Introduction Within the Gospel tradition, the apostle Peter is without question the most prominent of the twelve disciples of Jesus. In every listing of the disciples of Jesus, Peter occupies the first place (Mark 3:13-19; Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16). He is the first disciple to make the confession to Jesus that “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29). He is one of the “innermost three” disciples of Jesus (Peter, James, and John) who were allowed to accompany Jesus to the Mount of Transfiguration, and whom Jesus specifically asked to pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane. In the resurrection accounts of Jesus, Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to Peter first out of all the disciples (1 Cor 15:5), and Mark records that the angels told the women at the empty tomb to report the resurrection to “his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). After observing the prominent role that Peter plays in the Gospel narratives, one would expect any letters associated with Peter to play an equally significant role among the New Testament canonical writings. But this has not been the case. After reviewing Petrine studies in the last half century, John Elliott observes a “disconcerting pattern of benign neglect” (Elliott 1976, 243) of the epistles of Peter. The causes of such neglect can be attributed to a factor as simple as the relative brevity of the two epistles of Peter or to a factor as complex as the biased perception that 1 and 2 Peter do not measure up to the greater theological and literary standards of the larger Pauline epistles. This inattentiveness is very unfortunate because 1 Peter is a writing of significant theology and pastoral care. Wherever the church has undergone suffering, 1 Peter has proven itself to be extremely relevant. Admittedly, the topic of suffering is not usually a very popular or attractive theme. But if Jesus and Paul are correct, the church will suffer. When that time comes, 1 Peter stands as a source of great comfort and guidance. Authorship The authorship of 1 Peter is attested in the first verse of the epistle as being written by “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” The reference in 2 Peter 3:1 that “this is now my second letter to you” would seem to reinforce the Petrine authorship of 1 Peter, especially since there is no evidence of any other epistle associated with the apostle Peter. From the earliest times the ancient church has given strong attestation to Peter’s authorship of the First Epistle. Irenaeus (c. 140-202) was the first writer to quote passages from 1 Peter and identify Peter explicitly as the author. Likewise, Tertullian (c. 155-225) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) cited passages frequently from 1 Peter and noted specifically that Peter was the author. Various scholars have observed, however, that there are “numerous certain echoes” of 1 Peter in even earlier writings, such as 1 Clement (c. 96), Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (c. 120-140), and Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) (Elliott 1992, 269). Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340) sums up the majority viewpoint of the early church in his Ecclesiastical History when he writes, “Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early Fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings” (Bray 2000, xvii). Thus, the internal and external evidence in support of Petrine authorship is very strong, and from the earliest times of the Christian faith up until recent times, the apostle Peter has been identified almost without question as the author of 1 Peter. Despite the strong internal and external evidence supporting Petrine authorship, many modern scholars refute the idea that Peter is the actual author of 1 Peter. The grounds for this refutation gravitate towards five basic objections. 1. Lack of familiarity with Jesus. The letter does not demonstrate a familiarity with the earthly Jesus or his teachings such as could be expected from a close disciple like Peter. 2. Theological development. The theological development of the letter seems to indicate a post-apostolic time period. 3. The Greek is too good. The Greek of 1 Peter is too refined and elegant to have been written by a Galilean fisherman such as Peter. 4. Too much dependence on Paul. The letter reflects too much dependence upon Pauline language and thought to have been derived from Peter. 5. Time period after Peter’s death. 1 Peter addresses a situation in the church that is depictive of a time period after Peter’s death (Lohse 1991, 133). The fact that many pseudonymous writings were created during the Intertestamental period, and most of these falsely ascribed writings were credited to well-known individuals, such as the apostle Peter, only adds fuel to the Petrine authorship controversy. Writings such as the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the so-called Letter of Peter to Philip have all been proven to be pseudonymous writings that were only attributed to Peter as a token of honor and respect to his legacy. Basing their arguments on these five objections, many scholars contend that 1 and 2 Peter should be added to this same list of Deutero-Petrine writings. The objections to Petrine authorship of 1 Peter cannot be taken lightly. And yet none of the objections provides indisputable evidence that Peter was not the author. A rebuttal can be given to each objection. 1. Lack of familiarity with Jesus The first objection pertains to the writer’s apparent lack of familiarity with the earthly life and teaching of Jesus. This objection is very subjective in the sense that it presupposes that some kind of artificial standard has been established as to how many references a letter must make to the earthly Jesus in order for it to qualify as an authentic writing of Peter. In fact, the letter does contain various allusions to sayings and teachings of Jesus, but these passages are applied specifically to the situation of the readers. Ironically, many of the same scholars who deny the Petrine authorship of 1 Peter because of the lack of familiarity with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus also deny the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter because it demonstrates too much familiarity with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus. This objection is too subjective to be compelling. Moreover, as Harrison aptly points out, “the purpose behind the writing of the epistle was not to comment on the life and teaching of Christ, but to encourage believers in the midst of trial and suffering” (1964, 383). With this purpose in mind, Peter’s reflection upon his personal experiences with Jesus would be subordinated to his greater concern for the welfare and encouragement of his struggling readers. First Peter was written to provide comfort and guidance to a church that was struggling with persecution; it was not written to provide personal anecdotes and information about the life of Jesus. [Begin sidebar] Reflections of Jesus’ teaching in 1 Peter Contrast between perishable things of earth and imperishable things in heaven 1 Peter 1:4 Luke 12:33 Blessing and happiness to the one who does not see and yet believes in Christ 1 Peter 1:8 John 20:29 Christian experience described as new birth 1 Peter 1:3; 2:2 John 3:3, 7 Belief in God through Christ 1 Peter 1:21 John 14:1, 6 Command to love one another 1 Peter 1:22 John 13:34f; 15:12 Jesus identified as the rejected stone that becomes the capstone 1 Peter 2:4, 7 Mark 12:10; Matt 21:42 Call to live exemplary lives before other people in order to cause praise to God 1 Peter 2:12 Matthew 5:16 Live as free persons without giving cause for offense 1 Peter 2:13-17 Matthew 17:26f Jesus is the shepherd and his followers are his sheep 1 Peter 2:25; 5:2, 4 John 10:11, 14 Blessing comes to those who suffer for doing what is right 1 Peter 3:14 Matthew 5:10 Be sober and watchful in the last days 1 Peter 5:8f Mark 14:38; Matt 26:40 (Gundry 1967, 337-344) [End sidebar] 2. Theological development The second objection focuses upon the theological development of 1 Peter. Lohse observes that the letter is characterized by “traditional material”, such as hortatory, confessional, and poetic (hymn) material, instead of biographical or anecdotal material from the life and teaching of Jesus (133). It has also been noted that 1 Peter displays more affinity with the letters Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, which many scholars believe to have been written by followers of Paul, than with the “authentic” Pauline letters (see Brox 1993, 51). This affinity with the so-called Deutero-Pauline letters and their theological development provides evidence for some scholars that 1 Peter must have been written in a post-Petrine time period. Once again, the weakness of this argument is its subjective nature. Not only is there no consensus among scholars that Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals are Deutero-Pauline, but one must also remember that “the way that doctrine developed in the first century and a half of the church’s existence [is] in large measure conjectural...” (Bartlett 1998, 230). The attempt to deny Petrine authorship on the basis of such conjecture is hardly convincing. This is especially true when the writings of Peter are scrutinized by a “Pauline model” for theological development. Since Paul is the most prolific epistolary writer in the New Testament, every other epistle is inevitably compared and assessed against the Pauline theological model. This can be observed in Bartlett’s commentary on 1 Peter. For instance, after asserting that 1 Peter presupposes conditions that seem to be later than the time of the apostle, Bartlett observes that in the theology of 1 Peter “the Gentile/Jewish controversies so central to Paul seem to have faded to the background” (Bartlett 1998 230). The assumption of Bartlett (and others) that Peter and Paul’s theology, controversies, and concerns will be the same is unfounded. In the case of the “Gentile/Jewish controversy” that Bartlett mentions, the confrontation that Paul describes in Galatians 2:11f between Peter and himself seems to testify to the fact that Peter viewed this ethnic tension in a strikingly different way than Paul. It would seem rather obvious that the development of the theological thinking of Peter and Paul was occurring at different rates. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to judge the theological development and themes of Peter on the basis of the evidence of Paul. There is simply too much subjectivity and conjecture involved for this objection to be convincing. 3. The Greek is too good The third objection posits that the polished Greek grammar and style of 1 Peter could not have been produced by a Galilean fisherman like Peter. This objection seems to be heightened by the observation of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:13 that Peter and John were “unschooled, ordinary men.” While a few scholars have maintained that the Greek word for “unschooled” indicates that Peter and John were actually uneducated and illiterate (see Beare 1970, 47), most scholars agree that this term “indicates no more than that Peter and John were unversed in rabbinic lore” (Martin 1978, 332). In other words, the members of the Sanhedrin were surprised that Peter and John were able to speak so eloquently despite the fact that they had undergone no formal rabbinic training. The Sanhedrin says nothing about Peter and John’s cultural background or linguistic expertise. The perspective that a Galilean like Peter could not be expected to be conversant and even skilled in the Greek language has been sharply challenged in more recent times. Gundry observes that “scholars have always recognized that Galilean Jews, farther removed from the center of Judaism, closer to gentile areas like the Decapolis, and located on the Via Maris trade route, were more Hellenized than Judean Jews” (1964, 406-407). However, according to Gundry, archaeological evidence provides strong proof that the Greek language was highly influential throughout all of Palestine in the first century, not just Galilee. “Proof now exists that all three languages in question—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—were commonly used by Jews in first century Palestine” (Gundry 1964, 405). Argyle concurs with this observation. After outlining several striking instances in which he demonstrates that the Greek language has been transcribed into the Hebrew language of the first century, Argyle (1974, 88) writes, “To suggest that a Jewish boy growing up in Galilee would not know Greek would be rather like suggesting that a Welsh boy brought up in Cardiff would not know English.” He goes on to observe, “There is greater readiness now than there was formerly to admit that Jesus and his disciples, all of whom were Galileans (Acts 2:7), were bilingual, speaking Greek as well as Aramaic” (1974, 89). Thus, the notion that Peter would be incapable of composing the kind of Greek that is found in 1 Peter is based upon an unsubstantiated assumption. The suggestion has also been made that, even if Peter’s deficiency in the Greek language could be proven, the polished Greek language and style of the letter could be accounted for by the use of an amanuensis. Peter notes in 5:12 that he has written the letter “with the help of Silas” (literally, “through Silas”). Although some have argued that this verse only identifies Silas as the deliverer of the letter, it seems more likely that this reference to Silas identifies him as the amanuensis who actually penned the letter on Peter’s behalf. It is notable that Silas is mentioned by Paul as a co-author of both of his letters to the Thessalonians, although there is no indication of the level of his involvement in the writing of these letters. The reference in 5:12 makes it clear that Silas played the role of scribe in the composition of the letter, but the tone of the letter itself points more strongly towards Peter’s dictation of the letter to Silas than to Silas’ own composition of the letter (cf. Guthrie 1970, 781). While it is possible that Peter’s usage of an amanuensis may explain the language and style of this letter, there is no compelling reason to deny the language and style of this letter to Peter himself. Due to the strong evidence of the far-reaching usage of the Greek language in Palestine among the Jewish people, “the linguistic argument can no longer be used with confidence” against Petrine authorship (Argyle 1974, 89).
4. Too much dependence on Paul. The fourth objection posits that 1 Peter is too dependent upon the language and thought of Paul’s writings for it to be an authentic creation of the apostle Peter. This is especially true because of a supposed dependence of 1 Peter on Romans and Ephesians. When one eliminates the rather artificial similarities that are due to the quotation of similar OT passages, the similarity with Romans is most evident in 1 Peter 2:13-17, where the Christian’s responsibility to the state is discussed (Rom 13:1-7), and the similarity with Ephesians is limited to several doxological and liturgical formulas (cf. Achtemeier 1996, 16-17). When the passages of supposed dependence are examined more carefully, the conclusion of van Unnik (1954, 93) that the relationship between Peter’s and Paul’s writings is “not one of dependence but of parallelism” becomes very compelling. As a result, the theory of Petrine dependence upon Pauline thought, even though it once enjoyed scholarly consensus, no longer can be portrayed as the majority view. In recent times, most scholars tend to attribute the similarities between 1 Peter and the Pauline writings to “a shared tradition working independently on the two writers” (Kelly 1969, 14). As recipients of a common Christian tradition, both Peter and Paul applied the teachings of this tradition to their specific audiences in similar, yet distinctive, ways. Thus, the alleged dependence upon Pauline writings is not convincing evidence against the Petrine authorship of 1 Peter. 5. Time period after Peter’s death. The fifth objection is based upon the assumption that the references to suffering and persecution in 1 Peter reflect an official persecution of Christians that extended throughout the Roman Empire. Accordingly, Beare (1961, 14-15) argues that the reference to “criminal” in 4:15 (namely, if you suffer [because of the name of Christ, 4:14], it should not be as...any other kind of criminal) indicates that this letter was written at a time when being a Christian was considered to be a crime. The earliest period at which Christianity was considered to be a crime throughout the Roman Empire was during the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117). Thus, the situation described in 1 Peter represents a time period considerably later than the time of Peter’s death, which is dated by most scholars around AD 64. The assumption that 1 Peter describes a time of official governmental persecution of Christianity is hardly justified by the text of the letter itself. If Christianity was facing the kind of Empire-wide persecution that is often suggested, it is very difficult to explain why the author would call his readers to be submissive to the government (2:13-14) and to “honor the king” (2:17). Moreover, the language that is used to depict the kind of persecution that the believers are facing in 1 Peter runs parallel with the language of persecution that is found in other New Testament writings, as Moule (1956, 9) has vividly demonstrated. It is more likely that the persecution in view in 1 Peter was “privately and locally inspired, rather than due to official governmental policy” (Hiebert 1984c, 8). From the first spread of the gospel there had been hostility and even violent opposition in various places against the heralds of the Christian message. This kind of persecution would not be unusual for the believers in Asia Minor who are addressed in this letter. This persecution, which is described in 1:6 as “grief in all kinds of trials,” could range from “insults” (2:23; 4:14), to malicious speech (3:16), and perhaps even to death itself (3:17-18). Nonetheless, there is nothing about the depiction of the persecution in 1 Peter that precludes a situation reflective of Peter’s own life time. Despite the objections against Petrine authorship, it is the viewpoint of this commentary that the traditional position of Petrine authorship enjoys the most compelling weight. There is no indisputable evidence that Peter could not have written the letter. As Michaels observes, “The traditional view that the living Peter was personally responsible for the letter as it stands has not been, and probably in the nature of the case cannot be, decisively shaken” (1988, lxvi-lxvii). The case for Petrine authorship is about as strong as a person could expect for an ancient writing. The objections notwithstanding, this letter can be regarded as an authentic writing of the apostle Peter himself. Audience The intended recipients of First Peter are explicitly identified in 1:1 as believers who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythnia. All of these regions are located in an area usually referred to as Asia Minor. Peter’s letter to these regions obviously presupposes a Christian existence. And yet the details of the evangelization of these five areas remain highly speculative. Three of the regions—Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia—are mentioned in Acts 2:9 as being represented in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost. Thus, it is often surmised that the gospel of Jesus Christ may have been preached in these regions by believers who returned from Jerusalem after Pentecost. Asia, with Ephesus as its capital city, was