What Freedom Motivates (Part 2)

In the late 1600s Richard Baxter was barred from preaching in his pulpit. It wasn’t because of an outbreak of the plague it was because of an outbreak of religious non-tolerance. Baxter was a moderate in the middle of two extremes during the English Civil Wars. Some of his stances and the cultural situation caused him for a 6 year period to be imprisoned (that’s what you did back then) for 18 of those months. After having been silenced for a season, on one occasion when he was able to preach again, Baxter said this:

"I preached as never sure to preach again," he wrote, "and as a dying man to dying men."

That’ll little quote has motivated me for years. Alongside of another Baxter quote, “We will all one day hear our last sermon”. To which some might say, “Praise be to God”. But that’s also a sober truth for both of us. This very well could be the last sermon I ever preach and it could be the last sermon you ever hear.

So how does this square with my commitment with what is known as verse-by-verse expository preaching? Those are fancy words for saying, I think the most healthy thing a pastor can do for his congregation is to A) stand before them and say—this is what God’s Word says. Where the text of the sermon is the driving point of the sermon…and not just a launching point for passionately preaching my ideas. But instead the point of the sermon is “This is what God’s Word says to us in 1 Peter”. B) And to do that in a systematic verse-by-verse way. Though we at times might do something topical for a shortened season. For the long haul the most steady diet you can receive is preaching through books of the Bible. It causes us to preach on passages which I might not normally preach on. It keeps me from just picking and choosing. That’s also an advantage. You know I’m not going to prepare a sermon to “get you”. I don’t preach “at you”. I preach to my own heart and try to lay open God’s Word and we do business with what God is saying to us.

But again..the question. How does this square with what I quoted earlier with Baxter when your text is addressed to first century slaves? How do I preach this in such a way that I preach it as a dying man to dying men and women? Let me tell you my commitment to this has been really tested this week—how do you preach a text on slavery when we are surrounded by race riots?

And this is one of those passages which has trigger words in it that will immediately cause your ears to perk up. But those antennae going up can also cause us to miss the point of the text. Or you could think, “I’m not a slave how does this passage apply to me?

Which in part is why I wanted to really preach this whole big chunk last week, but we couldn’t do that. I wanted to do that because I think there is a thread through this whole thing and it’s a major point about how Christians are to live in every single culture. And it’s something which applies, I believe, to every single person here this morning.

But I also know that we’ve got those trigger words in here that will cause us to be predisposed to miss the meaning of this passage. So I’ll tell you up front what I believe this text is doing..and when we read the passage in a moment I want you to listen to THAT and see if we can quiet down some of those triggers.

The main point, I believe is this:

Rather than giving license to rebellion, Christian freedom propels us into humble service for the redemption of others and the glory of God.

And I think that these specific things are only application points to that general thing. So then if you go into say this section on slaves or on wives or husbands what you ought to get out of it is very much connected to that bigger statement. So as we read this see if you can spot that. See if you can spot the text that’s calling for our suffering for the sake of others—see if you can hear what he’s saying about what our Christian freedom propels us to do. Place yourself perhaps in the position of a first century slave, or a first century wife, or a first century husband....and hear this unifying theme.

READ TEXT

Now when we read that bit about slavery if you are anything like me you likely saw in your mind a picture of an African-American on a plantation, perhaps with whip marks on his back. Or an African woman ripped away from her kids and family and thrown onto a slave ship and sent to another country to endure agonizing labor. It’s really hard for us not to think that way.

Or if you hear something like “wives be subject to your own husbands” you see the woman with a couple of black eyes, a system which holds women down or lifts men up at their expense. You might get uncomfortable by these statements. Or maybe it’s right at home, I don’t know.

Regardless of how you come at this text those things cause us to miss what Peter is actually saying here. So what we want to do is try to understand a little about what first-century slavery looked like and what it might have been like being the wife of an unbelieving husband in the first century. And so let me briefly share a little about how first century slavery was in fact different:

Racial factors played no role in 1st century slavery.

Education was encouraged (some even more educated than their owners)

Slaves could own property.

No laws prohibited public assembly of slaves.

And most could legitimately anticipate being freed by the age of 30.

That’s a huge difference. But let’s not paint to rosy of a picture. They were considered a sub-class of humans. You couldn’t crucify a Roman citizen but you could crucify a slave. They lacked citizenship and therefore the essential qualification of being human. Their marriages carried no legal force. They could be crucified just because the master decided they weren’t doing good anymore.

So it might, honestly, do us well to translate the word a little differently because we hear slavery and immediately we think of the slave trade. That’s not quite accurate. But it’s also not something where we can just say employee. It’s somewhere in between. ‘semi-permanent employee without legal or economic freedom’. But that’s long and so we just put something like slave or servant.

Your lot wasn’t a whole lot different if you were a woman in the first century. Their roles were very limited. They did not have rights of inheritance, they did not get their choice of who they would marry, they could not pursue education, and they didn’t really have freedom of movement.

Or consider this summary of the view of women in the first century:

Because she lacked the capacity for reason that the male had, she was ruled rather by her emotions, and was as a result given to poor judgment, immorality, intemperance, wickedness, she was untrustworthy, contentious, and as a result, it was her place to obey. Such a view of women was also firmly fixed in the legal tradition: women could not vote or hold office, could not take an oath or plead a case in court, could not be the legal guardian of their own minor children, and were legally dependent on either their father or a guardian.

That’s what it would have been like for you if you were a slave or a woman living in the first century. So we can summarize this and say that both slaves and women didn’t have a ton of freedom. What then, would happen if a slave or a first century woman hears something like this? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

You HAVE a new found freedom in Christ. And I think what you can see even here in 1 Peter is that seeds of a revolution are planted here. There are seeds in this that would eventually end the injustice of slavery and seeds which would help followers of Jesus not view women as property but as co-heirs with Christ.

First, notice that Peter addresses slaves and wives directly. That’s huge. They are people. There is a great deal of power even in this. You’ll also notice from last week that he says, “honor everyone”. That’s huge as well. And I’ll show you something cool from verse 7 here in a minute too.

But why not just tackle the injustice head-on? Why didn’t Peter or Paul or Jesus just call out slavery and the unjust things of the day head on?

That’s a valid question but it’s not considering the place of early Christians. It’s assuming a place of power which Christians didn’t have. Did you know that some 1/3 of the urban population in Rome as likely slaves? The whole Roman economic system was anchored in slavery. And Christians had absolutely zero power. Advocating for the overthrow of society was not even an option for the fledgling NT church in Rome. And so what they did was they reached people where they were, helped them live out the station which they were in, and in doing this plant seeds for change. After all isn’t this the very core of what they are saying. Yes, the big picture point here is about how this will end in the glory of God. But don’t you think that underneath some of this instruction is also how living in such a way is going to transform the society around them?

What do you think is going to happen if the gospel spreads throughout Rome and worldview starts to change. A worldview which we’ve seen includes slaves as ‘free persons”. A worldview which calls upon honoring ALL people in the image of God. A worldview which specifically addresses slaves as moral agents—as real people with equal status. What do you think that is going to do to an institution which rests on a belief that the nature and status of slaves was somehow inferior? The gospel goes against this wicked belief. And so you get the gospel to spread, you get discipleship to happen, you get worldview to change and what happens if you’ve likely also dismantled this system.

And so rather than saying use your freedom to be a revolutionary and fight for your rights what Peter advocates for is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

Rather than giving license to rebellion, Christian freedom propels us into humble service for the redemption of others and the glory of God.

To slaves this meant to do good regardless of the ethics of your master. Do him good. Aim to see his household thrive. If you get beaten for doing evil then it’s not going to do much good. It’s not going to be redemptive. But if you get beaten for doing something good then it’s going to communicate something.

Now how in the world do we apply this principle? I mean I know for a fact that none of us are first century slaves. Do we just talk about what happens when you get treated unfairly at your job? We certainly could apply that. But I think this principle goes even deeper.

What happens when you’ve been exploited or unfairly treated in ANY situation? What rises up within your heart? What responses come bubbling to the top? I think Sam Storms is correct when he says:

There is deeply entrenched in our souls a belief that if I’ve been exploited or unfairly treated I have the right to expose that person and bring them to some form of justice. And I can use any means at my disposal: slander, public rebuke, an angry e-mail, perhaps threatening them in some intimidating way. “After all, they deserve this, don’t they? There is such a thing as justice, you know.”

It feels so understandable. And it’s so easy. It doesn’t take much effort to get even. Furthermore, it doesn’t feel “safe” to just let it go and decide to bless the offender rather than curse them. After all, what if they take advantage of my kindness and repeat the offense?

