show_no_mercy

In your first sentence you affirm that the governments of the world are doing god's work, so punishment from them is equal to divine punishment. This means that Jesus was rightly executed for some transgression that he did.

The very next sentence you say that Jesus didn't actually do anything wrong, but was appropriated for [some other person's] sin. Either Jesus did something wrong or he didn't. Both can't be true.

GakuseiDon

I think that both Paul and 1 Peter are responding indirectly to the charge that Jesus and (by extension) Christians were insurrectionists or at least anti-Roman. They both say to submit to authorities as being appointed by God, but they don't say that "punishment from them is equal to divine punishment". In fact, they explicitly deny it, giving Christ as the example.

First, 1 Peter asks Christians to behave themselves when traveling to Gentile lands:

1 Peter 2:12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme,
1 Peter 2:14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men

But what about those rulers who punish even when you do good? You should endure it patiently, and you give credit to God when you do. And Christ, of course, is the example. 1 Peter continues:

1 Peter 2:19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
1 Peter 2:20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
1 Peter 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
1 Peter 2:22 "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
1 Peter 2:23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

Next, Paul says the same thing about obeying authorities, but also gives them an 'out' on the crucifixion of Jesus: they did it because they didn't understand God's plan:

1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Cr 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

So: obey authorities, because they wouldn't be there unless they were somehow approved by God (what's the alternative, really?) However, expect to be punished unfairly and bear it patiently, keeping in mind that it all resonates towards the good (1 Peter 2:20). Christ is the example to be followed on this. (1 Peter 2:21) Fairly standard Christian apologetics, I would think.

ApostateAbe

Logical incongruencies are common in religions, early Christianity being no exception, and I do think Christians would be dumb enough to say such things. It started with Jesus himself. He encouraged obedience to Jewish law, but he reportedly often broke it. He encouraged submission to Caesar, but the agent of Caesar killed him.

rhutchin

Sins were ascribed to Him. Jesus was rightly executed for the transgressions that he took upon Himself as if He had done them. It is that which is described in the Bible. Within the Biblical context (regardless my ability to explain it), there is no contradiction.

rhutchin

No problem with your basic points. However, the circumstances of Christ's death are more complicated. We read in Acts 4-

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

together with

Hebrews 9
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;...

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,...

neilgodfrey

This is how JWs, Mormons et al interpret the scriptures -- imputing an a priori doctrine or belief into any text that can possibly contain it in some way. There is no support in the text itself for this interpretation. In fact, the larger context indicates that the command about authorities has nothing at all to do with a particular external narrative or suspicion of insurrectionist tendencies.

Most of 1 Peter is about everyone having to behave themselves submissively or deferentially to someone: wives to husbands, husbands to wives, servants to masters, masters to servants, elders, younger, everyone to everyone else, and all to God and the king.

It is all about good old fashioned plain Stoic ethics.

Again, there is not a word in these passages about being punished by rulers. The notion is simply not there. In fact what is "commendable" in the first passage quoted is when slaves put up with abusive slave-owners. It's about the normal abuses people suffer in everyday life from among their fellows: whether they be bosses/owners, neighbours, strangers, spouses, etc.


Do we have a good reason to think we can validly interpret 1 Peter by one particular interpretation of a passage in a letter by Paul?

This standard apologetic explanation shears the passage in 1 Peter of its context and drops it into a narrative and a teaching drawn from somewhere else.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the author of 1 Peter had ever heard of our gospel narratives? He only speaks of Christ suffering, and this is within the context of slaves suffering under masters, and people generally suffering misunderstanding and false gossip and physical abuse in the course of their everyday lives (from "Everyman" 2:15). Many sinners got away with breaking the law in how they treated their fellows, but Christians are commanded here to not retaliate and to prove themselves the exception.

Steven Carr

Amazing. So Paul tells Christians to behave so they will not be punished as wrongdoers, and then reminds Christians that innocent people get punished as wrongdoers anyway.

Paul really was dumb.....

Steven Carr

Of course, as soon as 1 Peter and Paul start talking about the suffering of Christ, they drop any reference to authorities appointed by God and give no details. Paul talks about 'the rulers of this age'.


Pilate seems to have been been promoted from a procurator of an obscure Roman province to 'the ruler of this age'. One more promotion and he makes it all the way to Time Lord.

Steven Carr

Of course Christ is the example.

That is so obvious. I was so dumb not to realise that Christians would naturally turn to Christ as the example of patiently enduring suffering.

I was an idiot, wasn't I? It is embarrasing that I simply did not realise that Christians would 'of course' take Christ as the example of patient suffering.


James 5
Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about.

I guess James just totally forgot that 'of course' Christ was the example of enduring suffering patiently.

If only somebody had reminded James of Christ's patient suffering, then James would not have used the prophets and Job as an example of patient suffering.

rhutchin

GakuseiDon says, "I think...," so he is not trying to disguise this as anything other than his personal opinion. The Bible does not tell us this, as you note. Some religions will portray their unique slant on the Scriptures as if those Scriptures said the things they claim of them.