rhutchin

As both writers purport to speak of the things of God and Christ, Peter by virtue of his close association with Christ for 3 1/2 years and Paul by his personal testimony, then we should expect, and require, a consistency in the things they write and properly infer a problem if one does not agree with the other. Whether the conclusion drawn by GakuseiDon, that Paul's statement, "...gives them an 'out' on the crucifixion of Jesus: they did it because they didn't understand God's plan:..." can be debated.

rhutchin

This is what Christ said. At one point Christ tells His disciples to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" and elsewhere tells them, "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

The point here is that the Christian should obey authorities so that any punishment they receive should be as a consequence of their obedience to Christ and not from their disobedience of human laws (except, obviously, where human law is opposed to the law of God).

rhutchin

Many examples exist. Among them are the prophets as well as Christ. I don't see GakuseiDon limiting these examples by noting only the example of Christ in the context of his comment.

neilgodfrey

Why?

Steven Carr

Desperate stuff.

Paul and 1 Peter say the authorities punish wrong doers,and never link the authorities with the suffering of Christ (unless Pilate is one of the rulers of this age).

James doesn't even mention any suffering and patience of Christ.

Yet all these people were allegedly preaching to all-comers that the Romans had crucified the Son of God.

bacht

Dunno when 1 Peter was written but Paul is unambigous in his predictions of the Parousia. If these early believers all expected an apoclaypse then secular government was a only a temporary concern, as were all other conventional social arrangements.

Larkin31

I have not read page 2 of this thread yet, but this is a pretty good answer for what I think is meant in these passages. Life is full of complexity and paradox; the Biblical accounts contain some recognition of this. To be asked both to submit and not to submit in the same breath, even, is to speak to people with a reasonable level of adult complexity and nuance.

I have no problem understanding this double message in the real world of rebellious religion and faith in a redeeming all-powerful God. (Although I do not have this faith, I understand it).

rhutchin

Because they are both talking about parts of the same system.

rhutchin

Which is true.

Because context did not require it.

James is a short book that covers some issues but not all issues. There is no need for James to mention the suffering and patience of Christ because his audience knows these things.

Yet all these people spoke on different themes and issues which if compiled into one document would provide a comprehensive book.

You object to people not describing everything at every opportunity but cannot explain what it is that would make this necessary. Even you do not explain yourself completely in each of your messages assuming, presumably, that people understand the things you leave unsaid.

GakuseiDon

Well, good old fashioned Roman ethics, at the least. As rhutchin noted, it's my opinion that they were responding to claims that they were insurrectionists or at least anti-Roman. But I think there is indirect evidence. 1 Peter is saying "show gentiles that there is nothing to see here, and that we are all good." At least part of the epistle is addressed to how Gentiles view Christians:

1Pe 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

1 Peter seems to take it for granted that gentiles will speak against Christians as "evildoers", suggesting persecution had started. So it makes sense to me that he/she would stress obedience to Gentile authority to avoid charges of being "anti-Roman".

I see that section as a continuation of the passages dealing with kings and governors, and ending with the example of Christ, who "suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps". (Though I see that you believe that the example of Christ only applies to servants of masters.)

No, we don't need to interpret 1 Peter using Paul. 1 Peter can stand by itself. I just think we see the same thing in Paul, but Paul can also stand by itself.

Not that I know about, but I'm not claiming that.

1 Peter 2:24 seems to imply that Christ -- "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" -- was crucified, which is more than just physical abuse in the course of everyday lives. (Can masters even have their slaves crucified, without going higher up for approval?) That's why I think the "Everyman" passage is a part of the same train of thought from 2:13.