1 PETER 2:13–17
“SUBMIT YOURSELVES TO EVERY ORDINANCE OF MAN”
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
— 1 Peter 2:13–17, KJV
These verses have sometimes been used to say:
Christians must obey whatever their government tells them to do.
But is that what Peter actually says?
We need to read carefully.
Peter certainly commands Christians to submit to civil authority. We should not weaken that because we dislike the implications.
But neither does Peter say that government possesses unlimited authority or that obedience to government takes precedence over obedience to God.
Peter himself had already faced exactly that question.
And his answer had been unmistakable:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
— Acts 5:29, KJV
The man who said those words is the same man who wrote:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man…”
So Peter evidently saw no contradiction between the two.
Our task is to understand why.
FIRST, REMEMBER THE CONTEXT
Peter has just told Christians:
“Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles…”
— 2:12
People were accusing Christians of being:
“evildoers.”
Peter's answer was:
Live such good lives that the accusation is contradicted by your conduct.
Then he immediately discusses their relationship to government.
So this section is not an isolated political theory.
It is part of Peter's larger question:
How should Christians live honorably in a society that does not share their faith?
That context matters.
“SUBMIT YOURSELVES”
The Greek verb is hypotassō.
It carries the idea of placing oneself under an ordered arrangement, being subject, or submitting.
Peter uses the same word repeatedly in the following sections.
Citizens and authorities.
Servants and masters.
Wives and husbands.
So submission becomes an important theme.
But we should immediately notice something.
Submission and absolute obedience are not necessarily identical.
A person can recognize an authority's legitimate position without believing that authority has the right to command absolutely anything.
Peter's own life demonstrates that distinction.
“FOR THE LORD'S SAKE”
This may be the most important qualification in the sentence.
Peter does not say:
Submit because the emperor possesses ultimate authority.
He says:
“for the Lord's sake.”
The Christian submits to earthly authority because of allegiance to a higher authority.
That means Christian submission to government is actually part of Christian submission to Christ.
Government is not ultimate.
Christ is.
WHO IS “THE LORD”?
Throughout this section Peter carefully keeps God above human government.
Christians submit:
“for the Lord's sake.”
They do good because:
“so is the will of God.”
They live:
“as the servants of God.”
And finally:
“Fear God. Honour the king.”
The government never occupies God's place.
That distinction runs through the passage.
“EVERY ORDINANCE OF MAN”
The KJV says:
“every ordinance of man.”
The Greek expression is pasē anthrōpinē ktisei.
It is somewhat unusual.
The word ktisis commonly means creation or something created. Here the expression is generally understood in relation to human institutions or established human authority.
The following words explain what Peter has in mind:
“whether it be to the king…”
and:
“unto governors…”
So Peter is talking particularly about civil governmental structures.
He is not saying:
Every rule any human being invents carries divine authority.
“TO THE KING, AS SUPREME”
The word translated “king” is basileus.
In this Roman setting it refers to the emperor as the highest earthly civil ruler.
But notice the qualification:
“as supreme”
means supreme within the governmental order Peter is discussing.
Peter certainly does not mean the emperor is supreme over God.
The rest of the passage makes that impossible.
WHO WAS EMPEROR?
If 1 Peter was written in the early-to-mid 60s, as many have understood it, Nero would have been emperor.
The exact dating of 1 Peter is debated, so we should not build the interpretation entirely on that reconstruction.
But the larger fact is certain:
Peter is not writing about a Christian government.
The Roman Empire was pagan.
The emperor was not a disciple of Jesus.
Yet Peter still tells Christians to recognize legitimate civil authority.
That is important.
Christian submission to government does not depend upon government sharing Christian beliefs.
“OR UNTO GOVERNORS”
Peter moves from the emperor to subordinate officials:
“Or unto governors…”
The Roman world operated through various provincial and local authorities.
Peter's readers across Asia Minor would have encountered governmental authority at different levels.
Peter's point is practical.
Christian conduct should not be characterized by lawlessness simply because Christians confess another King.
“FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVILDOERS”
Peter describes one legitimate function of government:
“the punishment of evildoers…”
Government has a role in restraining wrongdoing.
Paul makes a similar argument in Romans 13.
Civil authority exists, in part, to maintain public order and deal with wrongdoing.
Peter does not describe government as the source of morality.
God determines good and evil.
But government has a legitimate role in dealing with public wrongdoing.
“AND FOR THE PRAISE OF THEM THAT DO WELL”
The second function Peter names is:
“the praise of them that do well.”
Ideally, government punishes wrongdoing and recognizes good conduct.
Of course governments do not always perform those functions correctly.
Peter knew that.
Jesus had been executed under Roman authority.
Peter himself had been arrested.
The apostles had been threatened.
Yet Peter can still recognize the legitimate purpose of civil authority even when particular authorities fail to fulfill it properly.
That distinction is important.
An institution can have a legitimate purpose while particular officials misuse their authority.
WHAT IF GOVERNMENT CALLS GOOD EVIL?
Peter's own experience answers that question.
Authorities once commanded Peter and John:
“not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.”
— Acts 4:18, KJV
Peter and John answered:
“Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.”
— Acts 4:19, KJV
Then:
“For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
— Acts 4:20, KJV
Later they were ordered again not to teach.
Peter answered:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
— Acts 5:29, KJV
That is not rebellion against government for personal convenience.
It is recognition of a higher authority.
PETER ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCES
This is also important.
Peter did not say:
Because the government commanded something contrary to God, government no longer has any authority over me whatsoever.
He disobeyed the specific command that contradicted God's command.
And he accepted the consequences.
That gives us a useful distinction.
Christian civil disobedience is not:
I don't like this law, so I don't have to obey it.
The issue is:
Has human authority required me to disobey God?
If so:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
DANIEL PROVIDES AN EARLIER EXAMPLE
This principle did not begin with Peter.
Nebuchadnezzar commanded everyone to worship the golden image.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused.
Their response was respectful but firm:
“we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
— Daniel 3:18, KJV
Later Daniel continued praying to God despite a royal decree forbidding it.
He did not stop respecting governmental authority in every other matter.
But when government claimed authority over obedience owed to God, Daniel obeyed God.
The biblical pattern is remarkably consistent.
JESUS HIMSELF MADE A DISTINCTION
When asked about paying tribute, Jesus said:
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”
— Matthew 22:21, KJV
That statement recognizes Caesar's legitimate sphere.
But it also limits Caesar.
Some things belong to Caesar.
Everything ultimately belongs to God.
Caesar is not God.
That distinction becomes crucial whenever government demands what belongs exclusively to God.
“FOR SO IS THE WILL OF GOD”
Peter now explains why Christians should do good:
“For so is the will of God…”
We sometimes wonder:
What is God's will for my life?
Peter gives at least one very straightforward answer:
Do good.
Christianity does not require discovering a mysterious individual plan before we can obey God.
Much of God's will is already revealed.
Do good.
Live honorably.
Love others.
Honor legitimate authority.
Remain faithful to God.
“THAT WITH WELL DOING”
Peter again returns to doing good.
This expression appears repeatedly in the letter.
The answer to false accusations is not primarily:
Complain louder than the accusers.
Peter says:
“with well doing…”
Let conduct answer the accusation.
That does not mean Christians may never verbally defend themselves.
Peter later says they should be ready to give an answer.
But conduct gives credibility to the answer.
“PUT TO SILENCE”
Peter says good conduct can:
“put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.”
The Greek verb can carry the vivid idea of muzzling.
Their accusations are answered by observable Christian conduct.
Someone says:
Christians are dangerous people.
But neighbors see Christians doing good.
Someone says:
Christians are dishonest.
But their business dealings are honest.
Someone says:
Christians are troublemakers.
But they see peaceful, honorable lives.
The accusation begins to lose credibility.
“THE IGNORANCE OF FOOLISH MEN”
Peter is not simply calling everyone outside Christianity stupid.
The biblical idea of foolishness is often moral and spiritual rather than intellectual.
A person can be highly educated and still speak ignorantly about something he does not understand.
Peter's response is not contempt.
It is:
Do good.
That is worth noticing.
“AS FREE”
Now Peter introduces an apparent paradox.
Christians are:
“free”
yet:
“servants of God.”
How can they be both?
Because Christian freedom is not freedom from God.
It is freedom for God.
They have been redeemed from the old futile life.
They are no longer slaves to former desires.
Their deepest allegiance does not belong to Rome.
They belong to God.
That is what makes them truly free.
FREEDOM CAN BE ABUSED
Peter immediately warns:
“not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness…”
The KJV's “cloke” means a covering.
In other words:
Do not use Christian freedom to hide wrongdoing.
We can imagine the argument:
Christ is my King, so human laws don't matter.
Peter rejects that.
Or:
I am free in Christ, so nobody can tell me what to do.
Peter rejects that too.
Christian freedom is not an excuse for selfishness or lawlessness.
“BUT AS THE SERVANTS OF GOD”
Here is Peter's paradox:
FREE
yet
SERVANTS.
The Greek word is douloi—servants or slaves.
They are free from ultimate human domination precisely because they belong completely to God.
No emperor owns their conscience.
No governor owns their faith.
No human authority possesses their ultimate allegiance.
They belong to God.
And because they belong to God, they can willingly submit to legitimate human authority for the Lord's sake.
THEN COME FOUR SHORT COMMANDS
Verse 17 may be one of the most carefully balanced political statements in the New Testament:
“Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”
Look carefully at the verbs.
1. “HONOUR ALL MEN”
Every human being deserves honor.
Why?
Because human dignity is not restricted to:
the rich,
the powerful,
our friends,
our fellow Christians,
or people who agree with us.
Peter begins broadly:
“Honour all men.”
That includes people with whom Christians disagree.
Christian conviction is not permission for contempt.
2. “LOVE THE BROTHERHOOD”
Peter changes the verb:
“Love the brotherhood.”
There is a special family relationship among God's people.
Peter has already commanded:
“love one another with a pure heart fervently.”
The church is not merely an organization.
It is a family.
3. “FEAR GOD”
Now Peter uses a stronger word:
“Fear God.”
Remember 1:17:
“pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.”
Reverence, awe, ultimate accountability—these belong to God.
Then comes the final command.
4. “HONOUR THE KING”
Peter does not say:
Fear the king.
He says:
“Honour the king.”
That difference matters.
Compare:
ALL PEOPLE — honor
BROTHERHOOD — love
GOD — fear
KING — honor
The king receives the same basic verb of honor that Peter has already extended to all people.
God alone receives fear in this four-part statement.
Peter recognizes governmental authority without turning government into God.
THE EMPEROR IS PUT IN HIS PLACE
In the Roman world, emperors could receive extraordinary honor, and emperor worship became an important feature of imperial life in various places and periods.
Peter's little sentence quietly establishes the Christian order:
“Fear God. Honour the king.”
Respect the ruler.
But worship does not belong to him.
Ultimate allegiance does not belong to him.
Fear God.
The emperor remains a human being.
THIS EXPLAINS CHRISTIAN SUBMISSION
Christian submission to government is therefore neither:
absolute obedience
nor
automatic rebellion.
Peter gives us a more difficult path.
Christians should:
respect legitimate authority,
obey laws,
do good,
live honorably,
avoid using freedom as an excuse for wrongdoing,
and honor rulers.
But when human authority commands what God forbids—or forbids what God commands—the Christian's ultimate allegiance is already settled:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
WHAT ABOUT UNJUST GOVERNMENTS?
Peter's readers were not living under an ideal government.
That makes this passage more challenging.
Peter does not say:
Submit only when government deserves it.
His reason is:
“for the Lord's sake.”
But neither does he say:
Call evil good when government does it.
Peter himself refused governmental commands that contradicted God's will.
So Christians must distinguish between:
submission to authority
and
moral approval of everything authority does.
They are not the same thing.
DOES THIS PASSAGE ANSWER EVERY QUESTION ABOUT GOVERNMENT?
No.
Peter does not discuss:
elections,
constitutional government,
representative democracy,
protests,
court challenges,
military service,
tax policy,
civil lawsuits,
or the many other political questions Christians face in different societies.
Those questions require broader biblical and ethical reasoning.
We should not make five verses answer questions Peter was not addressing.
What Peter gives us is a foundation:
God is supreme.
Government has legitimate authority.
Christians normally submit to that authority.
Christians should do good.
Christian freedom is not permission for evil.
Government deserves honor.
God alone receives ultimate allegiance.
A CHRISTIAN'S FIRST POLITICAL QUESTION
Peter's first concern is not:
How much power can I gain?
It is:
How can my conduct honor God?
That is consistent with the whole section.
Peter is writing to people who possess little political power.
His strategy is not:
Take control of Rome.
It is:
Live such good lives that false accusations are exposed for what they are.
Peter's immediate emphasis is Christian witness, not political domination.
TEXT BEFORE TRADITION
This passage can be distorted in two opposite directions.
One person may say:
Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 mean Christians must obey government no matter what.
But Peter himself disobeyed authorities when they commanded him to stop preaching Christ.
Another may say:
Christ is King, so Christians owe nothing to earthly government.
Peter rejects that too:
“Submit yourselves…”
and:
“Honour the king.”
So we should resist forcing Peter into either extreme.
The text gives us both truths:
SUBMIT TO HUMAN AUTHORITY FOR THE LORD'S SAKE.
and
FEAR GOD ABOVE HUMAN AUTHORITY.
The balance is not accidental.
It is Peter's theology.
QUESTIONS WORTH THINKING ABOUT
Why does Peter say Christians submit to government “for the Lord's sake”?
Is submission necessarily identical to absolute obedience?
How do Acts 4:18–20 and Acts 5:29 help us understand what Peter means?
What legitimate functions of government does Peter identify in verse 14?
What should Christians do when government fails to distinguish properly between good and evil?
What does Peter mean when he calls Christians “free” and immediately calls them “servants of God”?
How can religious liberty become a “cloke” for selfishness or wrongdoing?
Why does Peter say “Fear God” but only “Honour the king”?
Are there times when we have confused respect for government with approval of everything government does?
Are there also times when disagreement with government has become an excuse for disrespect, when Peter still says “Honour the king”?
When human authority and God's command genuinely conflict, what does Peter's own example tell us to do?
NEXT DEEPER STUDY
1 PETER 2:18–20 — SERVANTS, MASTERS, AND UNJUST SUFFERING
This is a passage we must handle with particular care.
Peter tells household servants:
“be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.”
For centuries passages like this have sometimes been used to defend slavery or to tell mistreated people simply to endure abuse.
But what kind of servants was Peter addressing?
Was Peter approving slavery, or speaking to Christians already trapped within a Roman social system?
And does submitting to an unjust master mean that Christians today must remain silently in dangerous or abusive situations?
We need to distinguish very carefully between what Peter tells suffering Christians to do within their circumstancesand whether Peter is declaring the unjust circumstances themselves to be good.
Return to HOME page
Return to PETER page