A Canadian's Reflections on Five Years in South Africa

Most of my blog entries are theological in nature and I don't often get personal. However, as this weekend marks five years of residence in South Africa for me, I thought I would share some personal reflections. I am turning 30 in a few weeks' time. I spent the first 25 years of my life in Canada (Grimsby, Ontario, to be precise), and the last five in South Africa (4 1/2 in Durban and the last six months in Cape Town).

Canada and South Africa are very different worlds. One can start with the weather, which isn't as different as  one might think. The heat of summer is fairly similar in the two countries, although of course it occurs at opposite times of year due to being in different hemispheres. Durban can be unbearably humid but the temperature highs in Jan-Feb (30-35 degrees) are similar to what one can get in southern Ontario. As to winter, Canadian winter temperatures are significantly colder: -5 to -10 is typical compared to 15ish in Cape Town, getting down to single digits at night. However, the South African winter can actually feel colder because buildings (including our apartment) are not insulated or heated. Thus in Canada, it can be -20 outside and 20 inside, but in South Africa, if it is 13 outside, it's probably 15 inside.

A more fundamental difference between the countries is economic. Canada is a developed country, usually voted as one of the best places to live in the world. South Africa is a developing country. It is classified as a middle income country but this is misleading because of its high GINI index. This statistic measures the economic inequality in a country - the gap between rich and poor - and South Africa had the highest value in the world as of 2009. Thus in Cape Town, for instance, you have suburbs that resemble upscale Canadian neighbourhoods, only a few kilometres away from slums where people eke out a living in squalor. Unfortunately, after a few months of living here it ceases to be shocking and becomes just part of the scenery.

Of course this inequality, which is very much along racial lines, is the enduring legacy of the country's apartheid history. Many whites have emigrated to the developed world over the past 25 years, and most white South Africans I meet tell me they have family in Canada. Many people are surprised that I, as a white Canadian, would go against the flow and choose to make my home here. Sure, many affluent people from  Western countries come as tourists, or to volunteer for a few months, but to settle down here? Why? This country which, according to some, will quickly degenerate into anarchic chaos once the ailing Nelson Mandela passes away?

The question of why I settled in South Africa is a complex one, but I think the shortest answer I can give is that I believe God called me to come here. My experiences have given me a great appreciation for the story of Abraham. No, I don't have any delusions of grandeur that I've come here to start a great nation. What I mean is that I believe God called me out of my comfort zone so that I could grow as a person, and perhaps be a force for good in this existing great nation of South Africa.

This brings me to the greatest difference between Canada and South Africa. As our pastor mentioned a few weeks back, for all of South Africa's problems, one thing it has going for it is that this is a nation which is spiritually alive and where the Spirit of God is very active. In this country it is acceptable to express one's Christian faith openly without being called a bigot or a violator of human rights. The president can make reference to the Second Coming in a speech, prayer is offered in public schools, and churches are full of people of all ages and cultures. The forces of secularization have not succeeded in pouring cold water on the Spirit's fire in South Africa as they have, to a great extent, in Canada and other Western countries.

The work of the 19th century missionaries from Europe and North America has borne great fruit. While their natural descendants back home have largely rejected the gospel of Christ, the people of Africa and other newly evangelized parts of the world have become their spiritual heirs, much the way that the Gentiles of the Roman Empire became the spiritual heirs of the Jewish apostles. The locus of global Christianity has shifted from North to South. God's purpose has not been and cannot be thwarted.

For this reason I feel grateful to be in South Africa, in spite of uncertainties about the country's political and economic stability. While I miss my family and friends in Canada and the USA very much, God has given me a family here, and many rich experiences and relationships that have helped me to grow in a way I never could have had I stayed put in the land of my birth. 

I do not know what the next five years hold, but the past five have given me many reasons to praise God and His Son Jesus Christ, and great hope that no matter what happens, He is in control.

The Second Coming of Christ: Peaceful or Violent?

I was recently involved in an online discussion in the Christadelphians Worldwide Facebook group on the topic of the end-times conflict that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.

This is a very unpopular topic in postmodern Western culture, so I wasn't surprised that some sharp disagreement arose. However, I was unprepared for the claim that when Christ returns he will win the nations over with the greatest outpouring of love the world has ever seen, rather than using force.

