# 1Peter 2:13 - 3:7 - What was the reason Peter wrote this?



## Johan (Apr 26, 2009)

This morning we had a sermon on 1 Peter 2:11 - 17. The preacher was a professor of theology at the local theological seminary. He gave a reason why Peter gave the instructions in 1 Peter 2:13 - 3:7. Before telling you what the reason is he gave for why Peter gave these instructions, I would first like to hear what other people say on why these instructions.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 26, 2009)

The basic answer is in 1 Peter 1:2 chosen "in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience" and (contextually) 1 Peter 2:9-12 (especially vs. 12) that we might glorify God in fulfilling our calling to be a holy people for Him.


----------



## Idelette (Apr 26, 2009)

To teach us that in honoring authority we bring glory to God. God has placed us each in our positions (servants, wives, etc.) and we are to be submissive and obedient to those in authority over us. We submit ourselves for the Lord's sake, that He may be honored in our lives. 1 Pet 2:12


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 26, 2009)

(1) That we might mortify the flesh and be sanctified by the Spirit (1 Pet. 2:11)

(2) That the gospel might have the arena of our lives to be broadcast to a lost world (1 Peter 2:12)


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 27, 2009)

Because our tendency is to gravitate to the sin nature within ourselves that we have been left to wrestle with. But, as Ch. 1:14 says, "as obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance...", so we are to think more highly of ourselves in Christ so as to live up towards a holy reputation. We are now sons of the King, and so we are freed in a measure from our former enslavement to Satan. The final freedom will come when we are done with this sinful nature and body that still entangles us. Yet now, we are driven by a new Spirit within ourselves, namely that of Christ, and so we may well pray to be so changed by such an influence, to so progress towards the goal of proper behavior for us to live up to.

That's how I tend to think of it for now.

Blessings!


----------



## Johan (Apr 27, 2009)

Thanks for the replies and your interpretation. 

Here's what the professor said:


That in verse 11, "sojourners and exiles" refer to the original hearers' physical, social, and political status as in 1Peter 1:1. The orginal hearers therefore had no civil rights where they lived. 
The "passions of the flesh" in verse 11, refers to rebellion due to the lack of civil rights. 
That the Roman authorities tolerated the Christians as a small sect but that they said that they keep a close eye on them with regard to 
their attitude toward the authorities (1Peter 2:13)
how they handle slaves (1Peter 2:18)
the position of their women (1Peter 3:1)
This then is, according to the professor, the reason why Peter gave these instructions, viz. to not disturb the *current* social order. 

On the basis of this interpretation he focused on our attitude toward the newly elected goverment in SA. While what he said about what our attitide toward the new goverment should be is correct, I think the reason that he put forward of why Peter gave these instructions (1Peter 2:13, 1Peter 2:18, and 1Peter 3:1) is not sound at all. 

This professor holds the egalitarian position and, in my opinion, he therefore had to come up with an interpretation such that while we must obey 1 Peter 2:13 - 17, 1 Peter 3:1-6 is culturally determined and is therefore at present not binding. Actually, then 1 Peter 3:7 also is not binding. 

I would like to have your comments on this.


----------



## Dan "a" man (May 1, 2009)

Why does he make an exception for 3: 1-7, even when it hinges upon the previously stated authority of 2:18-25?(which he holds as binding I assume). 

In other words, the passage he believes to be void begins with "Likewise", referring to a passage he holds valid. How is this logically sound?


----------



## Johan (May 3, 2009)

Dan "a" man said:


> Why does he make an exception for 3: 1-7, even when it hinges upon the previously stated authority of 2:18-25?(which he holds as binding I assume).
> 
> In other words, the passage he believes to be void begins with "Likewise", referring to a passage he holds valid. How is this logically sound?



Dan,

This just shows how one can twist your interpretation of Scripture to suit your own views!


----------

