The Relationship Between Submission and Sacrifice in the First Letter of Peter

Abstract

The First Epistle of Peter is a writing that addresses a new way of understanding and practicing worship among the followers of Jesus. The Christians, recipients of the letter, due to the imminent identity distinction from the Jews and their distancing from the practices of imperial worship, live in a difficult social and religious situation. This situation demands the author to recall the theological foundations of Christian identity and redefine the meaning of traditional ritual concepts in new ethical and communal terms. This article, through a historical and theological analysis, examines the concepts of “sacrifice” and “submission” in their Christian reinterpretation and how they shape the worship practices of Jesus’ followers. To this end, the cultic elements present in the exhortative discourse are analyzed to explore the development of their theological significance at the dawn of the second century. Furthermore, considering the current appreciation of these attitudes as outdated values, this article evaluates whether the ethical discourse of the letter can have an impact on contemporary society. The study seeks to offer a renewed reading of 1 Peter that contributes to understanding the particularity of Christian worship in the Greco-Roman society of the first century and to ascertain whether its message is still relevant today.

1. Introduction

The First Letter of Peter (1Pet) has in the last decades had a significant prominence among the studies of the New Testament letters. It has been returned to from different perspectives with methodological rigor and interesting questions. However, its reception loses welcome when we come to the reading of the domestic codes (2:18–3:7), to the invitation to sacrifice (2:4–5), and to the imitation of the Crucified One (2:21–23). The explanation is not original, the sacrifice in life and the submissive attitude are not attractive behaviors to be imitated, nor do they enjoy prestige in today’s society. On the one hand, because they are opposed to the messages that are so popular today, such as the concern for “self-care”, the safeguarding of the “comfort zone”, and “personal wellbeing”, among other invitations focused on the satisfaction of the self (Lipovetsky 2015, p. 31). On the other hand, its low popularity is due to the discredit that the feminist interpretation has sown in the appreciation of the letter. Feminist studies defend that the instruction on the submission of wives is a discourse that seeks to justify and perpetuate patriarchy (Schüssler 1983; Corley 1993; Estévez 2012; Clark 1996). This assessment is confirmed in current confessional contexts, especially in marriage bonds, where the exhortation to women is read to encourage them to subordinate themselves with humility and gentleness to their husbands (García 2017, p. 682). These interpretations of 1 Peter continue to make readings that reinforce the power of those who assume patriarchal authority over their women.

The interest in exploring the meaning of the terms “submission” and “sacrifice” arises from the purpose of evaluating whether the letter should remain in the pit of discredit or if it is possible to rescue relevant contributions from it. In other words, the aim is to offer a renewed reading of 1 Peter that contributes to understanding the particularity of Christian worship in the Greco-Roman society of the first century and to appreciate whether its message is still relevant today. To achieve the proposed objectives, the study is divided into three thematic blocks. The first part presents a brief description of the socio-historical context in which the letter arose and, with it, the reasons why it written, paying special attention to the realm of worship. For this, some assumptions of 1 Peter are recalled, which, due to the proportionality of this study, are impossible to address in greater detail, but which are necessary to take into account to reconstruct the author’s proposal in the context in which he composes his missive. In the second part, the cultic terminology present in the letter is examined. This aims not only to discover the relationship with submission but also to explain the meaning of the call to believers to be priests. Along with this, the literary context in which the terms “submission” and “sacrifice” appear is analyzed to understand the author’s proposal. In the third thematic block, the theological and Christological motivations offered by the letter to justify the demand for these attitudes as eminently Christian conduct are studied. The purpose is to appreciate the re-signification of the traditional way of understanding worship offered by the author. Finally, the conclusion presents the most significant results of the study, highlighting the alternative meaning that Christianity attributes to the attitudes of sacrifice and submission, as well as their impact on Christian ethics and worship practices of the first century. Additionally, it emphasizes how these findings enrich the understanding of early Christianity and its relevance in contemporary ethical debates.

2. The Life and Worship Situation of the Recipients of 1 Peter

A significant number of specialists estimate that 1 Peter was written between the 80s and 90s, in a context similar to the Deutero-Pauline letters Colossians and Ephesians (Horrell 2008; Elliott 2000; Gil 2024). One of the reasons supporting this dating is the fact that the communities of Jesus’ followers have received the gospel and are in a more advanced process of shaping the believer’s identity than the first generation of Jesus’ disciples.1 Another argument is the role and authority attributed to Peter as an apostle, witness, and author of the letter. In the memory of Jesus’ contemporaries present in older gospel traditions, Peter has not yet reached such dignity and recognition, while in 1 Peter his recognized leadership is clear. Additionally, it does not present biographical data linking him to the time lived with Jesus, beyond what the group’s cultural memory transmitted (Aguirre 1991, pp. 43–61; Bockmuehl 2012). Tradition has attributed the authorship of the letter to the apostle Peter; however, by the time of its composition, he would already be dead. Therefore, a significant number of studies estimate that it is a pseudepigraphical letter that uses Peter’s exemplary reputation and the memory of his prominence to persuade its recipients (Williams and Horrell 2023, pp. 116–18).

