1 Peter 2:13-15

[erowe1]

1 Peter 2:13-15 reads as follows:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

What I want to use this thread for is to demonstrate:
1) that human institutions (emperors, governors, etc.) Peter has in mind here were ones he considered evil
2) that he expected his original audience to understand him to mean that, indeed, that it was obvious to them
3) that he had an important reason for writing these words in way that, taken superficially, looked like he was praising these institutions as good.

This OP is just to get the thread going. I'll probably add snippets at a time in posts to follow. Others are, of course, welcome to contribute and interact.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think you had some great posts related to this topic in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Craig-Running-In-Missouri-7th-District/page3

 

[erowe1]

The first observation I want to make is that the phrase that comes closest to depicting earthly rulers as good really doesn't explicitly do that. The phrase is:

governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

It's important to notice what it does and doesn't say. What it does say is something about what God accomplishes through earthly rulers. But it doesn't say that these earthly rulers participate in this willfully, or that it is by doing anything morally good that they accomplish these things, or that it is only good rulers and not bad ones who do them.

This may seem like grasping at straws on my part. But, as I will try to show in my subsequent posts, I don't think it is. I think the original audience was keen to these distinctions.

 

[guitarlifter]

The first observation I want to make is that the phrase that comes closest to depicting earthly rulers as good really doesn't explicitly do that. The phrase is:


It's important to notice what it does and doesn't say. What it does say is something about what God accomplishes through earthly rulers. But it doesn't say that these earthly rulers participate in this willfully, or that it is by doing anything morally good that they accomplish these things, or that it is only good rulers and not bad ones who do them.

This may seem like grasping at straws on my part. But, as I will try to show in my subsequent posts, I don't think it is. I think the original audience was keen to these distinctions.

Can we really explicitly say that God sent these governors, or are said governors acting in the name of God, but are actually not acting in accordance with God's will? Also, the "h" in "him" is not capitalized, and the last subject spoken of before the governors was "the emperor." Could it be speaking of governors sent by the emperor? Furthermore, I know there is more scripture that speaks of this (Romans 13), so I think it's proper to analyze this scripture as well as any other scripture that speaks on authority as well. I wish I could do that tonight, but I have a busy day ahead of me tomorrow.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

1 Peter 2:13-15 reads as follows:


What I want to use this thread for is to demonstrate:
1) that human institutions (emperors, governors, etc.) Peter has in mind here were ones he considered evil
2) that he expected his original audience to understand him to mean that, indeed, that it was obvious to them
3) that he had an important reason for writing these words in way that, taken superficially, looked like he was praising these institutions as good.

This OP is just to get the thread going. I'll probably add snippets at a time in posts to follow. Others are, of course, welcome to contribute and interact.

Life by the Spirit
Galatians 5:18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

I consider Martin Luther King Jr. a prime example of this verse in the 20th century.

 

[guitarlifter]

I consider Martin Luther King Jr. a prime example of this verse in the 20th century.

Galatians 5:18 speaks of the Mosaic law, not the laws of the land in which we currently reside. I'd just like to make that statement to avoid any confusion if there is any to be had.

 

[mrsat_98]

1 Peter 2:13-15 reads as follows:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.


What I want to use this thread for is to demonstrate:
1) that human institutions (emperors, governors, etc.) Peter has in mind here were ones he considered evil
2) that he expected his original audience to understand him to mean that, indeed, that it was obvious to them
3) that he had an important reason for writing these words in way that, taken superficially, looked like he was praising these institutions as good.

This OP is just to get the thread going. I'll probably add snippets at a time in posts to follow. Others are, of course, welcome to contribute and interact.

Under our constitution the Human institution is "We the People" and our government officials don't seem to be paying a damm bit of attention to us. Maybe you should get the lying bastards to read it.

 

[erowe1]

Without thinking I started this thread right before going on a trip, which is why I haven't gotten back to it yet. I'm at a bookstore now and will try to add something.

 

[erowe1]

Can we really explicitly say that God sent these governors, or are said governors acting in the name of God, but are actually not acting in accordance with God's will? Also, the "h" in "him" is not capitalized, and the last subject spoken of before the governors was "the emperor." Could it be speaking of governors sent by the emperor? Furthermore, I know there is more scripture that speaks of this (Romans 13), so I think it's proper to analyze this scripture as well as any other scripture that speaks on authority as well. I wish I could do that tonight, but I have a busy day ahead of me tomorrow.

