Submission to Authority
The next section of Peter’s letter deals with the subject of submission to authority:
- submission to rulers (2:13-17)
- submission to masters (2:18-25)
- submission to husbands (3:1-7)
1 Peter 2:13-17 Submission to rulers
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants (slaves) of God.
17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
This section is fairly straightforward:
Christians are to submit themselves to every authority instituted among men (v.13).
Respect is to be shown to the emperor as the supreme authority and to governors, who are sent by him to administer justice (14)
This is God’s will (15) so that by their good behaviour Christians may put to silence those who accuse them
They are free, (16) but freedom must not be used as an excuse for wrong-doing, for despite their freedom Christians are God’s slaves
So, submission to rulers is set firmly in the context of ultimate submission to God for if the king is to be honoured it is God who is to be feared (v.17).
Indeed it is ‘for the Lord’s sake’ that a Christian submits to authority, no matter what form that authority may take (v.13).
1 Peter 2:18-25 Submission to masters
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return;
23 when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Submission to masters (2:18-25)
From the previous section we see that submission to human authority is an expression of the Christian’s submission to divine authority.
This enables him meekly to accept the decisions of those who have authority over him.
This is of special relevance to slaves who are specifically addressed in verses 18-25 where they are instructed to submit to their masters even if they are harsh. The possibility of suffering unjustly is very real (vv. 19-20)
and if this occurs Christian slaves are to remember that they are called by Christ’s own example to endure it (vv.20 – 21).
It is highly significant here that there is no suggestion in these verses that Christians do not need to suffer because Christ has already suffered for them. Quite the opposite is indicated. The Christian who suffers for doing good must endure it patiently knowing that this is God’s will for him, for Christ himself has set an example for him to follow (vv.20 – 21)[1].
Verses 22 – 25, which depend heavily on Isaiah 53, set forth the sufferings of Christ as the supreme example of the innocent suffering unjustly and may be correctly understood as an elaboration of the principle stated in verse 21 that Christ’s sufferings are an example for the Christian to follow. Seen this way the statement of Christ’s innocence (v. 22), his refusal to retaliate or complain (v.23), and his committing of himself to God (v.23) are all clearly intended as an example and an encouragement to the Christian slave who is suffering unjust punishment. Furthermore, such an interpretation of these verses is completely in harmony with the teaching concerning suffering elsewhere in the epistle[2].
But if Christ’s innocence, his non-retaliation, and his committing himself to God are intended as an encouragement to the Christian who is suffering unjust punishment, how much more is the reminder of the results of Christ’s suffering?
The sense of purposelessness encountered by those enduring unjustly inflicted suffering is softened for the Christian by the realisation that Christ’s sufferings were by no means without purpose. Verses 24-25 serve as a reminder of this. Christ’s sufferings were redemptive.
The innocent slave who is unjustly beaten by his master is reminded that Christ too was unjustly punished, but not without purpose for Christ bore our sins that we might die to sin and live to righteousness (v.24) and as a result the wandering sheep has returned to the shepherd (v.25).
Perhaps, by implication, the slave might understand that his suffering too is not without a purpose, hidden and unstated though that purpose might be[3].
In the light of all this it seems to me that Peter’s use of by whose stripes you were healed will only be correctly understood when it is seen within the context of a discussion which presents to slaves who were sometimes unjustly treated the example of Christ whose passion provides the pattern for all who suffer unjustly. Such an understanding will also provide, with particular reference to the subject of this course, a clear indication as to whether the healing referred to in the phrase is intended to be interpreted as physical or spiritual.
The relevance of the phrase by whose stripes you were healed in a passage addressed to slaves who were sometimes unjustly flogged is immediately obvious. The word molops means a bruise, scar, or weal left by a lash and describes a physical condition with which the slaves were all too familiar[4].
To slaves who were unjustly beaten Peter points out that Christ too was beaten, and because of the wounds inflicted upon him they have been ‘healed’. The use of the second person (you were healed) in place of the first (LXX we were healed[5] is perhaps significant in that the first person is used in the first part of the verse (that we might live). The switch to the second person thus highlights the fact that it is particularly the slaves who are addressed here for it is for them that the use of molops (stripe) is especially significant.
But in what sense had the slaves been ‘healed’? Peter obviously intends them to understand here the forgiveness of their sins, for not only does he refer in the immediately previous clauses to Christ’s bearing of our sins that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, but he uses the conjunction gar in verse 25 thus identifying their ‘healing’ in verse 24 as what took place when as sheep going astray they returned to the shepherd (v.25). The fact that no such conjunction is found in Isaiah 53:6 may indicate that Peter is especially stressing this connection and certainly suggests that the ‘healing’ referred to is spiritual[6].
Furthermore, to seek to understand the ‘healing’ as physical seems to be totally inappropriate. There is no reference to the healing of disease anywhere in the epistle, let alone in the immediate context. The ‘healing’ referred to clearly means a spiritual wholeness which results from Christ’s bearing our sins on the cross and our return, as sheep who had gone astray, to the shepherd and guardian of our souls. The passage is, in fact, an encouragement to Christians to endure suffering, not a means of escape from it.
Next time:
1 Peter 3:1-7. Submission to husbands
1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,
2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—
4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.
6 And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
[1]Cf. 1 Peter 4:12-19 where the same teaching is repeated with reference to Christians in general, not only to slaves. The Christian who suffers is seen as participating in the sufferings of Christ (4:13) and is suffering according to God’s will (4:19).
[2] Cf. 3:8-18, 4:12-19.
[3]There is, in my view, no suggestion here that the slaves’ suffering might be redemptive in the sense that Christ’s suffering is clearly portrayed as redemptive in these verses. The suggestion might well be, however, that by following Christ’s example in enduring unjust suffering meekly the slaves might, by their Christ-like attitude, win others to Christ.
[4]Stibbs, A.M., & Walls, A.F., ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’, London, Tyndale, 1959, p.121. Cf. Best, op. cit. p. 123, Kelly, op. cit., p.124. Beare, however, while agreeing that the word well describes the common condition of slaves, claims that its strict meaning is a ‘cut which bleeds’ (Beare, op. cit.p.124). Bishop Wordsworth, as quoted by Beare, op. cit. p. 122, also sees a similar significance in the use of the word xulon in this verse.
“The molops is the wound produced by the chastisement of slaves, and the xulon is the instrument of the death of slaves. Mark the humility of Him, who being Lord of all, stooped to be the servant of all, and to suffer scourging and the cross as a slave; and was especially exemplary to that class which St. Peter is here addressing”.
[5]Peter replaces autou with hou and iathemen with iathete. In Peter the personal pronoun (LXX hemeis) is also omitted. By the change from the first to the second person Peter brings the thought sharply back to its particular application to the slaves.
[6]Cf. Kelly, op. cit. p.124, who interprets ‘healed’ as ‘restored to health from the wounds which their sins had inflicted’. Cf. p. 125 where Kelly rightly sees verse 25b as a ‘clear allusion to the readers’ conversion’ (cf. Best, op.cit., p. 123). Forgiveness of sins also seems to be the clear sense of the ‘healing’ referred to in Isaiah 53:5 where the Servant is pierced for transgressions and crushed for iniquities. Woodford, op.cit., p. 60, also takes this view.