Adding to the previous arguments is the presence in the letter of the term “Christians” (4:16) and the allusion to “Babylon” (5:13) as the place of origin of the letter. This coincides with its use in the Acts of the Apostles and Revelation. Acts mentions that Antioch is the first place where the followers of Jesus are labeled “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28), and Revelation refers to Rome as the oppressive empire representing Babylon (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 18:2). This situates the letter as plausibly composed in the last two decades of the first century CE, a context similar to that in which the two aforementioned works were written (Williams and Horrell 2023, pp. 100–12).

To understand the life situation of the recipients, especially what happens in the realm of worship, the data provided by the letter is highlighted. In the initial greeting, the author mentions five Roman provinces through which the letter should circulate. The recipients are Christian communities dispersed throughout the region of Anatolia (1:1). The extensive territory to which the letter is addressed highlights the diversity and plurality of the members of the groups it is directed to. From the information present in 1 Peter, it is possible to ascertain that the Christian groups it addresses were composed of individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, ages, genders, conditions, and social roles.2

On one hand, the terms παροίκος and παρεπίδημος are used by the author as identity labels for his recipients to begin his exhortation on behavior in the public sphere (2:11). Thanks to socio-scientific exegesis studies, it is asserted that these labels refer to the social and legal identity of the recipients of the letter and do not have solely a metaphorical sense, as previously contemplated in earlier studies (Elliott 1981, pp. 60–79; Himes 2014). The term παροίκος refers to residents in a territory that is not their own, nor that of their ancestors (what we would today call colonists). Παρεπίδημος, in Latin peregrini, was the label legally assigned to subjects of the empire who were not of Italic origin (Wan 2016, p. 159).

The use of these labels in the letter shows that the author is addressing recipients whose place in society is not that of Roman citizens, nor do they have prestigious social recognition. The Christians of Anatolia, for those who hold civil and political authority, are possibly considered foreigners; therefore, their ethnic origin could be Jewish, Greek, or local natives. All this suggests that the recipients of the letter are viewed with constant suspicion by the authorities and the local nobility, a distrust that must have been exacerbated by their particular behavior as followers of Jesus (4:12–16).3

Just as the author refers to the social label of believers to explain the desired behavior in the public sphere (2:11–12), it should be noted that the letter also provides information about the various family roles they had. Particularly, in the instructions in the domestic sphere (2:18–3:7), the direct recipients are slaves and wives, and secondly, husbands. In the instructions on intra-community relationships, he addresses young people and elders (5:1–5). This indicates that, in the groups of believers, individuals could identify themselves from different categories, for example, slave wives, free widowed women, freedmen husbands, elderly husbands, young wives, etc. The instruction directed to wives and the allusion to the possibility of attracting husbands to the faith (3:2) allows us to assess that among the recipients there were people who, had joined the group of Jesus’ followers while their family members had not. Therefore, the author would need to instruct on the situation of mixed families where not everyone shares the same belief system. All this highlights the diversity and complexity of the particular identities that made up the groups.4

From the information provided by the letter, its recipients had previously received the gospel message from itinerant missionaries and were baptized (1:6–10). Hence, one of the efforts of the letter’s author is, as Janette Ok rightly points out, the construction of an ethnicity for his diverse audience, on the one hand, by establishing a relationship with God and with each other and not by shared biological lineages, but by election, the new birth, and the redeeming blood of Christ. And, on the other hand, by instructing them to live according to a new culture characterized by obedience and holiness (Ok 2021).

The common trait shared by the audience of 1 Peter is the unjust suffering they endure as a result of rejection and social hostility from authorities, neighbors, and non-believing family members. Social tension manifests in murmurs and insults that question and criticize their particular behavior (1:6; 2:19–21; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10). This suggests that, after joining the group of Jesus’ followers, Christians have marginalized themselves from the social activities they used to attend. It should be noted that, although the provinces were governed by client kings, they were under the tutelage of Roman governors. Imperial propaganda spread through villages and cities via the influence of Roman colonists who settled in the region, but also thanks to the efforts of the local aristocracy to hold festivals and celebrations dedicated to the emperor. These activities were a way to show devotion and loyalty to his figure in the public sphere. Similarly, imperial worship extended to the domestic sphere where, alongside the dedication of sacrifices and prayers to native deities, Roman deities and the recognition of the emperor as pater patriae were integrated, to whom prayers and sacrifices were also dedicated (Lozano 2010, p. 59).

Consequently, the absence or the poor disposal of Christians in village and city activities becomes significant, as these were mainly festivities and celebrations of imperial worship, in which popular support for the emperor was valued. The nobility, who financially supported these festivals, sought to receive recognition from imperial authorities and thus increase their social reputation (Muñiz et al. 2017). Hence, participation in these celebrations and festivities was crucial for the empire as it upheld the honorability of the aristocracy and the recognition of the city. The consequence of Christians’ self-marginalization in events at temples, monuments, plazas, and homes where sacrifices dedicated to the emperor were also performed was rejection, low social esteem, and even mistreatment.5 This situation of repudiation must have generated tension in all environments where they coexisted with non-believers, which is why the author of the letter considers the cause of their suffering to be unjust (1:6; 2:15, 18–19; 4:3–4, 16) (Williams 2012).

3. Imagery and Cultic Language in the Letter

Throughout the letter, the author employs Jewish cultic imagery to articulate his proposal for the re-signification of cultic terms (Lockett 2020). In particular, the use of the book of Leviticus stands out, whose content establishes norms related to worship primarily performed by priests. This text outlines human actions that can affect God’s presence among His people and those who could lead Him to abandon His sanctuary. Levitical regulations place special emphasis on the concepts of purity and impurity, fundamental conditions for preserving or compromising the sanctity of the sanctuary. Although impurity should not be confused with sin, the latter caused a rupture in communion with God that also needed to be restored.

Sacrifices served the function of expiating and purifying the state of impurity; in acts of worship, they were a way of manifesting obedience to the divine will. The basic means of expiation was the rite of sacrifice, which functioned to purify the individual from both sin and impurity. During the annual festival of Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement, the ritual included two ceremonies: a purification rite performed by the high priest to obtain forgiveness of sins and the act of symbolically placing the sins and impurities of the Israelites onto a goat, which was then released into the desert. The ritual was intended to purify the people as a whole, thereby restoring the relationship with God affected by the transgressions committed during the year. In this way, people returned to their original state of purity and were freed from their sin (Lev 16) (Skolnik 2007, p. 637).

The allusions to Leviticus in 1 Peter appear in the first part of the letter. The author’s initial greeting and blessing (1:1–5) are accompanied by a reflection and reminder of the new identity of the believers (1:6–2:10). The repeated use of similar terms is striking, as is the explicit citation of the book introduced with the formula: “it is written” (Lev 19:2/1 Pet 1:16), the only reference to the Torah in the entire letter. Verses 1:14 and 2:1 express the concern that believers maintain an attitude of purity.6 This idea is reiterated and completed when the author exhorts them to avoid misuse of the body (2:11 and 4:2–3) and encourages them to maintain inner purity (3:6). In 1:15, as in Lev 19:2, he calls believers to be holy. This defines the incompatibility of the new identity with the previous life.7 It is not possible to conduct oneself like the Gentiles, for by virtue of divine election, they have been called to imitate God. Verse 1:22 expresses the effect of the Passion of Jesus Christ: purification has been achieved through His obedience to the divine will. Purification is understood here as liberation from a futile, empty life without God, governed by vices. The realization of this vocation to holiness is, therefore, a new life that must be built on mutual love (Lev 19:17–18/1 Pet 2:17; 3:8; 4:8).

The difference between 1 Peter and the Old Testament author lies in the fact that, from a Christian perspective, there is nothing in the individual that can be declared impure and, therefore, make them incapable of entering into a relationship with God. Impurity is also not considered a state that can be transmitted or contaminated. On the contrary, for the Christian author, acts that violate the purity of the heart and body do not have the power to violate the holiness of God, but only that of the individual. However, the similarity is found in the related themes: purity (Lev 11–16/1 Pet 1:14), holiness (Lev 17–26/1 Pet 1:15–16), and love for others (Lev 19:17–18/1 Pet 2:17).

The verse that summarizes the cultic proposal of the letter is found in 2:4–5.8 The cultic logic developed by the author can be understood as follows: First, it demands that believers distance themselves from all expressions of malice. Second, it expresses what should be desired to grow in salvation. Finally, it develops the conduct that should be adopted: to approach Jesus Christ through spiritual sacrifices, which contribute to the building of a spiritual house. Communion with God and the sacrifice made is what makes them holy priests (2:9). In other words, the author calls for a radical conversion that transforms conduct into an act of worship to God.

In the book of Leviticus, it is possible to see that sacrificial worship is closely correlated with the presence of God in the sanctuary. In the case of 1 Peter, this correlation between sacred place and worship is maintained; the difference lies in that closeness to God is achieved not through material rites in the sanctuary but through the attitude of the individual who performs sacrifices in their own life. This conduct makes the space of coexistence a place for God. It is no longer about a sanctuary of God among the people, but the Christian, in the midst of their home, makes it a sanctuary for God. Consequently, what enables the encounter and communion with God are immaterial sacrifices, which, on one hand, build a house for His presence and, on the other, make them holy priests. This means that the believer acts as a priest when their sacrificial offering is their holy behavior. Just as the Levitical priest represents and offers what the people of Israel sacrifice, the Christian, with their spiritual sacrifice, integrates into the priestly community that forms a new people of God (2:10).

The priesthood, consequently, is understood as a fundamental part of Christian vocation and identity. It is a calling that entails a specific mission in different areas of life. However, it does not imply recognition, a rank of privilege, nor does it represent a role of authority or leadership, since every Christian can be a priest to the extent that they offer their sacrifice to God. It is not performed in a place designated for worship or a sacred realm that separates it from the profane. The particularity of this office is that it is carried out in everyday spaces, where the Christian act of worship is manifested in behavior towards others. The exercise of the priesthood is the task of every baptized person, and its dignity lies in knowing oneself as a child of God and called to obedience, even if it involves suffering. The offering is not material but an attitude that evokes a conviction, the existence of a God who dwells and with whom one enters into a relationship wherever good is done in His name. According to the author, this behavior has the power to transform public and domestic spaces into places for God’s presence -in the author’s words, into a “spiritual house”.

In 1 Peter, worship is no longer understood as a set of actions that include the dedication of a physical place to the divinity (Alarcón Hernández 2024, p. 9), a sacred time during which worship is carried out, a sacred banquet celebrating foundational events, and sacred people ensuring that the worship offered is acceptable to the divinity (Dunn 2010, p. 43). The author of the letter proposes a spiritual worship that Christians are challenged to perform in the place where they live and coexist with non-believers. The offering of these vital sacrifices is what makes the Christian a priest and that place a place of worship to the God of Jesus. The author explains and develops what these spiritual sacrifices are in the exhortative discourse analyzed later.

Just as the author refers to the book of Leviticus to explain how to understand the new worship to be performed by Christians, he similarly evokes the death of Jesus Christ in cultic terms. In the first part of the letter, it is possible to recognize three verses in which concepts belonging to the semantic field of Jewish cultic worship are related (1:2, 18–19).9 The expression “sprinkling of the blood,” used in reference to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, evokes the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifices of the Jewish ritual. In these sacrifices, the priest sprinkled the blood around the altar, attributing to it a purifying function. The blood of the sacrifice was considered a means of absolution, as it removed impurities from the sacred spaces, making them suitable for the presence of Yhwh (Lev 3:2–6).10

Regarding the identification of the blood of Jesus Christ with that of a pure lamb, it is necessary to go back to the covenant made with Israel in the desert, as Old Testament authors frequently refer to the sacrifice of lambs as a request made by Yhwh during Passover.11 The offering of a “perfect animal” reinforces the idea that Jesus Christ embodies and perpetuates the purity of this offering. This shows that among His followers, He is not only considered the spotless lamb but is also interpreted as having fully met the cultic requirements.12

To all of the above, it is worth mentioning that 1:2 does not refer only to the blood of Jesus being shed in his death but also emphasizes the people sprinkled by that blood. That is, it highlights what happens when the benefits of Jesus’ sacrificial death are applied to believers (Page 2010, p. 297).

These expressions alluding to the death of Jesus Christ, on one hand, identify His blood with that of the sacrificial victim and, on the other, place His sacrifice in a reality external to the space of Jewish worship. With this, the author of 1 Peter demonstrates that he understands the death of Jesus Christ not only as a sacrifice that exceeds the norms and forms indicated by Jewish Law but as a sacrifice whose blood and body are identified with the sacrificial offering. The offering of the lamb was intended to avoid and prevent death; the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (2:24), consequently, was understood in the same way as sacrifice was understood in Israelite legislation. The blood of Jesus Christ sprinkled on believers has the effect of liberation from sin and futile life (2:23–25). These verses also show that the author, to explain the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross and the salvific effect of His Passion, not only uses language alluding to the sacrifices performed in the Temple of Jerusalem before its fall but also serves to explain the reasons for this change in the understanding of worship.13

The suffering of the recipients, as previously mentioned, originates from social rejection and hostility from the Gentiles who negatively view their disassociation from the activities of imperial worship. This situation leads the author of the letter to explain the characteristics of Christian worship through the appropriation of Jewish cultic language, but it is re-signified in light of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The author shows his readers that Christian worship does not have a temple, an offerer, and an offering in the manner of Jewish worship nor according to the coordinates of imperial worship. For him, Jesus Christ has not only transformed the relationship with the divinity but, with His sacrifice on the cross, has modeled a new way of making sacrifices to God. This event of Jesus Christ, interpreted as salvific according to the author (1:8–9, 18–21) has changed not only the understanding of worship and the actions that Christians must perform to enter into communion with their God (2:21), but also the life of believers (1:4, 23).

4. Theological and Christological Motivations Accompanying the Instruction to Submission

So far, the cultic language and imagery present in the letter have been examined, yet the instruction to submission has not been analyzed. In this section, the objective is to link this attitude with the new understanding of worship that the author of 1 Peter develops. It is worth mentioning how, in the first part of the letter, a theological framework is provided for the listener, the recipient of the missive, to understand the exhortation that follows. In that first part, the author has recalled the new identity that Christians have received in baptism, alluded to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its liberating effect. With all this, he has not only evoked the salvific value of His death but also highlighted its transformative effect on the way Christians worship God. However, it is in the exhortative discourse of the second part of the letter that the attitude of submission is introduced as a paradigmatic behavior, understood as good conduct in all areas of life (public, domestic, and communal). In other words, the author explains what is meant by spiritual sacrifices and what is the exemplary model for Christians to imitate.

The verb ὑποτάσσω in 1 Peter is found only in the ethical discourse of the letter. It is demanded as the appropriate conduct in the public context (2:13), in the instruction directed to domestic servants (2:18), in the words addressed to wives (3:1, 5), and in the final exhortation dedicated to all recipients of the letter (5:5). Being present at the beginning of each section, it is understood that the instruction to submission functions to delineate the behavior of believers in their different roles. In Greek literature, the verb in the active voice means to submit, while in the middle voice it translates as to submit oneself and obey, either out of fear or voluntarily. Although it is frequently associated with contexts of political or military subordination, it is also used to describe recommended behavior in interpersonal relationships with the aim of gaining favor. In this sense, the verb ὑποτάσσομαι implies renouncing and sacrificing one’s own right or desire as an expression of humility (Elliott 2000, p. 503). The positional sense of the root of the verb ὑποτάσσομαι allows for the interpretation of the instruction to submission to recover the value of placing oneself below, not necessarily from the perspective of humiliation, but as a free choice to make oneself available to serve out of love (1:22; 2:17; 3:8–12; 4:8) (Arndt and Wilbur 1957, p. 855). Submission from the perspective of 1 Peter is the attitude of voluntarily making oneself available to others, even if it involves sacrificing one’s own desire (Cervantes 2005).

The instruction to submission is found in the exhortative discourse of the letter, particularly in the household code. The ethical instructions of 1 Peter have the particular characteristic of being accompanied by theological and Christological motivations. This theologization of the code is one of the various distinctions that New Testament codes have compared to the household codes present in classical Greek literature and Jewish writings (Balch 1981). For this study, it is relevant to examine the arguments of reason illuminated by faith that the author adds to his discourse (See Schultz 2019). It is in these arguments that the new understanding and sense of the instruction to submission and its relationship with sacrifices are made explicit.

In 2:12, an exhortation to good conduct in the public sphere begins, with the main instruction being “submission” to human institutions (king and governors, 2:13–14). This instruction is explained in the following verses, which state the following: the will of God is to do what is right (2:15); to do good freely (2:16); to honor everyone, including the emperor, and to fear God (2:17). As can be seen, this section delineates what is meant by submission and what it means to do good in this context. It is not about subordinating oneself to anyone or under any authority or person with rank. On the contrary, sacrificing one’s own desire is to be willing to fulfill the divine will (4:2). Freedom should be ordered to the desire of God, which is the realization of good in all aspects, starting with respect for everyone without distinction of rank or authority. In other words, ὑποτάσσομαι here refers to practicing humility (3:8; 5:5–6).

Availability, understood as humility, becomes a fundamental norm in 1 Peter because it is the attitude par excellence with which a person should approach God (1 Pet 5:5–7/Prov 3:34). Obedience is to the divinity, and availability is proposed as an expression of good conduct in society, as a manifestation of humble love that leads one to freely place oneself below others, ready to serve and motivated “for the Lord’s sake” (2:13). This availability implies a constant attention to the needs of others; however, it is important to note that the author sets limits to this availability. It is not about satisfying passions in any of their multiple manifestations, such as carnal desires (2:10) or the exercise of power in the political (2:13–16), socioeconomic (2:18–20), family (3:1–7), or community spheres (5:1–5).

The instruction that opens the section on conduct in the domestic sphere is dedicated to servants (2:18–19). The particularity of this exhortation lies in the fact that the most vulnerable part of the patriarchal system is instructed to submit to their masters with all respect, even if they are harsh. The significance is not in the content of the instruction itself, but in the valuation of the dignity of the servants and thereby the recognition of their suffering, when in Greco-Roman society slaves and servants were not subjects of rights, or personal dignity and were even less agents of morality (Harrill 2006). The author, however, alludes to the possibility that the suffering of the servants is unjust, their punishment due to their belief in God and the conduct derived from it (2:19).14 Particularly, he evokes this suffering as a paradigm of the unjust suffering of innocent victims.15 Nevertheless, instead of arguing his instruction from established patriarchal values, the author presents a Christological motivation that justifies the subordinate conduct, constructing his argument with an explanation of the Passion of Jesus as a paradigm of humility and submission.

It is possible to observe that the author uses a Christological motivation based on the Song of the Suffering Servant from Isaiah 53. As seen in 2:21, the framework in which the evocation of Isaiah’s song is set is divine election, understood as a ’call’ to follow the example of Jesus Christ, especially the way he lived his suffering.16 From the beginning of the letter, the understanding of the Passion is explained with unique features, as it recalls historical attitudes of Jesus Christ with the aim of modeling for believers a way of living innocent suffering as an offering of this sacrifice to God (2:22–23).

The expression ’Christ also suffered for you’ (2:21) highlights that just as the servants suffer, Jesus Christ suffered -that is, without sinning.17 Some authors see in the expression ’for you’ the expiatory nature of his death, which, together with the allusions to the shedding of his blood at the beginning of the letter, accentuates this idea (1:12, 18–19). As mentioned in the previous section, it is a way for the author to describe the nature of Jesus Christ’s actions and his purpose. Jesus Christ suffers as a substitute for the believers, even dying for them, taking their place. To all this, the author adds the ethical character of the action; Jesus Christ does it by leaving an example as a result, enduring his suffering with patience.18 This attitude is described as a humble attitude, the purpose of this description is to model the example that believers should follow. Therefore, the author not only wanted to show the salvific meaning of the Passion but also, by addressing the suffering of Jesus Christ, wanted to offer the paradigm of Christian conduct. Consequently, suffering is linked to doing good according to the divine will, where the innocence of the one who suffers is established as a model of action and of renouncing a return to evil (1:18–21; 2:22–25; 3:18–22).

When it is stated that Jesus Christ ‘did not commit sin’ (2:22), he is presented as an innocent victim, a situation comparable to domestic servants and the recipients of the letter. His perseverance in doing good while suffering is due to his trust in God. The exemplary nature of the proposed behavior is further highlighted by the explanation of his actions. The author points out that he adopts this conduct because he has entrusted his cause to the one who judges justly (2:24/Isaiah 50:8); Jesus Christ is the active subject of his surrender. The experience of God is what grants the necessary confidence to recognize his presence even in the midst of suffering, thus allowing oneself to surrender to Him with full trust (2:3, 19).

The letter implies that the sacrifice on the cross is the act that has restored believers to a free communion with their divinity. In other words, the offering of Jesus Christ’s life has been a definitive sacrifice. The bloodshed in the unjust sacrifice of his cross is the high price he paid for the liberation from a life without God (Williams 2011, pp. 95–99). He has saved believers from their previous futile life; thanks to the offering of his life as a sacrificial gift, they have moved from a conduct governed by certain principles to another (1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16).19 This salvific act also grants the gift of grace that believers receive in baptism. This grace that has come upon them is what enables them to do good despite suffering (2:19, 24). In other words, the suffering of Jesus Christ is a source of redemption for believers who, like him, suffer innocently and, in turn, a paradigm of the new way of worshiping God.

