When was 1 Peter written?

This was addressed to believing Jews dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. It was apparently sent from Babylon on the Euphrates, where many Jews were located. There is nothing in the epistle itself that fixes its date: but it is generally dated A.D. 60 to 63. The teaching of the epistle is based upon a living hope by the resurrection of Christ, in contrast to the portion of the Jews on earth. Believers are contemplated as strangers and pilgrims, salvation being regarded in its completeness as future, soul salvation being the point of consequence in the present, in contrast to temporal deliverances. The thought of a 'spiritual house' composed of living stones, in 1 Peter 2 connects the epistle with the revelation given to Peter in Matt. 16 — as the reference to the Mount of Transfiguration in the second epistle brings before our minds the vision of the kingdom in Matt. 17, of which Peter was eye-witness.

Tradition claims that Peter lived in Rome during his last years and that there he suffered martyrdom. This tradition, however old, is unproved. Paul who wrote various epistles from Rome does not mention Peter once. In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul writes that only Luke is with him and in verse 16: “At my first answer (judicial hearing) no man stood with me, but all forsook me.” Should Peter have done so? This is unthinkable. And yet most expositors keep to the idea of Peter having been killed in Rome and shortly before that having written his first epistle. The epistle itself does not mention any time of writing. It is generally dated though to the years 60 to 64 AC. Peter himself mentions Babylon as his residence in 5:13 “She that is elected with (you) in Babylon” (JND). There are many different opinions about this verse. Who was she that is elected? Some think of the local church in this place. The election of God in the NT however always refers to the believers and never to the church as a whole (compare Rom. 8:33; 16:13; Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:10). Surely Peter is speaking of his own wife as according to 1 Cor. 9:5 he took her with him when travelling (compare 2 John 1 + 13).

Italy, A.D. 63. (For authorship see chap. 13:23, and 2 Peter 3:15-16.)

It ought not to be doubted that Peter was in Babylon, the literal Babylon on the plain of Shinar, when he wrote the First Epistle, according to the arrangement made in earlier days (Gal. 2:7-8), that the gospel of the uncircumcision should be confided to Paul, and that of the circumcision to Peter, God working in each to their respective ends. There was no jar whatever, but happy fellowship; and it was marked by Peter's employing the same brother as his intermediary, who had been Paul's choice on a remarkable occasion and a former mission. It seems not improbable that Peter's wife (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5) was the co-elect sister there whose salutation is given, with that of Mark his son in the faith (it appears). And we may feel assured that he would not associate with his own salutation that of one who had drawn out a memorable censure even of Barnabas, until confidence was restored, as the great apostle expressed it in Col. 4:10, Philemon 24, and 2 Tim. 4:11. If the apostle Paul was debarred at this time from visiting the assemblies which he had planted in these lands, the apostle Peter writes to strengthen his brethren; but with singular delicacy he addresses those of the circumcision who were allotted to his care, yet sends the letter by Silas the well-known fellow-labourer of the apostle to the Gentiles, who had founded the assemblies throughout this extensive region. Not a word implies that Peter had served in those parts, though Origen and Eusebius state so from a mistaken inference put as a tradition.

The most obvious explanation that Babylon on the river Euphrates is spoken of is refused by most scientists nowadays. Babylon at Peter's time had lost its former lustre but it still remained inhabited up to 1000 AC when it definitely became a heap of ruins. According to Josephus (around 37 to 100 AC; Jewish Antiquities 15.3.1) thousands of Jews still used to live there. Acts 2:9 also mentions Jews from Mesopotamia. It therefore is very likely that there were believers in Babylon whom Peter the apostle of circumcision used to visit. He wrote his epistle from there also.

Peter’s first epistle was addressed more particularly to the converted Jews scattered over the provinces of Asia Minor, probably before or about the time that Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. All who heeded the Lord’s warning had then to leave the city (Luke 21:20-24). This extended to a period of forty years after the Lord had suffered on the cross. Terrible indeed were those “days of vengeance” on the unbelieving people, then weeping in vain for themselves and their children (Luke 23:27-31). We can thus understand better what reproach “for the Name of Christ” meant in those days (1 Peter 4:14). But in the second epistle, the apostle had good reason to feel that Jerusalem as a centre was blotted out from the earth, and that both Jew and Gentile must rally round the character of the gospel specially entrusted to Paul. It was no longer a question of Jews being blessed in a new way, that is with a full knowledge of accomplished redemption, and of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, but, notwithstanding that, on lines set forth in Abraham’s history, who confessed that he was a stranger and pilgrim on the earth (Heb. 11:13). True as that must needs remain for Christians in all time, there was and is a still deeper truth at the basis of the church’s standing, namely the personal knowledge of the Son of God. The Jews naturally looked for blessing on earth; the Christian finds it already in the person of Christ.

Peter's first epistle was addressed more particularly to the converted Jews scattered over the provinces of Asia Minor, probably before or about the time that Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. All who heeded the Lord's warning had then to leave the city (Luke 21:20-24). This extended to a period of forty years after the Lord had suffered on the cross. Terrible indeed were those "days of vengeance" on the unbelieving people, then weeping in vain for themselves and their children (Luke 23:27-31). We can thus understand better what reproach "for the Name of Christ" meant in those days (1 Peter 4:14). But in the second epistle, the apostle had good reason to feel that Jerusalem as a centre was blotted out from the earth, and that both Jew and Gentile must rally round the character of the gospel specially entrusted to Paul. It was no longer a question of Jews being blessed in a new way, that is with a full knowledge of accomplished redemption, and of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, but, notwithstanding that, on lines set forth in Abraham's history, who confessed that he was a stranger and pilgrim on the earth (Heb. 11:13). True as that must needs remain for Christians in all time, there was and is a still deeper truth at the basis of the church's standing, namely the personal knowledge of the SON OF GOD. The Jews naturally looked for blessing on earth; the Christian finds it already in the person of Christ.

At the close of the Epistle we read the following salutation: "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you, and so does Marcus my son." "The church that is" does not appear in the original text; it has, therefore, been explained that Peter meant his wife, though it appears more probable that he meant the other elect ones who were with him in Babylon. The fact is established that when he wrote this Epistle Peter was in Babylon. But does this mean the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates or the mystical Babylon, which is Rome ? Roman Catholic writers claim that it means the city of Rome, and a large number of Protestant commentators side with this view. They claim that he was in Rome with Mark. They say that Babylon has the same meaning as the word has in the book of Revelation, that is, not the literal Babylon, but Rome.

There is no definite proof that Rome was universally called " Babylon " before John received it in his Patmos vision; it is claimed that the persecution under Nero led Christians to call Rome by the name of Babylon ; but it is more likely that the name Babylon was widely used for Rome after John had written the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse was written some 25 or 30 years after Peter had written his Epistle, how, then could he have used this mystical name for Rome ? Furthermore, a mystical name is out of keeping in an Epistle. It would be the only instance in the entire epistolar testimony where a place is camouflaged in this way. The use of a mystical name in an Epistle appears strained. It therefore must be the literal Babylon in Mesopotamia. And why should this not be? We read in the second chapter of Acts that among those who were in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came to earth were "Parthians, Medes, Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia." They heard Peter's testimony and some of them must have been converted. Many Jews dwelt there, and while in 41 A.D. Caligula instituted a persecution against the Jews in Babylon and many left, there was still a large company of them in the fast decaying city.

In the N.T. Babylon is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13. There is evidence in Josephus that there were many Jews in the district forty years after Christ. On the occasion of the gathering at Jerusalem in Acts 2:9-11 mention is made of the Parthians, Medes and Elamites; and when Peter commences his epistle, supposing he was in the district of Babylon, he naturally puts Pontus first and then passes on to Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. There can be no reason therefore to doubt that the ancient district of Babylon is alluded to by Peter, where, through God's grace, there were some of the 'elect.'

Babylon. A.D. 64. See chap. 5:13, where the word church should be omitted; "She at Babylon." probably Peter's wife.