1 Peter

As Peter wrote this letter, one-third of the Roman populous were enslaved. A homicidal maniac named Nero ruled from the throne in Rome, crucifying Christians and lighting them on fire for his garden parties. Christianity was a small and burgeoning group surrounded by a sea of hostility and antagonistic worldviews. Peter writes into this hostile environment, teaching us how to count the cost and suffer for Christ.

Authorship

Critics contend that Peter did not write these letters. Yet numerous lines of evidence support the assertion that Peter wrote both 1 and 2 Peter.

Arguments FOR Petrine Authorship

First, these letters both claim to be written by Peter the apostle. Both letters open with the claim that these were written by Peter (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). Moreover, in 2 Peter, we read, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you” (2 Pet. 3:1). The author also calls himself as a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5:1). Unless there are good and sufficient reasons to reject these claims, we should believe in the self-identification of the author. In fact, it would be quite odd if the author of these letters was a forger when he himself criticizes lying and deceit (1 Pet. 2:1, 22; 3:10).

Second, there are a number of similarities between the Petrine letters and Peter’s speeches in the book of Acts. Blomberg writes, “Some writers have detected various similarities between the style and contents of 1 Peter and Peter’s various sermons in Acts or sayings in the Gospels.”

Third, 1 Peter 5:13 aligns with the record of the early church. If we take Peter’s mention of “Babylon” to refer to Rome, this would fit with Peter being in Rome during this time. Moreover, the mention of “Mark” fits with early church history as well. These “throw away comments” are undesigned coincidences that fit with Peter’s authorship.

Fourth, the early church fathers cite these letters, and in some cases, they ascribe them directly to Peter. Several attestations are important:

• Clement of Rome (AD 95) cites from 2 Peter. Clowney writes, “The attestation of the letter in other writings is early and strong. The earliest is the reference in 2 Peter 3:1. Clement of Rome (before the end of the first century) quotes from the letter, although he does not identify his quotation.”

• Didache (AD 95) cites from 1 Peter 2:11 (Didache 1:4).

• Papias (AD 110) cited portions of 1 Peter according to Eusebius (Church History, 3.39.17.).

• Polycarp (AD 130) cites portions of 1 Peter in his Epistle to the Philippians.

• Justin Martyr (AD 150) cites 2 Peter 2:1 (Dialogue with Trypho, 82.1).

• Irenaeus (AD 180) cites 1 Peter 1:8 (Against Heresies, 4.9.2; cf. 5.23.2).

• Tertullian (AD 200) attributes authorship to Peter (Tertullian, Scorpiace 12).

• Clement of Alexandria (AD 250) wrote a commentary on 2 Peter that was lost.

• Origen (AD 250) attributes authorship to Peter according to Eusebius (Church History, 6.25.8).

• Eusebius (AD 325) accepted the letter. Grudem writes, “Writing in AD 325, Eusebius includes 1 Peter among those books everywhere recognized as belonging to the New Testament (EH25.2.). Wherever it was circulated, it was accepted as genuine.”

This is interesting to consider, because the so-called Gospel of Peter, Revelation of Peter, and Acts of Peter were all rejected by the early church. And yet, 1 and 2 Peter were accepted. If the early church didn’t care about forgeries (i.e. pseudepigraphy), then they would have much preferred a longer book (or books) written by “Peter,” rather than a couple of measly letters. Indeed, this notion that people in the ancient world accepted pseudepigraphical writings turns out to be a myth. While In the ancient world, pseudonymity was accepted in some cases when the author had been dead for many centuries (e.g. Enoch and Solomon). However, pseudonymity was rejected if the alleged author had died recently. Jobes writes, “The spurious letters to the Laodiceans and to the Corinthians (3 Corinthians), both attributed to Paul, enjoyed some period of acceptance because Pauline authorship was assumed, but were rejected when their pseudonymous origin was recognized… When a presbyter of Asia Minor was discovered as its author, he was not congratulated for honoring Paul but censured for his action and removed from church office, even though his work apparently contained nothing heretical… Epistolary pseudonymity was not clearly a recognized literary device acceptable to the church. Nor was it only Christian sensibilities that rejected pseudonymity for some genres. The learned second-century physician Galen felt incensed, not honored, to discover that medical works were being published pseudonymously in his name. He therefore was compelled to publish an essay entitled On His Own Books to set the record straight.”

Furthermore, according to early church history, Mark wrote under the authority of Peter (see “Who Wrote the Four Gospels?”). However, and this is important, Mark never claimed to be Peter when he wrote his gospel! Mark retained his name as the author of his gospel, even though he wrote under Peter’s authority. This flies in the face of critics who charge that a so-called “Petrine School” (AD 75-95) wrote as Peter, even though Peter was dead.

Arguments AGAINST Petrine Authorship

Despite this evidence for Peter’s authorship (i.e. Petrine authorship), critics contend that the historical Peter wasn’t the author. For instance, critical scholar F.C. Beare writes, “There can be no possible doubt that ‘Peter’ is a pseudonym.” Let’s consider two of the best arguments advanced by the critics.

ARGUMENT #1: The Greek is too polished for Peter to have written it.

In his book Forged, NT critic Bart Ehrman writes,

[1 Peter was written by a] highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who understood how to use Greek rhetorical devices and could cite the Greek Old Testament with flair and nuance. That does not apply to the uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking fisherman from rural Galilee, and it does not appear to have been produced by a secretary acting on his behalf.

This is probably the most popular argument against Petrine authorship. But does it hold water? A number of counterarguments can be made:

First, Acts 4:13 doesn’t teach that Peter was illiterate. Luke records, “As [the Sanhedrin] observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated (agrammatos) and untrained (idiotēs) men, they were amazed” (Acts 4:13). This passage does not teach that Peter and John were illiterate; it teaches that they were unschooled. Grudem writes, “Although agrammatos can at times mean ‘illiterate, unable to read or write’, it can also mean ‘not formally educated’, and would readily have that nuance next to idiotēs, ‘common man, layman, non-expert’ in Acts 4:13.” Indeed, the religious leaders held this view of Jesus himself, claiming that Jesus was also uneducated by the standards of their day. They ask, “How has this man become learned, having never been educated?” (Jn. 7:15).

The Sanhedrin (who had condemned Jesus to death; Mark 14:55) surely didn’t consider Peter’s discipleship under Jesus of Nazareth to be a formal education. After all, these religious leaders hated Jesus. By the standards of the Sanhedrin, therefore, Peter was not highly educated. As a result, critics have simply read too much into this one verse. Indeed, in this short exchange, why could the Sanhedrin have known if Peter was actually illiterate? He never even tries to read anything! What we are reading is simply a prejudicial statement made by religious leaders against a middle-class fisherman. It is irresponsible to read so much into so little.

Furthermore, Hellenization (from Alexander the Great) had progressed throughout Judea for four centuries at this point. Many of the cities around Galilee spoke and wrote in Greek. Archaeologists have discovered hundreds of Jewish ossuaries (or bone-boxes) that that contain both Greek and Hebrew, showing that the people at the time were bilingual. Indeed, according to Josephus, even some Jewish slaves had learned Greek (Antiquities, 20.264). It shouldn’t surprise us to think that Peter was bilingual as well.

Second, the Greek syntax supports a bilingual author. Bilingual often authors write in such a way that reverts back to their original language in syntax and form (e.g. the use of prepositions, genitive personal pronouns, attributive adjectives, etc.). These finer points of syntax are quite hard to master for bilingual speakers or writers. This is precisely what we discover in Peter’s writings. Jobes argues that the letter contains “certain Semitic tendencies in the Greek.” Moreover, she writes that a “comparison of 1 Peter with Josephus and Polybius clearly shows that its syntax is not nearly as ‘good’ as the classical writer Polybius, or even as good as the Palestinian Jewish writer Josephus, if ‘good’ is defined as the Greek style and syntax of a native proficient writer.”

Third, thirty years transpired between Acts 4:13 and 1 Peter. By modern standards, this would be enough time to earn three PhD’s. Peter surely would’ve had the motivation to learn Greek during this time. After all, he was one of the central leaders in the early church, and he was expected to teach publicly throughout the ancient world (Acts 2:14ff; 3:12ff; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5). Furthermore, Carson writes, “Rabbi Akiba was apparently unlettered until the age of forty, and then became one of the greatest rabbis of his generation; it would not be surprising if some of the leaders of the church, decades after its founding, had devoted themselves to some serious study.”

Fourth, Peter also could have used an amanuensis (or scribe) to write this letter. Indeed, Mark was Peter’s amanuensis who wrote his Gospel (Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15; Jerome, Letter to Hebidia 120.11). Even in the letter itself we read, “Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly” (1 Pet. 5:12). In other words, Peter may have utilized Silvanus as his scribe to help write this letter. Similarly, Paul used an amanuensis in writing the book of Romans (Rom. 16:22). In first century culture, it was common to utilize a scribe to write a letter like this.

It should be noted, however, that Grudem argues that Silas (Silvanus) was merely the letter carrier—not the letter writer. The Greek construction “through Silvanus… I have written” (dia Silouanou… egrapsa) doesn’t appear anywhere else in Greek writing to describe the dictation of a letter. Instead, the language occurs to describe carrying a letter (Acts 15:23). We might counter by observing that Peter wrote by Silas “briefly.” However, the word “briefly” (oligōn) simply refers to “being relatively small in number, few” (BDAG, p.702). Regardless, it is irrelevant as to whether or not Silas was the scribe. The point is that author commonly utilized this practice.

ARGUMENT #2: The persecutions mentioned in 1 Peter occur after Peter’s death (in ~AD 67).

Peter refers to the “fiery ordeal” (1 Pet. 4:12), which was occurring “throughout the world” (1 Pet. 5:9). Critics argue that this must refer to the empire-wide persecutions of Rome, which would late-date this letter after the apostle Peter had died (~AD 67).

This argument does not hold much weight. Worldwide persecution in the Roman Empire did not occur until the end of the second century. However, 1 Peter was quoted in the beginning and middle of the first century by the early church fathers. Blomberg writes, “No period within the first 150 years of Christian history saw empire-wide persecution of believers; this would take place only much later. Yet 1 Peter is quoted by early-and mid-second-century Christian writers, so we know if had to have been written by then.”

Peter’s mention of widespread persecution could simply be hyperbolic language about the persecution of the Roman Empire—similar to Paul’s hyperbolic language of the gospel reaching the “whole world” (Rom. 1:8). For a case that Peter was writing the letter from Rome, see comments on 1 Peter 5:13.

Date

Peter wrote sometime after AD 62. Peter wrote from Rome (1 Pet. 5:13), and he wrote his second letter immediately before dying. Yet Paul never mentions Peter in his prison epistles, which were written from Rome. Grudem writes, “If we date Paul’s prison letters (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) between AD 60 and 62, when Paul was in prison in Rome, it is interesting that he nowhere in these four letters mentions Peter.” This would make for a conspicuous silence on Paul’s behalf. Indeed, if Peter was in Rome with Paul, it’s odd that Paul would write, “I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:20-21). Apparently, Peter hadn’t made it to Rome until after these letters were written. Hence, Schreiner dates Peter’s first letter some time around AD 62-63—before the Neronian persecution.

Peter wrote sometime before AD 68. The early Christian leaders held that Peter died by crucifixion under the Roman Emperor Nero, who committed suicide in AD 68. The first prediction we have of this comes from Jesus (Jn. 21:18). Later, Clement of Rome (AD 95) records that Peter died in Rome (1 Clement 5:4-5). Furthermore, Dionysius (the bishop of Corinth, AD 170) wrote, “[Peter and Paul] also taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred at the same time” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 2.25.8). In the context of writing about Rome, Tertullian (AD 200) wrote, “How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!” (Against Heretics, 36).

Origen (AD 230) claimed that Peter was crucified upside down, though this might be a historical embellishment. In one source, Peter gives a speech to his killers, and he concludes by requesting, “I request you therefore, executioners, to crucify me head-downwards in this way and no other” (Martyrdom of Peter 36.7-8). Some take this to refer to humility—where Peter didn’t want to be crucified like Jesus. However, the text doesn’t say this. In his dissertation on this subject, McDowell observes,

Peter’s upside-down state symbolizes that fallen humanity has now been restored through the cross. The narrative indicates a turning point in cosmic history, in the cross of Christ as well as the cross of Peter. The world has been turned upside-down by sin, and so Peter can see the upside-down nature of the world clearly while hanging with his head downward on the cross… Only through Christ can the world be seen ‘upright.’

We are confident that Peter died by crucifixion. But whether it was upside down or not is uncertain (Church History, 3.1.2-3).

Peter composed his letters in Rome. Eusebius states that Peter “composed [1 Peter] in Rome itself” (Church History, 2.15.2), and Eusebius states he received this historical material from Papias (AD 110). Furthermore, Peter wrote his second letter on the eve of his death (2 Pet. 1:14). Therefore, this would place the writing of both letters in Rome—most likely between the years of AD 63-67.

Audience

Peter began his ministry with Jewish evangelism (Gal. 1:18; 2:7-8; Acts 1-9). However, there are many reasons to believe that he led in Gentile-dominated churches later in life. In other words, Peter was initially an “apostle to the Jews” (Gal. 2:8 NLT), but he was not permanently an apostle to them.

Later in life, Peter made his way to Greece, leading in a predominantly Gentile church like Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5). Moreover, after Peter breaks out of jail, the book of Acts mysteriously tells us: “[Peter] left and went to another place…” (Acts 12:17). Later, Peter appears at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7). However, besides this reference, we simply don’t know where else Peter served.

Peter specifically mentions Christians in “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). When we read through his letter, we find many references to Gentile Christians:

(1:18) Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.

(2:10) You once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(4:3) The time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.

For these reasons, we should infer that Peter was writing to Gentile-dominated churches.

Peter’s relationship to Paul

Peter most likely was reading and relying on Paul’s writings.

For one, Peter references having difficulty reading Paul’s “letters” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). This demonstrates that Peter had plural “letters” from Paul.

Second, Peter was in a region where Paul’s letters were circulating. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in the winter of AD 56-57. Peter was in Rome shortly after this time (~AD 63-67). This strongly implies that Peter had familiarity with Romans.

Third, in 1 Peter 2, Peter seems to be interacting with Romans 9-10. In fact, he quotes the same string of OT verses that Paul does. This is such a “coincidence” that it leads us to think that Peter was reading Paul’s work. It would be like seeing the “coincidence” of two term papers with the same exact citations. If you were a professor and saw something like this, you would conclude that this couldn’t be a coincidence. One author must’ve been copying from the other.

• Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:6 both quote Isaiah 28:16 (“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”).

• Romans 10:11 and 1 Peter 2:6 both quote Isaiah 28:16 (“Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed”).

• Romans 9:25 and 1 Peter 2:10 both quote Hosea 1:10 (“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people’”).

These are all signs that Peter had a copy of Romans in his hand when he wrote his book. Presumably, Peter had copies of Paul’s other “letters” as well (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

How to use this commentary well

For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.

Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.” We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!

Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.

Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.

As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”

Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”

Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!

In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!

At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.

Consulted Commentaries

We consulted many commentaries for individual passages, but we read these specific commentaries below thoroughly.

Edwin A. Blum, “2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

Wayne A. Grudem, 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 17, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003).

Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).