Gospel-Shaped Submission And Suffering

Introduction

When Seth asked me to preach, and assigned me our text in I Peter, he probably didn’t realize (and I didn’t recall until I looked it up) that he was asking me to preach from a text that I don’t particularly like or enjoy. In fact, if I made a list of my top ten least favorite passages in the Bible, this one would undoubtedly be high on that list. I don’t mean that these passages are not inspired Scripture; I believe they are. I think this one is! I mean only that they can raise serious ethical questions, and must be handled by interpreters today like one might handle a destabilized nuclear reactor. Used appropriately, it could power the life of a whole town. But one wrong slip, trip, or fall, and thousands could be harmed by its destructive force. As a result, this sermon is going to “feel” a little different from how I normally preach. Those of you accustomed to my regular attempts to passionately exposit Scripture and apply it to our lives as a Word from God will recognize the differences immediately. I’m going to ask you to think with me a lot more in this message. And to wrestle with some serious questions. Questions to which I’m not going to provide easy answers.

But before we dive in, we need to understand a little bit of what is going on in the background into which Peter writes. It has been scarcely three decades since the infant Christian faith burst onto the scene of world history. And far less time than that has passed since Christianity came to be regarded as more than just a small sect within Judaism. At every turn, new questions are being asked about what it means to live as a follower of Jesus in the first century Roman world. We don’t know precisely how the believers Peter speaks to came to know the story of Jesus. But we do know that they were mostly Gentiles, and mostly converts from the fringes of society and the bottom rungs of the social ladder. And we know that they are people who have begun to suffer even further shame and reproach for their commitment to Christ. So what does Peter say to these suffering believers?

Peter’s response, and our text, comes in three parts. In verses 13-17 Peter speaks generally about the importance of his readers submitting to the governing authorities of his day, especially the Emperor (Nero). In verses 18-20 he then addresses specifically the slaves who are among the readers, and exhorts them to submit to their owners. And finally, in verses 21-25, he grounds his exhortations in a beautiful re-telling of the Gospel story that emphasizes how Christ suffered unjustly on the cross, and bore our own sins and sufferings in himself.

2:13-17 - Christians should submit to governing authorities because civil obedience gives the Gospel a good name.

Peter exhorts these impoverished believers, who live in a society increasingly hostile to the Christian faith and message, to recognize that God is sovereign over their rulers. The emperor Nero, and the governors he sent, were harsh tyrannical dictators. Peter urges submission to them. To do anything else would likely have brought only death to the burgeoning Christian movement. If becoming a Christian in the first century came to mean becoming a poor citizen of Rome, it would only hinder the growth of the Christian faith. So Peter urges submission. This poses special challenges to us today. We are no longer in the same boat as Peter’s readers. The Christian faith in North America is not an infantile struggling minority whose very existence is being threatened. So how do we bring a word like Peter’s from the ancient world into our modern one? If the Christian call is obedience, then what does this say about the claim, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” which the American Declaration of Independence makes? What of the Revolutionary War? Is July 4th a celebration of a sinful act, of a nation living by its very existence in a sinful state of rebellion against authorities instituted by God Himself? Many Christians through the ages would answer yes. And how should we respond to these biblical injunctions in relation to our own current government? Is a protest, like the recent “teacher protest” in downtown OKC, an inherent act of sin against Peter’s command to “be subject” to the Emperor as supreme? We have to wrestle with the fact that the circumstances of Peter’s readers are vastly different from our own. And we have to ask the difficult questions of what that means for how we bring such a text into our own present context. One author explains well;

The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Peter Bridging Contexts

What we see here, then, is a change of circumstances that leads to a change of how we are to apply the Petrine injunction. So the questions we asked in the preceding paragraphs are important as we seek to apply this text to our world.

To answer these kinds of questions involves more than simple yes and no answers. It requires an awareness of the relations of Roman citizens and noncitizens to the emperor and a solid grasp of what relationship such groups have to our specific form of government. Such issues are not simple, but neither are they so beyond our reach that we should despair of trying to resolve them. Instead, we recognize that application is in some sense immediate for many people, and we seek to be as faithful to the will and revelation of God as we can.

In my judgment, the change of circumstances that can be found in moving from a Roman emperor like Nero to life under a British prime minister or an American president is so cataclysmic that major changes in the ethical directives must also be made. That is, “living under the order” no longer means “submission” in the way it did in the first century. What we do now is to live decently and as good citizens, but we can still be good citizens in vehement protests and civil disobedience in a way that was completely outside the capacity for first-century citizens (and noncitizens). We ought to respect our leaders, but we do not for a minute think we have to obey their every wish—out of a fear of serious punishment.

Though we must be careful, I think it can be appropriate to draw some general applications about a general submission to government authorities. It is still true that disobedience to human governments could bring a bad name upon Christianity within them. Thus, some of Peter’s evangelistic concerns remain at play. And God is still sovereign over every human government. Obedience to human government is still appropriate, except when obedience to human government would cause disobedience to God himself and his laws. But it is always true that when the laws of God contradict the laws of men, “We must obey God rather than men” ().

civil obedience gives the Gospel a good name.

2:18—20 - Even slaves should submit to their masters, good or unjust, because God both sees their plight and rewards their unjust suffering.

Many of those to whom Peter writes were living as slaves under the Roman system of slavery. They almost surely had endured some of the gross abuses that were the common lot of slaves in that day (see for example, ). Among his readers would be those who had been beaten, flogged, ripped from their families, sold as property, and probably even sexually abused. They may have seen some of their friends or relatives executed summarily and unjustly before their very eyes. Peter writes to them to be, “subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Perhaps even more painful is Peter’s statement in verse 20, “For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure?” It is easy to understand and sympathize with the claims of those who say that behind Peter’s words lies the unchallenged presupposition that sometimes a slave simply deserved a good beating. How do we handle such an injunction today? Many today use such texts as objections against the Christian faith and message, claiming that the Christian Bible encourages and enables abuse and human trafficking. And sadly, we must admit that historically, such texts were used commonly by Christian slave-owners in American history to justify their sinful slave-trade. They could point to this passage and claim that God had endorsed slavery. What do we do with such questions? The truth is, we must recognize the context into which Peter is speaking. Calls for widespread slave revolt would have brought a bad name upon the infant faith. Peter’s heart is one of apologetic. He wants the slaves to whom he writes to give a good name to the Christian faith by being the best slaves they can be. By their amazingly obedient and respectful behavior, they silence those in their day who object to Christian faith (2:15). David deSilva explains well;

An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation Preaching to the Spirits in Prison

Peter joins several other New Testament voices in calling believers to dispel the prejudice against them through moral, virtuous living (see also 1 Thess 4:11–12; 1 Tim 3:7; 6:1; Tit 2:5, 8). This includes, in large measure, making every possible concession to the norms of the non-Christian society in order to show that Christians can fit in with conventional morality (save for specific points of conflict, like idolatry) and thus avoid conflict over matters nonessential to the Christian confession. This should lead us to take great care in our application of New Testament codes of conduct for slaves, wives, the governed and so on, lest we take what was a concession to first-century culture and read it as a mandate for twenty-first-century Christianity.

Converted slaves and wives would come into unavoidable conflict in the domestic sphere if the master or husband had not also become a Christian. Those within the household were expected to follow the religion of the head of the household (usually, but not always a male) as part of their recognition of the respect due the head. The Christian’s avoidance of idolatry would automatically bring tension as the wife or slave refused to participate in the domestic rites that involved invocations of the household gods. For the slave it might also entail refusing commands that would compromise morality (for, indeed, slaves could also become the sexual playthings of the masters and mistresses of the household). Peter wants to ensure that if a slave must suffer in the household, it will not be for any perception of laziness or disrespect, but only for the sake of his or her commitment to Christ and the way of life Christ enjoins (1 Pet 2:18–25). Similarly, the Christian wife will so embody the cultural “ideal” of submissiveness, modesty and quietness that this will outweigh any displeasure incurred on account of her unwillingness to yield in matters religious (1 Pet 3:1–6). The instructions given to Christian slaves become the advice given to Christians in general (cf. 1 Pet 2:18–25 with 3:13–22; 4:12–16). The expectation throughout is that Christians can overcome the prejudice against them by showing that discipleship does not make people subversive of the social order. In fact, it makes them better subjects (in every sphere, both public and domestic).

Once they are divorced from their original context, it is easy to see how these texts could become manifestos for maintaining the status quo, even under oppressive and unjust conditions. Such uses, however, lose sight of the author’s goal for giving these instructions (as well as the arenas in which he calls for “civil disobedience”) and make the prophetic Spirit a cipher for domination systems. Peter tells slaves to be the best slaves they can in this situation; a few decades later John denounces the domination system—the great whore—built on the backs of slaves (Rev 18:11–13). We need great discernment to know how God would have us speak at any specific time and in any specific situation.

I think slavery is an inherently evil institution, and that Peter’s admonition and attitude should not be taken as a universal ethical ideal. Slavery remains a great evil today that has not gone away; it has only gone underground. By some estimates, there are currently 35 million human beings abused as labor and sex slaves throughout the world, including an embarrassingly large number here in North America. I would never repeat Peter’s words here to such enslaved people as though they were God’s eternal word to them. I do think this passage is inspired Scripture. But it must be read, and interpreted, according to a redemptive hermeneutic, a realization of differences between the first century and today, and most importantly, against the backdrop of Jesus’ own claim to be inaugurating in his ministry the great eschatological jubilee that proclaims “liberty to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” (, ESV).

