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).
