Preaching to the spirits in prison.

1 Peter 3.19-22.

Today’s passage confuses Christians because it refers to Jewish mythology, and most Christians know nothing about Jewish mythology. (Nor Jewish history, nor the Old Testament, but that’s a whole other—and far more important—issue.) Simon Peter grew up hearing about Jewish mythology, and the people who read his letter likely heard of it too, so they knew what he was talking about. Us, not so much.

Problem is, not all the ancient Christians knew of it. Gentiles hadn’t. Gentiles knew pagan mythology; they grew up in pagan culture, so they knew the stories of Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, Hades, and Zeus’s half-human, half-divine offspring like Perseus and Herakles. They also knew how to make up mythology… and that’s what they did with this passage. This is where several popular Christian myths come from.

One of the most popular is “the harrowing of hell,” as some Christians call it. It’s a story about how Jesus, after he died but before he was resurrected, went into the “prison” of the afterlife, and preached the gospel to “the spirits in prison.” Apparently the Old Testament saints were there, like Jesus’s ancestors Abraham and David; apparently, because Jesus hadn’t yet died for the sins of humanity, they had to be there, to suffer for their sins. But now Jesus had died for them. And once these saints eagerly accepted Jesus as Lord (’cause of course they would; everybody the ancient Christians considered a hero of the faith would) he freed them from prison, and took ’em with him to heaven. So they’re in heaven now. It’s why Orthodox Christians now call them saints (i.e. St. Abraham, St. David) although for some odd reason, even though they do believe these guys are in heaven now, Roman Catholics don’t.

Yeah, you’ve probably heard the “harrowing of hell” story, in one form or another. Doesn’t come from bible. Doesn’t come from this passage either, although many a Christian has pointed to it and claimed our myth is based on it. Nope; this passage isn’t about our myth; it’s about the Jews’ myth.

I’ll quote the passage first, then get to the myth.

1 Peter 3.19-22 KWL

19The One going to the spirits in prison

also preaches by the Spirit

20to those who’d been disobedient

when, in Noah’s days,

God’s patience was eagerly awaiting

the box’s preparation,

in which few—eight lives, that is—

escaped through water.

21Which now corresponds to you² also—

how baptism saves.

Not by removing dirt from flesh,

but a response to God,

in good conscience;

through Christ Jesus’s resurrection,

22who is at God’s right hand,

gone to heaven,

angels, authorities, and powers

submitted to him.

Good behavior is part of our ready defense.

1 Peter 3.15-18.

As I said in my previous piece on 1 Peter 3.15, Christian apologists love this verse because they figure it justifies everything they do to “defend” Christianity by arguing in its favor. Nevermind the fact argumentativeness is a work of the flesh; they’re doing it for Jesus, so that makes it righteous.

But when we keep reading 1 Peter 3, you’ll notice it’s not to be done argumentatively. We’re to keep things civil. Respectful. Gentle—with our emotions in check, because it’s a proper fruit of the Spirit, and actually righteous.

We’re not to resort to the misbehavior of fleshly Christians and pagans, who care far more about winning than behaving themselves and being truthful. They’re gonna violate their consciences, ’cause they’re willing to do what they know is the wrong thing—manipulate and cherry-pick data, try to get one’s emotions to override facts, insist their opponents listen to them instead of listening to the Spirit. Roman rhetoricians did all that stuff when they debated, because they sought to win no matter what. But it does matter how we defend ourselves. Still gotta avoid fraud, untruth, anger, and sin.

And if we’ve done that, our opponents can’t point to our misbehavior and use it to justify dismissing us. See?—goodness has its advantages. As Simon Peter pointed out.

1 Peter 3.15-18 KWL

15Sanctify Christ the Lord in your² minds,

always ready with a defense

for everyone who asks you² for a word

about the hope in you.

16But do it with gentleness and respect,

having a good conscience,

so when you’re² spoken about,

those who verbally abuse your² good lifestyle

might be disgraced.

17For, God willing, doing good is better

than to suffer for evildoing,

18because Christ Jesus once also suffered for sins—

the just for the unjust—

so that he could bring us to God,

putting us to death in the flesh

and making us alive in the Spirit.

Be good to one another.

1 Peter 3.8-15.

Simon Peter starts today’s passage with τὸ τέλος/to télos, “The last [thing],” but there’s two more chapters in his letter. How is this his last thing? Well it’s the last of his instructions to his readers about how we oughta live as Christians.

Scholars call these types of instruction “household codes,” but they’re not properly codes—meaning a list of laws one has to live under—so much as the right attitudes one should have when living under a patriarchal environment. You remember Peter began by addressing how people should live under Roman government, then how slaves and servants oughta be, then how wives and husbands oughta be. Some of these “household codes” also include instructions to the children of the family, but Peter doesn’t do that. Paul does. Ep 6.1-3, Cl 3.20

So this’d be the last part of Peter’s code—how Christians in general oughta be with one another.

1 Peter 3.8-15 KWL

8The last thing:

Everyone ought to be united,

sympathetic, loving one’s family,

compassionate, humble-minded.

9Not returning evil for evil,

nor insult for insult.

On the contrary, blessing,

because you’re² called for this reason—

so you² might inherit a blessing.

10For “One wanting to love life,

and to see good days:

Stop the tongue from evil,

and the lips from speaking deceit.

11Turn away from evil. Do good.

Seek peace and pursue it.

12Because the Lord’s eyes are on the right-minded,

and his ears are for their request,

and the Lord’s face is on evildoers.” Ps 34.12-16

13When you² become zealous to do good,

who will harm you²?

14But if you suffer for righteousness,

you’re awesome.

“Don’t be afraid of their fear,

nor should you² be bothered.” Is 8.12

15Sanctify Christ the Lord in your² minds,

always ready with a defense

for everyone who asks you² for a word

about the hope in you.

“Wives, be subject to your husbands.”

1 Peter 3.1-7.

Just after Simon Peter addresses how household servants oughta live under difficult masters, next he deals with how wives oughta live under difficult husbands. And again, he’s speaking to people in a different culture, in the Roman Empire, where women lacked rights and couldn’t always escape their tyrannical spouses. They’d be suffering in the very same way a slave would under a despotic master. Does God care about them too, and have grace for them too? Of course he does.

And of course tyrannical spouses misuse this passage, and claim it justifies all their evil. It does not. Plenty of other scriptures warn ’em God doesn’t approve. Peter warns ’em too, in verse 7. In no way does any part of this passage negate those other passages, and in no way should you trust any pastor who suggests otherwise.

1 Peter 3.1-7 KWL

1Likewise you² women submitting

to your² own men

—and if a certain man doesn’t obey the word,

perhaps they’ll be won over without the word

through the lifestyle of their women,

2seeing their holy lifestyle

in fear.

3About them:

Don’t be externally like the world—

with elaborately braided hair,

decorated with gold,

or dressing in conspicuous clothing.

4Instead be like a private, thoughtful person,

looking into the incorruptible things

of a gentle, quiet spirit,

who is precious in God’s sight.

5For holy women who hope in God

lived this way at some point,

arranging themselves in submission

to their own men,

6like Sarah listened to Abraham

and calls him Master.

You² who do good deeds are her daughters,

and aren’t afraid of anything startling.

7You² men likewise—

living with your² women

with the understanding

that they’re like a weak utensil;

showing them honor

like they’re your² fellow heirs of living grace

—lest your² prayers be cut off.

I should remind you: Most bibles tend to translate women and men (Greek γυναῖκες/yinékes and ἄνδρες/ándres) as “wives” and “husbands.” Contextually, that’s usually what the New Testament authors meant. But not always. A patriarch was responsible for all the women of his house, whether they were married to him or not; this’d include unmarried sisters and daughters, widowed mothers-in-law, and any other family members under his protection, and of course household servants and slaves. They’d also be “his” women—and for the women, he’d be “their” man. They wouldn’t be married; they’d be in no sexual relationship (or at least they really ought not be!) but as the ruler of the family, they were expected to heed his authority and wisdom, and he was expected to take them into consideration and not act unilaterally. Did they always do this? Nah. Hence Peter’s need to remind ’em to do so.

Like most people dictating their letters, Peter uses some run-on sentences, out-of-place clauses, and forgets to use verbs. Makes translation and interpretation tricky—but not impossible! What he’s basically saying is: Christian women, be a good devout example for your crummy men. They may not listen to God’s word, but maybe despite this, they’ll listen to you; they’ll respect you, and be won over by your Christlike behavior. Hey, it’s been known to happen!

“Servants, be subject to your masters.”

1 Peter 2.18-25.

So here’s a passage which has been regularly misinterpreted and abused by people who want employees, subordinates, “servants,” and slaves to unquestioningly obey their masters. Whenever they wanted a proof text that’d get people to shut up and permit their own exploitation, they’d quote 1 Peter, and claim Simon Peter endorses their despotism. After all, the word the KJV translates “master” in verse 18 is literally δεσπόταις/despótes… so apparently Peter was fully aware these people were living under tyrants, and it was okay with him.

It wasn’t, and I’ll explain. First, the passage.

1 Peter 2.18-25 KWL

18Those of a household submitting

in all fear, to the boss—

not only to the good and reasonable bosses,

but also the crooked ones—

19this receives grace,

if it’s because of an awareness of God

when someone who is wrongfully suffering

undergoes grief.

20For how is it glory

if sinners will undergo being beaten?

But if do-gooders will undergo suffering,

this receives grace from God.

21For this is why you² are called;

for Christ also suffers for you² all,

leaving you² an example

so you² might follow his steps—

22Christ who “doesn’t sin,

nor is deceit found in his mouth.” Is 53.9

23Christ who, being disrespected, doesn’t disrespect back;

suffering, doesn’t threaten back;

he yields to the Righteous Judge.

24Christ who “bears our sins himself,” Is 53.4

in his body, on the wooden cross,

so people, dying to our sins,

might live for righteousness.

“You’re² cured by his wounds.” Is 53.5

25You’re² “like straying sheep,” Is 53.6

but now you² return to the shepherd,

and the supervisor of your² souls.

We have to remember there’s a cultural context Simon Peter is dealing with. He didn’t write to the 21st-century United States; and if you’re not from the States he didn’t write to you either. His letter was for first-century eastern Romans. These people practiced a form of patriarchy—the paterfamilias, the head of the family, functioned like the king of the family, and largely had the power of life and death over everyone in it.

Obviously this includes slaves, but you might not be aware it also includes kids: Roman fathers could kill their children. Yes, this includes their adult children. Not for just any reason; he had to justify it to Roman society, but there were many reasons Romans would consider totally valid, such as defying or shaming one’s parents. Yep: Embarrass your dad, and he might have you whacked.

If you’ve ever seen movies and TV about Italian organized crime, like The Godfather or The Sopranos, there are a lot of similarities; these mobsters like to imagine themselves as modern-day Romans, and deliberately mimic Roman patriarchy. So, much like you can’t easily extract yourself from a mob entanglement, it was extremely hard to get out from under a Roman patriarch.

Don’t needlessly provoke your government.

1 Peter 2.13-17.

First I wanna remind you Simon Peter, when commanded by the Judean senate to shut up about Christ Jesus and how they had him killed, informed them, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Ac 5.29 KJV Then two decades later, he wrote the following passage in 1 Peter:

1 Peter 2.13-17 KWL

13{So} submit yourselves² to every human institution,

because of the Master—

whether to kings,

to authority figures like kings;

14whether to leaders,

to agents sent by them to punish evildoers

and to praise those who do good.

15For this is God’s will:

Those who do good are to silence

the ignorance of foolish people.

16Be like freemen—

not like those looking for an excuse for evil,

but like God’s slaves.

17Treat everyone with respect.

Love the Christian brotherhood.

Reverently fear God.

Respect the king.

There are two ways I’ve seen people tackle this passage. More often it’s the folks who insist, “This passage tells us to obey our leaders, our institutions, and our elders”—and never notice this therefore creates a massive discrepancy between the Simon Peter who write this, and the Simon Peter who stood up to the Judean senate and told them he couldn’t obey them. I’ve pointed this out to these people, and it makes ’em hem and haw for a minute, as they’re desperately trying to think up a quick ’n dirty way out of this new bible difficulty I’ve presented them. Relax; it’s not a bible difficulty. They’re just interpreting 1 Peter wrong.