I maintain that there is no objection to the Christian faith here. If Peter failed to represent in his thinking, and in some of his admonitions, a moral and ethical ideal (and I think he did, though others disagree), then he did so not because of anything inherently deficient in the Christian faith or message. He did so not while following the steps of Jesus. Rather, he did so precisely because he had not followed him far enough. These texts aren’t blights on our faith. They rather, if anything, give us striking examples of the realization that the full implications of the Gospel of Jesus had not yet been fully realized and lived out, even by those who walked with the very Son of God. And this realization challenges us to take up that same Gospel, to follow that same crucified and risen Savior more fully, and to pause and consider all the ways that we have still failed to fully realize the revolutionary and counter-cultural implications of that same Gospel. It challenges us to think through the Gospel again from the beginning; to bring it anew and afresh into our own lives and theology, and to walk further along the road Jesus left for us than we have as yet traveled. The radical words of a simple Galilean carpenter-turned-rabbi are still echoing through the halls of history. And we have not yet listened closely enough.

A Word about imperfect authorities

A Word about abusive authorities

A Word about hermeneutics and the problems of cultural relativity

In 999 biblical texts out of 1,000, bringing the ancient word into the modern world is a relatively simple task. It takes little struggle to know how “Thou shalt not murder” or “Thou shalt not steal” function as commands to be obeyed today. I urge students all the time to follow a simple procedure when studying their Bible: go back in time and figure out what the original readers understood the original human author to be saying. What the biblical writer intended to say to them is what the Spirit still intends to say today to you. Find the mind of the biblical writer, and you have found the mind of God. But there are passages where this process is not so simple. When the differences between the context and culture of the ancient readers and our own are sharp enough, things get a little more complicated. To take a simple example, few of us read as a direct modern command for today. (Did you bring your poop-trowel with you to church today? No?! What! You sinner you!)

I think the context of Peter’s readers make these two paragraphs examples where there is such sharp difference between our context and theirs that we must exercise extreme caution to prevent abusers being enabled. It may be helpful to imagine the following scenario. Let’s imagine that there is an ancient pirate ship sailing the seven seas. These are the days before cell phones and wifi. And this ship never returns to land. It simply sails the sea, pillaging, pilfering, stealing, and slaying. It has sailed for so long that whole generations have been raised from birth on this ship, and now have their own children, who’ve never known life anywhere but this boat, and don’t even know that such a life exist. Now imagine that someone on that boat finds a copy of the Gospel of John. This young man (let’s call him Pete), reads the Gospel of Jesus and follows Jesus. He shares his faith, and soon there is a small community of brand new Christians. How do they follow Jesus in their context? Their very day to day existence is lived in service of evil. Every bite of food they take is stolen from the mouths of the murdered. Should they start a revolution? Such a move would surely cause the death of each of them. From their perspective, Christianity itself would die with them. One has the responsibility of sharpening the swords every day that he knows will take lives in violent piracy. Should he rebel? Does another refuse to swab the decks, because the whole purpose of the ship is evil? If they did, this whole “Christianity” idea would gain a bad name all across the boat. Becoming a Christian would mean becoming a bad pirate. Pete has a different idea. He writes a letter for all the new Christians, having the mind of God, and urges them, “Be the best pirate that you can be. Obey the masters who are over you. Swab the decks and sharpen the swords for Jesus. Let us show them that being a Christian makes one a better citizen of this ship, not a worse one.” This advice would make perfect sense in the context of this young, isolated community. But it would be a great tragedy if Christians two-thousand years later came across his letter, as a part of their Bible, and took it as a modern day word from God directly to them. “God established piracy” some might conclude. “God wants us to be pirates” another urges. “We should be ok with pillaging, stealing, and slaying” another thinks. “We cannot claim to the world that rape and murder and theft are wrong today - after all, isn’t this word clear? God obviously endorsed such things on that ship long ago.” The fact is, our situation is not the same as that small infant community on that pirate ship so long ago. And our situation is not the same as the one that Peter’s readers face. And so we must be extremely careful with how we bring such texts into the present.

2:21-25 - Believers suffer injustice patiently by remembering the compelling image of a God whose Son came to die the death of a slave, and endured the greatest injustice as he suffered in our place.

2:21 - Christ is both the example of right response to unjust suffering, and the one who’s suffering makes salvation possible.

In the final paragraph of our text, Peter encourages the suffering believers to walk the way of the cross. He does so by first combining two different metaphors; “example” and “following.” The idea of “following” was related to the discipleship calls Jesus so often made in his earthly ministry. “Come, follow me,” he said so often. On the other hand, the word “example” is used to describe how children would first learn to write by tracing an already outlined pattern.

But perhaps most important, Christ suffered “for us.” That is, in his suffering on the cross, Christ was our vicarious substitute; he took our place, and bore the wrath of God that rightly belonged to us (). Paul articulates the same thought in . One author captures the Gospel well when he writes, “…God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved” (Cranfield, Charles).

When we face unjust suffering today, we can rest assured that we are not pioneers on virgin soil. Christ has walked this way before. And he has left a path for us to walk, and a pattern for us to follow. Peter outlines five ways that Christ serves as both the example we should follow, and the one who enables us to follow it. He uses four relative clauses, made up of language that comes from , in the great passage about the Suffering Servant, and ends with a final overriding statement (also from ) about God’s sovereign rule. Peter has seen that this servant was Jesus. And he sees in that passage the description of Jesus’ own sufferings. And in Jesus’ sufferings he sees the pattern for us to follow, and the salvation he purchased that makes it possible.

2:22 - Christ’s suffered unjustly, because he suffered sinlessly ().

Peter highlights the fact that Christ remained sinless throughout his entire life (; , ; ; ; ; ). What Jesus endured upon the cross was not anything he deserved. No one has ever deserved such suffering less, and no one but Jesus has ever lived in such a way as to not deserve it at all. His suffering was both unprovoked, and undeserved.

2:23 - Christ trusted vengeance into the hands of God, not himself ().

The Gospels regularly explain that Jesus remained silent (for the most part) when he stood accused, abused, and reviled (/; /; ; ). And Jesus had himself in his teaching urged that his followers “bless” those who curse them (). Jesus taught that his followers, rather than return evil for evil, should rest confident that God himself would one day set all things right in the final judgment. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. Jesus modeled this confidence in his own passion, and it serves to this day as an example for us as we face suffering. Tom Schreiner says well, “Jesus kept “entrusting” to God every dimension of his life, including the fate of his enemies. In particular, he knew that God would judge rightly on the last day, both vindicating him and punishing his enemies if they refused to repent. The Scriptures nowhere teach that believers can refrain from retaliation because they become stoics in suffering and put on a brave face. Rather, believers triumph over evil because they trust that God will vindicate them and judge their enemies, putting everything right in the end (cf. ).”

2:24a-c - Christ’s death Atoned for our sins, and enables us to live righteously (, ).

Peter here explains two aspects of Christ’s death on the cross. First, it was an atoning death that bore the punishment of our sins for us. But second, it is by that death that we find the power to live righteous lives. How on earth can a Christian who faces unjust suffering endure? How can we truly learn to bless our enemies, and pray for those who hate us? Only by the power of the cross. The Gospel alone can empower us to such righteous living, as we learn to die to our natural inclination to fight back, and learn to live by the power of the cross.

2:24d - Christ’s sufferings on the cross purchased our redemption ().

These words are often quoted by those who see physical healing promised in the atonement, and claim that Christ bore our “sickness” as well as our sins. But Peter likely has no such idea in mind. It’s true that Christ’s sufferings on the cross are the power through which physical healing comes. But the context makes clear that Peter is speaking here of spiritual healing, not the healing of the body. “We must also remember that frequently in Scripture the sinful condition of the soul is portrayed as analogous to a body suffering from various wounds. Forgiveness and restoration are therefore described in terms of a bodily healing. By his atoning death the great Physician has truly ‘healed’ our hearts…Thus the context of clearly tells us that it is primarily spiritual healing from the disease of sin, not physical restoration of the body, that the apostle has in mind” (Sam Storms).

2:25 - Christ is, ultimately, our only Master and Lord ().

Peter concludes his thought, and we can conclude this sermon, with a simple and profoundly encouraging reminder - Christ is the true master of every believer. They may temporarily serve in this life a human master, just or unjust. But in the final analysis, when they “returned” to the Lord, they ceased their rebellious straying from their true Master. And they have now come home to Him. They can endure their suffering while “mindful of God” (2:15). He is always just. He is always fair. He sees their suffering. He sympathizes as no one else could, for he has endured such suffering himself, and it was infinitely less deserved in his case. And he will one day judge with complete righteousness. Christians, even when suffering for their faith, even under unjust and abusive human rulers, are safer than they could ever have dared hope, for Jesus, “The Great Shepherd,” watches for their welfare. Turn to him in your suffering. He alone knows, sees, cares, and will one day bring justice.

Conclusion