NT Amanuensis
By Ed Piper
Peter was concerned.
Jesus' appointed lead disciple, Simon--whom Jesus nicknamed "Peter" as "the rock"--we think was hanging out in Rome or environs, and looking over to Asia Minor where young Christians in the northeast of what is now Turkey were being severely persecuted.
Rocky's pastoral concern was not due to the systematic persecution we've heard about directed from the top of the Roman Empire by Nero, who blamed Christians for the huge fire that destroyed a large chunk of the capital. Or that by Domitian, who came later in the first century B.C.E. and who was brutal beyond even Nero's standard.
No, this was spontaneous harassment and threats coming from the new believers' neighbors, who, from what we gather in Peter's First Letter, were upset by the Jesus-followers' change in behavior: no more partying with them, no more reveling to all hours, no more taking part in feasts that honored the emperor.
Who did these cultists think they were? Better than other citizens of the Roman Empire?
What's even more remarkable to our 2017 way of thinking, is that these pagan neighbors--pagan not as a putdown, but a description of someone who doesn't take the Christian view--saw the Jesus-followers as atheists!
"You aren't honoring all our gods in the Roman pantheon of deities. And you won't swear fealty to the emperor himself, who is divine. You're endangering us all!" (They feared the gods would punish this defiance.)
I would compare it to the present-day advocacy of the LGBTQ lifestyle as a social and political platform. If I were to state in my former public school classroom that I couldn't try to convince my young students, nor my grandkids, nor anybody else, in good conscience that the LGBTQ lifestyle is good for them ultimately, my teacher's aide (I have one of the many I had over the years in mind) would and did speak up loudly that this was a civil rights issue, etc., etc.
In a similar way, maybe, the folks in Bithynia and its neighboring province (named in Peter's greeting) were looking at the Christians in astonishment--like, "What are you thinking?" To them, their views were the only ones sensible to take.
I'm not trying to sidetrack my post on such a divisive issue as the LGBTQ movement. It's just an illustration.
Peter, out of his pastoral concern for the Christians residing there across the way in Turkey, counsels survival. If these sisters and brothers, who were being tormented, and possibly facing physical violence against them and death, were exterminated, there would no longer be any Christian witness in that area.
The apostle, in his Holy Spirit-given wisdom, cared for the individual persons. And so he gave them advice for how to live under persecution. But he also had the concerns of the church on his mind: If our Savior truly planted the church, the body of Christ, through us, then how do we help keep it going, with the chance for that part of the body to flourish through and after the persecution?
Some readers look at Peter's counsel to "honor everyone". They hate the "accommodationism" he urges, "Honor the emperor." How could this be? This was a major text that white slaveowners in the South used to justify their system of enslavement of blacks right up till the Civil War: "Slaves, obey your masters," etc.
No, Simon Peter is not promoting slavery. He says, "Live your lives honorably"--to honor God. Listen to what God wants, which he says is to stay alive and to turn the other cheek in the face of mistreatment. Why? To survive. And: "So that they may be won over by your example" (in the case of his counsel to wives with non-Christian husbands).
Obey God by honoring the emperor. But there are different ways to honor the emperor: You can pray for him, and be respectful, while also not pouring out libations and making offerings to him, common ways of honoring him by emperor cult believers.
One other note: Roman citizens were not non-religious people mouthing words of piety to the gods, without really meaning them. We know that they were devout in their religious beliefs. The difference from our 21st-century evangelical fervor might be that theirs was not a heart religion so much as one expressed more in public shows of obeisance (festivals, the emperor's birthday observance, and so forth).
Peter was concerned.
Jesus' appointed lead disciple, Simon--whom Jesus nicknamed "Peter" as "the rock"--we think was hanging out in Rome or environs, and looking over to Asia Minor where young Christians in the northeast of what is now Turkey were being severely persecuted.
Rocky's pastoral concern was not due to the systematic persecution we've heard about directed from the top of the Roman Empire by Nero, who blamed Christians for the huge fire that destroyed a large chunk of the capital. Or that by Domitian, who came later in the first century B.C.E. and who was brutal beyond even Nero's standard.
No, this was spontaneous harassment and threats coming from the new believers' neighbors, who, from what we gather in Peter's First Letter, were upset by the Jesus-followers' change in behavior: no more partying with them, no more reveling to all hours, no more taking part in feasts that honored the emperor.
Who did these cultists think they were? Better than other citizens of the Roman Empire?
What's even more remarkable to our 2017 way of thinking, is that these pagan neighbors--pagan not as a putdown, but a description of someone who doesn't take the Christian view--saw the Jesus-followers as atheists!
"You aren't honoring all our gods in the Roman pantheon of deities. And you won't swear fealty to the emperor himself, who is divine. You're endangering us all!" (They feared the gods would punish this defiance.)
I would compare it to the present-day advocacy of the LGBTQ lifestyle as a social and political platform. If I were to state in my former public school classroom that I couldn't try to convince my young students, nor my grandkids, nor anybody else, in good conscience that the LGBTQ lifestyle is good for them ultimately, my teacher's aide (I have one of the many I had over the years in mind) would and did speak up loudly that this was a civil rights issue, etc., etc.
In a similar way, maybe, the folks in Bithynia and its neighboring province (named in Peter's greeting) were looking at the Christians in astonishment--like, "What are you thinking?" To them, their views were the only ones sensible to take.
I'm not trying to sidetrack my post on such a divisive issue as the LGBTQ movement. It's just an illustration.
Peter, out of his pastoral concern for the Christians residing there across the way in Turkey, counsels survival. If these sisters and brothers, who were being tormented, and possibly facing physical violence against them and death, were exterminated, there would no longer be any Christian witness in that area.
The apostle, in his Holy Spirit-given wisdom, cared for the individual persons. And so he gave them advice for how to live under persecution. But he also had the concerns of the church on his mind: If our Savior truly planted the church, the body of Christ, through us, then how do we help keep it going, with the chance for that part of the body to flourish through and after the persecution?
Some readers look at Peter's counsel to "honor everyone". They hate the "accommodationism" he urges, "Honor the emperor." How could this be? This was a major text that white slaveowners in the South used to justify their system of enslavement of blacks right up till the Civil War: "Slaves, obey your masters," etc.
No, Simon Peter is not promoting slavery. He says, "Live your lives honorably"--to honor God. Listen to what God wants, which he says is to stay alive and to turn the other cheek in the face of mistreatment. Why? To survive. And: "So that they may be won over by your example" (in the case of his counsel to wives with non-Christian husbands).
Obey God by honoring the emperor. But there are different ways to honor the emperor: You can pray for him, and be respectful, while also not pouring out libations and making offerings to him, common ways of honoring him by emperor cult believers.
One other note: Roman citizens were not non-religious people mouthing words of piety to the gods, without really meaning them. We know that they were devout in their religious beliefs. The difference from our 21st-century evangelical fervor might be that theirs was not a heart religion so much as one expressed more in public shows of obeisance (festivals, the emperor's birthday observance, and so forth).
Comments
Post a Comment