The first epistle from peter
That the apostle wrote this epistle is not seriously contended. The question which remains is when did he write it, and then secondary to that is from where did he write it. In this Study we will first seek to answer these questions, then go on and search and see what this fascinating epistle itself has to teach us.
What is not in 1 PETER will help us date it perhaps as precisely as what is in it. For example, no mention, not even a hint is made that the Temple, around which the Jews' entire culture centered, with all of its dedications, celebrations and sacrifices, had been totally obliterated by the Roman armies. Let us consider a brief comment which the Biblical scholar Professor B. H. Streeter had to make when considering this cataclysmic event which occurred in 70 A.D .
That Peter passed over in deafening silence this war with Rome which completely destroyed their holy city, laid waste their entire country and decimated many of the Jewish colonies outside of Palestine, can only be possible if he had written prior to that dreadful event. That would have placed the writing of this epistle sometime before 70 A.D.
Even so, most commentators presume that the epistle had to have been written late in Peter's life because there is so much in the epistle which they assume he took from Paul's writings. But what if instead, Paul borrowed from Peter rather than Peter borrowing from Paul?
Are we to suppose that the great apostle Peter rummaged around through all of Paul's epistles, picking out passages here and there so as to reassemble them into some sort of hodgepodge of doctrine for his own readers? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to expect that Paul learned his theology from Peter, James, Silas and the other disciples of the Lord?
From where do most of us suppose that Paul got his knowledge of the scriptures? From whom did he learn about all which he taught and wrote? Because of something which he mentioned in his letter to the Galatians, many of us have surmised that everything which he taught, he learned from the Lord himself.
Thus, we have understood Paul to have said that all which he taught he had learned by revelation from the Lord, and then other apostles might have gotten what they taught from Paul. Howbeit, in a note from page 87 of his book Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Fredrick Bruce offers a totally different take on this phrase in Paul's epistle, "of Jesus Christ".
page 1/18^
Thus, Paul does not intend to declare here that everything which he taught was revelation from the Lord, but simply that his commissioning was from the Lord. Paul was explaining to them that he got his appointment, his calling from Yeshua, not from the Church at Jerusalem. He was authorized to teach the gospel because the Lord had personally sent him, not the Jerusalem Church.
Another passage often misunderstood concerning who taught Paul is one from his letter to the Ephesians.
Again, the way in which some versions translate this passage, Paul seems to be saying that what he taught was made known unto him by direct revelation from Yeshua. But that is not at all what the text says. It actually reads, "....that by revelation was made known to me the mystery. . .". The pronoun he representing Yeshua is not in the text.
So then we must ask ourselves, who made known to Paul this mystery? Does he not tell us two verses later when he explains that this knowledge of the mystery had been revealed unto the "holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit". Thus the spirit of GOD revealed this knowledge to HIS holy apostles and prophets, and then they revealed it unto other men, of which Paul was evidently one. Paul got his knowledge of the mystery from GOD's holy apostles and prophets, not by direct revelation from Yeshua.
This is not to say that Paul was never taught anything from the Lord (1 CORINTHIANS 11:23 & 2 CORINTHIANS 12:1), but so was Peter and the other apostles. Yeshua taught His disciples so that they could go and teach others, like for instance Paul. When it came to many of the specifics concerning the doctrine of who Christ was, what He accomplished for and in them, of the approaching Day of Judgment, all these things Paul could naturally have learned from others by his own research and study.
Paul would have gotten his knowledge of the truth the same way that everyone else back then got it, from the apostles and prophets of Christ. His heart was first stirred no doubt by Stephen, for much of what Paul wrote can also be found in Stephen's apology. After Paul's conversion, he must have then learned the milk of the word from Ananias and the believers at Damascus (ACTS 9:19). Following that he would have been further guided into the truth by Barnabas (ACTS 9:27).
Some time later he sought out Peter in Jerusalem for the specific purpose no doubt of learning from him (GALATIANS 1:18). They dwelled together for over two weeks, which is quite a long time for these two dedicated disciples to devote themselves to the study of their Bibles. I can well imagine that there were times when they studied together throughout the night. To see a chart which demonstrates for us just how much of what Peter had written in this epistle he had also learned from Yeshua, go here, where forty separate truths are listed which are common to both 1 PETER and that which Yeshua taught.
page 2/18^
Some years later, Silas, a leader among the brethren in Jerusalem, also would have no doubt shared much with Paul as they traveled together heralding the gospel across the land (ACTS 15:40). Thus, there is good reason for us to conclude that Paul came to his knowledge of the truth over the course of a number of years. He was not magically infused with this understanding at his conversion. He had to catch up, if you will, with his fellow apostles who had enjoyed the advantage of setting at the Master's feet for several years.
Thus, we should expect that Peter wrote those truths which he had learned from his Lord, while Paul wrote what he had learned from Peter and the other apostles and prophets. This is why we find so much of what Paul taught and wrote in both JAMES and 1 PETER. They wouldn't have needed to copy from Paul. Rather, Paul would have learned it from them. I count over fifty occasions where what Peter wrote was also found in Paul's epistles. That is astounding considering Peter's first epistle itself only has around a hundred verses. To see the chart containing these references, go here.
Let's consider a couple of examples where what Paul taught he probably got from Peter. Paul had written to Timothy that Yeshua was ordained by GOD to judge both the dead as well as the living (2 TIMOTHY 4:1). We must wonder where Paul got this information? Did he learn it from Yeshua by direct revelation, or did he learn it from the apostles and prophets of the Lord?
It happens that Peter had written the same thing in his first epistle, that Yeshua would judge the living and the dead (1 PETER 4:5). But where did Peter get that revelation? Did he get it from Paul, or did he learn it from his own Master and Teacher? When we search the scriptures, we learn that during a sermon to Cornelius and his household, Peter said that the risen Lord had commanded them "to preach unto the people, and to testify that it was He which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (ACTS 10:42).
Clearly then, and without a doubt what Peter taught concerning Yeshua judging the living and the dead, he and his fellow apostles had learned from Yeshua (JOHN 5:19-30). It is only natural then that we should expect that Paul had himself learned this truth from Peter. At the very least all must recognize and admit that Peter had not learned it from Paul.
Here is another example for the reader to consider. Paul wrote the believers at Thessalonica that the day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night (1 THESSALONIANS 5:2). So we ask, Where did Paul get this information? From whom did he learn that the Lord's Return could be likened unto a thief who covertly makes his entrance while no one is watching?
Again, as it happens Peter wrote precisely the same thing to his readers, saying that "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night" (2 PETER 3:10). So we again ask, Where did Peter get his information? Most Commentators seem to think that Peter and the rest of the apostles stole from Paul what they wrote in their epistles. But why could not Paul have gotten it from Peter?
page 3/18^
Is it not the most natural assumption for us to expect that Peter and the other apostles got their information about Christ's Return from Christ Himself? Did He teach them nothing during those years together? Of course He did. Yeshua taught His apostles and prophets, then they in turn taught others such as Paul.
Thus, in attempting to date 1st PETER, we should not presume that Peter waited to write until he had learned from Paul many of the truths which we find in his epistles. Peter wrote his epistles relating much of what he had learned from his Lord, and then sometime apart from that, Paul wrote his epistles.
From what we have thus far considered, 1 PETER could have been written just about anytime between Yeshua's ascension around 30 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Thus, we should then look and consider what evidence there may be within the epistle itself, which would indicate for us more precisely when it could have been written. What was going on in the Church which might betray to us a date either early or late in Peter's life and ministry?
Perhaps the most significant event in the life of the early Church was the dispute about Gentiles coming to the faith. Their numbers were relatively insignificant until Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, began his missionary journeys. This was the specific reason that the Church council in ACTS 15 was called and assembled, to decide how best to permit the uncircumcised Gentile believers to commingle with the Jewish believers.
If Peter had written his epistle after the influx of many Gentiles to the faith, we might expect that he would have at least touched upon this crucial subject. Surely, if he was writing after ACTS 15, some mention of the Gentiles being part of their fellowships would have been alluded to. But Peter is strangely silent concerning the existence of any Gentile believers in the fellowships to which he was writing.
Because most Commentators impulsively believe that Peter wrote late in ACTS, long after the Gentiles had been admitted to the fellowships, they unconsciously read into 1 PETER what is not there, that Gentiles were indeed included as subjects in his letter. But contrary to their assumptions, not a word, not even a hint is found that any Gentiles were in the fellowships. As a matter of fact, Peter wrote just the reverse.
page 4/18^
There is no indication here that any of these Gentiles were believers. Nor for that matter were the Jews being encouraged to make believers out of them. These Gentiles were clearly a group of individuals completely separate from the congregation of Jewish believers. Gentiles are again mentioned by Peter in the fourth chapter, but here the apostle only speaks of his readers no longer living sinfully as did their Gentile neighbors.
The way many versions render this passage, it seems to say that Peter's readers had been running with them, with the Gentiles in this sinful lifestyle. But the word them being in italics tells us that this word was not in the original text. All that the verse says is that they (the Jews) had formerly ran together into this life of sin. We should consider that Peter was simply reminding them that previous to them coming to the gospel, some of these Jews had ran together with one another into sins of the flesh, which the Gentiles were surprised that they no longer did. Consider the Concordant Version of the passage;
Thus, if there were no Gentiles in their fellowships, that fact indicates for us that the epistle was very probably written before Gentiles were joining the faith, at least among the Diaspora. This suggests for us that the epistle very likely would have been written prior to the Church council of ACTS 15.
Still, many Commentators feel that Peter's reference in his epistle to certain rude and carnal sins point to the reality that Gentiles must have been in their assemblies because Jews would not have sinned in such a blatant fashion. Thus we will need to take a few moments to see if this bears out. Were the sins which Peter admonished his readers about, solely Gentile sins, or could they also have been committed by Jews?
In 2:1 Peter cautions them against having malice; yet the Lord also warned His Jewish audience that "Sufficient unto the day is the evil [malice] thereof" (MATTHEW 6:34). Peter had himself spoken unto a certain Jew in Samaria named Simon that he had better "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness [malice]" (ACTS 8:22). The apostle James as well had written his Jewish readers instructing them to lay aside all malice (JAMES 1:21). Thus, having malice was every bit a Jewish sin as it might have been a Gentile sin.
Likewise, Peter warned his readers against having guile, but Matthew also wrote that the Jews showed this same guile unto Yeshua (MATTHEW 26:4). The Lord himself warned His listeners against possessing these same thoughts (MARK 7:22-23). The Jewish sorcerer Elymas was accused by Paul of being full of guile (ACTS 13:10). Thus, Jews were guilty of this sin as well as any non-Jews were.
page 5/18^
Peter also charged them to lay aside hypocrisies (2:1), just as Yeshua had often charged some of the Jews in His audience (MATTHEW 23:28 MARK 12:15 LUKE 12:1).
Envy was another sin which Peter warned them against (2:1). But even Pilate knew of the Jews envy (MATTHEW 27:18); and Paul knew of it (GALATIANS 5:21 & TITUS 3:3); and Luke wrote of it (ACTS 13:45). Thus, these many sins which Peter warned against in no way suggests that he was writing to Gentiles, but shows that his audience could just as easily have been solely Jewish.
In 2:9 Peter's readers were told that they were called out of darkness into the light, which reminds us of Paul's declaration that he was himself sent to turn the Gentiles from darkness to light (ACTS 26:17-18). Howbeit, Zacharias' prophecy concerning his son, John the Baptist, was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people [the Jews]" and "to give light to them that sit in darkness" (LUKE 1:77-79). This promise in the scriptures of turning believers from darkness to the light is a promise to Jews as well as to Gentiles.
In 2:10 Peter told them that before they came to the faith, that they were not a people, which reminds us of Paul's same statement in ROMANS 9:25. Both statements were a quotation from HOSEA 1:9 and 2:23. Howbeit, Hosea's prophecy was not in any way concerning Gentiles, but rather the ten northern tribes of Israel who had deserted their religion. Same here in Peter's letter; he was writing to Jews of the Dispersion who were generally not considered by the home-grown Jews of Judea as being GOD's authentically chosen people. Peter however assured the Jewish believers that they most certainly were GOD's people.
Peter warned them in 2:14 of being thought of as evil doers, yet this is the exact same charge which the Jews leveled at Yeshua when they presented Him before Pilate (JOHN 18:30).
In 4:3 they were cautioned against lasciviousness, yet Yeshua warned His own countrymen of the very same sin (MARK 7:22). In the same verse Peter forewarned them of lusts, yet Yeshua described lusts as one of the very things which derail all men from becoming fruitful (MARK 4:19) and further goes on to accuse some of the Jewish leaders of having the same lusts as their father the devil (JOHN 8:44). Paul himself wrote of his own lusts before he was converted (ROMANS 7:7).
Excess of wine (drunkenness) and revellings (rioting) were sins which Paul had warned his readers (both Jewish and Gentile) concerning (ROMANS 13:13). Banquetings is used only in 1 PETER, howbeit its synonym is the surfeiting used by Yeshua in LUKE 21:34.
Abominable idolatries was a sin which was usually not associated with Jews, but Paul tells us in COLOSSIANS 3:5 that covetousness was indeed idolatry, and covetousness was a sin which the Jews were very familiar with. Anything which worms its way in between the believer and GOD is idolatry.
page 6/18^
So we see that most all of these sins which Peter warned his readers about could have to do with Jews just as easily as they could have to do with the Gentiles. Thus the evidence continues to mount that Peter may well have written his epistle prior to many Gentiles, if indeed any, had joined the Christian fellowships of the Diaspora. Few Gentiles would have been part of the Christian fellowships until later on towards the end of the Book of ACTS, when Luke tells us that while Paul was teaching in the school of Tyrannus, all Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles (ACTS 19:10, 26).
It has also been suggested that the epistle must have been written late because of the references to trials and suffering, which many assume didn't take place till much later, perhaps during Nero's reign in the sixties. Peter wrote of the trial of their faith (1:7) and of their suffering in the flesh (4:1-2), so it is then surmised that these passages must refer to trials and sufferings late in the book of ACTS, or perhaps even into the second century.
Howbeit, we should not forget that before his conversion, Paul himself had inflicted much suffering on the Jewish believers, even unto strange cities (ACTS 26:11). This of course occurred early in the book of ACTS, not long after Stephen was martyred.
There is no reason for us to assume that other zealots like Paul were not also attempting to extinguish this spreading flame by whatever means was required. Sometime after Paul's conversion, the persecutions against the believers in Palestine pretty much subsided, for we are told by Luke that the Churches throughout all of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria then had rest (ACTS 9:31). This rest might have solely been the result of Paul becoming converted, but more likely it was the by-product of the foolish measures of Emperor Caligula, who at that time "madly insulted the Jews religion" by ordering them to set up a statue of himself in their most sacred and holy temple (see The First Century of Christianity by Homersham Cox, page 74-74).
During this Jewish crisis with Caligula, the religious leaders at Jerusalem had no time to bother with some insignificant Christian sect, for they were struggling for the very life of their religion. Therefore, with the Jewish authorities otherwise preoccupied, the local Christian Churches had a respite. However, what happened outside of Palestine we are not told. Perhaps in the distant countries where Peter sent his letter the persecution continued, at least in some form. Howbeit, to attempt to date Peter's epistle late simply because of his mention of persecutions, seems to be making groundless assumptions. Persecutions in many different forms could have been continuing against the believers of the Diaspora ever since that first Pentecost.
page 7/18^
In his epistle Peter wrote that his readers had suffered from false accusations (2:19-20; 3:14-17), that they had been reviled (4:14) and threatened (3:16), but Paul wrote the same of his churches (1THESSALONIANS 2:14-15; 3:4 & 2 THESSALONIANS 1:4; 3:2). These epistles by Paul to the Thessalonians were probably written around 50 A.D. during his visit to Corinth (ACTS 18:5). Thus, if Paul's churches far outside of Palestine were suffering persecutions so soon after they converted, then there is every reason to expect that Peter's readers of the Diaspora could have likewise suffered under similar persecutions.
In 4:12 Peter speaks of a fiery trial, which many Commentators have supposed to be the burning of Christian believers by the Roman Emperor Nero in 64 A.D. On the surface, this might seem somewhat plausible if we would have had other indicators which would point us in that direction, but instead the mounting evidence is directing us to a time early on in the book of ACTS. We must therefore consider if there was some other kind of fiery trial which Peter's readers were being encouraged to endure, aside from Nero's flames.
A fair translation of what Peter actually wrote them was, "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you". If an individual was facing the terrifying fate of being burned alive by Nero's henchmen, is this how you would comfort them? Is this what you would tell them to help the poor soul through their horrifying ordeal? Would you simply say that they should not think that this is strange, them about to be burned alive?
Howbeit, if a believer was being lied about, or bad mouthed, or some untrue rumour was being spread abroad about them, then indeed that might seem strange. But to be burned at the stake, to be crucified and then set ablaze as Nero did to hundreds of Christians, that is not strange, that is deranged, that is insane, that is madness.
Vine in his Dictionary defines fiery trial (purosis) as referring to the process of refining gold. The Greek word purosis is related to puroo, where in EPHESIANS 6:16 Paul admonished his readers to take "the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery [puroo] darts of the wicked". Of course these were not actually fire tipped arrows which faith could quench, but rather they were threats and accusations hurled at their minds by an ungodly and unholy world.
Thus, Peter in his epistle was no doubt telling his readers to not think it strange that unbelievers were going to mock and ridicule and falsely accuse them. He encouraged them to allow these insults and false allegations to be a refining and purifying process of their faith.
page 8/18^
Thus, the persecutions and trials of these believers does not tell us precisely when the epistle was written, but it does tell us that it could have been written just about anytime throughout the Book of ACTS. We must not try to force the epistle into a time slot within which it does not easily fit, but rather we must let the evidence continue to paint for us the true picture.
One of Paul's companions in travel was a certain Silas, who accompanied Paul after the Church council in ACTS 15:22. We can be confident that this is the same individual whom Paul later calls Silvanus because in ACTS Luke tells us that Paul was accompanied by Silas and Timothy (ACTS 15:40-18:5), while concerning the identical expedition Paul in his letters wrote that it was Silvanus and Timothy (2 CORINTHIANS 1:19 & 1 THESSALONIANS 1:1 & 2 THESSALONIANS 1:1). Silas and Silvanus were the same individual, called by Luke as Silas but called by Paul as Silvanus.
This same Silvanus was very likely the same individual which assisted Peter with his epistle (1 PETER 5:12). If this is the case, then Peter's epistle must have been written either before Silvanus joined Paul in ACTS 15 or else after Paul and Silvanus separated sometime after ACTS 18. As much of the evidence which we have already considered point to a date earlier than the council of ACTS 15, we should look for an occasion before this event where Peter might have written his letter.
Peter addressed his readers as Christians (4:16), so his letter had to have been written sometime after the believers were called Christians, which Luke tells us first happened in Antioch (ACTS 11:26). This narrows the field considerably, to some time between ACTS 11:26 and ACTS 15. We must consider if there might have been an event between those two passages in which Peter could have written this epistle to the far flung believers of the Diaspora.
In ACTS 12:17 we are told that Peter went to another place after his escape from Herod's prison cell, which could easily have been Antioch, or Asia, or even Babylon. Curiously, Peter and Silas were both back in Jerusalem during the council of ACTS 15, so if they had been traveling together before this, all of the details fit nicely together. They could have written Peter's epistle together, then traveled back to Jerusalem for the important Church council, where Silas then joined up with Paul.
At the close of his epistle (5:13), Peter plainly says that they were writing from Babylon; howbeit, it is commonly thought that when Peter wrote Babylon that he really meant Rome. Even though the scriptures never proclaimed that Babylon meant Rome, that is how Church traditions have interpreted it since the third century.
In his book, The Rise of Christianity, in reference to an individual by the name of Hippolytus who lived between A.D.170 and 235, Frend made the following comment; "With him begins the tradition in the West of associating Rome with Babylon in contrast to the heavenly city, Jerusalem", page 418. Thus, according to Frend, Rome was never know to be referred to as Babylon until Hippolytus did so.
page 9/18^
The reason why Rome began to be promoted as the true identity for Peter's Babylon, is simple and easy to explain. It was important in the second and third centuries for the Church leadership at Rome to somehow establish themselves as the authoritarian center of the Christian religion. Claiming that Peter established the Roman Church would go a long way in fulfilling their purpose. Unfortunately for their agenda, no where in the scriptures does it say anything about Peter going to or being in Rome.
Howbeit, in the seventeenth chapter of REVELATION there is mention made concerning a great whore who had a name upon her forehead, "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations". Furthermore, this great whore was seen by John being carried by a beast which had seven heads, and it is stated that these seven heads represented seven mountains upon which the woman sat. Now, because Rome was built upon seven hills, all is made clear and plain. Rome is Babylon! so they supposed. Perhaps, but more likely this Babylon which John referenced in his vision was actually Jerusalem and not Rome (see The Parousia, by J. Stuart Russell, pages 484-497).
