Text -- 1 Peter 3:21 (NET)

3:21 And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you– not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

Which also ( ho kai ).

Water just mentioned.

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

After a true likeness ( antitupon ).

Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’ s deliverance by water. For baptisma see note on Mat 3:7. For antitupon see note on Heb 9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa ) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tupon Heb 8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’ s family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful.

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

Doth now save you ( humas nun sōzei ).

Simplex verb (sōzō , not the compound diasōzō ). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Rom 6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain.

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ( ou sarkos apothesis rupou ).

Apothesis is old word from apotithēmi (1Pe 2:1), in N.T. only here and 2Pe 1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupos ) is old word (cf. ruparos , filthy, in Jam 2:2; Rev 22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isa 3:3; Isa 4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Heb 9:13.). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God ( alla suneidēseōs agathēs eperōtēma eis theon ).

Old word from eperōtaō (to question as in Mar 9:32; Mat 16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate’ s approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eis theon (toward God) be taken with eperōtēma or suneidēseōs .

Robertson: 1Pe 3:21

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ( di' anastaseōs Iēsou Christou ).

For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Rom 6:2-6). See 1Pe 1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

Vincent: 1Pe 3:21

The like figure whereunto

Following a rejected reading, ᾧ , to which; so that the literal rendering would be the antitype to which. Read ὃ ἀντίτυπον , which, the antitype or as an antitype; i.e., which water, being the antitype of that water of the flood, doth now save you, even baptism. Rev., which, after a true likeness doth now, etc. Ἀντίτυπον , figure, or anti-type, is from ἀντί , over against, and τύπος , a blow. Hence, originally, repelling a blow: a blow against a blow; a counter-blow. So of an echo or of the reflection of light; then a correspondence, as of a stamp to the die, as here. The word occurs only once elsewhere, Heb 9:24 : " the figures of the true."

Vincent: 1Pe 3:21

Putting away ( ἀπόθεσις )

Peculiar to Peter. Here and 2Pe 1:14.

Vincent: 1Pe 3:21

Filth ( ῥύπου )

Only here in New Testament. In classical Greek signifying especially dry dirt, as on the person.

Vincent: 1Pe 3:21

Answer ( ἐπερώτημα )

Only here in New Testament. In classical Greek the word means a question and nothing else. The meaning here is much disputed, and can hardly be settled satisfactorily. The rendering answer has no warrant. The meaning seems to be (as Alford), " the seeking after God of a good and pure conscience, which is the aim and end of the Christian baptismal life." So Lange: " The thing asked may be conceived as follows: 'How shall I rid myself of an evil conscience? Wilt thou, most holy God, again accept me, a sinner? Wilt thou, Lord Jesus, grant me the communion of thy death and life? Wilt thou, O Holy Spirit, assure me of grace and adoption, and dwell in my heart?' To these questions the triune Jehovah answers in baptism, 'Yea!' Now is laid the solid foundation for a good conscience. The conscience is not only purified from its guilt, but it receives new vital power by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This is the sense of ἐπερωτᾷν εἰς , in the only place where it occurs in scripture, 2 Samuel 11:7 (Sept.): " David asked of him how Joab did (ἐπερώτησεν εἰς εἰρήνην Ἰωάβ ) . " Lit., with reference to the peace of Joab. Rev. renders, the interrogation, and puts inquiry, appeal, in margin.

Wesley: 1Pe 3:21

The thing typified by the ark, even baptism, now saveth us - That is, through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms the world as a flood: not, indeed, the bare outward sign, but the inward grace; a divine consciousness that both our persons and our actions are accepted through him who died and rose again for us.

JFB: 1Pe 3:21

The oldest manuscripts read, "which": literally, "which (namely, water, in general; being) the antitype (of the water of the flood) is now saving (the salvation being not yet fully realized by us, compare 1Co 10:1-2, 1Co 10:5; Jud 1:5; puts into a state of salvation) us also (two oldest manuscripts read 'you' for 'us': You also, as well as Noah and his party), to wit, baptism." Water saved Noah not of itself, but by sustaining the ark built in faith, resting on God's word: it was to him the sign and mean of a kind of regeneration, of the earth. The flood was for Noah a baptism, as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptism in the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world to the new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from the companionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severing of all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privileges of the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism. As there was a Ham who forfeited the privileges of the covenant, so many now. The antitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, nor the mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peter proceeds to explain. Compare the union of the sign and thing signified, Joh 3:5; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Heb 10:22; compare 1Jo 5:6.

JFB: 1Pe 3:21

"flesh" bears the emphasis. "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" (as is done by a mere water baptism, unaccompanied with the Spirit's baptism, compare Eph 2:11), but of the soul. It is the ark (Christ and His Spirit-filled Church), not the water, which is the instrument of salvation: the water only flowed round the ark; so not the mere water baptism, but the water when accompanied with the Spirit.

JFB: 1Pe 3:21

Greek, "interrogation"; referring to the questions asked of candidates for baptism; eliciting a confession of faith "toward God" and a renunciation of Satan ([AUGUSTINE, The Creed, 4.1]; [CYPRIAN, Epistles, 7, To Rogatianus]), which, when flowing from "a good conscience," assure one of being "saved." Literally, "a good conscience's interrogation (including the satisfactory answer) toward God." I prefer this to the translation of WAHL, ALFORD and others, "inquiry of a good conscience after God": not one of the parallels alleged, not even 2Sa 11:7, in the Septuagint, is strictly in point. Recent Byzantine Greek idiom (whereby the term meant: (1) the question; (2) the stipulation; (3) the engagement), easily flowing from the usage of the word as Peter has it, confirms the former translation.

JFB: 1Pe 3:21

Joined with "saves you": In so far as baptism applies to us the power of Christ's resurrection. As Christ's death unto sin is the source of the believer's death unto, and so deliverance from, sin's penalty and power; so His resurrection life is the source of the believer's new spiritual life.

Clarke: 1Pe 3:21

The like figure whereunto, etc. - Dr. Macknight has translated this verse so as to make the meaning more clear: By which (water) the antitype baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) now saveth us also, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

He remarks that the relative ᾡ being in the neuter gender, its antecedent cannot be κιβωτος, the ark, which is feminine, but ὑδωρ, water, which is neuter

There are many difficulties in this verse; but the simple meaning of the place may be easily apprehended. Noah believed in God; walked uprightly before him, and found grace in his sight; he obeyed him in building the ark, and God made it the means of his salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism implies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He who is faithful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, by the eternal Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from his sins; and through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, has the well-grounded hope of eternal glory. This is all plain; but was it the deluge, itself, or the ark, or the being saved by that ark from the deluge, that was the antitype of which St. Peter speaks? Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark; so the water of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification. The ark was not immersed in the water; had it been so they must all have perished; but it was borne up on the water, and sprinkled with the rain that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of immersion in baptism; but is rather, from the circumstance mentioned above, in favor of sprinkling. In either case, it is not the sprinkling, washing, or cleansing the body, that can be of any avail to the salvation of the soul, but the answer of a good conscience towards God - the internal evidence and external proof that the soul is purified in the laver of regeneration, and the person enabled to walk in newness of life. We are therefore strongly cautioned here, not to rest in the letter, but to look for the substance.

Calvin: 1Pe 3:21

21.The like figure whereunto I fully think that the relative ought to be read in the dative case, and that it has happened, through a mistake, that ὃ is put, and not ᾧ. The meaning, however, is not ambiguous, that Noah, saved by water, had a sort of baptism. And this the Apostle mentions, that the likeness between him and us might appear more evident. It has already been said that the design of this clause is to shew that we ought not to be led away by wicked examples from the fear of God, and the right way of salvation, and to mix with the world. This is made evident in baptism, in which we are buried together with Christ, so that, being dead to the world, and to the flesh, we may live to God. On this account, he says that our baptism is an antitype (ἀντίτυπον) to the baptism of Noah, not that Noah’s baptism was the first pattern, and ours an inferior figure, as the word is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the ceremonies of the law are said to be antitypes of heavenly things, (Heb 9:9.) Greek writers apply the same word to sacraments, so that, when they speak of the mystical bread of the holy Supper, they call it the antitype. But here there is no comparison made between the greater and the less; the Apostle only means that there is a likeness, and as they commonly say, a correspondence. Perhaps it might more properly be said to be correspondency, (ἀντίστροφον,) as Aristotle makes Dialectics to be the antistrophè of Rhetoric. But we need not labor about words, when there is an agreement about the thing itself. As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.

We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.

But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.

What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

But the answer of a good conscience The word question, or questioning, is to be taken here for “answer,” or testimony. Now Peter briefly defines the efficacy and use of baptism, when he calls attention to conscience, and expressly requires that confidence which can sustain the sight of God and can stand before his tribunal. For in these words he teaches us that baptism in its main part is spiritual, and then that it includes the remission of sins and renovation of the old man; for how can there be a good and pure conscience until our old man is reformed, and we be renewed in the righteousness of God? and how can we answer before God, unless we rely on and are sustained by a gratuitous pardon of our sins? In short, Peter intended to set forth the effect of baptism, that no one might glory in a naked and dead sign, as hypocrites are wont to do.

But we must notice what follows, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ By these words he teaches us that we are not to cleave to the element of water, and that what is thereby typified flows from Christ alone, and is to be sought from him. Moreover, by referring to the resurrection, he has regard to the doctrine which he had taught before, that Christ was vivified by the Spirit; for the resurrection was victory over death and the completion of our salvation. We hence learn that the death of Christ is not excluded, but is included in his resurrection. We then cannot otherwise derive benefit from baptism, than by having all our thoughts fixed on the death and the resurrection of Christ.

Defender: 1Pe 3:21

Thus both the Flood, with its ark of safety, and baptism, with its emergence from the waters of burial, are like figures of the wonderful reality of the death and resurrection of Christ, as well as the death to sin and new life of the believer. Baptism in and of itself would, at most, be only a bath for washing off the filth of the flesh, but when experienced as a testimony of one's saving faith in the atoning death and justifying resurrection of the Lord Jesus, it becomes "the answer of [appeal for] a good conscience" toward God (Heb 9:14), secured forever by Christ's resurrection."

TSK: 1Pe 3:21

like : Rom 5:14; 1Co 4:6; Heb 9:24 *Gr: Heb 11:19

baptism : Mat 28:19; Mar 16:16; Act 2:38, Act 22:16; Rom 6:3-6; 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:26; Col 2:12; Tit 3:5-7

the putting : Eze 36:25, Eze 36:26; Zec 13:1; 2Co 7:1

the answer : Act 8:37; Rom 10:9, Rom 10:10; 2Co 1:12; 1Ti 6:12

by : 1Pe 1:3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Pe 3:21

The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us - There are some various readings here in the Greek text, but the sense is not essentially varied. Some have proposed to read ( ῷ hō ) to which instead of ( ὅ ho ) which, so as to make the sense "the antitype to which baptism now also saves us."The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. The Greek word here rendered "figure"- ἀντίτυπον antitupon - "antitype"means properly, "resisting a blow or impression,"(from ἀντί anti and τύπος tupos ;) that is, hard, solid. In the New Testament, however, it is used in a different sense; and ( ἀντί anti ) in composition, implies resemblance, correspondence and hence, the word means, "formed after a type or model; like; corresponding; that which corresponds to a type"- Robinson, Lexicon. The word occurs only in this place and Heb 9:24, rendered "figures."The meaning here is, that baptism corresponded to, or had a resemblance to, the water by which Noah was saved; or that there was a use of water in the one case which corresponded in some respects to the water that was used in the other; to wit, in effecting salvation. The apostle does not say that it corresponded in all respects; in respect, e. g., to quantity, or to the manner of the application, or to the efficacy; but there is a sense in which water performs an important part in our salvation, as it did in his.

Baptism - Not the mere application of water, for that idea the apostle expressly disclaims, when he says that it involves not "putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."The sense is, that baptism, including all that is properly meant by baptism as a religious rite - that is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us. On the meaning of the word "baptism,"see the notes at Mat 3:6, Mat 3:16.

Doth also now save us - The water saved Noah and his family from perishing in the flood; to wit, by bearing up the ark. Baptism, in the proper sense of the term, as above explained, where the water used is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is an emblem of that purifying by which we are saved. It may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition of salvation. No man can be saved without that regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the appropriate symbol, and when it would be proper to administer that ordinance. The apostle cannot have meant that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, because that cannot be true. It is neither the same in quantity, nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is indeed connected with our salvation in its own proper way, as an emblem of that purifying of the heart by which we are saved. Thus, it corresponds with the salvation of Noah by water, and is the ( ἀντίτυπον antitupon ) "antitype"of that. Nor does it mean that the salvation of Noah by water was designed to be a type of Christian baptism. There is not the least evidence of that; and it should not be affirmed without proof. The apostle saw a resemblance in some respects between the one and the other; such a resemblance that the one naturally suggested the other to his mind, and the resemblance was so important as to make it the proper ground of remark.

(But if Noah’ s preservation in the ark, be the type of that salvation of which baptism is the emblem, who shall say it was not so designed of God? Must we indeed regard the resemblance between Noah’ s deliverance and ours, as a happy coincidence merely? But the author is accustomed to deny typical design in very clear cases; and in avoiding one extreme seems to have gone into another. Some will have types everywhere; and, therefore, others will allow them nowhere. See the supplementary note at Heb 7:1; M. Knight’ s Essay , viii. Sect. v., on the laws of typical interpretation, with his commentary in loco)

The points of resemblance in the two cases seem to have been these:

(1)    There was salvation in both; Noah was saved from death, and we are saved from hell.

(2)\caps1     w\caps0 ater is employed in both cases - in the case of Noah to uphold the ark; in ours to be a symbol of our purification.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 he water in both cases is connected with salvation: in the case of Noah by sustaining the ark; in ours by being a symbol of salvation, of purity, of cleansing, of that by which we may be brought to God.

The meaning of this part of the verse, therefore, may be thus expressed: "Noah and his family were saved by water, the antitype to which (to wit, that which in important respects corresponds to that) baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, or the mere application of material water, but that purifying of the heart of which it is the appropriate emblem) now saves us."

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh - Not a mere external washing, however solemnly done. No outward ablution or purifying saves us, but that which pertains to the conscience. This important clause is thrown in to guard the statement from the abuse to which it would otherwise be liable, the supposition that baptism has of itself a purifying and saving power. To guard against this, the apostle expressly declares that he means much more than a mere outward application of water.

But the answer of a good conscience toward God - The word here rendered "answer"( ἐπερώτημα eperōtēma ) means properly a question, an inquiry. It is "spoken of a question put to a convert at baptism, or rather of the whole process of question and answer; that is, by implication, examination, profession"- Robinson, Lexicon. It is designed to mark the spiritual character of the baptismal rite in contrast with a mere external purification, and evidently refers to something that occurred at baptism; some question, inquiry, or examination, that took place then; and it would seem to imply:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat when baptism was performed, there was some question or inquiry in regard to the belief of the candidate;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat an answer was expected, implying that there was a good conscience; that is, that the candidate had an enlightened conscience, and was sincere in his profession; and,

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the real efficacy of baptism, or its power in saving, was not in the mere external rite, but in the state of the heart, indicated by the question and answer, of which that was the emblem.

On the meaning of the phrase "a good conscience,"see the notes at 1Pe 3:16 of this chapter. Compare on this verse Neander, Geschich der Pfianz. u. Leit. der chr, Kirche , i. p. 203ff, in Bibl. Reposi. iv. 272ff. It is in the highest degree probable that questions would be proposed to candidates for baptism respecting their belief, an we have an instance of this fact undoubtedly in the case before us. How extensive such examinations would be, what points would be embraced, how much reference there was to personal experience, we have, of course, no certain means of ascertaining. We may suppose, however, that the examination pertained to what constituted the essential features of the Christian religion, as distinguished from other systems, and to the cordial belief of that system by the candidate.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ - That is, we are saved in this manner through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole efficiency in the case is derived from that. If he had not been raised from the dead, baptism would have been vain, and there would have been no power to save us. See this illustrated at length in the notes at Rom 6:4-5. The points, therefore, which are established in regard to baptism by this important passage are these:

(1) That Christian baptism is not a mere external rite; a mere outward ablution; a mere application of water to the body. It is not contemplated that it shall be an empty form, and its essence does not consist in a mere "putting away of the filth of the flesh."There is a work to be done in respect to the conscience which cannot be reached by the application of water.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat there was an examination among the early Christians when a candidate was about to be baptized, and of course such an examination is proper now. Whatever was the ground of the examination, it related to that which existed before the baptism was administered. It was not expected that it should be accomplished by the baptism. There is, therefore, implied evidence here that there was no reliance placed on that ordinance to produce that which constituted the "answer of a good conscience;"in other words, that it was not supposed to have an efficacy to produce that of itself, and was not a converting or regenerating ordinance.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he "answer"which was returned in the inquiry, was to be such as indicated a good conscience; that is, as Bloomfield expresses it, (New Testament in loc.,) "that which enables us to return such an answer as springs from a good conscience toward God, which can be no other than the inward change and renovation wrought by the Spirit."It was supposed, therefore, that there would be an internal work of grace; that there would be much more than an outward rite in the whole transaction. The application of water is, in fact, but an emblem or symbol of that grace in the heart, and is to be administered as denoting that. It does not convey grace to the soul by any physical efficacy of the water. It is a symbol of the purifying influences of religion, and is made a means of grace in the same way as obedience to any other of the commands of God.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 here is no efficacy in the mere application of water in any form, or with any ceremonies of religion, to put away sin. It is the "good conscience,"the renovated heart, the purified soul, of which baptism is the emblem, that furnishes evidence of the divine acceptance and favor. Compare Heb 9:9-10. There must be a deep internal work on the soul of man, in order that he may be acceptable to God; and when that is missing, no external rite is of any avail.

\caps1 (5) y\caps0 et, it does not follow from this that baptism is of no importance. The argument of the apostle here is, that it is of great importance. Noah was saved by water; and so baptism has an important connection with our salvation. As water bore up the ark, and was the means of saving Noah, so baptism by water is the emblem of our salvation; and when administered in connection with a "good conscience,"that is, with a renovated heart, it is as certainly connected with our salvation as the sustaining waters of the flood were with the salvation of Noah. No man can prove from the Bible that baptism has no important connection with salvation; and no man can prove that by neglecting it he will be as likely to obtain the divine favor as he would by observing it. It is a means of exhibiting great and important truths in an impressive manner to the soul; it is a means of leading the soul to an entire dedication to a God of purity; it is a means through which God manifests himself to the soul, and through which he imparts grace, as he does in all other acts of obedience to his commandments.

Poole: 1Pe 3:21

The like figure Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb 9:24 , where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’ s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world: or, it signifies the truth itself, as answering the type or figure; and thus the temporal salvation of Noah, &c. from the flood, in the ark, was the type, and the eternal salvation of believers by baptism is the antitype, or truth figured by it. Our translation seems to favour the former.

Whereunto i.e. the saving eight persons by water; q.d. The salvation of believers now by baptism, answers to the deliverance of Noah then; and so this relative, whereunto, answers to the foregoing sentence, as its antecedent.

Even baptism doth also now save us viz. with an eternal salvation, in answer to the temporal deliverance of Noah by water; and that not only as it is a sign, but a seal whereby the Spirit of God confirms in the hearts of believers the faith of their justification purchased by Christ’ s death, and witnessed by his resurrection, Rom 4:25 .

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh not merely the washing of the body with water, or the external part of baptism, which can of itself have no further effect than other bodily washings have, viz. to cleanse the flesh. And so he answers an objection which might be made: How baptism can be said to save us, when so many perish who are baptized, by declaring, as follows, what it is in baptism which is so effectual.

But the answer of a good conscience: the Greek word here used is several ways rendered, and so this place differently interpreted: the best translation seems to be, either:

1. The petition of a good conscience, and then it notes the effect of baptism, viz. that holy confidence and security wherewith a conscience, sprinkled with the blood of Christ, addresses itself to God in prayer, as a Father. Thus the word is taken, Mat 15:23 16:2 Rom 10:20 . Or rather:

2. The stipulation, which by a metonymy is taken for the answer, promise, or restipulation required; and this agrees with our translation.

In baptism there is a solemn covenant, or mutual agreement, between God and the party baptized, wherein God offers, applies, and seals his grace, stipulating or requiring the party’ s acceptance of that grace, and devoting himself to his service; and when he out of a good conscience doth engage and promise this, which is to come up to the terms of covenant, that may properly be called the answer of a good conscience. It seems to be an allusion to the manner of baptizing, where the minister asked the party to be baptized concerning his faith in Christ, and he accordingly answered him; Dost thou believe? I believe. Dost thou renounce the devil, &c.? I renounce. See Act 8:37 .

A good conscience a conscience purified by faith from internal and spiritual defilements, (in opposition to putting away the filth of the flesh), which only sincerely answers to what God requires in baptism.

Toward God i.e. in the presence of God, with whom conscience hath to do in baptism, and who alone is the Judge of conscience, and knows whether it be good and sincere, or not: or, toward God, is to God; and then it relates to answer, and implies the answer or engagement of conscience to be made to God.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ: either these words are to be joined to the verb save, and the rest of the verse to be read in a parenthesis, according to our translation; and then the sense is, that baptism saves us by the faith of Christ’ s resurrection, or by virtue derived from Christ’ s resurrection, under which is comprehended his death and sufferings: or they are to be joined to answer, supplying which is; and then, without a parenthesis, the text runs thus, the answer of a good conscience, which is by the resurrection of Christ; and the meaning is, that the answer of a good conscience toward God is by the resurrection of Christ, as the foundation of our believing the promise of forgiveness and free grace, inasmuch as it testifies God to be fully satisfied for sin, and Christ to have fully overcome sin, the devil, &c. For where this faith is not, there can be no good conscience, nor any sincere answering what God requires of us in baptism: if men do not believe the satisfaction of Divine justice by Christ’ s death, which is evidenced by his resurrection, they will not close with the offers of his grace, nor engage themselves to be the Lord’ s. See 1Pe 1:3 1Co 15:17 .

PBC: 1Pe 3:21

"the like figure"

This phrase indicates that Peter used Noah and the flood as an instructive figure of the present persecution his readers were suffering for their faith. Now he adds another figure to the list. Baptism, based on a public profession of faith in Christ and belief in his literal death, burial, and resurrection for our sins, is also a figure of the reality of Jesus work that makes any suffering we may face in well-doing worthwhile.

41

"Baptism doth also now save us"

In the context of the suffering Peter’s readers faced for their faith, one could well ask, " How can exposure to public ridicule and persecution save us?" If we merely look at life from an " under the sun" (Solomon and Ecclesiastes) perspective, the question is reasonable. However, if we look at life from an " above the sun" spiritual perspective, the only rational conduct is faithful, and public, obedience to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

41

In the appendix to the Fulton Convention will be found these words: "We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only." Please notice that these brethren at Fulton understood that the time salvation was "distinct from" the eternal salvation. It was different from and was separate from the eternal salvation (distinct) They also stated that the benefits were received "in this life only." (timely not eternal) These brethren at Fulton also believed that this time salvation was dependent upon obedience. They stated that it "does depend upon their obedience." This time salvation is achieved only when the obedience is performed. The performance of that obedience is the fulfilling of a condition. In order for time salvation to be achieved a condition will have to be performed. One must "do" something in order to experience "time salvation." Whatever it is that one must do, it will become the performing of a condition. (doing something in this regard is performing a condition) This text in 1Pe 3:21 is a case example of "conditional time salvation".

"baptism doth also now save us"

Peter says that there is a "now salvation" in baptism. He qualifies the kind of "saving" in the parenthetical clause "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," that is, baptism does not remove indwelling sin, "but the answer of a good conscience toward God," that is, baptism delivers a burdened subject by giving an existential sense of peace and assurance.

90

This phrase has very simple words. This phrase says that baptism is the "saviour." The phrase puts in a time element—"now."

A person who is baptized must put forth some activity—he must make some signal that he desires to be baptized. If nothing else he must "submit" to be baptized. Submitting is "doing." When one submits to be baptized he is fulfilling a condition necessary to the obtaining of this particular saving. The minister who performs the baptism is also "doing" something in procuring this salvation. This is a salvation that involves "works" of creatures and it requires obedient works. And these works do fulfill conditions.

Now for questions from another standpoint. Does water baptism play any part in transporting a person to heaven? Will the failure to be baptized in water prevent a child of God from entering heaven? Does the saving produced by water baptism have anything to do with aiding a person to be in eternal heaven? Water baptism is a different (distinct) saving from the saving that will guarantee entry into eternal heaven. Water baptism is NOT for eternal salvation but water baptism is FOR a "conditional time salvation." Walking into the water and being completely plunged and raised from the water by the minister is a condition that a child of God must meet in order for this baptism that NOW saves to be achieved.

457

A. T. Robertson, the eminent American New Testament Greek scholar, comments on this verse as follows: "The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Ro 6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain...Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin." The design of baptism is to portray the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and to provide the means whereby the recipient of baptism avows belief in this finished work of Christ and publicly identifies his allegiance to Jesus Christ and to His church.

68

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh

Some, particularly those who believe that baptism has eternal saving power, will offer that this phrase merely refers to the fact that baptism in water is not intended to wash dirt off the body. The inherent weakness of this interpretation becomes obvious when we consider the next phrase of the sentence, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Dirt on the body should be removed for any number of reasons, social, cultural, and hygienic, but they have nothing to do with one’s conscience where moral issues are weighed.

