Volume 49 - Issue 1
The Divine Identity in 1 Peter: The Father, Christ, and the Spirit in Relation
By Garrett S. CraigAbstract
Traditionally the discipline of New Testament studies has not been welcoming to a Trinitarian understanding of God. In recent years, however, some scholars working in the discipline have argued for the positive exegetical benefits for what they have called a “Trinitarian hermeneutic.” While working within the historical-grammatical paradigm, a Trinitarian hermeneutic seeks to understand the text’s God-talk by attending to the relations between the Father, Christ, and the Spirit. By using this method, the article argues that the divine identity found in the letter of 1 Peter puts pressure on its readers to articulate an understanding of God that agrees with later Trinitarian confessions.
Within the historical-critical model of interpretation, any hint of the doctrine of the Trinity is deemed “anachronistic,” “philosophical,” and uncongenial to the early church’s experience of God.1 Recently some scholars working within biblical studies have vocalized criticism against the anti-Trinitarian assumptions undergirding the historical-critical enterprise.2 Not only have they offered disapproval of anti-Trinitarianism but they have claimed positive exegetical benefits of an alternative Trinitarian framework.3When discussing a biblical author’s God-talk, the typical starting point within biblical studies is Jewish monotheism. Scholars discern how Christ and the Spirit “fit” within a monotheistic framework and often try to determine whether a particular biblical author has a “high” or “low” Christology.4 As an alternative, the application of the category of “relations” to texts that speak about God, Christ, and the Spirit forms the basis of what some scholars have called a Trinitarian hermeneutic. As Wesley Hill states, a Trinitarian hermeneutic “considers the identities of God, Christ, and the Spirit by means of their relations to and with one another.”5
This essay will be an exercise in reading 1 Peter through the lens of a Trinitarian hermeneutic in order to trace the identity of God.6 I argue that Peter’s presentation of God, through the language of the Father, Christ, and the Spirit contains the “underlying logic” by which later creedal statements develop.7 First Peter puts pressure on its readers towards a triune conception of God.8 To be clear, I am not arguing that Peter has a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity.9 Instead, I posit that the letter contains a sample of fertile soil for which later Trinitarian developments could properly flourish. The thesis will be advanced by first considering the Father’s relationship to Christ by examining two texts, 1 Peter 1:3 and 1:18–21. Second, I will look at the Spirit’s relationship to God the Father and Christ in 1 Peter 1:10–12; 3:18; and 4:14.
1. The Relationship between the Father and Christ
What is the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1 Peter? How does God’s actions towards Christ contribute to our understanding of Peter’s conception of the identity of God? These questions will govern this section. Accordingly, Jesus Christ’s identity can only be understood in relation to his unique filial relationship with God the Father. Furthermore, God’s relationship with Christ is disclosed when the identity descriptions of Peter’s God-talk are given proper attention.
1.1. A Unique Relationship with Father
Divine fatherhood is the controlling concept of God in 1 Peter (1:2, 3, 17).10 Commentators connect the picture of God as a Father to the rebirth metaphor that Peter uses to describe believers’ salvation (1:3). As John Elliott writes, “the metaphor of God as father … implies God as progenitor and the believing community as God’s family or household (2:5; 4:17) and ‘brotherhood’ (2:17; 5:9).”11 We may add that Peter clarifies that rebirth is not given by means of “perishable seed” (σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς), but the “imperishable” (ἀφθάρτου), that is, the living and abiding word of God (1:23).12 Further, as God is the Father of believers, certain codes of conduct from his children are required (τέκνα ὑπακοῆς; 1:14).13 Thus, in 1 Peter both spiritual and social privileges of the community are grounded in the thick metaphor of the fatherhood of God.
Since the believing community relates to God as Father, how should we understand the fatherhood of God in relation to Jesus Christ (1:3)? Is the sonship of Jesus symmetrical with the sonship of believers? There are several points in 1 Peter that forward the notion that Christ’s relationship to the Father is indeed unique.
In 1 Peter all believers can certainly invoke God as Father, nevertheless, they do so in a mediated sense. Green is close to the point when he says, “although both Jesus and believers find their identity in relationship to God, they do so in different ways.”14 To bring out an obvious point, not only is the believer’s relationship with God different from Christ’s due to mediation, but they are only designated children of God through the Son of God, Jesus Christ. This point is seen as Peter consistently uses the preposition διά to indicate how believers participate in calling God their Father. For example, in 1:3 the metaphor of rebirth (which is connected to the father metaphor for the believing community) is said to be “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν).15 Also, in 1:21 it is through Christ that Peter’s audience have faith in God (τοὺς διʼ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεόν). Later in 2:5, Peter affirms that believers offer spiritual sacrifices well pleasing to God “through Jesus Christ” (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Finally, according to 3:21 believers appeal to God for a clear conscience “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
What this suggests is that while both Christ and believers have a filial relationship with God, Christ’s relationship with the Father is unique by its unmediated nature. It does not necessitate much imagination to see how comparing the filial relationship between believers and the Father alongside the filial relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father causes serious reflection upon the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son.16
1.2. Identity Descriptions of the Father
The category of “mutuality” or “bi-directionality” has been used within a Trinitarian framework to analyze the God-talk of various texts.17 Mutuality is explained by Watson when he writes, “Trinitarian theology claims that God’s identity is determined by God’s relation to Jesus, just as Jesus’ identity is determined by his relation to God.”18 In other words, both the identity of God and the identity of Jesus is determined by how they relate to each other. Using the concept of mutuality, we find that Peter likewise puts pressure on his readers to conclude that God’s identity is tied to Jesus Christ in such a way that we cannot talk about God without reference to Jesus Christ, and we cannot talk about Jesus without reference to God.
Mutuality between the Father and Christ is found in 1 Peter 1:17–21. Peter concisely narrates the Christ-event that stretches back before history and culminates in the moment of Christ’s death (vv. 19–20). A profound articulation of God’s identity appears at the conclusion of the semi-creedal statement about the Christ-event in 1:21. Peter’s description of God’s actions in that event is expressed with a pair of participles connected by a conjunction. God is described as “the one who raised him [Christ] from the dead” (θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν) and who “gave him glory” (καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα).19 Such descriptions of God are found elsewhere in the NT (cf. Gal 1:1; Rom 4:24; 8:11). According to Elliot they represent a “central” and “stable element of early Christian tradition.”20
Due to the ubiquity of the depiction of God, as well as its semi-creedal nature, scholars working within a Trinitarian framework have labeled such participial phrases “identity descriptions.” As Hill comments, “the aim of such formulations is not merely to reference some divine action but also to ‘name’ God or specify his unique character by that action.”21 The description of God’s action of raising Christ from the dead and giving him glory also discloses something about God’s identity. Following Watson, “the raising of Jesus discloses, not only what God does but, at the same time, who God is.”22 Again, Watson writes, “Divine being and divine action are inseparable from one another, and no distinction is drawn between how God is in se and ad extra.”23
One may object by asking why God’s action towards Christ should be constitutive to his identity? As the context of Peter’s letter indicates, God’s action in raising Christ from the dead is the definitive act of God. For Peter, the action of raising Christ from the dead and giving him glory constitutes the redemptive act by which God has brought about the new birth for his people. Specifically, the intended result connected to God’s actions in 1:21 is so that believers have “faith and hope in God” (ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν).24 The action of raising Christ from the dead is elsewhere connected to providing believers with eschatological hope (1:3). Moreover, the divine act of raising Christ from the dead is integral to both cleansing believer’s consciences and forgiving their sins (3:21).25 Thus, from Peter’s perspective, God’s action in raising Christ from the dead is the definitive work of God’s redemption and relates to several benefits the people of God experience.26
Finally, working from the assumption that divine act reveals divine being, we may consider two additional divine acts that disclose God’s identity in 1 Peter. Preceding 1 Peter 1:21 are two participial phrases that also narrate God’s actions towards Christ. Peter says Christ is “foreknown” (προεγνωσμένου) before the foundation of the world (1:20) and he is “made manifest in the last times” (φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων).27 According to Achtemeier, it is the person of Christ and not merely God’s plan that is foreknown.28 Moreover, this manifestation refers to Christ’s incarnation with the passive form of the participle indicating divine action.29 Putting all these divine acts together we see that, in 1 Peter, Christ is the one who was foreknown, manifested, raised, and given glory by God. As such, God’s identity is constitutively tied to his actions in Christ as Christ is definitively identified by his relationship with God the Father.
1.3. Summary
What does the relationship between God and Jesus Christ tell us about the divine identity in 1 Peter? God is who he is by virtue of his relationship with Jesus Christ; he is the Father of Christ, and by implication Christ is his son. This relationship between God and Christ, although sharing some commonalities with all believers, is marked uniquely by the unmediated nature of their relationship. Further, God is identified in 1 Peter by his actions. Scholars have noted the importance of “identity descriptions,” and specifically, the ability to “pick out” the God of 1 Peter through these descriptions. When applied to 1 Peter, God is defined as “the God who raised Jesus from the dead and gave him glory.” Moreover, he is the God who has “foreknown” and “manifested” Jesus Christ. These identity descriptions work in a bi-directional manner; thus, Jesus is also identified as the one whom the Father foreknew, manifested, raised, and glorified. In short, God is defined in 1 Peter by his relationship to Jesus Christ, just as Christ is defined by his relationship to God the Father.
2. The Father and Christ in Relation to the Spirit
The significance of the Spirit in 1 Peter cannot be judged upon the number of times the author uses the word.30 Instead, the Spirit sits prominently at the beginning alongside the Father and Christ (1:2) and thus foreshadows his important role in the letter.31 Our examination of the Spirit considers his relationship to God and Christ. I argue that the Spirit’s identity is governed by his relation to God and Christ and his actions are defined in so far as they are related to their redemptive work.
2.1. The Spirit of Christ
While 1:10–12 is a passage with exegetical difficulties, it serves as a crucial text on the identity of the Spirit in 1 Peter. The uniqueness of 1 Peter as it concerns the Spirit is primarily found in the phrase “the Spirit of Christ” (πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ).32 What is perhaps determinative for several interpretive questions is the connection between v. 11 and v. 12. The two events—the first in the past and the second in the present (νῦν)—both reference the Spirit. The Spirit in v. 12 unambiguously points to the divine Spirit since πνεῦμα is modified by the adjective “holy” (πνεύματι ἁγίῳ). In addition, Peter says the Holy Spirit is “sent from heaven” (ἀποσταλέντι ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ), thus reinforcing His divine origin.33 Furthermore, since Peter parallels vv. 11–12, it is best to interpret “the Spirit of Christ” (πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) in v. 11, not as Jesus’s human spirit, but instead as the divine Spirit.34 Michaels is correct in eschewing the choice in 1:11 between a reference to the Holy Spirit or a reference to the preexistent Christ.35
2.1.1. The Operation of the Spirit
The operation of the Spirit can first be described as revelatory.36 Peter opens v. 10 with the term “salvation” (σωτηρίας), which links the thought to v. 9. Salvation here, as generally in the letter, is eschatological.37 As Peter draws his readers’ attention to their present experience of “the grace destined” for them (τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος), he reminds his readers that they are in a privileged position.38 Peter says the prophets have “earnestly investigated” (v. 10; ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν) and have been “searching” (v. 11; ἐραυνῶντες).39 While what the prophets were searching for is difficult to determine with certainty,40 the fact that the object of their searching serves the main verb ἐδήλου (“was indicating”) carries the sense that “their searching and the Spirit’s indicating [ἐδήλου] coincide…”41 The important point is that the activity of the prophets (i.e., ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν) does not happen independently—it is revealed to them. What is more, neither is the prophets’ activity the primary focus of Peter. Instead, the emphasis is on the revelatory operation of the Spirit of Christ.42 This conclusion is seen by noting the emphasis on the Spirit’s work when Peter says the Spirit “indicates” (ἐδήλου), “predicts” (προμαρτυρόμενον),43 as well as “reveals” (ἀπεκαλύφθη)44 to the prophets.
Second, the operation of the Spirit can be described as dynamic.45 As Schreiner comments, “those who proclaim the gospel [did] so by the power of the Holy Spirit.”46 While the apostles are the human agents, it is the Holy Spirit who is the means by which the gospel is empowered to be proclaimed. As the purpose in preaching the gospel is conversion or rebirth (1:3ff), perhaps there is a corresponding effect of the Spirit’s activity as he simultaneously empowers gospel proclamation and produces his “sanctifying” (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος) change in the lives of the elect (1:2).
The operation of the Spirit includes his revelatory activity to the prophets as well as his dynamic work in empowering gospel proclamation. Importantly, both the Spirit’s revelatory and dynamic work is done in relation to Christ. The significance of the operation of the Spirit is also seen in conjunction with the next point.
The revelatory and dynamic operation of the Spirit finds its significance in the content of his witness. Through the prophets, we are told in 1:11, the Spirit foretold “the sufferings destined for Christ and his subsequent glories” (τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας).47 Among the recipients of Peter’s letter, the Spirit empowers gospel proclamation; thus “the same Spirit at work long ago is currently at work in the community of believers and so provides for a consistent witness to the same reality.”48 In other words, the content of the Spirit’s witness across time is Christological. Schreiner summarizes this point well:
Both the OT prophets and those who herald the good news of Christ on this side of the cross speak by means of the Holy Spirit. In both instances, Peter emphasizes, they center on the gospel of Christ. The prophets anticipated the gospel by looking forward to the fulfillment of their prophecies about the Messiah as the crucified and risen Lord. Those who now proclaim the gospel announce the fulfillment of the prophetic word in the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus Christ. In both instances the ministry of the Spirit centers on Jesus Christ.49
The revelatory and dynamic witness of the Spirit in 1 Peter is centered on the sufferings and glories of Christ.
In summary, the Spirit inspired the prophets of old the same Christ-centered message that he now empowers to be proclaimed to the Petrine community, reinforcing the point that the identity of the Spirit in 1 Peter is defined by his relationship to Christ. In other words, in 1:11–12 the Spirit cannot be comprehended without reference to Christ, both in the past and the present. The Spirit’s identity, and conversely Christ’s identity, are mutually bounded.
2.2. The Spirit of God
As the Spirit is in juxtaposition with Christ (the Spirit of Christ), so also the Spirit relates to God in 1 Peter. While the identity of the Spirit is thus broadened beyond a Christological focus, it does not undermine or compete with it. As we consider two passages, we will note the identity of the Spirit is determined by his relationship to God as the agent in Christ’s resurrection. Furthermore, according to 1 Peter, the Spirit functions as God’s comfort and power for the believing community as they suffer for their relationship to Christ. The presentation of the “Spirit of God” in 1 Peter thus reinforces that the identity of the Spirit is determined by his relationship with God and his actions are defined in so far as they contribute to God’s redemptive work in Christ.
2.2.1. God’s Spirit Raised Jesus from the Dead
As discussed above, God is defined as the one “who raised Jesus from the dead and gave him glory” (1:21). God’s identity is tied to this particular action, and it is significant that 1 Peter 3:18 implicates the Spirit as the agent through which God accomplishes this great act of redemption.
Not all scholars agree Peter intends such teaching in the letter. The debate involves the final phrase, “on the one hand he was put to death in the flesh but made alive in/by S/spirit” (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι). The symmetry of the phrase provided by the μὲν … δέ construction has been a compelling factor in determining the meaning of πνεύματι.50 That Peter intends to parallel θανατωθείς with ζῳοποιηθείς, and σαρκί with πνεύματι, seems obvious. What is not clear, however, is whether the parallel structure necessitates interpreting the datives (σαρκί and πνεύματι) in the same way.
If Peter intends the datives to be taken the same way, then σαρκί and πνεύματι can be understood as datives of sphere, or perhaps datives of reference.51 This interpretation would likely rule out capitalizing “spirit.”52 Others, however, are not convinced that the parallelism determines the meaning of both datives. For example, Schreiner writes, “The deadlock can be broken if we recognize that the two dative nouns are not used in precisely the same way; the first is a dative of reference, and the second is a dative of agency.”53
The important point for our discussion is that the latter interpretation allows for the Spirit to be the divine agent in Christ’s resurrection. While Christ was put to death by humans, he was raised by God’s Spirit.54 As noted above, God is identified as the one who raised Christ from the dead (1:21), but here, writes Schreiner, “Peter ascribes [Christ’s] resurrection and the beginning of his reign to the work of the Spirit.”55 God, by the power of the Spirit, raises Christ from the dead. This may constitute the most important triadic formula in 1 Peter as the totality of the triune God is found within the central saving act of God.56
2.2.2. God’s Spirit in Comfort and Power
First Peter 4:12–19 serves “both as a summary of the past discussion and as an introduction to the final section of the letter.”57 It is because of their allegiance to Christ that they are insulted (εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ). But Peter’s emphasis is that although they are rejected by men, they are “blessed” (μακάριοι) by God. The reason why they are blessed is also answered by Peter—they are blessed “for the Spirit of glory, that is, the Spirit of God rests upon you” (ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται).
The exegetical details of the debate surrounding this phrase is complex.58 However, many of the conclusions do not affect our understanding of the Spirit of God at work here. Most commentators take this as a reference to the divine Spirit.59 As such, we simply note the dual role of the Spirit as God resting upon believers. First, the Spirit of God acts as a foretaste of the coming eschatological glory during suffering.60 Second, as the Spirit of God rests upon believers, they experience empowerment to endure persecution.61 In this way, the future glory serves as an encouragement to endure suffering for their allegiance to Christ.
Therefore, the Spirit of God in 1 Peter is the divine agent who raised Christ from the dead. Further, the Spirit of God is the one who comforts and subsequently empowers those afflicted with suffering for their allegiance to Christ.
2.3. Summary
What has emerged from Peter’s portrait of the Spirit is a divine agent of both God and Christ. The Spirit’s identity, while distinct, is tied intimately to God and Christ. He bears witness to Christ in the OT and empowers messengers of the gospel to proclaim the truth of Christ’s sufferings and glories. The Spirit also is identified as God’s agent in raising Christ from the dead and thus stands with the Father and Christ at the center of God’s great redemptive act. The Spirit is also the one who comforts and empowers the believing community in their suffering for Christ. Thus, Green fittingly says, “Peter demonstrates clearly that the Spirit must be understood intimately in relation to the Father and Christ within Peter’s portrait of the triune God.”62
3. Conclusion
Although a Trinitarian approach in NT studies has gained momentum over the past decade, scholars have focused primarily on the Pauline letters and the Johannine corpus.63 The Catholic Epistles have received less attention on the topic. This essay has sought to help rectify the trend and contribute to the broader question of Trinitarian approaches in the NT studies by applying a Trinitarian hermeneutic to the letter of 1 Peter. I hope this essay will encourage further study on the divine identity in other NT writers outside of Paul and John.
A second contribution is to help break down the (false) dichotomy between exegesis and theology by showing the richness of Peter’s God-talk and the value of theological frameworks to the exegete. The field of biblical studies is in a state of uncertainty.64 With many of its previous long-held assumptions being challenged, biblical studies has opened itself up to a range of different perspectives.65 Whether this is a positive development is still to be seen, but there is now tolerance to approaching the text with what Hill calls “doctrinal exegesis.”66 At the same time, my hope is for the theologian to see the dogmatic benefits of intensive engagement with the biblical text. It is often said that the early church formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity was biblical and exegetical while those opposing Trinitarianism relied upon a patchwork of individual proof-texts. It is important then for contemporary Trinitarians to recover not only the dogmatic conclusions of the early church but also their method of a close reading of Scripture.
While this essay contributes to a Trinitarian approach in NT Studies, one must remember that the letter itself is primarily pastoral. How then does a Trinitarian reading of 1 Peter impact us pastorally? First, such a reading helps us remember that salvation for believers is rooted in the work of the entire triune God.67 As we have already outlined above, the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit all play crucial roles in the accomplishment of the believer’s redemption. The Father foreknows and manifests the Son so that he would suffer and die in our place. The Spirit is likewise active in the accomplishment of salvation. It is the Spirit who is active in raising Christ from the dead. Moreover, it is the Spirit who points the prophets of the past and human beings in the present to the work of the Son. Pastorally then, when we proclaim the salvation that believers participate in, we must remember that we are pointing others to the work of the entire triune God.
Pastorally, one also thinks of how 1 Peter addresses suffering in the Christian life. Peter seeks to encourage and exhort his audience towards a particular way of being in a hostile environment.68 Rensburg comments that the ethics in 1 Peter is “rooted in the reality of God” is instructive here.69 While 1 Peter centers on Christ as the exemplar in suffering (2:21–24; 3:18), significantly, the Father, Son, and Spirit are all active when Christians face trials. Peter seamlessly integrates the Father’s pronouncement of blessing with the comforting power of the Spirit on a believing community that suffers for their commitment to Christ (4:12–19). Thus, Peter encourages us to think of trials not only in a Christo-centric manner but also in a Trinitarian manner.
First Peter says much about the triune identity of God. I have argued that 1 Peter puts pressure on its readers to articulate an understanding of God that agrees with later Trinitarian statements. While not detailing a full-fledged “doctrine” of the Trinity, the divine identity found in 1 Peter welcomes those later Trinitarian expressions as detecting the underlying logic of the text. As one scholar notes, “to speak about ‘God’ in 1 Peter therefore demands speaking as well about Jesus Christ and about the Spirit.”70 In addition, to speak about Christ and the Spirit is to necessarily include the work of the Father. In other words, 1 Peter supports the idea of mutuality of relations between the Father, Christ, and the Spirit.
[1] Francis Watson, “Trinity and Community: A Reading of John 17,” IJST 1 (1999): 168. Francis Watson captures well the ethos when he writes, “Modern biblical scholarship has no great love for the doctrine of the Trinity.” He continues, “It likes to warn its customers that, if they read a biblical text in the light of what was to become the orthodox Nicene theology of the fourth century, they will inevitably be committing the ‘sin of anachronism.’” With respect to 1 Peter, of consider the attitude by Julian Price Love, “First Epistle of Peter,” Int 8 (1954): 70, when he writes, “Peter, and indeed all the writers of the New Testament, were too genuinely religious, rather than philosophical, to congeal their experience with God into any cold dogma. Theirs was an intuitive rather than a logical understanding, and to a large extent we wrong them if we seek to enclose in straight creedal jackets that which in their thought flows like a river.” See Scott Swain, The God of the Gospel: Robert Jenson’s Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 18, who summarizes the shift from a Trinitarian hermeneutic being axiomatic to contested, “With the rise of Enlightenment thought, the aforementioned hermeneutical problematic became more acute, and, as it did, Trinitarian theology underwent a (oftentimes radical) material transformation. Among many relevant factors contributing to this transformation, three deserve mention here: the rise of new interpretive methods, new attitudes toward classical metaphysics and new agendas for the Protestant university.” For common objections to Trinitarian hermeneutics in biblical studies, see also Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 18–22.
[2] Especially Francis Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-Language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn,” JSNT 23 (2001): 99–124.
[3] Leander E. Keck, “Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology,” NTS 32 (1986): 362–77; Nils Alstrup Dahl, “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 153–63; Donald H. Juel, “The Trinity and the New Testament,” ThTo 54 (1997): 312–24; Watson, “Trinity and Community,” 168–84; Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 99–124; David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” STRev 45 (2002): 371–84; C. Kavin Rowe, “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” ProEccl 11 (2002): 295–312; C. Kavin Rowe, “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology,” SJT 56 (2003): 1–26; Hill, Paul and the Trinity. For an exegetical commentary that utilizes a Trinitarian framework see Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). Nils Alstrup Dahl, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991).
[4] See examples of both “low” and “high” Christology in Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 3–18. Unlike Hill, I am less critical of the standard Jewish monotheistic framework. I find the Jewish emphasis of the NT documents, along with the high/low Christological questions, to be valuable as we interpret these texts. If one uses a high/low Christological framework, 1 Pet 3:15 is perhaps an example where a NT writer freely identifies Christ with Yahweh of the OT. See Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 229. Utilizing an alternate framework for understanding 1 Peter should not be taken as my rejection of other categories.
[5] Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 2.
[6] For the complexities associated with the term “identity,” see Robert W. Jenson, “Identity, Jesus, and Exegesis,” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 43–59. After sifting through some of the challenges to defining identity, Jenson links “having an identity” with “persons.” Jenson writes, “Having an identity is something persons do––or want or hope to do, or even not to do. Let us say that an identity, in recent usage, is what can be repeatedly specified by a proper name or an identifying description, particularly with respect to what, again in more recent usage, may be called a person” (emphasis mine). Joel B. Green, 1 Peter, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 25 n. 37, uses identity “in the sense of continuity in terms of a network of relationships and narrative of interactions, together with an emphasis on functionality that refuses any dichotomy between performance and sentiment (or character).” Throughout the paper I will be similarly employing the term, focusing on the function of each person of the Godhead as well as their relationship with each other as presented in 1 Peter.
[7] Even beyond the development of Christological language there are dissimilarities between later creedal formulas and the biblical text of 1 Peter. For instance, in later centuries the triune appellations during baptismal confessions became standardized (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The order in 1 Peter (and the NT in general) is less consistent. Furthermore, the Trinitarian core was expanded in baptismal confessions by expanding the appositional words, phrases, and clauses that identified the three persons and by adding other items of faith to the basic Trinitarian confession. See Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Trinitarian Baptismal Creeds and New Testament Christology,” in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 173.
8 I am borrowing the language articulated by Rowe, “Biblical Pressure,” 308. Rowe cites Brevard S. Childs, “Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis,” ProEccl 6 (1997): 16–26, for originating the idea. See also C. Kavin Rowe, “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology,” SJT 56 (2003): 4–6; Watson, “Trinity and Communinty,” 170. Although arriving at some similar conclusions, the chapter by Dorian Lockett has a broader scope as he looks at the Trinity from the perspective of the Catholic Epistles (James through Jude). Lockett helpfully shows how the Catholic Epistles were read as both a theological collection and in a Trinitarian manner. Dorian Lockett, “Catholic Epistles,” in The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Theological, Historical and Practical Proposal, ed. Brandon D. Smith (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2023), 311–41.
9 Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 45, rightly cautions and says, “To avoid this [projection] pitfall…. First, the readings …will be self-consciously historical readings, guided by the canons of ‘critical’ modes of exegesis…. Second, Trinitarian theologies will be employed as hermeneutical resources and, thus, mined for conceptualities which may better enable a genuinely historical exegesis to articulate what other equally ‘historical’ approaches may have obscured.” As many who advocate for a Trinitarian framework admit, assuming the biblical author is operating with a full-fledged Trinitarian doctrine will lead to anachronism. See, for example, Rowe, “Biblical Pressure,” 310. However, this does not mean the framework which produced later codifications of orthodoxy is inherently misguided.
[10] Jobes, 1 Peter, 46.
[11] John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, AB (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 334. Troy W. Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter, SBLDS 131 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 161–88, understands the household metaphor to control the entirety of 1:14–2:10.
[12] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 95.
[13] As Reinhard Feldmeier and Hermann Spieckermann (God of the Living: A Biblical Theology, trans. Mark E. Biddle [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015], 84) observe, “The reborn, as ‘children of obedience’ (1 Pet 1:14), orient their behavior toward God as Father, who is simultaneously their judge (1 Pet 1:17).”
[14] Green, 1 Peter, 24.
[15] We can only tentatively affirm this connection at 1:3 since there is a dispute as to whether the phrase διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν relates to “living hope” (ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν) or “rebirth” (ἀναγεννήσας). While word order may point us exclusively in the direction of the former, the latter choice seems likely as well. See Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 62, and Michaels, 1 Peter, 19, for respective positions. Following Elliott, 1 Peter, 334–35, it is best to see the phrase linked with the believer’s rebirth and future hope. So also, Goppelt, 1 Peter, 84. Alternatively, Jobes, 1 Peter, 82–83, and Green, 1 Peter, 24, connect rebirth exclusively to Christ’s resurrection.
[16] Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 115, writes, “If Jesus is Son of God, then God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: the purpose of the father/son language is to indicate that God and Jesus are identified by their relation to each other, and have no existence apart from that relation.”
[17] Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 49.
[18] Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 119. See Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 49–50, who contrasts mutuality in relations with the common trend to locate Jesus on a spectrum of “high” or “low” Christology. He writes, “In order to identify Jesus, it is necessary to refer to God, but also, in order to identify God, it is necessary to refer to Jesus. Mutuality, rather than a unilateral movement (in either direction), is the watchword here. Jesus, the Son, is who he is only in relation to the Father, and likewise the Father is who he is only in relation to Jesus the Son.”
19 Michaels, 1 Peter, 69–70, followed by Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 89, interprets the phrase “gave him glory,” as defining “for the reader the significance of ‘raised him from the dead.’ The ‘glory’ (i.e., the vindication, or demonstration of divine favor) given to Jesus at his resurrection is the glory they are waiting to see revealed (4:13; 5:1, 4) even as they suffer ridicule for the sake of his name (4:14).” One may also interpret the phrase as God’s enthronement of Christ, which has precedence in the letter (3:22). If so, Peter’s participial “identity description” would include, not only the act of God raising Jesus from the dead but also a subsequent action of enthronement.
[20] Elliott, 1 Peter, 378, notes, “this formulation of 1 Peter, which combine who raised him from the dead with gave him glory, is unique in the NT, though it succinctly formulates similar words by Peter in Acts: ‘(God) glorified his servant Jesus … whom God raised from the dead.’”
[21] Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 53.
[22] Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 106. There is an assumption here which understands the inseparabi-lity of divine action and divine identity.
[23] Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 105. I’m aware of the philosophical and theological disputes concerning the economic Trinity and immanent Trinity. I have no intention of adjudicating such discussions here. I merely want to bring to attention the relationship of action and identity, which seems to be inseparable as we consider this epistle. Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity: God according to the Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002); Swain, The God of the Gospel; Jenson, “Identity, Jesus, and Exegesis.”
[24] Elliott, 1 Peter, 379, adds, “This clause [v. 21c] … states the intended personal result of Christ’s eschatological manifestation, resurrection, and glorification by God….”
[25] On the interpretation of 3:21 see Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 196–97.
[26] Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 111, writes, “Like others, Jesus is the object of divine action, unlike others, he is the object of the specific divine action of definitive self-identification, entailing as it does the reconciliation of the world to God.”
[27] See Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 88. While Christ’s preexistence is not necessary to the interpretation of this verse, foreknowledge here likely implies preexistence. Additionally, Schreiner, 88 n. 144, cites those who argue against the preexistence of Christ by saying texts like these refer to God’s plan for salvation, not necessarily the person of Christ himself.
[28] Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary of First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 132.
[29] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 88; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 131.
[30] Michaels, 1 Peter, lxxv, seems to be guilty of this move as he compares numerically the use of “spirit” to other key themes such as “grace” or “glory“ by Peter.
[31] Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 249, observes that πνεύματος in 1:2 is best taken as a subjective, “in which case,” he writes, “its collocation with πατρός and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, both personal, suggest that πνεύματος is personal too.”
[32] While it is not abnormal to find similar references elsewhere, the exact phrase is rare and has caused scholars to consider its meaning in detail. See Rom 8:9, εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ. For similar expressions see Acts 16:7; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.
[33] Perhaps a Christological origin of the Spirit is suggested. The participle is a divine passive, referencing either God or Christ. While Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 75, understands Peter to be reminding his readers of the Spirit’s descent at Pentecost, Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 111, says such an interpretation is probably not intended. Goppelt, 1 Peter, 101, understands Peter to be saying the Spirit accompanies the messengers of salvation for strength and authority. If this interpretation is correct, Peter is not referring to the unique event of Pentecost but the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit as the good news is preached.
[34] Χριστοῦ is best taken as a genitive of source (“the Spirit from Christ”), rather than epexegetically (“the Spirit, namely, Christ”). Contra Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 110; See Dubis, 1 Peter, 19. Also, understanding Χριστοῦ as a genitive of source does not negate interpreting the verse as referencing the preexistence of Christ. See Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 110 n. 60, for this point. It is likely the preexistence of Christ is implicit in 1:12 since Peter knew of Christ’s preexistence (cf. 1:20). Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 73; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 109–10.
[35] Michaels states, “From Peter’s standpoint it is a false alternative because for him the two amount to the same thing.” Michaels, 1 Peter, 144.
[36] Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 118.
[37] Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 252.
[38] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 75.
[39] The prophets are taken as OT prophets here. Not all scholars are convinced this refers to OT prophets. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 134, argues these are NT prophets. This is a minority position for good reasons as Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 72–73, outlines. Ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν is interpreted as a hendiadys to emphasize the persistence and thoroughness of their search. So Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 108; translation Dubis, 1 Peter, 17–18.
[40] The τίνα could be an interrogative adjective modifying καιρόν (“what or what sort of time”) or an interrogative pronoun. If masculine, it would render “what person or what sort of time.” Forbes, 1 Peter, 123.
[41] Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 109. The other option is taking the phrase εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν as the object of ἐδήλου and προμαρτυρόμενον.
[42] Also, the consistency of the content of the revelation across time (see below).
[43] Achtemeier, 109 n. 49. This is not the action of the prophets “… since the singular neuter participles must modify ‘Spirit,’ not the plural masculine ‘prophets.’”
[44] Note the divine passive.
[45] Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, 118.
[46] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 75. This interpretation takes πνεύματι ἁγίῳ as an instrumental dative. See also Forbes, 1 Peter, 32.
[47] Forbes, 1 Peter, 31. It is better to render the construction here as destination and thus bring out the divine purpose. There is a similar use of the preposition in v. 10 (“the grace destined for you”).
[48] Green, 1 Peter, 216.
[49] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 496.
[50] Jobes, 1 Peter, 240–41; Elliott, 1 Peter, 646.
[51] Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 250, explains, “Widely represented is the construal as a dative of sphere, that is, the two spheres of existence within which Christ is described, that of human existence and that of the divine Spirit. Closely related to dative of sphere is the adverbial dative, or dative of reference, that is, Christ’s being put to death had reference either to his own spirit or to the divine Spirit by whose power he was raised.”
[52] Forbes, 1 Peter, 123.
[53] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 184. Both Schreiner and Dubis (1 Peter, 118) appeal to 1 Timothy 3:16 as an example where two nouns, though preceded by the same preposition, are to be interpreted differently.
[54] Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 250.
[55] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 497. Lockett, “Catholic Epistles,” 334 notes how in the pre-modern commentary tradition, 1 Peter 3:18 garners more Trinitarian discussion than 1 Peter 1:2.
[56] It may also serve as the basis of interpreting 1 Peter 4:6 as another example of the Spirit’s work in the letter. So, writes Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 497, “Suffering believers are reminded that the opposition and discrimination that they face is short-lived because it is confined to this life. Believers die, and hence they receive a judgment according to the flesh, but they are promised physical resurrection by the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead.”
[57] Achtemeier, 1 Peter. The passage reflects previous points about persecution (1:6–7), suffering as part of Christian identity (3:14–16), rejection of Christ resulting in judgment (2:7–8; 4:5), and entrusting one’s life to God (2:23), as well as two new points about bearing the name “Christian” and Christian suffering as the commencing of God’s judgment.
[58] The repetition of the article is problematic. See Dubis, 1 Peter, 150, for a full summary of positions. The phrase has been understood as (1) a hendiadys (“the Spirit of the glorious God”); (2) an epexegetical expression (“the Spirit of glory—indeed, the Spirit of God”); or (3) expressing two distinct subjects of ἀναπαύεται with the καὶ being conjunctive and τὸ τῆς δόξης being either a reference to the Shekinah (“the divine Glory and the Spirit of God are resting upon you”) or the eschatological glory in verse 13. Definitive judgments are difficult to arrive at. However, the repetition of “glory” throughout the letter, referring to Christ’s eschatological glory, points to taking τὸ τῆς δόξης as an anaphoric reference to the glory mentioned in verse 13. Michaels’s estimation is likely correct in seeing Peter combining a reference to Isaiah 11:2 (LXX) with the Gospel tradition (Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12; Matt. 10:20). Michaels, 1 Peter, 264–265.
[59] Elliott, 1 Peter, 783, affirms “This is one of the few references to the divine Spirit in the letter.” Nevertheless, he proposes a distinction which is left unexplained when he writes, “The thought reflects the OT notion of God’s Spirit resting on God’s people and its leaders rather than a ‘Trinitarian’ sense of Spirit of God.”
[60] Schreiner notes, “Believers who suffer are blessed because they are now enjoying God’s favor, tasting even now the wonder of the glory to come and experiencing the promised Holy Spirit.” Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 223.
[61] “For it is only by the power of the Spirit that one finds the resolve and strength to live an uncompromising life in a society that is hostile to one’s fundamental convictions and values.” Jobes, 1 Peter, 288.
[62] Green, 1 Peter, 217.
[63] On Pauline letters see the works by Hill, Paul and the Trinity; Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity,” 99–124; Cohick, Letter to the Ephesians. On Johannine literature and the Trinity see Watson, “Trinity and Community,” 168–84; Brandon D. Smith, The Trinity in the Book of Revelation: Seeing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in John’s Apocalypse, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022). For a somewhat different approach to the question but still focused on the Johannine literature see Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel, NSBT 24 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008). On the Trinity in the Gospel of Luke see Rowe, “Luke and the Trinity.” See, however, the essays in Brandon D. Smith ed., The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Proposal (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2023).
[64] Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study, Studies in Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); Jonathan Rowlands, “Reception History, Theological Interpretation, and the Future of New Testament Studies,” Journal of Theolical Interpretation 13.2 (2019): 147–67.
[65] I would add that approaching the biblical text from a theological perspective is different from approaching the text from other ideological approaches (e.g., Feminist or post-colonial) that take a posture of the distrusting interpreter. See Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word, 68–74 on the implied (or ideal) reader of the text.
[66] Wesley Hill, “In Defense of ‘Doctrinal Exegesis’: A Proposal, with Reference to Trinitarian Theology and the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 14.1 (2020): 20–35.
[67] Similarly, Lockett states, “The triune relations between the Father, Son, and Spirit is most distinctly seen in the economy of redemption.” Lockett, “Catholic Epistles,” 341.
[68] Elliott, 1 Peter, 104–5.
[69] Fika J van Rensburg, “Identity, Ethics and Ethos in 1 Peter,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, BZNW 141 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 488.
[70] Luke Timothy Johnson, “God Ever New, Ever the Same: The Witness of James and Peter,” in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 221.
Garrett S. Craig
Garrett Craig is a PhD candidate in New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and serves as an associate pastor at Christ Church of South Metro Atlanta.
Other Articles in this Issue
Editorial: Announcing the Carson Center for Theological Renewal
by Brian J. Tabb and Benjamin L. Gladd
A Change in Kind, Not Degree: Labels, Identity, and an Evaluation of “Baptistic Congregationalists”
by Nathan ShermanHow do we decide what to label people of centuries past when they had no clear labels for themselves? Should we describe seventeenth century Baptists as “Baptists” if that was not what they called themselves? Matthew Bingham has recently argued that instead of using the label “Particular Baptists” for the English Calvinistic Baptists of the 1640s and 50s, historians would more clearly describe their subjects as “baptistic congregationalists...
Filial Revelation and Filial Responsibility: (Dis)obedient Sonship and The Religious Leaders in Matthew 11–16
by Adam FriendSonship appears in every section, at every turning point, and on the lips of every character in Matthew’s Gospel...
This paper articulates a provisional thesis, namely, that we need a pedagogical category within our biblical theological frameworks, on the basis that such a category was in the New Testament authors’ minds...
Scholars disagree about the precise nature of the sin that provokes God’s wrath in Genesis 19...
Other Reviews in this Issue