Nevertheless, we are not considering in this Study John and his vision but rather Peter and his epistle. Why, if he was writing from Rome, would he feel the need to hide that fact and say that he was writing from Babylon? We are told by the Commentators that it was a secret allusion to Rome because they feared Nero's vengeance. That really seems like a pretty weak and made up argument, especially when we consider that the epistle was written probably long before any persecutions of the believers by Nero.
And further, there is nothing in the epistle which spoke against the Roman authority. Instead, Peter instructed his readers to obey the laws of their land (2:13), to honour the king (2:17) and governors. There is nothing in the epistle which would cause offense to the powers of Rome.
There is instead good reason for accepting Peter's plain and simple words and expect that he and Silvanus had found themselves in Babylon after Peter's escape from prison, far from the long arm of Herod's reach. Herod had no influence in Babylon but he did have powerful friends in Rome who might still have had Peter apprehended, if that would have been his destination. And as Babylon was only half the distance from Jerusalem as was Rome, it would have been a far more natural destination for Peter when making his escape.
And contrary to what a few Commentators have written, there was a thriving Jewish colony in Babylon. The Asimov's Guide to the Bible, page 1163, erroneously states, "There was no Church at Babylon, for indeed, the city no longer existed". A few Commentators arrived at this mistaken conclusion by misinterpreting a comment made by the historian Josephus. Howbeit, The Pictorial Bible Dictionary states the fact of the case correctly concerning our passage, "Babylon (5:13) may refer to the ancient city on the Euphrates, where there was a large Jewish settlement in Peter's day".
In his book A History of the Jews, page 137, Solomon Grayzel writes the following concerning the Jews in Babylon during the first century of this era.
Mr. Grayzel goes on to estimate that a million Jews lived in the Mesopotamian region, ten times more than lived in Italy. See also From Babylon to Bethlehem by H.L. Ellison, pages 106-107.
page 10/18^
And a further note should be considered. Sometime towards the end of the third century B.C., the Syrian ruler Antiochus III relocated about two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia (Babylonia) to Phrygia and Lydia (Josephus, Ant. xii. 8. 4.). This is an area in close proximity to where Peter had addressed his epistle. Thus, we should expect that the Jews of Babylon would have had a close affinity to those Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Many family members there might naturally consider Babylon as their motherland.
Peter addresses his epistle "....to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia". Howbeit, in his book, First Century of Christianity, page 114, Homersham Cox states, "The translation in our Authorised Version [KJV]....is incorrect and misleading. The original shows that the epistle was addressed to Jews and not to Gentiles".
The Jews of the Diaspora had been divided up into three geographical locations; Babylonia, Syria and Egypt. Thus, that Peter would flee to Babylon after his escape from Herod is most natural and plausible, even though it doesn't fit with Church Traditions. The list of places to which the letter was to be sent also adds light to where Peter was writing from. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia suggests movement in a westerly direction, which is what we would expect in a letter from Babylon. But if he was writing from Rome then we would have expected Asia as the first destination.
Let us gather up some of what we have observed and see if we can paint a more accurate depiction of what was here taking place.
During the Pentecostal celebration which occurred just days after Yeshua's ascension, thousands of Jews which had been gathered together from all over the known world witnessed the miracle of the tongues of fire which sat upon each of apostles, thus singling them out as GOD's spokesmen.
The apostles had proclaimed Yeshua to be the long awaited Messiah, and thousands of these Jews, natives of Palestine as well as foreigners from Mesopotamia (Babylon), Pontus, Asia and Cappadocia had accepted Him as such. It would only be natural and expected for these new converts to return home declaring that their long awaited and anticipated Messiah had finally arrived.
Within the first decade of Yeshua's resurrection, the apostle James was apprehended by Herod and killed. Peter was next taken, but with the help of an angel he escaped. After his escape, Luke writes that he went into another place. Having left Palestine, he evidently ended up in Babylon where he joined with Silvanus (Silas) in writing to other Jewish believers of the dispersion, namely those throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
page 11/18^
When Peter left Jerusalem after his escape, he could have traveled north to Antioch, then east along the trade routes to the Euphrates River and then on down into Babylon. It hadn't been too many years since Yeshua had charged them to be witnesses "both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (ACTS 1:8). Babylon was indeed the uttermost part of the earth for these Galilean messengers of the gospel.
Thus, Yeshua's chief apostle wrote this epistle not long after his fellow apostle James had been executed by Herod, around 44 A.D. From the ancient city of Babylon, where he was no doubt building up the newly founded fellowships, he wrote this letter to the remote and isolated believers who were scattered throughout the Diaspora of Babylonia, which he evidently sent by the hand of his trusted Silvanus. Written prior to Paul's epistles, Peter set forth truths which Yeshua had personally taught the Twelve during their years of discipleship.
These foreign-born Jews of the Diaspora which had accepted Yeshua as their Messiah were dispersed amongst the unbelieving members of their religion. At this early date, these Christians were relatively few in number, and were no doubt ridiculed as being involved and caught up in some sort of irrelevant cult. In his epistle, Peter was encouraging them to remain strong, for they were the chosen ones. They were the holy nation, the people of GOD. They were the ones who had answered the call and became obedient to that word of GOD, and for that reason they had obtained a lively hope, an inheritance that would not fade away, a treasure reserved in heaven.
And is this not also a powerful message for us today? Are not Peter's words as true for the scattered believers in the twenty first century as they were for those in the first century? Are not the true believers still scattered amongst the old religion? Was not the epistle written to any and all who are called to the word, to those ready to obey that word, that call? And yet so many Dispensational Commentators cast aside this remarkable epistle thinking it was written solely for another people of another age, which they presume has little or nothing for us today.
The two great principle themes in 1 PETER are first, that the believer was to develop within himself Christian virtues; and then secondly, he was to make the hope of Christ's Return a present reality. These virtues, which are likened unto fruit elsewhere (MATTHEW 7:15-20 GALATIANS 5:22-23 JAMES 3:18), were primarily what Peter was endeavoring to get his readers to cultivate within their new-found lives. As new-born babes, they were instructed to desire the pure milk of the word, so as to grow and mature spiritually (2:2). The passages where Peter sets forth these Christian Virtues have been listed here.
page 12/18^
Christ's Return, the second great theme in Peter's epistle, was the dynamic and active hope which he consistently reminded his readers to make a living reality in their lives. Click here to see all of the passages where the apostle referred to Christ's Return in this short epistle. Of course for us who have come along two thousand years after Christ's Return, our present hope is that sometime after we die that we too shall be resurrected and gathered together with those saints already in heaven (see the Study, Whatever Happened to Timothy?).
We've learned thus far that this ancient epistle still has much to teach us today. Even though Peter addressed the letter to the Jewish Diaspora that does not mean that all Christians can't benefit from its wealth of wisdom and guidance. For the most part, when Peter wrote, the only believers to whom he could write were Jewish. Any Christians who were non-Jewish were very few and far between. Paul had not yet started his great missionary journeys where many from the pagan nations were gathered into the Jewish fellowships.
Thus, in the opening verse Peter wrote, "To the elect [eklektos, chosen] who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (ASV). Yeshua had more than once warned His listeners that many were called but of those few were chosen (MATTHEW 20:16; 22:14). Christians were the few who made the conscious decision to answer GOD's call and believe the gospel. It was to these individuals to whom Peter wrote. He was writing to any and all who had responded to the gospel and then acknowledged Yeshua as their Messiah and Lord.
Peter was well aware of the ridicule that the chosen would receive from their former co-religionists, for they had likewise ridiculed and rejected Yeshua (2:4-10). Therefore, after these believers had accepted Yeshua as the Messiah and acknowledged His Lordship, now that they anticipated His soon return and judgment upon the disobedient (2:7), upon the "the ungodly and the sinner" (4:18), those of the old religion were determined to do their best so as to color them as deceived fools.
The believer's temptation was therefore two-fold. First they were being pressured into forsaking their new-found faith, as Yeshua had warned with His parable of the sower and the seed (MARK 4:3-20); or perhaps when He spoke of the plowman looking back and therefore not being fit for the kingdom (LUKE 9:62). Peter was encouraging them to not look back but look forward to the return of Christ (1:3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13....).
In addition they were being tempted to react to the false accusations and innuendos in kind. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. "If you lie about or insult me, then I will lie about and insult you." But Peter instructed them to lay aside all malice (ill-will), and all guile (deceit), and hypocrisies, envies and evil speakings (backbitings); to instead turn the other cheek (2:1). In essence, don't let their antagonisers prod them into acting in an un-holy, un-Christian manner. Instead, they were to go to the word; desire it, feed on it (2:2). In this manner they would grow up and rise above the world around them, becoming the men and women GOD intended.
page 13/18^
Each believer was being prepared for his place in the heavenly temple of GOD. Each one was a cut stone, as Yeshua had formerly explained to Peter himself (MATTHEW 16:18). They were all being shaped and chiseled as a select block of granite, as living stones (2:5) for their precise place in that spiritual house in the new Jerusalem. Yeshua was the foundation upon which His Church was to be built. All those who believe then make up this great temple of GOD; but those who do not believe and are disobedient to the heavenly calling, show themselves to be walking in darkness. Hence, they trip and stumble over the living stones (2:7-8).
Peter encouraged the believers to be good citizens, being worthy of praise by their unbelieving neighbors (2:12). Even though the unbelievers spoke against them as evil doers, their true worth would eventually shine forth. A Christian who develops in his life the fruit of the spirit, the virtues of godliness, cannot be for long lightly esteemed by his friends and neighbors. They can't help but recognize a soul that is not running on empty, but is instead full of life and purpose.
True, their genuine worship of the Father was probably at first going to bring upon them the scorn and mockery of their fellow synagogue worshippers, but Peter instructed them to endure this grief, to take it patiently (2:19). Peter reminded them that even though the Lord Himself was falsely accused, even though He was reviled, He had left them an example that they should not return the insults and threatenings, but rather that they should take it patiently (2:21-23). They should commit themselves to HIM who judges righteously and not try to micro-manage what others said or thought about them. In other words, they were to just let the insults roll off, like water off a duck's back.
Peter understood that his readers had been suffering under heavy and manifold temptations. Thus he assured them that what was really occurring was that their metal was being purified in the trying fires of life; and that some day near at hand, at the Return of Christ, that they would see that all of their experiences were well worth the cost.
Howbeit, if they wanted to call on the Father for aid in their times of distress, then they needed to be obedient children, not ignorantly remaining enslaved to their sinful lifestyle (1:14). Rather, they were to walk free from their sins and be holy, live holy in every aspect of their lives (1:15). In this way they would be well prepared for Christ's Return and their own entrance into His kingdom. Peter reminded them that their souls had been purified as a result of them obeying the truth (1:22).
page 14/18^
It was customary that if an individual could not pay his debts, then he became a slave till that which he owed was repaid. Being redeemed had to do with a benefactor recognizing in some such slave worthy traits, and therefore determining to pay the ransom thereby procuring his freedom. This is what redeemed meant, to be released from payment of debt, to be ransomed. (see Light from the Ancient East, by Adolf Deissmann, page 319-334). Peter was telling these believers who had made the deliberate decision to believe and obey the gospel, that the ransomed price for their freedom from sin was paid. Their debt was satisfied; not paid by coin but by the obedience of Christ to allow Himself to be sacrificed (MATTHEW 20:28).
They had been as sheep aimlessly going astray without purpose in their lives, but now they had been returned to the Shepherd of their soul (2:25). Thus, they should be subject unto Him. Let Christ defend them. Let Christ fight their battles. Don't react to the unbelieving world, but act on the word of GOD.
For the sake of the gospel, the Christian wives were to voluntarily subject themselves even unto their unbelieving husbands (3:1). Their holy adornment was to be that of the inner person; a meek (gentle) and quiet (tranquil) spirit (3:4). This is what GOD considers to be a valuable commodity in preparation for the heavenly kingdom. This is what makes a man or woman of GOD truly holy. In other words, don't live solely for this present life, but let all of life's experiences prepare them for that next life, that resurrection life.
In like manner the Christian husbands were to honor their wives' righteous acts. We are told here that the wife is the weaker vessel, not the weak vessel (3:7). It is not as if the wife is weak and the husband is strong. Rather, both are weak, the wife is just perhaps weaker. But not necessarily less holy, not less righteous.
It is sort of like two pieces of furniture. One might be a sturdy and rugged chopping block for dividing up fleshy carcasses. Another might be a finely crafted and refined end table for displaying delicate figurines. Each has their place, but neither are well suited for the work of the other.
Anyone who has taken the time to read of the great accomplishments of various women throughout the Bible dare not call them weak, feeble or ineffective. Think of Deborah, a judge in Israel who inspired her people to go out against and crush the foreign armies of their adversary (JUDGES 4:14-16). And then how a certain Jael drove a tent stake into the temple of the evil Sisera, killing him (JUDGES 4:18-21). Of Rahab, who bravely put her own life at great risk by hiding the Israeli spies and then covering their escape till they were safely away (JOSHUA 2:1-16).
page 15/18^
Think of Naomi, who after becoming a widow in a foreign land, somehow managed to return to her homeland where she arranged a marriage for her daughter-in-law Ruth, who's son was Obed, the grandfather of king David (Book of RUTH). Consider Esther, who bravely risked her own life to confront Haman, the enemy of the Jews, even though he was the chief minister of king Xerxes, ruler of all Persia. Her wise and bold actions saved her nation from threatened extinction (Book of ESTHER).
Let us not forget Mary, the mother of our Lord, who with unwavering courage accepted the pregnancy of her Son, knowing full well she might be stoned to death as an adulteress (LUKE 1:38 MATTHEW 1:18-19). Consider also of the various women in the Gospels who fearlessly ministered unto Yeshua despite the dire warnings of the religious leaders, even assembling together around His crucifixion while Peter and most of the other disciples hid themselves behind closed doors (MATTHEW 27:55 JOHN 20:18-19).
These women were not weak in any sense of the word. So when Peter wrote that the wife might be weaker than her husband, we should know that he was not speaking with a condescending or derogatory tone. Very possibly Peter's own wife was at his side as he penned those words from Babylon (see the RSV of 1 PETER 5:13 where she is sometimes taken to mean Peter's wife, while Mark is thought by some to be his actual son).
Finally, Peter wrote for them to be all of one mind (3:8), to have compassion one of another, to love as brethren, be pitiful (kind hearted), courteous (friendly). These are easy commands to obey when everyone is thus minded, but what if some of the people in our fellowships are jerks? What then? The apostle wrote, "Not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing" (3:9). In other words, love your neighbor as yourself. Why? Because the eyes of the LORD are watchful over the righteous, and HIS ears are open to their prayers, but not so to the unrighteous, not so to those who repay evil for evil (3:9-12).
Peter instructed them not to be alarmed if the unbelievers spoke evil of them, for GOD was on their side if they suffered because of their righteousness (3:16). Perhaps those false accusers would come to be ashamed of their inappropriate actions. But even if not it was better to suffer for well doing than for evil doing. Was this not GOD's will for Christ (3:18)? Did He not suffer unjustly? And what became of Him? He is now on the right hand of GOD Almighty, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him (3:22). He learned obedience and now He is Lord of all (HEBREWS 5:8).
There is a purpose in life for pain and suffering. We are not on this planet to simply be fat and happy. This world has been designed by GOD as a sort of classroom for our learning. We are to grow and mature as Christian believers and our experiences are how GOD affects within us what our growth needs (5:10). Sometimes pain and sickness are involved. Sometimes the plant needs pruned back. These are not necessarily bad experiences even though they may seem quite unpleasant at the time.
page 16/18^
Peter wrote that "he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (4:1), meaning that sometimes a particular suffering can often stop us in our tracks when we are rushing headlong into terrible dangers we are not even aware of. Our baptizing (cleansing) is either with fire or by the spirit (MATTHEW 3:11). When GOD uses the spirit to cleanse us, HE is using the word, for the word is spirit (JOHN 6:63). When fire is used to cleanse us (such as failure, suffering, rejection etc), it is often because we are not obeying the words which HE had previously sent. The poet well put it in his song The Hurt, writing "Until I got hurt....I didn't know what love is".
Above all things, Peter wrote, have fervent charity among yourselves. Be hospitable one to another. Be good stewards of that which you have received (4:10).
Nevertheless, they were not to be alarmed or think it strange if life threw at them some curve balls, or if they found road blocks across their path (4:12-13). Life is intended to be an educational experience, a field trip for one's learning. Rather, be glad to have been counted worthy to be given opportunities for growth. We learn a lot more from our mistakes than we ever will from our successes. And each experience is designed for the purpose of making us ready for that heavenly kingdom.
But don't deserve ill treatment. Don't act in a manner which brings upon you GOD's disfavor. The most important thing we can accomplish with our lives is to be objects of HIS grace. We must live and act in such a fashion that GOD is pleased to shine upon us. We must not allow ourselves to become murderers, or thieves, or even busybodies in other men's matters (4:15). If the righteous scarcely shall be saved, what of the ungodly and the sinner (4:18)?
If everyone realized that one day they were going to be judged for how they lived their lives, oh what a different world this would be. But man for the most part has written GOD off and out of HIS own creation. They have attributed HIS marvellous works to some evolutionary accident. Even so, the Creator will not be deprived of HIS right to judge the actions of HIS creation. In the end HE will have HIS say.
Peter's readers were also instructed to get a handle on their carnal desires and not to be driven by the lusts of the flesh (1:14; 3:10; 4:2). Plainly, these earthly desires have a strong tendency to make all out war against the godly inclinations of the believer.
page 17/18^
No longer should the Christian live as he did before his conversion, to the lusts of men. No longer should he run unbridled after what the world sells. The world promises that happiness and fulfillment are to be found in food, or fun or frolicking, but all is an illusion. Each of those physical pleasures and treasures to which we previously dedicated our lives, fortunes and health to obtain, never really satisfied. It often seemed as if our happiness must be just over the next hill or around the next bend in the road. We were always striving for that which we had not; but then once we obtained it, we discovered that it wasn't as great as we had thought that it would be.
We shall all, each of us have to some day stand before His throne and give an account for how we have invested the time which GOD has given us. Did we wisely use our talents, or did we waste them away on trivial pursuits? Peter's readers were assured that their successful victory over their temptations would be justly rewarded with praise and glory at the return of Christ (5:4). We can have confidence that each of these truths pertaining to the kingdom of GOD, were taught to Peter and the others by the risen Lord
Each of these building blocks, these stepping stones of Yeshua's freedom gospel were not discovered by the prophets of old, but rather they were revealed to Peter's readers by their own Christian ministers and preachers, of which Silvanus was likely one. By this grace they were educated and trained in how to behave as believers, as obedient children. This is the gospel, he tells them, which was preached unto them. Thus, they were instructed to be holy, which is a concept far removed from anything that the Christian Church today teaches is the believer's responsibility. They were to be holy because GOD is holy (1:15).
They were commanded by the apostle of the Lord to be subject unto kings and governors and to the laws of the land in which they resided (2:12-15). By this way they might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Generally speaking, many of our fellow countrymen do aspire to be fair and just. Only when they are misled by fools and self-serving crooks are injustices perpetrated. Though each true believer lives above all earthly jurisdiction, we each voluntarily subject ourselves unto them for the sake of the gospel.
Peter instructed them to be subject unto their masters, both to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust (2:18). They were likewise to be subject unto one another, the younger believers to the elders, and the elders to the younger (5:5). All subject as equal brothers.
If we attain humbleness to GOD's will for our lives, then we can expect HIS exaltation to follow (5:6). GOD is a GOD of grace, all grace Peter tells us (5:10), indeed, true grace (5:12). When HE called us to partake in HIS word, that was grace. When HE fed us with the milk of the word, that was grace. When HE journeyed with us as we wandered through the wilderness, ever exposing us to the challenges of life, that was grace. And when we take our last breath and are covered over with the cold dirt, after which we again regain consciousness and re-open our eyes, being gathered together into HIS eternal heavenly kingdom, that will be grace as we have never imagined. To HIM be glory, forever and ever. Amen.
page 18/18^
That the apostle wrote this epistle is not seriously contended. The question which remains is when did he write it, and then secondary to that is from where did he write it. In this Study we will first seek to answer these questions, then go on and search and see what this fascinating epistle itself has to teach us.
- The War with Rome
What is not in 1 PETER will help us date it perhaps as precisely as what is in it. For example, no mention, not even a hint is made that the Temple, around which the Jews' entire culture centered, with all of its dedications, celebrations and sacrifices, had been totally obliterated by the Roman armies. Let us consider a brief comment which the Biblical scholar Professor B. H. Streeter had to make when considering this cataclysmic event which occurred in 70 A.D .
- It is impossible for us nowadays to realize the shock of A.D. 70 to a community in which Jewish and Gentile members alike had been reared in the profoundest veneration of the immemorial sanctity of the Holy City and the Temple (The Four Gospels, page 516).
That Peter passed over in deafening silence this war with Rome which completely destroyed their holy city, laid waste their entire country and decimated many of the Jewish colonies outside of Palestine, can only be possible if he had written prior to that dreadful event. That would have placed the writing of this epistle sometime before 70 A.D.
- Similarity between Peter and Paul
Even so, most commentators presume that the epistle had to have been written late in Peter's life because there is so much in the epistle which they assume he took from Paul's writings. But what if instead, Paul borrowed from Peter rather than Peter borrowing from Paul?
Are we to suppose that the great apostle Peter rummaged around through all of Paul's epistles, picking out passages here and there so as to reassemble them into some sort of hodgepodge of doctrine for his own readers? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to expect that Paul learned his theology from Peter, James, Silas and the other disciples of the Lord?
From where do most of us suppose that Paul got his knowledge of the scriptures? From whom did he learn about all which he taught and wrote? Because of something which he mentioned in his letter to the Galatians, many of us have surmised that everything which he taught, he learned from the Lord himself.
- GALATIANS 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Thus, we have understood Paul to have said that all which he taught he had learned by revelation from the Lord, and then other apostles might have gotten what they taught from Paul. Howbeit, in a note from page 87 of his book Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Fredrick Bruce offers a totally different take on this phrase in Paul's epistle, "of Jesus Christ".
- The genitive "of Jesus Christ" is objective: the reference is to the conversion-experience in which, as he said, God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me" (Galatians 1:12).
page 1/18^
Thus, Paul does not intend to declare here that everything which he taught was revelation from the Lord, but simply that his commissioning was from the Lord. Paul was explaining to them that he got his appointment, his calling from Yeshua, not from the Church at Jerusalem. He was authorized to teach the gospel because the Lord had personally sent him, not the Jerusalem Church.
Another passage often misunderstood concerning who taught Paul is one from his letter to the Ephesians.
- EPHESIANS 3:3-5 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
Again, the way in which some versions translate this passage, Paul seems to be saying that what he taught was made known unto him by direct revelation from Yeshua. But that is not at all what the text says. It actually reads, "....that by revelation was made known to me the mystery. . .". The pronoun he representing Yeshua is not in the text.
So then we must ask ourselves, who made known to Paul this mystery? Does he not tell us two verses later when he explains that this knowledge of the mystery had been revealed unto the "holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit". Thus the spirit of GOD revealed this knowledge to HIS holy apostles and prophets, and then they revealed it unto other men, of which Paul was evidently one. Paul got his knowledge of the mystery from GOD's holy apostles and prophets, not by direct revelation from Yeshua.
This is not to say that Paul was never taught anything from the Lord (1 CORINTHIANS 11:23 & 2 CORINTHIANS 12:1), but so was Peter and the other apostles. Yeshua taught His disciples so that they could go and teach others, like for instance Paul. When it came to many of the specifics concerning the doctrine of who Christ was, what He accomplished for and in them, of the approaching Day of Judgment, all these things Paul could naturally have learned from others by his own research and study.
Paul would have gotten his knowledge of the truth the same way that everyone else back then got it, from the apostles and prophets of Christ. His heart was first stirred no doubt by Stephen, for much of what Paul wrote can also be found in Stephen's apology. After Paul's conversion, he must have then learned the milk of the word from Ananias and the believers at Damascus (ACTS 9:19). Following that he would have been further guided into the truth by Barnabas (ACTS 9:27).
Some time later he sought out Peter in Jerusalem for the specific purpose no doubt of learning from him (GALATIANS 1:18). They dwelled together for over two weeks, which is quite a long time for these two dedicated disciples to devote themselves to the study of their Bibles. I can well imagine that there were times when they studied together throughout the night. To see a chart which demonstrates for us just how much of what Peter had written in this epistle he had also learned from Yeshua, go here, where forty separate truths are listed which are common to both 1 PETER and that which Yeshua taught.
page 2/18^
Some years later, Silas, a leader among the brethren in Jerusalem, also would have no doubt shared much with Paul as they traveled together heralding the gospel across the land (ACTS 15:40). Thus, there is good reason for us to conclude that Paul came to his knowledge of the truth over the course of a number of years. He was not magically infused with this understanding at his conversion. He had to catch up, if you will, with his fellow apostles who had enjoyed the advantage of setting at the Master's feet for several years.
Thus, we should expect that Peter wrote those truths which he had learned from his Lord, while Paul wrote what he had learned from Peter and the other apostles and prophets. This is why we find so much of what Paul taught and wrote in both JAMES and 1 PETER. They wouldn't have needed to copy from Paul. Rather, Paul would have learned it from them. I count over fifty occasions where what Peter wrote was also found in Paul's epistles. That is astounding considering Peter's first epistle itself only has around a hundred verses. To see the chart containing these references, go here.
Let's consider a couple of examples where what Paul taught he probably got from Peter. Paul had written to Timothy that Yeshua was ordained by GOD to judge both the dead as well as the living (2 TIMOTHY 4:1). We must wonder where Paul got this information? Did he learn it from Yeshua by direct revelation, or did he learn it from the apostles and prophets of the Lord?
It happens that Peter had written the same thing in his first epistle, that Yeshua would judge the living and the dead (1 PETER 4:5). But where did Peter get that revelation? Did he get it from Paul, or did he learn it from his own Master and Teacher? When we search the scriptures, we learn that during a sermon to Cornelius and his household, Peter said that the risen Lord had commanded them "to preach unto the people, and to testify that it was He which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (ACTS 10:42).
Clearly then, and without a doubt what Peter taught concerning Yeshua judging the living and the dead, he and his fellow apostles had learned from Yeshua (JOHN 5:19-30). It is only natural then that we should expect that Paul had himself learned this truth from Peter. At the very least all must recognize and admit that Peter had not learned it from Paul.
Here is another example for the reader to consider. Paul wrote the believers at Thessalonica that the day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night (1 THESSALONIANS 5:2). So we ask, Where did Paul get this information? From whom did he learn that the Lord's Return could be likened unto a thief who covertly makes his entrance while no one is watching?
Again, as it happens Peter wrote precisely the same thing to his readers, saying that "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night" (2 PETER 3:10). So we again ask, Where did Peter get his information? Most Commentators seem to think that Peter and the rest of the apostles stole from Paul what they wrote in their epistles. But why could not Paul have gotten it from Peter?
page 3/18^
Is it not the most natural assumption for us to expect that Peter and the other apostles got their information about Christ's Return from Christ Himself? Did He teach them nothing during those years together? Of course He did. Yeshua taught His apostles and prophets, then they in turn taught others such as Paul.
- MATTHEW 24:42-44 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Thus, in attempting to date 1st PETER, we should not presume that Peter waited to write until he had learned from Paul many of the truths which we find in his epistles. Peter wrote his epistles relating much of what he had learned from his Lord, and then sometime apart from that, Paul wrote his epistles.
From what we have thus far considered, 1 PETER could have been written just about anytime between Yeshua's ascension around 30 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Thus, we should then look and consider what evidence there may be within the epistle itself, which would indicate for us more precisely when it could have been written. What was going on in the Church which might betray to us a date either early or late in Peter's life and ministry?
- The ACTS 15 Council
Perhaps the most significant event in the life of the early Church was the dispute about Gentiles coming to the faith. Their numbers were relatively insignificant until Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, began his missionary journeys. This was the specific reason that the Church council in ACTS 15 was called and assembled, to decide how best to permit the uncircumcised Gentile believers to commingle with the Jewish believers.
If Peter had written his epistle after the influx of many Gentiles to the faith, we might expect that he would have at least touched upon this crucial subject. Surely, if he was writing after ACTS 15, some mention of the Gentiles being part of their fellowships would have been alluded to. But Peter is strangely silent concerning the existence of any Gentile believers in the fellowships to which he was writing.
Because most Commentators impulsively believe that Peter wrote late in ACTS, long after the Gentiles had been admitted to the fellowships, they unconsciously read into 1 PETER what is not there, that Gentiles were indeed included as subjects in his letter. But contrary to their assumptions, not a word, not even a hint is found that any Gentiles were in the fellowships. As a matter of fact, Peter wrote just the reverse.
- RSV 1 PETER 2:12 Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
page 4/18^
There is no indication here that any of these Gentiles were believers. Nor for that matter were the Jews being encouraged to make believers out of them. These Gentiles were clearly a group of individuals completely separate from the congregation of Jewish believers. Gentiles are again mentioned by Peter in the fourth chapter, but here the apostle only speaks of his readers no longer living sinfully as did their Gentile neighbors.
- 1 PETER 4:3-4 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange that ye run [suntrecho, to run together] not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
The way many versions render this passage, it seems to say that Peter's readers had been running with them, with the Gentiles in this sinful lifestyle. But the word them being in italics tells us that this word was not in the original text. All that the verse says is that they (the Jews) had formerly ran together into this life of sin. We should consider that Peter was simply reminding them that previous to them coming to the gospel, some of these Jews had ran together with one another into sins of the flesh, which the Gentiles were surprised that they no longer did. Consider the Concordant Version of the passage;
- "while they are thinking it strange of you not to race together into the same puddle of profligacy...".
Thus, if there were no Gentiles in their fellowships, that fact indicates for us that the epistle was very probably written before Gentiles were joining the faith, at least among the Diaspora. This suggests for us that the epistle very likely would have been written prior to the Church council of ACTS 15.
- Sins of Jews or Gentiles?
Still, many Commentators feel that Peter's reference in his epistle to certain rude and carnal sins point to the reality that Gentiles must have been in their assemblies because Jews would not have sinned in such a blatant fashion. Thus we will need to take a few moments to see if this bears out. Were the sins which Peter admonished his readers about, solely Gentile sins, or could they also have been committed by Jews?
In 2:1 Peter cautions them against having malice; yet the Lord also warned His Jewish audience that "Sufficient unto the day is the evil [malice] thereof" (MATTHEW 6:34). Peter had himself spoken unto a certain Jew in Samaria named Simon that he had better "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness [malice]" (ACTS 8:22). The apostle James as well had written his Jewish readers instructing them to lay aside all malice (JAMES 1:21). Thus, having malice was every bit a Jewish sin as it might have been a Gentile sin.
Likewise, Peter warned his readers against having guile, but Matthew also wrote that the Jews showed this same guile unto Yeshua (MATTHEW 26:4). The Lord himself warned His listeners against possessing these same thoughts (MARK 7:22-23). The Jewish sorcerer Elymas was accused by Paul of being full of guile (ACTS 13:10). Thus, Jews were guilty of this sin as well as any non-Jews were.
page 5/18^
Peter also charged them to lay aside hypocrisies (2:1), just as Yeshua had often charged some of the Jews in His audience (MATTHEW 23:28 MARK 12:15 LUKE 12:1).
Envy was another sin which Peter warned them against (2:1). But even Pilate knew of the Jews envy (MATTHEW 27:18); and Paul knew of it (GALATIANS 5:21 & TITUS 3:3); and Luke wrote of it (ACTS 13:45). Thus, these many sins which Peter warned against in no way suggests that he was writing to Gentiles, but shows that his audience could just as easily have been solely Jewish.
In 2:9 Peter's readers were told that they were called out of darkness into the light, which reminds us of Paul's declaration that he was himself sent to turn the Gentiles from darkness to light (ACTS 26:17-18). Howbeit, Zacharias' prophecy concerning his son, John the Baptist, was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people [the Jews]" and "to give light to them that sit in darkness" (LUKE 1:77-79). This promise in the scriptures of turning believers from darkness to the light is a promise to Jews as well as to Gentiles.
In 2:10 Peter told them that before they came to the faith, that they were not a people, which reminds us of Paul's same statement in ROMANS 9:25. Both statements were a quotation from HOSEA 1:9 and 2:23. Howbeit, Hosea's prophecy was not in any way concerning Gentiles, but rather the ten northern tribes of Israel who had deserted their religion. Same here in Peter's letter; he was writing to Jews of the Dispersion who were generally not considered by the home-grown Jews of Judea as being GOD's authentically chosen people. Peter however assured the Jewish believers that they most certainly were GOD's people.
Peter warned them in 2:14 of being thought of as evil doers, yet this is the exact same charge which the Jews leveled at Yeshua when they presented Him before Pilate (JOHN 18:30).
In 4:3 they were cautioned against lasciviousness, yet Yeshua warned His own countrymen of the very same sin (MARK 7:22). In the same verse Peter forewarned them of lusts, yet Yeshua described lusts as one of the very things which derail all men from becoming fruitful (MARK 4:19) and further goes on to accuse some of the Jewish leaders of having the same lusts as their father the devil (JOHN 8:44). Paul himself wrote of his own lusts before he was converted (ROMANS 7:7).
Excess of wine (drunkenness) and revellings (rioting) were sins which Paul had warned his readers (both Jewish and Gentile) concerning (ROMANS 13:13). Banquetings is used only in 1 PETER, howbeit its synonym is the surfeiting used by Yeshua in LUKE 21:34.
Abominable idolatries was a sin which was usually not associated with Jews, but Paul tells us in COLOSSIANS 3:5 that covetousness was indeed idolatry, and covetousness was a sin which the Jews were very familiar with. Anything which worms its way in between the believer and GOD is idolatry.
page 6/18^
So we see that most all of these sins which Peter warned his readers about could have to do with Jews just as easily as they could have to do with the Gentiles. Thus the evidence continues to mount that Peter may well have written his epistle prior to many Gentiles, if indeed any, had joined the Christian fellowships of the Diaspora. Few Gentiles would have been part of the Christian fellowships until later on towards the end of the Book of ACTS, when Luke tells us that while Paul was teaching in the school of Tyrannus, all Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles (ACTS 19:10, 26).
- Trials and Tribulations
It has also been suggested that the epistle must have been written late because of the references to trials and suffering, which many assume didn't take place till much later, perhaps during Nero's reign in the sixties. Peter wrote of the trial of their faith (1:7) and of their suffering in the flesh (4:1-2), so it is then surmised that these passages must refer to trials and sufferings late in the book of ACTS, or perhaps even into the second century.
Howbeit, we should not forget that before his conversion, Paul himself had inflicted much suffering on the Jewish believers, even unto strange cities (ACTS 26:11). This of course occurred early in the book of ACTS, not long after Stephen was martyred.
There is no reason for us to assume that other zealots like Paul were not also attempting to extinguish this spreading flame by whatever means was required. Sometime after Paul's conversion, the persecutions against the believers in Palestine pretty much subsided, for we are told by Luke that the Churches throughout all of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria then had rest (ACTS 9:31). This rest might have solely been the result of Paul becoming converted, but more likely it was the by-product of the foolish measures of Emperor Caligula, who at that time "madly insulted the Jews religion" by ordering them to set up a statue of himself in their most sacred and holy temple (see The First Century of Christianity by Homersham Cox, page 74-74).
During this Jewish crisis with Caligula, the religious leaders at Jerusalem had no time to bother with some insignificant Christian sect, for they were struggling for the very life of their religion. Therefore, with the Jewish authorities otherwise preoccupied, the local Christian Churches had a respite. However, what happened outside of Palestine we are not told. Perhaps in the distant countries where Peter sent his letter the persecution continued, at least in some form. Howbeit, to attempt to date Peter's epistle late simply because of his mention of persecutions, seems to be making groundless assumptions. Persecutions in many different forms could have been continuing against the believers of the Diaspora ever since that first Pentecost.
page 7/18^
In his epistle Peter wrote that his readers had suffered from false accusations (2:19-20; 3:14-17), that they had been reviled (4:14) and threatened (3:16), but Paul wrote the same of his churches (1THESSALONIANS 2:14-15; 3:4 & 2 THESSALONIANS 1:4; 3:2). These epistles by Paul to the Thessalonians were probably written around 50 A.D. during his visit to Corinth (ACTS 18:5). Thus, if Paul's churches far outside of Palestine were suffering persecutions so soon after they converted, then there is every reason to expect that Peter's readers of the Diaspora could have likewise suffered under similar persecutions.
In 4:12 Peter speaks of a fiery trial, which many Commentators have supposed to be the burning of Christian believers by the Roman Emperor Nero in 64 A.D. On the surface, this might seem somewhat plausible if we would have had other indicators which would point us in that direction, but instead the mounting evidence is directing us to a time early on in the book of ACTS. We must therefore consider if there was some other kind of fiery trial which Peter's readers were being encouraged to endure, aside from Nero's flames.
A fair translation of what Peter actually wrote them was, "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you". If an individual was facing the terrifying fate of being burned alive by Nero's henchmen, is this how you would comfort them? Is this what you would tell them to help the poor soul through their horrifying ordeal? Would you simply say that they should not think that this is strange, them about to be burned alive?
Howbeit, if a believer was being lied about, or bad mouthed, or some untrue rumour was being spread abroad about them, then indeed that might seem strange. But to be burned at the stake, to be crucified and then set ablaze as Nero did to hundreds of Christians, that is not strange, that is deranged, that is insane, that is madness.
Vine in his Dictionary defines fiery trial (purosis) as referring to the process of refining gold. The Greek word purosis is related to puroo, where in EPHESIANS 6:16 Paul admonished his readers to take "the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery [puroo] darts of the wicked". Of course these were not actually fire tipped arrows which faith could quench, but rather they were threats and accusations hurled at their minds by an ungodly and unholy world.
Thus, Peter in his epistle was no doubt telling his readers to not think it strange that unbelievers were going to mock and ridicule and falsely accuse them. He encouraged them to allow these insults and false allegations to be a refining and purifying process of their faith.
page 8/18^
Thus, the persecutions and trials of these believers does not tell us precisely when the epistle was written, but it does tell us that it could have been written just about anytime throughout the Book of ACTS. We must not try to force the epistle into a time slot within which it does not easily fit, but rather we must let the evidence continue to paint for us the true picture.
- Silas (Silvanus)
One of Paul's companions in travel was a certain Silas, who accompanied Paul after the Church council in ACTS 15:22. We can be confident that this is the same individual whom Paul later calls Silvanus because in ACTS Luke tells us that Paul was accompanied by Silas and Timothy (ACTS 15:40-18:5), while concerning the identical expedition Paul in his letters wrote that it was Silvanus and Timothy (2 CORINTHIANS 1:19 & 1 THESSALONIANS 1:1 & 2 THESSALONIANS 1:1). Silas and Silvanus were the same individual, called by Luke as Silas but called by Paul as Silvanus.
This same Silvanus was very likely the same individual which assisted Peter with his epistle (1 PETER 5:12). If this is the case, then Peter's epistle must have been written either before Silvanus joined Paul in ACTS 15 or else after Paul and Silvanus separated sometime after ACTS 18. As much of the evidence which we have already considered point to a date earlier than the council of ACTS 15, we should look for an occasion before this event where Peter might have written his letter.
- First called Christians
Peter addressed his readers as Christians (4:16), so his letter had to have been written sometime after the believers were called Christians, which Luke tells us first happened in Antioch (ACTS 11:26). This narrows the field considerably, to some time between ACTS 11:26 and ACTS 15. We must consider if there might have been an event between those two passages in which Peter could have written this epistle to the far flung believers of the Diaspora.
- Babylon
In ACTS 12:17 we are told that Peter went to another place after his escape from Herod's prison cell, which could easily have been Antioch, or Asia, or even Babylon. Curiously, Peter and Silas were both back in Jerusalem during the council of ACTS 15, so if they had been traveling together before this, all of the details fit nicely together. They could have written Peter's epistle together, then traveled back to Jerusalem for the important Church council, where Silas then joined up with Paul.
At the close of his epistle (5:13), Peter plainly says that they were writing from Babylon; howbeit, it is commonly thought that when Peter wrote Babylon that he really meant Rome. Even though the scriptures never proclaimed that Babylon meant Rome, that is how Church traditions have interpreted it since the third century.
In his book, The Rise of Christianity, in reference to an individual by the name of Hippolytus who lived between A.D.170 and 235, Frend made the following comment; "With him begins the tradition in the West of associating Rome with Babylon in contrast to the heavenly city, Jerusalem", page 418. Thus, according to Frend, Rome was never know to be referred to as Babylon until Hippolytus did so.
page 9/18^
The reason why Rome began to be promoted as the true identity for Peter's Babylon, is simple and easy to explain. It was important in the second and third centuries for the Church leadership at Rome to somehow establish themselves as the authoritarian center of the Christian religion. Claiming that Peter established the Roman Church would go a long way in fulfilling their purpose. Unfortunately for their agenda, no where in the scriptures does it say anything about Peter going to or being in Rome.
Howbeit, in the seventeenth chapter of REVELATION there is mention made concerning a great whore who had a name upon her forehead, "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations". Furthermore, this great whore was seen by John being carried by a beast which had seven heads, and it is stated that these seven heads represented seven mountains upon which the woman sat. Now, because Rome was built upon seven hills, all is made clear and plain. Rome is Babylon! so they supposed. Perhaps, but more likely this Babylon which John referenced in his vision was actually Jerusalem and not Rome (see The Parousia, by J. Stuart Russell, pages 484-497).
Nevertheless, we are not considering in this Study John and his vision but rather Peter and his epistle. Why, if he was writing from Rome, would he feel the need to hide that fact and say that he was writing from Babylon? We are told by the Commentators that it was a secret allusion to Rome because they feared Nero's vengeance. That really seems like a pretty weak and made up argument, especially when we consider that the epistle was written probably long before any persecutions of the believers by Nero.
And further, there is nothing in the epistle which spoke against the Roman authority. Instead, Peter instructed his readers to obey the laws of their land (2:13), to honour the king (2:17) and governors. There is nothing in the epistle which would cause offense to the powers of Rome.
There is instead good reason for accepting Peter's plain and simple words and expect that he and Silvanus had found themselves in Babylon after Peter's escape from prison, far from the long arm of Herod's reach. Herod had no influence in Babylon but he did have powerful friends in Rome who might still have had Peter apprehended, if that would have been his destination. And as Babylon was only half the distance from Jerusalem as was Rome, it would have been a far more natural destination for Peter when making his escape.
And contrary to what a few Commentators have written, there was a thriving Jewish colony in Babylon. The Asimov's Guide to the Bible, page 1163, erroneously states, "There was no Church at Babylon, for indeed, the city no longer existed". A few Commentators arrived at this mistaken conclusion by misinterpreting a comment made by the historian Josephus. Howbeit, The Pictorial Bible Dictionary states the fact of the case correctly concerning our passage, "Babylon (5:13) may refer to the ancient city on the Euphrates, where there was a large Jewish settlement in Peter's day".
In his book A History of the Jews, page 137, Solomon Grayzel writes the following concerning the Jews in Babylon during the first century of this era.
- The only really important Jewish community not under Roman rule was the one which lived within the Parthian empire and which is familiar to us under the name of Babylonian Jewry.
Mr. Grayzel goes on to estimate that a million Jews lived in the Mesopotamian region, ten times more than lived in Italy. See also From Babylon to Bethlehem by H.L. Ellison, pages 106-107.
page 10/18^
And a further note should be considered. Sometime towards the end of the third century B.C., the Syrian ruler Antiochus III relocated about two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia (Babylonia) to Phrygia and Lydia (Josephus, Ant. xii. 8. 4.). This is an area in close proximity to where Peter had addressed his epistle. Thus, we should expect that the Jews of Babylon would have had a close affinity to those Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Many family members there might naturally consider Babylon as their motherland.
- the Diaspora
Peter addresses his epistle "....to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia". Howbeit, in his book, First Century of Christianity, page 114, Homersham Cox states, "The translation in our Authorised Version [KJV]....is incorrect and misleading. The original shows that the epistle was addressed to Jews and not to Gentiles".
The Jews of the Diaspora had been divided up into three geographical locations; Babylonia, Syria and Egypt. Thus, that Peter would flee to Babylon after his escape from Herod is most natural and plausible, even though it doesn't fit with Church Traditions. The list of places to which the letter was to be sent also adds light to where Peter was writing from. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia suggests movement in a westerly direction, which is what we would expect in a letter from Babylon. But if he was writing from Rome then we would have expected Asia as the first destination.
- in Summation
Let us gather up some of what we have observed and see if we can paint a more accurate depiction of what was here taking place.
During the Pentecostal celebration which occurred just days after Yeshua's ascension, thousands of Jews which had been gathered together from all over the known world witnessed the miracle of the tongues of fire which sat upon each of apostles, thus singling them out as GOD's spokesmen.
The apostles had proclaimed Yeshua to be the long awaited Messiah, and thousands of these Jews, natives of Palestine as well as foreigners from Mesopotamia (Babylon), Pontus, Asia and Cappadocia had accepted Him as such. It would only be natural and expected for these new converts to return home declaring that their long awaited and anticipated Messiah had finally arrived.
Within the first decade of Yeshua's resurrection, the apostle James was apprehended by Herod and killed. Peter was next taken, but with the help of an angel he escaped. After his escape, Luke writes that he went into another place. Having left Palestine, he evidently ended up in Babylon where he joined with Silvanus (Silas) in writing to other Jewish believers of the dispersion, namely those throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
page 11/18^
When Peter left Jerusalem after his escape, he could have traveled north to Antioch, then east along the trade routes to the Euphrates River and then on down into Babylon. It hadn't been too many years since Yeshua had charged them to be witnesses "both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (ACTS 1:8). Babylon was indeed the uttermost part of the earth for these Galilean messengers of the gospel.
Thus, Yeshua's chief apostle wrote this epistle not long after his fellow apostle James had been executed by Herod, around 44 A.D. From the ancient city of Babylon, where he was no doubt building up the newly founded fellowships, he wrote this letter to the remote and isolated believers who were scattered throughout the Diaspora of Babylonia, which he evidently sent by the hand of his trusted Silvanus. Written prior to Paul's epistles, Peter set forth truths which Yeshua had personally taught the Twelve during their years of discipleship.
These foreign-born Jews of the Diaspora which had accepted Yeshua as their Messiah were dispersed amongst the unbelieving members of their religion. At this early date, these Christians were relatively few in number, and were no doubt ridiculed as being involved and caught up in some sort of irrelevant cult. In his epistle, Peter was encouraging them to remain strong, for they were the chosen ones. They were the holy nation, the people of GOD. They were the ones who had answered the call and became obedient to that word of GOD, and for that reason they had obtained a lively hope, an inheritance that would not fade away, a treasure reserved in heaven.
And is this not also a powerful message for us today? Are not Peter's words as true for the scattered believers in the twenty first century as they were for those in the first century? Are not the true believers still scattered amongst the old religion? Was not the epistle written to any and all who are called to the word, to those ready to obey that word, that call? And yet so many Dispensational Commentators cast aside this remarkable epistle thinking it was written solely for another people of another age, which they presume has little or nothing for us today.
The two great principle themes in 1 PETER are first, that the believer was to develop within himself Christian virtues; and then secondly, he was to make the hope of Christ's Return a present reality. These virtues, which are likened unto fruit elsewhere (MATTHEW 7:15-20 GALATIANS 5:22-23 JAMES 3:18), were primarily what Peter was endeavoring to get his readers to cultivate within their new-found lives. As new-born babes, they were instructed to desire the pure milk of the word, so as to grow and mature spiritually (2:2). The passages where Peter sets forth these Christian Virtues have been listed here.
page 12/18^
Christ's Return, the second great theme in Peter's epistle, was the dynamic and active hope which he consistently reminded his readers to make a living reality in their lives. Click here to see all of the passages where the apostle referred to Christ's Return in this short epistle. Of course for us who have come along two thousand years after Christ's Return, our present hope is that sometime after we die that we too shall be resurrected and gathered together with those saints already in heaven (see the Study, Whatever Happened to Timothy?).
- 1st PETER
We've learned thus far that this ancient epistle still has much to teach us today. Even though Peter addressed the letter to the Jewish Diaspora that does not mean that all Christians can't benefit from its wealth of wisdom and guidance. For the most part, when Peter wrote, the only believers to whom he could write were Jewish. Any Christians who were non-Jewish were very few and far between. Paul had not yet started his great missionary journeys where many from the pagan nations were gathered into the Jewish fellowships.
Thus, in the opening verse Peter wrote, "To the elect [eklektos, chosen] who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (ASV). Yeshua had more than once warned His listeners that many were called but of those few were chosen (MATTHEW 20:16; 22:14). Christians were the few who made the conscious decision to answer GOD's call and believe the gospel. It was to these individuals to whom Peter wrote. He was writing to any and all who had responded to the gospel and then acknowledged Yeshua as their Messiah and Lord.
Peter was well aware of the ridicule that the chosen would receive from their former co-religionists, for they had likewise ridiculed and rejected Yeshua (2:4-10). Therefore, after these believers had accepted Yeshua as the Messiah and acknowledged His Lordship, now that they anticipated His soon return and judgment upon the disobedient (2:7), upon the "the ungodly and the sinner" (4:18), those of the old religion were determined to do their best so as to color them as deceived fools.
The believer's temptation was therefore two-fold. First they were being pressured into forsaking their new-found faith, as Yeshua had warned with His parable of the sower and the seed (MARK 4:3-20); or perhaps when He spoke of the plowman looking back and therefore not being fit for the kingdom (LUKE 9:62). Peter was encouraging them to not look back but look forward to the return of Christ (1:3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13....).
In addition they were being tempted to react to the false accusations and innuendos in kind. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. "If you lie about or insult me, then I will lie about and insult you." But Peter instructed them to lay aside all malice (ill-will), and all guile (deceit), and hypocrisies, envies and evil speakings (backbitings); to instead turn the other cheek (2:1). In essence, don't let their antagonisers prod them into acting in an un-holy, un-Christian manner. Instead, they were to go to the word; desire it, feed on it (2:2). In this manner they would grow up and rise above the world around them, becoming the men and women GOD intended.
page 13/18^
Each believer was being prepared for his place in the heavenly temple of GOD. Each one was a cut stone, as Yeshua had formerly explained to Peter himself (MATTHEW 16:18). They were all being shaped and chiseled as a select block of granite, as living stones (2:5) for their precise place in that spiritual house in the new Jerusalem. Yeshua was the foundation upon which His Church was to be built. All those who believe then make up this great temple of GOD; but those who do not believe and are disobedient to the heavenly calling, show themselves to be walking in darkness. Hence, they trip and stumble over the living stones (2:7-8).
Peter encouraged the believers to be good citizens, being worthy of praise by their unbelieving neighbors (2:12). Even though the unbelievers spoke against them as evil doers, their true worth would eventually shine forth. A Christian who develops in his life the fruit of the spirit, the virtues of godliness, cannot be for long lightly esteemed by his friends and neighbors. They can't help but recognize a soul that is not running on empty, but is instead full of life and purpose.
True, their genuine worship of the Father was probably at first going to bring upon them the scorn and mockery of their fellow synagogue worshippers, but Peter instructed them to endure this grief, to take it patiently (2:19). Peter reminded them that even though the Lord Himself was falsely accused, even though He was reviled, He had left them an example that they should not return the insults and threatenings, but rather that they should take it patiently (2:21-23). They should commit themselves to HIM who judges righteously and not try to micro-manage what others said or thought about them. In other words, they were to just let the insults roll off, like water off a duck's back.
Peter understood that his readers had been suffering under heavy and manifold temptations. Thus he assured them that what was really occurring was that their metal was being purified in the trying fires of life; and that some day near at hand, at the Return of Christ, that they would see that all of their experiences were well worth the cost.
- 1 PETER 1:17-19 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
Howbeit, if they wanted to call on the Father for aid in their times of distress, then they needed to be obedient children, not ignorantly remaining enslaved to their sinful lifestyle (1:14). Rather, they were to walk free from their sins and be holy, live holy in every aspect of their lives (1:15). In this way they would be well prepared for Christ's Return and their own entrance into His kingdom. Peter reminded them that their souls had been purified as a result of them obeying the truth (1:22).
page 14/18^
It was customary that if an individual could not pay his debts, then he became a slave till that which he owed was repaid. Being redeemed had to do with a benefactor recognizing in some such slave worthy traits, and therefore determining to pay the ransom thereby procuring his freedom. This is what redeemed meant, to be released from payment of debt, to be ransomed. (see Light from the Ancient East, by Adolf Deissmann, page 319-334). Peter was telling these believers who had made the deliberate decision to believe and obey the gospel, that the ransomed price for their freedom from sin was paid. Their debt was satisfied; not paid by coin but by the obedience of Christ to allow Himself to be sacrificed (MATTHEW 20:28).
They had been as sheep aimlessly going astray without purpose in their lives, but now they had been returned to the Shepherd of their soul (2:25). Thus, they should be subject unto Him. Let Christ defend them. Let Christ fight their battles. Don't react to the unbelieving world, but act on the word of GOD.
For the sake of the gospel, the Christian wives were to voluntarily subject themselves even unto their unbelieving husbands (3:1). Their holy adornment was to be that of the inner person; a meek (gentle) and quiet (tranquil) spirit (3:4). This is what GOD considers to be a valuable commodity in preparation for the heavenly kingdom. This is what makes a man or woman of GOD truly holy. In other words, don't live solely for this present life, but let all of life's experiences prepare them for that next life, that resurrection life.
In like manner the Christian husbands were to honor their wives' righteous acts. We are told here that the wife is the weaker vessel, not the weak vessel (3:7). It is not as if the wife is weak and the husband is strong. Rather, both are weak, the wife is just perhaps weaker. But not necessarily less holy, not less righteous.
It is sort of like two pieces of furniture. One might be a sturdy and rugged chopping block for dividing up fleshy carcasses. Another might be a finely crafted and refined end table for displaying delicate figurines. Each has their place, but neither are well suited for the work of the other.
Anyone who has taken the time to read of the great accomplishments of various women throughout the Bible dare not call them weak, feeble or ineffective. Think of Deborah, a judge in Israel who inspired her people to go out against and crush the foreign armies of their adversary (JUDGES 4:14-16). And then how a certain Jael drove a tent stake into the temple of the evil Sisera, killing him (JUDGES 4:18-21). Of Rahab, who bravely put her own life at great risk by hiding the Israeli spies and then covering their escape till they were safely away (JOSHUA 2:1-16).
page 15/18^
Think of Naomi, who after becoming a widow in a foreign land, somehow managed to return to her homeland where she arranged a marriage for her daughter-in-law Ruth, who's son was Obed, the grandfather of king David (Book of RUTH). Consider Esther, who bravely risked her own life to confront Haman, the enemy of the Jews, even though he was the chief minister of king Xerxes, ruler of all Persia. Her wise and bold actions saved her nation from threatened extinction (Book of ESTHER).
Let us not forget Mary, the mother of our Lord, who with unwavering courage accepted the pregnancy of her Son, knowing full well she might be stoned to death as an adulteress (LUKE 1:38 MATTHEW 1:18-19). Consider also of the various women in the Gospels who fearlessly ministered unto Yeshua despite the dire warnings of the religious leaders, even assembling together around His crucifixion while Peter and most of the other disciples hid themselves behind closed doors (MATTHEW 27:55 JOHN 20:18-19).
These women were not weak in any sense of the word. So when Peter wrote that the wife might be weaker than her husband, we should know that he was not speaking with a condescending or derogatory tone. Very possibly Peter's own wife was at his side as he penned those words from Babylon (see the RSV of 1 PETER 5:13 where she is sometimes taken to mean Peter's wife, while Mark is thought by some to be his actual son).
Finally, Peter wrote for them to be all of one mind (3:8), to have compassion one of another, to love as brethren, be pitiful (kind hearted), courteous (friendly). These are easy commands to obey when everyone is thus minded, but what if some of the people in our fellowships are jerks? What then? The apostle wrote, "Not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing" (3:9). In other words, love your neighbor as yourself. Why? Because the eyes of the LORD are watchful over the righteous, and HIS ears are open to their prayers, but not so to the unrighteous, not so to those who repay evil for evil (3:9-12).
Peter instructed them not to be alarmed if the unbelievers spoke evil of them, for GOD was on their side if they suffered because of their righteousness (3:16). Perhaps those false accusers would come to be ashamed of their inappropriate actions. But even if not it was better to suffer for well doing than for evil doing. Was this not GOD's will for Christ (3:18)? Did He not suffer unjustly? And what became of Him? He is now on the right hand of GOD Almighty, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him (3:22). He learned obedience and now He is Lord of all (HEBREWS 5:8).
There is a purpose in life for pain and suffering. We are not on this planet to simply be fat and happy. This world has been designed by GOD as a sort of classroom for our learning. We are to grow and mature as Christian believers and our experiences are how GOD affects within us what our growth needs (5:10). Sometimes pain and sickness are involved. Sometimes the plant needs pruned back. These are not necessarily bad experiences even though they may seem quite unpleasant at the time.
page 16/18^
Peter wrote that "he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (4:1), meaning that sometimes a particular suffering can often stop us in our tracks when we are rushing headlong into terrible dangers we are not even aware of. Our baptizing (cleansing) is either with fire or by the spirit (MATTHEW 3:11). When GOD uses the spirit to cleanse us, HE is using the word, for the word is spirit (JOHN 6:63). When fire is used to cleanse us (such as failure, suffering, rejection etc), it is often because we are not obeying the words which HE had previously sent. The poet well put it in his song The Hurt, writing "Until I got hurt....I didn't know what love is".
Above all things, Peter wrote, have fervent charity among yourselves. Be hospitable one to another. Be good stewards of that which you have received (4:10).
Nevertheless, they were not to be alarmed or think it strange if life threw at them some curve balls, or if they found road blocks across their path (4:12-13). Life is intended to be an educational experience, a field trip for one's learning. Rather, be glad to have been counted worthy to be given opportunities for growth. We learn a lot more from our mistakes than we ever will from our successes. And each experience is designed for the purpose of making us ready for that heavenly kingdom.
But don't deserve ill treatment. Don't act in a manner which brings upon you GOD's disfavor. The most important thing we can accomplish with our lives is to be objects of HIS grace. We must live and act in such a fashion that GOD is pleased to shine upon us. We must not allow ourselves to become murderers, or thieves, or even busybodies in other men's matters (4:15). If the righteous scarcely shall be saved, what of the ungodly and the sinner (4:18)?
If everyone realized that one day they were going to be judged for how they lived their lives, oh what a different world this would be. But man for the most part has written GOD off and out of HIS own creation. They have attributed HIS marvellous works to some evolutionary accident. Even so, the Creator will not be deprived of HIS right to judge the actions of HIS creation. In the end HE will have HIS say.
Peter's readers were also instructed to get a handle on their carnal desires and not to be driven by the lusts of the flesh (1:14; 3:10; 4:2). Plainly, these earthly desires have a strong tendency to make all out war against the godly inclinations of the believer.
page 17/18^
No longer should the Christian live as he did before his conversion, to the lusts of men. No longer should he run unbridled after what the world sells. The world promises that happiness and fulfillment are to be found in food, or fun or frolicking, but all is an illusion. Each of those physical pleasures and treasures to which we previously dedicated our lives, fortunes and health to obtain, never really satisfied. It often seemed as if our happiness must be just over the next hill or around the next bend in the road. We were always striving for that which we had not; but then once we obtained it, we discovered that it wasn't as great as we had thought that it would be.
We shall all, each of us have to some day stand before His throne and give an account for how we have invested the time which GOD has given us. Did we wisely use our talents, or did we waste them away on trivial pursuits? Peter's readers were assured that their successful victory over their temptations would be justly rewarded with praise and glory at the return of Christ (5:4). We can have confidence that each of these truths pertaining to the kingdom of GOD, were taught to Peter and the others by the risen Lord
Each of these building blocks, these stepping stones of Yeshua's freedom gospel were not discovered by the prophets of old, but rather they were revealed to Peter's readers by their own Christian ministers and preachers, of which Silvanus was likely one. By this grace they were educated and trained in how to behave as believers, as obedient children. This is the gospel, he tells them, which was preached unto them. Thus, they were instructed to be holy, which is a concept far removed from anything that the Christian Church today teaches is the believer's responsibility. They were to be holy because GOD is holy (1:15).
They were commanded by the apostle of the Lord to be subject unto kings and governors and to the laws of the land in which they resided (2:12-15). By this way they might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Generally speaking, many of our fellow countrymen do aspire to be fair and just. Only when they are misled by fools and self-serving crooks are injustices perpetrated. Though each true believer lives above all earthly jurisdiction, we each voluntarily subject ourselves unto them for the sake of the gospel.
Peter instructed them to be subject unto their masters, both to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust (2:18). They were likewise to be subject unto one another, the younger believers to the elders, and the elders to the younger (5:5). All subject as equal brothers.
If we attain humbleness to GOD's will for our lives, then we can expect HIS exaltation to follow (5:6). GOD is a GOD of grace, all grace Peter tells us (5:10), indeed, true grace (5:12). When HE called us to partake in HIS word, that was grace. When HE fed us with the milk of the word, that was grace. When HE journeyed with us as we wandered through the wilderness, ever exposing us to the challenges of life, that was grace. And when we take our last breath and are covered over with the cold dirt, after which we again regain consciousness and re-open our eyes, being gathered together into HIS eternal heavenly kingdom, that will be grace as we have never imagined. To HIM be glory, forever and ever. Amen.
page 18/18^