Commentary on First Peter (65)
Peter has been telling his readers that they are to submit to every human institution (2:13). He will mention several of them as he continues his letter, but he begins with the king and his governors, or the civil government (v. 14). We can assume that the injunction is consistent with the purpose of his letter, which is to instruct and encourage those Christians who are facing persecution from the unbelievers.
So why does he mention submission to authority here? He has already indicated in verse 13 that it is "for the Lord's sake" that we are to submit under every human authority. Our allegiance does not finally belong to any human nation or government but to God. Neither do we recognize any human institution as possessing inherent or ultimate authority, but we know that its authority is derived and relative. We submit to human authority for the Lord's sake – that is, because he has established it, because he has commanded it, and because we have the duty and the desire to promote his honor.
Peter further explains the purpose and the effect of our submission in verse 15: "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men." We should not infer from this that submission to government is for a purely pragmatic reason, or that submission is morally neutral in itself.
Paul writes in Romans 13:1-2, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." So we are bound by God's command to submit under the government even if such submission does not silence the people's slander about our faith. As he continues in the same passage, "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (v. 5). We submit not only for the practical effect, but "also because of conscience."
That said, Peter's letter intends to encourage and instruct Christians who would face false accusations, including their attitudes toward human government, and verse 15 mentions one effect of submission that corresponds to this purpose. Our response to false accusations is to contradict them not only by our words, but also by our actions. If it is said that our faith incites political unrest and even insurrection, then we must explain the teachings of our faith, which teaches that God is behind all human authority, and we must demonstrate this teaching by becoming model citizens of our countries and societies.
Commentary on First Peter (64)
In giving the Ten Commandments, God begins with the declaration, "I am the LORD your God…You shall have no other gods before me…" (Exodus 20:2-3), and so on. And it is under this context that he then gives the commandment, "Honor your father and your mother" (v. 12). Because the commandment appears under the declaration of God's exclusive deity and supreme power, it is implied that parental authority functions under the authority of God.
As Paul writes, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" (Ephesians 6:1). Parental authority is not in itself absolute and independent, but it is derived from and dependent on the absolute authority of God. Thus when our parents command us to disobey God, we can refuse their command without facing a moral dilemma, since our moral obligation is to obey our parents in the Lord, and to obey our parents under the context of obeying the God who gave the Ten Commandments. A moral dilemma can only occur when we wrest the commandment away from its context and puts delegated authority on the same level with God's absolute authority.
Likewise, although the authority of the civil government is based on God's absolute authority, God never gave them the same absolute authority. Therefore, when a government commands us to disobey God, we can refuse their command without facing a moral dilemma. We can say, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29) – not because we are choosing the greater good and receiving an exemption from the lesser good, but we are choosing good over evil. God has never given any human institution absolute authority; rather, by his absolute authority he has given various human institutions a derived and limited authority over men.
Admittedly, we have not answered every question and challenge posed to divine command ethics, but this is a commentary on First Peter after all. A fuller discussion on the subject will take us too far away from the immediate context of our passage, and therefore must be reserved for a more appropriate setting.
Commentary on First Peter (63)
The above deals with the alleged conflict between two moral duties when one faces a situation in which each side could directly appeal to a divine command. We have seen that the conflict is in fact not generated by the divine commands themselves, but by the human factor. This is when people refuse to follow instructions as they are actually given, but instead they wish to choose which instructions they would follow and the way in which they would follow them depending on outcomes that they cannot really predict, and consequences that they cannot really control.
Now we will turn our attention to another type of so-called moral dilemmas, in which divine commands conflict with human commands. The alleged conflict arises because these human commands come from human authorities that are in turn established by divine authority.
This part of our discussion follows from our acknowledgment that there are exceptions to the obligation to obey these human institutions. These exceptions, however, are not justified by an approach like graded absolutism. So here is what we do not say: God commands one thing and man commands another, but God also commands us to obey this man, so that the two divine commands contradict one another. However, since God's command to obey God is greater than God's command to obey man, we will follow the former but violate the latter, only this violation does not count as sin in such a situation. This line of thinking acknowledges a genuine contradiction, a genuine dilemma, and resolves it by ranking the commandments and defining sin out of the way.
All our previous comments about graded absolutism apply here as well. As we have noted, this approach is unbiblical, unnecessary, and unbelieving. But there are several other specific observations that we can make about this type of conflicts, where human authorities that are in turn established by divine authority are involved. The additional factor of human authority at first seems to complicate the issue, but the solution is in fact just as plain.
Let us state the problem again. In the context of our passage, the human authority is the civil government. God commands us to obey the government, but what if the government then tells us to disobey God? Or, to consider another relationship, God commands us to obey our parents, but what if our parents tell us to disobey God? If it is just a case of divine authority against human authority, then the solution is obvious. Confusion occurs because the human authority is established by divine authority.
But the problem is the solution. That is, what at first appears to be the problem, namely, the observation that the human authority is established by divine authority, is in fact not the problem but the answer that we need.
We will take as an example the commandment to honor our parents, and we will suppose that we are in a situation in which our parents are telling us to disobey God. For this commandment (to honor our parents) to truly contradict another divine command, we must have on the one hand, "Obey God, even if he contradicts your parents," and then on the other, "Obey your parents, even if they contradict God." For there to be a genuine contradiction, God himself must state or imply the idea "even if they contradict God" in an instance or situation in which he delegates authority to a human institution over people.
However, if the context and intent for delegated authority is for the human institution to maintain God's program rather than to delegate authority just for the sake of delegating authority, then there is the opposite implication instead. That is, since human institutions receive their authority from God, it is implied that this authority does not include the power to command men to rebel against God. Therefore, when a human authority issues a command that contradicts divine authority, it does not generate a contradiction between the moral obligation to obey God and the moral obligation to obey the human institution, since at least in that instance, the human authority has gone beyond its assigned limits and the command that it gives thus lacks divine endorsement. The case, then, is not one of divine authority versus divine authority, but divine authority versus human authority.
Commentary on First Peter (62)
First, graded absolutism is unbiblical, and permits men to sin. Although it claims to be a form of absolutism, in reality it is just a form of relativism. Moreover, it avoids sin by redefining it, and not by obeying God's commands. Scripture acknowledges that some commandments are greater than others, but it never acknowledges that they could ever contradict one another, nor does it say that we are to follow only the greater ones when they seem to contradict. When Jesus speaks of "the more important matters of the law," he adds, "You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former" (Matthew 23:23). And when he refers to the first and second greatest commandments, it is not to make the point that they are to be obeyed instead of the lesser ones. Rather, he adds, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40). In both cases, he acknowledges a ranking among God's commandments only to insist that we should obey all of them.
Second, graded absolutism is unnecessary, because it deals with false dilemmas. Using the above test case as an example, there are many more options other than to lie or not to lie. By the biblical principle permitting one to defend himself and to defend others, the person faced with the decision could try to subdue the would-be murderer. Or, he could outright refuse to disclose the location of the intended victim and accept the consequences – whether injury, torture, or death. Depending on the situation and the many variables that are at play, a number of other options could be open to the person confronted with the decision. Of course he could even choose to lie! But instead of defining it away, let us still call it sin.*
Third, graded absolutism is unbelieving, in that it doubts the wisdom of God's revelation and providence. Many situations appear to be moral dilemmas only because we insist on doing God's job for him. This is when we judge for ourselves the best outcome and then manipulate the situation to attain it. Rather than obeying God's commandments as they have been revealed to us, we attempt to predict the consequence of obeying each of them, judge the desirability of each outcome, rank our moral duties accordingly (that is, not according to revelation but according to the projected outcome), and then make the one on the top of our list the highest obligation, excusing ourselves from obeying the rest.
There are numerous occasions in which I would give someone a set of clear instructions only to find him do something quite different because he thought that his way was better or that it produced a better outcome. Someone like this often expects to be commended for his creativity and resourcefulness, but what I see is someone who is rebellious, and who cannot follow simple instructions. What I see is someone that I cannot trust, since I can never know whether I will get what I ask for from him.
