This is part 3 of a 5-part blog series. In the previous blogs, we explored 1Peter 1:1-2, particularly the possibility of discovering what event or state of being happened or exists that was “according to the foreknowledge of God.” Our goal has been to discover the grammatical object of the verb “foreknow’ and to answer the question “What or Who is it that God “foreknew?” in 1Peter 1:1-2.
1Peter 1:1-2 reads as follows…
"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."
So far, we have suggested two options. God foreknew the "elect," and God foreknew the "exiles." Grammatically, both of those answers could be the object of “What or Who God foreknew?” And both refer to the audience to whom Peter is writing.
We have suggested that the audience of Peter’s letter here are those specific Jewish people whom God has “elected/chosen” historically to be His people, who have been “exiled” from their homeland and now reside in the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. They are the double dative “elect exiles” now living as foreigners in regions not their own in Asia Minor.
The question is how did these double dative “elect exiles” get to Asia Minor. Peter answers that question: via a dispersion or “diaspora”. By connecting a possessive noun phrase to his already explanatory double dative noun phrase “elect exiles” Peter creates a trifecta phrase. In essence, the identity of his readers simply could read the “dispersed elect exiles.”
If Peter has not already identified his readers as Jewish people whom God “elected” and “exiled” banishing them from their homeland, he now uses the possessive noun phrase to further extend the noun phrase to further identity of his readers. They are “elect exiles” + “of the diaspora.”
In English, the use of the possessive case is usually shown by preceding it with the preposition "of" or by adding s, 's, or just an apostrophe to the end of the word as in, "of John, John’s, or Johns’."
Possessive nouns are mostly used to indicate possession/ownership or to indicate a part of a whole. This last phrase, “part of a whole” is a prime example of its part-of-a-whole usage.
In the case of 1Peter 1:1-2, the double dative noun phrase “elect exiles” not only may function as a co-referent for Israel, but the additional possessive noun phrase, “of the diaspora,” also may function as the “part” of the part-of-the-whole possessive construction and the word, “dispersion” may function as the “whole” in that construction also as an identifier of Israel. What Peter might be saying is that those people now residing in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are part of the whole of the Jewish dispersion event throughout Jewish history.
In the New Testament both John and James use the word “diaspora” (John 7:35 and James 1:1) to refer to the Jewish people in their “dispersed” state throughout the world. We know that the result of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, the Jewish people had been displaced from their native land and forced to live as aliens in foreign lands for centuries.
We also know from Jewish history that the Kingdom of Israel was barbarically defeated by the Assyrians and Babylonians during the 8th-6th centuries BC and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah taken into exile and scattered or “dispersed” throughout the empire. From that point on, in Jewish history, the Jewish people became scattered or “dispersed” throughout the known regions of the world.
So, we might be able to suggest again, at this point, that Peter is using this possessive noun phrase connected to the double datives as a way of identifying who are the intended readers of his letter. Since we have already suggested that the nouns “elect” and “exiles” both individually and collectively could refer to the Jewish nation, then it follows grammatically, that the possessive noun phrase that modifies those two double dative nouns “elect” and “exiles,” also refers to the Jewish nation. Then we have moved from a simple double dative reference to the Jewish nation to a triple trifecta reference.
Not only is this tripartite construction “elect” + “exiles” + “of the dispersion” convincing that the object of the “foreknowledge of God” is the entire noun phrase “elect exiles of the dispersion,” it is also very convincing that the triplets also refer specifically, as individual parts of the greater whole, to the Jewish nation.
Perhaps Peter is attempting to acknowledge the fate of the Jewish nation as a means of endearing himself to them in the beginning of his letter. So, it may be that Peter is using the term “exiles” referring to all Jews scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia who now reside in the regions of the Roman Empire under the tyrannical rule of the Roman government? This would seem to be a fitting the context in which to lay the content of Peter's first letter.
If you notice the two maps below, the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia located there, fall pretty much within the regions of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires and specifically within the corresponding Roman empire current with the writing of Peter’s letter.
And so, it is not too farfetched to conclude that the Jewish exiles of the Assyrian empire now residing in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in the Roman Empire are the recipients of his letter and Peter wants to acknowledge their history in order to gain their trust and attention from the very beginning of his letter.
Is Peter then talking to Jews here - in general - who throughout their history have been scattered abroad (Lev 26:33; Deu 4:27, Deu 28:64, Deu 32:26; Est 3:8; Psa 44:11; Eze 6:8; Joh 7:35; Joh 11:52; Act 8:4; Jas 1:1), and in particular to those Jews who eventually scattered as far as Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia and now residing in those regions?
It is also very intriguing to note that Peter refers to “Babylon” in his letter here (1 Peter 5:13), most likely as a reference to Rome as the current historical Jewish dominator of the Jewish people in Rome and the entire Roman empire in general. Is his reference of Babylon purposeful?
If it is purposeful, does this lead us to the suggestion that he may have an affinity to the idea of connecting Rome to Babylon in some way as the current barbaric overseers and dispersers of the Jewish people in the Roman Empire?
We also know that in history more recent to Peter’s writing, the Roman Emperor Claudius evicted all Jews from Rome in 49AD. This eviction from Rome is most likely the eviction to which Luke was referring in Acts 18:1-3,
"…Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome."
Peter is writing sometime in the 60’s to 70’s AD so there would be plenty of time (10-20 years of dispersion) for these people to travel from Rome to these regions. Since Peter is writing in the same period as this exile from Rome, he could be referencing this more recent exile and dispersion of Jews to the regions in the Roman Empire.
In either case, Babylonian and/or Roman exile, both historical dates involve Jews being dispersed through exile.
If so, then the trifecta grammatical construction of the phrase, “elect exiles of the dispersion” is actually three nouns (“elect”, “exiles” and “dispersion”) functioning as one object of What or Who God foreknew and that identifies the recipients of his letter, referring to one identity, the Jewish people.
If that one idea (that the Jewish nation is elected, exiled, and dispersed) is the object of What or Who God foreknew, then that brings us back again to the question, “Is that what Peter had in mind when he wrote his letter?
Since all three nouns, “elect,” “exiles,” and “diaspora” have been shown to refer to the Jewish nation individually, doubly and in triplets, the question should simply be "Is this a coincidence, or did Peter intentionally triple-up his references for a reason?" Did Peter construct his introduction in such a way as to make sure that no one would miss the fact that he was writing to Jewish people?
As we have contended in previous blogs, introductions mean more than something. They mean everything. They are very significant to the understanding of the rest of the letter. Introductions set the stage and background upon which an author lays out the content of a letter. Understanding the content of a letter depends on how well we understand the background and context of that letter.
If true, then Peter definitely wants us to understand his letter in the context of and from the background of the Jewish diaspora as God’s elect exiles.
But before we arrive there, we should set another piece of the background in place. We should discuss the way in which Peter introduces himself. His introduction of himself as an “apostle” also contributes to an overall understanding of the context of his letter and solidifies that he is writing to his fellow Jewish nation.
In our next blog we will discuss “Peter the Apostle.”