Part 26
self elsewhere as the Lord of the angels, whose behests they obey: "The Son of man shall send forth
his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom
all things that cause stimibling, and them that do iniquity" (Mt 13 41), "And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Mt 24 31;
(2) His humiliation.—In all these declarations the subject of the affirmation is the actual person speaking : it is of Himself who stood before men and spoke to them that Our Lord makes these immense assertions. Accordingly, when He majestically declared, "I and the Father are" (plurality of persons) "one" (neuter singular, and accordingly singleness of being) , the Jews naturally understood Him to be making Himself, the person then speaking to them, God (10 33; cf 5 18; 19 7). The continued sameness of the person who has been, from all eternity down to this hour, one with God, is therefore fully safeguarded. His earthly life is, however, distinctly represented as a humiliation. Though even on earth He is one with the Father, yet He "descended" to earth; He had come out from the Father and out of God; a glory had been left behind which was yet to be returned to, and His sojourn on earth was therefore to that extent an obscuration of His proper glory. There was a sense, then, in which, because He had "descended," He was no longer equal with the Father. It was in order to justify an assertion of equality with the Father in power
cf 13 49; 25 31; Mk 8 38). Thus the "angels of God" (Lk 12 8.9; 15 10) Christ designates as His angels, the "kingdom of God" (Mt 12 28; 19 24; 21 31.43; Mk and Lk often) as His Kingdom, the "elect of God" (Mk 13 20; Lk 18 7; cf Rom 8 33; Col 3 12; Tit 1 1) as His elect. He is obviously speaking in Mk 13 22 out of a Divine self-consciousness: "Only a Divine being can be exalted above angels" (B. Weiss). He therefore designates Himself by His Divine name, "the Son," that is to say, the unique Son of God (9 7; 1 11), to claim to be whom would for a man be blasphemy
(Mk 14 61.64). But though He designates Him-
self by this Divine name. He is not speaking of what He once was, but of what at the moment of speaking He is: the action of the vb. is present, "knoweth." He is claiming, in other words, the supreme designation of "the Son," with all that is involved in it, for His present self, as He moved among men: He is, not merely was, "the Son." Nevertheless, what He affirms of Himself cannot be affirmed of Himself
(10 25.29) that He was led to declare: "I and my Father are one" (10 30). But He can also declare "The Father is greater than I" (14 28). Obviously
distinctively as "the Son." For what He affirms of Himself is ignorance—"not even the Son" knows it; and ignorance does not belong to the Divine nature which the term "the Son" connotes. An extreme appearance of contradiction accordingly arises from the use of this terminology, just as it arises when Paul says that the Jews "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2 8), or exhorts the Ephesiau elders to "feed the church of God which he purchased with
this means that there was a sense in which He had ceased to be equal with the Father, because of the humiliation of His present condition, and in so far
as this humiliation involved entrance into a status lower than that which belonged to Him by nature.
Precisely in what this humiliation consisted can be gathered only from the general implication of many statements. In it He was a "man": 'a man who hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God' (8 40), where the contrast with "God" throws
his own Ijlood" (Acts 20 28 m); or John Keble praises Our Lord for "the blood of souls by Thee redeemed." It was not the Lord of Glory as such who was nailed to the tree, nor have either "God" or "souls" blood to shed.
the assertion of humanity into emphasis (cf 10 33). The truth of His human nature is, however, everywhere assumed and endlessly illustrated, rather than
We know how this apparently contradictory mode ol speech has arisen in Keble's case. He is spealiing of men who are composite beings, consisting of souls and bodies, and these men come to be designated from one element of their composite personalities, though what
explicitly asserted. He possessed a human soul
(12 27) and bodily parts (flesh and blood, 6 53ff; hands and side, 20 27); and was subject alike to
is affirmed by them belongs rather to the other ; we may speak, therefore, cf the "blood of souls" meaning that these "souls," while not having blood as such, yet designate persons who have bodies and therefore blood.
physical affections (weariness, 4 6, and thirst, 19 28,
suffering and death), and to all the common human emotions—not merely the love of compassion (13 34; 14 21; 15 8-13), but the love of simple affection which we pour out on "friends" (11 11; cf 15 14.
We know equally how to account for Paul's apparent contradictions. We know that he conceived of Our Lord as a composite person, uniting in Himself a Divine and a human nature. In Paul's view, therefore, though God as such has no blood, yet Jesus Christ who is God has blood because He is also man. He can justly speak,
15), indignation (11 33.38) and joy (15 11; 17 13). He felt the perturbation produced by strong ex-
citement (11 33; 12 27; 13 21), the sympathy with suffering which shows itself m tears (ll 35), the thankfulness which fills the grateful heart (6 11.
therefore, when speaking of Jesus Christ, of His blood as the blood of God. When precisely the same phenomenon meets us in Our Lord's speech of Himself, we must presume that it is the outgrowth of precisely the same state of things. When He speaks of "the hon (who is God) as ignorant, we must understand that He
23; 11 41; 16 27). Only one human character-
istic was alien to Him: He was without sin: "the
prince of the world," He declared, "hath nothing
is designating Himself as "the Son" because of His
higher nature, and yet has in mind the ignorance of His lower nature; what He means is that the person properly designated "the Son" Is ignorant, that is to say with
in me" (14 30; cf 8 46). Clearly Our Lord, as
reported by John, knew Himself to be true God and true man in one indivisible person, the common
respect to the human nature which is as mtimate an element of His personality as is His Deity.
subject of the quahties which belong to each.
Person of Christ THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2346
When Our Lord says, then, that "the Son knows not,
utterances. Our Lord, speaking in the most solemn manner, not only presents Himself, as the Son, as the sole source of knowledge of God and of blessedness for men, but places Himself in a position, not of equality merely, but of absolute reciprocity and interpcnetration of knowledge with the Father. "No one," He says, "knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son
' He becomes as express a witness to the two natures which constitute His person as Paul is when he spealis of the blood of God, or as Keble is a witness to the twofold constitution of a human being when he speaks of souls shedding blood. In this short sentence, thus, Our Lord bears witness to His Divine nature with its supremacy above all creatures, to His human nature with its creaturely limitations, and to the unity of the subject possessed of these two natures.