The problem is that, whereas I know precisely what I want when I make the instructions, I do not tell the person everything that is on my mind. And why must I exhaustively explain every request to a person, if he could perform the task perfectly just by doing what he is told? If I ask for a kitchen knife, I do not want someone to give me a gun just because he thinks that it would make a better weapon – perhaps I just want to make dinner. And if I ask for a gun, I do not want someone to give me a nuclear bomb just because it could cause greater destruction – perhaps I just want to hunt a bear. If I ask to have my photograph taken, I do not want someone to paint my portrait just because it has more artistic value. Perhaps I do not care about artistic value – perhaps I just need the photograph to renew my passport.
A person who often gets creative with straightforward instructions sometimes puts great effort into performing the task – his way, that is – but in reality he is useless and unreliable. He takes great pride in his work, partly because he gets creative with it and invests himself into it, but he fails to perform what has been asked of him. So he is reprimanded, but because he is thoroughly self-centered in his perception, he considers himself unjustly accused and becomes indignant.
Likewise, graded absolutism is nothing but creative rebellion. Scripture indicates which moral duties are greater and lesser, and therefore provide an objective (God's viewpoint) way to determine moral priorities — not to excuse us from the lesser duties, but to determine the degree of guilt and the severity of the punishment deserved when we disobey. But graded absolutism always takes more than this to make a decision when confronted with what it perceives to be a moral dilemma. It relies heavily on the person's human judgment to predict the outcomes of his actions, at times far from his immediate control and involvement, then to relate these outcomes to the applicable commandments, and then to choose the appropriate actions based on the ranking of the commandments. It has no confidence in God's wisdom in giving these commandments in the first place, and it takes his providence out of the picture altogether. In other words, it assumes that we are smart and God is stupid, and that we are in control while God is helpless.
The correct solution is simple. Rather than predicting the outcomes of my actions and then choosing which commandments to obey on that basis, my immediate responsibility and attention is to God's commandments, and I leave it up to the Giver of these commandments to take care of the outcomes. He knew what kind of world we live in and he knew what he was doing when he gave these commandments. It is not up to me to make things come out "right" when I might not even know what he wants out of the situation or why he wants it. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Our duty is to "follow all the words of this law," and not to follow what we determine to be the right course of action by predicting what would happen if we indeed follow all the words of this law.
Even when we follow this biblical and straightforward principle, there will still be difficult moral decisions. However, they will be difficult not because we must resolve moral dilemmas generated by divine commands that contradict one another – that never happens. Rather, one difficulty lies in the continual effort to attain a faithful and precise understanding of God's commandments and their implications for our thoughts and behavior. And the other difficulty is in the continual struggle against sin, exhibited in the tendency to think that we know better than God (as in graded absolutism), as well as in the tendency to outright refuse to do what we know is right and to insist on doing what we know is wrong. Moral decisions are often difficult not because there are so many dilemmas, but because there is so much sin and rebellion.
* A footnote in the completed version of this commentary will address the example of Rahab.
Commentary on First Peter (61)
There are those who believe that ethical dilemmas can occur within the divine command system of ethics. This is when we face situations in which two divine commands appear to demand contradictory responses. That is, in an ethical dilemma, one divine command appears to demand one response, but at the same time this response appears to be forbidden by another applicable divine command, and which demands a contradictory action. The question is, when two divine commands appear to contradict, which one should we obey?
This is what makes our discussion on divine command ethics relevant to our passage. Our case involves a conflict between divine and human authorities, with divine authority on the one side (Christ, Scripture, etc.), and a human authority functioning by divine authority on the other (human institutions). But before we address this, let us first consider a situation in which each side of the apparent conflict directly involves a divine command.
Here is a favorite test case, or mental experiment: Suppose a person comes up to you with a deadly weapon demanding you to disclose the location of another person, whom he intends to murder. It appears that two moral duties apply in such a situation. First, there is the duty to preserve the life of another. But if you lie to divert the man from his target, then it seems that you would be violating your duty to tell the truth. To put this negatively, on the one hand, you are forbidden to contribute to the unjust death of another person, and on the other hand, you are forbidden to lie.
A number of solutions and perspectives have been proposed. Among them, a favorite one is called "graded absolutism." It affirms that there is an absolute standard of ethics, and this standard is revealed to us in God's commandments. To transgress God's law is to commit sin; however, some moral duties are greater than others. Then, it proceeds to acknowledge that there are situations in which moral duties genuinely contradict one another. In these cases, a person must choose the "greater good," and when he does so, he is counted as righteous, and the fact that he violates the lesser commandment in order to fulfill the greater one does not count as sin.
When applied to our test case, according to graded absolutism, in order to fulfill the duty to preserve life, you would be morally obligated to lie. In fact, it would be a sin not to lie. Amazingly, many Christians consider this line of thinking a good solution to moral dilemmas. But there are several major problems with it.
Commentary on First Peter (60)
The problem is that ethics cannot be judged by ethics. The proper foundation for ethics can be established only by first dealing with metaphysics and epistemology. Once we settle the questions concerning the nature of reality and knowledge, then we can settle the questions on ethics.
One prominent Christian apologist made the statement that unless God is presupposed, an objective standard of ethics is impossible. To this an atheist philosopher responded, "So what? Then let us have no objective standard of ethics." This Christian apologist was accustomed to emphasizing biblical theism as the precondition for an objective standard of ethics, perhaps because he thought that to focus on ethics would immediately bring to the surface the relevance of the debate about the existence of God.
Of course he was correct in asserting that biblical theism is the necessary precondition for an objective standard of ethics. However, it is unwise to make this the thrust of our argument for biblical theism. It could give the impression that we believe in God because we affirm a particular view of ethics or because we affirm the necessity of ethics, rather than the other way around. Or, to say it another way, we should not give the impression that we are using our ethics to determine our metaphysics and epistemology rather than the other way around.
This applies to both our defense and refutation. So, for example, we should say that Islam is wrong not because it commands its followers to deal in violence with its detractors, but it is wrong for them to do so because Islam itself is a false religion, and a false religion is false not because of its ethics, but because of its metaphysics and epistemology. If we must use ethics as an illustration or as a starting point – that is, the starting point of the conversation, and not the logical starting point of our belief system – we must clearly and quickly point out that our view of ethics is derived from our metaphysics and epistemology, namely, biblical theism and biblical revelation.
Commentary on First Peter (59)
Scripture's teaching on submission to human authority is not limited to the civil government but to all human institutions (2:13), and the exception is also stated in general terms, that we must obey God rather than man when the two are in conflict (Acts 5:29). Therefore, the same principle applies to all situations in which we must deal with human authority, such as the relationships between parents and children, husbands and wives, and church leaders and church members.
This is a good place to say something about divine command ethics. This system of ethics affirms that right and wrong are defined by God and revealed to us through his commands. Thus we may affirm that it is immoral to commit murder just because God has said, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13).
One philosopher notes, "The chief objection to the theory is that dependence on divine commands would make morality unacceptably arbitrary. According to divine command ethics, murder would not be wrong if God did not exist or existed but failed to forbid it." This statement summarizes the objection, and we cannot expect from it all the details that would be included in a philosophical treatise. However, since the objection is fundamentally indefensible and not just flawed in its details, my response will apply to any expression of the objection that is based on the above line of reasoning.
First, the objection fails to define "arbitrary." The word can refer to randomness or capriciousness on the one hand, but also absolute authority on the other. Then, it fails to explain why it is wrong for a system of ethics to be "arbitrary." If there is a problem with a system of ethics that is arbitrary in the former sense, why is there a problem with the latter sense?
Second, the objection already presupposes a system or standard of ethics other than divine command ethics, and by which it judges divine command ethics. Notice that it challenges divine command ethics based on whether this system would necessarily make murder wrong, when whether murder is wrong is precisely one of the questions that a system of ethics should answer.
Here it is assumed that murder is wrong and then a system is evaluated by the assumption. That is, a person who makes such an objection is not seeking a system to define right and wrong for him, but he is seeking a system to explain and justify what he already thinks. Therefore, as a challenge against divine command ethics, the objection begs the question.
This is a common error in arguments and discussions about ethics, so that if a system does not condemn murder by necessity, then for this reason alone it could be considered wrong. However, to reason this way, a person must first establish that murder is wrong, and once he has already done this, he already has his ethical system. Many believers also succumb to this faulty line of reasoning, and so they argue as many do, for example, that a religion that condones or even commands violence, such as Islam, must be a false religion. But this also begs the question.
Commentary on First Peter (58)
With this in mind, it is true that at the moment Peter is focusing our attention on the proper function of human government, that it is established "to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right" (v. 14). Under the control of evil and godless men, a government will fail to fulfill this function, and it might even do the opposite – that is, to punish those who do right and commend those who do wrong. However, as Peter will soon point out, an unjust government is not necessarily to be disobeyed. Instead, he calls us to suffer under it.
So if there are exceptions to the Scripture's command to obey human government, the principle for determining such instances should be carefully defined. We will first consider an instance when Peter himself disobeyed the authorities. When he, along with John, were commanded "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:18), they replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (v. 19-20).
Of course, the phrase "judge for yourselves" is an expression that does not necessarily imply submission to the hearer's opinion. Instead, it indirectly asserts that the speaker's position is evidently correct, as when we say, "You decide" or "You tell me!" Indeed, the apostles were not waiting for a verdict, since they said, "For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." To paraphrase, they were saying, "It is evident that we should obey God rather than to obey you. So, although you have told us not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, we must continue anyway." Later, the apostles were brought before the high priest, who confronted them and said, "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood" (5:28). They answered, "We must obey God rather than men!" (v. 29).
Several examples appear in Daniel. Although the Jews were under the rule of a pagan king, they submitted and served under him. However, when they were told to worship idols, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused. They were thrown into a blazing furnace (Daniel 3). Later, when they were forbidden to petition or worship any god or man except the king, Daniel disobeyed and continued his daily prayers to the one true God. He was thrown into a lions' den (Daniel 6). God delivered his people in both cases, but the most relevant point for our purpose is that they had the same reason that Peter had for disobeying human authority.
It is clear from these examples that the time to disobey human authority is when to obey man means to disobey God. When a human authority issues a law that is not only inconsistent with God's commands and precepts, but that requires believers to neglect or violate them, then we must disobey the law. That is, we disobey human authority not just when we prefer not to obey it, but when we are forbidden to obey it by the command of God.
Commentary on First Peter (57)
Now, Peter refers to the two offices of king and governor because this reflects the Roman system of government that he and his readers operate under. But the application goes beyond the Roman system and beyond the original historical setting, since the principle is that believers must submit to every human institution (v. 13).
That said, it is true that, as citizens, Christians have different rights under different forms of government. At times these rights permit believers to influence policy, air grievances, and protest injustice (Luke 18:3). These rights are built-in to the system of government that they live under, and to take advantage of them does not signal rebellion. Nevertheless, Christians must remain true to the principle of submission to authority and exercise these rights in a cooperative and orderly fashion.
On the other hand, Christians living under an oppressive system cannot pretend that they are living under a democracy, for to do so would amount to subversion. How should believers behave in such a situation? Should they suffer injustice? The possibility has never occurred to some Christians, especially those who seem to understand nothing but democracy, and who tend to complain, protest, and grumble all they want in every sphere of their lives, not just when it comes to the government, but also in their families and their churches. Submission is foreign to them because they are infatuated with their "rights."
Of course, it is not that democracy produces rebellion, but it does less to suppress it. The point is that Christians with a western and democratic mentality should do more to examine themselves in this area, and become more conscious and deliberate about submitting to authority.
Commentators hurry to mention that there are exceptions to Peter's instruction, that there are instances when civil disobedience is biblically justified. However, if we mention it at all, we must not rush into this phase of our discussion, because Peter's emphasis in this passage is not disobedience, but obedience to the government.
Although they acknowledge that these instances would be the exceptions to usual Christian behavior, several commentators devote considerable effort in citing examples and scenarios in which Christians should disobey the government. This is typical of those who are nervous about a given biblical teaching. Consider those who emphasize the exception clause (Matthew 5:32) to Christ's teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, when his own emphasis is the opposite, that "what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6). It is proper to emphasize an exception when the target audience fails to acknowledge it, but it is unlikely that the intended readers of these publications would have much trouble opposing authority. Most of them need to learn submission.
Commentary on First Peter (56)
The government also has the positive function "to commend those who do right" (v. 14). Some commentators doubt that this portion of the verse could apply to the original readers of Peter's letter, or for that matter, to Christians living under any form of secular government. It is unlikely that Christians would receive praise from human authorities that are hostile to their faith. At least one scholar writes that Christians should not care about it. Along with this is the observation that the phrase is perhaps part of the instruction given to governors at the time, or that Peter is reflecting how the governors' function is described by the culture.
The above line of thinking is irrelevant, and misses the point of the text. First, whatever the source for verse 14, the two aspects of a public official's responsibilities are cited by Peter as a basis for the Christian's submission. Second, the very purpose of the command is to contradict the negative ideas that non-Christians believe about the faith and its adherents.
So to note that the government might be hostile against Christians is precisely the reason, within this context, to observe that its function ought to be to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right, so that the Christians should not do wrong but do right. Whether we can expect the government (or any human institution) to do what it ought to do is a separate question, and one that we will address as we continue with Peter's letter.
In any case, here we note that Christians are not only to refrain from becoming criminals, but they are to be model citizens, so that they may make a positive impression upon society on behalf of the faith.
Commentary on First Peter (55)
Unlike God, who exercises constant and direct control over all things, it is impossible for a human ruler to have a direct hand in all that occurs under him. It is true that God himself delegates authority to his creatures, but this is not because he could not manage without their assistance, nor does this mean that his creatures can function without his active power and control at every moment. But a human ruler must divide his responsibilities and delegate authority, since he is limited in every way.
Thus under the king or emperor, there are "governors" (v. 14) assigned to specific territories. This is the title of Pilate (Matthew 27:2), Felix (Acts 23:24), and Festus. These are "sent by him" – the king – "to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." There is no need to assume that this constitutes the complete description of what human government is supposed to accomplish. Peter is instructing believers on how they should think and behave when faced with the accusation that Christians are anti-government, a subversive group of anarchists that have no respect for the established authority. It is appropriate, therefore, for Peter to discuss human government relative to its role in responding to those who do wrong and those who do right.
The word for punishment here carries the connotation of retribution and vengeance. There are those who think that we should focus on reforming and "curing" the criminals, Peter does not express any interest in that. Whatever the state does with its criminals, it must be a top priority to punish them. Deterrence is an intended effect, as those who do wrong are supposed to fear the authorities (Romans 13:3-4). Some argue that punishment does not deter, but this is only because the modern examples cited include no actual punishment – no painful and destructive acts of vengeance against the criminals.
However, even those who affirm that deterrence is possible must not make punishment a solely practical affair, since again, the idea is retribution – to make the criminals suffer for the wrong that they have done. On the one hand, the public official acts on behalf of the society to protect the common good (Romans 13:4). But he is also God's representative to give wrongdoers a small foretaste of hell, where there will be only vengeance, and no chance to repent or reform.
Many people think that Scripture teaches against the very principle of revenge, but the opposite is true – it insists on it as the necessary demand of justice. As Paul writes, "For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you" (2 Thessalonians 1:6, NASB). What Scripture does teach is that it is not up to the offended individual to execute judgment upon the wrongdoer, and thus elsewhere Paul writes, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord" (Romans 12:19).
So God is not saying, "Do not take revenge, because revenge is wrong." Rather, he tells us, "Justice demands revenge, but you must let me do it." Then, for the sake of justice and order, God has established human government and authorized public officials to punish wrongdoers in a limited measure. Human abilities and methods can never exact upon a criminal what he truly deserves. Even execution kills only the body, but God can and will do much more.
In fact, from what God has commanded human government to do to criminals, we see a dim reflection of what he plans to do to all non-Christians in the life to come. If this is the kind of government that he establishes, and if this is the kind of treatment he orders for criminals, what horrors will sinners face in hell? Surely this is an apt analogy for preachers to declare the justice and the wrath of God, and to proclaim the only way of escape in Jesus Christ.
Commentary on First Peter (54)
We begin with verses 13 and 14: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
The injunction refers to "every authority instituted among men" (or NASB: "every human institution"), and not only those that Peter would specify. Thus we can extend it to other authority figures such as parents, teachers, employers, and church leaders. The proper application requires a degree of care and precision, since the various authorities wield different types and levels of power. Their spheres of authority are defined according to biblical precepts and legitimate inferences from them.
The verb translated "submit" is originally a military term meaning to arrange or place under the authority of another. For this word to mean what it means, obedience is naturally implied. One submits to authority, so that one obeys that authority. Why we need to mention this at all will become clear when we come to 3:1, where Peter speaks about the submission of the wife to her husband. Right now our focus will turn to submission – and obedience – to the civil government.
At the time that Peter wrote, "the king" would have been the emperor Nero, who ruled from AD 54 to 68. According to history, he was a fair ruler for the first five years, perhaps influenced by Seneca. But afterward he threw off all restraints. In biblical discussions, he is most often remembered for the brutal persecution that he unleashed upon the Christians.
Nevertheless, Peter states that believers are to submit even to such a one, "as the supreme authority" of the land. Of course, in absolute terms, only God is "supreme" over all things. But Peter has already narrowed the discussion to "human institutions," so that he is speaking about the civil authorities, their relationship to one another, and their relationship to the citizens. And from this perspective, the king or emperor is indeed the supreme authority, and believers should honor him as such.
Commentary on First Peter (53)
1 PETER 2:13-17
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
There is a central purpose to Peter's letter – it is to encourage and instruct Christians who would face harsh persecution and unjust treatment at the hands of unbelievers. Until now, he has been testifying to the greatness of the salvation that his readers have received – that is, about what God has done, about what he has made them in Christ, and about how all of this has made a difference between them and the unbelievers. This provides the Christians with the necessary theological perspective from which they can understand and endure their sufferings. It also provides the foundation for the rest of the letter, as Peter now turns to consider how Christians ought to behave within specific situations and relationships.
He prominently addresses three items, namely, the believers' relationship to government (2:13-17), to masters (2:18-20), and to spouses (3:1-7). Of course, believers also function in spheres other than those Peter mentions; however, keep in mind that he is writing to instruct them on how to think and behave in the face of persecution, and one form of persecution is slander, or false accusations about what the Christians believe and how they behave. It could be that Peter is especially concerned about the false accusations regarding the Christians' view toward human authority, that the Christian faith has been misinterpreted as a religion that stirs up rebellion in its adherents.
Some false accusations are especially dangerous, such as those that portray Christians as lawless and unruly troublemakers, or even insurrectionists plotting to overturn the existing government. When circulated and believed, these false ideas about the faith would naturally lead to harsher forms of persecution, including the state's official opposition. Then, for the believers, what is even worse is that these false accusations attack God's honor, our chief concern. Therefore, although wicked men will always slander the faith, believers must seek to minimize the damage and even glorify the Lord by their holy speech and conduct.
Commentary on First Peter (52)
Commentators regard verse 11 as the beginning of the second major portion of Peter's letter. There is no need to dispute this, but we are considering verses 11 and 12 along with verses 4-10 because it is important to note the connection between the two major sections, that the second is based on the first. Peter calls the Christians "aliens and strangers in the world." Why are they aliens and strangers? It is because they have been called out from the world. He tells the Christians to "abstain from sinful desires"? Why must they abstain? It is because they are priests of God, so that they must engage in that which is holy and avoid that which is profane.
One of the major issues that Peter writes to address is how Christians should respond to the slanderous accusations coming from the unbelievers (v. 12). Some of these accusations relate to the seemingly subversive nature of the faith, and it is concluded that Christians are unruly individuals that would overturn the established institutions of government and family.
Christians, of course, must be prepared to offer a verbal explanation of their beliefs and actions whenever the situation arises (1 Peter 3:15). But the other aspect of our response is to constantly "live such good lives among the pagans" (v. 12) that it will become obvious that their accusations are false, so that "they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us" (v. 12). The idea here is that our good conduct will contradict their slander and help remove the obstacles to faith in the unbelievers, so that some of them will be converted and believe the gospel.
Nevertheless, our good conduct is not a mere outward display, as Peter says that we must first abstain from sinful desires, "which war against your soul." True religion always deals with the inner man first, and the outward conduct is a natural reflection of the inward condition. Here Peter points to a crucial aspect of our sanctification. Sinful desires, or lusts, war against our soul. They seek to capture it, to corrupt it, and to destroy it. Every Christian must confront this inward reality. Prior to our conversion, we were enslaved by them, but now we have the power to "abstain" (v. 11). The sense here is to continually avoid and keep away from something.
As Christians, we are as holy priests living among a profane populace. It should be our constant concern to remain in purity and to avoid contamination. We do this not only for the sake of self-preservation, but knowing that we represent God, Christ, and the gospel before the world. So our greatest concern is to counteract the people's slander against the Christian faith by magnifying the work of God in our lives. Rather than to disgrace him with shameful living, we must always seek to make him look "big," and to make him look good before the pagan world. It is for this that God has called us out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Commentary on First Peter (51)
Some have taught that it is in a sense appropriate for believers to adopt a sanctified hedonistic attitude toward the Christian life, for God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. However, the biblical basis for this assertion is questionable. Moreover, such a principle brings our immediate focus upon our own satisfaction, even though the satisfaction is supposedly enjoyed within the context of faith, and the ultimate goal is allegedly to glorify God.
It is far better to say that both our immediate focus and ultimate goal must be to glorify God. If a Christian cannot live a fulfilling and productive life with this attitude, it just means that he is either not a believer at all, or that he still needs to grow in maturity and sanctification. The solution is not to change the biblical principle. This other teaching almost makes the glory of God a by-product of our satisfaction, even though it is allegedly the real ultimate end. Also, it makes our satisfaction based on something other than the glory of God. That is, we are not satisfied because God is glorified; rather, God is glorified because we are satisfied, and we are satisfied because of something else. On the other hand, the biblical principle makes our satisfaction a by-product of God's being glorified. If God is not glorified, we will never be satisfied.*
It is true that the teaching encourages us to delight in God, and in itself this is correct. But again, to say that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him diverts our immediate attention from God's glory. Those who have studied the presentations and defenses of Christian Hedonism will protest that this is a misrepresentation of the teaching, since it does affirm the place of self-denial and sacrifice. The problem is that at the points where the presentations and defenses of this teaching are biblical, they invariably make it inconsistent to still call it a form of hedonism. Failing to notice this, my comments would appear to be a misrepresentation.
To offer a rather simplistic analogy, if we say that a form of "atheism" fails as a system of thought because it does not believe in God, but then it defends itself by showing that it does believe in God, then even if it succeeds in defending itself against the charge, it can no longer consistently call itself a form of atheism.
The least we can say is that the teaching is poorly expressed, to the point that it becomes misleading and unbiblical. There are better ways of teaching the biblical elements in this teaching without adopting its perspective, emphasis, and gimmicky expressions. In any case, we must have a truly God-centered theology of salvation – not one that is just ultimately God-centered, but one that is God-centered at every point.
*As mentioned before, the footnotes that accompany the text will appear only in the final version when the commentary is distributed in book form. But to prevent confusion, I should make an exception here and include the one that is attached to this statement:
"Here I am referring to satisfaction in a difference sense. That is, even if God is not glorified, we can still be satisfied in him, although we will not be satisfied about the general situation. It would make the text more precise but too cumbersome to say "satisfied in him" or "satisfied in general" in every instance. Notice that this does not affect the point I am making, which is that we cannot make God's glorification a by-product of our satisfaction."