On Tuesday I indicated that I think 1 Peter 2:13 teaches that God established government, like marriage, into the structures of the creation. Today I’d like to justify that claim.

1 Peter 2:13 is translated in several different ways:

ESV: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution . . .

Achtemeier (Hermeneia): Be subject to every human creature because of the Lord . . .

RSV mg.: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every institution ordained for men . . .

I favor the translation:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every [divine] creation among mankind.

In the context it is clear that the creation in view is government.

Institution, Creature, or Creation?

It is common for translations to translate κτίσις in this verse as “institution.” But against this translation Achtemeier notes this “meaning is nowhere to be found in Greek literature” (1 Peter, Hermeneia, 182). He comments, “The closest one can come to such a meaning [human institution] is to point to the regular use of κτίσις in secualr Greek to mean ‘founding a city’ (e.g., Selwyn, 172; Goppelt, 182) but that is hardly the meaning here” (ibid., 183, n. 40). Elliot adds to this critique: “The rendition of ktisis as ‘institution’ (RSV, NRSV, NEB, Selwyn) is inappropriate, for the abstraction ‘institution’ is a modern rather than an ancient concept” (1 Peter, AB, 489).

Both Achtemeier and Elliot favor the translation “Be subject to every human creature.” But Grudem provides a cogent response to this translation: “The context (vv. 13b-14, 18-20, 3:1-6) makes it clear, however, that it is not every human being in the world to whom we are to be subject (a meaning that the verb hypotasso could not bear in any case, since it refers to subjection to an authority)” (1 Peter, TNTC, 118; note: Grudem favors the translation “institution”). It doesn’t make sense to begin a command to submit to the governing authorities with a command to submit to all humans.

Hort says, “Put briefly, the main question is this,—does ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις mean here a κτίσις by men or a κτίσις by God among men?” Hort rejects “a κτίσις by men” in favor of “a κτίσις by God among men.” He writes, “But the former of the two interpretations, though thus prima facie natural, cannot without straining be reconciled with the context. Wide as is the use of κτίσις, to speak of the supreme ruler or subordinate rulers, or their office or function, as a κτίσις on the part of men is without example or analogy in Greek usage. . . . Moreover, human authorship, put forward without qualification as here, and yet more emphasised by the addition of πάσῃ, is not likely to have been laid down by an apostle as a sufficient reason for subjection: he could not but remember for how many evil customs human authorship was responsible. If however we take κτίσις as implying Divine authorship, as in every other place where κτίζω or any of its derivatives occurs in the O.T. or N.T. (or in the Apocrypha, 1 Esd. iv. 53 excepted), all these difficulties vanish. The effect of ἀνθρωπίνῃ is accordingly to limit the κτίσεις spoken of to such elements of God’s universal κτίσις as are characteristically human. . . . Here then we have an adequate explanation of St Peter’s meaning. Biblical associations defined the founding spoken of to be the founding of the commonwealth of mankind by God Himself, and the Greek usage suggested that the founding implied a plan of which mankind were to be organised. By an ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις then St Peter means a fundamental institution of human society. Before Christ came into the world, mankind already possessed a social order of which the chief elements were the state, the household, and the family; and here St Peter declares that they were not to be slighted or rejected because they were found among heathen. On the contrary, they had a divine origin, and they were distinctively human: without them man would sink into savagery. It was needful to say this after the previous verses, which might seem by contrast to condemn heathen society absolutely” (F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, I.1-II.17 [London: Macmillan, 1898], 139-40).

I think Hort is on the right track, though he does use the word “institution.” Yet, if what is really in view is an institution created by God, then the normal sense of “creation” would hold here and the meaning of the passage would would be similar to the one the Hort proposes. 

Best also comments along the same lines: “When the word and its cognate forms appear in the LXX they almost always denote something created by God, e.g., man (Dt. 4:32), the universe (Gen. 14:19,22), agriculture (Sir. 7:15; 40:1), wisdom (Sir. 1:4); see w. Foerster, T.D.N.T., III, pp. 1023-8. Sir. 39:30 says that God created ‘the sword that punishes the ungodly with destruction’ (cf. 40:9f.), and this is very similar to the conception of 1 Pet. 2:14. The principle objection to this view is the adjective ‘human’ attached to ‘institution’; it suggests that man creates the state, but it can be taken as in the RSVmg in the sense that God (not mentioned but understood) creates in the sphere of human affairs; thus civil authority may be considered as instituted by God. This is similar to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 13:1-7, and to that of the OT (Isa. 5:25-30; 45:1) which became more explicit in Judaism (Dan. 2:21,37f.; 4:17,32; Wisd. 6:3). . . . Consequently the state is viewed as deriving from God’s appointment” (1 Peter, NCB, 113).

If Hort and Best are right, then government is a structure of the created order created by God himself. This is a strange way of thinking because here we are not talking about a particular government or even anything physical. But it is not a unique concept in Scripture. As Al Wolters notes, “There are a few places in Scripture where the basic confession of God’s creational sovereignty is specifically applied to such non-physical realities. According to Paul, marriage is among the things ‘which God created to be received with thanksgiving.’ It is therefore a demonic heresy to forbid marriage, ‘for everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected’ (1 Tim. 4:3-4)” (Creation Regained, 2nd ed., 24).

Block, Daniel I. For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

This is a warm, biblically grounded study of worship that does an excellent job of moving from exegesis and biblical theology to contemporary application. I read the work slowly on Lord’s days, and I found it to be an excellent companion on those days.

Caro. Robert The Years of Lyndon Johnson. 4 volumes. Knopf, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2012.

These books, massive as they are (and still awaiting the concluding volume) were hard to put down. Caro is a superb writer, and I feel better informed after reading them not only about LBJ but also about life in Texas leading up to his time, the workings of the Senate, and much more. It may seem overkill to take a hundred pages to the present the biography LBJ’s rival in the election to the Senate or to tell the story of his mentor once he arrived. But these seeming diversions are often some of the best parts of these books.

Bull, Josiah, ed. Letters of John Newton. 1869; Reprinted, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth 2007.

I’ve long preferred reading biographies to reading diaries or letters. Biographies have a narrative thread that letters and diaries lack. However, reading John Newton’s letters are different. Newton was a master letter writer, and his letters are full of wise pastoral counsel. These are letters worth reading slowly and meditating on.

Though I’ve not yet finished it, Tony Reinke’s book, Newton on the Christian Life, is one of the best books I began to read in 2015. Reinke has distilled Newton’s wisdom as found throughout his letters and organized it into a work that will challenge you in your walk with God and inspire you to read more Newton.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue.” In Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Volume 8. Edited by John E Smith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

This, as might be expected, was one of the more difficult works that I read this year. I found Edwards’s arguments that there is no true virtue without love toward God compelling. I was not convinced by his argument that greater amounts of love are due to those with greater degrees of being (God, as Being in general, being the most deserving of love). This argument, it seems, could be run in an pantheistic direction. In addition, Scripture does not seem to tie our moral obligation to being. These disagreements aside, this is an enjoyable and beneficial work to think your way through.

Myers, Ken. All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

This is one of the most incisive books about culture that I’ve read. Myers asks his readers to move beyond the question of what is permissible to the question of what is good and wise. Watching television is permissible. Watching several shows every night, night after night is neither good nor wise. This is true even apart from the content of the shows. While content is not unimportant, Myers is concerned to sensitize Christians to the sensibilities of pop culture, which tend to be sensibilities at odds with those of Christianity: novelty over tradition, immediacy as opposed to patience, diversion rather than meditation, celebrity rather than community, youth rather than respect for the wisdom of the aged, “authenticity” as opposed to controlling passions and developing virtue. I found myself challenged to think carefully about my cultural activities and the sensibilities they cultivate.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

This is a great introduction to John’s Gospel and Letters. Readers encounter introductory matters, such as authorship, learn about the literary structure of these books, and have their themes unpacked in a winsome combination of depth and brevity.

Principe, Lawrence M. The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Oxford’s “Very Short Introduction” series is generally excellent. The authors are experts in their fields, and most do an admirable job of truly introducing readers to a diverse array of subjects. Principe’s work is one of the best I’ve read in the series so far. Principe not only explains the factors contributing to the Scientific Revolution, but he also treats the people who came before it with respect. He demonstrates that the thinkers prior to the Scientific Revolution were not unintelligent, nor were their theories irrational. They made good sense of the world in the intellectual framework of the time. What is more, their view of the world may still have something to teach those of us who live on the other side of the scientific revolution.

Oliphint, K. Scott. God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Crossway, 2011.

I really appreciate the way that Oliphint wrestled with thick theological issues in this book while firmly rejecting attempts to trim Bible statements to better fit theological conclusions. Yet he does not reject the legitimacy of theological reasoning but instead works toward a legitimate theological solution. This work strikes me as a model for careful, biblically-rooted systematic theology.

Witmer, Timothy Z. The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church.  Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010.

If Oliphint shows what biblically-rooted systematic theology looks like, then Witmer shows what biblically and theologically-rooted practical theology looks like. Anyone who serves as a pastor or elder would benefit from this book.

Stanglin, Keith D. and Thomas H. McCall. Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

This is probably the best book on Arminius’s life and thought in print. I believe I have a better understanding of what Arminius did and did not think as a result of reading this work. The authors do an excellent job of explaining his theology in a readable and sympathetic manner without sacrificing scholarly accuracy.