atanaths ett eae ate Y sti eed an NN RE WA Nahoae oad eH Hi ea Sh ty atlas ie He th) ‘4 Mt, mints ot ) ne pee mel ail i atria aa, > a bale gh ey nh ee shat ne 5 Ph lease + Pomp marr, 8 Ahad. Poth dede ine sie anne ve si ital ieee nh TOO MPs Pads dant pane yd naib ty ag het ae DOME DeteDh ee Sede re del i pee . Agrerih gate! pee eter hey bel, bee Peed ith | | Aa) amp ple pyeah \iteaaive R ty » 17 tlaseeweteay RO Ap a4 psd fe Lone ie pie) teu a pet ee Halerteeetoach fers bar heyeoratiewhorcsniaa {Arend Jest tee mabey pies r, “ er ay Pp al apy DO tm isa) M4 fed Va ede hrs thks a peo ary ents RDitbe nn Vaphnp saree ntinbcmehbudisuerant aedcd couk sbeochean there uee Ket 1 Ged pais pans ty, oota |) Aha lh HOM tel bendtom @ Hehe Py belbt LE eM Oo Aa dag ota 4 he wht 4 pny 40! hastals deat baby hanes tie nina a — rely Wek hy ae Nepr MW Tr * .! be den dan ve bcnaoee eer : eee cee ate cater ch Abas it ttle ties boat 44% ities henge’ ery piet witty Rritecpesnee. a Sotacmeincartasen * Bie teens Ses a ade ut if >| : + Ne atta sents MONARO IM! Beye vchote he mal iy rela! act = : ma nai tedvvabeiehabuae te yodeabae hiv seeipneaes i i y meal ea aieteteas hi ra pepe botet Olden bervent ans sie ‘ Peinoatiat bs (amet bee pe oiaiebabiociens? Bae Henne cna hee htehs core = ‘ sbedudetanend tote! yereyy Obed Ned bay 96 7 ad ihe: taht * ‘aN geen t ; Novbeleliniphine iedihute aceutendedrooawnah ee oe tert wo beys wothep \ Ob) dprstadid sD fncienreye Ae 4) po yea He ‘ “ vd haleabi\hen ¢ “i bd oy by praLaten Hye ‘at, halle a O41 OA ARAR AG Dyess Aine 4s wiavdgliat in ayy ithe Fe Lode beubon wAeine NOU PA AOHO LL VPP br EL phity ae A Ache eL ar tee he ie LU vy rir v4 vipa wos Vath oat bee (ose \ ’ penmen boven invite Pei ye on ’ mye papa OW ive ye yd dad! bebide yds rye Wie sel OQ Wed ted Wn einy ved hep Sey PW! dada hag dag bet og ely Wo herey> Saran e Sidi ALL. te et) +4 Py be * ‘hel led. Pete henge by OOH OP) ATE etiig (4 RAiled burek ade sure rete et ce Dt tant Sy et NA A ONDE ett) Malte le gaggas hey feb Mbaohabian bo Pes 4 min jhe 1 eh F avgrnennte ys Me tenaden Pe, BE) Giehing i er ihe PHD YOGI hb t Ls Abel eegpeathees beat : 44d) fe Peay ob ane Ln aL or Dopeenerd tire Wey err avd adh oor bette hs, eriiieaonat : fat he bee nea te “ite aes Hee Mpa hee +0 ete Powets 4 iheedby pr . eOO9E) toe tae males ie tere oie read, ; +t let ebabiarae ioe eT A Ry tha * . * amma w weeny rape! dee ‘ Pine LAPS en) rary y 8urs veer why baad pre 4 Hin bs AN PLLD) EOHIn d pane Mune) t= Haber sad 148) ‘ ? PONE Hg He we heees, + * pi oT ededete Cree Warder dey, Meat e a te pi ote byt yp er Tite ies eine, Title stir Al RASA a oehababalecan ot ttt) ! ahd) #8 be begun eH AnOMD Oi Pidea weedy Heray i Wate v pe eiast De ANd dag yeh a erate wae At ve" wie wpeyial ys g " r " odie ed + dat aharety 4 ; 4604) eee Ay phibeit» wh eons ined pes ote Ant) ORANG Sen phe hich inert on a Siti ro ie TRE be pee Hebei i yhelBie taihe Ber ye vB adie, ee shay aah he hesapans aes Trea aud = feces i daria sie st aa shen qe beens tafe ‘Tipe hanerneten Sreriters ? ¥ ) Hy ‘ ? | fae Hesintriniead ry oer at 4} raebelhs As Shi hata ” Mearns Se re Aa) hai oy * mp Veeavae be jefe A Ste yrrrereee ” sees ah sn poieers We ede nee eden De hethpetn re Bite vy Bbc Leeilat reas Cait, earth el yidrdepemeevenets io eihata went Oe vab hens yy gel Peden 4 pneneind ou ny mn ae halt Le &! irks Nahe phe See lege ber gmat poobeenten toned abit debd betes 4 Mtr ut i haere dire the Sacieas ke miley My byl ane ares a Meg de tutte pale oho pe sant ep OMe beh. lope hepde yetees wrote pion hohe bee ve Purser Dibed by an cpa tnne te by PONTE phe tone 100) Puhr ony! shtcatiy Ss et pon Pele WOM ena yee welyee aie’ rentt teaetanabparte ne try rh) dy 4 whey epee es ial eas " Pod? Bot 5a 4a 2054s came AbGams More tte Mb plate ban sara idabrteeraeiekes pais Ineitpenhweane > 5 vacant . er tibiyrs peasy NeOe apap” Laeniienit eer ' Sabah oleae la ee Hey he er Nath ° oe Ge ng hemed hy bal Siedehe harkranpahudedoo incon’ “M yes haeks Le ee SE ry ve awed hoe ui Hicetita us Sate oe Neabhablor abi). othel Hee: Own Rfeba ne er name briwaaded, bets bh. sbtoeae oH Nets Wintel Sirona =a: be) Wie | chor eaened) hmeenae tee tPepewedal OPE Hag bce ny nets Weriedidiebetiadiiig tested ween) ebavpseer sat iver trapsagess Yadeead > no bon HP Pda ere 5 Trhtens mist pene Revew hey ype ST iaael ed 21418 Bo he yy ep ROR ents). oe x mtehs ges pede ab APebew eet + Chr a reniremtce ears tee ep Oe bode * ny rhe Php anh padih ms! wie Nene ri me + oihy sr et ale be Dy ¥ te His Wan ss ect vs nar ou ayers esp deh eres si erry i spats A FRA tds) er Rhee het re ht Since 44H. In) ay pines ae wae ¢ rey wai feeellacy (a Aad 199% mm, “ al Seilotid-adeusBieeels nt oh Sresieetettsisrtts Sette hae so sitiegenGsath eh be dbr nbs his eas Selb Soest Creer et a * Varela’ Rerrm Fates yaaa wan cirrone raat Resaeteuanis? 10) Ot op tebene PAF nde 4a 958 Spine ss b> We hdibay S046 fr HOO) OOD ‘puny mini '° ba Je i ee Name gem or bbe or bide emt vege cate we WAG) eae A)» Whaboe hey steens pearaeyes i ar ial Pape 40s A omy rf ss 1 Wat by katy ee Heal rhe ony Ebay te ait Sn liad ” y 444 998 Oo heme whee rots 12 fo be pars. balk i ¥ . Ar lito yeh Sant euene 1 apart des : rab shone Gey abd ne ae (38 HAWOP oral opr lp aha any: paetanet otom ating 1 Maaehess DL ARTS Aviv roe Aspe ds . eee ie mae pitt tie vole ‘ vedi preaeely i. wellche pep redetn COLT eer ete: oth ett molitestecvssl paneer ets By eeitt Fenda 166 90 body & conor kaye yates TG Ayres boven sedi R Ty ph pride patch fhe se a ove abe way atorepeay Heir *9 Hateapory sinerniae ry ae oi al finial TAR ub ls | Gide ah eneaad debe eirrete ve asp) yee Vw 1 nt , 6 Wp ge eh 68 ilber hem) ) rity Vibhone i eiatee ‘ BY phlerAtin apy beatae Fr ° $ } Hogs seeg ones manturey erate. eet be tapes Lhe oki wai Th oe SLLUCLAL AL relate SU eaad em! be! se bate al ade) Bie © sive Cyt tapene ahd dog bene atid. al eetitt . meta attht BLL) ttl dbs thea st aeba | 40 (OPE ramet ad rhbed DAM OSA RR. HO LD herrea den spree Sabah et hapeeh py ie serrinte ogee Cody, bee ee mie ai sha isndidee ak eta heated SIT Rilialt ae SareGtrorsesete? itorererdiaryvieBeseanve reve nb sdeen os tevannistat wieny ius dhada eb redeonsbad Seemed lad ddal ns bk pokane4 4 ahed + FOTO GUE RMON 98 oF meee yeoens tnt arty voeee be vei v 1) andere HemPvEE 04* 26 1H Yoh tide yor e ear , ee ee Toa rrihde ¥ iwere bp tobrw de’ , “he eitegte whe a iB egye hy pbnabed . etMidaoits, ene septaereey " ever aay oe Be bite Berea y i dasingercioriens: F:aaprer “4 ' Py hredBetes apd om ee He casey Apres dann 94 Pose AV ae See gee vn Ab ops olin yaes ie Lepisptadborr eee et dee Lae gee ay Uayhabseie tard paras eps longs gre Ut ale te) creed id aha py ph! dup ia Dhue ud Levene agennoraobily Se ae " yoga wines peptee sapere pawl y TT oh APEC Ik ot it Be bl ae’ altel Aad Leh Heb ME vert ane Gt amr th cmyy ” ear ath gel banpennie NOE La: FU ES Veer’ Satie sth aiat peat eet D Matar ay a ie ah NIO epee eel ths SL oabe rar a ’ ve heme, MH FC TUTE 5 aie 4 a Aa WHY 7O>4 vay bab eR Menaei whinge, on hes ah teadn ths tig POPE oh neovate Teele gery reeea? i deat ae neer vee Pepa tate rn FOB roped aoa’ ’ ‘ perry rarer tl iooary ovytnawnery Wit Hur spirend yretaigs et apron. anil eihytenteceien kik ba Sao ed skeet eens rl NLR NG EDT beth ptaaer “ ed eokdtee be bed on ial a bv ” feels w J Py aebr pry Few es ge +e dept ipreniey STU MRERE ORD oe Sidi et ST ates Sn near SMe " UI OE flere LTaL AP LTLDET AA SEP AL SE LAL ALLA aA eb) DED La eh ne Od bp Hei ay bere tee pe be DEE ATE th Ah od dds db at bo ee ** preneestt eB eee TL ae ha a ae Pale ee! te dyed ruteyonteg Cidade dae Depan yey Hera ttyouns Hebe PTT ot, Wentaty pansy rinedayr ae ith cae WY rarerl Aybwrel ids bon Woon -Tseretteatat ove ng rene tte ial Alaa on aire eave a ab ear Hd MND E TH the we WD nm yeh arden TRH TEE tg OR ten (ah ihn peta obey renee #00 perpe sway eeate es From the Library of Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield Bequeathed by him to the Library of Princeton Chealogiral Seminary sa, , A ae ae re ™ K/ THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY A SEIrICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE feet LES OF. ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE BY THE e REv.. CHARLES - BIGG,. DxD; RECTOR OF FENNY COMPTON CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS IQOI YAATYAMMOO JADITIANO JAMOITAMRATAL Zur wo AITAT Te.d0 ec1tema qauUt Te Gus THE C CA: NEW YORK. Gd ovid e2utHAHO wat MOTULOS FASTA TO merous MuTALM JADTReASIION 430 AOLILTGAT STAT UNA sHIWUNS Telia oe “ GAOIKS WO ViZ(SviKU BRT ME ‘ 7 ' ‘ , ry PALE ACE. I SEND this laborious volume to the press with a clear sense of its limitations. But on this subject no more need be said ; the shortcomings of the work will be at least as evident to others as to myself. The books that I have used most for the purpose of the commentary are those of Alford, Kiihl, and von Soden, that of Dr. Hort for part of the First Epistle of St. Peter, that of Spitta for 2 Peter and Jude! Of Introductions I know at first hand only those of Salmon, B. Weiss, Westcott, Jiilicher, and Zahn, the excellent articles of Dr. Chase in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and Harnack’s Chronologie. No one can write of the early Church without feeling how greatly he has been helped in an infinity of directions by the eminent scholar last named. But the apparatus of a commentator on the New Testa- ment ought to be much wider than it usually is. The Anti- nomians with whom we meet in 2 Peter and Jude cannot be understood from the New Testament alone. To see what they were we must turn not merely to Corinthians, Thessa- lonians, or. the Apocalypse, but to the lives of Luther and Wesley, to the times of Eckhart, Tauler and Ruysbroek, or to such books as Barclay’s /uner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth. Every great religious upheaval repro- 1-Vaiuable sumtnaries’ of ‘the Literature are found—for 1 and 2 Peter, Hastings’ D. of the B., vol. iii. pp. 817, 818; for Jude, vol. ii. pp. 805, 806, ‘ and Smith’s D. of the B., vol. i. p. 1839, ed. 1893. Vv vi PREFACE duces the same phenomena. There can be no doubt that they existed also in apostolic times. The Gnostics again, with whom these Antinomians have been confounded, cannot be understood without some acquaintance with the magic and devil-worship which reigned throughout the Greco- Roman world. For this we must go to Plutarch, Apuleius, Lucian, the Neo-Platonists, or the papyri. Deissmann, in his Bzbelstudien, gives some specimens of magical formule, and the Pzstzs Sophia will show how the sacred names of the Bible and of the heathen mythology were mixed up together. At this moment in Hayti there are Gnostics who blend Vaudoux, or snake-worship, with Roman Catholicism, and it is probable that the same kind of “syncretism” is known to missionaries in other quarters. The Gnosticism of the Greeks and Orientals was probably not quite so sinister as that of the Haytian negroes, but it belonged to the same family. A point which gives the commentator much trouble is the nature of the Greek with which he has to deal. It is Vulgar Greek, but this is a most indefinite term. There is (1) the Greek that was written by men of education, by Epictetus, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Lucian, Clement of Alexandria. In this there are many new words and expres- sions, and the niceties of Attic grammar are relaxed; at the same time the old classics exercise a strong influence over the writer’s mind. (2) Again there is colloquial Greek, which, as it was spoken in Egypt, we see fresh from the source in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, published by Grenfell and Hunt. (3) There is, again, the colloquial Greek as written by Jews, whose grammar and phraseology were more or less influenced by the Septuagint and the genius of the Hebrew tongue. (4) Again we have to take into account the force of Christian usage, which coined many new terms of its own. (5) Finally, there are perceptible differences in the linguistic habits of the New Testament writers themselves. Con- stantly we have to ask whether any inference can be drawn PREFACE vii from the presence or absence of the article, what sense is to be attached to a wu or an 2, whether such a phrase as xpioic Braconwiag is Hebrew or Greek, whether év Xpior@ is Pauline or liturgical. Much has been done in later years to simplify these questions. The admirable Concordance of Hatch and Redpath is often the best of commentaries, Field has done much good service, and books like Deissmann’s Bzbelstudien (of which an English translation has recently been published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark) are of great use. Finally, Dr. Blass has earned the gratitude of all commentators by his Grammar. It is the work of one who with a profound knowledge of classical Greek combines a large and accurate acquaintance with the language of the New Testament, and no book shows so clearly, what we want especially to know, the difference between the two. Some of my readers may be startled, or even shocked, by the view taken in this volume of the relation between the two great apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. It has not been adopted hastily, nor is it, I trust, irreverent. But it will not be accepted by anyone who regards the Didache as belong- ing to the first or even to the second century. My own conviction is that it belongs to the fourth. According as the reader accepts one view or the other, his conception of the early history of the Church will be fundamentally different. As regards the relation between St. Peter and St. Paul again, there is need of a wider historical sense than is usually brought to bear upon the question. The difference between the two apostles was, as I believe, practically that which divided Hooker from Cartwright. I say practically, as meaning that a strictly Pauline Church would, in the details of worship and discipline, approximate very closely to the ideal of the Puritans. It would be built upon the theory of direct and personal inspiration, not upon that of indirect and corporate inspiration. These two theories produce very different results in the way of organisation, as, in fact, Viii PREFACE everybody knows. I have called St. Paul a Mystic and St. Peter a Disciplinarian, not because the latter was not truly inspired, but because his inspiration was of a different type, of that type which is on amicable terms with reason, edu- cation, and law. People often tell one that the more Mysticism is explained the more obscure it becomes. It is a natural difficulty, be- cause up to a certain point all Christians are Mystics, as indeed are many who are not Christians at all. I may refer all those who wish for light upon this perplexing question to the excellent Bampton Lectures of my friend Mr. Inge. Or they may consider the difference between Law’s Serious Call and his Spzrzt of Prayer. Or they may read the Sermons of Tauler, or that most instructive book the /ournal of George Fox. Or they may ask themselves that question, on the answer to which everything turns, what they mean by the right Uf private judgment, on what it rests, and how far it extends. No man may presume to ask whether St. Peter or St. Paul was the greater saint. Nor can we ask whether the Pauline or the Petrine spirit is the more profitable for our times, for this, too, God alone knows. But, as we read the second chapter of Galatians, we cannot fail to be struck by the remarkable fact that St. Peter made no reply, nor can we well avoid the attempt to see what he might have said for himself, if he had thought it wise to take up the glove. Further, every Christian ought to ask which of these great apostles speaks more directly to his own soul. If it be Paul, let us be sure that we know what Freedom means, where it meets and where it parts from Law. If it be Peter, let us be sure that we know where Discipline begins and where it ends, lest for others, and indeed for ourselves, it become a yoke too heavy to be borne. | Like all brethren of the guild of students, I owe more than I can tell, to more people than I can name. It has been my desire to acknowledge all debts. But the great 7 PREFACE ix libraries are not easy of access to a dweller in the country, and often, from lack of intercourse with fellow-labourers, one does not even hear of good books. In this way, not only is much valuable information missed, but it becomes impossible to render the due tribute of respect and appreciation to those who have tilled the same ground beforehand. If there is any scholar who may think that I have been vending his wares without his trade-mark, I trust he will accept this imperfect apology. But I must tender special thanks to the Rev. Dr. Plummer, Master of University College, Durham, who has revised all the proofs with laborious care, and whose learning and judgment have been exceedingly helpful at many points; and to those eminent and most courteous scholars, the Rev. Dr. Sanday and the Rev. Dr. Driver, who have been most kind in answering questions as to which I was very much in the dark. With these words of explanation and gratitude the book must go forth to face the world. Whatever be its fate, it is a sincere and humble endeavour to promote the interests of scholarship, edification, and peace, CHARLES BIGG, Fenny CoMPron, June 29, 190%. COND Ears ae aVERODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PEER = : . . ° : : ° . 1-87 § 1. The Catholic Epistles . ° . . ee . I bez. Vocabulary and Style .- » » «= ° . 2 § 3. Testimonia Veterum 7 § 4. The Relation of 1 Peter 5 he eet ae the New Testament. - : . : 15 § 5. The Allusions to Peeceiion in I eter : ° ° Z § 6. Doctrine, Discipline and Organisation in 1 Peter ° 33 Note on Post- Apostolic Prophecy : . 50 § 7. St. Peter and St. Paul in the New eseaaient - ° 2 § 8. The Diaspora, Babylon, and the Elect Lady ° ° 67 § 9. Mark, Silvanus, and Date of the Epistle . : ° 80 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER . 88-198 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF Sule PETER ° ° e ° e ° . ° 199-247 § 1. Testimonia Veterum . ° ° ° ° ae 199 § 2. Observations on the Testimonia . : ° ° ° 210 § 3. The Relation of 2 Peter to Jude . ellos tee 216 § 4. Vocabulary, Grammar, and Style of 2 Peter ° ° 224 § 5. Organisation and Doctrine in 2 Peter . : . ° 232 § 6. To whom and against whom was 2 Peter written? . 237 § 7. Date, Authenticity, and Occasion of 2 Peter ; « 242 NOTES ON THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER 248-304 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE . 305-322 Seiseestimonia Veterum-~ . 5 « #2 es Je * % 305 § 2. Vocabulary and Style . wa ie raters ieee” 310 § 3. Indications of Date in Jude . . : : . . 312 § 4. Authorship of the ae bh and to whom was it written? . . . : ° . ° 317 NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF ST.JUDE . . «323-344 INDEX ° . . ° ° . . ° ° ° ° 345 xi ae “_ THE PelotLES OF PETER AND JUDE. —— ma KODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE: OF Si. PHTER. ST, THE: CATHOLIC. EPISTLES. THE group of Epistles in which 1 Peter occupies a place is variously known as Catholic, Canonic, or Apostolic. The title Catholic is used by the Council of Laodicea, Chry- sostom, Johannes Damascenus, Ebed Jesu, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, the Alexandrine Codex, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Leontius, Nicephorus. Canonic is used by Junilius, Gelasius (according to two MSS.), John of Salisbury, Hugo of St. Victor, and by the Liber Pontificalis (see Duchesne). Apostolic is used by Gelasius (according to the reading pre- ferred by Bishop Westcott), and perhaps also by Ebed Jesu. The title Catholic appears to be understood, by Ebed Jesu as signifying the universal acceptance of the Epistles. His words are: “Tres etiam Epistolae quae inscribuntur Apostolis in omni codice et lingua, Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni ; - Et Catholicae nuncupantur.” But Leontius explains it differently: kafoArcai 8& éxAnOnoav éredy od mpos ev eOvos éypadycay, ws ai Tov IlavAov, dAAG KaboXov pds mavra. This, however, can hardly be the true explanation, for James, 1 and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, all have a limited address, and there can be little doubt that 1 John and Jude are also intended for a definite circle of readers. Canonic is understood by Junilius to mean “containing the rule I 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER of faith”: Qui libri ad simplicem doctrinam pertinent? Canonici septemdecim. . . . Quae sunt perfectae auctoritatis ? Quae canonica in singulis speciebus absolute numeravimus, The references for this section will be found in Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, Appendix D. Canonic appears to be the Western title, Ca¢holic the Eastern. The two words probably mean the same thing, “included in the Canon,” “universally received,” “ orthodox.” The order of the books in the New Testament varies greatly in different authorities. In the Greek MSS. it is usually Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. In the Sinaitic MS. and Peshito Version it is Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse. In the Canones Apostolic’, the Memphitic and Sahidic Versions, it is Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse. In the Muratorian Fragment the order is apparently (see next section) Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Apoca- lypse. This is the prevalent usage in the West. There are numerous variations of minor importance. (See Gregory and Abbot, p. 132 sqq.) Since the fourth century the generally received order of the Catholic Epistles has been James, Peter, John, Jude, but there are many ancient variations which will be found in Gregory and Abbot, pp. 138, 139. § 2. VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. The vocabulary of the Epistle is remarkable as containing a large number of words which are not used by any other of the New Testament writers. The list of them is as follows: dyaoro.ia, ayaBorotds!, ddeApdrys}, ddikws!, ddodos, aicxpoxepdas, GAXoTpioeriokoTos, apuapavtivos, ajdpavtos!, dvayevvav!, dvayKacTas, dvalovvucba!, avaxvows, dvex\aAnros, avtiovopeiv, amroyiver Oar, arovéeuew!, adrpoowroAnmrus, apetat!, aptryévvytos, apxuroiunv®, Brodv}, yevatketos!, éykouBodvobar (€yxoArodabar), éumAoKy, evdvors!, eEayyér- Aew!, eEepevvav!, éerepwrnpal, érixdAvppal, émidouros}!, ériaptupeiv}, érorrevew”, ieparevpal, KAéos!, KAjpo., Kpataids!, Kriorys!, pow}, oivodAvyia, spuoppwv, drriler Oa”, watporupddoros, repiHecrs", 7dTO0s!, mpoOvpus!, mpomapriperOar, rrdyots!, puros!, oevodv, oropa!, oupzra- Oys!, cvprperBirepos, ovvexAeKTOs, cvvoikeiv!, Tarewvdppwr!, TeAciws!, broypaypos!, brodmavew, pirddeddos!, dirddpwv (v.4. in ili. 8), adpierOau, They number in all sixty-two. Words marked (1) are found in ave VOCABULARY AND STYLE 3 the Septuagint. Words marked (?) are found in one of the other Greek versions of the Old Testament. *Avayevvnfeis occurs only as a doubtful variant for rapayevnbeis in the preface to Sirach. Some MSS. appear to have read this word in John iy. 3, 5, but here it is possibly borrowed from St. Peter. What observations are necessary on these words will be found in the Notes. Here we may remark that the language and the thoughts of the author are deeply tinged by the influence of the Greek Old Testament. He appears to have had a special predilec- tion for Maccabees, with which he has many words in common (kataoAy, duacropd, duiavros, dd€a1, dvactpody, Tapoikia, iepatevpa, Tepiexw, Gpetai, troypappos, TTONoLs, arovepew, TvpTabys, Eevilev, KTioTns, adeAporys), and for Wisdom (aOapros, apiavros, dpapayTos). His vocabulary is marked by a certain dignity and elevation. It shows no trace of the Atticist affectation which was common in the second century, but is such as might have been employed by a well- read Jew of good social standing in the first. The Hebraisms which occur are neither many nor harsh. We find éArilew emi (i. 13); Téxva Utraxons (i. 14); Tas dodvas THs diavoias (i. 13); atpoowrodymtus (i. 17); Pywa Kupiov (i. 25); Aads eis TepiToinow (il. Q) ; oKevos (iil. 7); mopeverOau ev (iv. 3), and so on; but there is nothing to suggest that the writer habitually spoke or thought in Hebrew, or that he was translating from a Hebrew original. There are no Latinisms. What may be called the new Christian vocabulary appears, of course. We find Xpicriavos, Pamricpo, 6 d-yar div, mioTls, ebayyedilew, a\jGea, exkrextds, EAov, Tpdyvwcis, ayacpds, Tepacpds, TvEdpa, mpeaBitepos, tazrewos, KAnpor, and other words might be added. But we do not meet with vopos, éicKozos, dudKovos, éxxAyota. There is no mention of the Christian Prophet, or of Widows or Orphans. Nor do we find any of those words which belong especi- ally to the circle of St. Paul’s ideas (d:xarodv and its family: axpo- Buvotia, repiropy: é\doyetv: dvaxepadaotobar: viobecia: tANpwpa.: pvoTypiov: appaBdv: rapdrtwpa, tapaBacis, tapaarns: mpobects, mpoopile : KkavyaoOo1: Katapyeiv: oTavpos, atavpoiv : poppy: Cin: papa, and so forth). What grammarians note as vulgarisms or colloquialisms of later Greek are present, but not in any striking degree. There are a few words of late coinage, like xaOws, irodiuradvev. The terminations -ya and -pos are confused; thus we have troypapypos for t7o- ypappo, and some words, é. g. mpopaptiper bar, doximrov, seem to be incorrectly used. But, generally speaking, the orthography and grammar are not bad. In some points, indeed, there is remarkable correctness in the writer’s use. Thus the particle é occurs six times, and is always followed: by 8¢. 4. INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER The article is employed in more classical style than by any other writer of the New Testament. Take, for instance, the quite Thucydidean clause in iil. 35 6 éEwbev gumoxijs Tptx@v Kal Tepiferews xpuoiwy 7) évdvcews inatiwy Koopos, and eight times he uses the nice arrangement exemplified in the phrase rov ris TrapouKkias bpav xpovov (i. 17, iii. 1, 3, 20, iv. 14, v. 1 d#s, 4). In iv. 3 he has ro BovAnpa trav var, the collocation which in the rest of the New Testament is almost universal. Still more striking is the refined accuracy of his use of #s in 1. 19, os apvod a apdpou kal domidov Xpworod : ii. 16, p27) ws erika upypia EXOVTES THs Kakias THv eAevbepiay : iil. 73 os dobeveorépy oKEever TO Yuval- xetw. In the first passage Xpiorod os duvod dywopov Kai éonidov would be Greek, but the masters of style prefer the arrangement followed by Peter; for instance, Plato, Zaws, 905 B, ws ev KATORT POLS atTov Tals mpageow, Compare Diognetus, Vi. 6, KaTEXOVTaL @s €Vv ppoupa TO KOOL : Josephus, Ant. xviii. 9. 5, Ss td Kpelrrovos KaKod TiS ériOupias vikwpévov. This subtlety was a stumbling-block in later Greek (see Cobet, Variae Lectiones, pp. 163, 532). I find no other instance of this nicety in the New Testament except in Hebrews, xli. 7, ds viots july rpoopéeperar 6 Weds. Peter himself follows the other, to us more natural, order in ii. 12, xatadadovow ipav os KAKOTTOLOV. On the other hand, Peter constantly omits the article altogether, especially in the case of a noun used with another noun in the attributive genitive, —év aylarpa Ivevparos, eis pavric pov aiparos, i 2; 80 dvaor do ews ‘Inood Xpuorob, 1, 33 ev drroxaAdviper ” Inood Xpiorod, i. a: 3 cwrnpiav Woxor, 1, 93 &y pepe ertoxorgs, 11, 12,—but also with single nouns, zvedua dyvov, i i. 123 @eds, passim; év Kaup@ eoxary, 5's ypahms il. 6; _yovaixes, iis ts dyyehou, is i2< vEeKpOv, 1. te lavras Kat veKpous, iv. 5 ; TouKtANS Xapttos, iv. 10; Ady.a, IV. 10; mpeoBurépous, v. 1. Some of these may be instances of that dropping of the article before familiar words or in current phrases which is common in all Greek writers ; in some again there may be a doubt whether the absence of the article does not give the noun a qualita- tive force, whether, for instance, dyyeAo., in 1. 12, means “the angels,” or ‘‘even angels,” “such wonderful beings as angels.” But there are cases where no reason can be found, and where the attempt to find one only leads to mistranslation. As elsewhere in the New Testament, pm is used with the participle where classic usage would exact ov; see i. 8, iv. 4; but we have ovx iddvres, i. 8. It is doubtful whether any distinction is made between the present and the aorist imperative in ii. 17. “Iva is followed once by the fut. ind. (iii. 1) ; elsewhere invariably by the subjunctive, whatever the tense of the principal verb. Very few connecting particles are employed. “Apa, ye, érei, VOCABULARY AND STYLE 5 éreioy, TE, ON, Tov, Tws, do not occur. Nor is av to be found in the Epistle. This fact alone is sufficient to show that the writer was not a Greek. The writer of the Epistle was probably unable to produce such work as we see in the highly finished preface to St. Luke’s Gospel. Nevertheless he was quite awake to the difference between good Greek and bad, and used the language with freedom and a not inconsiderable degree of correctness. It follows almost necessarily that St. Peter cannot have written the Epistle himself. The apostle could not speak even his own native tongue with refined precision, but was easily recognised by dialect or accent as a Galilaean (Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70; Luke xxii. 59). He struck his own countrymen as an unlearned and ignorant man (Acts iv. 13), and it is not probable that he ever acquired an easy mastery of Greek, for primitive tradition represents him as making use of Mark as interpreter (Papias in Eus. & Z. iii. 39. 15; Irenaeus, iii. 1. 1; 10. 6). Basilides the Gnostic pretended to have learned some part of his doctrine from Glaucias, “the interpreter of Peter” (Clem. Al. Strom. vii. 17. 106) ; and though this is fiction, it testifies to the prevalent belief of the early Church that St. Peter shrank from the effort of literary composition in Greek. On the other hand, the Epistle shows no trace of translation, and we may dismiss with confidence Jerome’s view (Zfist. ad Hedib. 150) that it was originally written in Aramaic. It is highly probable that the Epistle as it stands is the work of an “interpreter,” and this was the general view held by scholars of the last generation (Semler, Eichhorn, Ewald, W. Grimm, Renan, Weisse; in recent times Kiihl). Opinions differ as to who the interpreter was. Many have fixed upon St. Mark, guided by the old tradition which makes him the épyyve’s of Peter. But the evangelist was probably not the only friend who helped the apostle in literary composition, and the style of the Epistle is very unlike that of the second Gospel. It is more probable that the interpreter was Silvanus; indeed this may very well be the meaning of the words da LAovavod tyty éypaia (v. 12). Kiihl insists that dud can only denote the bearer, not the draughtsman of the Epistle. But he is certainly mistaken in thus limiting the sense of the pre- position. Dionysius of Corinth (in Eus. & Z. iv. 23. 11) speaks of the Epistle of Clement as jiy dua KAjpevtos ypadeicay, meaning clearly that Clement was the mouthpiece or interpreter of the Church of Rome. It is quite possible that St. Peter’s phrase is to be understood in the same way. At the same time, Silvanus might be, and probably was, the bearer as well as the draughtsman of the Epistle. . Neither is it certain what was the precise function of the “interpreter.” He would be more than an amanuensis (troypadevs, 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Taxvypados), such as was employed by St. Paul, Origen, and indeed most ancient writers; but how much more we cannot say. We might suppose that the apostle dictated in Aramaic, and that Silvanus expressed the substance in his own Greek. In this sense King Oswald served Aidan as interpres uerbi caelestis (Bede, H. £. iil. 3; see Mr. Plummer’s note). Or the apostle may have dictated in Greek—St. Peter must have been able to speak the language in some degree—and the interpreter may have altered and corrected his expressions more or less, as was necessary. Thus Josephus (contra Apion. i. 9) availed himself of the assistance of Greek scholars to polish and correct the style of his writings. There is yet a_third-possibility, that the interpreter received only general instructions, and was allowed a free hand as to the manner in which they should be carried out, subject to the revision and approval of the author. This seems to have been the position of Clement of Rome. But Clement, though the servant of the Church, was yet its leading member, and we can hardly suppose that the liberty allowed to St. Peter’s assistant would be so wide as this. If an interpreter, in any of these senses, was employed, it follows that the actual words of the Epistle are not altogether those of the apostle himself; and this consequence must be borne in mind when we come, as we shall come later on, to discuss the relation of 1 Peter to other documents in the New Testament. But there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that the points handled, the manner in which they are developed, the general tone of thought, are those of St. Peter himself. There are certain striking characteristics which undoubtedly are the property of the author: the constant allusions to the Old Testament ; the strong sense of an unbroken continuity between the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel ; the absence of anything that can be called specula- tion; the fatherly pastoral temper, and constant preference of the concrete to the abstract ; the imagination which, though never lofty or soaring, is yet tender and picturesque ; and, lastly, the connexion of ideas, which is conversational, like that of a good old man talking to his children. There is no definite plan or logical evolution of a train of thought. One idea haunts the whole Epistle ; to the author, as to the patriarch Jacob, life is a pilgrim- age: it is essentially an old man’s view. Out of this central sentiment (which differs from that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, inasmuch as there the pilgrimage is that of the world, here that of the individual soul) spring the sister thoughts of suffering, patience, humility. These constantly return, each time with some new application ; the apostle travels round and round his beloved spot, and at each recurring halt some fresh feature in the view presents itself. Even the words repeat themselves, always in a different connexion; the repeated word appears to suggest the thought TESTIMONIA VETERUM 7 which follows (see a list of instances in the Prolegomena to 2 Peter, § 4). This habit of verbal iteration deserves more notice than may at first sight appear, because it meets us again in 2 Peter, and is a point of some importance in the discussion of the authenticity of the later Epistle. § 3. TESTIMONIA VETERUM, Eusebius (Z. £. iii. 25. 2) places the First Epistle of Peter among the “Opodoyovpeva, or books which were accepted by the whole Church without any feeling of doubt. There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name. The Second Epistle of St. Peter. “The earliest attestation to Peter’s First Epistle is that given in the Second (iii. 1) ; for those who deny this Second Epistle to be the work of Peter acknowledge that it is a very early document” (Salmon, /ztrod. pp. 457, 458). This reference in 2 Peter would prove not only that 1 Peter existed, but that it bore the name of Peter. But it should be observed that Spitta, Zahn, and others consider that 2 Pet. iii. 1 refers not to 1 Peter, but to a@ lost Epistle, | and that 2 Peter is the older of the two. The Epistle of St. James. This also may be cited as an attesting witness ; see next section. Barnabas. The date of the Epistle of Barnabas is 70-79, Lightfoot ; 80-130, probably towards the end of this period, Harnack, Chrono- logie, p. 427. Barn. i. 5, Cwys Amis, apxn Kal tédos riotews, cf. 1 Pet. i. 9, KopiCopevor TO TEAOS THS Tic TEws bpav. Barn. iv. 12, 6 Kvptos adrpocwrodAjprtus Kkpivet Tov Kocpov" éxaotos Kalas éroinoev Koptetrar, cf. 1 Pet. i. 17, kal ef watéepa érixadetaGe TOV dmporwrodnrros kpivovra. kata TO éxdorou € epyov. Barn. v. 1, va TH dpéoes TOV dpaptiav dyviobaper, 6 eat ev TO aipare TOD pavtioparos adrod, cf. 1 Pet. i. 2, ev dyracpe Tvevparos, cis trakonv Kal pavtitpov aipatos Incod Kgiorcat (but see also Heb. xil. 24, where aiwate payvticpod occurs, though without mention of sanctification). Barn. v. 6, of mpopyjrat, am’ airod éxovres tiv yxapwv, eis adrov empopyrevoay, cf. £ Pet. i. 11, mpopynrar . . . epavvavtes eis tiva 7 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Totov Kaipov é€dnAov TO év airots veda Xpiorod mpopaprupdpevoy Ta eis Xpiotov wabjpara, Barn. xvi. 10, mvevparixds vads, Cf. I Pet. ii. 5, otkos mvev- PATLKOS. Clement of Rome. About 95, Lightfoot; 93-95, hardly so late as 96 or 97, Harnack, Cronologie, p. 255. Bishop Lightfoot gives a list of twelve parallelisms between 1 Peter and Clement; Harnack in his edition numbers twenty. The following points may be selected : -Clement has a considerable number of words from the vocabu- lary of 1 Peter :—dyafororety!, ayaborouia, aSeAporns, Gp.0}108", avrTi- tuTov!, aTpoctwToAnpTTws, dpkeros!, domtXos, mapoukia, broypap.pos. These words, with the exception of those marked (1), and even these are rare, are not found in the New Testament except in 1 Peter. The salutation of Clement’s Epistle appears to be suggested by that of 1 Peter: xdpis tty Kal elpyvn aad mavtoKpdtopos eov dua *Inoot Xpictod tANOvvOein. This resemblance is peculiarly important in view of Harnack’s suggestion that the Address of 1 Peter is a later addition. Clem. vil. 4, drevicwpey eis 76 aia tod Xpiocrod Kat yvdpev ws éorw tiwov TO Uarpi airod, cf. 1 Pet. i. 19. Clem. ix. 4, Ne mirrds cbpebeis dua THs Aetrovpylas avrod wadry- yeveoiay Koop éxjpréer, kal Sérwoey Ov aitod 6 deordrys Ta civeAOovTa ev dpovoia faa eis tiv KiBwrov, which is apparently a reminiscence of PECL. Mil, 20, Clem. xxxvi. 2, eis 76 Oavpacrov atrod das (the words Gavpacrov avrov are omitted by Clement of Alexandria in quoting this passage) : lix. 2, "Inood Xpiorod, 82 ob exdAcoev Huds amd oxdrovs eis Pas, C 1 Pet. ii. 9. Clement has also in common with 1 Peter two quotations. Clem. xxx. 2, @cds ydp, pyoiv, trepnddvois dvtirdocerat, Tarewots de didwor xapw, cf. 1 Pet. v. 53 Jas. iv. 6. Both have @eds, while the LXX. (Prov. iii. 34) has xvptos. Clem. xlix. 5, dyamry xadvrret )ijOos dpapriay, | so 1 Pet. iv. 8: here the LXX. (Prov. x. 12) has wévras dé rods py PiAoverxodvras Kadvrrer piAdia. Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum. Mr. Sinker thinks that the date of this book is to be placed in a period ranging from late in the first century to the revolt of Bar Cochba. Professor Harnack (Chronologie, p. 569 sqq.) distinguishes between a Hebrew original and a Christian edition; the latter, he thinks, was known to Origen, and possibly but doubtfully to Irenaeus. The book offers certain similarities to 1 Peter which are deserv- — TESTIMONIA VETERUM 9 ing of notice, the words dyaforotta, Jo. 18; dyaforoeiv, Bens. 5; puacpds, Benj. 8: and certain phrases, WVepht. 4, kata TO 7oAd aitod éXeos, cf. 1 Pet. i. 3; Jo. 19, dpuvds duwpos, cf. 1 Pet. 19; Gad 6, dyaTare ovv aAAHnAovs a6 Kapdias, cf. 1 Pet. i. 22; Benj. 8, ava- TAVETAL EV AUT TO TVEDWa TOD Meod, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14; Aser 4, od Here Heepav ayabyv idety (from Ps. xxxilil. 13 ?), cf. 1 Pet. iii, 10; and in Levi 4 there is mention of the Harrowing of Hell, rod ddou cxv- Acvopevov éexi TH TAGE Tod iWiorov. FHlermas. The Pastor was probably published about 140, and written at various times between 110 and that date; Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 266, 267. Vis. iii. 5, the account of the stones in the Tower may have been suggested by the AiHou Cavres of 1 Pet. ie Ge Vis. iv. 3. 4, domep yap 7d xpvotov Soxiudlerar dua Tod zupos, eet Pet. 1.7. Sim. ix. 28. 5, tueis S¢ of racyxovres Evexey TOD dvdpuaros dogalew édeidrcre Tov Ocdv, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 15. Mand. viii. 10, in the list of Christian virtues, several Petrine words occur close together: qiAdevos, Fovxwos, adeA drys, ayabo- moinows (= ayaforouia). Sim. 1X. 16. 5. ovrot of drdaroAa Kat of diddoKador of Kknpigartes TO OvOpaA TOU viod Tod Mcod, KorunOevres ev Suvdper Kai riaTEL TOD ViOd TOD @cod exnpvgav Kai Tols mpoKeKounpevols, Kal avTol edwKay avTois THY o¢gpayida Tod Kypvypatos: these words are probably an expansion and explanation of 1 Pet. iv. 6; just before them comes the Petrine word Jwozoveiv. Polycarp. He died a martyr in 1 55 Eus. @. £. iv. 14. 9, 6 yé rou TloAv- Kap7os év TH dmubeioy mpos Pirurryoious avTov ypadpy depopery eis dedpo, Kéxpytal tict paptupias amd THs Ilérpov mporépas émiatoAgs. In Polycarp we find not merely similarities, but actual quotations Pett b Peto S 5 i, 1 =f Pet. b £3,903 tage Pet: tik. os Va Sa Meee i. x1 5 vil. 2— 1: Pet. iv..7 ; vill.-1=1 Pet. i: 24; 223° 2= 1 Pet. ii. 12. Polycarp does not name St. Peter; hence Professor Harnack thinks that though he knew the Epistle, he did not know it as Peter’s. St. Paul is mentioned four times, and twice quoted by name, xi. 2, 3; but there is a special reason for this, because St. Paul also had written to the Philippians, and Polycarp writes to remind them of the fact. Otherwise, though his epistle abounds in quotations, it is not his habit to name his authority. On this point see Dr. Chase’s article on Peter, First Epistle, i in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 780, 781. IO INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Papias. He wrote between 130-140 or even later; Lightfoot. Eus. HZ. iil. 39. 17, Kéxpyntas 8 airds paptuplas aad THs Iwavvov mporepas emiaToAns Kal aro THs Ilérpou dpotws. Justin Martyr. His death has been placed as late as 163-165, but Dr. Hort (Journal of Philology, iii. 155, On the Date of Justin Martyr) sets it as early as 148. The later date is more probable. Apol. i. 61 we find the word évayevvav : Zrypho, 110, domXos, is used as an epithet of Christ ; it is so used in the New Testament only int Pet. i. 19 ; Zrypho, 35, duwpos, of Christ (1 Pet. i. 19 or Heb. xi. 14); Zrypho, 114, Tov axpoywviaiov NiGov, of Christ (1 Pet. ii. 6 or Isa. xxvill. 16); Z7xypho, 116, ths TupwHcews, Hv TYpotow Has 6 TE dudBoAros Kai ot avtod tmnpérar wavtes. The word wipwors in this sense is peculiar to 1 Pet. iv. 12; shid., dpyveparixov To dAnOwov yévos éopev jets, Of. 1 Pet. il. 9; Zrypho, 119, hpyets 5€ od povor, Aads GAAG Kai Aaos ays eopev, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 10 (but Justin is here referring to Isa. Ixiil. 12); Zrypho, 138, the story ot Noah is com- mented upon in manner that seems to imply a knowledge of 1 Pet. iil. 18-21. Noah is a type of Baptism, the eight persons are dwelt upon, and we find close together dvayevvav, dveowby, dv UOaTOS. Justin speaks also of the descent of our Lord into Hell, to preach the gospel to the dead (Z7ypho, 72); but he appeals to an apocryphal quotation which he ascribes to Jeremiah. The same quotation is used by Irenaeus. It is probable, but not certain, that Justin knew 1 Peter. Melito of Sardis. His Apology, the latest o. his writings, is assigned by ancient authorities to the year 169 or 170. Apology (Otto, vol. ix. p. 432), “haec cum didiceris, Antonine Caesar, et filii quoque tui tecum, trades iis haereditatem aeternam quae non perit”; cf. 1 Pet. i. 4. The authenticity of this Afo/ogy, which exists only in Syriac, has been impugned. Bishop Westcott (Canon, p. 222) thinks that “though, if it be entire, it is not the Apology with which Eusebius was acquainted, the general character of the writing leads to the belief that it is a genuine book of Melito of Sardis.” But Professor Harnack (Chronodogie, p. 522 sqq.) main- tains that the piece is of Syrian origin, and belongs to the beginning of the third century. TESTIMONIA VETERUM ifs Theophilus of Antioch, He died probably 183-185; Lightfoot. Ad Autol. ii. 34, TeBopevor Sdypacw paraios dia mAdvysS TaTpo- rapaoddrov yvwuns aovverov, cf. 1 Pet. i. 18. Lbid., dréxer Oar ard rhs abewirov cidwroAarpetas, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 3. Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lugdunum. The date is 177. Eus. H. £. v. 2. 5, érameivovy éavtovs tad tiv Kparaav xéipa, oft Pet. v. 6. Ibid. v. t. 32, we find the Petrine word a8eAddrys. Ibid. v. 2. 6, iva arorvixOeis 6 Onp, ods mpoTepov BETO KaTaTeTW- Kevar, Covras eSenéon, cf. 1 Pet. v. 8. Acts of the Scilitan Martyrs. The date is 180. See Zexts and Studies, vol. i. No. 2, ed. J. A. Robinson, p. 114, “ Donata dixit: Honorem Caesari quasi Caesari ; timorem autem Deo”; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 17, tov @edv qofBetcbe’ tov Baoréa tTipare. Tvenaeus. Harvey thinks that he was born in 130; he died in his 86th year. This Father is the first to quote 1 Peter by name; see iv. 9. BerrGs 55 Ve 7. .2. Earlier than Irenaeus himself is the Presbyter ‘‘ qui audierat ab his qui apostolos uiderant.” From him come the words, iv. 27. 2, “et propter hoc Dominum in ea quae sunt sub terra descendisse, euangelizantem et illis aduentum suum; remissione peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum.” Irenaeus appeals to the same apocryphal quotation as Justin, ascribing it in one place (iii. 20. 4) to Isaiah, in another (iv. 22. 1) to Jeremiah. It may be suspected that this apocryphon is itself shaped on the words of 1 Pet. iv. 6, vexpois evnyyeAio On. Tertullian. Born, 150-160; died, 220-240. Scorpiace, xii., ‘ Petrus quidem ad Ponticos, Quanta enim, inquit, gloria est,” etc. ; cf. 1 Pet. 1. 20 sqq. Jbid., “et rursus; Dilecti ne epauescatis ustionem,” etc. ; cf. 1 /Pet. iv. 12 ‘sqq; Adu. Judaeos, x:, “Christus, qui dolum de ore suo locutus non ests chr Pet. i. 22 IZ2 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Adu. Marcionem, iv. 13, ‘sed et cur Petrum? ... An quia et petra et lapis Christus? Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem offendiculi et in petram scandali” ; cf. 1 Pet. ii, 8. This reference Bishop Westcott considers very doubtful. The same phrase is found also Rom. ix. 33, but it is used by Tertullian to explain the name Peter, and is therefore probably taken from the Petrine Epistle. De Oratione, xv., “de modestia quidem cultus et ornatus aperta praescriptio est etiam Petri, cohibentis eodem ore, quia eodem et spiritu quo Paulus, et uestium gloriam et auri superbiam et crinium lenoniam operositatem ; cf. 1 Pet. ili. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 9. Bishop Westcott (Canon, p. 263, note 3) thinks that both the Scorpiace and the aduersus Judaeos are “more or less open to sus- picion.” But Jerome mentions the Scorpiacum (ad Vigil. viii.) as a work of Tertullian’s, and quotes the 4d. Judaeos (Com. in Dan. ix. 24; v. 691, Vall.) See Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, p. 681. LEpistula ad Diognetum. Harnack thinks that for the present the Epistle must be assigned to the end of the second or beginning of the third century (Chrono- logie, p. 515). Ad Diogn. ix., tov Sixavov brép tév ddikwv, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 18, Lhid., ras Gpaprias kadvat, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 9 (?). Clement of Alexandria. Died about 213, probably. Clement quotes very freely from every chapter of the Epistle ; it is needless to set out the references. He commented on 1 Peter in his Aypotyposes, and a Latin version or abstract of the Com- mentary is extant. See the text in Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. p. 79 Sqq-y and Zahn’s remarks, p. 133 sqq. The First Epistle of Peter was known to several of the Gnostic writers. Bastlides. Zahn (Kanongesch. i. p. 763) dates his commentary on the Gospels 120-125 ; Professor Harnack, soon after 133 (Chronologie, p. 291); Basilides professed to be a pupil of Glaucias, ‘‘the interpreter of Peter” (Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17. 106). Clem. Strom. iv. 12. 81, iva pi karddcxot éri KaKxots 6uodoyoupevors Tabu, pndé owoporvpevor ds 6 potxos 7) 6 hoveds, GAX’ dre Xpirriavot mepuxores, Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 15, 16. TESTIMONIA VETERUM 13 The Valentinians. Clem. Excerpta ex Theod. 12, «is & eriBupovow ot dyyedou Tapas Kiyat, 6 Teérpos pyoiv (the same passage is quoted again in 86), ert ret.:i: 12. Ibid. 12, Kata Tov aréotoXov Tysiw Kal spety Kal dorikw aipare eAuTpaOnper, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 2S, / 0G; Lbid. 41, Side ™po cases Koopov eikdtws Néyerar 4 éxKAnola exAcAexGar, cf. 1 Pet. i. 20 (?). The Marcosians. Trenaeus, i. 18. 3, Kal tHv THS KUBdrov Se oikovopiay ev T® KaTa- kAvo pe, €v 7) OKTH avOpwrrot SuecdOnoay pavepwrara pact THY TwTypLov oydoddsa pyview. Bishop Westcott thinks that these words have a marked similarity to 1 Pet. iil. 20. The correspondence becomes more striking if we compare Justin, Zxypho, 138 (referred to above), _ and if we add Marcion. Theod. Haer. Fab, i. 24 (cf. Irenaeus, i. 27. 3), otros Tov pev Kaw xat rovs Sodopuiras Kai Tovs dvoceBeis a aTaVvTAS curnpias epyoev GroXeavxevat tporeAnAvboras év 7H Ady TO GwTHpe Xpiot@ kal cis THv Bacireav dvaAnpOjvar. Marcion goes on to say that Abel, Enoch, NVoah, the Patriarchs, prophets, and just were not saved, because they refused to come to Christ. Marcion did not accept, and is here giving one of the reasons why he did not accept, 1 Peter. Just Noah was not saved, because our Lord said, “I came not to call the just.” The First Epistle of Peter is found in the Syriac Peshito, and in the Egyptian, Aethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic versions. See West- cott and Hort, Introduction, p. 84 sqq.; Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 814-929. There is, however, an ancient Syriac tradition represented by the Doctrine of Addat and the Homilies of Aphraates, which ignores the Catholic Epistles altogether; see Dr. Sanday’s article in Studia Biblica, vol. iti. p. 245 sqq- It existed also in the Vetus Latina, though only fragments are now extant, 1 Pet. i, 1-12 in s (Gregory, p- 966); 1 Pet. i. 8-109, ii. 20-iii. 7, iv. 10 to end in g (Gregory, pp. 967, 968). But Westcott and Hort (p. 83) consider that g exhibits “a later (? Italian) text,” and that “the palimpsest fragments of 1 Peter accompanying s of the Acts are apparently Vulgate only.” The First Epistle of Peter is found in all the catalogues of the 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER New Testament given by Bishop Westcott in Appendix D of his Canon, and also in the Cheltenham List (see Dr. Sanday, Studia Biblica, vol. iii. p. 217). No one of these catalogues is older in its present shape than the fourth century. On the other hand, it is not to be found in the Muratorianum, which probably belongs to the end of the second century (see Light. foot, Clement of Rome, li. p. 405 sqq.; Westcott, Canon, p. 521; Geschichte der altch. Litteratur, p- 646). The Muratorianum is mutilated both at the beginning (where the notice of Matthew and Mark has perished) and at the end. It treats in succession of the Gospels of Luke and John, the Johannine Epistles, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Gnostic forgeries, Jude, two Epistles of John, Wisdom, the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, Hermas, other Gnostic and Montanist vé@a. In the existing text there is no mention of Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, James, 3 John. There is at least one lacuna in the text. The notice of Acts ends with the words szcwte et semote passione petri euidenter declarat. sed profectioné pauli ab urbes ad spania proficescentis. ‘The passion of Peter” may. refer to John xxi. 18, 19, orto 2 Pet ita journey of Paul to Spain is mentioned only in Rom. xv. 24. It is clear that some words, we cannot guess how many, have dropped out here. Again, the three Catholic Epistles are introduced in a very peculiar way, in the midst of a list of vo#a and dvriAecydpeva. After speaking of Marcionite documents, which are to be rejected, be- cause “gall must not be mingled with honey,” the text proceeds : epistola sane tude et superscrictio tohannis duas in catholica habentur. The apologetic sane, “it is true that,” seems to imply, what we gather from the generai run of the passage, that the three Epistles named here had all been challenged. The Epistles of John had already been mentioned immediately after the Gospel, but it is not stated there how many they were. Now, if for the corrupt safer- scrictio we take Dr. Westcott’s emendation saperscripti, “of the before-named John,” it may very well be the case that the A/wra- torianum is here defending 2 and 3 John and Jude. It is possible, however, though less probable, that the right reading is swperscriptae ; and if so, only two Johannine Epistles are recognised. It seems highly improbable that 1 Peter should have been vague over in silence by one who accepted the Apocalypse of Peter. Two explanations may be hazarded—(1) the Petrine Epistle, or indeed Epistles, may have been noticed after the Gospel of St. Mark, as those of St. John are after the Gospel of St. John; or (2) the Catholic Epistles may have been placed after Acts; this is a position which they frequently occupy. The words sécute et semote, etc., “as also (Scripture ?) expressly mentions in separate places, in passages which do not come quite where we should expect them, 4 RELATION OF FIRST PETER TO THE REST OF N.T. 15 the passion of Peter and Paul’s journey to Spain,” seem to imply that other information about the apostles not to be found in Acts has just been given. Such might very well be the connexion of James with the Diaspora and of Peter with Asia Minor. The author of the Fragment, whoever he was, may have regarded James, 1 and possibly 2 Peter, 1 John as undisputed, and have recurred to Jude, 2 and 3 John in his list of spurious or doubtful works, because he knew that some authorities viewed them with suspicion. But conjecture more or less plausible is all that we can attain to on this point. Some of the TZestimonia adduced in this section may be challenged, but the chain as a whole is strong, and the evidence of Clement of Rome is very remarkable. § 4. THE RELATION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER TO THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The facts collected in the foregoing section prove that the First Epistle of Peter was regarded as canonical from the time when “canonical” first began to have a meaning. They may be held to show that the Epistle is older than that of Clement of Rome, probably older than that of Barnabas. We now proceed to inquire to what books of the New Testament 1 Peter bears any resem- blance, and what is the extent and nature of the resemblance ; whether, in so far as it exists, it is such as may be accounted for by the general similarity of all Christian writers, or whether it goes beyond this, and can only be explained by actual documentary use. We must bear in mind that the actual words of 1 Peter may very probably be the creation not of the apostle, but of his interpreter. There can be little doubt that St. Peter had read several of St. Paul’s Epistles. In the Second Epistle (iii. 16) he tells us so; and even if the Second Epistle is regarded as a forgery, it lies in the nature of things that each apostle would desire to know what the other was doing, and would take pains to keep himself informed. But what we want to ascertain is whether there is anything like positive proof that St. Peter had any of the Pauline writings, or indeed any book of the New Testament, in his mind as he wrote or dictated ; whether his words, ideas, beliefs were in any degree shaped or given to him by anybody else. It should hardly be necessary to guard the reader against the _ presupposition that St. Paul invented either the doctrines or the _ terminology of the Church. In certain directions he modified both. But there is no reason why we should not here apply the common- sense rule, that what is peculiar to a writer belongs to himself, and what is not is the property of the society of which he is a member. 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Only, if we are to use this rule with profit, we must look more narrowly into differences between the sacred writers than theologians are generally willing to do. With what books, then, in the New Testament does St. Peter display an acquaintance in his First Epistle? The extraordinary variety of the answers to this question shows the uncertainty of the ground. Early in the century Daniel Schulze maintained that the Petrine Epistle was little more than a cento of reminiscences of the Epistles of St. Paul; and in recent times Holtzmann and Jilicher think it can be proved that our author was acquainted with nearly the whole of the New Testament. On the other hand, Rauch, Jachmann, B. Briickner regard Peter as wholly independent. Be. tween these extreme views lie others of a more moderate character. Von Soden finds a definite literary connexion between 1 Peter, Romans, Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus. Bishop Lightfoot (Clement, ii. p. 499) judged that “with two Epistles of St. Paul more especially the writer shows a familiar acquaintance—the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Ephesians.” Dr. Hort entertained the same view. Sieffert even maintained the amazing proposition that Ephesians and 1 Peter were written by the same hand. ‘The elder and younger Weiss, with Kuhl, admit a connexion between 1 Peter, Romans, and Ephesians, but assign the priority to 1 Peter. We will take the Pauline Epistles first and begin with Ephesians. The parallelisms most commonly cited are the following : Eph. i. 1-3=1 Pet. i. 1-3. There is no special similarity in the Address. In both there follows a benediction of Hebrew type. This appears to have been a common form in the letters of devout Jews. See the letter of Suron (Hiram), king of Tyre, given by the historian Eupolemus of Alexandria (in Eus. Praep. Luang. igs 34), Sovpwv Yoropave Bactrc peydrAw xaipew. Evdoyyros 6 Oeds, Os tov cipavov Kat THY yav exticev. On the form of the Petrine Address, see note. Eph. i. 4=1 Pet. i. 20, rpd xataBodjijs xécpov. The phrase is quite common ; found in the Synoptists, Hebrews, and the Assump- tion of Moses. Eph. i 14, cis droAvtpwow Tis mepirooews =I Pet. ii. 9, Aads cis mepiToinow (from Mal. iii. 17). Eph. i. 14, eis érawoy ris d0€ys adtrod=1 Pet. i. 7, eis Erauvov Kat ddgav. Eph. i. 2%, Kat kabioas é ev deEua adrod ev Tots ézroupavious bmepavn maons apxns Kat eovoias kai Suvdpews kal Kuplorntros =1 Pet. ili. 22, “Tyood Xpuoroi, Os éoTw év beEra TOD cod, Topevleis eis otpavdv, bro- TAyeVvTWOV avTo ayyéov kal éfovouav kal Suvapewy. Here we have a remarkable similarity, yet it may be based upon a common formula attached to the common doctrine of the Session at the Right Hand. “are RELATION OF FIRST PETER TO THE REST OF N.T. 17 The names of angels are found elsewhere; see note, and add Test. XII. Patr., Zevz, 3, Opdvor, eEovoia. Eph. ii. 21, 22=1 Pet. i. 5, the brotherhood form a spiritual temple ; the same thought is expressed in quite different terms. Eph. v. 22-24=1 Pet. ii. 1-6. Instructions to Wives. One phrase, at yuvaikes rots idious dvdpaow ws TO KUpiw = yuvatkes irotacc6- preva Tois idious avdpdour, is nearly identical, but the treatment of the subject is altogether different. Paul is mystical; the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church ; Peter is very simple and practical. Eph. v. 25-33 =1 Pet. iii. 7. Instructions to Husbands. Here, again, the treatment is wholly different. In Ephesians marriage is a type of the union between Christ and the Church. Peter bids the husband honour the wife as the weaker vessel, because she is fellow-heir of the grace of life. Eph. vi. 1-4. Instructions to Children. Not in Peter. Eph. vi. 5-9. Instructions to Slaves and Masters=1 Pet. ii, 18-25. Instructions to Slaves alone. Quite different in detail. Similar addresses to the members of families may very well have been a commonplace. The Epistle to the Ephesians abounds in strong words and striking thoughts of w hich there is no trace in 1 Peter—e.g. viobecta, adecis, pvotHpiov, avaxepaArawoac Gar, dppaBav, oikovopia, ipo, mpopyrat (of Christian prophets), tpoopopd, téxva dicen 6 opyis, TeKva. wrtds, tavorAia. Some of these must have been found in 1 Peter, if the writer was familiar with Ephesians. Not one of the re- semblances cited above turns upon a phrase of any significance, except the Benediction of God; if this is struck off the list, very little remains. Dr. Hort says that “the connexion (between 1 Peter and Ephesians) though very close does not lie on the surface. It is shown more by identities of thought, and similarity in the structure of the two Epistles as wholes, than by identities of phrase.” But others will fail to detect these subtle affinities. Indeed the two Epistles may seem to illustrate two wholly different types of mind, that of the mystic and that of the simple pastor. The majority of critics regard the two Epistles as connected, and many believe that Ephesians is the later of the two. Von Soden decides that it is possible, but not certain, that the one author had seen the work of the other. But a doubt may be expressed whether the evidence carries us even so far as this. As regards Romans, the passages generally cited are as follows : Rom. iv. 24, be pas, ots pedreu Aoyiler Bau, Tols TicTEvovTW ert Tov eyeipavra ‘Inootv TOV Kvpvov 7 Tpav €k vekpav = I Pet. i. 21, O0 tyuas Tovs Ov abrovd miaTovs cis Oedv TOV eye(pavta aibrov éx vEKpov. Here the specially Pauline word AoyileoGau is not in Peter; the phrase 2 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER mustovs eis @eov in the latter is unique (see note); the other words are probably common property. Rom. vi. 7, 6 yap arofavaov Sedixaiwrat ard THs dpaptias=1 Pet. iv. I, 6 wadwv ocapki wéravtat dpaptias. Neither language nor meaning is the same. Rom. vi. 11, ovrw kal tyuels NoyilerOe EavTods vexpovs pev elvar TH dpaptia Lavras b&€ TO Oo ev Xpioto “Inood=1 Pet. ii. 24, wa rails dpaptiats Groyevopevot TH Otxatocvvyn Cyowpev. In Peter aroyevopevoe does not mean “ having died”; Peter again uses dikaroovvy in a sense which is not that of St. Paul, and duapria has in the one passage a meaning which it does not possess in the other. Rom. viii. 18, zpos tv péd\Aovorav d0£av aroxadupOjvas eis Has = t Pet. v. 1, 6 Kal THs pedAAovons arokadudbjvat do€ns Kowwves. Rom. viii. 34, Xpurros “Inoots . . . ds eorw ev deka Tod Ocod= 1 Pet. iii. 22, "Inood Xpiorod, os €orw év deéia TOU Meod, Probably a common form. Rom, xii. 1, tapacrnoa. Ta odpata ipov Ovoiav Coioay, ayiav, evdpeotov TO Oca = I Pet. il. 5, cis iepdrevpa dy.ov, avevéyKat TvevpaTiKas Oucias eirpoodextouvs Med. This is one of the most original passages in Peter. Rom. xii. 2=1 Pet. i. 14. Both have oveynparitecat, which is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Rom. xii. 3-8=1 Pet. iv. 10, 11, Both inculcate the duty of diligence in the use of the diverse gifts of grace. ‘The mode in which the subject is treated is similar, but there is little resemblance in phrase. St. Paul dwells upon the figure of the One Body, and mentions prophecy ; both these points are missing in Peter. Rom. xii. 9, 10, 9 dydan dvuToxkpitos. aroaruyotvTes TO TOVNpOV, KoAAwpevor TO aya, TH piiadeAdia cis GAAjAOVs PiAdcTopyor= 1 Pet. i. 22, Tas Woxas tuadv yyvicdres év TH traxon THs aAnOelas eis piradeaAdiav avutdxpitrov ék Kapdias GAAjAouvs ayaricate exrevas, There is little resemblance except in the word dvuzéxpiros, which is found also in Jas. ili. 17. Little importance can be attached to piraded dia. Rom. xii. 14-19, edAoyeire Tots SudKovras buds’ edAoyetre Kal pH katapaobe , . TO airod eis GAAHAOVs gpovodvres . . . pydevi KaKov dvtt Kaxov azrod.oovres . « « €ipnvevovtes=1 Pet. ili. 8-12, duddpoves y arod.dovTeE dv dvti Kakod, 7 Aowopiav avti Ao.dopi + + + PY GrrodwWovTes KaKOV aVvT v, 1 Aowopiav avTi Aodopias, towvavtiov b€ evAoyodvTes . . « Cytnoatw eipyvynv Kal dwéatw airyy. In Peter ‘‘ seek peace, and ensue it,” is quoted from a Psalm; but there is a strong resemblance between the two passages. Rom. xiii, 1-4=1 Pet. iii, 13-15. Duty of Obedience to Magistrates. Here there is a considerable similarity, not so much in expression as in the general idea. Like the sections on the Family Duties in Ephesians, the passage may be a recognised commonplace. There remains for consideration the remarkable similarity RELATION OF FIRST PETER TO THE REST OF N.T. I9 between Rom. ix. 33 and 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7. Here we find a peculiar combination of quotations from the Old Testament which can hardly have been made independently by two different writers. For the sake of clearness the text may be broken up into its component clauses. Rom. ix. 33, xa0ws yéyparra. (i.) od riOnys ev Sudv, Isa. xxvill. 16a, (ii.) AlGov rpookdoppartos Kai rétpav oxavddXov, Isa. viii. 14. (iii.) Kal 6 muctevwv ér aitd od katairywOyoera, Isa. xxviii. 163, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7, dudte wrepr€yer ev ypady. (i. ii.) i80d réOnpe év Suov Alov axpoywviatov, éxextov, &Tipov" Kal 6 TisTEevwv er adT@ ov py KaTarcxvvOyH, Isa. xxvill. 16a 4, bptv ovv H TYLA TOLs TLTTEVOVCW" amioTodar Se (iv.) AMBos dv dredoxivacav ot oikodomodvtes, otTos eyev7jOy els Kepadry ywvias, Ps. cxvil. (CXViil.) 