The person who made this point insisted that it would be a contradiction for the same Jesus who preached the virtues of love and peace to use violence to impose his rule on the nations.

This position is attractive to our sensibilities in the postmodern age, where the rights of the individual are paramount. Sinful humans are practically entitled to God's mercy, and God's sovereign right to judge his creatures is belittled if not rejected entirely.

 The problem with this view of Christ's return is that no scripture - including the words of Jesus - makes any such point when describing Christ's return. Jesus himself compared his coming to two past situations recounted in Genesis: the days of Noah and the days of Lot (Luke 17:26-30). In both cases, as Jesus described it, people were going about their business when judgment came from God and "destroyed them all." He concludes, "So will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."

Short of rejecting Jesus' words there is no way to revise this historical message to bring it in line with postmodern values. Many other scriptures could be brought to bear on this matter, but the point is clear. Any view of Christ's return which ignores judgment and destruction is unscriptural. It is true that Christ's return will be a joyous occasion for those who are expecting it, and that it will be the first of a series of events leading to world peace. However, this does not change the fact that Christ will bring judgment and will crush resistance to his rule.

Judgment and destruction are compatible with the love of Jesus. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I recommend D.A. Carson's book, "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."

Chris Broussard, the Church, and Homosexuality

I was already planning to write about homosexuality and the church this week, but the topic has now taken on even greater poignancy. On Monday, professional basketball player Jason Collins became the first athlete in one of the USA's four major professional sports to announce he is gay.  Asked for his opinion of this announcement, TV sportscaster Chris Broussard, a born-again Christian, caused a national uproar by stating that living as an unrepentant homosexual is open rebellion against Jesus Christ. Jason Collins noted in a subsequent interview that he too is a Christian, but denies that homosexuality is sinful. Which position is aligned with the will of God?

Before turning to this question I want to make a couple of disclaimers. First, I realize that the church has often treated homosexuals very badly. The heterosexual majority know we haven't committed homosexual sins, which makes homosexuals a great scapegoat, a way of turning the focus away from our own failings.

On that point, I myself am a sinner, and one who has lost battles against my own sexual desires. However, God's forgiveness is available to me on the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-23). The same forgiveness is available to any sinner, but is conditional on repenting and confessing our sins (Luke 24:47; 1 John 1:9-10). We cannot confess our sins if we don't think they are sins; hence the need to seek God's will concerning homosexuality. We cannot simply err on the side of approval, because justifying evil is just as wrong as condemning good in God's sight (Prov. 17:15).

Thirdly, I realize this is an extremely sensitive subject, and I regret any offense it may cause (but cf. 2 Cor. 7:8-10).

My previous blog concluded that Leviticus 18:22 was a general prohibition of homosexual acts. However, does this commandment apply in the church age? Several issues arise in answering this question. First, does the Bible convey the will of God concerning sexual morality? Non-Christians would answer no, and some Christians (such as Bishop John Shelby Spong) would too. However, since this issue is beyond our scope, it will be assumed that the answer is yes.

Second, are Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 moral laws or ritual laws? Some Old Testament scholars claim that these texts reflect the cultural circumstances at the time, where homosexual acts were part of foreign worship rituals. Since homosexuality has no idolatrous connotations today, the commandment no longer applies. However, there is no indication of such nuances in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Furthermore, this view incorrectly assumes that ritual and moral laws are wholly distinct. Adultery and child sacrifice are also prohibited in Lev. 18 but, while these may have been associated with idolatrous worship, their prohibition is also moral in nature (cf. Matt. 19:18).

Other scholars claim that the Levitical laws were done away with by Christ, so the law against homosexual acts is no more applicable for the church than the dietary laws (Lev. 11) or the prohibition of mixing fabrics (Lev. 19:19). However, while these symbolic laws were fulfilled and done away with by Christ, there is no symbolic fulfillment of homosexuality in Christ. And, as will be seen, Levitical laws concerning sexual morality are upheld in the New Testament.

The best explanation of the sexual morality laws in Lev. 18 and 20 is that they are simply an elaboration of the Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery") and are thus moral absolutes for all time, preserving the family in the way God designed it as the core social unit.

The New Testament confirms that these commandments are still in effect. As recorded in Acts 15, there was a great controversy in the apostolic church about whether the Law of Moses was binding on Gentile Christians. In the end, it was decided that it was not, but they were required to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). The first three prohibitions come from Leviticus 17, and so the fourth must refer to the sexual morality laws in Leviticus 18. Thus we have it on apostolic authority that these laws (including the prohibition on homosexual acts) do apply in the church age.

The same idea can be found in Paul's writings. In 1 Cor. 5:1, Paul writes, "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife." Paul has taken the description of incest from Lev. 18:8 and Lev. 20:11. He orders the Corinthian church "not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality" (1 Cor. 5:11). Based on the prior allusion to Leviticus (and the quotation from the Law in 1 Cor. 5:13), we can only conclude that Paul is taking his definition of "sexual immorality" from the Law of Moses.

Paul then mentions homosexuality directly in the following chapter:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NASB)

The two bold words here are translated from the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites. This is the earliest known use of the Greek word arsenokoites, and scholars believe that Paul either coined it himself or borrowed it from Hellenistic Jewish contemporaries. Some have conjectured that the word means something more specific than homosexuality, such as pederasty or homosexual prostitution. However, the most likely source of the word is again Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the Greek Septuagint translation used by Hellenistic Jews uses the words arsenos (male) and koite (bed). The highly respected lexicon of New Testament Greek, BDAG, defines arsenokoites as the active partner in a homosexual relationship. Malakos (which literally means 'soft'), is defined by BDAG in this case as the passive partner.

In view of the reference to the sexual morality laws of Leviticus 18 in the previous chapter, and the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as the likely source of the word arsenokoites, it is difficult to dispute that Paul is upholding the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts.

Space prevents us from looking at other significant texts such as Romans 1:26-27. However, the evidence we have looked at demands the conclusion that the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts represents the will of God for all times and cultures (note that I have emphasized "acts": it is the behaviour and not the orientation that is sin).

Chris Broussard spoke the truth. It is a very inconvenient truth in 21st century Western society. However, it is my hope that some will realize that Jesus does not want to condemn anyone (John 3:17). The Lord desperately hopes (2 Peter 3:9) that practicing homosexuals will recognize the error of their ways as the all-important first step on the road to redemption. This is the same response required of a heterosexual sinner, and the church should be equally emphatic in reaching out to all people with the message of repentance unto salvation.

Leviticus 18:22 and Homosexuality

I recently read with interest an open letter to the church from a young American on behalf of his generation, which basically presented an ultimatum: embrace homosexuality or alienate the youth. I also read a response from Dr. Michael L. Brown, a leading voice of opposition to gay marriage.

The socio-cultural issues here are complex, and I've generally refrained from commenting on them. However, as a theology student there is one issue in the letter (and ensuing comments) that I think needs to be addressed. The author of the open letter says that while he has long been told that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, he has lately become aware of "evidence that the Bible could be saying something completely different about love and equality."

He doesn't say what evidence he is referring to, but one of the comments gives a take on Leviticus 18:22 which, if it is making the rounds as a legitimate interpretation, needs to be corrected. This verse reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (NASB). Referring to the Hebrew word tow'ebah, here translated "abomination", the respondent gives an alternate rendering as: "Not shall you lie with man [in the] bed of woman, [it is] against custom." He goes on to say that the word tow'ebah "essentially means frowned upon", and he reaches the following conclusion: "It appears more that it was saying not to fool around with your boyfriend in your wife’s bed."

It should be noted that, while the comment begins with a quotation mark, it doesn't cite any source. This is unsurprising, because this interpretation is completely untenable and without scholarly support. The respondent considers it "odd" that the commandment refers specifically to the bed. But it hardly needs to be said that "bed" here is a euphemism for intercourse; the issue is the act and not its location (cp. Num. 31:17-18; Judg. 21:11-12). Furthermore, it is preposterous to think that this text, contained in what is commonly referred to as the "Holiness Code" of the Law of Moses (Rooker 2004, 4) should presuppose that a married man might also have a male lover!

