Original Meaning

PETER HAD LEARNED in the synagogue and from other pious Jews how to pray. The typical Jewish prayer, called the Shemoneh Esreh (“The Eighteen Benedictions”), was a series of “blessings of God.” Thus, when Peter begins to pray, he does so in this customary Jewish manner.1

Grammatically, our passage is one massive run-on sentence. While such lengthy sentences (ten verses!) tweak the nose of modern English teachers, Peter’s grammar is wonderfully elegant as well as profoundly expressive of the grandeur of his subject: salvation. We may unravel the grammar as follows: Peter blesses the Father for the new birth he grants his people (v. 3a), which leads to their majestic hope of final salvation (vv. 3b–5); this expectation of final salvation leads them to rejoice, in spite of suffering, about that final day of Jesus Christ (vv. 6–7); this very Jesus Christ they both love and trust, while they rejoice as they await that final day of salvation (vv. 8–9); that very salvation was the subject of inquiry and longing for the ancient prophets of Israel, though they did not live to see its fulfillment (vv. 10–12). The words in italics demonstrate how one idea leads to a fuller digression on that idea, leading to more and more digressions—all in one breath and in one glorious doxology.

Put more graphically, the following outline suggests both the scope and the digressory nature of these verses:

1. Praise Expressed (vv. 3–5)

2. Digression on Joy Despite Their Suffering (vv. 6–7)

3. Digression on Love and Joy in Anticipation of End (vv. 8–9)

4. Digression on the Prophetic Search for Salvation (vv. 10–12)

Thus, our passage is essentially a eulogy to the Father that overflows into a fuller eulogy touching on the joyful expectation of salvation, on how that expectation can sustain Christians in suffering, and on how privileged they ought to feel about being the ones who get to enjoy that salvation after millennia of expectation. Run-ons express it best!

Peter begins with the theme of salvation because he has already made conversion/salvation the foundation of his salutation (1:1–2). There, it will be remembered, he focused on three dimensions of the great process of salvation: the determining knowledge of God, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, and the obedience-generating covenant of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. With this salvation in mind, Peter now sets their social condition (i.e., social exclusion) into the grand scheme of God’s salvation. He will proceed to talk about ethics and lifestyle, but before he doing so, he must make clear the foundation. That foundation is the salvation of God, and it is only on this foundation that Peter constructs the life of the church.

While it has been popular since the Enlightenment in the Western world to reduce Christianity to morality and ethics (especially in the United States through the rise of Jeffersonian morality and liberal Protestantism’s ethic of tolerant love), Peter will not let ethics come to the fore until he speaks of salvation, the foundation of morality. He blesses God for salvation; in light of that salvation, he goes on to say, “Therefore, live a good life” (see 1:13–2:10).

Praise Expressed (1:3–5). It is perhaps easiest to see the grammar and logic of these verses if we diagram the verses graphically (the translation is mine to facilitate this diagram).

Blessed be the	God
and	Father of2 our Lord Jesus Christ
	who gave us new birth
	(1) according to his great mercy
	(2) unto a living hope
	through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
	(3) unto an imperishable, unspoiling and unfading inheritance
	which [inheritance] is kept in heaven for you by God’s power
	through faith in the salvation prepared to be revealed at the end.

As can be seen, the sentence is simple in that it is a statement of praise to God, and the blessing is directed to the God and Father. This God and Father is blessed because he has given us a new birth. This new birth is the result of his mercy, which grows into a living hope; that hope is defined3 as an inheritance. Put differently, Peter blesses the God and Father because of salvation and its manifold benefits.

The new birth God has given to Peter and his readers, changing their status before God (2:24; 3:18, 21; Titus 3:5) and their lifestyle before others (1 Peter 1:22–23), theologians call regeneration. It is part of the large drama of cosmic regeneration (Matt. 19:28) that finds its climax in the glorious final existence (Rev. 19–22). Thus, through the new creation work of Jesus as a result of his resurrection, the new life the church receives through him is part of that grand act of a new creation. Furthermore, it is fundamental for New Testament teaching to see this work of creation as a work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), though that dimension is not mentioned here by Peter (but cf. 1 Peter 1:2, 12; 3:18; 4:6).4

Peter tells the readers that they have benefited from this new birth because of God’s “mercy.”5 Mercy is that pity God shows toward humans in spite of their sin and because of their total helplessness to right their wrongs; God permits them to be part of the special people of his favor (2:10). This great new birth sets off a chain reaction in his plan of redemption: His mercy stimulates their new birth, and their new birth stimulates a “living6 hope.” This orientation toward the future that God will bring through Christ constantly appears in this letter (e.g., 1:3, 13, 21; 3:5, 15). It is not so much that believers are now living “full of hope,” but that they have a fixed “hope,” a clear vision of what God will do for them in the future.7

The chain reaction continues: Not only does the new birth stimulate a “living hope,” but that living hope is defined by “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade” (1:4). The children of God, who have received new birth, can look forward to a special inheritance8 because they are God’s children. That inheritance is their completed salvation (1:3, 4, 5, 6–9) and eternal life in the kingdom of God, where they will enjoy worship, praise, and blessing directed toward the Father, Son, and Spirit. This inheritance is kept for God’s people in heaven, guarded by God’s power (1:5). The only condition God sets for his people is that they must have faith (1:5); no biblical author guarantees final salvation apart from faith. This faith is a faith in “the salvation9 that is ready to be revealed in the last time.” In sum, the new birth gives rise to a living hope that is defined as an inheritance that is guarded by faith in that final salvation.

Digression on Joy Despite Their Suffering (1:6–7). Abruptly, Peter begins to comment on the joy that suffering believers have as they contemplate that final day: “In this10 you greatly rejoice” (1:6). That is, contemplating salvation and its forthcoming climax generates great joy11 in the hearts of the believers, a joy so great they can endure suffering. The problem facing these Christians in Asia Minor is that they are suffering “grief in all kinds of trials” (1:6)—even if it is “now for a little while.” But Peter wants them to see the purpose of their suffering, “so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1:7). Whereas gold perishes when it is refined by fire, their faith will endure the fire of persecution, and will be proved genuine at the last day. Like James in James 1:3, Peter sees in suffering a situation from which the believers can learn and grow.

These verses depict the heart of Peter: He began theologically with praising God for his great benefits of salvation, but then he pauses pastorally to show that the Christians in Asia Minor can be exceedingly glad about the final day of salvation even though they are presently enduring various kinds of trials. They can be glad because they will survive this trial and find themselves in the glorious situation of salvation. This pause is a pastoral digression and, like many pastors I have heard, it leads to yet another digression.

Digression on Love and Joy in Anticipation of the End (1:8–9). Since his readers will be found acceptable to God12 on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed, Peter turns to the present relationship of these Christians to Jesus. Their current response is that they love Christ in spite of not having seen him; furthermore, though they believe in him and still do not see him, they are “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” (1:8).13 Peter sees this response to the Lord as so potent that he describes it as the inauguration14 of their final salvation: “for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (1:9).

Digression on the Prophetic Search for Salvation (1:10–12). Now comes yet another digression, this one stimulated by Peter’s mentioning of “the salvation of your souls.” Peter contends that this salvation, which the Asian Christians have enjoyed and for which they earnestly hope, is the very salvation that the ancient prophets (cf. Matt. 13:17) were seeking in all its details but never found. Peter’s ultimate point is to demonstrate the privilege of enjoying salvation in his era, the privilege of living in the “A.D.” rather than the “B.C.” era.

Thus, Peter begins with the prophetic inquiry (1:10). To emphasize the diligence and intensity of the ancient prophets,15 Peter uses two terms, “searched intently and with the greatest care”16 (he includes a cognate of the second word in v. 11). Their passion, whether they knew the exact longing of their hearts or not, was the grace that the Asian Christians found in Christ.

Verse 11 gives the topic of the prophets’ inquiry.17 They spoke about God’s final salvation and the judgments that preceded that final day. Precisely when and under what circumstances such events were to occur they did not know, but they did inquire into such matters.18 Peter writes that it was “the Spirit of Christ in them” that prompted their inquiry, and ultimately, they were investigating “the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” It only makes sense for us to think, since we have so many Jewish prophecies that do not state these facts in outright fashion, that Peter is here clarifying for his readers the ultimate visions of the Jewish prophets, not explaining the precise details of their prophecies.

No matter how intense their search or profound their vision, Peter insists that these prophets, like John the Baptist after them, only served a preliminary role in the plan of God (1:12). They were preparing the world and God’s people for a later time—and that later time is now (cf. 2:10, 21, 24, 25; 3:6, 9) for Peter. This is the great privilege of the church age: the enjoyment of the inauguration of God’s salvation in Christ. It is so great that even the angels are looking down to gain a view,19 like wedding attendees attempting to steal a glance at the bride before her appearance. The angels are brought in here, not to invite us to speculate about their activities, but to press on our minds the privileges of salvation; neither the prophets nor the angels experience what the church assumes and enjoys.

Bridging Contexts

THIS TEXT RAISES at least four issues that we could explore: the praise and worship of God, Christian hope, suffering, and the privilege of salvation. In this section, I will look at suffering, while in the “Contemporary Significance” section below, I will look more at salvation. However, in separating the two topics, we cannot separate them totally. For Peter, the reason the Christians were suffering was because they had the results of salvation in their lives, and their Christian living was now grating against a sinful society. Thus, our angle here is how suffering flows from salvation. Suffering, when properly understood and applied, is the wake following behind salvation’s boat.

An obvious point of departure for application concerns the suffering of the believers in Asia Minor, along with Peter’s instructions on how to perceive and endure such sufferings, and then contrast this point with the lack of suffering that takes place in the postmodern West. I begin by contending that our lack of suffering is, in part, due to a lack of nerve on the part of the church to challenge our contemporary world with the message of the cross and to live according to the teachings of Jesus with uncompromising rigor. While the Bible never states that every Christian of every age will always suffer, Paul does state that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). I take this to be not an absolute prediction by Paul for all ages, but a general principle that is rooted in the nature of a fallen world, the kind of statement made so often in Proverbs. As a guiding principle, then, those who live faithful lives in an unbelieving world will find opposition to both their ideas and their practices.

There are, of course, exceptions. One simply has to imagine a fairly Christianized society (e.g., early nineteenth century United States in the specific communities), where most of one’s family and contacts were upright, godly men and women. In such a community one could live a godly life and not be persecuted. But this is not the case today for most readers of this book.

In other words, I am arguing that suffering, while it may not be as much a part of the everyday fabric of our lives as it was when Peter was writing, should probably be more a part of our lives than it is. True, ours is an age of toleration and pluralism. These two characteristic virtues clearly retard a society’s inclination to persecute. Nor is our society as intense about its religious beliefs as other parts of the world, which inculcate both a quicker and more physical response to strange ideas and practices. But even if we bracket out our Western civility, the contrast between the Christian community’s belief in the gospel as well as its commitment to holy living and our culture’s unbelief in the gospel and its permissiveness ought to generate more sparks than it does. I contend that one of the reasons there are so few sparks is because the fires of commitment and unswerving confession of the truth of the gospel are too frequently set on low flame, as if the church grows best if it only simmers rather than boils.

Accordingly, one of the reasons it is hard to apply this feature of 1 Peter to our world is our own problem. We should not then accuse the text of being hopelessly irrelevant; we can only accuse ourselves of being dormant and sleepy. I would also suggest, however, that we must recognize the change of cultures and the distance of time. First-century Asia Minor was made up of totally different kinds of people and religious groups from what we encounter today. With the moving ahead in time and the total change of society—that is, with our concentration of people into cities with a capitalistic culture (modernization), with our disintegration of a theological center for ascertaining meaning and morality (secularization), and with our multiplication of options and denial of the superiority of any one option (pluralization)—there is good reason for stepping back and saying that our culture and Peter’s culture are simply different and, therefore, his message about suffering will have to make some adaptations.20

If indeed ours is a more tolerant time and if in certain places the church of Christ has much more significance in its culture, then it must be granted that the times have changed. Peter’s churches enjoyed neither toleration nor significance. Therefore, we cannot expect the same amount or the same degree of suffering as is found in our letter. In the Western world Christians cannot be put to death (legally) simply for believing that Jesus is Lord or for living according to his teachings. We can proclaim the gospel with boldness and live godly lives without fear of suffering as a result. But Christians were put to death in Peter’s day for such beliefs and for living a holy life.21

What we must not do, however, in this context is to demythologize the conditions of suffering. Because we want to be accurate in our interpretation, we can never degrade the writings of the early church, a suffering community, by suggesting that “suffering is not the issue” and that what is at issue is “faithful living.” Furthermore, we assault the sensitivities of suffering believers the world over (and throughout the history of the church) when we trivialize the meaning of suffering. How do we do this? At the popular level, I have heard suffering texts trivialized into stresses in life, like the psychological pressure on the student who is preparing for an exam or the emotional drain that an interview with the boss might bring. I have heard it trivialized into “bad breaks in life,” like having a flat tire on a vacation trip or being too far away when a loved one dies. I have heard it trivialized even further when some moderns find suffering to be losing some sports event or not gaining an advancement at work.

While no sensitive or thinking person would want to minimize the reality of stress or the tragedy of losing members of one’s family, such events are not true counterparts to suffering in the early church. While we recognize differences between our world and Peter’s, we are not entitled to trivialize the suffering of that church by finding cheap analogies and then pretend that such things are suffering for faithfulness to the Lord. Peter was addressing the impact salvation had on one’s life and how that changed life (and status) ran counter to the culture in which these Christians lived.

Accordingly, what we need to find in our world, if we want to apply this message to our situation with biblical fidelity, are analogies of experience that correspond significantly to first-century suffering. What would these look like? No matter what happens, it qualifies for “being suffering” only if the opposition occurs exclusively because someone is a Christian. This is why we have to link suffering and salvation together. Flat tires happen because of sharp objects and thin tires, not because someone is a Christian. Bad events in life happen to good, God-fearing people, but bad events in life are not necessarily events of persecution. We need to find events that occur against people as a result of human opposition, that occur solely because of that person’s stand for the gospel of salvation and a decision to proclaim the gospel in word and deed. As an extension of this, sometimes Christians may be opposed at a more indirect level (say politically) because of a stand for the gospel of Jesus. Thus, a Christian stand at the personal level may bring opposition at another level.22

I recently spent some time with a young athlete who had some rough experiences at his local high school with his “former” friends. As a senior he had a track record of drinking and drugs but was converted to Christ. His conversion made a sudden and immediate impact on his life, so much that he found himself on an island. After games, he was no longer invited to the parties; during games, he was no longer given the same opportunities to shoot the basketball; and in the hallways at school, he was no longer a “hit” with either the girls or his friends. He came to me for consolation. I explained that at least part of this was suffering and that he needed to guard against retaliatory speech and bitter attitudes. He began to see, in a painful way, that commitment to Christ can involve suffering. Here is an example of “bad events” occurring because this young man was a Christian. If he had become arrogant and obnoxious and these things occurred, one could not rightly call it suffering (2:20). But when such things happen as a result of one’s faithful devotion to Jesus, then we can find fruitful analogies to Peter’s advice to suffering believers (even if we respect the differences).

Contemporary Significance

ONE OF PETER’S major themes is salvation, and this salvation is what led the believers of Asia Minor to experience suffering. Not only did we see this theme in 1:1–2, but it emerges at several places in 1:3–12. I want to look at two dimensions of this theme: the necessity of salvation and the denial many express today for the need of salvation.

Our world is so pluralistic that it has become anticultural to speak of the necessity of salvation. Furthermore, we have been easily led astray into following socially significant ministries rather than following the path of salvation as the road Christians should travel. The centrality of salvation, a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, is offensive to our culture. As a result, suffering often accompanies the preaching of salvation. Thus, the need to refocus our energies on the message of salvation stems in part from our fear of some form of cultural persecution.

Pluralism is the result of the modernizing and secularizing forces in our world. These forces drove from the center of our lives the values and theology that held the various branches of knowledge and behavior in some kind of unity for the masses of the Western world. Once those central forces were driven out, what remained were options but not truth. Furthermore, religious convictions were driven from the public into the private sphere of life, where one can believe what one wants without interference, debate, or prejudice. But such views and affections are not for the public because toleration dominates public discourse. A typical adage of religious pluralism is that “all religions lead to the same God and to heaven.” While it would be foolish to think that religious pluralism exhausts the pluralisms of our day, it is this kind of pluralism that confronts the readers of the Bible the most today.23

The second problem staring Peter’s message in the face today is the pervasive lack/denial of a sense of any need for salvation in contemporary society. To speak of such a need is to be old-fashioned in some sense. At the root of this denial is a view that sees people as essentially good, though possibly hurting through some sickness or victimization, but not one as sinners in the sight of God who need divine grace and re-creation. Accordingly, to speak to our society of the need for salvation in order to be acceptable to God is to speak, too often I fear, a language that our culture simply does not hear. While centuries have been crossed since Peter wrote this letter, this strangeness of the message of salvation remains similar. And as this strangeness led to suffering for the early Christians, so also it leads to suffering in our world.

How does Peter’s message of salvation fit into all of this? To begin with, we need to see how Peter describes salvation. It is a “new birth” (1:3) that has already been experienced and is being integrated into lives at an inaugural level (1:9) by people who have received the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel (1:12); yet it is also their “living hope” (1:3)—an “inheritance” (1:4) and a “salvation” that is still future (1:5). Peter tells us that the ancient prophets researched this salvation and that its components were the death of Jesus and his subsequent glories (1:10–12). In other words, for Peter, salvation meant the benefits believers have found, do find, and will find because of their faith in the work of Jesus Christ and the blessed Holy Spirit. And this salvation is an experience only for those who put their faith and focus their obedience on Jesus Christ (1:2, 14, 21). Thus, his message is an exclusivist message: It finds salvation in Christ alone and only for those who trust and obey him.

The church is an exclusive and a privileged24 community because it is a saved community. It is not a social organization, structured to provide its participants with opportunities for social interaction. It is not organized in this sense at all; rather, it is a group of people who have been called by God to trust in him, obey him, and associate with others that have the same calling, trust, and obedience. Any church today that does not immediately “advertise” itself in this way does not understand what it means to be “in the church.” From beginning to end, the church desires salvation through Christ and through the attending work of the Holy Spirit. It preaches that salvation begins with a “new birth,” continues through the ministry of the gospel, and climaxes at the final day when that praise, honor, and glory are expressed. Whether it stems from the fear of sounding dogmatic or from a desire for respect, any church that denies its calling to announce salvation in Christ alone is denying its primary God-given mission.

We might begin by saying that it takes nerve and backbone to announce this message in our day, just as it did in Peter’s day. But this is our task in making our text significant to our contemporaries. Peter’s text is about salvation, and we need to think about how to proclaim salvation in our world. Our first problem is that we fear what others might say, worry over whether or not our message is palatable, and fret over our acceptance. “And so we settle for the kind of friendliness within which all absolutes perish either for lack of interest or because of the demands of the social etiquette.”25

But such a courting of our culture is not the way to lead others to the marriage supper of the Lamb or to woo our world (it leads, in fact to disrespect). A compassionate announcement is profoundly effective while a timid and fearful suggestion about the gospel falls into one more slot in the pluralistic organization. We need to ask God for the courage to proclaim his truth with boldness and love and to announce his truth to a society that is crippled with options. Like someone sitting down in a restaurant who becomes overwhelmed by the number of options on the menu, knows that no chef makes all things well, and finally (in frustration) blurts out to the waiter, “What does your chef make best?”—so we need to announce the goodness of God in his revelation of Christ to those who are befuddled by the menu of pluralistic options available today.

This fear of others and our lack of being stubbornly committed to the truth of Scripture have led some churches today to have virtually no such thing as a “theological confession” or set of “church beliefs” to which its members must subscribe in order to become members. Yet the church is the place where salvation is proclaimed. Indeed, the history of doctrinal debates records some ugly arguments over minor issues that fractured churches and denominations. But in our haste to run away from being stained with having a reputation for doctrinal divisiveness, it is possible to avoid the central doctrines that define the church. We need to advocate “what Christians believe”26 and then hold to it. Salvation is at the heart of what Christians believe.

A second problem is that Christians, the church, and Christian organizations are easily led off the track of leading people to salvation by following lines that contribute to the well-being of society. It is not that social services are unimportant, for they are critical for the health of our society. It is not that teaching other nations the principles of farming or computing is not useful, for these things do help. It is not that offering psychological counseling is not fundamental for people who are emotionally hurting, for psychology aids our ministries. It is rather that social services are never a substitute for the process of salvation but are instead preparatory to the consequences of salvation. Focusing on the consequences to the neglect of the cause (salvation) distorts the message and ruins the church. Furthermore, the history of the church proves dramatically that when Christians get out of balance here, it is always the message of salvation that gets lost.

Take, for instance, the history of the YMCA/YWCA. These were at one time thoroughly godly organizations, designed to lead men and women into the faith, to educate them theologically, and to provide them with fellowship. But they have succumbed to the spirit of social services—so much so that most of us could be forgiven if we ask why the letter “C” remains on the signs.27 I speak here of getting off the track that Peter built long ago, the track of salvation in Christ, which can be specifically related to our desire not to bear the brunt of standing up for the gospel. The connection between salvation and suffering, seen so vividly in Peter’s churches, remains a vital link to this day even when we do not see the same kinds of opposition to the gospel.

To be sure, the history of the church in the United States has witnessed an incredible inability to hold in balance the preaching of salvation and social work. Evangelicals have largely focused on the former while liberal Protestantism has worked on the latter; perhaps only the Roman Catholics have remained balanced in this regard. Because of our history, the point I am making could be misunderstood as one more criticism of the so-called social gospel. This would be a gross misunderstanding, for I believe the message of salvation inevitably entails with it a desire for social transformation. But the tasks are not identical and the priority of the Bible is clearly in favor of the message of salvation. Peter’s letter reminds us once more of the centrality of the ministry of salvation through Christ for the church.

The word “centrality” here is important. In ministering the message of salvation to our world, it would be helpful for us to think not in terms of an assembly line (as we capitalists are prone to do), but in terms of a wheel in which the hub is salvation, the spokes the various ministries, and the outer rim our society. Salvation is central and remains central, regardless of the order of our activity. But the minute the spoke becomes dislodged from the hub, the life of salvation can no longer flow to our society.

Our world, with its pluralistic contours, deserves to hear the clarity of Peter’s message. Our world both deserves it and needs it, because it is God’s world and because God has brought his Son into the world so that this very world might know truth, the truth that can set us free and give us a center for finding meaning in our culture. It may be the case that we, along with Peter’s churches, will suffer for standing up bold for the message of salvation, but we are called to proclaim God’s salvation.