Original Meaning

Peter’s salutation1 is one of the richest greetings to open a letter in the New Testament. It contains pastoral warmth and theological sweep. Whereas some salutations orient themselves around Christology (Rom. 1:1–7), salvation (Gal. 1:1–5), or the church (1 Cor. 1:1–3), and others are “bare bones” greetings (e.g., Eph. 1:1–2; Col. 1:1–2; 1 Thess. 1:1–2; 1 Tim. 1:1–2), Peter’s salutation contains both a penetrating description of the audience and a theological explanation of how they became Christians. While Paul’s greetings are frequently tinged with a necessity to defend himself, Peter’s apostolic status is not under question, leaving his title a simple, humble claim to authority (cf. 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1). As with other New Testament letters,2 the themes of the salutation become central to the letter itself: the status of the people of God and the salvation God provides for them. Peter’s letter has been categorized with other ancient hortatory (paraenetic) letters.3

Letters of the ancient world began with the author’s name and any descriptions needed (here: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”), the addressee and any necessary descriptions (here: “To God’s elect …”), and the greeting proper (here: “Grace and peace be yours in abundance”). Thus, there are three parts. Peter expands the addressee to include a threefold breakdown: the believers in Asia Minor are who they are (1) “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” (2) “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit,” (3) “for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” The italicized prepositions highlight the triadic description of these believers, and each is connected to a different member of the Trinity.

The Sender. Peter has been categorized in popular writings and sermons as impetuous and impulsive, but we know far too little about him to know whether such psychological descriptions are fair. We do know that he was a fisherman on the northern shore of Galilee, he was called by Jesus to follow him (cf. Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–42), he become the leader of the apostolic band (Matt. 10:2), he was the first to perceive Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:17–19; Mark 8:27–33), he tried to walk on water (Matt. 14:28–31), he denied Jesus (Luke 22:21–23, 31–34, 54–71), he was restored (John 21:15–19), he was a primary leader of the new church formed at Pentecost (Acts 2–5), he received a magnificent vision about the unity of God’s people (Acts 10–11), he was miraculously released from prison (Acts 12:1–17), and he continued to have a ministry as far as Rome (cf. Acts 12:18–19; 15; Gal. 2:7–8; 1 Cor. 1:12; 9:5; 1 Peter; 2 Peter). We know that Peter’s ministry in Rome was so extensive that Roman Catholics see the foundation of their church in his ministry there; we also know that Peter’s ministry has become far too divisive of an issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants.4

Perhaps more important for the interpretation of our letter, we can discern in Peter an “about-face” over the question of Jesus’ death: from outright rejection (Matt. 16:22) and denial (Luke 22:54–71), to restoration (John 21), to preaching the death and vindication of Jesus (Acts 2), to finding in the death of Jesus the ultimate paradigm of Christian existence (1 Peter 2:18–25). This trail of Peter’s conversion is what lies beneath our letter: a Peter who found in Jesus’ death and resurrection the secret of life. Another feature of his life that is fundamental for understanding his letter is that his original name was “Simon” and only through a special calling by Jesus was it changed to “Cephas” (or “Peter”).5 His name change included Jesus’ prediction of his role in the development of the early church: Simon would be a “foundation,” a “rock” (petros), upon whom the church would be built. In light of this, Peter developed the metaphor of Christians as “living stones” (2:4–8).

Peter was an “apostle of Jesus Christ.” An apostle6 is one who was personally called by Jesus to a special ministry of founding the church; the corollary of that calling is that an apostle represents, as an ambassador does a president, the one who sent him. Peter, like the other apostles, was a personal representative of Jesus, and how people responded to Peter reflected how they responded to Jesus (cf. Matt. 10:40–42). Yet we should note that Peter does not brandish his authority like a saber; rather, he states his title here and then uses the more humble power of rhetoric and persuasion. Not until 5:12 do we again see his authority, unless it be noted (as it probably can be) in his use of commands and prohibitions. In fact, Peter identifies himself with the leaders of the various churches (5:1).7 Nonetheless, the “letter is to be seen, not as the pious opinions of a well-wishing friend, but as the authoritative word of one who speaks for the Lord of the church himself.”8

The Addressees. The geographical location of Peter’s churches is not as important as the terms he uses to describe their social and spiritual status: “To God’s9 elect, strangers10 in the world, scattered11 throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” Another translation, one that I will refer to occasionally in the discussion that follows, is “To the sojourning elect12 who are scattered throughout …” (pers. trans.).

To be “elect” means to receive God’s grace; this benefit is the result of God’s initiative, not ours.13 In other words, God has called us to his love and grace, he has prompted our faith through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and he claims our allegiance (cf. John 15:16; Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:9; Eph. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15; 2:4, 6, 9, 21; 3:9; 5:10). To be one of God’s elect is a source of joy and comfort (for we know God’s will cannot be thwarted) and of exhortation and demand (for we know God is working in us to enable us to do his will).

---

The Meaning of “Aliens and Strangers”: A Brief Study. Not only did Peter’s churches enjoy a special status with God; Peter uses another term that goes a long way in helping us to understand the social location of his readers. In the introduction I observed that this term “strangers” (or “sojourners”) can refer either metaphorically to their temporary residence on earth as they await final salvation (NIV)—the so-called pilgrimage theme—or literally to the social location in their communities. It is important to pause for a brief study of this term and another one like it, “aliens” (2:11), and of the idea of a pilgrimage theme in this letter. By looking at more than one term at a time, we will have a wider grasp of what Peter is saying and will avoid the hazard of being concerned with only one term apart from its larger contexts.

First, I must observe that the inertia of convention propels us in the direction of a metaphorical sense to these terms. Most popular and scholarly works interpret 1 Peter 1:1 and 2:11 as describing the Christian pilgrimage on earth. Many commentators assume this view without further reflection14 and give little space to arguing against the unconventional view.15 Progress in interpretation can never be gained if we simply repeat habitual interpretations; instead, we must look again at the evidence to see what it says. If we arrive at an unconventional conclusion, we may be breaking free from unnecessary restrictions, though we may also be simply wrong. But such are the implications of exploring interpretations.

Second, there is no doubt that the literal meaning of these terms refers to people in specifically low social conditions. The Greek word for “foreigners” or “aliens” (paroikos) refers to people who reside in a given place without the legal protection and rights provided for citizens (i.e., noncitizen residents); the Greek word for “strangers” (parepidemos) refers to people who reside in a place but who stay there only for a brief time (temporary residents).16 This is the literal senses of these two terms; when used metaphorically (in the rare instances when they are found this way), they emphasize, in some nonliteral sense, sojourning in a place temporarily or being found as an alien in some location.

Third, the issue here, then, is whether there is evidence that the terms in question are being used metaphorically. Good metaphors are drawn from reality, from the hustle and bustle of normal life. Here we have two terms drawn from perceptions of the social rank and how society works. However, a standard principle of interpretation insists that words be taken literally unless there is something in the context that tips the reader off to a metaphorical use of a term. For example, it strains our reading to think that “slaves” in 1 Peter 2:18 does not refer to actual social status but instead to our “slave-minds” and that we are being exhorted to submit to reason, for nothing in the text makes us think that anything other than a social class is in view.17 The questions we must face, then, are simple: Is there evidence for a metaphorical use here either in the type of literature we are examining18 or in the immediate context? And how do we discern the difference between a literal meaning and a metaphorical one?

The late G. B. Caird, in his masterful book on language and interpretation,19 proposes four tests to discern when a given word or phrase is being used metaphorically. (1) At times the biblical author makes an explicit statement that a given expression is metaphorical, as when he uses the word “like,” states that such-and-such is an allegory (Gal. 4:24), or adds a qualifier that shows something other than the literal sense is intended (Matt, 5:3—“poor in spirit”; Eph. 2:14—“wall of hostility”; 1 Peter 1:13—“the loins of your mind”20). (2) Sometimes an expression is impossible to understand literally. For example, the believers in Asia Minor are not literally “a royal priesthood” (2:9), their leaders are not really “shepherding flocks of real sheep” but are leading the believers the way a shepherd leads his flocks (5:2), and it is not their literal “brothers” who are suffering throughout the world but their spiritual brothers (5:9). (3) There must be a certain amount of correspondence between an expression and the reality itself for something to be literal; when the correspondence is low, then we have a clue to the use of a metaphor. Thus, just as it is unlikely that Peter was in “Babylon” (5:13), so it is unlikely that Jesus will appear the second time in a Shepherd’s garb (5:4). (4) Sometimes the expression is developed so highly and intensively that it is easy to detect metaphorical imagery. Clearly, Peter is raiding architectural metaphors when he speaks of the church in 2:4–8, to the point that one gets lost in the mixing of metaphors (see also 2:9–10).

In light of this brief analysis, we can ask whether the terms “aliens and strangers” betray any of these clues. First, there is no explicit statement in 1 Peter that the references in 1:1, 17 and 2:11 are to be understood metaphorically. In 1:1, the addressees are “strangers … scattered throughout” the Diaspora; there is no qualifier here that suggests anything but a literal meaning. Inasmuch as “scattered throughout” leads into a literal description of geography, so we are led to think that “strangers” has the same literal sense.21 The other two references, however, contain some ambiguity. First Peter 1:17 says, “Live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.”22 If the readers truly are socially isolated (for whatever reasons), this expression can be literal and makes sense that way; if, however, they are upper-class elites, there is evidence for a pilgrimage theme. But we have no evidence to suggest that a metaphor is being used. Slight ambiguity, however, could be felt in a contrast between life “now” (not “here”) and life “in the future” (1:20–21). This could be evidence for a modifier being present. Finally, the use of “as” with “aliens and strangers” in 2:11 is perhaps significant evidence for a conscious use of a metaphor. There is, however, a problem. Does “as” mean (1) “I urge you, as if you were foreigners and strangers,” or (2) “I urge you, because you are literally foreigners and strangers”?23 The text does not give us a clue as to which of these we should choose. I conclude, therefore, that there is no unambiguous evidence in 1 Peter for a pilgrimage use of these two terms (though there is some evidence).

The second, third, and fourth tests turn up nothing for our concerns. There is nothing impossible at the literal level for any of the references cited above; each could be literal with no problem. The evidence in 1 Peter does not admit of a low correspondence between the condition of the readers and the actual terms used, nor does Peter run wild in developing this imagery (he simply states it each time). Thus, the tests for determining a metaphor do not yield any clear evidence that the expression “aliens and strangers” must be understood as a metaphor. I am not saying it is impossible or wrong to interpret these expressions metaphorically, but I maintain that such a view is highly conventional in modern reading and has little (if anything) to offer on its own behalf. Because of a lack of evidence for such a view,24 we ought to see here a literal expression. The evidence, then, leads us to think that the expressions in 1 Peter are literal, describing the readers’ social location.

Finally, was the addressees’ literal status as “aliens and strangers” caused by their becoming Christians or by their already being “aliens and strangers” prior to believing? That is, did they suffer social exclusion because of their faith, or were they already targets of persecution, who simply became easier targets when they embraced the faith? Without engaging in a lengthy discussion, it seems best to say that there is no evidence (from 1 Peter) that becoming a Christian in Asia Minor involved a drop in social class (though I am certain such a thing happened frequently);25 nor is there a shred of evidence from 1 Peter that these believers had at one time been people of power or status. When Peter lists their stations in life (e.g., “slaves” and either “wives” or “husbands”), there is a noticeable absence of other vocations or stations in life. One suspects that these descriptions probably obtain because they did not have any more powerful vocation.

This group of churches, in other words, was composed almost entirely of persons drawn from the slave classes and the disenfranchised.26 We should, however, contend that the reason the believers were literally “aliens and strangers” was twofold: (1) They were socially marginalized people, and (2) their faith led to an association that had no social acceptance and therefore, at the very least, exacerbated their social conditions.

As well, their homelessness would have naturally been a picture of their spiritual status. They were not only castaways because of their social status; they were also castaways because of their commitment to Jesus, to a life of holiness, and to a group of similarly disenfranchised people—the church. We are, then, to see in this description a picture of hard-working, poor people who had no rights and no protection but who, through the grace of God, had found life in Christ and fellowship in the family of God. Thus in 1:1–2, Peter gives both their spiritual status (“elect”) and their social location (“sojourners” in the Diaspora27). The gospel of salvation in Christ took root in Asia Minor particularly among the disenfranchised and gave Peter and the early church an important angle on ministry and theology.

---

The Experience of These Believers. The socially marginalized believers of the Diaspora are who they are (1) “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” (2) “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit,” (3) “for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” We need to look at each of these expressions. At the outset, observe that each one describes, in a different way and from the angle of a different member of the Trinity,28 the complex nature of conversion.

According to the NIV, these Diaspora Christians have been chosen29 “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Theological debates have issued forth from this expression and others like it. Is God’s election (and predestination) based on his knowledge that certain people will believe (which gives the human decision paramount importance),30 or is God’s foreknowledge the determinative factor in choosing certain individuals to be part of his people? If these two options were the only options, then surely the second is to be preferred: God’s foreknowledge is more than prescience (knowing ahead of time), for it is effective, active, and determinative.31

However, it is not altogether clear that “according to” is to be restricted only to “elect.” In fact, with the number of words and the additional description of the addressees as “sojourning” between “elect” and “according to,” some have suggested that “according to” modifies all that goes before: thus, Peter is an apostle of Jesus Christ and the Diaspora Christians are elect and the Diaspora Christians are sojourning throughout Asia Minor according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.32 Moreover, the highly formulaic nature of verse 2 (with its three prepositions and references to Father, Spirit, and Son) may well suggest the adoption of a set liturgical formula, so that the author is not trying to define “elect” in specific categories but rather is simply writing in a formal, liturgical manner that may well run ahead of precise thinking.33 While it is not easy to decide here, as long as we understand “foreknowledge” as determinative (rather than confirmative of human choice) and as long as we see that “elect” is described by the “sojourning in the Diaspora” phrase, it is probably best to see all three prepositional phrases in verse 2 as modifying “elect.”

Second, the believers in Asia Minor are what they are “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.” Both theological reasoning and spiritual experience confirm that God prompts us to believe through the convicting and regenerating work of his Spirit. The process of sanctification, a word drawn from Old Testament tabernacle and temple worship,34 involves God’s setting his people apart and the lifelong work of his Spirit to effect God’s will on earth. Unfortunately, popular theology teaches that sanctification is something that happens after conversion and justification; first one is justified and then, throughout life and into glory, he or she is sanctified. This is not a biblical understanding of sanctification. The term refers to three features of Christian existence: the initial separation from sin (clearly in 1:2; cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2, 30; 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13), the hard work of growing in holiness throughout life (Rom. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3:18; 7:1; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 12:10, 14), and the final act of God when he makes his holy people completely holy for eternity (Eph. 5:25–27).35 Peter is referring here, then, almost exclusively to the first dimension of our sanctification: God’s gracious act of turning sinners into his people. Later, he emphasizes the lifelong process of sanctification (cf. 1:14–16, 22; 2:1–2, 9–10, 11–12; 4:3–4).

Third, the addressees are who they are for a purpose: “for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” (or “for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ”).36 These believers have been chosen by God so that they may be obedient, that is, so that they may respond to the demand of the gospel and become children of obedience (1:14) and pure children of God (1:22).37 The use of the word “obedience” for the initial response to the demand of the gospel is found elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:16; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor. 7:15; 10:6; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Peter 1:22 with 2:8; 4:17). And these people were chosen so that they could be sprinkled with the new blood of the covenant established by the death of Jesus (cf. Ex. 24:3–8; Heb. 9:18–21; 10:22; 12:24).38

In sum, then, Peter sees the electing work of God as leading to the conversion of the disenfranchised sojourners of Asia Minor. Each of the three prepositional phrases in verse 2 is predominantly a reference to conversion, to the act of God’s saving these people. They were effectively called and spiritually made holy, and this election led to their obedience to God’s call and to forgiveness under the new covenant. While the first two emphasize God’s work, the last expression emphasizes the believer’s response.39

The Greeting Itself. As with other letters in the New Testament, the addressees are greeted in both a customary Greco-Roman way (“grace”) and in a Jewish way (“peace”). Especially under the influence of early Christian and Jewish theology, these two terms exemplify not only friendliness to others but the rootedness of that friendliness in the gracious and peacemaking ways of God.

Bridging Contexts

IT WOULD NOT be normal for modern Westerners to take a letter from the ancient world, say one from Pliny to Calpurnia Hispulla (about his recent marriage), and apply it to our day (assume Pliny’s insights about marriage are true for us). Why do we do this for the Bible? How can we take a letter from Peter, a first-century apostle of Jesus Christ, to Christians in Asia Minor who were socially excluded and assume that it is also written to us? While I do not pretend that such a maneuver is simple or that it ought to be done without further ado, I do believe that what Peter wrote is as advantageous for us as the Old Testament was for Paul and his readers (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6, 11).

My assumption of the usefulness of Scripture is based on three foundations. (1) Scriptural. Paul teaches that God gave us the record of his dealings with his people in order that it may be useful to his people in the ages to come (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17). (2) Anthropological. Since we are all created in the image of God, what was good for God’s people long ago is good for us now because we, as they, are humans. It is only Western arrogance that makes us think we have such a higher level of development that we can look down at the ancients. To confirm our point about the likeness of humans, one need only read Proverbs or one of the Greek tragedies or comedies to see that what vexed and delighted them is the same as what vexes and delights us. (3) Ecclesiological. Members of the church of Christ, both ancient and modern, are one. While we admit to differences between our world and theirs, the first-century church comprises our ancestors in the faith. And while we will apply the Bible in different ways because of changes that have taken place and because of differences in our culture, they remain our spiritual ancestors, who have bequeathed to us the faith once and for all delivered to the saints of God.

These foundations, however, do not mean that “things are the same”; for surely this working assumption would be foolish. Adjustments have to be made, in the same way as we change our data for a new word-processing program. Most, if not all, of us do not live in Asia Minor (it has changed immensely anyway), and we are probably not socially excluded (at least to the same degree that they were). But nonetheless, what was written was written for Christians of all ages.

We need here to look more directly at the Petrine notion of social exclusion. The Christians of Asia Minor were socially excluded either (1) because they were already nothing more than social sojourners and foreigners, or (2) because they became Christians and so “joined” a disenfranchised religion. Applying this first sense of social exclusion could work in different directions. We could seek to be socially excluded by gaining a station in life that is less than desirable. It is true that the history of the church has found such people; but noble as their desire to follow Jesus is, this is hardly what God expects from us, for the biblical principle seems to be that God wants us to follow him in whatever vocation we have (1 Cor. 7:17–24).40 This form of application is wooden, overly literal, and forced. As the Christians of Asia Minor did not seek lowly wrungs on the ladder of society, so we should not.

Another way of applying such a position of social exclusion is to minister to those who are on the fringes of society. This, I believe, is a valid extension of what Peter is saying, but it is still not what Peter is saying. Not once in 1 or 2 Peter does the apostle urge his fellow Christians to look for, find, and convert the socially excluded. However noble such a ministry would have been, this is not his point in calling his readers “aliens and strangers.”

Most Christians, I am sure, believe that ministry to the socially excluded (AIDS victims, the poor, the homeless, many African-Americans, Cuban refugees, etc.) is demanded by the nature of the gospel (it is for all) and the image of God in everyone. Inasmuch as the original readers of 1 Peter were social outcasts, that letter does crystallize a model for the church to minister to those who are socially deprived as an extension of Peter’s concerns. If we simply, in our imagination, wrote in the words “Cuban refugees who are Christians,” this point becomes clearer. The letter, then, is not primarily an exhortation to minister to Cuban refugees, but a letter to Cuban refugees in the hope that they will be able to learn from Peter how to live as Cuban refugees in their environment. On the other hand, while the letter is not an exhortation to work with such a group of people, it is certainly natural to extend the letter’s message in that direction.

In my judgment, if the first sense of social exclusion is accurate, then the primary application is in another direction, namely, the importance of establishing our identity on the basis of who we are in God’s family rather than who we are in social perceptions. What we find here is Peter’s attempt to make sense of his readers’ present social location in the Roman empire in the light of their new-found social location in the family of God. Because they are members of God’s household, their social location as outcasts has no bearing on who they are in the fullness of reality, on who they are in God’s estimation, or on who they are in the context of God’s ultimate designs for history. While they are socially strange and foreign in Asia Minor, while they are excluded, powerless, and homeless in the Roman empire, in God’s family they are citizens, they are included, they are royalty (2:9–10), and they are at home as God’s people. True applications, analogies, and appropriations of Peter’s category of “aliens and strangers” move in the direction of one’s identity, new group consciousness, and cohesion.

If the second sense of the socially excluded is correct (excluded because of an association with Christianity), then other avenues need exploration. Then it is Peter’s message that no matter what social location believers find themselves in, they are still in God’s family, and their fundamental means of coping with the stresses and persecutions of society is to see themselves as God’s people who are being prepared for God’s final kingdom (cf. 1:3–12). Problems immediately arise for many Western Christians, of course, because they find that when they embrace the gospel and follow Jesus Christ in obedience, they are not persecuted; instead, they remain accepted and acceptable in our still somewhat Christian society. What does this letter say to Christians who are obedient but not persecuted?

The first observation is the most important but rarely said in evangelical circles: The social exclusion dimension of 1 Peter simply does not apply because so many Christians walk obediently with the Lord and do not, at least very often, experience social exclusion. This inevitably means that some things in 1 Peter are not as important for such a group as it might be for those who are being persecuted. A second observation, however, is that it is rare for Christians to live obediently even in the Western world without experiencing some kind of social exclusion at some point in their lives or at some level of existence—even if it does not go as far as outright persecution. What we are doing here is trading on the notion of “social exclusion for being a Christian.” Even if we cannot identify one kind of social exclusion (persecution; cf. 1:6; 4:1–6, 12–18) with another (e.g., prevention of career advancement), they remain generically the same: Christians often find that their faith jeopardizes elements and dimensions of their lives (physical, material, social, etc.).

In this discussion about applying this letter to our world, we need to pause for some minor considerations. Our use of Peter’s letter should not be one of slavish imitation. This can be seen in several ways. Peter’s letter does not mean we need to write letters to Christian groups, and it certainly does not mean we have to start our letters in the same way Peter did. After all, no two letters in the New Testament are written in identical ways. It does not mean that we have to find the socially excluded and minister to them. It does not mean that we have to go to Asia Minor or that we need to divide our ministries into five areas (as Peter wrote to churches in five provinces). Peter did not write to give us a stereotype of Christian ministry, though it is altogether clear that we can learn from this great Christian leader. One of the dangers of canonizing letters of the early church, as has been done for 1 Peter, is that its sanctity becomes perversely stereotypical and exemplary. While it is wise to follow the best at something, it is perverse to follow it in a literal, unimaginative manner.

Applying the Bible to our day can be difficult because one of the problems in using the New Testament for our own day and throughout the history of the church is what sociologists call “reification.”41 This term means turning human relationships and observations into rigid, dehumanized, and immutable laws. While it is a fact that sufficiently heated water turns into steam and eventually all the water is turned into the property of gas (this is a natural law), it is not a fact (to the same degree) that treating others lovingly will inevitably lead others to treat us in a loving manner. We reify love and a relationship when we suggest that love always begets love (even if, in God’s design, it is supposed to). We reify parenting principles when we lay it down as law, as a preacher I recently heard did, that if we teach our kids to love God, we are guaranteed that every one of our kids will love God, on the basis of Proverbs 22:6: “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

We reify different nationalities and races when we ascribe to them a static quality that is “always true”: Irish are hot-tempered, Scottish are stubborn, Americans are brash, and Italians are emotional. We reify pastors when we expect each to be identical; we reify political leaders when we expect each to perform the same functions. We reify the role of the father when, because he is father, he cannot apologize to his children; we reify the role of children when parents never take their feelings and ideas into consideration (because they are, after all, only children); we reify the role of mother when we think mothers cannot work outside the home. As for the issue about women’s ministries, it is not hard to see that the church (even in the twentieth century) has reified the role that women had in the first century (a modern projection of what women were like both in Judea and the Diaspora) and made that role normative and determinative for roles today. The Amish have reified the dress of eighteenth-century central Europe and made that the stopping point of change. The examples could go on.

Reification also takes place in theology and interpretation, not to mention application. Two examples from our passage may be taken to illustrate my point. First, frequently interpreters of our passage find in verse 2 three points about conversion: God’s effectual call through his determinative knowledge, the Spirit’s regenerative work, and the Son’s covenant-binding death that secures our salvation. We “reify” this text when we treat this as the “order of salvation” that is always and immutably followed in God’s working with humans. So reified does this become at times that we think that someone who has suddenly begun to obey Jesus Christ but who has not apprehended the regenerative work of the Spirit has not truly been converted and must (amazingly!) back up in the “law of order” to the regenerative stage in order to be truly converted.42 A quick glance at 1:3 shows that Peter can connect regeneration with the Father and the Son! Clearly, Peter was not reifying his terms and categories. Pastors and teachers ought to consider their own notes to see how often they have “reified” a text in such a way that it has become an absolutely hardened system. Any reconsideration must take place in the context of the whole of the Bible because other texts might put “hardened systems” to the chase.

A second example from our verses can be seen in the kinds of extrapolations that have been occasionally made from the expression “to God’s elect” (1:1). The theme of election is important in the Bible and to theologizing in the history of the church; furthermore, for many Christians God’s election is fundamental to their contentment. What I wish to point out here is that there are also many Christians who have been severely shaken in their faith (even to the point of a resigned abandonment of the faith) because of a reification of this category of Christian thought. When taken out of context and planted in a garden of sterile ideas and insensitive theology, a reified doctrine of election can be damaging to the gospel and to Christian existence. When election is understood apart from a biblical perspective on human responsibility, it is misunderstood and the gospel message itself is perverted. God never “forces” unbelievers to believe against their will. However true election is, it is not some insensitive and nondialectical act of God; the biblical message always understands humans as participating and responding to God in freedom and choice. When election becomes “violent” and “abusive” of human will, it is no longer biblically accurate; rather, it is an example of reification.

True and accurate interpretation of the Bible always takes care to interpret words and ideas in their immediate and fuller context and with all the necessary qualifications that prevent misunderstanding.43 To avoid reification in interpretation two things are necessary: (1) a contextual sensitivity that permits an interpretation that is logically and theologically accurate in the context of the whole Bible and larger truth, and (2) a flexibility in application that accounts for changing social circumstances and development in our understanding.

Reification is an important category for those who interpret the Bible. We reify biblical texts most often when we are engaged in heated debates about what we think are important points. The Calvinist and the Arminian are surely guilty of overemphasizing and overusing certain points, just as covenant and dispensational theologians do the same when they debate one another. Often it is the balanced interpreter who gets it right biblically but who also seems not to fit quite right into some systematic category. Reification, then, ought to be seen at times as a category useful to some ideology. Biblical theology is always willing to suspend judgment so that the biblical witness receives its full share of influence.

Contemporary Significance

ONE FRUITFUL LINE of bringing the message of 1 Peter into our world is to examine what was meant by “social exclusion” and how that might apply in our world. In my judgment, the social exclusion for the Christians in Asia Minor was intensified by their conversion to Jesus Christ—certainly they were not put to death simply because of the social class (though it was possible that people of such status were not privileged to normal rights). In this case, the expression “social exclusion” refers mostly to a social status (the homeless). However, in what follows I will examine the implications for today of an interpretation of “aliens and strangers” that makes this realistic social exclusion the result of having become followers of Jesus.

In the Western world I can think of no group to whom “social exclusion” might apply any better than to God-fearing Christians on university campuses. However many qualifiers are needed, it remains a piece of history that nearly all major Western universities were originally designed primarily to prepare clergy for the tasks of ministry. This is clearly the case with American universities. Surely, various denominational skirmishes were involved, the precise role for the university in the burgeoning American culture was disputed, and the relationship of “secular” and “sacred” disciplines was hotly debated. These debates notwithstanding, the formation of our university system was determined by religious needs.

Furthermore, most of my readers are probably aware that American history involved a massive split in its Protestant community, the so-called Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy, with the disastrous result of two communities who for several decades in this century had little or no interactive relationship. Traditional theology was having a hard time surviving at American universities. While the fundamentalists retreated on the whole into separate Bible institutes and colleges, the modernists assumed the leading role in the universities. The result of this history is a university system that has had almost no creative thinking from American conservative Christians and an evangelicalism that developed a mentality that the intellectual life was unhelpful to the churches and unworthy of serious Christian devotion.44

Now a word to our universities and evangelicals on those campuses. Whether there is some justification or not, contemporary traditional Christian faith is frequently out of place at American universities. I am not talking about campus impact through campus ministries, like InterVarsity, nor about the religious impact that campus churches have on campuses, like Oxford Bible Fellowship in Miami University (Oxford, Ohio). Rather, I am talking about the intolerance, almost fascist at times, of religiously conservative ideas that deserve to be debated by leading intellectuals and that deserve a place of hearing in the marketplace of ideas. This is what a university is supposed to be—a place where all ideas compete against one another.45 An alarming statistic indicating this massive (and tragic) polarization is the almost total absence of conservative theologians in American university posts and their almost total congregating in Protestant evangelical colleges and seminaries.

The watchword for American universities is no longer simply truth; rather, the watchword today seems to be pluralism or toleration. In fact, it is a sad story about many American universities that traditional ideas (no matter how well-founded and adaptable they may be for today’s culture) are out, while novel ideas (no matter how radical and illogical) are in. Education becomes indoctrination into the ideas of recent special interest groups. These ideas need to be heard, but not at the expense of all other ideas or of not pursuing truth.46 Let me reiterate (and not to please special interest groups): It is educationally important to be exposed to all sides and to alter our programs and curricula as we learn and grow; but it is educationally disastrous to think that the newest books are better than the classics unless they are truly better—scholars and time will guide us here.

As I said above, Christians who take a stand for truth and who believe that God’s Word provides a unitary perspective for all disciplines will find the university road rocky and uphill—the whole way. They will more often than not find themselves socially, morally, and intellectually excluded. They may be branded as obscurantist dinosaurs and may even find it difficult to present their ideas in the open market. Furthermore, it comes as no surprise that Christian students who take a stand against casual sexual relations, undisciplined use of time, and partaking of drugs and alcohol will find even less acceptance, just as Peter’s churches did (4:4). Such students will find less social acceptance and so will become marginalized by the majority, who find these activities the essence of weekend recreation. I speak here from ten years of counseling and discussing life with students who have had such experiences throughout North America.

I find this situation of our students (and faculty members and those seeking faculty positions) similar to the situation facing the Christians in Asia Minor. They were socially excluded, at the least, because they were Christians.47 What is Peter’s word to our students who are finding themselves excluded? It is twofold: (1) Maintain the course of a loving, holy lifestyle, and (2) find your identity in being part of God’s family, not in being part of a society that does not accept you. It ought to be noticed that Peter does not tell them to be coarse, rude, and arrogant, nor does he tell them to segregate themselves into separated communes. Rather, he tells them to live their godly lives right in the midst of the society that rejects them, always ready to answer people with a reason for their hope (3:15). He informs them that their very lives are a witness to God’s glory (2:11–12).

Furthermore, Peter tells them that their family, their social group, is the church, not society. There they are to find their social acceptance. They should see that they are part of a worldwide movement, God’s household, the church, which is being persecuted throughout the world. What this means for Christian university students is that they are to seek out fellowship with other Christians who can sustain their spiritual and social needs while they remain faithfully integrated in their campuses as witnesses to God’s love in Christ.

While this first attempt at updating the message of 1 Peter with respect to social exclusion has focused on the university experience of Christians who seek to be faithful to Jesus while growing up in such a massively different environment from home, we will have more than ample opportunity to explore the same theme from different angles (the business world, morality, etc.) in other places. To go into each of these fields here would make it more than difficult to explore direct analogies for our world in those texts that deal with suffering and social exclusion.

What then does this salutation say about the relationship of the Christian to society? Fundamentally, it gives us the general perspective of Peter for Christians who find themselves excluded and oppressed socially. That perspective is that their primary group is God’s family (“God’s elect”) and their secondary group is society. Peter does not address them as “the socially excluded” but as “God’s elect”; their social standing was completely absorbed by their spiritual calling. His directions throughout the letter are concerned with their Christian identity and their Christian family (the church) and how they were to live as Christians within their social setting.

With the rising influence of Christian attempts at political activism in the Western world, particularly in the United States, Peter offers two pieces of advice: (1) Act as Christians and in a Christian manner, and (2) understand that your identity is your church, not your social group. Each of these could easily be developed at length; here we offer only brief remarks.

(1) As for Christian behavior, I find Christian activism to be both good and bad. It is good that Christians are attempting to influence society with the values of the kingdom. Democratic politics, where the one with the most votes wins, are extremely valuable for expressing the rights of the majority and for hearing the voices of the minorities. I am thrilled that Christians are agitating, and I am not speaking here just of the New Right or the Radical Left Evangelicals (like Jim Wallis). I am glad that both are attempting to reach into the community with the message of biblical Christianity, even if at times there are excesses and misunderstandings. I do perceive something exceedingly grotesque, however, when I hear of people murdering “abortion doctors” in the name of Christ and when I see on television divisive animosities being expressed in hateful slogans bantered about on boycott signs. What I like about Western politics is that, if a given position agitates enough and garners the majority, that position gets its chance in the public forum. What I do not like is people, in the name of Christ, claiming to be following Jesus and appearing to most observers to be acting in a manner unworthy of the gospel.48

Furthermore, it is not the case that Christians have definitive, biblical “Christian answers” for everything that arises. The arrogance and self-assuredness that are too frequently found in “Christian politicians,” while making that politician’s personal hopes obvious, do little to further the work of Christ. Just as we do not have definitive answers on taxation, so we do not have absolute answers for the issues involving international strife. While we clearly have definitive answers about racism and civil rights, we do not have (in my judgment) absolute answers about capitalism and social welfare. The problem here is that too many people contend their view is the only Christian view on this matter, whether it is the radical left or the capitalist right.49

(2) No matter who wins and which position gains the upper hand, the Christian cannot be depressed because, regardless of the intensity of the problem, he or she remains in God’s hands as God’s elect and finds the primary social group in the church of God. This is an area Peter develops, perhaps because he found no other consolation. The socially excluded had no recourse to political democracy or representation in Asia Minor. Nonetheless, his insight here is enduring and penetrating. Do we find our primary identity in being Americans or Canadians or being Christians? Do we find our consolation in that we are Irish, Scottish, English, German, Italian, Russian, or South African, or do we find our principal root in our connection to God in Christ and in the new people of God, the church? Peter exhorts his churches to find their identity in that they are God’s elect and that they have a socially satisfying group. Do we find this same identity?