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."
Commentary on First Peter (50)
To recapitulate, at the beginning of this chapter, we considered what our passage says about Christ and what it says about the unbelievers. Then, we spent a great deal of time on what it says about the Christians. They are living stones that are being built into a spiritual house. They are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation – a people that is God's special treasure, and whom he has called out of darkness into his wonderful light.
The passage mentions two things that Christians have been redeemed by God to do. First, they are to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (v. 5). We have already discussed this. Second, believers are to "declare the praises of him who called" them (v. 9). The word translated "praises" is aretas. The English translations attempt to capture different aspects of what the word means, and they have done so in two main ways. The first takes the word as referring to the "excellent qualities" of God (GWT), and thus the NASB has "excellencies" here. The second observes contemporary pagan usage of the word as well as the context of Isaiah 43:21, from which Peter obtains the phrase, and so concludes that the word refers to God's actions and miracles. Thus the RSV offers the translation, "wonderful deeds," and the REB reads, "glorious deeds."
The God of Isaiah 43:21 is the one who brought the Israelites out of Egypt with signs and wonders, and he is the one who would bring them out of Babylon, where they were held captive. In our passage, he is the one who called believers out of darkness into his wonderful light. Therefore, the "praises" that we are to declare would no doubt include the mighty acts that God performed in redeeming us from death, sin, and hell. It would include his eternal decree to redeem his chosen ones, and the fulfillment of this decree in Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.
The phrase also calls attention to the fact that, although we are the one needing and receiving salvation, redemption is ultimately not about us, but about God. Back in Isaiah 43, God says that he would blot out transgressions "for my own sake" (v. 25). This idea is consistently taught throughout the Bible (Psalm 25:11, 79:9; Ezekiel 20:9, 36:22; Ephesians 1:6).
In other words, our theology of salvation must be consistently God-centered and not man-centered. It is not enough to acknowledge that the reason for our election rests within God's sovereign will alone, and not in our own inherent worth and merit. We must also affirm that, although God does love us and intend to benefit us through redemption, the ultimate end or purpose for which God saves us is for himself and not for us.
Commentary on First Peter (49)
Peter calls the Christians "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (v. 9). The Greek word translated "people" here is genos, which means "race" (NASB). We have already discussed the priesthood of believers (see also Revelation 1:6 and 5:10). So he asserts that God's people are not Abraham's physical descendants, but Christians are the chosen race. God's priests are not the sons of Aaron, but Christians are the royal priesthood. And God's nation is not the earthly Israel, defined according to geography, but the church is his holy nation (Exodus 19:6).
Then, Christians are "a people belonging to God" (v. 9). Similar expressions are found in Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, Isaiah 43:21, and Malachi 3:17. It seems that Peter mainly has in mind the verse from Isaiah, since the next phrase "that you may declare the praises of him" parallels the Old Testament prophet, who says, "the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise." The sense here is that God has chosen the Christians to be a special treasure for himself. Hillyer notes, "The corresponding Hebrew term is twice used of the personal treasure of a king, as distinct from the national revenues that he controlled (1 Chron. 29:3; Eccl. 2:8)."
Peter is obviously applying the promises and blessings that God gave Israel to Christians, or to the church. Of course, God never changed his mind or altered his program, but as we noted earlier, it has always been true that a person is saved, not by becoming a Jew outwardly, but by becoming a Jew inwardly – he has to become a Christian (Romans 2:28-29, 9:7-8). This has been the case even since the beginning – every natural Jew who refuses to become a Christian is no Jew at all, and will suffer eternal damnation just as readily as any non-Christian Gentile (Galatians 3:7, 29; Romans 4:11-12). Christians are a chosen race of people, with exclusive blessings and privileges, not according to race, tradition, or geography, but according to faith. Verse 10 is an application of verses like Hosea 1:9 and 2:23, and reinforces the same idea.
It is not exactly correct to say that the Jews were the chosen people in the past, but now Christians are the chosen people. Rather, once we have defined our terms, it is more correct and precise to say that the chosen people – not the outward covenant community, but those chosen for salvation – have always consisted of Christians, and only Christians. The difference is that most Christians used to come from the Jews in the past, but now God makes Christians out of people from all races and all nations. In contrast, non-Christians have never been God's people, whether in the past or present, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, and even when some of them have infiltrated the covenant community.
Christians have been called "out of darkness into his wonderful light" (v. 9). Again, this reflects Peter's unflattering view toward the unbeliever's condition as well as the magnitude of the grace of redemption. The non-Christian dwells in darkness, both intellectually and morally. But God has brought the Christian out of darkness and into the light of knowledge and holiness. This is a recurring metaphor in the New Testament (Acts 26:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6, 6:14; Ephesians 5:8; Colossians 1:12-13; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-5).
Commentary on First Peter (48)
Or, how about a Chinese Christian who departs from his family's Buddhist heritage, and who then renounces all idolatrous practices, including ancestor worship and other forbidden religious ceremonies? It depends on how much emphasis the family places on their traditions. In some cases, great shame may be heaped upon the believer. The family members might give him the "cold shoulder," or even outright hostile treatment. It is not inconceivable for the parents to remove from their will a child who has been converted to the Christian faith.
Parents might boast before friends and relatives that their children are doctors, bankers, and lawyers. They are not as proud if their children are janitors and taxi drivers, but for someone to become a pastor, why, that is just a waste of time and talent. Of course, this line of thinking also appears in Westerners in various forms and degrees, as they also think in terms of honor and shame, even if their mentality is not as saturated and influenced by these categories.
Peter accepts the honor-shame mentality, but he reverses its application. Unbelievers regard Christ with hatred and scorn, and so to them it is shameful to trust in him. But what does God think? He is the only correct standard by which all things are judged, and he has made Christ the cornerstone of all true faith and worship. Those who believe in him "will never be put to shame," but "the honor is for [them] who believe." As for "those who do not believe," it is this very stone that they have rejected that trips them up, and causes them to stumble and fall. To them is the shame and dishonor.
Therefore, the greatest honor that has come upon my family is that God has chosen me and converted me, and in addition to this, that he has separated me to serve him in the ministry. I am the greatest honor that God has ever attached to the Cheung family. Members of my family should not be ashamed of my faith as a Christian and my profession as a minister. But I cannot say the same about them, that is, those who do not believe – they are an embarrassment to me. I regard their unbelief with great disdain and shame.
Some Christians might feel strange and uncomfortable to hear me say this, perhaps for a similar reason that many translators select an inferior rendering for verse 7. And this is precisely why I must say it, because this is Peter's point, so that until a person can apply it this way to his own situation, he probably does not believe it at all. Once we renew our minds and adjust our thinking toward this direction, the benefits of this teaching to those enduring persecution from unbelievers becomes evident, and requires no elaboration.
The only thing to add is that when we speak in this manner about the honor of faith, we are not boasting in ourselves, since our faith did not arise from our own holiness or wisdom, but it came from God's sovereign grace. We believe because God has chosen us in his mercy and has caused us to believe by his power. So when we talk like this, we are boasting about what God has done through Christ. As it is written, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31). In fact, the Christian who never boasts this way – that is, from the perspective of what God has done in him, and to extol the works of God in his life – does not really understand or appreciate his salvation.
Commentary on First Peter (47)
Returning to the "spiritual sacrifices," these are not foreign to the Old Testament. As Psalm 141:2 says, "May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice." All Christians are to offer spiritual sacrifices to God, but none of these are blood sacrifices. There is only one atoning death, and that is the death of Jesus Christ. He sacrifice is sufficient, and its efficacy is permanent. Thus there is no need to repeat it, or for us to supplement it with other blood sacrifices. But our sacrifices are "spiritual," and consists in holy thoughts, words, and actions.
These sacrifices are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (v. 5). He is the necessary and only mediator between God and man. He is the High Priest under whom all the priests of God serve and have access to the throne of grace. In turn, this means that all the prayers and good deeds of worshipers who do not come through Christ, such as the adherents of non-Christian religions, are in fact unholy sacrifices, rejected and condemned by God. They are not priests, but they intrude into our rightful place as those consecrated for worship, and attempt to dupe or force God into accepting their sacrifices. Needless to say, these arise to God as a stench to his nostrils, and he will rain down his wrath upon them in multiplied measure. Will God have no regard for their sincerity? But if they do not come through the only right way, then they are not sincere worshipers of God, but they are sincere rebels and imposters. That is, they are not pretending to be wicked and disobedient, but they are sincerely so.
Continuing with what our passage (2:4-12) teaches about the Christians, verses 6 and 7 appeal to the ideas of honor and shame: "The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious." Although it is true that Christ is of great worth to those who believe, here the NIV errs in translating time as "precious" (also KJV, RSV, NASB, NLT, NRSV). Grammatical considerations demand the translation "honor" instead. The context also supports this, since Peter is talking about the honor of believing in Christ (v. 7; "not…shame" in v. 6) and the dishonor or shame that is the lot of "those who do not believe" (v. 7), for they shall stumble and fall (v. 8). The ESV gets it right and reads, "So the honor is for you who believe." The God's Word translation is not as precise but manages to capture the meaning: "This honor belongs to those who believe." See also the HCSB and The New Jerusalem Bible.
Commentators suspect that many translators are afraid to attribute honor to the believers, and therefore opt for "precious" instead, attributing worth to Christ in the minds of believers. But Peter is making a point here, namely, that Christians would not be "put to shame" for believing in Christ, that there is honor in their faith. This is an encouraging insight for those who live in cultures that think in categories of honor and shame, that to believe in Christ will not lead to shame but to honor, and that it is those who disbelieve who will stumble and fall.
In some cultures, great shame is attributed to one who abandons the family religion. It would not be surprising for a Christian to receive hostile treatment from his Jewish family. As Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36). Elsewhere he predicts that "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death" (Matthew 10:21).
Commentary on First Peter (46)
So it is possible to affirm the biblical doctrine concerning the goodness of what God has created, and at the same time affirm the sacred-secular distinction. This is sufficient to provide legitimacy for believers to "engage the culture" and to participate in secular occupations and endeavors with full confidence, without guilt and shame. A believer does not have to enter public ministry to live a holy life or to become useful for the kingdom. But the proper doctrinal foundation for this view is not the denial of the sacred-secular distinction, or the assertion that all occupations are equally holy as the ministry, which is simply not true.
I may never have to listen to an accountant in my life, but all accountants must listen to preachers. Or, the accountant could give up accounting and go fishing instead – but he better not give up prayer or the reading of Scripture. Anyone can become a janitor or a businessman, although some will be better at some things than others. But most believers are warned to keep out of the teacher's office, since it incurs a stricter judgment. In God's system, some things are just more important and even more sacred than other things. To acknowledge this does not mean that we must become Catholics or Gnostics, or that we reject the priesthood of all believers. Rather, to deny the sacred-secular distinction, to the extent that this is improper, is to denigrate that which is in fact more sacred than the secular.
The above goes against a strong tradition that is held by many and a doctrine that is beloved by the same, so it might not be well-received, and perhaps vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. With such a short treatment on the subject, this cannot be avoided. And of course, people can have divergent views on the topic even if they seem to affirm the same doctrine in principle, and so to some people it might appear that I am attacking a straw man. But if it is true that they do not affirm that which I reject here, then let them not perceive this as a straw man, since I might not be talking about them at all. But it is true that many indeed believe as I have described.
In any case, as an attempt to clarify, remember that I do not deny the principle that all creation is basically "good," in the sense that Paul means it in 1 Timothy 4:4. The problem is that many wild inferences and false generalizations have been made from this, and then an entire Christian approach to society and culture has been constructed upon it, at the expense of many other parts of Scripture.
Again, we can fully acknowledge the priesthood of all believers and the goodness of all creation, and reject the teachings of the Catholics and the Gnostics, and still maintain a sacred-secular distinction. In one book, there is a picture of a minister, and next to him in a circle is the word "Holy." Then, there is a picture of a truck driver, and the circle next to him reads, "Unholy?" No, the occupation is not unholy, and one can glorify and please God in it – but it is still properly called a secular occupation.
Now, an unbeliever can fill a secular position, but let him take the office of the pastor, or let him counsel others in the name of Christ, or let him handle the word of God, whether in private or in public, then it is a transgression and a blasphemy, and the jealousy of the Lord burns hot against him. There is a difference. A big difference.