No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Missing Masters of 1 Peter
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2025
Abstract
One of the intriguing features of the Petrine household code (1 Pet 2.18–3.7) is the lack of instructions to masters. A common view claims that there are no instructions because there were no Christian masters in the community. This view, however, is textually and historically unlikely. This essay, rather, considers how the instructions to enslaved persons and the lack of instructions to masters might have been heard from the perspective of a Christian master. The first part of the essay highlights some features of literature on household management and perceptions of enslaved persons’ moral competency. The essay then turns to 1 Peter to analyse the theological perspective of the household code and the description of enslaved persons. I propose that the author has intentionally ignored masters as part of his defining the house of God.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.
References
1 S. T. J. Smith, Strangers to Family: Diaspora and 1 Peter’s Invention of God’s Household (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016) 72. Cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2015) 138.
2 E. G. Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter (London: MacMillan, 1961) 175.
3 M. E. Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011) 117.
4 D. L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981) 96–7; I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991) 87–8; J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 516; R. Feldmeier, Der erste Brief des Petrus (THKNT 15/1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005) 102–4, 113; R. Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008) 152–5, 169; D. F. Watson, ‘First Peter’, First and Second Peter (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012) 63.
5 P. J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 192.
6 For this suggestion see D. G. Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity (LNTS 394; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013) 124, 128. Also, T. B. Williams and D. G. Horrell, 1 Peter: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1: Chapters 1-2 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2023) 780; T. B. Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering (NovTSup 145; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 117 n. 80.
7 τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων likely indicates enslaved persons. See I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2000) 495.
8 As noted by P. Perkins, E. Rosenblatt and P. McDonald, 1-2 Peter and Jude (Wisdom Commentary; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2022) 51–2.
9 Additionally, while the enslaved were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, owning slaves was not limited to the wealthy or elite. Slaves were owned by persons at every level of the financial pyramid and social ladder. This increases the potential that masters were among the Petrine communities. See n. 16 for sources on ancient slavery.
10 Cf. N. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief (EKKNT 21; Zürich: Neukirchener, 1979) 126. On the matter of believing wives married to unbelieving husbands, see e.g. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Early Christian Women Married to Unbelievers’, Feminist Companion to Paul: Deutero-Pauline Writings (ed. A.-J. Levine with M. Blickenstaff; London: Continuum, 2003) 14–28; C. E. Johnson Hodge, ‘Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16’, HTR 103.1 (2010) 1–25.
11 For simplicity, I will refer to the author of 1 Peter as Peter. Nothing is implied regarding the identity of the actual author.
12 Introductions to the household codes can be found in all the major 1 Peter commentaries. See also the influential work of Balch, especially, Let Wives be Submissive; cf. also ‘Household Ethical Codes in Peripatetic, Neopythagorean and Early Christian Moralists’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 11 (1977) 397–404; ‘Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes’, ANRW (26/1; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992) 380–411; ‘Household Codes’, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (ed. D. E. Aune; Atlanta: SBL Press, 1988) 25–50.
13 Translation by Balch, ‘Household Codes’, 42.
14 Similarly, in his discussion of the ‘house’, Hierocles the Stoic takes as his starting theme marriage where he reflects on the duties of husbands and wife. He follows this with reflections on parents and, finally, siblings. In additional reflections on the ‘house’, he describes the marriage partnership. Whether he included comments on the other pairs is unknown due to the surviving evidence. See I. Ramelli, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts (trans. D. Konstan; Writings from the Greco-Roman World; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009) 73–95.
15 Quoting Hesiod, Works and Days 699.
16 There are a number of excellent overviews of ancient slavery available now, such as: K. Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); K. Bradley and P. Cartledge, eds., The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 1, The Ancient Mediterranean World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); S. Forsdyke, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021); P. Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); S. Hodkinson, M. Kleijwegt and K. Vlassopoulos, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in process); P. Hunt, Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018); S. R. Joshel, Slavery in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). A convenient starting point is the lengthy summary with extensive references to primary texts by C. S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2: 3:1-14:28 (vol. 2; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013) 1906–42.
17 The vast majority of slaves were located in Rome or the Italian peninsula, and it is difficult to be certain how many slaves were in the provinces. Nevertheless, slavery was certainly known and practised throughout the entire Roman world. For a recent discussion of the size of the slave population in the Roman Empire, see W. Scheidel, ‘The Roman Slave Supply’, The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 1, The Ancient Mediterranean World (ed. K. Bradley and P. Cartledge; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 287–310.
18 All translations of Aristotle, Politics are from Rackham, LCL.
19 ὁ γὰρ μὴ αὑτοῦ φύσει ἀλλ᾿ ἄλλου ἄνθρωπος ὤν, οὗτος φύσει δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἄλλου δ᾿ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν κτῆμα ᾖ ἄνθρωπος ὤν.
20 Cf. Aristotle Pol. 1252b10–12 (quoting Hesiod, Works and Days 405): ‘“First and foremost a house and a wife and an ox for the ploughing”— for the ox serves instead of a servant (οἰκέτου) for the poor.’
21 καὶ ἐδόκει αὐτοῖς, ὃν ἄν τις κεκτημένος κυρίως, ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι τῶν αὑτοῦ χρημάτων ἢ βοσκημάτων, ὥστε ἐξεῖναι αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι ὅ τι βούλεται, οὗτος ὀρθῶς λέγεσθαί τε καὶ εἶναι δοῦλος τοῦ κεκτημένου.
22 This point is crucial to Dio’s account (15.25–8). This should not be misunderstood: the most basic feature of slavery (ancient and modern) is possession, being owned by another person (regardless of how one was acquired). Replacing the language of ‘slave’ with ‘servant’ or, even more reprehensible, ‘employee’ might make the passage more palatable (e.g. W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2015) 123–4), but it comes at the price of historical and theological accuracy.
23 Cf. Plato, Laws 777a-b.
24 Cf. Arius Didymus II.149.1–2: ‘a slave by nature (strong in body for service, but stupid and unable to live by himself, for whom slavery is beneficial)’ (translated by Balch, ‘Household Codes’, 42).
25 W. H. P. Thompson, Pauline Slave Welfare in Historical Context: An Equality Analysis (WUNT 2.570; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023) 87. The arguments about the ability of masters to reason and the design of slave’s bodies come together in 1252a31–4.
26 Cf. Arius Didymus II.149.5–8: ‘The man has the rule of his household by nature. For the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent’ (Τούτου δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἔχειν τὸν ἄνδρα. Τὸ γὰρ βουλευτικὸν ἐν γυναικὶ μὲν χεῖρον, ἐν παισὶ δ’ οὐδέπω, περὶ δούλος <δ’> οὐδ’ ὅλως) (translation from Balch, ‘Household Codes’, 42).
27 On the tension in Aristotle’s account, see Forsdyke, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greece, 22–31.
28 The following draws from H. Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 14–35.
29 Testimony from an enslaved person was taken only under torture because slaves were considered liars (Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 165–71).
30 C. G. Müller, Der Erste Petrusbrief (EKKNT 21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022) 245.
31 On the household code broadly, see C. Münch, ‘Geschwister in der Fremde: Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes’, Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief (ed. T. Söding; SBS 216; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009) 151–2.
32 Aristotle, Pol. 1252a26–30; Arius Didymus 148.19–21.
33 On the importance of the ‘house’ theme in 1 Peter, see J. H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 19902); and throughout Elliott, 1 Peter. He argues that the author uses this theme to counter the homelessness of the audience, as seen in the description of them as παροίκοι καὶ παρεπιδήμοι (1.1; 2.11). Elliott helpfully highlights the importance of this theme in the letter, although his view that the readers were strangers and aliens prior to becoming Christians is doubtful. This matter, however, is not pertinent to my point here.
34 See K. Marcar, Divine Regeneration and Ethnic Identity in 1 Peter: Mapping Metaphors of Family, Race, and Nation (SNTSMS 180; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).
35 Nor is it because Peter is addressing only ‘the least powerful adults’ in the community, as suggested by K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Baker Academic, 20222) 188.
36 To be clear, I am not upholding a distinction between theology and social conditions, as if Peter’s claims are not motivated at some level by the social realities of his audience. Rather, I am suggesting that he takes the social situation seriously, and, like any good pastor, he draws from the deep wells of his understanding of God to provide his audience guidance about how to navigate their situation.
