Chapter 1
MSB Book Intro notes:
Letter has always been identified with the name of the author. This is how general epistles (like Peter, James, John, and Jude) always are. Rather than by the recipient, as the Pastoral epistles, or the church location, as the church epistles.
Peter was the leader among the apostles. The gospels talk about Jesus more than about Peter, but no one else is talked about more. He was from a family of fishermen - commercial fishermen is probably appropriate - who lived first in Bethsaida and then Capernaum. He was married, and it appears that his wife accompanied him in his ministry (Mk 1:29-31, 1CO 9:5)
Peter's triumphs and weaknesses are covered in some detail in the gospels and in Acts. After Pentecost, it was Peter who preached that first sermon in Jerusalem. Tradition says he was forced to watch as his wife was crucified, and then he begged to be crucified upside down because he was unworthy of being crucified as Jesus was. This request, per tradition, was granted. I had never heard this about his wife before. He was crucified around 67-68 AD.
2023 - Note that Peter wrote this 2 or 3 years before he died. Note later in the notes that Peter was probably in Rome when it was written. Wasn't Paul there also at that time? Paul died in Rome in 67-68 AD, at the end of his second imprisonment. His first imprisonment ended around 62-64 AD. Apparently we aren't very positive about this. Even so, this does create an overlap between Peter's time and Paul's time in Rome. Note particularly that both of them are believed to have died around 67-68 AD.
2023 - It seems that a lot of the authors of the NT books died or were martyred before 70 AD. Strange that almost none of them - John being the notable exception - lived to see that event and so explain to us where that destruction fits in prophecy.
2023 - This was written about 30 years after the resurrection, by a man who "lived" with Jesus almost constantly. 30 years is a recollection, not a legend.
Many early documents falsely claimed to be written by Peter. However, the way 1Peter is written leaves little if any doubt that Peter was its author. The material closely resembles his messages in Acts. The early church universally recognized the letter as being written by Peter.
The only critique that Peter is not the author is based on the more formal Greek that the letter uses. Peter was a fisherman, not an educated rabbi, trained in the Greek language. The answer is that Peter seems to have dictated the letter to Silvanus (Silas), and Silas may well have been Greek himself and educated. Silas was also a prophet, and could have helped to "formalize" what Peter was saying. Silvanus probably carried the letter to its intended readers (though they are a rather nebulous bunch, per the introduction. Maybe Peter had specific readers in mind, but didn't go into detail about where they were lest they become targets of persecution because of it. 2024 - This is a good point, and I don't know if I am making it or it came from the MSB introduction. But after Rome was burned in 64 AD the persecution of Christians was cranked up to fever pitch. So the books that are dated after that would have surely taken that "pressure" being applied to Christianity very seriously. Haha...See next sentence, that one from MSB. I was thinking about Peter's death in 67-68 AD, not the date of this letter, which was very near the date that Rome burned.)
MSB says the letter was most likely written just before or after July, 64 AD when the city of Rome burned, so about 64-65 AD.
When Rome burned, the people believed Nero had set the fire, to wipe out the old so he could build anew. The fire wiped out much of the basis of Roman culture because temples were consumed along with household idols. Many died in the fire, and far more were made homeless. The people were bitter and resentful, and were directing both at Nero. So Nero needed a scapegoat.
Christians were a convenient target. Romans already hated Christians because they associated them with the Jews, and they were seen as hostile to Roman culture. Nero spread the word that Christians had set the fires, kicking off vicious persecution that spread from Rome itself to the far reaches of the empire. Most of these were Gentiles, in areas where Paul had preached and started churches, and these all felt the persecution emanating from Rome. Peter's letter is to encourage those scattered Christians, that he calls aliens, and strengthen them in the faith.
2023 - Vs 1 makes it clear that this letter is to the Dispersion. It is written to Jews. I would say that there were a lot more Gentiles subject to persecution than there were Jews, just because there were SO MANY Gentiles. While many of the encouragements in the letter apply to both Jew and Gentile, we ought to keep in mind exactly to whom the letter is written.
The letter says it was written from Babylon, but most believe this was a code word - and an appropriate one - for Rome. Peter didn't want to invite even more persecution on the Christians in Rome, or indeed give any information about them, and so is believed to have claimed Babylon as his location to deflect the persecutors away.
MSB has this sentence: "Peter wished to impress on his readers that by living an obedient, victorious life under duress, a Christian can actually evangelize his hostile world. (Many references.) It goes on to stay that one way Satan and his demons attack the church and Christianity is to find Christians whose lives are not consistent with the Word, and parade them before unbelievers to show what a sham Christianity is.
Peter's letter recounts many blessings that come with Christianity, with salvation, with following Christ. But he weaves into these positive elements the fact that the world will be hostile to believers, and treat them in an unjust manner - even a violent and hostile manner. Jesus' suffering and ultimate victory are held up as the prime example. Peter also emphasizes that the true citizenship of a Christian is not in this world at all, but in the world to come.
Peter also addresses many practical questions about how a Christian should live. Among them, is a priesthood needed for intercession, how do we behave toward civil government, particularly when it is unjust, how do we behave towards unjust masters/employers, and so on?
Under "Interpretive Challenges", 1Pt 3:18-22 is called one of the most difficult NT texts to translate and then interpret. The intro poses many questions generated by these verses, and promises to address them in the notes at that point. Here are those verses:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. [1Pe 3:18-22 ESV]
All this is introduction, and the chronological schedule says all five chapters of the book are to be read in one day. This is the fault I find with this reading schedule. It just seems to rush through the NT, after spending months and months on the old. I would rather it was the other way around. And today, as on a few other days, my brain is tired from reading the intro, and now I have the chapters to read. I wonder if I should do this the other way. I could always skip the intro if time is short...
2022 - Note: This time through the Bible, from late Feb 2021 and around the calendar, I am not using the chronological, but a schedule where, most days, I read some in both the old and the new. I have usually made a point of reading the NT chapter or chapters first, and as a result, I have been pretty worn out occasionally before I got to the OT. That seems fair, and I am planning to use this same schedule again next year, and so emphasize the NT for a second year. I think the NT notes that have been added this year show that spending more time on it than the chronological allows has opened it up to me in greater measure.
NOTE: After much debate with myself, I think 2:12, which has some notes below, shows that this letter is written to elect Jews, with Jews being a very key word. Peter is not writing this to Gentiles except perhaps in the most peripheral way. This is food for the Jews, and the dogs might get a few crumbs, but this is not for us.
Starts with a sort of Pauline introduction:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [1Pe 1:1 ESV].
Addressed to the Dispersion. That is a name for scattered Jews, calling into question what the intro said about most of it being to Gentiles. Maybe not the case...(2023 - See revised reference to Gentiles above.)
2023 - Vs 1 qualifies even the Dispersion to a subset. This is to "Elect exiles of the Dispersion". Paul is writing to Jews who have converted to Christianity...and we might make a case that he also writes to unconverted Jews who WILL BE converted. But he certainly is not writing to ALL Jews. This is corroborated in vs 2 when Paul says this is all according to the foreknowledge of God. I think he means elect according to the foreknowledge.
2025 - Here is an interesting phrase:
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. [1Pe 1:2 ESV]. Compare this to:
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. [Heb 12:24 ESV].
Are we totally missing the point of this connection between the New Covenant, between Jesus, and the murder of Abel? Or is it the connection between Jesus and the sacrifice that Abel brought before he was murdered? Abel's acceptable sacrifice led directly to his death at the hands of one jealous of his acceptance by God. In the same way, the Jews vindictively caused the death of Jesus, because he was perfect and they were not. The key is understanding from Peter that the saved are "sprinkled with his blood". Jesus as sacrifice, and the blood he shed, seems to tie back to the sacrifice that Abel made - perhaps the first blood sacrifice offered to God by man, the foundation stone of the first covenant? Wow. That all works pretty well. Copying it to Hebrews also.
2026 - More on vs 2. Look at the sequence. First, God foreknows who is to be saved. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, shows us our helplessness, and then Jesus blood is applied to us, saving and resurrecting the dead soul within us.
In anticipation of the verses that will be difficult, I note what Peter says here:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [1Pe 1:3 ESV]
Born again through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Not from Jesus' own baptism. Not from our baptism. Born again through resurrection from the dead. From Jesus' resurrection specifically. Would Peter say this if the moment of water baptism was where Christian regeneration occurred? He might, I suppose...but this verse needs to be kept in mind.
2021 - It does not seem reasonable to assume that 1Pet is a treatise on baptism. And if it is not that, it is not reasonable to think that he starts in talking about baptism in the introduction to the book. No reason to put it there. So "sprinkling with his blood" is a reference to Jesus' blood being shed for sinners - (2022) purifying us, making us holy, as the sprinkling of blood at the dedications of Tabernacle and Temple were made holy by sprinkling blood. This is figurative language (2024 - and is presenting a practice that would have been VERY familiar to Jews, but not so much at all to Gentiles!), as no real blood is sprinkled under the New Covenant. Peter is writing to Jews, and speaking in metaphors they will readily understand.
2023 - This is about the gospel. Christ born, crucified, and raised from the dead. This is what the elect believe - when they hear it.
We are all in fact covered by the blood of Christ, and sprinkling is likely a rhetorical device - remembering that the intro says the Greek in this book is more formal than Peter himself might have managed, but Silvanus could do so. And since this verse is not a "how to" for pastors on baptizing converts, we shouldn't read just a whole lot into it. Vs 3 I think bears this out. It is the resurrection of Christ that accomplishes rebirth as a new creature. It very specifically says this.
Vs 5 recounts a blessing of salvation - the unfading, imperishable inheritance we have in heaven, and contrasts that in vs 6 with suffering various trials in this life.
2022 - So even at this early stage of the letter, Peter's aim is to focus the thoughts of his readers on the rewards, the perfection to come, and get them off of the present persecution.
2024 - Note also that vs 5 says we are "guarded by faith" to a "last times" salvation. That is about the salvation we will have at our resurrection - at the rapture. That is when our bodies go up and get renewed. To the tripartite people, both body and soul go up at this "last day". Faith guards what we have been promised until that day. There is nothing here that says we must "accumulate" faith, act on our faith, or anything else that might be construed as "works based" between the moment of salvation and the last day. I can readily believe that the rewards of the last day will be based on what we've done with the opportunities that God gives us. The size of the crown may change based on works, but NOT whether or not we, or any part of us, will be saved.
2022 - A couple of items to note - and copy to the judgment study:
4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [1Pe 1:4 ESV]. Noteworthy that this is about an inheritance, not about a reward. It is kept in heaven, because only there do these adjectives apply.
And also this one:
7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:7 ESV]
Peter is holding out two future benefits of perseverance in faith through trials and persecutions. An inheritance in heaven in vs 4, and now in vs 7, praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. If we theorize that these three items reference our coming rewards, this says they will be conveyed to us at "the revelation of Jesus Christ". What word is used for revelation? Is it parousia, as is used generally of the rapture, or some other word? The word here is Strong's G602, transliterated apokalypsis. This word apokalypsis appears 18 times in both mGNT and TR, and 12 of those times is translated "revelation". Here is the Outline of Biblical Usage:
laying bare, making naked
a disclosure of truth, instruction
concerning things before unknown
used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
manifestation, appearance
The ideas here in Biblical usage do not seem to point to the rapture. This word is more about something that was hidden being transferred, or revealed permanently. Something that comes and stays, rather than something that comes and retrieves us.
2023 - A couple of things: First, note that in vs 5, Peter uses the phrase "last time". In Greek this is "kairos eschatos", eschatos being the Greek word from which we get eschatology. So the inheritance comes during the last time. Now we just need to figure out when that is? Is it the rapture he's talking about? Note also that Peter is not saying rewards, he's saying inheritance. And remember most of all that he is talking to elect Jews. So...don't they "inherit the promises" during the Millennial? Then in vs 7, Peter uses the phrase "at the revelation of Jesus Christ". The Greek word translated revelation is "apokalypsis". After a little more study this morning, I would say that today, I think Peter is referencing the second coming, and not the rapture at all. Here are some verses that seem pretty relevant to that conclusion:
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages [Rom 16:25 ESV]
6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? [1Co 14:6 ESV]
7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. [2Co 12:7 ESV]
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [2Th 1:7 ESV]
I do not get the impression of suddenness, of the "twinkling of an eye" where "revelation/apokalypsis" is used. In each case there is revealed knowledge, understanding...it's a 2x4 upside the head kind of a moment. Paul on the Damascus road had an apokalypsis. and that last verse, in adding that Jesus will be revealed with his angels, seem to specifically be tied to the second coming, on the white horses in the white robes. That is also when the Jews will receive the land promised as an inheritance to Abraham's offspring. So this seems to be so clear now that I wonder why I was previously confused....This I would say is apokalypsis. So I will keep that in mind as I go on.
Still 2022:
And here are some of the verses that I think are helpful in this discussion:
2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. [Gal 2:2 ESV]. Truth revealed, truth conveyed and permanently present afterward.
3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. [Eph 3:3 ESV]. Again, the idea of full and permanent disclosure.
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [2Th 1:7 ESV]. In the whole context of this passage, 2Th 1:5-10, we are pretty certainly talking about the S&G judgment, not the GWT, and not the rapture at all.
13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:13 ESV]. A very similar usage to 1:7, in the same chapter by the same author. Set your minds on the future, when judgment will take place. No judgment at the rapture that I have yet found any certainty about.
13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. [1Pe 4:13 ESV]. Hmm...Is his glory revealed at the rapture, or the other two judgments? Surely not the rapture. He comes with his armies at the S&G, in white linen, with King of Kings and Lord of Lords written on him. Surely that is the second advent - a manifestation and an appearance, and he is coming to stay.
It seems pretty sure to me that the praise, glory, and honor will be "awarded" at the S&G judgment. And again, that seems like a "works" judgment, and these awards that Peter is speaking about are given for "the tested genuineness of faith". For the works that evidence faith.
We also must either assume that these rewards are ONLY for the saved Millennial Sheep, or that the saints that come back from heaven with Christ will also receive their rewards at this time. Makes sense if they will serve in the Millennial Kingdom, as the rewards seem to reflect rank in the kingdom. Maybe.
Here are some more verses addressing the mechanism of salvation, as did vs 3 above:
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. [1Pe 1:8-9 ESV]
We can't see him, yet we love him, and believe in him. That is a way of saying that we have faith. And through that faith, we obtain salvation - which is the outcome we seek in the first place. Again, a mention of water would not be out of place here if water baptism regenerated. But it doesn't "have" to be mentioned.
2023 - Note that the word "outcome" is translated from the Greek "telos", which is about the final end, the ultimate objective. So the "last thing that happens" is that our souls are saved by faith. Shortened, it might read "You do not see, but you believe, and rejoice, and finally obtain the salvation of your soul.
2023 - The salvation of your souls, referenced here in so many words, has not one inkling of a suggestion that works are involved in this at all.
Paul urges his readers to put their hope in Jesus' revelation (the second coming? the rapture?). This as opposed to looking for honor and glory in this present world? He goes on to clarify that he means they are to live holy lives because they are now called to this, instead of to the worldly lives they previously led. Heavenly values instead of earthly. Spiritual rather than bodily.
2023 - This verse:
13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:13 ESV]. Here is "apokalypsis" again. Peter is again telling them not to focus on "now" but on what is to come in the future when Christ is revealed to all. Hmm...to all rather than just to the elect exiles. So...is Peter telling these Jews, whom we know died before the apokalypsis, that THEY themselves personally will participate in the Millennial and receive the inheritance there? If so, these things he is saying are about the Jews who will be alive at the second coming, not all Jews in all times...and as it turned out, not the Jews he was thinking of when he wrote this. OR, is he saying that ALL the elect exiles will have been raptured, and return WITH Christ to inherit the land during the Millennial? As worded in this verse, that second one seems to be the idea.
2024 - A further implication of the last sentence above is that if these New Covenant Jews are to return, would the church not be included in that? Would there be a distinction between Jesus second coming accompanied by New Covenant Jews but NOT New Covenant Gentiles? Pretty hard for me to go there. So....is this a pretty good argument that the church IS Israel at the Millennial, inheriting the promises right along with the Jews? Hmm....Based on this passage, this seems to be a pretty good proof text for that!
2022 - Another judgment reference here:
17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, [1Pe 1:17 ESV] This certainly says there will be a judgment based on "deeds", that is, on works. It could well be that all these refer to the S&G. But will those who return with Christ, who have already seen heaven, not be rewarded until this point? Surely the martyrs under the throne in Revelation are ready to get on with the judgment. So maybe this does make good sense...
Vs 18 mentions that they were "ransomed" from those former ways. I just recently read that same thing elsewhere - one of Paul's letters, saying that since we were paid for, we owe thanks/allegiance/service to the one who ransomed. It was 1Tim 2:5,6, where Jesus paid the ransom for all. See notes there.
Then look at this Trinitarian statement on the deity of Christ:
20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you [1Pe 1:20 ESV]
If you were there before creation, then you were not created. Christ is not a created being. He was there, but was manifest - made visible as human man - for our sakes, that is for our salvation. He was the culmination of God's saving plan, to make him both just and justifier!
2023 - This leaves little doubt about "when" foreknowledge is talking about. It means BEFORE creation.
Another verse that might bear on 3:18-22:
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; [1Pe 1:22-23 ESV]
Purification - often accomplished by washing with water. In fact I would say almost always requiring water. But here, the washing is not with water but with obedience. Purity is through obedience. Then he talks about regeneration specifically using the phrase "born again", which he just barely avoided using earlier. Regeneration is said to be through the living and abiding word. The word was with God, the word was God. Messianic. Christ. This can go straight back to our being born again through the resurrection of Christ, the Word. Water is left out again.
2021 - It seems that I was obsessed with making things about baptism last year. In context, I don't think Peter is talking about baptism at all. That's not on his mind, that's not what this book is about, or what this chapter is about or what this verse is about. Peter is giving a pep talk to those who are being persecuted as fallout from Nero's scapegoating them. These people are being pursued, abused, and blamed for something of which they couldn't possibly have been a part. Peter's point then is that they need to focus on living blameless lives to put the lie to the accusations against them, and that though they may be hated by the world, there is that coming day when they will stand before Christ and receive the reward of their patient and unwavering faith, which is refined and purified by persecution - if one remains faithful. That's what this is about. Purification by trial - as gold by fire. THAT is the point so far.
2024 - How have I never noticed that final phrase in this chapter before: "And this word is the good news that was preached to you". Peter says this first chapter is in fact the gospel. Or...not. The word translated "gospel" here is transliterated "ray-ma" from Greek. It is used 70 times in the KJV and is translated "word" 56 of those times. The list of ways the word is translated does not include "gospel" at all, even though in this very verse the KJV translates it as gospel. Why would that not be there...except and unless this is not the "word" translated "good news" So I looked for those words...and did not find them either. Here is the exact phrasing:
KJV: this is the word which by the gospel is preached
ESV: this word is the good news that was preached
NASB95: this is the word which was preached.
Looking at the BLB forward inline, I would say the NASB95 is the only one that isn't "adding to the scripture". "Word" is there in the Greek. But "good news" is, in my study of the verse, entirely missing in either Tr or mGNT. They both read the same in Greek. So it looks to me as if the translators of the KJV and ESV have indeed ADDED interpretation to this verse by ADDING two words which simply are not there. Elsewhere, it is the word "euangelizo" that is translated "good new". This is Strong's G2097. Does that word show up at all in this verse? And there it is...this word IS used in this verse, but in a very strange, very LONG, form. It is shown as an aorist passive participle. The definition of the root word is "to bring good news, to announce glad tidings". It is translated "preach" or "preach the gospel" 45 of the 55 times it is used in the KJV. So...that tense is what sends the translations in so many different directions as they try to translate the aorist that does not exist in English into a phrase that conveys what the Greek aorist really means. It is always the aorist that causes problems for translators! And this is an aorist participle. I think it is the very first time I've seen that. I can now comfortably accept the ESV translation as a worthy attempt at translation, and NOT an interpretation! This took some time, but was well worth it...and I feel pretty good that the comment starting with 2024 above is also a worthy comment.