spare a small number of people in each of those troubling times. First the angels that were not cast down to hell, second Noah and seven others, and finally Lot and his two daughters from Sodom and Gomorrah days.

Assurance in Trials

This lead Peter to provide us with our text for today where, continuing he says of the faithful who the Lord spared:

2nd Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Let’s talk about this verse because it sort of serves as an exclamation point to all Peter said last week. In other words he seems to say after mentioning Noah and the Seven and Lot that God is able to deliver his people when tempted, and understands the best way in which it should be done. Psalm 34:19 reiterates that:

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.”

The promises are in scripture of his willingness and ability to protect all from temptations that draw us away. For example Paul says in 1st Corinthians 10:

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Understanding Temptation

The Greek word here for tempt or temptation is either PI-RAS-MUS or PI-RAD-ZO. And where the King James translates them to tempt or temptation they better mean experience, trial, test, or difficulty. So it is related to tempted but from what I can see it best means the trial and difficult experiences we all face as followers of Christ. So let me re-read Paul’s words but replace tempt or temptation with difficult trial –

“There hath no difficult trial taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tried above that ye are able; but will with the difficult trial also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

This is important because with it we are reassured that God will see us through the trials and provide ways to experience relief. It is also important because it then makes the context of Paul’s words make more sense. Let me re-read verse 13 in context of the passages surrounding it. In chapter 10 of 1st Corinthians beginning at verse 9. Listen to what Paul says to the believers and the things WE ARE SUPPOSED to do:

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, (1) as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye,(2) as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, (3) upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (4)

So Paul delivers four instructions about what believers are supposed to do before saying:

13 There hath no difficult trial taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tried above that ye are able; but will with the trial also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Taking Action in Trials

Now listen to what he adds after having said this –

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. (so there is a fifth instruction that goes hand in hand with God being able to protect or deliver us amidst our trials).

Admittedly we have those times when God in his mercy steps in and just yanks us out of the fire – probably more of them than we will ever realize. But there is evidence that we are to act and take action too. I was called out recently to a man who was

God's Role in Our Lives

Held on suicide watch and he was in some deep drunken despair when I got to where they were holding him. That morning he went to church and heard the pastor quote this passage from over the pulpit that God would not allow us to experience any temptation that we could not bear (was how he quoted it back to me) and then he said in tears: “When is God going to give me a break? When is He going to keep me from being tempted beyond what I can bear?”

He was sincere but from what I could see he was sincerely mislead. What I mean by this is he was under the impression that God roams about like the bodyguard of a spoiled rock star. You know, that we can do what we want but He is always there to stop real problems from happening. I took the liberty of telling this fellow that God would start extending His protection when He started making some good decisions. He was shocked that they were connected. It’s an interesting debate – just how much does God interfere and how much are we involved in how He chooses to interfere?

To me – and from what I can assess from scripture – God’s hands in some cases are tied (so to speak). I realize that this sounds contrary to many passages of scripture but I do not believe that in this fallen world He interferes in every circumstance freely. I think that the nature of the fall, His love for freedom and liberty and choice, His being a good and loving God prohibits Him from surreptitiously or willfully trampling over all circumstances and forcing things to happen or not. There appear to be times where He does interfere but just as many where He doesn’t – and that includes protecting those who are faithful to Him and/or those they love.

Faith and Free Will

I am however just as convinced that God is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS available for all of us when and if we are in trials or difficulties and is there to see us through. What appears to help in His assistance of us – again, appears – is our desire and willingness to trust in Him and follow Him. I base this off the idea that God did NOT just save the world by snapping His fingers or willing it. He actually became incarnate! He actually sent His only begotten to do get directly involved in the flesh and blood world. That there is a reciprocated relationship, a give and take, an exchange between God in Man in the redemption and protection of Man is obvious.

Think of the relationship or exchange like this:

He created our hair type
We choose Grooming style and length

Our facial beauty or unattractiveness
Make-up and hygiene

Our body configurations
Fitness and heath

Our intelligence
Information/knowledge gained

Core personality traits
Attitude and behaviors

Our height
Posture

Number and look of teeth
Hygiene and upkeep

Our strengths and propensities
Application, honing and enhancements

Our gifts
Use and improvements upon

Accidents
Our response to them

Blessings
Our response to them

Life
Our handling of it

Spiritual Choices

(SPIRITUALLY)

He reveals Himself
We choose to believe

God sent His Son
We choose to receive

He calls
We choose to respond

He knocks
We choose to open

He speaks
We choose to listen

He Commands
We choose to obey

He Blesses
We choose to glorify Him or self

He allows trials
We submit or rebel

And He Gives gifts (His Son, the Spirit, the Word)
And use them or refuses them

I cannot for the life of me seeing Him as imposing His ways upon anyone who refuses to respond. So getting back to Peter he seems to be telling the faithful readers of his day that they need not worry – God would deliver them – just as He has delivered others out of the mouth of lions and furnace fires. And while He may do this through sending angels to support them (and us), or interrupt evil attempts on our persons, or cast our tempter out, or bring in earthly brothers and sisters to help us – and (listen) even sometimes taking us to heaven just at the right moment – He also is able . . . (Peter says) “to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

He knows how to deliver the godly out of trials AND AND AND “He knows how to “reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” Now, the Greek for punish here is kolodzo and it is derived from the root word, Kolos which means “dwarf.” So God knows how to “reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be dwarfed?” In a way, yes. Cut short.

Reflections on the Unjust and Judgment

Remember last week my hypothecation where I suggested that even though Christ has had the victory that God is just and how I believe that both His mercy and His justice will be meted out in the respective resurrections of every individual? Well, instead of reading the English translation of these words I believe God how to “reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be cut short” . . . damned, perhaps? Curtailed?

Admittedly this could relate to their existence, to the functions of their resurrected bodies, or to what they are able to experience after this life – we don’t know. But I do not believe it means destroyed like the King James intimates. The next verse begins in the King James with, “but chiefly . . .” but we might better understand it as saying: “Especially . . .” (referring to those unjust beings that God has reserved unto the day of judgement) And then he says, “Especially (at verse 10 through to verse 16. And these are the verses that echo the contents of Jude.) and lets read through to verse “them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.

10 Presumptuous are they, self-willed – they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. So let’s go back to verse 10 and thresh our way through the text.

Characteristics of the Evenly Judged

God knows how to “reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be cut short"

“Especially . . .“

. . . them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness”

We mentioned last week how Peter accuses these false teachers of living and drawing people away through sexual licentiousness and here he refers back to the charge. He goes on and says that they “despise government.”

The Greek word is “koo ree ot ace” and it means they despise to have Lordship or dominion over them. So where it really doesn’t mean “governments” it may include them, but it really means they hate being under the directions of anyone. Now, we could react to this the way I used to an believe that all who hate being under the control of others are going to hell but we have to believe that the people Peter was talking about would not be under apostolic rule. And the follow-up question is had we lived in that day and age fit this bill?

Additionally, Peter could have been saying too that these types would not even allow the Lord to Lord over them. And the follow-up question (again) is: Are we of the same ilk and attitude?

Reflections on Rebellion and Authority

I used to read Peter’s descriptions here and just shutter because they really can describe much about my own person. But I want to be fair – both to myself and to others who hate to be lorded over – would we or do we presently refuse to be Lorded over by the Lord? And would you allow yourself to be Lorded over by the Apostles that He chose?

This is where things can get a little sticky because there are men (and women) today who will quickly assign these passages to those who reject their authoritai . . . but I find their demands to be obeyed unsupported. Also, I do (desire and at least try) to allow the Lord to Lord over me – because He is worthy. Men are not.

Would I have been rebellious to the Apostles? That is an admitted concern, and so reading these passages go a long way in keeping my rebellious nature in check and at least striving to get along with those who believe they have the right to Lord over me.

Peter continues his rant against these fallen ones and adds more description of them, saying: “Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Daring and Audacious Nature

More words that tend to describe my nature: Presumptuous (tol-may-tace) daring are they Self-willed <ow-thad-ace) audacious / self serving they are not afraid to speak evil (bas-fay-meo) to vilify dignities (doxa) glorious ones.

We read dignities in the King James so it seems to be speaking of Kings or others in charge but the word is doxa better means those in “high glory” so I tend to think they are not afraid to speak evil of Jesus, God, and/or maybe angels.

We meet people today who have no filter on how they revile Jesus and there appear to be the same type. Jude, uses doxa too when he says, (Jude

Understanding the Context of Jude and Peter

"These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." Admittedly, prior to the Lord there was no willingness in me to be governed by anyone but once He moved in He has brought to me a greater willingness to submit to the insights and will and ideas of others. Then at verse 11 Peter gives us a contrast. Ready?

11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. And here we have a key as to whom Peter and Jude were talking about when They said, doxa. Listen to the passage again. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. In referencing angels here, Peter says that they, even when they had great reason before them to rip into another, would not verbally oppose others who were in the wrong but left it up to God.

The Overlap of Jude and Peter's Narratives

Here is where Jude and Peter’s narrative really overlap but Peter refers to the angels NOT opposing “them” but Jude speaks specifically of Michael the Archangel not rebuking or opposing Satan who fought for the body of Moses. What is all of this about? Both Peter and Jude are probably referring to a tradition (even a myth) the Jews had that centered on the archangel Michael and Satan having a tug-o-war about the body of Moses. Could have been true but let’s talk about it for a minute.

First of all, the mention of this story is what has led some scholars to refuse the authenticity of the epistle. The problems come in two general circumstances: Lack of support for this story as there is no mention of it in the Old Testament; and the improbability of the story itself, which looks like a mere Jewish fable. Now here Peter makes a general reference “to angels as not bringing railing accusations against others before the Lord,” but Jude refers to a specific case–the case of Michael when contending about the body of Moses.

Exploring Scholarly Approaches

Now, there have been some radically extensive approaches to justify this reference in Jude and 2nd Peter and if you are interested in reading the justifications yourselves consult: Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, (vol, iv. pp. 378—393), Lardner (vol. vi. p. 312, seq), Hug, (Intro. & 183), Benson, Rosenmuller's Morgenland, (iii. pp. 196, 197;), and Wetstein. I’ll touch on a few of their hypotheses.

The principal methods of justifying this reference come down to: This reference speaks to Zechariah 3:1, "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan." Lardner says this is what Jude was speaking about and what Peter referenced. The trouble with this justification is there is no similarity between the two, except the expression, "the Lord rebuke thee." The name Michael does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. There is no mention made of the "body of Moses" not even an allusion to it.

There is no intimation that there was any such contention about his body. All there is, is a mere mention that Satan resisted the angel of the Lord, as seen in the vision, but no intimation that the controversy had any reference to Moses in any way. Also, the reason for the resistance (which Satan offered to the angel in the vision as seen by Zechariah) is stated. It was in regard to the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest implying a return of prosperity to Jerusalem, and the restoration of the worship of God there in its purity. Satan was, of course, opposed to this, and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose thus to set him apart to that office.

These reasons seem to me to make it clear that Jude did not refer to the passage in Zechariah, nor is there any other place in the Old Testament to which it can be supposed he had reference. Hug supposes that the reference here is derived from some apocryphal books existing in the time of Jude; and that though those books contained mere fables, the apostle appealed to them, not as conceding what was said to be true, but in order to refute and rebuke those against whom he wrote WHO BELIEVED THE APOCRAPHAL books to be true.

The Contest of Michael and the Devil

His opinion the apostle did not mean to vouch for “the truth of the story,” but merely used it to make an argument. The objection to this is that the apostle does seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true and he speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God. of Moses, or of his smiting the rock, or of his leading the children of Israel across the Red Sea, or of any other fact in history. I find this rationalization weak.

Then it has been supposed that the apostle quotes an apocryphal book existing in his time, containing this account, and that he means to admit that the account is true. Origen mentions such a book, called "the Assumption of Moses," as being around in his time which contains this same account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost. But this is perhaps the best reason for the quote in Jude and reference in 2nd Peter. As a side note, there is still a book, written in Hebrew, called HEBREW–"the Death of Moses," which some have supposed to be the book referred to by Origen. That book contains many fabulous stories about the death of Moses, and is evidently the work of some Jew drawing wholly upon his imagination. A final supposition is that Jude here refers to a prevalent tradition among the Jews and that he has adopted it as containing some important truth and chose to use it.

Traditions and Myths

First of all, we know that by Jesus' day there were a lot of traditions and myths among the Jews. And while many of them must have been errant in some way or another there is no reason to doubt that some of them might have been founded in the truth or contained some remnant of truth. Some maybe Jude and Peter chose to allude to the true part of the fable.

We know that Paul also refers to traditions as a means to illustrate a point when he spoke of Jannes and Jambres as true history (2nd Timothy 3:8) and we know even Jesus refers to an unknown part of history when he mentions the slaying of a man between the altars. So first, if what is here said was true, there was no impropriety in its being referred to by Jude. The only real question is whether it was true or not. And guess what? No one can say!

Humbling Reality

So let’s take all of this as backstory and move on never being able to prove whether Michael the Archangel warred over the Body of Moses. However, the point that both Jude and Peter make in citing this story is that Michael the Archangel, who was made with far greater in power and in might did not cast a railing accusation against who? Satan, right. And who is Satan? A fallen angel. Got that? Now, remember that Peter wrote

10 Presumptuous are they, self-willed – they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (and we said that the word translated “dignities” was taken from the Greek word “doxa” which means higher glories, right?) And so we said that he had to have been referring to Jesus or God or angels and not earthly kings or governments.

Now read verse 11 where Peter citing Jude, adds a comparison:

11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. Against who? Who are the them that the angels, who are greater in power and might, would NOT bring a railing accusation against before the Lord?

Though Peter uses the plural and Jude refers only to Michael and Satan – both angels – we know that “the them” Peter said these false teachers were not afraid to speak evil of were angels – doxas – higher glories. It ought to read, “against themselves.” So says the Vulgate. So the more correct reading is against themselves, that is, against those who might be regarded as their adversaries, (Jude 1:9,) or those of their own rank who had done wrong–the fallen angels. And who won’t they bring the railing accusation against to? The Lord.

And so we have a radical, humbling reality present here in this somewhat convoluted set of passages.

Understanding the Role of False Teachers

The false teachers of Peter’s day were not afraid to speak evil of “higher glories” which I interpret any and all beings and creations in heaven.

Example of Michael the Archangel

Then in contrast Peter cites Jude (who cites some sort of apocryphal tale) to show that even Michael the Archangel (a doxa of might and power) wouldn’t even bring a railing accusation against Satan (another doxa though fallen) BEFORE the Lord, but simply trusted that the Lord would rebuke him.

Trusting in the Lord's Justice

In other words in full faith of the Lord’s ability to govern and mete out justice, Michael the archangel held his tongue – toward Satan AND in tattling to God about Satan’s devious ways! But instead trusted that the Lord would ultimately prevail.

Love it.

Q and A?