neilgodfrey

This seems to be arguing in circles. We are attempting to first establish exactly what Peter is saying. Then we can decide if it is the same as what another says elsewhere.

I never heard of a rule that says people talking about "parts of the same system" must be expected to agree or there is a problem. Surely basic human experience is enough to tell us otherwise.

neilgodfrey

This is still a proof-texting argument stripping selected passages from their contexts.

Look at the flow of thought:

Peter tells Christians the things they need to stop doing, and these are 'malice', 'guile', 'hypocrisies', 'envies' and 'evil speakings'. (2:1)

This is the way to becoming part of the spiritual house built on Christ, holy priests, etc.

That spiritual house is built on Christ, the chief cornerstone -- that the builders "disallowed". Christ is a stumblingblock to those who did not accept him because they were disobedient and stumble at his word. Not a word about them executing Christ here, only their disobedience to his words. (I am attempting to focus on Peter's thoughts as evidenced in his text, not what we think he would have been thinking of.)

Peter then uses an analogy from Hosea to describe Christians as now being "the people of God". As a result, they have some things they must do to demonstrate this, and so Peter's list of things they must do begins in verse 11:

Again, he is instructing them to control their emotions, their impulses; they are to follow "honest" and self-controlled behaviour. The result? Their neighbouring gentile onlookers will speak against them as evildoers (2:12). It is the Christian "good works" (from the life of self-control and honesty) that they will eventually come to praise one day, though now they speak against them as evildoers for their way of life.

If that seems strange on the face of it, he later explains that these Christians once got along well with their neighbours by living the same way (4:3-4) as they did, but now they have "behaved themselves" their former fellows now speak evil things about them.

Then he says to submit to all the customs etc. And to the king, the governors. These people are there to punish evildoers (really the gentiles, not the Christians) and to honour those who do well. (These are the Christians, according to Peter's thought.) By doing this, the Christians will put to silence the ignorance of those foolish gentiles who speak evil of Christians.

On the face of it, one might well interpret Peter as saying here that the human authorities will shut up the gentile slanderers because of their evil and honour the Christians for their "well-doing". (This is not the same as the glorious state described above when the gentiles will actually glorify the Christians for their good works, but at least now there is a chance, God willing, that rulers will offer a partial reprieve.)

Peter then continues to talk about "malice" -- and the conduct expected of God's servants.

They are to honour all men, to love the brethren, to fear God, and (finally) to honour the king.

So far as behaviour goes, Peter is addressing nothing but issues of self-control and suppression of the base emotions. And for this his audience are spoken of as evildoers. But not necessarily by the rulers.

Then he specifies audience groups, beginning with slaves. Christ is a good example to begin with here, and he says why:

Christ never spoke guile, he never reviled anyone who reviled him, he never threatened anyone who threatened him. Nothing about a court hearing here. It is all at the everyday level of abuse from neighbours and bystanders and associates, etc.

He then reminds his readers that since Jesus died for them, they should also be dead to sins themselves.

Then he speaks to wives, how they should be meek and quiet and look plain and not get hysterical over spiders and things.

Husbands should honour wives like this, and everyone should love one another.

Again -- we are reminded of Christ's example: it is all about self-control. Never letting base emotions surface, not even in retaliation.

Etc etc.

Then he says some will probably "suffer for righteousness" (as per 4:3 and self-control and no longer living like everyone else, not for suspected insurrectionism) -- and Christians are to be ready to "give an answer to every man" (no thought of court hearings here).

And what can Christians expect from "every man"( 3:15)? "They speak evil of you, as evildoers" (3:16).

If I were reading this letter of Peter without any knowledge of the canonical gospel narratives, I would be tempted to think that Christ himself must have been murdered by his fellows for arousing their hatred by living a life so unlike theirs.

Peter then clinches the above by explicitly stating that the reason Christians are hated is because they no longer live the same way as gentiles.

