Themes of subversion in 1 Peter 2:1-3:7
Maturing in community and self-subjection as revolution
…this is the word that was preached to you.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
2:1-101
When we left off in chapter 1, I was advocating—or rather, I made the claim that Peter was—a disposition that transforms suffering and our relationship with it, which requires stepping away from the values of our society to look beyond them. This is not unique to the modern age—it is exactly the situation of yesterday, all the way to Babel. We need a contemplative, humble attitude, recognizing that we are “like newborn babies” craving “pure spiritual milk,” someone who can say “I know that I know nothing.” Even Socrates, the progenitor of the West, was better at this than many of us modern Christians who are so captured by our society’s myths.
“Socrates, Socrates, Socrates! Yes, we may well call your name three times; it would not be too much to call it 10 times, if it would be of any help. Popular opinion maintains that the world needs a republic, needs a new social order and a new religion—but no one considers that what the world, confused simply by too much knowledge, needs is a Socrates.” — Søren Kierkegaard
2But the disposition advocated for in chapter 1 requires a community. The discussion on the last chapter might have given you a bit of an individualist impression, but right off the bat in chapter 2, as Peter continues to prepare us for his practical advice, we are reminded that this is something we do as a collective. “Therefore, rid yourselves.” “You” is plural, as it so often is in the epistles.3 The togetherness created by suffering alongside others transcendentalizes the experience and actualizes possibilities of a faith we can’t hang on to on our own. Christians are “living stones” that make up a “spiritual house” in which God dwells.4 And we stones, when we live right, must be a source of offense and confusion to those outside the dwelling as we preach the stumbling block, Christ crucified.
But I need to be clear about something. And it’s necessarily offensive to my non-Christian readers, so I apologize in advance. This “yall,” this “we” that makes us exiles and foreigners “under the sun,”5 is not any ol’ collective we want it to be.
It’s the church. Not just our local congregations, mind we (although that is by no means excluded), but the entire church—every part of the body of Christ. As Peter calls us to perform difficult acts in the midst of a broken world, we should keep the context of the church in mind. This isn’t something we can do alone.
And with that, we will have to leave behind Simone Weil, who was so helpful in the previous chapter. Before we do, though, I think she has a couple more things to offer our perspective:
Only human beings have an eternal destiny. Human collectivities have not got one.6
The church is the only exception to this, because it’s not an exception. The church is a single body, a single person: the bride of Christ. Actually, it’s more than a non-exception: “under the sun,” there are no individuals, only masses. The church is actually the only transcendental body, the only individual.7 A difficult thing to accept, to be sure.
And yet it’s a prerequisite to what comes next.8
…now you have received mercy.
Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 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.
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
2:11-17
This passage has a long history of abuse in the church, but I don’t want to argue against the surface-level interpretation too much. We are supposed to, in all sorts of social and legal contexts, fulfill the obligations handed to us by human authorities.9 But at the same time, we should remain unimpressed and skeptical of interpretations that blindly, naively, or even maliciously suggest that Peter thinks law and order is so valuable to society we that are to obey it for its own sake, and that in so doing we enable these systems of human authority to maintain the common good even when we might disagree with the law in a specific instance. Certainly, this is true at times—perhaps even most of the time—but I don’t think it’s what Peter is talking about here.10
To get a sense of what Peter means here, we have to once again open ourselves up to seeing beyond our physical existence and understand ourselves as Christians and the church itself as existing in two planes. It doesn’t resolve the paradoxes, but puts them front and center.
This passage (verses 13-17 in particular) forms a brief pericope that begins and ends with an homage to the emperor, but upon closer inspection Peter’s words reveal themselves as a subversive call to a uniquely Christian freedom that is rebellious towards the hierarchies of society that culminates in an ironic command to treat the emperor just like a Christian should treat a slave: with respect. J. Bronson Barringer, a scholar whose study of Peter’s letter I particularly appreciate, says, “This pericope seems to be a paradox in that by honoring the authorities they are shamed.”11
That’s a perfect way of describing this subversive element of Peter’s words. To whatever extent the powers that be are not doing good (and all of us understand that this is reality to some degree), we can heap burning coals on their heads by using our freedom in Christ not for ourselves, but for others. It’s essentially a practical way of living out similar ideas expressed all over the New Testament:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. (Mark 10)12
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. (Philippians 2)
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. (Titus 3)
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5)
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12-13)All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. (1 Timothy 6)
I intentionally mixed together passages that refer to how believers treat one another with those that speak of treating outsiders and with more ambiguous passages. We are to submit to both fellow believers and to non-believers—but there is sometimes a difference in intent, in outcome, and in the reason why.
But before we get into that, we should remember that this submission to human authorities commanded of us isn’t a pro-slavery, pro-oppression mandate. “Live as free people,” Peter says, and his co-laborers agree: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”13 However, Peter and Paul alike understand that true freedom is more than what the world understands it as, and the Christian in the most vile circumstances can experience that transcendental freedom. We are absolutely supposed to seek freedom “under the sun” if we can,14 and we are absolutely supposed to strive for the freedom of our neighbors who may be less free “under the sun” than we are,15 but we are also called as Christians to see beyond this.
Of course, that requires maturing beyond spiritual infancy, as Peter reminds us we are. Are we ever really free if we don’t seek the spiritual truths that open our eyes to the beyond? We all return to dust no matter our position in life. One last word from Weil seems fitting here:
One of the indispensable foods of the human soul is liberty…Those who are lacking in goodwill or who remain adolescent are never free under any form of society.16
So what makes this chapter of 1 Peter subversive? How is he “heaping coals on the heads” of the authorities?
Firstly, we should note that Peter begins with the emperor, but over the next two chapters involving interactions with other categories of individuals who—especially in Peter’s day, which is of course nothing distinct “under the sun” from our own—are also sometimes agents of oppression: governors, slave-owners, and unbelieving husbands. After calling us to submit to the first two categories Peter hits us with this little ditty:
For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. (2:15)
I’ll let you decide for yourself who Peter is referring to as “foolish people.” Compare this idea to Romans 12-13; if our logic is not restricted to logic “under the sun,” we can actually proclaim already-won victory over someone who would do us harm by doing them good in turn, we can silence their “ignorant talk” of greater good and obligations and rights and rule of law.
Then, Peter reminds us of our ultimate freedom17 and follows up with another right hook:
Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. (2:17)
Actually, I’ve got beef with this translation. I think it obscures Peter’s verbal subterfuge: “show proper respect” and “honor” are both the same Greek word, τιμάω (timao). In other words, treat the emperor just like you would treat anyone else, even a slave!18 Peter cleverly couches language antagonistic to those who are in positions of authority over us in words that at first glance would only appease them, which is important when the historical context is understood.
To make this new cult appear revolutionary towards the powers would only bring further oppression to Peter’s fellow believers, so it must appear otherwise! Bronson Barringer comments on the passage:
the contrast of the good behavior of Jesus’s disciples, largely epitomized by enduring unjust suffering for Christ’s sake, with the idolatrous, self-serving behavior of the powers, will expose the corruption and injustice meted out by the imposturous and rebellious powers of this world…Like other writers who find themselves vulnerable because they are at odds with a society’s values, Peter employs cunning rhetorical and theological moves that those socialized into early Christianity could understand and appreciate while those outside this “chosen people” ( 2:9 ) would not find immediately threatening. The following section of exhortations directed at slaves, then wives and husbands should further illumine the sort of double meaning potentially bound up in Peter’s letter by exposing more of the ways in which four different inferences might be made by those inside church and those in the outside. With this in mind it is possible to see the subversive nature of Peter’s next set of instructions.19
Peter’s next set of instructions, which will be the last thing we cover in this post (2:18-3:7), take the form of an ancient literary format known as “household codes,”20 an important element of ancient political theory in which Greco-Roman writers (including some we recognize like Aristotle and the Stoics) would instruct their readers in the moral and practical elements of managing or participating in households, depending on their role and status. Importantly, these codes focus on the members of households with relative authority and importance in society, and those without are assumed to have no moral agency. So in a typical household code, the focus is on the patriarch, whereas instructions for slaves are typically as simple as “obey unquestioningly,” given their assumed lack of moral agency.21
That’s the norm, anyway. Peter shakes things up.
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 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 cross, 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.
2:18-25
Before Peter even gets to the more “important” members of households, he points to slaves as an example for the rest of us and compares them to Jesus. We could do an entire series of posts on this set of verses alone, but this one is getting long enough.22 Peter continues,
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own 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 elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, 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 adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
3:1-6
“In the same way,” Peter says. “Likewise.” “As these slaves, who are your brothers and sisters and who are like Christ, have done.” If that doesn’t subvert your expectations, I don’t know what will. This isn’t just addressed to wives who have great husbands who are perfect Christians and only want what’s best for them (as if that’s even a real category!), but to all Christian wives, even those of husbands who “do not believe,” wives who are already in opposition to their heads of household by choosing to worship a God other than their husbands’ gods.
This submission, which comes from the Greek word ὑποτάσσω (hypotasso), of slaves and wives to masters, husbands, and governing officials is subversive because it carries a connotation of antagonism in this context. In other words, you don’t have to agree with someone or acquiesce to their beliefs by submitting to them; it can actually be an act of rebellion, if we can only see with eyes that see. David Lipscomb, a Civil War-era Tennessean23 who was influential in my region and religious traditions, put it this way:
[Ὑποτάγητε, or “submit”]…carries the idea that the person or body that submits, is entirely distinct and separate from and in antagonism to the person or body to which it submits. The Christian then is not part of the body to which he submits, or to which he brings himself under subjection. . . We cannot be said to submit to ourselves, or to a body of which we are a part and parcel, and with which we are in harmony, and which we aid to conduct or manage. Submission carries the idea of antagonism and opposition which are restrained and held in abeyance. This is the relationship everywhere defined as that which connects the Christian with the governments under which they live.24
Reasons for submission vary. Sometimes, it’s to uphold the status quo and whatever greater good it provides; others, it’s to heap burning coals on the heads of someone taking advantage of us.
But now, I’ve been talking about various members of society that I can’t really empathize with and that I have no room to look down upon. I can’t really speak to an abused slave or woman and tell them that if they just submitted with the right attitude, it would be all peachy. I’m not a slave, and I’m not a wife. I’m a husband.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
3:7
People love to talk about the latter two-thirds of the verse, but we can’t forget how it starts: “in the same way.” We gloss over that, but he’s saying that we live this verse out by imitating those who, in Peter’s day at least, were on the bottom rungs of society! Put another Petrine way, they are the people we are to give the very same respect to as the emperor. Or the President. Or the Prime Minister. Or whatever.
As for the remainder of the verse, I’ll quote from Bronson Barringer again:
the most contextually appropriate reading of the text shows Peter’s awareness of the ways in which women were vulnerable in his readers’ context. As Jean Bethke Elshtain writes, “Human beings are soft-shelled creatures. All bodies are fragile. But some bodies, in some circumstances are more vulnerable than others.”25 Peter reminds husbands that this is the situation for their wives in the patriarchal Greco-Roman world. These wives are more susceptible to abuse in the male-dominated culture, and therefore Christian husbands have a responsibility to counter these societal norms by treating their wives as equal heirs to all that God offers. For Peter, the point of Christians choosing to live into the freedom of Christ is that they live holy lives that others find strangely compelling.26
It’s “strangely compelling.” It’s not obvious to those “under the sun” that this strategy works. It’s subversive. If we’re going to live this out, we’re going to suffer in this life: for Peter, there’s no prosperity gospel nonsense.
But does it work?
I don’t know. Don’t think Peter did either. Don’t think he cared, to be honest.
But that’s more than enough for now. Thanks for bearing with me.
Biblical quotations will be in NIV unless otherwise noted. Verse addresses without a book reference are for 1 Peter.
Quote from The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening, by Anti-Climacus (Søren Kierkegaard), translated by Howard V. Hong & Edna H. Hong, pg 92. Princeton University Press, 1980.
It was plural throughout chapter 1 as well, but this gets obscured in the English.
Cf. Ephesians 2:19-22.
As in the previous post on 1 Peter, I’m using “under the sun” in the tradition of the author of Ecclesiastes, not as a reference to merely earthly life—for that is supposed to be transformed for Christians in the already, not just the not-yet—but as a reference to life as it must be understood if there is no heavenly overlap, no transcendental property to it. For most people, there simply isn’t.
Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind, translated by A.F. Wills. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1953. Also found in pg 88 of Simone Weil: An Anthology by Siân Miles. Grove Press, 1986.
By no means am I suggesting that any sort of perfection is attained by church congregations; many of the subversive techniques Peter describes in this letter are equally applicable within the church as part of the continual fight against evil that inevitably arises within the church’s earthly borders. Furthermore, our churches, to the extent that they are divided “under the sun” by human systems, denominations, and organizations, have no eternal destiny. The church is eternal only insofar as it transcends these things.
Supernatural help is needed to believe such a thing. Cf. Ephesians 3:16-21.
For the record, I think governments and various sorts of human authorities accomplish good in many ways. Where I differ from many is on why I think that’s the case. For one reflection I’ve written concerning this subject, check out this post.
Bronson Barringer, J. 2018. Subordination and Freedom: Tracing Anarchist Themes in First Peter. In: Christoyannopoulos, A. and Adams, M.S. (eds.) Essays in Anarchist and Religion: Volume II, pg 159. Stockholm University Press.
Cf. Matthew 20, Luke 22.
Galatians 5. To those who point out that the context refers to spiritual freedom, I would agree—but I would also argue that the distinction between the spiritual and physical in this passage is a false one.
Eg. 1 Corinthians 7:21.
Eg. Deuteronomy 4:17, Psalm 41:1, 82:3-4, Proverbs 24:11-12, Isaiah 1:17.
The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind. Also found in pg 95-96 of Simone Weil: An Anthology.
In most English translations, this is a new sentence for ease of reading, but the Greek doesn’t have a hard stop here. This is easily seen in the Literal Standard Version, starting in verse 13: “Be subject…as free [people]”.
I’m just a layman and not really qualified to comment on matters of translation, but I’m not alone here. Compare the NIV to virtually any other scholarly translation.
Bronson Barringer. Subordinaton and Freedom: Tracing Anarchist Themes in First Peter. In: Essays in Anarchism and Religion: Volume II, pg 159.
In scholarly literature, you might see this referred to as the Haustafeln literary tradition or the Oikonomia tradition. Those are some terms to search for if you want to learn more about it, since my understanding of the literary traditions and how Peter’s letter relates is limited.
For some scholarly discussion on this, check out pg 96-97 of Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter by David L. Balch (1981) and pg 142-147 of Subordination and Freedom: Tracing Anarchist Themes in First Peter by J. Bronson Barringer (2018).
One aspect of this passage I was tempted to explore here was Peter’s use of the “suffering servant” passages in Isaiah: when we understand the servant as Israel itself and Jesus as the perfect example of Israel, the salvific element of suffering for the sake of those outside the church becomes prominent.
Lipscomb lived and farmed just a couple miles and a couple hundred years away from where I was born. His comments on submission are historically interesting, especially in the context of this passage. The view expressed here represents his view towards the end of his life—he was actually part of a slave-owning family in his younger days.
David Lipscomb, On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny and The Christian’s Relation to It. This quote and some discussion on it can also be found in pg 154-155 of Subordination and Freedom by Bronson Barringer.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. The Equality of Persons and the Culture of Rights. 2003. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, pg 5. At the time of writing, this text can be found for free here.
Bronson Barringer. Subordination and Freedom: Tracing Anarchist Themes in First Peter. In: Essays in Anarchism and Religion: Volume II, pg 165.