We Americans live in a country that was founded on a revolution and in which defiance of government authority is viewed as a basic constitutional right. Benjamin Franklin proposed the following design for the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States:

Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand, passing through the divided waters of the Red Sea in pursuit of the Israelites. Rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, expressive of the Divine presence and command, beaming on Moses, who stands on the shore and, extending his hand over the sea, causes it to overflow Pharaoh. Motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” (Cited by Vernon Grounds, Revolution and the Christian Faith [Lippincott, 1971], p. 9.)

Franklin was a deist, not an evangelical Christian. But his sentiment--rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God--is shared by many committed Christians. Most evangelicals accept the American Revolution as being a proper resistance to corrupt authority. There is a difference of opinion among Christians over whether the civil disobedience of groups such as Operation Rescue is proper or not. But the presence of the issue shows the relevance of our topic: What is the proper relationship of Christian citizens toward their government?

Those to whom Peter wrote lived with a government and society that was not favorable toward the Christian faith. Both Peter and Paul were executed at the hands of the Roman tyrant Nero. It was not until the fourth century, under Constantine, that Christianity was afforded official legitimacy and protection by the government.

Peter has just stated the general principle that Christians are to live holy lives as aliens and strangers on this earth (2:11-12). We are not permanent residents here, but are pilgrims journeying toward heaven. It would have been easy for his readers to conclude that we therefore have no civic responsibility here on earth. Perhaps they would have concluded that they could disregard and disobey human government, since they were citizens of heaven, not of this earth. So Peter anticipates and counters this wrong conclusion by showing how Christian citizens must live:

Christians must live as good citizens by submitting to human government.

“Submit” (2:13) is a dirty word to Americans, but it is a favorite with Peter. In fact, it dominates much of the rest of this epistle (it occurs in 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5, 22; 5:5; the concept is implicit in 4:12-19). It is a military word, meaning to put oneself under another in rank. We will look more at the meaning of submission later in this message, but for now I will briefly say that submission is an attitude of respect that results in obedience to authority and positive good deeds. While there are exceptions, we need to be careful not to run to the exceptions, but to make sure that our normal posture toward government is that of submission.

Confining myself as much as possible to our text, I want to look first at the purpose of human government; then at the meaning of submission to government; at the reason for submission to government; and, finally, at the limits of submission to government.

1. The purpose of human government: To promote justice and peace in society.

The government should promote justice and peace by upholding law and order and by maintaining reasonable national defense. Peter writes (2:14) that kings and governors are “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” Paul talks about the government “bearing the sword” as an avenger who brings God’s wrath upon the one who practices evil (Rom. 13:4). This points to the power of the state to use capital punishment, as well as lesser punishment, to bring about justice for all. The Old Testament often talks about the role of the king in promoting justice and righteousness in society.

The government does this (in part) by legislating morality. Don’t let anybody sell you the idea that we shouldn’t legislate morality. That is precisely what the government does, and rightly so. Laws against murder and theft are moral and biblical. Laws against racial discrimination reflect the biblical teaching that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Deut. 10:17). Laws should protect citizens from sin (for example, pornography and prostitution laws, drug laws, etc.). The fact that something is illegal will restrain many who otherwise may be tempted to engage in the particular activity.

The real debate is, which morality should we legislate? Some Christians believe that we should institute the Old Testament law in our society (stoning adulterers, homosexuals, rebellious children, etc.)! I cannot deal at length with this question but, briefly, my view is that in a democratic, pluralistic society, if the value of a law would only be accepted by those who have already accepted Christ and God’s Word (for example, laws against adultery, blasphemy, or sabbath-breaking), we should not push to legislate it, even if it is biblical.

But we can work to legislate many biblical standards which have broad social value and can be argued for apart from an appeal to the Bible. Laws against abortion, laws protecting the handicapped and the elderly, laws against pornography and child abuse, and many other such issues, can be argued for on the grounds of basic human rights, apart from Christianity. Most unbelievers recognize the inherent “rightness” of the Golden Rule. We can use this biblical ethical standard as the basis for legislating proper morality in our democratic, pluralistic country.

Thus Peter and other biblical texts show that the government is ordained of God to promote justice. Although Peter doesn’t touch on it specifically, a result of promoting justice will be promoting peace and order in society. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 states that we should pray for kings and those in authority “in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” For us to live a quiet and tranquil life, the government must maintain adequate national defense so that we are not overrun by some totalitarian power that would rob us of our peace and liberty. And internally the government should not interfere with religious liberty, within the bounds of human safety and rights. Thus government should promote justice and peace in society.

What does it mean to submit to human government? Peter includes three elements:

2. The meaning of submission to government: Obedience, respect, and good deeds.

A. Submission means obedience to the laws of the state.

The basic meaning of the word “submit” is “obey.” Christians must obey the laws of their government unless those laws force them to disobey God. “Kings” we can apply to federal laws; “governors” we can apply to state and local laws. To give practical examples, we need to pay our taxes and comply with traffic laws (Ouch! Ouch!).

With regard to taxes, this means properly reporting your income and following the rules to compute what you owe. There’s nothing wrong with taking legitimate deductions. In fact, it’s poor stewardship not to do so! With regard to traffic laws, some Christians take a strict constructionist view and never exceed the speed limit. I take a loose constructionist view--I get in the fast lane and go with the flow! If you’re regularly getting traffic citations, it probably shows that you need to amend your ways.

I heard of one minister who got stopped for speeding. He told the officer that he was on the Lord’s business. The officer replied, “I read the same Bible. It says to go out into the highways and bring them in--and that’s what I’m doing.”

Another minister, pressed for time and not finding a parking space, parked in a no parking zone and put a note on his windshield: “I have circled the block 10 times. I have an appointment to keep. Forgive us our trespasses.” When he returned, he found a citation along with this note: “I’ve circled this block for 10 years. If I don’t give you a ticket, I lose my job. Lead us not into temptation.” Submission means obeying the law.

B. Submission means showing respect to governmental authorities.

You can obey with a rotten attitude. But Peter says that we are to “honor all men,” and specifies, “Honor the king” (2:17). But what if he’s a scoundrel? Even if we can’t respect a leader because he is corrupt or immoral, we should respect his office. Again, this isn’t an American tradition. We make jokes about our political leaders, portraying them as buffoons or idiots. Political satire is accepted fare. I confess that some of the things politicians do invite satire! Jesus called Herod a fox, so there may be some basis for taking a swipe at certain political leaders. But we need to be careful to promote respect for government authorities. Since God ordained government authority, to despise such authority is to despise God Himself.

C. Submission means positive good deeds.

“That by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (2:15). Peter is not referring to the government leaders as “foolish men,” but rather to the willfully ignorant who slander Christians as evildoers (2:12). “To silence” means, literally, to muzzle. The idea is that by our active good deeds, we take away the basis for criticism of Christianity from those who oppose it.

Paul wrote to Titus (3:1-2), “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.” When Christians live like that in the midst of a pagan culture, it is a powerful testimony. On the other hand, when professing Christians disrespect authority, when they disobey the law, or when they just withdraw from society and live unto themselves without doing good deeds, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those who are prone to criticize Christianity.

When Israel was sent into exile in Babylon, their situation was parallel to that of Christians today, in that they were strangers and aliens in a foreign land, looking to be restored to their promised land. God told Jeremiah (29:5-6) to tell the exiles to build houses there, plant gardens, take wives and raise children. Then He added, “And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare” (lit., “peace”).

That’s good counsel for Christians who are exiled as strangers and aliens in this wicked world: Build houses, live in them, plant gardens, raise families, seek and pray for the welfare of the cities where we live. Buy property, work to improve the schools, help out in community projects, be good citizens. Submitting to government means that we obey the law, respect authorities, and do good deeds in our communities.

Thus the purpose of government is to promote justice and peace in society. The meaning of submission to government includes obedience, submission, and good deeds.

3. The reason for submission to government: For the Lord’s sake.

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake” (2:13). There are at least two ideas inherent in this phrase:

A. Since God ordains civil government, by submitting to it, we submit to Him.

Paul plainly states, “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Rom. 13:1-2a). He even states that rulers are ministers of God (13:4, 6). Daniel 2:21 states that God “removes kings and establishes kings” (see also Dan. 2:37; 4:17; 5:18-19, 26; Jer. 27:5-8; Ezek. 29:19-20; John 19:11). He directs even pagan kings according to His sovereign purposes (Prov. 21:1; Isa. 45:1-7; 46:10-11).

Remember, both Paul and Peter wrote when the debauched, godless Nero was on the throne. Daniel lived under the ruthless Nebuchadnezzar. Since both rulers obviously fell far short of the ideal, we must conclude that we cannot make exceptions to the biblical principle of obedience to government authority based on how bad the ruler may be.

Peter knew that his readers (including us!) would not inherently gravitate toward the idea of being submissive to pagan rulers (let alone, to good Christian rulers!). He could hear us object, “But we’re free in Christ! We don’t have to obey a pagan tyrant!” Thus Peter wrote (2:16), “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.”

Just as a train is only truly free when it runs on the tracks, so human beings are only free when they obey God. True freedom is living righteously in submission to God. Anything less means that we’re enslaved to sin. Thus for the Lord’s sake, because He ordained and established government for the benefit of the human race, we submit to Him when we submit to civil government.

B. Since Christians are identified with God, our submission to government bears witness for God.

The theme of our witness as aliens in this hostile world runs from 2:12 through chapter 3. It is implicit in this section dealing with our responsibility as Christian citizens. When it comes to politics, we need to remember that while God uses civil government to accomplish His purposes (thus it is proper for Christians to serve in political leadership and be involved in the political process), evangelism is His primary means of dealing with world problems and bringing lasting change. If we get sidetracked into winning political victories for our cause, but do not win men and women to Christ, we ultimately fail.

I struggled with why, in the context of our relationship to government, Peter adds the command, “Love the brotherhood” (2:17). It seems to me that it relates to the underlying theme of our public witness. We are to love even our enemies, of course. But Peter singles out our love for the Christian brotherhood because if Christians fight among themselves, the watching world shrugs its shoulders and says, “Why become a Christian? They’re no different than anyone else.” The same is true if we do not show proper honor to all men, including those in civil authority.

The black radical, Stokely Carmichael, was once asked, “When the world is the way you want it, what will it be like?” After brief reflection, he answered, “Men will love one another” (Grounds, p. 89). That can’t happen apart from the gospel. Our love for fellow Christians and our submission and honor toward government officials is a powerful witness. Thus we submit “for the Lord’s sake.”

Thus the purpose of government is to promote justice and peace in society. Submitting to government means obedience, respect, and good deeds. The reason we submit is for the Lord’s sake. Finally,

4. The limits of submission to government: When honoring the government violates the fear of God.

Peter differentiates between God and the king: “Fear God, honor the king.” The emperor deserves appropriate honor, but he is not on the same level with God. If he violates his responsibility which has been given to him by God, then the believer is responsible to confront that violation (Dan. 5:18-28) and, if it comes down to it, to obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).

Commentators struggle with the words translated “human institution” or “ordinance of man” (2:13). They literally read, “human creature” or “creation.” Each of the other 17 uses of the word “creation” in the New Testament refers to God’s creation, not to something man creates. Thus many scholars translate it, “Be subject to every human creature.” But this doesn’t fit with the following context and it is difficult to understand how we are to submit to everyone. I would suggest that Peter uses this phrase to accomplish two things. He demotes the emperor and his government from being absolutely sovereign, in that he (and it) are creations, not the Creator. But he also gives dignity to each ruler and government, in that he is created by God, and thus worthy of our honor.

Thus there is a fine balance that Christians must maintain, between respecting the man and his office, but not respecting him more than God. If it comes to a tug of war between God and government, we must follow God. If the government forces us to disobey God, we first appeal to the government, if possible. If we have opportunity, we confront the government with its wrong. But if all that fails, we disobey the government and submit to our punishment.

What do we do if the government merely allows evil, rather than mandates it (such as killing babies through abortion)? I think that we then confront the government with its evil, we appeal to individuals not to do the legalized evil, and we work through legal channels to overthrow the evil. Abortion is more complicated than rescuing slaves during the Civil War or Jews during World War II, since the baby is still inside the mother and can’t be rescued apart from the mother. I appreciate the courage and convictions of those who participate in Operation Rescue, but I cannot argue biblically that it is the moral responsibility of every Christian to violate the law as they do.

Is it ever right for Christians to participate in a revolution to overthrow a government? Obviously, God sets up and takes down rulers, and He does it through people. But should Christians be a part of such, for example, when the government is evil, such as Nazi Germany or Communist China? I tend to agree with John Calvin, who states that the only command given to Christians is to obey and suffer, so we should be hesitant to think that God has entrusted the revolutionary task to us (Institutes [Westminster Press], IV:XX:31). And yet at the same time, we are responsible to speak out against evil, whether it be practiced by rulers or other citizens (Matt.

Conclusion

J. I. Packer wrote, “It is a paradox of the Christian life that the more profoundly one is concerned about heaven, the more deeply one cares about God’s will being done on Earth” (Christianity Today [4/19/85], I-4). Sir Frederick Catherwood, a Christian member of the European Parliament, put it: “To try to improve society is not worldliness, but love. To wash your hands of society is not love but worldliness” (ibid., I-4, 5). Christian citizens should be good citizens. The main way we do that is by submitting to our human government.

Discussion Questions

1. Where should the government limit religious freedom? (Polygamy? Satan worship? Drug use? etc.)
2. Does the Bible support a particular theory of economics (e.g., free enterprise vs. socialism)?
3. Is it ever right for a Christian to withhold taxes in protest?
4. Do Christians ever have the right to be involved in revolution or the use of violence to further their aims? (American Revolution? Assassinate Hitler? Overthrow Communist government?)

Copyright 1992, Steven J. Cole, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

“Ah, the good life!” When you hear that phrase, you probably think of Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, or some other such place where the rich and famous lounge around their swimming pools or cruise by in their Rolls Royces. But we all know that that’s not the good life. People in Beverly Hills or Palm Springs aren’t any happier on the average than people in Flagstaff or any other city. In fact, some of the most miserable people in the world are those who live for the things money can buy.

So what is the good life and how do we live it? The truly good life comes from having God’s blessing upon us, particularly in the area of healthy relationships. In fact, God’s blessing is inseparable from having healthy relationships. As 1 John 4:20 bluntly asserts, if we say that we love God but we hate our brother, we’re liars, because if we do not love our brother whom we have seen, we cannot love God whom we have not seen. Being rightly related to God and to others sums up the message of the Bible (Matt. 22:37-40). So the good life is tied up with good relationships. If, so far as it depends on you, you’re at peace with others (Rom. 12:18), life is sweet, even if you don’t have an abundance of things. But if you’re constantly at odds with others, then you can have all the stuff in the world, but life isn’t so good.

Peter (3:10-11) quotes from Psalm 34 which says that if we want to love life and see good days, then we must do some things with our lips (3:10, which relates to 3:9) and our lives (3:11, which relates to 3:8) that result in healthy relationships. Then Scripture promises that God’s blessing will be on us (3:12). If we don’t live like that, the contrary is true: The face of the Lord will be against us.

The good life results from following God’s principles for healthy relationships: Doing good in our walk and talk.

Peter is summing up (3:8) here the section that began in 2:11-12, where he tells us how to live as aliens or pilgrims in this wicked world. The theme, which continues into chapter 4, is our witness in this hostile territory. Christians are to be distinct in their behavior, noted for obedience to God and submission to proper authority, whether toward government (2:13-17), on the job (2:18-25), or in the home (3:1-7). The commands he gives in this summary section are contrary to the world and its ways and are opposed to our own natural inclinations. If we live like Peter tells us here, we will be foreigners in this world, but we will have a powerful witness for God.

Before we look in detail at how we must live to experience the good life, I want to underscore that our motive for living this way should be to please and glorify God. Our enjoyment of life is a by-product of seeking to please God. God has designed life so that when we seek to make Him look good (= “glorify Him”) by obeying His commands, we inherit a blessing (3:9). When our motive is selfish-- using God to make us happy--we come up empty. There are two broad areas where we must seek to please God: Our walk (our behavior, including our attitude); and, our talk.

1. The good life results from healthy relationships which result from doing good in our walk.

“Let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it” (3:11). This quote from Psalm 34 supports 3:8: “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit.” You will note that there is something we must turn away from--doing evil; and something we must actively pursue--doing good and seeking peace.

A. Doing good in our walk means turning from evil and pursuing peace.

Implicit in 3:11 is the truth that we all have a natural bent toward evil. The word “evil” is used five times in this paragraph and refers to living for ourselves in disregard of God and others, except as they can serve us. Adam and Eve’s original sin, which plunged the entire human race into sin, was an act of self-will that sought self-fulfillment in disobedience to the command of God. The new birth does not eradicate that evil bent toward self, as any honest Christian will readily admit.

For example, when I’m driving to work (in my case, it’s the Lord’s work!) and I’m listening to the Christian radio station and praising the Lord, and some guy cuts in front of me so that I have to hit my brakes, why don’t I instinctively respond by blessing him and praying for his salvation? The answer is the same as the answer for why a toddler throws a tantrum: I didn’t get my way and I want my way! In fact, when I analyze my anger, I find that most of it stems from one source: I want my way and I didn’t get my way.

The well-known line from the “Pogo” cartoon says it well: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” The barrier to the good life, the thing that hinders healthy relationships that bring glory to God, is self. The root of most interpersonal problems is our selfishness in wanting our own way. We all prove it by sitting here thinking, “Yes, I wish my mate would stop being so selfish (so that I could get my way)!” We must turn from evil which means, from the selfishness which marks all of us as fallen sinners. We have to make a conscious choice to deny self on a daily basis.

But it’s not enough just to deny self or turn from evil. Also, we must actively do good and pursue peace with others. The Apostle Paul put it, “If possible, so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18). And, “Let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Rom. 14:19). In other words, peace won’t just happen as we’re indifferent or passive. We’ve got to go after it aggressively.

I read about a mother with a scout troop who said to her son, “I will not take any of you to the zoo if you don’t forgive Billy for stealing your candy bar.” “But Billy doesn’t want to be forgiven,” her son complained. He won’t even listen.”

“Then make him,” his mother said angrily. Suddenly, her son chased Billy, knocked him to the ground, sat on him, and yelled, “I forgive you for stealing my candy bar, but I’d sure find it easier to forget if you’d wipe the chocolate off your mouth!” (Told by Josephine Ligon, “Your Daffodils Are Pretty,” Christianity Today [3/2/79], p. 18).

We’re not supposed to be that aggressive in pursuing peace! But you get the idea. We can’t be indifferent or passive about it. Jesus said that if you’re worshiping God and suddenly remember that your brother has something against you, leave the worship service, go be reconciled to your brother, and then come back and worship God (paraphrase of Matt. 5:23-24). We are to take the initiative to do all we can to restore strained relationships.

It’s always time consuming and more of a hassle to do that than it is to let it slide. We’d rather not expend the emotional energy and time involved in getting things straightened out. We figure that time will heal. Besides, it’s always humbling to admit I was wrong! So we don’t actively pursue peace. Of course, love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8); we aren’t supposed to confront a person every time he offends us. We should absorb it if we can. But if I have offended someone or if his offense is such that I can’t relate to him without clearing it up, then I need to set aside the time to seek peace.

Say to the one you wronged, “God has shown me how wrong I was to [name the offense]. I want to live in a way that pleases Him. I’ve come to ask, ‘Will you forgive me?’” If someone else has wronged you, be careful not to accuse or attack them, but seek to restore them in a spirit of gentleness, remembering that you, too, are a sinner (Gal. 6:1). Thus, to do good in our walk, we must turn from evil (selfishness) and pursue peace.

B. Doing good in our walk is defined by five attitudes and actions.

Peter mentions five character qualities (3:8):

Harmonious—A harmonious person seeks to get along with others. He is not self-willed, demanding his own way, and judging those who don’t go along with him. He is a team player who considers the other person’s perspective and gives others room to be different. He accepts people as Christ accepts them. He knows the difference between biblical absolutes, which must not be compromised, and gray areas, where there is latitude for difference. He gives people time to grow, realizing that it is a process. In the words of Augustine, “On essentials, unity; on non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

The only way that it’s possible for people with different backgrounds, personalities and ways of thinking to be harmonious is to be committed to growing in obedience to God’s Word. That’s one reason why it’s crucial for people entering into marriage to base their relationship on a common commitment to God and His Word. God’s Word then is the basis for authority and direction in the marriage. Both partners are seeking to conform their lives to the Word of God. Thus they are on the same team, with the same outlook and interests. Mutual submission to God and His Word is crucial for harmony, whether in the home or in the church.

Sympathetic—“affected by like feelings.” Our Savior is one who sympathizes with our weaknesses (Heb. 4:15) and so we are to enter into what others are feeling. We are to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15). We are to allow the sufferings of others to touch our emotions. We are to be sensitive to how we would feel if we were in the other person’s place. We should do all we can to make him or her feel accepted and loved. God made us all with emotions, and healthy relationships must take into account others’ feelings.

Brotherly—The Greek word is “philadelphoi,” brotherly love. It points to the fact that as believers we are members of the same family. But we must also show brotherly love to those outside the family of God, since we’re all members of the human family (Acts 17:28). Often an opportunity to be brotherly toward another person opens the door for witness about our Lord Jesus Christ.

Kindhearted—“tenderhearted, compassionate.” In the New Testament it is used only here and Ephesians 4:32. The root word means “bowels.” The idea is to have deep inward feelings and genuine concern for the other person. I don’t know if there is any distinction between it and “sympathetic.” But both words have an emotional element that shows us that Christian behavior must go beyond cold duty. Others should sense that we genuinely care for them from our hearts.

Humble in spirit—“lowliness of mind.” Jesus described Himself as “humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29, using a cognate word). This quality was not seen as a virtue by pagan writers in Bible times. It was Christians who elevated it as a virtue. In our day, Christian writers seem to have reverted to the pagan ways, since almost every book dealing with relationships says that you must learn to love yourself and boost your self-esteem before you can love others. But the Bible clearly teaches that we must lower, not raise, our estimate of ourselves if we want harmonious relationships (Phil. 2:3).

Did you know that there is not one verse in the entire Bible that commands us to love ourselves? There are several verses that affirm that we do love ourselves and that command us to love others as much as we do in fact love ourselves. There aren’t any verses that say that low self-esteem is the source of relational problems and that the solution is to raise our self-esteem. But there are many verses that say that selfishness and pride (thinking too highly of ourselves) are sources of our conflicts, and that we must esteem others more highly than ourselves (see Phil. 2:1-5; James 4:1-3; 1 Pet. 5:5). And yet Christian counselors are telling us that our relational problems would be solved if we’d just work on our self-esteem! The Bible says, “Work on your humility.”

Thus the good life results from healthy relationships which result from doing good in our walk: turning from evil and seeking peace; and developing these Christlike character qualities.

2. The good life results from healthy relationships which result from doing good in our talk.

Do you want the good life? Peter says (3:10b), “Refrain [lit., “stop”] your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile [deception].” Our lips must back up the good deeds in our lives if we want to enjoy the good life. Peter brings out three aspects to doing good in our talk:

A. Doing good in our talk means not retaliating when we are verbally abused.

Verse 10 (from Psalm 34) supports Peter’s command in 3:9, that we are not to retaliate when we are insulted, but rather to give a blessing instead, which means to speak well to the other person or to bring good to them. This principle runs counter to the world (and to much of the advice being given in the Christian world). The world says, “If someone abuses you verbally, you don’t have to take it! Stand up for your rights! Assert yourself! Let them know that you have more self-respect than that!” But God says, “If someone insults you, bless them. Say something kind to them in return.” Jesus said, “Bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:28). I know it’s not easy, but it’s what God commands.

We’re not talking here about clarifying misunderstandings through conversation. There are proper times to state your point of view and speak the truth in a calm manner. What we’re looking at here is when a person is being purposely abusive toward you. He’s trying to pick a fight or bait you. Peter says, “Don’t respond to such abuse with more abuse. Don’t top his put down of you with a better put down of him. Don’t counter his name-calling by calling him names. Don’t retort to his sarcasm with more sarcasm. Don’t react to his attack by attacking him. Instead, respond with kind words.”

B. Doing good in our talk means refraining from deception.

Peter says that we should stop our lips from speaking guile (3:10b). The word was used by Homer to mean “bait” or “snare.” It refers to anything calculated to deceive, mislead or distort the facts. Deception is a barrier to communication and healthy relationships, since it destroys trust. It may be a deliberate attempt to bend the facts to suit your side of the story. Or perhaps you don’t mention certain facts so that the other person gets a skewed view of what really happened. It may be telling a person one thing to his face, but saying another thing behind his back. That way, people side with you against the person you are slandering. It may be exaggeration: “You (or he) always ...” “You (or he) never ...”

I realize that there are difficult situations where it is hard to be honest. Do you tell a dying relative the truth about his condition? Or, in a not so serious, but just as tough situation, what do you tell your wife when she asks, “Do you like my new hairdo?” You pray for tact and wisdom at such moments. But I argue that truthfulness is always the best policy. Deception hurts healthy relationships and doesn’t please God.

Thus, negatively, doing good in our talk means not retaliating and not deceiving. Positively,

C. Doing good in our talk means blessing others with words that build up.

We are to speak well of others and to others (“giving a blessing”). As Paul puts it, we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). We are to speak words which build up, not which tear down. “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29). “So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Rom. 14:19).

If we would apply this in our homes—not trading insults, not deceiving, but speaking words that build up the other person—we would put marriage and family counselors out of business. Think about your speech in your family this past week. How much of it was sarcastic, critical, angry, accusatory? And how much was aimed at blessing and building up your family members?

You may protest, “We just kid each other with humorous gibes back and forth!” But I contend that trading put-downs, no matter how much in jest, does not build up the other person. When I was in college, I met each week for dinner and a discipleship time with a group of guys. Much of our time was spent bantering back and forth with funny comments to make the other guy look bad. One night a new Christian in the group confronted us by saying, “Hey, guys, this chopping each other down is sin!” We all protested at first, but he stuck to his guns until we realized that he was right. We weren’t blessing and building each other up. We had to repent.

Conclusion

Some might be thinking, “Now wait a minute. You’ve been talking about denying myself, laying down my rights, not retaliating, blessing those who insult me, being harmonious. sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble. But it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there! If you knew my husband (or wife or boss or roommates), you’d know that if I really did that, I’d get trampled! Who’s going to look out for my rights? Who’s going to protect me if I act like that?”

Peter adds verse 12 to show you: God will! His eyes are on the righteous. His ears attend to their prayer. But His face is against those who do evil. Our responsibility is to please the Lord by doing good in our walk and talk. He is responsible to protect us and to answer our prayers.

Barbara Bush spoke at the Wellesley College commencement a couple of years ago. She said,

As important as your obligation as a doctor, a lawyer or a business leader will be, you are a human being first, and those human connections with spouses, with children, with friends are the most important investments you will ever make. At the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, winning one more verdict, closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a child, a friend or a parent. Our success as a society depends not on what happens in the White House but on what happens inside your house. (Reader’s Digest [1/91], pp. 157-158.)

She’s right! Healthy relationships are at the core of the good life. They are essential if we want to glorify God and enjoy His blessings. I know of no other Scripture that would do more good for our relationships in our families and in our church than 1 Peter 3:8-12. I ask you to commit it to memory and take whatever steps necessary to apply it to your relationships. That’s how to live the good life!

Discussion Questions

1. Is excessive verbal abuse grounds for marital separation or divorce? Defend your answer biblically.
2. Is there a place in Christian relationships for “a good argument”? Why/why not?
3. Agree/disagree: Selfishness is the root of most relational problems?
4. Is honesty always the best policy? Defend biblically.

Copyright 1992, Steven J. Cole, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

When I was in seminary, one of the things they taught us in homiletics (how to preach) was, if an illustration is so complicated that you have to explain it, you’d better pick another one. The point of an illustration is to make something clear, not to make it more confusing.

While I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write this epistle, humanly speaking I wish he had followed that principle. Our text is Peter’s illustration to explain the point made in the verses just above, namely, that we are called to bear witness in a hostile world, but we can trust God to vindicate us. Peter uses Christ as the main example, showing that His unjust suffering resulted in witness and that He was vindicated through His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. Noah was another example of a man who bore witness to a hostile world and was vindicated by God who delivered him and his family through the flood. Thus Peter’s readers should be willing to bear witness through baptism, even if it meant persecution, knowing that God will vindicate them.

