Original Meaning

The Condition of the Believers (2:11a)

PETER’S EXHORTATION TO believers to abstain from sin and live a virtuous life is grounded in the nature of their existence as “aliens and strangers.”2 As developed in the introduction and at 1:1, 17, I agree with those who maintain that Peter has in mind here the social location of the believers. That is, this description does not refer to their “pilgrimage from this life to the next” but to their particular social status as people without rights and without a permanent residence in the Roman empire. They are, literally, “guests and temporary residents.”3 There is little evidence to guide us through the issue of whether their social location was determined by their pre-conversion status or by their conversion, which (presumably) drove them out of a previously better social status. It might be argued, however much by silence, that since the letter presents no evidence that they had previously been of a higher status and are now of a lower status, it is more likely that their social location obtained prior to their conversion.4 At any rate, they are now socially excluded from privilege and power, and we are on good grounds when we argue that this exclusion was made worse by their conversion to this new religious sect that was sweeping across Asia Minor and the Roman empire.

Peter’s point is this: Those who are on the low end of the social scale need to be particularly exemplary in their behavior because for the smallest of matters, injustice can be meted out to them with no recourse to justice or to power. Therefore, Peter emphasizes that these socially excluded Christians should provide no basis whatsoever for those above them and against them to persecute them or accuse of improper behavior. In addition, Peter wants them to live an exemplary life to provide an attractive alternative to the pagan way of life (cf. 2:12; 3:1). Such a life may even lead some to cast their lot with this Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Bridging Contexts

BECAUSE THE TWO options for interpreting the intended audience (“aliens and strangers”) are so different—one describing the Christian life as a pilgrimage on earth, the other describing the social status of believers who need to learn how to live in a difficult world—a serious issue for application presents itself. What do we do when we think there is more than one reasonable interpretation of a passage? Another example of this issue is 2:12, where a reference either to salvation or judgment can be argued. What do we do when more than one view is possible? Do we apply both?

First, we need to see if either of the options is found elsewhere in the Bible or in Christian theology. If it is, we are safe (theologically but not necessarily exegetically) in applying either view. If we conclude that one of the options is not taught elsewhere and there is considerable doubt about it being the view that is actually being taught in the passage under consideration, we should exercise caution. As for our discussion of 2:12, the Bible clearly teaches that Christian behavior leads both to others becoming Christians (this is also the witness of countless Christians throughout the history of the church) and to a criterion for final judgment (cf. Matt. 25:31–46). Thus, we would be within the realm of truth to take either view, even if we were eventually to discover that we interpreted the passage incorrectly. Yet we should always strive to interpret a passage accurately and apply the view that is most accurate as we perceive the evidence.

Second, it is in my judgment always unwise to pretend that any passage has two distinctly different meanings. At times (though rarely), an author may intentionally write in such a way to give a double entendre, but this is usually not what is going on when we hear someone make two different applications for a single passage. When double entendre does occur and is consciously intended by the author, then two meanings are implied. But when it is not intended, we need to find one meaning.

What, however, do we do when there are at least two meanings possible and we are unable to decide? This calls for some cautious statements in our search for the intended meaning.13 If we are undecided, we ought to say we are undecided, which is far better than being sure of two or more meanings. This takes place when an interpreter offers one meaning and applies it, then turns around and says, “Or the passage could mean this, in which case the application would be so and so.” This can lead Christian listeners to think solid, precise thinking is unimportant, and all that we need is to get within “shooting distance” and offer alternatives. Authors write in order to communicate; surely distance of time makes biblical communication and interpretation more difficult, but we cannot escape into some kind of interpretive model where anything goes. We must hunt for the author’s meaning, and, as R. H. Stein has said, “There is one meaning to a text, that meaning consciously willed by the author….”14 This means that we should have as our goal the single meaning of the passage when we begin interpreting and when we apply that one meaning.

However, arguing for one meaning does not exclude that an author may have intended a double entendre. In our passage, if one could establish that the meaning is truly a double entendre, then we could instruct and apply both senses (salvation and judgment). But I know of no interpreter of 1 Peter 2:12 who argues for this. Thus, we must either choose one or the other, or state that we are unable to decide. But we should not argue for both, especially when they are mutually exclusive.

My experience with interpretation leads me to think that most of the time individual interpreters can come to a more committed view. A little more time, a little more effort, and a little more careful exegesis will often lead the interpreter to greater confidence in one view over the other. I fear that too often the feeble interpretation of more than one view is caused by the interpreter’s not having enough time to work through the evidence carefully, in which case we need to examine whether we are giving ourselves adequate time to study the Bible. We ought also to ask if we are being responsible to our task of preaching and teaching if we are not giving ourselves sufficient time to sift through the evidence carefully and come to solid conclusions.

One of the most fruitful areas of modern interpretation of the Bible is taking place as readers are experimenting with other disciplines of the liberal arts in order to give themselves a more well-rounded perspective on the context of the Bible and how to bring that text into our world.15 Classically, interpreters have been trained in language, philosophy, and theology; but contemporary experience demonstrates that life is more complex than these disciplines (though I do not want to depreciate or minimize their priority for interpreters of the Bible). Thus, scholars today are using literary theories, sociology, and psychology to augment their linguistic, philosophical, and theological approaches. Scholars are also using the more complex theories of understanding how authors work (narrative theories) and how readers read (reader-oriented theories). I would like to offer here one example of how a modern sociological model might be used fruitfully for understanding 1 Peter.

The theory I propose to use is that of B. J. Siegel.16 This theory concerns itself with understanding a “religious sect” by seeing how a religious movement protects itself in a hostile environment. Few of my readers would contest that Peter’s letter is intended for a group of churches that find themselves in a hostile environment, and most will forgive us for using the term sect in its sociological sense.17 What these kinds of models do is to give us new lenses to see information that was left unnoticed or to see old information in a new light. When we apply the model of Siegel, several items from 1 Peter gain a clarity and focus that would not have been seen without this model. The only necessary assumption to make in applying this model to our text is a simple one: Groups essentially behave in a similar manner when stress is encountered.18 We emphasize “similar manner,” for the word “identical” is inappropriate and too deterministic. Groups do adapt themselves in similar manners but not in identical manners.19 20

The Theory of Siegel. Siegel’s essential theory describes the adaptation techniques that specific groups use when they perceive stress or a threat to their existence. That is, they structure themselves to form a defense and so to preserve their distinctiveness. He outlines four typical strategies: (1) Such groups demonstrate authoritarian control over members by developing an elite group of leaders; (2) they have a high rate of endogamy (marry only members of the group); (3) they cultivate cultural identity symbols; and (4) they educate the youth associated with the group to control various desires.21 Thus, when a group feels stress over against outside groups (as Peter’s churches did), they will use that stress to motivate the group to defend itself against invasion, corruption, and dissolution. In this way, the group solidifies its identity and so preserves its life.

Let us now compare this model to the evidence in 1 Peter. (1) There can be no doubt about environmental stress for the churches of 1 Peter. They were encountering various trials22 (1:6), they were experiencing verbal attacks (2:12, 23), the slaves were finding their masters to be ornery (2:18), and wives were finding that their husbands were unbelieving (3:1–6). In short, they were being persecuted (3:13–17; 4:1–6, 12–19). We can infer that the churches would have responded to this threat in a way that would preserve their identity and cultivate their continued existence. To accomplish these purposes is why Peter wrote this letter.

(2) We need also to look at the various adaptive strategies. (a) I will begin with the fourth strategy, early socialization, since there is no evidence for it in 1 Peter. However, it is likely that the Christians of Peter’s churches were educating their youth in the values and teachings of the early Christian movement, not only because such an interest is found in the Bible (beginning with Deut. 6), but also because such a theory makes sense. What we can learn, however, from making this assumption is that such educational activity has a social angle and purpose; in part, we educate our children in the truths of our faith because we are preparing them for dealing with a world that does not embrace that faith. Thus, while there is no evidence in the text that such education was going on in Asia Minor, we can readily assume it. Furthermore, we can assume that the letter itself is part of that very education.

(b) Peter does have a concern with strong leadership (strategy 1). His letter is a prime example. He addresses them as “apostle” (1:1; cf. 2 Peter 1:15–21; 3:15–17) and frequently uses the imperative mood to tell them what to do. But he is also concerned with leaders in the churches and the important role they play in socializing their flocks into the truths of Christian theology and the practices enjoined by the gospel. He commands the local pastors to take care of their congregations (5:2) and the young men of the churches to submit to them (5:5). Siegel’s theory invites us to see the social nature of leadership and the role it plays in preserving doctrine and practice, especially when the community itself is under threat of persecution and dissolution.

(c) It is clear that marriage of Christians is of no concern in this letter, though we could guess that it was an issue. Clearly such a concern is found in the Bible (Ezra, Nehemiah), and we know that intermarriage was a significant issue in Judaism.23 We can reasonably infer that Peter would have encouraged Christians to marry other Christians, if only to avoid the problem of unbelieving spouses (1 Peter 3:1). In my judgment, we are justified in inferring this, as long as we caution that such is only an informed inference. In light of the history of Judaism and the nature of this issue in the other parts of early Christianity (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14–18), I cannot imagine that such an issue did not arise for the fathers, mothers, and prospective wives and husbands in Peter’s churches, in order for the community to survive in the face of serious opposition. What we have here is sound historical judgment informed by sociological theory.

(d) The most obvious feature of the model found throughout 1 Peter is the development of cultural symbols, where “cultural” means that which gave the early Christian groups their identity and where “symbols” is understood in its broader sense of linguistic, ideological, and physical expressions of beliefs and values. The entire letter is Peter’s attempt to keep the group cohesive by providing theological clarifications and ethical exhortations that give the group some foundations for understanding their stress in such a way that it becomes explicable in an otherwise baffling series of events. Persecution, Peter says, occurs within God’s sovereignty and is used by God to develop their faith (1:7). The persecutors are unbelievers who are simply continuing what happened to Jesus. The believers should understand that God has given them a new inheritance, and they are to trust in God’s mercy as they endure their present stress. Such ideas as the unity and glory of the church, the nature of salvation in Christ, the exhortation to love and holiness are each cultural symbols of what Peter is trying to tell these churches. Even his inculcation of a distinctive dress for women (3:1–6) is part of his design to give the churches a foundation for identifying and defending themselves over against a persecuting culture.

The most obvious cultural symbol that Peter provides his readers is a new term of identity: they are “aliens and strangers.” This identity-forming expression provides a way of understanding both their social location and the spiritual basis for that location. Society may see them as excluded, but Peter appropriates these terms of censure for a new category of the spiritually gifted. What was then a term of criticism becomes a badge of merit. Because they are the church (a symbol) and although they are socially excluded (a symbol), they can live holy lives (a symbol) in the midst of tribulation as they look forward to the day of judgment (a symbol).

Sociological models like Siegel’s, of course, are not perfect, but they do provide students of the Bible with another avenue on which to travel as they seek to understand the fullness of God’s Word and its relationship to its original world and our world. Sociologists seek to examine the everyday realities of our lives and then describe that behavior in a way that helps us understand that reality. When models like these are applied to the ancient world and the New Testament, they can at times shed light on features of the text that would not otherwise have been noted or observed. Siegel’s model helps us to see the ethics of Peter and his exhortations to leaders in a new way. When our observations find confirmation in other evidence in the early church, we are on much safer grounds for inferring such for 1 Peter.24 Learning about Peter’s world in turn helps us find analogies for application in our world.

