19 For it is a commendable thing if, being aware of God, a person endures pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do good and suffer for it, this is a commendable thing before God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. 22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
1 Peter 2:19–25 (NRSVue)
Let’s begin with an obvious question: Why does the Lectionary remove verse 18 from our Sunday readings? “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only those who are good and gentle but also those who are dishonest.”
Why not delve into chapter 3, which starts with the phrase “in the same way”? The curation of Scripture, whether careful or careless, invites scrutiny. It raises important questions about interpretation.
The decision to exclude certain verses stems from various concerns. Some may argue that the Sunday morning sermon, being a monologue, requires texts that are easier to digest. Others might cite time constraints—the reality of not having sufficient minutes on Sunday to dive into complex theological matters. There are clergy members who overlook challenging texts due to fears that someone in the congregation might leave confused or misinterpret the intended message. Additionally, there are those among us, if we are honest, who feel uncertain about how to approach passages that provoke discomfort when we encounter them in our Bibles.
However, it is essential to recognize that we do not know exactly why the Revised Common Lectionary chose to omit verse 18, which specifically addresses domestic slaves. It is significant to highlight that the Consultation on Common Texts, which updated the Lectionary, did not prioritize racial and ethnic diversity among its members—a potential factor in the omission. Nevertheless, when we open 1 Peter and decide to follow or not to follow the Lectionary’s curation, we are making an intentional choice that could shape our interpretation.
When we opt to smooth out Scripture, rendering it more palatable, we put much at stake. First and foremost, we fail to take the Bible seriously. By picking and choosing passages that suit our perspectives, we hinder the Bible from being a comprehensive and authentic conversation partner. We overlook the arduous task of engaging in a meaningful dialogue with Scripture, one that invites us to seek depth and understanding. Furthermore, if we share our interpretations with others, we may underestimate the interpretive abilities and needs of our audience, who might rely on us to help them cultivate critical interpretative skills necessary for meaningful study of Scripture, human history, and contemporary societal issues.
The omission of verse 18 transforms this passage into a bland instruction for all Christians to sometimes accept unjust suffering and abuse as part of their faithfulness to God and their remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion. At first glance, one might argue that unjust punishment could play a valuable role in someone’s faith journey. This perspective is, however, a theoretical abstraction that overlooks the harsh realities lived by many. By excluding verse 18, we masquerade this text as something abstract and disembodied rather than acknowledging it as the lived experience of individuals grappling with real pain, suffering, and constant fear of the next day.
This portion of the letter addresses directly certain groups and we should read it accordingly. Verse 18 speaks to domestic slaves, who were expected to be part of the original audience receiving this letter. Instead of a generic message, the focus shifts to the stark, concrete realities faced by domestic enslaved people abused by their corrupt masters. Chapter 3, following on the heels of this lectionary excerpt, ensures that we also acknowledge abused wives within the congregation who submit to their abusers. The author recognizes that some husbands do not follow Christian teaching, but the author hopes they might, once they see how it has suppressed their wives into submission. By naming these categories of victims and their oppressors, we draw attention to their bodies—the canvases of their daily lives marked by bruises, scars, and chronic pain. We gaze into their eyes and recognize fear and hopelessness, which have replaced their joy and vitality. The letter speaks poignantly to these individuals in 2:18–25, and continues further in chapter 3.
The message, however, is baffling: submit and willingly accept the abuse as a manifestation of God’s favor. One cannot help but shudder at such a suggestion! This seems counterintuitive, especially when we consider one of the overarching narratives of the entire Bible—the Exodus, where God leads the people out of slavery. It is crucial that we allow ourselves to feel unsettled by this teaching in 1 Peter, as we proceed.
Biblical commentaries frequently classify this passage as one of the household codes found throughout the New Testament. These codes function as a collection of accepted cultural norms dictating proper conduct within the broader Greco-Roman society. By framing this passage within this category and normalizing its prescribed behaviors, we grant it an authority many would not challenge, allowing it to remain within the bounds of acceptable moral teachings of the Bible.
Scholars carefully note that these codes weren’t intended to hold universal relevance across all times; they were contextually bound and spoke to their specific historical settings. But it raises the question: Who determines the temporal, geographic, cultural, or any other parameters dictating when these codes are applicable and to whom? Historically, this has been governed by those wielding interpretative authority over the Bible and their contemporary realities.
It is vital to stress that these normalized household codes have perpetuated a culture of divinely sanctioned abuse toward enslaved people, women, children, and others who occupy lower rungs on the power hierarchy. To resist the interpretative tradition that has generalized these texts, we must begin by identifying who is harmed by these texts and in what ways. Our ultimate goal is to empower marginalized groups to interpret Scripture in ways that resonate with their experiences and realities, and for others to listen to their voices.
This approach challenges us to create dialogue spaces where marginalized voices, particularly those who suffer abuse and lack protection, can engage with the text. Doing so opens the possibility for a more comprehensive understanding of the Scripture that includes rather than excludes. The tendency to shy away from difficult interpretations not only renders Scripture less impactful but also dilutes the lived experiences of those who confront these realities daily and seek to make meaning of what is happening to them.
Engaging with the text of 1 Peter 2:18–25 requires a careful examination of the author’s intention and the historical context. As we move forward, the author of 1 Peter calls readers to accept unjust abuse and compliance as commendable expressions of their Christian faith, citing two reasons to support his position. In verse 19, he asserts, “For it is a commendable thing,” and reiterates in verse 20, “this is a commendable thing before God.” The Greek noun charis—here translated as “commendable,” but often translated as “grace,” “favor (of God),” or “goodwill”—warrants deeper exploration. In the announcement of her impending pregnancy, for instance, Mary learns from the angel that she has found favor (charis) with God (Luke 1:30). The author of Acts refers to the early followers of Jesus as a community enjoying goodwill (charis) from all people (Acts 2:47). Additionally, in his speech to the Jewish Council, Stephen describes David as one who found favor (charis)with God (Acts 7:46). Among these instances, only Mary’s life is burdened with unwanted pregnancy and shame as a direct result of God’s favor. In the beginning of the book of Acts, the early Jesus followers have amiable relationships with their broader communities, and David is remembered as one of the greatest kings and heroes of ancient Israelites.
Throughout various epistles of Paul, we encounter grace (charis) as God’s presence and transformative work among Paul’s congregations—a source of spiritual growth and strength that embodies God’s nature. Therefore, we must question this text’s normalization of abuse (directed at enslaved people, wives, and others within the household) in the light of God’s grace (charis). 1 Peter 2:19–20 expands the meaning of the term grace (charis) that we must wrestle with and possibly resist.
The author of 1 Peter seems to anticipate this question and provides further reasoning in verses 21–23. He frames the suffering and execution of Jesus as a justification for the enslaved and the powerless to accept their abuse as markers of faith. This premise dangerously implies that the violent execution of Jesus provides an interpretative framework for the powerful to abuse the powerless and see their actions as instruments of God’s grace (charis)in their victims’ lives.
As we move further through the chapter, we see how this cause-and-effect reasoning collapses under scrutiny. In verse 24, the author declares that Christ’s suffering breaks the cycle of violence by calling people to live for righteousness, insisting that their wounds be tended to and healed. The term righteousness (dikaiosune) denotes equity and what is right. The life God desires for all people is one in which wounds are acknowledged and carefully tended to, with all things placed in equitable order.
Moreover, verse 25 paints a powerful image of God as a guardian, an overseer of souls—someone who provides personalized care and protection. This divine character contrasts starkly with hierarchical power structures that offer protection to abusers while dismissing the needs of the vulnerable. Therefore, critical engagement with 1 Peter 2:18–25 calls readers to embody God’s character by advocating for those harmed by societal injustices and oppressive dynamics.
Arriving at this interpretation has been achieved through careful reading and deconstruction of the text. Yet, an alternative approach to wrestling with this Scripture might be to create a safe space where those who experience abuse and lack protection can engage with this Scripture meaningfully.
1 Peter 2:18–25 (and 3:1–6) suggest that the author likely did not belong to the circles of the abused and powerless, but instead lived with a certain level of safety and protection afforded by his class, gender, or status. This text exemplifies the consequences of excluding the voices of the oppressed from theological reflection on their life experiences. When marginalized individuals are not invited to engage with Scripture, they are often told to accept the status quo, which typically maintains the existing power dynamics—effectively coercing them to continue sacrificing their own lives and well-being.
Responsible reading of Scripture requires us to engage in dialogue with the text. We should carefully examine our interpretative lens, resisting the temptation to resemble the author of 1 Peter by imposing our views on what kind of living environments certain bodies should tolerate or what they should sacrifice. This Scripture calls us to pause and critically examine whom the text references and whose life experiences are defined and prescribed by it. These individuals and groups, when empowered and given interpretative space, could critically engage the text and shed light on its biases.
