Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadCambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges - 1 Peter 5:12 - 5:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
12. διὰ Σιλουανοῦ. διά may refer (a) to the scribe by whom the Epistle was written or (b) to the messenger by whom it was conveyed. In favour of (a) it may be urged that St Paul certainly employed amanuenses to write his Epistles and that there is strong probability that St Peter did the same. As a Galilean fisherman, it is argued, he could only have a very imperfect knowledge of Greek and, according to tradition, required the services of Mark as his “interpreter,” so that he could hardly have composed such an Epistle himself.
Zahn therefore, following out the suggestion of earlier German writers, maintains that St Peter entrusted the composition of the letter to Silvanus, adding only the last few verses himself, as St Paul usually did. Selwyn, with an ingenuity which is hardly likely to find many supporters, identifies Silvanus with St Luke and argues that he not only wrote this Epistle for St Peter but had also acted as St Paul’s amanuensis in his Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, thus accounting for the coincidences between 1 Pet. and those Epistles. Against (a) it may be urged
(1) that if so important a person as Silas wrote the Epistle but was not the bearer of it we should have expected him to send a salutation himself, as he would certainly be known to some of the readers, having worked in Galatia with St Paul on his second journey,
(2) that the Epistle does not read like a joint production in which St Peter furnished the ideas while another was responsible for the language.
Therefore it is more probable that Silvanus was the messenger by whom the letter was sent. διά is certainly used in that sense in Act 15:23 and it is almost certainly used of the messengers in some of Ignatius’ Epistles. The commendation of Silvanus would have special force if he was starting on a missionary journey through Asia Minor and St Peter availed himself of the opportunity to send this letter to the churches which Silvanus proposed to visit.
Silvanus is generally assumed to be the Silvanus who is mentioned by St Paul in 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 2Co 1:19, from which passages we gather that he was St Paul’s companion and fellow-worker in Corinth during his second missionary journey. This in turn makes it practically certain that Silvanus is to be identified with Silas who was St Paul’s chief companion at the same time and place according to Acts. In this case we know that Silas was one of “the leaders among the brethren,” presumably in Jerusalem, who was chosen together with Judas, called Barsabbas, to convey to the Church in Antioch the decisions of the Apostolic Conference, Act 15:22. He was therefore presumably a Jewish Christian (cf. Act 16:20 “these men, viz. Paul and Silas, being Jews”) but was prepared to adopt a liberal policy towards Gentiles. In Antioch he worked for some time as a “prophet” or preacher and was chosen by St Paul to accompany him on his second missionary journey. Such a colleague, representing as he did the mother Church of Jerusalem, would be very valuable in helping to unite the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Asia Minor. With the same object St Paul delivered the decrees of the Apostolic Conference to the Asiatic Churches. Thence St Paul and Silas crossed to Macedonia, being debarred from preaching in Asia or Bithynia as they proposed to do. At Philippi they were imprisoned together and, as St Paul uses the plural “they have beaten us … being Romans,” it would seem that Silas was also a Roman citizen. This may possibly account for the Roman form of his name[3].
[3] It is generally held that Silas is merely a contraction for Silvanus (cf Λουκᾶς for Λουκανὸς, Παρμενᾶς for Παρμενίδης), the termination -ᾶς being used as an abbreviation for all kinds of longer name-endings. Others however consider that Silas was his original Hebrew name and that Silvanus is merely a latinized form of it. So Jerome derived Silas from Sh’liach = one sent = ἀπόστολος. If however Silas was his original name we might have expected it to be lengthened into Silanus, which was a well-known Latin name, rather than Silvanus, the name of a somewhat objectionable pagan God.
From Philippi Silas accompanied St Paul to Beroea and remained there with Timothy for a time, when St Paul left for Athens instructing them to join him there as soon as possible. From Athens they were again apparently sent back to Macedonia to report progress there (see 1Th 3:1) and again joined St Paul in Corinth (Act 18:5). After this we hear nothing more of Silas except in this verse, where we find him with St Peter and St Mark apparently in Rome. As he is not mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans it is practically certain that he had not yet visited Rome in 57 (?). Again he cannot have been in Rome during St Paul’s first imprisonment, otherwise he must surely have been mentioned among the fellow-workers of the circumcision who were a comfort to St Paul. Nor again was he in Rome during St Paul’s second imprisonment when he wrote 2 Tim. in which he says “Only Luke is with me.” The visit of Silvanus to Rome must therefore apparently be placed either just after St Paul’s release about 61 or 62 or after St Paul’s death. There is therefore an interval of at least eight or ten years during which we know nothing of Silas. It is hardly likely however that one who had been such an ardent missionary with St Paul should have abandoned the work altogether. Therefore it is quite possible that he may have revisited the scenes of his former labours in Asia Minor and carried out the original design of preaching in Bithynia, possibly extending the work into Pontus and Cappadocia also.
The emphatic position of ὑμῖν suggests that it should be taken with τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ rather than with ἔγραψα from which it is widely separated in the sentence. In this case St Peter may well be referring to the past work of Silvanus among the Asiatic Christians. We have no evidence as to the reason of his visit to Rome. He may have come there as a Roman citizen in the interval between two missionary journeys. He may have come to visit his old colleague St Paul, or possibly at St Paul’s request he may have come with St Peter to aid in uniting the Jewish and Gentile Christians. For such a task his past experience in Jerusalem, Antioch and in the mission field would give him special qualifications.
πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, cf. the commendation of Tychicus, the bearer of Col. and Eph., Eph 6:21; Col 4:7. ὡς λογίζομαι, not as in the A.V. as I suppose, as though St Peter had any doubt about his faithfulness, but as in the R.V. as I reckon. In view of the fact that Silas had been St Paul’s companion and that Judaizers in Asia tried to represent that St Peter and St Paul were opposed to one another, such a commendation of Silvanus from St Peter would be an indication that he still “gave the right hand of fellowship to St Paul’s work.” If, as Dr Chase suggests, Silvanus was at the very time being sent to Asia Minor as St Paul’s delegate, St Peter’s commendation would have even greater importance.
διʼ ὀλίγων, cf. Heb 13:22. Even in so long and systematic an Epistle as Hebrews the writer feels that the vastness of his subject is but slightly represented by his letter. So here St Peter may be apologizing for the brevity of his letter and contrasting it in thought with the fuller teaching which Silvanus will be able to give by word of mouth.
ἔγραψα is the epistolary aorist, “I am writing.”
παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν. St Peter here sums up his object in writing. His purpose is to encourage his readers and to give (or add ἐπι …) his testimony to the truth of God’s favour to them.
ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν occurs nowhere else in Biblical Greek but συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν is used in Heb 2:4 of God attesting the message of the Gospel by signs and wonders.
ταύτην. It is not quite clear what special aspect of God’s favour is here intended. The reading of the T.R., εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε (KLP etc.), wherein ye stand, would seem to mean the position which you occupy is the true view of God’s free favour. So some critics regard it as a testimony to the truth of Pauline Christianity as taught and accepted in Asia Minor.
But in this case St Peter would surely have expressed himself more clearly. The best MSS. (אB and many cursives) read εἰς ἣν στῆτε, wherein (or to secure which, εἰς) stand fast. This leaves ταύτην undefined and we have consequently to discover what is intended from the Epistle itself. In the concluding chapter St Peter has urged humility as the condition for receiving God’s favour (χάριν) 1Pe 5:5, and such humility must be exercised not merely towards fellow-Christians but towards God by patient endurance of sufferings as a prelude to final glory. The God of all favour (χάριτος) called them to share His glory by passing through a discipline of sufferings. Such sufferings are not inconsistent with God’s favour but rather are signs of it, even though they are made use of by Satan to tempt them to apostasy. In 1Pe 1:10 St Peter had spoken of the extension of God’s favour to the Gentiles (τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος), as predicted by the prophets and watched by angels, and in 1Pe 1:13 he urged his readers to set their hope upon the favour (χάριν) which is being borne to them in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Probably therefore St Peter means that the object of his letter is (a) to encourage his readers in their trial by fire, exhorting them to lead lives consistent with their faith and hope, and (b) to assure them that their position as the new Israel of God is no accident but the fulfilment of God’s eternal purpose of loving favour. Their very sufferings are part of that same loving favour. Therefore he urges them to stand fast to secure (εἰς) its final consummation in eternal glory.