widely evangelized by Paul in his missionary journeys. As a result, Asia appears to have been an early and important location of Christian missionary activity. Aside from the mention of Paul’s deterred intention to evangelize Bithynia in Acts 16, the New Testament omits any reference to any missionary activity in Bithynia. Thus, one can only speculate as to who brought the Christian message to Bithynia, and when it happened. As little as is known about the evangelization of these regions, even less is known about Peter’s connection to them. Early Christian tradition does not trace the locations or the extent of Peter’s travels. Eusebius notes in his History of the Church (3.1) that Peter “seems to have preached” in these five regions, but his reference is probably an allusion to 1 Peter itself instead of a journey through these regions. From Paul’s letter to the Galatians (cf. Gal 2:8, 11-14), it is apparent that many of the believers in Asia Minor were familiar with Peter. But it is impossible to know if they knew Peter through personal contact or through reputation only. Kelly (1969, 41) observes that 1 Peter’s apparent familiarity with the readers “has been used as an argument against Petrine authorship, but not much can be built upon it since the knowledge is not circumstantial, and in any case we are almost wholly in the dark about Peter’s movements.” The surprising order in which the regions are named has attracted a good bit of attention from various scholars. The most surprising element is caused by the separation of Pontus and Bithynia as the first and last regions listed. Pontus and Bithynia were recognized as a single Roman province since 64 BC. Thus, either the author was ignorant of the geographical regions of Asia Minor (see Brox 1979, 25-26) or some other consideration regulated the listing of the regions. The majority of scholars have essentially conceded to F.J.A. Hort’s suggestion (1898, 157-184; cf. Hemer 1978, 239) that the order of the five names was determined by the anticipated route of travel by the bearer of the letter. If this is the case, then the letter bearer probably began his mission in Pontus (either in the port city of Sinope, according to Hort, or in the port city of Amisus, according to Hemer), and he visited a circle of churches which would take him back to Bithynia, not far from where he began. There is strong evidence that this course was a well-known route of travel in this period, since Josephus (Antiquities, 16.21-23) records that Herod the Great followed part of this route in 14 BC with Marcus Agrippa. With few exceptions, the early church Fathers believed that Peter wrote his first letter to Jewish Christians (Bray 2000, 65). The idea that the audience was primarily Jewish was shared by many subsequent scholars, including Calvin and Wesley. Some of the language of the letter carries a very strong Jewish coloring, not the least of which is the opening description of the readers as part of the Diaspora (1:1). Other factors that seem to point to a Jewish audience include the prevalent usage of Old Testament quotations throughout the letter and the application of Old Testament descriptions to the audience that are otherwise used exclusively for the Jewish people (2:9). In addition, it would seem to be more natural for Peter to write to a Jewish audience since he is described in the New Testament as “an apostle to the Jews” (Gal 2:8). Despite these indicators, it seems much more probable that the original audience of First Peter consisted predominantly of Gentiles. Although Peter is identified as an apostle to the Jews, this is not a designation that should be taken too strictly, since Paul, who was likewise identified as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Gal 2:8), often preached in the Jewish synagogues (e.g., Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:1, etc.). Moreover, Peter’s description of his readers with terminology that was formerly used exclusively for the Jews can easily be explained as an indication that Peter understood these terms to be spiritually fulfilled in the Church. The strongest evidence in favor of a predominantly Gentile audience is provided by various statements in the letter that seem to be irreconcilable with a Jewish audience. Hiebert summarizes these statements very proficiently: The recipients are described as those who had been called “out of darkness into his marvelous light” (2:9), who once “were no people, but now are the people of God” (2:10). Their life before their conversion was described as “the time of your ignorance” (1:14), but as believers they had been redeemed from their “vain manner of life handed down from your fathers” (1:18). They were warned against heathen practices from which they had been delivered (4:3-4). If they had been Jews, their pagan neighbors would not have thought it “strange” that they no longer indulged in those pagan sins (4:4). The women are spoken of as having become daughters of Sarah (3:6) through conversion. Such statements clearly refer to Gentile Christians whom Peter considered strangers in an alien environment. (1984c, 16) While there were perhaps some Jewish people represented in the congregations to which Peter is writing (cf. Grudem 1988, 38; Kelly 1969, 4), it is virtually certain that the letter is addressed to a predominantly Gentile audience. Place and Date The greetings in 5:13 point to Babylon as the location from which the letter is written. There are three possibilities as to the meaning and location of this “Babylon.” Some scholars argue that this is a reference to a city by that name in Egypt which housed a Roman colony (Klijn 1967, 157-158). Despite a Coptic tradition that Peter wrote his letter from Egypt, there is no record of any Christian influence there in the first century, and it is highly improbable that Peter would not have distinguished this little known city from the more famous Babylon in Mesopotamia. A second possibility is that 5:13 contains a reference to Mesopotamian Babylon. The problem with this suggestion is the fact that by the time of the first century this Babylon had become a small and obscure place. Strabo (died AD 19) wrote, “The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say...‘The Great City is a great desert’” (Geography 16.1.5; cited by Grudem 1988, 33). In addition, there is no mention of any Christian activity in Mesopotamian Babylon in early church history. The third and most probable suggestion is that “Babylon” is a figurative reference to Rome. Rome was often identified with Babylon in both Christian tradition (Rev 14:8; 17:5, 18; 18:2) and in Jewish tradition (Sib. Or. 5:143, 159; 2 Bar. 11:1; 67:7). Although it is somewhat difficult to explain why Peter would use such a cryptic description of Rome as “Babylon” in his letter, Cullmann asserts that a “typological use of geographical names” was fairly common in ancient Christian literature (1953, 83). Thus, it is most likely that the reference to Babylon is a metaphorical reference to Rome. Van der Heeren concedes the identification of Babylon with Rome, noting that “indeed, no other metaphor could so well describe the city of Rome, rich and luxurious as it was, and given over to the worship of false gods and every species of immorality. Both cities had caused trouble to the people of God, Babylon to the Jews, and Rome to the Christians” (1911, 753). As such, the name “Babylon” would be a very fitting pseudonym for Rome. The date of 1 Peter is irrevocably dependent upon the question of authorship. The discussion also revolves around the question of the kind of persecution that is alluded to in the letter. Those who deny Petrine authorship tend to date this letter during the time of Domitian (AD 81-96) or the time of Trajan (AD 98-117), for whom there is evidence that Christians experienced persecution during their reigns. However, there is no indication that the kind of persecution that Peter describes in this letter could not have transpired during the reign of Nero, under whom Christian tradition tells us that Peter himself was eventually martyred (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1.2-3). Under the assumption that Peter himself is the author of this epistle, the conclusion of this commentary is that 1 Peter was most probably written from Rome sometime before Nero’s persecution of the Christians began. This places the writing of 1 Peter sometime in AD 62-64. Genre and Unity of the Letter The format of 1 Peter has the obvious appearance of an epistle in the style of the letters of Paul. Accordingly, 1 Peter contains an opening salutation whereby the author and audience are identified (1:1-2), a greeting (1:2b), a thanksgiving (1:3), the body of the letter (1:3b-5:11), personal greetings (5:12-14), and a benediction (5:14b). Nonetheless, a variety of studies have suggested that 1 Peter can perhaps be understood better under a different form of genre. Two of the more popular suggestions attempt to connect the genre of 1 Peter to sermonic material or to a baptismal liturgy (cf. Martin 1978, 336-344). While these suggestions have proven to be interesting and enlightening, they have failed to be convincing. There certainly appears to be evidence that 1 Peter includes a number of traditional themes and forms (cf. Davids 1990, 11-14), but Peter freely adapts them to fit the purpose and situation of his readers. The genre of 1 Peter, then, is best described as an epistle that was intended to be circulated among various churches in Asia Minor. The question has also been raised as to whether 1 Peter represents a single document or a composite of two earlier documents. The impetus for this inquiry is found in the noticeable break that seems to appear between 4:11 and 4:12. The appearance of a doxology at the end of 4:11 and the intensified discussion of current suffering in 4:12-19 have caused some scholars to assert that 1 Peter consists of two earlier writings represented by 1:3-4:11 and 4:12-5:11. However, the appearance of a doxology does not necessarily mark the conclusion of a letter, as the doxology in Romans 11:33-36 and Ephesians 3:20-21 demonstrate. Furthermore, while the references to suffering are more specific in 4:12-19 than they were in earlier sections of the letter, the same theme of sharing in the suffering of Christ binds the content of the letter closely together as a whole. As a result, 1 Peter should be regarded as a single, unified letter. Purpose of the Letter The purpose of 1 Peter is expressed rather succinctly in 5:12, where Peter writes, “I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God.” On the basis of this passage 1 Peter can be understood to have the twofold purpose of exhorting the readers and of testifying to the truth of which they have been taught. The hortatory element of 1 Peter is one of its most prominent features. This is especially evident in the large number of imperatives that are employed in the letter. First Peter was not written to expound upon theological truths or doctrines. Rather, it was written to encourage believers to remain faithful and courageous in the midst of persecution and suffering for the sake of Christ. Secondly, Peter wrote this letter to assure his readers that, despite the opposition and persecution that their faith in Christ has induced, they are fundamentally right in their faith and in their Christlike behavior. Peter testifies to them clearly that Christ is the ultimate litmus test against which the motivation, orientation, and conduct of every person will be measured. One’s orientation to Christ—either acceptance or rejection—will inevitably determine one’s ultimate destination. Thus, in spite of the opposition and rejection they are currently experiencing for the sake of the gospel, Peter assures them that faithful adherence to Christ, the living Stone, is the true path to salvation and victory, both now and forever. Themes of the Letter Although 1 Peter is not a theological treatise, it incorporates many theological ideas and lessons within its content. One of the noticeable features of this letter is the proto-Trinitarian perspective of the divine Godhead. Each person of the Godhead is individually recognized for his function within the life of believers. Thus, God is affirmed as the Creator of all things (4:19) as well as the Judge of the living and the dead (4:5). Moreover, he is not only recognized as the Father of Jesus Christ (1:3) but also the Father of all believers (1:17). As the Holy One, God is the One who calls his followers to be holy, even as he is holy (1:15). The letter displays a high Christology in which Peter sets forth the preexistence of Christ as the one who was “chosen before the creation of the world” (1:20). Christ is identified unapologetically with Isaiah’s Servant of Yahweh (2:22-24) and as the true paschal Lamb (1:19). Through his resurrection he occupies the place of exaltation at the right hand of God, exercising supremacy over all creation (3:22). Likewise, salvation is innately connected to the believers’ faith in and identity with Jesus Christ. Those who are saved are obedient to Christ (1:2), reborn and saved through his resurrection (1:3; 3:21), rebuilt into a spiritual house and a holy priesthood as they come to Christ (2:5), called to follow Christ’s example (2:21), and are participants in the suffering of Christ (4:13-16) as they also eagerly await his imminent appearance when they will share in his glory and grace (1:7, 13; 5:4, 10). For his part the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “Spirit of Christ” who actively pointed the Old Testament prophets to the coming suffering and glory of Christ (1:11). In present times the Holy Spirit sets apart believers to God (1:2) and energizes those who now proclaim the gospel (1:12). In addition, he is depicted as the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of glory” who rests on those who are persecuted for the sake of Christ (4:14). In this way Peter perceives the believers’ salvation to be intricately tied to the threefold work of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. While it would be premature to describe Peter’s portrayal of the divine Godhead as a doctrinal Trinity, the interrelated yet distinct work of each personality is portrayed in a way that certainly bolsters the later development of the Trinitarian teaching. The topic of suffering is also a central theme within this letter. The writing of 1 Peter was undoubtedly prompted by the occasion of believers suffering for the sake of Christ. Peter responds to this occasion by correlating the suffering of believers to the suffering of Christ. And yet he does this in a uniquely New Testament manner. Filson (1955, 404) writes, “We often tend to regard Christ’s sufferings as the means by which we escape suffering. He suffered for us, so we will not have to suffer. This idea does not come from the New Testament church.” In alignment with other New Testament teachings (e.g., John 15:18-25; 2 Cor 1:5; Phil 1:29), Peter does not perceive suffering as something “strange” within the believers’ life, but as a natural part of following Christ (4:12). Although suffering is depicted as being caused by the Devil (5:8-9), Peter assures his readers that suffering has its place in the plan and purpose of God. Just as God used the sufferings of Christ to make salvation for believers possible (3:18), he uses suffering to refine and purify his followers (1:7; 4:12-13). While suffering is not understood to be inherently inevitable in every believer’s life (1:6), every Christian must be ready to face it (1:7; 4:1). Thus, the principle concern of the letter is not the question if a believer will face suffering but how should a believer react to suffering. Once again, Christ is the supreme example that is lifted up to the believers. Like Christ, believers should react to suffering in three ways. First, they should not respond to suffering and opposition with hate or retaliation (2:21-24; 3:9). Second, they should meet suffering with a spirit of submission (2:13-3:6; 5:6). And third, they should persist in doing good (1:15; 2:12-15, 20, 24; 3:6, 11, 13, 17; 4:2, 17, 19). The frequency of the exhortation to do what is good is a striking emphasis within the letter. The motivation for doing what is right is multifaceted. Believers should continue to do what is right despite their unjust suffering because 1) they are blessed when they do this (3:14; 4:14); 2) this is what God has called them to do (1:15; 2:20-21); 3) their good conduct under the stress of suffering may draw unbelievers to salvation (2:12; 3:1-2); and 4) Christ suffered unjustly and the believers should follow his example (2:20-21; 3:17-18). Closely related to the emphasis upon doing good in the face of suffering is the strong theme of holiness that runs throughout the letter. While some people may attempt to limit holiness to only a spiritual discussion, Peter underscores the essential ethical nature of holiness. Holiness of life is a natural byproduct and result of one’s holiness of heart. The importance of holiness is envisioned in three areas of the believers’ life: personal holiness, social holiness, and communal holiness. The call to personal holiness is the foundational tenet of the letter. One of the first imperatives of Peter’s appeal to his readers is the command, “Just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do” (1:15). Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1:2), believers are described as self-controlled (1:13), holy (1:15), purified (1:22), and free from all malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander (2:1). The supreme hallmark of holiness in the life of believers is their love for others (1:22). In this way, holiness affects both the believers’ relationship to God and their relationship to other people. Personal holiness automatically flows into social holiness. Whereas 1:13-2:10 deals more with the believers’ call and experience of personal holiness, 2:11-4:11 focuses upon social holiness in terms of the believers’ relationship to non-Christians in society. Thus, believers are instructed to obey the law of the land, while submitting themselves for the sake of God to the government (2:13-14) and the king (2:13, 17) as well as to unfair and cruel masters (2:18-20) and unbelieving husbands (3:1-2). When relating to those outside the faith, Peter’s main concern is that believers should not offend (2:11-12, 15; 3:15-16). Davids points out that the motivation for social holiness is twofold: “On the one hand, there is an imitatio Christi theme (2:21; 3:18-4:2). Christians act as they do because they model their behavior on that of Christ. On the other hand, there is the threat of judgment (4:12, 17). The suffering is a test of faith, so it would be wise not to fail” (1990, 18). The unexpressed presupposition of this theme is that the believers’ personal holiness will affect their daily behavior in terms of their relationship with other people. Personal holiness also leads to communal holiness; it affects the believers’ relationship with other believers. In 4:7-11 and 5:1-7, Peter writes about love, hospitality, service according to gifts, servant leadership, and humility. The importance of these virtues lies in the fact that they lead to the unity of the Christian community. The purpose of communal holiness is perceived in the light of two considerations. First, the integrity and uprightness of the believers’ relationships with each other function to make their life in the world easier because of the innate goodness of their lives (4:8-10). Second, their exemplary and humble relationships with each other work to keep the community together in the face of societal opposition and suffering (5:1-5). In the face of the real threat of suffering at the hands of a hostile society, holiness is the keystone of the believers’ defense and response.