Facing unpopularity and pressures from outside the community, the author of 1 Peter, as in other epistles in the NT that we have reviewed, aims to remind believers of the honour they enjoy in Christ, their privileged position in light of God's judgment, as well to provide guidelines of proper behaviour both within the community of believers and with non-believers and the surrounding society in general, with the aim of minimizing hostility from the surrounding community.
1 Peter is addressed to the five Roman provinces in modern Turkey - Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. De Silva notes that [southern?] Galatia and Asia were frequent spheres of Pauline activity, and John the Evangelist was associated with Asia (including the seven churches of Revelation), but we know little about the evangelizing of Bithynia-Pontus and Cappadocia. The fact that the letter may have been authored by Peter suggests that he may have conducted missions to those regions.
Regarding the addressees, apparently there was at one time a wide consensus that 1 Peter was written to a largely Jewish Christian audience, partly because of the agreement referred to in Galatians that Peter would take the gospel to the "circumcised" ("Jews), and Paul would take it to the "uncircumcised" (Gentiles). And there are many terms borrowed from Old Testament traditions, like use of the terms "diaspora," "royal priesthood," and so on - but de Silva seems certain that these terms were being adopted and directed at a primarily Gentile audience, as he says is convincingly proved by the author's use of phrases like "futile way of life" of their ancestors and "ignorance that failed to check the passions of the flesh" - which he says would never have been used to describe Jewish brothers.
De Silva notes that Peter's authorship of 1 Peter was widely accepted very early on by church fathers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. There have been objections since then, some people noting that the author's Greek is too good. We've seen that argument before, as with the Epistle of James. De Silva indicates that the author claims to be Peter and (at 5:12) that he wrote the letter with Silas's assistance, which could explain the author's facility in the Greek language. Some have suggested that a period of persecution under Domitian is referred to in the letter, which would be too late for Peter; however, de Silva indicates that the letter could date from the early 60's, the early years of the persecution under Nero.
De Silva suggests that Silas, Peter's assistant, probably delivered the letter, likely travelling in the order in which the addressees appear in the salutation.
The author indicates that he is writing from "Babylon," which may have been a symbolic reference to Rome, as in the Book of Revelation. However, there are a number of possibilities, including Mesopotamian Babylon or Egyptian Babylon. De Silva indicates that a reference to Rome as Babylon would tend to indicate Pseudo-Petrine authorship and a date toward the end of the First Century.
The question of authorship is certainly a familiar one for the books of the New Testament. I think de Silva makes a valid point that the spiritual value, the inspired nature, of these books may be real whether or not they were actually penned by the apostle in question. I seem to recall him writing in another chapter that "apostolicity doesn't necessarily depend on actual authorship by one of the apostles" (or words to that effect). He doesn't say explicitly why that is so, but I guess that he means that the worth of the message conveyed plus the endorsement of the early church is enough to give it value as inspired scripture.
When I read a letter like 1 Peter, without worrying overmuch about the academic, historical questions, I feel that it is inspirational. I can imagine the great influence that such a letter must have had on the early believers who received it. I also see a very strong "family resemblance" among a number of the letters we have been studying, like Ephesians and Colossians (my NIV Study Bible says that 1 Peter has to have been written after them, because the author shows familiarity with those letters), as well as 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and even James.
I feel that the problems which were noted first in Paul's letters (and perhaps James) were experienced over and over again in many locations. I have said before that I prefer the more "radical" message of Jesus and the early letters of Paul - but I recognize that there were changed circumstances as the First Century wore on which necessitated an evolution in the message of the apostles. For example - we know that pagan outsiders were slandering the early believers, treating them "as though they were deviant and vice-ridden, unworthy elements of society." (de Silva pg. 843) Perhaps some of the new converts were like kids away from their parents for the first time - they were leaving behind the old rules which bound them into pagan society, like sacrificing to idols and participating in the imperial cult. The "Judaizing" influence would have tended to keep the Gentile converts "reined in" - but as we know, Paul preached that it was wrong to bind a Gentile to follow the Law, when the Jewish Christians were unable to follow it to the letter themselves. Given the emphasis on "Christian freedom," I think it is possible that some of the believers were not equipped to handle that freedom responsibly. The result would have been behavioural abuses. And the reaction to that by the Church fathers would have been the codification of a code of behaviour, governing the believers' relations with each other and with the unbelievers at large - and emphasizing their good citizenship, while still retaining some more revolutionary teachings such as the virtue of suffering in the image of Jesus Christ's suffering on the cross. This message was delivered eloquently in the First Epistle of Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment