1 Introduction
Because the family formed the foundation of ancient society, authors were concerned with describing the duties of each member of the family. In comedy, the duties are parodied; agricultural manuals outline the duties of managers and enslaved persons; philosophers reflect on all conditions of the family; and a specific genre devoted to ‘household management’ arises. The ‘household codes’ found in the New Testament are versions of this genre (Col 3.18–4.1; Eph 5.22–6.9; 1 Pet 2.18–3.7).
My focus in this study is the Petrine code (2.18–3.7), particularly the lack of instructions to masters. A very common view among Petrine scholars is that the author does not address masters because there are no Christian masters in the community. S. T. J. Smith states, ‘Masters are not a part of this particular Christian membership conglomerate, and there is no way for the letter writer to intervene or respond directly to masters who treat Christian servants with kindness or malevolence.’Footnote 1 E. G. Selwyn uses the distinction drawn by the Petrine author between good and cruel masters (τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς; 2.18) as evidence that ‘St. Peter has in mind mainly heathen householders.’Footnote 2 Some scholars claim these must be enslaved persons of non-Christian masters because this best parallels the situation of the whole community, which finds itself being oppressed by its non-Christian neighbours.Footnote 3 Another idea often promoted is that these enslaved persons (and wives) have come to faith apart from their masters (or husbands). This abandonment of the household religious practices in favour of Christianity may have led masters and husbands to be suspicious of their slaves and wives, who could be construed as rejecting their subordinate position within the household.Footnote 4
Despite the popularity of this view, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that there were no Christian masters. First, other NT documents testify to the presence of masters in the Christian movement in the first century. Of particular note are Colossians and Ephesians, since they were written to cities within the areas designated as recipients of 1 Peter (1.1; specifically Asia) and include instructions to masters in their household codes (Col 4.1; Eph 6.9; cf. Philemon).Footnote 5 Additionally, a parallel can be drawn with the Pastoral Epistles, which also contain instructions to enslaved persons and household-heads but without explicit instructions to masters (1 Tim 6.1–2; Tit 2.9–10).Footnote 6 That some of the household-heads were slave owners seems likely from 1 Timothy 3.12.Footnote 7 Thus it is possible that some of the ‘elders’ addressed in 1 Peter 5.1–4 were household-heads and also masters.
Second, although household management literature is written to and from the perspective of males, owning and managing slaves was not limited exclusively to males. Many females owned slaves, and house slaves were often under the purview of wives.Footnote 8 Christianity attracted many women, including some with the financial resources and positions within society where slave ownership would be normal.Footnote 9 Claims that there were no masters among the recipients of the letter do not take account of the wide variety of potential owners in society, including Christian wives with unbelieving husbands who may have joined the community and brought their slaves with them.
Third, the argument for a parallel situation between enslaved persons and the larger community has a nice fit to it. However, it presumes precisely what must be proven, namely, that the lack of instructions to masters necessitates that the enslaved belong to non-Christian masters. It also misconstrues the point of the connection between the enslaved and the community: the enslaved persons are examples of faithful obedience in the face of unjust suffering, regardless of the religion of their masters.
Fourth, there is no obvious reason to assume that the distinction between ‘good and kind’ and ‘cruel’ masters indicates non-Christian masters. One might assume that the language of ‘cruel’ is more applicable to non-believers, but nothing in the text suggests that. The history of slavery (ancient and modern) suggests that this term could be applied to plenty of masters who also claimed the name Christian. Additionally, given the importance of the term ‘good’ (ἀγαθός) for the ethics of 1 Peter, one wonders if the ‘good and kind’ masters are believers.
Fifth, there is merit to the observation that some enslaved persons and wives came to Christianity apart from their masters and husbands. The address to wives in the next passage of 1 Peter indicates that this was in fact the case: ‘Likewise, wives, submit to your own husband in order that if any do not obey the word they may be won through the lifestyle of the wives without words’ (1 Pet 3.1). Caution must be exercised here, however: the conditions of one group should not be imposed onto all others.Footnote 10 The address to husbands in 3.7 indicates that not all wives joined apart from their husbands. There were Christian wives and husbands within the community, which indicates that the audience was diverse. Given that the author felt the need to refer to unbelieving husbands, one might have expected him to include a similar remark to the enslaved if he was addressing enslaved persons of non-Christian masters.