While Peter’s overall point is clear, the details are incredibly complex. Most commentators acknowledge that these are some of the most difficult verses in the New Testament to interpret. Even Martin Luther says that this is perhaps the most obscure passage in the New Testament and admits that he does not know for certain just what Peter means (Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude [Kregel], p. 168). Simon Kistemaker points out that the meaning of each word in verse 19 varies and he cites D. Edmond Hiebert who says, “Each of the nine words in the original has been differently understood” (New Testament Commentary: Peter and Jude [Baker], p. 141). So while the overall point is clear, we cannot be certain on the details. The main point is:

Since Christ bore witness through His suffering and was vindicated, we, too, can bear witness through suffering and trust God to vindicate us.

1. Christ bore witness through His unjust suffering and was vindicated through His resurrection and ascension.

There are three sub-points: A. Christ suffered unjustly on our behalf (3:18); B. Christ bore witness through His unjust suffering (3:19); C. Christ was vindicated through His resurrection and ascension (3:18b, 21b-22).

A. Christ suffered unjustly on our behalf.

The word “for” (3:18) shows that Peter is explaining what preceded, namely, that we may suffer for doing what is right as a means of bearing witness. As in 2:21-25, Peter points us to Christ as our chief example (“also,” 3:18), but then he takes us beyond Christ’s example to the uniqueness of His substitutionary death. So the overall effect is to urge us to imitate Christ, but also to show us that there is a point at which the imitation stops and we must bow before Christ who alone is exalted over all.

Some of you may have versions that read, “Christ suffered for sins” (rather than “died”). The textual evidence is evenly divided. Since “suffered” is a favorite word of Peter’s and since he doesn’t use the verb “to die” anywhere else (compare, “put to death,” 3:18), I lean toward “suffered” as the original. It fits Peter’s theme of linking his suffering readers with the Savior who suffered on their behalf (3:14, 17; 4:1).

Christ’s suffering involved “the just for the unjust” (or, “righteous for the unrighteous”). Right away we see that Christ is our example in suffering, but He is more than our example. Only Christ is just or righteous. None of us, when we suffer, can truly say, “I don’t deserve this!” We do say that because we erroneously compare ourselves with other sinners and think, “I’m a good person! I don’t do drugs or cheat on my mate or murder. I’m basically honest and law-abiding. Why should I suffer when scoundrels get away with murder and enjoy a good life?”

But our problem is, we’re comparing ourselves with the wrong standard! If we would compare ourselves with the absolute righteousness of God, we would see that the only thing we deserve is hell! Each of us has broken God’s Ten Commandments over and over and over, even as believers in Christ. We put other gods before the living and true God. We make idols for ourselves. We take His name in vain. We don’t keep His day as holy. We dishonor our parents. We murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, and covet. If we think we don’t, read the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows the self-righteous what the true standard of the law means. Truly, we are unrighteous; only Jesus Christ is righteous.

God, in His perfect justice, cannot just shrug off our sin. But He took our sin and put it on Jesus Christ, the righteous, to bear the penalty we deserve. The purpose was that Christ might “bring us to God.” The word was used by the Greek writer Xenophon for an admission to an audience with the Great King. You just didn’t stroll into the presence of a great king and say, “How’s it going?” You had to have someone to introduce you properly. Because the righteous Christ bore our sins, He can bring us into an audience with the Great King.

One other point: Christ’s death for sins was “once for all.” His death was sufficient to pay for all the sins we have committed and will commit. The author of Hebrews makes this point repeatedly and with great emphasis, contrasting the repeated sacrifices of animals under the old covenant with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ under the new (Heb. 10:1-18, esp. vv. 10, 11, 12, 14, 18).

The point is, if you’ve put your trust in Christ, then your sins are on Him and you have been reconciled to God once-for-all. God wants every believer to come to the place of full assurance where you understand that the basis of your acceptance with God is not your performance; it is His grace, that Christ died for your sins once for all and you have trusted in Him, not in your own good works. The hymn writer (Horatio Spafford, “It Is Well”) put it,

My sin, O, the bliss of this glorious thought,
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

That’s the good stuff! Now, for something a bit more complex:

B. Christ bore witness through His unjust suffering.

We need to answer three questions: (1) To whom did Christ bear this witness? (2) What did Christ proclaim? (3) When did Christ bear this witness?

There are three main groups of interpretations (I’m relying on Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter [12:241], in Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan], Frank Gabelein, general editor). In the first group, Christ went down to Hades (the realm of the dead) during the interval between His death and resurrection and preached to Noah’s contemporaries. Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 200) taught this view (Kistemaker, p. 144). This group is subdivided into those who say that Christ gave a second offer of salvation to those who perished in the flood; those who say that He announced judgment to them; and, those who say that He announced salvation to those already saved.

Calvin (Institutes, II:XVI:9) seems to take it that Christ went to the nether world and preached the fulness of grace to the righteous dead and condemnation to the wicked dead. He also affirms the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed, that Christ “descended into hell,” to mean that He bore the full wrath of God on our behalf (II:, II:XVI:9) seems to take it that Christ went to the nether world and preached the fulness of grace to the righteous dead and condemnation to the wicked dead. He also affirms the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed, that Christ “descended into hell,” to mean that He bore the full wrath of God on our behalf (II:XVI:10-12).

A second group of interpreters take it that the pre-incarnate Christ preached through Noah to Noah’s disobedient contemporaries. Augustine (ca. A.D. 400) taught this view (Kistemaker, ibid.).

A third group of interpreters think that Christ proclaimed His victory on the cross to fallen angels. This group is subdivided into those who say that this took place between His death and resurrection (through a descent into hell) and those who say that He made this proclamation in His ascension.

With that as an overview, let’s try to answer the three questions: (1) To whom did Christ bear this witness? In other words, who are “the spirits who once were disobedient in the days of Noah”? To me, it is decisive that the word “spirits” in the New Testament “always refers to non-human spiritual beings unless qualified” (Peter Davids, The First Epistle of Peter [Eerdmans, NICNT], p. 139). Since these spirits are “in prison,” I take it to refer to demons who influenced the terrible wickedness on earth in Noah’s day and were put into hell to await the final judgment (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Thus I do not understand Peter to be referring to Christ’s preaching through Noah to his contemporaries.

Some say that these demons cohabited with women before the flood, leading to the increase of sin on earth in that day (Gen. 6:1-4), but I think that view creates many more problems than it solves. These demons influenced people then just as they do now, only to a greater extent then. When God judged the world through the flood, He also judged these demonic forces. It was to these confined demons that Christ bore witness of His triumph over Satan through the cross.

(2) What did Christ proclaim? The verb means, “to proclaim” or “announce.” Peter uses another verb for “proclaim the gospel” (1:12, 25; 4:6; noun in 4:17). The idea that Christ would give an offer of salvation to souls who have already died or to fallen angels is foreign to the Bible (Heb. 2:16; 1 Pet. 1:12). Hebrews 9:27 states that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” There is no second chance for salvation after death (Luke 16:26). So I understand that Christ proclaimed His victory over sin, death, and Satan (Col. 2:15) to the fallen angels who had been confined to hell since the time of the flood.

