The whole of I Peter is “theology.” Whether the word “theology” should be used to refer specifically to the doctrine of God or to the entire discipline of Christian belief has been an often-debated subject in the history of Christian thought.^[1]For a more extended discussion see Gerhard Ebeling, “Existence between God and God,” in Journal for Theology and the Church, ed. Robert W. Funk in association with Gerhard Ebeling, vol. 5: God and Christ: Existence and Province, Harper Torchbooks (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 128-154, especially pp 132-33: between theologia (speaking about the being of God) and oikonomia (speaking about the acts of God). In this latter context, theology including every­thing that stems from one’s doctrine of God. Literally, theologia means a theological thought or saying or to speak of God, while oikonomia may be taken to mean “God’s plan of salvation.” Theology in its narrower, more restricted sense relates only to the doctrine of God, that is, to God as he is in himself. In this narrower context, it has been dominated more by philosophical interests than by exegesis.^[2]Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, “Theologie and Philosophie,” RGG, vol. 6,  782-830, especially 786. Ebeling’s concerns to say that theology and philosophy are necessarily interrelated, yet unique content considerations peculiar to both disciplines demand distinct methodological interests In its wider sense, theology has been made to include everything that follows logically from the doctrine of God, either implicitly or explicitly, and has had as its goal man’s understanding of the entire history of revelation. This more comprehensive enterprise has been dominated on occasion by philosophical and historical interests; however, it has tended to encourage exegesis. It is in this broader sense that the Epistle of I Peter may be treated theologically. The theology of the epistle is concerned with the action as well as the character of God. It has to do with the providence of God from before creation, through the Christ event to the consummation, and may not be separated from the apostolic authority behind it or from the suffering of those to whom the document is addressed. It includes ethical admonitions to new converts and offers a distinct Petrine piety that is more than a footnote to Paul even though Pauline phrases are used throughout the letter.^[3]John H. Elliott “The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child:I Peter in Recent Research,” Journal of Biblical. Literature, 95 ( 1976), 243-54. While Elliott’s interesting thesis concerning I Peter suggests its distinctive Petrine character there is still the problem of the Pauline language and the numerous Pauline parallels. For further discussion cf. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981), pp. 11-15; and, pp. 30-34 – especially as the problem relates to authorship -with John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 267-295, especially p. 273: “I Peter is first and foremost the evangelical and social witness of the apostle Peter after whose suffering and martyrdom in Rome and in whose name the Petrine community then has written to the suffering Christians of Asia Minor.” The overarching theological emphasis is that God himself is the effective subject of the revelatory events surrounding the paroikoi of Asia Minor. Their new faith in Jesus Christ and their identification with the oikos tou theou have added to their suffering.^[4]John H. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, pp. 131-32.

The epistle’s theological character is evident throughout even though it must be adduced in and through the very practical counsel to “lead a life of confident hope and assurance amid trials and persecutions.”^[5]Paul E. Davies, “Primitive Christology in I Peter” in Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich, ed. Eugene Howard Barth and Ronald Edwin Cocroft (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 116-17.   Kelly, and I think rightly so, suggests that the “tone of the epistle is . . . mainly practical, [and that] we should not look to it for theology in the strict sense. It is, of course, packed with theology, but theology which is for the most part taken for granted rather than consciously expounded (Commentary, p. 25). The writer seeks to establish in the minds of his readers “the true grace of  God” (5:12) while reassuring the persecuted that neither their suffering nor their faith is in vain. He combines the theological and the practical in an attempt to encourage and strengthen Christians who suffer, and whose suffering has not been alleviated because of their faith. The message centers in the new faith’s expectation for the Christian life—to maintain a “firm. . . allegiance to Jesus Christ, whatever the cost.”^[6]Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), p. 6. Elliott’s sociological exegesis suggests these resident aliens had a certain degree of disillusionment which the epistle seeks to counter. The converts had sought “to improve their social lot through membership in the community which the Christian movement offered,” and instead suffered only further alienation. Now they were suffering because they had become “Christ-lackeys” (Home for the Homeless, p. 132).

Specifically, the theology may not be understood apart from the problems of discrimination and oppression suffered by the early Christian congregations in the “troublesome environment” of the northern provinces of Asia Minor.^[7]Bo Reicke, ed. and trans. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 2nd ed., The Anchor Bible 37 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday,1964), p. xxxvii; cf. Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint 1981), p. 1. Political problems and the problems related to the social ethics, not uncommon to the first century church, are apparently the burning issues and necessarily color the theological character of this “encyclical letter.”^[8]C. J. Herner, “The Address of I Peter,” The Expository Times, 89 (May, 1978), 239-243. Most recent scholarship tends to emphasize that the epistle was written in Rome and sent to the members of Asian, household communities “whose political, legal and social status was that of ‘resident aliens’ (paroikoi, 2:11; cf. 1:17) and visiting strangers (pare pidemoi, 1:1; 2: 11).” The conversion of these resident aliens to the “strange religion of the Christianos” (4:16) apparently jeopardized their already “marginal social status” and further exposed them to “local suspicion, slander and abuse…”^[9]John H. Elliott, “Peter, Silvanus and Mark in I Peter and Acts: Sociological-Exegetical Perspectives on a Petrine Croup in Rome,” Wort in der Zeit (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 254. However, they are reminded that they are God’s chosen people, and, as such, they must now be ready “to suffer for Christ in the flesh as Christ suffered for them in the flesh” (4:1-2).^[10]Reicke, Epistles, p. 116. They also are reminded that their sufferings are temporary. The end, which will result in the destruction of their enemies (4:5, l7f.), is near as in the everlasting glory of the believers who suffer unjustly (4:7; 4:13)—if they stand firm in the faith (5:9). Therefore, their suffering is not only temporary, but serves as a means to test the genuineness of their faith.

