Injustice is an evil that has been so universally despised that one
need not depend on Christian authors alone to attack it. Cambyses,
the king of ancient Persia, had a keen sense of justice. When he
discovered that a close friend was taking advantage of his secure
relationship to him by selling his decisions to the highest bidder, he
ordered arrested and to be skinned alive as a warning to others. To
prove it was only out of his love for justice that he was so severe he
permitted the son to succeed the father in his office of high honor.
Here was a pagan who loved justice, and many are the pagan
philosophers who agree with Seneca who said, "A kingdom founded
on injustice never lasts." Even Ingersoll, the famous infidel said,
"There is but one blasphemy and that is injustice." This is an
overstatement, but it shows that one can even be anti-Christian and
still despise injustice.
Christians are not unique in their opposition to injustice, but we
find their uniqueness as we examine the response they are to make
to unjust acts against them, and the reasons for making this
response. Peter is writing to first century slaves who are under
entirely different circumstances then we are, but the facts of
injustice are still present and call for a Christian response. The
principles that Peter establishes are as relevant and valid for us
today as they were in his day. The two questions that the Christian
needs to have answered are: What is to be my response, and why?
Peter gives us the answers in that order. First,
I. WHAT IS THE CHRISTIANS RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE?
Peter begins with a clear principle. Here is a way a Christian
slave should behave toward his master. He should be submissive.
There were 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire, and Christianity
spread rapidly among this class, and so it is understandable why
there is specific instruction to slaves in the New Testament. Without
this instruction from the Apostle to guide the slaves in their attitudes
the Gospel could have easily produced a revolution. The Gospel
brought to the slaves a sense of their own personal worth. They
were not mere property, but persons with eternal souls equal with
all men before God, and this included their masters. They were
children of God, and it would be so easy for the slaves to become
victims of pride, and then conclude that as children of light they
should not be serving a master who was a child of darkness.
Jesus said that people cannot serve two masters, and this could
have been misinterpreted as a justification for rebellion.
Christianity was never in a better position to promote a revolution,
but we see instead that it promoted submission. Non-violence is the
Christian attitude. Christianity was unique in that it turned the
world upside down by the power of the Holy Spirit in love and
moral strength rather than by physical violence. There are many
books written to defend violence by an appeal to Scripture. The
favorite passage is where Jesus in anger drives out the
moneychangers from the temple. This is a weak argument, for there
is no evidence that anyone was injured, and this was a unique act of
Jesus revealing His messiah-ship. Nowhere do we get the impression
that He did this as an example for His disciples to follow. If He did,
they missed the point, for they never did likewise.
Peter was the sword swinger, and he would have been the first
to promote rebellion if that was what he learned from Jesus, but he
urges slaves to be subject to their masters. And not just to the good
and gentle, but to those who were over bearing. The Christian is not
to operate on the natural level, but he is to be different. Peter is not
concerned with the civil rights of the slaves, but with their Christian
witness. His aim is not political but spiritual. He is not concerned
about the feeding the opponent, but in winning him for Christ. Any
heathen slaves can be a rebel, but a Christian slave is to be
submissive in order to convince his master that Christ is a saving
and transforming Lord.
This does not mean that no non-Christian slave could be
submissive, for just as there were some good non-Christian masters,
so there would be some very loyal and submissive non-Christian
slaves. The point is, a Christian must be submissive even if it is
against his natural personality just because it is God's will that he be
so. This means that a Christian may inwardly rebel but still be
submissive because he desires to obey God rather than the leading of
his own nature. It is the motive of wanting to obey and please God
that enables the Christian to act in contrast to his personality. The
non-Christian has no such motivation. If he submits, it is because he
has a submissive nature, but a Christian is to submit regardless of
his nature. Nathaniel Cotton wrote,
To be resigned when ills betide,
Patient when favors are denied,
And pleased with favors given,
Dear Christian, this is wisdom's part,
This is that incense of the heart
Whose fragrance smells to heaven.
Peter actually expected the Christians of his day to apply the
Sermon on the Mount to life. He did not think it was to be reserved
for the millennium, but was to be lived out in contemporary life. G.
Smith wrote, "Nothing indeed marks the divine character of the
Gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to the spirit
of political revolution. The founder of Christianity and His Apostles
were surrounded by everything, which could tempt human
reformers to inter on revolutionary courses...Nevertheless our Lord
and His Apostles said not a word against the powers and institutions
of that evil world. Their attitude toward them was that of deep
spiritual hostility, and of entire political submission."
Notice that there is hostility and yet submission. This is the very
role Christians must play today under totalitarian governments. To
be spiritually and morally opposed to them and yet submissive to the
law of the land is a challenge. Evil must be overcome with good and
not more evil. Christianity did not defeat slavery by stirring up a
revolution to abolish it, but by introducing into history a new race
and a new relationship. It did not abolish the master-slave
relationship, but it introduced the brothers in Christ relationship.
This was its unique way of overcoming the injustices. This was
Paul's method with Philemon and Onessimus.
Both the Bible and history support the truth that the best way
to overcome evil is not by violence, but by good. The Christian
response to injustice is not to be retaliation. Neither as an individual
or as a corporate body can Christians approve of violence as a just
method of dealing with injustice. The exception, of course, is when
the injustice is a violation of a law of the land, and justice demands
that the power of the state be used to punish the violator. The state
has powers that the church does not have to suppress evil. Peter is
writing to slaves who had few if any civil rights. They had only the
choice of submission or rebellion. Today most Christians have a
third choice, and that is due process of law. This gets us into an
entirely different area of thinking, and we must limit ourselves to
situations where we have only two alternatives. In this setting the
Christian must choose submission.
Another clarification is also needed lest we confuse non-violent
submission with non-violent resistance. Peter in urging Christians
to submit to injustice did not mean that the Christian is not to resist
an unjust law when it is in conflict with God's law. He resisted the
authorities when they tried to forbid him to preach, but he
submitted to the punishment for doing so without rebellion. It was
unjust treatment, but Peter did not fight it at all. He and the others
submitted and counted it all joy to suffer for Christ. They did
continue to refuse to obey the unjust demand that they stop
preaching Christ. In order then to avoid many questions on related
subjects we need to keep in mind that we are dealing here, like
Peter, with the injustice inflicted upon us in which the law of the
state, or of God, do not play a part. The principle carries over into
other realms also, but not as an absolute, and so now we are limiting
ourselves to the suffering of unjust pain, for we can't begin to cover
all the rest.
In verse 19 Peter tells them that it is approved of by God to
endure grief by suffering wrongfully, or unjustly. God thanks the
person who will so submit for His glory. Notice the condition,
however. It must be done with a conscientiousness that it is God's
will. One must be mindful of God as He submits to injustice, even as
Jesus, who said, "Not my will but thine be done." To submit out of
fear or lethargy is a natural cause, and it is not thankworthy. The
Christian must submit fully aware that he does so because God wills
him to do so. The Christian is no mere stoic who bears trial as a
matter of philosophy. He does so in obedience to God. We are not
looking for thanks from men, but we are to simply do what we know
is pleasing to God.
To remain submissive when unjustly made to suffer takes
moral courage and spiritual strength that cannot help but impress
the unbeliever. Andrew Murray said, "There is nothing harder to
bear than injustice from our fellowmen." This is taking up the cross
and following Christ, for in bearing His cross He literally did just
what Peter urges Christians to do here. He submitted to unjust
suffering because it was God's will. A good test of Christian
maturity is how much unjust suffering can you take without
retaliation? If you cannot take a great deal without hate and a
violent response, you are not yet prepared to walk with Jesus all the
way.
In order to avoid another misunderstanding that could arise,
Peter goes on in verse 20 to make clear that it is only patient
endurance of unjust suffering that counts as a witness for Christ.
Often a criminal goes to the place of execution with silent dignity,
but this is no credit to him before God, nor is it a witness for Christ,
for he may repudiated Christ. If a man suffers for his sin or crime
and takes it patiently, it is no more than is to be expected. For those,
for example, who break a just law of the land and are thrown in jail
for it, it is no virtue that they submit to the penalty without violence.
It is just what they must do without adding sin to their crime. If the
law is unjust, however, and they take it patiently, that is good.
If those persons in civil rights marches fulfill the first condition
of being conscious of obedience to God, and they submit to acts of
violence without retaliation, and they break no law, then such have
the approval of God. If all those in civil rights were of this mind,
they could sing with the certainty of God's promise, "We shall
overcome." In verse 21 Peter says Christians are called for the
purpose of suffering injustice patiently. Jesus suffered as an
example of what we are to do in the world. This has profound
implications, which we cannot consider now, but this verse makes it
clear that we are literally follow Jesus and submit to injustice
without violence. In doing so we not only obey God and please Him,
but we become the only hope of winning the world to Christ that is
filled with violence and injustice.
