THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The author describes himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (i.
1). Few books of the New Testament are so well attested as this
Epistle.
The external evidence for its authenticity is strong, and stronger than
that for any other Catholic Epistle except 1 John. It seems to be
quoted in _Didaché_, i. 4. The letter of Polycarp written about A.D.
110 shows a complete familiarity with 1 Peter. He evidently regarded
it as a letter of the highest authority. His contemporary Papias was
acquainted with it, and so far as we can determine from Eusebius, he
referred to it directly as the work of St. Peter. The Epistle of
Barnabas, the date of which is uncertain, but which is probably as old
as A.D. 98 or even older, quotes 1 Pet. ii. 5. Again, it seems certain
that the Epistle is quoted, though not by name, in the Epistle of
Clement of Rome, A.D. 95. It is quite unnecessary for us to point to
important references in writers of the latter part of the 2nd century
and onwards. An Epistle which has the triple support of Clement,
Polycarp, and Papias is, so far as external evidence is concerned,
beyond the reach of any sober criticism.
The apostle was first called "Simon, the son of John" (according to the
correct reading in John xxi. 15, 16, 17), and was a fisherman of
Bethsaida. He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, and, like
him, had been a disciple of John the Baptist. Our Lord at once
discerned his capacity, and gave {236} him the surname of Cephas
(Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), signifying a rock or stone. Peter was the
first disciple to confess the Messiahship of our Lord, and was rewarded
by the promise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 13-19).
With John and James he was admitted to a peculiarly close relationship
with Jesus (Mark v. 37; Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37; cf. Mark iii. 16, 17).
He thrice denied that he was a disciple of Jesus on the night when
Jesus was tried and condemned. He bitterly repented, and on the third
day after the Crucifixion he, again in the company of John, hastened to
the sepulchre and found it empty. He was permitted several times to
see the risen Lord, who cancelled his threefold denial by graciously
drawing from him a threefold confession of his love, and commanded him
to feed His lambs and His sheep. Our Lord also predicted his martyrdom
(John xx. and xxi.; Luke xxiv. 33, 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5).
In Acts St. Peter appears as the leader of the Church. At the election
of Matthias in place of Judas, at the descent of the Holy Ghost at
Pentecost, at the admission of the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius
and his family to the privileges of the new covenant, at the
emancipation of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish ceremonial law
at the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter is foremost (Acts i. 15-26; ii.
1-42; x.; xv. 6-11). Soon after the Council St. Peter was at Antioch,
and weakly "dissembled" by disguising his belief in the truth that the
Gentile Christians were on the same spiritual level as the Jewish
Christians. He was rebuked by St. Paul (Gal. ii. 11-14).
He does not seem to have laboured in Rome until near the end of his
life. The Roman tradition that he was bishop of that city for
twenty-five years is almost certainly a legend, based on the fact that
twenty-five years elapsed between the year when the apostles were
believed to have temporarily left Jerusalem (twelve years after the
Crucifixion) and the date of his martyrdom. There is, however, no
ground for disputing the fact that {237} he died at Rome during the
Neronian persecution. There are several reasons for thinking that he
survived St. Paul for a short period, though St. Augustine asserts that
he was martyred before St. Paul. He was crucified near the middle of
the circus of Nero, on a spot afterwards marked by a "chapel of the
crucifixion." He was buried nigh at hand. His tomb, probably in the
form of a _cella_ or open apse, is mentioned by Caius of Rome about
A.D. 200. A huge basilica was built over it by the Emperor
Constantine, and remained until it was replaced in the 16th century by
the present St. Peter's. In spite of his unique position, St. Peter in
1 Pet. v. 1 speaks of himself as a "presbyter," as St. John does in 2
John 1 and 3 John 1 (compare also 1 Tim. iv. 14, where St. Paul reckons
himself as a member of the "presbytery"). At this period, and for many
years later, the word "presbyter" was vague enough to be applied to the
highest officers of the Church.
The internal evidence afforded by the Epistle is in harmony with St.
Peter's experience. (1) The writer claims to have been "a witness of
the sufferings of Christ" (v. 1), and contrasts himself and his readers
in saying (i. 8), "Whom not having seen ye love." (2) He lays stress
upon the pastoral aspect of our Lord's work (ii. 25; v. 2-4), as though
writing under a sense of the special pastoral charge given to him by
our Lord. (3) His injunction, "all of you gird yourselves with
humility"--literally, "put on humility like a slave's apron"--seems to
be a reminiscence of the action of our Lord that astonished St. Peter
when "He took a towel and girded Himself" at the Last Supper. (4)
There are points of resemblance between the Epistle and the speeches
delivered by St. Peter in Acts. (5) The appeal to Old Testament
predictions of Christ's sufferings (1 Pet. i. 11; Acts iii. 18), the
reference to the stone that was rejected by the builders (1 Pet. ii. 7,
8; Acts iv. 11), the description of the cross as the "tree" (1 Pet. ii.
24; Acts v. 30), are coincidences which suggest a common authorship
while they seem too small to be designed. (6) The graphic and {238}
pictorial style of the Epistle bears resemblance to the style of Mark,
which is based on St. Peter's preaching. We may mention the word "put
to silence" (ii. 15)--literally, "muzzle"--which St. Mark (i. 25; iv.
39) applies to the subduing of an unclean spirit and the stilling of a
rough sea.
Against the authenticity of the Epistle it is sometimes said that it is
improbable that St. Peter, whose mission was to the Jews, would address
Churches in which St. Paul had laboured, and which were largely
composed of Gentiles. But in no case could such action on the part of
St. Peter be thought incredible. And if St. Peter survived St. Paul,
as he very probably did, it would be particularly fitting for him to
write to them after St. Paul's martyrdom. Many critics have been
inclined to pronounce the Epistle spurious on the ground that it seems
to be so strongly influenced by St. Paul's teaching as to represent St.
Paul's own school of thought. We find, as in St. Paul's writings, the
phrase "in Christ" (iii. 16; v. 10, 14), and the second advent of
Christ called by the name "revelation" (i. 7, 13; iv. 13). Moreover,
there are numerous verses which can be compared with verses in St.
Paul's Epistles, particularly in Romans and Ephesians.[1] We must not
fail to notice in passing, that if this Epistle, which manifestly
belongs to the 1st century, does actually quote Ephesians, as some
affirm, the authenticity of Ephesians is thereby very strongly
corroborated. But in any case the similarity between the Epistle and
St. Paul's writings cannot be reasonably urged against its genuineness.
The once popular theory that St. Paul held a fundamentally different
conception of Christianity from that held by St. Peter has completely
broken down. There is not a shred of evidence for believing that the
semi-Christian Jews who lived in Palestine in the 2nd century
represented St. Peter's {239} type of Christianity, or that the
teaching of St. Peter excluded the deep teaching of St. Paul. He was
susceptible to external influences, and he may have caught the tone of
St. Paul while living in a community which St. Paul had so profoundly
influenced. This tone seems to mark 1 Peter.
But a further point must be mentioned in this connection. Modern
writers have too readily adopted the habit of labelling certain
expressions and doctrines as Pauline and assuming that St. Paul
_originated_ them. No doubt the apostle of the Gentiles possessed a
mind as original as it was fertile. But it is at least reasonable to
suppose that a common creed and a common training produced similar
habits of thought in many cultivated and eager minds. St. Paul himself
frequently writes as if his readers, even those who had not seen his
face, were quite familiar with a treasury of words and ideas which he
employs. We cannot legitimately argue that he was the first and only
coiner of such words and ideas. For instance, the phrase "in Christ,"
which we have quoted above, is often said to have been directly
borrowed from St. Paul. But the idea of abiding in Christ is implied
in Matt. and Mark, and expounded in John. It reaches back to the Old
Testament idea of abiding "in God" (Ps. lvi. 4; lxii. 7; Isa. xlv. 25).
