double double, toil & trouble: part 2 - chapter 6 - the third text

7/31/2019 Double Double, Toil & Trouble: Part 2 - Chapter 6 - The Third Text

1/14

Double Double, Toil & Trouble? Rob Wilkerson

Chapter Six

The Third Text:

1 Peter 2:8

There are three more texts I want us to examine together, and this is the first of those.

If youve made it this far, I wish I were there with you to give you a brotherly bear hug!

What tremendous patience youve demonstrated to make it this far with me. This

theology stuff is deep and sometimes difficult isnt it? So picture me there with you,

coaching you along to keep up the good work! Youre halfway done with the biblical

texts!

Imagine if you will that there are three more falls of the hammer to drive down the nail

of double-predestination. This is the first of those three final falls. 1 Peter 2:8 provides

a description of our Lord as a stumbling-stone and a rock to trip over. Peter writes

that those who stumble over Him do so because they disobey the word, as they were

destined to do. The NLT translates it this way: They stumble because they do not

listen to God's word or obey it, and so they meet the fate that has been planned for

them. The Greek actually reads, because they disobey the word, to which they were

also destined. The NKJV translates it, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Tom Schreiners expanded translation is also helpful for introducing this chapter.

Verse 8 continues the thought from v. 7. We can summarize the verses

as follows: Those who disbelieve stumble over the stone, who is Christ.They stumble over Christ because they refuse to believe in him and obey

him. People who stumble and disobey are responsible for their refusal to

trust in Christ, and yet God has appointed, without himself being morally

responsible for the sin of unbelievers, that they will both disobey and

stumble.1

This is very much a frightful piece of inspired literature. In this verse Peter is quoting

from Isaiah 8:14, giving a new understanding of the previous quotation in 1 Peter 2:7.

Jesus Christ is the stone the builders have rejected, because this stone was intended to

be a stumbling-stone. This is the Greek word skandalon, which is a trap set to make one

fall. Jesus Christ and His life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension are all just a

point of offense to the lost.

1Thomas Schreiner. 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary (Nashvillle, TN: Broadman and Holman

Publishers, 2003), p. 111.


2/14


They are offended with Him and what His life represents and demands. This arouses

their anger against Him and their rejection of Him. And for this, they are most assuredly

responsible. They killed Him because they hated Him and because they wanted to

murder Him. So right off the bat, before we even begin discussing predestination, I am

saying what Peter says, namely that unbelievers are responsible for rejecting Jesus

Christ and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their stumbling is reflected in two other phrases. The first is found in verse 7they do

not believe. The second is found in verse 8they disobey the word. Christ is the

cornerstone who has been intentionally laid in their way, a stone which they must either

face and embrace or reject. Their rejection of Christ is seen in their unbelief and

disobedience. They simply refuse to see the value of Jesus Christ, and they willfully

refuse to submit to Him and obey Him. So then,

Peter articulated a common theme in the Scriptures that human beings

are responsible for their sin and sin willingly, and yet God controls all

events in history. The Scriptures do not resolve how these two themes fit

together philosophically...We must admit, however, that howthis fits

together logically eludes us, and hence theologians have often fallen prey

to the temptation to deny one or the other truth.2

The Meaning of the Word

Now comes the difficult truth found at the end of verse 8. It is the Greek word

etethesan from the word tithemi, translated as destined or appointed in most

translations. Observe two features about this word: the word meaning (lexicography)

and the grammar (syntax).

First, the word means to make, appoint, destine, or assign. It also means to put or

place in a particular location.3 Elsewhere it is used to refer to Gods appointing or

predestining a particular event or situation long before it ever happens. Passages like

Acts 1:7; Romans 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Hebrews 1:2; and even John 15:16 and Acts

13:47 would argue for such an understanding of the usage of this word. Further, the

word is also used to refer to Gods establishing someone in a certain situation at a

certain point in time, such as in Matthew 22:44; 20:28; Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians

12:18, 28.4

2Thomas Schreiner. 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman

Publishers, 2003), pp. 113-14.

3Louw-Nida 85.32 (BibleWorks).

4Wayne Grudem. The First Epistle of Peter(Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 107.


3/14


Greek literature outside the New Testament uses the word in various contexts, like

making a deposit in a bank, laying down ones weapons, placing a body in the grace,

putting ones voting ballot on an altar, etc.5

All of these usages simply illustrate for us

that a person is putting or placing something in a particular location. In light of the

verse, God is putting or placing unbelievers in a particular state or location, according to

the context.

The Meaning of the Grammar

Second, consider the grammar. This is usually where those who know Greek begin to

salivate with the excitement of exegesis! So read as much as you can, and skip over the

words you dont understand. The word itself is in an aorist passive indicative form. The

aorist in the Greek reflects the big picture, usually without any particular reference to

some specific incident or moment in time.6

In light of this it would be difficult to make

an exegetical case based solely on the usage of this word to argue for the fact that Peter

is referring to Gods predestining them.7

The passive indicates that they are an object being acted upon. The passive were

destined for makes clear that the destiny awaiting them was not their own conscious

choice.8

Remember that long discussion we had about the use of the passive in

Romans 9? The same applies here also, except for the fact that this word, unlike the

one in Romans 9:22, is in a definite passive voice with no possibility of it being in the

middle voice. Whenever the passive is used, an agent is involved, someone who is

performing the action of the verb. If that verb is tithemi, which means to appoint or

assign or destine, then someone or something else is appointing, assigning or destining

these people. Though the agent is unnamed, that doesnt make it a secret agent! The

agent must be God. Why?

The agent is clearly God for two reasons. First, this has to be God for grammatical

reasons. Paul used the same word in the passive in 1 Timothy 2:7. And I have been

5Liddell-Scott 40025 (BibleWorks)

6I take etethesanto be a Historical Aorist. Burton remarks, The Aorist Indicative is most frequently used

to express a past event viewed in its entirety, simply as an event or a single fact. It has no reference to

the progress of the event, or to any existing result of it. Moods and Tenses of the New Testamentby ??

Burton (BibleWorks).

7The Greek word for predestine is (see Eph. 1:5, for example), which is not the word Peter

uses here. Grudem believes that the RSV correctly represents this appointment to disobedience as a

completed event in the past (they were destined), for that is the force of the aorist indicative here (p.

108).

8D. Edmond Hiebert. 1 Peter(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1992), p. 140. Hiebert would be among those

commentators who see only mans responsibility implied in the text, excluding any reference to

predestination. He also cites Kistemaker to that effect.


4/14


chosenas a preacher and apostle God is not mentioned as the chooser but He is

clearly the agent. He states as much in 2 Timothy 1:11. And God chose me to be a

preacher, an apostle Hebrews 10:13 would argue for the same understanding. The

agent who will humble Christs enemies as a footstool under His feet can be none other

than God (whom Paul, though not the author of Hebrews, names as such in 1

Corinthians 15:24-28).

Second, the agent is clearly God because the context of 1 Peter 2:8 demands it. As you

will recall in our discussion of Romans 9:22-23, when an agent is unnamed in a context

with a passive verb, the context will usually indicate who that agent is. And we find that

agent in the context by considering who is doing the rest of the action. Let me explain

further.

There is clearly a contrasting parallel being made here.9

Consider what immediately

follows verse eight. You are a chosen nation What is clear is that Peter is making a

contrast here using similar concepts. According to verse 8, believers are a chosen

nation, chosen for God, and conversely, unbelievers, according to verses 7 and 8, were

chosen or destined for unbelief. The agent for both must, therefore, be God.

Were Unbelievers and Believers Alike Chosen?

Moving along, the Greek word for chosen () in verse 9 means to elect orselect. It is used for Christ in 1 Peter 2:4, 6. So whatever connotation it carries for Christ

must also be applied to believers in verse 9. Christ was chosen and believers are

chosen.10

Using the contrasting parallel Peter intends to use here, it is safe to say that a

concept very similar to that of chosen is being used with reference to unbelievers.

The reason Peter does not use the same word for unbelievers, however, is because the

connotation of the word cannot mean the same thing for unbelievers. Unbelievers are

not chosen by God in that special, saving sense as Peter intends to use the word to

describe believers. But neither are unbelievers un-chosen. No, Peter chooses the

word destined to describe their relationship to God. God has chosen believers and He

has destined unbelievers. So what is it that they have been destined to?

9This parallel interplay and contrast between believers being chosen and unbelievers being destined is

not uncommon in the NT. We have seen it already in Romans 9:22-23. There, believers are prepared

beforehand for glory, and unbelievers are prepared for Gods wrath.

10According to 1 Peter 1:1-2 these are the very people to whom Peter wrote his epistle. From Peter, an

apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroadwho are chosen according to the

foreknowledge of God the Father


5/14


The Timing of This Activity

One more thought needs attention regarding this verse. This question needs to be

answered: When did this destining activity of God towards unbelievers actually take

place? You yourself said that the word isnt predestine. That would be clear enough

that God destined them for unbelief and disobedience before they were born, as in thecase of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9. But here in 1 Peter 2:8, unbelievers are not

predestined, but only destined.

If youve asked that question or made a similar remark, you are tracking with me. That

means youre an excellent Bible student! Im giving you another pat on the back right

about now. Can you feel it? Now, apply those excellent study skills on the following

observations. First,

The timing of such destining is not specified, but elsewhere in Scripture

related passages about predestination view it as occurring before

creation, or before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; cf. 2 Pet. 2:3;

Jude 4; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29-30; 9:14-24).11

Second, many times the only way we are able to determine word meaning is by

comparing the usage in one verse with the way it is used in another text of similar

genre. 1 Peter is a letter written by Pastor Peter to his congregation. And 1 Timothy is a

letter written by Pastor Paul to the pastor he had just installed in the church at Ephesus.

By comparing the usage of one word in 1 Peter with the same word in 1 Timothy, we

find some interesting helps.

In 1 Timothy 2:7, the same word tithemiis used as in 1 Peter 2:8. Paul writes, For this Iwas appointed a preacher and apostleand a teacher of the Gentiles He is referring

to his mandate to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul says he was appointed to that

task. When did this take place? He writes several years earlier, But when the one who

set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace (Gal. 1:15). The Greek would

literally translate the phrase regarding birth as from my mothers womb.

This appointment to apostleship came while he was still in his mothers womb. This

should recall to our minds another great man of God, whom Paul probably had in mind.

This was the prophet Jeremiah who also was set apart in his mothers womb. Of him

God declared, Before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you to be a prophet tothe nations (Jer. 1:5). It should be no surprise for us to learn that the Greek translation

of the Hebrew here contains the word tithemi. Jeremiah was appointed to be a prophet

before he was even born, just like Paul was appointed to be an apostle before he was

born.

11Grudem, First Peter, p. 108.


6/14


Further, we could reach out for an argument from Romans 9, where we have already

visited. Remember that in verse 9:11 Paul makes the argument about Gods election

based on Jacob and Esau that, even before they were born or had done anything good

or bad (so that Gods purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)

The argument here is simply in keeping with the concept of Gods appointment or

destining activity occurring before one is born. God destined the two twins before theywere born, yet the word predestination is not used in this context.

Drawing some conclusions from all of this, the fact that the actual word

predestination is not used in the context of 1 Peter 2:8 is no strong argument that he

is not talking about predestination. As I have shown, the concept of predestination is

already inherent in the passage. And the overall evidence points to the fact that the

time in which these unbelievers were destined to unbelief, stumbling and disobedience

was being before they were born.

The Conclusion of the Exegesis

This brings me to the conclusion of the exegesis. I cannot agree with Lenskis position

that, Calvinists explain this as an eternal decree of reprobation, all Scripture to the

contrary notwithstanding.12

If the word tithemimeans to put, place, set, assign,

appoint or destine to a particular state or location, then the state or location in which

unbelievers have been placed by God is unbelief, stumbling over Christ, and

disobedience to His Word. And this destining activity was performed by God, before

they were born. It is a difficult conclusion, to be sure, but one that the context seems to

demand.13

The whole of the context, in fact, must point to Gods sovereign predestining

activity since the force of the text is that God has successfully placed His Son as the

cornerstone despite the fact that the builders rejected Him. They are overpowered bythe great Architect of the Church: His purpose stands.

14God is in charge, throughout

this text.

12R. C. H. Lenski. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg, Publishing House, 1966), p. 98. Per Lenski, They [Calvinists] place the action of the verb in the

volutes antecedens whereas it belongs in the voluntas consequens. The former does not take into account

mans reaction to Christ and to the Word; the latter does as in Mark 16:16 plainly states. Unfortunately,

this is just another example of allowing the tension regarding Gods sovereignty to affect ones study to

the point where one feels compelled to leap from a text on sovereignty into other texts on responsibility

and drag the latter into the former. On many, many other texts, however, Lenski is reliable, useful, and

recommended as I use him quite often.

13See Grudem, First Peter, p. 109. It does not seem possible to escape the conclusion that what the text

does affirm (the destining ofpresentdisobedience of unbelievers) implies also that all disobedience

which tragically does persist to the end of life (and thus into eternity) has been destined by God (cf. Acts

4:27-28; Jude 4; Gn. 45:5 with 50:20; Ex. 10:20 with 8:15; 2 Sa. 16:11; Acts 2:23; Rom. 9:17-23; 11:7; 2

Thes. 2:11).

14Robert Leighton. Commentary on First Peter(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972), p. 151.


7/14


What is more, Peter, being a Jew and writing to Jews, would have surely thought

nothing of stating such a truth. As we concluded in the excurses, double-predestination

was nothing new for a Jew. Ernest Best, a famous commentator and theologian, wrote,

Predestination is again part of the primitive Christian teaching (1 Th. 5:9; Rom. 8:28-30;

9-11; Eph. 1:12; Jude 4)15

John Lillie, a 19th

century theologian, went so far as to say that because it was a no-

brainer to Jews, he didnt feel the need to comment on it!

And as for the difficulty which it may be supposed to involved, as

bringing even the sins of men within the range, we need not give

ourselves any concern about that. It is just the difficulty which, as

growing out of the relations between the sovereign God and the

dependent creature, besets all our poor speculations about eternal

Providence, and certainly meets us no less frequently and nakedly in

Scripture. The inspired writers, however, are very little troubled by it.

For the most part, they seem scarcely conscious of its existence.

Hence, the frank simplicity with which they everywhere speak of God as

hardening mens hearts causing them to err from His ways, giving them

a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they

should not hear turning their hearts to hate His people raising up

Pharaoh for the very purpose of showing His power in him bidding

Shimei curse David moving David to number the people and so

forth.16

An Examination of Other Interpretations

There are those on the one hand who would argue a lighter, more mild sense of this

destining work of God. Oddly enough, my interpretation of the exegetical evidence

stands at odds with my favorite older commentators such as Matthew Henry and Adam

Clarke. Henry, for example, argues that the concept of God destining unbelievers for

disobedience and unbelief means that All those who go on resolutely in their infidelity

and contempt of the gospel are appointed to eternal destruction; and God from eternity

knows who they are.17

In other words, for Henry, the thing God has appointed here is

15 Ernest Best. 1 Peter, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 107.

Fairness demands that I finish his sentence which ended this way: though it is normally expounded in

regard to those who are saved and not to those who perish.

16John Lillie. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter(Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock

Christian Publishers, 1978 Reprint), pp. 119-21. The author lists the following passages as proofs for the

thoughts in the second paragraph I quoted above: Exod. 4:21; 7:13; Deut. 2:30; 2 Sam. 16:10; 24:1; Isa.

29:10; 63:17; Rom. 9:17, 18; 11:8, etc.


8/14


not unbelievers for their unbelief, but everlasting destruction for the unbelievers.

Adam Clarkes argument goes a little further than Henrys.

there is no intimation that they were appointed or decreed to disobey,

that they might stumble, and fall, and be broken. They stumbled and fell

through their obstinate unbelief; and thus their stumbling and falling, aswell as their unbelief, were of themselves, in consequence of this they

were appointed to be broken; this was Gods work of judgment.18

A.T. Robertson would concur with both authors: Their disobedience is not ordained,

the penalty of their disobedience is.19

That point seemed to resound among many

commentaries. The destination they arrived at is the one they freely chose and traveled

toward. I dont disagree at all. But again, I dont think that this what this particular text

is arguing for. We must be careful not to allow the interpretations of other texts such

as those on mans responsibility to creep in and overtake the interpretation of other

textssuch as Gods sovereignty.

The problem, however, with these arguments is that they seem to fly in the face of the

actual wording of the text. The text does not speak anywhere in its context of the fate

of the unbelievers. There is no mention of eternal destruction or the penalty of

disobedience, as Henry and Robertson would contend. Further, the concept of

consequence, though perhaps implied in the text, is not the focal point of the actual

wording.

The actual Greek uses a relative pronoun (hos) before the verb tithemi. The relative

pronoun connects the verb back to two antecedents previous thoughts already

introduced in the context. The most logical antecedents are the words that precede therelative pronoun, which are the Greek words apeithountes, translated disobey, and

proskoptousin, translated stumble.20

171 Peter 2:8 (BibleWorks).

18Clarke, 1 Peter 2:8. E-Sword.

19A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NewTestament. 1 Peter 2:8. BibleWorks.

20Contra John Brown, The First Epistle of Peter, Volume One (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, nd), p.

313). It is very interesting to note that Brown is probably the only commentator of Puritan stripe who

does not comment upon any reference to predestination here. In his own words, Sin is never

represented as appointed by God; punishment is. God permits men to be sinners that is, he does not

hinder them from sinning; he appoints them, if they sin, to be punished. The reference here, however,

does not seem to be the Divine decree, so much as to the revelation of the Divine decree in the Divine

prediction. His Note B, however caused me trouble, there he wrote regarding the pronouns preceding

proskoptousin and apeithountes in verse 8, God appoints the wicked to punishment, not to sin. Some

anti-Calvinists have found in these words a proof, that even they who perish through unbelief were

appointed to salvationIt is sad when the love of system leads good men thus to pervert the word of

God (p. 321).


9/14


So technically, according to the actual wording of the text, unbelievers were not

destined or appointed to eternal destruction. Rather, they were destined for their

disobedience and stumbling. Per Albert Barnes, The fair sense from which we cannot

escape, is, that this did not happen by chance or accident, but that there was a divine

arrangement, appointment, or plan on the part of God in reference to this result, and

that the result was in conformity with that.21

Barnes goes on to explain:

The arrangement was nevertheless made, with the understanding that

all this would be so, and because it was best on the whole that it should

be so, even though this consequence would follow. That is, it was better

that the arrangement should be made for the salvation of people even

with this result, that a part would sink deeper into condemnation, than

that no arrangement should be made to save any.22

I would also argue that there is one more antecedent to this relative pronoun. It is in

verse 7, and it is unbelief.23

The conclusion would then be that while unbelievers are

not spoken of here as being destined to eternal doom or destruction, they were

however, as persons, destined by God for their lives of stumbling, disobedience, and

unbelief. One particular commentator, who came to this conclusion, believed that there

was a connection between tithemiin verse 6 and etethesan in verse 8. He urged that,

both the redemptive mission and work of Christ and its rejection andrejectors were

within the counsel and purpose of God.24

21Barnes, Barnes Notes on the New Testament. 1 Peter 2:8. E-Sword.

22

Ibid. It should be noted in fairness to Barnes that he evidently did not hold to double-predestination asis seen in the following comment which continues from this one. The primary and originating

arrangement, therefore, did not contemplate them or their destruction, but was made with reference to

others, and notwithstanding they would reject him, and would fall. The expression whereuntorefers to

this plan, as involving, under the circumstances, the result which actually followed. Their stumbling and

falling was not a matter of chance, or a result which was not contemplated, but entered into the original

arrangement; and the whole, therefore, might be said to be in accordance with a wise plan and purpose.

And, it might be said in this sense, and in this connection, that those who would reject him were

appointed to this stumbling and falling. It was what was foreseen; what entered into the general

arrangement; what was involved in the purpose to save anyIt may be added, that as, in the facts in the

case, nothing wrong has been done by God, and no one has been deprived of any rights, or punished

more than he deserves, it was not wrong in him to make the arrangement. This is clearly not a reflection

of double-predestination, although it comes very close to it.

23This is the only thing Calvin argued for in his commentary. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to

the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St Peter(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 264-

65. His insight, however, into another possible interpretation, is very perceptive. He plausibly considered

the thought that Peter may be enhancing the unbelief of the Jews by saying that those who were

appointed to believe are actually appointed to unbelief because they stumble and disobey Gods Son.

24 Hort, as quoted in Edward Gordon Selwyns commentary entitled The First Epistle of St. Peter

(London, England: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., 1947), p. 165. Emphasis added. Selwyn includes a brief


10/14


Wayne Grudem would concur with this understanding. He does not see the punishment

of unbelievers the focus here as much as the unbelievers and their sinfulness. Among

the countless comments made on whether their disobedience or stumbling was

destined, Grudems analysis is that,

Since the actions are interconnected, and since it is not an action but the

people (they) who were destined, it makes little difference to the force

of the passage which one of these we choose.25

Elsewhere, he wrote,

The destining in this verse is best taken to refer to both the stumbling

and the disobedience. It is incorrect to say that God only destined the

factthat those who disobey would stumble, because it is not afactbut

persons(they) who are said to be destined in this case.26

Arguing that the purpose of the comment was to comfort his readers,27

Peter shows

that in rejecting Christ and behaving so hostile to believers, such sinfulness should not

surprise believers. Per Grudem, these things

were predicted by God long ago in the Old Testament (vv. 7-8a). Now

he says that they were not only predicted but also planned by God (v. 8b)

and are therefore within the scope of his sovereign and wise plan for the

worldAmazing as it may seem, even the stumbling and disobedience of

unbelievers have been destinedby God.28

discussion of how Peter may have possibly borrowed from Pauls argument in Romans 9 -11. He follows

that with an illustration of how the divine plan of God often includes one group rejecting the gospel so

that it can go somewhere else, citing an example of early missionary work in India among the Brahmins. It

is a wonderful example of the truths that both Peter and Paul are seeking to emphasize.

25Grudem, p. 107.

26Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 327, fn. 10 (emphasis

added). See also page 685, fn. 24

27 See also Schreiner, 1 Peter, p. 114. There is a clear connection, at least in my mind, between this text

and the one we look at previously, Proverbs 16:4. God has determined to glorify Himself in all of His

creation, including that part which hates His proverbial guts. God made all things to glorify Himself,

including the wicked whom He will destroy to glorify Himself. And here in 1 Peter 2:8, Christians are

comforted with the same thought, namely, that God has glorified Himself and accomplished His purpose

with regard to His Son by including the sinful actions of those who hated Christ. And He will further do so

by destroying them for their actions.

28Grudem, 1 Peter, p. 106


11/14


Another interpretation, argued by Ramsey Michaels,29

is along similar lines as that of

Robertson and others, who argue that what is destined is the stumbling. Ramsey is a bit

more detailed in his explanation. He sees the antecedent in verse 8 as referring back to

those who stumble. This is because he understands the verb etethesan(destined) in

verse 8 to match tithemi(set) in verse 6. This would make verses 6-8 a single unit,

which in Peters mind, supposedly points out the logical consequences of rejecting thecornerstone. Christ was laid in Zion as the chief cornerstone, and all who trust in Him

will not be put to shame (v. 6), but instead will be honored (v. 7). The middle of verse 7,

then, describes the lot of those who do not trust in Him. If they reject Him, they will

necessarily stumble over Him, and become offended with Him. This happens as a logical

consequence to disobeying Him in the first place.

Per Ramsey, then, when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead (1:3, 21), God laid that

choice and precious cornerstone in Zion, as Peter said in 2:6. And when God did that,

honor and vindication would come for those who believed, but stumbling and shame

would come for those who disbelieved. In his interpretation there are two oddities that

surface.

First, he cites Romans 9:21-23 as an example of this interpretation. He offers no

explanation on that note, which would have been helpful. Certainly, if one is to use that

passage, then the more blatant references to predestination must be first removed.

Second, He seems to ignore the blatant references to election in the context of 1 Peter

2:8. In verses 4 and 6, Christ is a chosen cornerstone. In verse 7, the builders

rejection of that chosen cornerstone seems only to fulfill and promote the fact that He

was chosen.

What flows from this is that those who believe in Him and are honored by Him are Hisstones (v. 5) being used to build His chosen nation (v. 9). The conclusion to me

personally seems to be that Peters emphasis on those who are chosen with Christ

points to the honor they receive with Him and because of Him, while those who reject

Him are themselves rejected. Or, He chose some to be honored through their belief,

and He chose others to be condemned through their unbelief. For these reasons,

Michaels interpretation seems implausible.

The only interpretation then, that will seem to stand the tests of context is that God is in

complete control of everything, including those who believe and those who disbelieve.

He is in control of those who choose to trust in the Cornerstone. And He is in control ofthose who stumble over it and disobey it. As one commentator put it,

the deliberate control of God in this process and his forcing this

division by this encounter with the stone is indicated when Peter

commends, as they were destined to do. This sense of Gods control

29J. Ramsey Michaels. 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), pp. 106-7.


12/14


over the destiny of even the unbeliever is also indicated in 2 Pet. 2:9, 12,

17 and Rom. 9:14-24.30

Conclusion

It is a difficult concept to accept, for sure, that God would actually (pre)destine certainpersons to unbelief and disobedience. If you are like me, you are feeling the tension of

the loudest question being begged right now: But how can God hold such persons

responsible for their unbelief and disobedience if He destined them for it to begin

with? No doubt that very question would be asked with quite an inflection in your

voice, expressing serious concern about where were going with all this. So yes, it is a

difficult concept to grasp. And surely you as a believer have the same responsibility as I

to study to show yourself approvedto God (2 Tim. 2:15). But several facts remain.

First, those who sin will experience condemnation because they are the ones who

worked their way there. They have been persuaded time and again to receive the

gracious offers made in the gospel, but will run violently on their own sinful ways

against the directions thereof, and instead of subjection to it are the more incensed by

itand by their so doing will hurt themselves31

Second, however, Gods reprobation is in fact what is mainly taught in this text. Sure,

they stumble and disobey and disbelieve because they hate Jesus Christ. But as the text

has stated, so it has stood from ancient times that no one will stumble, disobey or

disbelieve in Jesus Christ,

but those who have been from eternity ordained for condemnation in

Gods spotless decree, which infuses no evil in menseeing they sin withno less freedom and delight than if there were not a decree concerning

their reprobationand are not damned because of a decreeThe

continuance in such sin is the clearest proof and evidence of reprobation

of any in the world, for the everlasting ruin and condemnation of souls

ordained from eternity to the same for their willful slighting of Jesus

Christ is referred to in the last words of this verse as being thereby most

clearly evidence.32

30Peter H. Davids. The First Epistle of Peter, New International Commentary on the New Testament

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 90. However, Davids believes that in all these places the text is

referring more to a corporate destiny than to individual destiny Perhaps he is right. But if Peter is

thinking anything like Paul here, as some think he is, then the individual destiny would have to come in to

play in some sense. Then again, perhaps this would make me guilty of doing what I am so fond of pointing

out, namely of using texts B, C and D to argue for truths that are not found in text A! Either way, whether

it is individual destiny or corporate destiny, the force of predestination and reprobation is not changed. If

anything it would merely make a sweeping categorization of elect and reprobated.

31Alexander Nisbet. An Exposition of 1 & 2 Peter(Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p. 78.


13/14


Third, we cannot and must not allow emotions to rule our Bible study. Instead, we must

practice and exhibit a quiet trust in a good, gracious, merciful and all-wise God. Even

though we cannot understand how these fit together, we must trust that they do in

Gods omniscience.33

Here again Grudems words ring loud and true.

We may object that this does not seem morally right for God, even

though it seems to be the inescapable meaning of the text before us. To

this objection the only answer that Scripture gives is not to answer all our

questions regarding how or why, but only to indicate that ultimately

even the condemnation of unbelievers will result in greater glory to God,

in the praise of his justice, and power, and mercy to those to whom he

shows mercyThus God can ordain something that is in itself displeasing

to him because he knows that finally it will accomplish a greater

goodWhen we cannot fully understand how this can be, it is for us

simply to be silent before our Creator and wait for fuller understanding in

eternity.34

Third, the mystery behind the question points us to Gods sovereignty in glorifying

Himself. He is in charge of it all. He is working out all things according to the counsel of

His will (Eph. 1:11-12). He will accomplish what He has decreed from before the

foundation of the world. And He has decreed to include sinful mans rejection of His

own Son so that He may glorify Himself by in their just condemnation.

This (Whereunto also they were appointed) the Apostle adds, for the

further satisfaction of believers in this point, how it is that so many reject

Christ, and stumble at him: telling them plainly, that the secret purposeof God is accomplished in this. God having determined to glorify his

32Ibid.

33John Kohler, from Historic Baptist discussion forum, argues regarding Gods omniscience:Gods

omniscience requires that the ultimate destiny of the non-elect was certain from all eternity. God is

omniscient. This means that He knows all things past, present and future. God knew that Adam would

eat the forbidden fruit, and He knows about each and every person who will die in unbelief. From

eternity past, He knew who would end up in eternal hell. God knewthis in advance and He could not be

mistaken; therefore their ultimate destiny was certain before the foundation of the world. Moreover,

God could have done something to change this outcome, if it was somehow incompatible with His plans.

Because He created the world anyway, and did not decide to intervene by choosing them unto salvation

and giving them a new heart, then we know that His eternal purpose is that they should be eternally

condemned for their sins. At

http://dshortt.homestead.com/files/hbs_proof_of_double_predestination.htm.

34Grudem, First Peter, p. 109.


14/14


justice on impenitent sinners, as He shows His rich mercy in them that

believe.35

As I close, I cannot emphasize enough the attitude with which all students of the Bible,

especially those who call themselves reformed or Calvinist, ought to have when it comes

to subjects like this. Too often, in my brief experience on earth, I have found thatreformed or Calvinistic folks do not have an air of grace when they talk about their

doctrines of grace. Their heroes would never have approved of such an attitude that

lacks the humility and self-examination demanded by these doctrines. I offer you a

continuation ofRobert Leightons comments above toward our conclusion.

Here it were easier to lead you into a deep, than to lead you forth again.

I will rather stand on the shore, and silently admire it, than enter into it.

This is certain, that the thoughts of God are all not less just in themselves,

than deep and unsoundable by us. His justice appears clear, in that

mans destruction is always the fruit of his own sin. But to give causes of

Gods decrees without Himself, is neither agreeable with the primitive

being of the nature of God, nor with the doctrine of the Scriptures. This

is sure, that God is not bound to give us further account of these things,

and we are bound not to ask it. Let these two words, as St. Augustine

says, answer all, What art thou, O man?and, O, the depth! Rom. ix.20;

xi.33.

Our only sure way to know that our names are not in that black line, and

to be persuaded that he hath chosen us to be saved by His Son, is this, to

find that we have chosen Him, and are built on Him by faith, which is the

fruit of His love, who first chooseth us; and that we may read in ouresteem of Him.

36

35Leighton, p. 152.

36Ibid.

double double, toil & trouble: part 2 - chapter 6 - the third text

Documents