Background
of 1 Peter
To
the Dispersion from Babylon
David Q. Santos
Introduction
First Peter is an epistle that has
many points of controversy in modern scholarship. Nearly every division of study has its
critics and proponents. Beginning with
authorship and the date of the epistle, this work will examine the background
of First Peter with the purpose of providing a brief overview of the key
debates and highlights of First Peter. Since
both authorship and providence are tied so closely to the dating of First
Peter, they are both to be considered before the dating of the epistle. Key divisions of study that will be examined
are authorship, date, provenance, destination, purpose, literary Plan, and
theological themes. This is primarily a
literature review though at some points some exegetical work will be necessary
as well.
Authorship
Authorship of the book of First
Peter is highly debated among biblical scholars. This debate is centered on the date of the
book. Those that hold to an early date
will almost universally hold to the Apostle Peter as the book’s author. Those who maintain a late date will see an
author other than Peter. Duane Warden
observed that “Those who see a social and ecclesiastical setting in the
book that postdates the 60s have tended to reject Petrine authorship.”[1] The rejection of Petrine authorship comes in
a number of forms but it should be noted that there are not any external
sources that a critic can point to for support of non-Petrine authorship. The
longstanding debate over the authorship of First Peter can be observed in the
1970 book The First Epistle of Peter by liberal sceptic F. W. Beare. He argued that First Peter had many traits in
common with the Roman historian Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (c. 61–c.
112),
specifically in terms of the persecution associated with the reign of Trajan (98-117). Sceptics of Peter’s authorship typically
attempt to push the date of First Peter to later dates by placing the
persecution the letter is preparing for as persecution from Trajan or Domitian
rather than Nero.
A review of
the scholarly literature yields the observation that those who object to
Peter’s authorship do not have any external evidence to support their cause. So the case being made for late date has no
actual evidence other than their speculation.
They base their argument on internal evidence. Köstenberger (et al.) divide these
objections into four categories.
1.
The Greek of 1 Peter is better
than one would expect from a fisherman.
2.
Some content of the book appears
to them to be from a later date.
3.
Some critics see a dependence on “Deutero-Pauline”
letters forcing a later date.
4.
The critics believe that regions
spoken of were not part of Peter’s possible area of ministry.
Köstenberger and others did not
find these arguments to hold any real veracity.
The conclusion was that “When examined on its own merits, however,
little reason emerges to doubt the authenticity of 1 Peter…” This is especially true when the external
evidence supporting Petrine authorship is evaluated.
There is absolutely no external
evidence to support the premise of First Peter being a forgery; the
extrabiblical evidence for Petrine authorship is overwhelming. “The
early tradition of the church was thoroughly acquainted with 1 Peter and
attributed authorship of the book to the apostle Peter in an impressive way.” The external evidence comes from the Bible
itself and from writers found in antiquity.
This thought is summed up;
1.
2 Peter attests to Peter’s authorship.
2.
Witness of many early church writings including the Didache,
1 Clement, Polycarp, Eusebius, Papias and Tertullian.
The Greek historian Eusebius
(230-339 AD) wrote about the tradition of preserving the teachings found in
specific gospel accounts. He sought to
provide a church history that was carefully and accurately conveyed in near
Lukan fashion. He stressed that he was
carefully writing a history based on the facts as he understood them. He stated that, “in the course
of my history I shall be careful to show…”[10] demonstrating his commitment
to a method of recording accurate history.
In this record Eusebius argued for
the authorship of the Pauline epistles and defended Peter’s authorship of Fist
Peter. Based on his written statement he
must have had knowledge of the long tradition regarding Petrine
authorship. This was demonstrated when
he wrote, “One epistle of Peter, that
called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used
freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.”[11] It should also be noted that Eusebius
did not just accept any epistle that bore an apostle’s name. In fact, he evaluated past witnesses and made
appraisals of authenticity on several non-canonical letters. On these letters he wrote, “The so-called
Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching
and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally
accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of
testimonies drawn from them.”[12] The
translators of Eusebius explained that the witness and tradition from antiquity
was that Peter was the authentic author of First Peter. They listed Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria as all attesting consistently
to the Petrine authorship of First Peter. [13]
Provenance
In its final salutation, First
Peter indicates that the epistle’s origin is Babylon. This statement has spurred debate that has
direct implications of the letter’s authorship and date. The debate also has indirect influence on
issues of the letter’s purpose, hermeneutics and even eschatological views. There is disagreement whether this statement
is literally Babylon or some other location with which “Babylon” is a code that
the first century readers would naturally understand.
One common argument for Peter
writing from Rome is that Babylon was not highly populated in the mid first
century. One author wrote, “First Peter
specifically mentions “Babylon” in 5: 13 as the place from which the letter was
sent. … the location could be Mesopotamian Babylon. However, at this time the city was all but
deserted.” There are some scholars that have examined
the evidence for the understanding that Babylon was “all but deserted” in the
time period which Peter would have been writing. One such scholar was asking about this very
question noting that Acts 12:17 describes Peter having traveled to “another
place.” The natural question would then
be, “…when Luke writes that Peter, after his miraculous release from his imprisonment
in Jerusalem by Herod, ‘went into another place’ (Acts 12:17), ‘it is possible
that [that place] was Rome;’ and (2) that ‘we are compelled to understand as
Rome’ the apostle’s reference to Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13.”[15] Given that Peter is thought to have died in
Rome this would be the normal conclusion.
However, scholarship should be very cautious when applying allegorical
meaning to Biblical text. There must be
strong evidence for that meaning or it should be rejected. Additionally, one can note that the regions and
cities mentioned in chapter one are all literal locations, it does not seem
natural to then use a code word later in the same book. Dr. Andy Woods made this same point while
writing on First Peter 5:11.
A minority view indicates that Peter wrote his letter from Babylon before
journeying to Rome. According to this view Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 should be
interpreted as a straightforward statement rather than a code. This view has
much to commend it. If one interprets the geographic areas in the greeting
section of the letter literally (1:1), then the geographic area mentioned in
the conclusion of the epistle (5:13) may deserve the same literal
interpretation.[16]
Was
Babylon a vacant city in the mid first century?
Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues that it was a highly populated
location. He argues that there was a
large Jewish contingency in Babylon.
Fruchtenbaum wrote,
Many assume that Babylon is being
used symbolically of Rome, but there is no need to take such a view. Babylonia
would be a logical place for Peter to be. At this point in Jewish history,
Babylonia had the highest concentration of Jews outside the land and was the
center of Judaism outside the land. The Babylonian Talmud would later be
developed there. Since Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, it would be
natural for him to go there in his travels. This also points to the strong
Jewishness of the epistle.[17]
Fruchtenbaum’s
view also carries the weight of ancient writings who recorded that there were
indeed Jews populating Babylon. Philo and
Josephus both give witness to there being Jews in Babylon during this time
period. Philo wrote, “…Babylon, and
all the satrapies around, which have any advantages whatever of soil or
climate, have Jews settled in them.”[18] Josephus recorded the release of Hyrcannus
from his bonds in Parthia and stated that Hyrcannus was “from his bonds and
permitted him to settle in Babylon, where there was a great number of Jews.”[19] Given this evidence, perhaps the standard
acceptance of Babylon being code for Rome should at least be examined
further.
Woods summed
up five good reasons for the Apostle to the circumcised (Gal 2:8) to travel to
Babylon.
1.
Babylon would have been a logical
place for peter to visit as many Jews were left there from the Babylonian
Captivity.
2.
The magi were from Babylon (Matt
2:2).
3.
Jews from Mesopotamia were
present at Pentecost (Acts 2:9).
4.
The Babylonian Talmud was
developed there.
5.
Babylon became an influential
Jewish center.[20]
There is reason to consider that
Peter did indeed travel to locations in addition to Rome before ultimately
arriving in Rome where he was thought to have been martyred. The historical record and biblical text both
allow for this to have taken place. If the
straightforward reading of First Peter 5:13 were accepted it could end
confusion and debate in many areas of theology.
This would be especially true for theological views that rely on such
non-literal readings such as preterism which holds a view that “Babylon” must
mean either Rome or Jerusalem. It would
also aid in interpretation of Revelation’s references to Babylon. If Peter is not using code then it becomes
more difficult to read a code into Revelation.
Date
The date of the book of First Peter
is tied to authorship because the skeptics try to push the date beyond the
lifespan of Peter to prove the book to be a forgery. Once Petrine authorship is established the
potential date for the book becomes much narrower. Whether the book was written from Babylon
prior to Peter’s arrival in Rome or from Rome itself the date has a maximum
date of the mid-60s. A similar statement
was also made by Köstenberger who wrote, “The best indicator as to the date of
the letter, given Peter’s authorship, is the reference to Rome at 1 Peter 5:
13… Peter most likely was in Rome in the mid- to late 60s.”
As stated before authorship and
dating are tied together. Skeptics such
as Beare try to place the persecution of First Peter in the time of Domitian or
Trajan
which would make the book written in the late first century to the early second
century. Other scholars point out that
the context of First Peter fits better with the persecution of Nero. And as Köstenberger wrote, “a date prior to
the persecution of Nero, which began in approximately AD 64. Most likely, 1
Peter was written slightly before then, around AD 62– 63, when the harbingers
of this persecution were already on the horizon.” This conclusion fits best with the context of
the book and solves the most problems.
Destination
First Peter opens with a greeting
to the elect pilgrims who are in the dispersion. Based solely on the context of this greeting
it is obvious that the letter is written to believers. They are called elect, a term that is used
primarily of believers; though it is also used on Israel and of Christ. These elect have election according to the
foreknowledge of God. “Foreknowledge” is
an accusative singular noun from πρόγνωσις (prognosis) which is used
only twice in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:23). The verbal form προγινώσκω (proginwskw)
is used another five times and is used of believers (Rom 8:29), Israel (Rom.
11:2) and of Christ’s death (1 Peter 1:20).
The recipients of Peter’s letter are also described as being in
sanctification. ἁγιασμός (hagiasmos),
here rendered as sanctification is used ten times in the New Testament and
always speaks of believers being made holy or separate. There is also a reference to the Holy Spirit
being active in that sanctification; a statement that can only be universally
true of Christians. The word for pilgrim
is παρεπίδημος (parepidhmos) which is an adjective that carries the idea
of being a temporary resident. Rather,
they are “Christians, who are not at home in this world.”[24] The idea of being pilgrims in a foreign land
temporarily had a dual meaning in application.
First, these are people not in their natural homeland. But second, they are anticipating their new
home that is not on this world. The
author wrote this letter to believers that were in “five of Asia Minor’s Roman
provinces. The letter was evidently meant to circulate among the churches in
this area.”[25] Fruchtenbaum argues that “The fact that they
are of the Dispersion (a word found
elsewhere only in John 7:35 and James 1:1) shows them to be Jewish people
living outside the land.”[26] While this is an intriguing view it may be
best to see the letter going out to the churches in those regions which would
be made up of both Jews and Gentiles.
Purpose
As with other portions of the
background to this epistle there is not unified agreement on the purpose of
First Peter. “There seems,
however, to be no unanimous agreement in recent research as to what these
purposes were and thus how they should be categorized and described.”[27] Typically, scholars have held that the book
is primarily a training manual for Christians living under persecution. It is a book that trains believers to have a
good witness in a foreign land while suffering at the hands of others. Dinkler argues that at least the portion
dedicated to the example of a holy woman, Sarah, is an example to the women in
Peter’s day. She wrote, “Peter’s
purpose in 1 Peter 3:5–6 is to present an example of effective witness to
non-Christians that applies in his culture, not to endorse marital or social
hierarchy for all time.”[28]
There are several examples of
holiness being exhibited while in foreign lands found in the Bible. These examples would have served Peter’s
audience well. They would have taught
them that God preserves and protects and sometimes He gives strength and peace
to those that are not delivered from persecution. Dryden described it this way, “Traditionally
many biblical interpreters have argued that the author’s agenda is consolation,
training the eyes of these suffering Christians heavenward to embrace a hope of
glory that outweighs the pain of their present circumstances.”[29] This seems like a reasonable view of this
epistle which obviously does tell believers how to handle suffering while
maintaining faith. Dryden pointed out
that there is a modern change in scholarship.
He noted that some have argued recently that the book’s “aim is to shore
up the corporate identity of these churches to combat temptations to cultural
isolation and/or assimilation.”[30] The theological themes of the book are
primarily centered on comfort and hope while suffering; thus, this should be
the understood purpose of the book.
Literary
Plan
The discussion of the literary plan
of First Peter is unique to the book’s study.
“Remarkably, there is a rather large consensus regarding the structure
of 1 Peter in the recent scholarly literature.” Scholars have used many different schemes to
outline First Peter.
Köstenberger, for example, used the
theme of God’s people and how they were addressed by the epistle. He broke the book into five sections
including an opening and closing division.
The other divisions look at the status of the people of God, the
responsibility of the people of God, and the responsibility of the church and
elders. Charles Ryrie took a different approach and
used grace as the main thrust of his scheme for First Peter. Ryrie had seven divisions with an opening and
closing section. The other divisions
focused on grace meaning security, sobriety, submission, suffering, and
service.[33]
A key grammatical devise used in
First Peter to move the narrative was highlighted by Köstenberger. He pointed out Peter’s five uses of Ἀγαπητοί
(agaphtoi). He wrote, The
literary plan of 1 Peter is marked by the presence of the direct address “dear
friends” (Gk. agapētoi), in 2: 11 and 4: 12, which divides the letter
into three parts: 1: 1– 2: 10; 2: 11– 4: 11; and 4: 12– 5: 14; 1: 1– 2
constitutes the opening greeting and 5: 12– 14” This devise moves the narrative forward with
a pattern of three distinct divisions.
Theological
Themes
The examination of a biblical
theology of First Peter would be a vast study.
The epistle touches every major category of systematic theology. The epistle makes an appeal to the eternality
of the Word of God in 1:22-25; thus making a contribution to bibliology. First Peter adds to the church’s knowledge of
Christology by providing the picture of the chief cornerstone in 2:4-8. This short epistle refers to Jesus as Christ
twenty time. The epistle adds to the
church’s knowledge about their position as a royal priesthood 2:9; touching
doctrines of ecclesiology. The book
provides a theology of suffering that can encourage believers in any time
period of history or of their own lives.
Brian Najapfour made a good point in his study of First Peter. He wrote, “Along with the theme of
suffering, two dominant doctrines appear throughout First Peter: Christology
and eschatology. Peter uses these doctrines as a source of strength for the
suffering saints.”[35] Fruchtenbaum made a similar point by
describing Peter’s teaching on salvation as having a past, present, and a
future.[36] Köstenberger also affirms this thinking by
describing Peter’s teaching on eschatology as pointing believers to Jesus’
second coming and the resurrection of the dead. Najapfour concluded his study with this
statement, “What lessons can we glean from this study? First, we should
understand our suffering Christologically. That is, we should view our
suffering through the cross of Christ. Doing so will give us comfort in the
presence of pain. Second, we should understand our suffering eschatologically.
We should remind ourselves that our suffering is but for a while.”[38]
Conclusion
Upon examining the epistle of First
Peter several key observations should be made.
First, the evidence supporting Peter’s authorship is overwhelming and
should be accepted without debate unless one is simply going to reject the
Bible as presented on grounds beyond scholarship. The date of the book is mid to late 60s from
either Babylon prior to Peter’s arrival in Rome or from Rome itself. The evidence for rejecting that Babylon is
code for Rome is significant and has had little attention paid to it in modern
scholarship. The work by Fruchtenbaum
and Woods is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of the matter. The destination is clearly to believers under
persecution in Roman providences identified at the beginning of the book. The purpose of the book has had several
shifts in modern scholarship. Yet, the
simplest answer is that the book is to instruct and comfort persecuted
believers. The literary plan of the book
is well executed with several schemes to move the narrative. These are both grammatical and thematic in
nature and both types work well to provide an organized instructive
document. The book also goes into deep
theological topics but is primarily Christological and secondarily
eschatological. The theme of the day of
the Lord is prevalent in the work to provide suffering believers with a
theology of suffering with Christ. All
in all, this is a powerful epistle that carries with it the authority of the
Word of God.
Maranatha!
Sources
Cited
Arndt
, Williams, Dander W. Frederick, and Bauer Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000.
Beare,
F. W. The First Epistle of Peter. 3rd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.
Dinkler,
Michal Beth. "Sarah's Submission: Peter's Analogy in 1 Peter 3:5-6."
Priscilla Papers 21, no. 3 (2007).
Dryden,
J. de Wall. "Refined by Fire: Paraenetic Literary Strategies in 1
Peter." Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (2004).
English,
E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome." Bibliotheca Sacra 124
(1967).
Fruchtenbaum,
Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed.
Tustin: Ariel Ministries, 1994.
Hiebert,
D. Edmond. "Designation of the Readers in 1 Peter 1:1-2." Bibliotheca
Sacra 137 (1980).
Josephus.
The Works of Josephus. Translated by A.M. William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publisher, Inc., 1987.
Köstenberger,
Andreas, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and
the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. Nashville: by
B& H Academic, 2009, 2016.
Najapfour,
Brian. "Significance of Suffering in the Study of First Peter." Edited
by Joel R. Beeke. Puritan Reformed Journal 1, no. 2 (2009).
Ryrie,
Charles Caldwell. Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update,
Expanded ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Seland,
Torrey. "Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging
Church of 1 Peter." Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009).
Warden,
Duane. "Imperial Persecution and The Dating Of 1 Peter And
Revelation." Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 2 (June
1991): 202-211.
Woods,
Andrew M. "Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been
Fulfilled? Part 2." Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (2012): 673-676.
Yonge,
Charles Duke. The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson,
1995.
[1]
Duane Warden. "Imperial Persecution And The Dating Of 1 Peter And
Revelation." Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 2 (1991):
202.
[10] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of
Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History,
Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed.
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second
Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 134.
[13]
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Eusebius:
Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of
Constantine, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company,
1890). 133 (footnote).
[15] E.
Schuyler English, “Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967): 314–315.
[16]
Andrew M. Woods, “Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17–18 about Babylon Been
Fulfilled? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra
169, no. 673–676 (2012): 233–234.
[17]
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The
Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel
Ministries, 1994), 1003.
[18]
Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1995), 783.
[24]
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 775.
[25]
Roger M. Raymer, “1 Peter,” in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord
and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 839.
[26]
Fruchtenbaum, 992–993.
[27]
Torrey Seland, “Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging
Church of 1 Peter,” Bulletin for Biblical
Research 19, no. 1–4 (2009): 567.
[28]
Michal Beth Dinkler, “Sarah’s Submission: Peter’s Analogy in 1 Peter 3:5–6,” Priscilla Papers Volume 21 21, no. 3
(2007): 12.
[29] J.
de Waal Dryden, “Refined by Fire: Paraenetic Literary Strategies in 1 Peter,” Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (2004): 317.
[33]
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study
Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, Expanded ed. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1995), 1975.
[35] Brian Najapfour, “Significance of Suffering in the
Study of First Peter,” ed. Joel R. Beeke, Puritan
Reformed Journal Volume 1 1, no. 2 (2009): 26.
