Commentary on First Peter (91)
Paul leaves no room for doubts and excuses when he writes, "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:24). Any exegetical maneuver that strips the husbands of their authority over their wives must also strip Christ of his authority over the church. And anyone who would strip Christ of his authority over the church, of course, cannot rightly claim to be a Christian at all.
Since there is no biblical escape, anyone who denies that wives must submit to their husbands in everything and as to the Lord is a blasphemer as well. In other words, because Paul has so joined them together by analogy, one relationship cannot be discussed in a way that is inconsistent with the other. Once it is known that the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 5:23), anyone who denies that the wife must obey the husband in everything also defies Christ's authority and renounces the Christian faith.
For at least three reasons, we understand that the biblical command for wives to obey their husbands is a universal teaching that transcends culture, tradition, and even the fall of man. First, it is rooted in creation. It did not arise from sin, although sin has made it likely for men to abuse their authority and for women to resent this authority. Second, all of the passages related to the topic are immune from being neutralized or condemned to irrelevance by an appeal to the culture in which they were written.
Third, because the marriage relationship is analogous to the enduring and transcultural relationship between Christ and the church, and because this is stated in the context of the submission of wives, the command is therefore likewise enduring and transcultural. It will apply until there is no longer such a thing as marriage between men and women. As Jesus says, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).
Even then, it will be different not so much because the divine command will be annulled, since Christ will still rule over his church, which is his bride. But the command will no longer apply between human creatures only because they will become as the angels, who do not marry one another. Therefore, until the resurrection, the command that wives must obey their husbands remain in force.
That said, the next question is why Peter mentions it here in our passage. In other words, the command itself is universal and not occasional – it is for all times and not just for a particular situation or period in history – but Peter brings it up here for a purpose. What is this purpose?
Commentary on First Peter (90)
Then, there is the claim that "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5)." However, we have just noted that the word "submit" already implies obedience, both in itself and in this context. Also, in the context of Ephesians 5 and 6, because it is used to maintain an analogy to Christ and the church, it in fact carries a much stronger force than the obedience required from children and slaves.
But we can offer a more direct answer – the claim that Scripture never applies the word "obey" to wives is outright false.
Again, the commentary states, "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives."* Now, the word translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:22 is hypotasso, and the word translated "obey" in 6:1 and 6:5 is hypakouo. Thus the commentary is asserting that the word hypakouo is never used of wives in the Bible.
However, Scripture uses hypakouo (obey) when it speaks about Sarah in the very passage that we are now studying: "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive [hypotasso] to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo] Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and Peter writes that she obeyed (hypakouo) her husband. It cannot be said that Peter is only applying the word to Sarah, and not to wives in general. This is because the reason he mentions Sarah in the first place is to call all wives to imitate her example, and this means that we must equally apply hypakouo (obey) to all wives.
Moreover, in this passage, Peter either equates hypotasso (submit) to hypakouo (obey), or he at least assumes that hypotasso (submit) implies hypakouo (obey). This is because he writes, "They were submissive [hypotasso] to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo] Abraham and called him her master." That is, they were submissive, like Sarah, who obeyed. Here submission implies obedience.
Therefore, whether Scripture uses hypakouo or hypotasso (and now we see that it uses both words), it commands the wives to obey their husbands.
*This statement has vanished from the 2002 fully revised edition. However, it retains the assertion that the term does not refer to obedience in this passage. In other words, the assertion remains, but the erroneous reason for the assertion has disappeared. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty, or does this reflect only an "innocent" editorial decision? I cannot tell.
Commentary on First Peter (89)
Also, in the context of this passage, to say that submission means to yield one's rights to another also means that the church possesses certain rights against Christ himself, that even he must honor, only that we are admonished to surrender these rights to him. Very few blasphemies can rise above this level.
We must have more sense and reverence when reading Scripture. The two relationships are so tied to each other in this passage that it prevents all equivocation. Submission cannot mean one thing when it comes to husbands and wives, and then mean something altogether different when it comes to Christ and the church – all within the same passage, or even the same sentence!