It's necessary to distinguish between what God has prescribed and what he has decreed. His prescriptions are his commands of what is morally right vs. wrong. His decrees are the things he has determined will happen, some of which are morally wrong. A good example of the latter is the crucifixion of Jesus. Acts 2:23 says that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." The fact that the people who killed Jesus were enacting what God had foreordained for them does not mitigate the fact that they were lawless in doing so.

What I'm arguing in this thread is that, in general, this is the rule, not the exception for earthly rulers. God has ordained for them to rule, and they are sinning when they do.

 

[erowe1]

Under our constitution the Human institution is "We the People" and our government officials don't seem to be paying a damm bit of attention to us. Maybe you should get the lying bastards to read it.

Where do you think our Constitution got that authority that you think it grants to us the people?

 

[erowe1]

To follow up on the OP, the first observation I want to make from 1 Peter is that it's clear from the entire letter that the original audience of that epistle was undergoing severe persecution from their government at that time.

Peter alludes to this in the opening of the letter when he writes (1 Pet 1:6-7):

though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In 1 Pet 1:17 he refers to the Christian's life on this earth as an "exile." In 2:21 and 4:1 he speaks of Christ's suffering as an example they follow.

Also, 3:13:

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed.

3:16-17:

having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

And the clearest passage on this is 4:13-16:

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad b)when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

There it is clear that the suffering they experienced that he had been alluding to throughout the letter was punishment at the hands of the government for their being a Christian. The rulers treated Christians as criminals, like murderers and thieves. And it is these same rulers about whom Peter wrote that they are:

sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

 

[erowe1]

The next observation I want to make is that the translation I gave in the OP (which is the ESV for those who are interested), creates an impression in the way it translates 2:14 that I think is misleading on a crucial point.

Notice that it says God sent rulers "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." It uses the infinitives "to punish" and "to praise," which implies that it is to be the rulers themselves who do the punishing and the praising. But in actuality, in the Greek, these words it translates as English infinitives are just nouns. So it should be that God sent rulers "for [there to be] a punishment for the evil and a praise for the good." If you check other English versions, you'll see that some of them get closer to this idea.

The punishment and the praise are effects brought about by the rulers, but it isn't necessarily that the rulers willfully participate in praising the good and punishing the bad.

The clearest way to illustrate this is to consider the example of Jesus' suffering, which Peter mentions as an example to them in the verses quoted above. Jesus is the ultimate example of a good person who suffered at the hands of rulers, and his suffering was to his praise. Indeed, he has been praised for it by every generation of humanity since then. But when Pilate, the Roman governor, sentenced him, he didn't think that what he was doing was praising a good man.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

It's necessary to distinguish between what God has prescribed and what he has decreed. His prescriptions are his commands of what is morally right vs. wrong. His decrees are the things he has determined will happen, some of which are morally wrong. A good example of the latter is the crucifixion of Jesus. Acts 2:23 says that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." The fact that the people who killed Jesus were enacting what God had foreordained for them does not mitigate the fact that they were lawless in doing so.

What I'm arguing in this thread is that, in general, this is the rule, not the exception for earthly rulers. God has ordained for them to rule, and they are sinning when they do.

by "rule" are you meaning? (just trying to get a better grasp on your terms)

The next observation I want to make is that the translation I gave in the OP (which is the ESV for those who are interested), creates an impression in the way it translates 2:14 that I think is misleading on a crucial point.

Notice that it says God sent rulers "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." It uses the infinitives "to punish" and "to praise," which implies that it is to be the rulers themselves who do the punishing and the praising. But in actuality, in the Greek, these words it translates as English infinitives are just nouns. So it should be that God sent rulers "for [there to be] a punishment for the evil and a praise for the good." If you check other English versions, you'll see that some of them get closer to this idea.

The punishment and the praise are effects brought about by the rulers, but it isn't necessarily that the rulers willfully participate in praising the good and punishing the bad.

The clearest way to illustrate this is to consider the example of Jesus' suffering, which Peter mentions as an example to them in the verses quoted above. Jesus is the ultimate example of a good person who suffered at the hands of rulers, and his suffering was to his praise. Indeed, he has been praised for it by every generation of humanity since then. But when Pilate, the Roman governor, sentenced him, he didn't think that what he was doing was praising a good man.

after re-reading 1 Peter, i agree.

i also believe that our particular worldly system of rule ultimately shows that God alone is perfect, just and merciful. and that (1 Pet. 2:20) "But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God." <--- the best "medium" through which the Gospel is spread is persecution.

and that's what it comes down to, for me, is the Gospel.

/subscribed

 

[erowe1]

by "rule" are you meaning? (just trying to get a better grasp on your terms)

I prefer to stay nonspecific on that. All human rulership is ordained by God in the sense that Peter is talking about. It would be true about a constitutional republic if we had one, and it's true of what we have now. It was true of Israel under the judges, and it was true of them under the kings. It was true of the Pharaoh who died in the Red Sea, and of Hitler, and everyone else.

 

[fisharmor]

I dunno, it seems like in context of the entire chapter, and considering the political situation of the time, Peter was probably telling the flock not to validate other people's concerns that Christians were attempting to bring down the empire.

As they were living at a time when there was no distinction drawn between god and the emperor, I think non-Christians would have cause for concern that there was this new group who refused to worship him.

It was known at the times that those troublesome Jews wouldn't do it, and IIRC they alone were given dispensation from the emperor not to worship him (probably from the foresight of what problems it would cause if they were forced - hey, I guess Romans had a better grasp of middle eastern foreign policy than we do!)

Then comes this new group who also refuse to worship the emperor, from the same part of the world that harbored Jewish groups that actively wanted to end Roman rule, a group that the Jews are also pretty busy disowning... it would make sense to me that quelling the idea that they were trying to bring down the empire would be somewhat of a priority.

 

[erowe1]

I dunno, it seems like in context of the entire chapter, and considering the political situation of the time, Peter was probably telling the flock not to validate other people's concerns that Christians were attempting to bring down the empire.

I definitely agree with that. That's a point I was yet going to make.

I think that explains his subtlety. His audience knew that their rulers were evil, and they didn't need him to spell it out for them. And it would have been bad for them if he did spell it out for them, since their possession of a letter with negative language about earthly rulers would have been used against them.

This is also probably why he uses the name "Babylon" in 5:13. It's a cypher for "Rome."

 

[fisharmor]

I definitely agree with that. That's a point I was yet going to make.

I think that explains his subtlety. His audience knew that their rulers were evil, and they didn't need him to spell it out for them. And it would have been bad for them if he did spell it out for them, since their possession of a letter with negative language about earthly rulers would have been used against them.

This is also probably why he uses the name "Babylon" in 5:13. It's a cypher for "Rome."

Yeah, trouble is, Paul wasn't quite so subtle a guy. Romans 13 doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Fortunately we have documents on the state side of the Church/state equation that describe something altogether different from what Paul describes.
If earthly authority is to be obeyed, then it is those who so utterly fail to understand the DOI and constitution who are disobeying God, not we.

 

[erowe1]

Along the lines of the previous comment, notice that the command to be subject to kings and governors in 2:13-17 is part of a set of instructions about relationships of submission. In 2:18-20, it's servants. In 3:1-7 it's wives. But both of those groups include statements about the possibility of the people they're subject to being evil:
2:18

not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

3:1

even if any obey not the word

But the section on political rulers does not include anything along those lines. The careful reader should ask why it doesn't. Given what's already been said, it can't be because of the assumption that political rulers were good. It has to be because Peter wanted to avoid the trouble that would be caused by saying they weren't.

In fact, I'll go even further and say that a reason Peter did write those phrases about masters and husbands was that he wanted his audience to recognize that it was also true of the evil rulers who were persecuting them. He wanted to get that point across subtly.

 

[jkr]

yeah! lets follow the guBBermint over the cliff into the abyss...nope.

these "people" are morons, why would anyone EVER listen to them?

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, trouble is, Paul wasn't quite so subtle a guy. Romans 13 doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Fortunately we have documents on the state side of the Church/state equation that describe something altogether different from what Paul describes.
If earthly authority is to be obeyed, then it is those who so utterly fail to understand the DOI and constitution who are disobeying God, not we.

I actually read Romans 13 the same way. And I think that being able to understand 1 Peter this way aids us in our understanding of Romans 13.

And of course tyrants are disobeying God. That's the whole point. Even in their disobedience, it works out to punish the evil and to praise the good who suffer under them unjustly.