Chapter 2 Verse 11 - Chapter 3 Verse 22

The Testimony of Christian Conduct (2:11-3:7)

The apostle has hinted in 2:9 that the privilege of being called the people of God has its attendant responsibility to live in such a manner before the world that men may be able to glimpse with some clarity the virtues of God in His believing children. At a time when the New Testament canon was incomplete, much less collected, when the doctrines of the faith had been preached in few places with such publicity and thoroughness as to give the populace an understanding of Christianity as a system of truth, it was imperative that every believer should preach with his life so as to adorn the doctrine and commend it to others. In our own age, with its neglect of the Bible, its desultory interest in matters theological, and its notion that morality can be fostered independently of Christian truth, the necessity for the open page of Christian conduct is fully as great, for only as the world sees a higher standard than it possesses, in constant flesh-and-blood demonstration, will it be convicted of the inferiority of its own. And whether or not the maintenance of this high level of conduct results, in the turning of many to righteousness, it must go on, for the very genius of the gospel is to make men new creatures in Christ, whether they live in a metropolis, surrounded by a million pair of eyes, or on a desert isle with only the stars looking down.

The two verses 11 and 12, far from being an isolated section, contain a comprehensive introduction to the statement of particular duties of a civic and domestic nature subsequently unfolded. Personal holiness is fundamental to social righteousness, so the apostle starts his appeal at that point, grounding it most effectively on the proposition that Christians are alien to the morality of a sinful world. They

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 460

are sojourners, temporary residents here (cf. 1:1). The atmosphere of their lives should be heavenly, in accordance with their spiritual origin in the new birth and with their ultimate inheritance. A somewhat similar line of thought is found in Colossians 3:1–3 and in Philippians 3:19, 20, among other passages. Leighton reminds us that the traveler, whether his accommodations excite pleasure or annoyance, cannot stay either to enjoy or deplore them, for he is intent upon progress toward his destination. The Christian pilgrim is in the world, but not of it.

Incidentally, we have before us confirmation of the position taken in our introductory study as to the significance of παρεπιδήμοις in 1:1. That the word is not intended to designate the readers as Jewish Christians in a state of dispersion from their native land is evident from Johnstone’s discerning comment-“When we remember that the character of Christians was exposed to even more of keen and jealous observation by enemies of the truth in Palestine than in pagan lands, such an argument in support of an appeal to abstain from ‘fleshly lusts’ as, ‘because ye are absent from Palestine,’ would manifestly be pointless and irrelevant in the extreme.”

The admonition to abstain from fleshly lusts has an almost Pauline ring to it. Perhaps this similarity should incline us to give fleshly lust as wide a bearing here as it has in Paul, taking in sins of the mind and temperament (cf. Gal 5:16–21). Included here, then, would be the spirit of strife and of insubordination which would thwart the attitude of submission upon which Peter is so insistent (2:13, 18; 3:1). Even so, the chief emphasis of ἐπιθυμία in this and the second epistle falls upon the grossly carnal aspect of pagan life out of which these Christians had been redeemed and to which they were in danger of reverting. It is reasonably clear that αἵτινες has causal rather than descriptive force here. The reason for the appeal to rigid abstention lies in the far-reaching effect of these lusts in their damaging warfare against the soul. How much is comprehended under ψυχή in this passage? The word often

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 461

gives trouble to translator and expositor alike. In 3:20 it is clearly the equivalent of person or individual, a usage found also in English. It is possible that all the Petrine examples can be pressed into this one mold, but the safer conclusion is that the inner life of man, his moral nature, is intended here. Persecution cannot touch this sanctum, but fleshly lusts can. What a delusion to suppose that carnal lusts injure the body alone! In reality, they pervert desire, enslave the will, and darken the understanding. They deepen the spirit of disobedience against God. So powerful is this operation that Peter describes it by a military term which means to carry on a military campaign (cf. James 4:1). Fleshly lusts, then, are not simply in latent opposition to the soul; they are actively at work to wreck it.

Then, as now, the world had an abysmal ignorance of Christian doctrine, but was capable of keen appraisal of Christian practice. The thought of the twelfth verse may be summarized somewhat as follows: the non-Christian community, annoyed at the presence within it of a group which does not adhere to its religion and customs, is ready to believe the worst about these nonconformists and label them as evildoers, criminals of a sort; yet this prejudice may be overcome if the saints will maintain such a consistent walk that a new opinion will be formed, based on closer scrutiny, leading to the actual salvation of the former accusers. To be a pilgrim, then, whereas it calls for a rigid separation from fleshly lusts, does not call for a withdrawal from the ordinary pursuits of life where men mingle and observe one another under a variety of circumstances. The plea here is for what Jowett calls an evangelizing character. Conduct which is universally recognized as praiseworthy and noble (καλήν) makes an appeal to the moral sense of mankind. The natural man approves much which he finds unattainable by his own powers, for every man knows more of good than be acts upon.

The charge against Christians as evildoers (cf. John 18:30) has echoes in several places through the epistle. To be the victim of them was to suffer as a Christian (4:16).

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 462

Bigg summarizes these probable accusations, largely on the basis of what may be learned from the book of Acts. “Charges of ‘boycotting’ or interference with trade, of setting slaves against masters, children against parents, and wives against husbands, would be made instantly; that of disloyalty to Caesar in some vague and general way was also immediate and inevitable.” It is interesting to note how Peter enlarges on just these items in his injunction to be subject to authority in state, society, and home.

Peter employs an unusual word (ἐποπτεύοντες) for behold, found only here and in 3:2. The noun ἐπόπται is used for eye-witnesses in 2 Peter 1:16. Whether or not the apostle had in mind its use in Greek religion is problematical. There it denoted one who had passed through all the initiatory rites enabling him to understand the mysteries. In any event, there is no harm in rendering as Hort does-“in order that as a result of your good works they may be initiated into your secrets and come to glorify God.” The word suggests careful, attentive observation, in contrast to the snap judgment previously entertained. There are some niceties of construction here which add to the precision of the thought. The participle ἐποπτεύοντες, by its tense, presupposes a sustained scrutiny of the behavior of Christians which at a later time (ἐκ denoting result) will cause men to glorify (δοξάσωσιν) God. The terminology suggests a reminiscence of Matthew 5:16, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” This occasion is called “a day of visitation.” Absence of the definite article is a clue to the meaning. It is not “the day of judgment” which is meant, for the indefiniteness of the expression and the emphasis upon glorifying God argue otherwise, but rather that time, whenever it shall come, when these observers will be spiritually awakened and will turn to God. There is sufficient evidence that visitation may carry this favorable sense (see Acts 15:14, especially).

Three sections follow, amplifying the injunction to cultivate praiseworthy conduct, with special emphasis on the

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 463

duty of submission, first to government and constituted society, then to masters in the household, then to husbands in the home. The key word ὑποτάσσομαι stands in the forefront of each separate charge (2:13, 18; 3:1). The verb is passive in form in 2:13, but middle in force, like the same verb in Romans 10:3 (see the discussion in Moulton’s Prolegomena to the Grammar of New Testament Greek, pp. 162, 163). Thus the voluntary character of the submission is conserved, as in Romans 13:1 and Titus 3:1.

The precise force of πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει is not easy to ascertain. The notion that κτίσει should be rendered creature may be dismissed, for it is not unto man as such that the submission is to be offered, but unto man by virtue of his position. The institution overshadows the person. Granting that κτίσει must be creation or establishment, the problem remains as to whether the whole expression denotes a human arrangement, taking its particular form according to human discretion, or one ordained of God for human relations. In either case there is no question to be raised as to Peter’s conviction about the powers that be, that they are ordained of God. It is simply a matter of the viewpoint he is taking, whether he is looking at these institutions as humanly operated, without any particular consciousness of a higher authority than man’s on the part of those who live under them, or whether the divine origin is intended to be stressed by the very terminology used. A rather strong case can be made for the former position. The presence of ἀνθρωπίνῃ is the more easily accounted for on this view; πάσῃ is no particular barrier to its acceptance, for Huther’s contention that “the demand that they should submit themselves to every human ordinance would be asking too much” is met by the fact that the ordinances here intended do not go beyond those specified in the context. If there was a danger in early Christian thinking of setting aside human institutions on the ground that they were man-made and frequently were of ungodly character, the words of Peter would be a fitting antidote. The truth that the powers that be are ordained of God is safeguarded, being found in διὰ τὸν Κύριον

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 464

rather than in κτίσει. Yet the troublesome fact remains that in New Testament usage κτίζω and its derivatives denote a divine operation. It seems unlikely that the present instance is an exception. Peter might have employed διαταγή or some similar word to convey the thought of ordinance without the connotation of involving a divine arrangement. The safest conclusion is that (ἀνθρωπίνῃ is intended to limit the scope of κτίσει, confining it in this case to God’s appointment for His creatures in the human family rather than in the cosmos as a whole.

At various times in the history of the church, sects have arisen which refused to acknowledge the authority of the state on the ground that their allegiance was only to God, who alone can be Lord of the conscience. Usually a strong pacifist tendency is found in such groups. A confusion of thought is frequently a contributing factor in the taking of such a position-the assumption that government is a part of the world-system of which the believer is not a part (John 17:14, 16) and which he is admonished not to love (1 John 2:15). True, the believer is not a part of the world, but he is very much a part of the state. If the state is a worldly institution, then so is the home, for both are comprehended under the κτίσει of verse 13.

In the seventeenth verse the language begins to resemble closely that of Paul in the epistle to the Romans. In fact, throughout the two portions one observes numerous similarities:

The king is superior, but is not supreme, for he is under God. Governors are sent through the Lord, which is the

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 465

probable meaning of δι ̓ αὐτου̂, though the reference could be to the king sending the governors. To Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, seeking to impress Jesus with the power he wielded, the Latter said, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11). It is of great importance to observe that the charge to obey magistrates presupposes a normal condition wherein rulers are measurably fulfilling their calling-the avenging of evildoers and the praise of those who do good. Peter himself has given us the classic limitation to his own principle. When ordered by the Sanhedrin to cease preaching the Gospel which his Lord had bidden him proclaim to every creature, he refused to desist, saying, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:19). However, the chief thing to be impressed upon Peter’s readers concerned not their preaching but their practice. Though they were regarded in the popular mind with disfavor and suspicion, on grounds already noted, so as to be reckoned evildoers (κακοποιω̂ν in both 12th and 14th verses), yet they need not fear such a charge in the presence of any magistrate worthy of the name, as long as their manner of life was above reproach. Gallio refused to hear the charges against Paul at Corinth, since they did not involve “a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness” (Acts 18:14).

The unfairness of the common attitude toward Christians is pointed out in the word ignorance, which is not the more usual word ἄγνοια found in 1:14, but ἀγνωσία. From its other New Testament occurrence in First Corinthians 15:34, as well as from its use in the papyri, one can detect a stronger sense of blameworthiness than attaches to ἄγνοια, which usually conveys simply the thought of inadvertence. Such an attitude of wilful ignorance “cannot be convinced, but may be put to silence” (Masterman). The definite article in τω̂ν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων may well point back to the very calumniators mentioned in verse 12.

In verse 16, the nominative ἐλεύθεροι indicates either that we have here a parenthetical statement connected with the

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 466

preceding verse, or better, that verse 15 is parenthetical and the ἐλεύθεροι is dependent on ὑποτάγητε in verse 13 -as Christ’s freemen, make your subjection to authority a voluntary matter, based on His will and the good to be accomplished thereby. Here we see the genius of Christian compliance with proper authority. It is not servility. It is rather a dedication. Yet, howsoever loyal one might be to the state for Christ’s sake, it would all be to no avail if subjection in that direction were neutralized by the absence of it in personal morality. So Peter appeals for that restraint which is ever the accompaniment of true freedom. Formerly the servant of sin, the Christian is now the servant of God (cf. Rom 6:15–23). No man can serve two masters at a time, but he must serve one. Hence the apostle warns against using freedom as a screen behind which to perpetrate sheer wickedness. This line of thought is carried on into the second epistle, where this temptation is seen to be accentuated by the persuasions of false teachers who “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government” (control, lordship).

Since his readers are servants of God, Peter proceeds to issue a cluster of crisp commands to them in the Lord’s name-“honor all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” The command to honor all men is remarkable in view of the Scripture’s portrayal of mankind in the unsaved state, a thoroughly uncomplimentary picture-depraved, blind, sensual, proud, rebellious-altogether falling short of divine approbation. Yet, if God, in spite of the searching and humbling indictment which He brings, can love such creatures and even seek their salvation at infinite cost to Himself, it is not unreasonable for Him to insist that His children maintain an attitude toward all men in keeping with His own. However sinful a man may be, he has this element of dignity, that he was made in the image of God. Sin has marred the image, no doubt, but has not effaced it. Several passages of Scripture bring this truth home. Because the image remains, men should realize the folly of supposing that God is like some idol fashioned by

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 467

man’s device, which would make man no better than an idol, disparaging the Creator and the creature alike (Acts 17:29). On the ground that man is the image and glory of God, Paul teaches the unseemliness of covering his head in worship (1 Cor 11:7). Because of the link between man and his Maker, James finds it inconsistent for believers to use their tongues in pouring out blessing upon God and cursing upon men.

A clear evidence of the dignity of humanity is seen in the fact that the Eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among us, not despising our humanity. He took not on Him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. He is not ashamed to call us brethren; He has consented to partake of flesh and blood with us. Being made in the likeness of men, He will never return to pure-spirit existence, but remains the man Christ Jesus eternally. The incarnation persists in the risen, glorified life of our Savior.

That the command to honor all men is inimical to every act or practice which degrades human kind is obvious. The slavery which made men mere property has largely vanished from the earth. It could not well remain in the searching light of this verse. But other forms of slavery remain, about which the Christian can never be comfortable as long as these words confront him in the sacred text, “Honor all men.”

It is difficult to explain the aorist tense here (τιμήσατε), beyond the general observation that it adds a certain emphasis appropriate to this initial command. The incisiveness thus imparted to the expression becomes diffused into the constant exercise of the subsequent commands.

Next comes a charge touching the believer’s relationship to other saints, in fact to all the saints, for that is the very point of the injunction to love the brotherhood. Let there be no favoritism which would mean corresponding depreciation. Let all be included in the circle of love. Every chapter sounds this note (1:22, 2:17, 3:8, 4:8, 5:14).

The first two commands have dealt with great groups. The last two deal with individuals-“fear God, honor the

BSac 98:392 (Oct 41) p. 468

king.” With what precise care are the words of Scripture chosen! Fear belongs to God, honor to the king. As one reveres the Almighty and acknowledges His sovereignty, he finds it possible to respect the head of the state. He will not cringe before him, for the fear of God banishes the fear of man; neither will he despise the ruler, lest in so doing he despise the will and wisdom of the Blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, Lord of lords. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.”

Chester, Pennsylvania

* * * * *

“We judge by analogy that the proper work of fear is to prepare men for motives of a higher kind. In civil life it certainly gets hold of men where patriotism, gratitude, love, admiration for examples of good citizenship, sense of humor, love of fair play, or principle of any kind, cannot stir them in the least, and it keeps at work upon them until they are able to respond to motives that are nobler than fear. It is thus in the family, the school, the state. Domestic affection, scholarly enthusiasm, love of country are powerless sometimes, and then we are held by fear while these higher motives are getting their hold. How hungrily many a teacher or parent watches for the first evidence of the awakening of this higher life!

“So it is in religion. The Scripture evidently regards love, toward God or man, as the highest motive on its list, but it expects, in a multitude of cases, to be able to commit the man to the guidance and tutelage of love only after he has been caught and conquered by fear.

“Further, we judge by analogy that an advancing Christian character will depend less and less upon fear.... It is, indeed, true that fear alone does degrade. It is also true, and it is a truth that often needs much more to be insisted on, that love alone softens men into weakness or lets their passions grow strong for rebellion by-and-by.”-Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1906.

[1]

----

[1]Dallas Theological Seminary: Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 98. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1941; 2002, S. 98:459-468