It would be quite natural in any Christian who had adequately realized
the truth of the Incarnation. We can therefore repudiate without
hesitation the assertion that the writer is more affected "by the
teaching of Paul than of Jesus." The imagery employed by the writer is
of a distinctive character. It is almost entirely derived from the Old
Testament, and is narrower in its range than that of St. Paul. The
figures are drawn from birth and family life (i. 3, 14, 17, 22; ii. 2),
nomadic life (i. 1, 17; ii. 11), temple and worship (ii. 3; iii. 15),
building (ii. 4), fields and pastoral life (i. 4; v. 2, 8), military
life (i. 5; ii. 11, iv. 1), painting (ii. 21), working in metals (i. 7;
iv. 12). Some of these figures suggest that the author was a Jew by
birth, and also that he was not a mere copyist of St. Paul.
{240}
Again, we must notice that 1 Peter shows a dependence upon James.[2]
While we therefore grant that the author of this Epistle seems to have
made use of St. Paul's writings, we must be prepared to grant that he
also made use of a document written by one who has been frequently
declared by modern critics to have been antagonistic to St. Paul. A
tradition found as early as Origen, and in itself extremely probable,
represents St. Peter as having organized the Church at Antioch, and St.
Peter probably became acquainted with the Epistle of St. James while at
Antioch and before his arrival at Rome. In any case, the author shows
himself by no means exclusively indebted to St. Paul, and the candid
student must therefore admit that it is unreasonable to discredit this
Epistle on the ground that it represents St. Peter as preaching
"Paulinism."
It is also asserted that the Greek is too flowing to have been written
by St. Peter, especially if Papias is right in saying that St. Peter
required the services of St. Mark as "interpreter." The style of the
Greek is, indeed, good. It contains a considerable number of classical
Greek words, though it is also saturated with the language of the
Septuagint. It is simple, correct, and impressive. But the large
extent to which Greek was spoken in Palestine, and the fact that it was
the language of Antioch, make it quite possible that St. Peter obtained
a considerable mastery over Greek. We cannot attach a quite definite
meaning to the word "interpreter." It need not imply that St. Peter
always, or even at any time in his later life, required his Aramaic to
be translated into Greek. It is not unusual for a clever modern
missionary to lecture and write in correct Chinese after a very few
years of practice, and there would be nothing strange if St. Peter soon
acquired a comparatively easy language such as Hellenistic Greek. It
is therefore quite unnecessary for {241} some half-hearted apologists
to suggest that the Epistle was mainly or entirely written for St.
Peter by his secretary, Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12). The expression and
connection of the ideas contained in it are far too natural and easy
for us to think that two hands were concerned in its composition, and
the tone of authority used in v. 1 can only be explained on the theory
that St. Peter or a forger wrote the Epistle. The language of ch. v.
is most easily explained by the theory that Silvanus, a trusted friend
and delegate of St. Peter, carried the letter. The letter was
purposely made short (v. 12) because its lessons were to be enforced by
Silvanus.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"To the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Considerable difficulty is attached
to this address. At first sight it seems to mean those Christians of
Asia Minor north of the Taurus mountains who had been converted from
Judaism. But there are some verses in the Epistle which seem to imply
that the readers had been pagans. These verses are i. 14; ii. 9, 10;
iii. 6; iv. 3. They suggest that the readers had led a licentious
heathen life, and had been only recently admitted to any covenant with
God. The bearing of some of them is a little uncertain. For instance,
ii. 10 says that the converts in time past "were no people, but now are
the people of God"--the same verse that St. Paul in Rom. ix. 25 applies
to the calling of the Gentiles. This verse is thought to furnish a
strong argument for those scholars who hold that the Epistle is
addressed to Gentiles, and that "sojourners of the Dispersion" must be
taken in a figurative sense, meaning Christians who are exiled from the
heavenly Canaan. But as the verse is from Hos. i. 10, and is applied
by Hosea himself to the Jews, it is certainly _possible_ to hold that
St. Peter also applies it to Jews. In this case the word "Dispersion"
would retain its literal meaning, and the Epistle would be written to
converts from Judaism. But the reference to "idolatries" in iv. 3
cannot be applied to Jews. And it {242} would be quite unnatural for
St. Peter to speak about the heathen thinking it "strange" that
converted _Jews_ refused to join in their idolatrous excesses. The
word "you" in i. 12 suggests that the readers belonged to a different
race from the Hebrew prophets. Finally, the phrase "elect of the
Dispersion" must be compared with "in Babylon, elect" (v. 13). Like
the name "Babylon" for Rome, the word "Dispersion" is a Jewish phrase
taken over by the Christian Church. We agree, then, with St. Jerome
and St. Augustine in holding that this Epistle was written to Gentiles.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The Epistle says, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you,
saluteth you" (v. 13). This means the Church in Rome. The name
"Babylon" is applied to Rome in the Revelation, and from an early
period the Christians would naturally be inclined to give this name to
a city which had become, like Babylon of old, the centre of worldliness
and oppression. It is practically certain that St. Peter spent his
last days in Rome. Moreover, St. Mark was with St. Peter when this
Epistle was written (v. 13), and from 2 Tim. iv. 11 we know that St.
Mark was invited to Rome about A.D. 64. It is most improbable that
"Babylon" signifies either the Babylon near Cairo, or the great city on
the Euphrates. Three facts enable us to determine the date: (1) The
presence of Mark in Rome. (2) The fact that St. Peter appears never to
have been in Rome when Colossians was written in A.D. 60--so that the
Epistle cannot be earlier than A.D. 60. (3) The allusion in iv. 13-15
to the fact that Christians are already punished for being named
Christians. In the period described in Acts they are not yet punished
merely for being Christians, but for specific crimes alleged against
them by their opponents. It is often asserted that this Epistle must
be later than the time of Nero, on the ground that it was after Nero's
time that the name _Christian_ ensured the legal condemnation of any
one who bore it. But this assertion is not supported by the Roman
historians Tacitus and Suetonius. Their words support the contention
{243} that the kind of persecution mentioned in this Epistle began
under Nero in A.D. 64. When the Epistle was written this persecution
had probably begun, but it had not yet assumed its most savage form.[3]
(4) St. Peter himself suffered under Nero, not later than A.D. 67. We
may therefore confidently date the Epistle about A.D. 64.
It appears from v. 12 that in writing this Epistle St. Peter was
assisted by "Silvanus, our faithful brother," as an amanuensis. He is
probably the "Silas" (another form of the same name) mentioned in Acts
xv. 22, 32, 40, and the Silvanus in 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1, 2
Cor. i. 19.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
This Epistle is highly practical, and though it is rich in doctrinal
elements, it endeavours to instruct the readers in conduct rather than
doctrine. The two key-words of the Epistle are _suffering_ and _hope_,
and the sufferings of Christ and the glories which crowned them furnish
St. Peter with encouragement. Though he writes in plain sympathy with
the liberal Christianity of St. Paul, his language throughout bears the
impress of the Old Testament. Christ is the "lamb" (i. 19) and the
"corner-stone" (ii. 6); Christians are the "elect race" (ii. 9) and the
"royal priesthood" (ii. 9). Without discussing the problems raised by
God's predestination of the Jews, he says that they were "appointed"
unto stumbling, and their stumbling seems to be regarded as the
punishment which God attached to their disobedience.
The fact that in i. 2 the names of the Three Persons of the Trinity are
given in an order which does not correspond with the order of their
revelation in the history of religion, indicates that they are regarded
as coequal. We may note that in iv. 19 the Father is called "faithful
Creator," a unique expression. The teaching about the work of Christ
is full. He is often {244} simply called "Christ" without the name
"Jesus." He is called "Lord," and His special divine Sonship is
implied (i. 3). The real existence of our Lord before His birth on
earth is also implied. It has been said that i. 20 signifies that He
was only known to the Father as destined to exist in the future. This
interpretation is excluded by i. 11, which shows that His Spirit
inspired the prophets before His birth. It is still more definitely
excluded by iii. 18, 19. Here it is shown that His personality resided
neither in His flesh, nor in His human spirit clothed "in which" He
preached to the dead. This spirit was therefore taken by a personality
which existed previous to the creation of the spirit. The Atonement is
prominent. Christ's death is both an example and a redemption which
procured God's grace. He died "for the unrighteous." He carried our
sins in His body to the cross (ii. 24). The Resurrection is one of the
"glories" which followed His sufferings (i. 11). It is a unique motive
to our faith (i. 21), and the cause of the efficacy of our baptism
(iii. 21). The Ascension is the fact which guarantees to us the
present rule of Christ (iii. 22). In iv. 6 we have an important
statement with regard to the dead, which must be studied in relation to
iii. 18-20. The purpose of Christ's preaching to those who died before
the gospel came was that though judged they yet might live. Blessings
which they had not known on earth were offered to them by the dead but
living Christ.
The practical side of the Epistle is simple but solemn. It deals with
the privileges (i. 3-ii. 10), duties (ii. 11-iv. 11), and trials (iv.
12-v. 11) of the brethren. It seems to be written with the hope that
the Christians may perhaps disarm persecution if they abstain from
vainly attempting to set every one to rights and are scrupulously loyal
to the Government (ii. 14-17).
{245}
ANALYSIS
Salutation (i. 1, 2).
The joy of salvation, a joy which springs from faith; this salvation
was foretold by the prophets: the fruits of salvation, seriousness,
love towards others, growth, the privilege of being built upon Christ:
Christians are the true Israel (i. 3-ii. 10).
The Christian brotherhood and its duties, submission to civil
magistrates, slaves must obey even unreasonable masters, wives if good
and gentle may win their husbands, husbands must reverence their wives:
kindness must be the Christian's rule, there must be no return of evil
for evil; suffering, if wrongfully endured, has its reward. Christ's
sufferings issued in blessing, in His ministerial journey to Hades and
His triumphant journey into heaven: Christ our Example, our rule is the
will of God: Christian life must be guided in view of the approaching
end of all things, each of our gifts is to be used for the good of the
whole Church (ii. 11-iv. 11).
The trials of the brethren, trust in God in the midst of suffering,
rejoice in your participation in Christ's suffering, bear the reproach
that fell on Him, to suffer as a Christian is cause for thanksgiving,
suffering to be expected, judgment is beginning: the relation of
pastors and people, the presbyters not to act as slaves, hirelings, or
tyrants: final counsels to humility and firmness (iv. 12-v. 11).
Commendation of the bearer, and salutations (v. 12-14).
[1] Compare 1 Pet. i. 14 with Rom. xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 21 with Rom. iv.
24; 1 Pet. ii. 5 with Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7 with Rom. ix. 33; 1
Pet. ii. 10 with Rom. ix. 25, 26; 1 Pet. ii. 18 with Eph. vi. 5; 1 Pet.
iii. 1 with Eph. v. 22; 1 Pet. v. 5 with Eph. v. 21.
[2] Compare 1 Pet. i. 1 with Jas. i. 1; 1 Pet. i. 6 f. with Jas. i. 2
f., 12; 1 Pet. i. 23 with Jas. i. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 1 with Jas. i. 21; 1
Pet. ii. 11 with Jas. iv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 6 with Jas. iv. 7, 10; 1 Pet. v.
9 with Jas. iv. 7; and the quotation in 1 Pet. v. 5 with Jas. iv. 6.
[3] For the persecution and its bearing on the date of this Epistle,
see Leighton Pullan, _History of Early Christianity_, p. 105 ff.
(Service and Paton, 1898).
{246}