Editor’s note: The purpose of this series is to walk our readers through 1 Peter in order to help them understand what it teaches and how to apply it to our lives. This series is part of our larger commitment to help Christians learn to read, interpret, reflect, and apply the Bible to their own lives.
- David Dunham opened our series by looking at 1 Peter 1:1-2.
- Dave looked at 1 Peter 1:3-9.
- Dave looked at 1 Peter 1:10-12.
- Dave looked at 1 Peter 1:13-21.
- Dave wrote on 1 Peter 1:22-2:3.
- Zach wrote on 1 Peter 2:4-10.
- Dave wrote on 1 Peter 2:11-17.
- Today Dave writes on 1 Peter 2:18-25.
1 Peter 2:18-25, “18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
From 1 Peter 2:11 to 1 Peter 4:11, the Apostle Peter constantly instructs the faithful in their social obligations. Peter insists on giving this sustained attention for both pragmatic and intrinsic reasons. Pragmatically, his people were a tiny and nearly defenseless minority, a group of aliens and exiles in their own culture (1 Peter 2:11-12). Further, a pagan convert to the faith found that his contemporaries were surprised at his departure from their way of life and maligned him for it (1 Peter 4:1-6). So Peter foresaw that believers would be increasingly exposed to persecution in coming days and wanted to help them to minimize their exposure to trouble (1 Peter 3:10-17; 1 Peter 4:17016). Perhaps that is part of the reason why Peter tells his people to submit to some authority five times in just thirty-five verses (1 Peter 2:12, 18; 3:1, 5, 22). But the call to submit is more than a survival strategy. God has woven authority structures all through society, indeed all through creation, and we needlessly harm ourselves and miss the blessing of walking in his way if we ignore those structures. Social ethics are essential both to Christian living and to the cause of Christ. If a fleet is about to sail, the sailors need to know how to avoid bumping into each other. Peter’s social instruction enhances both the public reputation and the inner peace of the church.
Peter’s social teaching emphasizes submission to masters and governors. Because Peter’s people were aliens in their own culture and because they refused to worship the emperor, it was imperative that they submit to governing authorities wherever they are. Thus, they could “silence the ignorant talk” of their accusers” (1 Peter 2:11-17). Still, apart from the social benefits, it is intrinsically good to obey the authority that God establishes, “for he is God’s servant to do you good” (Romans 13:1, 4).
The Duty of a Christian Servant
After describing the social obligations of all disciples in 1 Peter 2:11-17, Peter commands in 1 Peter 2:18, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” This is necessary, “because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:11).
In order to apply Peter’s message, we need to know the status of slaves in the empire. Their life differed both from that of ordinary laborers today and from that of the slaves in the Americas in prior days. Roman slavery was not race-based. Slaves did not look, talk, or dress in a distinct way. Most slaves were poor, but almost everyone was poor.
The term translated “slaves” in 1 Peter 2:18 denotes household slaves. There were several kinds of slaves in the empire. People became slaves through war, poverty, or birth to enslaved parents. Slaves could be well educated. A slave might be a doctor, teacher, shipbuilder, or even city treasurer. But nobler tasks were exceptional. Most were household slaves, and their lot varied with the status and character of their masters and mistresses. Field slaves worked hard, and house slaves lacked freedom.
American slavery was worse than Roman slavery in most ways. Roman slaves could own property and follow their traditions. Although a slave’s life expectancy was short, many slaves gained their freedom eventually.[i] American slavery was race-based, had limited paths to freedom, and rested on kidnapping, which is a sin—and a capital crime in Moses’ law (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). While the Mosaic Law tolerated slavery, it regulated potential abuses. For example, if a master so struck a slave as to cause major injury, the slave went free (Ex. 21:26). The law also had several paths to manumission. For example, all slaves normally went free every seventh calendar year (Deut. 15:12-18). Roman slaves also had several paths to freedom.
Still, the life of a slave was difficult. Aristotle opined that slaves were inferior by nature. Since they were unable to govern themselves, Aristotle claimed, they were better off under a master just as domestic cattle were better off than wild cattle. Further, he said, it was impossible to mistreat a slave, because slaves were not mere property.[ii] This was the consensus, although Seneca observed that men “of distinguished birth” sometimes became slaves through war. Social rank, he said, “is only a robe that clothes us.” So someone could have slave status while “his soul may be that of a free man.”[iii] But Seneca was the exception.
Legally speaking, slaves were not persons. They had virtually no rights. A slave was the property of his or her master. Therefore, a master could sell a slave at will, separating him or her from family and home. People said that “a slave is a living possession,” a “talking tool,” and “property with a soul.”[iv]
A household slave could only hope for economic security, decent treatment, and a position as a leading slave in a great house.[v] But a slave’s body belonged to his master. Demosthenes reported that slaves were “answerable in their body for all the offenses while freemen can protect their persons.” That is slaves were liable to a beating for all offenses.[vi]
Given that slaves were barely regarded as human, we see that Peter elevates slaves simply by addressing them. Although some slaves were literate, most Greco-Roman writers thought it pointless to address them, since they didn’t see them as responsible moral agents.
Clearly, the status of contemporary employers is not the same as that of Roman slaves. Today’s workers can feel trapped by social and economic forces. While we should not minimize the resulting distress, our rights and freedoms keep us far from slaver. Nonetheless, millions are still enslaved throughout the world today. Most live in lawless countries, but they are scattered across the continents. Further, some people live in situations akin to slavery, even in the West. Children who suffer hidden abuse at the hands of violent parents and immigrants with no knowledge of their rights are like slaves if they are defenseless, powerless, and trapped.
Peter’s first word to slaves is, “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect (1 Peter 2:18). Peter is not endorsing or blessing slavery. Rather, he tells believing slaves how to live within a pervasive, entrenched institution. Peter commands slaves to submit “with respect”—literally “with fear” or awe. Ultimately, the believer fears God, not man. Peter notes (1 Peter 3:14-15). But god appoints all human authorities, so we obey them for God’s sake. Our respect for masters if ultimately respect for God, who ordains and commissions all authorities (Romans 13:1-4). Even if there is no precise analogy between slaves and free workers today, Peter’s instructions do apply to all who serve harsh or perverse leaders. Evil authorities are not slave masters, but they can give harmful orders and can punish all who violate them. We should think this way: If God can command a harder thing, that slaves respectfully submit to harsh masters, surely we can submit to harsh superiors, since their power is more modest.
Nonetheless, we find the command daunting, possibly without fully realizing why. If we have an angry or unjust supervisor and we feel trapped by him/her, we are tempted to return anger for anger, disrespect for disrespect. Yet peter commands believers to submit, with respect, to difficult leaders at home and at work. We can extend the principle to schools, churches, and governments. We obey if we can. If we must disobey, we do so humbly and respectfully, and we bear the consequences (Acts 5:17-33).
Most citizens of Western countries resist Peter’s teaching. We treasure our independence, criticize our authorities, and honor our rebels. We don’t like to submit to leaders unless we think they are worthy.
Think for example of Joe. He was competent and treated most people fairly. His misdeeds were minor dignities and irritations, not grievous wounds. But the students judged him uncool and the pros judged him bombastic. Because of these flaws, people bristled at the thought of giving him respect. They seemed to hank, “If I had his job, I’d treat people better and everyone would like work better.”
The root of discontent with people like Joe is a concept of work that is grounded in our culture, not Scripture. We believe work should offer more than tasks and income. We think work should be a place where we grow, find fulfillment, and find and develop our gifts, so that we flourish as individuals. Most people would not want to work for someone like Joe. In recent years, the most common occupations in America are cashier and retail sales assistant. Neither post offers especially fulfilling work. Even upper-class adults are prone to exaggerate their options. Clearly, we should reconsider our concept of vocation.
The Gifts and Calling of a Christian Worker
All this does not mean that work should be miserable. God gives gifts to His people, and when we serve others out of the capacities that He has given us, we can expect to take pleasure in using our skills. Romans 12:6-8 tells us to exercise our gifts freely and cheerful, which seem to imply joy in our work.
But Peter and Paul, along with martin Luther and John Calvin, see our work, as well as our family relationships, “as domains not freely chosen, but providentially assigned to each person.” Sociologists call this ascriptivism. That is, a persons’ significant social relationships are not primarily matters of “individual choice, but are assigned based largely on class, parentage, and gender, One does not so much choose one’s calling as discover oneself within their network.” Vocation is not so much about choosing the right spouse, work, friends, and residence as it is seeing the web of our relationships “as divinely assigned places to serve God and neighbor.”[vii]
God still grants us freedom to escape oppression, if we can. Paul told slaves, “If you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Cor. 7:21). Jesus told His disciples, “When you are persecuted, flee to another” (Matt. 10:23). But sometimes we can’t move. Then, peter says, “submit yourselves to your masters with all respect” (1 Peter 2:18). Each word is instructive.
First, everyone must submit. The concept of submission assumes that this world has God-given structures and authorities. We must organize our lives within those structures. Even if we suspect that our leaders are wrong, we should subordinate ourselves to legitimate commands. We should yield to the authority and defer to it.
Our submission should be voluntary. We should yield to leaders, rather than making them force their will on us. We yield to people, laws, and institutions that have authority because the Lord placed them over us. He ordains the leaders, teachers, and parents who govern the world under Him.
We submit with respect. When people feel trapped at work, they obey the boss because they need to keep their jobs. But respect is more than obedience. We should respect leaders even when we disagree with their decisions. We should respect and pray for political leaders even if we voted against them, disagree with their policies, and doubt that they can govern well.
The English Puritans lived in a hierarchical society, under often hostile bishops and kings. They reflected deeply on the duties of subordinates to flawed superiors. All agreed that leaders gain their authority through their God-given positions, not superior character or achievements.
William Perkins observed that master and servant may be equal in Christ in the inner man, yet in the “civil order,” masters’ rules and servants “must be subject.”[viii] Speaking of marriage, William Gouge said that the principle holds even if the husband was “a beggar” before married and is, after marriage “a drunkard, a glutton, and a profane swaggerer.” Even if the wife is sober, wealthy, and religious, she must respect her husband because of “the civil honor which God hath given unto him.”[ix] Further, her outward submission must be matched by inward reverence. The mantle of authority for husbands, ministers, parents and masters is bestowed by God, not earned, although a wise leader will strive to enhance his authority by using it wisely.[x]
The term submit (hypotasso) requires definition. Submit ordinarily means “to subject, subordinate, or ring under control” (Acts 19:35; Phil.3:21; Heb. 2:5, 8). Yet to submit it not precisely to obey. To obey is to do what is commanded, willingly, or not. Submission can also be willing or unwilling, but the concept can be more nuanced. In Paul’s teaching, children obey their parents, and slaves obey their masters, but wives submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 6:1, 5; Col. 3:18-22). To submit, in that setting, entails more freedom or latitude than obedience. Submission can include freedom to arrange affairs under general directions or principles, not necessarily under precise commands. So wives have freedom to consider how to follow their husbands, especially since marriage is a close relationship is essentially a parity-based. A worker, similarly, may have freedom in the way he gets things done, even while fulfilling tasks given by the authority.
The word submit implicitly refers to authority structures. The Romans believed that authority structures stretch up and down in a chain. In the chain, lower authorities had to yield to higher ones, ending with the emperor and the gods above him; a Roman centurion expresses this concept in Matthew 8:8-9.
Scripture says that all authorities are answerable to God, and must therefore be disobeyed if their commands contradict His. Because no human authority is absolute, no summons to submit to it is absolute. If an authority gives a wicked command, it must be refused. Peter himself made this point during a crisis in the first days of the church: “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). The call to submit always has this caveat: We obey the authorities unless they contradict God.
Nonetheless, rulers have real authority. Peter tells slaves to submit to masters. Elsewhere, Scripture commands all believers to submit to authorities. If the term authority (exousia) refers to humans, it typically has the nuance of legitimate rule (Romans 13:1-3). If we yield to authorities, we yield to powers ordained by God. By contrast, we do not have to submit to every power, for a power can have brute strength—a gun, for example—and no legitimacy (Heb. 2:14). There is no moral obligation to bow to brute force.
Some people quickly ask, “So when is it time to rebel?” The question is common in nations born in rebellion against colonial powers and in nations that currently suffer oppression. People ask, “Did God really appoint all authorities?” Authorities and powers take their place by many means. Emperors claim powers through conquest, intrigue, murder, and inheritance. A master might gain his place by inheritance, bribery, or merit. If an authority was hired or appointed, we can ask whether the decision was based on skill and training or favoritism.
But in the final analysis, the Lord appoints all authorities. He even has purposes for evil leaders. Consider the words of Daniel, who long served a flawed monarch. Daniel 4:17, “The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.” Romans 13:2, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Calvin said that there is a magistrate who is “a father of his country, a shepherd of his people, a guardian of peace, protector of righteousness, and avenger of innocence—he who does not approve of such government must be rightly be regarded as insane.”[xi] We must submit to deserving authorities. We should resist the inclination to second-guess everyone and everything. It is easy to criticize and hard to remember how readily we err.
Some authorities are careless, self0ndulgent, and corrupt wastrels. These, too, are ordained by God. Speaking through the prophet Daniel, god told Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37-38 and Daniel 5:18-19, The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field… wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all.”
Other Scriptures teaches that there is a time to resist evil authorities. If possible, the Reformers knew, the righteousness will not simply rebel, but ally themselves with other authorities, with “lesser magistrates,” whether civil or ecclesiastical. If we must stand against “the fierce licentiousness of kings,” we should do so not as private individuals, but through the authority of “magistrates of the people who were appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings.”[xii] Thus, the Christians who attempted to assassinate Hitler did so in allegiance with faithful German military leaders[xiii]). So there is a place for godly rebellion, but too many people are quick to doubt authorities and to declare that they have a right to rebel.
1 Peter 2:19, “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.” The phrase “it is commendable” literally reads “this is grace.” Grace here does not mean “unmerited favor,” here but “that which counts with God” and with which He is pleased.
No one likes to suffer unjustly. Still, the Lord is pleased when we endure unjust suffering, for it is a form of imitation of Christ. But there is no glory or praise if a slave endures punishment for doing evil. 1 Peter 2:20a, “How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and enduring it?” Peter does not say that anyone deserves a beating. Peter is simply stating the obvious: we have no right to complain if we are punished for misdeeds. God is not impressed when we endure well-deserved punishment. It is praiseworthy if we, like Jesus, quietly endure injustice.
The Model of Christian Service
The exceptional case of justified rebellion is not Peter’s main concern. The Romans were already suspicious of Christians for refusing to worship the emperor. If Christians commonly rebelled, it would exacerbate the suspicion that all Christians were seditious. Beyond that, rebellion misses a vital lesson from Jesus’ life.
According to Peter, slaves please God when they endure “unjust suffering” (1 Peter 2:19). Why? The believing slave did not live on naive hopes that his master would reform. Slaves follow the life and teaching of Jesus.
Slaves are to endure mistreatment. 1 Peter 2:21-22, “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.” There are two lessons here. First, almost unbearably, Peter tells those who suffer abuse to follow Jesus’ “example” or pattern, and to follow in his steps. We should walk in His very steps, as He silently bore unspeakable hatred and violence.
Second, Jesus is our example because He “”committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22). Peter lives with Jesus all day for three years. If Jesus had grabbed tasty morsels of fish for himself or exploded in frustrated at His thickheaded disciples, Peter would have known. But Peter never saw Jesus stray in deed or word. He never got upset unjustly, never made a bad decision, never got a laugh at another person’s expense. His proper self-interest was never tainted by selfishness. Echoing Psalm 34:13 and Isaiah 53:9, Peter says that no “deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). So Jesus is holy even in that realm where holiness is more elusive for humans: in our speech (James 3:8).
Peter focuses on Jesus’ exemplary suffering. Blind, vindictive authorities killed Jesus. Passerby’s joined in as they mocked and reviled him even as he suffered the more wretched death. Yet “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23). Jesus’ patience and calm in suffering is our model. There is no glory in calmly receiving deserved punishment, but there is glory in bearing insults silently and committing ourselves to the Father to judge and vindicate us. That is precisely what Jesus did and what we should aspire to do.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of serving the devil (Matthew 12:22-26). On the cross, Jesus suffered taunts. Matthew 27:42, ““He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.” Yet He endured in silence, and entrusted Himself to the Father to exonerate Him.
The Greek verb translated “he entrusted himself” is paradidomi. It most commonly means “hand over,” and is often used of Jesus. Jesus was handed over for ill again and again, but He handled Himself over to the Father, for good.
- Judas handed Jesus over to the priests out of greed (Matthew 26:14-49).
- The priests handed Jesus over to Pilate out of envy and self-righteousness (Mark 15:10).
- Pilate handed Him over to the soldiers out of cowardice (Matthew 27:26).
- On the cross, Jesus handed himself over to God for vindication as He endured the mockers’ taunts (1 peter 2:23) and anticipated His final vindication in the resurrection (Romans 1:4).
For disciples, Jesus is the supreme example of the man who suffered patiently because of confidence in God. Like David, we receive thoughtless praise; like the Lord, we receive groundless scorn.
Let us notice that the imitation of Christ is a common New Testament them. Some Protestants are weary of this. They far that an emphasis on imitating Jesus’ life might lead to a neglect of His atoning death. But Jesus repeatedly presented Himself as an example, especially in His endurance of unjust suffering: “Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant if greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20; Matt. 10:24-25; Luke 6:40). Paul tells us that we should love as Jesus loved (Eph. 5:2), forgive has He forgave (Eph. 4:32), and put others first as He did (Phil. 2:3-8). Peter instructs elders to be “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3).
Yet Jesus is more than an example. Because we neither heed God’s commands nor follow Jesus’ example, we stand guilty before god. But, Peter says, “Jesus “suffered for you” (1 Peter 2:21). More than that, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24).
Jesus’ suffering is unique, for His death, and His death alone, is an atoning sacrifice, a penal substitution for our sins. 1 Peter 2:24 quotes (and slightly rephrases Isaiah 53, taking readers into the Old Testament prophecy that so clearly foretells Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifice. Isaiah 53:5-6, “But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.”
Perhaps Jesus Himself pointed the apostles to this passage after His resurrection, when He “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,” (Luke 24:44-46).
The concept of penal substitution is under attack today from liberals and even so called evangelicals. They claim that it is barbaric for God to punish sin by death. Worse, it is “cosmic child abuse” for God to kill His Son for the sins of others. These criticisms pervert both the problem of and the cure for sin. Sin leads to death intrinsically, nor arbitrarily, because it separates us from God, the Author of Life. Further, the principle of substitution is not strange or cruel; it is a common element of human life. Lawyers speak on behalf of others. Family members off to pay each others debts. And Jesus offered to pay our debt before God. God’s justice requires that sin be punished and Jesus choose—as an abused child cannot—to pay for our sins, as 1 Peter 2:24 makes clear.
Above all, Jesus is not an arbitrary substitute. By faith, the Christian is united to Jesus. Because of our relationship, it is sensible to ascribe His traits to us.
1 Peter 2:21-24 is one highly structured, quasi poetic sentence. A series of dependent clauses explore the master concept: “Christ suffered for you” (1 Peter 2:21). Peter says that “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:22-24).
See how the passage interweaves the truths about the person and the work of Christ. In His person, He is sinless and morally perfect. In His work, He atoned for sin. His work brings us salvation. Jesus is our trailblazer; He opened the path to life. By the same work, Jesus redeems us and sets us an example.
Everyone needs Jesus the Redeemer. Slaves—and all others who feel trapped by toxic masters- need Jesus’ example. Whenever anyone in power makes life difficult, Jesus shows the way. He never returned insult for insult. He trusted God to vindicate Him. There is a place for justice, and everyone deserves dignity and protection. But it can be futile to seek our rights. Jesus’ example teaches us that it can be best to absorb a blow. Imagine the result if we laid down our rights. Marriage disputes would fade. How can two people quarrel if both give up their rights and live a cruciform life? Church life would improve if people refused to become angry when they (or their child) did not get their way. Peace would flourish if we refused to take offense.
First, let us submit to all God-given authorities. Almost everyone has spent time under someone who seemed to lack the qualities essential to good leadership. It seems natural to balk at the prospect of submitting to the unworthy. Besides, humans are prone to rebel, even against noble authorities. Notice, that Peter does not say, “Submit to good leaders.” If we follow leaders only if we concur with their directions, the descriptive term is agree, not submit.
Peter exhorts us to submit “with all respect” (1 Peter 2:18). Authorities deserve respect for the sake of God, who placed them in their role, if not for their merit. Sadly, it is typical, in Western cultures, to criticize a leader even as we obey, and to disobey if we can. Even if we labor under a flawed authority, Peter says that we should be governed by our obligations, not the putative qualities of the leader. Remember, Jesus submitted to His parents despite their limitations. When we honor flawed leaders, we follow Jesus. The Father notices when we yield to masters who seem neither wise nor good.
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul encourages us that we can be content wherever we are, without changing marital status, ethnic status, or economic status. We can remain in our place if we remain with God, since He provides for us there (1 Corinthians 7:1-24). This principle neither denies that some authorities are evil nor excuses their misdeeds. God’s capacity to override evil cannot remove their culpability. On the contrary, because the Lord cares for the poor, lesser lords should, too. All who exercise authority should recall that they have an authority and a Judge over them.
It is possible to live well under a bad master. Besides, everyone belongs to someone, and everyone is enslaved to something. Believers whom God, “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 7:23), now belong to Jesus, and that is liberating. So our first though is not to change master or jobs but to remain faithful, whatever our bonds may be.
Jesus carries us through suffering under unjust masters. He sets an example, and through Hi sacrifice, offers forgiveness when we fail. By His wounds we are healed so we might live for righteousness under the care of the Lord, the Good Shepherd and overseer of our souls.
[i] S. Scott Bartchy, Mallon Chresai: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature for the Seminar on Paul, 1973), 66.
[ii] Aristotle, Politics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: 1941), 1131-35 (bk. 1, chapters 4-6.
[iii] Seneca, “Epistle 47, On Master and Slave,” in Moral Epistles (Epistulae Morales), trans. Richard Gummere (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 1:307, 311.
[iv] Richard Horsley, “Slavery in the Greco-Roman World”, “Seneca 84( 2001: 41-55; M.I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York: Viking Press, 1980), 93-122; P.R.C., Familia Caesaris: Asocial Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 205
[v] Finley, Ancient Slavery, 101-7
[vi] Demosthenes “Against Androtion,” trans. J.H. Vince, in Demosthenes II, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1935), 22.55; Horsley, “Slavery” 41-44.)
[vii] Douglas, J. Schurrman, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 117-21.
[viii] William Perkins, Works (Cambridge, 1616-18), 3:698
[ix] William Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties (London, 1622), 272-77, 355).
[x] Gouge, Duties, 273.
[xi] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.20.24.)
[xii][xii] Ibid, 4.20.31
[xiii] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 380-500