Was Peter denying the authority of the Roman Emperor?

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
"Be in subjection to every human institution for the sake of the Lord, whether to the king as being supreme..."
1Pt 2:13

In the time the New Testament was written, the supreme authority was a Roman emperor, not local national kings.

Is there something political, hidden behind the words of Peter? It seems improbable that Peter would make such big mistake without some intention.
 

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The Hebrews referred to the head ruler as "king" regardless of what that person's actual title might be, and whether or not the reference was to the Roman state. Pilate also accused Christ of being the Jews' "king."
Not sure what you mean. Caesar was frequently distinguished from kings, in the Bible.

For example:
"From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."
J 19:12
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not sure what you mean. Caesar was frequently distinguished from kings, in the Bible.
Regardless, we cannot conclude that there is some interior or sly meaning in the verse you mentioned, just because "king" was the word used.

For example:
"From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."
J 19:12
The obvious meaning of this sentence is that anyone who claims to be a king automatically challenges the authority of Caesar since he was an absolute ruler, and all regional rulers were merely his subordinates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSRG
Upvote 0

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The obvious meaning of this sentence is that anyone who claims to be a king automatically challenges the authority of Caesar since he was an absolute ruler, and all regional rulers were merely his subordinates.
That makes the words "king is supreme" by Peter even more interesting. Why did he not say "Caesar"?
 
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Be in subjection to every human institution for the sake of the Lord, whether to the king as being supreme..."
1Pt 2:13

...
Is there something political, hidden behind the words of Peter? ...

I don’t think there is mistake in that. Peter is saying “…be in subjection to every human institution…”, it means, what ever human government it is, one should “be in subjection”.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Be in subjection to every human institution for the sake of the Lord, whether to the king as being supreme..."
1Pt 2:13

It's pretty clear that he means the Emperor here, because "governors" are the next level down.

The Greek word, βασιλεύς, is used by secular writers to refer both to kings and to the Roman Emperor, and many Bible translations (e.g. CSB, ESV, NIV, NRSV) have "Emperor" here.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It's pretty clear that he means the Emperor here, because "governors" are the next level down.

The Greek word, βασιλεύς, is used by secular writers to refer both to kings and to the Roman Emperor, and many Bible translations (e.g. CSB, ESV, NIV, NRSV) have "Emperor" here.

This. Peter was referring to the emperor when he says "king", as the emperor was the basileus of the Roman Empire.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Early Christians did not deny or defy the existence of civil governance, and thus recognized Roman civil law and the emperor and governors as legitimate civil authority.

That does not mean there wasn't a fundamental clash and tension between Christianity and Rome--obviously there was. Roman imperial theology and Christian theology were directly antithetical to each other.

Caesar wanted to be honored as the divine ruler of the world, and thus Caesar was to be regarded as the king of kings and lord of lords, homage to be paid by confessing Kaiser kurios, "Caesar is lord".

But Christians confessed another Divine ruler, another who was King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus the Christ, confessing Iesous Christos Kurios--"Jesus Christ is Lord".

So that is the tension of the ancient Church, confessing an inherently anti-imperial theology and faith while also acknowledging civil authority as maintaining societal order.

The basileus was to be honored, and prayed for, but not to be worshiped. Allegiance belongs to Christ, the civil authorities come and go, and we aim to live lives of peace as we serve our God and King.

The Church can have no ambition for the establishment of its own civil authority, to establishment of a Christian theocracy; but rather lives in this world as pilgrims, confessing a foreign King, confessing a foreign kingdom--but as pilgrims living peaceable, law-abiding lives.

Law-abiding, however, must never be confused with blind obeisance; but rather that for the general welfare and good of our neighbor we live in accordance with civil law. But as St. Augustine reminds us (and whom Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr quotes) an unjust law is no law at all; thus one must not believe themselves or their conscience constrained by the whims and dictates of prevailing authority--but must aim to do what is right.

If the king tells you to murder, you must not murder. For we follow Him who commanded, "Thou shalt not murder."

Therefore it is important that we understand that peaceableness is not passivity. It is not being the neighbor who sees an attacker in the night and closes their blinds saying, "Not my problem." That is not peaceableness. Neither is peaceableness blindly saying yes to those in authority; for again, if the king tells you to worship idols, do not do it--for God has declared, "You shall have no other gods" and "I alone am God", worship God alone.

When the churches in Nazi Germany acquiesced and adopted the ideology, theology, and abominations of the fascists, that was not peaceableness. That was not being a law-abiding citizen. That was blind obeisance and betrayal of Christ's Lordship, it was a betrayal of their neighbors, it was a betrayal against God, and all God's creatures. Nothing short of apostasy.

We are not anarchists.
We are not worshipers of Caesar.

We are Christians.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums