1. For a study of various Christians positions on how Christians interact with society, see M. Noll, One Nation Under God? Christian Faith and Political Action in America (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); for more recent evangelical views, see A. Cerillo, Jr., and M. W. Dempster, Salt and Light: Evangelical Political Thought in Modern America (CCCSG 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); see also S. Bruce, The Rise and Fall of the New Christian Right: Conservative Protestant Politics in America 1978–1988 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). For the problem of the lack of serious thinking about politics among evangelicals, see M. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 149–75; see also 221–28. T. Sine, Cease Fire (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) is an exceptionally insightful analysis of both the politically correct left and the political right. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), is a classic treatment of the church and society.
2. The words used here come from the title of Francis Schaeffer’s book, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1976).
3. Behind some of conservative Christian activism is F. A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1982).
4. See esp. M. Noll, Scandal, 149–75. New issues and platforms, of course, have entered in, but it is not hard to remember when many conservative Christians were heavily Democratic in voting orientation; see also Sine, Cease Fire.
5. See the essay of Os Guinness, “Mission in the Face of Modernity,” in The Gospel in the Modern World: A Tribute to John Stott, ed. M. Eden, D. F. Wells (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991), 85–107; J. Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision for Change (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1994).
6. On this see C. J. Dyck, “Anabaptist Tradition and Vision,” in DCA, 58–59; W. R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), esp. 179–202; the most definitive writer for Anabaptists today with respect to the church and state is John Howard Yoder. See esp. his The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); The Christian Witness to the State (Institute of Mennonite Studies Series Number 3; Newton, Kans.: Faith and Life, 1964).
7. See especially J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus; see also R. J. Sider, Christ and Violence (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald, 1979); J. Wallis, The Call to Conversion: Recovering the Gospel for These Times (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981).
8. An early formative statement is John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; ed. J. T. McNeill; trans. F. L. Battles (LCC 21; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.20; see also N. Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); at a more popular level, Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto.
9. Francis Schaeffer’s book How Should We Then Live? is a classic example of this; however, I do not want the reader to think that this view is to be reserved for the New Right Wing Conservatives of contemporary American politics. This Reformed view is at the heart of both liberal and conservative politics: Extending one’s personal ethics, whether Christian or not, into the political realm unites both ends of the spectrum here.
10. A profound statement of this view can be found in Mark Noll, One Nation. Noll’s book details the weaknesses of the “Reformed view” (pp. 158–166) and proposes just how the Bible ought to be used in political argumentation (pp. 167–181). I recommend this book wholeheartedly as a good starting point for Christian discussion.
11. Noll, One Nation, 27.
12. A fundamental misunderstanding in much of contemporary popular literature is the assumption that to be Jewish is to be non-Christian. While we need to respect the differences between Judaism and Christianity, it remains a fact that earliest Christianity developed out of Judaism and the earliest Christians were both Jewish and Christian. Thus, when in this book I use “Judaism” and “Jews,” I mean by these terms “non-Christian Judaism” and “Jews who do not believe in Jesus Messiah”—unless the context makes it clear that I mean “Jewish Christians” and their “Messianic Judaism.” See J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991); C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner, eds., Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
13. On this, see M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970); for the Jewish context, see S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
14. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, devotes much attention to this topic in his commentary; see the summary on pp. xlix–lv (the reader of Michaels will notice that I see more displacement theology than Michaels).
15. An example is my (now former) colleague W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 48–49, 114–15.
16. See his A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), esp. 21–100; see also the summary in his “Peter, First Epistle of,” in ABD, 5:273–74. Those who desire to interact with the fullest measure of evidence will need to read Elliott’s book in its entirety. I know of no full-scale analysis of Elliott’s examination of these terms and their social meaning.
17. The Greek word for alien is paroikos; for stranger, parepidemos.
18. The Greek word for foreigner is xenos.
19. J. H. Elliott, “Peter, First Epistle of,” 273.
20. See the survey of scholarship in his Home for the Homeless, xxvi–xxxii. See also below at 1:1–2.
21. That is, if a letter asserts that a certain author wrote the book (in this case, Peter), then there must be persuasive evidence against that assertion to discount the assertion. In this case, there must be evidence that pseudonymous letters were written in the early church (there were) and that this letter fits into that category. On all of this, see D. G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); K. Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries,” JTS 12 (1961): 39–49; B. M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24. A conservative classic is D. Guthrie, “Epistolary Pseudepigraphy,” Appendix C in his New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 1011–28.
22. For other parallels, see John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 437.
23. Other arguments include (1) affinities to 1 Clement (ca. A.D. 96), (2) the seeming spread of the gospel throughout Asia Minor and the need for sufficient time for such a spread, (3) a shift in attitudes toward the government from Romans 13 to 1 Peter, and (4) a late use of the term “Babylon” (5:13), since parallels to this metaphorical description of Rome are found only after A.D. 70 (after Peter’s presumed death).
24. I have been teaching 1 Peter in Greek to students at Trinity off and on since 1981, and I can affirm that our students are stumped over and over by the difficulty of Peter’s style.
25. J. Jeremias: “those who today would defend the inauthenticity of 1 Peter are faced with no easy task” (New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971], 307 n. 4).
26. For more complete studies, see D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 762–81 (who responds to criticisms of the traditional viewpoint); Michaels, 1 Peter, lv–lxvii. For an articulate and balanced defense of a later date and by an author other than Peter, cf. Elliott, “Peter, First Epistle of,” 276–78.
27. See G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. D. A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 640–48.
28. See the full historical analysis of P. D. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), which regrettably has no section on 1 Peter; P. S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975); D. Watson, I Believe in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 51–175; H. C. Kee, Who Are the People of God? Early Christian Models of Community (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1995), esp. 124–29.
29. See J. H. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 165–266; “Peter, First Epistle of,” 275–76.
30. It has been argued that the bulk of 1 Peter is a “baptismal liturgy,” but this theory has fallen out of favor recently. For discussions, see F. L. Cross, 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy (London: Mowbray, 1954); F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 25–28, 220–26 (in favor of seeing 1:3–4:11 as a baptismal discourse); J. N. D. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 15–20 (who argues against such a theory). For possible allusions to baptism, see W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 40–41.
31. See R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, trans. J. Holland-Smith and W. J. O’Hara (New York: Seabury, 1965), 365–71; W. Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 268–78.
32. Schrage, Ethics, 271.
33. See L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament. Volume 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. J. E. Alsup, ed. J. Roloff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 174–75.
34. Thus, N. Brox writes: “When one reads 1 Peter without interruption (as it is intended to be), it leaves behind a genuinely vague impression concerning both its form and its contents” (Der erste Petrusbrief, 15; translation mine); so also A. Schlatter, as quoted by L. Goppelt: “A predetermined plan [from the author] cannot be found because one never existed” (1 Peter, 15). See the discussion of C. H. Talbert, “Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter,” in Perspectives on First Peter, ed. C. H. Talbert (National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series 9; Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1986), 141–51.
35. In about the middle of his life, Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and idealist, converted to Christian idealism. From that point on he renounced his possessions (though he lived on a large estate) and the royalties from his bestsellers (though his wife and family received them), and he adopted peasant dress. Beside the oddity of his personality and his genius, this sentimental attachment to peasants caused no end of grief in his marriage. See the insightful study of W. L. Shirer, Love and Hatred: The Troubled Marriage of Leo and Sonya Tolstoy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).
36. A good book in this regard is D. Keyes, Beyond Identity: Finding Your Self in the Image and Character of God (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1984).
1. One of the main words for greeting in Latin is salutatio (“salute”).
2. On letters, see S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); S. McKnight, “More Than Mere Mail,” Moody Monthly 88/89 (May 1988): 36–38. See also the summary of D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 158–225; S. K. Stowers, “Letters (Hebrew; Aramaic; Greek and Latin),” ABD, 4:282–93.
3. See Stowers, Letter Writing, 91–152. Stowers finds several kinds of “Letters of Exhortation and Advice”: paraenetic (exhortation and dissuasion), advice, protreptic (exhortation to a way of life), admonition, rebuke, reproach, and consolation. We run amok, however, if we think reductionistically, contending that 1 Peter has to have only one trait. Rather, while Peter’s first letter is clearly paraenetic, it contains other methods of exhortation and advice.
4. See O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study, trans. F. V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953); O. Karrer, Peter and the Church: An Examination of Cullmann’s Thesis (QD 8; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963); R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried, and J. Reumann, Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg / New York: Paulist, 1973); C. P. Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986).
5. “Cephas” is an Aramaic word that is translated into Greek by “Peter.”
6. See K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” TDNT, 1:407–47; J.-A. Bühner, “ἀπόστολος,” EDNT, 1:142–46; H. D. Betz, “Apostle,” ABD, 1:309–11; P. W. Barnett, “Apostle,” DPL, 45–51.
7. C. E. B. Cranfield, First Peter, 12: “So here in our letter the word ‘apostle’ is essentially an exceedingly humble word; for it directs attention away from the Apostle’s person to Him, whose Apostle he is, from the one sent to the One that has sent him.”
8. P. Davids, 1 Peter, 46.
9. Actually, “God’s” is not in the original Greek text; the word is, however, implied. Adding words like this tends to focus the expression in ways that are not always accurate. In this instance, a social-ecclesiological focus is lost when “God’s” is added.
10. In the Greek the words for “elect” and “strangers” are in the same case (dative) and their relationship is such that one is not sure which is the noun and which is the adjective. Thus, is it “sojourning elect ones” or “elect sojourners”? The NIV has decided that “strangers” is an adjective and “elect” is the noun. Furthermore, it has added “in the world” to “strangers” as an interpretation of the term “strangers” in such a manner that the only possible meaning one can infer from this expression is a spiritual status. As mentioned in the introduction, this term probably refers to a social status. Thus, while I would agree that the NIV’s rendering is a tolerable interpretation, I believe the translators have gone beyond their limits here by forcing the expression into only one possible meaning. When terms are ambiguous, it is usually best to leave them ambiguous rather than trying to be more specific than the author.
11. The Greek word diaspora is translated by “scattered” (from which we get Diaspora).
12. I prefer the term “sojourners” over “strangers” because, in American English, the latter speaks of weirdness and oddity; the former, at least, conveys the notion of “temporary residency away from home.” Another good term would be “exiles.” The term “elect” is the noun and the adjective “sojourning” is placed after it for a smoother transition to “scattered throughout….” See Michaels, 1 Peter, 7; “chosen sojourners” is preferred in Grudem, 1 Peter, 47–48.
13. This issue has, of course, been a divisive issue among theologians; Calvinistic views may be found in A. A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 68–92; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 109–25, 415–22, 454–79; an Arminian view can be seen in J. R. Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 13–33. Williams helps at the pastoral level in correcting potential errors and misunderstandings of this important doctrine.