. . . ." varied in Luke so as to read: "No one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son . . . ." as if the being
(6) Other passages: Son of Man and Son of God: All these elements of His personality find severally repeated assertions in other utterances of Our Lord recorded in the Synoptics. There is no need to in-
of the Son were so immense that only God could know it thoroughly; and the knowledge of the Son was so unlimited that He could know God to per-
sist here on the elevation of Himself above the kings and prophets of the Old Covenant (Mt 12 41 ff), above the temple itself (Mt 12 6), and the ordinances of the Divine Law (Mt 12 S); or on His accent of authority in both His teaching and action, His great "I say unto you" (Mt 5 21.22), T will; be cleansed' (Mk 1 41; 2 5; Lk 7 14); or on His separation of Himself from men in His relation to God, never including them with Himself in an "Our Father," but consistently speaking distinctively of "my Father" (e.g. Lk 24 49) and "your Father"
fection. The peculiarly pregnant employment here of the terms "Son" and "Father" over against one another is explained to us in the other utterance (Mt 28 19). It is the resurrected Lord's commission to His disciples. Claiming for Himself
all authority in heaven and on earth—which implies the possession of omnipotence—and promising to be with His followers 'alway, even to the end of the world'—which adds the implications of omnipresence and omniscience—He commands them to baptize their converts 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' The pre-
(e.g. Mt 5 16) ; or on His intimation that He is not merely David's Son but David's Lord, and that a Lord sitting on the right hand of God (Mt 22 44)
cise form of the formula must be carefully observed.
or on His parabolic discrimination of Himself a Son and Heir from air'servants" (Mt 21 33 ff); or even on His ascription to Himself of the purely Divine functions of the forgiveness of sins (Mk 2 8) and judgment of the world (Mt 25 31), or of the purely Divine powers of reading the heart (Mk 2 8; Lk 9 47), omniijotence (Mt 24 30; Mk 14 62) and omnipresence (Mt 18 20; 28 10). These things illustrate His constant assumption of the possession of Divine dignity and attributes; the claim itself
It does not read: 'In the names' (plural)—as if there were three beings enumerated, each with its distinguishing name. Nor yet: 'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,' as if there were one person, going by a threefold name. It reads: 'In the name [singular] of the Father, and of the
[article repeated] Son, and of the [article repeated] Holy Ghost,' carefully distinguishing three persons, though uniting them all under one name. The name of God was to the Jews Jeh, and to name the name of Jeh upon them was to make them His. What Jesus did in this great injunction was to command His followers to name the name of God upon their converts, and to announce the name of God which is to be named on their converts in the threefold enumeration of "the Father" and "the Son" and 'the Holy Ghost.' As it is unquestionable that He intended Himself by "the Son," He here places Himself by the side of the Father and the Spirit, as together with them constituting the one God. It is, of course, the Trinity which He is describing; and that is as much as to say that He announces Himself as one of the persons of the Trinity. This is what Jesus, as reported by the Synoptics, understood Himself to be. See Trinity.
is more directly made in the two great designations which He currently gave Himself, the Son of Man and the Son of God. The former of these is His favorite self-designation. Derived from Dnl 7 13.14, it intimates on every occasion of its employment Our Lord's eonscioasness of being a supramundane being, who has entered into a sphere of earthly life on a high mission, on the accomplishment of which He is to return to His heavenly sphere, whence He shall in due season come back to earth, now, however, in His proper majesty, to gather up the fruits of His work and consummate all things. It is a designation, thus, which implies at once a heavenly preexistence, a present humiliation, and a future glory; and He proclaims Himself in this future glory no less than the universal King seated on the throne of judgment for quick and dead (Mk 8 31; Mt 25 31). The unplication of Deity imbedded in the designation. Son of Man, is perhaps more plainly spoken out in the companion designation. Son of God, which Our Lord not only accepts at the hands of others, accepting with it the implication of blasphemy in permitting its application to Himself (Mt 26 63.65; Mk 14 61.64; Lk 22 29.30), but persistently claims for Himself both, in His constant designation of God as His Father in a distinctive sense, and in His less frequent but more pregnant designation of Himself
(2) His humanity.—In announcing Himself to be God, however, Jesus does not deny that He is man also. If all His speech of Himself rests on His consciousness of a Divine nature, no less does all His speech manifest His consciousness of a human nature. He easily identifies Himself with men (Mt 4 4; Lk 4 4), and receives without protest the imputation of humanity (Mt 11 19; Lk 7 34). He speaks familiarly of His body (Mt 26 12.26; Mk 14 8; 14 22; Lk 22 19), and of His bodily parts—His feet and hands (Lk 24 39), His head and feet (Lk 7 44-46), His flesh and bones (Lk 24 39), His blood (Mt 26 28; Mk 14 24; Lk 22 20). We chance to be given indeed a very express affirmation on His part of the reality of His bodily nature; when His disciples were terrified at His appearing before them after His resurrection, supposing Him to be a spirit. He reassures them with the direct declaration: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having"
as, by way of eminence, "the Son." That His consciousness of the peculiar relation to God e.xpressed by this designation was not an attainment of His mature spiritual development, but was part of His most intimate consciousness from the beginning, is suggested by the sole glimpse which is given us into His mind as a child (Lk 2 49). The high
significance which the designation bore to Him
is revealed to us in two remarkable utterances preserved, the one by both Matthew (11 27 ff) and Luke (10 22 ff), and the other by Matthew
(Lk 24 39). His testimony to His human soul ia just as expre.ss: "My soul," says He, "is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Mt 26 38; Mk 14 34). He speaks of the human dread with which
(28 19).
(-) Mt 11 27; 28 19: In the former of these
2347 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Person of Christ
He looked forward to His approaching death (Lk 12 50), and expresses in a poignant cry His sense of desolation on the cross (Mt 27 46; Mk 15 34). He speaks also of His pity for the weary and hungering people (Mt 15 32; Mk 8 2), and of a strong human desire which He felt (Lk 22 15). Nothing that is human is alien to Him except sin. He never ascribes imperfection to Himself and never betrays consciousness of sin. He recognizes the evil of those about Him (Lk 11 13; Mt 7 11; 12 34. 39; Lk 11 29), but never identifies Himself with
were they not brought into harmony by their relation as natural component parts of this one unitary conception which underlies and gives consistency to them all. There can scarcely be imagined a better proof of the truth of a doctrine than its power completely to harmonize a multitude of statements which without it would present to our view only a mass of confused inconsistencies. A key which perfectly fits a lock of very complicated wards can scarcely fail to be the true key.
VIII. Formulation of the Doctrine.—Meanwhile the wards remain complicated. Even in the case of our own composite structure, of soul and body, familiar as we are with it from our daily experience, the mutual relations of elements so disparate in a single personality remain an unplumbed mystery, and give rise to paradoxical modes of speech which would be misleading, were not their source in our duplex nature well understood. We may read, in careful writers, of souls being left dead on battle-
it. It is those who do the will of God with whom He feels kinship (Mt 12 50), and He offers Himself to the morally sick as a physician (Mt 9 12). He proposes Himself as an example of the highest virtues
(Mt 11 28 S) and pronounces him blessed who shall find no occasion of stumbling in Him (Mt 11 6).
