First Epistle of Peter

← Encyclopedia

The First Epistle of Peter is a brief letter in the New Testament, addressed to Christian communities scattered across the provinces of Asia Minor and written to steady them under social pressure and the threat of persecution. It opens by naming its recipients “exiles of the dispersion” — people living as resident strangers in their own towns — and its governing concern is how to bear suffering without bitterness or apostasy. The greeting traces a wide arc across the northern interior of the peninsula: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, five Roman provinces named in a sequence that follows, roughly, the route a carrier would walk — a clockwise circuit through what is now central and northern Turkey. These were not a single congregation but a spread of small assemblies, most of them probably converts of pagan rather than Jewish background, set down among neighbors who found their refusals strange: no civic gods honored, no participation in the festivals that bound a town together, an obstinate separateness that read, from outside, as contempt. The word the letter chooses for them — sojourners, aliens, those whose true citizenship lies elsewhere — is not metaphor smoothed into comfort but a description of their actual standing, exposed and without standing, in the only society they had.

The apostles Peter (left) and Paul, to whom the letter shows a notable thematic debt; oil on canvas by El Greco, c. 1587-1592, Hermitage Museum — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

The text presents itself as the work of the apostle Peter, writing from a place it calls Babylon, long read as a cover-name for Rome — the same coded substitution the Book of Revelation makes of the city, the seat of empire named for the old empire that had once carried Israel into exile. The choice is itself part of the argument: to write from Babylon to exiles is to fold the readers’ scattered, pressured present into the long Hebrew memory of life held in a hostile capital, faithful and far from home.

The Roman provinces of Asia Minor, the region named in the letter’s greeting — Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia all lie within it; map by Cplakidas, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

A people made out of titles

Its most quoted lines gather the readers into a single dignity: “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession,” language lifted whole from the Hebrew scriptures and turned toward a community of Gentile and Jewish converts who held no temple and no priestly caste of their own. The phrases are not new coinage. “A kingdom of priests and a holy nation” is what God calls Israel at Sinai in the Book of Exodus; “the people I formed for myself” is Isaiah’s; the movement from “not my people” to “my people” runs back through Hosea. The letter takes the whole vocabulary of covenant election — the titles that once marked out one nation among the nations — and lays them on a set of provincial households with no shrine, no altar, no hereditary priesthood, no land. What the Old Testament reserved for a people defined by blood and place, the epistle redistributes to a people defined by allegiance. The priesthood it names is held in common and offers no animal sacrifice; the temple it imagines is built of the believers themselves, living stones raised on a single cornerstone.

This is the letter’s central consolation and its central demand at once: that people without honor in their cities possess an honor that the cities cannot grant or withdraw. From it follows the practical counsel that fills the middle of the text. The readers are asked to return good for harm, to keep their conduct so plainly decent that the slanders against them collapse against the evidence, to honor the civic order — the emperor, the governors — even where that order menaces them, and to read their hardship not as a sign of abandonment but as a sharing in the sufferings of Christ. Suffering, on the letter’s account, is a furnace that proves faith as fire proves gold: not a punishment to be explained away but a testing whose outcome is worth more than the gold that perishes in the same flame. The household codes that follow — counsel to servants under harsh masters, to wives and husbands, to elders and the young — are addressed to people with little power, and they ask of the powerless a composure that refuses both submission of the soul and retaliation of the hand.

The spirits in prison

One passage has drawn centuries of comment out of proportion to its length: the claim that Christ, after his death, “went and preached to the spirits in prison.” From it the later creeds drew the article known as the descent into hell — the belief that Christ descended to the realm of the dead between his crucifixion and resurrection. The words themselves are spare and strange, and the tradition has read them in at least four incompatible ways. One line takes the passage at the surface the creeds drew from it: that in the interval before he rose, Christ went down to the dead and proclaimed something there. A second, traced to Augustine and revived by some later interpreters, hears no descent at all — the preexistent Christ preached, by the Spirit, through Noah to the doomed generation of Noah’s own day, the “spirits” being those long-dead hearers who had refused the warning. A third reads the imprisoned spirits not as human dead but as the fallen angels of Genesis — the rebellious “sons of God” whose transgression the Book of Enoch elaborated — bound in punishment, to whom the risen Christ announces not a rescue but a victory; the companion Second Epistle of Peter speaks in just such terms of angels cast into a pit. A fourth places the proclamation after the resurrection, the glorified Christ passing in triumph through the cosmic powers on his way to God’s right hand. A related verse a chapter later — that the gospel was preached even to the dead — deepens rather than settles the puzzle.

The descent into hell pictured as the Anastasis: Christ raises Adam and Eve over the shattered gates of death; Byzantine fresco, c. 1316-1321, Chora Church, Istanbul — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

What exactly the letter meant by the line, who the imprisoned spirits were, and whether the descent offered them deliverance have never been settled; the verse is among the most disputed in the New Testament. Its afterlife, however, is exact and traceable. The clause descendit ad inferos — “he descended to the realm of the dead” — entered the Western baptismal creeds by stages, attested in the Athanasian formula by the late fifth century and fixed in the Roman creed by the mid-seventh, until “he descended into hell” stood as a settled article between the cross and the empty tomb. The modern Roman catechism still anchors that article in this letter’s spirits-in-prison verse. A single difficult sentence in a pastoral letter became a load-bearing timber of the church’s confession of where Christ was, and what he did, in the silence of Holy Saturday.

The fire being suffered

What pressure the letter answers is itself a question that bears on its date. The suffering it names is real but diffuse: insult and slander, the cold of social exclusion, being spoken against as a wrongdoer, the readers urged to be ready to give an account of their hope to anyone who demands one — and to do it with gentleness, not defiance. There is no clear sign of the formal, state-organized persecution that later centuries would know, no edict, no tribunal, no naming the Name as a capital charge. The trial is the daily one of a despised minority among neighbors who have decided that the assemblies are antisocial, secretive, a danger to the order of the household and the city. Some read the closing reference to suffering “as a Christian” as an echo of the first moment the very name became actionable, which would point toward the correspondence the governor Pliny conducted with the emperor Trajan early in the second century over what to do with people who would not curse Christ; most locate the letter earlier, in the slower attrition that preceded any policy. Either way the letter’s strategy is the same and unmistakable: it refuses to let the readers answer contempt with contempt, insisting that the surest reply to the slander is a manner of life so visibly good that the charge cannot stick, and the surest comfort the knowledge that the fire is doing something — that it is a refining and not a verdict.

The shape of the text has prompted a further proposal. The long opening movement reads, to many interpreters, less like ordinary correspondence than like instruction given to the newly baptized: the language of being born again, of putting away the old life, of having been ransomed from an empty inherited way, of tasting that the Lord is good, of passing from darkness into light. On this reading a baptismal homily or catechesis has been set inside the frame of a letter, the address and the greeting wrapped around a body of teaching first shaped for the rite of initiation. Others find the seams too faint to cut along and read the whole as a unified pastoral letter from the start. The proposal is contested and unresolved, but it has fixed attention on a real feature: that the letter’s consolation is built out of the vocabulary of a new birth, addressed to people being told what they have just become.

The standing question of authorship

Who actually wrote the letter is the question that has most occupied its modern readers, and it is not the same question that hangs over the disputed letters of Paul. Here the issue is whether the fisherman of Galilee could have written, or dictated, a Greek as polished as this. The letter names Peter, yet its accomplished Koine, its sustained dependence on the Greek Old Testament rather than the Hebrew, and its apparent acquaintance with Pauline themes have led many critics to place it somewhat after the apostle’s lifetime, perhaps composed in his name by a follower — a practice not then regarded as forgery but as a recognized way of writing under the authority of a teacher’s name. On that reading the letter belongs to the later decades of the first century, some placing it in the reign of Domitian, when pressure on the assemblies of Asia Minor had hardened.

Others defend a direct or secretarial connection to Peter himself, noting the closing remark that the letter was written through Silvanus — the companion also known as Silas — taken as an amanuensis who could account for the quality of the Greek while the substance remained the apostle’s. On that reading the letter falls in the early sixties, before Peter’s death at Rome under Nero. The debate turns on the same features read in opposite directions: the very Greek that disqualifies the fisherman for one scholar is, for another, exactly what a literate secretary was for. What is not in dispute is the letter’s antiquity and its early standing. It was known to Polycarp, who quoted it; to Irenaeus, who drew on it freely; and the historian Eusebius set it among the books he called the acknowledged writings — the homologoumena, those whose place no part of the church had ever questioned. Whatever hand held the pen, the assemblies received it early and without argument as the voice of Peter.

Among the general epistles, and after

It is counted among the catholic, or general, epistles — the cluster that includes the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews in some reckonings, the Epistle of Jude, and the Second Epistle of Peter — distinguished from the letters of Paul by being addressed to the church at large rather than to a single named congregation with its quarrels and its names. That breadth of address shaped the letter’s reception. With no local crisis to date it or pin it down, it read in every later century as written to whoever held the book, and its phrases traveled accordingly. Its canonization was never seriously contested; from the earliest lists it sat among the secure books while its shorter companion, the Second Epistle, waited longer at the door.

For the traditions that received it, the letter became a manual for endurance under hostility, and its phrase “royal priesthood” was carried far beyond its first setting. In the Reformation it returned as warrant for the priesthood of all believers: Martin Luther, addressing the German nobility in 1520, made this letter’s second-chapter line his principal proof that every baptized Christian shares Christ’s priesthood and stands before God without a mediating caste — the clergy a function within the body, not a higher order of being. A verse written to console powerless aliens in Pontus and Bithynia became, a millennium and a half later, a lever against an entire ecclesiastical hierarchy. Within the Roman and Eastern churches the same line continued to name the dignity of the baptized without dissolving the ordained priesthood it elsewhere unseated — the phrase doing opposite work in opposite hands, each reading anchored in the same five words.

Martin Luther, who in 1520 made the letter’s “royal priesthood” line his proof for the priesthood of all believers; portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1528 — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

The text and its students

The Greek text rests on the major fourth- and fifth-century codices, with an early third-century witness in the Bodmer papyrus that carries Jude and both Petrine letters together — a manuscript pairing that mirrors the company the epistle keeps in the canon. The earliest external traces are the quotations: the testimony of the church fathers, gathered in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Petrine epistles, runs the line of reception from Polycarp and Irenaeus forward, and the historian Eusebius records that the letter stood unquestioned where his own age was still arguing over other books. Its opening address, with the five provinces and the Greek for the elect exiles of the dispersion, can be read against the ancient witnesses word by word.

Papyrus Bodmer VIII (part of the manuscript designated P72), the earliest known witness to 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, copied around the third century — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

The modern study of the letter turns on three knots. The authorship and date question — apostolic, secretarial, or pseudonymous — is the perennial one, the same evidence of language, Septuagint dependence, and Pauline contact carried into opposite verdicts. The spirits-in-prison passage has its own long literature; the four lines of reading set out above, the descent, the preaching through Noah, the fallen angels, the post-resurrection triumph, are surveyed together with the creedal history of the descent in the St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. And the reception of the royal-priesthood line, above all its turn in the sixteenth century, is its own field: the history of the priesthood of all believers traces how one verse addressed to the powerless became a Reformation principle. Across these the letter rewards close reading out of proportion to its five short chapters — a small text with a long train of consequences behind it.

Short, practical, and composed under strain, it reads less like argument than like a voice trying to hold a frightened community together.

→ Related: Second Epistle Of Peter · Epistle Of James · Epistle To The Hebrews · Second Epistle To The Corinthians · Canonization · New Testament · Old Testament · St Peter · Epistle Of Jude · Paul The Apostle · Christianity · Martin Luther · Jesus Christ