informative articles – Food for the Soul

In exhorting the church to conduct themselves faithfully during a time of intense trial, Peter weaves the themes of humility and suffering together. Humility emphasizes the need for submission to both God-appointed leaders and God Himself in prayer. Suffering emphasizes the need for standing firm. Here’s some help working through these verses from the Bible Knowledge Commentary. 1 Peter 5:5 “In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Young men…be submissive (hypotagete; cf. 3:1) to those who are older. Church leaders were usually older members. The younger members were to place themselves willingly under the authority of those who had been given the responsibility of leadership. Peter exhorted both young and old alike to clothe (enkombosasthe, “clothe or tie on oneself”; an enkomboma was the apron of a slave) yourselves with humility. True humility is attractive dress (cf. 3:8). Peter may have alluded to Christ’s girding Himself with a towel and teaching the disciples that humility is the prerequisite for service and service is the practice of humility (John 13:4-15). Peter quoted Proverbs 3:34 to emphasize God’s different attitudes toward the proud and the humble. God opposes (lit., “sets Himself against”) the arrogant but grants favor and acceptance to the humble. 1 Peter 5:6-7 “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” Knowing God’s attitude should cause Christians not only to be subject to others but also to subject themselves deliberately to God’s sovereign rule. The command humble yourselves (tapeinothete) could be translated “allow yourselves to be humbled.” Those who were suffering persecution for Christ’s sake could be encouraged by the fact that the same mighty hand that let them suffer would one day lift (hypsose, “exalt”) them up (cf. James 4:10). Peter then referred to Christ’s classic words of encouragement in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:25-32), while quoting Psalm 55:22: “Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you.” All a believer’s anxieties can be cast…on Him. Christ sustains because He cares. A Christian’s confidence rests in the fact that Christ is genuinely concerned for his welfare. 1 Peter 5:8-9 “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.” Be self-controlled (nepsate; cf. 1:13; 4:7) and alert (gregoresate; cf. 1 Thes. 5:6, 10). Christians should be constantly alert because the enemy (antidikos, “adversary”), the devil (diabolos, “slanderer”), is always actively seeking an opportunity for a vicious attack. This verse could also be a veiled allusion to the horrors of the Neronian persecution in the Roman Coliseum, in which lions mauled and devoured Christians. Satan desired to do the same thing spiritually, to defeat believers’ testimonies. The devil can be and should be resisted. Resist (antistete means “withstand,” used also in James 4:7, cf. antidikos, “enemy” in 1 Peter 5:8). It is a term of defense rather than attack. Christians may stand firm against Satan only if they depend wholly on Christ, standing firm in the faith (cf. v. 12; Col. 2:5). Peter also encouraged his readers by reminding them that they were not alone in their suffering. The knowledge that other Christians, your brothers throughout the world, were suffering, would strengthen their resolve to continue to stand firm. 1 Peter 5:10-11 “And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.” Peter had encouraged his readers to endure suffering in such a way that the grace of God would be made manifest in their lives. Now in a closing word of benediction he committed them to the God of all grace (cf. 4:10). The benediction briefly summarizes Peter’s message of encouragement. Christians’ suffering will last only a little while, while their glory in Christ, to which they were called, will be eternal (cf. Rom. 8:17-18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18). (This is Peter’s last of eight uses of “glory” in this epistle: 1 Peter 1:7, 11, 21, 24; 2:20; 4:14; 5:1, 10.) God Himself would restore them and make them strong (sterixei; cf. 2 Thes. 2:17), firm (sthenosei, used only here in the NT), and steadfast (themeliosei, “established”; cf. Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:23). To Him be the power (kratos, “might”) forever and ever. Amen. In this benediction, similar to the one in 4:11, Peter praised Christ who has all power for all time (cf. Rom. 11:36; 1 Tim. 6:16). Certainly He has the power to strengthen His own as they undergo persecution. Bible Knowledge Commentary Written and edited by scholars solely from Dallas Theological Seminary, the two-volume Bible Knowledge Commentary is an accessible and thorough commentary on the entire Bible. No matter your level of reading and study, this resource will provide helpful and enlightening commentary on the whole Bible. TAP HERE to get a copy of the Bible Knowledge Commentary (2 Vols.).

In First Samuel, we see Israel transition from a system of Judges to a monarchy. Although the narrative does give us a close-up view of what got the nation to this point, it’s helpful to zoom out and examine the factors at play. Why would Israel prefer a system like the other nations? Let’s examine the 5 reasons Israel wanted Saul as king, according to the New American Commentary. The Lord Gives Israel a King “Such as All Other Nations Have” This second major section of 1, 2 Samuel details the outworking of one of the Torah’s most important predictions, the transfer of supreme social influence in Israelite culture from judges and Levites to kings. 1 Samuel 8:1-14:51 functions as a historical commentary on Deut 16:18-17:20 and provides insights into both the proximate and underlying causes for Israel’s immutable decision to be ruled by an earthly king. As presented in 1 Samuel 8, the following political, military, and spiritual factors underlay Israel’s demand for a leadership change: 1. The failure to establish a system producing an adequate number of qualified judges to lead Israel (8:3-5; cf. Deut 16:18). In particular, the ability of the judgeship system to provide a system of succession failed. Four different judges were mentioned in the Bible as having sons who held positions of leadership following their fathers’ deaths. In three of the cases–Gideon’s, Eli’s, and Samuel’s–the sons were portrayed as unworthy successors. In the one instance where apparently successful succession did occur–Jair–it does not appear to have been carried on past one generation (Judg 10:4). 2. The desire of the people to have a national, rather than local or regional, government (cf. 8:4). Samuel is the first judge in the Bible who was accorded truly national status; eleven times in the Hebrew Bible, Samuel is noted as leading, or at least being influential, throughout all Israel. Biblical narrative accounts give no suggestion that any of the judges prior to Samuel ministered to all Israel. Samuel’s influence as both prophet and judge exceeded his regional boundaries, suggesting that he was a transitional figure, preparing Israel for more formal national leadership. His leadership over extensive regions indicates that Israel was moving away from the Torah ideal of numerous simultaneous judgeships (Deut 16:18). Likely this situation came about because of a lack of qualified candidates in many localities (cf. 8:2-3), reflective of the generally degraded state of Israelite society at that time. While exercising less control than a king, Samuel’s career seems a necessary event in preparing Israel for monarchy. 3. The perceived need for more human military leadership in armed conflicts against other nations (cf. 8:20). Israel’s elders considered the tribes’ external military threats to be sufficiently serious to warrant a fundamental change in leadership style. It is reasonable to assume that economic considerations, especially the desire of wealthy Israelites to preserve their wealth from foreign confiscation, played a key role in the call for a strengthened military structure. 4. The desire of the people to have a form of national government that was “like the other nations” (cf. 8:5, 20). The Torah had foreseen a day when Israel would desire a king “like the nations” (Deut 17:14) surrounding them, and in the latter part of Samuel’s career that day came. The Torah implicitly suggests this event would be undesirable, since Israel was to be fundamentally different from the other nations; the Lord was to be their king, with the nation set apart for service to their divine monarch. 5. The more fundamental reason for Israel desiring a king, however, was spiritual: they had rejected God as their king (8:7). The Bible indicates that the concept of the Lord’s kingship over Israel was as old as the foundations of Israelite society, being traced to Moses (Deut 33:5) and acclaimed by non-Israelites (Num 23:21). Any attempt to have an earthly king to take the Lord’s rightful place (cf. 8:20) would end catastrophically. Remarkably enough, the Lord honored the people’s request, giving them precisely what they requested–Saul, a king “such as all the other nations have” (cf. 8:5). Saul, son of Kish, was as physically impressive and spiritually blind as the pagans. Saul’s unfitness to lead the Lord’s people is foreshadowed in the opening narrative portrait of Israel’s first king (9:3-10:16). There Saul is depicted as a bad shepherd, a metaphorical image in Semitic societies of an incompetent or ruinous leader. Saul’s Spiritual Incompetence This dark hint is reinforced in the writer’s selection of narrative details that illustrate spiritual incompetence of almost legendary proportions. Because of his spiritual obtuseness, Saul was able to live within five miles of Samuel, the most significant spiritual figure since Moses, and yet be completely ignorant of the prophet-reformer’s existence. So complete was Saul’s darkness that he had to be told by his servant that a prophet could help him, and even then Saul assumed that prophets needed to be hired to perform their divine task. He displayed a fundamental ignorance of basic Torah regulations in such areas as diet and military conduct, and when he did institute Torah-based reforms, he exempted himself from them. His hypocrisy was most glaring when he attempted to justify his failure to destroy the Amalekites (15:9; Deut 25:19) and when he sought guidance from sources explicitly forbidden by the Torah (28:3-19; Deut 18:10-14). Clearly deliberate parallels are established between Saul and Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, further reinforcing the notion that Saul was a king “such as all the other nations have”. Both were impressed with David and had him serve as a personal bodyguard; both believed David was a serious threat to Saul; and both misjudged David, though in opposite ways. The biblical writer passes judgment on Saul for his failure to live up to fundamental Torah guidelines. But more importantly the writer faults Israel for desiring a king who was not “after God’s own heart,” that is, wholeheartedly devoted to God. Get More Like It! Did the above commentary interest you? Click the link below to continue learning! New American Commentary (42 Vols.)