California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Has Given Up Too Soon!

I like this guy Arnold Schwarzenegger, once the world’s leading bodybuilder who went on to become one of the biggest stars of Hollywood, and then California governor. “The Austrian Oak” really deserves the world’s accolades. He has the build, the strength and the natural charisma to make it in the limelight. His first role in Conan The Barbarian in 1982 suddenly made him a movie star. And I never missed any of his big hits: The Terminator (1984); Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991); and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). I would pause for a while, or postpone what I am doing if I see him on HBO; or I would rent Schwarzenegger VCDs. These films alone made him one of the highest paid movie stars, his fame guaranteeing him a place in the industry’s Hall of Fame. When he ran for governor of California in 2003, and won the recall replacing Gray Davis as governor, I in this little corner of the world cheered him on. When he was re-elected to a second term in 2006, I said to myself Californians really need Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He could run for the White House, except that the U.S. Constitution bars him from running because he was born outside the United States.

The recent news reports say that the California Supreme Court has finally granted gays and lesbians the right to be wedded to each other (they call this same-sex marriage), which in effect legalizes their sinful lifestyle, and the most recent one says that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger respects the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” And I say, “What’s happening to you guys?”

California’s Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had twice vetoed the legislation that would have legalized the relationships of same-sex couples. God in his Holy Scriptures condemns homosexuality, lesbianism included, but guarantees a place in heaven for gays and lesbians and homosexuals who change their lifestyles. For years gays and those who promote gay lifestyles have been looking for a law that prohibit such lifestyles, but that law is in the Book that contains the will of Him to whom everyone of us, gays and non-gays, are answerable. I rejoiced in the fact that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had done what he should, vetoing the legislation. I also was glad knowing that conservative Californians have been working together to enshrine the law that will bar same-sex couples from contracting marriage.

But now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has given up the fight. Too soon.

On Thursday, the “Republican-dominated” California Supreme Court scooped up and removed whatever hinders same-sex marriage—decades of tradition and biblical pronouncements— saying that “there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple’s sexual orientation,” so says Yahoo! News. “The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough,” adding that “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

The decision that Judge George wrote for the majority delighted the gay rights activists. Same-sex couples across the state are now making plans to tie the knot. No less than TV celebrity Ellen DeGeneres has made known her desire to marry her lady consort.

Since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided it is now the end of the road for him, may be Christians and other conservative religious groups in California who are opposed to this law should “redouble their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation’s most populous state,” to borrow the language of Yahoo! News.

A conservative group said it would petition the California’s Supreme Court to postpone its decision until after election in the fall. Voters will likely have a chance to propose an amendment to the State’s constitution barring same-sex couples from contracting marriage.

The California Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the bulwark of morality and righteousness, is a disappointment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger too is a disappointment.

The remedy, they say, is a constitutional amendment.

In 1999, California Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners. In the year 2000, state voters approved with a vote of 61 per cent Proposition 22 which strengthens California’s 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law. That proposition says: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Yahoo! News says that California “Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.”

As of this writing, “26 states [in the US] have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage,” says Yahoo! News. New York, Maryland and Washington have refused to allow same-sex marriage. New Jersey’s highest court has allowed the state legislature “the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.”

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004. Now California may follow suit unless something is done to amend its constitution.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has given up too soon. So it is now in the hands of the brave conservative Californians, the bulwark of morality in the state, to keep on this awareness crusade to teach men and women everywhere not to trifle with the law that is higher than all other laws. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The Parable of the Fallen Young Bird

An old bird advises a young bird not to spend much time hopping from one twig to another twig on an acacia tree by the side of the road that leads to the forest.

“But I want to have a good view of the world around us, the better to enjoy the beauty of it,” the young bird insists.

“Birds are not supposed to be aesthetically minded and enjoy the beauty of their surroundings. Give that job to the painters and the artists and the loafers. You are supposed to find worms to eat,” says the old bird.

“You are a tyrant among birds. You don’t listen to reason.”

“Well, tyrants also have common sense. Remember I am much older. You are young and still need to eat plenty of worms.” It goes without saying that in the world of avian creatures, the number of worms a bird has swallowed in his lifetime is the measure of his wisdom and experience.

Because it is an argument that no one will win, the young bird has decided to abide by the peaceful co-existence policy among avian creatures: You do your thing, I’ll do mine.

It is not known if birds too have adrenalin, but this young bird is so hyperactive he really wants to hop and hop and fly from one twig to another and chirp and chirp to his heart’s content. The morning sun is not yet high up in the sky. But a little boy is up from bed, and wants to try his skill with the new slingshot his father has made for him.

The young bird sees the boy with the slingshot. The tyrant bird has not told him what a slingshot can do. But the young bird thinks he knows what a young boy can do: He can aim but he can miss.

He decides to try him for size. Agility, dexterity, flight speed. The boy can’t fly, but he can. Use that advantage over the enemy. At the end of the day you will have a good story to tell other birds.

One aim from the boy misses. Another aim and he misses again. Another aim and… The young bird feels that his body is going to meet the earth. The stone hits him, it has not hurt him much, but the impact of the hit is enough to send him down spinning.

The boy, not seeing where the young bird falls, goes to another side of the forest.

On the green grass where he has fallen, the young bird waits for the sun to warm his body. He can try flying again.

An old carabao is grazing beside the fallen bird. The sun is up and his stomach is full and he needs to go to the river for a bath. But the call of nature is much more urgent than the call for a bath. The old carabao swings around, as carabaos are wont to do when they defecate. To make the long story short, some of those shits fall on the fallen bird resting on the grass waiting for the sun to warm him up. The carabao moves on.

Well, nobody appreciates being dumped with carabao shit. And so the young bird squeaks and squeaks and tries dragging his body out of the shit.

An eagle is up in the sky. A singgalong, a wild cat, has just gotten out of its dwelling and is feeling hungry. A cobra is passing by and is also hungry. The young bird squeaks for help, but it seems that his call for help has been misunderstood. Both the snake and the wild cat run for cover as the eagle drops low.

And that ends the life of the fallen bird.

Now for the moral of the story:

Always listen for wisdom even if it comes from the mouth of a tyrant. He may be experienced in the field of rights abuse but when it comes to the wisdom of dodging one’s enemy, or not exposing oneself to the enemy, a tyrant knows much. I think that is one reason why some tyrants last long.

Don’t boast about your talents. Remember that pride comes before a fall. Let others advertise you. You are not in the business of lobbying for self.

Remember that when you expose yourself, you are much vulnerable. If you expose yourself too much, it is probably because you have a plan to run for mayor, or that you are overconfident. And when you expose yourself, be ready to be criticized. Or be ready to hide.

Don’t belittle the enemy. They can either do small harm, or great. The best way is to put your ears on the ground. Listen for the unspoken. Watch for the unseen.

A lesson on thankfulness. If your enemy does not leave you for dead, be thankful.

You never know which enemy will do you in. If you have many enemies, either the weaker or the stronger will try you for size. Don’t make many enemies. Better still, don’t make enemies at all, if you can avoid it. If you have plenty, practice the art of dodging. And forgiving.

Understand that not everyone who dumps shit on you is your enemy. Sometimes that shit is meant to protect you, or hold your enemies at bay while you are trying to gain strength.

If you are in a shit, don’t make so much noise, because surely your enemy will find you, and you will be exposed for the weaknesses that you have.

Good motives sometimes don’t get along with good wisdom. Possibly one has to give up a project which he thinks is good, unless he is well-equipped to pursue it.

There is always a cure for wounded pride or for mistakes made. When your pride has been wounded, or a mistake has been made, the best way to recover is to retrace your steps, and do it in another way, fully acknowledging your failure. The Bible provides us the knowledge to do it another way.

Some dreams do find themselves in the junkyard. It is all right if you want to weep over your unfulfilled dreams. Tears are also meant for that. But this is a world where realities come right smack onto our face telling us it is enough. And I think you understand what enough means.

Happy weekend to all.

Burma: Rape of a Gentle Land

Watch this video

My literary romance with Burma began with Rudyard Kipling’s “Mandalay,” a piece that high school literature education could not do without. I dreamed of taking a dip in Irrawaddy River under the shadow of a pagoda on a cool afternoon, camping out in the outskirts of Rangoon while watching the stars frolic in the sky, or romping in the park with a Burmese tiger cub as a way of fulfilling my nostalgia for the youth that I’ve lost.

Other times I dreamed of getting a job as a police officer in Moulmein to see how it feels to be George Orwell, who wrote in his memoir: “In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people — the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” I also fancied myself being taught the Manipuri language by a Burmese girl. A minority dialect in Burma, Manipuri is more common in India than in this country of Kipling’s Mandalay romances, therefore a Burmese girl who knows it surely rises above her equals. And I imagined taking up the challenge of the Hkakabo Razi, the highest peak in southeastern Asia, living there for a month. With my Burmese girl teacher for company, I thought that challenge was more pleasurable than Everest. There we could subsist on a Burmese diet— boiled rice, a little spicy meat, some vegetables; hot noodle soup flavoured with coconut; ngapi sauce made from fermented fish; mangosteen, custard apple, and tepid green tea poured in small cups. The gentle life that is Burmese land—far from the madding crowd that is the military junta— one can have on a platter as wide as one’s palm.

Burma the former British territory is located in Southeast Asia, bordering the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal. To its west are Bangladesh and India. To its northeast is China, and and to its east Laos and Thailand. In size it is slightly smaller than the state of Texas, with an area of about 676,577 square kilometers. Forty-seven million four hundred thousand people live in Burmese land.

The Burma I knew during that interlude with Kipling’s “Mandalay” was from history books. Their modern history began with the gentle intellectual named Aung San (1915-1947), nationalist leader, hero of its independence struggle. Aung San founded the so-called Thakin student movement in the 1930s, Thakin, “master,” being a term previously applied to the British. He was jailed by the British. He escaped to Japan in 1940 and returned with the invading Japanese at the head of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) in 1941. Later he served as minister of defense in the puppet government headed by Ba Maw. Disillusioned with the Japanese, General Aung San handed the BIA over to the Allies in 1945. He emerged as the de facto prime minister of British Burma after the war, negotiated the agreement that would make Burma independent, but was assassinated before that agreement could be implemented. A political rival of his, U Saw by name, had him and six ministers of the new government assassinated, reportedly with the collaboration of British former-officials angered by Aung San’s wartime collaborationism. This was in July 1947. In 1948 the country was freed from British rule.

Imagine a country going through its birth pangs as it is ushered to its place among nations. Intrigues, assassinations, turmoils—the order of things when the colonizers pack up their bags and leave the colonized to settle the problem of politics among themselves. With the independence hero assassinated, U Nu, former Foreign Minister in the wartime Japanese-puppet government of Ba Maw, was asked to head the government and Ne Win to head the army. When Burma went on a crisis in 1958, General Ne Win was asked to lead the government in caretaker status. His government fell in 1960, so again control was placed in the hands of civilian authority. In 1962, General Ne Win seized power by a military coup and thereafter ruled as virtual dictator. Being a Buddhist, Ne Win’s arbitrary actions were apparently guided by native divination techniques. Gun power at the hands of the armed became a source of intimidation to the unarmed. He nationalized the economy with ruinous results, bloodily suppressed political dissent and made Buddhism the religion of the state, suppressing minority religions. The gentle Burmese were made to toe the line. General Ne Win, Aung San’s contemporary, was Burma’s first political misfortune.

Ne Win’s misgovernance triggered the anti-government riots in March and June 1988, ushering in a period of political instability. He resigned. Then junta replaced junta. The one that came to power after September 1988 coup when Ne Win resigned was a military clique that remained devoted to Ne Win, headed by General Saw Maung, who was also a Ne Win protégé.

The junta headed by Saw Maung went by the name “State Law and Order Restoration Council.” I understand this to mean that the law in the hands of the military favored only the military, and order was never restored in the country. In June 1989 Saw Maung oversaw the official renaming of the country as the “Union of Myanmar.” The junta must have argued among themselves that they could salvage their tarnished reputation by relabeling. They were wrong.

The Saw Maung regime stirred condemnation worldwide when it refused to recognize the opposition victory in the 1990 elections. The league’s leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of the independence hero, was placed under house arrest, where she remained even until now.

As anti-government protests continued, Saw Maung lost power and resigned his posts in 1992. He was replaced by General Than Shwe.

Here are other Burma facts for you:

Myanmar’s present ruling junta is formally known as the “State Peace and Development Council.” In truth, under the junta regime there has been no peace in the state. And the junta by its bumbling, fumbling and incompetence had destroyed what had been one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic and developing economies.

First among equals in the current Myanmar regime is Senior Gen. Than Shwe. A hardliner and an opponent of the democratization of Burma, he is perceived to be sullen and rather withdrawn. He is very superstitious and often consults with astrologers. Maintaining a low profile, he celebrates Myanmar national holidays and ceremonies with pipe dream messages in the state-run newspapers, but he seldom talks to the press. His daughter’s lavish wedding, involving diamonds and champagne, created a controversy in a nation whose people continue to suffer government-imposed hardships and poverty. Than Shwe’s credentials included having served in field combat operations against Karen insurgents between 1948 to 1950, and several years spent in a psychiatric hospital.

The number two man is Deputy Senior Gen. Maung Aye, whose reputation is that he is more ruthless than Than Shwe’s. This is probably because the general has more field combat experience from fighting ethnic rebels. Not much is written about this man because of his self-imposed policy of not talking to the press.

Soldiers in the 400,000-strong Myanmar military live secluded lives in isolated barracks, with their families provided with housing as well, far from civilians whom they are pledged to protect. Myanmar’s military have been accused of countless human rights abuses against civilians. In 1988, it violently suppressed mass demonstrations against the dictatorship, though some members of the air force changed sides and supported the protesters. Street rallies led by Buddhist monks threatened the junta’s power again and again. The junta would respond with months long raids on hundreds of pagodas and monasteries, arresting hundreds of monks.

The Buddhist clergy consists of about half a million Buddhist monks. Nearly 90 percent of Myanmar’s population is Buddhist. The “saffron army,” journalists’ epithet for the Buddhist monks, has been wielding a considerable spiritual and political clout for many centuries among the citizens of a nation where the religion of Gautama Buddha has held sway. In a sense the war in Myanmar is a war that turns Buddhists against Buddhists. The soldiers and members of the junta too are Buddhists.

The Buddhists of Myanmar observe the Theravada school of Buddhism, which is typically found in south and southeast parts of Asia. The Theravada school’s focus is on personal liberation from craving and suffering, and attempts to identify the causes of human suffering, offering a path that is claimed to end suffering.

I am of the opinion that the God the Buddhists don’t believe in looked down with pity from heaven, and put an end to their suffering. Cyclone Nargis devastated the country’s Irrawaddy delta on May 3, leaving about 62,000 people dead or missing, according to the government count, although it is believed that more than a hundred thousand actually perished. The Burmese, or the Myanmarese if you prefer, have suffered much, and death is a way out, whether one admits it or not. Cyclone Nargis has also exposed the junta regime in Myanmar as nothing but a bunch of incompetents.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the lady who is the center of this great political storm, has spent more than 11 of the past 18 years under some form of arrest. Her followers and other pro-democracy activists in the country are routinely harassed and imprisoned by this insensible junta regime who have no respect for the human rights and no concern for what the world will say about them. The US and other nations have called on the junta to release Suu Kyi and improve their human rights record, to no avail.

Power struggles have plagued Burma’s military leadership. Than Shwe has been linked to the toppling and arrest of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt. Khin Nyunt, who said he supported Aung San Suu Kyi’s involvement in the National Convention, was seen as a moderate who was at odds with the junta’s hardliners. He was sacked and was arrested in 2004.

In the aftermath of cyclone Nargis, Myanmar’s isolated military regime has finally agreed to accept relief shipments from donor countries, but has largely refused to allow aid workers to enter and distribute the aid. For if the foreign aid workers do they would see what havoc the junta regime has made on its own people, which brought about this divine retribution. Al Gore has blamed the cyclone on global warming. I have no disagreement with Al Gore, but to me it looks like man has been reaping and is continually harvesting what he has sown for years — moral insensibilities, greed, lack of love for others, abuse of others’ rights, unkindness, unbrotherliness, etc.

Some two million cyclone survivors, mostly poor rice farmers whose homes were washed away, now live in abject misery and want, facing starvation, disease and uncertain future. With large tracts of land in the Irrawaddy delta under water, the survivors are packed into Buddhist monasteries or camped out under the open sky, drinking from the dirty water contaminated by human corpses and animal carcasses that littered the landscape and the river system in the aftermath of cyclone Nargis. Medicines and food are in scarcity. The Buddhists have no God to call upon, but only the spirits they certainly are not familiar with. But in the midst of the great devastation brought by Nargis, even those spirits are absent. You only see men in uniform, manning the check points, spying in hotels, policing its own ranks, sitting in the comfort of their homes, in the barracks, in front of TV sets, not mindful of the destruction wrought on crops and homes and of corpses that littered their landscape and the stench that these corpses brought. If this is the karma Buddhism has been talking about, they now have it, flooding them like wholesale, in the form of a cyclone. But someone may complain that that karma goes the wrong way. Or doesn’t it?

There have been verified reports about the misappropriation of the aid by the military, about quantities of the high-energy biscuits rushed into Myanmar that were instead sent to a military warehouse, and replaced by “tasteless and low quality” biscuits produced by the junta’s Industry Ministry to be handed out to cyclone victims, says Yahoo! News. This appears to be backed up by some reports. Aid workers brought back some of the rotting rice that’s being distributed to the cyclone victims, “the poorest quality rice we’ve seen… affected by salt water and it’s very old,” they said. In some countries, dogs eat better. They are even made to inherit the wealth of their owners.

Several Myanmar businessmen have been told by the government to make “donations” in cash of a minimum of $1,800 to aid cyclone victims, Yahoo! News says. Why cash?

The junta has barred nearly all foreigners from going to the devastated Irrawaddy delta and is expelling those who have managed to go in, on the pretext of protecting them from imminent dangers. I think there is no phenomenon in Burma imminently dangerous to foreigners than the junta regime itself. One editor of an independent paper says this shows the junta government “is very paranoid, very xenophobic (for) they think this cyclone could undermine their credibility.” He added that “the military regime wants to conceal the extent of the damage. They don’t want the Burmese people telling the foreigners the true story.” Myanmar’s tightly muzzled media, such as The New Light of Burma and other government media mouthpieces, paints a one-sided picture of a “beneficent” junta, showing ony images of the Myanmar military distributing aid and comforting survivors, with no mention of aid pouring in from countries around the world, so say some reports from the field. The credits go to the junta clowns.

Myanmar has become a police state, not only for its people, but also for foreigners. Foreign journalists’ are being eavesdropped. Yahoo! News says that while a reporter in Myanmar was talking to an editor in Thailand, loud clicking sounds could be heard on the telephone line. Journalists understand this is an indication that the phone was being bugged.

This being the case, a few reporters managed to get into Myanmar, concealing their tools of the trade—-satellite phones, battery packs and generators necessary to operate in the storm-hit areas where power lines are down. But that is just the first of the many obstacles they should hurdle. In the hotels where they stay, spying policemen keep close watch, prompting many reporters to constantly change locations and lodgings to avoid attracting too much attention. They never talk and write in the open. They are often on the move. They are indeed Reporters Without Borders.

Yahoo! News reports that Myanmar police are manning checkpoints along the roads linking to the devastated Irrawaddy delta and other cyclone hit areas, stopping vehicles to inspect passengers’ identities, passport numbers and reasons for their trip. One reporter is said to have hidden under a blanket in the back of a van at one checkpoint. He has been informed by a local contact that the reports he has sent to foreign media have made him a marked man. Hail, hail, hail, the KGBs are here.

Can local journalists leave Burma? It is not an option for them, because the junta requires exit permits for trips out of the country. The junta regime has invoked a variety of national security laws to imprison Burmese journalists, political dissidents and other activists. In 2007, Reporters Without Borders ranked Burma as the world’s sixth worst violator of media freedom.

Burma is being raped by a gang of rapists, rapacious men, abusive men, and they all wear military uniforms.

“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows from the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7-8).

Copycat!

It happened a month ago. I was not sure what the man’s motive was, but he sent me an email. Well, the kind of email salesmen would invent when they wanted to make a big sales pitch.

My reply consisted of a two-letter word: No. It was the shortest reply I made for the longest that he sent, trying to promote a drug I could not afford, and even if I could, it would be the kind of drug I wouldn’t buy, since I see no need for it. He was selling me Viagra. But before I blocked his email address–before I consigned him to the spam bin–I took a second look at it. Because, believe it or not, I just received an email purporting to come from me!

Dear readers of this blog, the man was trying to copy my English, my way of writing, my style. He was trying to be me. That’s wonderful, I would say. I too would be happy to have a namesake for company. The problem was this man’s grammar was very bad and his diction was even worst!

He was my copycat, and he was not even trying hard! Huhrrm.

There is only one like me, and God knows that. Even Yahoo! sees to it that you cannot duplicate my email address. But there are other ways to find our dissimilarities, aside from his very bad grammar. We don’t have the same IP address. We don’t have the same email. And the guy does not act like me when he writes—he constipates just to produce a good writeup! Huhuhrrm!

If I knew him, I would advise him to go back to grammar school for, say, seven more years. (Put in here another huhrrm!)

This copycat of mine, the man who poses as me, who owns that email account named ed_maquiling@yahoo.com, goes around and makes dirty comments in the blogs of other people. He is jolting people from their peace and quiet. He is a blot on the white tapestry of our fellowship.

Frankly speaking, I don’t need this guy to make me popular. For I already am! (huhrrm! plus another huhrm!). And I don’t need him to sell me Viagra; I think he needs it more than I do. I have been told by grapevine doctors it is also a medicine for mental weakness. I am not sure if that is true.

Furthermore, I don’t even need to report his IP address to the proper authorities. He would be happy, I am sure, and he would be euphoric, jubilant, or over the moon as they in UK would say, knowing I acted with a vengeful spirit toward him. He likes me to fight back.

Well, I won’t.

I want him to keep on doing what he is doing, until you guys whose reputation he has been trying to destroy would act in unison and report him to the authorities, until the Lord does something to put a stop to his stupidities, whichever comes first.

Let that sinner who purports to be me, who goes by the email account ed_maquiling@yahoo.com, keep on sinning. He is none of my problems, and his stupidities are none of my cares. (My last huhrrm!).

Don’t Mess With Texas!

“All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in this world is for enough good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke).

______________________________

They are called “a renegade Mormon sect,” the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), which had its beginning in the 1930s, says Reuters in a news carried by ABS-CBN Online. “Renegade” because while the mainstream Mormon Church renounced polygamy in 1890, the FLDS still cling to their doctrine that a man has a God-ordained right to marry several women in order to go to heaven.

That polygamous practice had its origin with Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church. A website says Joseph Smith had 34 wives, 11 of whom were also married, or had been married, to other men, to his associates or brothers in the faith. Joseph’s first wife was Emma Hale. But Emma was not to be the only, nor was she meant to be the last. Joe was even married to his brother Don Carlos Smith’s wife, his seventh, named Agnes Coolbrith. On the day he was wedded to her, Joe wrote in his diary, “Truly this is a day long to be remembered by the saints of the Last Days; a day in which the God of heaven has began to restore the ancient order of his Kingdom…all things are concurring together to bring about the completion of the fullness of the gospel.” Having a harem to feed his lust for women he called “the fullness of the gospel”! Think about it!

Don’t be surprised then that the FLDS is not in the mood to give up this doctrine. For the apple fruit does not fall far from the apple tree. Joseph Smith started it; his disciples are not going to do away with it. To give a legal semblance to their polygamous practices, they say that each husband has one legal wife but the rest are just “spiritual unions”! Even today, any Mormon who dares to defend Joe Smith would argue Joe had Emma Hale alone for his wife, and the 33 others were just “spiritual wives.” If you suspect that some of these 33 “spiritual wives” also had given birth to Joe Smith’s children, you are not far from the truth! For example, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was already married to Windsor Lyon, became Joseph Smith’s wife number 8. Her husband Windsor must not have been aware of her relationship with Smith, for she continued to live with him as his wife. Out of that relationship (adulterous relationship actually) was born a daughter. Josephine Rosetta Lyon wrote: “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Click here.

For further information you may read this Wikipedia article as well as this other Wikipedia article on Joseph Smith’s plural marriage doctrine.

When the Mormon Church was forced by the US government to give up its polygamous beliefs in 1890 (it was made the condition for admission to the Union), a number of them resisted and separated from mainstream church. One of these became the FLDS. They set up their own communities in the remote areas of Utah and Arizona. And even in Canada. But the states of Arizona and Utah later turned the heat on these people, accusing this group of forcing girls in their teens into marrying men in their old age, all in the guise of making these girls go to heaven. Warren Jeffs, son of the renegade group’s founder, was convicted last year in Utah “as an accomplice to rape for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her cousin,” so says Reuters. Since the heat was too much, they moved to Texas, and “made a Texas-sized mistake” when they picked this state as the place to move to, according to Reuters.

I think the Lord has picked Texas for a good reason. We do not think Canada, Utah and Arizona have largely ignored this “renegade Mormon sect,” but the Lord has picked Texas to set an example in forcing this sect to set a good example! In the FLDS, teens as young as 13 are made to marry men as old as 50. And so Texas made a law that raises the age at which children can contract a marriage with the consent of parents to 17. And Texas law enforcement agencies started looking. In the language of Reuters, they “immediately put the sect in its crosshairs.” This resulted in raids this month of April that netted 463 minors, either placed in state hands or in foster care homes. The government agency in charge of this matter found out that some of these minors are pregnant, scores of them have already given birth, and in fact one has given birth while in a foster home. Forced into marriage, these teens must have broken spirits, but investigators too have discovered that some of them have broken bones! The agencies also claimed that the young males were being groomed to follow in the path of their rapacious elders. The raids were meant to break this cycle of male rapacity. I say hurray to Texas! I say hurray too to Texas judges who said they will hear sex abuse cases individually, the better to thoroughly scrutinize the sect’s practices.

Reuters News quoted Harvey Hilderbran, a member of the Texas state legislature, as saying that the FLDS “made a big mistake when they came” to Texas. “We didn’t invite those folks to Texas but by God we expect them to obey our law.” The sect bought this scrubby ranch in the rural west part of the state and moved there in 2004. There they live a life hidden from outsiders’ eyes. As if to exemplify their longing for a life that’s hidden from civilization, their women too hide their bodies by wearing long, pioneer-style dresses. To my way of thinking this is just a façade for their much-vaunted modesty. It does not prevent lustful men from getting hold of a woman they are after. So this ranch in west Texas in a way becomes their “Secret Garden.” They call it “YFZ,” acrostic for “Yearning For Zion.” There they appear to be living off whatever bounty the scrubby land could give. Soon anti-polygamist activists came to the small town near the ranch, called Eldorado. These activists probably have Edmund Burke for their inspiration. Burke once said: “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Activism expresses the gamut of feelings, ranging from suspicion, speculation and concern, to righteous rage and civil indignation. Then Hilderbran sponsored a bill at the state legislature that raises the age at which children in the state of Texas could marry with consent, which became law in 2005.

The raids in YFZ ranch in April 2008 came because of a call for help from someone who claimed she was a 16-year-old mother and said she was suffering abuse at the hands of her 50 year old husband. And if the authorities have determined “that there is an abused child in the household, they take all the children on the basis that if one child is at risk then they are all at risk,” Reuters further says. That to me is a good policy. To protect kids vulnerable to sexual abuse. Someone says Texas authorities had been preparing for the raid all along, because they aimed “to run the sect out of town,” says Reuters. Whether this is true or not, my opinion is that it is now time for enough good men to do something to nip evil in the bud, if not to put sense into these FLDS peoples’ heads. God has meant for the government to discipline those whom the gospel cannot. I think renegades understand only the language of force.

Reuters News says “anti-polygamist activists have lauded Texas. Why shouldn’t we? “They have done what we have been trying to get Utah and Arizona do for 100 years and that is protect children,” said Flora Jessop, quoted by Reuters. Flora Jessop too was raised in this polygamist community, fleeing it when she was a teenager. “I say God bless Texas,” says Flora.

I say amen!

1 Peter 3:13-22 - The Exegesis (2)

In the previous article, we have made a suggestion that to be faithful to the text, sarki and pneumati in 1 Peter 3:18 have to be translated “in flesh” and “in spirit,” without articles, since these don’t appear with articles in the Greek text. Machen says, “There is no indefinite article in Greek…[It] has, however, a definite article, and where the Greek article does not appear, the definite article should not be inserted in the translation (Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 26). The presence of an article before the noun changes the interpretive meaning, and therefore the interpretive translation of a word. Note for example Romans 8:2, where pneumatos, “spirit,” has an article. This is interpreted by translators to mean the third member of the Godhead, and we agree. But note also Romans 8:6, where the phrase “mind of the Spirit” (pneumatos with article) has been translated by them as “spiritually minded.” This simply shows translators do exercise arbitrary control over their translations. How much more the commentaries? Stewardship of the Word demands that we be faithful.

I believe that both sarki and pneumati are to be classed as instrumental dative of manner. When translated in English, they look like prepositional phrases and in the clauses they function as adverbs modifying verbs. Grammarians call them adverbials because, although they function like adverbs, they are not true adverbs. In 1 Peter 3:18, the verbs these adverbials modify are found within the participles thanatotheis and zoopoietheis.

Having been “put to death in [the] flesh on one hand,” thanatotheis men sarki, Jesus was now “made alive in spirit,” zoopoietheis de pneumati. Both thanathotheis and zoopoietheis are aorist passive participles. Passive because the subject was just acted upon, or that someone other than the subject did the action on him. Aorist because it expresses not a continuing, but a one time action. Thanatotheis and zoopoietheis are two single words picturing to us like some kind of a simple snapshot what Jesus had experienced: He was put to death bodily, and was made alive spiritually. It does not mean that His spirit also died and was made alive again, but that He died in his mortal flesh and was “quickened” or “made alive” in a sphere of existence in which the power of God is displayed without hindrance or human limitation, a state that death and mortality cannot destroy. To first century audience who understood the meanings of the Koine Greek better than we do, thanatotheis sarki and zoopoietheis pneumati picture to them in more logically convincing terms why Christians should not be afraid to suffer like Jesus. Hart says, “The advantage of suffering for well-doing has been exemplified in the experience of the Christ, who gained thereby the quickening (v. 21) and the later glory (v. 22)” (J. A. Hart, “First Epistle General of Peter,” The Expositors Greek New Testament, 5:67). Jesus’ undeserved suffering, His dying on the cross, which is His means of bringing us to God, now finds an explanation that serves to bring the concept of the blessedness of suffering closer to home.

In the verse that follows, consisting only of nine words in the Greek, centers all the controversy in 1 Peter 3. It is so obscurely worded it is capable of a lot of interpretations. A number of alternative but divergent theories have been put forth as an explanation:

(1) The view that Christ in His preexistent state (“His Spirit state”) preached through Noah to those who rejected the preaching who were now in prison. The prison here is understood to mean “imprisoned in sin.” This is the view of Augustine, who holds that “Christ was in Noah when he preached,” a kind of proxy preaching (Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament, 1381). In addition to this, Augustine also held a lot of other notions that have now become the foundation stones of the Roman Catholic Church.

(2) The spirits are the souls of the faithful Old Testament people and the prison is simply the non-hostile place where they remained awaiting Christ who proclaimed their redemption too after His resurrection from the dead. This is John Calvin’s theory, cited by Davids (p. 138).

(3) The “spirits” are the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1ff, who have taken refuge (“in prison”) in the earth, and the proclamation is that of Christ’s invasion of their refuge after His resurrection. This has been proposed by such commentators as F. Spitta, J. Jeremias, B. Reicke, and Dalton (cited by Davids, 139).

(4) A modification of view no. 1 which says the “spirits” are the fallen angels, but the preacher was Enoch, or Christ who preached through Enoch, proclaiming the judgment to them. This is the view of Edgar J. Goodspeed, who believes that the name “Enoch” was formerly in the text of verse 19. Bruce M. Metzger however traces this conjecture to William Bowyer back in 1772 (cited by Davids, 139).

(5) “The view that Christ in His own (and not through the agency of Noah) during the three days interval between His death and resurrection and while He was in the spirit realm (Hades), actually and literally preached to disembodied spirits.” These were spirits “who lived while the ark was being constructed but who were dead and incarcerated in the prison house of Hades at the time the preaching occurred.” This is the view of Bigg and Windisch (cited by Robertson in Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament, 1381)

Which view is correct? If we are content with absorbing the theories of other commentators, copying their thoughts, mimicking even the way they argue, and when pressed for proofs we hunt for verses to defend what we already believed, we are not creating a healthy environment for study growth. But try laying aside our doctrinal predilections as irrelevant, give them a short vacation on short notice, and allow the text of the author of the book to lead our thoughts where it may.

VERSE 19. En ho kai tois en phulake pneumasin poreutheis ekeruxen. “In which [state] indeed, going to the spirits in prison he preached.” Although Peter presumably wrote to be understood by his readers, as far as we are concerned, he has failed us. The problem is no ordinary one, but it has something to do with the twenty-first century people’s lack of knowledge of first century background of thought. It is this background of thought—the meaning that Peter wants to convey, based on the texts that we have before us, which meaning the first century Christian readers understood—-that we must try to find out, using the meager words that Peter has supplied us, rather than insist that this verse cannot mean what it means because the conclusion would be such and such.

“And in which or what state indeed”? That would be the first question. The phrase en ho kai has been translated as “in which indeed” (Marshall), “in which also” (ASV, Confraternity Version), “by which also” (KJV), “by whom also” (NKJV), “in which” (RSV). “Which” is a relative pronoun, having the noun “spirit” in verse 18 as its antecedent. “In which” could be the true translation of en ho because it agrees with “spirit” in number (both are singular) and case (both are dative). Taking en ho as an adverbial, and rendering it without a grammatical antecedent does not do justice to the text. The eligible noun antecedent, pneumati, before en ho, strongly establishes a valid presumption favoring its being interpreted as a straight relative pronoun, not an adverbial.

The translation “by whom also” comes about because of the belief of some that pneumati, “spirit,” is the instrumental dative of means—that it was the Spirit (now capitalized) that quickened Him. I have pointed out that to be consistent, we must also take “flesh” as instrumental dative of means since both are parallel and analogous. In which case, we make the “Spirit” the instrument for quickening Him and the “flesh” as the instrument for putting Him to death. This however does not make sense. It is much better to take both sarki and pneumati as instrumental dative of manner, in which case both become the adverbials that modify their verbs. As adverbials they picture to us the action of the verb and the circumstances about his dying and being quickened. Rogers and Rogers take the whole phrases thanatotheis sarki and zoopoietheis pneumati as circumstances or state. Thus we may translate, “In which state,” meaning his state as “spirit” or in his circumstance as “spirit being,” Christ went to preach.

Now, to take this preaching to mean that it was done in the pre-Flood age, making Noah as Jesus’ proxy preacher, requires the interpreter to call forth from his depot of proof texts what he cannot find in the context of 1 Peter 3. By this jumping jack method one can always prove anything, including the doctrines that Jesus wedded Mary Magdalene, that Peter became pope, that you can baptize infants, that Felix Manalo is an angel, that Quiboloy is the new “Son of God.” And you can bombard me with a lot of verses from your proof text depot, but my question still remains: Where does it say in the text that Noah did the preaching? Where is the authority for teaching the idea of proxy preaching? Be careful with this doctrine of proxy preaching for it will open the floodgates to other doctrines (like attending church by proxy, giving by proxy, baptism by proxy). Time will come the Lord will put a stop to this foxiness by proxiness: Because you cannot be judged by proxy, and you cannot keep on being foxy by evading a responsibility and an appointment.

Christ certainly did the preaching but not during Noah’s time, not through some prophets like Noah or Enoch, and certainly not after his resurrection. I am inclined to believe that pneumati does not refer to his risen state at all; it may refer to his spirit state. Some have taken zoopoietheis (”quickened”) to mean “being resurrected,” but that is not one of its lexical equivalents. If we are trying to understand first century thoughts according to first century understanding, try a lexicon or an expository dictionary. Do not invent a definition. Do not assume that that is what it means.

“Going to the spirits in prison he preached.” According to France, “This is the crucial phrase” (France, 269). We certainly agree. The word “spirit” has varied meanings, and the presence of qualifying genitives plus the context can tell us which one means what. It can mean the whole person, or that inward something in that person, or just the character of the person. Michaels calls them “spirits in refuge” (Michaels, 206). The plural “spirits” referring to human beings has a single citation in the New Testament (see Hebrews 12:23), but this could be interpreted to mean “spirits without bodies,” or “disembodied spirits.” Peter says these “spirits” are kept in a place. What place? Peter calls it “prison.” Phulake has been used to refer to John the Baptist’s prison house (Matthew 14:10; Mark 6:17), the apostles’ (Acts 5:19), or Paul’s (2 Corinthians 11:23); it also stands for the condition of being imprisoned (2 Corinthians 6:5; Hebrews 11:36). To take “prison” to mean “imprisonment in sin” is an unwarranted allegorizing. In the text under consideration, Peter applies phulake to a realm or place in which the ones being imprisoned are “spirits.” From Peter’s language I understand that Jesus died of a physical death. When the text says that He was quickened in spirit, I understand this to mean He had passed on to a spiritual existence. I am in agreement with you if you say that after His death Christ went to Hades, specifically to Paradise, and that He went there as a spirit-being, that He now had taken on a new sphere of existence. If you guys think Hades is the phulake that Peter has in mind, why should I object to it? You have a good reason to believe Hades may be the prison-house for spirits. That interpretation flows smoothly with these texts under study.

One objection I heard is that it was not Christ’s spirit who went to Hades but His soul. Well, Peter says Christ went to the prison of the spirits in His spirit state. Verse 18b says He was “quickened in spirit.” Verse 19a then says, “in which, going He preached to the spirits in prison.” “Which” is a relative pronoun and its antecedent is “spirit.” That was how he was quickened, “in spirit,” and that’s also how he went, “in spirit.” This interpretation erases the grammatical problem, number-wise, gender-wise, and case-wise. But taking “spirit” as instrumental dative of means won’t solve it.

“Going…he preached.” May also be translated as: “He went and made a proclamation.” We agree with France that poreutheis does not mean “descended,” it means “went.” This could be the objection of one who believes that Hades is way down there. I don’t even know where Hades is. But the objector claims to know much, and if he knows where it is, then I am probably speaking to one who has just returned from the dead! The details about this place nobody knows, whether up there or down here. There is no sense in insisting on the verb “descending” when the verb “going” just serves as well. Also, the question of when the Lord made this journey can be answered by referring to the phrase en ho (verse 19a), which we have argued must be speaking about His spirit state before His bodily resurrection.

What did he preach? Nobody knows. Some say it was the gospel, a theory that is devoid of evidence but a very attractive one to those who desire a second chance after having lost it in this life. Ekeruxen, “he preached,” would do well to have a direct object, “the gospel,” if it were to serve as evidence to the doctrine of second chance at salvation. Ekeruxen, from kerux, means “to act as herald or harbinger.” As to the message’s content, it is neutral (France, 270). Some writers think that the message may be inferred from the passage itself. “The proclamation, it may be inferred, [is about] his triumph which finally sealed their doom” (Colin Brown, 2:682). My answer is: I don’t know. Ekeruxen, alone and without an object, can only be translated as “he preached.” It is not even a transitive verb that needs a direct object to complete its meaning.

We say then that 1 Peter 3:19 has something to do with Christ’s going to the spirits’ realm, to Hades if you may, where he preached to the spirits in prison. The verse does not say where the place of the dead is, nor what was preached to them, nor what happened after the preaching, nor why was Christ vitally interested in them. It is not necessary to our thesis to improve on what cannot be proved by scanty evidence.

VERSE 20. “To those who were disobedient then when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”

The “spirits,” tois pneumasin, mentioned in verse 19, are identified in verse 20 as “the disobeying ones,” [tois] apeithesasin, aorist active participle. Both pneumasin and apeithesasin have same number (plural) and same case (dative); there is no way you could miss. The aorist of the participle apeithesasin speaks about the past act of their disobedience, and the active sense of the verb gives the sense that they did the disobeying themselves, that they were not made to disobey (for then, the verb would be passive). To my way of thinking, all acts of disobedience are in the active voice; no one in his logical mind can claim that “I sinned because the devil made me do it”! Personal accountability for one’s action seems to be the teaching here.

These “spirits” are described as those who were “sometime disobedient. The word “sometime” is a translation of the Greek pote, which could also be translated as “then,” or “long ago.” Christ preached to these spirits who had been disobedient “then,” their disobedience pictured as something that had occurred “long ago,” even long before He came and preached to them. Pote does not describe ekeruxen, for if it does, then you have here a text that could support the opinion that Christ preached to them long ago. A better explanation then is that Christ preached to this same group of people, thousands of years after Noah’s day, and whether of not those spirits benefited from the preaching, we are not told. The story retold by Peter is not actually for the benefit of the people of Noah’s day who are now in Hades; it is for the benefit of Peter’s audience, to comfort them that in the end their lot would be much better than those of their enemies, just as the lot of the eight souls who entered the ark was better than that of the whole world that perished in the flood.

“When the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, an ark being prepared.” This adds further to our understanding about God’s long-suffering/forbearance: It waited long days, and it waited eagerly while He was doing all means to save the disobedient by Noah’s preaching. The phrase “in the days of Noah” must have been based on tradition common among Jews and on the analogy originating with Jesus (cf. Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), comparing Noah’s time with the present age. “While the ark was being prepared” fixes the time when God’s patience waited as mankind continued to disobey. “Being prepared,” kataskeuadzomenes, is present passive participle, and is translated as “being made ready, erected, built, constructed.” The present tense of that verb speaks of an action continuing, not in our time, but in the time when God’s patience, or long-suffering, waited. His patience waited “eagerly” and “with expectancy” for the disobedient to repent, and as that patience waited, the ark was being prepared.

The flood and the ark is one story which may have been familiar to Peter’s readers, and it is retold here for exhortatory purpose. Some important facts from that story do stand out: (1) That the disobedient many were punished; (2) That the obedient few were saved. Perhaps the persecuted pilgrim readers of Peter’s epistle were painfully aware that they were small in number compared to the pagans among whom they resided. Maybe some of them felt “unchurched.” Thus the story of the “few in the ark who were saved through water” becomes a very comforting illustration in his exhortation.

That story also furnishes a transition to another subtheme, which is baptism. “Through water, by means of water,” di’ hudatos, is instrumental dative of means, making water here the instrument for the saving of Noah’s family. But it could also mean that they were brought to safety “through water” or that they were rescued “by means of water.” The water of the Flood is the type, and water baptism is the anti-type. Noah and his family were “saved by water.” That is what the passage teaches. See comments by Rogers and Rogers, 576.

VERSE 21. “Which figure, even baptism, does also now save us, not a putting away of the filth of the flesh but an answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Marshall).

“Which figure, even baptism does also now save us.” We assume that the antecedent of the pronoun ho in the clause ho kai humas antitupon nun sodzei baptisma is the noun hudatos in the phrase di’ hudatos, “by means of water” (verse 20), and that baptisma is the antitupon of it. In other words, Noah and his family were saved “by means of water,” and that this water is the type of which baptism is the antitype. Water saved Noah’s family; baptism saves us.

I had a disagreement with my Greek teacher—a friendly disagreement, that is— who had some hang-ups concerning baptism. But I argued with him through the use of the cases in the Greek. The verb sodzei is present active indicative singular third person. In the active indicative form, the subject of the verb is said to be the one doing the action; it is not being acted upon. It is also singular third person in form, which means then that the subject of that verb sodzei, saves, is singular and in the third person. That subject is shown to be antitupon. That antitupon saves. Peter says the antitupon is baptisma, “baptism.” The passage is thus correctly translated: “Which antitype, even baptism, also now saves us.” Concerning antitupon, Rogers and Rogers have this comment: “The word connotes the exactness of correspondence between the stamp and the die…The saving by baptism Peter mentions here is symbolic not actual, as Peter hastens to explain… Baptism is the occasion and sign from an old way of life to another that is marked by a new ethic…” (Rogers & Rogers, 576).

There is no denying the actual fact that the Lord is our Saviour. But baptism is his instrument of saving. Dr. Christiaan Barnard did the first heart transplant, but in performing this he used instruments, one of which could be the scalpel. We say “baptism saves” a man in the same way that we say “a gun killed” Lincoln. But both the gun and baptism are agencies (or instruments, if you wish). I am inclined to believe that my Greek teacher was simply over-reacting, as the rest of those “baptism-does-not-save” Baptist theologians are. Let’s stop promoting a doctrine that does not have textual basis to support it.

“Not a putting away of the filth of the flesh.” When Peter says that baptism performs the spiritual function of saving, he hastens to add that it does not perform the physical function of cleaning or putting away the filth of the flesh. The passage does not teach baptismal regeneration. In fact baptism is a helpless act, a useless act even, if it is done without the authority of the one who said “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“But an answer of a good conscience toward God.” Peter goes on to say that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. The Greek word eperotema means “question, inquiry, pledge, declaration of commitment” (Rogers & Rogers, 576). “In the papyri there is evidence that this word was a technical term in making a contract, denoting the pledge or undertaking given by one of the parties in answer to formal questions. The word then implies the registering of agreement to conditions or demands. Baptism is a response to conditions… Here the pledge is an assent to certain conditions; it may imply a confession of faith as well as the willingness to accept the new duties…” (Ibid.). For a baptized believer, there is no turning back, even after he has seen the prospect of martyrdom. He submits to baptism in response to the conditions set by His Lord; by baptism he agrees to His demands; by baptism he declares his commitment to Him; by baptism he confesses the Lordship of Him who recruited him to the new duties. Baptism is not to be forced on anyone, for he who submits to it must himself understand what it requires. “Infant baptism” is a doctrine that only stupid theologians impose in the absence of Bible authority; promoting it makes a mockery of God’s law. An infant who gets sprinkled is not saved; and infant sprinkling could be a bad answer of a bad conscience toward the devil who promotes this theology in the world.

“Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The construction of this phrase is dative instrumental. Furthermore, it is dative instrumental of means. It has been my experience in my studies of the Greek grammar that the instrumental dative of means goes with a verb, since that dative construction pictures the instrument that complements the verb. The verb in this case is sodzei, “saves.” “Baptism saves through (or by) the resurrection of Jesus” is an interpretation that is textually correct as our analysis shows. If you overlay this with what is being taught in Romans 6:1-11, this interpretation is also theologically correct. The raising up of the subject from the watery grave is symbolic of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and our own resurrection from death through sin. Furthermore, we focus not just on Christ’s death but also on his resurrection to make us “one new man.” He tasted death for the sins of every man, but by his resurrection he conquered it, that those who have been saved from sins may live and may continually have hope of life eternal. That salvation and that hope are pictured in baptism. Baptism is not only a contract but a union with Jesus in His death and His rising again, which leads to a sharing of His new life. Thus to these pilgrims whose faith is under a fiery trial, their baptism marks them out as God’s few chosen ones and commits them to unswerving loyalty to God in the face of martyrdom, reminding them that they will be saved although all their enemies malign them, although their lives will be at stake. It is the assurance of their salvation and symbol of their strength and victory with the risen Christ,

VERSE 22. “Who is on the right hand of God, having gone into the heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.”

Peter now concludes with an exultant description of the ascended Christ sitting on God’s right hand with all dominions and powers subject to Him. Verse 18 shows the accomplishment of Jesus’ exampleship and reconciling mission on earth. The latter part of verse 18 and now verse 19 shows His victory over death and His journey to the realm of spirits, proving His authority over the realm of the spirits of the living and the dead. Verse 22 is the round up, the whole scene, showing Him in His glorious reign and dominion over a whole range of dominions—spirits, authorities, powers.

Our translation may differ from the KJV but it is based on the text. The antecedent of the phrase “who is on the right hand of God” is the resurrected Christ mentioned in verse 21. His being on the right hand of God is the capstone of his act of conquering the devil. Not only is He in heaven, He is also sitting on God’s right hand. This shows Him to be ruling over the universe, above all. Poreutheis, aorist passive deponent, could also be translated “after he went.” His act of having gone to heaven comes before his act of sitting on God’s right hand. The going to heaven is temporal action, as the aorist of the participle implies. But his sitting on God’s right hand, his ruling over all, which came after his ascension, is an on-going act, for such is the meaning of the phrase hos esten en dexia theou, “who is on the right hand of God.” Esten is present indicative singular third person, translated as be verb “is”; in this instance the subject of esten is WHO, referring to Jesus. The verb shows an on-going state, without implying an end. Christ is now ruling, and continually rules, in the heavens. He rules over all. The mention of “angels” signifies that He rules over the realm of the spirits. The mention of “authorities,” plural in form, signifies that He rules even over those who exercise authority on earth (moral, spiritual, intellectual, political), which in the minds of the first century people includes Rome, which at that time had combined both political and religious authority into one person, its emperor. Christ is even above that political and religious persecuting authority. The mention of the word “powers,” again plural in form, signifies that Christ rules over every power man can conceive of, even over those who claim power over lives, over economies, over geographies, over chances and opportunities to grow. Hupotagenton, aorist passive participle, translated “being made subject” is in the genitive absolute. Everyone and everything is made subject to Him. This is a declaration from Peter, who also has experienced persecution of some kind, by Jews, by priests who have been appointed by rulers of the Jews, and by rulers of the Jews who have been appointed by the Romans. The phrase embraces all ranks that could sow fear in the hearts of the Christians who were living at the time of the writing of this epistle. We may be sure Peter’s readers, who were facing the onslaughts of evil powers through their enemies, have found great assurance in his words.

CONCLUSION: We have always believed that the key to understanding of 1 Peter 3:13-22 is by proper exegesis of the passages, considering the whole context. The jumping jack method of interpretation does injustice to the text, and does not promote harmony of the Scriptures. Proof texting is the venture of those who have preconceived doctrines to defend. Translators have their own cows to feed; commentators have their own idols to defend. But in the marketplace of ideas, everything must be left open for every reader to examine. Our advice to every believer in Christ is: Before you invest your life, your savings, your time on something, do investigate. Or as the caveat of the Romans would say: “Let the purchaser beware.”

The context of the passage speaks of persecution and what should Christians’ attitude be toward it. In this study we have tried to understand Peter’s purpose for delving into rather difficult, complicated and obscure matters. Studying 1 Peter 3:13-22 involves too much rough sailing, as far as we are concerned. But we have attempted to show that each point Peter introduced is relevant to his readers’ situation, that they must have understood what he was saying. In our time, we are perplexed by Peter’s teachings, by his words, by his thoughts. Sometimes we do not see the logic, and may wonder at his tendency to jump from one thought to another without providing us so much details. We have tried to understand Peter the writer, but we do not pretend to understand everything that Peter the writer wrote. Our lack of understanding of everything that he said has humbled us. And while we disagree with what others think that Peter meant, we have also strived to be open-minded, and have seen the need for further study of the text.

1 Peter 3:13-22 - The Exegesis (1)

In making this exegesis, I have used every resource possible, from lexicons to theological dictionaries, to Greek grammar books. There is a use for commentaries, but as I have said we have to be wary of the opinions they express. Our method is to examine every possible evidence, and strive to have a balance of everything. We may be slaves of the Word, but let us not be slaves of human opinions.

1 Peter 3:10-12, the verses that come before verse 13, is an almost exact quotation of LXX Psalm 34:12-16, except that the Petrine quotation uses the singular 3^rd person while the Psalmist uses the 2^nd person. After that quote from LXX, Peter now brings the message of the inspired Scripture to bear on the situation of his Christian audience. He asks them:

VERSE 13. “And who is the one harming you if you become zealots for what is good?” In the Greek: “kai tis ho kakoson humas ean tou agathou zelotai genesthe”? The Greek kai, translated “and,” is a copulative conjunction that connects single words,” “clauses and sentences,” or introduces “an abrupt question which may often express wonder” (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 391, 392). The Greek tis is an interrogative pronoun (“who”) and with ho kakoson humas may also be translated: “And who is going to harm you?” That is the question, to which the answer should be: “No one.” The idea behind the question also shows the conclusion to be drawn from verse 10-12 as quoted from the Psalmist. If you are a follower of what is good, nobody shall harm you.

ho kakoson. The word is from the infinitive kakou, “to harm, to mistreat, to maltrate, to cause injury” (BAGD, 398). In the LXX, the word is often applied to the fate of the Israelites (Num. 20:15) and of the Messiah (Isa. 53:7). The phrase ho kakoson is future active participle used as substantive (it comes with an article), for which reason it is translated as a noun phrase: “The one who will do you harm,” or “the one who will harm you.” Since the caring Lord always keeps watch over the righteous and His ears are ever open to their prayers, who then can harm them (3:12)?

ean tou agathou zelotai genesthe. Literally, “If you become zealots for what is good.” With the conditional ean, the writer, using the 2^nd person plural aorist middle subjunctive genesthe, “if you become,” views the possibility that “no one will harm you” if the conditions of being zealous for good are met (Rogers & Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, 575) because we have a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and faithful, and has laid down a law to make sure everything works according to His plan and that everything resonates in response to His moral integrity. That is the law of sowing and reaping—by this law the good could reap benefits and the bad could be disciplined. Hence, do good.

ean with subjunctive “denotes what is expected to occur, under certain circumstances, from a given standpoint in the present” (BAGD, 211). The subjunctive deponent genesthe in this passage means “having become at a point in past time, with the present result that they are still eager,” a sense which is hard to put into smooth English. This tells us however that their zeal for good has begun in the past, with the present result that they have not lost their zeal for good yet. That is a continuing zeal. The promise does not apply to those who in their lives have been partly zealots for good. Consistency is the idea.

agathou as an adjective is generally used for “whatever that is good and useful, especially moral goodness in relation to God who is perfect” (Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:98). tou agathou with article is a substantive, but whether it is neuter or masculine is not clear (the singular genitive case endings in both genders are alike, cf. Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 61). In this study, we assume it to be neuter, hence our translation “of, for, what is good.” Matthew Henry thinks it is masculine, and translates the phrase thus: “If you are imitators of the Good One,” that is, “God” (Matthew Henry, Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament, 1379). As an interpretation, this is harmless. This is an area where you have to hold your horses. Dogmatism won’t help.

zelotai, translated “zealots,” is favored by the best and ancient of manuscripts. “Zealots for what is good” is a remarkable expression, says Reicke, “in contrast to the evil zealots of the Jewish revolts” (J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter: Word Biblical Commentary, 185). Adam Clarke says this is the very probable reading (Adam Clarke, Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament, 1379). Robertson says it is a correct translation, since the objective genitive tou agathou comes after zelotai which is a noun (A.T. Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures, Computer Bible Software Co).

VERSE 14. In the Greek: “all’ ei kai paschoite dia dikaiosunen, makarioi. Ton de phobon auton me phobete mede tarachthete.” Translation: “But if you indeed should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear their fear, nor be troubled.”

Alla, elided to all’ in this text, meaning “but,” “nevertheless.” To clarify the meaning of that assurance of “no harm” in verse 13, to strengthen that assurance, and to guard the readers against erroneously concluding that no difficulties of any kind will happen to them, the writer uses the connective alla, “but,” “nevertheless.” The word is used to introduce a contrast, or to indicate a transition from one clause to another (BAGD, 38).

Building on the promise that “no one shall hurt you” the writer continues, “But and if indeed you should suffer for the sake of righteousness” (ei kai paschoite dia dikaiosunen), then he concludes, “you are blessed” (makarioi). The conditional particle ei used with optative means “if it should be possible,” a phrase which denotes the uncertain fulfillment of the condition (BAGD, 219; Rogers & Rogers, 575). The optative active is very rare in the New Testament, and this is one instance of Peter’s use of it. This mood expresses a wish or a more remote possibility (Machen, 550). So Peter is telling them, “There is a remote possibility that you will suffer, but if you should suffer—for righteousness’ sake— then you are blessed.” The optative is one rhetorical device often used by prophets, preachers, and writers to encourage and to strengthen. Suffering, even to the point that your life is taken away from you, does not take away your blessedness but even promotes it. I also say that the suffering of martyrdom for the cause of Jesus will hasten your blessedness, for in death suffering ceases, no more pain is there, and the Christian is hastened to his reward. Suffering does not make you a martyr, but the cause for which you die does.

dia dikaiosunen, “for the sake of righteousness.” Its adjective means the quality of a man who is righteous according to law; it is also the standard which a judge is required to uphold, and to restore it must constantly be his aim; in its absolute sense, it takes its character from God himself (cf.1 Peter 2:25; Revelation 16:5). The Christian faith and conduct in life is called the way of righteousness (2 Peter 2:11), and the goal of life can be described in terms of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13). So, to suffer for the sake of righteousness is to suffer on account of righteousness, or to suffer for a goal. But to suffer while one conducts his life in a righteous way must also be one meaning of this phrase. Righteousness as a goal is different from righteousness as a way of life. Let righteousness be our goal, and let that be our life.

The word paschoite. It means “to suffer, to endure, to undergo sufferings,” but in the absolute sense it also means “to suffer death, to be killed, to have to die” (BAGD, 634). First century people understood this. That seems to be the reason for Peter’s use of the optative.

Now the imports of “harm” (verse 13) and “suffer” (verse 14). Do they mean the same? From “harm” they are safeguarded by God, but by “suffering” they are blessed. I consider this a divine parallelism, a device that is very common in the Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah, for example). By his use of this device, Peter shows himself as a true Israelite, a true Jew.

Readers need this exhortation to prepare them for suffering, which is possible if not inevitable. But “for righteousness’ sake” must be the only reason why Christians should suffer. There is no promise of blessedness that await those who suffer for their unrighteousness (cf. 4:15), for the faithful who endure sufferings for the sake of righteousness are the ones who are truly blessed (makarioi). The Greek makarioi is an adjective that means “fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of being a privileged recipient of a divine favor” (BAGD, 486). That blessedness is sure and certain, it is derived from the promise equally sure and certain, and they will inherit that (1:4) at the coming of the revelation of their glorified Lord (1:7, 13).

The final clause in this verse, ton de phobon auton me phobete mede tarachthete, translated, “Do not fear their fear, nor be troubled,” is a quote from Isaiah (8:12), which, again, Peter modified by focusing on an object of fear that differs from that of the LXX Isaiah text. Phobon is defined as “terror, alarm, fright, reverence, respect, and awe (Colin Brown, 1:622; BAGD, 863). Fear provides both the motive and manner of Christian conduct (Acts 9:31; 1 Peter 2:17; Rev. 11:18). The only object of real fear, as far as Christians are concerned, is God (Heb. 10:31); He should be the object of fear of all men. me phobete is aorist passive subjunctive, and for the sake of simplifying things, we translate it thusly: “Do not be afraid, you must no longer be afraid, stop being afraid, do not be frightened.” The fear of persecution is what Peter probably has in mind in verse 14. Also, the aorist passive subjunctive mede tarachthete expresses prohibition: “Neither be troubled, agitated, or dismayed.” In a way, Peter is telling them: “Do not fear the kind of fear these pagans are afraid of, nor be agitated or troubled by it!” Persecutors too are afraid of being persecuted! If our understanding of what Peter has in mind as he writes this passage is correct, this passage then is an advice for a Christian to be completely composed as he faces his accusers. Suffering for Christ carries a blessing. Face it without fear. Do not impair your blessings by fearing man’s terror in your times of adversity.

VERSES 15-16. “But venerate the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always for defense to everyone asking you a reason about the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect, maintaining a good conscience, in order that while you are spoken against, the ones mistreating you will be put to shame by your good behaviour.” After the injunction not to fear the kind of fear these pagans are afraid of, Peter now quotes Isaiah 8:13, but makes some substitution as he sees fit. Where the LXX has “Sanctify the Lord himself,” he has “Sanctify the Lord Christ,” kurion de ton Christon hagiasate. Peter understands Jesus firstly as Lord (2:3) and that is how he interprets Isaiah’s kurion. Is ton kurion appositional to Christon, or is it the other way around? In other words, should it be translated as “Christ the Lord” or “the Lord Christ”? Many of the present-day translators make ton Christon the object of the verb hagiasate and kurion the predicate accusative, thus they translate: “Christ as Lord.”

The verb hagiasate is aorist active imperative, hence it has the force of a command: “Venerate him, sanctify him.” To sanctify is “to consecrate, to dedicate, to reverence, to treat as holy, to venerate, to adore” (BAGD, 8, 9; Rogers & Rogers, 575). The command is explicit, the focus of it is rather upon the inward acknowledgement of Christ’s Lordship, and the place of it is in the hearts, “in the hearts of you.”

The Greek aei, “always,” is an adverb modifying hetoimoi, “ready.” I am of the opinion that since this is a part of the imperative clause that commands Christians to sanctify Jesus, then aei hetoimoi should be translated “be ready always,” giving it the force of a command also. In a grammatical structure, an adverb can modify another adverb, and both adverbs can modify a verb. “always” is an adverb that modifies “ready,” another adverb, and both modify the verb “sanctify.” It is no wonder that some translations may read: “Be ready always to sanctify Jesus as Lord,” or “Being always ready, sanctify Jesus as Lord.” This will give brethren an idea why some translations differ in their renditions of the passage. An area too where the purists among us should not venture to tread.

It does seem logical however that the closest phrase aei could be associated with is pros apologian, “for defense,” in which hetoimoi also functions as a modifier of it, hence the translation, “being ready for defense always.”

Continuing on: To whom? panti to aitounti humas logon, literally “To everyone asking you a word” or a rational account of your inward hope. to aitounti is present active participle, and with its tense being present, it gives the clause an iterative sense, thus the translation: “Every time someone asks you a word.”

Concerning what? peri tes en humin elpidos, “Concerning the hope [that is] in you.” One point that distinguishes pagans from Christians is hope. The Christians, now free from the errors of their former ways, have been born again to a living hope (1:3; cf. Ephesians 2:12). It is this hope that separates them from their pagan neighbors; it is also this hope that invites confrontation with their pagan neighbors! I am of the opinion however that anyone who asks me a question, not for the purpose of knowing the reason for my inward hope, but for the purpose of finding fault in me, does not deserve an answer. I think what they are looking for is a debate. Gently, I say, you may give it to them.

How? alla meta prautetos kai phobou, “Yet [do so] with gentleness and respect.” Peter cites the qualifying phrase that recommends certain attitudes as one makes a defense for the rational account of his inward hope. Even in debates one can maintain proper Christian decorum. I have proven that many times. Do it with meekness and with fear. Not with arrogance and pride. prautetos can also mean “meekness” or “humility” (Rogers & Rogers, 575; Colin Brown, 2:256). phobou means “fear or respect” (Colin Brown, 1:621). One commentator thus asks: “Is this qualifying phrase (and the next) intended to recommend certain attitudes toward God, or toward the human questioners?” (v. 15) (Michaels, 189). If it is toward the human questioners, the text certainly recommends a Christ-like deportment toward outsiders—humility toward them, and respect for them— a deportment that certainly may redound to God’s glory on visitation day (2:12). There is nothing in the passage that could directly link phobou with the “fear” of God (unless one insists on the single definition of it). Furthermore, vv. 13 to 17 talks about how Christian disciples are to respond to their accusers when faced with queries about their heavenly hope. The verses flow smoothly if understood in this sense. But it is also possible that Peter is urging reverence or fear toward God and, on the other hand, humility and respect toward one’s accusers.

suneidesin echontes agathen, “Maintaining a good conscience.” The participle echontes is in the present and has an iterative sense, thus the translation: “Keep on having, keep on maintaining, a good conscience.” Both Peter and Paul lay great emphasis on good conscience (v. 16; 1 Timothy 1:19). “A good clear conscience” is the characteristic of a believer in Christ; a “corrupted conscience” of one who is not (cf. Titus 1:15).

hina en ho katalaleisthe, “In order that, while you are slandered, maligned, verbally abused.” A humble and respectful deportment toward accusers and a clear conscience not longer bothered by the problem of unwashed sins constitute a good response to maligners and slanderers.

hoi epereadzontes, present active participle used as substantive, “The ones mistreating, threatening, abusing, insulting” you. Four variations have been noted in the text, representing probably the efforts of some copyists to modify 1 Peter 3:16. Are you troubled by this “modification”? Not me.

kataischunthosin, aorist passive subjunctive, translated, “May be put to shame.” By what? humon ten agathen en Christo anastrophen, “By your good conduct, your good behaviour in Christ.” This appears to be the sum total of what a Christian should be, of which “humility/meekness/gentleness” and “fear/respect” are just a part of his spiritual make-up. Observing the Christians’ “good works/good lives/good conduct/good lifestyle,” how will the accusers react? The accusers of 2:12 will glorify God on the day of visitation (Does this mean these accusers become repentant? That is a good question but Peter says nothing further). The accusers of 3:16 instead are put to shame; nothing is said about their change of heart. Perhaps these accusers persist in their slander and verbal abuse of Christians (the present passive indicative sense of katalaleisthe, see above, has the sense of continuing action), instead of turning to God (2:12). As a result, they will be put to shame.

VERSE 17. “For it is better to suffer while doing good, if the will of God wills, than [to suffer] while doing evil.” Since suffering is now a reality these disciples must face, Peter sets forth two alternatives: To suffer for well-doing, paschein agathopoiountas; or to suffer for evil-doing, paschein kakopoiountas. “Well-doing” refers to “social or civic righteousness, the performance of good deeds in conformity to the laws of the state”; on the other hand, “evil-doing” refers to “criminal activities justly punishable by the authorities” (Michaels, 191; cf. 1 Peter 2:14-15; 4:15). If one is to suffer, Peter suggests the first, saying it is better (Gr. kreitton). Patiently enduring in silence without any complaint while maintaining proper Christian decorum is better, since that will put your enemies to silence and shame (v. 16). Your silence makes them silent, for they have nothing to say against you. Also, to suffer in this life at the hands of your persecutors for the sake of righteousness is better than to fall into the hands of the living God on visitation day. To suffer if the will of God be so, ei theloi to thelema tou theou, “if the will of God wills,” furthermore is better, since God’s knows what’s best for us. Jamieson says, “Those who honor God’s will as their highest law (2:15) have the comfort to know that suffering is God’s appointment (4:19)” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, from Bible Explorer 4).

We may look forward to the next verse as the other reason: To suffer in patience is better because of the example of One who did once, who was glorified after having suffered. The idea of “first the suffering, then the glory” of 1:11 is resumed here and discussed in detail.

VERSE 18. “Because indeed Christ once suffered concerning sins, the righteous one on behalf of the unrighteous ones, in order that He might bring you to God; on one hand, being put to death in the flesh, on the other hand, being made alive in spirit.”

Many scholars are said to have found in various parts of 1 Peter “traces of early Christian hymns and creedal formulae” (Jamieson, et al. Commentary on the Whole Bible, 508). This is purely hypothetical, and whether such is true or not does not matter much. The text of this verse and the next verses that follow have many uncertainties, but these have no significant effect on the exegesis. The opening statement of verse 18, hoti kai Christos, signifies that 3:18-22 functions in the same way as 2:21-25. I am inclined to believe that the purpose of both passages is the same: To set forth Jesus, firstly, as the supreme example which the readers could emulate in their lives; and, secondly, as the one who by His redemptive act on the cross made possible such lives that they now enjoy.

Hoti kai Christos hapax peri hamartion apethanen, “Because indeed Christ concerning sins died” (Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).

There is a textual issue here as to whether apethanen, “died,” or epathen, “suffered,” is the correct reading. Both have strong manuscript support (see footnote, The Greek New Testament, 4^th Revised Edition, 1998. Edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, & Bruce M. Metzger). Metzger, while acknowledging the difficulty of ascertaining the original text, says that the majority of the Editorial Committee preferred the reading peri hamartion epathen, “concerning sins he suffered,” for three valid reasons. Those who want to do a deeper study on this matter are advised to read Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. The variants might be more significant to some, but R. T. France believes they do not affect exegesis significantly (Endnote no. 27, New Testament Interpretation, 279).

Hapax peri hamartion epathen, For Christ “once concerning sins suffered.” Peter now provides the suffering disciples the highest motive and example why it is better to suffer wrongfully: Because Christ too endured an unjust suffering for well-doing (vv. 17-18); He is our pattern (2:21); therefore he who suffers as He did more or less identifies with Him. Christ did suffer “once” (Greek: hapax) (“the tense of the verb reinforced by the adverb,” says Davids, p. 135); He suffered once for all (cf. Hebrews 9:24-28); He suffered “concerning sins” (Greek: peri hamartion), not his sins but ours; He suffered as a “righteous one in behalf of unrighteous ones” (Greek: dikaios huper adikon); He suffered “in order that He might bring you to God” (Greek: hina humas prosagage to theo). Prosagage introduces the reconciling aspect of the death of the Righteous One for the unrighteous ones. Flagellants with their copy-cat humiliation and copy-cat crucifixion will find that their attempts to copy Jesus still fall short of what is real and genuine. The righteous Jesus suffered and died for the unrighteous that is us. If these people can’t claim they are as righteous as Jesus, then for whom are they being crucified for? Their “Good Friday” exercises, to my way of thinking, are nothing but a waste of time, of money, of blood, of energy. They can’t even save themselves; how can they save the world? They don’t even die there. I would find going to a movie on Good Friday more entertaining.

Thanatotheis men sarki, “On one hand, being put to death in [the] flesh” is Marshall’s rendition of the text. “On one hand” (Gr. men) contrasts this phrase with the one that follows. The perfect passive participle thanatotheis refers to the finished action of His death in AD 33 which has a continuing effect or consequence at the time the readers were reading Peter (AD 63), even at this time that we are reading Peter (AD 2008). The phrase could be translated as “having been put to death in [the] flesh” in order to really show the “finished-action aspect of the perfect tense, but the meaning does not stop there; the perfect also has the “abiding-result” aspect, which translators have a hard time trying to put into smooth English. Suffice it to say that the death of Christ on the cross still has abiding results and powerful effects at any time to anyone anywhere.

“Being put to death in [the] flesh” could also be translated “being put to death with respect to [the] flesh,” to emphasize the idea that it was indeed his flesh, his body, not His spirit or His soul, that died. “Flesh” is the translation of the Greek sarki, here in the dative case and does not have an article. The presence of an article gives the word another meaning; but without that article, sarki here would mean not “the flesh” but “human nature,” or “natural human sphere of existence” (BAGD, 743; Colin Brown, 1:671, 677; France, 267).

Again, examining it for its form and use in the sentence, I have come to the conclusion that sarki is not dative locative but dative instrumental. The dative instrumental has five uses (impersonal means, manner, cause, association, and direct object). sarki in this case maybe classified as dative instrumental of manner. The dative instrumental of manner expresses the way in which something is performed. Sarki, “in flesh,” in the dative case functions like an adverb, and may be translated as an adverb; “in flesh” may also mean “fleshly.”

Hence the manner of Christ’s death is fleshly, or in flesh. Only His body died. The wordings of verse 18 are also suggestive of the OT background, especially in the context of the sacrificial system, focusing on Jesus’ death as a vicarious, reconciliatory, and redeeming sacrifice. It can be viewed as the doctrine of the atonement in a capsule.

zoopoietheis de pneumati, literally rendered, “quickened in spirit,” or “made alive in spirit.” Here is one area where many interpreters also disagree. Some take sarki (above) as dative locative and translate it “in the flesh,” but they take pneumati as instrumental dative of means and translate it as “by the spirit.” The purpose of that translation is to make the Spirit as the instrument for quickening Him. If so, why not also make the flesh the instrument of his death? This is not consistent! It just shows to what extent shall some people go to prove a doctrine, they would even change the meaning of the passage to fortify their preconceived notions!

It must be noted too that both sarki and pneumati don’t have articles in the text. So why put one in the translation (“in the flesh,” “in the Spirit”)? Where is the rule for doing that? And why capitalize “Spirit”? What makes you think that the “spirit” here is the “Holy Spirit”? It is purely assumption, and we must be warned that there is nothing in 1 Peter 3 that identifies “spirit” with the “Holy Spirit.” The only way we can prove this is by doing the jumping jack, jumping from one verse to another. They call it proof-texting. The Mormons and the Iglesia ni Cristo and the “antis” are very good in that. To my way of thinking, we are not doing justice to the context when we jump from one text to another text.

“In flesh” and “in spirit” are translations that are faithful to the text. Both phrases are balanced grammatically in the text, and both are arranged in parallel. The phrase “put to death in flesh” is also analogous to the phrase “quickened in spirit.” They are both to be taken as dative instrumental of manner and not otherwise. That opinion, I believe, is consistent with the text, with grammar and with reason.

There is more to follow…

1 Peter 3:13-22 - A Backgrounder

INTRODUCTION. First Peter is just one of the two letters attributed to that Galilean apostle, whose name figures prominently in the Four Gospels, the Book of Acts, and in two of Paul’s epistles (Galatians and 1 Corinthians), which mention him in approving, and disapproving ways (see Galatians 1:18; 2:7-9, 11, 14; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5).

Early church traditions had attributed to Peter the authorship of both epistles that now bears his name. Lately however, a number of modern scholars have questioned Peter’s authorship of the first epistle, their objections based mainly on their so-called “internal evidence.” It is not within the scope of this treatise to argue on the matter of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter; I assume that everyone who reads this article doesn’t have this problem.

The place of composition is “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13). Catholic writers believe this to be the apocalyptic name for Rome. If this is true then the “Babylon” of the Book of Revelation must also be Rome (see Revelation 14:8). Accepting both creates a dilemma for these people. We’ll not go further into that except to say that here we already have a “scholars’ swamp,” breeding ground of a lot of interpretations, scholarly and unscholarly, private and otherwise: Catholics with their purgatory; the Baptists with their baptism-does-not-save doctrine; the Mormons with their proxy salvation—-the list keeps growing. These unwarranted interpretations, like pestilent mosquitoes from the murky swampland, infest the minds of the unprepared and the unlearned. Be warned.

The Epistle of 1 Peter was addressed to the scattered strangers, Christians dispersed over a wide area of the Roman Empire, such as Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1). The Christian disciples were being persecuted, and so the key word “suffers” (or “suffering”) predominates in the epistle. These disciples, whom Peter styled as “strangers” (Gr. parepide’mois, 1 Peter 1:1; 2:11) and “pilgrims” (Gr. paroikous, 2:11) were undergoing a fiery trial (4:12); they were fair game to their abusive neighbors (3:16). Peter thus exhorts these believers to endure the trials of their faith, and rejoice in the hope that they have received from God through their Lord. The epistle gives practical guidance on how these Christians should deal with the pagans in the community, in the government, and at home.

At the time of writing of this epistle, the event of Jesus’ suffering and death was still fresh in the minds of these people. The truly sensible among them knew that even that suffering and that death were beyond comparison: Its cause was unjust, and its purpose was incomprehensible. But here we see Peter, an apostle who saw Christ and a sharer in the sufferings of Christ, seeing through the incomprehensibility of it all: The death of the Lord has its meaning, and the passion of the Lord has its own virtues. Jesus’ death is the answer to the problem of fear of what lies beyond the grave; his passion the answer to the problem of fear of what lies before the grave. The over-all idea is encouragement to Christians under trials, a faith-testing in which martyrdom becomes a possibility. This section, 1 Peter 3:13-22, contributes to the development of that over-all idea.

HOW THE PASSAGE IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD. 1 Peter 3:13-22 teaches that JESUS is the solution to the baffling problem of, and the pattern of patiently enduring the pains of, suffering. My rendition of the passage (see below) has been based on the rules of how the Greek words are to be understood, tense-wise, gender-wise, number-wise. After this rendition, the exegesis will follow. Consider these then.

VERSE 13. No one can harm and no one will harm the righteous if he consistently, continually, and zealously does what is good.

VERSES 14-16. But if you suffer, and that is for righteousness’ sake, here are the things to consider and to do:

(a) Your thoughts of harm must be replaced by the thought of the blessedness of suffering for the sake of righteousness (v. 14a), like Jesus (v. 18).

(b) Your fear of man and your dismay of what they can do to you (v. 14b) must be replaced by your reverential awe of Jesus (v. 15a), for he keeps watch over the good and punishes the bad (cf. v. 12).

(c) Your constant readiness for defense every time you are asked concerning your inward hope in Christ (v. 15b) must be accompanied with gentleness and courtesy (v. 15c) even toward those who are skeptical, abusive, and derisive (v. 16b), as your way of reverencing Jesus (v. 15a).

(d) Your boldness in defense of your faith (v. 15b) must be truly supported by a pure conscience that you have kept on maintaining before God (v. 16a) and by a right conduct that will put your detractors to shame (v. 16b).

VERSES 17-22. But and if you suffer, here is the pattern to emulate: Christ.

(a) Know that it is better to suffer (v. 17a), if it is the will of God (v. 17b), and if it is for well-doing than for evil-doing (v. 17c), since Christ too suffered according to God’s will, for well-doing.

(b) Consider that it is better to endure suffering (v. 17a), taking Jesus as the pattern. (i) He suffered once for sins not His own (v. 18a); (ii) He suffered, a righteous man for unrighteous men (v. 18b); (iii) He suffered that he might bring us to God (v. 18c).

(c) Think that it is better to patiently suffer (v. 17a), because of the hope of life that Christ brings, remembering him who, after having suffered and died (that is, put to death in the flesh), was made alive in the spirit (v. 18e).

(d) Understand that it is better to patiently suffer (v. 17a), because of the prospect of not spending your state with the unsaved, remembering Christ in spirit state who went and preached to the spirits in prison (v. 19), which spirits were those of men who then had kept on disobeying God while His patience waited in the days of Noah (v. 20a).

(e) Know that it is better to endure suffering (v. 17a), because of the prospect of spending one’s lot with the privileged few, remembering the eight who cast their lot with God and were saved in the ark (v. 20), whose salvation through water then corresponds to the baptism that saves us now, which is understood not as a manner of putting away the filth of the body but as an answer of a good conscience toward God, by virtue of Christ’s resurrection (v. 21).

(f) Consider that it is better to endure sufferings because of the glory that follows it, remembering Christ, who after having suffered in patience, now sits at the right hand of God and reigns in glory over all (v. 22).

Next: The Exegesis

What D’ya Think?

How do you feel being corrected by a little boy, your sentences screened and scissored by one just fresh from Kindergarten 2? Read this>>>

A Daughter At War

Arly (not her real name) has been on the warpath since Saturday night (she is not a Christian; but both her parents are). Listening to the accusations and counter-accusations the warring mother and daughter have been hurling against each other, I have even come to the conclusion that Arly has been on the warpath since she was twelve (she’s now twenty-four).

The occasion of the present war that I am watching today after church is the rebuke she receives Saturday night from the mother she has learned to hate. “Stop gambling! Take care of your child! Come to bed early so you will have strength for work tomorrow! Tell your husband to go find a job so he could support you and your child! Don’t pamper that good-for-nothing! You call him angel? He’s your devil!” Things like these that pain her and make her hate her more.

Oh how she hates her! She has learned to hate her since that afternoon twelve years ago when fresh from school she caught her in bed with someone else.

That story of one woman’s adulterous past has been going the rounds since the day I came