(3) Unity of the Person.—These manifestations of a human and Divine consciousness simply stand side by side in the records of Our Lord's self-expression. Neither is suppressed or even qualified by the other. If we attend only to the one class we might suppose Him to proclaim Himself wholly Divine; if only to the other we might equally
fields, and of everybody's immortality. The mys-
teries of the relations in which the constituent elements in the more complex personality of Our Lord stand to one another are immeasurably greater than in our simpler case. We can never hope to comprehend how the infinite God and a finite humanity can be united in a single person; and it is very easy to go fatally astray in attempting to explain the interactions in the unitary person of natures so diverse from one another. It is not sur-
easily imagine Him to be representing Himself as wholly human. With both together before us we perceive Him alternately speaking out of a Divine and out of a human consciousness; manifesting Himself as all that God is and as all that man is; yet with the most marked unity of consciousness. He, the one Jesus Christ, was to His own apprehension true God and complete man in a unitary personal life.
prising, therefore, that so soon as serious efforts began to be made to give systematic explanations
of the Bib. facts as to Our Lord's person, many onesided and incomplete statements were formulated which required correction and complementing before at length a mode of statement was devised which did full justice to the Bib. data. It was accordingly only after more than a century of controversy, during which nearly every conceivable method of construing and misconstruing the Bib. facts had been proposed and tested, that a formula was framed which successfully guarded the essential data supplied by the Scriptures from destructive misconception. This formula, put together by the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, declares it to have always been the doctrine of the church, derived from the Scriptures and Our Lord Himself, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is "truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consub-
VII. The Two NaturesEverywhere Presupposed. —There underlies, thus, the entire literature of the NT a single, unvarying conception of the constitution of Our Lord's person. From Mt where He
is presented as one of the persons of the Holy Trinity
(28 19)—or if we prefer the chronological order of books, from the Ep. of Jas where He is spoken of as the Glory of God, the Shekinah (2 1)—to the Apocalypse where He is represented as declaring that He
is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (1 8.17; 22 13), He
is consistently thought of as in His fundamental being just God. At the same time from the Synop-
tic Gospels, in which He is dramatized as a man walking among men. His human descent carefully recorded, and His sense of dependence on God so emphasized that prayer becomes almost His most
stantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and
characteristic action, to the Epp. of John in which
it is made the note of a Christian that He confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh (1 Jn 4 2) and the Apocalypse in which His birth in the tribe of Judah and the house of David (5 5; 22 16), His exemplary life of conflict and victory (3 21), His death on the cross (11 8) are noted. He is equally
in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only-begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." There is nothing here but a careful statement in systematic form of the pure teaching
consistently thought of as true man. Neverthe-
less, from the beginning to the end of the whole
series of books, while first one and then the other
of His two natures comes into repeated prominence,
there is never a question of conflict between the two, never any confusion in their relations, never any schism in His unitary personal action; but He is obviously considered and presented as one, coni-
posite indeed, but undivided personality. In this
of the Scriptures; and therefore this statement has stood ever since as the norm of thought and teaching as to the person of the Lord. As such, it has
state of the case not only may evidence of the con-
stitution of Our Lord's person properly be drawn
indifferently from every part of the NT, and passage
bee.n incorporated, in one form or another, into the creeds of all the great branches of the church; it underlies and gives their form to all the allusions to Christ in the great mass of preaching and song which has accumulated during the centuries; and it has supplied the background of the devotions of the
justly be cited to support and explain passage with-
out reference to the portion of the NT m which
it is found, but we should be without justification
if we did not employ this common presupposition
of the whole Isody of this literature to illustrate and
explain the varied representations which meet us
untold multitudes who through the Christian ages have been worshippers of Christ.
cursorily in its pages, representations which might
easily be made to appear mutually contradictory
Personality Peter, Simon THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2348
Literature.—The appropriate sections in ttie treatises on tiie Bib. theology of the NT; also A. B. Bruce. The Humiliation of Christ. 2d ed, Edinburgh, 1881; R. L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, London. 1896; H. C. Powell, The Principle of the Incarnation, London, 1896; Francis J. Hall, The Kenotic Theory, New York, 1898; C. A. Briggs, The Incarnation of the Lord, New Yorli, 1902; G. S. Streatfeild, The SelfInterpretation of Jesus Christ, London, 1906; B.B. "Warfield, The Lord of Glory, New York, 1907; James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, London, 1909; M. Lepin. Christ and the Gospel: or, Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia, 1910; James Stalker, The Christolooy of Jesus, New York, 1899; D. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, Edinburgh, 1897; E. H. GlCford, The Incarnation: a Study of Phil 2 5-11. London, 1897; S. N. Bostron, The Christology of St. Paul, London, 1912; E. Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thoughts, London, 1912. [Note.—In this art. the author has usually given his own translation ol quotations from Scripture, and not that ol any particular VS.]
25; Nu 14 12; Dt 28 21; 2 S 24 21; 1 Ch 21
12; Ezk 14 19.21. In the dedication prayer of Solomon, a special value is besought for such petitions against pestilence as may be presented toward the temple (2 Ch 6 28). Such a deliverance is promised to those who put their trust in God (Ps 91 6). Here the pestilence is called _ noisome, a shortened form of "annoysome," used in the sense
of "hateful" or that which causes trouble or distress. In modern Eng. it has acquired the sense of loathsome. "Noisome" is used by Tindale where AV and RV have "hurtful" in 1 Tim 6 9. The Lat word pestilentia is connected with pestis, "the plague," but pestilence is used of any visitation and is not the name of any special disease; debher is applied to diseases of cattle and is tr"* "murrain."
In the NT pestilence is mentioned in Our Lord's eschatological discourse (Mt 24 7 AV; Lk 21 11) coupled with famine. The assonance of loimos and limos in these passages {loimos is omitted in the RV passage for Mt) occurs in several classical passages, e.g. Herodotus vii.171. The pestilence is said to walk in darkness (Ps 91 6) on account of its sudden onset out of obscurity unassociated with any apparent cause. Alex. Macalistek
Benjamin B. Warfield PERSONALITY. See Person.
PERSUADE, per-swad', PERSUASION, per-swa'- zhun: (1) In the older Eng. "persuade" need not mean "convince" (although this is its usual sense in the AV: Mt 27 20, etc), but may mean only "attempt to convince," "argue with." This is well brought out in Acts 26 28, where the Gr is lit. "In little thou 'persuadest' [ireWeis, peitheis] to make me a Christian." AV took peitheis as "convince" ("almost thou persuadest me . . . ."), but this is impossible, and so the RV rendered peitheis by "thou wouldest fain." To keep something of the language of AV, "persuasion" was supplied after "little," but it should have been italicized, for it is merely conjectural, as ARVm recognizes by giving "time" as an alternative for "persuasion." The text of the passage, however, is suspected. See Almost. Similarly in Acts 13 43, RV replaces "persuade" by "urge," and the same change should have been made also in 2 K 18 32 and H's. (2) The "popular persuasions" of 1 Esd 5 73 are "efforts to persuade the people" (uncertain text, however). Acts 19 8 AV writes "persuading the things" (RV "as to the things") for "present the things persuasively." And in Gal 1 10 (ERV and AV, not in ARV) and 2 Cor 6 11, there is a half-ironic force in the word: St. Paul's enemies have accused him of using unworthy persuasion in making his conversions.
PESTLE, pes"l Cb? , 'eli) : A rounded implement
of wood or stone used for pounding, bruising, or powdering materials in a mortar. Used only in Prov 27 22. See Mortar.
PETER, pe'ter (SIMON, si'mon):
1. Name and Early Career 2. First Appearance in Gospel History 3. Lile-Story (1) First Period (2) Second Period 4. Character 5. Writings (1) First Epistle (2) Second Epistle 6. Theology (1) Messianic Teaching (2) Justification (3) Redemption (4) Future Lite (5) Holy Scripture
(6) Apostasy and Judgment (7) Second Coming of Christ Literature
Burton Scott Easton PERUDA, pe-roo'da (S-n~l?