41

"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Regardless of the culture in which we live or the heat of persecution, those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are commanded in Scripture to make a public declaration of their faith by submitting to baptism. Baptism makes a public declaration that you believe in the deity and supreme lordship of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is God, no less during His Incarnation than today seated with the Father on heaven’s throne. Have you made this public profession of your faith in Him? Does your consistent lifestyle publicly declare your faith in Him, even when it might expose you to persecution or to the ridicule of those around you? What is more important at the end of the day, the approval of wicked people or the approval of God? What is more honoring to God, suffering in evil doing or suffering in well-doing? Will you join righteous Noah and the local body of faithful believers in God as they " preach righteousness"{2Pe 2:5} to a skeptical and unbelieving world around them? Will you live your life so as to become a living witness to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his saving work for you? Tell the world that you believe in Him and that you will serve Him, regardless of the cost. Be baptized and live your life in company and fellowship with people who stand with Him and with Noah!

41

Haydock: 1Pe 3:21

Baptism, &c. That is, the ark was a figure of baptism, which saveth you from the death of the soul; and as no one was saved from the waters of the deluge but those few eight persons who were in the ark, so no one can enter into heaven if he hath not been baptized, or hath had a desire of it when come to the use of reason. And such persons as are capable of knowing what they receive, must come with the dispositions of faith and a true repentance, which is here called the examination (literally, the interrogation [3]) of a good conscience, who therefore are examined whether they believe in one God and three Persons, &c. (Witham) ---

Baptism is said to be the like form with the water by which Noe [Noah] was saved, because the one was a figure of the other. ---

Not the putting away, &c. As much as to say, that baptism has not its efficacy, in order to salvation, from its washing away any bodily filth or dirt; but from its purging the conscience from sin: when accompanied with suitable dispositions in the party, to answer the interrogations made at that time, with relation to faith, the renouncing of Satan with all his works, and the obedience to God's commands. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Conscientiæ bonæ interrogatio, Greek: eperotema. See Estius.

Gill: 1Pe 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,.... The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype of that; or there is something in these which correspond, and answer to, and bear a resemblance to each other: as the ark was God's ordinance, and not man's invention, so is baptism, it is of heaven, and not of men; and as the ark, while it was preparing, was the scorn and derision of men, so is this ordinance of the Gospel; it was rejected with disdain by the Scribes and Pharisees, as it still is by many; and as the ark, when Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, represented a burial, and they seemed, as it were, to be buried in it, it was a lively emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial, Rom 6:4 and as they in the ark had the great deep broke up under them, and the windows of heaven opened over them, pouring out waters upon them, they were, as it were, immersed in, and were covered with water, this fitly figured baptism by immersion; nor were there any but adult persons that entered into the ark, nor should any be baptized but believers; to which may be added, that as the one saved by water, so does the other; for it is water baptism which is here designed, which John practised, Christ gave a commission for, and his disciples administered: it saves not as a cause, for it has no causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation. Christ only is the cause and author of eternal salvation; and as those only that were in the ark were saved by water, so those only that are in Christ, and that are baptized into Christ, and into his death, are saved by baptism; not everyone that is baptized, but he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, Mar 16:16, for baptism

is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh; the design of it is not to take off the sordid flesh, as circumcision did; or in a ceremonious way, outwardly, to sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, as the Jewish baptisms did; see Heb 9:10, or to take away either original or actual sin; this only the blood of Christ can do; and it is not a mere external cleansing of the body:

but the answer of a good conscience towards God; the Vulgate Latin renders it, "the interrogation of a good conscience"; referring, it may be, to the interrogations that used to be put to those who desired baptism; as, dost thou renounce Satan? dost thou believe in Christ? see Act 8:36, others render it, "the stipulation of a good conscience"; alluding also to the ancient custom of obliging those that were baptized to covenant and agree to live an holy life and conversation, to renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this world; and baptism does certainly lay an obligation on men to walk in newness of life; see Rom 6:4, the Ethiopic version renders it, "confession of God"; and to this the Syriac version agrees, rendering it, "confessing God with a pure conscience"; for, to baptism, profession of faith in Christ, and of the doctrine of Christ in a pure conscience, is requisite; and in baptism persons make a public confession of God, and openly put on Christ before men: the sense seems plainly this; that then is baptism rightly performed, and its end answered, when a person, conscious to himself of its being an ordinance of Christ, and of his duty to submit to it, does do so upon profession of his faith in Christ, in obedience to his command, and "with" a view to his glory; in doing which he discharges a good conscience towards God: and being thus performed, it saves,

by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; being a means of leading the faith of the baptized person, as to the blood of Christ, for pardon and cleansing, so to the resurrection of Christ, to justification; see Act 2:38, moreover, the sense of the passage may be this, that baptism is a like figure as the ark of Noah was; that as the entrance of Noah and his family into the ark was an emblem of a burial, so their coming out of it was a figure of the resurrection; and just such a figure is baptism, performed by immersion, both of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and of the resurrection of saints to walk in newness of life. The Arabic version renders the whole verse thus; "of which thing baptism is now a type saving us, not by removing the filth of the flesh only, but by exhilarating a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Pe 3:21

¹ tn Grk “which also, [as] an antitype, now saves you, [that is] baptism.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

² tn Grk “the removal of the dirt of the flesh,” where flesh refers to the physical make-up of the body with no moral connotations.

³ tn Or “response”; “answer.”

Geneva Bible: 1Pe 3:21

^{( 23 )} The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward ^{( p )} God,) ^{( 24 )} by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

^{( 23 )} A proportional applying of the former example to the time which followed the coming of Christ: for the preservation of Noah in the waters, was a figure of our baptism, not as though the material water of baptism shows us, as those waters which bare up the ark saved Noah, but because Christ with his inward virtue, which the outward baptism shadows, preserves us being washed, so that we may call upon God with a good conscience.

^{( p )} The conscience being sanctified, may freely call upon God.

^{( 24 )} That same virtue, by which Christ rose again, and now being carried up into heaven has received all power, does at this day defend and preserve us.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Pe 3:1-22

1 He teaches the duty of wives and husbands to each other;

8 exhorting all men to unity and love;

14 and to suffer persecution.

19 He declares also the benefits of Christ toward the old world.

MHCC: 1Pe 3:14-22

We sanctify God before others, when our conduct invites and encourages them to glorify and honour him. What was the ground and reason of their hope? We should be able to defend our religion with meekness, in the fear of God. There is no room for any other fears where this great fear is; it disturbs not. The conscience is good, when it does its office well. That person is in a sad condition on whom sin and suffering meet: sin makes suffering extreme, comfortless, and destructive. Surely it is better to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing, whatever our natural impatience at times may suggest. The example of Christ is an argument for patience under sufferings. In the case of our Lord's suffering, he that knew no sin, suffered instead of those who knew no righteousness. The blessed end and design of our Lord's sufferings were, to reconcile us to God, and to bring us to eternal glory. He was put to death in respect of his human nature, but was quickened and raised by the power of the Holy Spirit. If Christ could not be freed from sufferings, why should Christians think to be so? God takes exact notice of the means and advantages people in all ages have had. As to the old world, Christ sent his Spirit; gave warning by Noah. But though the patience of God waits long, it will cease at last. And the spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, where those that despised Noah's warning now are, and from whence there is no redemption. Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water, which carried him above the floods, set forth the salvation of all true believers. That temporal salvation by the ark was a type of the eternal salvation of believers by baptism of the Holy Spirit. To prevent mistakes, the apostle declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but that baptism, of which the baptismal water formed the sign. Not the outward ordinance, but when a man, by the regeneration of the Spirit, was enabled to repent and profess faith, and purpose a new life, uprightly, and as in the presence of God. Let us beware that we rest not upon outward forms. Let us learn to look on the ordinances of God spiritually, and to inquire after the spiritual effect and working of them on our consciences. We would willingly have all religion reduced to outward things. But many who were baptized, and constantly attended the ordinances, have remained without Christ, died in their sins, and are now past recovery. Rest not then till thou art cleansed by the Spirit of Christ and the blood of Christ. His resurrection from the dead is that whereby we are assured of purifying and peace.

Matthew Henry: 1Pe 3:21-22

Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Act 2:38; Act 22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God. - Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized. - Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom 2:29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.

III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, 1Pe 3:22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Act 1:9-11; Mar 16:19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (Joh 17:5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fulness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, Joh 16:7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God - man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

This is not only one of the most difficult passages in Peter's letter, it is one of the most difficult in the whole New Testament; and it is also the basis of one of the most difficult articles in the creed, "He descended into Hell." It is, therefore, better first of all to read it as a whole and then to study it in its various sections.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

Although this passage is one of the most difficult in the New Testament, it begins with something which anyone can understand. The point that Peter is making is that, even if the Christian is compelled to suffer unjustly for his faith, he is only walking the way that his Lord and Saviour has already walked. The suffering Christian must always remember that he has a suffering Lord. In the narrow compass of these two verses Peter has the greatest and the deepest things to say about the work of Christ.

(i) He lays it down that the work of Christ was unique and never need be repeated. Christ died once and for all for sins. The New Testament says this same thing often. When Christ died, he died once and for all (Rom 6:10). The priestly sacrifices in the Temple have to be repeated daily but Christ made the perfect sacrifice once and for all when he offered himself up (Heb 7:27). Christ was once and for all offered to bear the sin of many (Heb 9:28). We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once and for all (Heb 10:10). The New Testament is completely sure that on the Cross something happened which never needs to happen again and that in that happening sin is finally defeated. On the Cross God dealt with man's sin in a way which is adequate for all sin, for all men, for all time.

(ii) He lays it down that that sacrifice was for sin. Christ died once and for all for sins. This again is frequently said in the New Testament. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1Co 15:3). Christ gave himself for our sins (Gal 1:4). The function of the High Priest, and Jesus Christ is the perfect High Priest, is to offer sacrifice for sins (Heb 5:1, Heb 5:3). He is the expiation for our sins (1Jo 2:2).

The Greek for for sins is either huper (5228) or peri (4012) hamartion (266). It so happens that in the Greek version of the Old Testament the regular phrase for a sin-offering is peri (4012) hamartias (266) (Hamartias, 266, is the singular of hamartion, 266), as, for instance, in Lev 5:7and Lev 6:30. That is to say, Peter is laying it down that the death of Christ is the sacrifice which atones for the sin of men.

We may put it this way. Sin is that which interrupts the relationship which should exist between God and men. The object of sacrifice is to restore that lost relationship. The death of Christ upon the Cross, however we explain it, avails to restore the lost relationship between God and man. As Charles Wesley put it in verse:

No condemnation now I dread:

Jesus, and all in him, is mine!

Alive in him, my living Head,

And clothed in righteousness divine,

Bold I approach the eternal throne,

And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

It may be that we will never agree in our theories of what exactly happened on the Cross, for, indeed, as Charles Wesley said in that same hymn: " 'Tis mystery all!" But on one thing we can agree--through what happened there we may enter into a new relationship with God.

(iii) He lays it down that that sacrifice was vicarious. Christ died once and for all for sins, the just.for the unjust. That the just should suffer for the unjust is an extraordinary thing. At first sight it looks like injustice. As Edwin H. Robertson put it: "Only forgiveness without reason can match sin without excuse." The suffering of Christ was for us; and the mystery is that he who deserved no suffering bore that suffering for us who deserved to suffer. He sacrificed himself to restore our lost relationship with God.

(iv) He lays it down that the work of Christ was to bring us to God. Christ died once and for all for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. The word for "to bring" is prosagein (4317). It has two vivid backgrounds.

(a) It has a Jewish background. It is used in the Old Testament of bringing to God those who are to be priests. It is God's instruction: "You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting" (Exo 29:4). The point is this--as the Jews saw it, only the priests had the right of close access to God. In the Temple the layman might come so far; he could pass through the Court of the Gentiles, the Court of the Women, the Court of the Israelites--but there he must stop. Into the Court of the Priests, into the nearer presence of God, he could not go; and of the priests, only the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies. But Jesus Christ brings us to God; he opens the way for all men to his nearer presence.

(b) It has a Greek background. In the New Testament the corresponding noun prosagoge (4318) is three times used. Prosagein (4317) means to bring in; prosagoge (4318) means the right of access, the result of the bringing in. Through Christ we have access to grace (Rom 5:2). Through him we have access to God the Father (Eph 2:18). Through him we have boldness and access and confidence to come to God (Eph 3:12). In Greek this had a specialized meaning. At the court of kings there was an official called the prosagogeus, the introducer, the giver of access, and it was his function to decide who should be admitted to the king's presence and who should be kept out. He, as it were, held the keys of access. It is Jesus Christ, through what he did, who gives men access to God.

(v) When we go beyond these two verses, further into the passage, we can add two more great truths to Peter's view of the work of Christ. In 1Pe 3:19he says that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison; and in 1Pe 4:6he says that the gospel was preached to them that are dead. As we shall go on to see, this most probably means that in the time between his death and his resurrection Jesus actually preached the gospel in the abode of the dead; that is to say, to those who in their lifetime had never had the opportunity to hear it. Here is a tremendous thought. It means that the work of Christ is infinite in its range. It means that no man who ever lived is outside the grace of God.

(vi) Peter sees the work of Christ in terms of complete triumph. He says that after his resurrection Jesus went into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to him (1Pe 3:22). The meaning is that there is nothing in earth and heaven outside the empire of Christ. To all men he brought the new relationship between man and God; in his death he even brought the good news to the dead; in his resurrection he conquered death; even the angelic and the demonic powers are subject to him; and he shares the very power and throne of God. Christ the sufferer has become Christ the victor; Christ the crucified has become Christ the crowned.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

We have already said that we are here face to face with one of the most difficult passages, not only in Peter's letter, but in the whole New Testament; and, if we are to grasp what it means, we must follow Peter's own advice and gird up the loins of our mind to study it.

This passage has lodged in the creed in the phrase: "He descended into hell." We must first note that this phrase is very misleading. The idea of the New Testament is not that Jesus descended into hell but that he descended into Hades. Act 2:27, as all the newer translations correctly show, should be translated not: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," but, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades." The difference is this. Hell is the place of the punishment of the wicked; Hades was the place where all the dead went.

The Jews had a very shadowy conception of life beyond the grave. They did not think in terms of heaven and of hell but of a shadowy world, where the spirits of men moved like grey ghosts in an everlasting twilight and where there was neither strength nor joy. Such was Hades, into which the spirits of all men went after death. Isaiah writes: "For Sheol cannot thank thee, death cannot praise thee; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for thy faithfulness" (Isa 38:18). The Psalmist wrote: "In death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?" (Psa 6:5). "What profit is there in my death if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise thee? Will it tell of thy faithfulness?" (Psa 30:9). "Dost thou work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise up to praise thee? Is thy steadfast love declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in Abaddon? Are thy wonders known in the darkness, or thy saving help in the land of forgetfulness?" (Psa 88:10-12). "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence" (Psa 115:17). "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going" (Ecc 9:10). The Jewish conception of the world after death was of this grey world of shadows and forgetfulness, in which men were separated from life and light and God.

As time went on, there emerged the idea of stages and divisions in this shadowland. For some it was to last for ever; but for others it was a kind of prison-house in which they were held until the final judgment of God's wrath should blast them (Isa 24:21-22; 2Pe 2:4; Rev 20:1-7). So, then, it must first of all be remembered that this whole matter is to be thought of, not in terms of hell, as we understand the word, but in terms of Christ's going to the dead in their shadowy world.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

This doctrine of the descent into Hades, as we must now call it, is based on two phrases in our present passage. It says that Jesus went and preached to the spirits who are in prison (1Pe 3:19); and it speaks of the gospel being preached to the dead (1Pe 4:6). In regard to this doctrine there have always been differing attitudes amongst thinkers.

(i) There are those who wish to eliminate it altogether. There is the attitude of elimination. Some wish to eliminate it altogether and attempt to do so along two lines.

(a) Peter says that in the Spirit Christ preached to the spirits in prison, who were disobedient in the time when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, when the ark was being built. It is argued that what this means is that it was in the time of Noah himself that Christ did this preaching; that in the Spirit long ages before this he made his appeal to the wicked men of Noah's day. This would completely do away with the idea of the descent into Hades. Many great scholars have accepted that view; but we do not think it is the view which comes naturally from Peter's words.

(b) If we look at Moffatt's translation, we find something quite different. He translates: "In the flesh he (Christ) was put to death, but he came to life in the Spirit. It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits who had disobeyed at the time when God's patience held out during the construction of the ark in the days of Noah." How does Moffatt arrive at this translation?

The name of Enoch does not appear in any Greek manuscript. But in the consideration of the text of any Greek author, scholars sometimes use a process called emendation. They think that there is something wrong with the text as it stands, that some scribe has perhaps copied it wrongly; and they, therefore, suggest that some word should be changed or added. In this passage Rendel Harris suggested that the word Enoch was missed out in the copying of Peter's writing and should be put back in.

(Although it involves the use of Greek some readers may be

interested to see how Rendel Harris arrived at this famous

emendation. In the top line in italic print, we have set down

the Greek of the passage in English lettering and beneath each

Greek word its English translation:

thanatotheis (2289) men (3303) sarki (4561)

having been put to death in the flesh

zoopoietheis (2227) de (1161) pneumati (4151)

having been raised to life in the Spirit

en (1722) ho (3588) kai (2532) tois (3588)

in which also to the

en (1722) phulake (5438) pneumasi (4151)

in prison spirits

poreutheis (4198) ekeruxen (2784)

having gone he preached.

(Men (3303) and de (1161) are what are called particles;

they are not translated but merely mark the contrast between

sarki, 4561, and pneumati, 4151). It was Rendel Harris'

suggestion that between kai (2532) and tois (3588) the

word Enoch (1802) had dropped out. His explanation was that,

since most manuscript copying was done to dictation, scribes were

very liable to miss words which followed each other, if they

sounded very similar. In this passage:

en (1722) ho (3588) kai (2532) and Enoch (1802)

sound very much alike, and Rendel Harris thought it very likely

that Enoch (1802) had been mistakenly omitted for that reason).

What reason is there for bringing Enoch (1802) into this passage at all? He has always been a fascinating and mysterious person. "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him" (Gen 5:24). In between the Old and New Testaments many legends sprang up about Enoch and famous and important books were written under his name. One of the legends was that Enoch, though a man, acted as "God's envoy" to the angels who sinned by coming to earth and lustfully seducing mortal women (Gen 6:2). In the Book of Enoch it is said that he was sent down from heaven to announce to these angels their final doom (Enoch 12: 1) and that he proclaimed that for them, because of their sin, there was neither peace nor forgiveness ever (Enoch 12 and 13).

So then, according to Jewish legend, Enoch did go to Hades and preach doom to the fallen angels. And Rendel Harris thought that this passage referred, not to Jesus, but to Enoch, and Moffatt so far agreed with him as to put Enoch into his translation. That is an extremely interesting and ingenious suggestion but without doubt it must be rejected. There is no evidence for it at all; and it is not natural to bring in Enoch, for the whole picture is of the work of Christ.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

We have seen that the attempt at the elimination of this passage fails.

(ii) The second attitude is limitation. This attitude--and it is that of some very great New Testament interpreters--believes that Peter is indeed saying that Jesus went to Hades and preached, but that he by no means preached to all the inhabitants of Hades. Different interpreters limit that preaching in different ways.

(a) It is argued that Jesus preached in Hades only to the spirits of the men who were disobedient in the days of Noah. Those who hold this view often go on to argue that, since these sinners were desperately disobedient, so much so that God sent the flood and destroyed them (Gen 6:12-13), we may believe that no man is outside the mercy of God. They were the worst of all sinners and yet they were given another chance of repentance; therefore, the worst of men still have a chance in Christ.

(b) It is argued that Jesus preached to the fallen angels, and preached, not salvation, but final and awful doom. We have already mentioned these angels. Their story is told in Gen 6:1-8. They were tempted by the beauty of mortal women; they came to earth, seduced them and begat children; and because of their action, it is inferred, the wickedness of man was great and his thoughts were always evil. 2Pe 2:4speaks of these sinning angels as being imprisoned in hell, awaiting judgment. It was to them that Enoch did, in fact, preach; and there are those who think that what this passage means is not that Christ preached mercy and another chance; but that, in token of his complete triumph, he preached terrible doom to those angels who had sinned.

© It is argued that Christ preached only to those who had been righteous and that he led them out of Hades into the paradise of God. We have seen how the Jews believed that all the dead went to Hades, the shadowy land of forgetfulness. The argument is that before Christ that was indeed so but he opened the gates of heaven to mankind; and, when he did so, he went to Hades and told the glad news to all the righteous men of all past generations and led them out to God. That is a magnificent picture. Those who hold this view often go on to say that, because of Christ, there is now no time spent in the shadows of Hades and the way to paradise is open as soon as this world closes on us.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

(iii) There is the attitude that what Peter is saying is that Jesus Christ, between his death and resurrection, went to the world of the dead and preached the gospel there. Peter says that Jesus Christ was put to death in the flesh but raised to life in the Spirit, and that it was in the Spirit that he so preached. The meaning is that Jesus lived in a human body and was under all the limitations of time and space in the days of his flesh; and died with that body broken and bleeding upon the Cross. But when he rose again, he rose with a spiritual body, in which he was rid of the necessary weaknesses of humanity and liberated from the necessary limitations of time and space. It was in this spiritual condition of perfect freedom that the preaching to the dead took place.

As it stands this doctrine is stated in categories which are outworn. It speaks of the descent into Hades and the very word descent suggests a three-storey universe in which heaven is localized above the sky and Hades beneath the earth. But, laying aside the physical categories of this doctrine, we can find in it truths which are eternally valid and precious, three in particular.

(a) If Christ descended into Hades, then his death was no sham. It is not to be explained in terms of a swoon on the Cross, or anything like that. He really experienced death, and rose again. At its simplest, the doctrine of the descent into Hades lays down the complete identity of Christ with our human condition, even to the experience of death.

(b) If Christ descended into Hades, it means that his triumph is universal. This, in fact, is a truth which is ingrained into the New Testament. It is Paul's dream that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth (Phi 2:10). In the Revelation the song of praise comes from every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth and under the earth (Rev 5:13). He who ascended into Heaven is he who first descended into the lower parts of the earth (Eph 4:9-10). The total submission of the universe to Christ is woven into the thought of the New Testament.

© If Christ descended into Hades and preached there, there is no corner of the universe into which the message of grace has not come. There is in this passage the solution of one of the most haunting questions raised by the Christian faith--what is to happen to those who lived before Jesus Christ and to those to whom the gospel never came? There can be no salvation without repentance but how can repentance come to those who have never been confronted with the love and holiness of God? If there is no other name by which men may be saved, what is to happen to those who never heard it? This is the point that Justin Martyr fastened on long ago: "The Lord, the Holy God of Israel, remembered his dead, those sleeping in the earth, and came down to them to tell them the good news of salvation." The doctrine of the descent into Hades conserves the precious truth that no man who ever lived is left without a sight of Christ and without the offer of the salvation of God.

Many in repeating the creed have found the phrase "He descended into hell" either meaningless or bewildering, and have tacitly agreed to set it on one side and forget it. It may well be that we ought to think of this as a picture painted in terms of poetry rather than a doctrine stated in terms of theology. But it contains these three great truths--that Jesus Christ not only tasted death but drained the cup of death, that the triumph of Christ is universal and that there is no corner of the universe into which the grace of God has not reached.

Barclay: 1Pe 3:17-22

Peter has been speaking about the wicked men who were disobedient and corrupt in the days of Noah; they were ultimately destroyed. But in the destruction by the flood eight people--Noah and his wife, his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives--were brought to safety in the ark. Immediately the idea of being brought to safety through the water turns Peter's thoughts to Christian baptism, which is also a bringing to safety through the water. What Peter literally says is that baptism is an antitype of Noah and his people in the ark.

This word introduces us to a special way of looking at the Old Testament. There are two closely connected words. There is tupos (5179), type, which means a seal, and there is antitupos (499), antitype, which means the impression of the seal. Clearly, between the seal and its impression there is the closest possible correspondence. So there are people and events and customs in the Old Testament which are types, and which find their antitypes in the New Testament. The Old Testament event or person is like the seal; the New Testament event or person is like the impression; the two answer to each other. We might put it that the Old Testament event symbolically represents and foreshadows the New Testament event. The science of finding types and antitypes in the Old and the New Testaments is very highly developed. But to take very simple and obvious examples, the Passover Lamb and the scapegoat, who bore the sins of the people, are types of Jesus; and the work of the High Priest in making sacrifice for the sins of the people is a type of his saving work. Here Peter sees the bringing safely through the waters of Noah and his family as a type of baptism.

In this passage Peter has three great things to say about baptism. It must be remembered that at this stage of the Church's history we are still dealing with adult baptism, the baptism of people who had come straight from heathenism into Christianity and who were taking upon themselves a new way of life.

(i) Baptism is not merely a physical cleansing; it is a spiritual cleansing of the whole heart and soul and life. Its effect must be on a man's very soul and on his whole life.

(ii) Peter calls baptism the pledge of a good conscience to God (1Pe 3:21). The word Peter uses for pledge is eperotema (1906). In every business contract there was a definite question and answer which made the contract binding. The question was: "Do you accept the terms of this contract, and bind yourself to observe them?" And the answer, before witnesses was: "Yes." Without that question and answer the contract was not valid. The technical word for that question and answer clause is eperotema (1906) in Greek, stipulatio in Latin.

Peter is, in effect, saying that in baptism God said to the man coming direct from heathenism: "Do you accept the terms of my service? Do you accept its privileges and promises, and do you undertake its responsibilities and its demands?" And in the act of being baptized the man answered: "Yes."

Some use the word sacrament. Sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, which means a soldier's oath of loyalty on entering the army. Here we have basically the same picture. We cannot very well apply this question and answer in infant baptism, unless it be to the parents; but, as we have said, baptism in the very early church was of adult men and women coming spontaneously from heathenism into the Church. The modern parallel is entering upon full membership of the Church. When we enter upon Church membership, God asks us: "Do you accept the conditions of my service, with all privileges and all its responsibilities, with all its promises and all its demands?" and we answer; "Yes." It would be well if all were clearly to understand what they are doing when they take upon themselves membership of the Church.

(iii) The whole idea and effectiveness of baptism is dependent on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the grace of the Risen Lord which cleanses us; it is to the Risen, Living Lord that we pledge ourselves; it is to the Risen, Living Lord that we look for strength to keep the pledge that we have given. Once again, where infant baptism is the practice, we must take these great conceptions and apply them to the time when we enter upon full membership of the Church.

Constable: 1Pe 2:11--4:12

III. The responsibilities of the christian individually 2:11--4:11

Since Christians have a particular vocation in the world certain conduct was essential for Peter's readers.

"The address, Dear friends, I appeal to you,' in 2:11 marks a shift from the identity of God's people to their consequent responsibility in a hostile world. If 1:3-2:10 expanded on their identity as chosen people' (cf. 1:2), the reference to them as aliens and strangers' in 2:11 serves as a reminder that they are at the same time living as strangers' (again cf. 1:2) in contemporary society."⁸²

Constable: 1Pe 3:13--4:7

C. Eventual Vindication 3:13-4:6

Peter previously explained how a Christian can rejoice in his sufferings having set forth his responsibilities and outlined specific conduct in times of suffering. He next emphasized the inner confidence a Christian can have when experiencing persecution for his or her faith to equip his readers to overcome their sufferings effectively.

Constable: 1Pe 3:18-22

2. The Vindication of Christ 3:18-22

Peter now reminded his readers of the consequences of Jesus' response to unjustified persecution. He did so to strengthen their resolve to rededicate themselves to follow God's will wholeheartedly and confidently. He also wanted to assure them of their ultimate triumph in Christ.

Verses 18-22 contain some very difficult exegetical problems. Who are the spirits who received a proclamation (v. 19)? When did Jesus make this proclamation? What was its content? Why did Peter mention Noah? In what sense does baptism save us?

One group of interpreters believes Jesus went to the realm of the dead and preached to Noah's contemporaries between His crucifixion and His resurrection. Some of these say He extended an offer of salvation to them. Others feel He announced condemnation to the unbelievers. Still others hold that He announced good news to the saved among them.

A second group believes Jesus preached to Noah's sinful generation while Noah was living on the earth. They see Him doing so through Noah.

A third group holds that Jesus proclaimed His victory on the cross to fallen angels. Some advocates of this view say this took place in hell between His crucifixion and His resurrection. Others believe it happened during His ascension to heaven.

I shall discuss these views in the exposition to follow.

In 2:21-25 Peter mentioned Jesus' behavior during His passion (2:21-23), His death on the cross (2:24a), and His present ministry as the Shepherd and Guardian of our souls (2:24b-25). In 3:18-22 he cited Jesus' resurrection and ascension into glory, the "missing links" in the previous record of Jesus' experiences. Peter proceeded to explain the significance of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation not only for believers but also for the whole universe. Whereas the previous example of Jesus stressed the way He suffered while doing good, this one emphasizes the theme of Jesus' vindication, which is major in 1 Peter following the quotation of Psalm 34 in 3:10-12.

3:18 "For" connects verses 18-22 with 13-17, but "For Christ also" recalls and resumes the example of Jesus Christ that Peter cited in 2:21-25. Peter used the same phrase to introduce Jesus Christ as an example of suffering there. Suffering for doing good is the point of comparison in both passages.

"Once for all" emphasizes the complete sufficiency of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. It does not need repeating (as in the Roman Catholic mass) or adding to (by any human works, cf. Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10). The emphasis is on the finality of His sacrifice ("once for all," Gr. hapax) rather than on the extent of the atonement ("for all").

His was also a vicarious sacrifice: the just One died for the unjust ones (1:19; 2:21-24; 4:1; cf. Isa. 53:11; Matt. 27:19; Luke 23:47; Rom. 5:6-10; 1 John 2:1, 29; 3:7). The purpose of Jesus Christ's death was to bring us into fellowship with God.

". . . no other NT writer has this active picture of Jesus leading the Christian to God. But it fits with Peter's usual conception of the Christian life as an active close following of Jesus (2:21; 4:13)."¹³⁸

The phrase "having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" has received several different interpretations.

Some interpreters believe that "flesh" refers to the material part of Jesus Christ's person and "spirit" to the immaterial part.¹³⁹ Supporters of this view argue that we should regard "flesh" and "spirit" as two parts of the Lord's human nature (cf. Matt. 26:41; Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:5). The contrast then would be that Jesus' body ("flesh") died, but His immaterial part ("spirit") experienced resurrection. The problem with this view is that an article precedes neither "flesh" nor "spirit" in the Greek text. The absence of the article usually stresses the quality of the noun. This would not be normal if Peter meant to contrast Jesus' body and His spirit. He would have included an article before each noun. The absence of the articles suggests a special meaning of "flesh" and "spirit." Furthermore Jesus' resurrection involved both the material and immaterial parts of His person, not just His spirit.

Another view is that we should take the Greek nouns (sarki and pneumati, translated "in the flesh" and "in the spirit") as dative ("by the flesh" and "by the spirit") rather than as instrumental. The contrast, according to this interpretation, is between wicked men, who put Jesus to death by fleshly means, and the Holy Spirit, who raised Him. However the Greek dative case ("in the flesh") is probably what Peter intended here rather than the instrumental case ("by the flesh)."¹⁴⁰ It is not who was responsible for Jesus' death and resurrection that is the issue but how Jesus suffered death and experienced resurrection. Moreover if "spirit" means the Holy Spirit, its meaning is not parallel with "flesh."

A third view is that "flesh" refers to Jesus' death and "spirit" refers to His resurrection. The weakness of this view is that it is redundant. Peter said, according to this view, that Jesus was put to death in death and that He was made alive in resurrection.

A fourth view sees "flesh" as describing Jesus' pre-resurrection condition (following the Incarnation) and "spirit" as referring to His post-resurrection condition. Peter used the same terminology in 4:6 where he referred to Christians who had died but were now alive. I prefer this view.

"As in Rom. i.3f.; 1 Tim. iii.16, flesh and spirit do not here designate complimentary parts of Christ, but the whole of Christ regarded from different standpoints. By flesh is meant Christ in His human sphere of existence, considered as a man among men. By spirit is meant Christ in His heavenly spiritual sphere of existence, considered as divine spirit (see on 1. 11); and this does not exclude His bodily nature, since as risen from the dead it is glorified."¹⁴¹

"Flesh' and spirit' do not refer to two parts' of Christ, i.e., his body and his soul; nor does the spirit' refer to the Holy Spirit or Christ's human spirit. Rather, flesh; refers to Christ in his human sphere of life and spirit' refers to Christ in his resurrected sphere of life (cf. [William J.] Dalton, [Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits,] pp. 124-24; TDNT, 6:417, 447; 7:143)."¹⁴²

"If flesh' is the sphere of human limitations, of suffering, and of death (cf. 4:1), Spirit' is the sphere of power, vindication, and a new life . . .¹⁴³ Both spheres affect Christ's (or anyone else's) whole person; one cannot be assigned to the body and the other to the soul . . .

"The statement that Christ was made alive in the Spirit,' therefore, means simply that he was raised from the dead, not as a spirit, but bodily (as resurrection always is in the NT), and in a sphere in which the Spirit and power of God are displayed without hindrance or human limitation (cf. 1:21)."¹⁴⁴

Jesus Christ became the Victor rather than a victim. All who trust Him share that victory (cf. vv. 13-17). This verse is an encouragement to Peter's readers that even though Jesus died because He remained committed to God's will, He experienced resurrection. Therefore we should remain faithful with the confident hope that God will also vindicate us.

3:19-20 Peter here introduced more information about Jesus' activity in His spirit (i.e., His resurrected sphere of life), in addition to what he said about His resurrection from the dead (v. 18), to encourage his readers.

"In which" refers back to the post-resurrection sphere of life in which Jesus Christ now lives (v. 18). The identity of the "spirits in prison" is problematic. The plural "spirits" describes human beings only one other place in the New Testament (Heb. 12:23), but it describes evil spirit beings frequently (Matt. 10:1; Mark 1:27; 3:11; 5:13; 6:7: Luke 4:36; 6:18; Acts 5:16; Rev. 16:13; et al.). Thus we would expect that evil angels are in view, but does what Peter said about them confirm this identification? He said they are in prison (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4) and that they were disobedient in the days of Noah (v. 20). Some interpreters believe that the incident involving the sons of God and the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4) is what Peter had in view here, but there are two problems with this theory. First, this incident evidently did not take place during the construction of the ark but before construction began. Second, it is improbable that the sons of God were angels.¹⁴⁵ Nevertheless these "spirits" could still be angels. If they are fallen angels, Peter may have meant that after Jesus Christ arose He announced to them that their doom was now sure. He may have done this either by His resurrection itself or by some special announcement to them.¹⁴⁶

A more probable explanation is that these "spirits" were the unbelievers who disobeyed God in Noah's day by rejecting his preaching.¹⁴⁷ They are now "spirits" since they died long ago and their bodies have not yet experienced resurrection. He said the spirits of these unbelievers are in prison now (i.e., Sheol) awaiting resurrection and judgment by God (cf. Rev. 20:11-15). One could say that Jesus proclaimed a message to Noah's unbelieving contemporaries in His spirit (i.e., His spiritual state of life before the Incarnation) through Noah. Noah was preaching a message that God had given him, and in this sense Jesus Christ spoke through him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20). Just so, Jesus Christ was speaking through Peter's readers to their unbelieving persecutors as they bore witness for Him in a hostile world. Noah faced the same type of opposition in his day that Peter's original readers did in theirs.

Another view is that the people to whom Jesus preached were those alive after Pentecost and in bondage to Satan and sin. Jesus preached to them through the apostles. The obvious problem with this view is Peter's linking these people with Noah.¹⁴⁸

God would bring Peter's readers safely through their trial just as He had brought Noah safely through his trials into a whole new world. God had done this for Noah even though he and his family were a small minority in their day. Furthermore as God judged the mockers in Noah's day, so will He judge those who persecuted Peter's readers.

"The phrase in the days of Noah' may well be based on the Gospel tradition and on Jesus' analogy between Noah's time and the time immediately preceding the end of the age (cf. Matt 24:37-39//Luke 17:26-27)."¹⁴⁹

God is so patient that he waited for 120 years before sending the Flood in Noah's day.(Gen. 6:3). Today He also waits, so patiently that some people conclude that He will never judge (cf. 2 Pet. 3:3-4). Few will escape God's coming judgment just as only eight escaped His former judgment. The rest will die.

3:21a-b The antecedent of "that" seems to be "water" (v. 20). Baptism saves Christians now as the water that floated Noah's ark saved him and drowned his unbelieving antagonists. It does not save us by cleansing us from defilement, either physically or spiritually, but by announcing publicly that the person baptized has placed his or her faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism now delivers (saves) us from the consequences of siding with the world (cf. James 1:21; 2:24; 2 Cor. 6:17-18; Col. 3:8-9; Heb. 10:22). Baptism is the evidence that a person has made a break with his or her past life and is taking a stand with the Savior. It is a pledge (translated "appeal" in the NASB) springing from a good conscience (i.e., a conscience that is now right with God; cf. v. 16).¹⁵⁰

". . . they have already experienced salvation in the same way Noah did, namely by passing through water to safety, the water of baptism (cf. the similar analogy in 1 Cor. 10:1-2)."¹⁵¹

"Corresponding to" (v. 21) is a translation of the Greek word antitypon ("antitype"). This is one of the places in the New Testament where the writer identified something as a type (cf. also Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Heb. 9:24). The flood in Noah's day is a type (i.e., a divinely intended illustration) of baptism.

Peter's point in his comments about baptism was this. In water baptism his readers had made a public profession of faith in Christ in their community. This had led to persecution. However by that act of baptism they had also testified to their ultimate victory over their persecutors. Because they had taken a stand for Jesus Christ they could be sure that He would stand with them (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12).

3:21c-22 Salvation comes, not by baptism, but by faith in Jesus Christ whose resurrection and ascension testify to God's acceptance of and satisfaction with His sacrifice (1 John 2:2).¹⁵² God has subjected all things, even the powers behind our persecutors, to Jesus Christ because of His death and resurrection (cf. v. 18).¹⁵³ "Through the resurrection" continues the thought that Peter began in verse 18 from which he digressed in verses 19-21b.

Jesus Christ's ultimate victory in spite of temporary persecution should be an encouragement to any suffering disciple of the Savior. Verse 18 describes the saving work of Jesus Christ. Verses 19 and 20 refer to His ministry of proclaiming good news to those destined for judgment, which ministry we in our day must continue faithfully as Noah did in his. Verse 21 stresses the importance of confessing Christ publicly in baptism by reminding us of what baptism does and what it does not do. Verse 22 reminds us of our ultimate vindication and destiny.

There is a difference between this reference to Jesus' sufferings and the one in 2:21-24. In the former case Peter used Jesus as an example of how to respond to suffering. In this case he showed that as a result of Jesus' sufferings we can be sure of ultimate triumph, and this gives us confidence as we suffer.

College: 1Pe 3:1-22

1 PETER 3

D. WIVES, SUBMIT TO YOUR HUSBANDS (3:1-6)

¹ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, ² when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. ³ Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. ⁴ Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. ⁵ For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The changes in modern society have given new prominence to every text of Scripture that touches on relationships between men and women. A growing percentage of our society has adopted the egalitarian view that in every aspect of life, including the church and home, there should be no differences in the roles of men and women except those that are mandated by biology (e.g., men cannot bear children). With respect to marriage, egalitarians want to eliminate every trace of the notion that husbands should have a role of authority or leadership in the home.

Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:1-6 create an obvious problem for this point of view. Although verse 7 indicates that Peter would not agree with the way many husbands misuse their role, he does clearly encourage Christian wives to be submissive to the leadership role of the husband.

Egalitarians usually adopt one of two views regarding Peter's comments. Some simply disagree with the author of 1 Peter (most of them would argue the author was not the apostle Peter). But those who believe Peter wrote this book and have a high view of inspiration recognize that it is not acceptable simply to disagree with Peter. They argue that Peter's advice to wives was appropriate for his culture and times, but does not necessarily apply to us. They argue that in this respect Peter's instructing wives to submit to husbands is analogous to his instructing slaves to submit to masters.

The most important objection to this "evangelical egalitarian" view is based on the writings of Paul. Paul's comments about the relationships of men and women in the church and home differ in a crucial respect from his comments about masters and slaves. In 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 Paul grounds his notion of male headship in the Genesis 2 account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Paul believed that when Genesis says that God created woman for the sake of man (1 Cor 11:8-9) it implies that "the head of the woman is man" (1 Cor 11:3). Peter does not comment on this "creation ordinance" view, but those of us who think Paul held it do not believe Peter would disagree.

The view that the headship role of the husband in the home is a transcultural norm of God's will does not imply that there cannot be cultural and individual differences in how this norm is put into practice. For example, in America the wearing of veils no longer has the same symbolic meanings that it had for Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Peter's comment that Sarah showed her submission to Abraham by calling him "lord" does not imply that every woman in Peter's day or even in Sarah's day would necessarily demonstrate their submission in the same fashion. There can be differences from one culture to another and from one marriage to another in how such a norm is carried out with respect to a myriad of details.

Peter's comments to wives are his third example of Christian submission (after submission to government and slaves' submission to masters). They constitute a second aspect of the common household structure (slaves and masters, wives and husbands, children and parents).

3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands

"In the same way" probably refers back to 2:13 and 18. As all Christians should submit to the governing authorities (2:13) and slaves should submit to their masters (2:18), "in the same way" wives should submit to their husbands. Michaels suggests that "in the same way" is perhaps too strong, since it suggests that Peter sees no differences in the manner in which citizens, slaves, and wives submit in their various spheres. He suggests "'likewise' in the sense of 'also' or 'too.'"

As in 2:18, the NIV's "be submissive" follows the common view that the participle used here ("being submissive") should be translated as an imperative.

Peter does not encourage wives in general to be submissive to husbands in general. He encourages each wife to submit to her own husband.

so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

Peter's focus from the beginning of this section has been on making an impact on non-Christians: "Live such good lives among the pagans that . . . they may see your good deeds and glorify God" (2:12). Wives married to non-Christian husbands exemplify this concern.

Any wife who denied her husband's gods was apparently already violating social norms. Plutarch (a pagan writer who lived c. A.D. 50 to 120) is well known for his comment that "it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions."

Of course for Peter a wife's submission does not involve denial of Jesus Christ. But by demonstrating their submission in other areas wives may hope even to convert their non-Christian husbands.

The first use of "word" here clearly refers to the Christian gospel. The second use of "word" may involve a word play on the first. It is not used in the plural as the NIV suggests and may have a sort of double sense: "without verbal reference (a word) to the gospel (the word)."

3:2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

The husbands who will not listen to the gospel may yet be won over by the behavior of their wives. That behavior should be characterized by purity and reverence. The phrase translated "reverence" is literally "in fear." It is the same as the phrase translated "in reverent fear" in 1:17. Peter is not speaking of fear of the husband (cf. 1 Pet 3:6), but of fear of God. On the importance of this concept in 1 Peter see the comments on 1:17. Peter's observation that a Christian woman's behavior may sometimes win her husband to Christ has been proven true repeatedly throughout the centuries.

3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

Peter's criticism of emphasizing outward adornment is similar to Isaiah 3:16-24 and especially 1 Timothy 2:9-10. Similar views may also be found in a variety of Greco-Roman authors who argue "that the proper attire for the woman is modesty rather than expensive garments, fancy coiffures, and jewelry."

It is often and correctly stated that many contemporary Christian women (and men) do not listen to Peter or Paul on this point. Of course we should. But it is important not to misunderstand them. It is doubtful that Isaiah, Peter, or Paul meant strictly to forbid every adornment they mention. In fact in Peter's case the last item on his list is literally "clothes," not "fine clothes." Just as the context implies he means "fine" clothes, so it should be understood that he means "ostentatious" braiding and gold.

3:4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

The adornment of the Christian wife should be the inner self, literally "the secret person of the heart." That is where true and lasting beauty can be seen. The beauty Christian wives should have is the beauty of a gentle (or meek) and quiet spirit. In this context this spirit is a part of the concept of submission, as is seen by the explanation in verse 5 that the holy women of the past made themselves beautiful by being submissive to their husbands. Despite its lack of popularity in modern society, Peter says such a submissive, gentle, quiet spirit is very precious to God.

3:5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,

The NRSV is preferable in showing the relationship between the parts of this verse: "the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands." Throughout these verses Peter's emphasis is on the idea of submission. He encourages the Christian wives of Asia Minor to consider the example of faithful women from the Old Testament past. Verse 6 uses the specific example of Sarah, wife of Abraham.

3:6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.

Sarah, matriarch of the Jews, was held in high regard (cf. Heb 11:11). Peter uses her obedience to Abraham, exemplified by the way she addressed him, as an illustration of how the holy women of the past adorned themselves by submitting to their husbands. He has reference to Genesis 18:12: "So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, 'After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?'" There is little evidence to suggest that addressing a husband as "lord" or "master" was common in the time of Sarah or Peter. Peter is not prescribing a particular practice, but simply providing an illustration of Sarah's submissiveness.

You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The daughters of Sarah are those who follow her example in submitting to their husbands as she did to Abraham. They remain her daughters as long as they continue to "do what is right," a concept often repeated by Peter (cf. 2:15,20; 3:10-12,13-14,17; 4:18-19). Those who do what is right have to refuse to listen to their fears of other people (cf. 3:14), including non-Christian husbands' attempts to intimidate them.

E. HUSBANDS, BE CONSIDERATE (3:7)

⁷ Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Peter's emphasis in the section beginning with 2:11 is on the submissive half of the three relationships: everyone as submissive to governing authorities, slaves as submissive to masters, and wives as submissive to husbands. With respect to household relationships, he gives no advice to masters (that there were Christian masters is clear from the writings of Paul) and only brief advice to husbands.

3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives,

As in 1:13, 2:18, and 3:1 the imperative verb (in this case "be considerate") is actually a participle, but may be translated as an imperative.

The NIV "be considerate as you live with [your wives]" translates a prepositional phrase and a verb that could be literally translated "live with [your wives] according to knowledge." "According to knowledge" may simply mean "considerately," but in the context of 1 Peter it might have a fuller connotation, such as "according to a knowledge of what God requires."

and treat them with respect as the weaker partner

Christian husbands should not take wrongful advantage of their wives being "the weaker partner," but rather should show them honor.

"Weaker partner" translates a difficult phrase. "Partner" translates the word skeu'o" ( skeuos ) used literally to mean "thing, object used for any purpose at all" or more particularly "vessel, jar, dish, etc." In the New Testament it is used figuratively for Paul as a chosen instrument of God (Acts 9:15) and for the human body (2 Cor 4:7; 1 Thess 4:4). A literal translation would be "weaker vessel" (NRSV footnote; see also most older versions). Less literal translations striving to express the metaphorical meaning include the NIV's "weaker partner," the NRSV's "weaker sex," and Michaels's "somebody weaker."

More significant is the meaning of "weaker." What did Peter mean by this description? Various authors from roughly his time period can be cited to show that many believed women were weaker than men not only physically, but also intellectually and morally. But in connection with his discussion of how Christian wives can convert their non-Christian husbands, Peter is unlikely to have intended to call wives weaker intellectually or morally. Most recent interpreters believe he had in mind the fact that women are generally physically weaker than men and perhaps the concomitant fact that they are therefore more vulnerable to mistreatment.

and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life,

Christian husbands are to live considerately with and show honor to their wives not only in light of their weakness, but in light of the fact that they share equally in the grace of God. Peter believed in the now often denied notion that husbands and wives were equal with respect to their relationship with God, but at the same time had different and complementary roles in the home. He would agree with Paul both that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:22; cf. 1 Pet 3:1-6) and that "there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28, NRSV; cf. 1 Pet 3:7). Although spiritual equality does not negate all social differences, it does have social implications. Husbands who recognize their wives as equal partners in the grace of God must not misuse their headship of the home, but must be considerate of their wives and show them honor.

so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

There is quite a difference of opinion as to whether "your" refers only to hindering the prayers of the men directly addressed in verse 7 or also to their wives. I am inclined to agree with Achtemeier once again. He argues effectively that "The notion that God would ignore the prayers of women who are not treated in a Christian way would be to punish the weak who are abused, an idea hardly in accord with Christian tradition about the relation of God to the downtrodden." The idea that one's relationship to God may be hindered by one's relationship to others is a repeated theme of Scripture (cf. Matt 5:23-24; 6:12,14; Mark 11:25). Compare also 1 Peter 4:7: "be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray."

F. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL (3:8-12)

⁸ Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. ⁹ Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. ¹⁰ For,

"Whoever would love life

and see good days

must keep his tongue from evil

and his lips from deceitful speech.

¹¹ He must turn from evil and do good;

he must seek peace and pursue it.

¹² For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous

and his ears are attentive to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." ^a

^a 12 Psalm 34:12-16

This is the concluding (note the word "finally") subsection of the major section that began with 2:11-12. Having addressed slaves, wives, and husbands, Peter now addresses "all."

3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

Peter has already encouraged the Christians of Asia Minor to love each other and get rid of malice, envy, and other attitudes that might undermine their relationships (1:22-2:1). In a situation in which they face a constant struggle with outsiders, it is especially important for them to band together in love and compassion for each other.

The qualities encouraged in this verse are common features of New Testament teaching. Furthermore, although Peter does not repeat his theme verb for this section, "be submissive" (2:13,18; 3:1,5), these qualities all involve a submissive attitude.

3:9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing,

The qualities urged in verse 8 seem to focus primarily on Christians' relationships with each other. Verse 9 can apply to how a Christian deals with other Christians, but Peter probably means to include how one deals with outsiders. Certainly that is the case in the teachings of Jesus that this advice echoes (Matt 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-28). Peter here also echoes language he has just used to describe Jesus' behavior: "When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate" (2:23). This is difficult advice in the circumstances Peter addresses. He has already pointed to Jesus as the ultimate example of such behavior.

because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

There is some question whether "this" refers backward to the exhortation to repay evil with blessing, or forward to "that you may inherit a blessing." The second alternative is represented by the NRSV: "It is for this that you were called - that you might inherit a blessing." The context of verses 10-12 suggests that it points backwards. Of course Peter does not mean that by repaying evil with blessing one earns this inheritance. But he does indicate what behavior those who have been blessed by God are called upon to exhibit toward others, and he implies that one may lose the inheritance by stubbornly refusing to do right.

3:10 For, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. 3:11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

Peter supports verse 9 with a citation of the Septuagint version of Psalm 34:12-16. This section of Scripture is appropriate for Peter's use in several ways. Psalm 34 as a whole is appropriate because it encourages the persecuted righteous, reminding them that "the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles" (v. 17). The references to doing good and being righteous resonate with a repeated theme in 1 Peter (see the comments at 2:14). The exhortations to control the tongue fit the immediate context and Peter's exhortation not to repay insult with insult. The opening statement concerning "Whoever would love life and see good days," while originally referring to the present life, can in the context of verse 9 emphasize the future life and good days to be inherited by those who repay evil with blessing. The final remarks that God listens to the prayers of the righteous, but is set against those who do evil, resonates with Peter's remarks about behavior and its influence on prayer in 3:7 and 4:7.

This citation brings the section 2:11-3:12 to an appropriate end.

IV. ENCOURAGEMENT TO THOSE WHO SUFFER FOR DOING GOOD (3:13-4:11)

A. DO NOT BE FRIGHTENED (3:13-17)

¹³ Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear ^a ; do not be frightened." ^{b 15} But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷ It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

^a 14 Or not fear their threats ^b 14 Isaiah 8:12

This paragraph and 4:12-19 are similar in their sustained focus on the persecution Peter's readers were enduring for following Christ and doing good. Both sections exhort the readers to set their course firmly on doing good and to be prepared to suffer. They are key paragraphs in the letter.

3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?

This is a rhetorical question with the implied answer, "no one." But how can Peter say "No one is going to harm you for doing good"? He is writing precisely because someone is harming Christians for doing good. He will later say that suffering for doing good is not to be considered strange or unusual (4:12) and that it is the experience of Christians throughout the world (5:9).

Some respond that in 3:13 Peter is speaking proverbially. According to this view, Peter intends to say that it is generally true that people will not harm others for doing good - but of course he is aware of exceptions.

I am inclined to another view which holds that Peter is drawing a conclusion from the citation of Psalm 34 in verses 10-12: the Lord sees and rewards the righteous and thus no ultimate harm can come to them. This is mildly supported by the conjunction kaiv ( kai ) at the beginning of this verse. It is left untranslated by the NIV, but may be translated "then" or "and so." This would indicate that verse 13 is a conclusion drawn from verses 10-12. Peter's point would be that no one can separate the Christian from God or take away his or her inheritance.

3:14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed.

The statement "if you should suffer" does not call into question whether some of Peter's addressees are suffering, which is assumed throughout the book. However, the suffering envisioned by Peter is sporadic and affects different individuals in different ways and at different times. He has just said that no one can ultimately harm them for doing right. In harmony with that he now adds that in fact when they do suffer for doing right, they should consider themselves blessed. 1 Peter 4:14 makes the similar statement, "If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed." Both echo and perhaps consciously allude to statements in the Beatitudes: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness. . . . Blessed are you when people insult you . . . because of me" (Matt 5:10-11).

"Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened."

These clauses are adapted from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 8:12. In the first clause Peter says literally "Do not fear their fear." His unusual phraseology reflects the influence of the Isaiah passage. What he intended is probably best represented by the NIV footnote: "Do not fear their threats" (that is, "their fear" means "the fear they try to produce in you"). Peter exhorts his audience not to fear people (cf. 3:6 "do what is right and do not give way to fear"). The One whom they should fear is God (see the comments at 1:17).

3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.

At the end of verse 14 Peter cited Isaiah 8:12. The very next statement in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 8:13 says - in contrast to fearing men (v. 12) - to sanctify the Lord and fear him. Peter adapts this statement to his context, calling upon his readers to sanctify (aJgiavzw, hagiazô, "set apart") Christ as Lord. They must not be deterred by fear of those who cause them to suffer for doing right. The one to be revered is Christ.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

In the Greek text this sentence is not a sentence, but a clause that is dependent on the exhortation to sanctify Christ as Lord. The way in which they should do that is by always being prepared to stand firm for him. They must be ready to give a defense of their actions and beliefs as followers of Christ.

It is possible that the language here suggests formal legal proceedings. This possibility is more easily seen in the NRSV rendering "make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting." But the language can be used, as the NIV suggests, in settings that have nothing to do with legal proceedings (e.g., 1 Cor 9:3). In either case the Christian should sanctify Christ as Lord by being ready to defend their hope in him. Peter uses the word "hope" in a way that is nearly synonymous with "faith" (cf. 1:3,13,21).

Although studying Christian apologetics is a good thing, Peter is not using "be prepared to give an answer" in the sense of "study so that you will know how to defend your beliefs." A better translation might be "be ready to give an answer." Peter uses the same word that appears in 1:5, where he speaks of a salvation "ready" to be revealed.

But do this with gentleness and respect,

Are these qualities mentioned in relationship to those who call Christians to account or in relationship to God? The word translated "respect" is the same word ( phobos ) used in verse 14 and elsewhere for "fear." It is clear in verse 14 that Christians are not to fear men. The NRSV translation "reverence" is preferable. The second word, then, seems to refer to our attitude toward God. The word prau?th" (praütçs) translated "gentleness" may do the same. In some passages (e.g., Jas 3:13) the NIV translates it as "humility." However, responding to others with humility and reverence toward God would result in gentleness toward the questioner - in refusing to repay insult for insult (cf. 3:9).

3:16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

The clause "keeping a clear conscience" gives further credence to the idea that the previous qualifications, humility and reverence, refer primarily to one's characteristics before God. There are several ways in which Christians might respond to their opponents and in so doing compromise their conscience. The immediate context suggests that they might return insult for insult (cf. 3:9) or allow themselves to be intimidated into compromising their faith (cf. 3:6,14).

If Christians stand firmly for their beliefs and respond to their opponents with humility and reverence, maintaining a good conscience, some of their opponents will recognize this and be ashamed of slandering them. This hope repeats a theme found also in 2:12 (cf. 3:1-2).

3:17 It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

This verse echoes 2:19-20 (cf. 4:15-16) where Peter tells slaves that there is no merit to bearing up well under a deserved beating. What is commendable before God is suffering for doing good. The idea that such unjust suffering could be God's will is repeated in 4:19. There is a sense, of course, in which such suffering is not what God wants, but rather the will of evil men and of their master, Satan. However, as the book of Job and other sections of Scripture indicate, God ultimately controls men and Satan. Everything he allows to happen is in some sense his will. First Peter contains several suggestions as to why God might permit unjust suffering in the lives of Christians. It proves the genuineness of their faith and purifies it like fire purifies gold (1:7). And it provides an opportunity for leading nonbelievers to faith (2:12; 3:1-2; 4:16).

B. CHRIST ALSO SUFFERED - AND WAS EXALTED (3:18-22)

¹⁸ For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ¹⁹ through whom ^a also he went and preached to the spirits in prison ²⁰ who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge ^b of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

^a 18,19 Or alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ through which ^b 21 Or response

This paragraph encourages us to be willing to endure unjust suffering for doing good by pointing to the example of Jesus who endured unjust suffering on our behalf. We are reminded not only that he suffered for us, but that he triumphed over death, proclaimed victory over his enemies, and was exalted to the right hand of God. We are also reminded of the commitment we made to him in baptism. Although several aspects of these verses are difficult and subject to diverse interpretations, these main thrusts of the paragraph are clear.

3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

There is a complicated textual variant involving the words "died for sins." The preferable choice is probably the one represented by the NRSV text: "Christ also suffered for sins."

To a limited extent the use of the word "also" may point to Peter's use of the idea of imitating Christ's example: Christians should be willing to suffer for doing good (3:17) in imitation of Christ who "also" suffered even thought he was righteous. However, in pointing out the atoning value of Christ's suffering and saying that he suffered "once for all" Peter emphasizes unique aspects of Christ's suffering. The motivation provided here is less like that in 2:21-23 (that Christ left us an example to follow in his steps) and more like that in 2:24 (that he bore our sins so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness). Christ, the righteous one, made a once for all atonement for us, who were once unrighteous, for the purpose of bringing us to God.

He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

The interpretation and therefore translation of this part of the verse is a matter of ongoing debate. The NIV translation of the last phrase, "by the Spirit," is probably incorrect. It overrides the parallelism in the Greek text between the two halves of an "on the one hand (mevn, men ). . . on the other (dev, de )" construction (the NIV does not translate the two conjunctions). The first half says "on the one hand he was put to death in the body." In this case nearly all interpreters agree that "in the body" means something like "in the sphere of the body." This makes it likely that the second clause should be understood in a parallel sense, "on the other hand he was made alive in the sphere of the spirit." The NRSV translation is probably correct: "He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."

There is no reason to believe that "made alive in the spirit" refers to an intermediate state between Jesus' death and resurrection. "Put to death in the flesh" unquestionably refers to Jesus' death on the cross. "Made alive in the spirit" most naturally refers to his resurrection in which he rises to life in a new plane. Compare Paul's statement concerning the resurrection of Christians: "he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life (the same verb translated 'made alive' in 1 Peter 3:18) to your mortal bodies" (Rom 8:11).

3:19 through whom also

If the NIV translation of verse 18 "by the Spirit" is incorrect, then "through whom" is also incorrect. The NRSV is probably correct in translating "in which," that is, in the sphere of the spirit. Whatever verse 19 refers to is done after Jesus' resurrection, his being made alive in the sphere of the spirit.

he went and preached to the spirits in prison 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

The words of Luther concerning this text have been cited many times: "This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means." I do not know for sure what the apostle means either, but I will give my opinion.

There are three major interpretations (and numerous variations which will not be described here).

One view holds that Jesus went to Hades and preached to the spirits of those who had been disobedient in the days of Noah. Most of those who hold this view believe that Jesus did this while his body was in the tomb. There is extensive debate about whether he offered them any opportunity for salvation.

The interpretation I have defended for the last part of verse 18 and the first few words of verse 19 suggests that Jesus' going and preaching happened after the resurrection, not during the three days in the tomb. Furthermore, Peter says that Jesus preached "to the spirits who disobeyed," not "to the spirits of the men who disobeyed." According to this first view, when they disobeyed they were not spirits, but men. One might expect Peter to use a construction parallel to Hebrews 12:23, in which the writer speaks of the spirits of those who had died as "the spirits of righteous men."

A second view holds that by means of the Spirit Jesus preached through Noah (that is, he inspired Noah to preach) to Noah's contemporaries. These men were disobedient and thus their spirits (or souls) were imprisoned after their deaths. But according to this view Jesus is said to have preached to them through Noah while they were alive.

The arguments I have used against the first view also apply to the second. Furthermore, for this view one must add not only "to the spirits of the men who disobeyed," but "to the spirits now in prison." According to this second view these spirits were neither disembodied nor in prison when Jesus preached to them through Noah.

This brings us to the third view, which is that after his resurrection Jesus preached to certain supernatural beings who had been disobedient during the times of Noah. The New Testament frequently uses the word "spirits" to refer to supernatural beings (e.g., Heb 1:14: Rev 1:4), usually evil ones (e.g., Matt 8:16; 12:45). Those who hold this view usually argue specifically that he proclaimed victory over the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1-4. This story immediately precedes the story of Noah and is easily associated with it.

This is, of course, to explain one obscure passage by another. The identity of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is itself a matter for debate. What is not debatable is that the "fallen angels" view is a plausible interpretation of Genesis 6 and that many Jews of Peter's day and before knew about this view. Furthermore, a good case can be made that Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 reflect this view of Genesis 6. Both New Testament texts refer to these fallen angels as kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness until the judgment. This resonates with 1 Peter's description of them as "in prison."

Several clearly pre-Christian (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) portions of the apocryphal Jewish document 1 Enoch are especially important for this view. 1 Enoch specifically describes the fallen angels as "spirits" (e.g., 15:4,6,8) and discusses their imprisonment in some detail. It is not, of course, necessary to believe Peter reflects the influence of 1 Enoch itself (although Jude 14-15 indicates Jude was aware of it). But 1 Enoch makes it clear that at least some Jews would use language similar to Peter's to speak about the fallen angels.

If the fallen angels view is correct, what did Jesus "preach" to these spirits? The word Peter uses (khruvssw, kçryssô) is usually used of preaching the gospel, but not necessarily so. In Revelation 5:2 it is used simply to mean "proclaim" and in the Septuagint it is sometimes used of bringing bad news (e.g., Jonah 1:2). The context of 1 Peter suggests a proclamation of victory over these evil spirits: this would certainly be more encouraging to the readers and fits with the declaration in verse 22 that all spiritual powers have been made subject to Christ.

To summarize the view presented here I quote France's paraphrase of this section of 1 Peter with his parenthetical insertions identifying the possible relevance of these points for Peter's audience:

He was put to death (as you may well be), but that was only in the earthly sphere: he has been raised to new spiritual life (as you will be too, if you die for him). (So death was, for Jesus, the way of achievement and victory; do not fear those who can only kill the body.) In the triumph of his resurrection he went to the fallen angels awaiting judgment in their place of confinement, and proclaimed to them the victory won by his redeeming death. (Even the most wicked of spiritual powers have had to recognize the authority of the risen Jesus; whatever the forces against you, they are not his equal). These were those spirits who rebelled against God in the days of Noah . . .

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

As France observes, "the Flood, once mentioned, becomes the basis for more teaching relevant to the encouragement of persecuted Christians. Two facts are isolated from the story: (1) that few were saved; (2) that they were saved 'through water'." Peter points out that only a few were saved (Noah, his three sons, and their wives) in order to encourage the Christians of Asia Minor, who were an extreme minority in their culture.

The sense of "through water" is uncertain. The analogy of Christian baptism in verse 21 suggests "through" in the sense of "by means of." But since water was the means of destruction in the flood it seems odd to refer to Noah and his family as being saved "by means of water" (as opposed to "by means of the ark"). It may be preferable to view "through" in a local sense: Noah was saved by passing through the waters of the flood into a renewed world. The analogy with Christian baptism would then be that Christians pass through the waters of baptism into a renewed life.

3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

The grammar of this clause is notoriously difficult, although the ultimate meanings of most of the proposed solutions are similar. Peter draws an analogy between Noah and his family being saved through water and Christians being saved through the water of baptism.

France observes that some are concerned that Peter's affirmation "baptism saves you" might be taken to imply a magical view of how baptism works. His response is correct and worth citing:

Two points may be made in this connection. Firstly, such 'realist' language concerning the effect of baptism is by no means unparalleled in the New Testament; any view of baptism which finds it a rather embarrassing ceremonial extra, irrelevant to Christian salvation, is not doing justice to New Testament teaching. But, secondly, Peter is very careful to qualify his statement immediately by pointing out the true nature of baptism, involving two aspects, one negative and one positive, which between them effectively allay fears of a 'magical' view . . .

The two aspects France has in mind occupy the remainder of verse 21.

- not the removal of dirt from the body

Peter's first clarifying remark indicates something he does not intend within the scope of "baptism saves you." Peter is presumably not addressing an ancient misconception of baptism: it is unlikely anyone would have thought of Christian baptism as dealing with washing dirt off of the body. Rather, in conjunction with the next remark, Peter's point is that the outward act of baptism does not bring salvation in and of itself; it must be combined with the right inward attitude. Baptism does not operate in a magical fashion.

but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.

This is another difficult clause. The NRSV provides the main alternative: "but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." The main questions are whether the first of the two key words (ejperwvthma, eperôtçma) should be translated "pledge" or "appeal" and how the word "conscience" relates to "pledge" or "appeal." Grammatically "a good conscience" may be the object or the subject of the verbal idea contained in either "pledge" or "appeal." France and Achtemeier provide detailed discussions of the complex issues involved. I am mildly inclined to agree with them that Peter intends to say baptism involves pledging a good conscience to God; that is, in baptism one makes a pledge to God to maintain a good conscience, to live a life of service to God. This understanding fits well with the overall thrust of the letter.

It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The power behind baptism is the power of Jesus' resurrection, symbolized in our lives as we rise from the water. Compare the similar statement in 1:3 where Peter says God "has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand

The reference to the resurrection brings Peter back to the subject matter of verses 18-19: the exaltation of Christ. Having been resurrected from the dead, he has proclaimed victory over his enemies and has ascended into heaven to the right hand of God. The reference to Christ being at God's right hand alludes to Psalm 110:1. The image of sitting at the right hand of a king implies honor, authority, and power.

- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

The three terms used here do not in themselves refer to good or bad spiritual powers. If the spirits of verse 19 are fallen angels, then the context may indicate evil powers. "In submission" is a passive participle, which may also be translated "made subject," perhaps indicating that the angels, authorities and powers envisioned here had to be brought into submission. Peter thus reminds his readers that Christ has conquered every enemy.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER

ABOUT a.d. 65

By Way of Introduction

The Author

The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Pe_1:1), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter’s name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. " There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius ( H.E . iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Rom_16:22). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Pe_5:12), the obvious meaning of the language ( dia , through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter’s life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the Student’s Chronological New Testament I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Act_12:3.) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Act_15:6-14; Gal_2:1-10). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Gal_2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Gal_2:9) with his wife (1Co_9:5), and went to Asia Minor (1Pe_1:1) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Pe_5:13), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter’s " interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Act_4:13), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter’s preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in a.d. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in a.d. 64.

The Date

This question is tied up with that of the genuineness of the Epistle, the time of Peter’s death, the use of Paul’s Epistles, the persecution referred to in the Epistle. Assuming the genuineness of the Epistle and the death of Peter about a.d. 67 or 68 and the persecution to be not that under Domitian or Trajan, but under Nero, the date can be assumed to be about a.d. 65.

The Use of Paul’s Epistles

There are two extremes about the relation of Peter to Paul. One is that of violent antithesis, with Peter and Paul opposing one another by exaggerating and prolonging Paul’s denunciation of Peter’s cowardice in Antioch (Gal_2:11-21) and making Peter also the exponent of a Jewish type of Christianity (practically a Judaizing type). This view of Baur once had quite a following, but it has nearly disappeared. Under its influence Acts and Peter’s Epistles were considered not genuine, but documents designed to patch up the disagreement between Peter and Paul. The other extreme is to deny any Pauline influence on Peter or of Peter on Paul. Paul was friendly to Peter (Gal_1:18), but was independent of his ecclesiastical authority (Gal_2:1-10) and Peter championed Paul’s cause in the Jerusalem Conference (Act_15:7-13). Peter was certainly not a Judaizer (Acts 11:1-18), in spite of his temporary defection in Antioch. Undoubtedly Peter was won back to cordial relations with Paul if any confidence can be placed in 2Pe_3:15. There is no reason for doubting that Peter was familiar with some of Paul’s Epistles as there indicated. There is some indication of Peter’s use of Romans and Ephesians in this Epistle. It is not always conclusive to find the same words and even ideas which are not formally quoted, because there was a Christian vocabulary and a body of doctrinal ideas in common though with personal variations in expression. Peter may have read James, but not the Pastoral Epistles. There are points of contact with Hebrews which Von Soden considers sufficiently accounted for by the fact that Peter and the author of Hebrews were contemporaries.

The Persecution Pictured in the Epistle

Peter himself knew what persecution was at the hands of the Sanhedrin and of Herod Agrippa I (both church and state). If First Peter was written a.d. 65, there was time enough for the persecution of Nero in Rome in a.d. 64 to spread to Asia Minor. The province easily imitated the capital city. Paul’s life in the Acts and his Epistles abundantly show how early persecution arose in Asia Minor. The Apocalypse, written during the reign of Domitian, shows that persecution from the state had been on hand long before and was an old burden. We know too little of the history of Christianity in Asia Minor from a.d. 60 to 70 to deny that the fiery trials and suffering as a Christian (1Pe_4:16) can be true of this period. So we locate the persecution at this time as an echo from Rome.

The Place of Writing

Peter states that he is in Babylon (1Pe_5:13), apparently with his wife (1Co_9:5). It is not certain whether he means actual Babylon, where Jews had been numerous, or mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. We do not know when Rome began to be called Babylon. It may have started as a result of Nero’s persecution of the Christians after the burning of Rome. The Christians were called " evil-doers" (1Pe_2:12) in the time of Nero (Tacitus, Ann . XV. 44). So we can think of Rome as the place of writing and that Peter uses " Babylon" to hide his actual location from Nero. Whether Peter came to Rome while Paul was still there we do not know, though John Mark was there with Paul (Col_4:10). " At the time when it was written Babylon had not yet unmasked all its terrors, and the ordinary Christian was not in immediate danger of the tunica ardens , or the red-hot iron chair, or the wild beasts, or the stake" (Bigg).

The Readers

Peter writes " to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Pe_1:1). These five Roman provinces are naturally given from the standpoint of Babylon. In Galatia and Asia Paul had labored, though not all over these provinces. At any rate, there is no reason to wonder that Peter should himself work in the same regions where Paul had been. In a general way Paul and Peter had agreed on separate spheres of activity, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Gal_2:7.), though the distinction was not absolute, for Paul usually began his work in the Jewish synagogue. Probably the readers are mainly Jewish Christians. but not to the exclusion of Gentiles. Peter has clearly Paul’s idea that Christianity is the true Judaism of God’s promise (1Pe_2:4-10).

The Purpose

Evidently Peter’s object is to cheer and strengthen the Christians in these five provinces who are undergoing fiery trials (1Pe_1:7.). There is every reason why Peter, as the leading apostle to the circumcision, should write to these believers in the provinces, especially since Paul’s long imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome had removed him from his accustomed activities and travel.

The Style and Vocabulary

Like Peter’s discourses in the Acts, the Epistle is mainly hortatory, with a minimum of argument and little of the closely knit reasoning seen in Romans. There is frequent use of the lxx and the Greek is decent Koiné with little of the uncouth Aramaic of the Galilean (Mat_26:73), or of the vernacular Koiné as seen in the papyri or in 2 Peter (Act_4:13). This fact may be accounted for by the help of Silvanus as amanuensis. There are sixty-two words in the Greek of the Epistle not occurring elsewhere in the N.T. There is verbal iteration as in 2 Peter. " One idea haunts the whole Epistle; to the author, as to the patriarch Jacob, life is a pilgrimage; it is essentially an old man’s view" (Bigg). But it is an old man who has lived long with Christ. Peter has learned the lesson of humility and patience from Jesus his Lord.

JFB: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

ITS GENUINENESS is attested by 2Pe 3:1. On the authority of Second Peter, see the Introduction. Also by POLYCARP (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 4.14]), who, in writing to the Philippians, quotes many passages: in the second chapter he quotes 1Pe 1:13, 1Pe 1:21; 1Pe 3:9; in the fifth chapter, 1Pe 2:11. EUSEBIUS says of PAPIAS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39] that he, too, quotes Peter's First Epistle. IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 4.9.2] expressly mentions it; and in [4.16.5], 1Pe 2:16. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 1.3, p. 544], quotes 1Pe 2:11-12, 1Pe 2:15-16; and [p. 562], 1Pe 1:21-22; and [4, p. 584], 1Pe 3:14-17; and [p. 585], 1Pe 4:12-14. ORIGEN (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) mentions this Epistle; in [Homily 7, on Joshua, vol. 2, p. 63], he mentions both Epistles; and [Commentary on Psalm 3 and on John], he mentions 1Pe 3:18-21. TERTULLIAN [Antidote to the Scorpion's Sting, 12], quotes expressly 1Pe 2:20-21; and [Antidote to the Scorpion's Sting, 14], 1Pe 2:13, 1Pe 2:17. EUSEBIUS states it as the opinion of those before him that this was among the universally acknowledged Epistles. The Peschito Syriac Version contains it. The fragment of the canon called MURATORI'S omits it. Excepting this, and the Paulician heretics, who rejected it, all ancient testimony is on its side. The internal evidence is equally strong. The author calls himself the apostle Peter, 1Pe 1:1, and "a witness of Christ's sufferings," and an "elder," 1Pe 5:1. The energy of the style harmonizes with the warmth of Peter's character; and, as ERASMUS says, this Epistle is full of apostolic dignity and authority and is worthy of the leader among the apostles.

PETER'S PERSONAL HISTORY.--Simon, Or Simeon, was a native of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, son of Jonas or John. With his father and his brother Andrew he carried on trade as a fisherman at Capernaum, his subsequent place of abode. He was a married man, and tradition represents his wife's name as Concordia or Perpetua. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA says that she suffered martyrdom, her husband encouraging her to be faithful unto death, "Remember, dear, our Lord." His wife's mother was restored from a fever by Christ. He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, who had been a disciple of John the Baptist, but was pointed to the Saviour as "the Lamb of God" by his master (Joh 1:29). Jesus, on first beholding him, gave him the name by which chiefly he is known, indicative of his subsequent character and work in the Church, "Peter" (Greek) or "Cephas" (Aramaic), a stone (Mat 4:18). He did not join our Lord finally until a subsequent period. The leading incidents in his apostolic life are well known: his walking on the troubled waters to meet Jesus, but sinking through doubting (Mat 14:30); his bold and clear acknowledgment of the divine person and office of Jesus (Mat 16:16; Mar 8:29; Joh 11:27), notwithstanding the difficulties in the way of such belief, whence he was then also designated as the stone, or rock (Mat 16:18); but his rebuke of his Lord when announcing what was so unpalatable to carnal prejudices, Christ's coming passion and death (Mat 16:22); his passing from one extreme to the opposite, in reference to Christ's offer to wash his feet (Joh 13:8-9); his self-confident assertion that he would never forsake his Lord, whatever others might do (Mat 26:33), followed by his base denial of Christ thrice with curses (Mat 26:75); his deep penitence; Christ's full forgiveness and prophecy of his faithfulness unto death, after he had received from him a profession of "love" as often repeated as his previous denial (Joh 21:15-17). These incidents illustrate his character as zealous, pious, and ardently attached to the Lord, but at the same time impulsive in feeling, rather than calmly and continuously steadfast. Prompt in action and ready to avow his convictions boldly, he was hasty in judgment, precipitate, and too self-confident in the assertion of his own steadfastness; the result was that, though he abounded in animal courage, his moral courage was too easily overcome by fear of man's opinion. A wonderful change was wrought in him by his restoration after his fall, through the grace of his risen Lord. His zeal and ardor became sanctified, being chastened by a spirit of unaffected humility. His love to the Lord was, if possible, increased, while his mode of manifesting it now was in doing and suffering for His name, rather than in loud protestations. Thus, when imprisoned and tried before the Sanhedrim for preaching Christ, he boldly avowed his determination to continue to do so. He is well called "the mouth of the apostles." His faithfulness led to his apprehension by Herod Agrippa, with a view to his execution, from which, however, he was delivered by the angel of the Lord.

After the ascension he took the lead in the Church; and on the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he exercised the designed power of "the keys" of Christ's kingdom, by opening the door of the Church, in preaching, for the admission of thousands of Israelites; and still more so in opening (in obedience to a special revelation) an entrance to the "devout" (that is, Jewish proselyte from heathendom) Gentile, Cornelius: the forerunner of the harvest gathered in from idolatrous Gentiles at Antioch. This explains in what sense Christ used as to him the words, "Upon this rock I will build my Church" (Mat 16:18), namely, on the preaching of Christ, the true "Rock," by connection with whom only he was given the designation: a title shared in common on the same grounds by the rest of the apostles, as the first founders of the Church on Christ, "the chief corner-stone" (Eph 2:20). A name is often given in Hebrew, not that the person is actually the thing itself, but has some special relation to it; as Elijah means Mighty Jehovah, so Simon is called Peter "the rock," not that he is so, save by connection with Jesus, the only true Rock (Isa 28:16; 1Co 3:11). As subsequently he identified himself with "Satan," and is therefore called so (Mat 16:23), in the same way, by his clear confession of Christ, the Rock, he became identified with Him, and is accordingly so called (Mat 16:18). It is certain that there is no instance on record of Peter's having ever claimed or exercised supremacy; on the contrary, he is represented as sent by the apostles at Jerusalem to confirm the Samaritans baptized by Philip the deacon; again at the council of Jerusalem, not he, but James the president, or leading bishop in the Church of that city, pronounced the authoritative decision: Act 15:19, "My sentence is," &c. A kind of primacy, doubtless (though certainly not supremacy), was given him on the ground of his age, and prominent earnestness, and boldness in taking the lead on many important occasions. Hence he is called "first" in enumerating the apostles. Hence, too, arise the phrases, "Peter and the Eleven," "Peter and the rest of the apostles"; and Paul, in going up to Jerusalem after his conversion, went to see Peter in particular.

Once only he again betrayed the same spirit of vacillation through fear of man's reproach which had caused his denial of his Lord. Though at the Jerusalem council he advocated the exemption of Gentile converts from the ceremonial observances of the law, yet he, after having associated in closest intercourse with the Gentiles at Antioch, withdrew from them, through dread of the prejudices of his Jewish brethren who came from James, and timidly dissembled his conviction of the religious equality of Jew and Gentile; for this Paul openly withstood and rebuked him: a plain refutation of his alleged supremacy and infallibility (except where specially inspired, as in writing his Epistles). In all other cases he showed himself to be, indeed, as Paul calls him, "a pillar" (Gal 2:9). Subsequently we find him in "Babylon," whence he wrote this First Epistle to the Israelite believers of the dispersion, and the Gentile Christians united in Christ, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 1] states that "Peter, after having been bishop of Antioch, and after having preached to the believers of the circumcision in Pontus, &c. [plainly inferred from 1Pe 1:1], in the second year of Claudius went to Rome to refute Simon Magus, and for twenty-five years there held the episcopal chair, down to the last year of Nero, that is, the fourteenth, by whom he was crucified with his head downwards, declaring himself unworthy to be crucified as his Lord, and was buried in the Vatican, near the triumphal way." EUSEBIUS [Chronicles, Anno 3], also asserts his episcopate at Antioch; his assertion that Peter founded that Church contradicts Act 11:19-22. His journey to Rome to oppose Simon Magus arose from JUSTIN'S story of the statue found at Rome (really the statue of the Sabine god, Semo Sanctus, or Hercules, mistaken as if Simon Magus were worshipped by that name, "Simoni Deo Sancto"; found in the Tiber in 1574, or on an island in the Tiber in 1662), combined with the account in Acts 8:9-24. The twenty-five years' bishopric is chronologically impossible, as it would make Peter, at the interview with Paul at Antioch, to have been then for some years bishop of Rome! His crucifixion is certain from Christ's prophecy, Joh 21:18-19. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25]) asserted in an epistle to the Romans, that Paul and Peter planted both the Roman and Corinthian churches, and endured martyrdom in Italy at the same time. So TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 4.5, and The Prescription Against Heretics, 36, 38]. Also Caius, the presbyter of Rome, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25] asserts that some memorials of their martyrdom were to be seen at Rome on the road to Ostia. So EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25, and Demonstration of the Gospel, 3.116]. So LACTANTIUS [Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, 2]. Many of the details are palpably false; whether the whole be so or not is dubious, considering the tendency to concentrate at Rome events of interest [ALFORD]. What is certain is, that Peter was not there before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58), otherwise he would have been mentioned in it; nor during Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, otherwise he would have been mentioned in some one of Paul's many other Epistles written from Rome; nor during Paul's second imprisonment, at least when he was writing the Second Epistle to Timothy, just before his martyrdom. He may have gone to Rome after Paul's death, and, as common tradition represents, been imprisoned in the Mamertine dungeon, and crucified on the Janiculum, on the eminence of St. Pietro in Montorio, and his remains deposited under the great altar in the center of the famous basilica of St. Peter. AMBROSE [Epistles, 33 (Edition Paris, 1586), p. 1022] relates that St. Peter, not long before his death, being overcome by the solicitations of his fellow Christians to save himself, was fleeing from Rome when he was met by our Lord, and on asking, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" received the answer, "I go to be crucified afresh." On this he returned and joyfully went to martyrdom. The church called "Domine quo vadis" on the Appian Way, commemorates the legend. It is not unlikely that the whole tradition is built on the connection which existed between Paul and Peter. As Paul, "the apostle of the uncircumcision," wrote Epistles to Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosse, and to Philemon at Colosse, making the Gentile Christians the persons prominently addressed, and the Jewish Christians subordinately so; so, vice versa, Peter, "the apostle of the circumcision," addressed the same churches, the Jewish Christians in them primarily, and the Gentile Christians also, secondarily.

TO WHOM HE ADDRESSES THIS EPISTLE.--The heading, 1Pe 1:1, "to the elect strangers (spiritually pilgrims) of the dispersion" (Greek), clearly marks the Christians of the Jewish dispersion as prominently addressed, but still including also Gentile Christians as grafted into the Christian Jewish stock by adoption and faith, and so being part of the true Israel. 1Pe 1:14; 1Pe 2:9-10; 1Pe 3:6; 1Pe 4:3 clearly prove this. Thus he, the apostle of the circumcision, sought to unite in one Christ Jew and Gentile, promoting thereby the same work and doctrine as Paul the apostle of the uncircumcision. The provinces are named by Peter in the heading in the order proceeding from northeast to south and west. Pontus was the country of the Christian Jew Aquila. To Galatia Paul paid two visits, founding and confirming churches. Crescens, his companion, went there about the time of Paul's last imprisonment, just before his martyrdom. Ancyra was subsequently its ecclesiastical metropolis. Men of Cappadocia, as well as of "Pontus" and "Asia," were among the hearers of Peter's effective sermon on the Pentecost whereon the Spirit decended on the Church; these probably brought home to their native land the first tidings of the Gospel. Proconsular "Asia" included Mysia, Lydia, Caria, Phrygia, Pisidia, and Lyaconia. In Lycaonia were the churches of Iconium, founded by Paul and Barnabas; of Lystra, Timothy's birthplace, where Paul was stoned at the instigation of the Jews; and of Derbe, the birthplace of Gaius, or Caius. In Pisidia was Antioch, where Paul was the instrument of converting many, but was driven out by the Jews. In Caria was Miletus, containing doubtless a Christian Church. In Phrygia, Paul preached both times when visiting Galatia in its neighborhood, and in it were the churches of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse, of which last Church Philemon and Onesimus were members, and Archippus and Epaphras leaders. In Lydia was the Philadelphian Church, favorably noticed in Rev 3:7, &c.; that of Sardis, the capital, and of Thyatira, and of Ephesus, founded by Paul, and a scene of the labors of Aquila and Priscilla and Apollos, and subsequently of more than two whole years' labor of Paul again, and subsequently censured for falling from its first love in Rev 2:4. Smyrna of Ionia was in the same quarter, and as one of the seven churches receives unqualified praise. In Mysia was Pergamos. Troas, too, is known as the scene of Paul's preaching and raising Eutychus to life (Act 20:6-10), and of his subsequently staying for a time with Carpus (2Ti 4:13). Of "Bithynia," no Church is expressly named in Scripture elsewhere. When Paul at an earlier period "assayed to go into Bithynia" (Act 16:7), the Spirit suffered him not. But afterwards, we infer from 1Pe 1:1, the Spirit did impart the Gospel to that country, possibly by Peter's ministry, In government, these several churches, it appears from this Epistle (1Pe 5:1-2, "Feed," &c.), were much in the same states as when Paul addressed the Ephesian "elders" at Miletus (Act 20:17, Act 20:28, "feed") in very similar language; elders or presbyter-bishops ruled, while the apostles exercised the general superintendence. They were exposed to persecutions, though apparently not systematic, but rather annoyances and reproach arising from their not joining their heathen neighbors in riotous living, into which, however, some of them were in danger of falling. The evils which existed among themselves, and which are therefore reproved, were ambition and lucre-seeking on the part of the presbyters (1Pe 5:2-3), evil thoughts and words among the members in general, and a want of sympathy and generosity towards one another.

HIS OBJECT seems to be, by the prospect of their heavenly portion and by Christ's example, to afford consolation to the persecuted, and prepare them for a greater approaching ordeal, and to exhort all, husbands, wives, servants, presbyters, and people, to a due discharge of relative duties, so as to give no handle to the enemy to reproach Christianity, but rather to win them to it, and so to establish them in "the true grace of God wherein they stand" (1Pe 5:12). However, see on 1Pe 5:12, on the oldest reading. ALFORD rightly argues that "exhorting and testifying" there, refer to Peter's exhortations throughout the Epistle grounded on testimony which he bears to the Gospel truth, already well known to his readers by the teaching of Paul in those churches. They were already introduced "into" (so the Greek, 1Pe 5:12) this grace of God as their safe standing-ground. Compare 1Co 15:1, "I declare unto you the Gospel wherein ye stand." Therefore he does not, in this Epistle, set forth a complete statement of this Gospel doctrine of grace, but falls back on it as already known. Compare 1Pe 1:8, 1Pe 1:18, "ye know"; 1Pe 3:15; 2Pe 3:1. Not that Peter servilely copies the style and mode of teaching of Paul, but as an independent witness in his own style attests the same truths. We may divide the Epistle into: (I) The inscription (1Pe 1:1-2). (II) The stirring-up of a pure feeling in believers as born again of God. By the motive of hope to which God has regenerated us (1Pe 1:3-12); bringing forth the fruit of faith, considering the costly price paid for our redemption from sin (1Pe 1:14-21). Being purified by the Spirit unto love of the brethren as begotten of God's eternal word, as spiritual priest-kings, to whom alone Christ is precious (1Pe 1:22; 1Pe 2:10); after Christ's example in suffering, maintaining a good conversation in every relation (1Pe 2:10; 1Pe 3:14), and a good profession of faith as having in view Christ's once-offered sacrifice, and His future coming to judgment (1Pe 3:15; 1Pe 4:11); and exhibiting patience in adversity, as looking for future glorification with Christ, (1) in general as Christians, 1Pe 4:12-19; (2) each in his own sphere, 1Pe 5:1-11. "The title "Beloved" marks the separation of the second part from the first, 1Pe 2:11; and of the third part from the second, 1Pe 4:12" [BENGEL]. (III). The conclusion.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.--It was plainly before the open and systematic persecution of the later years of Nero had begun. That this Epistle was written after Paul's Epistles, even those written during his imprisonment at Rome, ending in A.D. 63, appears from the acquaintance which Peter in this Epistle shows he has with them. Compare 1Pe 2:13 with 1Ti 2:2-4; 1Pe 2:18 with Eph 6:5; 1Pe 1:2 with Eph 1:4-7; 1Pe 1:3 with Eph 1:3; 1Pe 1:14 with Rom 12:2; 1Pe 2:6-10 with Rom 9:32-33; 1Pe 2:13 with Rom 13:1-4; 1Pe 2:16 with Gal 5:13; 1Pe 2:18 with Eph 6:5; 1Pe 3:1 with Eph 5:22; 1Pe 3:9 with Rom 12:17; 1Pe 4:9 with Phi 2:14; Rom 12:13 and Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:10 with Rom 12:6-8; 1Pe 5:1 with Rom 8:18; 1Pe 5:5 with Eph 5:21; Phi 2:3, Phi 2:5-8; 1Pe 5:8 with 1Th 5:6; 1Pe 5:14 with 1Co 16:20. Moreover, in 1Pe 5:13, Mark is mentioned as with Peter in Babylon. This must have been after Col 4:10 (A.D. 61-63), when Mark was with Paul at Rome, but intending to go to Asia Minor. Again, in 2Ti 4:11 (A.D. 67 or 68), Mark was in or near Ephesus, in Asia Minor, and Timothy is told to bring him to Rome. So that it is likely it was after this, namely, after Paul's martyrdom, that Mark joined Peter, and consequently that this Epistle was written. It is not likely that Peter would have entrenched on Paul's field of labor, the churches of Asia Minor, during Paul's lifetime. The death of the apostle of the uncircumcision, and the consequent need of someone to follow up his teachings, probably gave occasion to the testimony given by Peter to the same churches, collectively addressed, in behalf of the same truth. The relation in which the Pauline Gentile churches stood towards the apostles at Jerusalem favors this view. Even the Gentile Christians would naturally look to the spiritual fathers of the Church at Jerusalem, the center whence the Gospel had emanated to them, for counsel wherewith to meet the pretensions of Judaizing Christians and heretics; and Peter, always prominent among the apostles in Jerusalem, would even when elsewhere feel a deep interest in them, especially when they were by death bereft of Paul's guidance. BIRKS [Horæ Evangelicæ] suggests that false teachers may have appealed from Paul's doctrine to that of James and Peter. Peter then would naturally write to confirm the doctrines of grace and tacitly show there was no difference between his teaching and Paul's. BIRKS prefers dating the Epistle A.D. 58, after Paul's second visit to Galatia, when Silvanus was with him, and so could not have been with Peter (A.D. 54), and before his imprisonment at Rome, when Mark was with him, and so could not have been with Peter (A.D. 62); perhaps when Paul was detained at Cæsarea, and so debarred from personal intercourse with those churches. I prefer the view previously stated. This sets aside the tradition that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom together at Rome. ORIGEN'S and EUSEBIUS' statement that Peter visited the churches of Asia in person seems very probable.

The PLACE OF WRITING was doubtless Babylon on the Euphrates (1Pe 5:13). It is most improbable that in the midst of writing matter-of-fact communications and salutations in a remarkably plain Epistle, the symbolical language of prophecy (namely, "Babylon" for Rome) should be used. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 3.1] states that there was a great multitude of Jews in the Chaldean Babylon; it is therefore likely that "the apostle of the circumcision" (Gal 2:7-8) would at some time or other visit them. Some have maintained that the Babylon meant was in Egypt because Mark preached in and around Alexandria after Peter's death, and therefore it is likely he did so along with that apostle in the same region previously. But no mention elsewhere in Scripture is made of this Egyptian Babylon, but only of the Chaldean one. And though towards the close of Caligula's reign a persecution drove the Jews thence to Seleucia, and a plague five years after still further thinned their numbers, yet this does not preclude their return and multiplication during the twenty years that elapsed between the plague and the writing of the Epistle. Moreover, the order in which the countries are enumerated, from northeast to south and west, is such as would be adopted by one writing from the Oriental Babylon on the Euphrates, not from Egypt or Rome. Indeed, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, in the sixth century, understood the Babylon meant to be outside the Roman empire. Silvanus, Paul's companion, became subsequently Peter's, and was the carrier of this Epistle.

STYLE.--Fervor and practical truth, rather than logical reasoning, are the characteristics, of this Epistle, as they were of its energetic, warm-hearted writer. His familiarity with Paul's Epistles shown in the language accords with what we should expect from the fact of Paul's having "communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles" (as revealed specially to him) to Peter among others "of reputation" (Gal 2:2). Individualities occur, such as baptism, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1Pe 3:21); "consciousness of God" (Greek), 1Pe 2:19, as a motive for enduring sufferings; "living hope" (1Pe 1:3); "an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away" (1Pe 1:4); "kiss of charity" (1Pe 5:14). Christ is viewed less in relation to His past sufferings than as at present exalted and hereafter to be manifested in all His majesty. Glory and hope are prominent features in this Epistle (1Pe 1:8), so much so that WEISS entitles him "the apostle of hope." The realization of future bliss as near causes him to regard believers as but "strangers" and "sojourners" here. Chastened fervor, deep humility, and ardent love appear, just as we should expect from one who had been so graciously restored after his grievous fall. "Being converted," he truly does "strengthen his brethren." His fervor shows itself in often repeating the same thought in similar words.

In some passages he shows familiarity with the Epistle of James, the apostle of special weight with the Jewish legalizing party, whose inspiration he thus confirms (compare 1Pe 1:6-7 with Jam 1:2-3; 1Pe 1:24 with Jam 1:10; 1Pe 2:1 with Jam 1:21; 1Pe 4:8 with Jam 5:20, both quoting Pro 10:12; Pro 5:5 with Jam 4:6, both quoting Pro 3:34). In most of these cases Old Testament quotations are the common ground of both. "Strong susceptibility to outward impressions, liveliness of feeling, dexterity in handling subjects, dispose natures like that of Peter to repeat afresh the thoughts of others" [STEIGER].

The diction of this Epistle and of his speeches in Acts is very similar: an undesigned coincidence, and so a mark of genuineness (compare 1Pe 2:7 with Act 4:11; 1Pe 1:12 with Act 5:32; 1Pe 2:24 with Act 5:30; Act 10:39; 1Pe 5:1 with Act 2:32; Act 3:15; 1Pe 1:10 with Act 3:18; Act 10:43; 1Pe 1:21 with Act 3:15; Act 10:40; 1Pe 4:5 with Act 10:42; 1Pe 2:24 with Act 3:19, Act 3:26).

There is, too, a recurrence to the language of the Lord at the last interview after His resurrection, recorded in Joh 21:15-23. Compare "the Shepherd . . . of . . . souls," 1Pe 2:25; "Feed the flock of God," "the chief Shepherd," 1Pe 5:2, 1Pe 5:4, with Joh 21:15-17; "Feed My lambs . . . sheep"; also "Whom . . . ye love," 1Pe 1:8; 1Pe 2:7, with Joh 21:15-17; "lovest thou Me?" and 2Pe 1:14, with Joh 21:18-19. WIESINGER well says, "He who in loving impatience cast himself into the sea to meet the Lord, is also the man who most earnestly testifies to the hope of His return; he who dated his own faith from the sufferings of his Master, is never weary in holding up the suffering form of the Lord before his readers to comfort and stimulate them; he before whom the death of a martyr is in assured expectation, is the man who, in the greatest variety of aspects, sets forth the duty, as well as the consolation, of suffering for Christ; as a rock of the Church he grounds his readers against the storm of present tribulation on the true Rock of ages."

JFB: 1 Peter (Outline)

• ADDRESS TO THE ELECTED OF THE GODHEAD: THANKSGIVING FOR THE LIVING HOPE TO WHICH WE ARE BEGOTTEN, PRODUCING JOY AMIDST SUFFERINGS: THIS SALVATION AN OBJECT OF DEEPEST INTEREST TO PROPHETS AND TO ANGELS: ITS COSTLY PRICE A MOTIVE TO HOLINESS AND LOVE, AS WE ARE BORN AGAIN OF THE EVER-ABIDING WORD OF GOD. (1Pe. 1:1-25)
• EXHORTATIONS. (1Pe. 2:1-25)
• RELATIVE DUTIES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES: EXHORTATIONS TO LOVE AND FORBEARANCE: RIGHT CONDUCT UNDER PERSECUTIONS FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS' SAKE, AFTER CHRIST'S EXAMPLE, WHOSE DEATH RESULTED IN QUICKENING TO US THROUGH HIS BEING QUICKENED AGAIN, OF WHICH BAPTISM IS THE SACRAMENTAL SEAL. (1Pe. 3:1-22)
• LIKE THE RISEN CHRIST, BELIEVERS HENCEFORTH OUGHT TO HAVE NO MORE TO DO WITH SIN. (1Pe. 4:1-19)
• EXHORTATIONS TO ELDERS, JUNIORS, AND ALL IN GENERAL. PARTING PRAYER. CONCLUSION. (1Pe 5:1-14)

TSK: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

As the design of this Epistle is excellent, remarks Dr. Macknight, so is its execution, in the judgment of the best critics, does not fall short of its design. Ostervald says of the first Epistle of Peter, " it is one of the finest books in the New Testament." Erasmus pronounces it to be " worthy of the prince of the Apostles, and full of apostolical dignity and authority;" and adds, " it is sparing in words, but full of sense - verbis pauca, sententiis differta ." " As the true church of Christ," says Dr. Clarke, " has generally been in a state of suffering, the Epistles of St. Peter have ever been most highly prized by all believers. That which we have just finished is an admirable letter, containing some of the most important maxims and consolations for the Church in the wilderness. No Christian can read it without deriving from it both light and life. Ministers especially should study it well, that they may know how to comfort their flocks when in persecution and adversity. He never speaks to good in any spiritual case who is not furnished out of the Divine treasury. God’s words invite, solicit, and command assent. on them a man may confidently rely. The words of man may be true, but they are not infallible; this is the character of God’s word alone." To these valuable remarks on the varied excellences and uses of this inimitable Epistle, it may be only necessary to add, that it is not only important in these respects, but is a rich treasury of Christian doctrines and duties from which the mind may be enriched and the heart improved, with the most ennobling sentiments.

TSK: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Pe 3:1, He teaches the duty of wives and husbands to each other; 1Pe 3:8, exhorting all men to unity and love; 1Pe 3:14, and to suffer persecution; 1Pe 3:19, He declares also the benefits of Christ toward the old world.

Poole: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

PETER CHAPTER 3

MHCC: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

The same great doctrines, as in St. Paul's epistles, are here applied to same practical purposes. And this epistle is remarkable for the sweetness, gentleness, and humble love, with which it is written. It gives a short, and yet a very clear summary, both of the consolations and the instructions needful for the encouragement and direction of a Christian in his journey to heaven, raising his thoughts and desires to that happiness, and strengthening him against all opposition in the way, both from corruption within, and temptations and afflictions without.

MHCC: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Pe 3:1-7) The duties of wives and husbands.

(1Pe 3:8-13) Christians exhorted to agree.

(1Pe 3:14-22) And encouraged to patience under persecutions for righteousness' sake, considering that Christ suffered patiently.

Matthew Henry: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Epistle General of Peter

Two epistles we have enrolled in the sacred canon of the scripture written by Peter, who was a most eminent apostle of Jesus Christ, and whose character shines brightly as it is described in the four Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, but, as it is painted by the papists and legendary writers, it represents a person of extravagant pride and ambition. It is certain from scripture that Simon Peter was one of the first of those whom our Lord called to be his disciples and followers, that he was a person of excellent endowments, both natural and gracious, of great parts and ready elocution, quick to apprehend and bold to execute whatever he knew to be his duty. When our Saviour called his apostles, and gave them their commission, he nominated him first in the list; and by his behaviour towards him he seems to have distinguished him as a special favourite among the twelve. Many instances of our Lord's affection to him, both during his life and after his resurrection, are upon record. But there are many things confidently affirmed of this holy man that are directly false: as, That he had a primacy and superior power over the rest of the apostles - that he was more than their equal - that he was their prince, monarch, and sovereign - and that he exercised a jurisdiction over the whole college of the apostles: moreover, That he as the sole and universal pastor over all the Christian world, the only vicar of Christ upon earth - that he was for above twenty years bishop of Rome - that the popes of Rome succeed to St. Peter, and derive from him a universal supremacy and jurisdiction over all churches and Christians upon earth - and that all this was by our Lord's ordering and appointment; whereas Christ never gave him any pre-eminence of this kind, but positively forbade it, and gave precepts to the contrary. The other apostles never consented to any such claim. Paul declares himself not a whit behind the very chief apostles, 2Co 11:5 and 2Co 12:11. Here is no exception of Peter's superior dignity, whom Paul took the freedom to blame, and withstood him to the face, Gal 2:11. And Peter himself never assumed any thing like it, but modestly styles himself an apostle of Jesus Christ; and, when he writes to the presbyters of the church, he humbly places himself in the same rank with them: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, 1Pe 5:1. See Dr. Barrow on the pope's supremacy.

