1 Peter 2:18–25

Original Meaning

The Exhortation (2:18)

PETER EXHORTS SLAVES1 to submit2 to their masters, even if they are scurrilous and petulant. It goes without saying that it is easy to work for masters who are kind, beneficent, and generous; but it is hard to have the same disposition to those who are nasty, irascible, and capricious. Yet, Peter insists, Christian slaves should be obedient to all masters, regardless of their personal characteristics. The principles enunciated at 2:11–12 now become critical: The slaves are to be, like the social members of 2:13–17, obedient because it is God’s will (cf. 2:19–20) and because through such obedience they will both witness to God’s grace and provide him with a measuring stick for their opponents at the judgment.

The issue here for us, though only occasionally an issue in the earliest churches, is the nature of slavery in the ancient world.3 We want to avoid doing here what we will discuss in the next two sections, but we do need to describe what slavery was like in the first century so that we will know whom these verses address in our modern world. In fact, while this commentary series emphasizes the changes needed as we move from an ancient text to the modern world, there is also the need at times for a change when we move to understand the ancient world. The New World slavery that was institutionalized in the United States, especially known to the American public through the TV series Roots,4 differed dramatically from first-century slavery. I will mention more about this in the Bridging Contexts section, but for now we must bracket off modern conceptions of slavery as practiced in the United States for nearly two centuries, in order to learn what slavery was like in the Roman empire.

Slavery was a diverse institution in the ancient world, altering itself from one culture to another. Yet the Roman and Greek worlds anchored their entire economic system in this institution. Some have estimated that one-third of the population in urban areas was slave population. In both worlds, especially the Roman world (which is our interest for 1 Peter), slavery was not usually a permanent condition of life. Rather, it was a temporary condition on the path toward freedom. Many ancient people voluntarily chose to be slaves of a Roman citizen so that, upon being granted manumission as a result either of good behavior or adequate savings, they could become full Roman citizens.5 In fact, it is entirely possible that one reason Peter (and Paul) urged Christian slaves to be submissive and obedient was that by living obediently, they could be set free (if the slaves even wanted freedom; cf. 1 Cor. 7:21).

To be a slave was not to be assigned to a specific, especially low-class, station in life. Slaves had the status and power that was connected with their masters; if their master was powerful, they indirectly inherited that power too. Thus, it was desirable at times to be a slave. While most slaves of the New Testament documents were born that way (because their mothers were slaves), many chose slavery over the vagabond existence of finding odd jobs.6 The tasks characterizing slavery were immensely diverse, and we must avoid the notion that all slaves were manual labor servants. “Doctors, teachers, writers, accountants, agents, bailiffs, overseers, secretaries, and sea-captains” all comprised the slave population.7

Slavery was deeply entrenched in the patriarchal system of antiquity. Household heads (fathers) had immense power (patria potestas) over their charges, including the power to sell into slavery. Sometimes slaves converted to Christianity with their masters, but other times they converted on their own (as in 1 Peter 2:18–25). It is no wonder that Peter exhorts them in the context of household regulations; this is even more clear for Paul (Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:22–4:1). But this power of the father was sometimes abused; some slaves were both physically abused and sexually available to their masters (Seneca, Epistle 47).

The idea of slavery as the foundation of the Roman economy needs to be stressed, and this foundation may well lie at the heart of early Christian exhortations to remain submissive to masters. If it is true that slavery was the central labor force of the Roman economy, it follows that if Christians became known for opposing the institution, the Roman authorities would immediately, and perhaps even irreparably, damage the movement. Put differently, it was important to the survival of Christianity for its slaves to be good slaves. Since this was the case, one motive for Peter’s exhortation would have been the desire to survive as a movement.

Peter’s exhortation to live under the order as slaves emerges, then, from this economic context. He reminds them that they are to do this “with all respect,” or “with deep respect.”8 He insists that they are to show the same “deep respect” even to “those who are harsh.” Peter wants the Christian slave community to manifest a kind of behavior that transcends the norm of society and demonstrates its supernatural origins. In so doing, the economy will not be threatened, and the Christians will be seen favorably.

Bridging Contexts

A MODERN AMERICAN can hardly read this text without thinking immediately of the development of the horrible institution of slavery in the so-called New World. I do not want to make light of that institution, nor do I want to deny that this text was used over and over as justification for its evils. Even if I argue below that the ancient institution of slavery and the “modern” one are significantly different, I do not want to suggest that I would defend any form of slavery.

Put differently, African-Americans read this text in a radically different way than American whites who have never seen such an institution in their lifetime. The only semblance of the enslavement of African-Americans I have seen was a neighbor’s small statues at the curb in the front of their house. These small statues consisted of two black men who held out their hands, with steel rings in them; riders were to tie their horses to them, depicting (I suppose) the slave’s work of receiving horses and taking them to the barn. My father often expressed disgust with these statues, though most people did not care enough to do something about them. (Once, however, I noticed someone had painted their faces white.)

Even if most of us have never seen a real situation of slavery, modern African-Americans have the previous two centuries etched so deeply into their consciousness that it becomes impossible for them to hear the word “slave” without thinking of that wretched period of American history. But why bemoan a period of history that is so far remote from normal experience today? Not only because it has consequences to this day (one cannot but believe that many of the problems African-Americans experience today are the long-term effects of slavery), but because before we can bring this text into our day and find analogies, we must deal with at least two dimensions of this problem.

First, African-Americans read their experiences of oppression as reenactments of the biblical descriptions of slavery.15 No matter how hard whites try to distance themselves from this experience, and no matter how thoroughly (and accurately) they argue that ancient slavery was not like modern slavery, African-Americans will still hear this text in modern tones. To be sure, some will transcend the modern institution to appreciate the original context, but even that act (and I would see it as generally the result of God’s forgiving grace) betrays the horror itself. Until we understand this, we have no business speaking of this text in our modern world.

Second, we must disabuse ourselves of how this text has been used to justify slavery and shed that concept of slavery as part of what Peter was saying. In other words, we must understand what slavery was then and what slavery was like in the New World, observe the radical differences, and then apply what is significant to our own context.

The conclusions of Scott Bartchy are fundamentally important here:16

Central features that distinguish 1st century slavery from that later practiced in the New World are the following: racial factors played no role; education was greatly encouraged (some slaves were better educated than their owners) and enhanced a slave’s value; many slaves carried out sensitive and highly responsible social functions; slaves could own property (including other slaves!); their religious and cultural traditions were the same as those of the freeborn; no laws prohibited public assembly of slaves; and (perhaps above all) the majority of urban and domestic slaves could legitimately anticipate being emancipated by the age of 30.

Here we have some important historical conclusions that disabuse us of the modern concept of slavery where humans were owned (for life!), where children and wives were far too frequently abused both physically and sexually, where ownership was prohibited, and where (most of all) any sense of equality or equal rights were surrendered on an altar of thinking that Africans were both morally and constitutionally inferior. However hard it is for us to think of slavery without thinking of modern abuses, we must learn to penetrate behind this period of history back into the first century if we are to make 1 Peter relevant to our world.17

This raises one more critical issue: Is slavery, as an institution, immoral in itself? This question takes us well beyond the text we have, but it is worth pausing for a few reflections.18 The question is important, and, of course, moderns will immediately contend that slavery is immoral. I agree, especially if the meaning of slavery is like what was practiced in the New World. But if slavery is defined as it was in the ancient world, then I do not believe it would be considered necessarily immoral, no matter how hard it is for us to think in such a category. Yet in light of the ease with which the ancient institution led to abuse, I still think we are far wiser contending that the ancient institution was morally inferior, if not downright immoral in itself.19 I agree, then, with those who argue that slavery is itself a morally inferior human institution that diverges from God’s will for society.

Slavery is therefore immoral unless some kind of voluntary submission is involved—in which case I would prefer not to call it slavery. The earliest Christian tradition recognizes, at times, the inferior nature of which I am speaking (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10). Some scholars believe that Peter is arguing that just as Christians in society did not have to resort to their freedom in Christ, and just as women did not have to appeal to the same freedom to opt out of their marriage, so also slaves may very well have sensed the same freedom to opt out of their human bondage. This implies that the freedom of the gospel itself led to the undoing of the institution.20 Tragically, that trumpet call of freedom was held down while others appealed to the same texts as legitimizing slavery in the plan of God.21

If slavery is immoral, or at least morally inferior, how do we apply this text to our world? First, we could simply dismiss this passage as irrelevant because it is outmoded or reflects an inferior cultural system. But this would be to operate on an unfair basis, that ancient slavery and modern slavery are identical. Too much of our passage is valuable for our day and has proven so in the course of church history. Appealing to the example of Jesus as the paradigm for enduring injustice is hardly irrelevant, and slavery for Peter was in fact different from slavery for the New World. Or, second, we could subtract the bad elements of slavery and find analogies to what remains—some kind of servile employment or social injustices. That is, we can dismiss slavery as an evil institution but still find situations in which Christians are being mistreated unjustly and find in this passage both an exhortation to endure and a consolation for sufferers.

It is customary to find in this passage “advice for the employed.” I believe such a custom is reasonable and consistent with Petrine teaching in light of the broad kinds of activities that slaves performed in the ancient world (teaching, selling, farming, etc.) and those same employment-type of activities that are done today. Whatever we think of the ancient institution of slavery, slaves were in some kind of employment relationship with their masters. This was how they “made a living.” In our day, Christians frequently find themselves employed by non-Christian bosses who themselves are at times unjustified in their treatment of Christians. In such situations, Peter’s message here is especially relevant. But we must remember that the situations are hardly identical. Employment in free-market capitalism or socialism is difficult to compare to first-century slavery, even though there might be similar features. The principle of living “under the order” does not apply directly to employment, but it at least moves in this direction, and we are wise in applying this text to the conditions of employment in our world.

Once again, it is helpful for us to broaden our understanding of Peter’s comments here by comparing them to similar teachings in Paul, to his household regulations. In so doing, we gain a wider perspective of the early church’s perceptions of Christian slaves. Paul also exhorts Christian slaves to be obedient (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25), but he emphasizes the importance of motive. They are not to be obedient in order to gain human approval; instead, they are to be obedient because they want to honor the Lord through obedience. They are to look to the reward they will gain from the Lord, not the reward they might gain from their masters. In living this way, they can also be evangelistic (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9–10). Furthermore, Paul threatens slaves with a warning about doing evil because it will bring punishment (Col. 3:25); this, too, is similar to Peter’s orientation.

In addition, Paul instructs masters (Eph. 6:1; Col. 4:1), urging them to be kind and just in their treatment of slaves. He buttresses this with the warning that they, too, have a Master, God, who will evaluate them on the basis of how they have treated others. Peter, on the other hand, does not exhort masters. Is this because there were no masters in the Christian churches to whom he wrote? If so, we have further confirmation that the churches of Asia Minor were comprised of lower social elements (see comments at 1:1; 2:11). While I think such an inference is reasonable, I am not persuaded that an argument from silence ought to lead us to any sure conclusions.

We can infer from the presence of slaves in the early Christian household codes that many slaves became Christians and that their behavior was potentially problematic. They had to be exhorted to obedience both because they sensed a new-found freedom in the church and because it was important to the success of the gospel that they be “orderly.” Such a concern in the early churches is, in my judgment, a clear reflection that the gospel created a new order of society, whether or not the earliest churches were able to work this new order out in a consistent manner. While they may not have done so in all its ramifications, as only time and situations can do, it remains true that the gospel itself created a people of God with a special identity, and this new condition led, because of the growth of the church, to social changes.

Contemporary Significance

IF THIS TEXT can be brought forward into our day to the world of employer-employee relations and to how Christians are to conduct themselves in such conditions, then we need to ask what the significance of this text is in our capitalistic society. Two angles can be used. The first draws its energy from the kind of interpretation and application we have outlined in the previous two sections, that of reordering the concept of submission so that it is consistent with the “order of our day,” namely, actions and behaviors consistent with a worker’s contract with his employer.

If the early Christian slaves had little option but to submit, then that part of Peter’s exhortation is rooted in a social condition that no longer applies to the employed in today’s world, a world preoccupied (often to its own peril) with personal rights. That is, if Peter urges slaves to submit because disobedience brings disrepute to the gospel, then a logical application today would be in the direction of living under working conditions that are according to the order of the day. If it is indeed contractually sound for an employee to protest a certain kind of working condition (e.g., racial discrimination), then it is acceptable for a Christian to protest such a practice and still stay within the order of submission to his or her employer. One has to believe that the progress we have achieved since the first century in the realm of personal and civil rights has altered what we expect as characteristics of submission.

I. Howard Marshall, in his stimulating commentary on 1 Peter, has proposed several guidelines for Christian employees who are considering such “submission” in our modern world.22 (1) All of our social relationships should find a behavior that is driven by a desire to do God’s will. (2) Our conduct ought to be consistent with the obligations we assume in our relationship to that person and job. (3) Our conduct ought to be determined by that relationship, not by what we think of the personal traits of the employer. (4) When we disregard our relational contract with its obligations, we do disservice to the gospel. (5) If we suffer as a result of our obligations, such suffering is both commendable and Christian; it is not unchristian to suffer!

As an example of the importance of living according to the agreement and obligations of one’s employment, I recall a conversation with Laura (my daughter) about her place of employment. This job occasionally required work on Sunday mornings. We informed Laura (who still was young enough to need our permission) that she could take this employment, but only if it meant an occasional Sunday morning. She cleared this with her employer, and the employer agreed. We did not think it was wise for us to lay down some law (e.g., one time in six Sundays) because the need would be determined by her employer. But we did leave open the warning that if it became too regular, she would have to terminate her employment and find something less intrusive into Christian order. In other words, it is important for Christians to live reliably within their employer’s expectations, but if those expectations become too intrusive into the needs of the Christian life, that kind of employment should give way to a higher calling.

I mentioned above the occasional need for Christians to oppose their employer while working “under the order” of our society. But is that the only way? And, more importantly, is this the Christian way? A second kind of application draws more deeply on the example of Christ, namely, on the value and effects of suffering. In a world driven by litigation (which is itself driven by the desire to sustain personal rights), it is hard for us today to see that sometimes it is best not to assert our rights but to endure some kind of social pressure. That is, it might be best for a Christian man to endure the shame of not being promoted or getting a raise, or of a Christian woman of not asserting her equality or fighting for equal pay, because of the gospel!

The assertion of rights, of course, is not always wrong; but we have become dominated by such assertions. Yet the way of Jesus was not the way of assertion; it was the way of self-denial and of suffering, by which he came to inherit the greatest glory of all—the right hand of God (Phil. 2:5–11). This profound example is the one Peter uses to root his exhortations; we need to do the same. A cruciform understanding of the Christian life is the one thing that is easiest to discern in this passage, though it may be the one item contemporary society resists the most.

The suffering of Christ is a paradigm of Christian existence. What Peter finds in his churches is a consistent pattern of suffering, injustice, and social exclusion. Yet he exhorts his churches to submit, even under such conditions. And, more importantly, he grounds his exhortation to endure injustice in the very life of Jesus. Now it might be argued that Peter had no other alternative because the churches, comprised as they were of the socially excluded, had no chance to pursue the righting of the wrongs. This could be the case; however, we need to examine ourselves to see if we prefer this view so that we can make our life easier and avoid the cruciform nature of Christian living.

Because of his understanding of the Christian life, Peter has found a situation to which the Christian message can especially speak, namely, a situation of injustice. Peter’s call to Christian slaves is to follow Jesus, endure injustice, and find their identity in God’s acceptance and his final vindication of what is right. While I would not say this is the proven method for every imaginable situation in today’s world,23 I am convinced that churches today need to hear the message about the cruciform nature of Christian existence, especially since our litigant society is wasting far too much of its energy in defending personal rights. Recently I heard of legal suits over apples dropping in one’s yard from a neighbor’s tree, of neighbors tearing down a “neighbor’s” wooden fence because it was partly in the first group’s lawn (but less than a few inches)—and the mess goes on. In such a society it is fundamental for Christians to sound forth a different message—that of Jesus Christ, who suffered injustice in order to testify to God’s grace.

How can we do this? (1) In the business world Christians should not be known for their assertiveness as much as for their industriousness, their work ethic, their kindness, their loyalty, their fairness, and their honesty. While they clearly will want to improve their “station in life” and will seek raises and promotions, there is no need for those desires to deafen the sound of Christian virtues.

(2) In our personal lives we need to suppress the desire to be noticed. Whether we are tempted to give money so our name might be placed on a brick at some conspicuous location, whether we are tempted to assert our child’s ability within the hearing of teachers, or whether we are tempted to trumpet our daughter’s swimming talents—whatever our temptations here, we need to learn from the example of Jesus who, though in the form of God and though equal with God, did not grasp for that same glory, but took on himself the very limitations of humanity so that he might accomplish his task (Phil. 2:6–11). While it may be difficult to give firm rules on this kind of “self-denial,” I am deeply suspicious that we confront this kind of decision far more frequently than we care to admit. I am also convinced that the example of Christ in his self-denying role plays far too little a role in our decision-making. Instead, we have become too much like our litigant world even to see our assertive sinfulness. But the Christian life, as exemplified here by Peter, is a life that is shaped by the cross.