(3) When did Christ bear this witness? The answer to this question largely depends on how you interpret the phrase, “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (3:18). If you take the two phrases, “in the flesh” and “in the spirit” to be exactly parallel, then the meaning is that in His human sphere Christ was killed, but in His resurrected sphere He went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison. Connecting the verb “went” in 3:19 with the same verb in 3:22, it is concluded that in His ascension the risen Christ made this proclamation.

But if you take the phrase “in the spirit” to mean “by the [Holy] Spirit” (there are no capital letters in the original text), then Peter would be referring to the Holy Spirit as the agent of Christ’s resurrection (see Rom. 1:4; 8:11). The passive voice may lend weight to this view (see discussion in Kistemaker, p. 140). Ephesians 4:8-9, which talks of Christ descending into the lower parts of the earth and then leading captivity captive in His ascension, seems to allow that Christ descended into hell before His ascension (“lower parts of the earth” can also mean “the grave”). Since the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed about Christ’s descent into hell has been there since the early centuries of the church (see Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Baker], p. 314), I lean toward the view that between His death and resurrection, Christ went into Hades and made proclamation of His victory, which was further displayed in His ascension.

All of that is to explain what it means that Christ bore witness through His unjust suffering! Peter’s third point about Christ is:

C. Christ was vindicated through His resurrection and ascension.

He was raised from the dead (3:18b, 21b) and now is at the right hand of God, with all the spiritual powers made subject to Him. Though “we do not yet see all things subjected to Him” (Heb. 2:8), we know that the victory was won and it’s just a matter of time for the outcome to be revealed. As the angels told the disciples as they gazed upward as the risen Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

If someone scoffs, “If this is true, then why hasn’t He come back sooner?” the answer is, “Because just as in the days of Noah, God is patient, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance” (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:3-10). Just as in Noah’s day the flood was delayed for many years, and yet certain, so the second coming of Jesus Christ to judge the earth has been delayed, but is drawing ever closer. The patience of God keeps waiting, but He will not wait forever. Today is the day of salvation!

The application of Peter’s pointing to Christ, who bore witness through suffering and was vindicated by God, is:

2. We can bear witness through suffering and trust God to vindicate us.

Peter implies that we bear witness through suffering in two ways: through baptism and holy living (as seen in the example of Noah).

A. We bear witness through baptism.

The reason that many of Peter’s readers were suffering was that they had borne witness to their faith in Christ through baptism. Perhaps some had confessed Christ verbally, but were hesitant to confess Him through baptism because they had seen what had happened to others. So Peter here is urging these persecuted Christians to make public confession of their faith through baptism.

Peter is using the flood and deliverance of Noah and his family as a loose analogy or type of what is portrayed in Christian salvation and baptism. Just as Noah passed through the flood waters into salvation from God’s judgment, so believers pass through baptism into salvation from God’s judgment. But, before you leap to wrong conclusions, Peter clarifies—it is not the act of baptism which saves (“the removal of dirt from the flesh”), but what baptism signifies—the appeal to God for a good conscience.

“Appeal” can point either to the moment of salvation, when a person cries out to God for cleansing from sin; or, to the pledge given at the baptismal ceremony, when a person promises to live in a manner pleasing to God. Either way, baptism testifies to our faith in Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf (3:18). Since Christ’s suffering did not minimize His witness, but rather enhanced it, Peter is urging his readers to be baptized, even if it means persecution, in order to bear witness of Christ’s saving grace.

B. We bear witness through holy living in this wicked world.

This is implied by the reference to Noah. It took him years (perhaps 120 years) to build the ark in obedience to God. His neighbors watched and no doubt ridiculed the old man who spent so much time building this ocean liner in the middle of dry ground. By his godly life and words, Noah preached righteousness to that generation (2 Pet. 2:5). But rather than having people stand in line to get a berth, only eight persons got on board (Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives; note that Peter believed in a literal flood account in Genesis). The rest of the world perished.

Peter’s point is clear: His readers were a small minority seeking to obey God, but surrounded by a godless culture. They were being chided for not joining in the dissipation around them (4:4). Peter uses the example of Noah to say, “The majority is seldom right on spiritual matters! Stand alone for God, if you must. Don’t cave in to the pressure to conform to this godless world. Like Noah, you will bear witness. Also like Noah, you will be delivered and this wicked world will perish.”

C. If we bear witness through baptism and holy living, God will vindicate us.

He vindicated Noah, although he was vastly outnumbered. He vindicated Christ, although it looked to His enemies as if He was defeated on the cross. Even if we give our lives in martyrdom, the day is coming when we will be vindicated (Rev. 6:9-11). Christ’s resurrection and ascension assure us that He is King of kings and Lord of lords! We need not fear what this wicked world can do to us.

Conclusion

We’ve covered a lot of difficult material. But I don’t want you to miss the clear application of this text for your life. Three questions we each need to answer:

(1) Have I truly trusted in Christ as my sin bearer? To do that I need to view myself as unrighteous, unable to present myself to God by my own good works. The pervasive pride of the human heart always wants to earn salvation based upon personal merit or worth. But God’s way is always to humble our pride and strip us of everything in ourselves that would commend us to Him. Many who have attended church for years do not understand this basic point. They are trusting in their own goodness or they are hoping that God’s standard is not absolute holiness. That’s a false hope. As Toplady put it (“Rock of Ages”), “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.” Make sure that you have let go of all human goodness and trust in the righteous Christ who died for the unrighteous.

(2) Have I testified to my faith in Christ through baptism? Baptism cannot save anyone, but it is an important step of obedience to Christ in which we publicly identify ourselves with Him in His death and resurrection. It was important enough that Jesus mentioned it as a part of His Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). We dare not neglect it.

(3) Am I standing alone for Christ in my sphere of influence? By standing alone, I mean, standing for Christ even if I’m the only one, or standing with others who are following Him. The Bible is clear that we can expect opposition and hostility if we take a stand for Christ. Frankly, it is most difficult when that opposition comes from those who profess to know Christ instead of from raw pagans. But if our Savior had to face hostility at the hands of sinners before He entered into glory, why shouldn’t we? But God’s truth is never established by majority vote. Even if, like Noah, no one else listens to our witness, we know that God listens and His cause will ultimately prevail. Make a commitment to be like Noah—to stand alone for God—and He will vindicate you.

Discussion Questions

1. How prevalent is the idea of salvation based on human merit? Why is this so?
2. How can a person know that his sins are forgiven?
3. What Scriptures would you use to answer a person who said that we must be baptized to be saved?
4. How would you counsel a Christian who wanted to stand alone, but felt weak and defeated?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 1992, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

If you are a parent of children old enough to talk, you have heard them complain, “But that isn’t fair!” And you responded, “Life isn’t fair!” We are born with a strong inner sense of fairness and a strong desire to fight for our rights when we have been treated unfairly. Although we know that life isn’t fair, we’re prone to fight back when we’re the victims of unfair treatment.

Let’s assume that you are a conscientious worker on your job. You get to work early, you’re careful not to extend your lunch breaks, and sometimes you stay late on your own time to finish a job. You’re careful not to waste company time with excessive chit-chat. You work hard and produce for the company. Because you’re a Christian, you don’t go out drinking after hours with the boss and you don’t swap the latest dirty jokes with him.

Another worker is, in your opinion, a goof off. He often comes in late, he spends a lot of time chatting with the secretaries, he takes long lunches, and he does sloppy work which you often have to correct. But he also goes out drinking with the boss and he always has a new dirty joke that sends the boss into hysterics. When a promotion opens up, he gets the better job and you are overlooked.

Life isn’t fair! The important question is, “How do you respond when you’re treated unfairly?” How should you respond? Is it wrong to defend yourself or to stand up for your rights? How should a Christian respond when treated unfairly, especially on the job? That is the question Peter addresses in 1 Peter 2:18-23. My guess is that you’re not going to like his answer. (I can guess that because I don’t like his answer either!) His answer is,

When treated unfairly by a superior, we should submissively endure by entrusting ourselves to God, the righteous Judge.

That principle is easily stated, but not so easily applied. Not one of the fifteen or so commentators I read dealt with the tough practical implications raised here. How broadly can we apply to modern life principles given to slaves? Do these things apply beyond the realm of employment to any situation? Is it always wrong to defend ourselves or to speak out when we are treated unfairly? Are Christians supposed to be doormats? If so, how do we harmonize this text with the numerous occasions where Jesus and Paul defended themselves and verbally attacked their accusers? These are some of the issues we must think through if we want to apply this text properly. I’m going to offer five statements to seek to explain and apply what Peter is saying. You’ll have to struggle to apply it personally to your specific situation.

1. The situation for submission is one in which we are under authority.

Peter addresses this to “servants.” The word refers to household servants, but these were not just domestic employees; they were slaves. They belonged as property to their owners. Immediately we cry out, “That’s not fair! Slavery is evil! Slave owners are wrong! Slaves shouldn’t have to submit to unjust authority! They should revolt!”

But that isn’t the biblical approach to righting the social evil of slavery. The biblical approach was to exhort slave owners to treat their slaves with dignity and fairness. They were even to view them as brothers and sisters in the faith (e.g., Philemon). And slaves were exhorted to be good, submissive workers. If they had an opportunity to gain their freedom, fine (1 Cor. 7:21). Otherwise, they were to be good slaves, in submission to their owners. It wasn’t a quick fix to the evil of slavery. It didn’t result in a slave revolt, although eventually it did topple slavery. But in the meanwhile, it demonstrated Christlikeness within the existing social structure in a way that led to the spread of the gospel.

How do we apply this to our cultural situation? We aren’t slaves to our employers, although we may feel like it at times. Is it wrong to defend ourselves and to stand up for our rights when they are violated by an employer? That’s the American way, isn’t it?

It may be the American way, but it’s not necessarily the biblical way. God’s way is for us to identify the nature of the relationship: Am I under the authority of the person who is treating me unfairly? That is the first question I must ask to determine how I should act in a given situation.

God has ordained various spheres of authority. He is the supreme authority over all, of course. But under God there is the sphere of human government (1 Pet. 2:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7). Also, there is the sphere of the family, in which husbands have authority over wives (1 Pet. 3:1-6; Eph. 5:22-24) and parents over children (Eph. 6:1-4). There is the sphere of the church, in which elders have authority over the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Heb. 13:17). And there is the sphere of employment (either forced, as in slavery, or voluntary), in which employees must be subject to employers (1 Pet. 2:18; Eph. 6:5-9).

Once we’ve identified whether or not we are under the authority of the person who is mistreating us, we then must examine our own attitude and motives and ask: Do I have a proper attitude of submission, or am I selfishly fighting for my rights? If I’m truly in submission and I’m not acting for selfish reasons, I would argue that there is a proper place for respectful communication that seeks to clarify falsehood and promote the truth. In other words, if our attitude and motives are in submission to God, we need not always silently endure unjust treatment as Christian doormats. There is a proper place for self-defense and for confronting the errors of those who have mistreated us, as long as we work through proper channels.

I make this point because many take the overly simplistic (and erroneous) view that Christians must always endure mistreatment in silence and that self-defense is always wrong. But Jesus Himself did not do this, nor did the Apostle Paul who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For example, in John 8 the Jews attacked Jesus’ character and authority by saying that He was bearing false witness about Himself and that He was illegitimately born. Jesus did not silently endure this attack. Rather, He defended Himself as being sent from the Father and He attacked these critics by saying that they were of their father, the devil! That’s hardly a passive, silent response! Nor was Jesus passive when He attacked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matthew 23). The Apostle Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and parts of other epistles to defend his character and ministry which were under attack. He put down his critics in a strong and, at times, sarcastic manner.

How can we harmonize such vigorous self-defense with Peter’s exhortation to silent submission? It seems to me that there are several factors to consider in deciding whether to defend myself or silently to bear reproach. First, Am I under the authority of the one attacking me? If so, I need to examine my life to see if I’m doing something to provoke the attack. If so, I deserve punishment (2:20). I may need to ask the person to help me with a blind spot. I may need to explain my motivation. If I conclude that the superior is simply out to get me because of my faith, I probably need to bear the unfair treatment patiently for Christ’s sake.

A second question: Is God’s truth being called into question or ridiculed? If so, I should clearly defend the truth. During Jesus’ mockery of a trial before the Sanhedrin, He was silent until the high priest said, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus couldn’t remain silent to that question, so He answered, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:63-64).

A third factor concerns our witness to outsiders. If I am being falsely attacked on the job, I need to ask myself how I can bear the most effective witness for Jesus Christ. It may be that a quiet but confident answer would be most effective. But if they’ve heard where I stand, it may be that quiet submission, where I let go of my rights, would be most effective. More on this in a moment.

The main principle is, am I under the authority of the person who is acting unfairly toward me? If I am, then I can appeal with the proper attitude of submission. But if the appeal fails, I must submit. Does that mean that I must remain under unjust authority for the rest of my life? Isn’t there a place for getting out from under corrupt authority? The answer is, “Yes, but be careful!” There is a place for Christians to flee from a corrupt government. There is a time to get out from under corrupt spiritual authority (as in the Reformation). There is a time for moving from a bad employer. But if you move too quickly, you may miss what God is seeking to do in the difficult situation. He may want to teach you some hard lessons of being like Christ. He may want to bear witness through you. So weigh things carefully before you make a move. If you are defiant or impulsive, you probably should stay put and learn to submit.

2. The motives for submission are to please God and bear witness to the lost.

A. The primary motive for submission is to please God.

When Peter says, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect,” it should be translated, “with all fear.” In the previous verse Peter distinguished between fearing God and honoring the king. So here, when he says that we should be submissive with all fear, he means, “fear toward God,” not “fear toward the earthly master.”

Also, twice (2:19a, 20b) Peter says that submitting to unjust treatment “finds favor with God.” Peter’s language here reflects the teaching of Jesus in Luke 6:32-35, which was no doubt in Peter’s mind (“what credit” there is the same Greek word as “favor” here). The idea is that God gives grace (same Greek word as “credit” and “favor”) to the humble, not to the defiant, assertive, and self-reliant. If we defy an authority which God has placed over us, we are, in effect, defying God Himself. Thus, conscious of God (probably the best translation of “conscience toward God” [2:19, NASB]), we should seek to submit to please Him, trusting Him to deal with the unjust authority.

One way to apply this is consciously to recognize that you don’t work primarily for your employer; you work for God. Howard Hendricks tells the story of being on an airliner that was delayed on the ground. Passengers grew increasingly impatient. One obnoxious man kept venting his frustrations on the stewardess. But she responded graciously and courteously in spite of his abuse.

