So far, then, it appears (a) that the somewhat scanty evidence as to the Neronian persecution does not support the theory, that it differed essentially from later persecutions in regard to the method of procedure against the Christians ; (δ) that, if such a difference were proved to exist, the language of 1 P would be as natural from the
en of a Christian teacher in the earlier as in the ater period.
We are thus brought to the question— What was the nature of the sufferings to which those to whom the Epistle was addressed, like their fellow- Christians throughout the world (5°), were exposed 1 Were they the victims of a persecution directed by the State? ‘The clearest point,’ writes Dr. Hort (p. 1), ‘is that [the Epistle] was written during a time of rising persecution to men suffering under it’; and he suggests that this was either ‘the persecution begun by Nero, or a secondary per- secution arising from that,’ or a persecution pecnle to Asia Minor, ‘independent of any
nown persecution bearing an emperor’s name, and perhaps even a little earlier than Nero’s persecution’ (p. 3f.), adding that the language about the emperor and his officers (2%) is in favour of the second of these two alternatives. ‘The Christian congregations,’ says Jiilicher (Zinl. p. 135; ef. Harnack, Die Chronol. p. 453), ‘and that throughout the whole world, have now to endure bitter suffering, to bear the fiery proving
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
of their faith (4)—a trial so bitter that now the end of all things cannot be far off (477). . . The period of systematic persecutions has pepane On
e other hand, Zahn (Zin. ii. p. 34) finds it hard to comprehend how a ‘ persecution of the Christian confession, regulated by the imperial power or by the magistracy, can be discovered in the Epistle.’ A decision between views so diametrically opposed can be arrived at only by an examination of the Epistle itself. The passages bearing on the ques- tion may be conveniently considered under the following heads :—
@) 47 (‘the end of all things is at hand This phrase is 8 commonplace with those (e.g. Jiilicher, Harnack) who insist that the of Asia Minor were enduring the extreme
of persecution. The context, however, gives no countenance at all to the supposition that the expectation of the end was connected in the writer’s mind with the cruelty of the Church’s sufferings. He draws from the expectation the lesson, not of patience but of devout sobriety—a duty dealt wit) ὋΣ ΓΝ preceting context, τῆς 9 Ὁ very kindred speaking of ‘the
proving of faith’). The language in the former of these passages, an echo of Ja 1%, is quite eral αν ποικίλοις tuparueis). In the other the word πύρωσις, derived from Pr 2721 (where it is re lel to doxiuser), emphasizes, not the intensity of the suffering but its testing and proving nature, and thus the aa a AG oe ‘the “att trial’ (AV, RV), as commonly ers’ , Suggests misleading associations.* It should be remembered that the locus classicus on παιδεία in the NT (He “el addressed to men who had ‘not yet resisted unto bl * The words which follow about participation in ‘the suff of the Christ,’ while they imply the idea of trials endured for His sake, do not go beyond such passages as 2 Co 18 410, Ph 12%, Col 1% (ct. Ro 818, 5 ὁ 417). With these two es may be associated 54!., where the devil is regarded as
6 author of “ea ται the faithful, but where the point of the reference lies. not in the greatness of those sufferings but in the ibilities or spiritual declension which they involve.
(8) 2191. 814. 17 419.19 610, In this group of passages ‘suffering’ for Ohrist’s sake is undoubtedly spoken of. But πάσχειν (cl. 1Th 214, 2 Th 15, Gal 34) is an inclusive word; in 22 it is a synonym of χκολαφίζεσθα:.
(4) 212 39.16 4414. From these passages it appears that — and insults had a prominent place among these
sufferings.’
(5) -17, The form of these hypothetical sentences (ris ὁ
ne ; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ χαὶ πάσχοιτε [ποῦ εἰ πάσχετε), and εἰ υΐλοι {not θέλει] ; cf. εἰ 3é 16) makes it clear that the writer regards suffering for Christ as no more than a possibility for at least some of those whom he is addressing. Such language is incon- sistent with the hypothesis that a general persecution, organized by the Roversiment, was raging fiercely.
(6) 315 415%. Both these es are very frequently supposed to deal with the relation of Christians and Roman magistrates. But in neither case can this reference be sustained. On 415f see above. In 816 (ἔτοιμεοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι κιτιλ. the word σαντί as well as the expression μετὰ σραὔτυτος καὶ φόβου show that the injunction deals with the general inter- course of the Christians with their pagan neighbours (cf. Col 46 σῶς δι ὑμᾶς iv) ἱκάστῳ Maen Ω ΞΕ
2156. The is an echo of St. Paul's words in Ro 1815. But in p of the general language of Ro (ἐξουσίαν mk cep νος αἱ οὖσαι ikourias . . . οἱ ἄρχοντες) We have in 1 P aclear and detailed reference to the imperial government—‘ the emperor (SaeiAsés),’ ‘provincial governors sent by him (ἡγεμόνες δι᾿ αὐτοῦ πιωμπόμενοι)." Moreover, St. Peter's description of the