b. Living as citizens: be subject to government authorities, for the Lord’s sake (2:13–17)
b. Living as citizens: be subject to government authorities, for the Lord’s sake (2:13–17)
13. Be subject means to be submissive to an authority, and this usually implies obedience to that authority (note this word in Luke 2:51; 10:17; Rom. 13:1; 1 Cor. 15:28; Eph. 5:24; Titus 2:9; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet. 2:18; 3:1, 5, 22; and see discussion at 1 Pet. 3:1, below). But there are occasions recorded in Scripture when God’s people have disobeyed a human government and have been approved by God for so doing (Exod. 1:17; Dan. 3:13–18; 6:10–24; Acts 4:18–20; 5:27–29; Heb. 11:23). The principle to be drawn from these passages is ‘obey except when commanded to sin’. This is the Christian’s responsibility toward all forms of rightful human authority, whether the individual Christian agrees with all the policies of that authority or not.
The phrase to every human institution gives the verse broader application than just to civil government. (This is true whether we adopt this translation or the RSV mg., ‘every institution ordained for men’.) In fact, Peter goes on to explain this general statement by applying it not only to civil government (vv. 13b–14), but also to encourage servants to be subject to their masters (2:18) and wives to their husbands (3:1). In all three cases he uses the same verb (hypotassō) to express the idea of ‘being subject to’. Thus he also sees the master-servant relationship and the marriage relationship as ‘human institutions’ in which subjection to an authority is required ‘for the Lord’s sake’.
The inclusiveness of the word every makes it appropriate to apply this statement therefore to other legitimate human authorities (parents/children, church officers/members, and authority structures in businesses, educational institutions, voluntary organizations, etc.). God has established such patterns of authority for the orderly functioning of human life, and it both pleases and honours him when we subject ourselves to them. Nor should we think that the need for authority is only due to sin, for there is authority among sinless angels (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9), the redeemed in heaven (Luke 19:17, 19; cf. 1 Cor. 6:3), and even the members of the Trinity for all eternity (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28).
The word translated institution is ktisis, which usually means ‘creature, thing created’. The context (vv. 13b–14, 18–20; 3:1–6) makes it clear, however, that it is not every human being in the world to whom we are to be subject (a meaning that the verb hypotassō could not bear in any case, since it refers to subjection to an authority), but rather to every ‘institution’ or ‘establishment of authority’. This sense for ktisis would not be puzzling to Peter’s readers, for the word is used frequently in extra-biblical literature to refer to the act of creating a governmental body or founding a city. Josephus uses ktisis to refer to ‘settlements’ which the Jews established after leaving Babylon (Ant. 18.373); Plutarch (c. AD 50–120), Moralia 435D, says the Delphic Oracle brought many benefits to the Greeks ‘both in wars and in the founding of cities’ (ktisesi poleōn); cf. BAGD, p. 456, 2; also the helpful discussion in Hort, pp. 139–140).
For the Lord’s sake or ‘on account of the Lord’ gives a theological basis for this submission. Our submission to authority should imitate and thus glorify God the Son (Peter makes this latter point explicit in 2:21–23). Moreover, since God has established these structures of authority (cf. Rom. 13:1–7) he is pleased for us to submit to them.
Whether it be to the emperor as supreme applies the general command to a specific office. The Roman emperor at the time Peter wrote was Nero (reigned AD 54–68), under whose persecution Peter himself would later be put to death (see Introduction, pp. 35–38). God expects Christians to be subject even to human authorities who are neither believers nor morally upright.
The word here translated emperor (basileus) usually means ‘king’ (so NIV, NASB), but the contrast with ‘governors’ (v. 14) and the designation as ‘supreme, in high authority’, make ‘emperor’ more likely. There are other examples of basileus used of a Roman emperor (BAGD, p. 136). Yet whichever sense is adopted, the force of the passage is the same: Be subject to higher and lower civil authorities.
14. Or to governors as sent by him makes the application to rulers over Roman provinces: this title ‘governor’ (hēgemōn) is used of Pilate (Matt. 27:2) and Felix (Acts 23:24), for example. The phrase by him seems in the RSV text to refer to the emperor who sent the governors. But a more likely translation is ‘through him’ (NASB mg.), implying that governors are in the position of ‘having been sent (by God) through the emperor’ to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do right.
The purpose of civil government is briefly defined as to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. The word ekdikēsis (‘punishment’) has the connotation of taking vengeance, making a wrongdoer pay a penalty for the wrong done (note the word in Rom. 12:19; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 10:30). Though some theories of criminal punishment maintain that reforming the criminal and protecting society from further crimes are the only legitimate purposes of punishment, Peter here includes retribution, the inflicting of just desert on the one who has harmed others, as a legitimate purpose (note the similar statement in Rom. 13:4: the civil authority is ‘the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer’). However, what Peter expects governments to do is forbidden to people acting not as representatives of governments but as individuals: they must not inflict retribution for wrong done to them (vv. 19–23; cf. Rom. 12:19–21; Matt. 5:38–48). By contrast, governments that fail to punish wrongdoers disobey God’s purpose for their existence.
Governments are also to praise those who do right as a reward for good conduct and an example and incentive to others. Moral behaviour, not economic status or political favouritism, is to be the criterion. To prevent abuses of God’s purpose for government it is right for Christians to pray and work for governments that act according to God’s will (1 Tim. 2:1–4; cf. Ps. 82:1–4; 125:3).
15. When unbelievers falsely accuse Christians of wrongdoing (cf. v. 12), such slander is irrational, for it springs from the ignorance of those who may think themselves wise but are actually foolish men. Yet it should be stopped, for it dishonours God. God’s way of stopping it, God’s will, is through exemplary conduct by Christians: doing right. Since this sentence is the reason for verses 13 to 14, the specific kind of ‘doing right’ Peter has in mind is submission to human authorities—such a submission to authority will ultimately be used by God to silence slander.
16. Because his readers might think such extensive submission to authority would be oppressively restrictive, Peter explains that true freedom is consistent with obedience to God’s will. He assures them that they are able to live as free men. The kind of freedom meant is not specified, but certainly the great freedoms of the Christian life are freedom from the impossible obligation to earn merit before God by perfect obedience (Gal. 5:1–14; Acts 13:39; Rom. 6:23), freedom from guilt (Gal. 3:13; Rev. 1:5b), and freedom from the ruling power of sin (Rom. 6:6–7, 14, 17–18; 20–23; John 8:31–36).
None the less, Christians do not have freedom to do wrong! Though free in a greater way than anyone apart from Christ can ever be, Christians are still in another sense servants of God or ‘slaves of God’, for they owe him their whole lives and their entire beings. True freedom, true ability to choose and do what one really wants to do, comes paradoxically in entire submission to God as his obedient servants (cf. Jas 1:25; 1 John 5:3). Therefore, as God’s ‘free servants’, Christians should never use their freedom to cover up or hide wrongdoing (as a pretext for evil in RSV is less accurate than the NIV ‘as a cover-up for evil’): freedom must result in the great joy of doing right.
17. Those who would live ‘as servants of God’ (v. 16) have differing obligations to all men generally, other Christians, God, and the emperor. The first phrase, Honour all men, may be taken as one command among four (RSV, NASB) or as a summary statement to be explained by the other three statements (NIV: ‘Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king’; similarly NEB).
For several reasons the NIV’s understanding of it as a summary statement is unpersuasive. (1) The categories ‘believers’, ‘God’, and ‘the king’ do not include ‘all people’ (Gk. pantas), for unbelievers are omitted, and in the very context where relationships to unbelievers are prominent (vv. 12, 15). Thus, on this reading the following three statements do not fully explain the first, as they ought to do. (2) On the other hand, it would seem somewhat unnatural to include God in the same category as men in the Greek pantas (‘all persons’)—no example like this is found in the 1,244 instances of ‘all’ in the New Testament. (3) The verb honour (timaō) does not seem to be so wide in range as to mean ‘proper respect of various sorts’ and include both ‘love’ and ‘fear’: one might well ‘honour’ or ‘show proper respect’ to a weak and evil king, for example, without either loving or fearing him. Moreover, this interpretation must give timaō a different sense at the end of the sentence than it has at the beginning, something unlikely if the first instance is meant as a summary of the second.
It is better therefore to take this verse as four separate commands. Honour all men means ‘honour all people’; ‘men’ is not in the Greek text. ‘All’ (pantas) is common in reference to all people generally (cf. Matt. 10:22; Luke 2:3; John 1:7; Rom. 3:23; Jas 1:5). Consistent with their good conduct among unbelievers (vv. 12–16), Christians should be courteous and respectful to all people. This principle condemns much of man’s treatment of his fellows both in the political and in the industrial world’ (Stibbs/Walls, p. 112).
Love the brotherhood indicates a higher obligation to fellow Christians (note ‘brotherhood’ also in 5:9), not only to respect them but also to show strong, deep love to them (see note on agapaō, ‘love’, at 1:22).
Fear God indicates a still higher obligation. Christians are not only to honour and love God (1:3, 8; 2:5, 9); they are also to fear him, something they should not do toward unbelievers (3:14) or toward other believers (see note at 1:17 on fear of God).
Peter now returns to ‘honour’, the same word with which the verse began: Honour the emperor. In what is apparently mild irony Peter has put the emperor on the same level as ‘all people’. The progression seems to be as follows:
Fear God.
Love the brotherhood.
Honour all people. Honour the emperor.
While positively affirming the obligation to honour the emperor (consistent with vv. 13–15), he also subtly implies that, contrary to the claims of Roman emperors to be divine, the emperor was by no means equal to God or worthy of the fear due to God alone. Christians have obligations to the state, but their obligations to God and to the brotherhood of believers are higher.