Who wrote the book of 1 Peter? Who was the author of 1 Peter?

The author of the epistle introduces himself as “Peter, (an) apostle of Jesus Christ” (chap. 1:1). His proper name was Simon (from the Hebrew Simeon meaning “hearkening”). He got the name Peter (Greek: “stone”, Aramaic: Cephas) from the Lord Jesus (John 1:41-42). Peter was one of the first disciples of the Lord (Mark 1:16-18). He was a fisherman from Bethsaida (John 1:44) living in Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). Peter was married and later on his wife accompanied him when he was travelling as an apostle (Mark 1:30; 1 Cor. 9:5). Peter was brought to the Lord through his own brother Andrew and soon he belonged to the inner circle of the Lord's disciples together with James and John (John 1:42; Mark 5:37; Matt. 17:1; 26:37). All four enumerations of the apostles list Peter first (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13).

The first obvious testimony to the first epistle is found with Polycarp of Smyrna (around 70 to 155 AC) in his letter to the Philippians. Irenaeus (around 140 to 202 AC), Clemens of Alexandria (around 150 to 215 AC), Tertullian (around 160 to 220 AC) and Origines (around 185 to 254 AC) all testify that Peter is the author of this epistle.

Only in recent times critical voices have been raised against this old tradition. The good Greek and the similarity with Paul's epistles pretendedly do not fit in with Peter! Most scientists however do not think these arguments hold water. The author introduces himself as witness of the sufferings of Christ (chap. 5:1), he remembers the Lord's announcement of the assembly (chap. 2:4-5; compare Matt. 16:18) and also the Lord's commandment to Peter for a pastoral ministry (chap. 5:1-4; compare John 21:15-17). We also find various parallels to Peter's speeches in the Acts.

If Peter uses some of the great truths found in the Epistles of Paul it was because the Spirit of God desired to have them restated. If we examine these parallels closely we discover that they cover the most essential truths of Christianity and are used for practical exhortations. Those whom Peter addressed needed these truths and the practical application. On the other hand there are many internal evidences which prove that none but Peter wrote this Epistle. It has been pointed out that there is a similarity between Peter's statements in the book of Acts and in this first Epistle. Compare Acts 4:11; 2:32, 3:15 with 1 Peter 2:7; 1:3, 4, 8 and 5:1. He also uses a peculiar word for the cross. It is the word "tree" (the Greek word xulon). See Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Peter 2:24. Furthermore, the writer speaks of having been an eyewitness of the Lord's sufferings (5:1). He describes these sufferings, how He was reviled and reviled not, how He suffered and threatened not. And Peter was an eyewitness of all this. Nor is it without significance that in this Epistle alone the Lord Jesus Christ is called "the chief Shepherd." On the shores of Lake Tiberias the risen Lord restored Simon Peter to service and told him "shepherd My sheep," hence Peter speaks of the Lord as the chief Shepherd, and also exhorts the elders to be faithful in feeding the flock of God. As it is with all other critical objections to the traditional belief as to the inspired authorship of the different Bible books, the objections against the Petrine authorship of this Epistle are wholly worthless. Peter wrote this Epistle. The date cannot be definitely settled, but must be placed between 62 and 65 A.D.

The genuineness of this Epistle is confirmed by the most ancient sources. Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the Apostle John, cites the Epistle of Peter. Papias of Hierapolis made use of the Epistle likewise. This was about the middle of the second century. Two quotations of Peter's Epistle are found in a very ancient source, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," a kind of manual going back to 100 A.D. All the other documents of the first and second centuries show that the Epistle was unanimously known and accepted as Peter's.

The critics have not left it unattacked. We do not need to quote the different theories advanced by Cludius, Eichhorn (the man who coined the phrase "higher criticism"), De Wette, Bauer, Davidson, Pfleiderer, Hamack, and others. The main objection seems to be that the expressions used in this Epistle are too much like the thoughts and expressions of the Apostle Paul as used in his Epistles, so, as it is assumed, Peter could not have written it. This theory was expanded into the hypothesis that some one must have written it who had spent considerable time with Paul, so that he adopted Pauline ideas and phrases; John Mark has been suggested by some to be that person. Critics have pointed out many parallels with different Pauline Epistles. "In considering these parallels, allowance must be made for ideas and phraseology, hymns, prayers, confessions of faith, and other matter, which were the common property of the primitive Church; and would introduce a degree of similarity into the writings of different authors. But much of the thought and language of First Peter belongs to what was characteristic of the teaching of Paul and his followers as distinct from that of the Palestinian or Jewish churches. The parallels in any case, show a dependence upon Pauline teaching.

"But we may go further. There is a great variety of opinion as to the precise character and extent of the dependence of First Peter on the writings of Paul. It has been suggested that it is just possible that Paul himself was the author of First Peter, the passages in which Peter's name occurs being later insertions; and again that this Epistle and Ephesians were the work of one author. But that dependence, especially on Romans, is very widely recognized" (New Century Bible).

All these objections, speculations, and theories denying the Petrine authorship are answered by the fact of inspiration. Peter no doubt knew and read the Epistles of Paul; in fact he speaks of them in his second letter (2 Peter 3:15-16). But that does not mean that he copied and reproduced the statements found in some of Paul's Epistles; nor does it mean that he depended on Paul when he wrote his Epistle. The Holy Spirit who guided Paul's pen guided also the hand of Peter; all is the direct work of the Holy Spirit.

It definitely addresses the "strangers scattered" in the provinces of Asia Minor, yet "elect" — i.e., Peter writes to converted people of his own nation scattered throughout the regions to the north of Palestine. Peter was the apostle to the circumcision (see Gal. 2:7-8), yet it was Paul who traversed these lands and evangelized the Jews while carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles; so Peter exercised his ministry towards them by pen and ink.

The Apostle Peter reminds the converted Jews to whom he wrote that they now stood in the grace of God. Formerly their relations with God had been upon the basis of the law, and upon that basis they did not stand at all; they fell. These converts were scattered all over the various provinces of Asia Minor, and though Peter was the apostle to the circumcision they had actually been evangelised by the Apostle Paul. Peter carried out his commission in regard to them by pen and ink, and wrote this letter to them, in which he corroborated the testimony that had reached them through Paul's lips, saying, "This is the true grace of God wherein ye stand."

This last is made plain and certain by the second term, "sojourners," when combined with the word "dispersion" which it qualifies. They were not the primitive possessors of these countries, nor simply "elect" from among its settled inhabitants. They were not only Jews scattered in those parts, but elect "pilgrims" or "sojourners." This was a title of grace, as "dispersion" was of judgment. Their election in this case was bound up with the journey to the better country, that is, a heavenly. Originally Jews, they were now Christians. This entirely accords with the writer of the Epistle. Peter was an "apostle of Jesus Christ" as he here introduces himself; and as the gospel of the uncircumcision had been confided to Paul, so was that of the circumcision to Peter (Gal. 2:7). Hence it is to such that these two Epistles were addressed. Compare 2 Peter 3:1 with the verse before us. As this is certain, it is unbelieving to allow that any other statements can countervail. Even a man would not write so incoherently: why should men of faith think so unworthily of scripture? Can such persons hold divine inspiration?

"Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ to elect sojourners scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1).

1 Peter 1:1. Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to (the) sojourners of (the) dispersion, &c

You will notice who they are, to whom Peter is writing. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1). They were believing Jews, who had been scattered abroad, through the persecution that arose after the death of Stephen. Peter takes up here, the charge committed to him by the Lord at his public restoration, in John 21, "Feed my sheep." I say his public restoration, for there had been a private meeting between the Lord and Peter before this, as we have seen in Luke 24:34, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon." At that private meeting between the Lord and Peter, when no one else was near, no doubt everything as to his fall, and what led to it, had come out, though the details of what passed between them then we know not, but at the public restoration the Lord put into Peter's hands that which He loves best, thus showing the confidence of His heart. How could I most prove my confidence in a friend if I were going away? Surely it would not be by going to that one, and telling him I had confidence in him, but — by committing to his charge the person, or the thing I loved most.