The book of 1 Peter is also marked by a Jewish flavor. This comes across pointedly in 1 Peter 1:18[1] which talks about “the tradition of your fathers.” The book certainly possesses strong Jewish overtones.[2] Jim Sibley writes,
The available textual data most often cited that bears on the nature of the recipients are found in 1:1, 14, 18; 2:10; and 4:3–5. Most commentators decide that the audience must have been Gentile on the basis of 1:14 and 18, and fit the remaining evidence into this schema. Primary attention then must be given to these verses.[3]
Sibley ably dismantles the weak inference for Gentile readership based upon 1 Peter 1:14 and 18 by simply showing that Paul, a Jew, referred to his past life in a similar fashion (e.g., Eph. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:13).[4] And given that Peter ministered to the Jews (Gal. 2:8-9) is it any surprise to find him writing to Jewish believers? And if this is indeed the case, it would not be unusual to find a concentrated use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the letter. Again, Sibley is to the point:
There is a greater concentration of Old Testament quotations and allusions in 1 Peter than in any other New Testament book. This is not proof that the recipients were Jewish, but it is evidence that should be considered.[5]
1 and 2 Peter have two of the most edifying opening chapters in the whole Bible. They are go-to places for Christian discipleship. But Peter is clearly wanting to fix the attention of these Jewish saints on their future rewards as an encouragement to persevere. Davids calls 1 Peter “a paraenetic letter”[6] by which he means an admonitory work. He opens his first letter with a reference to “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.” (1 Pet. 1:4). The apostle could be construed as asserting that heaven is the final and eternal destination of believers. However, since Peter will himself refer to “a new heavens and earth” in 2 Peter 3, such an understanding is unlikely.
1 Peter 2:4-10 and the Specter of Supercessionism
Along with Matthew 21:43 these verses are ground-zero for those interpreters who teach that the Church is the “true” or “new Israel,” which by definition means that “old Israel” – the people of the nation to whom Yahweh made covenants – has no more future as a nation. Sam Storms defines supercessionism, or replacement theology this way:
Replacement theology would assert that God has uprooted and eternally cast aside the olive tree which is Israel and has planted, in its place, an entirely new one, the Church. All the promises given to the former have been transferred to the latter.[7]
As you can see, replacement theology teaches that there is no future Davidic Kingdom plan for Israel. Basically, the role of Israel and all of its promises have been transferred to the Church.[8] We are told this even though the covenants with Abraham (e.g., Gen. 15: 4-18; 22:16-17; 26:3-4; Isa. 62:1-7; Jer. 33:26), Phinehas (Num. 25:10; Psa. 106:28-31; Jer. 33:17-22; Mal. 3:1-4), and David (e.g., Psa. 89:14-29; 132:11-14; 1 Chron. 17:22; Isa. 9:7; Jer. 33:15-26) are unilateral and irrevocable (cf. Rom. 11:29), all the more so once the New covenant re-energizes them (cf. Jer. 31:31-36; Ezek. 36:22-30; Rom. 11:26-28). But this does not deter good men from asserting such things as this:
One passage that highlights how the church is the antitype of Israel through Jesus is 1 Peter 2:4-10. From the beginning of the epistle, Peter identifies his primarily Gentile audience with the language of exile and diaspora, imagery of OT Israel now applied to the eschatological people of God and foreseen in the prophets (1 Pet 1:10-12). In 1 Peter 2:4-10, the identity and function of the church are presented as the new Israel through Christ…Through union in Christ, God’s new temple of believers takes on Israel’s identity and role in a heightened eschatological sense.[9]
Though worded differently this quotation fits well the definition of replacement theology given above. Parker bases his view that Gentiles are the target audience for the epistle by referencing 1 Peter 1:14, 18, 21, and 4:2-4.[10] But 1 Peter 1:14 is only effective if one believes that formerly unregenerate Jews could not be guilty of “lusts” (epithumia) or “ignorance,” or “aimless conduct,” which is a stretch (Rom. 2:17-24). 1 Peter 1:21 proves nothing either way, and 1 Peter 4:2-4 really only carries any weight if one already assumes the letter is written to Gentiles. If, however, it is addressed to a mainly Jewish readership, such OT figures of speech as are scattered throughout 1 Peter 2:4-10 are to be expected. 1 Peter 2:9 for example, declares,
you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession…
Since the apostle is addressing the remnant (cf. Rom. 11:5) one can understand why he would employ this resonant terminology, especially to Jews who were experiencing trials and persecution (1 Pet. 3:16-17; 4:1-4, 12-16). The Church is not a “race” or a “nation” but Diaspora Jews could be addressed that way.[11]
The Covenant Christ
Seeing then that there is a very good case for a Jewish audience for 1 Peter the book has a covenantal orientation if we take Peter’s constant references to Jesus as the Christ into consideration. Daniel Block writes,
Peter never mentions David or the Davidic covenant in his book. But without reference to the history of the messianic hope rooted in David, the role of Jesus as Messiah is incomprehensible. Even with the strong Davidic tradition in which the Jews would have been schooled, according to Peter, the history of the prophetic institution is a history into the manner in which the hope of salvation, grounded in the work of the Messiah, would be fulfilled.[12]
Put another way, for these Jews Jesus’s surname would not have been “Christ” but He would be Jesus “the Christ,” the inheritor of the Davidic throne (cf. Matt. 22:42).
[1] Many point to the opening verse, 1 Pet. 1:1, with its reference to those “pilgrims” (NKJV) or “aliens” (NASB) in “the dispersion” (diaspora). As an example: “Some argue from the name, Strangers, that the Gentiles are here meant, which seems not to be; for proselyte Gentiles were indeed called strangers in Jerusalem, and by the Jews; but were not the Jews strangers in these places – Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia? – Not strangers dwelling together in a prosperous flourishing condition, as a well-planted colony, but strangers of the dispersion, scattered to and fro.” – Robert Leighton, Commentary on First Peter, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1981, 12. This opinion is echoed by Witherington who observes, “In light of the highly Jewish character of 1 Peter anyway, it seems logical to conclude that, since in all the above references it is Jews who are called resident aliens, we should surely conclude that this is likely in 1 Peter as well.” – Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2, a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2007, 24.
[2] “[N]o New Testament letter is so consistently addressed, directly or indirectly, to ‘Israel,’ that is (on the face of it) to Jews.” – J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC, Waco, TX, Word, 1988, xlv. As cited by W. Edward Glenny, “The Israelite Imagery of 1 Peter 2,“ in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, 156 n. 2. I am also indebted to Jim R. Sibley, “You Talkin’ To Me? 1 Peter 2:4-10 and A Theology of Israel,” – Southwestern Journal of Theology, Volume 59 • Number 1 • Fall 2016.
[3] Ibid, 6.
[4] Keener gets around this by saying that Peter was just employing “language that Jews often used for such behaviors.” – Craig S. Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2021, 105-106.
[5] Jim R. Sibley, “You Talkin’ To Me? 1 Peter 2:4-10 and A Theology of Israel,” 13.
[6] Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, 130.
[7] Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, Fearn, Scotland, Mentor, 2013, 195.
[8] These promises have also been transformed into more spiritual realities so that neither the content of the covenant oaths nor the original designees remain the same. It has been our insistence that this sort of alteration is impossible with God’s covenants.
[9] Brent E. Parker, “The Israel-Christ-Church Relationship,” in Progressive Covenantalism, editors: Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, Nashville, B&H, 2016, 64-65 (My emphasis).
[10] Ibid, 64 n. 61.
[11] W. Edward Glenny, “The Israelite Imagery of 1 Peter 2,“ in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, 186-187.
[12] Daniel I. Block, Covenant, 609.
