Form of christianity dating back to luther and calvin
Even then, the church historian Eusebius informs us that Origen expressed some reservation. has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also; for it is doubted.” About A. 325, Eusebius classified 2 Peter with the so-called controversial writings and refused to include this epistle in the Canon. 397) placed 2 Peter among the accepted apostolic writings.
It is an inheritance reserved in heaven for the Christian, who in turn is being preserved by God (1:3-5.) Peter presents this blessed truth concerning the Christian’s living hope and glorious inheritance at the very outset of his epistle in order to encourage his fellow believers as they encounter the manifold, and sometimes fiery, trials in this present world.For instance, Peter’s own severe testing of faith (Lk.-32) accords with his reference to the proving of his readers’ faith (1 Pet.The Epistle was probably written from Rome (“ being a cryptic name for that imperial city), perhaps in A. 64-65, when persecution had already broken out in Rome and was likely to be a serious threat to the churches in the eastern provinces as well.Indeed, the ominous shadow of persecution (as well as the ever-present hostility of the world against Christ and His church, note John -19) was the occasion for this epistle.Furthermore, the actual character of the “persecution” referred to in 1 Peter seems to be non-official. On the more positive side, there is evidence within the Epistle itself that bears testimony to its Petrine authorship.
That is to say, Peter does not appear to be alluding to any State-instigated persecution directed against the Church, the type of persecution experienced by the churches in Smyrna (Rev. Certain autobiographical touches in the Epistle can readily be linked with items of information about Peter contained in the Gospels.
There are clear parallels to First Peter in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A. 95.) Clement’s reference to the blood of Christ as being “precious” is strikingly similar to Peter’s statement in . For example, in his Epistle to the Philippians Polycarp incorporates 1 Peter ,24, even using the same word for “tree” as did Peter (E. 372.) Toward the end of the second century, writing in about A. 185, Irenaeus not only quotes 1 Peter 1:8 but also introduces the quotation with the words, “and Peter says in his epistle.” In the next century, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian quote Peter’s epistle and refer to the apostle by name. Having said this, it must be pointed out that neither this epistle nor the Epistle of Second Peter are mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment (the earliest extant listing of canonical books.) Some scholars have supposed that this could only mean that the church at Rome toward the close of the second century did not regard these epistles as canonical.
69-156) there is much evidence that the Epistle of First Peter was known and used by the Church. 264-340) notes that Papias, who had been bishop of Asia Minor around A. 125, “used quotations from the first Epistle of John and likewise also from that of Peter” (S. 6.) Thus, there is clear and ample evidence that the early Church received this epistle as authentic and apostolic.
However, it must be noted that the Muratorian Fragment is just that, a fragment. 163), First Peter is one of the finest examples of Greek prose in the New Testament. Numerous scholars have found it difficult to accept the Petrine authorship of this epistle on the ground that the language and style are correct Greek and the form is too idiomatic to be the work of and “unlettered and ignorant” Galilean fisherman (as Peter is described in Acts ) to whom Greek was a foreign language (A. 1129.) The rebuttal to this criticism is to be found in Peter’s own testimony: (.) Though Peter claims to have written the epistle, he says that it was “through” Silvanus that he did so. 381-382) goes on to say, “The only alternative that remains is …
The clearly corrupted state of the text makes any certain inferences from omissions precarious. (Note: Scholars are in general agreement that Silvanus is none other than Silas, the associate of the Apostle Paul whom we meet in the Book of Acts.) Peter adds the comment that Silvanus is a faithful, or trustworthy, brother. Zahn doubts that Peter would use such language merely to state the technical competence of Silvanus as a secretary who faithfully recorded the words dictated to him. that Silvanus’ part in the composition [of the epistle] was so important and so large that its performance required a considerable degree of trustworthiness.” With regard to Silvanus’ (Silas’) role in the composition of First Peter, it is of great interest to note that Paul not only joins Silvanus with himself as in some sense responsible for the Thessalonian Epistles (1 Thess. 1:1), but uses the first person plural very liberally in the text of those epistles.
1:7), and the Lord’s prediction that Peter would thereafter be able to strengthen his brethren meshes with the thrust of the epistle as a whole (note, especially, .) Jesus’ conversation with Peter in Galilee after the resurrection (Jn.