< 1st Peter 2:1-12 | 1st Peter 3:8-22 >
Note: This article is a study through this passage of scripture using the SIDL model. If you are unfamiliar with this, please read this summary, or this more in-depth walk through to understand what's being done here.
1st Peter 2:13 - 3:7 The Student
As we move into the next section of 1st Peter we find ourselves confronted with a number of passages about submission that seem uncomfortable to our western twenty-first century ears. Peter addresses the churches in Asia Minor and counsels submission in three important relationships: with governmental authority, between slaves and masters and finally between wives and husbands. In every case his words are likely to sound anachronistic, paternalistic and unenlightened to contemporary ears. And given the way these passages have been used to justify all sorts of bad behavior (mindless obedience to the state, the acceptibility of slavery, the authoritarian household and the abuse of wives by husbands, among others), it is understandable why some people would hear them this way.
The question for us is if there is anything transferable to our current time in this selection of scripture. I think there is. The way forward is to try, as much as possible to bracket our current perspectives on hierarchical relationships and try to hear (as best we can) the context that Peter was writing in, so that we can understand what he meant and what his original audience heard him to mean. Only after this can we move on to try and make contemporary application of passages that have such deep baggage associated with them.
Cultural background
The culture of the first century was one in which hierarchy was not only the order of the day, it was the basis for stability in society. While there was variation between the Jewish view, and the Roman view, both of these cultures believed very strongly in the necessary hierarchical ordering of the universe. What for us looks like one way of seeing reality was for them the only way. Hierarchy and social strata were for them like water to a fish. It surrounded them, supported them, secured their cultures and in many ways was invisible to them.
When we look at their despotic governments, paternalistic culture, practices of slavery and the like, we see these things as unenlightened and backwards. Perhaps they are. But in order to understand the text, we have to set aside our perception and try to understand theirs.
Slavery is a good example of this. Most Americans see slavery through the lens of the forced slavery of African Americans in the past two or three hundred years. This was a terrible thing, which still has repercussions in our country and culture today. People were forcibly taken from their homeland, families were separated, people were abused, degraded and killed. It is rightfully considered to be one of the most terrible legacies of our country.
Slavery in the first century could be just as cruel. But that's not the whole story. Slavery came in a wide variety of shapes. Fully a third of the population of the Roman empire were slaves. There were slaves that were taken during military campaigns--the closest thing to the slavery we are familiar with. But there were also other kinds of slaves. There were people who sold themselves into slavery as a way to pay off debts. In some instances slavery was a path to prosperity and education. For example, the slave of a Roman citizen could be granted freedom through a process called manumission as a result of good behavior, as a reward for excellent service, or after having fully paid their debt. When this happened they became full Roman citizens. For this reason it was not uncommon for people to voluntarily become slaves. While there certainly were situations where slavery was abusive and degrading, there were other situations where it offered secured employment, a place to live, and a path to citizenship. These things were hard to attain in a society so stratefied, but this was one way to do it.
Here's the important point. In our culture slavery is seen as an immoral abberation. In that light, these passages seem difficult because they don't come out as opposing slavery, but rather appear to be encouraging the slaves to put up with the situation. What we have to understand, though, is that in the culture these texts were written in, slavery was not seen the way we see it today. It was assumed to be a part of life. It was a necessary part of the economy in the same way that minimum-wage workers are today. While it often was and could be abusive, it was not seen as a universal evil. Given that understanding, Peter is not addressing the morality of slavery in the text at all. He is simply telling Christians how best to deal with the circumstances they find themselves in.
This is the same for each of the three sections dealt with. The premise of these verses could be summarized thusly: As a Christian you may find yourself in difficult situations. In those places, you are free to choose to be respectful of those who are taking advantage of you. Doing so is the best way to secure good treatment, if that is possible, and even more importantly, it is the best way to bring good repute to the cause of Jesus Christ.
Honor the King
(2:13-17) The first instruction to the Christians in Asia Minor was to submit to governmental authority. This is broad. It's not only to the king as the ultimate authority, but also to governors and other delegated leaders who have been given authority by the king. Verse 13 suggests that Christians ought to submit to their government "for the Lord's sake." It's not out of patriotism. It's not out of obligation. It is out of respect for Jesus.
