‘For you were going astray like sheep, but are now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.'
Reference to Isaiah 53 continues in the words ‘you were going astray like sheep', for which compare Isaiah 53:6. And the point here is that as a result of all our iniquity being laid on Him (see Isaiah 53:6) we could, and have, turned to the One Who is the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls, something only made possible by the cross (compare John 10:11; John 10:15; John 10:17). And thus, being watched over by such a Shepherd and Overseer we can have confidence in whatever befalls us.
It should be noted that Peter does not try to take on himself the role of Shepherd. To him there was only One Shepherd and Bishop capable of this, and that was Jesus Christ Himself. He alone is the true Shepherd Who cares for the sheep. He alone could say, ‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give to them eternal life, and they will never perish and no one shall pluck them from My hand (John 10:27-28).
This idea of Jesus as the Shepherd is also found in 1 Peter 5:4; Hebrews 13:20; Revelation 7:17, but especially in mind here may well be Psalms 23:1-3 where similar language is used, for there the ‘souls' of His people are ‘turned' to Himself as ‘the Shepherd', by the Lord Who is their Shepherd. But Peter no doubt also had in mind that when Jesus was restoring him He had appointed him as an under-shepherd (John 21:15-17), and he therefore intended here, as the under-shepherd, to bring the sheep to the Lord Himself, as all leaders in the church must do.
The idea of Jesus as an Overseer (episkopos) has in mind the duties of the shepherd to oversee and control the flock. It may well indicate that in the Asian churches the leader were not yet called bishops (episkopoi) which until the pastorals only occurs as a title for church leaders at Philippi (see Philippians 1:1). Compare 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter only speaks of elders (presbuteroi). It is doubtful therefore if Peter is likening Jesus to a bishop.
So the household servants who suffer, and especially those who suffer while innocent, can rejoice in the fact that they are participating with Jesus in His suffering and playing some small part in ensuring the effectiveness of what He achieved on the cross.
The importance of this section for the whole letter must not be overlooked. It is not accidental that Jesus' sufferings are so closely connected with the suffering of the household servants under their masters as they seek to walk in obedience, while not being connected with the other examples of obedience. It is clear that this ‘persecution' of Christian servants was a genuine problem that was being endured by many and that Peter saw it as very much a part of God's foreordained plan. He saw that by it they, as servants, were playing their part in the fulfilment of the concept of the Suffering Servant.
It would appear from this that in that part of the world the church was to quite some extent composed of such ‘household servants', and that they were bearing the brunt of the persecution. It was thus not government initiated but master initiated. The impression would seem to be that on the whole the masters tended to be harsh towards their Christian servants, and the assumption may well be that that arose out of the conflict that arose between their Christian position and what their masters saw as their duty towards them.
This would be explicable if the problems mainly arose for religious reasons, i.e. as a result of ‘religious conflict'. There may have been two aspects of this. Firstly their unwillingness to honour their master's gods as well as their own God, and secondly their unwillingness to pay due ‘honour' to the emperor. The eastern part of the empire was where emperor worship had been favoured almost from the beginning, and it had become even more stirred up in the time of the mad Emperor Caligula, and it may well be that many masters therefore expected their household servants to participate in it and punished them if they did not. This would also explain why Peter also foresaw that things might get worse even for the wider circle of Christians. Fierce adherents of emperor worship would not take kindly towards those who would not agree with them, and towards what they saw as Christian ‘intolerance' and even treason, and this might well have led to wider outbursts of persecution, some of which Peter saw as likely to get worse. We have enough evidence in our own day that if a certain section of society gets het up about a particular issue that they see as important, they will go to almost any lengths to get their way. And looking back we have only to think of the fanatical attitude demonstrated towards conscientious objectors in the 1914-18 war, by what were supposed to be civilised societies, to realise how easily the innocent can be persecuted once passions are aroused.
It should be noted in this regard that the Jews were protected by special measures from the more difficult requirements of emperor worship, so that while Christians were still seen as Jews no difficulty would arise. But many of these Christian servants to whom Peter was writing were converted ex-Gentiles, and may well previously been keen supporters of emperor worship. Thus a withdrawal from such worship could easily have brought repercussions on some of them, and have raised the whole issue in the society in which they lived.
Excursus. Note on Slavery.
Slavery was and is undoubtedly a great evil, for it debases men to the level of mere tools, and removes from them any element of real choice in their lives, destroying the innate dignity of man. By it the individuality of the majority is discounted, and the many became the playthings of the few. It is clearly therefore contrary to Christian teaching. It may therefore be asked as to why Christianity appeared to acquiesce with it, and did not immediately take up a more positive attitude against it.
The basic question can be quickly answered. It did not acquiesce with it, for what it taught was the very opposite of the current views about slavery, and would have caused some considerable astonishment. Christian teaching lifted men above slavery, and made them recognise that even in their slavery they were free men in Christ. And gradually some of their masters began to recognise it too. And once that happened it was the beginning of the end for slavery.
But it did recognise that outside Palestine (where slavery was generally disapproved of by the Jews) slavery was such an entrenched system, and such an accepted part of society (there were over sixty million slaves in the Roman Empire), that a frontal verbal attack on it would have accomplished nothing. It would have been shrugged off as simply another example of the impracticality of Christianity. Indeed it could quite justifiably have been pointed out that the removal of slavery would have caused the collapse of society.
On the other hand to take a more active role against slavery by actually freeing slaves illegally or persuading them to rise up against their masters would have been seen as high treason, and while only being a pinprick against the massive system in force, could only have brought the most violent of repercussions, not only against them, but possibly even against all Christian slaves. Such activity would have been cruelly stamped out and would have left everyone worse off. What had rather to happen was the undermining of the very principles on which slavery was built. And that the church accomplished. For internally it treated the laws of slavery as though they were irrelevant, and gave honour to slaves in a way that was contrary to all the principles of the society in which they lived. It declared that, as far as Christians were concerned, in Christ all slavery was negated (Galatians 3:28).
A second important factor to remember is that rarely in history have there been times when the majority of men were any other than slaves, even though described in different terms. Freedom is a privilege of modern times, and even then it is limited for many. Most of us are not free to do what we want, and can often be forced to act against our wills. But at least we are free to use our leisure time as we will, now that we have leisure time. But in older times things were even more limited. There was little leisure time, and people had to do what they were told if they were to survive, whether they were slaves or not. The feudal serf especially was little better than a slave. And the same was later true of the industrial worker and the miner in later centuries. Man's inhumanity to man has ever been the same. And it has always been contrary to what the Bible has taught. Thus being a slave was not necessarily the worst option.
Furthermore it must be recognised that attacking something which is so much a part of society can only be done in one of two ways. It is in some ways similar to the besieging of a city. It can either be attempted by a full frontal assault, which in the case of strong walls was often a waste of time and involved much suffering, or it can be accomplished by undermining the walls. It was the latter method that Christianity adopted, and indeed used more than once, in order to destroy slavery.
For the only way in which to undermine slavery and its more modern parallels, given the situation of society, was by underlining the worth and value of the individual. And that was precisely what Christianity did do. From its very beginnings it brought home the principle of the equality of all men in the sight of God, both slave and free (Galatians 3:28) and the fact of the individual worth of every man and woman as one who was beloved by God. Once these principles really took hold slavery and its parallels would be doomed.
But Peter and the other Apostles recognised that they had to deal with the situation as it then was. We on our part might pay great heed to their words and see them as authoritative, but in the eyes of the Roman Empire they were nothings. Unquestionably as a Jew Peter would have disliked slavery. The Jews did not look kindly on slavery. But in the face of the power of the Roman Empire, and indeed of all empires, and the views of mankind generally, there was little that they could do about it. It was an intrinsic part of society.
The question was rather therefore how to cope with it. Recognising that ensuring the stability of society was to be seen as the best way of ensuring maximum righteousness, obtaining the best platform for the Gospel, and providing the best possible life for slaves, Peter (and the early church as a whole) exhorts ‘household servants' (oiketai) to be faithful to the household of which they are a part. This in itself would have been seen as striking. Society in general did not address slaves. It expected them to submit to whatever society decided applied to them. It was the Christian church which accepted that they had status.
We must remember in this regard that only three alternatives actually lay open to them. They could either cooperate, engage in passive non-cooperation or break out in open disobedience. There was not in most cases the choice of going free. So they could either gain a reputation for being responsive and helpful because they were followers of Christ, or of being merely resentful because they were sullen, or of being seen as recalcitrant and troublesome. To do the last would undoubtedly have resulted in beatings and demotion to the most unpleasant tasks, and even worse. Being resentful would simply have been looked on as normal, but it would have achieved nothing as long as the slaves fulfilled their duties, apart from it producing in the individuals themselves a sense of self-respect and individuality and resulting in an occasional beating. But being responsive and helpful for Christ's sake would not only give a good impression of Christianity, and build up a positive feeling in favour of it among society in general, but would also increase the slave's own feeling of self worth as he recognised that he was not serving because he was being forced to do so, but because he had chosen to do so in order to please God. It would also indicate to all a desire to fulfil the teaching of Jesus about loving one another. So the result would be that the Christian would actually gain self-respect by being an obedient slave. He would feel that he was serving the Master.
It would be foolish to suggest that supporting slavery as an institution was Peter's or the church's intention. He was rather recognising that at that time little could be done about it, and wanting Christians to make the right impression about what it meant to be a servant of Jesus Christ in terms of the society of the day and a situation that he could otherwise do nothing about. As a Jew he would certainly not have favoured slavery, for as already mentioned it was looked down on by the Jews, but he had to give guidance as to the best and most advantageous way of handling what could only be described as an unwelcome situation, and do it for the good of those involved.
Any attempt to obtain freedom for slaves by any other means than ransom (which was a method used by churches when they could, although they were limited in resources) would in fact simply have resulted in horrific treatment for the slaves when caught, and similar treatment for others involved. It would have been looked on as a heinous offence. (We have only to think of Spartacus to recognise that, and the church could certainly not have raised a large half-trained army in one place (which partly consisting of trained fighters) like he did).
In fact Christianity would in the end undermine slavery, but in 1st century AD, outside Palestine, slavery was such an established institution, and so looked on as a normal way of life, that attempts to change the situation would either have been looked on with incredulity (what else do you do with prisoners of war apart from the alternatives of crucifying them or sending them to the arena?), or, if an attempt had been made to put changes into practical effect, as high treason. Diatribes against slavery, which no doubt some Christian philosophers did make, would have accomplished little.
In fact churches began to undermine slavery simply as a result of the fact that slaves who attended at church worship would often become deacons, and sometimes even bishops, with the consequence that a newly converted Christian master might well find himself being instructed in spiritual matters by his own slave, in a circle where the slave was being treated with great respect because of his position. (Although even within non-Christian households a slave might effectively have a higher position than his master's wife and children).
The truth was that the Roman Empire was built on slavery, and men in the highest positions could be slaves. These last would actually have been the first to resist attempts to rid the Empire of slavery. And a position as a slave was not all bad. It ensured for many both that the slave would have the protection of the household involved, and the certain provision of necessities, and even sometimes luxuries, and would often provide him with a position of trust and high favour, (especially in comparison with many ‘free men' who were often left homeless and starving) while to resist such a position would simply have incurred severe beatings or even worse. But in fact in those days there were few who were really free. Poor freemen were equally as likely to be beaten, and in their cases they would then be left to their own devices. Meanwhile society would have little sympathy for recalcitrant slaves, and as slaves were regularly ‘foreigners', they had nowhere to escape to apart from to the dregs of society. And once they had run away they would be for ever be looking over their shoulders as a ‘runaway', knowing that if they were caught it would lead to literal branding or worse, to say nothing of what would be involved for the Gospel if it became recognised that the church had begun recommending such behaviour. It would have been seen as high treason against the state. Christian preachers could certainly argue the morality of the situation, and no doubt often did, but on the whole they would simply be looked on with incredulity if they suggested the cessation of slavery. After all what alternative was there? What they could not do was recommend the breaking of the law. That would have been treason. The church would have to become a lot more influential before it could even begin to do anything about slavery as an institution, and meanwhile advice had to be given to slaves on how to cope in a way that was pleasing to God, and beneficial for them both spiritually and physically. This was what Peter and Paul did.
End of Excursus.