The Consequences of the Calling—1 Peter 2:18–25
A sample from ch. 6 of Narrative, Calling and Missional Identity (pp 119–23; releasing 30 Nov)
6.2.2 Be Subject to Your Masters
As intimated above, the life of the slave or household servant was far from ideal. Indeed, they were often subject to horrific abuse. The thrust of Peter’s argument is that regardless of their master’s conduct, slaves were to submit themselves to their masters ‘with all fear’. The fear of which Peter speaks is directed not towards their master, but rather towards God.[20] And while there is some contention over the matter, decisive in the context is the reference to being mindful of God (v. 19), and the notion of fearing God expressed prior (v. 17). In fact, every instance of ‘fear’ that appears in 1 Peter (1:17; 3:2, 6, 14, 16) carries the implication that it is to be reserved for God alone.[21] Christians are to fear God and honour the emperor. Similarly, Christian οἰκέται are to fear God, and subsequently submit to their master, even when are abused.
The key to understanding this imperative is twofold.[22] The first is in the paradox expressed in 2:16 where believers in the church are described as both ἐλεύθερος (free) and as θεοῦ δοῦλοι (servants [or slaves] of God), a description that applies to both οἰκέται and free people of the church. As an act of social creativity, the use of such language creates a sense of unity by reminding free people in the church that, ultimately, they belong to God, that they are his δοῦλοι. The οἰκέται are, likewise, reminded that their social status in the world is no longer their defining feature now that they are in Christ. Ironically, as θεοῦ δοῦλοι they possess a new-found freedom (ἐλεύθερος) that was superior to what the world could ever offer.[23] As Edmund Clowney has stated: ‘[The servant’s] master cannot enslave him, for he is Christ’s slave; he cannot humiliate him, for he has humbled himself in willing subjection’.[24] Consequently, in Christ, both the servant and the free become a people belonging to God (2:9–10).[25]
The second point to be made (on which see further below) is that church members are, corporately, the suffering servants that follow in the footsteps of their Suffering Servant-King. As Jesus suffered unjustly, so too it is probable that those who follow him will also suffer unjustly. In this way, the οἰκέται are elevated as exemplars within the community, because it is they who most closely embody the prototypical characteristics defined in Christ (2:22–24). In other words, what the wider church members might experience in public spaces is felt more acutely by οἰκέται in their household context. Hence, wives are, likewise, to be subject to their husbands regardless of their husband’s faith or lack thereof (3:1),[26] and likewise, husbands are to show honour to their wives (cf. 2:17). To share in bearing the burdens of the οἰκέται who suffer unjustly is to see an image of Christ whose unjust suffering brought about redemption for the whole Christian community. Dennis Edwards’ words as an African-American scholar are pertinent at just this point: ‘[Peter’s] advocacy of nonretaliatory behavior is not an endorsement of slavery and is also not an indication of the weakness of slaves’. Rather, it is ‘to grasp what Christlike behavior looks like in one of the most difficult situations imaginable’.[27] In other words, when οἰκέται suffer unjustly, their experience reflects the gospel and it is precisely for this reason that they are mentioned first in Peter’s Haustafel.[28]
This understanding of the servant’s suffering has been challenged recently by Jennifer Bird. Her reading of 1 Peter stated succinctly is that the author is complicit, if not directly advocating, domestic abuse of wives in particular, but also of οἰκέται. In Bird’s view, 1 Peter robs slaves and wives of any autonomy whatsoever, and she construes the command to submission as abusive.[29] Bird goes on to explain that on any reading of Christ’s suffering and death in 1 Peter, there can be no room for a redemptive understanding of suffering:
On the one hand, if Jesus’ example of suffering is truly as the [resurrected] Son of God ... then there ought to be no room within the Church to suggest that suffering itself can be redemptive or a part of making one more like Christ ... On the other hand, if Jesus suffered in solidarity with the outcast and the oppressed, he was still doing so as a male with a following. The power discrepancies between Jesus and the slaves do not allow for a fair comparison ... if Jesus died as one of the lowly, then his death was for nothing if the lowly continue to be persecuted.[30]
Several things may be said in response. First, regarding the question of autonomy, Bird is mistaken in reading the text from ‘above’—that is, from a position of hegemonic power, rather than from below.[31] The Petrine text is written, not to a group of power mongers eager for greater control, but to a besieged group of freshly minted Christians (elect sojourners [1:1], and resident aliens [2:11], i.e., outsiders), who are struggling to understand what their new faith looks like in the cauldron of everyday life. Just as believers had to work out ways of honouring the emperor without bowing in worship to him (2:17; contra the understanding of Warren Carter),[32] so too wives and οἰκέται faced the challenge of living with unbelieving husbands and masters in such a way that they remained honoured, even as they stepped away from worshiping the god(s) of their respective households. Contrary to Bird’s claim, this is a summons to courageous autonomy as their devotion to Christ may well put them in the harm’s way. If this were not so, Peter’s exhortation to not fear (3:6) would be unnecessary.[33]
Second, to suggest based on Jesus’ resurrection that suffering can no longer be seen to have redemptive or sanctifying purposes betrays a consistent swath of teaching throughout the NT. Of course, the Gospel Tradition focuses on Jesus in this respect, but we see a similar picture in the life of Paul presented in Acts. It is revealed in Acts 9:15–16 that Paul’s calling will entail suffering for the name of Jesus, yet who can deny that his witness, even in suffering, brought many to faith? (Acts 13:49–52; 14:1–7; 16:16–34; 17:1–9, etc.). Following Abson Joseph, we acknowledge Christ’s sufferings as unique in their redemptive quality yet one cannot overlook the fact that Peter seems to place his recipients alongside Jesus in this respect.[34] Similarly, Jennifer Glancy has noted, ‘1 Peter offers grounds for condemning the system of slavery by inviting comparisons between the abuse of slaves and the passion of Jesus’.[35] The efficacy of the Petrine churches’ sufferings is that they provide a window through which those who persecute them might view the sufferings of Christ and be provoked to repentance and faith.[36]
Third, Bird’s contention that the mere ‘maleness’ of Jesus and the fact that he had a following makes any comparison to a bondservant an unfair one can be countered on several levels. Initially, it may be said that Jesus was himself born into a poor family and that questions surrounded his paternity from the outset of Mary’s pregnancy.[37] Moreover, Luke indicates that Jesus was dependent on others for places to sleep (Luke 9:58). The implication being that Jesus was, on occasion, essentially homeless. Jesus’ maleness likely counted for little given his alleged dubious background and lifestyle (Matt 11:19). One may also discern that although Jesus had a following during his ministry, the emphasis during his passion is that all his power is laid aside and that his followers desert him (Mark 14:50; 66–72).[38]
Finally, it may be said that Jesus, in his own words, comes as a servant rather than one lording it over people, exercising despotic power (Mark 10:45). Contrary to Bird, then, we suggest that the gap between Christ and the slave is not as large as Bird would have one believe, and nor was Christ’s death in vain. Rather, it is the example and Spirit of Christ that empowers believers from all walks of life to endure suffering.[39]
Narrative, Calling, and Missional Identity: Between Promise and Inheritance can be pre-ordered directly at Brill here.
So, Karl Hermann Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe—Der Judasbrief, HTKNT, XIII, 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980), 142; contra Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 131.
Edwards, 1 Peter, 115–116; so also, Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, CSC (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2020), 151–52.
There is some speculation that the participle form of the verb here makes it dependent on the preceding imperatives of v. 17. E.g., Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 142; similarly, Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter, SBLDS 160 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 124. More preferable, however, is to see the participle acting as an independent imperative. So, e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, BNTC (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969), 116; also, Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 151, who notes that it makes little sense to suggest that one loves their brother (v. 17), by submitting to their master (v. 18). For a full discussion of the imperatival participle in 1 Peter, see Travis B. Williams, ‘Reconsidering the Imperatival Participle in 1 Peter’, WTJ 73, no. 1 (2011): 59–78.
‘The Narrative Integration of Personal and Collective Identity in Social Movements’, in Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations, ed. Melanie C. Green, Jeffrey J. Strange, and Timothy C. Brock (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 221, notes that irony ‘can be extraordinarily effective in subverting the intended and hegemonic meanings of public events’ (and, presumably, hegemonic cultural narratives as well).
Edmund P. Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, BST (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 113, cf. Luke 6:32–35.
Cf. 1 Pet 2:9–10; also, Gal 3:28.
On the notion of wives as being paradigmatic for mission in 1 Peter, see David G. Horrell, ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good: Wives as a Paradigm of Mission in 1 Peter’, EstBíb LXXIII, no. 3 (2015): 409–29. Herein, Horrell notes the parallels in the instructions given to both bondservants and wives concerning the need for good conduct and appropriate submission (p. 419).
Edwards, 1 Peter, 116.
Patrick T. Egan, Ecclesiology and the Scriptural Narrative of 1 Peter (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 131, notes that ongoing language of good and evil continues here, in anticipation of Psalm 33 LXX to be quoted later in 1 Pet 3:10–12.
Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 91. One weakness of Bird’s thesis is that, for the most part, it overlooks the legal status of women and slaves in antiquity (not to mention Christians in general). In cultures where minorities have limited legal rights or protection, non-retaliation and a godly way of life was perhaps the only recourse available to believing slaves and wives. On this, see Steven Tracy, ‘Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter’, CTJ 41, no. 2 (2006): 279–96; idem, ‘Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challenging Common Misconceptions’, JETS 50, no. 3 (2007): 573–94.
Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 92–93.
Travis B. Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World, WUNT 337 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 208.
Warren Carter, ‘Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.6’, in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Maria Mayo Robbins (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 14–33.
Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 208.
Joseph, A Narratological Reading of 1 Peter, 110.
Jennifer Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity, 150, though she finds evidence lacking for the application of this ideology in the ancient world.
Joseph, A Narratological Reading of 1 Peter, 110.
This is implied in Luke 2:24 based on Mary and offering two birds at the Temple after Jesus’ birth (cf. Lev 12:6–8). Matthew also informs his audience that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery (Matt 1:18–19). As Mary’s pregnancy unfolded questions surely swirled around the community concerning either the self-control of the couple or the faithfulness of Mary to Joseph. Additionally, we read in Mark 6:3, ‘Isn’t this Mary’s son?’, which may be construed as questioning Jesus’ paternity (cf. John 8:41, for the same insinuation).
So, Miroslav Volf, ‘Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation between Church and Culture in 1 Peter’, ExAud 10 (1994): 17, who notes eloquently that, ‘The root of Christian self-understanding as aliens and sojourners lies ... in the destiny of Jesus Christ, his mission and his rejection which ultimately brought him to the cross’ (emphasis added).
A more balanced response to the text is provided by Mary H. Schertz, ‘Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter’, in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, Studies in Peace and Scripture (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 284, who argues that it is inappropriate to criticise the text as though it were upholding the imperial status quo, but rather stands as a meaningful bid to tackle delicate socio-religious circumstances in a conciliatory manner. On Christ as exemplar and as the one who empowers, see Clifford A. Barbarick, ‘The Pattern and the Power: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter’ (PhD diss., Baylor University, 2011).