It is possible that there were no masters – whether Christian or not – in the communities originally addressed by the letter. Yet, such a position seems highly unlikely given the social constitution of the Christian communities in the first century. Far more likely is that there were enslaved persons with non-Christian masters and enslaved persons with Christian masters in the audience, and therefore that there were masters present when 1 Peter was read to the community. The following study considers how the instructions to the enslaved and the lack of instructions to masters might have been heard from the perspective of a Christian master. The next part of the essay highlights some features of literature on household management and how authors described slaves. The essay then turns to 1 Peter, where I contrast Peter’s instructions to the enslaved with the issues raised in the previous section.Footnote 11
2 Household Management and the Nature of Slaves
Ancient texts on household management were concerned primarily with the duties of various members of the household and how those duties related to others within the household.Footnote 12 This section draws attention to two features of literature on household management. It then turns to Aristotle’s perspective on enslaved persons. These elements provide a context in which to interpret the Petrine instructions to the enslaved.
2.1 The Structure of Household Codes
Aristotle’s discussion of the household sets the trajectory for other discussions. He situates his analysis within the context of the state. The household proper consists of three relational pairs: the master-enslaved, husband-wife, and father-children, to which Aristotle adds the topic of wealth (Pol. 1253b1–14; cf. 1259a37–40). Notably, each of these relational pairs consists of a superior and subordinate/inferior figure. Subsequent works share features of the Aristotelian pattern but also reflect the individuality of their authors. Arius Didymus produces a succinct statement reflecting Aristotle’s view. The household and city are co-ordinated, and within the household the free man rules. Like Aristotle, the household consists of ‘fatherhood, marriage, being a master, and money-making’ (149.10–11).Footnote 13 Ps.-Aristotle, Oeconomica, situates the household in connection to the state. For this author ‘The component parts of a household are (1) human beings (ἄνθρωπός), and (2) goods and chattels (κτῆσις)’ (Ps.-Aristotle, Oec. 1343a18 (Tredennick and Armstrong, LCL)). In the following sections, he describes the duties for husbands and wives and then, within the context of remarks about property, the master-slave relationship. One should note the flexibility in the discussion as the father-child pairing has been dropped.Footnote 14 Xenophon’s Oeconomicus presents a dialogue about how to manage a household after describing the benefits of farming. Seneca (Ep. 49.1), like Colossians and Ephesians, orders the relationships beginning with marriage followed by the parental and then the master-enslaved.
While there were certain topics addressed in discussions about the household, the variety in order and content indicates that authors had freedom in how they approached the topic. The presence or absence of certain elements, then, may reflect a conscious decision by an author. Thus, interpreters should consider the potential motivations behind why an author includes or excludes certain relationships and identities, particularly when one of the excluded identities is the superior figure.
A second feature of household management literature is that the authors, writing from the perspective of the elite, address the superior figure within the relational pairings. Aristotle’s Politics is written from the perspective of the elite male who sits at the top of the hierarchy. He does not instruct the subordinate in how to act, but rather guides the superior in how to manage the subordinate. A disproportionate amount of material is given to slavery, as Aristotle argues that slavery is natural. The argument is made for the elite male in order to reassure him that his action of enslaving another is justifiable and in accordance with nature itself.
While the household texts contain remarks about the respective duties of the subordinate person, these remarks are provided so that the superior figure knows how an ideal slave/wife/child should conduct themselves. For example, in Ps-Aristotle, Oeconomica 1344a13–17, the author instructs husbands regarding how they should relate to their wives. He remarks, ‘As regards the intercourse of marriage, wives should neither importune their husbands, nor be restless in their absence.’ The next instruction makes clear that the author thinks it is the husband’s responsibility to lead his wife to this behaviour: ‘but a man should accustom his wife to be content whether he is at home or away. Good also is the advice of Hesiod: “Take a maiden to marry, and teach her ways of discretion”’ (Tredennick and Armstrong, LCL, slightly modified).Footnote 15 When the same author turns to the enslaved, he directs his attention to the role of the master. The master must ensure appropriate treatment of the enslaved by providing work, punishment and food. He must offer the enslaved an enticement to do the work as this motivates the enslaved person. The interest here is the master’s role in overseeing the enslaved, for the enslaved person is not addressed as an independent agent.
The only active agent in these instructions is the superior figure, the master/husband/father. The household codes are addressed to this person (by a person in the same position) and provide him with directions about how to manage the house, and particularly the figures in the house. The master/husband/father is responsible for ensuring that the enslaved/wife/child understands their respective duties within the house. The lack of directions to the subordinate figures is a key feature to note.
