Introduction

EVEN AS I WRITE this introduction, Christians all over the world are posturing themselves over against their culture, their society, their local community with its leaders, “the world” as they perceive it. They are reading newspapers, listening to news broadcasts and watching television news report the latest events, sitting in business and power sessions, researching trends in think tanks, meeting together for discussions—all in an effort to discern what is going on in their society so they can live more responsibly, so they can reach out to their world, and so they can fight against disturbing and disquieting tendencies. Each one in his or her own way is trying to follow Jesus and live the Christian life.

Just how Christians are doing this varies considerably. Consider, for example, these widely different situations:

This is but a smattering of the alternatives Christians living in the world today have. We could go on to detail Christians in China, Indonesia, North Korea, or Japan. Each culture confronts believers in that culture with a different face, a face that nonetheless colors the presentation of the gospel and forces Christians to examine their strategies.1

A pressing concern for the entire sweep of church history has been to answer the question: “How should we then live?”2 Is it to be the activist form taken by Martin Luther King Jr., who led the famous boycotts and marches for civil rights? Is it to be the Utopian communitarianism of the Hutterites? Is it to be the aggressive action of the Moral Majority of the 1980s?3 Just how should Christians interact with society? To the shame of many modern Christians, this kind of question is simply not being asked, even while passionate activity assumes some theoretical basis—and passionate activity has not been lacking.

In contemporary evangelicalism, for instance, most are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans because, it is assumed, that is the Christian view.4 Such shallow thinking masks an entire host of questions and issues that deserve careful thinking and extensive Christian debate.5 Along the same line, most of these Christians believe that the issues are simple and that the answers can be found in the Bible with exceptional, and alarming, clarity. Such intuitive confidence, however, has not been part of the history of the church’s discussions of the relationship of the church and society.

Church history has seen three dominant theological answers to this question of how Christians are to interact with society and culture. The first, a counterculture of separatism, has been consciously espoused since the Radical Reformation by various branches of the Anabaptists, including the Mennonites, the Amish, and the Hutterites.6 The foundation for this view is its deep anchor into the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus, a foundation that is sadly missing in many reflections on the relationship of the church and society.7 While only rarely cloistering themselves in separate communes, these Christians have contended that the church is a separate institution that should in no way allow interference from the state in governing its affairs. It was only a natural extension of this stance to find the Anabaptists not only prohibiting governmental interference, but also refusing to participate in many, if not most, of society’s ways and means. This naturally led at times to a severe separatism, though many of today’s Mennonites, for instance, participate much more in political and social activities—even if often in their own particular ways. But what should be noted is that this view emerges from a people who have had both the practical experience of living an alternative vision for God’s people and the theoretical benefit of sustained reflection on the issues from both political and theological angles.

While this separatist stance has been radical and rare, the majority of Christians in the history of the church, particularly since the development of the Industrial Revolution with its rapid secularization of society, have participated by seeking to extend Christian society into secular society, arguing that if it is God’s will for the individual Christian, it surely is his will for all of society. This has been called the “Reformed view” of the relationship of the church and the state.8 Here we find a stance of moving from individual Christian ethics to corporate political ethics in whatever manner is appropriate to a local society (from grassroots agitation to powerful acts of legislation). The history of American politics has been dotted with this sort of maneuvering: from Christian activism in the prohibition of alcohol to the attempt to block the teaching of atheistic evolutionism in public schools, from fighting against international warfare to blocking abortion clinics, and especially of late the attempt to lobby and influence major politicians through political rallies.9

A third view, rarely with strong political force, is the Lutheran view that there are two realms, the realm of the kingdom of God as found in the church and the realm of the state.10 Lutheran politics contend that the relation between God and his people (the church) and the relation between God and the world are in fact two kinds of relationships. The strategy of God is different for society than for the church. As a part of evangelicalism for nearly thirty years now, I can say unequivocally that most evangelicals previously adopted a stance, however unwittingly Lutheran they may have been, in which they see the church and the state as governed by two different impulses—but today there has been more political activism than in the last forty years. This activism has led many to a more Reformed orientation. I wonder, however, if this switch in stances was made as a result of theoretical reflection or of some other motivation (economic?). Noll states: “If, in fact, there is a difference between God in relation to the individual and God in relation to the world, then a failure to observe the structural and systematic differences between personal moral vision and comprehensive public crusade becomes an important matter.”11

Peter’s Problem

IT IS NOT my intent either to propose an alternative or to resolve the differences among Christians in the academic and public discussions about how they are to be involved in society. Rather, it is to say that one of the earliest Christian documents reflecting on the problem of the relation of the Christian to the state is the First Letter of Peter. It is my contention that we can learn some enduring insights from studying this letter. In fact, the problem discussed in the previous section might be called “Peter’s Problem”: In light of the relationship of Christians to the Roman-led government of Asia Minor, how should Christians live in Peter’s day? Any reading of 1 Peter brings this issue to the surface immediately. It begins in the first verse: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered….” Peter’s contentions are clear: Believers in Asia Minor are to live honorable and holy lives (1:14–16, 18, 22; 2:1, 5, 9, 11–12, 15, 20; 3:6, 15, 17; 4:1–6), they are to endure suffering (1:6–8; 2:18–25; 3:13–17; 4:1–6, 12–19; 5:8–9, 10), they are to live within social structures (2:13–17, 18–25; 3:1–6, 7, 8–12), and they are to be respectful of outsiders (2:11–12).

We might be tempted, then, to think that the answer to Peter’s problem was simple: Live holy, be good citizens, participate in society in your own way, endure suffering, and don’t make waves. And then we might be tempted to follow this simple solution by suggesting that this is how we, as modern Western Christians, are to relate to society (live holy, endure suffering, and don’t make waves). But this is surely far too simplistic, and I know of few Christians who adopt such a quietist stance over against society. No, this simplistic procedure will not do.

For one thing, Peter’s social world differs considerably from ours. The three views I sketched above, for instance, are proposals in the history of the church that have been drawn up in social situations dramatically different from first-century Asia Minor. In fact, it might be said that different social situations elicit different strategies for living within society. For example, a beleaguered minority, suffering physically at the hands of a ruthless anti-Christian government, will not think of “extending its virtues” into political activity, any more than a dominant Christian majority will think of remaining separate from governmental and political activity when that same government is begging for its votes and input. Put more graphically, enfranchised Christians in Washington, D.C., Bonn, Edinburgh, and Geneva will think of society and Christian influence in society in completely different categories than those disenfranchised Christians in Bogota, Moscow, Saigon, and Cairo. But it is fundamental for each to plumb the depths of the scriptural witness to God’s activities in the history of his people and how that people has related to the world around it.

Our goal is to study 1 Peter in such a way as to highlight Peter’s proposals for “Christian life in a modern society.” To accomplish this task requires three procedures: (1) We must study the ancient text itself and determine the original meaning of Peter’s text; (2) we must reflect on how we, as modern Westerners, are to move that meaning into our world by bridging the contexts; and (3) I want to suggest some contemporary significance of that original meaning. We begin by looking more particularly at Peter’s world and the world of his audience.

Peter’s World

Social Situation

THOSE FOR WHOM Peter intended this letter were “scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,” regions that comprised the Roman provinces of northwestern Asia Minor (modern Turkey). It has been suggested that the order of the provinces reflects the order in which the letter would have traveled and been read (beginning in the northern region, traveling southerly to Galatia and Cappadocia, and then returning back to Bithynia through the province of Asia). We can be certain that the letter was taken to the major cities in these provinces, cities that were thriving and growing according the pulses of the Roman empire.

While it is possible that evidence like quotations from the Old Testament (e.g., 1:16, 24; 2:3, 6, 9–10, 12) and the use of designations for Israel (1:1 [“elect”]; esp. 2:9–10) could indicate that the readers were formerly members of non-Christian Judaism,12 I am persuaded that the readers were mostly Gentiles who had probably previously become attached to Judaism through local synagogues and other forms of Judaism.13 Thus, their former life was a life of living in ignorance (1:14), which was handed on to them by their fathers (1:18). That they were formerly “not [my] people” (2:10) points in the same direction, as does their earlier pagan lifestyle (4:2–4). Yet it is likely that the road to Christianity for these Gentile pagans included a stop at the local synagogue, where they were instructed in the Torah and the ways of the Jewish people. This permits an easy reference to the Old Testament for Peter. It is also likely that some of the Christian converts were formerly Jewish in race and heritage.

What is dramatically interesting about this audience is that though they came from a Gentile background, Peter addresses them as if they were Israel. That is, they have in some sense “replaced” national Israel as the people of God and are now the new and true Israel. From the beginning of the letter to the end Peter describes the church with terms that have been used in defining Israel. They are the “elect” and “scattered” ones (1:1) and a “holy priesthood” (2:5). Most prominent here is 2:9–10: “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God…. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” This is the language of fulfillment and replacement.14

In general, then, we can safely conclude that the audience of Peter was comprised of Gentile converts to Christianity who had probably been proselytes to Judaism or at least God-fearers. Two other terms give us further insight into the nature of their social conditions: “aliens and strangers in the world” (2:11–12). While the letter reveals an audience that has some “free men” (2:16) and “slaves” (2:18–20), some wives without Christian husbands (3:1–6), and some Christian husbands and wives (3:7), the terms aliens and strangers may be the most revealing of all about the social location of the audience.

It is true that many commentators, sometimes with little thought about the options, interpret these two words as a metaphor for the Christian’s earthly existence while he or she awaits the true heavenly home.15 But the work of J. H. Elliott has demonstrated that these two terms refer as much (if not more) to their social situation as it does to their spiritual situation.16 Thus, Elliott argues, the audience of Peter was a group of socially marginalized people who were “resident aliens” and “temporary residents” prior to, and independent of, their conversion to Christianity. In other words, in these two terms we have a window into the social condition of the readers of 1 Peter: They were disenfranchised workers laboring in the cracks of a network that largely excluded them, but they had found the meaning to their existence in the Christian family.

If Elliott’s case is reasonable, as I think it is, that does not mean that the New Testament has no “pilgrimage theme,” for surely this is the heartbeat of the Christian life in the letter to the Hebrews. But two questions surface: “Is such a theme taught in 1 Peter?” and “Do the above-mentioned terms reflect such a theme?” We need to answer these questions before we can go any further. We begin with the terms aliens and strangers. These terms17 refer respectively to a social status, to “non-citizen residents in some place” (that is, a person residing in a place without rights) and to “temporary residents” in some place. Such a social displacement was normal in the history of Israel, even if it was the result of the hand of God himself (cf. Gen. 15:13). In the Roman empire these terms were used for the group of resident aliens who occupied a special wrung on the social ladder—below citizens and above the slaves and foreigners.18

The “homelessness” of these people, in other words, led them to a “new home”: the church, the family of God, in which they found social acceptance and protection. In interpreting these two terms in social rather than spiritual or metaphorical categories, I do not pretend to think that the message of 1 Peter is entirely social and unspiritual. In fact, the reverse is the case. These social nobodies found that God, in his grace, had chosen them as members of his great family (a spiritual house). Furthermore, the analogy today is clearly to our “homelessness” in our society, whether that be spiritual isolation or social manipulation, and our “at-homeness” in God’s family. Even more, it becomes important for the church of Jesus Christ to find the social cracks and those who have fallen through, and then to minister the gospel of God’s acceptance to them, to show them that God’s true family transcends and neglects the social boundaries that society constructs. The church needs to demonstrate itself to be the family where all can be accepted.

Indeed, Elliott himself allows that the terms we have been discussing may be both social (disenfranchised people) and metaphorical (earthly life while waiting for a heavenly home), but he contends that the social reality is nonetheless the core of the matter. I affirm his perception. That is, the metaphorical description of God’s people derives from their social marginalization. I believe Elliott has proven his case beyond reasonable doubt, and a significant number of scholars today on 1 Peter agree with him.20 In what follows, I will utilize his thesis that the converts to Christ in Asia Minor were socially deprived and that one of their great discoveries was that in the family of God they were reenfranchised.

Authorship and Date

IT IS CUSTOMARY for commentaries to include a section on authorship and original date of the book. Many readers tire of such a procedure—and for good reason, because frequently such sections cover old paths with little fresh light. In a commentary of this sort, a rationale needs to be provided for looking at these issues. The essential argument can be stated like this: Our commentary takes history as significant for interpretation; for that reason alone authorship and date may prove to be important. If we can determine these two issues, then we have a firm grasp of the historical realities behind the text and informing the world of that text.

The foundation for this series of commentaries is that one must move from the ancient world to the modern world, using various ways and differing strategies to communicate the ancient message in a relevant way. This observation is grounded on the assumption that the ancient text was embedded in historical, cultural, social, and religious contexts that need to be appreciated if we are to understand the message of the book aright. Throughout the pages of this commentary the reader will be referred to ancient texts, to evidence from Peter’s world, and to observations about cultural and social conditions that need to be understood properly before we can understand what Peter was saying. A famous saying, albeit in German, is regularly bandied about in discussions like this: “Willst den Dichter Du verstehen, musst in Dichters Lande gehen.” This saying, attributed to Goethe, says, “If you want to understand an author, you have to go to his land.” I agree wholeheartedly with this saying. Thus, at the end of this section on Peter’s world, we must pause to survey the issues surrounding the authorship and date of 1 Peter.

Because the letter begins by saying that Peter wrote it, evidence must be presented by any who claim that Peter did not write it.21 I do not consider this a heavy-handed presupposition. Instead, it is a simple methodological point: If the text says Peter wrote the letter, then to contend that he did not requires proof. If there is no solid counterproof, we can consider the ascription to be solid. Yet I do not want to argue, as a presupposition, that pseudonymity is not found in the Bible, for there can be differing motivations for writing something pseudonymously. On the other hand, if one argues that Peter did write the letter, then one should also provide evidence for that. A good place to begin (but only to begin) is with the letter’s beginning and its supposed author.

Besides the name at the outset of the book, there are elements that confirm Peter as the author of the book. (1) The author has seen the sufferings of Jesus (2:21–24; 5:1). (2) Similarities between the teachings of Jesus and 1 Peter support an author who spent time with Jesus (cf. Luke 12:35 and 1 Peter 1:13; Luke 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:17; Matt. 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:12; Luke 6:28 and 1 Peter 3:9; Matt. 5:10 and 1 Peter 3:14). (3) There are also similarities between Peter’s speeches in Acts and 1 Peter (cf. Acts 5:30, 10:39 and 1 Peter 2:24; Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20).22 (4) One might also mention the rather vague, but sometimes suggested, idea that the theology and church organization of 1 Peter are early and consistent with what Peter would have taught.

Some, however, have argued that the Greek style of 1 Peter is simply too accomplished for Peter.23 As Acts 4:13 states, “When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” Could an “unschooled” man like Peter have written this book in such good Greek? The argument is solid but not unimpeachable. In fact, evidence from Acts suggests that Peter was in fact eloquent for someone who had not been educated (in the rabbinic manner?); this eloquence satisfies the evidence of 1 Peter. Furthermore, some contend that 1 Peter 5:12 describes Silas as contributing to the letter—perhaps polishing Peter’s ideas (see comments). In short, while the major obstacle to Petrine authorship style24 is serious enough that it must be given fair attention, the preponderance of evidence commends the traditional authorship. I will assume that Peter25 did in fact write this letter.26

If Peter can be argued reasonably to be the author, then our letter was written prior to A.D. 64 or 65, when Peter was martyred at the hands of Nero. In light of the number of references to suffering and persecution in 1 Peter, we maintain that Peter wrote this letter near the outset of Nero’s persecution of the church—perhaps between 62 and 65. Indeed, Peter’s conciliatory attitude toward the state (2:13–17) and his optimism about Christian life in the context of an unbelieving society (2:11–3:12) suggest that Peter wrote this letter near the beginning of Nero’s persecutions and that it is an early strategy for coping with serious problems from the state. We even dare to suggest that if Peter had waited five more years to write this letter, it would have been rearranged considerably. (And Peter could not have written it!)

Writing sometime in the early 60s, then, Peter, through his letter-carrier (or fellow author) Silas, encourages a series of small churches throughout northwestern Asia Minor by asserting their particular Christian identity (the family of God), by exhorting them to love one another, and by explaining to them the apparent inevitable tension that being a Christian will generate in a society that does not look tolerably on religious innovations.

Peter’s Message

THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE of Peter can be categorized into three separate features: (1) salvation, (2) church, and (3) the Christian life.27 Peter’s letter is an exhortation (5:12) to socially disenfranchised Christians to live steadfastly before God with faithfulness, holiness, and love. This steadfastness may lead to suffering, but a genuine understanding of persecution permits them to face it head-on and go forward faithfully. But the foundation of their faithfulness is an understanding of their salvation that Peter paints graphically at the beginning of his letter.

Salvation

PETER USES A host of words to describe what has happened to those who enter the family of God. In particular, he draws deeply from the cultic imagery of the temple with its rituals and worship to express this matter. They have been sprinkled with blood (1:2), they have been ransomed (1:18–19), they have been purified (1:22), they have tasted God (2:3), they have been healed (2:24), and they have been presented before God (3:18). He draws on family imagery when he speaks of their new birth (1:3, 23; 2:2, 24; 3:7, 18), their inheritance (1:4–5), and their blessing (3:9). The two terms used most frequently are “salvation” (1:5, 9, 10; 2:2; 3:20–21; 4:18) and “grace” (1:10, 13; 3:7; 5:5, 10, 12).

That this understanding of salvation is the foundation of his ethical exhortation to faithfulness in the face of persecution can be seen in how these two themes are interwoven in the introductory section of the letter (1:3–12). There Peter praises God for their salvation and future hope, a future that is secured by God, and he rejoices in their current suffering because he knows what it will do for them as they await their final salvation, a salvation that was predicted long ago. The interweaving of these two themes—to the point of extreme grammatical complexity!—highlights how tied together these themes are for the apostle.

A similar twisting together of suffering and salvation can be seen in 2:18–25: Peter exhorts slaves not to rebel against even scurrilous masters because, after all, Jesus suffered in the same manner and he trusted God. But Peter’s description of Jesus, the Great Example, tails off into a description of his saving work (2:24–25). Similarly in 3:18–22, the example of Jesus is described with reference to his saving ministry. Fittingly, in a deft combination of ethical exhortation rooted in the salvation of God, Peter’s final prayer wish is that the “God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast” (5:10).

Church 28

AS MENTIONED ABOVE, the church (a term Peter does not use) displaces/replaces Israel in the favor of God as the new, true people of God (see comments at 2:8). Peter has raided the Old Testament for vocabulary about the new people of God. After describing them as the “elect” (1:1), the apostle lays himself down in a bed of images in chapter 2: “living stones” (2:5), “spiritual house” (2:5), “holy priesthood” (2:5); further, they are a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God … people of God … [those who] have received mercy” (2:9–10).

In addition to these, some scholars today argue that the dominant image of the church in 1 Peter is the family of God. 29 The church is a “spiritual house” (2:5) or the “family of God” (4:17). As with other New Testament letters, the directions for specific groups of people are arranged around a family structure (2:11–3:12), revealing that Peter sees the church as a family of God. God is the Father (1:2, 3, 17), who gives birth (1:3) to the new children of God (1:14; 2:2), who in turn form a brotherhood (2:17; 5:9) that practices brotherly love (1:22; 3:8). This new home would have been spiritually and psychologically important to the homeless Christians of Asia Minor, for it was here that they found social acceptance and spiritual nurture. In short, they found a place they could call “home.”

Peter leaves behind only residual traces of any church organization. The churches are led by the apostles who give directions to “elders” (5:1–4), who, Peter enjoins, are to lead the churches circumspectly and lovingly. While it is probable that these churches met to commemorate the Lord’s Supper, only the rite of baptism is mentioned (3:21).30

Christian Life31

GROUNDED IN THE salvation that the believers find in Christ through their new birth (1:3), the Christian life is an inevitable manifestation of that salvation. The exhortations in 1 Peter are rooted in this experience. Thus, after detailing salvation and its privileges (1:3–12), Peter exhorts his readers to practice hope (1:13), holiness (1:14–16), fear before God (1:17–21), love (1:22–24), and growth (2:1–8). The key word at 1:13 is “therefore”: because of salvation, therefore pursue these Christian virtues. For Peter, ethics apart from a grounding in salvation is of no concern because a moral life forms the reverse side of salvation. In the words of Wolfgang Schrage, “Without new birth, there is no new obedience. Without hope, there is no basis for Christian life.”32

The social context of the Christian life is crucial in 1 Peter: The audience is socially disenfranchised and has found a home in the family of God. They are experiencing persecution, both because of their social location and their spiritual orientation, and Peter’s exhortations concentrate on their need to endure unjust suffering, just as Jesus did (1:6; 2:18–25; 3:13–17; 4:1–6, 12–19; 5:8–10).33 Without doubt, this social context influences his entire letter to such a degree that his message must be rearranged dramatically in order to speak to a situation where Christians experience little social suffering.

Peter’s perspective on the Christian life is that Christians are to live for the salvation that is to come, another indication of the social context of this family of God. God, who judges justly (1:7, 9, 17; 2:12, 23; 3:12; 4:5, 17–19), will reward those who faithfully endure suffering for his sake (1:7, 13; 4:13, 14). After all, they are only temporary residents in their social location (1:1); this provides a key for them to understand that they are to live for the future. As they pursue faith (1:5, 8–9, 21; 2:6–7; 5:9), hope (1:3, 13, 21; 3:5, 15), and joy (1:6, 8; 4:13), they are to be secure in God’s protection of them (1:5). Their primary social group has become the church, the family of God, where they are to love one another (1:22; 2:17; 3:8–12; 4:8–9; 5:14), be humble (3:4, 15; 5:6), submit to one another (3:1–7; 5:1–4, 5), and serve one another (4:10–11). Above all, they are to be sensitive in their communication with one another (2:1; 4:7–11).

A clear ethical orientation for Peter is that God’s family is to be holy and pure. They are to obey God (1:2, 13, 22), be holy because God is holy (1:14–16, 18, 22; 2:1–2, 5, 9, 11–12, 15, 20; 3:6, 15, 17; 4:1–6), and live righteous lives (2:24; 3:13; 4:18). Such holiness will serve as a convincing demonstration to outsiders of God’s salvation (2:11–12, 13–17, 18–25; 3:1–6); their lives, then, are a means of evangelism (2:12, 15; 3:1–6, 16), though such lives are to be accompanied by their verbal witness (1:12, 25; 2:9; 3:15; 4:6).

In essence, then, Peter’s letter is an exhortation to holy endurance of suffering because these Christians have experienced the salvation of God and because that salvation is promised to them in all fullness when the final day arrives. Having received salvation and having been empowered by God with a new life, they must orient their lives toward the future revelation of Christ, love their fellow Christians, and maintain a holy life.

Outline of 1 Peter

MOST OUTLINES OF New Testament books are more precise and organized than careful study seems to justify or demand.34 Furthermore, outlines involve subjective judgments that cannot demonstrate an appropriate sensitivity to other (just as careful) judgments. The following outline will serve as our guide throughout the book; I heartily urge that students of 1 Peter struggle with its structure themselves.

Peter’s Relevance

APPLYING 1 PETER TO our world is not as simple as it might seem. If we assume that the letter was (1) sent to those who were socially marginalized (for whatever reasons), (2) encouraging them to endure persecution and to live holy, loving lives because (3) they were in God’s family and (4) their salvation was being protected by God until the revelation of Christ, we can probably assert up front that the first and second aspects of this message are virtually irrelevant to the bulk of Western readers. Furthermore, the assurance that our salvation is being protected by God is anchored to the context of suffering, making it difficult to apply today.

Nonetheless, to speak of disenfranchised people (whether as the result of social status or spiritual orientation does not matter here) is immediately to limit the message of Peter for the Western world, especially for the majority of Christians living in our country. For more than a decade I have met once a week with a dozen or so students, who have never once raised a concern about persecution or outright suffering for their faith. At the same time, in one of the earliest classes I taught at Trinity when I raised this issue of the “irrelevancy” of some of the main elements of Peter’s message, two of my students—one from Yugoslavia (who was pastoring at that time over a dozen separate churches) and the other from Indonesia—explained to me that 1 Peter was the most popular New Testament book among Christians in their countries.

I must admit I have never met any Christians in the United States who have told me that 1 Peter was their favorite book or even high on the priority list. Most Christians enjoy Psalms and Proverbs, many Christians enjoy Philippians or 1 John, active countercultural types like the teachings of Jesus (especially the Sermon on the Mount), academic-theological types like Romans, charismatic types like Acts, practical types like James—but few people raise their hands in Sunday school classes and ask the teacher to expound 1 Peter. Why? The answer is simple: Too much of it is centered on aspects of Christian existence that are far from most Western Christian experiences: social marginalization and suffering.

Does this mean we should actively pursue suffering? Just how we might do this is another matter (should we be more obnoxious in our presentation of the gospel, or should we be less pleasant?), but the pursuit of suffering is clearly not what we ought to be doing. For the letter to make sense to us does not mean we have to suffer. I suppose it would be healthy for us to learn about suffering so that, if a life of suffering ever became more typical for Western Christians, we would be better prepared. But this seems almost silly. No, we must simply admit that the suffering context of the letter makes it more distant for us than for those of our Christian brothers and sisters who are suffering. Making the suffering passages relevant to our world, however, is not something we ought to neglect. In the commentary I will attempt to do this.

What about disenfranchisement? Should we pursue this situation so that 1 Peter can meet our needs? I would say, to begin with, that though this letter is to the socially disenfranchised, it is not an encouragement to live in such a social status. The author does not praise the lower classes, the dispossessed, and (in a Tolstoyan manner) the glory of the proletariat peasant class.35 He does not offer a sentimental honoring of the beauty of poverty and oppression. Nor does this letter encourage the Christians of Asia Minor to go out and bring in social dropouts. In other words, it is not Peter’s intent to encourage people to become social castaways or to critique the upper classes, the powerful, and the wealthy. His is not a religion of the disinherited, though his message is clearly articulated for the disinherited. Rather, this was their condition, and Peter explains how Christians ought to live in that condition in light of God’s future salvation.

And surely, one of the fundamental aspects of his teaching is to inculcate in his audience a true Christian identity.36 He wants his readers to understand, appreciate, and appropriate their special relationship to God (as a result of their salvation) and their new relationship to others in the universal family of God. Put differently, he does not want them to focus on their social marginalization or on persecution because of their faith; rather, he wants them to see that no matter what happens, God loves them, protects them, and has promised that when the End comes, they will be vindicated and glorified. Consequently, they can rejoice now with an inexpressible delight in God’s goodness (1:8–9). Thus, Peter intends his readers to understand who they are before God so that they can be who they are in society.

The other elements of Peter’s message, of course, are not hard to find relevant: to live loving, holy lives; to find in the church the family of God; and to appreciate God’s protection. These we will find as contemporary now as they were then, even if they emerge from a different social context than ours. First Peter, then, addresses a special situation that is different from ours but which, nonetheless, has much to offer our social context.

The issue facing the Christians in Asia Minor was disturbingly simple: How should we live in this context of social exclusion and persecution? Should we escape into a more sheltered world? Should we withdraw from society? Should we turn a cold shoulder to our world? Should we denounce society in poetic and prophetic tones? How then should we live? Peter’s letter is a window into a situation that even throws light on our world; his letter is one of the first struggles in the church with society. It formed some of the conversation that continues to this day, and in our examination of it, we will reap great reward.