(upbeat music) We close the week with a rather technical question this Friday, bear with us. It's also an important question, an important question from a sharp listener to the podcast named Brent. Pastor John, hello, can you tell me why modern English translations translate cathesis in 1 Peter 2.13 as institution or authority or ordinance?

Every other occurrence is typically translated as in the ESV as creation 16 times or creature two other times. To me, based on the context, it seems as though we as believers are to submit ourselves to or to be subject for the Lord's sake to every human creature. For such a thing, we have been freed by the finished work of Christ to do good, verse 15, and to serve them as servants of God, verse 16, as we honor everyone, verse 17.

Even Paul's text on submitting to authority in Romans 13, verses one to seven, broadens quickly to a discussion of how we relate to all people in verse eight. So is Peter's cathesis mistranslated or am I missing a nuance here? I think Brent is basically right here in drawing our attention to the way Peter unfolds the act of subjection in 1 Peter 2.13, in the acts of doing good in verse 15, the act of serving in verse 16, the act of honoring in verse 17.

I think that's a really sharp contextual observation to draw those four things together, subjection, doing good, serving, honoring. So let me step back and see whether there are other considerations that might affect how we understand, how we translate the word cathesis or creation or institution, as it's translated in so many modern versions.

The ESV, like most English versions, translates 1 Peter 2.13, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good. Now that term human institution, Brent is saying, is literally human creation.

And that's right, it is. And that's the most literal translation of it. So the translation would then be, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human creation. Now, before we can even ponder whether that's right or not, we have to ask what it means, 'cause it's an ambiguous phrase, isn't it?

It might mean things created by humans. So a human creation might be a government or laws that humans have created. Or the phrase human creation might mean humans created by God. So human beings are God's human creation. So 1 Peter 2.13 might mean, be subject to whatever man creates or be subject to the persons that God creates.

Which is it? And I think the answer, if you just take those two questions, would be pretty clear from the use of the word create and creation, the verb and the noun throughout the New Testament. 39 times, I looked them all up, 39 times the New Testament uses this word create or creation and without exception, no exceptions, they refer to God's act.

Never in the New Testament does creation or create refer to something man has made or man does. So I think it would be highly unlikely that the term human creation in 1 Peter 2.13 would refer to something that humans create. Rather, the term very likely means human creation in the sense of humans that God creates.

Human beings are God's human creation. Now that in fact is the way Brent in his question is understanding it. And he's wondering, well, why shouldn't it be translated, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human creation or more clearly creature, every human creature that is person created by God.

Why isn't verse 13 to be understood as calling for a kind of submission to all people, all human beings? Now, whether we're going to be sympathetic to that possible translation, namely be subject for the Lord's sake to every human creature is going to depend on two things. First, do we believe that the word be subject, you put target day in Greek, be subject can mean anything less than obey, maybe more, but not less than obey.

If we think that this word be subject always involves the idea of obedience, then we won't be able to say with Peter's intention that we should be subject to every human person because many humans would instruct us to do sinful things that we certainly should not obey. And I think it's fair to say that's the judgment of most biblical scholars, namely that being subject does involve the idea of obedience.

That's the first thing that will affect how we translate this. The second factor that leads people away from translating verse 13 as be subject to every human creature is that the immediate application and perhaps limitation that Peter puts on it is this. He continues, "Whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors as sent by him." So the argument is that since Peter is applying subjection to governors and emperors, he doesn't mean it to apply to all human creatures, but only to those whom God has created to have his appointed authority, as for example is more clear in Romans 13, one to four.

Now, those two arguments are strong enough to incline me and most others not to take issue with the common translation, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. But like I said at the beginning, Brit is onto something that we really should take seriously because even if it might not be Peter's primary intention here, it seems to be his and Paul's understanding of the Christian life to say that there is a sense in which we are to be subject to all people, not in the sense of obeying, but in the sense of serving.

That is be subject in the sense of humbling yourself and going down low, subject, sub, and getting under another person and doing all you can to lift them up into truth and righteousness and everlasting joy. Now, Peter seems to go in this direction in verse 15, when he grounds the submission to every human creature or institution by saying, because this is the will of God, that by doing good, you put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

And this idea of doing good turns up again and again and again in 1 Peter. It's one of his most common and distinctive phrases. It turns up over and over as a general way of relating to all people, not just to those in authority. And then even more amazing, Peter says in verse 17, honor everyone.

And in a sense, it's just as radical to say, honor every human creature as it is to say, be subject to every human creature, because certainly there are dishonorable humans, just as there are humans we should not obey. So if there is a way to honor dishonorable humans, then there may be a way to be subject to humans that should not be obeyed.

Then in the next paragraph, verse 18, Peter tells slaves to be subject to their masters. And then in the next paragraph, chapter three, verse one, he tells wives, likewise, be subject to your husbands. And then to our surprise, my surprise anyway, he says in the next paragraph, chapter three, verse seven, likewise, that's the surprising word, husbands.

And then instead of saying, be subject to your wives, which he doesn't say, he says, husbands honor the woman as the weaker vessel and a fellow heir of the grace of life. So he's not going to say that the role of the wife and the husband are interchangeable in terms of authority and submission, but he is going to say, just like he did back in 217, where it says honor all people, that husbands are to honor their wives, all wives.

And he introduces this command with likewise, as if it is a kind of repetition of the commands for submission that he's been giving to us in our relation to government, relation to masters, relation to husbands. And then add to this that Paul says, we are to do good to all people, Galatians 6:10, and that we are to be subject to each other, Ephesians 5:21, and that we should count others more significant than ourselves in the sense of becoming their servants, Philippians 2, 3.

In all those pointers, I think, in 1 Peter and Paul, I would say that Brent is onto something when he draws our attention to the fact that there is a sense in which Christians, following the example of the humble, sacrificial, suffering Christ, should be subject for the Lord's sake to all people, in the sense, not of obeying, but in the sense of desiring earnestly to go low and to do what we can to lift them up into the truth and into faith and into righteousness and into everlasting joy.

So I think we should give Brent the benefit of the doubt here and say, that's pretty sharp, and we ought to really consider that possibility. - Yeah, that's a sharp question and suggestion. Thank you, Brent, and thank you, Pastor John. And thank you all for joining us today. You can ask a question of your own, search our growing archive, or subscribe to the podcast, all at desiringgod.org/askpastorjohn.

Well, how much jewelry is too much jewelry? It's a question we get from you all a lot, and it's worthy of addressing on this podcast because, well, because it's a topic in the Bible. And speaking of 1 Peter, we will turn our attention to 1 Peter 3:3 next up on the docket on Monday.

I'm your host, Tony Reinke. Have a great weekend, and we will see you then. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)