To Whom Did Jesus Hand Himself Over?

[VeryTas]

Let's say you are an apostle writing to the first churches, and you want to encourage those members who are slaves, when they are under abuse from their masters. You might remind them of the example Christ left for them -- how he did not talk back when insulted and did not threaten anyone while under maltreatment. And you could tell them that Christ handed himself over. But would you point to how he handed himself over to Pilate to be judged unjustly or to how he handed himself over to God to be judged justly? Which way of imitating Christ would be more encouraging to these slaves who are Christian?

Well, how Christ took the abuse and unfair sentence from Pilate would be a good concrete picture that slaves can follow. But how could they picture his handing himself over to God? Though we can assume that he did submit to Pilate out of trust in his Father's will, we don't have a graphic story of his "handing himself over" to God, unless it is his praying in Gethsemane, before he was even arrested.

Maybe you recall that there was an apostle who was in this position, who did write a letter to the churches, in which he dealt with this subject. It was Peter, and the letter in question is First Peter. In chapter two, after urging everyone to be subject to kings and governors, he tells slaves to be patient when they suffer, that is, suffer at their masters' hands in spite of doing good work. Peter then says (vs.23) that Christ handed himself over to a judge. All English translations that rely on the Greek tell us that Christ handed himself over to one who judges "justly." But those that rely on the Latin say he handed himself over to one who judged him "unjustly." Both can be true, but they cannot both be what Peter meant.

Unlike its translations, the Greek itself actually says, "he was handing himself over to one who was judging justly" -- using the past progressive tense, not the present tense of their translations, namely, "... who judges justly." Their translations don't keep that past tense about God because then it doesn't make much sense: Was God in a process of judging Jesus, the way Pilate certainly was? (And since when does God the Father even judge God the incarnate Son?) But it makes sense in the Latin for Pilate: he "was judging" Christ, but unjustly. Although the Greek we have is usually assumed to be more original than the Latin, this case begs the question. My solution is that instead of changing the verb to make sense, English translations should keep the verb past and change the adverb from "justly" to "unjustly"; to make sense.

Am I the NormandT of Bible details, or what?

[Stella]

Unlike its translations, the Greek itself actually says, "he was handing himself over to one who was judging justly" -- using the past progressive tense, not the present tense of their translations, namely, "... who judges justly." Their translations don't keep that past tense about God because then it doesn't make much sense: Was God in a process of judging Jesus, the way Pilate certainly was? (And since when does God the Father even judge God the incarnate Son?) But it makes sense in the Latin for Pilate: he "was judging" Christ, but unjustly. Although the Greek we have is usually assumed to be more original than the Latin, this case begs the question. My solution is that instead of changing the verb to make sense, English translations should keep the verb past and change the adverb from "justly" to "unjustly"; to make sense.

My first inclination reading the 1 Peter 2:23 is to explore the meaning of 'he handed himself over'. NRSV uses 'entrusted himself' which more fittingly points to His relationship with His Father rather than an unjust judge. Not that God was judging Him... that God is in general the one who judges justly.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

As far as I can tell (my Greek is more than a little rusty), NA27 doesn't have a manuscript variant that has "unjust" in it, but Clement of Alexandria definitely had a manuscript that read this way:

“Who, when He was reviled,” he says, “reviled not; when He suffered, threatened not.” The Lord acted so in His goodness and patience. “But committed Himself to him that judged Him unrighteously:” whether Himself, so that, regarding Himself in this way, there is a transposition. He indeed gave Himself up to those who judged according to an unjust law; because He was unserviceable to them, inasmuch as He was righteous: or, He committed to God those who judged unrighteously, and without cause insisted on His death, so that they might be instructed by suffering punishment.

Fascinating, as Spock would say.

[Gandalf the Grey]

From what I can see in Matthew's Gospel(26:45) Jesus was rather explicit in that He was being "handed over to sinners," and given previous instances where it seemed that He was going to be attacked or stoned but where He escaped in this instance He was allowing Himself to be handed over.

What race or political nation they might have belonged to seemed to me to be pretty irrelevant and that more significant to Him was that He was content with allowing Himself to be be judged by sinners(and thus by their "father" and /or "ruler") just in order to be subsequently acquitted by His Father.

[GudrunHelga]

Let's say you are an apostle writing to the first churches, and you want to encourage those members who are slaves, when they are under abuse from their masters. You might remind them of the example Christ left for them -- how he did not talk back when insulted and did not threaten anyone while under maltreatment. And you could tell them that Christ handed himself over. But would you point to how he handed himself over to Pilate to be judged unjustly or to how he handed himself over to God to be judged justly? Which way of imitating Christ would be more encouraging to these slaves who are Christian?

Well, how Christ took the abuse and unfair sentence from Pilate would be a good concrete picture that slaves can follow. But how could they picture his handing himself over to God? Though we can assume that he did submit to Pilate out of trust in his Father's will, we don't have a graphic story of his "handing himself over" to God, unless it is his praying in Gethsemane, before he was even arrested.

Maybe you recall that there was an apostle who was in this position, who did write a letter to the churches, in which he dealt with this subject. It was Peter, and the letter in question is First Peter. In chapter two, after urging everyone to be subject to kings and governors, he tells slaves to be patient when they suffer, that is, suffer at their masters' hands in spite of doing good work. Peter then says (vs.23) that Christ handed himself over to a judge. All English translations that rely on the Greek tell us that Christ handed himself over to one who judges "justly." But those that rely on the Latin say he handed himself over to one who judged him "unjustly." Both can be true, but they cannot both be what Peter meant.

Unlike its translations, the Greek itself actually says, "he was handing himself over to one who was judging justly" -- using the past progressive tense, not the present tense of their translations, namely, "... who judges justly." Their translations don't keep that past tense about God because then it doesn't make much sense: Was God in a process of judging Jesus, the way Pilate certainly was? (And since when does God the Father even judge God the incarnate Son?) But it makes sense in the Latin for Pilate: he "was judging" Christ, but unjustly. Although the Greek we have is usually assumed to be more original than the Latin, this case begs the question. My solution is that instead of changing the verb to make sense, English translations should keep the verb past and change the adverb from "justly" to "unjustly"; to make sense.

Am I the NormandT of Bible details, or what?

You've delved deep into the nuances of the text! Your analysis of the verb tense and its implications for understanding Peter's message to the slaves is intriguing. Keeping the verb past and changing the adverb to "unjustly" in English translations seems like a reasonable solution to maintain the intended meaning. Your attention to detail in biblical interpretation certainly shines through!