Abstract
“Household slaves, submit by accepting the authority of your masters with all respect… but also to those who are harsh” (1 Peter 2:18, CEB). To the ears of contemporary readers who seek fairness and social justice, this exhortation might sound politically incorrect. The Petrine author does not condemn the system of slavery nor its abuses. Instead, the author seems to embrace suffering, including physical abuse in some cases: if slaves are to suffer for doing wrong, they should endure their suffering (v. 20). Worse, the author is aware of their unjust suffering but advises them to accept it and describes it as commendable in the sight of God (vv. 19–20).
Indeed, the text is disturbing to citizens of modern democratic societies. Contemporary readers might think that the Petrine author should have refused the legitimacy of the master’s authority and encouraged slaves to protest for their human rights. One might be tempted to ignore such texts that appear to advocate an unjust authority. In consideration of the misuse of these household codes by pro-slavery interpreters in U.S. history, one would almost certainly consider the exhortation in 1 Peter 2:18–25 to be inappropriate. 1 However, if one reads the text more deliberately, considering its purpose and context, growthful readings are possible.
The first letter of Peter was written to the followers of Jesus who lived as aliens and exiles in first-century Asia Minor (currently Turkey) and endured severe suffering for their faith (1:1, 2:11, 2:19–24, 3:14–16, 4:12–19). Household slaves were among those who were suffering. Accordingly, it should be recognized that the purpose of this household code was not simply to urge them to follow the domestic rules for slaves at that time but to encourage them to endure suffering by understanding it in light of their faith. From this perspective, one would see that the text has some distinctive features unlike other household codes in the Pauline letters, as well as in the ancient Greco-Roman world (Eph 5:21–6:9, Col 3:18–4:1, 1 Tim 5:9–6:2, Titus 2:2–10).
In contrast to the household codes in parallel Christian literature, it is noteworthy that the text has no advice to masters. Whereas the Pauline letters generally instruct both slaves and masters, reciprocally describing their duties, there is no instruction to masters in this text. This might be because the Petrine audience included few or no masters, or the author addressed all the members of the Petrine community, designating them all as household slaves metaphorically. 2 It is not hard to accept the second hypothesis since the whole congregation would have heard the letter, including this passage, together, and considered it the message for all members who would have experienced suffering similarly.
But if we take the lack of instruction to masters as evidence for the absence of masters or the presence of very few masters in the Petrine community, what would have happened to the household slaves? As a subject of the paterfamilias, household slaves were to worship the gods that their master served. Likely, their refusal to participate in the domestic cult of their master would have caused “unjust suffering,” including physical abuse (v. 20). As we see in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, if they rejected the imperial cult, they would have experienced unjust suffering for their faith. 3
This explains why the text focuses on unjust suffering, which the Pauline household codes do not mention. Of course, unjust suffering included abuse that they experienced while doing non-religious household duties. However, unlike many cultures in the modern world, in the first-century Roman Empire the religious and non-religious life of individuals were not separated. Thus, in light of the context of the Petrine community under persecution and the textual evidence that the unjust suffering motif was applied to all members (3:8–22, 4:12–19), unjust suffering in this passage could be understood as a result of their persistence of faith in Christ. In this sense, readers can understand why the author describes unjust suffering as commendable in the sight of God (v. 19–20).
Now, the text uncovers the meaning of suffering uniquely by connecting the unjust suffering of household slaves with the innocent suffering of Christ. Peter boldly states that slaves have been called to unjust suffering and encourages them to follow in the steps of Christ, the suffering servant (v. 21). Drawing from Isaiah’s song of the suffering servant (Isa 52:13–53:12), Peter invites household slaves to reflect on their suffering in light of Christ’s suffering (vv. 22–24). Christ suffered innocently but did not seek retaliation. Christ saved sinners and healed them through his suffering on the cross. Thus, Christ’s innocent suffering is redemptive.
The text offers a paradigmatic example for understanding unjust suffering for contemporary readers as well as first-century followers of Jesus. First, the text shows that even if one suffers unjustly and endures, it does not mean that such suffering is desirable. Instead, the text nuances that their suffering is unjust, just as Christ suffered “unjustly” despite having committed no sin (v. 22). Thus, preachers should not use this text to advocate maltreatment or injustice, but rather to point to the ways that injustice causes suffering and draw attention to its effects.
Second, the text allows seeing unjust suffering as redemptive, as it says that Christ suffered “for you” (vv. 21, 24). Accordingly, Peter’s call to embrace unjust suffering as following the example of Christ can be understood, in a deeper sense, as a call for redemptive work in solidarity with Christ the Savior. This does not merely serve as practical advice for the powerless minority to survive in a hostile society. As Peter redefines unjust suffering as redemptive suffering in imitation of Christ’s salvific suffering, the text offers an alternative perspective: unjust suffering is not a reality that leaves the sufferer without agency, but can be a creative and redemptive work for restoring divine justice and resisting evil.
Effective preachers have addressed the ambivalence of unjust suffering, which is embedded in the gospel, by using literary tropes, like oxymoron. For example, Barbara Brown Taylor talks about “the blessedness of brokenness” in the exposition of the risen Christ. 4 She indicates that Christ’s broken body became the bread of life for sinners, and Christ’s brokenness due to unjust suffering became the blessing that restores the wholeness for the people with brokenness. Likewise, in recognition of the ambivalence of the gospel of the cross, preachers can proclaim unjust suffering is a way of participating in redemptive ministries.
Based on the understanding of the Petrine community’s redemptive suffering in the likeness of Christ’s suffering, preachers can approach the text, not as an oppressive household code, but as an empowering word to oppressed people. Indeed, wise preachers have uncovered redemptive power from the unjust suffering of those who are marginalized, abused, and oppressed. Preachers would do well to remember Martin Luther King Jr.’s words in his “I Have a Dream” speech, which declares that “unearned suffering is redemptive.” In line with the apostle Peter, King understood that suffering comes from sin and evil, but noted it has a redemptive aspect. When Black Christians saw the cross of Christ in the lynching tree, they came to make sense of the mysterious saving power of unjust suffering. 5 When Korean theologians discovered the suffering Christ’s presence with and in the suffering minjung, 6 they came to regard the suffering minjung as little Christs. When a preacher uncovers the body of Christ as a tortured body, like the bodies of Latin Americans enduring suffering, congregants see that God’s saving grace is revealed in and through the body of the suffering servant. 7
These examples hint at how to preach on the unjust suffering of oppressed peoples in the twenty-first century. Every webpage and newsfeed informs us that there are still many servants of God suffering unjustly. In light of this text, preachers can help suffering servants discover the paradoxical good news, that “God redeems the world through unjust suffering.”