Virtual Vestry ~ The Letters of Peter

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Since studying this letter from Peter, I have been thinking about what it means to build a community from a group of people escaping threats and persecution. I try to imagine all the issues they have been experiencing.

So, this leads to my first questions.

1. Tell me your thoughts; from historical context and written text, what were probably some of the issues these religious refugees faced or lived with?
2. What value do you think their faith and spiritual journeys have in this context?

1. Note Peter's comparison with being finished with sins and following the will of God. Practically, what might that look like?
2. Ch 4:3-5. Look at that list and compare it with the concept of "sin is the willingness to cause harm to get what you want". What might that have meant in behavior? What harm might be being caused...? And to whom?
3. Why do you think Peter used the iteration of God "my God is Salvation and has been anointed to be the suffering Messiah" to be the judge?
4. How does this compare with the picture you find in Zechariah 3: 1-7?
5. How would you explain vs. 6.... that makes judgement a very different thing?
6. Why do you think Peter wrote "love covers a multitude of sins"?
7. In 1st Century CE in the diaspora, why would practicing hospitality be important?
8. Vs. 11 We will be strengthened by what God (notice nomenclature) supplies and because to that God Lohim will be glorified (self sacrificing love the Jesus Christ.... the names... and glory.... are all important.... How does this fit together for you?
9. Vs. 14 ....this reminds me of Jim saying....well if you get hate mail, you are doing something right. What do you make of it?
10. What do you think it means to bear the name of God?
11. What do you think it means to trust your soul to a faithful Creator?

Addressing leadership issues:

1. Why would Peter give his readers an experiential CV in verse 1

2. How do these experiences fit into Peter's description of being a church leader?

3. What do you make of this? Why would Peter set up both the structure.... as in spouses.... and the admonition?
4. Vs. 6 what do you make of the concept of humbling by trusting enough to cast your cares upon God?
5. How does this contrast with some of the pagan worship practices mentioned earlier in the letter?

6. What would the description of the devil's "going about as a roaring lion" evoke to 1st Century minds?
7. What do you think knowing there are others suffering mean to the readers/hearers of this letter?
8. What do you think vs. 10 might have meant to 1st century believers of The Way?

Are there texts that people who know or know of have misappropriated. How would you answer them?

What have you found, learned, talked about, and puzzled over in this study of 1st Peter that was new or interesting to you?

I wish for you unexpected blessings.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes

There's a couple of things I want to think about with you before I get into the text this week.

1. Grief and Biblical Appropriation: When I am facilitating, I want to begin to more deliberately include specified time for us to share our feelings about the way theologians and organizations have used certain words and phrases found in the Biblical text for their own goals that have nothing to do with understanding the meaning of Biblical writers or the principles they were trying to share. I think those issues are different than a study of what the author meant in the context in which the author wrote.
2. Principles: Policies: Practices: Present Truth - lenses to use in understanding Biblical texts. Principles from the origin stories include:
   1. Power is to be used to serve, nurture, and care for other living beings.
   2. All relationships are sacred.
   3. We will need to choose between love and power.
   4. Sin is the willingness to cause harm to get what you want.
   Policies are an effort to put the principles into practice at specified times, cultures, and places in history. Principles are eternal. Policies are not.
3. 1 Peter 2:4-10 - My thinking, at the moment, is that this text is absolutely core to everything he writes afterwards.

My understanding of this text is based on Matthew 16:18 - Jesus is using a play on words here: The Greek is petros - small stone. And then Jesus says upon this Petra (large stone that can be used as a foundation... I will build my church. The smaller stone is part or from the Original Foundation. Jesus, despite knowing Peter will betray him... and do other stupid things... says Peter is a part of Him....the foundation stone. And my understanding of what Peter is saying in his first letter is that he would like other followers of Jesus to be part of that Foundation Stone...to have the qualities of that foundation stone... and everything Peter is asking of the people to whom he wrote the letter is to live out the principles in their context.

The other analogy in that text is to the Hebrew Levitical Priesthood - and it's a powerful one... The Levites had lost their inheritance, because of their violence, and then were transformed, because of their loyalty, to being the representatives of God. To put it in New Testament terms... they became pebbles part of a cornerstone. These new believers are becoming followers of Edenic principles.

I am going to read and discuss in sections and we'll ask questions based on them.

• In vs 1 - when Peter talks about Jesus suffering in the flesh and tells his readers "with the same attitude" - to what suffering at that time might he be referring?
• Note Peter's comparison with finished with sins and following the will of God. Practically, what might that look like?
• Vs. 3-5 look at that list and compare it with the concept of "sin is the willingness to cause harm to get what you want". What might that have meant in behavior? What harm might be being caused... and to whom?
• Why do you think Peter used the iteration of God "my God is Salvation and has been anointed to be the suffering Messiah" to be the judge?
• How does this compare with the picture you find in Zechariah 3:1-7?
• How would you explain vs. 6... that makes judgement a very different thing?
• Why do you think Peter wrote "love covers a multitude of sins"?
• In 1st Century CE in the diaspora, why would practicing hospitality be important?
• Vs. 11 We will be strengthened by what God (notice nomenclature) supplies and and because to that God Lohim will be glorified (self sacrificing love the Jesus Christ... the names.. and glory... are all important... How does this fit together for you?
• Vs. 14... this reminds me of Jim saying... well if you get hate mail, you are doing something right. What do you make of it?
• What do you think it means to bear the name of God?
• And what do you think it means to trust your soul to a faithful Creator?

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I have long believed that some of the more difficult passages in the Bible are about the treatment of women. Mainly because these passages have been used to oppress women and give men an undeserved privilege. The beginning of 1 Peter 3 is a case in point. It is possible that, in Peter's time, he was saying something quite groundbreaking in support of women, at least that's my assumption. But they have not necessarily been used in support of women since.

I am tempted to simply write them off, after all, the Bible is not perfect. But then, I was reading an article I came across that discussed an ugly online fight between a group of women who were Christian Nationalist social media influencers. One of the group had posted a picture of an engagement ring on her finger with the words "I won". What followed was anything but Christian as the other members of the group began to tear her down, flinging ugly racist and misogynistic taunts at her. It was clear that this was a fight for status and if you couldn't win yourself then you have to make sure no-one else did.

Somewhere in all of this, I began to wonder if Peter had a point. I began to wonder if what Peter was addressing was not a blanket statement to unfairly restrict women but an attempt to address something more specific. Was there something going on in the church(s) Peter was writing to? Was there a principle here about not competing with each other in regards to status? If there is, then the principle also applies to men and not just women.

I believe that Peter's words were both culturally and situationally bound, but there is a point about not competing for status and treating each other with love and respect. I also believe these principles apply to both men and women.

Much of Peter's advice to husbands and wives, if taken literally and with an agenda in mind, may be harmful. However, there are some things I would like to discuss.

• What cultural and situational factors are we aware of relating to Peter's advice?
• What are your takeaway principles?
• Is there a broader discussion about the misappropriation of scripture? Should we care?

• Verse 9 advises us to repay evil and abuse with a blessing or good. Discuss
• Verses 10-12 implies that those who do good will have a long happy life while God is against those who do bad - Discuss.

The theme of suffering is an important one for us to deal with and Peter doesn't shy away from it. Verses 13-18 were written to a church that is small, struggling and likely suffering persecution.

• If you were in that situation, what would these words mean to you?
• How might these words be applied (or misapplied) when we are not under persecution?

• Discuss

• What are your takeaway messages from 1 Peter 3?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

There's a lot in this chapter... including two very difficult texts:

vv 13-14: For the Lord's sake, submit to all human authority - whether the king as head of state, or the officials he has appointed

v 18: You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you - not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

I'm going to cheat and ask us to look at verse 13 to the end of the chapter and then, time permitting, we'll look at vv 1-12.

Vv 13-17 contains one of those scriptural injunctions that is rather difficult to deal with, particularly in our modern world of democracies. What are we to make of this instruction?

Context: Peter wrote this during the Roman Empire, a non-Christian government with pagan leadership. Christians were often viewed with suspicion and faced persecution (see the previous verse in which Peter talks about the 'unbelieving neighbours' and their false accusations). It is doubtful if Peter had ever had exposure to - or had even considered at all - anything like a modern democracy.

Here's a possible interpretation for our times:

"This passage calls believers to respect and obey governmental authorities, even when the government isn't explicitly Christian, so long as it does not require disobedience to God."

• Is that a good interpretation? Does it add anything unnecessary to the original text?
• Does this injunction preclude Christians getting involved in political action? Particularly when that political action is in opposition to the legally appointed government?
• Verse 17 ends with "Fear God, and respect the king". How do you do both of those things?
• A spoiler alert: Chap 3:1 and 3:7 (and, arguably 3:8) contain similar injunctions about 'submission'. Do you think that those texts, along with 2:13-17 and 18-20, are all of a piece?

Our era is very alert to the power structures that are present in our society - I would argue that the politics of the left in the last decade has been primarily engaged with deciphering just who has the power. Terms like 'structural racism', 'patriarchy', etc have entered the lexicon and been much discussed.