14. A clear example of this is P. Davids, 1 Peter, 46–47. In spite of writing his commentary during the time when Elliott’s ideas about “foreigners and strangers” were being hotly debated and the trend was moving toward Elliott, Davids never once raises the issue in his commentary. Instead, he assumes that the terms are metaphorical. So also the (otherwise) fine study of B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (FCGRW; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 12.
15. Thus, Elliott, Home for the Homeless, xxviii–xxx (review of the recent discussion).
16. Thus, the use of the expression “aliens and strangers” in the NIV (2:11) has little chance of informing the reader of the nuances involved in the original expressions. Although not perfect, I prefer the expression “aliens and sojourners.” A nearly exhaustive listing of translation possibilities can be found in J. H. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 39–41.
17. Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish philosopher in Alexandria, did just this sort of thing with Old Testament narratives. For an introduction, see especially E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), rev. ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 3.2:809–89.
18. That is, it is normal to find metaphors in apocalyptic literature (like Revelation) or in poetry (like Psalms and the Song of Solomon); narrative and letters, on the other hand, are not as full of metaphors. Reading a letter makes us think naturally of the literal sense to referential terms of a personal nature. However, this does not exclude the use of metaphors.
19. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 183–97.
20. The NIV eliminates this ancient metaphor by translating “your minds”; the original Greek has literally, “gird up the loins of your mind.”
21. This is why the NIV’s addition of “in the world” is unfair, for it has no evidence in the context; the evidence that we do have points in the opposite direction.
22. Literally, “live the duration of your sojourn in fear.” “Here” has been added in the NIV according to the translators’ perception of a pilgrimage theme.
23. An analysis of “as” expressions in 1 Peter is not entirely clear. When the noun of the “as” expression is literal, the order “verb/noun” then “as” is found 13/14 times (cf. 2:12, 13, 15, 16 [2x]; 3:6, 7; 4:10, 11, 12, 15 [2x], 16; 5:3). However, a clear metaphorical usage of “as” can be found in either order (cf. 1:14, 19, 24 [2x]; 2:2, 5, 16, 25; 3:7; 5:8). The order would only slightly favor a literal sense in 2:11.
24. There is no evidence outside of these terms in 1 Peter that the author is working with a pilgrimage theme either; this counts against seeing a pilgrimage theme in the first line of the letter, where central themes are often present. That the readers were (literally) socially excluded, however, is found throughout 1 Peter.
25. It is possible, but by no means clear, that 1 Peter 4:4 might indicate some kind of social ostracism; it does not clearly indicate, however, that the Christians experienced a drop in social status.
26. Although this is speculative, we might suggest that the temptation to “lord it over others” (5:3) would be especially acute for those who have never had power. However, if the study of Winter is accurate here, 2:14–15 may indicate the presence of people wealthy enough to be benefactors to the society; see his Seek the Welfare of the City, 25–40. But there is no evidence either that they were meeting in the homes of the wealthy nor that their meetings were so large that they had to be at a villa owned by someone of considerable substance. Rather, the only impressions we gain are small cell groups meeting in homes.
27. What we have here is a Jewish perspective on geography: anyone who lives outside of Judea is “in the Diaspora.” There is no indication in Peter that the word diaspora (NIV “scattered”) is a metaphor for the world and that his addressees’ real home was heaven. The word is used clearly for a geographical location in John 7:35 (cf. also Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19; throughout the Old Testament), though it is used metaphorically in James 1:1 (even there, the meaning is hotly disputed). So far as I can tell, the term did not become a common Christian description for a Christian’s location in the world in the early church.
28. That the order is Father, Spirit, and then Son may reflect the order of their experience.
29. The NIV of 1:2 renders kata, “according to,” with “who have been chosen according to.” The “who have been chosen” phrase is a legitimate inference from the word “elect” in 1:1 and is useful because of the number of words between “elect” and “according to.”
30. I would also add that if election is based on the knowledge that God has of those who will believe, then election as a category has almost no meaning. (Such a view is sometimes called “conditional election.”) Why would we say that God has elected someone who has already chosen him? What kind of election would this be? Another alternative is experiential: humans, finding in Jesus Christ that their life now has grounded meaning, infer that their experience was preceded by God’s working. In this case, election describes their experience of God’s working in their lives.
31. So also J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 10–11.
32. So also W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 50.
33. Interesting allusions to liturgical formulas at Qumran are suggested by L. Goppelt; see his 1 Peter, 70–72.
34. See H. Seebass and C. Brown, “Holy, etc.,” NIDNTT, 2:223–32, esp. 224–28.
35. On all of this see, esp. P. Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Westchester, Ill.: Crossways, 1983); Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987); A. A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 192–233. The radical distinction between conversion and subsequent sanctification is probably why Leon Morris has never examined this term in his numerous studies on the atonement (but cf. Heb. 10:29!).
36. The Greek expression is literally: “for obedience and sprinkling of blood of Jesus Christ.” It has been suggested that whereas “of blood” goes with “sprinkling,” the “of Jesus Christ” goes with “obedience”; thus, the expression is in the form of a chiasm (repeating something in reverse order; i.e., A B B A). Others suggest that two goals are mentioned here: converting obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (consecration). Once again, the NIV is too loose with the force of the expressions. “Obedience” is used here for the initial response to the gospel as demand on our lives (as in Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; see also 1 Peter 1:14, 22, 23–25), and it is more than post-conversion obedience to Jesus Christ; the sprinkling is clearly with the blood of Jesus Christ. Grammatically, it is best to assign “Jesus Christ” exclusively with sprinkling in this context.
37. See the excellent discussion of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 11–12. Observe that “obedience” precedes “sprinkling” here; this confirms that converting obedience is in view. See also J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 43–44; E. Best, 1 Peter, 71; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 74; N. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 58; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 48–49.
38. See here J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 12–13. Others have seen other themes present: the sprinkling of baptism (F. W. Beare, First Peter, 77), the covenant’s blessing of forgiveness (E. G. Selwyn, First Peter, 120–21; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 74–75, with a baptismal context), or a post-conversion purification (W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 52–54). Grudem argues against covenant entrance because the term “sprinkling” follows obedience, but this argument falls if “obedience” is seen as a conversion term.
39. This theme of salvation continues from 1:3–12.
40. See J. A. Bernbaum, S. M. Steer, Why Work? Careers and Employment in Biblical Perspective (CCCSG 2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); see also G. Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings (Lund: Håkan Ohlssons, 1976).
41. A brief discussion can be found in P. Berger, T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books, 1967), 89–92; A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984), 25–26, esp. 179–80.
42. A. A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace, takes a step forward for Reformed theology when he recognizes that the process of salvation is complexive and not consecutive; see his discussion on pp. 11–27. On p. 16 he gets it right: “the various phases of the way of salvation are not to be thought of as a series of successive steps, each of which replaces the preceding, but rather as various simultaneous aspects of the process of salvation which, after they have begun, continue side by side.” Hoekema’s discussion of the “spiritual” versus “carnal” Christian provides another example of reifying observations of Paul. The people with whom Hoekema disagrees provide for us examples of those who may, at times, reify certain biblical statements into systems that are not fully biblical.
43. It has been said many times over that Calvin’s followers were more Calvinistic than the master. What we have is an example of people reifying Calvin’s thoughts into hardened, inflexible “laws of theology.”
44. Two brilliant books covering aspects of these paragraphs are M. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); G. M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994). Christianity in England did not go through the same kind of polarization and, as a result, many American students have gone and still go to Great Britain for doctoral work (including the present writer). On this see M. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 62–90, 91–121; A. McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), who speaks optimistically, yet realistically, to the issue of the viability of evangelicalism.
45. See J. Pelikan, The Idea of a University: A Reexamination (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1992).
46. A penetrating book on this theme is D. D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: The Free Press [Macmillan], 1991). See also the insightful study by Tom Oden, based on his own experience, in Requiem (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995); see also W. H. Willimon and T. H. Naylor, The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
47. I do not have space here to explore applications of a strictly social nature. I will pursue those lines at 2:11–12 below.
48. See especially T. Sine, Cease Fire (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
49. A brief introduction to such debates can be found in R. G. Clouse, Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984); J. A. Bernbaum, Economic Justice and the State: A Debate Between Ronald H. Nash and Eric H. Beversluis (CCCSG 1; Grand Rapids: Baker / Washington, D.C.: Christian College Coalition, 1986); C. M. Gay, With Liberty and Justice for Whom? The Recent Debate Over Capitalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); F. Schaeffer, Is Capitalism Christian? Toward a Christian Perspective on Economics (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1985). One of Tom Sine’s best insights is his insistence that too many evangelicals have assumed and argued that the gospel is identical with free market capitalism; see his Cease Fire.
1. On Jewish prayer, see J. H. Charlesworth, M. Harding, and M. Kiley, The Lord’s Prayer and Other Prayer Texts from the Graeco-Roman Era (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), with extensive bibliography. See also E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. G. Vermes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987), 2.423–463. The Shemoneh Esreh can be found on pp. 454–63. See also E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 195–208.
2. The expression “Father of” gave rise to the heresy known as Arianism, in which it was argued that God the Father actually generated the Son and, therefore, the Son is not eternal. But this expression describes the subordination of the Son to the Father by choice, not in essence.
3. Some have seen the prepositional phrases as coordinates: “unto a living hope,” “unto an inheritance,” and “unto salvation.” However, it is best to see them consecutively: “unto a living hope,” which is defined by “unto an inheritance,” which is conditioned upon a faith “in that final salvation.”
4. See esp. P. Toon, Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).
5. The grammar here is eloquent. Literally, it is “Praise to the God and Father … who, according to his great mercy, gave us new birth.” The intrusion of “according to …” between “who” and “gave us” is a classical touch that brings out even more forcefully the important connection between God’s mercy and his granting of the new birth. “According to” shows the ground of the new birth.
6. ”Living” refers either to their “living” hope over against the “dead” hopes of paganism or, more likely, to their “living” hope now that they have been given a “new life” in Christ (see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 19).
7. Thus, their “hope” is their “salvation” (1:5) and their “inheritance” (1:4). Using the word “hope” here does not suggest any element of doubt, as it might in English when we say, “I hope I will be found acceptable to God.”
8. Peter defines the “inheritance” as something “that can never perish, spoil or fade.” F. W. Beare put it beautifully when, following the “alpha privatives” of the Greek construction, he wrote: “the inheritance is untouched by death, unstained by evil, unimpaired by time” (1 Peter, 83–84).
9. Grammatically, “in salvation” (lit., “unto salvation”) can modify either “given us a new birth” (1:3), “shielded,” or “faith.” The proximity to the latter makes this the best option. The NIV prefers “shielded.”
10. A question arises over the grammar here: “this” could go with “salvation,” but such a connection would be grammatically difficult (“salvation” is feminine while “this” is masculine or neuter); with “God” in 1:3, but a reference back three verses without warning would be highly unusual; with the entirety of 1:3–5 or with “last time” at the very end of 1:5. Grammatically, this last solution is preferable.
11. On this verb, see J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 53; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 55.
12. A paraphrase of “may result in [Gk. eis] praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.”
13. The vivid contrast between “faith” and “sight” occasionally forms the foundation of New Testament exhortations (see John 20:29; Rom. 8:24–25; 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1, 7, 8–10, 13–16, 39–40).
14. Some have thrown all the tenses of 1:8–9 into a future sense: “you will rejoice … when you receive.” Not only did Peter avoid future tenses here and chose present tenses, he probably did so because he wanted to emphasize the inaugural nature of the Christian experience. In the present, believers can experience a foretaste of the future. On “receiving” as correspondence between earthly obedience and heavenly decision, see 1 Peter 5:4; cf. also 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:25. Here, obviously, the final state of people is determined by their faithful love and endurance of suffering.
15. Peter does not seem to have any particular prophets in mind; his expression refers to the entirety of the Jewish prophetic tradition.
16. The two Greek words are ekzeteo and exeraunao, the first signifying “seeking out and searching,” the second “inquiring carefully” (as when, for instance, invading military personnel inquire from house to house; see Josephus, Jewish War, 4.654). See Psalm 119:2 (where the Septuagint uses these two terms for those who seek the Lord in obedience); John 5:39; 7:52.
17. See on this W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 69–70.
18. See the fuller discussion of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 41–43; for a slightly different view, see Grudem, 1 Peter, 74–75.
19. On this verb see F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter, 62–64; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 49.
20. I might add, however, that a comparison of the role the church played in society in Peter’s day and the role our churches play may not manifest as great a difference as one might find between Peter’s day and either the Catholic villages of the post-Industrial Revolution in Italy or post-Reformation Scotland. Those communities had large churches at the center of their cities and villages, right in the heart of the community, whereas neither Peter’s world nor ours permits churches to enjoy the same status and centrality.
21. For the context of 1 Peter one needs to read about the Roman empire under Nero. See F. Hooper, Roman Realities (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979), 380–91; a more extensive analysis can be found in M. Grant, Nero: Emperor in Revolt (New York: American Heritage, 1970). See also W. H. C. Frend, Martrydom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965).
22. I have seen conservatives oppose more liberal Christians at a political level when the liberal group was doing something for “all the right reasons” and their actions were noble and good; the opposition, one suspects, was generated at another level. And I have seen liberal groups oppose conservative political statements for the same kind of reasons.
23. Two other major features of modern pluralism include materialism and naturalism. For a judicious critique, see J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 296–320.
24. First-century Christians, such as Peter, experienced the privilege of the salvation Christ brought in a way unlike any Christians who followed them. They, as it were, knew what it was like to live prior to the era of the Holy Spirit and in the era of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, they knew the “privilege” in a way unlike the way we know it. However, through imagination and the reading of the Bible in a historical manner, we can glimpse (like the angels) their sense of privilege and begin to appreciate even more our historical privilege.
25. D. F. Wells, No Place for Truth, 75.
26. This, in fact, is the title of a textbook on theology by A. F. Johnson and R. E. Webber, What Christians Believe: A Biblical and Historical Summary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), which they claim brings together “a theology that affirms the unity we have in the essentials, yet allows for the diversity we hold in matters of secondary importance” (ix). I can’t think of a better way of educating young theologians than in a theology that is affirmed by the church at large.
27. See C. H. Hopkins, History of the Y.M.C.A. in North America (New York: Association Press, 1951); I obtained this reference from G. M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University (New York: Oxford, 1994), esp. 343.
1. The sentence can be translated literally from the Greek as follows: “Therefore, girding up the loins of your mind, being completely sober, set your hope….” Since the only finite verb is “set your hope,” it is grammatically better to understand the first two metaphorical (participial) clauses as subordinate to the main verb, containing images for the same idea as is found in the main verb. In other words, “prepare your minds for action” and “be self-controlled” are metaphors for “set your hope.” See the discussion of L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 107–9. Many today, however, take the participles as imperatival participles; on this, see the discussions of D. Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” in E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 467–88; J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 67–68.
2. So roughly the RSV and KJV.
3. See also at Job 38:3; Eph. 6:14.
4. C. E. B. Cranfield, First Peter, 32.
5. This limiting of the kind of mental activity that concerns Peter stands against some interpretations that find here every (and almost any) kind of mental activity, like the importance of theology, exegesis, Bible study, or serious grappling with social issues in which we find ourselves. A general exhortation to mental preparation does not seem to be in order in this context. See the discussion in J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 54–55; so also L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 108–9; N. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 74–75.
6. In Greek, this participle is immediately followed by “fully.” Debate has arisen over whether or not “fully” is to be understood as a modifier of what precedes (thus, “be totally self-controlled”) or of what follows (“set your hope fully”). In light of Peter’s preference for adverbs ending with -os to follow the verb they modify rather than to precede it (see 1:22; 2:19, 23; 5:2 [4x]), it seems best to translate “be totally self-controlled.” So also F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter, 65; F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 96; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 55; I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 51.
7. It is unlikely that Peter is speaking literally here in the sense of urging that his readers be “teetotalers.”
9. J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 67; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 56–57; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 67.
10. Once again, the negative here is a participle; in my judgment, it is not an imperatival participle (so also D. Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” 482); thus, the negative functions as a subordinate idea to the positive command to be holy.
11. For a brief survey of the holiness of God, cf. J. R. Williams, Renewal Theology. Volume 1: God, the World and Redemption (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 59–63; N. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (New York: Schocken, 1964), 21–50.
12. See J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), esp. 138–47; W. A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1140–57.
13. Stephen H. Travis, Christian Hope and the Future (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1980), 121. The last chapter is a good survey of the New Testament teaching on judgment.
14. The Greek word here is aprosopolmptos, which describes receiving a person without regard to showing any favoritism because of the benefits he or she may provide (Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25). Cf. James 2:1 for the opposite characteristic in humans.
15. On fear, see esp. M. Luther, Peter and Jude, 70; J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 71; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 111–13; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 70–71. See also J. Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 229–42.
16. The expression “as strangers here” reflects the terms of 1:1 and 2:11. As discussed in the introduction and at 1:1, this term may describe his readers’ social conditions literally (a view we have adopted throughout) or a metaphorical description of “life on earth.”
17. On this see esp. W. C. van Unnik, “The Critique of Paganism in I Peter 1:19,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), 129–42; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 64–65.
18. On redemption, a metaphor drawn from the commercial world, see L. L. Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983), 106–31; J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986), 175–82. On blood, the definitive study is A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of “Blood” in Scripture (London: Tyndale, 1948); but see also L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 112–28.
19. See J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 74–75; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 125–26; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 76.
20. The Greek grammar in eis philadelphian anupocriton indicates that brotherly love flows from their purification.
21. F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter, 90–91: “doing a thing not lightly and perfunctorily, but, as it were, with straining.”
22. Howard Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins, 89–90.
23. In 1:22 and 1:23 the completeness of their conversion is emphasized by the use of the perfect tense, a tense used to denote the state of affairs.
24. See F. A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, in The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1990), 291–301. See also W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 139–51.
25. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 202. The entire chapter, called “The Dynamic of the Biblical Ethic,” expresses in full the contentions I am making about the foundation of Christian ethics. In addition, see the many articles in C. F. H. Henry, ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973).
26. Notice how C. S. Lewis, in his Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 17–39, gets at these same points.
27. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 202.
28. C. S. Lewis, Christian Behaviour (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 72.
29. See N. E. Cunningham, Jr., In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Ballantine, 1987); C. B. Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. Press of Virginia, 1984), esp. 35–55.
30. See R. E. O. White, “Ethical Systems, Christian,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 372–75.
31. See here esp. J. D. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987); D. F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
1. In fact, 2:1 is a repetition of the exhortations and comments in 1:22–23, but at 2:1 the ideas are expressed in negative form. At 1:22–23 they were exhorted to “love one another deeply, from the heart,” with a “sincere [brotherly] love”; here they are told to get rid of the nasty and ugly things that make love impossible. This implies that the growth of 2:2 should likely be seen as “group growth,” not individual growth; furthermore, such an understanding dovetails more neatly with what is exhorted in 2:4–5, where corporate development is at issue.
2. The grammar of 2:1–3 is as follows: an introductory participle “rid yourselves of …” (NIV) is subordinate to the main verb “crave,” which itself does not appear until 2:2. “Like newborn babies” describes how they are to crave; “so that by it …” describes the purpose of their craving and “now that …” (2:3) describes the foundation for their craving. Thus, “crave pure spiritual milk” provides the central exhortation of this section.
3. On this term denoting intense desire, see Rom. 1:11; 2 Cor. 5:2; 9:14; Phil. 1:8; 2:26; 1 Thess. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:4; James 4:5. See here M. Craig Barnes, Yearning: Living Between How It Is and How It Ought To Be (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991); Augustine, Confessions, 1.1.
4. Considerable academic discussion has been raised around this word “spiritual.” The Greek word is not the normal (Pauline) term (pneumatikos) but is logikos. J. N. D. Kelly prefers the idea of “wordy,” in the sense of “milk of the word” (Peter and Jude, 85), while F. J. A. Hort preferred the more classical meaning of “rational” (1 Peter, 100–102); the vast majority of scholars today, however, prefer “spiritual” (see, e.g., F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 115; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 131; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 86–89).
5. See esp. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 88–89. On “milk” in early Christian literature, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 129–30.
6. To think, however, of personal Bible study is anachronistic; these Christians did not have copies of the Bible and had to rely on sermons and the local archives for such things. It makes best sense to see here the spiritual nourishment that comes to Christians in various ways. If my view of the recipients of this letter is correct in that they are socially disenfranchised, then they were likely illiterate as well.
7. On this see the discussion of E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 393–406; but see also J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 83.
8. The meaning of this verse needs to be distinguished from what is said by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:2 and by the author of Hebrews at Hebrews 5:12–14. Confusion has resulted from the identity of meaning because each of these authors uses the metaphor of drinking milk. Peter has in mind the desire characteristic of an infant when wanting milk; Paul has in mind the immaturity of the believer who can have only milk, as only babies drink milk; and the author of Hebrews has in mind an idea similar to Paul’s: Milk is the first kind of food Christians drink, and then they mature to the point of eating meat. There is no suggestion in 1 Peter 2 that milk is food for immature Christians; rather, Peter praises the desire of infants and prays that his readers will have that same desire for spiritual things.
9. See J. R. W. Stott, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 7.
10. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 89. It is unlikely here that “salvation” means “Christian maturity” (so W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 96).
11. The word translated “good” is chrestos and may be a play on the Greek word for Messiah (christos).
12. So also C. Bigg, Peter and Jude, 128. The majority today understands this verb as an indicative; see, e.g., J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 100. I agree with Bigg because it fits into a string of imperatives (1:13, 15, 16, 17, 22; 2:2) and would be the climax because it is the present tense. Furthermore, Peter has a custom of preparing for imperatives with participles (cf. 1:13, 15–16, 22; 2:1–2).
13. Ramsey Michaels accurately describes this as both worship and conduct; 1 Peter, 101–2.
14. The word here is the same word in 2:4, but there “living” is attached. The “stone” or “cornerstone” of Isaiah 28:16 has become the “living stone” in its fulfillment in Christ. On this, cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 92 (bibliography), 103–7 (discussion).
15. These expressions were the words used in 2:4.
16. The expression “will never be put to shame” is a litotes, a deliberate understatement. Thus, “never be put to shame” could be expressed by “will find great glory.”
17. The expression here could have referred to the city itself (Isa. 2:2–4), to the promises inherent to the Davidic monarchy (Pss. 2:6; 118:22), or to God who is the stone himself in Zion (Isa. 8:14). What is clear is that the “stone” became a Messianic symbol (cf. Ps. 118:22; Zech. 3:9), and that is how Peter sees it.
18. On this text, cf. J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), 227–36.
19. Peter does not see the responses here exclusively in terms of how the Jewish people responded to the earthly ministry of Jesus. Rather, his scope includes how all kinds of people are responding to Jesus in his time, whether in Rome or in Asia Minor. So also J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 105.
20. Another translation, preferred by many (e.g., W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 104–5), is along the following line: “Therefore, to you who believe there is honor.”
21. The “cornerstone” is the first stone laid that forms the angles and foundation for the structure, whereas the “capstone” is the last stone put into a building, which becomes its climactic stone.
22. See J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 107; see also a more theological explanation in W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 107–8, and his extended essay explaining a Calvinistic view on pp. 108–10.
23. For more extensive analyses, see E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 165–68; J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 95–102; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 147–51; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 107–13.
24. See here esp. R. Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), esp. 142–63.
25. See Revelation 2–3; Ignatius, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and his letter to Polycarp. Marcion, a heretic, was from Sinope in Pontus (one of the provinces mentioned in 1:1).
26. A recent spate of books about evangelicalism focuses almost entirely on what is wrong with evangelicalism and the churches. I am not arguing that we need to neglect our weaknesses and our sins; no, we must excoriate them in order to fix them. But we need also to maintain the wonderful balance of being able to criticize the weaknesses while glorying in the beauty of the bride of Christ. The books I am thinking of include D. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) and God in the Wilderness: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); M. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); the present research seems to go back to J. Davison Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987).
27. C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 14–15. This little book was published in England under the title Transposition and Other Addresses (1949).
28. If my reader happens to be a Roman Catholic who has grown up under a monarchy or an Anglican who has grown up under the British royalty system, then some changes of perception would have to be made. In these cases, though the change of status may be the same (from nonroyalty to royalty) as the one described above, the ability to understand the image intuitively would be easier.
29. On the priesthood in the first century, see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 77–118, 170–89.
30. This idea was presented in a small but influential monograph by H. Wheeler Robinson, which contained two essays from 1936 and 1937. The book was then revised and reissued in 1980 by Fortress Press (see Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980]). This classic has been criticized by scholars but has withstood the test of time for many scholars. The best recent study is B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), esp. 63–89. See also J. J. Pilch and B. J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 49–52 (under the word “Dyadism”).
31. B. J. Malina, New Testament World, 68.
32. In our next text, 2:11–12, I will look closely at how one modern sociological theory would apply to 1 Peter.
33. That “worship” is not to be restricted exclusively to “ecstasy” or “praises of song” or “moments of awe,” however, has been powerfully brought out by D. Peterson, Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
34. A constant factor in applying the Bible to our world is the restriction that any particular application creates. Thus, in applying this passage to the issue of the church’s mission, I do not want to suggest that other applications are not permissible. Space limitations require a focus; sermons are even more focused. I mention a few others: (1) the true nature of church growth (cf. 2:1–3, 5), (2) desiring what is healthy (2:1–3), (3) the problem of disbelief (2:4–8), and (4) the nature of the church (2:9–10). Each of these could have been explored in this Contemporary Significance section.
35. Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1988), 1.
36. Wells’s two books, No Place for Truth and God in the Wilderness, are strenuous (if not strident) essays on the fundamental importance theology plays in the health (or sickness) of the church. Many writers today, such as J. I. Packer, D. Bloesch, and J. R. W. Stott, are making the same points, though Wells reserves more room for interacting with modern sociological analyses.
37. R. Foster, Celebration of Discipline, 13.
38. Important reading can be found in D. Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. J. W. Doberstein (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1954); R. Foster, Celebration of Discipline.
39. See D. F. Wells, God the Evangelist: How the Holy Spirit Works to Bring Men and Women to Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), esp. xi–xvi, 1–15, 28–47.
40. The greatest evangelist of this century is Billy Graham. His ministry is testimony both to the effectiveness of the gospel of Christ crucified and to the (usual) subordinate role techniques play in his preaching of the gospel. For a candid assessment, read the brilliant biography of W. Martin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story (New York: William Morrow, 1991).
41. D. F. Wells, God the Evangelist, 54.
42. I do not mean to suggest that young Christians cannot evangelize, for it is often the newest Christians who are most vibrant about their faith and who therefore share it most completely. Such personal testimony evangelism is vital, but it needs to be baptized into a more complete mode of operation if it is to last and to minister beyond the immediate circle of friends. And in this context, a good tract can be useful because it focuses the attention of the audience on a set of statements and away from the personal opinion of the evangelist.
1. The first clause of 2:12 is a resumption of 2:11b but in a positive form: Abstaining from fleshly lusts (negative) becomes having good conduct (positive).
2. The NIV adds “in the world,” but neither is this in the text nor does it permit the reader to determine on his or her own whether the description is metaphorical or literal (see the discussion at 1:1–2).
3. J. R. Michaels argues that this expression is one more piece of evidence suggesting that Peter was attempting to describe the church in the terms of Israel (1 Peter, 116). He appeals here to Psalm 39:12. It might be observed that if (1) Peter is alluding to this passage (which is by no means clear to me) and (2) if this passage is to be understood as a refuge status, then the meaning of the terms here are social, describing the persecuted status of the believers. On this interpretation of the psalm, see H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. H. C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 419.
4. It is possible that 1 Peter 4:4 indicates a change in social status; however, it is by no means clear that such is the case.
5. J. R. Michaels, however, concludes that the term here is equivalent to “life” (see 1 Peter, 116–17). He goes on to suggest that Peter has in mind such things as “comfort, self-protection, and self-gratification” (117).
6. Bruce Winter, in his Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (FCGRW 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), sees these acts of goodness as acts of benefaction given for the civic good so as to enable the citizens to see that Christians are good people and supportive of society.
7. For New Testament references to the theme of reputation and good behavior, see Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; 2 Cor. 1:12; Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:12; 1 Tim. 3:7; 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8, 10. See C. Spicq, “ἀναστροφη,” in Theological Lexicon, 1.111–14; G. Ebel, “Walk,” NIDNTT, 3:933–35.
8. Peter’s language is exact. Literally it reads: “in the very thing [in which] they accuse you as evildoers, they, by observing your good deeds, may glorify God….” That is, the very thing they use as a pretext of bad behavior is turned against them on the day of God’s visiting vindication. See J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 105; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 117.
9. See Origen, Against Celsus, 6.14–15, for an early example of some unjust accusations.
10. Literally, the Greek expression can be translated as “on the day of visitation” and is probably a quotation of Isaiah 10:3, where it is clearly a day of judgment.
11. Scholars are divided as to which of these is the proper interpretation: for salvation one can find J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 106–7; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 159–60; W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 116–17; for vindication and judgment one can find F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter, 137–38; W. C. van Unnik, “The Teaching of Good Works in 1 Peter,” NTS 1 (1954): 92–110; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 97.
12. See H.-G. Link, “Shame, Respect,” NIDNTT, 3:562–64.
13. The standard study of this is E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1967); see also his The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976); W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 117–51; G. R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991), 366–415; R. Stein, Playing by the Rules: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 17–36 (for an excellent, easy-to-understand explanation of the various issues involved).
14. R. H. Stein, Playing by the Rules, 36.
15. For a brief survey, see Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard, Biblical Interpretation, 427–57.
16. B. J. Siegel, “Defensive Structuring and Environmental Stress,” AJS 76 (1970): 11–32. For surveys of how scholars are adapting sociology to the study of the New Testament, see C. Osiek, What Are They Saying About the Social Setting of the New Testament? (New York: Paulist, 1984); B. Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); H. C. Kee, Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to New Testament Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); for a briefer introduction, see T. E. Schmidt, “Sociology and New Testament Exegesis,” in Introducing New Testament Interpretation, ed. S. McKnight (GNTE 1; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 115–32.
17. Sect has normally been used theologically for groups that are no longer orthodox. I use sect here more in the sense of a “break-off religious group”; I do not intend any kind of negative evaluation with the term. In this sense, the Christian church is a sect of Judaism.
18. Siegel’s theory itself emerges from both his own reading and his observation of various kinds of groups, including religious groups. A recent book that used Siegel’s model profitably for learning about the Amish society is D. B. Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989), 18–20.
19. I must warn the reader that each point being made in this section could be easily illustrated with many examples, both from early Christian literature and from modern social groups. Space prohibits such documentation, but it would be useful for teachers to ask students in a class to find evidence for each of these points in various New Testament books. I taught a class at Trinity (“Sociological Approaches to the New Testament”), in which students were assigned different books of the New Testament and asked to report to the class their findings of “defensive structuring.” Each presentation generated engaging discussions and, on the whole, appreciation both for Siegel’s model and for what such theories can do for the interpreter. In my discussion here, I have benefited from the discussion of the papers of three of my students (Curt Coddington, Tim Freeman, and Thomas Fode).
20. It goes without saying that criticisms could be offered of Siegel’s model, including how the evidence itself of our letter at times counters minor aspects of the model. This section of my commentary, however, is only an example of how we might appreciate certain kinds of models, not a full-scale analysis of the model of Siegel.
21. According to this model, the early church as a whole would fit into the scheme of defensive structuring. Strong leadership is common throughout the New Testament (Pastorals); as with ancient Israel, the early churches surely taught that Christians ought to marry in the faith (1 Cor. 7); they clearly cultivated cultural symbols (language understandings, rituals, etc.); and they also can be seen as educating their youth in the “ways of the Lord.” To the degree that such features are present in a given document is the same degree to which we could infer the presence of a threat to that community’s identity and existence.
22. Peter interprets their stress as a testing from God, thereby providing for the believers a perception of what is going on that fits into their general perception of reality and permits them to deal with the stress in a cognitive manner that allows them to carry on in joy (cf. 1:7).
23. See V. P. Hamilton, “Marriage (OT),” ABD, 5:559–694, esp. 563–65; S. J. D. Cohen, “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,” HAR 7 (1983): 23–39; S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 23–24.
24. When no evidence can be found in the ancient world, we are probably better off thinking that such an idea was not a part of that ancient reality.
25. D. F. Wells, God in the Wilderness, 223.
26. S. L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Doubleday [Anchor Books], 1994), 41.
27. See here W. Barclay, Educational Ideals in the Ancient World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974 [reprint edition of 1959 edition]), 192–233. Barclay’s chapter, however, is an extensive documentation of the pilgrimage theme in early Christian literature (in which category I do not place 1 Peter); I draw from it only to illustrate the countercultural dimension of the church.
28. Translation from Barclay, Educational Ideals in the Ancient World, 193.
29. See also The Epistle to Diognetus and A Plea for the Christians by Athenagoras for further early Christian evidence. For a good study, see R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988).
1. See the discussion of D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 26–32; D. L. Bock, “New Testament Word Analysis,” in Introducing New Testament Interpretation, ed. S. McKnight (GNTE 1; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 97–113.
2. A useful overview of the discussion of the term may be found in L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 174–76; see also G. Delling, “τάσσω,” TDNT, 8:27–48 (“acquiescence in a divinely willed order,” p. 43). See also L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament. Volume 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. J. E. Alsup; ed. J. Roloff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 168–71.
3. Michaels, 1 Peter, 124, therefore suggests that the translation “defer to” or “respect” is more appropriate. I like his suggestion because his translation reveals that the relationship to the government is not the same kind of submission required of the Christian in his or her relationship to God. That the submission here is rooted in a voluntary choice is crucial to understanding Peter’s exhortation. Also, his grounding of the exhortation in a desire to please, and be influential for, God adds special insights into the way the early Christians perceived their relationship to the state and its governing power.
4. For a sketch of the ancient evidence, see D. Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh: Univ. Press, 1972).
5. W. Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 278 (italics added).
6. L. Goppelt, Theology, 2:170.
7. For those who contend that the translation should be something on the order of “to every human institution,” see E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 172; F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 141. For the view that it refers to humans as created by God, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 182–83; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 124.
8. Literally, the text reads “to every human creation.” F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 141, strenuously argues that the expression describes only human institutions and does not suggest at all that a “divinely ordained” human institution is in view. He is correct grammatically; however, both the combination of “creation” and “human” as well as the biblical view of God’s sovereign control of all government leads me to see more than human institutions in this expression. In addition, the passive voice in “are sent” (2:14) suggests divine sending. That divinely ordained can be misinterpreted has been shown by J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 193–211, though I cannot agree with him in all details.
9. The Greek word is pas and refers to the various kinds of governmental authorities. W. A. Grudem, because he sees 2:13 as a heading not only for 2:13–17, but also for 2:18–3:7, sees the word “all” as encompassing a much wider audience (1 Peter, 118–19). But Peter mentions both emperor and governor; thus, the term “all” refers to governmental authorities at all their various levels.
10. Debate here is over whether this refers to the Father (J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 109) or the Son (L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 183–85). Since 2:15 is likely a comment on this clause, “Lord” here probably refers to the Father.
11. F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter, 141. On Nero, see M. Grant, Nero: Emperor in Revolt (New York: American Heritage Press, 1970); M. T. Griffin, “Nero,” ABD, 4:1076–81.
12. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 84. However, we must keep in mind that Peter is not talking here about mass demonstrations or political agitation for representation in power. This was well beyond the reach of those who were socially excluded, the “aliens and strangers.” But the research of B. W. Winter suggests that the Christians of Asia Minor may well have had within their number those who were capable of donating large sums of money or were able to exercise powerful influence for the good of society; see his Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (FCGRW 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
13. The original text has “thus” (houtos) here and it points forward: “For it is [thus] God’s will that by doing good….” “Thus” is to be understood as “For it is thus, that is, in doing good, that one does God’s will.” Some recent grammarians, however, contend that “thus” is the predicate of “is” and should be translated “For the will of God is thus, in doing good to silence….” See, e.g., BDF 434 (1).
14. The Greek word is hoti, used for introducing both a cause (“for” or “because”) and an explanation (“that is”). For the former, see J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 110; for the latter, see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 127; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 101.
15. B. W. Winter, Seeking the Welfare of the City, 37. The weakness of Winter’s view is that nowhere else in 1 Peter does Peter speak of the Christians of Asia Minor doing things for the civic good. And here the text is ambiguous because Peter may be appealing to the dual nature of public offices: They do good to the good and they punish those who do things that are evil. Thus, Peter may be generalizing rather than speaking of some specific benefaction institution in Asia Minor. I am not contesting the institution itself, but only whether Peter is speaking of it specifically in this text as a description of the behavior of the churches.
16. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 132: “The most conspicuous feature of this section is its optimism…. Under normal circumstances loyalty to God and loyalty to the empire will not come into conflict.” We might emphasize the word “normal” and then suggest that little did Peter know what was to come for the Church. Not only would the Church go through some terrible times but tyrannous regimes would develop, regimes that have only been recently toppled, that would make “normal circumstances” exceedingly rare.
17. There has been some debate over the meaning of “as”; the NIV adds “Live as free men” to clarify the problem. In so doing, the translators suggest that “as free men” modifies 2:15. But 2:15 is a parenthetical remark, and the nominative case of “free men” in 2:16 makes a connection to the accusative in 2:15 difficult. Rather, 2:16 picks up the theme of 2:13 (“submit”) and adds a condition of Christians for that submission. Nor can I agree with J. R. Michaels when he connects the “as” clauses of 2:16 with the subject of 2:17 (1 Peter, 128).
18. See the remarks of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 129.
19. On freedom in the early church, see J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 162–92, where he discusses the early Christian development of “revolutionary subordination.” See also W. Schrage, Ethics, 277–78; E. Käsemann, Jesus Means Freedom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); H. Schlier, “ἐλεύθερος,” TDNT, 2:487–502.
20. See the brilliant exposition of this theme with respect to the Zealots in M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989).
21. W. Schrage, Ethics, 278.
22. L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament. Volume 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. J. E. Alsup; ed. J. Roloff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 173.
23. See in J. Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday [Anchor], 1961), 53. See also Luther’s timely exposition of political freedom in his Peter and Jude, 120–22.
24. The first command is aorist; the other three are present. The first is the categorical command, the general one; the other three express the action as ongoing behavior within that holistic command. See S. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 360. But see also J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 129–30, who sees the aorist command as programmatic for the other three.
25. On this, see J. B. Anderson, “Civil Disobedience,” in C. F. H. Henry, ed., Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 104–5; M. L. King, Jr., “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience,” in J. M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 43–53. This latter essay demonstrates theology in action at a critical crossroads in the history of American interracial relations.
26. Carter uses this term throughout his book for a group of people who adhere to some religious belief that prompts them to act in a specific way. Carter himself is a theologically alert, socially sensitive Episcopalian, who is also the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale University. See The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Doubleday [Anchor Books], 1994).
27. The best survey I know of is R. P. Martin’s “Haustafeln,” in NIDNTT, 932.3:928–See also L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 162–79; D. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981); W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 121–36.
28. Thus, an early Christian document, the Didache, 4:9–11, contains instructions for parents about educating their children, for masters about treatment of their slaves, and for slaves about submitting to their masters. That is, the ethics were both crosscultural and tailored to meet the contexts at hand.
29. Such concerns can be found in Paul as well, but they do not find their way into his household codes, probably because they were not as critical to his churches’ concerns (cf. Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–3; Titus 3:1–3, 8). A nice chart of the issues can be found in E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 427. See also L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 164–65.
30. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 122.
31. And usually in the name of the separation of the church and state. But the Constitution never prohibits the church from seeking to work its values into society, and the state cannot bar such activity. See here Stephen A. Carter, Culture of Disbelief, esp. 105–210.
32. J. Wallis, ed., The Rise of Christian Conscience: The Emergence of a Dramatic Renewal Movement in Today’s Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
33. J. Douglass, “The Nuclear Train Campaign: Tracking and Resisting the Train,” in J. Wallis, The Rise of Christian Conscience, 62–71.
34. Ibid., 64.
35. In a note from one of my editors, Frank Thielman, I was informed that Jim Douglass’s story continues along other lines now in Birmingham, where he operates a halfway house ministry to victims of AIDS.
36. See the numerous blurbs for his book in the frontispiece to the 1994 paperback edition, blurbs coming from both sides of the issues he addresses.
37. Gerald R. McDermott, “What Jonathan Edwards Can Teach Us About Politics,” CT 38/8 (1994): 32–35.
1. “Slaves” translates oiketai, a term frequently used for the “household servant.”
2. This translates, in imperatival form, a participle. This participle applies the imperative of 2:13 to a new station, the slaves, and its mood is drawn from that original imperative. However, both the imperative of 2:13 and the participle of 2:18 are to be seen as derived from the exhortation to the holy and sin-avoiding conduct of 2:11–12.
3. The single best survey is S. S. Bartchy, “Slavery (Greco-Roman),” ABD, 6:65–73 (with extensive bibliography). (In this article, the subtitle is “New Testament” but the header is “Greco-Roman”; I use the latter.) In the paragraphs that follow I depend heavily on Bartchy and refer the reader to him for more details and information. See also E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 56–59. A wide-ranging study is F. M. Snowden, Jr., Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1990).
4. Based on Alex Haley, Roots: The Saga of an American Family (New York: Dell, 1976).
5. S. S. Bartchy, “Slavery (Greco-Roman),” 70–72 (Bartchy sketches this material with details).
6. Bartchy (ibid., 67) lists several motives for choosing slavery, including the desire to become a Roman citizen after being set free and the hope that large debts could be paid off.
7. K. Hopkins, as quoted by S. S. Bartchy, ibid., 69.
8. This expression has been debated. Is it fear/respect of men or of God? The majority sees here a religious basis for respect (thus, J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 116; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 138).
9. The Greek term behind “for it is commendable” is charis, usually translated “grace.” But, as J. R. Michaels notes, “ ‘Grace’ refers here not to that which God gives freely … but to that which counts with God or that with which God is pleased” (1 Peter, 139).
10. When the same expression (or, more subjectively, the same idea) both begins and ends a unit, if the intervening features are also in repeated in reverse order, as they essentially are here, it is called a chiasm. On this, see N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992 [reprint of 1942 edition with a new preface]).
11. The Greek term for “pattern” (hypogrammos) was used for the wax tablet on which children wrote in order to “learn their letters.” Patterns were impressed in the wax so that children could learn to shape their letters properly. For further details, see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 144.
12. A second image lies behind the word “steps” (2:21), that of walking behind someone in the footprints left by them; on this, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 204–5.
13. A marvelous study of the vicarious nature of the atonement can be found in J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986), 133–63 (on the “Self-Substitution of God”); for a more analytical presentation, see J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution,” TynBul 25 (1974): 3–45.
14. See here J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 148–49; a parallel is surely 1 Peter 2:11–12, where both renunciation of sin and living in holiness is the heart of the exhortation.
15. Negro spirituals are noted by this sense of reenactment.
16. S. S. Bartchy, “Slavery (Greco-Roman),” 66.
17. I am not saying that abuses did not take place in antiquity; abuses were present. On this see, e.g., Seneca, Epistle 47.
18. For a survey of the issues, see M. J. Adler, The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952), 790.2:774–Surely this topic deserves more than I can offer here. Among the important writings on the topic, the following are included: T. Harry Williams, ed., Selected Writings and Speeches of Abraham Lincoln (Putney, Vt.: Hendricks House, 1980), xxiv–xxxii; J. M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 85–90 (“The Current Crisis in Race Relations”), 117–25 (“The Ethical Demands for Integration”); M. L. King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait (New York: Penguin [Mentor], 1964); Jesse L. Jackson, Straight From the Heart, ed. R. D. Hatch and F. E. Watkins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 87–90 (“Brown Twenty-Five Years Later”). A necessary reading for this topic is the gripping story of John Howard Griffin who, in the autumn of 1959, had his skin darkened so he could live the experience of the southern black, and live it he did. See his Black Like Me (updated ed.; New York: Penguin [Signet], 1976). I first read this book when I was fourteen, during the turbulent times of the civil rights movement; I was delighted that my daughter, Laura, took the same interest in this book during high school.
19. I make these cautions only because I am sure there were situations that were voluntary, that were good, or that were far better than some other condition. In that sense, slavery was not “as immoral as it was in the New World.” Furthermore, it is clear that biblical revelation modified and improved the conditions of slavery if it did not at times also condemn it. On this, see A. A. Rupprecht, “Slavery,” in C. F. H. Henry, Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 626–27.
20. In fact, the entire sweep of the biblical message is involved in the development of this freedom; on all of this, see M. A. Dandemayev, “Slavery (ANE)” and “Slavery (OT),” ABD, 6:58–65, where the treatment of slaves by Israel is contrasted with treatment elsewhere in the Near East. I contend that this general kindness was developed even further under the influence of the early Christian gospel.
21. For a brief survey of the treatment of slaves in the early church, see A. A. Rupprecht, “Attitudes on Slavery among the Church Fathers,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 261–77.
22. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 89–90, 97–98.
23. For instance, one would be wrong to argue that African-Americans should have continued in their “unequal” state in order to show forth the gospel more. At times, though we have no guidelines that will make each situation clear, it is important to protest peacefully; at times it is important to protest in more intrusive ways; at times it is important to surrender and wait for God’s time.
24. See especially R. J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984); R. J. Sider, ed., Living More Simply: Biblical Principles and Practical Models (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1980); W. W. Wells, The Agony of Affluence (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); see also R. G. Clouse, ed., Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984); C. M. Gay, With Liberty and Justice for Whom? The Recent Evangelical Debate over Capitalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).
25. Ronald J. Sider, Christ and Violence (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1979), 38.
1. Peter begins with “in the same way” so he can connect the exhortation of submission to the exhortations to slaves (2:18) and to those under governmental authority (2:13). Thus, all three exhortations are drawn into the same imperative at 2:13, revealing that Peter sees each of these injunctions as part of the kind of orderliness that ought to be characteristic of the Christian community as it lives a holy life (2:12) in society. In this way, the Christian community can have an enduring impact upon society.
2. See the citations of evidence in G. L. Martin, Counseling for Family Violence and Abuse (Resources for Christian Counseling 6; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 22–26.
3. In what follows, I will follow the outlines of Ben Witherington’s and Craig Keener’s research; furthermore, it will not be possible here to document each point being made with references to the ancient world since these texts are largely inaccessible to most readers of this commentary. Further discussions and documentation of evidence can be found in the sources mentioned in the notes.
The literature on this is so vast I can but record a few books that have become influential on my thinking: B. Witherington, III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life (SSNTMS 51; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), esp. 1–10; Women in the Earliest Churches (SSNTMS 59; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), esp. 1–23; “Women (New Testament),” ABD, 6:957–61; J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective: A Study in Role Relationships and Authority (Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity, 1981), esp. 20–78; R. A. Tucker and W. L. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987); C. S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992)—while this book is devoted to Paul, each of the pertinent issues in 1 Peter are directly addressed. For the broader debate, I like A. Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority and the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986).
4. Ben Witherington, III, “Women (New Testament),” 958.
5. Ibid.
6. So also L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 218.
7. This term, “won over,” is used frequently to describe success in missionary activity (Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 9:19–22; 1 Peter 3:1).
8. Several words echo 1 Peter 2:11–12 here: “conduct” (2:12) and “when they see” (2:12).
9. J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 128.
10. L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 219; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 157.
11. W. Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 274.
12. A survey can be found in D. R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” ABD, 2:232–38.
13. E.g., J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 129.
14. See J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 159, who gives extensive quotations of this material.
15. Thus, in the early church, Clement of Alexandria has an extensive discussion of Christian attire in his The Instructor 3.11.
16. See L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 220–21; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 160.
17. No doubt a contrast to the effects of aging on women’s external appearance.
18. L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 222–23.
19. See here the lucid explanation of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 161–62.
20. L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 221–22.
21. See here the dramatic account of St. Augustine in describing his mother’s behavior and how it led her husband to faith (Confessions, 9.19–22[IX]).
22. J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman, 153.
23. The grammar of 2:13–3:12 is such that the imperative of 2:13 (“submit”) governs the participial imperatives of 2:18; 3:1, and 3:7. Thus, each of these latter three are specific applications of the general command for Christians “to be orderly.”
24. P. Davids, 1 Peter, 121–22.
25. That Peter changes expressions here (from hypotasso to synoikeo kata gnosin), after using “submission” for all (2:13), slaves (2:18), and wives (3:1), shows that he does not think the husband’s relationship to his wife is one of submissiveness. Rather, within the larger framework of orderliness, Peter sees the husband’s behavior as one of showing consideration and respect.
26. Literally, it reads, “Husbands, likewise, dwelling with [your wives] according to knowledge….”
27. J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 132; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 167–68.
28. There is some dispute whether “weaker partner” goes with “dwelling together” (Goppelt) or with “treating with respect” (NIV, NRSV); the word order favors “dwelling together.”
29. J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 133; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 122–23; for a view that the weakness here may be more than physical, see W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 143–44.
30. “Heirs with you” (NIV) translates a special word for Peter, sygkleronomos, or “fellow heir.”
31. An example of a more traditional, but highly sensitive, view of what submission means today can be found in Joyce Huggett, Two Into One? Relating in Christian Marriage (Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity, 1981), 40–52.
32. In the previous sections we compared Peter’s teaching to Paul’s teachings in the “household regulations” sections of Paul’s letters. The same can be done here; what emerges is a Petrine emphasis on the evangelistic impact of submission and the absence of a rooting of the idea of submission in either Christology or Creation.
33. In my judgment, this is where the focus of W. A. Grudem’s article on the meaning of submission goes astray; while Grudem clearly has good points about the meaning of submission, that conversation too one-sidedly focuses on the wrong item. Submission ought to be enveloped always by the biblical meaning of loving service to one another. See his “Wives Like Sarah, and the Husbands Who Honor Them: 1 Peter 3:1–7,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. J. Piper and W. A. Grudem (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 194–208. I am not saying that Grudem does not realize this context; the approach, however, typifies the concern: What submission means can only be understood by asking the question of what love means. His discussion does not do that.
34. H. Cloud and J. Townsend, Boundaries: When to Say Yes, When to Say No, To Take Control of Your Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 161–62. The entire chapter “Boundaries and Your Spouse” is directly relevant to our observations here.
35. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 99.
36. K. R. Snodgrass, “Galatians 3:28: Conundrum or Solution?” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. A. Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986), 181.
37. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 100. He draws an analogy to Old Testament laws that have been transcended by Christians who fulfill the Old Testament law in behavior that is consistent with the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God.
38. Ibid., 101.
39. In saying this, however, I do not deny that some men are, for whatever reasons, perpetually unworthy of submission, but the wife’s responsibility remains to live in a godly manner with that (unworthy) husband in an “orderly manner”; also, some wives are prone to resist the order God has ordained even when the husband is altogether worthy. Such problems make particular situations especially difficult for the marriage. I still maintain, however, that focusing on submission (by either partner) distorts a Christian concept of marriage.
40. I am dependent here on the masterful survey of feminist hermeneutics by A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 430–62. For the reader who wishes to follow up my summary, Thiselton’s book provides a comprehensive bibliography.
41. This reflects a typical feature of application: Interpreters often focus on a section or idea in a passage that is especially relevant to that interpreter’s culture and situation, where the Word of God needs to be heard. We can do no other. However, in doing this we must make sure that we are not avoiding difficult issues, and we must be careful to teach the entire text for what it says. It is also too typical for interpreters only to examine the ideas that are socially hot. This makes the text only a convenient stopping place for discussing our social agenda. Balance must be maintained.
42. This number, from a study of Marie Fortune, appeared in Theology, News, and Notes (June, 1982), 17 (from Fuller Theological Seminary); I found this in G. L. Martin, Counseling for Family Violence and Abuse, 15; see further in the discussion on pp. 19–27.
43. Psychiatrists (and psychologists) have clearly worked out the kind of background typical of violent men; having such a background in violence, however, does not excuse the behavior. “Abusive men are likely to have come from violent homes, where they witnessed wife-beating or were abused themselves as children. The act itself is reinforcing; once a man has beaten his wife, he is likely to do so again. Abusive husbands tend to be immature, dependent, and nonassertive, and to suffer from strong feelings of inadequacy.” So H. I. Kaplan and B. J. Sadock, Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences, Clinical Psychiatry, 5th ed. (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1988), 378; see also the discussion of G. L. Martin, Counseling for Family Violence and Abuse, 31–38.
44. See G. L. Martin, Counseling for Family Violence and Abuse, 97–122, where the author details treatment of abusive men.
45. Peter uses the expression “according to knowledge” (kata gnosin). This expression is buried in the NIV’s use of “be considerate.”
46. While I am not conversant with lots of literature in this regard, a book I can recommend is Gary Smalley, with Steve Scott, If Only He Knew, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
47. Gary Smalley and S. Scott, If Only He Knew, 17. Smalley and Scott go on to list what they perceive to be the major differences between men and women, describing mental/emotional differences, physical differences, sexual differences, and intuitive differences.
48. My wife, on reading this paragraph, reminds me that now that this is in print, she can hold me to its standards!
49. There are other pertinent points in our world to which this text speaks. For example, Peter’s words about true beauty are important in a world where some women have been driven, by the desire to fulfill the American male’s dream woman, to eating disorders that rack the body and soul. Some women have resorted to sexual promiscuity in their desire to fulfill the same dream. Identity has too easily slid into image, and that image is too often unavailable. See the insightful comments of I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 101–2. Long ago, James Dobson wrote a book that speaks to this issue as much today as it did then (see his perceptive chapter “Beauty: The Gold Coin of Human Worth,” in his Hide or Seek, rev. ed. [Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1979]), 23–41.
1. Peter begins with to telos, “Finally.” One might translate this, “The sum of the matter is this: ….” Here he reexpresses what he said in 2:11–12, the various virtues listed in 3:8–11 being specific instances of “good conduct” and “abstaining from sin.”
2. See J. H. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 165–266.
3. The NIV adds “with one another,” giving the impression that the ethics are concerned exclusively for insiders. But the contextual flow does not suggest this. However, Peter may have in mind a harmony within that gives them a better status with the outsiders. See here J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 135; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 176.
4. L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 233.
5. Some see this expression (eis touto) to refer back to blessing those who curse you (J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 178), while others see it pointing forward (NIV; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 234).
6. See J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 179; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 234–35; E. Clowney, 1 Peter, 141–42.
7. Cf. the extensive documentation in W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 148–49.
8. This is not to say that there are not some practices that are no longer relevant (like the mixing of cloths in the Levitical codes). I am speaking here only of practices that can be generalized.
9. W. C. Kaiser, Jr., calls this “principlization”; see his helpful analysis in Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 149–63.
10. See the exposition of this in F. A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1971), 31–33.
11. In the “Bridging Contexts” section at 2:11–12, I examined the sociological theory of Bernard J. Siegel. One of the traits of a “community under threat” is its need to unify.
12. Home for the Homeless.
13. The expression “at the pole” has become a rallying cry for Christians to pray together at a visible place (at a flagpole) on a school campus.
14. J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 219–20. Another lucid exposition of this same problem can be seen in H. A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Society (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1975), 89–99. See further his The Community of the King (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1977); Liberating the Church: The Ecology of Church and Kingdom (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983), 112–31.
15. From N. Turner, Christian Words, 262.
16. Dr. Karl Menninger, in J. Powell, Unconditional Love: Love Without Limits, rev. ed. (Allen, Tex.: Tabor, 1989), 90.
17. J. Powell, Unconditional Love, 82.
18. From J. Powell, Who I Am, 43.
19. See the critique of David Wells, God in the Wilderness: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 68–72.
20. An example of this can be found in David Watson, I Believe in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 84–95.
21. This older model that has inspired many churches is described in R. Stedman, Body Life (Glendale, Calif.: Regal, 1972).
22. A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1991). I borrow in what follows from his section on the pure relationship (pp. 88–98).
1. The precise relationship of 3:13–17 to what precedes is not immediately clear. J. N. D. Kelly contends that “the transition seems abrupt” (Peter and Jude, 139). However, he goes on to show that the pragmatic concern of being treated more fairly by doing good actually derives from the Old Testament quotation in 3:8–12 itself: The one who wants to see good days ought to live honorably before God.
2. J. N. D. Kelly argues that “harm” here is ultimate harm (Peter and Jude, 140), while F. W. Beare sees too much naiveté on the part of the author (1 Peter, 162). I contend that all Peter has in mind is the normal deliverance from persecution that (often) comes to the Christian who lives peacefully and winsomely in the face of persecution. See the fine discussion in L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 240–41.
3. So also J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 184–85.
4. Its likelihood is lessened in this text by Peter’s use of the optative mood. By 4:12 the likelihood of suffering seems greater. See the excellent discussion of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 186. In Greek the optative mood is used to describe an action that is only remotely possible.
5. Some have argued that this defense may have taken place in a courtroom (F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 164–65), but most think it better to see this as various kinds of informal defense (e.g., J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 188).
6. The text does not make it clear whether “in you” is to be understood corporately (a hope that pervades the Christian community) or individualistically (a hope that prompts the heart of every Christian).
7. Again, Peter uses the optative mood to show that the actual prospects of suffering are far from certain.
8. This text has also generated considerable discussion in the history of the church. What Peter apparently does is connect the “water delivery” of the ark with the “water delivery” of baptism. What is fundamental to understanding the early church’s attitude toward baptism is (1) that early Christians were much more ritualistic than most moderns, and (2) that all early Christians were baptized. Thus, there was no such thing as an “unbaptized believer” in Peter’s day. This approach to the rite permits Peter to say things about baptism that many modern Christians would not want to say. The best book I know on baptism is G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973); for a survey of the Jewish context, cf. Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 82–85; see further at L. Hartman, “Baptism,” ABD, 1:583–93.
9. Martin Luther: “A wonderful text is this, and a more obscure passage perhaps than any other in the New Testament, so that I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means.” See Peter and Jude, 166.
10. It needs to be emphasized that scholars differ seriously with one another here; furthermore, even within the various parts of each general view there are often disagreements. For the first view, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 255–63; for the second view, see W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 203–39; for the third view, see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 194–222 (see also R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. H. Marshall [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 264–81).
11. So much is the Jewish context important here that R. T. France (“Exegesis in Practice,” 265) said: “To try to understand 1 Peter 3:19–20 without a copy of the Book of Enoch at your elbow is to condemn yourself to failure.”
12. See J. S. Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,” WTJ 48 (1986): 303–36, who presents a view much like Grudem but focuses on how the unit fits into the larger context.
13. See D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), esp. 81–91.
1. Many commentators maintain that Peter is focusing on the death of Jesus in this verse, but such a view makes his point much more difficult to understand. How, we might ask, does “death” help one to cease from sin in any meaningful way? Is it not obvious to say that death stops sin in one’s life? But, if we ask instead how suffering in this life helps, we find clues in 4:2–5: Suffering helps to purge one’s life of sin. Thus, I suggest that, while Christ’s suffering did include his death, this passage is not concerned with his “suffering unto death” but with his “suffering” as such. For discussion, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 279.
2. See the lengthy discussions in J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 225–29; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 278–82; see also W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 166–67; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 148–50.
3. See, e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 166–69; F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 179. The particular expression in Paul is “because anyone who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:17). See also E. Clowney, 1 Peter, 169–71.
4. So E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 209–10 (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5).
5. W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 167.
6. For this fourth view, see L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 280–82; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 225–29.
7. See 1 Peter 2:19, 20, 21, 23; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1a, 15, 19; 5:10.
8. On this see P. Davids, 1 Peter, 149–50.
9. So W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 167.
10. J. N. D. Kelly suggests that “enough” means “more than enough.” See Peter and Jude, 169. J. R. Michaels adds “too much in fact”; 1 Peter, 230.
11. On the list of sins, which focus on drinking and sexual sins, see esp. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 230–32.
12. Some have understood the “heap abuse on you” (Gk. blasphemountes) as a vocative (“those blasphemers”) and even attached it to 4:5. So J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 233–34.
13. This could be either the Father (Rom. 2:6; 3:6) or the Son (cf. Matt. 25:31–46; Luke 21:34–36; Acts 10:42; Rom. 14:9; 2 Tim. 4:1). The evidence of 1 Peter tips the balance in favor of the Father (cf. 1:17; 2:23), but evidence from Acts 10:42, in a speech of Peter, makes one cautious. See the discussion in J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 235.
14. Who the evangelist is in this verse depends on how one interprets “dead.” It could refer to Christ or, more likely, to the evangelists in Peter’s churches, including Peter himself. See J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 172–75.
15. The word “now” has been added by the NIV. Such a translation, while possibly correct, leads the reader to exclude other interpretations. The NRSV has just “dead.”
16. For the discussion, cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 235–38.
17. The NRSV reads, “though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.” This suggests a judgment for our present life but the option of eternal life in the spirit for those who survive God’s judgment. I prefer the positions taken in the NIV; Peter’s idea here is similar to that in 2:4. Thus, he has in mind the distinction between what happens to the righteous in this life (suffering and martyred) and what happens before God (vindication). See the excellent discussion of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 238–41.
18. See esp. J. R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 125–33.
19. Once again, however, this should not be done frequently. If we find that we do this frequently we need to look to other passages or we need to ask ourselves if we are truly submissive to God’s Word.
20. J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 373.
21. The classic treatment of following Jesus is Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983 [reprint ed. 1418]).
22. See J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 356–74.
23. Many times the former group becomes a source of serious temptation for the convert; as a result, the convert feels compelled to restrict social communication with it.
1. Peter ends the unit, revealing some kind of climax to a major section, with a doxology (4:11b).
2. In fact, the section reads almost the like the conclusion to a letter. With the doxology at 4:11, one could easily think the letter is over. Many have concluded that 4:12–5 (or perhaps 4:12–5) were added on after the completion of this letter. But see J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 182.
3. Some have argued that “end” here might mean little more than that all of the decisive events in God’s redemptive plan have now been revealed; all that remains is the final act to bring history to a close. The idea of imminency, therefore, is simply the unknown state in which the church must live. But, if we understand Jewish prophecy properly, then imminency can mean what it seems to mean (they believed the end of the world would come soon), and the issue of there being some kind of enthusiastic foolishness in all this can be swept away.
4. The term “imminent” includes, but is not to be restricted to, the idea that the End may occur suddenly and within a few moments. Such a concept includes the perception that history may come to an end “within a generation” or “in conjunction with the next event on God’s calendar.”
5. The Greek word behind our “near” is engiken, meaning “has drawn near” (see Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 21:1, 34; Luke 7:12; 15:1; Rom. 13:12; James 5:8); BAGD, 213.
6. For a more complete discussion of the nature of prophetic language, see G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 243–71; see also his New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (New York: Oxford, 1994), 250–67. While there may be little consensus here, I contend that Peter’s vision of the future was most conditioned by his perception of A.D. 70 as the critical event on the horizon. Peter is among the vast majority of early Christians who inferred from the presence of persecution that the end must be near. See also I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, 140–41.
7. See also B. Witherington III, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), though he does not discuss 1 Peter. See also R. H. Stein, Playing by the Rules: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 89–100 (who uses “impressionism” as an analogy to the nature of prophetic language); W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, and R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 292–312.
8. See L. L. Morris, The Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), esp. 193–227.
9. Proverbs 10:12 reads, “Love covers over all wrongs”; many think Peter is either quoting (though not literally) or at least alluding to that verse. Others have argued, perhaps more accurately, that Peter is simply quoting a long line of others who have appealed to the same set of words to express a variety of ideas (cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 246–47). Accordingly, a saying like this is found at James 5:20; 1 Clement 49:5; 2 Clement 16:4.
10. See the sensitive remarks of J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 178.
11. So, for example, F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 184–85; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 298–99; W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 173–74.
12. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 247.
13. See J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 178–79; esp. J. Koenig, “Hospitality,” ABD, 3:299–301.
14. The words “grace” and “gifts” are derived from the same root; that is, a gift is an individual expression of God’s grace.
15. So W. A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 105.
16. So J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 252–53. In Greek the natural antecedent of “to him” is Jesus Christ, not God (the Father).
17. See C. Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1991).
18. Jack Kuhatschek, Taking the Guesswork Out of Applying the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 145–46. For a more scholarly study, see R. A. Doan, The Miller Heresy, Millennialism, and American Culture (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1987).
19. A brilliant analysis of modern popular prophets and their beliefs can be found in Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press [Belknap], 1992). Former President Ronald Reagan was known for his occasional comment about some fulfillment of a prophetic scripture; but less is known of how much an impact Christian belief in prophecy has made on current American policies. Boyer explores such a topic.
20. Some argue that Matthew 24:34 indicates that within a generation of the establishment of Israel (argued parabolically, and mistakenly, from Matt. 24:32–33), the Lord will return.
21. See also W. A. Dyrness, How Does America Hear the Gospel? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 61–81 (on the American Dream).
22. See also D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflection on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 133–52.
1. It has been argued that 4:12–19 demonstrates a new (and later) situation in that the experiences of persecution seem more present. Thus, writes C. E. B. Cranfield: “In the earlier passage [he is referring to 3:14–4:6] persecution would seem to be still a comparatively remote possibility, while in the present section the fiery trial is apparently already beginning” (First Peter, 100). However, L. Goppelt (1 Peter, 310–12) argues that what has changed is only the author’s point of view: He now sees it as an enduring situation, and his presentation is more concrete.
2. Peter said previously that their pagan friends were “surprised” when the Christians changed their moral behavior (4:4).
3. The NIV has translated “fiery” with the word “pain” and placed “to test you” in a more prominent position by translating it “trial”—thus, a “painful trial.”
4. So also J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 184–85; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 313–14. The clearest use of the two senses of peirasmos (as either “test” or “temptation”) can be seen in James 1:12–14.
5. See the enlightening discussion on joy in the midst of suffering by L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 316–21.
6. The Greek term is koinoneite and is usually translated “fellowship with” (see also 5:1).
7. The Greek reads “rejoice as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may rejoice exceedingly at the revelation of his glory.” The verbal identity is obscured when the translators use “rejoice” and “overjoyed.”
8. The early Christians were frequently insulted (cf. Matt. 5:11–12; 27:44; Rom. 15:3; Heb. 11:26; 13:13). See the excellent summary of C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 2:585–87.
9. See J. Plevnick, “Honor/Shame,” in J. J. Pilch and B. J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 95–104. Honor is a group value that expresses one’s worth in a public manner; to be shamed (cf. our text, v. 16) is to have that honor either unexpressed or to have one’s honor attacked by public criticism. For further information, see B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insight from Cultural Anthropology (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 28–62 (with extensive bibliography). Our culture, in contrast, is driven much more by a sense of guilt than of honor and shame.
10. Instead of “name,” some mss. read “matter” (see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 257, 269–70).
11. A special connection is made between the Spirit and glory in 2 Cor. 3:8, 17–18. See G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 307–20.
12. On Peter’s list of evildoers here, see the extensive comments of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 266–68.
13. The term “family” translates the Greek word oikos, normally translated “house.” It is possible that Peter has in mind the temple of Jerusalem and that the imminent judgment of God will begin there. See the comments of J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 271, but see also L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 329.
14. See the lucid exposition of this theme in E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 299–303.
15. See also Jer. 7–9; 25:17–26 (begins with Jerusalem); Zeph. 1:4–2:15 (begins with Jerusalem).
16. See L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 330–32.
17. See further at 2 Baruch 32:5.
18. The NIV reads at Proverbs 11:31: “If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly and the sinner!” Peter quotes the LXX of this verse (omitting the needless particle men).
19. L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 336.
20. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 151.
1. That is, each section addresses a specific group with specific instructions for that unique group. The verses that follow (5:6–14) are not directed toward a specific group. Thus, our unit here is concerned with instructions for two groups of men and then the entire body. Its concern with specific groups makes it similar to 2:13–3:12, but its focus on specific groups within the church, as opposed to within society, gives it a different orientation.
2. On whether “young men” refers only to males, see the discussion below.
3. The NIV does not translate the inferential particle that begins this verse; the Greek has oun (“therefore”). The NRSV appears to have “now” as the translation. It is possible that Peter intended to see the logical connection as follows: “In light of the coming judgment that will begin with house of God, and since the elders are responsible for the house of God, I exhort you elders to be faithful in the task God has given you.” However, some mss. omit the Greek word altogether, which may explain why the NIV does not have it.
4. Peter uses a rare Greek word, sumpresbuteros; see J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 279–80. On elders in the early church, see R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994). Campbell argues that the term “elder,” however imprecise, refers mostly to the status of household heads and to the senior status these people had in the early house churches.
5. The sym- is not carried over to the term “witness” but is implicit because there is only one article connecting the two nouns: he is a “fellow-elder and -witness.” It follows, then, that the same relationship pertains to the “partaker” as well. Also, it makes little sense for Peter to appeal to the churches on the basis of his relationship if that relationship is completely unlike the elders in those churches.
6. Some argue Peter means “eyewitness” here; however, as others have argued, he has in mind one who testifies about the sufferings of Christ in its saving and exemplary benefits and who participates in that suffering through experiences (so J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 198–99; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 341–42; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 280–81).
7. Some argue that Peter is alluding to his experience of the Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:6; 2 Peter 1:16–21). However, the glory he describes here is something future.
8. In Greek, the expression is “the among-you flock of God”: that is, that part of God’s flock assigned to you.
9. “Overseers” translates the Greek term episkopos, another popular term for church leaders in the earliest churches (see, e.g., Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7). For further study, see L. Coenen, “Bishop, Presbyter, Elder,” in NIDNTT, 1:188–92 (bishop), 192–200 (elder), and the extensive bibliography on pp. 200–201.
10. See the discussion in J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 284.
11. E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 230.
12. That support of itinerants was a hot issue can be seen in R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 52–59. Paul, too, worried about what others would think about his receiving of money. See S. McKnight, “Collection for the Saints,” DPL, 143–47; P. W. Barnett, “Tentmaking,” DPL, 925–27; J. M. Everts, “Financial Support,” DPL, 295–300.
13. Peter uses the term kleroi to describe the sphere of their ministry; this most likely refers to a specific church. See, e.g., F. W. Beare, 1 Peter, 200; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 285–86.
14. The “of” in “of glory” is called an epexegetical or appositional genitive: the crown that is glory. A similar expression can be found in English when we say that the disobedient will drink a cup of sorrow; the cup is the experience of sorrow. For an excellent discussion of rewards, see C. L. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven,” JETS 35 (1992): 159–72. Blomberg dismisses the idea that Christians will be eternally distinguished from one another by some kind of reward system.
15. “In the same way” connects 5:5 to 5:1–4; the connection seems to be that just as the elders have a God-ordained task to perform, so also do the young men. As the elders lead their churches, so the young men should live in line with the elders’ directions.
16. Some have appealed to Acts 5:6 or Luke 22:26. See the discussion of L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 350.
17. So E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 233; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 350–51; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 289.
18. J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 205.
19. Scholars have appealed to 1 Clement 3:3; 44:3–6; 47:6 for evidence of such a problem.
20. I am “low church” in my perceptions of the relationship of the pastor to the laity; thus, I do not make radical distinctions between what pastors can do and what laypersons can do.
21. See the excellent discussion of W. L. Liefeld, “Leadership and Authority in the Church,” in In God’s Community: Essays on the Church and Its Ministry, ed. D. J. Ellis and W. W. Gasque (Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw, 1979), 29–39.
22. If submission to elders and leaders were the only guiding principle, there would never have been a Protestant Reformation!
23. Though only directed to the preaching component of elders, the chapter of John Stott on contemporary problems with preaching discusses the subject of this paragraph admirably; see his Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 50–91.
24. H. Cloud and J. Townsend, Boundaries: When to Say Yes; When to Say No To Take Control of Your Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 25.
25. See L. McBurney, Counseling Christian Workers (Resources for Christian Counseling 2; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986).
26. Another insightful study, written over a century ago, is C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 154–65 (“The Minister’s Fainting Fits”). See also D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965).
1. See at 1:1–2, n. 2.
2. So, e.g., L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 355; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 293–95.
3. See L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 355–56; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 293–95 (who draws out the finer differences and similarities).
4. R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, trans. J. Holland-Smith and W. J. O’Hara (New York: Seabury, 1965), 370.
5. So J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 208; L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 357; J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 296.
6. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 292.
7. See the extended discussion in ibid., 298–99.
8. Second Peter ends more on a note of exhortation and less in line with customary letters. On the various formal elements and their parallels, cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 305–6.
9. So, e.g., E. G. Selwyn, 1 Peter, 9–17, 241; J. N. D. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 214–16; P. Davids, 1 Peter, 198; C. P. Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 175–76.
10. Literally, the Greek has, “Through Silas, to you, the faithful brother … I write.” The issue is what “through” (Gk. dia) means here. Cf. 2 Thess. 2:2, where dia is used with the clear implication that it was written, not sent, “through us.”
11. So, e.g., J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 306–7; W. A. Grudem, 1 Peter, 23–24, 199–200; N. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 241–43.
12. The evidence includes Acts 15:23; Ignatius, Romans 10:1; Philadelphians 11:2; Smyrnaeans 12:1. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 4.23.11) suggests the first view mentioned above. Romans 16:22 is ambiguous for, though it supports the existence of a secretary, it does not use the “through” expression.
13. The word “this” (Gk. tauten) refers back either to the whole letter or to those parts of the letter that speak of God’s grace and truth.
14. So J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 311.
15. Ibid.
16. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.15.2: “He [Papias] also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle, and that he composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon….”
17. See the discussion of L. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 377–78.
18. See J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, 296.
19. See the introduction, pp. xx.
20. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.2.5. The term behind “greatly exalted” is hupsomenoi, the same term that is used for “lift you up.”
21. We cannot, however, transform the notion of “Final Day” into “Any Day,” for Peter does not, nor do the other writers of the New Testament, believe there is any guarantee that current conditions will necessarily improve because one is a Christian. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Waiting on God’s timing is crucial.
22. David Watson, Discipleship (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981), 167.
23. See S. McKnight, “Knowing Our Enemy: The Devil in Perspective,” and “Knowing Our Enemy: Satan’s Many Manifestations,” Moody Monthly 89/10 (1989): 36–43; 89/11 (1989): 32–39.
24. A spiritual classic here is Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968; originally published in 1652).
25. A creative presentation of this problem can be found in Os Guinness, The Gravedigger File: Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983).
26. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), 137.