What Jesus is saying here flies in the face of our cancel culture. Now again, I don’t think if we find ourselves in a place of power we shove this verse down the throat of someone we are abusing and say, “See look the gospel calls you to bear up under this.” No, we use this for our own hearts and say, “what’s happening in my heart when I’m mistreated. Or even what rises up in my heart when fear comes to the top—and the possibility of me in the future being mistreated comes as a possibility?

Look at verse 20. He’s saying there that you might do what is good and still suffer. How painful is that? I mean how hard is it to do the right thing and get wrong results?

In moments like this we can be incredibly tempted to give up. Abandon the Lord altogether. And we can become bitter. I did right things and bad stuff happened....so why even bother. That’s what was happening to Asaph in Psalm 73. He couldn’t see why he was doing good stuff, trying to follow God and he wasn’t benefiting at all—but his neighbor who didn’t follow God seemed to be living the good life. It can be a real temptation to abandon God in a moment like this.

We can also be tempted to lose sight of a redemptive focus. Our life becomes all about seeking justice and we miss the grace of the gospel. What Jesus lived—what Jesus did on the Cross—runs completely contrary to our way of thinking. We find it incredibly weak. Suffer unjustly? Come on, man? How can something like that actually be a good thing?

The truth of the matter is that the gospel really is the answer to our social ills. Of course it’s not just preach the gospel—but live out the implications of that. What does it mean that others are created in the image of God? What does it mean to honor everyone? What does it mean to love your enemies? All of those things flow out of the gospel story. See how the good news of Jesus relates to that principle that’s over this whole passage:

Creation---others oriented for the sake of the glory of God. Be fruitful and multiply. This creation mandate is really what we’re saying this text is all about. Adam and Eve were free—they were tasked with spreading God’s glory. And they would do this by working and keeping the Garden. They would do this by multiplying. That was them supposed to take the image of God and spread it.

But what happens in the Fall? We become about us. Rather than fighting FOR his wife, Adam fights against her in an attempt at self-preservation. And this continues all throughout the history of humanity. Rather than using our God given freedom---the high calling of being human—rather than using that for others and to the glory of God…rather than working for the redemption of others we work to make our name great and to save our own tails. Slavery is an institution in first century Rome because of this thing. And slavery happened in Europe and the US because of this very thing. It’s taking this principle of fighting for the redemption of others for the glory of God and turns it on its head—using people for my own glory.

So what would have happened if when Jesus came—and he gets beaten, he gets mocked, he gets reviled. What would have happened if he was all about preserving himself? What if he said, “I’m the son of God and I’m going to fight for my rights and hold onto my position?” He wouldn’t have died on a Roman Cross. What if he Jesus would have said, “you know here I am trying to follow the Father…I’ve obeyed him every step of the way…and here I am getting beaten, mocked, and suffering for doing good. I’m done with this.

But he didn’t do that did he?

Look at verse 24. “He 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.”

Do you see that? Do you see the principle here? Rather than giving license to rebellion, Christian freedom propels us into humble service for the redemption of others and the glory of God.

He laid down his own rights to die on behalf of others. His freedom propelled him into service of others. His wounds healed us. The very people who mocked him, spit upon him, etc. he was bearing their sins in his body on the tree.

This is what the gospel does. And this, Peter says, is what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to be people who follow this example. Who lay down our own rights for the redemption of someone else. Even if what that means is that we suffer for doing good.

You realize don’t you how unbelievably counter-cultural the claims of Jesus actually are. Love your enemies. Let that sink in. What would it mean in our nation right now if we took this serious. If you view Democrats as your enemy—what would it mean to really love them. I mean truly love them in Christ? Or if you view our President as your enemy? What does it mean to love him? If you view the police as your enemy—what would it mean to really love them? Or if Black Lives Matter is your enemy---what does love look like? Do you see what that does it stops us in our tracks. It causes us to listen. To ask questions of love. To try to hear what another person is saying. To honor them. To recognize their humanity.

And I believe this same principle flows through 1 Peter 3:1-7. There is much that could be said in this passage but we’re only going to dip into it this week. We might come back here next week and we might just move on to verse 8. But let’s dip our toes into the water here and see if this principle flows through this whole section.

How might the gospel impact you if you are the wife of an unbelieving husband. Again, keep in mind what it would be like in the 1st century. And what little rights you’d have. Also note that this text doesn’t say “women submit to men” but wives to their own husbands. And we know as the verse continues that this is to unbelieving husbands.

What he’s saying is they aren’t going to believe your message but your lifestyle is going to speak volumes. Again, it’s going to cause the questions to be asked.

Respectful and pure conduct causes people to ask questions. It certainly would have in Rome. Some have taken verse 3 as saying you never can dress up, shouldn’t have braided hair, never have jewelry. But that’s not the point of this text. That’s not what it’s doing. What he is saying is don’t let your external beauty be your calling card but let it be your inner beauty.

There is a ton of stuff that we could likely pull out of this text. And to be honest with you, I think it works better when ladies are expositing this text and working through the implications together. There are great Bible studies on this—and we have some amazing ladies Bible studies.

Again, I don’t want us to miss the big picture here of what Peter is doing. He saying here that wives must be beyond reproach, loving and serving their unbelieving husbands and not using their new found Christian freedom shouldn’t be flaunted and used as a means to NOT serve. The gospel isn’t a means to overturn society. The gospel is the end game. And again that principle flows through this whole passage.

That’s why I think in some ways the main principle to this passage could just as easily be an application point for men, singles, children, etc. It’s that same thread which flows through this whole passage.

And that’s why I think it’s also helpful—because this passage and anything I’ve said here could so easily be abused—I think it’s helpful to say that Peter isn’t saying that you shouldn’t establish boundaries in your relationships with others—nor should you not pursue legal protection if that exists. If you’re being abused you don’t need to stay in that. If someone is harming you this isn’t saying the Christian response is to keep getting abused. No, sometimes the most loving thing you can do is to report someone to the authorities. That’s why I say it’s important for us to see this big picture principle and then learn to apply it specifically.

Am I pursuing this person’s redemption? Is my motivating factor the glory of God and the redemption of the other person? You might be able to answer yes even as you pursue reporting someone to the authorities.

In fact, I really appreciated what Scot McKnight said about this particular passage, I think it’s true:

Focusing on submission is almost surely an indicator that one’s priorities are messed up. Husbands too frequently resort to demanding submission when they are unable to “get their way”; that indicates selfishness, not loving and devoted service to one’s wife (which is the way Christ loved the church). What the husband ought to be saying to himself is, “Why do I have to use force to get this done?” Often he has decided that his own desires and ideas have to be fulfilled and that his wife’s do not matter. Such behavior is not loving. Marriages that are full of love, respect, and honor rarely, I believe, need to resort to the issue of submission.

Last thing here in verse 7. In some ways it doesn’t belong here. Those under the emperor aren’t the ones in power, slaves weren’t in power, wives weren’t in power. And that principle of loving and even suffering for the redemption of others and the glory of God flows through this whole thing. But why in the world does Peter focus on husbands…and husbands who likely have believing wives.

Why is this passage here? Why talk to the husbands? And that helps us to see how revolutionary this passage really is. Now again there’s one of those trigger words here. He calls wives the “weaker vessel” And you just don’t say something like that these days. But I think Robert Rayburn is right:

Remember weaker” is being used in a context. A ming vase is weaker than a five dollar hammer; a Rembrandt canvas is weaker than a razor blade; and Mother Teresa was weaker than Mike Tyson! Peter is not talking about comparative worth, he is speaking of the reason why men have a special responsibility, laid upon them by their Creator, to show a particular regard for women and their wives in particular. It was not so long ago, even in secular Western societies that a man’s manhood was judged according to the way in which he protected and provided for the women in his life.

Wives are a treasure that are given to husbands to nurture and care for.  The Lord loves His daughters so much that He promises if we do not treat them with the care we ought it will hinder our prayer life. 

Did you know that God will stop your prayer life in its tracks if you aren’t loving and caring for your wife? He doesn’t care about your religiosity if you use your status as a husband for your own betterment and your own glory. That’s opposite of what we are called to do. That’s not a reflection of the gospel.

So how do we apply these passages? Well, we listen to them and do what they say. Whatever station you find yourself in. We use the power of our suffering for the redemption of someone else. Or if we find ourselves in a place of power we use that power for their redemption and the glory of God. This passage is entirely others focused. Our goal—and we’ll see this when we move to verse 8 and beyond—our goal regardless of our station is to bless others.

The gospel of Jesus frees you up to do that. It frees you to suffer because you know that this suffering is nothing compared to the eternal weight of glory. It pales in comparison to what awaits us. And so we willingly suffer—if it means that God is glorified and someone else is redeemed. Yes, this is part of the war that is being waged for our souls.

And this gospel also calls us to use any power that we have for the sake of others. The gospel frees us to do this because we aren’t living for a kingdom on earth but we are living for his kingdom. We don’t have to hold onto rights because our greatest aim is to see the glory of God spread to the nations.