In support of his view that tow'ebah means "frowned upon", the respondent points out that the word is also used with reference to dietary restrictions, menstruation, mixing of fabrics, and other "minor things." However, this definition lacks lexical support. Moreover, the respondent has drawn our attention to certain uses of tow'ebah while ignoring many others. The word is used, for instance, in Prov. 6:16: "There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination (tow'ebah) to Him". Here, the parallelism suggests that tow'ebah is anything but minor. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the word is used with reference to child sacrifice (Deut. 12:31), injustice (Deut. 25:16) and idolatry (Deut. 27:15). And it was because of the tow'ebah of Israel that Ezekiel prophesied that they would fall by sword, famine and plague (Ezek. 6:11). Thus the word tow'ebah does not lend support to taking Lev. 18:22 as a minor thing.

Even more problematic for the view that the conduct described in Lev. 18:22 was merely "frowned upon" is the fact that it was a capital offence (Lev. 20:13, where tow'ebah is also used).

There are biblical scholars who argue that the commandment in Lev. 18:22 is not binding on the church today. However, these scholars do not dispute that the commandment (together with Lev. 20:13) prohibited homosexual intercourse in the strongest terms. The interpretation of this text in its original setting is broadly agreed upon. What is controversial is whether or not the commandment applies to the church today. It is this question that I plan to address in the next blog post.

References:

Rooker, Mark F. 2004. The Best Known Verse in Leviticus. Faith and Mission 21(2): 3-14.

1 Cor. 8:6: A Swing Verse

When it comes to hotly disputed doctrines such as the Trinity, the two sides typically each have certain Bible texts that they claim in support of their position.

For example, in a debate on the Trinity one might expect the Trinitarians to use texts such as Matt. 28:19, John 1:1 and Heb. 1:10-12 in their argument, while the unitarians might use texts such as Mark 12:29, John 14:28 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Each side would go on the offensive with their own texts, and attempt to defend their position against the challenge posed by the other side's texts. (Of course, one would hope that the arguments were more substantial and systematic than simply quoting 'proof texts').

We could draw an analogy with the so-called "swing states" in U.S. presidential elections. Democratic candidates don't bother campaigning in Texas, and Republican hopefuls steer clear of New York, because they know they can't win those states, despite their importance to the electoral vote tally. Instead, they focus on states that could go either way, such as Ohio. Similarly, Trinitarians know that they can't make their case from Mark 12:29, and unitarians know they can't make theirs from John 1:1, so they try to provide a plausible counter-proposal to their opponents' claims and then re-focus the debate on their own biblical "territory."

I would suggest that 1 Cor. 8:6 is one of the Ohio's of the Bible -- a veritable "swing verse" -- because both Trinitarians and unitarians use it to argue positively for their position. On the unitarian side, for instance, the 1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith cited this verse as a reason for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. Moreover, one of the most comprehensive books written in defense of biblical unitarianism is entitled One God and One Lord, presumably taken from this verse. On the other hand, Trinitarians have also used this text to make positive arguments for their position; indeed, this text has become one of the most important in claiming that Paul's theology was a prototype for Trinitarian theology.

The text reads thus: "⁴ Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Cor. 8:4-6 NASB)

Unitarians point out that v. 6 says, "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things" while mentioning Christ separately. Jesus is explicitly excluded from the "one God" and therefore cannot be a person in the Godhead. Jesus is given a subordinate, intermediary role, while the Father is the source of all things. New Testament scholars such as James D.G. Dunn see Ps. 110:1 (a pivotal Christological text for the early church) as the main background to the use of the word "Lord" here. Thus the title emphasizes how the Father has exalted the human Jesus to a heavenly position.

Trinitarians, on the other hand, claim that the text includes the Father and Christ together on the heavenly side of the Creator-creature divide that was all-important in Jewish monotheism. Scholars such as Tom Wright and Richard Bauckham see Deut. 6:4, the Shema, as main background to the language Paul uses here. Indeed, they argue that Paul has rearranged the words of the Shema, "the Lord our God is one Lord," to include Jesus within the identity of the one God.

So which interpretation of this pivotal text is more convincing? For me it is undoubtedly the latter. Firstly, if 1 Cor. 8:6 excludes Jesus from being God, it also excludes the Father from being Lord. But Paul is not using these titles for the Father and Son to the exclusion of one another, but to the exclusion of all other claimants to these titles. What should strike us in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not that Jesus is excluded from being God, but that Paul included Jesus in his argument that "there is no God but one." Surely a mere creature has no place in such discourse!