After they finally got airborne and things calmed down, Dr. Hendricks called the woman aside and said, “I want to get your name so that I can write a letter of commendation to your employer.” He was surprised when she responded, “Thank you, sir, but I don’t work for American Airlines.” He sputtered, “You don’t?” “No,” she explained, “I work for my Lord Jesus Christ.” She went on to explain that before each flight, she and her husband would pray together that she would be a good representative of Christ on her job. She sought to please God first.

B. A secondary motive for submission is to bear witness to the lost.

The issue of a slave’s response to his master had far-reaching cultural implications in that day when there were millions of slaves. If Christian slaves were defiant, critics could have accused Christianity of stirring up rebellion and undermining the whole fabric of the society. Thus the theme of our witness to a pagan world underlies this section (as it does the previous and following paragraphs also).

Christ suffered on our behalf (2:21). His unjust suffering (Peter uses this word instead of “death” to relate to his readers’ suffering) secured our salvation in a substitutionary sense (as Peter goes on to make clear in 2:24). In a similar, but not totally analogous way, our unjust suffering can lead to the salvation of lost people if they see the character of Christ in us as we suffer. The attitude of fighting for our rights communicates to the world that we’re living for the things of this world. Submitting to unfair treatment and giving up our rights communicates the truth, that we’re living as pilgrims on our way to heaven.

If you’re being treated unfairly at work, you may be looking at a tremendous opportunity to bear witness for Christ by your behavior. If you yield your rights in a Christlike manner, people will notice and may wonder, “Why doesn’t he fight for his rights?” Maybe you’ll get an opportunity to tell them. If so, your words are backed up by the powerful testimony of your good works. You have demonstrated what it means to live under God’s authority, with a view to pleasing Him.

This raises the question of whether or not it is proper for Christians to belong to trade unions. That’s a sensitive issue, and I don’t have time to deal with it. I will say in passing that you need to think through whether you can bear witness of a Christlike spirit, in submission to God and to your employer, while belonging to an organization that seeks to fight for your rights.

Thus, the situation for submission is one in which we are under authority. The motives for submission are to please God and to bear witness.

3. The pattern for submission is Jesus Christ.

Christ left an example for us to follow in His steps (2:21). The word example is literally, “underwriting.” It was a school word. Teachers would lightly trace the letters of the alphabet so that students could write over them to learn how to write. Or, as in our day, teachers would put examples of the alphabet up in the room for students to look at to copy as they formed their letters. Christ is that kind of example for us. If we follow how He lived, we will form our lives correctly.

Following “in His steps” pictures a child who steps in his father’s footprints in the snow. Where the father goes, the child goes, because he puts his feet in those same footprints. In like manner, we are to follow our Savior. Peter says that we are called to the same purpose as Christ was (2:21). If our Master’s footprints led to the cross where He suffered unjustly, so we can expect to die to self and suffer unjustly. If we respond as He did, people will see our Savior in us. Many people will never read the Bible, but they do read our lives. They should see Christlikeness there, not a defiant spirit of self-will that characterizes those who are living for themselves and the things of this world.

4. The principle of submission involves not retaliating when we are wronged.

When Jesus was wronged, He did not retaliate in kind. He could have called legions of angels to strike down His enemies. He could have selfishly stood up for His rights (after all, He is Lord of the universe!). But He didn’t. He always acted selflessly, even when He did confront His accusers. While we’ll never be as unselfish as Jesus, it is a goal we should strive for.

Peter quotes (2:22-23) from Isaiah 53 to show how Jesus did not retaliate when He was wronged. There are four things mentioned which we need to keep in mind when we are treated unfairly. First, Jesus did not commit sin. He always acted in obedience to the Father, never in self-will. Second, there was never any deceit in His mouth. He didn’t bend the facts to win the argument or get His own way. When He defended Himself, He was always truthful. Third, when He was reviled, He didn’t revile in return. He didn’t trade insults. Fourth, He uttered no threats. He didn’t say, “Just you wait! I’ll get even with you!” In other words, Jesus didn’t respond to verbal abuse with more verbal abuse. Neither should we. Vengeance is always wrong for the Christian (Rom. 12:19).

How can we possibly live this way? Peter gives the answer in the final clause of 2:23:

5. The means of submission is to entrust ourselves to the Righteous Judge.

Jesus made it through the cross by continually entrusting Himself to the Father who judges righteously. He knew that He would be vindicated by being raised from the dead and enthroned at the right hand of the Majesty on high. He knew that His persecutors would be judged and dealt with according to their sins. So He “delivered Himself up” (the literal translation of “entrusted”) to God. It is the same word used for Jesus being delivered up to Pilate by the Jews and to the soldiers by Pilate (John 19:11, 16). They delivered Him up to death, but He delivered Himself up for our sins, trusting in the Father.

Jesus entrusted Himself to the Father, knowing that even though the way led to the cross, it also led through the cross to the glory beyond. Even so, we can entrust ourselves to God. The way will lead to the cross; but also, it will lead through the cross to the glory that awaits us in heaven. God is the righteous Judge who will someday right every wrong and bring vengeance on those who resist His authority. Our task is to trust Him by submitting to human authority, even when we are treated unfairly.

Conclusion

Bill Gothard tells the story of a Christian boy who had a hostile, unbelieving father. The boy asked if he could attend the church prayer meeting one evening and the father reluctantly gave permission. As the boy walked home after the prayer meeting, a friend saw him and offered him a lift in his car. The father saw his son get out of the friend’s car and said, “You lied to me about going to the prayer meeting! You really went out with your friends. I’m going to whip you for that!” The boy replied, “No, I went to the prayer meeting.” The father exploded, “I’m going to give you a double whipping for lying about it.”

The boy quietly endured the beating and didn’t grow bitter toward his father. He loved his dad and wanted to see him trust in Christ. A few days later the father was in the hardware store and ran into the pastor of the church where his son attended. Not knowing about the whipping, the pastor said, “You sure have a fine son. Last week in prayer meeting, he blessed us all with a fine word of testimony.” The father asked, “Was my boy in prayer meeting last week? I thought he went out with his friends.” The father was broken and soon came to Christ.

The great goal of the Christian life is to be like Jesus. That sounds wonderful until we realize that being like Jesus means submitting to proper authority, even if it’s unjust. It means submitting to please God and to bear witness to the lost. It means following Christ’s example, even as He went to the cross. It means not retaliating when we’re wronged. It means entrusting ourselves to the Righteous Judge, knowing that someday He will right all the wrongs.

These are not easy things for any of us to apply. But consider the rebellious spirit of our age and of our country and ask yourself if you are behaving properly toward those in authority over you, especially at work. Our response to unfair treatment should be submission, not fighting for our rights. If we put our trust in God, He will look out for us and right all the wrongs. It’s true: life isn’t fair! But thank God that Jesus endured unfair treatment on our behalf by bearing our sins so that we could receive eternal life!

Discussion Questions

1. Why does God allow unjust authority to go on?
2. How can we know when it’s proper to defend ourselves and when we should bear injustice without defense?
3. Was Paul wrong to stand up to corrupt authority in Acts 16:35-40? Why/why not?
4. How can we know whether it’s permissible to move out from under corrupt authority?
5. Are trade unions opposed to the principle of submission to employers? Why/why not?

Copyright 1992, Steven J. Cole, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation