Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:1–2)

One of the things I love about biblical authors is that there’s just no fluff. This is his greeting; it’s enough for five hours. It’s just, why do you talk like that? Most preachers, we feel like we do fluff for five minutes so that people will feel warm and fuzzy, and then we try to do a little bit of content. This is election, exile, foreknowledge, sanctification, blood grace, peace. Okay, here we go. I love it. Just my kind of guy. So let’s do something with it.

Peter’s Apostleship

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, represents Peter’s apostleship and authority. Here’s Peter being commissioned. This is Mark 3:

And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. He appointed the twelve: Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter. (Mark 3:13–16)

So there’s the origin of Peter’s apostleship. So don’t confuse disciple and apostle. Disciple means a follower of Jesus. An apostle is one of the twelve to whom he gave special authority to be his authoritative representatives, who would then write Scripture and be the foundation of the church.

Paul’s Apostleship

And here is an expression of Paul’s apostleship, just so you can see how it gets fleshed out in one of them. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:1: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?”

One of the criteria for being an apostle was that they had to see the risen Christ. You see that in Acts 1 when they had to replace Judas. And Paul is saying, “I did. On the Damascus Road. He called me like one born out of season and did a special appearance for me on the Damascus Road. Am I not an apostle?” And this right here: “Are you not my workmanship?” The sign of an apostle was not just that he had this astonishing relationship to the risen Christ as his authoritative spokesman, but that when he worked, amazing fruit happened. “There were signs of an apostle, and you are my sign,” he said.

Apostles as Liars, Lunatics, or Legitimate

And then here is the way apostles can talk, which is unbelievable in our pluralistic situation: “If anyone thinks he’s a prophet or spiritual,” and Paul believed in the gift of prophecy and spirituality; he wasn’t debunking either of those. “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37). If anyone does not recognize this, he’s not recognized.

That’s the way apostles talk. Apostles are the last court of appeal in authority in the New Testament time. “If you come along and say you have a prophecy, I’m fine with that. It just better not disagree with anything I say.” Wow. And of course, you have to decide as you read. This is one of the reasons I’m a Christian and just a little personal testimony about what sustains and undergirds my faith.

There’s Jesus, and then there’s Paul. Those are the two big reasons I’m a Christian. Liar, lunatic, Lord, C.S. Lewis works for me. The way Jesus talks is off-the-chart lunacy or lying, or he’s God. I can’t make him a lunatic. I can’t make him a liar as I see the four gospels spread out; therefore, I’m knocked over by Jesus.

The same thing works for Paul for me: liar, lunatic, or I’m thinking faithful apostle, not a very good L. But you read Paul talking like this. You say, “This man has an ego problem, or Jesus showed up and spoke to him.” I mean, if Jesus showed up and spoke to you and said, “You’re my authoritative spokesman from here on out among the Gentiles,” you’d speak with a certain measure of authority. And he did.

So then when you read Romans and Galatians and 1 Corinthians, you have to decide in the 21st century, is there enough here to get a feel that this man is crazy, or that he’s a charlatan? And my answer is, yes, there is enough there, and he’s not. I believe him. I’ll die for him. I’ll die for him. I’ll die for Jesus. Their words are true. That’s the way my mind works when it comes to authority.

So Peter’s apostleship acclaimed to be speaking on behalf of the risen Christ with authority. Go back to these words here: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to the elect exiles.” We’ll come back to that in a minute.

The Roman Provinces

“Of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). What’s that? This is the Mediterranean Sea, the blue part. Black Sea. This is Turkey today. Turkey. And here’s Pontus. I covered it up almost right there. Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, Asia. He’s going in clockwise, it looks like, in naming. These are Roman provinces in the first century. We don’t know where Peter traveled. The New Testament just says he is a traveler, because Paul one time said, “Couldn’t I have a wife to carry around like Peter?” So we know he’s married and he’s lugging his wife around, putting her at risk, which Paul wouldn’t do.

You got two options, married or not married, and you better marry the right person if you want to risk for Jesus. And evidently he did. I don’t know anything about that marriage, but it ended, I mean his life ended. Who knows? Maybe she was right beside him. So that’s where. He’s here in Rome right there. And it’s the year or two before the great conflagration. Evidently he can see it coming and he’s getting these reports probably that things are heating up over here and he’s writing to all those churches over there.

Elect Exiles

Okay, back to 1 Peter 1:1: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Elect exiles. What does that refer to? Exiles?

Oh, before we get stirred in election, let’s just discuss exiles of the dispersion. What does that mean? You all probably know that dispersion, the diaspora is the word, refers to Jews who were scattered outside Palestine. And is that the meaning here? The reason he calls them exiles, I’m asking you, is it because they’re Jews scattered outside of Palestine? I don’t think so. And most scholars, most commentators don’t think so. And here are the kinds of arguments. Exiles of the dispersion. Is it Jews away from Palestine or is it Christians away from heaven?

When you read this book, that’s probably pretty significant. Can you read yourself into the word exile because you are a Christian away from heaven, or is this the Jews in the first century outside Palestine? So you need to kind of step back and figure out another way to see yourself in this book. Two kinds of arguments to consider. I think it’s the latter. In other words, the one I’m going to argue for is this one right there.

I think exiles refer not to Jews outside Palestine here, but rather to Christians outside heaven. First Peter 1:17: “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.”

And this is now 1 Peter 2:11: “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.” Now, it sounds to me like there is a moral implication of being a sojourner here as in 1 Peter 2:11. “I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh.”

How would that work if they were Jews outside Palestine? Would there be a necessary correlation between a Jew outside Palestine and a Christian who has citizenship in heaven and is planted here on earth temporarily in an alien and foreign land? That would make more sense of saying the passions of the flesh are out of step with your sojourning condition.

Our Citizenship in Heaven

Keep going. Our citizenship, this is now I’m outside 1 Peter, you got to be careful when you do this. I could have done this with method. When I think about how to get valid insight into a text, I work in concentric circles. So I want to know what the immediate context shows me, then the rest of the book, then the rest of the writings by the same author, and then the rest of the New Testament.

And as you move out, you have to be more careful that you’re not reading in meanings here that come from way over there. So what I’m doing here is tenuous, and you need to judge as to whether you think it’s appropriate or inappropriate. All I’m doing here is saying in the New Testament the idea of Christians being citizens of heaven and exiles here is normal. So Philippians 3:20: “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior.”

Or Hebrews 11:13: “These all died in faith [up through Abraham], not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.”

So before there was any Babylonian captivity, that’s hundreds of years later, Abraham and Noah and Abel are exiles on the earth. And Hebrews 13:14: “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.”

So that’s the first kind of argument, namely that in the New Testament and in Peter, there seems to be a conceptual framework of Christians being refugees, exiles, aliens here and heaven being where their names are written and where their citizenship is, so that they are always keying off of heaven’s standards, not earth’s standards. Heaven values not earth values.

Gentile Inclusion

Second kind of argument in favor of that the readers of 1 Peter seem to be mainly Gentiles. So if they were Jews outside Palestine, why would he write about them like this? Two texts: So this is 1 Peter 2:9–10: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” Now all that’s taken straight out of the Old Testament. It sounds Jewish.

A people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Now, I know that’s Hosea 2, originally spoken to Jews. However, in Romans 9:25, Paul uses that very verse to argue that the Gentiles are included in the people of God: “Once you were not a people, now you’re God’s people.” It seems to me it would be probable that Peter would use it similarly, especially in view of what’s coming next.

So my argument here is, even though this is taken straight out of the Old Testament, “you were not a people, and now you are God’s people,” is Peter’s way of saying, “I’m treating you as the new Israel because once you were no people, now you are in the Messiah, in Jesus. And I can call you with that familiar language of exiles.”

But here’s the main argument that persuades most people that he’s writing to Gentiles:

For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this, they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you. (1 Peter 4:3–4)

So it looks like the readers used to be that way. They are surprised now. I mean, they wouldn’t be surprised if you were always that way, I mean if you were always withdrawn from that kind of behavior. But you were once part of it; now they’re surprised that you don’t join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you.

So what was your former lifestyle? You were sensual, given to passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, lawless idolatry. And virtually everybody who reads this says that’s not the description of a Jew. Jews weren’t Christians, but they didn’t live like that. The reason Judaism was popular among many Gentiles and the Gentiles became God-fearers and joined the synagogues often was because of their reputation for the law that they kept. It was a law that kept them out of this kind of trouble. So this sounds like they were Gentiles, and now they are in the church and withdrawn from that Gentile-ish way of living.

So my conclusion is that those commentators are very probably right, and that when it says “exiles of the dispersion” here in 1 Peter 1, it means Christians, people who have come to Christ, and now their citizenship is in heaven, and their identity on this earth is alien, and stranger, and sojourner, and exile. So you, if you’re a Christian, should see yourself here. That’s the implication, and a very important one.

The Issue of Election

Now we get to this issue of election. So elect exiles. Peter, an apostle, to those who are elect exiles. He just passes right over. He hasn’t paused to teach on the election like I’m doing right now. He’s just right over it. It’s as though election is just so much a part of his thinking that he just throws it in as an adjective to define the exile status. And my question is, what does he want us to understand with that word?

Now here’s a question. The reason I broke it out like this and put them on different lines is so that you could see this. Here’s a prepositional phrase: “according to”, “in”, “for”, and this is included in this. So I’m going to circle them like this. Three prepositional phrases modifying what? So one says, “according to”, “in”, “for”. It’s according to the foreknowledge of God. It’s in the sanctification of the Spirit. It’s for obedience to Jesus Christ. What are those modifying?

So if we would do sentence diagramming here, what would you connect them to? And virtually everybody connects it to election. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Elect in the sanctification of the Spirit. Elect for obedience to Jesus Christ. If we were in a class that was small, I’d say, “Do you agree with that? Why? Why not?”

When you start reading through each of the prepositional phrases and try to understand them as they come, it gets a little difficult to make them apply strictly to the word election and not also to the word exile. So what I’m going to commend to you to consider is those three prepositions. Those three prepositional phrases modify this taken together, elect exiles. Sometimes with the emphasis on election, sometimes with the emphasis on exiles. So I think what he’s saying here is God has chosen you such that you have become exiles.

Election doesn’t happen in history. Election happens in accord with God’s foreknowledge. It happened in eternity. Paul says before the foundation of the world. So he didn’t wait to see whether you were in exile. He chose you and you are exiles through that election, I’m going to argue.

So let’s take them one at a time. Elect exiles. Chosen exiles. God chose you and you are an exile, in exile on the earth according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. What does that mean? According to the foreknowledge of God the Father. And the word knowledge or foreknowledge, I was talking to Marshall who’s traveling with me and we were trying to think of an English counterpart to the way the New Testament uses, or the Old Testament uses the word knowledge so differently than we do, and we don’t have a good counterpart.

Examples of Foreknowledge

Let me give you three or four examples of what I mean. So I want to know what foreknown means. What is this referring to, foreknown, according to foreknowledge? A few verses later. So this is 1 Peter 1:20. Twenty verses later: “[Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times.”

Now so you can see, I’m thinking, I’m looking. Give me something in the immediate context that will help me know what foreknown means. Well, there it is. It’s the only other place in the book where it’s used. It’s real close, and it refers to Jesus before he’s incarnate. So what does that mean? He was foreknown before the foundation of the world. So Jesus was not yet born as a God man. He’s the second person of the Trinity and he is foreknown by God. What’s that?

And then manifested. Well, let’s keep going. Maybe if we put several together, it’ll make sense. Here’s 1 Corinthians 8:3. So now I’m moving out of Peter, which is risky, but here we go: “But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” Now God knows everything, knows everybody. So this is obviously a special use of the word know, which we find repeatedly in the Bible.

If you love God, if anybody here tonight loves God, the reason is because God has known you. He’s known you. Well, doesn’t he know the unbelievers? Yes, but not that way. So we want to know, what is that? Because I think that’s the kind of thing Peter has in mind, a knowing that is not awareness of all things, but something more relational it seems.

Here’s another one: Amos 3:2, talking to Israel, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth.” Well, he’s aware of all the families, but only you have I known. Only those who love me have I known. Only my Son did I foreknow.

And then Psalm 1:6: “The Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Well, doesn’t he know the way of the wicked? No, not like this. He knows the way of the righteous; the way of the wicked will perish.

So those are four instances, one of them in 1 Peter and the others like it, where know doesn’t mean merely to be aware of. So if this were a small class, I’d say, “Paraphrase that for me. Put those four together so that there’s a meaning for ‘know’ or ‘foreknow’ that works.”

And it says Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and had a son. So that’s a euphemism for sexual relations. So it’s relational. When I know you in this sense, I favor you, I draw you in. I acknowledge you. That’s the closest I could come to an English derivative of the word “know”. Ac-know-ledge. Ac-know-ledge. So if this were a Senate room, and I were the President of the Senate, and you were the Senator from Minnesota, I could say, “The Senator from Minnesota is acknowledged.” What would that mean? It means I choose you now to speak. You can speak. I favor you with a moment.

So I think that’s the idea here. So all that together: “Elect exiles according to the foreknowledge of God” means that election is in accord with God’s favoring, God’s loving, God’s taking, recognizing, acknowledging for himself. And it’s fore because it happened in eternity, like Jesus was foreknown and then became incarnate.