The design of this first epistle is, I. To explain more fully the doctrines of Christianity to these newly-converted Jews. II. To direct and persuade them to a holy conversation, in the faithful discharge of all personal and relative duties, whereby they would secure their own peace and effectually confute the slanders and reproaches of their enemies. III. To prepare them for sufferings. This seems to be his principal intention; for he has something to this purport in every chapter, and does, by a great variety of arguments, encourage them to patience and perseverance in the faith, lest the persecutions and sad calamities that were coming upon them should prevail with them to apostatize from Christ and the gospel. It is remarkable that you find not so much as one word savouring of the spirit and pride of a pope in either of these epistles.

Matthew Henry: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Wherein the apostle describes the duties of husbands and wives one to another, beginning with the duty of the wife (1Pe 3:1-7). He exhorts Christians to unity, love, compassion, peace, and patience under sufferings; to oppose the slanders of their enemies, not by returning evil for evil, or railing for railing, but by blessing; by a ready account of their faith and hope, and by keeping a good conscience (1Pe 3:8-17). To encourage them to this, he proposes the example of Christ, who suffered, the just for the unjust, but yet punished the old world for their disobedience, and saved the few who were faithful in the days of Noah (1Pe 3:18 to the end).

Barclay: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST LETTER OF PETER

The Catholic Or General Epistles

First Peter belongs to that group of New Testament letters which are known as the Catholic or General Epistles. Two explanations of that title have been offered.

(i) It is suggested that these letters were so called because they were addressed to the Church at large, in contradistinction to the Pauline letters which were addressed to individual churches. But that is not so. James is addressed to a definite, though widely scattered, community. It is written to the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad (Jam_1:1 ). It needs no argument that Second and Third John are addressed to definite communities; and, although First John has no specific address, it is clearly written with the needs and perils of a particular community in mind. First Peter itself is written to the strangers scattered abroad through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1Pe_1:1 ). It is true that these General Epistles have a wider range than the letters of Paul; at the same time, they all have a definite community in mind.

(ii) So we must turn to the second explanation--that these letters were called Catholic or General because they were accepted as Scripture by the whole Church in contradistinction to that large number of letters which enjoyed a local and temporary authority but never universally ranked as Scripture. At the time when these letters were being written there was an outbreak of letter-writing in the Church. We still possess many of the letters which were then written--the letter of Clement of Rome to Corinth, the letter of Barnabas, the letters of Ignatius and the letters of Polycarp. All were regarded as very precious in the Churches to which they were written but were never regarded as having authority throughout the Church; on the other hand the Catholic or General Epistles gradually won a place in Scripture and were accepted by the whole Church. Here is the true explanation of their title.

The Lovely Letter

Of all the General Epistles it is probably true that First Peter is the best known and loved, and the most read. No one has ever been in any doubt about its charm. Moffatt writes of it: "The beautiful spirit of the pastoral shines through any translation of the Greek text. ¯fectionate, loving, lowly, humble, re lzaak Waltonquaternion of adjectives for the Epistles of James, John and Peter, but it is First Peter which deserves them preeminently." It is written out of the love of a pastorheart to help people who were going through it and on whom worse things were still to come. "The key-note," says Moffatt, "is steady encouragement to endurance in conduct and innocence in character." It has been said that its distinctive characteristic is warmth. E. J. Goodspeed wrote: "First Peter is one of the most moving pieces of persecution literature." To this day it is one of the easiest letters in the New Testament to read, for it has never lost its winsome appeal to the human heart.

The Modern Doubt

Until a comparatively short time ago few would have raised any doubts about the authenticity of First Peter. Renan, who was by no means a conservative critic, wrote of it: "The First Epistle is one of the writings of the New Testament which are most anciently and most unanimously cited as genuine." But in recent times the Petrine authorship of the letter has been widely questioned. The commentary by F. W. Beare, published in 1947, goes the length of saying, "There can be no possible doubt that ters a pseudonym." That is to say, Beare has no doubt that someone else wrote this letter under the name of Peter. We shall go on in fairness to investigate that view; but first we shall set out the traditional view--which we ourselves unhesitatingly accept--of the date and authorship of this letter. This is that First Peter was written from Rome by Peter himself, about the year A.D. 67, in the days immediately following the first persecution of the Christians by Nero, to the Christians in those parts of Asia Minor named in the address. What is the evidence for this early date and, therefore, for the Petrine authorship?

The Second Coming

When we go to the letter we find that expectation of the second coming of Christ is in the very forefront of its thought. Christians are being kept for the salvation which is to be revealed at the last time (1Pe_1:5 ). Those who keep the faith will be saved from the coming judgment (1Pe_1:7 ). Christians are to hope for the grace which will come at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1Pe_1:13 ). The day of visitation is expected (1Pe_2:12 ). The end of all things is at hand (1Pe_4:7 ). Those who suffer with Christ will also rejoice with Christ when his glory is revealed (1Pe_4:13 ). Judgment is to begin at the house of God (1Pe_4:17 ). The writer himself is sure that he will be a sharer in the glory to come (1Pe_5:1 ). When the Chief Shepherd shall appear the faithful Christian will receive a crown of glory (1Pe_5:4 ).

From beginning to end of the letter the second coming is in the forefront of the writermind. It is the motive for steadfastness in the faith, for the loyal living of the Christian life and for gallant endurance amidst the sufferings which have come and will come upon them.

It would be untrue to say that the second coming ever dropped out of Christian belief, but it did recede from the forefront of Christian belief as the years passed on and Christ did not return. It is, for instance, significant that in Ephesians, one of Paullatest letters, there is no mention of it. On this ground it is reasonable to suppose that First Peter is early and comes from the days when the Christians vividly expected the return of their Lord at any moment.

Simplicity Of Organization

It is clear that First Peter comes from a time when the organization of the Church is very simple. There is no mention of deacons; nor of the episkopos (G1985), the bishop, who begins to emerge in the Pastoral Epistles and becomes prominent in Ignatiusetters in the first half of the second century. The only Church officials mentioned are the elders. "I exhort the elders among you as a fellow-elder" (1Pe_5:1 ). On this ground, also, it is reasonable to suppose that First Peter comes from an early date.

The Theology Of The Early Church

What is most significant of all is that the theology of First Peter is the theology of the very early church. E. G. Selwyn has made a detailed study of this; and he has proved beyond all question that the theological ideas of First Peter are exactly the same as those we meet in the recorded sermons of Peter in the early chapters of Acts.

The preaching of the early church was based on five main ideas. One of the greatest contributions of C. H. Dodd to New Testament scholarship was his formulation of these. They form the framework of all the sermons of the early church, as recorded in Acts; and they are the foundation of the thought of all the New Testament writers. The summary of these basic ideas has been given the name Kerugma (G2782), which means the announcement or the proclamation of a herald.

These are the fundamental ideas which the Church in its first days heralded forth. We shall take them one by one and shall set down after each, first, the references in the early chapters of Acts and, second, the references in First Peter; and we will make the significant discovery that the basic ideas of the sermons of the early church and the theology of First Peter are precisely the same. We are not claiming, of course, that the sermons in Acts are verbatim reports of what was actually preached, but we believe that they give correctly the substance of the message of the first preachers.

(i) The age of fulfilment has dawned; the Messianic age has begun. This is Godlast word. A new order is being inaugurated and the elect are summoned to join the new community. Act_2:14-16 ; Act_3:12-26 ; Act_4:8-12 ; Act_10:34-43 ; 1Pe_1:3 ; 1Pe_1:10-12 ; 1Pe_4:7 .

(ii) This new age has come through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all of which are in direct fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and are, therefore, the result of the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. Act_2:20-31 ; Act_3:13-14 ; Act_10:43 ; 1Pe_1:20-21 .

(iii) By virtue of the resurrection Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God and is the Messianic head of the new Israel. Act_2:22-26 ; Act_3:13 ; Act_4:11 ; Act_5:30-31 ; Act_10:39-42 ; 1Pe_1:21 ; 1Pe_2:7 ; 1Pe_2:24 ; 1Pe_3:22 .

(iv) These Messianic events will shortly reach their consummation in the return of Christ in glory and the judgment of the living and the dead. Act_3:19-23 ; Act_10:42 ; 1Pe_1:5 , 1Pe_1:7 , 1Pe_1:13 ; 1Pe_4:5 , 1Pe_4:13 ; 1Pet 17-18; 1Pe_5:1 , 1Pe_5:4 .

(v) These facts are made the grounds for an appeal for repentance, and the offer of forgiveness and of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of eternal life. Act_2:38-39 ; Act_3:19 ; Act_5:31 ; Act_10:43 ; 1Pe_1:13-25 ; 1Pe_2:1-3 ; 1Pe_4:1-5 .

These declarations are the five main planks in the edifice of early Christian preaching, as recorded for us in the sermons of Peter in the early chapters of Acts. They are also the dominant ideas in First Peter. The correspondence is so close and so consistent that we almost certainly with entire probability see the same hand and mind in both.

Quotations From The Fathers

We may add another point to our evidence that First Peter is early; very early the fathers and preachers of the Church begin to quote it. The first person to quote First Peter by name is Irenaeus, who lived from A.D. 130 until well into the next century. He twice quotes 1Pe_1:8 : "Without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy." And he once quotes 1Pe_2:16 , with its command not to use liberty as a cloak for maliciousness. But even before this the fathers of the Church are quoting Peter without mentioning his name. Clement of Rome, writing about A.D. 95, speaks of "the precious blood of Christ," an unusual phrase which may well come from Peterstatement that we are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ (1Pe_1:19 ). Polycarp, who was martyred in A.D. 155, continuously quotes Peter without using his name. We may select three passages to show how closely he gives Peterwords.

Wherefore, girding up your loins, serve God in fear ... believing on him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory (Polycarp, To the Philippians chapter 2: 1).

Therefore, gird up your minds...through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory (1Pe_1:13 , 1Pe_1:21 ).

Christ Jesus who bare our sins in his own body on the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (Polycarp 8: 1).

He committed no sin; no guile was found on his life... He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree (1Pe_2:22 , 1Pe_2:24 ).

Having your conversation blameless among the Gentiles (Polycarp 10: 2).

Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles (1Pe_2:12 ).

There can be no doubt that Polycarp is quoting Peter, although he does not name him. It takes some time for a book to acquire such an authority and familiarity that it can be quoted almost unconsciously, its language woven into the language of the Church. Once again we see that First Peter must be a very early book.

The Excellence Of The Greek

If, however, we are defending the Petrine authorship of this letter, there is one problem we must face--and that is the excellence of the Greek. It seems impossible that it should be the work of a Galilaean fisherman. New Testament scholars are at one in praising the Greek of this letter. F. W. Beare writes: "The epistle is quite obviously the work of a man of letters, skilled in all the devices of rhetoric, and able to draw on an extensive, and even learned, vocabulary. He is a stylist of no ordinary capacity, and he writes some of the best Greek in the whole New Testament, far smoother and more literary than that of the highly-trained Paul." Moffatt speaks of this letter"plastic language and love of metaphor." Mayor says that First Peter has no equal in the New Testament for "sustained stateliness of rhythm." Bigg has likened certain of First Peter.s phrases to the writing of Thucydides. Selwyn has spoken of First Peter"Euripidean tenderness" and of its ability to coin compound words as Aeschylus might have done. The Greek of First Peter is not entirely unworthy to be set beside that of the masters of the language. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine Peter using the Greek language like that.

The letter itself supplies the solution to this problem. In the concluding short section Peter himself says, "By Silvanus...I have written briefly" (1Pe_5:12 ). By Silvanus--dia (G1223) Silouanou (G4610)--is an unusual phrase. The Greek means that Silvanus was Peteragent in the writing of the letter; it means that he was more than merely Peterstenographer.

Let us approach this from two angles. First, let us enquire what we know about Silvanus. (The evidence is set out more fully in our study section on 1Pe_5:12 ). In all probability he is the same person as the Silvanus of Paulletters and the Silas of Acts, Silas being a shortened and more familiar form of Silvanus. When we examine these passages, we find that Silas or Silvanus was no ordinary person but a leading figure in the life and counsels of the early church.

He was a prophet (Act_15:32 ); he was one of the "chief among the brethren" at the council of Jerusalem and one of the two chosen to deliver the decisions of the council to the Church at Antioch (Act_15:22 , Act_15:27 ). He was Paulchosen companion in the second missionary journey, and was with Paul both in Philippi and in Corinth (Act_15:37-40 ; Act_16:19 , Act_16:25 , Act_16:29 ; Act_18:5 ; 2Co_1:19 ). He was associated with Paul in the initial greetings of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 ). He was a Roman citizen (Act_16:37 ).

Silvanus, then, was a notable man in the early church; he was not so much the assistant as the colleague of Paul; and, since he was a Roman citizen, there is at least a possibility that he was a man of an education and culture such as Peter could never have enjoyed.

Now let us add our second line of thought. In a missionary situation, when a missionary can speak a language well enough but cannot write it very well, it is quite common for him to do one of two things in order to send a message to his people. He either writes it out in as good a style as he can, and then gets a native speaker of the language to correct his mistakes and to polish his style; or, if he has a native colleague whom he can fully trust, he tells him what he wishes said, leaves him to put the message into written form and then vets the result.

We can well imagine that this was the part Silvanus played in the writing of First Peter. Either he corrected and polished Peternecessarily inadequate Greek; or he wrote in his own words what Peter wanted said, with Peter setting the final product and adding the last personal paragraph to it.

The thought is that of Peter; but the style is that of Silvanus. And so, although the Greek is so excellent, there is no necessity to deny that the letter comes from Peter himself.

The Recipients Of The Letter

The recipients of the letter are the exiles (a Christian is always a sojourner on the earth) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

Almost all of these words had a double significance. They stood for ancient kingdoms and they stood for Roman provinces to which the ancient names had been given; and the ancient kingdoms and the new provinces did not always cover the same territory. Pontus was never a province. It had originally been the kingdom of Mithradates and part of it was incorporated in Bithynia and part of it in Galatia. Galatia had originally been the kingdom of the Gauls in the area of the three cities Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, but the Romans had expanded it into a much larger unit of administration, including sections of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria. The kingdom of Cappadocia had become a Roman province in A.D. 17 in practically its original form. Asia was not the continent of Asia as we use the term. It had been an independent kingdom, whose last king, Attalus the Third, had bequeathed it as a gift to Rome in 133 B.C. It embraced the centre of Asia minor and was bounded on the north by Bithynia, on the south by Lycia, and on the east by Phrygia and Galatia. In popular language it was that part of Asia Minor which lay along the shores of the Aegean Sea.

We do not know why these particular districts were picked out; but this much is certain--they embraced a large area with a very large population; and the fact that they are all mentioned is one of the greatest proofs of the immense missionary activity of the early church, apart altogether from the missionary activities of Paul.

All these districts lie in the north-east corner of Asia Minor. Why they are named as a group and why they are named in this particular order, we do not know. But a glance at the map will show that, if the bearer of this letter--who may well have been Silvanus--sailed from Italy and landed at Sinope in north-east Asia Minor, a journey through these provinces would be a circular tour which would take him back to Sinope. From Sinope in Bithynia he would go south to Galatia, further south to Cappadocia, west to Asia, north again to Bithynia, and then east to arrive back in Sinope.

It is clear from the letter itself that its recipients were mainly Gentiles. There is no mention of any question of the law, a question which always arose when there was a Jewish background. Their previous condition had been one of fleshly passion (1Pe_1:14 ; 1Pe_4:3-4 ) which fits gentiles far better than Jews. Previously they had been no people--Gentiles outside the covenant--but now they are the people of God (1Pe_2:9-10 ).

The form of his name which Peter uses also shows that this letter was intended for Gentiles for Peter is a Greek name. Paul calls him Cephas (1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:22 ; 1Co_9:5 ; 1Co_15:5 ; Gal_1:18 ; Gal_2:9 , Gal_2:11 , Gal_2:14 ); among his fellow Jews, he was known as Simeon (Act_15:14 ), which is the name by which he is called in Second Peter (2Pe_1:1 ). Since he uses his Greek name here, it is likely that he was writing to Greek people.

The Circumstances Behind The Letter

That this letter was written in a time when persecution threatened, is abundantly clear. They are in the midst of various trials (1Pe_1:6 ). They are likely to be falsely accused as evil-doers (1Pe_3:16 ). A fiery ordeal is going to try them (1Pe_4:12 ). When they suffer, they are to commit themselves to God (1Pe_4:19 ). They may well have to suffer for righteousnessake (1Pe_3:14 ). They are sharing in the afflictions which the Christian brotherhood throughout the world is called upon to endure (1Pe_5:9 ). At the back of this letter there are fiery trial, a campaign of slander and suffering for the sake of Christ. Can we identify this situation?

There was a time when the Christians had little to fear from the Roman government. In Acts it is repeatedly the Roman magistrates and the Roman soldiers and officials who save Paul from the fury of Jews and pagans alike. As Gibbon had it, the tribunal of the pagan magistrate proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue. The reason was that in the early days the Roman government was not able to distinguish between Jews and Christians. Within the empire Judaism was what was called a religio licita, a permitted religion, and Jews had full liberty to worship in their own way. It was not that the Jews did not try to enlighten the Romans to the true facts of the situation; they did so in Corinth, for example (Act_18:12-17 ). But for some time the Romans simply regarded the Christians as a Jewish sect and, therefore, did not molest them.

The change came in the days of Nero and we can trace almost every detail of the story. On 19th July, A.D. 64, the great fire of Rome broke out. Rome, a city of narrow streets and high wooden tenements, was in real danger of being wiped out. The fire burned for three days and three nights, was checked, and then broke out again with redoubled violence. The Roman populace had no doubt who was responsible and put the blame on the Emperor. Nero had a passion for building; and they believed so that he had deliberately taken steps to obliterate Rome that he might build it again. Neroresponsibility must remain for ever in doubt; but it is certain that he watched the raging inferno from the tower of Maecenas and expressed himself as charmed with the flower and loveliness of the flames. It was freely said that those who tried to extinguish the fire were deliberately hindered and that men were seen to rekindle it again, when it was likely to subside. The people were overwhelmed. The ancient landmarks and the ancestral shrines had vanished; the Temple of Luna, the Ara Maxima, the great altar, the Temple of Jupiter Stator, the shrine of Vesta, their very household gods were gone. They were homeless and, in Farrarphrase, there was "a hopeless brotherhood of wretchedness."

The resentment of the people was bitter. Nero had to divert suspicion from himself; a scapegoat had to be found. The Christians were made the scapegoat. Tacitus, the Roman historian, tells the story (Annals 15.44):

Neither human assistance in the shape of imperial gifts, nor

attempts to appease the gods, could remove the sinister report

that the fire was due to Neroown orders. And, so, in the hope

of dissipating the rumour, he falsely diverted the charge on to a

set of people to whom the vulgar gave the name of Chrestians, and

who were detested for the abominations they perpetrated. The

founder of the sect, one Christus by name, had been executed

by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; and the dangerous

superstition, though put down for the moment, broke out again, not

only in Judaea, the original home of the pest, but even in Rome,

where everything shameful and horrible collects and is practised.

Clearly Tacitus had no doubt that the Christians were not to blame for the fire and that Nero was simply choosing them to be the scapegoats for his own crime.

Why did Nero pick on the Christians and how was it possible even to suggest that they were responsible for the fire of Rome? There are two possible answers.

(i) The Christians were already the victims of certain slanders.

(a) They were in the popular mind connected with the Jews. Antisemitism is no new thing and it was easy for the Roman mob to attach any crime to the Jews and, therefore, to the Christians.

(b) The LordSupper was secret, at least in a sense. It was open only to the members of the Church. And certain phrases connected with it were fruitful sources of pagan slanders, phrases about eating someonebody and drinking someoneblood. That was enough to produce a rumour that the Christians were cannibals. In time the rumour grew until it became a story that the Christians killed and ate a Gentile, or a newly born child. At the LordTable the Christians gave each other the kiss of peace (1Pe_5:14 ). Their meeting was called the Agape (G26), the Love Feast. That was enough for stories to spread that the Christian meetings were orgies of vice.

(c) It was always a charge against the Christians that they "tampered with family relationships." There was this much truth in such a charge that Christianity did indeed become a sword to split families, when some members of a family became Christian and some did not. A religion which split homes was bound to be unpopular.

(d) It was the case that the Christians spoke of a coming day when the world would dissolve in flames. Many a Christian preacher must have been heard preaching of the second coming and the fiery dissolution of all things (Act_2:19-20 ). It would not be difficult to put the blame for the fire on to people who spoke like that.

There was abundant material which could be perverted into false charges against the Christians by anyone maliciously disposed to victimise them.

(ii) The Jewish faith had always appealed especially to women because of its moral standards in a world where chastity did not exist. There were, therefore, many well-born women who had embraced the Jewish faith. The Jews did not hesitate to work upon these women to influence their husbands against the Christians. We get a definite example of that in what happened to Paul and his company in Antioch of Pisidia. There it was through such women that the Jews stirred up action against Paul (Act_13:50 ). Two of Nerocourt favourites were Jewish proselytes. There was Aliturus, his favourite actor; and there was Poppaea, his mistress. It is very likely that the Jews through them influenced Nero to take action against the Christians.

In any event, the blame for the fire was attached to the Christians and a savage outbreak of persecution occurred. Nor was it simply persecution by legal means. What Tacitus called an ingens multitudo, a huge multitude, of Christians perished in the most sadistic ways. Nero rolled the Christians in pitch, set light to them and used them as living torches to light his gardens. He sewed them up in the skins of wild animals and set his hunting-dogs upon them, to tear them limb from limb while they still lived.

Tacitus writes:

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the

skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were

nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burned, to

serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero

offered his gardens for the spectacle and was exhibiting a show

in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a

charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who

deserve extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of

compassion; for, it was not, as it seemed, for the public good,

but to glut one mancruelty that they were being destroyed

(Tacitus, Annals 15: 44).

The same terrible story is told by the later Christian historian, Sulipicius Severus, in his Chronicle:

In the meantime, the number of Christians being now very large,

it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was

stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of

causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way

to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And, in fact,

Nero could not, by any means he tried, escape from the charge that

the fire had been caused by his orders. He, therefore, turned the

accusation against the Christians and the most cruel tortures were

accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of

death were invented so that, being covered in the skins of wild

beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were

crucified, or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this

purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be

consumed to serve for light during the night. In this way, cruelty

first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterwards,

too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were enacted; and

by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a

Christian.

It is true that this persecution was confined originally to Rome; but the gateway to persecution had been opened and in every place they were ready victims for the mob.

Moffatt writes:

After the Neronic wave had passed over the capital, the wash of it

was felt on the far shores of the provinces; the dramatic publicity

of the punishment must have spread the name of Christian urbi et

orbi, far and wide, over the entire empire; the provincials would

soon hear of it, and when they desired a similar outburst at the

expense of the loyal Christians, all that they needed was a

proconsul to gratify their wishes and some outstanding disciple to

serve as a victim.

For ever after the Christians were to live under threat. The mobs of the Roman cities knew what had happened in Rome and there were always these slanderous stories against the Christians. There were times when the mob loved blood and there were many governors ready to pander to their blood-lust. It was not Roman law but lynch law which threatened the Christians.

From now on the Christian was in peril of his life. For years nothing might happen; then some spark might set off the explosion; and the terror would break out. That is the situation at the back of First Peter; and it is in face of it that Peter calls his people to hope and to courage and to that lovely Christian living which alone can give the lie to the slanders with which they are attacked and which are the grounds for taking measures against them. First Peter was written to meet no theological heresy; it was written to strengthen men and women in jeopardy of their lives.

The Doubts

We have set out in full the arguments which go to prove that Peter is really the author of the first letter which bears his name. But, as we have said, not a few first-class scholars have felt that it cannot have been his work. We ourselves accept the view that Peter is the author of the letter; but in fairness we set out the other side, largely as it is presented in the chapter on First Peter in The Primitive Church by B. H. Streeter

Strange Silences

Bigg writes in his introduction: "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation (than First Peter). It is true that Eusebius, the great fourth century scholar and historian of the Church, classes First Peter among the books universally accepted in the early church as part of scripture" (Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History 3.25.2). But certain things are to be noted.

(a) Eusebius adduces certain quotations from earlier writers to prove his contention that First Peter was universally accepted. This he never does in connection with the gospels or the letters of Paul; and the very fact that he feels called upon to produce his evidence in the case of First Peter might be held to indicate that in it he felt some necessity to prove his point, a necessity which did not exist in connection with the other books. Was there a doubt in Eusebiuswn mind? Or, were there people who had to be convinced? Was the universal acceptance of First Peter not so unanimous after all?

(b) In his book, The Canon of the New Testament, Westcott noted that, although no one in the early church questions the right of First Peter to be part of the New Testament, surprisingly few of the early fathers quote it and, still more surprising, very few of the early fathers in the west and in Rome quote it. Tertullian is an immense quoter of scripture. In his writings there are 7,258 quotations from the New Testament, but only 2 of them are from First Peter. If Peter wrote this letter and wrote it in Rome, we would expect it to be well known and largely used in the Church of the west.

(c) The earliest known official list of New Testament books is the Muratorian Canon, so called after Cardinal Muratori who discovered it. It is the official list of New Testament books as accepted in the Church at Rome about the year A.D. 170. It is an extraordinary fact that First Peter does not appear at all. It can be fairly argued that the Muratorian Canon, as we possess it, is defective and that it may originally have contained a reference to First Peter. But that argument is seriously weakened by the next consideration.

(d) It is a fact that First Peter was still not in the New Testament of the Syrian Church as late as A.D. 373. It did not get in until the Syriac version of the New Testament known as the Peshitto was made about A.D. 400. We know that it was Tatian who brought the New Testament books to the Syriac-speaking Church; and he brought them to Syria from Rome when he went to Edessa and founded the Church there in A.D. 172. It could, therefore, be argued that the Muratorian Canon is correct as we possess it and that First Peter was not part of the Roman ChurchNew Testament as late as A.D. 170. This would be a very surprising fact if Peter wrote it--and actually wrote it at Rome.

When all these facts are put together, it does seem that there are some strange silences in regard to First Peter and that its attestation may not be as strong as is usually assumed.

First Peter And Ephesians

Further, there is definitely some connection between First Peter and Ephesians. There are many close parallels of thought and expression between the two and we select the following specimens of this similarity.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By his

great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the

resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Pe_1:3 ).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who

has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the

heavenly places (Eph_1:3 ).

Therefore, gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon

the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ

(1Pe_1:13 ).

Stand, therefore, having girded your loins with truth (Eph_6:14 ).

Jesus Christ, was destined before the foundation of the world, but

was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake

(1Pe_1:20 ).

Even as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world

(Eph_1:4 ).

Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven, and is at the right hand

of God, with angels and authorities and powers subject to him

(1Pe_3:22 ).

God made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far

above all rule and authority, and power and dominion (Eph_1:20-21 ).

In addition, the injunctions to slaves, husbands and wives in First Peter and Ephesians are very similar.

The argument is put forward that First Peter is quoting Ephesians. Although Ephesians must have been written somewhere about A.D. 64, Paulletters were not collected and edited until about A.D. 90. If, then, Peter was also writing in A.D. 64, how could he know Ephesians?

This is an argument to which there is more than one reply. (a) The injunctions to slaves, husbands and wives are part of the standardized ethical teaching given to all converts in all churches. Peter was not borrowing from Paul; both were using common stock. (b) All the similarities quoted can well be explained from the fact that certain phrases and lines of thought were universal in the early church. For instance, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," was part of the universal devotional language of the early church, which both Peter and Paul would know and use without any borrowing from each other. (c) Even if there was mutual borrowing, it is by no means certain that First Peter borrowed from Ephesians; the borrowing might well have been the other way round and probably was, for First Peter is much simpler than Ephesians. (d) Lastly, even if First Peter borrowed from Ephesians, if Peter and Paul were in Rome at the same time, it is perfectly possible that Peter could have seen a copy of Ephesians before it was sent to Asia Minor, and he might well have discussed its ideas with Paul.

The argument that First Peter must be late because it quotes from Ephesians seems to us very uncertain and insecure, and probably mistaken.

Your Fellow-elder

It is objected that Peter could not well have written the sentence: "The elders among you I exhort, as a fellow-elder" (1Pe_5:1 ). It is maintained that Peter could not have called himself an elder. He was an apostle whose function was quite different from that of an elder. The apostle was characteristically a man whose work and authority were not confined to any one congregation, but whose writ ran throughout the Church at large; whereas the elder was the governing official of the local congregation.

That is perfectly true. But it must be remembered that amongst the Jews there was no office more universally honoured than that of elder. The elder had the respect of the whole community and to him the community looked for guidance in its problems and justice in its disputes. Peter, as a Jew, would feel nothing out of place in calling himself an elder; and in so doing he would avoid the conscious claim of authority that the title of apostle might have implied, and graciously and courteously identify himself with the people to whom he spoke.

A Witness Of The Sufferings Of Christ

It is objected that Peter could not honestly have called himself a witness of Christsufferings, for after the arrest in the garden all the disciples forsook Jesus and fled (Mat_26:56 ) and, apart from the beloved disciple, none was a witness of the Cross (Joh_19:26-27 ). A witness of the resurrection Peter could call himself, and indeed to be such was the function of an apostle (Act_1:22 ), but a witness of the Cross he was not. In a sense that is undeniable. And yet Peter is not here claiming to be a witness of the crucifixion, but to be a witness of the sufferings of Christ. He did see Christ suffer, in his continual rejection by men, in the poignant moments of the Last Supper, in the agony in the garden and in that moment when, after he had denied him, Jesus turned and looked on him (Luk_22:61 ). It is an insensitive and pedestrian criticism which denies to Peter the right to say that he had been a witness of the sufferings of Christ.

Persecution For The Name

The main argument for a late date for First Peter is drawn from its references to persecution. It is argued that First Peter implies that it was already a crime to be a Christian and that Christians were brought before the courts, not for any crime but for the bare fact of their faith. First Peter speaks about being reproached for the name of Christ (1Pe_4:14 ); it speaks of suffering as a Christian (1Pe_4:16 ). It is argued that this stage of persecution was not reached until after A.D. 100, and that prior to that date their persecution was on the score of alleged evil-doing, as in the time of Nero.

There is no doubt that this was the law by A.D. 112. At that time Pliny was governor of Bithynia. He was a personal friend of the Emperor Trajan and he had a way of referring all his difficulties to Trajan for solution. He wrote to the Emperor to tell how he dealt with the Christians. Pliny was well aware that they were law-abiding citizens to whose practices no crimes were attached. They told him that "they had been accustomed to assemble on a fixed day before daylight, and sing by turns a hymn to Christ as God; that they had bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but to commit neither theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, nor to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded." Pliny accepted all this; but, when they were brought before him, he asked only one question. "I have asked them whether they were Christians. Those who confessed I asked a second and a third time, threatening punishment. Those who persisted I ordered to be led away to execution." Their sole crime was that of being a Christian.

Trajan replied that this was the correct proceeding and that anyone who denied being a Christian and proved it by sacrificing to the gods was immediately to be set free. From the letters it is clear that there was a good deal of information being laid against the Christians; and Trajan laid it down that no anonymous letters of information were to be accepted or acted upon (Pliny: Letters 96 and 97).

It is argued that this stage of persecution did not emerge until the time of Trajan; and that First Peter, therefore, implies a situation which must be as late as Trojantime.

The only way in which we can settle this is to sketch the progress of persecution and the reason for it in the Roman Empire. We may do so by setting out one basic fact and three developments from it.

(i) Under the Roman system, religions were divided into two kinds. There were those which were religiones licitae, permitted religions; these were recognized by the state and it was open to any man to practise them. There were religiones illicitae; these were forbidden by the state and it was illegal for any man to practise them on pain of automatic prosecution as a criminal. It is to be noted that Roman toleration was very wide; and that any religion which did not affect public morality and civil order was certain to be permitted.

(ii) Judaism was a religio licita; and in the very early days the Romans, not unnaturally, did not know the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Christianity, as far as they were concerned, was merely a sect of Judaism and any tension and hostility between the two was a private quarrel which was no concern of the Roman government. Because of that in the very early days Christianity was under no danger of persecution. It enjoyed the same freedom of worship as Judaism enjoyed because it was assumed to be a religio licita.

(iii) The action of Nero changed the situation. However it came about, and most likely it was by the deliberate action of the Jews, the Roman government discovered that Judaism and Christianity were different. It is true that Nero first persecuted the Christians, not for being Christians, but for burning Rome. But the fact remains that Christianity had been discovered by the government to be a separate religion.

(iv) The consequence was immediate and inevitable. Christianity was at once a prohibited religion and immediately, ipso facto, every Christian became an outlaw. In the Roman historian, Suetonius, we have direct evidence that this was precisely what happened. He gives a kind of list of the legislative reforms initiated by Nero:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put

down, and not a few new laws were made; a limit was set to

expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution

of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was

forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas,

before, every kind of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was

inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and

mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the

chariot-drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the

right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating

and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their

partisans were banished from the city.

We have quoted that passage in full because it is proof that by the time of Nero the punishment of Christians had become an ordinary police affair. It is abundantly clear that we do not need to wait until the time of Trajan for the mere fact of being a Christian to be a crime. Any time after Nero a Christian was liable to punishment and death simply for the name he bore,

This does not mean that persecution was constant and consistent; but it does mean that any Christian was liable to execution at any time, purely as a police matter. In one area a Christian might live a whole lifetime at peace; in another there might be outbreaks of persecution every few months. It depended very largely on two things. It depended on the governor himself who might either leave the Christians unmolested or equally set the processes of the law in action against them. It depended on informers. The governor might not wish to act against the Christians, but if information was laid against a Christian he had to; and there were times when the mob were out for blood, information was laid and Christians were butchered to make a Roman holiday.

To compare small things with great, the legal position of the Christians and the attitude of the Roman law can be parallelled in Britain today. There are certain actions which are illegal--to take a very small example, parking a car partly on the pavement--but which for long enough may be permitted. But if the police authorities decide to institute a drive against such an action, or if it develops into too blatant a breaking of the law, or if someone lays a complaint and information, the law will go into action and due penalty and punishment will be exacted. That was the position of the Christians in the empire all of whom were technically outlaws. In actual fact no action might be taken against them; but a kind of sword of Damocles was for ever suspended over them. None knew when information would be laid against him; none knew when a governor would take action; none knew when he might have to die. And that situation obtained consistently after the action of Nero. Up to that time the Roman authorities had not realized that Christianity was a new religion; but from then on the Christian was automatically an outlaw.

Let us, then, look at the situation as depicted in First Peter. Peterpeople are undergoing various trials (1Pe_1:6 ). Their faith is liable to be tried as metal is tested with fire (1Pe_1:7 ). Clearly they are undergoing a campaign of slander in which ignorant and baseless charges are being maliciously directed against them (1Pe_2:12 ; 1Pe_2:15 ; 1Pe_3:16 ; 1Pe_4:4 ). At this very moment they are in the midst of an outbreak of persecution because they are Christians (1Pe_4:12 , 1Pe_4:14 , 1Pe_4:16 ; 1Pe_5:9 ). Such suffering is only to be expected and they must not be surprised at it (1Pe_4:12 ). In any event it gives them the happiness of suffering for righteousnessake (1Pe_3:14 , 1Pe_3:17 ), and of being sharers in the sufferings of Christ (1Pe_4:13 ). There is no need to come down to the time of Trajan for this situation. It is one in which Christians daily found themselves in every part of the empire at any time after their true status had been disclosed by the action of Nero. The persecution situation in First Peter does not in any way compel us to date it after the lifetime of Peter.

Honour The King

But we must proceed with the arguments of those who cannot hold the Petrine authorship. It is argued that in the situation which obtained in the time of Nero, Peter could never have written: "Be subject for the Lordsake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.... Fear God. Honour the emperor." (1Pe_2:13-17 ). The fact is, however, that this is precisely the point of view expressed in Rom_13:1-7 . The whole teaching of the New Testament, except only in the Revelation in which Rome is damned, is that the Christian must be a loyal citizen and must demonstrate the falsity of the charges made against him by the excellence of his behaviour as such. (1Pe_2:15 ). Even in times of persecution the Christian fully acknowledged his obligation to be a good citizen; and his only defence against persecution was to show by the excellence of his citizenship that he did not deserve such treatment. It is by no means impossible that Peter should have written like that.

A Sermon And A Pastoral

What is the view of those who cannot believe that First Peter is the work of Peter himself?

First of all, it is suggested that the initial address (1Pe_1:1-2 ), and the closing greetings and salutations (1Pe_5:12-14 ) are later additions and no part of the original letter.

It is then suggested that First Peter as it stands is composed of two separate and quite different works. In 1Pe_4:11 we find a doxology. The natural place for a doxology is at the end; and it is suggested that 1Pe_1:3-25 ; 1Pet 2-3; 1Pe_4:1-11 is the first of the two works of which the letter is composed. It is further suggested that this part of First Peter was originally a baptismal sermon. There is indeed in it a reference to the baptism which saves us (1Pe_3:21 ); and the advice to slaves, wives and husbands (1Pe_2:18-25 ; 1Pe_3:1-7 ) would be entirely relevant to those who were entering the Christian Church from paganism and setting out on the newness of the Christian life.

It is suggested that the second part of the letter, 1Pe_4:12-19 ; 1Pe_5:1-11 , contains the substance of a pastoral letter, written to strengthen and comfort during a time of persecution (1Pe_4:12-19 ). At such a time the elders were very important; on them the resistance power of the Church depended. The writer of this pastoral fears that greed and arrogance are creeping in (1Pe_5:1-3 ), and he urges them faithfully to perform their high task (1Pe_5:4 ).

On this view First Peter is composed of two separate works--a baptismal sermon, and a pastoral letter written in time of persecution and neither has anything to do with Peter.

Asia Minor, Not Rome

If First Peter is a baptismal sermon and a pastoral letter in time of persecution, where is its place of origin? If the letter is not Peter there is no necessity to connect it with Rome; and, in any event, it appears that the Roman Church did not know or use First Peter. Let us put together certain facts.

(a) Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1Pe_1:1 ) are all in Asia Minor and all centred in Sinope.

(b) The first extensive quoter of First Peter is Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, and Smyrna is in Asia Minor.

(c) Certain phrases in First Peter immediately turn our thoughts to parallel phrases in other parts of the New Testament. In 1Pe_5:13 the Church is called "she that is elect," and in 2Jo_1:13 the Church is also described as an "elect sister." 1Pe_1:8 speaks of Jesus Christ, "without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy." This turns our thoughts very naturally to Jesusaying to Thomas in the Fourth Gospel: "Blessed are those who have not seen, and believe" (Joh_20:29 ). First Peter urges the elders to tend, that is, to shepherd, the flock of God (1Pe_5:2 ). That turns our thoughts to Jesusnjunction to Peter to feed his lambs and his sheep (Joh_21:15-17 ), and to Paulfarewell injunction to the elders of Ephesus to take heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made them guardians (Act_20:28 ). All this is to say that the memories First Peter awakens are of the Fourth Gospel, the Letters of John and of Paul at Ephesus. The Fourth Gospel and the Letters of John were most probably written at Ephesus, and Ephesus is in Asia Minor.

It seems that in the case of First Peter all roads lead to Asia Minor.

The Occasion Of The Publication Of First Peter

Assuming that First Peter has its origin in Asia Minor, can we suggest an occasion for its writing? It was written at a time of persecution. We know from Plinyletters that in Bithynia about A.D. 112 there was a serious persecution of the Christians and Bithynia is one of the provinces named in the address. We may well conjecture that it was to give courage to the Christians then that First Peter was issued. It may be that at that time someone in a church in Asia Minor came upon these two documents and sent them out under the name of Peter. This would not be looked upon as forgery. Both in Jewish and in Greek practice it was the regular custom to attach books to the name of the great writers of the past.

The Author Of First Peter

If Peter did not write First Peter, is it possible to guess at the author? Let us reconstruct some of his essential qualifications. On our previous assumption, he must come from Asia Minor. On the basis of First Peter itself, he must be an elder and an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ (1Pe_5:1 ). Is there anyone who fits these requirements? Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis about A.D. 170, who spent his life collecting all the information he could about the early days of the Church, tells of his methods and his sources: "Nor shall I hesitate, along with my own interpretations, to set down for thee whatsoever I learned with care and remembered with care from the elders, guaranteeing its truth.... Furthermore, if anyone chanced to arrive who had been really a follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the sayings of the elders--as to what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lorddisciples, also as to what Aristion or the Presbyter John, the Lorddisciples say. For I supposed that things out of books would not be of such use to me as the utterances of a living voice which was still with us." Here we have an elder called Aristion who was a disciple of the Lord and, therefore, a witness of his sufferings. Is there anything to connect him with First Peter?

Aristion Of Smyrna

When we turn to the Apostolic Constitutions we find that one of the first bishops of Smyrna was called Ariston--which is the same name as Aristion. Now who is the great quoter of First Peter? None other than Polycarp, a later Bishop of Smyrna. What more natural than that Polycarp should quote what might well have been the devotional classic of his own Church?

Let us turn to the letters to the Seven Churches in the Revelation and read the letter to Smyrna: "Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Rev_2:10 ). Can this be the very same persecution as that which originally lay behind First Peter? And was it for this persecution that Aristion, the Bishop of Smyrna, first wrote the pastoral letter which was afterwards to become a part of First Peter?

Such is the suggestion of B. H. Streeter. He thinks that First Peter is composed of a baptismal sermon and a pastoral letter written by Aristion, Bishop of Smyrna. Originally the pastoral letter was written to comfort and strengthen the people of Smyrna in A.D. 90 when the persecution mentioned in the Revelation threatened the Church. These writings of Aristion became the devotional classics and the cherished possessions of the Church at Smyrna. Rather more than twenty years later a much wider and more far-reaching persecution broke out in Bithynia and spread throughout northern Asia Minor. Someone remembered the letter and the sermon of Aristion, felt that they were the very thing the Church needed in her time of trial, and sent them out under the name of Peter, the great apostle.

An ApostleLetter

We have stated in full both views of the origin, date and authorship of First Peter. There is no doubt of the ingenuity of the theory which B. H. Streeter has produced nor that those who favour a later date have produced arguments which have to be considered. For our own part, however, we see no reason to doubt that the letter is the work of Peter himself, and that it was written not long after the great fire of Rome and the first persecution of the Christians with the object of encouraging the Christians of Asia Minor to stand fast when the onrushing tide of persecution sought to engulf them and take their faith away.

FURTHER READING

1 Peter

F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (G)

E. Best, 1 Peter (NCB; E)

C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; G)

C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Tch; E)

E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

The Silent Preaching Of A Lovely Life (1Pe_3:1-2)

The True Adornment (1Pe_3:3-6)

The Husband's Obligation (1Pe_3:7)

(1) The Marks Of The Christian Life (1Pe_3:8-12)

(2)The Marks Of The Christian Life (1Pe_3:8-12 Continued)

The Christian's Security In A Threatening World (1Pe_3:13-15)

The Christian Argument For Christ (1Pe_3:15-16)

The Saving Work Of Christ (1Pe_3:17-22; 1Pe_4:1-6)

The Example Of The Work Of Christ (1Pe_3:17-18)

(1) The Descent Into Hell (1Pe_3:18-20; 1Pe_4:6)

(2) The Descent Into Hell (1Pe_3:18-20; 1Pe_4:6 Continued)

(3) The Descent Into Hell (1Pe_3:18-20; 1Pe_4:6 Continued)

(4) The Descent Into Hell (1Pe_3:18-20; 1Pe_4:6 Continued)

The Baptism Of The Christian (1Pe_3:18-22)

Constable: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

This epistle claims that the Apostle Peter wrote it (1:1). Since there is only one Peter who was an apostle we may be confident of the identity of the writer. There is only one Peter that the entire New Testament mentioned. Scholars did not question Peter's authorship until the nineteenth century when destructive biblical criticism became popular.

"The epistle has been well known and consistently acknowledged as Petrine from the second century well into modern times. . . .

"Aside from the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, the external attestation for 1 Peter is as strong, or stronger, than that for any NT book. There is no evidence anywhere of controversy over its authorship or authority"¹

Peter first sent this letter to believers living in the northern regions of Asia Minor (1:1). The locations of these Christians as well as allusions in the epistle indicate that they were mainly Gentiles but also Jews (e.g., 1:14; 2:10).

Peter stated his reason for writing, namely, to encourage his readers who were facing persecution for their faith to stand firm (5:12). Evidently this persecution was widespread among his readers. Local enemies of the gospel were not the only people responsible for it. When Paul travelled around the Roman Empire preaching the gospel, some churches he planted experienced persecution from the unsaved in their communities, but others did not. However 1 Peter reflects persecution of the Christians throughout northern Asia Minor. This condition prevailed after Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome in A.D. 64. While persecution seems to have been widespread, it may not have been official yet.

Peter died in the mid 60s and spent the last decade of his life in Rome according to reliable tradition.² Many interpreters have regarded his reference to Babylon (5:13) as a reference to Rome that Peter described as Babylon to highlight its paganism. In view of all this information it seems likely that Peter wrote this epistle from Rome about A.D. 64.³

Theologically this epistle is apocalyptic (dealing with the end times). Along with its eschatological focus there is much emphasis on holiness (personal, social, and communal), hope, salvation, community, relationship to the world, the Trinity, and especially suffering.⁴

". . . much of the material in 1 Peter is the stuff of basic Christian teaching rather than advanced instruction that assumes the mastery (and perhaps the perversion) of the basics, as in the Pauline letters."⁵

"In many . . . respects, 1 Peter and James form a matched pair within the NT canon. They are Christian diaspora letters roughly similar in length, one directed (probably from Jerusalem) to scattered messianic Jews (i.e., Christians) who are real Jews, and the other directed from Babylon' to scattered Jews' who are in fact Gentile Christians."⁶

Message⁷

One writer has identified five major motifs in 1 Peter. These are the believer's behavior, the believer's unfair circumstances, the believer's deference, the believer's motivation by Christ's example, and the believer's anticipation of future glory. These are certainly important emphases in this epistle.

Putting these together he has stated the message of 1 Peter as follows. "The behavior of believers when they encounter unfair circumstances reflects a spirit of deference in all relationships as they follow Christ's example and anticipate future glory."⁸

This is a very fine statement of what the Holy Spirit has said to us through Peter in this epistle. However, I would add one more important motif. It is the believer's resource of God's grace. This is not an incidental motif but one that underlies all of what Peter called on his readers to do. We must understand and apply what he wrote about God's grace as our resource to follow his exhortations.

It seems to me that Peter stated the message of this epistle clearly: stand firm in the true grace of God (5:12).

The subject of the letter therefore is the true grace of God. Grace is the key word in the argument of this epistle. In each case the word "grace" occurs in the practical rather than in the doctrinal part of each section of the letter. Throughout 1 Peter the fact of God's grace was in Peter's mind as crucial to the believer's practice. How does one explain God's grace? Grace means both undeserved favor and divine enablement.

The main purpose of this epistle was to strengthen the readers so they would persevere through their persecution with the right attitude. Peter did this by showing that God's grace provided all they needed for strength. In a larger sense, the purpose is to help Christians know how to live as aliens in the world.

This epistle reveals above all else that God's grace is sufficient for all our needs. We could write over this whole book: 2 Corinthians 12:9. Notice five things Peter reminds us about God's grace. Let's trace the references to grace though 1 Peter.

1. Grace proceeds from God. God in His grace has chosen us (1:1). Now we need to realize God's grace in its fullest measure in our experience (1:2).

2. Grace produces confidence. The prophets foretold God's grace (1:10). The advents of Jesus Christ supplied God's grace (1:13). It came into the world at His first advent through His sufferings and death. It will come into the world again at His second advent through His glorification. This pattern gives us confidence. God has united us with Christ. As He suffered once, we suffer now. As certainly as He will receive glory in the future, we too will experience glorification in the future. We need to remember our hope.

3. What proclaims God's grace is our conduct (2:19-20). The Christian's conduct in trying and difficult circumstances manifests God's grace in a human life. The submissive conduct of servants whose masters are persecuting them manifests God's grace. The submissive conduct of wives whose antagonistic husbands are persecuting them manifests grace. The submissive conduct of husbands whom unbelievers are persecuting manifests grace. The husband demonstrates his submission to God by treating his wife as a fellow heir of God's grace (3:7). Our patient endurance of trials displays our submission to God's will. Thus our conduct manifests God's grace. Sometimes we marvel at the ability God gives his persecuted saints to endure. We say, "How can he (or she) do it?"

4. Grace perfects character. Grace is the source of service (4:10). Grace is also the source of humility (5:5). An attitude of humility manifests itself in service of others. God's grace is the secret of both the attitude and the activity. Jesus established "the order of the towel" by washing the disciples' feet (John 13).

5. Grace promotes courage (5:10). We need courage to resist the devil (5:8-9). God's grace gives us strength to defend ourselves against his attacks.

The epistle exhorts us to stand firm in this grace. This is Peter's appeal to us.

When God tries our faith, we need to remember that we have an adequate source of strength in God's grace.

When our faith is trembling, we need to remember that we have an adequate source of confidence in God's grace.

When our circumstances are difficult we need to remember that we have an adequate source of conduct in God's grace.

When we suffer for conscience's sake we need to remember that we have an adequate source of character in God's grace.

When assaulted by the adversary we need to remember that we have an adequate source of courage in God's grace.

We stand firm in the true grace of God when we respond to suffering for Christ's sake as Peter directed us. God's grace is what we need to rely on as we commit ourselves to continue to walk in the will of God. Trust and obey!

Constable: 1 Peter (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-2

II. The identity of Christians 1:3-2:10

A. Our great salvation 1:3-12

1. The hope of our salvation 1:3-5

2. The joy of our salvation 1:6-9

3. The witnesses of our salvation 1:10-12

B. Our new way of life 1:13-25

1. A life of holiness 1:13-16

2. A life of reverence 1:17-21

3. A life of love 1:22-25

C. Our priestly calling 2:1-10

1. Listening to God 2:1-3

2. Growing in God 2:4-5

3. Building on Christ 2:6-8

4. Summary affirmation of our identity 2:9-10

III. The responsibilities of Christians individually 2:11-4:11

A. Our mission in the world 2:11-12

B. Respect for others 2:13-3:12

1. Respect for everyone 2:13-17

2. Slaves' respect for their masters 2:18-25

3. Wives' respect for their husbands 3:1-6

4. Husbands' respect for their wives 3:7

5. The importance of loving enemies 3:8-12

C. Eventual vindication 3:13-4:6

1. Suffering for doing good 3:13-17

2. The vindication of Christ 3:18-22

3. Living with the promise in view 4:1-6

D. The importance of mutual love in end-times living 4:7-11

IV. The responsibilities of Christians corporately 4:12-5:11

A. The fiery trial 4:12-19

1. Suffering and glory 4:12-14

2. Suffering as Christians 4:15-19

B. The church under trial 5:1-11

1. The responsibilities of the elders 5:1-4

2. The responsibilities of the others 5:5

3. The importance of humility and trust in God 5:6-7

4. The importance of resisting the devil 5:8-11

VII. Conclusion 5:12-14

Note the essentially chiastic structure of thought in the letter, excluding the introduction and conclusion.

Constable: 1 Peter

1 Peter

Bibliography

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Balch, D. L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. Chico: Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.

_____. "Let Wives Be Submissive . . .": The Origin, Form, and Apolegetic Function of the Household Duty Code (Haustafel) in I Peter. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1974.

Barbieri, Louis A. First and Second Peter. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Beare, F. W. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. Third edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

Bengel, John Albert. New Testament Word Studies. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971.

Berding, Kenneth. "Confusing Word and Concept in Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten James Barr's Exhortations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 200):37-51.

Best, Ernest. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Oliphants, 1971; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary series. 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961.

Birkey, Del. The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1988.

Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blum, Edwin A. "1 Peter." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Caffin, B. C. "I Peter." In The Pulpit Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by John Owen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

_____. "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter." In Calvin's Commentaries. Translated by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Cedar, Paul A. James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

The Confessions of St. Augustine. Translated by Edward B. Pusey. New York: Washington Square Press, 1960.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

Cook, W. Robert. "Biblical Light on the Christian's Civil Responsibility." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):44-57.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Dalton, William J. Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, Epistles of," by S. J. Case.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, First Epistle of," by F. H. Chase.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dutile, Gordon. "A Concept of Submission in the Husband-Wife Relationship in Selected New Testament Passages." Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibleotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Erickson, Millard J. "Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):131-44.

Eustace, Lord Perry. John Knox. London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.

Family Life Conference. Little Rock, Ark.: Family Ministry, 1990.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Peter and Jude." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 437-71. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Feinberg, John S. "1 Peter 3:18-20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):303-36

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Premillennial View of Law and Government." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):250-66.

Glenny, W. Edward. "The Israelite Imagery of 1 Peter 2." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 156-87. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on I Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated and augmented by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Grudem, Wayne. 1 Peter. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

_____. "Christ Preaching through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature." Trinity Journal 7NS:2 (Fall 1986):3-31.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Counsel for Christ's Undershepherds: An Exposition of 1 Peter 5:1-4." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:556 [October-December 1982]:330-41.

_____. "Designation of the Readers in 1 Peter 1:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:545 (January-March 1980):64-75.

_____. "Following Christ's Example: An Exposition of 1 Peter 2:21-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):32-45.

_____. "Living in the Light of Christ's Return: An Exposition of 1 Peter 4:7-11." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:555 (July-September 1982):243-54.

_____. "The Suffering and Triumphant Christ: An Exposition of 1 Peter 3:18-22." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:554 (April-June 1982):146-58.

_____. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hillyer, C. Norman. "Rock-Stone' Imagery in I Peter." Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971):58-81.

Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17. London: Macmillan, 1898.

Howe, Frederic R. "Christ, the Building Stone, in Peter's Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):35-43.

_____. "The Cross of Christ in Peter's Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:626 (April-June 2000):190-99.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. S.v. "Peter, The First Epistle of," by William G. Moorehead.

Johnson, D. E. "Fire in God's House: Imagery from Malachi 3 in Peter's Theology of Suffering (1 Pet 4:12-19)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (1989):285-94.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Thornapple Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Kennard, Douglas W. "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:4 (December 1987):399-405.

Kirk, Gordon E. "Endurance in Suffering in 1 Peter." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:549 (January-March 1981):46-56.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 12: James--Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Oosterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isider Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Mason, A. J. "The First Epistle General of Peter." In Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible. 8 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Meyer, F. B. "Tried by Fire." London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1988.

Moffatt, James. "The General Epistles, James, Peter, and Judas." In The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. Reprint ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Paine, Stephen W. "The First Epistle of Peter." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1441-52. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Pryor, John W. "First Peter and the New Covenant." Reformed Theological Review 45:1&2 (January-April & May-August 1986):1-3, 44-50.

Pyne, Robert A. "Antinomianism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):141-54.

Raymer, Roger M. "1 Peter." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 837-58. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Richards, E. Randolph. "Silvanus Was Not Peter's Secretary: Theological Bias in Interpreting dia Silouanou . . . egrapha in 1 Peter 5:12." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):417-32.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153-62.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Schaeffer, Francis A. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester, Ill.: Good News Publishers, Crossway Books, 1981.

Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1964.

Siefker, Mrs. Glenn R. "God's Plans for Wives." Good News Broadcaster, February 1975, pp. 22-25.

Slaughter, James R. "The Importance of Literary Argument for Understanding 1 Peter." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):72-91.

_____. "Peter's Instructions to Husbands in 1 Peter 3:7." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 175-85. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet. 3:5-6)." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):357-65.

_____. "Submission of Wives (1 Pet. 3:1a) in the Context of 1 Peter." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):63-74.

_____. "Winning Unbelieving Husbands to Christ (1 Pet. 3:1b-4)." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):199-211.

Steele, Paul E., and Charles C. Ryrie. Meant to Last. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983.

Stibbs, Alan M. The First Epistle General of St. Peter. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Reprint ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Strauch, Arthur. Biblical Eldership. Littleton, Colo.: Lewis and Roth Publishers, 1986.

Strauss, Lehman. "Our Only Hope." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):154-64.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S. v. "hypotasso," by Gerhard Delling, 8 (1972):39-46.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "Is the New Testament Minister a Priest?" Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):65-73.

Tite, Philip L. "The Compositional Function of the Petrine Prescript: A Look at 1 Pet 1:1-3." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):47-56.

Tuni, Jose Oriol. "Jesus of Nazareth in the Christology of 1 Peter." Haythrop Journal 28:3 (July 1987):292-304.

Vaughn, Marilyn. "When Should a Wife Not Submit?" Moody Monthly, October 1977, pp. 104-107.

Vos, Geerhardus. "A Sermon on I Peter 1:3-5." Kerux 1:2 (September 1986):4-17.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Wand, J. W. C. The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen & Co., 1934.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Election and the Gospel." Grace Evangelical Society News 4:7 (July 1989):1, 3.

Witmer, John A. "The Man with Two Countries." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):338-49.

Wolston, W. T. P. Simon Peter: His Life and Letters. 2nd ed. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1896.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This first Epistle of St. Peter, though brief, contains much doctrine concerning faith, hope, and charity, with divers instructions to all persons of every state and condition. The apostle commands submission to rulers and superiors, and exhorts all to the practice of a virtuous life, in imitation of Christ. This epistle was written with such apostolical dignity, as to manifest the supreme authority with which its writer, the prince of the apostles, had been invested by his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. He wrote it at Rome, which figuratively he calls Babylon, about fifteen years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- St. Peter, otherwise called Simon, son of John or Jonas, was from Bethsaida, a city of Galilee. He was married, and lived at Capharnaum, and was employed with his brother Andrew, as fishermen, when our Lord called them. St. Peter on every occasion testified a more than usual zeal for his Master, and hence our Lord shewed him a very particular and very marked attention. He would have Peter present at his transfiguration; (Luke ix. 28.) and at another time declared that he [Peter] was a rock, upon which he [Jesus Christ] would build his Church, against which the gates of hell should never prevail. (Matthew xvi. 18.) Although St. Peter had the misfortune or weakness to deny Jesus Christ in his passion, our Lord, after his resurrection, gave him fresh proofs of his regard. (Matthew xvi. 7.) He continued him in his primacy over all, and appointed him in the most explicit manner visible head of his Church, when thrice asking Peter: "lovest thou me more than these?" and St. Peter as often answering, Christ said to him: "feed my lambs, feed my sheep." (John xxi. 15.) --- This epistle was always received in the Church as canonical, and as written by St. Peter, prince of the apostles. It is commonly agreed that it was written from Rome, which St. Peter calls Babylon, (Chap. v. 13.) and directed to those in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, &c. (ver. 1.) who were before Jews or Gentiles, and had been converted to the Christian faith. It is certain this letter was not written till after the true believers had the name of Christians. (Chap. iv. 16.) Many think it was written before the year 49; but this is not certain. Others judge not till after the year 60, and some not till a short time before he wrote his second epistle. See Tillemont, t. i. Art. 31. on S. Pet. and tom. ii. on S. Mark, p. 89.) The main design is to confirm the new converts in the faith of Christ, with divers instructions to a virtuous life. (Witham) --- Grotius, Erasmus, and Estius, discover in this epistle, a strength and majesty worthy the prince of the apostles. Est autem epistola profecto digna Apostolorum Principe, plena authoritatis et majestatis Apostolicæ: verbis parca, sententiis referta.

====================

Gill: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 PETER

That Simon, called Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was the writer of this epistle, is not questioned by any; nor was the genuineness and authenticity of it ever made a doubt of. Eusebius says ^a, that it had been confessed by all, and received without controversy; and that the ancients, without any scruple, had made use of it in their writings. It is called his "general", or catholic epistle, because it was not written to any particular person, or to any particular church, but in general, to a number of Christians dispersed in several places. The time when this epistle was written is not certain; some place it in the year of Christ 44 or 45, and so make it to be the most ancient of all the epistles, and which is the more commonly received opinion; but Dr. Lightfoot ^b places it in the year 65, because in it the apostle speaks of the end of all things being at hand, and of the fiery trial just coming on them, and of judgment beginning at the house of God, 1Pe 4:7 all which he applies to the destruction of Jerusalem; though others fix it to 61, in the seventh year of Nero ^c. The place from whence it seems to be written was Babylon, 1Pe 5:13 which is to be understood not figuratively, either of Rome or Jerusalem, but properly of Babylon, the metropolis of Chaldea, or Assyria. The persons to whom it is written were Jews, at least chiefly; for there might be some Gentiles among them, who may be taken notice of in some parts of the epistle; but the principal part were Jews, as appears from their being called the strangers of the dispersion, or, as James calls them, "the twelve tribes scattered abroad"; from the mention of the tradition of their fathers; from their having their conversation honest among the Gentiles, and their past life among them; from urging subjection to the civil magistrates among the Heathens, and the right use of their Christian liberty as to the ceremonies of the law; and from the near destruction of Jerusalem, which could only affect them; and from the use made of the writings of the Old Testament, and the authority of the prophets; see 1Pe 1:1 as well as from the second epistle, which was written to the same; see 2Pe 1:19 in which he seems to refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, written by Paul, as to these. And besides, Peter was the minister of the circumcision, or of the circumcised Jews, as Paul was of the Gentiles; and even those passages in this epistle, which seem most likely to concern the Gentiles, may be understood of the Jews, as which speak of their ignorance, idolatry, and having not been a people, 1Pe 1:14 which were true of them before conversion, and as living among Gentiles. The occasion of writing it was this; Peter meeting with Sylvanus, a faithful brother, and who had been a companion of the Apostle Paul, he takes this opportunity of sending a letter by him to the converted Jews, dispersed among the Gentile countries, where he, with Paul, and others, travelled: the design of which is to testify of the true doctrine of grace, in which they were agreed; see 1Pe 5:12. And accordingly in it he does treat of the doctrine of electing grace, of redeeming grace, of regenerating and sanctifying grace, and of persevering grace; and exhorts believers to the exercise of grace, of faith, hope, and love, and to the discharge of such duties becoming their several stations, whereby they might evidence to others the truth of grace in themselves, and adorn the doctrine of the grace of God, and recommend it to others: and particularly he exhorts them patiently to bear all afflictions and persecutions they should meet with, for their profession of the true grace of God, in which he encourages them to stand steadfast: and this is the general scope and design of the epistle.

Gill: 1 Peter 3 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 PETER 3

In this chapter the apostle instructs wives how to behave towards their husbands, and husbands how to behave towards their wives; and then exhorts to various things common to all Christians, and particularly to suffer patiently for righteousness sake; to which he encourages them from the sufferings of Christ, and the benefits resulting from them, on which he enlarges to the end of the chapter. He begins with the duty of wives to their husbands, even unbelieving ones, which is subjection to them, urged from the profitable effect of it; since hereby they might be won over to the Christian religion, without the use of the word, as a means, by their conversation, which is explained of chastity and fear, 1Pe 3:1. And he proceeds to give some advice about their apparel, that they should have a greater regard to internal ornaments; particularly meekness and quietness of spirit, which is highly esteemed of by God, rather than to outward adorning; and which he enforces by the examples of godly women in former times, who were so adorned, and were subject to their husbands, particularly Sarah, the wife of Abraham, 1Pe 3:3. And next the apostle directs husbands how to conduct towards their wives, to dwell with them, and honour them, because vessels, and weaker vessels, and also heirs of the same grace of life; and besides, to use them ill would be an hinderance of their praying together, 1Pe 3:7. And then follow various exhortations to unity of judgment, compassion, brotherly love, pity, courteousness, and patience under the reproaches and revilings of men, which is the way to inherit a blessing they are called unto, 1Pe 3:8 and that these are incumbent on the saints, and that they shall be blessed, who are helped to regard them, is proved by some passages out of Psa 34:12, which passages are cited, 1Pe 3:10. And in order to encourage to the exercise of the above things, the apostle suggests, that they that so behaved should not be hurt by any; and if they did suffer for righteousness sake from wicked men, yet still they would be happy; nor should this deter them from making a public confession of their faith; to which should be added a good conscience and conversation, to the shame and confusion of them that spoke evil of them, and accused them, 1Pe 3:13. And though they were distressed and injured by men, they should not be cast down, nor murmur, since it was the will of God it should be so; and since it was better to suffer for doing well than for doing ill; and especially the example of Christ should animate to patience, since he, an innocent person, suffered for the sins of unjust men, to reconcile them to God; and he is now glorified and happy, and so will his people be, 1Pe 3:17. And having made mention of his being quickened by the Spirit, the apostle takes occasion from hence of observing, that by the same Spirit Christ preached in the times of Noah to disobedient persons, whose spirits were now in hell; and he takes notice of the longsuffering of God in that dispensation towards them, and of the goodness of God in saving Noah, and his family, in the ark, which was a figure of baptism; of which some account is given what it is, and is not, and which saves by the resurrection of Christ, 1Pe 3:19 who is described by his ascension to heaven, session at the right hand of God, and dominion over angels, authorities, and powers, 1Pe 3:22.

College: 1 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

This commentary is written for the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. Its purpose is to provide a historical interpretation of 1 Peter; that is, an interpretation of what Peter meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Peter's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Peter and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Peter wrote it. It is this latter task that is the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Peter meant to say to his original readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Peter's letter, even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by Paul Achtemeier and Ramsey Michaels. I have also frequently consulted the commentaries by Leonard Goppelt and Peter Davids. I often refer the reader to these works for further information, and even where I do not, the reader would be well advised to consult them for a scholar's depth of treatment.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, usually from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament .

AUTHOR

Peter identifies himself in the opening words of the letter: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." The book clearly claims to have been written by the well-known apostle, a leading figure in the Gospels and in the first half of the book of Acts.

This claim is well supported by second century evidence. Some even argue that 1 Clement, written near the end of the first century, reflects use of 1 Peter. It is certainly true that Polycarp of Smyrna knew and used 1 Peter. This is repeatedly reflected in his letter to the Philippians, written in the first half of the second century. It is all the more significant since Smyrna was in one of the regions Peter addressed.

This is also true of Hierapolis, the home of Papias, who also wrote in the first half of the second century. According to Eusebius, Papias used quotations from the first epistle of Peter.

In the latter part of the second century Irenaeus cited 1 Peter and explicitly mentioned Peter as the author. All subsequent ancient Christian authors agree.

The only evidence that some believe might indicate another opinion is that the Muratorian Canon (late second century) does not list 1 Peter. Others believe that 1 Peter was originally listed and is omitted because of the corrupt state of our copy of this list. In any case it would be a questionable argument from silence to use the omission as evidence that the author of the Canon knew 1 Peter and considered it to be falsely ascribed. He was quite capable of identifying works which he considered to be falsely ascribed.

Until modern times Peter's authorship of 1 Peter was universally accepted among Christians. However, many modern scholars, including Goppelt and Achtemeier, consider the book pseudepigraphical. Their arguments are not compelling.

One argument against Petrine authorship is the good quality of the Greek in 1 Peter. However, in recent decades there has been a growing awareness that Greek was widely used as a second language in Palestine. It is not improbable that, even without a special gift from the Spirit, Peter would have known Greek. Furthermore, 1 Peter 5:12 may indicate that Silvanus assisted Peter as his secretary. This is a debated point which is discussed in the comments on that verse. But if Silvanus did secretarial work for Peter, then he may have influenced the Greek style.

A second argument used against Peter having written 1 Peter is the similarity of the content of parts of 1 Peter to the letters of Paul. However, such similarities are not surprising. The incident Paul recounts in Galatians 2 does not indicate that he and Peter remained at odds with each other or that they did not share many common emphases.

A third argument is that the references to persecution indicate a late date, perhaps during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or Trajan (A.D. 98-117) - after the death of Peter during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68). However, there are no clear indications of state-ordered persecution in 1 Peter. Fortunately, this argument has lost much of its force because most contemporary scholars agree that the persecution reflected in 1 Peter does not presuppose a government-sponsored persecution.

In the light of the weakness of arguments to the contrary and the strength of the second century support for Peter as the author, the claim made in 1 Peter 1:1 should be accepted. The author is Peter the apostle.

PLACE OF COMPOSITION

First Peter 5:13 says "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." Peter was in "Babylon." There are three possible referents: Mesopotamian Babylon, a Roman military settlement named Babylon (located near modern Cairo, Egypt), and the city of Rome. The most likely choice is Rome. Rome is symbolically designated "Babylon" in the book of Revelation and several Jewish works (including 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch). One weakness of this approach is that 1 Peter appears to be the earliest such reference.

But there is reasonably good evidence that Peter went to Rome. Clement of Rome, writing in the mid-90s, implies that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the Neronian persecution brought on by the fire in Rome in July of A.D. 64. In the early second century Ignatius's letter to the Romans seems to assume that Peter had been in Rome. Beginning in the second half of the second century there is a steady stream of references to Peter in Rome (although many of them are mixed in with dubious assertions about Peter founding the Roman church).

In addition to Peter, 1 Peter 5:13 places Mark in "Babylon" as well. If Colossians and Philemon were written from Rome, they place Mark there with Paul (Col 4:10; Phlm 24).

DATE

The previous paragraph points out that 1 Clement 5-6 suggests that Peter died in the Neronian persecution. As in the case of Peter's presence in Rome, sources from the late second century and beyond provide a steady stream of references to Peter's martyrdom under Nero (mixed with various dubious claims). The vast majority of scholars accept the idea that Peter was martyred by order of Nero between A.D. 64 and 68. Since Peter is the author, 1 Peter must have been written no later than A.D. 68.

Few, if any, would suggest a date earlier than the 60s. Earlier dates might not allow adequate time for Peter to come to Rome or for Christianity to spread through most of Asia Minor.

RECIPIENTS

Concerning the five provinces listed in 1 Peter 1:1 see the commentary for details. They encompass most of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Peter addressed Christians who were scattered throughout these areas.

The fact that Peter addressed his readers with the term "Diaspora" or "Dispersion" (1:1) misled many in the past to maintain that his readers were primarily Jewish Christians. The term "Diaspora," meaning "scattered," was used frequently by the Jews to refer to those who had been scattered throughout the world, away from their Palestinian homeland. However, there is a consensus among modern interpreters that Peter used it metaphorically to include Gentile Christians. All Christians live away from their homeland with God.

Besides the likelihood that many Gentiles had become Christians in these predominantly Gentile regions, several verses in 1 Peter indicate that many of the readers came out of a pagan past. See, for example, 1:14, "do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance"; 1:18, "you were redeemed from the evil way of life handed down to you from your forefathers"; and 4:3, "you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do."

ENCOURAGING THE PERSECUTED

First Peter 5:12 sums up Peter's purpose: "I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it." Peter's letter was a word of encouragement to Christians who were facing persecution and needed encouragement to stand firm in their faith.

Earlier interpreters often thought of these persecutions as state-sponsored persecutions leading to imprisonment and death. More recent interpreters have noticed that the nature and extent of the persecutions is not very specific. The only specific reference to physical persecution is the reference in 2:20 to Christian slaves being beaten. There is no reference to state-sponsored persecution.

But that the persecutions were severe is clear from such references as 1:6, "You may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials" and 4:12, "do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering."

We are familiar with the antagonistic environment the early Christians lived in from reading Acts and Paul's letters. In the early second century several pagan writers provide further evidence of how Christians were perceived by others. In writing about Nero's persecution of Christians Tacitus describes them as "a class hated for their abominations" and calls Christianity "a deadly superstition . . . hideous and shameful." In describing the same event Suetonius describes Christians as "a class of men given to a new and wicked superstition." During roughly the same period of time Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia (one of the five regions Peter addressed), wrote to the emperor Trajan and described Christianity as "a perverse and extravagant superstition." These are the kinds of criticisms Peter presumably had in mind when he made comments like "they accuse you of doing wrong" (2:12) and they "speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ" (3:16).

Peter wrote to remind these readers of what God had done for them in Christ (e.g., 1:1-12; 2:4-10) and to encourage them to stand firm (e.g., 1:13-25; 2:11-25). We can benefit from overhearing what he said.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter . Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament . 4th Rev. Ed. United Bible Societies, 1993.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d Ed. Rev. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Bigg, Charles. Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude . International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Carson, D.A., D.J. Moo, and L. Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Dalton, W.J. Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6. 2nd Ed. Analecta Biblica 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989.

Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Elliott, J.H. The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2:4-10 and the Phrase basivleion iJeravteuma. Novum Testamentum. Supplement 12. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology . Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.

France, R.T. "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples." In New Testament Exegesis. Ed. I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Goppelt, Leonard. A Commentary on 1 Peter . Ed. Ferdinand Hahn. Trans. and Aug. John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Grudem, Wayne. The First Epistle of Peter. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Hemer, Colin. "The Address of 1 Peter." Expository Times 89 (1977-78): 239-243.

Hort, F.J.A. The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17. London: Macmillan, 1898.

Jones, R.B. "Christian Behavior under Fire (First Epistle of Peter)." Review and Expositor 46 (1949): 56-66.

Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Harper New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.

Marshall, I. Howard. 1 Peter . IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . 2nd Ed. United Bible Societies, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 49. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

Moffatt, James. The General Epistles. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940.

O'Brien, P.T. "Letters, Letter Forms." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters . Eds. G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.G. Reid. 550-553. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

Osburn, Carroll D., ed. Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity . 2 Vols. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993, 1995.

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Selwyn, E.G. The First Epistle of St. Peter. London: Macmillan, 1946.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

KJV King James Version

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

UBS ⁴ United Bible Society Greek New Testament, 4th Edition

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 1 Peter (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. THE GREETING - 1:1-2

II. A CALL TO BE HOLY - 1:3-2:10

A. The Hope of Salvation - 1:3-9

B. The Glory of This Salvation - 1:10-12

C. Be Holy in All You Do - 1:13-16

D. Live in Reverent Fear as Those Redeemed by Christ's Blood - 1:17-21

E. Love One Another as Those Born Again through the Word of God - 1:22-25

F. Crave Pure Spiritual Milk - 2:1-3

G. God's Chosen People through Jesus - 2:4-10

III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXEMPLARY LIVING IN SOCIETY'S STRUCTURES - 2:11-3:12

A. Live Good Lives among the Pagans - 2:11-12

B. Submit to the Governing Authorities - 2:13-17

C. Slaves, Submit to Your Masters - 2:18-25

1. Submit Even to Harsh Masters - 2:18-20

2. Follow the Example of Christ - 2:21-25

D. Wives, Submit to Your Husbands - 3:1-6

E. Husbands, Be Considerate - 3:7

F. General Instructions for All - 3:8-12

IV. ENCOURAGEMENT TO THOSE WHO SUFFER FOR DOING GOOD - 3:13-4:11

A. Do Not Be Frightened - 3:13-17

B. Christ Also Suffered - And Was Exalted - 3:18-22

C. Live for the Will of God - 4:1-6

D. Love and Serve Each Other - 4:7-11

V. MORE EXHORTATIONS TO BE STEADFAST IN THE FACE OF SUFFERING - 4:12-5:11

A. Rejoice When You Suffer for Christ - 4:12-19

B. Show Humility in Your Relationships, Especially You Who Shepherd - 5:1-5

C. A Summarizing Call to Suffer for Christ - 5:6-11

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS - 5:12-14

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV