Are you dying inside? (Part 2c6)

 in Bible

Dear Friends,

A child knows his mother’s voice long, long before he can say her name.

In today’s post, we are still talking about regeneration. I’ve been making similar points over and over the past few posts, and today will be no exception, because there are still more verses that support what I am saying.

The twist today is that I will use a verse that is actually cited by many to make the opposite argument. I pray God leads us through this study.

Series Outline:

Part 2 Outline:

This is going to be epic

Please, please remember as we go through this: this series is not a pointy-headed, arcane, beard-stroking, hair-splitting, nitpicking dissertation about the Bible. I have so many better things to spend my time on than writing page after page about some obscure issue that doesn’t really matter.

No, my friends, I’m talking about what happens after death to the billions upon billions of people throughout history who have not been professing Christians (and don’t forget the bonus topic: why Christians can stop worrying about whether they are going to hell or not). It’s hard for me to think of a more important topic.

And the point I keep hammering on, because #1 I think it’s Biblical, but also because I rejoice over it, and it tells us a lot about God, is that God has children everywhere!

Yes, hell is real, and evil people will be there….but God has children everywhere, and not all of them are professing Christians.

I think that’s a pretty important concept.

There are going to be all kinds of people in heaven, and once they get there, they will all joyfully worship Jesus Christ.

This is going to be epic.

Trust me, I was there

This is the verse I want to focus on today.

[1Pe 1:23 KJV] 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

I’ve covered a couple other verses that talk about being “born” again. Each time, my question for you is basically the same: Which of these two choices fits better with the birth metaphor?

  • Unpacking the born again metaphor, option 1: You can only be born again when you make a conscious choice to be born again. You ask Jesus Christ to do something and then he does it. 
  • Unpacking the born again metaphor, option 2: God, and God alone, decides when you become born again. It is an event completely outside of your control. You can feel the effect of it but you have no control over the if and the when of it.

Can we all agree that option 2 is more faithful to the metaphor? I was there when my children were born. I noticed my wife working very hard. My kids, not so much.

In like manner, a person being resurrected has no control over the event.

Is it difficult to admit that there is something very important to you that you have no control over?

So, getting back to the main theme that I want to shout from the rooftops:

John 3:16 cannot mean that dead people are supposed to “believe” anything.

John 3:16 cannot mean what you’ve been told.

Word

Let’s paste in some more of this passage and see if my initial comments still make sense.

[1Pe 1:22-25 KJV] 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

I once heard a children’s song that claimed we are born again via the Bible, and it cited I Peter 1:23 as the evidence. After all, the verse does mention being born again “by the word of God.” And I found at least one commentary (probably more, can’t remember) that basically agrees with this interpretation:

“The Gospel bears incorruptible fruits, not dead works, because it is itself incorruptible” [BENGEL]. (1)

Wait, which word?

But does “word of God” always have to mean the Bible or the preaching thereof?

Well, if you stop and think about it, you Bible students out there should know the clear answer to that is no. I could paste in many examples but I want to keep this relatively short. Let’s just look ahead to the next epistle, which is written by the same man Peter.

[2Pe 3:5-6 KJV] 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the WORD OF GOD the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The “word of God” in the passage above is NOT the Bible. It is not preaching. It is the executive, unstoppable, creative word of God. In case you were wondering: “word of God” in this passage and “word of God” in our main text for today (I Peter 1:23) both use the same Greek words logos and theos.

To help remove any doubt, I want to also explicitly define the word “whereby” in II Peter 3:6 (“by” is not a separate word in the Greek in verse 5) and “by” in our main text I Peter 1:23. They both come from the same Greek word, defined thusly by Strong:

διά diá, dee-ah’; a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; (2)

So, take a moment. Slow down. Think about this with me because this matters.

II Peter 3:6 uses the word “whereby” (in conjunction with verse 5) to say that by the word of God the earth was flooded. The “whereby” is the channel of the act. meaning the “word of God” under consideration here is what MADE it happen. God was the actor, his Word was how he channeled his power. The “word of God” here is NOT the information that tells us the flood happened. It is not the Bible. Instead, it is HOW the flood happened. God spoke and the flood happened.

Now that we have established what “word of God” means in verse 5, we can see by rereading verse 5 that this “word of God” is also what was used to create the world in the first place.

So, it’s inescapable to actually consider the creative “word of God” here to be synonymous with the person of Jesus Christ. After all:

[Jhn 1:1-3 KJV] 1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM ; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and

[Eph 3:9 KJV] 9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in GOD, WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST:

Now, as I said before, in our main text I Peter 1:23 we see the same 3 Greek words being used. Let’s quote it again:

[1Pe 1:23 KJV] 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.

“by” is the channel of an act, “the word” is from logos, and “of God” is from theos.

So, it’s clearly possible for “word of God” to refer to God’s creative activities. It can also mean the preached word or the Bible.

So now we can ask….which one is I Peter 1:23 referring to?

That’s a lot of tracts

First, let’s agree that you have to be born again in order to go to heaven. This is not controversial among Christians, but anyway, here is one passage to prove it:

[Jhn 3:3-5 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BR BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

With that in mind, here is a description of the people in heaven:

[Rev 5:8-10 KJV] 8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of EVERY KINDRED, AND TONGUE, AND PEOPLE, AND NATION; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Now, I will present several links that together form a logical argument….please examine and tell me your reaction. Does it make sense? Is there a weak link? Please let me know.

My intent is to prove that “word of God” in I Peter 1:23 does not refer to the Bible nor preaching.

  • There are going to be people in heaven from every kindred and tongue and people and nation
  • Everyone in heaven was born again
  • So, there are born again people from every kindred, and tonge, and people, and nation
  • Neither the preached Christian gospel nor the Bible has reached every single kindred throughout history
  • Therefore, there are born again people who have not heard the gospel
  • Therefore, “word of God” in I Peter 1:23 does not refer to the Bible nor preaching

If “word of God” in I Peter 1:23 refers to the gospel, we would need a bazillion more gospel tracts than we are currently making, and we would have needed a lot more missionaries than we have been sending throughout the centuries. According to the Bible, there are going to be many, many people in heaven…from every family group.

That’s a lot of tracts.

There’s liveth and then there’s LIVETH

Again, we are trying to figure out how to interpret “word of God” in I Peter 1:23, and the two possibilities we are considering are:

  • The executive Word (Jesus Christ)
  • Gospel preaching and/or the Bible

So, the verse says that the “word of God” under consideration “liveth and abideth forever”. So, which option fits better with that statement? Yes, there is a sense in which the Bible and preaching abide forever, insofar as the truths communicated via the Bible and gospel preaching are eternal truths.

However, doesn’t “liveth and abideth forever” fit much better with the person of Jesus Christ himself? Does not Jesus Christ live and abide forever in a much stronger sense than do gospel preaching and the Bible? Why would you go with the more obscure sense of “live and abide forever”, especially when that more obscure sense also creates the “lots of tracts” problem that I mentioned above?

And what about incorruptible seed? What fits better with “incorruptible” seed? Gospel preaching and the Bible, or Jesus Christ himself? Yes, I believe God providentially inspires and preserves his word, but the fact is that there many many flawed translations of the Bible out there. And gospel ministers are by no means above corruption.

And what about “endureth forever” in verse 25? Which option fits better?

I’m not claiming the arguments in this section are in and of themselves slam dunk arguments. But I’m at least trying to stir up your mind. To get you thinking more carefully about this….in other words, why are people so sure that “word of God” refers to gospel preaching and the Bible?

And, as a whole, I do hope this article convinces you “word of God” does in fact refer to Jesus Christ, the executive Word. It just makes more sense, given the testimony of the Bible as a whole.

A born again non-Christian? Yup.

Here is another problem with the idea that “word of God” in I Peter 1:23 refers to the Bible or preaching. If you read the account in Acts 10, you will see that Cornelius is described as a just man, and a devout man, and someone who prayed to God always, and gave alms to the poor, BEFORE he received the gospel from Peter. We also see that he worshipped Peter when Peter arrived. Doesn’t sound like a Christian to me…but reading Ephesians 2 and Titus 3, I don’t see any way he could not have been born again if he was doing all those good things and sincerely trying to please God.

[Act 10:34-35 KJV] 34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, IS ACCEPTED with him.

Look at the verb tense. Not “can get accepted”. Not “might get accepted”. Not “has an opportunity to be accepted”. It says “IS” accepted. Cornelius was already accepted with God before he became a Christian. I realize a big part of the context here is God opening up the gospel to the Gentiles, but this passage says too much to strictly limit it to that concept. If you still disagree, and you think Cornelius was an unregenerate, natural man until Peter showed up and started preaching, please explain how your beliefs reconcile with Ephesians 2, Titus 3, Romans 3, and Psalm 10:4.

So…he was a born again non-Christian! Yes, there is such a thing. That is why I reject the idea that I Peter 1:23 means that we hear the gospel and simultaneously become “born again” and become Christians. No, becoming a Christian is only possible after someone is born again.

Sneak peek!

I’ve also heard it said or suggested that God has multiple ways of making people born again. Some through his direct speaking to an unevangelized person, some through the preaching of the gospel. I may discuss this further in a later post, but anyway, I don’t think that idea meshes very well with this passage:

[Jhn 3:7-8 KJV] 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE one that is born of the Spirit.

Doesn’t sound to me like God uses a two or three pronged approach here. I think it is more consistent to figure out the one way that people get born again, and interpret I Peter 1:23 accordingly. And for the reasons mentioned above, I think that one way is God directly speaking into someone’s dead heart, just like God directly spoke when creating the universe. A common term for this among Primitive Baptists is “immediate Holy Spirit regeneration”, where “immediate” means without a mediator. No preacher. No tract. No Bible. Just God and his awesome power. That’s enough to get the job done, isn’t it? 🙂

The elephant in the room

It’s time to examine a very fair question: Doesn’t verse 25 mean that verse 23 is talking about gospel preaching?? Isn’t the problem that The Form Of The Fourth is not reading far enough into the passage?

[1Pe 1:22-25 KJV] 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. AND THIS IS THE WORD WHICH BY THE GOSPEL IS PREACHED UNTO YOU.

My dear hypothetical discussion partner, I see your point. But is it possible that you are the one who is not reading far enough?

Taming the elephant (I hope!)

We are at the end of a chapter…but let’s add the first three verses from the very next chapter:

[1Pe 2:1-3 KJV] 1 WHEREFORE laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 AS NEWBORN BABES, DESIRE THE SINCERE MILK OF THE WORD, THAT YE MAY GROW THEREBY: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

The source of a baby’s birth and the source of the baby’s nourishment are one and the same: the mother.

The source of a Christian’s spiritual birth and the source of a Christian’s spiritual nourishment are one and the same: God.

God effects spiritual birth via his executive Word. He provides spiritual nourishment via his inspired word, AKA the Bible/preaching.

That is my understanding of “this is word which by the gospel is preached unto you” in I Peter 1:25. Let me try to flesh this out some more.

Notice the “wherefore” in I Peter 2:1. Think about the connection created by the word “wherefore”: The reason we should desire the sincere milk of the word (the Holy Scriptures and the preaching thereof) for spiritual nourishment is because the Scriptures come from the same source as our spiritual birth!

I’ll put it another way. I Peter 1:25 is equivalent to saying “Jesus Christ is preached unto you by the gospel”. My justification? All these verses:

[1Co 1:23 KJV] 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
[Phl 1:15-16 KJV] 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
[Act 5:42 KJV] 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
[Act 17:3 KJV] 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
[2Co 4:5 KJV] 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.

Consider the grammar. In every one of them, “preach” is the transitive verb and “Jesus Christ” is the direct object. It is the same in I Peter 1:25, but Jesus Christ is referred to by his mind-blowing alias “the word”.

So, I suggest this to you:

“word of God” in I Peter 1:23 refers to God’s executive Word (Christ).

“word which by the gospel is preached unto you” in I Peter 1:25 is Jesus Christ.

“the word” in I Peter 2:2 is God’s inspired Scriptures and the preaching thereof.

I will put it one more way: Although the “word of God” that makes people born again in I Peter 1:23 is identified as the same “word” that is preached by the gospel, the passage does NOT say that the preaching of this “word” is what makes people born again. It merely observes that the “word of God” that makes people born again is the topic of gospel preaching.   And in this section, I have tried to give an explanation of why that observation is inserted.

You’re getting too skinny

Mommies, Daddies, and especially grandmothers do NOT like it if a baby does not seem to be gaining weight fast enough.

So how do you think God feels when he provides an awesome feast for his beloved children (via the Bible and preaching) and we turn up our nose at it, smear it on the wall, scream for something else, and consequently suffer the devastating effects of spiritual malnourishment?

That is the point of I Peter 1:25 in conjunction with I Peter 2:2.

In closing:

I Peter 1:23 tells us that GOD is what makes us born again. No, he does not use the Bible or gospel preaching, because that creates all kinds of soteriological problems with the rest of the Bible, and I tried to bring those problems up today. Instead, he channels his unimaginable power through the executive, irresistible Word, the eternal Logos, Jesus Christ. BAM!

We do not get born again by believing in Jesus. Jesus makes us born again, and that gives us the ability to believe.

Zooming out:

John 3:16 cannot mean that dead people are supposed to “believe” anything.

John 3:16 cannot mean what you’ve been told.

Have you been feeling malnourished lately? God says to you, like a mother to her beloved child:

“My precious one, drink my milk”.

Links:

(1) I Peter 1:23 commentary

(2) Strong’s definition of “by”

**************************************************************************************************
CONTACT INFORMATION
Mailing list / Email:
If you want to be notified when there is a new post, just email me at gmail.com with subscribe in the subject. There will be a new post every week or so. What’s my gmail username? Good question, it is theformofthefourth. If you don’t want to subscribe but still want to contact me, please feel free!
Comments:
Comments are super easy! Most comments will immediately be posted. You can use a fake email address and name if you want, I don't mind at all. I just want to hear from you 🙂
RSS:
On the side of the screen (or the bottom, depending on what device you're using), look for the "Meta" heading. Under that heading, there is one link for the entries feed (meaning, all my blog posts), and another link for the comments feed. Tap the one you want, and then use an app like flipboard or podcast addict to subscribe. I don't know about all the choices out there, but I use Podcast Addict to keep a steady stream of audio podcasts and blog posts flowing into my phone.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *