I PETER: ORIGINAL AUDIENCE

John Wenham, in his book The Enigma of Evil, has a chapter on the subject of Hell. One section of his discussion is entitled “Traditional Orthodoxy Not to be Surrendered Lightly.” He basically states, and I agree with him, that traditional Christian beliefs on a particular subject may possibly have errors in them that have crept in over the years. However, the reasons behind those beliefs should be studied very seriously before abandoning them in favor of the latest trend. The onus should be on those who go against the consensus option to present overwhelming arguments to counter what the majority of Christians believe. Although his statements apply mainly to doctrinal issues, not specific exegetical issues such as the subject at hand, I think his general approach is a sound one.

Of the eighteen commentaries in my library (and they include liberal and conservative authors from about every major denomination) which address this issue, all agree that I Peter is addressed to an all-Gentile or majority-Gentile audience. So I will try to summarize some of their arguments and include a few of my own.

To start with, it must be admitted that about the only thing harder to determine than the exact authorship and date of a biblical book is its intended audience, which often has to be guessed at based on subtle clues within the body of the letter. The situation of I Peter presents an interesting problem in which historical background, early church tradition, nature of the language used (literal or figurative), word studies, and the mode of the NT's use of OT scripture all come into play.

I Peter 1:1

“Exiles of the Dispersion” This sort of language (also found in 1:17 and 2:11) originally applied to the scattering of the people of Israel. That is not in question. However, in NT writings it could also refer to all believers being strangers and foreigners on this earth looking for a heavenly home (Hebrews 11:13-16; 13:14). Some have cite as a parallel the opening of the Epistle of James to prove that literal language is also being used in I Peter 1:1. Interestingly, R.V.G. Tasker (Tyndale Commentaries, James) actually uses the reverse logic, which is also possible. He believes that the Epistle of James was written to all Christians, not just Jewish ones, by appealing to the analogous language of I Peter 1:1, which almost everyone agrees is a metaphorical reference to all Christians.

Even assuming for the moment that James was writing to ethnic Jews (and most commentators agree to that fact), that does not prove that Peter utilized similar phrases in the same manner. One telling factor to note is that the historical situation in the church had changed drastically between the time James was writing (probably well before the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD when the question of even allowing Gentiles into fellowship without prior circumcision was up for discussion) and the situation in 62-68 AD when I Peter was written (after Paul had completed all of his missionary journeys). The fairly consistent pattern in Acts is that Paul first preaches to a small group of Jews or at a synagogue in a new town; a few Jews are receptive to the message along with Gentile God-fearers; most of the Jews in the town are not convinced or openly antagonistic so Paul turns exclusively to the Gentiles, who rapidly constitute the majority in the fledgling churches in the Roman world. Especially see Paul turning his back on the Jews in order to concentrate on the Gentiles in Acts 13:46, 18:6 and 28:28.

One friend of mine stated, “I’m pretty sure that some of the people living where the dispersed Jewish Christians lived (the pagans or non-believers) heard the Gospel and became Christians, but I am confident that Peter, Paul, and Barnabas were fulfilling God’s plan to bring the dispersed back into the fold.” It would be more consistent with the historical account at the time of I Peter's writing to say, “I'm pretty sure that some of the Jews dispersed in pagan lands became Christians along with the converted Gentiles.” Even early on in church history (49 AD), the Jerusalem church could write a letter to Gentile Christians living in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23).

I agree that Peter, Paul and Barnabas were indirectly fulfilling God's plan to bring a remnant of the dispersed back into the fold, but not in the manner suggested. Paul specifically outlines his plan in Romans 9-11. It is best summarized in Romans 11:13: “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them.” Note Paul's self-identification as “an apostle to the Gentiles,” which also occurs in Acts 9:15 and 22:21. This is quite different from the implication I was given in my friend's comment: “We hear these people called the ten 'lost' tribes of Israel, but God had not forgotten them and was, in the first century period of the 'ekklesia,' fulfilling His promise to bring them back into the fold. This was the primary mission given to Paul and Barnabas.”

There is also the confusing appeal to Ephesians 2:12, which seems to rely on the very mistaken notion that it was written to a Jewish audience. As far as I am aware, Paul does not directly address Jewish Christians in any of his letters (in keeping with his role as apostle to the Gentiles). So the common language in Ephesians and I Peter actually helps prove that I Peter is also written to a predominantly Gentile audience. Paul is teaching, as almost all scholars believe, that the Gentiles were once excluded from status as God's people, but that is no longer the case.

And a further appeal to Hebrews 8:8-10 is more than a little strange. After quoting these words from Jeremiah 31, the author of Hebrews goes on to interpret these verses as showing that Jesus has fulfilled this prophecy already and that the reconstituted people of God are all those who believe, whether Jewish or Gentile by background. This teaching is, of course, consistent with all that Paul has to say on the subject when he stresses, among other things, that being a true child of Abraham has nothing to do with one's lineage.

All this aside, what is the probability that Peter would be writing to an all- or mainly-Gentile audience instead of his fellow Jews? In favor of the concept are the following facts: (a) Peter brags in Acts 15:7 that he was the instrument God chose to first bring the Gospel message to the Gentiles; (b) he was the primary champion of adding Gentiles to the Church without first requiring them to be circumcised; (c) most of his ministry after being chased out of Jerusalem took place in primarily Gentile territory (Galatians 2:11, I Corinthians 1:12, and I Peter 5:13 (Babylon almost certainly stands for Rome in this last reference, as in Revelation and according to early church tradition); (d) the letter closes by addressing “all of you who are in Christ”; and (e) II Peter is widely addressed to “those who have received a faith as precious as ours.” Considering the late date of Peter's writing, this last point indicates a mainly Gentile audience.

I Peter 1:14

“former ignorance” – Ignorance is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to Gentiles (Acts 17:23,30). The idea is also expressed by the word “darkness” as in Ephesians 5:8.

“desires” – It is terms like this as well as the more obvious descriptions of the audience's former life in 2:11-12,16,25; 3:10-12; 4:2-5 that provide the strongest evidence in most commentators' minds that the letter is addressed to former non-believing Gentiles. The sort of past immoral behavior being described does not fit at all for Jews, who were admired by many pagans for their upright behavior. To describe his past audience's history as a bunch of renegade Jews who freely indulged in pagan hedonism is simply beyond belief (see note on 2:12 below for the meaning of the word “Gentiles” in this context).

I Peter 2:10

However, Peter quotes Hosea in those verses indicating that the dispersed ten tribes were 'no longer a people.'” While Hosea was originally referring to the dispersed tribes, the NT (as it does with practically all “fulfilled” OT prophecies) uses OT verses typically, analogously and/or metaphorically to apply to Christ and/or the Church, in this case referring specifically to former non-believing Gentiles. Just look at how Paul uses this same Hosea passage in Romans 9:24-25 to prove this point. Paul specifically states that it applies to the Church, containing both Jews and Gentiles. One needs to carefully study the way NT authors (re)interpret OT passages in order to appreciate how different it is from the rather wooden, literal manner in which dispensationalists (in particular) utilize OT prophecy to refer only to the Jewish people. Some good reference books like J. Barton Payne's Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy or Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament will give a better appreciation of how nuanced and non-obvious the NT approach actually is.

Appeal to Jesus' words in John 10:16 about “other sheep” is not particularly persuasive either since, again, almost all commentators explain this as a clear reference to the Gentiles. Paul picks up on this language when he talks on several occasions about the mystery now revealed of God making one people out of two, referring to the Church being formed from believing Jews and Gentiles.

I Peter 2:12

This verse doesn't provide nearly as persuasive an argument as it first appears. In the NT, the term “Gentiles” is also used to describe those who are not Christians (I Corinthians 5:1, 12:2; Matthew 6:7; Acts 4:25). The word “dogs,” originally applied to ethnic Gentiles, also refers to non-Christians in Philippians 3:2 and Revelation 22:15.

1 Pet. 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Again, “darkness” most appropriately describes the situation of the Gentiles, not the Jews who, as Paul states in Romans, had every advantage and were uniquely in the light of God's truth. Although there are not any direct quotes from the OT here, the language used is from Exodus, Deuteronomy and other passages where it originally applied to the Jewish people. That is not in dispute. The question is, “How is Peter using this language in his present context?” To say that these phrases can only apply to the Jewish people is to ignore some key texts.

Revelation 5:9-10 “...by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God...”

Acts 15:14 “My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name.”

Revelation 1:5b-6 “To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father...”

II Corinthians 6:14:16 “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness?...For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 'I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'”

Titus 2:14 “He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.”

The first two examples specifically refer to Gentiles, and the others address situations in predominantly Gentile churches.

“Chosen” (or elect) in the OT always refers to the Jewish people but can also refer in the NT to Christians. A quick look at a concordance for the NT occurrences of this word, especially in the addresses of epistles to predominantly Gentile churches will show that the onus is definitely on those who feel the usage is different in this particular case.

Romans 15:8

“For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers.”

Oddly, some people quote this verse as demonstrating that that I Peter is addressed to a Jewish audience. However, as long as it is, it can actually be used to prove that Gentiles are the intended recipients. The above is only a partial quote. The rest of it goes, “and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, 'Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name'; and again he says, 'Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people; and again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him' and again Isaiah says, 'The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope.'”

Yes, Jesus as well as Peter and Paul did come to fulfill the promise given to Israel. However, this was not to be accomplished by physically reuniting the twelve tribes of Israel on earth, but through the fact that all mankind, Jew and Gentile, would come to God and be united as one people glorifying His name through Christ's redeeming actions. This is the mystery hidden through the ages that Paul talks about. See the very thorough study by Beale and Gladd entitled Hidden But Now Revealed.

Finally, there is the overarching issue in exegesis regarding the nature of the language used, whether literal or figurative. I have been arguing a mainly figurative interpretation of several of the key passages, but is that probable? There are several tests in general to distinguish between the two types of language, but in this case the only one that might be of use is to consider the context of the overall genre. Poetry, parables, and most prophetic literature are loaded with similes and metaphors, etc. History and law books in the Bible are mainly literal. 

Epistles, unfortunately, fall half-way in between. Therefore one has to look at the particular epistle for examples of definitely figurative language in other passages. In the case of I Peter (and even more so in II Peter) it is obvious that the author enjoys using picturesque language including quotations from OT poetry (1:24-25; 2:6-8; 2:10; 2:22; 3:10-12; 4:18 and 5:5b) and similes (1:14; 1:18; 1:19; 2:2; 2:5; 2:16; 2:25; 5:8). Obvious metaphorical language is also present in such phrases as “sprinkled with his blood,” “new birth,” tested by fire,” “the time of your exile,” a lamb without defect or blemish,” “spiritual milk,” living stones,” spiritual house,” “shepherd and guardian of your souls,” etc. Notice that most of these examples come from the first half of the epistle, where the problematic language regarding the probable audience appears.