Introductory Notes:

1.PETER. L.H.Brough.

Introductory Notes:

The first Epistle of Peter surely regards Christian people as in the sense the `Israel of God'.  So there are so many echoes in this epistle of ancient Israel.  It was the practice of ancient Israel to make proselytes or converts to Israel.  Gentiles were first instructed as to the reality of the faith of Israel, they were then circumcised and baptized. 

           

Then came John the Baptist demanding that Israel repent and be baptized.  Something deeper was required than merely bringing to the Nation of Israel.  Repentance was required, there must be a spiritual and moral work even in the lives of those who were Jews.

           

But this epistle implies that even Gentiles now heard the gospel and were baptized.  Gentiles now belonged to Israel in a spiritual sense.  Such were to lay aside all that defiled a true Israelite.  He must put such things aside as filthy rags.

    

They were to lay aside all malice.  Malice may mean plain badness, but here probably means every form of malicious intention.  Then they were to put aside guile.  Guile always had a bad meaning in scripture.  It will be quoted to me that Paul wrote "being crafty, I caught you with guile," - but Paul is repeating what he his opponents said.  They said "he is a crafty old fellow, he didn't take money from you himself, but he sent Titus to get the collection."

           

The word is used in the LXX of Jacob, and in the New Testament we have the record of the conversation of the Lord with Nathanael.  As Jesus looked on Nathanael, Jesus said, "Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile."  Nathanael is amazed and asks, "Whence knowest thou me?"  Jesus replied, "When thou was under the fig tree I saw thee."  Under the fig tree Nathanael had been meditating on the story of Jacob, and when he perceived that Jesus knew this he exclaimed, "Thou art the Son of God.  Thou art the King of Israel."  Nathanael had immediately grasped a High View of Jesus, but the Lord begins to broaden his view.  "Henceforth, thou shalt see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

           

Here in First Peter every form of guile must be laid aside.  Then insincerity is to be laid aside.  The word is hypocrisy or play acting.  The word was used of the actors on the Athenian stages.

Jealousy must be avoided.  Slander, the slander of all. 

Diaspora.  In what sense were they the diaspora?  Is he speaking of Jews literally or figuratively of the church as the new Israel?  James writes to the twelve tribes.  This may be figurative, but the view of the Jewish environment of James, it is easier to take it literally.  On the other hand, it is best to take Peter's term in a figurative way, for two reasons:-

a.  Peter appears to have Gentiles as well as Jews for the recipients of his letter.

b.  The idea of the Church as the new Israel is prominent in this epistle.

           

The New Israel.  The Church is the new Israel, it is Israel sojourning in the Wilderness, with Canaan their inheritance before them.  But in their wilderness journey, they form a dwelling place of God and a priesthood:

a.  They are elect. See in particular Deut.7:6.       b.  A holy people.            

c.  A covenant people.                                      d.  They have an inheritance. 

e.  They are redeemed.                                      f.  A brotherhood.            

g.  A priesthood.                                               h.  A nation.                 

i.  A divine house.                                             j.  A divine mission to the world.

k.  Girding up the loins (1:13).  Ready for the journey.

Many passages are only intelligible as they are read in the light of the concept of the Church as the new Israel.  Verse 2 is a good example of this, it can only be understood as we keep the scenery of Exodus before our minds; the story of Israel receiving the law and their entering into covenant-relationship with God.  We picture Israel receiving the law and pledging obedience, while the book and the people are sprinkled with blood.

           

The concept of the church as the `new Israel' would elucidate its spiritual character in contrast to the natural Israel.  The spiritual character of the church, its spiritual house, priesthood and spiritual sacrifices are emphasized.

             

An interesting point is, “Has Peter in his mind Israel in the wilderness or Israel in the land of Canaan?”  We are often told that Canaan typifies our present Christian experience, this may hold good while studying Ephesians, but not here in First Peter. - Canaan is our inheritance.

             

Israel was God' elect and they were sanctified by means of external rites, and an earthly priesthood, with an earthly place of worship.  We are sanctified by the Spirit. (See Grant).

           

Four exhortations in Chapter one:

1.  Pilgrims must be sober.                    1:13.

2.  Priests must be holy.                        1:15.

3.  Children must be reverent.                 1:17

4.  Brethren must be loving.                   1:22.    

           

Characteristics of Petrine Christianity.

a.  Lively (living).  Living hope, living stones, living world.

b.  Spiritual.  Spiritual house, spiritual sacrifices.

c.  Holy.  Holy priesthood.

           

First Peter is addressed to believers comprising of Jews and Gentiles.  Probably most of them were Gentiles.  We could not imagine Peter writing to Jews only, to the exclusion of the Gentiles.  This would be making a distinction between Jew and Gentile believers, and thereby undoing Paul's work.  Paul taught that Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ.

Articles on 1 Peter:-

           

Dr Wand:  An article that appeared in Interpretation Oct.1955.  Summarizes three views of the Epistle.  The commentaries of Dean Selwyn and also F.W.Beare had already appeared.  The three views are:-

           

1. The Traditional View (as held by Dean Selwyn).  Wand himself still adheres to this view as he did in his commentary in 1934, which appeared in the Westminster Commentary.  The Epistle was written by Peter to Christians in Asia Minor at the time of the Neronian persecution, when it was still uncertain whether the outbreak in Rome would spread as far as the Eastern provinces.  Dean Selwyn laid great stress on the part of Silvanus in the composition of the Epistle.  Cranfield seems to follow along Selwyn's viewpoint.  The Traditional has still the support of many scholars.  F.F.Bruce describes it as certainly authentic.  But Wand thinks the Traditional view has lost ground among scholars.  The ancient external evidence for the Petrine authorship is satisfactory.

           

2.  The Homily view.  The bulk of the document is a homily, whether on baptism or on the general implications of the life facing recent converts to the Christian faith.  This is Beare's view, but even Beare makes a sharp distinction when he comes to chapter 4:12 onwards.  Beare holds that this is part of a separate composition under Trajan when the younger Pliny was governor in Bithynia.  Trajan reigned from 98 to 117 A.D.  Wand remarks that there is no reason why a writer of a religious letter should not incorporate some homiletic material.

           

Beare's Commentary was the first commentary to appear in English that denied the Petrine authorship.  The theory of Beare was based upon theories advocated by Canon Streeter that 1.Peter is a composite work.

           

3.  The third view discussed by Wand is the Liturgy, prayer, sermon etc. of the Christian community celebrating the Easter Pasch.  This view is associated with Dr.Cross.  It is alleged that in 1.Peter we find the outline of a primitive liturgy.  Wand is not convinced that 1.Peter is a primitive liturgy.  Wand says that the view of Dr.Cross requires severe wrestling of the text to make it bear the character thus imposed upon it.  Wand commenting on 2:1-10 says, "it must be admitted that the sacraments are rather hard to find."  Wand thinks the passage is an invitation to come to Christ and identify oneself with Him as far as possible in all sincerity and simplicity.

                                                ..............................................

           

An article by E.G.Selwyn.

           

About 1948 a series of articles appeared in the Expository Times under the title: `Unsolved New Testament Problems.'  Selwyn wrote on, "The Problem of the Authorship of 1st.Peter.  Selwyn quotes Dr.Beare, "The intrinsic qualities of our Epistle entitle it to an assured place among the Holy Scriptures of the Christian faith whoever may have been the author or whenever he may have written."  Beare's book appeared shortly after that of Selwyn's, and in this article Selwyn defends the traditional authorship.  He argues that while all are agreed as to the value and canonicity of 1st.Peter, whoever was the writer, but Selwyn disagrees with Beare that the question of authorship is important.

           

The theory of the Petrine authorship gives the Epistle an internal unity and a directness of reference which it could not otherwise possess, and illuminates certain passages otherwise obscure.  This is something of real value.  Selwyn says that the onus of probability rests primarily on those who dispute its authenticity.  Its attestation in antiquity is widespread, early and clear; and Eusebius, who mentions unequivocally the doubts attaching to the rest of the "Petrine" literature, seems unaware of any similar doubts in regard to 1st.Peter.

           

The difficulties felt to attach to the traditional view arise from certain features of the Epistle itself.  They fall into three classes, - Doctrinal, literary and historical.

           

1.  The doctrinal difficulty is usually expressed by saying that the Epistle is steeped in Paulinism, and could therefore only have been written after at least a partial collection of Paul's letters were in existence.  "Entire passages," says Dr.Beare, "are little more than an expansion or re-statement of Pauline texts, and whole verses are a kind of mosaic of Pauline words and forms of expression." 

           

The theory of Paulinism in 1st.Peter has been often reiterated.  Yet I confess that I find it more and more puzzling; for when one reflects that Paul's distinctive doctrines of justification, and the atonement, of grace and sin, and of the union of the believer with Christ are absent from 1st.Peter, that behind Paul no less than behind Peter lay, the common teaching of the church, that this teaching inevitably found expression in a common vocabulary (witness, `en agiasmo pneumatos' in 2.Thess.2:13 and 1.Pet.1:2), and that in many instances this common stock of ideas and phrases can be reasonably assigned to common sources, the "Paulinist" case surely wears very thin.

           

2.  The Literary difficulty is more serious, and indeed insuperable unless we reckon that 1st.Peter not only employed (as everyone did) an `amanuensis', but also that his `amanuensis' was a good Grecian and, in Dr.Beare's words, "a man of letters, skilled in all the devices of rhetoric, and able to draw upon an extensive, and even learned vocabulary."  But why should not 1st.Peter have employed such a man, and why should he not have been the Silvanus whom we know as Paul's collaborator in the Thessalonian Epistles, and his colleague on his travels? 

           

A Hellenistic Jew, with gifts such as this Epistle presupposes in its `amanuesis', was just the man needed for the tasks assigned to him in Acts.  Dr.Beare makes a good deal of the fact that the author was well acquainted with the Septuagint, but then, there must have been thousands of Jews in the Dispersion who knew no other version.

           

Selwyn devotes some space to rebutting Beare's opinions upon the author and the Septuagint.  Selwyn remarks: "But no one who appreciates the supple intellect of the educated Jew and its power of entering into the thought as well as the language of other cultures, will regard such a hypothesis as required, or even probable, in the circumstances.  Echoes of terminology from the mystery - cults are perhaps to be found in 1:2,23 and 2:2; but they are no more than might be expected of a skilful writer who was not loath to catch the attention of the Gentiles among his readers.

             

However, the determining factor in our problem is neither doctrinal nor literary, but historical:  if the persecutions alluded to in the Epistle cannot be dated within the life-time of 1st.Peter, then the case for its authenticity fails.  Sir William Ramsay in "The Church and the Roman Empire," solved the dilemma by the view that Peter was not martyred until A.D.75-80; and though this view has had no supporters, it at least indicates his feelings as to the weight of argument which Hort brought to bear in favour of the Petrine authorship.  The crux of the problem lies in the nature of the trials or suffering to which the Epistle alludes.

           

The first of these allusions 91:6,7) need not detain us long; its terms are general (poikilois peirasmois); and the `peirasmoi', were of a local and haphazard kind, (ei deon esti); the language used is not in fact, as strong as that found in 1.Thee.3:3; 2.Thess.1:4. 

           

The second allusion (3:13-17) refers even more clearly to a contingency rather than to a general experience; but some scholars including both Ramsay and Beare hold that 3:15,16 must necessarily imply official persecution by process of law; and it is this belief which leads the former to require a Flavian date for the Epistle, and the latter to connect it with Pliny's governorship of Bithynia.  Further, though several commentators for various reasons hold that 4:12-19 refers to a persecution more severe and more deliberate than those implied in the earlier passages, and may therefore be by a different hand or at least written at a later date than what precedes, it will be convenient to consider the passage here along with 3:13-17; for exegetical problems in the two passages are substantially the same.

           

The words used to describe the sufferings of the Christians are of great importance: "spoken against," 3"16; "reproached," 4:14; and "upbraided,"  3:16.  None of these words could be suitably used of an accusation in a Court of Law, nor could they be held to imply it; they are all regular terms for social gossip and slander.  Nor is there any reason why the language of 3:15 should refer to legal process either.

           

`Apologia' and its verb `apologeithai', for instance, are used frequently by Plato for the normal ebb and flow of argumenty and discussion; and it is in this sense that Paul uses one or the other in 1.Cor.9:3; 2.Cor.7:11 and 12:19.  The words are best translated by "plea" and "plead."  Either may refer to a plea in Court and the verb is often used in Acts; but neither is limited to that connotation.  The situation envisaged in 1st.Peter was undoubtedly unpleasant, but there is nothing that requires an imperial policy or rescript to explain it.

           

Is the case different when we come to 4:15?  I cannot think so.  Ramsay claims that "the Christians are addressed as persons exposed to suffer death."  A murderer, no doubt, would be liable to the death penalty; but would a thief or "busybody?"  No doubt such a person would suffer, and perhaps suffer more severely if the `idium' of the Christian name attached to him; but though capital punishment was far commoner in imperial times than in the later period of the republic, there was a great variety of punishments for different kinds of offence.  Not that the possibility of death is excluded here.  Paul nearly lost his life at Lystra (Acts 14:19), and quite expected, when he set out from Caesarea, that he might die for the name of the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem (Acts 21:13).  By the time Paul reached Rome the Roman authorities would be beginning to realize that the Gospel was a universal religion and therefore potentially dangerous to the imperial power.

           

Selwyn concludes that in this matter of persecution, the language of the Epistle in no way requires us to postulate a situation\  substantially different from that attested by the Pauline Epistles and the Acts.  Selwyn considers there are remarkable similarities between this Epistle and Peter's speeches in the Act.

           

There is next the large number of `verba Christi' which can be traced below the surface of the Epistles.  The `verba Christi' lying behind 1st.Peter seem to be predominantly Matthaean and have obvious affinities with Q.

           

Finally, there are several passages which take on a new and more vivid meaning if Peter was the author; note 1:8; 2:20-25; 5:1.

           

C.F.D.Moule.  In New Testament Studies (1956) Moule writes on the :Nature and Purpose of 1st.Peter.  His article is in part a critical consideration of F.L.Cross's 1st.Peter, a Paschal Liturgy (Mowbray, 1954).  Moule attempts to define difficulties in the way of accepting Cross's thesis and to offer an alternative suggestion.  Moule summarizes the data (1st.Peter) which we have to work with. :-

           

1.  The writing declares itself to be from the Apostle Peter, from Babylon, to Christian communities in special parts of Asia Minor.

           

2.  Eubius classes it as among the writings which were never in any doubt.  On the other hand.

           

3.  Demonstrable traces of its use apparently only date from Polycarp of Smyrna (c.135); the Muratorian Canon omits it (though that may only be due to the corrupt nature of the

document);  and it was not in the canon Mesopotamia as late as c.350, - though this applies equally to James and 1st.John, not to mention the smaller Catholic Epistles.

           

4.  Moreover, the language and ideas of 1st.Peter have convinced many that it is post-Pauline (e.g. Beare.pg.9); and one asks, in any case, whether a Galilean apostle could possibly have written so.

           

5.  Its reference to suffering "as a Christian" (4:15) have led some to conclude that its date is likely to be under Trajan (98-117), in whose time Pliny in Bithynia writes about indictments of Christians as such, as though this presented a new problem.

           

Those who had adhered to belief in its Petrine origin have to attribute (3) (late evidence of use) to chance.  Number (4) can be met, I think partly by recognizing that there was a common framework of catechetical instruction, sufficient to explain similarities without requiring literary dependence on Paul.  Attempts have been made to meet it also partly by postulating mediation by Silvanus as an `amanuensis'.  Number (5), (the question of persecution) is not I think, conclusive.

           

Meanwhile there is another set of data to be reckoned with: the form and contents of this writing.  The outstanding feature is the difference between the first, and larger, section and the second which starts at 4:12, after a very evident break marked by the doxology and Amen of 4:11.  This has led to many partitions and theories, of which two are instanced, while this article ventures to add one more, but of a different sort.

           

Streeter conjectured that this so-called Epistle comprised:

a.  A sermon to a group of baptised persons. 1:3-4:11.

b.  A letter of encouragement in time of persecution. 4:12-5:11. 

Both he thought might have been by the Elder Aristion (c.90), who may have been bishop of Smyrna at the time of the persecution there referred to in Rev.2:10.  Later, these two documents were turned, Streeter conjectured, into a "Petrine' epistle by someone, possibly at Sinope in Pliny's time, who added the address (1:1.f) and the salutation (5:12-14).  The Church order implied in the writing is, Streeter held, far in advance of that implied in the Pauline Epistles: elders are in danger of "lording it over the flock."  Christ is spoken of as the Shepherd and `Episcopus', etc.; and the gulf between the Pauline situation and that implied for Asia by Ignatius and Polycarp might be bridged, he suggested, by just such leaders as the Elder John for Ephesus, and the Elder Aristion for Smyrna.

           

Beare likewise makes a sharp distinction between what he regards as the real epistle (1:1; 4:12-end), and the much more formal homily, (1:3-4:11).  He too is inclined to allow that the two parts are by one writer; and he, too, is convinced (by his answer to the data under (A), that this was not Peter.

           

We turn, now, to another type of approach.  H.Preisker, in his additions to the posthumous edition of Windisch's commentary (3rd edit., Tubingen, 1951), offers a liturgical solution to the problem presented by the apparent discrepancies between, and within, the sections of the Epistle.  In treating it as liturgical, he had been anticipated (as Dr.Cross points out) by Perdelivitz and Bornnemann.  But, Preisker's presentation of the liturgical idea constitutes the most important antecedent to Dr.Cross's work.  Preisker found in 1st.Peter a baptismal liturgy, with the following sections and sub-sections.

           

1.  1:3-4:11, is for the baptizands, and consists of:-

a.  A Prayer-Psalm. 1:3-12, strongly eschatological; `prouroumenous' (1:5), is a reference to the "coming" safety of the baptizands.

b.  Instruction, 1:13-21, (cf.Lev.19:2), with formal, credal phrases (vv.17,18,21). `Genethete' (v.15) points to the imminent baptism.  Law and Gospel are here combined; eyes are turned to the glorious End.

c.  Between 1:21 and verse 22 the baptism itself takes place, for n.b. the tenses and thephrases of vv.22f.

d.  Baptismal Dedication, 1:22-25, (note the solid morality of it, avoiding mere ecstasy and exaltation).

e.  A Festal Song in three strophes, 2:1-3, 4,9, (contributed by some inspired member of the congregation).

f.  Exhortation, 2:11-3:12, (including 2:21-24).  A song about Christ, (perhaps derived from elsewhere).

g.  A Revelation, 3:13-4:7a. (with peculiarities of style).

h.  An epistolary equivalent to the closing prayer, 4:7b-11c.   The newly baptized are hereno longer guests, but active participants in the spiritual gifts and duties.

           

2.  4:12., is a Closing Service for the whole congregation (note, now, the reference to actual sufferings, while previously they had been alluded to as only potential):

a.  A Revelation,                       4:12-19   (ideas from 3:13-17; 4:1-7a are renewed).

b.  Exhortion,                5:1-9.

c.  Closing Blessing,     5:10.

d.  Closing doxology,    5:11. 

           

1:1f. and 5:12-14 provide opening and closing epistolary formulae.

           

Thus Preisker sought to explain the apparent discrepancies within 1st.Peter in particular the changes of tense, and the fact that 4:12 alludes to actual sufferings, whereas until then the suffering is only potential: it is only when the whole congregation is addressed that the sufferings, which do not belong to those outside the Church, are spoken of as a fact.

           

In short, it is a Roman Baptismal Liturgy, which was eventually written down and of which the several parts were put together by Silvanus (a second or third generation Christian).  Peter had been martyred within recent years, and the Roman Christians send this liturgy (in the apostle's spirit, as they believe) as a greeting to the Christians in Asia which had known him.

           

Dr.Cross's thesis advanced with the greatest modesty and caution, is an expansion of Preisker's: not only is 1st.Peter a Baptismal Liturgy; it is substantially the celebrant's part of the Baptismal Eucharist of the Paschal Vigil.  He was led thus to connect it with the Paschal season by noting the remarkable frequency of `pascho, pathema'.  If it is difficult to find a satisfactory "setting in life," for the suffering (until as late as Trajan), may not the suffering motif be due rather to the `Pasch" setting?

           

Following this clue, Dr.Cross finds other references both to the Paschal season and to the Baptismal practice of the Church (e.g. 1:13 "girding up the loins"; 3:3 the deposition of ornaments before going down into the bath), as well as agreeing with Preisker in locating the baptism itself between vv.21 and 22 of chapter 1; and he shares with certain others the suspicion that `egeusasthe' (tasted) in 2:3 may be an allusion to the Baptismal Eucharist.

           

For my own part I (Moule) agree that 1st.Peter is concerned with baptism - who indeed could deny it.  But this much is true, of course, of many other parts of the New Testament, (Rom,6; Col.2; Heb.6; to go no further) and, in itself, it proves no more than that the early Church writers continually had the "pattern" of baptism in mind, and often cast the Gospel into that dramatic form.

           

It is another matter to detect here an actual liturgy, - the words used actually at a celebration of the baptism or a baptism - and - eucharist; and it is there that I shall find myself unconvinced, even allowing for the fact, as Dr.Cross justly points out, that at this early stage of development a clear distinction between liturgy and homily could not have been drawn.  The following are my reasons:-

           

1.  "The sufferings," allusions can be more convincingly accounted for than by the paschal paranomasia.  Of this, more anon.

           

2.  I do not find it easy (as Priesker and Cross apparently do), to conceive how a liturgy - homily, shorn of its "rubrics" (which of course, were probably oral), but with changing tenses and broken sequences all retained, could have been hastily dressed up as a letter and sent off (without a word of explanation) to Christians who had not witnessed its original setting.

           

3.  If the Exodus - motif is really as strong as the paschal thesis requires, why did the Celebrant miss the golden opportunity of applying the Wilderness figures to baptism (the cloud and the sea as in 1.Cor.10) and instead use the far less appropriate figure of the Flood?

           

4.  Borneman noted the prominence of Psa.34 (LXX.33) in the Epistle.  He suggests that it was actually read before the homily which 1st.Peter represents, and he draws up an impressive list of parallels.  But Miss A.Guilding of Sheffield University tells me there is no evidence for the paschal connection of Psa.34 (nor indeed its connection with any other Jewish feast), except that in Madrash Rabbah v.9 of the Psalm is connected with Exodus 12:22,23.  This does not, as it seems to me, encourage the connection of 1st.Peter as a whole with a paschal setting, though of course there is no knowing what liberties the Christian calender had already begun to take with Jewish Festival tradition.

           

5.  There are certain smaller details also where I fail to find Dr.Cross convincing:

           

a.  He argues that the theological significance of 4:1b, ("he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin") requires the paschal context to bring it out.  But this verse is in a baptismal context and baptism itself is quite sufficient to explain it, without the special paschal motif.

           

b.  Cross argues that to give `upomeneite' in 2:20 the moral connotation of "take it patiently" (as English versions translate it), it is necessary to presuppose the religious basis of all suffering by the Christian - namely its relation to Christ the archetypal sufferer.  Granted: but that does not require a paschal context anymore than 2.Thess.3:5; 2.Tim.2:10,12; Rev.1:9.  And I doubt very much whether, in 1:11 `ta eis Christon pathemata' can conceivably be taken as "the sufferings of Christ's people in mystical union with Him."  Neither this, nor the interpretation in Selwyn's Commentary ("the sufferings of the Christward road") is nearly as natural as to take the prophets of 1:10 as prophets of the old dispensation, and `ta eis Christon pathemata' as "the sufferings which were destined for Christ."

           

c.  Cross argues that the paschal setting is required to explain the startling combination of joy and suffering.  In reply, need one do more than point to Acts 5:41 and all the passages of which it is typical?  Is there any more obvious characteristic of Christianity at all times and not alone at Paschal?

           

d.  `Anazosamenoi tas osphuas', 1:13, "having girded up the loins."  Cross here forgot Acts 12:8,            Eph.6:14.

           

e.  Moule also criticizes Cross in his discussion of `nun', 1:12; 2:10,25; 3:21 and the `arti' of         1:6,8.

           

Moule also discusses `artigenneta brephe' of 2:2.  Moule agrees that in the other two instances of `gala' (milk) used metaphorically in the New Testament, 1.Cor.3:2; Heb.5:12, are of "young" or "arrested" believers.  Yet not even this phrase, `os artigenneta brephe to logikon adolon gala epipothesate' ("as newborn babes desire the pure spiritual milk") as it seems to me, need necessarily mean more than "long for spiritual nourishment as eagerly as newly born babies do for physical nourishment."  There is no need to press the `arti', to imply that baptism took place a moment ago.  Moule agrees that the argument is not without force and would be impressive culmulatively, but it needs more grains to go with it before it forms a heap.  Other small matters put forth by Cross are regarded by Moule as not conclusive. Moule thinks the case for an actual baptismal liturgy seems precarious. Is there any more plausible thesis? 

Moule would suggest: 1st.Peter is genuinely epistolary and was written specially for the communities indicated in the greeting; but since some of these communities were actually suffering persecution, while for others it was no more than a possibility, the writer sent two forms of epistles, one for those not yet under actual duress (1:1-4:11 and 5:12-14), and the other, terser and swifter, for those who were in the refining fire (1:1-2:10; 4:12-5:14).  The messengers were bidden to read the appropriate part to each community according to the situation; and it is not difficult to imagine that, ultimately, when apostolic writings were being collected, the two "insets" were copied continuously, one after the other, within the common framework of salutation and farewell. 

Moule discusses some points:-

1.  Persecutions.  As to the persecution implied in 1st.Peter, many regard the terms too close to the situation implied by Pliny's correspondence for them to be construed as anything but a reference to official indictment.  In particular, 4:15, is appealed to: "you must not suffer as a criminal, `os phoneus e kleptes k t.l.  This it is argued, puts being a Christian on the same level as those criminal offences, as an indictable charge, and cannot date earlier than the time when Christianity as such was a crime.

           

Moule writes, "Despite this, it seems to me that all the requirements of these passages are equally well met by postulating "unofficial" persecution, harrying by Jews and pagans.  The fact that `os Christos' is parellel to `os phoneus kleptes' (whatever the other words in the list may mean that is obscure) does not in the least compel the conclusion that to be a Christian was officially a crime in the same category as the indictable offences.  All the Greek says, "If you have to suffer, suffer as a Christian, not as a criminal.

           

The use of "Babylon" in 5:13.  Some take it literally.  Moule evidently prefers to take it figuratively, but considers there is no need to deduce from it that Rome is the arch-enemy, and that the Christian writer needs to conceal his whereabouts from persecuting officials by this cryptogram.  Rather, the motive is homiletic: Rome is called Babylon as the place of exile; for the Christian in the metropolis of the civilized world, is a stranger and pilgrim.

           

It was possible to suffer "as a Christian" from the moment that the name was given. Acts 11:26:  the Christian did not escape that sort of suffering even before it was an officially recognized offence.  See 1.Thess.2:14-16; Heb.10:32-39; 13:7.

           

2.  Postulating, then, a situation of an actual persecution or the threat of it, but not necessarily a State persecution.  It is easy to find abundance of parallels from similar situations:

            Matt.10:16     with 1.Pet.3:15.   Jn.15:18.   with 1.Pet.5:9.

            Acts 4:31.         "   4:13.   Acts 5:41              "   4:13.

            1.Cor.12:3         "   4:4.    Gal.4:29                  "   4:3.

            1.Th. 1:6           "   4:13.   1.Th.3:3                 "   2:21.

            2.Th.3:5            "   2:20.   Tit.2:8                    "   4:4.

             Heb.2:18,         "   4:12    Heb.10:26             "   1:17, (9-11).

            Heb.10:32-39    "   5:9 .

           

This, it seems to me, suggests how much can be explained by the postulating harrying by local opponents, sometime leading to imprisonments by local authorities or even (as in the case of Stephen) death.

           

3.  Moule makes comparisons between 1st.Peter and the Book of Revelation.

           

4.  Moule makes comparisons with the letters to the Seven Churches.

           

5. Moule then puts the two specialized parts of 1st.Peter side by side.

           

6.  Moule agrees that the baptismal theme is prominent, but there is a congruity between this and suffering.  Suffering is connected with baptism (through Christ's baptism which meant the Cross), and baptism is an epitome of the Christian doctrine of suffering.

           

7.  Psalm 34, stands behind 1st.Peter and is appropriate to the same situation: it's theme is "God protects or rescues the loyal sufferer."

           

Moule makes no attempt to discuss authorship, but points out that the persecutions need not be official, and that the way is open as far as Chronology goes, for the apostolic authorship. - From N.T.Studies.

An article by A.R.C.Leaney, in N.T. Studies.

           

Ist.Peter and the Passover.  An interpretation: 

           

Leaney does not regard 1st.Peter as a letter.  He is not happy about the view that 1st.Peter was written by Peter under the shadow of the Neronian persecution of A.D.64.  He queries then, Peter's reason for writing to the scattered believers of Asia Minor.  What connection would they have with the Neronian persecution.  Supporters of the traditional view insist that Peter had a care for those he converted in these provinces in Asia Minor.  But chapter 1:12 seems to exclude the possibilty that Peter was writing to his own converts.

           

Bithynia and Pontus as early as this.  Pliny governed 111-113 A.D. and there had certainly been churches in these two provinces for at least 20 years then.  But were there churches there as early as the Neronian persecution?

           

The Greek of 1st.Peter is eloquent and impressive.  If the work was not originally an epistle, what was it?  No direct answer can be given to this question. The work is composite.  Leaving aside the opening salutation, the first and main part begins at 1:3, and ends with the doxology of 4:11.  It seems clear that 4:12 to 5:11 are an addition to the main body.

           

Windisch believed 1:3-4:11 represented a baptismal homily to which a warning letter about an imminent general persecution of Christians had been added; but that 1:3-4:11 was itself composite.  Windisch could not believe that Peter himself was the author.  Windisch held that the author envisages a situation in which the apostolic word was necessary to strengthen Christians in a large area converted by unknown missionaries. Windisch wrote in 1930.  Selwyn, published in 1947, recognized sources underlining the Epistle, partaking mainly of the following categories: liturgical, a persecution fragment (where we can see likenesses to material in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians), and catechical (mainly subdivided) and allusions to `verba Christi'.  Leaney expresses appreciation of Selwyn's examination and setting forth of the material, but Leaney disagrees with his conclusions.

           

Priesker in 1951 produced a third edition of Windisch.  Priesker insisted that 1:3-4:11 was an early Christian liturgy on baptism, confined to baptizands, had found its fixed written form, and that this ends with the closing liturgy of the whole congregation, 4:12-5:11.  Priesker's arrangemnet of the work is usually summarized by Cranfield in his Torch Commentary.

           

1.  1:3-12.  The Service begins with a Prayer-Psalm.  A `berakah'.

           

2.  1:13-21.  An instructional address, which represents the way of holiness for the community as co-ordinated with the work of redemption wrought by Christ, on the text of Lev.19:2., "you shall be holy, because I am holy."  At this point, as the tenses of the verbs before and after suggest, there follows the baptism, a long and continuous ceremony involving a number of people.

           

3.  1:22-25.  A short baptismal dedication, in which it is suggested that the life-long practice of `agape' should take the place of an ecstatic utterance such as followed many pagan initiations.

           

4.  2:1-10.  A festal hymn, rendered by an inspired individual, in which v.6-8 have been inserted.

           

5.  2:11-3:12.  An exhortation by another individual, interrupted at the climax by a hymn about Christ. (2:21-24).

           

6.  3:13-4:7a.  An apocalyptic discourse (which Paul in 1.Cor.14:26 would call a `revelation') in which the blessedness of the persecuted is related to eschatological deliverence.

           

7.  4:7b-11.  A closing prayer, or rather the epistolary substitute for one.

            Preisker regards 4:12-5:11 as part of the same work as 1:3-4:11.  He divides as follows the concluding service for the whole congregation:

           

4:12-19.  Eschatological "revelation,"  in which the potential persecutions have become actual.

           

5:1-9.  An exhortation or warning to elders, to younger members of the congregation, and finally to them all.

           

5:10-11.  Final blessings and doxology.  Leaney makes three comments on Preisker's construction of the Epistle. He is not satisfied with Preisker's explanation of the twofold character of the work.  Preisker distinguished between preparation for possible persecution (1:3-4:11) and encouragement in the face of actual persecution (4:12-5:11).  The words of the latter section are addressed to the whole congregation, which includes the newly baptized.

            Leaney says, "we shall have to abide by the conviction that the work is composed of two distinct parts not originally belonging to one another, although they may have been composed about the same time."  He says, it is hard to be satisfied with Preisker's explanation of how a work with such a plurality of authors came to be written down.  He classifies its elements according to 1.Cor.14:26-30.

           

In regard to the passages that open and close the work (1:1-2 and 5:12-14), Leaney thinks Preisker has the best explanation.  Leaney with Preisker denies Petrine authorship and paraphrases, "Peter'an apostle of Jesus Christ" to mean "Peter's spirit in the Roman church today."

           

Dr Cross.  Leaney now considers the interpretation of Dr Cross.  According to Dr Cross, 1:3-4:11 is not merely a baptismal homily, but the extemporized liturgy itself at a baptismal Eucharist.  Dr Cross's, may be briefly summarized in this way: the express mention of baptism at 3:20, the use of baptismal language, expressions indicating a rite in actual progress, quotations from Haustafeln (sterotyped forms of moral instruction), outlines of a creed which include, or engulf, the express reference to baptism. 

           

Dr Cross argues that the references to suffering, more frequent in this work than in any other in the New Testament, do not refer to actual persecution, but to the liturgical incorporation of the believer into Christ, so that he can be said to have suffered with Christ and so have begun a new life free from sin.  Cross believes that 1st.Peter is the first work of a long tradition which connected baptism with suffering in this sense, the most famous composition being the "Treatise on the Pasch" by Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c.A.D.160), who uses effectively the false etymology connecting the word `paschein', "to suffer."

           

Dr Cross uses the same divisions as Preisker and agrees that probably the actual baptism took the place between 1:21 and 1:22; but one advantage of Cross's theory is that the work as far as 4:11 now becomes a real unity due to one author, namely the bishop presiding at the Baptismal Eucharist held at the Paschal, that is, Easter Festival.  For him the divisions are:

1:3-12.     Bishop's opening prayer.

1:13-21.   His formal charge to the candidates after baptism.

1:22-25.   Bishop's welcome of the newly baptized.

2:1-10.     Bishop's address on the Fundamentals of the Sacramental life.

(This is the neucleus of the work).

2:11-4:6.  Bishop's address to newly baptized on the duties of Christian discipleship.

4:7-11.    Final admonitions and doxology. 

Leaney thinks that Cross's theory has much to commend it.

           

Baptism itself may be linked with Passover themes.  The Proselyte was thought of as having become like a newborn babe and on that account could celebrate the Passover if he had become a proselyte only on the previous day.

           

Leaney further discusses the association that Cross has suggested between 1st.Peter and the Passover.  Leaney thinks this a vital task, because if 1st.Peter is a paschal liturgy and is very early, it belongs to the period when (as we know from 1st.Clement) the Christian Church continued, though it transformed, Jewish forms of worship.  It used them in its own congregations and applied their profound significance to help their people to understand the meaning of Christ.

           

As a paschal liturgy, then, 1st.Peter must show considerable links with the Passover in the form in which it was celebrated in New Testament times.  Again, if we can show this to be probable, it will deepen our understanding of our epistle by revealing more fully what was in the mind of the author.

           

Lastly the task is the more urgent in that critics (two, at least - C.F.D Moule and T.C.G.Thornton) have challenged Cross's theory strongly on exactly this point, the lack of certain connection with the Passover rite.

           

We cannot be certain as to what features belonged to the `seder' (order of service for the Passover) at the time with which we are concerned; for the `haggadah', the `Seder' with the commentary consisting of prayer, legend and exposition, has been formed by the accretion of many centuries; but Dr.Cecil Roth has reason to claim that the first and oldest part of the `haggadah' had "reached virtually its present form by the time of the destruction of the Temple.  At that time, Roth explains, the distinctive elements in the `haggadah' were

1.  Display of unleavened bread, leading to questions by the youngest present;

2.  The answer, accompanied by illustrations of the duty to recount the story of the Exodus.

3.  Exposition of Joshua 24:2-4;

4.  Exposition of Deut.26:5-8;

5.  Psalms of thanksgiving (Hallel);

6.  Prelude to the meal with its attendant ceremonies.

           

Roth is supported by the evidence of the Mishnah.  It is strange that Dr.Cross made no reference  to the `haggadah' in his lecture on 1st.Peter, but the point seems to have occurred to him, for in his volume, "The early Christian Fathers" (Duckworth), when describing Melito's "Treatise on the Pasch" he not only reiterates what he said in the lecture on 1st.Peter that, "the primitive Christian Easter was simply a continuation of the Jewish Passover rite," but quotes in some detail the well-known passage from the Mishnah tractate Pesachim 10:5 which insists, with the authority of Gamaliel, that at the Passover Feast verses must be recited concerning the meaning of Passover, unleavened bread and bitter herbs, these three things at least; and which goes on to say, "In every generation a man must regard himself as if he came  forth himself from Egypt."

           

Examples of connection with the Passover in 1st.Peter:

           

1.  "The Lamb without blemish." 1:18. Note the words, "the vain manner of life handed down from your fathers."  In the `haggadah' the reading and exposition of Joshua 24:2-4 begins with the introductory sentence, "In the beginning, our fathers were worshippers of strange gods: but now the All-Present has brought us to His Service."

           

1st.Peter is, then, contrasting the ancient Jewish worship with its Christian fulfilment, just as the `haggadah' which he is transforming, contrasted its worship with that of the fathers before the time when God called Abraham.

           

2.  Chapter 1:13  (Cross.p.25).

           

3.  Chapter 2: 9  (Cross.p.25-26).

           

4.  Chapter 2:11. (Compare Deut.26:5).

           

Leaney makes comparison with `haggadah'.  The allusions or contacts do not generally appear so striking, but he does appear to establish his thesis that 1st.Peter reflects some knowledge of the `haggadah'.

           

Chapter 2:11 "strangers and pilgrims" - it reflects the way the Israelites thought of their own history. Lev.25:23.

           

Leaney thinks that reflections of Deut.26:5-8 are found in 1st.Peter, as well as that of Joshua 24:2-4, both occupied a place in the `haggadah'.

           

5.  Chapter 2:16-19.  Like the Jew before him, the Christian is set free to be God's slave (the exact idea of 2:16) and this is the whole theme of this part of the `haggadah'. 

           

3:18.  The Descent of Christ into Hades.  See Bo Reicke, "The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism."  (Copenhagen, 1946).  With the help of this book we shall argue that in chapter 3:18 we have a theology of liberation achieved by submission to God, which we take to be a passover theme, if not the Passover theme.

           

Leaney thinks it misleading to discuss whether the disobedient spirits are fallen angels or spirits of men - since these are not sharply distinguished when thought of as in Hades or the upper or lower heaven.  There is an oscillation of thought between that world and this, and the denizens of that world mingled with this.  The book of Enoch, precisely by not being clear in the modern historical sense, makes this clear.  The fall of angels are in fact - though the description of them does not exhaust what they are - the powers which control the actions of men and nations.  Though imprisoned for their misdeeds, they are yet free, as is betrayed by their partial identity with stars (18:13; 21:6) to exercise influence on human life.  They have in fact great power by guiding the course of heathen rulers (especially in chap.37-71)

           

Christ then, put to death on the Cross, the innocent for the guilty, given `zoe', that is, eternal life in the spirit, thus entered into the cosmic sphere (we should emphasize the notion of literal descent as little as our author, that is, not at all).  There He proclaimed His Gospel, that is, himself, to those same angelic powers which are among the political powers of the world who persecuted the people of God.  In His death He too experienced a baptism, the great waters overwhelmed Him, and He emerged from His Messianic baptismal death to proclaim His victory to the powers and to be raised to the right hand of God, where the angels and authorities and powers are subject to Him.

           

Leaney disagrees with Moule that the Flood is an inappropriate figure for baptism.  Our author tells us that Baptism is not merely the putting off bodily stain with garments which were literally put off for the actual ceremony, but "the assurance before God of a loyal attitude of mind" - to borrow Reick's careful and reasoned translation of the vexed phrase in 3:21.  It is the promise of steadfastness in everyday conduct and under persecution - under the engulfing waters which both destroy and save.  Leaney would strengthen the case for Dr.Cross's theory and as against the criticism by Dr Moule.

           

Professor W.C.van Unnik.  Article on "Christianity according to 1st.Peter. Expository Times 1956.  The noted Dutch authority on 1st.Peter, van Unnik warmly commends the notable contribution of Selwyn for the understanding of 1st.Peter.

           

Is 1st.Peter really a letter?  In its outward appearance it is.  Its inscription closely resembles that of the Pauline epistles and has adopted the usual formulas of antiquity with a certain Christian stamp. 

           

Unnik does not regard the Epistle as rightly one of the "Catholic Epistles."  The writer does not write to the Christian Church of his time as a whole, taking the "dispersion" as a designation of Christians who live scattered throughout the world as in a foreign country, while having their homeland in heaven.  There is an explicit enumeration of certain parts of Asia Minor. 

           

It is not a general letter, but sent to particular Churches.  However, there is a growing tendency among scholars to deny this epistolary character and to consider this writing as a baptismal sermon.  According to this view, set forth with great clarity in the German commentary of Windisch - Preisker and defended in Britain by the Late Canon Streeter, the form of the letter must be stripped off as a later addition; the body of the Epistle is a combination of two pieces, the break being at 4:12; in the former part persecutions are spoken of as possible, in the latter section they are a given reality.  In the former part we have a sermon at a baptismal ceremony showing the new life which a Christian has received; in the latter we have a more general admonition to steadfastness in time of persecution.

           

Dr.Cross has reinforced this theory by new arguments, drawn chiefly from his intimate knowledge of patristic literature and liturgy.  Unnik says that Dr.Cross's "arguments have not convinced me."  The use of the Greek verb `pascho' ("to suffer") is so closely linked up with current facts that it never suggests a word - play with `pascha' (Easter).

           

There is in Unnik’s opinion no parts to divide the writing into two parts because the way in which sufferings are spoken of in 4:12 is not different from that in the beginning. The author there starts with a new topic, namely, that sufferings are not an abnormal experience for Christians, a topic which formed also part of the instruction.  As far as I (Unnik) can see, no cogent arguments for denying the epistolary character of this letter have been advanced.  Its adherents are compelled to critical operations which are not based on the text, and ought to give reasons why a sermon was turned into a letter at a later stage, and why these particular names at the beginning are mentioned; but that has never been done.

           

Unnik remarks that the well-known persecutions of Nero, Domition and Trajan were not world-wide, as is supposed in 1st.Peter.  If we look into the matter it is clear that the author does not speak of regular persecutions, but of sufferings which come from ill-tempered neighbours.  Christians are slandered by their neighbours because they do not share in the same way of living.  See 4:4.  They are reproached for the name of Christ and looked upon as evil-doers, because they keep aloof from paganism and have meetings of their own. Though we (Unnik) have rejected the idea that this letter is a baptismal sermon, it will be wise to see that there is a kernel of truth in it.

           

Unnik notes the Trinitarian formula of the address 1:2.  he prefers "election" as a better translation than "knowledge."  The sprinkling of the blood has reference to Exodus 24 - where all that follows the way in which the Lord made Israel His own people at Mount Sinai - the people had to sanctify themselves (Exod.19), and were prompted to obedience and sprinkled with the blood of the Covenant (Exod.24).  Peter says that what happened to the chosen people of old has also been done unto his readers, but within the Christian dispensation.

           

The idea is not so peculiar.  It was said by the rabbis that the proselytes entered into Israel in the same way in which the ancient Israel had been admitted into the covenant.  In a number of places this epistle uses expressions closely parallel to those used in connection with the proselytes among the Jews.  Note how the writer speaks about the work of Christ,"who suffered to bring us to God." 

           

`Prosago', "to bring" is a translation of the Hebrew word `hygriyb', it appears to be a technical term for "to make proselytes," members of the Chosen People, those who are not so by birth.  In rabbinic terminology they were also styled "new born children" (2:2).  Philo of Alexandria says that they have come out of the darkness of paganism to the radiant light. (2:9). This incorporation into God's chosen people has been brought about by the work of Christ.  The apostle assures his readers that they really belong to the chosen people.

           

Christianity according to 1st.Peter is not a certain set of ideas, but `anastrophe', (a way of life), a new life as children of obedience.  A behaviour, a way of life, is a keynote in the Epistle.  This new faith implies a new attitude and the new life finds its strength in this new relation with God.  It is a constant dialectical process between dogmatics and ethics.  This forms, I think, its beauty and attractiveness.  The creed is not mere theory or a number of abstract theses about the supernatural, but it is of existential importance.  Ethics are not prescribed according to men's nature or choice, but with a constant orientation on the heart of the Christian message.