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.