Transcript
At the close of the previous period, I was saying something about the teaching of the First Epistle of Peter about good works, verse 12 of chapter 2, that others may see your good deeds and glorify God. I see that I could give you what I think is a very good article on this subject by the Dutch scholar Utrecht W.C. van Unnik, an article in English called The Teaching of Good Works in 1 Peter that appeared
in the journal called New Testament Studies, volume 1, running from page 91 to 110. Now we're looking at the House Tafeln, incorporated at the end of chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, and it is introduced, verse 13 of chapter 2, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution or to every institution ordained for people, whether it be to the emperor, a supreme, or to the governors as sent by him to punish
those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. And at the end of that paragraph, it's summed up, live as free people, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God. And now four very brief, concise statements. Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor. First observe what I drew to your attention the last hour. All of this is within the category of living in
subjection one to another, exhibiting Christian humility. Now specifically, with regard in verse 17 to these four verbs, honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor. There have been a lot of different views among the commentators how these four items are to be arranged. Are they all to be put on the same plane, just one, two, three, four? Or are they to be grouped in two against two, three to one? Is one of them
superior and the other three subordinate? Well, in part, it depends how you assess the sense. Calvin thought that the first three are preliminary to the fourth. That, I think, is a rather strange idea. Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God. And then all of a sudden, as the supreme thing, honor the emperor. Another has thought that these are rising in progression. They belong together. The first three, honor all people. Then a little higher, you're talking
about the Christian church, love the brotherhood. And then finally, preeminently in that succession, fear God. Whereas number four, then, would be a separate entity standing outside this rising progression of the first three. Selwyn, in his commentary on 1 Peter, groups one and two, honor all men, love the brotherhood on the one hand. And then three and four on the other, one being fear God, the supreme ruler, and honor the emperor, the temporal ruler. Ernst Bammel, a
very interesting German scholar who teaches at Cambridge University, thinks there is chiasmus involved here, that A, B, B, A is a sequence. Honor all men as against honor of the emperor. The first and the last are linked together. And the second and the third are linked together. Love the brotherhood, fear God. Well, finally, the idea of the New English Bible has been suggested as a different way of organizing these four items. I think it has a
good deal to commend it. Give due honor to everyone. Now that's the beginning blanket statement. Give due honor to everyone. And then under that, love the brotherhood, reverence God, honor the sovereign. Now in any case, I think that it is sufficiently startling that if this is written by Peter, for which good reasons can be given, then the reigning emperor, you see, would be none other than Nero, who ruled from 54 to 68. And that really puts
the whole thing in a cast of light that shows certainly the degree of humility on the part of Peter that a monster of iniquity like Nero was should nevertheless be set forth by Peter in terms of social structure and preventing anarchy within the social structure that even to such a monster of iniquity, due honor should be shown. Now this, verses 13 to 17, set forth, as I was saying a number of times and a number of
ways, the main theme of subservience, the main theme of being subject, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human creation, institution, whether it be to the emperor or the governors and so on. Then within that rubric, under that rubric, there are special things he says to servants, verse 18, special things that he says to wives, chapter 3, verse 1, special things that he says to husbands, verse 7 of chapter 3. Let us look now first
to what he has to say to slaves. When he says servants be submissive to your masters with all respect, he's not talking about people that are hired by the hour. You have a servant that comes in such and such days of the week to clean up the house. This is a household slave that's owned by the person, doesn't get time off, doesn't have perquisites and certain social security after retirement and so forth. The brainiest of the
philosophers, Aristotle, spoke about slavery as being part of the constitution of what is. It could not be thought of that society could be organized without slaves. Slaves, said Aristotle, are possessions that can speak. Wagons and farming tools are possessions that cannot speak. He lumps the slaves, the human beings, along with rake, a hoe, a wagon. The equality to be accorded to the slave in the Christian community was in striking contrast to the position that Gentiles gave
to slaves. They regarded them as things rather than persons. Honor all people, be subject for the Lord's sake, says this writer. Very unusual teaching in the light of contemporary ideas. Now, many times these slaves that were taken captive in war were quite well educated. And in some cases when they became Christians, they became leaders in the primitive Christian community. Some of them were very outstanding. In any case, many of these slaves would be given names by
their new owners that the owner hoped the slave would live up to. In the letter of Paul to Philemon, he speaks about the slave onesimus. The Greek word onesimus means profitable, helpful, useful. A slave would be given that kind of name that the owner would hope the slave would live up to. The term felix, the Latin word felix, is often given. Well, the Latin word felix means happy. And you don't want a slave around the house
that's a grouch. You hope that he's a happy person. Or, I don't know if they had this, but you could think of it, Johnny on the Spot might be given as a nickname for the slave in order to prompt or suggest that he or she should be very alert. These slaves are addressed by the writer. Be submissive to your masters with all respect. Not only the kind and gentle masters, but be submissive to the overbearing masters.
