Introduction Peter is without question the most prominent of the twelve disciples of Jesus. In every listing of Jesus’ disciples, Simon Peter occupies the first place (Mark 3:13-19; Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16). He is the first disciple to confess 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 present at the Mount of Transfiguration Mark 9:2-8, and whom Jesus specifically asked to pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:3242). The angels told the women at the empty tomb to report the resurrection to “his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). And Paul notes that Jesus appeared to Peter first out of all the disciples (1 Cor 15:5). Based upon Peter’s prominent role, one would expect any letters associated with Peter to play an equally significant role among the NT canonical writings. But this has not been the case. John Elliott observes a “disconcerting pattern of benign neglect” (Elliott 1976, 243) of the epistles of Peter. The cause of this neglect could be as simple as the relative brevity of the two epistles of Peter. Or it could be 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. 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 letter claims to be written by “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). The reference in 2 Peter to “my second letter to you” (3:1) reinforces the Petrine claim for 1 Peter, especially since no other epistle is associated with him. The historical attestation for Petrine authorship is strong. 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 from the letter and noted Peter as the author. Various scholars have observed, however, that there are “numerous certain echoes” of 1 Peter in even earlier writings (Elliott 1992, 269). For instance, 1 Clement (c. 96), Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (c. 120-140), and Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) seem to be familiar with the letter. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340) sums up the majority viewpoint of the early church in his Ecclesiastical History: “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. Many modern scholars take exception to the idea that Peter is the actual author of 1 Peter. Many pseudonymous writings were created during the Intertestamental period. Most of these falsely ascribed writings were credited to well-known individuals, such as the apostle Peter. 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. They were attributed to Peter as a token of honor and respect to his legacy. Many scholars contend that 1 and 2 Peter should be added to this same list of Deutero-Petrine writings. The grounds for refuting Petrine authorship gravitate towards five basic objections (Lohse 1991, 133). 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. The objections to Petrine authorship cannot be taken lightly. And yet a rebuttal can be given to each objection. 1. Lack of familiarity with Jesus This objection is extremely subjective. It presupposes that the letter must contain a certain number of references to the earthly Jesus before it can be considered an authentic writing of Peter. The letter does in fact contain various allusions to sayings and teachings of Jesus. But they are more transparent because they have been 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 Jesus. This objection is too subjective to be compelling. One must not forget that “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” (Harrison 1964, 383). Peter’s reflection upon his personal experiences with Jesus is subordinate 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 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 (1991, 133). It has also been noted that 1 Peter displays more affinity with the Deutero-Pauline letters (Col, Eph, 1 and 2 Tim, Titus) 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 that 1 Peter must have been written in a post-Petrine time period. This argument is also very subjective. First, there is no consensus among scholars that Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals are Deutero-Pauline. Second, one must 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 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 writer, every other epistle is inevitably compared and assessed against the Pauline theological model. For instance, Bartlett observes that “the Gentile/Jewish controversies so central to Paul seem to have faded to the background” in 1 Peter (Bartlett 1998, 230). The assumption of Bartlett (and others) that Peter and Paul’s theology, controversies, and concerns will be the same is unfounded. Peter and Paul obviously viewed ethnic tension in strikingly different ways (see Gal 2:11-16). Accordingly, it is inappropriate to judge the theological development and themes of Peter on the basis of the evidence of Paul. There is too much subjectivity and conjecture involved for this objection to be convincing. 3. The Greek is too good Some argue that the polished Greek grammar and style of 1 Peter could not have been produced by a Galilean fisherman like Peter. This objection is heightened by the observation of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:13 that Peter and John were “unschooled, ordinary men.” Some assert that the Greek word for “unschooled” indicates that Peter and John were actually uneducated and illiterate (see Beare 1970, 47). But most scholars agree 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 they were able to speak so eloquently despite their lack of formal rabbinic training. The Sanhedrin says nothing about Peter and John’s cultural background or linguistic expertise. The idea that a Galilean like Peter could not 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). There is even strong archaeological evidence 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: 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...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, 88, 89). The notion that Peter is incapable of composing the kind of Greek found in 1 Peter is based upon an unsubstantiated assumption. Even if Peter’s language skills could be proven deficient, the polished Greek language and style of the letter could be accounted for by the use of an amanuensis. The author notes in 5:12 that he has written the letter “with the help of Silas” (lit. through Silas). Some argue that this merely identifies Silas as the deliverer of the letter. But it seems more likely that this identifies Silas as the amanuensis who actually penned the letter on Peter’s behalf. Incidentally, Silas is cited by Paul as co-author of both letters to the Thessalonians, although there is no indication of the level of his involvement in the writing of these letters. 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. There is strong evidence of the far-reaching usage of the Greek language in Palestine among the Jewish people. This evidence means that “the linguistic argument can no longer be used with confidence” against Petrine authorship (Argyle 1974, 89). 4. Too much dependence on Paul Some consider 1 Peter to be too dependent upon the language and thought of Paul’s writings for it to be an authentic creation of the apostle Peter. This dependence is supposed to be most evident in Romans and Ephesians. The similarity with Romans is most evident in 1 Pet 2:13-17, where the Christian’s responsibility to the state is discussed (Rom 13:1-7). The similarity with Ephesians is limited to several doxological and liturgical formulas (see Achtemeier 1996, 16-17). After examining these passages more carefully, van Unnik argues compellingly that the relationship between Peter’s and Paul’s writings is “not one of dependence but of parallelism” (1954, 93). As a result of such studies, the theory of Petrine dependence upon Pauline thought can no longer be portrayed as the majority view, even though it once enjoyed scholarly consensus. In recent times, many 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. This argument assumes 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” (4:14-15) indicates that the letter was written at a time when Christianity was considered to be a crime. The earliest period when Christianity was outlawed throughout the Roman Empire was during the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). Thus, some contend that 1 Peter represents a time period considerably later than the time of Peter’s death, which is dated by most scholars around A.D. 64. The assumption that 1 Peter describes an official governmental persecution of Christianity is hardly justified by the text of the letter itself. If Christianity was facing such governmental persecution, it is 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 of persecution in 1 Peter runs parallel with the persecution language of other NT writings, as Moule (1956, 9) vividly demonstrates. 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 very beginning, heralds of the Christian message faced hostility and even violent opposition in various places. This kind of persecution would not be unusual for believers in Asia Minor. Peter describes the persecution facing his readers as “grief in all kinds of trials” (1:6). It 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. The present commentary assumes the traditional position of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter. There is no evidence that compellingly denies Peter as author. 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. While there will always be doubts, this letter can probably be regarded as an authentic writing of the apostle Peter himself. Audience The recipients of 1 Peter are explicitly identified as believers who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythnia (1:1). These regions are located in an area referred to as Asia Minor. Peter’s letter to these regions 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 represented in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9). It is often surmised that the gospel may have been preached in these regions by believers who returned from Jerusalem after Pentecost. Asia (with Ephesus as its capital city) and Galatia were widely evangelized by Paul in his missionary journeys (Acts 13-19; Gal 1-2). Aside from Paul’s deterred attempt to evangelize Bithynia in Acts 16, there are no references to 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 History of the Church (3.1) that Peter “seems to have preached” in these five regions. But this reference is probably an allusion to 1 Peter itself instead of a journey through these regions. The believers in Galatia were undoubtedly familiar with Peter (see Gal 2:8, 11-14). But it is impossible to know if they knew Peter through personal contact or through reputation only. Kelly 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” (1969, 41). The order in which the regions are named has attracted much attention from 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 B.C. 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. Most scholars have conceded to F.J.A. Hort’s suggestion that the order of the five names was determined by the anticipated route of travel by the bearer of the letter (1898, 157-184; see Hemer 1978, 239). The letter bearer probably began his mission in Pontus and he visited a circle of churches which would take him back to Bithynia, not far from where he began. There is evidence that this course was a well-known route of travel in this period. Josephus (Antiquities, 16.21-23) records that Herod the Great followed part of this route in 14 B.C. 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 of a Jewish audience was shared by many subsequent scholars, including Calvin and Wesley. Some 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). Another factor that seems to point to a Jewish audience is the prevalent usage of OT quotations throughout the letter. Additionally, the author applies OT descriptions to the audience that are otherwise used exclusively for the Jewish people (2:9). Moreover, as “an apostle to the Jews” (Gal 2:8), it would seem more natural for Peter to write to a Jewish audience. Despite these indicators, it is more probable that 1 Peter was written to a Gentile audience. Although Peter is identified as an apostle to the Jews, his ministry would certainly not be limited to Jews (see Acts 10-11). Moreover, Peter’s description of his readers with terminology formerly used exclusively for the Jews can be explained as an indication that he 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 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 (see Grudem 1988, 38; Kelly 1969, 4), it is virtually certain that the letter is addressed to a predominantly Gentile audience. Place and Date The letter was apparently written from “Babylon” (5:13). Three possibilities are suggested concerning the meaning and location of this “Babylon.” 1) Some argue that “Babylon” refers to a city by that name in Egypt which housed a Roman colony (Klijn 1967, 157-158). There is a Coptic tradition that Peter wrote his letter from Egypt, but there is no record of any Christian influence there in the first century. Also, it is highly improbable that Peter would not have distinguished this little known city from the more famous Babylon in Mesopotamia. 2) A second possibility is that 5:13 contains a reference to Mesopotamian Babylon. The problem with this suggestion is that Mesopotamian Babylon had become a small and obscure place. Strabo (died A.D. 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 missionary activity in Mesopotamian Babylon in early Christian history. 3) 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). It is difficult to explain why Peter would use such a cryptic description of Rome in his letter. But Cullmann asserts that a “typological use of geographical names” was fairly common in ancient Christian literature (1953, 83). Thus, “Babylon” is most likely a metaphorical reference to Rome. Van der Heeren concedes the identification of Babylon with Rome: 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 (van der Heeren 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 often revolves around the question of the kind of persecution that is alluded to in the letter. Those who deny Petrine authorship tend to date the letter during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). There is strong historical evidence that Christians experienced persecution during their reigns. The persecution described in the letter, however, could also have transpired during the reign of Nero. Christian tradition tells us that Peter himself was eventually martyred by order of Nero (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1.2-3). If Peter himself is the author, the letter was probably written from Rome sometime before Nero’s persecution of the Christians began. This places the writing of 1 Peter sometime in A.D. 62-64. Genre and Unity of the Letter First Peter has the obvious appearance of an epistle in the style of the letters of Paul. Accordingly, it 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, some have suggested that 1 Peter can be classified better under a different genre. Two of the more popular suggestions attempt to connect the genre to sermonic material or baptismal liturgy (see Martin 1978, 336-344). While these suggestions are interesting and enlightening, they are unconvincing. The letter includes a number of traditional themes and forms (see Davids 1990, 11-14), but the author freely adapts this material to fit his purpose and the 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(see Achtemeier 1995, 58-62). The impetus for this inquiry is found in the noticeable break between 4:11 and 4:12. After the doxology in 4:11, the letter resumes with an intensified discussion of current suffering (4:12-19). This transition causes some to contend that 1 Peter consists of two earlier writings represented by 1:3-4:11 and 4:12-5:11. The appearance of a doxology,however, does not necessarily mark the conclusion of a letter (see Rom 11:33-36; Eph 3:20-21). Furthermore, while the references to suffering are more specific in 4:12-19, 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: “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 they have been taught. The hortatory element of 1 Peter is one of its most prominent features. This is especially evident in the many imperatives 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 reassure his readers that their faith is true. Despite the opposition and persecution they are facing, 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 First Peter is not a theological treatise. Nonetheless, it incorporates many theological ideas and lessons. One noticeable feature is the proto-Trinitarian perspective of the divine Godhead. Each person of the Godhead is 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 recognized as the Father of Jesus Christ (1:3) and also the Father of all believers (1:17). As the Holy One, God calls his followers to be holy, even as he is holy (1:15). The letter displays a high Christology. Peter sets forth the preexistence of Christ as the one who was “chosen before the creation of the world” (1:20). Christ is portrayed as Isaiah’s Servant of Yahweh (2:22-24) and as the true paschal Lamb (1:19). Through his resurrection he is exalted to the right hand of God, exercising supremacy over all creation (3:22). Likewise, salvation is innately connected to believers’ faith in and identity with him. 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 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 OT prophets to the future 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 portrays the believers’ salvation as intricately tied to the threefold work of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It would be premature to describe Peter’s portrayal of the divine Godhead as a doctrinal Trinity. But the interrelated yet distinct work of each personality is portrayed in a way that foreshadows later Trinitarian teaching. Suffering is also a central theme. The writing of 1 Peter was 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 NT manner. Filson observes, “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 NT church” (1955, 404). In alignment with other NT 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. Rather, suffering is 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). Suffering is not inevitable for believers (1:6), and yet 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. Christ is used as the supreme example. 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). This exhortation to do what is good is repeatedly emphasized. 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 believers should follow his example (2:20-21; 3:17-18). The theme of holiness is also strongly emphasized. Holiness is not only spiritual in nature; it is essentially ethical in nature as well. 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. 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. 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). They must also submit to their master or husband, even if they are unfair, cruel, or unbelieving (2:18-20; 3:1-2). With unbelievers, Peter’s main concern is that Christians should not offend (2:11-12, 15; 3:15-16). 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 (Davids 1990, 18). The presupposition is that personal holiness will affect daily behavior, which extends into social relationships. Personal holiness also leads to communal holiness; it affects the believers’ relationship with each other. Peter writes about love, hospitality, service according to gifts, servant leadership, and humility (4:7-11; 5:1-7). These virtues are important because they lead to unity within the Christian community. The purpose of communal holiness is twofold. First, the integrity and uprightness of believers’ relationships with each other function to make their life easier because of the innate goodness of their lives (4:8-10). Second, their exemplary relationships with each other keep the community together in the face of societal opposition and suffering (5:1-5). With the constant threat of suffering in a hostile society, holiness is the keystone of the believers’ defense and response.
Introduction 7/8/09
Re-inserted. Should the other gospel parallels be cited as well? What you mean by this word here is not clear to me. Changes only indicate tha I changed it back to hour original. All this was just to shorten the sentence!