This section of the letter clarifies what it means to function obediently as God's people in a hostile world. It contains one of the tables of household duties in the New Testament (2:13-3:7; cf. Eph. 5:21-6:9; Col. 3:18-4:1). Luther referred to these sections as Haustafeln, and some scholars still use this technical term when referring to these lists. However this one begins with instructions regarding the Christian's relationship to the state, which is similar to Romans 13:1-7. It is particularly our duties in view of suffering for our faith that concerned Peter, as is clear from his choice of material.
Peter continued to give directions concerning how the Christian should conduct himself or herself when dealing with the state since his readers faced suffering from this source.
2:13-14 The Christian's relationship to the state and to state officials is quite clear (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Titus 3:1-2). We are to submit to the authority of government rulers by obeying them. We should do this not because these individuals are personally worthy of our submission necessarily, but because by submitting to them we honor God by obeying His Word. Peter reminded his readers that government has a valid and necessary God-appointed purpose. The presence of political corruption should not blind us to the legitimate role of government that God has ordained.88
Peter believed that there was a proper place for civil disobedience, however (cf. Acts 4:20). It is when the laws of human government make it illegal to obey God. In such a case we should obey God rather than man. However we should also realize that in disobeying the law we will probably have to bear the consequences of disobeying. The consequences may involve a fine, imprisonment, or even death.89
"Ever since Christianity was first preached the Christian citizen has been a puzzle both to himself and to his rulers. By the elementary necessities of his creed he has been a man living in two worlds. In one he has been a member of a national community, in the other of a community taken out of the nations.' In one he has been bound to obey and enforce the laws of his State, in the other to measure his conduct by standards not recognized by those laws and often inconsistent with them. This dualism has been made tolerable only by the prospect of a reconciliation. That prospect is, again, an elementary necessity of the Christian creed. Somehow, somewhere, the conflict of loyalties will end. The kingdom of this world will pass; the Kingdom of God will be established."90
Some Christians have taken the position that believers are free to disobey their governments if the government permitsconduct that is contrary to God's will.91Consequently some Christians feel justified in bombing abortion clinics, for example. However cases of apostolic civil disobedience recorded in Scripture involved situations in which believers hadto disobey God's will. Christians should practice civil disobedience only when the government requiresits citizens to disobey God, not when it only permitsthem to disobey Him. Currently the United States government permits abortion, for example, but it does not require it.
". . . the principle of the redeemed Christian life must not be self-assertion or mutual exploitation, but the voluntary subordination of oneself to others (cf. Rom. xii. 10; Eph. v. 21; Phil. ii. 3 f.)."92
2:15 In the context Peter meant that by obeying the law we can obviate unnecessary and illegitimate criticism. Jesus did this by faithfully paying his taxes (Matt. 17:24-27; 22:21). Note that Jesus also told His disciples to pay their taxes even though Rome used their tax money for purposes contrary to God's will. Paul taught that Christians should pay their taxes, too (Rom. 13:6-7). Peter had learned that physical retaliation was not best since he had tried to defend Jesus by attacking the high priest's servant in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:50-54; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50-51; John 18:10-11).
2:16 Christians are free in the sense of being under no obligations to God to gain His acceptance. He has accepted us because of what Jesus Christ did for us. Also we are free from the tyranny of Satan. We are no longer his slaves. We should not use this freedom to sin but to refrain from sinning.
"Liberty misused is like a mighty river flooding its banks and bringing terrible destruction upon all in its path. Liberty used as service is like a mighty river flowing within its banks bringing life and refreshment to all who drink of its waters."93
2:17 These four injunctions summarize our social obligations. The first two and the last two are pairs. We should respect everyone, but we should love fellow believers. God deserves fear whereas the emperor is worthy of respect. These two pairs connect with Jesus' teachings that we should love our enemies (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35) and render to Caesar what is his and to God what is His (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25).94
All people are worthy of honor if for no other reason than because they reflect the image of God. Our primary responsibility to other Christians is to show them love (cf. 1:22; John 13:35). Our primary responsibility to God is to show Him fear (reverence, cf. 1:17). Peter added a final word about the king. He probably did so because his readers found it especially difficult to honor the Roman emperor who was evidently Nero when Peter wrote this epistle (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-2).