A person is approved if mindful of God. One endures pain while suffering unjustly. There were of course numerous cases where owners of slaves were very cruel. Epictetus, the stoic philosopher, was in fact a slave. And on one occasion, his master was tussling around with him, bending Epictetus' arm behind his back in such a way. Epictetus said, now that pains very much. If you press it farther, you'll break it. The owner, unmindful, did push it beyond its
normal place and broke Epictetus' arm. Whereupon all he said was, see I told you I'd break it. Well, the kind of attitude that the non-Christian Epictetus showed is the attitude, now he was after, this was written, he lived in the end of the first Christian century. But here Peter speaks to the servants to be submissive to your masters with all respect. Now this gives offense to some modern people. They say, here Christianity had a wonderful
chance to speak against the institution of slavery. And to blow it apart, to try to correct this monstrous feature that people would sell other people, you'd own them. And yet, where in the New Testament in the teaching of Jesus, in Paul, Peter, do you have even a syllable speaking against the iniquitous institution of slavery? Well, you do not have that. Neither Peter nor Paul tried to put an end to the institution of slavery, which everybody took
for granted as part of the constitution of society. You couldn't have society, they felt, without the institution of slavery. I think they did not, because they saw how futile it would be that they would be considered to be crazy. That everybody took slavery to be part of the constitution of the universe. And to speak against it would be like wanting to jump off the earth. The writers tried, however, to give slavery a Christian meaning. And in
the letter to Philemon, Paul says to Philemon, now you'll get Onesimus back again, he's been converted. You'll no longer get him back as a servant, you'll get him back as a brother beloved, a Christian brother. And this idea in Paul and here too, that before God there is the same level ground on which both owner and slave alike stand in the sight of God. That was in the teaching aspect the dynamite that eventually blew apart this
institution of slavery. It's unfortunate it took so long for it to become operative. But there is within the New Testament that which eventually would make slavery to be perceived what it is. Iniquitous and going against the idea that God created everyone in God's own image. The advice given here to the slaves that they are to be submissive to their masters, not only to those who are kind to them but to the overbearing master as well, is
that advice is anchored in the example. What credit is it if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently. But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently then you have God's approval. For to this you have been called and now he gives the example of Christ because Christ also suffered for you. Leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. The example of Christ
in ethical living is a scene that is brought to our attention more than once in this epistle. And in fact this particular phrase, in his steps, did form as some of you know the title of a book by Charles Sheldon at the end of the last century called In His Steps. A book which like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress has exerted a very wide influence especially among Protestants with regard to giving consideration as to what Christ would want
me to do in this particular situation, in his steps. Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, Peter says, that you should follow in his steps. And then Peter from Isaiah 53 chooses a number of phrases in order to emphasize his present teaching. Christ committed no sin, no guile was found on his lips, when he was reviled he did not revile in return, when he suffered he did not threaten, but he trusted him who judges
justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. Continuing from Isaiah 53, by his wounds you have been healed, for you were straying like sheep but now have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls. The second group that our author beams his teaching toward, that of wives. Chapter 3 verse 1, Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some husbands,
though they do not obey the word, they are not Christian, may yet be one without your talking, without your word, may be one by the behavior of the wife, when they see the reverent and chaste living. Now this section here about the wives, verses 1 to 6, is you see considerably longer, and much more detailed, than the amount of attention given in verse 7, just one verse, of advice given to husbands. Six times as many verses,
devoted to what the wives should do, than the amount given to what the husbands should do. Well I think the exhortation to the wives is much longer than that to the husbands, partly because women were more numerous in the Christian communities than men were. And secondly, and for a better reason perhaps, because the position of the Christian wife was usually a much more difficult one than that of the Christian husband. Because wives were therefore in greater
need of Peter's pastoral counsel and encouragement. It was a general rule in antiquity that a wife should have that religion that her husband espoused. If the husband belonged to the cult of Cybele, his wife should become that. If the husband belonged to the cult of Isis and Serapis, the wife should be that. The only one that that could not pertain to is the cult of Mithraism that I described to you a week ago, that allowed only
men as adherents. But in general, it was assumed in antiquity that the wife should and must belong to the same cult that her husband does. Tertullian, for example, in his treatise entitled To His Wife, book two, chapters four to seven, speaks about the situation where the husband, a pagan, puts special difficulties in the way of his wife, who's a Christian. When she wants to go to attend a prayer service or the Eucharist, he thinks up something.
No, no, at this time you and I are going together to the cult of Isis or something else, go to the races. The view is that the husband cannot, that the wife, without the husband's consent, could not adopt the Christian faith. Well now, the husband puts difficulties in her way, annoyances. Requiring her to take part in pagan rituals and revels. Pagan moralists taught that it was the duty of the wife to follow her husband in religion.
Plutarch says this in his precepts to the wives, section 19. By the way, there's a very interesting book that applies all throughout here. I could have mentioned it earlier. The book is entitled The Great Chain of Being. That's the title of the book, and it describes what it's about. The Great Chain of Being. It was written by Arthur O. Lovejoy. Arthur O. Lovejoy, 1936, and has often been overlooked, I think, having to do with the ancient
philosophical, practical understanding of how things hang together in the universe with regard to God and human beings, with regard to the several social layers within human society. Mercier Eliade speaks about this. Robert Grant in the Festschrift Myths and Symbol, given to Mercier Eliade, has a very interesting article on this subject, The Great Chain of Being. What Peter is saying here is that despite what everybody takes for granted, as the constitution of things, there is a special
way in which Christian believers are to live. So, returning to the thought here of his advice to wives, the wives are in great need of the kind of friendly counsel by Peter, how they can put up with the annoyances that may be thrown into their way by pagan wives, by pagan husbands. We should keep this in mind and try to understand this passage in the light of this kind of social situation. The first point is, Peter
is not talking to women in general. He is talking to Christian wives. So, when he says, you wives be in subjection to your husbands, Peter is not laying down at all anything about the general inferiority of women to men. I think it's important to get that quite clear. The Christian wives are bidden to be in subjection. Now, that's the theme of the whole section from 2:13 on. And in 2:13 he speaks to everybody alike,
men and women, to be in subjection to one another, show Christian humility. This, however, is something very much more than the conventional submissiveness that the ancient philosopher expected of a wife. Here it is the Christian attitude of subordination to self, the subordination of oneself to others. It's not on the level of compulsion. It is something that's freely given and it draws its strength from the Gospel of Christ. Peter then is trying to help Christian wives of
heathen husbands in Asia Minor in the first century AD. It was no use to suggest that in Christ there's no male or female. It's no use for a Christian wife to tell her husband that. He says, so what? The church has already grasped that tremendous truth. But it would serve no good thing to have Peter tell the wife that she is to give instruction to her husband that in the sight of God there's no male and
female. What kind of practical advice can Peter give in a situation of this sort? The wife must conform to the social conventions of the day in so far as these do not directly conflict with obedience to Christ. Well, he tells him, be dutiful to what is expected of you. You see, Peter by this letter cannot suddenly change the whole social structure in Asia Minor. Impossible. The legal position of wives in Asia Minor was fixed. This letter
is not going to change that. What Peter can do is to help these women see their situation in the new light. If they understand and follow Peter's advice, then their submission to their husbands will be lifted altogether above the level of irksome necessity, perhaps also bitter and brutal compulsion, to that of real spiritual freedom and the willing service of Christ. And at the same time, these Christian's wives in the home will be helping to break down
the prejudice of pagans against the church and the gospel. And that comes out in what I was reading a moment ago that when your husband sees your reverent and chaste behavior, then perhaps he may be one without a word, without your nagging at him, go along with me to church today, go along, give in. But without that kind of nagging, may be one without speaking, but be one by the behavior of the wife. Well, in this
same section then, it's the beauty, he says, of a gentle and a quiet spirit, without words being spoken, that will be the most effective. They will behold day by day your chaste behavior, an unassuming yet dignified bearing toward others. Then he ventures to give some advice about how they should dress. Let not yours be the outward adornment with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, wearing of robes, but let it be the hidden person of the heart
with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit. This does not mean that the apostle is approving of doubtiness or slovenliness as a Christian virtue, but Peter lays his finger on a weakness that is characteristic of both women and not confined by any means to them alone. The danger of setting too great a store by matters, setting too great a store on matters of outward appearance and finery. A Christian man or woman needs to keep
a sense of proportion in the spending of time and of money with regard to the outward adornment. He gives an illustration then from ancient times. So the holy women of old hoped in God. They used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you. I'm sure there were occasions when the Christian wife was put in
jeopardy perhaps of her own life by the brutal capriciousness and spitefulness of a heathen husband. Well now it's the husband's duty to receive some advice from Peter. You husbands in like manner. Dwell with your lot wives according to knowledge giving honor unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel. Now this term live considerately with your wives bestowing honor that has very much the same force as in chapter 2 verse 13 be subject be submissive. The husbands
also are called to Christian subordination of self in relation to their wives. We might compare first Corinthians 7:3 to 5 where reciprocity in the relationship of the marriage bond is on a par when both of them are Christians. Here the woman is described as the weaker vessel because in general she physically is weaker than a man. The term weaker sex today has come to have a derogatory sense but Peter uses it here to commend women
to man's love and care. There's nothing here that would suggest that in Peter's mind the woman is intellectually and morally inferior to a man. The next phrase has I think very tremendous implications. It has implications in connection with Christian marriage and also for the relation between husband and wife. The husbands are bidden to honor their wives since you are joint heirs of the grace of life. Joint heirs of the grace of life. When both husband and
wife are Christians they are spiritually equal having an equal share in the privileges and duties of the gospel. Here the apostle gives the true basis of the emancipation of women. When it's recognized that husband and wife are spiritual equals there is an end of domestic tyranny. It means then that women are to be taken seriously as persons and can no more be thought of or treated as mere drudges, mere child bearing machines or mere playthings. The
final phrase though I think is the most significant. Do this he says, show honor to the woman since you are joint heirs of the grace of life in order that your prayers may not be hindered. I think two truths here of the utmost significance are contained in those words. The first truth is selfishness in the relationship between husband and wife, any kind of exploitation of the other person is a sure way of spoiling the spiritual life.
And secondly, marriage is understood rightly only when it's clearly recognized that marriage is not an end in itself but there's an end still more important. The ultimate end of marriage is to serve our fellowship with God. That your prayers may not be hindered. Well I think these are some of the important things that need to be drawn to our attention here. There's one general point that perhaps this section makes clear by way of conclusion. All this
time Peter has been talking about duties rather than the rights that this person, that person has. He's not talking about the rights of those who own slaves, the right of the husband, the right of this person, that person. He is talking constantly here about duties. Here the wives in verses one to six and the husbands in verse seven are told what they are to give, not what they are to claim. Peter does not say to the
husbands, your wives ought to be in subjection to you. That would be a charter for domestic tyranny. He does not say to the wives, your husbands owe you honor because you are the weaker vessels. No, he bids both alike to think of duties, not what they can claim as their right. It's an unhealthy thing that so many of us today have gotten the habit of turning this upside down, concentrating our attention upon our rights. What the
state owes to us, what the society owes to us of concentrating our attention upon what we assume to be our right, the duties of other people toward us, what others ought to give to us while thinking as little as possible if in fact we think at all about our duties and other people's rights. So then in these three sections, servants, wives, husbands, the author speaks about three areas of social life to which he uses and adapts
certain lists of household duties and also adds to them in terms as well of giving the example of Christ that you should walk in his steps. Pushing on now to the end of chapter three, he says finally all of you have love, tender heart and a humble mind. Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling. He says that in your hearts you should always reverence Christ as Lord. That's in verse 15 of chapter three,
which goes on in words that I would commend to you to think about as a text for what I'm sure could be a very helpful and powerful sermon that many of you could write. First Peter 3:15. Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks of you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet with reverence and fear. That I will not pause to give you an outline, but it's a very
forthright statement that can I'm sure be used in a most telling way as a text of a sermon that not only would be a good sermon, but a sermon that would do good. Then the hardest part of this whole letter to understand comes up in verses 19 and 20. Preliminary to that in 17 he says it's better to suffer for doing right if that should be God's will than for doing wrong. For Christ also died for
sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit. Now this is the very hard crux of the whole epistle. What does it mean? Christ was put to death in the flesh, made alive in the Spirit, in which Spirit, in which he, Christ, went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey when God's patience
waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark in which a few, that is eight persons, were saved through water. I drew to your attention that on the list of books that are reserved for this course, an entire book by Professor Reiki, the Swedish scholar who now teaches in Basel, Switzerland, whole book just in that one verse, Spirits in Prison. Who are these spirits? When did Christ go and preach to them and what
was the result of that proclamation? Some very difficult questions to answer and quite diverse interpretations have been given in answer to that problem. I would like you to think about these verses and read again what the commentator Stibbs has to say on it. There are a lot of other things that need to be said and in the few minutes that remain today for the lecture, I'm not prepared simply to make a few comments in general. I'd like to deal with this subject in one package and I'll try to do that at the beginning of the period next week. That's all for today.