1.The literary relationship between these two texts does not necessitate the conclusion that these epistles are similar works, addressing the same problems, issues, and readers or with the same historical contexts. In fact, the opposite has stronger supporting evidence, that they are indeed two very different texts, with different historical backgrounds, readers, problems, and heresies. The fact that one of them has reworked some of the other’s material is a separate matter altogether. (Again, for details on all of these discussions, see Neyrey, 1980, Fornberg, 1977, and Bauckham, 1983.)
“Correspondence of 1 Peter” (woodcut by Weigel, 1695). Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.
Chapter 1 The Transformed Life in the Context of Suffering, Grace, Hope, and Love (1:1–2:10)
Author, Audience, and Abundant Grace (1:1–2)
Overview
The beginning of the epistle sets both the author and the readers within the framework of one of the issues which would stimulate future theological controversy and excitement, viz., the foreknowledge of God. These verses are a striking example of the advanced level of the Greek grammar and style of the epistle. They are comprised of one sentence (two, if you count the grace‐and‐peace blessing as one), followed by three dependent clauses describing the nature of Peter’s apostleship and the character of the recipients’ relation to the triune God:
according to the foreknowledge of God.
through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling of his blood.
Ancient Receptions
Some of the fathers, among them Cyril of Alexandria (375–444), Oecumenius (d. 990), and Theophylact (c. 1050–1108, Comm. on 1 Peter), read these three prepositional phrases in v.2 as modifying “apostle,” thus substantiating the authority of Peter’s apostleship. On the other hand, Bede associates God’s foreknowledge with the recipients: “they were chosen … [so] they might be sanctified” (Comm., 1985: 70). In any case, the intriguing issue is God’s foreknowledge. Of course, the famous controversies about predestination and free will would be further developed in the later Reformation with Calvin, Arminius (1560–1609), and many others.
At an earlier time (c. 200–300), interest centered on the nature of God’s knowledge and what that meant. For example, Origen discusses this in the context of the role of the Spirit in the Trinity, especially in revelation:
We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. (Origen, 1973, 1:3–4: ccel.org)
For Didymus the Blind (313–398) foreknowledge is a matter of perspective; he comments that “foreknowledge … becomes knowledge as the things which are foreseen take place.” So, although Peter’s readers had already been chosen according to God’s foreknowledge, “by the time he was writing to them their election had already taken place” (Comm. on 1 Peter, 19–20, PG 39: 1755–1756: my tr.).
Perhaps Didymus anticipates the larger issue to come regarding predestination, since he addresses some of the problems raised later. He says that God’s sovereignty is “beautiful and comforting … being chosen relies not on our worthiness and merit … but on the hand of God and … his mercy” (Didymus: ibid.). Therefore, it is certain and cannot fail. It would seem that Bede also anticipates the later contentious issues of predetermination, when he indicates that it is a cooperative effort between us and God which brings about the reality of heaven: “No one by his own effort alone can become worthy of achieving eternal salvation by his own strength” (Comm., 72: ACC).
Reformation
Later, Calvin would use this passage as one of the preeminent supports for his doctrine of election:
Hence when Peter calls them elect according to the foreknowledge of God, he is showing that the cause of it depends simply on God alone, because he of his own free will has chosen us. Thus the foreknowledge of God excludes every worthiness on the part of man (Calvin, Comm., 1963: 230).
In contrast, Arminius reads vv.1–2 as a refutation of Calvin’s thesis of foreknowledge as election. He defines “foreknowledge” as the knowledge of something before it happens. Although God knows who will believe, he does not cause it; those whom he foreknows, he also elects to be saved (for the first translation from the Dutch and explanation of Arminius’ Declaration of Sentiments, see Stephens, 2012).
John Bengel (1687–1752), a learned German exegete, wrote a commentary on the whole Bible which has influenced and continues to influence biblical scholars. He points out that Peter’s words on foreknowledge here (along with v.20) are broad concepts, incorporating also good‐will and love; in fact, he understands this reference to include the mystery of the Trinity as a summary of the entire epistle (1981: 727). We see little if anything of the controversial issues to come. Peter will address this issue in more detail later in the epistle.
John Wesley goes further and sidesteps the entire issue of sovereignty and free will: “there is no foreknowledge or after‐knowledge. All is present to God” (WesleyCenterOnline: ccel.org).
Other Interpretations
Several later faith groups have made strong statements about the implications of this position. For example, the Mennonite Articles of Faith (1766/1895/1902) go so far as to contend that:
It is therefore contrary to the renewed nature of the believers and in antagonism with it, to sin. Moreover, they are carefully watched over and kept (1 Pet. 2:25). (Pelikan, vol. III, part V: 172)
The Declaration of Faith of the New Hampshire Baptist Convention (1833–1853) more generally maintains that, “We believe that election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners” (Pelikan III, V: 245). The Confessional Statement of the United Presbyterian Church emphasizes the process of sanctification more than the nature of election.
Thomas Vincent (1634–1678), an English Puritan minister and author, ascribed to the reformed theory of election, but was evidently most interested in sanctification. He describes the process in some detail, maintaining that it is present in all Christians, but is further developed in them over time. For example, “True Christians are sanctified wholly, in their whole man, though they be not sanctified thoroughly … Their whole spirit is sanctified, that is, the higher faculties of the soul, namely, the understanding and the will” (1812: 19–20: digitalpuritan.net).
Some modern scholars take this reference to God’s foreknowledge in the context of
