1 Peter 5:7

[LongJohnSilver]

1 Peter 5:7 reads: Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

What is meant by anxiety? How exactly can I cast anxiety on Him? How exactly is His caring for me related to my casting my anxiety on Him?

 

[NotWorthy]

1 Peter 5:7 reads: Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

What is meant by anxiety? How exactly can I cast anxiety on Him? How exactly is His caring for me related to my casting my anxiety on Him?

Don’t sweat the small things, but focus instead on God.

As an example, think of praying, “Jesus, I’m having trouble at work with some co-workers, and so I’m laying this dilemma at Your feet and I trust that you will help me overcome this problem…”

Jesus taught this during the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 6

25 *** "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 ****** Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?****** 27 ****** Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span?*** *** 28 ****** Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.****** 29 ****** But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.****** 30 *** If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?*** 31 ****** So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’****** 32 ****** All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.****** 33 ****** But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.***

 

[hellopeople]

Are the epistles attributed to Peter considered actually written by Peter according to the church? What about the ones written by John?

 

[JRKH]

Don’t sweat the small things, but focus instead on God.

As an example, think of praying, “Jesus, I’m having trouble at work with some co-workers, and so I’m laying this dilemma at Your feet and I trust that you will help me overcome this problem…”

Jesus taught this during the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 6

25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they? 27 Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? 28 Why are you anxious

This was my first thought too.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

1 Peter 5:7 reads: Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

What is meant by anxiety? How exactly can I cast anxiety on Him? How exactly is His caring for me related to my casting my anxiety on Him?

I love this verse because I tend to worry about things. Scripture says that we are to make of ourselves a living sacrifice. I put myself on the altar every morning and every night, but throughout the day, I find myself crawling off!

One thing I find really helpful about this verse is the word “cast”, which means to throw with force, once for all! I find that as much as I want to have thrown Him my worries “once for all”, I have not. But, each time they return to me on my bungee cord, I throw them forcefully once again, and as the other posters have said, focus on His caring for me, rather than my problem.

 

[NotWorthy]

Are the epistles attributed to Peter considered actually written by Peter according to the church? What about the ones written by John?

Yes, Peter wrote Peter and John wrote John… or vice versa… I get confused.

 

[hellopeople]

Yes, Peter wrote Peter and John wrote John… or vice versa… I get confused.

I take a biblical studies class run by a protestant scholar (a first year undergrad university class) who disagrees with this…apparently most non Catholic scholars disagree with this. I find it easier to believe secular scholars and scholars that have no theological (or traditional) reasons to say one thing or the other. People involved with the church are obviously going to suggest that these letters were written by who they were attributed to traditionally, but secular scholars don’t care one way or the other (unless you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory that they are all trying to bring down the Catholic Church…which I have heard before on here and think it is nonsense). So it just seems that secular scholars, in terms of historical aspects of the book (I don’t mind looking at church teachings on interpretations of the texts and what they mean spiritually because that is one thing that historical readings of the Bible lacks) are going to be more trustworthy because they don’t have any presuppositions while looking at the Bible.

Does this make sense to you? Do you think this is the wrong attitude?

 

[NotWorthy]

I take a biblical studies class run by a protestant scholar (a first year undergrad university class) who disagrees with this…apparently most non Catholic scholars disagree with this. I find it easier to believe secular scholars and scholars that have no theological (or traditional) reasons to say one thing or the other. People involved with the church are obviously going to suggest that these letters were written by who they were attributed to traditionally, but secular scholars don’t care one way or the other (unless you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory that they are all trying to bring down the Catholic Church…which I have heard before on here and think it is nonsense). So it just seems that secular scholars, in terms of historical aspects of the book (I don’t mind looking at church teachings on interpretations of the texts and what they mean spiritually because that is one thing that historical readings of the Bible lacks) are going to be more trustworthy because they don’t have any presuppositions while looking at the Bible.

Does this make sense to you? Do you think this is the wrong attitude?

Well, by saying they have no “presuppositions” that would imply that the Early Church has an agenda to make Peter and John the authors. Why would that matter?

 

[hellopeople]

Well, by saying they have no “presuppositions” that would imply that the Early Church has an agenda to make Peter and John the authors. Why would that matter?

You know what, I shouldn’t have put “no presuppositions.” I think for certain types of biblical study (historical basically) it is the ideal to have no presuppositions, but ultimately it is impossible.

As for the early church, I don’t really know how things were back then. Do you know what I mean? Obviously it seems compelling that people in the middle of the second century were attributing these books to the apostles, because it was probably only 75 years or so since they were written, but the historical distance of 75 years was much more then than it is now. They didn’t properly record these things, and it is quite possible that the early church just believed the letters themselves (I am pretty sure that all of the peter and john epistles state the name of who it was from…this could be totally wrong, but at least some of them say who it is from). We know now that it was somewhat common back then to put other people’s names on documents to make them more authoritative. Think about the gospel of Thomas or mary magdeline…those names are only added to make the gospel sound more authoritative. Also, it is almost a general consensus among scholars that at least some of Paul’s letters are not actually by Paul. So, it is not much of a stretch to believe that it became tradition that John and Peter actually wrote these letters just because that is who it says has written them at the beginning of the epistles.

Anyway, I haven’t done any of this research, I don’t really know anything about it at all, just what scholars believe. And I feel as though in matters of history, authorship, and things of that nature, the secular scholars are likely going to be most accurate because church doctrine and interpretation are likely not going to bias their interpretations. BUT, this method has its limitations as well…basically they just look at the history of it, but do not look at what it actually means and its significance (which is what is really important). But in terms of history, I like the historical critical method.

 

[NotWorthy]

… We know now that it was somewhat common back then to put other people’s names on documents to make them more authoritative. Think about the gospel of Thomas or mary magdeline…those names are only added to make the gospel sound more authoritative.

I’ll see what I have on “authority” in saying who the authors were, or whether it was just plain accepted tradition.

Also, it is almost a general consensus among scholars that at least some of Paul’s letters are not actually by Paul.

No, it is not “almost a general consensus”. It’s a theory and nothing more. The only serious concern is whether Paul wrote Hebrews or not.

With the other Epistles of St. Paul, people question the grammar usage, but this can easily be consigned to who was the person that Paul dictated the letters to. There is no strong compelling argument against the authorship of any of the other letters attributed to St. Paul.

So, it is not much of a stretch to believe that it became tradition that John and Peter actually wrote these letters just because that is who it says has written them at the beginning of the epistles.

Anyway, I haven’t done any of this research, I don’t really know anything about it at all, just what scholars believe. And I feel as though in matters of history, authorship, and things of that nature, the secular scholars are likely going to be most accurate because church doctrine and interpretation are likely not going to bias their interpretations. BUT, this method has its limitations as well…basically they just look at the history of it, but do not look at what it actually means and its significance (which is what is really important). But in terms of history, I like the historical critical method.

I’ll have to look when I get home tonight (late). The Ignatius Study Bible has a good discussion on this. I’ll see what I can find.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thank you NotWorthy and guanophore!

I love this verse because I tend to worry about things. Scripture says that we are to make of ourselves a living sacrifice. I put myself on the altar every morning and every night, but throughout the day, I find myself crawling off!

One thing I find really helpful about this verse is the word “cast”, which means to throw with force, once for all! I find that as much as I want to have thrown Him my worries “once for all”, I have not. But, each time they return to me on my bungee cord, I throw them forcefully once again, and as the other posters have said, focus on His caring for me, rather than my problem.

I like this thought. But could you explain a bit further how you cast them unto Him? I mean, I have no problem bringing everything to Jesus and asking Him to take care of it. But do you mean that you keep bringing them to Him everytime the sorrows come to your mind again? And are you basically asking Him to take care of the problem or only to remove your worrying about it?

Sorry if this is kinda vague, but I have trouble grasping exactly what is meant here.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you NotWorthy and guanophore!

I like this thought. But could you explain a bit further how you cast them unto Him? I mean, I have no problem bringing everything to Jesus and asking Him to take care of it. But do you mean that you keep bringing them to Him everytime the sorrows come to your mind again? And are you basically asking Him to take care of the problem or only to remove your worrying about it?

Sorry if this is kinda vague, but I have trouble grasping exactly what is meant here.

Too often we bring out prayers to Jesus along with a solution, all pre-packaged. In instances like this, we are forgetting the phrase, THY WILL be done.

Hence, I think we are bringing these to Jesus, trusting that He will work them out as HE sees fit, and hoping that your trust in Him will help eliminate the worry.

 

[NHInsider]

Thank you NotWorthy and guanophore!

I like this thought. But could you explain a bit further how you cast them unto Him? I mean, I have no problem bringing everything to Jesus and asking Him to take care of it. But do you mean that you keep bringing them to Him everytime the sorrows come to your mind again? And are you basically asking Him to take care of the problem or only to remove your worrying about it?