In sum, Siegel’s theory about defensive structuring illuminates the fundamental principles Peter urges in 2:11–12. His exhortations are for his readers to live holy lives, to avoid entangling themselves in difficult situations, and to live in such a way that others will join the church. These principles (or symbolic structures), in other words, are a part of a strategy for coping with a society that is hostile to one’s beliefs and associations. Peter’s strategy, then, is both theological (it is God’s will) and sociological (it will enable us to cope and survive). As the commentary proceeds, I will occasionally glance back at this sociological model of interpretation or assume some of the insights gained here.

Contemporary Significance

PETER’S ESSENTIAL MESSAGE here is: Live holy lives in the midst of secular chaos, and let God take care of the final results. Put differently, Peter is calling the churches in Asia Minor to a lifestyle radically different from the surrounding culture as part of their strategy for pleasing God and coping with their environment. This call to holiness is no different today; indeed, it may even be more important today, for the contemporary Western church is more under the influence of the modern culture than most of us realize. What we need is a breath of fresh air to fill us with the aroma of holiness, justice, and righteousness. David Wells, in his recent book God in the Wilderness, calls the church to precisely this by saying,

The choice for God now has to become one in which the church begins to form itself, by his grace and truth, into an outcropping of counter-cultural spirituality. It must first recover the sense of antithesis between Christ and culture and then find ways to sustain that antithesis…. It must give up self-cultivation for self-surrender, entertainment for worship, intuition for truth, slick marketing for authentic witness, success for faithfulness, power for humility, a God bought on cheap terms for the God who calls us to costly obedience. It must, in short, be willing to do God’s business on God’s terms.25

These are categories for Peter as well: self-surrender (2:11), worship (2:4–5), truth (1:22), authentic witness (2:12), faithfulness (1:6–7), humility (2:13–3:7), and a God who calls us to costly obedience (1:15–17). What Peter wants from his churches (and what God wants from his people!) is a heart focused on him, a behavior focused on love and obedience, and a lifestyle impeccable in the sight of non-Christians.

This is precisely how religion, the Christian faith in particular, ought to function in this country. Religion is neither a prop for politics nor a sanctification of governmental wishes. Instead, it is a separate voice, a voice in the wilderness, an alternative society to the prevailing culture and status quo. In his book The Culture of Disbelief, Stephen Carter writes that a “religion is, at its heart, a way of denying the authority of the rest of the world; it is a way of saying to fellow human beings and to the state those fellow humans have erected, ‘No, I will not accede to your will.’ ”26 This statement, by a brilliant lawyer-social critic, comes from a book that seeks to demonstrate how American law and politics have trivialized the deservedly prominent place religious faith actually plays in the lives of countless Americans. One of his main points is that Christians must let their faith stand up and keep themselves from succumbing to social pressure. They must speak their mind—the mind of religious faith. Only in so speaking will they as Christians perform their proper function in our current political situation.

The church, Peter says, is a countercultural alternative to society and culture. Church history shows countless examples of the church operating in precisely this manner.27 In general in the early church, Christians felt the ambivalence of “life in this world”; while they knew they had to live among pagans, they also knew their lives were but a preliminary to an eternal state that held them responsible for a holy and loving life. Second Clement 6:3–5 states:

This world and the next are two enemies. The one urges to adultery and corruption, avarice and deceit; the other bids farewell to these things. We cannot therefore be the friends of both; and it behooves us, by renouncing the one, to make sure of the other. Let us reckon that it is better to hate things present, since they are trifling and transient and corruptible; and to love those which are to come, as being good and incorruptible.28

This early Christian attitude did not lead to withdrawal into conventicles or to insulating the church from the world. It led instead into a robust conscience of addressing the world with a countercultural message that, while the bulk of Christians were simplistic in their intellectual endeavors, developed into a brilliant tradition of apologists who answered pagans on their own terms—men like Athenagoras, Jerome, and Augustine. Through careful education and exacting analyses of pagan thought, early Christians apologists “spoiled the Egyptians” and their knowledge for the sake of Christ.29

But how will this work out today? First, we need to recognize that the forces working today to enculturate the mandates and truth of the gospel and to swallow holiness are not as overtly physical as they were in Peter’s day. But the threat to the church is not to be minimized. While Peter’s churches could spot those opposed to them because they had seen such people beat on Christians physically, we must have discernment to perceive the same kind of pressure today on the church and on Christian living. In particular, we have the forces of modernization, privatization, and secularization. These forces war against our souls as other forces warred against the souls of the Christians in Asia Minor. Why, for example, do so many Christians think that the essence of Christian living is to be disciplined and efficient? While such ideas are not absent in the Bible, they are hardly held up as core values. Do we not hold them up so high today because they reflect what we have found effective in our capitalistic society? Culture influences us more than we will ever know.

Second, we need to learn what holiness means in all areas of life. Inasmuch as the government, employer-employee relations, and the wife-husband relationship will occupy our attention in the next sections, we can leave these topics to the side. Peter is calling his people to a lifestyle that begins and ends with the theme of holiness, and we need to realize that holiness is not just a call to read the Bible daily, to pray daily, to be faithful attendees of church, to be tithers, or to follow any other Christian virtues that have become the essence of Christian living. Holiness is a thirst, a drive to know God in his fullness and an unashamed commitment to obey God whatever it costs and wherever we are. It begins in the morning, directs our path during the day, and leads us to confession and praise in the evening.

Just as Peter’s call to holy living was a symbol for the identity of the churches, so today holy living ought to be a characteristic symbol of what identifies a Christian. This includes holiness and righteousness in sexual practices, in the words we utter and do not utter, in economic decisions, in recreational pursuits, in vocational direction, and in theological decisions. It includes doing things that contribute to personal holiness, such as Bible reading, prayer, fellowship with other Christians, and the evangelization of our world.

Third, the Church needs to call all of its members to a life of holiness, to a life that denies itself any indulgence in the passions of the flesh and demonstrates to the world that God is at work in the church. Thus, holiness has both a negative and a positive dimension. It means avoiding sin and actively performing acts of goodness and love. Avoidance of sin, like the cult of separationism that sometimes swallowed fundamentalism, is only one part of the biblical notion of holiness; the other part is positive behavior that demonstrates the goodness and glory of God. But this demand must be asked of people from the beginning of their Christian lives; it is not a tacked-on doctrine asked of those who have progressed in the faith for years. We are asking the church to attack sin in society (e.g., fighting casual sex, drugs, alcohol, discrimination against the poor and disenfranchised, institutionalized gambling), and we are also asking the church to live in such a way that others take notice of the Christian’s good behavior.

Recently, a student-pastor of mine entered my office to talk about some details of class. Before long we were chatting about concerns he had regarding pastoring. He related to me how he had grown up in a conservative wing of evangelicalism and had gone through the (now nearly incredible) days of worrying about how long men’s hair ought to be and whether or not women ought to wear slacks to church. I told him I too remembered those days. He then began talking about the massive difficulty he was having speaking about holiness in his church because, he said, “you can hardly raise any ethical standards today without being accused of being a legalist.” This problem is not simple, nor is it only found in a few churches. Whether churches have survived the scary days of nearly indescribable lists of good and bad behavior or whether they have entered the modern scene through the doors of Protestant liberalism, many today find no way of appropriating and instituting legitimate Christian ethical standards without feeling guilty about legalism and excessive meddling in others people’s lives. The legalism of the previous decades has now led us to a liberty that feels almost neurotic about boundaries.

In my judgment, we live in a perfect setting for proclaiming the biblical message of holiness, a holiness that sometimes has only a few sharp lines but which always carries its powerful influence on every kind of behavior. We need to have committees in our churches that address the issues of how to live a holy life in our pluralistic culture, on how to live righteously when those around us seem to have few moral standards. Grass roots movements need to grow in the church, carrying with them the seeds of holy living. Sunday school teachers, especially of adult classes, need to ask their classes what it means to live a holy life in the business world, in the real estate world, in the world of skilled labor, in the world of factories and farming, in the professional world of psychology and sociology, and in the world of teaching. We need to ask Christians to evaluate the media, especially television, in light of the Christian demand for holiness.

This means at the level of evangelism that evangelists need to carry the message of conversion in their packet with the message of redemption; they need to tote the message of the cost of following Jesus along with the message of his comfort; they need to rally behind the message of God’s holiness as well as his loving-kindness. At the level of education the church must urge its members to live holy lives day in and day out. We must emphasize that Christians are different and will often be unaccepted by society. Holiness is for all and is to be found in all areas of life.

Most importantly, Christianity’s countercultural message needs to address the issue of self-indulgence. Our culture is preoccupied with the desire to “express oneself” and to “live one’s own life.” The church offers a message to “deny oneself” and to “live God’s pattern for one’s life.” Only when the Christian message about self-denial is heard will the grace of God be heard in its fullness, and only when the holiness of God is displayed will his grace be clearest.

Our text speaks, perhaps as much as any text, about Christians in society. The Christian is the one who is countercultural because he or she is out of step with trends and passions in culture. It is not this way because we are trying to be odd; we are odd because we are trying to be godly. Again, countercultural living is not the goal of the Christian; rather, countercultural living is the result of following Jesus Christ. Sometimes, in fact, this countercultural life is even out of step with the local churches where Christians are supposed to find their home and their patriots. Martin Luther found the gospel of justification by faith to be radically countercultural to his own church, the Roman Catholic Church, just as John Wesley met opposition when he began to preach his message in England. And so today, when Christians preach a gospel of radical grace and holiness, they can find themselves unappreciated and rejected. But because of their desire to please a holy God, they will seek to leave behind no traces of sin and to be free of accusations.

After class recently, after I had delivered a lecture on the ethics of Jesus, a student came to me to share an interview he heard with a well-known American preacher (whose name must go unmentioned). The interviewer had contended that some of this preacher’s message was contrary to the message of the Bible on self-denial. To which the preacher said, “If I preached that, the people in my church would be mad as hell.” (Those are the words the student used for this preacher’s comments.) When the interviewer said that these concepts were still in the Bible, the preacher responded: “Just because it is in the Bible does not mean I have to preach it.” Here is a classic example of the cultural-conditionedness of some modern preaching. It is a message based on what will get results—and of course, results are judged by acceptance. But the message of Peter and the faithful witnesses we find in the pages of the Bible do not bring a message that seeks to find acceptance. It is a message that goes contrary to culture because it is consistent with God, his holy character, and his holy will for holy living. God is contrary to culture because culture is created and sustained by sinful human beings. Would it not be good if Christians should be accused only for a thoroughly holy life and an inflexibly loving approach?

The first task, I contend, for Christians in society is to live before God in love and holiness in such a way that culture sees the radical difference between the two worlds. We must leave no room for accusations against us for the way we live. To live in holiness and love will mean adopting a countercultural life when that culture opts for a way less than God’s will. It may involve some kind of social exclusion and suffering, for that is what happens to faithful Christians in faithless contexts. Like Peter’s churches, we may become “aliens and strangers.” But Peter’s letter provides a means of coping with this kind of stress—a message that permits us to structure ourselves against that culture in a healthy, God-pleasing way.

Original Meaning

The Purpose of Their Good Behavior (2:12)

PETER NOW MENTIONS the problems for his readers in such concrete fashion that this letter becomes a virtual mirror of the living conditions of the Christians in Asia Minor. If they live godly, blameless lives in their hostile environment, then even if the pagans accuse of them doing bad things, they will be able to see the good behavior of the Christians, and that very behavior will become a source of judgment against the unbelieving world.6

In verse 12, Peter first repeats the ethical exhortation of 2:11b but in positive form, forming the foundation (2:12a): “Live such good lives among the pagans….” Reputation was a dainty thing as much in the first century as it is now; a bad reputation ruined a person’s chances in life. Early Christians were suspect, so they developed an ethic of blamelessness and reputation to give the hostile forces of society no ground for their evil workings.7 Peter develops this “good life” by addressing the issues of submitting to the government, living honorably and industriously before masters, loving one’s spouse, and living harmoniously with one another (2:13–3:12).

Peter situates this ethic of reputation in a specific problem (2:12b):8 “though they accuse you of doing wrong.” The Christians of Asia Minor, in spite of living good lives, were apparently unjustly being accused of wrongdoing. Peter brings this theme up several times: Foolish men have said ignorant things (2:15), slaves were being mistreated (2:18–21), spouses were probably turning against one another (3:1–7), and believers were being insulted unfairly and persecuted (3:9, 13–17; 4:12–16). Peter urges his readers to live circumspectly and honorably when these accusations are lodged against them and to refrain from insulting their unjust accusers.9

Repeating himself, Peter offers once again the alternative (2:12c): “that … they may see your good deeds”; but this time he adds the result, that the opponents will “glorify God on the day he visits us” (2:12d). While it is clear what “glorify God” means, the issue here is what “on the day he visits us” means.10 The ambiguity of the expression has led interpreters to two main options: (1) the day of their conversion, which was stimulated by the good works of the Christians, or (2) the judgment day, which involved judgment against unbelievers and led them to realize that they were wrong in accusing believers unjustly (Isa. 10:3; see also Ex. 32:34; Jer. 6:15; 10:15; 11:23).11

While it is true that Peter does see the fruit of good works to be conversion (3:1), the more normal response of unbelievers to the good behavior of believers is not conversion. Rather, Peter foresees judgment coming on the unbelieving world (cf. 2:15, 23; 3:9–12; 4:5, 17). At 3:16, which shows some striking parallels to this verse, the important phrase is “put to shame,” which clearly refers to judgment (Pss. 40:14; 69:4–7, 19–20; 83:16–18; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:27).12 In conclusion, while there is some evidence favoring the notion that Peter sees conversions of pagans taking place as a result of the good behavior of the Christians, it is more likely that he has the final day of judgment in view here, the day on which God will vindicate the good behavior of Christians and will drive the hostile accusers to see that they were wrong.

Bridging Contexts

BECAUSE THE TWO options for interpreting the intended audience (“aliens and strangers”) are so different—one describing the Christian life as a pilgrimage on earth, the other describing the social status of believers who need to learn how to live in a difficult world—a serious issue for application presents itself. What do we do when we think there is more than one reasonable interpretation of a passage? Another example of this issue is 2:12, where a reference either to salvation or judgment can be argued. What do we do when more than one view is possible? Do we apply both?

First, we need to see if either of the options is found elsewhere in the Bible or in Christian theology. If it is, we are safe (theologically but not necessarily exegetically) in applying either view. If we conclude that one of the options is not taught elsewhere and there is considerable doubt about it being the view that is actually being taught in the passage under consideration, we should exercise caution. As for our discussion of 2:12, the Bible clearly teaches that Christian behavior leads both to others becoming Christians (this is also the witness of countless Christians throughout the history of the church) and to a criterion for final judgment (cf. Matt. 25:31–46). Thus, we would be within the realm of truth to take either view, even if we were eventually to discover that we interpreted the passage incorrectly. Yet we should always strive to interpret a passage accurately and apply the view that is most accurate as we perceive the evidence.

Second, it is in my judgment always unwise to pretend that any passage has two distinctly different meanings. At times (though rarely), an author may intentionally write in such a way to give a double entendre, but this is usually not what is going on when we hear someone make two different applications for a single passage. When double entendre does occur and is consciously intended by the author, then two meanings are implied. But when it is not intended, we need to find one meaning.

What, however, do we do when there are at least two meanings possible and we are unable to decide? This calls for some cautious statements in our search for the intended meaning.13 If we are undecided, we ought to say we are undecided, which is far better than being sure of two or more meanings. This takes place when an interpreter offers one meaning and applies it, then turns around and says, “Or the passage could mean this, in which case the application would be so and so.” This can lead Christian listeners to think solid, precise thinking is unimportant, and all that we need is to get within “shooting distance” and offer alternatives. Authors write in order to communicate; surely distance of time makes biblical communication and interpretation more difficult, but we cannot escape into some kind of interpretive model where anything goes. We must hunt for the author’s meaning, and, as R. H. Stein has said, “There is one meaning to a text, that meaning consciously willed by the author….”14 This means that we should have as our goal the single meaning of the passage when we begin interpreting and when we apply that one meaning.

However, arguing for one meaning does not exclude that an author may have intended a double entendre. In our passage, if one could establish that the meaning is truly a double entendre, then we could instruct and apply both senses (salvation and judgment). But I know of no interpreter of 1 Peter 2:12 who argues for this. Thus, we must either choose one or the other, or state that we are unable to decide. But we should not argue for both, especially when they are mutually exclusive.

My experience with interpretation leads me to think that most of the time individual interpreters can come to a more committed view. A little more time, a little more effort, and a little more careful exegesis will often lead the interpreter to greater confidence in one view over the other. I fear that too often the feeble interpretation of more than one view is caused by the interpreter’s not having enough time to work through the evidence carefully, in which case we need to examine whether we are giving ourselves adequate time to study the Bible. We ought also to ask if we are being responsible to our task of preaching and teaching if we are not giving ourselves sufficient time to sift through the evidence carefully and come to solid conclusions.

One of the most fruitful areas of modern interpretation of the Bible is taking place as readers are experimenting with other disciplines of the liberal arts in order to give themselves a more well-rounded perspective on the context of the Bible and how to bring that text into our world.15 Classically, interpreters have been trained in language, philosophy, and theology; but contemporary experience demonstrates that life is more complex than these disciplines (though I do not want to depreciate or minimize their priority for interpreters of the Bible). Thus, scholars today are using literary theories, sociology, and psychology to augment their linguistic, philosophical, and theological approaches. Scholars are also using the more complex theories of understanding how authors work (narrative theories) and how readers read (reader-oriented theories). I would like to offer here one example of how a modern sociological model might be used fruitfully for understanding 1 Peter.

The theory I propose to use is that of B. J. Siegel.16 This theory concerns itself with understanding a “religious sect” by seeing how a religious movement protects itself in a hostile environment. Few of my readers would contest that Peter’s letter is intended for a group of churches that find themselves in a hostile environment, and most will forgive us for using the term sect in its sociological sense.17 What these kinds of models do is to give us new lenses to see information that was left unnoticed or to see old information in a new light. When we apply the model of Siegel, several items from 1 Peter gain a clarity and focus that would not have been seen without this model. The only necessary assumption to make in applying this model to our text is a simple one: Groups essentially behave in a similar manner when stress is encountered.18 We emphasize “similar manner,” for the word “identical” is inappropriate and too deterministic. Groups do adapt themselves in similar manners but not in identical manners.19 20

The Theory of Siegel. Siegel’s essential theory describes the adaptation techniques that specific groups use when they perceive stress or a threat to their existence. That is, they structure themselves to form a defense and so to preserve their distinctiveness. He outlines four typical strategies: (1) Such groups demonstrate authoritarian control over members by developing an elite group of leaders; (2) they have a high rate of endogamy (marry only members of the group); (3) they cultivate cultural identity symbols; and (4) they educate the youth associated with the group to control various desires.21 Thus, when a group feels stress over against outside groups (as Peter’s churches did), they will use that stress to motivate the group to defend itself against invasion, corruption, and dissolution. In this way, the group solidifies its identity and so preserves its life.

Let us now compare this model to the evidence in 1 Peter. (1) There can be no doubt about environmental stress for the churches of 1 Peter. They were encountering various trials22 (1:6), they were experiencing verbal attacks (2:12, 23), the slaves were finding their masters to be ornery (2:18), and wives were finding that their husbands were unbelieving (3:1–6). In short, they were being persecuted (3:13–17; 4:1–6, 12–19). We can infer that the churches would have responded to this threat in a way that would preserve their identity and cultivate their continued existence. To accomplish these purposes is why Peter wrote this letter.

(2) We need also to look at the various adaptive strategies. (a) I will begin with the fourth strategy, early socialization, since there is no evidence for it in 1 Peter. However, it is likely that the Christians of Peter’s churches were educating their youth in the values and teachings of the early Christian movement, not only because such an interest is found in the Bible (beginning with Deut. 6), but also because such a theory makes sense. What we can learn, however, from making this assumption is that such educational activity has a social angle and purpose; in part, we educate our children in the truths of our faith because we are preparing them for dealing with a world that does not embrace that faith. Thus, while there is no evidence in the text that such education was going on in Asia Minor, we can readily assume it. Furthermore, we can assume that the letter itself is part of that very education.

(b) Peter does have a concern with strong leadership (strategy 1). His letter is a prime example. He addresses them as “apostle” (1:1; cf. 2 Peter 1:15–21; 3:15–17) and frequently uses the imperative mood to tell them what to do. But he is also concerned with leaders in the churches and the important role they play in socializing their flocks into the truths of Christian theology and the practices enjoined by the gospel. He commands the local pastors to take care of their congregations (5:2) and the young men of the churches to submit to them (5:5). Siegel’s theory invites us to see the social nature of leadership and the role it plays in preserving doctrine and practice, especially when the community itself is under threat of persecution and dissolution.

(c) It is clear that marriage of Christians is of no concern in this letter, though we could guess that it was an issue. Clearly such a concern is found in the Bible (Ezra, Nehemiah), and we know that intermarriage was a significant issue in Judaism.23 We can reasonably infer that Peter would have encouraged Christians to marry other Christians, if only to avoid the problem of unbelieving spouses (1 Peter 3:1). In my judgment, we are justified in inferring this, as long as we caution that such is only an informed inference. In light of the history of Judaism and the nature of this issue in the other parts of early Christianity (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14–18), I cannot imagine that such an issue did not arise for the fathers, mothers, and prospective wives and husbands in Peter’s churches, in order for the community to survive in the face of serious opposition. What we have here is sound historical judgment informed by sociological theory.

(d) The most obvious feature of the model found throughout 1 Peter is the development of cultural symbols, where “cultural” means that which gave the early Christian groups their identity and where “symbols” is understood in its broader sense of linguistic, ideological, and physical expressions of beliefs and values. The entire letter is Peter’s attempt to keep the group cohesive by providing theological clarifications and ethical exhortations that give the group some foundations for understanding their stress in such a way that it becomes explicable in an otherwise baffling series of events. Persecution, Peter says, occurs within God’s sovereignty and is used by God to develop their faith (1:7). The persecutors are unbelievers who are simply continuing what happened to Jesus. The believers should understand that God has given them a new inheritance, and they are to trust in God’s mercy as they endure their present stress. Such ideas as the unity and glory of the church, the nature of salvation in Christ, the exhortation to love and holiness are each cultural symbols of what Peter is trying to tell these churches. Even his inculcation of a distinctive dress for women (3:1–6) is part of his design to give the churches a foundation for identifying and defending themselves over against a persecuting culture.

The most obvious cultural symbol that Peter provides his readers is a new term of identity: they are “aliens and strangers.” This identity-forming expression provides a way of understanding both their social location and the spiritual basis for that location. Society may see them as excluded, but Peter appropriates these terms of censure for a new category of the spiritually gifted. What was then a term of criticism becomes a badge of merit. Because they are the church (a symbol) and although they are socially excluded (a symbol), they can live holy lives (a symbol) in the midst of tribulation as they look forward to the day of judgment (a symbol).

Sociological models like Siegel’s, of course, are not perfect, but they do provide students of the Bible with another avenue on which to travel as they seek to understand the fullness of God’s Word and its relationship to its original world and our world. Sociologists seek to examine the everyday realities of our lives and then describe that behavior in a way that helps us understand that reality. When models like these are applied to the ancient world and the New Testament, they can at times shed light on features of the text that would not otherwise have been noted or observed. Siegel’s model helps us to see the ethics of Peter and his exhortations to leaders in a new way. When our observations find confirmation in other evidence in the early church, we are on much safer grounds for inferring such for 1 Peter.24 Learning about Peter’s world in turn helps us find analogies for application in our world.

In sum, Siegel’s theory about defensive structuring illuminates the fundamental principles Peter urges in 2:11–12. His exhortations are for his readers to live holy lives, to avoid entangling themselves in difficult situations, and to live in such a way that others will join the church. These principles (or symbolic structures), in other words, are a part of a strategy for coping with a society that is hostile to one’s beliefs and associations. Peter’s strategy, then, is both theological (it is God’s will) and sociological (it will enable us to cope and survive). As the commentary proceeds, I will occasionally glance back at this sociological model of interpretation or assume some of the insights gained here.

Contemporary Significance

PETER’S ESSENTIAL MESSAGE here is: Live holy lives in the midst of secular chaos, and let God take care of the final results. Put differently, Peter is calling the churches in Asia Minor to a lifestyle radically different from the surrounding culture as part of their strategy for pleasing God and coping with their environment. This call to holiness is no different today; indeed, it may even be more important today, for the contemporary Western church is more under the influence of the modern culture than most of us realize. What we need is a breath of fresh air to fill us with the aroma of holiness, justice, and righteousness. David Wells, in his recent book God in the Wilderness, calls the church to precisely this by saying,

The choice for God now has to become one in which the church begins to form itself, by his grace and truth, into an outcropping of counter-cultural spirituality. It must first recover the sense of antithesis between Christ and culture and then find ways to sustain that antithesis…. It must give up self-cultivation for self-surrender, entertainment for worship, intuition for truth, slick marketing for authentic witness, success for faithfulness, power for humility, a God bought on cheap terms for the God who calls us to costly obedience. It must, in short, be willing to do God’s business on God’s terms.25

These are categories for Peter as well: self-surrender (2:11), worship (2:4–5), truth (1:22), authentic witness (2:12), faithfulness (1:6–7), humility (2:13–3:7), and a God who calls us to costly obedience (1:15–17). What Peter wants from his churches (and what God wants from his people!) is a heart focused on him, a behavior focused on love and obedience, and a lifestyle impeccable in the sight of non-Christians.

This is precisely how religion, the Christian faith in particular, ought to function in this country. Religion is neither a prop for politics nor a sanctification of governmental wishes. Instead, it is a separate voice, a voice in the wilderness, an alternative society to the prevailing culture and status quo. In his book The Culture of Disbelief, Stephen Carter writes that a “religion is, at its heart, a way of denying the authority of the rest of the world; it is a way of saying to fellow human beings and to the state those fellow humans have erected, ‘No, I will not accede to your will.’ ”26 This statement, by a brilliant lawyer-social critic, comes from a book that seeks to demonstrate how American law and politics have trivialized the deservedly prominent place religious faith actually plays in the lives of countless Americans. One of his main points is that Christians must let their faith stand up and keep themselves from succumbing to social pressure. They must speak their mind—the mind of religious faith. Only in so speaking will they as Christians perform their proper function in our current political situation.

The church, Peter says, is a countercultural alternative to society and culture. Church history shows countless examples of the church operating in precisely this manner.27 In general in the early church, Christians felt the ambivalence of “life in this world”; while they knew they had to live among pagans, they also knew their lives were but a preliminary to an eternal state that held them responsible for a holy and loving life. Second Clement 6:3–5 states:

This world and the next are two enemies. The one urges to adultery and corruption, avarice and deceit; the other bids farewell to these things. We cannot therefore be the friends of both; and it behooves us, by renouncing the one, to make sure of the other. Let us reckon that it is better to hate things present, since they are trifling and transient and corruptible; and to love those which are to come, as being good and incorruptible.28

This early Christian attitude did not lead to withdrawal into conventicles or to insulating the church from the world. It led instead into a robust conscience of addressing the world with a countercultural message that, while the bulk of Christians were simplistic in their intellectual endeavors, developed into a brilliant tradition of apologists who answered pagans on their own terms—men like Athenagoras, Jerome, and Augustine. Through careful education and exacting analyses of pagan thought, early Christians apologists “spoiled the Egyptians” and their knowledge for the sake of Christ.29

But how will this work out today? First, we need to recognize that the forces working today to enculturate the mandates and truth of the gospel and to swallow holiness are not as overtly physical as they were in Peter’s day. But the threat to the church is not to be minimized. While Peter’s churches could spot those opposed to them because they had seen such people beat on Christians physically, we must have discernment to perceive the same kind of pressure today on the church and on Christian living. In particular, we have the forces of modernization, privatization, and secularization. These forces war against our souls as other forces warred against the souls of the Christians in Asia Minor. Why, for example, do so many Christians think that the essence of Christian living is to be disciplined and efficient? While such ideas are not absent in the Bible, they are hardly held up as core values. Do we not hold them up so high today because they reflect what we have found effective in our capitalistic society? Culture influences us more than we will ever know.

Second, we need to learn what holiness means in all areas of life. Inasmuch as the government, employer-employee relations, and the wife-husband relationship will occupy our attention in the next sections, we can leave these topics to the side. Peter is calling his people to a lifestyle that begins and ends with the theme of holiness, and we need to realize that holiness is not just a call to read the Bible daily, to pray daily, to be faithful attendees of church, to be tithers, or to follow any other Christian virtues that have become the essence of Christian living. Holiness is a thirst, a drive to know God in his fullness and an unashamed commitment to obey God whatever it costs and wherever we are. It begins in the morning, directs our path during the day, and leads us to confession and praise in the evening.

Just as Peter’s call to holy living was a symbol for the identity of the churches, so today holy living ought to be a characteristic symbol of what identifies a Christian. This includes holiness and righteousness in sexual practices, in the words we utter and do not utter, in economic decisions, in recreational pursuits, in vocational direction, and in theological decisions. It includes doing things that contribute to personal holiness, such as Bible reading, prayer, fellowship with other Christians, and the evangelization of our world.

Third, the Church needs to call all of its members to a life of holiness, to a life that denies itself any indulgence in the passions of the flesh and demonstrates to the world that God is at work in the church. Thus, holiness has both a negative and a positive dimension. It means avoiding sin and actively performing acts of goodness and love. Avoidance of sin, like the cult of separationism that sometimes swallowed fundamentalism, is only one part of the biblical notion of holiness; the other part is positive behavior that demonstrates the goodness and glory of God. But this demand must be asked of people from the beginning of their Christian lives; it is not a tacked-on doctrine asked of those who have progressed in the faith for years. We are asking the church to attack sin in society (e.g., fighting casual sex, drugs, alcohol, discrimination against the poor and disenfranchised, institutionalized gambling), and we are also asking the church to live in such a way that others take notice of the Christian’s good behavior.

Recently, a student-pastor of mine entered my office to talk about some details of class. Before long we were chatting about concerns he had regarding pastoring. He related to me how he had grown up in a conservative wing of evangelicalism and had gone through the (now nearly incredible) days of worrying about how long men’s hair ought to be and whether or not women ought to wear slacks to church. I told him I too remembered those days. He then began talking about the massive difficulty he was having speaking about holiness in his church because, he said, “you can hardly raise any ethical standards today without being accused of being a legalist.” This problem is not simple, nor is it only found in a few churches. Whether churches have survived the scary days of nearly indescribable lists of good and bad behavior or whether they have entered the modern scene through the doors of Protestant liberalism, many today find no way of appropriating and instituting legitimate Christian ethical standards without feeling guilty about legalism and excessive meddling in others people’s lives. The legalism of the previous decades has now led us to a liberty that feels almost neurotic about boundaries.

In my judgment, we live in a perfect setting for proclaiming the biblical message of holiness, a holiness that sometimes has only a few sharp lines but which always carries its powerful influence on every kind of behavior. We need to have committees in our churches that address the issues of how to live a holy life in our pluralistic culture, on how to live righteously when those around us seem to have few moral standards. Grass roots movements need to grow in the church, carrying with them the seeds of holy living. Sunday school teachers, especially of adult classes, need to ask their classes what it means to live a holy life in the business world, in the real estate world, in the world of skilled labor, in the world of factories and farming, in the professional world of psychology and sociology, and in the world of teaching. We need to ask Christians to evaluate the media, especially television, in light of the Christian demand for holiness.

This means at the level of evangelism that evangelists need to carry the message of conversion in their packet with the message of redemption; they need to tote the message of the cost of following Jesus along with the message of his comfort; they need to rally behind the message of God’s holiness as well as his loving-kindness. At the level of education the church must urge its members to live holy lives day in and day out. We must emphasize that Christians are different and will often be unaccepted by society. Holiness is for all and is to be found in all areas of life.

Most importantly, Christianity’s countercultural message needs to address the issue of self-indulgence. Our culture is preoccupied with the desire to “express oneself” and to “live one’s own life.” The church offers a message to “deny oneself” and to “live God’s pattern for one’s life.” Only when the Christian message about self-denial is heard will the grace of God be heard in its fullness, and only when the holiness of God is displayed will his grace be clearest.

Our text speaks, perhaps as much as any text, about Christians in society. The Christian is the one who is countercultural because he or she is out of step with trends and passions in culture. It is not this way because we are trying to be odd; we are odd because we are trying to be godly. Again, countercultural living is not the goal of the Christian; rather, countercultural living is the result of following Jesus Christ. Sometimes, in fact, this countercultural life is even out of step with the local churches where Christians are supposed to find their home and their patriots. Martin Luther found the gospel of justification by faith to be radically countercultural to his own church, the Roman Catholic Church, just as John Wesley met opposition when he began to preach his message in England. And so today, when Christians preach a gospel of radical grace and holiness, they can find themselves unappreciated and rejected. But because of their desire to please a holy God, they will seek to leave behind no traces of sin and to be free of accusations.

After class recently, after I had delivered a lecture on the ethics of Jesus, a student came to me to share an interview he heard with a well-known American preacher (whose name must go unmentioned). The interviewer had contended that some of this preacher’s message was contrary to the message of the Bible on self-denial. To which the preacher said, “If I preached that, the people in my church would be mad as hell.” (Those are the words the student used for this preacher’s comments.) When the interviewer said that these concepts were still in the Bible, the preacher responded: “Just because it is in the Bible does not mean I have to preach it.” Here is a classic example of the cultural-conditionedness of some modern preaching. It is a message based on what will get results—and of course, results are judged by acceptance. But the message of Peter and the faithful witnesses we find in the pages of the Bible do not bring a message that seeks to find acceptance. It is a message that goes contrary to culture because it is consistent with God, his holy character, and his holy will for holy living. God is contrary to culture because culture is created and sustained by sinful human beings. Would it not be good if Christians should be accused only for a thoroughly holy life and an inflexibly loving approach?

The first task, I contend, for Christians in society is to live before God in love and holiness in such a way that culture sees the radical difference between the two worlds. We must leave no room for accusations against us for the way we live. To live in holiness and love will mean adopting a countercultural life when that culture opts for a way less than God’s will. It may involve some kind of social exclusion and suffering, for that is what happens to faithful Christians in faithless contexts. Like Peter’s churches, we may become “aliens and strangers.” But Peter’s letter provides a means of coping with this kind of stress—a message that permits us to structure ourselves against that culture in a healthy, God-pleasing way.