For issues of authorship of 1 Peter, see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter1.html

1:1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Note that Jesus' blood here is viewed in light of an OT sacrifice, specifically, the covenantal sacrifice of the sprinkling of blood as a sign of the enacted covenant (Ex. 24:8).

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The social quality of "mercy" in the Bible is not quite what we think it is in modern terms. Today "mercy" usually means that we cease to deliver a punishment that is justly deserved; or it means refraining from dishing out pain and punishment generally, usually out of pity. But that's not quite what the Bible had in mind, according to Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Values [92ff]. Pilch and Malina note that in an ancient context, "mercy" is better rendered as "gratitude" or "steadfast love" -- as in, "the debt of interpersonal obligations for unrepayable favors received." Mercy is not involved with feelings of compassion, as today, but the "paying of one's debt of interpersonal obligation by forgiving a trivial debt." To say, "Lord, have mercy!" (Matt. 20:31) means, "Lord, pay up your debt of interpersonal obligation to us!" Far from being a plea of the hapless, it is a request to pay back previously earned favor. This is a natural facet of the client-patron relationship in which there is a relationship of "ongoing reciprocity," in which "those toward whom one has such a debt are equally obliged to maintain the relationship by further favors..." It is God's role as a patron to supply the needs of His clients (us) in steadfast love and faithfulness, and it is a role He has willingly and in sovereignty assumed. Pilch and Malina note that the relationship of gratitude here is indeed an "ongoing" one -- not "episodic" as it is in our culture.

Thus here, Peter is saying that God's steadfast love has resulted in a reciprocal agreement, within which we are guaranteed future blessing, and the instrument of that was Jesus Christ (the broker in the client-patron relationship). That blessing is alluded to in v. 4.

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Note that salvation is the "end of your faith," which means -- faith being loyalty -- that the end result of loyalty to Christ is salvation.

10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Thus this means that the prophets sought out the object of proper loyalty; Peter indicates that they foreshadowed in their works God's willingness as a patron to grant benefit to those who would become Christians (i.e., grace). Note as well that Peter here identifies Christ with God, as it was the Spirit of God which was thought to inspire prophets in the OT [Best.1P, 81].

12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The reference to angels [Acht.1P. 112] may relate to a "tradition that angelic knowledge about redemption was superior to that of human beings"; Achtemeier supposes a corresponding (but unattested) tradition stressing angelic ignorance; but it is as well to say that Peter works within the tradition of angelic knowledge to say that in contrast to times past, angels are now no longer in the know about redemption, to any greater extent than humans are. Michaels [Mich.1P, 48] does find in 1 and 2 Enoch notions that some heavenly mysteries are indeed hidden from angels, and thus may support Achtemeier. Cranfield [Cran.1P, 45] notes that the word used can mean "to look" or "to stoop down and look" which suggests that the message was not revealed to them, and that they too await the revealing of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19); in other words, they know at the same level we do, and Grudem [Grud.1P, 73] adds that the word for "look" is in the present tense, which means that even as Peter writes, angels have this desire to check things out. All of this is consistent with the idea that angels were once unaware of the redemption process and are learning about it at the same pace as we are.

13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

In light of the above verses, critics often ask, "How then could God have chosen the Jews "above all people that are upon the face of the earth"? (Deut. 7:6) Note the reasons for God's choice in Deut. 7:8:

But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

The reason, then, that the one people were chosen was because of the acts of obedience of their forefathers, the result of which was a covenantal agreement (with Abraham). "Respect of persons" has nothing to do with covenantal agreements, or even judgment based on merit, but with judgments based on our own suppositions and deductions. In other words, "without respect of persons" means God does not take people at "face value" or by the judgments of personal honor used by humans of the day, but searches them out. There is no relevance to the matter of the choice of Jews for service; they were chosen because their forefathers, and they, were obedient.

18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

For the preterist, these "last times" refer to the age of the law ending. The word "redeemed" [Best.1P, 88-9; Davi.1P, 71; Kell.1P, 73] is used variously in the LXX for the redemption of property, the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, in non-Biblical Greek for the price paid to a god for the manumission of a slave. We would contend that the identification of Jesus as the broker of a new covenant, like Moses, and the theme of exodus found in 1 Peter, makes the second view integral; but Cranfield [Cran.1P, 54] adds that the comparison to silver and gold makes it likely that some sort of paid price is actually in view, which accords with two major theories of atonement (the ransom view, and our own, the penal substitution view).

21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

a sharp distinction between the nature of God and man in 24-25; for God's glory endures always.

2:1Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

In the past attempts were made to link the "milk" reference to the use of milk in mystery religions; this is now passe', and it should be, since a far more accessible comparison is milk from a mother!

Peter here alludes to the very words of Jesus describing himself as the cornerstone, and thus Peter shows knowledge of the Gospel tradition, contrary to those critics who claim otherwise.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Note that our understanding of "mercy" is confirmed in v. 10 by the parallelism between the covenant status of Israel: first they were "not a people" but they became one when God entered into a covenant relationship with them. So likewise we were without mercy (covenant obligation relationship) but now have it.

Skeptics ask: Are we to do our deeds before men (per Matthew 5 and Peter) or is that wrong (per Matthew 6 and 23)? Matthew 5 (the likely source for Peter) tells us to do deeds in the same way -- as what? The previous examples are of a city on a hill and a lamp. Lamps and cities don't light for the sake of showing off -- they are passive instruments. They don't seek or take praise; they don't know or care that anyone watches, they just shine and do their jobs. That's our example. Michaels confirms [118] that the word used here means simply to noitce or observe, in the way of "having one's eyes opened to something not seen before."

On the other hand, the Matthew 6 verse is after a warning about not making a public spectacle out of your giving, and not announcing it with trumpets like the hypocrites do. Now if you are publicly announcing your "good deeds" and being a hypocrite, you are far from letting people see your good works: You are in fact setting a bad example, and being a poor witness for Christ (and actually, just a jerk in general, whoever you are). So the two pieces of direction in Matt. 5 and 6 are progressive education, and they go together: Set a good example, but don't do the peacock strut, lest you tarnish those good works with the stain of hypocrisy, and thereby defame the cause of Christ. The remaining two verses then draw from this lesson. Matthew 5 teaches that works should be done publicly, but in the sense that because one is in public and under scrutiny, they should become a "light" -- the instructions here are parallel to OT admonitions to Israel to be a "light" for the nations, who were on the outside, looking in. Hence, it is passive. Salt has no effect unless it is applied to something; it doesn't go looking for food to jump on in order to season everyone's taste buds. Light does not serve as a guide if it is hidden under a basket, but it also doesn't blind your eyes jumping up and down getting you to notice it. The city on the hill does not serve as an admonishment to build atop hills, but to simply illustrate that the location will result in that city obtaining notice.

Now when we look at Matthew 6, can one give alms (the example) without benefit to the public? Obviously not; the very purpose of almsgiving is to benefit the public (especially the poorer segment). As we have already stressed, however, the latter chapter simply emphasizes that public works are not to be done for the sake of public attention. Public works done simply for the sake of the public will draw a desirable type of attention, on the other hand. The objection fails to distinguish between doing good works for the honor of the Father (the word for "see" is eido, and merely means being visible), and doing good works for your own honor (the word for "seen" is theaomai, which implies a much closer examination, and an attempt to grab public honor for one's self).

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

The Bible quite often tells us to respect and obey the laws of men, as here. So what, say the critics, about this:

Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."

Note well: in Acts, the "law" being set down countermanded God's requirements. The Jews told Peter and Co. to shut up and stop spreading the Gospel; that was opposite to Jesus' command to spread it. The other verses do not say, "unless they countermand God's commands" - but we are given credit for having the intelligence to realize that God's orders should not be overruled by any human intervention!

Indeed, the citation of the other verses as contradictory reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of when and why each was written -- truly enough, context is key, but here it is again a case of more than merely textual context.