2.2 The Depiction of Slaves in Ancient Society
The Roman world was a slave society.Footnote 16 While it is difficult to estimate accurately the number of enslaved persons in the Empire, slaves were found all across the Empire in every province and among every ethnic group.Footnote 17 There were some regional differences in how slavery was perceived, the tasks assigned to the enslaved and how they were treated, but across the board, slavery was accepted, and enslaved humans were viewed and thus treated as inferior figures. The depiction of the enslaved as lowlifes, untrustworthy, rotten figures is consistent in all periods from Aristotle to the late Roman Empire and in all forms of literature. Aristotle’s description in his Politics provides a clear statement of how the enslaved were viewed. His remarks are particularly relevant because they come in his discussion of household management.
Aristotle argues that the enslaved is a living tool and a ‘live article of property’ (κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον; 1253b33) and therefore belongs to the master.Footnote 18 He identifies ‘the nature of the slave’ as follows: ‘one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave’ (1254a14–16).Footnote 19 The enslaved, in other words, is any human who is owned by another in the same way that one might own an ox or any other living or non-living tool.Footnote 20 Much later, Dio summarises popular opinion in a similar way: ‘when anyone gets possession of a human being, in the strict meaning of that term, just as he might of any item of his goods or cattle, so as to have the right to use him as he likes, then that man is both correctly called and in fact is a slave of the man into whose possession he has come’ (15.24 (Cohoon, LCL)).Footnote 21
The mere assertion of possession, however, is insufficient as one could be taken into captivity for unjust reasons.Footnote 22 Aristotle, therefore, argues that ‘authority and subordination’ are normal, for some are marked as rulers and others as subjects. The normalcy of this structure is evident in the very constitution of humanity. The soul rules ‘by nature’ (φύσις) over the body (1254a35–b9), the intellect over the emotions. For Aristotle, this, naturally, means that the male rules over the female, and the follow-on is that some men will rule over others: ‘therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal … these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority is advantageous’ (1254b16–20).Footnote 23 Additionally, Aristotle argues that the bodies of the enslaved and freemen are different. The enslaved person’s body is ‘strong for necessary service’, while the body of the master is ‘erect and … serviceable for a life of citizenship’ (1254b27–31).Footnote 24 Aristotle is forced to acknowledge that this perspective on the body does not always bear out, so he resorts to the nature of the soul (1254b32–4).
We see in this argument the principle that underlies Aristotle’s position, namely, the master is distinguished from the enslaved by his capacity to reason.Footnote 25 For Aristotle, there is a sliding scale relating to one’s capacity to reason: the animal is governed by feelings, the master by possessing reason, and the enslaved person lies between. The enslaved person is able to apprehend reason (and thus is above the animals), but lacks the ability to possess it (and thus is below the master). This perspective is re-stated later when Aristotle explains why it is the man who is superior in the three relations:
Hence there are by nature (φύσει) various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free (τὸ ἐλεύθερον) rules the slave (τοῦ δούλου), the male the female (τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος), and the man the child (ἀνὴρ παιδός) in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form (ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος ὅλως οὐκ ἔχει τὸ βουλευτικόν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ ἔχει μέν, ἀλλ᾿ ἄκυρον, ὁ δὲ παῖς ἔχει μέν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀτελές). Hence the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. (Aristotle, Pol. 1260a8–20)Footnote 26
Aristotle constructs a scale built on the distinction between those who rule and the ruled. The distinction expresses itself in one’s possession of the deliberative part of the soul. The enslaved person does not possess any element of the deliberative part. In a similar manner, while all have some aspect of the moral virtues, each only possesses what is necessary to their station.
Aristotle’s statement is his conclusion to the question of whether the enslaved person has any moral virtues. A straightforward ‘yes’ challenges Aristotle’s claim that there is a qualitative difference between the free man and the enslaved, but a simple ‘no’ leads to the conclusion that the enslaved would not be ‘human beings and participate in reason’ (ὄντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ λόγου κοινωνούντων; Pol. 1259b27–8).Footnote 27 The enslaved must be capable of participating in reason so that they can understand the instructions given by their masters and act accordingly. Yet, Aristotle concludes, ‘clearly [the slave] needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice … It is manifest therefore that the master ought to be the cause to the slave of the virtue proper to a slave, but not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a slave his tasks’ (Pol. 1260a33–6, 1260b3–5). The enslaved person’s virtue and reason, therefore, are a by-product of his or her master’s rule.
By the first century ad, Aristotle’s importance in philosophical circles had waned, and his arguments for natural slavery did not find wide support among Roman authors. Romans, instead, recognised the full humanity of enslaved persons and generally attributed their condition as enslaved to Fortune (e.g. Seneca, Ben. 3.20). Their enslaved state was not due to something inherent to their nature. This shift, however, did nothing to improve the conditions or popular perceptions of the enslaved.Footnote 28 They were still viewed as morally corrupt and given to laziness, thievery and generally untrustworthy (Columella, On Agr. 1.7.6; 1.8.2.).Footnote 29 Cicero argues that the rule of the mind over the base elements is like that of the master over the enslaved (Rep. 3.37), a comparison that only works when the enslaved human is perceived as morally corrupt. Too much time in the presence of the enslaved (or freedpersons) would corrupt a free person (e.g. Dio, Roman History, 60.2.4–7, on Claudius). While the enslaved person is no longer regarded as being in this position ‘by nature’, their servile condition identified them as inferior to free persons. The negative judgement of the enslaved, particularly regarding morality, thus, remains firmly in place. The enslaved bear the stain of their station in society, a stain that cannot be entirely escaped.
2.3 Summary
In summary, household management focuses on the superior figure, the master/husband/father, by providing this figure with directions about how to govern those in his home. The subordinate figures, the enslaved/wife/children, are not treated as independent agents but inferiors who must be instructed and guided by the superior. Secondly, the enslaved exemplify the inferior person, for they not only are denied freedom, but, whether by nature or Fortune, have been formed into beings to be ruled by others. In Aristotle’s view, they lack the deliberative faculty and rely entirely on their master to instruct them. They have no agency. For later Romans, they are corrupt by virtue of their station in life. From either perspective, the enslaved are morally incompetent.
3 The Petrine Household Code
Similar to Aristotle’s placement of household management in the larger context of the state, the Petrine author’s instructions to the enslaved, wives and husbands can be understood as specific applications of the author’s instructions regarding the duty of Christians in wider society (2.13–17). The term ‘submit’ (ὑποτάσσω) that heads the instructions to the enslaved (2.18) and wives (3.1) recalls the initial instruction in 2.13 (‘submit to every human authority’).Footnote 30 The Petrine code shares, at least on the surface, a similar hierarchical construction as Aristotle and the Greco-Roman tradition. Yet, there are important differences which indicate that the Petrine household code offers an alternative perspective.Footnote 31 This section addresses first the significance of the lack of any instructions to fathers and children, and second how the description of the enslaved differs from the Aristotelian perspective.
3.1 The Theological Context of the Household Code
The Petrine code only includes two pairs: master-enslaved and husband-wife. No directions are provided to fathers or children about how they should act within the household. The silence is odd since the purpose of the marriage relationship, according to many, was for begetting children.Footnote 32 This relationship is not overlooked, but explained by Peter’s ecclesiology.
One strategy that the author employs to help his readers navigate their social isolation is to present the Christian community as the house of God. In 4.17, the author identifies the community as ‘the household of God’ (τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ).Footnote 33 The phrase recalls the fuller description in 2.4–10 where the author writes about the community, ‘and you, as living stones, are being built up into a spiritual house (οἶκος πνευματικός) to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’ (2.5). The description of the community as the οἴκος of God is further developed in the author’s depiction of God as Father and the audience as his children.Footnote 34 Right from the start of the letter, the author describes God as Father. In 1.2, he asserts that the audience’s election is ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’. In 1.3, he states that ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ should be praised because of the salvific work he is doing. God’s fatherhood is seen especially in the act of regeneration (1.3) by the ‘imperishable seed’ (1.23). Believers are called ‘obedient children’ (1.14), and the impartial judge is the Father himself (1.17). While the metaphor of God as Father is not explicitly drawn upon in later chapters of the letter, its place in the opening chapter sets the context for the rest of the letter. In the image of the household of God that the author is developing, the depiction of God as Father and believers as children is crucial. In essence, the entire letter of 1 Peter provides the instructions about how believers as God’s children relate to God as Father. It is for this reason that the author does not include instructions to children and fathers in the household code. A theological perspective on the family results in a different construction of the household code.
The lack of direction to fathers and children is not because there were none in the community.Footnote 35 The father-children pairing is dropped from the household code because within the Christian community this relationship is not created by biology (or human adoption) but divine begetting (1.3). This explanation points toward a theological motivation behind the structure and statements found in the Petrine household code.Footnote 36 Peter has adopted a common Christian perspective on the church, namely, as the house of God, and a common Greco-Roman perspective on household management, but he has modified the conventions to suit his theological and pastoral objectives. Such a move indicates that the Petrine household code must be interpreted not only from a historical perspective but also from theological and pastoral perspectives.
The author’s decision to alter the typical household code structure by leaving out the father-child pairing suggests that something else might be at work in the lack of instructions to masters. Rather than interpreting the changes to the household code as an indication that there are no masters in the community,Footnote 37 it is perhaps more fitting to understand the lack of instructions as theologically motivated. In the previous paragraph, he identifies all believers as ‘God’s servants’ (θεοῦ δοῦλοι; 2.16) and God as ‘Lord’ (κύριος; 2.13).Footnote 38 These descriptors provide a theological frame for the instructions to individual groups and place each member of the Christian household under God himself. The honour typically due to human masters has already been relativised, and the decision not to provide instructions to them continues in this trajectory.Footnote 39
3.2 Peter’s Enslaved Persons
Like Aristotle, Peter begins his instructions on the household with the master-enslaved pairing. The similarity between Aristotle and Peter, however, stops here. Peter views the enslaved as morally competent agents, that is, humans who can both know what is good or virtuous and actually do it. Peter goes one step further for, when he connects the enslaved with the practices of Jesus, he elevates their social standing by giving them dignity and honour. Both positions challenge common perceptions of enslaved humans.
3.2.1 Slaves as Morally Competent Agents
Picking up the key term ‘submit’ from 2.13, the author instructs the enslaved to ‘submit in all fear to (your) masters, not only the good and decent, but also the crooked’ (2.18).Footnote 40 The term ‘submit’ recognises the lower position of the enslaved person in the hierarchical relationship of the master and enslaved. Moreover, submission is given to any master, not merely the one who is kind. Peter’s instructions, at first, seem merely to reaffirm the enslaved person’s second-class status by perpetuating the dehumanised outlook of Aristotle and his followers. There are, however, important differences.
As noted above, in wider literature, the enslaved are not viewed as agents in their own right. The household literature is addressed to the superior male, and the enslaved person’s agency is derivative of their master’s. Peter firmly rejects this view, however, when he speaks directly to those in slavery (and wives in 3.1–6).Footnote 41 The enslaved do not need a human master to instruct them.Footnote 42 While the exhortation to ‘submit’ recognises the position of the enslaved person within the social hierarchy, the decision to address the enslaved directly disrupts the social perspective of an enslaved person’s capacity.
Following from this, against views that enslaved humans have no understanding of virtue, Peter contends that the enslaved can know what is ‘good’. The term ‘good’ serves as the summary ethical term in 1 Peter, although it remains frustratingly undefined by the author. The good contrasts with ‘evil’ (3.11), is reflected in appropriate speech (3.10), parallels with ‘righteousness’ (3.14) and doing good likely results in suffering (3.17). Doing good is an expression of one’s connection with Christ and contrasts with one’s behaviour before becoming a follower of Christ:
3.16: ‘the good conduct in Christ’ (τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν)
1.18: ‘the foolish conduct of your ancestors’ (ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου)
In the context of 1.13–20, the ‘foolish conduct of your ancestors’ contrasts with the holiness of God, which believers are called to imitate.
Despite the ongoing debate about whether the ‘good’ is a way of living that aligns with the practices of wider society or is distinctively Christian, the key point, for my purpose, is that Peter indicates that enslaved humans are able to know what the good is and do it.Footnote 43 Peter regards the enslaved as possessing within themselves the moral faculty necessary to understand and do what is good. For the author, the enslaved (and wives) do not need a superior figure (whether the master or the husband) to instruct them in what is good and right, for they are agents endowed with the ability to know God’s will and enact it.Footnote 44
Peter’s address directly to the enslaved is a reversal of Aristotle’s view of slaves. It is closer to that of Seneca. Seneca challenges common notions about enslaved humans when, against the cry ‘They are slaves’, he counters ‘they are men’, ‘comrades’, ‘unpretentious friends’, even ‘our fellow-slaves’ (Ep. 47.1 (Gummere, LCL)). He uses the context of the banquet to expound on how masters should engage with their slaves. Against the practice of silencing slaves at a banquet, he advises that one engage with their slaves by inviting them to the dinner table and conversing with them (47.13–15). He advocates for this because slavery is not natural but a consequence of Fortune. The enslaved person’s character, then, is not determined by his or her status but by his or her own actions: ‘Each man acquires his character for himself, but accident assigns his duties’ (47.15 (Gummere, LCL)).
Seneca’s view provides an important counter to notions found in wider society that enslaved persons were inherently dumb and mirrors those advocated by early Christians. But there may be a difference between Seneca and 1 Peter: Seneca’s concern is not with the status and value of an enslaved human; he is certainly not interested in undoing the slave system itself (47.18–19). Rather, his concern is with the actions and attitude of the master. He is cautioning against acting like masters who fail to recognise their own enslaved natures and who lose control over their actions (whether in excessive feasting, sexual acts or anger). In fact, while he recognises that enslaved humans are agents, he holds that the master has some role in encouraging and developing them. He encourages Lucilius, ‘Invite some to your table because they deserve the honour, and others that they may come to deserve it. For if there is any slavish quality in them as the result of their low associations, it will be shaken off by intercourse with men of gentler breeding’ (47.15 (Gummere, LCL)). In the end, being a slave has an inherent danger to it, for the person’s character may align with their duties; therefore, spending time in the presence of a ‘good’ master can help the enslaved person overcome ‘any slavish quality’.
Seneca and Peter share similar perspectives about the ability of enslaved humans to receive instruction. Both treat the enslaved as ‘agents’. Seneca, however, does not go as far as Peter in his elevation of the enslaved human. While Seneca advocates for a much fairer treatment of those in slavery and views them in a much better light than Aristotle, he nonetheless keeps his interest on the masters by viewing them as the ones most directly worthy of his philosophical efforts.Footnote 45 Peter, by contrast, ignores the master entirely by addressing only the enslaved person. Where Aristotle and Seneca speak to the master, Peter speaks to the enslaved human.
3.2.2 Slaves and Christ
While Peter’s portrayal of the enslaved as morally competent agents stands against the Aristotelian portrait, that is not the most significant feature of his remarks to the enslaved. Even more striking is the connection he draws between enslaved persons and Christ as humans who suffer unjustly for following God: ‘For to this you were called because Christ also suffered for you leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps’ (2.21). This statement provides a Christological motivation for the enslaved to continue doing good even if it results in suffering. First, Christ himself has suffered for them, and, second, he has provided them with a model for how to endure unjust suffering.Footnote 46 The situation the enslaved find themselves in is the same as that of Christ.
A direct connection to the situation of the enslaved is found in the word ‘suffer’ (πάσχω). The term ‘suffer’, an important word for Peter’s description of Christ, refers broadly to the suffering that Jesus endured throughout his life.Footnote 47 The Christological story can be compressed to two features: ‘the sufferings coming to the Christ and the glories after these’ (1.11; cf. 5.1). In this condensed narrative, Christ’s entire human existence is indicated by the term ‘sufferings’, while the term ‘glories’ points to his eternal reign and second coming. By describing Christ’s earthly life as one of suffering, the author draws a direct connection with his audience, particularly the enslaved. The bodies of the enslaved were subjected to extreme forms of abuse beginning in the slave market and extending throughout the time of their enslavement.Footnote 48 In the marketplace, the enslaved were stripped naked and chained together. Their bodies would be examined for defects, even their breath being smelled. When purchased and taken to their master’s home, many enslaved persons lived in terrible conditions as they were confined to small rooms and long days at work. They could be beaten for the smallest of mistakes, and sexual abuse was common. While not all enslaved persons endured the worst conditions, all enslaved were subject to humiliation by virtue of their station in life. Authors often warn against over-beating one’s slaves. Plato instructs:
and the other is to accord them proper treatment, and that not only for their sakes, but still more for the sake of ourselves. Proper treatment of servants (οἰκέτας) consists in using no violence towards them, and in hurting them even less, if possible, than our own equals. For it is his way of dealing with men whom it is easy for him to wrong that shows most clearly whether a man is genuine or hypocritical in his reverence for justice and hatred of injustice. He, therefore, that in dealing with slaves (δούλων) proves himself, in his character and action, undefiled by what is unholy or unjust will best be able to sow a crop of goodness. (Laws 777d-e (Bury, LCL))
Seneca directs that one should use speech to correct a slave rather than the rod, for the rod is suitable to animals, not humans: ‘I hold that you are entirely right … in lashing them merely with the tongue; only dumb animals need the thong’ (Ep. 47.19 (Gummere, LCL)). Such cautions about the mistreatment of slaves reveal the extent to which such abuses were occurring and the inherent tension at the heart of slavery. At the same time, the instructions are limited in their goal: the concern of Plato, Seneca and others is not the welfare of the enslaved but the moral quality of the master. Excessive abuse of slaves reveals that the master has not attained self-mastery over his own passions.
The Petrine author remarks on the mistreatment of the enslaved when he instructs them to obey not only good masters but also crooked ones (2.18). This would include masters who are not merely dishonest, but those who beat and torture slaves. The author recognises that such treatment is ‘unjust’ (2.19), and it is here that the connection with Christ is made.Footnote 49 Jesus is the exemplar of the innocent sufferer, the one who endures excessive abuse and death despite committing no wrongdoing (2.22). He returns no evil word nor reacts in violence, but instead ‘gives himself to the one who judges justly’ (2.23). He was subjected to unjust punishment through bodily beatings and execution on a cross (2.24), yet through it all, he continued to do good by not retaliating. Jesus’ actions provide a model for the enslaved to follow when they endure beatings for doing what is good.Footnote 50
The description of Christ in 2.22–5 employs the language of Isaiah 53 to describe Christ’s actions, while also making connections to the Jesus traditions, particularly the Passion narratives.Footnote 51 While the author draws on these sources to provide a vocabulary for describing the actions of Christ, his recounting of the Christ story centres on those actions and experiences that most closely associate Jesus with the experiences of the enslaved.Footnote 52 He is not merely retelling what Christ experienced and how he responded; rather, the author directly correlates the story of Christ with that of enslaved humans in the Christian community. This act of portraying Christ as among the lowest in society has the effect not of bringing Christ down, but of bringing the lowest up.
The author’s exhortation to endure unjust suffering seems to justify the actions of crooked masters, thereby reinforcing the social status of enslaved humans as lesser beings, mere property to be used as one pleases.Footnote 53 This kind of interpretation, however, misconstrues the author’s point of connecting the enslaved with Jesus and advising the enslaved person to do good even if it results in unjust suffering. For the author of 1 Peter, the moral life is of greater significance than escaping verbal or bodily suffering. This is not a dualistic notion (as if the material world does not matter), but a recognition that there is a telos to one’s actions that overcomes the present experience.Footnote 54 The statement that Jesus ‘handed himself/his cause over to the one who judges justly’ (2.23) is crucial to the author’s perspective.Footnote 55 The enslaved person, like Jesus, is called to see beyond the immediate age, for the Father has ‘begot us anew into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1.3). An eschatological perspective undergirds the author’s instructions: the present is not the end, for the present life is lived in hope for the coming of salvation (1.9). The enslaved person looks forward to the return of Christ (1.5) and the final judgement when the impartial Father will judge justly (1.17).Footnote 56 The enslaved person, then, can endure unjust beatings for doing what is good because, like Christ, they have entrusted themselves to a loving Father.Footnote 57
As many scholars note, enslaved persons serve a paradigmatic role for the community.Footnote 58 As social outsiders, enslaved persons exist in the social space that the entire Christian community now resides in. They, therefore, model how to live in a hostile world. The paradigmatic role of enslaved humans becomes clear in 3.8–10, when the author turns his attention from select groups within the community to the community broadly. He repeats the same terms and images used in his account of Christ to the enslaved:
εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε (2.21; 3.9)
λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει (2.23) = λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας (3.9)
οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ (2.22) = καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον (3.10).
Similarly, in 3.14–18, the author returns to the idea of suffering for doing good (2.19–20; 3.13–16) and connects the unjust suffering of his audience with Christ’s suffering and redemptive work (2.21–5; 3.17–18).Footnote 59
While it is correct to identify a paradigmatic role for enslaved humans, the author’s decision to connect Christ’s suffering directly to the experiences of those in slavery suggests more is going on. By linking the enslaved directly with the pattern of Christ’s life, the author additionally disrupts the social perception of slaves.Footnote 60 Rather than being at the bottom of the social hierarchy, the enslaved rise to the top in the Christian community. They gain an honour and dignity within the Christian community that is denied to them in wider society. The Aristotelian model of the household is turned upside down.Footnote 61
3.2.3 Summary
The lack of directions to fathers and children indicates that the Petrine household code is theologically constructed. While Peter is no doubt directing his words to real persons in real situations, he does so from the perspective of God’s household. He is reframing his audience’s understanding of authority and honour according to the way things work in God’s household.
While 1 Peter shares with other household management literature a hierarchical structure, it addresses the subordinate directly. Enslaved humans are viewed as agents capable of receiving instruction and acting upon it. They do not need a superior figure, that is, a master, to teach them what is good and how to accomplish it. This difference between 1 Peter and other texts on household management should not be minimised: the author breaks with convention by treating enslaved humans as competent moral agents.
Peter presents enslaved humans as the exemplars of how to follow Christ in a hostile world. The refusal of the enslaved to seek retaliation for the verbal abuse they endure and the beatings given to their bodies shows to others how to endure unjust sufferings by their neighbours. The enslaved person embodies the hope and faith of Peter’s gospel message by demonstrating that this age is not the final one. At the same time, the link drawn between enslaved humans and Christ upends typical social structures. When the author associates Christ directly with the experiences of enslaved humans, he ascribes to the enslaved honour and dignity within the Christian community. The author fronts enslaved persons not only because they are the exemplars of living the Christian life, but because he is making a statement about who is deserving of honour and dignity in the house of God.
The main ideas of this section can be summarised in four points:
1. The Petrine household code is not merely a social text. It is constructed from a theological vantage point.
2. In contrast to other household codes that emphasise the superior figure in the pairing, Peter focuses on the inferior slave.
3. In his focus on the inferior slave, Peter ascribes to the enslaved an agency that is denied to them by others. He views them as morally competent humans.
4. Perhaps most striking, Peter ascribes to enslaved persons honour and dignity when he identifies them as the Christ follower par excellence.
4. The Silencing of the Masters
One can imagine a scenario in which a master enters the Christian gathering to hear the newly arrived letter from Peter. This master knows of his social importance: whether poor or rich, he occupies a space above his slave and wife and children. Even the slaves, wives and children belonging to men higher than him on the social ladder are, in many senses, still inferior to him. This master, however, has adopted some aspects of the Christian perspective on the equality of all humans, and he recognises that he should treat others, including his slaves, better.
This master hears the instructions in 2.13–17 and finds nothing too shocking. He knows the traditions about Israel as a ‘slave of God’ and of Paul’s notion that Christians are slaves. As 2.18 is read out, he senses some awkwardness since Peter speaks directly to the enslaved. His initial concern increases when the line about the enslaved following in Jesus’ footsteps is read. But our master is not too bothered, for he anticipates that Peter will give some instruction to him about being kind to his slaves, which he is already doing – he is certainly not one of the crooked masters.
Yet, the instruction to the master never arrives. Peter moves on to wives, addresses them in a similar manner as slaves and encourages them in their faithful obedience to God. Our master is now bewildered, struck by the silence of the Petrine text. While he is addressed as a husband, the role of master, which gives him significant prestige in society, is disregarded. His position of honour has been overlooked; in fact, not merely overlooked, but given to another, a slave.
This master will no doubt wonder why Peter has ignored him. I suggest that Peter intentionally ignores the masters. The Petrine silence denies to masters any space within the house of God. The author removes the authority and prestige normally given to masters, and calls into question their identity and status as masters. The honour normally ascribed to masters is denied; indeed, by ignoring them, the author may actually be ascribing to them shame.Footnote 62
5. Conclusion
Peter’s household code is a deeply theological text, for he views the Christian community as the house of God. In contrast to widely held ideas about enslaved humans as incompetent and morally deficient, 1 Peter presents the enslaved as morally competent humans. Moreover, the author presents enslaved persons as the best examples of how Christ himself lived, for they – like him – remain obedient despite unjust suffering. They have fully entrusted themselves to the Father and display in their actions the letter’s eschatological vision. The result is that the enslaved are ascribed honour and dignity in the Christian home.Footnote 63
While one cannot prove conclusively that there were masters in the Petrine communities, the textual and historical evidence suggests that there would have been masters. In light of this, the lack of instructions to masters takes on greater significance. It further enhances the author’s vision of the enslaved and the Christian community by undercutting the honour accorded masters by wider society. In the Christian community created by the Petrine author, masters are rendered silent.Footnote 64