(3) Another area of life where we need to let the pattern of the cross infiltrate is that of personal finances, especially for those who live in an affluent country. It is a tragic irony that on the very coins we use to assert our control over others, to accumulate goods, and to stockpile material possessions is written, “IN GOD WE TRUST.” This is the one area where we are more trusting in ourselves than in God, and yet it is here that we inscribe our national debt to God. A cruciform lifestyle with respect to possessions is found in persons who do not find their greatest pleasures in shopping, who are not motivated to buy more things when they get their paycheck, and who are not using the credit cards well beyond their limits. This cruciform lifestyle is found in families who have consciously decided not to buy a bigger and more prestigious house so that others might stand in awe of a home with six bedrooms, three garage doors, a sauna in the master bedroom, and a putting green in the back lawn.24 It is found, instead, in the lives of those who inconspicuously choose to follow Jesus in every adventure and share their possessions.

It might be argued that such a cruciform nature for Christian existence will not work! This sad charge is also tied into secular values. What does “work” actually mean? Surely we are not concerned with whether or not the practice of Christian giving will prohibit us from buying a sportier boat or a newer coat for winter. It may not work—in the short run. But the way of suffering is the divinely intended manner of bringing the greatest victory of God into the world. What really works is what works with God, and what works with God is the cross! The cross is a sterling example that, while we may be considered fools and conquered in this world’s eyes, we are considered victors with God. We may be considered poor in our society, but with God we are considered rich.

And this divinely willed manner of victory, a victory achieved less through self-assertiveness than through self-denial, is the paradigm for how we are to deal with others and with God. It has been said that no marriage vow would ever be broken if each partner lived a cruciform existence, that is, if each lived for the other and surrendered their wills to the other. This is not some utopian ideal. A married partner who seeks to live for the other, who seeks the happiness of the other, and who learns to say no to personal wants and wishes is living a cruciform existence. Such a pattern of life is not inherently selfish; rather, it is other-directed and fulfilled in serving the other. This is a true imitation of Jesus.

In addition, if church members learn to give themselves in self-sacrificing surrender to one another, church splits will not occur. When the vote does not go according to the pastor’s plans, when the choir does not get behind a certain special service, when the pastor speaks on topics that you or I would not choose, or when others are elevated to positions of leadership we might want—in all of these, individual Christians are often confronted with the option of cruciform living. Either we choose selfishness, and grumble and divide, or we choose cruciform living by conceding God’s will to other people and plans. Cruciform living also refuses to bring up a past decision (the “I told you so” approach) when it appears to have been misguided. I have heard people grouse for years about a pastor who was called. In so doing, they continue to express a selfishness and lack of cruciform living.

This very recipe of self-surrender is the precise formula Peter uses for those who treat Christians unjustly; this model is not just for the voluntary relationship and for the marital relationship. It governs especially the relationship of the Christian to injustice. In the words of Ronald Sider, who in his survey of the place of the cross in Christian living, argued that following Jesus did not necessarily mean acquiescence to injustices:

But it does mean that if they [the Christians] obey the biblical command to follow Christ’s example, they will refuse to regard oppressors as enemies to be reviled and hated. Rather, precisely as they remember that Christ died for their sins while they were still enemies of God, they will imitate God’s unfathomable love for enemies incarnated in His Son’s cross.25

As one looks through 1 Peter 2:11–3:12, one gains the impression that the “orderly behavior” the apostle enjoins on his churches is an orderly behavior anchored in the cross of Christ. It is not just a piece of pragmatic advice: Live orderly and you will not cause troubles for the church. Nor is it a piece of power: Live orderly or God will punish you. Rather, it is a piece of Christian theology: Live orderly because that is how Jesus himself lived and that is the kind of behavior God wills. Such a theological basis gives rise to its benefits, for in this way of living we will be able to further the gospel the most.

This text has great significance for our world today. While there are times when the Christian ought to assert himself or herself or when Christians ought to fight for their rights, there is another way—the way of suffering that follows the life of Jesus. This path of suffering injustice is not for the feeble or the weak-kneed; it is for those who are willing to pick up their cross daily and follow Jesus.

Original Meaning

The Motivation (2:19–20)

“FOR IT IS commendable” translates an expression that describes whether or not one pleases someone. In this case, it concerns pleasing God.9 The same expression stands at the beginning and end of these two verses, forming what is called an “inclusio”—a literary device that ties a section together and is used to give emphasis to this expression.10 What pleases God—if one is going to suffer—is suffering for doing good; God is displeased when his people suffer because they have acted in some rebellious or sinful manner. It is of God, Peter argues, for his people to endure suffering in spite of, or even because of, doing good. Thus, Christian slaves are to submit to their masters as part of their holy conduct (2:11–12). If they suffer in a submissive condition, then it is God’s will for them to experience the suffering; if they suffer for insubordination, then they are acting outside of God’s will for his people.