Consider the social context of the verses from Romans usually cited in this regard (Rom. 13: 1, 7), as well as this one from 1 Peter. When Paul and Peter penned these letters, Nero was emperor, but he was still in the realm of sanity and was a fairly good ruler; Christians were not being persecuted by Rome. Peter is not here concerned with the hypothetical possibility which eventually became reality: That the government would turn against the Christian faith. At this time government officers were still a Christian's "first recourse" for redressing of wrongs [Mich.1P, 126]. Had these words been penned ten years later, the instructions would assuredly have been tempered quite differently, and be more along the lines of Acts 5:29, where a choice did indeed have to be made between obeying God and man -- because as of the time when this passage was written, there was no human law which was in contradiction to the will of God. Paul could truly say "obey the law" without qualification, because there was no law on the books at the time that was objectionable from a Christian perspective: Christians weren't being persecuted or told to give up or compromise their faith; they were under the protective classification of being a Jewish sect. As is often the case, skeptics are taking a general principle with a specific historical context and turning it into a timeless universal in order to find contradiction.

It should be noted as well [Acht.1P, 182] that the word "submit" here "advocates finding one's place and acting accordingly, rather than calling upon one to give unquestioning obedience to whatever anyone, including governing authorities, may command." Thus Cranfield [Cran.1P, 72] properly argues that the application for us in a democratic republic is that we are to make responsible choices as citizens, including in elections and in military service. 1 Peter 2:13 refutes both pacificism and political indifference. "Ordinance" (or "institution") means "thing created" but is used by other writers to refer to things like cities [Grud.1P, 119].

14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

So do we call men "master" or don't we (per Matthew's Gospel)? Kurios (master) was an all-purpose word equal to "sir" in modern terms. Jesus uses kathegetes meaning guide or teacher. This matches the context of the Matthew, which warns against using titles associated with teaching (Rabbi, Father) and is in the context of warnings against those who teach the law.

The "praise of them that do well" refers to such things as laudatory inscriptions, or awards of crowns, or citizenship, that were bestowed by governors upon public benefcators [Best.1P, 114].

How does this square with Jesus' words to Satan, to serve God only? It is matched up in part by the precept that God sets earthly authorities to be obeyed (Romans 7), and in that sense, we serve God through masters. However, Peter specifies that we obey masters; the word used by Jesus, latreuo means "render religious homage," or worship -- not the same thing!

On slavery in the New Testament, see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Best [Best.1P, 119] argues that dependence on the OT to describe Christ's sufferings "argues against authorship by an eyewitness" or someone informed by one. This is false: Recasting of stories in terms of previous stories was a normal practice and admired skill in this day. The NT writers would have had an actual story of Jesus which they proceeded to retell, with skill, using as many allusions to the OT as they could.

3:1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

As Best notes [Best.1P, 125] "the ostentatious and luxorious dress of women is a frequent subject of attack" in Jewish and pagan sources alike. This needs to be contextually understood to be applied for today. Outward adnorment would have been a matter of attempting to garner honor, and to put it on display; and this would have been a snub to "slaves and women of inferior social class" who would not have been able to dress this way. The command against adornment is not a slam against adornment per se, but is rather a command to behave in an egalitarian fashion.

The "be in subjection" command should be understood in light of the meaning of "submit" described above, not meaning unquestioning obedience but finding one's proper place. Achtemeier [Acht.1P, 208] notes as well that this passage is "to be understood primarily within the context of a Christian wife married to an unbelieving husband," so that nothing is stated here about inequality or equality in Christian marriage. What lies behind this command is the belief that a wife must always worship the gods of her husband. Davids [121] notes that "[a]ll types of intimidation -- physical, emotional, social -- would be used to force [the wife] back in line with the husband's religious beliefs." Thus it is all the more important for the Christian wife to remain subordinate (in the sense above) on other matters, in order to keep tension at a minimum in the household. The wives are to be subordinate not out of fear but out of obedience to Christ.

4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Nor is the requirement of a "meek and quiet spirit" a command for women to sit down and shut up. Meekness in the ancient world (per Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values) is gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with. An OT example in Ps. 37 are those who do not protest the loss of their land to greedy landowners, knowing that God owns the land and will get it back for them or else judge the greedy. Best adds [Best.1P, 126] that "in the earlier parts of the OT God's Spirit is generally associated with mighty acts of power but in the later parts of the OT and certainly within the NT power is seen to lie in gentleness and quietness as much as in vigour." Far from an oppressive command, this is an empowering one.

Also, the notation of women as a "weaker vessel" has no point in view about intellectual or moral inferiority [Cran.1P, 91; Davi.1P, 123], merely physical strength. The word "vessel" is not derogatory as it is used of Paul (Acts 9:15). On the other hand, man and woman are regarded as equal partners ("joint heirs") in grace; and men are threatened with loss of fellowship with God (hinderance in prayer) if they do not obey this stricture. Finally, note that in the OT, Sarah is depicted as quite "uppity" at times, so that "subjection" here also obviously cannot mean "sit down and shut up".

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

The use of satire or riposte, it has been said, is not "meekness and fear" (or "gentleness and respect" as modern versions say). This passage is often used to admonish against being too "rough" on opponents, but it is used thereby out of context.

In the ancient world, there was no such thing as "something for nothing". You did a favor to get a favor. So when Christians helped their neighbors, others were inevitably suspicious. "What is it they want in return?" When they professed to want nothing in return for helping the sick, etc., it raised suspicions more: "They must be out for something BIG!" It is in this context that Peter advises a gentle and respectful answer. When a Roman said, "Why do you help that man?" they were to answer gently and respectfully by saying, "We do this because of Christ." The passage has nothing to do with confronting ideological opponents.

16Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

With this passage we come to perhaps the most important in the arsenal for a doctrine of divine perseverance. Hopkins, a Mormon apologist [Hop.BM, 219; see also Nas.WAT, 81-4] explains this passage as describing the hour when "those who were in the tombs" heard Christ's voice (see John 5:25-9 above). and further explains that the group described in 1 Peter:

...was given the opportunity to be saved through the preaching of Christ on that fateful day when a ministry to the dead was opened up by Christ's addressing the lost who waited in the Spirit World.

And Bickmore, who says that this verse and the one following "have haunted the Christian world for centuries," [Bick.RAC, 213], adds:

Most commentators admit the plain meaning of these passages is that after Christ died, but before He was resurrected, He visited the spirits of the disobedient of Noah's day in hell and preached the gospel to them He did this so that they could be judged like other men who had heard the gospel, too, and be given a chance to lead a godly life in the spirit.

It must be indeed acknowledged that historically, the idea of a "descent into hell" by Christ has been a popular interpretation of this passage and the one we consider in our next entry, 1 Peter 4:6, by the Church Fathers (as noted by Bick.RAC, 216 -- although not by all of them: Augustine, for example, thought that it referred to the pre-existent Christ preaching salvation to the people through Noah; and all seem to indicate that it is only certain OT saints that were released from bondage -- there is no indication that there will be "repeat trips" for those who have never heard the gospel after the time of Christ), and even today such a view is promulgated among Christians especially in the charismatic sector, though perhaps more under the influence of Dante than Scripture! But does the Biblical data actually support this conclusion?

The first problem to be faced is the exact timing of this supposed trip to the spirit prison. Hopkins tells us that this trip took place between Christ's death and resurrection, and that the thief on the cross was one of the people to whom Christ preached. However, verse 18 belies this chronology, for it tells us first that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. This "made alive in the spirit" (possibly, though not necessarily, rendered best with a capital "S" to designate the Holy Spirit as God's person of action -- cf. Rom. 8:11), counterpointing as it is the putting to death in the flesh, is clearly understood to refer to Christ's resurrection (cf. Rom. 1:3-4, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Tim. 3:16), so that Hopkins' timing is considerably off. Whatever the mission of 3:18b-20 was, it took place after the resurrection, not before it, and only by reading something into they text completely out of context with the rest of the New Testament can it be said otherwise. Michaels [Mich.1P. 204-6] offers these points:

* The two verbs in this passage are also found together in the LXX (Greek) version of 2 Kings 5:7, as reference to God's power to kill and make alive. Appropriately, the first verb is in a grammatical form that reads that Jesus was "put to death" (by human hands), but the second verb is in a passive sense, so that God can be "presupposed as the one who brought Jesus to life."

* Michaels also notes that the "pairing of the two participal expressions" in this verse has "the effect of subordinating the first to the second," so that the verse reads, "though put to death in the flesh, he was made alive in the Spirit". This could only makes sense in the context of the resurrection.

* Finally, the grammar indicates that Jesus' proclamation to the spirits was "a direct outcome of his resurrection from the dead." There can be no shifting of the chronology with this direct cause and effect relationship clearly delineated.

So there is already one problem for Hopkins even on an initial reading; here is a second. These "spirits" Christ went to are specified as being associated historically with the time of Noah (v. 20). Hopkins notes this distinction only briefly [Hop.BM, 173], but apparently fails to grasp the problem: His named example of the thief on the cross was obviously not from the time of Noah! Did Christ not also preach to those who lived between Noah and his own time that had died? If so, why does the verse not say so? Why are those of Noah's time specifically mentioned if this was a message to all who had died prior to Christ? It will not do to say that Peter was simply specifying one group out of many that were preached to; this is merely begging the question, even if (as Marshall tells us -- Mars.1P, 126) that the generation of Noah was noted proverbially for its wickedness. Why just the generation of Noah, and not, for example, Sodom and Gomorrah's inhabitants? Was the generation of Noah randomly selected here by Peter? We should try to find a more secure context for this passage, and this leads to the first important question:

Who are these "spirits"? LDS apologists of course assume that these are the spirits of men, but the word "spirit" is also used in Jewish and Christian literature to refer to supernatural beings and especially evil spirits (e.g., Mark 1:23, 26, 27; Tobit 6:6; 2 Macc. 3:24). Note also that the passage refers to "the spirits who disobeyed," not to "the spirits of those who disobeyed," suggesting strongly that these critters are spirits by nature and always were. [Kist.PJ, 142] Combined with the limitation to the days of Noah described above, it is possible to anchor this passage in another well-known account, this one from the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch.

1 Enoch includes an account of the "sons of God" who came among the daughters of men and corrupted the human race, based on Gen. 6:1-4 (cf. Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4). These "sons of God" are variously named as angels, watchers, and in one place as "spirits" and Enoch is sent to tell them that they are out of luck (1 Enoch 12:4, 15:8):

And they said to me, "Enoch, son of righteousness, go and make known to the Watchers of heaven who have abandoned the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women..."

But now the giants who are born from spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth.

This book also notes that certain angels were "bound" and thrown into a "prison house" (1 Enoch 10:4-6, 12-14, 13:1, etc.) Thus the "spirits in prison" are to be identified with these referred to in 1 Enoch, and Peter is either relating that Christ took up in reality what Enoch had done fictionally, or else is using this account typologically "to depict dramatically Christ's victory over evil." [Mars.1P, 129] (Michaels, it should be indicated, refers to these as "spirits in refuge" and believes that the reference is not to the sinning angels, but to their demonic offspring. His reasons for making this identification are not compelling, but this obviously no more agrees with the LDS view than ours does.)

On the side, it would only be fair to note that some attempts have been made to dismiss this view. Grudem [Grud.1P, 203ff; see also Fein.1P], arguing on behalf of his own view which is similar to Augustine's, erects a strawman around the premise of the familiarity of Peter's readers and hearers with 1 Enoch. Using such descriptive phrases as "well known" [205] and "even if one grants for the sake of argument that all of Peter's readers had just finished reading 1 Enoch the night before Peter's letter arrived," [209], "so widely known that Peter could allude to a section of 1 Enoch without mentioning the work by name,"[220] etc. he sets up an extreme "all or nothing" condition that does not allow that Peter's readers (or enough of them) were simply sufficiently familiar with 1 Enoch to recognize the allusion, and if needed educate those who were less or not familiar with it. Grudem, though generally conservative, is simply committing the common fallacy of liberal scholarship and not thinking in more than two dimensions. Moreover, the reference is sparse enough that even Grudem's interpretation is left to fill in blanks, and itself relies upon cites from literature like 1 Enoch, so that one must conclude that for Peter's reference to mean anything, he or someone else obviously had to have taught sufficient background for the allusion to have force. Beyond that, although Grudem rightly notes that 1 Enoch does contain some references to imprisoned human spirits, these human spirits are given no special connection to the days of Noah but are human spirits awaiting final judgment, which obviously would not help the LDS view, since the fate of these is already decided. Grudem's attempt to support Augustine's view ultimately begs the question, argues immensely from silence, and uses arguments that can easily be turned back on him in order to try to supersede the most likely connections. But in the context of this discussion, it hardly matters, for Grudem's view, which limits the "spirits in prison" merely to "human beings who sinned while building the ark" [223] is no more useful to the LDS apologist than ours.

