Download discussion questions: 1 Peter 1:1-2
Listen to 1 Peter 1-5 (NASB)
I encourage you to look at the passage in James before you read this Blog entry. What do you see in the text yourself? What questions come to your mind? How would you interpret what the writer says? After even a few minutes examining and thinking about the text you will be much better prepared to evaluate the comments in the Blog.
At least a minimal amount of background will be helpful in our inductive study of 1 Peter.
Significance of 1 Peter
Contrary to his opinion of James (“an epistle of straw”[1]), “Martin Luther describes it as ‘one of the noblest books in the New Testament’ and a ‘paragon of excellence’ on par with even Romans and the Gospel of John.”[2]
Another writer emphasizes the letter’s pastoral quality as “the most condensed New Testament resumé of the Christian faith and of the conduct that it inspires.”[3] Peter himself provides an insight of his intention that will be a good guide to our study. “The apostle Peter ends his letter with a statement of its significance, ‘This is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it’” (1 Pet. 5:12 TNIV).[4]
Luther stressed the theological importance (comparable with Romans and John), and others focused on the practical pastoral quality. Peter wanted his audience (then and now) to recognize the amazing reality of God’s grace (which he had experienced firsthand after denying Christ). And Peter knew the consequence of compromising the gospel of grace, as when he avoided eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). Standing fast in grace was another lesson he emphasized. Defining the true grace of God and how to stand fast in it will be a useful topic to explore in our study.
The Relevance of 1 Peter
The first letter of Peter includes numerous references to the suffering of believers and persecution for their faith (1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:18-20; 3:1, 13-17; 4:1-4, 12-19; 5:10).[5] That emphasis has led some commentators to question how it might apply in situations where such hardships are lacking. The letter was written to people who
“were being marginalized by their society, alienated in their relationships, and threatened with-if not experiencing-a loss of honor and socioeconomic standing (and possibly worse).
…
But there are also many modern readers of 1 Peter who cannot relate directly to that situation, for we have been fortunate enough to live in societies where, generally speaking, Christian faith does not lower social standing, jeopardize livelihoods, or threaten life itself.[6]
That comment was written only about twenty years ago (2005). However, the western (and specifically U.S.) cultural environment has changed dramatically in two decades. The same author goes on to describe the first-century audience in ways that sound more familiar today.
The Christians to whom Peter wrote were suffering because they were living by different priorities, values, and allegiances than their pagan neighbors. These differences were sufficiently visible to cause unbelievers to take note and in some cases to heap abuse on those living out faith in Christ.[7]
Today, the cultural and political climate makes those “different priorities, values, and allegiances” impossible to ignore.
Western secularism and biblical Christianity have diametrically opposed views on many areas of sexual ethics and gender identity. That’s because 21st-century Western culture sees accepting its take on these things as fundamental to human identity, freedom, and flourishing—and so it is the territory in which Christians are most of all seen as the bad guys, where biblical ethics are not seen merely as laughable or outdated or repressed but as shameful, harmful and repressive.[8]
This perception as the Bad Guys puts Christians clearly beyond the “barriers” of acceptable opinion. Almost two hundred years ago a French visitor to the U.S. saw this potential danger. Alexis De Tocqueville discerned in 1831:
In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever steps beyond them.[9]
The result then and today: “The era when Christians could disagree with the broader convictions of the secular world and yet still find themselves respected as decent members of society at large is coming to an end, if indeed it has not ended already.”[10]
Even without official government action, the “barriers” Tocqueville recognized are formidable. Peter warns his readers of those informal pressures. Rather than state-sponsored persecution, “the questions and charges brought against believers in 3:15 and 4:14-16 were typical of the everyday questions believers would encounter because of their faith.”[11]
Numerous changes in the day-to-day activities of first-century Christians have modern parallels.
-
- “Believers were slandered by unbelievers for failing to participate with them in idolatry and a whole range of sins (4:1-4), and thus they were out of step socially with their society.”[12]
- “even though Christianity was not technically illegal, it was ‘effectively illegal’ [cf. Tocqueville – mw] …. Christians would be under suspicion since their participation in voluntary associations, especially where there was worship of the gods, would be altered upon conversion.”[13]
- “Christianity’s claim to sole possession of the truth violated an important tenet of Roman society, … ‘conforming tolerance, i.e., reciprocal acceptance.’ In other words, Christians were viewed as alarming because of their exclusivism…. Christians were under suspicion because they engaged in proselytism, … ‘a shocking novelty in the ancient world.’”[14]
Think of your own life and what similarities you might see today. The relevance of 1 Peter moves to a whole new level.