These converts are to demonstrate an ethical conduct that is commensurate with their new faith by being “obedient to the truth,” by “loving one another with constancy,” and by being “submissive to [their] masters with all respect” (1:22; 2:18). They are admonished to make their lives examples “of their holy calling” with the aim of disarming those who would persecute the elect of God. Christ himself is to serve as their example. The writer would have them understand that “participation in [Christ’s] sufferings will lead to participation also in His triumph” (3:18-22).^[11]Kelly, Commentary, p. 1.

That I Peter is not specifically a theological treatise like Paul’s Romans is evident; nevertheless, to describe the epistle as having little or no theological value stems from a cursory reading of the text.^[12]Beare, First Epistle of Peter, p. 31. Beare’s exposition is in no way cursory; however, he delimits the theological significance of the epistle when he suggests that the author’s theology is presuppositional to the author’s intent. He says that the epistle of First Peter is “in no sense a theological treatise. The central doctrines of Christianity are presup­posed, but are not expounded or discussed [,and] except for the brief Christological passages in 2:21-24 and 3:18-22 they are not even stated.” Beare understands the epistle’s basic emphasis to be the “manner of life to be followed by the Christian church in the world.” Consequently, the theology used by the author has been reduced to general “principles held in common by him and his readers, to which he may therefore appeal with confidence in seeking to direct their conduct.” Most sources tend to agree that while the theology of I Peter is not developed in any systematic form (it would be hard to make this claim even for Paul) it is indeed substantial. Cf. Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, Vol. II: The Acts, The Letters, and The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), p. 344 with Ernest Best, I Peter in New Century Bible, eds. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black (Oliphants, 1971), pp. 46-Best says that there is a “clear doctrine of the Church as the people of Cod, but no developed doctrine of ministry,” and the doctrine of the Spirit “does not sound like the way in which the first generatioo of Christians appraised the Spirit.” The epistle is relevant, if not unique, in that it offers a functional blend of theology and praxis, and is dominated by a rhetorical core that advocates a specific and distinct ethical conduct for Christians living in a heathen environment. The writer admonishes his readers to display the qualities of Christian living so that their pagan neighbors, “the Gentiles,” will have little excuse to “slander them as evildoers,” but that “in observing their good deeds [the Gentiles] may glorify God on the day of visitation” (2:1-12ff.). The epistle’s emphasis is obviously practical in lieu of the problems of suffering that constitute “the everfelt background of every paragraph” and that have just as obviously determined the author’s “selection and manipulation of [the] catechetical, liturgical and hortatory matters” that appear in the text.^[13]Kelly, Commentary, p. 25. However dominant the practical admonitions are throughout the epistle, the object of the recipients’ abiding and future hope is the “grace that is offered to [them] through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:13) – clearly an eschatological and Christological emphasis that permeates the entire epistle and one that may be said to characterize, at least in part, the author’s theological emphasis.

There is not necessarily a dominant or unifying theological theme to the letter, at least not an agreed upon one, although the writer’s ethical admonishments are substantial and a “theology of suffering” is implied throughout. The theology of conversion (regeneration) which accompanies the baptismal instruction is instrumental to the epistle’s essential concerns and is, most probably, instrumental to its structure.^[14]Cf. Oscar S. Brooks, “I Peter 3:21 -The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle,” Nooom Testamentum, 16 (1974), 295: “By examining the structure of the epistle, it can be shown that the author concern for baptism has determined the design of the entire document.” A contrary opinion has been formulated by F. L. Cross, I Peter, A Paschal, Liturgy (London: A. R. Mowbray and Co., 19 4) who relates the letter not to baptism in general but to the baptismal liturgy of Easter. John H. Elliott, from a completely different perspective, that of sociological exegesis suggests that I Peter is “a letter addressed to residential aliens [parepidemoi] who, since their conversion to Christianity, still find themselves estranged from any place of belonging. They are still displaced paroikoi seeking an oikos” (Home for the Homeless, p. 49; for an extended discussion see pp. 21-49). While theology and praxis are interrelated throughout, the theological themes of Providence, Christology, and Ecclesiology are not without significance for the epistle’s edifying purpose of Christian living and form the underpinning that is indispensable to the writer’s purpose of teaching and encouraging comparatively new converts. It should be obvious that the theological concerns of I Peter complement the epistle’s intensive discussion of the nature of the Christian life.^[15]Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J., “The First Epistle of Peter” vol. 2: The New Testament and Topical Articles of The Jerome Biblical Com­mentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer,; and Roland E. Murphy (2 vols.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 363.

Divine Providence

The various theological features are so interrelated that one emphasis may not be isolated or separated from the others without distorting the apostle’s exhortations. However, if there is an integrating and functional theological feature to which the reader’s attention is subtly called, it is the rather distinct understanding of providence that permeates the entire epistle. As a theme, it functions as a “theology of history” which attests to the divine initiative and in which the surety and hope of the believer’s faith is evidenced. Providence has been understood in the history of theology as an extended theme of the doctrine of God, and this is true of I Peter, but it functions in the epistle as an understanding of history which is dominated by God’s redemptive activity and purpose. The epistle’s eschatological emphasis is an extension of its “doctrine of providence.” This two-fold emphasis of providence and eschatology allows the writer to move back and forth from theology (election-redemption) to praxis (good works), to hope and expectation. Providence, understood here to include eschatology, underlines the thought of the epistle as an understanding and experience of faith and not as a philosophical world view. This understanding of God’s sustaining-initiative colors the writer’s various theological and ethical expressions and helps delineate the nature of God as the one who not only shows himself in Jesus Christ to be the electing God, but who, in giving hope to the suffering elect, shows himself to be the sustaining God as well—thereby making the experience of Christian living in even an alien environment a distinct possibility. In other words, the Christian life is livable even under the most trying of circumstances. This possibility exists in faith because^[16]Cf. 1:16, 18; 2:15, 21; 3:9, 18; 4:1, 8, 14, 17; 5:5, 7 cited as an important part of the literary construction of the epistle in Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 64, n. 2. the motives for divine action can be “traced to the divine will.” God’s divine initiative revealed in his elective purposes establishes the eschatological hope which is “the End of human destiny.”^[17]Ibid., pp. 64-65.

The election of the apostle and no less that of the “chosen immigrants of the dispersion” owe their calling and their status to the “foreknowledge of God the Father” (1:1-2). Their election and the consequent hope that is revealed and centered in Jesus Christ^[18]For an excellent discussion of the “biblical view of history” as contrasted with secular or empirical historiography, see Karl Lowith, Meaning in History, Phoenix Books (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 182-190, especially p. 184: The Christian claim that the whole and only meaning of history before and after Christ rests on the historical appearance of Jesus Christ is a claim so strange, stu­pendous, and radical that it could and cannot but contradict and upset the normal historical consciousness of ancient and modern times. has established this rather unique understanding of history. That God has acted in history and that his purpose has been revealed in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world is not a matter of theoretical demonstration or sight. It is, however, a concern of faith and hope: “At present you do not observe him, but having faith in him, you rejoice. . . .” (1:8). The purposes of history are discerned only in faith in Jesus Christ. In God’s providence Christians “have been begotten . . . anew to a living hope” but only “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” By integrating the themes of providence and eschatology the writer is able to assure his readers that they are not only “protected by the power of God” because of their faith, but that they have been given “an imperishable, unspotted, and incorruptible inheritance which is preserved for [them] in heaven” (1:3-5). The apostle’s implication is that it is only by the faith that has been revealed to them “through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven” (1:12) that they are able to understand, indeed know that all of divine providence has converged on and 1s represented in Jesus Christ. They are to understand that in his providence God has not forsaken them even though they are faced with trials of suffering. Their own circumstances in history, indeed all of history, is guided by the purposes of God which are realized in the hope that has been revealed to them in their election in Jesus Christ. In faith and hope the elect should not think of their trials as a limitation of God’s power “inasmuch as [their trials] have a definite purpose and should themselves be considered a part of God’s providence.”^[19]Reicke, Epistles, p. 80. Here the Christian hope in the providence of God in history, and specifically in their own history, is not a worldly desire or expectation that the world’s order and its circumstances will somehow immediately be overturned because of their faith or because they suffer unjustly. Rather, their hope is a realized although not yet completed, eschatological faith in God’s redemptive purposes for his creation and specifically for those who gained a new inheritance in Jesus Christ: In other words, the theology of history that permeates the epistle is derived from the Old Testament’s understanding of God and is completed in the writer’s own Christological faith,^[20]The importance of the Old Testament cannot be too strongly em­phasized for the writer of I Peter. He makes extensive use of the LXX. He uses lengthy quotations and phrases to advance his arguments (l:24f.; 2:6-8; 3:10-12 and many others). Ernest Best suggests that the author “makes more extensive use of the Old Testament m proportion to the size of his letter than any other book in the New Testament except Revelation” (I Peter, pp. 28-29). and providence is completed in eschatology.

Adverse social conditions threatened to undermine the faith of these new converts. At the same time, these same conditions called into question the meaning and relevance of the church as a divinely initiated community. However, the circumstances of these chosen immigrants, who are expected to live as strangers in the world, as well as that of the church as a gathered community, has not been left to chance, nor is their circumstance of suffering an accident of history. Rather, the explanation of their suffering and indeed “the true explanation of history . . . [lies] in that which [is] beyond history, namely, the counsels of the divine Providence.” The church’s revelatory and purposeful existence is grounded in the providential fact that God has elected these men and women to faith in Jesus Christ. Consequently, a providential sense of history forms “the background   of the church’s life” and   establishes its relevance as “a spiritual house” (2:5). Whereas once they had had no identity, they now are “God’s people” having been elected for his purposes as the New Israel (2:9-10). This unquestioned and overriding perspective pervades the mind of the epistle, declaring throughout that it is “God’s design and purpose [as well as] God s action which has called the church into being through Christ’s death and resurrection. . . .” Living in the faith and confidence of God’s gracious providence means that the trials of suffering have been given “the character of a purifying judgment,” and [that] the church has been given “the strength and courage which it needs for its task.”^[21]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 65; cf. Kelly, Commentary, pp. 81-102. Christ’s resurrection and the faith that leads to salvation is not, therefore, the illusion or determination of a pagan world view where men simply endure life or seek to escape the historical realities of suffering by denying them; rather, the faith by which men believe and through which they are saved is the same determination that gives men an incorruptible inheritance which is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this faith their circumstances, however difficult, are purposeful and the believers are themselves “protected by the power of God” (1:3-5). The contrast of the pagan world view with that of the New Testament, which understands God’s purposes in history to be revealed in the crucified one, helps the Christian to realize that “the promises of joy and triumph in which Scripture is steeped cannot be separated from this new sense of suffering. ‘Mankind,’ says Leon Bloy, ‘began to suffer in hope, and this is [the beginning of] what we call the Christian era!'”^[22]Lowith, Meaning in History, pp. 204-5.

The Doctrine of God

Allusions have already been made to a rather substantial doctrine of God. The salutation of the letter and the content that immediately follows evidences the epistle’s basic theological orientation.^[23]Cf. Victor Paul Furnish, “Elect Sojourners in Christ: An Approach to the Theology of I Peter,” Perkins Journal of Theology, 28 ( Spring, 1975), 1-2. Such phrases as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . according to the providence of God the Father, through purification by the Spirit” (1:1-2), “blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:3), “protected by the power of God” (1:5), “revelation . . . announced to you . . . through the Holy Spirit” (1:12) suggest that the writer has a fundamental theocentric orientation. Ralph P. Martin goes so far as to suggest that “probably no other document in the New Testament is so theological as I Peter, if we understand ‘theological’ in the strict sense as teaching about God.”^[24]Martin, New Testament Foundations, p. 344. It is undeniable that there is a transcendent origin for man’s redemption and sanctification throughout   the   epistle: “Like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves . . .” (1:15); however, there is no schematic reconstruction of theology to be found. The apostle’s theology does not rest on philosophical presuppositions, but on his own experience with God through faith in the resurrected Christ (1:3). The pre­dominant theological understanding of God is Hebraic with no Greek doctrine of God to be found anywhere within the epistle’s mind-set. The epistle’s theology reflects the “monotheistic faith of the Hebrew scriptures and of Judaism.” However, the Old Testament’s covenant faith that God is active in history is reconstructed in the light of the Christian’s faith and his new eschatological hope. The series of eschatological events that are now being realized in Jesus Christ are God’s work and carry with them a new revelation of his nature.^[25]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 74. Influenced by the Old Testament and particularly by the Septuagint, the writer knows God as the Creator (ktistes), as the ground of all reality (4:19). The Creator alone is powerful enough to guard and to keep safe those he has chosen (1:5). As Creator, God is faithful and can be trusted, and it is God’s faithfulness that is “the basic motive for Christian hope” in the epistle. God is the Creator, but it is as the merciful Father of the Lord Jesus Christ that he causes men to be born again, that they may share in a living hope through the resurrection, and ultimately have a part in the triumphant consummation of the Creator’s purpose for the universe (1:3-5).^[26]Kelly, Commentary, pp. 194-95. Cf. also Best, I Peter, p. 28.

From its Hebraic point of view, the epistle is careful to attest the essentially historical nature of the divine revelation. While its theocentricity reveals “God’s transcendence,” the fullness of his nature is revealed in his relation to man who stands in need of redemption and hope. It becomes increasingly obvious to those who suffer in faith that their needs may be met only by a compassionate and merciful Redeemer-God. This one who is the Creator-Redeemer, who is both transcendent and yet, intimately involved with his people, is the one in whom the Christian’s faith is to be grounded as a triumphant response to God’s historical revelation.^[27]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, pp. 75-76: In the epistle “there is to be noted a close fusion of two elements which are familiar to us in the Old Testament: (1) the doctrine of God’s transcendence, His majesty and power, His holiness, His creativity, His initiative in history, His providence, judgment, and mercy . . .; and (2) the doctrine of God’s intimate concern with human life, its sins, its trials, its duties…” In faith in Jesus Christ, God’s Spirit of glory is “breaking in on the Church.” It is “imparted by a special anointing of the Spirit to Christians who suffer for their Lord and bear His reproach.”^[28]Ibid. The apostle’s theology is a living dialogue with the world’s condition which in turn has determined the agenda for his own theological expression.

The theological language of I Peter is functional and relational. Occasionally it is liturgical, but it is not abstract. Because the epistle’s understanding of God’s revelation is grounded historically, it makes no appeal to any system of abstract ideas. The theological language is functional in that it is concerned with the practical and ethical admonitions for Christian living. It is relational in that it reveals God’s redemptive purposes for mankind. The language of revelation-redemption is necessarily descriptive of God’s unique nature. While he is transcendent, he is also the one who has paradoxically chosen to compassionately involve himself with his creation. He has taken the initiative to provide salvation for those who believe (1:4-5), and he further reveals his compassion by being “rich in His mercy” to those who “have been distressed” (1:3, 6). Consequently, his transcendence, which speaks of awe and majesty, elicits praise and jubilation (1:3, 6). However, God’s transcendence is revealed most explicitly throughout the epistle in his demand for holiness (l:15-16). It is this demand for holiness and brotherly love (1:22) that allows the readers to catch a glimpse of God’s unique nature. God himself is the sole standard for righteousness; hence, the admonition: “Be holy, for I am holy” (1:16). Any standard other than God’s own holiness would make the Christian life meaningless. In his transcendent holiness, his “other-than­ness” (Heb. Qadosh), God is to be understood as qualitatively distinct from his creation; however, rather than set himself over against his creation, he has through his divine initiative made those who believe his own (2:9; 3:9; 5:10).

It is, of course, the revealed majesty and perfection of God which helps the Christian understand, in awe, that God is separate and distinct from his creation, that he is indeed transcendent. The Old Testament’s understanding that “God imparts holiness to [his] people” because he has appropriated them unto himself is applied to those who have been elected in Jesus Christ. The demanded holiness “expresses [both] the nature and the will of [the] One who reveals Himself as righteous, merciful and loving.”^[29]Kelly, Commentary, pp. 69-70. Because holiness is the nature as well as the character of God, man cannot appropriate it for himself. Nevertheless, the Christian is to conduct himself in such a manner that his conduct bears witness to the character of the one who has “ransomed” him from his previous “futile mode of conduct [which had been] inherited from [his pagan] ancestors” (1:18). God’s people are holy by virtue of the fact that they have been called by the one who is holy.^[30]Kelly, Commentary, p. 70. The first indication of the believers’ conformity to God’s demanded holiness is the fear of him (en phobo) (1:17). That believers should fear God “rests upon the revelation of God’s Fatherhood revealed in Jesus Christ” (1:13-17).^[31]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 142.

In the Old Testament, the God who is holy is also the God who rescues and redeems his people. As Redeemer, he is “the God who comes.”^[32]Claus Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, trans. by Keith Crim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), p. 9. In coming in Jesus Christ, “at the end of the times,” God has established the redemption of those whom he has called in faith (1:20). The faith of the writer of I Peter is that God has come in Jesus Christ in order to give meaning and direction to the lives of the Christians who suffer. Through Jesus Christ, the blameless and stainless lamb, the Holy One has become the Revealer (1:13, 19). The redemption which is theirs “was not inherited from their fathers,” but comes to them “through the precious blood of Christ” (1:18-19). God offers his grace through the revelation of Jesus Christ who was “predestined before the foundation of the world,” but who has been “manifested” for the sake of the believing community. The clarion of the writer’s theology comes when he announces that God has raised Christ from the dead and has given him glory so that their “faith and hope” might be in God (1:20-21), the one who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Even as compassionate Father, God is still to be recognized and called upon as the believer’s impartial Judge who renders his judgments according to the deeds of each individual. As Judge, God is to be feared—a familiar Old Testament idea which more than likely has been prompted in the text as a response to God’s recognized holiness. The contrasting language of the epistle’s theology, which understands God as transcendent and yet intimately and compassionately predisposed toward his people, is extended to include God as Father and God as righteous Judge. As Father, the apostle is convinced of God’s love, as Judge, he stands in awe before the one who determines his destiny. While the Christian is to fear God, the emphasis is unique and is to be contrasted with both Judaism’s legal emphasis and the paganism of the Gentile. In other words, God “forgives in order that men may fear Him.”^[33]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, pp. 145-46.

As significant and as necessary as the fear of God is for the writer’s purposes, “the ground of Christian . . . piety is less that God is the impartial Judge than that he is known as Father.”^[34]Ibid., p. 143. Selwyn suggests that the phrase “invoke as Father” is probably referring to Christian worship and the special use of the phrase in the Lord’s Prayer. “The allusion to God’s Fatherly authority and forgiving love, moreover, shows that the whole sentiment or emo­tional attitude of reverence is here implied. The thought of Cod as Judge would evoke awe, which is compounded of three instincts, fear, wonder, and ‘negative self-feeling’; reverence is formed, when to these is added the tender emotion aroused by God’s mercy.” In the context of the epistle, the emphasis subtly shifts from the God who is to be feared as Judge to God’s compassionate identification with those to whom he has offered grace. His offer of forgiveness and redemption comes through the cross (1:20), with the result being that those who believe in him may “invoke Him as Father . . . in faith and hope” (1:17, 21). God in his transcendence, in his majesty and power, and in his demand for holiness is the same God who takes the initiative to function as Redeemer for those who are “obedient to the truth” (1:22). Those ”born again” are to be comforted by the “living and abiding word of God” which “remains forever” and which has been “preached” to them as God’s own “good news” ( 1:23-25), the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, therefore, as God’s specific revelation enriches the understanding of God’s transcendence, his holiness and majesty, and especially the notion of his everlasting compassion for those who suffer in his name.

The Trinity
(Cf. other New Testament triadic formulas: Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 12:4-6, II Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; II Thess. 2:13-14.)

The presuppositions of the following section are that the epistle’s triadic formula is indispensable to its theology as a matter of faith, and that the formula functions as a means for the revelation of God’s diverse nature which was being experienced by the first-century Christian community. In speaking of the trinity in I Peter it must be kept in mind that it is closely related to the writer’s own experience of faith in Jesus Christ and to his own understanding of God which has been influenced by the Old Testament revelation. There is not to be found anywhere in the epistle or in the whole of the New Testament a thematic treatment of the doctrine. Yet, the brief trinitarian reference positioned at the outset of the epistle is replete with theological significance and sets the tone for all that follows, basically establishing in the minds of the readers that God has not only elected them by his grace, but abides with them, and expects obedience.

The triadic formula, “the Father’s foreknowledge . . . the sanctifying action of the Spirit . . . [and] the blood of Jesus Christ,” functions as a part of the epistle’s greeting, but it also serves as a point of reference for the faith of those who have been chosen. In other words, their destiny is assured and foreordained   by   God the Father;   they   are sanctified, made holy, by the continual presence of God’s Spirit and have become children of obedience through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ ( 1:2) . The primitive trinitarian expression emphasizes the supernatural origin of the Christian’s life. It suggests that the Christian’s faith helps   him   understand   that he is responsible to the eternal purpose of God and that his confidence and hope are singularly “grounded in [his] assurance of God’s call.”^[35]Kelly, Commentary, pp. 42-44. The formula is used to establish in the minds of “God’s scattered people” ( 1:1) the real reason for God’s demand for obedience—the practical demonstration of their faith as their submissive acceptance of the gospel. Therefore, the Christian life begins with the initiative of God, its vitality and character stem from the sanctifying activity of the Spirit, making God “real” to those who have been chosen, and its purpose is to “share in Christ’s work and glory.”^[36]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 248.

The formula, a functional expression, reveals the diverse character of God’s ways with men and is very likely an expression of the apostle’s own experience of faith. Steeped in the rich theocentric heritage of Hebraic thought, the writer had experienced God’s grace personally in the revelation of Jesus Christ which had been attested to by the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:14-40). Consequently, he reminds his readers that their election has come about “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1:2). Prognosin means “being known before.” Selwyn says that the preposition pro in proegnosmenou “carries the thought back to a stage anterior to the Creation” (1:20).^[37]Ibid., p. 146. Prognosin is used here to mean “much more than knowing what will happen in the future”^[38]Kelly, Commentary, p. 42. as it refers to the fact that the election of the believer is grounded in God’s own eternal purpose and that this purpose has been revealed in Jesus Christ. There is certainly no basis here for a theological determination as the writer apparently shares Paul’s belief that “those whom He foreknew He also predestined. . .and those whom He predestined He also called.”^[39]Rom. 8:29f.; Eph. 1:11f. Election­ redemption is rooted in God’s foreknowledge; that is, it originates in his activity toward men. However, not only redemption, but their vocation as well receives its direction from God, meaning that “God’s ‘knowledge’ is part of His eternal counsel.”^[40]Selwyn, Epistle, p. 119. This first phrase of the triadic formula serves as a reminder that their faith is grounded in God’s providence and that they are the elect “people of God. . .by virtue of the same eternal purpose which governs the whole of history.” That is, “in Christ, [God] has provided for their salvation” (1:20).^[41]Furnish, Sojourners, p. 5. In election, the calling of men to himself and there­ fore to his purpose, God has revealed himself as Father. In this revelation, he has “stressed not only his role as Creator but also the love by which he calls His own.”^[42]Kelly, Commentary, p. 43.

The second phrase of the formula, “by sanctifying action of the Spirit,” reminds the epistle’s readers that God is with them purposefully, guiding and directing their lives toward his own ends. They have been called to be holy and to bear witness to God’s ways with men through their sanctified lives. God’s Spirit is with them and “the means by which [they have been] called”;^[43]Furnish, Soiourners, p. 5. therefore, they are to have confidence in him even in the midst of trials and persecutions. The function of the Spirit is to make the Father’s revelation in Christ known and meaningful (cf. 3:15). J. N. D. Kelly’s emphasis is correct when he infers that God’s sanctifying action “became real for the Asian Christians in the movement of faith which led them to Christ. . . .”^[44]Kelly, Commentary, p. 43. Consequently, there is significance to the formula’s order—Father, Spirit, Jesus Christ. The Spirit’s continual presence^[45]Beare, Peter, pp. 35-36. consecrates those whom God has called in Christ so that they may live their lives within the sphere of God’s providence. The Spirit of him comes and is the means whereby one is set apart in the service of God.^[46]Furnish, Sojourners, p. 5.

There are three passages in the epistle other than 1:2 that refer to the Spirit. In 1:11 the Spirit is the one who reveals the messianic consciousness to the prophets. Because of the revelation of the Spirit the Old Testament prophets have a “supernatural knowledge of   eschatological events”^[47]Reicke, Epistles, p. 80. that, in the mind of the writer, are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. In 1:12 the Spirit functions through the preaching of the apostles, “confirming the evangelization of Asia Minor with the good news of the universality of the Gospel.”^[48]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 250. In 4:14 the reference is to Isa. 11:2 and refers to the gift of glory that identifies the Christian with Christ’s suffering. From these brief references it is inaccurate to suggest that the apostle intended to tailor a “doctrine of the Spirit.” Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude that in the writer’s understanding the Holy Spirit was active in the lives of the Old Testament prophets, revealing the true nature of the Messiah. He has been instrumental in the evangelization of the Asian Christians, making God real to them in Jesus Christ. These same Christians have been sanctified by the Spirit in the movement of faith which led them to Christ. In this faith they have been sanctified, made holy, thereby able to understand that they serve the purpose of God as they share in the sufferings of the one crucified.

By means of this triadic expression the writer is able to show the significance of God’s initiative in his compassion for those who have been elected in Jesus Christ, and who have been called to obedience through his sacrificial death. He has demonstrated that God not only elects but sanctifies. The so-called “binitarian” expressions found in the New Testament are best   explained, not as negations   of   the Christian doctrine of the trinity, but by the fact that “Christian thought had not yet been called upon to define its philosophy of the Godhead in precise terms.” Then, too, the writers of the New Testament were not writing as “formulators of doctrine, but as Apostolic witnesses.”^[49]Ibid., p. 248. This functional expression relates more to the writer’s own experience of   the Spirit’s “converting and sanctifying power” than to his deliberate reflections about the nature of God. However, it does reflect an early theological emphasis which led to further trinitarian development in the history of Christian thought.^[50]Ibid., p. 250. Selwyn’s interpretation is that these three clauses in the triadic formula of 1:2 “focus three ‘movements’ in God’s redemptive activity towards man—His knowing or taking note of those whom He will choose, His gift of sanctifying grace, and His finished work in their obedience and pardon.”^[51]Ibid., p. 119.

Christology

The teaching about Jesus Christ lies at the heart of the New Testament’s theology. The epistle of I Peter is no exception to this general frame of reference. Theology and christology are so bound together that it is forever the task of the theologian to understand the full meaning of this relationship. There have been two perspectives for christological study   in the history of the church. The debate   has   been   whether   or not one should approach christology “from above” or “from below.” The christology that begins “from above” concerns itself primarily with Christ’s divinity, and the “from below” perspective tends to emphasize Christ’s humanity. While the church has had to wrestle with this particular problem virtually from the beginning,^[52]Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man, trans. by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1968), pp. 33-37. Pannenberg’s discussion is brief but adequate. the writer of I Peter knows nothing of the debate. In fact, he is not struggling to work out a christology at all. Rather than debate the relationship between Christ’s divinity or humanity, he portrays Christ in a servant role (2:25) who suffers, dies, and is resurrected so that the suffering community might identify with him and have confidence in God’s extended providence. His purpose centers in reminding his believing readers that “Christ suffered on [their] behalf” (2:21) and that he has been resurrected in order that their lives may be transformed to a living hope (1:2). The christology is therefore functional and pastoral throughout. The epistle stresses Christ’s example, “a pattern that [they] might follow” (2:21), his atoning and redemptive death, “in order to bring [men] to God” (3:18), and his role as servant, “the Shepherd and Guardian of [men’s] souls” (2:25). The resurrection motif plays an important role in the epistle’s christology, but it too has a pastoral function. In the light of his resurrection, Christ is acknowledged as Lord (3:15), the one whose victory over the forces of evil has been assured by his death, resurrection, and ascension. Through faith the believer is able to participate in Christ’s victory (3:21-22). Thus this tiny minority of “Christians are given a renewed assurance that the evil powers whose agents their calumniators and persecutors are have already had their power shattered.”^[53]Kelly, Commentary, pp. 163-64. Kelly’s treatment is excellent and discusses the function of the full christological hymn that is included in 3:18-22 into which is interspersed the difficult passage of Christ’s procla­mation to the spirits in prison (vss. 19-21).

In the light of the rest of the New Testament, the christology in I Peter is not a fully developed doctrine. Among other considerations, the pre-existence of Christ is not strongly evidenced in the epistle, if at all. The phrase “predestined before the foundation of the world” (1:20) has sometimes been interpreted as making such an assertion, but Christians as well as Christ are the object of God’s foreknowledge,^[54]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 249. suggesting that the phrase refers to the fact that “in Christ one is able to understand God’s creative will and determination.” In Christ, “the light of God’s loving predestination,” the believing community is able to understand the “whole conception of history . . . as a working out of God’s age-old purpose.”^[55]Kelly, Commentary, p. 76. Then, too, the christological expressions of Paul and John are far more extensive than those found in I Peter. However, the one fact that the epistle shares with the other resources of the New Testament is that none of the writers place Jesus in a general human category, but rather are convinced of his uniqueness. Every christological statement tends to show Christ’s relationship to God and emphasizes his redemptive relationship to his community which is the household of God.^[56]For further emphasis on the identification of the Christian com­munity as the household of God see Elliott, Home for the Homeless, especially, pp. 225-232: “Since the believers constitute the household of God, they are to live and behave as the distinct oikos too theou.” They are a community so constituted by their faith in Christ and are to be subordinated to the will of God “according to the pattern of the house­ hold codes.” These who have the status of “household servants/slaves are singled out as primary exemplars of the reversal of status within the Christian community.” To these servants “is linked the christological affirmation of innocent suffering.” The members of the household “are to break with Gentile ways and to be innocent of Gentile sins.”

Suffering is a consistent theme that runs through the epistle. In the opening paragraph the apostle makes mention of the various trials that they must endure. These trials are a testing of their faith, and they should welcome an opportunity to share in Christ’s suffering (4:13). He reminds them that he himself has been a witness to Christ’s suffering (5:1), and in a concluding paragraph, he encourages them with the words, “after you have suffered a little while,. . . He will exalt you” (5:6-10). It is not surprising then that Christ’s passion is a fundamental emphasis in the development of the epistle’s christology. According to Frank Cross, in Christ’s suffering one has “the religious basis of all suffering by the Christian, its direct relation to Christ as the Archetypical Sufferer, the true Pasch.” Christ’s suffering is redemptive (3:18ff.), and persecuted Christians are reminded that “as Christ suffered in the flesh,” they too are to “arm [themselves] with the same thought” (4:1) in order that they might also partake in the “glory which is to be revealed” (5:1).^[57]Cross, A Paschal Liturgy, pp. 18-22. The apostle’s emphasis on the sufferings of Christ is twofold: Christ’s manner of enduring the sufferings of the cross serves as an example for the suffering community, and his death is an atonement for man’s redemption. The manner in which Christ endured the suffering serves as an example of how they are to endure their own trials. As he suffered so should they expect to suffer! They are to “follow in his tracks,” that is, they are to respond to suffering in the same way that Christ himself responded to it (2:21). They are, in their present condition of suffering, able to identify with Christ as the one who has gone before them and in whose direction they are to follow. He is the one true example of suffering with whom the community is able to identify. The apostle would have the Asian Christians understand that this destiny to which God has called them is somehow being worked out in the trials which they have been called to endure.

The emphasis on Christ as an example is important to the epistle because of the social situation of community to which it was written; however, even more dominant is the emphasis on Christ’s death. The consistent interaction of these two foci throughout the epistle is intended to give the readers spiritual resolve, direction, and hope. The death of Jesus Christ would naturally have a prominent place in the thinking of the apostle, and emphasis on Christ’s death is seen in the light of the gospel tradition that the “innocent One [must] suffer a sacrificial death . . . in order that [one] might be reconciled to God, freed from the power of sin, and consecrated to a new life   of   righteousness.”^[58]I. Howard Marshall, The Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michi­gan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 65. There are three passages that emphasize the death of Christ, the third phrase of the triadic formula in chapter one, the passage that utilizes Isaiah 53 in chapter two, and the death-resurrection emphasis of chapter three.

The third phrase of the triadic formula at the outset of the epistle portrays Christ’s sacrificial death as God’s covenant with those who have been chosen. The obedient response of the believer is his own sacrificial offering to God. The phrase “sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ” (1:2) uses imagery that refers back to the formulation of the covenant between God and Israel. The reference is to Exodus 24:3-8 where obedience is pledged to the law. Moses symbolically sprinkled the blood of the sacrificial oxen on the congregation as a symbol of the covenant that God had made with his people. The worshippers were then bound together with God in a redemptive relationship. The covenant reveals God’s intended providence, and man’s obedience is his participation in a redemptive relationship.^[59]Beare, Peter, p. 51. The implication is that those who have identified with Jesus Christ through his atoning sacrifice now “share in the blessings and powers which [his death] represents and conveys.”^[60]Vincent Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, p. 137. J. N. D. Kelly suggests that this christological language, “stripped of metaphor connotes accepting [Christ’s] saving death by faith and entering the new community inaugurated by it.”^[61]Kelly, Commentary, p. 44. In Christ’s death, God’s covenant relationship has been ratified.

The Old Testament is equally important to the Servant christology found in chapter 2. After admonishing the “house-servants” to follow Christ’s example of righteous suffering (2:18-23), they are reminded of his sacrificial death. The impact of the entire section (2:18-25) is the assumption that only those who have been redeemed can follow his example.^[62]Best, I Peter, p. 121. The underlying idea of the atonement passage that follows (2:24-25) is that of the levitical sacrificial system;^[63]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 180. however, the suffering servant theme of Isa. 52-53 is used to explain the meaning of the death. Isa. 53:12 is the key passage: He himself carried our sins. . . .” As a result of the wounds born by Christ, believers have been healed. Christ bore their sins in his body on the cross, and they are now freed from them. Selwyn believes that the emphasis here is “the effect of the atonement of sin rather than release from guilt [accompanied by] a redirection of life toward righteousness.”^[64]Ibid., p. 181. Howard Marshall says that this entire construction presents “the death of Jesus as a sacrificial act in which he bore the sins of others on the cross and by dying exhausted their consequences.” The theme of forgiveness is implicit as the writer’s primary point is ethical admonition. In other words, “the death of Jesus sets men free from sin in order that they may live righteous lives.”^[65]Marshall, Work of Christ, p. 63. Ernest Best’s summary points to Christ “not only as the one who through his death atones for sins but as the one who protects, feeds, oversees the life of his people: he is the example (v. 22), redeemer (v. 24), and guardian  v. 25).”^[66]Best, I Peter, p. 123. Christ is God’s servant suffering on behalf of those who now suffer unjustly. His suffering becomes the epitome of the deeper meaning of the believer’s own suffering; consequently, there is redemption for those who follow Christ in suffering (2:21-22). Christ’s vicarious sacrifice is intensified as he is identified with the victims: “[He] bore our sins in his body on the tree” (2:24). By the time of the writing of the epistle, “the tree,” an archaic expression, was already being associated with atonement. The idea is not that sins were placed on an altar to effect atonement.   This would have been impossible to reconcile with the Old Testament’s understanding of sacrifice.^[67]Kelly, Commentary, p. 121. Rather, the idea is that he has taken the blame for sins and is willing to suffer their consequences. The phrase ”bore our sins in his body” points to the significance of Christ’s humanity. In his humanity he becomes a representative, enduring the consequences of man’s sin, the victim of sin and death   ( 2:23-25).^[68]Ibid., p. 122.

This Servant christology is used to reassure the small Christian community that their suffering was not in vain. The objective is also to strengthen their resolve and encourage their witness to those who are their detractors. Christ’s example of suffering challenges the community’s moral stability and encourages obedience, but his redeeming death establishes a right relationship with God and makes their suffering purposeful: “So that having broken with our sins, we might live to righteousness” (2:24).

In the final passage emphasizing the death of Christ, the writer reminds his readers of the significance of the resurrection. Lest they forget that they have been “born again to a living hope in the resurrection   of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3), they are reminded once again of the basis for their confidence in God-Christ’s victory over the forces of evil. In this passage (3:18-22), Christ’s redemptive   death is intended to reveal the character of God in that his once-for-all death removes the barrier of sin between God and man and restores fellowship. Christ’s life and death is God’s work of reconciliation.^[69]James Denney, The Death of Christ, 2nd ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1903), pp. 143-148. The vicarious death is highlighted in 3:18: “For Christ also died once for all for sins, the just on behalf of the unjust, in order to bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” The phrase “the just   on behalf   of the unjust” is perhaps the key to the epistle’s christology. The emphasis is that the righteous one died for the unrighteous in order that those who suffer unjustly may be reconciled to God—brought to God. Mark 10:45 carries a similar idea. Christ’s sacrificial death becomes the means by which sins are removed, “a ransom for many.” In the Peter passage the definiteness of the sacrificial death is attested not only in that it is a once-for-all act of redemption which brings one to God, an act that is unique and unrepeatable, but that the full significance of the death is accomplished in the victory of the resurrection. The one who is “put to death in the flesh” is “made alive in the spirit.” The reality and violence of Christ’s death is a physical act. “He was the victim of a judicial murder.”^[70]Selwyn, Epistle of St. Peter, p. 197. But the one who dies has been raised to life again! The principal contrast is paradoxically expressed-the righteous one who died is resurrected from the dead. The distinction made between flesh and spirit is Hebraic and is not a Greek (Platonic) dichotomy. The epistle does not divide Christ into two complementary parts, rather the language suggests that Christ is to be viewed from two different points of reference. He is to be viewed as completely human. Considered to be a man among men, he is put to death in the reality of the flesh. As “eternal spirit,” he is seen in his fullness as he “has been restored to life by God’s power.” This resurrected Christ, not excluding his bodily nature which has been glorified in the resurrection, is the one who brings the believer to God.^[71]Kelly, Commentary, p. 151. The power of sin has indeed been broken in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now the possibility of fellowship with God has become a reality for all who confess him before men, and there is consequent hope for those who innocently suffer.

In the passage where Christ preaches to the spirits in prison, it is taken as material that is analogous to the legendary mission of Enoch, and its christological significance is in its graphic portrayal of Christ as victor over the angels, authorities, and powers mentioned in verse 22. Enoch is a type. The writer seems to be suggesting that as Enoch announced the doom of the fallen angels,^[72]

Cf. Gen. 5:24. Cf. also Book of Enoch 17-36: “Enoch’s Journeys through the Earth and Sheol” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English with Introductions and Critical and Ex­planatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), pp. 195-208, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL, 100 (December, 1981), 575-600. so Christ preaches to the spirits in prison making a triumphant announcement that their demonic power had been finally broken in his death and resurrection.^[73]Ibid., pp. 155-56; cf. also Eph. 1:20-22; Col. 2:15. The apostle further identifies the small band of Christians with those who were saved by the ark during the flood. Once again the significance of the cross is established as the means of salvation. The ark is analogous to a type of cross—the wood on which Christians are carried to safety. The waters of baptism make meaningful the gospel, symbolizing the death and resurrection. Baptism is not a washing, which would take away from the redemptive significance of the cross, but does become “a pledge to God of a good conscience” (3:21).^[74]Ibid., pp. 157-164; cf. also Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of I Peter III. 19 and Its Contexts (Copen­hagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946); and, Reicke, Epistles, pp. 106-115. In other words, because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, these who suffer as Christ suffered and died need no longer live “in accordance with the passions of men” (4:2-3). Christ is seen in I Peter as victorious in his suffering, his death, his resurrection, and in those who have been called according to God’s purpose of redemption, who make up the “household of God.” The death of Christ makes the resurrection a harbinger of hope, while the resurrection gives victorious significance to the “real” death of Christ’s vicarious suffering on the cross.^[75]For an excellent article on the primitive nature of I Peter’s Chris­tology see Paul E. Davies, “Primitive Christology in I Peter,” in Fest­schrifi to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich, ed. Eugene Howard Barth and Ronald Edwin Cocroft (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 115-122. Here, Platonism and Aristotelian reconstruction cannot be reconciled with the gospel. His death is no illusion, and the paradox of incarnation, briefly alluded to in 3:18, gives meaning and purpose to history and encouragement to the righteous who suffer. To those who belong to the household of God belongs an “unfading crown of glory” (5:4) providing they “cast all their anxieties” on the one who has called them “to His eternal glory in Jesus Christ” (5:7, 10).