1 & 2 Peter, Jude

Believers Church Bible Commentary

Erland Waltner, J. Daryl Charles

• Publisher: Herald Press
• Year: 2000
• Print ISBN: 9780836191189
• eBook ISBN: 9780836197952
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

This title is available on eBook!
For more information see: www.MennoMedia.org/e-books

Erland Waltner explains how 1 Peter applies Jesus' teaching on loving the enemy to the life situation of scattered Christians in Asia Minor. Peter empowers believers to be communities of hope, not retaliating for the abuse they suffer, but bearing witness of their Lord by word, lifestyle, and doing good.

J. Daryl Charles shows how 2 Peter and Jude are relevant since the church still faces ethical compromises and pastoral dilemmas. Their apocalyptic imagery stresses that the concerns of Christian faithfulness and faith are absolutely crucial. The church needs such moral exhortation.

Table of Contents (PDF)

Read the Introduction to 1-2 Peter (PDF)

Read the Introduction to Jude (PDF)

Check out other commentaries in this series!

1 Peter

Erland Waltner

Preface to 1 Peter

First Peter became personally important to me while I was still a seminary student. I was yearning to be both a nonresisting Christian (my Mennonite ethical heritage) and an evangelical believer, taking with full seriousness the whole Bible and especially Christ’s saving work on the cross. For me, these strands come together in 1 Peter 2:21-25. There I saw Jesus Christ both as the Supreme Pattern of nonretaliating love and as the Redeemer, dying on the cross for human sin and thus making our salvation possible.

First Peter was also one of the first books I taught in seminary, in 1954 during a joint summer school session of Goshen College Biblical Seminary (Goshen, Ind.) and Mennonite Biblical Seminary (Chicago). This joint summer school helped lead to the establishment of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, in which I have given most of my ministering years as teacher and administrator. Among my students in that first seminary class on 1 Peter was David Schroeder, who now many years later has served as a critical reader and scholarly adviser in the preparation of this commentary. Since then I have taught 1 Peter and preached from it many times.

When identifying kerugma (the preached Word) and didache (the taught Word) in the New Testament (NT) was in vogue, I assigned students to distinguish between these two elements in 1 Peter. The results led to the verdict that the two cannot be separated in this epistle. This deepened my own sense of wholeness in Scripture, between faith and life, between ethics and theology, between proclamation and paraenesis (moral instruction). In reading and interpreting Scripture, I have moved away from an either-or analytic approach (the truth must be either this or that), and toward more of a both-and approach (truth, paradoxically, may have more than one dimension). While open to deal with historical critical issues, I have followed a hermeneutic of trust more frequently than a hermeneutic of suspicion. In short, I have tried to let the texts speak for themselves.

During four decades of teaching 1 Peter, I have not tired of listening to the texts. I continue to be fascinated, intrigued, inspired, challenged, and confronted by the word of the living God which meets me there. That word is amazingly inclusive and relevant, both theologically and ethically. It puts accents on—

• hope, transformed lifestyle, and Christian community;
• witness through appropriate subordination and word;
• constructive nonretaliating response to suffering injustice; and
• a strong concern about leading and following in the church.

This letter touches some of the most controversial and most promising and challenging items in contemporary Christian discourse.

I have also taught this letter transculturally—in Taiwan, in Japan, in Saskatoon to a mixed Chinese and Canadian student group, and in Anglo and Latin-based cultures. I have found that 1 Peter communicates effectively in both a transcultural and a monocultural situation.

In work on this commentary, I have moved beyond my own intense encounters with the biblical text and have surveyed numerous other commentaries and resources, for which I am indebted and deeply grateful. I have given particular attention to the use made of 1 Peter in early Anabaptist writings and thus discovered its remarkable influence on the faith heritage I call my own.

To the many colleagues, former students, and manuscript readers who have helped, I express deepest gratitude for their painstaking and helpful counsel, especially to David Schroeder (Winnipeg) and Willard M. Swartley (Elkhart, Ind.), the NT editor of this commentary series. I give special thanks to Rosalie Grove, who helped with computer work and copyediting. For errors that may be found, however, I carry responsibility.

As shown in the dedication, I express deep gratitude to my life partner, Mary Winifred, and to our four daughters, the women in my life.

May God be pleased to use this commentary for kingdom purposes of enhancing righteousness, peace, and hope. To God be all glory!

—Erland Waltner
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary
Elkhart, Indiana

Introduction

A Letter Encouraging Christian Hope

Encountering First Peter

The significance of 1 Peter is out of proportion to its size. It consists of 105 verses (NRSV), easily placed in two columns of modern newsprint. Its importance for biblical studies, its impact on the Reformers and the early Anabaptists, and its potential significance for contemporary church life and ethics—all these are larger than the brevity of the letter suggests.

The history of the letter’s acceptance and influence, however, is uneven. Apparently it was widely and readily accepted as apostolic from the time of Eusebius (A.D. 260-340). In 1905 biblical scholar Charles Bigg could write, “There is no book in the NT which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation” (Bigg: 7). Luther praised 1 Peter as “one of the grandest books of the NT, and it is true gospel” (Luther, 1982:2). Calvin, likewise, considered it apostolic and gave it full- length treatment in his commentaries.

In more recent times, rigorous biblical criticism diverted attention from 1 Peter’s central message, probing its authorship, setting, purpose, and literary form. By 1964, Bishop Stephen Neill called it “the storm center of NT studies” (Neill: 343). In 1992, John H. Elliott spoke of it as an “exegetical stepchild” of biblical studies (in ABD, 5:270).

Currently, something of a restoration and rehabilitation may be underway and well-deserved. Already in 1978, Leonhard Goppelt listed 326 scholarly items in his bibliography on 1 Peter, 148 of them commentaries. Since then a host of new commentaries have appeared on these same 105 verses of holy Scripture. However, new challenges have also surfaced, especially from liberation scholars who consider this epistle deficient in making a clear case for the liberation of slaves and of women (Balch, 1981; Corley: 349-360). A significantly different and positive perspective is represented by Mary H. Schertz in her scholarly analysis of “Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter” (258-286).

Why 1 Peter Was Written

Read at face value, 1 Peter was written to scattered Christians residing in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey)—to the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Described as “strangers and pilgrims” (KJV) or as “resident aliens” (Elliott, 1981), these Christian believers lived in a hostile environment. They were experiencing trials and were sometimes falsely accused. Some of them were mistreated by their employers or slave masters; some of their women were married to non-Christian husbands; and all of them were subject to some forms of abuse and suffering.

The letter reminds them that they have experienced the hope-giving grace of God in the coming, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are called to shape their lives accordingly, especially in how they respond to their experiences of suffering. The basic exhortation is for them to stand fast in the grace of God (5:12), which they experience even in their painful encounters, and follow in the pattern of Jesus (2:21), doing what is good and right.

First Peter as a Letter

During most of the centuries since 1 Peter appeared, readers have considered it to be a letter because of its opening and closing sections. Letter writing of the time commonly began with a simple formula of giving first the name and some descriptive title of the writer, next the designation of the intended reader(s), and then a formal greeting. Likewise, generally a letter would include closing greetings, as well illustrated in Pauline and other NT letters.

In the case of 1 Peter, however, some views emerged out of critical studies about earlier sources, including the proposal by Richard Perdelwitz in 1911 that 1:3—4:11 was a baptismal exhortation or sermon, while 4:12—5:14 was epistolary. He suggested that these two parts were later put together.

This view was elaborated by later scholars, Windisch and Preisker, who read the document as a baptismal liturgy. In 1954 Frank L. Cross suggested that 1 Peter is a baptismal eucharistic liturgy for a Paschal vigil on Easter evening. John H. Elliott appropriately observes that such theories “must be judged more imaginative than cogent” (in ABD, 5:270).

In this commentary, 1 Peter is viewed as a unified letter. This does not exclude the possibility of the writer including a variety of source materials.

First Peter differs from some Pauline letters, however, in that it is written to an audience much wider than a single congregation. It thus may have been a circular letter, intended to be carried and read to scattered congregations in various provinces of Asia Minor. It is possible that the order of the provinces named was to be the order in which the letter-bearer was to bring the epistle to these scattered congregations of the people of God.

This Letter as Truly Apostolic

While there has been much more scholarly controversy over the authenticity of 2 Peter, the authorship of 1 Peter has also been vigorously debated. This commentary affirms this letter as Petrine, but acknowledges a need for understanding different perspectives held by competent biblical scholars. Three different views are possible: (1) Peter the apostle wrote it, as the letter itself claims. (2) It is pseudonymous, written in the name of Peter but by a later hand. (3) It is essentially Petrine but an amanuensis (secretary), possibly Silvanus (5:12), collaborated with Peter in drafting it [Authorship].

The Date and Place of Writing

Going with apostolic authorship, we may assume a date of circa A.D. 62-64 as the time of writing, and the place as Rome, assuming that Babylon (5:13) is a pseudonym for Rome (cf. Rev. 17-18). Calvin argued for a literal Babylon, assuming that Peter had traveled widely, but Luther read Babylon as figurative for Rome. Luther’s interpretation continues to prevail.

The suggested date assumes that Peter was alive and that Nero was emperor (54-68). The traditional date for Peter’s death is around 64, and his arrival in Rome not earlier than 62. However, certain scholars, including William Ramsay and J. Ramsey Michaels, have argued that Peter lived much longer. Earlier some associated this letter with the persecution under Domitian in 96 or under Trajan in 117. Their arguments are partly based on the view that the persecutions described in 1 Peter, especially in 4:16, are official and state-ordered, a position that biblical scholars no longer consider necessary.

The Circumstances of the Readers

The text of 1 Peter gives many clues about the circumstances of those addressed. They live as scattered faith communities spread across what came to be called northern Asia Minor. Peter is a Jewish Christian, and some of his addressees may have shared his ethnic background. Yet it is probable that most of them were Gentile Christians, relatively recent converts to Christianity. Ethnically, then, they were mainly Greeks, but legally they were under Roman law.

The letter itself indicates that the social status of these believers was difficult. Living in scattered communities, they represented a minority status. Peter calls them “resident aliens” who were not truly at home in the social communities in which they resided. In various ways they lived on the borderline between Christian faith and non- Christian peoples. Their neighbors not only misunderstood them but also made false interpretations and leveled unfounded accusations against the followers of Jesus Christ.

Interpreters who have studied 1 Peter through sociological lenses have helped us understand that the Christians’ status and condition in society was even more difficult than earlier thought. Elliott speaks of them as “homeless strangers,” sharpening the contrast between the meanings of oikos (house, household) and paroikos (sojourner, resident alien, refugee). Thus the title of his book on 1 Peter, A Home for the Homeless. While Peter uses the concept of “resident aliens” in a metaphorical sense, their legal and cultural status was complicated and socially marginal. They lived in a truly oppressive and hostile environment.

Beyond that, however, their status boundaries were much more limited, much more sharply defined, and more hierarchical than those of so-called democratic societies. Likely many of them were slaves. The understanding of citizenship was complex, and lack of clarity in one’s status could be oppressive. As John Crook observes, “The origins of the complexities of citizenship and non-citizenship lie in the history of ancient Greece, where the Greeks (for reasons, indeed, only dimly understood today) organized themselves politically not into a nation but into a large number of tiny nations, city-states, whose members had rights and duties within their own state but were without duties or rights—were foreigners—in the state on the other side of the mountain” (37).

Their life was burdened also by the household codes (German: Haustafeln), prevalent in the Greco-Roman cu...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Abbreviations
• Contents
• Series Foreword
• 1 Peter, by Erland Waltner
• 2 Peter, by J. Daryl Charles
• Jude, by J. Daryl Charles
• J. Daryl Charles
• Index of Ancient Sources for 1-2 Peter, Jude