1 Peter

Michaels offers one of the most distinctive and illuminating readings of 1 Peter, characterizing the work as an apocalyptic diaspora letter addressed to predominantly Gentile Christians as Israel. The proposal gives remarkable coherence to Peter’s simultaneous depiction of his readers as elect and estranged: their conversion has given them Israel’s Scriptures, identity, and history while making them outsiders within their former social world. His comparison with Jewish diaspora literature also brings the letter’s strongly eschatological orientation into sharper focus. Michaels is unusually independent on difficult passages as well, including his interpretation of Christ’s proclamation in 3:18–22 as the assertion of sovereign victory over hostile spiritual powers. Some individual readings are idiosyncratic and his genre classification can be pressed too far, but this is precisely the kind of commentary that repeatedly changes how one sees the text.

When I was teaching I Peter, I looked at several commentaries. Many of them were good, but Michaels stood out for sheer readability.

A good option for a thorough, technical commentary. I prefer Davids, Marshall, and Jobes ahead of this one, mainly because of user-friendliness. But because WBC is a more technical series, this has far more linguistic detail.

Michaels reads 1 Peter as a letter addressed to Gentiles, although the letter he says “sends mixed signals.” He recognizes that the opening verse could very well refer to literal Jews, but 1:14-18 seems to imply rather strongly that the readers are Gentiles. Since the commentary was published in 1988, Michaels can say there is a “near consensus” that Peter was writing to Gentiles. For Michaels, 1 Peter is an “apocalyptic diaspora letter to ‘Israel.’” While James was written to (real) messianic Jews in the Diaspora, Michaels thinks 1 Peter was written to (metaphorical) Jews in the Diaspora, ie., Gentiles. He surveys at length the problems with the historical Peter as author and concludes that we cannot be certain simply because the evidence is thin. In the body of the commentary, each section begins with a bibliography and fresh translation followed by textual notes. Since 1 Peter use the Hebrew Bible a great deal, Michaels often uses these notes to delve into the complicated matter of Peter’s used of Septuagint versus Hebrew Bible. The textual notes are followed by a “Form/Structure/Setting” section, often commenting on possible pre-Petrine forms (hymns, traditional formulae, etc.) The comment section proceeds phrase-by-phrase in Greek, no transliteration is provided. Michaels makes detailed lexical and syntactical comments; it is here that the commentary excels. Following the long comment sections is a more brief “explanation” which ties the pericope to the overall themes of 1 Peter. [Full Review]

It feels like an injustice to postpone a commendation of J Ramsey Michaels' exceptional commentary on 1 Peter to third place, but the competition is stiff; you can't go wrong with Michaels [Full Review]

Dates 1 Peter late.

[Full Review]