Then there are the folks who ignore it entirely. Most of ’em haven’t even read the letters of Simon Peter, though they will quote ’em to proof-text their favorite End Times beliefs. They might know this passage, but they hand-wave it away, and do as they please—and don’t respect human institutions. Don’t respect the government. Don’t respect federal and state agents, don’t respect cops and the military, don’t respect elected representatives. To them, government is bad, and anyone who works for the government is bad. And they might believe this for religious reasons—iike certain Mennonites, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Nation of Islam, who believe human governments are forms of treason against God’s kingdom and Jesus’s reign. (Well, not the Muslims, who believe Jesus doesn’t reign till his second coming.) But most of the folks I know, believe this for libertarian reasons: Human governments are usurpations of their reign. They believe they are sovereign, and answer to no one.

Neither of them is correct. Neither misinterpretation, nor no interpretation, is the way to go. The ancient biblical worldview is that God rules all… but God allows humans to set up our own little kingdoms for the sake of law and order. and approves of them when we do right, and doesn’t approve—and sometimes intervenes, and has ’em overthrown—when we don’t. And, contrary to Christian nationalists, God doesn’t need them to be Christian or Israeli to get his approval. You do realize every human government outside of ancient Israel was neither Christian nor Israeli?—and that most governments on earth today are neither? But if they’re just, and stop evildoers from murder and theft and exploiting the weak, God’s usually okay with them. Someday Jesus will overthrow them all, but for now, they can do their thing.

The Roman Empire and Judean senate of Peter’s day were none of those things, and the United States federal government of our day is none of those things. God help us all. But that’s the proper historical context of this scripture. We gotta take that into consideration when we interpret it. Peter’s not writing about obeying a righteous government, nor only obeying a righteous government, nor obeying an unrighteous pagan government. But we do have to take our governments into consideration when we live under them. And that, not blind obedience, is what submission is actually about.

The new people of God.

1 Peter 2.9-12.

Passages like the section of 1 Peter I’m analyzing today, tend to get quoted by people who wanna preach replacement theology, the belief Israel is no longer God’s chosen people, ’cause he ditched them because they rejected their Messiah. It’s not a belief consistent with the scriptures, ’cause God never ditched ancient Israel. He may have let the Assyrians and Babylonians conquer them, but he stuck with them regardless. Yes, after they rejected Jesus, he let the Romans conquer them. Yet he still hasn’t ditched them. Still wants to save them. Still wants to be their God, and they his people.

But—so long that we continue to abide in Christ, y’know, Jn 15.4 God also considers us Christians his people. A new people, bonded to him by his new covenant. Simon Peter applies some of the covenant-language of the Old Testament, previously applied to Israel, to us Christians. Not because those Old Testament passages were prophesying about Christendom; they weren’t. They’re absolutely about ancient Israel. But when we come out of the darkness and into God’s light, we become like ancient Israel, and discover our relationship with God looks like everything he promised their relationship with him coulda been—and could still be!—had they only followed him.

1 Peter 2.9-12 KWL

9All of you² “chosen generation,” Is 43.20

you² “kingdom of priests

and holy nation,” Ex 19.6

you* “people I preserve” Is 43.21

exist so the virtues might be made known

of the One calling you² out of darkness

into his wonderful light.

10 Previously not a people,

and now God’s people.

Previously not shown grace,

and now you² were shown grace.

11Beloved, I encourage you² all,

like foreigners and refugees,

to stay away from fleshly desires—

whatever wages war with the soul—

12having your² way of life among the gentiles

be better so that,

though they speak ill of you² like criminals,

yet still seeing your² good deeds,

might glorify God on Judgment Day.

There are a lot of similarities between Christians and the ancient Hebrews. Previously they lived in darkness; they weren’t really a people-group; they were slaves in Egypt until the LORD rescued them. Christians, in comparison, before we turned to Jesus, were slaves to sin. God had to rescue us, same as he rescued the Hebrews—and wants to lead us towards a glorious destiny, same as he intended for the Hebrews.

If only we’d continue to follow him. Too many of us really don’t, give in to our fleshly desires, 1Pe 2.11 and hypocritically pretend that’s okay; we’ve got grace now! That’s gonna have consequences. Peter doesn’t get into that, but I remind you to learn the lesson from Israel’s bad example. There but for God’s grace go we.

Peter writes of Jesus our rock.

1 Peter 2.1-8.

Simon bar Jonah’s nickname ܟ݂ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ/Kifá (Greek Κηφᾶς/Kifás, “Cephas”) comes from the Syriac and Hebrew word for rock. Jesus even uses a little wordplay with it: “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” Mt 16.18 KJV The name “Peter” is from the Greek translation of his nickname, Πέτρος/Pétros, which also means rock.

Some Christians claim Peter’s name actually means “pebble.” The more common word for rock in ancient Greek is πέτρα/pétra (yes, like the Christian band), and supposedly the masculine form of this word, pétros means a small rock, while a pétra is more of a boulder-sized one. I don’t now who invented this story, but it’s rubbish; both words mean rock. Besides, Jesus spoke Syriac and gave Simon a Syriac nickname, and Kifá means rock. Jn 1.42 That’s that.

No we don’t know why Jesus gave him that name. Some Christians speculate it’s because—and only because—of Jesus’s line about building his church upon Peter. Other guesses come from all the reasons we’d name somebody “Rock,” or refer to them as “my rock”—they’re big and strong, or they’re stable individuals. Peter wasn’t all that stable when he first followed Jesus, but Christians imagine that’s just because he was young; he grew into that. Maybe so. Again, lots of speculation.

Interestingly, in today’s passage of Peter’s first letter, we see Peter write about how Jesus is his rock. And of course ours.

1 Peter 2.1-8 KWL

1So be rid of every evil,

every trick, hypocrisy, and jealousy,

every evil talk;

2crave reasonable, pure milk

like newborn infants,

so by it you² might grow into salvation,

3if you² taste that the Master is gracious.

4Come to the Master,

a valuable living stone

which was rejected by people

and elected by God,

5Like living stones yourselves²,

you’re² being built into a Spirit-led house,

into a holy priesthood

to offer Spirit-led sacrifices

received by God through Christ Jesus.

6For this reason this is in the scripture:

“Look, I put a stone in Zion,

a valuable, chosen cornerstone.

One who believes in him

ought not be ashamed.” Is 28.16

7So, value to you² who believe.

To unbelievers, “the stone the builders reject:

This becomes the foundation stone,” Ps 118.22

8and “a stumbling block,

an offending rock.” Is 8.14

The apostle Peter and the prophet Isaiah.

1 Peter 1.22-25, Isaiah 40.6-8.

Simon Peter, in his first letter, is addressing Jewish Christians (and obviously any gentiles who worship along with them) scattered throughout what’s now northern Türkiye. His first chapter mainly greets them, reminds them what Christ Jesus does for them, and in today’s passage he commends them for being good Christians—for legitimately loving one another. And throws in an Isaiah quote while he’s at it.

Here’s the passage:

1 Peter 1.22-25 KWL

22You² purified your² souls

by obeying the truth,

in brotherly love—

not insincere,

and out of a pure heart.

Fervently love one another!

23—you² who were born again,

not from corruptible seed

but incorruptible,

through God’s living, abiding word,

24 for “All flesh is like hay,

and all its glory, like a hayflower.

Hay dries.

A flower falls off.

25The Lord’s word

abides in the age to come.” Is 40.6-8

This is the word

evangelized to you² all.

And here’s the Isaiah passage Peter quotes. It comes right after the “voice in the wilderness calls out, ‘Clear the way for the LORD’” part Is 40.3-5 which John the baptist quoted. It’s a passage about the coming of God’s kingdom.

Isaiah 40.6-8 KWL

6There’s a voice saying, “Call out!”

and he says, “What am I calling out?”

“All the flesh is grass.

All its love is like a flower in the field.

7Grass withers.

A flower wilts when the LORD’s wind blows on it.

Certainly ‘grass’ describes the people.

8Grass withers and a flower wilts;

our God’s word stands, for eternity.”

There’s a little wordplay going on in Isaiah when God (who has the red-letter parts) says a flower wilts “when the LORD’s wind blows on it”—the word for wind, יְהוָ֖ה/ruákh, can also mean “spirit,” and the LORD’s Spirit is of course the Holy Spirit. The Spirit could wither a person if he so chooses, but this passage isn’t about judgment; it’s about God’s דְבַר/devár, “word,” which both the Septuagint and Peter translates as ῥῆμα/ríma, “word”—the messages he gave Moses and the prophets—standing until עוֹלָֽם/olám, the vanishing point, till we can’t see any further; basically forever.

The meaningless lifestyle of heritage.

1 Peter 1.17-21.

One of the odd things about Christianity is we’re meant to follow Jesus… but nearly every Christian, and nearly all our churches, act like we’re meant to follow Christian tradition.

I’m not knocking Christian tradition… well okay, I’m not knocking certain Christian traditions. There’s a whole lot of good stuff we’ve been given by previous generations of devout followers of Jesus. They made an effort to get to know our Lord, taught a lot of useful lessons, and gave us a lot of practical stuff we can use so we can get to know our Lord. Why reinvent the wheel when we pretty much have a forest of wheels available?

But of course too many Christians would have us fixate on the stuff instead of Jesus himself. Because we can manipulate the stuff. But Jesus doesn’t bend.

The ancients had a similar problem: Lots of traditions they inherited from their forebears. You had Pharisees, the devout Jews who established synagogues wherever they could throughout the Roman Empire—which the apostles regularly visited so they could tell the Jews about their Messiah, Jesus, and how his kingdom has come near. You also had Greco-Roman pagans (or in Africa, Greco-Egyptian pagans) who had their own national myths, which claimed they were a great people with great gods, and you’d better follow those gods lest they be displeased.

You have all these people-groups with all these great heritages. And Jesus disrupts all of that, and tells us nope; now we’re his people. Ditch that ethnic pride; his kingdom is multiethnic and excludes no one. Ditch that “noble history” …which, let’s be honest, consists of a lot of fabrications, mythology, and whitewashing. (True, the Old Testament tells ancient Israel’s story, warts ’n all, but if you ever read Flavius Josephus’s Antiquities, you can see a bunch of that whitewashing right there. Every ancient culture did that. And if you read any grade-school American history textbook, you’ll see we totally do it too.)

Simon Peter calls all that stuff ματαίας/mataías, “empty, profitless, meaningless.” That’s what the ancient Christians left behind. Rightly so! We’re not trying to establish a new great people, a mighty Christian nation, which needs its own traditions and myths and heritage. We point to Jesus. We just live out our lives as best we can, scattered throughout the kingdoms of this world like Diaspora Jews, and let him worry about empire-building. We just follow him.

And we beware anyone who tries to establish any “Christian kingdom” in which Jesus is not physically standing upon the earth to rule it himself.

1 Peter 1.17-21 KWL

17And if you² call upon the Father,

who impartially judges each person by their work,

behave yourselves² with reverent fear

during the time of your² sojourn—

18knowing it’s not the perishable,

not silver nor gold,

by which you² were ransomed

from your² meaningless lifestyle of “heritage,”

19but precious blood,

like an unblemished lamb;

and spotless Christ.

20Foreknown even before the world’s founding,

and made known in the last times

because of you²—

21because of believers in God,

who raised Jesus from the dead

and gives him glory

so your² belief and hope are to be in God.

Study the prophets and be holy.

1 Peter 1.10-16.

There are a few popular, but greatly mistaken, Christian beliefs which Simon Peter debunks in today’s portion of his first letter. The first is obviously that we don’t need the Old Testament ’cause we have the New; that the only things we need to study are in the New Testament, and the Old is out of date, or even nullified.

The second is that the Old Testament prophets only prophesied about the events of their day. That whenever we say, “This Old Testament passage is clearly a Messianic prophecy,” we’re taking the passage out of context, because the OT prophet was only speaking of the king of Jerusalem in his day; he wasn’t at all thinking of the Messiah to come, the King of Kings, our Lord Jesus. We’re just reading Christian beliefs and wishes into his statements, instead of looking at the author’s actual intent.

Peter reveals nope, the Old Testament prophets were speaking of Jesus… because the Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets, is the very same Spirit of Christ who empowers us. These prophets foresaw, to varying degrees, a coming Messiah whose rule would never end. They wanted to know about him; they asked the Spirit about him; they foretold him because the Spirit answered some of their questions. Yes, they were totally talking about the events of their day, and totally speaking to the people of their day, but they still foretold of Christ Jesus, and the salvation he’d bring the world.

And this, among other things, is why we need to study the Old Testament—or “the Prophets,” as Jesus and the people of his day called the portions of the bible written after the Law of Moses. You want a greater picture of who Jesus is, and what he came to earth to do? Yeah, you read the New Testament; of course. But you also look at what the Spirit said through the Old Testament prophets.

1 Peter 1.10-16 KWL

10The Prophets search for and study this salvation—

those who prophesy of the grace God grants you²,

11these investigators making clear what or when

the Spirit of Christ within them foretells

of Christ’s sufferings

and the glories after that.

12This is revealed to the prophets—

not just to themselves;

they minister these things to you².

They’re proclaimed to you²

by those who share the gospel with you

empowered by the heaven-sent Holy Spirit.

God’s messengers set their hearts

upon looking into these things.

13So buckle up your² minds,

sober up,

and trust till the end

in the grace being brought to you²

in Christ Jesus’s revelation.

14Be like obedient children,

not falling back on your² former ignorance and desires,

15but according to the holy One who calls you².

Become holy yourselves², in every way of life.

16This is why it’s written,

“You² will be holy because I am holy.” Lv 11.44

I should note: In verse 12 I translated ἄγγελοι/ángeli, which is typically translated “angels,” by its literal meaning “messengers.” Popular Christian culture likes to claim the Holy Spirit revealed the mysteries of Jesus and salvation to us Christians, but not to the angels, even though they totally yearned to know it. Thing is, there’s no legitimate biblical basis for this belief; just misinterpreted verses. In fact the angel Gabriel totally knew about these things—and Gabriel’s the one who shared some of it with the prophets Daniel, Zechariah, and Mary. This angel knew the mysteries first; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if all of ’em knew it first. After all, darn near all of them appeared to the shepherds to announce our Savior had been born.

Anyway, for this reason I’m pretty sure Peter meant any messenger of God should wanna look into these things, whether angels or humans. You should wanna know. Every Christian should! So, as Peter continues in verse 13, buckle up!

Simon Peter and the kingdom we inherit.

1 Peter 1.1-9.

Simon Peter wrote a few letters before his death under Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus in the 60s. We have two of ’em in the New Testament—one which he wrote to the Christians of what is now Türkiye, and another which he wrote to Christians in general.

Some commentators think he wrote his letters under persecution, and some think he wrote ’em before. And of course that’s seriously gonna influence the way we interpret the letter. When Peter writes about “the testing of your faith” in verse 7 of today’s passage, we’re gonna wonder whether he’s writing about the usual difficulties of daily life in a largely pagan culture… or whether he’s writing about full-on tribulation, as the Romans tried to round up people whom they thought were terrorists. Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome in 64 on them, and hunted them down like ICE hunts immigrants; to put ’em in island concentration camps like he did John, or to execute them like he eventually did Peter.

I mean, 1 Peter can be applicable in both situations—under life’s usual trials, or under a fascist purge. Most scriptures are flexible like that. But we don’t know which of the two the west Asian Christians were going through, and I’m gonna presume Peter wrote it before the persecutions… otherwise there’d be way more about persecution in the letter.

Now, some Christians insist it had to have been written during persecution, ’cause Peter talks so much about the second coming of Jesus. But that’s because Peter expected the second coming to happen in his lifetime. He was off by a few millennia, but he didn’t know that. All he knew was he was right there when Jesus got raptured into heaven, and the two men told him and the Eleven he coming back in the same way. Ac 1.11 He saw Jesus get transfigured. He knew this future kingdom of Christ is coming. He was excited about it! We should be excited about it! So this comes out in his letter. Doesn’t take persecution to bring it out of you.

1 Peter 1.1-9 KWL

1Peter, apostle of Christ Jesus,

to the “foreign” elect of the Diaspora—

of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,

Asia Minor, and Bithynia.

2By God the Father’s foreknowledge,

in the Holy Spirit’s holiness,

into obedience—

and the sprinkling of Christ Jesus’s blood—

may grace to you², and peace, multiply!

3Blessed are you God,

father of our Master, Christ Jesus.

By his great mercy he makes us born again,

into a living hope

through Christ Jesus’s resurrection from the dead.

4Born again into an inheritance,

unspoiled, untainted, unfading,

under guard in the heavens for you² all.

5And you² are guarded

by God’s power, through your faith,

for the salvation he prepared,

to be revealed in the End Time.

6In that, you² can jump for joy—

for now, briefly, it’s necessary to grieve

from our various temptations.

7Thus the testing of your² faith,

which is more precious than gold,

which perishes through fire,

might be found proven,

to the praise, glory, and honor

at the revelation of Christ Jesus.

8You² don’t see him;

you² still love him.

You² can’t look upon him just now,

and you believers still jump

for inexpressible and magnificent joy

9at receiving the outcome of your² faith:

Salvation of your² souls.

Christians in slavery.

1 Corinthians 7.21-24.

As you likely know, slavery was practiced in bible times. It was part of ancient cultures’ criminal justice systems: If you broke the law, or were on the wrong side in a war, they’d either kill you, fine you, or enslave you. They didn’t do penitentiaries; their prisons either held people for trial, or held slaves.

Occasionally people object to the scriptures, and the apostles, because they didn’t fight slavery, nor declare it sin. To a large degree they didn’t have to. Plenty of scriptures mandated that Hebrews and Christians treat slaves humanely, treat Christian slaves like Christian family, and once they’ve worked off their debts to society, grant them freedom. And American slavery demonstrated that plenty of depraved people will distort or ignore the scriptures for their evil gain, claim to be Christian nonetheless, and eagerly go to war to keep people in chains.

Roman slavery was better than American slavery, but was still rife with abuse, evil, rape, and murder. Just because it happened in the bible, and in many ways is even a biblical principle—as we’ll see in today’s passage—does not mean slavery should still exist. All the more reason we needed to abolish it, and should continue to fight slavery and human trafficking where we find it.

Anyway. The last passage of 1 Corinthians I looked at, was about how Christians—well, male Christians—oughta remain in the same state of ritual circumcision they were in when they came to Jesus. If you’re a circumcised Jew, remain one; if you’re an uncircumcised gentile, remain one. You don’t need to change for Jesus. Work with the situation you’re in.

Today: Same thing if you’re a slave or freeman.

1 Corinthians 7.21-24 KWL

21Were you a slave when God called?

Don’t you mind.

But if you’re able to become free,

behave yourself all the more!

22For a slave called by the Master

is a freeman in the Master.

Likewise a freeman called by the Master

is the Master’s slave.

23You are properly purchased.

Don’t become slaves to people.

24Each person is in the place

where they were called, fellow Christians;

remain there, with God.

If you were a slave when you became Christian, Paul and Sosthenes say, “Don’t you mind.” 1Co 7.21 Slavery doesn’t disqualify you from God’s kingdom. It definitely limits how and where you can minister; your slaveholder has to grant permission, same as the warden of a prison, the case officer of a parolee, or the parent of an undisciplined child. If your slaveholder says you can’t, you really can’t.

But at the same time: Don’t you mind. Don’t worry about it. God is fully aware of your situation, and what you can and can’t do. And he has final say, not your slaveholder.

Jewish Christians don’t need to become gentile. And vice versa.

1 Corinthians 7.18-20.

Just after Paul and Sosthenes instruct the Corinthians to not separate from their pagan spouses—unless, obviously, they demand it—they add a few more things which new Christians shouldn’t change about ourselves now that we’re Christian. Namely if they’re circumcised, and if they’re slaves. I’ll discuss the slaves another time. Circumcision first—and if you have any hangups about penises, you probably won’t wanna read any further.

1 Corinthians 7.18-20 KWL

18Were you circumcised when God called?

Don’t get a “pullover.”

Were you one of the “foreskins” when God called?

Don’t get circumcised.

19The circumcision doesn’t matter.

The foreskin doesn’t matter.

But keeping God’s commands does matter.

20In whatever calling you’re called,

remain in this.

I should remind you: Jews had an unfortunate habit of calling gentiles “foreskins,” as we see in verse 18. It was originally meant to be a slur; it still kinda is. But, same as when nonwhites call me a cracker, I’m quite sure the “foreskins” usually laughed it off. When you’re not an oppressed minority, slurs simply aren’t the same implied threat as they are when you are a minority.

Okay. I translated the word ἐπισπάσθω/epispástho in verse 18 as “pullover,” because that’s what ἐπισπάω/epispáo literally means: ἐπι/epi, “over,” and σπάω/spáo, “pull, draw, drag.” If “pullover” makes you think of what Americans call a “sweater,” that’s exactly the idea I was going for.

Nowadays if you go to the gym, people are only gonna see you nude in the locker room. But for ancient Greeks, you were nude the whole time. They exercised nude. Couldn’t get away from the nudity. Guaranteed men were gonna see your penis. And if you were circumcised, in a room full of uncircumcised Greeks, your penis was gonna look weird and wrong to everyone else. It’s not like the United States, where more than two-thirds of us are circumcised, and foreskins stand out: You were gonna stand out.

So someone came up with a procedure to “restore” one’s foreskin: Basically you pull the remaining skin of your penis over the glans as best you can, and get it to stay there. It’ll look enough like a foreskin. And yep, they called it an ἐπίσπασις/epíspasis, a “pullover.” (Although some Greek dictionaries will define epíspasis as “pulling in,” like when you suck into a straw… which is also kind of an apt description of what was going on here.)

Obviously some Pharisees, who already had a problem with Jews going to the gym and hanging out with buck naked gentiles, thought this was awful. Ritual circumcision signifies a formal relationship with God… and you’re hiding your circumcision? Hiding your relationship with God? You may as well be pagan!

I’m actually with the Pharisees on this one. As are, you notice, the apostles: Don’t get a “pullover.” Don’t try to undo the parts of your past which might embarrass you, but don’t actually matter in the long run. Just follow Jesus.

Don’t break up with unbelievers!

1 Corinthians 7.10-17.

When I was growing up, both Mom and my pastors taught us kids we shouldn’t date non-Christians. Because, God forbid, you were gonna fall in love with them, marry them, and now you were gonna have perpetual disagreements with your pagan spouse about religion. Then we’d have kids, and she’d of course object to me wanting to raise ’em Christian. Then she’d let the Jehovah’s Witnesses talk to her some morning, join them, and now I’d have to deal with all the heretic garbage they taught her. Or pick some other worst-case scenario; just imagine your spouse turns into a massive jerk… and presume you somehow won’t turn into one too.

Done? Good. I myself didn’t need to imagine any worst-case scenarios, ’cause I grew up with a Christian mom and an atheist dad, so I knew exactly what that looked like. Dad didn’t forbid us kids from going to church with Mom and becoming Christians, but he certainly wasn’t thrilled about it. And he especially wasn’t thrilled whenever he did something immoral—usually theft—and his Christian kids would object, and spoil his evil fun.

In the Roman Empire, divorce was widespread, and people did it for any and every reason. So if a Roman’s spouse got mixed up in some new gnostic religion, and was suddenly spending all the family’s money on it, and our hypothetical Roman wanted nothing to do with it: Divorce! Easy-peasy. Property gets divided, and you go your way with your money. And your spouse goes to temple with all their money, and leaves temple with no money, but at least you still got all your money.

Some of this attitude leaked into Jesus’s culture, and as a result a number of Jews likewise divorced for any and every reason. And certain Pharisee rabbis let them. This, despite the LORD telling Malachi he hates divorce. Ml 2.16 NKJV The rabbis would simply find a convenient loophole which permitted divorce in this instance… and could always somehow find a way to permit divorce in every instance. Human depravity is clever like that.

When Jesus was questioned about the issue, he said nope, divorce was never God’s idea. Moses permitted it “because of your hard-heartedness,” Mt 19.8 KWL i.e. your closed-mindedness; people won’t accept any scenario where divorce isn’t an option. Indeed Jesus’s own students came to him afterwards and objected Mt 19.10 —and Jesus said yeah, not everyone’s gonna accept this teaching. Mt 19.11 People should go into marriage expecting it to be lifelong, but they just don’t. They want, “just in case,” loopholes. We all want loopholes.

So some of the first Christians figured religion oughta be one of those loopholes, right? If a Greco-Roman pagan became Christian, but her spouse was a massive Zeus worshiper and wanted to stick with Zeusery, what was she to do? Especially if he demanded she come to temple with him, and couldn’t figure out why she couldn’t worship Jesus and Zeus, just like she worshiped Athena and Zeus, or Demeter and Zeus, or Artemis and Hera and Hestia and Zeus. Why’s Jesus so exclusive? What, are you monotheist now?

So that’s the cultural background to today’s scripture—namely, how Paul and Sosthenes addressed the whole pagan-spouse problem.

The Christian’s marital duties.

1 Corinthians 7.1-9.

Right after the apostles write about unchastity, they get to a question one of them (probably Paul) was asked in a letter—a question Paul quotes in verse 1—“[Is it] good for a person to not be bound to a woman?” By “person” the writer no doubt meant “man,” or himself.

And the reason he asked was because of the second coming. Y’know how some Christians constantly say, “Jesus could return at any time!” or “The rapture could take place at any time!” Well, Christians were also saying that back then. Yep, even before Revelation was written. Yep, even before Darbyists claim certain End Times events which have to take place first (in their timelines, anyway) took place first. Christians have always expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes; ever since he was raptured and an angel told the first apostles, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Ac 1.11 KJV

Okay, so if Jesus is coming back at any minute… should we get married and have children? Should we plan for the future if we might not even have a future?

Paul might’ve been astounded to learn Jesus delayed his return for centuries. (It’s gonna be 20 entire centuries in 2033!) But even so, he knew we can’t just sit on our hands and do nothing while we wait. We gotta be busy doing good. So if we’re married, be a good spouse. And if we’re not married… you don’t have to get married, but if you wanna, it’s okay. Jesus hasn’t done away with marriage. He will after the resurrection, Lk 20.34-36 because immortal people don’t need to reproduce; no generation is gonna pass away and need replacing! But right now, Christians die, and do need replacing, and we either need to make new disciples by conversion, or literally make ’em via childbirth.

So here’s where the apostles say all this.

1 Corinthians 7.1-9 KWL

1You write me about whether it’s good

for for a person to not be bound to a woman.

2Because of unchastity,

each man, have your own woman,

and each woman, have your own man!

3Man, do your duty to your woman!

Likewise, woman to your man!

4The woman doesn’t have authority over her own body,

but her man does—

likewise the man doesn’t have authority over his own body,

but his woman does.

5Don’t cheat one another!

Unless it’s out of consent, for a time,

so you might have time to pray—

and then you can be together again,

so Satan can’t tempt you for your lack of self-control.

6I say this as permission, not a command.

7I want every person to be like me.

But each person has their own gift from God,

one like this, one like that.

8I tell the unmarried and widows:

If they can live like I do, good for them!

9And if they can’t control themselves, marry!

—for it’s better to marry than burn.

Flee unchastity!

CHASTITY 'tʃæs.tə.di noun. The state or practice of abstaining from nonmarital or illicit sexual intercourse.

2. The state or practice of abstaining from all sexual intercourse.

[Chaste tʃeɪst adjective, unchaste ən'tʃeɪst adjective, unchastity ən'tʃæs.tə.di noun.]

1 Corinthians 6.15-20.

Yep, today’s bible passage has to do with sex, and if the subject offends you, stop reading. But bear in mind I write these articles to explain what the apostles would’ve thought, given they lived in the first-century Roman Empire. If you’d much rather hear preachers guess what they thought, based on their own beliefs, prejudices, and hangups—conservative or liberal—okay, go find a church where the pastor never, ever challenges your beliefs, or a bible commentary which does likewise, and enjoy your blissful ignorance. Me, I’d rather grow.

So, chastity. Most English-speakers are more familiar with the second definition I listed above, and assume chastity is the very same thing as celibacy. It’s not. One can be chaste and sexually active. Chastity has to do with proper sexual activity, and by “proper” I certainly don’t mean what society thinks is proper; I mean within the very few limitations God has put on human sexual activity. And contrary to certain repressed Christians, he hasn’t put many! They have, because their parents have, because their grandparents have, and so on back till they’re entirely sure their tradition originates with God, not men.

True, when the apostles object to πορνεία/porneía, “unchastity” (KJV “fornication,” NIV “sexual immorality”), yes they largely are reflecting Pharisee custom. (Paul grew up Pharisee; Ac 23.6 Sosthenes, if he’s the same Sosthenes who was Corinth’s synagogue president, Ac 18.17 was definitely Pharisee.) And Pharisees actually didn’t define chastity as the Law of Moses prescribed it… because the Law accommodated the polygamous culture of ancient western Asia, which included multiple wives and concubines. Yep, in the Old Testament, men could have multiple wives and multiple girlfriends, and it wasn’t considered adultery. This fact still regularly blows Christians’ minds. Totally true though.

So why did Pharisee custom differ? The Greeks. Alexander of Macedon had conquered the Persian Empire by 330BC, making Judea now part of his empire. Judea was ruled by Greek-speaking empires and Greek-speaking kings ever after—some of whom had heavily adopted Greek culture. And a big part of Greek culture was monogamy. True, often it was serial monogamy, with divorce after divorce; but polygamy quickly became a no-no among Judeans who feared offending their Greek-speaking overlords. By the time Pharisees showed up after the Maccabean revolt (165–60BC), Judeans had been largely monogamous for more than a century. So monogamy (and, unfortunately, frequent divorce) was now part of Pharisee culture too. Adultery and chastity was now defined by that standard. Not—yeah, this is still mindblowing—the bible.

Although since the apostles wrote the New Testament, now monogamy is biblical; now adultery and chastity are based on monogamy. If you wanna be in Christian leadership, you gotta be “a one-woman man,” Tt 1.6 or one-man woman; you can’t be unchaste; you can’t be promiscuous. And if every Christian’s gonna strive for spiritual maturity, that’s the standard we have to strive for. That’s the standard the apostles expected Corinth to strive for. But, to their irritation, Corinth was still full of spiritual infants, and they were still—as we know from today’s passage—merrily fornicating away with temple prostitutes. Among other things.

Flee gluttony!

1 Corinthians 6.12-14.

In the beginning of this chapter, Paul and Sosthenes rebuked the Corinthians for dragging one another before Roman courts, then reminded them the Romans weren’t leaders of good character, by listing some of their works of the flesh. (And we might recognize many of these defects of character in our own leaders. We really gotta stop voting for such people.)

The next passage riffs off those fleshly works by rebuking the Corinthians for indulging in some of them. In it, the apostles quote two popular Corinthian slogans:

EVERYTHING’S ALLOWED (πάντα ἔξεστιν/pánta éxestin, KJV “All things are lawful,” NIV “I am allowed to do anything”).

FOODS FOR THE STOMACH, AND THE STOMACH FOR FOODS (τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν/ta vrómata ti kilía, ke i kilía tis vrómasin, KJV “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats,” ESV “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”).

Because in Corinth, hedonism was a virtue. Nope, it wasn’t just a tourist slogan, like “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”; it wasn’t just a way to encourage visitors to indulge themselves and boost the economy. This was Cyreniac philosophy: Pleasure, namely physical pleasure, was considered the most important thing in life. Knowledge—meh; what good is it? Stop thinking so hard and enjoy yourself while you can. Have some wine, some hashish, some opium, some sex. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. 1Co 15.32

So in Corinth, and in many Greek cities, you were permitted to do pretty much anything you pleased. Especially the sexual stuff, which I’ll get into at another time. But you were allowed to eat what you wished, as much as you wished—at least until your belly was full, or your purse was empty. (There’s a popular belief the ancient Romans would eat till full, then go to a “vomitorium” and purge themselves. That’s turned out to be false. Vomitoriums were in fact crowd-control passageways in an amphitheater, not some weird room where you indulged your bulimia—not that bulimia didn’t exist back then, but it wasn’t encouraged. Party food was expensive!)

In contrast Christians, especially we who follow the Holy Spirit, are meant to practice self-control. “Everything’s allowed” unless Jesus forbids it; unless those practices harm others and ourselves. Our “freedom in Christ” isn’t the freedom to do absolutely anything we please, simply because God forgives all. Unfortunately, Christians have taken the opposite attitude throughout history. Still do. Still wrong.

Bible time:

1 Corinthians 6.12-14 KWL

12“Everything’s allowed” to me,

but not everything is appropriate.

“Everything’s allowed” to me,

but I won’t be controlled by anything.

13“Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food,”

and God will destroy both food and stomach—

and the body isn’t for unchastity, but for the Master,

and the Master for the body.

14God both raises the Master up,

and will raise us up, by his power.

The 𝘐 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 list of works of the flesh.

1 Corinthians 6.9-11

In discussing how the Corinthians shouldn’t bring their disputes with one another before corrupt pagan judges, Paul and Sosthenes threw in a list of problematic behaviors that, they reiterate twice, won’t inherit God’s kingdom. 1Co 6.9-10

One can argue the apostles bring up and condemn these behaviors lest the Corinthian Christians think they can get away with practicing them… but for the most part the Christians knew better. I would instead argue they’re listing them because Roman officials did them. We have the ancient biographies; we have the writings of Roman officials of the day. Most were admittedly guilty of at least one of them, and many were guilty of far more than one—if not all.

Here’s the list. And same as the Galatians list of works of the flesh: This is not a list of deadly sins that’ll undo our salvation. This is describing a lifestyle which wants nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and his expectations of goodness in our lives. Resist the Spirit and you resist salvation. So follow the Spirit instead!

1 Corinthians 6.9-11 KWL

9Didn’t you know the unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom?

Don’t be fooled:

Neither the unchaste, idolaters, adulterers,

catamites, sodomites,

10thieves, the greedy, drunks,

trolls, nor predators, will inherit God’s kingdom.

11Who among you is still like this?

Instead you’re washed. Instead you’re made holy.

Instead you’re declared righteous

in the name of our master, Christ Jesus,

and by the Spirit of our God.

Because it’s a list of words, it means it’s time to bust out the Greek dictionary again, talk about what these words generally meant to ancient Greek speakers, then talk about what the apostles (probably) specifically meant by them. And yeah, I realize “catamites” and “sodomites” come up in verse 9; I’m gonna talk about that too. May as well get neck-deep into that controversy since we’re here.

“Why are you bringing each other before corrupt judges?”

1 Corinthians 6.1-8

Paul and Sosthenes have another gripe about the Corinthians, so it merits another chapter. This one isn’t about some guy shtupping his stepmother, but about how certain Corinthians are taking their fellow Christians to court—and how they absolutely shouldn’t. The apostles even go so far as to say they should let themselves be ripped off, 1Co 6.7 rather than take it to court.

And there are plenty of Christians who think this passage still applies to Christians today—and use it to justify handling legal matters in-house, instead of getting police and prosecutors involved. I am not one of them, and I’ll explain why in a bit. Today’s bible passage first.

1 Corinthians 6.1-8 KWL

1One of you¹, having an issue with another one of you,

has the nerve to be judged by the unjust,

and not by the saints?

2Didn’t you² know the saints will judge the world?

And if the world instead judges you²,

aren’t you² unqualified to rule in the smallest cases?

3Didn’t you² know we will judge angels?

Not just the things of daily life!

4So, cases about the things of daily life:

When you² have them,

the people thought the worst of by the church,

you² sit before these people.

5I say shame on you²!

So there’s no one wise among you²?

—who will be able to sort you out in the midst of your¹ family?

6Instead, brother judges against brother,

and all this in front of unbelievers.

7So this truly is a failing among you²—

that you² have judgments against one another.

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be harmed instead?

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be cheated instead?

8Instead you² harm and cheat.

And you do this to family.