|
|
|
|
FIRST PETER
INTRODUCTION
THE AUTHOR
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia," (v. 1). It would be convenient to the student of the scriptures if all epistles were as clear
in establishing the writer and the recipients of the letter as this one is. I have no doubt that the first century
Christians knew the author and exactly to whom the author addressed himself; however, since we are removed from
the original manuscripts by almost 2,000 years, exact authorship with reference to books like Hebrews and James
presents problems for us.
Here the author identifies himself as Peter, AN APOSTLE of Jesus
Christ. This Peter, we know and love. His mistakes are as clearly identified as his strong leadership, but one
thing can be said with certainty: he was colorful. One could never equate Peter with milk-toast and poached eggs.
He was, it seems, naturally impulsive which caused him to be energetic and enthusiastic but, at the same time,
caused him to be rash in his statements and actions.
It was Peter who responded to Jesus question, "Will ye also go away?", by saying, "Lord, to whom
shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life," (Jno. 6:67-68). It was Peter who also responded to Jesus
question, "But whom say ye that I am," by a strong affirmation of, "Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God," (Mt. 16:15-16).
This same Peter, sought to rebuke Jesus when Jesus had predicted his own imminent capture and murder by the chief
priests and scribes, (Mt. 16:21-22). When Jesus came walking to the disciples' boat on the tumultuous sea, it was
Peter who asked that he might walk to meet his master on the water. Maybe none of the others even thought about
it, no one knows, but Peter was willing to try the impossible and was succeeding until he grew afraid (Mt. 14:22-31).
This impetuosity this speaking and acting without serious and cautious contemplation, caused him grief on more
than one occasion. When told by Jesus that he would deny him three times, he spontaneously affirmed that even if
everyone else left him, he never would. When the mob came with the soldiers to capture Jesus in Gethsemane, Peter
drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high-priest's servant. He was ready to die for the Lord, as he had previously
avowed, and he still had not accepted the truth that Jesus had to die. Peter was rebuked. Not much later, this
pillar of strength repudiated the Lord by cursing and denying that he ever knew Him. But I like Peter, because
he had a heart that was touched by shame and remorse for his sin -- he wept bitterly upon realizing what he had
done.
We can sympathize with his weaknesses, for we are of the same flesh and it behooves us to appreciate his devotion
and strength that we might emulate his enthusiasm. Peter made one other serious blunder of which Paul speaks in
Gal.2:11-13. In full view of what Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost and his statement in Acts 1O:34-35,
this seems impossible, but knowing truth does not mean that we always submit to what we know to be truth. Though
his rashness caused him grief, Peter was a leader and we must appreciate his willingness to be used by his master.
When the church began on the day of Pentecost, it was Peter's sermon which was recorded by Luke in Acts 2:14-40.
That is not to say that Peter preached anything different from the other apostles. He did not preach another message
and all the apostles equally were promised power with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
The Peter who authoried the epistles is the same Peter one reads about in the gospels but an older one whom the
years have mellowed. The rock (Gr. "petros", the name Jesus gave him) that he was did not lose its firmness
against error but he writes with a great compassion for his fellow-Christians who are suffering. He seeks to inflame
them to greater efforts by putting them in remembrance of things they know (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12-13).
Peter writes with one supreme goal in mind. To tell us about "an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled,
and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you," (1 Pet. 1:4). But to reach that goal there must be
a strong hope which keeps us going during the most trying times. Even during those trying times, proper conduct
cannot be forsaken without an abandonment of the object of our hope -- God says, "Be ye holy, for I am holy,"
(1:16). Therefore, Peter writes about practical living, much as James does, for without proper, Christ-like conduct,
being with a Holy God is impossible.
TO WHOM: FROM WHENCE?
Some observations have already been made about what Peter means by "strangers of the dispersion" and
also about the Peter who penned this epistle. However, in introductory material some consideration must also be
given to the areas addressed by Peter and the place from whence the epistle came.
Why does Peter address just these areas and not others? What contact has he had with these sections of Asia? Why
does Peter and not Paul write to them, since Paul had previously travelled through some of these sections and established
churches in some of the provinces? I cannot answer those questions with certainty, because there is, simply, no
information available to verify any explanations. One is left to speculation, which may be an interesting exercise
in reasoning, but which is not completely satisfactory.
The southern regions of Asia had heard the gospel preached by Paul and his partners. You will remember that Paul
had preached in the lower regions of Galatia on his first missionary tour when he stopped at Iconium, Lystra and
Derbe. He then revisited these cities as he passed through on his way to Macedonia and Achaia but was forbidden
by the Spirit to go north into Bithynia even though he was attempting to go that direction (cf. Acts 16:7). Later,
he wrote an epistle to the "churches of Galatia," (Gal. 1:2).
The impact of Paul's influence was also felt in Asia, for Paul had made disciples at Ephesus of Asia (Acts 18:18-21)
and later spent over two years working there (Acts 19:1-20:1). When John wrote the book of Revelation, he had somewhat
to say to the "seven churches of Asia," (Rev. 1:11), so that this region had been covered, to some degree,
by personal contact and inspired letters. However, the northern-most sections were left untouched by their efforts.
These are now addressed by Peter. Peter may have had some personal contact with these disciples, for he did journey
beyond the immediate environs of Jerusalem and Judaea. For instance, we know that he had journeyed to Antioch of
Syria when Paul and Barnabas were there (Gal. 2:11). And it is entirely possible that he had journeyed beyond Antioch.
Lardner believes that it was from Antioch that Peter had journeyed into these areas and had preached the gospel
to these brethren he now addresses in his epistles (Note Can. Vol. iii. p. 169).
When Paul returns to Jerusalem from his third missionary tour, Peter does not seem to be in Jerusalem -- at least,
he is not mentioned, for Paul went with Luke and others to see James (Acts 21:18). It is, therefore, a mistake
to believe that Peter had been confined in his work strictly to the immediate surroundings of Jerusalem.
Tradition has it that Peter had even journeyed as far as Rome and was there after Paul's imprisonment and death.
Lardner concludes his discourse on the subject thusly: "This is the general, uncontradicted, disinterested
testimony of ancient writers in the several parts of the world, Greeks, Latins, Syrians. As our Lord's prediction
concerning the death of Peter is recorded in one of the four Gospels, it is very likely that Christians would observe
the accomplishment of it. Which must have been in some place. And about this place, there is no difference among
christian writers of ancient times. Never any other place was named, beside Rome: Nor did any other city ever glory
in the martyrdom of Peter. It is not for our honour, nor for our interest, either as Christians or Protestants,
to deny the truth of events, ascertained by early and well-attested tradition. If any make an ill use of such facts,
we are not accountable for it. We are not from a dread of such abuses, to overthrow the credit of all history.
The consequence of which would be fatal," (Can. vol. iii. ch. 18).
Of course, Romanist's must have Peter in Rome in order that they might fit him into some semblance of "Papal"
garments. Scripture does not so teach us but having Peter in Rome does not a Pope Peter make. It is really insignificant
and one should not feel compelled to deny the tradition in order to deal with claims of Romanist's.
In any event, the northern-most parts of these regions, whether having been converted through the spreading of
the word from the southern sections, or personal contact through the apostle Peter, are addressed nowhere else
in any of the epistles. They seem to be somewhat remote from other churches and brethren. They need what Peter
has to say to them and the Spirit saw fit that such epistles (1 & 2 Peter) addressed their needs.
From whence does Peter write? 1 Peter. 5:13, is generally conceded to contain the only internal information available
about the origin of this epistle -- "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you;
and so doth Marcus my son." Is this Babylon the old city located in the Tigris, Euphrates valley? Is there
another city by this name in existence when Peter writes -- maybe a Babylon in Egypt? Or is Babylon used in a figurative
way that is descriptive of the capital city of the current world empire? Maybe, it is used by Peter to describe
a religious Babylon, i.e., Jerusalem?
I think that the Babylon in Egypt can be discounted, because there is no kind of evidence, historical or traditional,
that connects Peter with such a city. Furthermore, the old Babylon of the Tigres, Euphrates valley, had long since
passed and, according to Isaiah's prophecy, was to become an uninhabited, doleful place suitable only for the dwelling
of wild creatures (Isa. 13:17-22). Though Jerusalem would be a logical place from which Peter would write, because
of his early time spent in that city, it really doesn't fit the figurative use of the word "Babylon,"
as it is used in the book of Revelation.
The word "Babylon" is used in a figurative way in Revelation to describe Rome, because it parallels the
O.T. Babylon. The O.T. Babylon was a corrupt world empire that ruled over many kings, seduced the nations to commit
idolatry, and persecuted God's people. The Babylon of the first century, which is Rome, ruled over the kings of
the earth; sat on seven mountains (suggestive of complete authority); was the center of the world's trade; was
also a corrupter of the nations; and was a persecutor of God's saints (Rev. 17:18; 17:9; 18:3, 11-13; 17:2; 19:2;
17:6). Peter could appropriately call Rome "Babylon," as John had done.
Further evidence that Rome is probably the Babylon from which Peter writes is that Mark and Silvanus accompanied
Peter at the time of writing (1 Pet. 5:12-13), and both were previously associated with Paul. In fact, while Paul
was in prison in Rome he asked Timothy to bring Mark to him, (2 Tim. 4:11).
These disciples which have been identified by physical location as throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia, are now identified in a spiritual way. They are the "elect according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, through sanctification of the "Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ," (v. 2). Notice the three prepositions used -- "according to," "through," and
"unto." Each stresses a different aspect of their relationship to Christ.
[Table of Contents] [Preface] [Introduction] [Outline] [Study Questions]
[Ch. 1:1-2
] [Ch.1:3-4]
[Ch.1:5-6]
[Ch.1:7-8]
[Ch.1:9-12]
|