Secondly, 1 Cor. 8:5 appears to be an allusion to Deut. 10:17: "the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords." This is the only place in the Old Testament where "gods" and "lords" occur in the same sentence (Ciampa and Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 718). Thus it is reasonable that Paul expected his readers to interpret v. 6 with reference to Deuteronomy as well.

Thirdly, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the Greek preposition dia followed by a genitive requires that we see Christ as participating in creation: "through whom are all things and through whom we exist." The very same language is used of God in Rom. 11:36 (by Paul) and Heb. 2:10. Paul is writing on the nature and existence of gods; there is no indication in the immediate context that he is limiting the scope of his statements to the new creation. Thus, the "all things" should be taken as absolute, or qualified only with "in heaven or on earth" (v. 5).

It is not wrong to say that the man Jesus was exalted to the status of Lord by God  (Acts 2:36). However, for early Christians, this exaltation was an impetus for questions about Christ's identity rather than the answer to those questions. 1 Cor. 8:6 shows that for Paul, Jesus' Lordship ties into the very definition of Christian monotheism.

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Hebrews 7:3)

One aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is the concept of the eternal Sonship of Christ. This is the idea that Christ is, always has been, and always will be the Son of God.

When they hear about the eternal Sonship, unitarians tend to roll their eyes and think, "There they go again with their unscriptural jargon." At least, that's what I did when I was a unitarian. However, my studies of the Word of God have led me to the conclusion that the eternal Sonship is a biblical idea. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is found in Hebrews 7:1-3:

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually." (NASB)

This text doesn't come up a lot in Christological debates or discussions because the argument the writer of Hebrews is making is rather cryptic. Once the idea is unpacked, however, the implications for our understanding of Christ are unmistakable. One recent commentary on Hebrews explains the point very well:

"In Genesis 14, Melchizedek is introduced out of the blue and disappears as quickly, his brief appearance interrupting a narrative that deals with the king of Sodom (vv. 17, 21-24). We know his name and office but nothing of his family or his previous or subsequent history. In terms of the biblical narrative, he is thus ‘without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.’ His literary persona therefore suggests to our author a parallel with the Son of God, who is in very fact ‘without beginning of days or end of life,’ and the psalm, which speaks of ‘a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,’ reinforces this thought. It is not a historical argument – nothing in the OT suggests Melchizedek historically had no parents, was not born, and did not die, and our author’s argument does not necessarily show that he thought this to be the case (though v. 8 may point that way). It is rather an argument from literary silence, setting Melchizedek up as a literary model for the eternal Son of God. In his very rootlessness and timelessness, he forms a suitable model for the one who was to come, the Son (not of any man but) of God, who shares God’s eternal existence and can thus uniquely exercise that eternal priesthood Psalm 110:4 has claimed to be the prerogative of ‘the order of Melchizedek.’ To our historically tuned minds, this may seem a bizarre conclusion to draw from silence, but it is an argument from the text, not from history, following the well-attested Jewish hermeneutical principle (found both in rabbinic and in Alexandrian writings) that what is not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. The comparison serves to underline the eternity of our true high priest in contrast with the transience of the OT priests, a theme that will be developed in vv. 23-25." (R. T. France, Hebrews, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Hebrews - Revelation, ed. Longman and Garland, p. 92)

The comparison made by the writer of Hebrews cannot merely refer to the Son of God in his humanity, because as a human being Christ did have a genealogy, a beginning of days and a mother. It is also worth noting that the writer likens Melchizedek to the Son of God, and not the other way around. This would be anachronistic unless the Son pre-existed (cf. John 1:30; 8:58).

Nor can this argument from Heb. 7:3 be dismissed as case of "proof texting." It must be seen in the fullness of the message of the writer to the Hebrews, who describes Christ as actively existing in the (distant) past, present and future. Past: the world was made through him (Heb. 1:2). Present: he upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3). Future: he is the heir of all things (Heb. 1:2).

Past: He laid the foundations of the earth (Heb. 1:10). Present: he remains (Heb. 1:11). Future: his years will have no end (Heb. 1:12). Past, present and future: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

Thus we should not be surprised to see that Heb. 7:3 implicitly teaches the eternal Sonship of Christ. It is hardly an anomaly; it fits right into the picture of Christ painted throughout the epistle.

Was Peter's first epistle written to deported Roman colonists?

The First Epistle of Peter opens with these words: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," (1 Pet. 1:1 NASB). These areas spanned several provinces of the Roman Empire within the region known as Asia Minor which forms part of modern Turkey (see map here).

Just who were these people to whom Peter wrote his epistle? Were they Jews, Gentiles or a mixture of both? And what particular relationship did they have with Peter that caused him to write them a letter?

New Testament scholars have proposed a number of different theories. A tradition dating back to antiquity has it that Peter wrote the letter to Jewish Christians. In support of this is Paul's statement that Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), as well as the use of the Greek word diaspora in 1 Pet. 1:1, which was (and still is) used of the dispersion of Jews throughout the world.

Recent commentators have proposed that the letter was written to mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations (so Grudem) or even primarily Gentile congregations (so Schreiner). Schreiner points out that phrases such as "the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1 Pet. 1:18) and "Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people" (1 Pet. 2:10) are easily applicable to Gentile converts but not to Jews. Under this theory, the reference to "scattered exiles" in 1 Pet. 1:1 refers figuratively to the spiritual status of Christians as God's people living in a pagan world rather than their literal political status.

However, even if we resolve the issue of ethnicity we still need to explain how these congregations of Christians were known to Peter. It has been suggested that Peter made a missionary journey through these areas, and indeed that the reason the Spirit prevented Paul from preaching in Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6-7) is that Peter was already at work there. However, there is no direct evidence that Peter ever preached in these areas. In light of this, other suggestions have been proposed.

One suggestion has it that Jewish pilgrims in the audience at Peter's Pentecost sermon (which was attended by people from Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia - Acts 2:9) believed in Jesus Christ, then returned home and planted churches. These churches would have seen Peter as their spiritual father and thus he wrote the letter to encourage them. This idea is interesting but again, there is little evidence to support it.

A very intriguing suggestion, argued in great detail by Jobes, has it that the audience of the epistle consisted of Christians who had been under Peter's guidance in Rome but were subsequently expelled from Rome and resettled in new colonies within Asia Minor. Jobes summarizes her argument as follows:

"The theory is based on several points of historical evidence: (1) Claudius, and perhaps only Claudius, established colonies in every one of the five regions to which 1 Peter is addressed. (2) Colonies were typically populated by deportations from Rome and other urban centers. (3) There is the historical evidence of Roman writers of the first and second centuries that Claudius did expel people associated in some way with 'Chrestus' [thought to be a corruption of Christus, i.e. Christ]. (4) Peter is the stated author of 1 Peter. (5) The ancient tradition that places Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius continues to be cogently argued...Even if Peter wrote in the 60s, the colonization of Roman Christians still provides a motivation for a letter to these remote regions" (Jobes, p. 39).

While the New Testament does not explicitly describe a trip to Rome by Peter, the reference to "Babylon" in 1 Pet. 5:13 is taken by most commentators (ancient and modern) to mean Peter wrote the letter from Rome. Jobes further notes that the word parepedimos (translated 'exiles' in 1 Pet. 1:1) is equivalent to the Latin word peregrinos, which was used to refer to non-citizens of the Roman Empire. This class of free non-citizens were frequently the target of expulsions from Rome.

It is impossible to know with any certainty whether Jobes' theory is correct (and, unless you have a keen interest in early Christian history, it probably doesn't matter to you!) However, while there is no direct biblical evidence for this theory, there is historical evidence to support it, and it has good explanatory power. It provides a clear reason why Christians in these remote areas of the empire - not known to have been evangelized by Peter - should receive a letter from the apostle encouraging them in the midst of very trying circumstances. It also explains why Peter shows no evidence of familiarity with the areas to which he is writing, or the specific situations faced by the readers. 

Finally, if this theory is true we can see God's providential hand at work in these events. If Christians expelled from Rome by Claudius resettled in Asia Minor, not only would they have evangelized these areas, but their expulsion likely saved them from the persecution of Roman Christians that occurred in the 60s under Claudius' successor, Nero.

References:

Grudem, Wayne. 1988. 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Jobes, Karen H. 2005. 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker Academic.

Schreiner, Thomas. 2003. 1, 2 Peter and Jude, New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman.