1 Peter.
1 Peter.
§ 270. In its inscription this Epistle is called “catholic” because it was written not to some one person—like Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon—nor to some one particular church—as Paul’s to the Romans, Corinthians, etc.—but to converts from the Jews who were scattered here and there, as the inscription reveals. Yet certain matters in this Epistle occur that pertain chiefly to Gentiles (c. 2:5, 10; c. 4:3), namely, because converted Jews, along with those of the Gentiles who had been converted, were making up one Church and were embracing one another as brothers (1:14, 18). The apostle himself explains the aim of his writing toward the end of the Epistle. He says, “By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God in which you stand” (5:12). He had two purposes especially in this Epistle: (1) to bear witness to the converted Jews that the teaching regarding the grace of God through Christ, which they had embraced by faith and in the confession of which they were standing fast, is the one, indisputable way of salvation, heavenly truth, and immovable doctrine. (2) To exhort them both to persevere steadfastly in this faith and to live a life worthy of that confession and pleasing to God.
In 5:13 he greets those to whom he has written in the name of “the church that is gathered at Babylon,” from which one concludes that Peter wrote this Epistle in the city of Babylon. The question arises, however, whether we should take the name “Babylon” properly for the city of Egypt or metaphorically for the city of Rome. Those who claim the former use the following arguments: (1) It fits with the apostleship of Peter, inasmuch as he was especially appointed for the Jews (Gal. 2:7), a great number of whom were living in those eastern regions and especially in Babylon. (2) We should not abandon the literal sense unless necessity itself compels us, none of which appears here. Baronius makes the exception (vol. 1, Annal., ann. 45, no. 17): “Peter did not use the proper name for the city of Rome because he had escaped from prison and had fled from Jerusalem. He did not want everyone to know where he was living.” However, he first should have proved that Peter had gone from Jerusalem to Rome and wanted to hide there. (3) No reason can be offered why the apostle would want to conceal the name of the city of Rome and hint at it with a degrading name if he had written this letter from Rome. (4) Some of the Papists—Erasmus (Annotat.) and Costerus (Enchir., c. 3)—acknowledge this: “It is not inappropriate to say that the first Epistle of Peter was written from Babylon of Egypt.”
§ 271. Baronius claims the latter in vol. 1, Annal., ann. 45, no. 16, col. 380, where he declares that “they are mad who claim that these things were said about a Babylon other than Rome.” (See Estius, commentary on 1 Peter, col. 773.) These men, however, are looking at this for the purpose of being able to discover the number of years during which they imagine Peter was in charge of the Roman see: (1) Papias, in Eusebius, Histor., bk. 2, c. 14, contends that “Peter called Babylon ‘Rome’ by a metaphor of the word.” We respond. The same Eusebius testifies regarding Papias that “he invented some strange fables about our Savior along with some other fable-filled material in which he imagined that there would be a thousand years after the resurrection” (bk. 3, c. 36). Therefore his authority in the Church is not great.
(2) Jerome, Catal. scriptorum, on Mark: “Peter also mentions this Mark in his first Epistle, signifying Rome figuratively by the name ‘Babylon.’ “We respond. Baronius often differs from Jerome. In vol. 1, ann. 69, on the time of the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter, he claims that “he [Jerome] fell into an obvious error.” In ann. 51, no. 8, he writes that “he erred” regarding the time of the Council of Jerusalem. In ann. 62, no. 52, he disagrees with Jerome regarding the acceptance of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which the Latins rejected.
(3) “The learned reader will discover that in the divine Scriptures ‘Babylon’ is often used to foreshadow the Roman Empire.” For this opinion he cites Augustine, De civit. Dei, bk. 18, c. 22: “Rome was founded like a second Babylon and like the daughter of the first Babylon.” In agreement with this is what Gretserus (De Roman. Pontif., bk. 2, c. 2, no. 66) urges, that in Revelation 17, Rome is denoted by “Babylon.” For this opinion he cites Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, c. 9, and Contra Marcion., bk. 3, c. 13. We respond. In Revelation this is rather the expression for the Antichristian empire that has its seat in the city of Rome. Nor is this proof very strong: “Elsewhere, the name Babylon is taken figuratively for the city of Rome; therefore here too.” In other places I could draw conclusions in the same way: The names “Sodom” and “Jerusalem” are taken figuratively in Revelation; therefore they are to be taken figuratively in other writings of the New Testament.
(4) “We take this to mean either Babylon of Assyria or Babylon of Egypt, which alone are called Babylon in Scripture, or figuratively, Rome. It is not Babylon of Egypt because there is no mention of the bishop of Babylon except five hundred years later under the younger Justin. Nor is it Babylon of Assyria, as is evident. Therefore we take it to mean Rome.” We respond. Even if there were no mention individually regarding Babylon of Egypt, still it would be enough that a congregation had been gathered in Egypt.
§ 272. Concerning this first Epistle of Peter, Eusebius witnesses (Histor. eccles., bk. 3, c. 3): “There never was in the Church any controversy about it as if it were not of Peter, who gives it his own name. For this reason it should be listed among the canonical books.” For this reason we also place it among the canonical books of the first rank. Among the ancients it is called the “Epistle to the Pontians” [Epistola ad Pontios], as is evident from Tertullian (at the end of his Scorpiac. adv. Gnosticos) and Cyprian (Testimonia, bk. 3, c. 36), because Pontus is named in the first place among the regions to which it was sent: “to the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,” etc. (1 Pet. 1:1).
In the theme that he placed at the beginning of his paraphrase of this Epistle, Erasmus suspects that “Peter had written to the same people still another letter before this first Epistle” because he says at the end of this Epistle: “By Silvanus … I have written briefly to you” (1 Pet. 5:12). However, the words of his second Epistle clearly refute this opinion: “This is now the second letter I have written to you, beloved” (2 Pet. 3:1). He ought not have said “second” but “third” had he already written them two. Therefore when he claims that he has written by Silvanus, he is speaking not about another but about this first Epistle. (Cf. Heb. 13:22; 2 John 12.) From the words of 1 Pet. 4:16—”But if as a Christian”—one gathers that this Epistle was written after the disciples already had begun to be called “Christians.” Luke mentions when this happened (Acts 11:26).
It consists of five chapters and contains, besides the preface and conclusion, (1) a remembrance of the spiritual benefits of God and (2) an exhortation to the true use of those benefits and to the pursuit of piety that is worthy of Christians.