Living Honourably (2) - Servants (1 Peter 2:18-25)

Peter is continuing to explain how his readers should live honourably among the Gentiles. His choice of relationship reflects the society at the time where many people were connected to households. The previous relationship was that to those in authority and obviously everyone was affected by that. The other two relationships, that of servants and wives, are connected to households, although it would have been possible for a wife and her husband not to have servants. 

The experience of servants

The word for ‘servant’ means household servants (it is not the common word, doulos, although household servants were still slaves). No doubt, many people lived and worked in this way. The New Testament frequently mentions such people, which is an indication that many believers were found among them. There would have been the possibility for such servants to misinterpret the freedom and equality that Jesus had given them in the church and assume that they and their masters were equal in society. But Peter says that is not the case. 

 

I recall reading about a coachman who was an elder in a congregation of which his master was only a member. In the church, the coachman, because he was an elder, had authority over the congregation which included his master. Outside the congregation, the master would give instructions to the coachman. 

 

Obviously, a Christian servant could have a good master or a bad master, even if the master was not a believer. Peter does not speak to Christian masters, although they could assume that they should be good and gentle and never unjust. But Peter here is concerned with the response of a Christian servant to a bad master, and which comes under the category of living honourably among the Gentiles.

 

Of course, there are certain aspects in society at that time about which the servant could not do very much. If his master punished him unjustly, the servant could not contact the police or a union representative. This is a reminder that Christians live in a variety of societies. We do not live in the Roman Empire, and it is illegal in our society for masters to be cruel to their staff. But what should Christians do in a society where masters are allowed to be cruel? I suspect that is the case in many Moslem countries.

 

Peter says that there is a common principle for Christians to follow and that is to remember that God is watching them, and not just their actions. It is possible for a Christian to do a correct outward action for the wrong motive. This would be true when working for a good master or a bad one. Of course, that danger exists for all Christians. This is one of the solemn aspects of the Day of Judgement – motives will be revealed when actions are assessed. 

 

Connected to this principle is another emphasis, which is that a Christian’s primary concern is to please God. What is God looking for in this regard? Peter says that believers who are servants should treat their masters with all respect. We may say that is unfair, but we say that because our society does not allow it. But it pleased God. Why?

 

The example of Jesus

Peter reminds the servants that they have been called to follow the example of their Saviour. After all, he was the perfect servant. Indeed, we can say that he was a perfect household servant, whether under the authority of Joseph in the carpenter’s shop or in all that he did in obeying his Father’s will.

 

What did Jesus do? 

First, Jesus did not engage in self-vindication. Instead, he committed his circumstances to God. Someone has said that Judas handed Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, that the Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to Pilate, that Pilate handed Jesus over to the executioners, and Jesus handed himself over to God to vindicate him.

 

This response is perhaps hard for us to understand because we live in a culture dominated by human rights. Yet it is a common biblical instruction for believers to leave things with God to sort out. God will do that anyway. The Saviour had the power to deal with issues. Imagine what would have happened if he had judged people before the time. Moreover, his response of leaving things with God was part of his perfect life, which means that it is part of the justification we are given when we believe on Jesus. He was consistent in this outlook – continued entrusting himself to God.

 

Second, Jesus the servant paid the penalty of sin. He did so for three reasons, says Peter. First, he did so in order that his disciples would live holy lives. Second, he did it so that they would be healed from the effects of sin. Third, he did so in order that he would be the shepherd and inspector of his people. We could say that Peter’s words summarise God’s plan and then explain the process.

 

The plan was that Jesus should bear our sins when he suffered on the cross so that we would die to sin and live to righteousness. (It is interesting that Peter calls it a tree, which could suggest that Calvary had trees to which a cross beam was attached.) Jesus died physically so that we would die spiritually. Jesus was identified with our sins; he was numbered with the transgressors. While he was not personally guilty of our sins, he was regarded as representatively guilty. He was treated as if he had committed them, even although it was his people who had committed them.

 

Jesus died so that his people would live differently, that they would live righteously. Righteousness includes inward attitudes and outward behaviour. Included in those attitudes and behaviour would be the responses of the Christians who were household servants. I suppose a disobedient household servant hearing these words would say to himself, ‘My actions were some of the reasons Jesus died for me on the cross. Jesus died so that I would be a righteous thinking servant, witnessing for him in the house where I live.’ Perhaps that is why there are so many households referred to in the New Testament letters – the witness of servants was powerful.

 

What is the process? Peter mentions a twofold process whereby the servants can do this. First, they have been healed by the wounds of Jesus. His death had attained his purpose for them. Their souls, which had been bruised and damaged by sin, had been healed. Second, they were now under the care of the good shepherd. Before they had wandered like lost sheep in a world of danger. They heard the gospel and returned to the good shepherd, which is a good picture of faith. Returning is like repentance, but since they returned to a person, it is also like faith. Having returned, they are under the management of Jesus. A household servant should say to himself, ‘I am here not because the ruler of the house purchased me but because Jesus, the one who purchased me on the cross when he paid the penalty for my sin, and who arranges providence, has placed me here. He has put me here to be his witness. This is my calling, and I should fulfil it.’ 

 

The word translated overseer is episkopos, from which we get the ecclesiastical word episcopalian. Episkopos is a compound word. The prefix epi strengthens the word skopus, which means to ‘look at’, and so episkopos has the idea of inspector. Shepherds could be described as inspectors of sheep. Jesus as the shepherd of his church inspected the seven churches of Asia. So there is both a sense of comfort and a warning here, which basically is that Jesus knows what we need, and he knows everything about us. 

 

Application

While none of us are slaves, we should remember that in our callings, we have been placed there by God, that his eye is on us, and we should aim to please him. Connected to this is that we have the best of example in Jesus, and his method, when wronged, was to commit himself to his Father.

 

It is good for us to think of Jesus in different ways. We are to think of his life, of his atoning death, and of him as the shepherd and inspector of our lives.