The phrase ‘he himself bore our sins’ (2:24) highlights the salvific nature of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for all. The verb ‘bore’ (also in 2:19) has the sense of offering; therefore, this verse does not evoke the offering given for sin but rather presents Jesus Christ as the priest who places sins on the altar of sacrifices, the cross. He bears because he takes on the weight of another, removing the weight from others to carry it himself (Isaiah 53:4a, 5, 11, 12). He is like the pure lamb bearing the people’s guilt to restore life to them, but not just any life, rather a life in righteousness (3:7). The salvific effect of Jesus Christ’s action is that the sin that ruled life has been removed so that they may have a life governed by God, by his grace. From straying sheep, they have come under the guidance of Jesus Christ, the shepherd and guardian who shows the way to follow. Jesus Christ leads back to God, bringing them to the supreme good (Exodus 29:10; Leviticus 1:2). The change that occurs in the Christian according to 1 Peter is radical, since, through Jesus Christ’s action, it becomes possible to abandon evil to do good, and even though one suffers, the change is possible by his grace. The consequence of his atoning death is that all Christians have been healed, rescued, purified, and freed from evil. Finally, it is stated that the wounds received unjustly are healed by the imminent hope that justice will prevail in a context where evil reigns and by the eschatological hope that death and evil do not have the last word.

The Christology developed throughout this exhortation (2:20–25) contains the underlying meaning of the attitude that the author has promoted par excellence, submission understood as sacrifice. Various studies estimate that the Christological motivation accompanying the exhortation to the submission of servants is the heart of the letter. From this central core, the meaning of other theological statements and ethical exhortations extends like concentric circles. This provides context and depth to the subsequent exhortations to submission, those directed at women (3:1) and those intended for the community at the end of the letter (5:5). Submission, therefore, must be understood as a sacrifice because it demands maintaining a humble, respectful, and available attitude and being willing to serve the good, beyond one’s own desires and the suffering this entails. The meaning of such behavior is sustained by the certainty that doing good and persevering in it is divine will. The behavior of Jesus Christ on the cross revealed the way to obey and submit to God’s will. God is presented as the only Lord under whom all, including the emperor, are subordinated (2:13, 17). Therefore, the sacrifice of oneself for the sake of good is possible through the gift of grace that redirects and guides all acts to God.

This theological reaffirmation of God’s place as the only Lord to whom one must subordinate and obey to fulfill His will, combined with the Christological development on the salvific and exemplary effects of Jesus Christ’s Passion, confirms the proposed thesis. The author seeks to re-signify Christian worship and thereby strengthen and encourage his recipients to live their faith and relationship with God in the spaces where they coexist. However, in this association that the author has made between social behavior and worship (submission understood as spiritual sacrifice), he has also introduced a style of subordination (in the manner of Jesus Christ) that redefines the way of understanding the established social order and patriarchal hierarchy.

In the instructions for submission in the public and domestic spheres (2:11–3:8), read from the Christological motivation previously examined, it is possible to appreciate a rethinking of power relations. The emperor and human institutions are subordinated to God, who is recognized as the only Lord and just judge (and His Son, the Shepherd, and the Guardian 2:23, 25). Although the emperor must be honored, this respect is equated to that given to any person without a privileged position (2:13–14.17). In the domestic sphere, non-believing masters and husbands, who are possibly responsible for the suffering of Christian servants and wives, must receive respect and submission, not by virtue of their rank or authority, but as part of a missionary strategy (2:11, 19; 3:1). The author proposes maintaining patriarchal values but encourages that these be lived in an exemplary manner and motivated by faith. This new approach seeks that, by observing the good conduct of Christians, those who do not share their faith may be intrigued by the reasons for their hope and eventually attracted to this new belief (2:12; 4:13).

The analysis of the most relevant Christological motivation in the letter reveals how the author understands spiritual sacrifices. These are considered spiritual because it is divine grace, as a salvific effect of Christ’s Passion, that makes it possible to offer them to God as acceptable offerings. For God, who acts as a just judge, true sacrifice lies in voluntarily submitting to others to do good, even when it involves suffering. The fruit of this spiritual offering is the creation of a sacred space (spiritual house) for the manifestation of God’s presence at the place of sacrifice. For 1 Peter, this spiritual worship not only honors God but also transforms spaces dedicated to other lords into places consecrated to the only Lord.

5. Conclusions

The study of the context in which the letter arises allows us to identify that the central problem the author wants to address is the innocent suffering of Christians, caused by living with people who do not share their faith, especially in instances of imperial worship. Their marginalization from worship spaces and ritual celebrations in public and domestic spheres has led to rejection, verbal persecution, and possibly physical abuse. This cultic context drives the author to reaffirm the essential pillars of Christian identity, particularly highlighting a renewed understanding of the relationship with God in worship, the issue that motivated the crisis with the Gentiles. These pillars focus on the salvific event of Jesus Christ’s Passion and its transformative effects on the lives of the baptized. From this theological framework, the author seeks to reveal to Christians its new identity and the foundation of the behavior to which they have been called: to submit to everyone by doing good in all areas of life, even in the midst of evil and injustice. Baptismal grace, granted by the salvific act of Jesus Christ, enables them to live according to this calling.

Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that the author’s proposal does not advocate for an assimilation of dominant patriarchal values, as some feminist studies indicate, nor those of the imperial cult associated with this order. Rather, it seeks social acceptance of Christians through their exemplary conduct. The author promotes impeccable civic behavior that does not compromise the fundamental beliefs of Christians. This is concretized in maintaining distance from the imperial cult while emphasizing a willing and submissive attitude within the assigned social role of each person (slaves, wives, and husbands alike). In this way, the author’s strategy consists of diverting the attention of those who complain to the good works of Christians with the objective not only of minimizing social tensions and thus gaining approval (4:1–3) but also of attracting them to the faith. This would confirm the missionary character of his purpose (2,12.19; 3,1–2).

Although the suffering of Christians to remain faithful to their faith is inevitable, giving in to social pressures and rejoining the imperial cult would imply a vital inconsistency with the core of their new Christian identity. The author redefines the concept of worship, not only to teach Christians how to express their communion with God, but also to give meaning to the unjust suffering they face in refusing to participate in the imperial cult. This paradox can be lived in different ways: by participating in the cult and assuming the suffering that it implies but re-signifying that experience as a spiritual sacrifice dedicated to their God. Or by refusing to participate in the cult and facing punishment and mistreatment but offering that suffering to God. Instead of providing a definitive answer as to what action to take, the author proposes a general framework of discernment: to do good, making oneself available to others (2:15, 20; 3:6, 11, 17). The expected effect is that each Christian, according to his situation and social role, decides how to do the greatest possible good on each occasion. The impact of these actions does not depend solely on human effort, but on what God works through them (Schultz and Coupeau 2023).

From this theological perspective, the innocent suffering of Christians acquires a transcendent meaning: it is interpreted as a spiritual sacrifice that God receives as an offering. Not because God desires suffering in itself but because the victim gives meaning to his suffering by trusting that God actively intervenes in reality through him. This suffering thus becomes a condition of possibility for the manifestation of the divine presence in places where the God of Jesus Christ is not yet known (2:12; 4:14). In this way Christians become priests, for they not only offer to God the sacrifice they make but also mediate it when, by their exemplary conduct, they build a space for God to reveal his action and his purpose. This sacrifice is not desired by God, but it acquires meaning when it becomes an act that gives rise to unprecedented possibilities for revealing the reasons for Christian hope. Resistance is not expressed through open confrontation but through a strategic fidelity that seeks to transform social perception from within.

The discourse of the letter develops a new way of understanding the presence of God in life when it locates communion with the divinity in the daily space where relationships are established with non-believers. The believer’s experience of God goes beyond the boundaries of the established spaces of worship to become visible and real in new places. The God who reveals himself in these everyday places shows a new face through his believers. Christian conduct is proposed as a mirror of that face and of his justice. Submission and sacrifice are attitudes approved and promoted in the Mediterranean society of the first century, especially to the weaker part. However, the author of 1 Peter brings a change of perspective to promote this behavior. Faced with the hierarchy imposed by the patriarchal organization, the letter promotes a new order, placing God as the only Lord, thereby installing a model of fraternal and servant relationship. In the face of tension, division and rejection by non-believers, it proposes seeking cohesion through admirable conduct that promotes peace and healthy coexistence.

The God who hides himself in oppressors, exploiters, abusers and persecutors, paradoxically, reveals himself in those who stop violence, imposing good and peace through service and humility. The renunciation of self and self-will finds its meaning in putting oneself at the service of a greater good. This ethical conduct, based on submission and sacrifice, becomes relevant when the Christian religion recalls its origins and proposes the search for the common good as the path to social cohesion and the resolution of today’s multiple conflicts. Proposing the good, service and availability to others, despite the sacrifice that this entails, is its way of curbing innocent suffering. The awareness that God is present in these actions is a fact of faith for Christians, but it does not detract from the value of the path that this behavior seeks to open in order to build a society of well-being, welcoming diversity and peace. This re-signification of worship, therefore, is an ethical proposal that reveals and raises unprecedented possibilities for the construction of a permanent social base challenged by difference and intolerance.