The data for this article are found chiefly in the four Gospels; in Acts, chs 1-15; in Gal 1 and 2; and in the two Epp. of Peter.
, p'rOdha'). See Pe-
Simon (or Simeon) was the original name of Peter, the son of Jonas (or John), and brother of Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist,
PERVERSE, per-vUrs': The group "perverse, -ly, -ness," "act perversely" in AV represents nearly 20 Heb words, of which, however, most are deriva-
1. Name as Peter also may have been. Afisherand Early man by occupation, he was an inhabitCareer ant of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, though subsequently he dwelt with his family at Capernaum (Mt 4 18; 8 14; 10 2; 16 16.17; 17 25; Mk 1 16.29..30.36; Lk 5 3.4. 5.8.10; 22 31; 24 34; Jn 1 40-44). His first appearance in Gospel history is in Jn 1 35-42, when Andrew, having discovered Jesus to be the Messiah, "first findeth his own 2. First brotherSimon," and "brought him unto Appearance Jesus"; on which occasion it was that in Gospel the latter, beholding him, said, "Thou History shalt be called Cephas," an Aram, surname whose Gr synonym is Petrds, or Peter, meaning "a rook" or "stone." At this time also he received his first call to the discipleship of Jesus, although, in common with that of others of the Twelve, this call was twice repeated. See Mt 4 19; Mk 1 17; Lk 5 3 for the second call, and Mt 10 2; Mk 3 14.16; Lk 6 13.14 for the third. Some interpret the second as that when he was chosen to be a constant companion of Jesus, and the third when he was at length selected as an apostle.
tives of the stems "Tl^, 'awah, Tib, luz, TCp^ , 'aJcash. RV has made few changes. In Job 6 30, RV "mischievous" is better for the taste of a thing, and in Isa 59 3 greater emphasis is gained by RV "wickedness." luEzk 9 9, "wresting of judgment"
is perhaps too concrete, and "perverseness" is kept in the m (inverted in AV). RVm "headlong" in Nu 22 32 is over-literal, but in 23 21 ARVm's "trouble"
is a distinct improvement.
PESTILENCE, pes'ti-lens (ll'n, defe^er; Xoi|i6s, loimos): Any sudden fatal epidemic is designated by this word, and in its Bib. use it generally indicates that these are Divine visitations. The word
is most frequently used in the prophetic books, and
it occurs 25 t in Jer and Ezk, always associated with the sword and famine. In 4 other passages it is combined with noisome or evil beasts, or war. In Am 4 10 this judgment is compared with the plagues of EgjT^t, and in Hab 3 5 it is a concomitant of the march of God from the Arabian mountain. There is the same judicial character associated with pestilence in Ex 5 3; 9 15; Lev 26
2349 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Personality Peter, Simon
The jife-story of Peter falls into two parts: first, from his call to the ascension of Christ; secondly, from that event to the close of his
instrumentally heals the lame man, addresses the people in the Temple, is arrested, defends himself before the Sanhedrin and returns to his "own company" (Acts 3, 4). He is again arrested and beaten (ch 5) ; after a time he is sent by the church at Jerus to communicate the Holy Ghost to the disciples at Samaria (ch 8). Returning to Jerus (where presumably Paul visits him. Gal 1 18), he afterward journeys "throughout all parts," heals Aeneas at Lydda^ raises Dorcas from the dead at Joppa, sees a vision upon the housetop which influences him to preach the gospel to the gentile centurion at Caesarea, and explains this action before "the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea" (9 32-41; ch 11). After a while another persecution arose against the church, and Herod Agrippa, having put James to death, imprisons Peter with the thought of executing him also. Prayer is made by the church on his behalf, however, and miraculous deliverance is given him (ch 12). Retiring for a while from public attention, he once more comes before us m the church council at Jerus, when the question is to be settled as to whether works are needful to salvation, adding his testimony to that of Paul and Barnabas in favor of justification by faith only (ch 15).
3. Lifeearthly career. Story (1) The first period again may be conveniently divided into the events prior to the Passion of Christ and those following. There are about ten of the former: the healing of his wife's mother at Capernaum (Mt 8 14 ff); the great draught of fishes, and its effect in his selfabasement and surrender of his all to Jesus (Lk 5 1-11) ; his call to the apostolic office and his spiritual equipment therefor (Mt 10 2); his attachment to his Master, as shown in his attempt to walk upon the waves (Mt 14 28); the same attachment as shown at a certain crisis, in his inquiry "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (Jn 6 68); his noble confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, and, alas, the rebuke that followed it (Mt 16 13-
23); the exalted privileges he enjoyed with James and John as witness of the raising of Jairus' daughter
(Mk 6 37) and the transfiguration of his Lord (Mt 17 1-5); and finally, the incident of the tribute money, found only in Mt 17 24.
The events beginning at the Passion are more easily recalled, because to so large an extent are they found in all the Gospels and about in the same order. They commence with the washing of his feet by the Master at the time of the last Passover, and the two mistakes he made as to the spiritual import of that act (Jn 13 1-10); the first of his presumptuous boastings as to the strength of his devotion to his Master, and the warning of the latter as to Satan's prospective assault upon him (Lk 22 31-34), twice repeated before the betrayal in Gethsemane (Mt 26 31-35); the admission to the garden to behold the Saviour's deepest distress, the charge to watch and pray, and the failure to do so through sleepiness (Mt 26 36-46); the mistaken courage in severing the ear of Malchus (Jn 18 10-12); the forsaking of his Lord while the latter was being led away as a prisoner, his following Him afar off, his admission into the high priest's palace, his denial "before them all," his confirmation of it by an oath,
Subsequently he is found at Antioch, and having fellowship with gentile Christians until "that certain came from James," when "he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision," for which dissembling Paul "resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned" (Gal 2 11-14). Little more is authentically known of Peter, except that he traveled more or less extensively, being accompanied by his wife (1 Cor 9 5), and that he wrote two epp., the second of which was penned as he approached the end of his life (2 Pet 1 12-15). The tradition is that he died a martyr at Rome about 67 AD, when about 75 years old. His Lord and Master had predicted a violent death for him
(Jn 21 18.19), which it is thought came to pass by crucifixion under Nero. It is said that at his own desire he was crucified head downward, feeling him-
his remembrance of the warning when "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," and his tears of bitterness as he went out (Mt 26 56-58; Mk 14 66-72; Lk 22 54-62; Jn 18 15-27).
self unworthy to resemble his Master in his death.
It should be observed, however, that the tradition that he visited Rome is only tradition and nothing more, resting as it does partly upon a miscalculation of some of the early Fathers, "who assume that he went to Rome in 42 AD, immediately after his deliverance from prison" (cf Acts 12
It will be seen that the story of Peter's fall is thus
related by all the evangelists, but, to quote another, "None have described it in a more heinous light than Mark; and if, as is generally supposed, that Gospel was reviewed by Peter himself and even written under his direction, this circumstance may be considered as an evidence of his integrity and
17). Schaff says this "is irreconcilable with the silence of Scripture, and even with the mere fact of Paul's Ep. to the Rom, written in 58, since the latter says not a word of Peter's previous labors in that city, and he himself never built on other men's foundations" (Rom 15 20; 2 Cor 10 15.16). The character of Peter is transparent and easily analyzed, and it is doubtless true that no other "in
sincere contrition."
Nothing more is heard of Peter until the morning
of the resurrection, when, on the first tidings of the event, he runs with John to see the tomb (Jn 20
1-10); his name is esp. mentioned to the women by the angel (Mk 16 7) ; and on the same day he
Scriptural history is drawn for us more
4. His clearly or strongly." He has been Character styled the prince of the apostles, and, indeed, seems to have been their leader on every occasion. He is always named first in every list of them, and was their common spokesman. He was hopeful, bold, confident, courageous, frank, impulsive, energetic, vigorous, strong, and loving, and faithful to his Master notwithstanding
sees Jesus alive before any of the rest of the Twelve
(Lk 24 34; 1 Cor 15 5). Subsequently, at the Sea
of Tiberias, Peter is given an opportunity for a
threefold confession of Jesus whom he had thrice
denied, and is once more assigned to the apostolic
office; a prediction follows as to the kind of death he should die, and also a command to follow his Lord (Jn 21).
his defection prior to the crucifixion. It is true that he was liable to change and inconsistency, and because of his peculiar temperament he sometimes appeared forward and rash. Yet, as another says, "His virtues and faults had their common root in
(2) The second period, from the ascension of Christ to the conversion of Paul, is more briefly
sketched. After the ascension, of which Peter was doubtless a witness, he "stood up in the midst of the brethren" in the upper room in Jerus to counsel
his enthusiastic disposition," and the latter were
at length overruled by Divine grace into the most beautiful humility and meekness, as evinced in his two Epp.
the choice of a successor to Judas (Acts 1 15-26). On the day of Pentecost he preaches the first gospel sermon (Acts 2), and later, in company with John,
Peter, Simon Peter, First Ep. of THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2350
(2) Second Epistle.—The Second Ep. claims to have been written by Peter (1 1; 3 1.2), to doubt which would start more serious difficulties than can
The leadership above referred to, however, should not lead to the supposition that he possessed any supremacy over the other apostles, of which there
be alleged against its genuineness, either because of
is no proof. Such supremacy was never conferred upon him by his Master, it was never claimed by himself, and was never conceded by his associates. See in this connection Mt 23 8-12; Acts 15 13.14; 2 Cor 12 11; Gal 2 11.
its late admission to the Canon or its supposed di-
versity of style from Peter's early writing. See Peter, Second Epistle of.
His object is the same in both Epp., to "stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance"
It is true that when Christ referred to the meaning of his name (Mt 16 18), He said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," but He did not intend
(3 1). Like Paul in his Second Ep. to Tim, he
foresees the apostasy in which the professing church
will end, the difference being that Paul speaks of
to teach that His church would be built upon Peter, but upon Himself as confessed by Peter in ver 16
it in its last stage when the laity have become in-
fected (2 Tim 3 1-5; 4 3.4), while Peter sees it in
of the same chapter. Peter is careful to affirm this
its origin as traceable to false teachers (2 Pet 2
in the first of his two Epp. (2 4-9). Moreover, when Christ said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc (Mt 16 19), He invested him with no power not possessed in common with his brethren, since they also afterward received the same commission (Mt 18 18; Jn 20 23). A key is a badge of power or authority, and, as many Protestant commentators have pointed out, to quote the language of one of them, "the apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of the gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2 38-42) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10 34-46)." Some, however, regard this authority as identical with the great commission (Mt 28 19). See Keys, Power of the.
1-3.15-19). As in the First Ep. he wrote to exhort and to testify, so here it is rather to caution and warn. This warning was, as a whole, against falling from
grace (3 17.18), the enforcement of which wammg is contained in I 2-11, the ground of it in 1 12-21, and the occasion of it in the last two chapters. To speak only of the occasion : This, as was stated, was the presence of false teachers (2 1), whose eminent
success is predicted (2 2), whose punishment is
certain and dreadful (2 3-9), and whose descrip-
tion follows (2 10-22). The character of their false teaching (eh 3) forms one of the most interesting and important features of the Ep., focusing as it does on the Second Coming of Christ.
The theology of Peter offers an interesting field
of study because of what may be styled its fresh-
The two Epp. of Peter were written presumably
ness and variety in comparison with
late in life, as appears esp. of the Second (1 12-15). Both were addressed to the same class
6. Theology that of Paul and John, who are the great theologians of the NT.
5. His of persons, chiefly Jewish Christians Writings scattered abroad in the different provinces of Asia Minor, among whom Paul and his associates had planted the gospel (1 Pet 1 1.2; 2 Pet 3 1). The First was written at Babylon (1 Pet 5 13), doubtless the famous Babylon on the Euphrates, which, though destroyed as a great capital, was still inhabited by a small colony of people, principally Jews (see Weiss, INT,
(1) Messianic teaching.—In the first place, Peter
is unique in his Messianic teaching as indicated in the first part of the Acts, where he is the chief personage, and where for the most part his ministry is confined to Jerus and the Jews. The latter, already
in covenant relations with Jeh, had sinned in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, and Peter's preaching waa directed to that point, demanding repentance or a change of mind about Him. The apparent failure
II, 150; but see also Peter, First Epistle of).
(1) First Epistle.—The theme of the First Ep. seems to be the living hope to which the Christian has been begotten, and the obligations it lays upon him. The living hope is expounded in the earlier part of the first chapter down to ver 13, where the obligations begin to be stated, the first group including hope, godly fear, love to the brethren, and praise
of the OT promises concerning the Davidic kingdom (Isa 11 10-12; Jer 23 5-8; Ezk 37 21-28) was explained by the promise that the kingdom would be set up at the return of Christ (Acts 2
2.5-31; 15 14-16); which return, personal and corporeal, and for that purpose, is presented as only awaiting their national repentance (Acts 3 19-26). See Scofield, Reference Bible, at the places named.
(1 13—2 10). The writer drops his pen at this point, to take it up again to address those who were suffering persecution for righteousness' sake, upon whom two more obligations are impressed, submission to authority, and testimony to Christ (2 11—4 6). The third group which concludes the book begins here, dealing with such themes as spiritual hospitality in the use of heavenly gifts, patience in suffering, fidelity in service, and humility in ministering to one another. The letter was sent to the churches "by Silvanus, our faithful brother," the author affirming that his object in writing was to exhort and testify concerning "the true grace of God" (5 12). The genuineness of this First Ep. has never been doubted, except of course by those who in these
(2) Justification.—But Peter's special ministry to the circumcision is by no means in conflict with that of Paul to the Gentiles, as demonstrated at the point of transition in Acts 10. Up until this time the gospel had been offered to the Jews only, but now they have rejected it in the national sense, and "the normal order for the present Christian age" is reached (Acts 13 44-48). Accordingly, we find Peter, side by side with Paul, affirming the great doctrine of justification by faith only, in the words, "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we [Jews] shall be saved, even as they
[Gentiles]" (Acts 15 11 AV). Moreover, it is clear from Peter's Second Ep. (1 1) that his conception of justification from the Divine as well as the human side is identical with that of Paul, since he speaks of justifying faith as terminating on the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. As we understand it, this is not the righteousness which God
latter days have doubted everything, but the same cannot be said of the Second. It is not known to whom the latter was intrusted; as a matter of fact
it found no place in the catalogues of the NT Scriptures of the 2d and 3d cents. The first church employing it was at Alexandria, but subsequently the church at large became satisfied from internal evidence of its genuineness and inspiration, and when the Canon was pronounced complete in the 4th
is, but the righteousness which God gives (cf Rom 1 16.17; 3 21-25; 2 Cor 5 20.21).
(3) Redemption.—Passing from his oral to his written utterances, Peter is particularly rich in his allusions to the redemptive work of Christ. Limiting ourselves to his First Ep., the election of the individual believer is seen to be the result of the
cent., it was without hesitancy received.
2351 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Peter, Simon Peter, First Ep. oi
sprinkling of Christ's blood (1 1) ; his obedience and godly fear are inspired by the sacrifice of the "lamb without blemish and without spot : Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world"
the closing chapter of the Second Ep. is not that aspect of it associated with the translation of His church, and of which Paul treats (1 Thess 4 13-18), but that pertaining to Israel and the day of Jeh spoken of by the OT prophets (Isa 2 12-22; Rev 19 11-21, etc). Literature.—The history of Peter is treated more or less at length in the intros to the comras. on his Epp., and in works on the life of Christ. But ijarticular reference is made to the following: F. W. Farrar, Early Days o/ Christianity, London. 1882; J. S. Howson, Studies in the Life of St. Peter, London, 1883; H. A. Birks. Life and Character of St. Peter, London, 1887; W. M. Ramsay,
(1 17-20 AV). But most interesting are the man-
lier and the connection in which these sublime truths are sometimes set before the reader. For example, an exhortation to submission on the part of household slaves is the occasion for perhaps the most concise and yet comprehensive interpretation of Christ's vicarious sufferings anywhere in the NT
(2 18-25, esp. the last two verses; cf also in its contexts 18-22).
The Church in the Rom Empire, London, 1S0.3; Mason Gallagher, Was Peter Ever at Rome f Philadelphia, 189.5; A. C. McGiffert. The Apostolic Age, New York. 1897; W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Apostle Peter, London, 1904; G. Matheson, Representative Men of the NT, London, 190.5; A. J. Southouse, The Making of Simon Peter, New York, 1906; A. O. Gaubelein, The Gospel of Matthew, New York, 1907; The Acts of the Apostles, New York, 1912; Edmundson, Church in Rome in the 1st Cent., 1913; Smith, The Days of His Flesh, New York, 1911.
(4) Future life.—Next to the redemptive work of Christ, the Petrine teaching about the future life claims attention. The believer has been begotten again unto "a lively [or living] hope" (1 Pet 1 3); which is "an inheritance" "reserved in heaven"
(1 4); and associated with "praise, and glory and honor at the revelation [Second Coming] of Jesus Christ" (1 7.13; 4 13; 5 4.10; 2 Pet 1 11.16; 3 13, etc). This "hope" or "inheritance" is so real and so precious as to cause rejoicing even in times of heaviness and trial (1 Pet 16); to stimulate to holiness of living (1 13-16); to patience in persecution (4 12.13); fidelity in service (5 1-4); stedfastness against temptation (5 8-10) ; and growth in grace (2 Pet 1 10.11). It is a further peculiarity that the apostle always throws the thought of the present suffering forward into the light of the future glory. It is not as though there were merely an allotment of suffering here, and an allotment of glory by and by, with no relation or connection between the two, but the one is seen to be incident to the other (cf 1 Pet 1 7.11; 4 13; 5 1; 2 Pet 3 12.13). It is this circumstance, added to others, that gives Peter the title of the apostle of hope, as Paul has been called the apostle of faith, and John the apostle of love.
On the theology of Peter, consult the subject in works on Systematic or Bib. Theology, and see also R. W. Dale,
The Atonement, 97-148, London, 187,5; C. A. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, 21-41, New York, 1895; Scofield, Reference Bible, where pertinent. Among comms. on 1 and 2 Pet may be mentioned: Brown, 3 vols, Edinburgh, 1848-56; Demarest, 2 vols. New York. 18.51-65; Leighton, republished, Philadelphia, 1864; Lillie, New York, 1869; G. F. C. Fronmuller. in Lange's Comm., ET, New York, 1874; Plumptre, Cambridge Bible, 1883; Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus, Halle, 1885; F. B. Meyer, London, 1890; Lumby, Expositor's Bible, London, 1894; J. H. Jowett, London, 1905; Bigg, ICC, 1901.
James M. Gray PETER, APOCALYPSE OF. See Apocryphal Gospels, II, 4; Literature, Sub-apostouc (Intro).
PETER, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. See Apocryphal Gospels; Literature, Sub-apostolic.
PETER, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF:
(5) Holy Scripture.—Considering their limitations as to space, Peter's Epp. are notable for the emphasis they lay upon the character and authority of the Holy Scriptures. 1 Pet 1 10-12 teaches a threefold relation of the Holy Spirit to the Holy Word as its Author, its Revealer, and its Teacher or Preacher. The same chapter (vs 22-25) speaks of
I. Canonicity of 1 Peter
1, External Evidence 2. Internal Evidence II. The Address Silvanus III. Place and Time of Composition
1. Babylon: W^hich ? 2. Babylon Not Rome IV. Design 1. Persecution 2. Example of Christ
its life-giving and purifying power as well as its eternal duration. Ch 2 opens with a declaration
3. Relation to State V. Characteristic Features of the Epistle
of its vital relation to the Christian's spiritual growth. In 4 11, it is shown to be the staple of the
1. Freedom in Structure 2. Hope 3. Inheritance 4. Testimony of Prophets
Christian's ministry. Practically the whole of the Second Ep. is taken up with the subject. Through the "exceeding great and precious promises" of that Word, Christians become "partakers of the divine nature" (1 4AV); that they may be kept "always
(1) Salvation
(2) Spirit of Christ
(3) Prophetic Study 5. The Christian Brotherhood Spirits in Prison VI. Analysis Literature
in remembrance" is Peter's object in writing (vs 12-
15 AV) ; the facts of that Word rest on the testimony of eyewitnesses (vs 16-18); its origin is altogether Divine (vs 20.21); which is as true of the NT
Simon Peter was a native of Galilee. He was brought to the Saviour early in His ministry by his brother Andrew (Jn 1 40.41). His call to the office
as of the OT (3 2); including the Epp. of Paul (vs
(6) Apostasy and judgment.—This appreciation
15.16).
of apostle is recorded in Mt 10 1-4; Mk 3 13-16.
of the living Word of God finds an antithesis in the solemn warning against apostate teachers and teach-
He occupied a distinguished place among the Lord's disciples. In the four lists of the apostles found in the NT his name stands first (Mt 10 2-4; Mk 3 16-19; Lk 6 14-16; Acts 1 13). He is the chief figure in the
ing forming the substance of 2 Pet 2 and 3. The theology here is of judgment. It is swift and "lin-
first twelve chapters of the Acts. It is Peter that preaches the first Christian sermon (Acts 2), he that opens the door of the gospel to the gentile world in the house of the Rom soldier, CorneUus, and has the exquisite delight of witnessing scones closely akin to those of Pentecost at Jerus (Acts 10 44-47). It was given him to pronounce the solemn sentence on the guilty pair, Ananias and Sapphira, and to rebuke in the power of the Spirit the profane Simon Magus (Acts 5 1-11; 8 18-23). In these and the like instances Peter exhibited the authority with which Christ had invested him (Mt 16
gereth not" (2 1-3); the Judge is He who "spared not" in olden time (vs 4-7); His delay expresses mercy, but He "will come as a thief" (3 9.10); the heavens "shall pass away," the earth and its works
shall be burned up (ver 10) ; "What manner of per-
sons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness?"
(7) Second Coming of Christ.—Peter's theology concerning judgment is a further illustration of the
(ver 11).
19)—an authority bestowed upon all tho disciples (Jn 20 22.23)—the power to bind and to loose. Two Epp. are ascribed to Peter. Of the Second
Messianic character of his instruction . For example,
the Second Coming of Christ of which he speaks in
Peter, First Ep. of THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2352
Silvanus appears to have been the bearer of the letter to the Christians of Asia Minor: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him, I have written unto you briefly" (5 12). It is an assumption to assert from these words that Silvanus was employed in the composition of the letter. The statement denotes rather the bearer than the writer or secretary. Silvanus was Paul's companion in the ministry to the Asiatic churches, and since we do not read of him as going with Paul to Jerus or to Rome, it is probable he returned from Corinth (Acts 18 5) to Asia Minor and labored there. He and Peter met, where no one knows, though not a few think in Rome; as liliely a guess perhaps is in Pal. At any rate, Silvanus gave Peter an account of the conditions in the provinces, the afflictions and persecutions of believers, and the deep need they had for sympathy and counsel. He would, accordingly, be of the greatest assistance to the apostle. This seems to account for the peculiarity of language which Peter uses : "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, I have written unto you," as if he had some share in furnishing the contents of the Ep.
doubt and uncertainty have existed from the early ages to the present. The genuineness and authenticity of the First are above suspicion.
/. Canonicity of 1 Peter.—The proof of its integrity and trustworthiness is ample and altogether sat-
Silvanus
isfactory. It falls into parts : external
1. External and internal. The historical attestaEvidence tion to its authority as an apostolic document is abundant. Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, martyred in 156 AD at 86 or more years of age, refers to the Ep. in unmistakable terms. Irenaeus, a man who may well be said to represent both the East and the West, who was a disciple of Polycarp, quotes it copiously, we are assured. Clement of Alexandria, born c 150 AD, died c 216 AD, cites it many times in his Stromata, one passage (4 8) being quoted five times by actual count. "The testimony of the early church is summed up by Eusebius (HE, III, xxiii,
///. Place and Time of Composition.—According
to 5 13 the Ep. was written in Babylon. But what place is meant? Two cities having this
3). He places it among those wrritings about which no question was ever raised, no doubt ever entertained by any portion of the catholic church" (Professor Lumby in Bible Comm.).
1. Babylon: name were known in apostolic times. Which? One was in Egypt, probably on or near the present site of Cairo, and we are
The internal evidence in favor of the Ep. is as conclusive as the external. The writer is well acquainted with Our Lord's teaching,
told that it was a "city of no small importance." Epiphanius calls it "great Babylon" (Zahn). The absence, however, of all tradition that would tend
to identify this place with the Babylon of the Ep. seems to shut it out of the problem. Babylon on the Euphrates is regarded by many as the place here designated. Jews in considerable numbers still dwelt in Babylon, notwithstanding the massacre of thousands in the reign of Claudius, and the flight of multitudes into other countries. 'There is much to be said in favor of this city as the place meant, and yet the absence of tradition in its support is a very serious difficulty. A third view regards it as symbolical of Rome. Roman Catholics thus interpret
2. Internal and he makes use of it to illustrate and Evidence enforce his own. The references he makes to that teaching are many, and they include the four Gospels. He is familiar likewise with the Epp., particularly Jas, Rom, and Eph. But what is esp. noteworthy is the fact that 1 Pet in thought and language stands in close relation with the apostle's discourses as recorded in Acts. By comparing 1 Pet 1 17 with Acts 10 34; 1 21 with 2 32-36 and 10 40.41; 2 7.8 with 4 10.11; 2 17 with 10 28, and 3 18 with 3 14, one will perceive how close the parallel between the two is. The inference from these facts appears legitimate, viz.
it, and not a few Protestants so understand it. Tradition which runs back into the first half of the 2d cent, appears to favor it, though much uncertainty and obscurity still surround the earliest ages of our era, in spite of the unwearied researches of modern scholars. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the first half of the 2d cent., appears to have had no doubt that Peter was martyred in Rome, and that the Babylon of the Ep. designates the Imperial City. There are very serious objections to this interpretation. One is, that it is totally out of keeping with Peter's manner of writing. Preeminently he is direct and matter-offact in his style. The metaphorical language he employs is mostly dra'ma from the OT, or, if from himself, it is so common of use as to be well understood by all readers. It is altogether improbable that this man, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject in the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet with no hint of what he means by it, or why he employs such a mode of speech.
1 Pet in diction and thought belongs to the same period of time and moves in the same circle of truth as do the other writings of the NT. The writer was an apostle, and he was Simon Peter.
//. The Address.—Peter -(VTites to the "elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion." James employs the term "Dispersion" to designate believing Hebrews of the Twelve Tribes who lived outside the land (1 1). The Jews included in it the whole body of Israelites scattered among the gentile nations (Jn 7 35). But we must not conclude from this that the Ep. is directed to Christian Jews alone. Gentile believers are by no means excluded, as 1 14.18.20; 2 10; 3 6; 4 3.4 abundantly attest. Indeed, the gentile element in the churches of Asia Minor largely predominated at the time. The term "sojourners" represents a people away from home, strangers in a strange land; the word is tr"^ "pilgrims" in 2 11 and He 11 13—an appropriate name for those who confess that they have here no continuing city, but who seek one to come. While no doubt Peter had believing Israel-
Besides, there is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Rev was published, i.e. c 90-96 AD. But if 1 Pet 2 Babylon "^ dependent on the Apocalypse for this pint pX_. name of Babylon as Rome. Peter could not isoi Jiome have been its author, for he died years before that date. The Ep. was written about 64 AD, at the time when persecutions under the infamous Nero were raging, at which time also the apostle himself bore his witness and went to his heavenly home, even as his Master had forewarned him (Jn 21 18.19). While not unmindful of the great difficulties that beset the view, nevertheless we are incUned to the opinion that the Babylon of 5 1.3 is the ancient city on the Euplirates. See Peter (Simon).
ites in mind when he wrote, for he never forgot that his ministry belonged primarily to the circumcision (Gal 2 7.8), he did not neglect the more numerous gentile converts, and to these he speaks as earnestly as to the others; and these also were "sojourners.''
Three of the four provinces Peter mentions, viz. Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia, had representatives at the memorable Pentecost in Jerus (Acts 2 9; 1 Pet 1 1). Many of these "sojourners of the Dispersion" may have believed the message of the apostle and accepted salvation through Jesus Christ, and returned home to tell the good news to their neighbors and friends. This would form a strong bond of union between them and Peter, and would open the way for him to address them in the familiar and tender manner of the Ep.
IV. Design.—The apostle had more than one object in view when he addressed the "elect" in Asia Minor. The Lord Jesus had charged him, "Feed my lambs"—"Tend my sheep"—"Feed my sheep" (Jn 21 1.5-17). His two Epp. certify how faithfully he obeyed the charge. With loving and
2353 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Peter, First Ep. of
How mightily does the apostle minister to his suffering friends! He bids them remember the uncomplaining Christ when He was un-
tender hand he feeds the lambs and tends the whole flock, warns against foes, guards from danger, and leads them into green pastures and beside still waters. He reminds them of the glorious inheritance they are to possess (1 3-9) ; he exhorts them to walk in the footsteps of the uncomplaining Christ (2 20-25); to be compassionate, loving, tender-hearted, humble-minded, and circumspect in their passage through this unfriendly world (3 8-12). He sums up the main duties of Christian
2. Example justly afflicted by cruel men (2 19-25).
of Christ He tells them how they may effectively put to silence their accusers, and refute the calumnies and the slanders that are so cruelly circulated against them, namely, by hving such pure and godly lives, by being so meek, docile, patient,
stedfast, true and faithful to God, that none can credit the fabe accusations (2 1-5; 2 13-17; 3 8.9.13-17; 5 6-11). There is little or no evidence in the Ep. that the persecutions were inflicted by imperial authority or that the
life in the short but pregnant sentences, "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (2 17). But his supreme object is to comfort and encourage them amid the persecutions and the suiTerings to which they were unjustly subjected, and to fortify them against the heavier trials that were impending.
state was dealing witli the Christians as 3 Relation enemies who were dangerous to the peace
' Cf f ^^ society. In the provinces to which the to btate letter was sent there seems to have been complete absence of formal trial and punishment through the courts. Peter does not speak of legal proceedings against the Christians by the magistrates. On the contrary, he urges them to bo subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well
From the beginning the Christian church was the object of suspicion and of hatred, and many of its
adherents had suffered even unto
1. Persedeath at the hands of both hostile cution Jews and fanatical Gentiles. But these afflictions were generally local and sporadic. There were churches of large membership and wide influence which were unmolested
(2 13). They are to honor all men, to honor the king (2 17). This submission would scarcely be pressed if the state had already proscribed Christianity and decreed its total suppression. This the imperial government did later on, but there is no evidence furnished by the apostle that in 64 AD—the date of the Ep.—the government formally denounced Christians and determined to annihilate them.
(1 Cor 4 8-10), and which seem to have been able to get fair treatment in heathen courts (1 Cor 6 1-6). But the condition brought to view in 1 Pet
is altogether different. Trials and afflictions of the severest sort assail them, and an enmity and hostiUty, bent on their destruction, pursue them with
Peter exhorts his fellow-behevers to silence their persecutors by their upright conduct (2 15); they are thus to put them to shame who falsely accuse them (3 16); and they are not to combat evil with evil nor answer reviling with revihng, but contrariwise with blessing (3 9) . The antagonism here indicated obviously springs from the heathen populace; there is no hint of arraignment before magistrates or subjection to legal proceedings. It is unbelievers who revile and slander and denounce the people of God in the provinces.
tireless energy. The whole Christian body shared in the persecutions (6 9). The trial was a surprise
(4 12), both in its intensity, for Peter calls it "fiery," and for its unexpectedness. The apostle represents it as a savage beast of prey, a roaring hon, prowhng about them to seize and devour (5 8.9). A variety of charges were brought against the Christians, but they were calumnies and slanders, without any foundation in fact. They were spoken against as evil-doers (2 12 kakopoion; malefici, Tacitus calls them). Their adversaries railed against them (3 9) ; reviled them (3 16) ; spake evil
Everything in the Ep. points to the time of Nero, 64 AD, and not to the time of Domitian or Trajan, or even Titus. In Rome vast multitudes of Christians were put to death in the most brutal fashion, so Tacitus relates, but the historian asserts that there was a sinister report to the elTect that Nero himself instigated the burning of the city (July 19, 64), and " he [Nero] falsely diverted the charge on to a set of people to whom the vulgar gave the name of Christians (or Chrestians), and who were detested for the abominations which they perpetrated." See Neho. Certain facts are clear from Tacitus' statements, viz. that at the time the Christians were well known as a distinct sect; and that they were sul)jected to the dreadful sufferings Inflicted upon them because they were Christians; and the persecutions at the time were instigated by the fear and the brutality of the tyrant. Peter likewise recognizes the fact that believers were disliked and calumniated by their heathen neighbors for the same reason—they were Cln-istians: "If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye" (4 14); "But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name" (4 16). But the imperial government at the time docs not appear to have taken formal action for the overthrow of Christianity as a system inimical to the empire. Of course, where direct charges of a criminal nature were made against Christians, judicial inquiry into them would be instituted. But in the Ep. what believers had to endure and suffer were the detraction, the vituperation, the opprobrium and the vile and malignant slanders with which the heathen assailed them.
of them (4 4); reproached them for the name of Christ (4 14). These are ugly epithets. They show how bitter was the hatred and how intense the hostOity felt by the heathen toward the Christians who dwelt among them. If there had been any jus-
tification for such antagonism in the character and the conduct of Christ's people, if they were evil-doers, "haters of the human race," to be classed with thieves and murderers and meddlers in other men's matters (4 14-16), as they were accused of being and doing, we could understand the fierce opposition which assailed them and the savage purpose to suppress them altogether, but the only ground for the enmity felt against them was the refusal of the Christians to join their heathen neighbors in their
idolatries, their feasts, winebibbings, reveUngs, carousings, lasciviousness and lusts in which once they freely shared (4 2-4). The Asian saints had renounced all such wicked practices, had separated themselves from their old companions in riotous
living and revolting debaucheries; they were wit-
V. Characteristic Features of the Epistle.—It has certain very distinct marks, some of which may be noticed.
nesses against their immoralities, and hence became
the objects of intense dislike and persecuting ani-
mosity. Peter bears testimony to the high char-
It does not observe a close logical sequence in its
acter, the purity of life and the seK-sacrificing devotion of these believers. In all Asia Minor no
structure, as those of Paul so prominently display.
There is truth in Dean Alford's state-
better company of men and women could be found than these disciples of Jesus Christ; none more submissive to constituted authority, none more ready
1. Freement, although perhaps he pushes it dom in rather far: "'The link between one idea Structure and another is found, not in any prog-
to help their fellow-men in their distress and trouble. The head and front of their offending was their separation from the ungodly world about them, and