Social
Relationships
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the April 22, 2017 Sabbath School Lesson
“Slaves,
obey your masters with all the respect you should give them. Obey not only
those who are good and kind. Obey also those who are not kind. Suppose a person
suffers pain unfairly because he wants to obey God. That is worthy of praise. But
suppose you receive a beating for doing wrong, and you put up with it. Will
anyone honor you for that? Of course not. But suppose you suffer for doing
good, and you put up with it. God will praise you for that. Christ suffered for
you. He left you an example. He expects you to follow in his steps. You too
were chosen to suffer.” 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV
The picture to the left is from the 2004 movie “The
Passion of the Christ.” The very dramatic illustration is included to make
clear what Peter is referring to when he writes of Christ’s suffering being an example
for us. How many are prepared to go this far in obedient submission to those in
authority? Do Peter’s words represent what God truly wants for each of us? Such
questions can make all the difference in the direction our faith takes us. Some
might view the picture and turn away with revulsion, vowing that if that is
what Christianity requires, they want nothing to do with it. Others, impressed by
the level of love that would drive someone to endure so much, will be drawn to
ward such a faith. No doubt the soldiers who inflicted such suffering felt that
they were on the right path and saw Christ’s suffering as evidence that He was
not. They were unable to relate it to their world view. But what about us
today?
The United States, where I live and write this
commentary, was founded on the principle of resistance to authority. The
collection of ne’er-do-wells, opportunists and those fleeing religious persecution
arrived in North America and found a greater freedom than could be enjoyed
under the European monarchies. After over a century of living with that
freedom, they found it hard to return to the old ways when England grew ever
more willing to assert royal control over the American colonies. If the counsel
of Peter’s epistle were followed literally then the colonists should have acquiesced
to the crown and suffered quietly under George III’s rule. However, they did
not and with the motto of “Don’t Tread on Me,” they rose in revolt against their
British overlords, eventually pushing through to victory at Yorktown and receiving
independence from Great Britain. Was this then an un-Christ-like response to
those who had the rule over them? This question becomes even more troubling for
those who see the lamblike beast of Revelation, chapter thirteen, as being a
symbol of the United States and therefore a fulfillment of God’s will according
to prophecy. How can that be if we are to be submissive to those that have the
rule over us?[i]
Ironically, almost immediately after obtaining such independence
from England, some in the colonies could see the hypocrisy of successfully
striving for and obtaining freedom while an entire race of human beings was
enslaved and working the plantations of the Southern Colonies. A movement for
abolition of that slavery was birthed and began to struggle against those in
power that would perpetuate such an institution. While a few former slaves like
Frederick Douglas were able to actively participate in that struggle, most of
his race were shackled, beaten and otherwise cowed into submission and silence.
The system gave no more thought to what the rights of these slaves might be
than to those of cattle or sheep. In some cases, the livestock may have had the
better part of the bargain. In too many cases those having the responsibility
for these oppressed souls felt themselves to be good, Bible-believing followers
of Jesus Christ, even quoting scripture to support the abuse of their hapless
victims. How galling it must have been for slaves to hear their masters quote
the very verses Peter wrote above to justify their position of responsibility
and ultimately their perverse cruelty.
It is little short of a miracle that so many of those slaves nonetheless found
something in the Bible they could cling to and embraced the very faith their
masters used to justify their continued enslavement. They found a like
experience in the account of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and looked forward to
a day when they, too, would be sent a deliverer to lead them out of slavery and
into the Promised Land. The metaphor became so strong a part of the black experience
in the United States that it not only found its way into the spirituals sung by
the slaves, but also persisted into the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s and
found expression in the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. Perhaps in some
ways, he was a modern Moses leading his people out of oppression.
However, in the middle of the 19th century, a
great war was fought because two opposing perspectives, both claiming biblical
support could not find common ground over the slavery issue. The Civil War laid
hundreds of thousands of white Americans in their graves in order to settle the
issue. Later in the conflict, freed blacks enlisted in the Union Army and also
offered up their lives on behalf of their enslaved brothers and sisters. When
the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in
January of 1863 the death knell of slavery was sounded, providing the North
could win the war. Anticipating that freedom, the union armies in the field
announced to the slaves wherever they went that freedom was now theirs, and many
slaves left their plantations, further crippling the economy of the South and
their ability to continue resisting. For that generation, Abraham Lincoln was
seen as a deliverer, and the name “Abraham” became a very popular name among
the former slaves, being taken as a surname or given as a first name.[ii] Unfortunately, in spite
of all evidence to the contrary, some Southerners on the losing side of the
conflict continue even to this day to deny that the issue that precipitated the
war was slavery, but rather states’ rights, an issue that itself has become
much politicized over time. But that is not our focus here. Instead we must
address whether Peter’s words if followed to their logical conclusion would
have left every slave still in his or her shackles because rising up against the
constituted authorities was biblically forbidden.
Many liberation movements have arisen throughout history. In fact, we now have
even a theology branch focused on the issue called Liberation Theology. Can we
decide based on Peter’s epistle that they are either wrong or right carte blanche? Or is it not so simple?
Some have questioned whether or not Peter even wrote these words because the
epistles are written with the Greek of the Septuagint, not a form typically
familiar to the Jews of Palestine but more commonly used by those in the
Diaspora. There are also some anachronisms in the epistles that do not quite
match with the understood date of Peter’s death in Rome early in the 7th
decade. But whether these arguments are valid or not does not need to become an
issue for there is plenty about Peter that calls into question applying the
words above in a singular manner to every situation involving the oppressed and
their oppressors. Peter, when given the opportunity to submit himself to
authority, demurred. He proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather
than human beings!”[iii]
Much of the persecution endured by the early church was the result of those early
believers choosing not to submit to the authorities. Peter’s words to the
Sanhedrin seem to contain a clue as to why this was so. When those in authority
are exercising that authority in direct contradiction to the will of God then
apparently it is not only permissible to stand in opposition but may even be
required of the Christian believer. But that caveat is not included in Peter’s words above or in Paul’s words in
Romans, and a biblical literalist may have problems with that idea. However, as
the old saw goes, actions speak louder than words and the actions of the early
church and Peter in particular seem to indicate that such a caveat does indeed exist.
In summation then, as Christians we appear to have an
obligation to respect the constituted authorities and to obey the laws and
rules those authorities are responsible for enforcing unless it can be clearly
seen that those statutes conflict with the revealed will of God. Such obedience
contributes to the proper functioning of a well-ordered society and to the
peace and prosperity of all, including Christians. Through the requirement to
rise up in opposition when those rules are not in harmony with God’s will,
Christians have opportunity to participate in the development of biblically
sound regulations that will benefit everyone, whether it is emancipating
slaves, women’s suffrage, or ending discrimination that makes victims of any
class of people. That is a tremendous responsibility and also a wonderful privilege.
Let us use it wisely.
