The Cross of Christ in Peter’s Theology

By Frederic R. Howe

Frederic R. Howe, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, resides in Cincinnati, Ohio.

This is article two in a four-part series, “Theological Themes in 1 and 2 Peter.”

Peter mentioned the death of Christ in every chapter of 1 Peter, and he alluded to it in 2 Peter 2:1. It is well to remember also that in Peter’s messages recorded in the Book of Acts the cross of Christ is prominent (see Acts 2:23–28; 3:14–16; 5:30–32; 10:38–42).

Peter’s proclamations of the truth about Calvary include great theological depth and richness, though before Jesus’ resurrection Peter did not want to believe that the Messiah would be crucified (Matt. 16:21–22; 17:22–23). When the risen Savior opened the minds of the disciples “to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), however, Peter and the other apostles learned the truth of the suffering Messiah. Jesus’ unfolding of the Christological significance of central Old Testament passages indelibly linked His death with the proclamation of the gospel. Luke clearly indicated that this truth is basic to the message of salvation from sin (24:45–47). What Peter had believed about the suffering Messiah was now radically changed by the very nature of the divine necessity of the Cross.[1]

When the Holy Spirit came in fulfillment of God’s promise, He gave further clarification to the apostles, as Peter himself declared concerning Christ in Acts 5:31–32: “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”[2]

As a result of this sweeping change in Peter’s thinking, he moved far away from his position of resisting the teaching of Christ concerning His impending suffering (Matt. 16:22). Instead of his former words, “This shall never happen to you,” he now declared, “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sin” (Acts 10:43).

The Cross in God’s Overall Plan (1 Pet. 1:1-3)

Peter began his first epistle by identifying himself as an apostle, and by identifying his readers both geographically and theologically. He wrote, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners … according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; Grace to you be multiplied” (italics added). Concerning these descriptive phrases, Michaels states, “Three prepositional phrases recite how the recipients of the epistle came to be what they are. The divine election that severed their ties with the society to which they once belonged is more than predestination in the mind of God in eternity past. It begins there but finds historical expression in the social experience of individuals and a community. It is synonymous with what Peter five times refers to as being ‘called’ (1:15; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10…. When applied to God’s foreknowledge of persons (whether of Jesus or his people), ‘foreknowledge’ is more than mere prescience; it involves choice or determination as well.”[3]

The Trinitarian framework here is obvious. The providential plan of God the Father, the setting apart or sanctifying work of the Spirit, and the death of Jesus Christ (represented by the sprinkling of the blood) are equally descriptive of God’s provision for believers as “chosen sojourners.” The three phrases are closely related, following as they do in tight-knit sequence.

The phrase “in sanctification of the Spirit” is a subjective genitive, referring to sanctifying work accomplished by the Spirit of God. This refers to the initial work of God whereby the believer is set apart, placed into the new community of those chosen by God in His grace.[4] A striking Pauline parallel is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:13: “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”

The “obedience” mentioned in 1 Peter 1:2 refers to the response of belief and saving trust in Christ. Peter used obedience in a similar way in verse 22: “Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart.”

In verse 2 Peter mentioned obedient-faith response, thereby indicating the human act of belief in Christ. Then he mentioned the sprinkling of blood. A similar sequence occurs in Exodus 24:1–8. After Moses read the book of the covenant, the people responded by believing and saying, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” Following this commitment the ritual of sprinkling the blood took place: “So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.’ ”

Michaels discusses the meaning of Peter’s phrase this way: “To ‘obey’ was to accept the gospel and become part of a new community under a new covenant; to be sprinkled with Jesus’ blood was to be cleansed from one’s former way of living and released from spiritual slavery by the power of his death (cf. 1:18).”[5] The only way the power of the atoning work of Christ could be applied was through His sacrificial death. Even as the Old Testament sacrifice clearly meant the death of the sacrificial animal, so in the New Testament era the only way Christ’s work could become efficacious was through His atoning death. Even as these early Gentile believers received instruction in the background of their faith from Old Testament imagery and ritual, so today a vital teaching of biblical truth is mandatory for the church as individuals come to Christ as their Redeemer and Lord.

Peter’s vivid use of this Old Testament background sets the stage, so to speak, for his further explanation of the fact that Christ’s death has a powerful ethical imperative, a realization that the believer is identified with His death, and that this identification has vital ethical and practical implications (1 Pet. 2:24). As Hillyer explains, “The idea of sprinkling can have several references. It can imply the transfer to the elect of the merits of the atoning and cleansing virtue of Christ’s death (Num. 19:9; Heb. 9:13–22) and also of consecration to priestly service, including access to God (Exod. 29:21; Lev. 8:30; Heb. 10:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:4, 9).”[6] Later, particularly in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter developed this aspect of the believer’s consecration to priestly service.

Christ’s Death as Payment for Redemption (1 Pet. 1:18-25)

In 1 Peter 1:18–19 the apostle expanded on two lines of truth introduced in verses 2–3. These two facets are the foreknowledge of God (“For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world”) and the blood of Christ (“redeemed … with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ”).

Peter’s emphasis in verses 18–19 on the death of Christ as the redemption price has its origin in the Old Testament, and also draws illustrative content from the practice of redemption in the Roman world. Redemption basically means release or deliverance from bondage. This deliverance is effected by a redeemer, who pays a price to release the prisoner or slave. Possibly this reflects Isaiah 52:3: “For thus says the Lord, ‘You were sold for nothing and you will be redeemed without money.’ ” The Lord’s people were turned over to foreign powers, as punitive means to bring them to repentance. In that case no silver or money was to be paid for their redemption, for it would be done only by the grace and power of God.[7]

Inasmuch as Peter himself heard Jesus’ teachings firsthand, it seems likely that Mark 10:45 provides a background for Peter’s theological thinking. In that passage, of course, Christ’s life is said to be given as a ransom. A similar theme is found in Titus 2:14. Peter stated first the concept of ransom (1 Pet. 1:18); next, ransom by blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless; and then ultimately the blood sacrifice of Christ (v. 19).[8]

In the world of the first-century readers of this epistle slavery was an institution. Thus Peter’s words in verse 18 would have had special significance to the readers, for in their assemblies there doubtless were slaves or former slaves. Occasionally a slave could be redeemed by payment of a price. Here in vivid imagery Peter wrote that Christ, the Lamb of God, is the Redeemer, who shed His own precious blood as the ransom.[9] These first-century readers were redeemed “from [their] futile way of life inherited from [their] forefathers” (v. 18). The word ἀναστροφῆς, “way of life,” is a key word in Petrine theology, for it occurs eight times in Peter’s epistles (1 Pet. 1:15; 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; 2 Pet. 2:7; 3:11). The contrast of lifestyles of believers before and after they trusted Christ as their Redeemer is vividly displayed by seeing how the same word is used to describe their former way of life (“your futile way of life [ἀναστροφῆς],” 1:18) and their new life in Christ (“be holy yourselves also in all your behavior” [ἀναστροφῇ],” 1:15).

This contrast serves as evidence that Peter sought to relate the theological significance of the death of Christ to the ethical dimension of the lives of those who trusted His finished work for their salvation.

Christ’s Death as Substitution (1 Pet. 2:21-25)

Peter’s explanation of the death of Christ in 2:24—“He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross”—is, as Grudem states, “an explicit statement of the heart of the gospel.”[10] This verse is couched in a context that discusses the sufferings of believers. Peter set the tone of the passage by pointing to Christ’s example of doing well when He suffered and ultimately died. “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (v. 21). This refers primarily to the despicable treatment Jesus received before His death on the cross. Verses 21–23, on His suffering, pave the way for the climactic statement of verse 24. Believers are to follow His example in patiently enduring hardships because of their Christian stance. “The knowledge that we have been called to a life which will include some unfair suffering, while it may at first dismay us, should not ultimately unsettle our minds. We should not of course seek suffering (Mt. 6:13), but when it comes we may even ‘rejoice’ (1 Pet. 4:13; Jas. 1:2), knowing that in it God will draw us near to himself, and we shall know the fellowship of Christ who understands our suffering, and ‘the spirit of glory and of God’ (4:14) will rest upon us.”[11]

A number of statements in 1 Peter 2:22–25 allude to phrases and truths in Isaiah 53.

