The Application of Suffering - Part 1

Is anyone new to the concept of suffering here in 1 Peter? If you are, you've missed the lessons that are preceded today. I'm having trouble getting a signal on my computer, so I'm going to go ahead and turn to my dime store glasses to read. And we're going to read from verse 12 down through the end of the fourth chapter today, verse 19. And Roger, I think you're up next week, right, for the last two verses of today's section.

But what I think is not strange concerning the final trial which is to test you, is that some strange thing happened unto you. But rejoice in it as much as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings, that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

If you be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you, for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a dizzybody in other men's powers. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf.

For the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God. And let first begin at us what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God. And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore, let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him and well-doing as unto a faithful creator.

So, keep in mind here that the section today entitled The Application of Suffering, Part 1, verses 15-17, is in context a continuation of the theme of trials and suffering that we've seen for some time in this epistle. Okay, let's start at verse 15, the first one for today. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people's matters. Wow. I looked at this verse and I said, you know, this is like not only apples and oranges, but it's meat and vegetables. What a list. Anyway, we're going to drill down on the list. What, Tom? And that last one would be cantaloupe.

Okay, let none of you suffer. This is present active imperative. That means now. That means we actively suffer and it's factual. Okay? Let none of you suffer. That means no suffering here everyone. Right now, no suffering, got to put it off, because that's your responsibility to do that. We'll figure out how we're going to do that here in a second.

And suffer, my question to the class here, does this imply reproach from past actions before salvation, or ongoing acts of the flesh? Or neither? I would say both. What do you think about that? I mean, how often do you, well, it says suffer, all these things that we are suffering from, are really acts of the flesh, whether it is before we are saved, or even possible, just think about meddling in other people's business. Have you ever been there or done that? We are going to return to that in a second.

It is interesting that today is none but the hungry heart. It is often so timely. Miles says, regret for a stupid past will remain until we truly believe. that for us in the Lord Jesus, that sinful past no longer exists. And he goes on to say that the new life in Christ is in fact, his past is our present. So if this is a reproach from things previously done, it's taken care of. Get on with it.

But in fact, are these acts of the flesh that you're suffering from? Because it's possible for a believer to murder someone. It's possible for a believer to steal. Think about that paper clip you took home from work. Is that theft? I don't know. I'm probably guilty of that periodically without even knowing it. And what about being an evildoer?

We'll define that in a second. The last one, never mind. We'll come back to that. In context, when we're reproached for the name of Christ, God is glorified. in the verse that precedes this one in 16. Let's look back at 14. Let me put on my other glasses here. I'm still not getting a signal down here on my computer. If you're reproached for the name of Christ, happier are you. For the spirit of glory of God rests upon you on their part.

He is evil, spoken of, but on your part, he's glorified. So there, if you're reproached for the name of Christ, praise God. And verse 16, which we'll get to in a moment, if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on his behalf.

So we interpreted this suffering in relationship to the name of Christ, we've got victory there. And so put it on as victory. So if you're dealing with the past, forget it. If you're dealing with deeds of the flesh now, In the new life, confess them and move on. But if you're being reproached for the name of Christ, praise God and glory be to him. And that's really nothing for us to dwell on.

Murderer, thief, evildoer, busybody in other people's matters. Wow, again, what a list. They forgot pride and vanity and a lot of other things there too, didn't they? But I'm sure Peter meant to include all those other things. The text just didn't take time to record them.

Murder and thief is obvious, although I think I pointed out a subtle example of stealing. But that's kind of legal, isn't it? If you think about applying the law to things, if you inadvertently take a paperclip from your work to home, you may not even realize you did it. Anyway, are you guilty of some legal principle of doing that? I don't think so.

The point is, I think being a thief, It is obvious to you and to everyone else in fact in whom you've partaken of their goods or yourself. Evildoer. What's an evildoer? Well, it's a malefactor, breaker of the laws of God or moral laws of men. Think of examples. Being an evildoer. Tom? Your basic career criminal. Career criminal. OK. Other thoughts, that's being an evil doer.

Wouldn't this be also someone who knowingly, because it says breakers of the laws of God or more, wouldn't it also be someone who's teaching bad things knowingly? I mean, teaching subversive principles. Calling falsehood truth. Well, you know, are we talking secularly or spiritually? Secularly, we see it everywhere. OK.

Give me an example of who was called an evil doer. Probably the utmost example. Of course, the handout is there. I remember I said the handout shouldn't go out until the class is over. John, 1830, they answered and said to him, if he were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered him up to you. Who are they talking about here?

The Lord Jesus Christ. He's called an evildoer by men's standards. And look at the definition according to, I think, the thesaurus. Breaker of the laws of God or moral laws of men. So from their perspective, Christ was a blasphemer. Now, were those the laws of God? or the laws of men of the Roman Empire in which they existed. Either way, Christ was called an evildoer. Well, that's because he healed on the Sabbath. He broke their law. He did a lot of things that were not consistent with the law of Moses, right? But he was above the law. The law of Moses as interpreted by the president. And Vern talked about that last week and may continue in that vein today.

So evildoer is a loose term and when you think of the laws of men, keep in mind government is given by whom? God. And we don't always agree with it, do we? But God is put in to place government because of why? Why do we have government laws of men? Because we're evildoers.

We all have fallen natures. Right. So we don't need to spend a lot of time on evildoers, but it's kind of, if you think of the laws of God, you're thinking mostly Old Testament stuff. You're thinking the laws of men. If we believe God's overseen government, the laws of men are constructed because of us being evildoers. Anyway, Christ was called an evildoer.

Jeremy. I think that it's perspective here is our relationship with God. We're not doing these things because they're against the law of God. The whole point, or the continuing point of 1 Peter is that we're acting in a way that's inconsistent with what the world expects, and so they're punishing us. Jesus, he was breaking the Jewish law.

So I think to say that you don't suffer as an evildoer, where the whole point is that we're suffering because we're not acting as the world expects us to act. Yeah, we're going to get there, but I think we're just drawing out on the word. Right, but for an evildoer there, to put it in the context of the laws of men, well, maybe, but, you know, Daniel suffered because he did not obey the laws of men, because the law of God was higher, so he wouldn't fit into the sense of an evildoer here, so I think when you're talking about being an evildoer, it's more about, just kind of in general, going against the order of the laws that God has set here. That means sometimes we're going to go against the laws of men, and we're going to be persecuted for it. But that's what we're supposed to do, because the law of God is higher, right? OK. Any other thoughts? All right. The next one's more fun. A busybody or member, or get that American standard right there, in other people's matters, self-appointed.

This could be a real tricky thing because just the night before last there was a big argument in the apartment above me. I've had no contact with those people above me. It's just kind of like they have their jobs and they come and they go and they don't like their sleep disturbed so they knock on the floor where I am when I basically turn over bed or get up out of a seat.

They were very sensitive. And then they had a falling out just this last time. And poor wifey got it bad. And I had to call the cops. It was just an ongoing thing. It took them seven minutes at 9-1-1 to pick up the stupid phone. So I could hear ongoing impacts and beatings and other things. I mean, something had to be done. That's not me. Is anybody protecting somebody else?

I wouldn't call that meddling, really enacting justice on a situation that's unnecessary. So it's interesting that this term for busybody is the only New Testament time that's used. There are other terms that kind of them. Apply it, but this is the only time the terms used.

Reminds me of an old song. Margaret and I were trying to pitch this out yesterday. I was going to play it this morning, but actually as I listen to the lyrics, I don't think it would have been appropriate to play it here. Does anybody remember the song Ain't Nobody's Business But My Own? Who did that first, Margaret? Mississippi John Hurt. Mississippi John Hurt, 1914.

And that was done by Billy Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, most recently by Kev Moe. Anyway, it's done by a lot of people that, you know, not meddling in other people's business. I'm going to do what I want. And most of it was evil doing, actually. So I decided not to play it here this morning. Anyway, it did remind me of this song, Ain't Nobody's Business But My Own, right? Well, now we're reversing that. We're talking about somebody else's business, not getting into their business.

Anyway, first, that's all it means, 411, because it's a hint that this is dealt with elsewhere in scripture. That you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands as we commanded you. I mean, same kind of principle, different Greek word, and why it's a different Greek word. It's kind of ain't nobody's business but my own, right?

All right, what do you think of this list and what do you think it reflects? Jeremy, you kind of touched on that a little bit. Take that on a little further. Why is the list include what it does and why is there such a kind of what seems to be pretty subtle and what seems to be pretty obvious? Well, I mean, I think it goes back to what I was saying.

The idea is that we're suffering. The world is persecuting us because we're not acting like they expect us to. So we have to draw the line between are you suffering because you're not doing what the world has laid out as far as this is how we expect you to act. Previously we saw the world is amazed that we don't act like they do. We don't do these drunken reveries, these carousings, all this stuff. They are shocked that you're not acting that way.

And so I think the instruction is sometimes the laws of the land and the expectations of the world are what gets us in trouble. But that doesn't mean that we just, anytime we're suffering, it's fine. We may be suffering because we violated the laws of God. If you're a murderer, you can't say, the world is persecuting me, God help me out of this.

You can't be surprised And from the biblical level, it's not honoring to God. It's not displaying God's sacrifice because you suffered. Because you're a murderer, you're a thief, because you're going outside the bounds of what Christ says, this is how, this is the nature of Christ that's in you.

So he's drawing the line. I don't know if I'm explaining this or just going over it. Are we suffering because of these things that we did before we were saved, or is this possible an act of the flesh once we're saved? Alternatively, are we suffering in the name of Christ for things that seem not to be really our own actions. I mean, what are we talking about here? I think this is for our actions. I'm reading this old novel, Confederacy of Dunces. I don't know if anyone's heard it. But the main character in it is just always doing stupid things. And every time it backfires, he says, oh, you're persecuting me. This is oppression of the state.

I think Paul or Peter is trying to get us to avoid that, where we think every time we're persecuted, this is, I'm persecuted because you're a Christian. Well, no, we're persecuted because you did something bad. We have politicians and religious leaders that do criminal things and then they turn around, well, the world is persecuting me. No, they're not. You're getting justice because you stole or lied or did something wrong.

It's a difference between suffering because you violated God's standard and suffering because you violated the world standard, and our focus is that we need to, by God's grace and abiding Christ, follow his standard, and if that means it's contradicting the world standard, and we're persecuting that, then so be it. But if we're persecuted because we're violating God's standard, well, that's not part of the identification with Christ's suffering that we're called to. So are there times in which a believer is right and just to murder, steal, be an evil doer, or in fact be a busybody in other people's business? No. So why is this listed here like it is? Well, I think Jeremy's kind of hit it. Basically, if we do something wrong, and it's clearly wrong, and we should be persecuted, right?

So you reap what you sow. You sow evil, you reap the consequences of that deed. And so, Peter's just saying, don't ever expect that you'll, you can't apply that you're suffering for Christ if you do it and it's an evil action. You reap what you sow. But then he kind of turns it around toward the end, what you're going to say, well if you suffer as a Christian, rejoice in that. If you're suffering in the name of Christ, and it's just like Christ suffered, he suffered unjustly for doing what was healing people, doing a good deed, But the world said, no, that's a bad thing. And their context of expanding the law to cover all these crazy deals. But he said he suffered for righteousness.

And that's what's got the difference. Yes. The footnote in the Holman Christian Standard Bible for meddlers says, or as one who defrauds others. You know, that matches up with these other three. Murderer, thief, and evildoer. Those are obviously wrong. But a middler, you know, if it's just a busybody and other people's matters, it's not really that bad. But if it's with the intent to dethrone somebody, then that's absolutely wrong.

You know, so... Definition. Yeah, it's the definition of it. Busybody in other people's matters is just somebody, you know, you shouldn't do that anyway. But, you know, if you're doing it to to just be evil. Yeah. What Tom did last time was not evil, whatever this was, right? Right.

I worked with a lot of women who I think speak up. I work with a lot of women who fall into the busybody category and there's just evil and malice and gossip and backstabbing and it's terrible. And it seems harmless because they're just communicating what they heard. But they're adding a little more to it and making it juicy.

So just one last thing and I'll let you move on. I think this is the same principle as Romans. So we continue in sin that grace may abound. It says, God forbid, I think it's the same idea. You're blessed. You should rejoice in persecuting. Does that mean we do things to seek out that persecution? Absolutely not. In both instances, grace keeps the character of God living through us. And even though he's talking about all this stuff, rejoicing persecution, you're blessed because of persecution. That doesn't mean you go and seek out persecution by... That's right. And I think this list is to say, don't go there. Because if you're going to go there, you should be persecuted. There's only a suffering in this. You're appropriately accused and should be persecuted for wrongdoing.

But by the way, next verse, that's where we're going. Yet if anyone suffers, by the way, anyone suffers is in parentheses, not in original Greek. Yet if, as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, let him glorify God in this matter. So if anyone suffers as a believer, then that's a whole different ballgame. So let's drill down here a little bit.

Why would suffering as a Christian make us ashamed? Was Peter thinking of when he denied the Lord? Well, I didn't think of that, John. He was ashamed, certainly, afterward. But in a sense, that revolts back to the last verse in terms of saying, gee, are we being reproached for things we once did? Peter, get over it. Christ is crucified, risen, and ascended.

I think that's possible. I have a different interpretation. Everybody's looking at the handout. Here's what I think this means. By the way, this is present passive imperative. Interesting verb tense. It means now. But being ashamed is something that is put upon us. It's not something we're actively ashamed.

So that's kind of neat, because as a believer, the shame that we're getting is from a system where our citizenship is not. Let's look at that in context. Remember, this was a time when the cult of Caesar was the state religion of the Roman Empire. And Christian, or Christianos, follower of Christ, was viewed as a competing empire on the promise of Christ's return. So, kind of interesting, so now this being ashamed is passive because the shame is being placed on us from the outside. Does that make sense? I think that's really why this is passive. But that happens today. Oh it does. Absolutely happens.

But I think at the time, I mean, Christ's return? What do you mean? This is the Roman Empire. And the cult of Caesar declared, this is our kingdom. What do you mean Christ is going to return as king? That's ridiculous. We're not going to put up with this. And so shame is brought on the believer, the saint. We'll go there a little bit further too. Because I think of the threat of the existing world system around him. The only other use of Christian actually is in Acts 11 and Acts 26. We don't need to go there. It was a name given to believers in contempt.

So the term Christian, I almost say, should we continue to use it? The church called themselves brethren, saints, disciples. and those of the way, and I hope that I have those scriptures listed for you. So the two times in Acts, or in Antioch, and then here in 1 Peter is only the third time the term Christian is used in the Bible. And it makes me think, you know, should we continue to use the term Christian? And by the way, the term Christian I think is offensive to the world, or they think you're foolish.

I like to say I'm a man of faith. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm a believer. I'm a member of the body of Christ. But we use the term Christian. And by the way, how many people claim themselves to be Christians who are not saved? I mean, think of all the other religions and faiths in the world that call themselves Christians when in fact, biblically, they're not saved. So I'm not saying don't use the term.

All I'm saying is interesting. In context, this was a pejorative term used by the world system to call the church. Kind of interesting. Any thoughts about that? Well, Bob, it seems like whatever term we use can be perverted by the world. I'm thinking about the term we hear a lot today, where people of faith. Well, that is another term which doesn't say you're both you're a believer at all. That's such a generic term. A person of faith can have faith in a piece of cabbage or whatever. So saying that people of faith is, every term can be corrupted by the world and is corrupted by the world.

But what if you meet somebody you've never met before and you start talking to them and ultimately you say, you know, you teach Sunday school, you go to a Bible church. They say, well, I'm a Christian too. I mean, what is your interpretation? Hopefully you go beyond that and you search out, you know, you get down specifics, right? If you have a conversation, right? Anyway, I'm just saying the term Christian is often a term that's not well understood by the person who's saying it. And, you know, it's fine. We're all Christians. It's fine. We're denoted that in the Bible. But keep in mind, that was a term that was placed on us by the world. But look what we call ourselves by these other names. I'm a saint. Child of God. Son of God. I'm a member of the body of Christ. Disciples. Teachers.

The point is, I just think it's an interesting thing to consider as we use the term. I think saint would get a Catholic's attention. calling yourself a saint, they have to be purgatory for a while. Everything needs an explanation doesn't it? Body of Christ, what's that mean? Never mind.

So our being ashamed is not our decision to be ashamed, but something placed upon us that we should expect as believers. Again, passive, the verb is passive. And that means we're standing in the Lord Jesus Christ. And if we're suffering because of that, we are placed in a position of shame by the system from the outside. This is nothing for us to wear. The worldview puts shame on the believer. But we're heavenly citizens, and in Christ there is no shame.

And the last part of this verse, let us glorify God in this matter. Interestingly enough, some translations say name. And I like name better. This is present active imperative. So we're in a position to glorify God. Now it's our responsibility. How do we do this? If, in fact, the shame is put on us by the system from without, but yet we're to glorify God, how do we do this? It's our responsibility. Why and how?

I think we just don't accept the shame. Because if you buy into it, then you're acknowledging they're putting it on us. You just don't. It's a non-issue. You don't accept the shame because you're glorifying God because you are a believer. Remember always, everything's by faith.

We must believe God for what he's revealed. And what's he revealed about this shame that the world's putting on us? That, in fact, expect it. And we actively, by faith, say, gee, this is opposite. Expect this. And when we respond in the new creation in which we are, we're above any shame. So do not be ashamed. The new man is never ashamed. To think about Christ when he was on the cross, the world put shame on his shoulders, right? the way they dressed him and how they treated him, they put shame on him. For sure. He's an evil doer, right? Yeah, and I like how Margaret said, he knew the end goal. Good comment. We're new creatures in Christ Jesus. Do we believe this? I think, again, when the responsibility seems to be on us, we can't turn to the flesh to not be ashamed. We, by faith, say we're created as new creations in Christ Jesus. And his view, which is our view by that bond in faith, allows us not to be shamed and glorify God. Isn't that neat? God gets the glory for his enacting in us to step back, view the world's contempt and shame and say, it doesn't exist. So praise God.

Try it in the flesh, you're going to fail. Just by faith, we realize that ultimately this is where we're at. And it's interesting, again, to note that the American Standard Version uses name rather than matter, and that more accurately implies being in Christ, right? Maybe that's a little spiritualization, but I think it really does reflect that it's the new nature that ultimately is not ashamed by pressure from outside.

Hebrews 12.2 is a good verse here. Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy to have set before him and healed the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the Son of God.

Boy, shame. Our identification is with his crucifixion, burial, and our resurrection and newness of life. And then only God gets the glory. Not us. All right, last verse. For the time has come for judgment to begin at or from the house of God. From is probably a better term here. And if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And Roger said, take pictures of 17. I said, Roger, why don't you take 17 through 19? And I'll take 15 or 16. Anyway, I have 17, and we'll get through this, I think. But I have 18. Well, I'm going to assume you're going to have 18 anyway. So what is this judgment first from the house of God and then them that obey not the gospel? So let's start first with the house. What's the judgment on the house of God? I thought Christ has already been judged.

Class is too quiet today. We're trying to generate interaction here. Tom? Just because we get saved doesn't make us full-blown, growing up altogether, instant, everything perfect from here on out. We need to be corrected from time to time. All right. Everybody comfortable with that? Roger?

I think we have to distinguish between judgment for salvation, which we tend to be. If you go off on that path, you've got a problem, because Christ has already taken our judgment. He's already done that. For a believer, it can't mean that we're going to experience the judgment that Christ has already taken for us. It has to be done in a different context. I think that's an important starting point. And the house of God is the body of Christ. Everyone agree with that? We're talking about the church? Christians? Saints? I'm not a waxing Catholic here.

Notice that from is better than at here. It applies to judgment related to their present level of suffering. And that suffering, that judgment, in fact, would be exactly what you said, Tom. We fall short, don't we? So what do we do when we fall short?

Rest in the Lord. See how he works it out. And let his word work in us. God is the change, not us trying to strain you to do it. Generally it's a step before that. What's that? Confess your out of fellowship. And really all that means is we're agreeing with God that we're out of fellowship. Well this is actually connecting back to the previous verse. I actually hadn't noticed that until you started talking about it.

This is just payment for wrong deeds. When a Christian does something evil or wrong, he's going to be judged. There are consequences for that. He's going to go to prison or whatever it is. Yes, it's murder. No death penalty anymore, right? That's true. Okay. But remember, always the will of God. So it's always the will of God. I'll turn to verses in a row.

Just going back to that previous thought too, as a Christian, say, you're put into a certain maybe shameful type position, and maybe even looked at under a microscope. that judgment, not necessarily the legal, the law being carried out on, say, murder and theft, but for the evildoing, even the minutest little bit of evildoing or meddling might be overly critiqued, whereas your fellow world members, it might not be as heavily critiqued or something like that.

But how do you interpret that in terms of judgment begins at the house of God? Is that judgment related to righteousness and shame based on the world putting us in that position? Judgment, you think of ultimately being called short, I think. So do you relate this to the kind of things that we fall short on that Tom was mentioning?

I was actually kind of thinking different from specifically, I guess, the house of God, really. I was maybe the second part of that is thinking of, and if that begins first with us, how is that going to carry on? Well, I guess you could take it to one extreme level and say there are people in, it says House of God, so you have to believe this is the church, right? I think you'd say there are people in the church that are not truly saved, and maybe that's why it's going to start in House of God.

But yet, it contrasts that with those who are clearly not saved in the second part of the book. So the only thing I think we can do here is interpret judgment as really judgment that we're just due. And that's spirit-led. We confess, and we get back in fellowship, and we move on. Everybody OK with that? Jeremy, what's your thought? I would say that one of the things I think we brought up before, I know I brought up in my lessons, is the idea that Peter keeps pushing forward is our witness to the world is through our suffering. When we suffer as a Christian, we that reveals Christ. We're identifying with Christ, and it's the sufferings of Christ that saves the world. The most important event in human history is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So I wonder if this judgment is, like Roger said, it connects back to the previous verse. The world is judging us. We got this earlier, too. I forget who taught on that verse, but back in verse 6, where it says the gospel has for this purpose, been preached to even those who are dead, that even though they are judged in the flesh as men, that they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. So I wonder if Peter is referencing that same judgment. My translation says, it is time for judgment to begin with the house of God.

So I wonder if it's because the world is judging us, when we're judged as Christians, even though they may persecute us, even though they may kill us, Through our martyrdom, through our suffering, we're revealing Christ to the world. And that's why the judgment of the world begins with us. Because our faith is tried and shown to be true. And that's what is witnessing, is testifying to the world.

Then how would you contrast that with the second part of the verse? So if it begins with us, our faith is shown to be true. Back in chapter 1 it says, the trine of our faith, which is more precious than silver, will resound to the glory of God at His coming. And so, I think this goes back to the world doesn't have an excuse. When we're tried, Christ and His sacrifice and His perfection is revealed through us. And because it begins with us, what will be the end of those that do not obey the gospel?

They don't have any They don't have any excuse. They've seen how the world treated us, how the world judged us, and our faith in Christ and His resurrection was shown to be true. So I think it's saying they don't have any hope. We'll probably get more clarity when we go to the next verse. Our faith is shown to be true. The resurrection of God is a fact.

Our faith in that through persecution is the testimony to the world, so that even though the world sees that, if they choose to reject it, well, that's just one more count against them that says you don't have an excuse for not believing in God, not believing in the resurrection. Well, whether or not it's the judgment that begins with us suffering righteously and not being ashamed, or whether or not this is falling short in the nature of our human existence, The next verse, now the verse I state here works either way, doesn't it?

So we know that all things work together for good to those who love God and those who call upon his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he predestined to conform to the image of his son. So either way, either way you interpret this, that plays out in the judgment and the sufferings that we in fact go through.

Everybody? God's will for our life is not a black shed or a whiteboard. It's being conformed to the image of the sun. So either way we interpret this, ultimately, that is the take-home principle of if we're being judged righteously, as Kennedy said, then this plays out. And ultimately, if we're judged for our shortcomings, as we said earlier, then this plays out too. So either way, we win.

Other thoughts? All right. But could it also relate to the consequences of sins in the body? And we kind of discussed that. But men we have judged were chastened by the law that they may not be condemned for the world. So again, that's the first interpretation. And the second one is equally reasonable in terms of what can we see that, but I'm not sure it's so much when we look at the verse that follows it.

That that did not obey the gospel is the unsaved. So really, nothing to fall back on here, right? And according to the verse, ultimately, the end is not due. And the end is not in their own hands, but in the Lord's hands, right? And what will be end, and what will be the end of them?

Liquid fire. of the fire. I thought we lost it there for a second. So I was trying to find verses in the New Testament where we dealt with it. This is the better one. There are other ones that relate to this. A lot of it's in the gospel account, in the Matthew, through Luke. But I'm trying to pull something from the epistles.

He shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power. But this end is foolishness to unsaved man, isn't it? And how many times do you, the last thought, when does this given opportunity to reach the unsaved ever? Do people get to be saved because they're fearful of the ultimate outcome that is promised spiritually?

Like if they're going off to war, or if they've been given a life-threatening not a situation but a diagnosis. They're told they have two months to live. The thought of facing eternity. The expectation of death either in a war scene or ultimately with a fatal illness or lethal illness. Could be an opportunity there.

But then we've also heard of foxhole conversions, you know, God, if you get me out of this, I'll serve you for the rest of my life. They get out of it and they don't. God doesn't move us by fear, he moves us by his love. The kind of verse like this or the one in 2 Thessalonians obviously doesn't usually have impact on someone who in fact is not in the trenches or not facing death or disease. Ultimately, it's up to God. God is sovereign.

He will draw soon. OK. I'm not saying it can't, but certainly only under certain circumstances, I think, would this be effective. Well, it's not our job. No. It's the Holy Spirit's job to open someone's heart to be ready, to hear. And we can talk to someone until we're blue in the face for years, and it can mean nothing. nothing until that person is prepared and is ready. Well that's the job that we all have in the spirit is to see open doors and allow the spirit to lead through them. I think sharing the gospel about somebody's ultimate final requirement is maybe not a very effective way to share the Lord. except maybe, again, under certain circumstances.

But I think someone who has a death note, either because of execution for a crime or ultimately who's dying of disease, the fiery pharmacist brings him a salvage. It's God's great grace and love, right? I mean, it's not sparing the outcome, although that may be a question they may ask. It's really God's mercy. grace and love that ultimately saves people to salvation.

Other thoughts about today? Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you Lord for our time today. Father, we thank you for the blessings we have in our Savior. Lord, we thank you for your message through Peter and we pray that we would understand it better as we spend the time in your Word. In Christ's name, Amen.