Besides its blasphemous implications, it also begs the question to impose "to yield one's own rights" as the definition for submission on this passage. That is, if the church must obey Christ – to actually do what he commands – then it really possesses no rights against him that it could yield in the first place.
We know that the church must obey Christ, and Paul says that, likewise, "wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Therefore, the wives have no rights against the husbands in the first place, so what is there for them to yield? They never had the right to oppose or disobey their husbands to begin with, so it is not something that is up to them to give up.* If anything, because of the analogy to Christ and the church in this passage, the submission of the wives is asserted in much stronger terms than the obedience of children and slaves, whose relationships with their superiors are not compared to Christ and the church.
In fact, in Ephesians 5, the only ones who are told to yield their rights are the husbands. Paul instructs them, "love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (v. 25). The church never gave up anything for the benefit of Christ, but Christ sacrificed himself to save the church. Likewise, the husbands are the ones told to make the sacrifice. They are the ones who possess the rights that they may surrender for the benefit of their wives, but it is said that the wives must submit to them in everything, just as the church submits to Christ. Now if anyone says that the wives do not need to obey in everything, he must also say that the church does not have to obey Christ in everything. No one should call a Christian anyone who asserts something like this.
*Women indeed have certain rights in the marriage relationship. For example, she possesses conjugal rights (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), and the right to expect her husband to remain faithful. However, these are not really rights that she can surrender. It is not as if she can allow her husband to commit adultery! These rights do not apply to our context, which refers to the general headship of husbands over their wives, and the broad authority that this gives to the husbands. Also, the point is that they have no right to disobey in the first place, and therefore they have no rights to surrender in this context where we are referring to obedience to the husbands.
Commentary on First Peter (88)
Proceeding now to 3:1, Peter states the command in this manner: "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands." The verse does not say that every woman must submit to every man, but that every wife must submit to her own husband. Although this is the consistent testimony of Scripture (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5), it is opposed by many professing Christians, who use various tactics to neutralize it.
One popular attempt is to dilute the word's meaning into nothing more than a respectful attitude that in principle can exclude obedience altogether. However, as we have noted in connection with submission to the government (2:13) and to masters (2:18), the word translated "submit" is originally a military term meaning to arrange or place under the authority of another, and that for this word to mean what it means, obedience is naturally implied. One submits to authority, so that one obeys that authority. So when Scripture commands the wife to submit, it includes the idea to obey. She must do what she is told, and with a respectful attitude as well. Nothing less will do.
In one place, Paul writes that "the wife must respect her husband" (Ephesians 5:33). The KJV is slightly stronger and says "reverence." Perhaps this has contributed to the false teaching that Scripture commands only a respectful or submissive attitude and not also obedience in action and behavior. But the word is "fear" – the same one Peter uses of slaves when he says to them, "Submit yourselves to your masters with all respect" (3:18). As mentioned earlier, although the word does not carry the strength that it does when it refers to the fear of God, in our context it means at least a healthy apprehension of another's displeasure. It is not the kind of fear that one has toward God, but it is fear nonetheless, and it is more than mere respect.
Attempts in Christian scholarship to undermine the Bible's command range from the amusing to the ridiculous, and often include falsehoods and deceptions. For example, Paul writes in Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." Commenting on this verse, we find the following in the Tenth Anniversary Edition of the NIV Study Bible:
To submit meant to yield one's own rights. If the relationship called for it, as in the military, the term could connote obedience, but that meaning is not called for here. In fact, the word "obey" does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5).
According to this, the word could mean obedience, as in the military, but it does not mean that here in Ephesians 5:22. Instead, it means merely "to yield one's own rights." The submission required of the wives is contrasted against the obedience required of children and slaves. In other words, children and slaves must obey, but the wives only need to "submit" in a sense that does not imply obedience.
The result is no ordinary theological error, but outright blasphemy. This is because, in that very passage, Paul asserts that the relationship between husband and wife and the relationship between Christ and the church are analogous to each other. He writes, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (v. 22-24).
If the submission of the wives means anything less than obedience, then the submission of the church to Christ would also exclude obedience. That is, at least in principle, the church could exhibit perfect submission but complete disobedience to Christ. If to say that "wives should submit to their husbands in everything" means that they only need to "yield their rights" (whatever this means) to their husbands in everything without having to obey them in anything, then this is the attitude that the church may take toward Christ as well.
Commentary on First Peter (87)
The above review reinforces the context within which we find our passage. It brings to the forefront the first point about 3:1-6 that we are about to consider, namely, the possible misconception about the Christian faith that the wives are supposed to counter and correct by their submission.
Ancient civilization recognizes the husband as the head of the house. His authority is so extensive that his religion is also the household religion, which everyone under him is expected to follow. A husband who is converted to Christianity would lead his wife and the rest of the family to join the church as well.
On the other hand, trouble arises when the wife converts to Christianity while the husband rejects the gospel and remains in paganism. To leave the husband's religion for another could be taken as a sign of insubordination. Then, for the wife to abandon the former beliefs and abstain from all pagan rituals could be seen as a direct challenge to the husband's authority. Naturally, the teaching of this new religion that has so transformed the wife would become suspect as well. Therefore, it is a matter of utmost urgency and importance to convince the husband that the Christian faith does not encouragee rebellion in the wife. In fact, it reinforces her submission, not by the authority of tradition or culture, but by the very command of God.
The wife could no longer affirm pagan religions and participate in their worship rituals, and this could not be helped. But other than this, the Christian faith does not repudiate the husband's authority, but rather reaffirms it. It does not take the wife away from her husband, but it makes her a better wife than before. The Christian wife ought to be gentle, feminine, intelligent, responsible, hard-working, fiercely loyal and devoted, not vain, and without private ambitions and selfish agendas (Proverbs 31). Instead, she submits to her husband as her head, with sincere love and for the Lord's sake.
We should mention that, in observing the context of the passage and thus the reason for Peter to discuss the topic, we are by no means suggesting that the command for wives to submit is merely pragmatic, or that it is only a matter of convenience. Rather, the principle that wives must submit to their husbands has been true since the beginning of creation. Here Peter gives it emphasis to address the situation faced by his readers.
To illustrate, if we were to address a group of Christians whose parents oppose the faith because of its alleged negative effects on the children, then we would naturally emphasize the command, "Obey your parents." But the command is in force whether or not the particular situation requires us to emphasize it. Likewise, wives must submit to their husbands. In fact, if the submission of women is considered undesirable or offensive in a given culture, the church would still have to teach and practice it, only that the command would receive attention from a different perspective.
Commentary on First Peter (86)
1 PETER 3:1-6
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Let us first recall the background and purpose of Peter's letter. He is writing to people who have been converted to the Christian faith out of a society steeped in pagan religions, false philosophies, and sinful lifestyles. They have been saved from idolatry and damnation, but this has also made them "aliens and strangers in the world" (2:11). As such, they would sometimes come under persecutions, which are often founded on misrepresentations and false accusations regarding Christian beliefs and the implications of these beliefs.
After presenting an elaborate theological foundation on which Christians are to construct their thoughts and actions, and through which they are to interpret their situation, Peter instructs his readers to counter slander with godly behavior. He writes in 2:12, "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." Then, he proceeds to describe how Christians can live "good lives among the pagans" within specific situations and relationships.
Submission to human institutions is emphasized. This is perhaps because with all its talk about having one Master and the freedom that he brings, it has been inferred that Christian doctrine incites rebellion against authority and aspires to overturn the existing social structure. But the truth is that the Christian faith both commands and enables believers to function under human authority with sincerity, patience, and excellence. It is important that we explain this to those who have misunderstood the faith (3:15), but then we must also demonstrate its teaching in our conduct. As Peter writes, "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men" (2:15).
So, the command is to "submit yourselves…to every authority instituted among men" (2:13). We have already considered two examples: submission to the civil government (2:13-17) and submission of the household servants to their masters (2:18-20). Peter now turns to address the submission of wives to their husbands.
Commentary on First Peter (85)
Other than the above, we should notice that these final words in verse 24 again emphasize the nature of Christ's saving work as one of substitution and sacrifice. That is, his wounds brought us healing. He endured pain so that we could be well. He suffered affliction to save us from destruction. This idea is central to Christian faith and living, and also to our outreach in evangelism and charity work.
Before we became Christians, we were "like sheep going astray," but now we have "returned to the Shepherd and Overseer" of our souls. Non-Christians are without spiritual direction, and they live purposeless lives as aimless and useless people. Whether they live or die, and whether they prosper or suffer, it is all meaningless and without significance. Because of the work of Christ, we have been saved from all of this, and our lives take on purpose, direction, and value.
Once again we perceive the pastoral skill of the apostle. He acknowledges the difficulties that his readers might have to face without allowing them to make excuses for sin, or to use their freedom in Christ as cover-up for evil. He consistently maintains the necessity of being conscious of God and entrusting everything to him. And he grounds his entire discourse on the person and the work of Christ. Preachers would do well to learn from his approach.
Moreover, Scripture pervades Peter's thinking. The passage is interwoven with quotations and paraphrases of Isaiah 53, where the prophet speaks of the atoning work of the Messiah, the one who was to come. Specifically, verse 22 corresponds to Isaiah 53:9, verse 23 to 53:7, verse 24 to 53:5, and verse 25 to 53:6.
In preaching, although we must always be consistent with Scripture, there is no need to provide a direct biblical quotation for every minor point that we make. This is usually impossible in the first place, since it would make the presentation so cumbersome that it becomes difficult to follow. Nevertheless, it is better to follow Peter's example in having the very thoughts, categories, and expressions of Scripture pervade our speech. This requires the man of God to study not only to make sermons, but he must so immerse himself in the Word of God that his mind becomes obsessed with it, and therefore possessed by it.
Commentary on First Peter (84)
Many charismatics use verse 24 to assert that healing is "in the atonement," and that it is an accomplished fact. On this basis, they proceed to argue that Christians should be able to obtain physical healing on demand by faith. Those who disagree with this doctrine sometimes respond by denying that physical healing is "in the atonement" in the first place, but that the atonement refers only to redemption from sin.
Now, in context, the words "by his wounds you have been healed" mainly refer to the healing of the soul and not of the body. However, for at least two reasons, it would be wrong to say that physical healing is not included in the atonement, or that physical healing is not one of the benefits of the atonement.
First, if sickness came as a result of the Fall, and if physical healing is not in the atonement, or if it is not one of the necessary benefits of the atonement, then this must mean that there will still be sickness in heaven. But Scripture teaches that Christ's redemptive work is perfect and complete, that our glorified bodies will be immortal and imperishable, and that in heaven the negative effects of sin will no longer remain (Revelation 21:4). There will be no sickness in heaven.
Second, Matthew applies the atonement directly to Christ's healing ministry: "When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases'" (Matthew 8:16-17). Therefore, to deny that healing is in the atonement is also an assault on the atonement itself.
So the charismatics are right in saying that healing is "in the atonement." However, it does not follow that they always apply the teaching correctly. The fact that the atonement includes physical healing does not mean that the believer can always receive it on demand. That something is included does not say anything about how and when it is distributed and received. For example, our glorified body is included in the atonement – it is one of the benefits made available by the atonement, and as such it "belongs" to us now. Yet we will not receive it in our experience until a later time.
It is true that physical healing is not the same as the glorified body. Although perfect health is reserved for heaven, physical healing is not; otherwise, not even Christ could heal people on the basis of his atoning work during his ministry on the earth. However, it remains that just because it is included in the atonement and just because it is possible for some people to receive it in this life does not mean that it can be obtained by everyone on demand and by his own decision.
How it is distributed and received is a separate question from whether it is in the atonement or whether it formally "belongs" to us already. And the truth is that, based on what Scripture says about God's administration of his own promises, he is always sovereign over how and when his blessings are distributed and received.
*For more information on healing and the atonement, please see Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing.
Commentary on First Peter (83)
In considering how Jesus endured his undeserved suffering, we do not want to forget that it was more than an example, and more than a demonstration of character. His suffering carried special significance, and accomplished something unique, namely, the redemption of all those whom God had given him.
How did he do this? Peter writes, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." From this statement, there are at least three things that we can infer about his redemptive work on behalf of those who would believe.
First, he became our substitute. He "bore our sins" and took our guilt upon himself, and thus also the punishment that was meant for us. Second, although he also suffered much in his soul (Matthew 26:38), a significant part of his suffering was physical. This fact serves as one of the foundational propositions in constructing a biblical view of the body and its relation to the soul, and to spiritual things.
Third, his suffering culminated in crucifixion. The word translated "tree" is not the usual dendron, but xylon, which refers to an object made of wood. But Peter does not just say stauros, or cross, probably so that the connection could be made to Deuteronomy 21:23, which says, "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse."
This explains something about the nature of the redemptive work of Christ, namely, that he became our substitute so that he could absorb into himself the covenant curse incurred by our sins. And by this act of sacrifice, we are saved from divine wrath. As Paul writes, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13).
He did this "so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness." He bore our sins as our representative, and this also means that we were identified with him in his suffering and death. Paul explains and applies this idea in Romans 6:
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. (v. 5-12)
The general meaning here is clear. Having died to sin means that "we should no longer be slaves to sin." And that Christ was raised from the dead means that we can now "live for righteousness."
Although this is significant in itself, in Peter's context, it means that we are able to follow Christ's example of how he endured suffering precisely because of the suffering that he endured. In other words, the way he endured undeserved suffering was not only an example for us to follow, but because it had redemptive power, it also enables us to follow the example that he has left us.
Commentary on First Peter (82)
Third, Jesus entrusted everything to God. This is the positive aspect of his reaction to unjust suffering. Our previous point, taken from verse 23, has to do with what Jesus did not do when he was mistreated. But he was not entirely passive in his suffering. The rest of verse 23 says, "Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." The word "himself" is absent from the original, and it is better to understand the statement as saying that Jesus entrusted everything about the situation to God, including himself but also those who made him suffer.
When facing undeserved abuse from people, it is not enough to just endure it – even some unbelievers can do that. Just as verse 19 says that a man is commendable not just because he endures, but that he endures because "he is conscious of God," here verse 23 says that Jesus' example consists of more than passive endurance, but he exercised a positive trust in God while he suffered.
This, the unbeliever cannot do, and so in the face of unjust suffering he would give in, lash out, or quietly endure, drawing from his own strength and guided by his own godless beliefs. He can only produce sinful reactions that intensify the wrath of God that is already upon him. Nothing constructive ever comes out of the suffering of non-Christians. All their tribulations are meaningless.
This third aspect of Jesus' example is a defining factor. Not only must we see to it that we do not suffer for something wrong that we have done, and not only must we refrain from responding in kind to undeserved abuses, but there must be a positive faith while we endure, entrusting to God everything about our situation. Some people might quietly endure simply because they are cowards, but Christians endure because they are strong, and the power of the Holy Spirit sustains them (Psalm 3).
This positive faith is specific, for in our context Peter refers to God as "him who judges justly." To refrain from responding to insults with insults and to violence with violence is by no means to surrender to injustice, that is, if we will turn to trust him who judges justly. He declares, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay" (Romans 12:19; also Colossians 3:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:6).
Justice might mean that God will repay those who caused us to suffer with everlasting hellfire. But on the other hand, God may cause some of our persecutors to repent and turn to Christ. When that happens, the Christian who truly understands salvation and cares about God's program will rejoice, knowing that he has also been forgiven of his debts through Jesus Christ (Matthew 18:23-35).
The Christian is vindicated either way. On the one hand, some of his persecutors are rewarded with ultimate damnation. On the other hand, others are made to confess their wrongdoing and become like the one whom they have unjustly accused and punished. The Christian entrusts everything to God and leaves it up to him to determine the fate of each individual.
Commentary on First Peter (81)
Second, Jesus did not retaliate. Our first point describes Jesus' condition as he entered the situation – he was without sin. This second point proceeds to describe the negative aspect of his reaction to unjust suffering, or what he did not do in response. Verse 23 says, "When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats." The "insults" refer to verbal assaults, and what he "suffered" could include physical torture. He did nothing to deserve these abuses from people, but in neither case did he respond in kind.
A man was filling out a school application on behalf of his infant son. Some of the questions on the application were directed to the parents, apparently designed to gather information about the child's character. Perhaps these were included so that the admissions committee could get a picture of what the applicant was like other than what they could piece together from his academic records.
One of these questions asked the parents to specify the one thing that, if it was done to the child, would have incited the greatest negative response from him. The man wrote that his child reacted most strongly whenever he was wrongly accused of something. Of course the parents never intentionally accused the child of doing something that he did not do, but as there were other children in the home, one could imagine how that might have sometimes occurred.
The child knew that he was not perfect, and at that time he probably took pride in his frequent unruly behavior. Yet he would react most strongly to unjust accusations. If he was going to be accused of something or even punished for it, then at least let the accusation be true and the punishment be just! Likewise, imagine a hardened criminal who, although he is guilty of many things, is falsely accused of something that he did not do. Oh, how indignant he becomes and how he longs to set the record straight!
Now consider how Jesus himself – altogether sinless, and the very definition of holiness and perfection – was unjustly insulted, accused, and punished. The most holy was treated as if he was the most vile. He was acutely aware of his own moral perfection and the injustice of the treatment that he received. He challenged his enemies, saying, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46). But he did not retaliate, and he did not threaten.
This, then, is the second aspect of his example on how we should endure unjust suffering. He has left us an example of supreme restraint and patience in the face of the greatest injustice. To follow "in his steps," we must first make sure that we have done nothing to warrant the suffering that is being inflicted upon us, and then we must exercise self-control, so that we will not respond to insults with insults, to cruelty with cruelty, and to violence with violence.
Commentary on First Peter (80)
First, Jesus was without sin. Verse 22 says, "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." The statement refers to his sinlessness in both speech and action, and thus covers all of life. He was completely innocent and righteous before God, so that the Father said of him, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). Hebrews 4:15 says that he was tempted in every way just as we are, yet he was without sin.
When the Jews put him on trial, intending to put him to death, they could not find any false evidence against him (Matthew 26:59). So they brought forward false witnesses (v. 60), but even then they could not get their statements to agree (Mark 14:56). They brought him before Pilate and cried, "Crucify him!" to which Pilate responded, "Why? What crime has he committed?" (Matthew 27:22-23). After he questioned Jesus, he concluded, "I find no basis for a charge against him" (John 18:38). But he perceived that "it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him" (Matthew 27:18). Even his wife knew that Jesus was innocent, and she warned, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man."
Still, Jesus was treated as a criminal. At his execution, two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left (Matthew 27:38). When one of them hurled insults at Jesus, the other one rebuked him, and said, "Don't you fear God, since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:40-41). So this criminal testified to the innocence of Jesus and professed faith in him (v. 42-43).
This sinlessness of Christ accentuates the fact that, as far as his own speech and action were concerned, his suffering were undeserved and therefore unjust. He was, however, bearing our sins and our guilt, and therefore the punishment that these deserved was poured out upon him. But at this point, Peter's emphasis is that Jesus himself did not deserve the suffering that he had to endure.
Of course, although we have been made righteous through Christ, none of us are sinless in ourselves. So if absolute sinlessness is the example that we must follow, then we must give up before we even begin. However, Peter is making a point about a kind of suffering that is undeserved relative to those who persecute us. That is, we must see to it that the punishment we receive cannot be directly connected to something wrong that we have done. As he writes earlier in verse 20, "But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?"
Commentary on First Peter (79)
1 PETER 2:21-25
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Peter proceeds to expand on what he has said in the previous passage, appealing to Christ as our example. Although the passage teaches us something about the atoning work of Christ and the believers' relation to him, for most of this passage, we must keep in mind that the context is mainly about undeserved punishment and unjust suffering.
Verse 21 connects itself to the previous passage by saying that we are called to endure unjust suffering, because this is the example that Christ, who redeemed us by suffering for us, has left for us to follow. In fact, we are to follow him so closely that we are to walk "in his steps," that is, on the very footprints that he has left behind him.
This is metaphorical, of course. Some people gets an emotional high by spending hundreds of dollars to visit the "holy land," just so they could retrace the physical paths that Jesus had treaded. This is fine as far as it goes, but it is carnal, fleshly thinking to suppose that one can become more holy or get closer to the Savior this way. Anybody can take a vacation to Jerusalem if he has the money. The real test is whether someone follows Jesus where it actually counts, in doctrine, in faith, in love, in zeal, in boldness, and in enduring unjust suffering.
Peter describes for us the three aspects of Jesus' example of suffering. And since we are to follow his example, the way we endure suffering must also correspond to them.
Commentary on First Peter (78)
Verse 20 takes an informative angle on suffering that has far-reaching implications for modern society, including labor and racial issues. Since Peter repeats the point several times in the letter (2:20, 3:17, 4:15), we will not exhaust the discussion here, but will mention something more about it each time he brings up it up again.
The first part of verse 20 is the negative counterpart to verse 19: "But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?" What is "commendable" according to verse 19 is the endurance of unjust suffering by the God-conscious man. But if one suffers for doing wrong, then it is not unjust suffering, and there is nothing commendable about the person who endures it.
Notice the extent to which the principle applies. The verse is referring to "a beating," in which the wrongdoer is punished by blows of the fist. Since slaves are considered valuable property, masters tend to exercise restraint, but we can assume that sometimes a master who is beating his slave in anger might not care too much about the amount of pain and damage he is causing.
Some people tend to think that whatever a person has done, the moment he is subjected to physical punishment, he immediately ascends to the moral high ground. No one "deserves" to be violently beaten. A murderer who is beaten becomes a hero; a rapist who is executed becomes a martyr. But Peter is not so stupid and perverse, and he shows no such sympathy. Rather, a person who is beaten and abused for doing wrong cannot really complain about it. So what if people strike him across the face again and again? So what if people whip his back until it cannot stop bleeding? Who told him to do wrong? This is not unjust suffering.
Peter has in mind the fact that some of his readers will experience unjust suffering, perhaps sometimes because of their faith, and often this will involve undeserved beatings. Depending on what kind of society a person lives in, sometimes there will be regulations and procedures that are built-in to the system by which he may obtain deliverance from unjust treatment. One is not rebellious if he takes advantage of them with the right attitude (Acts 25:11). However, such protection is unavailable for many people, and thus Peter assures the Christians in the second part of verse 20, "But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."
Commentary on First Peter (77)
In the previous passage (2:13-17), Peter begins with the instruction to submit to the government. After telling his readers what they are to do in verses 13 and 14, he proceeds to explain why they are to do it in verse 15, that is, the purpose or principle underlying the instruction that he has just given.
Likewise, in our current passage, Peter begins in verse 18 with the instruction that slaves are to submit to their masters, including those who are harsh and crooked. Then, in verse 19, he proceeds to explain the underlying purpose or principle behind this instruction. He writes, "For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God."
As noted earlier, the fact that Peter instructs the slaves to submit to "those who are harsh" (v. 18) tells us he is aware that not all human authorities are good and kind. He acknowledges that slaves must sometimes face "unjust suffering." The "pain" of the unjust suffering refers to the sorrow or mental anguish generated by harsh treatment from the masters. Verse 20 refers to a "beating" that a slave might receive. There the word means to strike with the fist.
The question is how Christian slaves should respond when they come under such pressure. It is with this in mind that Peter says that even having morally perverse masters does not exempt them from submission. Rather, it is "commendable if a man" would endure the unjust punishment. Although he is addressing the slaves, in stating the principle he refers to "a man," that is, any person. Thus it is not just commendable for slaves to endure unjust suffering, but the principle has a wider application.
Nevertheless, it is not possible for non-Christian slaves, or non-Christians in general, to practice this principle and become commendable before God for it. Peter adds that it is commendable for a person to endure unjust suffering if he does so "because he is conscious of God." There is a grammatical difficulty in the Greek phrase, but commentators generally agree that it refers to an awareness of God's presence, an understanding and knowledge of his ways, and a deliberate obedience to the teachings of Christ in the midst of unjust suffering.
There are at least two inferences that we can make from this. First, it is meaningless for non-Christians to endure unjust suffering, since when they do so, it is always because of something other than to please and to honor God. Second, it is not commendable even for Christians to endure unjust suffering if they do so for reasons other than their awareness and knowledge of God.