1 Peter 2	Isaiah 53
22 Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth,	9 Although He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.	7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth.
24 And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.	4 our griefs He Himself bore … our sorrows He carried 5 And by His scourging we are healed. 11 As He will bear their iniquities 12 Yet He Himself bore the sins of many. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

Hillyer comments on this Petrine reflection culminating in verse 24. “The teaching that Jesus himself bore our sins … is elaborated in this verse by means of language soaked with terms from the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 (LXX)…. That Peter weaves Isaiah’s words so naturally into what he writes suggests that the passage must have been the subject of much meditation on Peter’s part as he pondered the meaning of the death of Christ. He has so absorbed the prophet’s message that it has molded his own thinking. Furthermore, since he can use Isaiah’s language without seeing any need to offer his readers an explanation, it also suggests that the early Christians in general habitually applied Isaiah 53 to the passion of Jesus.”[12]

The Greek word for “cross” in 1 Peter 2:24 is ξύλον, “wood.” This relates Christ’s death to the Old Testament teaching that if a person broke the Mosaic Law by a sin worthy of death, he was to be hung on a tree (Deut. 21:21–23). In Acts 5:30 and 10:39 Peter used the word ξύλον for Jesus’ cross. Christ redeems believers from the judgment or curse of God by Himself taking that curse by hanging on a tree for humankind. “Christ, by bearing the curse of God in one form (death by crucifixion), liberated his people who were under that curse in another form (through failure to keep the whole law of God), and secured for them the blessings of the gospel.”[13]

The stated purpose for this mighty deed by Christ is “that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness” (2:24). This presents a profound balance between substitution and identification. Christ died for “our sins,” and in some sense believers died (are separated) from sin in principle and position. The term ἀπογενόμενοι is used only here in the entire New Testament. It means “to be away, to be removed from, to cease to exist with reference to some entity,” and thus by extension “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross”—Jesus’ work of substitution—“in order that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness”—the believer’s identification. These truths are similar to Paul’s words in Romans 6:6. Speaking of the word ἀπογενόμενοι, Stibbs writes, “Here the word describes what sinners are to become in relation to their sins, because Christ bore these sins for them (cf. iv. 1; Rom. vi. 2, 11). The idea is that, Christ having died for sins, and to sin, as our proxy or substitute, our consequent standing before God is that of those who have no more connection with our old sins, or with the life of sinning. Henceforth we are free, and are intended, to live unto righteousness (cf. iv. 2; Rom. vi. 11–13, 18).”[14]

Because of this union with Christ, this close identification with His death and resurrection, Peter placed strong ethical and moral implications on believers; they are to “live unto righteousness.”

The accomplished work of Christ is also described in 1 Peter 2:24 in the words, “for by His wounds you were healed.” Like Isaiah, Peter used physical healing as a vivid picture of conversion.

The phrase “you were healed” (ἰάθητε) is parallel to “you have returned” (ἐπεστράφητε) in verse 25. A possible background for this connection is found in Isaiah 6:10, where “turning” and “healing” are linked.[15] Speaking of 1 Peter 2:24, Grudem notes correctly, “Peter here applies the words morally: by Christ’s wounds we have been ‘healed’ from sin.”[16]

Christ’s Death as Accomplishing Reconciliation (1 Pet. 3:18)

Another central passage in the development of Petrine truth with reference to Christ’s death is 3:18: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God.”

Grudem discusses some textual matters in this verse: “Instead of died (apothnēskō) many manuscripts have ‘suffered’ (paschō), which makes the connection with ‘suffer’ in verse 17 more explicit. But since Christ’s suffering for sins resulted in his death, this would make little difference to the sense (the textual evidence clearly favours ‘died,’ but some think it abrupt for the context). The difference between bring us to God (RSV, NASB) and ‘bring you to God’ (NIV) is also based on a difference among ancient Greek manuscripts, and again carries no great significance for the overall force of the passage.”[17]

The poignant description of Christ as “the Just One” (δίκαιος), or “the Righteous One,” was used by Peter in Acts 3:14, by Stephen (7:52), and also by Paul (22:14). The term is a messianic title.[18] As the verse states, Christ died once for all (ἅπαξ). Peter’s stress on Christ’s death “for sins” builds on his previous emphasis on substitution, and this fact is highlighted boldly with the phrase “the just for the unjust.” Thus Christ is the sinless One who took on Himself the sins of the unrighteous or unjust, taking the punishment that deservedly should fall on all sinners.[19]

The purpose clause, “in order that He might bring us to God,” establishes another great facet of truth relating to Christ’s death. The verb προσάγω (“bring”) expresses the truth that Christ’s death opened the way for us to God Himself. This action by the Just One, Jesus Christ, is the basis for reconciliation between God and humankind. The “unjust” or “unrighteous” had no open access to God, sin having brought about the estrangement of the entire human race from God. The term προσάγω has several strands of meaning, all pointing to the fact that through Christ’s death an open access to God has been secured. It may point to God’s leading unjust ones who trust in the work of Christ, the Just One, into His presence in order to present believers as to a tribunal or court. Or the verb may speak of bringing believers to God in a reconciling manner, enabling them to have access to God (Heb. 4:16). Whatever the meaning, the overarching concept is that of ending the estrangement or separation between God and unbelievers.

Christ’s Death as the Ultimate Conquest of Sin (1 Pet. 4:1)

In keeping with Peter’s veritable “theology of suffering,” in 4:1 he picked up the theme he introduced in 3:17. This concerns the suffering that Christians endure for doing what is right, for living faithfully for the Lord, whatever the circumstances.

Christians are to “arm” themselves (ὁπλίσασθε, a military term) with the mind-set Christ had as He faced suffering and death. As Michaels clarifies, “What he praises is never suffering per se, but always ‘suffering for doing good.’ It is likely therefore that ‘the same resolve’ has to do … with the attitude of mind that he brought to that moment of crisis (cf. 2:22–23; also perhaps Phil. 2:5).”[20]

Some writers suggest that the phrase “he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin” (1 Pet. 4:1) refers to believers who endure suffering for what is right (3:17). Certainly it does not mean that they never sin, but it implies rather that these believers have made a definitive and decisive break with sin as a dominant force in their lives. By their abiding commitment to doing right, they have shown that they now want to live “for the will of God” (4:2).[21]

Others take the words “he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin” as a parenthetical phrase that refers only to Christ. But in what sense did Christ “cease” from sin? Peter himself noted that Christ “committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (2:22). The meaning is, rather, that Christ was finished with sin in the sense that He dealt with it triumphantly, significantly, and with finality in His death on the cross.[22] The fact that πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας (“ceased from sin,” 4:1) is in the perfect tense, thus dealing with a specific or definitive event in the past, makes it logical to relate this directly to Christ’s action at Calvary. However, it is also true that because of union with Christ, which Peter himself stressed in 2:24, believers indeed have made a break with the sphere of sin in which they formerly lived. As Paul noted in Romans 6:5–12, believers died with reference to sin, and are to live in the light of that fact. Sinless perfection is not implied by either Peter or Paul. Instead they stressed that believers are to be striving for holiness and greater conformity to Christ for the rest of their lives (1 Pet. 4:2).

On this basis of Christ’s climactic dealing with the sin question, Peter then appealed to believers to live their lives in the light of this striking accomplishment. Thus the ethical dimension blends in perfectly, for the appeal in verse 2 flows directly from the phrase in verse 1: “arm yourselves also with the same purpose” (v. 1) “so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God” (v. 2).

Conclusion

In four passages Peter presented unmistakably the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death for the sins of the world. Morris aptly summarized Peter’s contribution to the theology of the cross as follows: “He is saying that Christ in his death bore the penalty for our sins…. Christ deals with our sins by suffering, specifically by dying in our place, ‘the just for the unjust.’ … He has some of the most noteworthy statements in the New Testament about the atoning value of Christ’s suffering.”[23] Flowing from and vitally related to this major thrust on substitution, Peter stressed the ethical implications of this mighty saving act, implications for all believers based on their identification with Christ, with the challenge to live for the will of God (2:24; 4:2).

Notes

1. As recorded in Luke 24:25–26, 44–47 Jesus taught that His suffering and death were in accord with God’s plan, as revealed in Scripture. To stress this necessity, the word δεῖ is used in 24:44: “All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must [δεῖ] be fulfilled.” The impersonal δεῖ forcefully expresses the necessity of the highest logical order, something that in the very nature of things must take place. See the concise discussion of this, and comparison with synonyms, in G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s Sons, n.d.), 99. See also Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 140–41.
2. Scripture quotations are from the American Standard Version (1901) unless noted otherwise.
3. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 10.
4. Ibid., 11.
5. Ibid., 13.
6. Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 1992), 30.
7. W. E. Vine, Isaiah (London: Oliphants, 1946), 160.
8. Michaels, 1 Peter, 63.
9. Edwin A. Blum, “1 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 12:19.
10. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 131.
11. Ibid., 129.
12. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 86.
13. F. F. Bruce, The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 20.
14. Alan M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 121.
15. Michaels, 1 Peter, 150.
16. Grudem, 1 Peter, 132.
17. Ibid., 155 (italics his).
18. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 117.
19. Grudem, 1 Peter, 156.
20. Michaels, 1 Peter, 225.
21. Grudem, 1 Peter, 167.
22. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 120.
23. Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 319.