• Are Peter's instructions here hopelessly old-fashioned?
• If you could add an addendum to Peter's words to help us in 2025, what would it say?

1 Peter 2:13-25 urges Christians to respect earthly authorities, not because those authorities are perfect, but "for the Lord's sake." It's an appeal to act out of reverence for God, not out of fear of man.

1. Submit to Human Institutions (vv 13-14)
   • Christians are called to cooperate with civil and governmental structures.
   • This includes both high-level rulers and local officials.
   • The purpose: to contribute to societal order and reflect Christ-like behavior.
2. Do Good as a Form of Resistance (v 15)
   • Doing good silences critics and undermines slander.
   • Christians are to be known for moral excellence, even under unjust regimes.
3. Live as Free People — But Not Selfishly (v 16)
   • Christian freedom is not license for rebellion, disrespect, or moral compromise.
   • True freedom means willingly serving God, even when under human authority.

• What's the best way for a Christian to behave in an unjust regime?
• What's the best way for a Christian to behave in a just regime?

In the antebellum south of the US, Christian slaveholders frequently invoked New Testament texts - including Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10, and notably 1 Peter 2:18-20 - to argue that slavery was biblically sanctioned and morally acceptable. The broader New Testament instruction for servants to obey their masters was presented as divine order. Advocates claimed that obedience to masters - even harsh ones - was a demonstration of Christian duty and submission to God's authority.

In the British West Indies - and to some extent in the American South - 1720s‑1800s editions of the "Slave Bible" were published. These heavily redacted versions emphasized passages like 1 Peter 2:18 ("Servants, obey your masters...") while omitting significant portions of the Old Testament (eg, Exodus, which contains stories of liberation and justice). By presenting only statements of submission and obedience, these Bibles leveraged biblical text for social control, aligning faith-based instruction with oppression.

Prominent Southern theologians and ministers, such as James Henley Thornwell, preached that slavery was consistent with Christian teaching, often affirming that it was within God's design - even though they emphasised humane treatment - thereby giving theological backing to the institution.

Pro-slavery intellectuals and religious leaders formed the ideological backbone of the Confederacy, publishing collections like The Pro-Slavery Argument (by writers including Thomas R. Dew and James H. Hammond) that defended slavery using Biblical imagery.

Modern theological scholarship strongly rejects such usage of Scripture as unethical and theologically unsound. Today, attempts are made to understand passages such as 1 Peter in light of their historical context. Their exploitative deployment in the American South remains a sobering example of how Scripture can be misapplied when divorced from its ethical and contextual framework.

• Can you argue against the line of reasoning used by the pro-slavery advocates and outlined above?
• Can you argue using scripture alone? Or must you appeal to ideas from outside scripture?
• No-one in our discussion would condone slavery in any shape or form. It is abhorrent to us.
  • How can you best articulate a principle that 'just seems right'?
  • Is it enough that something 'just seems right' to us? Do we need scriptural authority to hold a position?
  • Could this discussion be yet another example of our old philosophical friend, the 'Euthyphro dilemma' ( Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? ). Can we, as Christians, say that something is - unequivocally, definitely, certainly - wrong, if we have no Biblical text we can point at? In other words, can something be good even if God is silent/ambiguous on the topic? Give examples of some principle you hold that does not have any direct scriptural context.

Let's get back to the start of the chapter. Verses 1-3 seem to me to be a continuation of the previous chapter, and we shall skip over them here.

Verses 4-11 sets up a complex metaphor involving stones. Further, practically every verse echoes a text or two from the Old Testament (Psalm 117, Isaiah, Hosea, Exodus). This passage is usually understood as forming a conclusion to the exhortations beginning in 1:13. A line of thought beginning with the idea of rebirth, continuing through the idea of growth, finds its conclusion in the call to be "built up" into a holy people.

• Do the 'stone' and 'living stone' metaphors work for you?
• What do you make of v9 where Peter says "you are royal priests, a holy nation, God's very own possession"? Are you a priest? What does that mean?
• In v12 Peter seems very concerned with how a Christian should appear to their neighbours. This is a repeated theme so far in this letter. Do you have any insight into, or ideas as to why this is so important to Peter?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Read also:

• Matthew 16:18
  I name you Petros (a small stone) and on this petra (a large or foundation stone) I will build my church and even the power of death will not overtake it.
• Mark 14:66-72
  ...and he denied it...and he denied it....and he denied it.
• John 21:15-19
  ...feed my sheep...feed my sheep...feed my sheep.
• Acts 10
  ...what God has made clean you should not consider ritually unclean....Cornelius the centurion a righteous and God-fearing man... was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house.

1. They remind me of Peter's journey to learn the character of God. We've talked a lot about being confused about how God is working with people of the Old Testament. Well evidently Peter was also confused and needed some instruction - about God's feelings toward him... and toward others.
2. They remind me that God is using us fallible mortals of all ilk to demonstrate to others Heaven's love and healing.
3. There are people (even those who are part of an oppressive system) who may invite us to visit...
4. I think Peter's letter did not come to mind like Venus being born on the half-shell (without context)... it is a result of his journey toward and with God, the results of his choices to follow what he learned, the time period in which he wrote, and the audience that was the object of his care.

• What qualities of Peter's journey do you think contributed to or made possible this letter?

There are, of course, two differing thoughts about when Peter sent his letter off to what is now northern Turkey:

1. In or around 63 CE during the time of Nero's reign. (Nasty piece of work from a truly crazy family)
2. 81-96 CE during the time of Domitian's reign (Another truly nasty piece of work who somehow arrived on the planet into a rather honorable family. Vespasian and his older son Titus initiated economic and cultural reforms. Titus is reported to have wept when his soldiers set fire to the temple in Jerusalem.)

In this section I am going to use the more exact translation of names because how we call ourselves affects how we are heard.

1. Why do you think Petros described himself as an apostle?
2. Why do you think he was clear to say he is an apostle of Yahweh Saves; The Anointed One?

The term used for the hearers can mean resident foreigners or those living temporarily in the locations mentioned in the letter. This seems to indicate persecution or some form of diaspora.

3. Given possibility of persecution why do you think Petros might be writing this note. What do you think are his goals?

The Greek word for "chosen" used in verse 1 can be read as "chosen sojourners" and indicate their entire existence. Given the Calvinism we have studied this may read like some are chosen and some are not chosen by God.

4. What are your ideas about the notion of being chosen? Of course, I am chomping at the bit to get my ideas in but, this discussion belongs to all of us.

An alternate translation of the last phrase is "may grace and peace be multiplied in your" - clearly indicates they already have some and that Petros is not just wanting some added but some multiplied.

5. The phrase could be a proforma, but it can also be a wish for these particular people. Why do you think Petros may have written to this group specifically?

An expanded note on the word Blessed can also mean Praised.

6. How do you think the different uses might affect the meaning to the hearers?

I think that the phrase "by His great mercy" could harken Jewish believers back to the temple and its services. Depending on what might be an accurate date for the writing, the temple is still functioning or has been functioning in recent memory. Yom Kippur = Day of Mercy. Kippuret = room of mercy. And then there is the seat of mercy watched over by golden angels. The focus of the entire center of the temple is the Yahweh's mercy. The name of Jesus used here could translate: Lord - the covenant God; Jesus Yahweh saves: Christ - the anointed one. Again even the name harks back the sanctuary metaphors that have been the hope of Israel.

In verses 3-9:

7. What would you think is Peter's stage of spiritual development?
8. What do you think might be the stage of spiritual development of his readers?
9. In these verses what do you think he most wants to remind his readers about God?
10. What are the ways he wants to encourage them on their faith journey?

Verses 10-12:
In these verses Peter talks about (what we now call) Old Testament prophets predicting grace, acknowledging the Spirit of Christ within them, talking about the glory of the Anointed One (more temple and priesthood metaphors), and about an understanding that those prophets were writing to and for the readers of Petros's letter.

11. What do you make of this connection between those who lived before Jesus and those who are living in the 1st Century CE?

Verses 13-21:
It looks to me like here Peter is comparing the physical state of his reader being temporary residents in these areas of the Roman Empire to be temporary residents of the earth. As you know, in Hebrew thinking and writing it is common to compare the present and tangible to the eternal and conceptual. One is the example of the other. "Jesus lived on this earth for your sake." In verse 21, there is a word translated "trust" that seems to be confusing in the Greek. It can be rendered faithful. Or there can be more discussion about it. Either way it seems to indicate an action. The text also seems to connect purity with love.

12. Why do you think Peter would write "Jesus lived on earth for your sake"?
13. Hebrew is a concrete language and concepts like love are often delineated by the actions that are part of Love. Why do you think the writing of purity is connected to acting in love?
14. What parts of this first chapter touch you or are important to you?
15. What questions does this intro raise for you?
16. Has this intro left you curious about what is to follow?

I know it's not our normal format but, this week, if you have questions or confusions about what I wrote, be welcome to write them in our chat or to me.

I am looking forward to seeing you soon. Take good care of yourself - because you are infinitely valuable.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)