top of page

What if 1 Peter was written to Jews? This changes everything!

The other day I began to read 1 Peter devotionally. I did not make it through the first verse before something that I had never seen jumped out at me. Do you see it?

Peter, an apostle of Jesus the Messiah. To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.” (1 Pet. 1:1-2)

Elect, Exiles, Scattered, Chosen

He refers to God’s elect—a term that is frequently used for Israel. “Often in the Old Testament, Israel is designated as God’s chosen and elect people. Deut 4:37; 7:6–8; 10:15; 14:2; Ps 106:5; Isa 14:1; 41:8–18; 43:20; 45:4; 51:2; 65:9, 15, 23.”[1]

And these elect are exiles who have been scattered. The prophets constantly refer to the Jews as those who were exiled (the word is found nearly 100 times in the prophets, almost exclusively referring to Judah going into exile) and scattered (roughly 30 times, mostly referring to the Jewish people being exiled). I always assumed that Peter was simply writing a general letter to all believers in that region. Yet this language is very similar to that of the prophets. Ezra and Nehemiah refer to the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian deportation as exiles.

Ps. 147:2 says, “The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the exiles of Israel.”
Jeremiah prophesied, “He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.” (Jer. 31:10).

Indeed there were a large number of Jews living in the regions mentioned. “These provinces were primarily Gentile but with large numbers of Jews living in them.”[2] And there is this: “When [Peter] says they are ‘dispersed abroad,’ the Greek term he uses is ‘diasporas,’ a term used to refer to the scattering of the Jewish people (from which we get the phrase ‘Diaspora Jews’).[3]

As I dug in, I found that the view of most of the earliest interpreters was that he was writing to Jewish believers. Most ancient interpreters (Origen, Eusebius, the Greek Fathers) tended to believe this—that the recipients were Messianic Jews…of course, they did not use the term Messianic Jews, which came about in the late 60s. Jewish believers were referred to as Nazarenes (read more about that). Why did these early theologians believe Peter was addressing Jewish believers? Grant Osborne says it was because of:

  1. His use of the Old Testament.

  2. The allusion to the readers as “exiles of the Dispersion” (1:1, RSV).

  3. The Jewish flavor of several passages could point to Jewish provenance…[4]

John Calvin also claimed that the dispersed in v. 1 could only apply to Israel. Yet, modern interpreters believe it was written to Gentile believers. Peter could simply be spiritualizing the term “exiles,” because our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). Certainly, in 2:11, he is using the terms foreigners and exiles in the spiritual sense, not a Jewish national sense. On the other hand, v. 12 tells his readers to live “good lives among the Gentiles.” Gentile (ethnos) here typically means non-Jew, but could also mean pagan or unbeliever..

Why is this a big deal?

You might be wondering, "What's the bid deal? Who cares?" It is because those who espouse replacement theology use passages in 1 Peter to support their claim that the church as replaced Israel. There is so much imagery from the Old Testament in 1 Peter that if we conclude he was writing to Gentiles, it strengthens the idea that God has transferred all of Israel's promises to the church. It gives credence to the concept that the modern state of Israel is nothing but a giant coincidence.

In 1 Peter 2:9, the readers are said to be “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession” — phrases pulled right out of the Hebrew Scriptures as descriptors of the nation of Israel. If Peter is applying this imagery to Gentiles, then as Scot McKnight claims, “There is no passage in the New Testament that more explicitly associates the Old Testament terms for Israel with the New Testament church than this one.”[5]

However, if he is writing to Jewish believers, then he is not seeing the church as having replaced Israel. If this calling to be a royal priesthood and chosen nation was valid before coming to Messiah, how much more afterward. Paul says that the calling on Israel is irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) and for Jews there is "much value" in being circumcised (Rom. 3:1-4).


But if his audience is primarily Gentile, then these phrases would be foreign to them. Remember, the Hebrew scriptures (the only Bible they had at the time) were only in the Jewish synagogue. The average Gentile believer was fairly ignorant of concepts from the Hebrew scriptures. While many of the New Testament books had been written by then, they were mostly letters to specific churches, and without a printing press, which would come 1500 years later, they were not widely circulated. How did these believers survive? On apostolic tradition and memorizing creeds—but that is another blog. My point here is that Gentile believers scattered throughout Asia would not have known these Old Covenant themes.

Another example is in Chapter 2, Peter quotes Ps. 118:22, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”[6] This would have great meaning to Jewish believers—a remnant who found Messiah, understanding that the leadership (builders) had rejected Yeshua. This meaning would have been lost on the non-Jewish believers. Like in Hebrews, a book clearly written to Jewish believers (my theory is that they were former Temple priests who had come to faith, now living in exile because of persecution [see Acts 6:7]), he uses the imagery of the Temple priesthood and sacrifices to explain Messiah’s mission. Again, this would not have made sense to a Gentile audience living in Asia in pre-64CE (Peter was martyred in 64CE). But it is wildly illuminating to the Jewish believers who now see themselves as “living stones” who are “being built into a spiritual house” (2:5) as opposed to the dead stones of the former house—the Temple.

One weakness in my hypothesis is in chapter 4:3, where he seems to be addressing former pagans:

“For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.”

Good Jews would certainly not join in with pagans like this. However, notice he doesn’t say “other pagans,” but “what pagans choose to do.” The word translated pagan is ethne and is usually translated as nations or Gentiles (as stated above). He makes a distinction between you (those he was writing) and them (gentile unbelievers).

Scholar Thomas Schreiner says this verse refers to Israel but then wrongly interprets Israel as the church. In other words, even those who wrongly believe “the Church is identified as the new Israel in Paul”[7] such as Schreiner, admit that Peter is speaking to Israel—not pagans. Keep in mind many Jews were Hellenistic, meaning they had rejected Jewish culture for Greek; thus, they could have been those who once lived “in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and detestable idolatry.” So, this problem verse actually supports the view that his audience was Jewish.

Throughout the book, Peter contrasts his readers with the ethne—the nations. Jim Sibley from Israel College of the Bible writes;

Those outside of the circle to whom Peter is writing are referred to as ‘Gentiles’ (ἐθνῶν). The pronouns are most significant: ‘You’ are not a part of ‘them’ and ‘they’ are surprised that ‘you’ do not run with ‘them,’ and therefore, ‘they’ malign ‘you.’ It would hardly be possible to draw a sharper contrast between the Gentiles and Peter’s audience. The clear implication is that his audience is comprised of Jewish believers. Since, however, it has been concluded that the audience, though Gentile, is being addressed as the ‘true Israel,’ then the word ‘Gentiles’ is reinterpreted as ‘unbelievers,’ or non-Christians.[8]

One of the ways that we interpret scripture is to ask, “What is the clear meaning (as opposed to hidden meaning) of the passage?” Based on verse 1 and his allusion to chosen exiles who were scattered, it would lead to the assumption that he was writing to Jewish believers. And if you look at 2 Peter, he addresses his hearers differently:

“To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Pet. 1:1b).

It clearly is addressed to a more general audience, as there is no mention of chosen exiles who were scattered..

Two final questions: Why does the most recent scholarship believe Peter was writing to Christians in general? And, if he was writing exclusively to Messianic Jews, why? I believe the further we got away from the original Jewish congregation in Jerusalem, it became harder and harder for theologians to understand the unique role of Israel, a role that Paul says is still valid (Rom. 11:29). I believe the attitude became, “Why would he be writing to Jews? God is finished with them. It makes no sense.”

So why was he writing specifically to Jewish believers? Because Jewish believers were being persecuted for their faith. Just as the writer of Hebrews around the same time is encouraging Jewish believers not to cave into persecution, Peter is seeking to encourage Jewish believers in their faith. He reminds them that they have found the cornerstone. Their lives have been redeemed by a perfect lamb—something every Jew who had eaten the Passover meal would understand. he is showing them that believing in Jesus as Messiah is completely consistent with the Hebrew scriptures, and thus draws in the sacred calling from Exodus 19 to be a chosen nation, a royal priesthood.

Jews and Gentiles, One in Messiah!

But here’s what he’s not doing. He is not making the case that the Jewish believer is above the Gentile believer. He is not making the case that the Jewish people are better in any way than Gentile believers. In the same way that Paul writes to churches in specific cities for specific reasons, Peter is writing to a specific segment of the ecclesia, with unique theological concerns and addressing temptations to return to a Jesus-less Judaism, which he calls, their “empty way of life.” In Yeshua Jews and Gentiles are 100% equal.

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 50. [2] Grant R. Osborne, “1 Peter,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, ed. Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011), 135. [3] Derek Demars, “Was 1 Peter Written to Jews or Gentiles? Why the Answer Matters More Than You Might Think,” Theology Pathfinder, September 28, 1019, [4] Osborne, “1 Peter,” 135. [5] Demars, “Was 1 Peter written to Jews or Gentiles?...” [6] The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Pe 2:7. [7] “Book review: Heirs of Promise: The Church as the New Israel in Romans,” Community Bible Church, accessed September 17, 2022, [8] Jim R. Sibley, “You Talkin’ to Me? 1 Peter 2:4-10 and a Theology of Israel,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 59:1 (Fall 2016), 66.

1,542 views12 comments

Recent Posts

See All

12 commentaires

Nadejda Melnic
Nadejda Melnic
10 nov. 2022

"In Yeshua Jews and Gentiles are 100% equal." not very accurate statement. In Yeshua Jews and gentiles are not equal, but One: Ephisians 2 :14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Ron Cantor
Ron Cantor
11 nov. 2022
En réponse à

That is not what Scripture teaches. It teaches that we are equally valued by God, but still have unique differences. My wife and I are one, but I have yet to get pregnant or nurse a baby. We are equally valued, but have different roles. You cannot simply take one passage, such as Ephesians 2, and then ignore the rest of Scripture. Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. So, when reading Eph. 2, you must ask yourself about Romans 11...God has not rejected Israel (v. 1, 11), the calling in Israel from the Hebrew bible is "irrevocable" (v. 29) ... you can be one and yet have differences. Just as God is one and but is expressed in three persons. The…


Dennis Hansel
Dennis Hansel
28 sept. 2022

I would have to agree that most gentile believers may not have been conversant with the scriptures (the Law and the Prophets) however there were some gentiles who like the centurion at Caesarea and among the crowd at Pentecost, who may have been attending the synagogue and learning the scriptures. I do not disagree with the conclusion that God has not set aside Israel. I just wish to say that we (gentiles more than you my brother) do not consider the historical culture and context in which both the scriptures and the teaching of the apostles were given.


Paul Smith
Paul Smith
24 sept. 2022

Bingo, Ron! I've been telling folks this ever since reading "Copernicus and The Jews" by Dan Gruber. I'm glad someone with a wider audience is now saying it. There's more, too. I heartily recommend Gruber's book for many more wow-I-hadn't-thought-of-that-before-but-yeah moments like this one. Here's a freebie, just to give you a taste: do you think maybe the apostles used ἐκκλησίᾳ as a translation of קָהַל (following the LXX); that they were not really adopting a koine Greek word referring to a political assembly? Gruber's title for Chapter 2 is, "Parlez-vous Jewish Greek?" wherein he amazingly and amusingly demolishes the notion that "the New Testament is a Christian Document, written in Greek." That's only chapter two. Enjoy!


You seem to presume that “Gentile” believers in that era were a separate entity altogether. That is not what the apostles advocated

Ron Cantor
Ron Cantor
23 sept. 2022
En réponse à

That is a good point. I don't believe that. This is now 30+ years after Pentecost. The church is more and more non-Jewish and I do not believe that they met separately. But still the Jewish believer had a unique position as being the people of the book, familiar with the book. And to be clear, this is not my view alone, but Origen, Eusebius, the Greek Fathers, and many, many scholars.


100% agree with you Ron. Great article!

My only comment is to: "Remember, the Hebrew scriptures (the only Bible they hadat the time) were only in the Jewish synagogue. The average Gentile believer was fairly ignorant of concepts from the Hebrew scriptures."

I'm not sure that's true. I think there were significant numbers of Gentile God-fearers and converts to Judaism who would have heard the Hebrew Scriptures read and discussed every shabbat. In fact it was these Gentile synagogue attendees who became the first Gentile believers in Yeshua. Right?

Ron Cantor
Ron Cantor
23 sept. 2022
En réponse à

Indeed there were Gentile God-fearers, but when we read Acts, they were massive numbers of pagans who embraced Yeshua. Within a short time, the majority of the ecclesia was former-Pagans, as opposed to God-fearing Gentiles.

Ebook 2.jpg

Get Ron's Book, "The Coming End-Time Awakening" FREE

When you Subscribe to Ron's emails from Israel.




Short Bio

PROFILE v3.png

Shalom from Israel! I am Ron Cantor and this is my blog. I serve as the President of Shelanu TV.

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Shelanu TV

Image by Josh Appel
eMailer-MAY20-ShelanuTV 2.png

"We reached 260,000 Israelis in just two weeks. With your help we can do this every week!"

bottom of page