Peter and the Internet

It is abundantly clear that Peter did not have the Internet. I mean, if he had, he never would have ever written,

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9)

I mean, seriously, who can sit there on those Internet methods of interacting and not revile for reviling? Is that not basic human nature? Is it even reasonable to think that we should not? I mean, if someone pokes you in the eye, are you not expected to return the favor? That's basically how we think, I think. When we read Peter telling us to return a blessing for evil and a blessing for reviling, we naturally think that makes no sense. We may think, in fact, that it's wrong. People who are abusive and unkind are wrong for thinking it and wrong for doing it and the best thing you can do for them is get their attention to let them know it with a dose of their own medicine ... isn't it? Does Peter want us to be doormats? Are we supposed to just lay down and take it? And give a blessing? How does that help anyone?

Of course, we who follow Christ understand that this kind of thinking is contrary ... to Christ. It was Jesus who said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt 5:11-12). It was Jesus who said, "Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also ..." (Matt 5:39-42). It was Jesus who said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matt 5:43-46). Maybe Peter wasn't right in the head, but he was just passing on Jesus's instructions.

So, apparently, returning a blessing for evil done and a blessing for people speaking evil against you is the right thing ... which, I'm fairly confident, is neither the natural nor the common response we have. But Peter tells us something interesting. "If you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed" (1 Peter 3:14). In fact, he says, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). Now, the gist of what he said there we get. It's better to suffer for doing good than evil. Fine. But did you see that clause he stuck in there? "If that should be God's will." That is, when we do what is right (bless for being wronged) and suffer for it, it is God's will. And who doesn't want to be in the middle of God's will? Someplace along the way we decided that God owes us a comfortable life and that those who get in the way of that should be ... slapped down somehow. That's a lie. What we should really want is exactly what God gives. And what we should want to do is exactly what God commands. So apparently that includes not snapping a perfect unkind response to an unkind remark, but throwing back a blessing. Apparently that is part of God's will and apparently we ought to want to do that. (But ... I'm so much better at the other ...)