A Brief Introduction to the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter

Bible Study

Introduction to First Peter

AUTHORSHIP

Through the years, many have denied that the Apostle Peter wrote the two epistles that bear his name. If it is true that Peter never wrote these two epistles, it is difficult to know whether or not we can trust any word of Scripture. If we cannot trust the author to tell us truly who he is, how are we to trust him to direct us to God?

In favor of Petrine authorship.

The book claims to have been written by Peter (1:1). The author claims to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ sufferings (5:1).

There is something of a resemblance between this epistle and Peter’s speeches in Acts. Using the words of Psalm 118:22, Peter referred to Jesus as the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:10-11; 1 Pet. 2:7-8). Peter referred to the cross as a tree (Acts 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:24).

The early church accepted the book as Petrine. There is no discussion in the literature from antiquity of anyone but Peter being the author. It seems to me that those closest to the New Testament era would have a better idea than we.

Mark is referred to as Peter’s “son” (5:13). Tradition associates Peter and Mark. Tradition attributes Peter as the source of Mark’s gospel (This is why Mark was accepted in the canon—his association with an apostle).

What arguments do some use against Petrine authorship?

The book is written in well-polished Greek. Critics claim that since Peter and John were “uneducated, common men” (Acts 4:13), Peter could not have written in good Greek. The rulers in Acts really meant that Peter and John did not have a rabbinical education. Just because Peter did not have a formal education does not mean that he couldn’t have written well. Peter also claims to have written with the ° aid of Silvanus (5:12). It is highly possible that Silvanus helped Peter with his Greek.

The book does not mention explicit details of Jesus’ life. This argument alleges that when discussing Christ’s sufferings in chapter two, the author shows no first-hand knowledge. Just because Peter doesn’t go into detail about Jesus’ sufferings in no way means that he did not witness them. This argument is rather subjective anyway.

The book mentions persecution. There isn’t any evidence that Nero’s persecution during which Peter died ever went outside of Rome. Some claim that the persecution in 1 Peter doesn’t sound anything like persecutions which occurred during Peter’s life—according to this view, the persecution in 1 Peter occurred in the second century. However, the persecution in 1 Peter sounds quite a bit like the local persecutions described in Acts.

There are parallels between 1 Peter and the Pauline corpus. Some examples of these parallels.

  • 1 Peter 2:11-3:7 with Ephesians 5:18-6:9; Colossians 3:18-4:6; and Romans 13:1-4.
  • Isaiah 28:16 is connected with 8:14 in Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:6-8.
  • The vice list in Romans 13:13 is similar to the one in 1 Peter 4:3.
  • 1 Peter 3:8-9; 4:7-11 give similar admonitions to Romans 12.
  • Romans 5:3-5 uses a chain saying found in 1 Peter 1:6-7.

The argument is that 1 Peter is too dependent upon Paul’s writings to be authentic—the author of 1 Peter borrowed too heavily from Paul to have been an original apostle. Refutation:

  • Could Peter and Paul not have written similar instructions to different audiences?
  • The Silvanus mentioned in 1 Peter 5:12 is likely the same person mentioned in Paul’s epistles (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). These similarities could come through Silvanus.

There is no sound reason to reject Petrine authorship.

Would the early church have accepted a forgery? Could someone have convinced the church that he found a letter written by Peter long after Peter’s death? Would the Christians have been so gullible, especially knowing that forgeries were circulating. Paul tells the Thessalonians not to be troubled by a “letter purporting to be from us” (2 Thess. 2:2). We can gather from this that false letters with the apostles’ names did circulate in the early church. Yet, they were known to be forgeries.

DATE

Clement quotes from the letter in AD 96. Peter likely died in AD 64-65, so the letter obviously had to have been written before then. A date a year or two before his death is likely.

RECIPIENTS

Peter identifies his recipients as “the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1). These territories were in the northwest quadrant of Asia Minor in what is now modern Turkey. This verse has often been taken to mean that the book’s recipients were Jewish.

However, the book clearly identifies the readers as Gentile converts. The readers were not to “be conformed to the passions” of their “former ignorance” (1:14). The readers had been redeemed from the “futile ways inherited” from their fathers (1:18). The readers had once been no people but had become “God’s people” (2:10). The implication here is that the readers had never been God’s people. Women who are submissive to their husbands are “now” Sarah’s children (3:6). The Gentiles are surprised that the book’s readers no longer join them in wild parties (4:3-4).

The thesis of this Book seems to be that the church is the new Israel.

PLACE OF WRITING

Due to the Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope, many of our brethren want to deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

However, the evidence suggests that this book was written from Rome. Church tradition identifies Rome as the place of Peter’s death.

Peter ends his book by referring to the church in Babylon (5:13). Babylon seems to be a code word for Rome as it is in Revelation. Many say that “Babylon” became synonymous with Rome after Peter’s death—another evidence that this book was written by someone other than Peter. However, the best evidence suggests that Revelation was written shortly after the death of Nero.


This Bible class was originally taught by Dr. Justin Imel, Sr., at the Owingsville church of Christ in Owingsville, Kentucky.

Share with Friends: