||    The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)    ||    Family and Youth    ||    Sermons    ||    Bible Study    ||    Devotional    ||    Spirituals    ||    Fasts & Feasts    ||    Coptics    ||    Religious Education    ||    Monasticism    ||    Seasons    ||    Missiology    ||    Ethics    ||    Ecumenical Relations    ||    Church Music    ||    Pentecost    ||    Miscellaneous    ||    Saints    ||    Church History    ||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Patrology    ||    Canon Law    ||    Lent    ||    Pastoral Theology    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bibles    ||    Iconography    ||    Liturgics    ||    Orthodox Biblical topics     ||    Orthodox articles    ||    St Chrysostom    ||   

INTRODUCTION TO

THE FIRST LETTER OF SAINT PETER

Author The letter claims to come from the apostle Peter, whose name stands in its first verse (1:1) and whose witness to the life and suffering of Jesus is mentioned in its final chapter (5:1). Early Christianity accepted these statements without argument and is virtually unanimous in ascribing the letter to Simon Peter. A quite different verdict is rendered by much of modern scholarship, which has often questioned and sometimes rejected the apostolic authorship of 1 Peter. Among the various arguments used to disassociate the epistle from the apostle is the claim (1) that the Greek style of the letter is too smooth and sophisticated to be the work of an unlettered fisherman like Simon (Acts 4:13), whose first language was Aramaic; (2) that the epistle's many references to Christian suffering (1:6; 2:19; 4:12-16; 5:9-10) reflect a time in the late first century when imperial persecution of the Church by Roman authorities was first evidenced in Asia Minor; and (3) that the letter displays affinities with the theology of Paul to a degree that some think would be unlikely during the lifetime of two rival apostles. On the force of these and other objections, many scholars today claim that 1 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, i.e., a letter written in Peter's name by one of his admirers or possibly by a representative of a school of Peter's disciples based in Rome. Either way, according to this theory, the letter is not a composition of the apostle but the work of a literary impersonator who used Peter's name to give authoritative guidance to Christians in Asia Minor.

Despite the prominence of the pseudepigraphical view today, its foundation is far from secure. For one thing, the consistent tradition of early Christianity is thereby dismissed out of hand, despite the fact that no one before modern times ever ascribed the letter to an author other than Peter. Likewise, the objections listed above can be answered to reasonable satisfaction on the working assumption of Peter's authorship. (1) It is hazardous to insist that Peter could not have written elegant Greek at the time 1 Peter was written. First-century Galilee was thoroughly bilingual; most persons involved in commerce (such as the fishing industry), in addition to speaking Aramaic, would also have spoken Greek well enough to conduct business. Nevertheless, even if Peter's fluency in Greek were limited during his fishing days, that would not necessarily settle the issue. For if Peter did compose the letter bearing his name, then he had already been engaged in missionary preaching for over thirty years after leaving behind his fishing nets. Three decades is more than sufficient time to improve one's command of a second language. Peter's competence in writing Greek, however, may be a moot point in any case. The notation at 5:12 seems to imply that 1 Peter was actually penned by Silvanus. This is significant, since the secretarial practices of antiquity often gave scribes generous latitude in adding polish and precision to the thoughts of an author with less facility in the language. If indeed there was this kind of working relationship between the apostle and his secretary, there is no problem with crediting Peter with the content of the letter and Silvanus with its literary expression. (2) As for the suffering of the original readers, the many references to persecution that appear in the letter are simply too general and nonspecific to insist that State-sponsored attacks on the Church are in view. If the recipients of the letter were hounded by unbelievers and sometimes pressed to explain their Christian commitment (3:15-16), there is no clear evidence that links this with official persecutions instigated by a Roman emperor such as Domitian (A.D. 81 to 96) or Trajan (A.D. 98 to 117). The text requires us to envision nothing more than the usual fare of harassment and hostility that is faced by the Church in every age. (3) The presence of Pauline elements in the letter is all but irrelevant to an impartial consideration of authorship. The objection in this case rests on the dubious presupposition that Peter and Paul represent two competing forms of Christianity. Quite simply, this is a legacy of eighteenth-century German scholarship that has nothing substantial to commend it. The confrontation at Antioch in Gal 2:11-16, though sometimes made to support this paradigm, does not amount to a lifelong rivalry; indeed, Paul's argument with Peter on the occasion rests on the fact that Peter and Paul shared a common understanding of the gospel message. In point of fact, there is no evidence from which to conclude that Peter would have shunned or rejected useful expressions of Christian teaching that had originally been formulated by Paul. Not only that, but if Silvanus was the secretary who penned the letter for Peter, the Pauline themes in the epistle would have a ready explanation, for Silvanus (also called Silas) had once been a missionary companion of Paul's and was surely influenced by his preaching (Acts 15:40; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).

In the end, modern objections to Peter's authorship of 1 Peter are insufficiently strong to overturn the traditional ascription. The external testimony of the ancient Church, along with a careful handling of the internal evidence of the text, combine to support the apostolic authorship of the letter beyond a reasonable doubt. The epistle can thus be read and defended as the work of Simon Peter, the foremost apostle of Christ.

Date The question of "when" the letter was written is bound up with the question of "who" wrote it. Scholars who maintain its apostolic authorship usually date it in the early 60s. In other words, it must have been written before Peter's martyrdom in Rome in the middle 60s and yet after a sufficient period of missionary activity brought the Churches addressed in 1:1 into existence. Scholars who favor pseudepigraphical authorship naturally date the epistle after Peter's death. Most are content with a window of possible dates between A.D. 70 and 100.

Origin The letter was written from "Babylon" (5:13). This is not a literal reference to the city of that name in lower Mesopotamia, but a figurative reference to Rome, the imperial capital of the Mediterranean world. Mark's presence with Peter at the time of writing (5:13) coheres nicely with this interpretation, for Paul seems to indicate that Mark was in Rome at the time of his first imprisonment in the early 60s (Col 4:10). Additional support comes from Christian writers who identify Peter, along with Paul, as a cofounder of the Roman Church (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3) and as one who spent the latter years of his life there (St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men 1). Archaeological evidence has likewise given reason to believe that Peter spent his final days in the capital, for it has convincingly established that the apostle was and remains buried on Vatican Hill. Finally, there are parallel uses of "Babylon" as a pseudonym for Rome in Jewish texts written in early Christian times (4 Ezra 3, 1; 2 Baruch 11, 1; Sibylline Oracles 5, 143).

Destination The first recipients of the letter were Christians living in northern Asia Minor (1:1). Peter addresses them as "exiles of the Dispersion". Because the terms "exile" and "Dispersion" were closely associated with the Jewish people living beyond the borders of Palestine, it was held by some in the early Church that Peter had addressed the letter to circumcised believers (e.g., Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 4). More likely, however, this opening description refers to Christians in general, irrespective of their ethnic or religious background. Indeed, one of the key metaphors of the letter depicts believers as aliens and sojourners living in temporary exile from their true homeland in heaven (1 Pet 1:17; 2:11-12). It is quite possible that Peter expected Hebrew Christians to be among his readers, but statements such as the one in 4:3 suggest that Gentile converts from paganism are primarily in view.

Themes First Peter is a pastoral letter written to encourage young churches perplexed by growing hostility toward Christians. With the tide of persecution steadily rising, the dangers of being a Christian in an unbelieving world were being felt more and more acutely. For some, pagan distain for believers might cause a crisis of faith; for others, it could quickly lead to discouragement and confusion about God's purpose for these trials. This painful situation called forth from Peter, an eyewitness to the sufferings of Christ (5:1), the pastoral wisdom to see hardships as integral to God's design for making us more like Christ. One might say that 1 Peter is to the NT what the Book of Job is to the OT—an effort of faith to see innocent suffering within the framework of God's plan for our lives.

Peter's counsel to these churches is warm and pastoral in tone as well as theological and ethical in content. (1) Theologically: Peter informs readers that suffering for the name of Christ is not a curse but a blessing (3:14; 4:14). Instead of being disheartened by abuse, they should count it a privilege to suffer the same maltreatment endured by their Lord (4:13). This, he implies, is evidence that Jesus is replicating his own life in the experiences of the faithful, leading them down the path that he himself once walked (2:21; 4:1). The purpose of this is not to weaken or injure their faith, but to strengthen and refine it as something precious in the eyes of God (1:6-7). Though trials like these require patience, they last only "a little while" (5:10). The challenge is to look beyond the test of suffering to the salvation (1:9) and glory that await them on the other end (1:21; 4:13). (2) Ethically: Peter gives practical guidance for living the gospel in an unfriendly environment. The supreme example for this is set by Christ: because he "did not revile" those who slandered him (2:23), neither should believers "return evil for evil or reviling for reviling" (3:9). Though abused by the godless and immoral (4:3-4), readers must fight their fallen "passions" (2:11) and cling to "the will of God" in everything they do (4:2). Hence, the proper response to suffering is to entrust oneself entirely to God (4:19), who will come to "restore, establish, and strengthen" everyone who holds fast to the faith under fire (5:10). In all of this, Christians must live above reproach. The saints are urged to be model citizens (2:13-17); servants are to endure with patience any unjust treatment from their masters (2:18-20); wives are to serve their unbelieving husbands (3:16); and husbands are to honor their wives (3:7). And Christians must be ready to give an intelligent defense of the faith to anyone who interrogates them (3:15-16). In these ways, believers show forth the image of Christ in their lives, and the grandeur of the gospel is displayed before the world. «