Finally, I think it is worth noting that LDS apologists I have read so far seem singularly unaware of this connection to 1 Enoch, even in theory. Hopkins says nothing about it. Bickmore [Bick.RAC, 214] notes a related solution used by the Moffatt New Testament (written in 1922!) proposing that the name "Enoch" was originally in the text but was confused with or replaced by the Greek words en hoi kai during an early scribal blunder. This solution is attractive but has the disadvantage of being conjectural and without textual support; nevertheless, Bickmore's critique of it is far from informed, as he comments: "Moffatt also ignores the fact that Enoch wasn't even on the earth during Noah's lifetime, see Genesis 5:22-29, so his emendation not only is completely arbitrary and out of context, but it is demonstrably untrue." It is amazing that Bickmore, who apparently spent hours chasing through the works of the early Church Fathers looking for any quote that could be twisted and manipulated into a semblance of LDS-like doctrine, apparently did not even bother to so much as glance at Jewish intertestamental and first-century literature, any one example of which is far more relevant in both social and literary terms for establishing a "context" for the New Testament than any given document from a church father many years later...and then has the nerve to complain about "the pitifully small amount of information Peter gave" [ibid., 215]!

What was proclaimed to these spirits? Richards [Rich.MMW, 170-1] stands for the LDS position when he writes that Jesus "had but one message: his gospel of faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." But does the text support this view?

A key here is that the word rendered often as "preach" (kerusso). The word kerusso is often used in the NT to refer to "either Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God or his disciples' proclamation of the good news of his death and resurrection," [Mich.1P, 209], but in 1 Peter, the word euaggelion is used for the proclaiming of the message of redemption (1:12, 2:5; 4:6), so that here kerusso must mean something else. Michaels links this proclamation to the request of the unclean spirits of Mark 5 for a haven (Mark 5:10, 12) and their inquiry as to whether Jesus had come to torment them "before the time" (Matt. 8:29). Thus Michaels concludes that the proclamation "may simply have been that their 'prison' or 'refuge' was no longer inviolate. They too, like all other powers in the universe, must now submit to his sovereignty (cf. v. 22, 'angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him')."

We have shown, therefore, that there are far too many problems with the LDS explanation of these verses, and a much more plausible interpretation is available that respects fully the literary/Jewish context of the passage.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The Semitic Totality Concept (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html) radically affects our understanding of verses concerning the interrelation of faith, works, and particularly baptism. Is there any evidence that the early Jewish apostles as Christians had difficulty in communicating this difference in anthropological view to their Gentile converts? I believe that there is, and that this passage serves as an example of how they coped with the problem. But we need to first look at a parallel from corresponding Biblical and secular sources.

And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Mark 1:4)

From this verse there emerges a puzzle, for while Mark says that John preached "a baptism of repentance," we find what appears to be the opposite proclaimed of John's baptism in this passage from Josephus, who said that John called for his converts:

...to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and purity towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be pleasing to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by right behavior.

Critics of the Bible often assume that either Mark or Josephus are in error. But I believe that Peter and Josephus are actually explaining to their Gentile readers--those who do not think within the paradigm of Semitic Totality--what the role of baptism is, in their terms as opposed to Semitic terms.

As for the phrase, "the filth of the flesh," it does not of course mean to say that baptism isn't for washing--who would think that it was? Why should Peter have made such a banal point? There must be more to this advisory, and Michaels is right to say that it is either "a rhetorical way of accenting baptism's profound significance (i.e., not merely a physical cleansing but a decisive transaction with God), or as a corrective to an actual, specific, misunderstanding." I believe, in fact, that the solution lies in understanding also why there appears to be a contradiction between Mark and Josephus: Peter is correcting a Gentile misapprehension of baptism in terms of the Semitic Totality concept.

The word "flesh," as well as the phrase "flesh and blood," has a Semitic connotation signifying the frail human nature. It is a word/phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body. Dahl comments on the use of the word "flesh" alone in another context [Resurrection, 121]:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness...

Then there is the word "filth" (rhupos). It appears in the New Testament only here in 1 Peter, and while it can mean "dirt," it also means depravity, and it has that meaning in the place where the related word "filthiness" (rhuparia) is found in the New Testament:

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

Thus the "filth of the flesh" to which Peter refers is moral uncleanness, and he is saying (just as Josephus does) that baptism is not for the cleansing of moral defilement. "...Peter's point is not that such cleaning is an unimportant or unnecessary thing, only that baptism is not it" -- rather, as Michaels says of Josephus, "the inward moral cleansing...is presupposed by the act of water baptism."

What, then, is baptism? It does not wash away the "filth" (sins) of the "flesh" (human weakness). Rather, it is "the pledge of a good conscience toward God," (not "for" as the NASB reads) a conscience knowing its duty to be baptized according to the command of Christ, that good conscience having been achieved by the moral cleansing that has already taken place through the forgiveness of sins. [See Michaels' 1 Peter commentary, 213-16.)

22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

4:1Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

4Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 5Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

This verse is paired with the one above and seen as confirmation of it [Hop.BM, 219]. Some translations (like the NIV quoted above) insert the word "now" into the text before "dead" in order to clarify that this verse is believed to refer to people recently passed away. LDS apologists claim that this insertion is unjustified and instead interpret the verse in light of 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Standing against reading PME into this verse, however, is the clause of purpose that is included in it [Mich.1P, 238] which does not fare well with a PME interpretation, which must then be read into the verse over and against one that can be found within its literary and social context, as well as live without the vital connection to 3:18-20 which we have now severed. Marshall [Mars.1P, 137n] comments of the "insuperable obstacle" to a view which reads this verse as a description of PME, that it:

...does not explain what the function of the verse is its context. The point of verse 5 is that persecutors will be condemned at the judgment. A statement that the dead will hear the gospel and live follows on most illogically from this.

The matter of "being judged according to men in the flesh" is not explained by any of the LDS apologists I have on hand, but it has reference to those in verses 4-5 who commit sin and wonder why it is that the Christians do not join them. These are, according to our interpretation, the ones who "condemned" others who had accepted the Gospel (but are now dead) while in the flesh; and yet, in spite of this, these who were condemned by their fellow men now are living far better and "live before God in the Spirit." What is achieved here is a contrast between the condemnation received by believers who refused to play bingo, smoke cigars, and throw back tall ones with the boys (not to mention those who suffered persecution and slander of all types that they would endure, and possibly most relevant for this context, martyrdom -- for more on this, see Robert Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them), and the blessed life in the Spirit that they now have (and others later will have) before God. The point is irony! God will judge these wicked people, so their own condemnation of the believer for not joining them in their vices is ironically counterpointed by the life the believers now passed away (as well as those now living, speaking from a future perspective) enjoy in the Spirit in the hope they have in the resurrection (note again the parallel between "the body" and "the spirit" as in the previous verse). Even though condemned by their evil peers, the goal for the believer will always be to live in the Spirit. (cf. John 5:24) This is the only interpretation that does full justice to the context of 1 Peter 3-4; one may of course stretch the meaning further to justify reading in PME [as does Fackre: Nas.WAT, 152, who rather vaguely, but without detailed explanation, calls verses 3:18-20 and 4:6 "natural companions of the indications of hope for sufferers throughout the letter"], but the connection made by the interpretation above is far more cohesive.

(Michaels adds to this the idea that these justified dead include those in Israel's past who were righteous before God. He also finds a significant parallel in Wisdom of Solomon 3:4-7 -- "For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them [cf. 1 Peter 1:7], and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation [cf. 1 Peter 2:12] they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble." 1 Peter 4:6 is therefore an allusion to "certain well-known Jewish and Christian traditions about the suffering righteous and their ultimate vindication before God." Once again, the LDS interpretation is overturned by a much closer parallel within the historical and literary context!)

The only objection I have seen to this interpretation is that using the word "dead" alone in this way seems quite strange, and Peter ought to have used the phrase "those who have fallen asleep" to refer to Christians. However, not only does this deny a writer the right to choose his own vocabulary, it also assumes that this phrase was a universal way to refer to dead Christians, when in fact it only appears in the works of Paul. There is no indication that at this time it was more than a unique phrase used by Paul, and there is no other explanation that does justice to the larger context of 1 Peter.

7But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

If this refers to the end of the world as some critics allege, then what's the point in being sober and watching? The phrase "all things" is used 171 times in the KJV NT, and I challenge anyone to find a place where it clearly would not have "exceptions". This is a phrase that clearly and contextually means, "all that is relevant in this context." If it meant the end of the created order, what do we make of Mark 4:34? "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." All things? Including for example the mating habits of sea slugs? I guess the disciples are still sitting there now.

8And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. 9Use hospitality one to another without grudging. 10As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

How does charity (love) cover sins? The most likely views are [Acht.1P, 295-6; Cran.1P, 114; Grud.1P, 175-6] that "one who loves contributes to the divine forgiveness of his or her own sins" (supported by some patristic interpreters) or that "one who loves another overlooks by that act that other person's offenses..."; or that God's love covers sins. The second view is supported by parallels to Prov. 10:12 (though Cranfield adds that it does not match with the LXX version, which is what 1 Peter uses elsewhere), Matt. 18:21-2, and 1 Cor. 3:4-7, as well as the emphasis on mutuality in prior verses.

12Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

The "word for "busybody" [Best.1P, 164-5] is found nowhere else in Greek. Best suggests that it refers to a Christian whose missionary activity could stir up riots or break up families. Grudem [Grud.1P, 180] suggests a sense of "trouble maker" which from the perspective of unbelievers, would be a typical charge against a Christian whose beliefs upset the "status quo" by denying the pagan gods and thereby undermining the social foundation of the Empire. Kelly [Kell.1P, 189] suggests some sort of meddler, but says we can only speculate as to what this involved precisely. Michaels [267] draws a parallel to Stoic philosophers, of whom the same word was used, who appointed themselves guardians of public morality and went around doing rounds and taking pulses like physicians, metaphorically speaking. If Christians were indeed "meddling" in this way outside of their ingroup, it would have been taken as quite offensive.

16Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. 17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: 7Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

If this is so, what about 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, which refer to angels in chains? What of it, actually? 1 Peter refers only to a specific being, the devil; 2 Peter (and Jude 6) refer to a group of fallen angels of which Satan is not a part.N Note as well that this parallels Job, where Satan says that he has been "going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Yes, believe it or not, at least one skeptic places this passage against passages predicting Babylon's destruction. The idea that "Babylon" is figurative for Rome -- or perhaps Jerusalem -- as a city of evil or apostasy, doesn't occur to skeptical folks without requisite social background knowledge.

Best [Best.1P, 179] meanwhile believes that this use of "Babylon" points to a post-70 date for this letter, based on the slender reasoning that "Babylon" is not used to refer to Rome in Jewish literature until after 70, and that Jews probably would not borrow the term usage from Christians. Best does not seem to grasp how little imagination it would take to make this association of an evil city that oppressed God's chosen people with the present powers that were rife with evil and oppressed Christians, as would have been done prior to 70 for either Jerusalem or Rome.

"By Silvanus" [Davi.1P, 198f; Kell.1P, 215] could mean that Silvanus merely carried the letter, that he was a secretary, or that he wrote the whole letter at Peter's behest without much in the way of direction. Reference to writing "briefly" seems to rule out the first option. That Peter goes on the endorse Silvanus ("a faithful brother") suggests the third option over the second, since it would be more in line with the need to explain why Silvanus was qualified to write a letter on Peter's behalf. Kelly further supposes that merely being a scribe would be too important a task for Silvanus to have, though in this he perhaps underestimates the servant-orientation that someone like Silvanus may have had.

14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

The "kiss of charity" was either a greeting performed in coordination with the liturgical rites of the church (i.e., the Lord's Supper); or it was simply a standard greeting performed at normal greeting times. Favoring the latter is the point that in the Jewish and Greco-Roman world, a kiss was used as "a form of social respect" used to greet other parties. [Dunn, Romans commentary, 898; Black, 212]. A hint may come from the Hellenistic-Jewish document Joseph and Aseneth [Collins, 1 Cor. commentary, 612] in which Joseph refuses to kiss the priestess Aseneth in greeting while she is still a pagan, but once she becomes a Jew he does so. If this is any model, then the destruction of social distinctions ("neither male nor female"), and the purity rendered onto each believer by fellowship with Christ, suggests that the greeting was exchanged between all.

Sources