Noah and the Flood - 1 Peter 3

3:1-7 - I’m not going to lie, chapter 3 had me going through a roller coaster emotionally, First because I knew that part of this chapter was the catalyst for the receiving of D&C 138. Second because when I started reading it was all about women’s roles, and I’ll give you one guess as to how it sounds coming from an ultra-conservative ancient man. So needless to say, I’ve been processing a lot with this chapter. Chapter 2 ended with Peter encouraging the saints to endure unfair treatment by remembering that Christ also endured all the unfair treatment ever perpetrated. Then he goes into how “wives, be in subjection to your own husbands” and uses words like “obey” and “chaste conduct,” being “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.” He even calls back to how “Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well.” Peter spends 6 verses instructing women how to act, then almost as an afterthought makes 1 verse saying “likewise, ye husbands… giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,” almost like “oh yeah, uh… you men do good too.” I know that Jesus is the champion of all women, but even these verses were hard for me to read. I’m not a “delicate, wilting flower,” I’m a ride or die chick. Emma Smith was ride or die, and it’s glorious. All the words that Peter said are so far opposed to my nature that it’s almost like my mom being personally offended because I’m not naturally like her. I think I’ve spent so much of my life being taught that who I am naturally is bad because I’m not “pretty” or “dainty” or “girlie” that to have the “ideal women” be described in the scriptures as the opposite of what I am is pretty difficult to reconcile. All of this is to say that I just had to keep telling myself “Jesus is the champion of women,” and “this is from a long time ago, modern day revelation declares that women are just as important as men,” etc. And I was ok reading this and regarding it as scripture while also understanding my place in the kingdom. But here’s what I missed, it was right in the first verse and I just skimmed right over it. Peter gives this counsel to women whose husbands “obey not the word,” meaning that this isn’t a general description on women’s place in the ancient church but that this is specific to women whose husbands were unbelievers, and how to maintain harmony in their homes and marriages. The IM comments, “Peter encouraged Christian wives to be ‘in subjection’ to their nonbelieving husbands who ‘obey not the word’ in order to win them over for Christ by their righteous conduct. The use of the word subjection should not be understood as a passive or docile obedience. Rather, the words subjection and submission are used in the scriptures to mean selflessness, humility, and love within relationships. The teachings of the Restoration make clear that both the husband and the wife should be humble, submissive, and selfless in their interactions with one another.” This is just as good now as it was then. People change during marriage, some become religious who previously weren’t, some give up religion who previously held it in high regard. Our mortal experience in this life is about growth, which implies the need for constant change. Hopefully that change is good, but sometimes it’s less than ideal, but it’s all part of our individual paths. I can count on one hand the number of friends I have who haven’t had either them or their husbands leave the church, or both. Knowing how to handle that situation when it comes up in a way that is pleasing to God is important. And going back reading these verses again with the perspective of who this is really addressing, Peter is encouraging these women with unbelieving husbands to focus on inner beauty instead of outer beauty, to focus on being a Christ-like person instead of trying to change your husband’s beliefs. Grow who you are because ultimately, you can’t control anyone else, you can’t force them to believe what you want. 3:8-17 - Peter moves on from addressing husbands and wives to addressing the church in general, encouraging unity, compassion, meek, peaceful, pure in speech, “for the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.” This is a reference to Psalm 33:18 which says, “Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy.” If we believe and do our best to be righteous, “who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” But ironically, the next verse asks “and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, either be troubled.” In one breath he says “no one can hurt you if you’re righteous” and then in the next he says “but if someone does hurt you…” How does this reconcile? Either we can’t be hurt or we can, which one is it? The answers comes in the eternal perspective. Can we be hurt physically in this life, even to the point of death? Of course, and in fact, Peter knew that the saints he was writing to were going to be facing death for their beliefs. If we look at his statements from the perspective of trying to guide and comfort those who were going to have to choose death for the cause of Christ or life without him, a lot of these statements make more sense. If you know death is coming to you because of your beliefs, having someone ask, “if you believe, who can really hurt you?” reminds you that preserving this life is not the most important task, that this life is secondary to faith, and that an eternal reward is waiting on the other side of that death. It’s really quite moving if you think about it. Beauty for ashes. Nothing in this life is permanent, nothing is more important than our belief in Christ, because nothing can make up to us what we lost here except for Christ. I guess that’s the real benchmark of priorities isn’t it? The most important aspect of this life has to be the only thing that endures beyond it, Jesus Christ. This eternal perspective can bring peace and perspective and there is one phrase that is pretty popular in verse 15, saying, “and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” It’s like when someone is in pain and they are laughing. I encounter this with patients at the hospital. There are legitimately people who laugh when they are in pain, it makes you pause because it just doesn’t fit the social construct that we expect from someone in pain. This is similar. Someone who is in a situation where we would expect the reaction to be fear or anger or another negative emotion, but instead they are consoled or peaceful or comforted, that makes people stop and ask, “what are you smiling about?” The commentary on this verse talks about bearing your testimony, but I don’t necessarily think it needs to be the overly formal kind where you stand up and cry and all that. There’s one part that mentions the importance of bearing your testimony in the way that the other person needs and that only comes through the Spirit. So it can’t be a canned or flippant, “I want to bear my testimony.” It can seem like a small comment or asking them questions or an expanded answer or, my personal favorite, just answering with “Jesus.” It’s all very dependent on what the Spirit wants that person to hear and He facilitates that, but us being ready and able to feel for the Spirit’s influence is also a big deal. 3:18-22 - We can’t expect to be spared from hardships in this life because even “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” If Christ was the most righteous being ever, having no sin at all, and even he had to suffer, then we have to anticipate difficulties as well. But He endured it because he loves us and he knew that in his righteousness, no one could really harm him, physically maybe but not eternally. But here Peter makes a really interesting and almost side note that in in this suffering, Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Some of whom were disobedient in the days of Noah.” It’s like “wait, what?” Like were talking about these super deep spiritual concepts and then Peter just throws in “oh you know, like when Jesus suffered and died for our sins and then went to the spirits of those who lived thousands of years ago to preach the gospel to them in prison.” It’s like when you are having a perfectly normal conversation and then the other person responds with something like, “well, you know, that’s how all the birds died and were replaced by robotic spies for the government.” Peter’s statement is simultaneously out of left field but also said in such an offhand manner that it’s implied that everyone knows exactly what he’s talking about. I am so far removed from Noah’s day that I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve thought about them in my lifetime. Even though the crucifixion was 2,000 years ago, so distant that it almost seems like it’s not even possible to have happened on the same planet as me, even thinking about Abraham thousands of years before Christ, and then to think that thousands of years before them were another group of people, and that’s who Jesus went to see in the small amount of time between his physical death and his resurrection. It’s like when you hear a statement like “Cleopatra lived closer in time to the moon landing than to the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza.” Statements like that force you to reconsider everything you know about space and time. That’s how I feel reading this verse, like my whole perception of life and eternity and the gospel are gross underestimates of reality. Like looking at the Milky Way on a dark night, thinking about how small I am in my big world and how small my world is in the vastness of the universe. It’s just one of those things that makes you stop and think that maybe this whole thing is bigger than anything I am capable of understanding right now. But this big reveal of Peter’s implies a lot of things that are worth exploring. The article on this chapter from gospeldoctrine.com says, “President Joseph F. Smith was wondering how the Savior could perform such a work in such a short time (D&C 138:28). The answer was that the Lord didn’t go in person to preach to all those spirits but ‘organized his forces and appointed messengers.’ This answer doesn’t only solve the practical problem; it teaches another important principle. The spirits in prison were not worthy of a direct visitation of the Lord. The resurrected Lord never appeared to the wicked.” If we remember that even these “wicked” people are children of God and loved by Him, we can deduce that there is more going on than “they just don’t deserve to see me.” There has to be something in seeing the Savior that negates a bit of our agency that prohibits Him from just appearing to all of us all the time and helping us work through our spiritual journey. So another way to say it might be “the spirits in prison were not ready for a direct visitation of the Lord.” The article comments, “Peter refers to the wicked (and righteous) of Noah’s day. He isn’t talk about those who didn’t have the opportunity to hear the gospel. He isn’t talking about those who would have received the gospel is they had the opportunity. He is talking about a people who rejected the message of a prophet so great that he would be called Gabriel- the chosen to declare the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. These were so wicked that the Lord was justified in drowning them and their sins.” I really have to stop at this and wonder just what is going on with these people. I clearly am not perfect, I just wonder what the story is there. It’s like learning that your ancestors were murderous colonizers, it’s just incomprehensible to me. The article goes on to quote Joseph B. Romney as saying, “Modern revelation teaches that God indeed suffered great sorrow over the Flood, which served as the baptism of the earth, and thathe did all he could to prevent the destruction of his children- including giving the people one of his greatest preachers of righteousness to try to get them to change- and then, when the people failed to respond, he mercifully provided an opportunity for their redemption after their deaths.” This shows us that the plan has always been the same, to save every single person who is willing to be saved, which I think is going to be far and away the vast majority. Like it was pointed out earlier, Jesus himself didn’t go teach, but he “organized his forces and appointed messengers.” This is exactly how it is done today and has been throughout human history. This shows that executing the plan has always been the same, same methods, same tools, same principles. It also gives us a little bit more perspective on agency and every person’s individual plan back to the Savior.