Mind Your Business

On April 13, 2018January 14, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, General Letters, Gospel Advocate, Johannine Literature, Luke, Mark, New Testament, Peter's Letters, Publications, Published

***Reprinted with permission from the June 2018 issue of* Gospel Advocate *Magazine. Slightly revised edition.***

I am not a fan of church politics, but I know they exist. Sometimes it reminds me of walking through the streets when I was a kid. You always had to have enough “friends” with you; you had to make sure you were stronger than the “other guy” and never get caught walking alone, especially in an alleyway. It saddens me to admit that “brotherhood alleyways” do exist. It appears in the form of the public shaming of preachers or schools; it appears in certain back channels where preachers or churches are undermined every step of the way due to a difference of opinions. In a word, brethren, we get consumed with the actions of others, and we seek to control them. We can’t seem to mind our own business and be about our Father’s business to love our community with the gospel.

It seems appropriate to begin this discussion with a brief look at the conjoined issue of ego. Jesus always found a way to check the egos of His disciples when they interfered with the priorities of the kingdom of God. Three examples from Mark 9–10 are helpful to point this out. In Mark 9:33–37, the Lord had to refocus the whispers and debate among the Twelve regarding who was “great” in the kingdom of God. Greatness is measured by service, not by wielding power (cf. Luke 22:24–28). In Mark 9:38–41, Jesus corrected the disciples’ sense of managerial entitlement when they failed to stop a “nameless” disciple’s ministry. What matters is Jesus’ authority, not that of the disciples.

A little later, in Mark 10:13–16, the disciples impose their opinion on when Jesus was ready to provide ministry. Jesus undoes their harm by demonstrating that the kingdom of God is to be at the disposal of the vulnerable. I would argue that the actions of the disciples probably emerged from a good place, but these moments should remind us that personal ego often gets in our way of manifesting the kingdom of God. I truly believe the church is the place where our egos are supposed to die (Rom 6:1-10), but sadly they often resurrect.

We need to hear afresh the challenge from three letters: Jude, 1 Peter, and 3 John. At the heart of our church politics problems is that we have, at times, misapplied what it means to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), become meddlers (1 Pet 4:15), and have failed to curb our egos (3 John 9).

Contending for the Faith

Many an article, sermon, blog, and petition have been published under the premise to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). This is a very honorable goal. But at times the methods we use “to contend” lack Christian substance. The verb “to contend” (epagōnízomai) may be taken to mean, “to contend about a thing, as a combatant”[1] and give some legitimacy to a “war-time” church culture; but the metaphor should be taken in its natural direction. It may refer to “the intense effort” of an athlete to overcome the challenges of a sporting contest.[2] In this case, “to contend” is about self-discipline in the face of exertion, continuing the struggle for the sake of the faith.

Jude is the voice of reason the church needs to hear today. A careful reading of Jude does not support a “Cry ‘Havoc!,’ and let slip the [spiritual] dogs of war” agenda to demoralize and humiliate our brothers when we disagree theologically. In fact, Jesus warned that such tactics would endanger us with the fire of Gehenna (Matt 5:22). Instead, Jude writes that a proper response to the perversion of the gospel and subversion of Christ’s authority (v. 4) is to stay faithful to the content of the faith (v. 3), to trust in God’s Word, to trust the Lord will judge false teachers (vv. 5–9, 14–16), to trust that such people will self-destruct (vv. 10–13) and to maintain a Spirit-centered culture of grace, mercy, love, and redemption within the church (vv. 17–23)—all while affirming a distinction exists between the faithful and the ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (v. 12).

Jude does not shy away from revealing the errors of false teachers and the dangerous consequences that flow from their influence. The effort Jude speaks of is not to be spent on attacking the defectors, but instead, the exertion must be spent within our own souls, within our own congregations. We must resist the temptation to enable an ungodly inhospitable war-time church culture. With precision, Jude makes this little letter a rich description of the inhospitable environment the false teachers created in the church by their influence (vv. 12-13): they hinder love and community, they consume what others need, they withhold what is needed for life, and create a disappointing chaotic and unreliable spiritual incubator for the people of God. That is not what Jesus has called us to be.

Jude does not authorize intrusive efforts to “defend the faith.” Some among us have thought for quite some time that if they publicize an error long enough; generate enough brotherhood support; vilify the names of brethren or institutions; act like church “newscasters,” showing us the cold fronts of error among us; guide us through “connect the dots fellowship”; or act like church “J. Edgar Hoovers,” then we have contended for the faith. We have been so wrong. In truth, Jude’s brief message is bent on moving Christians to “exert effort” in embracing God’s wisdom, God’s sovereignty, and the Christian call to continue to be a fellowship of grace and mercy, love and forgiveness while affirming a distinction between ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (Jude 12). Those are quite different responses.

Jude concludes his letter by saying,

“But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (vv. 20–23).

This is the work of contending. Today, we need to learn that many times the best way to deal with false teaching is to focus on the work of our local congregation, be patient with our brethren, and be gracious to those struggling rather than entering into a shouting match, in other words, staying busy with our own work and minding our own business.

Meddlers and Bullies

Meddlers. In 1 Peter, the apostle Peter addresses a number of Christian churches undergoing a forceful front of localized persecution of “shaming” in the northern provinces of Asia Minor (1:1; 2:12; 3:13; 4:4). Peter reminds them to respond to such shame-based threats by providing a kind and respectful verbal response, explaining their hope in Jesus as Lord (3:14–15). He further exhorts them to refrain from “clashes” with the community due to punishable crimes (murder, thievery, evil-doing, meddling; 4:15). Indeed, the only clash that will glorify God is when Christians are unjustly persecution for the name of Christ (4:16).

We need to give thought to Peter’s word, “meddler” (ESV, NIV). It is listed among the four offenses Christians must avoid. English translations show the difficulty of rendering this compound word (allotri + episkopos), the New Revised Standard Version has “mischief-maker”; the New King James Version, “busy-body”; and New American Standard Bible, “troublesome-meddler.” Quite possibly, Peter coined this word because it is found nowhere in Greek literature before him. At the core, the “meddler” is someone who apparently takes or seizes control of the affairs of others. Peter condemns Christians controlling others “tactlessly and without social graces.”[3] Too many times Christians think their duty is to control the choices of our neighbors. I suspect it is because we seek the right outcome of godliness. This, however, becomes a “no win” scenario. The local church is a fertile field for this temptation. Many cultish tactics have been used in the name of “discipling” our brethren. Pulpits are used not only to “persuade men” but to “meddle” in the affairs of our members. Elders cross the line separating overseeing and control. But those with more daring egos can emerge to be “the overseer” of brotherhood affairs with ungodly force and shame to establish control. Peter reminds us to “mind our own business.”

Bullies. In 3 John, the aged apostle John writes to Gaius an embattled faithful Christian leader, who is part of the collateral damage of a church bully named Diotrephes. The church setting was desperate, requiring his own personal touch (vv. 10, 13–14). The issue? False teaching? Nope. The tension was about control over mission work (vv. 5–8). Traveling preachers were part of early church culture. Over a period of time, John had commended several to this church for support, anticipating their needs would be supplied to reach the next leg of their journey. Instead, he found a polarizing church culture had matured, manifesting in Diotrephes and Gaius.

Maybe Diotrephes began this journey with a proper concern for church autonomy in matters of missions or with a desire to serve the church. The only motive explicitly given in this letter is that he “likes to put himself first” and his rejection of apostolic authority (3 John 9). The outcome, however, was wickedness, suppression, and subterfuge. He created an inhospitable and volatile church culture where suspicion reigns and alternative opinions are silenced and ousted (v. 10). It was all a bit like an Orwellian 1984 dystopia. Diotrephes was the “thought police.” He thrust his voice into areas beyond his authority, and in order to do so, he imposed his opinion by force and manipulation.

There is no question that ego became a problem, and behind that lay sin. Diotrephes became a mission-killing church bully because he chose self over the kingdom of God. He chose “preeminence” (KJV, ASV), “to be first” (NET), “to be in charge” (ISV), “to be number one” (Plain English NT), “to have first place” (FHV), “to be first in everything” (Phillips). Third John shows us the damage rendered by elders and preachers who dominate others like an “intolerant general” when something is not done their way. A church bully by any other name would still reek of wickedness. Brethren, we need to humble our pride and “mind our own business.”

Conclusion

I’ll be honest. Sometimes I feel like an outsider, even after being a part of the church for now over twenty years. But I have seen church bulletins as subtle tools for shaming congregational members and even preachers from outside of the congregation. I’ve known preacher friends receiving a copy of a brotherhood “journal” with a post-it note attached as a “friendly” reminder of how “misguided” they are for their views. Brotherhood magazines have been leveraged to do excessive numbers of exposés about this school or that preacher rather than teaching what the Bible says. For what purpose? To establish unity? None of this brings unity; instead, such actions seem designed to permanently polarize. Church, we can, and must, do better (John 13:35). Part of the solution is to be about our “local work” and to “mind our own business” (Romans 14:4).

Endnotes

W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 2:125.
E. Stauffer, s. v. “agōn,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:134-40. [In addition: BDAG 356, “The primary semantic component in the use of this verb in Jd 3 is the effort expended by the subject in a noble cause.” It gives “expression” to the Greco-Roman “ideal of dedication.”]
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 224-25.

Jovan Payes preaches for the Highland Church of Christ in Bakersfield, California.

**To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.**

Working Through Church Problems

On January 30, 2016April 26, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, New Testament

Are you looking for a perfect congregation? Take a number and stand in line. The perfect congregation is elusive because they are composed of imperfect people.

Yes, problems happen. If anything should tip our hand to this fact it ought to be the apostolic letters to the churches found in the New Testament. Even though the Spirit of God dwelt in the primitive church, the New Testament reveals those congregations were still imperfect.

Problems emerged, emerge, and will continue to emerge within the church, and within a congregation. Paul said that the heartache of “factions” can provide a lens to recognize who is “genuine” in the church (1 Cor 11:19 ESV).

We have been given biblical teaching as to how to respond to disruptions caused by Christian misconduct. The answers are found in the apostolic word. Consider three examples.

1. The Thessalonians

Certain members of the congregation in Thessalonica would not work in order to be self-sufficient (2 Thess 3:11-12), but instead, burdened the church as they received dietary support. Such was described as living in “idleness.”

Such was described as “busybodies,” which is a play on words contrasting the appropriate Christian ethic of being “busy at work.”

The point is some members of the Lord’s church in Thessalonica refrained from being productive in the workforce and had become guilty of lifestyles that were unproductive, intrusive, and disruptive to their lives about them.

The apostle Paul sets forth an apostolic injunction to prohibit those who willfully reject the divine ideal to “earn their own living” and received benevolent sustenance from the church: “if one is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).

The church suffered at the hands of their disruptive behavior (i.e. “busybodies”). Since they were subsidized by the church, Paul aptly responds: “stop subsidizing their sinful behavior!”

Too many times, matters which affect the congregation (gossip, opinions, hypocrisy, etc.) are allowed to thrive due to a lack of solidarity to follow God’s teaching. Here Paul makes it clear that the congregation must make a stand together placing sanctions on those Christians who live contrary to the divine teaching on working to supply your own needs (2 Thess 3:6ff).

Only with a unified front, will there be sufficient godly pressure to make the defectors return to the “ranks.” The congregation is to apply the pressure of a well-intended, caring family towards “work” so that they may not be an unnecessary burden on others (3:8).

2. Paul and Barnabas

Sometimes problems develop within very successful ministry teams, particularly in matters of expediency.

In Acts 13:1-4, the setting for Paul’s ministry to evangelize the world is narrated. In fact, the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (13:2).

This Divine call to action belongs to Barnabas as much as it does Paul. Still, throughout the reports in Acts of the various evangelistic labors, it appears that Paul (Saul) begins to gain special consideration (Acts 13-14).

An interesting footnote is placed at Barnabas and Paul’s transition from the Cyprus Island to the southern Asia Minor Roman province of Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Luke writes that “John” (= John-Mark 15:37) was with them in their evangelistic campaign functioning as an “assistant” (Acts 13:5); however, for reasons unknown he left Barnabas and Paul and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

After some time had elapsed, Barnabas and Paul were anxious to return to the “mission field” to see the well-being of the congregations which they planted in Asia Minor. At this point, Barnabas and Paul entered a “sharp disagreement” over the inclusion of John-Mark (14:36-41).

John-Mark who had served as an “assistant” (Grk. huperetes), a term which suggests the responsibility to care, guard, and to manage the resources of another,[1] had “defected” (= ESV “had withdrawn”) from the evangelistic team. Why, is anyone else’s guess.

While Mark broke his commitment to the evangelistic team, Barnabas wanted to give John-Mark a second chance; but Paul felt him undependable – an evaluation he publically reverses over a decade later (2 Tim 4:11). Mark is enshrined in Scripture as one whom Paul came to think of as helpful, beneficial, and useful (Grk. euchrēstos, 2 Tim 2:21; Philm 11).

Still, Luke does not append any evaluation upon who made the right choice, for Barnabas and Paul part ways here never to be found together again on the pages of Scripture; and yet, never disparaged for their differences on this issue. Possibly, they were both correct, and it is one of those cases where there are two right choices for the same problem (Prov 26:4-5). Wisdom is always a contextualized answer-solution to a contextualized problem.

It is unfortunate that such a successful evangelistic team should part ways, but the most significant point is that neither party refrained from evangelism. Paul continues to fulfill his ministry, as Barnabas continues the “encouragement” he is known for (Acts 4:36; 9:27).

Here is a powerful lesson, especially for advocates of non-denominational Christianity. At various times, brethren due to opinions – even strong opinions – must part ways for the common good of sharing the gospel with the world:

There is enough room for different expedient methodologies (provided they are biblical) to thrive side by side without any sense of competition of faithfulness to intrude our works.

Paul continues his work with the prophet Silas, and along the way picks up Luke and Timothy. Barnabas takes with him John-Mark to the island of Cyprus. One dynamic team turns into two evangelistic teams with capable leaders.

Sometimes we need to step back and realize, like Abraham, that we are brethren, and as such, we should not quarrel with each other over expedients (Gen 13:8; Rom 14:13). Disagreements can be worked through if the parties involved reflect heavenly dispositions to make peace (Jas 3:13-18). Faithful children of God must strive to “agree in the Lord” (Phil 4:2-3). Might one of those agreements be in the matter of ministry methods that are different but biblical?

3. Diotrephes and Gaius (3 John)

Sometimes a church setting can be thrown off its balance by a strong vocal minority. They typically are aggressive, carnally minded, and self-absorbed. Unfortunately, good-meaning brethren can give such ones an audience -and the podium- which encourages their behavior.

Such was the case with a man by the name of Diotrephes. In brief, the apostle John sent a few preachers to the church acquainted with this man in order to be welcomed and financially supported in their evangelistic and missionary work.

Concluding Thoughts

Problems come, but the church has, can, does, and will overcome them if we are faithful to God and gracious to each other. Some church problems are ethical or doctrinal; consequently, as in the Thessalonian situation, the only solution is to reinforce God’s plan for Christian conduct and teaching.

Other times, church problems emerge when leaders disagree over matters of opinion. Sometimes, we must realize that not every method is the only way to carry out a biblical command or expectation. Some methods and decisions can co-exist side by side. We must learn to be flexible and gracious in such scenarios.

Finally, some problems are instigated by a divisive minority who implement their plan in the shadows rather than in a clear view of all. They are coercive and manipulative. They seek and exercise power rather than submission to God. In such cases, exposure to such conduct is warranted in order to begin the process to restore peace in the church.

These situations do not exhaust every problematic scenario, but hopefully, they provide guideposts that will be helpful. May the church learn to acknowledge and work through our problems in a peaceful and God-fearing way.

Endnote

James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929), MM 654-55.

Book Review: That We May Share His Holiness

On May 3, 2009April 6, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Bible Guides, Book Reviews, Books, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, Church Practices, New Testament, Tommy South1 Comment

that-we-may-share-his-holiness-book-cover-south

Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997), paperback, 159 pages.

With the recommendation from my friend Jeremy Marshall, I purchased a copy of Tommy South’s work, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. I was completely unaware of South’s work, and as I was reading and researching for a paper on church discipline I took it upon myself to give South’s work a “fresh” look. To my astonishment, I nearly read through the book in one night. That We May Share His Holiness should be read by every member of the church.

Before we highlight some points from the book, let us consider a little information about the author. A minister for some thirty years, Tommy South is currently a minister at the Glen Allen church of Christ and has served in that capacity since its inception in 1995 in Glen Allen, VA. South holds a Ph.D. (University of Virginia) in the New Testament & Early Christianity. South not only serves as an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University,[1] but also frequently contributes to publications such as the Gospel Advocate.

The Book I Enjoyed Reading

That We May Share His Holiness has been in circulation for some time. However, it is a publication that is worth describing here for study and contemplation. Because we believe there are very few negative matters to discuss, we shall only describe the work and its benefits.

The book has 15 chapters, and its outline appears to have a Bible class setting in mind. The discussion questions that follow each chapter will surely lend themselves to small group studies or congregational settings.

The content is written in a popular style —avoiding technical language— yet the author demonstrates himself to be very adept at the technical matters that arise in the discussion of church discipline.[2] Reading South’s work is a breath of fresh air as it reads so smoothly, and yet it avoids theological shallowness by providing adequate analysis and exegetical insights, and by challenging the readers to spiritually deliberate on critical issues regarding church discipline.

Furthermore, the material on holiness, individual responsibility to self-purity, and the duty we share as Christians to assist others to retain their self-purity are perennial discussions.

South’s work demonstrates how God places emphasis upon personal holiness as the basis for church discipline:

All discipline is the outgrowth of God’s desire for us to share His holiness. […] It also includes disciplining ourselves. This is where “striving after holiness” comes in. […] Congregational discipline is likewise an extension of God’s desire for our holiness. Just as God expects and requires us to discipline ourselves, he calls on us to discipline each other when necessary, not arbitrarily or angrily, or vengefully, but as an outgrowth of his love and of his demand for holiness among his people.[3]

South moves from this biblical basis (Heb. 12.10) and develops many themes in this rich survey of every significant New Testament context dealing with church discipline.

Another important discussion South develops is that fellowship is to precede discipline.

Apart from fellowship, discipline is not only meaningless, it is abusive. To discipline someone with whom we have not enjoyed real fellowship is much like spanking a stranger’s child.[4]

South advocates an attempt “to create an environment of love and fellowship” in the congregation so that church discipline can do exactly what God intends for it to accomplish—restoration.[5]

When restoration of fellowship is obtained, forgiveness is to occur by the individual specifically offended, and by the community of the church.[6] The discipline was to be “effective but not vindictive” and after restoration, steps to communal restoration are forgiveness, comfort, and confirmation of love.[7]

Discipline and restoration are connected at the proverbial hip, and to this point South cautions:

The church is never at liberty to think that we’ve “done our duty” by disciplining the erring when we are unwilling to perform the equal “duty” of forgiveness.[8]

Placing the full responsibility of reconciliation upon the disciplined is a completely untenable theological conclusion. Both have responsibilities: the disciplined is to repent and show those fruits, and the church has the responsibility to forgive and strengthen.

Recommendation

For its size and scope, it is an outstanding discussion of a critical topic. Page per page, it is rich in research which gave the book its birth, clear in the development of the central message of the Scriptures on the subject, and set forth in a spirit of genuine spirituality and Christian honesty.

This book is a must-read. It will tremendously bless all those who give it attention and a healthy judicious study, with the necessary application. It will not take long for a congregation of the Lord’s people that fails to discipline, to lose its identity as the church. It is, therefore, time to give attention to this important biblical theme.

Sources

“Leadership and Staff | Glen Allen Church of Christ.” GlenAllenChurch.org. (Link). Tommy South can be contacted at gaoffice@glenallenchurch.org.
South points to the technical discussions in his work, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992).
Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, Tex.: Bible Guides, 1997), 16.
South, That We May Share His Holiness, 31.
South, That We May Share His Holiness, 34.
South, That We May Share His Holiness, 102.
South, That We May Share His Holiness, 103-05.
South, That We May Share His Holiness, 106.

Christian Character During Tough Times (2 Pet 1:1-11)

On April 18, 2009March 28, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Commentary, New Testament, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth2 Comments

Introduction

Someone has coined the phrase, “tough times never last, but tough people do.” As the years pass and the hurdles of life with them, this axiom becomes profoundly evident. Life is relentless, however, in its daily dosage of aches and pains – on all fronts.

Sometimes people flail their arms up and give up, feeling helpless. But, for those who are disciples of the Christ, a renewable source of strength and comfort is available: the apostle Peter says that we have been granted “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3). This is the power of incorporating the word of God into a person’s life.

At some time near the end of his life, the apostle Peter dispatched a letter to a church suffering internally because of a number of false teachers were spreading immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). It was, therefore, essential to stay grounded in the true knowledge. These Christians must carry the truth of the gospel in the one hand, and maintain a well rounded Christian lifestyle on the other hand.

In articulating these important instructions, we have been bequeathed a treatise that provides guidelines for developing Christian character during tough times. Tough times manifest themselves politically, socially, familially, spiritually, and emotionally. As in the first century, the contemporary climate of immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism is prevalent; and likewise, the inspired apostolic instruction is as relevant as when it was first composed nearly two thousand years ago!

To be sure more could be said; however, reflect on these quick notes on a section of Scripture that is often labeled “Christian Graces,” and in so doing perhaps this study will achieve its goal. The goal is to be more mindful of growing as a Christain (2 Pet 1:3-7), and to realize that being active in this process underscores our awareness of the redemption we have received in Christ (2 Pet 1:8-9). May the Lord bless you, as you strive to make your calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10-11).

Greeting (2 Peter 1:1-2)

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Unlike modern letter writing standards, ancient letter writers put the author’s name first, followed by some reference that connects the author and the readers. Peter calls himself a servant and apostle, two terms that are quite descriptive. As a servant (the word used for slave), Peter stresses his submission to God and his disposition regarding his ministry to others. The word apostle stresses his spiritual commission to represent God as His ambassador to the world, delivering His message exactly as God empowered him.

The readers are those who share the same faith as he does, they are on “the same level as the author.”[1] Here we find the principle of equality of a faith to be shared. This faith is personal, as developed with their relationship with God and Jesus. Then consistent with ancient letter writing, Peter sends them a greeting. Grace is usually seen as the Greek salutation while peace is typically considered to be the Hebrew way of saying hello. Consistent with the themes of his letter Peter sends this greeting in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

3-4: The Basis for Godly Living

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Peter continues the theme of knowledge and says that it is through Christ’s divine power (God-based ability), that Christians have been given access to all things that pertain to life and godliness. Christians cannot have the latter without the former. In agreement is Frederic Howe, we conclude that Christians must learn that “the ultimate condition, prerequisite, or essential foundation for holiness in the believer’s life is God’s divine power.”[2]

The Christian has this access through knowledge, but this is not simple knowledge, it is the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. The reference to his glory and excellence is a “pointer” to which our calling finds completion -to abide with God. Yet this final reality can only be obtained in a life governed by knowledge of the Savior and his teaching.

Knowledge has given us his precious and very great promises, which are the means by which God allows us to become partakers of the divine nature (i.e. to share the holy nature of God). Modern man -even the modern Christian- may feel skeptical about this promise,[3] but it is a promise that in some way those who are faithful will “like him” in the immortal state (1 John 3:2). This holy nature is obtained as one learns how to escape from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Christians are expected to employ God’s knowledge to do this, holiness will not happen by accident.

5: Faith, Virtue, and knowledge

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,

Naturally, since the Christian aim is to escape the corruption of this world and partake of the divine nature through knowledge, Peter provides a list of “virtues” that must be added to one’s lifestyle in order reach these goals.

The virtues described in the chain in 1:5-7 not only are holy actions, but the very chain indicates the fullness of holiness that they must strive for. Thus those who seek them will be completely holy.[4]

In fact, the word supplement implies that “the believer contributes lavishly to the work of his salvation.”[5] Christians must contribute faith with virtue; moreover, this faith is probably the same referred to earlier -a personally developed reliance upon God- that must be contributed to with virtue (moral excellence).[6]

Furthermore, Christians are to supplement their moral excellence with knowledge, meaning that they are to have knowledge in the “how to’s” of a godly life. Contextually, this knowledge is what allows Christians to become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

6: Self-Control, Steadfastness, and Godliness

and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,

In addition to moral excellence and knowledge, to become completely holy and capable of partaking of the divine nature, the Christian is to assume the development of self-control, steadfastness, and godliness. Instead of self-control, some translations have the word temperance (KJV), but this is inaccurate since “temperance” usually implies a self-imposed censorship against alcohol. The Greek word in the text means, “to exercise complete control over one’s desires and actions – ‘to control oneself, to exercise self-control.’”[7] The overarching theme of self-control is one’s ability at self-mastery – i.e. self-government.

Next, is the idea of bearing up courageously under suffering, here translated steadfastness.[8] Perhaps this word provides a better hint of the local situation of Peter’s audience:

The need to persevere is particularly important in the situation Peter addressed, for the opponents were threatening the church, attracting others to follow them (2:2), so that some who began in the way of the gospel had since abandoned it (2:20-22).[9]

And then, disciples of Jesus are to supplement their behavior with godliness. One would think that this exhortation is unnecessary since the whole list of virtues revolves around the idea of devotion towards God in such a way where one “does that which is well-pleasing to Him.”[10] But this list of virtues would be incomplete without such an important inclusion of a vital virtue.

7: Brotherly Affection and Love

and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

The last two virtues of Christian godliness are brotherly affection and love, elements which are of special consideration because there is a distinction being made here between the two. Brotherly affection (philadelphia) is mutual love, while purposeful love (agape) is more encompassing because it requires self-generated love directed consistently upon another with their best in view.

Fred Craddock discusses these words in the following way:

Mutual affection is literally ‘love of one’s brothers and sisters’ (philadelphia) and is an essential component of church life. But that is just the point: mutual affection, reciprocal love, pertains to life in the church, to the fellowship. Beyond that, however is love, agape. Love does not require reciprocity; it includes the stranger, and even the enemy. It behaves favorably and helpfully toward the other regardless of who the other is or what the other had done.[11]

Sometimes the differences between these words are overstated, but these words of filial and “purposeful” love simply accentuate important capacities a person must engender in order to be a well-rounded Christian. We must be able to embrace the love (philadelphia) that comes easiest to us (usually familial love), and likewise be able to love on a deeper spiritual level – a beneficent love (agape).[12]

8-9: The Importance of these Characteristics

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

Peter does not hold back here, where people are prone to; instead, he affirms clearly that these things -qualities- must be in the Christians possessions and in the process of development. In so doing, he affirms, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not let loose of two concepts -godly living and knowledge- for the two are joined at the proverbial “hip.”

This stands more clearly in stark contrast to the false teachers in chapter 2. Rigorous training and development in godly behaviors assure one that they will not become “useless and unproductive” in the joys that exist in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A strong warning is made against those who would lack these qualities, stressing that to lack these qualities are the result of forgetting that a person’s sinfulness was forgiven and that these sins represent one’s imperfection and need to develop morally. Failure to do this will be detrimental to one’s calling and election.

10-11: Making Your Calling and Election Sure

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Because of the dangers that inhere should a Christian not develop these qualities of godly living, Peter warns with a logical conclusion, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.[13] The answer to the question “why?” is provided, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. It is crystal clear that Peter is demonstrating that one’s salvation can be a fragile thing should one neglect personal development.

Neglect will give way to falling, and contextually, this fall refers to one’s failure to enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter even affirms, by supplementing one’s life with godly characteristics, one will be richly provided an entrance into this kingdom; however, failure to do this makes this entrance void – it is not just the richness of the heavenly entrance being considered, it’s the entrance into heaven itself.[14] And here we see another major crack in the veneer of the Calvinistic error “Once Saved, Always Saved”.

Conclusion

2 Peter places a high premium on knowledge, especially as it pertains to knowledge and morality, and knowledge and truth. True knowledge appropriately originates from God and of Jesus our Lord and provides the proper framework for the development of godly living. This knowledge is now collected in the 27 documents of the New Testament, as the final revelation of Jesus Christ (John 16:13; Heb 1:1-2).

Guy N. Woods once observed that in this passage a godly character is developed and revealed in the person of deep Christian virtue: (1) those which are necessary to form the Christian character, and (2) those traits which reveal a follower of Christ to be a genuine servant of God.[15]

One of the most striking things about this section of Scripture is the methodical response of the Christians against the false teachers. It was not a brutal attack by physical force – a literal blow by blow as they stand toe to toe. The Christians were to respond with godly character, with love and truth. Viewing this life as concluding with the final judgment, only godly conduct will withstand the type of final exam the Divine Tribunal will release (2 Pet 3:9-13).

Finally, recalling the problem facing the group of Christians of 2 Peter was internal church problems of false teaching manifested in immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). The best way, it seems, to outlast troublesome times, is to endure and become spiritually tough. This is precisely Peter’s point. False teachers with their troubles will come and go, but spiritually tough churches will last and last because they are grounded in godly knowledge and have kept their calling and election sure. And for that matter, so will spiritually tough Christians!

Sources

Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Louisville, KY: Knox, 1995), 167.
Frederic R. Howe, “The Christian’s Life in Peter’s Theology,” BSac 157 (2000): 307.
Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, 169; Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1991), 149.
Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 154. Michael Green’s observation of the use of the Stoic practice of making similar virtue lists, and comments, that the “practice of making lists of virtues was already well established among the Stoics, who called it a prokope, ‘moral advance.'” This is not an attempt to make the church thinking like the world (i.e. the Greek world), but to use a familiar practice and leverage its familiarity to equip these Christians to embody Christian character (The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 75-76).
Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 251.
Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 24.
(L&N) Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:751.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:200.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 300.
Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, 2:273.
Fred B. Craddock, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1995), 101.
Michael Green has a worthy quote on agape and philadelphia: “This word agape is one which Christians to all intents and purposes coined, to denote the attitude which God has shown himself to have to us, and requires from us towards himself. In friendship (philia) the partners seek mutual solace; in sexual love (eros) mutual satisfaction. In both cases, these feelings are aroused because of what the loved one is. With agape, it is the reverse. God’s agape is evoked not by what we are, but by what he is. It has its origin in the agent, not in the object. It is not that we are lovable, but that he is love. This agape might be defined as a deliberate desire for the highest good of the one loved, which shows itself in sacrificial action for that person’s good” (80).
Perhaps no one word is so misunderstood as the term “called” in the New Testament. Essentially, the church is a group of individuals called out to assemble into a congregation (ek, out of, plus kaleo, to call = ekklesia). A person is called by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14) and becomes a member of the church (a called out group) through immersion for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-47; Gal 3:26-29 – notice the transitional tenses – “you are” because “you were”).
Kistemaker, Exposition, 257-58.
Woods, Peter, John, and Jude, 152. Woods hand selects which virtues form character and which other virtues reveal genuine discipleship, and here we must disagree because such a segregation is artificial, and not natural with the flow of the passage. In fact, there is the reason to believe that the list of eight virtues is consistent with a literary form called sarites, “in which we have a step-by-step chain that culminates in a climax” (cf. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 297). At any rate, we agree with Woods’ observation – albeit modified to be descriptive of all the virtues enlisted by the apostle.

James on Controlling the Tongue

On April 3, 2009February 4, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Spiritual Formation2 Comments

I’ll be honest. I have not always used my tongue in the most positive, and constructive of ways. I could append my guilty plea with the excuse, saying, “it wasn’t me, the devil made me do it,” but such trifle excuses remove personal responsibility from the case. So what am I to do? Repent, seek the counsel of the Scriptures, and then implement that wisdom on a consistent basis.

As in all spiritual quests, the journey is quite personal. Spiritual progress is a tailor-made phenomenon, for no two people are exactly the same and all have individualized challenges. It is the struggle of overcoming, and harnessing the impulses of our body, and conforming them to the teaching of God as revealed in the Bible that unites all men searching for spiritual solutions to their plight with sin.

Perhaps, the most pervasive struggle is the use and misuse of our tongue. This little piece is focused on providing an encouragement and to provide ammunition in the battle over the tongue.

A Warning by James

When the brother of the Lord addressed the church spread across the Roman Empire, James provided one of the most lengthy sections committed to illustrating the danger and misuse of the tongue in the New Testament (3:1-18).

The passage connects two main themes articulated to resolve a number of problems facing the Jewish-Gentile church. On the one hand, a section affirming that faith and action must go hand in hand in order to be genuine faith (2:14-26); and on the other hand, James makes the connection that a wise and understanding person is not only demonstrated by a “good conduct,”[1] but that because of a behavior saturated in heavenly wisdom, such a person can contribute to the diffusion of quarrelings (3:13-4:12).

James argues, therefore, that all members should act in a spirit of humility grounded in the recognition of God (4:4-10; cf. Jas 1:27); otherwise, they will continue to be guilty of sins exasperating the church climate of James’ audience (4:17). So James addresses the use of the tongue and the need to minimize the “heat” amplifying the problems, and to maximize “light” in order to diffuse the internal strife.

James halts the multiplication of teachers by affirming that a teacher should be a mature Christian and that a mature Christian teacher is to be able to control the tongue (3:1-2). The reason? Because, despite its apparent insignificant size, it actually wields a large span of control over a person’s influence and ability (3:3-5a).

Furthermore, its destructive power (unrighteous use) can destroy lives presently and eternally (3:5b-6), but its most consistent problem is found in its duplicity (3:7-12): “with it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.”

Therefore, James warns against “wanna-be teachers” who are too immature to enter the fray of “church problems.” Such matters are to be left to those who have demonstrated a pattern of life guided by wisdom and understanding (3:13). Such individuals will ideally refrain from acting “earthly, unspiritual, [and] demonic,” and instead will act on “the wisdom that comes from above” (3:14-17).

The results?

A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:18 ESV)

Despite the great dangers of the tongue, James says that it can form the foundation needed to resolve conflict – physically, socially, and spiritually. Imagine just how much better people and churches we would be if we constantly sowed the seeds of peace within the congregation and among our congregational neighbors.

In James’ approach to church conflict, he highlights an important trait of the Christian involved: it must be a mature Christian who can win the battle of control over the tongue. It may not always be a perfect use of the tongue, but the tongue will not be allowed to run wild. This is a decision all Christians can make; and so, what we are saying is this: the control of the tongue is an absolutely obtainable spiritual goal.

“Excuses, Excuses”

Usually, we find ourselves under the delusion of our own excuses: “I was raised to cuss like a sailor,” “I was angry and I lost it,” “I need to work on that, but I always forget.” We could plumb the depths of the excuse abyss ad infinitum and find a defense for every one of our misconducts. But we do ourselves a true dis-service by accepting defeat, instead of trusting in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 6:6-14, 8:32).

The apostle Paul says that we are more than conquerors through God’s power (Rom 8:37), and to raise the white flag is to accept defeat unnecessarily. Such determinism is Calvinistic to the core, and utterly rejects the free-volitional-will that God endowed upon His Imago Dei (Gen 1:26). A person can choose to serve God or not – it is within the hands of the person (Josh 24:15, cf. Eccl 9:10). Furthermore, it dismisses the seriousness of the sins of the mouth, which God has already spoken of as behaviors under His wrath (Prov 6:16-19; Rev 21:8).

Returning to the situation confronting the church James addresses, it is essential to notice that one of his main objectives is to denounce and expose the erroneous excuse that God has placed us in a difficult situation only to fail and that we have no recourse but to sin (cf. Jas 1:12-18). To overthrow this deception, James sets forth the themes of his letter:[2]

Knowing this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear [1:21-2:26], slow to speak [3:1-18], slow to anger [4:1-5:6]; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires. (James 1:19-20)

Such a letter demands personal responsibility in the employment of true religion. Furthermore, true religious expressed through the Christian lifestyle is dependent upon the ability to control the tongue (Jas 1:27-28). This is clearly stated in James 3:2:

For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3:2)

Chalinagogeo, the word used for “bridle” in James 3:2 is the same word used in James 1.26. It means to literally “lead with a bridle”; and among all the New Testament documents it appears in James alone. Moreover, it carries the metaphorical force of restraint and the ability to keep things in check (cf. NIV).[3]

Amazingly, James reaffirms his statement about the tongue in 1:26-28 , and applies it to the need to control the whole body (i.e. behavior and character) in 3:2. In light of this data, could anything be more clearer than the spiritual need to overcome his or her tongue?

In what way could the excuses above carry weight against the inspired words of James? An uncontrolled use of the tongue can not be explained away with frivolous excuses, nor will they stand when they are brought before the Divine Tribunal in the judgment (Eccl 12:14; Matt 12:36).

With such clear biblical data, excuses must be tossed to the side, responsibility must be taken for the misuse of the tongue, and a course of action must be taken to consistently (daily) manage the tongue knowing full well that it is “a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas 3:8).

Some Suggestions

A study like this would be incomplete without attention being brought to possible strategies to minimize the misuse of the tongue and to maximize the potential of reaching true religion with the proper use of the tongue. Some of the points come from Scripture, and others come from common sense. There is no doubt that these are but a sample of all that could be said.

(1) Check the Heart

Jesus once made the statement that the heart was the source of all of our actions. Notice how Matthew records this affirmation:

[W]hat comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15:18-20; cf. Mark 7:14-23)

Indeed, we see the wisdom of Proverbs 4:23, saying, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” Many feel that the best way to succeed in life is to expose oneself to everything that can be known, and then let the chips fall where they may; thinking that exposure is the same thing as protection. Actually, the opposite is true.

The apostle Paul penned the following inspired words: “I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Rom 16:19). Two things are said here: we must be thoroughly informed about what is good, and we must be unadulterated with evil.

Layering these passages together, it is clear that the heart must be guarded against evil influences by filling it with “what is good.” This will enable a person to control what proceeds “from the heart.” Certainly, then, with a tongue controlled at its source, the course of our lives will be better.

(2) Upgrade the Filter

Have you ever heard of BTM? BTM stands for “brain to mouth” and is commonly used to describe a popular “syndrome” of sharing whatever comes to mind – i.e., you think it, you say it. Surely this cannot be a prudent method of communication.

It is enlightening to observe some passages from Proverbs and how they describe BTM-ish uses of the mouth. Note a couple of passages:

The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (15:28)
If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (18:13)

There is evidence to conclude then that Christians should upgrade their tongue with a filter that makes them ponder of what they are going to say. Moreover, a person can say what is on their heart without forsaking forethought when talking with other people.

Word choice – and it is a choice – is an important part of the communication process. It will enable us to speak morally, honestly, correctly, empathically, and positively. So the next time you are on the verge of a brain-to-mouth moment, pause, “hear” and “ponder” over the matter at hand before you speak. This filtration system just might be the best thing you do to change the direction of your life for the better (Jas 3:2-6)!

(3) Embrace Silence

In chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, the “Preacher” (Eccl 1:1),[4] presents his famous “there is a time” monologue (3:1-8). In verse 7 of this passage, he pens, that there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” What was Solomon addressing?

The overruling theme of this section of the book focuses upon two main things: (a) in this transient life humanity has many ways (i.e. the “a time to” statements, 3:2-8) to stay busy (3:1, 10); and (b) despite the ability for the mundanity of life to bring despair (3:9), everything is beautiful “in its time” in light of the eternal consequences of living the life designed by God (3:11-14).[5]

Now that we have established the context, the actual verse needs some clarification. The whole verse reads (3:7):

(A) a time to tear, 
and (B) a time to sew; 
(A') a time to keep silence, 
and (B') a time to speak

As seen above, from the first verse to the eighth each verse is broken down into four parts of what can be best expressed as “opposite extremes.”

For example, in 3:2 birth and death are “opposite extremes” of each other, and then in a similar vein, the vegetative imagery is used of planting a productive plant seed and then plucking the plant to end its productivity. The two lines are very similar in their emphasis, there is a time to begin life and a time that life and all its productivity will come to an end.

Ecclesiastes 3:7 follows a similar pattern, only that here the passage seems to refer to the customs of mourning and grief shown during the event of a death. Customarily, in the cultural milieu of biblical times a garment was “torn” to show grief,[6] but when it was time to overcome grief reconnecting the torn pieces (i.e. “a time to sew”) would symbolize “picking up the pieces” (for lack of a better phrase).

Likewise, carrying this pattern of posing “opposite extremes” against each other, the Preacher says that there are appropriate times that justify silence -like death- and that there are times when we must resume our daily conversations.

Solomon stresses that life often confronts us with these opposite extremities of life. One moment, we are careful without a concern in the world; and then, in the next moment, it would seem as if the whole world were on our shoulders and every detail must be right. However, in the grand scheme of things, knowing that eternity looms in the future, and we have a purpose in the world, we face each challenge with spiritual and moral strategies in place. We fear God and keep his commandments (Eccl 12:13).

Amazingly, one of those spiritual and moral strategies is to be silent or conversant depending upon how the situation demands us to act. Often, spiritually concerned individuals feel that they must consistently insert their lips into every problem or situation, thinking perhaps that it is the conscientious thing to do. Solomon reminds us – there is a time for it, and then there is a time when it is highly inappropriate to speak.

Conclusion

What can we say, our tongue is the battleground. So much depends upon our ability to control this little muscle organ. As we have observed, the use of our tongues stems from our own maturity and spiritual depth. We must be vigilant than to guard our hearts, be more patient and think before we speak; and finally, we must recognize that just because we feel we have something to say, the occasion may not call for it.

May this study be enriching and encouraging to you in your quest to live a life of biblical faith.

Sources

All quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible unless otherwise noted (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
Although many have suggested outlines for the book of James, we agree with John Niemela’s assessment of the organization of the letter based upon the thematic structure of the letter (“Faith Without Works: A Definition,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6.2 (2000): 3-6). In brief: (1) Prologue (1:1-18), (2) Theme (1:19-20), (3) Themes Subdivided (1:21-5:6), (4) Epilogue (5:7-20).
Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 434.
The word used for Ecclesiates’ author, the “Preacher,” translates as a difficult word according to R. K. Harrison (Introduction to the Old Testament [1969; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 1072-73). Perhaps a helpful way of thinking about the term itself is in the following way, “Ecclesiastes is a Greek translation of Heb. qohelet ‘one who convenes a congregation,’ presumably to preach to it. ‘Preacher,’ then, is not an inaccurate translation of either Greek or Hebrew. However, Qoheleth (sometimes spelled Koheleth) would hardly parallel the Christian meaning since his texts were taken more from his own observations of life than from the Law or the Prophets” (William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996], 497-98). For a brief but good response to the question of Solomon’s authorship in light of linguistic criticisms certain scholars use to reject Solomonic authorship see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids:, MI Zondervan, 1982), 255-58.
Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 97-99.
Several passages in the Old Testament alone demonstrate this cultural practice: Gen 37:29, 34, 44:13; Num 14:6; Josh 7:6; Judg 11:35; 2 Sam 1:11-12; 2 Sam 13:19, 31; Ezra 9:3; Esth 4:1; Job 1:20, 2:12; Isa 37:1, etc. These is not all the passages that could be listed, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the pattern of behavior.