The authorship of 1 Peter is a much-debated topic, but is beyond the scope of this paper. I assume that Peter was the author, and write accordingly in this paper.
 See Allen Black and Mark C. Black, 1 & 2 Peter (Joplin, Mo: College Press, 1998), 18-19, Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1996), 33-36, and John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, The Anchor Bible, vol. 37B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 98-100.
 Elliott, 98, lists several proponents of this view, who, as a result of this idea, try to date 1 Peter sometime during the reign of Nero, Domitian, or Trajan. However, as Elliott points out, “…the first worldwide persecution of Christians officially undertaken by Rome did not occur until the persecution initiated by Decius (249-251 CE) in 250 CE.”
 Ibid., 100, lists a host of commentators who share the perspective that the persecutions of 1 Peter were not state-sponsored. Instead, these commentators tend to believe that the persecution came at the hands of the believers’ neighbors and surrounding community who made accusations against them.
 Black, 19.
 Elliott., 98. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 9, concurs with this view: “In general, the specific persecution referred to throughout the book seems limited to verbal slander, malicious talk, and false accusations (1:6; 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16; 4:12, 16).” On the other hand, just because the persecutions of 1 Peter were not state-sponsored does not mean that they were not widespread. David G. Horrell, 1 Peter (New York: T & T Clark Ltd, 2008), 53, arguing from 1 Peter 5:9, states that similar suffering was experienced by Christians throughout the world, making the persecution described in 1 Peter “no local aberration.” Achtemeier, 34, concurs.
 Black, 19.
 The exact nature of the strategy that Peter suggests for daily living in society is a topic of fierce debate. David L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series no. 26 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 81, 87, suggests that Peter was urging his readers to accommodate to the norms of the surrounding Greco-Roman culture in order to reduce the suffering they were experiencing and improve the quality of their lives. Edgar Krentz, “Order in the “House” of God: The Haustafel in 1 Peter 2:11-3:12,” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder, ed. Julian V. Hills et al. (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 285, concurs, saying “Peter urges conduct that will make the nascent Christian community survive, even thrive, in the social structure of the time.” On the other hand, Elliott, 510, argues that such accommodation “endangers exclusive commitment to God, Christ, and the brotherhood and obliterates the distinctive identity and boundaries of the Christian community.” For Elliott, the entire point of 1 Peter is that, rather than conforming to society, Christians are to practice “holy nonconformity” (509). Horrell, 94-95, takes a helpful middle ground between the two extremes of conformity and resistance, stating that Christians should be “willing to be good and obedient citizens as far as possible, but [draw] a clear line of resistance at certain points.”
 Elliott, 484-85, takes the standard viewpoint that 1 Peter 2:11-3:12 should be treated as a unit and states that this passage shifts the focus “from an affirmation of the dignity and favored status of the believing community before God (1:3-2:10) to the conduct of the community in society and its interaction with hostile outsiders. Further, he delineates 2:13-17 as a self-contained unit (485). Krentz, 281-82, offers a helpful summary of different ways in which this section of 1 Peter has been divided, one of which is exemplified by Balch, 125, who believes that there is no shift after 3:12 and that the entire section ranges from 2:11-4:11. Eugene M. Boring, 1 Peter, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 102-03, and Mary H. Schertz, “The Easter Texts of 1 Peter,” Word & World 24 (Fall 2004): 431-32, both support the separation of 2:11-3:12 as a distinct segment, and identify a chiasm contained in those verses which emphasizes the innocent suffering of Christ as an example for all Christians.
 Haustafeln, or “household codes”, were prevalent in the Hellenistic world and contained instructions for living and duties within the domestic setting. Boring, 105-06, states that this section of 1 Peter was likely composed and read in light of the prevalence of such codes, and lists Pauline haustafeln in Eph 5:22-6:9; Col 3:18-4:1; 1 Tim 2-3; 5:1-6:3; and Titus 2:1-10. See also J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 49 (Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1988), 121-23. Other sources which take for granted that 2:11-3:12 is a haustafel include Mary H. Schertz, “Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 258-86, and J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraentic Strategies for Christian Character Formation, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006): 152-56. In opposition to this idea, Elliott, 504-05, rejects the theory that 2:11-3:12 is a haustafel because it “fails to explain the close relation of instruction concerning both civil and domestic duties.” See also Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 156, “…[O]ne is not dealing here with a “Haustafel” in the normal sense.”
 Boring, 106-07.
 The text cited here for 1 Peter 2:13-17 comes from the English Standard Version.
 Greek citations come from the United Bible Society Greek New Testament.
 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1042; KJV, NASB, NIV (2011) “Submit”; NLT “Respect”.
 Achtemeier, 182; Elliott, 486-87; Boring, 108-09; John W. Kleinig, “Ordered Community: Order and Subordination in the New Testament,” Lutheran Theological Journal 39 (August and December 2005): 198-200; Raúl Humberto Lugo Rodríguez, ““Wait for the Day of God’s Coming and Do What You Can to Hasten It…” (2 Peter 3:12): The Non-Pauline Letters as Resistance Literature,” in Subversive Scriptures: Revolutionary Readings of the Christian Bible in Latin America, ed. Leif E. Vaage (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 200-01. Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (July-September 1985): 262, sees a significant difference between submission and subordination: “[Christians] can be insubmissive, but they must not be insubordinate. Even when a believer cannot submit to the law he must be willing to submit to the consequence of that law.”
 Arnold T. Monera, “The Christian’s Relationship to the State according to the New Testament: Conformity or Non-Conformity,” Asia Journal of Theology 19 (April 2005): 121. See also Boring, 108, “What is called for here is not mindless robotic obedience or servile cowering that denies one’s own identity and sense of worth….”
 Elliott, 489, and Achtemeier, 182, both hold “Lord” here to be referring to God as creator, but Michaels, 124, noting that o kυριον ”refers to Jesus quite consistently in 1 Peter,” sees it as a reference to Christ, and that it anticipates the words about Jesus in 1 Peter 2:21-25. Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 99, agrees. Although the argument that κυριον refers to Christ rather than God the Father seems better to me, ultimately, either viewpoint leads to the same conclusion: the subordination commanded to Christians is based on authority from heaven, not from the state.
 This translation is supported by BDAG, 573.
 Black, 71-72. Mark Dubis, 1 Peter : A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2010), 65, “Elsewhere in the NT, κτισiV refers to the world or beings that God has created. Here it is frequently rendered as “institution”… although evidence is lacking for this usage in ancient Greek literature.” Michaels, 124, “[T]he examples immediately introduced—the emperor and the local magistrates—are persons not power structures.” See also Achtemeier, 182; Elliott, 489. On the other hand, Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan, 1955), 172, supports “institution.”
 Elliott, 489, “In contrast to devotees of the imperial cult who render obeisance to the emperor as “Lord and God”…Christians respect the emperor and his representatives only as human creatures….” See also Achtemeier, 182-83; Black, 72. Related to this idea, Elliott, 492-93, Boring, 116, and Davids, 100-01, are representative of many commentators who feel the need to distinguish between Peter’s thoughts on government here and those of Paul in Romans 13.1-7, specifically in the sense that Paul refers to governing authorities as “God’s servants” while Peter makes no such explicit claim. Ultimately, though, 1 Peter 2:13-17 is more like Romans 13:1-7 than it is different. After all, Peter describes human rulers as being tasked to keep societal and moral order, which can be assumed to be what God desires. Is this so very different than Paul calling them “God’s servants” in Romans 13? Black, 70-71, recognizing the similarities between the passages, states that both “should be understood as general truths: on the whole governing authorities are a good thing, and Christians should submit to them.”
 BDAG, 169-70.
 Davids, 101; Black, 72. Michaels, 125, notes that basileuV ”applied both to world monarchs…and to kings and princes of more limited domain,” but that only the emperor would be a basileuV both to Peter in Rome and his scattered audience.
 Elliott, 490.
 Black, 72.
 See Davids, 100, “Since [governors] at times had a direct effect on daily life and since their various evils were often well known, they would be much harder to submit to than the distant unknown Emperor,” and also Michaels, 125, “It is often easier to honor the emperor from a distance than to respect the authority of his local representatives.” This notion is also supported by the biblical account of Pontius Pilate, who would be an example of the type of “governor” mentioned by Peter here.
 Achtemeier, 184.
 Bruce W. Winter, “The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988): 87-103, clearly establishes that it was common practice in Greco-Roman culture to publicly honor the benefactor of a city through public inscriptions. This provided both a reward for the benefactor, and also an incentive for would-be benefactors to do good deeds. Winter’s assertion that Peter is referring to this practice in 1 Peter 2:14 is more tenuous.
 See especially Elliott, 491-92. BDAG, 3, finds some support for αγαθοποιων referring to a benefactor in some extra-biblical materials, but suggests the more general “one who does good” or “is a good citizen” as better alternatives for the meaning in 2:14.
 Jobes, 175-76.
 See also Davids, 100-01.
 Cf. 1 Peter 2:13, “for the Lord’s sake.”
 Davids, 101. Geoffrey Wainwright, “Praying for Kings: The Place of Human Rulers in the Divine Plan of Salvation,” Ex Auditu 2 (1986): 119. Related to the earlier discussion on the persecution suffered by the recipients of 1 Peter, the indication here seems to be that if Christians were accused of wrongdoing and brought before the magistrates, their case would be improved if they had lived in such a way that they were praised for their good deeds. See also Davids, 101; Achetemeier, 185; Elliott, 495.
 Black, 73. Michaels, 128, translates 2:16 as modifying what follows in 2:17, but most commentators including Dubis, 68, and Achtemeier, agree with the explanation presented above. Achtemeier translates 2:16, “…(be subordinate) as free men and women…” to emphasize the connection to 2:13.
 Elliott, 496.
 Black, 73; Michaels, 128.
 Dubis, 68, “The recipients are free with respect to governing authorities, but their freedom has certain bounds determined by the ethical norms of the will of God, to whom they are ultimately subservient.”
 Selwyn, 174, “Christian freedom rests not on escape from service, but on a change of master.”
 Black, 73.
 Jobes, 177, has a more detailed analysis of the opposing viewpoints than is provided here.
 This is the reading found in the NIV. Scot Snyder, “1 Peter 2:17: A Reconsideration,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 4 (November 1991): 211-15, holds to this interpretation, and argues that the first part of the verse should not be rendered “honor everyone,” but rather, “give due honor to everyone,” and then goes on to describe what type of honor is due different groups and individuals in the next three commands (brotherhood, God, emperor).
 Ernst Bammel, “The Commands in I Peter II.17,” New Testament Studies 11 (April 1965): 279-80; Dubis, 69-70; Elliott, 497; Davids, 102-03; Michaels, 130-31; Wainwright, 117.
 If “everyone” is a general term which is then fully explained by the sub-categories of “brotherhood,” “God,” and “emperor,” then 2:17 leaves out the “foolish people” previously discussed in 2:15. What makes more sense is that “everyone” is a general category which covers those left out by the other terms. Literally, everyone is addressed by 2:17.
 Bammel, 280-81; Dubis, 69-70; Elliott, 497; Michaels, 102-03. The chiasm is marked by the repetition of timaw in the first and last clauses, and thus possesses an a-b-b’-a’ structure. Specifically on the last two commands, many commentators suggest that Peter is alluding to Proverbs 24:21 here (“My son, fear the Lord and the king…”), but intentionally changes verbs to emphasize that God alone and not the king is to be feared. See Davids, 103-04; Michaels, 131; Boring, 116; Achtemeier, 188; Feldmeier, 165.
 Warren Carter, “Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13-3.6,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Maria Mayo Robbins (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2004), 14-33, makes the argument that in order to truly “be subordinate” and “honor the emperor,” believers would almost have to take part in imperial cult worship, and that without doing so, it would be impossible for them to be considered good citizens or to earn respect from their neighbors or praise from their rulers. This notion is a minority viewpoint, and seems to completely contradict 1 Peter’s emphasis on the ultimate authority of God. For arguments that the subordination and honor discussed in 2:13-17 was never to be in violation of God’s will, see Achtemeier, 185; Black, 73; Monera, 122-23; Davids, 99. For the specific argument that Christian faith required believers to withdraw from the very activities that Carter suggests they must have continued to participate in, see Boring, 103-04.