1Peter - Book Level (09/11/13)

What Kind of Book? Letter

Read the Book - 1^st Pass (Summary / Theme) (09/11/13-09/12/13)

Peter’s overarching concern is for the holiness of the Church. He recognizes the challenges inherent in this effort, both due to our own fallen natures, and the outside influences amongst which we live. Under the head of holiness, we might also add righteousness, perseverance, obedience and civility. But, holiness seems the organizing principle of the letter.

Since this page was a bit big, I've broken the Outline Comparisons out into a separate page.

Read the Book - 5th Pass (Background from content) (09/15/13)

NOTE: Opinions arrived at in this initial assessment have been largely revised. They are presented as is, first impressions from first readings, and such information as I have generally heard taught. Review of several sources subsequent to this first attempt have revised the great majority of what I thought. See Summary.

Who wrote it?	Peter is clearly indicated as the author, with Silvanus serving as amanuensis.
Who was it written to or for?	Churches in the regions of Asia Minor to the north are indicated. The reference to them as ‘scattered’, or diaspora, suggests churches made up primarily of Jews, although this cannot be said with certainty.
Why was it written?	The drumbeat of suffering which runs through this letter, if it is not a reflection of the situation in Jerusalem which scattered these churches in the first place, suggests a period in which the nascent Church is undergoing persecution. Such periods inevitably pressure believers old and new to recant. Society is always seeking to coerce us into adapting to their norms. Peter writes to encourage those churches in his charge to reject those pressures, and stand firm in pursuit of holiness.
When was it written?	Again, the reference to these churches as the diaspora suggest a timeframe no earlier than Paul’s persecutions of the church, at which point the majority of believers began to scatter into Asia Minor. There being no reference to the fall of Jerusalem might provide a marker for the other boundary as to the date of its writing. Paul is not mentioned by name in here, whereas he is mentioned in the second letter. Does that set this as having happened prior to his conversion? Speaking of the church in Babylon again hints at a period of persecution, unless Peter truly is in Babylon at the time, which seems unlikely.
What was happening in the world at that time?	Clearly, Rome remains the absolutely dominant world power. If we set this as being written between Paul’s persecutions of the church and Jerusalem’s fall, which would suggest either Caligula or Claudius is emperor of Rome, Pilate has been recalled, and Herod Agrippa may be dead. It is a time of turmoil in general, given the shifting leadership. The great Augustus has died, and those who have come to power since have been unpredictable, other than for their depravity. Roman society is degrading as governance sinks further from the republican nature of its roots to an imperial state ruled by tyrants.
What was happening to God's people at that time?	If my assumptions as to the time of authorship are correct, the date is somewhere late in the 30s or very early in the 40s. This is based primarily on Paul’s conversion. If he is taken out of the picture, we can push the date a bit later. That being said, it is clear from the letter itself that the church of God’s people is facing persecution. That persecution, given Peter’s description of the situation and his counsel, seems to be coming not from other Jews in the area, but rather from the Gentiles. That would suggest the Romans, primarily, or the more native citizens of the region. The Church is most assuredly being tested and as such, need strong encouragement to persevere.
What was happening to the author at that time?	Again assuming a certain coyness in his postscript, it would seem that Peter himself is feeling the threat. If Babylon is a code word, rather than a literal place setting, we might suppose him to be in Rome. If he is in Rome, his danger would be particularly great. I would note that, having peeked at Schaff’s timelines, where the Epistle is indicated to have a date of authorship in the mid to late 60s, Peter is nearing his own martyrdom, after the Great fire of Rome, and the persecutions which followed upon that event. Note that this would set us under Nero’s rule, rather than that of Claudius.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Harper's: (09/15/13)

Babylon is taken as indicating Rome as the place where Peter is. Sylvanus is likely the Silas of Paul and Silas fame, and Mark, probably John Mark, presumed author of the Gospel of Mark, is with him. The churches he addresses are primarily in the northern regions of Asia Minor, and are Roman provinces all. Peter addresses a group that has felt persecution already, and can expect more to come. It is noted that great persecution did not occur prior to Domitian, nearer the end of the century, and Nero’s persecutions stayed relatively close to Rome. This, then, is not the persecutions of government, but the persecution of a hostile pagan society. This reality also explains Peter’s admonition to submit to the government. Peter’s death in 64 or 67 AD sets a firm limit on the latest date of writing, and is likely a clear marker of when it was written. References to the readers’ former way of life suggest that this is not to primarily Jewish congregants, but rather, to Gentile believers.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Hebrew-Greek Key: (09/15/13)

Peter’s influence on the church exceeds that of all other Apostles. As he was prominent during Jesus’ ministry, and in the earliest days of the church, he remained prominent thereafter, particularly in the churches of the East. This letter addresses five Roman provinces, all of them north of the Taurus Mountains, and it is clear that persecution has arisen in the area. This is the primary cause for Peter writing to them. Since empire-wide persecution didn’t really arise until the middle of the 3rd century this was something more local, yet quite severe. Bythinia is known to have undergone such a period of persecution in the early second century, as evidenced by Pliny’s letter to emperor Trajan in 112 AD. This lethal persecution was yet ahead for the church when Peter wrote. While he offers Jesus as the model for behavior under persecution, he is also careful to declare it wrong for Christians to become lawbreakers, and think their faith excuses them. Authorship is presumed to have happened in Rome, based on the Babylon reference.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Calvin: (09/16/13)

Peter’s letter is aimed at encouraging denial of the world and whole-hearted pursuit of the kingdom of Christ. See his opening statement, which immediately sets us upon grace, hope and faith. Pursuit of holiness demonstrates due honor for costly redemption. Christ, not in spite of His sufferings, but because of them, is become our firm foundation as we face our own trials. Consideration of our past, and of God’s mercy in taking us from it, should prompt devotion to a godly life in future. Humility and obedience mark the holy. Pursuing peace after God’s fashion often leaves us facing a worldly harassment, but this ought not to move us, for it promotes our salvation, in which Christ is our prime example. “God wonderfully delivers his Church from death by death.” As to place of writing, there is no reason to suppose Peter means anything other than what he says: that he is writing from Babylon. [fn - Four theories prevail: First, that Peter indicates Babylon in Egypt; second, that it is Babylon in Assyria; third in Mesopotamia; and fourth, that he uses a figurative term for Rome. This last is taken as writ in Roman Catholic circles. Against this view, it is noted that Paul wrote frequently from Rome without feeling any need to disguise the fact. It is felt that this connection of Peter’s epistle to Rome is a by-product of Roman Catholic views of Peter’s prelacy as the first bishop of that city. Sadly, many Protestants have picked this up with almost equal self-certainty.] While it is generally held that Peter did indeed move on from Antioch to Rome, and that he died in Rome, this is insufficient reason to assign that city as the place where this letter was authored. It being more likely that Peter went to preach to primarily Jewish populations, it is the more likely that he went to Babylon, which had a significant Jewish population.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Matthew Henry: (09/16/13)

In considering Peter, we must diligently sift fact from fiction, for papal writers (and others as well) have painted a false picture of the Apostle. What is certain is that he was among the first called by Christ, a man of many parts, quick to hear His call, and bold to pursue it. That said, many false assertions are made about Peter, such as promoting him as having primary power amongst the apostles, or that he is the ‘only vicar of Christ upon the earth’. His role as first pope, ordained such by Christ, and thereby predecessor to all Catholic popes is equally fictitious. Such exalting of a man was directly forbidden by Christ, so how would He ordain it? Note Peter’s own perspective at the start of Chapter 5: I am a fellow elder. This is not papal authority, but humble equality. Peter writes to explain doctrine to newly converted Jews, to encourage their faithfulness in the duties of holiness, and to prepare them for sufferings which may come their way. This last appears a central matter for Peter, a subject touched on in every chapter. His concern is that such persecutions might lead to apostasy. Note the utter absence of pride on Peter’s part in both his letters.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Adam Clarke: (09/16/13-09/17/13)

Palestine, as defined in that period, was marked by three provinces: Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, the last often referred to as ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’. In Galilee, the village of Bethsaida was a place Jesus often retired to, and there, Simon Peter, also known as Cephas, lived and made his living. Whether he was the older or younger brother is not certain. While Jerome admits that all the apostles were equally given charge of the keys to the kingdom, and were equally involved in establishing the church, yet one was given precedence [as first among equals], and that one was Peter, primarily due to his being older. Whereas John could have been given the task, he being the youngest, it was not his role. It appears that Jonas, the father of Peter, was already dead when Jesus called, for he is never mentioned in accounts of that calling. It appears that Peter relocated to Capernaum after his call, in part to have his wife’s family around to care for her during his absences. It is all but certain that Jesus made their home His home when He came to that place. [Skipping a chunk of review of the Gospels.] As to Peter’s travels subsequent to the Resurrection, we know little with certainty. Epiphanius records that he was often preaching in Pontus and Bithynia. Other sources add Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the list. Origen tells us that he was finally in Rome, where he was crucified head downwards, that mode having been his own desire. Peter’s arrival in Rome is generally dated to Nero’s reign, but probaby no earlier than 63 or 64 AD, coming after Paul’s two year imprisonment. We do know that when Paul returned to Jerusalem three years after his own conversion, Peter was still there. We also know Peter toured the churches during Caligula’s reign, particularly those in Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea, returning once more to Jerusalem. His imprisonment by Herod came in 44 AD, and he is present at the council of Jerusalem some few years hence. It is after that council that we find him in Antioch. After that encounter with Paul, Scripture falls silent as to Peter’s whereabouts. Quite possibly, he returned to Judea once more. It is certainly likely that he had personally been to those regions to which he is now addressing his letter, probably remaining for a length of time at each point. Following this theory, he may have then gone to Rome at the end of this journey, arriving after Paul’s departure. If we accept Paul’s epistle to the Romans as written in 58 AD, and this letter makes no mention of Peter’s presence at that locale, it seems likely that Peter had not at the point been to Rome. Paul departs Rome in 63 AD, having written to several churches, and still no mention of Peter. On this basis, th eassumption is Peter came to town in late 63, or 64, being martyered a year later. I.e. – his stay in Rome was brief. This record of the death of Peter is sufficiently attested, and would have been a matter of concern to all Christians, given Jesus’ prophecy concerning that death. There is no reason to doubt the place of his execution, nor the manner. In short, the attestations of history suffice, and we ought not let abuse of those facts cause us to declare the facts themselves invalid. [The editor here injects his own disbelief, suggesting there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.] While there has been some debate as to the authenticity of the second Petrine epistle historically, there was never doubt as to the first. There is evidence of the first epistle in the writings of the earliest post-apostolic writings, but the second does not appear, apparently, until the fourth century, where we find the likes of Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine quoting it. That said, there is sufficient internal evidence to declare the second epistle genuine, and likely dated far nearer Peter’s death. Many propose that this letter was written to Gentile Christians. Given the period, though, it would be as likely that those churches to which he is writing were a mix of Jew and Christian. In truth, the letter is not to some specific set of churches, but to all the churches in those regions. There are also those who read the letter as written to Jewish believers specifically. This view should be discounted, as the 2nd letter is clearly addressed to Jew & Gentile alike, and that letter indicates Peter was writing to the same audience then as in the first letter. It hinges on our understanding of paepideemous, whether this indicates a dispersion, or merely illustrates that believers are ever strangers on the earth. It is likely that these congregations were in fact primarily Gentile, if not entirely so. This might be understood by Peter’s reference to their former ways, and many other points in his message. If further evidence were needed, we might consider that these were likely churches Paul had both planted and written to himself, a point for which both Acts and 2Peter give evidence. Location of authorship: Assyrian Babylon? Egyptian Babylon? Jerusalem? Rome? These are the four most common proposals. Supposing 1Peter written after Romans had reached Peter, leaves us with minimal record of Peter’s whereabouts at the time. The letters would seem to have been written within a short time of each other, and 2Peter is clearly written shortly before Peter’s death, which would place this letter’s date of authorship around 60 AD. Later dating of this letter presupposes Rome as the site of its writing. There really is no reason to assume Peter is going all mystical on us. When he says he is in Babylon, there is nothing which need lead us to undertand him as meaning anything beyond what he says. Given the state of things at the time, Babylon may have been a reference to Seleucia, across the Tigris from the original, which city was referred to as Babylon by some. Of these choices, the original and ancient Babylon currently known as Bagdad seems most likely. One might also note the reference Josephus makes to Hyrcanus being exiled to the original Babylon, where resided a signficant Jewish population. The events described by him transpired but 4 decades prior to the Christian era. Those who push for a mystical Babylon suppose that there was no Jewish population in that region for Peter to join. Both fact and premise are, in this case, incorrect. There was indeed a significant population, and even were there not, nothing prevents Peter from preaching the Gospel to Gentiles of that region. As to early church writings, there is a clear split between those of Greek and Roman origin, and those of Syriac and Arabic origin; the former go mystical, the latter assume literal. Assumptions of a figurative meaning would befit poetry or apocalyptic literature, but we view an epistle, a thing written in plain and straightforward language. Clarke, for his own part, concludes that not only was the letter written elsewhere than Rome, but also Peter was not martyred in Rome, nor ever even went there.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Barnes' Notes: (09/18/13)

