Nt
(i.) Romans, (ii.) Ephesians, (iii.) other Pauline Epistles, (iv.) James. (i.) Romans, 1 P 11: \| 12?; 117 Ι 96.11 ; 1301. ll 1675"; 121: | 44; 15 Ι 199; 95 ll 12); 98 Ι Q82t. ois, ll 131-7; Qu ll 6511. 3.84, lI 12%18 (οἵ, 1 Th 616); 318 || 6; 372 || 64 (cf. Col 2%); 32 ! 8%; 411. ll 62-0 ; 48 ll 1315. 13135.. 4101. ll 128-8 ; 41 (οἴ. 5%) || 817; 417} 1016.31 (Is 663); δὶ || 8:8, (ii.) Ephesians, 1 P 18 || 18; 114}} 25: 453.18; 25 | Qum, 89 ll 482.
3° (εὐλογία) ll 1; 3h Ι 317; 318 II g18 38; 37 | 1306. (cf. Ro 82). (iii.) Other Pauline Epistles, 1P 172 Th 2" (cf. 1 Th 47); 15.831, Tit 3°; 123 || 2Ti 45; 151. || the Pauline trilogy, e.g. 1 Co 13%; 2'6 || Gal 51 (different sense); 4° || 2 Ti 41 (but ef. Ac 104); 4° || Ph 24; 433 || 2Co 15%, ῬῊ 810. 58 ἢ 1Th5*% Note also 235 5? || Ac 3058 (Pauline speech). (iv.) James, 1 P 11 || 11 (διασπορά) ; 151 || 12 12 (but see Mt Hilt.) 1% ll 118 ; οι ll 13: ; ou Ι 4); 58 Ι 41. 10. 59 Ι 47.
Τὸ should further be noted that (a) a phrase from Pr 10” is introduced in 1 P 4° and apparently alluded to in Ja 5”, both Epistles using a render- ing other than that of LXX; (δ) Is 408 is alluded to in Ja 1 and quoted in 1 P 1*; (c) Pr 3% is quoted in Ja 4°, 1 P 5°—both having ὁ θεός, LXX Κύριος." To take first the case of James, the coincidences in this Ep. with 1 Peter can hardly be accounted for on the ground of personal intercourse between the two writers.
They seem to imply literary in- debtedness. The relative dates of the two docu- ments (apart from other considerations) supply a decisive argument that the borrowing is on the side of 1 P (see, e.g., Zahn, Hinl. i. p. 95). Mayor (p. exxiv) gives 40 as the earliest, 50 as the latest, year in which James can have been written. Zahn (Einl. i. p. 92) gives 50 as its approximate date.
The Epistle would therefore be well known among the Jewish Christians in the Syrian towns, and certainly among those in the Syrian Antioch, in the sixth decade A.D. (see above, note on p. 765). There are reasons for thinking that in this decade St. Peter was working in this district, and that he made Antioch his headquarters (p. 779). It is, then, a natural conclusion that St.
Peter studied the Epistle of James soon after it was written, and that some 12 years later many of its graphic phrases were fresh in his memory. In any case, the fact that 1 P is influenced in thought and language by James is an important indication that the mind of the writer was one which received and retained such impressions. ᾿ The coincidences between 1 P and the Pauline Epp.
other than Romans and Ephesians are not very close, and are to be accounted for as the outcome of a common evolution of Christian phrases and conceptions rather than as instances of direct bor- rowing. The most striking of them, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος (2 Th 918,1 P 13), would, in fact, naturally suggest itself when the practical meaning of the term πνεῦμα ἅγιον became realized in the Church. The case of Romans is widely different.
There is no doubt that the author of 1 P was acquainted with this Epistle. Nor is this surprising, if the writer is St. Peter. For as St. Paul was familiar with James, so Romans could hardly escape the notice of the Apostles of the Circumcision. Though * The supposed coincidences between 1 P and (a) Hebrews (see, e.g., von Soden, Hand-Commentar iii. 2, p. 2), (Ὁ) Apoca- lypse (see Spitta, Apokal. p. 511 ff.)
will be found in either case to be such as would naturally appear in independent Christian writers of the same period who were well acquainted with the LXX. PETER, FIRST EPISTLE addressed to a particular Church, it dealt with fundamental questions respecting both Judaistic Christianity and the relation of ‘all Israel’ to the gospel.
It is not therefore an extravagant sup- position that, giving as it did the apostle’s mature views on matters about which he must on more than one occasion have conferred with them (cf. Gal 25), he himself communicated it to the leaders of the Jewish Churches. At any rate it could hardly fail to become known, soon after it was written, at the Syrian Antioch, the great meeting- int of Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the ast as Rome was in the West, and so to be brought under St.
Peter’s notice. In regard to the relation of Ephesians to 1 P the case isless simple. Critics of different schools agree in holding that 1 P is profoundly influenced by Ephesians. The nature of some of the coincidences noted above seems to put it beyond doubt that the writer of 1 P was familiar with the language of Ephesians. A list of coincidences, however, in- equately represents the indebtedness of 1 P to that Epistle. ‘The connexion, though very close, does not lie on the surface.
It is shown more by identities of i and similarity in the structure of the two as es as wholes than by identities of phrase’ (Hort p. 5). Salmon (Introd. pp. 443, 445), noting independently the same facts, sug- gests two interpretations of them. (a) ‘ We might conjecturally explain this difference by supposing the Epistle to the Romans to have been so long known to St.
Peter that he had had time to become familiar with its language, while his acquaintance with the Ephesian Epistle was more recent.’ (δ) ‘Peter may have arrived at Rome before Paul quitted it, in which case there would be 8 good deal of viva voce intercourse between the apostles, as there had been in former times.
The doctrines taught by Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians would also naturally be the subject of his discourses to the Christians at Rome; and these discourses may have been heard by Peter.’ Looking only, however, at the broad facts of the case, we may say that, if Ephesians was written by St. Paul during his first captivity, and if St.
eter visited Rome not long afterwards, the ac- quaintance of the writer of 1 P with Ephesians need cause no difficulty on the supposition that that writer was St. Peter. From the question of literary we pass to that of doctrinal indebtedness. The writer of 1 P, it is urged (see above), in his theology takes St. Paul as his master. There is nothing, it is added, un-Pauline in the Epistle. The inference drawn is that St. Peter cannot be the author of the Epistle.
Two observations cover a large part of the ground occupied by such criticisms. (1) Behind the argu- ment there lies the tacit assumption that the two apostles stood in regard to each other in a position analogous to that taken by the leaders of two factions—a progressive and a reactionary party —leaders who alike by essential differences of principle and by the necessities of party-strife are prevented from learning from each other.
Such a view of the mutual relation of the apostles is, it is believed, wholly unsupported by the evidence of the NT and of early Christian literature. (2) The Epistles of St. Pau] form for us so large a part of the apostolic literature of the first age, te. the riod prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that ἘΡΕΙ͂Ν we assume that ideas and doctrines emphasized in these Epistles must be of Pauline origin. That St.
Paul had a predominant share in the moulding of Christian theology, there can be no doubt. But a body of Christian doctrine was owing up apart from the immediate sphere of is influence. St. Paul must have been a re- civient as well as a source of spiritual intuitions. PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 783 Estimating early writings by our imperfect criteria, we are probably in danger of exaggerating the Pauline element.
Thus, to take as an example the crucial phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, which Jiilicher regards as borrowed by St. Peter (3% 54) from the Pauline Epistles, there is no question that St. Paul dwelt upon the phrase and placed it in many different lights. But did he create it? The evidence points to a negative answer. For (a) the phrase is in fact the echo of OT phrases—‘in God,’ ¢.9., Ps 564 601? 627, ‘in Jehovah,’ e.g., Is 4517.
, the Christian adaptation of these OT expressions being natural as the bearing of the Incarnation upon the doctrine of God was fully realized ; (b) the idea is implied in Mt 18, and less distinctly in such references to ‘the name’ of Christ as Mk 9"; (6) the con- ception finds repeated and emphatic expression in St. John’s record of our Lord’s sayings (e.g.
6% 15*); and if we accept these reports, which are clearly independent of Pauline influence, as in any degree historical, we can hardly doubt that the use of the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ must ie traced back to Christ’s own teaching. At any rate, an argument can hardly be founded on the assumption that the plzme was originated by St. Paul. On the other and, the ideas expressed in 1 P 2% 4% may reper er be considered to bear the stamp of an individual mind, and to have been learned from St.
Paul’s writings or from his spoken words. Further, when the doctrine of the Epistle comes to be ex- amined, it will appear that it differs both nega- tively and positively from that of St. Paul’s Epistles (cf. Bost p- 4). Ὁ sum up: all that we learn of St. Peter from the NT gives us the picture of a man prompt and enthusiastic in action rather than fertile in ideas, His borrowing from St. James’ Epistle shows that his mind was receptive and retentive of the thoughts of others.
The Epistle undoubtedly owes much toSt. Paul. But it is only when the Pauline element is isolated and exaggerated that it be- comes a serious argument against the Petrine authorship of the Epistle. Jiilicher (p. 132) implies that, had not the name Peter been prefixed to the Epistle, no one would have supposed that St. Peter was the author. This position is so far true that, had the Epistle been anonymous, to assign the Epistle to St.
Peter would have been an unverifiable hypothesis, We do not possess any document sufliciently authenticated as the work of St. Peter to be a standard by which the Petrine claims of such an Epistle mete have been judged.
The evidence of the speeches in the Acts, though worth consideration as confirmatory, is too indirect, and their date (assuming that they are substantially historical) too far removed from any date which can with any probability be given to the Epistle, for a reliable criterion to be supplied by them. But these considerations have a Saabs application.
If, on the one hand, they forbid the rash assertion that an anonymous document is Petrine, so, on the other hand, they are a warning against the hasty rejection of a document which bears St. Peter’s name on the ground of its alleged un-Petrine character.
The arguments urged to prove that 1 P is un-Petrine have been examined, and they have been shown to be unsubstantial, resting largely on unsupported presumptions, On the other hand, the serious difficulties involved in the hypothesis that the name Peter is a later addition have been pointed out, and it has been shown that the acceptance by the Church of the Epistle as the work of St. Peter was early in date, wide in extent, and unvarying.
But is the Petrine authorship to be accepted indeed, but accepted with certain qualifications? Zahn, following out the suggestions of earlier writers (Ewald, Grimm, Spitta), maintains (Hind, 190 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE ii. pp.
10, 16) that, while the Epistle originally bore the name of Peter, the apostle entrusted the actual composition of it to Silvanus, as one peculiarly fitted, certainly more fitted than him- self, to put his thoughts into such a form as would appeal to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor, —one, moreover, who was known to many of the readers of the letter, and whom they would there- fore credit with accurately reproducing for them St. Peter’s ideas.
The question turns on the interpretation of 5% διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα. The words τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδ., Zahn argues, imply that the part taken by Silvanus was a responsible one, and therefore cannot have been that of a mere amanu- ensis. He must therefore have been either a messen- ger who conveyed the letter, or a friend who put t. Peter’s thoughts into the form of a letter.
The former alternative, it is argued, is excluded, because in that case the commendation would have been meaningless—painfully useless, if Silvanus proved untrue and the Epistle never came into the hands of its intended recipients; superfluous, if he de- livered the letter to them.
Against this theory the following considerations together seem decisive :— (1) If Silvanus were the real writer of the Epistle, especially if he is to be identified (see below) with the Silas of the Acts and the Silvanus of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians and Corin- thians (2 Co), we should expect some salutation from him to his readers. In Ro 16™ Tertius, who was simply the scribe, sends a greeting in the first person (ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ).
(2) Such a divided authorship —the main ideas being supplied by one man, their manipulation and expression being the work of another—could not result in a letter so natural and ΒΟ easy in its passage from thought to thought, the transition to a fresh and important idea (e.g. 110) being sometimes due to an incidental phrase. (3) The tone of authority in δ᾽, where the address is ΘΕΟΥ͂ pesan is explicable only on a theory either of deliberate personation or of real a tolic authorship.
(4) The language of 5" is abso- lutely natural if Silvanus was, what his position in the early Church (see below) fitted him to be, an apostolic delegate, who could, out of his own knowledge, speak of all personal matters and of the progress of the Church in Rome, and whose experi- ence and special gifts (Ac 15") qualified him to give direction and instruction in questions of faith and of conduct. Compare especially Ac 15”, Col 415...
Eph 6", The language in the context con- firms this view: (a) the order of the words διὰ 5. ὑμῖν τοῦ π. dd. is remarkable, and seems designed to re St. Peter’s messenger and his friends face face ; (δ) δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα implies that the apostle’s written words were few, because he knew t they would be enforced and supplemented by the living voice of Silvanus. For διά of the bearer of a lett διὰ βιβλιαφόρων, E: 818 Ql; the subscriptions added in t many MBS to the Pauline Epistles, ¢.9.
Romans—iypégn ἀπὸ Κορίνθον διὰ Φοίβης, cursPl: ; ἐσεμφθ δὲ διὼ Φοίβης, 183; the ‘verso’ of a letter in the Berlin Papyr. 885—dwedes Σωκράτη Luga ἀπὸ Σιρηνίλλα θυγατρὸς διὰ Σιραπαμμῶνος ἀδιλφοῦ αὐτῆς. Further, γράφειν (γράψαι) διά τινος is in reference to the bearer. In Ac 15% the deter- mination of the Ohurch at Jerusalem to send delegates to Antioch is mentioned, in v.% the additional fact that the dele- gates conveyed a letter. To the phrase in v.
3 (γράψαντες διὰ χωρὸς αὐτῶν) there corresponds the phrase in v.90 ἐπσέδωχαν τὴν ἐπιστολήν. Polyc. ad Phil. xiv. “το uobis scripst per Orescentem, quem in presenti commendaui uobis et nunc com- mendo.’ Three passages in the Ignatian Epistles are, at first sight, ambiguous, and may refer either to the scribes or to the bearers of the letters. (a) From Smyrna Ignatius wrote to three Churches near at hand (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles) and to the distant Church of Rome. In ch.
10 of the Epistle to the last Church he says, γράφω δὶ ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ Σμύρννς δι᾽ ᾿Εφισίων τῶν ἀξιομακαρίστων. Several reasons make it probable that the Ephesians were the bearers and not the amanuenses of the letter—(1) The plural : it would be natural to dictate a short letter to one person ; (2) the context: after a parenthetical PETER, FIRST EPISTLE = sentence Ign.
continues: περὶ τῶν προιλβόντων μὲ ἀπὸ Συρίας ole Ῥώμην, the probability being that the mention of those who had gone before him from Syria to Rome is suggested by the mention of those who are even now going before him from Smyrna to Rome; (8) the sequel: at the next stage of the ΗΝ (Troas) only one of the Ephesians was still with gnatius, viz. Burrhus. (ὁ) From Troas Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnwane, and to Polycarp.
In the closing salutations of the two former Fpistles the words occur— ix Τρωάδι" ὅθιν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Bovppov. Here the context gives no help towards the interpretation of διά, But other considerations seem decisive. If διά points to the scribe, then there seems to be no reason why the amanuensis should be mentioned in three letters (Rom., Philad., Smyr.), but passed over in silence in the remaining four letters.
If, however, in each case διά designates the bearer, then the facts t of an easy explanation. There would be no need to mention the messenger in the case of the letter to Polycarp; for the same rson would be in charge of it who was entrusted with etter to the Smyrnmans. Again, the distance from Smyrna to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles was small, and there must have been constant means of communication, of which Ignatius would naturally avail himself.
In the case of all the letters which had to travel far, the name of the bearer (or bearers) is atta given. Further, the elaborate care bestowed Ὁ Ignatius ae xi., Polyc. vii.f.) and by Polycarp (ad Phil. xiii.)
on the appointment of delegates to the Church of Syria, and the conveyance of letters by their means, is important as confirming the interpretation of the Ignatian phrase γράφων διά vives given above, and also as illustrating the employment in apostolic and sub-apostolic times of men of recogn position in communications between Churches. VI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPOSITION.— The restoration of a history must be conjectural.
The test of probability in such a case is the extent to which the scheme as a whole offers a natural explanation of the details which have a claim to be taken into account. In the preceding art. it was pointed out that a good deal of indirect evidence points to the supposition that St. Paul during his imprisonment himself summoned St.
Peter to Rome, chiefly in order that the sight of the two apostles—the one commonly regarded as the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other as the Apostle of the Cireumcision—planning and working to- gether might bring home to the Roman Christians the great lesson of unity. St. Peter, we ma suppose, arrived in Rome shortly before St. Paul’s release. St.
Paul had not very long before written the Epistle to the Ephesians, setting forth in it his mature views on fundamental questions, many of which could not but engage St. Peter’s attention in Rome. It would therefore be almost inevitable that St. Peter should study, or, if he had read it before, should study afresh, that Epistle. More- over—what is of more importance—he would be brought into close and unrestrained intercourse with the mind of the writer.
Such intercourse might well recall to his memory the thoughts and words of the Epistle to the Romans, and perhaps suggest its re-perusal. It makes no great demand on the imagination to see how an Epistle written by St. Peter under such circumstances would be full of Pauline thought and Pauline language, and, in particular, would be likely not seldom to echo the words of the Epistles to the Nomans and to the Ephesians.
Is it possible to arrive at any probable conclusion as to the point of time when the Epistle was written? (i.) The language of that important section of the Epistle which deals with obedience to the civil power (2*1”), gains greatly in point and reality if it was used in view of St. Paul’s appeal to the emperor having recently issued in his ac- quittal. It would be natural for one writing at such a time to recall what St.
Paul had himself said on this subject (Ro 13), and, while using his expressions, to sharpen them and give them greater definiteness. Then it might well seem that ‘the praise of them that do well’ was an end of the magistrate’s functions.
If the decision of the Imperial Court had lately frustrated the endeavour of the Jews to secure the condemnation of the apostle of the true Messiah, the event would appear as a revelation of ‘the will of God’ in PETER, FIRST EPISTLE respect to His use of the power of the civil magistrate—djaforaolyras φιμοῖν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν. (ii.) Critics from many points of view have laid stress on the absence in the Epistle of any reference to St. Paul.
It is one of the problems of the Epistle. But does not the eee cuey vanish at once 1f we suppose that St. Peter wrote while St. Paul was still in Rome, and that Silvanus was undertaking as St. Paul’s messenger 8 journey tothe Churches of Asia Minor? In that case it would have been unnatural for the Epistle to convey 8 menage “του St. Paul; while news about St. Paul would be needless, since Silvanus would himself explain the position of affairs at Rome.
It is commonly taken for granted that the Silvanus of 1 P is the same person as the Silas of Acts and the Silvanus of St. Paul's Epistles. Thisis an assumption, though a highly probable one. Four persons bearing the name in the shortened form (Silas) meet us in the pages of Josey The name Silvanus is fo in the form Σιλβανός in CIG 1816, 7256, in the form Dasares in CIG 4039, 4071.
The name, then, is not 80 common as to make it very likely that more than one Silvanus was closely connected with the apostles. And, further, what we know of the Silvanus of the earlier apostolic history corresponds so strikingly with the facts and probabilities involved in the mention of Silvanus in 1 P, that the identification is advanced many stages of probability. The points important for our present purpose are as follows.
Silvanus appears suddenly at the time of the ‘Council’ at Jerusalem as an ἀνὴρ ἡγούμενος ἐν τοῖς ἀδιλφοῖς (Ac 15%). He is chosen by the Church at Jerusalem undertake a mission of extreme delicacy as delegate to the Church of Antioch. There his prophetic git made a di impression. After a time he returned to Jeru- salem. That he had left Antioch before the painful controversy alluded to in Gal 2, and that he was not therefore one of οἱ Awwei "Ἰουδαῖοι who proved faithless to St.
Paul's teaching, seems clear from the fact that St. Paul deliberately selected him as his com} on after the rupture with Barnabas and Mark (see art. Mark). As St. Paul’s companion, he visited Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. With him he traversed τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν ἄρ» and, having shared his journey along the borders of ysia, with him entered Europe. When 80.
Paul was con- strained by ‘the brethren’ to hasten from Berma, he left behind him Silas and Timothy—Silas, doubtless, as his representative, and Timothy as Si companion and assistant—to carry out the important work of building up the recently planted Church. When the apostle arrived at Athens, he seems to have felt ki the need of the support of Silas’ and Timothy's presence (Ac 1715). It seems probable that Timothy joined St.
Paul at Athens, and wassent back by him thence to Thessalonica (1 Th 81), and that Silas remained in Macedonia and continued the work in other cities besides Berca, till he at length, with Timothy, left Macedonia, and met St. Paul at Corinth (Ac 185). It whatever the exact details of the ilas was entrusted by St. Paul with delet to notice tha ry may have been, the task of ereioring his own Initial work in the Churches of Macedonia, to w!
the a) le himself, as time went on, became bound with unusu ly strong and tender ties of affeo- tion. After his arrival at Corinth, Silvanus disappears from the narrative of the Acts (cf. 2Co 11%), Some ten years elapse, and we find a Silvanus at Rome, probably, as we have seen, while Paul was still in the city. (a) t would have been very natural for St. Paul’s old companion to join him at Rome, where others among the a) le’s former fellow-workers had ered round him (Col 47-14, Philem 23°). St.
Paul clearly special need of the pathy and faithful co-operation of “those who were of the circumcision’ (Col 411). (Ὁ) On the other hand, the fact that Silvanus is not mentioned in any of the Epistles of the Captivity, and that he appears in the city, apparently not long after the last of these was written, In connexiontwith St. Peter, suggests the probability that he came to Rome with St. Peter.
Silvanus was in early days closely connected with the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (Ac 1522 32 33), and it may well be that after he ceased to travel with St. Paul he resumed work in Syria. St. Peter, as we saw,, probably came to Rome from Syria, possibly from Antioch. The two men may thus have been much thrown together In later asin earlier years. If St. Peter was summoned to Rome by St.
Paul himself with the express pu of deepening the unity of the Church, he would naturally choose as the com- panion of his journey to the capital one of St. Paul's old associates. For such a mission Silvanus was peculiarly fitted. He was a Jewish Christian who had long possessed the confi- dence of the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem (Ac 15%2*-), He had been closely associated with St. Paul. le was a Roman citizen (Ac 1 St.
Paul was in the habit of sending his most trusted friends as his delegates to distant places to consolidate or to extend his work.
It would be very natural that he should send Silvanus on such a mission to districts In some of which were Churches [n planting which they had worked together, while in others were Christian communities which must have been to some extent the Indirect outcome of their common work, On the assumption, then, that we have to deal with only one Silvanus in the apostolic history, we are able to weave the probabilities into a natural and consistent narrative ; and, #0 far as is possible in such cases, the assumption is justified.
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 791 But why does St. Peter seize the opportunity of Silvanus’ journey to write an Epistle to the Churches of Asia Minor? There is no indication that he had any personal knowledge of his readers in any of the districts to which he writes. It does not appear that he wished to bring before them and the Church generally any characteristic con- victions of his as to the interpretation of the Christian faith, as St.
Paul desired to do in the Epistles to the Romans and to the ‘ Ephesians,’ No controversy is touched upon by him. The Epistle bears no trace of having been called forth Ae the difficulties or needs of any particular Church. Is not the motive which led St. Peter to write a letter to the Christians scattered over the vast districts of Asia Minor the same which we saw reason for thinking brought him to Rome?
It is plain that if Riven who long before had been known to some of these Churches as a companion of St. Paul, and who now was travelling as St. Paul’s delegate, brought with him a letter from St. Peter, the effect on the minds of the Asiatic Christians would be only less powerful than that produced on the Roman Christians oe the sight of the two apostles working and planning together in the Capital.
The fact that the letter was written and received under such circumstances, would be the strongest enforcement of the lesson of the Church’s unity. The Epistle may even have been written at St. Paul’s request. But however that may be, the motive suggested seems adequate and simple. It harmonizes with the phenomena of the Epistle, and indeed throws fresh light on some of them.
Thus it is no longer surprising that there is no great thought or purpose, doctrinal or personal, which dominates the whole Epistle. Its scope is truly summed up in the very general words — ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (5). Again, the Pauline tone of the Epistle is seen to correspond with all the circumstances of its composition. If these were what we have found reason to think them to have been, the letter could not but be Pauline.
Once more, have we not here a final explanation of the fact that, though the mind of St. Peter care recurs to the words of Christ, he makes only indirect allusions to the privilege hich he: ἐπ. had GF Wwatehinne the life ΚΣ τη 5 Incarnate Lord? To have dwelt on this would have been te appear to disparage the apostolate of St. Paul. To sum up: all the conditions of the problem seem to be satisfied if we assign the Epistle toa time shortly after St. Paul's trial had ended in his uittal.
The power of the Roman State seemed ite on the side of the Church. But the hatred of the Jews was an enemy ‘scotched, not killed,’ nay, perhaps it was intensified because deprived of its expected prey. Nor would the social trials of the Christians among their heathen neighbours be lessened by the Imperial decision, The daily ex- perience of a Christian at Rome might well suggest serious warnings as to the proving of faith through suffering. The situation was as follows. St.
Paul had himself summoned St. Peter to Rome, with the supreme object of showing to the Christians at Rome and to ‘the brotherhood in the world’ the unity of the Body and of the Spirit. St. Peter had arrived in Rome, and with him St. Paul’s old com- panion Silvanus. After St. Paul’s release Silvanus consents to become his delegate, as he had been years before, and on his behalf to undertake a long journey in Asin Minor. Silvanus would explain to these Churches the situation at Rome.
He would enforce the spiritual and doctrinal lessons which were uppermost in St. Paul's mind. But the work of consolidating the Churches, and in thom the Church, would be greatly advanced if Silvanus, 792 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE the messenger of St. Paul, brought with him a letter from St. Peter. The letter itself might deal with general topics, as indeed was inevitable when it was addres to readers spread over so vast an area. But the fact that it was written by St.
Peter, now 4 fellow-worker with St. Paul at Rome, and transmitted by the common friend of both apostles, now executing St. Paul’s commission, was itself the revelation of the mind of the apostles, and a call to deepen the common life of ‘the brother- aos the significance of which cannot be exagger- ated, It is right to notice two other recent reconstructions of the Ogee history in connexion with the composition of 1 P.
TY eon in whioh they are open to criticism have been sufficiently indicated in the preceding sections and in art. Perse. (1) Zahn’s theory (Hin. ii. p. 18f.) is as follows :— It is almost im ible to explain the silence of the Epistle as to St. Paul if St. Peter wrote either at a time when the two apostles were ether in Rome or after St. Paul’s death. It is probable that Mark went from Rome to Asia Minor (Col 410 in the autumn of 62, or early in 63, and afterwards visite Jerusalem. From him St.
Peter learned the difficulties which the Jewish Christian teachers had created for St. Paul, and also the intention of the latter after his expected release to under- take a journey to the far West. St. Peter felt these tidings to be a call to himself to visit Rome. Such a visit was no violation of the compact recorded in Gal 29, since the Roman Ohurch had not been founded by St, Paul, and was composed of Jewish Christians, many of whom were Palestinian Jews. St.
Peter arrived in Rome in the autumn of 63 or early in 64. St. Paul had already left the city. Since the duration of St. Paul’s stesy er ΤΠ τ πο to Spain could not be foreseen, it was natural t St. Peter should tread in St. Paul’s footateps in other ways, and in icular in caring for the Churches of Asia.
The fact that Silvanus assisted him in writing the Epistle, enabled him to strike a note in the letter which would find an echo in the hearts of men who directly or indirectly owed their Ohristianity to St. Paul. As nothing in the Epistle implies that he had recently arrived in Rome, and as his correspondents aes to be already aware of the fact that he was in the city, St. Peter probably wrote the Epistle in the course of the year 64, a few months before his martyrdom. (2) Swete (St.
Mark Ε xvii f.) follows Lightfoot in dissociating the martyrdom of St. ‘eter from that of St. Paul, but argues that ‘it is open to con- sideration whether St. Paul's was not the earlier.’ He thinks that ‘an examination of 1 Peter supplies more than one reason for believing the Epistle to have been written subsequently to St. Paul’s death.
’ Over and above the references to persecution which, he thinks, point to 70-75 as the limit of date, he notices that the letter is addressed to Christian communities some of which were Pauline Churches ; that its bearer is ‘a well-known colleague of St. Paul’; that it contains reminiscences of two of St. Paul's writings (Eph, Ro). ‘The conclusion can scarcely be avoided that at the time when it was written St. Paul had finished his course. The care of the Churches had devolved on St.
Peter; the two oldest sasociates of St. Paul had transferred their services to the surviving Apostle; both had originally been members of the Church at Jerusalem, and, when the attraction of the stronger personality had been withdrawn, both had returned to their earlier leader. St. Peter on his part is careful to show by the character of his letter and by his selection of colleagues that he has no other end than to take up and carry on the work of St. Paul.
’ It remains to notice the evidence supplied by the Epistle as to the intended journey 0 dear On the questions suggested if 1P Ι΄ see especially Hort's dissertation, ‘The Provinces of Asia Minor included in St. Peter’s address’ (1 Peter pp. 157- 184; cf. p. 17).
Hort shows that (1) the position of Asia neither first nor last in the list, (2) the fact ‘that Pontus and Bithynia stand at opposite ends of the list, sayin they together formed but a single province, the title of which combined both names, indicate that in that list we have presented the projected course of the journey. Silvanus ‘was to enter Asia Minor by a seaport of Pontus, and thence to make a circuit till [he] reached the neigh- bourhood of the Euxine once more.
’ Why he purposed to land in Pontus it is vain to conjec- ture. The condition of the Christian communities, or some special call to evangelistic work in that district or in the districts to which he would thus best gain access, may have been the determinine motive. It is probable that Silvanus was to lan at Sinope, the most important of the towns on the seaboard of Pontus. arHemed he would visit the northern portion of the vast province of Galatia, probably making its capital Ancyra his head.
Sruits of this σωτηρία in life. (a) Vv. 13-21, Seriousness. — Θ στ θ . ᾳ{ΨᾳΦῃῃΕΝ PETER, FIRST EPISTLE quarters. At Ancyra he would find more than one road by which he could reach Ceesarea, the one town of considerable importance in Cappadocia. Taking at this point the great road running west- ward to Ephesus, he would be able to visit the Churches in South Galatia, and so to enter the province of Asia.
Northwards there lay Christian communities through which he would pass on his way to Bithynia, where it seems to have been the intention that he should again take ship. ‘In thus following by natural and simple routes the order of provinces which stands in the first sentence of the Epistle, Silvanus would be brought into con- tact with every considerable district north of the Taurus in which there is reason to suppose that Christian communities would be found’ (Hort p. 184). VII.
SUMMARY OF THE EPISTLE.—The openin, of a new section in the Epistle is marked in 2" 4 by the appeal conveyed by the word ἀγαπητοί. Thus the letter has three main divisions of which the several topics may be thus approximately repre- sented—(I.) 11-2" the ῬΕΙΠΙ͂ΘΒΕΕ ἀπ ap to the redeemed family of God ; (II.) 211-41 ᾧ e duties of ‘the brethren’; (III.) 415-60} the trials of ‘the brethren.
’ The different sections, however, over- isp in regard to their subjects, and the thought of the Epistle is too spontaneous and (in a literary sense) too unpremeditated to admit of any formal analysis. The following paraphrase is an attempt. to bring out the sequence and general treatment οὐ ideas :— I. 11-210, The privileges belonging to the redeemed familp of God.—{1) 110 Salutation. (2) 1842, The joy of σωτηρία. (aj Vy.
35, Benediction of the Father for the new birth and the heavenly inheritance. (ὁ) Vv.69, This joy in Christ is main- tained by you in the midst of present sorrows, the issue of which will be seen at ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ Faith in an unseen Lord is the spring whence comes this joy of σωτηρία. (©) Vv.10-12, This σωτηρία was the subject of the prophets’ search, as they foretold the facts which evangelists proclaimed to you, and which angels desire to discern.
(3) 1 me ae ἊΝ being your position, do you, with minds alert and passions in control, set your hope on the Divine ever supplied to you, as Jesus Christ is gradually revealed to you. Not your sinful but the holiness of God must be the standard of your life. You must be solemnized by («) the remembrance that your ‘Father in heaven’ is a strict Judge; (β) the thought of the greatness of the price paid for your redemption from an inheritance of vanity. (ὁ) Vv.
22-2, Love towards the members a the spiritual family. The self-purification involved in re- emption leads on to the cultivation of love towards the members of the spiritual family—genuine, deep, active. This is a duty which flows from the fact of ἀναγέννησις,. (c) 21. Growth.
It (on the negative side) you have stripped off from yourselves malice and such unchildlike vices, you must (on the positive side) surrender yourselves to your true spiritual instincts and live by the spiritual milk, the spiritual sustenance which is the direct gift of God. So you will grow up unto σωτηρία. (d) 2410, Privilege. Christ is the living stone, rejected by the act of mea but in God’s sight ἔντιμος.
He is the foundation on which you are being built up asa spiritual house for spiritual acts of wor- ship. This view of Christ (i.e. as the foundation stone) finds expression in the very letter of Scripture (Is 2816), It has a double aspect. On the one hand, it is for you who believe that He is ἔντιμος. On the other hand, for those who disbelieve, the Psalmist’s words about the stone of stumbling are true, their very stumbling being within the limits of the Divine purpose.
ay you are the true Israel, with all the privileges of the λαὸς tov. II, 2-411, The brotherhood which is in the world, and its duties.—{1) 2Uf.. General introductory counsels. Be like mere sojourners in the world. Let the moral beauty of your con- duct make your very detractors watch you, so that in the ey, of decision they may glorify God. (2) 918-813, Duty of mission to every Divine institution a men. (a) 214-17, Subjects and civil magistrates.
For Christian freedom must not be a cloak for (social or political) disaffection. ‘Honcur the king’ is one practical application of the universal rule “Honour all men.’ (ὁ) 218-25. S/aves and masters. Obey even unreasonable masters. He who does right and patiently suffers wrong, pleases God. To nothing less than this were you called. For Christ suffered for us; and in all His sufferings left us the attern-sketch of a life of sinless endurance and constant trust ey 314. Wives and husbands.
To watch the wife’s serious and pure life may win the husband who has been deaf to the spoken message. Her adornment must be within—a spire placid in itself, gentle towards others. Such is the example of the wives of ancient story. (d) 37. Husbands. Husbands have a corre- sponding duty—to pay their wives the reverence dae to theis PETER, FIRST EPISTLE PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 793 weakness.
Those who share an earthly home irmeeae) must behave to each other as those who share (συνκληρόνοισι the heavy inheritance. (¢) 3512, A summary of mutual duties (ct. 55). 2 ne In a word, let kindness rule. Do not return evil for e but bless your revilers; for the inheritance of blessing the end of the Christian calling (Ps 34218). 318-23, Suffering and its reward. 1 spoke of evil. Who 1 do you evil, if you be champions of good? But even you suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are happy.
Do not fear, but make your hearts a sanctuary for the Cinrist. Towards others, be always ready to explain and defend your faith to any questioner. In yourselves, maintain a good con- science, that your conduct may shame your detractors. For, should this be God’s will, it is better that you, like Christ, should suffer for well-doing than forevil-doing. For Christ once for all, i.6. dealing decisively with sins, died, the just on behalf of the taped at He eRe bring you (then afar off) to God.
But these sufferings had (as yours will have) their issue in blessing. (i.) On the one hand, His being put to death in regard to His flesh was His quickening in regard to His (human) spirit. Clothed in that human spirit He extend = His sphere of ministry. He journeyed and made ion to the spirits in prison, spirits who slighted God's ng-suffering in the days when the ark was being built.
In the ark only eight souls were saved, the water (which to others was the instrument of judgment) bearing up the ark and so becom- ele instrument of σωτηρία. The reality, of which the water of the Flood was a type, even baptism, saves (¢é{u) you ; not the external cleansing of the flesh, but the inquiry of a oon con- science after * the final source of its efficacy being the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (ii.) The patient ta οἵ Christ had a second issue—His triumph.
He journeyed (as before into Hades 319, so now) into heaven and is at God’s ‘bt oe victorious sovereign over all spiritual powers. ΟἹ 415. ideal of Christian life. Christ then suffered in tion to the flesh. Hence the true conception of life. Let it be your armour. To have suffered in regard to the flesh means to have ceased to exist in re tosins. Realize your spiritual position by living no longer by the rule of the manifold lusts of men, but by the one will of God.
It is enough to have given the past to the heathen vices of gps ee τ drunken- ness, idolatry. The heathen wonder that you hold aloof from their vile riot, and traduce your motives. But the injustice is not for ever. They will have to give an account to Him with whom the judgment of living and dead is ‘as a ΕΣ little thing’ (ὑτοίμως). Such ju ent of the dead is just.
For the procfamation of the gospel to the dead had this for its object, t, while the dead must be judged after the pattern of men in reference to the flesh (the earthly life), they may nevertheless be enabled to live after the pattern of God (cf. 115) in reference to the Lae (hk) 47-1, Christian life in view of the approachi ond. e end of all things is near. Therefore be serious an: eros Most of all, cultivate mutual love.
Let each man use endowment for the of the whole body —his gift of utterance, relying on Divine inspiration; his gift of ministry, resting on Divine strength. So God will be lorified. εἰν 412-514. The trials of the brethren.—(1) 41919, Trust in the midst of suffering. Let not God's process of testing and refining you seem to you strange, as if some strange chance were befalling you.
ther rejoice at your participation in the sufferings of the Christ, that when His glory is revealed your joy may be intensified. To bear Christ’s reproach is an nat sign of a spiritual | Sirved resting on you. I say Christ's reproach, for I would not have any of you suffer for any criminal act or for any social indiscretion. But to suffer asa Christian is a reason not for shame but for thanksgiving. You must es suffering. For the set time has come for the judgment to begin with God’s household.
What, then, shall be e end of those who wilfully reject the 1? Hence let those who have even to suffer in fulfilment of the Divine pur- pose do right and commend themselves to a Creator who will not ‘ fo: 6 the work of his own hands.’ (2) 6!, Pastors and I who share their office (and so can lg erm with ), and am a witness to the sufferings of the Christ (and so pak with sad charge your elders to shepherd God's lock, not in the spirit of slaves or hirelings or tyrants.
Then when the Chief Shepherd is manifested they will have their reward. You younger men have δ Sorrespomiing duty, to be subject to elders. All of you—your duty is umility and mutual service. (8) 6611. Final counsels. Humble yourselves under God's d τ that He may exalt you. your anxiety on Him owing His providential care for you. Watch ; for the devil ravins for you asa Ῥτον.
Firm through your talth resist him, conscious that for your brethren through- out the worlc the same — ET God who called you, He, after your brief space ering, ren, re. (4) 61914, Commendation of the bearer of the letter. VIII. Doctrine OF THE EPIsTLe.—In this sec- tion an attempt will be made to indicate in outline the doctrinal teaching contained in the Epistle. The letter is a λόγος παρακλήσεως, and contains no systematic exposition of, oe of the Christian faith.
But in the mind of the writer there is a * The history of Cornelius (Ac 10% ΣΙ. 47) is the best com- mentary on the phrase imipernua εἰς ϑεόν in this connexion. consistent and comprehensive theology which finds incidental and instinctive expression. _ The Petrine speeches in the Acts were called forth by special circumstances, and (except the s es recorded in Ac 1042 157-11) were all addressed to non-Christian Jews at Jerusalem.
We have no right, therefore, to look to them for the full cycle of Christian doctrine which even ‘in the beginning of the Gospel‘ St. Peter had 5 yar The following coincidences, how- ever, between 1 P and the Petrine speeches recorded in the Acts are noteworthy :—1 P 110 (πσροφητα,) | Ac 314 21 34 108, cf. Q16M. 9567. B22 2; 111. Ul y OA. 32. give. 410 GS0L 19H; 12} αὶ 816; Φ7 |] 411 (Ps) ; 224 (ξύλον) ἢ 589 1089; 45 § 1042 (see also 2 ΤΊ 4!); δὶ αὶ 122 282 315 1089.
41, Of these coincidences, the parallel between 1 P 12) (τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ wierois) and Ac 316 (ἡ πίστις ἡ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ) is very remarkable. It is the kind of coincidence which suggests direct connexion of some kind. Mere literary dependence on the one side or the other is not supported by coincidences between 1 P and portions of the Acts other than the Petrine speeches. The suggestion made on other grounds (see above, . 762n.), that St. Peter and St.
Luke may well have met in me, should in this connexion be kept in mind. (1) The doctrine of God.—(a) The Holy Trinity. —As elsewhere in the NT (2 Th 24, 1 Co 12%, 2 Co 13%, Eph 81:45. 43%, Jude ™-, cf. Rev 14), the Three Persons are revealed in their several rela- tions to the complete redemption of man(1l*). The fact that the Three Names are not given in the order of historical manifestation is an indication that the Persons are De ares as ‘coequal’ (cf. 2 Co 13").
The mystery of the essential relation of the Three Persons is not otherwise touched upon. In regard to their relation κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, the Father is spoken of as ‘the God and Father’ of the incarnate Lord (‘Jesus Christ,’ 15), and as the object of His un- failing trust in the extremity of humiliation (2%), while the temporal mission ot the Spirit is referred to (113). (δ) The Father. Theunique phrase πιστὸς κτίστης (4.
9) implies that the relation of God to man as Creator is the final basis of trust (ef. Mt 6®, He 12%). The spiritual Fatherhood of God, i.e. the regeneration of men through the revelation in Christ and the Divine act of the resurrection, is a root-thought in the Epistle (1**), and from it springs the social teaching as to φιλαδελφία, (c) The Son. Is the eyetn Sper of Christ asserted or postulated in the Epistle? In the phrase τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς [sc.
τοῖς προφήται:)] πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (1"), the reference in Χριστοῦ is ποῦ primarily personal; the word rather alludes to the conception of the Messiah progressivel revealed and apprehended (see Hort’s note). Again, in 1” φανερωθέντος is laced in antithesis to προεγνωσμένου, and therefore ἜΣ not necessarily imply personal pre-existence. The words, however, in 3" appear to be decisive. The personality of Him whose actions are de- scribed resided neither in the σάρξ (cf. 44) nor in the πνεῦμα.
Clothed in that human spirit (ἐν ¢), when the flesh had been laid aside in death, Ἧς carried out His ministry among the dead. Thus the passage distinctly implies that He who worked on earth and in Hades was a superhuman Person, assuming all the elements of human nature, and therefore existing before the beginning of the human life. (ὦ) The Spirit. The Spirit is men- tioned in 1*™ 4% In 4" the words, an echo of Is 11°, are a Christian adaptation of the thought and language of the OT.
The Spirit of God which rested on Messiah is the portion of those also who suffer for Messiah’s sake, The earlier passage (14) is, as was seen above, warped connected with the ancient Messianic hope. ‘The Spirit of Mes- siah’ was ‘in the Prophets.’ But the mention of the Spirit in v." cannot be disconnected from the mention of the Spirit in v.4. The Spirit was the power through which the witness of the ancient prophets and the witness of Christian evangelists were rendered.
Thus the two verses together emphasize the continuity of revelation (cf. the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed). For in v.¥ (da τῶν εὐαγγ. ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ the reference is definite, not to a but to the Holy PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 794 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE Spirit. The absence of the article aay brings out the character of the power—‘ through no less a wer than the Holy Spirit’; compare, ¢.g., Ro 1-16 and the anarthrous but definite use of θεός, Χριστός, κύριος, vids (He 1.
The addition of door. dx’ οὐρανοῦ can hardly be taken otherwise than as an allusion to the historical gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. (2) Redemption.—Everything in regard both to the Redeemer (1”, cf. Ac 2%) and the redeemed (1%) is conditioned by the πρόγνωσις of the Father. Even disobedience to the gospel does not lie out- side the sphere of His purpose (28). The prepara- tion is dwelt on in 4, The prophetic witness was twofold—(a) to the sufferings destined for Messiah (εἰς Xp.)
and the different elements in His subsequent glory ; (δ) to the Divine grace destined for the Gentiles (els ὑμᾶς, ef. Ac 10%). It should be noted that in this Epistle there is no allusion to the Law either in its ceremonial or in its moral aspect, nor again (except the passing reference to the ‘holy women,’ 356) to the ancient story of Israel ; contrast St. Paul’s Epistles.
The Divine Person took human nature in its completeness— σάρξ and πνεῦμα (3,5); in 2% the Lord’s σῶμα is spoken of, but St. Peter has no occasion to refer to the Lord’s ψυχή, in St. Paul’s psychology the σῶμα and the ψυχή together making up the σάρξ. Christ was sinless (2**-, the language being derived from Is 53°; ef. 12°).
He endured the last issue of the life of sinful man in the separation of ‘ flesh’ and ‘spirit,’ and ‘in His spirit’ passed into the unseen world of waiting human spirits (3, cf. Ac 277-51), His death is presented in a twofold aspect. On the one hand, it consummated the example of the t pical human life (2). On the other hand, in is death He met the needs of sinful men. He ‘died’ to help them—dlxatos ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (318.
And His help to Bien consisted in this, that He finally and effectually dealt with sins (ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, 318), The mode in which He dealt with sins is develo in 2%. Adopting the language of Is 534, the apostle says that the Sinless One ‘took our sins’ (not sin as a principle, but the concrete sins of men) to Himself, i.e. by virtue of His representative humanity.
His human ‘ body’ was, as it were, the vessel in which the sins of men were gathered (ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ) and borne to the last extreme of humiliation—the ξύλον involving to the mind of Jews the Divine curse (Dt 21%). By His death (so the context implies) His relation to the flesh and to sins finally ended (2™ 41, cf. Ro 67°), so that the true life of humanity is henceforth ideally set free from the dominion of sin. This freedom the redeemed have to work out in their several lives. In 1!
* a different line of thought is followed. Gentiles (for it is to Gentile Christians that the Epistle is addressed, see above) were ransomed (éAurpw@yre—the word is taken from Is 52%; cf. especially Mt 20%, 1 Ti 25) from bondage to an inheritance of vanity, and the ransom was no less a price than the ‘precious blood’ (ef. Ps 72 Heb., 115 (116) 5 65) LXX) of Christ. Christ Himself is likened to a lamb free from intrinsic blemish and from accidental stain (ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου.
The whole cycle of ideas is probably derived from the ry of the first Passover and of Israel’s redemption from Feyet. The reserve of the passage is remarkable. Nothing is said in regard to the question to whom the λύτρον was paid. The sacrificial language is metaphorical (ὡς duyod); it is simple and is not develo a The aim of the Lord’s sufferings is twofold. It has a heavenly and an earthly side. On the one hand, ἀπέθανεν... ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῴ (318).
There is a slight emphasis on Juaés—‘ you Gentiles who were afar off’ (Eph 218), Christ dealt with the sins of men, and remained Himself δίκαιος. His work and His abiding character fitted Him te bring those whom He had freed from sin into the presence of God. The ideas of mediatorship and reconciliation lie in the background.
On the other hand, Christ bore our sins ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενό- μενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν (2333, Here and in 4% Christ’s death is described as involving the Chris- tian’s death to sin (οἵ. St. Paul, e.g., Ro 67), The correlative idea of ‘the life to righteous- ness’ leads naturally to the teaching of the Epistle in regard to the resurrection. The resur- rection in regard to Christ Himself is described as the reversal (1 3”; ef.
418 51) through the act of the Father (13) of the humiliation involved in suffering and death—a conception which is promi- nent in the Petrine speeches in the Acts (see above, p. 766), but which in the Epistle falls into the background. Jn regard to men, it is δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (a) that the Father ‘ begat anew’ (ἀναγεννήσαΞ) all Christian men (ἡμᾶς, 15, ef. 1) ; (δ) that Baptism becomes in the gospel dis- pensation (νῦν) the crisis of salvation to each (ὑμᾶς ... σώζει, 3%; cf.
Tit 3° ἔσωσεν). Further, the effect of redemption is not limited to the initiation of the Christian life. If ‘sanctification by the Spirit’ is represented (1?) as the influence which surrounds (év) the working out of the Divine pur- pose in the case of the ἐκλεκτοί, that ἐκλογή has for its immediate end (εἰς) the twofold issue ὑπακοὴ καὶ ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpiorov —a life lived in accordance with the Divine will and pattern (1™ 73, ef. e.g.
116 2"), and continually cleansed from the defilement of sin by the application of the quicken- ing blood of Christ. The thought and thelanguage are derived from the OT. The phrase ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος recalls at once the ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ of Nu 199. 18. 20t. (ef, He 12%, Barn. v. 1 ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ῥαντίσματος αὐτοῦ). In ancient Israel provision was made whereby the faithful Israelite, defiled b contact with the dead, should be sprinkled with ‘the water of separation.
’ In the true Israel not water poured on the ashes of the victim, but the blood of Jesus Christ (ef. He 9"), is ever ready for the cleansing of those who are obedient, but who from time to time are defiled through contact with evil. Thus the sequence of thought is precisely that in 1 Jn 17 (ἐὰν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν. . τι αἷμα Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ.)" The end of the divinely sustained growth (2?)
and of the discipline of the Christian man (15) is ‘salvation’ (els σωτηρίαν᾽,, that ‘perfect soundness’ which answers to God’s purpose in creation. (3) The Church.—The two aspects in which the Christian Church is prominently presented in this Epistle are closely related to OT language and Jewish thought. (a) The Church is regarded ‘as first and foremost the true Israel of God, the one legitimate heir of the promises made to Israel’ (Hort p. 7).
Hence in 2% the remarkable trans- ference to Christians in their corporate aspect of the prerogatives which belonged to Israel. The Christian Society is represented as a priestly body (2°) chosen to do priestly service (25), but the spiritual character of this worship (as opposed to the material and merely ceremonial worship of ancient Israel) is insisted on (πνευματικὰς θυσίας, 25; οἵ, Ro 12), Jn 43). The idea of the new Israel is not foreign to St. Paul (e.g.
Gal 615) or other writers of the NT, but nowhere is it insisted on with such emphasis as here. (4) The Church is a universal brotherhood (917 59), In the OT Israelites are con- stantly described as ‘brethren’ (6... Ex 418, Dt * Hort, basing the interpretation of the phrase on Ex 2438 concludes that the reference is to an initial pledge of obedience and an initial ‘sprinkling with blood ’'—the admission to the Christian covenant.
The preposition εἰς (emphasized by juxta- position with ἐν), pointing to a goal, and the position of the clause seem to the present writer strong arguments against interpretation. PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 18%, Neh 5°); for the usage of later times comp. ¢.g. 2 Mac 1’, Ac 22° 287. In the true Israel the tie is not natural, but spiritual. It grows out of the fundamental fact of the Divine ἀναγέννησις (15).
The duties involved in this brotherhood are dis- tinctly described as flowing from the spiritual relation of Christians to God as their Father— ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε... ἀναγεγεννημένοι (13). Hence the re insistence on ἀγάπη and φιλαδελφία (17 2)" 4°), If the very term ἀδελφότης (2! 5°) emphasizes the notion of unity, the 4 ifying words ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (5°; of. διασπορᾶς, 1') su zgest the idea of universality: the Tiehernaed is catholic. Little is said of the organization of the Church.
The spirit in which elders are to work is enforced in 5'™, In 4! there is an allu- sion to the due exercise of χαρίσματα in the Chris- tian Society, and particular reference is made to those who teach and those who minister. The term ἐκκλησία, however, does not occur in the Epistle.
The allusions to the Church suggest that, while the writer had a deep realization of the broad facts, he had not been led specially to ponder on their inner significance and promise, as the ‘Ephesians’ shows that St. Paul had done. (4) Eschatology.—The Epistle holds an import- ant position in the NT in respect to eschatological teaching. St. Peter (47) regards the ‘end of all things,’ $.e. the great consummation, when the oticoeer order will pass away, as near at hand.
In his point there is an important contrast between the i Rot this Epistle and that of the later Epistles of St. Paul (Hort, Romans and Ephesians . 141f.) The time of the end is regarded under Ὁ chief aspects. (1) It will be a time of ἀποκά- Avyis. Then the progressive ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (12) will culminate in a final ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (17 5‘; cf. Lk 17), a ‘revelation of his glory’ (44; cf. 1+”).
Then will be the sea ἔσχατος when the ‘inheritance’ of Christians ill be ‘revealed,’* their participation in the glory ‘which shall be revealed’ (61), God’s αἰώνιος δόξα which was the goal of their ‘calling’ (5%). (2) It will be atime of judgment. God, indeed, is essentially ὁ κρίνων, -ἀπροσωπολήμπτως negatively. without partiality; 117), δικαίως (positively, with absolute justice ; 2%), ἑτοίμως (with the unerring ion of perfect knowledge; 4°).
His judg- ment is individual, and is determined by eac man’s action (117). it will then comprehend ‘ quick and dead’ (4°; cf. Ac 10%, 2 Ti4'). It will be ob- served that, throughout, the judgment is ascribed to the final authority of the Father (cf. e.g. Ro 14”), and that nothing is said in the Epistle of the mediatorship of the Son in the judgment (Ro 2° 2 Co 5"; cf.
Jn 5%”), : But the question inevitably arises, How will rfect justice in judging the dead deal with ose who died before the proclamation of the gospel? To this question St. Peter gives an answer in 4°, in close connexion with which we must take 3!-, The difficulty of the two passages lies not so much in any obscurity of language as in the mysterious nature both of the subject with which they deal and of the problems which they suggest.
The earlier of the two passages (3'%) is limited in scope, dealing only with the case of those who, being disobedient, perished in the a typical judgment of the ancient world. he interpretations which explain the words as * Hort takes the words Ive/unr ἀσοκαλυφθδῆνα (15) to refer to the immediately preceding εἰς rernpiar, and interprets ἐν saps dew as incaning ‘in @ season of extremity.
’ But (1) it is ΕἾΤΑ t to disconnect ἐσχάτῳ here from ἐπ ἰσχάτον τῶν χρόνων in 1%; and καιρός is common in eschatological phrases in Daniel and NT, 4g. 417, Rev 19; ῷ the ‘inheritance’ is the main subject of the passage, and for se ewrnpiar (standing alone) comp. the same phrase in 27; (3) ἑτοίμην ἀσεκαλνῴδηναι, (αἱ.
51) is correlative to τυτυρπμένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς, PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 795 referring either (1) to an antediluvian mission of Christ, or (2) to an evangelization of the angels who fell (Jude*, 2 P 2‘), appear (in view of the context, the zrammatical construction, and the parallel in 4%) to be quite untenable. What appears to be the simple and natural view of the passages is given in the paraphrase above.
It may further be observed (a) that the apostle necessarily uses the language of human experience (πορευθείς ; οἵ. v.™), though narrating events tran- scending human experience; (4) that the phrase τοῖν ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν in reference to Hades is quite natural language for a Jew; comp. Apoc. Bar xxiii. 4 ‘a place was prepared where the living might dwell and the dead might be guarded, 2 τατος μὴν (c) that it is ποῦ impossible that the apostle’s language (ἐκήρυξε...
φυλακῇ) was sug- gested by Is 61 427 49°, The emphasis of the assage rests on the Person of the κῆρυξ. The later passage (4°) differs from the earlier in three important respects: (a) the reference is not limited to the dead belonging to one generation. The anarthrous καὶ νεκροῖς is not in itself necessarily universal in scope, but here it must be interpreted in the light of the preceding words (r@ . .
xplvorrs ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούτ) ; (8) the main point here (accord- ing to the requirements of the context) is the ae fact that the gospel was preached to the dead, not (as in 3'*) the agent in its proclamation ; hence the difference of wording (ἐκήρυξεν, εὐηγγε- λίσθη) is no argument that the two passages have not a common reference to a single occasion ; (y) while in 3” nothing is said as to the aim or effect of the proclamation, here its object is distinctly stated.
It is important to notice that this sentence, in which the purpose is described, is one in which “μέν and δέ oppose two clauses, whereof one is really subordinate to the other’ (Liddell and Scott sub voce μέν ii. 5). The purpose of the preaching was not that the dead should be judged, but that though judged . . they yet might live. The aorist (κριθῶσι) points to the one seasxm of the judgment; the contrasted present (ζῶσι), to the continuous life κατὰ θεόν (cf. 1.8.
The two pas- sages taken together appear unquestionably to assert that at the supreme crisis of redemption the Redeemer Himself proclaimed the gospel to the dead, those a open ia in the Flood being articularly specified, and that therefore such ἘΞ Σ the gospel as are not confined to this earthly order were offered to them. Apart from possible allusions to the subject in three passages of St.
Paul (Ro 107 14°, Eph 4"), no writer in the NT refers to the descensus ad inferos, with the significant exception of St. Peter (cf. Ac 27-81), who may well have learned the ape facts of which he speaks from the lips of the Risen Lord Himself. The simplicity and reticence of St. Peter’s disclosure are remarkable. On references to the descensus in early Christian literature see Lightfoot on Ign. Magn, ix. (add to the passages collected Gospel of Peter ix.)
It appears certain that these early references are not based upon the assages in 1P. ‘No direct appeal is made to St. eter in any of the numerous references to the Descent ; the earliest quotation of 1 P 4* we have been able to find isin i ince Testimonia’ (Swete, Apostles’ Creed p. 58). Hence in these passages we have expansions of a primitive Christian tradition, independent of St. Peter’s written words. Additional note on the name ‘ Peter.’ — Dr.
Schechter, in the Jewish Quarterly Review for April 1900, p. 428f., writes thus: ‘Besides the epithets ‘‘the God-fearing"” Abraham or Abraham “the friend of God," Abraham also bears in Rab- binic literature the title of ‘the Rock.” ... The Rabbinic passage forms an illustration of Nu 23° ‘‘For from the top of the rocks I see him,” and runs 196 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE thus: There was a king who desired to build, and to lay foundations; he dug constantly deeper, but found only aswamp.
At last he dug and found a petra (this is the very word the Rabbi uses). He said, ‘‘On this spot I shall build and lay the foundations.” So the Holy One, blessed be he, desired to create the world, but meditating upon the generations of Enoch and the Deluge, he said, “ How shall I create the world whilst those wicked men will only provoke me?” But as soon as God perceived that there would rise an Abraham, he said, ‘‘ Behold I have found the petra upon which to build and to lay foundations.
” Therefore he called Abraham Rock [7s], as it is said, ‘‘ Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn. Look unto Abraham your father” (Is δ1}- 3. Yalkut i. 766. See Dr. Taylor’s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. 2, p. 160.’ Lrrsnators. —See at the end of the article on 2 Peter. H. (BASE.