06.32. The General Epistles of Peter and Jude

Chapter 31 The General Epistles of Peter and Jude The second of the authors of the so-called “General” epistles in the order of our Bibles is Peter, for whose personal history it is only necessary to examine such passages as John 1:35-42; Mark 8:29-30; Matthew 4:18-22; Matthew 16:13-23; Matthew 26:57-75; Acts 1:1-26; Acts 2:1-47; Acts 3:1-26; Acts 4:1-37; Acts 5:1-42; Acts 6:1-15; Acts 7:1-60; Acts 8:1-40; Acts 9:1-43; Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30; Acts 12:1-25, and Galatians 2:11-21. Of the latter part of his life nothing is definitely known, although tradition holds that after his visit to Antioch mentioned in the Scripture last referred to, he remained at Jerusalem some years, then visited Syria and the Asiatic provinces mentioned in his first epistle (where he wrote that epistle), afterwards going to Rome where he was crucified in the reign of Nero, according to the prediction shadowed forth in John 21:18-19. The question of Peter’s visiting Rome, however, is one still open to very earnest dispute; Roman Catholics alleging that he was the founder of the church there, actually residing in that city for twenty-five years; others denying that he ever visited the city at all; while a third class maintains the position indicated in the former paragraph. That Peter was not the founder of the church of Rome, however, would seem to be almost necessitated by Paul’s words in Romans 1:8-15, compared with his declaration in 2 Corinthians 10:15-16. The destination of the first epistle as indicated in the opening verse, suggests that of James dealt with in the preceding chapter. These “strangers” were doubtless “sojourners of the dispersion,” i.e. Jewish Christians for the most part, scattered abroad in these various provinces, although some Gentiles were also distributed among them as we may judge by such allusions as 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 4:3, etc. The place where the epistle was written seems to have been Babylon (1 Peter 5:13), which some writers, chiefly Roman Catholics, have affected to apply, mystically, to Rome. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that at the time the epistle was written such a title as “Babylon” was ever given to Rome, although afterwards ecclesiastical writers accepted it, basing their opinion on certain allusions to Babylon in the book of Revelation, has, for example, Revelation 14:1-20).

Late interpretations of this mysterious book of Revelation are increasingly in favor of the idea that Babylon therein means the ancient city of that name, revived in the last days, preparatory to the final judgment falling upon her, in the fulfillment of the early prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. But at the time of the Reformation, and incident thereto, the interpretation was all the other way, and Babylon was none other than Rome, whose judgment for her wicked treatment of the saints was soon to be executed.

It was this that gave countenance on the part of Protestants to the old time holding of the Roman Catholics that Babylon in I Peter may have meant Rome. But as we have intimated, there is no good reason why such a figurative name should have been given to it in the time of Peter, while as another pointedly says, “such a piece of symbolism is plainly unsuited to epistolary writing.” The general object of the epistle is stated by its author in 1 Peter 5:12, as that of “exhorting and testifying” concerning “the true grace of God.” This “true grace of God” is revealed practically in the first twelve verses of the epistle which conclude the doctrinal part, the remainder being given to the application of the truth in those verses. Another way to analyze the epistle is to style its theme “The Living Hope and its Obligations.” The “living hope” is set before us in the doctrinal verses referred to; and the obligations follow to the end of the epistle. Happily, no doubt has ever existed from the beginning as to the genuineness or canonicity of this book. The same cannot be said, however, of the second epistle of this same author, which was not mentioned by any of the earliest Christian writers. The reason for the doubt as to its authorship is found altogether in the differences of its tone and style from that of the first epistle, but this reason is hardly conclusive in view of the points of resemblance between the two epistles which may easily be discovered, and also in view of the fact that the second epistle is treating of an entirely different subject from the first|in an entirely different way. “The first epistle is chiefly hortatory, the second polemical.” Furthermore, while the earliest Christian writers do not mention the epistle, the later writers do, i.e., those of the fourth century, all of whom attribute it to Peter, and all of whom had better opportunity for original investigation of the matter than have we today. The second epistle seems to have been addressed to the same persons as the first (see 2 Peter 3:1-18); but while the first was, to a great extent, an exhortation to patience under trial and suffering, the second is an exhortation to fidelity and “perseverance in the truth amid prevailing error.” It is interesting to note, too, that this prevailing error related to the second coming of Christ which the scoffers of that early period denied, as do their successors in our own time.

“Among the peculiarities of this epistle is a remarkable resemblance of certain passages, especially in the second chapter, to the epistle of Jude; from which it is impossible to resist the conclusion, either that one writer quoted from the other, or both from a common source.” Some think Jude was the original and some think Peter, but it is impossible to determine the point nor is it essential.

Speaking of Jude, we feel led to incorporate our allusions to him in this chapter, somewhat out of his proper place, in order to devote the following one to the concluding writings of John.

While Jude describes himself as the brother of James he omits to designate which James, and we have seen in a previous chapter that there were three leading personages of that name in the apostolic church. There was indeed an apostle by the name of Jude, other than Judas Iscariot, but this could hardly have been he, it is thought, because he would have so designated himself rather than as brother of James. Jude 1:17 also intimates that he was not an apostle. Most commentators or expositors regard him as the brother of James the author of the epistle, and hence as being himself, like that James, one of the brothers of our Lord, but nothing further is known concerning him. The epistle seems to be addressed to Christians in general, though it contains so many allusions to the contents of the Old Testament as to suggest that Jews rather than Gentiles may have been especially in mind. For such allusions see Jude 1:5; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:11, etc. The epistle is notable also for its non Biblical or rather extra Biblical allusions (see Jude 1:2; Jude 1:14 particularly). These allusions are to Jewish apocalyptic books of about the time of Christ or a little earlier, and while such books cannot be classed as canonical or inspired for reasons already given in this work, yet the quotations from or allusions to their contents, herein indicated, take on all that character because of their employment by the pens of those who were as truly inspired to quote from truth or fact elsewhere expressed as to express themselves in an original form. The canonicity or genuineness of Jude may be accepted without question. Similar objections may be raised against it as have appeared in connection with other of the epistles treated heretofore, but the replies would be practically of the same character as well.