Peter’s authorship of this letter is effectively beyond doubt. His character is sufficiently known from the Gospels. As to the letter’s recipients, several views hold. Native-born Jewish Christians? That view is based primarily on the diasporas term. Gentile converts? This would be supposed based upon the several comments about previous lifestyle. Perhaps, Jewish proselytes from amongst the Gentiles who later converted? This view attempts to solve the conflict between the previous two. Perhaps wanderers from the ten tribes of Babylon? Never widely held as a view, and no known supporting reasons. Finally, the view that we have a mixed congregation, both Jew & Gentile, and it is this view we should take as correct. Peter writes to all, but certain points may be aimed particularly at the Jewish or Gentile parts of the church. Peter includes all in his greeting. The reference to Christians as diasporas is little more than a natural inflection in Peter’s written voice, a Hebrew would be inclined to think of God’s people in such terms, if they dwelt beyond Palestine’s borders. The term would have the same connotations for the Hebrews amongst his readers, and they, too, would tend to see that term applying to the whole of Christianity. Other references, such as Peter’s speaking of these people as a chosen, royal, holy, unique people would sound more familiar to the Jews in those churches. This is not proof positive that there was a Hebrew contingent in the body, for it would be perfectly natural that Peter should use such phraseology even in their absence. Those passages indicative of a Gentile population in the church are much clearer. As to place of writing, the only real point we have is Peter’s greeting at the end. It is Babylon from whence he writes, but what Babylon? There are at least two physical locations possible, and two others which one might view as being indicated in a more figurative way. The idea that Babylon indicates a small town near Cairo in Egypt is held primarily amongst the Coptics [not too surprising.] This town certainly existed, but there is no reason to suppose any significant Jewish population there, nor any church at so early a date, given that the place was primarily a Roman garrison. The lack of ancient reference to any church in that location also advocates against this view, for if it were truly the place where Peter had been when he wrote, surely this would have been noted. [Against this must be said that we could make the same point about Mesopotamian Babylon or Rome.] As to the view of Jerusalem being figured by Babylon for its fallen and sinful condition, several problems arise. First, there is no other evidence of Jerusalem ever being referred to in this way, which would make Peter’s use of the figure incomprehensible. The evidence of his contemporaries, such as Paul, would suggest that when a place name was given in the Epistles, it was given plainly. Further, had Peter been writing from Jerusalem, what possible reason would he have to claim otherwise? So, is it a figure for Rome instead? This is certainly a popular view, and widespread, in part because of testimony from several ancient authors that the original Babylon was destroyed in that time. However, too many arguments come against this view for it to stand. As with Jerusalem, there is no further evidence of Rome being referred to as Babylon in that timeframe. This does appear in the Revelation, as generally understood, but that is a text from a later date, likely after Peter’s death. Peter, we can safely assume, would not mention Babylon if it did not provide the reader with any clue as to where he was. Again, the note that no other epistle takes this figurative approach to place name, nor would such an off-handed swipe at the real location be consistent with Apostolic dignity. It is furthermore, rather difficult to see a church referring to itself in this fashion, if indeed, the term was a disparaging figure of speech, rather than a description of the real location. Nor is there any supporting testimony from the Fathers to suggest Rome as Babylon. As to the reported destruction of Babylon: While true to the degree that the splendor of the original city was far gone, yet there could well have been a population sufficient to the forming of a church. Babylon’s destruction was gradual, certainly persisting through the first century. As a side note: If this idea of Rome as the place of authorship is taken away, nearly the entire foundation for papal assertions that Peter was in Rome at all, let alone bishop, is thereby removed. Nothing else in Scripture gives the least reason to suppose he was there. To the fourth view: Babylon means Babylon, and that Babylon most commonly known. It is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning, and there is insufficient cause to doubt the presence of a Christian community in that place. Given its history and significance, it seems probable that the apostles would be inclined to seek to establish Christ there. There is certainly sufficient tradition regarding Apostolic travels in the East more generally, so why not Babylon specifically? Further, the likelihood that a Jewish population remained there after the captivity would provide sufficient incentive for the Apostles to visit. If this is the correct view, then it must be said that we know nothing more about the church in Babylon than this bare fact that Peter was there together with Sylvanus. Finally, to the date of writing. This cannot be clearly determined. Some date it as late as 63-65 AD, others around 60. If Babylon is our location, it seems that somewhere in the range of 58 to 61 AD is most likely. A more exact dating is immaterial as well as impossible.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Fausset: (09/18/13)

No doubt can be had as to the authorship, and the audience would seem to be both Jews and Gentiles within Christian community. Thus, Peter backs Paul in declaring the two to be one true Israel. Peter’s list of provinces addressed follows an order around the compass points beginning in the North. Paul’s influence would have been felt in each of those provinces, except for Bithynia, whence Paul was prevented from going by the Holy Spirit. “The persecutions to which they were exposed were annoyances and reproach for Christ’s sake.” The object is consolation and preparation, the one for persecutions past, the other for more severe ordeals to come. “’Grace’ is the keynote of Paul’s doctrine, which Peter confirms.” The letter was written before Nero’s persecution began. Apparent familiarity with Paul’s epistles suggests a date after his first imprisonment, setting an early marker of 63 AD. If Mark is in Babylon with Peter, this must come after his time with Paul, noted in Colossians. It seems most probable that Peter’s ministry to these churches did not begin until after Paul’s execution, which would put us out beyond 67 AD. This would also serve to explain Peter’s efforts to demonstrate harmony with Paul’s preaching. He wrote from Babylon, and this cannot be seen as some mystical name for Rome. That is language of prophecy, not such ordinary address as a letter. His presence in the original Babylon would be natural, given the ‘multitude of Jews’ found in that place, according to Josephus. The order in which he has listed the provinces would also come naturally to one writing from that place [?]. Sylvanus, who had previously worked with Paul, served to carry this letter to its recipients.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

ISBE: (09/18/13)

Peter’s authorship of this letter is ‘above suspicion’. It is widely quoted by the earliest Fathers of the church, and the letter itself provides ample evidence of its authenticity. The author is clearly familiar with the Gospels, as well as James, Romans and Ephesians. Further, the ‘sound’ of the letter is in perfect keeping with that Peter we see in Acts. It is clear that, while addressed to the Dispersion, which would naturally indicate Hebrews living outside Israel, the letter also speaks to Gentile believers, which was likely the predominant makeup of the churches in Asia Minor at the time. These, too, can be taken as amongst the ‘sojourners’. Note that several of the provinces were represented at Pentecost, and some of these sojourners may have believed on that date, and returned home bearing the news. The mention of Sylvanus at letter’s end is not an indication that he acted the secretary, but that he brought the letter to the churches addressed. Against Chaldean Babylon as the place of authorship, one issue is presented by the lack of tradition supporting the idea. Yet, there are issues with assuming a figurative reference to Rome, which is not in keeping with Peter’s style, nor any outside support to suggest anybody referred to Rome in these terms prior to the Revelation, which did not go into circulation until somewhere around 90 AD. This epistle was written around 64 AD, when Nero’s rage was being felt, not long before Peter himself bore witness by his death. All in all, then, it seems best to view Chaldean Babylon as the location. Peter is addressing several issues in this letter. First, there is the matter of persecution, over against which is held the example of Christ. Relation to the state is explored as well. Unlike Paul’s writings, Peter does not follow a ‘close logical sequence’. That said, hope, inheritance and testimony run through the letter.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