In other words, they have made themselves socially obnoxious. They have set themselves apart as "holier than thou" types. (Note the exaggerated portrayal of normal gentile life and social gatherings. He seems to be expressing the same sort of snobbery towards the "riff-raff" as we find among Roman elites more in tune with Stoic values.)

There is no need introduce the idea of state persecution into this letter. It is not there, and the letter makes complete sense without it.

Larkin31

For sure no "consistency" in my house, er, "system." :wave:

andrewcriddle

I think that 1 Peter chapter 4 vs 15-16 implies the possibility of state persecution ie that the people who would (legitimately) punish you if you were a murderer or thief may (illegitimately) punish you just for being a Christian.

You may also be drawing a modern distinction between punishment by the state for criminal offences and other forms of discipline that does not apply in the ancient world. For Peter, punishment as a slave by your owner and punishment as a subject by the state are the same sort of thing. Both in principle legitimate, both in practice liable to abuse.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

It is an interesting point whether masters could crucify their slaves on their own authority.

The answer would probably vary with time and place in the ancient world.

I think that a slave could only be executed by an owner on his own authority as part of a quasi judicial proceeding; with the owner sentencing the slave to death after what at least pretended to be a proper trial. ie a large landowner may on his own estate have exercised judicial authority over slaves on that estate, extending to sentencing them to death for alleged serious offences. I don't think a slave could legally be killed on pure whim by his or her owner.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey

The implication is seen only if you read through the gospel narrative.

As I attempted to point out, the author is throughout the letter drawing a distinction between the conduct required of Christians and that practiced by "Gentiles".

Suffering as a murder, a thief, etc is what Gentiles suffer for because of their uncontrolled behaviours. Christians suffer because they no longer follow those gentile ways, and their former associates speak evil of them as a consequence. That evil speaking also leads to more severe persecution.

The only "implication" of "state persecution" comes from reading this letter as if the author had in mind the story of the Passion of Christ or episodes in Acts.

If we rely solely on the text of the letter itself from which to draw any implications and interpretations, we can see it makes complete sense and is self-explanatory without any need to impute circumstances derived from the gospels or Acts.

This blurring of the two makes 1 Peter's comments about state authorities meaningless in context. The letter discusses masters and slaves in the same bracket as husbands and wives, elders and younger etc. State powers were there to reward the good and punish the evil. Masters, on the other hand, are a mix of good and bad, like husbands and wives.

The letter also explicitly says that the Christians are suffering for "doing good" -- that is, as explained earlier, they are persecuted for opting to no longer mix with their fellows in social functions involving idols, frown on excessive drinking and gossip and on those who fail to control their feelings etc. -- as cited in the earlier post.

rhutchin

The issue you raised was whether "we can validly interpret 1 Peter by one particular interpretation of a passage in a letter by Paul." Given that we have the correct interpretation (understanding) of a passage in a letter by Paul and it deals with the issue addressed by Peter, they should be consistent with each other on that issue and one should help us understand the other. Within the Biblical context, each of the Biblical writers is telling us the truth, and the true statements given by one writer will be consistent with the true statements given to us by another writer. Each of these statements is part of a system of truth that God has provided to us (again within the context of the Bible as a person does not have to believe that the Bible is telling us the truth but only that the Bible claims to be doing so).

neilgodfrey

Ah, what you say proves Marcion was correct all along and the Alien God really will leave the Demiurge whom you worship, and who is behind your corrupt version of Paul's epistle, wallowing ignorantly in the blood of the thirteenth archon in some lower abyss.

Well, if you can argue from a faith position instead of reason so can I.

Neil

andrewcriddle

IIUC you are reading as I accept this is a possible reading but not IMO the most likely or obvious one.
I don't think it is just a matter of the Gospels and Acts. We have independent evidence, that from shortly after the date of 1 Peter Christians were suffering criminal sanctions for being Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

What is the date of 1 Peter, and what independent evidence are you referring to?