"Peter called believers to a different spirit, a spirit of deference--even while experiencing undeserved persecution. The word deference' conveys the idea of thoughtful consideration of another individual's desires or feelings or the courteous, respectful, or ingratiating regard for another's wishes. . . .
"Deference' refers to a proper attitude that results in behavior characterized by respect."95
Respect is not the same as honor. We may not respect someone, but we can and should still honor him or her. For example, I have a friend whose father was an alcoholic. My friend did not respect his father who was frequently drunk, often humiliated his wife and children, and failed to provide for his family adequately. Nevertheless my friend honored his father because he was his father. He demonstrated honor by taking him home when his father could not get home by himself. He sometimes had to defend him from people who would have taken advantage of him when he was drunk. Similarly we may not be able to respect certain government officials because of their personal behavior or beliefs. Still we can and should honor them because they occupy an office that places them in a position of authority over us. We honor thembecause they occupy the office; we do not just honor the office. Peter commanded us to honor the king and all who are in authority over us, not just the offices that they occupy. We may not respect someone, but we can and should honor them by treating them with respect. Respecting someone and treating them with respect are two different things. Feeling respect for someone is different than showing respect for someone. Honoring others is our responsibility; earning our respect is theirs.
Peter proceeded to address the situation of Christians working under the authority of others.
"The unusual fact, unnoticed by most Bible readers, is that he [Peter], along with Paul (1 Cor. 7:21; Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10) and later Christian writers (Did. 4:11; Barn. 19:7), addresses slaves at all, for Jewish and Stoic duty codes (which in many respects this code in 1 Peter, as well as those in Ephesians and Colossians, resembles) put no such moral demands on slaves, only on masters.
"The reason for this difference between 1 Peter and other moral codes of his time is simple. For society at large slaves were not full persons and thus did not have moral responsibility. For the church slaves were full and equal persons, and thus quite appropriately addressed as such. The church never addressed the institution of slavery in society, for it was outside its province--society in that day did not claim to be representative, and certainly not representative of Christians, concepts that arrived with the Enlightenment--but it did address the situation in the church, where no social distinctions were to be allowed, for all were brothers and sisters (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11; Phile. 16), however shocking that was to society at large."96
Peter evidently addressed servants but not masters because he addressed a social situation in which some of his readers were household servants but few, if any, were masters.97
2:18 In Peter's culture the servant was the person who faced the most difficulty in relating to the person over him or her in authority. Masters traditionally enjoyed great power over their slaves. The Greek word translated "servants"(oikelai) means domestic servants, but in that society those people were slaves in that they had some limitations on their personal freedom. In our culture Peter's directions apply to how we behave in relation to those directly over us in society (employers, bosses, administrators, teachers, et al.).
Again Peter commanded an attitude of respectful submission (cf. v. 13). The master's personal character or conduct is not the reason for this behavior. We are to respond this way regardless of his or her actions (cf. Eph. 6:5-8).
2:19 The reason we should behave this way is that this behavior is God's will (cf. vv. 13, 17). The fact that this is how God wants us to behave is sufficient reason for compliance. Our conscious commitment to God should move us to do what is right resulting in a clear conscience. Probably many of Peter's readers were suffering because of the persecution of their masters (1:6-7). The translators of the word "favor"in this verse and the next in the NASB (Gr. charis) usually rendered it "grace."In this context it means what counts with God, what pleases Him, rather than what He gives.98
2:20 However, Peter hastened to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable suffering. He did not want his readers to rest comfortably if they were suffering for their own mistakes. Nevertheless if they were suffering for their testimony, or without having provoked antagonism by improper behavior, they could rest confidently because God approved their conduct even if other people did not. Note that what God rewards is endurance in His will (cf. James 1:4).
"Although v 20 has domestic servants particularly in mind, neither it nor anything that follows is limited to them. Their experience, whether actual or hypothetical, becomes a paradigm for the experience of all Christians everywhere in the empire. The position of a household slave was tenuous, subject to the character and moods of the owner. Despite the justice of the state, the position of Christians in the empire was also tenuous, subject to differing local conditions and sudden changes in the public mood."99
2:21 Part of the Christian's calling (1:1; 2:9) includes suffering (cf. 2 Tim. 3:12). Jesus Christ suffered for His righteous conduct at the hands of sinners (cf. Matt. 26:67; Mark 14:65). We too can expect that our righteous behavior will draw the same response from the ungodly of our day (Matt. 11:29; 16:24; Luke 14:27; Acts 14:22). Whereas Jesus' atonement set an example for us, it accomplished much more than that. Peter cited only His example here in view of his purpose, which was to encourage his readers to endure suffering with the proper spirit. They also needed to remember that their experience duplicated that of Jesus. They were like children who place foot after foot in the prints of their elder brother who walks before them in the snow (cf. Rom. 4:12; 2 Cor. 12:18). The Greek word translated "example"(hypogrammon) refers to a writing or drawing that someone placed under another sheet of paper so he or she could trace on the upper sheet.100In the next few verses Peter expounded on Jesus' example at length.
"These verses [21-25] contain the fullest elaboration of the example of Jesus Christ for believers in the New Testament."101
"Nothing seems more unworthy and therefore less tolerable, than undeservedly to suffer; but when we turn our eyes to the Son of God, this bitterness is mitigated; for who would refuse to follow him going before us?"102
2:22 Peter applied this prophecy to Jesus Christ (Isa. 53:9).
"The OT statement is applied to Christ to indicate that in his total conduct, especially in his words, he followed God's will."103
This is quite a statement. Peter had lived with Jesus for more than three years and had observed Him closely, yet he could say that Jesus never sinned.
The absence of deceitful speech would have been ". . . particularly applicable to slaves in the empire, where glib, deceitful speech was one of their notorious characteristics, adroit evasions and excuses being often their sole means of self-protection."104
2:23 Peter referred specifically to Jesus' sufferings when He was on trial and during His crucifixion. Certainly Peter's readers could find a strong example to follow there. "Revile"means to heap abuse on someone. Often our threats are empty; we cannot follow through with them. However, Jesus could have followed through. Instead He trusted God to deal with His persecutors justly, as we should.
"Peter's picture of what Jesus did not do seems clearly molded by his memory of the messianic picture in Isaiah 53:6-7. Yet rather than quoting this passage, he gives his own confirmatory witness, thereby underlining the veracity of the prophetic portrayal."105
2:24 Jesus' sufferings reached their climax on the cross. Peter taught that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and laid down His life as payment for those sins (i.e., penal substitution; cf. Deut. 21:23).
We could translate the second part of this verse as follows: ". . . that, having broken with our sins, we might live for righteousness."Jesus Christ's death separated our sins from us. Consequently we can now live unto righteousness rather than unto sin.
"The idea is that, Christ having died for sins, and to sin, as our proxy or substitute, our consequent standing before God is that of those who have no more connection with our old sins, or with the life of sinning."106
Some writers have cited the third part of this verse to support the non-biblical doctrine that Jesus by His death made healing from any physical ailment something that every Christian can claim in this life. This is the belief that there is "healing in the atonement."The context of Isaiah 53 as well as the past tense "were healed"here implies spiritual healing from the fatal effects of sin rather than healing from present physical afflictions. Peter used healing as a metaphor for spiritual conversion, as Isaiah did (cf. Mark 2:17; Luke 4:23).107"Wounds"refers to the bruising and swelling left by a blow that a fist or whip delivered.
"The expression is highly paradoxical because stripes, which make bloody welts and lay even the flesh bare, are said to have wrought healing."108
Undoubtedly some of Peter's original readers had received wounds in a similar fashion or were in danger of receiving them.
2:25 Peter concluded his citation of Jesus' example (vv. 21-24). He reminded his readers that they too, as the sheep Isaiah referred to in the passage he just cited, had once wandered from God. Nevertheless now they had returned to the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, who would fulfill the function of a shepherd by guarding their souls from hostile adversaries. Their enemies might assail their bodies, but the Lord would preserve their souls (whole persons) safe (cf. 1:3-5).
Having explained before how Christians should conduct themselves in the world, Peter next gave directions about how Christian wives and husbands should behave. He did this to help his readers identify appropriate conduct in family life during times of suffering as well as at other times.
". . . he [Peter] discusses husbands and wives, and unlike the Pauline Haustafeln, he omits references to children. The reason for this omission is simple: He probably did not consider children who had one believing parent outside the true people of God (i.e., the nations), whereas the husbands of some Christian women certainly were. Peter's concern at this point is not life within the Christian community, but life at those points where the Christian community interfaces with the world around it. . . .
"But what was probably surprising to the original readers is that here in a seemingly traditional ethical section wives are addressed at all. In that society women were expected to follow the religion of their husbands; they might have their own cult on the side, but the family religion was that of the husband. Peter clearly focuses his address on women whose husbands are not Christians (not that he would give different advice to women whose husbands were Christians), and he addresses them as independent moral agents whose decision to turn to Christ he supports and whose goal to win their husbands he encourages. This is quite a revolutionary attitude for that culture."109
This section, like the preceding one addressed to slaves, has three parts: an exhortation to defer (vv. 1-2; cf. 2:18), an admonition about pleasing God (vv. 3-4; cf. 2:18-20), and a precedent for the advocated attitude or action (vv. 5-6; cf. 2:21-25). The section on respect for everyone (2:13-17) contains the first two of these parts (2:13-14 and 15-17) but not the third.110
3:1-2 "In the same way"refers to the spirit of deference that Peter had already advocated regarding our dealings with governmental authorities (2:13-17) and people in direct authority over us (2:18-25). Primarily he meant as Christ submitted to the Father (2:21-24).
"The opening words ["in the same way"] are not intended to equate the submissiveness due from wives with that expected from slaves. Rather, as in [verse] 7, the Greek adverb (homoios) harks back to 2:13, implying that the patriarchal principle of the subordination of the wife to her husband is not a matter of human convention but the order which the Creator has established . . ."111
Clearly Peter was speaking of the relationship of wives to their husbands, not the relationship of women to men generically. He said "your own men"(i.e., your husbands). Even more specifically he was referring to wives whose husbands were "disobedient to the word"(i.e., unbelievers, cf. 2:8).
Today many Christians believe wives are equal in authority with their husbands under God. Note that other admonitions to be submissive surround this section in which Peter called on wives to submit to their husbands (2:13, 18, 23; 3:8). Wives are not the only people Peter commanded to be submissive. Submission should characterize every Christian. The Greek word hypotasso("to submit") has in view the maintenance of God's willed order, not personal inferiority of any kind.112This word may denote either voluntary or forced behavior, but not any sense of inferiority.113
Peter did not state the reason wives should submit to their own husbands in this passage nor did he give the reason we should submit to rulers or masters. It is simply God's will (cf. Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-15; Tit. 2:4-5). God gave the reason elsewhere in Scripture (Gen. 2:18-23; 3:16; cf. 1 Tim. 2:13-14). This reason is that God has so ordered the human race that we must all observe His structure of authority so that peace and order may prevail.
As all employees should submit to their masters, even the unreasonable, so all wives should submit to their husbands, even the unbelieving. In view of his terminology "be won"(v. 1), it seems clear that Peter had in mind the spiritual conversion of an unsaved husband. Peter did not promise that unbelieving husbands would inevitably become Christians as a result of the behavior he prescribed. That decision lies with the husband. Nevertheless the wife can have confidence that she has been faithful to God if she relates to her husband submissively.114
Should a Christian wife submit to her husband even if he directs her to sin? Some evangelicals answer yes and appeal to Ephesians 5:24 for support.115Others say no but argue that submission should extend to everything except sin.116The examples of suffering that Peter cited as good models for Christians in 2:13-25 did not involve sinning. He said wives should submit "in the same way"(3:1). Furthermore the wife's behavior is to be "chaste"(3:2) or morally pure (Gr. agnos). Peter held up Sarah as an example (3:6) not because she submitted to Abraham by even sinning in Genesis 12 and 20, but because she submitted to him. She called him her lord in Genesis 18:12. Ephesians 5:24, which calls on wives to submit to their husbands in "everything"(Gr. pas), does not mean in every thing including sin (cf. Col. 3:25). Frequently pasdoes not mean every individual thing (cf. Matt. 8:33; Rom. 8:32; 14:2; 1 Cor. 1:5; 3:21-22; 6:12; 9:12; 10:23; 14:40; 2 Cor. 5:18; Phil. 4:13, et al.). Nevertheless short of sinning Peter urged Christian wives to obey their husbands.
It is specifically the wife's behavior in contrast to her speech that Peter said may be effective in winning an unsaved husband. "A word"includes preaching as well as the Word of God. Peter was not forbidding speaking to unsaved husbands about the Lord or sharing Scripture verses if the husband would be receptive to those. His point was simply that a godly wife's conduct is going to be more influential than anything she may say. "Chaste"is a general term describing her purity while "respectful"reflects her attitude toward her husband that rises out of her attitude toward God's will.
Submission involves at least four things. First, it begins with an attitude of entrusting oneself to God (cf. 2:23-25). The focus of our life must be on Jesus Christ. Second, submission requires respectful behavior (3:1-2). Nagging is not respectful behavior. Third, submission involves the development of a godly character (3:3-5). Fourth, submission includes doing what is right (3:6). It does not include violating other Scriptural principles. Submission is imperative for oneness in marriage.117
3:3-4 Peter was not telling wives to refrain from giving attention to their physical appearances, as the NASB makes clear. His point was that this should not be their total or primary concern. Beauty is more than skin deep. He urged the cultivation of the inner person as well. He contrasted what human society values and what God values. A gentle disposition and a tranquil spirit can make even a plain woman very attractive not only to God but to men (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Tim. 2:9-10). The Greek word for "adornment"(kosmos) is the one from which we get our word "cosmetics."
3:5-6 "His [Peter's] concern is that the church not be known for its production of rebellious wives who have an attitude of superiority, but of women who, because they know God will reward them and set everything right, demonstrate the virtue of gentle submission where Christianly possible."118
Sarah is a good example of such a woman. We see her attitude of respect in the way she spoke to Abraham (v. 2). "Lord"sounds servile to us, but an equally acceptable translation of the Greek word is "sir."The point is that she verbally expressed her submission to him in a way that was appropriate in her culture.119Women who behave as Sarah did show that they are her daughters in spirit. Such behavior demonstrates trust in God and holiness, separation from sin to God's will.
"His [Peter's] argument is from the greater to the lesser: if Sarah obeyed' Abraham and called him Lord,' the Christian wives in Asia should at least treat their husbands with deference and respect."120
"Without being frightened by any fear"(v. 6) is not a condition for becoming a true daughter of Sarah in addition to doing what is right. It is rather the consequence of adopting the behavior that Peter advocated. If a Christian wife was suffering for her faith because of her conduct, she could gain great confidence by doing what Peter counselled and what Sarah practiced. She could understand that any suffering that came her way was not a result of her sinful behavior but in spite of her godly behavior (cf. 2:20; Prov. 3:25).
"The sense is that these Christian women are to let nothing terrifying frighten them from their course. Pagan women may disdain and insult them because they have adopted a nobler wifehood, they yet remain unafraid. Pagan husbands may resent their Christianity; this, too, does not frighten them."121
Why did Peter write more about the conduct of women (vv. 1-6) than of men (v. 7)? He evidently did so because his concern was for Christian wives who were married to pagan husbands. A Christian wife married to a pagan husband was in a more vulnerable position than a Christian husband who was married to a pagan wife in that culture. Normally pagan women married to Christian husbands would adopt their husbands' faith. In Roman society a wife would normally adopt her husband's religion.122
"His emphasis throughout is on those points at which the Christian community faces outward to confront Roman society. Probably for this reason he omits children and parents altogether; the parent-child relationship (at least in regard to younger children) is not normally one in which belief and unbelief confront each other . . ."123
The Roman author Cato wrote, "If you were to catch your wife in an act of infidelity, you can kill her with impunity without a trial; but, if she were to catch you, she would not venture to touch you with her finger, and, indeed, she has no right."124
The Christian wife's new freedom in Christ created new problems and challenges for her. Perhaps Peter also wanted to communicate more encouragement (vv. 5-6) and tenderness to the women, not because he felt they were greater sinners than their husbands. What follows in verse 7 is just as challenging as what we have read in verses 1-6.
"It is clear that Peter does not think about the possibility of a husband with a non-Christian wife, for if a family head in that culture changed his religion it would be normal that his wife, servants, and children also changed."125
"In 1 Peter 3:1-6 Christian wives are instructed to behave with deference as they encounter the difficulties of living with an unbelieving husband. Similarly in verse 7 Christian husbands are told to honor their wives in unfair circumstances brought about by the wife's being the weaker vessel."126
As with his instructions to wives, Peter began his counsel to the husbands with a command to think right first (cf. 3:1-2). He said men should cultivate understanding. This brief charge carries profound implications. It requires active listening to the wife as well as study of her temperament, emotions, personality, and thought patterns. It is a tall order to know one's wife, to understand her, even to be understanding with her. However the knowledge in view is probably primarily knowledge of God's Word concerning the proper treatment of one's wife.127
By comparing a wife to a weaker vessel Peter was not implying that wives or women are inferior to husbands or males nor that they are weaker in every way or most ways. Obviously, in many marriages the wife is the stronger person emotionally, mentally, spiritually, morally, socially, and or physically. Nevertheless physically the wife is usually weaker than her husband. Men tend to choose as their wives women who are not as strong as they are. Furthermore generally men are stronger than women physically. In view of this, husbands need to treat their wives with special consideration. Both the husband and the wife are vessels, but husbands are more typically similar to iron skillets whereas wives resemble china vases, being more delicate. They are equally important but different.
Peter banished any implication of essential inferiority with his reminder that the wife is a fellow-heir of God's grace just as much as the husband. God deals with both types of people the same when it comes to bestowing grace on them. He shows no favoritism or partiality because of their genders. Wives may normally be more delicate in some respects than their husbands, but spiritually they are equal. "Life"probably refers to both physical life and spiritual life since husbands and wives share both equally.
The husband who does not treat his wife with honor will not get answers to his prayers the way he could if he did treat her with honor (cf. Matt. 6:14-15). In other words, disobedience to the will of God regarding how a man treats his wife hinders the husband's fellowship with God.
"Egkoptesthai[be hindered'], to have an obstacle thrown in the way, does not restrict the thought to preventing the prayers from reaching their destination at God's throne of grace. The thought includes all manner of hindering. A husband who treats his wife in the wrong way will himself be unfit to pray, will scarcely pray at all. There will be no family altar, no life of prayer. His worship in the congregation will be affected."128
A man's selfishness and egotism in his marriage will hurt his relationship with God as well as his relationship with his wife.
"As the closest human relationship, the relationship to one's spouse must be most carefully cherished if one wishes a close relationship with God."129
One of a husband's primary responsibilities in a marriage is caring for his wife. Caring requires understanding. If you are married, what are your wife's greatest needs? Ask her. What are her greatest concerns? Ask her. What are her hopes and dreams? Ask her. What new vistas would she like to explore? Ask her, and keep on asking her over the years! Her answers will enable you to understand and to care for her more effectively.
"In order to be able to love deeply, we must know each other profoundly. If we are to lovingly respond to the needs of another, we must know what they are."130
"In my premarital counseling as a pastor, I often gave the couple pads of paper and asked them to write down the three things each one thinks the other enjoys doing the most. Usually, the prospective bride made her list immediately; the man would sit and ponder. And usually the girl was right but the man wrong! . . .
"To say, I never knew you felt that way!' is to confess that, at some point, one mate excommunicated the other."131
Peter concluded this section of instructions concerning respect for others with a discussion of the importance of loving our enemies.
3:8 "To sum up"concludes the section on respect for others (2:13-3:12). This verse deals with attitudes. Again we note that Peter regarded attitudes as foundational to actions (cf. vv. 1, 7).
"Harmonious"implies cooperation when there are individual differences. These differences can have a pleasing rather than an irritating effect. We do not all need to sing exactly the same tune, but our tune should harmonize with those of our brethren. We should be able to work together as the different parts of an athlete's body work together to reach our common goal victoriously.
"Sympathetic"means suffering with another by entering into and sharing the feelings of others rather than by having compassion on another person from a distance. It implies bearing one another's burdens (Gal. 6:2).
"Brotherly"looks at the special love that unites believers (cf. 1:22; 2:17).
"Kind-hearted"means feeling affectionately, compassionately, and deeply for someone else.
The person who is "humble in spirit"is willing to put someone else's interests and needs before his or her own (cf. Phil. 2:3-4). This would apply to God's purposes as well as the needs of other people.
"Christians are to be emotionally involved with each other."132
These five qualities are vital to effective interpersonal relationships. They are also indispensable for maintaining oneness in marriage.
3:9 Like Jesus and Paul, Peter urged his readers not to take revenge. We should return positive good deeds for evil (2:23; cf. Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:9-18; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thess. 5:15).
"As Christians we can live on one of three levels. We can return evil for good, which is the satanic level. We can return good for good and evil for evil, which is the human level. Or, we can return good for evil, which is the divine level. Jesus is the perfect example of this latter approach (1 Peter 2:21-23)."133
The ground for the Christian's good will to others, even our enemies, is the mercy we receive from God. God blessed us when we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10). Our blessing (Gr. eulogein, lit. to speak well) may be verbal or tangible. Peter's reference to inheriting a blessing reminds us of the inheritance he spoke of earlier and urged us to keep in view (1:4). However, God will give us this part of our inheritance only if we faithfully do His will (cf. Heb. 12:17).
The type of relationship in which we return insult for insult is one that intends to hurt the other person with remarks or actions. This approach springs from an unforgiving and hardened heart attitude. We can insult another person by hiding (the quiet method) or by hurling verbal or physical abuse (the noisy method). An insult can lead another person to clam up or to blow up. Both claming up and blowing up produce bitterness and isolation. The insult for insult response often occurs when two people develop habits of reacting in certain ways in certain similar situations. Therefore it is often helpful to analyze the circumstances that seem to produce this response inevitably.
The blessing for insult response, however, is one in which we react kindly when we suffer ill treatment. It springs from an attitude of forgiveness. It has its focus on God and the promises of His Word. Instead of reacting in anger we respond with forgiveness. The consequences of taking this approach in interpersonal relationships are getting a blessing, having a full life, and walking with God (vv. 9-12).
How does one give a blessing instead of an insult? We refrain from speaking evil, walk away from it, do positive good, and seek to make peace rather than trouble (vv. 10-12). Our attitude is crucial. What kind of relationship will you seek to develop and maintain with your mate? The insult for insult type results in isolation, but the blessing for insult type results in oneness in marriage.134
3:10-12 To strengthen his case Peter again cited an Old Testament passage that supported what he said (Ps. 34:12-16). However the primary purpose for this quotation seems to be more clarification than proof. Evil (v. 10) hurts, and guile misleads. God will judge those who do any kind of evil (v. 12).
This quotation (vv. 10-12) appropriately summarizes all Peter's instructions concerning proper Christian conduct during persecution (2:11-3:12).