McClintock & Strong : (09/19/13)

The authenticity of the epistle as having been penned by Peter and accepted as Scripture is beyond doubt. Note is made of many early Fathers who quote this letter without feeling the need to attribute the words to Peter, evidence that they already perceived the letter as inspired. Against this authenticity, the chief argument lies in matters of content, the content of this letter being seen as too near to Paul’s doctrine. Some attempt to explain this as being because John Mark, or some other of Paul’s associates did the writing, even though Peter was the author. This theory need not be adopted to explain such similarity of belief. For one, the degree of similarity between this letter’s content and the Petrine preaching we have recorded in Acts strongly suggests that Peter is being heard here. It should also be observed that many points made in this letter are unique in all the New Testament. Peter, it might be said, ‘stands midway […] between the objectivity of Paul and the subjectivity of John’. While so many ancient references take Babylon as a reference to Rome, one must wonder why there was felt to be a need for so mystical an explanation. If it is the association of character that led to such a use, why is the Roman church so keen on maintaining the association? Would the Holy See really wish itself permanently equated with sinful Babylon? In short, the author arrives at the view Calvin, Beza, Erasmus and others have reached: Babylon means Babylon in its most obvious sense. As to date, there is little to work with. We note the lack of any direct reference to Nero’s persecutions, though one might hear them presaged. That suggests a date after 60 AD, when Nero’s character was becoming evident. Given that the churches addressed were most likely Paul’s plants, it is surmised that Peter would not have been writing to them prior to Paul’s death in 64 AD, but this would be too late, given the generally understood timeline of Peter’s own journey to, and execution in, Rome. The presence of Mark, if it be assumed he is the same Mark that Paul speaks of, gives us some hints. Paul wrote (Col 4:10), that Mark was with him in Rome, and planning to depart for Asia Minor. He also writes in 2Ti 4:11 that Mark had not yet returned. Could this be the window that places him with Peter in Babylon? If so, he would be known to those churches Peter addresses, as was Sylvanus (presumed the same Sylvanus Paul greets in his letters to Thessalonica). Attempts to date this letter to Trajan’s reign are easily dismissed. To begin with one would have to reject Peter as the author to even arrive at so late a date. More likely, Sylvanus, whether on assignment from Paul or simply as a minister of some authority, had recently toured those regions, and brought Peter word of their condition; this would suffice to prompt Peter’s letter for their encouragement. Sylvanus’ presence might also explain the perceived Pauline influence, he and Peter together consulting Paul’s doctrine for application to this need. As to the recipients, there is too much specifically aimed at addressing Gentiles to suppose that his intent was to write primarily to the Jews in the congregation. The Hebraic particularities in his writing are more simply explained as expression of his own background. His ‘soul moved so much in the sphere of Jewish ideas from his very function as the apostle of the circumcision’, and it is thus that he is so inclined to use these particular turns of phrase.

Read some Background - 7th Pass (Resolve background info) (09/20/13)

This has been the most intriguing exploration of background that I can recall. Granted the last time I was pursuing this particular exercise is nearly a decade ago, at this point. However, as I have been reviewing the testimony of various works regarding these matters, the answers vary greatly, and the strengths and weaknesses of these works begin to show. I am struck, for example, by the fact that both of my primary study Bibles aver that Peter wrote this letter in Rome, yet the arguments for a simpler understanding of his claim to be writing from Babylon are convincing. That said, those who argue for Babylon as Babylon are inclined to so overreact to Peter’s presence in Rome as to deny he ever went there, let alone died there. This seems as baseless as the charge that he was there when he wrote this letter.