Sorry if this is kinda vague, but I have trouble grasping exactly what is meant here.

Two related verses I like to bring to mind are “Let not your hearts be troubled-ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1) and “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke and learn from me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:29)

In both cases, Jesus invites us to trust Him and therefore to relax/rest. We (I) do not have to figure everything out. I don’t have to fix everything. I don’t have to understand. It’s okay for me to take the tangled mess of my thoughts and concerns and dump them in front of Him and then STOP TRYING to make sense of them. The tendency, obviously, is to think that praying about a problem is just one of the many ways I try to fix it. So when I bring a care to Him I try to then think about Him instead of about my concern. Since I’m generally worrying about my kids, I try to focus on His love for them, which is infinitely greater than my love for them. I try to think about the ways that He has worked things out in the past - for me, for others I know, for the saints and in the stories recorded in Scripture.

The Matthew image of the yoke is interesting and helpful, too. There were two kinds of yokes in common use in Jesus’ day - the one that you place over your shoulders to make it easier to carry things (buckets of water, sacks of grain, whatever) - one on each end, balanced so that you carry the weight on your legs, not your arms; and the one that you join two pulling animals (or people) in so that they draw the load together more efficiently than either could alone. Each image is helpful in a different way. If you imagine yourself slogging along carrying some heavy burden, and then picture Jesus giving you a yoke and dividing the burden, distributing it on the ends of the yoke - suddenly the burden is much less difficult to carry. The other is even more powerful being the two-are-stronger-than-one yoke, if you imagine Jesus in one side and yourself in the other. In either case the image is not that He takes the problem/burden away from you but that He makes it easier to carry what we must carry. He knows our struggles and enables us to carry on, encouraged in the knowledge that we do not, in fact, walk alone.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

This is very helpful, thank you NHInsider!

 

[Disciple4Christ]

You know what, I shouldn’t have put “no presuppositions.” I think for certain types of biblical study (historical basically) it is the ideal to have no presuppositions, but ultimately it is impossible.

As for the early church, I don’t really know how things were back then. Do you know what I mean? Obviously it seems compelling that people in the middle of the second century were attributing these books to the apostles, because it was probably only 75 years or so since they were written, but the historical distance of 75 years was much more then than it is now. They didn’t properly record these things, and it is quite possible that the early church just believed the letters themselves (I am pretty sure that all of the peter and john epistles state the name of who it was from…this could be totally wrong, but at least some of them say who it is from). We know now that it was somewhat common back then to put other people’s names on documents to make them more authoritative. Think about the gospel of Thomas or mary magdeline…those names are only added to make the gospel sound more authoritative. Also, it is almost a general consensus among scholars that at least some of Paul’s letters are not actually by Paul. So, it is not much of a stretch to believe that it became tradition that John and Peter actually wrote these letters just because that is who it says has written them at the beginning of the epistles.

Anyway, I haven’t done any of this research, I don’t really know anything about it at all, just what scholars believe. And I feel as though in matters of history, authorship, and things of that nature, the secular scholars are likely going to be most accurate because church doctrine and interpretation are likely not going to bias their interpretations. BUT, this method has its limitations as well…basically they just look at the history of it, but do not look at what it actually means and its significance (which is what is really important). But in terms of history, I like the historical critical method.

When scholars attack the teachings of the early Church Fathers they are attacking the faith itself, it is no less than an attempt to unravel the known Truth and substitute their personal theories. Theological study that is seperated from the faith is like the Eucharist without an ordained priest. Such is straw and chaff in the fire. Amen

 

[erikd]

1 Peter 5:7 reads: Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

What is meant by anxiety? How exactly can I cast anxiety on Him? How exactly is His caring for me related to my casting my anxiety on Him?

Here is an answer to your question from the Venerable Pope John Paul II during his address at Vespers, Newark Cathedral, October 4, 1995:

5. Dear friends in Christ, the First Letter of Peter exhorts us to be clothed with humility in our dealings with one another; we read: “Bow humbly under God’s mighty hand, so that in due time he may lift you high” (5:6). This lowliness and humility is explained as abandoning ourselves into the hands of God: “Cast all your cares on him because he cares for you” (ibid., 5:7). Yes, God holds humanity in the highest esteem! God reveres everything that is authentically human-everything that affects individuals and societies, nations and States!
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19951004_newark_en.html

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thank you erikd

 

[erikd]

Thank you erikd

You’re welcome my friend.