Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    1-2 Peter and Jude: The Christian Standard Commentary
    1-2 Peter and Jude: The Christian Standard Commentary
    1-2 Peter and Jude: The Christian Standard Commentary
    Ebook1,151 pages14 hours

    1-2 Peter and Jude: The Christian Standard Commentary

    By Thomas R. Schreiner

    5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    1-2 Peter and Jude is part of The Christian Standard Commentary (CSC) series. This commentary series focuses on the theological and exegetical concerns of each biblical book, while paying careful attention to balancing rigorous scholarship with practical application.

    This series helps the reader understand each biblical book's theology, its place in the broader narrative of Scripture, and its importance for the church today. Drawing on the wisdom and skills of dozens of evangelical authors, the CSC is a tool for enhancing and supporting the life of the church.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBH Publishing Group
    Release dateNov 1, 2020
    ISBN9781087702551
    1-2 Peter and Jude: The Christian Standard Commentary
    Author

    Thomas R. Schreiner

    Thomas R. Schreiner (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and associate dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

    Read more from Thomas R. Schreiner

    Related to 1-2 Peter and Jude

    Related ebooks

    Christianity For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Wild Welcome

      Apr 23, 2020

      Wild Welcome
      1 min read

    • Article

      For Life’s Wonderful Moments

      Jan 27, 2020

      What inspired you to write your book? A published essay I wrote about mortality without faith and growing up with my parents [renowned astronomer Carl Sagan and writer and producer Ann Druyan] was the seed of the book. But it really started taking s

      2 min read

    • Article

      From The Editor

      Mar 15, 2023

      From The Editor
      1 min read

    • Article

      UK Wellbeing Market

      Apr 2, 2020

      UK Wellbeing Market
      2 min read

    • Article

      ‘What Seek Ye?’

      Jul 31, 2020

      ‘What Seek Ye?’
      8 min read

    • Article

      Stumbling Blocks That Delay Church Transformation

      Feb 11, 2022

      In the strongest sense of the word, we must declare infancy in the church as a pandemic that demands serious attention. If not dealt with, it can delay the evolution of the church for hundreds of years. Before we can fully lay our eyes on society at

      2 min read

    • Article

      WHO’S In The NEWS?

      May 19, 2023

      George Verwer died on Friday 14th April at the age of 84. The Church has lost a man who had an astonishing global influence on the way it carries out its vital task of sharing the good news of Jesus. In Operation Mobilisation (OM), which George start

      3 min read

    • Article

      Good Stuff

      May 29, 2022

      Good Stuff
      9 min read

    • Article

      From the EDITOR

      Oct 27, 2023

      There are many accounts starting from Genesis going right through to the New Testament of people building memorials to honour what God had done for and through people. In biblical times, this often referred to a statue, structure, or built-up stones.

      1 min read

    • Article

      Letter To The Editor

      Feb 10, 2020

      I refer to the “Old Age Homes Are Not Good Enough” letter in your January issue of JOY! Yes, old age homes in African and Eastern societies are not common, because the youth make up the larger part of these populations. In India for example, more tha

      5 min read

    • Article

      Living Lighter

      Mar 3, 2021

      Living Lighter
      7 min read

    • Article

      Introductions

      Jun 2, 2022

      Soul & Spirit, edited by WM’s own regular writing lifestyle columnist Rosalind Moody, is a hugely popular monthly lifestyle magazine that enables readers to explore their spirituality and develop their psychic gifts. Covering the entire mind-body-spi

      1 min read

    • Article

      Wellness Trends for 2018

      Feb 13, 2018

      Wellness Trends for 2018
      5 min read

    • Article

      Welcome

      Dec 22, 2023

      Welcome
      2 min read

    • Article

      Sensi-bilia Eternal Flames

      Jul 19, 2019

      Sensi-bilia Eternal Flames
      3 min read

    • Article

      Uncharted Cultural Waters

      Mar 18, 2022

      Uncharted Cultural Waters
      2 min read

    • Article

      It’s Been A Whirlwind

      Feb 1, 2020

      It’s Been A Whirlwind
      1 min read

    • Article

      What Is The Grail Message?

      Nov 30, 2020

      THE THREE VOLUMES of In the Light of Truth contain a total of 168 lectures whose contents, building upon one another, give a picture of Creation in entirety. The Author’s all-embracing view is based on well-known natural laws, which reveal the hidden

      5 min read

    • Article

      Living

      Nov 29, 2021

      Savour the best ingredients and flavours winter has to offer with these recipes shared by the Countess of Carnarvon, chatelaine of Highclere Castle – the main filming location for Downton Abbey Serves 2 Preparation time 20 minutes Cooking time 1 hour

      5 min read

    • Article

      What Is The Grail Message?

      Jun 30, 2020

      THE THREE VOLUMES of In the Light of Truth contain a total of 168 lectures whose contents, building upon one another, give a picture of Creation in entirety . The Author’s all-embracing view is based on well-known natural laws, which reveal the hidde

      5 min read

    • Article

      From the EDITOR

      Dec 1, 2023

      “The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all. To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. TO OTHERS THE SAME SPIRIT GIVES FAITH. To others that

      2 min read

    • Article

      You’re 1 (or 2) In A Million (or More)…

      Oct 8, 2021

      Well I’m just blown away by the excellent articles in this issue’s Family Tree. From Chris Paton’s rigorous round-up of a vast collection of records to help you trace your ancestors’ whereabouts and land records in Ireland; to Lisa Edwards’ extremely

      1 min read

    • Article

      The Luminaries

      Feb 17, 2020

      The Luminaries
      2 min read

    • Article

      Letters To The EDITOR

      Apr 5, 2024

      D ear readers, we love to hear your thoughts on the stories that we publish, what is going on around the world, and what the Lord has placed on your heart! Email your letter through to editor@joymag.co.za for a chance to be featured – please try to k

      10 min read

    • Article

      What Is The Grail Message?

      Jul 31, 2020

      THE THREE VOLUMES of In the Light of Truth contain a total of 168 lectures whose contents, building upon one another, give a picture of Creation in entirety. The Author’s all-embracing view is based on well-known natural laws, which reveal the hidden

      5 min read

    • Article

      Brenda Salgado Lets Love In

      Oct 31, 2018

      Brenda Salgado Lets Love In
      21 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for 1-2 Peter and Jude

    5/5

    1 rating0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      1-2 Peter and Jude - Thomas R. Schreiner

      True to the goals of this series, Schreiner has produced a commentary that is exegetically rigorous yet accessible to a broad audience in the church or classroom. Clear writing and mature theological reflection make it appealing for anyone looking for a solidly evangelical commentary.

      Karen H. Jobes, Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor Emerita of New Testament Greek & Exegesis, Wheaton College

      Schreiner’s revised volume is precisely what one would expect from him: up-to-date, thoroughly evangelical, carefully reasoned without rejecting differing positions out of hand, and clearly written. In fact, even if you do not like evangelical positions, purchase it, for it is carefully reasoned, open to positions Schreiner ultimately rejects, long enough to cover the topic, and a contribution to knowledge.

      Peter H. Davids, Chaplain, Our Lady of Guadalupe Priory, Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist

      The general neglect of Peter’s two epistles, along with Jude, has been a staple of modern scholarship for generations. In this environment, Schreiner’s commentary is a breath of fresh air. How refreshing to have a volume that addresses the tough historical issues, engages with modern scholarly views, and yet maintains a faithfulness to the historic Christian witness while seeking to bless the church. This is now my go-to commentary for these books.

      Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte

      "Schreiner’s first edition already has a rich life in guiding students and pastors in understanding and proclaiming these letters. With this new edition, Schreiner has not only addressed new scholarly developments, but also highlights even more how these texts display Scripture’s redemptive storyline which is aimed at personal transformation. Schreiner’s commentary is a tour de force in rendering the highest scholarly exegesis relevant to students and pastors for the task of preaching the gospel."

      Darian Lockett, Associate Professor of New Testament, Talbot School of Theology

      I’m happy to see a new edition of this excellent commentary, updated to interact with recent scholarship. Here is a resource rich in exegetical meat mined from a close reading of the text and its structure. Schreiner’s considerations of interpretive options are consistently fair and helpful, and his own conclusions are measured, cogent, and informed by a wide range of texts. Schreiner is a sure-footed guide through these often difficult, but always important, texts.

      Brandon D. Crowe, Associate Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary

      General Editors

      E. Ray Clendenen

      Brandon D. Smith

      Series Associate Editors

      Old Testament

      R. Dennis Cole J. Gary Millar Andrew E. Steinmann

      Heath A. Thomas

      New Testament

      Darrell L. Bock David S. Dockery Darian R. Lockett Richard R. Melick Jr.

      Christian Standard Commentary: 1 & 2 Peter and Jude

      Copyright © 2020 by Thomas R. Schreiner

      All rights reserved.

      ISBN: 978–1-5359–2807–6

      Dewey Decimal Classification: 227.9

      Subject Heading: BIBLE. N.T. 1 PETER–COMMENTARIES / BIBLE. N.T. 2 PETER–COMMENTARIES / BIBLE. N.T. JUDE–COMMENTARIES

      Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible® Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

      Scripture passages marked ESV are taken from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®). ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

      The ESV® text has been reproduced in cooperation with and by permission of Good News Publishers. Unauthorized reproduction of this publication is prohibited. All rights reserved.

      Scripture quotations marked HCSB are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

      Scripture passages marked NASB are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

      Scripture passages marked NIV are taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

      Scripture quotations marked NJB are taken from The New Jerusalem Bible, Copyright © 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd., and Doubleday, a division of Bantam, Doubleday, Dell Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Scripture marked NKJV is taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

      Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

      Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

      Scripture quotations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

      1 2 3 4 5 6 • 24 23 22 21 20

      Printed in China

      RRD

      SERIES INTRODUCTION

      The Christian Standard Commentary (CSC) aims to embody an ancient-modern approach to each volume in the series. The following explanation will help us unpack this seemingly paradoxical practice that brings together old and new.

      The modern commentary tradition arose and proliferated during and after the Protestant Reformation. The growth of the biblical commentary tradition largely is a result of three factors: (1) The recovery of classical learning in the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries. This retrieval led to a revival of interest in biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew). Biblical interpreters, preachers, and teachers interpreted Scripture based on the original languages rather than the Latin Vulgate. The commentaries of Martin Luther and John Calvin are exemplary in this regard because they return to the sources themselves (ad fontes). (2) The rise of reformation movements and the splintering of the Catholic Church. The German Reformation (Martin Luther), Swiss Reformation (John Calvin), and English Reformation (Anglican), among others (e.g., Anabaptist), generated commentaries that helped these new churches and their leaders interpret and preach Scripture with clarity and relevance, often with the theological tenets of the movements present in the commentaries. (3) The historical turn in biblical interpretation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This turning point emphasized the historical situation from which biblical books arise and in which they are contextualized.

      In light of these factors, the CSC affirms traditional features of a modern commentary, evident even in recent commentaries:

      Authors analyze Old and New Testament books in their original languages.

      Authors present and explain significant text-critical problems as appropriate.

      Authors address and define the historical situations that gave rise to the biblical text (including date of composition, authorship, audience, social location, geographical and historical context, etc.) as appropriate to each biblical book.

      Authors identify possible growth and development of a biblical text so as to understand the book as it stands (e.g., how the book of Psalms came into its final form or how the Minor Prophets might be understood as a book).

      The CSC also exhibits recent shifts in biblical interpretation in the past fifty years. The first is the literary turn in biblical interpretation. Literary analysis arose in biblical interpretation during the 1970s and 1980s, and this movement significantly influenced modern biblical commentaries. Literary analysis attends to the structure and style of each section in a biblical book as well as the shape of the book as a whole. Because of this influence, modern commentaries assess a biblical book’s style and structure, major themes and motifs, and how style impacts meaning. Literary interpretation recognizes that biblical books are works of art, arranged and crafted with rhetorical structure and purpose. Literary interpretation discovers the unique stylistic and rhetorical strategies of each book. Similarly, the CSC explores the literary dimensions of Scripture:

      Authors explore each book as a work of art that is a combination of style and structure, form and meaning.

      Authors assess the structure of the whole book and its communicative intent.

      Authors identify and explain the literary styles, poetics, and rhetorical devices of the biblical books as appropriate.

      Authors expound the literary themes and motifs that advance the communicative strategies in the book.

      As an ancient commentary, the CSC is marked by a theological bent with respect to biblical interpretation. This bent is a tacit recognition that the Bible is not only a historical or literary document but is fundamentally the Word of God. That is, it recognizes Scripture as fundamentally both historical and theological. God is the primary speaker in Scripture, and readers must deal with him. Theological interpretation affirms that although God enabled many authors to write the books of the Bible (Heb 1:1), he is the divine author, the subject matter of Scripture, and the One who gives the Old and New Testaments to the church, the people of God, to facilitate her growth for her good (2 Tim 3:16–17). Theological interpretation reads Scripture as God’s address to his church because he gives it to his people to be heard and lived. Any other approach (whether historical, literary, or otherwise) that diminishes emphasis on the theological stands deficient before the demands of the text.

      Common to Christian (patristic, medieval, reformation, or modern) biblical interpretation in the past two millennia is a sanctified vision of Scripture in which it is read with attention to divine agency, truth, and relevance to the people of God. The ancient commentary tradition interprets Scripture as a product of complex and rich divine action. God has given his Word to his people so that they may know and love him, glorify him, and proclaim his praises to all creation. Scripture provides the information and power of God that leads to spiritual and practical transformation.

      The transformative potential of Scripture emerges in the ancient commentary tradition as it attends to the centrality of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the One whom God sent to the world in the fullness of time and about whom the OT anticipates, testifies to, and witnesses to. Further, he is the One whom the NT presents as the fulfillment of the OT promise, in whom the church lives and moves and has her being, and who the Old and New Testaments testify will return to judge the living and the dead and who will make all things new.

      With Christ as the center of Scripture, the ancient commentary tradition reveals an implicit biblical theology. Old and New Testaments work together as they reveal Christ; thus, the tradition works within a whole-Bible theology in which each testament is read in dialectic relationship, one with the other.

      Finally, the ancient commentary tradition is committed to spiritual transformation. The Spirit of God illumines the hearts of readers so they might hear God’s voice, see Christ in his glory, and live in and through the power of the Spirit. The transformational dimensions of Scripture emerge in ancient commentary so that God’s voice might be heard anew in every generation and God’s Word might be embodied among his people for the sake of the world.

      The CSC embodies the ancient commentary tradition in the following ways:

      Authors expound the proper subject of Scripture in each biblical book, who is God; further they explore how he relates to his world in the biblical books.

      Authors explain the centrality of Jesus appropriate to each biblical book and in the light of a whole-Bible theology.

      Authors interpret the biblical text spiritually so that the transformative potential of God’s Word might be released for the church.

      In this endeavor, the CSC is ruled by a Trinitarian reading of Scripture. God the Father has given his Word to his people at various times and in various ways (Heb 1:1), which necessitates a sustained attention to historical, philological, social, geographical, linguistic, and grammatical aspects of the biblical books which derive from different authors in the history of Israel and of the early church. Despite its diversity, the totality of Scripture reveals Christ, who has been revealed in the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God (Heb 1:1; John 1:1) and the One in whom all things hold together (Col 1:15–20) and through whom all things will be made new (1 Cor 15; Rev 21:5). God has deposited his Spirit to his church so that they might read spiritually, being addressed by the voice of God and receiving the life-giving Word that comes by Scripture (2 Tim 3:15–17; Heb 4:12). In this way, the CSC contributes to the building up of Christ’s church and the Great Commission to which all are called.

      AUTHOR PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION

      This commentary is written primarily for pastors and laypersons who are interested in serious study of the Scriptures. I hope the commentary will be of interest to scholars, but I have tried to keep it short enough so that busy pastors will have time to read it. Commentaries are getting longer and longer, and I fear that only other scholars are reading such mammoth works. I have read representatively in commentaries, monographs, and journals on 1, 2 Peter and Jude, learning much from those that have preceded me. Another distinctive of the commentary is its theological slant. I understand the Scriptures to be a canonical unity. Hence, I attempt to explore at various junctures how the message of 1, 2 Peter and Jude coheres with the rest of the NT. No attempt is made in the commentary to defend the notion that the NT, despite its diversity, ultimately yields a coherent message. I believe such a defense can be made, but that would take another book.

      I would like to thank Ray Clendenen for inviting me to contribute to the New American Commentary series and for his encouragement and friendship. I am also grateful for his keen editorial eye and his suggestions as to how the manuscript could be improved. It was a joy to teach 1, 2 Peter and Jude to a number of classes, and each class has made the commentary better than it would have been otherwise. Students in those classes spotted a number of errors in the manuscript that were corrected. Four students at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary read the manuscript with special care and corrected errors: John Folmar, Michael Hardy, Randall Tan, and Brian Vickers. I thank each one for his labor of love. Philemon Yong and Jason Meyer helped me in countless ways by copying articles, chasing down references, and by their careful reading. Jason Meyer was an immense help in the proofing stage in checking references and giving the manuscript a final reading. Their friendship and help have been precious to me. John Glynn volunteered to read large sections of the commentary. He made innumerable suggestions that were remarkably helpful to me as I finished up the work. I cannot thank him enough for his labor of love on my behalf. Finally, I dedicate this book to the love of my life, Diane, who introduced me to the gospel of grace and is my coheir in the grace of life (1 Pet 3:7).

      AUTHOR PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

      It is a privilege and a joy to revise the first edition of my commentary on 1 & 2 Peter and Jude. I have read widely (but not exhaustively) recent research for the sake of the revision, and I have rethought every line written and made quite a few changes. I haven’t changed my mind significantly on major interpretive questions, but I have added new material and nuanced what was said in the first edition. For instance, interacting with feminist thought has helped me think through more clearly the import of Peter’s words to wives in 1 Pet 3:1–6, and I have also tried to think through the Trinitarian implications where such a discussion is relevant.

      I am grateful for the careful reading of the manuscript by one of the experts in the world on the Catholic Epistles, Darian Lockett. Darian’s comments, suggestions, and observations were of significant help in the revision. I am also grateful for the editorial work of Brandon Smith and for the pleasure of working with Ray Clendenen again. Brandon particularly encouraged me to think through the Trinitarian significance of various verses in 1 & 2 Peter and Jude and also made a number of helpful suggestions that I incorporated. Russell Meek carefully read and edited the manuscript, and I am grateful for his careful work. I am also thankful to one of my Ph.D. students, Coye Still, for checking out books from the library and for sending me the articles needed for the revision and helping chase down other details. Such work saved me valuable time so that I could concentrate on research and writing. Finally, I am grateful to God, who has reminded me through these great epistles of our unshakable hope in Christ, of the grace he has poured out on his people, and of the call to live holy and beautiful lives for the glory of his name.

      —Thomas R. Schreiner

      The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

      Louisville, Kentucky

      ABBREVIATIONS

      1 Peter

      INTRODUCTION OUTLINE

      1 Author

      1.1 Internal Evidence

      1.2 External Evidence

      1.3 Arguments against Petrine Authorship

      1.4 Arguments Supporting Petrine Authorship

      2 Date

      3 Destination and Situation of the Readers

      4 Character of the Letter

      5 Purpose

      6 Structure

      INTRODUCTION

      The first letter of Peter is beautiful and powerful as it sets forth what it means to be Christians in a hostile world, in a world where Christians were persecuted for their faith. Even though the readers were spiritual exiles, they were at the same time recipients of a great salvation that gave them a future hope and inheritance that guaranteed their future. Jesus as the suffering servant took the punishment they deserved and redeemed them from their useless and godless way of life. They were homeless spiritually, but they were also bound for a home and an inheritance from which they would never be displaced.

      As believers, most of them lived on the underside of society—under the authority of Rome, under unbelieving and cruel masters, or under unbelieving husbands. They suffered both in everyday life and from imperial authority.

      Still, they were the people of God, the true and restored Israel, the recipients of God’s great promises to Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets through Jesus Christ. They were the Lord’s new temple, and they were priests offering praise to God and mediating blessing to the world. They are exhorted not to live in fear of human beings but in fear of the Lord, and such fear, paradoxically, would give them confidence and hope. They were called to suffer as the Lord Jesus Christ suffered, but such suffering was characterized by hope. As the people of God, they were to live as those consecrated to God, as obedient children. Unbelievers who examined their lives would have no grounds for criticizing them since their lives would demonstrate that they belonged to another king and another kingdom. The beauty of their lives would, it was hoped, attract others so that unbelievers could join God’s chosen race, royal priesthood, and holy nation.

      1 Author

      1.1 Internal Evidence

      First Peter claims to be from Peter: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:1).¹ No other direct reference to Peter exists in the letter. Some have seen a contrast between the readers and Peter in the statement that the readers have not seen Christ (1:8), implying that Peter has. Such an implication may be present, but it is hardly determinative for establishing authorship. A stronger piece of evidence is the author’s claim to be a witness to the sufferings of Christ (5:1). It is difficult to see how this could be said of someone outside the apostolic circle (but see the commentary on 5:1 for alternate interpretations of this expression). The references to Silas, Mark, and Babylon (5:13) may reflect Petrine authorship, but by themselves they are unclear, for the NT more closely connects Silas and Mark to Paul than Peter (see the commentary on 5:12 and 5:13). Also significant is 2 Pet 3:1, for there Peter says that he writes his second letter to the readers. Even if 2 Peter is pseudonymous (which I dispute), the reference is probably to 1 Peter, suggesting that the first letter is genuinely Petrine. To sum up, the letter itself claims to be written by the apostle Peter, and the self-claim of the letter should be accepted unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

      1.2 External Evidence

      Some scholars have detected dependence on 1 Peter in 1 Clement (see 1 Clem. opening; 7:6; 9:3–4; 21:7; 22:2–6; 49:5; 57:1), but none of the parallels clearly establishes dependence on 1 Peter, and the evidence is insufficient to conclude that 1 Clement knew or used 1 Peter. Neither do Barnabas or Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho indicate dependence on 1 Peter, despite the claims of some scholars. Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians—written probably ca. AD 112–114—is the first evidence of dependence on 1 Peter. In four texts Polycarp’s wording is remarkably close to 1 Peter, indicating that Polycarp used Peter as a source (cf. Phil. 8:2 and 1 Pet 2:21; Phil. 1:3 and 1 Pet 1:8; Phil. 8:1 and 1 Pet 2:22, 24; Phil. 2:1 and 1 Pet 1:13, 22). The Didache may use 1 Peter (see Did. 1:4 and 1 Pet 2:11), although certainty here is impossible. If the latter were to be established, the authenticity of 1 Peter would be strengthened.

      By the end of the second century and the beginning of the third century, the letter is explicitly identified as Peter’s. Tertullian cites verses from Peter and explicitly identifies Peter as the author (Scorp. 12; cf. Scorp. 14; Or. 20). Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus also quote from 1 Peter and attribute the writing to Peter himself (e.g., Paed. 1.6.44; Strom. 3.11.75; 4.7.33–47; and Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5 respectively). First Peter is not listed in the Muratorian Canon, but the omission may be due to the destruction of part of the document, so not much can be gleaned from this.² The external evidence for 1 Peter’s authenticity is quite early, and no one raised doubts about its Petrine authorship.

      1.3 Arguments against Petrine Authorship

      Despite the self-claim of the book and the early tradition attesting Petrine authorship, many scholars doubt that Peter is the genuine author of the letter. Various reasons are given for denying the authenticity of 1 Peter, although scholars who dispute authenticity differ on what arguments are persuasive and the weight that should be assigned to the different arguments.³

      First, the cultivated Greek of the letter convinces many that the letter could not have been written by a Galilean fisherman.⁴ In Acts 4:13 Peter is described as uneducated (agrammatos), thus it seems quite improbable to many scholars that the sophisticated knowledge of Greek grammar evident in the letter can be traced back to the apostle. Indeed, scholars generally agree that the Greek in Peter is among the best in the NT. Further, how do we explain the different quality of the Greek in 2 Peter if both letters were composed by Peter?

      Second, and related to the first, the citations of the OT in the letter come mainly from the Septuagint, and this does not seem to fit with Peter, whose native language would not be Greek.⁵ Third, scholars have often remarked that 1 Peter is noticeably Pauline in theology.⁶ Peter focuses on the death of Christ, the need to suffer with Christ, obedience to governing authorities, the responsibility of wives to submit their husbands, and other allegedly Pauline themes. The apparent dependence on Paul seems especially strange, given that Peter and Paul disagreed in Antioch about how to relate to Gentiles (Gal 2:11–14).⁷

      Fourth, conservative scholars often appeal to Silvanus, arguing that he functioned as Peter’s amanuensis (1 Pet 5:12). The quality of the Greek, therefore, derives from Silvanus rather than Peter. Scholars who reject Petrine authorship argue, however, that the formula in 1 Pet 5:12 does not indicate that Silvanus functioned as the secretary. Many say that the phrase to write through someone (graphein dia tinos) refers to the bearer, not the secretary, of the letter. It is also said that if Silvanus truly was the scribe, he should have been listed as the coauthor. Fifth, some scholars question Petrine authorship because the letter says little about the historical Jesus, and this is deemed incredible if the author is the historical Peter who walked and talked with Jesus.

      Sixth, some scholars argue that the persecution described in the letter stems from Rome itself and is empire wide (1 Pet 5:9).⁸ Some conclude from this that such persecution can only be assigned to the reign of Domitian (AD 81–96). The late date of Domitian’s reign most likely excludes any reference to Peter. Similarly, some scholars think the mistreatment of believers in 1 Peter fits well with the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan (AD 98–117).⁹ Pliny was the legate to Bithynia in Asia Minor, and he wondered how he should respond to Christians in his province. On the one hand, he was sure he should execute believers who refused to sacrifice to the emperor and curse Christ. He suspected, however, that he should not impose punishments upon those who were identified as Christians if they cursed Christ. Furthermore, Pliny wondered if Christians should be actively sought out and anonymous charges accepted, or if he should only prosecute Christians who confessed their faith. Trajan responded by recommending a conservative course.¹⁰ He did not want a witch hunt because it would undermine stability. Christians who cursed Christ and sacrificed to the emperor were exempt from any punishment, whereas those who were stubborn and obstinate in their devotion to Christ were to be executed. If 1 Peter is dated during Trajan’s reign (AD 98–117), the apostle Peter cannot be its author. Along the same lines, Peter refers to Babylon as Rome, and he would have been the first to do so, and it is difficult to see why, especially if Peter was written before the Neronian persecution.

      Many scholars opt, then, for pseudonymity.¹¹ The letter claims to be written by Peter, but it was actually authored by someone else. P. Achtemeier’s commentary exemplifies this theory.¹² Achtemeier notes that the early church rejected pseudonymous writings, but he insists that the rejected writings were dismissed because of their content, not because they were pseudonymous. He thinks a pseudonymous author felt justified in writing in Peter’s name since there was a tradition that disciples wrote in the name of their teacher. This tradition is found in rabbinic literature, among the Pythagoreans, and in Tertullian. Further, Achtemeier appeals to evidence in both the Greco-Roman world and in the early church fathers supporting the notion of a therapeutic lie.¹³ Such a theory fits with the work of Donelson, who argues that pseudepigraphers defended lying on the basis that some lies were noble.¹⁴ Others depart from Achtemeier and Donelson and argue that it was readily apparent that Peter did not write the letter and that there was no attempt to deceive; such an expedient was a transparent fiction.¹⁵ Others argue that the letter was composed by a Petrine group or a Petrine school.¹⁶ This last theory is possible but unsupported.¹⁷ No early tradition suggests the letter derived from a group of writers, and it is difficult to believe such a beautiful piece of literature could be composed by a group, as anyone who has served on a committee writing a report knows rather well. Ascribing the letter to a group evades the challenge of supporting Petrine authorship while attempting to situate the letter within a Petrine circle.¹⁸ The vagueness of the theory makes it difficult to refute, but at the same time it is difficult to substantiate. Elliott ascribes the work to a fictive Peter (since he did not write it) but a genuine Mark and Silvanus. It is difficult to see how the latter can be accepted as historical while dismissing the former. A more consistent approach would accept the reference to all three as historical or understand each person as fictional.¹⁹

      1.4 Arguments Supporting Petrine Authorship

      Despite the above objections to Petrine authorship, good and substantial reasons exist for accepting such authorship.²⁰ In answering the objections, we will begin with the last argument and proceed to the first.²¹ The letter claims to be written by the apostle Peter. This point should be emphasized since the earliest evidence we have on the matter supports Petrine authorship. Further, early church tradition also supports Petrine authorship. There is no evidence that anyone in the early church believed the letter was written by anyone other than Peter. Hence, we should reject any notion that the letter is a transparent fiction. We have no evidence from antiquity that the letter was recognized as pseudonymous or as being written by one of Peter’s disciples. If the letter is a transparent fiction, we have no historical attestation for such a claim.

      More credible than the transparent fiction theory is that the letter was written as a therapeutic lie or noble lie. Still, there are serious problems with this theory. The letter itself criticizes deceit (2:1, 22; 3:10), which is inconsistent if the writer practices it himself. The high premium placed on truth in the early Christian movement does not square with such deceitful practices.²² In the early church both the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Paul and Thecla were rejected because they were pseudonymous.²³ To say they were rejected as authoritative only because of their content is reductionistic since both Eusebius and Tertullian report that the books were rejected because of their content and the false claim of authorship. Cyril of Jerusalem rejects all the Gospels except four, since the others are falsely written and hurtful.²⁴ Indeed, Achtemeier’s attempt to legitimize pseudonymity by appealing to ancient practice fails. Donelson rightly observes: No one seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example.²⁵

      Another problem with the noble-lie theory is that if Peter died in the 60s and the letter was written in the 70s or 80s (or even later), how would the attempt to pass off the letter as a noble lie have any chance of success.²⁶ Certainly the believers in Asia Minor could not have thought Peter was still alive ten to thirty years after his death. It must have been well known that he was deceased. Hence, it seems unlikely the readers would have actually been deceived by a letter purporting to be by Peter. We are left, then, with a person writing in Peter’s name with an intent to deceive, but the likelihood of success was minimal.

      Referring to the practice of the Pythagorean school does not solve the problem since the issue is whether such a practice was accepted in the Jewish and Christian communities.²⁷ Appeal to rabbinic practices does not advance the argument either because the rabbinic sayings do not have the same personal allusions as the NT letters. Further, it is questionable whether the category of pseudepigraphy is appropriate for what we find in rabbinic literature. Surprisingly, Achtemeier points to examples where the early church defended lying or deception (e.g., Rahab). These examples, however, are not applicable to Petrine authorship. Even today Christians debate whether there are some instances in which the truth should be withheld from another person in order to preserve someone’s life. Such exceptional circumstances and statements do not suggest that a therapeutic lie was routinely accepted. Further, they provide no evidence that the same standard applies to literary documents and, in particular, to epistles. In conclusion, the theory of pseudepigraphy either involves outright deception or it was rejected by the early church. The ancient evidence indicates that the latter is more convincing. Since the same issue is even more pressing in 2 Peter, see the more detailed discussion in the introduction to that letter.²⁸

      The nature of the persecution will be explained below in the discussion of the destination and situation of the readers, but note that the nature of the persecution in 1 Peter does not certify a late date for the letter, a date that precludes Petrine authorship. When we examine the evidence of the letter and the nature of the persecution in the Greco-Roman world, the claim that Peter could not have written the letter because of the kind of persecution described in the letter is shown to be fallacious.

      Others find it incredible to think that Peter is the author since there are so few references to the historical Jesus or allusions to his words. Scholars debate, however, whether Peter alludes somewhat regularly to the words of Jesus. Gundry detects quite a few allusions, whereas Best contests Gundry’s evidence.²⁹ We do not have space to negotiate this matter here. Suffice it to say that some verses appear to allude to sayings of the historical Jesus, but the number of such verses is not large. In any case, the objection made against Petrine authorship does not seem compelling. The objection is psychological since it posits what someone who knew the historical Jesus would do if he indeed wrote 1 Peter. Arguments like these are not as compelling as they might appear on first glance, for we must beware of asserting what Peter would certainly do as an apostle of Jesus Christ.³⁰ We might think he would appeal often to events in the life of Jesus or to Jesus’s teaching, but such assertions belong to the realm of conjecture. We need to remember that 1 Peter is a short letter in which Peter does not communicate all he knows to his readers. He writes for a limited and specific purpose to address the concrete circumstances of his readers. Thus, nothing can be concluded about Petrine authorship from what is left out of the letter.

      The most significant objection against Petrine authorship may be the quality of Greek in the letter. Some scholars answer this objection by suggesting that Silvanus served as Peter’s amanuensis on the basis of 1 Pet 5:12.³¹ As noted earlier and as we discuss in the commentary on 5:12, the formula used in 5:12, through Silvanus . . . I have written this short letter (NRSV) may refer exclusively to the carrier rather than the secretary of the letter. On the other hand, Peter may be referring to a secretary since he says the letter was written through Silvanus. Even if 1 Pet 5:12 describes Silvanus exclusively as the carrier of the letter, it is possible that he served as the secretary as well. We know secretaries were common from Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 16:22; cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19).³² It is therefore also possible that someone else with Peter served as his secretary and we are not told about this matter. A secretary who knew Greek well could have assisted Peter in the writing of the letter, and this would explain the cultivated Greek in the epistle. Such a theory cannot be dismissed, but neither can it be proved. In any case, Peter may have used a secretary, which could explain the excellent Greek used in the letter.³³

      The preference for Greek instead of Hebrew also seems strange to some since the citations and allusions to the OT come from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text in 1 Peter. Some scholars are convinced that Peter, as a Galilean Jew, would not have cited the Greek OT. The argument fails to convince. It is quite natural that Peter would appeal to the Septuagint since that is the Bible his readers would use in Asia Minor.³⁴ Peter wrote to communicate to his readers, and therefore it is hardly surprising that he relayed his message in their idiom.

      We return to the objection that the cultivated Greek in the letter does not fit with Peter as a Galilean fisherman. This piece of data raises serious questions about Petrine authorship. As noted above, it is possible that Peter used an anonymous amanuensis or Silvanus, and the quality of the Greek could then be ascribed to the secretary. On this scenario Peter may have given orally the substance of his message, and the secretary composed it. Presumably Peter himself would have reviewed the first draft or perhaps more than one draft of the letter and suggested changes before sending out the letter. Such careful composition fits with the design and beauty of the letter. The disadvantage of this view is that it cannot be established as certain. On the other hand, we must admit that we live in the realm of possible hypotheses when discussing historical questions like these.

      It is also possible that Peter himself, as a Galilean fisherman, could have written 1 Peter.³⁵ First of all, Greek was the language of commerce and had penetrated into Galilee.³⁶ Hellenism, as M. Hengel has demonstrated, was influential in Palestine by the time the NT documents were composed.³⁷ Furthermore, Galilee was near the Gentile Decapolis, and linguistic contact and overlap between the two areas was inevitable. Indeed, the city of Sepphoris in Galilee was a Hellenistic city in which both Aramaic and Greek were spoken. Peter, as a person of business, probably knew Greek, and it would have been necessary for him to know the language to advance his business interests. Porter rightly remarks,

      Greek was the prestige language of Palestine, and anyone wishing to conduct business on any extended scale, including any successful fishermen from the Hellenized region of Galilee and probably any craftsmen or artisans who would have come into contact with Roman customers, would have needed to have known—indeed would have wanted to know—Greek.³⁸

      Sevenster argues that several lines of evidence suggest that ordinary people in Israel, particularly in Galilee, would have known Greek.³⁹ In Jerusalem and Beth Shearim many ossuaries (stone coffins containing bones of the dead) have Greek inscriptions rather than Hebrew or Aramaic.⁴⁰ One of the letters written by Simon bar Cochba (AD 132–135) or one of his assistants was written in Greek, which is surprising in a nationalistic messianic movement, suggesting that Greek was well known. Some Greek has also been found in Qumran, even though Aramaic and Hebrew dominate. Josephus seems to indicate that other Jews could write Greek well if they were so motivated (Ant. 20.262–65). An imperial inscription warning against the robbing of tombs was published in Greek (found in Nazareth) in the first century AD. This inscription was likely intended for Galilee since it was found in Nazareth, indicating again, presumably, that some Galileans could read Greek. Inscriptions in Greek have also been found in several Jewish synagogues.

      It seems, then, that Greek was known and used in Palestine and in Galilee. The question should be posed more sharply than, Did Peter know and use Greek? He almost certainly knew Greek and used it as well. The question is, Is it plausible to say that Peter as a Galilean wrote such beautiful Greek? Some confidently say that he could not because he came from the business class. After all, the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:13 labels him uneducated (agrammatos). The epithet uneducated does not mean Peter was illiterate.⁴¹ The Sanhedrin did not know Peter so intimately. What they did know was that Peter was not trained rabbinically. He did not have the equivalent of a seminary education, so how could he instruct them in theological matters? We have to remember that Peter, as the leader of the Twelve, was almost certainly an extraordinary person, and he likely had remarkable speaking gifts. We have a hint of Peter’s rhetorical abilities in 1 Cor 1:12 because in Corinth the strife over leaders centered on their speaking abilities.⁴² We could become guilty of educational snobbery that refuses to recognize the intellectual and literary gifts of those in business.

      I am not arguing that Peter necessarily wrote the letter himself. He may have used a secretary, but Peter himself may have been gifted in Greek. Those who claim that the letter could not have come from the historical Peter, as if such a claim is more historically probable than the alternative position, cannot claim the historical high ground. The historical evidence we have (the letter itself) claims that Peter wrote the letter, and this historical claim should be accepted, especially when there are grounds for accepting such a verdict.

      Jobes supports Petrine authorship by proposing that the syntax of 1 Peter betrays a bilingual interference that is consistent with a Semitic author for whom Greek is a second language.⁴³ She notes a lack of mastery in the use of prepositions, genitive personal pronouns, the position of attributive adjectives, and datives with the preposition ἐν.⁴⁴ Perhaps Jobes is correct here, and further study on her thesis should prove helpful. Even if Jobes’s theory is discounted, the style could come from a secretary or Peter himself. Obviously, we do not and cannot know the precise circumstances about who penned the letter, and we must be content with various hypotheses.

      Others insist that Peter could not have written the letter because the theology is too similar to Paul’s.⁴⁵ The matter of Peter’s relationship to Paul is complex, deserving further analysis than can be presented here. A number of themes in 1 Peter resemble what we find in Paul: (1) salvation is an eschatological gift (1 Pet 1:3–9; Rom 5:9–10); (2) believers will suffer for their faith (1 Pet 1:6–7; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 2 Tim 3:12); (3) believers should live holy lives (1 Pet 1:13–2:3; Rom 6:1–23; Eph 4:1–6:9; Col 3:5–4:6); (4) Jesus is God’s cornerstone (1 Pet 2:6; Rom 9:33); (5) believers should submit themselves to governing authorities (1 Pet 2:13–17; Rom 13:1–7); (6) wives should submit to husbands (1 Pet 3:1–6; Eph 5:22–24); (7) husbands should treat their wives kindly (1 Pet 3:7; Eph 5:25–29); (8) Christ is exalted as Lord over angelic powers (1 Pet 3:18–19, 22; Eph 1:20–23; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15); (9) the end is near (1 Pet 4:7; Rom 13:11–14). Common themes stand out, but the Petrine letter does not show clear evidence of using Paul’s letters as a literary source.⁴⁶ Peter’s wording is not exact enough to demonstrate that he wrote with any of the Pauline letters before him. Furthermore, important Pauline themes are lacking in 1 Peter: justification, the role of the law, Pauline christology, and others. Some claim they shared common Christian tradition on these matters,⁴⁷ but certainty is elusive. In any case, shared subject matter on some topics doesn’t exclude the notion of Petrine authorship since it is possible that Peter and Paul shared central theological convictions. In any case, Peter and Paul are not carbon copies of each other, and 1 Peter is distinct enough to make this clear.

      We must also beware of a Tübingen overemphasis that erases the shared theology of Peter and Paul (cf. 1 Cor 15:11).⁴⁸ The incident in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) does not suggest fundamental and long-standing disagreements between Peter and Paul. If we take the written text seriously, Peter acted hypocritically and fearfully, not from conviction. Many scholars, of course, dismiss Paul’s explanation and contend that Peter differed from Paul theologically. The text certainly indicates that Peter was more concerned and sensitive to Jewish objections than Paul. Still, no evidence exists that he differed with Paul’s theology. I am not denying that Peter and Paul had different emphases in their theology, nor should we cancel out the diversity of the NT witness. Nevertheless, the alleged Pauline character of 1 Peter does not rule out Petrine authorship. It is not the purpose of this commentary to consider the common tradition between Peter and other writers. In the history of Petrine scholarship, some have appealed to a common baptismal tradition, and it is now common to posit shared tradition (hymnic, catechetical, liturgical, exhortatory).⁴⁹ The entire question is fascinating and difficult but outside the province of this commentary.

      Some claim that identifying Rome as Babylon constitutes a strong argument against Petrine authorship since we do not find such connections until post-AD 70. But there is nothing surprising about labeling Rome as Babylon pre-AD 70 since, as Jobes notes, it would make sense to identify Rome as Babylon after 63 BC since, like Babylon, Rome robbed Israel of its independence.⁵⁰

      There are no decisive grounds to reject Petrine authorship for the letter. Both internal and external evidence support such a view, and there was no controversy over whether Peter wrote the letter in the early church, showing that there is no evidence from antiquity that the letter was a transparent fiction. The objections raised against Petrine authorship are not compelling, and credible responses can be given to each one. The cultivated style of the Greek is the most important objection to authenticity, but a number of pieces of evidence indicate that Peter could have used a secretary or that Peter knew Greek well and wrote 1 Peter himself. It is unnecessary to say that Peter had visited the churches personally,⁵¹ although we cannot rule out such visits. The reference to Babylon (see the commentary on 5:13) almost certainly refers to Rome, thus we can conclude that Peter wrote the letter while in Rome.⁵²

      2 Date

      Discussion of the date of the letter depends on the question of authorship.⁵³ Those who reject Petrine authorship typically date the letter in the time of Trajan (AD 98–117),⁵⁴ Domitian (AD 81–96), or Vespasian or Titus (AD 69–81).⁵⁵ If Peter is the author of the letter and if he wrote from Rome, as the reference to Babylon in 5:13 suggests (see commentary on 5:13), it was likely written near the end of Peter’s life when he was in Rome.⁵⁶ Assigning a specific date is conjectural, but the letter was likely written in the 60s.⁵⁷ Arguments from silence are notoriously slippery, but there are good grounds for thinking that Peter would have mentioned the Neronian persecution if it had started and would have encouraged the believers in Asia Minor by the example of suffering experienced by Roman Christians. Therefore, I would date the letter around AD 62–63 before the onset of the Neronian persecution.⁵⁸

      3 Destination and Situation of the Readers

      The reference to Babylon in 5:13 is almost surely a reference to Rome, indicating that Peter wrote the letter from Rome to churches in Asia Minor.⁵⁹ We have corroborating evidence that Mark (5:13) was in Rome about the time Peter was written (Col 4:10; Phlm 24). The letter is addressed to believers dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1).⁶⁰ When Peter wrote the letter, Bithynia and Pontus were a single province (see commentary under 1:1), and hence Peter probably wrote generally, designating a geographic area north of the Taurus mountains (in what is now modern-day Turkey) as the recipients of the letter. Some think Peter designates the area by province instead of geographically; for if it were the latter he probably would have included Paphlagonia, Phrygia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia.⁶¹ Others suggest that the order in which the areas are listed designates the order in which the courier (Silvanus per 5:12) carried the letter.⁶² The regions are roughly in a circle. We would expect a person coming from the sea to land at Bithynia first and then go on to Pontus. Alternatively, Seland says that the area was much too large for a single carrier, and thus it is more likely that several couriers delivered the letter, which would mean that several copies of the letter were made.⁶³

      We know from the letter that the readers faced suffering and persecution for their faith (1:6–7; 2:18–20; 3:1, 13–17; 4:1–4, 12–19; 5:10). The persecution represents a test and is compared to fire (1:6–7; 4:12), and their suffering is compared to what believers faced in the rest of the Greco-Roman world (5:9). Slaves and wives were mistreated, which probably included beatings and perhaps even sexual assault (2:18–20; 3:1–6). Believers were slandered by unbelievers for failing to participate with them in idolatry and a whole range of sins (4:1–4), and

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1