Apart from Peter’s authorship, it seems most everything about the letter’s background is subject to debate. It also strikes me as more important than usual that we get at least the date of the letter right. Dating the letter becomes contingent upon establishing location. Both of these factors will have influence on our understanding of Peter’s purpose in writing.

Here, I must confess that I have generally acceded to the idea of Babylon meaning Rome, and the strong notes of persecution running through the letter have always meant that worst of persecutions that we associate with Nero, primarily because of Hollywood’s influence, I suppose. In that regard, it has been most helpful to read through the debates a bit, and also to clarify that period of Roman history somewhat. First, we are reminded that Nero’s persecutions, heinous as they were, remained a matter contained primarily to Rome and its immediate surrounds. These were not the “Christians to the catacombs”, convert-or-die persecutions that we always associate with mention of Rome in this period. Those were later developments. Even Nero’s persecutions were unlikely to have begun at the time the letter was written, although his propensities for violent tyranny may have become apparent to those in the know.

The articles I have read present a pretty wide spectrum of possibilities for the date of authorship, but mostly clustered in the decade from 58 to 67 AD. Later dates hinge primarily on two points, the first being Peter’s presence in Rome, and the second being Paul’s death. Both of these are assumptions in themselves. The first, I have to say, I am finding less cause to accept. The arguments in favor of Peter writing from Chaldean Babylon are convincing enough that I shall adopt them.

They are not, however, convincing enough to suggest Peter never went to Rome. On that matter, I incline towards Clarke’s point. Given the prophecy Jesus had made regarding Peter’s death, and given his prominence in establishing the church, the information as to his death would almost necessarily have been a matter of great concern to all Christendom. The early attestations to his crucifixion in Rome, and the lack of any contrary records, should suffice. Further, the evidence of the Gospel of Mark strongly suggests Peter’s presence in that city. Reading those articles that insist Peter never got there, it seems pretty clear that the position is by and large simply a reaction to the claims that Roman Catholics make regarding Peter. One can have him in Rome and executed there without having him as first bishop of the church, or any other such thing.

This becomes important as providing a range for latest date of writing. We know it was written before the second epistle, and we have good reason to believe the second epistle was written near Peter’s death. This probably sets the latest date for the second epistle somewhere around 65 AD. His familiarity with certain of Paul’s writings suggests the letter was written no earlier than 63 AD, according to Fausset. That’s a pretty tight window, really, but then it’s built upon other dates that require a bit of deriving. Barnes argues a date somewhere between 58 and 61. That would grant Peter time to have traveled to Rome, certainly. Does it allow for the noted familiarity with Paul’s writings? For Barnes, any further refinement of date is considered moot.

Here is where things become intriguing. Peter mentions both Sylvanus and Mark. Both men are presumed to be those men associated with Paul’s ministry at one time or another. This association is strengthened by the fact that Peter is writing to churches that by and large represent seeds of Paul’s planting. This has led many to suppose a later date because Peter would by no means be ministering on Paul’s turf. We need not, however, hold such an opinion. Paul shows no signs of such possessiveness, and may well have been gone to farther shores at the time. The mention of Mark does give us some potential points of correlation. Paul wrote in Colossians 4:10 that Mark was with him in Rome at the time, and heading for Asia Minor shortly. Later, in 2Timothy 4:11, he notes that Mark had not yet come back from that journey. Does it not, then, become reasonable to suppose that Mark, and Sylvanus as well, had recently been through the area where those churches Peter addresses are located?

McClintock and Strong bring forth the possibility, if not the probability, that it is exactly these reports, brought to him by Sylvanus, which prompted him to write. Paul is elsewhere, and hasn’t heard the news. Peter is here and able. The shepherd’s office he holds would all but demand he do what he can in answer to the need of the Church. It was neither Paul’s church nor his, and both men would both recognize and proclaim that point. It is God’s Church. Sylvanus, being present and being a close associate of Paul, may have been consulted by Peter as he wrote, and may well provide explanation for the threads of Pauline doctrine to be found here. I would also note that this allows for a somewhat earlier date of writing while still having apparent familiarity with some of Paul’s later letters. He may not have read it so much as heard it. After all, he has two of Paul’s close associates with him.

Why does all this matter? Well, if Peter has not been to Rome, and if the date is somewhat earlier, then it becomes less likely that he writes with some sense of the troubles to come based on Nero’s growing instability. This, if nothing else, makes his predictions of coming persecutions more impressive, if they are assumed to point to what would eventually befall. I’m not convinced, at this remove, that we necessarily need to read them in that light.

I am mindful of the note that Nero’s rage, horrendous as it was, was localized. The churches to whom Peter is writing were unlikely to be effected by that. The great persecutions were still a few centuries away. Those to whom he was writing would not face them. True, he writes not only for their benefit, as God’s Providence has ordained it. But, he wrote for their benefit when he wrote. Thus, we learn the truth of what Fausset has indicated. “The persecutions to which they were exposed were annoyances and reproach for Christ’s sake.” These are not persecutions, lion fights, and being burned at the stake. These are, in reality, the sorts of persecutions we, too, may face on any given day, if, indeed, our Christianity is a matter in evidence.

There remain a few brief notes regarding Peter’s character and purpose in writing. Clearly, he has this issue of perseverance amidst trial in view. His antidote is the pursuit of holiness. It may seem that holiness provokes persecution, and to some degree this is doubtless true. Sin hates exposure, even by comparison. But, the reverse also holds, or should hold. Persecution provokes holiness. It gives opportunity for holiness to stand out. It is that darkest midnight in which the stars of those who pursue holiness are most clearly to be seen. The pursuit of holiness, as Matthew Henry points out, demonstrates due honor for costly redemption. It is not merely an attempt to stand out. It is not an act of provocation, nor is it an act of ego. It is an act of gratitude, the response of recognizing how great a gift we have been given by our God and King.

As to this Peter who promotes holiness and perseverance, we have ample record of his character and nature. Having just completed so long a ride through the Gospels, he feels an old friend to me, a familiar companion. Whatever his foibles, whatever his shortcomings, this much can be said with assurance: Peter was quick to hear God’s call, and he was bold to pursue it. This is, after all, the one who dropped his fishing business instantly at the call to follow. This is the man who jumped headlong into the waters that he might join Jesus on shore the more quickly. This is the man who stood on the balcony at Pentecost and, without any preparation or any notes, delivered what may well have been the most effective sermon of all Christian history. Here, he is no less bold in writing to these churches. He is also a man of good reason at this later stage. He will send it in Sylvanus’ hands, for Sylvanus is far better known to those churches than he. He gives sound advice, and he does what he can to make sure that the advice will be both heard and heeded.

I like this assessment given by McClintock & Strong. Of Peter, they say that he, ‘stands midway […] between the objectivity of Paul and the subjectivity of John’. There is much discussion in theological circles regarding the distinct threads of Pauline, Johannine and Petrine doctrine. I have always found this bothersome. Are there distinctions in style and emphasis? To be sure! But, there can be only one True Doctrine, the Doctrine of Christ. It is this doctrine that all three Apostles proclaimed – and the others, for that matter. There is One Truth as there is One God of Truth. As we have one God in three Persons, perhaps we would do well to say we have one Doctrine in three presentations. The quote I started this paragraph with offers that understanding: Three men observing the same truth, though with very different personalities, very different backgrounds. Paul, the trained theologian and rhetorician, brings his training and logic to bear on the matter. John: younger, idealistic, and more concerned that people get the point. Facts are good. Facts are useful. But, facts without meaning are mere data – of no value to anybody. Peter, man of common sense and abundant energy, seems the perfect arbiter between these two. Both views must be held, both in tension and in balance. Both must have their way in the heart and mind of the believer. After all, did not God teach us that we must love him with all our heart and all our mind, as well as all our strength?