1 peter - christian behavior in relationships and duress

(i actually wrote this a long time ago with the intent to edit it and refine it, but it has become clear to me that neither will happen, so i will just post it as is).

today i read 1 peter 3 and it was interesting so i kept on reading through the end of the book (two more chapters). having read those chapters, in particular, chapter 3, i think i have two questions and perhaps one comment.

it is made pretty clear by reading the book, that the recipients of peter's note are undergoing some stressful times. from the text i take that they are enduring some physical and emotional persecution for their beliefs and actions. anyway, given that context, i enjoy the instructions peter has for them regarding their interactions with not only those who are persecuting them, but also their interactions with each other - believers in the same church and families.

he starts off chapter 3 by advising the women of the group to be submissive to their husbands. this instruction is repeated several times throughout the new testament by different authors but what i took away from this particular instance is the difference in the reasoning behind the recommendation. often in the bible, women are told to submit to their husbands as a way of demonstrating order in the family and providing a way of hierarchical decision-making. this reasoning often draws similarities to the body of christ and the church and so on. and same with the men; often in the new testament men are told to respect their wives and to love them. but again, the logic behind this is often related to serve as an example of christ's love for the church, etc., etc. in 1 peter 3, the rationale seems to be for a more asthetic and example-setting reason. women are encouraged to submit to their husbands so that if their husbands are not believers they can be brought to christ through the "others-focused" interest displayed by the wife. i love the descriptions that peter chooses to describe the lifestyle of a woman who is submissive to her husband for the purpose of showing him christ: "purity," "reverence," "inner self," "unfading beauty," "gentle and quiet spirit." i like these descriptions because they go against what we are constantly shown in the world. and i guess this remains in step with what a revolutionary christ was and how non-traditional christianity is. who/what else out there strongly advises people to be pure, reverant, focused on inner self, and possessive of inner beauty and a gentle and quiet spirit?

now my question about the passage on women has to do with the last verse in the section (v. 6). peter closes his admonition (is that the right word?) to the women with, "you are (like sarah, the amazing wife of abraham) if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." i can understand the "do right" part, but i fail to see the connection between all peter's instructions and the "give way to fear" part. what does fear have to do with anything? what are the women fearing and what does that have to do with submission? is there a negative physical consequence to their being submissive to their husbands? i can see submission as an annoyance or too much work or something like that, but i usually don't fear too much work, i just strongly dislike it. i read a bit and it has been speculated that peter was directing this comment to one specific woman that had become a christian and had turned from her previous lifestyle even though her husband had not. having now a fundamentally different way of life than his wife, it is possible that he was persecuting and/or physically abusing her because of their growing differences. in that case, i guess it makes sense that peter was using the ideas of submission and fear in the same sentence.

now for the men. peter encourages men to be considerate to women and treat them with respect as the "weaker partner" and co-heirs of the gracious gift of life. he concludes his advice to them in this way "so that nothing will hinder (their) prayers." i like this because prayers are our way of communicating with god. prayers are the reinforcement and strengthening of a relationship. in other words, peter is asking how can your relationship with god be proper if your relationship with other human beings is not in order?

i have more thoughts on peter's words but i will have to save that for a different post as this one is getting too long.

later.

capital punishment for deceit - ananias and sapphira

In the first eleven verses of acts 5, i am told the story of ananias and sapphira, who fell dead when it was discovered that they did not turn in all of their money after selling their land. i guess i should clarify that i know it was not because they withheld some money that they died, but because they were deceitful. but still, i have some questions:

1. was there a rule that said one had to give all their money from the sale of property?
2. why was death the consequence?
3. how did the church continue to exist after this instance? verse 11 says that "great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." would i have been running for the hills?
4. who were ananias and sapphira? what was their background?
5. wasn't capital punishment more a characteristic of the god of the old testament?

i read some online commentary that said the story of ananias and sapphira is analogous to the story of achan after the battle of jericho for two reasons: 1. both situations impeded the progress that god was trying to make with his people, and 2. both dealt in dishonesty that made a mockery of the holy spirit and god's omniscience. i can certainly see both those angles, but don't humans do that daily? (i mean, i don't, but i assume everyone else must :-) where is the consistency? dare i ask for consistency?

acts 5 is really cool and there are so many more things i could comment on aside from ananias and sapphira. what a great collection of statements, characters, and events.

abuch out.

food for thought

hola blog amigo. i know it's been a long time since i rapped at ya, but for some reason, i just haven't had the capability to write for a long time. i've been reading but no questions or thoughts have come up and i hate the thought of forcing thought. but alas, today i have come up with some stuff. i read three different passages today in preparation for a special church service we have tonight and i came up with some discussion questions for each of the three passages. since these discussion questions have to pass the litmus test of being presentable to a church congregation, i think they are more than suitable for a personal, online blog. they are honest questions and, although they very well may not inspire any discussion or stimulated brain activity - "higher-order thought" those in the world of education might say - at church, they are certainly topics with which i deal and wish to get some legitimate answers to on my own or through the participation of others.

psalm 4:2
"how long, oh men, will you turn my glory into shame?"
1. what is god's glory?
2. god is accusing men of turning his glory into shame by loving delusions and seeking false gods - how are we doing this?
3. what are some specific ways we can fix the problem on our end?

matthew 5:16
". . . let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven."
1. what does this mean to you?
- how are the good deeds of a christian any more likely to bring glory to christ than the good deeds of a non-christian? (in other words, christians and non-christians alike do things like ring the salvation army bell and act politely to their neighbor)
2. _agree or disagree:_ we may never know if people praise our "father in heaven" as a result of seeing our good deeds, but that should not stop us from just letting our light shine before men anyway; all we have to worry about is letting our light shine through good deeds.

philipians 2:15
"do everything without complaining or arguing so that you may become blameless and pure, children of god without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe . . ."
1. what does verse this mean to you?
2. certainly, we can pick up the newspaper and find a very clear rationale for labeling this world and our generation "crooked and depraved" but many times the world seems normal to us, such as at work, school, out and about, etc. how can we shine like stars in the universe and live such a contrasting life when our neighbors and coworkers can seem so regular and in pursuit of the same reasonable things we are? (e.g. safety, some property, stability, etc.)
3. _slightly-off-topic-but-suddenly-pertinent-question:_ do you think the devil works to convolute the potential messages in this passages (and the others) or otherwise make it less effective? if so, how? does he play with our emotions, our thought-process, our situations? what do you think about this?

what do miracles say about people?

John 2:1-11

in these verses, the story is told of jesus turning water into wine. i think it is interesting the way jesus' mom approaches him. it is almost as if she is expecting him to do something or wants him to do something. even though jesus is reluctant to get involved, she even readies the servants by telling them, "do whatever (jesus) tells you" as though she knows something cool could happen at any time. my question is, how does she know this? granted, she has lived with jesus or known him like a mother for the past 30 years, but the bible tells us that jesus had never performed any miraculous signs before this event. a couple of ideas come to mind: perhaps jesus had done some small supernatural things around the house while growing up, or maybe his mom was very aware of his potential given her experience with a virgin birth and knew that he had it in him. or, maybe she hassled him all the time to perform a miracle and this is just the first time it is recorded. i sometimes wonder if mary had been growing impatient waiting for jesus to start living up to his miraculous birth and justifying all the trouble and ridicule she had undertaken in order to participate in his birth. now that i think about it, the three situations that come to mind involving mary and jesus up to this point (the virgin birth, his getting lost in the temple, and this water-into-wine miracle) all seem to place some real stress on mary. maybe this miracle is a real lesson about mary and her position. anyway, this is all speculation, but i suppose it's worth at least a brief chat.

what i really enjoy is the insight of dave/the apostle john (usefulbreath). john concludes the testimony by saying that, in doing this miracle, jesus revealed his glory and his disciples put their faith in him. nobody knew that a miracle had occurred except for jesus, mary, the servants, and jesus' disciples. this was an important step to jesus' ministry. it also serves as a good guideline for following other miracles. when reading and thinking on them, i can ask myself, "what does this miracle reveal to me about jesus' glory?" and "what is this miracle causing me to believe about jesus?" hmmmm, it is tough to find answers to these questions on the spot, so i asked my wife, and now i agree with her. she says that this story emphasizes jesus' love for people. they were participating in a big celebration and the lack of wine meant imminent doom for the party host. in turning water into wine, jesus let the good times roll. very few people knew that a miracle had occurred, but everyone knew they were still having a good time and drinking very good wine.

finally, one slightly off-topic question. the gospel of john records jesus' recruitment of the disciples a bit differently than do the other three gospels. specifically, i suppose i am referring to peter. in john, we are told that andrew meets jesus and then introduces peter to jesus, but in the other three gospels we are told that jesus calls out to peter in the fishing boat and peter drops what he is doing to follow jesus. this variation of meetings confuses me with regard to the timeline of jesus' miracles. if there were disciples present at the wedding where jesus turned water into wine, then it doesn't seem like this could have been his first miracle, because the book of luke tells of situations where jesus performs miracles prior to the calling of his first disciples. what is the straight story here?

later.

How did we not see this coming?

i started reading daniel 2 today, which I know is an important one for end-times gurus and prophecy buffs, but while i was reading it, i got concerned about a quirk i noticed in nebuchadnezzar's behavior. namely, in one minute he goes from executing his closest advisers because they aren't doing a good job of interpreting his dreams (which i can understand, because, really what dictator doesn't go through worry like that?) to all of a sudden deciding to hear out one last wise man (daniel) and subsequently praising daniel's god and promoting daniel and his friends. when i read this, i suspected that this type of behavior swing might be a little extreme. the king doesn't seem to take moderate action.

so, i read a bit more. i don't know how long it was after nebuchadnezzar had praised god in 2:47, and promoted shadrach, meshach, and abednego, but starting chapter 3, he decides to build an image and throw in a fiery furnace those who would not bow to it. again, to me it sounds like this guy is on the edge of insanity - no, not on the edge, but completely ensconced. why such extreme measures? so he ends up throwing shadrach, meshach, and abednego into the furnace. of course, they don't die and in 3:28, nebuchadnezzar is once again praising their god (the same one he was praising in chapter 2). he then decrees that anyone who says anything against their god will face death. i also read in some jewish literature that nebuchadnezzar then executed the 600,000 jews who were not pious like shadrach, meshach, and abednego and actually did bow down to the statue. what makes people behave this way? he then promotes the three friends again.

in chapter 4, daniel clarifies yet another dream for the king. this one is not good news, and, in fact, it indicates that nebuchadnezzar will indeed go insane if he doesn't change his ways and "be kind to the oppressed." one year later, nebuchadnezzar is out walking on his palace roof when the lord tells him he will be exiled from his kingdom out to the wilderness where he will eat grass cattle and his hair and nails will grow long. for seven years, he lives like this (lycanthropy) before his sanity is restored and he comes back glorifying the god of daniel.

while it is amusing to plot the behavioral antics of a crazed killer, it also seems like nebuchadnezzar forgot things a lot. i was reading "the screwtape letters" recently and among the amazing dialogue in that book is a portion in the very beginning where screwtape tells his nephew to always keep his subjects focused on the "stream of immediate sense experiences," and all the distractions of "real life" such as a passing bus or the shouting paper boy on the corner in order to keep the subject from thinking on further things like reality and truth and answers. something like this must be what keeps nebuchadnezzar so forgetful of the way he praises the lord after a miracle occurs. i imagine that people in power are some of the most susceptible to this "screwtape letters" way of thinking because they have so much going on, but i wonder about the times in my life when i forget how much i was just in love with the lord. when am i too preoccupied with the ordinariness of things to remember my commitment to christ? i don't have power over much, but i'm sure i still exhibit some of the habitual forgetfulness of nebuchadnezzar. i reckon i should probably quit this blog right now and pray.

later.

ezekiel and babylonian exile

Today, in line with useful breath, i read ezekiel 1. actually, i read the first 5 chapters of ezekiel and i gotta say - i'm not too moved. the section is pretty weird. ezekiel the prophet is called to do a lot of strange things . god has him lying on his left side for 390 days, on his right side for 40 days, laying symbolic siege against the city of jerusalem, baking cakes using the heat of burning excrement, cutting off the hair from his head and dividing it into fractions . . . all sorts of odd, cryptic stuff. ezekiel sounds a crazy homeless guyand i'm sure i'll be surprised if the israelites end up taking him seriously enough to change their ways.

the thing that strikes me in all this, though, is how god has a lot of disdain for the children of israel. he describes them with terms such as "hardened," "obstinate," various forms of the word "rebellious," "stubborn," and "in revolt." god classifies them as a "rebellious house" or "rebellious nation" seven times in the first 3 chapters alone! the part where god's displeasure with israel really seems to hit a high note is in 5:6-17. he says that israel has achieved lower standards than even the evil nations around her. that sounds pretty bad; what could they have done that was so bad that even the pagan neighboring nations were better-behaved? the lord goes on to say that he will bring death to israel through many means: famine, plague, sword, wild beasts, etc. israel has definitely fallen out of favor with god by the time ezekiel comes on the scene.

anyway, like i said, i don't really have much to comment on or question in these 5 chapters of ezekiel. it seems pretty straightforward: israel has sunk to new lows, god is pretty upset, am i stubborn like the israelites, and so on. but reading this and other old testament material raises one question that pertains more generically to the people of that time -- were there ever people who just weren't that spiritual back then? it seems like whether or not people were following yahweh, they were still extremely spiritual or superstitious or religious or whatever you want to call it. today we have a lot of people that just aren't too concerned about things like faith and spirituality. many people today are pretty bland about things spiritual things even to the extent that they who wouldn't even bother to take on the initiative or formality of calling themselves an agnostic or atheist. (even an atheist has staked his claim, right?). reading the old testament, it seems like everybody held some sort of faith in the spiritual realm, but i really wonder if there were people back then who were just like a lot of people out there today: blithely ambivalent about a spiritual element. hmmmmmmm.

later.

You got my back, huh?

recently, i've been watching episodes of this show "the wire" and there are numerous occasions in it where the cops fall through on their end of a bargain to help out informants, little kids, and other people they pledge to support. the last episode i watched ended with this one kid - an arson victim in a hospital - shouting sarcastically down the hall to the cop, "you got my back, huh? you got my back, right?" (or something to that effect. i reference urbandictionary.com a lot when i watch that show). so, today i read this particular chapter in deuteronomy that features a loosely-drawn tie to the theme and, subsequently, have aptly titled this journal entry with a line from last night's wire. the first chapter of deuteronomy is 46 verses long and it is a historical retelling of the struggles of the israelites to take the lands that god had set aside for them under the direction of moses. this is one of the classic stories where israel is intimidated by their much larger, more numerous enemies and they shy away from battle rather than place their confidence in god.

my favorite portion of the chapter is verses 29-30: "then i said to you, 'do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them. the lord your god, who is going before you, will fight for you . . .'" i think that's really cool to hear coming from god, because it is kind of the opposite of the way he is so often construed to be: a rule-dispensing/kill-joy/stay-put-until-the-light-is-green kind of supernatural being. i have always been glad that my parents taught me not to view god that way and this verse kind of reinforces the image of god that i've been brought up to appreciate. i know that i am not the only one who faces obstacles of an intimidating nature, but my life is the only one i can speak for and, that said, i know that i am often my own worst enemy. the israelites had plenty of legitimate reasons to not go forward and many people will tell you that it is one can always find reasons to not do something. it is comforting to know that god is supportive of me and that when i am following him he will be going before me and that i have nothing to fear.

i've never really taken seriously that custom people have of making new year's resolutions and i've never felt the need to do it myself. maybe it's because i've worked at too many downtown bars and restaurants on new years eve or because i'm absolutely bemused by the longevity of dick clark (click here or here) and the uselessness of ryan seacrest. maybe it's because i've never had any big dreams, or - more subtly - if i've not wanted to fail. but for some reason, lately i've been seeing the idea of setting goals as a real big first step to accomplishing certain things that i might have otherwise found out of range. so, i've made a few small goals that mostly deal in the short-term (1 year or less) and occupy places in a variety of aspects of my life. this encouragement from the lord found in deuteronomy 1 is a cool affirmation to to go for it. i suppose we'll see what happens.

abuch out.

The Situation Room

Hola amigo blog. I know it's been a long time since i rapped at ya, but the crashing waves have been fast and furious on lake andy (what does that even mean?). Anyway, in my previous post, i mentioned an interest in exploring the story of the children of israel. my interest has not waned, nor have i totally neglected reading the old testament, it's just that to combine the reading i have done with supplemental research of rabbinical and historical commentary has proven to be more time-consuming than i had planned. in short, i have not been reading like i had wanted, either from the old testament or from complementary material that's out there. today, i'm going to try and put something down.

I read II Chronicles 32, the story of Hezekiah's resistance to the Assyrian Empire. It is an interesting story for a number of reasons. first, i have read about the assyrian empire before and they were one of six major empires of the land between the rule of the Egyptians and the rule of the Romans. (Egyptians, assyrians, babylonians, persians, greeks, romans [mnemonic device: Eat At Bob's, Pasadena's Great Restaurant]). They dominated the region at the decline of the egyptians during the years between the 9th and 7th centuries bc. so, to me it is interesting to read about a king of a lowly, little group of people who stood up to a dynasty with power probably equivalent to that of the romans, greeks or egyptians.

second, hezekiah was a very close follower of god. i read that his name means either "strengthened by yaweh" or "he who made a firm alliance between the israelites and yaweh." when the general of the assyrian army (sennacherib) sent the israelites a letter proposing either the surrender of jerusalem or its hostile takeover, while also pointing out that the gods of other peoples had not protected them, hezekiah, for some reason, declined the general's offer and instead consulted the lord. what confidence this must have taken! i particularly enjoy verses 7-8 where hezekiah tells the people of jerusalem, "be strong and courageous. do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. with him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the lord our god to help us and to fight our battles."

i wonder if, as a leader, hezekiah was faking it a bit. in other words, leaders of companies, or nations, or households often have to be the ones to be excited about certain policies in order to encourage others (e.g. steve jobs and the macbook air). i imagine that sometimes this takes some fake enthusiasm. despite his proclamation to the children of israel, i'm sure hezekiah must have been plagued with doubts, as we all are, and was fearful for his own survival and for that of his people at the hands of an infinitely greater army. i also wonder how many citizens of jerusalem were outwardly critical of hezekiah's choices once they heard the rationale (see: propaganda) of sennacherib. i wonder how often my skepticism gets in the way of trusting god to guide me through various choices i have to make.

some verses that this passage helps me to recall:
- "seek ye first the kingdom of god and his righteousness and all these things will be added unto you." - matthew 6:33
- "trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight" - proverbs 3:5-6

abuch out.