22. (ii.) Kat AOos tpooKdpparos Kai rérpa cKavdddAov, Isa. viii. 14, In (i.) there is a remarkable departure from the original. The LXX. has idod éya éuBadrdw eis 7a OenédAta Suv, which is a fair trans- lation of the Hebrew (Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, R.V.). In both writers this has been altered, in Peter we might suppose because the AiMos dxpoywviatos is regarded as the “head of the corner,” in Romans because the stone is immediately spoken of as AiGos mpooKdppatos, a loose stone which could not be a foundation. In (ii.), again, both writers abandon the text of the LXX., which has kai ox ws AiGov rpookdppate cvvavTyjcecbe, ovde Gs Térpas mropatt. ‘‘ The LXX. translators shrank from the plain sense, and boldly substituted a loose paraphrase containing a negative which inverts Isaiah’s drift” (Hort). Theodotion and Symmachus have eis AGov mpockdppatos Kat eis mwétpav mropatos: Aquila, eis AiGov mpookoppatos Kal eis orepeov oxavdddov (Field, Hexap/a). Both St. Peter and St. Paul here represent the Hebrew original, but it is not necessary to suppose that either invented the phrase AiGos zpoo- Koppatos Kai métpa oxavddAov. Von Soden thinks it probable that both writers used a Greek Bible, the text of which differed from that of the LXX (see Swete, Jutrod. to O.T. in Greek, pp. 47, 403). But how are we to explain the peculiar combination of passages which, as most critics have felt, can hardly be independent? Kuhl argues positively that St. Paul has borrowed from St. Peter, because (1) the words mcrevwv «.7.X. belong to the ‘chief corner stone elect precious” with which they are rightly connected in 1 Peter, while their connexion with AiGos mpooxoupatos in Romans is so harsh that St. Paul could hardly have written as he does unless he had somewhere seen the two passages of Isaiah brought into juxta- position ; (2) the whole run of the passage in 1 Peter is easier and more natural. Peter begins (ii. 4) by an allusion to Ps. cxviii. and Isa. xxviii, and proceeds in his habitual fashion to develop 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE -IRST EPISTLE OF PETER the allusion by quoting the two passages, and adding to them Isa. viii One word suggests another—AdOos evtimos, murTevwr, TYyn, amiotodvTes, amedokipacay, AiGos mpooKoppatos. St. Peter, it may be added, elsewhere (Acts iv. 11) makes use of Ps. cxviii., but St. Paul nowhere does so. There is some force in this argument of Kuhl’s, though Dr. Hort dismisses it as a paradox. Yet the facts admit of a different explanation. Volkmar (de a/ttestamentl. Citate bei Paulus, p. 41) thinks that the early Christians may have possessed anthologies of Messianic prophecies, and it is noticeable that in Lk. xx. 17 the quotation from Ps. cxviii. is followed by words (7as 6 weodv én éxelvov Tov AlGov) which may be, or may have been thought to be, an allusion to Isa. viii. 14. It is possible, therefore, that St. Peter and St. Paul may both have drawn from a common source (see Swete, pp. 394, 397). In the case of Romans as in that of Ephesians the resemblances to 1 Peter are quite superficial, attaching only to current common- places. As Ephesians is the most mystic, so Romans is the most scholastic of the Pauline Epistles ; but not one of its salient features in words, in imagery, in argument reappears in i Peter. Ifthe author of the latter Epistle was really familiar with the great Apologia of St. Paul, it is most singular that he should never draw any distinction between Grace and Works, Spirit and Letter, Law and Promise ; that he should omit the figure of the One Body in passages which were, as some think, actually before his eyes ; that he should never touch upon the rejection of Israel, or that he should speak of pre- destination as he does (ii. 8) without a hint that any difficulty on that subject had ever been suggested to him. In truth, the two Epistles are as different as they can be, except that they have a few not very remarkable phrases, and a couple of obvious practical topics in common. It may be argued with some force that this peculiar combination of agreement in the commonplace, and dis- agreement in the remarkable, tends to prove the originality of St. Peter. St. Paul might very easily have borrowed any of the phrases quoted above. But if St. Peter was the borrower, it is surely a very curious fact that he should carefully have avoided every one of that large family of words, images, and ideas that St. Paul delights in. We can, however, sufficiently explain the phenomena of the case by supposing that the draughtsman of 1 Peter was one who had often heard St. Paul preach. Or, again, all the resemblances may very well be covered by what we may call the pulpit formule of the time. As regards Galatians, Von Soden rests his judgment on Gal. lil. 23, iv. 7=1 Pet. i. 4 sqq.; Gal. v. 13=1 Pet. 1. 16; Gal im 24=1 Pet. iii. 16. None of these points seems serious. But, if a writer calling himself Peter had read Galatians, it is hard to believe that he would not have made some distinct allusion to the RELATION (OF FIRST PETER TO; THE REST OF N.T. .21 second chapter of that Epistle. The fact that no such allusion is to be found in 1 Peter may be regarded as a strong indirect argument in favour of its authenticity. If the author wrote before the publication of Galatians, his silence is natural; but, if he wrote after that date, he must have possessed great strength of mind or great dignity of position. The Epistles to Timothy present little that is germane to our present purpose, but the relation between Titus and 1 Peter deserves closer consideration. In the Address we find the word “elect” (Tit. 1. 1=1 Pet. i. 1), The readers are “a peculiar people” (Aads zepiovoros, Tit. i, 14= Aads cis repiroinow, 1 Pet. il. 9), who are saved by the washing of regeneration (Aovrpov wadryyevecias, Tit. ill. 5 = dvayevvay, 1 Pet. 1. 3 ; owle Bdrricpa, I Pet. iii, 21). They are heirs according to hope of eternal life (Tit. iii 7=1 Pet. i. 7, 1. 3, 4), and throughout this Pastoral Epistle hope is brought to the front as in 1 Peter and Hebrews (i. 2, ii. 13). The readers are redeemed (Avrpotc@a, Tit. ii. 14, here only is the verb used by St. Paul, =1 Pet. i. 18). They are to deny worldly lusts (Tit. i, 12=1 Pet. ii. 11), and emphasis is laid on the necessity of good works (Tit. i. 16, iii. 1, 8, 14) and sound doctrine (Tit. i. 9, ii. 1). Titus is “mine own child,” yvjouov réxvov (Tit. i. 4), as Mark is Peter’s vids. The authority of the Elder is rated very high, and Elder is here an official title, though Bishop may be used as an alternative designa- tion (Tit. i. 5, 7). St. Paul still maintains his own doctrinal position (Tit. iii. 5), and is still vexed by those of the circumcision Chit i ro). In Titus we also find another edition of the family duties (old men and women, wives, young men, servants), and the special phrases troraccdpevat tots idiows avépicw—dpyais, éfovoias. trotdc- occa: but these commonplaces occur also in Romans and Ephesians. Upon the whole, the resemblance between Titus and 1 Peter lies not in mere words, as is the case in regard to the other Pauline Epistles, but in ideas; and these ideas seem to imply a certain change in St. Paul’s mental attitude towards discipline and ordi- nances. But in this St. Paul was drawing perceptibly nearer to a type of Church life older and stronger than that depicted in his Epistles of the first and second groups—in other words, he was approximating to the Petrine view, and the inference that 1 Peter is older than the Pastoral Epistles has much to recommend it. The affinity between 1 Peter and Hebrews is of a more intimate kind. Let us take the facts as they are given by Von Soden with some slight modification. The two documents employ in common a considerable number of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the New Testament, or not in the same sense and connexion, e.g. 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER dvtituTos, tapeionjos, yeverOa, otkos (of the Church), Adyos Lévy, evAoyiav K\ypovopetv, mouuynv (of Christ; but so also in John x.), dvaépewv (of sacrifice ; so also Jas. ii. 21). Other resemblances of diction are to be found: e.g. the Doxology (1 Pet. iv. 11 = Heb. Xili. 21); the final prayer (1 Pet. v. 10 = Heb. xiii. 21); eipnvnv udkew (1 Pet. iii, 11= Heb, xii. 14); the reproach of Chust (7 Penum 14= Heb. xi. 26, xili. 13); ér éoxdrov Tov jmepdv Or Tov xpdvwr (1 Pet. i. 2o=Heb. i, 2). There is an affinity between the terms used of the work of Redemption, duwpos of Christ (1 Pet. i. 19 = Heb. 14) ; ; drag (x Pet. i. 18 Heb, ix, 28) ; the phrases avaéepe dpuaptias GaPet ai 24 = Heb. ix. 28) and favrurpos (1 Pet. i, 2=Heb, xii. 24). Faith is nearly identified with éAzis, and the object of Faith is the invisible (1 Pet. i 8=Heb. xi. 1). It is the habit of both writers to clothe their admonitions in Old Testament words, to use Old Testament personages as examples, and transfer Old Testament predicates to the Christian Church. Patience under suffering is enforced by the example of our Lord (1 Pet. ii. 21-23, iii, 17, 18 = Heb. xii. 1-3). Both Epistles describe themselves as short exhortations (1 Pet. v. 12 = Heb. xiii. 22); both authors are bracing their readers to endure persecution which is impending, and is a sign of the end (1 Pet. iv. 7, 17-19 = Heb. x. 37): Von Soden himself considers that these resemblances are sufficiently accounted for by the supposition that the authors were contemporaries, and breathed the same spiritual atmosphere. The affinities, however, are very close, and the two Epistles may be said to belong to the same school of thought, which is neither Johannine nor Pauline; on the great question of the relation of the Law to the Gospel they seem to be in complete accord. ‘Their resemblances should be borne in mind when we come to compare the Petrine and Pauline theologies, The points of contact between 1 Peter and the Apocalypse are that Christians are called dodAou @eod (1 Pet. ii. 16 = Apoc. i. 1), and priests (1 Pet. ii, g=Apoc. i. 6, v. 10); that Christ is Shepherd (x Pet. ii. 25, v. 4=Apoc. vii. 17), and Lamb (1 Pet.i. 19, dpvds= Apoc. v. 6, dpviov), ‘There is a doxology to Christ (1 Pet. iv. 11= Apoc. i. 6); Rome is called Babylon (1 Pet, v. 13=Apoc. xiv. 8 and five other passages). There is a certain similarity between orépavos THs SdEns (1 Pet. v. 4) and orépavos ris CwHs (Apoc. ii. 10), and the metaphor of gold tried in the fire is employed in both (1 Pet. i. 7=Apoc. iii. 18). For our purpose the most important of these points is the use of Babylon for Rome. There is a certain affinity between the minds of the two authors; the imagination of both is concrete not abstract, and it was not without some fitness that an Apocalypse was composed in the name of Peter. But there is nothing to show that the one book was known to the author of the other. RELATION OF FIRST PETER TO THE REST OF N.T. 23 But there can be little doubt that a positive literary connexion exists between James and 1 Peter. The student may compare eemecialy ©-Pet.-i, 1= Jas. i. 1 (the Diaspora); 2 Pet.'1..6, 7= Jas. 1, 2; 3 (Ooxipsov); 1 Pet. i. 23-11. 2=Jas. 1. 10, II, 18-22; 1 Pet. v. 5-9 =Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10. The general opinion is that the one writer was acquainted with the work of the other; and Von Soden agrees with Grimm, Holtzmann, Brickner, Weiss, Usteri, that St. James was the borrower. Intrinsic probability is in favour of this view. We can sometimes explain St. Peter’s phrases by showing how he came to form them (see notes on doxiéuov and on aydrn Kadinre. ANVos aduaptidv: this last instance seems very strong), while the corresponding phrase in the Epistle of St. James seems to have been picked up ready made. Dr. Hort, however, is of opinion that the Epistle of St. James was used by St. Peter ; and the same view is held by Dr. Mayor (article on Zfzstle of James in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible). Von Soden thinks that in 1 Peter we cannot fail to observe a) large number of allusions to the Gospels in some pre-canonical | shape. This is a point of great importance, for it may be main- tained that St. Peter stands appreciably nearer to the Synoptical | Gospels than any other apostolical writer. The use of the leading facts in our Lord’s history is much the same as we find elsewhere. Here we have Father, Son, and Spirit ; the Passion, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension; the Second Advent; the sacrament of Baptism. A peculiar feature of the Epistle is the Preaching of Christ in Hades, to which we have an allusion in Matt. xxvii. 51-53. But besides these, there are a number of phrases which may well be regarded as reminiscences of the Gospel story. We may take as the general standard of reference the Gospel of St. Luke, to which 1 Peter shows upon the whole the nearest resemblance—1 Pet. i. t1o= Luke x. 24, 25; feben 2. nr, 21 = Luke xxiv. 26 3 ¥ Pet 1. 19¢= Luke xi. 35 505. Pet. 1. 17=Luke xi. 2; 1 Pet. i. 23 =Luke viii. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 7= Luke ee 07,19 7.1 Pet. iil..o => Luke vi. 28; 1 Pet ivi. 1o— Luke mi, 42; t Pet. ii, 12= Matt. v. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 14= Matt. v. 10. Wemay add certain points of resemblance between 1 Peter and the Gospel Geoote) }ohn—1' Pet..1.. 3= John ii.-3; 2 Pet. imes—John 1735 Eee. <¢= john i.29; 1 Pet. i. 25 = John sxi 12151. Pet v.2= John xxi. 16. Any single one of these allusions may be disputed, but much will remain. Von Soden remarks that we do not find in x Peter certain ideas or phrases which are familiar in the Synoptical Gospels, especially Kingdom of God and Son of Man. We have an allusion to the kingdom in the BaotAc.ov tepdrevya of ii. 9, and our Lord never appears to have been called Son of Man except by St. Stephen. Our Epistle has certain words in common with Acts—zapouxia, 24. INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Tpoyvwols, EKTEVAS, EKTEVaS, KaKodV, Eevi€ew (to astonish), Xpuoriavds, ayadAvav (in Gospels and Apoc.), dyvova (in Eph.), a@éueros, dpvds (in John’s Gospel), dweXeiv, duacwLew (in Matt. and Luke), #yenav (in Gospels), karaxvprevev (in Matt. and Mark), mepieyew (of the contents of a document), cvytpéxew (in Mark), doveds (in Matt. and Apoc.). A few other parallelisms may be noted; we may divide them into phrases connected in Acts—(i.) with St. Peter, (ii.) with St. Paul. (i.) Petrine. God is no respecter of persons, 1 Pet. i. 17= Acts x. 34; the soul is purified through faith, 1 Pet. i. 22 = Acts xv. 9; Ps. cxvili. quoted, 1 Pet. ii. 4=Acts iv. 11; the Christian rejoices in shame, 1 Pet. iv. 13, 16=Acts v. 41; the qualification of an apostle is that he is a “witness,” 1 Pet. v. 1=Actsi. 8, 22, V. 32, X. 39. (il.) Pauline. MHeathenism is ignorance, 1 Pet. i. 14 = Acts xvil. 30; God has called the Christian out of darkness into light, t Pet. 1. 9=Acts xxvi.. 18; feed the flock; 1 Pete aes Acts xx. 28 (or John xxi. 15). The evidence of style, vocabulary, phraseology does not appear to afford any conclusive evidence of either the absolute or relative date of 1 Peter. It has been dated after Ephesians, or after 62 ; between Ephesians and Romans, between 62 and 58; or before Romans. For each of these opinions plausible grounds may be alleged. Such uncertainty attaches from the nature of things to all arguments drawn from language or ideas, unless the marks of derivation are strong and clear. In the present case, if it be granted that there is a connexion, direct or indirect, between Romans and 1 Peter, we cannot cut the knot by the round asser- tion that St. Paul could not have borrowed from St. Peter. On the contrary, the supposition in itself is probable enough. We must therefore look round and consider what other means we have at our disposal for fixing the relative dates of the documents in question. § 5. ON THE ALLUSIONS TO PERSECUTION IN I PETER. The date of our Epistle will depend in part on the exact signi- ficance of those allusions to the sufferings of Christians in which it abounds. It will therefore be necessary to survey the history of persecution during the period in question ; and we cannot well stop short of the Rescript of Trajan, for it has been held that the language of the Epistle is such as could not have been employed till after the issue of the famous directions to Pliny. We may take in order the state of things depicted in Acts, in the Epistles, in the Apocalypse, and in profane history. After this review, it will be possible, perhaps, to attach a definite value to the phrase- ology of St. Peter. ON THE ALLUSIONS TO PERSECUTION IN I PETER 25 In the Book of Acts the treatment of the rising Church within he limits of Judaea proper depends mainly on the attitude of the Sanhedrin, though the reign of Herod Agrippa I. comes in as an interlude. Even under Roman rule the Sanhedrin, the Court of the Seventy-one, enjoyed very considerable power. Theoretically, its authority did not exist outside of the eleven toparchies which made up Judaea proper; Galilee and Samaria were exempt from its jurisdiction ; but wherever a synagogue of Jews was to be found, its orders were executed so far as the secular authorities would sanction or connive. Within Judaea the Sanhedrin could order arrests (Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Acts iv. 3, v. 17, 18), and could finally dispose of any case which did not involve the death penalty (Acts iv. 5-23, v. 21-40). It could even pronounce sen- tence of death, though all judgments of this nature were invalid until ratified by the procurator (John xviii. 31). The procurator was not compelled to guide himself by the Jewish law, but he was. at liberty to take this course, and often did so. Indeed, in one most remarkable case, the Roman governor appears to have had no: option. If any.one, who was not a Jew, intruded into the inner court of the temple, he was put to death, and even the privilege of Roman citizenship did not save the offender from his doom (see Schiirer, Zhe Jewish People in the Time of Christ, English trans. 11. i. 184 sqq.). Thus in the Book of Acts we find the Sanhedrin arresting, imprisoning, flogging, and menacing the apostles. Shortly after- wards the rapid increase in the number of the brethren led to the stoning of St. Stephen. It is most likely that this bloody deed was. in excess of jurisdiction ; still it was the act of the Sanhedrin ; its- method was in strict accordance with Jewish law; and it shows at least what extravagances might be and were tolerated by the Roman government. The death of St. Stephen was followed by a short reign of terror. Pushed on probably by the fiery energy of Saul, the Sanhedrin ordered domiciliary visitation. Many were cast into prison, and many fled from Jerusalem. At the same time it seems to have been possible for Peter and John to remain unharmed in the sacred city. But Saul even went so far as to set out for Damascus, armed with a warrant, which he had per- suaded the high priest to grant, empowering him to arrest Christians, man or woman, and bring them away in chains to Jerusalem for trial. Such a warrant would, of course, need endorse- ment, but Saul does not appear to have felt the slightest doubt that he would obtain the exeguatur of the civil authority. Who this was is not quite certain; but Aretas, who within three years _ was so anxious to apprehend Saul himself on the same charge of Christianity, was possibly already master of the city. That Saul was the prime mover and instigator of this violent 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER measure appears from the fact that from the moment of his con- version the persecution ceased. Not only in Samaria and Galilee but in Judaea, the legitimate sphere of the Sanhedrin’s power, the Churches had rest and were edified. From this time the anger of the Jewish powers seems to have concentrated itself with undying animosity on the head of him whom they regarded as the great renegade and traitor, and the chief enemy of the sacred law. When Saul revisited Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion, we read that the Jews “went about to slay him.” Some years later, Herod Agrippa, perhaps taking occasion of discontent excited by the famine in the reign of Claudius, vexed certain of the Church, beheaded St. James, and imprisoned St. Peter. Peter was released by an angel, and ‘‘ went into another place,”—fled for refuge, prob- ably, to some spot outside Herod’s jurisdiction. But the king died shortly afterwards, the persecution did not outlive him, and as far as we can gather from Acts, the Christians in Judaea lived a quiet life till Paul, no longer Saul, reappeared upon the scene, after the end of his third mission journey. On this occasion, again, the fury of the Jews seems to have bent itself entirely against the Apostle of the Gentiles, whom they would undoubtedly have killed, if they had not been prevented by the Roman government. St. Luke, however, tells us little of the condition of the Church in Jerusalem from the time when St. Paul began his mission labours. There are some words in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians which may point to troubles of which we do not read in the Book of Acts—‘ For ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews” (I ii. 14). There was probably many a scourging and many - an imprisonment of which we have no record. Even without these penalties a people like the Jews, in which the Church is identical with the nation, has the power of inflicting, by excommunication and social outlawry, sufferings of a very poignant kind. No doubt this power was used then, as it is now in India. In the countries which St. Paul traversed as a missionary he was far away from the domains of the Sanhedrin, yet even here his enemies were able to reach him, ‘They drove him out of Antioch and Iconium, and stoned him at Lystra. Even in Europe, at Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth, they were strong enough to occasion dangerous tumults. But in Greece the Jewish law was held in scanty reverence. Any disturbance came immediately before a Gentile magistrate, whose sole care was for the maintenance of order. A high official, like Gallio, would not at this time dream of going into points of theology; the only question he would ask would be, who began the brawl, and the answer might be anything but satisfactory to the ruler of the synagogue. But at Philippi, and ON THE ALLUSIONS TO PERSECUTION IN I PETER 27 again at Ephesus, we catch sight of one result of the new faith which led instantly to serious trouble, and was fraught with evil consequences in the future. Nearly every way in which a man gained his living in the Greco-Roman world was connected with idolatry, but the law insisted that every man should be allowed to gain his living without interference. At Philippi, Paul and Silas were flogged and imprisoned for stopping the trade of some men who kept a slave-girl to tell fortunes, and it is curious to notice that these rogues were the first to formulate the real crime of the Christian missiorary. They charged the apostles not with disloyalty to Caesar, but with “teaching customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.” ‘They had seen at a glance, with the keen eye of a disappointed tradesman, that heathenism and Christianity were two incompatible lives. Later on the same cause brought the apostle into collision with the silversmiths of Ephesus, who drove a profitable trade in silver images of Artemis. These men also found their receipts falling off, and at once appealed to mob-law. We read no more of these incidents, but it is evident that we have here a cause of hostility which would be immediately and universally operative. In every town and village where Chris- tianity struck root the local tradesman would find his custom diminished, and his shop placed under what we have learned to call a boycott. He would protest against this, and the magistrate would be quite ready to help him with a strong hand. The references to persecution in the Epistles of St. Paul are in the same key as those in the Pauline chapters of the Book of Acts. In Thessalonians we read of afflictions, persecutions, and tribulations (I i. 6, ii. 2, 14, 11. 3; IL i. 4). The apostle is afraid that his novices may be “moved” by these trials; but the phrases he employs and the tone in which he speaks are such as might be employed of the sufferings, for instance, of a Hindu convert in British India. In Galatians we find only the words “did ye suffer so much in vain?” In Romans we read how Priscilla and Aquila had laid down their own necks for the apostle’s life; in order to save St. Paul they had brought themselves into some real danger of death either at Corinth (Acts xviii. 12) or at Ephesus (Acts xix. 23), and there is a passing allusion to the sword (Rom. viii. 35), which is perhaps not to be interpreted literally. In Corinthians, St. Paul appeals repeatedly to his own sufferings as the seal of his commission (I iv. 9, xv. 32; II iv. 9, vi. 5, xi. 23). Some of these passages show that the narrative of St. Luke gives a very inadequate idea of the apostle’s persecutions. It may well be that the Jews were fiercer against St. Paul than against the other apostles, and that he had really more to bear; certainly he claims this distinction (II xi. 23); and again his words may be used to show how much pain was endured by the early believers in silence. But the 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER apostle does not speak as if the Corinthians themselves had much to fear. In the Epistles of the Captivity and the Pastoral Epistles we perceive the same tone. ‘The apostle speaks naturally of his own chain and his own fears. He exhorts the Philippians (i, 28-30) not only to believe on Christ, but also to suffer for His sake ; but the exhortation is not specially pressing or urgent. Even in his second captivity he speaks of his own death as imminent (2 Tim. iv. 6), but gives no indication of any special peril hanging over the heads of the brethren. They dared not stand by him at his first answer (zi¢d. 16); but the apostle would hardly have blamed their timidity, if Nero’s fury against the Church had already declared ‘itself. So far it would seem as if the ordinary Christian, though he had much to bear, was not confronted by any perils, except such as a sincere and resolute believer might be expected to overcome. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we come upon an entirely different state of things. The Epistle comes from a Church where many were in bonds, and many were bearing great sufferings (kaxovxovpevo), and its language is marked by that stern solemnity which betokens the imminence of the supreme moment. ‘The Hebrews are warned against apostasy, as a quite possible and yet absolutely unforgivable offence, worse than any death (vi. 6, x. 26-39). So far they had done well ; they had taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods. Buta worse and more fearful trial was at hand. And at last we come to the decisive words: ‘‘ Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” Here we have a new language. The time has arrived when Christians saw their property confiscated by process of law, and when not apostles only, but everybody must make up his mind whether he was or was not ready to shed his blood for the Name’s sake. The State has drawn the sword. What is the particular persecution referred to we cannot say, but it was clearly widely ‘spread. It was in full action in the Church from which the letter ‘came, and it had begun in the Church to which the letter is -addressed. It may very well have been the persecution of Nero. The Apocalypse was, no doubt, written later. Many had been ‘slain for the word of God (vi. 9), one of them, Antipas, at Pergamos, (ii. 13). Rome was drunken with the blood of the saints, and with ‘the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (xvii. 6, xviii. 24). We need not .ask whether this language refers to the time of Nero or of Domitian. The point is that it is quite different from the language of Acts or of ‘the Pauline Epistles. Christian blood had been shed deliberately, not by Jews, but by the pagan government. ‘The fact caused an ‘indescribable shock of horror, alarm, and execration. After this no Christian could speak of tribulation or persecution in the same tone .as before. SESS ae ON THE ALLUSIONS TO PERSECUTION IN I PETER 29 What kind of language, then, is used on this subject in the First | Epistle of St. Peter? Christians were spoken against as evil-doers (ii. 12). So they were in the time of Nero (Tac. Av. xv. 44), and so they had been by the masters of the Philippian slave-girl. They suffered reproach for the name of Christ (iv. 14). So also did the apostles in the very first days of the Church (Acts v. 41). They were to be ready to give an answer to every man that asked a reason of their hope (iii. 15), and even to suffer for righteousness’ sake (iii. 14 , compare Matt. v. ro-12). Suffering in St. Peter’s mind does not by any means necessarily extend to death, even when it is spoken of in immediate connexion with the death of Christ. Thus we read: “ Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God” (iv. 1, 2). There is but one passage that seems to go beyond these: “Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil- doer, or as a meddler in strange matters (éAXotpioerioKoros ; see note on the passage) ; but if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God in this name.” It is urged that murderers were put to death by process of law, and that, therefore, the Chris- tian who is coupled with them must have been in the same danger. But thieves were not put to death, not to speak of ‘“ busybodies ” (or whatever the word so translated may mean). And suffering, as has already been pointed out, need not by any means imply loss of life. The passage is, beyond a doubt, ambiguous, to say the least, and St. Peter could not have spoken ambiguously, if both himself and those whom he addresses were in imminent peril of the death sentence. If we recall the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse, it seems quite clear that Christian bloo had not been shed in any formal systematic way by the Roma government at the time when St. Peter wrote. Professor Ramsay, in his Church in the Roman Empire, maintains | that not only is State persecution referred to in the Epistle, but that this persecution had already entered on a later and more formidable stage. He holds that ‘‘ Nero introduced the principle of punishing the Christians ” on the ground that ‘‘ certain acts which all Christians | were regularly guilty of were worthy of death” (p. 244); in other | words, that at first Christians were executed for what Pliny calls the | Jlagitia cohaerentia nomini, the crimes and moral offences which were popularly believed to be practised in secret by all members of the Church. But between 75 and 80 a.p., under the reign of the Flavian emperors, a new form of process was adopted. Henceforth the Christian was condemned prvopter nomen ipsum. No charge of crime or immorality was brought against him ; he was simply asked, 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER “ Are you a Christian?” Further, the Christian was placed in the same Class as the sacrilegi, latrones, plagiarit, fures, who were to be hunted out by the Roman governors in pursuance of their standing instructions (Duges?, i. 18. 13); and in whose case no definite accuser was needed. ‘Trajan by his famous Rescript adopted in the main the Flavian policy, but ameliorated the position of the Church in so far as he forbade the governors to seek out Christians, and required proceedings against them to be set on foot by an informer who should give his name and take responsibility for his action, Thus the Rescript ‘‘marks the end of the old system of uncom- promising hostility.” In conclusion, Mr. Ramsay thinks that the First Epistle of St. Peter was written “soon after Vespasian’s resumption of the Neronian policy in a more precise and definite form,” probably about 80 a.p. (see Church in Roman Empire, p. 196 sqq-)e| But this elaborate argument is really baseless. ‘There is no evidence whatever that a new form of procedure against Christianity was adopted by the Flavians. Mr. Ramsay builds his view almost entirely on the words of St. Peter, “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ” (iv. 14), which he regards as substantially identical with the phrase of Pliny, Avopter ipsum nomen, “ for the name alone,” and takes as meaning that Christians at this time were punished as such, and not as evil-doers. But St. Peter tells us that Christians were regarded as evil-doers (ii. 12), and he says, ‘‘for the name,” not “for the name alone.” It is surely obvious that, whatever the pagan might say, the Christian would from the first regard the sufferings entailed by his profession as borne “for the name” and for no other cause, however the true issue might be disguised by the malice or prejudice of his adversaries. Nor, again, can Mr. Ramsay be right in maintaining that Pliny followed a mode of pro- cedure marked out for him by the Flavian cognitiones. Pliny expressly says that he did not know anything about the method which had been pursued in these cases. He invented a method for himself, and the object of his despatch is to obtain from Trajan a sanction for what he had done, and a clear direction for his future guidance in a matter which had proved much more serious than he anticipated. Certain persons had been definitely informed against as Christians (deferebantur). These he simply asked, three times over, whether they were Christians, warning them at the same time of the consequences of their reply. Those who persisted in their faith he ordered for immediate execution (duci zuss/), except some who were Roman citizens; these he directed to be sent to Rome for trial there. Here we have an instance of the regular three summonses, disobedience to which constituted the offence of con- tumacia (Digest, xlii. 1. 53). Pliny possessed the undefined and formidable power of coercitio. He simply ordered these unfortunate ON THE ALLUSIONS TO PERSECUTION IN I PETER 31 people to give up their faith, and, on their refusal, dealt with them as rebels. Later on, an anonymous accuser posted up or sent to Pliny a list of many names of persons who were liable to the same charge. These Pliny examined ; clearly he had taken alarm at the magnitude of the task before him. Some denied that they were or ever had been Christians ; these he ordered to worship the gods and Caesar, and especially to “curse Christ,” and, on their compliance, dis- missed. Others asserted that, though they had been Christians, they had ceased to be so. When these also had justified themselves by the same tests, Pliny proceeded to find out from them, what one would think he might have tried to learn at an earlier stage of the proceedings, what Christianity really was. They told him that it was not a conspiracy but a religion, that it consisted in the worship of Christ as God, that there were no /agitza at all, and that the reason why they had left the Church was, that the religious practices of Christians conflicted with the law against clubs or guilds (Aetaeriae). Pliny obtained corroboration of this statement by putting to the torture two slave-women, who were possibly deacon- esses (guae ministrae dicebantur). Upon the whole, he came to the conclusion that Christianity was nothing worse than a debased and extravagant superstition. And so he turns to the emperor and asks whether he had done right ; whether he is to punish Christianity as such (omen ipsum), or only wicked and criminal Christians (flagitia cohaerentia nomini); whether Christianity is a crime like murder, for which repentance is no atonement, or a merely religious offence, which change of mind wipes out; and, lastly, whether it admits of degrees and distinctions, or whether all offenders, man and woman, young and old, are to be treated with the same severity. Trajan replies that Pliny has acted rightly, and proceeds to state certain rules for his future guidance. Christianity is not a crime like others, and no definite formula can be laid down. Christians are not to be hunted out, like notorious malefactors, by the police. The contumacious are to be put to death ; those who recant may be discharged. But anonymous accusations are on no account to be received. They are bad in themselves, and the spirit of the age condemns them. In these last words the emperor administers a severe and well- merited rebuke to Pliny. But Pliny’s despatch throughout is as silly and helpless a production as was ever penned. First he puts men to death without inquiry, then he inquires, and then he does not know what to do. We can gather little from him for our present purpose beyond the fact that cognitiones had been held upon Christians in Rome, probably not long before and not infrequently. _ The precise effect of Trajan’s Rescript has been much debated, 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Some have held that it altered the position of the Christian for the better, some for the worse. It may be maintained that it made no difference at all. ‘So far as I can see,” says Professor Harnack, “Tertullian is the only independent witness for the Rescript in ecclesiastical literature.” It is not mentioned in the Rescript of Hadrian. In the Vienna persecution the proconsul acted without any reference to it; “sought out” Christians ; listened to charges of “ Thyestean banquets and Oedipodean incest” ; tortured Blandina, Sanctus, Biblias, Pothinus, to ascertain the truth of these horrid stories, just as Pliny had done; finally, wrote to Rome for instruc- tions, and received much the same answer as Pliny (Eus. & Z. v. 1. 14, 19, 20, 25, 20, 44, 47, 52). It is not clear what was the force of a Rescript in the time of Trajan. Gaius, writing under Marcus Aurelius, says that it has never been doubted that a Rescript has the force of law; yet again he tells us that a letter from the emperor had not always a general application (Gaius, i. 2, 5, 73, in Huschke, Lurisprudentiae anteiustinianae quae supersunt, pp. 171, 189—the text in the last passage is uncertain). Before the time of Hadrian there are very few traces of general rescripts (see the /udex Fontium at the end of Huschke), and they seem to be unknown to Tacitus. The Emperor Macrinus, who was an accomplished lawyer (see his Life in Hist. Aug. chap. 13), at one time thought of repealing all the rescripts of his predecessors, “saying it was monstrous that the will of Commodus and Caracallus and other ignorant men should be counted law, when Trajan never answered petitions (cum Traianus numguam libellis responderit).” Macrinus was thinking, perhaps, rather of favours or exemptions granted by rescript ; but he could hardly have said what he did if Trajan’s rescripts laid down general rules, modified accepted methods of procedure, and formed a new law to be followed in all similar cases. At any rate it seems clear that Trajan’s Rescript was not pub- | lished, or was not included in the directions given to provincial governors. It was not known at Vienna; just as another rescript referred to by Tertullian (ad Scapulam, 4), by which Christians were ordered to be beheaded, not burnt alive, was not known, or not obeyed, in his province. Yet Trajan’s words clearly dictate a sterner line of conduct than Pliny would probably have followed if left to himself. What the emperor approves is Pliny’s treatment of his first batch of prisoners. Pliny had inquired into the fagitia. But Trajan tells him that this is mere waste of time; the offence is the omen ipsum. Gradually, as the issues of the ‘struggle between paganism and the Church became clearer, this rule prevailed. The Christian was not allowed to plead his loyalty or his moral innocence. His mouth was shut, and his trial resolved itself into a plain yes or no. Hence the bitter complaints of the Apologists that the Christian, unlike all other ‘~ , “ , ae ‘ey —— ‘ DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 33 offenders, was punished for a mere name (Justin, Afo/. i. -4; Athenagoras, Suppl. 2; Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, 27; ‘Theo- philus Antioch. 1. 1; Tertullian, dfo/. 1). The best illustration of the justice of these complaints may be found in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (the date is A.D. 180; see the text in Zexts and Studies, edit. J. A. Robinson, p. 112 sqq., Cambridge, 1891). We have been wandering rather far afield in the latter part of this discussion. But the reader who will consider the Rescript; of Trajan, the way in which Tacitus speaks. of the Neronian per-' secution (Azmals, xv. 44), the language of the Apocalypse and even of the Epistle to the Hebrews, will feel that the First Epistle of St. Peter must come in point of date before them all. At the time, when it was written Babylon had not yet unmasked all its terrors, and the ordinary Christian was not in immediate danger of the tunica ardens, or the red-hot iron chair, or the wild beasts, or the stake, § 6. DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND ORGANISATION ’ IN I PETER. It has been argued in preceding sections that 1 Peter was probably not composed by the hand of the apostle himself—that, though the ideas of the Epistle are those of St. Peter, the words, to a degree which cannot be precisely ascertained, belong to his draughtsman—that the resemblances of expression between 1 Peter and the Pauline Epistles turn upon phrases and topics of a commonplace kind, do not include any of the favourite words, ideas, or metaphors of St. Paul, and generally are not such as to prove a literary use of any of the Pauline Epistles by the author or composer of 1 Peter, and that the language of 1 Peter on the subject of Christian suffering is such as to lead to the conclusion that our Epistle was written before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. We may now turn to another topic, the realisation of the Christian idea as it is presented to us in t Peter. The question is of some interest as regards the date, but may be called vital as regards the authenticity of the Epistle. Does 1 Peter represent, as has been said, “a step in the process by which Pauline ideas passed into the consciousness of the Church”? If so, the author may have been a very good man, but he was certainly not St. Peter, though he decked himself with the apostle’s name. This opinion is, how- ever, widely entertained by scholars of great authority. Professor Harnack (Chronologie, p. 452) holds that “the author of 1 Peter is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Pauline Christianity,” and many other scholars use terms implying that he was a docile but not very intelligent disciple of the one great apostle. Indeed, many go further still, and regard St. Paul as having given such a stamp, re) 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER such a direction and impulse to Christianity, that he might without impropriety be called its founder. It must be of importance to get clear ideas upon this point. Let us endeavour, then, to see what is the agreement, and what is the disagreement, between St. Paul and St. Peter. It will be argued in the following pages that in what we may call dogma the two apostles are substantially in accord ; that in the practical sphere St. Peter differs widely from St. Paul, not as one who misunderstands a teacher, but as one who looks at things from a different point of view. It will be argued also, and this is a point that is usually passed over, that, where the two differ, St. Peter stands perceptibly nearer to the evangelists and to the Book of Acts. We may venture to assume here that Acts is a genuine history, written by St. Luke, an educated, intelligent, sincere man, who had personal knowledge of much that he relates, and took pains to inform himself about the rest. It is of the highest importance that we should study the differences between the sacred writers. As yet this task has hardly been attempted except by Baur and Ritschl with their respective followers. Baur was a Hegelian, and the Hegelian theory of history, with its perpetual thesis and antithesis, led him to imagine that there were great differences in dogma between the Twelve and St. Paul. Yet Hegelianism has the great merit of giving to Art, Knowledge, and Discipline their true value as means of education. Ritschl was a Kantian, and Kantism may be called the philosophy of Lutheranism. From the Kantian point of view Art, Knowledge, and Discipline have no religious worth, and the one thing necessary is Faith. Hence the disciplinary system of 1 Peter is to be regarded as a degradation or misapprehension of the Pauline view of freedom. On the other hand, theologians as a rule have refused to see any differences at all. One school has interpreted the whole of the New Testament in terms of St. Peter, another in terms of St. Paul. Since the time of Mr. Maurice there has been a strong tendency in England to make St. John the norm. But the duty of the critic is neither to separate things which are the same, nor to confuse things which are different. Harmonising, as it is wrongly called, is the more pressing danger of the two. Out of it flow all our mutual excommunications, and by it we impoverish the rich variety of the Christian life. There are, as is well known, grave practical differences between eminent and sincere Christians. Is it absurd to maintain that these | differences have always existed, that they are to be found in the Gospels, that they correspond to the ancient and inevitable distinc- tion between the Realist and the Nominalist, that they caused as much heat in primitive times as in our own, that they brought even apostles into sharp antagonisms, that in effect St. Peter was the first DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 35 great High Churchman, and St. Paul the first great Low Church- man? At any rate we may look at matters from this point of view, and endeavour to ascertain how far it is in agreement with facts. That the dogmatic teaching of the two apostles was identical we know on indisputable authority, that of St. Paul himself. In the Conference at Jerusalem the apostles “added nothing to him,” in other words they approved his creed, there was no dispute about the essential points of the truth of the gospel (Gal. i. 6). And at a moment when St. Paul’s feelings were warmly excited, and he was the less likciy to minimise differences, he based his rebuke of St. Peter on the very fact that in theology they occupied common ground: ‘We, who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal. il. 15, 16). Such words could not possibly have been uttered and written down, after time for reflexion had intervened, if St. Paul had been divided from St. Peter by such a gulf as Baur imagined. Let us endeavour to see how the matter stands. It will be well to begin by considering how far the theology of the Epistle agrees with the doctrine of St. Peter, as he is cepicted by St. Luke in the Book of Acts. The following points call for notice. In Acts (ii. 22) St. Peter calls the Saviour “Ijcotv rov Nafwpatov. In the Epistle the name Jesus is not used by itself, and the nickname *Nazoraean” has given way to the other nickname “Christian ” (see note on 1 Pet. iv. 16). In the Epistle we do not find the phrase zrats @eod (Acts ili. 13) ; but the passage of Isaiah, from which the phrase is taken, is constantly before the writer’s eyes. Much significance has been found in two expressions that are used by St. Peter in Acts—avépa drodederypeévov ér6 Tod Ocod (ii. 22), and Kiptov avrov Kai Xpiorov 6 Oeds éxoince (11. 36)—which have been thought to involve what was afterwards known as the Adoptianist view. But they do not necessarily involve it, and language of precisely the same character is found in thé Epistle to the Hebrews, the author of which was certainly not an Adoptianist (i. 2, ov €Oyxe KAnpovopov mévTwv, Ou ov Kai éroinoe Tovs ai@vas: 4, KpeiTTwy yevopevos TOV dyyéAwv: il. 2, “Incotv miotov dvta TO roujoavte aitov). The relation between the divine and human natures of our Lord is not expressed in the New Testament with the precision insisted upon by later theology. Even St. John writes that “the Word became flesh ” (i. 14), and in the Zestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we find phrases that might seem to involve psilanthropism side by side with others that might be interpreted as Sabellianism (see Sinker’s Introduction, p. 91 sqq.). But the broad similarity between the Peter of the Acts and the Peter of the Epistle is so strong that it far outweighs these verbal differences. In Acts, as in the Epistle, Jesus was crucified by the foreknowledge of God (Acts ii. 23‘; God hath 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER raised Him up, and now He is exalted at the right hand of God (it. 32, 33), to return once more at the restitution of all things and judge both quick and dead (x. 42). Even the most striking pecu- liarity of the Epistle, the Descent into Hell, is implicitly contained in the quotation from Ps. xvi. (Acts il. 25 sqq.), which is not applied to our Lord elsewhere in the New Testament. To Christ, again, all the prophets give witness (x. 43); He is Lord of all (x. 36), and for His Name the disciples suffer shame (v. 41). The last two passages are of the greatest importance. In the Epistle “the word of the living God” is “the word of the Lord” (i. 23, 25), and also the word of the spirit of Christ which spoke in the prophets (i. 11). Again, the Lord of the Psalmist is Christ (ii. 3). Thus the Name of Christ for which the Christian suffers reproach (iv. 14), is that same Name of the Lord on which whoso- ever calleth shall be saved, the only Name given under heaven among men whereby they can be saved (Acts ii. 21, iv. 12). It is St. Paul’s ““Name that is above every name” (Eph. i. 21; Phil. ii. 9), and it is identified in many places with the Divine Name in the Old Testament. There is, in fact, no theological difference of any moment between the Peter of the Epistle and the Peter of Acts, nor, on the other hand, between St. Peter and St. Paul. Our Epistle opens with the Three Names of the Trinity, and assigns to each a distinct part in the redemption of mankind. God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as in Eph. i. 3 and in the Gospel of St. John xx. 18. He is also our Father (i. 17), as Creator (iv. 19), and Regenerator (i. 3). To Him belong foreknowledge and election (i. 2), judgment (i. 17), great mercy (i. 3), our calling (v. 10) and stablishing because He is the giver of all grace. The Son is Lord (i. 3), in such a sense that passages used in the Old Testament of Jehovah may without fear be applied to Him (ii. 3). To Hima doxology is addressed (iv. 11). He it was that inspired the prophets (i. 11). He was the spotless Lamb by whose blood we are redeemed (i. 19). He suffered for us, the just for the unjust (iii. 18). He was our sin-offering and expiation (ii. 24, ii. 18), and is our Pattern (ii. 21), Shepherd (ii. 25), and Overseer. He de- scended into Hades to preach to the dead (iii. 19, iv. 6), ascended into heaven, is on the right hand of God (ili. 22), and shall come again in the Revelation of Glory to bestow the amaranthine crown (v. 4). The Spirit is one of the Three (i. 2), and a Person, for avevya in our Epistle means a personality (see below), who was “sent” from heaven to forward the preaching of the gospel (i. 12). He sanctifies (i. 2), and rests upon the Christian (iv. 14), as the Spirit of glory and of God. Two points only are peculiar to St. Peter—the preaching in Hades, which is probably alluded to in Matt. xxvii. 51, 52, and DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 37 possibly in Eph. iv. 9; and the inspiration of prophecy by Christ, which may be found without great difficulty in 2 Cor. iii. 7 sqq. We can therefore easily understand the appeal made by St. Paul to St. Peter at Antioch on the ground of their common belief. The creed was the same, though the manner in which it expressed itself in conduct might be very different. For all those terms that we use in theology may be employed in two senses, the Mystic and the Disciplinarian. These two words denote not a difference in the thing believed, but a difference in the way of believing it. Let us try to make this clear without going too far into metaphysics. A Disciplinarian is one who hears God speaking to him; a Mystic is one who feels the presence of God within. The former says, ‘‘Christ is my Saviour, Shepherd, Friend, my Judge, my Rewarder” ; the latter says, ‘‘ Not I live, but Christ liveth in me.” The former sedulously distinguishes the human personality from the divine ; the latter desires to sink his own personality in the divine. Hence the leading Disciplinarian ideas are Grace considered as a gift, Law, Learning, Continuity, Godly Fear—in all these human responsibility is kept steadily in view. But the leading Mystic ideas are Grace as an indwelling power, Freedom, the Inner Light, Discontinuity (Law and Gospel, Flesh and Spirit, World and God), and Love. Nothing is more difficult than to define these two tendencies in the abstract, because they run into one another in shapes of manifold diversity. Yet it is easy in practice to see the difference between, for instance, William Laud and George Fox. A great part of the difficulty of discrimination arises from the fact that many people use mystic language, though they are really and truly disciplinarians. . Now this is just the difference of which we are sensible in reading the Pauline and the Petrine Epistles. Let us compare the two theologies from this point of view. In 1 Peter, God though full of mercy (i. 3), and the giver of all grace (v. 10), is above all holy (i. 15), and mighty (v. 6); our chastening Father, who sends suffering for our good (iv. 19, v. 5 sqq.); the just Judge (i. 17); and on all these accounts He is to be feared with godly fear (1. 17, ii. 17). St. Peter does not speak of loving God, though Christians love Christ with joy unspeakable (i. 8). Throughout the Epistle the attitude is one of profound awe and reverence. Bishop Butler was a true disciple of St. Peter. On the other hand, St. Paul’s thought tends rather to the love of God, to joy in God (Rom. v. 8, viii. 39); and God is not merely Judge, Rewarder, Father, but that infinite and eternal Spirit who shall one day fill all things, and in whom all things shall find perfect rest (1 Cor. xv. 28). St. Peter teaches that after this life 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER we shall meet God, and that this must be an awful thought even to the righteous (iv. 18). St. Paul rejoices in the expectation of knowing even as we are known, and seeing face to face (1 Cor. xiii. 12,13). It is sufficient briefly to refer to those many passages where St. Paul dwells on the unity of the believer with God in Ghrist {1 Cor: -vix 27); Both these views of the spiritual life have been taken by great saints, and both are to be found in the Gospels. What we are to observe is that St. Paul’s view is the more mystical, and that St. Peter's view is the more disciplinarian. It will be remembered with what sympathy St. Paul quoted upon the Areopagus the words of the Greek mystic—“ For in Him we live, and move, and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.” This general difference of intention makes itself felt at every point. We may select by way of illustration a few striking instances. Take wiorts. St. Paul uses this word in more than one shade of meaning, and nowhere exactly defines it. Yet we may say that to him it signifies much more than loving trust. It is the comfort- able sense of the Lord’s presence in the heart, whereby the believer is able to say, “Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which now I live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. ii. 20). It is because of this mystic sense of faith as producing a real unifying contact between the soul and Christ, that St. Paul is able to speak of the believer as justified by faith and not by works of law. He is so justified because he has within him the Source cf life and righteousness, because by faith he is one with the Risen Lord. Now, compare the language of St. Paul with that of St. James, By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” St. James has been harmonised with St. Paul, but only by force. It is palpable that the two use “faith” and ‘“‘justify” in different senses. St. Peter says that good conduct is thankworthy (ii. 19), that the righteous man is hardly saved (iv. 18); and these phrases imply a ~ similar conception to that of St. James. Conduct is something ; it springs from the motive, and receives its value from the motive ; yet at the same time it reacts upon the motive. In the view of St. Paul, action is merely the sign of the inspiration within, and has no other value; in that of St. Peter and St. James it is not merely the sign of faith, but the necessary condition of a higher and stronger faith. Neither St. Peter nor St. James would have denied that the Christian is saved by faith, though probably they would not have said that he is justified by faith (cf. 1 Pet. i. 5, 9 with Gal. ii. 16). But to them faith is not so much the presence of God in the heart, as the steadfast will to follow God through all the trials of life. The — N DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 39 \practical difference between these two conceptions of the same thing is very great indeed, as we know from history. St. Peter does not define Faith, but he uses the word in the same sense as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. ‘“ Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen... he that cometh unto God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. xi. 1, 6). It is not merely belief, which may be non-moral or even immoral (Jas. ii. 19), but strong conviction, carrying with it trustful obedience in the midst of trials which we do not under- stand, godly fear, and the love of Christ. It is not salvation, but it is the way to salvation (1 Pet. i. 9); it destroys sin, but only through patience under suffering (1 Pet. iv. 1). Strong conviction is its beginning, but the blessing of God rests upon the disposition which it produces, on the conduct in which it finds expression. St. Peter’s conception of faith we may say is simpler, more Hebrew, more evangelical, than that of St. Paul. His Faith is that which we find expressed in Ps. cxix. Or take again the word xd¢pis. From the mystical Pauline point of view Faith and Grace are really the same thing; they differ only in so far as the divine immanence, the unity between God and man, must have an earthward as well as a heavenward side. Faith is Grace, the inner life, the divine life manifesting itself in man ; and the gifts of Grace (yapiopara) are those spiritual supernatural infusions which testify to the immediate presence of the Holy (host (Rom. 1. 11, vi: 23; © Cor. °xit.; even in’ Rom. xii. 6.the idea is the same). In St. Peter, Grace is not the life, but anything that conduces to the life, any gift of the personal God to the personal man, any good thing whatever that comes down to us from the merciful Father—the gospel (i. 10), the promised joy of heaven (i. 13), or life (iii. 7), or money and the power of dispensing hospitality (iv. 9, 10). Grace is the bounty, or mercy, or favour of God. Here again St. Peter is more evangelical, more Jewish. God is the good Father who bestows; the Christian is the good child, the faithful servant, who receives, and receives more in | ro- portion to the faithfulness of his service. God’s gifts are free, of course, but this thought does not trouble St. Peter. He does not speculate about it, nor go out of his way to ask why some men receive and some do not. God is free, but He is good, and not arbitrary, and this suffices for the apostle’s simple creed. One striking consequence of this theological attitude is, that in the mind of St. Peter the future outweighs the present to a much greater degree than in that of St. Paul, St. John, or the mystics generally. Faith has, indeed, a present assurance in the Spirit of glory and of God which “rests upon” the Christian, as the Shechinah rested on the tabernacle (iv. 14), and causes joy un. 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER speakable and full of glory (i. 8); but it is closely allied, indeed it is almost the same thing with Hope, as it is also in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here, again, Peter is more evangelical; and his sober patience is just what we should expect in a personal companion of Christ’s after the day of Ascension. His frame of mind is that which is suggested by the later parables in St. Matthew’s Gospel. The kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country. Soon He will return bringing His reward with Him. Meanwhile His servants dwell as strangers, as pilgrims, in a world of trouble. aid are kept through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed (i. 5); they are to hope perfectly for the grace that is to be brought (i. ae they are to look for the return of the Chief Shepherd with the amaranthine crown (v. 4). The Christian has joy, peace, good days (ili. 10), but his lot here is one of temptation; and tempta- tion is not the bitter strife against evil within, but the crushing load of sorrow from without (i. 6, 7). What we mean by temptation in our modern phraseology is called by St. Paul dyapria, by St. Peter ériGupia. The same sense of the inadequacy of the present life is to be found, of course, in St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 19); but St. Paul had felt a deeper mental anguish, and risen to a more triumphant sense of victory than St. Peter. Hence, though he prizes hope, he is less oppressed by the deferring of the hope. A few words may be added here on the psychological and ethical terminology of St. Peter, which is entirely unlike that of St. Paul. IIvedua, as applied to man, denotes his soul as a whole, considered as immaterial and immortal. It is used of disembodied spirits (ili. 19), and i is opposed to oapé as mind to body. In one place (iil. 4, jovytov mvedparos) it signifies merely disposition or temper. But St. Peter never employs it, as St. Paul frequently does, to denote inspiration, or the faculty through which man is capable of inspiration. He does not distinguish it from yyy (cf. 1 Thess. v. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 45, 46) or from vois (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15). Two very important points are here involved. One has already been noticed, that, as applied to the Holy Spirit, rvedya must certainly in 1 Peter mean Ghost or Personality. The other is that St. Peter could not say, as St. Paul does, “the spiritual man judgeth all things.” Both the phrase and the idea are foreign to him. He points no antithesis between veda and ypdppa, nor, in an ethical sense, between zveiya and odpé. Indeed, in the First Epistle cdpé has no moral significance at all; it means simply the body (cf., how- ever, 2 Pet. ii. 10, 18), though the desires belong to the flesh (ii. 11). Kéopos also is simply the world (i. 20, v. 9), not the evil world. Vux7, again, denotes the whole inner nature of man, the principle of life, the personality (see i. 9, 22, ii. 25, iii. 20, iv. 19). It does not bear the sense of the lower life of sense or carnal understand- ing, opposed to the higher life of reason or intelligence ; hence such DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 4I phrases as Yvxixds avOpwros (1 Cor. ii. 14), cdma Wuyixov (cid. xv. 44), do not, and indeed could not, occur. Wvy7 is, in fact, the very word which St. Peter uses throughout of the soul in relation to the religious life. Besides these words, we have d.avora (i. 13), évvowa (iv. I), érufvpiae (i. 14, ll. II, iv. 2, 3), and the Hebraistic kapodta (i. 22, ill. 4, 15). It is a simple, slender, rather archaic list of words, just sufficient for the author’s purpose, taken from common usage, and clearly untinged by speculation. It has been pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs that the Petrine theology regards God as the object of Christian thought, aspiration, worship, rather than of experience, possession, inner realisation ; that it dwells on the transcendental nature and majesty of God, rather than on the mystic union between God and the believer. St. Peter does not, indeed, fail to do justice co the experimental side of the religious life; his people have “ tasted that the Lord is good” (ii. 3). Still, his view is predominantly objective ; and this is at all times the attitude of the disciplinarian. He gives very few details of the religious life as it existed among his readers ; this was not his object. But there are in the Epistle a certain number of ideas and words belonging to the sphere of practical theology; and these all point in the same direction. Everything is simple, easy, stamped by plain, pastoral common sense ; everything again is conservative ; the Church has advanced from its old Hebrew resting-place, but no further than is necessary. The first great point that we notice is, that the corruption of man is still regarded in the same light as in the Old Testament and the Gospels. ‘There is, at any rate, no trace of the Pauline doctrine of inherited sin, and dyapria always means the concrete act, “a sin,” as in the Synoptic Gospels, not ‘“‘sinfulness,” as in the mystics St. Paul and St. John. Even when he is speaking of the saving power of Baptism, St. Peter calls moral evil “the filth of the flesh,” and appears to mean simply that sin is the yielding to those desires which have their root in the body. We cannot absolutely infer from his silence that he did not know, or did not approve, the doctrine of St. Paul, but he certainly is silent. To another very important Pauline doctrine, that of Imputation, he makes not the slightest allusion, and we may gather with confidence that he would not have admitted it without reservation, for he speaks of “the righteous man” in exactly the same way as the Psalmist or the Book of Proverbs (iv. 18). Equally important is the absence of the word Law. There is no sign of any difficulty or dispute, nor is any difference whatever made, between Jew and Gentile. Both appear to be living in peace, side by side under the same authoritative supervision. We may account for this remarkable fact in different ways. We may suppose that the whole Church was violently agitated by the circumcision dispute, 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER and did not settle down in quiet for some years; and this is the view which has been derived from too exclusive a use of the Epistles of St. Paul. Or we may. suppose that the heat was generated by a handful of fanatics, that it was a mere crackling of thorns, which never received any support from the Twelve, and died away at once; and this is the view which we should gather from the Book of Acts. What St. Paul wrote about the Law, except in Galatians, is not directly i of his mystic belief that all external authority disappeared with the advent of the Spirit. That St. Peter did not share this belief is abundantly evident ; but why should we expect him to write against it? Orif he was writing against it, how could he do so more properly than by such an Epistle as the present ? The truth appears to be that, in the mind of St. Peter, Chris- tianity itself is a Law, the will of God (ii. 15), the Law fulfilled, transfigured, re-established on a surer foundation by Jesus Christ, yet still in its eternal elements, in its essential nature as Law, lying at the root of all moral life. Hence in St. Peter we find that same sense of the continuity of history which is so nobly expressed in Hebrews. ‘There has been no rejection of the Jew; he has simply been called like everybody else to move on to a higher plane. There is no antithesis between Law and Promise. ‘The titles of the chosen people are transferred without hesitation to the Christian community. The Christians are priests, kings, a holy nation, the people that God always had in view; they are the Diaspora, pilgrims like Abraham ; and all good women are daughters of Sarah. There is no trace of © bitterness against the Jews. In a word, history flows on from the far past to the present in a widening but continuous stream. Closely allied to the continuity of the faith is its authority. In the view of St. Paul there is no authority except that of the inner light ; the spiritual man judgeth all things, and is judged of none. Freedom is emancipation from all external control; it is based on that conscious union with God which lifts a man above all precepts and ordinances. ‘But there is another view that Grace (as John Wesley said) is not necessarily Light, and that, at the outset of the spiritual life, — men must do, not because they understand and love, but in order that they may understand and love. Here, again, we may test the difference between the apostles at many significant points. In the eyes of St. Peter all Christians are Bs “babes” (ii. 2); it is their natural estate in this life, and to the end ee ee ee ae ee ee ee ae el ee ee ee a Catechism as “ milk” for babes, and contrasts it with the “ strong meat,” the deeper and wider belief of the grown-up Christian. DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 43 he seems to mean that the lower belief of obedience is a natural preparation for the higher belief of intelligence, that as a regular thing men do rise through the state of Law to the state of Freedom. This attitude we may call that of disciplinary mysticism (Heb. v. 12, 13). But to the mind of St. Paul the evil of this lower stage is more obvious than its good. “Milk” is the food of the carnal, of the weak brother who sets great store by externals, and is always ready to quarrel about them. To him the “babe” is not the Christian, as to St. Peter, nor the novice,-as to the author of Hebrews, but the formalist, the disciplinarian (1 Cor. ili. 1). Ob- viously St. Peter would restrict within reasonable limits that right of private judgment which St. Paul bestows without reserve on all Christians. Notice again the use of the word vopatvew and moynv in St. Peter (ii. 25, v. 2, 4). St. Paul hardly uses this appropriate metaphor of the Christian pastor (Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 11), and never applies it to Christ. Another important word is dytos, which in St. Paul is often a noun—all Christians are saints ; but in St. Peter is only an adjective—all Christians ought to become saints. Or observe how St. Peter directs his people to speak like the oracles of God (iv. 11). Scripture is the external norm or pattern for all our words. Or, again, how St. Paul relaxes the gospel tule of marriage, to this extent at least, that in the case of mixed marriages, if the heathen partner desires a separation, the Christian partner is not under bondage (1 Cor. vil. 15). ‘‘ For,” the apostle adds, “ what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” But St. Peter appears to know of no such liberty, and exhorts all wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, “that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives” (iii. 1). But more important than all is the entire absence in 1 Peter of any allusion to Christian prophecy. ‘The point is of such conse- quence that it may be permissible to deal with it at some little length. , Inthe Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke (not in St. Mark or St. John) our Lord speaks of sending prophets to the Church (Matt. x. 41; Luke xi. 49). They are distinguished from “wise men and scribes” (Matt. xxiii. 34). Prophecy is a miraculous gift, analogous to the power of casting out devils, and might be bestowed on or assumed by people whose conduct was not good (Matt. vii. 22). These are false prophets (Matt. vii. 15); and we gather that the false prophet specially concerned himself with that topic on which Christians are forbidden to speculate (Matt. xxiv. 36), the day and hour of the Second Advent (Matt. xxiv. 11, 23, 24). "eo? a 7) % +4 j At the beginning of the Book of Acts we read of the outpouring of the spirit of prophecy on the day of Pentecost, and on several 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER occasions we find the same gift bestowed on the newly baptized. We may suppose this form of prophecy to have been an ecstatic outburst of thanksgiving and adoration ; but this particular form of the grace does not appear to have been universal or permanent, nor did it make its recipient a prophet in the regular acceptation of the word. But we meet also with persons who were recognised as prophets and of the same family as the prophets of old, because in their case inspiration was not, indeed, habitual,—this it never was,—but at any rate frequently recurrent. We find them at Jerusalem (xi. 27), at Antioch (xiii. 1), at Tyre (xxi. 4), at Caesarea (xxi. 9), but not elsewhere. Some of them were men, some were “virgins.” They read the secrets of men’s hearts (v. 3), or predicted future events (xi. 28, xxi. 11), or delivered special mandates from the Holy Spirit to the Church (xiii. 2). Some of them were also teachers (xiii. 1) ; and two, Judas and Silas, exhorted the brethren at Antioch with many words (xv. 32), explaining to them the circumcision dispute, and pressing upon them the acceptance of the Jerusalem Decree. One passage in the Book of Acts relating to prophecy is so important that it calls for special comment. Originally there were at Antioch two Churches, one of Jews and one of Greeks, and even at the time described in the thirteenth chapter it is not clear to what extent the two had been amalgamated. The Gentile Church was founded by men of Cyrene, and Lucius of Cyrene was one of the prophets and teachers by whom Barnabas and Saul were set apart for their mission (xi. 19, 20, xiii. 1) The selection or ordination of the two evangelists may possibly have been the act of the Greek Church alone. Nor is it certain what it was that the prophets and teachers actually did. We may, however, suppose with great probability that the plan of a missionary campaign had already been discussed and approved, and that the whole Church was gathered together, fasting and praying for some definite word from the Holy Ghost, telling them whither to go and whom to send. All eyes and hearts would be fixed upon the five prophets through whom the heavenly voice had so often made itself heard before. At last the mandate comes and the mouthpiece speaks : ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul.” A very similar account of the method of prophecy is given by Hermas, who knew it well. ‘ When the man who hath the divine spirit cometh into a congregation of righteous men who have the faith of the divine spirit, and inter- cession of the congregation of those men is made to God, then the angel of the prophetic spirit, who is attached to him, fills the man, and the man being filled with the Holy Ghost speaketh to the assembly as the Lord willeth” (dZand. xi. 9). What we find described here is not the ordinary meeting for public worship, but a special assembly of intercession for a definite object. ; J ¢ DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 45 Elsewhere also (1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14) we find the prophet playing the same part in the selection of God’s ministers. Timothy, how- ever, though marked out by the prophets, was commissioned and, as we should say, ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. St. Luke does not expressly say that the presbyters laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, but this is probably what he means. Generally speaking, from the Book of Acts we should infer that the gift of prophecy, in the proper sense of the word, was not commonly bestowed, that its form was that-of direct inspiration, that its expression was occasional and limited. In 1 Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, we read of no prophets at all. In 2 Peter (ii. 11) mention is made of false prophets. John knows both of false prophets and of true (r John iv. 1; Apoc. xi. 18, xix. 20). It we take the Pauline Epistles, we find little or no trace of the existence of prophets at Ephesus (see, however, Eph. iv. 11), or Philippi, or Colossae, or in Galatia, or at Rome. Prophecy is, indeed, mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans (xii. 6) ; but when the apostle tells us that he longed to impart unto that Church some spiritual gift (i. 11), we are probably to understand that he hoped to stir up a grace which as yet had not been bestowed upon it. But in two Churches, at Thessalonica and at Corinth, we find a very different state of things. Both were new Churches, composed probably in the main of Gentiles, who but a few months before had been idolaters. Yet in both these communities prophets were very numerous, and the apostle gave them great encouragement (1 Thess. weg); £ Cor. xiv. 39). At Thessalonica the prophets were busily doing exactly what our Lord forbade, they were proclaiming that the day of Christ was imminent (évéoryxer, ii, 2) ; and for this error they were rebuked by St. Paul. Even in this town, prophetism appears to have been very active and, on the whole, mischievous. There were those who regarded it with disfavour, and wished to suppress it altogether, or, at any rate, to bring it under control by the imposition of restraints which St. Paul thought too rigorous. ‘ Quench not the Spirit,” he says; “despise not prophesyings” (1 Thess. v. 19, 20). At the same time he adds a needful word of warning: “ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” But at Corinth the state of affairs was really extraordinary. The number of those who laid claim to the spiritual gifts of speak- ing with tongues and of prophecy must have been very large. But these miraculous endowments, instead of leading to meekness and unity, caused much angry rivalry, which turned even the public worship of the Church into a scene of disorder. These were not good fruits ; indeed, to speak quite plainly, they are the contra- diction of anything that we can reasonably attribute to the Spirit of God. St. Paul treats these extravagances with great wisdom. He 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER asserts his own authority, both as apostle and as prophet, with explicit resolution. But he deals only with the symptoms, with the disorders. He does not name the offenders, nor does he charge them with self-deceit, nor does he expressly point out in what way their notion of ‘‘ prophecy,” of “‘liberty,” was connected with those moral and doctrinal extravagances which he condemns. But he lays down firmly the rule of decency and order, the great principles of Charity and Unity, and points out clearly the besetting danger of what in the eighteenth century was called Enthusiasm. ‘ Know- ledge puffeth up.” Knowledge, the knowledge of mysteries, is very closely related to prophecy. A close parallel to the conduct of St. Pau! is to be found in that of George Fox towards the Bristol fanatics. Fox was in the same position as the apostle. He, too, had fostered and encouraged prophecy, and, when the behaviour of Naylor opened his eyes to the gulf at his feet, he acted in the same way as St. Paul, not denying his own principles, but building the necessary fence along the edge of the precipice with authority, discretion, and reserve. From Fox’s own account we could hardly guess the nature and the peril of the Bristol crisis, and we can do little more than guess at the inner history of the Corinthian Church. But in the time of Fox, and afterwards of Wesley, Bristol, a seaport and a great seat of the slave trade, was not unlike Corinth in some pertinent features. Corinth had never borne a good reputation, nor had Greeks ever been patient of discipline in any shape. It is in such places that c~c tieee the leaven of Christianity produces the most violent fermentation. — Sudden conversions are common ; and the sudden conversion of an undisciplined character is always strongly mystical. It is not sur- prising, therefore, to find many prophets in the town, nor is it difficult to conjecture what would be the results. At Corinth, as elsewhere, prophecy bore its usual and proper form of “revelation” (1 Cor. xiv. 26), that is to say, of immediate communication from the Holy Spirit. Revelation always implies Ecstasy (Acts x. 10, xl. 5,.xx. 17), that state which is also called “being in the Spirit” (Apoc. 1. 10), and is described by St. Paul himself (2 Cor. xii. 2) as a condition in which the man knew not whether he were in the body or out of it. It was, in fact, a trance, in which sense was suspended, but intelligence, though not active, was quickened into a condition of high receptivity. The prophet understood what he saw or heard, and when he spoke, spoke intelli- gible words. Hence he might be said to edify, comfort, console (1 Cor. xiv. 3). He read the secrets of men’s hearts (¢dd. 24, 25), and the hearers might learn from his prophecies (cd. 31). Both the prophet and the speaker with tongues were allowed to “give thanks” after Communion (7d/d. 16). But the Prophet is expressly distinguished from the Teacher (1 Cor, xii, 28). The distinction — a DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 47 rests not so much on the matter of prophecy as on its form. Prophecy was ecstatic (those later writers who denied this only meant that Christian ecstasy differed from Pagan); it was a direct communication from the Spirit, a revelation, not, like Teaching, an exposition of other men’s revelations. For this reason the Prophet took rank before the Teacher, indeed before every member of the Church except the apostles. Yet, of course, the same man might be at once Apostle, Prophet, and Teacher. The Prophet was an ornament, but not an officer of the Church ; and the manifestation of his gift was so occasional that he cannot have been intrusted, at any rate in his capacity of Prophet, with any regular ministrations. Indeed this is self-evident from the fact that there were women who prophesied as well as men. When we come to ask what were the precise subjects of Corin- thian prophecy, we find ourselves on uncertain ground. Yet, when we consider the topics dwelt upon by the apostle, and compare them with what we know to have been the themes of prophecy elsewhere, we can arrive at a tenable conclusion. At Thessalonica, the favourite subject was the Second Advent, a question which involved that of the condition of the faithful dead (1 Thess. iv. 14 sqq.). Beyond a doubt this would be the pre- dominant burden of speculation at Corinth also, as it always has been everywhere. Hence St. Paul addresses to that Church the noblest of all his prophecies on this very point (1 Cor. xv.). There were many ways in which the prophet might speak of Eschatology without infringing our Lord’s prohibition. He might have a vision of the angelic hierarchy, like Ignatius, or of the state of the soul after death, like Perpetua, or of heaven and hell, like the author of the Apocalypse of Peter, or of the signs that precede the Second Advent, like the author of the Didache. Even this alluring theme was full of peril. It was forbidden to fix a date for the Second Advent, and this command was often forgotten. But there were some at Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead. If St. Paul means that they denied the resurrection of the body, there were Gnostic prophets who did the same thing. Again, there were those who defended the act of the man who -had married his father’s wife (1 Cor. v. 1, 2). St. Paul tells them ———.- °#°@ ‘'“« = = aA ¥ _. that they are “puffed up.” But it is knowledge which “ puffeth up ” (vill. 1), and knowledge is practically identical with prophecy (xiii. 2). Sexual irregularity has, in fact, often been justified by pretenders to the inner light, and cannot be justified in any other way. Another subject which exercised the minds of the prophets was that of Church discipline. Ignatius gives us the text of one of his own prophecies, in which occur the words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop” (/z/. vii.). Hermas also touches on the relation of the prophet to the presbyter (7s. iil. 1. 8, 9), and Montanism was 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER largely concerned with this point. If there were prophecies on the one side, there would be prophecies also on the other, and certainly the Corinthian prophets, numerous and self-assertive, and claiming some authority in the regulation of public worship, would not tamely submit to the direction of officials. Indeed, in the Corin- thian Church we cannot affirm with confidence that there were any officials at all. To some extent the Corinthians must: have been self-deluded. The genuine spirit of prophecy has never been given to masses of men ; nor can it often have been bestowed upon those who, but the other day, were worshipping stocks and stones, and contaminated by the vices of such a city as Corinth. But St. Paul could not absolutely forbid this outbreak of fanaticism. He was himself the most remarkable of Christian prophets, full of the Holy Ghost, and longing unspeakably to see others like himself. He would believe the best. After all, among the tares would be blades of wheat, and he would not dare to run the risk of plucking up these. But the consequences are very clearly to be discerned. The Church of Corinth was full of the most shocking disorders, both in faith (1 Cor. xv. 12) and in morals. If there was any control there, we cannot see where it resided, or what was its good. It is not too much to say, that if this form of prophetism had not disappeared, the Church could not possibly have endured. Prophetism sums up in one word the difference between St. Paul the mystic and St. Peter the disciplinarian. Where a body of prophets has assumed the direction of affairs, discipline is impos- sible. But it is evident that the confusion which reigned at Corinth, and possibly in a lower degree at Thessalonica, was abnormal. The vast majority of the Churches were, as they had been from the first, carefully instructed and diligently supervised ; and what is true of a couple of Greek communities in Europe is by no means true of Asiatic Christianity. How things were ordered in the Eastern Churches we can gather with confidence from the notices in the Book of Acts, from 1 Peter, from Hebrews, and from the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul tell the same tale. The communities addressed in 1 Peter were clearly under strict and sober government; but their organisation, as far as we are able to descry it, was of a very simple, primitive kind. In the first place, the writer does not use the word “Church,” a peculiarity which he shares with Hebrews, for in that Epistle also, ‘‘Church,” though it twice occurs (ii. 12, in quotation from O.T., xii. 23), does not bear its familiar technical sense. “He calls himself ‘an apostle of Jesus Christ” (i. 1), or, what is the same thing, “‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (v. 1); but he writes with the greatest modesty in a tone of exhortation, not of command, exhorting, not rebuking, a re ——— DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, ORGANISATION IN I PETER 49 calling himself a brother of the presbyters. Nothing in the Epistle is more authoritative than the brief emphatic phrase in which he commends the faithfulness of so eminent a man as Silvanus. Clearly he expected to be heard with deference ; but the tone is just what we should have expected in St. Peter, and just what we should not have expected in anyone masquerading under his name. He addresses his readers as the Dispersion, the brethren or brotherhood (“the brethren” is a familiar phrase in Acts), and uses the word “Christian.” If there were any widows-or orphans receiving regular assistance from the common fund, at any rate they are not mentioned. The Deacon possibly did not exist, certainly is not, named. ‘There was no Bishop; the noun ézicxozos is used of Christ (ii. 25), and the verb é.cKozety of the Presbyters (v. 2), ina manner which shows us how the title came into being as a synonym for Shepherd; but it has not as yet definitely assumed an official sense. On the other hand, the Presbyter who, as we know from Acts, was the original rector and pastor of the Church, wields great authority, which he is strongly admonished to exert with willingness, uprightness, and sobriety. Of the Sacraments, Baptism is spoken of as having a saving power (iii. 21); the Eucharist is not mentioned. Thus the organisation also appears to be marked by the same primitive simplicity that we have noticed as characteristic of the Epistle in other points. If we attach any historical value to Acts —and how can we help doing this?—the polity of the Petrine Churches is more conservative than that depicted in or suggested by any of the Pauline Epistles. But, now, if the relation between the Petrine and Pauline Epistles is as it has here been described, if in dogma they agree and in practice they differ, and if, when they differ, the Petrine Epistle is more primitive, as it proved to be more enduring, how are we to explain these singular facts? We may say that the sub-apostolic Church, with all its reverence for St. Paul, failed to understand his idea of Freedom, that his pure and noble mysticism was too hard for them (dvevéyrov, 2 Pet. iii. 16), that the time for it was not yet come, and that God sent His people back again into the wilderness after a first glimpse of the Promised Land. But, then, how are we to account for the fact that where the Petrine writer falls away from St. Paul he is falling back upon the Synoptic Gospels? If his Christianity had been derived from _ that of St. Paul he could not have taken this line. Those who started from a misunderstanding of the mysticism of St. Paul became _ Antinomians ; this is what actually happened to many of the Gnostics, and to many sects in later times. If the Petrine writer fell back, he must have had something to fall back upon. There must have been some other stamp of Christianity, some other method of 4 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER working out in detail the truth of the Resurrection, than that described in the Pauline Epistles. That there actually was one— indeed that there were several—we learn not only from the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, but from St. Paul’s own testimony. But if this is the case, why should the Petrine writer be thought to have fallen back at all? Why should not his Epistle be just what it professes to be, the work of St. Peter himself? Note on Post-Apostolic Prophecy. Ignatius describes one subject of his prophetic visions in ZradJ. v., Ovvapat voc Ta €roupavia Kat Tas ToTODETius TAS ayy 1 Gor. xy 3335 slit ner). We are not told at what age he left Tarsus, but he was probably verging on man’s estate at the time, for he had already been intro- duced to the study of the Greek poets, and he continued to regard the city as his home and natural place of shelter (Acts ix. 30). He was no cosmopolitan, and though he passed his early years under the shadow of a Greek university, remained a strict Jew. Yet Tarsus was a Stoic stronghold, and St. Paul had read and admired at least one Stoic poet. He was aware then that there was current among educated heathen a view of God as the great indwelling Spirit which is antagonistic to any shape of formalism. But doubt- less he had imbibed this belief from Scripture, and from the struggles of his own spiritual experience—if we may regard Rom. vil. 9 sqq. as referring to a time preceding that of his conversion. We may suppose that he was a Pharisaic Mystic of the same type as St. James. But we first see him at Jerusalem, approving of Stephen’s death, leading and goading on the party of persecution. So far he appears to us as well-born, probably wealthy, well- educated, still young, full of fiery conviction and prompt resolution, a natural leader of men in times of great excitement. He was unmarried and childless, and seems to have owed his power entirely to the vigour of his character, for he does not appear to have been a member of the Sanhedrin. Not content with oppressing the disciples in Jerusalem, he extorted from the high priest a despatch authorising the extermina- | ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 tion of the heretics at Damascus, and was on his way to that city, “breathing threatenings and slaughter,” when he was struck down to the earth by that Jesus whom he was persecuting. ‘Thus in one moment he became a Christian. All attempts to account for his conversion by natural agencies are vain. No doubt the way for this astounding change had been prepared. St. Paul was familiar with many thoughts of many minds; he must have been familiar also with that lurking sense of disappointment which always besets those who set their hopes on anything lower than the highest, and he had seen St. Stephen die. But the final blow was struck from above with overwhelming force and instantaneous effect. His change was not from immorality to morality, but from one principle of action to another, from moralism to mysticism. It was analogous, not to the conversion of St. Augustine, but to that of Luther, or Wesley, or Law. But the point is, that these sudden changes always leave a mark. A swift uplifting, because it is so immediately divine, gives great nobility of mind. It carries the man up at once into a sphere from which all forms, props, mechanisms, seem very little things, and it imparts great peace, confidence, and joy. At the same time it makes a breach between the present and the past. ‘The converted man looks back upon his old struggles with fear, pain, and horror. For him the hopeful promise of discipline and obedience ended only in cruel defeat. Of what value, then, can they be to others? The Vision on the road to Damascus is enough to stamp St. Paul as a prophet; but throughout his life he continued to receive immediate manifestations of God’s presence and care. His revela- tions, conveyed sometimes in trance, sometimes in dream ; bringing sometimes directions, sometimes prohibitions ; sometimes unfolding mysteries, sometimes displaying the formless glory of things un- speakable—were very numerous (Acts xvi. 6, 9, xvili. 9, 10, xix. 21, Saige 420, XX. 17, XXVil, 23,.245 Gal. i.2\5, 2: Cor. xii. 19) The sense of direct inspiration seems never to have failed him, except perhaps when discipline was in question (1 Cor. vii. 12). Much of his knowledge in the faith was imparted to him through the same channel (Eph. iii. 3; Gal. i. 12 sqq., il. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 3). But here we are perhaps justified in making a distinction. Even though he never saw Christ in the flesh, he would know, from hearsay or from reading, the general facts of the Gospel history, and he must surely have learned from ordinary sources the saying of our Lord’s which he. quoted in his speech at Miletus (Acts xx. 35). What he means is probably, that the one fact of the Resurrection and the inner meaning of all the facts, his whole theology, came to him direct by way of revelation. We find unmistakable fruits of his prophetic gift in Thessalonians and in 1 Cor. xv. 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Such were the salient features in the character and history of St. Paul. St. Peter on every point forms a strong contrast. He was a poor Galilean fisherman, a labouring man, uneducated, rough in speech and manner (Matt. xxvi. 73 ; Luke xxii. 59; Acts iv. 13), a husband, and, according to ancient tradition, a father, and he had lived in close intimacy with the Saviour upon earth. He was a simple pious Jew, if not actually a disciple of John the Baptist at any rate the brother of one who was (John i. 40),—that is to say, he was open-minded and docile, a son of Abraham who did not pre- sume upon that privilege (Luke iii. 8), but was well aware of the need of repentance, and was looking for the kingdom of heaven and the advent of Messiah. He was a married, uneducated labourer. Such men always bear the stamp of their class. In England, and presumably elsewhere, they are tender-hearted, but slow. They have seen too much of the hard realities of life to be greatly elated or greatly depressed. But they make fine soldiers, who will follow their captain to the last, and fall where he has placed them. St. Peter is often spoken of as ardent and impulsive, but our Lord called him Cephas, “‘ Rock,” and the fiery apostles were James and John. He was often the first to speak, because he was the leader and mouthpiece of the Twelve. The quietest of men, when driven past endurance, are often fiercest ; and as Moses, the meek, once smote an Egyptian, so Peter struck a hasty blow in the Garden of Gethsemane. In an hour of utter despair and extreme alarin, he denied his Lord. The Gospels paint him as a man of slow under- standing, but strong conviction, of tender, but not demonstrative feeling, with an exquisitely delicate conscience, and a deep sense of the majesty of God. It was he who made the great confession, “Thou art the Christ,” and yet would have saved Christ from suffering and the Cross (Matt. xvi. 16, 22), just as the disciples besought St. Paul not to go up to Jerusalem where he was to be delivered to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 12); it was he who at the Last Supper beckoned to St. John to ask the question which he dared not ask himself (John xiii. 24); it was he, again, who said, ‘‘ Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke v. 8); who went out and wept bitterly when the Saviour turned and looked upon him (Luke xxii. 62), and whose repentance and forgiveness are described with magical power in the last chapter of St. John’s Gospel. The Lord loved John better, but He trusted Peter more (Luke xxii. 31, 32). We may imagine Peter as a shy, timid, embarrassed man, apt on a sudden emergency to say and do the wrong thing, not because he was hasty, but because he was not quick. He was one of those who become leaders because they have been called and appointed, not because nature seems to have marked them out for command. ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 His defect had been want of readiness and decision. When this was cured, he was all the better fitted to be a guide and pastor by reason of the weakness which the Holy Spirit redressed. “Be ye ready,” he says in his Epistle (1 Pet. ii. 15), “always to give an answer to every man that asketh for a reason of the faith that is in you, with meekness and fear.” He was meek and fearful, and he knew well the danger of unreadiness. St. Peter had been instructed, trained, disciplined by our Lord Himself, and led on in smooth and unbroken progress from the law to the gospel. He was a prophet, but hardly a visionary. He had witnessed the Transfiguration, he had seen the risen Saviour, he had received admonition in his trance at Joppa, and an angel had been sent to deliver him from prison. The Holy Ghost had come down upon him at Pentecost. But we do not read that he enjoyed the same kind, or the same frequency, of communion with the unseen world which was given to St. Paul or St. John. There is the same shade of difference that we observe in the Old Testa- ment between Moses and Jacob. Further, it is evident that to St. Peter the past would not wear the same colour as to St. Paul. He would look back with affection and regret to days spent in company with our Lord on earth, and he would look forward with intense longing to the time when the Chief Shepherd should reappear. The interval would appear to him as a period of loss, of hope deferred ; and this is exactly what we find in the Epistle. St. Paul’s past was one of shame; there was no brightness in it; and his heart swells with a rapture of gratitude when he thinks of his deliverance from the city of confusion and house of bondage. We need not here dwell minutely on the history of St. Peter as it is given in the first twelve chapters of the Book of Acts. There he appears for some ten or twelve years as spokesman, judge, leader of the disciples at Jerusalem. As occasion served, and the frontier of the Church was pushed forward, he made excursions to other places. We see him at Samaria, passing through all quarters to Lydda and Joppa, and again at Caesarea. After this we read of the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem, of Herod’s persecution, of Peter’s imprisonment, deliverance, and departure “to another - place.” From this point St. Luke’s thoughts are occupied almost exclusively with the history of St. Paul. But on three occasions we find the two great apostles in actual personal contact. Here, then, it becomes necessary to compare the narrative given in the Book of Acts with that of the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. i. 15-24, ll. 1-10, 11 sqq.). But let us first grasp firmly the key to all the difficulties which may arise. St. Luke is writing as a historian ; his object is swmma s gui fastigia rerum ; his interest lies in the permanent, and specially in the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which was the first monument of Canon Law, and was 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER unquestionably accepted and obeyed by the Church (Acts xxi. 25; Apoc. ii. 14, 20; Eus. &. £. v. 1. 26; Tert. de Idol. x.3; Apol. xe Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 1. 8; Didache vi.—I quote this as a fourth century authority. The Decree was falling into desuetude in the West in St. Augustine’s time, contra Faust. xxxil. 13). St. Paul’s intention, on the other hand, is polemical, autobiographical, and apologetic. He wrote in the midst of a very heated dispute which touched him particularly. His first object is to show that the Gentile Christian ought not to accept circumcision ; and, in order to establish this first point, he goes on to maintain a second, that his own authority is equal, and even superior, to that of St. Peter. In St. Paul’s account of his first meeting with St. Peter there is very little difficulty (Gal. i. 15-24 compared with Acts ix. 19-30). St. Luke says that immediately after his conversion St. Paul preached Christ in the synagogues at Damascus, and does not mention his retirement into Arabia. But we do not know how long that retirement lasted, and it was certainly devoid of external incident. It was of deep significance in the eyes of the apostle himself. When he says “immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood” (Gal. i. 16), what he means is that he did confer with the Holy Spirit, and did not apply for instruction to the Twelve. He looks back upon that time, as St. Augustine remembered the days that immediately followed his own conversion, as a period of rapid growth and great joy; but he uses it in the Epistle as the proof of his independence. It is natural enough that it should be passed over in Acts; nor is there any stumbling-block in St. Luke’s statement that St. Paul “immediately” preached Christ. The very day after his baptism the apostle may have given ‘in the synagogues” some explanation of his sudden change; he was a fearless man, and would not shrink from the ordeal of publicly resigning his commission from the high priest. We may suppose that he did this, and then withdrew for a brief space of recollection, before he felt able definitely to advocate his new faith. But, in any case, if the retirement to Arabia lasted but a few weeks, the word “immediately” may very well pass. A proof of the general accuracy of St. Luke’s information is to be found in his notice of the manner of St. Paul’s escape from Damascus, when he was let down from the wall in a basket. St. Paul does not mention the fact in Galatians, but in another Epistle he incidentally confirms what St. Luke tells us (2 Cor. xi. 32). After ‘‘ many days,” the narrative in Acts proceeds (and by the vague Hebrew phrase a period of three years is here covered), St. Paul went up to Jerusalem, and endeavoured to join himself to the disciples. ‘The phrase is a little singular, and seems to imply that he did not address himself to the recognised leaders of the Church His advances were met with great and not unnatural suspicion ; but. ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 57 the good Barnabas, who was always merciful and charitable, took him by the hand, brought him to the apostles, and acted as his sponsor, defending Paul against those whom he had persecuted, as he afterwards defended Mark and Peter against Paul himself. We learn from Galatians that the particular apostles in question were Peter and James the Lord’s brother. In Acts we read that St. Paul spent some time in Jerusalem, disputing against the Hellenists. St. Paul himself says simply that he abode with Peter fifteen days. We are to understand, either that he spent a fortnight in Peter’s house, or that at the end of this fortnight Peter was called away from Jerusalem; for Paul’s object here is simply to show that his personal contact with Peter had been very slender. For the same reason he omits to mention the attempt upon his life and his flight from Jerusalem (Acts ix. 29, 30), simply informing us that he went away to Syria and Cilicia. St. Luke says that he went home to Tarsus. The difference in the form of expression may possibly imply that Paul used Tarsus as a centre for single-handed missionary excursions in the neighbouring regions. It is difficult to suppose that he would be idle, and he would hardly have been invited to Antioch unless he had continued to display both zeal and capacity. From the time of his flight from Jerusalem, St. Paul tells us he remained unknown by face (nuyv dyvoovpevos TG Tpoodrw, Gal. i. 22) unto the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ. In other words, he saw them no more till his next visit eleven years later ; for we give the more natural meaning to his “fourteen years,” if we suppose that here also he is dating from his spiritual birthday. So far all is pretty clear. St. Paul had seen but little of St. Peter, but what intercourse there had been was not unfriendly, at any rate after the first approach. As regards the second meeting (Gal. ii. 1-6 compared with Acts xv.) there is much perplexity, which we can only resolve by making large allowance for the difference of intention which underlies. the two narratives. The visit to Jerusalem, which St. Paul describes in the second chapter of Galatians, has been identified with that incidentally mentioned in Acts (xi. 30); but there are many objections to this. In the first place, we should be compelled to leave a blank space of ten years at least in the apostle’s working life. But it does not seem at all probable that Barnabas, having once taken St. Paul by the hand, would leave him unemployed for so long a time. Again, there was at the time no trace of the circumcision dispute; and, moreover, we still read of “‘ Barnabas and Saul” at that date. Saul was as yet known only as a preacher who was doing good work at Antioch, and had by no means that standing which is implied in the narrative of Galatians. It is far easier to suppose that St. Paul does not mention his second visit to Jerusalem; and an adequate reason for his silence is to be found in the words of St. Luke, who 58 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER tells us that Barnabas and Saul visited the elders, but does not mention the apostles. It was “about that time” (Acts xii. 1) that Herod’s persecution was in progress, and we can readily imagine that the two Antiochene envoys did not on this occasion meet any of the Twelve. But, if so, this visit was perfectly immaterial to the argument of Galatians, for the object of St. Paul there is to reckon up the number of occasions on which he had seen and discoursed with St. Peter. We shall be on safe ground if we follow Bishop Lightfoot rather than Professor Ramsay, and conclude that what we find in the second chapter of Galatians is that occasion on which “ Paul and Barnabas” (no longer ‘Barnabas and Saul”) were sent up by the Church of Antioch to attend the Council at Jerusalem. With them went certain others; and their journey was a triumphal progress through Phenice and Samaria (Acts xv. 3). The question to be decided was that of the continued obligation of circumcision, which had been causing great trouble. The question had been pushed forward not by any of the apostles, but by “certain men which came down from Judaea” to Antioch, “‘certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed” (Acts xv. 1, 5), by the Hotspurs among the Jewish Christians. These extreme ritualists probably looked to James as their leader (Gal. ii. 12). They would be, as often happens in such cases, a sore trouble to their nominal chief, whose opinions they exaggerated and caricatured. At the same time, James would be extremely anxious to retain his hold upon them, and not to see them driven into open revolt. Such a position of things is always fruitful of grave misunderstandings between the leaders themselves. They want to keep together men who are pulling in different directions, and they lay themselves open to the charges of tergiversation and of disloyalty to first principles. According to St. Luke, the two envoys went up to Jerusalem by commission from the Church of Antioch; St. Paul tells us that he was directed or permitted to go by “revelation,” by an imme- diate communication from the Holy Spirit. The two modes of expression are easily reconcilable. A commission from the Church of Antioch implied a revelation (Acts xiii. 1); but we may observe that here again St. Paul is striking the note of independence. He was received with all the respect due to his character, services, and position. And yet the tone of his narrative seems to say that there was something wanting, something which he does not quite know how to express. The main point had been established, yet not quite by himself. He had been met by agreement where perhaps he did not quite expect it, and he had been obliged to make concessions of which he did not quite approve; hence he manifests a certain uneasiness lest his authority should have suffered disparagement in the opinion of his more immediate followers. For there were ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 59 jealous eyes and bitter spirits on the watch to magnify and distort every point that could be made against him. What had really happened we may gather with tolerable clear- ness by piecing together the accounts given in Galatians and in Acts. There can be little doubt that the main business of the Council of Jerusalem, like that of all other councils, was transacted in committee. St. Paul tells us of the committee; St. Luke, of the general assembly in which formal speeches were delivered and the decree was solemnly adopted. It seems evident that in this committee St. Paul had been in some sense put upon his trial before the twelve apostles. ‘‘I com- municated unto them,” he says, ‘“‘ that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles ; but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run or had run in vain.” He had been called upon to state his position before the supreme tribunal of the Church, and had received their sanction and approval. This seems to be the fact which St. Paul expresses by the singular phrase “they added nothing to me,” that is to say, ‘‘they had nothing to teach me.” ‘There is an embarrassment, there is even a touch of anger in St. Paul’s language here (Gal. ii. 6), which seems to spring from a mortifying sense that after all he cannot make his position quite clear. He had gone to Jerusalem to dictate terms, and those from whom he expected opposition had offered none. He had gone as the equal of the apostles, and his enemies might say that the apostles had tried and acquitted him. There had been agreement as to the burning question of circumcision, and yet he had been made to feel that between himself and the Twelve there existed that difference of principle which, though it can hardly be defined, often divides men like a river. One of the most difficult sentences in St. Paul’s narrative is that in which he describes the result of the conference: ‘James, ‘Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars” (here again the note of irony is heard), “gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.” There was a compact, St. Paul says. The field of labour was divided. Each party was to take its own way, but within its own sphere. But how is this to be understood? St. Paul himself constantly preached to Jews after this date, and, in fact, never ceased to do so. At Corinth he turned away in despair from blaspheming Jews (Acts xvill. 6) ; yet at Ephesus, again, he preached in the synagogue (Acts xix. 8), and almost his first act on arriving in Rome was to call together the chief of the Jews (Acts xxviii. 17). St. Peter, on the other hand, visited Antioch; and though St. Paul blamed the conduct, he made no complaint of the presence of his brother apostle. St. Peter again, if he had not actually preached in Corinth, 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER which is far from unlikely, had friends there, and a party known by his name; yet here, again, St. Paul does not assert that any compact had been broken. The brethren of the Lord again were known at Corinth; and St. John, perhaps in St. Paul’s lifetime, exercised authority over the Seven Churches of Asia. Other apostles again are connected by strong tradition with Gentile Churches. Nor, in the case of Peter and John, can we see any reason for such a positive delimitation of the sphere of work as seems to be here indicated. Neither of them taught the universal necessity of circumcision; both allowed the rite in the case of Jewish Christians ; St. John (in the Apocalypse), and probably St. Peter, admitted a certain precedence of Jew Christian over Gentile Christian, and this was in all respects the position of St. Paul himself (Acts xi. 2 sqq., xv. 213 Apoc. vil. 4, 9; 1 CGm Wilemen Rom. iii. 1). It was the position of St. James also. But within this general agreement in principle there might be, and no doubt were, considerable differences in practice. St. Paul obeyed the ceremonial Law on occasion (1 Cor. ix. 20; Acts xxi. 26), but on occasion also held himself perfectly at liberty to disregard it. St. James, on the other hand, maintained that the Law was always and everywhere binding upon a born Jew (Acts xxi. 20, xv. 21). It followed that, in the opinion of St. James, when Jew and Gentile met, they could not eat at the same table. St. Paul held very strongly that in such cases the Jew ought to give way. St. Peter held that in such cases the Jew might very well give way, but was not compelled to do so. This appears to have been the whole extent of the difference among the apostles themselves. The dispute about the Law was local, transient, and insignifi- cant. The feeling out of which it sprang hardly existed except at Jerusalem ; and even there the body of the Church was contented with the tolerant Judaism of St. James. They were “zealous of the Law,” and regarded St. Paul with suspicion, not on account of his treatment of Gentile converts, but because they had been informed that he taught Jews to forsake Moses (Acts xxi. 20, 21). There was, however, a party at Jerusalem who insisted that every - Christian ought to become a Jew. It existed still in the days of Justin Martyr (Z7ypho, 47), and for a short time maintained an active propaganda at Antioch and in Galatia; but their efforts were discountenanced by the authorities of the Church, and must have quickly died away. Nevertheless Jerusalem was clearly a place which required special treatment. The community there was almost entirely Jewish, the slightest indiscretion might have caused a rupture, and St. Paul was regarded there with jealousy or positive dislike. Under these circumstances the most politic course would be to make some sort of compact by which Paul and Barnabas bound themselves not to preach in Judaea, while James agreed not > a Oe ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 61 to preach elsewhere. To this Cephas and John would be assenting parties, though the terms did not limit their own personal activity, nor, indeed, that of the other apostles. This appears to be the only tenable interpretation of the words “that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” A necessary article in such a treaty would be that Paul and Barnabas should “remember the poor.” The Jew Christians at Jerusalem would lose all share in the distribution of the temple funds, and, if they were not to send out collectors of their own, it was imperative that Paul and Barnabas should undertake to make good the deficiency. They agreed to do so, and subsequent references to the great collection in the Pauline Epistles show that their promise was loyally carried out. Here St. Paul’s narrative breaks off, and to the actual session of the Council he makes no allusion. We should know the reason of his silence if we knew exactly what had been said against him in Galatia, Clearly he is defending himself, not striking at random, but replying to particular accusations, or, we should rather say, to particular scoffs and insinuations. In regard to the Council itself, his enemies had found nothing that they could turn against him, and therefore he passes it over. It is not necessary to suppose that at this time he felt any difficulty in speaking about the Decree. Yet this may have been a further reason for his silence. That St. Paul never can have approved of the Decree, that he could not on principle regard this, or any other ecclesiastical canon, as binding upon the conscience, is certain. At first he appears from Acts to have accepted it ; though St. Luke nowhere tells us that he personally recommended it. But he ate the meal set before him by the jailer at Philippi (Acts xvi. 34) without question, and at Corinth he treated the eating of things offered unto idols as a matter which the individual must decide entirely for himself (1 Cor. viii.). St. Paul’s language on this subject cannot have been regarded with ~ favour either by the Twelve or by those who in the Gentile com- munities still looked upon the Twelve as the princes of the Church. It is highly probable that it created a new and formidable stumbling- block in St. Paul’s path. ‘The Petrine party at Corinth would certainly ask how St. Paul, who was not in the strict sense of the word an apostle at all, could thus treat an apostolic decree as a mere matter of opinion. ‘That they did so seems probable from St. Paul’s own words (1 Cor. ix. 1-4), “Am I not free? am I not an apostle? . .. have we not authority to eat and drink ?” where the meaning is, “Because I am an apostle I too can legislate.” But we can understand how men’s minds would be perplexed by these conflicting views of duty. We may take as a strictly analogous case the rule of fasting communion which makes much trouble in our own times. Some regard it as an ecclesiastical rule; some as merely an ecclesiastical rule. St. Peter would probably have taken 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER the former view, St. Paul the latter. The distinction is one of those that are small to great minds and great to small minds, and will serve to show the difference between St. Peter and St. Paul on the one hand, and their followers on the other. A third meeting between St. Peter and St. Paul is recorded in Galatians (11 11 sqq.). We may assume with certainty that it happened after that which we have just been considering, though this has been questioned. It is true that in one place the order of St. Paul’s narrative is not the order of time (2 Cor. xi. 23-33), but there is no reason for doubting that in Galatians events are described in their proper sequence. Not long probably after the Council, St. Peter visited Antioch, stayed there some time, and was present on more than one occasion at the Agape. The Church there was still divided, and separate tables were laid, possibly in separate buildings, for Gentiles and Jews. At first Peter took his seat among the Gentiles. This was what he had done in the house of Cornelius; and it is not easy to see how his conduct involved any breach of the recent Decree. Shortly afterwards, certain emissaries of St. James came down to Antioch, and learning what had occurred, remonstrated with St. Peter on his conduct. Their point probably was that the Decree was intended only for Gentile Christians, that under it unclean meat, for instance swine’s flesh, might be set upon the table, and that therefore no Jew could be present at the Gentile Agape without violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the Decree. Upon this St. Peter “‘ withdrew himself” and took his place at the table of the Jews, Barnabas and the other Jews following his example. This led to a stormy scene. St. Paul reprimanded St. Peter in public and in very strong language, charging him with an attempt “to compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews,” and with “hypocrisy,” by which we are to understand not merely vacillation, but dereliction of the principles of the gospel. Unfortunately we have no other account of this incident, and we are left to construct St. Peter’s apology as best we can from the Book of Acts. But it is evident that there is much more to be said in his defence than is allowed even by Bishop Lightfoot (Gadatzans, “St. Paul and the Three”). In the first place, St. Peter was not compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews; the question at issue was whether Jews ought to be compelled to live as do the Gentiles. St. Peter did not endeavour to force one law upon every- body; on the contrary, he allowed a difference of ritual. He shaped his own conduct first by the one ritual and then by the other, and this tolerance may be regarded as criminal inconsist- ency by zealots on either side. Nor is St. Paul himself less incon- sistent. He circumcised Timothy not because he was obliged on principle to do so, but for the sake of expedience (Acts xvi. 3); he «1° il > ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 tells the Galatians (v. 1-3) that circumcision carries with it the obligation to fulfil the whole law; yet he certainly did not regard Timothy as bound to observe the law of clean and unclean meats (1 Tim. iv. 4). Nor can it reasonably be doubted that St. Peter held the doctrine of the Atonement in the same sense as St. Paul (Acts xi. 17 ; Gal. ii. 16), or that he regarded his conduct at Antioch as not involving any disloyalty to the gospel. Nor, again, can we imagine that Barnabas felt that he had done wrong in following the example of St. Peter. On the contrary, we may connect this sharp altercation at Antioch with another which occurred probably im- mediately afterwards at the same place, and led to a temporary estrangement between Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 37-39). If we suppose that Mark had openly espoused the cause of his cousin in the matter of the Agape, we find at once very serious reason for this division. It would seem that St. Paul in the heat of the moment did not make the necessary distinction between St. Peter and St. James, or between these two apostles and that extreme party whom they were anxious to conciliate, and against whom he himself had so much reason for legitimate indignation. Even at Antioch his position was not secure; there was a Jew as well as a Gentile party. The question of the hour was not really one of principle but of com- promise, of policy, of comprehension. ‘The Council of Jerusalem had decided that there should be a compromise, with the usual result that neither party was satisfied. It is true that beneath this question of the hour there lay a question of principle, of mysticism or disciplinarianism, of the kind and degree of respect due to ecclesiastical regulations. We have not settled this question yet, and it was not even formulated by the primitive Church. All we can say is, that St. Paul was pulling in the one direction and St. Peter in the other; that St. Peter was silent and St. Paul protested ; that St. Paul was right i in one sense and St. Peter in another ; that compromise is necessary to unity, and that, whenever the terms of a compromise are called in question, heats and misunderstandings are certain to arise. St. Paul does not record any other meeting between himself and St. Peter. Yet, directly or indirectly, the two apostles came into collision at Corinth also. Whether St. Peter had actually visited that city we cannot say with certainty. Yet, not Peter only, but his wife also were well known there, and there is ground for thinking that both had received pecuniary assistance from the common fund of the Church (1 Cor. ix. 5). By the time when he wrote to the Corinthians, St. Paul had quite made up his mind about the Jeru- salem Decree, and laid down clearly his two great principles, that “the spiritual man judgeth all things,” and that “meat commendeth us not to God.” ‘Those who observed precepts and insisted upon 64. INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER rules appeared to him as cherishing needless scruples, as the weaker brethren, as the carnal agents Of strife and division. Whatever may have been the party of Christ (it was most probably composed of the advocates of antinomian freedom), we may suppose that that called by the name of Apollos, the Alexandrine, was allegorical, and held opinions in which mysticism and discipline were combined as they are in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ‘The Petrine party we may well suppose to have observed the Decree of Jerusalem, and to have doubted St. Paul’s claim to the title of apostle. Certainly there were at Corinth Christians of whom these statements may be made with confidence. Here we can hardly avoid the question, when St. Paul was first recognised as an apostle. We need not ask when he first became an apostle. The answer to the question in this shape is given in the history of his conversion (Acts ix. 15), and his selection by the Church of Antioch was only a confirmation of his original divine commission. But by what steps did he come to be regarded by the Church as an apostle and as equal to the Twelve? Obviously he won his way by degrees. Saul does not fill the same place in the eyes of men as Paul. Obviously, also, there were for many years those who denied his right to be called an apostle ; and it is not necessary ~ to suppose that these were in all cases bitter and fanatical opponents. *‘ Apostle” is one of a large class of words which, having origin- ally been no more than temporary appellatives or descriptions, begin in time to denote a fixed rank and authority. All titles belong to the same class—duke, count, minister, elder, bishop. What is true of one is true of all. They have come to be titles, and there are cases in which it is hard to decide whether they have as yet become definitely titles or not. The way in which the title apostle first came into being is given by Matthew (x. 5), Mark (vi. 36), and Luke (ix. ro). Jesus sent forth His twelve disciples, and thus they became His envoys, emis- saries, or missionaries. Matthew and Mark do not use the word apostle except on this occasion. John, in his Gospel, exhibits it only once, and then in the loose popular sense (xiii. 16). But in Luke’s Gospel it occurs several times, and in Acts it is the regular official designation of the Twelve. It was even thought necessary to maintain the exact number of the college by the election of Matthias. In fact, after the Resurrection, Envoy has become a definite title; it denotes no longer a temporary occupation, but a special office. The Twelve are no longer envoys, but The Envoys ; and there are neither more nor less than twelve, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel (Apoc. xxi. 14). We have here what we may call the official view. At the same time, the looser use of the word continued. There were those who “said that they were apostles” in the titular sense, though they were apostles only in the = > ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 occasional sense, and the author of the Apocalypse severely blames this misuse of language (ii. 2). In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, the earliest of his Epistles, written during his second journey, soon after his arrival in Corinth, St. Paul speaks of himself, Silvanus, and Timotheus, not in the address, but in the body of the Epistle (ii. 6), as “apostles of Christ.” Here, apparently, the word is still used in its general sense; we might substitute “ambassadors” for “‘apostles” without altering the meaning. Neither Silvanus nor Timothy is elsewhere called an apostle; and there are passages in which it is pretty clearly implied that Timothy was not one (2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim. iv. 5). In all his later Epistles, except Philippians and Philemon, St. Paul distinctly claims the style and title of apostle for himself in the address. He applies the title also to the Twelve, and probably, not quite certainly, to James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1. 19). Some think that he speaks of Andronicus and Junias (Rom. xvi. 7) as apostles, but the second name is more probably Junia, and the sense is uncertain. In Acts (xiv. 4, 14), Paul and Barnabas are called apostles after their commission by the Church of Antioch. At an earlier date, St. Luke distinguishes Barnabas (ix. 27), and, at a later date, in the account of the Council, both Barnabas and Paul from the apostles (Acts xv.). Nor does St. Paul himself ever expressly call Barnabas an apostle (not even in 1 Cor. ix. 6). Upon the whole, it may be said that the title apostle, in the full official sense, is not given in the New Testament to anyone except the Twelve. But in Galatians and Corinthians, St. Paul unmistakably claims the title, maintaining his right in the face of all opposition with great resolution and not a little warmth. In Galatians he uses of the Twelve language which, however measured, is certainly lan- guage of disparagement. The Twelve are “those who seemed to be somewhat,” “those who seemed to be pillars” (ii. 6, 9); and in -Corinthians there are even stronger expressions (oi taepAtav dardo- Todo, WevdarrdaroAo, 2 Cor. xi. 5, 13), which, if they are not directly aimed at the Twelve, certainly glance very near them. In the later Epistles, though the old lion is still vexed by opposition (Phil. i. 15), the warmth has passed away; his position is adequate to his purpose, and there is no more need of self-assertion. It seems clear that the period at which Galatians and Corin- thians were written marks a great change in the attitude of St. Paul. Then, for the first time, as he looked round on the success with which God had blessed his ministry, he felt the need of openly asserting his authority and thus consolidating his work. If we could pretend to fix more precisely the date at which he first openly asserted his equality with the Twelve, we might place it at that moment when he ceased to baptize with his own hands (1 Cor. i. 14-16). St. Peter does not appear to have baptized anybody 5 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 5 (Acts x. 48), following in this the precedent set by our Lord Him- © self (John iv. 2). It may be that one of the marks by which ; an apostle was distinguished from, for instance, the deacon (Acts 4 viii. 38) was that the former did not personally administer the rite of baptism, and that by ceasing to do so St. Paul intended to declare his assumption of the apostolic dignity. We, who look back upon the history of St. Paul in the light of its glorious completion, and whose knowledge of the primitive Church is so largely derived from his writings, can hardly grasp the fact that, great as he was, there were other figures which in the eyes of the first Christians seemed even greater. They were not prolific writers ; probably they were not eloquent speakers ; very likely they were not what we should call profound thinkers or ready debaters. When St. Peter met Simon Magus, he did not argue with him, because he had neither the learning nor the logic for such an attempt. All he could find to say was, ‘‘Thy heart is not rnght in the sight of God” (Acts viii. 21). The Twelve, with the excep- tion of St. John, were not intellectual, and even St. John was not cultivated ; they found and wished for no biographer ; their names are written on the foundations of the New Jerusalem, but their portion has been oblivion, or, at best, a vague and impersonal respect among men. Yet the Lord meant them to be, and no doubt they were, the great builders of the Church. If we had lived in Corinth, if we had been taught to obey the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem,.and to regard St. Peter with the greatest reverence,—and if then we had looked round upon that wild sea of spiritual anarchy—for this is not too strong a phrase for the condition of that unhappy Church,—what should we have thought? No good Christian could be blind to the nobleness of St. Paul’s character, or would seek to extenuate his magnificent services. But might we not have asked in much perplexity what precisely were the nature and the reach of his commission? He had “seen the Lord” ; yet not in the same sense as the Twelve. And five hundred brethren at once had also seen the Lord without on that account claiming to be apostles. His visions, which are now recorded in Scripture, lay at that time between himself and God ; yet he was manifestly not working in perfect harmony with the Twelve, and he was not upon the Church roll. St. Paul’s conduct in this last respect was nobly disinterested ; yet it might be inter- preted as implying an unwillingness to come under control, and range himself frankly on the side of authority. We cannot imagine that all those Corinthians who called themselves followers of Peter or of Apollos, were simply dogging the footsteps of St. Paul with the malignant intention of making mischief. Even to fair-minded men the only positive credential that St. Paul could produce was the rich harvest that had followed his — —— a, a S \ ee eee ee ee ee ee eee THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 67 labours. Upon this he himself falls back—‘The seal of mine apostleship are ye inthe Lord” (1 Cor. ix. 2). But this proof would have very different cogency at different times; it would be one thing at Tarsus, another at Antioch, another at Jerusalem, and another at Rome. It is certain that St. Paul’s claim to rank on an equality with the Twelve met at first with much opposition, down, at any rate, to the date of Corinthians ; it is probable that even the Twelve at the time of the Council regarded him with a certain uneasiness and coolness. ‘Time alone could heal these feel- ings. It is possible that St. Paul was not generaily regarded as an apostle, in the eminent sense of the word, till his imprisonment marked him out as the most conspicuous sufierer for the Name. Finally, his martyr death placed him once for all on his deserved pinnacle. Some conclusions of importance may be draw from this review. We have seen that in the earlier chapters of Acts, St. Peter is repre- sented as constantly on the move. He certainly spent some time in Antioch, most likely not very iong after the Council. It is possible, even probable, that he had been in Corinth, and in Galatia he was well known, at any rate by repute. St. Paul had treated him with great rigour at Antioch, and was not on easy terms with him even at the date of Corinthians. There is no evidence that St. Peter ever retaliated. In 1 Peter St. Paul is not alluded to, and the personal relations of the two apostles do not assist us in fixing a date. In 2 Peter he is mentioned with affection and great respect, yet with a certain reserve. It is clear that there was a difference between St. Peter and St. Paul, which we may call little or great according to the point of view. It was little, because it turned not on dogma but on conduct ; it was great, because it was a party question. An attempt has been made in the foregoing pages to ascertain as exactly as possible what was its real nature, and the result appears to confirm in substance the conclusions arrived at in the last chapter from a comparison of the Petrine and Pauline Epistles. 1 § 8. THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY. The First Epistle of St. Peter is directed to the elect, that is to say Christian, sojourners of the Diaspora, or Dispersion, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Are we to take these district names in their official or in their popular sense? Four of them are names of Roman provinces, but Pontus is not; and all of them except Cappadocia mean one thing in the usage of the Roman government, another in the mouths of the people, who still remembered the old kingdoms out of which the provinces had been carved. Let us see what the difference was. 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Pontus was the ancient kingdom of Mithridates. The sea- coast of Paphlagonia, as far as a point a little east of the bay of Amisos, belonged in the first century A.D. to the province of Bithynia, which, according to Professor Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 15), was officially known as Bithynia Pontus. The rest of Paphlagonia was given to the province of Galatia, and the other regions of Pontus (Pontus Galaticus, Polemoniacus) as they fell into Roman possession were assigned in A.D. 63 to Galatia, in A.D. 99 to Cappadocia. Galatia, another ancient kingdom, was formed into a province in B.C. 25. In the first century after Christ the province included a great part of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria; in A.D. 63 it was enlarged by the addition of the Pontine districts already mentioned ; and from the time of Galba to that of Vespasian it embraced also Lycia and Pamphylia. The province of Galatia, therefore, was very much wider than the country of the Galatae or Gallograeci from which it took its name. Cappadocia became a province in A.D. 17, and in the first century there appears to be no noteworthy difference between the name of the province and that of the old kingdom, though in 4.p. 78 the province was united to that of Galatia, continuing nevertheless to retain a separate administrative existence (Ramsay, C. 2. Z. p. 15). Asia was bequeathed to the Romans by its last sovereign, Attalus m1, in B.c. 133. The province included western Asia Minor as far as Bithynia on the north and Lycia on the south. Eastwards it included a large part of Phrygia, as far as the frontiers of the province of Galatia. The name Asia had also a popular use in which it embraced the coast lands of the Aegean, but not any part of Phrygia (Ramsay, C. &. £. p. 150). The reader may consult with advantage the maps which he will find in Mr. Ramsay’s book, or in Mommsen, de Provinzen, vol. v. of his Roman History. See also Dr. Hort’s Excursus on Zhe Provinces of Asia Minor included in St. Peters Address; and Zahn, Linlettung. The question arises, then, whether the geographical names are to be taken in their stricter official or in their looser popular sense. On the first hypothesis, which is maintained by Professor Hort and Professor Ramsay, we are confronted by the fact that Pontus was never by itself a distinct province, and that the Pontine districts already referred to were not included in the province of Galatia till A.D. 63. On the second, Phrygia, the great central district of Asia Minor, might seem to be excluded ; and this can hardly be intended, for the bearer of the Epistle could not pass from Cappadocia to Asia without traversing Phrygia, where, as we know, there were many Christians (Acts xviii. 23). But the point is, for our ‘present purpose, hardly worth debating, though it may be observed that Galatia, coming as it does between Pontus and Cappadocia, must ea ——————— THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 69 certainly include N.-W. Galatia. Whether St. Peter is thinking of the Roman provinces or of the ancient kingdoms, his list of names embraces the whole of Asia Minor except the south coast. Liycia, Pamphylia, the kingdom of Antiochus and Cilicia seem clearly to be omitted; though, as has been observed, Lycia and Pamphylia belonged for a time and in a sense to the province of Galatia. We have here distinct evidence of a bold and extensive mission, larger in scale than any of the journeys of St. Paul. It was not a voyage of discovery or conquest, but belonged rather to the secondary stage of missionary enterprise. There were Christian communities scattered all over Asia Minor—we do not know how many, or at what intervals, or how large. Silvanus is to visit them all, in person or by deputy, and to send copies of the Epistle every- where. The object was to establish and confirm the Churches, to bring them into touch, consolidate, comfort them, and so pave the way for a further advance. For such a purpose no better Epistle could have been written, and it would be largely supplemented by word of mouth. Another question that has been much discussed is that arising from the order in which the countries are named. The list begins in a surprising way at Pontus, takes a circular sweep from left to right through Asia Minor, and ends where it began. Dr. Hort describes, with every appearance of probability, the route intended. It would run from some Pontic seaport, through Galatia proper to Ancyra, thence to Cappadocian Caesarea. Here the traveller would strike the great highroad leading westward through Phrygia by way of Apamea and Laodicea to Ephesus in Asia. Hence another great route would take him northward past Smyrna and Pergamos to Cyzicus in Mysia on the shore of the Propontis, and from this town a short voyage would carry him to some Bithynian harbour. Or from Pergamos he might strike off to the east up the valley of the Caicus, and so reach Bithynia by land. The only difficulty lies in the fact that Pontus is selected as the point of departure. If St. Peter was writing from Babylon proper, it seems incredible that Pontus should have been the first region in Asia Minor to occur to his mind; and even if he was writing from Rome, which is by far the more probable supposition, it is not easy to see why he did not direct his envoy to start from Ephesus. There must have been some good grounds for this peculiar arrangement. Dr. Hort thought that Silvanus may have found it more convenient to carry the Epistle from Rome by sea, and that circumstances unknown to us, the opportunity of a good ship or some other reason, may have induced him to go first to Sinope, on the Euxine coast. Another likely port would be Amisos, from which the merchandise of Central Asia was carried to Rome (Ramsay, C. #. £. p. 10). But the personal convenience of the envoy would hardly determine the ——— 7O INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER choice of route. There must have been some further reason, though we can only guess what it was. But, if a great mission was in contemplation, the movement must have originated in some particular Church. The first mission of St. Paul was planned by the Church of Antioch, and it is permissible to think that the Holy Spirit may have put a similar purpose in the heart of the Pontic Christians. If so, they might very naturally apply to St. Peter for his sanction and guidance; and, as the scheme was their own, the envoy would certainly go first to them. The Epistle clearly implies that there were Christian com- munities dotted all over Asia Minor. What would be their nature and composition? They are regarded as belonging to the Dia- spora, a word which in its proper sense denotes those Jews who for one reason or another were domiciled in foreign countries. They abounded in Asia Minor from an early date. Even in the fourth century before Christ, Aristotle had met there a Jew who was “‘ Hellenic, not in language only, but in soul.” Antiochus the Great settled two thousand Jewish families trom Mesopotamia and Baby- lonia in Phrygia and Lydia (Jos. Avz¢. xii. 3. 4). In Bc. 138 the Roman Senate wrote on behalf of the Jews to the kings of Per- gamos and Cappadocia (1 Macc. xv. 16-24). Agrippa in his letter to Caligula (Philo, Legatio ad Catum, 36, Mangey, il. 587) asserts that there were numerous Jewish settlements in Pamphylia, Cilicia, and the greater part of Asia as far as Bithynia and the recesses of Pontus. Petronius (¢dzd. 33, Mangey, ii. 582) says that Jews abound in every city of Asia and Syria (see Schiirer, /ezuish People im the Time of Jesus Christ, Eng. trans. i. 2. 221 sqq.). It is possible that around these Asiatic Jewish communities the same state of things may have existed as in the Crimea. We have a number of inscriptions from Tanais (belonging probably ‘to the second or third century a.p.), emanating from Greek religious societies, who worshipped exclusively the Most High God (@eds tyotos). ‘The authors describe themselves as ‘‘adopted brethren worshipping the Most High God” (cioroujtot ddeXgoi oceBopevor @cov tYuorov),—they must have been some kind of proselytes, —and as having given in their names to a presbyter (évypdavres éavrav Ta dvopata mept mpeaBvTepov)—obviously for the purpose of instruc- tion. Professor Schiirer thinks that they were not exactly Jewish proselytes, because the communities are distinctly Greek, and identify the Highest God with Zeus. It may be that we have in these inscriptions merely one of many symptoms of that inclina- tion to a kind of monotheism which we know to have existed among ; the heathen in imperial times; but as Judaism was strong in S Panticapaeum and Gorgippia, and had been so for a long time before, Schurer considers that they are very possibly an indirect fruit of Jewish propaganda (Latyschev, Zuscriptiones antiquae orae ; THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY /7I septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae ; vol. ii., tnscriptiones regnt Bosporani, Petropoli, 1890; Schtirer in Zheologische Litera- turzeitung, No. 9, 1 Mai, 1897). If we may transfer these ideas from the Crimea to Asia, and suppose them to have been current in the first century, we may imagine the Jews of the Diaspora and their proselytes to have been surrounded by a number of hybrid societies, who watched their ways and copied their belief and practice without definitely breaking loose from heathenism. Indeed, we know that ‘“ prose- lyte” was a term of very loose application. The formal distinction between the proselyte of righteousness and the proselyte of the gate is later than apostolic times. But even in the first century the Jewish propaganda was active and widely spread. It desired to make of every convert a strict observer of the Law; but it con- tented itself with accepting from every man as much as he was willing to give. There were proselytes who were circumcised and obeyed the whole Law. Others kept the Sabbath, fasted on the appointed days, burned the Sabbath lights, and observed the precepts respecting clean and unclean meats (Josephus, Afzow. ii. 39). Others, again, were united to the synagogue by a still looser tie. In Antioch the Jews persuaded a large number of Greeks to attend their religious services, and treated them as, in a certain sense, a part of themselves (Josephus, de Gell. Jud. vil. 3. 3). In this the synagogue resembled the church; the doors stood open, and heathen were not only permitted but encouraged to attend certain portions of the public worship. ‘Thus every Jewish community became the nucleus of a large group of adherents, of whom some were converts in the strict sense of the word ; others, in various shades and degrees, were partial conformists, allies, interested spectators, well-wishers (see Schirer, ii. 2. 305 sqq.). Some synagogues probably went over to Christianity in a body ; “in other cases a part would secede, and this part would exhibit a vertical section of the parent group from top to bottom. It would include proper Jews, half Jews, and a number of persons who, though attracted by Judaism, had never definitely adopted its tenets or its practices, but hovered on its outskirts. There would be no difficulty about the Law. Anyone who chose still to observe it in its integrity could no doubt do so, just as anyone was at liberty to lead an ascetic life, provided that he did not interfere with the liberty of others. But even the proper Jews of the Diaspora were thought lax by the Pharisees of Jerusalem, and many of their converts and adherents never had professed to keep the whole body of the Mosaic ordinances. Baptism would readily take the place of that bath which was common in the case of proselytes ; the Eucharist represented the Passover; the “blood which was sprinkled” for the proselyte was no longer necessary, 72 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER because all Christians have been sprinkled once for all with the blood of Christ (1 Pet. i. 2), and the strict law of meats was replaced by the Jerusalem Decree (see Schiirer, ii. 2. 319 sqq.). Hence (as has been already observed in § vi.) the Church appears to St. Peter as a continuous entity; God’s purpose seems to have grown and widened without any breach of sequence, and all the titles, which in old times He bestowed upon the chosen people, have passed on in the natural course of things to the Christian brotherhood, just as in the history of our own race the name Englishman survived the absorption of Danes and Normans into the great national family. It hardly seems probable that many of the primitive Churches ‘were exclusively Gentile, composed, that is to say, wholly of brethren who, up to the time of their conversion, had no know- ledge, direct or indirect, of the Old Testament. On the other hand, scarcely any can have been exclusively Jewish, excepting, perhaps, that of Jerusalem. In some large towns where Jews were numerous, there may have been for a time a double Church, as at Antioch. But it is not at all likely that this often happened, or that it long endured when it did happen. Generally speaking, we must ask not whether a Church was Jewish or Gentile, but what proportion the Jews, with their proselytes and allies, bore to the rest of the congregation, or, in other words, who set the tone of the new religious life at the outset. Even in this shape we cannot answer the question with any great degree of precision. At what date may we suppose Christianity to have first gained a footing in the regions addressed by St. Peter? It is not easy to say. We know from Pliny’s despatch to Trajan that there were many Christians at Amisos, in the extreme north of Asia Minor, on the coast of the Black Sea, about a.p. 87. But long before this, on the day of Pentecost, we read that among St. Peter’s audience were people from Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pam- phylia (Acts ii. 9, 10). St. Luke can hardly have given this list of countries without an ulterior reason; it is probable that he knew the work of evangelisation to have begun immediately afterwards in all of them. At any rate, among the three thousand souls who received baptism at the time of that great outpouring of .ne Spirit, there must have been many who went home and preached their new faith. Very much good work must have been done by obscure missionaries of whom we have no record at all. By unknown hands Christianity had been planted in Rome before a.p. 58, and no reason can be given why it should not have taken root in Pontus quite as early. Even in N.-W. Galatia, though the region may very possibly not have been visited by St. Paul himself, there would be no lack of voices to spread the good tidings. Pilgrims, chapmen, and traders of all kinds, soldiers, subordinate officials, played a part d ; — ee” THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 73 in the dissemination of the gospel, and there was probably no corner of the empire where Christianity had not been heard of within a very few years. It has been thought surprising that St. Peter should address his Epistle to Churches connected, in part at any rate, with the name of St. Paul. But we must consider in the first place how small a portion of Asia Minor was visited by St. Paul. In Lycia, Caria, Mysia, Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia he never set foot. Of Galatia and Phrygia, if Mr. Ramsay is right, he touched but the southern fringe ; and, if Mr. Ramsay is wrong, we do not know at all what was the extent of his voyagings. In Asia, of the Seven Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse, Ephesus alone is known to have enjoyed his presence, though he wrote to Laodicea. We do not hear of his working at Miletus, and at Troas he stayed but seven days. ‘There are, indeed, large gaps in our information about St. Paul. We do not know by what road he travelled from Syria to Ephesus at the end of his second journey (Acts xviii. 18, 19), or how much is covered by such expressions as “ the upper coasts,” or “all they which dwelt in Asia” (Acts xix. 1, 10). Yet much must have been left for other hands to do; and there is no reason for supposing that it was undertaken exclusively by personal adherents of St. Paul, or that the communities were of a specially Pauline type. Indeed, even Ephesus was governed, as we know, by presbyters ; but we could not affirm this fact with confidence of Thessalonica or of Corinth. And here may be expressed a suspicion that there is more in a conjecture of Weiss than has generally been allowed. Why was St. Paul forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia and Bithynia on his second expedition ? (Acts xvi. 6, 7). The Holy Ghost is Wisdom, and there must have been some reason for this prohibition. It may have been merely that the providence of God was calling St. Paul onwards, to carry the war straight into the enemy’s country, and advance boldly upon his western strongholds. But it may also have been, as Weiss thinks, that other preachers were already at work in the forbidden regions, and that it was neither necessary nor desirable that St. Paul should direct his energies thitherwards. The apostle passed by Mysia, where not long afterwards, if the earlier date of the Apocalypse is correct, we find the Church of Pergamos. It may have been in process of formation at this very time. Nay, if conjecture be permissible, we might venture a step further. Even on his first journey, St. Paul hurried through Pamphylia without stopping, and did not preach in the country, except once at Perga, on his return (Acts xiv. 25), though Pamphylians had been present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and the ground was therefore to some extent prepared for the seed. Again, it was immediately after entering Pamphylia 74. INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER that Mark parted from St. Paul. The two facts, the hasty advance and the return of St. Mark, may possibly be connected, and, if they are, we must ask what explanation will fit them both. Considera- tions of health might conceivably, as Mr. Ramsay urges, determine the apostle to press on and leave Pamphylia unworked ; but this reason, which might have been expressed in two words, is not given by St. Luke, and still we are left to wonder why Mark went back, why Paul resented his conduct, and why Barnabas excused it. It is possible to suppose that evangelists were already at work in Pamphylia; that Mark did not think it desirable to interfere with them ; that, being a young man, he pressed his opinion in a manner that might give offence; that Barnabas agreed with Mark in sub- stance though not in expression, and that Paul yielded and moved on to Antioch without delay. Upon the whole, it seems tolerably certain, not only that Christianity advanced with great rapidity in Asia Minor, but that there were many Churches which were not founded by the direct personal initiative of St. Paul. It is clear also that the apostle’s hold upon Asiatic Christianity was neither deep nor lasting. At the time when he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy (i. 15), all the Churches of Asia—the province of Asia—had turned away from him, though he had still a footing in Ephesus, where Onesiphorus remained true. There may have been signs of defection in Galatia also, whither Crescens is despatched (iv. 10). Yet this cannot have been the precise date of 1 Peter, because Mark was in Asia, not in Rome, and was in close personal relations with St. Paul (iv. rr). What conclusions are we to draw? We can but grope our way through the dim light. There were probably at a very early date Churches dotted all over Asia Minor. Some of them were Pauline, some were of another type, which we may loosely call Petrine. There was agitation among them, and some passed from the one side to the other. To our modern eyes the difference between the Mystic and the Disciplinarian seems very great, because it has been embittered by the fierce controversies of the last five centuries. To St. Paul also it seemed very great. Law, in his eyes, was incompatible with mystic freedom, and he united in a very high degree speculative keenness and masterful enthusiasm. But did it seem equally great to the other apostles, or even to St. Paul’s own attached followers? The difference as yet existed only in germ ; its consequences had not developed themselves. Can we not imagine that Mark or Silvanus may have been equally ready to take their orders either from St. Peter or from St. Paul. Is there any real reason why, if the Pontic Christians had -planned a great mission or visitation of the Churches, St. Peter should not have been asked to write a circular letter which should give an authoritative basis to the enterprise? or why Silvanus, 2 =F. a Se THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 75 he was not at the time in actual personal attendance upon St. Paul, . should not have been the envoy? or why St. Mark, if he was at the time with St. Peter, should not have been mentioned affec- tionately in the Epistle? Whence was St. Peter writing, and what is the exact place which he calls Babylon? Three answers have been given to this question ; for we may leave Joppa and Jerusalem on one side, though both towns have found advocates. Down to the Reformation, Babylon was generally understood as here signifying Rome. Since that date many commentators, following the lead of Erasmus and Calvin, have argued that the name must be taken in its natural sense, and that the Assyrian Babylon is intended. Others again, notably Bishop Pearson, have advocated the claims of the Egyptian Babylon or Old Cairo. We may consider these three views in the reverse order. Strabo the geographer, who was writing as late as a.D. 18, tells us (xvii. p. 807) that the Egyptian Babylon is a strong fortress, founded with the permission of the Pharaoh of the time by certain refugees from the Assyrian Babylon. “At present,” he adds, ‘‘it is the camp of one of the three corps which form the garrison of Egypt.” Near it, or round it, grew up a town which is of consider- able interest in the history of the Coptic Church, of the Arab invasion, and of the Crusades. But in the first century it appears to have been merely a great military station, the last place where we should expect to find St. Peter and his friends (see A. J. Butler, The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt ; Evetts, The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt; Amélineau, La Glographie de ? Egypte). According to the letter of Agrippa to the Emperor Caius (in Philo, Legatio ad Caium, 36, Mangey, ii. 588), there were at that date many Jews in Babylon of Assyria. Persons from this region had been present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and it is possible that evangelists were at work there not long afterwards. But towards the end of the reign of Caius great disasters fell upon the Babylonian Jews. Many were massacred; many fled to Seleucia and thence to Ctesiphon (Josephus, Avv. xviii. 9). If St. Peter ever went to the East, it is rather in the last-named city than in Babylon that we should expect to find him. Again, tradition associates with Parthia the name, not of Peter, but of Thomas, and considerable weight may be attached to this fact. Besides, the regions beyond Euphrates lay in another world. It is hardly credible that one and the same person should have taken an active part in evangelising the far Orient, and yet have kept up a close connexion with Greek-speaking communities in Asia Minor. The earliest Syriac tradition connects St. Peter with Rome, and does not - mention Babylon (Dr. Chase, article on Peter, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible). Nor have we the least reason for supposing that 76 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Mark and Silvanus ever visited Assyria; indeed, all the probabili- ties are heavily against it. There remains only the third explanation, that by Babylon St. Peter means Rome. Down to the time of the Reformation this view was universal. It was rejected by the Reformed divines, partly, perhaps, because it appeared to favour the Papal claims. But among modern commentators it is still the predominant opinion. That Rome was commonly spoken of as Babylon by Jewish writers of an apocalyptic tinge is beyond question. No one doubts what is meant by Babylon in the Book of the Apocalypse. There is, indeed, some difficulty in ascertaining the precise date at which this metaphor came into vogue. Bishop Lightfoot (S¢, Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 492) refers toa passage in the Szbyliine Oracles (v. 158): kat prefer wovrov Babiv airnv te BaBviddva “ItaXias yatav fs civexa rool Govt “EBpatwv dyot wuorot kai vads @XyOys. But these particular lines in which there is a reference to the destruction of the temple must have been written after the time of Vespasian. The same observation will apply to a passage in the Apocalypse of Baruch (xi. 1, ed. R. H. Charles, 1896), “‘ Moreover, I, Baruch, say this against thee, Babylon: If thou hadst prospered and Zion had dwelt in her glory, it would have been a great grief to us that thou shouldest be equal to Zion. But now, lo, the grief is infinite, and the lamentation measureless, for, lo, thou art prospered and Zion desolate.” ‘This passage also Mr. Charles, the learned editor, assigns to a date after a.D. 70 and before A.D. go. It is obvious that the sack of Jerusalem would bring the name of Vespasian into close proximity to that of Nebuchadnezzar, and suggest at once the parallel between Rome and Babylon. But there is no reason why this comparison should not have been vividly present to the minds both of Jews and Christians long before the final catastrophe. In the Apocalypse, which was most probably written before the fall of Jerusalem, Rome is Babylon, not because she has destroyed the Holy City, but because she is the mother of harlots and abominations, drunken with the blood of the saints (xvii. 5, 6). Such metaphors, or applications of prophecy, seem to have been not uncommon among the first Christians ; and even Jerusalem, ‘the great city where our Lord was crucified,” was spoken of “ spiritually” as Sodom or Egypt (Apoc. xi. 8). St. Paul had called the Holy City “Sinai” (Gal. iv. 25). Such turns of speech are very natural, and present little or no difficulty. The moment a pious Jew set his foot in the Transtiberine Ghetto, and saw with his own eyes the splendour and the vices of the capital, or heard of the influence of the “‘Chaldaean” astrologers, or of the blasphemous follies of Caligula, he might very well bethink him of Isaiah, and say to himself, ‘‘ Surely this is Babylon, not Rome.” It has been urged that to use such a metaphor in the actual s THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 77 dating of an official letter might cause uncertainty and confusion. But there is little force in this objection. The letter did not drop from the sky, nor even go through the post. It was carried by Silvanus, who had come from the place, whatever it was, where the author was residing. It is quite possible that there is another metaphor in the same verse (1 Pet. v. 13). For, although the Sinaitic MS. and other ancient authorities insert the word éxxAnoia before ovvexAexT7}, We May maintain with confidence that the right translation of what St. Peter wrote is not “ the fellow-elect Church,” but “the fellow-elect Lady in Babylon greeteth you.” But this, again, may be a metaphor, for many hold with Bishop Lightfoot that we must see in the phrase a personification of the Church in which the apostle was resident at the time. Bishop Lightfoot compares the (probably not parallel) use of xvpfa, 2 John i. 5; see Clement of Rome, il. 491 ; we may add the Lady of Hermas, But it is not necessary to treat the lady also as a figure of speech. The sister-wife whom St. Peter led about with him must have been a well-known and well-loved personage in many places. Clement of Alexandria had heard that she died a martyr death before her husband (Strom. vii. 11. 63). There is no reason for doubting his story ; and, if it is true, it implies that she had been not only the companion, but the active assistant of her husband. She was one of the heroines of the primitive Church, and would hold a far higher position in the eyes of men than Phoebe, or Priscilla, or Euodia, or Syntyche, or those other good women who laboured with St. Paul. She may very well have desired to add a brief message of Christian affection to her great husband’s Epistle. Peter, again, was not only a husband but a father (Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 6. 52; Eus. &. £. iii. 30. 1); he never mentions divorce; he does not appear to have attached any merit to celibacy ; he seems to have been a typical Hebrew, who looked upon married life as the best, happiest, and most blessed condition ; the Lord Jesus had deigned to visit his wife, and had been good to his wife’s mother. He would speak of his wife, as Synesius in a later age spoke of his, with affection that was not ashamed, and knew no reason why it should be ashamed, of expressing itself. If we take the word ‘‘lady” in a metaphorical sense, we are probably sacrificing to mere prudery a noble and distinctive feature of St. Peter’s character, and losing a touch of nature which speaks strongly in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle. “ My wife and -my son Marcus, two persons who are very near and dear to me, join in my greeting to you”—this is surely what St. Peter means. _We must add that the word “lady” is not found in the Greek text. Kvpia may, indeed, be used in a figure of the Church, but what St. Peter actually says is “she who is fellow-elect.” We may supply yuv7, if we please, and even more easily than xvpia. Thus, 78 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER even if xvpta in 2 John meant a Church, the case would not be parallel. vv could hardly be used in a metaphorical sense. Nothing has been said in the foregoing paragraphs as to the authenticity of the address and concluding verses of the Epistle which has lately been impugned by Professor Harnack (Chronologie, p. 451 sqq.). A few words on the subject will not be inappropriate here. Dr. Harnack thinks that the Epistle does not profess to be the work of a personal disciple of Jesus, waprus in v. 1 meaning, not an apostle, but merely one who has suffered after the pattern of Christ ; that it is so saturated with Pauline ideas that it might conceivably have been written by St. Paul himself; that it displays ‘no personal acquaintance with the life of Jesus, and hardly a trace of any knowledge of the gospel; that it describes the state of the Church and its afflictions in such a manner that the date may be fixed between 83 and 93, but possibly as early as 73 or 63 A.D. ; that it is the production of some distinguished teacher and con- fessor ; that it was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, and the author of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, but not under the name of Peter; that Babylon means possibly Rome, but more probably Jerusalem ; that it floated about in an anony- mous condition, till between 4.D. 150 and 170 it was seized upon by the writer who forged the Second Epistle of Peter and furnished with a head- and tail-piece. Dr. Harnack admits that the general state of things described in the Epistle is such that the date might be fixed without absurdity as early as A.D. 63, before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, and within the lifetime of St. Peter. But he maintains that it cannot be the work of St. Peter himself, because of its Paulinism, of its impersonality, and of the vagueness of its references to the Gospels. Hence it becomes necessary @ frior? to regard the address and subscription as forged; but Dr. Harnack also finds these passages full of difficulty. As to the general character of the Epistle, much has already been said in the course of this Introduction, and more will be added in the Notes. FPaulinism is not to be found in the Epistle, except in that sense in which Paulinism is identical with Chris- — tianity ; the Gospel allusions are more numerous than Dr. Harnack _ is disposed to admit; in a circular letter, written at a very early — date, there was neither room nor occasion for precise quotation or . detailed information ; and for the note of personality, we should — look naturally to the beginning and end, which the hypothesis — requires us to regard as spurious; There are difficulties and — obscurities, no doubt, but the worst conceivable method of hand- — ling them is to regard them as traces of interpolation or forgery. The forger’s object is to make things as clear and natural as_ THE DIASPORA, BABYLON, AND THE ELECT LADY 79 possible ; why, then, should anyone, writing as late as a.D. 160, with the Pauline Epistles, if not the Book of Acts, before him, have pitched upon Silvanus and Mark, of all people in the world, as likely to be in attendance upon St. Peter? The mention of these two names causes great perplexity in modern times, and certainly could not have caused less in ancient. Further, it is not easy, though it is not impossible, to suppose that some unscrupulous person first concocted an epistle in the name of Peter, and then seized upon a well-known but anonymous -ancient document, and affixed to it the name of Peter, in order to give some sort of support to his own fabrication. If 2 Peter is to be regarded as a forgery, it is much more likely that what happened was just the reverse ; that the forger found 1 Peter in existence as we have it, and used it, address, subscription and all, as a pattern for his own concoction. But, indeed, forgery is even a more dangerous word than interpola- tion. It is our bounden moral duty to require cogent evidence before we charge one who is presumably an honest and sensible man with deliberate falsification. or that harmless masquerading which we find later on in the /udicium Petri, the Clementine Homilies, the Constitutions of the Apostles, or Dionysius the Areopa- vite, is in the present instance quite out of the question. In style, the address and subscription are indistinguishable from the body of the Epistle. The language of the address (d:ac7opa, mapeTlonmot, dyiacp.0s, UTaKoy, pavtitpos) paves the way with great propriety for the admonitions which follow, and contains a sort of abstract or premonition of all that was in the writers mind. St. Clement of Rome, writing about A.D. 95, not only makes use of the body of the Epistle, but moulds his own address very closely on the address of the Epistle (xdpis ipiv kat cipyyn ad tavtoKparopos @cod dua *Inood Xpiorov wAynOvvGein: see Lightfoot’s note). Dr. Har- nack’s view involves the extremely improbable supposition that this form of address was the invention of Clement ; that at a somewhat later date it was loosely imitated by Jude ; that half a century after- wards the forger of 2 Peter, writing with both Clement and Jude before him, copied more accurately the Clementine address, and prefixed it not only to his own concoction, but to an ancient Epistle which he found floating about without a name. It is true that St. Clement does not quote St. Peter by name, but it is equally true that though, according to Dr. Harnack’s Jndex Locorum, he quotes or alludes to twenty-two of the New Testament documents, he no- where gives the name of his authority. Yet, though he quotes St. Paul without naming him, he knew quite well that St. Paul was the author of the Epistles from which he quotes (xlvii. 1, dvadaBere tiv _ émistoAv Tod paxapiov IlavAov tod droatddov), and we may con- fidently infer that he had the same knowledge in the case of St. Peter. There is therefore some internal and strong external evidence in 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER favour of the authenticity of the address. But if the address is genuine, no one will care to dispute the genuineness of the subscrip- tion. The difficulties involved in the latter passage are not of a kind that can be regarded as insuperable. For the later evidence on the subject of St. Peter’s sojourn in Rome, the reader may consult the article by Dr. Chase, who has marshalled all the statements with great care and lucidity. There also will be found references to the literature of the question. The only addition which I can make to Dr. Chase’s quotations is one from Clement of Alexandria, taken from a note in the Codex Marcianus (text in Zahn, Forschungen, iii. 70): “ Petrus et Paulus Romae sepulti sunt . . . Clemens in quinto libro hypotyposeon id est informationum.” Zahn expresses a doubt whether this state- ment is really derived from Clement, but gives no reason. It may very well be genuine. The fifth book of the Ayfotyposes certainly contained information about the apostles, as we know from Eus. FT, Et. 32. § 9. MARK AND SILVANUS, When St. Peter despatched his Epistle, Mark and Silvanus were in his company. Mark is called by St. Paul (Col. iv. 10) the cousin of Barnabas. _ We may therefore with confidence identify him with the John Mark ~ of whom we read in Acts (xii. 12). It can hardly be doubted that this is the same Mark who was with St. Peter. Mark was the son of a woman named Mary, who lived in Jerusalem, and whose house was a meeting-place for the brethren. Like his cousin Barnabas, he was probably a Levite. St. Peter was — well acquainted with Mark’s mother, for it was to her house that he _ turned his steps on his deliverance from prison. He knew Mark, therefore,’before St. Paul did; and when he calls him his son, he may mean that he induced Mark to accept baptism, or at any rate was instrumental in bringing him to Christ. But the term may denote nothing more than close and affectionate familiarity. Barnabas and Saul took John Mark with them on what is known as the First Mission Journey (Acts xii. 25), as their “ minister” (taypérys, Acts xill. 5. E has here eis diaxoviay, evidently wishing to get rid of an ambiguous word). It is not quite clear what we are to understand by the word “minister.” Sometimes, but rarely, it means “a minister of the word” (so Luke i. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 1; Acts xxvi. 16: in this last passage it is applied — by Jesus to St. Paul), but more commonly it is used in the New Testament of menials or subordinate officers of an inferior class, — Possibly Mark went as personal attendant on the apostles, as their courier or dragoman; but for this purpose they would naturally —Aae ee he ok ° MARK AND SILVANUS SI select a fellow-believer who had a gift of exposition, and could help in other ways, besides ministering to their comfort, arranging routes, and managing business generally. With Barnabas and Saul, Mark traversed Cyprus—a country which may have been known to him, for it was the native land of Barnabas. But at Perga in Pamphylia “John departing from them returned to Jerusalem” (Acts xiii. 13). Paul resented his conduct, and when Barnabas proposed to take John Mark with them on their second journey (Acts xv. 37), objected so strongly that there was a sharp contention between him and Barnabas. Finally, the two great friends departed asunder, Paul taking for his companion the prophet Silas, while Barnabas went with Mark to Cyprus. Two questions suggest themselves here. The first is, What was the age of Mark at this time? A worthless tradition, which is directly contradicted by the Elder of Papias (Eus. &. £. iii. 39. 15), represents him as having been one of the Seventy. Some com- mentators in recent times have identified him with the young man mentioned in his Gospel (Mark xiv. 51). This, again, is somewhat unsubstantial conjecture. But the word “minister” seems to imply that he was a novice to mission work, and that he was a young man. Though he was cousin, not “sister's son,” of Barnabas, he may have been many years younger than that apostolic man. Again, why did he leave the apostles so abruptly? St. Luke makes no comment, and we are thrown back on hypothesis. Yet it is clear that the breach was not between Mark and Barnabas, but between Mark and Paul. Barnabas defended him with great warmth. The reason for Mark’s departure, therefore, can hardly have been that his courage failed, or that his health broke down, or that he proved incompetent for his office. But if these causes are inadequate, what can we suppose but that there was some difference of opinion between Paul and Mark which Paul regarded as un- fitting him for the purpose in hand, while Barnabas, who inclined to the party of Peter (Gal. ii. 13), did not. It is not easy to suppose that Barnabas, however strong his family affection may have been, would have selected again for his helpmate one who could not be trusted on an emergency. Nor would Mark himself have been willing to renew an adventure of which he knew that he was incapable. He ended by going with Barnabas to Cyprus, where possibly the dangers were less; but he appears to have been quite willing to plunge into Asia Minor, though he must have heard all about the sufferings of the previous expedition. Nor is it easy to suppose that St. Paul would have still been embittered by a failure of courage of which Mark had so evidently repented. It seems far more likely that Mark had taken alarm at St. Paul’s views ; that during the interval, probably under the persuasion of gs he had come to regard the difference as unimportant ; 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER and that St. Paul felt rightly, though with some sense of personal vexation, that, however slight the srounds of disagreement might look to others, they would prevent ‘him from working successfully with one who was disposed to criticise and disapprove. Some slight confirmation of this view may be found in the fact that the companion chosen by St. Paul was Silas, a prophet, and in the previous connexion between Mark and St. Peter. Mark is not again mentioned in the Book of Acts. At a later date, when the apostle’s own views were much milder and more tolerant than they had been, we find Mark with St. Paul in Rome (Col. iv. 10), and contemplating a journey to Colossae. Possibly he was not personally known to the Colossians, for the apostle adds, ‘‘if he come unto you, receive him.” It may be that St. Paul is here giving Mark an introduction, but we should hardly be justified in pressing this sense upon the words. At a later date (2 Tim. iv. 11) Mark was somewhere in Asia Minor, and Timothy is desired to bring him to Rome; for, says the apostle, “he is useful to me for ministry” (evxpyoros eis Ovaxoviay). And in the Epistle to Philemon (24) we find him in Rome with Epaphras, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas, the fellow-labourers of St. Paul. But we do not know when or how St. Mark first set foot in the capital. Ancient tradition connected St. Mark very closely with St. Peter. Papias stated, on the authority of the Elder (Eus. #. £. ili. 39. 15), that Mark had never been a follower of the Lord Himself, but had served Peter as interpreter, and that his Gospel represents the occasional discourses of St. Peter, which Mark reproduced accurately from memory. ‘The Elder, as reported by Papias, does not actually mention Rome, and does not say expressly that the Gospel was composed after Peter’s death, though this is probably implied in his statement that Mark wrote from memory. Irenaeus, after telling us (ili. 1. 1) that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church, proceeds, ‘‘ After their death (e€odov) Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching.” Clement of Alexandria (in Eus. H. E. ii. 15) affirms that Mark wrote his Gospel to satisfy the importunities of the brethren, and without the apostle’s knowledge, before the death of Peter, and submitted it when complete to the apostle’s judgment. Origen (Lomm. vol. ili. p. 1; Eus. A Z. vi. 25. 5) says that Mark wrote as Peter dictated to him (as Tlérpos idynyjoaro airG). ‘These four accounts, while they differ in details and may be independent, agree in bringing Mark into close per- sonal relations with Peter. Not one of them says in so many words that his Gospel was written in Rome, but the language of — Irenaeus seems clearly to imply this, and it was probably the belief MARK AND SILVANUS 83 of the other three also. Clement certainly thought that the First Epistle of Peter was written from Rome. Tradition also taught that, after publishing his Gospel, Mark went to Egypt; there preached the faith, and became first Bishop of Alexandria (Eus. H Z£. ii. 16. 1; Epiph. Haer. li. 6; Jerome, de Vir. Jil. 8). Were in later days his tomb was shown in the great church of Baucalis, which stood near the harbour. There was, however, an ancient opinion, which has been preserved in the heterodox Clementine Homilies (i. 8), that the Church of Egypt owed its origin to Barnabas, not to Mark. The Silvanus of Peter has been generally identified with the Silas of Acts, the Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles. Like St. Paul, he was a Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37, 38). A foreign burgess would have a Roman name borrowed from the personage from whom he or his ancestor had received the franchise. Silvanus is a well-known cognomen borne by many distinguished families, the Ceionii, Granii, Pomponii, and others. See Hoole, Zhe Classical Llement in the N.T., p. 61. In Orelli there is a long inscription (No. 750) in honour of Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, who was consul suffect in A.D. 45. He was a meritorious officer, who stood high in the favour of Ves- pasian, and had been proconsul of Asia, as Wilmanns thinks, just before or just after Silanus, who held the same office in a.p. 54. M. Plautius Silvanus (Orelli, No. 622) was consul in B.c. 2, and re- ~ ceived the triumphal ornaments for service in Illyricum. L. Flavius Silvanus (Wilmanns, Jzscriptiones Latinae, No. 285) was consul in A.D. 81. The name Silvanus was also borne by persons of lower station, freedmen or dependants of the great houses. Thus (Orelli, No. 695) we find a funeral inscription to Silvania Maria, which is dated duobus Geminis ; this, according to Tertullian, was the year of our Lord’s crucifixion. Another epitaph (C. Z Z. vol. vi. No. 4073) in the co/umbarium of the servants of Livia Augusta runs thus: M. Livivs. Sitvanvs. Decvr. THYMELE. SILVANI. This Silvanus was decurion, or head, of one of the numerous bodies of officials or servants in the Imperial household. Thy- mele was probably his wife. Again (édd. No. 4316) we read: A. SILVANIO. The name Silvanus or Silvanius was not uncommonly borne by persons of the same class to which we may suppose the companion of the apostles to have belonged ; and from the name Maria, which in one instance we find associated with it, we many infer that some - of them were of Jewish parentage. It is particular'y interesting to find a Silvanus actually employed in the family of the Caesars. Here we may possibly discern one of the little links by which 84 INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Christianity attached itself from the very first to the Imperial court. Our Silvanus had certainly namesakes, possibly relatives, among that vast body of servants, clerks, readers, physicians, librarians, civil and domestic officials, who surrounded the emperor and served him in all sorts of capacities, from that of cook to some- thing very like what we should call a Secretary of State. And it is in no way surprising to find him in Rome. There can be little doubt that the Silas of Acts is the Silvanus of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles, but the relation between his two names is not quite clear. The vulgar abbreviation of Silvanus would naturally be S:ABas or SiAovds. Hence it has been main- tained that the real name of this apostolic man was the Aramaic Sili, which by the addition of a common Greek termination be- comes Silas ; and that Silvanus is not a lengthened form of Silas, but a Gentile by-name adopted merely because it was similar in sound to the original (compare Joshua, Jason. See Zahn, Zindettung, i. p- 23; Deissmann, Lzdelstudien, p. 184). If this view is correct, the name of Silvanus ceases to have any particular meaning. But Zahn does not quite solve the problem. If Silvanus is equivalent to Silvas, not to Silas, why, we may ask, did Silas call himself Silvanus and not rather Silanus? ‘The same difficulty recurs in either case. Again, though Silvas is actually used for Silvanus (Zahn cites a PAaovwos S.ABas from Josephus, Be//. Jud. vii. 8. 1), it is not safe to assert that the same rule was always observed. In these vulgar abbreviations the final -as represents a large variety of terminations ; thus we have Hermas for Hermogenes, Epaphras for Epaphroditus, Nymphas for Nymphodorus, and so on. Popular usage follows very loose rules, as we know from the analogy of English pet names. Finally, there is the probability that Silas and Silvanus only accidentally resemble one another, that the first was the name given to the man by his Hebrew parents, the second his name as a Roman burgess and client of a noble Roman house. We are left to make the same choice of alternatives in the case of a more famous pair of names, Saul and Paul. It is probable then that Silvanus or one of his ancestors had been manumitted by one or other of the Roman Silvani. He appears first as one of the leading men among the brethren at Jerusalem, and was one of the delegates appointed to carry to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia the Decree of the Council. He must, therefore, have been heartily in accord with the substance of the Decree. He was a prophet, meeting St. Paul on this side, and at Antioch he exhorted the brethren, probably the Gentile brethren, with many words and confirmed them. From Antioch he appears to have returned to Jerusalem (Acts xv. 34 is to be omitted), but shortly afterwards he was chosen by St. Paul to accompany him on his Second Mission Journey. We hear of him for the last time in MARK AND SILVANUS 85 the Book of Acts at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5 ; compare 2 Cor. i. 19), where again, as at Antioch, he appears as a preacher. Silvanus also, like Mark, dwelt at first in Jerusalem, and must have been well known to St. Peter before he became acquainted with St. Paul. This account of Mark and Silvanus enables us to fix with cer- tainty a prior limit of date for the First Epistle of St. Peter. Mark was probably a novice when first we read of him, and attended St. Paul on the First Journey. Silvanus went with the apostle on the Second. Hence 1 Peter cannot possibly have been written before the end of the Second Journey. The date of the apostle’s fourth visit to Jerusalem, with which this journey terminated (Acts XVili. 22), is very variously computed from A.D. 49 (Bengel) or a.p. 51 (Schrader) or a.p. 52 (Turner) to A.D. 56 (Eichhorn and Ideler). The date most in favour is A.D. 54. (See the table in Farrar’s Life of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 624.) But all calculations of time for the Book of Acts are inferential, and this is probably some few years too late. As to the posterior limit of date, there is not the same certainty. Reasons have been assigned in a previous section for believing that the Epistle was written before the outbreak of the Neronian per- secution in A.D. 64, but many eminent authorities dispute this conclusion. Are there any other considerations that will enable us to come to a more definite result ? It has been thought that Mark and Silvanus could not possibly have been in Rome, and in attendance on St. Peter, till after the death of St. Paul. But, in the first place, there is no reason for supposing that St. Peter outlived St. Paul by any considerable length of time. Dionysius of Corinth, our earliest authority (Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 27, places him under M. Aurelius and Commodus), says that the apostles perished “‘about the same time” (kara rov aitov xaipov, Eus. A. £. ii. 25. 8; Routh, vol. i. p. 180); and the natural inference from these words is, that though the apostles may not have ended their lives on the same day, their deaths were not far separated. But it is surely incredible that, if the Neronian per- secution were actually raging at the time, and St. Paul himself had been slain with the sword not long before, the language of St. Peter’s Epistle should be what it is. Nor can it reasonably be supposed that Mark and Silvanus were adherents of St. Paul in such a sense that they could not at any time have written and carried a letter for St. Peter, and joined him in sending a greeting to the Asiatic Churches. On the contrary, the difficulty is to understand how either Mark or Silvanus can ever have been thoroughgoing advocates of the distinctively Pauline teaching. Let it be remembered that Mark parted from St. Paul under painful circumstances at the very outset of the First Journey, and that Silas was the chosen advocate of the Jerusalem Decree. 86 INTRODUCTION TO:THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER The natural inference from such facts as we have is that, till the dispute about the law which St. Paul presses so vehemently in Galatians and Romans had died down, neither Mark nor Silvanus can have been in quite unclouded relations with the outspoken champion of Faith against Works. There are long blank spaces to be filled up in the history of both men. What was Mark doing after he went with Barnabas to Cyprus, during St. Paul’s Second and Third Journeys, or during the . imprisonment at Caesarea? Even after this date we catch but a few flying glimpses of him; and of Silvanus we know absolutely nothing from the time of his arrival in Corinth. Thus we are driven back upon the question of the literary inter- dependence of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles. According to most scholars, the Petrine Epistle is later than Romans (a.D. 58) or Ephesians (A.D. 63). In the view of others it is later than any of the Pauline Epistles; indeed it has been supposed to borrow from almost every book in the New Testament. The evidence, both linguistic and doctrinal, has been considered in previous sections, and it does not appear to point to any definite conclusion. Mark and Silvanus may very well have been together in Rome at any time after the Second Mission Journey. But at what date can we suppose St. Peter to have been in the city with them ? This is a question which cannot be answered with certainty. Lipsius maintained that St. Peter never visited Rome at all. Of late it has been generally allowed that the evidence on the other side is too strong to be rejected. But the tendency is to place St. Peter’s arrival in the capital as late as possible, towards the end of St. Paul’s first imprisonment, at the end of a.p. 63 (Dr. Chase) or in the beginning of A.D. 64 (Bishop Lightfoot). Both these dates rest upon the assumption that, if St. Peter had visited Rome at any earlier time, the fact must have been mentioned in the Book of Acts or in the Pauline Epistles. But it can hardly be said that the silence of either of these authorities amounts to negative proof. In Acts, St. Peter disappears from the scene alto- gether after the Council of Jerusalem. St. Luke must have known much about the apostle’s later movements, but for some reason or another he did not see fit to say a single word upon the subject. The silence of St. Paul affords an extremely difficult problem, | St. Peter had certainly visited Antioch, but St. Paul only mentions the fact incidentally, and with a polemical object. Dr. Harnack thinks it highly probable (Chronologie, p. 244, note) that he had also been in Corinth ; but we cannot gather this with certainty from the words of St. Paul. He may have preached in Galatia also ; but this again we can only suspect. As to the origin of the Church in Rome we — ‘ . MARK AND SILVANUS 87 are left to grope in the dark; but questions arise to which we must not too readily assume an answer. A Church had been founded there many years before (Rom. xv. 22), not by St. Paul, and had attained some considerable dimen- sions. Whom would these believers be so anxious to see as Peter, whose name must have been familiar to them from the day of their conversion? Who was that “other man” upon whose foundation the Roman Church was built? (Rom. xv. 20). Why, again, does St. Paul, writing to a Church that he had never.seen, enter so fully and controversially into questions which had probably never been heard of in Rome? for the Jews of Rome, when he came there as a prisoner five or six years later, knew “no harm” about him (Acts xxviii. 21) ; and, though these Jews were not Christians, they could hardly have spoken thus, if the Pauline view of Law had been debated among their compatriots in the city. Or what was that spiritual gift which St. Paul desired to impart at Rome (Rom. i. 11), if not prophecy, the essential mark of difference between Pauline and Petrine Chris- tianity? The Epistle to the Romans is, in fact, an Apologia, and seems to imply the pre-existence of that form of doctrine which we find in the First Epistle of St. Peter. And this mode of opinion continued to be actively taught in Rome during St. Paul’s first imprisonment, as we may gather from Philippians (1. 15-18). Pro- fessor Harnack thinks it not impossible that St. Peter may have paid a visit to Rome even under the reign of Claudius, that is to say, before a.D. 54 (Chronologie, p. 244, note); and certainly this opinion is not untenable. In any case, if we place the end of Acts and of the first im- prisonment of St. Paul in a.p. 58,—the opinion of Eusebius, which has of late received the powerful support of Blass and Harnack,— there is a space of some six years before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, in a.D. 64, during which we know nothing of Mark and Silvanus, and very little of St. Paul. There is no reason against our assigning the First Epistle of St. Peter to this interval of time. If the Epistle does after all, as many think, display an acquaintance with Romans and Ephesians, the fact would be thus accounted for. If Mark made his first acquaintance with Asia Minor immediately after the date of Colossians, we should be able to explain how he comes to be mentioned. Time would be allowed for the growth of the numerous Christian communities implied in the address of the Epistle, and also for the wakening of hostility among the Gentiles, who, though not yet quite prepared for measures of bloody repres- sion, were evidently fast moving in that direction. On the whole, therefore, it seems the most likely supposition that the First Epistle of St. Peter was written between 4.pD. 58 and A.D. 64. NOTES ON THE FIRS, EPISTLE @e SU. PETER: The Title. In the oldest MSS. the Epistle is headed Ilérpov a: (B), or Ilérpov émicrod}) & (8 AC). In Greek cursives we find Ilérpov KaOodiky mpwrn éemictoAy (or éxiaToAH purty): Tov aylov aroaTdAoU Ilérpov émicroAy &: L has émicrody Kafoduxy a tod dylov Kat mavevpypov aroordAov Ilérpov. The Codex Amiatinus gives epistula Petri prima; the Codex Fuldensis, Petri epistula ad gentes, so Junilius and Cassiodorus (in Westcott, Cazon, Appendix D); Tertullian, Scorpiace 12, quotes the Epistle as Petri ad Ponticos. I. 1, 2. Zhe Address. The ordinary type of the address of a Greek letter is that found in Acts xxili, 26, KAavéus Avoias TO Kpatiotw Hyemove PyArKe xaipew: cf. 1 Macc. x. 18, 25, Xi. 30, xil. 6, Xaipew was felt to be objectionable by some of the religious heathen ; thus the author of the third Platonic Epistle prefers ed mpdrrew, on the ground that joy or pleasure befits neither man nor God. But the old heathen formula was at first used even in apostolic letters. We have an instance in the address of the letter which enclosed the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23), and another in that of the Epistle of St. James. To the name of the writer is naturally added his title. In 2and 3 John we find simply 6 zpecBirepos: in James, "IdkwBos Ocod kat Kupiov “Iyood Xpicrod dSodAos: in 1 Peter, Iérpos dadoroXos “Inood Xpicrod: in 2 Peter, Sinwv érpos dodAos Kat ardorodos “Incod Xpworod: in Jude, "Iyood Xpicrod dodAos adeAdds Se "laxdBov. ‘The usage of St. Paul varies. In 1 and 2 Thessalonians the names only are given; in the polemical Epistles, Romans and Galatians, he defends and explains his right to the title of apostle; in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Timothy the words da Oehijparos cod are added with the same purpose; in 1 Tim. we have kar’ éxrayijv @cod added ; in Philippians he calls himself SodAos Xpicrod “Inood (like James, Jude) ; in Titus, Romans, both 8odAos and dzdcroXos (like 2 Peter); in the pathetic Epistle to Philemon the phrase he selects is déopwos “Inood Xpicrod. The name of the addressees is sometimes given quite simply, as by James, by St. Paul in Philemon, Galatians ; but generally a few words descriptive of their Christian character are added, and these 88 CHAPSI: VERS, Fy: 2 89 are often very significant of the leading thoughts in the writer’s mind (aperidypot in 1 Pet. ; KAyrot dyor in Rom., 1 Cor.; ayroe Kat miorot in Col. ; adyam@, dd7Pea, 2 and 3 John). The heathen yaipev becomes the Christian xdpis. To this is naturally added the Jewish Peace (1 and 2 Pet., 2 John, all the Pauline Epistles), and often Mercy (2 John, 1 and 2 Tim., Tit.), or Love (Jude has mercy, peace, and love). We are not to suppose that St. Paul set the pattern for all these addresses; this is extremely improbable. No one man creates epistolary forms. Ignatius still uses the old heathen xafpev, except in Philad. ; and Barnabas begins his Epistle with xaipere. Mérpos. ‘The apostle’s name was Simon (properly Simeon). Our Lord gave him the surname of Cephas (John 1. 42), which signifies a rock or a stone. What our Lord meant was no doubt “rock” not stone, firmness not mere hardness (Matt. xvi. 18); but the Greek noun zérpo is feminine, and when used as the name for a man necessarily takes the shape of Ilérpos. Our Lord always addresses the apostle as Simon except Luke xxii. 34, where Peter seems to be used with reference to the meaning of the name (in ver. 31 we find “Simon, Simon”; in Matt. xvi. 18, again, Peter is an appellative, not the mere name). The apostle is called Simon (Symeon) also by his brother apostle St. James, Acts xv. 14, and by Mark and Luke before the Mission of the Twelve. John calls him indifferently Simon Peter or Peter. Simon Peter is found also Matt. xvi. 16; Luke v. 8; 2 Pet. i. 1; “Simon who is called Peter” occurs in Matt. iv. 18, x. 2, and four times in Acts (x. 5, 18, 32, xi. 13); all these last occur in the story of Cornelius; possibly in his Hebrew original St. Luke found the name Simon and added the other words. Even in the Gospels, Peter is the name generally used, and in Acts it is employed throughout with the few exceptions that have been noted. St. Paul generally speaks a eemnas, 1 Cor... 12, 1) 225:1x5-5, xv. 5; ‘Gal.. 1. 18, i. 9, 1,14 (though he uses Peter in ii. 7, 8), and we may infer that this title was current in the Church of Jerusalem where St. Paul first met the apostle. Some have supposed that St. Paul uses Cephas with a polemical intention, to remind his readers of the compact referred to Gal. ii. 9; but probably it was his habit. The older Syriac versions of the New Testament, the Curetonian (with the recently discovered Sinaitic of the Gospels) and the Peshito, render Peter sometimes Kepha, sometimes Simon Kepha, and sometimes Simon. Peter is found Actsi. 13; 1 Pet.i.1. Evidently Simon and Kepha were the common usage in the second century in the Aramaic countries. Elsewhere Simon went rapidly out of use, and Cephas was preserved only by the same archaeological interest which clung to Zalitha cumi, as the exact words used by our Lord. See Hort; gO NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST... PETER Zahn, Linlettung, i. 21, ii. ; Chase on “Peter” in Hastings’ Dictionar v of the Bible, vol. ill. oT ae Plummer on Luke vi. 14. éxhekTois Teenagers Stacmopas. ‘‘l'o the elect sojourners of the Dispersion” : the omission of the article appears here to have no significance. See Introduction, § 3. There is no verb to govern the dative, cf. Rom. i. 7; 2 John 1-3. It is better to take ékAexrots as an adjective, though the R.V. appears to render it as a substantive. Those to whom the apostle writes are chosen by God, elect (yévos exXexTov, il. 9, from Isa. xiii, 20). St. Peter does not use the Pauline «Ayroé, nor does he expressly distinguish xoadev from éxAéyeoPar. Electicn does not carry with it the final salvation of the individual (iv. 15-19). God must guard them (1. 5); but, if they resist the devil and remain solid in the faith, He will make them perfect and establish them (v. 9 sqq.). There has been no change in the counsels of God. Israel has not been rejected. The Church is still the Church of old; but the vision of the prophets has been realised, and whosoever will may enter in. Elect, in fact, means simply Christian. What the apostle is _ thinking of is corporate citizenship among the elect people; the individual elements of the new life are faith and obedience. In St. Matthew (xxii) all are “called,” but many do not accept the invitation ; some accept, but have no wedding garment ; many | are called, but few are elect (cf. Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31; Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27; Luke xvill. 7). John does not use xadety in this sense, nor ne nor éxAexrds in his Gospel, but in the Apoc. xvil. 14 we have kAyroi kat ékAexTol Kal moro as different names for the same thing. In the Synoptical Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apoc. elect denotes. personal, not corporate election. It is true, as Dr. Hort remarks, that ‘the preliminary election to membership of an elect race does not exclude individual election,” and we cannot reconstruct St. Peter’s theology with precision from two short Epistles. Nevertheless, so far as he has explained himself, he appears to mean that the individual is called into the elect society. Certainly he attaches more value to the corporate life, as regards both growth in knowledge or faith and the efficiency of sacraments (ode Bdaricpa, ill. 21), than St. Paul does. The word maper(Snpos occurs twice in the LXX. Gen, xxiii. 4, TapoLKos Kal Taper ton p.0s ey eiput pel? tpov: Ps, xxxviil. (Xxxix.) 13, OTL md pouKos eyo cise ev TH yH Kal mapenionpos Kabds mdvTes ot marépes pov. These two passages were before St. Peter’s mind both here and i. 17, ii. 11. In the former, Abraham speaks of himself to the sons of Heth as a stranger and sojourner among them ; in the latter, the same figure is used of man who has on earth no abiding city, like the patriarch who sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles (Heb. xi. 9). He is an exile from heaven, his true home. We must not take the word CHAP. I. VERS. I, 2 QI here in its secular political sense, though this would be very applica- able to the Jews of the Diaspora, who were exiles from Jerusalem, dwellers in a foreign land. For an instance of this use see Justin, Apol. 67 (Otto, p. 188), Tols TapemlOnuots ovow Eévois, Of strangers who are stopping in a town but do not possess a permanent domicile there, and examples from the papyri are given by Deiss- mann, Bibelstudien, p- 146, Eng. trans. p. 149. The Christian is chosen and called by God (the choosing pre- cedes the calling) to leave his earthly fathers home. The call makes him a pilgrim; henceforth he journeys by slow stages, through many dangers, towards the far-off promised rest. ‘The pilgrim is sustained by faith in the unseen, by hope, godly fear, and the love of Christ; he is always a babe (ii. 7); he tastes of joy, but only as the wanderer drinks of the brook by the way. It is the same conception of the Christian life that we find in Hebrews. In this tone of hope deferred we may find a characteristic note. St. Peter had walked with the Lord on earth in close personal union, and must have felt the Ascension as a bereavement. St. Paul had never known the Lord in the flesh, but after the Ascension had been delivered by a vision from bitter spiritual struggles. To him naturally the sense of joy and freedom, of being here and now actually in the Kingdom, was far more than to St. Peter. On the Diaspora and the local names, see Introduction, § 8. In the address of the Epistle of St. James the Diaspora seems to include Christian Jews only. Here it embraces alike Gentiles or Jews. There is no difference at all ; all titles and prerogatives pass on from the Church of the fathers to the Church of Christ. There has been evolution, but no breach of continuity. - Kata mpdyvwou ... Inood Xpiotod. The’ three clauses are strictly co-ordinate in the construction, but the order of the whole sentence is loose, and the precise connexion of these words has been - disputed. The general and preferable arrangement is to take them with exAextois— Elect according to foreknowledge,” etc. ; this gives perfectly good sense; the only difficulty is that we should have expected éxAextots to be placed after Bufvvias, The Greek com- mentators Cyril, Theophylact, and Oecumenius take them with amoaroAos. ‘This increases the difficulty arising out of the order of the words, and is open to a further objection, that, whereas St. Paul feels it necessary to justify his claim to the title of apostle, no such necessity would be felt by St. Peter. Hence we should not suffer ourselves to be influenced by the supposed analogy of the Pauline addresses. The three clauses give the three Names and three functions of the Trinity (the arrangement of the Names is not significant). Kara mpoyvwow: the Father (Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i. 3; 92 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER our Father, i. 17) has the attribute of foreknowledge; on this election depends. Foreknowledge includes foreordaining (ji. 20, li. 8), but St. Peter does not use the words zpoopiZew or mpdfeots. He speaks quite simply as a devout Jew, and the metaphysical difficulty does not affect him at all. The problem of predestination is suggested in St. John’s Gospel and discussed by St. Paul; in both cases it arises out of the rejection of the gospel by the mass of the Jews. It may be that St. Peter had had good success among his countrymen, or that he wrote before it became evident that as a nation they would prove refractory. See note on ii. 8. év dytaop@ Nveduatos. ‘In (or by) sanctification of the Spirit.” Compare 2 Thess. il. 13, dru ethero buds 6 Ocds am’ apyis eis cwrypiav év aytacp® IIvevparos xai micte dAnfeias. It has been supposed, without reason, that St. Paul means “ sanctification of your spirit.” In any case the collocation of the three Names, Father, Spirit, Jesus Christ, shows that this cannot be the meaning here. Further, St. Peter does not use zvetya in the sense of the spiritual faculty of man, as distinct from his reason or emotions. See Introduction, p. 40, and note on iii. 4. Foreknowledge is the condition, Sanctification is the atmo- sphere, or perhaps rather the instrument, of the elect life. We may translate év either “in” or ‘‘ by means of” ; the latter, Hebraistic, use of the preposition is very common in the New Testament. See Blass, p. 130. Holiness is the attribute of God in whom is no stain of evil, either in thought or in deed: the Spirit, by the act of sanctification or hallowing, imparts this divine attribute to the Christian society, consecrating it, setting it apart, calling it out of the world, devoting it to God, and furnishing it with divine gifts and powers. Sanctification leads to, results in (eis) obedience, and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. Obedience is obedience to the law of God, faithful service, righteousness, by virtue of which men are just. In the address of Romans (i. 5), St. Paul speaks of taaxoy wicrews, but in quite a different sense. What is meant there is “obedience to faith,” acceptance of the gospel of Free Grace (cf. Rom. xvi. 26). pavtiopéy. “* Sprinkling ” is a sacrificial word, and, as the result of Sanctification and Obedience, can here mean nothing but the means by which we are brought into real spiritual conformity to the Death of Christ ; it conveys to the believer those divine gifts which are the fruit of that Death. What this conformity and these gifts were in the mind of St. Peter we shall gather from later passages. + a pavti~ey occurs Heb. ix. 13, 19, 21, X. 223 pavticpos, Heb. xil. 24. It is by “sprinkling” that the merits of Christ’s Death are transferred to the “brother.” The idea is foreign to St. Paul, | CHAP. I. VERS. I, 2 93 but recurs in Barnabas viii., of pavriCovres wratdes of etayyeAwrapevor Hew Thy aperw TOV dpapTiov Kal TOV ayvicpov THs Kapdias—the maides, it is added, are the twelve apostles. St. Peter is here alluding to some passage or passages of the Old Testament, but to which? Dr. Hort insists that the reference must be to a passage in which the sprinkling of Zersons with blood is combined with the distinct mention of obedience. The only passage which fulfils these conditions is “the sprinkling which formed the ratification of the covenant between Jehovah and His people through the media- tor Moses, as described in Ex. xxiv. 3-8.” This, however, is too logical. A reference to the passages in Hebrews will show that many different sprinklings were in the mind of the writer of that Epistle, and the same is no doubt the case with St. Peter. If we consider the use which our author makes of Isa. lili. we may even find here an allusion also to Isa. lii. 15, where Aquila and Theodo- tion have “sprinkle many nations” (fayriet). See Cheyne’s note on this passage. The obedient are “sprinkled with the Blood of Jesus Christ.” If we are to lay stress upon the order of words, “ sprinkling ” cannot here mean Forgiveness or Reconciliation, which is the effect of the Blood in Rom. v. 8-10. Here the “sprinkling,” following obedi- ence, seems to impart the spirit of readiness, not so much to do God’s will as to suffer for Christ’s sake. This is the highest stage in the progress of the Christian life on earth. Throughout this Epistle the writer dwells so constantly upon the sacrifice of the Cross that the Blood of Christ can mean nothing else than His Death and Passion. Bishop Westcott will not allow this (Zhe Gospel of Creation: Additional notes on 1 Johni. 7 and on Heb. ix. 12), “The Blood (Hebrews, p. 294) represents the energy of the physical earthly life as it is. . . . The Blood poured out is the energy of present human life made available for others.” Death (p. 298) ‘‘was the condition under the actual circumstances of fallen man, whereby alone the life of the Son of Man could be made available for the race . . . Thus Blood and Death correspond generally with the two sides of Christ’s work, the fulfilment of the destiny of man as created, and the fulfilment of this destiny though man has fallen. The first would have been necessary even though sin had not interrupted the due course of man’s progress and relation to God.” The question whether the Incarnation was contingent or neces- sary was first expressly raised in the twelfth century by Ruprecht of Deutz (see R. L. Ottley, Zucarnation, ii. p. 202 ; Dorner, ii. 1. 322, 366), but it does not arise here. Nor will any Christian deny that Christ gives Life, or that the Life is intimately connected with His human and divine personality. The points which arise from the 94 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER text of 1 Peter are: (1) what is the meaning of the words “the Blood of Jesus Christ” ; and (2) whether the apostle finds any distinct value in the Passion, consideréd as Death and not as Life, (1) Much importance has of late been attached to Gen. ix. 4, 5, ~ Deut. xii. 23; where the blood is regarded as the seat or ground of animal life in man or in the brutes, and on that account might not be drunk. - The reason of this prohibition may have been that the nature of the brute was supposed to pass into him who drank its blood, or rather that blood was the favourite beverage of demons and false gods (Ps. xvi. 4, see Dr. Cheyne’s note; the “hard gods” of the Greeks were blood-drinkers, Aesch. Choeph. 577, “Epwis . . + akparov aiwa aierat). Demons and ghosts were supposed to derive physical vigour from the blood which they lapped (Hom. Od. x BG, Ob iSe, 13a); Whether in ancient Hebrew belief the blood-soul possessed moral and intellectual as well as merely physical faculties, it would be hard to say. The prohibition of the drinking of blood seems to imply a purely physical conception. But it comes from a time when the immortality of the soul was not clearly believed, and psychology did not exist. Dr. Liddon remarks (Zpistle to the Romans, p. 76) that in Scripture, though blood and soul are com- bined, blood and spirit never are. Indeed, the blood-soul is hardly compatible with the image and likeness of God (Gen. i. 26), or with the breath of God which makes the soul live (Gen. ii. 7). In early Greek psychology Empedocles invested the Homeric blood-soul with the. power of thought (aia yap dvOpdros mepixdpdidv éore vonpa, in Stob. Lcl. Phys. i. 10263; see Ritter and Preller, § 177); but this fancy, though it was not forgotten (Arist. de Anima, 2; Bekker, p. 4050; Cic. Zusc. Quaest.i. 9.19; Virg. Georg. ii. 484), did not find favour with philosophers or with religious men. Strangely enough it was adopted by the materialist Tertullian (de Anima, 15; see Oehler’s note). But it was not seriously taken by the heathen world, nor is it of any moment except for the archaeology of the Bible. By the Rabbis the blood-soul, the Nephesh, was. dis- tinguished from Ruach and Neshamah as odp&, yvxy, mvedpa are distinguished by Philo (see Gfrorer, Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 58 sqq.; and Siegfried, Philo, p. 240). The Blood then appears to signify the Life only, or mainly, in a peculiar and limited sense. But the common phrase the blood of Abel, of Naboth, of the saints, unquestionably denotes the death of the persons indicated. ‘ In the New Testament, if we take Apoc. v. 9, éoddyys Kat Hyopacas TO Oc ev 7H aipari cov: Acts. xx. 28, tiv éxxAyoiay rod Kupiov (cod) av mepieroujoaro bia Tod aiparos rot idiov; Col. i. 20, cipnvoroinoas Oud TOD aiparos TOD GTavpov adirod: Or Rom. v. 8-10, where Xpicros dréOavev answers to ducawljva év TO aiware adbrod, or CHAP. I. VERS. I, 2 95 KatadXayjvat 81. rod Oavdrov airod, while 4 fw%) abrod corresponds to cwPnvar ard THs dpyns, It seems evident that where Ransom, Pur- chase, or Reconciliation are in question, the Blood of Christ means His Passion. In other connexions than that of the Atonement there can be no doubt that aiwa means death and not life. See Matt. xxvil. 24, 25; Acts v. 28 (where the Blood of Christ is spoken of by Pilate or the Jews); Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 51; Acts xvili. 6, xx. 26; Apoc. vi. 10. As regards the Eucharist, Christ’s Blood is called the Blood of the New Covenant, Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26; and here again the phrase is explained of the Death by St. Paul and in ieb, 1x. 16,,17. One aspect of the Eucharist is that of a feast upon a Sacrifice (John vi., probably ; 1 Cor. v. 7, x. 20, 21; Heb. xiii. 10), Here Christ becomes our Food, filling us with new life, and for this purpose commands us to do what the old worshippers were forbidden to do. Here not the Blood alone, but the Body and the Blood, are a symbol of life, in so far as they are a symbol of the Incarnation. Yet the two are separate as in Death ; the remembrance of a Death, and of a particular kind of violent Death, is forced upon us as of primary significance. ‘The Death is more than an accident of Christ’s Humanity ; it makes the Christian life, let us not say available, but possible. (2) The material cause of Atonement under the law was the blood-soul: Lev. xvii. 11, ‘‘ For the life of the soul is in the blood ; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul ; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the soul.” The blood-soul of the victim was destroyed in sacrifice. What made atonement for the worshipper was not the abiding life, but the innocent death and unmerited suffering of the victim. That the Blood of Christ was united to a perfect human and divine con- s¢iousness seems to make no difference as regards this particular point, though the fact vastly enhances the efficacy of the Cross in other respects. We can hardly understand 1 Peter without attri- buting to the author the belief that suffering is distinct from obedience, and that innocent, cheerful suffering has in itself a power for good, for ourselves and for others. In other words, that it is an expiation, and moves the mind both of God and of man. But this will appear more clearly as we come to the passages in question. These three clauses are expanded in the following verses (mpoyvwors, 3-12; ayiacpds, 13-17 ; and the aia Xpucrod, inter- woven with dywopés and traxoy, 18-25). Indeed, the whole Epistle,is a commentary upon them. It is exceedingly difficult to see any foundation for Dr. Harnack’s suspicion that the Address is a later addition to the Epistle. 96 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER xdpis. See i. 10, 13, ii. 19, ill. 7, iv. ro, and Introduction, p. 39. eipyvy. For the use of this word in the address of a letter, see 2 Esdr. iv. 17, Kat améoretrev 6 Baoirets mpds “Peodtw . . . eipyvyy. In the addresses of the letter of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, Dan. iil. 31, Vi. 25, we have eipyvn tpiv rAnOvvOein. The same verb is added in 2 Peter and Jude; in Clem. Rom. i. ; Polycarp, 1 ; AZarz. Polyc. 1; Const. Apost. i. 1. The expression is borrowed from Daniel, but 1 Peter is probably the original of all the other uses. 8. eddoyntés. The blessing of God immediately after the address appears to have been a regular formula in Jewish letters ; see Introduction, p. 16. There is therefore no sufficient reason for supposing that St. Peter is here imitating 2 Cor. or Eph. Dr. Hort notices that “thanksgiving (cdxapiord, in 2 Tim. xdpw exo) stands for blessing in the corresponding place of St. Paul’s other Epistles, except Gal., 1 Tim., Titus.” Similar blessings are found in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms (Gen. ix. 26; Dan. iii. 28; Ps. Ixvii. (Ixviii.) 20; cf. Luke i, 68). They are of essen- tially Hebraistic type; instances of their use in the temple worship are given in Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae on Matt. vi. 13, and they are very common in Jewish prayer-books (see F. H. Chase, Zhe Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church). The form is rare in the liturgical portions of early Christian literature ; but see the Liturgies of Clement, St. James, and St. Chrysostom (Brightman, Lzfurgies Eastern and Western, pp. 19, 32, 341). Dr. Hort observes that in the LXX. ebdAoynrés is nearly always used of God, etAoynmevos nearly always of men, adding that the distinction exists only in the Greek Version, the same Hebrew word being found in all cases. EvAoyytdés means rather “worthy of blessing” than blessed, benedicendus rather than denedictus ; but the distinction is late and artificial, and has not been preserved in Latin or in any modern | Western language. Indeed, what the Septuagint translators wanted to bring out, the difference between the natural excellence of God and the derived excellence of man, is hardly capable of expression in a single word. God is always blessed, because He is perfect, and all creation praises Him ; if man were dumb, the stones would cry out. Man is only conditionally blessed, by God or by his fellow-men. But, as blessing is an act and as such contingent, we may raise the question whether blessedness is an attribute or an accident of the divine perfection, and upon this depends the further question whether we are here to supply éoriy or et. 6 Ocds kal matyp. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. See 2 Cor. i. 3, xi 315 Eph. 1.3; Rom, xv. 6, “Korum phrase God of Jesus, cf. Matt. xxvil. 46; John xx. 17; Eph. i. 17; Heb. i. 9; Apoc. i. 6, ili. 2, 12. It will be observed that the phrase is found in the same Gospel in which we read “the Word was God.” It may be explained by reference to “the days of His 4 CHAP. I. VER. 3 97 flesh,” Heb. v. 7 (where the writer is thinking of our Lord’s prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane ; see Westcott’s note there), but St. Peter does not feel it necessary to give any explanation, too Kuptou pay is a translation of the Aramaic Maran (1 Cor. xvi. 22) or Marana. The title is one of great interest and import- ance, but its history involves much difficulty. The «v’pve by which the disciples addressed Christ in His lifetime appears generally to stand for Rabbi or Rabboni (the Ribbon of the Targums) ; these words actually occur in Matt. xxiii. 8, xxVi. 25, 49; Mark x. 51; John xx. 16. Rabbi (=my great one) does not mean teacher, though, as an expression of extraordinary respect, it was given to teachers of great eminence; but the evangelists use duddcKados as its equivalent (Luke six times renders it by émuordrys, Matthew once by xanyyris, xxill. 10). By what title the disciples generally spoke of Christ to other people, or to one another, is less clear; but if we compare Matt. xxi. 3, 6 Kvpuos atrév yxpeiay eye, with Matt. Xxvi. 18, 6 diddoxados Aé€ye, this also may have been Rabbi. Dalman, however, thinks that Maran was used in these cases. Of the evangelists, Matthew never calls Jesus 6 Kupios; Mark never, except in the disputed last verses, xvi. 19, 20; Luke eleven times (see Plummer, p. xxxi, and on v. 17); John five times, iv. 1, vi. 23, Mle Os EK, 20; EXI. 12. Maran could hardly have come into general use after the Resur- rection, unless it had been employed on occasion before that date ; and in the Gospels we can distinguish several groups of instances where it is more likely to be the word represented by xvpuos than Rabbi. The first is to be found in what we may call the Hymns of the Nativity in St. Luke’s Gospel, 1. 43, ) wytnp tod Kupiov pov: ii. 11, owTHp Os eoTe Xptords Kvpios. The second is connected with the mission of John the Baptist: Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2; Luke Vii. 27, we read “ldov, éy® drooréAAw Tov dyyeAov pov mpd Tpocwmov gov (Mal. iii. 1 has pd zpoowrou pov). The Lord, therefore, before whose face John the Baptist was sent, is identified with Christ, cf. Luke i. 76; and probably the words of Isaiah, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” Matt. ii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4; John i. 23, are understood by the evangelists in the same sense. A third meets us in the accounts of the miracles in St. Matthew, Kvpue, vie Aa Bid, XV. 22, xx. 30; or in Luke v. 12, Kupe, éav Oédys, dvvacal pe kaOapica: v. 8, eeAOe dw euov, Ore dvnp dpaptwdros cit, Kipre (this passage in which “Lord” is contrasted with “sinner” is particularly noticeable) ; again, in Mark vii. 28, where it may be observed that the vocative Kvpre does not occur elsewhere in Mark’s .Gospel, except as a variant in ix. 24, in the account of another miracle. A fourth is found in the parables of Judgment, Matt. XXiv. 42, Xxv. 11, 37; in the last passage He who is addressed as kupte, had just been described as BacwWevs. A fifth, again, after the 7 98 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER Resurrection, Matt. xxvill. 6, idere tov tTézov drov exeito 6 Kupuos (words of the angels): Luke xxiv. 3, 76 cGma Tod Kupiov “Incod: 34, ovrws HyépOn 6 Kvpios: John xx. 28, 6 Kupids pov kal 6 @eds pov: aah 7,12: Mari (my Lord) or Maran (our Lord) is a title of high dignity. It is applied in Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar and to God. In the Syriac versions of the Old Testament it represents the Hebrew Adon or Adonai, and is used of Abraham, of the king, or of God. In the Syriac of the New Testament it is used of Pontius Pilate, Matt. xxvii. 63, and of Christ wherever xvptos occurs in the Greek. Immediately after the Resurrection it appears to have been in general use among those Christians who spoke Aramaic; and there is little doubt that the title was addressed to, and accepted by, Christ in His lifetime. Dalman says that after the Resurrection Christ declined the Rabboni of Mary and approved the 6 Kvupuos kat 6 @eds of Thomas; and this was probably the sentiment of the Church. Maran has a considerable range of meaning. If we suppose it to have been the word actually employed in the third and fourth groups, it is connected with deep moral awe, super- natural power, and the quality of Judge; the last meaning attaches to it also in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, That it was so employed is rendered probable by the fact that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 21, 22) Christ not only accepts the title Kvpios, but connects it with the power of the Name, in particular with prophecy and with the casting out of evil spirits. Compare Matt. x. 24 sqq.; John xill. 13, where also He accepts the title, and distinguishes it from duddcKoAo0s or Rabbi. In the first and second groups it comes very near to Jehovah. The Hymns of the Nativity appear to be taken from a Hebrew document which is probably the oldest source of St. Luke’s Gospel. St. Luke regarded them as contemporaneous and authentic. Professor Blass (PAclology of the Gospels, p. 57) thinks that the Gospel was written before the spring of 59; and it may be surmised that these Hymns were in existence before the Crucifixion, for they still speak of Messiah as a conquering Prince (Luke i. 71, 74). At any rate, the identification of Christ with the Lord before whose face John Baptist was sent, appears to ee been made by Jews, and, probably, by Jews of Jerusalem. From the Gospels we may infer that Maran was often sine even before the Resurrection, that it was sanctioned by Christ Himself, that it carried with it certain superhuman associations, and that it was connected with the power of “the Name.” It would bear different senses to different persons at different times, and its full force is not reached before John xx. 28. In Acts “the name of the Lord,” “the name of Jesus,” “ Lord,” “the Lord,” are hardly distinguishable ; and here we are still among Hebrew Jews, so that heathen usages can have had little or no influence. The same thing ae wr, : at 7 * oP . ‘ : , ped f - ¢ o> 4 » £ Az. - a a CHAP. I. VER. 3 99 is true of the Epistles of the Hebrew St. Paul, who goes so far as to say that there is “‘one Lord” (1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iv. 5). We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah ; there were yea which made this impossible, for instance, Ps. cx. 1; Mal. iii. 1, and, in later writers, Gen. xix. 24. It was God who gave ae “the Name which is above every name” (Phil. il. 9), who “made” (not “hath made,” as R.V.) Jesus Lord (Acts ii. 36). In both places the human appellation ‘“‘Jesus” is used of Him who was thus exalted. But passages which belong to Jehovah are frequently interpreted of Christ. “The Father” always and “God” generally retain a distinct meaning, but “ Lord” has practi- cally ceased to do so. The early Church, in fact, interpreted strictly the words of Christ. The Son reveals the Father, and to Him belongs all Revelation, whether of the New Testament or of the Old. It is easy to see how Sabellianism arose out of the New Testament, though the present passage, among many others, forbids that mode of interpretation. See for this subject Dalman’s Die Worte Jesu. édkeos. The God and Father, in accordance with His abounding mercy, begat us anew, regenerated us, became for a second time our God and Father. In St. Paul’s eyes also the admission of the Gentiles (Rom. xi. 30-32, xv. 9), and of Jews and Gentiles alike (Eph. ii. 4, 5), into the Church is due to the rich mercy of God. But there is a difference to be observed. In the Pauline passages: God has mercy upon the infirmity of the human will, which cannot satisfy the law of works. Hence He provides a better way, the gospel of free grace. St. Peter's meaning is that God has compas- sion on our misery. Hence He gives us a gospel, which tells us that suffering is the road to glory. The mercy is the simple human sympathy of Christ, who would not send the multitude away fasting, because He had compassion on them (Matt. xv. 32). dvayevynoas. The verb occurs as a doubtful variant in Sirach, prol. 20, dvayevynbeis Kar’ Atyyrrov (AB have zapayevndets ela), *Avayévvyois is found in Philo, de zxcorr. mundt, 3 (ii. 490), of the rebirth of the physical world. Later the term veza‘us is used of those who have received the baptism of blood in the Taurobolium (Hort refers to Orelli-Henzen, 2352, 6041), or have been initiated in the mysteries of Isis, Apuleius, A/e¢am. x1. 26. It was probably borrowed by the New Paganism from Christianity. In John iii. 3 many ancient authorities ‘take dvofe to mean “again,” and Dr. Westcott thinks this the correct translation. Irenaeus, referring to John ili. 5, uses dvayevvn Oy for yevvn6y (Stieren, i. p. 846), possibly only bya slip of memory; but the Old Latin and Vulgate have renatus fuertt. See Tischendorf’s note. There is no good reason for thinking that dévayevvn6y was found in any Greek MSS. of John. In later times déveyevvav is commonly used of baptism (Justin, Afod. I00 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER i. 51; Clem. Hom. xi. 26; see Suicer, s.v. "Avayévvyors), and we need not doubt that the word is taken from 1 Peter. But it was suggested to St. Peter by the saying of our Lord recorded by St. John, and goes to show that avwfer really does mean “again,” and not “ from above.” eis €Atrida Laocav. The first result of the new birth and the first characteristic of the new pilgrim life is Hope (the anchor of the soul, Heb. vi. 9). Hope is living (cf. iP 25, 112 ‘1 5), not merely because it is active (Cav yap 6 Nes Tov Mcod kai évepyys, Heb. iv. 12), nor merely because it is a hope of life, but because it is divine and eal. given through the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and bound up with His eternal life. Cf. John iv. ro, vi. 51; Acts vii. 38; Apoc. vil. 17, and the fine lines of Sophocles, Azz. 456 sq., ov yap te viv ye KaxOés, GAN del wore Cp Tadta Koddels oidev e& Tov avy. 4. eis KAnpovoziav. The pilgrim’s hope is further defined by its object, the inheritance, or rather the paternal estate, the patr7- monium, not the hereditas. Dr. Hort notes that the Hebrew words chiefly represented by xAnpovopia in the Old Testament denote, not hereditary succession, but “sanctioned and settled possession,” and is inclined to doubt whether any idea of futurity is implied in St. Peter’s phrase. Even in Greek «Anpovouia means a property already received as well as one that is expected. But in the present passage the KAynpovopyia is kept for the believer, not on earth, but in heaven, and is another name for that salvation which is ready to be revealed. The patrimony, the kingdom, may be spoken of in different ways. In part it is already present, in fulness it is yet to come. To some the present joy seems far more than to others, as to St. Paul (Col. 1. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 18), or to St. John (iii. 36) ; but even the most enthusiastic spirits feel at times as a heavy burden the imperfection of the present, and in St. Peter this is the dominant key. We must therefore hold firmly to the future sense here. The pilgrim, stranger, sojourner, sees in hope the Promised Land, but sees it afar off, and his prayer is ‘Thy Kingdom come.” The patrimony is a@@apros, dpiavros, adpyapavtos. “AdOapros means incorruptible, immaterial, spiritual, eternal. “Ap/favros (in Hebrews, James, Wisdom, 2 Macc.), incapable of pollution. Cf. Apoc. xxi. 27 for the sense; for the word, Lev. xviil. 27, éusdvOy 7 yi—the land was defiled by the abominations of the Canaanites. “Apdparros (in Wisd. vi. 12; here only in New Testament), of a flower that never fades. Dr. Hort thinks that a@apros means ‘never ravaged by a foe,” but gives no instance of this use of the word. ; tetnpypevny. “Which hath been (and is) kept in heaven for you” (eis buds = tyiv: cf. Luke xv. 22, trodjpara eis tobs mddas). Those who regard the «Aypovoyia as present in fruition (as Dr. Hort and von Soden) must translate “until you” —kept until your _ CHAP. I, VER. 5 IOI appearance but now bestowed. But this sense appears to be foreign to our passage, and “until you,” for “until your days,” is a very singular, if not impossible use of the preposition. Ovpavots, “Tn heaven”: the plural has no more significance here than in the Lord’s Prayer, Matt. vi. 9. There may be a reminiscence here of the Book of Enoch xlviii. 7, ‘And the wisdom of the Lord of spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous, for he pre- serveth the lot of the righteous”: lviii. 5, “ And after that it will be said to the holy that they should seek in heaven the secrets of right- eousness, the heritage of faith” (see notes in Mr. Charles’ edition). 5. tos év Suvdper Oeod ppoupoupevous Sra miotews. ‘Who in (or by) the power of God are guarded by faith.” ®povpety means “to keep a city safe with a garrison.” Here faith is the garrison which keeps the soul (or the Church) safe till its Lord comes and raises the siege. Cf. Phil. iv. 7, where the heart is guarded or garrisoned -by “the peace of God.” On St. Peter’s conception of faith, and its difference from that of St. Paul, see Introduction, § 6. There is no word as to which it is more important not to read the thought of the one apostle into the language of the other. Faith here, as in Heb. xi., is the power by which we grasp the unseen realities, the conviction that God is, that He is a Rewarder, and that His reward far exceeds the troubles of this life. It is “firm trust in God in spite of suffering: the salvation of his soul the Christian will receive only as réAos ris miotews” (Kiihl, von Soden). It produces “endurance to the end,” unshaken by offences, false prophets, or lawlessness, Matt. Xxiv. 10-13; by it we resist the devil, and the wa@jpara which he brings against us (1 Pet. v. 9). There are several points of import- ance. In St. Peter’s mind faith is not the faith of Abraham only, but of Moses; it does not justify or save, but is the condition of righteousness and salvation (see especially iv. 17-19); it is not so intimately connected, as by St. Paul, with love and knowledge, carrying with it only the germ of both, and hence it lends itself more easily to the notions of authority and discipline. Its object is God, but God is seen without rather than felt within. This has been called an attenuation (Zuzleerung) of faith; and certainly it differs widely from the Pauline idea, leading to a different practical shaping of the Christian society, as was seen, though not quite distinctly, by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. But when it is called an attenuation, it is implied that it is not an evangelical view of faith ; and this is highly questionable. It will be observed that much of the element of futurity attaches to faith itself; it is largely faith in the distant and as yet unknown; hence it is intimately related, as in Hebrews, to hope. swtypiay. Salvation or rather Deliverance, another aspect of that patrimony which is the object of Hope; in Heb. i. 14 we read 102 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER tovs péAXovras KAnpovopetv owrnpiav. Salvation itself is here re- garded as future, and this is the general sense (owrypia is not used by St. John except iv. 22 and in Apoc.). In the Gospels owew means to deliver (a) from danger, Matt. viii. 25; John xii. 27; (4) from disease, Matt. ix. 21; : John xl. 12; (c) from the condemnation of God, Matt. x 22, xxiv, 13; (2) from the disease or danger of sin, Matt. Toes and one or ‘one: of these senses attaches to the verb wherever it recurs. In the present passage it is used of the great final deliverance, not from the wrath of God (Rom. v. 9; cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 18), but from the siege of Satan, from persecution and Sorrow. The Deliverance is ready to be revealed in the day when Jesus Christ Himself will be revealed (i. 7, 13). The epithet “ready” introduces a consoling thought, reminding them how short a time these sufferings will endure (the End is not far off, iv. 7), and that the Deliverer stands waiting for them. év kaip@ éoxdtw. “In the last time.” The exact phrase xarpos €oxaros is not elsewhere found. In St. John’s Gospel we find év rH eoxatn Hy€pa (vi. 39, and in five other places): in Acts, év rats éoxdrais npépacs (ii. 17, from Joel iii. 1): in Jas. v. 3 and 2 Tim. iii. 1, év #uépats éoxarats (from Joel, or, as Dr. Hort thinks, from Prov. xxix. 44): in Heb. 1. 2, ér éoydrov rv juepOv: in 2 Pet. 11. 3, ex’ éoxdrwv TOV HEpOv: in Jude 18, ér éoydrov ypovov: in 1 John ii. 18, eoxaty dpa. The Last Day is the Day of Judgment; the Last Days, Time, Hour are either the age of the Christian dispensation or that portion of it which lies nearest to the End, when the signs of the Parousia are beginning to show themselves. Either the first or the last of these meanings must be that of St. Peter. He may mean “in the last time,” that is to say, in the Day of the Parousia. Kaipés means not “time” but “‘¢/e time,” the fit or appointed time or season for some ‘particular thing, whether it be a period or a moment. It might be used quite correctly of the Day of Judgment, and this is not an impossible explanation here. Many commentators, however, regard the phrase as meaning “‘in the last days,” in the time of ~ darkness and suffering. The Parousia puts an end to the suffering, but, coming suddenly, may be said to come in the midst of it all. Upon the whole this appears to be the best explanation. Dr. Hort translates “in a season of extremity,” 6 éxyaros xaipds being used in Polybius and Plutarch for ‘‘the direst peril.” But in all the analogous New Testament phrases éoxaros means simply “last in order of time,” and the absence of the article cannot be pressed. 6. év @ dyah\tdobe . . . Tetpacpois. “In which ye exult, though just now for a little while ye were grieved, if need were, by manifold trials.” °Ev must here be temporal, as in iv. 13 below; cf. Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 24. “AyaAAvdobou év in the sense of to exult af or over is not found in the New Testament (in John v. 35, éyaAAtacOjvar év ) CHAP. I. VER. 7 103 7 puri, the preposition has its local sense “77 the light,” and the same observation applies to the reading of D in Luke x. 21 and to iv. 13 below), though it must be admitted that yarpev év is some- times used for “to rejoice at,” Luke x. 20; Phil. i. 18; Col. i. 24 ; see Blass, p. 118. The antecedent is best found in xaipd éoydrw. “Tn the last days” the brethren exult because their sufferings are so nearly at an end, and deliverance and glory are so near. Com- pare Luke xxi. 28, dpyopévwv d€ rov’twy yiverPar (when the troubles that precede the end show themselves) dvaxiWare kat érdpate Tas Kehaas bpudv" dudt eyyilet 9 aroAvTpwors tuav: Matt. v. 11, 12, waxdptot €oTe, OTav dveidicwow tpas Kal dudgwow . . . xXalpere kal dyaddaobe’ ott 6 pucOds tuav odis év Tots otpavots. These latter words may have been in St. Peter’s mind, if we consider how immediately the phrase terypnuevyv ev ovpavots has preceded, and look also at iil. 13, ei kal Tacyxoute Ove SuKaLtoovvyv paxapior. ‘There is no real contradic- tion between this verse and ill. 13, xa(pere, iva kal év TH drroxadvwer THs Od€ys aitod yapyre ayadAdpevor. “Ayaddiaois belongs to the Revelation of glory, but living hope makes it present even in the midst of suffering. The aorist AvrnHévtes is to be taken, not of the pain, but of the mental distress caused by persecution. ‘The pain still endures, but the grief, the perplexity, the sense of abandonment are gone for those who understand what these 7a@jpara mean. Kuhl and von Soden take év 6 as neuter, and find the antecedent in the contents of the preceding clause, “in which assurance ye do rejoice.” Dr. Hort makes the relative masculine, and refers it to @eés or “Incots Xpiords. In either case we must give év a sense which it can hardly bear. ei Séov. “If need was”; if it was God’s will. This is probably the right reading (so x B, c&, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 20. 129): ei d€ov éori has good authority (AC K LP, Origen), but is very difficult grammatically ; we should certainly have expected «i d¢ov éoti AvTovpevot, év Toukidows tretpacpors. “In manifold trials,” in different kinds of trial. This sense of wovxidos is found in the New Testament, in Maccabees, and in Aelian (V. 4. 98), but is almost unknown in classical Greek (Hort). lewpaoyos here means not the inner wrestling with evil inclination, but undeserved suffering from with- out. This is the general sense of the word in the Old Testament and even in the New. See Hatch, LZssays in Biblical Greek, p. 71 sqq. What we mean by “temptation,” as distinct from “trial,” is in the language of St. Paul expressed by duapria or émribupia, in that of St. Peter by the latter word alone. 7. iva introduces the divine purpose of Aurnbévres. 76 Boxipov, The substantive doximov or Soxiyetov means “a test,” that is to say, a thing used for testing; and in Jas. i. 3 manifold trials are perhaps called the test or touchstone of faith ; 104. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER but the meaning may be “the testing” of your faith worketh patience. In Prov. xxvii. 21, doxiy.ov cépyupiw Kal xpvod ripwots, the word seems to mean “testing” rather than “test,” for mijpwots denotes a method, not a thing. But in Ps. xi. (xii.) 6, Ta Adpa kuplov Novia Gyvd, apytprov Tervpwpévor, doxip.ov TH yh, KekaSapicpevov éxratXaciws, the word is evidently an adjective. St. Peter was probably thinking of one or the other or both of these passages (see zvpwots below, iv. 12). “Test” is here a quite impossible rendering ; the means by which faith is tested is suffering, and suffering cannot be called more precious than gold, nor is it “found” in the Last Day. ‘The testing of your faith,” for the same reasons, is hardly, if at all, less impossible. We are driven, therefore, to take doxiwiov here as adjectival, and to translate “the tested residue of your faith,” that faith which remains when all impure alloy has been burnt away. There is a variant dd«tpov found in a few cursives, which Dr. Hort is inclined to accept as the right reading. Otherwise, the passage above quoted from Psalms may justify us in regarding doxéj.os as a vulgar by-form of doxupos. If St. Peter’s expression here was suggested by a passage, or by a combination of two passages from the Old Testament, it becomes probable that the phrase of St. James is borrowed from that found in our Epistle. xpuciov. “Than gold that perisheth, yet is always tested, refined, by fire.” What we might have expected is ypvotov dia mupos Sedoxyzacpevov : but the writer has complicated his expression by the sudden introduction of dzoddvpévov, implying a reason for moAvTimoTepov, Or a contrast to the following etpef7. Faith is eternal, gold is perishable and temporal. Faith is. far more precious than gold, yet even gold must be refined by fire; much more your faith. edpeby. “May be found,” may endure when other things pass away, and appear when they disappear. Compare the use of the word in Phil. iii. 9; Heb. xi. 5, from Gen. v. 24, and possibly 2 Pet. iii. ro. It means much more than “may prove to be,” or “may result in”; it is not man, but God who “finds.” eis €rawvov. ‘The praise is, “ Well done, thou good and faithful servant,” Matt. xxv. 21. Praise is spoken of as bestowed by God upon man, 4 Macc. xiii. 3; Rom. ii. 29; 1 Cor. iv. 5. The phrase is quite as simple and natural in the mouth of St. Peter, who speaks of good conduct as xapis rapa cd (below, ii. 20), as it” is in the Gospel. Sdfav kai tushy. Heb. i. 3; Ps. viii. 6, d0&y Kal tysyn eore fdvwoas airév. Glory and honour belong to God (Job xl. 5; 1 Tim. i. 17), but He bestows them on man (Rom. ii. 7, 10). év dmoxahtper “Inood Xpiotod. Cf. i. 13, iv. 13; the phrase is suggested by Luke xvii. 30, 4 tjuépa 6 vids rod dvOpdmrov daoxadtmr- - CHAP. I. VER. 8 105 rerat, and is used also by St. Paul, 1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7. In all these passages it denotes the revelation of Christ in His majesty as Judge and Rewarder. Here it appears to repeat and define the idea involved in the words cis owrypiav éroipny aroxadvphjvar év KalpO érxaTw. 8. bv otk iddvtes . . . SeSogaopevn. ‘Whom, though ye never saw Him, ye love; in whom believing, though now ye see Him not, ye rejoice with joy unutterable and glorified.” AK LP, Clem. Alex. and some other Fathers with the Coptic version have ovx eiddéres, “though ye never knew Him”; for this use of oida cf. Matt. xxv. 12, xxii. 57. Eis év belongs in construction to morev- ovres only, so that dépavres is left without an object. A similar irregularity is found in ii. 12; see note there. My is used with épavres, though, according to classical usage, od would be required. Attempts have been made to distinguish the negatives in this passage. In modern Greek oy: (= ody) with participle is adversa- tive, while pj is causal (Geldart, Gusde to Modern Greek, p. 73). Hence Mr. W. H. Simcox would translate here “though ye have not seen,” “because ye do not see” (Language of the New Testa- ment, p. 187). But the participles here are both adversative. The nice classical rules for the use of od and px were not understood even by Lucian, and in the vulgar Greek of the New Testament the use of od with the participle has almost disappeared. There are but about thirteen instances of it altogether, and if we take the Gospel of St. Matthew, 7 with the participle occurs sixteen times, od not once; in St. Luke, ot once. See Blass, p. 253. For the contrast of faith and sight, cf. John xx. 29; 2 Cor. v. 7; Heb. xi. 1. The whole passage (6-9) has caused much trouble, because from the whole tone of the Epistle it seems strange that St. Peter should tell his readers that they actually do “exult” in the midst of all their sufferings. Such language appears to contradict the very object with which he wrote. That this difficulty is not merely fanciful, is shown by the number and character of the commentators who have felt it. Yet others have not felt it ; for instance, Leighton, who says, “Even in the midst of heaviness itself, such is this joy that it can maintain itself in the midst of sorrow; this oil of glad- ness still swims above, and cannot be drowned by all the floods of affliction, yea, it is often most sweet in the greatest distress.” We can understand a pastor exhorting his flock to stand fast in trouble, and at the same time reminding them that they have a wellspring of joy and even of exultation in their living hope. The alternative to the explanation given above seems to be to take év xarpé éoxarw of the Last Day and make the first dyaAAdoGe imperative. But the second dyaA\éo6e must be indicative (for dyardare certainly is so), and thus we should only stave off the difficulty for a moment. Theophylact, Cecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, and others, including 106 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER Alford, take déya\\ao6e as present indicative, but regard it as bear- ing a future sense in both places ; but this is harsh, even if possible, and again dyamare stands inthe way. ‘The text of the passage is not free from doubt. In ver. 6 there is some evidence for dyaAAudoeo Oe, AvrnGijvat (see Tischendorf), and in ver. 8 dya\da@re has good authority. Polycarp, /z/. 1, quotes ver. 8 in an abbreviated form, eis Ov ovK idovrTes mioTeEvereE xepa dvexNadyjrw kat dedogacpevy. Irenaeus, iv. 9. 2, v. 7. 2, has guem guum non utderitis diligitis ; in quem nunc quogue non uidentes creditis, credentes autem exsultabitis gaudio inenarrabili (dv oik iddvtes ayarare, cis Ov apte py Spaovres muoTeveTe, TITTEVoVTES O€ dyal\udoeoHe), The same reading is found in the old Latin version of Polycarp. Augustine, Pecc. Mer. 1, has quem ignorabatis ; tn guem modo non uidentes creditis; quem cum uideritis exsultabitis (dv ov €iddres, eis Ov GpTe py OpavTes TuorTEveETE dv iddvres dyaddtdoecOe). Origen, the Vulgate, Peshito, and the Armenian appear to have read ayadArdcecOc, and it would certainly remove a difficulty if the future could be established. dvexhahyjtw. ‘‘Unutterable.” The word is found here only in the Bible, but recurs in Ignatius, Zp. xix. 2, and in Polycarp in his quotation of this passage. “AdAdAyros is used by St. Paul, Rom. viii. 26. The Christian joy is unutterable because it is spiritual, heavenly, passing all human speech and understanding, like the peace of God (Phil. iv. 7); but also because it is so paradoxical : it is a joy in the midst of sorrow. Sed0facpévy. “Glorified.” Glory in its fulness is bestowed when suffering is over (ra walypara Kat Tas pera Tatra doéas); but even here and now, in the midst of trials, the joy of the Christian sufferer is irradiated by that glory which will be given in the Revelation. The Spirit who rests upon him is the Spirit of glory (iv. 14); hence he can glorify God by meek endurance (iv. 16), and teach others also to glorify Him (ii. 12). 9. Kopilopevor. ‘ Receiving the end of your faith, the deliver- ance of your souls.” The absence of the articles with owrnpiav YuxGv appears to have no significance. ‘The participle “receiving” is to be taken as meaning “because ye receive.” Deliverance is the ground of the joy, as in Apoc. v. 9 and elsewhere. Dr. Hort, however, makes the participle co-ordinate with the verb—ye rejoice and also receive””—on the ground that “exultation in Jesus Christ cannot be a mere joy about the saving of their own souls.” But this thought would hardly have occurred to St. Peter. The deliverance delivers from all pain and sorrow, and is open to all. Kuhl points out that xopiferGar is used in the New Testament of receiving that which has been promised, that which men have earned by their conduct (see references in Bruder). Deliverance is the end of your faith (or of faith, or perhaps of fe faith; B and many Fathers omit tyéav). It is the great promise involved in the ay CHAP, I. VERS. 10, II 107 name of Jesus, the object of belief, the end of the life of pilgrimage, the entry into the Promised Land. It is described as future (i. 5, 13, v. 4); but even in this life of trial there are “good days” (iii. 10). Besides, the gospel zs deliverance. Hence we are said to receive now, in a foretaste, the reward which will be fully be- stowed in the Revelation. Wvy7 in St. Peter’s usage denotes the whole inner nature of man, as in Greek philosophy, in common Greek parlance, in the Gospels and Acts, and is never opposed, as it is by St. Paul, to zvetua or vots. See Introduction, p. 40. 10. epi fs cwtypias. St. Peter lingers upon the word cwrypia, at each repetition finding something new to say about it. Here the word is practically an equivalent for the gospel, which was revealed to the prophets by the Spirit of Christ, and of which the main substance is the sufferings of Christ and the glory for Himself and others (d0fa1, plural), in which those sufferings result. éfelntncay Kat éfepatvyoav. ‘The phrase is perhaps a reminis- cence of 1 Macc. ix. 26. In the New Testament the form épavydw is to be preferred to the classic épevvdw. See Blass, p. 21. mpopytat. Again the omission of the article appears to be insignificant ; the word is adequately defined by the following clause, and it is quite needless to translate (with Kuhl and Hort) “even prophets,” so as to get the sense “‘even men so highly favoured as prophets saw these great things dimly and afar off” (see note on ver. 17 below). mept THs eis Spas xdpitos. “ About the grace intended for you, which should be given unto you,” cf. eis tuds above, ver. 4. Xdpus here is not “grace,” but “‘a grace,” a favour or gift of grace, and in 1 Peter the word usually bears this meaning. 11. epavvavtes ... 86fas. “Searching for what time or for what manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did declare and testify beforehand the sufferings appointed for Christ, and the glories that should follow them.” ‘The best construction for éd7Aov is found by taking it as governing 74 za@jpara in conjunction with mpopaptupomevov (so most of the German commentators and Hort). AnAody «is kaipdy, ‘to point to a season,” appears to be quite unex- ampled ; but this is the translation of the A.V., Alford, and many others. Nevertheless, «is xaipov has a certain connexion with edyAov: the Spirit pointed out the sufferings for a particular time. Kihl and others regard éd7Aov as standing without any object; but it is difficult to see how the word is to be rendered here at all on this supposition. Tpoyaprupdpevoy (the word is not attested else- where till after St. Peter’s time) ought to mean “calling to witness beforehand” (see Dr. Hort’s note). If this sense is to be kept Here, we must translate “the Spirit of Christ pointed out the sufferings that should come upon Christ, calling God for a witness of the truth.” But though paprivpoywa: may be used without an 108 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER object (=I protest, I appeal; see references in Liddell and Scott), there is always something in the context to show that an appeal is made, and to whom it is made. And this is not the case here. In Acts xx. 23, 24, dvapaptiperOar means “to bear clear witness” (cf. Luke xvi. 28; Acts ii. 40, viii. 25, x. 42, xviil. 5 ; Heb, ii. 6); indeed, this word constantly has the meaning of “to affirm solemnly,” “attest,” though it is used with an indistinct reminis- cence of its proper sense in 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, Iv. I. The Greek of the New Testament is not correct, even as correctness was understood by Epictetus or Plutarch ; we have observed already that it does not clearly retain the distinction between od and py, and it is not surprising that it should confuse papripeoGor with paptupev. See note on doxiworv above. The prophets knew what they prophesied ; they knew not, and sought to understand, at what appointed date, or in what stage of the world’s history, in what kind of time (zotov xa:pdv), the prophecy would be fulfilled. Alford quotes Justiniani: “non modo guod... sed etiam gua/e . . . pacisne an belli tempore, seruitutis an liber- tatis, quo denique reipublicae statu. . . Et quidem Dauid Orietur, ait, 2 diebus eius tustitia et abundantia pacis (Ps. \xxi. 7, Vulgate): et in eandem sententiam Esaias conflabunt gladios suos in uomeres” (ii. 4). Some not unnatural difficulty has been found in the words ekeLytynoav, eEnpatvyncay, épavvavres, which all express study and reflexion, and seem to be inconsistent with the notion of inspira- tion. Yet the difficulty is only apparent. The great revelation of suffering and glory awakes an eager desire to know when and how these things shall be, and this is answered by a further revelation (ois dmexadvpOn). ‘‘ Knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” was in some sense true, even of the prophets. So St. Paul prayed for the removal of his oxdAow, and at last an answer came ; not the answer that he hoped for (2 Cor. xii. 7-9). The revelation described in Acts xiil. 2 was also probably a reply to much anxious thought. Both in the Old Testament and in the New, God often answers questions. The connexion between study and inspiration, search and discovery, is a great mystery, and revelation may be much more common than we suppose. How does one investigator discover what others do not? Philo thought (de migr. Abr. 7, i. 441) that philosophic truth was given by inspiration—“I was suddenly filled with thoughts showered upon me from above like snowflakes or seed”—and this may apply to all truth; for it is certainly not attained by the mere use of logical machinery. Nor does this thought detract from the dignity of spiritual revelation, which, though the noblest in kind, may yet have its analogies. The words 76 év airois wvedpa Xpicrod must be accepted quite frankly. Christ was in the prophets, and from Him came their inspiration. Barnabas (v.) understood St. Peter in this sense, ot n) CHAP. I. VER. II 109 mpopyrat, ax aitod éxovres Tiv xapw, eis avrov expodyrevoav: on which Harnack notes, “Christum Veteris Testamenti prophetas inspirasse et ab iis uisum esse ad unum omnes priscae ecclesiae scriptores confitentur”; cf. 2 Clem. xvii. 4; Ignatius, Jag. viii. 2 ; Justin, Afol. 1. 31-33; Dial. lvi. sq.; Iren. iv. 20. 4; Frag. Mur. 44 sq., “Romanis autem ordine (ordinem?) scripturarum, sed et principium earum Christum esse intimans ” (Westcott, Cazon, p. 536). These passages are sufficient to show the belief of the later Church. Note also the use of fjua Kupiov, 1 Pet. i. 25, comparing Acts xi. 16, where words of Christ are called by St. Peter pjya Kvupéov. In Matt. vii. 22 we read, Kupue, Kipie, od TO od dvopati zpoedy- TVTApPEV: XXill. 34, (Ood eyo arooréAAw pds tuas tpodytas. Some difficulty attaches to the latter citation, because St. Luke, in the parallel passage (xi. 49), has 614 rotro cal 7 codia tov @cod cizer’ *ArrooTeAG eis aitovs tpopyras, and the words have been supposed to be a reference to 2 Chron. xxiv, 18-22. But in the Sermon on the Mount false Christian prophets claim to be inspired by Christ; and in the other passage of Matthew our Lord sends (inspires) true Christian prophets. No distinction of kind can be drawn between Jewish and Christian prophecy, and thus we have in the first Gospel! a clear foundation for St. Peter’s words. We must take into consideration also those passages of the Gospels where Christ is described as the Revealer, Matt. xi. 27; John i. 18, xvi. 14, 15. In Acts again (ii. 33), in the speech of St. Peter, Christ sheds forth the spirit of prophecy. It can hardly be thought but that St. Paul held the same view as to the source of Christian prophecy (1 Cor. xii. 3), as also does the Apocalypse (xix. 10), whether we translate } paprupia ‘Inco, “the testimony given by Jesus,” or “ the testimony borne to Jesus”; compare also 1 John iv. 2, 3. As to the Hebrew prophets, St. Paul does not explicitly declare his opinion, but in 2 Cor. ili. 12 sqq. the glory on the face of Moses which he covered with a veil, is the glory of Christ, who is the Lord, the Spirit. Mvedpa Xpiotod probably means. that Spirit which is Christ (2 Cor. iii, 17, 18, 6 d& Kupios 76 Ivedud éeorw . . . dd Kupiov IIvevaros) ; but it may conceivably signify the Holy Spirit of Christ, sent by Christ. Often prophecy is attributed to the Holy Ghost (Acts i. 16; 2 Pet. i. 21, and elsewhere), and the sending of the Spirit is the work of Christ (Acts ii. 33). Certainly the repeated “Christ” in this verse must be taken each time in exactly the same sense, of the really existing Christ who was manifested in history. Kiihl, in an exceedingly com- plicated note, takes the first of the ideal Christ, who existed only in the foreknowledge of God, and the second of the historical Christ, and makes zvetua Xpuorod mean “a Christlike spirit,” because he thinks that St. Peter is not so much affected by theo- logical reflexions as the rabbinically educated St. Paul, and there- I1I0 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER fore cannot have personified the ideal. But the distinction between person and idea is itself philosophical. Dr. Hort appears to hold the same view ; the Spirit of Christ is that Spirit of the Lord which afterwards came upon Christ, a Spirit of divine anointing, or Christ- hood, or prophethood. Here, again, we may repeat, that in 1 Peter Spirit means not an influence, but a personality. There is no need to speak of Rabbinism or Jewish Platonism at all. St. Peter’s view rests upon a perfectly unscholastic interpretation of Scripture. The Lord spoke to the Prophets; Christ is the Lord; therefore Christ spoke to the Prophets. There is no difference upon this point between St. Peter and St. Paul. Both held the same belief, though they express it in different language. In 7a «is Xpiorov TraOjpara Kai Tas pera Tadra dd€as it is quite possible that we have a reference to the words recorded by St. Luke XXlv. 26, 27, ody! Tatra eer wafeiy tov Xpiorov, Kal eicedOety eis THV ddfay adrov; Kai apEdpevos ard Mwcéws kal ard ravtwv tov mpopyTav Suepuyvevoev adrois ev tadoats Tails ypadpats Ta wept EavTod. Aogai, not commonly used in the plural (but see 2 Macc. iv. 15), may refer to the successive manifestations of Christ’s glory—Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, Miracles (Acts iii. 14), Judgment—or to the glory of Christ, and the glory that shall be bestowed on His faithful. To St. Peter, the essence of the gospel seems to lie in suffering and glory ; to St. Paul, in free grace and deliverance from law. Hence the former sees a just and permanent picture of the Christian life in Isa. liii., while the latter looks back, not to the prophets (except Hab. ii. 4), but to Abraham. Hence, to St. Peter, the admission of the Gentiles is no great mystery; the Church is continuous. Further, in St. Peter’s view (as in the Gospels), the great obstacle to Christianity is the suffering of Christ ; and so, in fact, it always has been to Jew (Justin’s Z7ypho) and Greek (the Zrue Word of Celsus), and in modern times, because His suffering involves our acceptance of the law of suffering. But, in the view of St. Paul, the great obstacle is the tendency of men to rely upon their own merits, which is a common and serious defect, but applies, as regards Christianity and Judaism, rather to the professor than to the faith ; it could not fairly be charged against the best Jews of old, and modern Jews would not plead guilty to it. See Mr. Montefiore’s Aibbert Lectures for 1892, especially chap. ix., ‘‘the Law and its Influence.” 12. ofs dmexahigpOyn. It was revealed to them that the realisa- tion of their prophetic vision was not for their own time. The reference may be to distinct passages, such as Num. xxiv. 17; Deut. xviil. 15, or rather to the general indeterminate futurity of all pro- — phecy. The prophets saw Messiah, and St. Peter evidently means that they saw Him with great clearness and accuracy in the broad _ outlines ; but when they strove to know when these things should =21 145 man and his chattels, his children or slaves, Zth. Wic. v. 10. 8, od yap eorw aoixia mpos TA atTod ads, TO bé KTHWA Kal TO TékVoV, éws av) myXikov Kal py xwpicOy, GoTep pépos aitod, abtov 8 ovfels mpoaipetrar BAarrew: 616 ovk eoTw adikia Tpds avTor. 20. motov ydp Kéos, € Guaptdvovtes kal KohadiLuevor Uropeveite ; ‘For what glory is it, if, when ye sin and are buffeted for it, ye shall endure it patiently?” K2Aéos, which in the classics is mainly a poetical word, is found in Job xxviii. 22, xxx. 8. There may bea question whether dyaprdvovres should be translated ‘when ye do wrong,” “for your faults,” as by A.V., or “when ye sin,” as by R.V. In favour of the first view it may be argued that the master would strike the slave, not for sin against God, but for neglect of duty towards himself. On the other hand, the xAéos comes from God, in whose eyes the neglect of earthly duty is sin. Further, Gpaptavevtes is balanced against dyaforootyres in the following clause. Hence it should retain its usual sense here. GAN €i dyaotroodvtes kai mdcxovtes. ‘‘ But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it.” The words repeat rdcywv ddikws, and are anti- thetical to dyaprdvortes Kal KoAadilopevo 21. cis Todro yap éxAnOnte. ‘‘ For unto this were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you.” is rotro = eis 7d dyabo- TOLOVVTAS Kat TarXOVTAS Uropeveyv. For tmrép A has wep. “Yreép is constantly thus used of Christ’s death; see for a good instance John xi. 50-52. Iepé is employed in the same connexion, 1 Cor. i. 13, e€otavpwOn epi tpov: cf. Matt. xxvi. 28. The difference appears to be that while irép means “on behalf of,” epi conveys an allusion to the sin-offering, the epi duaprtias, and thus acquires a significance which does not attach to this rather colourless preposi- tion in itself. The MSS. often vary between the two, Mark xiv. 24; t Cor. 1. 13; Gal. i. 4; Heb. v. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 18. When the apostle says that Christ also suffered on behalf of you, he means that the believer profits morally and spiritually by the pains of Christ in some way which he does not here define. In ver. 12 above we are taught that unbelievers also profit by the sight of the patient endurance of the brethren under undeserved suffering ; the disciple’s cross ‘‘ draws” as does that of his Master ; the sacrifice is the same in its degree, and so are the results. In the present passage St. Peter begins with the simple object of inculcating patience ; hence in the opening words he speaks of Christ as the great Example. But he proceeds quite naturally to enlarge and deepen the thought, and in the following verses Christ is set before us also as Sacrifice, as the Giver of the New Life, and as Shepherd. Srohkiprdvw is a late form for trodcrw. “AroAurdve, Kata- Ayrdvw are also found in secular authors. ‘Yzoypaypds is used, 2 Macc. ii. 28, of the “outlines” of a sketch which the artist fills in with details. But in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 8. 49 the word means 10 146 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER “a copyhead” in a child’s exercise book, a perfect piece of writ- ing which the child is to imitate as exactly as it can. So here Christ is spoken of as the Pattern which we are to reproduce in every stroke of every letter, till our writing is a facsimile of the Master’s. 22. ds Gpaptiav obk érotnoer, ode cbpeOy Boos ev TO oTdpaTL abTod, Irom Isa. lili. 9, dre dvopiav otk éroinoev, ovde dddAov ev TO OTOpmaTL airov. St. Peter has duwapriav for dvopiav, but his otd€ doA0s etpeOy appears to be nearer the Hebrew than the ovdé ddAov of the LXX. The R.V. has, ‘‘ Although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” The first clause Professor Cheyne translates, ‘although he had done no injustice.” ‘The verse is a good illustra- tion of St. Peter’s method of composition, or manner of talking. Constantly there are reminiscences of Scripture, which at first are obscure, but are picked up again and made explicit. The sinless- ness of Christ we have had in the dpvod dydpov Kai doridov Of i. 19. AdAos, ddodos, in ii. 1, 2, point forward to Isaiah, and also to the quotation from the Psalms given in iii. 10. 28. ds NovdopoUpevos odK dvTEhorddper. *AvtiAowdopely is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible. It is a natural and correct formative, but is quoted in the lexicon only from late writers. The language is a loose adaptation of Isa. lili. 7, as dyvos évaytiov Tod KelpovTos dpwvos, o'tws ovk advolye. 76 oropa. This verse has already been alluded to in the duvds of i. 19. From Acts viii. 32 we see that it was a favourite passage with the first Christians. The imperfect tenses, expressing habit, bring out the lesson of tzomovy. mdaxwv ovK qmeike. may be illustrated by a passage in the Passio S. Perpetuae (Texts and Studies, ed. T. A. Robinson, 1891, p. 89). Some of the martyrs found it difficult to abstain from menacing words. As they left the court ‘‘ Perpetua sang psalms, but Reuocatus, Saturnilus, and Saturus addressed the crowd of by- standers, and, as they passed before Hilarianus, pointed their finger at him and said, Thou judgest us, but God will judge thee,” mapedisov. “Committed Himself”? The verb is commonly used of handing persons over to a judge (see Liddell and Scott), but requires an accusative. ‘The omission of the object has occasioned some difficulty. Generally speaking, rapadidevar twa TH Sixarrnpio means “to deliver up a malefactor for punishment,” and St. Peter’s words have been understood to mean that Christ handed over His persecutors to the judgment of God. But the whole drift of the passage forbids this interpretation, and there is nothing in the word mapadiovar itself to imply that the person handed over is guilty. It is better therefore to render ‘‘committed Himself.” A.V., R.V. have in the margin “committed His cause,” but in judicial phrases the object of the verb seems to be always personal. CHAP, II. VER. 24 147 T@ xplvovtt Sikatws. Compare tov dmpocwroAjmtws xKpivovta, as 24. ds Tas Gpaptiag ... emt 7d EUNov. ‘‘ Who Himself carried up our sins in His own body on to the tree.” From Isa. liii. 12, kal avtos dpaprias toAN@V avyveyxe, combined with Deut. xxi. 23, OTL KEekaTypapevos UO Meod Tas Kpeudpevos ext EvAov. The verse of Deuteronomy is quoted by St. Paul (Gal. iii. 13), and alluded to in those passages of Acts where St. Peter (v. 30, x. 39) and St. Paul (xiii. 29) speaks of the Cross-as 76 €vAov. "Avadépew is commonly used in the LXX. of bringing a sacrifice and laying it upon the altar, and the phrase dvadéepev emi ro EvAov bears an unquestionable similarity to the common dvadepew éxi 15 Ovotac- mgatov, jas. i, 21 ; Lev. xiv. 20; 2 Chron. xxxv. 16; Bar. i. 10; t Macc. iv. 53. Here St. Peter puts the Cross in the place of the altar. The addition of éri ro &Aov was, no doubt, suggested by the use of dv#veyxe in Isa. lili, 12. But the use of the verb in this verse appears to be due to the LXX. translators ; in ver. 4 we have TOS dpapTtias yuav pepe, and the Hebrew word is the same in both places. Isaiah is alluding in both verses to the sin-offering. Pro- fessor Cheyne noteg on ver. 4, ‘‘ The meaning is first of all that the consequences of the sins of his people fell upon him the innocent ; but next and chiefly that he bore his undeserved sufferings as a sacrifice on behalf of his people,” and adds that ‘this is the first of twelve distinct assertions in this one chapter of the vicarious character of the sufferings of the Servant.” But the turn which St. Peter has given to the words represents Christ as not only the sin- offering, who bore the consequences of the sins of His people on the Cross of shame (jveyxev ézi 7G EVAw), but as the priest who took the sins, or the sin-offering (7) duapria = 7a epi THs duaprias, Lev. vi. 26), and laid the sacrifice on the altar of the Cross (dvqveyxev emi ro EvAov). Thus Alford appears to be right in giving dvadépew here a double meaning ; but the two meanings “bear” and “carry ” both belong to the one Greek word, and St. Peter has done his best to cure the ambiguity by expanding Isaiah’s airés into the highly emphatic atros év 79 cHpare virod, which, reinforced as they are by the following péAwm, clearly mean ‘‘ He Himself, by His own personal suffering, carried the sins up”; in other words, the Priest was also the Victim. Kuhl will not allow the analogy between dvadépew éri ro &VXov and dvadepew éri 7d Ovovacrypiov, nor will he admit any reference to sacrifice on the grounds (r) that the cross is never regarded as an altar (he should have said not elsewhere, and even this is doubtful, if we remember Heb. xiii. 10) ; (2) that nowhere are sins spoken of as the actual sacrifice (but see Lev. vi. 26 referred to above) ; (3) that in the Old Testament the body of the victim is never burnt upon the altar (this seems quite beside the point : the sin-offering is 148 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER certainly said dvapépeoOat, and Isaac was actually laid upon the altar éravw tov EvAwv, Gen. xxii. 9); (4) that, above all, we con- tradict the Old Testament idea of sacrifice, if we think of sin as laid upon the victim and brought with the victim to the altar, for nothing but what is pure can come to the altar before the sight of God (but the essence of sacrifice lies in the idea that the innocent victim is not polluted by the load of guilt which it carries), To évXov he takes to mean simply “die bei Sklaven wibliche Todes- strafe.” But in the apostle’s time 7d €vAor is not ‘fa gibbet” but “‘the stocks,” Acts xvi. 24. Finally, he translates, ‘‘ He carried our sins up on to the tree and thereby took them from us,” adding by way of explanation, ‘‘ because He bore our sins, in their consequences, in form of sufferings, as evils, in His body, so that, with the life of His body, our sins and their consequences were destroyed.” But the real difficulty of the passage lies in the number of allusions which St. Peter has crowded into one short phrase, and Kihl’s explanation leaves it untouched. iva Tats Gpaptias amoyevdpevot TH Sixatoodvy Lyowpev. ‘That having been loosed unto (from) sins we might live unto righteous- ess.” °“Azoyiyveo@ou occurs only here in the New Testament, and is not found in the LXX. ; but Theodotion has it in Dan. ii. 1, in the sense of “to depart from.” In Herodotus and Thucydides it is put where dzofaveiy might have been employed, perhaps by way of euphemism ; but this use does not appear to attach to the verb elsewhere. Schwartz notices three instances of its use in imperial times, Tatian, ad Graecos, Vi., odx os of Srwkol doypariovet Kara Tivas KUKAWY TepLdoous, ywouevwy adel Kal droywopéevwv: Galen, Hist. Phil. xxii. p. 612, 15, tHv S& POopav stay e& dvtwv wpods TO pa €lvae KafioTntar Kabdrep ert TOV aroyyvopévwv Lowy: Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. xv. (Moralia, p. 109 F), GAN ole ot diahopay civat pr yeverbar, 1) yevopevov aroyevéobar; All these passages are philoso- phical, and balance yiyver@ou against aoyiyvecOa, “coming to be” against ‘‘ ceasing to be.” It seems highly doubtful whether amoyiyverGo1 could ever have been-used as a direct antithesis to fv, and almost certain that it could not in St. Peter’s time. Hence it is better to translate not “having died unto sins,” but ‘having fallen away” or “having been loosed unto sins.” Grotius renders longefacti a peccatis ; yon Soden, los von den Stinden. Beck takes the same view, and apparently Bengel, though his language is not quite clear. There remains the difficulty of ‘the dative ; but this is no greater than in Rom. vi. 20, éAevOepou re TH Stkatocvvy. Here, ' {as there, the case is determined by the antithesis. Thus St. Peter speaks here of the death of Christ as having for a distinct purpose that the believer should be set free from sin and brought into the new life of righteousness ; but the Pauline images of death or burial with Christ do not cross his mind. In this particular clause he is CHAP. II. VER. 25 149 speaking only of that aspect of our Lord’s death which is technically called Redemption, chap. i. 18 above. ob T@ pahome idOyte. From Isa, lili. 5, 76 podrAwme aitod jpets idOypev. Here 8 LP and many cursives have of 7O podrAwm avrov, the airov of the LXX. having been reinserted by a careless scribe. ModAwy (“wzbex, frequens in corpore seruili,” Bengel) is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. The weals are those left by the scourging, John xix. 1; Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15. “Ye were healed by His scars” is a strong expression of that belief in the value of vicarious suffering which recurs in an even stronger form in iil. 18. 25. WTe yap as mpdBata mAavduevor. “ For ye were as sheep going astray.” CK LP have zAavdpera, ‘as sheep that go astray,” a needless attempt to simplify the grammar. The words are taken from Isa. lill. 6, ravres os tpoBata erAavynOnper. GAN émeotpdpyte viv emt Tov Towseva Kal émicKkotoy Tay uxdv jpav. ‘But are now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” The aorist éreotpdgyre is here clearly equivalent to the perfect. Cf. i. 12. “Emvorpépew means properly only ‘to turn towards,” but is used by Lucian and Plutarch of ‘turning back from error.” It is a favourite word with Plotinus to express what we call “conversion.” When a man forgets God he “ turns away” ; when he remembers his Father he “turns back” (émuorpéderat). See Znn. v. 1.1. The word is used in the same sense in the New Testament ; hence we may translate it “returns,” not simply “ turns.” Ilouunv, Shepherd, and here Shepherd of souls (for Wvyxayr cf. i. g above), is a word that includes all that Christ does for our souls, loving care, feeding, instruction, guidance, government. It brings out the general ignorance and helplessness of man, who, without aid from above, can only go astray like sheep without a shepherd. In the Old Testament we have this figure in Ps. xxiii. ; Zech. xu. 7 ; Isa. -xl. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, xxxvil. 24. In the Gospels we read of the sheep, Matt. x. 6, xxv. 33; Mark vi. 34; Luke xv. 4. Christ is Shepherd, Matt. ix. 36; Mark vi. 34; John x.; Heb. xiii. 20. Tlowpatver is used of Christ, Matt. 11. 6; Apoc. ii. 27, vil. 17, Xi. 5, Xix. 15 in the sense of “govern” ; and of Christian ministers, fopn xm. 16 3;Acts:xx. 285 1 Pet. v2. ~Tlo¢avy is. used ‘of the Christian flock, Matt. xxvi. 31 ; John x. 16; wotuvov, Luke xii. 32 ; Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. Itis curious that St. Paul never uses the metaphor, except of the Christian minister, and that but twice (Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 11). On the other hand, zopiy is never used of the Christian minister, except in this last passage from Ephesians. John x. shows clearly that it is an error to restrict shepherding to government, though this idea is, no doubt, always included; and St. Peter’s phrase, Shepherd of souls (« souls ” including i in his usage the whole of man’s spiritual nature), implies 150. -NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ‘ST. PETER that the Lord gives us all that is needful for intelligence, emotions, or will. ‘Exickoros is here a description, not a title. It is nearly equiva- lent to wowsjv: cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 11, idod eyo éxlytnow Ta mpoBara joov, Kal érirxeWouar atta: though it is more general. Philo, de Som. i. 15 (i. 634), calls God 6 rév ddXwv éxiocxotos. The ecclesiasti- cal use of the word comes from Ps. cviil. (cix.) 8, quoted in Acts i. 20 ; in part also from Isa. lx. 17, KaTaoT How TOUS éeTLTKOTOUS aVTOV ey Sieatnas VN, Kal TOS dLaKovous av’Tav év TioTeL, quoted by Clement of Rome, xlii. 5. In Acts xx. 28 (“the flock wherein the Holy Ghost made you overseers”) éicKxoros is used by St. Paul very much as St.. Peter uses the word here, as a description, and in much the same sense as zouzyv.. In the later Pauline Epistles (Phil. 1. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7), but not elsewhere in the New Testament, we find an official entitled “Exicxoros, who in the two Pastoral Epistles appears to be also entitled Presbyter. It would seem that the ecclesiastical éaioxomos was taken from the Old Testament and carried with it its Jewish associations. The word was in common use among the Greeks, as Overseer is among ourselves, to denote kinds of supervision that were purely secular (see Hatch, Bampton Lectures, ed. 1882, p. 36 sqq.); but the ecclesiasti- cal use can be explained quite easily from the Old Testament, and there is no reason for attempting to derive it from other sources. Why St. Paul altered the recognised title of the Christian official we can only guess, but he may have been influenced by the words. of Isaiah, in which the mention of ducavoovvy and ziorts as the divinely given qualifications of overseers and ministers fits in so aptly with his own views. *Exioxoros contains an idea of eminence and authority which mpeoButepos in itself does not, and it had also, as we have seen, a loose connexion with the Apostolate. Hence, we may suppose, as one Elder came to be invested with special functions, he came a'so to be distinguished as “Ezioxozos, which word then became a title, Bishop, no longer Overseer. III. 1. The Duty of Wives is inculcated also, Eph. v. 22 ; Col. Ilr Ou, Mite, “As 6puoiws may be taken closely with iroracocuevar: slaves are to be subject, so likewise wives. But it is best taken as referring to il. 27. Slaves are to show honour te masters, likewise wives to husbands. For the construction of iroragadpeva, see note on ii. 18. Thesame phrase, tiroracadpevat Tots idiots dvdpacw, is found in Ephesians and Titus, and with the omission of idéois in Colossians also. See Intro- duction, p. 17. “Idéous strengthens the article rots, which by itself is possessive and means “your.” It gives the same sense that we find in the English, ‘your own husbands”; you belong to them in a special way, and your duty to them is very near and clear. Further, CHAP: III. VERS. 2, 3 I51 it softens the rule of subjection. It is not obedience to a stranger that is required. iva... KeponOnoovra, ‘That if any obey not the word, they may without the word be won by the conversation of their wives.” The use of the future indicative after the final iva belongs to late and vulgar Greek (Cobet, Variae Lectiones, p. 5083; Blass, p. 208) ; instances occur in Mark xv. 20; Luke xx. 10; 1 Cor. xiii. 3; Gal. ii. 4; Apoc. iii. 9, and elsewhere. 2. émomtedoavtes. See note on il. 12 above. In avev Adyov the absence of the article is probably immaterial, and we may translate “without the word,” without any direct appeal to the teaching of Christ, which, in the eyes of an unbelieving husband, would have no authority. Otherwise the meaning will be “without a word”; the wife need not argue at all, the mere sight of her conduct will suffice. For the sense of xepdatvew, cf. Matt. xvil. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 19-21. Itisa fine Christian expression, on which Leighton dwells with unction: “A soul converted is gained to itself, gained to the pastor, or friend, or wife, or husband who sought it, and gained to Jesus Christ ; added to His treasury, who thought not His own precious blood too dear to lay out for this gain.” A striking instance of the ‘“ gaining” of the heathen husband by the Christian wife will be found in the account of Monnica in Augustine’s Confessions. But, though Monnica did not, to use a common expression, ‘‘ preach” to her husband, she owed her influence over him largely to wise words. The patient well-doing of the wife has power for the salvation of others ; cf. 11. r2 above. St. Peter, it will be observed, admits no questioning about the indissolubility of marriage in cases of religious disparity. At Corinth the question had been raised, and St. Paul expresses his personal opinion (I, not the Lord, 1 Cor. vii. 12) to the effect that the Christian partner should not seek divorce or separation, but that, if the heathen husband or wife choose to dis- solve the tie, it may be done. He adds, “ For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ?” Thy é€v $6Bw ayviv dvactpopyy. “ Your conversation chaste in fear.” ‘Your chaste conversation coupled with fear” (A.V., R.V.) hardly brings out with sufficient force the close collocation of év d0Bw dyvyv. The conversation is chaste, because it moves in the fear of God (cf. ii. 18 above). Here again St. Peter does not mean “fear of your husband,” though in Eph. v. 33 we read 4 6 yuvy iva, poBirat Tov avopa. 3. obv Eatw otx 6 ef ewhev . . . Kdopos. On the use of the article in this passage, see Introduction, p, 4. The translation of A.V., “whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning,” is not strictly accurate, as 6 xoopos is not repeated. What St. Peter says is “whose must be, not the outward adornment of plaiting hair and putting round of jewels or putting on of robes, but the hidden man 152 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER of the heart.” Kooyos isin antithesis to avOpwzos, visible ornaments to the invisible soul. It is possible that there is a play on the two meanings of kéoos, “ ornaments,” and the ‘ world,” or “ multitude of men”; at any rate this supposition would help to explain the antithesis. As xdéopos is used in classical Greek, so mundus is used in classical Latin for all kinds of embellishments. Livy, xxxiv. 7, “munditia et ornatus et cultus, haec feminarum insignia sunt : hune mundum muliebrem appellarunt maiores nostri.” Tertullian (de habitu mul. 4) makes a distinction between cudtus, jewellery and dress, and ornatus, the personal beautification of the toilet, and confines mundus to theformer. ‘Cultum dicimus, quem mundum muliebrem uocant ; ornatum, quem immundum muliebrem conuenit dici. Ille in auro et argento et gemmis et uestibus deputatur ; iste in cura capilli et cutis et earum partium corporis quae oculos trahunt.” éptdoxjs. Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 9-13. ‘The two passages are very similar, but our Marriage Service rightly prefers that of St. Peter. On plaiting of hair, see Ovid, de arte am. ili. 136 sqq. It was an art highly cultivated by Greek and Roman ladies. mepiOécews. Ornaments of gold were worn round the hair (in the shape of golden nets), round the finger, arm, or ankle. 4. 5 KpuTTds Tis Kapdias dvOpwmos. ‘The hidden person of the heart, clothed in the incorruptible of the meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” *Ev is used as in Jas. ii. 2, GvNp xpvoodaxrvALos év eoOnrt Aaprpa. With 7d apGaprov con- trast xpvolov 7d dzroAAvpevoy Of i. 7. The neuter adjective forms a substantive, and no substantive is to be supplied ; but the sense is as given by the R.V., “the incorruptible apparel.” The incorruptible or heavenly raiment and jewellery of the hidden person is the meek and quiet spirit which befits Christians ; whether the exact ante- cedent to 6 is ro dpOaprov or zvedua, it is impossible to decide, but the question does not affect the sense. IIvedpo is here spirit, dis- position, temper, a sense which is not borne by the word elsewhere in the New Testament. In this Epistle rvedyua, as applied to man, does not denote a distinct faculty, but is nearly equivalent to Wux7%. In iii. 18, 19, iv. 6 it means the whole of the inner nature of man as opposed to odpé, the body. Man is made up of body and Wu xy, or body and zvedpa. Tvetpa denotes the inner nature as immaterial, invisible, impalpable, but this nature in its relation to God is Wuyx7. Hence in i. 1 it is impossible to translate év dyvacpo Ivevparos, “in sanctification of your spirit”; if this had been St. Peter's meaning he would have said év dyvacpd Woyis: cf. i. 21, Tas Wuxas tyav yyvixotes. Hence again, as applied to the Holy Spirit, vvet»a means “the Immaterial Being,” not a special influence or gift of God. It will help to make the matter clear if we observe that, in phrases which approach the one under consideration, St. Paul always defines avevyo. by a substantival genitive ; thus we find wvedyua dovAcéas, CHAP. TIL. VERS. 5, 6 153 Serias, copias, tpadrytos (1 Cor. iv. 21; Gal. vi. 1). All these are modelled upon the Hebrew rvetya xatavvgews (Rom. xi. 8 from Isa. Xxix. 10), and imply that the frame of mind spoken of is breathed into the man by God, as the zvedua tod Kéopov (1 Cor. ii. 12) is inspired into him by the spirit of evil. St. Paul uses “‘man” in much the same way as St. Peter, dis- tinguishing 6 éw from 6 éow adv@pwros (Rom. vii. 22 ; 2 Cor. iv. 16 ; Eph. ili. 16), and the “old” from the ‘‘new” man (Eph. iv. 22, 24: Col. iii. 9). The commentators throw no light on this peculiar use Of av@pwros for personality ; it seems to be Hebrew, and there are many phrases in the Old Testament that might suggest it, man of God, man whom the Lord doth choose, man of earth, and so on. 5. otw ydp wore. ‘For in this manner in days of old the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves.” For eis @cov & reads éwi tov @edv. In its Biblical meaning (‘‘I have hope”) ¢Azigw is followed by «is (2 Cor. i. 10): éé with dative (1 Dim. iv. ro): eri with accusative (1 Pet. i. 13; 1 Tim: v. 5). "Ey Xpiord, Kupty, éAmigw occur 1 Cor. xv. 19; Phil. ii, 19; but this is not to be counted among the constructions of éAwilw, because év Xpior@ may be added to any verb, and does not belong to one more than to another. TIloré, “in the days of old.” The saintly women of the Old Testament are cited as a model for Christian matrons. Here we find another instance of St. Peter’s strong sense of the continuity of the religious life. There may be a hidden reference to Isaiah’s denunciation of women’s trinkery (iii. 16 sqq.) ; but St. Peter speaks not of what good women of old did not wear, but of what they did wear. They adorned themselves with a meek spirit by subjection, or because they were subject. 6. KUpiov adtéy kahodsa. Gen. xviii. 12. Here again Monnica illustrates the language of St. Peter. When other matrons came to her and complained of their husbands, she would “blame their tongues, telling them that when once they had heard the marriage lines read over to them, they ought to have looked upon them as indentures by which they were made handmaids; they ought there- fore to remember their condition, and not rebel against their lords and masters” (Conf. ix. 9. 2). fs eyevnOnre téxva. ‘* Whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well,” A.V. ‘Whose children ye now are, if ye do well,” R.V. These translations are substantially identical, and both give the aorist eyenOnre the sense of the perfect yeyovare. There is no strong objection to this; cf. dvyyyéAy, i. 12: ereotpdpyre, ii. 25. There is, however, no sufficient reason why we should not keep the proper meaning of the aorist, and render “whose children ye became by doing good.” It is true that in this case a certain difficulty arises out of the participles. ’Ayaforovotoa kat py PoBovpeva seems to be 154 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER clearly an exhortation; and the force of the exhortation may be thought to be somewhat blunted, if the apostle is taken to say that they have been doing good ever since they became children of Sarah, and even before that time. Yet this difficulty is rather artificial; the meaning may very well be “ Ye became children of Sarah by doing good; continue so to do, or ye will cease to be her children.” Bengel regards the words ws Sdppa. . . réxva as forming a parenthesis. On this view, trotaccopevar dyaborowtca goBovpevar all belong to éxdcpovv. Bengel’s expedient is allowed a place in the margin of the R.V., but it is unnecessary and awk- ward. téxva THS Xdppa is a phrase of much the same meaning as Téxva braxons (i. 14). Those who exhibit the same character as Sarah may be called in a figure her children... The words are as applic- able to matrons of Jewish as of heathen origin. Kal pi) poPodpevar pydepiavy mronow. From Prov. iii. 25, kal ob hoByOnon mronow ereAPovoay ovde oppas aoeBdv emepyomevas. This again is one of St. Peter’s favourite chapters; it is quoted again ver. 5 below. Iréyovs (quite a classical word) means fluttering, excitement, perturbation of spirit, caused by any passion, but more especially by fear. If the word retains its proper sense here, we must take it as a cognate accusative, and translate “are not afraid with any alarm.” But in Proverbs the epithet éreA@otcay and the parallelism with épuds give it a concrete meaning, and it is better to render “‘are not afraid of any alarm.” St. Peter may be thinking, in the first place, of alarms caused by the ill-ttemper of a bad husband (it is probable that doeBév épuds was in his mind). Yet his words have a wider scope. Alarms about children, about servants, about the fortunes of the family, about the growing ill- will of heathen neighbours—the Christian matron who hopes on God will face them all unperturbed. 7. dpolws. Here, where there is no duty of subjection to be enforced, the “likewise” seems clearly to refer to ii. 17. Honour is due to all; honour therefore your wives. For the construction of cvvoixodvtes, see 11. 18, ili. I. kata yvaou. “According to knowledge,” like wise and sensible men who understand the due gradations of honour. The Pauline sense of yvéots, in which it signifies the understanding of spiritual mysteries, is quite foreign to St. Peter. In the following words we observe the same elegant classicism as in i. 19. The sense is precisely the same as if the author had written 7d yuvaixetw oxevet os doevertépw. The husband is to pay honour to the wife as to the weaker vessel; such honour as is due to the weaker, that is to say, consideration, wise guidance, marital helpfulness. ‘Qs here has its common limiting force, and gives, not the reason for the honour, but a qualification of the command. Xxetos means—(r) a chattel, or CHAP) TIT.’ VER. -7 155 piece of furniture, Matt. xii. 29 ; Mark ili. 27; Luke viii. 16; cxevy in the same house differ in value and purpose, Rom. ix. 21-23; (2) an implement or instrument adapted to a particular end; thus we have oxevos éxAoyys, an elect instrument, Acts ix. 15; (3) a vessel which contains things, John xix. 29; (4) in 1 Thess. iv. 4 oxevos may mean “wife,” a peculiar sense which the word bears sometimes in Rabbinical Hebrew; see Alford’s note. Here, how- ever, this meaning is excluded by the comparative ao6eveorépw, which clearly implies that husband and wife are both vessels. As there is here no reference to purpose or contents, we must take cxevos to mean simply “chattel.” Husband and wife are both parts of the furniture of God’s house, though one is weaker and the other stronger. In the passage quoted from 1 Thess. some commentators give oxedos the sense of “body.” But it is doubtful whether the word ever has this sense. In 2 Cor. iv. 7, éxouev Tov Gnoavpov TotTov ev éotpakivois oxevecw, the apostle does not mean in “ earthy bodies,” but uses a metaphor from money stored, as it often was, “in earthen jars.” In the present passage we can hardly suppose St. Peter to be thinking only of the bodily weakness of the wife. Many modern commentators, it should be noticed, connect the dative not with amovéuovres, but with ouvorxotyres. This leaves the honour without any restriction or limitation, which can hardly have been the apostle’s intention. @s Kal ouykA\npdvopor xdpitos fwiis. “As being (not only husbands, but) also fellow-heirs of the grace of life.” B, the Vulgate, Armenian, and some cursives have ovyxAypovopuos. The - first os gives the limitation of the honour, the second its reason. The wife must not forget the duty of subjection ; the husband must remember that she, whom nature and the law make his inferior, is his equal, and may be his superior, in the eyes of God. Xapus Cwis (the article again is dropped before a familiar phrase) is rightly understood by Alford to mean God’s gracious gift of life eternal ; for kAnpovopia compare i. 43 for xdpis, i. 13. Desire to make St. Peter speak the same language as St. Paul led Erasmus and Grotius to paraphrase the words by xdpis fa0a or Cworoiotca. SA, and some other authorities, including Jerome, read zrouxiAns xdpitos Cwijs : but the epithet has been inserted from iv. 10, where it is natural and appropriate. eykomtecOar. ‘Hindered”; KL and other authorities have éxxorterGa1, “cut off,” a stronger expression. Hofmann seems to be right in taking tyéyv as referring to the husbands alone; the sighs of the injured wife come between the husband’s prayer and God’s hearing: so St. James speaks of the complaints of the oppressed as frustrating prayer (v. 4). Others regard ipév as including both husbands and wives. The two cannot join in prayer, as they ought to do, for a blessing on their married life, 156 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER if there is injustice between them. Such prayers are “hindered,” because the two are not agreed, and the one voice protests against the other. 8. The imperatives still run on, and the section begins with adjectives and participles. To 68 réAos, “finally,” is adverbial. TeAos d€ is more usual in the classics, but 76 8€ réAos is found in Plato, Zaws, 740 E. With the word “ finally” St. Peter turns from special to general admonitions. ‘““Opodpoves mente, ovprabels affectu, in rebus secundis et adversis,” Bengel. ‘Opodpwv (not found elsewhere. in the New Testament) is used by the Greek poets, as Homer, //. xxii. 263, duodpova Ovpov exovres. The word expresses rather likeness of sentiment or disposition than of opinion, but includes community of faith and hope. Cf. Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; Phil. ii. 16. Supurabys (another dag Xeyopevor) is found in Aristotle, and denotes community of +d@y, in the broad Greek sense, of all feelings whether of pleasure or of pain. For diAddeAgou, see note on draderpia, 1. 22. EvorAayyvia in Eur. Rhesus, 192, means courage. But in Hebraistic Greek orAdyyva are the seat of mercy, hence evto7Aayxvos here, and Eph. iv. 32, means tender-hearted, pitiful. For tamewddpoves, “ humble-minded,” K P have diAddpoves, “courteous.” L, the Vulgate, and some other authorities exhibit both adjectives. Tazrervodpwv is found in Proy. xxix. 23, and forms one of St. Peter’s many allusions to that book. 9. ph dmodi8dvtes kakdy dvtt Kaxod. In Prov. xvii. 13 we read Os dodldwot Kaka avtl ayabdv, od KwyOyoerar Kaka ék TOD olKOU airov. St. Paul, Rom. xii. 17, has the same phrase as St. Peter, pnoevt Kaxov avtt Kakod amodwovres: cf. also 1 Thess. v. 15. The words Aowdopiavy ayti Aovdopias look back to ii. 23. Eis rodro may refer to the preceding words (cf. ii, 21 above), or to those which follow. It is just possible to render, ‘Contrariwise blessing (for hereunto were ye called) in order that ye may inherit blessing” ; but the parenthesis is awkward, and the construction appears to be the same as in iv. 6, eis rodro . . . iva xpidou It is better then to translate with R.V. “contrariwise blessing: for hereunto were ye called that ye should inherit blessing” or “a blessing.” The. Christian hope is also the Christian rule. Bless, and ye shall be blessed,” is strictly parallel to ‘‘ Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” 10. ydp. The “for” introduces a reason for the whole admoni- tion contained in vers. 8, 9, not merely for eiAoyotvres. The passage which St. Peter proceeds to cite treats not only of the tongue and its government, but of righteous conduct generally, The words which follow are quoted verbatim from Ps, xxxiil. (xxxiv.) 13-17, except that in the first verse the LXX. has ris éorw avOpwros 6 Gehuv Cwnv, dyarov hpépas ideiv ayabds; The Hebrew is translated in the R.V. “ What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good?” St. Peter has, “ He that willeth to CHAP, Ill. VERS. 12-14 gs: love life and see good days.” Possibly his interpreter, who wrote better Greek than the LXX.as a rule, may have been influenced by the feeling that 6 6€Awy Cwyv could carry no meaning to Greek ears. *Ayarav idetv again is not Greek: d-yomav Cory, though unusual, may be defended by 2 Tim. iv. 10, dyamyjoas tov viv aiava, Else- where the object of the verb is always personal. {4 means this present earthly life (though de Wette and some few others have taken it of life eternal), ‘‘ He that willeth ” can in spite of all sorrow and unjust usage make his life lovely and his days good. The words may be taken in connexion with i. 6-19, but the tenor is different. There the Christian has a joy arising out of persecution itself, the joy of the soldier who looks forward to victory ; here life in itself may be made sweet and delectable by righteousness. The passage illustrates the essentially Hebrew character of St. Peter’s mind; it serves as a relief to his profound .. sense of the insufficiency of this life ; it shows that persecution was as yet no more than a not intolerable vexation, while to such of his readers as were Gentiles it would convey in a very persuasive manner what is meant by “ good days.” 12. émi Sixatous. The eyes of the Lord are upon righteous men for their good, and His ears are turned towards their prayer. Aixatos is quoted from the Old Testament, in the sense which there it bears; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 7, déckavoy Adr. But the face of the Lord is upon men who do evil, not for their good. For the omission of the article with zovotvtas, cf. 11. 7. 13. kal tis 6 kaxdowy Spas; “ Who is he that can harm you?” Who.is able to do you any real hurt? The words are taken from Isa, 1. 9, idod Kupros BonOyoe po, tis Kaxooe. pe; The R.V. has “Who is he that will harm you?” that is to say, Who will wish to do you any hurt? This Tendering might. be defended by the words of the Didache, 1. 3, tpeis € dyarGre Tovs pucotytas tpas Kal ovx e&ere €xOpov, where possibly we have a reminiscence and attempted explanation of St. Peter’s words. But the apostle clearly thought that suffering is the lot of Christians, and there could be no wdcyxew ddikws without ddccotvres. ZyAwrat, “zealous ardent lovers”: the word, which is quite classical, is similarly used in 1 Cor. xiv. 12; Pits ii. 24. 14. aN ei kal mdécyote. “ But if ye should even suffer.” Hi kai generally introduces a supposition which is more or less improb- able. The optative is rarely used in hypothetical seistences in the New Testament ; indeed the mood was becoming obsolete in vulgar Greek. See Blass, pp. 37,220. St. Peter here seems to have had in his mind the words of our Lord, Matt. v. 10, paxdpuoe ot Sediwypevor Evexey Sixaroovvys. It will be observed that he uses dixacoovvy in the old Hebrew sense, as did our Lord Himself (cf. dixatovs above), and that he gives paxdpios that full sense in 158 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER which it is used in the Gospels, in Jas. i. 12, 25, and in the Apoc. xiv. 13 (and six other passages). St. Paul uses it in the same way three times in quotations, Acts xx. 35 (in a saying of our Lord’s), Rom. iv. 7, 8 (from the Old Testament) ; in 1 Tim. i. 11, vi. 15 he applies it to God ; in Tit. 11. 13 to blessed hope; but, when he uses it of man, gives the word a lower sense (= happy), Acts xxvi. 2; 1 Cor. vil. 40; perhaps even in Rom. xiv. 22. Tov 8€ PdBov adtav ph PoByOyte. “‘ Be not afraid of their terror.” Do not fear their threats. 080s has here a concrete sense, like arTonots in ill. 6. The words are from Isa. viii. 12, 13, tov de doBov aitov od pi) poByOATE obde wy TapayOynTe Kvpiov avbrov ayidcare. The passage runs, ‘‘ Say ye not, a conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people shall say a conspiracy ; neither fear ye their fear, nor be in dread thereof.” In the LXX. the meaning is “do not be afraid as they are,” and ¢0fov is a cognate accusative. To this extent St. Peter has changed the sense of the original. For the meaning here can hardly be, “ Do not be afraid, as your heathen neighbours are, of mere earthly misfortunes.” 15. Kupioy 8€ tov Xpiotév dyidoate. ‘‘ But sanctify the Lord, that is to say, the Christ.” The words rov Xpiorov are substituted for airéy in the text of Isaiah to make the meaning clear. Some of the early readers of the Epistle were alarmed by this change ; hence in K LP and some other authorities we find a variant rov cov for Tov Xpictov. The R.V. has, “ But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord,” taking Kvpuov as predicate by reason of the absence of the article. This translation might stand, if we took the words by them- selves and out of connexion with the Isaianic text, but not other- wise. ‘The absence of the article before Kvpuos has no significance. In any case the Christological import of the passage is not affected. ‘Ayidoare is sufficiently explained by the words which follow in Isaiah, ‘‘ Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.” Erouwor det mpds damodoyiav. ‘Always ready for an answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you.” We might have expected zepi rijs év dyiv wiorews, but in St. Peter’s mind the two words are very nearly identical. *AvoAoyia (followed by a dative, as in 1 Cor. ix. 3) means any kind of answer or self-justification, whether formal before a judge, or informal. Here zav7i fixes the word to the latter sense. Adyov aireiv is a classical phrase. Every cultivated sensible man was expected by the Greeks to be prepared Aoyov didovar re Kai d€Eacbar, to discuss questions of opinion or conduct intelligently and temperately, to give and receive a reason. The phrase Adyov dzodiddvai, below, iv. 5, is quite different. cov (cf. ii. 18, iii. 2) is fear of God, not of man. It is surcly not fanciful to see here an allusion to St. Peter’s own experience. When the critical moment came upon him, he was not ready with his answer, and so denied his Lord. Further, it CHAP. III. VERS. 16-18 159 was through want of meekness and fear that he denied ; of meek- ness, because he had fancied that he loved the Lord “more than these”; and of fear, because though he feared man, the Lord at the moment was not his dread. 16. cuveidnow exovtes dyaby ... dvactpopyy. ‘ Having a good conscience ; in order that, wherein ye are spoken against, those who revile your conversation, which is good in Christ, may be ashamed. For cuveidyow, see ii. 18. “Ev @ xatadadetode, the very thing wherein ye are spoken against, is the dvacrpody: cf. i. 12, dvaorpopiv éxovres Kadnv, iva, ev © Katadadovow. Constantly the apostle repeats his phrases with new significance and in a new light. In the former passage he speaks of the righteousness of the Christian as likely to promote the conversion of the heathen, here simply as stopping the mouths of his defamers. Ti dyafiy év Xpuor@ are to be taken together ; cf. riv év PoBw ayviv avactpodyy, iii. 2. Three times (here and v. 10, 14) St. Peter uses the phrase év Xpioro, which in the Pauline Epistles is very common (there are thirteen instances in Romans). Elsewhere it is not found ; but the idea that all is in Christ constantly recurs in John’s Gospel, i. 4, vi. 56, xiv. 20, xv. 1-5, xvi. 33, xvii. 21. The phrase éy Xpior@ is mystical, and this is why St. Paul loves it. But it is not necessary to suppose that he invented it. “Emypedovres is generally regarded as governing dvactpo¢yv, which is a possible construction (see Luke vi. 28). But in good Greek the verb is not transitive, and is followed by a dative or preposition. Here it would be quite possible to take dvacrpodyy with KatawwyxvvGdcw, “that those who revile you may be abashed by your good conversation” ; nor is the position of tuev a conclusive argument against this rendering. 17. kpeitrov ydép. A further reason for patient endurance. Not only will it silence calumny, but it is Christlike, and it has a value for others. Here again recurs the thought involved in i. 12, and in the trép tyov of u. 21. There is a parallelism between the suffer- ings of Christ and those of the Christian, but it is not quite clear how far it is meant to be carried. Ei OéAou 7d OeAnpa, “if the will of God should will,” is a rugged emphatic pleonasm, similar in sense to the «i déov of i. 6. For the optative, see note on ver. 14 above. 18. dt. Kal Xpiotds Gag mepl dpaptidv dmeOave. It is better ** because Christ also once for all died for sins.” “Azé@avey, S AC, and all the Versions ; BK LP have érafe, “Azaé, asin Heb. ix. 28, distinguishes the one sacrifice of Christ from the repeated deaths of victims under the Law. TIlepi dyaprias is the regular phrase for the sin-offering, Lev. v. 7, vi. 30; Ps. xxxix. (xl.) 7 ; Ezek. xliii. 21. “Yzrep Gpaprias occurs in Ezek. xliii. 25, xliv. 29, xlv. 17, xlvi. 20. The sin- offering was propitiatory, Lev. v. 6, Kai ééiAdoerau rept aitod 6 tepeds TEpl THS dpaptias aiTod As nuapre, Kal apeOjoerat adiTo 7 apaptia, and is called tAacpés, Ezek. xliv. 27. Christ suffered not for particular 160 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER offences, but for all sins of all men; hence in the New Testament we frequently find epi or imép dpapriav, Heb. v. 1, 3, x. 26; 1 John ii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 3; Gal. i. 4. He died as the one true sin- offering, dékavos trép adikwv, just on behalf of unjust. In ii. 19 we read that the sinlessness of Christ gave His Blood its value. What we see in the world is that the unjust man is saved, or made better, by the sufferings of the just, who not only sets an attractive example, but actually bears the punishment of the unjust. The consequence of moral evil is moral insensibility ; the pain of wrong- doing is felt, at any rate in the first instance, by the innocent person who desires to amend the offender; take, for example, the anguish of a mother over a theft committed by her child. © In the police courts a different rule prevails; there zwdex damnatur cum nocens absoluitur. Owing to a confusion between these two forms of justice, the human and the divine, St. Peter’s words, Sékavos iaép adikwv, have often given great offence. Plotinus, one of the best and ablest of men, says, probably with reference to Christianity, caxovs dé yevouevovs a€vodv adAovs aitOv cwrhpas civat EavTods mpoepevovs ov Peuttoy edxiv tovovpévev, “for men who have become evil to demand that others should be their saviours by sacrifice of themselves is not lawful even in prayer,” £7. il. 2. 9. The Neoplatonist admitted that wy suffering makes me better, but thought it absurd to suppose that the suffering of another could do so. The same difficulty lay at the root of Socinianism (see Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of Justifi- cation and Reconciliation, Eng. trans. p. 299 sqq.). iva Hpas mpocaydyy TO Oco. ‘That He might bring us to God.” As to the mood of zpocaydayy, it may be noticed that the optative is never found in the New Testament in final clauses ; see Blass, pp. 211, 220. The meaning of zpoodyew has been much debated. It is used of the priests, Aaron and his sons, whom Moses “brings before God,” and who may be regarded as sacrificial gifts. Thus in Ex. xxix. 4, kal "Aapav kat robs viovs abtod mpoodées eri Tas Ovpas THs oKyVAS TOD paptupiov: cf. ver. to of the same chapter, kal mpoodées Tov pooxov ert Tas Oipas THs oKynvAs Tod paptupiov. Hence Kihl understands the meaning to be “that He might make us priests to God.” But there does not appear to be any reference here to the priesthood of the Christian; and in the passages quoted, as von Soden points out, zpoodyew merely means “to bring near.” Others have supposed the phrase to signify “that He might make us a sacrifice to God”; mpoodyew being frequently used of the victim, Lev. iii. 12, iv. 4, vill. 14. But this sense is inapplicable here ; for, in the words immediately preceding, Christ is spoken of as being Himself the Victim. If, therefore, rpoodyew possesses here any sacrificial sense at all, it is merely in a distant and indirect way. We shall find the best explanation in Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12; Heb. iv. 16, vil. 25, X. 22, xii. 22, where, as von Soden says, the free CHAP. III. VERS. 19, 20 161 access of Christians to the Father corresponds to the priestly mpocayew of Christ. The sin-offering opens the door and leads us through it. Oavatwbeis, Lworonfets. “Being put to death in flesh, but quickened in spirit.” The participles are not antecedent in point of time to dwréfave, but there is no difficulty in this; they are equivalent to os eGavarwn, eCworounfy. The datives capki, rvevpare are antithetical ; Christ died in body, and was quickened in soul or spirit. St. Peter does not mean that the spirit had died. The divine spirit of Christ which was in the prophets (i. rr) cannot have been subject to dissolution; and we can hardly suppose the meaning to be that His human spirit was first destroyed and then re-created, for there is no trace of such an idea elsewhere in the Bible, and the next verse shows that in St. Peter’s view the spirits of the antediluvians were alive. We may explain fworovnfeis perhaps by the xdpis Cwns of ill. 3. The life of heaven is not unnaturally distinguished from that of earth as a new life, a second avayévvnows, a fresh grace of God, though the two are continuous and not disparate. Or we may compare John x. 18, “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again,” where the life is spoken of as ending and beginning again, yet the “JT” continues through the change. All phrases which apply to the point of transition from the old life to the new are necessarily vague, and the speculations which may be built upon them are endless. How far are we to suppose the parallelism between the Passion of Christ and that of the Christian to extend? If we read daré@avev for érafev one point of similarity is greatly attenuated, for nowhere in the Epistle does St. Peter regard the sufferings of the brethren as likely to culminate in‘a violent death. A great number of modern commentators have found a parallel in drag. ‘He suffered once ; His sufferings are summed up and passed away ; He shall suffer no more. And we are suffering ara€; it shall soon be so thought of and looked back upon” (Alford). But this interpretation also would vanish with ézaev, and is in any case rather artificial. Nothing, then, seems to remain except wept duaptidv, Sixatos, iva mpocayayy, and capi. He died as the innocent sin-offering, and our innocent sufferings have in their degree a similar value; He brought us near to God, and we may bring others. But these lessons are only allusively conveyed, and do not lie on the surface. The apostle makes clear his chief point in iv. 1 sqq.: Christ suffered in the flesh, and in the flesh we also must suffer. 19, 20. &¢... 80 Gatos. “In which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which aforetime were disobe- dient, when the longsuffering of God was=waitirig in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, whereunte~few, that is, eight souls eseaped through water.” “ed wah > rs oo 162 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER 19. This and the following verse seem to be primarily intended as a proof of Cworoumfeis. After our Lord’s Death He still lived and ministered. The order of time is dwéGave, ropevOeis exnpvtev, Os éorw év Seéta ToD Ocov ropevoeis eis otpavdv. There can be no doubt that the event referred to is placed between the Crucifixion and the Ascension. We must therefore dismiss the explanation of Augus- tine, Bede, Aquinas, and others, that Christ was in Noah when Noah preached repentance to the people of his time. On this view OTe de€edexero is taken with éexyjpuéev, not with drevOyoacr, and Tots év @uAaxy is understood to mean “those who were then in the prison of sin,” or “ those who are now in the prison of Hades, but were then alive.” What St. Peter says is that Christ not only ministered to men upon earth, but also (ka/) went as a spirit to preach to spirits in prison. Of these spirits we are told that they had been disobedient in the days of Noah. But who were the spirits? The context seems to imply that they were those of the men who refused to listen to Noah. IIvevpara may be used of men after death (Heb. xii. 23), and the vexpots Of iv. 6 fixes this as the right sense. The einyyeAtoOn, again, of iv. 6 must be taken to prove that in St. Peter’s view our Lord preached the gospel to these spirits, and offered them a place of repentance. Under the influence of later theological ideas many commentators have been unwilling to admit this, maintaining (1) that Christ must have preached to them not hope, but condemnation ; or (2) that He preached only to those that were righteous ; or (3) only to those who, though disobedient, repented in the hour of death; or (4) that He preached the gospel to those who had been just, and condemnation to those who had disobeyed. But all these afterthoughts are excluded by the text. St. Peter clearly means that all the men of the time except eight souls were disobedient. Again, these explanations are all needless. The thought which underlies St. Peter’s words is that there can be no salvation without repentance, and that there is no fair chance of repentance without the hearing of the gospel. Those who lived before the Advent of our Lord could not hear, and therefore God’s mercy would not condemn them finally till they had listened to this last appeal. So Clement of Alexandria says (S¢vom. vi. 6. 48) that it would have been zAcoveéias od THs TuXovons Epyov, “ extremely unfair,” to con- demn men for not knowing what they could not know. Clement is referring to this very passage, though he does not actually quote it. Thus St. Peter does not here contemplate the case of those who have actually heard the gospel and refused it (on this point see il. 6-8). It is probable that St. Peter is here expressing ina modified form CHAP, III. VER. 20 163 a belief which was current in the Jewish schools. In the Book of Enoch (ed. Charles, chaps. lx. 5, 25, Ixiv., lxix. 26) will be found obscure and mutilated passages which may be taken to mean that the antediluvian sinners, the giants, and the men whom they deluded, have a time of repentance allowed them between the first judgment (the Deluge) and the final judgment at the end of the world. In the last passage referred to we read that there was great joy among them “because the name of the Son of Man was revealed unto them.” Weber (quoted by Kil) cites two passages from the Bereschit Radbba, ‘‘ But when they that are bound, they that are in Gehinnom, saw the light of the Messiah, they rejoiced to receive Him” ; and again, “ This is that which stands written: We shall rejoice and exult in Thee. When? When the captives climb up out of hell and the Shechinah at their head.” See also Gfrorer, Jahrhundert des Feils, i. p. 77 sqq. St. Peter limits this Jewish doctrine to the special case of those who have not heard the gospel on earth. It will be observed also that he alludes to Jewish tradi- tion without expressly quoting it. In the second century we find references to a passage which is quoted as from the Old Testament (Irenaeus, ili. 20. 4, ascribes it to Isaiah, iv. 22. 1 to Jeremiah ; Justin, Z~ypho, 72, ascribes it to Jere- miah, but adds that the Jews had recently cut it out of the Bible), euvycOn Sé Kpios 6 @cds Gytos “Iopand trav vexpdv aitod, TOv KeKouy- pevow eis yv XopaTos, Kal KaTéBy Tpos airois edayyeAicacbae aibrois TO swrTyptov avtov. The source of this passage is unknown, but it probably comes from some Jewish apocalypse. It will be observed that what St. Peter affirms here is not simply the Descensus ad Inferos, which is already contained in his Pente- costal sermon, Acts ii. 27, in Luke xxiii. 33, possibly in Eph. iv 9, but a special form of the Descensus, the Harrowing of Hell. Pos- sibly this belief underlies Matt. xxvil. 52, 53; it is connected with this passage of the Gospel in the Zestamenta XII. Patriarcharum, Levi, 4, exvAevopévov Tod adov eri TG Taber Tod ticrov. See also Hermas, S¢m. ix. 16. 5-7 ; Iren. iv. 33. 1, 12, v. 31. 1; the Presbyter in Irenaeus, iv. 27. 2; Marcion in Irenaeus, 1. 27. 2 ; the Fragment of the Gospel of Peter, 41; Tert. de Anima, 55; Origen, Celsus, ii. 43 ; in Lucam, Hom. iv. (Lomm. v. 99) ; 7 Joan. ii. 30 (Lomm. i. 158) ; Acta Thaddaei in Eus. . £. i. 13.. 19 ; Ignatius, AZagn. ix. 3. 20. é\tyo. may imply a reminiscence of the question—Are there few that be saved? Luke xiii. 23. éxTH Wuxat. Gen. vii. 7, vill. 18. Wvya/, of living men, Acts il. 41, xxvii..37; Rom. xiii. 1 ; Apoc. xvi. 3, and elsewhere. — SeadOnoav. Cf. Thuc. i. 110, Kat dAéyou dad wodAGy ropevd- pevor Oia THS ArBins és Kupyvyv éodOynoar: iv. 113, diacwlovrat és THV AjkvOov. Averdbyoay did must mean ‘escaped through ” ; the water already surrounded them when they fled into the ark. 164. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER Many commentators here give 6.4 its instrumental force, “ were saved by water.” This not only gives the preposition a sense different from that which it bears in the compound verb, and neces- sitates our translating «is mv “in which,” but produces an impossible sense. The very object of the ark was to save Noah from the water. The difficulty which suggested this false translation arises from arguing back, on a mistaken analogy, from the antitype to the type. St. Peter has been thought to mean that in Baptism we are saved by water, and that therefore Noah was saved in the same way. But St. Peter, on the contrary, says here, in this particular figure, that we pass through the water of Baptism into safety, as Noah passed through the Flood into the ark. Similar language is used elsewhere of Baptism. ‘Our fathers all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. Here also the figure is substantially the same, that of escape through water. In Rom. vi. 3, again, the water represents the Death of Christ, through which we pass to the Resurrection. In all these figures the stress is laid, not on the water, but on the going into or under the water, and the rising from it and leaving it. The water expresses, not the instrument through which we receive the grace, but rather the evil life which we leave behind. Of course the water, being tied to the sacrament by divine command, is a condition of the grace; but this particular point is not directly involved in the figure of the ark. To bring out this point other figures are needed, such as that of washing, to which an allusion immediately follows. 21. “ Which, in an antitype, Baptism, not the putting away of - filth of flesh, but a question of a good conscience, brings you also safe to God.” , the Coptic, and Aethiopic omit 6 : Erasmus, follow- ing some cursives, read @, a mere device to make the construction easier. The antecedent to 6 is either téwp or 7d diacwhpvar dv tdatos: but St. Peter suddenly changes his figure, introducing two new metaphors ; hence arises the embarrassment of the grammar. The mention of Noah had led him to speak of Baptism, which at first strikes him as analogous to the Flood, inasmuch as jit is a deliverance from drowning in the waters of sin. But here he is struck by the thought that this is not an adequate account of Bap- tism, or that there are other aspects of the sacrament which are equally valuable. It has an outward and an inward part; it isa washing, a question which brings you safe to God. No trace of the parallel which he set out to draw remains except in eis @cdv = «is Thy xiBorov, and 8 dvacracews = 8: Vdaros. . The word évrirvrov is used also Heb. ix. 24 (see Bishop Westcott’s note there). Properly speaking, the type is the seal of which the antitype is the impres- sion, or the original document (76 atGevruov) of which the antitype is the copy. In Hebrews the earthly temple is antitype of the CHAP, III. VER. 21 165 eternal. This is the general use; cf. 2 Clem. xiv. (see Bishop Lightfoot’s note) Const. App. v. 14. 4, Vi. 30. 1, where the Flesh of Christ is the antitype of His Spirit, or the bread and wine of His Body and Blood. But St. Peter uses dvtitvrov of the nobler member ot the pair of relatives, of that to which the tizos points and in which it finds its fulfilment, of the seal not of the copy. odter Bdntiopa is a strong phrase. Cf, Mark xvi. 16, 6 musrevoas kal PamricGeis owbhioeran : Tit. ul. 5, €cwoey yds dua Aovtpov maduyyeverias Kat avakawacews Ivetparos “Ayfov. But St. Peter’s phrase goes beyond either of these. For drd@eos see drobépevor, ii. 1 ; both this word and fvzos are drag Aeyopeva. For cvveidyors ayaGy cf. il. 19, li. 15. Baptism is not merely an outward and visible form, but an inward and spiritual grace ; not merely a cleansing of the body, but a cleansing of the soul. But instead of writing ov aapKos droGeots pvaov d\AG Woy7s, St. Peter substitutes for woyxns the difficult words cvveadyoews dyabys érepirnua. “Erepwrav means to ask a question, or, in later Greek, to ask for a thing. *Exrepwornua accordingly means either “a question” or ‘‘a demand.” Commentators almost universally couple «is @edv with ovve- Syoews ayabys érepotyua, and understand the meaning to be prayer to God of (proceeding from) a good conscience, or prayer to God for a good conscience, or inquiry of a good conscience after God. The last version (Alford’s) is based upon 2 Kings xi. 7, Kat émnpo- toe Aavid eis cipyvnv “Iwaf: “ David asked about the peace, or health, of Joab.” But it requires érepéryows: and though this is perhaps not an insuperable difficulty, yet ‘inquiry after God” applies to one who is just turning towards the light, not to one who has made up his mind and is actually being baptized. To the other two renderings it is a fatal objection that éwepwray signifies to ask men for favours, Ps. cxxxvi. (cxxxviil.) 3; Matt. xvi. 1, but is not used of prayer to God. Lastly, none of these explanations gives the sense required. What we want is a version which will not only express the inner reality of baptism, but express it in a shape which forms an antithesis to capkds ardGeors pirov. The best way seems to be to take «is @edv with owe, so as to form an antithesis to dvecd@yoav eis Thy KyBwrdov, and to understand éxepwrnpa of the Baptismal “question” or “demand.” Faith and repentance are the antecedent conditions of baptism ; they may be said to make “a good conscience,” and to be the real “ putting off of the filth of the soul.” The candidate must always have been asked, in the form of words familiar in later times, or in some other, whether he possessed these qualifications. We may translate “question of” or “concerning,” or “demand for, a good con- science,” the question, “Dost thou believe?” the demand, “‘ Wilt thou renounce?” “ Wilt thou obey ?” 166 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER 80 dvactdcews “Inood Xpiotod. ‘Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The words are formally parallel to év téares. They are connected grammatically with owfe: and baptism saves us through, in the sense of dy the virtue of the Resurrection. Here again, then, the mixture of metaphors causes a slight difficulty ; but this is met by using the word “through,” which, like the Greek é&¢, means both “passing through” and “‘ by means of.” Regeneration is connected with the Resurrection above, i. 3. 22. ds éotw év Se&G. Christ is spoken of here as “being” at the right hand of God, cf. Rom. viii. 34. The phrase “sitting” comes from Ps. cx. (Matt. xxii. 24), but was used by our Lord Himself, Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 69; cf. Eph. i. 20; Heb. i. 13, x. 12, xii..2; Mark xvi. r9; Acts i. 35 (where Ps. cx. is quoted by St. Peter). St. Stephen (Acts vii. 55, 56) saw the Son of Man “standing” at the right hand of God, as if He had risen from the throne to succour His dying servant; with this compare the story of Carpus in Zp. 8 of Dionysius the Areopagite. See also Dr. Milligan, Zhe Ascension of our Lord, p. 58. mopeubets eis odpavov. The Resurrection is distinguished from the Ascension, though the interval of time is not stated. dmotayévtwv aitT@ dyyédwy Kal éfovcrdy Kai Suvdpewv. “ Angels and authorities and powers having been made subject unto Him.” Cf. Rom. viii. 38, otre dyyedor, ore apyal, ovre éveor@ra, ovrTE peAdXovta, ovTe duvapets, ovTe Vwpua, oiTe Babos, ovTe Tis KTiots Erépa: Eph. i. 21, trepavw raons apyns Kal éfovaias kai dvvdjews Kat Kupto- TTOS ... Kal TavTa tréragev KTA.: Col. il. 10, kedary Taons apyys kat 退ovocias. For the verb izoraooew cf. also 1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8: its use was suggested by Ps. viil. 7, mdvra tréragas troxdtw t&v wodav avtod. See the Book of Enoch (ed. Charles, Ixi. 10; the passage comes just before one of the Noachic frag- ments which St. Peter may possibly have had in view in the preceding verses), ‘‘ And He will call on all the host of the heavens, and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of principalities.” This part of Enoch, Mr. Charles thinks, was written between B.c. 94-79, or more precisely between B.C. 70-64. From some such source are derived the angelic divisions as they are given both by St. Peter and St. Paul. Enoch’s phrase opens a question whether we ought not, in the present passage, to translate “angels both of authorities and of powers.” The “authorities and powers” probably mean the departments of nature over which the several angelic orders bear sway. In the Book of Jubilees (ed. Charles, p. 5), the highest angels are those that stand before the Face, next come the angels of Glory, then angels of Winds, of Clouds and Darkness, of Snow, Hail, Frost, and so on. CHAP, IV. VERS. I-3 167 IV. 1. Xpictod ody waOdvtos . . . duaptias. Here also & has arolavovtos irép tpov: AK LP add izép jpov after rabovtos: BC have zaovros only. For duaprias B has dmaprias, and this appears to be the reading of the Aethiopic, Vulgate, and Peshito. ovv introduces the main lesson to be drawn from iil, 18-22. “OrAifeoGa (one of St. Peter’s drag Aeyoueva) is used here in its classical poetical sense; cf. Soph. £7. 905, émAilecdar Opdcos. “Evvowa (Heb. iv. 12) is an idea, design, or resolve, that of suffering with patience. Here, again, Christus Patiens is our troypappos. He suffered in the flesh and so must we; of course, dyaoro.odrTes or 61a dixaoovvny is implied. But St. Peter goes on to add a very remarkable statement about this bodily suffering. It is not only Xapis Tapa. Oe (ii. 20), OF Kpetrror (ill. 17), but it also makes the man better. ‘For he who hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.” “Om gives the reason for érAicacGe. léravrat is middle, not passive ; the meaning is, “he hath ceased to do evil,” not “he hath been delivered from the power or guilt of sin.” ‘Awapriéa in 1 Peter always means “‘a sinful act.” He that in meekness and fear hath endured persecution rather than join in the wicked ways of the heathen, can be trusted to do right; temptation has manifestly no power over him. St. Peter does not say that our guilt is taken away by our sufferings, or that Christ did not suffer for us all, or that our sufferings can do us any good, except in so far as they are borne for the love of Christ. These points do not here arise. The passage is not to be compared with Rom. vi. 7, 6 yap drofavov OcdiKaiwrat G aro Tis épaprtias. 2. eis TO pyKere . . . xpdvov. So that he lives the rest of his time in the flesh no longer by the lusts of men, but by the will of God.” His 76 gives the result of réravrat dpaprias, cf. Rom. i. 20, iv. 18, and other passages. If we take eis ro as “in order that” (cf. iil. 7 above), we must couple it with é7A(cacGe, and translate as R.V. ‘‘ Arm yourselves with the same mind, that ye no longer should live.” The article is used with the same easy correctness as in ili. 3. Budoar (used in LXX., not elsewhere in N.T.) is a classical verb, but the first aorist (familiar in the proverb Ad@e Budicas) is late; the Attic form is Bidvar, see Cobet, ouae Lectiones, p. 576. The datives éwuOvpiois, OeAjpare express the rule by which the man shapes his life. From this verse it is evident that waety capki, as applied to the Christian, rather excludes than suggests the idea of death. The prospect of martyrdom is clearly not immediately present to the writer’s mind. 3. dpxetds ydp... kateipydoQar. “For the time past may suffice to have wrought the wish of the Gentiles.” After yap CKLP have jpiv: s, the Coptic, and Aethiopic, iptv. For the construction of dpxeros cf. Anthol.-Graeca, ix. 749, apxerov oivo alder Oar kpadinv’ pi) wupt wip Exraye. But a Greek would probably 168 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER have written dpxerds 6 tapehnvbas Xpovos, OE cnn Va Kareipyao de : cf. Isocrates, Paneg. 75 D, ixavos yap 6 apedpvbers (xpdvos), ev @ Te Tov devav od yéyoveV ; Hedigads is used, Rom. ix. 19, of the will of God ; here, in contrast to that will, it means the wish of heathen neighbours who would gladly see the Christians living the same kind of life as themselves. Td PovAnpa tov eOvdv is one of the phrases relied upon to show that the readers of the Epistle were themselves of Gentile birth, but this is not a necessary inference from the words. Lax Jews might, and very frequently did, adopt the evil ways of the heathen. Possibly St. Peter is thinking of passages such as 4 Kings xvii. 8, kal éropevOqnoar tots Sixoudpace TOV eOvav. St. Paul uses language which implies that the general morality of the Jews was little higher than that of the Gentiles, Rom. ii. 21-24, ili. 9-18; Eph. ii. r-3; and ready to hand lie the instances of the Herods, Bernice, Drusilla, and the sons of Sceva, a chief priest (Acts xix. 14). There is a possibility again that qty really belongs to the text ; and if it does, the writer is certainly not addressing Gentile Christians only. memopeupevous év is a Hebraism. The tense of the participle is adapted to that of kareipydo6at, cf. Oavatw6eis, Cworoinfeis in ili. 18. *Acédyea in classical Greek means brutality, but is used by later writers specially of lasciviousness. ‘The plural means either kinds or acts of lasciviousness. OivoddAvyia is found in the LXX. Deut. xxi. 20, but not elsewhere in the New Testament. Képo (Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21) were revels, carousals, merry-makings, some- times private, sometimes public and religious. Plato regarded them with disapproval, as tending to foster the tyrannical licentious character, Keep. 573 D, To: pero, Tavra Eopral yeyvovrau rap avTots Kal K@LOL Kal Oar«cvat Kal éraipau Kal TO TOLAUTA ToVTG, av av "Epos TUpavvos evoov oikOv SiaxvBepva Ta THS Woxns aravta: Theaet. 173 D, detrva kal adv aiAntpior KGuor. At such revels the talk seems to have turned largely upon ‘‘ Love,” which is the theme of conversa- tion in the Symposium. By philosophers and poets such a subject might be handled as it is by Socrates and his friends; in other cases “ Love” would signify wévénuos "Adpodirn. Even the excel- lent Plutarch thought that it was absurd to be squeamish over wine, and that it was not only excusable, but a religious duty, to let tongues go ; the gods required this compliment to their mythological characters. Quaest. Conuiu. Vil. 7s Ei yap aAXore padre oy) 7rov Tapa 7OTOV Tpoo7mraict €ov éorl TOUTOLS kal doréov eis TAvTa. To Oecd THv wuynv. Among the Romans comissart, comissator, comissatio are words which imply debauchery, and carry with them a strong moral disapproval (see references in Facciolati). Except in so far as they were corrupted by Greek ideas, and this in Imperial times is a large exception, the Romans did not regard lust and drunken- ness as acts of religious observance. CHAP. IV. VER. 4 169 GPepitors eiSwdoAatpetars. ‘‘ Unlawful idolatries.” In Acts x 28, the only other place where a@éuros occurs in the New Testament, it is used by St. Peter of that which is forbidden by the law of Moses; and this is probably the meaning here. In classical Greek it means “forbidden by us,” by the natural law of reason and conscience. ‘This is the sense adopted by R.V., which translates ‘abominable idolatries.” The question is of importance, because, if the meaning is “ unlawful,” St. Peter would seem to be addressing Jews, if “abominable,” then Gentiles. Many Jews fell into idolatry, like Alexander, the nephew of Philo; and many more would be contaminated by conniving at it. See, for a striking example of this fact, the magical formula given by Deissmann, Lidelstudien, p. 26 sqq., Eng. trans. p. 274, which must have been composed by a Jew. Nor need St. Peter be taken to mean that all his readers had joined in idol worship. The phrase forms the chief argument of those who maintain that the Epistle was directed to Gentile readers. But, upon the whole, the most natural supposition is that among the Asiatic Christians were both Gentiles and Jews, and that St. Peter uses words that touch sometimes one, sometimes the other, some- times all alike. 4. év © EeviLovrar . . . Braodhnpodvres. ‘Wherein they are amazed that ye run not with them into the same pool of reckless- ness, blaspheming.” °Ev @, “in which thing,” “in which manner of life” (é€v doeAyeias xrA.), should be taken with ovytpexovtuv. The reason of the amazement is given by the genitive absolute, and €evileoOar év tii is hardly a possible construction. Just below, iv. 12, the verb is followed by the simple dative. Eevi{ew, which properly means “‘to entertain a guest,” is used in later Greek in the sense of “‘to astonish”; cf. Acts xvil. 20. This amazement” was a fruitful source of persecution. ‘The Christians were compelled to stand aloof from all the social pleasures of the world, and the Gentiles bitterly resented their puritanism, regarding them as the enemies of all joy, and therefore of the human race. An instructive passage will be found in Minucius Felix, xii. Zuvtpéxeuv expresses the blind haste of the wicked man who rushes headlong on his pleasure; cf. Rom. iii. 15, “‘ their feet are swift to shed blood.” “*Acwria (Eph. v.18; Tit. i. 6) in Aristotle (Z7h. Wie. iv. 1. 3) is opposed to eds, and signifies the utter recklessness in expenditure of the dxéAaoros, who has lost all self-control. A good instance is to be found in the Prodigal Son. *Avdyvors (not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible) means ‘“‘a pouring out,” “‘effusion” ; hence any broadening of water, such as an estuary or a marsh, caused by the overflow of a river. In Virg. Aen. vi. 107, “tenebrosa palus Acheronte refuso,” Heyne explains vefuso by dvayvieros. Kuhl refers to Aelian, de an. xvi. 15, and Script. graec. apud Luper. in Uarpocr. Suidas, however, gives BAakela, exAvois as synonyms, as 170°. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. BEDER if the word had taken a physical meaning, of the pouring out or loosening of fibre, hence of ‘‘ dissoluteness.” Bracdynpodvres, “blasphemers that they are,” comes with great force at the end of the clause, so as to form a strong basis for the following words. BAacdypeiy in classical Greek has a weaker and a stronger use, of calumniating man or God; the difference lies, not in the verb itself, but in the object. In Tit. iii. 2 it means merely “to calumniate,” but it is always a stronger word than xaradaXeiv or AoWopetvy, and brings out the wickedness of calumny (cf. Rom. iii. 8; 1 Cor. iv. 13, x. 30; 1 Tim. i. 20). It is used of@tiemiems who reviled our Lord (Matt. xxvii. 39), and in many passages means what we call “blasphemy,” contumely against God (Matt. ix. 3, xxvi. 65). In the present passage the run of the sense shows that it bears this stronger meaning. ‘The charges made by the heathen were not only false, but turned the Christian faith into impiety, the Christian virtue into vice, and involved a different and blasphemous idea of God. 5. ot droSdcoucr Adyov. ‘But they shall give account to Him that is ready to judge quick and dead.” For the sudden vehement use of of, compare Rom. iii. 8, dv 70 kpipa evdixdv éort, *Azroduddvat Adyov, “to render an account to a master or judge,” “to stand trial,” generally with the implication that defence is not easy (Matt. xii. 36; Luke xvi. 2; Acts xix. 40; Heb. xiii. 17), is to be dis- tinguished from Adyoy aireiy or diddvae (iii. 15 above). “Erotpas: the Judge is ready; cf. cwrnpiay éroiunv droxaAvpOjvat, i. 5, and nyy'xe just below. The Judge is not here named. Above, i. 17, He is the Father; but St. Peter connects the judgment with the Revelation of Jesus Christ, i. 13, and with the appearance of the Chief Shepherd, v. 4. 6. cis TodTO yap Kal vekpois ednyyedioOy. “For this is the reason why the gospel was preached (not only to living, but) also to dead, that, after they had been judged like men in flesh, they should live like God in spirit.” Tép introduces an explanation of the words immediately preceding. He is ready to judge quick and dead ; for soon the living will have heard, and the dead have already heard the gospel. ‘Paratus est Judex ; nam euangelio praedicato nil nisi finis restat,” Bengel. Ne«pots must be taken in the obvious sense of the word ; they were dead at the time when the announce- ment was made. Further, it must have the same sense as in C@vras kai vexpovs, that is to say, it must include all the dead, not merely those who perished in the Flood. EvyyyeAto6y is impersonal ; but, if St. Peter had meant that the agent was any other than Christ, he must have said so expressly. The difference of tense in kpi0do1, for, makes the former verb antecedent in time to the latter, and the sense is the same as if St. Peter had written iva xpiOévres fOr. Judgment in the flesh is death (cf. the passage from Enoch, quoted CHAP, IV. VER. 6 E71 on iii. 19 above, where the Deluge is spoken of as a first judgment to be followed by a second, ‘‘when the name of the Son of Man will be revealed unto them”). Death is that penalty which all men alike must pay. Kard has the same force as ini. 15. Thus we get a complete antithesis, xpu@ao. answering to f@o1, Kata avOpwmovs to kata @edv, capki to mvevpart. Life like God in spirit is blessed life ; the object of the preaching was the salvation of the dead ; but St. Peter does not say, and probably does not mean, that the object was in all cases attained. The idea seems to be that God will not judge any man finally till the whole truth has been revealed to him. If this interpretation is right, the ‘‘ preaching” is the same that was spoken of in ii. 19, but the audience here includes all those who had died before the Descent into Hell, whether saints or sinners; for, if those who #reiOyoav before the Deluge heard the Word, those who were disobedient afterwards cannot have been shut out. The meaning of the passage has been much debated. Augustine, Cyril, Bede, Erasmus, Luther, and others took vexpoi to mean “those who were dead in trespasses and sins,” the spiritually dead, or more especially the Gentiles (Matt. viii. 22; Eph. ii. 1; Col. ii. 13); but it is impossible to suppose that St. Peter used the same word twice, almost in the same breath, in two different senses. Bengel explained vexpoi of those first Christians who were dead in St. Peter’s time, giving the word the sense of “those who are now dead.” This explanation was suggested by his belief that it was im- possible for Christ to have preached tothe dead. ‘‘Quum corpus in morte exuitur, anima uel in malam uel in bonam partem plane figitur. Euangelium nulli post mortem praedicatur.” But the same sense has been given to vexpot by a number of modern commentators. Von Soden thinks that ver. 6 is intended as a comfort, and that ‘St. Peter is replying to a difficulty indirectly suggested by his words in the preceding sentence. God will soon judge both quick and dead. “Yes,” the Christian reader might say, “the blasphemer will have his recompense. But how will this avail our friends who have died in the midst of suffering?” Even for them, the apostle answers, the thought of the judgment is full of consolation ; for this is the very reason why the gospel was preached to our departed brethren, that after death they might have eternal life. This explanation makes our passage nearly parallel in sense to 1 Thess. iv. 13-18, but a glance at St. Paul’s words in that place will show how differ- ently St. Peter must have expressed himself, if this had been his meaning. Further, on this hypothesis he would surely have written Tois TeOvnKoot OF Tois KEKoUypevols, NOt vexpots. Hofmann gives vexpois the same signification, but regards the verse as a word of menace, making yap refer to BAacdypotrres of aroddaover Adyov. In this case the sense will be, ‘ Let not the blasphemer think that, 172 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER if he escapes punishment in this life, he has escaped altogether. For this is why the gospel was preached to those who are now dead in order that (if they listened) they might have eternal life (but if they refused to listen, might heap up to themselves further con- demnation).” But here we have to make a large and arbitrary parenthesis to get the sense which Hofmann desires, and the objections to this meaning of vexpots remain. In very early times the einyyeAto6y of iv. 6 was distinguished from the éxjpuéev of iii. 19 and ascribed not to Christ, but to the apostles ; see Hermas, Svm. ix. 16. 5-7; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6. 45, 46. This view was only rendered possible by the impersonality of einyyeAto Oy, and is quite fanciful. Further, Hermas, Clement, Irenaeus (iv. 22. 1,2), and Ignatius (J/agm. ix. 3) restrict the preaching to the just, guided probably by the mention of the “saints” in Matt. xxvii. 52. But, as noticed above, the use of dzeOycaow in iii. 20 seems clearly to imply that in St. Peter’s belief the offer was made to all, though some might reject the light in Hades, as many do reject it in this world. 7. mdvtwy 8é Ts TéMos Hyytkev. “But the end of all things has drawn near.” The “but” introduces a new train of thought suggested by the mention of the judgment. It has drawn near, and there is increased need for watchfulness and prayer. The day is near (€rotuny, i. 5 ; dAdyov apti, 1. 6; TO Eroiuws ExovTt, lv. 6; Cf. Jas. v. 8; Phil. iv. 5; Apoc. xxii. 12), It is nearer than it was (Rom. xii. 11), but it is not imminent (ov« évéorynxev, 2 Thess. ii. 2) ; it will not come without warning; men are not to neglect their duties, or fall into panic terror. There is a close similarity here between St. Peter, Mark xiv. 38 (ypyyopetre-xal rpocevxerOe), and Luke xxi. 36 (dypumvetre 8 év wavti xaip@ Sedpevor) For viare cf. i. 13, v. 8; 1 Thess. v. 6; Luke xxi. 34. It may be noticed that St. Peter says nothing about the signs of the end. Even in 2 Peter, where the Parousia is so immediately in question, this subject is not touched except in so far as the Mockers (2 Pet. iii. 3) belong to the Last Days. Neither the apostle nor his readers can have felt any interest in these speculations. They were rife at Thessalonica. From the second century onwards, there were repeated attempts to fix a date for the end of the world; see Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina, ll. p. 485 sqq. 8. Thy els éautols dydmnvy exter Exovtes. “ Cherishing love which is fervent towards one another.” “Exrevj 1s marked as predi- cate by the position of the article. ‘ Amor iam praesupponitur, ut sit uehemens praecipitur,” Bengel; cf. i. 22, aAAnAous ayarjoate éxtevas. Both there and here Kthl would give éxrevys the sense of “persistent.” The easy rapid connexion of the following sentences with the imperative by participle and adjective éxovres, piddgevor, Siaxovodrres is found also ii. 18-iii. 8 above. “Ayan eis éavrovs (to CHAP. IV. VERS. 9, 10 173 yourselves = to one another; for this use of the reflexive, which is not unclassical, see Blass, p. 169) is the @iAadeAdia of ii. 22. ayaa KaddmTer TARGos Gpwaptiav. ‘ Charity covers,” or “atones for a multitude of sins.” In Prov. x. 12 the LXX. has picos éye/pe veikos, TavTas O€ Tovs py) PiroverkotvTas KaAvmret diria. The sense of the Hebrew is, “ Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all transgressions.” St. Peter’s version is nearer to the Hebrew than that of the LXX. The meaning of the Hebrew is that, while hatred stirs up strife by dragging the faults of others to light, charity covers them up and hides them. This, however, can hardly be the sense here, and certainly cannot be in Jas. v. 20, 6 érurtpéas dpyaptwAov ex Advis 6000 attod coca Wuyxiv éx Pavdrov, Kal kahiwer ARBs dpaptiov. In this latter passage ‘‘ cover” must signify “cover from the sight of God,” “make atonement for,”—a sense Suggested by Ps; Xxxi. (xxxil.), I, pLaKapLot Ov apeOnoav at Gvopiae kal dv érexadv- pFycav ai dpaptia, and other passages where the verb A7/é is used (see Cheyne, /sazah, ii. p. 210, 2.) ; and this appears to be the meaning of St. Peter also. The love of Christ covers sins (Luke vii. 47) ; and love of the brethren, flowing as it does from the love of Christ, may be regarded as a kind of secondary atonement. Brother becomes a Christ to brother, and, in so far as he renews the great Sacrifice, becomes a partaker in its effects and a channel through which the effects are made operative for others. If there is any connexion here between St. James and St. Peter, it is clear that the former is the borrower, for the connexion of his phrase with the verse of Proverbs can only be made clear by taking the phrase of the latter asa help. If St. Peter had not first written dydy xadvrret TAGs dpaptiav, St. James never could have said that he who con- verteth a sinner xaAvwer TANOos dpapriav. 9. piAdgevor. By hospitality is not meant the giving of feasts, but the reception, entertainment, and relief of travellers. Inns were rare and little used, though we read of them in two passages of St. Luke’s Gospel, 11. 7, x. 34. The entertainment of strangers was specially enjoined by our Lord (Matt. xxv. 35). It was to be practised without asking questions, for thus angels might be enter- tained unawares (Heb. xiii. 2); but became a stringent obligation in the case of brethren, especially if they were travelling on the affairs of the Church (Acts x. 6, xxi. 16), and injunctions to hospi- tality are frequent (Rom. xii. 13; 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 10; Tit. i. 8; 3 John 5). Indeed, without a liberal practice of this virtue, the Beiooes of the Church would have been impossible. 10. éxactos Kabus edaBe xdpropo.. ‘“‘As each hath received a gift ministering it to one another.” St. Peter does not speak of miraculous xapiopata, of healings, or miracles, or prophecy, or discerning of spirits, or tongues, or interpretations (1 Cor. xii. 9, 10). Throughout the Epistle he lets fall no word to show that these 174. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER extraordinary gifts of the Spirit existed among the Diaspora, or that he himself attached any importance to them. Here, where the injunction to hospitality so closely precedes, it would seem that money, the means of hospitality, is regarded as a xdpicpa. oikovépot. St. Paul uses “steward” of himself (1 Cor. iv. 1), and of the Bishop (Tit. i. 7). Here every Christian is a steward. There may be a reference to Matt. xxiv. 45, where, as here, the mention of the good steward follows immediately on that of the Second Coming. For zouxiAys see note on i. 6. Xdpis is here the bounty of God, of which the xapéopara are the component arts. ; 11. ed Tis Aadet, ds Adyra Ocod. “If any man speak, speaking as the oracles of God.” The article is omitted, as with ypady, i. 6 ; but, if it be thought necessary to mark the omission, we may translate “‘as oracles of God speak,” that is to say, “as Scripture speaks,” with sincerity and gravity. The Christian’s talk is to be modelled on the Bible. The verb Aadcivy might be used of speaking with tongues or of prophecy (1 Cor. xiv. 2, 4), but not without a defining addition. Words reveal the character, and should always be “words of grace,” whether addressed to the heathen (the droAoyla of iii. 15) or to the brethren. We may compare Jas. iii. ; Matt. xii. 37. Adyua means Scripture. The word originally signifies “oracles,” and was borrowed from Greek heathenism by Jews and Christians. Ta Adywa sometimes means specially the Ten Com- mandments (Aristeas in Eus. Praep. Eu. viii. 9. 27; Acts vil. 38 ; Philo in Eus. £. ii. 18. 5; Basil, de S. S. xiii. 30). Philo, how- ever, uses Adya Or xpyopot of all the writings of Moses, the only portion of Scripture of which he expressly treats. Oix dyvod pev ovv, Os TdvTa eiot xpnopol, doa ev Tals iepats BiBAois yéyparrat, xpyobevres dv adrov—immediately after this he employs the word Adyia, Vita Mosis, ii. 23 (i. 163). In the De Praemits et Poents, 1 (ii. 408), he says that there were three species of “the Adya given by the prophet Moses,” the cosmogonical, the historical, and the legislative. When he speaks of “‘the Adyia given by the prophet Moses,” he implies that there were other Adyia given by other prophets, and as he expressly applies the word “oracles” to the narrative portions of Scripture, it would seem that the Aoya in his view include the whole Hebrew Bible. Though he deals at large only with the Mosaic books, he quotes freely from the historical books, from Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Jonah, Zechariah. In Rom. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12, ra Aoyia means the Hebrew Bible. As Christian writings gained currency and authority the same title was extended to them ; see Clem. Rom. xiii., xix., liii., Ixii., and 2 Clem. xiii. When Polycarp speaks of ra Adyia Tod Kupiov as including the history of the Resurrection (Phil. vii.), he means the Gospels, and embraces under the term not only the words of CHAP. IV. VER. II 175 our Lord, but the narrative; and there can be little doubt that Adyva Kupiaxd was used in the same sense by Papias (Eus. 1. Z£. iii. 39. 1, 16). Ephrem Syrus, according to Photius, divided the New Testament into Kvpiaxa Adywa and dzrocrodKd. Kypvypara, and it is probable that all the earlier writers restricted Adyia to the Gospels. Eusebius, however, uses 76 Acy.ov of a historical passage in Acts (Z. £. ii. 10. 1), and in his time the word denotes all Holy Scripture, Jewish or Christian. Socrates (#. £. ili. 20) calls the prophecy that not one stone of the temple should~be left upon another 76 tov Xpiorod Adyiov, the “oracle,” or “prediction” of Christ. This is an unusual but quite proper use of the word. The meaning of Adyta has been much disputed: the reader may consult Heinichen’s note on Eus. Z £. ili. 19. 15; Lightfoot, Zssays on Supernatural Religion, p. 172 sqq.; Salmon, /utroduction to the New Testament, p- 98 sqq.; Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung, pp. 486 sqq., 492 sqq., and the Introductions generally. The R.V. translates our passage, “If any man speak, speaking as it were oracles of God,” taking Adyva as accusative; and many commentators follow Bengel in this mode of explaining the words. There are, however, serious objections to this rendering. In the first place, we must give different senses to ws after duaxovodyres and aiter AaAe?: in the former case it will represent w¢, in the latter guast or tanguam. But, further, what tolerable sense can be gathered from the words “‘as it were oracles of God”? Dean Alford, who follows the same construction as R.V., thinks that the admonition is addressed to the prophet, and that what St. Peter means is that the prophet “is to speak what he does speak as God's sayings (oracles), not as his own.” But AadAety alone cannot signify AaActy év rvevuart, and who would exhort a prophet to speak as if his utterances were not his own, when this is the very essence of all prophecy? Or, if it be supposed that the teacher is meant, how could he be recommended to speak quasi-oracles? It is the very thing that a teacher ought to avoid. el tis Staxover. All Christians are “ministers,” as was the Son of Man (Matt. xx. 28, xxiii. 11). They are to render their services not by way of patronage, with any show or feeling of superiority, but ‘“‘as of strength which God supplies,” with humble acknow- ledgment that all their power of doing good is given by God. js is in Attic attraction; other instances will be found in Bruder. iva év maou SofdLntar 6 Oeds Bid “Inood Xprotod. On the apostolic doxologies (Gal. i. 5; Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Phil. iv. 20; Eph. iii. peel. 1..27;-vi- 16; 2 ‘Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xili..215.1 Pet. iv. tee. tts 2 Pet. mi. 18; Jude 25; Apoc. 1. 6, v.. 13, vil. 12), see Westcott, Hebrews, p. 464; Bingham, xiv. 2.1; Hooker, Zecl. Pol. v. 42. 7. Glory is given to God “through Christ” in three (Rom. xvi. 273; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Jude 25; so also in Clem. Rom. lviii.). In 176 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER later times this became an Arian watchword ; see Basil, de S. S.i. 3; Socrates, i. 21 ; Theodoret, ii. 23. € éotw 4 86fa. The collocation of the words is rightly considered by Hofmann and von Soden to show that the doxology is addressed to Christ, as are those in 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. m1. 18; Apoc. 16, It is hardly to be supposed that any serious writer would lay himself open to misunderstanding on so grave a point, when by merely throwing back the words 61a “Inoot Xpiorod he could have prevented all possibility of mistake. The same remark will apply to Heb. xiii. 20, 21. The Christian doxologies, except that in 2 Pet. iii. 18 (for the Jewish form see i. 3), end with Amen. Our Lord used this word, in a manner peculiar to Himself, to affirm His own utterances, not those of another person; and this usage was adopted by the Church. See Dalman, [Vorte Jesu, p. 185. Dr. Chase says that the addition of Amen marks the formula as liturgical, Zhe Lord’s LIrayer in the Early Church, p. 170. 12. ph fevieobe . . . Gs §evou Sutv cupPatvovtos. “Be not amazed by the fiery trial in your midst, since it is sent to prove you, as though some amazing thing were happening to you.” IIvpwors is used Apoc. xviii. 9, 18, of the conflagration which devours Babylon. Here, however, the allusion is to the fire by which gold is tested, and the word is probably taken from Prov. XXVil. 21, dokipiov dpyupiw Kal ypvod tipwors: cf. Ps. xvi. (xvii) 3, éripwoas. Seei. 7 above. What St. Peter desires to bring out is not so much the fierceness of the heat and the pain, as the refining power of fire. ‘Trial by fire” would perhaps be a better transla- tion than “fiery trial.” On €evilerfar see iv. 4. The participle y-vopevy without article is adverbial. 18. xatpere. Even now the Christian may rejoice in the thought that he is a partaker in the sufferings of his Master ; but dyaAA/aors, exultation, rapture, is reserved for the Revelation. Compare i. 6-9. “Partake in suffering” is a phrase which seems to imply that the Christian not only suffers like Christ, but that his sufferings produce in their degree the same result as Christ’s. The same thought, as von Soden points out, is involved in the section iii. 17—1v. 6. 14. ci dvedifeoOe ev dvopati Xpiorod paxdpio. “If ye are re- proached in (in the matter of, for, or, possibly, by) the Name of Christ, blessed are ye.” There is a striking resemblance here to Matt. v. 11, 12, pakapiol éore drav dvediowor tpas Kal dudgwor, Kat elrwot av movypov Kal jpav Wevdopevor Evexev en0d. Xaipere Kat ayad\aobe. For paxdpio see note on ili, 14. This is the only passage in the New Testament where 6voya Xpiorod occurs. _Else- where we find dvoya Kupiov, Incod, Inoet Xpiorod, rod Kupiov “Incod Xpisrod, rod Kupiov “Inood, rod Kupiov jay “Invot Xpicrod. St. Peter constantly uses ‘‘Christ” alone; but there is a special reason for his doing so here, where he is leading up to “Christian.” Suffering CHAP, IV. VER. 15 177 for the Name is a common phrase, cf. Matt. xix. 29; Acts v. 41, ix. 16, xxi. 13. The most serious and pressing form of suffering as yet is reproach, not imprisonment or death, cf. il. 12. Sti 73 THs Bdéys . . . dvataterar. “ Because the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.” ‘The phrase is from Ps. xi. 2, cat dvaravetat er avtov mvevpa Tov @eov. ‘The article is repeated with great emphasis, “the Spirit of glory, yes, the Spirit of God.” He is the Spirit who enables us to glorify God through suffering. He rests upon the Christian as the Shechinah rested on the tabernacle, and brings a foretaste (cf. xapa@ dedofacpévy, i. 8) of that glory which is fully given at the Revelation. The Spirit of glory is a spirit of power ; through this power the conduct of the Christian puts his adversaries to shame (ili. 16), and his words are unanswerable. Aoéa is here selected as the attribute of the Spirit, because of the preceding ovedifeoGe: the Spirit turns reproach into glory. St. Peter cannot mean ‘‘ the temper of glory and of God”; see note on ili. 4. Here, as elsewhere, by Spirit he means spiritual being or ghost. How he would, if challenged on the point, have distinguished the Ghost (i. 2), the Ghost of Christ (i. 11), the Ghost of God, is not easy to say, but we must allow the chain of later belief its due weight. 15. Gs goveds, KAenTHS, 7 KakoTrOLds, 7 Ws aANOTPLOETICKOTOS. ** As a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer, or as meddling with things forbidden.” Ildcyew is simply “to suffer”; the verb does not define the nature of the suffering, nor the manner, whether by legal process or otherwise, in which it is inflicted. ®oveds, a murderer, in the ordinary sense of the word. We are not to dis- cern here an allusion to the charges of child-slaying and canni- balism brought against Christians at a later date. A Christian might quite well be guilty of murder. The times were wild, and conversions must often have been imperfect. According to Apollonius, one Alexander, a. Montanist, was cond_.uned for brigandage (Eus. #. £. v. 18. 9). Clement of Alexandria tells of a favourite disciple of St. John who became captain of a band of robbers; Ayotapxos Hv Piadtaros, puampovwratos, yxadeTwraTOs, Q. D. S. 42. There were men in the Apostolic Church who had been «Aéwrat, and were still in danger of falling back into evil ways, see 1 Cor. vi. 10; Eph. iv. 28. For xaxozroids see note on ii. 12. dAXotpioeriocxoros is a word not found elsewhere, and probably coined by St. Peter. How easily it could be formed is shown by the passage quoted by Zahn from Epictetus, iil. 22. 97, od yap ra GAXOTpia ToAUTpaypovel (6 KuViKds), Orav Ta GvOpdmiva érioxoTH. The exact meaning is not certain, but, as the compound must signify “one who busies himself about 7a ddAdrpia,” we can classify and compare the different senses which are possible. 1. dAAdrpios may mean “that which belongs to another,” and 12 178 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER has been supposed to refer (a) to other people’s money,—hence the Vulgate has adienorum appetitor ; Calvin and Beza, alent cupidus. But ézicxoros can hardly mean “one who covets,’—(d) to other people’s affairs generally. ‘Thus in Tertullian, Scorpzace, 12, the old Latin version has alient speculator; A.V. “a busybody”; R.V. ‘a meddler in other men’s matters.” In this way we get a tenable sense for éioxozros, but meddlesomeness seems a trivial offence to be ranked in such a list as that given here. Yet roAvmpaypoovvy — was regarded as a high social misdemeanour, and a Christian might give great offence by ill-timed protests against common social customs, such as the use of garlands, or of ‘meat offered to idols ” at dinner parties. ‘The word might even be so understood as to convey a reproof of all needless defiance of paganism, such as that of the Christian who would strike with his stick the statue of a god in the open market-place ; see Origen, contra Celsum, vil. 36, 62, Vill. 35, 38, 39, 41; Minucius Felix, 8; Tert. de J@o, pee uxorem, ii. 5 ; Prudentius, wepi ore. 11. 130. The Church always discouraged these extravagances of zeal. 2. dAAdTpios may also mean that which is “foreign to a man’s character,” and from this point of view, again, two different explana- tions are possible. (a) The Christian may here be warned against conduct which “does not befit him as a citizen.” “AdAotpiompayetv (see Liddell and Scott) was used like roAvrpayyoveiv in a political sense (=zouas res moliri). It is just possible that St. Peter is here admonishing his readers against sedition, and repeating in another form the advice given above, ii. 13. Under this head will fall the explanation given by Professor Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 293 note, 348 note), who thinks “that the word refers to the charge of tampering with family relationships, causing disunion and discord, rousing discon- tent and disobedience, and so on.” (6) But it seems best to understand dAddrpuos as referring to things “which do not befit a Christian.” The word is constantly used in the LXX. for “outlandish,” “ unlawful,” “heathen,” thus we have @eot aAdrpioe frequently ; wdp aAddrpiov, Lev. x. 1; Num. iil. 4; €d€opara dAXorpia, Sir. xl. 29; cf. Justin, Zrypho, 30, a éorw dAXoTpia THS OeoreBcias tod @eot. There were many trades which the heathen themselves regarded as disgraceful, those of the /anzs/a, the Zeno, the histrio, and so on. Almost all trades were intimately allied with heathenism ; every object might be adorned with images of gods (Tert. de Jdol. 3). A Christian might even be a mathe- maticus (Tert. de dol. 9): indeed there were innumerable ways in which he might be drawn into the gravest inconsistencies, and many so-called Christians lived half-heathen lives, as we learn from Hermas and Tertullian. Such conformity to heathen customs would bring upon the Christian the charge of hypocrisy or cowardice, CHAP: LV. VER: 16 179 and this charge carries with it penalties which the pagans would take delight in making as severe as possible. it will be observed that the meanings given under (2) are not mutually exclusive and may possibly all be right. The repetition of ws before a\Xotpioerioxomos seems to show that St. Peter is not adding another offence, but summing up all possible offences in a comprehensive e¢ cetera. ‘‘ Neither as murderer, nor thief, nor evil- doer generally, nor, in a word, as a bad Christian.” The movement of thought is from particular to general, from special crimes to all lawlessness and immorality, and from this again to all actions for- bidden by the still wider rule of the faith. 16. ei S€ ws Xprotravds. “But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.” _ & has xpyotiavds, B xpeoriavds. Possibly we might translate “as a Chrisitte,” or “as a Chrestian,” for it may be that St. Peter uses the word here as a nickname given to the “brethren” by Gentile scorn. If it had been in common use among the members of the Church, St. Paul could hardly have avoided some reference to the fact in 1 Cor. i. 13. The name Christian was first given to the brethren at Antioch (Acts xi. 26), probably at the time when St. Luke notices its emergence, during the year which St. Paul spent in that city (about a.p. 43). A Gentile Church had been formed there by Barnabas and Paul; this new development would excite attention, and the word was coined probably by the Gentile Antiochenes who were notorious for their factions, biting tongues, and ingenuity in framing party epithets. The Jewish nickname for the disciples of Christ was Nalwpatou (Acts xxiv. 5). The word Christian is of Latin formation; it is made upon the analogy of many party names which appeared during the civil wars, Sullani, Mariani, Caesariani, Pompeiani, and so on. But this Roman fashion had been caught up by the Greeks ; thus in the Gospels we find “Hpwé:avol. St. Luke’s words, “the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch,” imply that the name rapidly became current, and it was used by Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 28). By A.D. 64 it was in the mouth of the populace in Rome (Tac. Azz. xv. 44; Suet. /Vero, 16), and possibly it is to be found among some mutilated and obscure words scribbled on a wall in Pompeii before A.D. 79 (a facsimile of them will be found in Aubé, Histoire de l’Eglise, 1. p. 417). By the time of Ignatius it had been completely accepted by the Church (Eph. xi. 14; Rom. iii. ; Polycarp, vii.). Either it had lost its original reproach, as has been the case with many other nicknames, such as Whig and Tory, or it was embraced for the very reason that it had not lost it. The true original form of the nickname is doubtful. Professor Blass, following the authority of the Sinaitic MS. (which gives the same spelling in both passages of Acts and here), thinks that it 180 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER was Chrestianus. Chrestus (Good) was a proper name familiar to Gentile ears (it is found thirteen times in the Corpus Znscriptionum Atticarum, and in Suetonius, Claudius, 25, we find “impulsore Chresto”), while Christus was an unknown word. Chrestianus was certainly in common use among the Gentiles (Justin, Aol. i. 55; Tert. Apol. 3), but Tertullian implies that this form was not universal. Lactantius (Z, D. i. 4) ascribes it to ignorance, but this does not touch the point. It is very possible that Professor Blass is right ; at the same time it should be observed that the difference of sound between Xpiotiavos, Xpyotiavds, and Xpeoriavds (the reading of B) would be imperceptible, and that the two latter spellings may be merely instances of Etacism. ‘Theories have been built upon this interesting word affecting both the date of 1 Peter and the historical character of Acts. It has been found possible to main- tain that the term “ Christian” originated in Rome not before the time of Trajan. The reader will find the literature on the subject given in the article on Christian in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. py aicxuveoOw. If St. Peter had been preparing his readers for martyrdom he must have used much stronger language; cf. Heb. x. 38, 39, Xl. 35-37, xii. 4. The sufferings which a Christian may have to undergo do not, as a rule, extend beyond reproach and insult (dvediZeoor), or cause any worse trial than false shame and moral cowardice, which, though grave sins, do not need to be dwelt upon. : Sofalérw dé tov Oedv ev Ta dvdpatt TovTw. “ But let him glorify God in this name (the name of Christian).” K LP, other later MSS., and Theophylact have év 7@ pépe. rovTw (cf. 2 Cor. ili. 10, ix. 3). Hence A.V. and some commentators translate ‘on this behalf.” But the true reading is no doubt évémar, and dévoza can only be rendered “name.” In Mark ix. 41 the R.V. translates ev ovopare dtu Xpicrod éore, “because ye are Christ’s,” but the A.V. correctly has “in my name because ye belong to Christ.” ‘There is no other passage in the New Testament where dvoya can mean “ reason” or “account,” nor does the word appear to possess this sense in Greek. In Latin hoc nomine (a phrase derived from the names or headings in a ledger) sometimes means “on this account”; but we must not confuse the idioms of the two languages without authority. dofalerw is in strong antithesis to aicyuvérOw as ddéa to dveidos just above. It is for this purpose that the Spirit of glory rests upon the Christian. For the union of glory and suffering cf. i. t1. 17. dt. 6 Katpds. “For it is the time appointed for the judg- ment to begin with the household of God.” It is best to supp.y simply éori: after the neuter verb the article may be used with a definite predicate, cf. Matt. xxvi. 53, ef od ef 6 Xpiords, 6 vids Tod @cod, and Mark xiii. 33, otk oidare yap wore 6 Kaipos eorw. Kpipa is used here in the sense of xptous, cf. Acts xxiv. 25 ; Heb. vi. 2; CHAP. IV. VERS. 18, 19 181 Apoc. xx. 4. Verbals in -wa and -ots not infrequently interchange meanings, for instance dys and dpaya. The oikos @eod is not quite the same as the oikos mvevyartixds of ii. 15. What St. Peter means here is the household or family, Christians considered not as living stones, but as stewards, ministers, servants. But why does he say that judgment begins with or from the household of God? Perhaps he is thinking of the parable of the Pounds (Luke xix.), where, after the good and bad servants have been dealt with, sentence is pronounced upon “the enemies.” There is no apparent reference to a First and Second Resurrection (1 Thess. iv. 173 1 Cor. xv. 23; Apoc. xx. 4,5). Alford finds a reference to Jer. xxv. 15 sqq.; Zeph. i. i, and other passages where the prophet sees the day of the Lord coming first to Jerusalem, and then passing on in a widening circle to the whole earth. But none of these passages expresses distinctly the idea that the chosen people will be judged first and the heathen afterwards. The meaning appears to be that the sufferings of the Christians are the actual beginning of the final judgment ; so Bengel says, “‘ Unum idemque est ludicium a tempore euangelii per apostolos praedicati usque ad ijudicium extremum.” Thus the or with which the verse begins seems to introduce a second reason for steadfastness. ‘The first lies in doga¢érw: the second is that this z’pwors is the immediate pre- liminary to salvation or deliverance. Hence they may commit their souls to God in unshaken confidence. Thus the words of menace are parenthetical and secondary. Kuhl thinks that the ' amevGodvres, here and in ii. 8, are the Jews whom the apostle judges more severely than the heathen, supposing that ii, 11, 12, iil. 14-16 refer especially to the latter. But we have a similar flash of denunciation in ot droddcover Acyov, iv. 5, which certainly is pointed at the heathen. 18. ei 6 BSixacos. See iii. 12, 14. To St. Peter as to Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 6. 47; dikatos Suxalov Kabd dikavos éorw od Siapepe. Christian righteousness “exceeds” that of Jews (Matt. v. 20), but is essentially of the same character. The righteous is ‘hardly saved ”” because he “comes out of much tribulation,” Apoc. vii. 14. If they have been safely led through this ordeal the final judgment brings not dread but éyaAX/acrs (iv. 13). The words are from the LXX. version of Prov. xi. 31. The Hebrew original is, “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: how much more the wicked and the sinner.” 19. dote kai. The words pick up the thread ot consolation, which has been tangled for a moment by the sudden thought of the sinners and their doom. There is some question whether the xo should be taken with of racyovres or with rapatribécbwoar, but the latter course seems the better. Translate, “ Wherefore also let them that suffer commit.” The imperative introduces a new injunction. 182 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER Let them not only glorify, but also trust God. For xara 7a OeAnpa Tov @eod, cf. ill, 7. Tlucr@ xriory, “to a faithful Creator,” may be a reminiscence of the prayer of Jonathan in 2 Macc. i. 24, which begins, Kvpue, Kvpte 6 @eos, 0 wavtwv ktictys. The epithet miords is selected, because of the trust implied in zapariécbwoay, the title Creator, because it involves power which is able, and love which is willing to guard His creatures. That St. Peter, speaking to Christians, should have here given this name to God, instead of Father or Saviour, shows in a striking way how deeply the Old Testament atfected his thoughts. The word xtiorys does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but is used of God, not only by Philo, de Somn. i. 16 (i. 634), but by. Clement of Rome, xix. 2; Aristides, Afology, xv., xvil.; and Clement of Alexandria, Dindorf, vol. iil. p. 507. The love of God displayed in creation is used by St. Paul as an argument in addresses to heathen, Acts xiv. 15, xvil. 25 ; cf. also Rom. i. 20; but the nearest parallel to St. Peter’s phrase will be found in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. vi. 26 sqq. tmapatibécOwoav. ‘Let them commit their souls,” or rather “deposit them in safe keeping.” Cf. Ps. xxx. (xxxi.) 5, eis xetpds oou Trapabycopat TO mvedp.a pov: Luke xxiii. 46. ILaparifeoar is used in the classics of giving one’s money into the safe keeping of a friend. In days when there. were no banks this was constantly done by people going on a long journey, and such a deposit (rapaOy«n, mapakatabykyn) was regarded as entailing a peculiarly sacred obliga- tion, which none could violate or think of violating without the deepest guilt. See the story of Glaucus, son of Epicydes, Herod. vi. 86. The use of the verb is illustrated by Acts xiv. 23, rapéGevro avrovs TO Kupi eis Ov remurrevKecay : XX. 32, TapariPepar twas TO @cS: 1 Tim. i. 18, ravrnv tiv wapayycAlay raparivewal cov: 2 Tim. il. 2, radra wapdOov mictois avOpwrois: in the last passage the de- positaries are to be zuoroé, “‘ trusty,” and probably in the first eis ov memarevKetcay is “on whom they had trusted.” The noun mapaOyxn is found 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 143 in all these places wapaxatraOyn«y occurs as a variant. ; év dyaQorouia. Well-doing, diligent obedience in the midst of suffering is the sign of trust. St. Peter does not seem to be thinking of Quietism, but his words form a barrier against that form of error. V.1. mpecButépous otv év Guiv mapakaho. ‘The presbyters therefore among you I exhort.” The reading here given is that of AB, which is followed by the great textual critics; K LP and other authorities omit ody: N has zpeaBurepovs odv tods év tpi: Kk LP, the bulk of the later MSS., the Vulgate, Coptic, and Syriac, and some Fathers have zpecBurépovs rods év tuiv. It seems highly doubtful whether we should read ody, or rovs, or otv tovs. Odv introduces some special applications of the general exhortation just CHAP. V. VER. I 183 given. The omission of the article appears to have no significance. If it is to be insisted upon, the translation will be ‘I exhort presbyters,” “such as are presbyters.” It has been so pressed as to give the meaning “ presbyters, if there are any”; and so to imply a doubt in St. Peter’s mind whether these officials existed in all the Churches addressed; but this, as von Soden points out, is im- possible in view of ili. 1, where yvvatkes cannot mean “ wives, if there are any.” It seems evident from the words which follow that these personages possessed considerable authority, and were in the proper sense of the word officials. Age is still a general qualifica- tion for the office ; the original sense of elder is not quite extinct. But apeoBurepos is distinctly used not only as an official designation, but as a personal title (here and in 2 and 3 John), and it is better to mark this fact by translating it presbyter or priest, just as it is better to render éziocxomos by bishop in Philippians or the Pastoral Epistles, but by overseer in Acts and 1 Peter. We read of presbyters at Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30; they were ordained kar’ éxkXyotav by Paul and Barnabas on the First Mission Journey, Acts xiv. 23; and they existed at Ephesus, Acts xx. 17, Presbyters receive the money brought from Antioch to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Saul, Acts xi. 30; apostles, presbyters, and brethren form the Council of Jerusalem, Acts xv. 23; the presbyters form so important a part of the Council that the Decree was attributed to apostles and presbyters alone, Acts xvi. 4. Presbyters of Ephesus were summoned to Miletus by St. Paul as representatives of their Church, Acts xx. 17; they knew the apostle’s doctrine, zd7d. 21; were his natural defenders, 7é7d. 26, 34; had been made “ overseers ” over the flock by the Holy Ghost to “shepherd ” the Church, zézd. 28 ; with a special view to keeping out erroneous doctrines; the “shepherd” is to resist the “ wolf,” ibid. 29. In these passages the presbyter appears as treasurer, member of the Church parliament, ambassador, shepherd ; as teacher, as exer- cising some kind of authority in faith and discipline, as deriving his power from the Holy Ghost, as ordained (yeporoveiv) by the apostles; and we gather also that there were as a rule many presbyters in each Church. _ On the other hand, in the Gentile Church of Antioch, about the year 45 A.D., prophets and teachers (it has been supposed on the insufficient ground of the repeated re that Barnabas, Symeon, and Lucius belong to the former class, Manaen and Saul to the latter) minister (Aetoupyoter) to the Lord, and receive a special mandate from the Holy Ghost to set apart (4opifev) Barnabas and Saul for mission work, Acts xili. 1-3. But neither this passage (see Intro- duction, p. 44) nor Acts xv. 32 forms an exception to the statement that in Acts the prophet is one who sees visions, utters predictions, 184. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER or delivers to the Church special revealed and occasional mandates, and whose province is entirely distinct from that of the presbyter. In James, 1 Peter, the Johannine Epistles, and the Apocalypse the presbyter appears to hold the same position as in Acts. In James he is called in by the sick that he may pray over them and anoint them, v. 14; in the Apocalypse four and twenty presbyters sit round the throne, as in later times we find them sitting in a semicircle round the altar. In the Pauline Epistles the presbyter is not mentioned except in 1 Timothy and Titus, when he is identified with the bishop, and teaching is one of his functions, 1.Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i.9. The bishop appears also with the deacon in the address of Philippians, but the presbyter is not mentioned in that Epistle. IIpexBirepos is a familiar official designation among the Jews, and denotes a member of the local BovdAy or cvvédpiov which ad- ministered the local affairs of towns or villages, and acted in particular as a judicial body (Deut. xix. 12; Judg. vili. 14; Matt. x. 17). Such local courts existed throughout the country of the Jews, and consisted usually of at least seven elders with two Levites to act as officers. Some of the seven were priests (Schiirer, Jewish People in Time of Jesus Christ, Eng. trans. ii. 1, p. 150 Sqq.). Smaller ovvédpia were subordinate to larger, and after the Greek period (it is doubtful to what extent before) all were subject to the great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, which consisted of seventy-one members, elected by co-optation, and admitted to office by the laying on of hands. The designation elder belonged in a general way to every member (1 Macc. vii. 33) as one of the yepovota (2 Macc. i. 10), but a distinction is made between dpyxiepets, ypopparets, and rpeoBvtepor (Gospels and Acts passim). Those who were neither members of the high priest’s family nor professional lawyers were simply elders, under which name both priests and laymen might be included (Schiirer, ii. 1. 165 sqq.). The Elders of the local Sanhedrin were also elders of the synagogue (Schiirer, ii. 2. 58). As such they had exclusive direction of all religious matters, and possessed the power of excommunica- tion. But they did not in their official capacity take any part in public worship. In the synagogue no special officer was appointed to preach, pray, or read the Scriptures. The lessons were fixed, and the prayers were written, but any member of the congregation might officiate with the permission of the dpxiovvaywyos, who as a rule was an elder. Schiirer notices (ii. 2. 249) that in inscriptions belonging to the Diaspora, though we find yepovordpxys and dpxwy used as personal titles, ampeoBvrepos is never so employed. For pagan usage, see Deissmann, s.v. The designation elder or presbyter, which, unless Acts is a | CHAP. V. VER. I 185 romance, is certainly many years older than bishop, is generally supposed with sufficient reason to have passed over from the synagogue to the Church. It does not follow that the offices were identical in the Church and in the synagogue. Indeed the passages cited above show that the Christian presbyter was not only an administrative, but also a spiritual officer. The circumstances of the Church would make this change inevitable. The new congrega- tions would require to be instructed not only in the gospel, but in the whole Bible, and this duty would need to be assigned to muoroi av@pwrot. Further, instruction was the preliminary to baptism, that is to say, to admission into the community; here there was a most important difference between synagogue and church, and none but a highly trusted person could be allowed to confer the Christian franchise. We are not directly informed whether the presbyter actually officiated in public worship. Since the publica- tion of the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles in 1883, there has been a tendency to suppose that this was the function of the prophet. But, on the other hand, it may be urged (a) that this cannot be gathered from the New Testament itself ; (2) that the term prophet is limited to one “who has a revelation ” (1 Cor. xiv. 30); (c) that the condition of the Church of Corinth was quite abnormal; (¢) that prophetesses, who were common, could not have led the service even in a Pauline church; (e) that even in the Doctrine the function ‘of the prophet is confined to prophecy and to extemporary inspired outbursts of thanksgiving at the Eucharist ; (/) that the Doctrine is probably not older than the fourth century, and that its character is exceedingly doubtful; (g) that in the majority of churches it is dubious whether there were any prophets at all. In the Apocalypse (v. 8, 9) the presbyters offer to the Lamb the prayers of saints and sing the new song. This passage is strongly in favour of the tradi- tional view, and 1 Peter may be held to make in the same direction. Nevertheless it must be admitted that the Pauline Epistles (exclud- ing the Pastorals) are extraordinarily silent about the presbyter. Not only is the name not used, but there is hardly a trace of the existence of the authority under this or any other title ; and from this fact and from the use of bishop in Philippians it might be inferred that the Churches of Macedonia and Achaia had, at any rate at first, an organisation unlike that of other communities. From the Pastoral Epistles, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, bishop and presbyter appear to have been used for a time as alternative names for the same personage. We might suppose that, towards the end of his ministry, St. Paul brought his special adherents into line with the rest of the Church, and that the fusion of the two titles was a consequence of this reunion. It is worth notice that the peculiar Isaianic nomenclature of the Epistle to the Philippians had a long life. There were, in the time of Constantine, 186 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER Novatians and Montanists who had bishops and deacons, but apparently no presbyters (Sozomen, vii. 19). The same usage was to be found in Arabia and Cyprus, and existed also in the Churches for which the Doctrine was compiled. It would be vain, in the absence of definite information, to ask whether these communities were survivors of a distinct Pauline Church, whether they had attempted at a later date to revive the Pauline organisation, or whether, owing to the smallness of their settlements and from reasons of convenience, they had simply allowed the presbyterate to drop. There has been much discussion on these topics, and many different, opinions are held. The reader may consult Lightfoot’s Excursus in his edition of Philippians; Hatch, Lampton Lectures ; Gore, Christian Ministry; the editions of the Dzdache, especially that of Harnack; the articles of Dr. Sanday, Dr. Harnack, and others in vols. v. and vi. of the third series of the Zxfosztor; Pro- fessor Gwatkin’s articles on Bishop and Church Government in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible; Hort, Christian Ecclesta. & oupmpeoButepos. Not a fellow-presbyter, but ¢he fellow- presbyter whom you know so well. For the word ovprpeoBurepos (not found elsewhere in the New Testament) see Eus. & Z£. v. 16; 5, Vii. 5. 6, 11. 3. 20; Chrys: Hom. i. in Zp. Phil. + (ieee dOev Kal viv rodAol “ cupmperButépw” erioxoro. ypddovor Kal “ guvdtaxovw.” The first title which St. Peter gives himself involves a claim to their affection ; the second, to their reverence. paptus. The term is best taken here of “an eye-witness,” as in Acts 1. 8, 22, li. 32, lil. 15, V. 32, X. 39, 41. In this sense paprus is practically equivalent to dréaroAos, St. Paul claims the title for himself as given by revelation, Acts xxii. 15, €on paprus att mpos mavtas avOpmrous wv éwpakas Kal nKovoas. His vision had made him an eye-witness. When he says in 1 Cor. xv. 15, €uaprupyjoapev Kata TOD @cod dru nyepey Tov Xprordv, he does not mean merely that he had preached the Resurrection, but that he had testified to it as a fact of which he was assured by the evidence of his own senses. Kithl and others understand “witness” here to mean no more than ‘‘ preacher,” on the ground that, as St. Peter by the use of the word cvpmpecBirepos has just put himself on a level with the other presbyters, he cannot intend in his next words to exalt him- self above them, but there is no force in this objection; the climax is quite natural, and the author calls himself drécrodos in the address. Further, if he meant only “fellow-preacher,” the word cuppaprus lay ready to his hand. If Kiihl is right, the three epithets are all brotherly: ‘“ fellow-presbyter, fellow-preacher, fellow-heir of glory.” Professor Harnack (Chronologie, p. 452) takes the meaning to be that the author is a witness of the sufferings of Christ by reason of the sufferings which he had himself endured for the Name. Luther and Calvin held this view. But a witness witnesses CHAP. V. VER. 2 187 to truth or fact. A witness of the sufferings of Christ is one who is in a position to certify that the sufferings actually occurred. There are special and appropriate phrases for those who imitate the patience of their Master; they are said to partake in the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. iv. 13), to be conformed to Christ’s death (Phil. ili. 10), and soon. In the Apocalypse (ii. 13) paprus is used in its familiar later sense of one who suffers even unto death for the truth ; but it would be extremely difficult to introduce this meaning into the phrase pdprus tév ralypdtov. Jiilicher (Zindettung in das Neue Testament, p. 134) remarks on the word pdprvs, that no one who had really known Jesus in the flesh could have written an Epistle which tells so little about the life of our Lord. The remark applies equally to Acts and to the Epistles of James and John. It was not the object of any of these writings to add to the knowledge given in the Gospels, or to supplement the regular teaching of the disciples. Attention has been drawn in preceding notes to the fact that our Epistle contains a remarkably large number of allusions to the Gospels, which are all the more striking because they are not quotations. What looks like one of them is found in the next verse. Each such ailusion may be disputed, but it is hardly possible that all are fallacious. Yet it is a singular fact that the early Christians seem to have felt very little curiosity about the details of our Lord’s earthly life-—His features, tones, gestures, daily habits, and so on. The thirst for anecdote and minutiae begins with Papias and the Gnostics, who pretended to possess portraits of Jesus drawn by Pilate (Iren. i. 25. 6). 6 kai THs pedAovons aroKadvrreabar OdEys : “The partaker also of the glory that shall be revealed.” The o kai seems to mark this as the apostle’s third and highest claim, and as something peculiar to himself. Hence it is probably right to see here an allusion to a definite promise made to the apostle by our Lord ; we may find it either in John xiii. (35, or better in Matt. xix. 28, Stay Kabion 0 vios Tod avOpdrov éxt Opdvov ddEns avrov, eee rehe val tyels ert dudexa Opdvovs. In this case the meaning is that he is to share with Christ in His glory. Otherwise we must understand “your partner in the glory.” But if this had been St. Peter’s meaning he would probably have written ovyxowwvds. With ris peAAovons daaroxadtrrecbar doéns, cf. iv. 13, é€v TH aroxKa- ver tHs Soéys atrod, and i. 5, 13. St. Peter’s phrase is found also Rom. viii. 18; in Gal. ili. 23 we have riv péAXoveay aroKa- Avdhivat riotw. These resemblances are not so striking as might at first appear; in the New Testament péAdAw is often a mere auxiliary (see Blass, p. 204). 2. Trousdvate TS €v Upiv troipyiov Tod Geod. ‘Tend the flock of God which is among you.” For the metaphor of the Shepherd and the sheep, see note on ii. 25. Von Soden remarks that, used as it is in 1 Peter, both of the presbyter and of Christ, the idea 188 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER conveyed is that of pastoral, spiritual, not administrative, duty. There is very probably a reference to John xxi. 16; cf. also Acts xx. 28. Calvin translated ro év iptv “as far as in you lies,” but the run of the words is decidedly against this; Bengel and Luther, ‘‘which depends upon you,” ‘‘is entrusted to you” ; but this gives ev a sense which it cannot bear without the addition of xeiwevov. The preposition must be local. ‘The flock which is among you” may be taken to mean “the flock in your town or village.” The flock is God’s, therefore they are to tend it, not because they must, (avaykaoras), but with a willing mind (éxovotws) ; not like hirelings for the sake of pay (aicypoxepdas), but gladly and eagerly (zpoOvpwus). ’Exucxorotrtes (the word is omitted by 8 B) is equivalent to zoupat- vovres, see note on il. 25. “Avayxacras gives the idea of a definite burden of duty, which men may be inclined to rebel against as excessive. After éxovaiws % A P add xara @edv: Westcott and Hort omit the words, Tischendorf inserts them. If we keep them and translate in the most natural way “willingly like God,” we make God the Shepherd. God is the owner of the flock, but there can hardly be a doubt that by the Chief Shepherd of ver. 4 Christ is meant. Thus we should be brought very near to the inference that St. Peter uses @eds and Xpucros interchangeably ; nor need i. 3 be taken to forbid this conclusion; see note there. Possibly Rom. viii. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 10 might justify us in giving ward a looser sense, ‘according to God’s will,” “in godly fashion.” Ato po- xepoas implies that the presbyter was in receipt of a stipend; other- wise it would have been impossible for him to take the hireling’s view. 3. pnd ds Kataxuptedorvtes Tov KAnpwv. “ Neither as lording it over the lots.” KaAjpor (plural), except in the sense of “dice,” is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible. KAjpos in Matt. xxvii. 25 is a die; in Acts i. 17, 25 (?), an allotment or office allotted by the dice ; in Acts viii. 21, a share or portion ; so also in Acts xxvi. 18 ; in Col. i. 12, els THY pectin Tod KAyjpou rav ayiwv év puri, it is used of the lot, inheritance, or estate of the saints (kAypovopia). In secular Greek k\jpos constantly means an estate. In Deut. ix. 29 the people of Israel is called the xAjpos of God, His portion or estate, distinguished from the portions of other gods. Possibly this verse may have been in St. Peter’s mind, for it contains the phrase év tH xepi cov TH Kparaia, which is employed just below. kAjpo. then must have one of two meanings, “offices” or “estates,” and of these the first will not suit the context. The presbyters are not to lord it over their lots or estates, the estates are the people committed to them, and the people (to this extent we may bring in the passage of Deuteronomy) belong to the estate of God. Téyv kAypwv is most naturally taken to imply that each of these presbyters had a separate cure. Dr. Hatch thought (Bampton CHAP. V. VER. 4 189 Lectures, p. 77) that the office of the presbyter was “ essentially collegiate,” and that only at a later time was a presbyter thought competent to act alone. But from the first there may have been small isolated congregations in which there was but one presbyter. In cities particular presbyters may have had charge of a particular house church, while for certain purposes all the presbyters met in council. In xataxvptevovres the preposition gives the notion of hostility or oppression, but xvpredw by itself denotes behaviour forbidden to a Christian pastor, Luke xxii. 25, 26. Here again there may be a reminiscence of the gospel. Discipline in those days might be exercised in very rough fashion, especially towards converted slaves ; hence St. Paul warns the bishop that he is to be “no striker” (« Tim. iii. 3, cf. Tit. i. 7). Or again, the precise sense in which domineering was not unlikely may be found in aioypoxepds. But the word is wide enough to include every de- scription of arrogance or tyranny. Domineering is a personal fault, and this again seems more applicable to individuals than to colleges. témot yivdpevor. ‘ Becoming, making yourselves, examples.” Yet it is doubtful whether ywopevo. means much more than dvtes, cf. Matt. x. 16; Luke xx. 33; John i. 6; Acts v. 24. 4. davepwievtos is used of the First Advent of Christ, 1 Pet. beeps t Fim: i+ 16; of the Second, Col. m1. 4; © John ii. 28. *Apxuroiunv is not found elsewhere in the New Testament; cf. 6 mousy 6 péyas, Heb. xill. 20, and il. 25 above. Tov dpapdvtwov Tis Sdéys otepavov. “Apapdytwos (here only in New Testament) is a derivative not from the adjective (i. 4), but from the substantive dpdpavros, and means, not ‘‘ which fadeth not away” (A.V., R.V.), but “made of amaranth,” “amaranthine,” not “immortal,” but “made of immortelles.” For the ‘ crown” cf. 1 Cor. ix. 25, apfaprov orépavov: 2 Tim. iv. 8, 6 tis dixacoovvys oréepavos: Jas. 1. 12, Tov orépavov ths was, ov ernyyetAato Tots ayaraow aitov: Apoc. ii. 10, Tov orégavov tHs Cwys: iii, 10, Tdv orepavdv gov: iv. 4, otepavovs xpvoots. Cf. the word PpafPeior, 1 Cor. ix. 243; Phil. iii. 14. ‘‘ Amaranthine” is most applicable to a crown of leaves and flowers. The question has been raised whether St. Peter means us to think of a crown of victory, or of a festive crown, such as was not uncommonly used by Gentiles, and is said to have been used by Jews also, on occasions of rejoicing ; but the idea of victory is certainly that which is attached to the Cc 2wn in St. Paul, St. James, and the Apocalypse; and St. Peter can hardly have any other meaning. The word “crown” is used in the Gospels only of the Crown of ‘Thorns (but Heb. ii. 9 Jesus is dofy Kal Tih eotedavwpévov). But some of the phrases referred to above, “the crown,” “the crown which He promised,” are very definite, and may come from some unrecorded saying of our Lord’s. 190 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER 5. dpotws, vedtepor, Umotdynte mpesButepos. “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder. ‘Ootws (as in ili. 1, 7) denotes that there is a similarity in principle, though the details are different. ‘The same rule of unselfishness applies both to shepherd and to sheep. IIpeoBvrepos has two senses, the official, in which it has been employed in the preceding verses, and the non-official or natural. St. Paul passes from one of these senses to the other in 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, “‘ Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father ; the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters... . Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” But here we have an absolute antithesis between zpeovrepor and vewrepor: and what is inculcated must be respect not to office, but to age (so Huther, Keil, Hofmann, Usteri). Alford, Kuhl, von Soden give zpeofirepa the same sense as In ver. I, on the ground that the elder by office was also elder in years. This, however, was not universally the case, as we see from the instance of Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12) ; and, though a certain age was no doubt a requisite in the bishop or presbyter, there is no reason to suppose that it was such as would distinguish him from the bulk of the congregation as older than all of them, or even as older than the average. The elder was a man of staid and sober age, but not necessarily advanced in years or grey-headed. Indeed, the title was taken by the Church from the synagogue, and among the Jews it did not imply actual superiority in age. It is, therefore, hardly possible to take vedrepor as meaning all Christians who are not presbyters (as Alford following Bede). Others (Kiihl, Weiss, Schott, Briickner) create an antithesis to apeoBvrepo by taking vewtepot to denote some kind of inferior official, in whom is to be detected the germ of the later deacon, and find the same sense in the vewrepou or veavioxot of Acts v. 6, 10. But in this passage of Acts the “ young men” are simply those members of the congrega- tion who, being best fitted for the purpose by their physical strength, would naturally volunteer to carry out the corpses of Ananias and Sapphira. mavtes Sé addAndows Thy Tatevoppoodvyy eyxopBdcacbe, “And all of you towards one another apparel yourselves with humility.” After aAAjAos K LP and many other MSS. insert troraccopevot, and the R.V. gives this reading a place in the margin. Beza, Lachmann, Buttmann, Hofmann, Huther place the full stop after dAXyAos, SO as to bring the dative into connexion with trordyyrte : and no strong reason can be alleged against this punctuation. But the dative may, without difficulty, be taken with éyxouBacacOe, For this rare verb some few authorities have éyxoAmioacOe or éyKoA- moocacbe, which the Vulgate renders zzsinuate, “take into your bosoms.” "EyxopBotcGar is derived from xépBos, which, according to the glossaries, means “a knot,” or “anything tied on with a CHAP. V. VER. 5 IQI knot.” Hence éyxouBwyeo is used of a garment tied on over others. Pollux, Onomasticon, iv. 18, describes one form of it as twarididv tr Aevkov TH TOV Sovdwv éfwpide rpookKeipevov, a little white garment, which slaves wore over their é€wu/s: and from Longus, Pastoralia, ii. 60, we learn that it was of such a nature that a shepherd, who wanted to run his fastest, would cast it off. The éfwuis was a sleeveless tunic, and from the definition which Suidas gives of KopBos—6 KouBos t&v dvo0 xepidiwv, dtrav tis dyon ert Tov idtov tpaxndov—we may infer that this form of éyxouPBwpa was a pair of sleeves, which were fastened and held in place by a knot behind the neck. But «duos might also mean the knot of a girdle ; hence kopBorvrys, according to Hesychius, is synonymous with Badavtio- Tomos, “a cutpurse,” purses being carried on the girdle. In another place, s.v. xooovp8y, Hesychius uses éyxouBwpya as equivalent to mepiCwpa Aiyvrriov, a kind of apron such as that used by black- smiths. It would seem that any article of dress, that was attached by laces, might be called éyxouBwya. The verb was used by Epicharmus (Fragment 4 in Ahrens, de dialecto Dorica, p. 435). The words of the fragment are ef ye péev Ori kexopBwrar kadds: but Ahrens notes on the authority of Photius, Z/zs¢. 156, that the right reading is éyxexduBwra. The meaning is, “If, indeed, because she is bravely apparelled.” MHesychius makes xopBdcacfa equivalent to orodicacba, and éyxexouBwrat to éve(Anras, as if they were used of putting on garments of a certain amplitude and dignity. ‘This is probably St. Peter’s meaning. Humility, like “a meek and quiet spirit,” is an ornament of price, a beautiful robe. The R.V. has “ird yourselves with humility,” as if the metaphor were derived from tying an apron round the waist, so as to be ready for service (cf. John xiii. 4). But, upon the whole, the facts given above appear to make against this rendering. See Suicer, s.v. "Eyxou dopa. Ste 6 Ocds ... xdp. Prov. ii. 34, Kujpuos trepydavos avri- rdcoerat, tarewois Sé didwor xapw. The same quotation is found also in Jas. iv. 6, with the same substitution of 6 @eds for Kupuos. See iv. 8 above. The passage in the Epistle of St. James offers other resemblances to this part of 1 Peter, trordynre to Oca, dyti- aTyte TH OiaBdAw, ido tas. There is probably a connexion between the two passages, and there are some apparent reasons why we should assign the priority to St. Peter: (1) in James the mention of humility is sudden and unexpected ; (2) though he gives the quotation from Prov. iii. 34 in the same shape as St. Peter, he writes, in ver. 10, tamwewwOyre eviriov tod Kvpiov, as if he were aware that 6 @eds was not quite correct: we may infer perhaps that he had somewhere seen the quotation in its altered shape; (3) the mention of the devil in 1 Peter is not only more natural but more original; (4) in ver. 8, St. James has dyvicate tas xupdias, which may be suggested by ras Wruxas tuov yyviKdres Of 1 Pet. i. 22: 192 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER if this is so, St. James is combining different parts of the Petrine Epistle. 6. bwS thy kpatady xetpa. BK LP read xetpavy, On this vulgar form see Westcott and Hort, /xtroduction, p. 1573; Blass, p. 26. “The mighty hand of God” is generally connected in the Old Testament with the deliverance from Egypt, Ex. ili. 19; Deut. iil. 24, lv. 34, ix. 29; Dan. ix. 15 ; or deliverance generally, 2 Chron. vi. 32, but in Ezek. xx. 34 the phrase is used, as here, to denote the dread power of the great Judge. év xaip@. “In the due or appointed time.” AP, many curs- ives, and some versions add _emurKorips (from il. 12). Compare Matt. xxiv. 45, Tov Siddvat airots Thy Tpopiy ev Kapp: and, for the exaltation of the humble, Luke xiv. 11. 7. émipptwavtes. Ps. liv. (lv.) 23, ézippupov ext Kvupiov tiv pepivav wov, Kal avtos oe Suabpeve, The pépysva is here the alarm of a persecuted Christian. God will care for him; see Luke xxi. 18. 8. vipate, ypnyopyoare. The Christian may cast the whole burden of his anxiety upon God, yet is not thereby absolved from the duty of vigilance ; cf. iv. 19 above. For viare see i. 13, iV. 7. He is to be sober and wakeful, because his enemy is always at hand: a train of thought which brings us very close to Matt. xxiv. 42, 43, 49. Much the same combination of words is found t Thess. v. 6, but in a different connexion; there the Christian is enjoined to watch and be sober, because he is a child of the day. 6 dytiBixos ... Td Katamety, A has tiva xaramiy, “seeking whom he may devour”: B has xarazveiy without rua, “seeking to devour”; 8 K L P twa xaramety, “seeking some one to devour” (LP wrongly accentuate tiva). “Avridicos is an adversary in a lawsuit. AvdBoXos (almost a personal name, and therefore without article), “the slanderer,” is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew Satan. ‘Opv- dpevos is probably taken from Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 14, ds Aéwy 6 éprdtev Kal dpvdp.evos : mepuTarel, probably from Jobi 1. 7; TepeAD av THY viv Kal cpmepuTarnoas THY tr oupavov Tapelpt. The imagery of the sentence is mixed, derived partly from the prowling lion of the Psalm, partly from the Accuser of Job, who walks up and down the earth to spy out the weakness of God’s servants. Satan’s “slander” is that Job ‘‘doth not fear God for nought,” and God allows him to test the truth of this charge by trying Job, first with loss of property and children, afterwards with personal suffering. So here the Devil is the author of persecution. Compare the Epistle from the Churches of Vienna and Lugdunum, Eus. & Z. Vv. I. 5, eveoxynwev 6 avtixeiwevos. In the same epistle, v. 2. 6, those who denied the faith are said to have been swallowed by the Beast, iva dromvixbeis 6 Oyp, ovs TpOTepov WeTO KaTaTeETWKEVaL, tive ecepeon. It seems clear that the writers had this passage of 1 Peter in view. Throughout his Epistle, St. Peter seems by “suffering” CHAP. V. VER. 9 193 to mean the adventitious pain of deliberate persecution. This was Kate. TO GéAnpa Tov Weod (iv. 19), but possibly in the same sense as Job’s trials, as permitted but not exactly purposed by God. The natural tendency of righteousness is to produce “good days” (iii. 10); any other result seems to be regarded as surprising and occasional. It will be observed that St. Peter does not use kécpos as the name of a hostile, irreligious power. Here, again, wé may perhaps detect the HeDraistic cast of the apostle’s. mind. 9. otepeot TH mioter. In its proper physical sense orepeds means hard or solid. The word occurs 2 Tim. ii. 19, orepeds Oeuédtos, a solid foundation ; Heb. v. 12, 14, oreped tpody), solid food, opposed to liquid milk: the verb orepeoty in Acts iii. 7, 16, is to make solid or strong; the substantive is found in Col. ii. 5, ro orepéwpa rhs eis Xpiorov rictews tov, the strong wall or foundation of your faith in Christ. When transferred to a moral quality in the classics, orepeds inclines to a bad sense, hard, harsh, brutal. In the present passage its meaning appears to be solid, strong, impenetrable, like a wall, rather than steadfast or brave. The adjective will affect the translation of 7H} ziore. “H wiotis is sometimes “faith” ; the article before the abstract noun being constantly used in Greek as in French, where the English idiom rejects it, to mark off the virtue in question from other kindred virtues, for instance, 4 dyday in 1 Cor. xili.; sometimes “the faith,” that is to say, the Christian belief as distinguished from other beliefs. Thus we have in 2 Cor. i. 24, TH yap miore éorrxare, for it is by faith that ye stand; and, on the other hand, in Acts vi. 7, toAds 6xAo0s TOY tepéwv SarijKovov TH mote, “a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith ”—in other words, changed their convictions and became Chris- tians. ‘‘The faith” is a phrase that does not appear in Romans or Corinthians, but Gal. i. 23 we find evayyeAilerar thy riotw Hw Tore eropfa: Eph. iv. 5, pia miotis, one faith distinguished from all others ; Phil. i. 27, pd Yuxn cvvabdAotvtes TH mister Tod cbayyedéov, the faith in which all agree, which is defined in the gospel; Col. i. 23, TH iota TeHepvediwpevor, the faith is that definite hope of the gospel from which the Church is not to be moved; 1 Tim. i. 19, Tept TH Tictw évavayyoav, some have suffered shipwreck as regards the faith, by falling into erroneous doctrines: ill. 9, 76 pvoryprov THs TloTEws: IV. I, dmooTHoovTai Tives THS TioTews: V. 8, V1. 10, 21; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2, iv. 7. The notion of “the faith” as a body of sound doctrine naturally became more important in St. Paul’s eyes from the time of his imprisonment, as contact with one error or another awakened him to the fact that there might be semi-Christian types of opinion of a misleading nature. In Heb. xi. 1 faith is not merely loving trust in God, but strong conviction, which admits of definition by its subject-matter, by the particular things hoped for and not seen. In the present passage the use of the word 13 194. NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER orepeot inclines the balance in favour of “the faith.” Solidity applies rather to convictions, which are well-grounded, firmly con- nected, and therefore impenetrable, than to trust, which is ardent or confident, but not solid. eiddtes . . . emteetoOar. “ Knowing that the same sufferings are being accomplished in your brotherhood which is in the world,” is the translation generally given, If this is correct, the words must ,be regarded as a consolation. (You are not alone in your suffer- ‘ings ; all Christians have the same burden to bear. But almost every word of this rendering is open to serious objection. Tidus followed by an infinitive means “ knowing how” to do a thing, ef. Luke xii. 56; Phil. iv. 12; Kriiger’s Greek Grammar, l\vi. 7, 9; Blass, p. 227; “knowing that” is eidws or. Ta ara trav rabnparov, if it means “the same sufferings,” is quite unparalleled ; the passages quoted by Alford, 70 djerdéGerov rns BovAjs, Heb. vi. 17 ; 7o trepexov Ts yvwoews, Phil. iil, 18 ; 7d muorov THs moditetas, Thuc. i. 68, in which the neuter adjective or participle represents an abstract substantive, do not help in the least. It is impossible to see why St. Peter did not write 7a atria rabypara, if these words would convey his meaning. He was not a scholar, but there are some errors of expression which no man could make. TH adeAporyre bpov, again, is a singular phrase ; we should have expected 7 aded- oryre alone or Tots ddeApots tuav. The dative is more naturally construed with 7a attra than with émireAcioGa, with which it can only be taken loosely as a dativus incommodi. Finally, the meaning of écreXety is uncertain ; it may be “to accomplish,” “bring to an end,” or possibly “‘ bring towards an end,” or, again, ‘to pay in full.” Liddell and Scott are mistaken in giving the verb the sense of “to lay a penalty upon a person.” In the passage referred to, Plato, Laws, X. p. 910 D, tHv ts acveBelas diknv tovrous ériteAovvTwv, the meaning is “let them carry to a finish the prosecution for impiety against these men.” The only commentator who has really grappled with the text is Hofmann, who translates “‘ knowing how to pay the same tax of suffering as your brethren in the world.” Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 8, a Tod yhpws érireeto Oa, “to pay the tax of old age,” in loss of sight, hearing, memory, and so on. ‘This version meets most of the difficulties ; but ra attra tov rafynudrwv for “the same tax of suffering,” is, to say the least, an unusual phrase, and % adeA- porns tuev remains a stumbling-block. Yet neither phrase falls outside the limit of toleration. 10. 6 Ocds dons xdpitos. “The God of every grace.” From Him comes every good and perfect gift (Jas. i.17). See note on motkiAn xdpis, iv. 10. Many commentators couple év Xpuor@ with | kaXdéoas, and we might understand this in a variety of ways. (1) God was in Christ who called you; or (2) God called you by Christ as His instrument (cf. Gal. i. 6, 15, rod KaAéoavtos tas ev CHA. V. VERS. 11, 12 : 195 xapiti—Oua THs yapitos); or (3) év Xpioro may be used in that vague sense in which everything is said to be in the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. Vii. 22, 6 ev Kupiw KAneis doddos), Christ being, as it were, the atmosphere of all Christian life. But Hofmann may be right in joining d0fav év Xpio7g. The glory which is here attributed to God Prciosely relatedto Christ in 1.7, 21) iv. 11, 13, v. 1, 4.. For o\(yov ma@ovras, ‘‘after ye have suffered a little,” or “for a little while,” compare i. 6. Karaprioe, ‘shall correct” or “amend.” So Mark i. 19, xataprigew 1a dikrva: Gal. vi. 1, Kxaraprilere Tov tovovrov (where Lightfoot notes that carapri¢ew is used as a surgical term of setting a broken bone): 1 Thess. iii. 10, xaraprifew ra torepypara : 1 Cor. i. 10, re d€ Karypriopevor (the apostle is speaking of the healing of schisms). God will amend them through suffer- ing, which is the cure of sin; compare iv. 1, 6 ta6ov capki réravras Gmaptias. rypige, “shall stablish,” so that you shall not be shaken by alarms; compare iv. 12, py fevilerbe. SOevices is one of St. Peter’s drag Acyoueva. SK LP, all later MSS., the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions, Theophylact and Oecumenius have Gepediooe after cPevwoe: the word is omitted by A B, the Vulgate, and Aethiopic. Many of the later MSS. exhibit the optative, kataptica., x.T.A., for the future indicative. 11. adt@ 75 Kpdtos. ‘‘ His (God’s) is (or, be) the might.” God has power to do all if you humble yourselves under His “ mighty hand.” St. Peter dwells, and wishes his readers to dwell, on the majesty and power of God, which to the Jew was always a most comfortable thought, and is not less so to the Christian. It is perhaps worth observing that xpdéros occurs in only one of the eight Pauline doxologies, that of t Tim. vi. 16. 12. The words which follow were possibly added by the hand of St. Peter himself (this is the opinion of Blass, Grammar, p. 123), just as St. Paul concludes 2 Thess. and Galatians with a few lines of autograph. Avé may denote either the bearer or the draughts- man of the Epistle, or both; on this point and on Silvanus see Introduction. Tod ricrot a8eAdgod, “ the (well-known) trusty brother.” Similar forms of commendation occur 1 Cor. iv. 7; Eph. vi. 21; Col. i. 7. ‘Os Aoyi€oua, “as I reckon,” in the sense of ‘“‘as I think,” cf. 1 Cor. iv. 1; Rom. vii. 18. There is no éy#, and the **T” is therefore not emphatic. St. Peter does not mean ‘I think him trusty, though others do not.” The Epistle is short (6: 6Aéywv, cf. Heb. xiii. 22), not so much in itself, as in comparison with all that was in the apostle’s heart, and all that he would have liked to say. Silvanus would supplement it largely by word of mouth, and it is natural that St. Peter should here speak of him as “trusty,” one who knew the apostle’s mind and could expound it faithfully. But Silvanus was an eminent man, and only one who was stil! more eminent could venture to praise him for so simple a virtue. 196 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER “Eypaya, “I write,” is the epistolary aorist; instances occur in Philem, 19, 21; Rom. xv. 15; 1 ‘Cor. v. 11, ix. 15 ;)@aneeenueem 1 Macc. xv. 6; 2 Mace. il. 16; Plato, Zpzst. vil. ad finem, avayxaiov edo€€ poe pyOjvar. Trapakah@v Kal émpaptupay tavTyy etvar &dnO_ xdpiv Tod Oecod. *‘Exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God.” The article is omitted before aAy67 xdpw. “Emipaprupetv is to “bear witness to” a fact, not to “ bear new, or fresh, testimony.” ‘ This” refers to the whole of the contents of the Epistle, whether doctrine or exhortation. The apostle’s words here have a strongly emo- tional tinge, but not more so than we expect from a pastor who is deeply interested in the spiritual welfare of his flock in a time which was no doubt one of stress. We need not suppose that there was any great danger of apostasy. Still less need we suppose that by laying emphasis on the “truth” of his Epistle the apostle is here reflecting upon other teachers. The gospel is constantly spoken of as “the truth,” in opposition to the imperfect light of Judaism, or the errors of heathenism, John i. 17, % xdpus Kal 7 dAnGea: Col. i. 6, éréyvwre tHY xapw Tod Ocod ev adrAnOeia: 1 Pet. i. 22, €v TH traxon THs adnfeias, means “by obedience to the gospel.” But Gal. ii. 5, ) aAnOea tod evdayyediov, is “the right conception of the gospel,” as of grace not of works, truth, that is to say, as opposed to the errors of other Christian teachers. So again 2 Pet. ii. 1, “the way of truth” is set against the delusions of Wevoorpopyrat and Wevdodiddoxador, who were, no doubt, professedly Christian. It has been supposed that here also dAnOys is used of orthodox belief. Kihl thinks that the communities addressed had not been evangelised by any apostle, and that St. Peter is heré giving the official seal to the instruction which they had received. The Tiibingen school, on the other hand, holding that the author (not St. Peter) is writing to Pauline Churches, consider that he is ex- pressing his approval of the doctrine of St. Paul. But all that he means is, ‘‘ What I have made Silvanus write, this gospel of bearing the cross with patience, is God's truth. See that ye stand fast in- it: Usteri, pressing the absence of the article before aAy6) xdpw, would translate “this (this persecution) is a real grace of God. Stand ye fast to meet it.” But there is nothing in the text to justify such a narrowing of the sense of “this,” and persecution, in itself, is regarded as the work of the Devil. eis qv orqte. ‘‘ Wherein stand fast.” s A B and many cursives have the imperative; K LP and the mass of inferior MSS. read éorjxate, is is probably used as in 6 eis tov dypov, Mark xiii. 16, as a mere equivalent for év; see Blass, p. 122. Von Soden, how- ever, quoting i. 13, THv hepopevnv tyiv xdpu, thinks that here also CHAP, V. VERS. 13, 14 197 the xdpis is regarded as future, and would translate “ whereunto stand fast.” 13. 4 év BoBudave ouvexdexTH. “The fellow-elect woman in Babylon.” \& after BaBvAdve adds éxxAnoia: the Vulgate has “ ecclesia quae est in Babylone,” and the same addition is found in the Peshito, in the Armenian, in Theophylact, and Oecumenius. A catena explains that by Babylon is meant Rome; Syncellus says that some took it to mean Rome, others Joppa. St. Peter’s words have been the subject of much speculation from an early date. We are not to supply éxxAyoia, nor any other word. ‘H év BaBvAdv is a complete phrase, and means “the woman in Babylon.” This may be understood either literally or metaphorically. Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, Alford, and some few others take the words literally, and understand the apostle to mean his own wife. On the other hand, the great majority of commentators take them meta- phorically of the Church in Babylon, but are divided on the question whether Babylon itself is metaphorical or not. The latter point may be treated independently of the former. Both phrases may be literal, one may be figurative, or both. Against the literal interpretation of 7 may be urged (1) that St. Peter would have spoken of his wife in plain terms and by name ; (2) that 7 év BaSvAdu is a singular phrase for an ordinary woman residing or sojourning in Babylon. Both these objections are con- siderably weakened, if St. Peter’s wife was a very well-known person- age ; and there can be no doubt that she was. St. Paul tells us that she accompanied her husband (1 Cor. ix. 5), and tradition could not have regarded her as a martyr (Clem. Alex. S¢vom. vii. 11. 63), unless she had done something to earn martyrdom—unless, that is to say, she had taken an active part in her husband’s labours. Against the metaphorical interpretation it may be argued that ” €v BaBvAGviis an unprecedented and perhaps impossible phrase for “the Church in Babylon.” In the Old Testament we have “the daughter of Zion” (Isa. xxxvii. 22); in the New Testament it is possible that St. John speaks of a Church as xvpéa, and of another Church as her adeA¢y (2 Johni. 5, 13); the meaning of the Woman in the Apocalypse is open to doubt. In Hermas (V/s. i. 1. 4, 5) the Church appears to the prophet as yivy, and is addressed by him as xvpéa. But in all these cases the metaphor is far more obvious than it is in the present passage. Again, what is easy and natural to imaginative writers like Isaiah, John, or Hermas, is not so to St. Peter. Lastly, ‘the Church and Marcus my son” strikes one as a somewhat more difficult combination than “ my wife and Marcus my son ” (see Introduction, § 8). On Marcus and Babylon, see Introduction, § 9. 14. év pudyjpate dydans. Compare Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. St. Paul’s phrase is @iAnya ay.ov. 198 NOTES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST, PETER The kiss is one of the most ancient of ritual usages. Justin, Afol. i. 65, GAAnAOs PiAyjpari doralopela Travodpevor Tav evxGv, the kiss came after certain evxai and before the «dya/ of communion ; Tert. de Orat. 14, “ quae oratio cum diuortio sancti osculi integra?” In Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. AZyst. v. 3, the kiss is placed before the Sursum Corda ; he adds, onpetov toivuv éoti To pina tod dvaKkpa- Ojvar tas Yuxas Kal wacav e€opilew pvnoixaxiav. See also Const. App. ii. 57, vill. 11; Brightman, Lzturges Eastern and Western ; Palmer, Or. itt. ii. 102; Suicer, s.v. tAnua; Ducange, s.z. Osculum; Bingham; Probst, Zzturgie ; Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, eipyvy. In this final benediction St. Peter uses the Hebrew and evangelical “ Peace” (cf. Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19, 21, 26) instead of the later “grace,” which we find in the corresponding passages of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. ‘‘ Peace” carries us back to the Address; the Epistle begins and ends with peace. The phrase rots év Xpiord “can hardly signify the mystical life-communion (die mystische Lebensgemeinschaft) of Paul, of which there is no trace in the Epistle, but is merely another name for Christians, and conveys the last warning not to forsake this community of Christians ” (von Soden). INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OFS). -PELER § I. TESTIMONIA VETERUM It will be most convenient to begin the Introduction to 2 Peter by a discussion of the external attestation of the Epistle. Jerome. ¥ Born about 346; died, 420. In the Zfistle to Paulinus, prefixed to editions of the Vulgate, Jerome accepts all the seven Catholic Epistles without reserve : “Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas Apostoli, septem epistolas ediderunt tam mysticas quam succinctas, et breues pariter ac longas: breues in uerbis, longas in sententiis; ut rarus sit, qui non in earum lectione caecutiat.” Here the word caecutiat seems to be taken from 2 Pet. i. 9. In the extracts from the Ca/alogus Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum, which also are printed in editions of the Vulgate, he notices that there was some considerable doubt as to the authenticity of 2 Peter, and tells us that the doubt rested on the style of the Epistle : “Scripsit duas Epistolas, quae Catholicae nominantur : quarum secunda a plerisque eius esse negatur, propter stili cum priore dissonantiam.” In the Zpistle to Hedibia, 120, Quaest. xi., he suggests that this difference of style might be accounted for by the supposition that St. Peter employed two different interpreters : “ Habebat ergo (Paulus) Titum interpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius euangelium Petro narrante et eo scribente compositum est. Denique et duae epistolae quae feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis eum usum inter- pretibus.” Jerome thus records, explains, and perpetuates the doubt, yet his great authority practically laid it to sleep in the Greek and Latin 199 200 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER Churches. But in or about the time of Jerome there were several eminent Fathers who either rejected 2 Peter or regarded it with grave suspicion. “Among the innumerable quotations from and allusions to Scripture found in the writings of Chrysostom, Theo- dore, and Theodoret, there does not appear to be one reference to 2 Peter” (Dr. Chase in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 805 ; as regards Chrysostom this statement is to some extent modified by the note). Amphilochius of Iconium (Westcott, Canon, p. 557) says that some accepted seven Catholic Epistles, some only three. Didymus of Alexandria accepted 2 Peter as authentic, and wrote a commentary upon it; yet at the close of this work the reader is startled by the words (only preserved in a Latin translation), ‘‘ non est igitur ignorandum praesentem epistolam esse falsatam, quae, licet publicetur, non tamen in canone est.” Mr. Warfield (Southern Presbyterian Review, Jan. 1882) suggests that Didymus here ex- presses a view which he afterwards rejected. At a later date Junilius of Africa (about 550 a.D.; Westcott, Canon, p. 545) places 2 Peter among the books which he calls mediae, those which, though not absolutely undoubted, are yet accepted by very many (quam plurimi). Junilius, though African by birth, lived in Con- stantinople, and derived his Syrian theology directly or indirectly from Theodore of Mopsuestia (see Dr. Salmon’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography). The doubt as to the authen- ticity of 2 Peter appears to have been most strongly felt in the Antiochene Church, and rested largely on the absence of the Epistle from the Peshito, which recognised only three of the Catholic Epistles, James, 1 Peter, 1 John; indeed there is some doubt whether the Syriac version originally included even these; see Introduction to 1 Peter, p. 13. Eusebius. The date of his History is about 324. HT. £. iii. 3. 1, 4, [eérpov pev ody ériorodA} pla % Aeyonevn avrod Mporépa avwporcyytau TavTy O& Kal ot wdAat pec BTepor ws avape- Aero &v Tois odpdv aitov KataKkéxpyvTar cvyypdppact. Ti Oe depopevyv Sevtépav ovk evdudOnkov pev civar tmapeAjndapev, duws Se modAois xpyoy.os paveioa peta Tdv dAwv eorovddcbyn ypapav .. « GAAG TH pev dvopaloueva, [lérpov, dv play yryoiay éyvwv érvoto\jvy Kal Tapa Tois waAa pea Burepors @pooynmevynv ToTavTA.. Hi. E. iii. 25. 3, tov 8 dvriAcyopevav, yropipwv 8 obv pws Tois ToAAois, } Aeyowevyn "laxwbBov péperar Kat 4 “lovda, 7 Te Térpov Sdevrépa éricroAn. He then goes on to speak about the vd@a. We gather that of zoAXoé, the majority of the Church, accepted 2 Peter as authentic; that Eusebius himself doubted, but did not absolutely deny, its authenticity; that his doubt rested on two TESTIMONIA VETERUM 201 grounds, namely, that writers, whose opinion he respected, regarded 2°Peter as uncanonical (zapeAjdapev) ; and that, so far as he knew, the Epistle was not quoted by ‘the ancient presbyters ”__by those older writers, that is to say, whose works were to be found in the library of Jerusalem (4 Z. v. 20. 1), and he probably means “ not quoted by name.” It is to be regretted that Eusebius does not state from whom he had received his opinion, or who were included among the oi zoAAot. The seven Catholic Epistles existed in the library of Caesarea, and there is some reason for thinking that they were all accepted as genuine by Pamphilus (Westcott, Canov, Pp 393 8q-)- Methodius. Martyred in the Diocletian persecution. In a fragment of his treatise, de Resurrectione (Pitra, Anal. Sacra, ill. p. 611, quoted by Dr. Chase), we find an express citation of 2 Pet. iil, 8, xiAua 6€ ern tis Baoireias dvopacey Tov arépavTov aidve. 1a THs xiArddos SyAGv, yéypadev yap 6 axdcroAos Ilérpos oti pia. nuepa rapa Kupiw as xiAua érn Kat xidwa ern os Huepa pia. We may notice also in the same treatise (ed. Jahn, p. 78) the words exrupwnoerau pev yap. mpos cdbapow kal dvaxouvec pov KaTa- Baciw was KataKkAulopevos 0 KOaLOS mupl, od pay eis ard) evav éAcvoetat TavTeAH Kat pOopdvy . . . do dvdyxy Oy Kal ri ynv adbis Kai TOV ovpavoy peTa THY ExpArAdywou EceoOar TavTwY Kal Tov Bpacpov. Here the zip xaraBdouv is taken from Wisdom x. 6; but the run of the passage reminds the reader strongly of 2 Pet. ili. 9-13, and Methodius, as the first quotation shows, was acquainted with the Epistle. Origen. Died, 253. In Joann, Comm. v. 3 (Lomm. i. 165); see also Eus. & £. vi. 25. 8, Ilérpos dé, ep © oixodopetrat 4 Xprorod éxxAyota, Fs wVAar Aidov ov Katiaxucoucr, piav emrroAjy dporoyoupevnv Katadedourev, Eotw Oe Kat devrepav dupiBddrdcTau yap. Origen does not express himself so positively as Eusebius ; he records the doubt, yet is not unwilling to accept the Epistle. "He does not tell us on what arguments the doubt rested, nor by whom it was entertained. In particular, he says nothing about the style of 2 Peter, though he was a keen critic, as may be seen from his remarks on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eus. A. Z. vi. 25. 11). In the works of Origen are found six quotations from, and two clear allusions to 2 Peter. Dr. Chase, however, notices that they all occur in those treatises which exist only in the Latin version of Rufinus, and it must be admitted that this fact renders it somewhat doubtful whether they can be ascribed to Origen himself. 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER Clement of Alexandria. Died about 213. Eus. H. £. vi. 14. 1, €v 8€ rats “Yrotrurwcect, EvveAdvra eiretv, raons THS evdiabyKov ypapns emiretunpévas teroinrar Sunynoets, mde Tas avTieyomevas tape Oy, THY “Tovda A€yw Kat Tas Nowras KaBoALKas exiato\ds, THV Te BapvaBa Kai tHv Ilérpov Aeyomevny aroxddvww. Nothing can be clearer than this statement, which is con- firmed by Photius (Bzd/ioth. 109). It is in no degree invalidated by the confused utterances of Cassiodorus, who, writing after an interval of more than three hundred years, says, first, that Clement expounded the whole of the Bible; then that he had commented upon 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and James, but not on the other three canonic Epistles ; and, finally, made a loose and untrustworthy trans- lation (for the Aduwmbrationes is supposed to be his version of this part of the yfotyposes) of Clement’s notes upon 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Jude, not James. Dr. Chase does not allow that Clement ever quotes 2 Peter. But in Protrep. x. 106 we have the phrase rij 6d0v rs dAnOeias, which is found in 2 Pet. ii. 2 and not elsewhere in the New Testament. Dapkos aroGeots, Strom. i. 19. 947 may be drawn from 2 Pet. i. 14 (drofeots is peculiar to 1 and 2 Peter). In L£cl. Proph. 20, 1 Pet. i. Ig is combined with 2 Pet. ii. 1 (see note). See again note on ii. 13 for another possible reference. In aed. ili. 8. 43, To Lodouitev mafos Kpiow pev adiKyoacr, tadaywyia dé dxovoact, iS taken not from Jude, as Dindorf thinks, but from 2 Peter, who mentions Lot, while Jude does not (see also Paed. ili. 8. 44, where the same remark holds good, though Clement immediately goes on to quote Jude 5, 6 by name). From the same verse, 2 Pet. il. 8, comes a phrase which is found in S/vom. ii. 12. 55, Bacavilwv de ef’ ois NuapTe THV EavTod Wuxnv ayaboepyet. Again, in Strom. vii. 14. 88, Clement speaks of the moral law as 7 évroAy, in the singular. Cf. 2 Pet. ii, 21. Probably many other borrowings might be detected by anyone who would carefully read Clement through with an eye to this point. It is true that Clement does not quote 2 Peter by name, and some of the phrases here noticed may not be conscious quotations at all. ‘The way of truth” is found also in Clement of Rome, “the putting off of the flesh” may have been a common expression among Christians. But if they are ultimately derived from 2 Peter, as is probably the case, the fact that these phrases had become a regular part of the parlance of the Church seems greatly to increase the strength of the evidence in favour of the authenticity of the Epistle. It should be remembered that Clement was the successor and pupil of another learned man, Pantaenus, who was head of the catechetical school perhaps as early as 180. In that year those TESTIMONIA VETERUM 203 who advocate the late date of 2 Peter suppose that the Epistle had not existed more than five, or at the outside more than twenty or thirty years. Pantaenus could hardly have been imposed upon by a forgery so recently perpetrated, as Harnack and Dr. Chase suppose, in Alexandria. And, if Pantaenus did not know the Epistle, or rejected it, how came Clement, the heir of his erudition, to accept it? Cyprian. Died, 257. This Father displays no acquaintance with 2 Peter, yet this fact serves only to show the precariousness of the argument from silence. For a clear allusion to the Epistle is found in a letter addressed to Cyprian by firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (Cyprian, Z//. Ixxv. 6), “ Ste- phanus . . . adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos apostolos, . . . qui in epistolis suis haereticos exsecrati sunt et ut eos euitemus monuerunt.” Cyprian must have known to what Epistle of St. Peter Firmilian was appealing. Lippolytus. Died about the end of the first quarter of the third century. Refut. Omn. Haer. ix. 6, per ob Todd 8 emi tov aitov BopBopov avexvAtiovro, cf. 2 Pet. ii, 22. The expression is, as Dr. Chase says, of the nature of a proverb, but it is not a common proverb. See note on the Passage. Ibid. X- 33s Ta O€ TdvTa StouKel 6 Adyos 6 cod, 6 _TPwroyovos marpos Tals, mpd éwopdpov pwaddpos. port, cf. 2 Pet. i. 19, and see note on the passage. Lbid. Ran Sy expevserte emrepXoprev nv Tupos Kpioews Grey Kal TapTapov Codepod 6 Oppa. apdriror, cf. 2 Pet. i. Ay 17), Lda In Dan. iii. 22, 6 yop dv ts trotayf tovTe Kal dedovAwrar, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19. Ibid. iv. 10, ei yap Kat viv Bpaddver pd Katpod, py OeAwy tiv kplow T@ Koop éreveyxety, Cf, 2 Pet. ii. 5, iil. Ibid, xxiii. 24, jpeépa Se Kupiov xidua ery. The Clementine Literature. Passages bearing a more or less close resemblance to 2 Peter have been detected in the Recognitions, the Homilies, the Actus Petri cum Simone. On this point the reader may consult the observations of Dr. Chase, and of Dr. Salmon, Jntroduction (p. 520, ed. 1888). 204. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER Theophilus of Antioch. Died, 183-185. ii, 13, 6 Adyos avbtod, daivwv Sorep AdXVos ev oiknpmare TvvEexopEeva, ehuticey THY ur ovpavov, cf. 2 Pet. i. 19. In 4 Esdr. xii. 42 we read, “Tu enim nobis superes solus ex omnibus populis . . . sicut lucerna in loco obscuro”; and the word of God is a Avyvos in Ps. cxix. 105. Yet it seems most likely that Theophilus had St. Peter in mind. ii. 9, of S& Tod Ocod avOpwror mvevpatopdpor mvevpatos ayiov Kat mpopytar yevouevor, Cf. 2 Pet. i. 2%. Dr. Chase points out that the word zvevparodopos is found in Hos. ix. 7; Zeph. iii. 4. It can hardly be maintained that either of these passages is conclusive, but they deserve some weight. Tatian. Date of Ovatio, 150-170. Or. ad Graecos, 15 (Otto, vi. p. 70) Tovovrov d& py dvTos Tod oxynveopatos. This sense of the word oxyjvwpa (body) is borrowed from 2 Pet. i. 13. Immediately before, in the single word vads, we have an allusion to 1 Cor. iii. 16. Xxyvwna is so used by Eus. Hi. E. ii. 25. 6, who possibly found it in Gaius. The Muratorianum. P. +06, line 6 (in Westcott’s Canon) “Sicute et semote passioné petri euidenter declarat.” These words must refer either to the Gospel of St. John or to 2 Peter. They can hardly refer to the Gospel, which had been fully noticed. See on this point Introduc- tion to 1 Peter, p. 14. Aristides. His Apology was presented to Hadrian in 129-130, or, as Mr. Rendel Harris thinks, to Antoninus Pius, in the early years of his reign. tio! XVL, % 650s THs GAnOeias Aris Tods SdevovtTas adtiy eis THY aiwviov xelpaywyet Bacrreiav, cf. 2 Pet. i. 11, i 2. This seems a clear case. Canon Armitage Robinson considers that the Greek text of the Afology “as a rule gives us the actual words of Aristides,” Polycarp. Martyred in 155. Phil. iii., rH copia tod paxapiov Kai évddEov TlavAov, 65 . « » Spiv éypawev émioroAds, cf. 2 Pet. iii. 15. TESTIMONIA VETERUM 205 Martyrium Polycarpt. > ee eis THY aiaveov avtov Bacivetav. So Harnack. Lightfoot has érovpaviov, but aidvioy is the reading of two MSS. out of three. Justin Martyr. Harnack puts the date of the Dialogue, 1 cs —160. Dial. 51, kal ev TO peasy THS Tapovotas avToU Xpove, as Tpoepyy, yevijrer Gan aipévets Kal Weviompopijtas ert TH ovepate avTod 7 po- evyrvoe. Otto refers to Matt. vil. 15, xxiv. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 19. But there would seem to be here a reminiscence of 2 Pet. ii. 1, where Wevdorpopyra and aipécets are mentioned in conjunction. In Dial. 82, again, Justin uses the word Wevdodiddéexado, which though, as Dr. Chase remarks, a word of easy formation, is peculiar to 2-Peter. Dial, 81, cvvijxapev Kat 76 eipypévov ote “Hyepa Kupiov as xtAra €ry Otto notes, “Sic Tanchuma, fol. 335 A, Dies det est mille annorum.” Here, again, doubt is legitimate. But we have seen above that Methodius quoted this phrase by name from 2 Pet. lil. 8. Apol. i. 28, Kai yep 0 erruLov7) Tov pendéren Tovro mpatau TOV Ocdv ote TO SS Onaaiay yevos yeyeryrau mpoywaoKel yap TLVaS €k peTavoias cwhyoecGa1, cf 2 Pet. iil. 9. Melito. He flourished in the third quarter of the second century. Apology (in Otto, vol. ix. p. 432), “Etenim aliquando fuit diluuium uenti, et selecti (ad id) homines occisi sunt aquilone uehementi, et relicti sunt iusti ad demonstrationem ueritatis. Rursus alio tempore fuit diluuium aquarum, et perierunt omnes homines et bestiae in multitudine aquarum, et seruati sunt iusti in arca lignea iussu dei. Atque ita ultimo tempore erit diluuium ignis, et ardebit terra cum montibus suis, et ardebunt homines cum simulacris quae fecerunt et cum operibus sculptilibus quae adorauerunt, et ardebit mare cum insulis suis, et seruabuntur iusti ab ira, sicut socii eorum seruati sunt in arca ab aquis diluuii.” On the date of this Syriac version of Melito’s Apology, see Introduction to 1 Peter, p. 10. Dr. Chase takes the deluge of wind to refer to the destruction of the Tower of Babel, which is mentioned in the Szdy//ine Oracles iii. 97 Sqq., in connexion with the destruction of the world by fire, and is inclined to think that Melito is following the Szdy/ rather than 2 Peter. There is, however, a different explanation of the Flood of Wind ; see Otto’s note on the passage, vol. ix. p. 476. But it will be necessary to con- sider the origin of the belief in the approaching destruction of the world by fire more fully in a later section. 206 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER Lrenaeus. Died, 202 or 203. This Father introduces a quotation from 1 Peter with the words Petrus ait in epistola sua (iv. 9. 2); but this phrase does not neces- sarily imply that he knew only one Petrine letter. Irenaeus certainly knew 2 John, which he quotes explicitly and by name (i. 16. 3, iil. 16. 8); yet, says Mr. Warfield, he quotes 1 John (iii. 16. 5, 8) just as he quotes 1 Peter, with the words 7” swa epistola, év TH émistoAyn. ‘Two passages call for notice. iii, I. 1, peta d€ tiv TovTwy efodov Mdpxos 6 pabyrijs Kal épyy- veutys Iérpov kat adros 7a td Ilérpov xypvocdpeva eyypadus jpiv Tapadeowke, There can be little doubt that efod0s here means “death.” It is so used Wisd. ii. 2, vii. 6; Luke ix. 31; 2 Pet agpeueee secular writers it never, so far as I know, bears this sense by itself, though it is commonly used in later Greek in combination with a genitive, €fod0s tov Biov et simm. There is some slight presump- tion, therefore, that here the word may be a reminiscence of the Petrine passage. But, further, there were two traditions as to the date at which Mark composed his Gospel. According to the one he wrote before, according to the other after, the death of Peter. It is a most natural and probable supposition that the latter view was connected with 2 Pet. i.15. Irenaeus does not tell us whence he derived this account of St. Mark’s Gospel, but he no doubt borrowed it from some earlier writer, most probably Papias. Thus it may be argued with some confidence that 2 Peter was known to and accepted by men who lived before Irenaeus, and whose opinions Irenaeus followed. It might, of course, be replied that the writer of 2 Peter was himself following the author or authors of this tradition, but this would hardly be reasonable. v. 23. 2, “‘Dies domini sicut mille anni”; v. 28. 3, 7 yap jmépa Kupiov as xiAvoa. €r7. Irenaeus does not tell us where he found these words which so strongly resemble those of 2 Pet. ii. 8. In both places he con- nects them with Chiliasm ; the world was created in six days, and will last six thousand years. It has been supposed that he borrowed this adaptation of Ps. xc. 4 from Justin, or from Barnabas, or from the Rabbis. But this point also will require to be further con- sidered in a later section. Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne. 177-179. Eus. 7. £. v. 1. 36, 55; 2. 3, e£od0s is used absolutely of “ death.” Ibid. v. 1. 45, 6 8@ dia perov Kaupos od« apyos airots otb€ dKapros éylivero, cf. 2 Pet. i. 8. TESTIMONIA VETERUM 207 The Epistle, then, was known, if not to Irenaeus, to those with whom he was very closely connected. Let us notice another phrase in this letter—v. 1. 48, da ris dvaotpopys aitav BAachypotvres THV Gddv, TovTéoTW of viol Tis amwAcias. Here we seem to find a combination of vers. 2 and 22 of the Fragment of the Apocalypse of eter, which is therefore older than the Viennese letter. Apocalypse of Peter. 110-160, or more nearly 120-140; Harnack. The use of the work by the Viennese Church warns us that the date can hardly be placed after 140. I, ToAXoi e€ airy eoovrar Wevdorpopyrar Kal ddovs Kal ddypara motkira THs arwAcias dudaeovow, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1. I, Tas Wuxas Eavtdv Soxipalovras, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 8. 21, TOrov adypnpov, cf. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 22, 28, BAacdyjodvtes THY 6b0v THs SuKacocivys, Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 2, 21. 30, 7 evroAy, cf. 2 Pet. il. 21, iii. 2. ' In his edition of the Fragment, Professor Harnack (Bruchsticke, . 71) says that the Apocalypse and 2 Peter are dlutsverwandt, but does not pronounce upon the question of priority. In the Chronologie, p. 471, he decides that the author of 2 Peter borrows from the AZocalypse. But I find it quite impossible to accept this view. Before the Asocalypse was written there had been violent persecution (oi dudgavres Tods Sixalovs kat mapaddvres adrovs, 27; the verb ryyavilopevor, 34, belongs to the times of persecution; the word is used in the Viennese letter, Eus. 4. Z. v. 1. 38), of which there is no indication whatever in 2 Peter. Again, the description of hell, suggested as it is by Plato, Aristophanes, Homer, and especially Virgil, certainly points to a later date than the Epistle. Jilicher thinks it not improbable that 2 Peter made use of the Apocalypse ; and Kuhl goes so far as to suppose that 2 Pet. ii. may have been written by the same author as the Afocalypse. The three reasons given by Dr. Chase in the Dictionary of the Bible for thinking it impossible that the author of the Apocalypse should have borrowed from 2 Peter, appear to be wholly unsubstantial. I have suggested in the notes that the whole of the later Petrine literature owes its origin to 2 Pet. i. 15 ; these words gave the busy army of inventors the suggestion and the name for their works of imagination. If this view is tenable, we have here again a remark- able proof of the authority of our Epistle in very early times. It has been said above that the Apocalypse of Peter bears traces of the influence of Virgiland Homer. The general idea which underlies the vision, that our pleasant vices are made the whips to scourge us, may be found in Wisd. xi. 16, dv dv tis duaprdver 816 rovrwv 208 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER xoAaerat, but in its concrete, pictorial development belongs to the Greek and Roman mythology. But even in details the A/ocalvpse closely resembles the Aenezd. Cf. the following passages :— Apoc. 3, Ta pev yap THpara aitov jv evKdTepa Taans xXLdVOS Kal epubporepa TavTos podor, CUVEKEKPATO dé 70 épvO pov adrav TO AcvK@, Kal dros | ov Svvapat eEnyyjoar bau TO KdAXos atta’ 4 TE yap KON airéov ovhy iV. Kal dvOnpa Kal emumperovoa auTOov TO TE ™poowme Kal TOUS @ILOLS, oorepel orepavos €k vapdoordxvos mem heypevos Kal mrouktdwv avOav, 7) ooTEp ‘ipis €v fe TOLAUTH NV avTav 7) elmperea. Virg. Aen, i. 402 ** Dixit, et auertens rosea ceruice refulsit, Ambrosiaeque comae diuinum uertice odorem Spirauere.” For the contrast of white and rose in the complexion of beauty, see the description of Euryalus, Aen. 1x. 431-437, or of Aeneas, Aen. i. 588-593. Ovdy Kop Kal avOnpa is a reminiscence also of Hom. Od. vi. 230, Kad d€ Kapytos OvAas Ke Kopas taxwOivw avOe jpmotas. Apoc. 5, péytatov xOpov éxrds TovTov Tod Kdopov brépAapmpov TO puri, Kai Tov dépa Tov éxel axtiow HAlov KaTaXapmopevoV, Kal THY yhV aityy avOotcav apapavros avbect. Virg. Aen. vi. 637: **Deuenere locos laetos, et amoena uireta Fortunatorum nemorum, sedesque beatas, Largior hic campos aether et lumine uestit Purpureo, solemque suum, sua sidera norunt.” We may remember also the doqodedds Aceywwv Of Hom. Od. xi. 539. Apoc. 6, the phrase rdzos abxunpds, of the place of punishment, is taken from 2 Peter, but, used as it is in the Apocalypse, it calls to mind the words of Virgil, Aen. Vi. 534: ‘Ut tristis sine sole domos, loca turbida, adires.” Apoc. 8, 9, 16, the region of torment is full of boiling mud. Cf. Aen. vi. 296, ‘Turbidus hic coeno uastaque uoragine gurges Aestuat”; 416, “Informi limo”; the boiling mud is that of Phlege- thon. Apoc. 6, ot Koddlovres ayyeAou oKorewov elxov aitav 7d evdupa Kata TOV Gépa TOU TOTOV. Virg. Aden. vi. 555: **Tisiphone . . . palla succincta cruenta.” Apoc. 10, Tos povets eBrerov . . . BeBAnpevovs &v Twt 10m \ lal nr reOAippevy kal rerAnpwpéevw épTerav TovnpOv, Kal tAnTOopévous bd tov Onpiwv éxeivov. TESTIMONIA VETERUM 209 Virg. Aen. vi. 570: “Continuo sontes ultrix accincta flagello Tisiphone quatit insultans, toruosque sinistra Intentans angues uocat agmina saeua sororum.” Apoc. 11, wodoi aides oitwes dwpou érixrovro (text of Canon Armitage Robinson) xa6ypevou éxAacov. Virg. Aen. vi. 426: ‘*TInfantumque animae flentes in limine primo.” It may be strongly suspected that the author of the Apocalypse was a Western, who had read Virgil. The book first comes before our notice at Vienna, and in the Roman JZuratorianum ; and these facts point in the same direction. Further, the Clementina mani- fest so strong an interest in Rome that we may look for their origin, at any rate for that of their Grundschrift, in the same locality. Prob- ably a good deal of the pseudo-Petrine literature came from Rome. But that the whole tone and conception of the Apocalypse is later than 2 Peter seems to me to be beyond a doubt. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement. 130-170. Xvi; yweoKere d€ ore epxerat non 1) pepo. THs Kpivews OS kA iBavos KQ.LOLLEVOS Kal TAKHTOVTL at Suvdpers TOV otpavav Kal Taca 7 yn os pod Bdos eri Tupi THKOMEVOS Kal TOTE HavyceTaL TA Kpipia Kal havepa epyo. Tav avOporwr. The author here quotes Mal. iv. 1 ; Isa. xxxiv. 4, but his view of the world-fire is that of St. Peter. Dr. "Salmon (Introduction, p. 521) suggests that davyjoerar is an attempt to make sense out of the corrupt etpeOyoerar of 2 Pet. il. ro. Add that yuépa kptcews in the New Testament is only found in Matthew’s Gospel, in 1 John, and in 2 Peter. Ignatius. 105-117. Eph., Preface, *Incot Xpictod rod cod yudv: see Lightfoot’s note ; the same phrase recurs Zp. xviii.; Rom. iii.; Polyc. viii., Gir 2e et. i. 3: Eph. xii., WlavAov .. . Os ev wdon emiorody, cf. 2 Pet. iii. no. To. : Trall. xiii. 3s &v @ ctpeBeinnev a dpopot, Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 14. Magn. ix., 4 Cot Hpav avéreader, cf. 2 Pet. i. 19. No one of these phrases can be regarded as conclusive; yet they are worth noticing as probably echoes of 2 Peter. 14 210 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER Barnabas. 70-79, Lightfoot ; 130 or 131, Harnack. XV. 4, mpocéxete, Téxva, Ti Neyer TO Suveré\eoey ev €E tepas’ tovto Aéyer Ore ev ELaxiryiAlors Ereowy ouvTeAcoes Kvpios Ta ovprravta. ‘H yap ypépa tap aire xiAva éry* adros 5€é pro paprupel A€ywv* “Idd OHMEPOV Hepa EoTat ws xiALa Eryn. See remarks on Irenaeus above; but here the zap’ airé comes very close to Peter’s rapa Kvpiw. Hilgenfeld here quotes Zeféo- genesis, 4, ““Und (Adam) lebte 70 Jahre weniger als 1000 Jahre, denn rooo Jahre sind wie Ein Tag nach dem himmlischen Zeug- niss. Desswegen ist geschrieben tiber den Baum des Erkenntnisses : An dem Tage da ihr davon esset, werdet ihr sterben. Darum hat er die Jahre dieses Tages nicht vollendet, sondern er starb an demselben.” Flermas. 110-140, Harnack. In the /astor there are a few words and phrases which may conceivably have been suggested by 2 Peter; zs. iii. 7. 1, tHv O00v tHv adnOuyv: Sim. v. 7. 2, pracpes: Sim. vi. 2. 5, BAEvpa, but in a different sense: Szm. ix. 14. 4, Svovontos: Sim. ix. 22. 1, false teachers are av@adets, Clement of Rome. 93-95, hardly as late as 97, Harnack. Here again we find several phrases which in the New Testament are pecular to 2 Peter; such are 6 zpodyrtikds Adyos, xi. 2: emdmrns (but it is here used of God), lix. 3: p@pos, lxiii. 1: peyadompemys, i. 2. In vii. 6 we read N@e éxypvfev perdvoray, which not unnaturally suggests 2 Pet. ii. 5, N@e dixavoodyys Kypuxa. Bishop Lightfoot in- geniously suggested that Clement may have borrowed his phrase from a lost passage of the pre-Christian third Sibylline book. See his note. Jude. The Epistle of St. Jude may, I believe, be confidently regarded as the earliest attestation of 2 Peter. But the point must be dis- cussed at length in a separate section. § 2. OBSERVATIONS ON THE TESTIMONIA The Second Epistle of St. Peter is very short; its subject, the Cisorders of a particular section of the Church, is of limited in- OBSERVATIONS ON THE TESTIMONIA eet teresi, and is treated in a vague and general way, very unlike that in which the same topic is handled in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and conveying little information about the persons and circumstances in view; and it contains very few quotable phrases. It is probably very seldom quoted even in the present day. Yet its attestation is strong; if we accept the evidence of the Apocalypse of Peter, very strong; and if we accept that of Jude, overwhelming. Its authenticity was doubted by many in Jerome’s time, because its style was supposed to differ from that of the First Epistle. Eusebius believed that it was not the work of St. Peter, chiefly because he could find no clear instance of its use by the “ancient presbyters.” Origen knew that it was regarded with doubt, but gives no reason for the doubt, and was himself rather inclined to accept the Epistle. Of Clement we ‘are expressly informed that he gave it a place in his Bible. Before the time of Clement, if we put aside the Afocalypse and Jude, we can only detect scattered phrases and words, which are found in 2 Peter, and of which several are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Even scattered words and phrases, such as 600s ris éAnOetus, edk apyds ovde Gxapros, aiwvios BactAEla, 6 tpopytikds Adyos, dvc- vontos, have a certain weight. Phrases have histories. Even in our own time how many turns of expression are in vogue which, though apparently quite casual, have yet a definite origin, and mark the date of the document in which they occur. Not to speak of really great coinages, such as “evolution” or ‘‘ survival of the fittest,” let us take such trivial instances as ‘“ within a measurable distance of practical politics,” “grand old man,” “lost leader,” “honest doubt,” “sweetness and light.” Every one of these current insignificant phrases belongs to a definite period. But they have become current, that is to say, they are constantly used by people who have not the slightest idea where they come from. The same fate may have befallen 2 Peter; the Church of Vienna, for example, may have quoted one of its phrases, and yet never have read the Epistle itself. Indeed, there is reason for thinking that the Epistle did ) not enjoy a wide circulation. Otherwise it would be difficult to ) account for the extremely bad state of the text. To this point attention has been drawn in the notes; but it will be of service to collect here those passages in which the best attested readings of the MSS. are either certainly or very probably wrong, er in which variants existed at an extremely early date. i. 2, TOD Meod kai “Incod rod Kupiov juav. The right reading here is very probably rod Kupiov juadv. See note. ~ il. 4, oupots. This is probably the right reading. But K L P have ceipais, and 212 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER this seems to have been what Jude found in his copy of the Epistle, and paraphrased by decpots aidiors. il. 13, ddtKovpevor proGov ddikias. This is the reading of SBP, the Bodleian Syriac, and the Armenian ; it is adopted by Westcott and Hort; Tregelles gives it a place in the margin ; and Tischendorf, though he reads xoyuov- pevot, remarks in his note, “ddicovpevou si aptum sensum praebere iudicabitur omnino praeferendum erit.” ACKL, all other MSS., the Vulgate, m”, Jerome, the Sahidic, Coptic, Aethiopic, Ephraem, Theophylact, Oecumenius have or translate Koprovpevor. Syr” has a word which Tischendorf translates emev/es. It is surely vain to try to get sense out of dducovpevor. Perhaps it is worth while to notice that in the Sinaitic MS. dé:covjevor comes at the end of a line, while the next line ends with dé:xias. It is just possible that a hasty scribe may have taken the déux- from the latter word. Kopwovpevor will make sense, but not good sense. A few verses below pucGds aduxias means the temporal gain of unrighteousness, and the phrase can hardly have any other sense in the former place. What we appear to want is a participle which should give the sense of “seeking after.” Lmentes might suggest dvovpevor. Kopwovpevor has the look of a mere conjectural emendation. li. 13, dmrarais, ayarais is the right reading, though it is supported only by B, the Versions, and Jude. li. 14, porxadidos. So BCK LP: sA and three cursives have pouyad/as. MorxyaAts means “adulterous” (Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4), or “an adulteress”” (Rom. vii. 3; Jas. iv. 4). “Eyes full of an adulteress ” is certainly nonsense. Movxadis is not a classical word, but occurs in later Greek ; see Lobeck’s Phrynichus, p. 452, note. Motyadia apparently does not exist, and is indeed an impossible formation, as there is no verb potxyadevw, nor noun potxados. It may be observed that in ii. 18 the Sinaitic has paOytavdrytos for patavdrytos. The scribe had the word pafyrys in his head, and did not perceive his error till he had written the first twe syllables. So here some still earlier scribe may have meant to write porxias, but poryadis occurred to him, and he inserted a wrong syllable. Hence came the unmeaning potyaddas, which some well-intentioned copyist cor- rected into potxadidos. This error is older than any of the existing MSS. . li. 15, TOD Boodp. SoACKLP. Bhas rod Bedp pisOov ddixias yydrnoav, & has tov Bewopodp pucbov do.kias nya noev. Probably in the original of the Sinaitic the words rod Bedp ds were illegible, and the scribe did OBSERVATIONS ON THE TESTIMONIA 213 the best he could with them. ‘The name Bosor does not exist. It will be observed that no single MS. has the right reading rod Bewp os. li. 16, tapadpoviar. This, again, is a vox nzhilt, but it is the reading of all the great MSS. Six cursives have zapadpoovvnv, three mapavouiav: the latter is the better conjecture, as it is Peter’s habit to repeat words, and zrapavoyias occurs immediately before. ill. 3, €wmravypov7. SoxABCP and many cursives. But this word also did not exist, and therefore cannot have been used by St. Peter. lil. 10, KaTakanoeTa, So A Land some of the Versions; C has adavo6yoovra : 8 BK P and some Versions etpeOyoeror: the Sahidic and Bodleian Syriac translate zon inuenientur; am fu harl omit the clause. Kara Kanoetat, apavicOyoovrat, seem to be mere corrections; the right reading is probably ody etpeOyjoeror. But here again we find an error which is older than any of the MSS. A document which exhibits so many serious textual corruptions can hardly have been very generally read, or very carefully guarded during the first stages of its existence. Yet there is some reason for thinking that 2 Peter exerted a considerable and widespread influence in very early times. Four points call for notice. One is the tradition preserved by Irenaeus, that the Gospel of «) St. Mark was written after the death of St. Peter. It may, of course, be said that St. Peter does not allude to St. Mark’s Gospel in i. 15. But it may aiso be thought that he does ; and certainly his words may have been so understood. It is a fair conclusion that the statement given by Irenaeus was built by earlier writers on the Petrine passage. The idea that a day of the Lord was a thousand years, existed @ among the Rabbis. But it was by no means the only idea. Some held that the “‘day” was 365 years; some that it was 600. There was also great variety among the opinions held as to the duration of Messiah’s reign ; the Rabbis leave us to choose between 40, 60, go, 365, 400, 1000, 2000, and 7000 years. Elieser and some others fixed upon 1000 years, and defended this number by combining Isa. Ixili. 4 with Ps. xc. 4 (see Gfrorer, Jahrhundert des Hels, ii. p- 252 sqq.). This is the opinion which underlies Apoc. xx. 4. In the Christian writers quoted above this peculiar explanation of the “day” is always connected with the millenary reign of Christ. It cannot be maintained that they all based their Chiliasm on our Epistle ; yet Methodius expressly quotes 2 Peter, and the words of Barnabas bear a very close resemblance to the Petrine passage. It may be asked how the Fathers came to adopt one particular Rabbinic view as to the duration of a day of the Lord, and one 214. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER particular verse of the Old Testament as a proof of this view, unless they were guided by a Christian document to which they attached high authority. But the most remarkable fact is that St. Peter does not give his adaptation of Ps. xc. 4 any chiliastic turn at all. He employs it simply to prove the long-suffering of God, and to account for the delay of the Parousia. This is surely a sign of great antiquity. From the time of the Apocalypse and 4arnabas to that of the Alexandrines, Chiliasm was practically the universal belief of the Church (see Justin, Z7ypho, 80-82), and it is extremely difficult to suppose that the author of 2 Peter, dealing as he is with the very verse out of which Chiliasm arose, could have refrained from some allusion to that opinion, if he had been writing at any date in the second century, or even late in the first. It may be observed here that he says not one word about the signs of the End. Clearly he felt strongly bound by the Lord’s command not to speculate on the day or hour of the Parousia. This command was soon for- gotten, and its observance ought to count largely in favour of our ‘author. Another interesting point is the belief in the destruction of the world by fire. This also became the predominant opinion. Writing about the middle of the second century, Celsus says that Christians generally believed in a world-conflagration (Origen, contra Ce/lsum, iv. 11, 79), and treats the belief as arising from a misunderstanding of the teaching of Greek philosophers, that ék- mupooes and éruxAvoets alternate in the history of the world. Origen, in answer, refers to Josephus, Anz. i. 2. 3; to Deut. iv. 24; Dan. vil. 10; Mal. iii. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 12, but not to 2 Peter, and insists that the office of the fire, as described in Scripture, is to purify and not to destroy. It may be suspected that here we have a glimpse of one of Origen’s reasons for his doubts about 2 Peter. In Clement, S/vom. v. 14. 121, 122, we find an iambic passage, which is quoted also in the de monarchia (Otto, vol. iii. p. 136), and there attributed to Sophocles. The verses speak, not only of the world-fire, but of the Two Ways, and may be later than Barnadéas, But the words daira tamiyeva kal petdpois prefer paveto Come very close to 2 Pet. ili. ro, Justin, Afol. i. 20, appeals to the Sibyl and Hystaspes as authorities for the belief in the world-fire. The first reference is to Orac. Sib. iv. 172-1773 this book is supposed to have been com- posed in the time of Titus or Domitian. The prophecies of Hystaspes were Christian; as to their age, Clement (Strom. vi. 5. 43) appears to say that they were quoted in the Ilérpov kypuvypa, the date of which is not later than A.D. 140-150 (Chron- ologie, p. 472). It may be suspected that both Hystaspes and the fourth book of the Orac/es belong to the same family as the pseudo- . 2 P a. &. a OBSERVATIONS ON THE TESTIMONIA 215 Petrine literature. Justin’s words explain the opening lines of the famous hymn: ** Dies irae, dies illa Soluet saeclum in fauilla, Teste Dauid cum Sibylla” ; where the testimony of the Sibyl is coupled with that of the Psalms (probably Ps. xcvii. 3). But whence did the Sibyl and Hystaspes derive their opinion that the world would be destroyed by fire? It was held by the Valentinians, who may have borrowed it from the Stoics; but it was opposed by Irenaeus (i. 7. 1), whose own belief was that the world would be transformed by fire, but not destroyed (v. 36. 1). It is not to be found precisely in the Old Testament, though ° there are passages such as Ps. xcvii. 3, “A fire goeth before Him, and burneth up His adversaries round about” (cf. Isa. Exxiv. 4, li. 6; Ixvi. 15, 16, 22; Mal. iv. 1, quoted by 2 Clement xvi.), where the fire of the Lord’s presence, the refiner’s fire, is described as burning up all evil, and so making a new heaven and carth. The general language of the New Testament does not go beyond this (Heb. xii. 29; 1 Cor. iii. 13, vii. 31; 2 Thess. i, 8: Apoc. xxl. 1). Origen referred to Josephus, Ant. 253; 7 po- eipyxev *"Adap dav ic pov Tov dLuv éoecOar, Tov pev Kar’ ioydv zupds, Tov €repov dé Kata Biav Kal rAnOiv Bdaros : but this Adamic prophecy puts the world-fire before the Deluge, and this order is not merely accidental, as appears from the account of Seth and his two pillars, which immediately follows. We should infer from the words of Josephus that Adam foretold a catastrophe either by fire or by water; or again, if Josephus is quoting loosely, and we are not to insist upon “the sequence of events, we may suppose that he spoke of the Deluge, and of, the overthrow of Sodom. It is certain that the destruction of the world by fire was not an article of faith among the Jews, for Philo argues strongly against it (de zac. Mund). Here again we may ask how a doctrine which was regarded) with much suspicion, as belonging to Stoicism and as preached by heretics, came, nevertheless, to be widely held, unless it was sup- ported by some apostolic document. The Second Epistie of St. Peter must have been written before the persecution of Nero, and therefore must be older than the fourth book of the Szby//ine Oracles. It is, then, quite a tenable‘ opinion that the belief in the world-fire arose ultimately out of this Epistle. Lastly, it is not improbable that the whole prolific family of pseudo-Petrine literature springs from the hint given in 2 Pet. i. 15. The apostle had promised something more, and the temptation to supply it was irresistible. =~ i) 216 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER § 3. RELATION OF 2 PETER TO JUDE. Of these two writers one borrowed from the other ; this is quite certain. The priority of 2 Peter was affirmed with confidence by Luther. No one, he says, can deny it. But since the time of Eichhorn the opposite view has gained ground, and is maintained with confidence quite as great. Holtzmann writes, “It is not necessary again to refute this hypothesis (of the priority of 2 Peter), which at the present day is practically abandoned.” Weiss says that “there can be no question ” as to the priority of Jude. Professor Harnack, Reuss, Jillicher, von Soden, Dr. Salmon, are of the same opinion. Yet Luther’s judgment has not been left without supporters. It has been defended in recent times by Dr. Lumby (in the Speaker's Commentary), Mansel, Plummer (in Ellicott’s Commentary), Spitta, and Zahn. An intermediate position is held by Kuhl, who thinks that 2 Pet. il. I-11. 2 is an interpolation ; that the original Epistle was used by Jude ; that the interpolation was taken from Jude. ‘This peculiar view appears to rest mainly on two supports—(1) that Jude 17, 18 is a quotation from 2 Pet. ili. 3; (2) that the Libertines of the second chapter have nothing to do with the Mockers of the third. The weakness of the latter argument is palpable. The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient. We shall see as we go on that the style of the Epistle is uniform, and that the second chapter has natural links of connexion with the first and with the third. Nor is there any mark of dislocation at the beginning or end of the passage which Kuhl supposes to have been thrust into the original text. When two writers, whose date cannot be precisely ascertained, are clearly in the position of borrower and lender, the question of priority must turn to a great degree on points of style, and these will always strike different minds in different ways. If the arrange- ment of the one writer is more logical, and his expression clearer, than those of the other, it may be thought either that the first has improved upon the second, or that the second has spoiled the first. The criterion is of necessity highly subjective, and no very positive result will be attained unless we can show that the one has mis- understood the other, that the one uses words which are not only not used by the other, but belong to a different school of thought, or that the one has definitely quoted the other. ‘There are passages in our Epistles which furnish us with these means of decision. (a) 2 Pet. ii. 4, ceipots Copov taprapwcas: Jude 6, decpois aidious. Jude’s words are most probably to be explained as a paraphrase of the ancient variant cepais. It is just possible to find both the RELATION OF 2 PETER. TO JUDE 27. “pits” and the “chains” in Enoch (see notes), but it is not easy to think that the two writers are here drawing independently from the same well. 2 Pet. ii. 11, od dépovor kat aitav rapa Kupiw BAdodypov kpiow; Jude 9, ov« érdAunoe Kplow éreveyxety BPAaodypias. St. Peter says that the angels do not bring against dda: (the Fallen Angels) ‘‘a railing accusation in the presence of the Lord” (see note on the passage). This gives a_perfectly good sense; the Angels are not like the False Teachers who do bring railing, scandalous, passionate charges against dofa, the leaders of the Church, and commit this sin in the presence and hearing of the Lord. But here Jude inserts his reference to the Assumption oj Moses. he devil claimed the body of Moses on the ground that he was a murderer (because Moses had slain the Egyptian). Michael does not “‘charge the devil with blasphemy,” as he might have done, but contents himself with saying, “‘The Lord rebuke thee.” (See the Assumption of Moses n Hilgenfeld, Mouwwm Testamentum extra Canonem receptum ; the passage in question does not exist in the large fragment which survives in a Latin translation, but is sufficiently attested.) ‘The correct sense of xpiow éreveyxety BAao- gypias is given by Origen, £/. ad Alexandrinos, Lomm. xvi. p. 8, where, after referring to the words of Jude, he proceeds, ‘“ quidam eorum qui libenter contentiones reperiunt, adscribunt nobis et nostrae doctrinae blasphemiam,” ‘“‘they impute blasphemy to me and my doctrine.” ‘The passage exists only in a Latin translation, but the meaning is quite clear. Jude has, of course, omitted rapa Kupéa, because the dispute between Michael and Satan did not occur in the presence of the Lord. But he has altered and spoiled St. Peter’s point, and quite destroyed the parallel. The False Teachers did bring railing accusations, but did not bring accusations of blasphemy. (6) Jude has certain words, which may be called Pauline, and are certainly not Petrine. KaAnrtos, 1 ; dyvos (in the sense of ‘‘Christians ”), 3 3 mvedpua, in the sense of “indwelling spirit,” and Wvyuxos, 19. Per- haps we cannot lay great stress on the first of these words, but the second most probably, and the third and fourth certainly, are alien from the Petrine vocabulary. To St. Peter yvyy means the soul, the seat of the religious life, and he could not possibly use Wvxixds in the sense of carnal. Now it is surely far more natural to suppose that Jude was in the habit of using Pauline language, and slipped these words in without any sense of incongruity, than that 2 Peter, while following Jude slavishly elsewhere, cut out these words on doctrinal grounds. Anyhow, Jude mixes up the psychology of St. Peter with that of St. Paul, and this fact seems to tell heavily against him. (c) 2 Pet. ili, 3, 4, rodto mpdtovy ywwoxovtes Oru eAevoovta er éoxatwv TOV Hu called deordrqs, He may also be called povos deordrns in distinction not from the Father, but from all false masters. Cf. note on ver. 25. 5. Gropvjoa. Cf. 2 Pet. i. 12, trouusvjocev: i. 13, i. 15, prynpynvy movetobor: iil, 1, Sveyecpev ev trouvyoe. See note on orovony, ver. 3. Either Peter has caught up and reiterated certain unimportant words from Jude, or Jude had read the first chapter of the Petrine Epistle and adopts from it words which, from their iteration there, were likely to catch the ear. The latter is the more probable view. Jude exhibits manifest tokens of haste, abbrevia- tion, and confusion. A glance back at the preceding Epistle will show that St. Peter uses “remind” quite naturally, where he is recalling to the memory of his readers lessons that they had cer- tainly often been taught. Jude “reminds” his people of the instances of judgment, none of which belonged to the catechism, and some of which, at least the story of Michael, may have been quite new to them. The 6€¢ also is difficult. Probably we must find the antithesis in doeBets and dpvovpevor: they are impious and deny the Lord, “but” God punishes such men. Certainly the sense is more clearly unfolded in 2 Peter; and this is a remarkable fact, because Jude is the more skilful writer of the two. eiddtas Gag mdévta. Though once for all ye know all things.” But the things which Christians know once for all are those which are included in “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” not historical instances of God’s wrath. Here again we have a confused reminiscence of xaizep ciddras, 2 Pet. i. 12, where the words are quite intelligible. For the comparison between the instances of Judgment as they are given in the two Ej;istles, see Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 221. The first instance, that of the destruction of the sinful Israelites in the desert, is peculiar to Jude. It reminds us of Heb. iii. 18-iv. 2 ; 1 Cor. x. 5-11. Its introduction here disturbs the strictly chrono- logical order of the instances given in 2 Peter. 328 NOTES ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE Stu 6 Kuptos. ‘That the Lord, when He had brought the people safe out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them which believed not.” By ‘the Lord” is no doubt meant Christ, cf. 1 Cor. x. 4, 9. With 7d devrepov cf. devrepov, 1 Cor. xil. 28; éx Sevrépov, Heb. ix. 28. Here it marks a strong contrast, and sharpens the point of the warning. ‘It is true that the Lord saved Israel from Egypt; yet notwithstanding He afterwards slew the faithless. So he has saved you, but so also He may slay you.” The text of the verse is uncertain. NS K L insert a second tuds after