Book Overview - 1 Peter

The First Epistle General of Peter

Commentary by A. R. Faussett

Introduction

Its Genuineness is attested by 2 Peter 3:1. On the authority of Second Peter, see on the Introduction. Also by Polycarp (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.14]), who, in writing to the Philippians, quotes many passages: in the second chapter he quotes 1 Peter 1:13, 1 Peter 1:21; 1 Peter 3:9; in the fifth chapter, 1 Peter 2:11. Eusebius says of Papias [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39] that he, too, quotes Peter‘s First Epistle. Irenaeus [Against Heresies, 4.9.2] expressly mentions it; and in [4.16.5], 1 Peter 2:16. Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies, 1.3, p. 544], quotes 1 Peter 2:11, 1 Peter 2:12, 1 Peter 2:15, 1 Peter 2:16; and [p. 562], 1 Peter 1:21, 1 Peter 1:22; and [4, p. 584], 1 Peter 3:14-17; and [p. 585], 1 Peter 4:12-14. Origen (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) mentions this Epistle; in [Homily 7, on Joshua, vol. 2, p. 63], he mentions both Epistles; and [Commentary on Psalm 3:1-8 and on John], he mentions 1 Peter 3:18-21. Tertullian [Antidote to the Scorpion‘s Sting, 12], quotes expressly 1 Peter 2:20, 1 Peter 2:21; and [Antidote to the Scorpion‘s Sting, 14], 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 2:17. Eusebius states it as the opinion of those before him that this was among the universally acknowledged Epistles. The Peschito Syriac Version contains it. The fragment of the canon called Muratori‘s omits it. Excepting this, and the Paulician heretics, who rejected it, all ancient testimony is on its side. The internal evidence is equally strong. The author calls himself the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 1:1, and “a witness of Christ‘s sufferings,” and an “elder,” 1 Peter 5:1. The energy of the style harmonizes with the warmth of Peter‘s character; and, as Erasmus says, this Epistle is full of apostolic dignity and authority and is worthy of the leader among the apostles.

Peter‘s Personal History. — Simon, Or Simeon, was a native of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, son of Jonas or John. With his father and his brother Andrew he carried on trade as a fisherman at Capernaum, his subsequent place of abode. He was a married man, and tradition represents his wife‘s name as Concordia or Perpetua. Clement of Alexandria says that she suffered martyrdom, her husband encouraging her to be faithful unto death, “Remember, dear, our Lord.” His wife‘s mother was restored from a fever by Christ. He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, who had been a disciple of John the Baptist, but was pointed to the Savior as “the Lamb of God” by his master (John 1:29). Jesus, on first beholding him, gave him the name by which chiefly he is known, indicative of his subsequent character and work in the Church, “Peter” (Greek) or “Cephas” (Aramaic), a stone (Matthew 4:18). He did not join our Lord finally until a subsequent period. The leading incidents in his apostolic life are well known: his walking on the troubled waters to meet Jesus, but sinking through doubting (Matthew 14:30); his bold and clear acknowledgment of the divine person and office of Jesus (Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; John 11:27), notwithstanding the difficulties in the way of such belief, whence he was then also designated as the stone, or rock (Matthew 16:18); but his rebuke of his Lord when announcing what was so unpalatable to carnal prejudices, Christ‘s coming passion and death (Matthew 16:22); his passing from one extreme to the opposite, in reference to Christ‘s offer to wash his feet (John 13:8, John 13:9); his self-confident assertion that he would never forsake his Lord, whatever others might do (Matthew 26:33), followed by his base denial of Christ thrice with curses (Matthew 26:75); his deep penitence; Christ‘s full forgiveness and prophecy of his faithfulness unto death, after he had received from him a profession of “love” as often repeated as his previous denial (John 21:15-17). These incidents illustrate his character as zealous, pious, and ardently attached to the Lord, but at the same time impulsive in feeling, rather than calmly and continuously steadfast. Prompt in action and ready to avow his convictions boldly, he was hasty in judgment, precipitate, and too self-confident in the assertion of his own steadfastness; the result was that, though he abounded in animal courage, his moral courage was too easily overcome by fear of man‘s opinion. A wonderful change was wrought in him by his restoration after his fall, through the grace of his risen Lord. His zeal and ardor became sanctified, being chastened by a spirit of unaffected humility. His love to the Lord was, if possible, increased, while his mode of manifesting it now was in doing and suffering for His name, rather than in loud protestations. Thus, when imprisoned and tried before the Sanhedrim for preaching Christ, he boldly avowed his determination to continue to do so. He is well called “the mouth of the apostles.” His faithfulness led to his apprehension by Herod Agrippa, with a view to his execution, from which, however, he was delivered by the angel of the Lord.

After the ascension he took the lead in the Church; and on the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he exercised the designed power of “the keys” of Christ‘s kingdom, by opening the door of the Church, in preaching, for the admission of thousands of Israelites; and still more so in opening (in obedience to a special revelation) an entrance to the “devout” (that is, Jewish proselyte from heathendom) Gentile, Cornelius: the forerunner of the harvest gathered in from idolatrous Gentiles at Antioch. This explains in what sense Christ used as to him the words, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18), namely, on the preaching of Christ, the true “Rock,” by connection with whom only he was given the designation: a title shared in common on the same grounds by the rest of the apostles, as the first founders of the Church on Christ, “the chief corner-stone” (Ephesians 2:20). A name is often given in Hebrew, not that the person is actually the thing itself, but has some special relation to it; as Elijah means Mighty Jehovah, so Simon is called Peter “the rock,” not that he is so, save by connection with Jesus, the only true Rock (Isaiah 28:16; 1 Corinthians 3:11). As subsequently he identified himself with “Satan,” and is therefore called so (Matthew 16:23), in the same way, by his clear confession of Christ, the Rock, he became identified with Him, and is accordingly so called (Matthew 16:18). It is certain that there is no instance on record of Peter‘s having ever claimed or exercised supremacy; on the contrary, he is represented as sent by the apostles at Jerusalem to confirm the Samaritans baptized by Philip the deacon; again at the council of Jerusalem, not he, but James the president, or leading bishop in the Church of that city, pronounced the authoritative decision: Acts 15:19, “My sentence is,” etc. A kind of primacy, doubtless (though certainly not supremacy), was given him on the ground of his age, and prominent earnestness, and boldness in taking the lead on many important occasions. Hence he is called “first” in enumerating the apostles. Hence, too, arise the phrases, “Peter and the Eleven,” “Peter and the rest of the apostles”; and Paul, in going up to Jerusalem after his conversion, went to see Peter in particular.

Once only he again betrayed the same spirit of vacillation through fear of man‘s reproach which had caused his denial of his Lord. Though at the Jerusalem council he advocated the exemption of Gentile converts from the ceremonial observances of the law, yet he, after having associated in closest intercourse with the Gentiles at Antioch, withdrew from them, through dread of the prejudices of his Jewish brethren who came from James, and timidly dissembled his conviction of the religious equality of Jew and Gentile; for this Paul openly withstood and rebuked him: a plain refutation of his alleged supremacy and infallibility (except where specially inspired, as in writing his Epistles). In all other cases he showed himself to be, indeed, as Paul calls him, “a pillar” (Galatians 2:9). Subsequently we find him in “Babylon,” whence he wrote this First Epistle to the Israelite believers of the dispersion, and the Gentile Christians united in Christ, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Jerome [On Illustrious Men, 1] states that “Peter, after having been bishop of Antioch, and after having preached to the believers of the circumcision in Pontus, etc. [plainly inferred from 1 Peter 1:1 ], in the second year of Claudius went to Rome to refute Simon Magus, and for twenty-five years there held the episcopal chair, down to the last year of Nero, that is, the fourteenth, by whom he was crucified with his head downwards, declaring himself unworthy to be crucified as his Lord, and was buried in the Vatican, near the triumphal way.” Eusebius [Chronicles, Anno 3], also asserts his episcopate at Antioch; his assertion that Peter founded that Church contradicts Acts 11:19-22. His journey to Rome to oppose Simon Magus arose from Justin‘s story of the statue found at Rome (really the statue of the Sabine god, Semo Sanctus, or Hercules, mistaken as if Simon Magus were worshipped by that name, “Simoni Deo Sancto”; found in the Tiber in 1574, or on an island in the Tiber in 1662), combined with the account in Acts 8:9-24. The twenty-five years‘ bishopric is chronologically impossible, as it would make Peter, at the interview with Paul at Antioch, to have been then for some years bishop of Rome! His crucifixion is certain from Christ‘s prophecy, John 21:18, John 21:19. Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25]) asserted in an epistle to the Romans, that Paul and Peter planted both the Roman and Corinthian churches, and endured martyrdom in Italy at the same time. So Tertullian [Against Marcion, 4.5, and The Prescription Against Heretics, 36, 38]. Also Caius, the presbyter of Rome, in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25] asserts that some memorials of their martyrdom were to be seen at Rome on the road to Ostia. So Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 2.25, and Demonstration of the Gospel, 3.116]. So Lactantius [Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, 2]. Many of the details are palpably false; whether the whole be so or not is dubious, considering the tendency to concentrate at Rome events of interest [Alford]. What is certain is, that Peter was not there before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans (a.d. 58), otherwise he would have been mentioned in it; nor during Paul‘s first imprisonment at Rome, otherwise he would have been mentioned in some one of Paul‘s many other Epistles written from Rome; nor during Paul‘s second imprisonment, at least when he was writing the Second Epistle to Timothy, just before his martyrdom. He may have gone to Rome after Paul‘s death, and, as common tradition represents, been imprisoned in the Mamertine dungeon, and crucified on the Janiculum, on the eminence of St. Pietro in Montorio, and his remains deposited under the great altar in the center of the famous basilica of St. Peter. Ambrose [Epistles, 33 (Edition Paris, 1586), p. 1022] relates that St. Peter, not long before his death, being overcome by the solicitations of his fellow Christians to save himself, was fleeing from Rome when he was met by our Lord, and on asking, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” received the answer, “I go to be crucified afresh.” On this he returned and joyfully went to martyrdom. The church called “Domine quo vadis” on the Appian Way, commemorates the legend. It is not unlikely that the whole tradition is built on the connection which existed between Paul and Peter. As Paul, “the apostle of the uncircumcision,” wrote Epistles to Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosse, and to Philemon at Colosse, making the Gentile Christians the persons prominently addressed, and the Jewish Christians subordinately so; so, vice versa, Peter, “the apostle of the circumcision,” addressed the same churches, the Jewish Christians in them primarily, and the Gentile Christians also, secondarily.