Authorship. Although some commentators question Petrine authorship, others have argued forcefully for it; the situation presupposed in the letter fits Peter’s lifetime. The tradition of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome is virtually unanimous. By the late first century 1 Clement accepted this tradition, and excavations indicate a second-century memorial in Rome to Peter’s martyrdom. Other early Christian traditions also support this tradition as well as the view that Peter was the author of the letter, which is cited by authors from the beginning of the second century.
Given this tradition of his martyrdom in Rome, the likelihood that letters he wrote would be preserved, and the fact that most letters were either authentic or written long after the purported author’s death, the burden of proof is on those who deny that Peter wrote the letter. One commentator (Selwyn) thought he could detect parallels to Silas’s (5:12) style in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. This argument alone is not conclusive, but arguments against Petrine authorship are even weaker (for those based on Greek style, see introduction to James).
Date. Three basic periods of persecution have been suggested as the background: the time of Trajan (early second century), the time of Domitian (see introduction to Revelation) and the time of Nero, which would be the time of Peter’s martyrdom. First Peter implies an atmosphere of severe repression, but not the official court prosecutions of Trajan’s time. Church leadership in the epistle (5:1-2) also fits the first-century model better than a later date. A pseudonymous letter attributed to Peter as early as the Flavian period (after Nero but still first century) is unlikely.
Unity. The first section of 1 Peter (1:1–4:6) does not explicitly indicate that fatal persecution has begun; the second part (4:7–5:14) is more explicit. Some writers have therefore divided the letter into two parts, usually arguing that the former was a baptismal homily (due to abundant parallels with other parts of the *New Testament). But the difference of situation presupposed between the two sections is not significant enough to warrant such a division, and there appear no other compelling reasons to divide them.
Provenance and Audience. It is widely agreed that “Babylon” (5:13) is a cryptic name for Rome (linked early in Jewish views on the four kingdoms), as in some Jewish works and undoubtedly in the book of Revelation. The situation of persecution described here fits Rome, and it would be appropriate for Peter to send advance warning of that situation to believers in Asia Minor, the stronghold of emperor worship. An audience in Asia Minor would probably include Jewish Christians, but Peter’s audience probably includes *Gentile Christians (cf. 1:18; 4:3-4).
Situation. A fire devastated Rome in A.D. 64 but suspiciously left unscathed the estates of Nero and his older boyfriend Tigellinus. Like any good politician, Nero needed a scapegoat for his ills, and what appeared to be a new religion, understood as a fanatical form of Judaism begun by an executed teacher three and a half decades before, filled the need perfectly.
Romans viewed Christians, like Jews, as antisocial. Certain charges became so common that they were stereotypical by the second century: Romans viewed Christians as “atheists” (like some philosophers, for rejecting the gods), “cannibals” (for claiming to eat Jesus’ “body” and drink his “blood”) and incestuous (for statements like “I love you, brother,” or “I love you, sister”). Judaism was a poor target for outright persecution, because its adherents were numerous and it was popular in some circles; further, Nero’s mistress, Poppaea Sabina, was a *patron of Jewish causes. By contrast, Christianity was viewed as a form of Judaism whose support was tenuous even in Jewish circles, and therefore it offered an appropriate political scapegoat.
According to the early-second-century historian *Tacitus (Annals 15.44), who disliked Christians himself, Nero burned Christians alive as torches to light his gardens at night. He killed other Christians in equally severe ways (e.g., feeding them to wild animals for public entertainment). In all, he may have murdered thousands of Rome’s Christians, although most Christians there escaped his grasp. Thus, even though the Greek part of the empire loved Nero, Christians saw him as a prototype of the antichrist. Nero died in disgrace several years later, pursued by fellow Romans who hated him.
Genre. First Peter appears to be a general letter, influenced more by the situation in Rome than by the current situation in Asia Minor (what is now western Turkey); thus Peter can address it as a circular letter to many regions of Asia Minor (1:1). Peter does, however, seem to expect that the sufferings of Rome will eventually materialize in other parts of the empire. On events in Asia Minor three decades later, see the discussion of background in the introduction to Revelation. Leaders of the Jerusalem priesthood sent out encyclicals, letters to *Diaspora Jewish communities, by means of messengers; Peter’s letter is similar to these but on a smaller scale of readership.
Commentaries. One of the most helpful for those who do not work with the Greek text is J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981). More technical works that are helpful for background include Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, AB 37B (New York: Doubleday, 2000); Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005); J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC 49 (Waco, TX: Word, 1988); and E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1947). Two of the best specialized works are David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981), and William J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6, Analecta Biblica 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965).
Verses 3-12 constitute one long sentence in Greek; such long sentences could be viewed as skillful in antiquity, when hearers of speeches were accustomed to following the train of thought for a longer time than North American and some other television-trained readers are today.
1:1. Jewish people spoke of Jews who lived outside Palestine as the “*Diaspora,” or those who were “scattered”; Peter transfers this term to his audience (cf. 1:17; 2:11). On “resident aliens,” see comment on 1:17; cf. 2:11. The five Roman provinces he mentions were geographically connected; he omits the southern coastal regions of Asia Minor, some of which could be grouped with Syria in this period instead of as a political part of Asia Minor. It has been suggested that the sequence in which Peter lists the provinces of his intended readers reflects the route a messenger delivering the letter could take if he started from Amastris in Pontus. (Although messengers from Rome were more likely to start at the province of Asia, Peter may start in his mind with the province farthest from him and work his way around.) On encyclical or circular letters, see the discussion of *genre in the introduction.
1:2. In the *Old Testament and Judaism, God’s people were corporately “chosen,” or “predestined,” because God “foreknew” them; Peter applies the same language to believers in Jesus. Obedience and the sprinkling of blood also established the first covenant (Ex 24:7-8).
1:3. Peter adopts the form of a berakhah, the Jewish form of blessing that regularly began “Blessed be God who . . .” The rebirth may allude to language Jewish people normally used for the conversion of *Gentiles to Judaism (see comment on Jn 3:3, 5), with the meaning: you received a new nature and identity when you converted. Earlier Jewish sources speak of receiving a new heart (Ezek 36:26; *Jubilees 1:20-21; 4Q393 in the *Dead Sea Scrolls) or becoming like a new person (1 Sam 10:6; *Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 20:2; 27:10; *Joseph and Asenath 8:9-11). Believers were reborn to a living hope by Jesus’ *resurrection, an inheritance (v. 4) and future salvation (v. 5), three ideas connected in Jewish views of the end of the age.
1:4. *New Testament writers followed Jewish teachers in speaking of “inheriting” the future world; the original source of the idiom is probably Israel’s “inheritance” of the Promised Land subsequent to their redemption from Egypt. Some Jewish texts (such as *4 Ezra 7:77, probably late first century) also spoke of a treasure stored up in heaven for the righteous, but whereas the emphasis for receiving that treasure is normally on one’s obedience, the emphasis here is on God’s work.
1:5. The Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4QpNah 3.3) and other Jewish texts speak of everything being “revealed” in the “last time”; the deeds of the wicked would be made known, but the righteous would be “saved,” delivered, from all that opposed them.
1:6-7. God was sovereign over testings, but his purpose both in the Old Testament and in Judaism was to strengthen the commitment of those who were tested (it was only *Satan whose object in the testing was to bring apostasy—5:8). See comment on James 1:12-16. (The Old Testament and Judaism also taught that sufferings could be discipline to bring persons to *repentance or punishments to fulfill justice and invite repentance; contemporary Judaism developed this concept into the idea of *atonement by sufferings. Although this view does not reflect Peter’s emphasis, he does allow that the persecution believers face may function also as God’s discipline to wake his people up—4:17.)
Many Jewish traditions also presented the end as preceded by times of great testing. The image of the righteous being tested like precious metals purified in the furnace comes from the Old Testament (Job 23:10; Ps 12:6; Prov 17:3; cf. Is 43:2; Jer 11:4) and continued in subsequent Jewish literature (e.g., Sirach 2:5). Ores of precious metals (the most precious of which was gold) would be melted in a furnace to separate out the impurities and produce purer metal.
1:8-9. Testing could be joyous rather than grievous because these readers knew in advance the goal of the testing: when they had persevered to the end, the final deliverance would come, as in traditional Jewish teaching. Unlike the testing in James, a primary test in 1 Peter is persecution (see introduction).
1:10-12. Many Jewish interpreters (especially attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls) believed that the Old Testament prophets had told especially about the interpreters’ own time, and that their meaning for this time had thus remained cryptic until sages of their own generation were given special insight by the *Spirit. Peter here seems to assert that the prophets recognized that their prophecies applied to the *Messiah who would suffer and be exalted, and that they knew that many details would make sense to the readers only once they had happened. It sounds as if Peter would, however, have agreed with the interpreters in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Old Testament prophets did not know the “time or kind of time.”
That Old Testament servants of God could have the Spirit of God in them is clear (Gen 41:38; Num 27:18), although the Old Testament usually preferred the Hebrew idiom for the Spirit resting “upon” God’s servants, empowering them (as in 1 Pet 4:14). According to some Jewish traditions, some secrets were so important that God kept them even from angels until the end time; in other traditions, angels respected *rabbis’ esoteric teachings and came to their lectures to listen; in still other traditions, angels envied Israel, who received God’s *law.
1:13. Men wore long robes and would tuck them into their belt, and thus “gird up their loins,” so they could move more freely and quickly. Although the image also occurs elsewhere in the *Old Testament, here Peter may specifically allude to the Passover (Ex 12:11): once God’s people had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb (1 Pet 1:19), they were to be ready to follow God forth until he had brought them safely into their inheritance (cf. 1:4), the Promised Land. Thus they were to be dressed and ready to flee. “Sobriety” in ancient usage meant not only literal abstinence from drink but also behaving as a nonintoxicated person should, hence with dignified self-control.
1:14. “Obedient children” picks up the image of 1:3: born anew, they were no longer what they had been before, and they should obey God (cf. 1:2, 22) as children obeyed their fathers. The obedience of minors to their parents was highly valued, and Roman and Jewish law expected it.
1:15-16. Israel was called to be holy as God was holy and thus to live in a manner distinct from the ways of the nations (Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:7, 26). The daily *synagogue prayers also stressed holiness to God, hence the idea would have been one of the most familiar to Jewish readers and to Gentiles who had learned Scripture from them. If Peter continues the image of father and children between 1:14 and 1:17, he may allude here to another feature of a child’s relationship with a father that was stressed in antiquity: imitation.
1:17. The image of God as an impartial judge was standard in Judaism, which also addressed him as “heavenly Father” in most of its prayers. “Resident aliens” (“foreigners”—NIV; “the time of your stay”—NASB) were distinguished from local citizens, but as legal residents of an area they were viewed more highly than newcomers. Jewish communities throughout the empire generally enjoyed a resident alien status, and although some Jews could achieve citizen status, in other places like Alexandria the Greeks met their attempts to do so with hostility.
1:18. Jewish people often spoke of idolatry as “futile” or “empty.” To them idolatry was the most basic characteristic of Gentiles’ lifestyle, thus the former way of life of Peter’s hearers (“passing down” of the ancestors’ way of life by itself could refer either to paganism or to Judaism). Jewish sages contrasted the perishable wealth with the eternal, true wealth, (cf. 1:4, 7, 23) of righteousness or wisdom; here it refers to the price of the hearers’ redemption, for which money was insufficient (1:19). (That gold was devalued in this period due to inflation under Nero may have occurred to some of Peter’s original hearers but is probably not relevant to Peter’s point about perishable gold; cf. 1:7.)
1:19-21. Redemption by the blood of a lamb recalls the annual Passover celebration, by which Jewish people commemorated their redemption (freedom from slavery) in Egypt, through the blood of the Passover lamb (cf. 1:13).
1:22. In Old Testament purity laws, people purified themselves from defilement by ceremonial bathing; although Judaism continued to practice literal ceremonial washings, it often used the image of washing figuratively for spiritual or moral purification (as occasionally in Old Testament prophets, e.g., Is 1:16; Jer 2:22; 4:14).
1:23. The new life of obedient love (1:22) is natural for the person with a new nature; it was axiomatic in antiquity that children inherited the nature of their parents. (Many writers even remarked that adulterers gave themselves away because children bore their image.) The father’s seed was especially important; followers of Jesus had been reborn through the living word, the *gospel (1:3; 2:2), and it was imperishable (1:24-25). (A variety of parallels could be adduced, including Philo’s perspective on the divine word as not only imperishable but as “seminal,” or a seed; but most of these examples are individual and distinct cases rather than based on general tradition. The parallels may thus all draw from the same sort of natural imagery as Peter’s [except that Philo, unlike Peter, might draw on *Stoicism’s seminal Logos]. That the Word of God was imperishable, however, was agreed throughout all of Judaism; cf. Is 40:6-8. The present image was more widespread in early Christianity; see 1 John 3:9 and cf. Luke 8:11.) God’s word could be depicted as seed elsewhere (e.g., *4 Ezra 9:31, 33).
1:24-25. Here Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-8 (following the *LXX, which is more concise than the Hebrew text here), where the word is the future message of salvation in the time when God would redeem his people (e.g., 52:7-8).
2:1. Ancient writers sometimes employed “vice lists,” indicating what people should avoid; Peter employs a miniature vice list. “Putting aside” (NASB) the old ways also follows rebirth in James, Ephesians and Colossians; together with other parallels to those letters, this similarity has suggested to some scholars a common baptismal tradition in the early *church. It might also follow some teaching by Jesus no longer available to us; on possible background to “putting aside,” see comment on Romans 13:12 and Ephesians 4:20-24.
2:2. This verse continues the image of rebirth (1:23). Babies were dependent on their mothers or nurses for nourishment by their milk; use of cows’ milk was rare. It was believed that children were very impressionable at this nursing stage, and those who allowed them to be tended by nursemaids were advised to select the nurses with care. “Pure” milk meant that it had not been mixed with anything else; the term is used in business documents for sales of unadulterated foods. Pure “spiritual” (NIV, NRSV, GNT) milk is a possible translation (especially if we think in the sense of “nonliteral”), but the adjective here more often means “rational” and could well be rendered “milk of the word” (logikon; cf. NASB, KJV), i.e., the “word” of 1:25.
2:3. Here Peter alludes to Psalm 34:8. The term translated “kindness” (NASB) or “good” (NIV, NRSV) was sometimes used to mean “delicious” when applied to foods (as here, milk—v. 2).
The *Qumran community (the Jewish monastic sect who wrote the *Dead Sea Scrolls) also portrayed themselves as a new temple. Whereas many of Peter’s exhortations to this point are the sort of moral instructions philosophers could give for individual behavior, this section concerns the church’s corporate identity and hence corporate witness.
2:4. Peter derives this image from Isaiah 28:16 (“choice,” “precious”), which he cites in 2:6.
2:5. The Dead Sea Scrolls portray the Qumran community as a living temple, and one text speaks of the temple’s components (pillar, foundations, etc.) as animate beings. “House” could refer to a building, like the temple, or to a household (4:17), even to a large family like the “house of Israel”; both senses may be played on here, as sometimes in the *Old Testament (2 Sam 7:5-7, 12-16). The image of God’s people as a “holy priesthood” is from Exodus 19:5-6 (cf. Is 61:6) and appears more explicitly in 1 Peter 2:9 (Israel as a priesthood also appears in some contemporary Jewish texts based on Ex 19:6, including an insertion into the LXX of Ex 23:22). As priests (as well as stones) in this new temple, they would offer sacrifices; others in Judaism also used the image of a spiritual sacrifice (see comment on Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15).
2:6. The Qumran community applied Isaiah 28:16 to their own leadership; early Christians applied it to Jesus (Rom 9:33).
2:7-8. The Jewish interpretive principle gezerah shavah, which linked texts that had a common key word, makes it natural for Peter to cite Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14. Although this interpretive technique suggests that he need not be dependent on Paul, both Peter and Paul may have depended on Jesus for the cornerstone image (Mk 12:10-11). Psalm 118 was sung during the Passover season (cf. 1 Pet 1:19), normally, at least among some Jews in this period, after thanking God for delivering Israel from slavery in Egypt into freedom, “from darkness to great light” (cf. 2:9).
2:9. Roughly half this verse is a direct quotation of Exodus 19:6, implying that all Christians, including *Gentile Christians, share in God’s covenant with Israel. Jewish people on the Passover described their deliverance from Egypt as a call “from darkness into great light” (Mishnah Pesahim 10:5). Old Testament prophets taught that God had redeemed his people for his praise (e.g., Is 60:21; 61:3; Jer 13:11).
2:10. Peter cites Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, which reverse God’s earlier verdict against Israel (Hos 1:6, 8-9), promising the restoration of God’s people in the end time. Like Paul, Peter believes that Gentiles converted to Israel’s true faith, the message of Jesus, are part of this end-time people of God (Rom 9:24-26). Had he wished, he could have cited more direct Old Testament passages to support his conclusion (e.g., Is 19:24-25; 56:3-8).
2:11. On “resident aliens” (the normal sense of the terms usually translated “aliens and strangers”), see comment on 1:17. *Philo spoke of souls as being “strangers” (using a term technically more foreign than “resident aliens”; Confusion of Tongues 81; Who Is the Heir? 267) in their bodies, belonging instead to heaven. The image here is of God’s people (2:4-10) dispersed among the nations; God’s people in the Old Testament were sometimes portrayed in such terms (Lev 25:23), because of their mortality (1 Chron 29:15; Ps 39:12), because of zeal for God (Ps 69:8; cf. 119:19) or because of their wanderings (Gen 23:4; 47:9). Greek philosophers often viewed fleshly passions as “waging war” against the soul and emphasized the need to war against them (cf. also Philo, Creation 81). Peter uses the same image, although not for the same reason that philosophers often did (freeing the soul from earthly distractions); he demands proper living (2:12).
2:12. Jewish people living in the *Diaspora (1:1) always had to be concerned about Gentiles’ anti-Jewish slanders, for their safety and for their witness to the one true God. Just as Gentiles were more than happy to slander Jews living among them, they were happy to slander Gentile converts to what they viewed as a Jewish sect, Christianity (2:4-10). The behavior advocated in the following household codes (2:13–3:12) would undermine some of the most traditional slanders against such faiths, slanders that they subverted the public order and traditional family values. “Day of visitation” (KJV, NASB) was good Old Testament language for God’s coming day of judgment (e.g., Is 10:3); many texts reported that the Gentiles would recognize God’s glory in the end time (e.g., Is 60:3).
Many ancient household codes were set in the context of discussions of city management and included instructions on how to behave toward the state (as well as toward parents, elders, friends, members of one’s household, etc.). According to contemporary aristocratic ideals, the household mirrored the government of a city-state, so public obligations and obligations within the household (2:18–3:7) were commonly treated together.
*Stoic and other philosophers commonly used these ethical codes to delineate proper relationships with others. Jewish people and members of other slandered religious groups sometimes adopted these codes to demonstrate that their groups actually supported the values of Roman society; this demonstration was important in combating persecution. See comment on Romans 13:1-7.
2:13. Vassal kings in the East ruled their people with Rome’s permission but were required to act in Rome’s interests. Because most of Peter’s hearers (1:1) would instead be directly under governors (2:14), by “king” Peter may refer especially to the Roman emperor. Although the emperor’s title was technically princeps, i.e., “the leading citizen” or the first among equals (to preserve the myth of the republic in the early years of the empire), everyone knew that he was the supreme earthly king in the Mediterranean world.
2:14. The term translated “governors” covers both legates (who governed imperial provinces as representatives of the emperor—2:13) and proconsuls (who governed senatorial provinces). Such representatives of Rome ruled most of the empire. Governors of imperial provinces were “sent by” the emperor and were expected to administer justice. “Praise” would include the many inscriptions of praise dedicated to benefactors who provided wealth or services for municipalities.
2:15. “Ignorance” includes the false understanding of Christianity spread among outsiders (more than in 1:14); Roman aristocrats were much quicker to malign minority religions, whose worship did not assimilate to Roman values, than to seek to understand them. The *Old Testament taught God’s sovereignty over rulers (Prov 16:10; 21:1).
2:16. Here Peter modifies a common exhortation of ancient philosophers: for them, freedom from the world’s values meant not only authority to do as one pleased but also freedom to pursue virtue, freedom from desire and freedom to do without. Most philosophers (such as contemporary *Stoics) regarded the wise man as the ideal ruler but still advocated obedience to the state. For Christians, freedom meant freedom to be God’s slaves rather than slaves of sin; it meant freedom from the tyranny of the state but also freedom to uphold the laws of the state as God’s servants (v. 15).
2:17. Such brief lists of these kinds of duties appear in other ancient moralists (e.g., Isocrates, Marcus Aurelius, Syriac Menander). The Old Testament also associated honoring God with honoring those in authority (Ex 22:28; 1 Kings 21:10; Prov 24:21).
This passage addresses household slaves, who often had more economic and social mobility than free peasants did, although most of them still did not have much. Field slaves on massive estates were more oppressed; given the regions addressed (1:1) and the nature of household codes (see comment on 2:13-17), they are probably not addressed here and at most are peripherally envisioned. The most oppressed slaves, who worked in the mines, were segregated from the rest of society and would not have access to Peter’s letter; they are not addressed here at all.
It should also be kept in mind that Peter does not address the institution of slavery per se, although his sympathy is clearly with the slave (2:21). No ancient slave war was successful, and abolition was virtually impossible in his day except through a probably doomed bloody revolution. In this situation, it was far more practical for a pastor to encourage those in the situation to deal with it constructively until they could gain freedom. On slaves and household codes, questions of subsequent application and so forth, see comment on Ephesians 6:4-9 and the introduction to Philemon.
2:18-20. Except those slaves who were able to save enough money on the side to buy their freedom (which many household slaves could do), slaves were not in a position to achieve freedom. (Often the holders freed their slaves as a reward or to keep from having to feed them in old age, but slaves could not refuse that arrangement.) Although slaves and masters cooperated in many households as members of a common family, laws viewed slaves as property as well as people, and some slaveholders abused them as property; nearly all slaveholders treated them as socially inferior. (An aristocrat eating together even with his freedmen was considered unusual.) Philosophers (especially the popular Stoics) generally counseled that slaves do their best in the situation in which they found themselves; this was also the view of *Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher who had been a slave earlier in life.
2:21. Moralists commonly cited models for imitation. Philosophers also often prided themselves in their ability not to be bothered by insults or deprivation (e.g., one said that Socrates, when advised that he suffered unjustly, protested, “What—would you rather I suffer justly?” Diogenes Laertius 2.35). Although ancient society was very status-conscious and associated power with greatness, Peter identifies *Christ with unjustly treated slaves.
2:22. Here Peter quotes Isaiah 53:9, the first of several allusions to Isaiah 53 in this passage. The passage describes “the suffering servant,” a role fulfilled by Jesus (cf. comment on Mt 12:17-18).
2:23. This verse may reflect the idea of Isaiah 53:7: though oppressed, he did not open his mouth. In a society based on respect and honor, refusing to reply in kind was a painful experience; subordinates like slaves were accustomed to it, but it could not have failed to hurt many of them. Many philosophers also advocated enduring reviling without responding in kind.
2:24. Here Peter reflects the language of Isaiah 53:4-5. In this context (1 Pet 2:24, 25), Peter takes the “healing” as healing from sin, as it often was intended in the prophets (e.g., Is 6:10; Jer 6:14; 8:11) and sometimes in later Jewish literature (as probably in the eighth benediction of the Amidah, a regularly recited Jewish prayer).
2:25. This verse echoes Isaiah 53:6. The image of Israel as sheep was common in the *Old Testament (e.g., Is 40:11), and the image of Israel as scattered sheep wandering from the shepherd also appears elsewhere (Jer 50:6; Ezek 34:6; cf. Ps 119:176). An “overseer” (NIV; “guardian”—NASB, NRSV) was one who watched over, protected and had authority; Diaspora Judaism sometimes applied the term to God. In the Old Testament, God is the chief shepherd of his people (see comment on Jn 10:1-18).
Although Peter upholds societal norms for the purpose of the *church’s witness in society (see the introduction to the household codes in 2:13-17), his sympathy here is clearly with the woman, as it was with the slaves in 2:18-25. He continues to advocate submission to authority for the sake of witness (3:1) and silencing charges that Christianity is subversive; husbands were always in the position of authority in that culture. Peter addresses wives at much greater length than husbands; if proportions of converts were comparable to Judaism, women may have largely outnumbered men in the churches. (The proportion may have been greater for Jewish converts, however, since *Diaspora churches did not require circumcision, one factor that discouraged male conversion.)
3:1. “In the same way” refers back to the passage on slaves (2:18-25). Like Judaism and other non-Roman religions, Christianity spread faster among wives than husbands; husbands had more to lose socially from conversion to an unpopular minority religion. But wives were expected to obey their husbands in Greco-Roman antiquity, and this obedience included allegiance to their husbands’ religions. Cults that forbade their participation in Roman or other local religious rites, including prohibiting worship of a family’s household gods, were viewed with disdain, and Jewish or Christian women who refused to worship these gods could be charged with atheism. Thus by his advice Peter seeks to reduce marital tensions and causes of hostility toward Christianity and Christians. Silence was considered a great virtue for women in antiquity.
3:2. “Chaste and respectful” (NASB) is the behavior that was most approved for women throughout antiquity.
3:3. Hair was braided in elaborate manners, and well-to-do women strove to keep up with the latest expensive fashions. The gaudy adornments of women of wealth, meant to draw attention to themselves, were repeatedly condemned in ancient literature and speeches, and Peter’s hearers would assume that his point was meant in the same way (challenging excess, not clothing per se). See comment on 1 Timothy 2:9-10.
3:4. Ancients considered a meek and quiet spirit a prime virtue for women, and many moralists advised this attitude instead of dressing in the latest fashions to attract men’s attention, a vice commonly attributed to aristocratic women but imitated by others who could afford to do so.
3:5. Moralists often added examples of such quietness to their exhortations; they especially liked to appeal to matrons of the distant past, who were universally respected for their chaste behavior in contrast to many of the current models in Roman high society. Jewish readers would think especially of the great matriarchs, extolled for their piety in Jewish tradition: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, Sarah being most prominent. The readers might think of head coverings that were prominent in much of the East, meant to render the married woman inconspicuous (see comment on 1 Cor 11:2-16), but inner adornment is Peter’s emphasis here.
3:6. Although Peter explicitly advocates only “submission” (v. 1), he cites Sarah as an example even of “obedience,” which was what Greek and Roman male society ideally demanded of their wives. That Abraham also “obeyed” Sarah is clear in Genesis (the term usually translated “listen to” in 16:2 and 21:12 also means “obey,” and in both passages Abraham submits to Sarah), but this point is not relevant to Peter’s example for wives with husbands disobedient to the word (3:1; see the introduction to this section). (One should not read too much into Sarah’s calling her husband “lord” here. The direct address “lord” may have been used in Hebrew to address husbands respectfully as “sir,” e.g., Hos 2:16, but apart from Gen 18:12 it is primarily in later Jewish traditions such as the Testament of Abraham that Sarah addresses Abraham in this manner. Even in the Testament of Abraham, Isaac also addresses his mother with a similarly respectful title, and Abraham so addresses a visitor, unaware that he is an angel [cf. also Gen 18:3]. In another Jewish tale, Asenath calls her father “lord” yet answers him boastfully and angrily, although Peter certainly does not suggest such behavior here. In the patriarchal period, it was a polite way to address someone of higher authority or one to whose status one wished to defer, e.g., Jacob to Esau in Gen 33:13-14.) Jewish people were considered “children” of Abraham and Sarah; on Christians’ fulfilling such a role, cf. 2:9-10.
Peter’s advice is practical, not harsh as it might sound in many of our cultures today. Although philosophers’ household codes often stressed that the wife should “fear” her husband as well as submit to him, Peter disagrees (v. 6; cf. 3:13-14). Husbands could legally “throw out” babies, resort to prostitutes and make life miserable for their wives, although sleeping with other women of the aristocratic class was prohibited, and reported examples of physical domestic abuse are rare in this region (when compared to the beatings of children and slaves) (known exceptions included the North African region in which Augustine grew up and an earlier abuser named Egnatius). (In a mid-second-century account, a Christian divorced her husband for his repeated infidelity, so he betrayed her to the authorities as a Christian.) Christian wives were limited in their options, but Peter wants them to pursue peace without being intimidated.
3:7. Although his point is to address the many converted wives with unconverted husbands (3:1-6), he includes a brief word for converted husbands as well. Many philosophers, moralists and Jewish teachers complained about the moral and intellectual weakness of women; some referred to the weakness of their bodies. Women’s delicacy was considered an object of desire, but also of distrust; even the traditional Roman legal system simply assumed their weakness and inability to make sound decisions on their own. This approach fit the earlier conceptions of *Aristotle, who argued that women were by nature inferior to men in every way except sexually.
Yet this weakness (Peter may apply it only to social position) was often cited as a reason to show them more consideration, and Peter attaches no explicit significance to this common term except that requirement; the rest of the verse declares women to be equal before God, which ruined any arguments of their inferiority “by nature.” A husband who failed to honor his wife as spiritual peer jeopardized his own prayers, for the reason Peter gives in 3:12.
Peter concludes his argument of 2:13–3:7 in the verses following 3:8, although this conclusion flows directly into his next argument. It reinforces the sense of mutual consideration Peter wishes to engender in household relationships, within limitations imposed by the culture he addresses.
3:8. Moralists often listed virtues. They also often lectured on the topic of “harmony” between husband and wife. Advocating peace in all relationships in the home would not have offended any Roman moralists (3:13). “Sympathy” recalls the exhortation to husbands in 3:7, which probably means to “understand” their wives.
3:9. Parallels with Jesus indicate that his teaching may be the source of part of this verse; see comment on Romans 12:17.
3:10-12. Having cited Psalm 34:8 in 2:3, Peter now cites Psalm 34:12-16, which instructs the righteous to pursue peace with others and to speak no evil, thus supporting what he has argued in 2:13–3:7. (Jewish teachers also emphasized that one should pursue peace actively, not just passively.) The citation also indicates that although God hears the righteous, he opposes the wicked and hence does not hear the prayers of those who mistreat others (3:7).
This section flows naturally from 3:8-12.
3:13-14. Peter alludes to the language of Isaiah 8:12, where God assures the prophet that he need not fear what the rest of his people feared, but should trust in God alone (8:13).
3:15. The *Septuagint (standard Greek version) of Isaiah 8:13 begins “Sanctify the Lord [i.e., God] himself”; here *Christ is the Lord. The “defense” (NASB, NRSV; the common translation “answer” is too weak) implies especially (though probably not only) the image of a legal defense before a court, given “judgment” and execution in the context (4:5-6).
3:16. Judaism also tried this tactic to undermine false accusations.
3:17. Ancient writers sometimes communicated points through special literary forms; one of these is called *chiasmus, an inverted parallel structure, which seems to occur here:
A Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)
B Suffer though innocent, in God’s will (3:17)
C For Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)
D He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)
E Noah was saved through water (3:20)
E' You are saved through water (3:21)
D' Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)
C' For Christ suffered (4:1a)
B' Suffer in God’s will (4:1b-2)
A' Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3-5)
3:18-19. On “flesh” and “Spirit,” see comment on Romans 8:1-11; the idea here is probably that Jesus was resurrected by the *Spirit of God, by whom also he went (presumably after the *resurrection) to proclaim triumph over the fallen spirits. Of the many views on this text, the three main ones are (1) that between his death and resurrection, Jesus preached to the dead in Hades, the realm of the dead (the view of many church fathers); (2) that Christ preached through Noah to people in Noah’s day (the view of many Reformers); (3) that before or (more likely) after his resurrection, Jesus proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels (the view of most scholars today). In early Christian literature, “spirits” nearly always refers to angelic spirits rather than human spirits, except when explicit statements are made to the contrary. The grammar here most naturally reads as if, in the Spirit who raised him, he preached to them after his resurrection; further, v. 22 mentions these fallen angels explicitly. The view that these were instead spirits of the dead often rests on 4:6, but the point of 4:6, which caps the section, is that martyrs put to death in the flesh will be raised by the Spirit as Christ was in 3:18.
Except for most later *rabbis, nearly all ancient Jews read Genesis 6:1-3 as a reference to the fall of angels in Noah’s day (1 Pet 3:20); after the flood, they were said to be imprisoned (so also 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6), either below the earth or in the atmosphere (cf. 1 Pet 3:22). Then, according to a commonly known Jewish tradition, Enoch was sent to proclaim God’s judgment to them; here Christ is the proclaimer of triumph over them.
3:20. Ancient Judaism sometimes used the flood as a prototype of future judgment, as in 2 Peter 3:6-7. The emphasis on the salvation of “few” would encourage Christian readers, who were a persecuted minority. God’s “patience” reflects Genesis 6:3 and is mentioned in connection with the final judgment in 2 Peter 3:9.
3:21. The act of faith indicated in *baptism, rather than the physical cleansing, was what was significant; baptism was an act of conversion in ancient Judaism, but Judaism insisted on the sincerity of *repentance for it to be efficacious.
3:22. “Authorities and powers” were angelic rulers over the nations, of which Jewish texts often speak (see comment on Eph 1:21-23). Thus even the evil powers behind the rulers who persecuted Christians had been subdued, and the final outcome was not in question.
4:1-2. Although the expression was often used figuratively, “arm yourselves” may evoke the military imagery of soldiers arming, training or otherwise preparing themselves for battle and possible death. The sense might be that those who died with *Christ through faith (cf. 2:24; or, those who have shared in some of his sufferings) are genuinely prepared to suffer with him in any other way, including martyrdom.
4:3. Unlike certain maligned religions, social clubs demanded orderly behavior at parties. Nevertheless, dinners at the homes of *patrons and probably those of social clubs lasted far into the night, with heavy drinking and men often pursuing slave women or boys; religious festivals were similar occasions for immorality. Social clubs, household cults and virtually all aspects of Greco-Roman life were permeated with the veneration of false gods and spirits; hosts poured libations to gods at the beginning of banquets. Although this behavior was not immoral from the general Greco-Roman perspective, Jews and Christians condemned it as immoral. Jewish people rightly regarded this behavior as typical of *Gentile men in their day—most commonly, though by no means exclusively, on pagan festivals.
4:4. Although Jewish people did not participate in the lifestyle characterized in 4:3, their pagan neighbors often portrayed them as lawless and subversive because of their alleged antisocial behavior. The earliest pagan reports of Christians testify that the same prejudices were applied to them, although the authorities never found evidence substantiating these rumors from those they interrogated under torture. Nero’s accusation against the Christians he butchered was that they were “haters of humanity,” i.e., antisocial. But rumors of Nero’s own base immorality offended even the Roman aristocracy.
4:5. These pagans, not the Christians (3:15), would have to give “account” at the final trial, before God. Since the *Old Testament period, the final day of judgment had often been portrayed in courtroom terms.
4:6. Although some commentators regard “those who are dead” as souls of the dead, they seem to be Christians “judged” by earthly courts and executed, who would nevertheless be raised by the *Spirit, as in 3:18. Compare Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-6.
4:7. In many Jewish traditions (including Dan 12:1-2), the end of the age would be preceded by a period of great suffering; the impending end, therefore, calls for exhortations to perseverance in seriousness and prayer.
4:8. Proverbs 10:12 seems to prohibit gossiping about one another’s sins or slandering one another (cf. Jas 5:20). The implication here may be that love overlooks one another’s faults, although some scholars have suggested that it means that those who love will themselves find *grace in the day of judgment (1 Pet 4:5-6).
4:9. Hospitality was receiving others, especially taking in travelers of the same faith who needed a place to stay. As generally in the ethical ideals of antiquity, lodging and provisions were to be provided generously, not grudgingly.
4:10-11. Like Paul (Rom 12:4-8), Peter emphasized the diversity of gifts in the *church and the need for all of them until the end; this argument was highly unusual in ancient Judaism. Speaking as if one uttered divine “oracles” would no doubt refer to the gift of *prophecy, or at least prophetic inspiration in some form of speaking for God. On prophecy and serving, see comment on Romans 12:6-8 and 16:1.
In the Old Testament (Dan 12:1-2) and much Jewish tradition, God’s people would suffer greatly just before the time of the end; then the wicked would be judged. Jewish tradition often emphasized that the righteous experienced their sufferings in this age but that the wicked would experience theirs throughout the *age to come. Such persecutions as are mentioned here continued for two more centuries in the Roman Empire and have continued periodically in various times and places throughout history; perhaps for such reasons, believers in each generation have had the occasion to feel close to the end of the age.
4:12. It is possible that Peter alludes to the fate that would befall many Christians captured in Rome in A.D. 64: they were burned alive as torches to light Nero’s gardens at night. But he may simply allude again to the image of gold being tried by fire (1:7), and perhaps to the fire of judgment day being experienced in advance; the language of fiery trials was often used figuratively.
4:13. Some Jewish people described the time of tribulation before the end as the “Messiah’s travail”; Peter might therefore be saying that those who share the *Messiah’s sufferings also hasten the coming of the end. Nevertheless, the regular *New Testament idea of sharing Christ’s sufferings is probably adequate to explain the passage.
4:14. The *Old Testament and Jewish tradition often speak of the Spirit resting “on” God’s servants, empowering them for their task. In the light of “glory” in verse 13, Peter presumably means, “the Spirit who will raise you [4:6] is already on you.”
4:15. Second-century apologists, or defenders of Christianity, argued that the only charge on which true Christians were ever convicted was the charge of being a Christian. The Greek term for “meddler” (NIV, NASB) could refer to sorcerers but some think that it refers to “busybodies” (KJV), those giving unwanted and ill-timed advice. Meddling tactlessly in others’ affairs was a vice often attributed to unpopular *Cynic philosophers (to whom some Christian preachers had already been compared). The meaning of term used here, though, remains debated.
4:16. The nickname “Christian” was originally used only by those hostile to Christianity; see comment on Acts 11:26. Here it is parallel to legal charges like “murderer” and “thief.” Early Roman descriptions of Nero’s persecution use this title for Jesus’ followers. Many wise men in Greek tradition pointed out that it was truly noble to suffer scorn for doing good; in Greco-Roman society, obsessed as it was with shame and honor, this was a countercultural insight.
4:17. The image of judgment beginning at God’s household is an Old Testament one (Ezek 9:6; cf. Jer 25:18-29; Amos 3:2), as is the ominous expression, “the time has come” (Ezek 7:7, 12). Believers experience the judgment of earthly courts (1 Pet 4:6), but Peter probably sees that suffering also as God’s discipline, as Jewish teachers often did. Throughout history, persecution has often refined and thus strengthened the church.
4:18. Peter proves his case in 4:17 by citing the *Septuagint of Proverbs 11:31, which may reflect what had become a prevailing Jewish conception by Peter’s day, that the righteous suffered in this life, but the wicked suffered in the world to come.
4:19. Peter again echoes the familiar language of Jewish prayer: the final benediction of one regularly uttered Jewish prayer (the Eighteen Benedictions) included the lines “Our lives are committed to your hand, and our souls are in your care,” and some others also uttered similar prayers in the face of possible death (cf. 2 Maccabees 13:14); the prototype for all of them was probably Psalm 31:5 (cited in Lk 23:46).
The behavior of *church leaders in the time of crisis could encourage or discourage the flock. The leaders, once known, would be the first targets of search, capture, torture and execution.
5:1. Elders, older and wiser men skilled in judging cases, ruled in most Israelite towns in the *Old Testament. In the *New Testament period, “elders” held a respected place in the *synagogues, from which the churches took over this form of leadership. Peter ranks himself among them as a fellow elder.
5:2. The image of a “shepherd” most readily connotes a concerned guide rather than a severe ruler (although the image of shepherds had often been applied to rulers in parts of the ancient Near East, to Greek kings and so forth). Charges of illegitimate gain were often made against moral teachers in the ancient world, and it was necessary for Christians to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (Like certain officials in the Jewish community, these Christian leaders distributed the funds for the poor.)
5:3. Heads of Greek philosophical schools and Jewish schools of law presented their lives as models to their students, but some also exercised strict control. A closer parallel to this text would be elders in *Diaspora synagogues, who were responsible for the services and led the Jewish community but normally had no official power outside settling internal legal disputes.
5:4. In some ancient texts a “chief shepherd” appears to have been an overseer of a group of other shepherds, although they were usually not well-to-do themselves. “Crowns” were garlands given to victors of athletic contests, benefactors or other heroes, and they were perishable; those faithful to *Christ would receive an imperishable crown. The image was also used in Judaism.
5:5. Respect for parents, elders and, in Judaism, those more knowledgeable in the *law was socially obligatory in antiquity; some Jewish traditions regarded it as an expression of one’s respect for God. Such respect included deferring to the wisdom of older men and allowing them to speak first. Peter advocates submission to the ruling elders (5:1), but he also urges—against Greco-Roman society’s ideals—mutual humility, based on the teaching of the Old Testament (Prov 3:34).
Although 1 Peter 5:5-9 has sufficient similarities with James 4:6-10 to suggest a common source for the imagery, the application is different. In James, the test is poverty and oppression tempting people to retaliate. In 1 Peter, it is persecution tempting believers to fall away.
5:6. Following on Proverbs 3:34, cited in 1 Peter 5:5, Peter urges believers to “humble” themselves before God. In the *Old Testament, this idea often meant repenting, sometimes when facing impending judgment (4:17), or learning one’s complete dependence on God. Here the sense includes embracing and accepting the suffering until God provides the way out (cf. Jer 27:11). On present humbling and future exalting, see comment on Luke 1:52-53 and 14:11; the cries of God’s people during unjust sufferings had always moved him to act on their behalf (Ex 2:23-25; 3:7-9; Judg 2:18; 10:16).
5:7. Although the promise of complete relief from persecution is future (5:6), Peter encourages believers to pray and trust God’s love for them in the present. Judaism learned to see God’s love in Israel’s sufferings (as disciplines of love), but most *Gentiles, who bartered sacrifices and vows to get benefactions from the gods, had difficulty with this concept.
5:8-11. In the Old Testament, “*Satan” (in the Hebrew of Job, a title, “the satan”) was the accuser, the prosecuting attorney before God—the “adversary,” as Peter says. In Jewish tradition, Satan accused God’s people before God’s throne day and night (except, in later accounts, on the Day of Atonement). The “devil” is literally the “slanderer,” carrying the same connotation as the adversarial accuser. Jewish teachers recognized that, as in the book of Job (where he “went about” over the face of the earth—1:7), Satan sought in this present age to turn people to apostasy from the truth, although his power was limited because he ultimately had to answer to God. The *Dead Sea Scrolls called the present evil age the “dominion of Satan” (1QM 14.9).
Lions were viewed as the most ferocious and mighty beasts, and from Psalm 22:13 (probably the background here) they came to be used as figures for enemies of God’s people. In the time of Nero, Christians were fed to some literal lions as well. The small, isolated Christian communities could take heart that their other spiritual siblings—starting with the churches Peter knew in Rome—were experiencing the same trials (1 Pet 5:9), until the end (v. 10).
5:12. Silvanus (the full Roman name for which the similar name Silas served as a short equivalent) appears to have been the amanuensis, or *scribe. Most letters were written through the agency of scribes. As a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37), Silas presumably came from a fairly well-to-do Jewish family that provided him a good literary and *rhetorical education; Peter may have given him some degree of freedom in wording the letter. On assertions of brevity, see comment on Hebrews 13:22; it was a polite closing formula in many ancient speeches and letters.
5:13. Jewish people by this period viewed Rome as the fourth of the four kingdoms in Daniel 7 that would oppress Israel, a successor to Babylon. Some elements of contemporary Judaism had readily transferred prophecies of Babylon’s demise in the *Old Testament to the new empire of Rome (a transferral readily highlighted after A.D. 70). “Babylon” had thus become a fairly common cryptogram for Rome (although “Edom” was more popular with later *rabbis).
5:14. Kisses were a common affectionate greeting for close friends and relatives.