This echoes the tone of 2:11-12 where this very good life is commended specifically because it will put the Christian community above reproach and will build good will with the Pagan culture. Verse 15 repeats this: (2:15) "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men." The next verse shows clearly that this is not seen as a Christian obligation due the state, but a voluntary choice that Christians make to further the Gospel. 2:16. "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."
In this Peter is in alignment with Paul, and they both align with the teachings of Jesus. A Christian's first obligation of loyalty is to God. They are not to serve the state blindly. They are not to submit their practice of faith to the will of the state. But they are--insofar as obeying the state does not contradict their faith--to submit to the leadership of those authorities.
In the context of 1st Peter, the state was a universal and in many cases tyrannical authority. Asia Minor was a part of the Roman empire, governed variously by Pro Consuls and Governors appointed by the Emperor. This government had unchecked power. For this reason it was especially important the the early Christians did everything they could to live within the order of the day. Choosing to get in the way of the Roman Empire would result in destruction, as had already been seen in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Certainly Christians were not above giving their lives when the state challenged their faith. This had already happened and would start happening more and more in the coming years. But in general the church was not encouraged to seek out martyrdom. It seems like Peter's perspective here is thatgenerally speaking Good Christian living would be seen as positive in the civil arena, and that while Christians were not obligated to behave this was because they were citizens, they were free to behave this way out of obedience to Jesus. In many cases their obedience to Jesus would be seen as beneficial to the state.
An interesting point about submiting to the emperor: This is clearly about honoring God, not about honoring the Emperor. Likely the current Emperor was Nero who was as little deserving of honor as anyone in the ancient world. This is not about respecting someone who has earned respect. It is about choosing to respect someone out of respect for God only.
Peter's thoughts could be summarized like this: As Christians your loyalty is to God, and you are now free from every obligation and bond. However, as Christians you can choose voluntarily to submit yourself to the authority of your government as a way of honoring Christ, of protecting the reputation of the church, and as a way to show the pagans around you what God is capable of doing in your lives. Even in circumstances where the government is less than ideal, a Christ-follower should treat everyone with respect as a way of honoring God.
Thinking about this in the context of our modern governments requires a little bit of extra thought. After all, unlike in 1st Century Rome, we have a say in who our government is and what they do. More on that below.
Slaves and Masters
(2:18-25) Next, Peter addresses the situation of slaves who had become Christians. I used the example of slavery above to illustrate the cultural situation of the 1st century in comparison to ours. Without that understanding it is really hard to make coherant sense of Peter's counsel. For he not only tells slaves to submit to their good masters, but to their masters who are harsh (2:18). In fact, he uses the example of Jesus to show that their suffering is actually worth something. (1:20) "...But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."
It is vital to hear Peter's overall theme through these words. Remember where he started in 2:12. "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." In this church were slaves. Many of them had masters who were not Christian. Christianity taught these slaves that they were in fact free. There was a temptation to use that freedom to respond to their masters with insolence or even to do something that would undermine their slavery--run away, revolt, etc. A time would come when this teaching of the church would in fact put an end to slavery. But in first century culture slavery was ubiquitous. It just wasn't going to go away. In fact, when serious threats did surface to the institution of slavery, the Roman legions brutally and instantly responded. A number of slave rebellions ended with hundreds or thousands of slaves crucified along the roadways.
In this context it made no sense at all for a handful of Christian slaves to try to upset the balance. In fact, their perspective was meant to be on something higher altogether. Their masters were in their oikos, their household, and that meant that they--the Christian slaves--had the spiritual responsibility to influence their masters on behalf of Christ. What means did they have to do this? Excellent service that earned them trust. That might open to door of conversation which might at some point result in the conversion of the master.
For this reason, Peter counseled the Christian slaves to bear up under hardship and to treat their masters with respect, knowing that God judges justly, and that in their suffering they had the companionship of Jesus.
Husbands and Wives
(3:1-7) Finally, Peter turns to the arena of family relationships and suggests that wives submit to their husbands. Just like with the government or with slaves, this was not a submission of obligation. It was the free choice of submission for a higher purpose. Peter gives the clearest statement of this in 3:1. "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives."
It's interesting to note that in this list of duties, Peter addresses slaves but not masters, and wives more than husbands. This is in contrast to Paul who addresses the responsibility of both partners in the relationship. This highlights the marginalized status of these churches in Asia Minor. They were churches that were made up of slaves and women, with not many wealthy or influential people.
Peter basically tells the wives to make themselves attractive to their busbands, but not in the way the culture expected. Instead of working hard to decorate themselves with "outward adornment," they should work to develop the "inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight." (3:2-5) Remember the whole point of all this: to draw the husbands to a place where they would seek out knowledge of Jesus Christ.
In the final paragraph of the section, we can see more clearly that Peter is not putting forward some kind of anti-woman agenda. In 3:7 he addresses the husband. "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." Clearly this is not yet a model of a fully egalitarian marriage--but that would have been wildly out of place in the first century culture. And yet Peter pushes the edges of the social norm, calling Christian husbands to treat their wives with dignity and respect, protecting them and recognizing who God saw them to be. What the NIV translates as "as heirs with you" is one word, sygkleronomos. This is an important word. It means equal and co-heir with. Peter was highlighting that while women might be second-class citizens in the world, they were not so in the church. They were equally heirs of God's promises. Remember what those were? Peter's already said: a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. They were people who--just like the men--had direct access to God. They were people who--just like the men--were royalty. They were given the same purpose and mission as the men. They were joint-heirs along with them.
There's an interesting little hook at the end of verse 7. Peter tells the husbands to treat their wives with respect and that if they don't it will get in the way of their own spiritual lives. "...so that nothing will hinder your prayers." The implied threat is that a Christian man who mistreats his wife is cutting off his own access to God.
These Christians lived in a world woven out of hierarchical relationships. There was no way around that. Every day they had to determine how they would respond to those in authority over them--both those who deserved respect, and those who didn't. In these verses Peter suggests to them that they are free to turn these interactions into Kingdom moments, where they choose to do their best, to be respectful, and to submit whenever possible in order to bring glory to God through the positive reputation that they build. Simply put, Peter was saying, "Whatever circumstance you find yourself in, live a holy life so that you can have a positive influence on the unbelievers around you."
J.H.Yoder calls this posture toward the world "revolutionary subordination." This was a new possibility available to Christians living in a hierarchical world. Instead of submitting because it was required of them, instead of submitting because it would keep them out of trouble, they could submit--even going above and beyond the call of duty--as a way of subverting their mistreatment and offering grace in response. They were exercising their freedom in Christ, and using the opportunity as a way to bless and serve the people who were taking advantage of them.
This is the paradox of Christian freedom and Christian service. Martin Luther expressed it perfectly: "A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all."
1st Peter 2:13 - 3:7 The Interpreter
Hierarchy and Submission in the 1st century world.
There have been some who read these passages and others like them as a paternalistic attempt to keep the less powerful in their place. Those readings are understandable given the multitude of historical examples where passages like these were used to justify and strengthen abusive positions. But these readings suffer from a very tempting interpretive flaw. They attempt to judge the meaning of the text by today's standards. This serves only to distort the meaning.
Every one of these issues has changed radically since the time this text was written. Governments are no longer assumed to have supreme, divinely-appointed authority. Questioning and holding government accountable is an accepted and encouraged part of culture. Women are no longer viewed as property and relationships between men and women are seen in a much more egalitarian or at least role-based light. Employers no longer have the right to treat their employees like tools of production. Slavery has in large part been abolished throughout the world. All of this is right, and even, in my opinion aligns with the trajectory of scripture.
But we can't let knowing that keep us from hearing the original context of the passages. Hierarchy was the fabric of social structure without question. This is what kept cultures intact. It is what allowed for security, common defense, and economic growth. It was a bad system, to be sure, one that took advantage of the many for the benefit of the few. But it was the only system and it was not open to debate. The early Christians carried a revolutionary message, one with the seeds that would topple this whole worldview. But for those seeds to take root and have the time needed to grow, the early Christians had to live within the order of the day. Women who asserted their freedom too strongly would have not been allowed to return to church, ending their ability to grow in the faith and the possibility of their influence in the home. Slaves that asserted their freedom through insubordination or revolt found themselves brutally punished, often even killed. And for a church that was significantly made up of slaves, that path only meant extinction.
For this very practical reason, Christians had to find a path between the freedom they'd been given in Christ and the circumstances they found themselves in. This created a very strange dichotomy. In the church these social strata were often broken down. Women had positions of great authority and influence. Even slaves became leaders in the church. This created the very awkward situation when slave holders would convert and become Christians, and then come under the ecclesiastical authority of the leaders of the church, who happened to be slaves. The church had a very hard path to walk in living out its mission in a world that looked on these developments as (rightly so) potentially destructive to the very order of things.
In this very early context, Peter was not addressing the morality of these social institutions. In my estimation that question didn't even occur to him. Peter was simply talking to a group of Christians who were struggling with the question of how to live our their faith in the very real social fabric of their lives--which included living withing the hierachical structure of the day. Peter's counsel to them was not to focus on the hierarchy at all, but to use whatever position they had been given as an opportunity to bless and serve the people around them. They were to treat everyone with respect because that would build the most positive reputation for the church and would bring the most glory to Jesus Christ.
A Contemporary Application
All of this being said, though, does not permit us to make a line-for-line literal application of the text into today's society. In fact, to do so would violate the underlying principle of the text. Let's look briefly at each of the three relationships.
First, the government. We no longer live in a time when government is seen to be a divine appointment with unquestionable authority. Certainlty there are people in power who act this way, but they are seen in general as out of line with good governance. This is especially true in democratic government. The power of a democratic government derives from the people who elect it. In this case, submitting to the will of the government means approving of that government's behavior. In the first century if a Christian saw that the government was unfairly treating a certain class of people, there was little they could do about it. They could individually seek to protect the people in their circle of influence--and often did--but that couldn't change policy. In today's America if the government is unfairly treating a certain class of people, that is only because we, the people, allow our elected officials to continue in that practice. In the first century, the Christian could do nothing. Today, we have the ability, indeed the responsibility, to hold our government accountable through the peaceful means at our dispoal.
Peter's underlying principle is this: In your relationships in society live such good lives that the pagans around you see and, even though they don't like you or your faith, give glory to God. The way we can "live such good lives" today includes being able to have political conversations that don't devolve into name calling and disrespect, taking action on appropriate social issues that express compassion and mercy to our hurting world, being respectful of government officials (even ones we disagree with) and then respectfully and civilly working to hold our government accountable for its behavior. In order to align with Peter's principle of impressing those around us with the quality of our faith this all must be done with compassion, thoughtful words, forgiveness, honesty, integrity and without demonizing those we disagree with.
Second, the issue of slavery. Clearly slavery is wrong and immoral. Clearly this is the trajectory of the teaching of the Bible. Certainly if the issue of slavery were to come up, Christians ought to stand opposed to it. But the deeper issue might have a broader application. Do Christians today find themselves in unfair situations in their employment? Does tha bank holding the mortgage or credit card debt sometimes act like an unfair taskmaster? Sure. Peter's deeper principle applies to these and many other situations where we find ourselves taken advantage of. Treat people with respect. Not because they deserve it, but because of Christ. Fulfill your obligation with integrity and honesty. Go above and beyond the call of duty, so that your reputation for faithfulness will grow and bring honor to Christ.
In this day and age, Christians usually have the option of leaving unfair employment. They can often work hard and leave the slavery of indebtedness. Christians ought to exercise these options whenever they are able. But we must always remember that those interactions are not just about us and them. They are about Jesus as well.
Third, the issue of marriage. Generally speaking, most people today see marriage as an egalitarian relationship. This was just unheard of in the first century, but it is the norm today. The principles from Peter's comments can be applied then, equally to men and women. Both partners are called (just like in Paul's words) to submit themselves to each other. Both partners are called to treat each other with the utmost respect. Both partners are to do everything they can to positively influence the other in the way of Jesus. Both partners should make every effort to become beautiful in their inner selves. A marriage where both partners are equally committed to this path will be peaceful, refreshing and live-giving.
But even in a marriage that is less than ideal, Peter's counsel to the Christian spouse is to set aside personal rights and do everything possible to serve their partner for the glory of Jesus Christ. Of course this raises the issue of abusive relationships. Is Peter telling a Christian woman in an abusive relationship to stay there? The short answer is, "No." But it's much more complicated than that. Relationships aren't perfect, and the people in them aren't. There is likely to be an imbalance of power in many relationships. In our culture the quick answer is to get out if the relationship falls short. In extreme cases this might be necessary. But Peter's counsel might suggest to something different first. He might be saying that in choosing to respect a difficult partner and to go above and beyond in serving them, you open up access for God to bring about transformation in the relationship. Clearly this is a much bigger issue that merits deeper discussion, but that will have to happen elsewhere.
And just a side note: It's been my experience in nearly twelve years of full-time ministry that issues of control and insecurity are always at play in marriages where the issue of submission comes up at all.
The Cruciform Life
The principle at the core of this passage of scripture is very difficult for our contemporary culture to really understand. We're so enculturated with the idea of personal fulfillment. We really see this as the most important thing. And so when we consider issues like these, we immediately see personal freedom and the exercise of personal rights as the highest good.
But the early church would know nothing of this view. They saw the life and death of Jesus as the model for Christian living. In their view, Jesus did not come--as some American preachers would have it--so that Christians can have prosperous and comfortable lives. Jesus' life is the example and model for how Christians are to live. And that includes suffering. For them the cross was the model of living. This is wildly different than what most Christians believe today. And yet this is the view Peter is speaking out of. "The Christian life, as exemplefied here by Peter, is a life that is shaped by the cross."
Jesus' model was this: giving God glory by laying down his personal rights for the sake of others. This is the basis for Peter's teaching in this passage, and its something that contemporary Christians could stand to learn from. For the Christian it is always a greater good to bring God glory. For the Christian it is always a greater good to serve others. The example of the cross is that selfless service brings about new life.
1st Peter 2:13 - 3:7 The Disciple
Note: The Disciple role looks at the passage for what it says about how to live, and can only be done with a personal application. As I look at this passage, some of what I reflect on may be subjectively directed at me--since I'm looking at the issue of how to live my life. Hopefully much of this is transferrable to you, but please remember that this is an example of one follower of Jesus applying this passage to his own life. --Marc Schelske
When I face the decision to serve someone, do I do it because of that person or "for the Lord?" It's a critical change of perspective. Do I choose to serve others or respect them because they deserve it? Because I like them? Or do I do it because of Jesus? Peter's reminder to Christians in this passage is that we do what we do "for the Lord" above all else.
Do I respect people in authority over me? Do I treat them with respect? Do I serve when I am asked? Do I do it begrudgingly? Regardless of whether they deserve it, this is a way I bring God glory.
Do I engage in political discussions respectfully and with compassion? While this isn't a direct application of the text, it is related. When we talk about politics we're talking about people (politicians) and other people's ideas. It's easy to fall into an attacking mode, an us-and-them mentality, and without thinking we start to belittle and disrespect other people. Regardless of our opinion on the issue being debated, this can never be the way of the Christ-follower. Am I able to engage in these conversations in a respectful manner?
Do I treat people I have authority over with respect? This might mean employees or contractors, it might mean the people who serve me at restaurants or businesses. Whenever I am in a position above someone, do I treat them as a valued person, respecting who they are and that they are God's creation? Do I bring God glory in the way I treat these people?
Do I treat my spouse with respect and consideration? Do I serve my spouse, going above and beyond the call of duty? On days when my spouse doesn't deserve it, am I able to treat them well for Jesus' sake?
1st Peter 2:13 - 3:7 The Lover
Note: The Lover role looks at the passage for what God is saying to the reader directly, and like the Disciple role, can only be done from a personal perspective. In this role, the reader is listening and responding to what God is saying about Himself, about the reader and about the relationshi between them. As such, I will just reflect on my own experience in this area. Remember that this is only the example of one follower of Jesus trying to her God's voice in the passage. --Marc Schelske
Father in Heaven, this is a tough issue for me. I am a child of my culture, and I feel attacked when my rights aren't respected. I feel the need to defend myself and my territory. But I hear You saying through Peter that my rights aren't what's most important. You gave me the example of Jesus who laid down his rights so that I might live. Without complaining He surrendered Himself for Your glory, and for the good of Your people.
Help me to have this kind of mind when I consider my relationships with others. Give me the ability to bear up under difficulty when people who have authority over me treat me badly. Help me to be able to treat them with respect. Give me patience with people I have authority over. Help me to serve them with compassion. Give me deep understanding and compassion for my wife, and the ability to treat her better than I could without You.
Help me to live a life characterized by the cross of Jesus. I surrender myself to You. In Jesus' name, Amen.
This text is (C) 2006 Marc Schelske. All Rights Reserved, and is reprinted here with permission of the author. This material can be printed or copied for personal use and may be distributed for use in study groups, but it cannot be reproduced for any other reason without permission.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.