37 So S. R. Bechtler, Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998) 165.
38 D. M. Shaw suggests θεοῦ δοῦλοι (2.16) functions as ‘an umbrella term’ for the household code (Narrative, Calling, and Missional Identity in 1 Peter: Between Promise and Inheritance (BIS 216; Leiden: Brill, 2023) 130–1).
39 The term δεσπότης (2.18) is used for human masters, which distinguishes their role from God’s.
40 The participle ὑποτασσόμενοι functions imperatively (so most commentators). This is a common (although disputed) use of participles in 1 Peter (e.g. 1.14; 2.1; 3.1, 7).
41 Cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 513; Smith, Strangers to Family, 72.
42 Balch suggests Dionysius Hal. Rom. Ant. II.25.4 as a parallel to the early Christian focus on the subordinate figures (Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 96). However, the parallel is inaccurate. Dionysius is remarking about the duties performed by wives, whereas the early Christian texts address wives and slaves with instructions and treat them as agents independent of the superior figure. Similarly, J.A. Harrill’s claim that the Christian household codes (particularly Colossians and Ephesians, although 1 Peter is not discussed) find their closest parallel in the description of the ‘overseer’ (vilicus) of the agricultural handbooks is mistaken (Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006) 85–117). The attempt to parallel the Christian master with the ‘overseer’ is unconvincing. Additionally, while the overseer is portrayed as a more competent slave than the average slave in the agricultural handbooks, Harrill does not give enough attention to the audience of the agricultural handbooks (namely, the elite owner of the farm) nor that the Christian household codes directly address the average enslaved person.
43 See now T. B. Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (WUNT 337; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
44 Cf. Jobes, 1 Peter, 185–6.
45 Seneca’s optimism regarding the moral capacity of enslaved humans is a significant step beyond Aristotle. One should not, however, overemphasise his optimism, for he still views the enslaved as generally morally deficient. For assessments of Seneca’s perspective, see Thompson, Pauline Slave Welfare, 129–36; K. R. Bradley, ‘Seneca and Slavery’, Seneca (ed. J. G. Fitch; Oxford Readings in Classical Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 335–47, and the literature cited by them.
46 L. Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 202; cf. F. Vouga, ‘La Christologie de la Première de Pierre’, The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 319–20.
47 See M. Vahrenhorst, Der erste Brief des Petrus (ThKNT 19; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2016) 124–5.
48 See e.g. Forsdyke, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greece, 52–89; Joshel, Slavery in the Roman World, 78–110, 119–29.
49 C. Wolff, ‘Christ und Welt im 1 Petrusbrief’, ThLZ 100 5 (1975) 340; B. Bauman-Martin, ‘Feminist Theologies of Suffering and Current Interpretation of 1 Peter 2.18-3.9’, A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. A.-J. Levine with M. M. Robins; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 72; J. Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 21; Paris: Cerf, 2011) 170.
50 T. P. Osborne, ‘Guide Lines for Christian Suffering: A Source-Critical and Theological Study of 1 Peter 2:21-25’, Bib 64 (1983) 381–408.
51 On the use of Isaiah 53, see e.g. P. J. Achtemeier, ‘Suffering Servant and Suffering Christ in 1 Peter’, The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E Keck (ed. A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993) 176–88; C. Wolff, ‘In der Nachfolge des leidenden Christus: Exegetische Überlegungen zur Sklavenparänese I Petr 2,18-25’, Exegese vor Ort: Festschrift für Peter Welten zum 65. Geburtstag (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001) 432–8; V. Gäckle, ‘Jesus, the Slaves, and the Servant(s) in 1 Peter 2:18–25’, Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity (ed. Michael A. Lyons and Jacob Stromberg; WUNT 2.554; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021) 273–93. For connections to the Jesus traditions, see e.g. D. G. Horrell, ‘Jesus Remembered in 1 Peter? Early Jesus Traditions, Isaiah 53, and 1 Peter 2.21–25’, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions (ed. A. J. Batten and J. S. Kloppenborg; London: Bloomsbury, 2014) 123–50; T. E. Miller, Echoes of Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter (Eugene: Pickwick, 2022).
52 D. G. Horrell, ‘The Image of Jesus in 1 Peter and its Paradigmatic Significance: Sociological and Psychological Correlations’, in Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft (ed. P. von Gemünden, D. G. Horrell and M. Küchler; NTOA/StUNT 100; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 306–7; J. A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 20242) 221–4. The suggestion is often made that the term μώλωψ (2.24), which recalls the whipping Jesus endured according to the Passion narratives, also refers to the type of injury the enslaved were likely to have (A. Weihs, ‘Teilhabe an den Leiden Christi. Zur Soteriologie des Ersten Petrusbriefe’, Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief (ed. T. Söding; SBS 216; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009) 72; Horrell, ‘Image of Jesus’, 306–7). Jesus’ death by crucifixion may also enhance the connection to the enslaved (W. L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter (WUNT 2.30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 142–3).
53 So H. Moxnes, ‘The Beaten Body of Christ: Reading and Empowering Slave Bodies in 1 Peter’, R&T 21.1–2 (2014) 135. Moxnes (p.134) asserts, ‘Since there is no parallel admonition to the masters the exhortation amounts to a full scale acceptance of the slave system even in its perverted form.’ The silence hardly justifies this conclusion.
54 Glancy (Slavery, 222) rightly notes that Peter values the body in a way that others, such as Epictetus, did not. Yet, she misses the eschatological aspect of the passage and as a result cannot fully explain how suffering functions within the passage.
55 Moxnes, ‘The Beaten Body of Christ’, 138; G. Wagner and F. Vouga, Der erste Brief des Petrus (HNT 15/II; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020) 95. There is no direct object for the verb παρεδίδου, which has led to a variety of suggestions. See the review of options in Williams and Horrell, 1 Peter, 1.830–2.
56 Cf. Vahrenhorst, Der erste Brief des Petrus, 127.
57 R. A. Reese states the point nicely: ‘They are no longer simply slaves, living tools with limited capacities. Rather, they are the newborn children of God who are looking forward to their inheritance and who are confident in their status as those who are redeemed and made holy like their true Father, the merciful and just God’ (1 Peter (NCBC; Cambridge University Press, 2022) 153).
58 E.g. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless, 205–7; Elliott, 1 Peter, 513–14; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 128–9; J. B. Green, 1 Peter (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 77–8; J. G. Nordling, ‘A More Positive View of Slavery: Establishing Servile Identity in the Christian Assemblies’, BBR 19 (2009) 70–1; W. Eisele, ‘Alles in Ordnung? Strukturen und Ziele der Paraklese in 1 Petr 2,11-4,11’, Der Erste Petrusbrief: Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel (ed. M. Ebner, G. Häfner, and K. Huber; QD 269; Freiburg: Herder, 2015) 133–4.
59 For more detail see Eisele, ‘Alles in Ordnung?’, 133.
60 Cf. L. W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016) 177–9.
61 Contra S. Carter, Restored Order: Subordination and Freedom in 1 Peter (StBibLit 175; New York: Peter Lang, 2021).
62 My fictitious story here takes the perspective of a male master, but the implications would be little changed if imagined from the lens of a female master. She would fare better as Peter turns to instructing wives because she would gain agency and dignity denied to her in other household management literature. Her important role as master, however, is still undercut by Peter’s silence.
63 In this study I have not attempted to resolve all the issues that arise with the Petrine household code generally, or the issue of slavery specifically. For example, a fuller assessment would need to address the use of ‘submission’ (ὑποτάσσω), which has often been interpreted as evidence that the Petrine author embraces and promotes the devaluing of the enslaved person (cf. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 149–93). Recognising the ways in which the Petrine author reworks the household management instructions to elevate enslaved humans suggests, however, that ‘submission’ would not carry the same negative connotations found in other writers. Similarly, while the Petrine author does not issue an explicit demand for the end of slavery, one should not overlook the ways in which he challenges and undermines the social hierarchies and expectations of his day. See the helpful study by Thompson, Pauline Slave Welfare.
64 I would like to thank the journal reviewers for their feedback and helpful suggestions.