1 Peter

Scot McKnight:

"Here is how I see 1 Peter working: Peter is trying to figure out, and pass on to his readers, how to follow Jesus when the State has sufficient power to inflict suffering on folks just for believing and behaving as they do (as Christians).

Peter’s emerging response has to be seen for what it is: it the wisdom of the story of Israel and Jesus brought to bear on a new situation. Persecution; suffering; church; social powerlessness. How to live? is Peter’s question. His response is four-fold (one could find other points, but this is enough for now):

1. New birth establishes them as God’s people and grants them hope and eternity.
2. They are to devote their lives to holiness, which I defined as uncontaminated devotion to Jesus.
3. They are to devote their lives to loving others as a community of faith.
4. The above three is the way to transform society (more of this later in the book).

If you are not familiar with Peter, this might surprise you; but if you are, you will know that this is exactly what Peter brings up in his central thematic statement in 1 Peter 2:11-12: be holy, be good, love others.

It would not be hard to imagine other strategies that Peter finds unattractive. But, Peter eschews violence as a tactic; he avoids manipulating the system; he rejects appealing to rights; he never mentions meeting with the politicians; he doesn’t even bring up Roman law.

Peter’s strategy, as a response to the conditions emerges, is sectarian and communal: live as the people of God, completely devoted to what is right, and love one another."

This is interesting, and perhaps relevant to today. The relevance may be rather more indirect than direct.

He writes that the issue is how to live when government has sufficient power to inflict suffering on people for their religious beliefs. It strikes me that government has always had such power. That government, by definition, has this coercive power over our lives.

He notes that Peter does not invoke rights. I wonder if this sends us down a path that is not part of our world today? It seems to me that the innovation of belief in "certain unalienable rights" that all are endowed with by the Creator (who grants us dominion) is a remarkable answer to government's power to inflict suffering on people for their beliefs. It is the idea of "certain unalienable rights" that not only allows us to conceptually explain why government inflicting such suffering is abusing power and is oppresive, but it also provides the mechanism in a system of political economy to constrain government from using power in such oppresive ways.