The Date of 1 Peter
The letter “was likely written near the end of Peter’s life when he was in Rome… around AD 62‑63 before the onset of the Neronian persecution.”[15] “It is highly unlikely that the generally positive view of civil government which Peter gives in 1 Peter 2:13-17 could have been written without further qualification if the persecution under Nero had already begun in Rome. The severity of this persecution, coupled with the almost unqualified positive view of the government in 2:13-17, and with the traditions about Peter’s death under Nero … combine to indicate that the letter must have been written before AD64.”[16]
This is not to say that Peter’s instructions about submission to authority would have changed under more severe persecution of Nero. A member of our group discussion raised an important question, “Would God’s Word have changed under different circumstances? Is God’s truth dependent on events?” The concern arose because there are people who would argue that the New Testament commands for submission to government authority are no longer valid because of differing political structures. But the evidence for the date of 1 Peter suggests that, had intense official persecution been part of Peter’s environment, he might have been likely to include more detailed instructions. Peter’s pastoral concern may have provided additional encouragement for those harsher circumstances.
The Author of 1 Peter
The writer of the letter seems obvious, since the text opens with his self-identification. But, like many parts of Biblical truth, even that fact is questioned by some critics.
A common challenge is the “objection that the cultivated Greek in the letter does not fit with Peter as a Galilean fisherman…. After all, the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:13 labels him ‘uneducated’ (agrammatos). The epithet ‘uneducated’ does not mean Peter was illiterate. The Sanhedrin did not know Peter so intimately. What they did know was that Peter was not trained rabbinically.[17]
It is also possible that Peter himself, as a Galilean fisherman, could have written 1 Peter. First of all, Greek was the language of commerce and had penetrated into Galilee. Hellenism… was influential in Palestine by the time the NT documents were composed.[18]
It is also possible that Peter’s scribe, Silas was part of the process of Peter’s inspired letter-writing.
Peter’s phrase describing the service of Silas is used of the bearer of a letter [1 Peter 5:12 – mw], who was regarded as representative of the sender. This was the function of Silas in relation to the letter sent from Jerusalem as described in Acts 15 [vv. 22-27 – mw]. If Silas were the bearer in such a role, he was much more than a letter-carrier [v. 27b, ‘will tell you the same things by word of mouth’ – mw]. He had a voice in the Jerusalem Council that prepared the letter he carried for that body. So, too, he may have conferred with Peter in the preparation of the letter, or may have drafted it under Peter’s direction.[19]
Additionally, the role of Silas (aka, Silvanus) is described in 1 Peter 5:12 using the same preposition (dιὰ, dia, “through”) used for the words of the letter:
“Through Silvanus, to you the faithful brother, as I reckon, through few words I did write.” (RYLT)[20]
For both the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and in the composition and delivery of Peter’s first letter, Silas may indeed have been “much more than a letter carrier.” There is no clear evidence that Peter did not write the letter bearing his name. The quality of the language he used is not a significant argument against his authorship.
Why Ask the Questions?
The point of addressing questions of date and authorship is not to raise doubts. But those kinds of questions (often in the form of cynical accusations) sometimes arise as Christians are slandered or ridiculed. The goal is for us to address such charges at least briefly to build confidence that there are rational and defendable answers to the critics.
Obedience and Sprinkling
In Peter’s Trinitarian introduction he describes the purpose of the Father’s foreknowledge and the Spirit’s sanctifying work as “obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” For someone with a strong Jewish heritage (like Peter and at least some of his audience), that association of obedience and blood would stir thoughts of Deuteronomy 24. In verses 3-8, Moses also associates obedience and sprinkling:
3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Celebrating Communion together reminds us that the Old Covenant has been completed and fulfilled in the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. Our obedience is no longer the condition of the covenant. In the New Covenant, obedience is the result of the sprinkling of His blood over us.
[1] Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000), 1.
[2] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 1, quoting Pelikan 1967: 4, 9; Blevins 1982: 401.
[3] Edmund Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 15, quoting C. Spicq.
[4] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 4.
[5] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 21.
[6] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 1.
[7] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 4.
[8] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina: The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 4-5.
[9] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.
[10] Carl R. Trueman, Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2022). Kindle Edition, location 2114; page 169.
[11] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 23.
[12] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 21.
[13] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 23.
[14] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 25.
[15] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 19.
[16] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1988), 35-36.
[17] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 15,16.
[18] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, Christian Standard Commentary (Nashville: Holman, 2020), 15-16.
[19] Edmund Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 21, emphasis added.