Substitution, Righteousness, and Forgiveness through the Suffering Servant
In conversation with James Bejon.
The Servant as Substitution for the Sake of Righteous Living
First Peter 2:24 continues to pick up on the theme of what Jesus did do in contrast to what he did not do in vv. 22–23a prior. In v. 23b, Jesus is seen to entrust his whole self to God in terms of his life, work, legacy, and enemies to his heavenly Father who will judge justly. One now finds in v. 24 that Jesus not only entrusted himself to his Father, but further, ‘bore our sins in his body on the tree’. The idea of bearing sins alludes to three verses in Isaiah 53; specifically, ‘This one bears our sins’ (v. 4); ‘he himself will bear their sins’ (v. 11); and ‘he bore the sins of many’ (v. 12).124 First Peter 2:25 concludes the pericope, referring to the straying sheep who have been reconciled with their ‘Shepherd’. The most pertinent aspect of the verse lies in how it helps define how ‘healing’ should be understood in v. 24.
The Greek word used for ‘bore’, ἀνήνεγκεν, can take on the meaning of offering up a sacrifice (e.g., Heb 7:27; Jas 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5; Gen 8:20; Exod 24:5). In the present context, Schreiner argues that it must surely take on the meaning of ‘bearing’ since the object of the verb is the word ‘sins’. On the other hand, Karl Schelke, and more recently, Egan, argue that the Petrine author has drawn on the sacrificial language of Leviticus, precisely to spell out the implications of a sacrifice being offered. But there no need to dichotomise here. When one looks to the Day of Atonement in Lev 16:7ff, we may see a third way of understanding 1 Pet 2:24:
[7] Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting. [8] And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. [9] And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, [10] but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel (Lev. 16:7–10).
The key is in acknowledging both goats presented on the Day of Atonement. In Lev 16:22, the second goat (the scapegoat) is the one which bears the sins of the people of Israel and is then let loose in the wilderness to Azazel (16:10, 22). The language of Lev 16:22, ‘And the goat shall bear on itself their offences’ (NETS) is conceptually comparable to that of 1 Pet 2:24, ‘He himself bore our sins’, thus, it would make sense to see this as the emphasis presented by Peter. At the same time, however, the other goat—the sacrificial goat—does die in front of a wooden altar before having its blood sprinkled upon it (Lev 16:15–16).
The fact that Peter writes that the sins are borne in Christ’s body on the tree (a likely allusion to Deut 21:23), suggests that the sacrificial goat is also in view along with the scapegoat with respect to Christ’s death. The Suffering Servant, therefore, suffers precisely because he bears the sin of the people and dies in their place, much like the scapegoat and sacrificial goat in Leviticus. In this manner, Peter seeks to show the distinctiveness of Christ’s death by showing how the Day of Atonement reaches its telos in Christ, who, as the embodiment of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant bears the sins (and curse) of his people by giving up his life. Christ’s suffering and death presents a complete substitution for the people in terms of bearing their sin (as the scapegoat), and by dying in their place (as the sacrificial goat).
The purpose of Christ’s death is explained in the next part of the verse. First, he died so that those who believe in him might ‘die to sin and live to righteousness’. Given the context, the righteousness to which Peter refers is that presented earlier in 2:13f. (i.e., honouring the relevant authorities, loving the brotherhood, revering God, and in the more immediate setting, slaves honouring their masters, regardless of their treatment). Righteousness here, therefore, should not be understood forensically (as in believers being made righteous), but rather that they are to live in righteousness. Christ’s death does not, therefore, offer a licence towards sin and rebellion. To the contrary, those who call themselves Christians suffer for righteousness’ sake like Christ and the bondservant(s) that are held up as exemplars for the whole church to follow. As such, the ethics of Peter are firmly founded in his Christology.
Second, we are told by Peter that it is by Christ’s wound (μώλωπι) that one is healed (referencing Isa 53:5). The use of this word is significant as it appears only here in the NT, although it does appear in other early Christian literature (cf. 1 Clem 16:5; Barn 5:2). The suitability of using such a word is based on two reasons, as noted by Selwyn: (1) They are the kind of wound(s) that any household slaves would have carried. (2) They are also the wounds Jesus would have received during his passion. So, while Michaels’ point that this would be relevant for the whole community rather than just the household slaves is well taken (especially given 2:16 where the whole congregation is identified as servants of God), it is nevertheless also true that the slaves may have found such a statement particularly edifying as a theological point of identification with Christ. The type of healing which Christ’s wound brings is of a spiritual nature, specifically, the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. This is made plain with reference to Christ bearing the sins of the people in v. 24, followed by v. 25 speaking of wandering sheep returning to their Shepherd. To borrow the language of Social Identity Theory, it is the embodied prototype/exemplar who makes it possible for the people to be restored to their God.
New Life through the Servant: Forgiveness and Reconciliation
The need for forgiveness and reconciliation is laid bare at the outset of v. 25, ‘For you were straying like sheep’. The straying to which Peter refers is spelled out elsewhere in the letter. Before becoming believers, the Anatolian Christians were led by ignorant passions (1:14) and walked in futile ways inherited from their forefathers (1:18), characterised by living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry (4:3). The passive construct of ἐπεστράφητε indicates that the believing community has not returned of its own accord, but rather, God in Christ has bought about reconciliation by his wounds. Put differently, the passive construct indicates divine enterprise, and so reminding the recipients of their election. It is Christ, the Good Shepherd, who goes in search of his sheep and rescues them by laying down his own life (cf. John 10:14–18).
We now turn our attention more specifically to Peter’s use of the term ποιμένα (shepherd). Here, Liebengood provides our starting point. In Liebengood’s estimation, few Petrine scholars have adequately accounted for the merging of Suffering Servant imagery in 1 Pet 2:21–24 and the shepherd imagery in 2:25. The missing component, according to Liebengood, is the lack of engagement with Zechariah 9–14, especially in light of its recalibration of Ezekiel 34. Liebengood builds his case in three steps: (1) he demonstrates that 2:21–25 and its use of Isaiah 53 is arranged in such a way that it follows the Passion narrative and also resembles a pesher format. (2) He examines the title of shepherd within the context of the OT, as well as in the greater ANE. (3) Most significantly, Liebengood draws the reader’s attention to the uniqueness of Zechariah 9–14 in demonstrating that the shepherd is one who must suffer and die in order for restoration to be accomplished. (A point that stands in continuity with our narrative approach.) This theme is developed in constant reference to Isaiah 40–66 and is also brought to bear on the Passion narrative tradition. It ought not come as a surprise, therefore, that when Peter utilises the Suffering Servant motif from Isaiah 53 within the framework of the Passion narrative, that Zechariah 9–14 should enter the picture. Specifically, Zech 13:7–9 gives warrant for Christ dying on behalf of Yahweh’s wandering sheep and why Christians will also likely suffer.
In summary, 1 Peter 2:22–25 brings together the OT notion of the Suffering Servant from Isaiah 53 and conflates it with the Shepherd-King imagery found throughout Zechariah 9–14. For Peter, Jesus is both the Suffering Servant and the suffering Shepherd-King who must die to bring about the restoration of his sheep. By bringing together two apparently contradictory roles, that of the servant and the king, Peter draws upon the narrative of Israel’s Scripture to engage in further audacious acts of social creativity. Namely, he exhorts the whole church—drawing upon bondservants who walk in the footsteps of their Suffering Servant-Shepherd-King as his exemplars—to graciously endure suffering as it encroaches upon them in the ordinariness of their lives. What is perhaps doubly remarkable and goes unnoticed is how believers share in this identity with Christ, not only in terms of his servanthood, but also in his royalty. As the church follows in the footsteps of Christ, they render their royal-priestly service even if that leads to suffering and death, because their own Shepherd-King served them by dying on their behalf to gather them to himself. In this way, believers are brought into Christ’s family, thus providing a suitable climax to the Suffering Servant narrative.
From an Narrative Transportation Theory perspective, Peter’s rhetoric is counter intuitive. Ordinarily, a narrative designed to be told in a dominant public space would reserve the heroic character(s) for members of those dominant groups. Yet Peter shows no such interest. Instead, he presents a crucified messianic figure as his hero—a nobody from Nazareth (‘Can anything good come from there?’ [John 1:46]), and a man of perceived questionable paternity (John 8:41b)—as The One who embodies the prototypical characteristics of a godly life, leading to the redemption of his people. Either side of this centrepiece, Peter exhorts and elevates characters such as household servants, wives and husbands of unbelieving spouses, and even a king, who live (or lived) in the tension between God’s election of them and their subsequent rejection by the world. A life in which they were called to ‘follow in [Jesus’] steps’ (2:21), in the time between God’s promise and the full inheritance of that promise, even as they suffer.
Excerpt from David M. Shaw, Narrative, Calling, and Missional Identity in 1 Peter: Between Promise and Inheritance, BibInt 216 (Leiden: Brill, 2024), pp. 141–146. (Footnotes have been removed from this section for ease of reading but can be readily provided on request.)