Cu. V.] THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER. 673
| have written (éypawa). Lit., Z wrote. An example of what is known as the epistolary aorist. The writer regards the time of writing as his correspondent will do when he shall have received the letter. We say in a letter, Zwrite. Paul, writing to Philemon, says avérreurpa, J sent ; since to Philemon the act of sending would be already past. Therefore in using this form of expression Peter does not refer to the second epistle, nor to another now lost, but to the present epistle.
Briefly (dv dd¢ywv). Lit., through few (words). Compare Heb. xiii. 22, where the expression is dua Bpayéwr, through
brief words.
Testifying (éipaptupav). Only here in New Testament. See on ver. 1.
Wherein ye stand (eis fv éotnxate). The best texts read ornre, imperative. So Rev., stand ye fast therein. Lit., “anto which stand,” the preposition with the verb having the preg- nant force of entering into and standing fast in.
13. The church. The word is not in the Greek, but is sup- plied with the feminine definite article 7. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this feminine ar- ticle. Some suppose a reference to Peter’s own wife; others, to some prominent Christian woman in the church. Compare 2 John 1. The majority of interpreters, however, refer. it to the church.
Babylon. Some understand in a figurative sense, as mean- ing Rome; others, literally, of Babylon on the Euphrates. In favor of the former view are the drift of ancient opinion and the Roman Catholic interpreters, with Luther and several noted modern expositors, as Ewald and Hoffmann. This, too, is the view of Canon Cook in the “ Speaker’s Commentary.” In favor of the literal interpretation are the weighty names of Alford, Huther, Calvin, Neander, Weiss, and Reuss. Professor Sal- mond, in his admirable commentary on this epistle, has so forcibly summed up the testimony that we cannot do better than to give
43
674 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. V.
his comment entire: “In favor of this allegorical interpreta- tion it is urged that there are other occurrences of Babylon in the New Testament as a mystical name for Rome (Apoc. xiv. 8; xviii. 2, 10); that it is in the highest degree unlikely that Peter should have made the Assyrian Babylon his residence or missionary centre, especially in view of a statement by Josephus indicating that the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from that city and neighborhood ; and that tradition connects Peter with Rome, but not with Babylon. The fact, however, that the word is mystically used in a mystical book like the Apocalypse —a book, too, which is steeped in the spirit and ter- minology of the Old Testament—is no argument for the mysti- cal use of the word in writings of a different type. The alle- gorical interpretation becomes still less likely when it is observed that other geographical designations in this epistle (ch. i. 1) have undoubtedly the literal meaning. The tradition itself, too, is uncertain. The statement in Josephus does not bear all that it is made to bear. There is no reason to suppose that, at the time when this epistle was written, the city of Rome was cur- rently known among Christians as Babylon. On the contrary, wherever it is mentioned in the New Testament, with the sin- gle exception of the Apocalypse (and even there it is distin- guished as ‘ Babylon, the great’), it gets its usual name, Rome. So far, too, from the Assyrian Babylon being practically in a deserted state at this date, there is very good ground for believ- ing that the Jewish population (not to speak of the heathen) of the city and vicinity was very considerable. For these and other reasons a succession of distinguished interpreters and his- torians, from Erasmus and Calvin, on to Neander, Weiss, Reuss, Huther, etc., have rightly held by the literal sense.”