the Week of Proper 3 / Ordinary 8
Peake's Commentary on the Bible Peake's Commentary
- 1 Peter
by Arthur Peake
BY THE REV. G. CURRIE MARTIN
IN this short epistle we have a very interesting and original contribution to early Christian literature. The NT writings of this character are so much overshadowed by the great genius of Paul that we are apt to neglect the shorter but very important works which proceed from other hands. The treatment of the Gospel message in these pages brings before us a type of teaching that stands halfway between the more free teaching of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, and the more strictly Jewish attitude of Jas. and Rev. It has strong resemblances to Pauline thought, but its dependence upon the epistles of Paul is not clearly proved, and the simpler and more practical presentation of the work of Christ and its significance are of great importance in forming a true picture of the apostolic age.
The purpose of the book is clearly to encourage communities in the stress of trial. They are exposed to peculiar difficulties and temptations, probably to persecution for the faith they profess, and the writer seeks to remind them of the meaning of Christ’ s sacrifice, and the power that fellowship in His sufferings confers upon them ( 1 Peter 4:1 ff., James 5:12 ff.). We are reminded throughout of Peter’ s speeches in Acts, with their constant quotations from the prophets, and the use of the same passages in proof. The writer centres his message upon the hope of the Gospel, an extremely appropriate thought for days of trial. It is clear that the forces which opposed them were those of a great nation— a power that relied upon physical force. Over against this the writer places the inherited greatness of the new race created in Christ ( 1 Peter 2:9 f .); and yet he bids his readers not to despise or abuse the authorities under whom they live, and even if they are unfairly treated, still he exhorts them to suffer patiently ( 1 Peter 2:13-17, 1 Peter 4:15 f.).
All this suggests to us the days in which the Roman power persecuted the Christians, and designated them a “ third race,” neither civilised nor barbarian, but something so unutterably mean, as to be scarcely human. Does this then point to some special persecution that can be identified in history? To this question various answers have been given by scholars, some pointing to the persecution under Nero, others to that under Domitian, and others again to the days of Trajan. In this way, the epistle has been variously dated from the sixth decade of the first century to the early decades of the second century. One strong argument for the latter date is that there is no clear proof that persecution “ for the name of Christ” ( 1 Peter 4:14) took place earlier than the reign of Trajan.
The question of date is, of course, closely knit with that of authorship. If it was not written before the second century, then clearly Peter was not its author, and this seems true, in spite of Ramsay’ s argument to the contrary, if it is later than the days of Nero.
Doubt has been thrown on the Petrine authorship from another consideration, viz. the supposed dependence upon Pauline teaching in this epistle. But the common subjects dealt with, and the manner of treatment familiar to us from Acts, dispose of that difficulty. As already noted, there is an originality in the writer’ s method, and his difference from his great contemporary is quite as distinct as his indebtedness. The manner, not the matter, should be our guide in such considerations.
Were Peter not the author we have only probabilities upon which to go, and the best suggestions made have been Barnabas and Silvanus, the latter seeming to have the better claim. There was a considerable Petrine literature in the early Church, some of which is, without doubt, not genuine, but is not this a strong reason for supposing that in 1 P., at all events, we have a real example of the apostle’ s teaching?
It has strong, early testimony in its favour, especially 2 P., Polycarp, and the Didache. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon, but is accepted by Irenæ us, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. For dates of these writers, see article on The Canon of the N T (p. 595 ).
Its place of origin is almost certainly Rome ( 1 Peter 5:13), and the recipients seem to have been Christian communities in the places named in the opening verse. The technical term “ Dispersion” is detached from its Jewish and invested with a Christian significance; for later verses of the epistle make it clear that those addressed are converts from paganism.
Literature.— Commentaries: ( a) Cook (Sp.), Plumptre (CB), Bennett (Cent.B), Sadler, Cone (IH), Mitchell (WNT); ( b) Hort ( 11– 217 only), Bigg (ICC), Johnstone, Blenkin (CGT), Masterman (with excellent English paraphrase); ( c) Usteri, von Soden (HC), Knopf (Mey.), Gunkel (SNT), Windisch (HNT), Mounier, Godet; ( d) Lumby (Ex.B), Leighton (full of suggestion), J. H. Jowett, cf. on 2 P. Other Literature: Articles in Dictionaries, especially those of Chase in HDB, and that of Schmiedel on Christian, Name of, in EBi; Lives of Peter; Introductions to NT and to both Epistles; McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Ap. Age; Harnack, Die Chronologie; Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire; Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity; 0 . D. Foster, The Literary Relations of 1 Peter (with a marked text showing these clearly); R. Perdelwitz, Die Mysterien-religion und das Problem des 1 Petrusbriefes. On the “ Spirits in Prison,” see articles in Dictionaries under that title and on Hades (Descent into) (especially Loofs in ERE iv. 654 ff.), and Eschatology; and further, Charles, Eschatology; Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality; and Stevens, Theology of the NT.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES
BY PRINCIPAL A. J. GRIEVE
THE exact significance of the epithet “ catholic” or “ general,” as applied to the seven writings which bear the names of James , 1 and 2 Peter , 1, 2 , and 3 Jn., and Jude, has been a matter of considerable debate. It has been surmised that they are so entitled because they are the work of the apostles generally as distinguished from the compact body of Pauline letters; or because they contain catholic in the sense of orthodox teaching, or general rather than particular instruction; or again because they were generally accepted in contrast to other writings which bore apostolic names but failed to make good their claim. A more likely reason than any of these is that they were addressed to Christians in general or to groups of churches instead of to individual communities like Corinth and Rome, to which Paul usually wrote. We say “ usually,” because Galatians was written to a group of churches, and there is reason to think that Ephesians was meant as a circular letter. Cf. also Colossians 4:16. Of the seven “ catholic” epistles, two ( 2 and 3 Jn.) hardly satisfy our test, for they were written to a particular, though unnamed, church and to an individual respectively. Their inclusion in the group is thus a mere matter of convenience; they would naturally come to be associated with 1 Jn. Jas. is addressed to “ the twelve tribes of the Dispersion,” 1 P. to Christians in Asia Minor, 2 P. and Jude broadly to the writer’ s fellow-believers; 1 Jn. has no address, and is more like a homily than a letter.
The earliest record of the name appears to be about A.D). 197 , in the anti-Montanist writer Apollonius (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., James 5:18), who declares that the heretic Themiso wrote a “ catholic” epistle in imitation of that of the apostle (? John). Clement of Alexandria ( c. 200 ) refers to the letter of Acts 15:23-29 and to Jude as “ catholic.” Origen ( c. 230 ) applies the epithet to the epistle of Barnabas, as to 1 Jn., 1 P., and Jude. Dionysius of Alexandria ( c. 260 ) uses it of 1 Jn. in opposition to 2 and 3 Jn. Such usage, and that of Eusebius of Cæ sarea ( c. 310 ), who uses the adjective of the whole seven ( Hist. Eccl., ii. 23 ), is sufficient to disprove the opinion that “ catholic” means “ recognised by the whole church.” As a matter of fact, most of the seven were hotly contested, and only gradually secured their place in the NT canon. 1 Jn., which was the first to be so styled, evidently won the epithet because of the encyclical nature of its appeal— it was an exhortation to the church at large rather than to a narrow circle, a single church, or even a group of churches, like the Pauline letters and 1 P., to say nothing of individual persons— and because its contents were official in a sense in which even Paul’ s epistles were not. Most akin in this respect were Jude and 2 P., and perhaps Jas., if the twelve tribes can be taken as representing the new Israel of Christendom. The recipients of 1 P., too, included well-nigh half the Christian world. 2 and 3 Jn. secured their footing because of their name. The little canon of Pauline letters was usually designated “ the Apostle,” and it would only be a question of time for the group of non-Pauline epistles to be entitled “ catholic.” When the name of the group became known in the Western Church, it was misinterpreted and taken in a dogmatic sense as equivalent to “ canonic,” i.e. apostolic or genuine. As “ the canonic epistles” they became known in the West, and the original idea of contrast with the Pauline letters disappeared. Junilius Africanus ( c. 550 ) understands “ canonic” as “ containing the rule of faith.”
So late as Junilius’ day, 1 Jn. and 1 P. stood apart for him, though he says that very many add the other five. This majority opinion was due to Jerome and Augustine. Chrysostom’ s Synopsis names only three ( 1 Jn., 1 P., Jas.), thus following Lucian and the school of Antioch, which also influenced the Peshitta or “ Vulgate.” Syriac. Eusebius puts 1 Jn. and 1 P. in the class of universally accepted books, while Jas., Jude, 2 Peter , 2 and 3 Jn., are a second class, “ disputed,” but making their way towards the first class ( Hist. Eccl., iii. 25 ). Cyprian of Carthage ( d. 259 ) received only 1 Jn. and 1 P. The Muratorian Fragment (if we admit Zahn’ s very tempting emendation  ) shows that at Rome, c. 180 , these two books were received. 2 P. was not generally accepted for reading in church, while Jude 1:2 and 3 Jn. formed a little group scarcely regarded as apostolic (for they are linked with the Wisdom of Solomon), yet “ accepted in the Catholic Church.” Jas. is not mentioned.
 Gwatkin, Selections from Early Christian Writers, p. 87.
The influence of Augustine has been mentioned. In De Fide et Operibus (xiv. 21 ) he points out that Paul pressed his doctrine of justification by faith so far as to be in peril of being misunderstood. Paul lays the foundations, the Catholic Epistles raise the superstructure; he is careful for the genuineness of the root, they for the good fruit; he feels himself a minister of the Gospel, they speak in the name of the (nascent Catholic) Church.
It may be granted that there are certain points of relationship between the seven epistles, despite their varied authorship. They lack in general the personal note, and seek to meet more widespread need by general counsel. Jü licher ranks them as a class in which the epistle is merely a literary form whereby the unknown writer holds intercourse with an unknown public. The transition from the Pauline letters to the Catholic Epistles is by way of Ephesians, Hebrews, and the Pastorals ( cf. p. 603 ). None of them is lengthy, none starts a far-reaching train of thought, or contributes much to pure theology. They are concerned mainly with practical advice and edifying exhortation. Their modest dimensions gave them an advantage over such longer works as the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. in circulation, and therefore in recognition; apart from the fact that these works, favourites in the Early-Church, bore no apostolic names.
The critical questions, often very perplexing, connected with the separate epistles are discussed in the commentaries that follow. We may note here that, apart from the titles (which are late), 1 Jn. is anonymous, 2 and 3 Jn. simply purport to be from “ the elder,” 1 and 2 P. definitely say they are by Peter the apostle; “ James” and “ Judas, the brother of James” are the slender descriptions given by the authors of the other two epistles. John, James, and Judas (or Jude) were all very common names, and give us no clue to the identity of the authors. As to date, 1 Jn. and 1 P. were in circulation early in the second century, and were attributed to the two apostles before its close. Jude and 2 Jn. were circulated and attributed by about 160 . Jas. was also in circulation then, but no attribution of authorship was made for another half century. Clear traces of 3 Jn. and 2 P. appear a little before 200 . Perhaps the earliest and the least uncertain as to authorship is 1 P., the latest 2 P. The seven epistles cover the sub-apostolic age from, say, A.D. 64 to 150 , and are a valuable reflection of the life and thought of the church during that period. In 1 P. (nearest to Paul in time and in thought,  and to many minds one of the choicest books of NT) we see something of the peril that assailed a church from without; in 1 , 2 , and 3 Jn. we are shown the danger from within in matters of doctrine and problems of organisation. Jude is the effort of a teacher who is similarly alarmed by the growth of an antinomian gnosticism and the sins of unbelief, pride, and sensuality. 2 P. is an elaboration of Jude, and also reflects the disappointment felt at the delay of the Second Advent. Jas. is in a class by itself, and resolutely defies any agreed solution of its date and authorship. It sets forth Christianity as the new law.
 This commonly received opinion is questioned by H. A. A. Kennedy in ET 27264 (March 1916).
The epistles, though modern scholarship cannot unhesitatingly accept their apostolic authorship, at least represent what the Early Church regarded as apostolic teaching, and subsequent generations have confirmed their practical value. Some may feel that because there is no certainty about their apostolic authorship they should not be included in the KT; but the Early Church was often guided by the intrinsic merits of a book, and accepted it as. apostolic because of its worth. We have to remember, too, that the ancient conception of authorship was widely different from our own— a book would be called John’ s because its teaching agreed with that of John. A writer might go so far as to assume the name of a great teacher in order to gain a reading for his book; and if he succeeded in presenting what might fairly be regarded as the views of the man whose name he assumed, no one felt aggrieved. The practice was especially common in apocalyptic literature. We do not argue in this way now; and similar literary devices when they are practised are tolerated only because we know that they are devices, and generally know also the name of the real author.
The order in which we have the seven epistles has come to us from the fourth century, but there were many earlier variations. The position of the group in early MSS. and versions is also far from fixed. Most Gr. MSS. arrange thus: Gospels, Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul, Rev. The Syrian order is Gospels, Paul, Acts, Cath. Epp., Rev. In Egypt: Gospels, Paul, Cath. Epp., Acts, Rev. In the Muratorian Canon, representing the early West, we have apparently Gospels, Acts, Paul, Cath. Epp., Rev., which is the order followed in the Vulgate and in the English versions.
( See also Supplement)