Dinca tapes
fay 4
Eo
ie
nk Alpe
aby hsaaee Oi f S ct
i, iE herd ett tr rr o Woda ae oketay
‘nash rca tase 5 ey ali
ie
*
typ)
et)
Uh J we
fl apy
Solna btbed
i Fe
rabetian
z a9
RY,
13009 147 bady tay
PHD PP tee roy 9h
’
bie:
O54 abv rgahie tt
MWe "
4 til
$ oats ce hy,
Hr ictrve bases
+
ae
S42 08M reine:
yh ‘a3
ptheened 4 eit
vt yt
‘ .
a rat
ie iv (heh Ld
# D
Dianne
pa tate
ON aby
1 8b4 ym Maye
G48 th eds
193 of 4a
ah | bat)
">
H
; yr og Moncada he
ire ' ai eds Ady 5 NH Go ph Cpe batbe bey:
Help takak eek ) 4 as { Hie bibs thet
yeav
3h
ae -
BML AWE ma
Harpe ge Lariocur’
H
air oe
f) Meta
WhOOs 478 alae Ae i Pes rf
in Hey 4 ae A
Weer y v -
Muang: Meghtad ot
yah ane x
nae Pest ito
oye! the siohett Parorte
+ leit ie be,
ie iiatng:
J
\e ;
fouls talige:
v4 mass
ieee rae
“4
tye tes bot ae
erie ae
Hit iemos yh,
btn fe te
dactrstei
$19 Od gag
nis
iw
ie
ae
wy
4 i,
me
ewan s by 4 P terbrne
Me y Avie
4h A Mbey:
1h ATE ray
Pete Teoh, | |
ub
HK ae oy
“91 Heh og bop
193 Fie h S4ay
ie tl res
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/firstepistleofped0john
sighs Ni
7 Met
VAT
rch
*~
THE FIRST- EPISTLE OF PETER.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, ; : . - HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, = > ~ - GEO. HERBERT.
NEW YORE, .« . . . SCRIENER AND WELFORD.
A.
S ~
“A ¢¢1¢-4) ¢ aw
THE GICAL SE
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER:
REVISED TEXT,
WITH
Introduction and Commentary.
A “ BY
VA
ROBERT JOHNSTONE, LL.B., D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS IN THE
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
EDINBURGH:
T & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1888.
“Vv , , > ld
Lipwv, Simwv, . . . ov wore exiotpewas
/ ‘\ 3 ,
oTHpitov Tos adeAGovs Tov.
LUKE xxii. 31, 32,
TO
THE REV. JOHN CAIRNS, D.D., LL.D.,
THE REV. DAVID DUFF, D.D., LL.D.,
THE REV, JAMES A. PATERSON, M.A.,
Chis Book is Enscribed
BY
THEIR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE,
NEE AUTHOR:
rs | | |
| dt seh, AY ana ATT. ue
sc Cite CLE RT I AT)”
AM AORTNT A
PREFACE
Iy the Commentary which forms the larger part of this book
the author’s aim has been, by a careful examination of the
grammatical structure of the Epistle, to ascertain, as exactly
as the data permit, what is taught in it, and how the different
parts of the teaching are related to each other. His chief desire
has been to trace the course of thought, and he trusts that,
whilst words and constructions have been discussed with
what seemed adequate fulness, yet it will be found that at
no point has the principal purpose of the work been lost
sight of in mere philological or grammatical disquisition. In
studying this Epistle one has in but small measure that illus-
tration of specialties of thought or expression which is supplied
by other writings or recorded utterances of the same author,
—such as is enjoyed so abundantly by a student occupied
with a work of Paul or John. Some helpful hints of this
kind, however, have been obtained, especially from the dis-
courses of Peter preserved in Acts. But the chief aid to
be found in Scripture for the elucidation of the apostle’s
language is derived from the Septuagint. His style is to so
great an extent moulded by its influence, and his thoughts,
even when he is not formally quoting, or in any definite way
following Old Testament lines, so tend to clothe themselves
in the phraseology of the Alexandrian version, that the help
afforded by reference to it—important in the study of any
Hellenistic writing—is pre-eminently valuable here. Outside
of Scripture, illustration of the apostle’s words and construc-
tions has been sought for mainly in Philo and in the earliest
post-apostolic Christian literature.
Vill PREFACE.
All those commentators on the Epistle from whom the
author had any reason to believe that help might be obtained
have been carefully consulted. His obligations are specially
great to Bengel, Wiesinger, and Professor Salmond of Aberdeen.
From several of the less strictly critical expositions of the
Epistle, also, he has in various ways and degrees received
help, particularly from the classic work of Leighton, and from
the Expository Lectures of Professor John Brown of Edinburgh,
and Dr. John Lillie of Kingston, New York. In the discussion
of passages susceptible of different interpretations, only views
of the meaning which seemed to have at least a moderate
degree of likelihood have been dealt with in the Commentary,
or indeed, as a rule, even mentioned,—the book being intended,
not as a storehouse of curiosities or whimsical conceits, but as
an aid to the practical study of Scripture. An endeavour has
been made also to avoid loading the pages with needless lists of
the names of scholars holding the various positions. Names
have been mentioned only when they seemed to be in them-
selves to a certain extent arguments, or to afford something
of interesting or helpful illustration. On questions con-
nected with the specialties of Hellenistic Greek, the New
Testament Grammars of Winer and Alexander Buttmann are
frequently referred to (the references being made to the
English translations by Moulton and Thayer), occasionally
also the excellent little work of Sheldon Green. For the
grammar of classical Greek, Jelf and Donaldson have been
used.
There are no formal Dissertations or Hwcursus. Several of
the discussions, in particular those on the exegesis of chap.
i. 19, 20, and chap. iv. 6, are considerably detailed; but the
arrangement of the book—zin which the text is printed, not
over the expository notes, but at the beginning—permitted
these to be kept in their place in the Commentary. In the
Table of Contents a reference is made to matters treated with
special fulness.
The text which is given in the volume may be described
PREFACE. 1x
as, in substance, that of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott
‘and Hort, for there are but few passages in the Epistle with
respect to which there is not a consensus of critical authority.
On the more important of the passages regarding which there
is not agreement, short notes indicate the grounds on which
the reading of the text has been adopted.
The author is greatly indebted to his friend the Rev.
Alexander Mair, D.D., Morningside, Edinburgh, for aid most
kindly and efficiently rendered in the revision of the proots.
May the Father of lights, from whom has come the “ good
and perfect gift” of Holy Scripture, bless this humble attempt
to expound a portion of His Word! May He forgive its
errors and defects, and graciously use it in some measure
as an instrument for advancing the interests of truth and
righteousness !
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, EDINBURGH,
February 1, 1888.
j ; i) # en. ens z 4 ; =i
: : ap aR afd a" ah i ial we ‘ a
ei, th K mike igen. Wik Tee eA ah.
cl
SALE ,
iu ron hy by ; aa 70 ) heishay ‘e tt ie ¢ Dy ube
7 eye: 1 ride f, Th BG" von Ae Ui hata ( ie
: : } : ‘ster far) Bis.
ie pay aa
iby FAG rh in fi
5 wy
CONTENTS.
0
PAGE
TEXT AND CRITICAL NOTES, . ; ; : : J), Mie
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Genuineness, . : : ‘ , : : il
§ 2. To whom written, : : : : : : 10
§ 3. Occasion and date, ; : , : : P 18
§$ 4. Place where written, . : : ; : 22
§ 5. Structure and literary characteristics, 28
COMMENTARY.
CHAPTER I. : i : 40
Meaning of zpoyvaois, ver. 2, ; , ¢ A 3 43
Meaning of dy:aspds, ver. 2, . E : ; : 46
Present or future reference of vv. 6-9, : ; 60
Interesting use of od and wy, ver. 8, .-——+- ‘/ '. ; F 72
“Spirit of Christ,” ver. 11, . : : : 78
Force of &uapos, ver. 19, \/ . : , : ‘ : 99
|
CHAPTER: If, ‘ : me LES
Meaning of dévdparivn xriats, ver. 13, ; , : : 152
Connection of precepts in ver. 17, . - : : SFO.
Meaning of cvqveyxev, ver. 24, ; ; ‘ , al ie’?
| CHAPTER. III. : : 2 192
|
Summary of section iii. 18-iv.6, . : 4 5 . 243
“Quickened in spirit,” ver. 18, : - : : . 246
| “Spirits in prison,” vv. 19, 20, ; ; : : . 249
| Meaning of txeparnwea xra., ver. 21, . : 5 : . 292
xl CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV;
Force of réravra: &meprious, ver. 1,.
Force of a&vaxvoss, ver. 4, :
Meaning of vexpois ebnyyeaisdn xrh., ver. 6,
“Spirit of glory and of God,” ver. 14,
“ Judgement beginning from God’s house,” ver. 17, .
CHAPTER V.,
Meaning of weprus xra., ver. 1,
Meaning of or:Qavos déuapevtivos, ver. 4,
Force of tyxou Botan, ver. 5,
PAGE
301
303
316
319
359
366
378
379
388
393
|W) ge OF aa 9k Garey 5
1 ITETPOYX arcctonros *Incod Xpictov éxdextols trape-
mudoyuots Suacmopas IIovtov, Tadatias, Kamaédoxias,
bo
/ a \
"Acias, cal Bidvvias, kata tpoyvoow Oeod Ilatpos, év
e A II , ») c \ \ e \ /
ayiacwa@ IIvevparos, eis tTaKxony Kal pavticpov aipatos
> a rn an
Incod Xpictov: yYapis bpiv Kal eipnvn TANOvVOein.
\ e \ nan lal ’ cal
3 Evnoyntos 0 Geos kal ILatnp tob Kupiov nuayv 'Inood
n ¢€ \ bh \ lal r
Xpictov, 0 KaTa TO TOAV avTOD EXEoS avayevYnoas as
nr >] rn n
eis éAtrida Saoav 8: avactacews “Inood Xpiotod éx
° a > f ” WW Mice ag Ne Phone 7;
4 vexpOv, cis KAnpovopiav apOaptov Kal apiavtov Kal apa-
/ lal a
5 pavtov, TeTnpNnuEvny €v ovpavots Eis Duds Tous ev Suvdmer
le / XN if ,
Ocod dpovpovpevovs Sia Tictews eis cwTHpiav EéEToluny
6 amoxadrug@ivat év Kaip@ éoydTw. év w ayadacbe, Ori-
c é
x > / / , ud lal t/
yov aptt, et déov, AuTNOEVTES ev TroLKINOLS TrELpPacpots, iva
\ i n a / /
TO OoKiloy UMaV TS TioTEwWs, TOAVTLLOTEPOY ypvaiou,
an / \ \ / A
Tov aTro\Xvpévou Sia Tupos Sé SoKipalopévov, etpeOy eis
Z \ / ’ a
érawov Kat dofav Kat Ttipny ev atroxarirpe. “Inood
CriticaL NotEs.
With regard to all but a few passages in this Epistle, the evidence of
our authorities for the text is so clear and satisfying that there is agree-
ment among the principal critical editors. Of those places where the
reading is uncertain, there are two or three of which, through the bearing
of the variation on exegesis, it has been found convenient to discuss the
reading not here but in connection with the exposition. On these a
simple reference to the Commentary will be found below. On the others,
a brief statement is given here of the grounds for preferring the reading
of the text. No attempt is made to set forth the full evidence for the
variants ; which is abundantly accessible in the Digests of Tischendorf
and Tregelles. What is aimed at is simply to indicate those elements in
each case which appear most important.
X1V IIETPOY A. (I.
me A b O07 nr > A Yj Nt e lal
8 Xpictod* oy ove iSovTes ayaTraTe, Eis Ov APTL fn OpaVvTES
iJ \ na A
muaTevovTes O€ ayadNiaTe Yapa avexdadyTw Kal dedoEa-
/ , \ oe lal
9 cpevyn, Kopslopevos TO TEXOS THS TicTEews DuaV, TwTHpiaV
a i! ge , , \
10 Wuyedv. ITlepi %5 cwrnpias é&eCytncav Kai éEnpavynocay
nr e \ a a
Tpopytat ol Tepl THS Els Upas YapiTos TpopyTevoartes,
11 €pavvavtes eis tiva 7) Totov Katpov édndouv TO év avTots
lal nr / ‘
IIvedpa Xpictod tpowaptupopevoy ta eis Xpiotov madn-
1p \ X \ an 86 L e 5] / eo ’
2 pata Kai Tas peta Tabta Sofas ois aTrexahvgOn bts ovy
i a e nan \ / > \ ray a > } c re ny
Eavtois tiv O€ OunKkovovy avTa, & voV avnyyérn vpiv S.A
a > / e a / ¢ / bd /
TOV evayyedicapévwy vuas IIvevpats “Ayiw atootahévte
> °) > rn by aA >] a“ ” ,
am’ ovpavod, els & émiBupodow ayyedos TapaKkvwat.
‘ \ / an lal
13 4wo avafwodpevor tas oadvas ths Svavolas tpov,
/ / tal
vypovtes, Tedelws EATIcaTE él THY EepomevnY vpiv
/ ih lal rn lol
14 yapw év aroxadv re ’Incod Xpiotod, ws tTéxva bTaKo;s,
\ 1 a 1 S a
kn cuvoxnwatiCouevor Tais mpotepov ev TH ayvola Luav
\ a \
15 éwvOuplas, GAA KaTa TOY KadécavTa ipuds “Ayov Kal
> 4 b] / b) a / / /
16 avroi ayvoe év Tacn avactpody yevnOnte SioTe yéyparrrat,
/ ¥ Bre
17 “Aywou Eveabe, Ott éyw ayvos. Kal ef Ilatépa émixandeiobe
: ‘3
TOV ATPOTWTOAHUTTWS KPLWOVTA KATA TO EKaoTOV Epyor,
> yo} \ a / e a / > /
év doB@ Tov Tis Tapoixias vuav xpovoy avactpadyte,
O/ 4 > al b) / x ’ > , 7) >
18 eidotes Ste od POaptois, apyupiw 7) xpucio, edkuTpwOnTE ex
rn / € lal bd a pres > \
19 Ths pataias vtudv avactpodis tTatpoTrapadotov, adda
/ cs id > lal ’ ‘A il > / cal
Tym aiwaTe @S auvod auomov Kal aotiov Xpiotod,
a7 / ia
20 mpoeyvwopévov pev po KataBorns Kecpov, davepwOEvtos
be > ’ > / lal / 5 9! id lal \ 8 ’ > lal
21 dé ém écxydtov Tav ypovwv d1 buds Tors bt’ avTod
\ \ \ A
muaTtous eis Oeov tov éyeipavtTa avtTov €K vexpav Kal
/ > a 4 4 \ U ci a sh > /
do€av ai’t@® Sovta, woTe THY TicTW tov Kal édTida
/
elvat ets Oeov.
I. 8. The active éyeaaére appears to be the true reading here. The
occurrence of this rare form in at least two authorities of the first class,
B, and a citation in Origen, and probably also in C,—whilst the ordinary
middle form is found without variation a few lines before (ver. 6),—
cannot well be accounted for except on the supposition that it was in the
original. The only thing at all likely to have led copyists to write the
active by mistake is the assonance with éyardérs in the clause preceding ;
and if this really had any influence in determining the form, it may with
at least as great probability be supposed to have led the apostle himself
to choose the active, as to have turned transcribers astray.
Os
~I
10
1
TIETPOY A. XV
\ Nj ( lal e ‘ 2) a ¢ lel lel b) Yh
Tas wuxas tov iyvixotes €v Th UTAaKO; THs adnOeias
> Nae A 5) /
els pidadeAdiay dvuToKpitov, ék Kapdias adArdous
lal / > o
ayaTnoaTe eKTEVOS, avayeyevynMevol OVK ek o7TTOpas
a \ , a a
pOaptis adda adGaptov, Sia AOyou Cavtos Ocod Kai
y ‘ , = \ e / \ A ,
pévovtos* dots Ilaca capé ws yxoptos, Kal Taca Sofa
> a e ” / Z ] , ¢ , \ \
avTis ws avOos xyoptov' €EnpavOn oO yoptos, Kai TO
A es \ x tn rp , t > \ . A
avOos é&emecev’ TO O€ phua Kupiov péver eis Tov alova.
lol / > \ en x > \ > € lal
TovTo O€ éaTW TO phua TO eEvayyedicbev Els pas.
LA bé 5 ca) / \ / 60 \
Amoféwevo. ody tacav Kakiav Kal tavta Sodov kal
e / \ Ie \ , SY ¢ b)
UToKplces Kat POovous Kal Tacas KaTaXadias, WS apTt-
/ \ \
yevynta Bpépyn TO NoyLKOV Adorov Yara eruTOOHcaTe, iva
> b) a“ DE OF > / 3 ’ / fa} iA \
€v avT@ avénOjte els owTnplay, Eb eyevoacbe OTL ypnaTos
¢ / \ e / / al
0 Kuptos. IIpos ov mpocepyopevor, AGov Cavta, wo
’ , \ > / x ai a b] \
avOpoTav péev atrocedokipwacpévoy Tapa d€ Oew éxrexTOov
»” \ > \ e 10 A ’ 5 fal A) 5
évtywov, Kat avtol ws NiGoe Cavtes otKodopmetoOe oixos
e 7 “e > “
TVEVMATLKOS Els lepaTevpa ayLoY, avEveyKaL TVEUPATLKAS
lal \ a fol /
Oucias evtrpocdéxtovs Oem dia "Incod Xpiotod: S.07e
n \ JA \ /
mepuexes ev ypady, Idov riOnus év Siwy diOov axpoyoue-
al ¢ 4 A
aiov éxNexTov évTysov, Kal oO TLaTEvwV eT avT® ov p1)
an ¢ al 5S \ lal Ve
KkatacoyvvOn. “Puiv obv tTiyn Tois muaTEvovoWW" amTr-
na \ yj A > / Md >] a e
otovow b¢ Aldos dv amedoxipacay of oiKodomodyTEs, ovTOS
>) fA ’ \ / \ / /
eyevnOn els Keharynv yovias Kat ALGos TpocKoppatos
\ if a /
Kal méTpa oKavOddov' of TpocKOTTTOVaWW TH OYw aTret-
a 5 > A \ Ss, e a \ / > \
Ootvtes’ eis 0 Kal eTéOncav. wtpeis Sé yévos éKNEKTOD,
/ € / ” 7 \ ? fe
Bacidevov lepatevpa, €Ovos aytov, Aaos Eis TEpLTToincwy,
ee \ > \ b] / a DI ¢ la) /
Omws Tas apetas eEayyelnTe TOU €K OKOTOUS Uuas KAaNE-
’ A \ ’ a a e \ >) \ an
cavTos eis TO Oavpactov avTod Pas, ot ToTé od Aads, vdV
lal e / fa \
S€ Aads Oeod, of ovK Hrenpmévol, Vdv dé é€XenOEvTes.
> an /
Ayarntol, Tapaxadea ws TAapoiKovs Kal TapETTLOnmousS
/ a na a iL
atréyer0ar THY capKikov eTLOUmLOY, aiTiVEs OTpPATEvOYTAL
\ fel fod ee \ > NS (- fal 3 lal ”
Kata THS Wuyns' THY avactpodyy tywav év Tois eOvecw
” \ ~e > ® lel cs! an c a
EXOVTES KAANV, WA EV wW KATANANOUTLY LUBY WS KAKOTOLWY,
>, a lal ” 5) / / XN \ b]
EK TOV KAXOV Epywv EToTTEVOVTES Oofdcwow TOV Oeov év
/ fo) ¢
nuepa emicxomys. “Lrotaynte waon avOpwrivy Ktice
Py wy \ Ko =) ” B NY nr ie ¢e f ” (¥ ,
wa Tov Kupiov' cite Baoidel ws vTrepéyovTt, elite aryewoow
+ fa) / lal x
ws Ov adrod Teumopmévols eis exdiknow KakoTTOLaV Erato
b
XV1 TETPOY (A; (IL.
Ss a ¢ ¢ \ / na n
15 6€ dyaborody’ 6tt ovTwas éotiv TO OéAnwa TOD Oecod,
> la al \ lal > , bd lA
ayaboro.obyvtas § dimoty thy Tav adpovev avlpwrwyr
? cee toes 2 / \ \ ¢ B) / ”
16 ayvwciav' ws édevOepor, Kai pr ws ETLKGAUEMA EXOVTES
a x an fal
7 Ths Kaxias Thy édXevOepiav, aAN ws Ocod SoddrAoL. + TavTas
ie \ > / an \ \ lal
TYLNTATE, THY AdEeAPOTHTA ayaTaTe, Tov Oeov doPeEiaGe,
NX 2 nan
Tov Bactiéa Tiare.
e > fd / , lal
18 Ot oixétTat, vTotTaccopevoe ev Tavti doBw Tots de-
, > , a > a \ b] Ud by N \
oTOTaLs, ov movoy Tols ayabots Kal éTLELKeoLY ANA Kas
19 tots cKodois. TovTO yap yapis, e Oia cvvEldnow Oceod
*) e , ve / Tei a bk i >
20 umopeper tis AUTAS TacywV adikws. Tolov yap KNéEoS Et
ia / / al ’
auaptavovtes Kal Koradifouevor vmomevette ; aA Et
na cr al ,
ayabotro.obvTes Kat TdoXOVTES UTTOmEvEtTE, TOUTO yYapLs
9 \ a >) lal \ ’ / e \ \
21 mapa Oc@ els TovTO yap exrnOnTE, OTL Kai Xpiotos
ig lal nr % ig
émaley uTep Uuav, Uuly UTOhUTaVaY UTOYypaymov wa
99 , r bn, a. y. > a, A e t >
22 é€maxodovOjonte Tois ixverw avTov'’ Os dpapTiay ovK
99° 5) / Oe ¢ ‘Q oor 3 a , >) na, a
23 émolnoev, ovde evpéOn Soros Evy TH TTOMAaTL avTOV' OS
/ > ’ , / > ’
Novdopovpevos ovK avTEAOLOOPEL, TATYXWY OVK HTrEINEL, TAP-
24 5 5 6e a / } / oN \ ¢ if e a
24 edidov O€ TH KpWwovTL diKaiws’ OS Tas dpapTias Huov
rie ees > / 5) a , > la) LLEAGY \ / (ed
avTos avnveyKev EV TO THMATL aUTOD emi TO Evrov, iva
a / a / a
Tais apaptias atroyevomevo, TH OiKavocvyvy Snowpev’ ov
Ww
Ou
A SN b} 10 * Ly 4 2 id 8 Ds ,
TO KBWAWTL La NTE NTE YAP WS TPO ATA TAAVOMEVOL,
> a5 / fal SEN \ , Am ue) , a
aX é€TEecTpUPNTE VUV ETL TOY TOLMEVA Kal ETLOKOTIOY TOV
n € fal
WvyOv VLODV.
II. 24. The question whether edzrod should be read after woawz: is
somewhat perplexing. There is good MS. authority both on the side of
inserting and of omitting the word, and the two oldest copies are on
opposite sides, 8 having the pronoun and B omitting. Tischendorf has
the word in his text, and Tregelles on his margin. As very frequently,
consideration of probabilities with regard to transcription gives little aid.
It is hardly possible to say with decision whether it is more likely that a
sense of grammatical propriety led to the leaving out of the redundant
pronoun, or that a remembrance of edrod, as it stands in LXX., in the
very familiar passage cited by Peter (Isa. lil. 5), led to its being inserted
in the apostle’s relative clause,—the ear having become accustomed to
the Hellenistic redundancy of expression, through its occasional oceur-
rence elsewhere in N. T. Left to this line of inquiry, one might perhaps
incline to think the former supposition on the whole the more probable.
3ut there seems to be a preponderance of MS. testimony in favour of
omitting the pronoun.
mi] TIETPOY A. XVil
3 e / a G / a 07 b) ,
Opoiws yuvaikes, UTotaccopevat Tots idiots avdpacuw,
WA fal a U a a a
iva Kai et tives aTreOodow TO NOY, Oia THS TOV yuVvaLKaV
y) BJ an ” Xo 8 Q / > 7 \
avaoctpopys avev Noyou KepdnOyncovtal, éTOTTEVTAVTES THY
3 3 ¢ \ > \ € lal oe ” > is e& @
ev HoBw ayvnv avactpopyy vuav. wv éotw ovy Oo eEwlev
an lal / / XN /
euTAoKhs Tpryov Kal TepiOécews ypvotwy i eévdvoews
va 9 / ’ ’ e \ lal / ” J
A (patiwv Koopos, GAN oO KpuTTOs THs Kapdias avOpwrros év
A fal Le wd
TO aPOdptw Tov Tmpakws Kal novylov TVEvpaToS, 0 EoTLY
5 / fa) a / cf / \ e
5 €vwrloy tod Oeov modvTEdEs. OVTWS Yap TOTE Kal al
SA a e > / ? \ SV: e ‘\
aytat yuvatkes at érmifovcar eis Ocov éxoopovy éavtTas,
e / lal , i i} / e / e /
6 wrotaccopevat Tois idiots avdpacw, ws Yappa wryKov-
a "AB N / Seas. \ a fe 2 > Nal
ce TO paap, KUploy avTov Kadovca’ Hs eyevnOnTeE
/ “) a ‘S \ / /
Téxva, aya0orowdcar Kal pr oBovpevae pndeutay
/
TTONGL.
~T
e BA e / rc \ a e
Oi dvdpes opoiws, cvvoixodvTes KaTa YVOoW ws
/ lal / \
acbevertépm oKEVEL TO YUVALKELW, ATOVEWOVTES TLV WS
\ ye a \ \ ,
Kal suVKAnpoVvomows yapiTos Swis, eis TO pn evKoTTec Oat
TAS Tpocevyas VMav.
“ e t a ,
8 To d€ TéXos mavTes opmodpores, cuuTAGeis, puradedpot,
, AN > / \ \
9 evoTrAayyvot, TaTrewodpoves, wn aTodovTEs KAKOV aVTL
lol 3 / / \
KaKov 7% oldopiavy avtt NoLvdopias, Tov’vayTtov bé EvAO-
na e ’ lal b) / ~ b) i
youvTes, OTL els TOTO ExANOnTE, va EvAOYiav KANpoVo-
\ na al /
10 ponte. ‘O yap Odrov fCwijy ayaray Kat tdeiv ajpéepas
a \ a /- r
ayabas TavcaTw THY YA@CCAaY aTTO KaKOD Kai yElAn TOD
\ a / , > \ A
11 py AarAjoat Sorov' éexkduwwdtTw Sé ato Kakod Kal TroLN-
9 / ’ A6 - , Ward? \ PS) 4 b Le edhe d
12 catw ayabov' Sntncdtw eipyvnv Kail dwwEatw avdTyny' OTL
‘ 5 > a /
opOarpot Kupiov él d«xalovs, kal Ota avtod eis dénow
a , / a
13 aitov tpocwrov 5€ Kupiov émi tovodvtas Kaxd. Kai
/ e , ee aN 2\ fa) > a \ /
Tis 0 Kakwowv tmas, €av TOV ayalod Enrwtal yévnoe ;
14 GdX & Kai madcyoute bia Sixarocvvny, waKdptor. Tov é¢
III. 6. On the question between dxryxovcey (NS A C) and dxgxoven (B),
see Commentary, in loc.
Ill. 7. Between cuvzanpovewo: and ovyxanpovewors authorities are much
divided. Hither suits the structure of the sentence. The weight of the
evidence of B and the Vulgate,—and also of 8, for though in its earliest
form that MS. shows the accusative plural, this cannot well be anything
else than a clerical error for the dative,—seems to prove that the dative
was probably the original reading.
XVill TIETPOY A. [III.
U lal A A
15 goSov avtav pry PoBnOjre pnde tapaydjte, Kipiov oé
\ \ lal a
tov Xpiotov ayiacate év tals Kapdiais vuav' Eroumor del
\ / A fal a a
Tpos aTONOYiay TAVTL TO aiTodVTL Umas AOYOV TeEpl THs ev
16 vpivy édaridos, dd\AG peta TpaiitnTos Kal PoPou, cuveldnow
” ? \ a 5) ® a a
Exovtes ayabny, va év @ Katadadeicbe cataroyvvOaow
ca) , e a \ > \ 5) a > /
ot emNpeaCovTes UmaV THY aya0ny ev XpiotTo avactpodyy.
17 Kpetrtov yap ayalorowodvtas, ef Oédor TO OeAnMa TOD
18 Ocovd, macyew 7) KakoTovotytas. 6Tt Kal Xpiotos araké
\ e a ’ / wh e \ 2QO/ ¢ c r
Tept awaptiav améVavev, dikavos vmép abdikov, va bas
/ lal a \ iM ‘ Nt
mpocayayn TO Oe@, Gavatwbeis pev capxi, Gwomombeis
\ UA A > @ \ Lal ’ A“ 4
19 6€ wvevpate ev w Kal Tois ev hudaKH TrEvpacW TopeEv-
; ' ¢ =
20 eis éxypuéev, arevOjoaciv mote, bte amekedéyeTo 9 TOU
Ocod paxpoOvpia év nyuépars Noe, KatacKevalopévns
a > A »~ 7 (ocak tae MTA ? \ \ Ul
KiBwTOv, els iv OALYOL, TOOT EcTW OKTw ruyal, SLETw-
’ ec A \ € cal b) t lal ,
21 Oncav & wdatos. 6 Kal vpads avtituvToy viv cater
, > \ ’ / Care ’ \ a
Barticpa, od capKos aTrdfeots puTov adda ovVELONTEWS
III. 18. For d&zédavey (supported by & A C and the early versions),
B and three late uncial copies, with many cursives, read éradev. West-
cott and Hort, having éxééavev in their text, place the other in their
margin. The similarity of the words in form, and the familiarity of
them both, and practical equivalence, as here applied, obviously made
confusion very easy. In ii. 21 precisely the same question presents
itself, —the preponderance of authority there, however, in favour of
iradcyv being quite decisive. Here the evidence for déxedavey pre-
ponderates. Its documentary support is greater ; and, having regard to
the specialties of this Epistle, it seems much more likely that a copyist
would stumble from ézédavey into ¢radey than vice versa, because, whilst
aérobvyoxey is not found elsewhere in the Epistle, reoxyev 1s a markedly
favourite word of the apostle, occurring oftener in this short letter than
in the whole of Paul’s writings. In ii. 21, 23, iv. 1, it is used with
reference to Christ. The recy of the verse preceding the present also
might most naturally lead a copyist to write ¢vaéev.
For ves (supported by B and a number of cursives), yués 1s given
by 8° AC, two late uncials, and the majority of cursives. The versions
are pretty equally divided. A preponderance of documentary authority
is thus on the side of 444%. But when probability with regard to tran-
scriptional error is considered, the likelihood seems very decidedly to be
that vues; was the original reading. Into the easy, familiar, natural
form in a connection like the present, “bring us to God,” a copyist
might most readily stumble,—into the singular and remote “you,” only
by a casual clerical error in an isolated case, which does not at all account
for the wide diffusion of the reading.
IV.] TIETPOY A. xi
dyabns émepotnua eis Ocdv, Ov avactacews “Inood
bo
bo
lal ¢) ’ A nr \ > \
Xpictov, ds eat év deEid Oeovd, Topeviets ets ovpavor,
e al /- \ ’ a \ /
UmoTayevT@V avTo ayyédkwv Kal éEovcwdy Kal Suvdapeor.
c
rn > , \ ¢ ad \ >’ \ ,
4 Xpictod ody waBovtos capki, Kai vpeis THY avTHY EvvoLay
e 7 e \ , , >
2 omAlcacGe, Ott 0 TaP@v capKl TETAVTAL apmapTials, ELS
\ / a \
TO pnKeTe avOpwrrav émiOvyiats GANA OeXyjpate Ocod Tov
r / > \ \ ¢
3 émiNoutrov €v capKi Bidcat xpovov. apKeTos yap Oo Tape-
\ / \ / la! b) lal /
Anrvbas xpovos TO BovrAnwa Tav eOvav KaTepyacbat,
/ > > / ) / > /
mMeTropeupévous ev aceryelas, emriOupiais, oLvopdvyiats,
/ / > e A
4 K@pots, TOTO, Kal aBepitors eidwroAaTplas’ ev w Eevi-
\ / e lal ’ \ > \ a b /
CovTat, “1 TVYTPEXOVTWY UBOY ELS THY AUTHV TIS aTwTIAS
Or
if fal a / / ne /
avaxyvow, Pacdnuovvtes’ ol aTod@aoVGLW NOYOV TO ETOL-
ou
al lal rn \ \
pws éxovTe Kpivar Cavtas Kat vexpovs. els TOUTO yap Kal
lal 4, lal \ \ ,
vexpois evnyyedicOn, va KpiOdor pev Kata avOpwtrous
\ a \ \ \ if
capkl, Cao. dé kata Ocov Tvevpmatu.
~I
IIavrwv 6&8 To TéXos HyyiKev. cwdppovncate ovv Kat
/ > / AN / Si > e \
8 vypate els TMpocevyas Tpo TavTwY THY Els EaUTOUS
> i b) an ” e/ ’ lf / a
ayaTnv eKkTEevh Exovtes, OTL ayarH KadUTTEL TAHOOS
lal 2 a
9 apaptiav’ gircEevor eis addAjAOUS avev Yyoyyvopov"
4 \ ” / ? e \ ae, N
10 &kactos Kaas édaPev ydapicpa, ets EavTovs avTo diaKo-
fal , lal
11 vobvtes ws Kadoi oiKovomor TrotKirns yapiTos Oeod™ ev Tus
A , a a , e
Aarel, WS Aoyra Ocod' et Tis Swaxovel, ws €E iayvos 75
xopnyet 0 Ocos iva év Tacw SoEdfyTrar 0 Oeds Sua ‘Inaod
IV. 1. For duepriess (found in 8°B), dueprias is read by 8* A C and
later MSS. The rendtring of the Vulgate (a peccatis), and that of the
Peshito Syriac, which is similar, sustain &epricesc, there being no trace in
the Greek copies of the genitive plural as a reading. That transcribers
might most readily, by dropping the iota, change the somewhat peculiar
construction with the dative into the familiar construction with the
genitive, is obvious,—whilst the converse change is not at all likely.
IV. 5. For fygovre xpives (which is given by 8 A and the MSS. generally),
B, with probably C, and also a very few minor authorities, reads xpivovt:.
Westcott and Hort have put this latter in their text, while no other
editors have even given it an alternative place on the margin, and
Scrivener describes it as a “frigid gloss.” The canon of difficulty is no
doubt in its favour ; yet, considering the somewhat anomalous, and, in its
connection here, not very natural combination r@ éro(mas xpivovrs,—and
the fewness of the authorities which support the reading,—it seems likely
that it has sprung, by error of some kind, out of the other.
XVill TIETPOY A. [III.
I a \ a \ a
15 goSov avtav pr doBnOjtre pnde tapaydjte, Kipiov &é
\ a a
Tov Xpiotov aytacate év tais Kapdlais buav™ Erowpor det
eer / \ ae Cea Cars / Neheeny 5
TpOS uTrOhOYtav TAVTL TO ALTOUVTL UM“AS oyov TeEpl Tis EV
16 vpiv édaridos, ara peta Tpai’TynTos Kat PoBou, cvveldnow
” > \ ov ) @ an a
exovtes ayabny, va év @ KaTtadareicbe KataicxvvOdcw
28) , Cars \ by) \ > lala 2) A
ol emnpeafovtes vuav THv ayabnv év Xpict@ avactpopnp.
17 Kpetttov yap ayalorowodvtas, ef Oédot TO OeAnpa TO
18 Ocov, wacyew 1) KakoTrowobyTas. OTL Kal Xpuotos amak
\ y a b) / J e \ 2QO/ vA ¢ n
Tept apaptiav améVavev, Sikavos Umép adikov, a vmas
tf fal a > \ \ \
mpocayayn TO Oe@, Gavatwbels pev capki, Swomombeis
sy 7 a & x al bp a fe
19 6€ wvevpate ev @ Kal Tois ev dudaKH TvevpactY Toper-
20) @ \ b / > fa} / f e 2 b¢é t a
20 Geis exnpv&ev, avevOnoaciv mote, OTe amreEedéyeTo TOU
fal / > ec / na 7
Ocod paxpobvuia év ipépats Node, xatacKkevafopevns
an > aA 5] / aL) ae, > \ \ ,
KIPwTod, els iv OALYOL, TOUT EoTLW OKTw Ypuyal, dlEeTo-
’ ec A \ ¢ a by) t n ,
21 Oncav & wdaTos. 6 Kal vpads avtituTOy viv cater
, > \ ° / Cat: ’ \ /
Barticpa, ov capKos aTodecis putTov adda CTUVELONTEWS
III. 18. For e&zébavey (supported by 8 A C and the early versions),
B and three late uncial copies, with many cursives, read exadev. West-
cott and Hort, having ézédevey in their text, place the other in their
margin. The similarity of the words in form, and the familiarity of
them both, and practical equivalence, as here applied, obviously made
confusion very easy. In ii. 21 precisely the same question presents
itself, —the preponderance of authority there, however, in favour of
Eradev being quite decisive. Here the evidence for aézdxvey pre-
ponderates. Its documentary support is greater ; and, having regard to
the specialties of this Epistle, it seems much more likely that a copyist
would stumble from éz¢éavey into gradey than vice versa, because, whilst
ézobvjoxery is not found elsewhere in the Epistle, raoyev is a markedly
favourite word of the apostle, occurring oftener in this short letter than
in the whole of Paul’s writings. In ii. 21, 23, iv. 1, it is used with
reference to Christ. The racxeu of the verse preceding the present also
might most naturally lead a copyist to write ¢radev.
For tues (supported by B and a number of cursives), 4ué> is given
by &° AC, two late uncials, and the majority of cursives. The versions
are pretty equally divided. A preponderance of documentary authority
is thus on the side of 444%. But when probability with regard to tran-
scriptional error is considered, the likelihood seems very decidedly to be
that veeés was the original reading. Into the easy, familiar, natural
form in a connection like the present, “bring us to God,” a copyist
might most readily stumble,—into the singular and remote “you,” only
by a casual clerical error in an isolated case, which does not at all account
for the wide diffusion of the reading.
IV.] TIETPOY A. X1x
| rn > / > \ eo] bd , > A
ayabis erepoTnua eis Ocdv, dv avactacews ‘Incod
‘ fal ¢ ’ A lal \ >’ \
22 Xpictov, 6s eat ev deEva Ocod, wopevieis ets ovpavor,
e fal I \ ’ al \ /
UToTayevTay avT@ ayyédwv Kal é€ovorwv Kai Suvdpewr.
= > , Ne Ue an \ Say Y
4 Xpictod ody TaPovtos capki, Kal vpeis THY avTHY évvotav
e / ec e \ \ / ec ' >)
2 omArlcacOe, O71 0 Taf@v capKi TEeTAUTaL apapTials, Els
A / a \
TO pnKéte avOpworrav émiOuplats Gra OerrpaTe Oeod Tov
\ r ly ? \ \ e
3 émiNoumrov év capKt Bidaat xpovoy. apKEeTOs yap oO Tape-
/ \ uA fal lal /
Anrvbas ypovos TO BovAnua Tov eOvaY KaTepyaoba.,
/ > > / 5 / ’ /
meTopeupevous €v aceryelas, émifupias, olvoprvyiats,
/ / ’ > i /
4 K@pots, TOTOLS, Kal aDepitors eidwAOAAaTpPLaLs’ Ev w Eevi-
s / lal ’ \ > \ nan > i
CovTal, M1) TUVTPEXOVT@V ULOV ELS THY AUTHVY THS aTwTLas
~ ’ , a Co emes , / Colieeks /
5 avayvow, PLacgypovvtes’ ol atrodwaovaw oyov TO ETOL-
2 f lal a AN / ’ rn \ \
6 paws éyovte Kpivat Cavtas Kal vexpous. els TOUTO yap Kat
lal WA lal ‘ \ b] ,
vekpois evnyyedicOn, wa KpiOdor pev Kata avOpwrous
\ na x \ \ /
capkl, Caou de Kata Ocov mvevparTe.
/ \ \ / ” / io \
Ilavrwv 5é To Tédos HyyeKev. cwppovycate ovv Kat
/ > / i \ / \ > e€ \
8 vypate els Tpocevyds’ pO TavTwWY THY Els EaUTOUS
> re 3 lel ” ee b] , / an
ayaTny €eKTevh ExovTes, OTL WyaTG KadUTTEL TAHOOS
a la li a
9 dwaptiav' dirokevot eis addANAOVS avEV YoryyUTpov"
wa \ Be / ? e \ San
10 &xactos Kalas éhaBev yapiopa, eis EavTovs avTo dvaKo-
a ¢ Ue SE , / , ne of
11 voovtes ws KaXoi oiKovomor TroLKiAns yapiTos Oeod" et Tus
a , A A > , e
Aarel, ws Aoyla Oeod' et Tis dvaKovel, ws €& iayvos 15
xopnyel 0 Ocos iva év Tacw SoEafyrar 6 Oeos dua ’Inaod
IV. 1. For duecpriess (found in N°B), duaprias is read by S* A C and
later MSS. The rendtring of the Vulgate (a peccatis), and that of the
Peshito Syriac, which is similar, sustain &epricsc, there being no trace in
the Greek copies of the genitive plural as a reading. That transcribers
might most readily, by dropping the dota, change the somewhat peculiar
construction with the dative into the familiar construction with the
genitive, is obvious,—whilst the converse change is not at all likely.
IV. 5. For éyovre xpives (which is given by 8 A and the MSS. generally),
B, with probably C, and also a very few minor authorities, reads xpivovt:.
Westcott and Hort have put this latter in their text, while no other
editors have even given it an alternative place on the margin, and
Scrivener describes it as a “frigid gloss.” The canon of difficulty is no
doubt in its favour ; yet, considering the somewhat anomalous, and, in its
connection here, not very natural combination r@ éro/mas xp/vovrs,—and
the fewness of the authorities which support the reading,—it seems likely
that it has sprung, by error of some kind, out of the other.
XX HETPOY, “A, [IV.
3.
a e ie / \ \ / ’ % dan
Xpictov, © é€otw 1 Sofa Kal TO Kpatos els Tods al@vas
lal /
TOV AlwveVv. apn.
? \ \ / A a
12 Ayarnrtol, wy EeviferPe TH ev buiv tupwcer Tpos
\ c lal fa / fal
TeLpacmov viv ywvouern, ws Eévou viv ovpPaivovtos’
\ \ lal an al nr fe
13 adda Kalo Kowwveite Tois ToD Xpictod Tabjpwacw xat-
es \ ’ a > 4 a / =| a rn
pete, Wa Kal €v TH aTroxadder THS SoEns ad’Tod yaprTeE
, UJ r
14 dyad\XNwpevor. Ei ovevdifer0e ev ovopate Xpiortod,
te v4 \ a / la) n la)
pakaploe’ OTe TO THS SoENS Kal TO TOD Ocod IIvedpa ed’
15 e a > he \ ‘ ¢ an i ec \ BY
5 Upads avarraveta. pun yap Tis buav TacyéTw ws hovers 7)
/ DY \ >
16 KAXérTNS 1) KaKoTrOLOS, 4) WS aNAOTPLETIicKOTTOS’ Ei OE WS
\ \ / nS A
Xpirtvavos, wn aioyvvécbw, doEavérw Se Tov Ocov ev TH
Fi tt, , cy e \ ry, \ / > \
17 ovopats TovT@. OTL 0 KaLpos TOD apEacPat TO Kpia a7rO
a v a al > \ a ohruey aks a / \ /
Tov olxov Tov Oeov' e¢ 5€ TpaTov ap Hu@yv, TL TO TEAOS
a , a a n e
18 tav areWovvTwy TH Tod Ocod evayyerim; Kal Ei o
/ / , e J \ \ e x lal
dikatos pods owletar, 0 aceByns Kat apapTwros Tov
19 aveitat; wote Kal of TdoyovTes KaTa TO OédAnpwa TOD
@ lal A U / 5. X > lal >
co TLOT@ KTIGTH TapaTiOécOwoav Tas Wuyas avTa@y év
ayaborroua.
é
/ 9 ’ id Lal A e ,
D IIpecButépovs ody év byiv wapaxado 6 cuvrperButepos
/ a a lal e lol
Kal paptus Tov Tov Xpicrov taOnuatav, 0 Kal THs
/
2 perrovons atoxadvTrecbat So€ns Kowwvos ToLsavaTe TO
> € lal / lal fal \ bd Lal > M\ € /
€v vty Troipviov ToD Ocod, 1 avayKacT@s adda EKOVTIWS
3 Kata Oedv, undé aicypoxepdas ara Tpoddpas, pwnd ws
IV. 14. On additions to the text of this verse, v which are found in some
copies, see Commentary, in loc.
V. 2. Before wy dvayxacra;, A, with most of the later MSS. and the
versions, reads érioxoxovvrec, Which S B and some other authorities omit.
In a passage like this, which no doubt was much quoted in hortatory
addresses to church office-bearers, the participle was very apt to slip in,—
giving, as it does, a certain rhetorical roundness to the sentence. That, if
in the original text, it would have been omitted, is very improbable.
The words zara& Osov, after éxoveiws, have a much stronger claim to be
regarded as genuine. They are supported by 8 A and many later MSS.,
and by the Vulgate, Memphitic, and some other versions,—but omitted
by B, the majority of the later MSS., and the Peshito Syriac. The words
are not such as would be at all likely to slip into the text ; whilst, on the
other hand,—from their very grandeur, when viewed as exhibiting a
model for pastoral care,—the use of them might readily be shrunk from
in oral citation, and omission in MSS. might thus easily enough arise.
5 al HETPOY A. Har
a , \ , Ud lol
KATAKUpLEVOVTES TOV KANPWY GANA TUTTOL YLVOMEVOL TOD
4 troiupviov' cal gavepwOévtos Tod apyxeToipevos Kopetobe
\ 2 , an , / ¢ / ,
5 Tov auapavtivoy THs do€s otépavov. “Opoiws vewtepor,
e / / 4 \ b) / \
UToTaynTe TpeTBuTEpols’ TavTES dé GAAHAOLS THY TATELVO-
, « ce
dpocvynv éyxouBacacble’ ott ‘O Ocos vrepnpavals avtt-
/ a \ / /
TacoeTat, TaTrewvois 5é Sidwatv yapwv.
. i) N va) an lal He
6 TarewoOnrte obv vTo THY Kpataav yYelpa ToD Oeod, iva
rn A a \ lal
7 tpas tryaon év Kaip@, Tacav THY péplyuvay Lpov EeTupi-
« A / \ a /
8 wavtes em avTov, OTL avT@ péder Tept Luov. Nate,
y 6 CPs) , c lal / e / b] ,
ypnyopyjacate’ 0 avTioiKos Lav SuadBodos ws Lewy @pvOpeE-
a lal / fal @ b) ,
) vos mwepitatel Sntav Tiva KaTaTLEly @ avTIoTHTE oTEpEOL
a 0 bes \ \ lal ie fol ~ ,
TH TWloTel, ELOoTES TA AUTA TOV TAOnLATwOY TH EV TH KOT WO
a , an ¢ \
10 tpov adedpornte emeTerctcOar. “O d€ Oeds maons
/ ¢€ / e a > \ bad b] a , >
XUplTos, 0 Karécas Upas Els THY alwvioy avTod Sokap év
Bi A 2 / / \
Xpist@ odyov waGovtas, avtos Kataptice, otnpiéen,
, > ”“ \ / > \ 7A > /
11 c@evecer. avT@ TO KpaTos Eis TOUS alavas. auny.
V. 8. On the reading tive xarazisiv, see Commentary, 7 loc.
V.10. After céevace:, S and the great body of MSS., supported by a
number of versions, add éeweasooes. A B and the Vulgate, with a few
minor authorities, omit it. This evidence for omission, though scanty, is
very strong in quality. From the nature of the verse one may safely
assume that in the early ages, as in our own time, it was much employed
in sermons and in prayers,—this latter use, indeed, being proved by the
large number of copies in which the verbs have received a petitionary
form by being put in the optative. Now the natural tendency in oral
citation and free application of a passage of a cumulative structure, such
as this, is always, for supposed effectiveness, to add to the cumulus, not to
diminish. Considering this fact, and the high authority of those copies
which leave the word out, the great probability seems to be that it did
not belong to the original text. The particular verb deweasdy might
readily suggest itself, from its similarity in sense to the verbs used by
the apostle, and from the remembrance of the way in which Paul has
employed it in passages which also, no doubt, like the present, were
familiar as quotations in homilies, Eph. iii. 17 ; Col. i. 23.
V. 11. After rods wiaves, S A, and most other authorities, add ray
aiavav. B and a few others omit these words. Considering the great
tendency to expansion in doxologies, and, in the present case, particularly
the tendency to conform the language entirely to that of iv. 11 (a tendency
showing itself at work in the beginning of our verse in the reading, found
in very many copies, 7 60x xai before ro xocroc), the likelihood is very
strong that the shorter reading is the original.
XXil TIETPOY A. [V.
12 = Aa Strovavod wpiv tod wictod adedrod, ws AoyiCopar,
du’ ddtyav éypaya, Tapaxaddv Kal éripaptupav TavTnv
13 eivat adnOh yapw tod Ocod: eis Hv othte. °Aowabetar
vuas 7 €v BaBvawve cuvekrextH Kat Mapxos 0 vids pov.
14 ‘Aoracacbe dddjrovs ev hiypate ayaTns.
Elonvn tuiv waow tots év Xpiato
tpnvn vely 7 is plato.
INTRODUCTION.
0
I—GENUINENESS.
1. IN its opening words the letter distinctly claims the
Apostle Peter as its writer; and this claim is sustained by
such abundant evidence, external and internal, that it cannot
on any reasonable critical principles be impugned. With
| regard to no book in the New Testament is the proof of
genuineness more thoroughly satisfying.
2. In the early Church the Epistle was universally accepted
as by Peter. On this point the statement of Eusebius (7. £.
ill. 3), based on an intimate acquaintance with the Christian
literature of the first centuries, is quite express: I[Tétpou pév
ov éTLeTOAN pla, 7) AEyoMevNn AUTOD TpoTépa, avwmoroynTaL
TavTn 6€ Kal of Tadat TpEecBUTEpoL Ss avaudir€KT@ év ToIs
oPOv AVTOV KATAKEXPHYTAL OVYYpaupacy.
The first reference which we find to the letter is that
implied in the devrépay of the Second Epistle (iii. 1), a docu-
ment which, whether its genuineness is admitted or not, is
unquestionably of very early date: tavtnv 6n, ayamnrol,
deuTépav vuiv ypadw émicToNnD.
Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 59),
has éxdXecev Huds ato oKOTOUs eis hws,—which cannot well
be doubted to be from 1 Pet. 11. 9, especially when we find
Clement in another passage (§ 36) using the full expression
about the light: 1 écxotwpévn dvavola jyav avabanrre eis TO
Pavpactov avtod das.
In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (i. 4) the precept
A
2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
am@éYyou TOV CaPKLKOY Kal copaTiKay éviOvuLay seems clearly
to have for its basis 1 Pet. 11. 11.
The passages just quoted from Clement and from the 4idax7
can hardly be called absolutely certain reminiscences of Peter,
though their being such is probable in a very high degree.
But in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians there are several
quite indisputable quotations. In § 1 we find eds dv ovx
iSovtes TioTeveTe Yapa avexraryjTw Kat SedoEacuéry, from
1 Pet. i. 8; in § 2, muctevoavtes eis Tov éyeipavta Tov Kupiov
npov Incodv Xpiotov éx vexpov Kat dovta avt@ do€ay, trom
1 Pet. i. 21, and px amodidovtes Kaxov avTt Kaxod 1) Novdopiav
avTt Aovwopias, from 1 Pet. iii. 9; in § 8, Os avyveyKev Huav
Tas dpaptias TO idiw cwpate éwt TO EUV, Os dpwapTtiay ovK
érroincer, ovd€e etpéOn Soros Ev THO aTOmaTL avTod, from 1 Pet.
i. 24, 22.
Of Polycarp’s contemporary Papias we are told by Eusebius
(H. E. iii. 39): Kéypntar 5€ 0 avdtos paptuplats amo Ths
"Iwavvov mpotépas émuctoNhs, Kat ato THs Ilétpov opoiws.
Besides those passages which have now been quoted from
Clement, the 4:day7, and Polycarp, there are also in others of
the very early Christian writings—the Epistle of Barnabas,
the Epistle to Diognetus, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the
Homily of unknown authorship formerly called the Second
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians—probable reminiscences
of the First Epistle of Peter; the most striking of which,
as also some from the writers already cited, will be found
mentioned in the notes on the various passages apparently
referred to.
The early Gnostic Basilides says (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 12):
iva fn) WS KaTadLKoL él KaKOis OpmoNoyoupevols TaOwaL, nde
Rovdopovpevor HS O poryos 7) O hoveds, ANN OTL ypLoTtLavol
mepucores, OTEp adTods Tapnyopnaer unde Tacyeww SoKeiv,—a
passage which one can hardly doubt to have had for its basis
1 Pet. iv. 14-16.
The persecuted Christians of Vienne and Lyons say in
their Epistle (Euseb. H. Z. v. 2): érametvouy éavtods bo Tip
INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 2
Kpataiav xelpa, Up Hs iKavas voy etotv bywuévor, from 1 Pet.
me
Trenzeus is the first who attaches the writer’s name to his
quotations from the Epistle. In iv. 9. 2: Petrus ait in epistola
sua,—*“ Quem non videntes diligitis,” inquit, “in quem nunc
non videntes credidistis, gaudebitis gaudio inenarrabili,’ from
1 Pet. i. 8; in iv. 16. 5: Propter hoc Petrus ait, “non vela-
mentum malitiz habere nos libertatem,” from 1 Pet. ii. 16.
From this point it is unnecessary to give quotations,
because the free use of the Epistle, with the apostle’s name
attached, by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian,
and the Fathers generally, shows that in every part of the
Church it was unhesitatingly received as genuine.
In the very earliest versions of the New Testament, the Old
Latin and Syriac, the Epistle was included.
In the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon it is not
mentioned. Since, as we have seen, there is ample proof of
the full acceptance of the Epistle long before any date to
which, with the least likelihood, the composition of this list
can be referred, the omission is probably to be explained by
the supposition—to which the character of the document
and the condition of the extant copy give every support—
either that a sentence has been accidentally left out in
translating from the original Greek, or that at the first
the list was somewhat defective in its structure. See the
thorough discussion on this subject in Westcott, On the Canon.
3. With the position so abundantly sustained by external
proof, that the letter is a genuine production of the Apostle
Peter, everything in it perfectly accords. It breathes through-
out the spirit of quiet dignity, and shows everywhere the
spiritual wisdom, the richness of tender sympathy, the aptness
to teach, which are reasonably to be looked for in a writing
from the hand of an apostle of Christ.
4. Some interesting and striking coincidences of thought
and expression are found between the Epistle and the dis-
courses of Peter recorded in the Book of Acts. Comp. i. 21
4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
with Acts ii, 16; ii. 7 with Acts iv. 11; ii 24 with Acts
v. 30, x 39°; lv. 5 with Acts x. 42, The first @om tiese
cases is particularly striking, the resemblance being in a
somewhat peculiar thought; tods 6 avtod miotovs in the
Epistle, 4 wiotes 9 80 adtod in Acts.
5. There are in the Epistle, also, modes of expression
which tend to show that the writer had personally known the
Lord Jesus, and which are of so incidental and indirect a
character, that design to produce the impression of our having
autoptic testimony is out of the question. Ini. 8 the use
of ov« with the aorist participle éOovtes, and of jw with the
present opavres, sets forth the “ not having seen Christ ” simply
objectively, as a fact, but the “not seeing Him now,” as a
fact viewed in subjective relations. It is hardly conceivable
that this little distinction would have been made except
by one to whom it came instinctively, through the fact that
the “not having seen the Lord” had for him zo direct
subjective relations, as he had seen Him,—whilst the “ not
seeing Him now” was an experience common to writer and
readers. Again, in ili. 22 the participial statement, zopevOeis
eis ovpavoy, is really implied in the previous clause, 6s éotuv
ev def&a Oeovd, and it is hard to imagine that it would, in
such a sentence, have found expression by itself, except from
a ‘writer to whom, in connection with the thought of the
Lord’s being “at the right hand of God,” memory immediately
brought up, with vivid power, His departure from the Mount
of Olives to heaven, as a scene at which he himself was
present. The mode, too, in which the Saviour’s sufferings,
and His demeanour under them, are described, leads a reader
irresistibly to the thought of the action of memory. “The
meek conduct of Jesus, His silent endurance of all revilings
and accusations, His quiet patience, even unto the cross
(i. 19, ii, 21-24, i, 18),—all this is described in such a
manner that we involuntarily get the impression of an
eye-witness” (Lechler, Apost. and Post-Apost. Times, E. T
vol. i. jp 8).
INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5
6. The Petrine authorship of the Epistle ‘does not seem to
have been disputed till the rise of the modern destructive
‘school of eriticism. The Paulicians, an Oriental sect of the
eighth and ninth centuries, kindred to the Manicheans, set
aside the Epistle through hatred of the apostle or of his
doctrine (pessime adversus illum affecti, as the contemporary
chronicler, Petrus Siculus, has it); but not the slightest hint
, 1s given that they doubted Peter to be the writer. By the
/ Tiibingen critics the authorship has been denied, mainly on
| the ground of the obvious familiarity of the writer with letters
of the Apostle Paul, and his manifest harmony with Paul in
» doctrine. Thus Schwegler says, “The Epistle is an attempt
}
of a disciple of Paul to reconcile the Pauline and Petrine
parties, by putting into Peter’s mouth a testimony to Paul’s
- soundness in the faith, along with a statement of the Pauline
system of doctrine, coloured somewhat through the views
of Peter” (Nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. 1. p. 22). This admitted
want of discord between our Epistle and the Epistles of Paul
has weight against the Petrine authorship, of course, only
with persons who concede the fundamental position of the
critical structure associated specially with the names of
Baur and his school—namely, that Paul and the apostles of
the circumcision were keenly opposed to each other in doctrine
and in feeling. A few years ago it would have been needful,
in the Introduction to a critical commentary on 1 Peter, to
discuss this question with some fulness; but the impression
produced by the boldness, learning, and dialectic skill of the
Tiibingen scholars has now toa great extent passed away. Any
measure of belief that the Clementine romance of the latter
half of the second century exhibits the course of the history
of the primitive Church more faithfully than the Acts of the
Apostles, and the writings of Clement of Rome, and Polycarp,
and Justin, is now confined to a very small circle. Even by
critics of strongly negative tendencies it has been recognised
that the Tiibingen position with respect to the divisions of
the primitive Church is utterly untenable. Keim, for ex-
6 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
ample, in his last work, Aus dem Urchristenthum,—published
in 1878, a short time before his death,—enters fully into
a discussion of the supposed data in Scripture for Baur’s
conclusions, and shows these data to have been obtained only
by misinterpretations and fallacies. Schenkel, too, in his
Das Christusbild der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit,
published in 1879, expresses his utter disbelief in the
Tiibingen doctrine. The same ground, or ground nearly the
same, has been reached by Pileiderer, Weizsiicker, Renan,
and others. Thus, now, in discussing the genuineness of
the Epistle, the objection that anything in what is known, or
probably supposed, with respect to Peter’s theological views,
or his relations to the Apostle Paul, is inconsistent with
his having written this letter, may quite reasonably be
regarded as already obsolete and out of the way.
7. Exception has been taken by some to the claim of
the Epistle to have been written by Peter, on the ground
that it contains little which is not abundantly taught in the
New Testament elsewhere, and thus lacks the independence and
originality which are to be looked for in a document coming
from the hand of an eminent apostle. To this objection the
answer is obvious. The test or standard proposed—that every
apostolic writing must abound in strictly new teaching—is a
purely arbitrary one. The only positions on this subject which
are not arbitrary, but plainly sustained by what we know of
the commission and special qualifications of the apostles, are
such as these-—that, without doubt, in writing letters to the
Churches, as in preaching sermons to them, the apostles had
definite aims with respect to giving their brethren spiritual
help,—that, if the satisfactory attainment of the special
spiritual aim of the writer required the announcement of
truth previously hidden, then this truth was made known,—
and that in every case, whether a letter contained new
revelations or not, certainly by a fresh divinely-taught mode of
presenting truth in suitable aspects and relations the Church
had ministered to it richly the particular aid which was
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 7
intended. Regarding the First Epistle of Peter the testimony
of the Church of all ages has been most explicit, that,
applying to it the tests based on these reasonable and
scriptural principles, it has found nothing in the document
but what is most fully accordant with its claim to be an
apostolic writing. With various minor objects, the special
aim of the Epistle is plainly to cheer and strengthen the
believer amid difficulty and trial, by bringing vividly before
him the truth of a wise and loving Father’s providence, and
brightening his path with the light of hope. Every spiritually-
minded reader feels that the letter fulfils this design in a
measure which can be ascribed only to the wisdom of heaven.
To no portion of the Bible, probably—with the single exception
of the Lord’s parting address to His disciples on the eve of His
Passion—does a Christian, when sorely tried, more naturally
turn for guidance and comfort than to this Epistle. Its
wealth of consolation sustains the heart; and at every point,
too, the calm authoritativeness and dignity of the utterance
accord perfectly with its claim to have been written by the
Apostle Peter.
8. From two statements in the Epistle arguments have been
drawn against the Petrine authorship. One of these state-
ments is that found in the superscription, that the Churches
to which the letter was written were those in Asia Minor,
—Churches which are known to have been founded by the
Apostle Paul or his associates. “It is improbable,” says
Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introduction to Study of N. T., vol. i,
p. 425), “that Peter should write to the Churches. of
Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, which Paul had founded
and instructed ; at least while the apostle himself was alive.”
It certainly is prima facie improbable ; and just for that reason
it is much more likely that the letter which has, as a matter
of fact, come down to us from early times addressed to those
Asiatic Churches, and distinctly claiming to be by Peter
was actually written by him, than that it was from the hand
of an impostor. The unlikelihood of Peter’s writing to these
8 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
Churches is so obvious, that an impostor would certainly not
have gratuitously burdened his task with this obstruction in
the way of having his imposture accepted; whereas circum-
stances may most easily be conceived of a kind to make it
perfectly natural for Peter to send these Churches a letter.
This point is dealt with in § III.
9. The other statement in the letter from which an
objection to the validity of its claim to be by the Apostle
Peter has been derived is that made in iv. 16, that, at the
time it was written, the simple name of “Christian” was a
ground of accusation before courts of law. It has been
maintained that this points to a considerably later date than
Peter’s lifetime. Admitting that
example, in Ephesus, Philippi, and elsewhere proved—
as Paul’s experience, for
Christians were liable from the beginning, in any part of the
empire, to persecution in various forms, through outbreaks of
popular fanaticism, or through false accusations raised by
private foes, it is held, at the same time, that persecution
taking the shape of bringing a man to the tribunal charged
simply with being a Christian was possible only after an
Imperial edict expressly prohibiting Christianity had been
issued ; which, it is said, was not till Trajan’s time, in the
beginning of the second century.
There are serious flaws in this argument. There appears
to be no sufficient basis for the assertion that an edict was
needed to make the profession of Christianity a ground of
accusation and of punishment. The principle of the Romans
was, that unless a religion was expressly sanctioned, it was
illegal. Judaism was a religio licita, and for a considerable
number of years Christianity had the protection afforded by
the fact that it was held to be merely a form of Judaism.
But as soon as it was seen that, in some important respects,
Judaism and Christianity were distinct from each other, then
ipso facto Christianity was a forbidden system; and whilst, no
doubt, the putting of the law in force might be but occasional,
due to local and temporary influences, yet a magistrate could
INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 9
not constitutionally refuse to receive a charge made against
a man of being a Christian, if such an accusation were
formally raised at his judgement-seat. In fact, that very
correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, from which the
definite illegality of Christianity is by those scholars who
raise this objection to the Petrine authorship of the Epistle
supposed to date, itself shows clearly that the case was not
so, but that Pliny found judicial dealing with Christians, simply
_ as Christians, already in action when he went to his province.
Pliny’s language leaves on this point no doubt whatever : “Sol-
lemne est mihi, domine, omnia de quibus dubito ad te referre.
Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere, vel
ignorantiam extruere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui
nunquam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut
queeri. Nec mediocriter hesitavi sitnealiquod discrimenetatum
an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant,—detur
poenitentize venia an el qui omnino Christianus fuit desisse non
prosit,—nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohxrentia
nomini puniantur. Interim in iis qui ad me tanquam Christi-
ani deferebantur hune sum secutus modum. _Interrogavi ipsos
an essent Christiani. Confitentes iterum ac tertio interro-
gavi, supplicium minatus: perseverantes duci jussi.” Trajan’s
reply also most distinctly assumes that there was no question
in hand of making a new law prohibiting Christianity or
enjoining persecution. Quite plainly the law continued as it
had been, the wise and humane emperor merely introducing
some mitigations.
How long Christians had been liable in this way to perse-
cution, and whether the state of things was due to an edict of
some former emperor, expressly condemning Christianity, or
had been brought about merely through the fact that the
profession of this religion had not been expressly authorized,
we cannot tell. By far the most probable date for the
beginning of judicial dealing with men simply on the ground
of being Christians, is the reign of Nero. It is likely enough
that, in connection with the persecution which followed the
10 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
creat fire, that emperor issued an edict prohibiting Christianity,
though this has not been recorded. At all events it cannot
well be doubted that, at the time of his persecution, the Jews
of Rome, in order to escape suffering along with the Chris-
tians, made strenuous endeavours to show clearly to the
government, and to the people generally, the distinction
between the two religious systems. There appears to be a
great probability, therefore, that from the year 64 the pro-
fession of Christianity was, either as being definitely prohibited,
or simply as being unsanctioned, criminal in the eyes of
Rtoman law. Now various lines of evidence converge to fix
the date of our Epistle a year or two later than 64. On
the question dealt with in the present paragraph, Professor
Salmon’s Jntroduction to N. T., pp. 543, 544, may be con-
sulted, and particularly a characteristically thorough and
satisfying discussion by Bp. Lightfoot, in his edition of
Ignatius, vol. i. pp. 2-21.
IlL—TO WHOM WRITTEN.
1. The Epistle is addressed (i. 1) to the Christians in
certain districts of Asia Minor, the districts specified covering
the whole of that region except the south coast.
The first division named is Pontus. Under what circum-
stances Christianity made its entrance into this province
we have no information. Jews and proselytes from it are
mentioned among those who were in Jerusalem at the ever-
memorable Pentecost (Acts ii. 9); and by some of these
knowledge of Christian truth may have been carried to their
homes. Aquila, the friend of Paul, was a nativesof Pontus
(Acts xviii. 2).
Of the preaching of the gospel by Paul in Galatia, the
district next named, of the cordial reception which was
given to him and to his teaching, and of the fickleness of
spirit exhibited by many of his converts,—a trait so cha-
IyTrop. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 11
racteristic of the Gallic race to which they belonged,—full
information is supplied in the apostle’s letter to the Christians
there.
From Cappadocia, which follows, there had been Jews at
Jerusalem at Pentecost. No other mention of this province
than that and the present is found in the New Testament.
In later times its ecclesiastics included some of the most
eminent of Christian bishops and writers,—Czsarea, the See
of Basil the Great, Nyssa, that of his brother Gregory, and
Nazianzus, that of their common friend, the other Gregory,
being all in Cappadocia.
Asia, by which here, as always in the New Testament, is
meant the Roman province of that name, stretching along the
west coast, included by this time many well-known Churches,
—Ephesus, Colosse, Laodicea, and others, — most of them
founded by Paul or by his evangelistic helpers.
Of Bithynia, the last district named by the apostle, we hear
little in the New Testament, the only other mention of it
being a statement in Acts (xvi. 7), that Paul, immediately
before his first mission to Europe, had a wish to visit this
region, but was forbidden by the Spirit. In later times we
find Christianity flourishing in this province. It was with
regard to it that in the year 112 Pliny the younger, at that
time the governor, wrote his famous letter to Trajan, in
which he describes the extraordinary progress of the new
religion. “ Multi omnis etatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus
etiam,” as he mentions, were accused before the magistrates on
the charge of being Christians; further, “neque civitates tantum,
sed vicos etiam atque agros, superstitionis istius contagio per-
vagata est;” and yet further, with regard to the power of
this new faith in the way of diminishing the attention paid
by the people to the heathen worship, “ prope jam desolata
templa—et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa,” whilst of animals
offered for sale in the markets to be sacrificed to the gods,
there had been for some time but “rarissimus emptor.” In
Bithynia, too, was the city of Niciea, where, in 325, met the
ie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IvrRop.
memorable Gicumenical Council which condemned the Arian
heresy.
2. The language of the superscription of the Epistle,
EKAEKTOIS TrapeTLOnuors SvacTopas IIovtov KTX., suggests at
first sight that it was addressed, not to the Christians
generally who lived in the districts named, but to those
of them who were of the Jewish race. In a simple piece
of prose writing like this, the genitive dvacmopas cannot
naturally be taken (as in the Authorized English Version)
as equivalent to the participle Svecwappévors. Considering
that for many generations this word dvaemopa had been
employed in a special way as the designation of that portion
of the Jewish race who lived beyond the bounds of Canaan,
their covenant home (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 17, LXX.; Judith v. 19;
2 Mace. i. 27; John vii. 35; Jas. i. 1), there cannot well
be a doubt that, as used by Peter here, it has this meaning,
“the scattered ones of the house of Israel.” |
5. But investigation into the precise thought which was
intended by the apostle in using the expression does not
quite end here. In the body of the Epistle nothing presents
itself which seems specially applicable to Jewish Christians,
nothing of such specialty of teaching as we find in the
Epistle of James and in that to the Hebrews. Not merely
is no subject discussed which we can suppose to have been,
from their peculiar history, or ritual, or temptations, more
interesting or important to them than to converts from heathen-
ism; but no clause or phrase even seems to have any
unquestionable special suitableness for them. The expres-
sion 7 patala tuav avactpody tatpotapasotos (i. 18) has
been by some thought of as having a special applicability
to Jews; but, in truth, it has an equally natural and full
reference to the empty, profitless modes of thought and life
handed down by one generation of heathen to another. The
use of Ta €Ovn also, in ii. 12 and iv. 3, has been supposed to
discriminate those addressed in the letter from the Gentiles ;
but there is clear proof that, as was most natural, the word
ee
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 13
é0vn began very early in the history of the Christian Church
to have the reference to religion so prominent in it that
reference to race was often quite in the background. We
find such to be the case in the apostolic Epistles. Except
where there is special and manifest reference to the dis-
tinction of the Jews from other nations, Greeks and Romans
who have accepted Christ are not thought and spoken of
as “Gentiles.” In writing to Churches mainly composed of
converts from heathenism, Paul employs €@vn in such a way
that the converts are quite clearly not included; see, for
example, 1 Thess. iv. 5; Eph. iv. 17 (true reading).
Whilst thus there is nothing in the Epistle which appears
to be specially suitable for Jewish Christians, there are modes
of expression which seem more naturally addressed to converts
from heathenism. The most striking passage of this kind is
iv. 83. The whole of the catalogue of vices there mentioned
is much more characteristic of the heathen than of the Jews
of that age, so far as we know anything of the kind of
sins by which they were usually marked; and the a@éucrou
elowroAaTpias cannot at all be ascribed to Jews, except in
a metaphorical sense, such as is not in the least suggested
by the context. Such expressions as of moré ov dads, too
(ii. 10), and #5 (Sarah’s) éyevnOnte téxva (iii. 6), while in a
measure applicable to all Christians, yet have decidedly more
special applicability to converts from heathenism than to
Jewish believers.
4. With regard to the address of the letter, looked at in
the light of these facts, various views may be entertained.
We may hold that the apostle writes in the first instance to
the Christian converts from Judaism, and occasionally speaks
somewhat specially to those of them who originally had been
heathen, but at the time of their conversion to Christ had
been Jewish proselytes,—with whom may be also naturally
enough conjoined persons who had entered the Christian
Church directly from heathenism. Or we may hold that
Peter, being well known everywhere as one of those apostles
1+ FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROpD.
who laboured mainly in the Jewish field, might judge it a
matter of kindly courtesy to acknowledge at the outset a
specially close relation to those of the Asiatic believers who
were his brethren after the flesh, while really intending the
letter for the whole body of Christians, and anticipating that,
when it was read, its tenor would soon show this.
Neither of these suppositions seems perfectly adequate to
explain the facts in the case. The most natural and _ satis-
factory view appears to be that the letter was intended for,
and is really addressed to, all the Christians, of whatever
nationality, the apostle’s form of expression vrapemdnpous
dvao7ropas being employed in a secondary sense, and gather-
ing up all the believers as the spiritual Israel. From the
Septuagint rendering of David’s words in Ps. xxxix. (Xxxvili.
Sept.) 12,—a quotation and spiritual application of Abraham’s
statement to the children of Heth (Gen. xxill, 4),—7dpovxos
éyo eit Tapa col Kal TapeTlOnuos, KaBws TavTEs ol TaTépes
pov, we see that the word zraperidnwos was early in use to
represent the believer’s life on earth, with its alien surround-
ings for the citizen of heaven, its foreign language, foreign
manners, foreign views and feelings. In the only passages
of the New Testament besides the present where the word
occurs (ii. 11; Heb. xi. 13) this is its use. One of these
passages, it will be observed, is in our Epistle; and else-
where, too, the apostle gives evidence how vividly he had
this pilgrim aspect of the Christian life before his mind
(see i. 17). With regard to dsaocropa, also, the tenor of the
Epistle affords reason for doubt whether it is not to be
taken with a secondary rather than with the primary refer-
ence. In the course of the letter, the fact that the great
Catholic Church of the New Dispensation—the Church in
which the distinction between Jew and Greek is lost —
is the spiritual Israel, the body by whom the realization of
all the covenant promises to Abraham’s seed is enjoyed in
glorious fulness, is illustrated by the apostle in considerable
detail by the application to Christians of the Old Testament
INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LS
descriptions of Israel, “a chosen nation,” “a royal priesthood,”
and the like (ii. 5, 9,10). Msaczopa in the first verse, then,
may be supposed to be so employed as, at the very beginning,
to point to this position of Christians, —the combination
TapeTlonuot ScacTopas meaning “ sojourners, or pilgrims, of
the scattered spiritual Israel.”
It may appear somewhat unnatural to attach a spiritual
reference to words of this kind occurring in the address of a
letter, a position where, as a rule, not figurative language, but
the plainest and most business-like, is in place. Closer
examination, however, removes or, at least, greatly modifies
this feeling with respect to the present case. It can hardly
be questioned that the one term, zrapemidjuois, is most
naturally taken with a spiritual reference. This was evidently
the ordinary use of the word among believers, and, if taken
here literally, it appears to come in cumbrously and, indeed,
tautologically, in place of the simple tots év dvaomropa, or
James’s tals dwdexa hudais tais év TH duacropa. It is inter-
esting, too, to notice that—-whether simply through the influ-
ence of the same feeling which our apostle appears to have had
here, or directly suggested by this passage—in the immedi-
ately post-apostolic age the mention of the pilgrim life entered
not unfrequently into the superscription of public religious
letters, —as in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians, that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and that
of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdom of Polycarp.
Seeing, then, the obvious familiarity of the early Christians
with the thought that their hfe on earth was a pilgrimage,
and considering the fact that aaperidnwos was a word
commonly employed among them to express this thought,—
such, indeed, being with them, as New Testament usage
suggests, its ordinary application——we may fairly assume
that, on the occurrence of the word in the heading of this
Epistle, the spiritual reference at once presented itself to the
apostle’s readers as that which was intended by him. ‘They
might not unnaturally also carry forward this reference into
16 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IvTRop.
the next and closely kindred term dvacmopas,—holding this
word indeed, perhaps, in the first instance as somewhat
ambiguous, but soon made certain of the reference by the
catholicity of the tone of the letter, and particularly by that
application of Old Testament designations of Israel to the
Christian Church which has been already spoken of.
5. In a dissertation, published in the Journal of Sacred
Literature (January 1861), Dr. Quarry maintains that the
Epistle is addressed to Roman Christians who, under the
pressure of Nero’s persecution, had fled from the city and
taken refuge in Asia Minor, This position has the great
weight also of Prof. Salmon’s authority (Zntrod. N. T. p. 551),
thus far, at least, that he “feels much inclined” to adopt it.
Of Dr. Quarry’s argument, the main point is that 2 Pet.
iii. 15 contains a distinct reference to Rom. i. 4 (a view
in which he is supported by Grotius, Neander, and others),
and that the words éypawev vuiv are to be taken strictly.
The proof thus afforded, that the Second Epistle was written
to Roman Christians, is valid also for the First—2 Ep.
iii. 1 showing that the two were written to the same persons.
This argument, though supported by Dr. Quarry with much
ingenuity, does not seem really very strong. The reference
in 2 Pet. ui, 15 is not by any means certainly to a passage
in Romans, and, even if it were, there is no necessity for
taking the expression, “ wrote to you,’ in the narrow sense
demanded by Dr. Quarry; but, on the contrary, nothing in
the least forced in viewing it as said to natives of Asia who
had read the Epistle to the Romans,—all Scripture being
really intended for and practically addressed to all to whom
it comes, whoever might be the first recipients of the particular
portion.
Thus weak, as regards positive support, Dr. Quarry’s
position is confronted also with serious difficulties. Besides
the objections which present themselves (see § IV. of this
Introduction) to taking “Babylon” in chap. v. 13 to
mean Rome,—an interpretation needful to give anything of
InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. A
likelihcod to the view,—the proposed application of the word
dtaorropad to a body of fugitive Romans is not very natural.
Dr. Quarry feels this, and makes a somewhat desperate
attempt to obtain an analogy, by proposing to explain the
words tiv Siacropay Tov “EXAHvor, in John vii. 35, as “the
scattered Gentiles,” in place of “the (Jewish) dispersion
among the Gentiles.” According to the ordinary view of the
meaning of these words, the use of the genitive is, no doubt,
a little peculiar, though not very different from that of ITovrou
xT. in the first verse of our Epistle; but the proposed
interpretation makes é:ac7opay practically unmeaning. A
yet more weighty objection than any which is merely
linguistic, to the view that the persons addressed by Peter
were fugitives from Rome, lies in the fact that in the two
Epistles not a single expression occurs which can be sup-
posed with any naturalness to refer to flight, or to previous
residence in Italy; whilst, on the other hand, there are
references which naturally suggest that the persons addressed
had been for a considerable time settled residents in the
region where they lived. Such, for example, are (1 Ep. ii.
18 foll.) the mention of slaves, not fugitives from their masters,
nor fugitives along with Christian masters, but owned by
persons who were cruel to them; and (ili, 1) the mention
of wives, not fugitives along with Christian husbands, but
living at the time with non-Christian husbands.
6. On the whole, the most probable view seems to be that
the Epistle is addressed to the Christians generally who were
) . : : : “TL:
resident in the districts named, the apostle’s words describing
them as being all spiritually “sojourners, or pilgrims, of the
| scattered Israel of God.” The truth that all Christians,
whatever their nationality, are spiritually of the seed of
_ Abraham, must, long before the date of Peter’s letter, have
become familiar to the Asiatic believers to whom he wrote,
through references to the subject in Paul’s Epistles to
' Churches among them; see, for example, Gal. iii, 29, iv. 28 ;
mol, i. 11.
B
18 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InTROp.
IIL—OCCASION AND DATE.
1. Of the Churches throughout a large part of the area
covered by the provinces named in the superscription of the
Epistle, we know certainly, from statements in Acts and in
the Pauline Epistles, that they were founded by Paul, or by
evangelists labouring in special association with him. With
respect to the Churches in the rest of the region also, it is
highly probable, considering the abundant communication
between the different districts of Asia Minor, that they origi-
nated through the efforts of assistants or converts of Paul. In
Peter’s letter there is no allusion necessitating or naturally
leading to the supposition that he had any personal acquaint-
ance with the Christian brethren whom he addresses. He
knew their circumstances in a general way, but apparently
merely by report. That the apostle ever visited those parts,
there is no satisfactory evidence. Origen, Eusebius, and
other Fathers, indeed, speak of his having done so; but their
language is of a vague kind, such as to suggest that what
they say is not based on information, but was merely an
inference from the occurrence of the names of the Asiatic
provinces at the head of the Epistle.
2. What led to Peter’s writing to the Christians in those
districts we can only conjecture. The way in which, in v. 12,
Silvanus is spoken of makes it a somewhat likely supposition
that this evangelist — possibly, and not improbably, the
Silvanus or Silas who was for a time a fellow-labourer of
Paul, and that in Asia as well as other parts—had, after a
missionary tour through those districts, visited Peter, and given
him an account of the condition of the Churches ; and that the
apostle was thus led to send to them some words of Christian
instruction and cheer through Silvanus when he went back.
Many years previously, as we know, an arrangement
regarding division of labour had been made among the
apostles, to the effect that Peter and some of the others
a
InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 19
should devote their energies mainly to the Jews, and Paul
and his associates should give theirs mainly to work among
the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 9). This, however, was not at all
intended—no such arrangement among Christian men could,
in any circumstances, possibly be intended—as absolute
in its character. The aim of these brethren was not to make
men followers of Paul or -of Peter, but of Christ; and
accordingly the apostles of the circumcision, and the apostle
of the Gentiles and his companions, respectively, felt them-
selves in no way restrained from going for a time out of their’
own special province, if they saw that the interests of the
great common cause called for their doing so. Wherever, in
his travels, Paul found Jews, his first offer of Christ was made
to them. There are very strong grounds, too,—the adverse
criticism of Weiss, Lechler, and others notwithstanding,—
for thinking that the Epistle specially addressed to the
Hebrew believers came from the Pauline group of evangelists,
whoever was the particular writer. That Peter again should,
when oecasion seemed to him to call for it, write a letter of
brotherly counsel to Churches mainly composed of Gentile
converts,—such as the references in Acts and the Pauline
Epistles lead us to think most of these Churches of Asia
Minor must have been,—was a most natural thing in the
apostle who had been specially chosen by God to begin, in
the house of Cornelius, the direct preaching of the gospel to
the uncircumcision.
3. Considering the very close and tender relations which
these Churches of Asia held to the Apostle Paul, it is obviously
probable in a high degree that, when Peter wrote them a letter
of religious counsel and stimulus, Paul, their special guide,
to whom in the first instance they would naturally have looked
for such a communication, was known by his brother apostle
to be at the time not in a position to do the needed work.
The thought occurs that from this we may obtain some
indication of the date of the Epistle. The hint thus afforded,
however, is altogether vague ; and neither by it nor by* any-
wy)
0 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [INTROD.
thing in the letter are we enabled to determine the date to a
particular year.
It does not seem very likely that the writing of the letter
is to be placed after the death of Paul. Both that apostle
and Peter, according to statements of the Fathers which
cannot well be doubted, suffered martyrdom in Rome under
Nero. Now the data which we have in the pastoral Epistles
and in these patristic statements, appear to put Paul’s death
near the close of Nero’s reign, so near the close as to make it
scarcely probable that Peter survived his friend long enough
for us reasonably to place the writing of the Epistle in that
time,—at all events if we take the “ Babylon,” from which it
was written (v. 13), to be the distant city on the Euphrates,
and if we also accept the genuineness of the Second Epistle,
written, as it would seem, after a considerable interval.
Assuming, then, both the apostles to have been alive at the
time when our Epistle was written, we may suppose that
Peter knew Paul to be at the time unable to hear of the
condition of his Asiatic converts or to send them a com-
munication,—being occupied, it may be, on some very distant
missionary expedition, fulfilling, perhaps, his long-formed
intention of visiting Spain (Rom. xv. 24, 28; cf. also Clem.
tom. § 5). On the whole, it seems more likely that the
letter was written under some such circumstances than that
it belongs to the time after Paul’s death. Be this as it may,
however, it can hardly be doubted, at all events, that the date
of the letter falls between the end of the year 64 and the
year 68. To this period a number of facts lead us. The
limit in the one direction is 68, because in that year Nero’s
reigon ended. To or towards the end of 64, as the earliest
time when we can think of the letter as having been written,
several lines of proof converge. ‘The acquaintance with the
Epistle to the Romans which is shown in Peter’s letter —
(see § V.) makes the date certainly not before the year 58; —
and, if knowledge also of the Epistle to the Ephesians be
acdmitted,—which is, at the least, probable—this carries us
InrRop.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. vi 4s 8
| forward to the year 61 or 62. Again, of Paul’s life between
| the time of his first missionary visit to Central Asia Minor
and the year 63 we have a detailed narrative in Acts; and
} no period presents itself within that time when it seems
\ likely that another apostle would have written to the
‘Churches there. Now of his history between the time of
-/his release from the first Roman imprisonment and_ his
| martyrdom we know nothing except what we gather from
| the pastoral Epistles; and circumstances may most easily
have occurred then which made it natural and fitting that
Peter should write to Paul’s converts. Yet again, that the
Epistle was not written earlier than the latter part of the
year 64, is made highly probable by the references in it to
persecution of fiery severity (iv. 12 foll.), and particularly by
the intimation given in iv. 16, that the simple profession of
Christianity was at the time recognised by the magistrates in
Asia Minor as a ground for a criminal charge. By far the
most likely starting-point for this state of things appears, as
has been shown in § [, to have been the persecution of
the Christians in Rome, begun in 64 after the great fire.
Certainly the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians give
no hint that at the time they were written (61 or 62) there
was persecution in Asia Minor. On the whole, therefore,
it seems that we may safely date the Epistle between
64 and 68 A.D.
Besides the grounds for this judgement which have been
already stated, some little additional support seems to be
_ given to it by the apostle’s reference in v. 13 to “ Marcus ”
as sending greetings. Remembering the intimate relations
with Peter which early writers—Papias, Irenzus, and others—
ascribe to Mark the evangelist, who is almost certainly to
be identified with John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas and
associate at various times of Paul, it seems most likely that
we are to recognise him in this Mareus. From the fact of
his specially sending salutations to the Churches of Asia
Minor, we may naturally deem it at least not improbable
29 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IntROD.
that he had become acquainted with some of them. Now
in Colossians (iv. 10)
Roman imprisonment
an Epistle written during the jirst
we find that Mark, then with Paul
in Rome, had thoughts of visiting Asia Minor; and in
2nd Timothy, the last of Paul’s letters, written during the
second Roman imprisonment, we learn (iv. 11) that Mark
then was in Asia Minor. It is obvious that the supposition
of his having gone from Asia Minor to Babylon at some time
during those years, to join Peter there in his labours for a
season, fits in with all the data.
4, By one or two of the older scholars an early date for
the Epistle was thought of, about 46 or 48 a.p.; and recently
it has been maintained by Weiss that it was written before
the Apostle Paul’s influence was much felt in Asia Minor,—
certainly, therefore, before the year 54, when the apostle’s
third missionary tour began, which left such a deep impress
on all that region (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1-20). The improba-
bilities involved in this view, with respect to the existence of
fully-organized Christian Churches over a large part of Asia
Minor before Paul’s third journey,—with respect to the
similarities between this Epistle and some of the Pauline
letters, the original writer, according to Weiss, being, of
course, Peter, and Paul the secondary,—and especially with
respect to the subjection of Christianity at that early time
to formal legalized persecution,—these improbabilities are
so great that this view of the date can hardly but be
ascribed less to calm consideration of facts than to & priori
theorizing.
IV.—PLACE WHERE WRITTEN.
1. In v. 13 the apostle sends the salutations of “ the
Chureh that is at Babylon;” from which it is naturally
inferred that, when he wrote the letter, he was himself either
in that city or in the immediate neighbourhood.
To our giving the name “Babylon” here the reference
INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 23
which prima facie suggests itself to every reader, to the
famous city on the Euphrates, there does not le any serious
objection in the fact that no ancient writer speaks of Peter’s
having visited Babylonia; because with respect to his scenes
of labour during the whole of the latter part of his life we
are entirely without trustworthy information. No region was
more likely to be visited by an apostle who had it as his
special work to “go to the circumcision;” seeing that for
many generations a multitude of Jews had been resident in
those parts.
Some doubt, however, has been entertained by scholars
whether the well-known Babylon can be meant in this
passage, from the fact that, as Josephus tells us (Andtig.
xvill. 9. § 8), during the reign of Caius Cesar many of the
Jews of Babylon were led, through hostility of the heathen
and throuch pestilence, to migrate from that city, now greatly
decayed, to the flourishing neighbouring city of Seleucia.
There is not much force in this, however. The language of
the historian does not necessarily imply that the whole
Jewish population left Babylon; and supposing that it did
imply this, more than twenty years had elapsed between the
time of the migration spoken of and the period at which, with
any likelihood, the writing of this Epistle can be fixed,—an
interval long enough to allow of a renewal of the Jewish
element in the population sufficient to invite the apostle’s
labours.
2. Influenced, however, by this supposed difficulty in the
way of taking the well-known Babylon to be meant, many
expositors have looked elsewhere for the place which Peter so
names. Several purely arbitrary conjectures on the subject
have been made, which need not be discussed. To the claims
of two places a certain measure of plausibility attaches. One
of these is a small town in the Delta of Egypt, the other is
the city of Rome.
3. In favour of the former of these, little can be said
except simply that, beyond question, the place bore the name
24 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
of Babylon,—in consequence, as tradition asserted, of its
having been built by natives of the great Eastern Babylon,
who had come to Egypt in the expedition of Cambyses, or
earlier. Egypt, too, no doubt—extensively occupied as it
was by Jews—was perhaps as likely as Babylonia to be
visited by the Apostle Peter; and tradition associates the
name of the evangelist Mark—probably the “ Mareus my
son” of chap. v. 13 of our Epistle—with the founding of the
Church of Alexandria. But nothing which is known of this
Egyptian Babylon leads one to suppose it a place where Jews
were likely to be found in any considerable numbers, or
which on any ground was fitted to attract the special atten-
tion of the apostle. Moreover, though, from the time of the
Emperor Augustus, it had some provincial importance as a
military station, we have no reason whatever to think that it
was much known out of Egypt; and the great probability is
that of those Christians of Asia Minor to whom Peter wrote,
only a very few, who had family or commercial connections
with Egypt, knew of the existence of this town. It is
therefore unlikely in a very high degree that, supposing
the apostle to have written his letter from this little place
in Egypt, he would, without any minute specification, have
used a name which would certainly convey a wrong impres-
sion of where he was, and of what Church it was whose
Christian salutations he sent.
4. In favour of the claim of Rome to have been the scene
of the apostle’s labours at the time when he wrote the Epistle,
the following arguments present themselves :—/irst, The name
of the great city which so grievously oppressed the Church of
God under the old economy was a most fitting symbolical one
for the great city which oppressed the Christian Church.
Secondly, The “Babylon” of the Book of Revelation has
been generally identified with Rome. Thirdly, According to
patristic tradition, Peter did visit Rome, and, whilst much
which is demonstrably false has gathered round the original
nucleus, yet the consensus of a large number of early authori-
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 25
ties makes it hardly possible to doubt that he did suffer
martyrdom there, and may not improbably have been in the
city for some time previously. Fourthly, By early Fathers—
as Papias and Clement of Alexandria (or possibly Papias or
Clement, for the passage of Eusebius, H. #. 1. 15, which is
our authority on the point, is a little vague) and Jerome—
the name “ Babylon” in this Epistle was believed to designate
Rome. Through the influence of these considerations, the
position that Peter wrote the Epistle in Rome has been
maintained by a great many scholars, including the Roman
Catholic writers generally, and also a large number of
Protestants—of quite recent writers, for example, Godet
(NV. 7. Studies), Salmon (Introduction to N. T.), Cook (Speaker's
Commentary), Mason (Commentary for English Readers, edited
by Bishop Ellicott).
That a plausible case in favour of Rome is established
there can be no doubt; yet the real argumentative force of
the facts which have been mentioned appears to grow con-
siderably less as one looks at them. Admitting that the
apostle probably suffered martyrdom in Rome, he may yet
quite well at the time of writing this letter have been in a
region far distant from Rome; because the precise date of the
letter is uncertain within several years. Again, a symbolical
name, perfectly suitable and natural in a book of visions like
the Apocalypse, does not seem to come in at all naturally in
a quiet, business-like, unmystical statement like that in chap.
v. 15 of our Epistle. It will be observed, too, that, on any
reasonable view of the dates of the two books, the writing
of the Epistle was almost certainly prior to that of the
Apocalypse; and there is no evidence—nor, considering the
history of the Church up to that time, any likelihood—that
“ Babylon” had already come to be known among the Chris-
tians as a designation of Rome. On the supposition under
discussion, then, Peter, in a piece of calm unimpassioned prose,
employed a familiar name in an altogether unfamiliar sense,
without adding a word of explanation, or giving the slightest
26 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
hint that he was writing mystically. The patristic opinion,
that the apostle’s reference is to Rome, is of little moment ;
because, long before the time even of Papias, Rome had shown
herself clearly as a cruel oppressor of the Church, and the
Book of Revelation had made the symbolical sense of the
name Babylon familiar to all Christians. In such circum-
stances the tradition of Peter’s connection with Rome might
most naturally lead to the thought that, in the name as
employed in his Epistle also, the mystical meaning was to
be recognised.
By Mason, Quarry, and others it is suggested that, sup-
posing Rome to be meant by Babylon in our apostle’s use of
the name, the reason for his so speaking might be that at the
time it was dangerous for him, or for the Roman Church, to
have it known beyond the ranks of the believers in Christ
where he was. The name was therefore disguised in such a
way that while Christians—this peculiar use of ‘“ Babylon”
being perhaps already known to them—might recognise what
was intended, enemies, should a copy of the Epistle fall into
their hands, would be led astray. This is as likely an
explanation as could be given; and yet it is far-fetched,
seeing that obviously, if such was the apostle’s position, the
simple course was open to him of saying nothing at all in
the letter with respect to where he was, leaving it to his
messenger, Silvanus, to give information on this subject
should it seem needful or desirable to do so, Dr. Quarry
ventures also the singular conjecture regarding the names
Pontus, Cappadocia, and the rest at the beginning of the
Epistle, that “the apostle, having adopted Babylon to desig-
nate Rome, might, for the same reason, have employed
these other Asiatic names to represent regions which it
would have been dangerous to mention by their real
names.”
The only thing in the Epistle which has been thought of
as fitted to cast light on the question whether it was written
in the Eastern Babylon or in Rome, is the order in which
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 2G
the names of the provinces mentioned in the first verse stand.
To this, with characteristic acuteness, attention was drawn by
Bengel: Quinque provincias nominat eo ordine quo occur-
rebant scribenti ex oriente. Supposing the course which his
messenger would take in travelling through Asia Minor for
the purpose of encouraging the Churches, and of delivering
copies of the Epistle, to have been in Peter’s mind while he
was writing, the order of the names certainly suggests that
he was in a place not west of Asia Minor, but east,—some
region from which a traveller would. first reach the north-east
district, Pontus, and then go on westward. The somewhat
zigzag arrangement of the names exactly accords with the
probable course of a messenger sent from the east to visit all
the important Churches in the region. The argument, while
not perhaps so strong as Bengel apparently thought it, seems
to be by no means without force. Quite conceivably, no
doubt, something altogether different from thought of the
route which Silvanus would take in travelling with the
letter might dictate the order in which the apostle has put
the names; yet this explanation does appear the most
natural,—for one certainly expects the address of a com-
munication which is to be delivered successively to several
individuals or communities to follow what is likely to be the
order of delivery. Canon Cook (Speaker's Commentary, Intro-
duction to First Peter, § 4) feels the force of the argument,
and—holding that Rome was the place of writing—attempts
to show that it tells in favour of his view. “The first
district mentioned,” he says, “is Pontus. Now Pontus was
a district in constant communication with Rome; a vessel
proceeding from Rome would probably proceed there directly,
if its course was determined by the lines of traffic; and,
whether we suppose that it was sent on public or on Chris-
tian business, the seaports of Pontus would be equally con-
‘venient. On the other hand, had the messenger of St. Peter
started from Babylon, it is impossible that Pontus should
have been the first district which he reached, or that which
28 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
would naturally present itself first to the apostle’s mind.”
The last of these sentences appears to be simply an arbitrary
contradiction of a general, natural, reasonable belief; for
whilst, no doubt, Cappadocia was the nearest to Babylon of
the provinces named, yet innumerable circumstances might
have directed the messenger’s route to Pontus first. The
likelihood of the supposition set forth in the earlier part of
the quotation must be left to be determined by individual
judgement.
5. On the whole, Wetstein’s conclusion seems sound: Cur
Babylon in Italia potius aut AZgypto quam in Mesopotamia
sit querenda, causam non video. No really strong reason
presents itself for departing from the prima facie sense of the
name.
V.—STRUCTURE AND LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE EPISTLE.
1. The Epistle is an earnest and affectionate pastoral
address to a number of congregations which, besides the
common difficulties incident to all Christians, had also the
special anxieties and spiritual dangers connected with present
and growing persecution.
2. This special element in the position of those believers
for whose benefit, in the first instance, the apostle wrote,
has in great measure determined the tone of the letter.
What is distinctive in it, as compared with the other N. T.
writings, is mainly its peculiar wealth of teaching fitted
to cheer persecuted Christians, and sustain them in faith
and in holy resolution. It is particularly with respect to
the bearings of the gospel on the various kinds of spiritual
peril which this form of trial brings with it—temptation to
impatience, to unbelief and distrust, to despondency, to sinful
compromises with the world—that Peter “exhorts and
testifies” that the way of life through Christ, of which the
InTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 29
Asiatic Churches had heard from Paul and other evan-
gelists, was “the true grace of God” (v.12). “The great
and permanent merit of our Epistle is to have first distinctly
set forth the right view as to the position of Christians in
reference to the whole power of heathendom, and to its
persecutions of the Church ” (Ewald, cited by Cook).
3. The structure of the letter is in every respect simple
and natural. Jteminders of the richness and grandeur of
the Christian’s privileges and hopes, set forth to comfort
and to stimulate, lead easily into direct inculeation of holiness
of heart and life, and of the special obligations attaching to
particular stations and relations. Throughout the whole
letter, sympathy with the Asiatic believers in their trials
shows itself distinctly, and strong desire so to guide their
thoughts and affections that the persecution may be to all
of them a helpful discipline; and in the latter part of the
Epistle this subject is dealt with expressly and at large.
4. The outline of the letter is as follows. After the
superscription and salutation @. 1, 2) comes a singularly rich
and beautiful description of the privileges of believers (i. 3-9),
and of the glory of that gospel which is proclaimed to them,
—a gospel looked forward to with eager longing by the holy
prophets of old, and gazed down into with intensest loving
interest by the angels G. 10-12).
On this representation of privilege naturally bases itself an
exhortation to duty ; and this, first, general, to the cultivation
of holiness (i. 13-11. 10)—an obligation manifestly resting
on the believers as being called by and children of God
(i. 13-17), and redeemed with the blood of Christ (i. 18-21).
Having received into their souls by faith God’s word of life,
the readers are to seek to know this word ever more deeply,
and to grow in that spirit of love, without which there cannot
be increasing assimilation of the word for spiritual nourish-
ment (i, 22—11.3). Thus they will be built in as living stones
in the temple which rests on the living foundation, Christ,—
who is a stone of stumbling to His foes, but precious to them
30 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InTROD.
that believe (ii. 4-8). This general section of the practical
portion of the Epistle closes with another inspiriting sketch
of the privileges of Christians, and this in Old Testament
language which was originally employed to describe the
blessed position of Israel as Jehovah’s people, and thus, as
used in the Epistle, represents the Church of Christ as the
spiritual Israel (i. 9, 10).
In the second section of the practical part we have a
series of injunctions to the performance of special duties
(u. L1-v. 9), introduced by an appeal to all the Christians
to remember that, as citizens of heaven who at the present are
pilgrims in an alien world, they should show to all around
them a winning heavenly beauty of life (ii. 11,12). One
important element in such beauty of life was submission to
those under whose authority God’s providence had placed
them,—the submission of subjects to their rulers (11. 13-17) ;
of servants to their masters, and this with patient endurance
even of cruel wrong, as Christ, the Sinless One, meekly bore
the cruelties of those sinners whom He came to save (11.
18-25); of wives to their husbands (iii. 1-6). By correla-
tion, this last injunction suggests the duty of husbands to
their wives (iil. 7). To all believers now, whatever their
special positions and relations, the apostle addresses an
appeal to cultivate mutual love (iii, 8), and under the
hostility of the men of the world to return good for evil
(ui. 9), -— the appeal being enforced by a quotation from
the Old Testament (iii. 10-12).
At this point counsels specially addressed to the believers
as members of a persecuted Church begin; and the thought
of trial seems to be vividly before the writer’s mind to the
close of the practical part of his letter Gi. 13—v. 9), though
there are occasionally short passages in which it does not
definitely show itself. Under persecution, believers, feeling
that, because they are God’s children, they cannot suffer
permanent harm, should be restful, stedfast, and manly
(iii. 18-15), having ever before their hearts as the matter
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ol
of main concern the prayerful resolution that their sufferings
shall be in and for well-doing, and never in and for evil-doing
(iii. 16, 17). The fact, signally illustrated in the case of the
Redeemer Himself, that suffering for righteousness’ sake in
flesh brings quickening in spirit, is fitted to give to His people
under persecution peculiar consolation and peculiar stimulus
(iii. 18-iv. 6). The thought of His second coming also should
be much before their minds (iv. 7a), leading to prayer and
watchfulness (iv. 70), and sustaining brotherly love (iv. 8),
which should show itself in kind dealings towards each other,
both in the way of aid in the matters of this world, hospitality
being specified (iv. 9), and in spiritual helpfulness (iv. 10, 11).
A fiery trial was upon the apostle’s readers, which ought not
to astonish and depress them as if it were something wholly
different from what, as Christians, they might have expected
(iv. 12). On the contrary, they should rejoice as they thought
of the connection between present fellowship with Christ
in His sufferings and future fellowship with Him in His
glory (iv. 15); nay, they should count the very suffering for
Him to be itself true glory (iv. 14). But let them see to
it that they suffered never for evil-doing, but always strictly
as Christians (iv. 15, 16). Their sufferings were fitted to
awaken in them a thankful remembrance of God’s grace to
them in Christ; for, if sin be so evil that even His own
people need for discipline such painful trials here, how awful
must that doom be which awaits His enemies hereafter, and
from which His love saves believers (iv. 17, 18)! Therefore,
thinking of all His goodness, let them trust Him fully,
earnestly doing His will (iv. 19).
At this point the apostle proceeds to give special injunc-
tions to the elders of the various congregations (v. 1-3), and
encourages them in their work by reminding them of the
glorious reward which awaits Christ’s faithful servants (v. 4).
By correlation, this naturally leads to a special word of
exhortation to the younger members (v. 5a), followed by
injunctions for all to be humble, trustful, and watchful
ae FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InrRop.
against the temptations of the devil (v. 50-9). The
hortatory part of the Epistle then closes with an affectionate
prayer for the suffering brethren, ending with a doxology
(ye alO.5141)),
After this come a few concluding words. The apostle
makes a kind reference to his messenger Silvanus, and states
in a summary way what had been his purpose in writing the
letter (v. 12); sends the Christian salutations of the Church
at Babylon, and those of Marcus (v. 13); calls on his readers
to “greet one another with a kiss of love” (v. 14a); and
ends, as he began, with a benediction (v. 14).
5, This outline of the contents of the letter shows suf-
ficiently that the apostle does not write specially to teach
theology, but, by practical advice and kind encouragement,
to strenethen the religious life of persons assumed to be
already well-informed Christians. His references to theology
include nothing which is not, in substance, set forth also in
other parts of the New Testament,—with the exception,
according to one interpretation of chap. i. 19, 20, iv. 6,
of a statement regarding the Lord’s work during the three
days between His death and resurrection.
6. As compared with Paul, the apostle of faith, and John,
the apostle of love, Peter is sometimes called the apostle of
hope. There is ground for this name. The words eAmis and
édrifew, indeed, do not occur in the letter unusually often
G. 3, 13, 21, i. 5, 15); but—as was most natural, in any
circumstances, in an old man, worn with labour and looking
forward to the martyr’s death, of which his Lord had long
before told him, and specially natural when he was writing
to Christians placed in the midst of sore trial—he constantly
turns his own thoughts and theirs to the joys and glories of
the future life (cf. i 3-8, 13, i. 7, iv. 13, v. 1, 4, 6, 10).
“ Everything is seen in the light of the end. The ‘ appearing’
of Jesus Christ fills the view” (Salmond). Yet at the same
time this loving, eager anticipation associates itself in the
Epistle, in a very interesting way, with an unusual abundance
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oo
of reference to the Old Economy. A peculiarly cherished
aspect, evidently, in the apostle’s mind, of the Church of
Christ—one which is presented to us in the first words of the
superscription, and constantly, in many ways, throughout—
is that of the spiritual Israel of God. The retrospective and
prospective tendencies harmonize beautifully; and it is
hardly too much to say with Bonifas (L’Unité de lenseigne-
ment apostolique, p. 55, cited by Lechler) that all the teaching
of the Epistle is grouped round this central idea, L’Evangile
—accomplissement des promesses,—et promesse a son tour.
For a systematic exhibition of the doctrinal teaching found in
the Epistle, Schmid’s or Weiss’s Biblical Theology of N. T.
may be consulted, or Lechler’s Apostolic and Post-Apostolic
Times; and as to the Christology in particular, Liddon’s
Bampton Lectures, pp. 294-299.
7. While thus our Epistle has very little in its teaching
which can strictly be called distinctive, it has at the same time
a well-marked character of its own. Those of the Pauline
Epistles to which the aim and structure of Peter’s give it most
resemblance are Philippians and First Thessalonians. But from
these, as from all Paul’s writings, it is distinguished by its
having announcements and exhortations merely, with little or
nothing of formal reasoning; and also through the rarity in it
of any reference to the writer’s own history and feelings, such
as constitutes one most striking feature of Paul’s letters. Such
reference is not altogether wanting here (v. 1); and, of course,
in an Epistle like the present, addressed to Christians whom
in all probability the apostle had not visited, there was in any
ease less likelihood of much personal allusion than in Paul’s
Epistles to the Churches of Philippi and Thessalonica, which
he had himself founded. But, comparing Peter’s letter with
those to the Romans and the Colossians, Churches which at the
time of writing Paul knew only by report, we see Peter to be
much nearer the impersonal in style than evidently was
possible for the temperament of his brother apostle.
8. From the style of the Epistle of James, again, that of
C
34 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INrROD.
Peter's is very clearly marked off; in that, though Peter
employs Old Testament phraseology considerably more than
James does, his whole tone and current of thought are much
more distinctively New Testament than James’s, whose
writing is like that of a Joel or Amos of Christian times.
9. With the evidence regarding one feature of the Apostle
Peter’s character which is afforded by the wealth of Christian
consolation found in the Epistle, its literary structure also
accords in a somewhat singular measure. From this literary
structure itself one might gather him to have been a man of
eminently sympathetic and receptive mind, one exceedingly
open to impression from men or from books-—a characteristic
which, whilst at times betraying his impulsive nature into
what was weak or wrong, as on the occasion when he incurred
Paul’s rebuke at Antioch, must have been one great element
in his manifest power to win affection. The union of
sympathy with the noble strength that lay at the basis of his
character was the secret of his vast influence for good. The
flower wreathed and beautified the “ rock.”
This receptiveness of nature is illustrated in the frequency,
referred to a moment ago, with which Old Testament language
is employed by the apostle, not merely in the way of definite
quotation, but as the vesture in which his own thoughts are
clothed.
It shows itself still more strikingly in his use of the
writings of his fellow-apostle Paul. That echoes of these
are to be recognised in our Epistle, hardly admits of reason-
able doubt. It is true that on a considerable number of those
coincidences of thought or of expression which are to be
found no conclusion to this effect could safely be rested,
because the coincidence may be sufficiently explained as due
simply to the employment by both apostles of what had
become commonplaces of the religious thought and language
of their age. But some of the similarities, from their nature
and from the connections in which they present themselves,
cannot well be accounted for in this way. Such are the
InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 30
following,—1 Pet. 11. 13, 14, compared with Rom, xii. 1, 3, 4;
ty Pets i: 24, with’ Rom. vi... S—14; 1. Pet. ii. 8, 9, with
coment. 102 M3=" 7251 Petsavs 15/2) fwith Rom. vi'6;. 7°;
1 Pet. 11. 16, with Gal. v.13. These are perhaps the strongest
cases, and they seem to afford satisfactory proof of Peter's
familiarity with Romans, and a strong probability also of his
knowing Galatians. Similarities, more or less striking, of
thought or expression, or both, between our Epistle and
several others of Paul’s have been noticed. As regards
Ephesians, in particular, some scholars—Holtzmann, Renan,
Salmon, and others—have deemed the evidence of use by
Peter to be satisfactory ; and there certainly is a probability,
but the cases of likeness adduced do not appear to be so
decisive as with respect to Romans."
1 The following similarities, in addition to those mentioned in the text,
have been pointed out by one writer or another :—
1 Pet. i. 1, 2, with Eph. 1. 4-7.
Ga. 2 » 2 Chess. ii. 13.
ar re hee +n) up Ie 3 3 2 Cor. 1 3:
Pom enoy ay ral. Bl ae BE a. AL)
a pipe » LHph. ii. 3; Rom. xii. 2.
ede LS, po pho tve 7,
pete 2X); 5 Rom. iv; 24 xvi: 25; Col: 1.26:
er ee 5, Kom. iv. 24.
ee a De, 4 Om. XA1.,'9.
5 aL, io Coles 8:
UO, » Rom. xii. 1; Eph. ii. 20-22.
» li. 6-10, Oe ONL wx, .2o7 a2 for,
ae dap vicky 5 Latova,. yyalih, Bp
gee eS oe Ome. xl, 10;
Sy) lila ish » mph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22.
atl e2l » Rom. vi. 18.
2 ai a » Lph. v.22); Col. ii. 18.
se nlilienes fA ey een in:
inl Tsk oo pho 18, : 109, 12,
Pella. 22, » Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20-22.
el iv. 9; 5 bil sid., 14,
saeuvs. 20 toll » Rom. xii. 6 foll.
iver ls, SP eRoms vaio 7.
re ale Se ROM. willl. Ss
a Wats ye, eve 2
ai PASVE, Se » . Thess. v. 6.
ri er, Eph. vi. 10.
Bid)
EA Se etre. Phil. ty. 19,
Sor. Won det, a el Corexva. 20a -Rom ya! 165.11 Thess, v.26,
In a good many of these cases the resemblance is exceedingly slight.
36 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InrRop.
10. The question occurs whether, in thus again and again
making use of passages in Paul’s Epistles, when writing to
Churches which Paul had founded, and by many members of
which in all likelihood some of these Epistles were well
known, the Apostle Peter might not perhaps have a definite
intention to suggest, in a quiet and unobtrusive but very
convincing way, how complete was his confidence in Paul,
and how warm his affection for him. This is obviously
possible, and seems to be not improbable. here is evidence,
both in statements of the New Testament and in early post-
apostolic Christian literature, that, whilst complete cordiality
and mutual confidence existed among the apostles themselves,
yet in various places members of the Church «misapprehended
entirely the relations of Peter and Paul to each other. An
arrangement for division of labour adopted simply on grounds
of expediency, and those slight diversities “in modes of
procedure incident to the diversity in their ‘fidlds of action,
were taken as evincing an important difference of religious
opinion between the apostles of the circumcision on the one
side, and Paul and his associates on the other. We have no
information, nor any data from which we could reasonably
infer, that among the Churches of Asia Minor there was
anything like the definite sectarianism of Corinth, which had
for battle-cries “I am of Paul,’ “and I of Cephas.” Still,
remembering how active and influential, a few years before
the probable date of our Epistle, Judaizers of different types
had been in Galatia and at Colossee,—all of which class of
teachers probably professed to regard the apostles of the
circumcision as their special religious leaders——it seems far
from unlikely that some misconceptions with respect to the
relations between Peter and Paul may have been entertained
in some of the Churches. The supposition that there did exist
erroneous beliefs of this kind, of which Peter had heard, is
certainly not at all needful to account for his use of Paul’s
writings in his letter, nor indeed is it perhaps strictly
necessary for the explanation of anything that occurs in the
INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ok
letter; but it does place his making use of Paul’s Epistles
in a peculiarly beautiful light, and it gives, too, a special
importance and force to such a statement as that so empha-
tically made in i. 12, that Paul and the other founders
of the Churches in those parts had “ preached the: gospel to
them with the Holy Ghost sent down from. heaven,” and that
other in v. 12, where Peter mentions it as one of his objects
in writing the Epistle, “to testify that this”—the system of
beliefs and hopes which he had illustrated in. his. letter, and
which all his readers must have felt to be at every point
essentially the same as that which Paul had: taught them—
“was the true grace of God,” and urges them to “stand in
this grace.” Language like this-reasonably suggests that the
writer knew some among his readers to have been disposed to
set a Petrine doctrine of “the grace of God” over against the
Pauline, and that therefore Peter judged it needful to- declare,
in the most explicit way, that Paul’s gospel and _ his- gospel
were one—which had been taught to Paul, as to him,. “ by
the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” Such suggestion
comes forward in the latter of the passages just quoted more
definitely and vividly if we read év 7, éoryjxare than if we
follow the better- supported reading o7jTe; but with the
imperative also it seems naturally to present itself in some
measure.
11. There appears to be considerable reason to believe
that echoes of the Epistle of James also, as well as. of the
Pauline writings, are to be recognised in Peter’s letter.
When we remember the impressibleness and receptiveness of
Peter’s mind, this is antecedently probable.. James and he
had long been closely associated in labour, and in all likeli-
hood were intimate friends; and there can be little doubt
that James’s Epistle had been published many years before
the time when Peter wrote his. Two of the similarities of
the one letter to the other are hardly, in themselves, proofs of
reminiscence, namely, the quotations from O. T. which are
madean' Jag.) yO, EL, tv. 205-and also’: in’ 1. Pet: - i, 24,
3 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD.
iv. 8; for the passages cited are such as may reasonably be
assumed to have been familiar to every pious Jew. In both
instances, moreover, the quotations are more full in Peter
than in James, and are applied somewhat differently. Buta
comparison of Jas. i. 2, 3, with 1 Pet. i 6, 7, and of Jas.
iv. 6-10, with 1 Pet. v. 5—9, certainly establishes a strong
likelihood that in these places the one writer influenced the
other.
12. Whilst, however, the Epistle thus gives evidence of
the receptiveness of the apostle’s mind, individuality also, as
has already been said, shows itself clearly in the mode in
which the various subjects are dealt with. Looking at them
from a point of his own, his treatment has always freshness
and interest. As regards the sufferings of Christ, for instance,
whilst clearly bringing out their atoning character (i. 18, 19,
ii. 24, iii, 18), he dwells also with peculiar fulness on the
aspect of example which they present to believers amid the
oppositions of the world, both in that they were wholly
undeserved, and in that they were borne with perfect patience
and sweetness of spirit (ii. 21-23, iii. 17, 18, iv. 1, 13).
The mediatorial position of the Lord, too,—the fact that all
holiness and all happiness for men are “through” Him,—
comes before us in the letter with striking frequency, and
occasionally in somewhat unusual aspects. The hope of His
people has life “through His resurrection” (i. 3). Faith in
God comes to men “through Him” (i. 21). The spiritual
sacrifices of the saints are acceptable to God “through Him ”
(ii. 5). Salvation is “through His resurrection” (iii. 21).
In the wise use of spiritual gifts by Christians God is glorified
“through Him” (iv. 11). Closely analogous also is that
pointed enunciation of the truth that before the incarnation,
as well as since, divine revelation to man has been “through
Christ,” which is given by the name “the Spirit of Christ”
(i. 11), applied to the Divine Teacher of the prophets, and
also—according to what seems to be the probable meaning of
the passage—by the statement (i111. 19, 20) that the pre-
InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 39
incarnate Logos “preached” to the antediluvians. But the
chief specialty of the apostle’s cast of thought, as represented
in this letter, is that to which attention has previously been
directed, the singularly interesting union of retrospect and
prospect, his living so much in musings on O. T. words and
scenes, and at the same time so much in anticipation of the
“olorious appearing” of the Lord, and the blessedness of the
New Jerusalem.
The apostle has some striking individualities of phrase.
Such, for instance, are the “living hope” (i. 3), and “ for con-
sciousness of God” (ii. 19).
Lexically, also, our Epistle has a good deal which is peculiar,
there being sixty words which occur only here in N. T.,.—
including several found elsewhere only very rarely, or not at
all, such as ampocwroAjpTtTas, adAoTpLETLO KOTTOS, apYLToluny,
auvekdexTos. These last words, or one or other of them, may
possibly be creations of the apostle himself, a natural enough
outcome of his eager, impetuous temperament.
13. As regards syntax, the apostle’s style of expression has
little which is peculiar. His sentences are generally simple
and lucid. They are often short; and expansion, where it
does occur, is of an easy and natural kind,— one rather
favourite form with him, especially in hortatory passages,
being the keeping of a considerable series of thoughts in
connection with one main verb, by using participles (see,
for instance, ii, 13 foll.). Paul also somewhat loves this
structure (see, for example, Rom. xi. 9 foll.). Peter is fond,
too, of introducing what are substantially new sentences by
the relative pronoun (cf. i. 6, 8, 10, 12, ii. 4)—a mode of
expression which crept into the later Greek probably through
the influence of Latin. It is not infrequent also in other
parts of N. T., but is somewhat specially common in Peter.
* A list of these words is given in the Appendix to Thayer's edition of
Grimm’s N. T. Lexicon.
COMMENTARY.
—-0
CHAPTER: sf
Vv. 1, 2. Superscription and Salutation.
Ver. 1. The new name given to the apostle by his Master
appears to have been, as was natural, that which he com-
monly employed, and by which he was generally known in
the Church,—usually in the Greek form, as here, not unfre-
quently also in the Aramaic, “ Cephas” (Paul using the two
indifferently). The name “Simon” or “Symeon,’ however,
familiar to his early friends, was not discarded either by them
or by him (cf. Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet.i.1). His appending to
his name his official appellation, aootodos “Incod Xpiotod,
natural and usual in any case in a letter of this kind, has
obviously a special pertinence in the present instance, from
the fact that Peter was writing to Churches which he had
not himself planted, ner even perhaps ever visited. The title
“apostle” is a reminder at the outset that the writer was one
of that little group of servants of Christ to whom had been
given by the Master the oversight, not of particular congrega-
tions, but of the whole Church.
By some good interpreters (as Leighton and Brown) it has
been held that é«Aextots here does not point to God’s eternal
choice, but to the result of that choice, the selection and
separation in time—the “calling,” in fact—of the persons
spoken of. In support of this sense reference is made to the
use of ékAéyeoOae in John xv. 19; 1 Cor.i. 26-28. To this
view of the meaning in the present passage these scholars are
led by consideration of the adjunct in ver. 2, €v dyacpe
I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 41
IIvevpatos. Obviously, when these words come in, the actual
separation from the sinful world is in the apostle’s mind, the
preposition év, in the connection, clearly indicating a means,
whilst of the divine eternal choice this dysacpos is un-
doubtedly a result. But it is not needful on this account to
suppose that our apostle uses é«AexTots with a different refer-
ence from that which the word usually has. Starting with the
thought of the all-efficient divine choice, the mind of a reader
follows down the line of the operation of this choice towards the
actual severance which it brings about; and thus an allusion
to means has in it nothing unnatural. On the other hand,
when looked at in connection with the jirst of the adjuncts,
KaTa Tpoyvwow KTX., any other reference of éxAexTols than to
the eternal choice does seem unnatural and improbable ; for one
instinctively thinks of the passage thus far as being precisely
parallel to Paul’s ods mpoéyvw kal mpowpice (Rom. viii. 29).
As to the meaning of wapemiOdypmous Svacrropas, and as to
the history of the Churches in the various districts named,
see the Introduction, § II. The words émiédnwos and éridnpety
are found employed by writers of the best age in the sense of
making a temporary home among strangers (e.g. Plato, Apol.
Soc. § 4), as well as with their primitive force of living
among one’s own people; and among the later writers the
secondary use became the prevalent one (cf. Acts i. 10,
xvii. 21). In the compound srapemidnwos prominence is
given to this thought of temporary residence by the pre-
position,—living “ beside” the dwellers, not strictly “ among”
them. On the pilgrim state of believers compare, besides
references given in the Introduction, Phil. iii. 20, Heb. xii. 14,
also a fine chapter of Hermas, Sim. i., and the well-known
and exquisite passage in the Epistle to Diognetus, chap. v.
Ver. 2. The grammatical connection of the three expres-
sions which form the first part of this verse is not altogether
clear. By a number of the older interpreters, as Oecumenius
and Theophylact (with whom a few of the modern agree, as
Kahnis and—alternatively, but seemingly with preference—
42 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2.
Canon Cook), these adjuncts are attached to dmooTonos.
A statement similar to that which we should thus have here
respecting divine appointment to the apostleship, and respect-
ing the aim of that office, is found in the superscription of
several of the Pauline Epistles, the one in Romans, in
particular, corresponding pretty closely to that supposed to
be given here. But Peter’s arrangement of words is utterly
against this view of the connection. In every case Paul
ends all that he means to say in the way of expanding the
designation “apostle,” before he proceeds to name those to
whom he writes. Cook’s position, that Peter’s mention of
the persons addressed—which is quite evidently one of the
two main parts of the sentence—may be regarded as paren-
thetical, is wholly unnatural and untenable. Huther takes
the connection of these adjuncts to be with é«dexTols
mapemonuwows ; but, having regard to the meaning of the
clauses, it seems to be decidedly most natural, with the
majority of interpreters, to attach them immediately and
simply to é«dexrois. In beginning a letter of specifically
Christian instruction and counsel, the apostle of necessity
had the distinctive position, privileges, and character of
Christians vividly present to his mind; and the thought
regarding these which rose up before him most prominently
was that of the glorious grace of God to which they were
due. Thus he naturally gave é«Xexrois the emphatic position
which it has,—thus he naturally carried the thovght of
exdextots with him over the enumeration of the provinces,
and to 7 attached the words which follow,—thus naturally
also, immediately after the superscription and salutation, he
opens the letter itself with a glowing doxology, acknowlede-
ing God’s “abundant mercy.”——The three adjuncts set forth
respectively the origin of election, the means by which it acts,
and its aim. In this series we observe a distinct reference
to the Trinity, these expressions exhibiting the loving interest
and participation of the Three Persons of the Godhead in the
work of redemption,—here particularly in the application of
I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 43
redemption. The choice of God’s peculiar people has its
origin in the will of the Father, works out its purpose
through the renewing and consecrating influence of the
Spirit, and has for its aim full enjoyment by them of the
salvation purchased through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
The first of this series of epexegetical statements, as has
been said, exhibits the origin of the ékAoyn. In the connec-
tion there can be no reasonable doubt that this is what is
indicated by cata. The primary sense of this preposition
(cf. Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 182) seems to be “in line
with ” (see, for example, Acts xxvii. 7). From this all its
varied applications naturally spring. In that most common
use exemplified in the present passage, where the preposition
is an expression of parallelism or correspondence in the most
general way, answering to our English “according to,” the
precise nature of the relation intended depends on the nature
of the objects which are exhibited in connection with each
other. Now, seeing that in our passage the three adjuncts
evidently set before us a cowrse, which is carried forward éy,
and leads es, cata is naturally taken to indicate the origin-
ating influence; and, comparing Scripture teaching elsewhere
with respect to the relation between election and the divine
foreknowledge (Rom. viii. 29), we cannot hesitate in the
judgement that the force of xara is “ by virtue of, in pursuance
of.’ The connection is one of cause and effect.
By mpoyveors, as the word is here employed, more appears
to be meant than simple prescience. As has been already seen,
it is clearly represented as being an active power, the influence
which originates a course of procedure. This being borne in
mind, then, there appear to be, if we take simple prescience to
be meant, two possible complements. (1) The meaning might
be, “ by virtue of God’s foreknowledge of what in all circum-
stances would best promote the grand ultimate aim of all His
working, His own glory.” This would be true and relevant.
But the connection in which wpdyvwous here stands seems to
forbid our filling out the thought with anything so general as
44 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ten os
this, and to require something referring specifically to the
€xAexTot themselves. This objection is sustained, too, by the
fact that in both the places where the verb mpoywooxew
occurs in N. T. in any connection similar to the present
(Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2), its object is personal. (2) Supposing,
then, a special reference to the elect, we might take the
meaning to be “by virtue of God’s foreknowledge of excellence
or attractiveness, faith or holiness, in certain persons.” But
the position that election is Kata mpdoyvwouv, with such a
force of rpoyvwars as this, is directly opposed to the teaching
of Scripture (eg. 2 Tim. 1. 9; Rom. ix. 11), cause and effect,
indeed, being by such a representation made to change places
(Eph. i. 3, 4),—-and self-contradiction is thus introduced into
the present passage, even taken simply by itself, for it
describes those of whom it speaks as being é«AexTol evs
vmaxonv. With neither of what appear to be the only
possible complements, therefore, is the sense of mere prescience
tenable. Besides the objections which have been mentioned,
another presents itself in the structure of the sentence, there
being, as has been seen, in the series of adjuncts a clear
reference to the Three Divine Persons. This structure seems
plainly to require in the first member of the series what is
obvious in the other two, not mention of a general attribute
of the Godhead, but of something which Scripture has taught
us to recognise as special in the relation borne to the work of
redemption by the Divine Person named. Now, with regard
to God the Father, the eternal purpose is what is constantly
made prominent; cf. eg. Eph.i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9; Jas a 28s
Thus we are naturally led to think of the idea of purpose,
predetermination, as involved with prescience, in the sense of
mpoyvwors as the word is used in our passage. It is true
that this cannot be shown to have been a classical use of
either the substantive or its cegnate verb, a fact which,
according to his wont, is decisive with Meyer in his lengthened
and able discussion of the question (on Rom. viii. 29). But
with the fact before us that a quite familiar classical use
ay 9] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 45
of the simple verb ysyvo@oxe is in the sense of “ resolve,
decide”. (as Herod. i. 74, 78), there seems to be nothing
arbitrary, or other than entirely natural, in our giving the
corresponding force to the compound with po in N. T., if
the course of thought in the places where the word occurs
appears plainly to call for some such sense. It may, like
many other words, receive a heightening of its significance
when baptized into Christianity; just as, for example, an
element of approbation and affection enters sometimes into
the sense of the simple verb yiyveoxery in N. T. use (as
Matt. vii. 23; 1 Cor. vill. 3), in accordance with a common
use of the Hebrew YV (as Amos iii. 2). That the course of
thought in those passages in N. T., where zrpoywockey and
mpoyvects are said of God, does demand something additional
to the simple sense of prescience, has been felt by a very
large proportion even of those expositors who doubt whether
“ predetermination”” is meant; many (as Tholuck, Hofmann,
Delitzsch, T. 8. Green) adopting in some form that notion of
affectionate regard which has just been mentioned as found
sometimes in the simple verb. But this does not suit all the
passages; see Acts il. 23, and ver. 20 of the present chapter.
The sense of purpose fits all the places; and it cannot but be
felt that, as applied to God, this meaning attaches itself to
“‘mpoyvecis altogether naturally, for the prescience of “ Him
who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will”
is simply His consciousness of His:own purpose in all its
ramifications. Supposing an element of purpose to be in-
cluded in the force of the word, still plainly in our passage
““ election,’ as in Rom. vill. 29 “ predestination,” is distin-
cuished from it. What the distinction is, we have not data
for judging, further than that evidently the divine tpoyvaats
is represented as the basis on which the divine é«Xoy7 or
Tpoopioos rises, or the source from which it springs. The
fact that with regard to the counsels of the Infinite One we
cannot determine with precision the respective reference of
the words, is plainly not in itself any reason for concluding
46 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2.
that the element of purpose does not enter at all into the
sense of mpoyvears ; but it is a good reason why, not assuming
to know more than we do know, we should content ourselves
in translation with the simple rendering of the word which
the Spirit has chosen to employ, “ foreknowledge.” On the
force of rpoyvwars, cf. Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 29. -
The second of the adjuncts to éxNextois, év aylacue
IIvevparos, sets forth the means by which the divine choice
reaches its aim, “in (through) consecration of (by) the Spirit.”
The force of the root ay-, in &ycos, &yos, dfowas KTH, Sanscr. jag,
is “ religious reverence or awe;” cf. Curtius, Gr. Ltym. (KE. T.)
i. p. 199. Into &yos and its derivatives biblical usage poured
a rich ethical significance, no word perhaps showing more the
transfiguring power of divine revelation. The sense of “to be
revered simply as set apart for the service of God,” presents
itself when ayos is used of the temple, the shewbread, the oil
for anointing the priests, and the like. Similarly, when the
sinless Lord Jesus applies the word dyagev to Himself
(John x. 56, xvii. 19), the simple sense of the verb is
“ consecrate, set apart for priestly service.” But where
sinful beings are said dysdfeo@ar, reference to character
becomes prominent, the spiritual unction to service imparting
that holiness without which there can be no true service. On
the N. T. meaning of a&ysos and its cognates, cf. particularly the
excellent discussion of Cremer. The substantive aysacpos—
which, like the verb, is unknown to classical Greek—denotes
strictly, according to its termination, an act in process, and
this primarily (cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. §§ 357, 361) in
immediate relation to the actor, that is to say, answering to
the active voice of the verb, — transition, however, to the
passive aspect, or ultimately to the state resulting, being easy
and frequent. In the case before us the course of thought
appears to lead most naturally to the passive aspect, €v ayracue
being thus equivalent to év 7@ (or dua Tob) aydfeo ar. In
most of the passages in N. T. where dysacqos occurs, it seems
to be used (cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19) not, according to the
I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 47
primary force of this class of nouns, of the formation of holy
character, but, according to that tertiary force mentioned above
to which they often tend, of the character itself, “ holiness.”
In 2 Thess. ii. 13, however, where the whole combination
found here occurs, and still more decidedly in the place before
us, the idea of process seems to be distinctly required. The
course of thought suggests, too, that “consecration” is the
exact word, rather than “ sanctification.” “ Sanctification,”
with its specific ethical reference, would seem, with “ unto
obedience ” following immediately, to involve something of
tautology, which is avoided by the more general “ consecra-
tion ””— separation to sacred function and privilege. If,
moreover, we take “ sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ ”
to mean “ justification,” as is natural, then obviously the wide
word “consecration” is the suitable one in describing the
means. This designates the gracious work of the Spirit of
God on the souls of God’s chosen, in its full length and
breadth,—pointing in the first instance to conversion, but
including also that continued stimulating and supporting
influence, that continued “ unction,’ which maintains the -
consecration in constant freshness. — IIvevyatos might be
regarded as an objective genitive, the “spirit” being that
of man; but N. T. usage with regard to this word in connec-
tions at all like the present favours the sense of “the Divine
?
Spirit;” and the clear reference in the series of adjuncts to
the Trinity is quite decisive—As mentioned above, the com-
bination é€v aysaopo IIvevparos occurs also in 2 Thess. ii. 13.
The striking character of the expression, and the kindred
nature of the sentences in which it occurs in the two Epistles,
make it not improbable that this is one of our apostle’s
occasional reminiscences of Paul’s writings.
The last of the three adjuncts sets forth the aim of election.
Summarily stated, this aim is eternal life. Of this the
apostle exhibits the two main elements separately. A
question of construction presents itself here. It is possible
to regard the genitive Inood Xpiotod as governed by traxonv
48 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ir
as well as by aiuatos, and the combination traxony Xpictod
occurs in 2 Cor. x. 5. Some, as Steiger, favour this construc-
tion, being mainly influenced by the structure of the other two
adjuncts, in each of which there is compactness, “ the Father’s
foreknowledge,” “the Spirit’s consecrating grace.” This does
raise a certain likelihood that here also the apostle is looking
at all he says as in immediate relation to Christ. But the
double construction is somewhat awkward and unnatural, the
genitive being objective in relation to the one governing sub-
stantive, and possessive in relation to the other. Coming
in, moreover, as the expression eds vmaxonv does, to express
the aim, as regards character, of “election according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father,’ who in the scheme of
redemption represents the majesty of the Godhead, it seems
probable that the exact form of the apostle’s thought was
“unto obedience to God;” which is readily suggested by
the expression taken absolutely, “ unto obedience.”
The initial act of evangelical obedience is faith in Christ
(John vi. 29; 1 John ii. 25), and the fundamental element
in all evangelical obedience is continued faith. In various
combinations draxovew and tbmaxon are employed in N. T.
to set forth this aspect of faith; cf Acts vi. 7; Rom. vi. 17,
x. 16, xvi. 26. In baxoy, therefore, as here used plainly
with its broadest reference, faith is included ; and the apostle’s
mode of speaking elsewhere in the Epistle leads naturally to
the thought that probably, in employing the word here abso-
lutely, this particular form or element of obedience had special
prominence in his mind; cf. 1. 22, and, as regards the negative
aspect, ii. 8, iii, 1, iv. 17. Again, faith is shown by the
references made to it in vv. 5, 7, 9, to have been vividly
present to the apostle’s thoughts throughout the whole of the
opening passage. Thus, when a reader, seeing how in our
clause “ obedience” is linked to “ the sprinkling of the blood
of Christ,” and stands first in the combination, instinctively
puts faith in the foreground in his conception of the intended
meaning of “ obedience,” he seems to be fully supported by
1:52.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 49
all the data. To take wmaxon here, however, as precisely
equivalent to the expression vraxon Tis adnOelas (ver. 22),—
that is to say, as meaning “ faith” simply,—would certainly
be unnatural and contrary to analogy. The word means
“ obedience ” in the widest sense, submission of heart and life
to God (cf. ver. 14 ; Rom. vi. 16), but with faith, as the funda-
mental element of obedience, intended to stand ont with
special vividness.
Like @ysacpos (on which see note above), pavtucpos belongs
only to biblical Greek. Here also, as- with év dysacpe, the
sense is naturally taken to be passive, “ unto sprinkling”
being =“ to be sprinkled.” When under the Old Economy
sacrificial blood was sprinkled, this represented the applica-
tion of its power; see Ex. xii, 2, xxiv. 8. In N. T. this
mode of expression is employed with regard to the great
Antitype; see Heb. x. 22, and particularly xii. 24, where the
Saviour’s blood is spoken of under the striking name of atua
pavticpov,—that is, plainly, “ blood, the grand purpose of the
shedding of which was that it might be sprinkled on sinners.”
Thus in our passage eis pavticwov xTX. means “ unto ex-
perience of the saving application of the power of Christ’s
sacrifice.” What then is pointed to by this expression,—the
justifying power of the atonement, or its sanctifying power, or
both ? By some expositors (as Steiger) the second of these
references is maintained, the meaning of the whole clause
being taken to be “unto obedience and experience ”—that is,
practically, “and this through experience ”__* of the spiritu-
ally purifying efficacy of Christ’s blood,” its power to open
the way for the bestowal of the influence of the Holy Ghost,
and to stir men to holy action by the exhibition of the
strongest motives to love and obedience. The structure of
the clause would thus be closely analogous to that expression
in John iil. 5, “ born of water and of the Spirit,” taken in what
is probably the true meaning, “ born of moral renewal, and this
through the Spirit.”. The chief or only ground suggested for
adopting this view of the meaning of Peter’s words is that to
D
Bit) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2.
say “unto obedience and justification” seems to be to put
the words in the inverse order from that which N. T. teaching
would lead us to expect, seeing that a justified man alone can
give evangelical obedience. But this difficulty is obviated, at
all events to a great extent, when it is seen, through a con-
sideration of various data, that in all likelihood the thought of
fuith was with special vividness before the mind of the apostle
in the meaning which he attached to vzaxony, Supposing this
objection out of the way, there cannot well be any hesitation
in admitting that the probable reference of pavticpov KTX. is
to justification. That in a passage setting forth the gracious
purpose of God with respect to His chosen people there should
not be any mention of the standing which they have before
Him as accepted in His Son, is certainly unlikely ; and that
in such a passage there should not be any reference to this
even where the blood of Christ is expressly mentioned, is
unlikely in the very highest degree. What was primarily
denoted in the sprinkling of blood under the Old Economy
was, there can be no reasonable doubt, the removal of guidt—
liability to punishment. The case of the Passover in Egypt,
when the sprinkled blood secured for Israel safety from the
stroke of the destroying angel, shows this with special clear-
ness. It cannot well be questioned, therefore, that by his words
here our apostle pointed to justification. Had varaxoyjy been
absent from the clause, or had there been reason to take uraxonv
as precisely equivalent to wio7w, there might have been
some ground for regarding pavticmov «7X. as referring both to
justification and sanctification,—as, for example, a reader
readily holds both to be pointed to by the language found in
1 John i. 7 and Rev. vii. 14. But this is not natural here.
Of the ordinary apostolic formula of salutation, “ grace to
you and peace,” the basis, no doubt, is the customary word of
greeting among the Semitic races, “ Peace” (Matt. x. 12, 13).
The comprehensive application of the Hebrew pibe’__which a
large induction of cases shows to stretch out, in its reference,
from tranquillity to comfort and prosperity generally, “welfare”
I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5d
in the widest sense—may safely be recognised also in the
N. T. etpyvn. At the same time, the original element is
always the main one, “ peace, restfulness of heart.” By
including yapis in their formula, the apostles lead up the
thoughts of their readers to the great Fountain of true peace.
The sequence was similar in the later members of the Jewish
priestly benediction, “The Lord . . . be gracious unto thee,
the Lord .. . give thee peace” (Num. vi. 25, 26); and it
is not impossible that this may have influenced the form of
the apostolic salutation. Some scholars regard the N. T.
formula as having sprung from a combination of the Hebrew
with the usual Greek epistolary greeting, yaipew (Acts xv. 23,
xxiii, 26; Jas. i. 1),—the combination symbolizing perhaps
the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ, and thus indirectly
making an appeal for unity of spirit between the Jews and
Gentiles who were members of those Christian congregations
to which the apostles wrote. This suggestion is ingenious and
interesting, but its soundness seems questionable. It accords
with the data only in a superficial way, for though yapss and
xyaipew are no doubt cognate, yet the meaning of the one is
considerably removed from that of the other. Had such been
the origin of the formula, yapa seems to be the substantive
which would naturally have been employed.—While Paul, in
his letters, following the Hebrew form, omits a verb in his
salutation, Peter both here and in the Second Epistle, and
Jude also, have wAnOuvGein. This is found in O. T. in the
salutation of two royal proclamations (Dan. iv. 1 [iii 31,
LXX.], vi. 25), and occurs occasionally also in the Rabbinical
writings (see Wetstein, 7 loc.). Of course there is no sub-
stantial difference of meaning between wAnOurOein and the
understood e’ of the Pauline form: only Peter’s form implies,
or at least suggests, what the other taken simply by itself
does not, that those to whom he writes already in some
measure enjoy “ grace and peace.” In this form of expression,
as in so much else, Polycarp in his Epistle follows Peter,—
Clement of Rome also. On the anarthrousness which is
52 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [l: 3:
common in the superscriptions of Greek letters, as in addresses
of letters and headings of documents of all kinds among
ourselves, and which is very marked in these first two
verses, cf. Winer, p. 140, n. 6.
Vv. 3-9. Ascription of praise to God for His grace in Christ, .
which not only secwres to His people a glorious imheritance -
in heaven, but gives them here unspeakable joy, even though
Sor a time they may have sore trials.
Ver. 3. On the apostle’s course of thought (seen in the
superscription), which naturally leads him to begin his letter
proper with a doxology, cf. above, near beginning of notes on
ver. 2.—EvAoynrtos is in N. T. said of God only, the parti-
ciple evAoynwévos being employed where men are spoken of as
“blessed.” In the LXX. also this distinction is generally
eround is no doubt this, that whilst the
o
participle simply states the fact, “blessed,” the adjective
observed. Its
either directly asserts, or even if used participially suggests by
its form, worthiness of blessing. By Philo attention is drawn
to this distinction : evAoynTos, od povoy evAoynmévos’ TO per
yap T@ TepuKévat evrdoyias aEvov, TO SE TO vomiCecHau AéyeTat
povoyv (Migr. Abrah., Mang. p. 453).—It is not quite clear
whether the verb to be supplied in this and similar doxologies
is eln (“ praised be”) or éoré (“ worthy to be praised is ”) ;
cf, A. Buttmann, p. 137. In iv, 11 and in Rom G@azonen
indicative is expressed, and in 2 Cor, xi, 31 there is a parti-
ciple answering to an indicative. In these cases, however, the
clause is a secondary one, and therefore the construction
appears hardly to present a perfect analogy to that in the
place before us, where we have the main clause of the
sentence, and in it the predicate evAoynros stands at the
beginning with an emphasis which may naturally be judged
to suggest that the sentence is expressive of a direct longing
of the Christian heart, thus requiring the supplement ev,
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. vO
=
2°
Leeed!
rather than simply a doctrinal statement ¢€o7/; cf. Job i, 21
(Heb. and LXX.).
The designation of God as 0 Oeds kal IIatip tod Kupiov
nav ’Incov Xpiotovd occurs several times in N. T.: Rom.
xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3,—a little differently, 2 Cor. xi.
31; cf. also Rev. i. 6. IIatnp, as applied to God, being
often employed anarthrously in N. T., the construction may
be “God and the Father—ze. He who is God, and is the
Father—of our Lord Jesus Christ;” but seeing that the
name, “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ is perfectly con-
sistent with Scripture usage (Eph. i. 17; John xx. 17; Matt.
xxvii. 46), there seems to be no good reason for departing
from what is the most natural and obvious construction,
“the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’—-The whole
of this clause, from etAoyntos to Xpiorod, occurs also in
Ephesians and in 2 Corinthians, occupying in both Epistles
precisely the same position as here, namely, at the beginning
of the paragraph which immediately follows the superscription.
As used by Peter, the words may be a reminiscence from one
of these Epistles; but the clause is in itself so natural a one
to introduce our apostle’s train of thought, and the words are
so simple and natural a vesture for the idea, that the proof of
reference to Paul cannot be deemed strong.
The ground of the evAoy/a, which has been already implied
in the name, “ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
is expressly set forth in the long participial clause which
follows, going on to the close of the 5th verse—The verb
avayevvaw occurs in N. T. only here and in ver. 23 of this
chapter, but the thought conveyed by it is found in the
apostolic writings everywhere, under various forms of expres-
sion, — Paul’s waduyyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5), John’s réxva Ocod
yevéeoOar and ex Ocod yevynOjvac (John i. 12, 13), James's
amoxvelaGat oyw adnOcias (Jas. i. 18), whilst Peter's word
here'is only a slightly altered form of our Lord’s own yevvn-
Ojvar dvwGev (John iii. 3)—The thought of the goodness of
God in redemption being the starting-point of the sentence,
54 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ho
the apostle, in speaking of regeneration, naturally introduces
a reference to its origin in the divine grace, cata (here prac-
tically causal, as in ver. 2) Td mroAv avdrod édeos; cf. Eph. ii.
4, 7. On the occasional placing of a’rod between the article
and the substantive, particularly where, as here, this position
is occupied also by another attributive expression, see A.
Buttmann, p. 116. On the exact force of €Xeos as distin-
guished from yapis, see Trench, Syn. V. 7. § 47.—The imme-
diate purpose of God in His work of grace is set forth in the
form “ that we may enjoy (e/s) a hope which has life,” ze. not
merely “which has vividness and energy,’ but particularly
(f@cav being taken in its fullest sense, as afOaptov and
audpavrov in the parallel clause which follows seem to sug-
gest) “ which is imperishable,’—sustained by divine grace, and
certainly coming through eternity to ever fuller fruition (cf.
i, 23; John iv. 10, vi. 51, vii. 38). “ Living” is a favourite
epithet with Peter; besides i. 23 just referred to, cf. also
i. 4, 5.
The connection in which the last words of the verse, 6v’
avactacews “I, X. éx vexpov, are meant to be taken, is not
clear. They, may with equal grammatical propriety be
attached to avayevynocas or to Cacav. If we adopt the former
of these constructions, various meanings are possible. (1)
The participle may point to the time of the actual regenera-
tion of each believer, and the sense might be, perhaps, “ who
regenerated us through Christ’s resurrection believed “wn,”
“through Christ’s resurrection as that which, when believed
in, gave us full trust in Him, being seen by us to seal all His
claims and all His promises.’ This seems to be a strained
and unnatural interpretation of the expression, “ through
Christ’s resurrection.” (2) The participle may point to the
time of our Lord’s resurrection, in which case the meaning
will be that then God (virtually) “introduced us and all the
rest of Christ’s people into newness of life by raising our Head
from the dead.” This mode of representing the relation
between Christians and their Lord—the dependence of our
n~
I. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5d
life upon His—is very common in the writings of Paul; cf.
eg. Eph. ii. 4-6; Col. iii, 1. But it is to be observed that
the representation of the case given here by Peter's word
avayevynoas is considerably different from that of Paul, who
to express the thought uses such terms as ouvSworovety and
cuveyeipew, With these the Lord’s resurrection has a most
exact and manifest accordance, whereas Peter’s word pictures
the great spiritual change not as a rising from the dead, but
as the origination of a new life by birth. Now with this the
resurrection of our Lord corresponds only in a remote way. It
is true that in Col. i. 18 and Rev. i. 5 our Lord is called
TpwToToKos (ex) Tov vexpaov, language in which evidently His
resurrection is conceived of as a birth from the dark womb of
the grave; and that one or two other modes of expression
elsewhere in N. T. appear to imply the same metaphor (thus,
perhaps, for example, @dtvas in Acts ii, 24). But to that
considerably harder and more obscure application of this
figure, with the secondary reference, which, according to the
view now under discussion, we are to recognise in the passage
before us, there does not appear to be any analogy. “ Regene-
ration through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead” is a thought peculiar, unique indeed, and, as regards its
precise sense, obscure. (3) Taking the verb dvayevvaw with
a secondary force, the clause may be regarded (so Huther) as
meaning “who awoke or aroused us anew to hope when we
were in gloom and despair.” But that the verb is to be taken
in this way is far from likely, when we consider the definite-
ness of the conception of regeneration throughout the N. T.,
the fact that the apostle employs the word with its proper force
in ver. 23, and the perfect suitableness of this proper force in
the present place,—its special fitness, indeed, in the relation
borne by the verb to e¢s «Anpovouiay which follows.
If we join & dvactacews xT. in construction with Cacav,
we have an interesting and beautiful thought given us, which is
perfectly lucid, and is as fully relevant to the apostle’s purpose
as any form of thought yielded by the other connection.
56 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Dae
According to this view of the construction, the hope into
which God introduces us by regeneration “ has life through the
resurrection of Christ.” Hopes which are only of the earth
have the curse of death upon them: they fail of realization,
or, if they are realized in form, anticipated happiness is yet not
attained. But the hope of those to whom God gives the new
life of His children has itself life, and this through the trium-
phant rising of the Lord, their Representative and Head. The
sense yielded by this connection of the words is clear, suitable,
and beautiful; and this construction seems on the whole
preferable to the other. It has approved itself to Oecumenius,
Bengel, Steiger, De Wette, Hofmann, and other expositors.
Ver. 4. Thus far, in describing the position of privilege
into which God’s grace brings His people through regenera-
tion, the apostle has spoken of what is subjective, “hope,’—
his special thought being, it is likely (considering the mean-
ing of advayevynoas and of xAnpovouiav,—cf. Rom. viii. 17 ;
Gal. iv. 7), “hope as a son.” In €acav a specialty of the
hope of the child of God has been presented, this epithet
implying a security of permanence which is wholly wanting
to mere earthly hopes. In ets xAnpovouiay we pass to an
express assurance that, as certainly as God’s children are
begotten again to enjoy the hope of inheritance, are they
begotten again to enjoy the inheritance itself—-By one or
two expositors, indeed (as Jachmann), it has been proposed to
construe e¢s KAnpovoutav, not as co-ordinate with efs éAziéa of
ver. 3, but as dependent on édmida (cf. éAXaricate eri, ver. 13),
—thus, “hope towards, or for, an inheritance,” = edmida
kKXnpovoutas. But nothing whatever favours this connection.
The sense which it yields is less forcible than that of the
other; and the usage of the language and the balance of the
sentence are both against it.
As usual in the N. T. representation (e.g. Col. i. 24; Heb.
ix. 15), the “inheritance” spoken of is the blessedness and
glory of heaven, the spiritual privileges enjoyed by the
Christian in this life being merely the appa@wv (Eph. i. 14).
4] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 57
To this inheritance the apostle ascribes attributes by which it
is strikingly contrasted with the heritages of earth. It is
apOapros, insusceptible either of decay from within or of
injury from without; diavtos, absolutely free from moral
taint or stain, such as is so apt to attach directly or indirectly
to the possessions and inheritances of this world (hence our
Lord’s wapwvas THs aduxias, Luke xvi. 9); and audpartos (ct.
the sister form in v. 4), never in any degree losing the
power to satisfy, not merely in its nature imperishable, but
retaining for ever the bloom and fragrance of its joys. On
apOapros and audpartos, see Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 68.—This
great inheritance, Peter says further, though as yet only an
object of hope, is in safe keeping. “To keep in store, keep
for after bestowal,” is a common N. T. sense of typety (cf. eg.
John ii. 10, xii. 7), and is especially frequent in Peter (ef.
2 Ep. ii. 4, 9, 17, iii. 7). Peter's word rernpnyévny here
answers to Paul’s dzoxepévnr, Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8.—The
frequent use in N. T. of the plural odpavoi is probably due to
a natural imitation of the Hebrew plurale tantum DY2', which
received its plural form, perhaps, through the tendency of
Hebrew to express in this way the notion of extension. In
this case, however, the general notion defined itself into a
prevalent conception “ of a celestial structure rising by storeys,
three or seven, advancing in brightness and glory. Of this
idea there is a clear illustration in Heb. iv. 14; Eph. iv. 10”
(T. S. Green, Crit. Notes, on Luke x. 18, 20).
The transition from ds of ver. 3 to buds of ver. 4 is
quite natural. The early clauses are purely a doxology, and
the thought of “owr regeneration ”—of the divine goodness in
this to the apostle himself as to other Christians—was pro-
minent. But under the easily understood movement of the
apostle’s mind the sentence bends itself towards that practical
end of counselling and sustaining his brethren which was
before his thoughts from the beginning: thus tuds enters.—
Eis vuas, “unto you, with a view to you,” differs from the
dative very nearly as in English “for” from “to,” when we
58 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LE oe
speak of “giving to” but of “keeping for.” An interval of
time is suggested, with also, in certain connections, the action
of an intermediate agent; cf. vv. 10, 11; Mark vii. 193
Acts xxiv. 17; Eph. iii. 2; and see T. S. Green, WV. 7. Gram.
peadi2:
Ver. 5. The main purpose of this clause is evidently to
sustain Christians against the fear of coming short of heaven,
—to answer the cry of the anxious heart, “We doubt not
that the inheritance is kept safe, but amid the temptations of
the world what security have we that we shall not be swept
far away from it?” To this natural question the apostle
replies, “Be of good cheer, for as certainly as heaven is
kept by God for His people, they are guarded by Him for
heaven.” Bengel with characteristic pointedness says: Here-
ditas servata est; heredes custodiuntur; neque illa his neque
hi deerunt illi. P®povpovpévovs—with its military metaphor,
“kept safe as in a povpsov” (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 32; Phil. iv. 7)
—is obviously a word peculiarly fitted to sustain Christians
when distressed by the thought of the number and power of
their spiritual foes; and to this fitness contributes also the
fact that the form here is that of the present participle, “who
(already at the present moment) are within this glorious
euardianship.”
The words év dvvayes Ocod have been by some supposed to
represent the power of God as itself the fortress (ppovpsov)
within which Christians are guarded. This is perhaps giving
greater detail and exactness to what appears to be a mere
passing figure than is natural. Substantially the same sense
is obtained in a perfectly satisfactory way by accepting the
force of év already seen in é€v dyitacpwe (ver. 2), and so
familiar everywhere in Hellenistic Greek, for position within
an encompassing element or atmosphere which exerts an
instrumental influence on the matter in hand. The power
of God is an atmosphere surrounding and pervading the
Christian, through which he is shielded from evil. When
év, employed in this way, and dia come together, as here, év
Eb. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. a9
sets forth a general causal or instrumental influence, whilst
dia exhibits the special and immediate instrumentality ; ef.
Heb. x. 10, Phil. i. 26,and see a not very satisfactory note in
Winer, p. 486. In the present case, faith is the spiritual energy
which enables the Christian to resist temptation successfully,
and keeps him in that relation to God whereby is secured his
ultimate enjoyment of the blessed inheritance of the saints,—
motes thus being within and under the action of the dvvayis
@cov. It is the encompassing, protecting, sustaining power
of God which gives to faith that certainty of continued
efficiency here asserted of it by the apostle. Peter had very
special cause to remember that the continued existence of
faith, as well as its origination, is absolutely dependent on
the gracious exercise of “the power of God;” see Luke xxii. 32.
The words which follow, e’s cwtnpiav xrX., are by some
expositors joined to advayevyngas (ver. 3), the amplification of
the thought of that verb by eds being taken to be threefold,
els €drrida, els KANPoVoutay, eis owTnpiav. The rhetorical
roundness of expression thus obtained hardly accords with
the apostle’s general style; and a more serious ground of
doubt whether this is the intended construction, lies in the
fact that whilst there is a real advance of thought from the
subjective “hope” to the objective “inheritance,” there is no
advance from “inheritance” to “ salvation,’—these two, as the
words are here used, being (cf. Heb. i. 14) as nearly as possible
equivalent to each other. The ordinary construction, which
takes the words e’s cwtypiay «Td. as stating the aim of
gpovpovpévous xTA., is much more natural. Instead of pre-
senting this aim simply by efs adrny (viz. tHv KAnpovomiar),
the apostle yet more fully illustrates his subject by substitut-
ing owtnpiay (cf. cwtnpias—xadprtos, ver. 10), and for the
further comfort and stimulus of his brethren appends the
assurance that not merely are the blessings which are repre-
sented by this word laid up in the heavens, but that they are
fully prepared, “ready” to be bestowed at the appointed time
(cf. our Lord’s érouwdfew, John xiv. 2, 3). The use of
60 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 6-9.
cwTnpla, as here, for the fulness of salvation to be reached
in the future life, is very common in N. T.; cf. eg. Rom.
xl. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 10.—The use of the aorist dvroxadupOjvar
brings before us the sudden flashing forth of the glory of
salvation on the sight of God’s children, when the appointed
day of revelation comes; cf. Rom. viii. 18: tiv pédrAXovcav
dofav amoxadudOfjvat. In v. 1, Peter has tijs peddovons
atoxadurrtec Oat So0&ns, where the suddenness and vividness of
the revelation are not made prominent,—the thought, perhaps,
being rather of the revelation as beginning at our Lord’s
coming, to grow fuller and richer throughout eternity.—
Kaupos is freely used by the apostle, as by the other
Hellenistic writers, in the sense of “a defined time” generally,
not limited, as commonly in the classics, to “an opportune
time;” cf.i.11, iv. 17, v. 6. The revelation of full salva-
tion is to be made “in (or at) the last time,’—the time which
is to end the history of the world under its present conditions
of contending truth and falsehood, mingled happiness and
misery; cf. the use of €oydtn jyépa, John vi. 39, xi. 24, xii. 48.
Vv. 6-9. With regard to some parts of this sub-section the
question arises whether the reference is to the present or to
the future condition of believers. Obviously, so far as surface
indications go, the present is spoken of, the main verbs being
in the present tense. Looking a little more closely, however,
we find that the language in which Christian joy is described is
so very strong that it may seem inapplicable to the experi-
ences of earth,—ayaAduay, itself a verb expressive of a high
degree of joy, having attached to it the exceedingly emphatic
words yapa avexdadytw Kai dedoEacpévyn. The statement,
ayardaobe AvTnOévtes ev Trovkinows TEeipacmois, appears to
bring this inapplicability prominently into view, and may be
thought indeed to involve a distinct self-contradiction on the
supposition that the main verb, as well as the participle,
relates to the earthly life. The fact, too, that this participle
is aorist may be judged to accord best with the supposition
that the time of dyaddvdcGe is that of the heavenly life,
I. 6-9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 61
when the AvrnPjvae will have for ever passed away,—“ after
having been distressed.” Again, the clause forming ver. 9,
which is attached to aya\Nate, and seemingly belongs to the
same time as that verb, may appear to be suited only to the
perfect emancipation from sin and sorrow. Still further—it
being to a certain extent characteristic of the apostle’s style
to begin sentences after the Latin fashion, with a relative
pronoun referring to a subject spoken of in the preceding
sentence, and particularly at the close of the preceding
sentence (cf. vv. 8, 10), év at the beginning of ver. 6 may -
seem to refer to év xatp® éoyato, and to mean “ at which
time,” that is, the time of the Lord’s appearing. If these
arguments be sound, then a@yaddacbe of ver. 6 and
ayarmate of ver. 8 are to be regarded as what may be
called presents of vivid prophecy, used in place of a future
tense (cf. wapadidorat, Matt. xxvi. 2; xatapyeiras, 1 Cor.
xv. 26). This view of the meaning of the passage has
commended itself to a large number of excellent interpreters,
including, of the more recent, Wiesinger, Huther, and Alford.
Had the passage ended with the 7th verse, few probably
would have differed from them, seeing that the obvious
antithesis in a@pte AvTnGévtes to the thought, expressed or
implied, of the future blessedness, suggests quite naturally
the taking of aya\\aoGe as a present of vivid prediction.
But it is plain that vv. 8, 9 are closely connected with
vy. 6, 7, the whole constituting one paragraph. Vv. 8, 9,
indeed, substantially, though with some difference in the mode
of representation, take up and expand the leading thought of
ver. 6, €v @ ayadNdaobe, which, through the coming in of
the long subordinate clause on suffering and its aim, had
there been exhibited only in the barest way. Whatever is
the reference of ayad\vate in ver. 8, then, is also naturally
taken to be the reference of a@yaAX\doGe in ver. 6. Now to
take the verb in ver. 8 as referring to the future involves
very grave difficulties. That in the two relative clauses
whiclr appear to be so closely parallel to each other, év ov«
62 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [I. 6-9.
KTA. and eis Ov apts KTr., the verb of the one, aya7arte,
should be a real present (which beyond all question it is),
and the verb of the other, aya\\ate, should be a present in
form merely, with its real time future, is very unlikely.
Again, that in the second of these relative clauses the parti-
ciples belonging to ayaAAva7e should relate to a different time
from their main verb (both their meaning and the particle
dpte distinctly showing them to refer to the present life), and
this without any tore (1 Cor. xiii. 12), or év odpavois, or other
indication that ayaANG@te is in time severed from its participles
and belongs to the future-——this is unnatural in the very
highest degree. As regards the structure of the second
relative clause, moreover,—supposing that ayaddate be taken
as In meaning future, with its participles true presents, the
antithesis between the described experience of Christians
“now” (daptu), “Ye see Him not, but believe in Him,” and
their described experience in the future, “ Ye rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory,” is plainly imperfect, and
imperfect in a way which in such a sentence is not natural,
—some such statement as d@yad\adte opavTes avTov Kaos
eo7t being required.
Still further,—on the supposition that the references in
this sub-section to the joy of Christians relate to the future
life, it would be hard to see any definite purpose consistently
followed out through the passage. As a whole, no doubt, the
verses would contain a sketch of the blessedness of “the
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time ” (ver. 5),
setting forth its exceeding joy in contrast with the sorrows of
the present life. Now, supposing this to be the apostle’s
general aim in writing the passage, the clause “ whom having
not seen ye love,” seems to come in somewhat irrelevantly.
On the other hand, supposing the whole passage to refer to
the present life, a consistent purpose can be traced out to the
remotest ramifications of the sentence. In this case the
apostle appears to be illustrating, not the closing words, but
the central thought, of ver. 5, namely that the children of
I. 6-9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 63
God are guarded by His power through faith unto salvation,—
expanding particularly the idea “ through faith,” and, by an
appeal to the experience which his readers already had of the
power of faith, strengthening their hope that by God’s grace
faith would sustain them through to glory. “ Think,” he says
to them, “of what you already know on this matter by experi-
ence. Through the thought of heaven presented to you
vividly by faith you have great happiness, even though at the
present for wise reasons you have not a few troubles, at times
sore troubles. Hard as it is to cherish strong affection for
one whom you have never seen, still, as your consciousness
tells you, you are enabled by faith to do this. Hard as it is
to have, or even to conceive of one having, intense pleasure
in a kind of intercourse with another which is not maintained
through any bodily sense, but is purely spiritual, still you
have such joy, unspeakable, and, as you feel, of heavenly
origin. In these fruits of faith—loving fellowship with
Christ, and the exquisite and sublime happiness which such
fellowship yields—you possess already the essential elements
of heavenly blessedness. You are thus already in such
measure receiving that end which your faith teaches you to
long and to hope for, even the salvation of your souls, that
you may well repose unwavering trust in the power of God,
acting through the faith which He sustains, as able, notwith-
standing all the distractions and oppositions of the world, to
bring you safe to that fulness of salvation which yet remains
to be revealed.” The view of the apostle’s object set forth
in this paraphrase seems to accord with the whole structure
of the passage; and the prominent way in which aiéotis and
moTevelv are used in the section appears to show that some-
thing of this kind really was his line of thought.
The arguments urged in favour of taking the paragraph
with a future reference look less strong after close examina-
tion than they do at first sight; and, on the whole, the
difficulties in the way of accepting the prima facie reference
of the passage to the present life appear to be considerably
64 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. REN Gs
less weighty than those which beset the other view. The
language employed of Christian joy is undoubtedly very rich
and intense, richer and intenser than accords with the average
spiritual happiness of most believers; but probably every
Christian has a remembrance of some times of peculiarly close
communion with the Saviour, for which no words less strong
than those of the apostle would seem fit. Not a few
Christians have many such seasons. Now, if the apostle’s
purpose was to point out to his readers what great things
faith can do, as illustrated already in their own experience,
then the memory of times of “joy unspeakable and full of
vlory” was enough for his object, since every believer feels
that such rich spiritual happiness is a. fruit of lively faith,
aud that, if he has but little of it, this is due mainly to his
living, through worldly influences, on a low level of faith.
Other points will be dealt with in the course of exposition.
Ver. 6. "Ev @ may have xatp@ as its antecedent, the
meaning being either “at which (time),”—a sense suitable
only on the supposition that the paragraph refers to the future,
—or “at (or in) which,” with the force of “in the thought
>
or anticipation of which,” ayad\ao@au, like yatpew and other
verbs of rejoicing, taking év to express its ground or basis
(cf. John v. 55). But the most natural construction seems
to be, keeping to this latter force of év, to take the pronoun
as neuter, its antecedent being the gracious assurance con-
tained in the previous sentence generally (cf. iv. 4)—The
Hellenistic verb ayadAtaouat looks like a strengthened form
for the classical aya\Xopas, with which it agrees in meaning.
A. Buttmann, however (Gram. p. 51, note), observing it to be
often used in the LXX. for the Hebrew 3, inclines to regard
it as having arisen among the Greek-speaking Jews out of
this Hebrew word, the Yod by a phonetic change familiar to
philologists being represented by an iofa put after the liquid,
and the form perhaps influenced somewhat by the Greek verb
ayd\nowat. The word is a very strong one, “rejoice exceed-
ingly, exult.” Besides that thought of a reference to the
me Gs FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 65
future to which this strength of the language employed has
led many interpreters, and which has already been discussed,
the form ayad\aoGe is by some (as Augustine) on the same
ground supposed to be perhaps imperative instead of indicative.
The imperative, however, would be abrupt and not very
natural here, and is wholly unnatural in the 8th verse.
But the indicative employed to set forth the ideal
of Christian experience, as often in Scripture, has really to
the mind of every thoughtful believer the force of an
imperative.
The next clause, od\iyov «TX., sets forth a difficulty in the
way of a@yadXlaows, by which the sublime power of faith, in
enabling the Christians addressed actually ayad\acOat, is
vividly illustrated. The participle, AurnOévres, has evidently
its common concessive force, “though distressed:” ef. John
xii. 837; 1 Cor. ix. 19. “Apte simply contrasts the present
life with that of heaven,—in which (év #), as an object of
thought and hope, the believer has his joy,—and therefore the
aorist participle might conceivably point to a past within this
present life. But the whole tone of the Epistle shows that
with very many of the apostle’s readers the Au7etcOae was a
present experience, and quite obviously the natural supple-
ment to et déov is the present éoriv (which, as a matter of
fact, is found in very many MSsS.). Peter’s thought, therefore,
seems clearly to be of joy, not after, but in the midst of
trouble, exactly as Paul’s “ distressed (Avmovpevor), yet always
rejoicing,” “exceeding joyful in all our tribulation” (2 Cor.
vi. 10, vii. 4). Our apostle’s choice of the aorist participle
instead of the present seems to have been made to indicate—
quite.in accordance with the regular force of this tense, and
with many analogies as regards this particular kind of appli-
cation (cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. § 427, especially section dd)
—the transitoriness of earthly trouble, “but for a moment,”
when viewed in the light of eternity. Trouble is to the
Christian as a passing wreath of cloud, obscuring the sun for an
instant,—already past almost before it was recognised, This
E
66 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I]. 6.
force of the aorist cannot well be brought out in an English
rendering; we seem obliged to translate by the present,
“though ye are distressed, put to grief’ Another possible
explanation of the choice of the aorist here, one which has to
be given of the use of this tense not unfrequently in N. T.
(cf. eg. Jas. v. 4-6), is that the apostle throws his mind
forward—as from his immediately preceding strain of remark,
which is referred to by év 6, he quite naturally might do—to
the future life, and from it looks back on the earthly troubles,
now all past. This conception of the form of the thought—
which the presence of apts in the clause seems to make
hardly so likely a one as the other—appears to be that which
is represented in the R. E. ViThe sense of oddyov in N. T.
varies between reference to degree, “a little, slightly” (as
Luke vii. 47), and reference to time, “for a little” (as Mark
vi. 31). Either of these would in a measure suit the present
passage, either, as Paul has it, “ our light affliction,” or, “ which
is but fora moment;” but in the connection. brevity seems
most likely the intended thought.
The interjected conditional clause, e¢ déov (éoriv), prepares:
the minds of the readers to receive aright the mention of
their sore troubles, by recalling to them the truth that these
come to believers only at the time, and in the measure, in
which their heavenly Father sees affliction to be needful for
the soul’s welfare. The force of e¢ with the present indicative
is often shown by the context to be “if (as is the case) ”—
that is, practically, in such a connection as here, “since.”
But all that this form of construction in itself indicates is
that the condition is with special vividness assumed to be
realized,—uncertainty, though out of view, not being denied ;
and in the present case nothing calls on us to think that the
apostle intended to be more definite than “if it is needful.”
Many of the Christians of Asia Minor might not actually at
the time be exposed to any special troubles—’Ev qrovxirous
meipacmots, “in (and thus through) manifold trials,” varied
discipline according to varied “needs.” ITIetpacucs is here, as
eral FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 67
often elsewhere in N. T., applied, like “trial” in English,
specially to affliction looked upon as a testing agency; cf.
Luke xxii. 28; Acts xx. 19; Jas. i. 2—By persons who
look at the matter from a merely earthly point of view, the
judgement might readily be formed that Peter’s statement
here, dyadd\doOe AvTNOéyTes, or as Paul has it, Avrovpevor,
ae 8€ yalpovres (2 Cor. vi. 10), is self-contradictory. The
apostles do not stop to say anything in bar of this judgement.
They are writing for men of spiritual discernment; and the
Christian consciousness knows perfectly that there is no
inconsistency. Says Calvin (2m Jloc.): “ Melius experimento
norunt fideles illos contrarios affectus simul consistere, quam
verbis exprimi queat.”
Ver. 7. This verse contains an explicit statement of the
eracious divine purpose in affliction——which has been implied
in et Séov (ver. 6). Whilst the general meaning of the
sentence is plain, the exact form of the thought is not
altogether obvious. Prima facie, “the trial of faith” is said
to be “more precious than gold.” Now, according to the
proprieties of the figure, it is faith itself of which this would
naturally be predicated. The simplest and most satisfactory
explanation of the little difficulty appears to be that which
is implied in the rendering of the A. E. V., “than of gold,”
—namely that, immediately, the comparison instituted is not
between faith and gold, but between the trial of faith and
the trial of gold, and that by a slight inaccuracy of expression
(comparatio compendiaria)—found occasionally, no doubt, in
every language, in inartificial speaking or writing, and par-
ticularly common in Greek—the link tod doxipiov is left out,
so that we read “than gold,” whilst the intended meaning is,
“than that of gold;” cf. Matt. v.20; John v. 36; and see
Jelf, § 781; Winer, p. 307; A. Buttmann, p. 168. Cf.
also 1 John ii. 2, where the antithesis with weTépwy makes
the supposition of a very similar irregularity of construction,
Tept Tov Kocpov for Tept TOV (4uapTidv) ToD KOcpou, greatly
more probable than that of an intended change in the form
68 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. lee
of thought; see the full regular expression in Heb. vii. 27.
The other possible explanation supposes something of irregu-
larity in the form, not of the predicate, but of the subject, taking
“the trial of your faith” to mean “ your tried (and approved)
faith.” This running together of the meaning of the two
substantives seems to be without adequate analogy, particu-
larly seeing that, not doxyu7, but the more stubborn and
decidedly concrete-looking form Soxiwov is used. Dr. Hort
(Gr. Test., App., note in loc.), supposing “ approved faith ” to be
the subject of comparison, and feeling that doxiwsov does
not at all naturally yield this sense, is inclined to regard as
the true reading the neuter adjective d¢«c:uov, which is found
as a variant, but only in three or four cursive MSS.—ro
Soxtmov, “the approved excellence,” needing less force than
the other to give the desired sense. This seems to be an
entirely gratuitous resort to a kind of refuge legitimate only
in a case of desperation. The similarity both of thought and
of phraseology gives good ground for believing that in this
verse and the preceding Peter had Jas. i. 3 before his mind ;
and it is natural to suppose, unless our apostle’s course of
thought require a different sense to be put on the words, that
he uses 70 doxipwov THs wiotews with the same meaning as
James, which is quite unequivocally “the testing of faith.”
Now, instead of being in any way alien from Peter’s line of
thought, this sense fits in with it perfectly; for in this
parenthetical verse — introduced to explain the apparently
anomalous fact that those who were children of God and
heirs of heaven were “distressed through manifold trials »—
the immediate subject of thought is clearly not the value of
faith, but the value of the testing of faith by suffering. Suppos-
ing this to be the subject, moreover, all the parts of the
sentence come in in an obviously orderly way, and with, as
it appears, somewhat more of relevancy and force than if we
regard the subject to be “your approved faith.” If instead
of “testing, trial,” we were to take Soxiutov in what seems to
be its first meaning, “test,” and suppose the immediate com-
te Fl FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 69
parison to be between affliction, the test of faith, and fire,
the test of gold, the course of thought would be substantially
the same; but this mode of looking at the matter is not
very natural, does not well accord with the relegation of dia
mupos to a position in a secondary clause, and differs from
James’s use of Soxiuiov. On doximsov, found in N. T. only
here and in the passage in James, cf. particularly Fritzsche,
Prélim. p. 40.
TIodvtipotepov is best taken (so both A. and R. E. V.) in
apposition with doxiusov. If it be joined with evpe@p as a
part of the predicate—in which case, of course, the words
els émawov KTA. are viewed as appended in a loose adverbial
way, to set forth the ultimate issues—the sentence moves
more heavily. Moreover, whether the subject spoken of is
held to be “faith” or “the testing of faith,” the apostle,
writing to Christians, would be likely to assume their know-
ledge that this was more valuable than gold or than the
testing of gold, rather than to describe a certain divine
procedure as chosen with the view of their by and by finding
it to be more valuable; whereas with respect to the much
stronger predication evpeO7 ets Erauvoy kTX. the same difficulty
does not present itself.—The article, which ypvovov, being
taken in its widest generality, would naturally have, is
omitted, as frequently where an attribute with the article
follows; cf. Jelf, § 458; Winer, p. 174; A. Buttmann,
py U3:
The thought yielded by the rendering which the A. E. V.
gives of the clause tod amoddupévov «7X, “that perisheth
though it be tried with (is proved by, R. E. V.) fire,” is
natural and relevant : “the trial of faith is more valuable—
more precious, from the nature of its issues—than the trial
of gold; inasmuch as gold, even though tried by fire, must
ultimately perish like other corruptible things, whereas faith
carries down to eternity all the gain which its trials give it.”
But this thought does not seem to come easily out of the
apostle’s words. The only way in which it can be reached
"0 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. bag
is this,—“ which perisheth,’—(then, parenthetically) “and
yet it was tested by fire.” Now, certainly, for this sense the
natural form of the participle would have been the aorist or
perfect instead of the present. The thought yielded by the
prima facie rendering of the words, “which perisheth, but
(yet) is tested by fire,’ is one which also quite suits the
context. “Of such value is the trying of gold considered by
men to be, that though the metal so highly esteemed by them
is perishable, and though in the crucible not dross only may
be removed, but some of the gold itself may be lost, still it
is tried by fire. This analogy from men’s mode of dealing
with their precious things may help us to recognise the
_ wisdom and kindness of God, when to a more valuable kind
of testing He subjects our faith—which, as we know, is
imperishable, suffering through the crucible of affliction into
which it is cast absolutely no loss.”
In the spiritual sphere this earthly life is, as regards
issues of thought, effort, hope, largely a time of seeking: the
day of “the revelation of Jesus Christ” will be the season of
finding. To this end, the apostle says, God appoints affliction
to His people as a purifying agency,—that in that great day
of discoveries this trial of their faith “may be found unto—
ae. certainly issuing in—praise and glory and honour.” The
construction evpePjvar eis is not common, and this is an
argument which has been used in favour of our taking the
predicate of the sentence to be etpeOj woAvtipotepov. The
combination, however,—which, from the force of eés, and the
readiness with which the mind supplies an év in connection
with evpeF, is in itself a perfectly natural and intelligible
one, — does occur, quite certainly, notwithstanding Steiger’s
argument to the contrary, in Rom. vii. 10.—Some interpreters
have minutely distinguished the three substantives here
employed,—€zrauvos being the praise given from the throne
by the Divine Judge,—éo€a, the admission into His glory
following thereon,—and tip, the honour among the angels
and glorified saints consequent on the éwawos and dd€a.
rR] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, via
It may be doubted whether, in a passage like the present,
such rigid exactness of dealing with a group of terms of this
kind is altogether justified. It seems rather as if the apostle,
labouring under a sense of the immeasurable glory of the
inheritance of the saints, simply piles up word upon word as
if to overwhelm utterly the remembrance of the AvrnPhvar
€v TroltKinows Teipacuois: aS Beza has it, “quibus nimirum
synonymis voluit Petrus tentationum dedecus et ignominiam
obtegere.”
A passage in Hermas (V%s. iv. 3)-is somewhat parallel to—
this verse, and possibly a reminiscence,—the language, how-
ever, being too general and the figure too obvious and com-
mon to permit any definite conclusion on this head: wo7ep
yap TO ypuciov Soximakeras Sia Tod mupos Kal evypnoToV
ylveTat, oUTws Kal buets Soxialer Oe.
Ver. 8. This verse evidently resumes and expands the
thought contained in ver. 6, év @ ayadd\aole——which was
there expressed only in the briefest way, in consequence of
the entering in of the weighty subsidiary clause, forming
ver. 7,on the purpose of affliction. In taking up the thought
again, the apostle presents it in a most interesting and
beautiful form, immediately and naturally suggested by the
mention of the Saviour’s name at the close of the previous
verse. In ver. 6 he said, “Ye exult in the contemplation
and hope of heaven;” here he dwells particularly on the
power exerted over the heart of the Christian by the one most
precious element in his thoughts with respect to heaven,—
the thought that his Redeemer is there, and that, through the
communion which He holds with His people now, He is
preparing them for the time when they too shall be there,
and see Him as He is. Peter here brings into much pro-
minence the fact that an wnseen Saviour is at the present
the object of the Christian’s affection and the source
of his joy; evidently setting this fact forth as, for all who
know the vastness of the power exercised over men by what
is visible and tangible, a most impressive proof of the sublime
72 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [eS
and divinely sustained energy of Christian faith,—thus con-
firming the assurance of ver. 5 that the children of God “are
guarded through the power of God by faith unto salvation.”
This same thought, of the extreme difficulty for a creature
like man of being filled with love for an object unseen,
presents itself in a different connection in 1 John iv. 20.
Peter brings the point forward in two aspects. First, “ You
have not seen Him, and yet you love Him.” Then he passes
to the present, “not
>
on from the historic, “ not having seen,’
seeing.” This is climactic. “To declare that not having
seen Him you love Him, is to say a great thing regarding
the power of faith; but it is even a greater to say that
from day to day, not seeing Him, but simply believing in
Him, you have through that faith exulting delight in Him.”
The difference of the negative particle in what appear to
be precisely parallel statements, od« édovtes, pi opavTes,
arrests attention. In the later Greek the particle uw came
to be used with increasing frequency in participial clauses,
even in cases where the subjective element of thought was
not naturally very prominent; until in the Greek of the
present day a participle negatived always takes yu. In the
language of N. T., whilst yy is found with participles much
oftener than ov, still there are only a very few passages in
which the distinctive force of this particle cannot be clearly
recognised ; though, no doubt, in a considerable number of
those cases in which a subjective force can be recognised, a
classical writer would probably have chosen rather to set
forth simply the objective fact; cf. Winer, p. 606; A. Butt-
mann, p. 390. In the place before us, where in clauses so
closely similar the apostle employs od with the one participle
and px with the other, he obviously looked at the two cases
in those different lights which the two particles in their
strict use indicate. Regarding the Christians whom he
addresses, the words ov« éSovtes set forth their not having
seen the Lord merely as a fact: 2) op@vrTes seems to bring
before us their not seeing Him as a fact present to their own
—
I. 8] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 75
thoughts, while yet they were enabled through faith to rejoice
in Him. In ov« idovtes we have the negation simply as
standing before Peter’s own mind as an historical fact ; and
plainly the fact was of a kind fitted particularly to impress a
man who, like him, had been a companion of the Lord Jesus,
and one which he might very naturally and indeed quite in-
stinctively prefer to look at for a moment by itself, historically
merely, —out in the open, so to speak,—vrather than as
present to the consciousness, and influencing the spiritual
exercises, of the believers of and to whom he is speaking. To
Peter himself this experience was something purely objective,
in which he himself had no share, but which in its character
was well fitted to impress his mind as an evidence of the
glorious power of faith. He himself had seen the Lord, and,
as the memory of innumerable proofs which he had witnessed
of His grace and tenderness came up before him, it seemed
to him a most easy and natural thing for him to have learned
to love Jesus; but for those Christians of Asia Minor, ov«
idovras, certainly there was something peculiarly sublime in
the power which had taught them to love Him. There rose
up vividly before the apostle’s mind—as the form which the
next clause takes leads one to think—a remembrance of our
Lord’s words about the peculiar blessedness of those who,
“not having seen, believe” (John xx. 29). With regard to
the second case, my opa@vtes, muatevovTes Sé, the apostle’s
experience was substantially ¢he same as that of the brethren
to whom he wrote. He, like them, had often felt the chilling
influence which is exerted on the spiritual life of Christians,
when unwatchful, by things seen and temporal; and yet he
and they, pa op@vtes, “not seeing their Redeemer, and
fully conscious of this,’ exulted in Him. The od and the
un respectively are plainly used with entire naturalness in
the two places; cf. a somewhat parallel case, Matt. xxii.
11,12. On the testimony to the genuineness of the Epistle
afforded by the obviously unforced autoptic touch in this
clause, see Introduction, § I. 5.
74 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. eg
In the clause eds dv «rX., these first words belong in
construction to the participle muorevovtes. The combination
els 6év, indeed, is no doubt one which readily permits its
force to pass over in a loose way to the main verb @yad\ate,
but not so exactly as “in whom” does in English. *Aryaddsav
and the verbs of its class are not construed with eds, and
opav is so only exceptionally, and in a different sense from
that here required (cf. John xiv. 37, with Meyer's note).
But wiorevew often takes efs; and, the chief subject of the
whole section (vv. 6-9) being the power of faith as already
proved in the spiritual experiences of Christians, the thought
mainly in the writer's mind from the beginning of the
present clause was naturally that of “believing,” eds 6v
muotevovtes; whilst to the interjected yu opavtes the mind
at once supplies av’rov, and to a@yadNdate, év avto—The
rare active form ayaddav occurs also in Luke i. 47; Rev.
xix. 7; the passage in Luke, however, being the only one
of the three where the middle is not found as a variant.
Assuming the active to be the true reading here, it would
seem, from its being used so soon after the middle (ver. 6),
that to Peter the one form came as naturally as the
other.
The epithets appled to the joy of believers are peculiarly
rich and striking. “AvexAdAntos is a somewhat rare word;
see Ionat. Eph. § 19; Iven. i. 14. 5; and cf. ddadyTos, Rom.
vill. 26. By dedoacpévn Christian joy is described as in its
nature distinctly heavenly. Like the face of Moses (tnv do£av
Tov TpocwTrov avTod, 2 Cor. ili. 7), or of Stephen (Acts vi. 15),
it is touched with a beam from above, reflecting the glory of
God.
Ver. 9. Several even of those expositors who admit the
previous verses of the paragraph to refer to Christian
experience in the present life think of this verse as pointing
to the future, somewhat thus: “receiving by and by, as
ye know that ye are to do, the end of your faith.” This
is wholly unnatural. Had Peter meant this he would
(
H 9.1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fie:
certainly have used the future, the form which he actually
has in the only other places where he employs the verb
KopitecOa (v. 4; 2 Ep. ii. 18, the reading in this latter
passage, however, being doubtful). The clause explains
and justifies the exultant hope of believers by exhibit-
ing their present position, describing them as already enjoy-
ing in a measure, and according to the intelligence and
liveliness of their faith knowing themselves to be enjoying,
the essential elements of the life eternal. In their peace
of conscience, fellowship with God, growth in holy beauty
and energy, they were already receiving to some extent
“the end” to which their faith looked, and for which it
longed, “the salvation of their souls.” From the nature
of the truth of which faith lays hold, this “end” begins
to be gained from the very commencement of true faith
in any soul. It is gained always more as faith grows in
intelligence and strength, until in heaven it is attained
perfectly. This “end of faith” is described by the apostle
in the most general way, without articles, “salvation of
souls,” as if leaving to his readers room for expatiating in all
directions in the contemplation of the breadth and length and
depth and height of this sublime blessing. In naming
specially the salvation of the “soul,” the apostle brings out
distinctly the radical and therefore gloriously complete nature
of the deliverance; cf. Jas. i. 2; Heb. x. 39. It does not
seem to be over-refining, too, to say that whilst the apostle
is no doubt thinking of salvation in its fulness (as the
unquestionably general wept 7s cwtnpias which follows shows),
yet his form of expression gives prominence to that sphere
or element in which his readers were actually in the present
life xopsfopevor owtnpiavy,— the body, indeed, being dead
because of sin, but the spirit being life because of righteous-
ness” (Rom. viii. 10).
76 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 10.
Vv. 10-12. Confirmation of what has been said regarding
the greatness und the certainty of the Christian salvation,
by a reference to the deep interest taken in everything
connected with wt by prophets and by angels.
Ver. 10. On the spelling (late, and perhaps mainly Alex-
andrian), €pavvay for épevvadv, prevalent in the oldest texts of
N. T., see particularly Dr. Gregory’s Proley. to Tischendort’s
Sth ed. p. $1.—It is not needful to distinguish minutely
between é&e€jtncay and éEnpavyynoay, the two verbs being
plainly employed in order to exhibit with special strength their
common idea of “seeking.” This combination is found also
in 1 Mace. ix. 26; and fnrety and éfepavvdy are used in a
parallelism in Prov. ii. 4.—On the omission of the article
with wpodjrast, cf. ver. 7, note on xpuolov. It is possible,
however, and not unlikely, that the present is not simply
a case of omitting the article in order to lighten a con-
struction. Having regard to the anarthrousness of dyyedou
also (ver. 12), it seems as if with both words the apostle,
by withholding the article, meant to concentrate the attention
of his readers on that dignity of position which is intimated
by the designations, and which the article —implying as
it does a certain familiarity with the thought—would tend
to make less prominent; “ prophets—angels—are interested
in the gospel.” Anarthrousness, obviously or probably with
this design of making the substantive or adjective stand out
in full prominence, is somewhat favoured by our apostle; cf.
AMGov, ii. 4 ; Slkavos, iii. 18 ; KeBwrod, iii. 20; xtlorn, iv. 19 ;
and see T. 8. Green’s NV. 7. Gram. p. 34. Mr. Green appears
inclined to think that to this purpose of making the inherent
notion of the substantive stand out with vividness is perhaps
to be ascribed the whole class of cases where a noun to which
an attributive combination is postfixed with the article is
itself anarthrous.—Dr. Plumptre (Cambridge Bible for Schools,
tm loc.) has propounded the view that the “ prophets” here
41.4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. arg
spoken of are the eminent class of Christian ministers of
the first age called by this name in N. T., such as Silas
and Agabus. The ordinary view of the reference has some
difficulties, but this has immeasurably more. Dr. Plumptre
bravely faces even mpouaptupowevov and ovy éavtois tpiv
éé, but totally fails to make his exegesis look in the
smallest degree natural.— Instead of simply referring to
cwtnpias by a pronoun, “ who prophesied of it,” the apostle
amplifies (cf. ver. 5, note on owtnpiav), bringing in a new
and most winning description of salvation, tis els tuds
yapitos, “the grace (ze. the gift or manifestation of grace)
for you”—‘“destined for you;” on this use of eds, cf.
els vpas, ver. 4, note. These words evidently contain in
themselves a strong argument. “Ages ago, in the promises
of grace given through the prophets, God had you in His
thoughts: can your faith in Him fail when you remember
this ?”
Ver. 11. We are here told what were those points with
respect to salvation as to which the prophets “ made diligent
inquiry and search.” The coming of a great Deliverer was
made known to them,—not a little also, as the prophetic
ages rolled on, with regard to the glory of His Person and
the nature of His work; but the ¢tzme of the deliverance
they were not told. The picture which they were enabled
to form in their minds lacked distinctness of perspective.
On this point, through the intense interest with which they
contemplated the revealed Saviour and His salvation, they
earnestly, through prayerful study of the data which they
possessed, sought for more light. Their inquiries, we are
told, related to tiva Karpov, “ what time” God had fixed for
the advent of the Deliverer,— and also to wotov kacpor,
3
“what manner of time,’ what kind of age in the world’s
history, politically and morally; cf. Clem. Rom. § 38,
avaroyic@peba ovv, aderAdol, Totor Kal tives elondAOaper eis
Tov koopov. One can easily understand how the question
with regard to vofov as well as tiva xacpov should arise in
78 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [aet ide
their minds. Many of the facts revealed to them respecting
Messiah and His work were so strange in themselves, and
especially in their combination, that marvel was natural as
to what class of circumstances could bring about the realiza-
tion of such predictions as that the Christ was to be “ cut
?
off out of the land of the living ”——and to “prolong His
days,’ — to be “forsaken,” “ bruised,’ “put to grief” by
Jehovah — and to be His “elect,” “in whom His soul
delighted,’ — and other similar seeming mutual contra-
dictions—By some interpreters (as Peile and Mason) tiva
is taken as unconnected with xacpov, its meaning being
“whom.” This is, of course, grammatically possible; but
obvious advantage in exegesis would be required to justify
disregard of the strong prima facie likelihood that in such
a clause as the present tiva and rotov eo together in
construction, Now, in fact, difficulty arises; for if tiva
have a personal reference, this is plainly much the more
important of the questions,
yet in what is said in the
following verse to have been “revealed” to the prophets
there is nothing which seems in any way to relate to such
a question.
Eis tiva KaLpov means “with reference to what time,”
the construction which follows being either that éd/Aou has
an understood object, “them,” 7c. Ta ets Xpictov raOjnpata
xTX., the apostle having already the participial clause so
vividly present to his mind that he construes the main verb
as if he had expressed that clause before it,—or that édA0uv
and mpopaptupopevov are to be taken together as conjointly
having ta waOjpyata xT. as object, thus, “ was by prophetic
testimony showing” (cf. Acts xxvill. 25, the construction of
e€eTiMeTo Siapaptupomevos). To suppose éd7Aou used here in
an exceptional way as intransitive, and therefore having ecs
attached, with the sense “was pointing to,” on such an
analogy as the rare construction found in John xix. 37,
dyovtau eis, 1S unnecessary.— For the expression mvevpa
Xpiorov, see Rom. viii. 9; Phil. 1,19; cf. also Acts xvi. 7
E11.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 79
(true reading); Gal. iv. 6. Such a sense of mvetpa Xpiotod
as “the Spirit who spoke of Christ” (Grotius), could not
very naturally attach to the words in any circumstances,
and here plainly would be utterly tautological. The render-
ing, “the Spirit who—in the fulness of the times—rested on
Christ” (Weiss), is grammatically possible; but a force of
the genitive, decidedly different from that which it has in
the other places where the combination occurs, is thus
introduced without the slightest suggestion in the context.
No other force of the expression is in the least degree
natural than “the Spirit who is Christ’s, and whom He sends
forth” (John xv. 26, xvi. 7). “ Procul dubio Petrus Spiritum
Sanctum Christi Spiritum propterea vocavit, quod Christus,
quum, priusquam homo factus esset, divina majestate apud
Deum splenderet (Phil. 1. 6), Spiritus Sancti afflatum prophetis
dedisset” (C. F. Fritzsche, Nova Opuse. Acad. p. 259). This
application of the name “Christ” to the Word not yet made
flesh is like that of Paul, 1 Cor. x..4; cf. also John xii, 41.
3y the function here ascribed to “the Spirit of Christ,” as
the Teacher of the prophets, He is at once identified with
“the Spirit of Jehovah” who “spake by” them (2 Sam.
xxiii. 2), The truth that the pre-incarnate Word was the
Giver of the Spirit to the prophets was one which much
interested the early Fathers; cf. Barnab. § 5, ot wpodgnras,
am’ avtov (ie. Christ) éyovtes thy yadpuv, eis adtov émpodn-
tevoav,—also Ionat. Mugn. § 9; Justin Martyr, I. Apol. 36,
63; Iren. iv. 20. 4.
In e’s Xpiorov the preposition accords with the prophetic
point of view, “destined, appointed, for Christ,” exactly as
in THs els twas yapitos of ver. 10: contrast the form
of expression from the eye-witness’s point of view, v. 1,
padptus Tov ToU Xpictov taOnudtwv. By the fact that in
the preceding paragraph prominence has been given to the
contrast between the sufferings of believers on earth and their
glory in heaven, some interpreters have been led to think
that in the present verse also the reference is not to Christ
80 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 12.
but to His people; and they would translate thus, “the
sufferings with relation to Christ” (or “ until Christ,” de.
until His Second Coming) “and the glories thereafter.”
Neither of these translations of e¢s is a likely one-—the former,
because of its vagueness, seeing that the apostle, if such had
been his thought, had the distinct 60a Xpiotov ready at hand,
—the latter, because eés in the sense of “until,” joined to a
personal name, is exceedingly rare in N. T., if found at all
(cf. the Commentators on Gal. ili. 24). On the other hand,
the use of es in the immediately preceding verse, in what
prima facie appears to be a precisely parallel combination,
obviously invites us to take the preposition here in the same
sense. There can be no doubt, moreover, that what must
mainly have excited the eager inquiries of the prophets, and
what the angels mainly desired to look into, was the history
of Christ; and to all intelligent believers the sequence of
thought in the apostle’s letter, supposing the reference here
to be to Christ Himself, presents itself at once as most
natural, the basis of His people’s hopes being His sufferings
and glories.—In using the plural of doa, a somewhat rare form
(in N. T. only in 2 Pet. ii. 10 and Jude 8, in both places
in a peculiar sense), the apostle no doubt had in his mind
the more or less distinct predictions of the various stages of
our Lord’s course of triumph, the Resurrection, Ascension,
Mediatorial Reign, and Second Coming.
Ver. 12. A communication was made by God to the
prophets—to the longing heart of each seer, age after age,
we may suppose—to the effect that not to themselves but to
men of after times they were ministering their revelations
respecting Messiah. Of course the reference here is to the
blessed realization of the promises in Christ’s incarnation and
redemptive work: as regarded spiritual benefit, the prophets
ministered largely to themselves and their contemporaries
(on this see a beautiful paragraph in Leighton). The infor-
mation given to the prophets in answer to their prayerful
longings was probably very general ; but the simple announce-
I. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 81
ment of the distant futurity of the Messianic age was sufficient
to show them that they did not need detailed knowledge of
“what and what manner of time.”—-Construed as here with
an accusative and a dative, dvaxovety, “to serve,’ means “ to
serve one with something,’—in the present instance, of course,
“to supply information ;” cf. Joseph. Antig. vi. 13. 6. Its
object here, avta, “them,” “ these things,’ points obviously
to Ta Syndovpmeva mrept TaV els Xpiotov TaOnudtwv KTr. The
rendering of the A. E. V. here seems, as occasionally (cf.
Phil. iv. 3), to indicate a certain confusion in the minds
of the translators between the force of avros and that of
ovtos. Avra really ends the first half-sentence, and the
point perhaps ought to be a semicolon,—the second half-
sentence being made up of the two co-ordinate relative
clauses, which are attached a little loosely, “the which
things,” ete.
By some expositors (as Huther, Alford, and Lillie) a
different view of the meaning of this first clause of the verse
is held. They regard the apostle as speaking, not of a com-
munication made to the prophets after, and in gracious
response to, their eager inquiries, but (a7exadupOn being taken
with that practically pluperfect force which the aorist not
unfrequently has, particularly in relative clauses) of a com-
munication given previously—involved, indeed, in those very
Messianic revelations which they had received, and which
had led to their longings and questionings. The one main
statement of the passage is supposed to be that the prophets
felt a deep interest in their predictions regarding Christ and
His salvation (vv. 10, 11); and the clause ofs dexadrvdOn
KTX. 1s thought to be added in a subsidiary way, to show the
unselfishness of this interest,—thus, “ to whom (however, or,
be it noted) it had been revealed (7c. practically, although it
had been revealed to them), that it was not to themselves but
to you they were ministering the precious things of which
they spoke.” In this case the apostle’s line of thought is—
“Tf the ancient seers, knowing that the Messianic predictions
F
§2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [hens
were not for them, still studied them with earnest love, what
should your interest in the contemplation of Christ be, to
whom His salvation has actually come!” The grounds urged
in support of this view of the meaning are, that no statement
is found in O. T. about an answer given to a prophet with
respect to such questionings, except to Daniel (Dan. vii. 16),
and that in many of the Messianic predictions a remote
futurity of fulfilment is so distinctly implied that the seer
would not need any further revelation to that effect. This
last position is, at the least, open to question, the obviousness
to us now, after fulfilment, of indications given in the pro-
phecies themselves of a remote time of realization by no
means proving that these evidences could be clearly seen
by those to whom the oracles were first given. On the
whole, the arguments do not appear adequate to overturn
the strong prima facie probability that, coming after a detailed
account of certain inquiries, the words ofs dmexadvdOn are to
be held as, according to the common use of the aorist, setting
forth in historical sequence the answer given by Ged. That
the apostle’s statement here is a generalization from the one
case of Daniel is not at all a necessary supposition, and does
not appear to be a likely one, when we take into view what
he says immediately afterwards about the interest felt by the
angels in Messianic study. There does not seem to be any
passage in O. T. on which this latter statement is specially
based; and whilst, no doubt, what we are told throughout
Scripture of the character and work of the angels leadg: most
naturally to the thought here expressed, yet the apostle
presents it with a definiteness suggestive rather of a revelation
made to him, or of a remembrance of teaching of the Lord,
than of a mere inference. If it be judged that, from their
nature, the facts mentioned in this verse were not likely to
have been communicated to the apostle by special revelation,
there is perhaps nothing forced or fanciful in thinking that
both of them may be reminiscences from the discourse which
he had heard between Jesus and Moses and Elijah on the
I. 12:1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 83
Holy Mount, with respect to “the decease to be accomplished
at Jerusalem,” or from the converse of the Lord with His
disciples after His resurrection (Luke xxiv. 4, 5).
By some interpreters 67 after advexadv¢Oy has been taken in
the sense of “ because, for.” Thus Luther translates, “ Welchen
es geoffenbaret ist. Denn sie haben’s nicht ihnen selbst
sondern uns dargethan,’ us.w. The bareness and abruptness
of ois amexadvpOn, according to this construction, make it an
exceedingly unlikely one. Neither is much satisfaction to be
found in an attempt which has been made to obviate this
objection, by putting the words from 67s to avrta into a
parenthesis, and connecting the following relative clause with
amexarvpon,—thus, “ to whom were revealed the things which
have now been announced to you,’ etc. The parenthesis is
but feebly relevant; the main statement, thus taken, seems
to intimate what is inconsistent with all the analogies of
God’s mode of communication of truth,—that the facts com-
prised in the N. T. gospel proclamation were made known in
clearness and detail to the ancient prophets; and the relative
clause, construed in this way, largely loses the force which
apparently it is meant to have in the apostle’s argument.
The two relative clauses, co-ordinate with each other, with
which the verse and the section end, wind up the passage
with singular impressiveness,—the statements being eminently
fitted to strengthen in the apostle’s readers a sense of the
glory of the gospel, and of the lively gratitude and firm faith
which became them.—WNov here plainly, in the connection, has
a reference of considerable breadth, “in these Christian times,”
as contrasted with the age of the prophets: thus the aorist,
pointing to the first proclamation of the gospel in Asia Minor,
stands in the clause with perfect propriety,—cf. Rom. v. 11,
vii. 6, xi. 80. This construction of vdv with the aorist, when
vov covers a lengthened period, is found also occasionally in the
classics; eg. Plato, Symp. 193 A.—JIn drootanévte am’
ovpavod the apostle by using the aorist seems to point to
the great scene at Pentecost; though his words may simply
84 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (ey 12s
have regard to the time of the bestowment of the Spirit on
each evangelist, the fulness of the phraseology being intended
to illustrate the grandeur of this gift—_The basis for appeal
for the cultivation of faith and hope is evidently made broad
and strong in the words of this little clause: “Those
wondrous events to which the prophets looked forward so
eagerly are the very events which have been related to you
by the gospel messengers ; and they have been told to you
under the same divine guidance which before was granted
to the prophets——the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the
preachers of Christ, indeed, having been manifested with
peculiar distinctness and impressiveness.” On the object of
Peter in this and similar references, full of love and confidence,
to the Pauline body of evangelists who carried the glad
tidings through Asia Minor, cf. Introduction, § V. 10.
The last clause has great rhetorical beauty and power.
“ Blest as the holy angels have been since their creation with
the beatific vision of God, still they recognise in the Person
and work of Christ a new and surpassingly sublime revelation
of the divine excellences, into which they long to gaze.”—On
the anarthrousness of ayyedoz, see note on mrpodyras, ver. 10.—
Tlapaxtrrewv, properly “to bend aside,’ commonly “ to bend
so as to look at,” is often in classical Greek “ to take a slight
side glance ;” but in N. T. use the meaning seems unquestion-
ably to be “to look earnestly,”’—the exact idea being “to bend
ef. Luke xxiv..12.5\ John sa2j3peie
bs
so as to see distinctly ;’
Jas. i. 25. Compare also the use of another compound,
eyxurrrew, in Clem. Rom. § 40, éycexugortes eis Ta Baby Tis
Gelas yvwoews. The thought has been entertained by many
expositors, that in the present clause the apostle alludes to the
Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, represented as stooping
down and looking with affection and reverence toward the
Ark of the Covenant covered by the blood-besprinkled Mercy-
seat. This supposition is interesting and attractive, but its
basis is insecure. It is doubtful whether such was the
attitude of the figures; and that the cherubic symbol had any
I. 13:4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 85
reference at all to angels is exceedingly questionable ; cf. Fair-
bairn, Typology of Scripture, Bk. II. chap. 3.
HORTATORY PART OF THE EPISTLE, I. 13-V. 9.
This part subdivides itself into two main sections,—the
jirst, extending to li. 10, containing a somewhat general
exhortation to the cultivation of holy character; the second,
from that point to ver. 9 of the last chapter, giving precepts
bearing on particular circumstances and relations.
Vv. 13-16. Call to hope and to holiness.
Ver. 13. By 6&0 the apostle reminds his readers of the
vital connection between the belief of those central truths of
which he has spoken in his first section and Christian affec-
tions and conduct. Seeing that the particle introduces a main
division of the letter, its reference is naturally taken to he,
not specially to the clause or clauses immediately preceding,
but to all that has gone before ——“ Seeing that God has given
to you such exceeding great and precious promises and
privileges.” From this, two immediate practical inferences
plainly are, “You ought to cherish a lively hope of the
promised blessedness,” and “You ought to seek meetness
of character for that blessedness.” To both of these the
apostle adverts, to the jivst in a single sentence, the echo of
which, however, is heard through the whole Epistle; to the
second, very fully.
First, of hope. Two conditions necessary to the mainten-
ance of Christian hope are prefixed by the apostle, in a
participial form, to his precept €Amicate,—the participles
themselves, of course, having in their connection practically an
imperative force. The sense of the metaphor in dvafwodpevor
KTr. at once suggests itself, from our knowledge of the long
86 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [1.913.
loose attire of the Orientals, and the need of gathering it up
for labour: “ preparing yourselves for vigorous and sustained
spiritual exertion,” “ arousing yourselves from your listlessness
and dissipation of mental energy.” These first words of the
verse are quoted by Polycarp (§ 2).— The epexegetical
genitive Ths diavoias tuov is added to tas oopvas in a free
and natural way, bringing fully out the apostle’s meaning,—
“Do with your minds what is so familiar to you in bodily
action, gird up your loins mentally.” Cf. the words of Clem.
tom. § 57, in a similar and striking metaphor, capapavtes Ta
yovata ths Kxapdias tuov. The word dsavora has a special
suitableness in the connection, designating particularly as it
does the mind as at work in life, in dealing with men and
things, ranging “through” all kinds of circumstances and
infiuences, many of them in their nature calculated to weaken
or to pervert; cf. Westcott on 1 John v. 20. As to the
force of this clause, ef. Luke xii. 35 ; Eph. vi. 14; and also, if
the thought of araperidnuors Suactropas (ver. 1) be judged to
have been still in any degree in the minds of the readers,
Ex, xi. 11. The compound dvafwvvivae occurs here only
Im NTs Act aProvs exec aie leX ox,
From the preparatory work set forth by the aorist participle,
the apostle proceeds to exhibit by the present participle
vypovtes a constant accompaniment of true Christian hope.
The verb v7idew—strictly “to be sober” in the specific sense
of the word, “ free from intoxication ”—is employed in N. T.
(eg. 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, and twice elsewhere in our Epistle,
iv. 7, v. 8), as occasionally by classical writers, in the wider
sense of “ to be sober-minded,” free from subjection to worldly
influences generally. Christian hope can live only with
spirituality of thought and feeling and consequent purity
of life. In effect, yjpovres sums up the result of the chief
part of the mental preparation enjoined in the previous
clause; cf. Luke xxi. 34. By some (as Westcott and
Hort) vedetws is joined to the participle; but it seems more
natural to regard the force of this strong word as thrown on
I. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 87
the main verb éAmdcare. The sense given to Tedelws in
A. E. V., “to the end” (=péyps Térous of Heb. i. 6, els
téXos of Matt. x. 22), appears to be without analogy ; and the
ordinary meaning of the adverb, “ perfectly,” is quite satistac-
tory, including the other and more, “ with full intelligence and
intensity and stedfastness.” '
The force of the combination introduced by éexé may be
conceived in more than one way. “Evi followed by an accusa-
tive is joined to éenmritey only once elsewhere in N.T., 1 Tim.
v. 5, where the accusative is Oedv, and the meaning “ to hope
in, or on, God.” In LXX. this construction is common, the
word governed by ézé being almost always Kvpvov or some
pronoun referring to God. On these analogies some scholars
take émi yapwv also as denoting, not the object, but the basis of
the hope, “rest your hope perfectly on the grace—the divine
favour—which is being brought to you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ.” The use of the present participle depouévny has
suggested, moreover, to some that “the revelation of Jesus
Christ ” here meant is that made in the gospel : “ rest your hope
on the grace which comes to you from day to day in (through)
the revelation of Jesus Christ.” This reference of “ the revela-
tion,” however, is not tenable. The expression adroxaduyis I. X,.
is a familiar one in N. T. with clear reference to the Second
Coming, whereas the other reference here supposed has only
one or two remote analogies; and the fact that but a few
lines before (ver. 7) the apostle has employed the whole phrase,
exactly as here, unquestionably of the Second Coming, seems
quite decisive as to his meaning here also. The use of the
present participle in a pregnant sense, as including the future,
is in this place perfectly natural, and has a peculiar richness
of assurance: “ which is now on its way to you, and will reach
you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ When this, then, is
recognised to be the force of the last words of the clause, and
we go back to look at yapw, we feel that with depopevny it is
not naturally taken with its primary foree—as “ grace,” an
attribute of God, the basis of hope,—but according to its very
88 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ri t14.
common secondary use (eg. ver. 10), as “ the gift bestowed by
grace,” the object of hope. °Emi with an accusative may
manifestly quite as naturally indicate aim as basis; and the
analogy of a combination in which the word “ God” or “ Lord”
is that which ém¢ governs, can scarcely with safety be held to
determine absolutely what is the sense in a case lke the
present, where a word of a quite different kind occurs. The
closely similar construction éAwifew eis, moreover, is found
with both applications; cf. 2 Cor. 1. 10; Ecclus. ii. 9. There
seems to be sufficient reason therefore for, with the great
majority of expositors, regarding the object of hope as indicated :
“hope perfectly for, set your hope perfectly on.’ On the
various constructions of éAmifev, see A. Buttmann, p. 175.
The yapis meant is obviously that which was the great
subject of the previous section, the final fulness of salvation,
the “ inheritance” (ver, 4), “ salvation” (ver. 5), “ praise and
glory and honour” (ver. 7). Hope which has this as its object,
and which is perfect in purity, in liveliness, and in persistence,
is evidently fitted to exert a mighty influence in giving men
much of heaven’s character and much of heaven’s happiness
even here.
Ver. 14. The grammatical structure of the passage at this
point is not altogether clear. The adversative add at the
beginning of ver. 15 is so plainly suggested by the imme-
diately preceding clause, and sets the words which follow so
sharply in contrast with it, that the course of thought is
dislocated to some extent if adAa be made to begin a new
sentence, Neither, however, does it seem perfectly satisfactory
to have a full break at the end of ver. 13. The absence of a
connective particle at the beginning of ver. 14 does not
indeed certainly prove, according to our apostle’s mode of
writing (cf. ver. 22), that he is not here beginning a sentence ;
yet this, taken in connection with the perfect relevancy of the
clauses of ver. 14 when regarded as subordinate to édicate
of ver. 13,—expanding in fact vojpovres,—seems to render it
somewhat unnatural to put these verses into distinct sentences.
Erie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 89
At the same time, the nature of the clauses of ver. 14 appears
to show that the apostle’s thoughts are there somewhat more
thrown forward on the appeal to holiness than backward
on that to hope; and therefore Huther, Westcott and Hort,
and others, do begin a new sentence here. On the whole,
the view adopted by the Revisers of the E. V., that vv. 13-16
form one sentence, with a slight irregularity of construction
in the beginning of the 15th, is perhaps the most likely.
The apostle here glides in an easy and informal way from
“Cultivate hope,” the first of his practical deductions from
that account of the privileges and prospects of believers which
he had given in the earlier part of the chapter, into the
second, “Cultivate holiness.” He begins his exhortation by
reminding his readers that through the nature of their position
as Christians they were “children of obedience,’—an expres-
sion closely corresponding to “elect through consecration of
the Spirit unto obedience” (vv. 1, 2). By os this position is
set forth as an argument,—this particle, as often (cf. eg. il. 2,
11, 15), being used eetiologically, “seeing that you are,” “as
beseems.” The genitive vmaxojns may be explained in two
ways, the sense yielded being in substance the same, but the
aspects a little different. It may be the Hebraistic genitive
of quality, practically equivalent to an adjective; cf. Luke
xvi. 8, xviii. 6; Jas. i. 25; and see Winer, p. 297; A.
Buttmann, p. 161. In this case the meaning is “ obedient
children (of God).” Seeing, however, that the governing
substantive is téxva, the combination may be taken as
analogous to viot THs aevelas, Téxva pwtos (Eph. v. 6, 9),
and the like, where, according to a familiar Semitic mode of
thinking, “ disobedience,” “light,’—-or whatever it may be,—
is set forth as the originating, formative, parental power ; cf.
particularly Steiger on the present passage, also Ellicott on
1 Thess. v. 5. On this view, the thought immediately
presented is not “children of God who are obedient,” but
“persons whose parent is obedience,” persons spiritually
springing from, having their character determined and moulded
90 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PEs ka.
by, obedience. Now the Fatherhood of God to His people
has been alluded to early in the Epistle, in “ begat us again to
an inheritance” (vv. 3, 4), and is expressly introduced again
in ver. 17; but in the present sentence the designation “ He
who called you” is not such as to suggest that in “children
of obedience” the writer had sonship to God immediately in
his thoughts. Probably, therefore, the second view of the
force of the genitive is that which was in his mind. His
readers, by their old nature “children of disobedience,” were
now through the nature of the new life which they had in
Christ “ children of obedience.”
The apostle’s exhibition of the character which beseemed
“children of obedience” is made first negatively: “not
fashioning yourselves (not fashioning your lives in any
respect or in any department) in accordance with the desires
which you formerly had in your ignorance,’—“ evil desires,
lusts,” according to a frequent, perhaps the most common, use
of émvOupia in classical Greek, and certainly its prevailing
use in N. T.—With the word pop¢y and its derivatives
there naturally associates itself a certain idea of permanence,
and with oyfma and its derivatives one of transitoriness ;
springing from the fact that wopdy designates the “form”
under which the essence of anything reveals itself, whilst
oxiwa, “fashion,” indicates rather what is superficial,
accidental, variable. The vanity of delight and hope in
the life of sin, and the permanence of the joy of holiness,
thus explain the change of verb in Rom. xu. 2, from ouvveyn-
patifecGe in the first clause to werayopdodoe in the second :
and similarly we may contrast Peter's use of cuvexnparifer Oar
here with Paul’s longing (Phil. iii, 10) cuppoppifec@ar to
Gavatw Xpictod,—where in the language a sublime paradox
presents itself, “to be conformed, linked in character, to
Christ’s death” implying “to be linked with Christ to
glorious immortality.” On popdy and cyijpa, cf. Trench,
Syn. N. T.§ 70, and Bp. Lightfoot’s exhaustive and admirable
detached note on Phil. ii. 6.
1! 15. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 91
Rigid exactness of construction would have required here
with cuveynpatifopevos a dative of the model ; not therefore
precisely as it stands, “along with, or similarly to, the lusts,”
but “similarly to those who live under the power of the
lusts,”’—that is, specially, in the present case, as the connec-
tion suggests, “similarly to the madas avOpwros in you,”
“similarly to your own selves while you were still ev 77
ayvoia.” But the free construction chosen by the apostle is
perfectly natural, and the meaning obvious. Paul’s con-
struction of the same verb in Rom. xii. 2 is also somewhat
free, though not quite in the same way.
From the occurrence of mportepoy in the clause, é¢v in the
combination év 77 ayvoia seems to be temporal, “in the time
of,” with also, however, a suggestion of the instrumental force
which this preposition so often has in N. T.—Whilst dyvoia,
“ (spiritual) ignorance,” belongs to all men by nature, yet
plainly if we suppose those to whom Peter wrote to have
been originally heathen, the word has a special fulness of
significance ; cf. Eph. iv. 18, and see Introd. § IT.
Ver. 15. In this verse there is a little irregularity of
construction. Having enjoined his readers not to take their
old sinful lives as a model to be now imitated by them, the
apostle is naturally led to set forth in direct contrast the
Supreme Model, and another participial clause might in
strictness have been expected, introduced by adda, somewhat
thus, dAAa cuppopdifopevor TO KaréoavTse bpas ayio. But,
in place of this, his earnestness of appeal leads him most
naturally to forget the exact structure of his sentence, and,
while presenting the thought of God as His people’s Pattern
by a slightly different mode of expression, to make his verb
a main one in the imperative, instead of a participle. The
preposition card is often in N. T., as by classical writers,
used in the sense of “after the model of;” ef. eg. Rom. xv.
5; Eph. iv. 24. In the combination here governed by xara
the simplest view of the construction is to regard tov dyvov
as going together, “the Holy One,” and xarécavta wpas,
92 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 15.
“who called you,” as inserted, according to an arrangement
of words somewhat favoured by the apostle (eg. ver. 14, Tais
mpoTepov KTA.),—instead of tov aylov Tov vuads KadecavTa.
For a specially close parallel to the present arrangement, cf.
2 Ep. ii 1. The construction of a&yvov predicatively, as in
A. E. V. and text of R. E. V., seems hard and unlikely.
Had this been intended, we should probably have had xa@as
0 Upas Karéoas aylos éotuv, or something similar.
To the designation of God, “the Holy One,” the expression
“who called you” is attached with obvious force. Suggesting
the thought of duty by their reference to that radical change
of moral life to which the readers had been “ called,’ the
words add a strong argument in support of the injunction
given, by reminding them of the grace which had brought
them into that new life. As always in the Epistles, xanetv
used in this way means “to call effectually,’—the apostles
assuming that the professing Christians to whom they wrote
were Christians in truth. In the present place it seems
likely, from the quotation appealed to in ver. 16, that the
“calling” of Israel into covenant engagements and privileges
—which appears to be the basis of the N. T. theological
use of «adety—was with special vividness before Peter's
mind.
The words «ai. avtot (cf. ii. 5) set the apostle’s readers
distinctly face to face with the great divine Model, calling on
them, as they contemplate His character, to take that as the
standard for their own: “like to the Holy One, be ye your-
selves also holy.’—’Avactpogy is a favourite word with our
apostle, being used in his writings oftener than in all the rest ~
of N. T. His form of expression here, “every avactpogy,”
shows that he is taking the word in the sense of “a department
of conduct.” —TIevyOnre illustrates a tendency prevalent in the
later Greek, and largely shown in N. T., to use aorists of the
passive form in a middle sense; sometimes, as in this
case, introducing into common use a previously unused or
only provincial passive form, and employing both it and
|
i
/
I. 17-21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 93
the older middle form; cf. Winer, p. 327; A. Buttmann,
Dy, ol,
Ver. 16. To the apostle’s injunction is in this verse
appended, as its ground, a reminder that—as is recorded
again and again in Scripture (Lev. xi. $4, xix. 2, xx. 7)—
God had given as a fundamental precept to Israel, “ Ye shall
be holy, for Tam holy.” vcore always in N. T. (with perhaps
the single exception of Acts xx. 26, where, if, as seems
likely, this is the true reading, it cannot well but be
equivalent to the other reading 60), as frequently also in
classical writers, has its antecedent involved in it,=6dsa todTo
671, propterea quod, “because.” The future form of the
injunction, very familiar to us from O. T. usage, is peculiarly
impressive,—obedience to Him whose right to reign over all
creatures is absolute being assumed rather than expressly
commanded, as if nothing else were even conceivable-——The
quotation obviously sustains to the full the apostle’s precept,
aylor yevnOnre; and it suggests also, though it does not
directly state, the standard, “as Iam holy;” cf. Eph. iv. 24.
In its connection here this quotation distinctly shows, too,
how fully the apostle regarded the Church of God under all
the economies of grace as being one, with respect to spiritual
relations and obligations.
Vv. 17-21. Continued exhortation to holiness, and especially to
the cherishing of a spirit of holy awe.
The particular thought with which the section opens was
perhaps suggested by Tov carécavta buds (ver. 15): “God
called you to be His, and ye show recognition of your relations
to Him by calling upon Him.” The antithesis, however, if
such was thought of, is not formally set forth, there being no
emphatic twets here. The substance of the section is, “ Live
habitually in fear, remembering your relations to God and His
Son Jesus Christ.” Taking the precept of ver. 17, év dow
94 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ii ea ind
avaotpagpnre, in association with that of ver, 13, Tedelws
éXriaate, we have something of a paradox,—which yet accords
with the whole teaching of Scripture and with universal
Christian experience,—the fear being that of humility and
filial reverence ; cf. Phil. ii. 12, iii.1. “ Spei adjungitur timor:
utrumque ex eodem fonte: timor prohibet ne spe excidamus ”
(Bengel).
Ver. 17. Ei, while, as here used, practically equivalent to
“seeing that,” has a special power of appeal. It does not
formally asswme the truth of the position stated, on which the
following argument is to be based, but calls on the reader to
think the whole matter out for himself: “If ye invoke as
Father Him who judgeth impartially according to each man’s
work.” We might have expected s before zarépa, but this is
occasionally omitted, particularly where, as here, the predica-
tive word stands in an emphatic position in the clause, the
emphasis itself giving the force of ws; cf. chap. ii. 15 (correct
reading); 1 Thess. v. 8.
One might readily translate by, “If ye call Him Father
who judgeth;” but to this there lies the. objection that the
middle émicadetcbat nowhere else among the many places
where it occurs in the N. T. means simply “call,” and,
indeed, that its use in this sense by any writer is doubtful.
In chap. iii. 6, Peter employs the ordinary mode of expression
for “call.” Practically in the present place there is exceed-
ingly little difference. In ed matépa éwixareioGe there is
possibly a reference to the Lord’s Prayer as habitually em-
ployed by the believers.
In Tov arpocwrodnuTTe; Kpwovta the apostle, by using
‘ the present participle, points to a characteristic of the divine
procedure at all times, not specifically to the decisions of
the great day of final account. The Hebraism mpocwmoy
AapPavew (Luke xx. 21; Gal. ii. 6; Lev. xix. 15, LXX.; ef.
Brérew eis wpoowov, Matt. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14, and
Gavydlew mpocwrov, Jude 16, Job xiii. 10, LXX.) answers
to DVD NY2, The expression “to accept a person” is
ia ea FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 9
Or
obviously in itself colourless as regards motive, and in the
O. T. it occurs at least as often without as with a bad
reference. In the N. T., however, the meaning is always “ to
have regard as a judge to persons instead of to principles, to
be swayed by something in the individual concerned which
is irrelevant to the question at issue, to be partial.’ The
compound forms TpOTWTOAHLTTNS, TpocwToAnurpia, Tporw-
ToAnpTTELy, and ampocwmToAuTTes are not found earlier than
N. T. The adverb occurs in N. T. only in the present
passage, and elsewhere very rarely. Cf. Acts x. 34 (Peter’s
words), where the sentiment is the same as here, and where
alone mpoow7roAnpmrns occurs. In the passage before us, the
specific reference, with respect to impartiality, appears to be
to God’s not being biassed by any regard to religious pro-
fession or privilege, but looking simply to the épyov; cf. Rom.
ii. 11; Gal. ii. 6—‘Exdotov individualizes sharply. Before
(God no man can become lost in a party, so as to receive
acquittal or condemnation simply as a member of the party.—
In the singular épyov (as Gal. vi. 4) each man’s life—the
ageregate of the épya (Rom. ii. 6; Rev. xx. 12)—is regarded
as one great work, according to the predominating spirit,—a
service of God or an opposition to God. Faith, the initial
step in the épyov of a Christian life, is itself emphatically
spoken of by our Lord as To Epyov tod Oeov (John vi. 29).—
Though the relation of a justified man’s work to his justifica-
tion is not precisely analogous to that of an unjustified man’s
work to his condemnation, yet the expression kata To éxdaTou
epyov is in place universally with regard to God’s judgement
of men, the preposition cata pointing to the criterion or test.
Among the justified themselves, too, the difference in the
rewards of grace will be “according to each man’s work”
(Luke xix. 16-19 ; 1 Cor. i, 15).—A probable reminiscence
of the clause before us is found in the Epistle of Barnabas, iv.
12, 0 Kupios ampocwrodnumtas Kpivel TOV KOcmov' ExacToS
Kabas éroincev Komtettat.—In a clause such as the present,
where on the one hand the predicative word vrarépa is plainly
ite)
ler)
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 18.
emphatic, and on the other hand the mode in which the imme-
diate object of émuxanelobe is expressed brings one particular
feature of the divine character and administration into great
prominence, it is evident that the argument is intended to
rest largely, perhaps equally, on both. “To what kind of
life should you be led by consideration of the absolute
impartiality of God’s judicial dealings, conjoined with remem-
brance that this impartial Judge is your Father, and is
habitually prayed to by you as such ?”
Of év po8w... avactpadyrte, the simple translation, “ Live
in fear,” fails to represent the emphasis given by the position
of év doBw: some such rendering as “ Let fear mark your life”
is required.—The word vapoixias brings up before the minds
of Christians a prominent ground of “ fear,” in the thought of
the powerful perverting influence which may be exerted on
the citizen of heaven by his alien surroundings during his
“sojourn” in this world; cf. u. 11; Acts vu. 6, 29.
Ver. 18. “Knowing as ye do the divine estimate of the
value of a human soul, shown by the price which was paid for
your deliverance ; and discerning the grounds presented in that
price for gratitude and love and holy obedience.”——* Not with
corruptible things, silver or gold,’—the ordinary means of
redeeming from outward slavery or of purchasing any of the
good things of this world, but which plainly cannot by pos-
sibility furnish any approach to an equivalent, when the
question concerns the ransom of an imperishable moral being :
on this clause cf. Isa. li. 3 (ov peta apyuplov AvTpwOnceTOe,
LXX.), which was possibly echoing in the apostle’s memory, if
not definitely before his thoughts. The derivatives of AwvTpov
are occasionally and quite naturally used in a somewhat loose
secondary sense, simply of deliverance from bondage in a way
accordant with right, without the idea of ransom specially pre-
senting itself; cf. Luke i. 68, xxiv. 21; Acts vi. 35. Here,
however, quite obviously from the specification of price,
AuTpovcOar is to be taken with its proper force, “to eman-
cipate by paying a ransom, to redeem;” cf. Tit. 1. 14;
I. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 97
Heb. ix. 12. Compare also the use of ayopdfw, 1 Cor. vi.
20, vil. 25; 2 Pet. ii. 1; and of its compound éfayopafw,
Gal. ii. 13, iv. 5. Redemption is primarily from curse, the
state of condemnation (Gal. iil, 13); secondly, and as the
erand aim, from the thraldom of sinful dispositions and habits,
—it being by the atonement rendered consistent with the
elory of the divine administration to send forth those
influences by which the power of sin is overthrown. This is
the aim exhibited here ; so in Tit. i. 14; Heb. ix. 12-14,—
The avactpody of nen by nature is pataia, “ vain, profitless,”
destitute of good fruits, as regarded from the only worthy
point of view, the moral and spiritual: on partatos, cf. Trench,
Syn. N. T. § 49. The dvacrpogy is described also as
matpotapdootos, “ handed down from ancestors.” In connec-
tion with avaotpody, “life among our fellows,” this adjective
plainly does not point immediately to the bequest from one
generation to another of innate depravity, but to the influence y
exerted by the issues of depravity, evil training and associa-
tions, evil modes of thought and life-—which to so great an
extent form a chain binding each new generation, a slavery
?
from which “redemption ” is needed.—The non-repetition of
the article before matpowapaéorov is in accordance with clas-
sical usage in such a case as this, where the substantive already
has an adjective; cf. Gal. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 166, with
Moulton’s note 3; A. Buttmann, p. 91. An adjective or par-
ticiple thus attached has a prominence which gives it to some
extent the force of a distinct predication: cf. Donaldson,
Gr. Gram. §§ 407 and 489, foll.
Ver. 19. Several translations of this verse are possible,
according to the construction given to the genitive Xpuctod,
and according as @s is taken to be a particle of comparison,
thus making duvod a mere simile, or to point to function or
capacity, in which case a@uvod is a metaphor. Thus we have
(1) “with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and
spotless, namely (the blood) of Christ;” (2) “with the
precious blood of—as a lamb unblemished and spotless—
G
98 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 19.
Christ,” ze. according to the usual arrangement of words, “ of
Christ, as a lamb unblemished and spotless ;” (3) “with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unblemished and _ spot-
less” (so A. V.). To the first of these, which is a natural
rendering according to the order of words, the objection lies
that by it mere blood, one of the @@ap7a, and that the blood
of one of the lower animals, is—and this manifestly, in the
connection, as a ransom for sinners—called tisov, and seem-
ingly likened in value to the blood of Jesus. The third
rendering again is met by the difficulty that a mere simile
appears to lack force in a passage of this kind. The second
view of the meaning seems to be in all respects suitable. The
connection immediately suggests the thought of “a sacrificial
lamb,” from the well-known ritual usages of the Jewish temple,
with perhaps a special reference to the paschal service. From
John the Baptist’s memorable words (John i. 29, 36) the
thought of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” must have been very
familiar to Peter and to all the others of the first Christians
who had been disciples of John, or intimately associated with
any of his disciples. Peter’s very first acquaintance with Jesus
was as “the Lamb of God;” and thus no aspect of the Lord’s
character and position was likely ever to present itself to the
apostle more vividly than this. Assuming the construction to
be that which has just been preferred, namely, that aipwate
governs XpioTod, and the intervening s auvod is in apposition
to Xpsorod, the arrangement of words, though not very common,
is by no means unexampled. See, for instance, a similar case,
also with ws, in chap. iii. 7, @s dcGevertépm oxever KTA. In
such cases the interjected words gain from their unusual
position a special prominence, which accords with their argu-
mentative importance. Here, for example, the apposition has
the force of “seeing that,’ accounting for tule attached to
aiwate; and in the connection the particle @s gives distinct-
ness to this special force (@s, etiologia rod “ pretioso,” Bengel).
An interesting parallel to Peter's tiui@ aiwate Xpiotod,
possibly a reminiscence, is found in Clem. Rom. § 7, dte-
119, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 99
vicwpev €is TO aipa ToD XpicTov, Kal yvapev ws EotLV TiwLoV
T@ TaTpl avTod.
"Apwpos and domXos are so nearly synonymous, that the
employment of the two is in all likelihood simply to set forth
the one common thought with special fulness and impressive-
ness; see, however, Bengel’s distinction below. In LXX.
usage the word papos has passed from its classical sense of
“reproach” to a special meaning connected with ritual,
“blemish” (ground of reproach and rejection) in an animal
presented for sacrifice; and similarly auapos from the sense
of “irreproachable” to that of “unblemished.” Both words
occur in the LXX, frequently, pamos answering to D1, and
du@pos commonly to DF; see, for example, Lev. xxii. 19 foll.
It is not improbable that this sacrificial use of wamos may
have sprung from the similarity of sound between it and the
Hebrew o3,— perhaps, indeed, from the one word’s having been
regarded by the translators as radically the same as the other.
Not a few LXX. renderings, some of them much less defensible,
seem to have been determined by some such view or feeling ;
compare eg. Toxos (Ps. lv. 12), tpody) (Ps. exi. 5), payes
(1 Sam. v. 4) with the correspondent Hebrew. The most
interesting case of this kind is the use of oxnvy and of the
verb oxnvovv and other derivatives, answering to and appa-
rently intended to have the special force of the Rabbinical
m2; ef. eg. Ps. Ixxviii. 60 ; similarly in N. T., eg. John i. 14 ;
2 Cor. xii. 9; Rev. vii. 15, xxi. 3. Whether in all the passages
of the N. T. where duwpos occurs allusion to sacrifice is to be
supposed, and the special Hellenistic force attached to the
word, or whether in some of them we should give it the
wider sense of the classics,—which is found also sometimes
in the LXX.,—may be a question; but manifestly in the
place before us the thought of sacrifice is present, and thus
the meaning of the word is “unblemished.” “Aazvdos does
not occur in the LXX., but in the connection dwapos at once
draws this adjective also into the sacrificial reference; and
the stress which, by the employment of the two synonyms, is
100 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 20.
given to the one thought of freedom from all defect answers
—perhaps intentionally—to the fulness of expression in the
Law (Lev. xxii. 21): “It shall be perfect (LXX. au@por) ;
there shall be no blemish (wos) therein.” The thought of
the apostle in our passage thus seems to be, “ with the blood
of Christ as an all-perfect sacrifice.” But whilst this is the
general thought, the terms @uwpos Kal domidos also obviously
present the special idea—one plainly peculiarly suitable in
the course of an appeal to the “followers of the Lamb” (Rev.
xiv. 4) to be holy—that one grand element of the perfection
of the Lord as the sacrificial victim was His personally
“knowing no sin.” With respect to the character of the
Lord, Bengel thus distinguishes between the two adjectives
here employed: a@wepov, Jesus Christus in se non habuit labem,
—kal aorinov, neque extrinsecus maculam contraxit. Whilst
this is ingenious and interesting, and fairly accords with the
force of the words, it can hardly be insisted on: at all events,
in Eph. v. 27 dmwpos and pa) Eyovoa o7idov appear to be
used as almost exactly equivalent to each other. Compare
also 2 Pet. iii, 14, damier Kat apeopntot; ii. 13, oidot Kal
Oot.
Vy. 20, 21. The statement is here continued of the grounds
of that gratitude to God from which springs naturally the
holy @é80s of ver. 17. “From eternity, in the purposes of |
divine love, the Redeemer was destined for you; and you are
among those who enjoy the privilege of knowing that He is |
actually come, and who live under those gracious influences
which He bestows.” |
Ver. 20. As to mpoeyvwopévou, see note on tpoyveacw in
ver. 2.—TIpo xataBorys xoopouv (John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4)
is—not necessarily, indeed, but, as used in the N. T., actually
—equivalent to “from eternity.” — In the antithesis, davepw-
Gévros might not unreasonably be supposed to mean that
Christ (the Mediator who in one Person united the two |
natures, the OedvOpwros) having from eternity existed as
such in the mpoyvwow of God, “passed from designed into,
I. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 101
actual existence.” This mode of expression, however, would
be singular; and the way in which ¢avepodc@au is used else-
where of our Lord’s incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John i. 2,
il. 5, 8) suggests rather the bringing in of another thought
than that of the mpoyvwous, namely, a reference to His
personal pre-existence In His divine nature. In v. 4+ (where
see note) the apostle uses davepodcbat of our Lord’s Second
Coming. —’Em’ écyatov tav ypovwyv, “in the end of the
times (or ages),” 2.¢. specially here, no doubt, the times in the
world’s history which have been marked off from each other
by variety in the modes and measures of God’s revelation of
His will, times in which are recognised different “ dispensa-
tions.” The previous “times” were all preparatory for the
appearance of Christ, and from His advent onwards is “ the
last time,” the consummation or culmination of “ the times.”
‘Ecyatov is probably neuter, “the end;” cf. Heb. i. 1, also
Acts i. 8.— By 6c’ twas is pointed out the direct practical
bearing of the preceding doctrinal statements on the main
theme of the sentence, év do8w avactpadnte, eidores OTL KTH.
(vv. 17,18). The words practically repeat the argument set
forth in éAutp@Onte (ver. 18), presenting, however, here not
merely the fact, but the fact as being the issue of God’s
gracious purpose. On the last clause cf. a passage in the
ancient homily formerly called the Second Epistle of Clement
of Rome to the Corinthians, § 14: épavepaOn dé (6 Incods)
eT ETYAT@V TOV MEPaV, iva Iwas THON.
Ver. 21. This verse seems designed to gather up the force
of the long sentence, showing the perfect relevancy of the
reference made in vv. 18-20 to the work of Christ, as an
argument in support of the injunction in ver. 17, “If ye call
on God as your Father, walk before Him in holy fear.” In
substance ver. 21 says, “It is only through Christ that you
reach this recognition of God as your Father; and thus in
connection with this name ‘Father’ all the tender appeal to
the Christian heart, which is made by the remembrance of the
advent and sufferings of Christ, naturally presents itself.” The
102 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Pie rot.
apostle does not, indeed, in our present verse formally refer to
the words of the 17th by saying tods da Xpsotod (or ev
Xpistd) watépa émiKadovpévovs tov Ocov, or the like. But
the statements, “It is da Xpictod that ye are moto es
@cor,” and “It is through the proof of the acceptance by God
of Christ’s work which has been given in His raising Him
from the dead that you have riot cai édmida eis Ocov,” are
such as, in the connection of the sentence, are fitted to bring
up the other. That Peter intended this verse to recall the
first clause of ver. 17, is reasonably inferred from the aptness
of his language to do this,—from the compactness of struc-
ture which this view gives to the sentence,—and especially
from the proof that the Fatherhood of God to believers was
still prominently in the writer's mind, which is afforded by
piraderdiav in ver. 22, avayeyevynuévor KT. In ver. 23,
and perhaps aptuyévynta Bpédy in ii. 2.
IIicros followed by eis (a construction found with the
adjective only here in the N. T.) has evidently what is known
as its active sense (frequent in N. T.), “believing,” = miorw
éywv eis, Ac’ avtov may be paraphrased; by “through the
revelation of God given in Christ, and through the influence
of the Holy Spirit sent forth by Christ.” The thought that
faith is “through Christ” appears to have been a favourite one |
with this apostle ; ef. his words in Acts iii. 16, 4) miotis 9 80
avtov.— This clause gives some support to the view that
the Christians addressed in this Epistle were mainly persons |
brought out of heathenism. It is true that, taking “ faith in |
God” in a specially deep and rich sense, it may be said of
any class of converts that this was reached by them only |
through their saving knowledge of Christ. But in this
passage the language is general, without any express or
obvious reference to peculiar liveliness or intelligence or
operative power of faith. In such a sentence it seems much
less likely that the words are used of Jews, who had from
their childhood believed in God, and indeed “made their
boast” of Him, than that they are spoken of persons who,
I. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 103
“being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,’ had in early life
been “ without God in the world.”
The participial clause tov éye(pavta «TX. is epexecetical of
&: ab’tod miatods eis Ocov. Believing knowledge of Christ
produces loving faith in God through the ample evidence
presented—especially by our Lord’s resurrection—that God
loved and honoured Him, and accepted His work for men. —
Kai dofav aire dovta is obviously not a mere feeble addition
to the mention of the resurrection, “and therein glorified
Him,” but carries forward the thought, speaking of the
ascension and session at the right hand of the Father; ef.
Acts ii. 36 (Peter’s words),
If we attach to wore in the last clause of the verse its
usual meaning, and translate in the way which first suggests
itself, “so that your faith and hope are in God,” the statement
has in some measure the look of a tautology, after TOUS
muatous eis Meov. Some scholars, therefore, have taken the
conjunction to be used in the sense of iva (so A. E. V.), thus
making the differentia of the thought as given in this clause
to lie in the divine purpose. Words of purpose and words
of result have all a tendency to pass into the sphere of each
other; and in N. T. there are some unquestionable cases of
@ote as telic; cf. Matt. xxvii. 1; Luke ix. 52. It is to be
observed, however, that in these instances the subject of the”
clause introduced by @o7te is the same as that of the clause to
which it is subordinate,—an easier case somewhat for transi-
tion from the one sense to the other than that which is
before us here, as is now and again illustrated in English by
colloquial uses of “so as to.” Another possible translation is,
“so that your faith is also hope in God.” But faith and’
hope, whilst closely allied to each other, are yet in N. T.
regularly distinguished ; and the epigrammatic pointedness of
expression obtained by this proposed translation belongs rather
to modern literary style than to that of ancient writers, and
4
particularly that of Scripture. The position of vuay between \/
the substantives rather favours this predicative construction of
104 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [L 29,
€dvida,—the ordinary arrangement where nouns which are
coupled by «aé and have a common article govern a genitive
in common being different; cf. eg. Phil. i. 20, 25. But the
order in Eph, i. 5 is as here; and to some extent probably
the arrangement was often determined by euphony. On the
whole, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for departing
from the prima facie rendering of the clause, “so that your
faith and hope are in God.” The apostle appears purposely
to refer to his previous words tovs muctovs eis Ocov, and
_ to intimate simply that the clause tov éyeipayta xTX. has
_ explained the genesis of that wiotus—his “so that” being
9
practically equivalent to, “and thus it is that;” whilst éAaiéa
is added most naturally, the mention of the glorious proofs of
God’s having accepted His Son’s mediatorial work bringing
up vividly before the writer's mind the hope - producing
character of Christian faith.
Vv. 22-25. Exhortation to the cultivation of brotherly love.
The connection seems to be somewhat of this kind: “ Whilst
it is true that, so long as you are here, sojourners in the alien
world, you have many spiritual perils, such as to make it
needful for you to walk in fear (ver. 17), bear ever in mind at
the same time that even here there is also for you spiritually
a home life. As you look on God as your Father in Christ
Jesus (ver. 17), remember the many around you who also
rejoice in being His spiritual children, and who are thus your -
brethren. Love them sincerely and ardently. A heart
defiled with sin turns ever further towards selfishness ; but
your hearts are purified through faith to be abodes of love.”
Ver. 22. We find occasionally elsewhere in the Epistle a
section beginning without a connective particle (as 1. 13);
but the present case is the most striking—The participle
nyvixotes has its full perfect foree—*seeing that, according
to your Christian profession, you have from your conversion
I. 23.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 105
onward been purifying.” In ayvixotes «TX, as in any
clause attached in this way to an ethical injunction, there
lies for the conscience a suggestion of command or appeal ;
but the participle is not to be regarded as having itself a
directly imperative force,= dyvicate ... Kai ayarnoate.
This sense of a participle which stands in connection with
an imperative—common with the participle of the present
and the aorists—is not common, if it occur at all, with the
participle of the perfect; and the course of thought set before us
by giving to the participle its frequent force of “ seeing that”
is, to say the least, quite as natural as the other— Lraxon THs
adnGeias, “submission to the truth,” an expression obviously
of wide range, has here reference most prominently to the
primary and fundamental element in such submission, namely,
“belief.” In and through this spiritual element or atmosphere,
mio, the purification of the heart takes place: see note on
vmakonv, ver, 2, and for an interesting parallel, showing
that the thought given in this clause was a favourite one
with Peter, see Acts xv. 9.—In els idAaderdiav the telic
force of the preposition, while present, is yet not prominent.
Eis sets forth the natural tendency which the purifying
work wrought by faith upon the heart has, a tendency which,
of course, becomes a definite conscious aim with the Christian
in so far as the matter comes before him in thought.— Whilst
kalapas of T. R., before xapédias, is no doubt a gloss, it is
obviously one supplied with thorough intelligence as to the
line of thought, for there is substantially, though not quite
exactly, a threefold correspondence of expression between the
imperative clause and the participial—adAdyArovs ayaryoate
answering to els didadeddiav, éxtevas loosely to avuToxpitor,
and €« Kapdias to Tas uxas Uuav iyviKOTEs.
Ver. 23. As to dvayeyevynuévor, see note on davayevyycas,
ver. 3. <As the participial clause #yvexotes x7rd. led up to
the imperative, so here also after the imperative we have
another participial clause, setting forth a second most
important consideration in support of the appeal, namely,
106 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (I. 28.
the sublime and unending nature of that new life through
which Christians are, brethren.—Of various senses in which
classical writers employ the mainly poetical word oopa
(here only in N. T.), the only one which seems to be in this
passage perfectly suitable is “seed.” The description here
answers practically to John’s, “ Which were born not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God” (John i. 13).—The use of distinct prepositions with
omopas and Adyou naturally suggests the thought that the
reference of the two substantives is different, é« o7opas
designating as the sowrce of regeneration the gracious influence
of the Holy Spirit. On this view of the meaning we have
the sublimity and imperishableness of the new life shown,
first, from the fact of its springing from the goodness of the
eternal God and His direct action on the soul; and secondly,
from the “abiding” energy of the instrument employed.
We find, however, that the apostle follows up his mention of
the living and abiding character of the Aoyos by a somewhat
long confirmatory quotation from Scripture, without making
any reference whatever to the adf@@apova of the omopa as
something distinct from the {wy of the Adyos. It is to be
observed also that cases occur elsewhere in the N. T. where
the prepositions e€« and da are both used in the same
sentence and of the same subject, obviously with no
substantial difference, but merely showing a different point
of view ; see Gal. il. 16; Rom. iii. 30. It appears on the
whole, therefore, likely that in ozopa the apostle’s thought
is not of the influence of the Spirit taken by itself, but of
the word as made quickening by His energy, and here
regarded as the spring of spiritual life; whilst in dca Aodyou,
following as an epexegesis of this, we have the same subject,
the word accompanied by divine power, represented as the
instrument of regeneration. The precise ground of the
transition from the one preposition to the other lies, perhaps,
among those subtleties of feeling, or subtle discernments of
congruity and incongruity, which another mind than the
I. 23.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LO7
writer’s cannot trace, and which might possibly elude to some
extent even his own analysis.
Looking simply at the words by themselves, the expression
Aoyou Cavtos Ocod Kal wévovTos is ambiguous; and while the
order of the words somewhat favours the connection of the
participles with Aoyou rather than with Ocod (seeing that in
the great name, of frequent occurrence, “the living God,” Gav
recularly stands after Oeds, see eg. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Heb. ii. 12),
still there is here something of peculiarity in the arrange-
ment of words, on either view. of the construction. But,
taking the connection of the participles to be with Adoyou,
the course of the argument is more direct and obvious than
on the other construction; and the manifest naturalness of
supposing a reference in the peves of To piua Kuplov pever
in ver. 25 to pévovtos here, which immediately precedes
the confirmatory quotation, appears decisive in favour of
the connection of “abiding,” and of course also “ living,” with
“the word.” Scme interpreters have cited the words in
Dan. vi. 26, 27, Ocos Sav Kati pévwv, as possibly in Peter's
mind, and thus, to a certain extent, favouring the construction
of the participles here with Oeod. The supposition of a
simple echo in the apostle’s mind of the Greek rendering has
not much force; because these scholars have not observed
that this order of the words, which is important in the case,
occurs in Theodotion’s Greek version of Daniel, usually
printed as a part of the LXX., but dating only from the second
Christian century.’ The reading in the true LXX. version
is Ocds pévorv kal Cov. It is legitimate, however, to suppose
that the original Chaldee, with which Theodotion’s order
accords, may have been in the apostle’s thoughts; but
assuming that it was, there is nothing of argument here to
1 With regard to this point, however, an interesting discussion by
Professor Salmon of Dublin, at the close of his Introduction to N. T.,
deserves to be consulted. Dr. Salmon brings forward some evidence
tending to show that Theodotion’s version of Daniel may have followed
the lines of an earlier translation, made, perhaps, before the books of the
N. T. were written.
108 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [I. 23.
balance the reasons which have been given for joining the
participles with Noyov. We are merely led to view the
conception as having had in the apostle’s mind the form,
“the word of God, which liveth and abideth because He
liveth and abideth.” It is not certain, however, that there is
a reference to Daniel at all. It may be that Peter simply
attached to Aéyov the epithet Govros, which in this figurative
use is a favourite with him (cf. ver. 3, and 1. 4, 5), and
then, purposing to support his statement by the quotation
from Isaiah, out of its péves took pévovtos. The arrange-
ment of the words favours this view regarding the formation
of the expression.
From ver. 25 it is evident that in Aoyouv the apostle’s
thought is not merely of the written word, but of God's
testimony respecting His Son as given in any form, whether
in the types and prophecies of O. T., or in the story of the
sufferings and glories of Christ as proclaimed orally by His
witnesses and followers.—Considering the assimilative influence
with respect to the article which is exerted on doyou by its
construction with Qeov (a word often anarthrous as a proper
name), we cannot, on grammatical grounds merely, say with
certainty whether Aoyov was intended to mean “a word” or
“the word.” Looking, however, to the whole structure of the
sentence, there appears a probability that the conception of
the grandeur of the instrumentality of regeneration was before
the apostle’s mind in a somewhat general form, and that thus
the meaning is best given without the definite article, “through
a communication (or testimony) from God, a word living and
abiding ;” cf. ver. 10, note on zpoffrar. On doyou favTos,
ef. Heb. iv. 12.
Dr. Liddon (Bampton Lectures, p. 298) maintains (after
Didymus and some other Fathers) that by oyos in this
passage is meant the Personal Word. But neither here nor in
Jas. 1. 21, as to which he holds the same view, does it seem
to accord with the context. Looking at the closely connected
quotation made by Peter in wv. 24, 25, in which, not Adyos,
Teens] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 109
but pjya is the word used, and at the practical application
made in the beginning of chap. 11, it cannot well be doubted
that teaching, oral or written, by God’s servants, with regard
to His will, is pointed to throughout; and that mystical
mingling of the senses, at which Dr. Liddon appears to aim,
seems to mar rather than aid his noble argument.
Ver. 24. Axoz7e (on which see note on ver. 16), usually “ be-
cause,” is here and in ii. 6 rather “for,” the thought being not
of causality but of proof. Meyer, in his note on Rom, i. 19,
says that nowhere in N. T. is this conjunction used otherwise
than of strict causality ; but this remark appears to be too
sweeping. These two cases seem to be unquestionably
exceptions, though probably the only ones. The apostle’s
thought here is, “I may most justly apply these epithets to
the word of God, for Seripture does the same.’—If it be
supposed that both parts of the quotation which follows are
intended as direct confirmations of the apostle’s statements, then
the immediate reference of the clause regarding the perish-
ableness of man and man’s glory must be to the words o7ropas
pGaptis. The words ci« &€x oropas POaprtijs, however, are
so obviously secondary in importance in the sentence, being
meant merely to lead up and give special impressiveness to
the af@aptov which follows, that to suppose a formal Scripture
proof of the @@apr%s by itself is unnatural. We are rather
to regard dvo7e as standing logically in connection with 7é
pha Kuptou péver, the intervening part of the sentence being
in thought subordinate. But here, as often, the simplicity of
Hebrew and Hellenistic style, instead of marking the subordi-
nate part by an introductory “whilst,” “whereas,” or the like, in
form co-ordinates the thoughts (ef. Rom. iii. 4, vi. 17; 2 Cor.
xiii. 7; Eph. v. 8).
The quotation from Isa. xl. 6-8 is almost exactly according
to LXX. The particle ws before yopros is not in LXX., and
has nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew, but through
the assimilating influence of the @s before avOos, is most
naturally inserted in a quotation made from memory. Adrijs,
110 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (24,
a more exact rendering of the original, is substituted by the
apostle for dv@p@rov, Kupiov, too, in the last words of the
citation, is put in the place of tod Oeovd z)uev, possibly simply
through the familiarity of the combination pjya (or Aoyos)
Kupiov,—possibly, however, and not improbably, through defi-
nite intention to set forth “ the Lord,’ in the ordinary N. T.
sense of that name, as the Author of the “word” spoken
of, and thus to lead the way directly to that identification
viven in ver. 25 of the pjywa mentioned by the prophet with
the evayyéAov of the New Covenant. The supposition of an
intention to bring in this thought accords perfectly with the
apostle’s teaching, already given in ver. 11, regarding the
IIvedpa Xpiorov as the Instructor of the prophets—The com-
bination waca oapé, designating mankind, specially regarded
as frail, occurs very frequently in LXX., and occasionally in
N. T. In this favourite Hellenistic construction of zéas
(without the article) with an abstract noun (eg. cf. Eph. 1. 8 ;
Jas. i. 2), or here, somewhat similarly, with a collective,
“all” may be the best English rendering; but the proper
classical sense of this form of expression, “every one,” taken
separately, seems to be present, though obscured,— every
kind or element of,’ and here “every member of the race
which is described as cap£, every human being.” In the
second clause of the present passage, taca Oo€a has the idea
of “every ” prominent, answering as it does in the comparison
to av@os, not collective, but “a flower.’ As humanity in
general answers to the grass, so to the wild flowers among
the grass, which specially attract the eye, the “glories” of
man answer, those excellences and distinctions of various
kinds which show man (the natural man) at his best estate,—
“sapientia, robur, opes, justitia humana ” (Bengel).
In é&npav@n and é&émecev we have a use of the aorist not
uncommon in classical writers, to which some grammarians
give the name of “ gnomic,”’ as being found especially in con-
densed general expressions of the results of experience and
observation, proverbs, maxims (yv@uat). In such sentences
I. 25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pes
what occurs habitually is by the use of the aorist graphically
thrown into a narrative form, with regard to a supposed
special case. This mode of expression has a peculiar interest
and power. In the present place, for example, every reader
feels the pathos of the little story, “ The grass withered, and
the flower fell off.” English idiom, however, scarcely permits
the use of the past tense in such a sentence, but expresses the
habitual occurrence by the present. This use of the aorist is
not found very frequently in N. T., the only certain cases of it
indeed, perhaps, besides the present, being in the Epistle of
James, i, 11, 24,—the former of which passages is plainly
based on those same words of Isaiah here quoted by Peter.
On the gnomic aorist, A. Buttmann’s discussion (Gram. p.
201 foll.) is specially full and good.
Ver. 25. The spirit of prophecy being, as the apostle has
indicated in ver. 11, testimony regarding Jesus, he proceeds
now to declare expressly that the “abiding word of God,” of
which the passage quoted by him speaks,—the word which
abides as a spring of endless life in those who by faith receive
it into their souls (this in the present connection being evi-
dently the prominent aspect of the “abiding”),—is to be found
in its highest form in the proclamation of Christ’s work and
grace given in the gospel of the New Covenant.—On the transi-
tion from the word Aoyos (ver. 23) to pjwa here, it is perhaps
worth while to call attention—as possibly illustrating a habit
of expression—to an exact parallel in Acts x. 36, 37 (Peter’s
words).—Evayyerigec Oar in the middle voice is construed in
N. T. with an accusative, either of the truth made known (ey.
Eph. i. 8), or of the persons to whom it is made known (Luke
iii. 18). In the passive, accordingly, either of these may be
the subject : for the present construction, cf. Gal. i. 11; and for
the personal, Luke vii. 22.—For eis twas (in place of the
more usual dpiv) evayyercGév, cf. Heb. ii. 3; 1 Thess. ii. 9.
The difference in meaning is slight, and the choice between
the forms of expression may possibly have been determined
sometimes by a feeling of rhythm. Instead of setting forth
Nba Le FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 95.
immediateness of communication and personal privilege, as the
dative would, the construction with e¢s intimates that the glad
tidings were sent “ among, into the midst of,” the persons ad-
dressed. The use of the word evayyedicOev here may possibly
show that the passage of Isaiah following that which the
apostle has quoted was chiming in his memory, seeing that
the expressions 0 evayyeAsSouevos Ziwv and o evayyerkouevos
‘Iepovoadnp occur in the next verse, and that the main thought
in that verse, and the paragraph which it introduces, is of the
gospel proclamation: “Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold
your God,” ete,
1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 113
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-3. Exhoriation to seek fuller spiritual acquaintance
with divine truth, the nourishment of the new life.
THERE being everywhere mutual influence, action and reaction,
among the spiritual powers and graces, as among the energies
of the natural life, the apostle, having in the previous para-
graph called on his readers, as “ purified through obedience to
the truth, regenerated through the word of God” (i, 22, 23),
to cultivate brotherly love, appeals to them in the present
passage to increase in spiritual acquaintance with the truth,
and in view of this to remember that only in the atmosphere
of love can there be growth in spiritual wisdom. Taking the
two paragraphs together, the apostle’s position is this, that in
men to whom divine truth has become the seed of spiritual
life, it shows its heavenly nature by producing love; and
again, only through love can the new life increase in strength,
because only where love reigns can there be true growth in
spiritual knowledge of God’s teaching. From the enumeration
given of offences against brotherly love, the apostle’s thought
seems to be immediately and specially of the impossibility,
where such offences are committed, of any progress being
made in the acquisition of Christian wisdom through the social
ordinances of the Church; ef. Jas. i. 19-21.
Ver. 1. The figure underlying the ethical use of dmotiec@au,
common in N. T., may be the putting off of garments; cf. Acts
vii. 58.— Kaxiay, in its connection, is most naturally taken here,
not in its widest sense, “ wickedness,” but with the narrower
reference which it often has, “ill-will.” Then, introduced by
H
L14 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (II. 2.
cal, as often, species are put under the genus xaxia. These
species are two states of heart, deceitfulness and envy, each
with its characteristic in outward conduct, “ hypocrisies ” and
“calumnies.” The earnestness of the writer, and his sense
of the importance of his injunction, are seen in his plurals,
“hypocrisy, envy, calumny, in every form,” and his repeated
“all.” On this use of mas, see 1. 24, note.
Ver. 2. ‘Ms is not to be taken here as a particle of com-
parison, “as if ye were new-born babes,” or, “as new-born
babes do.” To take it as marking a ground of appeal is
more natural, and gives the sentence more terseness and
vigour,—“ as beseems (ic. seeing that this beseems) new-born
babes.” The apostle thus, without interposing an explana-
tion, simply carries on his figure from dvayeyevynuévou éx
omopas ap@aptov (i. 23). No explanation is needed, for
vv. 24, 25 merely illustrate the statement that regeneration
is 61a AGyou CavTos Ocod Kal pévovtTos, and the figure of
the new birth remains vividly before the mind of the reader.
This etiological use of ws is a favourite one with Peter; eg. ef.
i. 14, 19, ii. 11, iii. 7-——In aptuyévvyta Bpédn we are hardly
to recognise an intimation that those to whom the apostle
wrote had but very recently been converted to Christianity.
It is probable that with many of them this was not the case,
because, on any likely view of the date of this Epistle, many
years had elapsed since Paul’s first visit to those parts. Be
this as it may, however, nothing in the context suggests this
particular thought; and the fact that the precept given is
one applicable to all believers in all stages of their Christian
life while on earth, leads rather to the belief that what was
present to the apostle’s mind was the infantile measure of
attainment of God’s children here below, even the most
mature, when compared with the glory of their manhood in
heaven. If the meaning be thus general, then, of course, also
the word “milk” does not here—as in 1 Cor. ili, 2; Heb.
v. 12, 13—designate specifically the mere elements of revealed
truth, in contrast with what is more abstruse. To the teach-
II. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. a 5)
ing of heaven, the very highest which we have here is
doubtless but as the nourishment of infants.
The epithet adoov — here only in N. T.— “ unadulter-
ated, pure,’ may contrast the genuine teaching of God with
corrupted forms of teaching claiming to be from Him (ef.
2 Cor. iv. 2), Nothing in the context, however, suggesting
this thought, it is more likely that the reference is general,
to the absolute purity of God’s teaching, in contrast with all
human speculations on religion, in which—even the wisest
and best—something of what is impure and injurious always
mingles. On aéodrov, “unadulterated,” cf. a combination in
Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang, p. 33), awry) Kat ddorov Kal xa8a-
pav. The expression yadda déoXor is in current use in modern
Greek for milk unadulterated with water or other ingredients.
As to the precise force of the word, see Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 56.
—Considering the close connection of the present paragraph
with the preceding, the idea which A. E. V. adopts (“milk
of the word ”) is quite a natural one,—that by the adjective
Aoyxov the apostle expressly indicates the Aoyos Ocod Sav
kal wéveov, of which he had just spoken, to be the dorov
yara, But whilst the reference in yada is really precisely
what is thus set forth, no analogy in the use of Aoyexos, or of
any adjective of its form, in the least degree favours the view
that the word is intended to state this; and indeed it is
certain that to a Greek reader such an application of it must
have appeared utterly forced. This adjective occurs in N. T.
elsewhere only in Rom. xii. 1, where, in exact accordance
with the ordinary use of the word by classical writers, the
meaning plainly is “rational, suited to a being endowed with
reason.” This sense is perfectly in place here also. The
word seems intended mainly to mark clearly the figurative
application of yada, in the same way as in i. 13 tis Sravolas
jpav is added to dvalwodpevor Tas dodvas. The apostle’s
thought at the moment, as it would seem, being simply of
the distinction between the material and the thinking ele-
ments in man, the more common N. T. word mvevpatixos
116 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. lar: 3:
might appear, from the ordinary N. T. application of mvedua
and its derivatives, somewhat too specific for his purpose ;
whilst yuyseds again in N. T. use tends towards an evil sense.
—The use of the passive of the verb av&avw in the general
sense of “to grow” is so common (cf. in N. T. Matt. xiii. 32)
that we have hardly a right to take av&@jte here with a
strict passive force, and thus recognise an intended reference
to the great Divine Agent in spiritual growth (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7).
—In cwrnpiav, as here used, the prominent idea is plainly
spirituality, perfect conformity to the will of God; cf. Phil.
TLIO puis MLZ
Ver. 3. Ez here has the same force as in i. 17 and often:
“this is a part of the question which I leave you to think
out for yourselves, but observe that 7f the case is so, then
the precept given will be felt by you to be most reasonable.”
The child of God, from the very nature of the new life, longs
always for further spiritual nourishment, and feels that he
ought to have for it similar intensity and singleness of longing
to that of the infant for its natural food—The fact that of
the familiar words in Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiil. Sept.) 8, on which
this verse is plainly based, cal idere have nothing here corre-
sponding to them, seems to show that éyevcacGe is meant to
stand out in thought,—and is not to be translated according to
its secondary sense, “experience,’ but to have the figure
which lies in it fully exhibited, in continuation of the image
in ver. 2. But to find in ypnotos also that particular sense
of “good” in which we apply this word to food, meaning
“sweet, pleasant to the palate, and wholesome” (cf. Luke
v. 39), is certainly forced. Applicable, of course, to yaxa,
this sense of the adjective is quite unsuited to the actual
connection, as predicate to Kvpsos. The word bears here the
same meaning which it has in the psalm, and regularly when
used of God, “good” in the sense of “ kind.”—In transferring
from the psalm the name Kupvos, the apostle employs it with
its usual N. T. application to the Lord Jesus. This could hardly
be gathered simply from this verse itself, but is clearly shown
4] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ue ig’
by the 4th, which is introduced by 6», referring to Kupvos, and
which quite plainly speaks of Christ. We have here theretore
one of the many cases in N. T. in which the apostles freely apply
to the Saviour O. T. language employed of Jehovah, and thus
most unequivocally—and with an impressiveness peculiarly
great, from the very indirectness of the testimony—indicate
their belief in Christ’s divinity. 2
Vv. 4-6. Believers are a spiritual temple and a holy priesthood.
This section may be taken either as an exhortation or as a
description of privilege ——“ Be built,” or “ Ye are built;” and
there seems nothing to show decisively which of the two was
immediately the apostle’s thought. The preceding section is
hortatory, that which follows descriptive; and the verses
before us attach themselves readily enough to either of these
sections. On the whole, from the cast of thought and the
nature of the imagery, it appears most natural to regard ovxo-
dopuetoGe as indicative, the passage being intended to illustrate
by other figures what has been meant by avénOjrte ets cwTnpiav
of ver. 2. At the same time, as with every description of the
spiritual privileges of believers, the section is practically
hortatory to the Christian heart.
Ver. 4. The expression “to come to Christ” may obviously
refer to the initial spiritual act, and often does so, eg. John
vi. 35. The compound rpocépyer@ar, however, seems usually
to point rather to the habitual resort of the already renewed
man to the Source of blessing, eg. Heb. x. 1, 22. Such is
evidently the meaning here, from the fact that not the aorist
participle, but the present, is used. The construction of
mpooépxecGat elsewhere in the N. T. is with a dative; but
nothing appreciably different in meaning seems to be intended
here by the repetition of the preposition; ef. Winer, pp. 266,
539.—The contrast which we have here, between God’s
estimate and treatment of Christ and man’s, was a favourite
TIS FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 4.
thought with the Apostle Peter (Acts ii. 22-24, i. 13-15),
and on one notable occasion was set forth by him under the
same image as here, and by quoting one of the O. T. passages
here referred to (see Acts iv.11). It is not unnatural to suppose
that the signification of the name which had been given by
the Lord to the apostle himself made this particular figure
specially interesting to him; and as we see into what pro-
minence he puts the one divine Living Stone, and how entirely
secondary and dependent he evidently considers his own
standing and office as a métpos to be, one cannot but contrast
apostolic Christianity and medizeval superstition.
To \i@ov Peter attaches his favourite epithet Cavra (i. 3,
23), to which when applied to Christ all Scripture analogies—
as John vi. 51; Rev.1. 18—teach us to give a pregnant sense,
“possessed of a sublime and diffusive fulness of life,” practically
equivalent to Gavta xat fworrotovyta, according to the prin-
ciple explicitly stated in John xiv. 19. By the anarthrous
structure of which he is fond (cf. i. 10, note on wpodjtar),—
through which the thought is set before the reader as one with
which he is not assumed to be already familiar,—the apostle
with special force calls on us to ponder the unique features of the
picture—“a stone living and life-giving.”—By the next words
it is shown that, in employing the metaphor of the stone, the
apostle had an O. T. use of that figure distinctly before his
mind. Two verses which are quoted a little farther on—
Ps.. exvili. 22, quoted in ver. 7, and Usage:
quoted in ver. 6—are both plainly referred to in this verse
also. The 118th Psalm appears to have been written in
connection with the building of the second temple. ‘The
primary reference of its 22nd verse seems to be, under an
image suggested by the circumstances, to the restoration of
Israel to their own land, and to something of freedom for
national action; whilst their foes, who reckoned themselves to
be the prime movers or builders of the world’s greatness and
power, had judged the nation to be for ever put down, and
worthy only .of contempt. This is the first reference. But
i A.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 119
Israel, the elect nation (Isa. xlv. 4), kingly and priestly (Ex.
xix. 6), God’s son, even His first-born (Ex. iv. 22), was to
some extent typical of Messiah, the elect King and Priest,
God’s Only-begotten; see Matt. ii. 15, compared with Hos.
xi. 1. Foreshadowings of the Messiah in Ps. exvill. were,
it would seem, widely recognised among the Jews, for at the
Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem the joyful utterances
of the people were taken from it (Matt. xxi 9; Ps. exviil.
25, 26). The 22nd verse, that referred to in the place
before us, and more fully in ver. 7, had been cited by the Lord
Jesus, and applied to Himself, in circumstances of peculiar
interest, which evidently impressed the disciples very deeply,
so that the fact of His having then quoted the words appears
to have entered into the general oral apostolic account of His
life (mention of it being found in all three synoptic Gospels,
Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17).
Considering that one main object of this Epistle was plainly
to guide and encourage Christians tried and depressed by per-
secution, it seems natural to regard the apostle’s thought, in
what he says here of the stone, as being somewhat to this
effect, “ Be not perplexed or led astray by the fact that many
around you, who hear of the Lord Jesus,—including persons
whom, from their social position, or their abilities and acquire-
ments, you might naturally think of as leaders,—reject His
claims, and, it may be, cause you to suffer for your adherence
to His name. Remember that God honours and delights in
Him. Think of His rejection and crucifixion by the Jewish
Sanhedrin, and of His resurrection and exaltation by the hand
of God. The same contrast of judgement respecting Him
reigns all down the ages; hatred by man, love and care by
God, for His cause and people. Mysterious, too, as the
world’s antagonism to Him and His may seem to you to be,
bear in mind that this is simply what Scripture should have
led you to anticipate; for the very same prophecies which tell
of the divine choice of Messiah, tell also of His being
despised and rejected by men.” Such being the apostle’s
120 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 5.
line of thought, he is led to substitute for “the builders” of
Ps. exviii. 22, the general word “ men,’—an intimation that
the spirit of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus, is the spirit
of the natural man universally. This same thought—that
the rejection of the Lord by the Jewish leaders was not
simply an historical event standing isolated, but was the most
notable exhibition of a spirit which has been shown by multi-
tudes every day since—seems to lie in the perfect participle
aTrodedokiacpéevov, chosen by the apostle in place of the
aorist amrodoxyacOévta, which is the form naturally suggest-
ing itself first to one who would turn the LXX. expression Ov
atredokipacay (as in ver. 7 below) into a passive participle.
Whilst Ps. exviii. 22 presents at its close the issue and
evidence of the divine judgement respecting Christ, in the
stone’s “ becoming the head of the corner,” the apostle prefers
here to give a still more exact antithesis to tro dvOpeTav
aTrodedokimacpévov, by setting forth the divine judgement
itself, —quoting a word or two from Isa. xxviii. 16, a verse in
which Messiah is spoken of under the same figure.—The use
of wapa with the dative in the sense of “in the sight of, in
the judgement of,” common in the N. T., is also quite classical.
The verbal adjective ékXexroyv, standing as it does in clear and
direct antithesis to amodedoxiyacpévov, has plainly its usual
participial force of “chosen.” At the same time, however, in
its connection here not, as often, with a possessive genitive,
but with srapd, the reference to quality, excellence, which it
frequently has—answering to the English adjective “ choice”
—is also prominently suggested.
Ver. 5. Though the fact that the stone spoken of was for
a foundation has not been expressly mentioned, it has been
directly suggested by the well-known substance of the O. T.
passages referred to. That this would be quite understood
has indeed been assumed by the apostle in his employment of
the words “rejected” and “elect,” which evidently point to
a question of suitableness for some definite and important
' purpose. In the clause to which we now come, we again find
ie oa FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 12
this assumed, because xal avtoi does not very naturally,
according to the structure of the passage, attach itself only to
@s AUMGou Cartes, putting these words in express association
with the A@os Gav of the previous verse, but also to oixodo-
peicbe, putting the building in of these Aou Cavres in
express association with the implied laying of that one stone
as the foundation of a building: “ As Christ the Living Stone
has been built in as part of the temple, so ye believers also as
living stones are being built in.” There is already fully
before Peter’s mind the sublime vision of a living temple. In
place of the material edifice at Jerusalem,—to the grandeur
of which, and the magnitude of the separate stones, it was
very probably this apostle who, on one occasion, called the
attention of the Lord (Mark xiii. 1),—he sees the Church of
Christ as “a spiritual house,” a house built up of immortal
souls, all illuminated and quickened through the power of the
Divine Spirit, and filled with the glory of Jehovah. This
same image, it will be remembered, was already familiar to
many of those Asiatic Christians to whom Peter’s letter was
addressed, from its being found in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephe-
sians (ii, 20-22). In his writings Paul commonly (1 Tim.
iii. 15 being exceptional) employs for the Church as God’s
temple the name vaos, a term fitted particularly to produce
solemnity of thought,—“a dwelling of the Almighty, and
scene of divine worship,’—while Peter (cf. iv. 17) loves
rather oixos, in which the endearing aspect of the image is
specially prominent—“ the abode of a Father.” In a passage
in the Epistle of Barnabas (§ 16), which on the whole sounds
like an echo of the present, vads is used: wvevpatiKos vaos
olkodopmovpevos TO Kupio.
“Qs before dou Caves means “ as befits :
to the figure here, where the temple is the Church, each stone
is conceived of as having life through Christ before being built
in. Where the individual Christian is thought of as a sanc-
tuary (as in 1 Cor. vi. 19), the living temple is conceived of
as being such simply through its resting on the living founda-
9
thus, according
Ghee FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 5.
tion, which sends life through the whole. — The proleptic
predicative combination ofxodopeiabe oixos mvevpatiKos is a
case of a natural and frequent kind of development from the
construction of verbs of being and becoming (= ofcodopmovpevor,
or Ova Tod olKodometcbat, oikos mvevpatiKos yiyvecOe), closely
analogous to a common use of TiMecOar (c.g. 2 Tim. 1 11;
Heb. x. 13).
To the literary law which requires strict unity in imagery,
the style of the sacred writers, particularly of the O. T.
writers, has little regard. Provided that an impressive
presentation of truth is secured, there is no fastidious
shrinking from the mixing of metaphors. In the verse
before us, however, we have not, strictly speaking, a mixed
metaphor, but rather simply a rapid transition from one
figure to another, each adequately and harmoniously outlined.
Something like the following may have been the apostle’s
course of thought. The temple naturally suggests a priest-
hood; and the statement “to whom coming, ye are built up
a spiritual house,’—-which, as has been seen, appears to be
an expansion of the thought “grow unto salvation” of ver. 2,
— contains and suggests prominently to every Christian
reader the general idea, “Ye are brought more and more
fully under the influences of the Holy Ghost.” To this here
attaches itself, as the statement of the divine purpose in this
gracious dealing, “ for a holy priesthood.” Like “ priesthood ”
in English, ‘epatevpa is used either of office or in a collective
sense; and in the present passage either of these would suit
the connection,—(1) “ for holy priestly position and functions,”
explained by the infinitive clause following, which in this
case would be a clause of apposition; or (2) “for (= els Td
elvat) a body of holy priests,” in which case dvevéyxas is an
infinitive of purpose. _ The unquestionably collective use of
lepdtevma in ver. 9 strongly favours our here also giving
the word this sense,—which in itself, moreover, seems some-
what the more natural. Taking ‘epdtevpa in this sense,
the construction with es appears, according to familiar
Il. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 125
Hebraisms, to suggest as having been the immediately pre-
ceding thought in the apostle’s mind either “becoming”
(as in ver. 7) or “God appointing you” (as in Acts xiii. 22).
The use of avadépew for the offering of sacrifices, some-
times with the reference to the altar expressed (as Jas. il.
21), sometimes omitted (as Heb. vii. 27), is common in
the Hellenistic writers. This application of the word does
not seem to be found in classical authors, but is obviously
in itself quite natural.— Forms both from #veyra and
nveykov, simple and in composition, are used in N. T., but
in the infinitive the second aorist form prevails, dvevéyxar
here being, according to the best texts, the only exception ;
cf. A. Buttmann, p. 68.— With regard to the “spiritual
sacrifices” offered by believers, cf. Rom. xii. 1; Phil. iv. 18 ;
“Heb. xiii. 15, 16—Whether in the mind of the writer the
words dua "Inood Xpiotod were connected immediately with
evtpoadextovs Oew® or with dvevéycar is not clear; but
the point is of little moment, because either statement really
implies the other also. Looking at the position of the
words, and considering that the previous statements respect-
ing the need of habitual “coming to Christ,” and respecting
being built as living stones on Him, the Living Foundation,
sufficiently in themselves suggest, when we pass to the new
figure, that only in Him believers have their position as
priests, it seems probable that the immediate connection of
“through Jesus Christ” here is rather with “acceptable.
On the acceptance of the offerings to God presented by the
priestly nation of Israel through the mediation of their high
>
priest, cf. Ex. xxviii. 38.
Ver. 6. Azores here is not strictly causal, but introduces
evidence from Scripture; cf. i. 24. Proof is given of both
of the statements which have been made, that respecting
the glorious position of Christ in the sight of God, as a
Living Stone elect and precious, and that respecting the
honoured standing before God of Christ’s people. Ample
attestation of both is given simply by quoting in full that
Wet FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 6.
passage of Isaiah from which the description of Christ in
the 4th verse, as é«XexTOs, évtypos, has been taken.—The
verb qrepiéxew, properly transitive, “to contain” (as in Acts
xxiii. 25), is here used peculiarly. Either some such subject
as 1) Teployy or Oo Toros, “the passage,” must be understood,
with the quoted words construed as object, or the verb must
be regarded as employed semi-impersonally, “it runs thus.”
From the frequent intransitive and impersonal use of éyew
and its compounds, the latter seems to be the preferable
explanation; and this is sustained by a similar use of TEPLEXEL
in Josephus (Antig. xi. 4. 7), Bovropar yevéo@ar Twavta
xabas év aith (Kupov émictody) mepsexer. With this varied
lise of wrepvéyes may be compared the somewhat similar use in
English of the word “ read,”—“ How do you ead the passage ¢”
“The passage reads thus.” A certain difficulty in the con-
struction of wepuexer seems to have been felt by some ancient
transcribers, for a reading which is found in a few early
authorities, 4 ypady in place of €v ypady, is in all likelihood
73
an attempt to simplify Ev ypady means “in a Scripture”
(i.e. passage of Scripture)—or perhaps, taking the noun as
collective, “in Scripture.” Bp. Lightfoot (on Gal. ii. 22)
maintains that the singular ypady always in N. T. means a
particular passage of Scripture. That this is the general use
there is no doubt; but to take Acts viii. 32, Gal. i. 22,
and especially 2 Pet. i. 20, in this way, seems forced.
The apostle quotes the passage Isa. xxvii. 16 very nearly
as it is rendered (in substantial accordance with the Hebrew)
by LXX., substituting, however, a somewhat more simple and
exact translation of the first word or two, omitting one of
the epithets applied to the stone, and in the last clause
adding the words é7’ air@. Portions of this same verse are
quoted in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, and two of the divergences
from LXX., which are found here, occur there also,
namely the substitution of ti@nus év Siwy for euBdadrrw eis
ta Oewedra Swwov, and the addition of ew avt@. These
common divergences, however, hardly establish a likelihood
Il. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. TZ
ol
that Paul’s use of the passage was in Teter’s mind, because
there is not identity of form throughout, Paul giving the
last clause somewhat differently from LXX., with which
Peter agrees; whilst, as regards Té@nwe év, it has to be said
that this is the most obvious and natural rendering of the
Hebrew, such as might readily occur to the apostles sepa-
rately. The fact that the words é7’ adr are added in all
the three quotations of the last clause of the verse which
are made in the N. T., seems to show either that in the days
of the apostles this addition was read in LXX., or that the
passage had come to be usually filled up in this way when
cited in apostolic teaching. To the former view support is
given by the fact that these words are found in the text of
LXX. as given in Codex B, whilst Codex A has the variation
év avt@. Supposing the words to have been in LXX., it is
likely that the translators meant by them “ on it” (7@ ALOq).
If, on the other hand, they constituted an apostolic supple-
ment, then the thought intended is more naturally taken to
be directly personal, “on Him.” Indeed, whatever was the
origin of these supplementary words, the way in which the
Apostle Paul quotes the clause by itself in Rom. x. 11
suggests that he at least was thinking not of “77,” the image,
but of “ Him,’ the reality. — Aifos dxpoywriaios, “a stone
for the point or extremity of the corner,” elsewhere described
(see ver. 7) as kepada yewvias, seems clearly, from the struc-
ture of the figure in the passages where the terms occur, to
designate not the copestone, as some have supposed, but the
ereat stone which was laid for the foundation at the place
where two walls met, and was consequently reckoned the
chief stone (xefady), being of peculiar importance with
regard to the stability of the building. The expression eés
Ta Oeuédia of the LXX. rendering in Isa. xxviii. 16 shows
decisively that the Alexandrian translators at least had no
doubt about the Ai@os dxpoywuatos being a foundation-stone.
—tThe precise meaning of the last words of the verse in the
original Hebrew is “shall not make haste;” but this is
126 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. FIT, 7.
substantially equivalent to od my KataicyvvOy of LXX.,
which is here adopted by the apostle; for the “haste”
spoken of is evidently flight in consequence of the proved
insecurity of a support which had been trusted in,
Vv. 7-10. The glory of the position of privilege enjoyed by
Christians.
The apostle, starting with an application of the closing
words of that quotation from Isaiah which has been made
in ver. 6, confirms the faith of his readers by pointing out
the dignity of their position——the impressive contrast pre-
sented by the position of unbelievers being also touched
upon, in natural accordance with that antithesis between
God’s judgement of Christ and the world’s, to which he had
adverted a little before (ver. 4).
Ver. 7. The meaning of the first clause, paraphrased, is:
“ According to the last words of the prophecy just quoted,
then, you observe, it is for your good—who are believers—
that the preciousness or value serves which belongs to the
stone, and which has been expressly ascribed to it by the
epithet évtupos.”
Another view of the force of vyiv than that which has been
followed in this paraphrase is grammatically possible. The
dative may be taken (so R. E. V. marg.) as one, not of
advantage, but of opinion (see Acts vii. 20; 1 Cor. 1. 23, 24;
and cf. Winer, p. 265), “in your judgement or sight.” To
this view there are very strong objections. (1) If it be
accepted, the rest of the clause cannot be quite satisfactorily
construed. The meaning yielded is, “It is then in the
judgement of you believers that the stone is évtipos.” This
is obtained in one of two ways. To 7 tiu) may be supplied
T® Ow éeotiv; but such a supplement is plainly very hard
and unlikely. Or 1) ty may be regarded as not subject but
predicate, and equivalent to évtimos, the subject being “ the
i re FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 127
stone,” or, personally, “Christ:” so A. E. V. This also is a
mode of construction so forced, that nothing but absolute
inability to bring out a satisfactory meaning in any other way
could justify resort to it, (2) The whole section—vvy. 7-10
—seems undoubtedly to constitute a unity. ‘Twets 6€ of
ver. 9 is in sharp antithesis to amucrovew of ver. 7; which
again is in as direct and manifest antithesis to viv at the
beginning of that verse. Now quite indisputably vv. 9, 10
describe objective results of Christian faith, in the dignities
which God confers on believers. We naturally assume then
that the contrasted passage introduced by admictovow is
similarly objective; and this the structure of that passage
accords with, and its substance requires, for, as a matter of
fact, the Stone is not in the judgement of unbelievers the head
of the corner. That clause again being antithetical to the
first, which is now under consideration, there appears an
utter want of naturalness in taking this as other than also
objective. On these grounds it may safely be held that the
force of the clause is that which has been given in the
paraphrase above. The immediate reference of ody—practi-
cally answering here very nearly to our English “you see”
—is to the last clause of the prediction quoted in ver. 6,
in which it was said that “the believers in Christ shall
assuredly not be put to shame.” This security of believers
is then thought of by the apostle in its connection with that
tun Which in the epithet évtiwos had been ascribed to the
Stone-—As to the use of the article in 7) teu to exhibit a
definiteness connected with the amplification of a thought
contained in a previous word, cf. e.g. Acts vil. 41, To efddrAw,
where the article refers to éuwocyotoincav; Matt. i. 24, Tod
umvou, referring to kat’ dvap. The present case is even
simpler than these, through the fact that the same root is
found in both words,
With respect to the precise sense to be attached to teu
and éytywos in this passage, there is some doubt. Classical
usage favours “honour” and “held in honour.” In LXX,,
128 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (rn 393
however, the other shade of the meaning of the words of this
root, “ value,” is abundantly prominent, as they are used to
represent the Hebrew 7?', “ to be precious,” and its cognates ;
and in particular this is the case with évtsmos in the very
passage of Isaiah quoted in ver. 6. This makes it at least
extremely probable that “ value” was the thought in Peter’s
mind. In the exegesis of the first clause of ver. 7, too, it
seems as if the idea of “ value”—that value through which
actually the security spoken of in the previous clause, and
referred to in this clause by odv, was obtained—more natur-
ally presents itself than “recognition of value, honour.”
“ Precious” and “ preciousness ” seem therefore, on the whole,
the preferable renderings. If, however, “honour” be taken to
be the shade of meaning intended, the sense of vuly odv 7
tyun would appear to be, “To you then, you observe, from
the promise that believers shall not be put to shame—to you,
as living stones built upon the living foundation—the honour
which belongs and is in the prophecy ascribed to the founda-
tion, is in a measure extended,’—there being thus a reference
to the participation by Christians in the glory of their Lord,
according to His declaration (John xvii. 22). Whether this
great thought—relevant in the connection undoubtedly, but
not in any express way led up to in the context—would
naturally have been presented in so very contracted and
obscure a form as that in which the words of this clause
would give it, may be doubted—By Tots muctevovow the
apostle recalls attention to 6 muotevwv in the last clause of
the prediction just cited from Isaiah, and thus to the condi-
tion, as regards state of soul, which, in using the word of
direct address, duiv, he has assumed to be complied with by
his readers. The position of this participial adjunct, at the
end of the clause, separated from duty by several words, gives
it a strong emphasis, and adds also to the effect of the anti-
thesis with amctovou', the immediately following word.
Throughout the rest of this section, while not formally
making a quotation, as he did in ver. 6, the apostle clothes
Il. §.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 129
his thoughts to a great extent in O. T. forms of expression.
First, continuing the figure of the stone, he cites in full
Ps. exviii. 22, already referred to in ver. 4. The citation is
precisely in the words of LXX., except that, according to the
most ancient authorities for the text, the regular construction
by the nominative A/os is substituted for the slightly irregular
M@ov of LXX. As to the original reference of Ps. cxviii. as
a whole, and of this verse in particular, see notes on ver. 4;
as to cepadi) ywvias, note on axpoywviaiov in ver. 6. As to
the construction eivae or yiryverOar els tt,=—on the whole a
Hebraism, though with classical precedent for a certain sphere
of its use,—cf. Winer, p. 229, and especially A. Buttmann,
p. 150.—Odros, in its familiar redundant use to gather up the
subject and bring-it into immediate connection with the
predicate, has obviously here a decided emphasis, “that very
stone.”
Ver. 8. Seeing that amietovow has so emphatic a position at
the beginning of this part of the sentence, obviously as a dative
of disadvantage, it is thus, of course, implied that the state-
ment regarding the stone’s having become the chief stone of
the corner was at the moment standing out before the
apostle’s mind in its relation particularly to: wnbelievers, as
involving for them—all unbelievers having been represented
by the builders—the disgrace of folly and failure. In ver. 8
he carries this thought forward, exhibiting the stone as being
to the unbeliever, through its advancement to the headship of
the corner, an instrument of loss and punishment. This he
expresses in words of Isaiah (viii. 14), not quoting LXX., but
translating more exactly. Paul translates in the same way
in Rom. ix. 33, incorporating the words with portions of
Isa. xxviii. 16.—Between the sense of Aos tpoocKdpparos
and 7étpa cxavdarov there seems to be no appreciable differ-
ence, the doubling of the expression being simply for solemn
emphasis.—The “stumbling” here spoken of is not intellectual
difficulty found in the way of accepting the doctrine of Christ
crucified and glorified: such a sense here would be discordant
I
tog FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 8.
with the objective tenor of the whole passage, and would give
no advance of thought. It is the stumbling of fall, loss,
punishment, punishment coming from the glorified Lord (for
it is through the Stone that they stumble),—the thought of
the loss, however, as coming by wilful folly and perversity
being that which is prominent. It can hardly be doubted
that before Peter’s mind was present Christ’s solemn applica-
tion of the same passage from the 118th Psalm (Matt. xxi.
42,44; Luke xx. 17, 18); and that application thus serves
as a commentary on the apostle’s meaning. Compare also
Prov. iv. 19; Jer. xiii. 16. To some expositors it has seemed
that the apostle, in attaching Isaiah’s words Gos mpoc-
Koppatos «TA, to the Psalmist’s statement regarding the
stone’s having been made the head of the corner, had before
his mind a picture of the foundation-stone as projecting in
some way on the surface, and thus tripping up heedless
passers-by. The freedom found in the structure of Scripture
imagery generally, and in particular the analogy of the Lord’s
language in His application of Ps. exviii. 22 on the occasion
just adverted to, show that there is no need for this somewhat
awkward and difficult supposition. The thought which is
carried forward from the one figurative sketch to the other,
is simply that of the stone-—no more.—The influence of
Peter’s linking together in vy. 6—8 quotations from Isa.
vill, 14, xxviii. 16, and Ps. exvill. 22, is perhaps to be
recognised in Barnab. Ep. vi. 2—4, where the same three
passages are associated, the reference to Isa, viii. 14, how-
ever, being a little uncertain. But if the combination
was suggested by a remembrance of Peter, this is all that
can be said, for the quotations are considerably different in
form.
In the relative clause of mpocxomtovcw xtXr., the dative
7™® AOy may grammatically be connected with either the
main verb or the participle ; “ who (ae. of course, unbelievers,
the antecedent being azuotovowy) stumble at the word, being
disobedient ” (so both A. and R. E. V.), or “who stumble,
IT’ 8.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ibe
being disobedient to the word” (so R. E. V. marg.). As to
the former of these constructions, cf. Rom. ix. 32. In the
present place the second mode of connection has much in
its favour. First, it appears that this particular thought,
“ disobedience to the divine word,” was one very familiar
to Peter, seeing that of the three other places in which
he employs the verb dzreety, one (ili. 1) has precisely
the combination here, aveeiv tH Aoyo, with no ambiguity
of construction, and another (iv. 17) the closely similar
ameeiv TH ToD Ocod evayyerio. The circumstance that,
differently from the order in these instances, the dative in the
present verse stands before azevfovrtes, scarcely affects the
weight of this argument, position being so largely determined
by a writer’s sense of rhythm or of emphasis. Secondly, it
appears unnatural to represent “the word” directly as the
stumbling-block, when from the language immediately preced-
ing the mind instinctively carries forward the thought of the
stone, ue. the Lord Himself. Thirdly, the thought yielded
most naturally by the combination mpookortew Td Gyo is
simply that of intellectual difficulty in the way of accepting
the word, while the tenor of the whole passage, as has been
seen, leads us to regard the conception as objective, “ suffer
loss, punishment.” This thought is given by the other mode
of connection,—“ stumble, being (7c. practically, in or through
being) disobedient to the word.”—The clause brings in an
explanation of the statement which has just been made, that
Christ is to unbelievers “a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence ;” “who stumble, namely (or “for they stumble,”
Rk. E. V.), inasmuch as they are disobedient to the word.”
The unbelief which is expressed in the antecedent amuctodcw
is here in the relative clause stated to be, in fact (according to
the uniform N. T. meaning of azeetv), disobedience, the issue
from a perverse spirit (John 111. 18—20) ; and the disobedience
is said to be to “the word,” no doubt because the teaching
which the apostle has given regarding the importance of the
word and of spiritually assimilating it, in that paragraph
132 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (ST, 8:
(i. 23-11. 3) which led into the line of thought pursued in
the section before us, is still in his mind. He aims, by his
statement here that amiotia is amei/feva, to deepen in the
thoughts of his Christian readers a sense of the vast import-
ance of bearing ever in mind the definition which he has
again and again given them of miotis, as being baxon,
Umaxon THS ddnOelas (i. 2, 22).
In joining the present participle dmeWodvtes to mpookor-
tovo.v, the apostle teaches evidently that the disobedience
and the stumbling are coincident. The disobedience involves
of necessity—it is itself, in fact—prodigious loss, considering
the nature, possibilities, and ends of a moral being; and as
disobedience grows, spiritual death deepens.—On eis 0 éré@noar,
cf. as to phraseology and construction, 1 Tim. 1.7; 2 Tim.
i. 11. In the connection it does not appear natural to regard
as the antecedent to 6 either the main verb of the preceding
clause, or the participle, taken separately, but the whole
statement,—-the stress of the reference, however, falling natur-
ally on the main verb. Unbelievers have been appointed or
ordained by God to loss, punishment, as involved in, and
necessarily resulting from, their disobedience to His word.
The purpose of this little clause appears to be to deepen in
the minds of the readers the conviction that the pooxorrew
which has been spoken of is not something casual, but in the
strictest sense punishment from God. This thought plainly is
directly in the line of the whole paragraph. Peter’s aim
throughout is to incite his readers to cleave to Christ notwith-
standing that the world around them, including multitudes
more learned and in many ways more eminent than them-
selves, oppose and deride His claims. “Men rejected Christ ;
but God glorified Him. To those who believe, thus accepting
God’s judgement of Him, He is found to be an infinite security
and honour; upon unbelievers, on the other hand—who by
their unbelief join themselves, as regards judgement and treat-
ment of Him, with the foolish and wicked builders—come
condemnation and punishment from God.” The «ai, “also,”
II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. itso
is thus pretty nearly equivalent to “mark this other important
fact in the case.” On the use of «ai in relative clauses, cf.
A. Buttmann, p. 283.
Ver. 9. The apostle turns now, with a delight which is
manifest in the richness and free flow of his language, from
the contemplation of the sin and punishment of the unbeliever,
to speak of the blessed estate of the Christian. In the first
clause of ver. 7 he began the practical application of Isaiah’s
prediction with a brief reference to this pleasant side; but
having afterwards dwelt longer on the painful aspect, he
gladly takes up again, for more full exhibition, the position
Lpiv ody 1) TYun Tots MLcTEVoVoL. A passage very similar in
structure is Rom. ii, 6—-10.—The description here by Peter
of the condition of Christians is throughout a free adaptation
of language used in O, T. regarding Israel,—the apostle thus
obviously intimating in the most distinct way that the dignity
and privileges connected with being the chosen people of God
are enjoyed in their highest forms by the Church of Christ.
Supposing, as seems likely (see Introduction, § II.), that those
Christians to whom the Epistle was addressed were to a great
extent members of Gentile races, it is easy to see how cheering
and strengthening, amid the opposition of unconverted Jews
and the narrowness and arrogance of many Christians of
Jewish birth, must have been—particularly as coming from
the great Apostle of the Circumcision—the teaching that the
community of Christ’s followers in all its length and breadth
is the true spiritual Israel, the elect of God.
The first designation here applied to believers, “a chosen
(and thus loved and blessed) race,” is from Isa. xl. 20.
Believers form a yévos, “a body of common origin, a com-
munity of kinsfolk,” inasmuch as they are all children otf
God; and they are such through the €xAoyy of His sovereign
love.—tThe next two titles in the description, “a kingly priest-
hood, a holy (consecrated) nation,” are from Ex. xix. 6. The
Hebrew for which Bacinevoy ieparevya is the LXX. rendering
is DTD nado, “a kingdom of priests,” ac. a priesthood form-
134 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 9.
ing an organized community — people, body of subjects —
under the immediate government of the Divine King. In
Rev. i. 6, where the same passage is cited, such appears to be
the thought given by the best supported text, Sacvrelay, lepets.
By some scholars it has been thought that, whatever might be
the sense intended by the Alexandrian translators in their
rendering, the words Pacideoy iepatevwa, as employed by
Peter at least, ought perhaps to be taken with a force
approaching that of the original Hebrew,—thus, “a priest-
hood belonging specially to the Divine King,” on the analogy
of such designations, natural enough in any language, as
“royal chaplains, royal household,” and the hke. This sup-
position appears to be, in the connection in which the words
occur here, somewhat forced, and is not at all needful. The
N. T. writers not unfrequently, in passing references, employ
LXX. language which represents the thought they wish to
express, even though it may not happen to answer with
perfect precision to the Hebrew in the place where it origin-
ally occurs. Indeed, they do this sometimes even in formal
quotations, in cases where, though the form may be consider-
ably different, yet, as regards general tenor, the translation
substantially accords with the original: eg. Rom. x. 20, 21,
xi. 9,10. It seems likely that in his free application here
of the words in Exodus the apostle was acting in this way,
and that the combination should be taken in the sense which
undoubtedly is first suggested to a reader, that of “a kingly
priesthood,” the apostle by this condensed expression bringing
out the truth that the glorious privilege of believers is to be
at once kings and priests. — As distinguished from ryévos,
“a body having community of origin,” €@vos, according to
etymology, appears to be “a body organized through com-
munity in the usages of life (€@y).” This distinction has
been adverted to by some expositors; but, whilst probably
true, it seems hardly to have any claim to enter into the
exegesis, strictly so called, of the passage, for there is
nothing in the context leading to the thought that it was
Il. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. tea
specially before the apostle’s mind.—As to dyov, cf. note on
aylacpo, i. 2.
In the rest of the verse the apostle reverts to Isa. xliii.,
where immediately after the already cited yévos éxXextov we
find (ver. 21) Aaov pov bv TepteTroLncaunY Tas apeTds pou
Sinyetc@ar, This Peter freely quotes and expands. Con-
sidering the probable present application of the language by
the apostle to Gentiles, it is important to bear in mind the
frequent special use of Aaes in LXX. and N. T. for Israel as
the people of God’s choice, the theocratic nation. For ov
mepteTroinoauny, “which I acquired for myself,” the apostle,
apparently from a somewhat similar passage in Malachi (iii. 17)
which flits into his memory, substitutes the equivalent eis
mepiTroinawy, “for a possession” (cf. Eph. i. 14). In Malachi
the words are in connection with écovtas, and thus, to explain
Peter’s construction, we must supply the participle #y ; as to
this Hebraism, see ver. 7, éyevOn eis xkehadnv, note. The
designation Xads els mepitroinow describes Christians as being,
in a specially rich and full sense, “ God’s own,” peculiarly
prized and cared for. The words e¢s reputroinow appear to be
as precisely as possible equivalent to the adjective mepsovaros
(Tit. 1. 14), this latter word being the representative in
Ex. xix. 5, and elsewhere, of the same Hebrew term mp3D
(“a treasure”), which in the passage in Malachi is rendered
by eis wepimoinow. The rendering of A. V. both in Tit.
ii. 14 and here, “ peculiar,” is after the Vulgate peculiaris, and
was no doubt meant by the translators to carry with it the
special force of the Latin substantive peculiwm. On the
precise force of els trepsroinow and treptovoros, cf. an interest-
ing discussion by Bishop Lightfoot, in the Appendix to his
work, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament.—
The next clause sets forth the grand end for which believers
are thus taken by God as “a people for His special pos-
session,’ — namely, to show forth His glory. That in the
apostle’s mind the immediate connection of this clause of
purpose was as just represented,— namely, with the words
136 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ik ‘9;
Aads els TEpiToinow,— may be inferred from the verse in
Isaiah ; but, of course, the force is substantially the same if
we join it with the whole preceding description —* Ye are a
chosen race, etc., to the intent that.’—Having in this citation
from Isaiah substituted for the relative clause with its verb,
Ov cTepleTroLnodunv, an equivalent expression with a sub-
stantive, the apostle is naturally led, according to Greek
usage, to substitute also in the following clause of purpose,
67s in place of the infinitive construction of LXX. For
dinyeto bar of LXX., too, Peter, moving quite freely in his
choice of O. T. phraseology employed in various places to
illustrate the same line of thought in which he is now
engaged, substitutes é£ayyéAXew, used in LXX. of proclaim-
ing the praises of God (Ps. ix. 14, lxxvilil. 13). The word
occurs in N. T. only here. The thought of “telling forth,”
so as to make known far and wide, is evidently made
prominent by the preposition of the compound. —’Apetn
is used by Peter more than by any other of the N. T.
writers, occurring, besides the present place, also in 2 Ep. 1.
3, 5,—elsewhere only in Phil. iv. 8. In LXX. the word
is not unfrequent,—the plural in particular, as in the
passage of Isaiah on which Peter’s present words are based,
being employed to represent the Hebrew nan or nibnn, God’s
“ praise ” or “ praises.” The translators thus adopted a word
which explicitly pointed to the grounds of the praise, the
divine “ excellences ;” cf. Isa. xlii. 8, 12, lxiii. 7. Philo also
employs the word in the same way (Quis rer. div. her., Mang.
p. 488). Its reference appears to be quite general, like that
of our English “excellences” in its widest use,—including
God’s power and wisdom as well as His moral perfections.
For the simple @cod or Kupiov, answering to pov of Isaiah,
Peter gives a magnificent paraphrase, pointing out the grandeur
of the work done by God for and in believers, the consequent
greatness of His claim upon their faithfulness and zeal in
telling forth His excellences, and the special meetness of the
duty to the condition of Christians,—enlightenment of the
II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 137
dark world by those who out of darkness have been themselves
brought into light. The particular form of this paraphrase
was possibly suggested to Peter (cf. Phil. ii, 15) by a
remembrance, as he wrote the words é7ws x7X., of that great
statement regarding the vocation of Christians which was
given by our Lord Himself in the Sermon on the Mount,
“Let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven”
(Matt. v.16). This precept of the Saviour is almost certainly
referred to a few lines farther on (ver. 12), in Wa é« Tov
Kaa@v épywv étomTevoytes Sofdowor Tov Ocov, and from the
identity of the thought with that in dmws tas apetas KTH.
could, one may reasonably suppose, scarcely but suggest itself
already here—bringing into the apostle’s mind consequently
the thought of light. While natural, however, the supposition
is not necessary. Light and darkness are most familiar O. T.
images for knowledge and ignorance, and by legitimate exten-
sion also for holiness and happiness and their opposites,—
images the truth and beauty of which at once commend
themselves to all. No description of the divine work of
grace, therefore, could occur more readily than the exhibition
of it as a calling out of darkness into light—light beautiful
and benign as enjoyed in the Christian life here, and ever
broadening and strengthening towards “the perfect day ;”
ef. Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 12,13. In the passage before us
the prepositions 逫 and es imply that before the writer's
mind was the conception of spheres or regions of darkness
and light respectively, in the one of which the natural man
is, in the other the children of God. The light is God’s
light (avrod), as kindred to—an outflow from—that light
“full of glory” in which He dwells, which is indeed His own
nature {1 John i, 5). The apostle’s epithet @avpacrov—
“marvellous” through transcendent sublimity—is echoed by
the experience of every believer—and this always the more
fully as he grows in knowledge of himself and in knowledge
of God. According to the analogy of general N. T. usage, by
138 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [H. 10.
Tov KadécavTos is to be understood God the Father; cf. i. 15,
note.
Ver. 10. To deepen in the hearts of his readers a sense of
thankfulness to God, and thus to increase their zeal in “ telling
forth God’s excellences,” the apostle gives yet another word
of description regarding the condition of Christians,—and
this in the form of an impressive contrast between their
former and their present spiritual state. This he clothes in
language freely adapted from Hos. ii. 23 (cf. also Hos. 1.
6, 8,i1,1). This same verse of Hosea is formally cited by
Paul in Rom. ix. 25, in a somewhat different connection of
thought from that in which it appears here-—The sentence of
ver. 9 is continued here, but with a change of form. From
the simple predications “ Ye are a chosen race,” etc., we pass
now to the construction of a participle with the article,
equivalent to a relative clause,—a construction employed in
the N. T. with even more freedom than by classical writers:
“Ye are persons who,” etc. In the first clause, the fact that
the participle giving with oi the meaning “who were” is left
to the mind to supply, perhaps aids a reader somewhat to
give at once to ov the connection which from the passage in
Hosea we see to be intended,—that is to say, not as negativing
the copula, but as an integral part of the predicate,—thus,
literally, “who were a not-people,” iz. a body of persons in
whom the characteristic features of a Aaos were not to be
found; cf. Deut. xxxii. 21 (LXX.), é od Oc@, em ovK EOver,
Hosea having “not-My-people” (r@ ob Aad pov, LXX.),
some expositors are of opinion that in the verse before us we
are intended to regard the @eod of the antithetical clause
following as belonging to this clause also. But this would be
grammatically hard, and, as the apostle in his adaptation of
the words of Hosea omits to give any representative of the
pronoun ov which he found in Hosea, it appears reasonable
to assume that he meant dads to stand out here by itself
before the minds of his readers. The thought underlying his
language seems to be somewhat of this kind —that, from a
Ee 10, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 139
religious point of view, the sinful world has no real com-
munity of life or of interest, but is merely an aggregate of
isolated persons, the tendency of sin being ever, through the
working of selfishness and hatred, toward social disintegration.
The loneliness and dreariness of the unconverted state, especi-
ally amid the intense darkness and debasement of heathenism,
appears to be the prominent idea; and thus, with a consider-
able difference in form, we seem to have a close resemblance
in thought to the present statement, in ver. 25, ite os
mpoBata TAavopevot. On the combination of ov« with a
substantive, so as practically to make a compound, a mode of
expression not without analogies in classical Greek, but to be
regarded in the N. T. as due to the influence of Hebrew, and
found, indeed, only in passages quoted from the LXX. (ef.
Rom. x. 19), see Winer, p. 597; A. Buttmann, p. 353.—If
of rote ov Aads means what has now been said, of course the
antithesis is a climax: “From this position of isolation you
have passed through grace to become a real community,
closely bound together in love by oneness in the most import-
ant interests; and not a people only, but the most glorious
and blessed of all peoples, God’s people.”
The second clause of the verse is adapted from that which
stands first in Hosea. There the ordinary text of the LXX.
has dyarijow thy ovK Hyatnuévnv. The apostle’s rendering
here by forms of éAeetv, which answers more exactly to the
Hebrew, may be due either to his translating for himself, or
possibly to the use of another text of the LXX. (some extant
authorities for that version, indeed, particularly Codex A,
having the forms from éAeeiv). The force of woré of the
previous clause obviously repeats itself before od« 7Xenuévor,
and here also the ov« joins itself. completely to the predicate,
so that we have not simply “not compassionated,’ but
“uncompassionated.” When a participle which has the article
is negatived, the particle employed is in N. T. usage regularly
4, not ov«, antithetical passages like the present forming the
only exception; cf. A. Buttmann, p. 350. In the use of the
140 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TT 113012;
perfect participle we have state presented. In their time of
darkness, had any one of them obtained some true knowledge
of the circumstances in which he was, he would have had to
say, “ We are and have been uncompassionated,’—that is,
Edeos being “active pity,’ “We have not been visited by
God with proofs of redemptive compassion and grace for us
as sinners.” But the aorist participle €denOévtes in the other
division of the clause points to definite acts of mercy: “ Now
—since the day-spring from on high visited us—we are able
to say "Hden@nuer, glorious compassion was manifested to us
in the work of our Saviour for us, in sending us the glad
tidings of that work, and in leading us by the influences of
the Holy Spirit to accept Him.” On the combination of
perfect and aorist participles, cf. Winer, p. 431. With respect
to the use of viv with aorists, when the particle has a some-
what wide sense, as “since Christ came,’ or “since the
knowledge of Christ was sent to us,” cf. 1. 12, note.
Vv. 11,12. Call to purity of life, with special enforcement of the
thought that thus heathen onlookers may be led to glorify God.
The second and much the longer subdivision of the
hortatory part of the Epistle begins here. The first sub-
division, extending from i. 13 to i. 10, has dealt with those
duties of Christians which spring out of their immediate
relations to God, and their relations to fellow-Christians. In
the second subdivision, which extends to v. 9, we have
exhortations to duties arising out of the various relations in
which men are placed in life, and advices and encouragements
as to the spirit and conduct becoming believers exposed to
persecution,—as evidently many of those were to whom in the
first instance the apostle wrote. Throughout the whole of this
portion of the Epistle, Peter seems to have vividly before his
mind the special trials, difficulties, and duties of Christians
who are surrounded by heathen, and of necessity brought into
frequent intercourse with them. A ruling thought with him
te 11) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 4
everywhere is that by the purity of character of believers,
the faithfulness with which they do their work in the various
spheres occupied by them, and the meekness and patience
with which they bear their troubles, even their adversaries
may be drawn to recognise the presence in the Church of a
power from heaven, and led themselves to join the Christian
ranks. This thought has already appeared in the last clause
of ver. 9, which prepared the way for the present section ;
and we have it set forth still more expressly in vv. 12, 15,
ui. 1,16. This specialty of aspect throughout this part of the
letter obviously presents in itself an element of difference,
even where, as occasionally, a precept which occurs here is in
substance very nearly the same as one that has been given
before,—for example, comparing ver. 11 with i. 14.
The exhortation in vv. 11, 12 is general in its character.
It serves as an introduction to the subdivision, both by giving
a summary statement of a wide range of Christian duty, and
by definitely announcing the point of view, just adverted to,
from which, in what follows, the apostle is about to look at
the position of his readers.
Ver. 11. The affectionate word of address ayamnrtoi is
employed in this Epistle only here and in iv. 12,—in both
places with great naturalness and force, as introducing ex-
hortations of a kind in which the loving sympathy of the
apostle with his readers was specially called forth, and would
be felt as peculiarly refreshing. IIapaxado, following on
ayarntot, and written down amid the same pressure of affec-
tionate feeling, is thus perhaps best taken, as in both A. and
kh. E. V., with something of its familiar entreating shade of
meaning, “ I beseech,” rather than with the hortatory shade,
also common, “1 exhort.”——-On the omission of tuas here
(which, though not in the least causing ambiguity, still in
such a connection as the present would be somewhat peculiar
in any writer, and is specially remarkable in Hellenistic
Greek), cf. Winer, p. 179.—In the words as (“as _beseems,”
ae. practically, “since you are”) apoixovs Kal trapeTidypous
ge FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fits ids
there is something of a climax,—zdpoixo., “ by-dwellers,”
being residents beside or among the citizens of a country, yet
not of them, their own citizenship being elsewhere, whilst the
designation trape7iénot, substantially the same, adds, accord-
ing to its ordinary use, the idea of brevity of residence,
“ sojourners.” As to wapotxous, cf. i. 17, note; and as to
TmapeTLonjovs, i. 1, note. To some expositors (basing their
opinion mainly on the expression “among the Gentiles ” in
ver. 12, and holding that this Epistle is addressed solely to
Jewish Christians) it seems that by the words “strangers and
sojourners ” Peter simply refers to their being of the duaczopa,
Jews absent from Palestine. By the mention of “ Gentiles,’
however, as we shall see, a contrast with Jews is not in the
Epistles of the N. T. necessarily suggested; and even if it
were, the reference to Gentiles does not come in this verse.
In any case, when we remember that the character of Chris-
tians was exposed to even more of keen and jealous observation
by enemies of the truth in Palestine than in pagan lands,
such an argument in support of an appeal to abstain from
“fleshly lusts” as, “ because ye are absent from Palestine,”
would manifestly be pointless and irrelevant in the extreme.
On the other hand, the argument from the fact that Christians
are citizens of heaven, called upon therefore during their
sojourn on earth not to imbibe the spirit or live the life of
citizens of this world, has plainly the greatest pertinence and
force. With this view of the meaning the prominence which
already in the Epistle has been given to the thought of heaven
as the believer’s inheritance and the object of lively hope
(i. 8-5, 13) wholly accords; also the way in which zrapocxia
is used in i. 17; and, still further, the language of David in
a passage which one cannot reasonably doubt to have been in
Peter’s mind when he wrote the words now before us,
Ps. xxxix. 12, “I am a stranger with thee and a sojourner”
(rdpovkos Kal taper (Onuos, LXX.).—We may join @s tapoixous
Kal TapeTLoynpovs either with the object of mapaxad® or with
~ the subject of dvéyeo@ar; and it is of little moment which of
10 es ee FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 1435
the constructions be adopted. If we join the words with the
infinitive, it is then perhaps a shade easier to understand the
omission of vtuas,—“I exhort (or, I make entreaty), as
strangers and sojourners to abstain,” etc.; cf. ver. 15 (where,
however, the analogy is but slight). On the other hand, at
the beginning of a long series of exhortations, all of which
may legitimately be enforced by an appeal to the pilgrim state
of the readers, it appears most natural to attach the words to
mapaxar®, the introductory word of the whole section. This
latter construction is therefore probably to be preferred: “I
beseech you as strangers and sojourners, that ye abstain,” ete.
°EOvpia, “ desire,” in itself a word of general reference
(see eg. Phil. i. 23), but quite predominantly in N. T., as by
classical writers, used of wicked desire, is here defined as such
by the adjective capxixyn,—oadp£& here, as so often in N. T.,
standing for the corrupt nature, which has its stimuli and
instruments in the flesh.
The émvOupiae capkixat (otherwise éifupiar tijs capKos,
Eph. ii. 3, 2 Pet. ii, 18, and émiOupiae xoopixai, Tit. ii. 12)
are the different forms of the one pervasive éi@upia capkos
spoken of in Gal. v. 16, the “fulfilling” of which is the
opposite of “walking in the Spirit,’—“ for the flesh lusteth
(émvOvpet) against the Spirit.” Prominent no doubt in
Peter’s mind among the “ fleshly lusts ” were desires for sinful
indulgences of the flesh in the strict sense,—those desires
which John gathers up under 7 émi@uuia tis capKds, as he
uses the expression with a specific reference (1 Ep. ii. 16),—
particularly desires for those impurities which were so gene-
rally practised in heathen society of every rank that, conscience
having becoming torpid with regard to them, they thus pre-
sented strong temptations even to converted heathen. The
expression covers, however, much more than sensual desires,
in the usual meaning of that phrase. Paul, in Gal. v. 19-21,
gives a considerable list of the forms of feeling and conduct
which fall under the name ta épya ts capxés; in which,
beginning with impurities, he goes on to include “ hatred,
144 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [EF 12:
wrath, envying, and such like,”’—everything, in fact, which
contrasts with “the fruit of the Spirit ” (ver. 22).
The compound relative aitwes has in the connection, as
frequently, the force of “seeing that they,” quwippe que, utpote
que; cf. Eph. iii. 13; Phil. i. 28, and on the various uses of
doTis see an excellent note by Ellicott on Gal. iv. 24.—The
clause exhibits a lively and expressive figurative representa-
tion of the work of the “ fleshly lusts.” As usual with Peter
(see 1. 9, 22, ii. 25, iv. 19), Wuyy is here not looked at as
distinct from mrvevywa (as 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12), but as
designating the whole inner nature,—intellect, affections, and
will,—that immaterial element of our being whose salvation
is the primary aim of divine grace, and against which Satan
wars through his instruments, evil desires. These desires
“ campaign against the soul,’—strive like an armed band to
destroy it, by obscuring its vision, troubling its peace,
enfeebling its energies, dulling its interest in God and in
fellowship with Him; cf. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. p. 19),
ToNéu“ou ToD KaTa Avy, Os arrevdas éoTL TOAEU@Y apyaheo-
tatos Kal Bapvtatos. A close parallel to the clause occurs
in Jas. iv. 1. Polycarp (§ 5) has an obvious reference to it,
in which, however, the form of expression is a little affected
by a remembrance also of Gal. v.17: waéoa émiOupia kata
Tov Tvevpatos otpatevetat. A sentence, too, in the Epistle
to Diognetus (§ 6) seems to be-a reminiscence of this verse,
though the form of the thought is a little different: pice?
Ty ~uyny 1 capE Kai Todepel, dvoTe Tais HSovats KwAVeEeTaL
pho Gat.
Ver. 12. The participial clause here presents the duty in a
positive form, and under a special aspect, its force being,
“thus having,” etc. This clause implies that whilst, in
accordance with the radical character of all the ethical teach-
ing of Christianity, the duty enjoined has been enunciated in
ver. 11 in very comprehensive terms, yet at the moment the
outward forms of indulgence in the “ fleshly lusts” were
specially before the apostle’s mind, because he was mainly
IL. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 45
occupied with the thought of influence on others——The use
of the nominative éyovTes, instead of the grammatically regular
accusative éyovtas, is in accordance with a tendency, found
not unfrequently in the Epistles, to give to participial clauses
which contain a particularly important thought more pro-
minence and independence of form than they might otherwise
have, by employing the nominative even where regular con-
struction would require an oblique case; cf. Eph. iv. 2; Col.
ili. 16; and see Winer, p. 716. A number of scholars have
held (recently T. 8. Green, V. F. Gram. p. 180), that in
at least some of these cases, including that now before us,
the participial clause is not to be looked upon as merely a
secondary part of the sentence, but that the participle is meant
to have an independent imperative force. This is satisfactorily
answered by Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 732, note 5). Indeed,
as regards any form of independent sentence, there appears
much reason to doubt whether a mere participle is ever in
N. T. style, as has often been supposed, employed, on Hebrew
analogies, to represent a main verb ; see an excellent discussion
by A. Buttmann, p. 291 foll.
The words év tots €Oveow are attached to the clause in a
somewhat loose fashion, which, however, is perfectly natural
and intelligible. Their immediate grammatical connection
may be regarded to be in either of two ways. It may be
looked upon as with tyv avactpodny tuav, “ Your mode of
for the substantive avaorpody,
?
life among the Gentiles ;’
being cognate with a verb which would be construed with the
preposition €v, accommodates itself most readily to the simple
addition of the adverbial combination, without repetition of
the article (Winer, p. 170; A. Buttmann, p. 92). Indeed a
repeated tv would scarcely be suitable here, seeing that it
would at least appear to limit the range of the obligation of
moral comeliness to those departments of life which were under
the eye of the heathen. But the connection may also be
regarded as with the participle @yovres. Looking at what
seems to be the exact logical relation of the words in question
K
146 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (II. 12.
to the rest of the clause, this latter construction is the pre-
ferable. Of course, whatever had been the surroundings of
the apostle’s readers, he would have called on them to have
life morally comely ; but the words év tots €@veow bring in
an argument additional to those which might have been in
force in other circumstances,—thus, “remembering specially
that you are among the Gentiles.”——The contrast with Gentiles
here does not necessarily imply that the persons addressed by
the apostle were Jews, and nothing in the context naturally
suggests that they were. In the Epistles, the name “Gentile”
often has a purely religious reference, “ heathen,’—the ethnical
sense passing so out of view that Greeks and Romans cease
to be spoken of as Gentiles when they accept Christianity,
unless the specifically Jewish use of the word is in some way
directly suggested. For a short discussion of this point, see
Introduction, § II. 3—Kandnyv is obviously predicative; and
its position at the end of the clause gives it a certain sharp
emphatic force; “ thus having your mode of life—particularly
remembering that it is lived among the Gentiles—comely.” In
the connection which the word has here, its radical sense is
plainly prominent, the apostle’s thought being of the beauty
of holiness.—Polycarp (§ 10) seems to have quoted this clause,
the Latin version giving conversationem vestram trreprehensi-
bilem habentes in gentibus.
There is no reason for taking év ® in any other than its
most obvious meaning, “in the matter (sphere, field) in which;”
ef. Rom. ii. 1, xiv.22. The apostle’s thought is, “that in the
very sphere
namely, your Christian life—where, superficially
looked at, your enemies now imagine themselves to find
grounds for harsh accusations, they may by and by through
the leadings of God’s grace see, looking more heedfully,
ground for praising Him as the Giver of moral excellence.”
By some expositors the temporal use of év #, “at which time,
whilst” (Mark ii. 19; John v. 7), has been thought of here ;
but this is quite unsuitable, the time of do&acwor being not
coincident with, but subsequent to, that of xatadXanovou.
|
|
ak] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 147
The sense of “ whereas” (A. E. V., after pro eo quod of Beza) is
in itself suitable enough to the passage, but is unsupported by
the use of év 6 elsewhere. On the various uses of év 0, cf.
Winer, pp. 482, 484, and a good note of Alford on Heb. ii. 18.
—In @s ckaxovroiwv the @s marks caxozrovoi as the name which
was given to the Christians by the catadaXobvtes, or as sum-
ming up the allegations which were made against them; cf.
A. Buttmann, p. 307. This name «axozrovoi suggested (see
ver. 14), just as “ evil-doers” does with us, that whether as a
matter of fact the followers of Christ were dealt with by the
tribunals or not, their conduct, the issue of their peculiar
principles, deserved to be punished by the judges. In being
subjected to such a charge, the Christians were bearing the
cross after their Lord (John xviii. 30). Both by N. T. and by
secular writers it is shown that calumny, and calumny
taking this particular form, the charge of criminal conduct,
arose against the Church very early and prevailed very widely.
The Jews in Rome, at the time when Paul arrived there,
stated, as the sum of their knowledge about Christians, that
they were “a sect everywhere spoken against” (Acts xxviii.
22). At this stage probably the main accusation was the same
which had been made against the Lord (John xix. 12), a
charge of disloyalty to the Emperor, and, associated with this,
of a revolutionary spirit generally, a disposition to “turn the
world upside down” (Acts xvii. 6). That this was the most
prominent form among the calumnies to which the Churches
directly addressed by the apostle were subjected, is likely
from the fact that he begins immediately (ver. 13 foll.) to speak
to them on the subject of obedience to constituted authority.
With the charge of revolutionary tendencies as regarded the
State, was probably associated, as we may infer from exhorta-
tions which follow (ver. 18 foll., iii. 1, 7), the accusation of
stirring up discords and disorderliness in households. Some-
what later, in all likelihood, was the rise of calumnies of a yet
more unjust and indeed utterly monstrous kind, of which we
read,—charges of the practice of gross impurities and cruel-
148 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5 ae es
ties in the Christian gatherings, and the like. So widely
diffused among all classes of the heathen did belief in atro-
cious falsehoods of this kind become, that even a philosophic
historian like Tacitus could speak of the Christianos per
flagitia invisos, while their religion presented itself to him as
exttiabilis superstitio (Ann. xv. 44); and similarly to Sue-
tonius the Christiani appear a genus hominum superstitionis
nove. ac malefice (Nero, 16).
In the clause introduced by tva, rigid regularity and com-
pleteness of construction would have given us €v TovT@, “in
that field,” as grammatical antecedent to év @. Instead of this,
the apostle sets before us what may be described as the
Jruits which are produced in the field of a true Christian
dvaotpody, and which cannot but be seen by the watchful
eyes of the heathen passers-by. These fruits are the «cada
épya which will be discerned in every department of a
believer’s conduct, in proportion to the intelligence and liveli-
ness of his faith. As already noticed under ver. 9, there
appears to be in this clause a distinct reminiscence of our
Lord’s precept in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 16),
AauWatw Td POs tuov KTA.—The use of the article in Toy
Karov épywv implies a reference to éyovtes THy avactpopiy
vuav Kadnv,—these words, of course, clearly assuming that
the separate épya which make up the avactpogn are kana:
on definiteness thus given by implication in a previous word,
cf. note on % Ten in ver. 7.
y The verb évomtevew occurs in N. T. in Peter only (here and
iii. 2); the cognate substantive also (2 Ep.i. 16). This word
intimates here that, whilst the source of the cataXaXua/ is the
ayvecia (ver. 15) connected with listening to foolish hearsay,
or with utter superficiality of observation, on the other hand
“ eye-witness,” in any worthy sense of the word—real personal
contemplation of a Christian’s mode of life—may reasonably
be expected to lead to a recognition that in Christianity the
power of heaven is present, and thus to bring the observer
to glorify God. It will have this effect with all who have
Il. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 149
not entirely blinded within them that faculty which, even in
unregenerate men, testifies to the original image of God,—
the faculty which
“Feels how awful goodness is, and sees
Virtue in her shape how lovely.”
Through the use of the present ésomrevovtes we have the
viewing from day to day set before us, whilst the aorist
SoEacwor points to the great decisive act which the apostle
trusts will come “in the day of visitation,’—the acceptance of
the evidence that Christianity is from God, and thus the
surrendering of the soul to glorify God by personal faith.—
The participle évom7evovtes stands in the sentence somewhat
peculiarly, through the absence of an expressed object. Having
substantially the force of dca tod éromtevev, it is closely
interwoven with the main thought; but its absoluteness, as
regards construction, makes it resemble a parenthesis,—* that
by means of your good works—witnessing (them)—they may
glorify God ;” cf. dvaywecxKortes, Eph. iii. 4. On the sub-
stance of the present clause, cf. ii. 1, 2.
The closing words, €v ijuépa éemicxoTns, are in form so
general that various meanings may be attached to them.
God is often in O. T. said to “visit” men, and this either for
purposes of mercy (eg. Job x. 12; Ps. vill. 4) or purposes of
judgement (Isa. x. 12; Jer. vi 15). The meaning here might
thus be, “when God visits the calumniating heathen for
judgement,”—and that either in this life, by sending affliction,
or at the great day of final account. On this view of the
sense, however, with either of these references, the words do
not appear to connect themselves very naturally with the
main thought of the clause, that regarding the influence of
personal contemplation of the good works of believers ; and,
supposing the reference to be to the last day, then the force of
doEaew would be different from that which the rest of the
clause leads a reader to expect. By some expositors the
apostle’s expression has been supposed to indicate a minute
and formal investigation, whether strictly judicial or other,
.
150 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 18-17.
made by the heathen themselves into the conduct of Christians.
But this mode of interpretation, besides yielding a somewhat
jejune meaning, is not accordant with the usus loguendi as to
émicxoTn and its verb émioxémtecOar, when employed in any
such connection as the present,—and especially as regards
the combination %pépa or Kaspos érioxom is (Isa. x. 3, LXX. ;
Luke xix. 44). The natural reference of the expression, as
here used, seems certainly to be to visitation by God, not by
man. In the New Testament, wherever either the verb or the
noun is used of a divine visitation, a gracious one is always
referred to (Luke i. 68, 78, vii. 16, xix. 44; Acts xv. 14;
Heb. ii. 6). We may therefore most safely take the meaning
here also to be “in the day of (God’s) visitation (in mercy),”
a sense which accords with the whole tone of the passage,
and also with the closely similar passage, ili. 1, 2. In
language which, from the general interest of the occasion, and
from the fact that the immediate reference was to his own
work in the house of Cornelius, Peter could hardly have for-
gotten, and may well have had present to his mind as he was
writing the words before us, the Apostle James said that “God
had visited (é€recxéyvato) the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for His name” (Acts xv. 14); and in thinking here of
the calumnious opponents of believers, Peter’s hope is that
for these particular Gentiles there may come a “day” of
this dealing of grace.
Vv. 15-17. On the duty of obedience to civil rulers,
This section contains the first of the apostle’s exhortations
to duties which arise out of particular relations of ordinary
life. It deals with the relations of subjects to their rulers.
To persons of a lively imagination, and whose minds at the
same time are ill-informed and ill-regulated, the doctrine of
Christ regarding His kingdom on earth may easily present
itself in such a form as to imply the reasonableness, and
1%, 13:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 151
indeed obligation, of disregarding other rule. A tendency to
error of this kind has been often shown during the history of
the Church, appearing particularly, as was to be expected, in
times of religious upturning and excitement, as among the
German Anabaptists at the Reformation, and among the
extreme sectaries in the time of the English Commonwealth.
Missionaries find that they have occasionally to deal with the
same error at the present day." Where, as with those Asiatic
communities to whom Peter wrote, the rulers were them-
selves heathen, the tendency to doubt whether duty called on
or permitted Christians to give obedience to these rulers was
obviously specially apt to show itself; and positive antagonism
to Christ exhibited by the rulers, through persecuting His fol-
lowers, might readily fan what otherwise would have remained
mere theory into a flame of feeling resulting in conduct
very injurious to the interests of the Church. It is evident
that the primitive Christian teachers were deeply impressed
with a sense of the hazard of their converts falling into what
might prove most serious errors on this subject; for, in
Romans, Paul similarly has devoted a considerable paragraph
to teaching and warnings respecting the duty of civil obedience
(xiii. 1-7). That passage and the present are mutually illus-
trative. To Titus also Paul gives a special injunction with
regard to ministerial duty in the matter of setting forth truth
on this point (iii, 1). The influence exerted on the early
Church by this apostolic teaching is strikingly shown by the
boldness of the statement which Justin Martyr felt himself
justified in making with respect to the habitual dutifulness, as
subjects, of the Christians throughout the empire (I. Apo/. 17).
Ver. 13. The connection of thought is no doubt correctly
given by ody of T. R.; but MS. authority is decidedly for the
omission of the conjunction. Occasionally elsewhere the
1 A friend of the writer, a missionary in India of long experience,
requested some young helpers in Scotland, who were engaged in writing
or painting texts in the native language for his mission rooms, to include
1 Pet. ii. 17, and this expressly because he found mistakes on the subject
of relations to civil authority prevalent among his converts.
52 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ay 23)
apostle begins a period without a connective word; cf. i, 22.
—RKemembering the necessity of divine influence for sancti-
fication, we may take wbotdynte here, tazresv@Onte (v. 6),
or any other similar moral precept couched in a passive form,
as really passive in meaning. Such exhortations, however,
naturally take a reflexive form, and the unquestionable tendency
of later Greek, illustrated often in N. T., to use passive aorists
with the force of the middle voice, makes it highly probable
that the-apostle’s thought was “subject yourselves” or “ be
subject,” rather than “be subjected:” cf. Winer, p. 327;
A. Buttmann, pp. 51, 52.
Kriows, in the various applications which it has in N. T, use,
coincides throughout with our English “ creation,’—desig-
nating (1) the act (Rom. i. 20); (2) the product of the act,
collectively (Col. 1. 15); (3) one particular product of the act,
“@ creation,” = xticpa, “acreature” (Heb. iv.13). In every
passage of the N. T. where «tious or any cf its cognates occurs,
except the passage now before us, the reference is to (God's
work; and the combination here, aca av@pwrivyn Krtiots,
regarded simply by itself, would naturally in the first instance
be taken, similarly, as meaning “every human creature (of
God).” Some expositors have held to this sense, regarding
the precept as analogous to those found in Rom. xii. 10, “to
prefer one another in honour;” Eph. v. 21, “to be subject
(urotdoocec Oa, as here) to one another in the fear of Christ ;’
and in another part of our present Epistle (v. 5), “ Yea, all
of you gird yourselves with humility to serve one another.”
The view that in meaning the present precept is similar to
these, however, is not tenable. The peculiar form of tbe
exhortation, in which the appeal for mutual subjection, so pro-
minent in all the others, is wanting, and the remarkable inten-
sity of the periphrasis chosen for the simple zavti av@poTe,
constitute a considerable difficulty in the way of accepting it,
though not perhaps, taken alone, an insuperable one. But
having regard to the division of xt/ce. which immediately
follows, presenting in the first instance solely different classes
1B 13¢] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 153
of magistrates, elre Batre? elite ryepoowy, and in subsequent
sections relations of life which, from their nature, imply rule on
the one side and subjection on the other,—to the manifest main
reference of the paragraph, as a whole, to civil government,—
and to the fact that, whilst the duty of “ honouring all men”
is enjoined in the 17th verse, that precept enters by a line of
thought connected with the closing words of the verse and of
the paragraph, “honour the king,” we cannot doubt that the
meaning of the injunction before us is not at all so wide as
“Be subject to every human creature.” Kriows appears to be
undoubtedly employed here—in a way strange to Hellenistic
usage, but which to the Asiatic Christians, accustomed to hear
xtitw and its derivatives employed with much freedom of
reference in the Greek of their heathen neighbours, would
not appear unnatural or hard—for “a creation” of man’s
thought, “an institution ;’ and this is limited by the preceding
uTotaynte, by that mention of magistrates which immediately
follows, and which is placed in closest connection with this
word, and by the tenor of the following section, to an institu-
tion for rule in a State, or generally in such societies, required
or naturally brought about by God’s arrangements, as involve
subordination,—a household, for example.
To some interpreters (as Hofmann and Huther) it appears
that definition of the object of the particular kind of «rious
meant by the apostle is intended by him in using the adjec-
tive av@pw7rivy, which they understand to signify “applying
to human relations,” and explain to mean here particularly
“for man in his social relations.’ But obviously nothing is
thus gained, for the specific part of this explanation, namely,
“in his social relations,’ does not lie in the Greek word, but
is a supplement gathered from the context. Looking at the
apparent antithesis between this adjective and é:a Kupuov, it
seems far more natural to take avOpwrivy in the sense of _
origin, “ devised by man.” The form of mistake into which
Christians were apt to fall is readily inferred from the nature
of the case, and is made evident by the emphasis with which
154 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Ee 13:
our apostle presents his dca Kvpvov, and with which, in Rom.
xiii. 1-6, Paul enunciates and reiterates the position that
“the powers that be are ordained of God,” magistrates being
thus “ministers of God.” The error was this: “Seeing that
we are now governed immediately by a Divine King, whose
laws we know from His word, and with whom we have direct
communication through His Spirit, and that earthly princes
and magistrates are merely human creations, — man-made
institutions, full of ignorance and often of wickedness,—we
are therefore free from their authority, not bound to obey
them, indeed bound not to obey them.” Considering that this
was plainly the nature of the mistake——and that the peculiar
sense of «xtiots found in the present passage was one much
more likely to suggest itself to persons familiar with the free
uses of xr/Gw and its derivatives in ordinary Greek than to a
Jew, to whom “create” was a sacred word, employed only of
God’s work,—it seems reasonably probable that the combination
avOpwrivn Kticts had become known to the apostle as one
occasionally, or often, employed among converts from heathen-
ism (perhaps specially among those Asiatic believers to whom
he now wrote) in discussions on the duty of Christians to
earthly authorities. This probable enough supposition satis-
factorily explains the peculiar form of expression.
In the paragraph already referred to in Rom. xiii, Paul lays
stress on the fact that civil government is “an ordinance of
God.” It is such, not through the same express kind of
appointment as that which, for example, constitutes private or
social prayer His ordinance, but through the fact that—from the
instincts which He has implanted in men, and the necessities
arising out of the circumstances in which He has placed them
—He has called on them to live in society, and this organized,
that is to say, under magistracy of some kind. The form which
government takes in any particular nation is determined by
the thoughts and actions of men themselves, and is thus a
KTtlots av9pwrivy ; but civil government, taken generally, being
an absolutely needful element in social life, is a «tious Beta.
II. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Lae
Peter in the verse before us says, not dua Oeov, but da rov
Kdprov; and Kupuos, according to ordinary N. T. usage (followed
by our apostle; cf.ii.3 and iii.15, true reading), designates Christ.
By this word, therefore, whilst suggesting the same thoughts
about the basis of magistracy which Paul explicitly sets forth
in Romans (seeing that “ by Christ all things consist”), he also
presents motives to obedience specially connected with the
Saviour. “For the Lord’s sake” means, when expanded—
(1) “ because of the teaching of the Lord, personally (Matt. xxi.
17-21) as well as through His apostles ; and (2) from regard
to the interests of His Church.” This latter motive has been
already illustrated in ver. 12, and is dwelt on again in
vv. 15, 16.
In that specification of forms of “human institutions” for
civil rule, into which, to give distinctness and impressiveness
to his exhortation, the apostle now enters, he naturally selects
the functionaries of that particular system under which his
readers were placed. By the absence of the article, “king”
and “governors” are spoken of quite generally; but in the
first instance the king intended was the Roman Emperor.
He was freely called “king” by the Greeks, the Jews, and
his other Eastern subjects (cf. John xix. 15), though the
Romans curiously imagined themselves to retain something of
independence by calling their lord not rex, but wmperator.
temembering, then, that the system of government which
was immediately within the view of the Apostles Paul and
Peter, when they earnestly exhorted their converts to obey
all constituted civil authority, was a harsh despotism, and
that the despot reigning at the time was Nero, we see clearly
the wide and unhesitating sweep of the inspired injunction.
Authority recognised by those among whom Providence has
cast a Christian’s lot is, even though it may have originated
in crime and may be exercised with much iniquity, still to
be obeyed, so long as the civil ruler keeps within his sphere,
and does not traverse commands of the Supreme King.
Faithful obedience to civil government is abundantly com-
156 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [U. 14.
patible with that free and manly spirit which the principles
of Christianity are fitted to generate, and with most vigorous
exertion to have bad laws abrogated and good laws enacted.
With altogether abnormal conditions the teaching of the
apostles does not directly deal; but it may safely be said
that, where exceptional circumstances cast a Christian among
the excitements of a political revolution, he will find that
intelligent obedience to constituted authority in quieter times
has, through the blessing of the Spirit, matured in him moral
wisdom and strength with respect to the questions which
he has to consider and determine.—The particle s before
vrepexovTt, and (ver. 14) before 6: avtod teutropévols KTH,
has its frequent subjective force, = “remembering him (them)
to be,” or the like; the grounds being thus introduced why
respect and deference should be shown, in measures and
forms accordant with the positions of the various magistrates.
‘Trepéyov7s, which involves a comparative idea, seems here
clearly, from the mode in which respectively “king” and
\“ governors” are named, with a descriptive phrase attached to
each, to mean “chief magistrate,’ the comparison being with
the governors. In Rom. xiii, 1, the only other place in
N. T. where this word occurs with reference to civil dignity,
it is employed of all magistrates, “higher powers,” the com-
parison being with the people generally.
Ver. 14. The “governors” (heads of provinces or similar
districts—the designation applying practically to all regularly
appointed subordinate magistrates) are to be obeyed, inasmuch
as they are commissioned from time to time (this is the force
of the present participle weywropévors) through him—the king
—for the vindication of justice on evil-doers and for the
praise of well-doers. The words 6v’ avdrod distinctly suggest
vmo Kupiov, the chief of the state being the minister of the
Lord in commissioning the subordinate magistrates; but
the expression certainly does not itself mean “by Him (the
Lord),” as some expositors have supposed. Nothing in the
connection leads specially to the thought either of Christ as
IL. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. L157
Mediator, or of that prominence of the immediate agency of
the Divine Being in carrying out His own purposes, which is
occasionally expressed by the preposition da (as Rom. xi. 36 ;
Heb. ii. 10); and only in the one or the other of these ways
could a reference of 6¢ avtod to the Lord be explained.
Besides, on this view of the meaning, the position of these
words in the sentence would seem altogether singularly to
confine to subordinate magistrates the Lord’s providential
relations—’Exdécnows, meaning simply “the vindication of
justice,” may govern a genitive either of those whose rights
are vindicated (as Luke xviii. 7, 8), or, as here, of those upon
whom the claims of justice are asserted by punishment.—The
reference of ézravvos here is, of course, to practical commen-
datory recognition, rather than to words of praise, — the
recognition of well-doers which a magistrate can give, more-
over, being in the vast majority of cases simply the securing
to them of peace and liberty, and only in exceptional
instances the bestowal of positive honours of any kind—A
direct connection of efs éxdixnow KTr. with vaepéyovTt, as
well as with ov adtovd mewropévols, is not grammatically
impossible; thus, “ whether to the king, as holding supreme
authority—or to governors, as commissioned through him—
for the punishment,” etc. But this structure is not a very
natural one. The purpose of the king’s authority, however,
suggests itself quite readily from the other clause. The true
end of civil government, God’s end in instituting it, is in the
verse represented by the apostle as being to some extent in
the mind of the king in sending forth his subordinate macis-
trates,—and thus also, of course, by implication, as being the
view which the monarch entertains of the purpose of his own
position and power. By very many magistrates, no doubt,
both supreme and subordinate, this grand end of their
functions has been in great measure forgotten; but the duty
of the Christian is to honour civil government as designed for
a noble and gracious end.
Ver. 15. Well-doing—excellence of conduct in all depart-
baste FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (Il. 15.
ments of life, and thus here particularly in the relations of
subjects to their rulers—is, according to the divine will, to
be the great apologia of Christianity. Through consistent
obedience shown by the followers of Christ to constituted
authority (the participle aya@oro.odvtas in the connection
evidently = dca Tod dya@oroueiv), the calumnies of the foolish
men spoken of in ver. 12—for to them clearly the article
in tov adpovev avOpeérwv points—are to be put to silence.
In his form of expression here the apostle has a lively
personification, for the spiritual ignorance of the men is
represented to be the utterer of the calumnies,—dyvecia
being always disposed statt der Augen immer den Mund offen
zu haben (Wiesinger).—Some scholars are inclined to connect
ovtws With adyaboroodvtas or with diwoty—thus, “ because
it is the will of God that by well-doing in this way (ae.
submission to civil authority) ye silence,’ or “that in this
way, by well-doing, ye silence.” The sense is good; but
according to Greek usage the arrangement of words is
decisively against the construction, Ot7tws is no doubt to
be taken predicatively, as in Matt. i. 18, xix. 10. Thus
employed, the adverb, answering exactly to “on this wise,”
is felt by a reader to be a little less sharply definite in
form, a little more general, than the demonstrative pronoun
would be. On the N. T. use of adverbs as predicates, not
uncommon also in classical Greek, cf. Winer, p. 554; A.
Buttmann, p. 131. A specially interesting case is the
adverbial use of toa in Phil. ii. 6.—The infinitive clause is
plainly an expansion of the predicate otrws ; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 3,
with Ellicott’s note. The omission of vuds, the subject of
gepotv, is easily understood from the generality of the thought
—much more easily than the omission of the same pronoun in
ver, 11. The form for the infinitive here, ¢euotv, in place
of the regular duodv, appears to have preponderant MS.
authority. Similarly in Matt. xiii. 32 and Mark iv. 32 the
best supported form seems to be xatacxnvoty, and in Heb.
vii. 5, arodexatoiv ; cf. Tischendorf, note on Heb. vii. 5, and
II. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 159
Westcott and Hort, Introd. § 410, and App. p. 166. The
verb ¢uwow means properly “to muzzle;” but, except in two
quotations of a passage from the LXX. (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim.
v. 18), the secondary sense “to silence” is alone employed
in N. T., eg. Matt. xxii. 34; Mark i. 25.—In the word
ayvwcia, as used by the Hellenistic writers, the element
of moral blameworthiness (“ignorance which is wilful or
obstinate”) appears to be more prominent than in ayvoa ;
Cie, wnGomh xy. joss: JOD “xxx. lb; (Wisds xii! 1's) ‘also
Clem. Rom. § 59. Whilst, in so far as it is wilful, dyywota
of God and of duty to Him is in itself supreme folly (ef.
tom. 1. 22), the apostle, in describing these men as also
adpoves, probably refers particularly to the folly of their
conduct in denouncing a system of thought and of life which
they had not taken pains to understand.
Ver. 16. The syntactical structure of the closing part of
this section is somewhat doubtful. The sentence beginning
with uworaynte (ver. 13) may be supposed to end with ver.
15, and vv. 16, 17 to constitute another—-thus, “As free,”
ete, “honour all men,” etc. The form of sentence which
vv. 16, 17, taken together, would thus give us—a participial
clause leading the way to an imperative—is something of a
favourite with our apostle (eg. 1. 14, 15, 22, ii. 1, 2); but
the arrangement is not satisfactory in this place. The con-
tents of ver. 16 have no special relevancy as an introduction
to at least one part of ver. 17, namely the precept, “ Love the
brotherhood ;” whilst more naturally, perhaps, than they lead
even into the other precepts of that verse, they attach them-
selves to the whole of what has preceded, describing in some
detail the state of spirit which will reveal itself in the “ well-
doing” of subjection to civil authority. Accepting, then, the
connection of ver. 16 with what precedes, we may attach it
specially to ver. 15, as meant to expand the idea intended in
aya8oro.ovvtas,—the transition to the nominative being in
accordance with that occasional irregular usage in the con-
struction of participial clauses which is explained in note on
160 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fly dé:
éyovtes of ver. 12. Or, keeping to regularity of construction,
we may connect ws édevOepos xTA. immediately with vroraynte
(ver. 13); and this best without making ver. 15 a formal
parenthesis, for ver. 16, even if taken immediately with
imotaynte, yet in fact expands and explains the general term
aya0otrotovvtas of ver. 15—or, more exactly, enunciates the
principles which, as motives, will lead to dyafomouwa. On
the whole, this last connection, by which ver. 16 illustrates
in the first instance vzoraynte, and thus really also the
whole passage, vv. 13-15, seems the preferable.
Believers know themselves to be through grace free, “the
Lord’s freedmen” (1 Cor. vil. 22),—free from the condemning
sentence of the divine law,—from slavish fear,—from the
thraldom of sin. This truth may in various ways be mis-
understood and abused; and many passages in the apostolic
letters show that in the primitive Church, as often since,
misapprehension and abuse of it did in fact find place. The
freedom of Christians from the law as a condemning power
was, by the monstrous heresy of Antinomianism, twisted to
mean freedom from the obligation of obedience to the law as
a rule of life; and by many also, as we may fairly infer from
the present paragraph and the similar teaching of Paul, the
general notion of Christian freedom was thought of as includ-
ing emancipation from subjection in various of the ordinary
relations of life. The mode in which the correction of all
such misconceptions is to be obtained is evidently through
coming clearly to understand the paradox that, gloriously true
as is the doctrine of Christian freedom, yet at the same time
the only possible moral condition for man is that of dovAela
to the one or the other of two masters. In being delivered
from the position of “absolute servants of sin” (dodA0u THs
cpaptias, Rom. vi. 17; John viii. 34)—a servitude which,
being wholly alien from the true end of man’s existence, is
slavery—-we pass at once, from the very nature of the case,
into the position of “absolute servants of God” (d0ddo4
@Ocov)—a service which is true freedom: cf. John viii. 31-36 ;
He 17:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 161
Rom. vi. 14-23 ; 1 Cor. vii. 22, 23. This is substantially
what the apostle teaches in this verse. “Be subject, I
beseech you, brethren, to those who have the rule over you,—
remembering that you are freemen, and at the same time not
deeming that you have this freedom as (¢.e. that, possessing it,
a use of éyev somewhat
you have a right to employ it as,
wider than in ver. 12, stretching toward the sense found in
Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26, 46; Phil. 11. 29) a covering of wicked-
ness (a covering fitted to hide wickedness from conscience
and from divine justice), but ever keeping in mind that you
are God’s servants.” On the middle clause, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19,
ZO aGal wv. 13:
As is assumed in the rendering just given, ws seems in this
verse—from the prominence which it has, being used to intro-
duce each clause—to have its frequent subjective force,
“deeming that you are, that you have,” etc. (as in ver. 14).
The repetition of the particle intimates that the apostle would
have all the thoughts distinctly present to the minds of his
readers, the second and third thought modifying the first,
which, taken alone in a certain aspect, might seem to be
inconsistent with the injunction “ Be subject.’ The second ws
might suitably enough be taken with émicadAvpua. But ddrda
before dodXoz plainly answers to wy of the middle clause, and
accordingly ws éxovres must go together, corresponding to ws
dovXoe (6vtes).—Whilst either “cloak” or “veil,” in the familiar
figurative sense of these words, may serve as a translation,
the metaphor in émvKadvppa (a word occurring only here
in N. T.) is quite general ; cf. in LX-X. Ex. xxvi. 14, where the
word is used of the covering of the tabernacle, 2 Sam. xvii.
19, where it is the covering of a cistern—If the article with
xakias be other than simply an indication of the abstract, the
sense must be hypothetical,—* the wickedness which the words
already written, éwxaAvpwa Exovtes, imply as existing in
any one of whom they could truthfully be said.”
Ver. 17. Occasionally, near the end of the apostolic letters,
after the detailed statements, discussions, and appeals, there
L
/
;
'
162 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il., 17;
occur, quite naturally, groups of brief exhortations, given
simply as they presented themselves to the writer's mind, and
in which, therefore, it is not needful or reasonable to look for
a closely connecting line of thought; eg. 1 Thess. v. 15-22.
It is plain, however, that such a group of isolated precepts
could not well present itself naturally in the present part of
our Epistle; and when we find the last precept of ver. 17 to
be “ Honour the king,” and remember the tenor of the context
from ver. 13 onward, we see at once that the clauses of the
verse must be closely associated in thought with each other
and with what precedes, and we have also suggested to us what
the link is. As has been seen from the previous verses, the
peculiar temptation to which partially enlightened Christians
were exposed, as regarded their relation to various forms of
authority, lay in the thought that, being “ the Lord’s freedmen,”
they were thus emancipated from their obligations to their
earthly rulers. But another aspect of their position also
might influence them. They were not free merely ; they were
also, through Christ, placed in a new sphere of life, amid
hew surroundings, under new influences. As these Asiatic
Christians had been expressly told (Eph. ii. 5, 6), they had
been “ quickened with their Lord, and made to sit with Him
in the heavenly places.” Through misunderstanding of this
delightful representation of Christian privilege, there might
(readily arise among persons of a mystical temperament a
belief that, having passed eis Ta émroupdvia, they were released
not only from obedience to earthly authorities, but from all
obligations to unbelievers, and perhaps called on to shun even
ordinary intercourse with them. Being “ children of light,” in
immediate fellowship with “the Lord of glory,” what had Chris-
tians to do any more with men who were only of this world ?
Their duty, it might appear, was solely to “ fear God” and—
the immediate corollary of that—to “love the brotherhood.”
To obviate errors of this kind, the apostle in a singularly
pointed way sums up his teaching on the whole subject by
giving four injunctions, in which the duties liable to be
i hr Ie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 163
questioned are set down with equal definiteness side by side
with those duties which all would admit,—the reader being
thus invited to think out for himself the perfect consistency
with each other, and the various mutual relations, of all the
members of the group of precepts. In this way the group is
made up of two pairs, in each of which is an injunction to a
duty universally recognised by believers, and one to a duty
which, through mistaken views of Christian doctrine, some
might doubt,—the first pair having reference to duties toward
equals, the other to duties involving subordination and
obedience. In the first pair the duty which was questioned
by some stands first, and that which all admitted, second. In
the other pair, the order is reversed. The ground of this
arrangement is obvious, the places of chief prominence and
emphasis—namely, that at the beginning of the series, and that
at the end—being given to those duties regarding which doubts
were or might be entertained, and upon which, therefore, it was
desirable to fix special attention.
“flonour all men. Have respect toman asman. Appreciate
in all those with whom you are brought into contact everything
which is worthy of esteem; and, in all your dealings, show
that you remember that even in those persons who seem base
there are still great possibilities. Perfectly consistent with
this is also a special duty, which, whilst all of you heartily
recognise it, still greatly calls for thought and prayer and
spiritual effort,—love the brotherhood. Then, proceeding to
another class of obligations,—as regards authority over you,
your supreme duty, as you well know, is with holy, loving
reverence to fear God ; and with that duty naturally associates
itself, when the subject is rightly understood, another, which
some of you perhaps may have almost deemed inconsistent
with your relation to God. It is His will, as you have just
been told (vv. 14, 15), that you should respect and obey
magistrates; wherefore, because ye fear God, honour the king.”
It is possible that, as Peter wrote the last two precepts, Prov.
xxiv. 21 was floating before his mind.
164 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pie abe
The fact that the aorist imperative occurs in the first of
the four precepts, and the present imperative in all the others,
arrests attention. Alford suggests that the first really stands
by itself, as the sum of the exhortations, the other three being
an expansion of it; thus, “Give to all their due honour,—to
the brotherhood by loving them,—to God by fearing Him,—
to the king by honouring him.” This view is open to serious
objections. (1) It is at the least doubtful whether it fairly
satisfies the requirements of exegesis, as regards the relation
of the verse to what precedes, and the relation of the several
precepts to each other. (2) From wavtas it excludes a vast
multitude whom naturally one quite decidedly expects to find
included under the word, that great proportion of the human
race who are unconverted. (3) Such a mode of expression,
in which God and His creatures are gathered up under one
term, wavTas, seems utterly alien from the profoundly reveren-
tial mode of speaking found everywhere in Scripture regard-
ing God. The true explanation of the difference of tense
between the first precept and the others is perhaps somewhat
as follows. All four precepts relate to duties of a continued
kind, and thus might fittingly take the present imperative.
In introducing the series, however, and this with the injunc-
tion of a duty respecting which he had reason to believe some
of his readers entertained grave misconceptions, the apostle
naturally expresses himself in the somewhat more pointed
and impassioned form afforded by the aorist imperative-—
which, strictly interpreted, calls for a vigorous effort to begin
“honouring all men.” Being in the introductory precept of
a group, all the members of which from the course of thought
are seen to be closely related to each other, this aorist impera-
tive is felt to give of itself a vigorous tone to the whole
body of injunctions; and, accordingly, in those precepts that
follow, the apostle naturally enough falls into the other tense,
which brings out the continuousness of the obligation —
"Aderporns, found in N. T. only here and in v. 9, has
in both passages the collective meaning which, in words
II. 18-25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 165
of this kind, readily springs out of the original abstract sense,
just as in English with the equivalent term “ brotherhood,”
and many others; cf. tepdtevpa (vv. 5, 9).
Vy. 18-25. On the duty of servants to obey their masters.
Carrying forward his series of exhortations to duties arising
out of special relations, the apostle proceeds now to the duty
of servants to their masters. The fact that the construction
in ver. 18 is not by a main verb, but by a participle, shows
(see discussion of the construction below, in note on the verse)
how close in the writer's mind was the connection between
this section and the preceding,—specially with votaynte
(ver. 15). This grammatical dependence of the passage on
ver. 13 plainly makes highly probable what has in previous
notes been suggested, that by avOpwrivn xticws in that verse
is intended, not civil government alone, but generally such
institutions—springing indeed out of the needs of that social
life to which God has called man, but in their form deter-
mined by man himself—as involve some measure of subjec-
tion of one to another.
The word ofxétaz, “ domestics,’ employed by the apostle in
the 18th verse (cf. Luke xvi. 13; Acts x. 7; and see Trench,
Syn. N. T. § 9), is not absolutely limited in usage to slaves,
and is perhaps purposely used here in place of doddoe, in
order to include the freedmen and freedwomen, of whom in
large households there were often considerable numbers acting
in various capacities as servants. Still undoubtedly, both from
the predominant use of the word,—so decidedly predomi-
nant that eg. in Esdr. iii. 19 otxérns is placed in direct
antithesis to éAev@epos,—and from what we know of the
arrangements of social life among those to whom the Epistle
was written, by far the most of the persons here addressed
were slaves. Here, accordingly,—just as in the previous
section regarding obedience to magistrates, where, in the first
166 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 18-25.
instance, the precept enjoined obedience to Nero,—we have
an extreme case. The slavery which existed everywhere
throughout the Roman Empire was of a most oppressive
character. Kind and considerate masters were no doubt to
be found; but the nature of the system permitted the grossest
eruelties, and, as always in such cases, selfishness and brutality
often took advantage of the permission. Slaves had practi-
eally no legal rights, the law holding them pro nulls, pro
mortuis, pro quadrupedibus. In persons thus situated who
became Christians it was obviously natural in the highest
degree that the assurance of their freedom in Christ would
lead to such thoughts as these: “Can it possibly be that I,
Christ’s freedman, a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, a child
of God, am to remain the bondman of this heathen, himself a
slave of Satan?” Or, supposing the master to be a Christian,
the slave’s thought would naturally be, “Since he and I are
brethren, it cannot be that in any sense I should continue his
bondman, and therefore, even if he fail to see his duty in the
matter, I have a right to assert my freedom and leave him,
or, should I remain in his house, claim in everything the
equality of a brother.”
The apostle’s teaching on the subject is the same as that
which he had given respecting obedience to magistrates: “Be
subject, and this not merely through fear of punishment, but
for conscience’ sake. Your obligation, too, is not dependent
on the treatment which you receive: to harsh no less than to
kind masters give obedience,—remembering, indeed, that it is
in your demeanour under cruel dealing, in your maintenance
of respectfulness and patience towards exacting and oppres-
sive masters, that the distinctively Christian character which
is acceptable in the sight of God is especially shown.” Such
is the apostle’s exhortation. Similar teaching is found also
in all the references made by Paul to the subject, which are
numerous,—slaves evidently forming a large proportion every-
where of the members of the primitive Church: cf. Eph. vi.
5-8; Col) 13. 22-25; 1 Tim. vi. 1,.2. A most ‘striking
II. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Le?
practical application of the principle enunciated, too, was
given by Paul in sending back the fugitive slave Onesimus to
his former master Philemon. The same doctrine with regard
to the duty of slaves was faithfully maintained by the Church
also after the death of the apostles. In The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, iv. 11, we have the injunction, vpeis dé,
SovAo, UrotayjoecGe Tois Kuplow tuov ws TYTM Oeod ev
atcxvvyn kat doo. Christianity was assuredly to be “the
world-wide revolutionist of the ages” (Lillie), overthrowing
all the strongholds of Satan, and among them the awful
iniquity of slavery; but this was to be accomplished, not by
convulsion, but through the gradual working of principles.
It was not the will of Christ that there should be household
rebellions, or servile wars, or general social chaos. “ Nothing ©
indeed marks the divine character of the gospel more than
its perfect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of
political revolution. The Founder of Christianity and His
apostles were surrounded by everything which could tempt
human reformers to enter on revolutionary courses... .
Nevertheless our Lord and His apostles said not a word
against the powers and institutions of that evil world. Their
attitude towards them was that of deep spiritual hostility,
and of entire political submission” (Goldwin Smith, quoted
by Salmond).
The apostle, dwelling specially on patience under wrong,
supports his exhortation by the example of the Saviour
(vv. 21-23); and, having touched on this, rests lovingly and
expatiates for a little, as every Christian heart does when the
sufferings of Christ come before it, on their atoning purpose
and power (vv. 24, 25). Fora fuller analysis of this latter
part of the section, see below, note on ver. 22.
Ver. 18. The participial construction has been explained in
various ways,—some expositors supposing that here, and in
several other passages, the participle has in itself the force of
an imperative (on which view cf. note on éyovtes, ver. 12),—
others supplying the imperative of the substantive verb, some
168 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 18.
of them in the second person, others in the third. None of
these methods, however, is necessary, or altogether natural.
The fact that both in this section and in the next (iii. 1 foll.)
the special duty enjoined is subjection, and that both sections
are introduced by the participle of that same verb of which
the imperative is given in ver. 13, naturally leads a reader to
think that in the apostle’s mind the same general exhortation
was being carried forward with different special references.
Through obvious correlation with the precept of iii. 1, again,
that of ui. 7, though not enjoining subjection, is felt still to
belong to the same series ; and, falling under the more general
exhortation of ii. 11, 12, which leads into the vaotdynre of
ver. 13, it also has a participial form. Still further, through
this wider reference of iii. 7, the participial construction is
carried forward into the quite general exhortation of ii. 8.
Granting therefore that the structure of modern languages
may render it desirable, for the sake of clearness, to make
the sections grammatically distinct, introducing each by an
imperative of its own; yet the exhortation seems plainly to
have taken in the writer’s mind the form of one great precept,
branching out by means of participles in various directions,—
the earlier sections standing attached closely to tzrotaynte of
ver. 13 (still felt by a reader to be the main verb of the
paragraph, notwithstanding the group of short imperative
clauses in ver. 17), the later sections, in a way hardly
recognised by rigid grammatical law, yet quite natural and
intelligible, to the general call to holiness implied in d7rotaynre
and distinctly given in vv. 11, 12.
Oc otkéras is naturally taken with the force of a vocative,
according to a use of the nominative with the article which is
common in N. T., and is found sometimes also in classical
writers, though probably rather a colloquialism: cf. Winer,
p. 227; A. Buttmann, p. 140. Our nearest idiomatic repre-
sentative of the article thus used is perhaps the pronoun of
the second person joined to a word of address, as here “ Ye
servants.”—In év mavti ¢do8w we have the atmosphere—the
Il. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 169
spirit—of the enjoined subjection. Some have taken foo
here to mean “fear of God,” or “of Christ,” referring in
support of this view to Eph. v. 21; Jude 23. In the
former of these passages, however, Xpiotov is expressed,
the precept given, moreover, not being at all closely similar
to the present; and in the passage in Jude the meaning
of the words év ¢08 does not seem to be “in the fear of
God.” Whilst, of course, in a Christian the fear of God
will always be the grand influence constraining to the
cherishing of any spirit or the following of any course which
God enjoins, the immediate reference of @oB8os in our passage
seems clearly to be to fear of the master; and really analogous
passages are Rom. xiii. 7; Eph. v. 33. The best rendering of
oo as thus used is probably “reverence.” However little
there may often be in a master’s character to awaken or sustain
the sentiment of reverence, still the relation in which he stands
to his servants is one legitimately calling on them to cherish
this sentiment; and their duty is to regard him as being
their master through an arrangement of the Providence of
Him who is always and infinitely worthy of reverence. The
practical outcome of this “reverence” for a master will be
“fear” of neglecting duty in any respect, and anxious solici-
tude to be free from all grounds of just reproach. These two
thoughts, standing in such close connection with each other,
may reasonably be supposed to have been both before the
apostle’s mind in writing ¢o8o. In a parallel passage on the
duty of slaves, Eph. vi. 5, we have the yet stronger expres-
sion for “fear” employed, peta doBov cal tpopov (cf. Phil.
ii, 12; 2 Cor. vii. 15), and also an explicit statement of the
principle underlying the enjoined @oBos, which at once leads
us to a correct apprehension of its nature, bmaxoveTe . . . OS
T® Xpiote.—Hlarti, whilst best translated “all,” is strictly
every kind of,” ae. practically, “full and abiding
reverence and solicitude;” cf. i. 24, note.
"AyaGots here means obviously “good” as regarded from a
servant’s point of view,—ze. “kind :” cf. Tit. ii, 5; 1 Thess.
? 6
TiOVeEnys
170 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IT 19.
ill, 6.—Of emsecxéow the precise force appears to be “ con-
siderate and forbearing:” cf. Phil. iv. 5; Acts xxiv. 4, and
see Tench, Syn. N. T. § 43. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. 25)
has the combination évetxeva kal mpaorys, qualities which, he
says, are seen Tov Tadov jpepwOévT@y.— J Kodtos in its meta-
phorical use presents an image which is universally under-
stood. Employed first of paths, as in LXX., Prov. u. 15,
ap at Tpi8or cxkorai, it connects itself also readily with the
persons themselves who walk in the crooked paths, as Deut.
xxxii. 5; Phil. ii. 15, yeved oxodsa cai dvectpappévn, “a genera-
tion who—instead of having a character of rectitude, straight-
ness in the line of the divine will
are in all things crooked
and contorted.” As employed in the present passage with
reference to masters, and opposed to “good and considerate,”
we may perhaps—remembering that both classes of masters
were no doubt in most cases heathen, and that not improbably
therefore the apostle was thinking of varieties of natural
temperament, at least as much as of character based on prin-
ciple—take the precise application of the image to be some-
what like that of the similar figure in our own colloquial
adjective ‘“cross,’—much stronger, however, in its suggestion
of harshness than “ cross.” A deootns oxoALds is one Whom
his servants find it almost impossible to please, because, when
they have worked along the line which from his former
utterances seemed likely to satisfy him, they find always
that his likings have twisted themselves into a new direction.
Caprice, exactingness, and harshness seem all implied in the
epithet. ‘“ Perverse,” or the old word “ froward,” represents
the image or one similar, but “harsh” is perhaps the best
rendering.
Ver. 19. In this and the following verses the apostle
dwells on the relation of servants to decrotas oKoduol, as
being that in which the temptation to rebellious self-assertion
was greatest, and in which therefore the ennobling power of
Christian principle could specially reveal itself. It appears,
too, from the line which his observations take, that, as-regarded
II. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ola L
“being subject” to their masters, whilst, of course, he had
before his thoughts the faithful performance of ordinary daily
duty, yet with respect to the case of those servants who had
harsh masters, his mind turned specially, as was natural, to
their demeanour under undeserved chiding or chastisement.
Their duty in such trying circumstances, he would bave them
clearly see, was to resist stedfastly the strong temptation to
sullenness or passion or disrespectful conduct; “for this is
acceptable, — namely, if a man for consciousness of God
patiently endures troubles, suffering unjustly.”
According to a familiar N. T. usage, the demonstrative as
formal subject is employed to point to a coming clause, which
is the real subject. This clause might have been in the
infinitive, but—also according to a common N. T. construction
—is thrown into another form introduced by a conjunction ; cf.
Winer, p. 403.—The use of the neuter of the pronoun in Tov7o
apis (€o7t) here and in the next verse is in itself natural,
and similar constructions are found occasionally in Greek
writers of all ages. On the whole, however, it accords with
the idiom of modern rather than with that of the classical
languages, a pronominal subject being in these, as a rule, made
to agree in gender with the predicate: cf. John i. 19, xvii. 3,
and see Winer, p. 650; A. Buttmann, p. 128. In the present
passage the Vulgate rendering is, hwe est gratia— With regard
to yapis here a natural thought is that it is=yapiopa
(1 Cor. vii. 7), “a gift from God’s grace,” a spiritual beauty
which proves the working of grace on the soul. In ver. 20,
however, the apostle, for clearness and impressiveness, fills up
the expression with the words mapa Oe, “in God’s sight ;”
instead of which, supposing yapes to have been in the writer's
mind equivalent to yapiopa, one would have expected rather
mapa Oecod, “from God” (cf. ée Qeod, 1 Cor. vii. 7). Look-
ing at the cast of the thought in vv. 19; 20, it seems by far
most probable that ydpis is used in the same way as
in Luke vi. 32, 33, “If ye love them that love you, if
ye do good to them that do good to you, mova tply
172 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {II. 19.
xXapis €o7iy ;” and indeed it is difficult to resist the impression
that that saying of our Lord was present to the apostle’s
mind. Now the parallel passage, Matt. v. 46, has téva puo@ov
exete (cf. also ver. 35 in Luke),—which shows that yapus
must have some such force as “approving recognition,” a
sense of the word tending towards, but not identical with,
that which it bears in the familiar expression ydpu éxew, “ to
thank.” Compare also the Homily formerly known as Ep. ii.
of Clem. Rom. § 13, and Ignat. Polyc. § 2, the former being a
free citation of the passage just quoted from Luke, and the
other an obvious imitation. In our present passage we may
take todTo ydpis as a condensed mode of expression, “ this is
(means, certainly brings) approving recognition ;” exactly as
in Phil. i. 22, rodtd ow Kaprros epyou, “this is (means, brings)
fruit of labour.” It does not seem needful to go farther, and
assume that the apostle uses ydpis directly in the sense of
“an acceptable act or course of conduct.” It suffices that
practically, according to the explanation just given, todTo
xXapis is equivalent to todto evdpeotov (or amodexTov) eoTWw
(ef Coli 20s 1) Mima 3);
In the word cuveiénois the preposition of the compound
points to the reflective action of the mind, the mind’s con-
ference, so to speak, with itself. The special reference of the
word therefore, as distinguished from yv@ous, is to the mind’s
acquaintance with itself, particularly its acquaintance with
what has been written by God on the tablets of the heart
regarding Himself and regarding right and wrong, and with
the dealings of the soul in relation to right and wrong. In
the great majority of the cases of its occurrence in N. T., the
word is used either absolutely or with a possessive genitive,
and has precisely’the force of our English “conscience,” in the
free popular use of that word. In only one other passage
where the reading is certain, besides the present, is it con-
strued with a genitive of object,—viz. Heb. x. 2, cuveidnouw
dpapti@v, “conscience, or consciousness, of sins.” In 1 Cor.
vill. 7, cvverdnoes Tov eidHXov, “ consciousness of the idol,” ze.
II. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. aa
seemingly, consciousness of it as a kind of mind - haunting
presence, cuvnfeia appears to have better authority than
guvedyncet, In the place now before us, cuvetdnois Oeod
cannot well mean anything else than “consciousness of God,”
—hknowledge of God and of His relations to us, and this
present in consciousness, remembered, thought of, and thus
influential over the affections and conduct. This is, no
doubt, what is intended by the somewhat peculiar phrase
employed by both A. and R. E. V., “conscience toward God.”
—Avras—like “griefs” often in the older English, and
sometimes still—has, as occasionally, the force of “troubles,
vexations, causes of grief” (so Philo, Jund. Opif., Mang.
p. 40). Our word “ grievances” nearly corresponds to this
use,—only that, as commonly employed, it suggests in itself
blame to some one, which Ava does not do. The verb
utogépetv, which sometimes is no more than simply “to
undergo,” indicating in itself nothing as to the spirit of the
sufferer (2 Tim. 11. 11), is evidently to be taken here (as in
1 Cor. x. 13), according to a natural tendency of words of
this class in all languages, precisely with the force of U7rouevew
of the next verse, “to bear with patience, with holy resolu-
tion.” —The adverb aéicws is placed at the end of the clause
with marked emphasis, the undeservedness of harsh treatment
being, as is illustrated in the following verse, the test of the
honourableness of the suffering, and of its claim to be a
brightener of Christian hope.
Ver. 20. “To bear punishment quietly and submissively,
if one has done wrong, is no doubt a creditable thing as
compared with accepting the chastisement in a sullen spirit,
or with rudeness and rebellion; but what kind of (zoiov)
eredit or glory is this in the eyes of any self-respecting man,
not to say a Christian! (cf. Luke vi, 32-34). On the other
hand, if a man who does well,—who faithfully executes the
charge entrusted to him,—and who for that very well-doing
suffers through the caprice or brutality of his master, bears
this gross injustice patiently, this is acceptable in God’s sight.”
174 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LIT. 20.
The two present participles dwaptavovtes Kat Kohapifouevot
come in naturally here, in place of what, looking simply at
the order of time, might have been expected, duaptijcavtes
Kat Kkoradifouevot. This latter form would have been in
place, had isolated acts of wrong- doing and of consequent
punishment been before the apostle’s mind; but the question
in hand being one of character, he has the present participle
of both verbs, representing the case as one of continuance, a
course of wrong-doing and receiving chastisement. Similarly
in the other clause with aya@orovodvTes Kat macxovtes. The
future Uropevetre, used in both clauses, answers to the same
mode of representation: “if, to one looking down your lives
from the present moment, the field of vision shall be found
occupied with wrong-doing and punishment,” or, in the other
case, “with well-doing and suffering for it.’—Kodadgiew, per-
fectly rendered by our English “ buffet,” sets before us
primarily what was no doubt often the punishment of slaves
for the lighter class of misdemeanours, a smart stroke of the
hand on the cheek, and then, according to the secondary use of
the word, rough handling generally: cf. Matt. xxvi. 67 ;
1 Cor. iv. 11.—In the Gospels the verb aya@o7ovety follows
the special sense of dya@os exemplified in ver. 18,—meaning
“to do good, to act beneficently :” see Mark ii. 4; Luke vi.
9,33, 35. In the Epistles (3 John 11, and several times in
Peter) it follows the general sense of the adjective,—*to do
well, act rightly.” Similarly the nouns dya@orouwa and
ayaborows are used by Peter, who alone has them, with the
sense respectively of “well-doing” and “ well-doer:” see iv.
19, ii 14.—The combination ayaSotro.odvtTes Kal TwacyovTes
might quite fairly mean “doing well and yet (simply as a
matter of fact, without the suggestion of any connection of
cause and effect) suffering;” but the antithesis duaptavovtes
Kat Koradilouevor, where manifestly a causal connection is
intended, makes it in a high degree likely that here also this
was in the writer’s thoughts,—“ doing well and suffering jor
it.” It accords with universal experience that a brutal, low-
Ll. 2t.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ye.
minded master, irritated by that feeling of moral inferiority
which was awakened in him by the sight of the virtuous
conduct of his slave, might in many cases subject the slave
to cruel treatment, professedly perhaps for some pretended
fault, but really, as the slave himself, and everybody around
knew, because of the well-doing.—As to todto yapis, see note
on ver. 19; and on wapa Oe@, in its present connection, cf.
Luke ii. 52.
Ver. 21. “ Patient endurance of wrong, I say, is acceptable
in God’s sight, for this is one most important element of that
experience to which you were summoned by Him when He
called you in conversion. You cannot doubt this, because, as
you know (674, as often, of evidence, rather than of strict
causality), Jesus also, your Forerunner, suffered for you, leaving
you an example to the intent that you might follow His
footsteps, — and this alike as regards not shrinking from
suffering which by God’s appointment comes to you in the
path of your duty, and as regards the mode of bearing the
suffering.”
Tovro here, as is evident from the line of thought, has
substantially the same reference as in todTo yapus immediately
preceding; only the mind naturally takes it now with a
general reference, as pointing to patient endurance of wrong
of any kind. The divine “ call,” being to the exhibition of a
certain spiritual excellence, includes, of course, also a call to
the field in which alone that excellence can be shown—a
call, that is to say, to carry out Christian principles manfully
in the face of a world which hates Christ, and to accept the
sufferings which the world’s hostility may inflict; cf. John
xv. 18-21. On nothing did our Lord in His personal
teaching lay more stress than on the fact that the very calling
to be a disciple involves a calling to take up the cross and
follow Him; cf. Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24; Luke xiv. 27.—The
verb macyew, simply by itself, appears to have been from
a very early time in frequent use among Christians as a
summary term for the Lord’s expiatory sufferings generally,
4
176 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II 21.
including along with His death—to which, of course, the
word mainly pointed—also the agony in the garden, and the
mockeries and brutalities of the trial (eg. cf. Acts i. 5; Heb.
xiii. 12),—the usage being founded indeed on His own
words spoken on the evening before His crucifixion (Luke
xr 1).
In the connection of this verse with the preceding, v7ep
juav is naturally taken as meant to remind the readers of
the personal blamelessness of the Saviour, His sufferings
being purely vicarious; and to this thought xa’ before
Xpictos points forward, presenting the parallelism between
the case of the Lord and that of those slaves just spoken of
who suffered for well-doing,—“ for Christ also suffered, though
Himself innocent, yea, suffered for well-doing.” At the same
time the words set forth prominently the grand motive which
impels Christians to holy obedience (2 Cor. v. 14, 15)—
specially, in the connection, to holy obedience in the way ot
patience under trial: “If He suffered for you, you will not
shrink from suffering which He sends, and which is calculated,
through your spiritual growth under it, to redound to His
praise.” — In hearing the English expression “suffered for
you,” we feel that,,as regards the sense of the preposition
“for,” the ideas of “on behalf of,’ and “in room of,” both
pass before us; and similarly, when we remember the famili-
arity to the N. T. writers of the doctrine that Christ gave
Himself as a ransom for sinners, it seems probable that,
where used as here, v7rép, strictly “on behalf of,’ had also in
their minds the substitutionary reference ; cf. Winer, p. 479.
In the majority of instances, as in the present, there is
nothing in the context decisive on this point, and therefore
the statement made in such passages cannot with safety be
taken as beyond question equivalent to those in which the
preposition is av7é (as Matt. xx. 28); but certainly, at all
events, in 2 Cor. v. 14, to give validity to the apostle’s
argument, t7ép mavTwv, it would seem, must mean “ instead
of all.”
II. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 17%
The prominent position of vuéy in its clause plainly gives
to it a strong emphasis, which a reader feels also to be some-
what added to by the fact that the word immediately follows
umép yuav. The force is perhaps something like this, “to
all His people, doubtless, but to you, in your peculiar cir-
cumstances, with special fulness and exactness, leaving an
example.”—The enlarged form wt7rodturavw, for vroreira,
occurs here only in N. T. The exact time and shade of
thought probably intended by the apostle in the participle
UToNuTravey are indicated by Bengel with his characteristic
terseness,—in abitu ad Patrem.—‘Trroypappos, here only in
N. T., was primarily used for a writing or drawing copy, put
before pupils by their teachers (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 8. 50),
and then naturally for the rule implied in a prescribed copy,
or, as here, simply for an example (— d7rodeeypa, John xiii. 15;
Jas. v. 10); ef. 2 Macc. 11. 28; Clem. Rom. §§ 5,16, 33;
Polye. § 8. The fact that immediately, in the clause intro-
duced by t&a, Peter passes into the quite different figure of
following the footsteps of a leader, seems to show that the
image in the word droypaupos was not vividly, or perhaps
not at all, present to his mind.
In one minute feature the beautiful and instructive picture
given us in the last clause of this verse, of the Lord’s people
following their divine Forerunner down into the valley of
humiliation, may be differently conceived. The verb é7a-
ko\ovGew being regularly construed with a dative (1 Tim.
v. 10, 24), the meaning may be “Follow His footsteps” as
cuides ; or, Tots tyveow being used in N.T. in the sense of
“in the footsteps” (Rom. iv. 12 with croyetv, and 2 Cor. xii.
18 with wepuratety), it may be “ Follow (Him, treading) in
His footsteps.” Striking and vivid as this latter representation
is, yet perhaps the former construction is to be preferred, as
being the more obvious——Some expositors would give to
érraxoNovéeiv here an intensive force, translating thus, “that ye
may follow closely (or earnestly).” That quite naturally, in
accordance with its use to indicate motion towards and to
M
178 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LET. 22-95.
mark addition, the preposition éz/ in composition does some-
times give greater intensity to the signification of the word
with which it is compounded, is certain,—the best illustration
of this power in the N. T. being perhaps in ézruywooKev as
contrasted with the simple yueokew (eg. 1 Cor. xiii. 12).
The particular verb now before us, too, is in 1 Tim. v. 10
rendered both by A. and R. E. V. “ to follow diligently,” which
is perfectly suitable there, as it would be here also. On the
other hand, the verb, in the only other two places where it
oceurs in N. T., Mark xvi. 20, 1 Tim. v. 24, is employed—
as in any language compounds which were originally strength-
ening are apt to be, when they come into frequent use—in a
sense not appreciably different from that of the simple verb.
It may be doubted, therefore, whether in any of the places a
special force was intended in the use of the compound.
Vv. 22-25. We have now a series of relative clauses in
which, in the first place (vv. 22, 23), the relevancy of an
appeal to the Saviour’s example, in consequence of the paral-
lelism of the cases—already indicated in a summary way in
the words évaGev v7rép tyav—is fully and formally set forth:
(a) He was absolutely innocent (ver. 22); yet (8) He suffered,
and in His sufferings He showed perfect meekness and
patience (ver. 23). Then, in the second place, the apostle
proceeds to expand yet further the éva@ev vrép tuov, remind-
ing his readers that, whilst Christ’s sufferings have an aspect
of example, they bring before us also the expiation of our sin,
and thus present to us the most powerful motives to follow
the example of the Lord’s patience and holy beauty of
character: (vy) He died for our sins, to the intent that we
might live to holiness (ver. 24, down to the word jowper) ;
and (6) by His wounds His people have, in fact, been spiritu-
ally healed (ver. 24, last clause, and ver. 25). Whilst in
nowise rhetorically wrought up, but perfectly simple and
natural in structure, this passage must be felt by every
attentive reader to be one of singular beauty and impressive-
ness.
7
LG PPI FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 179
Ver. 22. Throughout the whole passage, vv. 22—25, the
apostle’s mind is plainly dwelling much on the great predic-
tion of Messiah as a Sufferer, which is contained in the 53rd
chapter of Isaiah. Ver. 22 is a quotation of the latter part of
the 9th verse of that chapter, varying from the LX.X. rendering,
as it stands in Codex A, only by the substitution of dpaptiav
for avopiav. The passage, as here used by the apostle, is
evidently one of the highest interest and importance, in its
connection with the great apologetic argument based on the
perfection of the character of Christ. Peter, one of the very
inmost circle of those who were privileged to enjoy the com-
panionship of the Lord, makes the prophet’s words his own,
and thus most plainly sets to his seal that they are true to
the very letter. He testifies that in Jesus, as seen by him
for years in public and in private, amid most varied circum-
stances,—tested by the special temptations connected with
great popularity, and by the special temptations connected
with bitter opposition,—there was absolute spotlessness of
character. He was pure in conduct, “doing no sin;” and in
speech—notwithstanding innumerable snares laid for Him,
and the closest listening of many who were eager to find Him
in fault (this is pointed to by the word etpé6y)—there was
absolute freedom from “ guile,’ — from duplicity, evasion,
falsehood in any form,—so that He approved Himself the
“perfect man” who “ offendeth not in word” (Jas. i. 2).
Precisely similar testimony regarding the Lord’s character to
that which is borne here by Peter is given also, it will be
remembered, by another of the specially privileged three
apostles—* In Him is no sin” (1 John iii. 5).—In the use
of the aorists ésroénoev and evpé6n the Lord’s life is looked at,
not in its extension and variety, but as a unity, constituting,
so to speak, a point in history; cf. John xvii. 4, éd0faca. This
is in itself striking, as showing that moral oneness, as it stood
out before Peter’s memory, of the eminently full and varied
life of the Lord, which made him feel it quite natural to
employ for himself the aorists of the LXX. The life seemed
180 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Ln 23.
to him to form one great act of holiness. In the next verse,
no less naturally, the many scenes and varied forms in which
Christ was exposed to “the contradiction of sinners” come
up to the apostle’s thoughts, and thus we have imperfects.
—On the frequent use in N. T., in place of the simple sub-
stantive verb, of the verb evpicxec@ar, by which a lively
picture of seekers and finders is presented to view, cf. Winer,
p. 769.
Ver. 23. It can hardly be doubted, looking at the abundant
use of Isa. liij. in the context, that in this verse, whilst not
quoting but expanding, the apostle had in his mind the
7th verse of that chapter, which describes Messiah as
under oppression “ opening not His mouth, as a sheep before
her shearers is dumb.’—-The present participles point us to
the many occasions on which He was reviled, as a Sabbath-
breaker, a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a blasphemer, a
man in league with Satan, and the like, and to the various
forms and stages of His sufferings ; under all of which, as the
imperfects tell us, He displayed an absolute freedom from the
spirit of revenge. The stern warnings which He often gave
to the careless and hostile were manifestly of a nature totally
distinct from revilings or utterances of revenge, and indeed
directly opposed, being spoken with deep solemnity and deep
sorrow, and in the spirit of yearning love. In Aodopovpevos,
followed by macywv, we have evidently an advance from
hatred shown in words to hatred shown in action, and
similarly with dvredowdopes and areiAer,—arrerdeiv being the
threatening of retaliatory action—As to the force of dé in a
sentence of this kind—not, strictly speaking, standing in cor-
respondence with the previous ov«, as dAdXa would have done,
but, as by a kind of afterthought, introducing a new statement
on the subject in a positive form, and answering, therefore, to
some such English expression as “ yea, rather,’ or “on the
contrary ’—see Winer, p. 551, and Alford’s note on Heb, ii. 6;
and cf. Acts xii. 9,14; Heb. 11. 9.
Whilst the general sense of the second part of the verse is
II. 23.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 181
obvious, yet the precise thought which was present to the
apostle’s mind in writing tapedidov is not altogether clear.
Considering the frequent intransitive or reflexive use of many
verbs properly transitive (ayew, émurtpépew KTX.),—the natu-
ralness of this use in such verbs as wapadvdovat, as illustrated
by the similar use of “yield” and “surrender” in English,—and
the actual reflexive use of this very verb now and again in the
LXX. (Isa. xlvii. 3, and, as read in Codex A, Josh. xi. 19), and
once, perhaps, in N. T. (Mark iv. 29), one may quite fairly take
the force of the word to be reflexive here, and translate thus,
“committed Himself.” It must be acknowledged, however,
that, for a word which occurs very many times in N. T., the
authority supporting this reflexive use is exceedingly scanty ;
and even in the one place in Mark some excellent interpreters,
as Meyer, Bleek, and the Revisers of the E. V., give the verb
a transitive force, “to allow.” In our present passage, also,
many scholars hold it to be transitive, the object in the writer's
mind being an unemphatic “ it,’ which, as usual in such
”
cases, is omitted. This “it” may represent “‘ His cause,’—an
object suggested by the scope of the clause, and specially by
T@ Kpivovtt, Both the A. and R. E. V., while putting “com-
mitted Himself” in the text, have in the margin, as an
alternative, “committed His cause.’ More natural, perhaps,
than either is the view that the understood “it” designates
TO AoLdopeto Far Kai TO Tacyev, taken out of the participles :
Jesus did not deal with this Himself in the way of repaying
it by counter revilings and threats, but gave it all over into
the hands of the Righteous Judge. Others, instead of “it,”
prefer the shghtly more remote, and thus not quite so easy,
i.e. those who reviled Him and inflicted
?
supplement “ them,’
the sufferings. Short discussions regarding the use of wape-
di6ov in this passage will be found in Winer, p. 738, and A.
Buttmann, p. 145. The sense of the statement is obviously in
substance very nearly the same, on any view as to the exact
nature of the construction,—“ From the midst of the cruelties
and ribaldries of men Jesus always looked away to heaven,
182 FIKST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 24.
and gave over the whole matter to Him who sees all actions
and all hearts, and who alike on Him and on His foes would
give righteous judgement.” The absolutely pure, unrevengeful,
loving spirit of this “committing to God” is illustrated by the
prayer offered from the cross——With 7@ xpivovts dixaiws, cf.
i. 17, Tov ampoowrTodnpTTes Kpivovta. The Vulgate has here
the singular rendering “ tradebat autem judicanti se injuste;”
as if reading ad/cws, and taking the reference to be to the Lord’s
meek surrender of Himself to the unjust judge Caiaphas or
Pilate. This reading has no Greek authority, and is self-
condemned, because the imperfect mapedidou (tradebat) plainly
points, like ov« avtedoidoper and ov« retires, to the Lord’s
conduct, not exclusively at the trial and crucifixion, but
throughout His whole ministry. This mistranslation is
interesting chiefly as being one specialty of the Vulgate,
which even Roman Catholic scholars cannot agree to defend,—
Estius, for example, making the admission that “librariorum
incuria in Codicibus Latinis legitur injuste pro juste.”
Ver. 24. “In the sufferings of Christ we have set before
us, not merely a perfect example of the meek endurance of
wrong, but also the most powerful motive to follow this
example, because His sufferings and death were for the expia-
tion of our sins, and this to the intent that, saved thereby, we
should live to holiness.”
With respect to the exact form of the apostle’s thought in
the first clause of this verse, different views are possible. In
connection with sacrifice, the verb avadépew is used by the
Hellenistic writers in two shades of meaning—(1) “to offer,
present,” and this either with mention of the altar (ézt To
O@votactyptov), as Jas. ii. 21, Gen. viii. 20, or without such
mention, as ver. 5 of this chapter, Judg. xi. 31; (2) “to
bear,” said of the victim on whose head sin is laid, as Heb.
ix. 28; Isa. lili 11, 12,—this latter use of the verb being
in accordance with an occasional classical use, “to sustain,
bear,” wars, or perils, or troubles of any kind (cf. Thucyd.
iii. 38, xuvdvvous; Polyb. i. 36. 3, POovous). The fact that
Il. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 183
émi To EvNoy stands in our present passage has led Luther,
Lechler, and one or two other expositors—taking these words
as answering to ézl To @vcvactyprov—to think that here our
Lord is said to have, as a Priest, “offered our sins in His
body on the tree,’—our sins being viewed as in the eye of
divine justice so identified with Christ that in His death
judgement came down upon them, or, so to speak, they were
consumed on the altar of the cross by the fire of God. But
this is a mode of representation for which there seems to be
no Scripture analogy; and &vdov, as employed in our passage
(on which see below), is not fitted to suggest the idea of an
altar, but only of an instrument for the execution of a capital
sentence. Others, putting aside the special sacrificial uses of
avapépe, revert to its primary sense (as in Matt. xvii. 1),
regarding the apostle’s thought to be that Jesus carried our
sins as a burden laid upon Him all through the journey of
His earthly life, and up to the tree; some thinking also that
perhaps by és ro EvXov is meant to be suggested some such
idea as that our sins were carried by the Saviour to the tree
to be nailed there, that they might oppress no more (cf. Col.
il. 14).
On the whole, the most natural and satisfactory interpreta-
tion appears to be that which is given by both A. and R. E. V.,
—“bore our sins on (upon) the tree.” A really decisive
argument with regard to the sense in which the apostle uses
avyveyxev seems to lie in the fact that he is here expanding a
statement of Isaiah, and cannot well be thought to employ
the central word of the statement in a different sense from
the prophet. It cannot, indeed, be demonstrated that when
Peter wrote Tas dwaptias uav avdtos avynveyxev, he was think-
ing of Isaiah’s adros dpaptias modkdNOv avijveyxev (liii. 12),
with the order of words perhaps affected by the chiming in
his memory also of the closing statement of the verse imme-
diately preceding, tas duaptias attav adtos dvoice; but
when we compare the passages, and bear in mind that, accord-
ing to distinct evidence afforded by the context immediately
184 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (If. 24.
preceding and immediately following, the 53rd chapter of
Isaiah was much before the apostle’s mind throughout the
section, there certainly seems to be an exceedingly high pro-
bability that the clause under consideration is to be deemed
an expansion of Isaiah’s words. Now, beyond reasonable
question, the use of ayjveycev in the LXX. rendering of the
passage of Isaiah is in the sense of “bore” as a sacrificial
victim, bore for expiation. With the view that this is also
the sense in which Peter uses it, the added words év To
cwpate avtov accord well, better, perhaps, than with any of
the other interpretations; for by the preposition év the field
or sphere of the dyjveyxev is set forth, which fits perfectly
with a simple reference to Christ’s “ bearing our sins” in His
propitiatory sufferings (cf. Col. i. 22). In émi to EvXov again
there does not really lie any obstacle to our aecepting this
view of the meaning; for, according to a tendency seen per-
haps in all languages, éwi with the accusative, like several
other prepositions of motion, is in N. T. often construed with
verbs which do not in themselves imply motion,—the thought
of prior motion being easily supplied by the mind; ef. chap.
iv. 14; Matt. xviii, 12; Mark iv. 38; Rev. v. 1. Thus the
force of the expression is quite adequately given by the R. E. V.
when for “on” of the rendering of the A. V. “ bare our sins in
His own body on the tree,” it substitutes the preposition of
motion “upon,”’—this “ upon” suggesting “ when lifted upon.”
It does not appear therefore to be at all needful to resort,
with some scholars, to the supposition that whilst the ruling
sense of avveyxev in the passage is “bore” as Propitiation, the
idea of motion also is to be directly derived from the verb
taken in its primary sense,—thus, “who bore our sins in His
body to the tree, and as a victim bore them on it.” No
inartificial writer, such as our apostle, would be in the least
likely to use one word to express two thoughts so considerably
divergent from each other as “carried up” and “bore as a
victim ;” and no reader would ever naturally understand tlie
word to be thus used.
II. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 18d
The emphasis given by avtos appears to express some such
thought as this—“ Measureless as are such love and condescen-
sion, yet not through any subordinate agent, not through any
arrangement apart from His own substitution for us, was our re-
demption wrought out, but He Himself bore our sins.” The A.V.
brings out a similar emphasis also in the words “in His own
body;” but the meaning seems rather to be simply, as the hk. V.
has it, “in His body.” Such evidence as is attainable appears to
show that in N. T. the reflexive pronoun of the third person is
almost always written fully éavrovd «7X., and therefore that
where, as here, the form avtod occurs, it is to be written with
a spiritus lenis, avtov; cf. Winer, p. 188; A. Buttmann,
p- 111. Even with the reading av7Tod a certain emphasis
may be supposed (so Alford), because the pronoun might
without any ambiguity have been omitted; but the great
abundance of pronouns in the N. T. style, through Hebrew
influence, makes it, to say the least, very doubtful whether
the apostle wrote the word as anything more than a simple
unemphatic possessive.
Whilst those sufferings of our Blessed Lord in His atoning
work, which were specially of the sowl (Matt. xxvi 38,
XXvil. £6), were, as an old writer quaintly says, “the soul of
His sufferings,” yet the material element in His Passion—the
bodily anguish which He endured for us—is often and
naturally prominent in references made to it; because all
men can to some extent understand and feel the love which
was thus displayed, while the unseen side of the sufferings is,
from its nature, deeply mysterious. In the present connec-
tion the specification of the field or sphere of suffering by
€v T® cwpatt adtod can hardly but seem particularly natural,
when we remember that the reference to the Lord’s Passion
is made in order to exhibit example and motive to slaves,
who, many of them, had from day to day to endure cruel
inflictions of bodily pain——To the use in N. T. of the word
EvXov, “ timber, log,” for otavpos, our English “tree,” in its
old wide signification—still seen in such compounds as “ roof-
186 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 24.
tree, cross-trees,” etc.—well answers. This use is not very
common. Besides the present place, it is found in Acts v. 30,.
x. 39, xiii. 29; Gal. ili. 13,—+the first two of these passages,
it may be observed, occurring in addresses of Peter, and thus
showing this mode of expression to be one familiar to him.
This use of the word voy sprang, as a comparison with each
other of the passages cited distinctly shows, from the Jewish
practice described in Deut. xxi. 22, 23. After the infliction
of capital punishment according to the Hebrew mode, stoning,
the bodies of the very worst of malefactors were suspended
publicly on a tree or post; and when, under the administra-
tion of the Romans, crucifixion was introduced into Palestine,
that form of punishment was regarded by the Jews as equi-
valent to an exposure of this kind,—an exposure which was
held to be a public declaration that the curse of God had
come down ona rebel against His law. The thought pro-
minent in the mind of every Jewish Christian, therefore, when
in speech or writing he employed this name &vAov for the
cross of Jesus, was of the sublime, immeasurable grace which
led his Lord to be “made a curse for us,” that He might
“redeem us from the curse of the law” (Gal. iii. 13),
The apostle’s exhibition in this verse of motive to holy
obedience divides itself into two parts: (1) The statement
that Jesus died for our sins,—the supreme ground of gratitude
and love; (2) the statement of His purpose in dying for us,
namely that, freed from sin’s oppression, we might be holy,
—from which plainly it immediately follows that earnest
effort after holiness is the mode in which sincere and
intelligent gratitude and love to Him will manifest them-
selves. The sanctifying purpose of the Lord in His giving
Himself for us—often set forth in N. T., eg. i. 18, 19; Gal.
i. 4; Tit. ii, 14—is presented here under a form in which
the Apostle Paul greatly delighted to look at it, the believer's
death with relation to sin, and life with relation to God and
His service; cf. especially Rom. vi. 2, 4, 11. The basis
of this representation is the mystical union between Christ
II. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 13%
and His people, according to which in His death we also
died, so as to be no longer either under the condemnation of
the law or under the dominion of sin, and in His resurrection
we also rose with Him to enjoy a new life of peace and of
holy beauty and energy, kindred to His. With the legal
union before the eye of God, through which “there is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” is inseparably
associated a spiritual union, through which by the indwelling
of the Holy Ghost we are sanctified —The verb amoyivec@a,
here only in N. T., is employed by classical writers in the
sense of “to part from, cease from connection with,” and then
also, by a euphemism familiar in all languages, “ to depart this
life, decease, die.” The primary sense has been adopted here
by some expositors; but that the secondary was that in the
writer’s mind, seems to be sufficiently clear from the antithesis
with €jowpev.—and also from the construction with the
dative, the other naturally taking the genitive.
The dative joined here to doyevowevos and Syompev—
a kind of construction greatly favoured by Paul (Rom. xiv.
6-8, for example, affording abundant illustrations in connec-
tion with various verbs) ——seems to fall under the general
head of dat. comm. et incomm. Thus, here, whilst possibly
all that was present in consciousness to the writer was this
thought, “ that, having become dead in reference to our sins,
we might live in reference to righteousness,” still really,
behind this, there seems in the construction to lie something
of personification—our sins being tyrants, to whom now
Christians, being dead, have ceased to be of service, whereas
to righteousness, our new ruler, we do earnest service through
the activity of life; cf. Winer, p. 263, and especially A.
Buttmann, p. 178. By some interpreters the datives here
have been taken as instrumental, giving the clause this force,
“that, having in Christ died by our sins, we might live by
His righteousness.” The course of the apostle’s thought,
however, and the Pauline parallels, seem to show distinctly
that, whilst the truth respecting the change of the believer's
fH
co
(ee)
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TIy 24.
legal relations to God is, from the nature of the case, vmplied
in the clause, yet the aspect of the “dying and living” which
is directly presented is ethical, and that thus the force of the
datives is not “by” but “to.’—Looking at the connection
with each other of the clauses of the verse, we can hardly
doubt that the article in tats duaptiars does not merely, as so
often, answer practically to a possessive pronoun (fully “the
sins Which we all so well know of as ours”), but that in
writing it the apostle was consciously reduplicating on tas
auaptias nuov of the first clause,—the precise meaning
accordingly being “ the sins (spoken of).” Naturally, therefore,
perhaps, in the antithesis 77 before dcvcavocvvyn also is not
merely the mark of the abstract, but sets before us some
such thought as “the righteousness (which belongs to life in
Christ).”
The division of verses has not been satisfactorily made here.
The last clause of the 24th ought to have begun the 25th;
because it is not a mere epexegesis of the preceding state-
ment, but presents a new thought, which, as yap shows, the
25th verse explains and justifies. This new thought—in
advance of ver. 24, which has spoken of the gracious purpose
of our Lord’s sufferimgs—is that these sufferings have actually
saved those to whom the apostle writes, inasmuch as they had
become believers, and had thus passed within the sphere of
the life-giving action of Christ’s death. That we have here
a distinct link in Peter’s beautiful expansion of the émraGev
uTép vuwv of ver. 21, seems to be quite plainly intimated
by the fact that, whilst quoting the last clause of Isa. liii. 5,
he substitutes od for avrod of the LXX., thus constituting the
statement a member of the series of relative clauses (vv. 22,
23, 24). The only other change is the substitution of the
cheering form of direct address and assurance to the poor
slaves, (a@nte, for nets taOnwev: “assuming that ye are
sincere believers in Him, then I tell you that ye have been
healed by His stripes.”
Mo roy is strictly “a weal,” the livid mark left on the
Il. 25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 189
body by a stripe or bruise (cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 17). It is here
used collectively, like the Hebrew word 37, for which
it stands in Isaiah. Whilst intended, doubtless, to suggest
the whole of our Lord’s sufferings—the entire “ chastisement
of our peace” — still immediately the word carries our
thoughts to the cruel scowrging to which He was subjected ;
and the special aptness of such a reference in the present
. paragraph will be at once recognised. The paradox “ healed
through stripes,” of which every Christian has felt the
pathetic power, must have gone with an altogether peculiar
force to the hearts of slaves, themselves so_ painfully
familiar with unjust stripes (cf. Ecclus. xxiii 10). The fact
also, it may be observed in this connection, that the death
of the Lord was by crucifixion, was fitted to exert a certain
specialty of winning influence over slaves, seeing that the
tomans confined this mode of punishment almost exclusively
to these despised outcasts.
Ver. 25. Proof is here given of the actual healing,—the
apostle passing, however, from the figure cf restoration from
disease to another familiar scriptural representation of the
Christian’s spiritual history, return from wandering. In
making this transition, Peter’s mind is still following the
53rd chapter of Isaiah, where immediately after “ with His
stripes we are healed,’ comes (ver. 6) “all we like sheep
have gone astray” (wdvtes ws mpoBata érravynOnpwev, LXX.).
For the aorist, the apostle substitutes the pictorial re
Thavepevot, “ye were wandering,’—“ from day to day, as
you so vividly remember, you were, some of you for many
years, stumbling on from one form of sin and of unhappiness
into another,—wandering foolishly, aimlessly, and to your hurt,
as sheep are so apt to do.’—The aorist éveotpadyte, “ ye
turned,” points historically to the time of conversion ; but in
translating, seeing that “ now” is attached to it, English idiom
requires a perfect. On this connection of voy with an aorist,
see i. 12, note. As éweorpagnre answers in the explanatory
clause to ¢ad@n7e in the principal one, perfect parallelism
190 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 25.
would require éveotpagynte to be taken, like ca@yre, in a
passive sense (so Wiesinger and others); but such minute
exactness of correspondence is not at all needed, and accord-
ing to ordinary usage, both among classical writers and in
N. T., the second aorist passive of émictpédery has a middle
force; cf. Mark villi. 33; John xxi. 20. The sense “turn
back, return,” which a reader naturally and justly gives to
émuatpéepew here, where the thought is of man turning to the
true Lord and Friend from whom he had strayed, does not
belong to the word etymologically or always; but it frequently
has it; eg. ef. 2 Pet. 11. 22; Matt. xii 44.
There is abundant N. T. proof that, by the time this Epistle
was written, ém7ioxo7mros was the name of an office-bearer in
the Christian congregations, the same office-bearer who was
otherwise known as mpeo@urepos ; and from Eph. iv. 11 it is
clear that, at least among those Asiatic Christians to whom
b)
Peter was now writing, vovuny, “ pastor,’ was also a recognised
name of office. We cannot well doubt, therefore, that when
the apostle here describes the Lord Jesus as ITouhy kai
’Etrioxotros, he means the thought of these officers of the
Church to come into view. On the one hand, by his present
application of the names, he suggests to those who held the
offices to rejoice in the privilege and honour which had been
given them of being fellow-workers with Christ, and for the
same reason to cherish a deep sense of the greatness of
their responsibility ; and, on the other hand, he reminds the
private members of the Church that they should never in
any measure content themselves with earthly ministrations,
however attractive, but should live in habitual communion
with the Divine Pastor and Bishop. Along with this view of
the reference, however, the use of the image of sheep in the
earlier part of the verse clearly calls upon us to regard
the primary meaning “ shepherd” as present also, and indeed
prominent, in 7rounv, and in connection with this to bring out
the primary sense of éricxoz7ros, “ overseer,’—which the name
“ bishop,” though simply an altered form of “ episcop,” fails to
Il. 25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 191
do to an English reader. “Shepherd,” from its variety of
application, serves sufficiently as a rendering of roupnv
in the passage, but it is probably impossible by any one
English word to exhibit at once the primary and the secondary
use of éwtcxotros. The Revisers of our version have had to
content themselves with putting “ bishop” in the text and
?
“overseer” in the margin. It may fairly be questioned
whether, as the image of the return of sheep to their shepherd
certainly seems to be in the foreground, and the ecclesiastical
reference behind, it would not have been better to relegate
“bishop” to the margin, and set “ overseer” in the text. By
some expositors—resting on the fact that in O. T. God is
sometimes spoken of as the Shepherd of Israel, and that in
LXX. Job xx. 29, He is designated ’Eaioxoros —the words
Tounv Kav émioKxomos here are applied, not to Christ, but to
God the Father. The general N. T. usage, however (our Lord
delighting to describe Himself as the Shepherd of His people,
as in John x. 11 foll.; Matt. xxvi. 31; cf. also Heb. xiii. 20),
aud in particular, quite decisively, the language of Peter
himself in chap. v. 4, show that his reference here is to the
Lord Jesus. As regards the conjunction of the words tron
Kal émioKomos, compare the similar combination of the cognate
verbs in chap. v. 2 (according to the ordinary reading),—also,
as somewhat similar, LX X. Ezek. xxxiv. 11. There seéms to be
an echo of the combination in Ignatius’s words (Rom. § 9): tis
év Supia €xkrnolas, rus avtl €wod romév. TO Oew yphrac’
povos avtiy “Incods Xpiotos émucxotnaet.—As to Peter's use
of wuyy, ef. ver. 11, note.
192 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PIU, te
CHAPT ERA
Vy. 1-6. On the duttes of wives.
AFTER the counsels to servants we naturally look for a
statement of the correlative duties of masters, such as follows
the address to servants in Ephesians and in Colossians. But
Peter does not touch on these. His mind, as it appears, was
wholly occupied, at this stage of his letter, with the thought
of positions in which the prominent duty was submission.
Starting with the general precept laid down by him in ii. 13,
he has dwelt first on civil government and on slavery, doubt-
less as being those av@pemivat «tices from the obligation
of submission to which Christians were most likely to believe
themselves emancipated, seeing that commonly subjects and
slaves are such, not through any choice of their own, but by
birth or conquest. Now he passes on to speak of marriage,
into the formation of which, indeed, personal choice enters or
should enter, but in which wives — taught that in Christ
“there was neither male nor female,’ so that they stood in
fellowship with their Lord, not mediately as represented by
their husbands, but immediately as themselves His disciples
and friends — might not unnaturally be in some cases
tempted to think themselves set free from the obligation of
obedience.
Ver. 1. The similarity, set forth by omotws, of the case
now introduced to that of servants, obviously, as has just been
indicated, lies mainly in the fact that tzotayn, the special
duty connected with the position of servants, is also that
aspect of a wife’s obligations which the apostle’s line of thought
1 eae Bal FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 193
leads him to make prominent. Throughout Greece and the
Greek East at this time, as innumerable passages in the clas-
sical writers show, the position of a wife was held generally
to be not greatly different from that of a slave, and wives
were treated by their husbands often with contempt and
cruelty. The sublime wisdom of the apostolic mode of
presenting those principles, through the working of which
Christianity was ultimately to place woman in her true
relation to man, is beautifully exemplified in the present
address to wives, and in the short one which follows to
husbands.
The absence of the interjection ® with the vocative
yuvatkes is in accordance with ordinary N. T. usage. In
most of the instances where @ does occur, indeed, it is not, as
with classical writers, a mere sign of address, but an exclama-
tion of feeling; cf. eg. Acts xiii. 10; Gal. iz. 1—On the
construction of the participle drotaccopevas, see ii. 18, note.
—By some expositors /d/o1s here is held to be altogether
unemphatic. This is scarcely tenable. In later Greek this
adjective (as also ofxetos) came undoubtedly to be employed
as equivalent to an unemphatic pronoun; but that in N. T.
the word is ever used quite in this way is not altogether
clear (on some of the most likely cases, as Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14,
cf. Meyer, in Jocc.); and that in the great majority of passages
where it occurs the distinctive force of “own” is to be
recognised, is certain. In the present case this force of the
word is perfectly natural, and in itself presents an argument,
thus,—* to those whom, remember, you have taken to be your
own, yours in an altogether peculiar sense, and who therefore
have, according to the nature of the relation, an altogether
peculiar claim on your obedience.” Says Leighton, “ The
Christian wife, that hath love to God, though her husband
be not so comely, nor so wise, nor so amiable as many others,
yet because he is her own husband, therefore she loves and
obeys.” —The unelassical construction found here of iva with
the future indicative occurs a good many times in N, T,,
N
194 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. REDE ale
particularly in Revelation: see Winer, p. 361; A. Buttmann,
p. 234.
Whether «ai ed, e¢ xat, or simply e?, should be read, is very
uncertain. MS. authority seems to be somewhat in favour of
«al et, which has accordingly been placed in the text. If
internal grounds of judgement be regarded, e¢ xa’ might
perhaps appear to be more likely,—x«av in this latter combina-
tion not, as in the other, belonging to ec, and marking the
supposition as an improbable one, but applying to the state-
ment made in the clause, and simply indicating that the case
supposed is one harder than others to reconcile with the
apodosis. On the force of e xaé and xai e, which latter
occurs in N. T. much more rarely than the other, see Winer,
p. 554, particularly Dr. Moulton’s notes—On azeBotow Te
oye, see ii. 8, note. The state of spirit indicated by this
expression, in both passages, is not of a mere negative kind,
but is that of persons who, possessing some knowledge of the
truth, were in positive antagonism to it—The use of tov
yuvatkav here instead of vuav has been by some scholars
supposed to show that in writing this verse the thought had
not in the apostle’s mind the form of direct address, but that
the imperative to be supplied is in the 3rd person, and
yuvaikes at the beginning to be taken consequently, not as
vocative, but nominative. There is no need for this supposi-
tion, the use in direct address, in such a clause as this, of the
general term “ wives” or of the special “ you” being really
equally natural, and the choice between them simply a matter
of style. The second part of the same sentence is shown by
bev (ver. 2) to be direct ; and the whole series of precepts, of
which the present forms a part, seems to have been conceived
throughout in the same form ; see ii. 13, 17, 20; iii. 6, 9.
The thought is a natural one, that in avev Aoyou the refer-
ence intended is precisely the same as in 7@ Noy@ preceding.
It is plain, however, that the xepdaiver@at spoken of in the
present clause cannot be effected without the word of God:
it is, in fact, a being won to the gospel, and through the
BIT. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 195
gospel to God. To take the meaning to be “ without the
influence of public preaching of the word,” or to refer
xeponOncovrat merely to a preparatory conciliation of the un-
believing husband, by which a fair hearing will be secured
for the gospel, appears somewhat forced: It seems, too,
that while, no doubt, in the N. T. style a noun which
is unquestionably definite is after a preposition often found
without the article, still here, had the apostle meant
“the word of God,” the article would probably have been
used, considering the risk of ambiguity and the strongly
marked definiteness of this particular reference of Aoyov. The
meaning therefore probably is, “without speech, without
talking” (“ without setting up for a preacher,” sans faire la
précheuse, Renan). The case supposed is that in which
husbands are in such a state of feeling that they would be
irritated and hardened by being spoken to about religion,
but may through God’s grace be softened and gained over by
the sight of the pure and loving life of their wives. We can
hardly help thinking, however, that the apostle had still
distinctly in his mind the Avy which he had written im-
mediately before, and seeing that, of course, the “talk” pointed
to in avev doyou is “talk about the gospel,” we recognise
something of linguistic play,—thus, “that if any are dis-
obedient to the word, they may without word about it be
won.” In the case supposed the gospel, as revealed, not by
the lips, but by the life of the believing wives, was to gain the
husbands. “The silence often of pure innocence | Persuades
when speaking fails” (Winter’s Tale, ii. 2). In its connection
here xepdnOjcovtas has evidently a rich comprehensiveness of
reference,—“ be won to their God and Saviour, and thereby
be won also to their wives as now theirs in a fulness of love
and confidence and sympathy unknown before:” cf. 1 Cor.
ix. 19 foll. In Phil. iii, 8, Paul by the same verb presents
another aspect of the position.
Ver. 2. Here we have in a participial clause an epexegesis
of the previous statement of instrumentality, dua ris Tav
a
196 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [III. 3-
yuvarkov avactpopys.—On érortevoarres, and on the thought
given in this clause, ef. ii. 12, notes. As the ésromteveuy
brings about the xepdaiverOar, the priority of the former
is naturally exhibited by the use of the aorist participle—
Seeing that evidently (vv. 1, 6) the apostle has the duty of
obedience so much before his mind, @o8@ in the connection
means, not “fear of God,” but “ reverence for your husbands.”
Cf. ii. 18, note, and particularly Eph. v. 33. This being the
reference of @oB8os in the passage, the combination év doBo
cannot well be naturally taken (as may be in the similarly
interjected év dyvoia, i. 14) as having strongly an instru-
mental or causal force, seeing that the dyv) avactpody
springs immediately from a Christian woman’s loyalty to God,
independently of any relation to a husband. The idea in év
seems to be simply semi-local, that of the sphere or element,
—‘“ manifestly surrounded and pervaded by reverence.” The
rendering of the English versions, “ coupled with fear,” while
correct so far as it goes, seems hardly adequate——In dyv7 the
prominent thought is no doubt that of chastity, but in a
passage like the present the wide original reference of the
word is naturally to be understood, including generally freedom
from everything of grossness and sensuality, “purity ” in the
broadest sense of that word.
Vy. 3—6. These verses contain an exhortation to Christian
wives to regard as their true adornment, not the decoration of
the body, but beauty of spirit,—this precept being supported
by an appeal to the example of the honoured matrons
of Scripture story. That in the apostle’s mind this ex-
hortation stood in close connection with that of vv. 1, 2, is
shown by the mode in which, in ver. 5, to éxoopouv éavtds
is attached drotacccpevas T. t. a. Peter’s aim evidently was
to show that the submission he had been urging was, in the
relation of wives to their husbands, the legitimate expression
of that purity and beauty of heart which Christianity intro-
duces ; and that the attractiveness for their husbands, which
some of them perhaps tried to secure by undue attention to
III. 3-6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 497
external decoration, would be obtained in a far higher- degree
by faithful and loving discharge of duty,—through which too,
in many cases, the immeasurable joy might be reached of
winning their husbands to Christ.
The question naturally arises whether the: prohibition here
given of outward ornament, seemingly absolute, is really so.
Now évévois (watiwv being included in the: prohibition, whilst
some iwatia must be worn, it is certain in this case, and from
the parallelism is reasonably inferred also as regards the
others, that the reference is simply to what is undue, incon-
sistent with the principles of Christian decorum and steward-
ship for God. Here, as with innumerable other Christian
laws, a principle is laid down in Scripture, whilst. very much
with regard to the mode of carrying it out amid the varying
circumstances of life is left to be determined by individual
Christian judgement. The fact that in Peter’s enumeration of
the constituents of a worldly woman’s coopos he uses in each
instance a substantive expressive of actzon—though, of course,
the ornament really consists, not in the éuaAo«n, mepilects,
and évduors, but in the plaited hair itself, the jewels, and the
fine clothes—seems to show, as Bengel remarks, that a very
prominent thought in the apostle’s mind had reference to
undue expenditure of time and attention on the work of bodily
adornment. To the precept of Peter here, one of Paul’s
(1 Tim. 11. 9, 10) is very similar in its substance. When we
consider the lateness in Paul’s life of the Epistles to Timothy,
however, and the fact that their being in the first instance of
a private character would probably make their circulation
somewhat slow, it is hardly likely that the passage referred to
was before our apostle’s mind in writing. The whole precept—
as regards both its details of those forms of bodily display on
which women wasted thought and time and money, and its
description of a woian’s true adornment—may quite naturally
be thought of as having been a commonplace of primitive
practical Christian teaching. It is likely that Christian
exhortation on this subject was very common, as being—
198 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PLE. 3
judging from all that we know of the manners of the age—
much needed. The excessive devotion of women to elaborate
personal adornment, and particularly to the costly decoration
of their hair, attracted the attention of thoughtful observers
even among the heathen,—Juvenal, Suetonius, and others.
From statements of the Fathers too, especially of Clement of
Alexandria (Peed. ii. 11, 13, iii. 11), we see that in later times
also the conduct in this respect of many Christian women
caused anxiety to their spiritual guides.
Ver. 3. On the continuative use of the relative pronoun at
the beginning of a new sentence, exemplified here in @y (for cai
vpov), see A, Buttmann, p. 282. We may construe oy in either
of two ways. It may, in accordance with the familiar construc-
tion of efvae with a genitive, be connected immediately with
éoTw,—“ and let yours (your special possession or distinction,
your characteristic) be;” or, from the subject, coopos may be
supplied as predicate. At first sight the former of these may
seem to suit better the second part of the subject-combination,
in which a@pa7os is the leading word. Seeing, however,
from the use of the adjective woAuTedés, and especially from
ov’Tws yap . .. ékoopouy éavtas which follows, that the
”
idea of “ornament” was clearly in the writer’s mind through-
out the whole section, it is indifferent, so far as the context
is concerned, which construction be chosen ; and the two are
about equally natural.—On the fact that even in clauses, like
the present, of the kind which most rigidly require the sub-
jective negative 7, ov« is occasionally found in cases where, as
here, the particle does not belong strictly to the main verb,
but to a word or combination which is set in antithesis to
another, see A. Buttmann, p. 352. Contrast the construction
in v. 2, 3, where the use of ju shows that the thought of the
prohibition is more vividly before the writer’s mind than that
of the mere antithesis—On the frequent use in N. T., as in
classical Greek, of €w@ev and écwOev as practically equivalent
to é& and éow, see Winer, p. 592; A. Buttmann, p. 70.—For
xXevota in the quite classical sense of “ornaments of gold,”
Ill, 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 199
ef. Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 16.—It will be observed that the
apostle connects “plaiting of hair” with “putting on of gold
ornaments” by «ai, and then for the following connective
uses 7. In the somewhat parallel passage already referred to,
1 Tim. ii. 9, precisely the same change of conjunctions is found.
The ground of this change can hardly be determined with
certainty. It may be that the gold ornaments of which the
apostles were thinking particularly were for the hair, and
therefore the first two specifications went closely together: or
perhaps their thought was of bodily adornment as made up of
two divisions, viz. elaborate arrangement of the ornament
which belongs to the body itself, the hair, and expensive
arraying of the body with materials from without,—the sub-
divisions of this array being put disjunctively by “ or.”
Ver. 4. In contrast with the é&w@ev coopuos of the worldling,
the Christian woman is to have the xpumrtos Kocpos of spiritual
beauty. “Submission to their own husbands” is to be no
superficial thing, but to spring up from the deep hidden
fountain of sanctified affections, With growth in Christian
wisdom anxiety to be looked at and admired will always
become less, whilst longing to have richer beauty investing
that inner nature which, though hidden from man, hes full
before the view of God, will become always stronger. The
word «purTos, while, of course, immediately set in antithesis to
éEwev, suggests also and leads on to é€vwmvov tov Ocov.—In
illustrating the connection in the note above, the expression
KpuTTOS KOo“os Was used; but whilst, as what follows shows,
the thought of “ornament” is still distinctly before the apostle’s
mind, he does not here employ the word. He proceeds, instead,
to bring out directly, and in a most vivid way, the vastness
of the contrast between the dead things, the fine clothes and
jewels, of the woman of the world, and the adornment
of the Christian woman, by joining to xpumtds the word
v0 pwrros, implying life, energy, thought, will, affection. This
image of ‘ the inner man” for the intellectual and spiritual
nature, in contrast with the material element of our being, is
200 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 4.
familiar to us in the Apostle Paul’s writings. When we consider
that, looking away from Paul’s Epistles, the figure is not found
in N. T. except in the present passage,—that it occurs in two of
the Pauline letters which may reasonably be supposed to have
been known to many of those Asiatic Christians for whom
Peter’s letter was intended, the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians,—and that, whereas Paul usually illustrates the
image somewhat, in so far at least as by giving a distinct
statement of the antithesis, Peter here, by giving no explana-
tion, seems to assume its familiarity to his readers,—consider-
ing these things, it seems likely that here our apostle had
Paul's frequent use of the figure in his mind, and intended to
refer the thoughts of his readers to that use.
The antithesis in 0 é€w and o éow avOpwros (Rom. vii. 22 ;
2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16), to which that here in o éwev
Koopos and o KpumTds avOpwmos answers, has obviously
distinct elements from that in 0 madatos and o Kawos (véos)
avOpwmos (Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii, 10). As a matter
of fact, however, “the inner man,” in the places where Paul
uses the expression, is not the soul taken generally, but is
“the new man,” the soul of a regencrate man, enlightened
and sanctified by the Divine Spirit. In our passage also,
clearly, seeing that writer and reader carry with them into the
clause the thought of the adornment of a Christian woman,
the xpumtos avOpwmos is the inner being regarded as
regenerate. Some expositors suppose the idea of regenerate
not to be given till the words év 7T@ adOdptw xTr.; but
the form of the sentence appears decidedly to suggest that in
?
the simple name “the hidden man” we are to understand the
true ornament as fully set before us, and that the following
words only elucidate what has been there already implicitly
presented.—* The hidden man ”
which seems best taken as having somewhat the force of a
is described as THs Kapdias,
or
possessive genitive, “ the heart’s hidden man:” the affections
and energies summed up by the name “man” belong to the
heart, from it they start forth, and conduct in the outer life
1d ae FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 201
which professes to be the action of “the hidden man” is
really such—has value and beauty in God’s sight—only when
it is in vital connection with the heart. Thus the “man” is
the heart’s property. Some such notion of possession as this,
not meant to be very rigidly defined, suits the proprieties of
the figure better than taking the genitive as one of apposition,
—‘“the hidden man of (= who is, that is to say) the heart.”
A prosaic explanation like this does not seem to accord with
the lively poetic form of the sentence.
The xapodia, then, which might have been represented as
the abode of “the hidden man,” having been, in fact, exhibited
rather in something of a possessive relation, the clause goes on
to describe his abode (or possibly, for the preposition would
suit either view, his apparel),—and this in a way to set forth
with emphasis the enduring beauty and glory of this “man,”
this true ornament of the Christian. The “outward adorning”
is only of the perishable body ; “the hidden man” has his
sphere of action, lives and moves, in the immortal spirit. To
the imperishableness of this home, contrasting so impressively
with the transitoriness of the scene of the display of outward
ornaments, special prominence is given by a bright poetic
turn in the mode of expression, making to ap@aptov (= 7
apGapcia) stand out as itself the abode. The outward adorn-
?
ing dwells in perishableness, “the hidden man” in immortality
—that immortality which belongs to the immaterial element
of our being, here described by the name employed in Scripture
to set it forth in its highest powers and relations, “‘ the spirit,”
the glorious moral nature by which we can know God and
live in fellowship with Him. In the case supposed this
“ spirit,” illuminated and sustained by the Divine Spirit, does
live in fellowship with God, and has the heavenly beauty
which He imparts.
The form of beauty here specified by the apostle is, in
accordance with the immediate object of the whole passage,
that which should be specially characteristic of Christian
women. Between mpaéws and javyiov Bengel draws a dis-
202, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 4.
tinction somewhat as of active and passive: the former, gwi
non turbat, the latter, gui turbas aliorum fert placide. This
distinction has hardly his usual felicity. From the ordinary
use of the words one may fairly think that, as so often in
similar combinations, the two adjectives have been employed
rather to give by accumulation expression to one thought in a
strong way, than to two thoughts meant to be precisely dis-
criminated. In so far as there is distinction, it seems to be as
follows: the second word is somewhat more general than the
other, describing the state of soul of which “ meekness” is
one manifestation. The English rendering, “meek and quiet,”
brings out the sense perfectly,—<“free always from anger,
revenge, and sullenness, notwithstanding the troubles and
irritations which beset every life, and which are likely very
specially to beset the life of a Christian woman married to an
unbelieving husband,—and having this meekness inand through
quietness of heart, restfulness of soul in the assurance of
God’s love and care.” As to the exact force of pais, see
Trench, Syn. N. 7. §§ 42,43. It is not impossible that in
the combination mpaéws kal javyiov we have one of Peter’s
many echoes of O. T. language. In Isa. lxvi. 2, the LXX. has
TaTewov Kai jovyLov ; but Clement of Rome (§ 13), quoting this
verse of Isaiah, has rpaiy cat aovx0v,—which also is Chry-
sostom’s form in his quotations (see reff. in Jacobson, in loc.
cit, Clem. Rom.). It is perhaps more likely that this was a
various reading of the LXX., than that both of these Fathers
should have been swayed away from correct citation by a
remembrance of Peter’s words——On the loose connection of
év 76 abGapt@ with o kpuTtos dvOpwros, without a repetition
of the article, cf. eg. Rom. vi. 4; Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii, 14; and
see Winer, p. 169; A. Buttmann, p. 91.—-On the well-
supported form of the genitive mpaéws, for mpaéos of the
older Greek, see A. Buttmann, p. 26. A similar form, also
well supported, is BaOéws, Luke xxiv. 1.
Instead of taking “the incorruptible” as for the abstract,
“the incorruptibleness or imperishableness,” some scholars
Ill. 5.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 203
have from the first part of the sentence brought in cooum as
a supplement in this clause, either (so R. E. V.) immediately
with 7} a¢@apte, “in the incorruptible adornment (apparel),”
or (so A. E. V.) in apposition, “in that which is not corrupt-
ible, even the ornament.” This supplement is, looking at the
structure of the clause, not very natural, and does not seem
to be needed, or to add anything to the beauty or sublimity of
the apostle’s picture—The neuter relative, which introduces
the last clause of the verse, has as its natural antecedent
mvevpatos, or—which in meaning would come to the same
thing, if taken as concrete in the way adopted in the A. E, V.—
7® agOdpt». We have seen reason to take To ap@daptw
rather as abstract, in which sense it is not suitable as the
antecedent. JIvevpatos seems to be the intended reference.
It is true that the predicate aoAvtedés describes the pre-
ciousness of the ornament of a Christian woman,—which
ornament, according to the figure in the sentence, is “the
hidden man;” but this does not make it necessary to refer
6 to avOpw7ros and all its adjuncts, gathered up by the neuter
as “a thing which.” When the apostle’s expansion of his
figure is rigidly construed, the “meek and quiet spirit” is
that in which the “hidden man” abides; but the mind, not
dwelling on this, easily passes to think of these two as prac-
tically synonymous,—so that the relative may quite well be
attached immediately to mvevpatos.
Vv. 5, 6. The exhortation to give main thought and care to
spiritual adornment is supported by a reference to the example
of the much-revered godly women of Bible history, Sarah,
Hannah, and others. Special mention is naturally made of
the case of Sarah, to whom—as the wife of Abraham, and as
a woman not indeed without serious flaws of character, yet in
true and deep sympathy with her husband in his consecration
to God—a like precedence is readily given among the O. T.
matrons as among the men of faith has been by all generations
allowed to Abraham.
Ver. 5 The apparent correlation in this sentence of ot7ws
204 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 5.
and ws (ver. 6) is merely accidental,—the course of thought
showing clearly enough that ovtws points back, “in that
way, viz. “ with meekness and obedience,’ whilst > means
“as, for example.”——With regard to the meaning of the word
dytos, see note on ayiacpos, i. 2. Whilst the idea of reverend
dignity, through separation for God, is never absent from the
word, yet in many instances the ethical aspect of the mean-
ing is decidedly and obviously prominent. Sometimes, how-
ever, both ideas present themselves with much distinctness, as
when we read of “the holy prophets” (Luke i. 70; Acts ili.
21), and of “the holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. iii. 5).
In the place before us, also, when we read of “the holy
women,’ we naturally take this expression somewhat in the
same way,—the idea suggested to us, if fully set forth, being
“ those pious women to whom, as His servants, God has given
a special dignity, by enshrining their names in the historical
records included in His word” (“those women of blessed
memory,’ Fronmiiller).
The epexegetical clause, “ who placed their hope in God,”
comes in obviously with much naturalness, seeing that this
was the particular side of their piety on which immediately
their meekness and submission to their husbands rested.
They also, like those women to whom the apostle was now
writing, had sometimes difficulties to contend with in their
relations to their husbands,—inconsiderate conduct, miscon-
ceptions, perhaps wrongs; but, believing in God’s providence
and grace, they had a confident expectation (such is the €Azis
of Scripture) that He would make darkness light before them
and crooked things straight, and therefore they cast their care
upon Him. For the construction éAiGecv ets, cf. John v. 45;
2 Cor. i. 10; see also in our Epistle erwifeuv eri, i. 13, note ;
and cf. A. Buttmann, p. 175. The words ai édmifovcar may
be taken either, according to a frequent use in N. T. of the
present participle with the article (eg. Matt. xxvii. 40; Eph.
iv. 28), without temporal reference, and almost with the force
of a substantive, “the hopers in God” (Winer, p. 444; A.
Ill. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 203
Buttmann, p. 296), or as a participle of the imperfect (Winer,
p. 428), exactly = ai #Amfov. The latter view seems the
more natural.—On the connection of éxdcpovy éavtds with
the participial clause dmotaccopevas xTXr,, see above, intro-
ductory note on vy. 3-6.—On the force of édéous as here
used, see above, ver. 1, note.
Ver. 6. Whilst in the words “calling him lord” there is
no doubt a reference to Gen. xvill. 12, it seems clear that the
aorist vmjKovoev, if the true reading, is not meant to point
simply to the particular incidents there described, but to indi-
cate general character,—there being, indeed, on the occasion
spoken of in that passage, nothing mentioned illustrative of
“obedience,” except the proof of respectful feeling given by
the mere use of the word “lord.” But the aorist, as employed
to exhibit general character, has a quite peculiar strength, the
life being, so to speak, gathered up and set forth as a single
historical fact; ef. 1. 22, note. The imperfect danxovev is
also a well-supported reading here, and it is difficult to decide
between it and the aorist. As so often happens, consideration
of probability based on internal grounds does not help us
much. The aorist may seem to be favoured by the canon of
difficulty, inasmuch as a thinking copyist, perceiving that the
reference is to general character, and not remembering the
occasional use of the aorist in this way, might naturally sub-
stitute the imperfect. On the other hand, however, a less
sensible though not altogether unthinking copyist might easily
at once infer, from the mention of Sarah’s “calling her hus-
band lord,” that the sole reference in the passage is to the
incident recorded in Gen. xviii., and might therefore substi-
tute the aorist for the imperfect. With regard to the measure
of reverence illustrated by Sarah’s use, on the occasion imme-
diately referred to, of the word “lord,” it is not unimportant
to remember that she is represented as employing the term in
speaking to herself—a kind of discourse which brings out
with special exactness the real habits of thought and feeling.
The clause js éyevnOnte téxva enforces the argument
206 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TEE 6.
based on the examples just adduced, by reminding the
Christian women who are addressed that through faith
they had entered into close spiritual relationship with the
holy matrons of Israel, particularly with Sarah. She was the
representative woman of faith, the mother of God’s Israel,—
that Israel which, as Paul had so abundantly and clearly
taught his converts, and among them these Asiatic believers,
was, as regarded its loftiest functions and its highest and per-
manent privileges, not a body of kinsfolk through earthly
descent, but a spiritual association through faith, gathered
out of all kindreds and peoples. Those women whom Peter
addresses, then, had “ become Sarah’s children” when they by
faith accepted the God and the Messiah of Israel. This is
one of those passages in this Epistle with which the view
that in the opening words of the letter the apostle is to be
regarded as addressing it solely to Jewish Christians, does not
agree at all well. It is no doubt true that Jewish women,
when they accepted the Lord Jesus as their Saviour, became
Israelites, daughters of Sarah, in a deeper, grander sense than
they had been before; but, supposing the reference in the
present passage to be to them alone, it would certainly have
been natural to add some explanatory phrase,—“ spiritually,”
“by faith,” or the like. On the other hand, supposing those
addressed to be mainly Gentile women, the spiritual nature of
the relation to Sarah was at once understood.
The participial clause which closes the verse appears to
have the force of a protasis, the connection and sense being
substantially this, “ whose daughters ye became,—if, that is
to say, ye are proving yourselves Christians indeed by faithful
and resolute well-doing.” The present participles as used of
conduct subsequent to the “becoming daughters,” associate
themselves a little oddly with the aorist éyevnOnte, taken
strictly ; but, in a verb of this kind, the sense of the aorist
so immediately suggests that of the perfect, or practically of
éoté, that the connection is quite natural—On Peter’s use
of dyaboroteiv, cf. ii. 15, note-—In wn poBovpevar pyndeuiav
III. 6.] _ FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 207
mtTonow the construction does not seem meant to be taken
as that of the cognate accusative, “fearing no fear,” that is,
simply, “never being afraid.” This construction appears to
require, not merely that the substantive and verb be kindred
in meaning, but that they be cognate in derivation, as ¢oSov
doBetc@at (Mark iv. 41). In the somewhat peculiar expression
before us, moreover, there seems to be not improbably a
reminiscence of Prov. iii. 25, od un poBnOnon mronow (LXX.),
where the parallel in the latter clause of the verse shows
distinctly that mrTonow is used—as nouns denoting the
emotions of fear, hope, and the like are so apt to be in any
language—for the exciting object, “cause of terror.” In our
passage, similarly, the probable force is well given by the
R. E. V., “not put in fear by any terror.” The language
being quite general, the reference is naturally taken to be to
any of the many sources of alarm which in a _ heathen
country, and in a persecuting age, might, through the action
of womanly timidity, shake constancy in the exhibition of
Christian character. “The meek and quiet spirit” of the
wise Christian woman is to be understood as having nothing
in it of feebleness, irresolution, or cowardice. The leading
thought in the apostle’s mind, however, was probably one of
qualifying the main injunction of the whole section, “ Be
obedient to your own husbands, and this even if they be
unbelieving,’—the qualification given here being, “but bear
in mind always that your supreme duty—that with which
nothing can be permitted to interfere—is to obey God, and
therefore, should your husbands forbid you, and that with
threats, to do anything which you know God to have enjoined,
let no terror of this kind frighten you, but rest in the
Lord.”
The peculiarity at first sight, adverted to above, in the
connection of the present participles of this clause with the
aorist éyevnO@nte, has led some scholars to take the first part
of the verse, from @s Xdppa to téxva, as a parenthesis,—in
which case, of course, aya@orro:odcar and goPovpevas agree,
208 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pal a
not with the subject of éyevjOnre, but with ai dyrau yuvaixes,
and continue the description of their character. This con-
struction does not seem a likely one. Parentheses no doubt
abound in N. T., particularly in the writings of Paul; but,
if longer than two or three words, they commonly mingle
with and modify the construction of the main sentence. <A
strictly formal parenthesis so long as that here supposed, is
hardly consistent with Scripture style. The statement,
“ whose daughters ye became,” seems bald, too, if unsustained
by any addition. The fact is to be noted also, that, on the
proposed view of the construction, the negation in the last
clause would in its character be objective, purely historical,
and properly therefore expressed by ov«; whereas, if the
participles agree with the subject of éyevn@nre, ux) is quite in
place. Of this, however, not much can be made in the way
of argument, so greatly predominant in N. T. is the use of su»
with participles, even where the subjective aspect can hardly
be recognised. So far as the substance of the apostle’s
exhortation is concerned, it is plainly immaterial which of
the constructions be followed, because these “ holy women”
of Scripture are set forth as models to those who are here
addressed.
Ver. 7. On the duties of husbands.
As was suggested in the notes on ver. 1 of this chapter, the
probable reason for our apostle’s omission to follow up his
address to servants (ii. 18-25) with one to masters, as
seems natural, was his having his mind occupied at that
stage of his writing with the special duty of obedience to
earthly authorities. The series of exhortations to classes on
whom that duty is particularly incumbent being closed,
however, with the section addressed to wives, he turns now
to the position correlative to that of wives, and, in a very
brief but singularly comprehensive way, points out the duties
attaching specially to it. In this section no case is singled
Lr] . FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 209
out like that in the former (ver. 1), of a believer married to
an unbeliever, Judging both from what we know of the
religious susceptibility of women generally, and from facts
mentioned in the N. T. regarding the early progress of the
gospel (eg. Acts xvi. 1,13, 14, xvii. 12), it is probable that the
case of a believing man wedded to an unbelieving woman was
much less common than the other. One would naturally
gather the same from the apostle’s mode of speaking in this
verse, for he assumes that the wives of the men to whom he
writes are also Christians, “joint heirs with their husbands of
the grace of life.” If unhappily in any instance, however,
the case was not so, his arguments still were valid, for the
believing husband must keep in view the riches of divine
love, and the “ joint-heirship” which thus through the work
of the Spirit might yet be established.
The participial construction is still maintained (on which,
as also on of avdpes used vocatively, see i. 18, note). Now,
however, there being a transition to a different class of duties,
we cannot think of wzoraynte (ii. 13) as being the main
verb in the apostle’s mind, but must fall back on the general
exhortation preceding (ii. 11, 12), to which dtzotadynte is
subordinate,—* Do the duties of your various spheres in such
‘a way as to show to the heathen around you the heavenliness
of your religion.” Of course the participle here cannot well be
regarded as in strict grammatical connection with ii. 11, 12;
yet evidently the apostle’s feeling is that he is dealing, not
with a fully distinct precept, but with a branch of a great
comprehensive precept.—In ver. 1, owoiws was naturally
judged to point to the similarity of the duty enjoined, the
thought of “ obedience” being carried forward. In the present
verse, of course, this does not hold, and the reference of the
word as used here is to the correlation of positions and duties,
—*looking in the same way at the other side of the relation;”
ef. v. 5, and a precisely similar use of the word in Ignat.
Trall. § 3; also the use of @cavTws, 1 Tim. ii. 9.
The injunction of the apostle is twofold. In the first
O
210 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ier
place, “ Dwell according to knowledge with the female vessel
as a weaker one (than you yourselves are).” The arrange-
ment of words, “dwelling with—as a weaker vessel—the
female (vessel),” though somewhat peculiar is quite intelligible,
and has an exact parallel ini. 19. Here, as there, the words
with os are transposed from their usual position in order to
bring them into immediate connection with certain words to
which in the line of thought they are specially attached,
Tynio aiwate in i. 19, and cata yroow here.—The verb
cuvoikourtes is obviously to be taken with the widest reference,
pointing to the close habitual association of married people
in all its departments and aspects.—I'v@ats here is Christian
intelligence (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 6; 2 Pet.i. 5); Kata yvaow there-
fore, “in accordance with intelligence, wisely.” The reference
no doubt includes generally an intelligent acquaintance with
the principles of Christian duty as these bear on the relation
of marriage, but in the position which the phrase has in the
clause it enjoins specially an intelligent Christian consideration
at all times of the do@évera of the wife, her comparative
weakness physically, and her greater sensibility of tempera-
ment. To this specialty of reference in yvaouv the particle
os, which follows, answers, placing what it is attached to in
a subjective aspect, “remembering that she is.” According to
a figure found occasionally elsewhere in N. T. (e.g. Acts ix. 15;
2 Tim. ii. 21), the Christian husband and wife—for that the
husband is included in the category is shown by the use of
the comparative do@eveotépw—are described by the apostle as
oxevn of God, “ vessels” to receive and transmit the water of
life, or more generally, according to a common use of oKevos,
“instruments ” for His service. This N. T. application of
oxevos is based on that of the corresponding Hebrew word
OD in O. T., eg. Jer. 1,25. In the place before us the figure
has plainly an argumentative force in support of the apostle’s
exhortation. The fact that, according to the law and teaching
of Christ, woman is not to be looked at, as heathen men often
regarded her, as an almost soulless being, fit for nothing
III. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 241
noble, but as, like man himself, an instrument in the divine
hand for accomplishing great ends, is one which, before the
yveous of a Christian husband, at once invests his wife with
dignity. Thus the mind is prepared for the more explicit
teaching of the next clause on this head.
The second part of the injunction is, “ Render honour to
your wives, such honour as beseems persons who—besides
being joint instruments with you in doing service to
God—are also joint inheritors with you of the grace of life.”
Christian husbands, rejoicing in the knowledge that they
“shall reign in life through Jesus Christ” (Rom. v. 17),
are to bear ever in mind that Christian wives also shall as
certainly and as fully enjoy this dignity; and therefore, in
their feelings and in their conduct towards them, are to give
them the honour which becomes the heirs of such glory.
The genitive ws is evidently of the so-called appositional
character; “life” is the yapus, “the gift of grace” (cf. Jas.
i. 12)—The transition from the singular 7@ yuvatkei@ ocKever,
representative of a class, to the plural cuveAnpovowors, is felt
by every reader to be altogether easy and natural.
By many interpreters, including the translators of both the
A. and R. E. V., the construction of this verse has been taken
in a different way from that which has now been illustrated.
These scholars place a comma after yvwour, and put @s
acGevertépw oKxever TO yuvatketm under the government of
atrovéwovtes instead of cvvotxodvtes. If, according to a well-
supported reading, the nominative cuveAypovowo. be read in
place of the dative, this view has a little more likelihood than
it has with the dative. But on either reading the other
construction seems preferable. (1) The thought that ac@éveva
is in itself a ground, not merely for care, protection, gentle
dealing, but for tp, is according to this proposed con-
struction set forth by the apostle, and not merely through
the emphatic position of os dobeveotépw, but through the
fact that this emphatic position is obtained by a rare and
very striking arrangement of words, is made markedly
212 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. C08 ee
prominent. Now this thought is peculiar, and was certainly
so alien from Greek views and feelings, that, had this been
the apostle’s meaning, some explanation might naturally have
been looked for. With a different reference, Paul, in
1 Cor. xii. 23, 24, has language somewhat analogous; but
the precise idea there meant is in itself more easily appre-
hended than that here, and, moreover, is illustrated by
details. (2) The arrangement of words answers perfectly
to the view that we have two full, well-balanced, and, in
mode of expression, pretty closely parallel clauses ; whereas
on the proposed construction there appears awkwardness in
the form both of the first clause, very short and left without
an expressed dative, and of the second clause, long and
complicated, and .with the particle @s introduced in it
twice to set forth grounds of action which, though con-
sistent, are not homogeneous or naturally associated so very
closely.
The last clause of the verse exhibits a powerful motive
for obedience to the injunction,—“that your prayers be not
hindered.” This motive might, no doubt, be presented in
connection with an appeal for the discharge of any Christian
duty, seeing that indulgence in any sin throws up a barrier
between the soul and God (Ps. Ixvi, 18). But no less
obviously it has a specialty of force in its application here ;
for violation of the law of love, especially towards those who
in God’s providence are nearest to and most dependent on us,
has a quite peculiarly chilling and deadening power, and is as
a mist which certainly hides the face of God. There may
perhaps be in wpocevyas a special reference to family prayers,
from which most plainly the life is taken away by embitter-
ment of any kind between husband and wife. But the word
is in itself quite general, and points to the impeding of private
devotion as well as of that of the householdi—The verb
éveoTTev belongs to the later Greek, and seems to have been
somewhat offensive to the classical fastidiousness of the
medieval copyists of N. T., for, in four out of the five cases
M18] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Piles
where the word occurs, older compounds of komt are found
as various readings. The image in this verb (cf. Lightfoot or
Ellicott on Gal. v. 7) appears to be that of “cutting up” a
road by destroying bridges and the like, so as to impede an
enemy’s progress. The fairly supported various reading here,
exxortecOat, would mean (cf. Matt. iii, 10, v. 30; Job
xix. 10, LXX.), that through failure in household love the
prayers might be “cut off,;’—not merely “hindered,” as regards
spirituality and power, but, through growth in hardness of
heart, brought to a close altogether, even in form. The
milder mode of expression, besides having much better MS.
support, seems more suited to the form of the apostle’s
appeal.
Vy. 8-12. Exhortation, addressed to Christians generally,
to cultivate love, kindness, and humility.
The connection of this exhortation with the series of
advices introduced by ii, 11, 12, is shown by the continua-
tion here of the participial, or in the present case to some
extent adjectival, construction ; cf. ver. 7, note.
Ver. 8. The apostle begins with an exhortation to the
cultivation of those characteristics of heart and life which
ought to distingnish Christians in their relations to fellow-
Christians. ‘Opo¢poves and gidraderpor have obviously to
do with the Christian brotherhood, and therefore it may be
assumed with certainty that in cvpsradets also, which stands
between these two, the apostle was thinking particularly of
relations to believers, though the word itself might have a
wider reference. In the last two adjectives of the verse, also,
which are in themselves of a general character, a special
reference to relations to fellow-Christians is probable, from
the intimate way in which these adjectives are associated
with the previous three as constituting one group, and from
the connection in which one of them and words closely allied
to the other are employed in Paul’s writings (eg. Eph. iv. 32 ;
Pa he § FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Tul. 8.
Phil. ii. 3; Col. iii, 12). As, however, the last grace of the
five mentioned, “humility of spirit,’ is the necessary basis not
only of love and kindness to Christian brethren, but also of
that right feeling and conduct amid the oppositions of the
world to which attention is drawn in the next verse, this
word afforded a natural point of transition from the one
sphere to the other. Of the whole group of five adjectives
here found none occurs elsewhere in the N. T. except
evoTTAayyvos (Eph. iv. 32).
On the adverbial use of a number of accusatives, as here
To TéAos, see Winer, p. 288; A. Buttmann, p. 153. That
70 TéAos has no reference to the close of the Epistle, but
merely to the position of this section relatively to the exhorta-
tions begun in ii. 11,12, is plainly shown by the continuance
of the participial construction, and also by the use of wdavtes,
which expressly intimates that, in contrast with the previous
addresses to special classes, the words of this exhortation are
spoken to all the believers: “Finally, not to deal with par-
ticular classes any further” (té yp) iSvoAoyeto Oar; CEcumenius).
—The idea conveyed by the word opodpwr occurs often
in Paul’s writings——presented, however, in the verbal form
TO auto dpovely (eg. Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5). In N. T., as in
classical Greek, dpovetv—like the English “to mind, to be
minded ”—is used with a wide stretch of reference, including
the action of the affections and of the will as well as of the
intellect, “to think, to have regard for, to like, desire.” In
an appeal to Christians for unity with regard to ¢povetv, the
main idea is that of oneness of feeling and aim, resting on
that substantial oneness of thought as to all vital matters
which is presupposed in the simple fact of their being
addressed as Christians. The meaning of ouodpwy is very
clearly and distinctly brought out in Phil. ii. 2-4, where the
synonymous expression iva 70 av’to dpovfte is expanded in a
series of participial clauses.
Whilst cvp7raGjs and its cognates have all quite naturally
a tendency to lean in their meaning specially to the side of
si Gabe a FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. dae ee
“ fellow-feeling with those who are suffering,” and the verb
oupTraGety in both of the places where it occurs in N. T.
(Heb. iv. 15, x. 34) has this special’ force, yet in classical
use the words are by no means limited to a reference to
suffering, but express fellow-feeling in emotions arising from
pleasant experiences also. In the passage before us there
seems no reason for narrowing the meaning, and the force of
the word may safely be taken as that of Paul’s injunction in
tom. xii. 15, “ Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep
with them that weep.” If we were to translate the word
simply “ compassionate,’ we should hardly be able to recognise
in evorrAayyxvoe any specialty of meaning at all; whereas if
oup7adeis has its full reference, then quite naturally and
helpfully emphasis is laid hy edowdayyvor on the more
important of the two sides of sympathy.—On ¢rdded gor, cf.
1, 22, 23.—The adjective edowdayyvos, as used in N. T.,
naturally follows in its meaning the familiar Hellenistic sense
of omAayxva, “ compassion,” derived from the fact that among
the Hebrews the imagined local seat of tne feelings, which
with us is the heart, wasthe higher viscera. As used in the
N. T., the words of this root appear, from the connections in
which they stand, to have the idea of tenderness specially
prominent ; and therefore the best rendering of evoTAayyvor
is probably “ tender-hearted.” As observed above, the word
seems to be brought in here to emphasize that duty of helpful
pity for the poor and the distressed which has been already,
but with somewhat less definiteness, indicated by cuprraeis,
—and also, one may fairly think, to lay stress on the import-
ance of tenderness in feeling and manner in the discharge of
the duty.—The last of this group of adjectives, ravrewddpoves,
“lowly-minded,” sets forth a feature of character without
which none of the graces that have been already named could
possibly exist in purity. Pride inevitably involves to some
extent self-seeking. But love, kindness, and sympathy at
once connect themselves with Christian lowliness of mind,—
which springs from two sources, true self-knowledge, and a
216 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fll. 9.
perception, from the example of Christ, of the sublime duty
and dignity of humbling ourselves in self-sacrificing love.
On tarewodpoovrvn, see Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 42.
Looking back now over the group of adjectives in the
verse, we see clearly at once the comprehensiveness and the
connectedness of the apostle’s exhortation; and the sum of
the whole matter is that to which Paul leads us, after his
illustration already adverted to (Phil. ii. 2—4) of the meaning
of To adto dpoveiv, “ Let that mind be in you (todTo dpovette
év buiv) which was also in Christ Jesus” (ver. 5).
Ver. 9. The same supreme example was in all likelihood
vividly before Peter’s mind also at this stage of his exhorta-
tion, for when now, at the natural transition point (see above,
introductory note on ver. 8) afforded by the mention of
“lowliness of mind,” he passes on to speak of the duties of
believers amid the oppositions of the world, his words are such
as at once to recall to the thoughts of every Christian the life
of the Redeemer, being indeed but a slightly altered form of
words employed of Christ in ii. 23.
Our apostle in his statement of the duty (on which cf.
Matt. v. 39-48) begins with a reference to the suffering of
material wrong of any kind, and then proceeds to speak of
irritation by abusive language. Though the latter may be in
itself in many cases an evil of a lighter kind than the other,
the temptation to retaliate is often here peculiarly strong,
from the facility with which verbal retort can be made.
Thus the two clauses are well balanced in weight—The
injunction p41) aodudovtes Kaxoy avti Kaxov occurs in two of
the Pauline letters in substantially the same form as here
(Rom. xii. 17; 1 Thess. v.15). These two Epistles are among
those which were most likely to be largely circulated through-
out the Church early; the former, because of its signal import-
ance, and of the frequent intercourse between Rome and all
parts of the empire; the other, because it was the very first of
the apostle’s extant writings. The mode of expression may
therefore quite possibly have suggested itself to Peter from
Il. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PART
memory,— probably, with respect to a mere turn of expression
like this, the unconscious action of memory.—The use here
exemplified of the verb azrodiéwps, in which obviously the
thought of back, “render, return,’ is involved, is a very
common one. ‘This particular idea, however, does not seem
to lie, as some scholars have supposed, in the preposition, for
there is nothing in the ordinary meaning and use of azo
from which it could naturally be deduced. It appears to
have been derived simply from usage, the word having come
to be applied in a large number of cases where the connection
naturally gave the idea of return; cf. ii. 25, émeotpadnre,
note-—In the antithesis to Aodopia, Kaxov avtTt Kaxod has
plainly reference to material wrong, injury in action, though
xakov in itself is quite general, and indeed, as employed in
ver. 10, points to sin of the tongue.
Tovvavtiov (on the adverbial accusative, cf. ver. 8, note on
To TéAos) introduces with emphasis the positive side in the
action of the new nature, “ contrariwise, in direct opposition
to these carnal impulses;” cf. 2 Cor. ii. 7; Gal. ii. 7—In
eUNoyoovtes the immediate antithesis is with Nodopia. It is
true that the thought of resulting good connects itself at once
with the word “bless,” and in the present case every reader
feels that the spirit of active love implied in evAoyobvtes
extends not merely to the returning of good words for Nodopia,
but of good deeds for caxov. Still the most natural reference
is to “ blessing” in the strict sense, “invoking God’s kindness
upon,” in contrast with the last-mentioned form of wrong,
“yailing.’—The last clause of the verse may be taken in two
somewhat different ways, according to what is regarded as the
reference in todto, (1) This reference may be retrospective,
to evdoyouvTes, “ because ye were called with a view to this,
namely, your blessing others, your living in a spirit of active
love.” This connection is supported by the analogous case in
ii, 21, where the reference obviously is to what precedes.
Supposing that here e’s tovro means eis TO evAoyetv, then two
constructions are possible. (a) The clause introduced by va
218 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Ill. 9.
may be connected with é«An@nre, in which case iva sets forth
the divine purpose in calling them—to train them in the
spirit of love, in order that, thus meetened for the land of
perfect love, they might ultimately inherit it. (8) We may
take the words 6é7u els todtTo éxAnOnTe as a parenthesis, thus
bringing ta into immediate connection with evAoyodrtes, and
making the last clause express not the divine purpose, but
that of the Christians themselves, “blessing (for to this ye
were called) in order to be blessed.” This construction seems
hardly a likely one, the parenthesis being bald and somewhat
unnatural. (2) But instead of referring to what precedes,
Touro may point forward directly to wa: “Ye were called
with a view to this, namely, that,” ete. (els toto, wa KTX.
thus= els To evdoyiav KAnpovoyjoas). This is supported by
the analogous case in iv. 6; ef. John xviii. 37; 1 Joln iii. 8.
On this connecticn the argument is, “ Bless others, because
the purpose of God’s calling you is that ye may inherit
blessing—and for those whom even when they were His
enemies God cared for, and by His grace made heirs of
blessing, to do other than bless even their enemies, is opposed
to the new nature of God’s children, and a monstrous thing in
God’s sight.” The words of Peter do not indeed express all
this, but they suggest it, and the argument could not be
obscure to any one who remembered the teaching of the Master
regarding the unmerciful servant (Matt. xviii. 21-35), and
regarding the true mode of proof that men have through faith
become “children of our Father which is in heaven” (Matt.
v. 45). These Asiatic Christians, too, had in Paul’s Epistle
to the Ephesians read, “ Forgiving one another, even as God
for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. iv. 32). Whilst
either view of the reference of tovto yields a good meaning,
and there is no very decisive argument in favour of the one
over the other, this latter view seems on the whole the more
likely.
The A. and R. E. V. render evAoyiav here “a blessing,’—-7.e.
no doubt, “a gift from God through His blessing,” the special
III. 10-12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 219
reference being, cf course, to heaven and its happiness. The
same thought is given by Luther more definitely by den
Segen. It may be questioned whether, considering the close
connection of thought which the substantive here has with the
verb evAoyodrtes, the conception of the inheritance which was
before the apostle’s mind was not that of “blessing,” with the
active force of the verb present (cf. Heb. vi. 7; Jas. ili. 10,
in A. and R. E. V.), rather than that of “a (fruit of) blessing.”
The heritage meant seems to be “ benediction,’ — the grace
of God blessing us throughout eternity. Tyndale and the
Geneva version both have simply “blessing” here.— In
“inherit blessing” one can hardly but recognise a reminiscence
of the Lord’s great word in Matt. xxv. 34, “Come, ye blessed
of my Father, enherit the kingdom.”
Vv. 10-12. The general exhortation given in the two pre-
ceding verses is supported here by a quotation from Scripture,
made, as is the apostle’s wont (cf. eg. i. 24, ii. 7, 9), with-
out formal reference. The quotation is from Ps. xxxiv.
12-16, and is made from the LXX. almost verbatim, there
being but one change which is of the least moment. The
substance of the passage shows that the connection marked by
yap (ver. 10) is with the whole of the two preceding verses.
The choice of this particular O. T. exhortation for quotation,
however, was possibly suggested by the last thought in ver. 9,
regarding the believer’s inheriting blessing: at all events the
opening words of the passage from the Psalm accord perfectly
with such a view, for Go and 7uépas ayaOai associate them-
selves immediately with edAoyia (cf. Ps. exxxiil. 3, xxx. 5).—
As Bengel has observed, the three forms of duty to which in
vy. 8, 9, the apostle has turned the attention of his brethren,
the cultivation of peace and love among themselves, and the
abstaining in their intercourse with the world from revenge
in action and from revengeful language, are all—though with
ereater generality of reference—spoken of in the passage
quoted, but in the reverse order. It is worth noting, too, that
these three precepts illustrate, in the form into which the
220 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 10.
Psalmist has cast them, three different styles of the parallelism
of Hebrew poetry.
The substance of the quotation is, “ Live, my brethren, in love
and peace and likeness of character to God; for, as God has told
us in His word, the secret of true happiness is to do His will.”
Ver. 10. The only deviation from the LX X. which is made
in the quotation, other than merely of an altogether slight
and formal kind, is here,—the LXX., which is substantially in
accordance with the Hebrew, reading in the first clause 0 0é\ov
Conv, ayaTav nucpas deliv ayabas. Much ingenuity has been
shown by commentators in endeavouring to prove that Peter’s
substitution of ayamav cat for ayarav does not in the least
alter the meaning, except perhaps by giving the expression of
it a little more intensity. But the modes of construing and
interpretation which are suggested with a view to this are all
forced; and it seems clear that the apostle, whilst substan-
tially in agreement with the LXX., yet by his slight alteration
of phraseology introduces a new thought, interesting and im-
pressive (novum salem addit, Bengel). Looking at the fact that
under certain outward experiences, or as the issue of certain
moods of feeling or trains of thought, life appears at times to
multitudes of men to be dull, weary, even hateful (Job ii1.;
Eccles. ii. 17; Gen. xxvii. 46), the apostle says not merely, as
the Psalmist does, ‘The man who desires life,’ but “ The
man who desires to love life,’ “ The man who wants to feel
vividly and joyfully that life is worth living,’—z.. of course,
practically, as is expressly set forth in the parallel of the
second clause, “ The man who wishes to have a happy life, to
see good days (days full of good, and of what is felt to be
good).” In this passage “life” is obviously in the first
instance that here on earth, but under the light of the gospel
the mind passes directly and unhesitatingly—as doubtless,
even amid the dimness of O. T. revelation, the Psalmist’s
mind passed in a measure—to think also and chiefly of the
full, glorious, endless life of heaven, “ even length of days for
ever and ever.”
bo
pat
III. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 2
The idea of energetic restraint which is given in the word
Tavoatw reminds us vividly of the wild and wicked impetu-
osity of the tongue by nature: cf. Jas. ii. 8. The classical
construction of wavevy is with the simple genitive of the thing.
This is also the apostle’s own construction, if duaptias be the
correct reading in iv. 1. In the present place the LXX., which
he follows, has, in accordance with the general Hellenistic
tendency to prepositional constructions, introduced aro before
xaxovd. In the following part of the clause, however, where
the infinitive with rod comes in, azo is both in the LXX. and
by Peter left out. This construction of tod Xadjoar might be
explained as an infinitive of purpose, “ Let him refrain his lips,
that they may speak no guile;” but, looking to the form of
the whole sentence, it seems more natural to join tod AXadAjoae
immediately with mavodtw, “Let him refrain his lips from
speaking guile.” The occurrence in the clause of the negative
py does not present an objection to this view of the construc-
tion, for this particle, in its use after verbs of denying, with-
holding, hindering,—in which, no doubt, originally it had its
proper negative force, the subordinate clause being thought of
as one of purpose,—seems, from the form into which sentences
of the kind are often thrown, to have ultimately been prac-
tically pleonastic. The pleonasm is doubted by some modern
scholars; but certainly in cases at least—such as the present
—where tov is prefixed to the infinitive, and where the
governing verb is one to which a genitive may be immediately
attached, it seems at times strained to regard the construction
as different from what it would have been had the genitive of
the derived verbal substantive stood in place of the infinitive
of the verb: cf. Winer, pp. 409,755; A. Buttmann, pp. 269,
355; and Ellicott on Gal. v. 7—The parallelism in this first
precept is that of a general and a particular statement,—
xaxov here evidently referring to sin of the tongue of all kinds,
whilst d0Aov gives prominence to one form of the sin, that to
which there is the strongest and most frequent temptation,
and by which harm is most commonly done to others,
bo
lo
Lo
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TU aed:
Ver. 11. From reference to care over the tongue the
Psalmist passes on here to speak of conduct generally, and
this under two divisions, the first of these having the widest
possible reference, and the other special reference to the
cultivation of peace. In the former of these divisions the
parallelism is that of negative and positive statements of the
duty of obeying the will of God: we are to “bend, or turn,
out of moral evil,” and we are to “do good,’—“ evil” and
“good” being both obviously used with the broadest reference.
Very similar in substance and in form are Isaiah’s “ Cease to
do evil, learn to do well” Gi. 16, 17), and Paul’s “ Abhor that
which is evil, cleave to that which is good” (Rom. xii. 9).—
According to the most probable reading, the conjunction 6é is
inserted by the apostle after éxxAwatw, The thought in
Peter’s mind which the particle expresses would seem to be,
“but remember that good words must be supported by good
works.” So slight, however, is its adversative power here, that
English idiom hardly permits us to translate it at all—The
closing injunction of the series has regard to peace in a very
wide use of the word, peace in all the societies and relations
with which we are concerned or on which we can exert influ-
ence: cf. Heb. xi, 14; Rom. xii, 18. The parallelism here
is climactic : we are to “ seek” peace as a thing of the highest
value, and which at the same time needs diligent search to find
it,—yea, we are to “pursue” it, as a thing which amid the
excitements and tumults of life is very apt to take to flight.
Ver. 12. This verse gives the ground of the assurance that
the man who desires happiness will find it in doing the will of
God: “because God sees and cares for the righteous, and sees
also the wicked.” That His seeing the wicked carries with it
condemnation and punishment, is left to the mind of the
reader. The particle ors is introduced into the quotation by
the apostle himself, the sentence standing in the LXX., as
in the Hebrew, without any formal connection with what
precedes. The parallelism in the Psalm here is that of a
quatrain, each of the two main statements having attached to
Iii, 12.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 223
it a sister statement, which elucidates the primary one by
setting forth explicitly the nature and issues of the divine
?
“seeing,” in the one gracious and helpful, in the other stern
and punitory. “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
—and His ears toward their cry: the face of the Lord is upon
them that do evil,—to cut off the remembrance of them from
the earth.” In his citation Peter leaves out the last clause,
and the abruptness thus produced has in its suggestiveness a
peculiarly solemn effect.
Many expositors have endeavoured to find in the clause,
“The face of the Lord is upon them that do evil,” an express
statement of the difference of the character of this looking
from that of His looking upon the righteous. They lay stress
on the substitution here of “face,” for “eyes” of the other
clause,—regarding “face” as, from O. T. usage, a word fitted
of itself to indicate the idea of displeasure. There are
certainly a number of passages in O. T. (eg. Gen. iv. 5,
xxxi. 2) in which the word 0°35 (spoow7ov, LXX.) occurs in
connection with statements regarding the exhibition of anger ;
and in two places where the divine “face” is spoken of, the
thought intended is clearly shown by the context to be of
such a kind that in our English versions the word “ anger” is
used instead of “face” (Ps. xxi. 9 and Lam. iv. 16),—in the
latter place Luther also having Zorn, and De Wette Zornblick.
Still, with regard to “the countenance of God,” a use of the
expression like this is quite exceptional, and in these cases the
idea of anger does not lie in the word itself, but merely in the
connection. Beyond doubt, from the ordinary use of the term
with reference to God (Num. vi. 26; Ps. iv. 6, xi. 7, xxi. 6,
etc.), grace and joy are the ideas which would most readily
associate themselves with the expression, taken simply by
itself. Neither can anything be made of the preposition
emt in the way of establishing an express difference of
meaning between the third clause and the first. It is true
that, as employed in these clauses, éw¢ represents different
Hebrew prepositions, in the first clause ON, and in the third
PA) a FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ilk “8-47,
2; but there does not seem reason to think that any un-
favourable sense lies in 2 taken simply by itself, and the
meaning appears to be, “ the face of the Lord is with (present
with) evil-doers.” The Revisers of our A. V. have undoubtedly
done right in using one word, “upon,” as the rendering of ém/
in both clauses, instead of the contrasted “ over ” and “ against”
of the A. V. On the whole, it seems clear that in the third
clause of the verse and the first alike the one thought which is
expressed is that God sees the righteous, sees the wicked. The
contrast, slightly indicated by the adversative conjunction 6é,
is left to be fully presented to the mind by the marked absence
in the last clause of anything answering to the gracious words
as to “the ears of the Lord being toward the prayer of the
righteous,’—by the naturally suggested remembrance of the
following clause in the Psalm, which is here omitted,—and,
generally, by the knowledge we all have, through conscience
and revelation, of God’s hatred of sin.
Vv. 13-17. On duty under persecution.
At this point the apostle passes by an easy and natural
transition into a new and important section of the practical
part of the Epistle, dealing with the difficulties and trials to
which Christians are exposed, as placed in the midst of a_
hostile world. To this subject there have been references in
the previous part (i. 6, 7, 11, 12, 15), such as to show that
from the beginning the writer's mind was much occupied with
it ; and in this division on which we now enter he gives with
regard to it very full advices and consolations. This section
may be said to extend to the close of the body of the Epistle,
that is, to v. 11; for though in some places the apostle’s
observations and counsels have a general reference, yet there
is distinct evidence that the special requirements of a suffering
Christian community were throughout prominently before his
mind.
IIL. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. O75
Ver. 13. The question introduced by «a/ gives in a vivid
form an additional conclusion to that which the readers are
assumed to have already drawn from the data stated by the
Psalmist, or, more exactly, sets forth with special distinctness
one element in that conclusion which they were prone to
overlook ; thus, “ The passage which has been quoted tells
you—and you believe it—that the secret of a happy life is to
do the will of God, for God is looking down on the moral life
of the world, and certainly will bless the righteous. And
observe, as a part which you are apt to forget of the same
general truth, that, under the providence of your omni-
scient and almighty Father, no one, however much he may
hate you, can do you real harm.” To link on a question by
“and” to what has preceded is most natural, and this mode of
expression is probably found occasionally in every language,
the immediate connection being often with some thought not
stated, but obviously suggested by the previous course of
remark, and the logical relation of the question to what has
gone before being very varied. The use of «ad in this way is
common in classical Greek, and occurs now and then in N. T.,
eg. Mark.x. 26; Luke x. 29; cf. Winer, p. 545. — In his
question the apostle puts xax@owv and ted dyaOod in sharp
antithesis, appealing to his readers, as it were, in this way:
“Ts it not your fixed belief that under the government of a
righteous God ayafov in the sense of ‘physical good’ will
certainly in the long run attach itself to aya@ov in the sense
of ‘moral good, and xaxoy, ‘ physical evil) to «axov, ‘ moral
evil’? If, then, ye be zealous pursuers of what is morally
good, how can you think that you are to be subjected to
physical evil?” Kaxocwyv is evidently used, therefore, with
a very wide reference, the chief thought in it having respect
to permanent harm, as to which there is an absolute declara-
tion that, given the required condition of zealously following
good, the thing cannot possibly be——with a glance besides,
however, at the truth that, with respect even to the earthly
sources of quietness and comfort in life, good is as a rule
is
226 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. phic es
visible, and not evil, in the dealings of God’s providence
towards His people, for “ when a man’s ways please the Lord,
He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Prov.
xvi. 7). As regards this latter aspect of the case, however,
there are, in God’s wisdom and kindness, for the higher good
of the individual Christians immediately concerned and the
quickening of the Church as a whole, many exceptions; and
to the fact, which he knew to be with much vividness before
the minds of his readers, that not improbably the lot of some
of them might be among the exceptions, the apostle proceeds
in the following verse to draw attention.
Considering not merely the formal similarity, but the close
resemblance or indeed identity in the course of thought, it
seems very likely that, in the first clause of the verse before
us, the apostle had present to his mind the first clause of Isa.
1. 9, given in the LXX. thus: (dod Kvpios Kiptos BonOyoer pov
Tis Kakwoes we; By the apostle’s form of the question, in
which the participle with the article is used, we have set
before us expressly what the simple question, “ Who will
work you evil?” would have but suggested in a remote way,
namely that, as the apostle was aware, this thought of
coming evil was one which was already seriously occupying
and agitating the minds of his readers. The grammatical
subject of the sentence is 6 xaxécwv; thus, “The man who is
to do you harm, the harm-doer whom I know you are with
some dread looking for, who is he ?”
The clause, “If ye be zealous of good,” whilst, as has been
seen, suggesting an argument through the antithesis between
Kakwowv and ayaGod, at the same time reminds the readers,
solemnly and impressively, of the only condition on which
they had any reasonable ground to look for God’s keeping
them from evil. The clause is, in fact, an expanded statement
of that connection between this sentence and the preceding
quotation which has been already indicated by xa’; for tod
ayabob EnrAwtai at once leads back the mind to the central
precept of the quotation, momoatw ayaOov (ver. 11). By the
Pe 13°] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. page
article in tod dya0ov the various forms of moral excellence
which have been spoken of separately in vv. 10, 11, are
summed up and presented as a unity, “ good,’ “ that which
is good.” By many scholars tod ayafod has been taken as
masculine. With the reading of the T. R., weunrad in place
of ¢nXwTai, there was in favour of this view the argument
that in every one of the other passages in N. T. where
ftuntyns is found—six in all—its construction is with a
genitive of the person; cf. eg. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14. Consider-
ing, however, the very great likelihood that in tod ayafov we
are to recognise a reference to aya@ov of ver. 11, there seems
to be good reason to think that, even supposing pspntai to
be the correct reading, the adjective is neuter. The verb
ptpetoOar is in Heb. xiii. 7 followed by an accusative of the
thing, and in 3 John 11 its object is the neuter of the same
word found here (ro dyadov); and the substantive might
be similarly connected. Again, whilst “the wicked one” is
a frequent N. T. designation of Satan, and “the Just One”
seems to have been well known as a designation of the
Saviour (cf. 11. 18, note), there is no evidence—for our Lord’s
words in Matt. xix. 17 obviously prove nothing with regard
to usage—that the name “the Good One” was a mode of
expression in use for God or Christ. Zndwtai, however, has
much better support than psynrad, and with it there is no
argument at all for taking aya@od as masculine, seeing that
fprAwTys is in N. T. attached as freely to a genitive of the
thing as of the person. It is not unlikely, as Alford suggests,
that the reading wsntav may have arisen from a reminiscence,
in the mind of some copyist, of the passage already referred
to in 3 John. —On Grwrai as here used, cf. particularly
Tit. 11. 14.
The verb yevnaGe, as here employed, does not, according to
N. T. usage, imply or suggest that the apostle doubted whether
at the present time his readers were “zealous of good.”
Writing to them as Christians, he could not but assume that
they were in some degree what their profession declared; and
228 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ie 73.
the employment of yiyveo@au instead of etvas is, in accordance
with a frequent Scripture usage in such cases, based on the
fact that, so long as men are on earth, all Christian attainment
is imperfect, and that therefore believers must always be
“becoming” in higher measure what already to a certain extent
they “are;” ef. eg. John xv. 8; Rom. xii. 16; Philamy 27,
On the untenableness of the rigid view maintained by some
scholars regarding the meaning of yiyveoOac in N. T., ef.
Huther on Jas.i. 22. Huther’s remarks bear specially on the
use of the imperative, but his proof is really applicable to any
part of the verb when employed of Christian character in a
communication addressed to Christians.
Another view of the force of this verse than that which
has now been given is possible. The verse may be held not
to be a corollary from the positions laid down in the quotation
which the apostle has made from the 54th Psalm, but a new
thought, similar to that already given in ii. 12, which comes
in again in the 16th verse of the present chapter: “If
ye are seen to be plainly and perseveringly given to the
pursuit of what is good, who will do you harm ?—who, indeed,
will not rather, through your exhibition of a character which
in some degree even the mere natural conscience recognises as
beautiful, be won to regard you with favour and kindliness ?”
Cf. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, i. 3, ayamate Tovs pucovr-
Tas vuas,—Kal ovy &&ere éyOpov. Even in an age when
Christians were exposed to no little suspicion and trouble for
their religion, and when positive persecution seemed to be not
improbable, or had indeed begun, a general statement like this
of what, on the whole, would be found to be the case through-
out the history of the Church might naturally and helpfully
be made. It would fit in, too, quite well with what follows.
But there seem to be objections to this interpretation.
First, a question introduced as this is by «av appears to
require a closer connection with what precedes than would be
given on this view, according to which the leading thought
is of the judgement of men, and the idea of Divine Providence
TEES, 14. | FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 229
is secondary. Secondly, this view destroys, or at least makes
remote, the similarity of meaning in the verse to that of the
first clause of Isa. 1. 9, which (see above) seems to have been
in the apostle’s mind. Thirdly, a thought like that supposed
—which, though similar to that expressed in 11. 12, is at the
same time somewhat different from it, and, for persons situated
as the first readers of the Epistle were, was perhaps a somewhat
more diflicult one to entertain—would hardly have been given
in the brief and abrupt form in which this short verse would
present it, but would have been expanded a little. Fourthly,
the intensity which lies in the word €nAwrai appears to
suggest rather that in the mind of the writer the relation
between his readers and the eye of God was vividly present,
than that he was thinking of their conduct as looked on by
men. These objections taken together appear sufficient to
show that this view of the meaning of the verse is unlikely.
Neither can we well combine the interpretations. Whilst
perfectly consistent with each other, they are not so related
as that we can very naturally suppose a writer to have
intended to express both thoughts by the same words.
Ver. 14a. The division of verses here is not happy. The
second clause of ver. 14 introduces a new thought, and ought
to have been thrown into another verse, which should have
gone on to vue@y in ver. 15,
In the first clause of ver. 14 the apostle deals with an
apparent exception to the general position laid down in the
previous verse; an exception to which, as he knew, the minds
of his readers, situated as they were, would immediately turn,
—their thoughts on the subject having been, indeed, already
pointed to in the definiteness of 0 xaxwcwv. “I have said
that those who serve God will not be harmed; and that
assurance, absolute with regard to ultimate issues, includes
also a declaration that, as a rule, here on earth, the hand of
their enemies will be restrained. But supposing that the
ase were to occur which to human vision seems most opposed
to this assurance,—supposing that you were to suffer because
230 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LEM: a4
of your faithfully doing the will of God,— still you are
blessed, still there is no Kdxwovs other than according to a
superficial application of the word.”
On the use of e¢ cat and «ai ef, see iii. 1, note. In
English “even if” is frequently used a little loosely, not
merely for the case to which it properly belongs, where the
supposition made is represented as in itself unlikely («ai ec),
but for that, as here, where the supposition may in itself be
a probable one, but the case supposed is difficult to reconcile
with the apodosis (e¢ xa’).— On the construction of eé with
the optative, rare in N. T., as indeed is the optative mood in
any connection, see Winer, p. 367; A. Buttmann, p. 223;
Jelf, § 855. What this construction exhibits is merely the
supposition of a thing as possible, with perhaps also, in the
instance before us, according to a frequent use of this form, a
suggestion of possible repetition. In the present case, too,
and in ver. 17, we have, as Mr. Sheldon Green remarks
(Gram. p. 162), illustrations of a tendency found in Greek
writers, in accordance with the general sweetness and delicacy
of Greek style, to use this particular form of hypothesis,
expressing mere possibility, for a supposition of a distressing
kind. — The verb wacyeu is a favourite one with our apostle,
being in this short Epistle used by him oftener than it is by
any other N. T. writer. His transition to this word in the
present verse is probably due to a distinct intention to
intimate that “suffering” is not «axodc@ac in the sense in
which mainly he had employed that verb in the previous
verse ; also, perhaps, to remove the thoughts of his readers
from a mode of expression in which the human agents in
causing the suffering were directly suggested to the mind, to
a word more general in its reference, fitted rather to lead the
heart to look to God, under whose providence the trouble
came. —In da Scxatocvvny there is possibly still a reference
to the passage quoted from the Psalm, the fact that “the
eyes of the Lord are émi dvca/ovs” having been made pro-
minent in the close of the quotation. Certainly, however, in
III. 14, 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 231
this expression, taken in association with waxapior and with
the general force of the clause, we cannot fail to recognise an
echo of one of the beatitudes (Matt. v.10). Turned to often, no
doubt, by all the apostles for strength and cheer, that declara-
tion of the Lord, one naturally thinks, must have graven itself
specially on the heart of Peter, considering the intimation
which had been given to him by Jesus Himself that he
was to die by martyrdom. — To paxdpsor the mind at once
supplies the present indicative éoré. Some scholars (as
Webster and Wilkinson) supply dv elnte, the mode of
expression required for a rigidly formal apodosis in a hypo-
thetical sentence introduced by e¢ with the optative. The
ellipsis of these words, however, in any writer is exceedingly
unlikely (Jelf, § 376); and even if the supplement were a
defensible one, the construction thus obtained is opposed to
the usage of the N. T., for nowhere in it is there a complete
hypothetical sentence of the optative form. The force of the
ereat statement presented by paxdpioe would be weakened,
too, by this form of the copula. — Here, as in the beatitudes,
and indeed generally throughout the N. T., waxdpvos is mainly
objective in its reference, intimating the existence of the
erounds of happiness, whether or not these are at the time in
any large measure subjectively apprehended and the sense of
happiness felt. The true Christian is “blessed” even when
through feebleness of faith he is not consciously full of bliss. On
the “ blessedness” of those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake,
eh lke vil 22993): Acts v4.1 Philii, 28; 29 392) Dim. 1.12.
Vv. 148, 15a. A warning, in close connection with
pakapeo., against yielding to fear under threatened or actual
persecution. “ But remember that this blessedness can come
only to those who persevere in the way of righteousness.
Therefore, whatever persecutions may be threatened or brought
upon you by the enemies of the truth, do not yield to fear,
but glorify Jesus as your Lord and the Lord of the universe,
by cleaving to Him in persistent holy obedience, and by
childlike faith in His gracious guardianship.”
Jon FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (EDT. aes a5.
The apostle here, as so often, adopts O. T. words as the
vesture of his thought, applying them freely. The passage
used is Isa, vill. 12, 13, as given by LXX. The prophet is
there reporting words which had been spoken to him by God
Himself, commanding him and His other true servants in the
nation not to share in those terrors of invasion which were
entertained by the people around them, but to cleave in
simplicity of faith to God—As used by the apostle, the
pronoun avt@y (which may either have been substituted by
him for avrod of the LXX., or may have been in his copy,
avtov being found in some MSS.) refers obviously to those
enemies who, in the word waoyoure, are implicitly pointed to
as the agents in the suffering of the Christians. On this
occasional use of avtds in N. T. in relation to an antecedent
not expressed but readily suggested,—a mode of expression
which has abundant analogies in free conversational style in
any language,—cf. Winer, p. 182, A. Buttmann, p. 106.—In
Isaiah the command is plainly, “ Do not fear the fear which
they entertain.” As regards the grammar, this implies that
poBov PoBnOjre is the construction of the cognate accusative,
and that the governed genitive falls under the possessive class.
As the words are applied by Peter, the general meaning is
quite clear, but the precise nature of the construction doubtful.
Taking it exactly as in LXX., the sense would be, “ Do not
permit yourselves to cherish the same fear which your per-
secutors do”—namely, fear of fines, prisons, bodily tortures,
which, because they themselves fear them, they think will be
instruments to subdue your faith, and therefore employ against
you. This construction brings out the sense in what, for
Peter’s purpose, seems too remote and indirect a way. Again,
avT@v may be taken in an objective relation to @oBov, “ fear
not the fear of them,’
them.” In this case the definiteness in tov would be, “ the
b
ie. simply, “do not be at all afraid of
fear which you know to exist in some measure in your hearts”
(cf. John vii. 13). Perhaps again, thouch not very naturally,
taking avtwy subjectively, “their fear” might mean, “ the
Ill. 14, 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 235
b)
fear which they endeavour to inspire in you;” but more
probably, if avtav be viewed as having this force, the objec-
tive sense of do8ov would have to be supposed, “ the instru-
ment or cause of fear,” ze. the cruelty or persecution itself,—
“the (instrument of) terror which they employ ” (cf. Ps. xci.
[xe. Sept.] 5, where, however, the construction is different,
gokynOnon amo doBov). This last view of the construction
seems to be that represented by the rendering of our A. V.,
“ Be not, afraid of their terror;” whilst the Revisers, who
appear to adopt the construction
5)
have “ Fear not their fear,
first mentioned, the same as in Isaiah. Perhaps preferable
to either is that given second above, yielding simply the
sense, “ Do not be at all afraid of them.” On the construe-
tion, cf. iii, 6, note.—By ypndé tapay@jre the mind is
carried forward to think of the agitation, distractions, surgings
to and fro of thought and feeling, which are brought on by
strong fear, and which tend to impede all the exercises of
spiritual religion, and to overthrow that restfulness of heart
in God which should characterize the Christian. On the
force of tapaccec Oar here, cf. John xiv. 1, 27.
In the second clause of the quotation the apostle deviates
in a most striking and interesting way from the language of
Jsaiah. The prophet’s words are, “Sanctify Jehovah of Hosts
Himself,” which the LXX., according to the oldest texts,
vives in the abridged form Kvpiov aitov aytacate, In place
of adrov, Peter has substituted tov Xpuotov (for the authority
for this reading over tov @eov of the T. R. is quite decisive).
This is perhaps the most remarkable of several instances in
which textual criticism, whilst it has removed from the text
or has somewhat affected the weight of certain proof passages
for the divinity of our Lord, has brought into view others
which were formerly hidden. Nothing more impressive with
respect to the belief and teaching of the inspired apostle on
this head could be conceived than, in a distinct quotation
from the O. T., his deliberately writing in place of the great
name, “The Lorp of Hosts Himself,’ “the Lorp Christ.”
234 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ITI, 14, 15.
The construction of the clause is a little doubtful. There
is no grammatical objection to our taking Kvpsov, though
anarthrous, in immediate connection with tov Xpuctov, “the
Lord Christ,’ on the analogy of the common LXX. combina-
tion Kupuos 6 Oeds (eg. Gen. it. 4, 15, 16), which is found also
a number of times in the Apocalypse (ey. xix. 6, xxii. 5).
As, however, the apostle introduces after Kvpcov the particle
6é, whilst neither the LXX. nor the Heb. has any connective,
it seems as if his mind rested for a moment specially on
Kvpuov; and it appears likely, therefore, that the form of his
thought was that which accords with ordinary Greek usage
in a sentence expressed like the present,—that is to say, that
Kvpuov is predicate, having peculiar emphasis from its position
at the head of the clause (cf. i. 17, watépa). The meaning
accordingly is, “ Sanctify the Christ in your hearts as Lord.”
As here employed, dyiafm obviously means “set apart,
enshrined as the object of supreme, absolute reverence, as free
from all defilement and possessed of all excellence.” This
sense of the verb springs immediately from the familiar use
of the adjective in appheation to God; but it is not found
very often. The only case in N. T. precisely similar to the
present is in the Lord’s Prayer, ayiacOnTw TO évoua cov
(Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2). In LXX. also this application of
ay.afm to God occurs occasionally ; eg. besides the passage of
Isaiah here quoted, Isa, xxix. 23; Deut. xxxii 51. It is
plain that by sin of any kind, and in a very marked way by
faithless terror at the threats or under the persecutions of
Christ’s enemies, by compromise with them, by apostasy, His
professed friends profane His name, displaying practically a
lack of remembrance of His claims to be constantly obeyed
by them and trusted with childlike faith. On the other
hand, all true service, and with peculiar distinctness sted-
fast adherence to His cause under the trial of persecution,
evinces intelligent and loving reverence for Christ, “sanc-
tifies” Him. The predicative addition Kupiov brings out
with great emphasis that position of Jesus, in relation to the
i)
Cc
Or
III, 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
believer himself and to the world, which the wise Christian
will have much before his mind and heart,—his rightful and
gracious King, who is at the same time Lord of the universe,
controlling all things with absolute sway, and making all
things work together for good to them that love Him.—To
the quotation which he makes from Isaiah, the apostle adds
mention of the shrine in which the “ hallowing” of Christ
is to take place—* in your hearts.” Considering the connec-
tion in which these words occur, one may reasonably think
that the apostle, in thus reminding his readers of the spiritual
nature of true religion, intended to suggest to them this
thought in particular, that, amid the tumults and the terrors
of the world, strength was to be obtained by turning the
eyes away from the strifes and confusions of earth, and
communing with the Saviour in the secret fellowship of
faith. Peter well remembered that it was when he looked
away from Jesus to survey the billows that he feared, and
began to sink.
Ver. 158. By some expositors (so A. V.) a new sentence
or independent clause is begun here, with the imperative
éote understood. But when we consider the naturalness
with which the words of this clause can be viewed as gram-
matically dependent on what immediately precedes, and the
fact that participial constructions are specially favoured by
our apostle, there seems good reason—strong in any Case,
and especially strong where the reading without the connec-
tive particle is adopted—to take the construction intended
by the writer as being é€zovpou (dvtes). According to this
view, the clause constitutes an epexegesis of the precept,
“ Sanctify Christ as Lord,” by attaching an explicit statement
of one important element in that sanctifying, “ being ready
always to give a vindication to every one who asks of you a
statement with regard to the hope which is in you,—but being
careful to do this with meekness and reverence.” The
“hallowing of Christ in the heart” by devotion to His will
and faith in His protection, will, among Christians placed
20 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (ns 18%
in the midst of opponents, show itself prominently in an
unflinching readiness to confess Him, and this in all cireum-
stances and to every kind of questioner (del, wavti), whether
magistrate on the tribunal or acquaintance in the common
intercourse of life-—provided only that in his inquiry he
appear in some measure sincere, and not obviously a mere
profane and frivolous or malignant caviller (Matt. vii. 6).
The statement (Adyos) which is asked for from the Christian
will be given, and will not be any hazy combination of
sentences meant mainly to propitiate foes by hiding the
characteristics of Christianity, but will take the form of a
frank defence of Christianity (awoNoyia, “a reasoning away ”
of misconceptions). The duty of thus giving a defence when
questioned is plainly represented by the apostle as one
incumbent on every believer. There is really involved in
the apostle’s precept here, therefore, an exhortation to all
Christians to seek growth in knowledge, to “ study to answer ”
(Prov. xv. 28),—so as to be able, at least, to point out in a
simple way some outstanding features of the evidence for the
truth of their religion.
According to the reading of T. R., which inserts dé after
érowot, the present clause would seem not to stand in an
immediate exegetical relation to adywacate, but to be a cor-
rection of a misconception; thus: “ Not, however, in your
‘hallowing of Christ ’’ by completeness of trust, disdaining to
regard in any way the thoughts of your opponents about you
and about your Lord; but, on the contrary, being ready to
answer their inquiries.” But there is ample MS. authority
for omitting 6é, which has slipped into the text possibly
through some thought of simplifying the period a little by
introducing here a new sentence, with the imperative as a
supplement.—The construction €roios mpos, quite classical,
occurs also in Tit. iii. 1—Aérody7 is governed by azroNoyiay,
through the force of the cognate verb, which is felt to lie in a
measure in the substantive, azroAoyeicOar being construed
with a dative (Acts xix. 33; 2 Cor. xii. 19), A construction
Il. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ae
like this, while perfectly natural, is not very common either
with classical writers or in N. T.; ef. another case with
amonoyia, 1 Cor. ix. 3, and with evyapiotia, 2 Cor. ix.
11, 12; and see Winer, p. 264; A. Buttmann, p. 180.—On
the distinction between the constructions wavti T@ aitodyTt
(=7rayti 6oT1s aitet) and ravti aitodytt, see Winer, p. 138,
—On oyos, as here used, cf. iv. 5; Rom. xiv. 12.
A reader feels that “hope” is exactly the word which
answers to the conditions of the case. Faith, of which the
Christians often spoke, would seem to the heathen around to
describe merely certain views or speculations on religion,
kindred in origin and in measure of trustworthiness to the
multitudes of products of fancy or of mental subtlety on this
subject which were to be heard or read of in that age. This
“faith ” might interest philosophers, but men in general were
not likely to be particularly curious with regard to it. But
a hope, as no doubt many heathen
the “hope” of Christians,
with whom believers were brought into contact understood in
a vague way, of seeing the return in glory of Jesus who had
been crucified, and of receiving through Him an inheritance
of blessedness,—this hope, when manifest and vivid, sustaining
the Christian under obvious and severe trials, was a practical
power, which could not but attract the attention and excite
the interest of every beholder of the slightest thoughtfulness.
The form, therefore, it is reasonable to suppose, which a
request made to believers for information about their religion
would take, would, in a very large proportion of cases, set
their “hope” in the foreground; and specially on it the
2?
“ defence ” would be made to bear.
The last clause of the verse is cautionary, “ But see to it
that in all your defences of your religion the spirit of that
religion be maintained: let your vindications of truth be
given with nothing of arrogance, nor. in a flippant, careless
way, as if by men of a superior caste; but, on the contrary,
with meekness, and with that thoughtful, holy reverence which
beseems a pleading on such a subject.’—On “ meekness,” cf.
238 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fie te:
iii. 4, note. By foBos here does not seem to be meant “ re-
verence” for those placed by Providence in a position of
authority, as in 11. 18, ii. 2; because, while no doubt the
precept of the verse includes a reference to defences made
before magistrates, it is in form quite general. Neither does
the sense “the fear of God,’ taken simply, quite suit the con-
nection with pera, or the co-ordinate association of o8ou
with wpatitntos. The idea intended appears rather to be that
expressed in the paraphrase just given, “reverence ” of feeling
and manner, such as becomes the solemn importance of the
subject dealt with, and the momentous consequences which
may result from the statement made. This reverential feel-
ing is obviously an immediate outflow from, or a special mani-
festation of, the fear of God. The best commentary on this
little cautionary clause is to be found in Col. iv. 5, 6.
Wiesinger well cites Luther’s fine paraphrase of it, based on
his own experience at Worms and elsewhere: “Then must ye
not answer with proud words, and state your cause with
defiance and with violence, as if ye would tear up trees; but
with such fear and humility as if ye stood before God’s judge-
ment-seat, .. . so must thon stand in fear, and not rely
on thine own strength, but on the word and promise of Christ,
Matt. x. 19, 20.”
Ver. 16. The participle here may be taken either as co-
ordinate with érowou (ovtes) of the previous verse, or as sub-
ordinate to it. In the former case, the two clauses together are
attached to ay.acate and expand its thought; in the latter case,
éyovtes brings in a most important reminder of a cautionary
kind in connection with readiness to answer inquiries, This
latter view seems the preferable. The clause €rocuoe x7X., whilst
epexegetical of dyiacate, obviously does not illustrate the
central principle or essence of the “hallowing of Christ,” but
draws attention to a mode in which the spirit of resolution to
hallow Him will show itself. But “having a good conscience”
lies in the very essence of “hallowing Christ,’ and the pre-
sent clause therefore hardly associates itself in a natural way
WEE aes. | FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 939
with the preceding as co-ordinate. On the other hand, when
taken as grammatically subordinate, it fits in perfectly.
Having enjoined readiness to answer inquiries, and—in a
somewhat incidental way, as is shown by his treating the
words as a parenthesis—introduced the caution with respect
to “meekness and reverence,’ the apostle now proceeds:
“remembering always the transcendent importance, in order
that your defences of Christianity may benefit men and glorify
God, of your not allowing your sufferings under persecution
to lead you to make in your conduct any compromise with
sin, but having the words with which you defend your religion
sustained by a consistently holy life.” If the view suggested
in the notes on ver. 11, above, of the force of the 6é which
the apostle interjects into his quotation, be correct, then the
relation between vv. 10 and 11 affords a close parallel to that
here between vv. 15 and 16.
On ouveidnow, cf. ii. 19, note. Where a moral quality is
ascribed to ouveidnois, as here ayaOy (also ver. 21; Acts
xxiii. 1; 1 Tim.i. 5,19; «ady, Heb. xiii. 18 ; cafapa, 1 Tim.
iii. 9; 2 Tim. i. 3; ampockotos, Acts xxiv. 16 ; movnpa, Heb.
x. 22), what is prominent in thought is plainly “ conscience,”
as the power bound to govern, and not simply “ conscious-
ness,” aS something passive. “A good conscience” is one
which, enlightened by the teaching of God’s Spirit, is truthful
and distinct in its utterances, and vigorous in its pressure on
the will. In every Christian it has defects, no doubt.
Not even in the most mature believer has the conscience
perfect clearness of vision, perfect articulateness of utterance,
perfect energy. But God recognises as “a good conscience ”
one which aims with full honesty to do His will; cf. Heb.
xiii. 18.—In the latter part of the verse the motive which is
suggested for “keeping a good conscience” is that, through
the steady persistence of Christians in well-doing, their
enemies, who from a partial acquaintance with their life mis-
judged them and spoke calumnies against them, might be
made ashamed, Now this effect could be produced only by
240 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. BH Ops
what was seen, by the workings in the outer life of a healthy
conscience, and therefore it may perhaps seem to us that it
would have been more natural for the apostle to speak ex-
pressly of the visible fruits of piety, saying, as in the precisely
parallel passage il. 12, “having your life beautiful.” The
bearings and effects of “ keeping a good conscience,” taking
that expression strictly, are simply subjective. To obtain a
correct view of Peters purpose in using the words which
he has done, however, and thus be able to see their aptness
and the beauty and richness of his teaching in the passage, we
must bring the last words of the verse into association with
the first. The a@ya@yjv attached to avactpog¢yy reduplicates
on the ayaOyv attached to cvveidnowv; and the apostle here
in most condensed language gives his readers the reminder
that true excellence of life can be produced only through the
workings of a soul made pure and holy, the firm government
of an enlightened healthy conscience. The use of the words
“having a good conscience” is obviously fitted to suggest also,
and perhaps was chosen by the apostle in order to suggest
another motive, of a subjective kind, besides that relating to
influence on others which he has expressed in the latter part
of the verse,—this motive, namely, “that in your defences of
Christianity you may have genuine comfort, and that their
reflex influence on your own spiritual life may be strengthen-
ing and elevating,”
On the thought conveyed by the latter part of the verse,
and on the use of év @, cf. ii. 12, notes. From assimilation
to the text of the parallel in that verse has no doubt arisen
the various reading here, cataXaXovow (or KaTadkaX@owv,—
found as a variant also in that passage) tuwav os KaKoTrolor, in
place of the simple «catadareicGe, given by Codex B, and
otherwise well supported——On katatoyvvOeow, cf. ii. 6.—On
emnpeavovres, cf. Luke vi. 28, where, as here, the verb governs
an accusative,—whilst by the classical writers it is construed
generally with a dative, sometimes with a genitive. There
seems, particularly judging from a definition given by Aris-
Ill. 17.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 241
totle (2het. ii. 2), to be involved in the sense of this word, not
thoughtless misrepresentation or insult merely, but an element
of meanness and malignity. Its force as used here, therefore,
would seem to be not simply “traduce,” but “enviously
traduce.’—By év Xpiot#, “which you maintain in Christ”
(i.e. “ through your union to Him”), the apostle links the end
of the long period closely to the great precept with which it
began, “ Hallow in your hearts Christ as Lord.” It is as if
he said, “ Remember that your aya6) dvactpody, which your
enemies deride and traduce, is in and through Christ,—is, in
fact, the great distinctive mark in you of His presence and
power. It is then by faithful, persistent continuance in this
blameless and useful life that you will most impressively
prove that you hallow Christ as Lord.”
Ver. 17. The connection intimated by yap is with cvveidqnouv
éxovtes ayabypy ; and by the verse, looked at in this connection,
we have substantially brought before us again the theme of the
whole passage, which was given us at the beginning in ver.
14, “If ye should suffer for righteousness’ sake, ye are blessed,”
a position exceedingly difficult for human nature to accept,
needing therefore iteration and reiteration, and as a matter of
fact set forth in Scripture in manifold ways and aspects. The
form in which the thought is presented here is very similar to
that found in 11.19, 20. Kpetrroy replies to the feeling of
impatience which, in unguarded moments, is so apt to rise in
a Christian soul under persecution, and which in a vague way
tends to this utterance, “ The treatment would seem less hard
to me, if I had a sense of having deserved it by misconduct.”
“Let any thought of this kind be far from you,” says the
apostle ; “it is better, immeasurably better, every way (beatius
infinitis modis, Bengel), if it should be God’s will to have you
suffer, that you suffer in and for well-doing, than in and for evil-
doing,—better, whether you regard immediately the glorifying
of your Father in heaven, or your own spiritual peace and
welfare under the trouble, or healthful influence on the world,
—better both as respects the present and the future.” On the
Q
242 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Tit 17.
rhetorical understatement (Avtorys) in xpetrtov (the thought
which the apostle really intends to send home being, of course,
that suffering for evil-doing has in it nothing at all of good,
but the very reverse), cf. the use of apxerds in iv. 3, with note.
—The use of xpetrrov here, in which the word obviously in-
cludes both the notion of moral excellence and that of happi-
ness, is as in 1 Cor. vii. 9, 38, xi. 17; 2 Pet. ii, 21.—On
the supplement in the apodosis, «petrrov (éo7v), and on the
construction e¢ GéXoz, cf. iii. 14, notes.
In the use of both Oédnwa and Oédoz in the clause there is
not really anything of pleonasm, the thought in the substan-
tive being of an energy considered simply as existent, in the
verb that of a special action of the energy,—in the one of a
fountain, in the other of an outflow from it: cf. T7v Boudry
Tov Oednpatos avtod, Eph. i. 11; and see Winer, p. 755. The
mode of expression is evidently intended to direct attention
very prominently to the fact that suffering does not come
through any blind chance, but through a Will, guided by in-
finite goodness and infinite wisdom ; and therefore that, seeing
God has sent it, and is looking down on everything connected
with it, His. people, suffering for doing right, may well restrain
all murmuring, cleave to Him in holy obedience, and feel
assured of a happy issue.—Seeing that out of the infinitive
clause, which is the subject of xpeirtov (€o7v), we have to
supply, as the object of @édou, not the whole ayaforowdvtas
Tacyew, but simply wacxew, rigid exactness might have
required tpas maoyew to be expressed after Oédo; but this
would have clogged the sentence, and there is no real ambi-
guity——The question arises whether the participles in their
relation to waoyew are intended to intimate concomitance
merely or cause, “ while doing well, while doing evil,” or “for
doing well, for doing evil;” cf. aya@orrovobvtes Kai tTadoyovTes,
ii. 20, note. Looking to the feeling possibly arising in the
minds of some Christians under persecution, to which this
verse appears to be meant as a reply (see above), there seems
no reason to doubt that the causal relation, “for,” was upper-
III. 18-IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 243
most in the apostle’s mind, though he has chosen to put the
case more generally.
Vv. 18-iv. 6. Proof from the case of the Lord Jesus, that suffer-
ing in flesh for righteousness sake brings quickening vn
spirit ; and exhortation to the believers, based on this, to
bear persecution patiently, and let no hostility of the world
turn them away from persistent pursuit of holiness.
This paragraph has some grave difficulties of interpretation.
Its relation to the context and its general aim, however, are suffi-
ciently clear. The introductory particle 67z indicates that the
exhortation begun in ver. 13 to patient endurance of persecution
for righteousness’ sake, and, in particular, the summary state-
ment of ver. 17, that “it is better to suffer as well-doers than
as evil-doers,” are here supported, the support being by appeal
to the example of Christ in yielding Himself to suffering and
death for a holy and gracious end. That this course of thought
is continued is shown by iv. 1, which expressly makes a prac-
tical application of the Saviour’s example in suffering; and
out of the exhortation given in that verse the observations in
vv. 2-6 arise, though in the latter part with some obscurity
as regards the precise connection, which has to be considered
in the detailed exegesis there. Throughout the whole passage
the apostle has prominently before his mind the relations to
each other, and the comparative importance, of the two ele-
ments in the human constitution, and the two spheres of life
and interest to which thus man belongs,—the bodily, material,
coupé, and the spiritual, zvedua. We find these set in anti-
thesis in the first verse of the section (i. 18), and again in
the last verse (iv. 6); whilst at the middle also (iv. 1) we
trace the presence of the same contrast, the formal addition
to maev twice of capxi not being explicable in a natural
way except on the supposition of an implied reference to the
bearing which “suffering in flesh” has on “energy and
eee FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ae Uf fas (8
happiness in spirit.” Seeing then that this antithesis has so
evidently determined to a considerable extent the apostle’s
line of remark, it may be considered with justice to be the
key to the interpretation of the paragraph, in so far as, in so
complicated a passage, any single thought can serve as a key.
Ver. 18. Reference to Christ’s example as a Sufferer brings
up of necessity to every Christian mind thought also of the
gracious purpose of His suffering. Here therefore, as in the
similar passage, 11. 21-25, the apostle is naturally led to touch
upon this. » It is very interesting to see in these references
the intense adoring thankfulness with which, through the
teaching of the Spirit, the sufferings of Jesus had come to be
looked upon by that disciple who, when these were pro-
phetically intimated to him, said with horror, “ Be it far from
Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee” (Matt. xvi. 21, 22).
—The line of thought in its barest form is, “You are called
on as Christians to suffer, and it is a good thing for you thus
to suffer in well-doing, for Christ, our great Exemplar,—whom
to follow is always good, and always brings good,—suffered
for well-doing.” But from the outset we have the reference
made detailed,—* Because Christ died” (or “ suffered,’—-see
Critical Notes) “for sins once, a Righteous One for unrighteous,
that He might bring us to God.”
“Araé has evidently an emphasis, “once and no more,”
“once for all;” cf. Jude 3, and particularly the use of the
compound édamagé in Rom. vi. 10. The contrast implied here
is closely similar to that which is expressed in that verse.
By x«petrrov (ver. 17) our apostle, as we saw, meant not merely
moral superiority considered simply by itself, but superiority
from the point of view of advantage to be gained. By dmaé
we have at the very outset a suggestion of how sublimely
this xpetrrov was realized in the case of our Forerunner: He
died once, to pass thereby to the power of an endless life and
to an immeasurable glory—The prepositions wept and wt7ép,
very nearly synonymous in their figurative applications, and
often confounded, are employed in this verse with exactness.
III. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 25
ITepi simply indicates the gathering of thought, speech, action
—favourable, or unfavourable, or indifferent, as the case may
be — “around” or “about” a subject,—the sense of “on
account of” being in the present place given by the context:
umép suggests a certain favourable interest, a kindly, protecting
bending “over.” Thus, in speaking of the Saviour’s redeem-
ing work, whilst there is some variation, yet naturally and
usually wepé stands connected with “sins,” and t7ép with
‘simmers: (el) Rom: vilk, &, 2 John it. 2,,iv. 1,0; 1, Pets 11.21,
John x. 15, xv. 13, Rom. v. 6, 8. On the easy transition
of thought, in d7ép used of the work of Christ, from the sense
of “on behalf of” to that of “in room of,’ ef. 11. 21, note.
In the place before us there appears to be scarcely full
naturalness in the antithetical mention of “righteous” and
“unrighteous,” unless we suppose the thought of substitu-
tion to have been actually present to the apostle’s mind.
On the use of wept and w7ép, cf. Lightfoot or Ellicott on Gal.
i. 4.—There is evidence in N. T. that “the Righteous One”
was a well-known designation of the Lord Jesus in the primitive
Church ; see Acts iii. 14, vil. 52, xxii. 14; 1 John 11.1; pro-
bably also Jas. v. 6. The omission of the article in the
present place is obviously intended, by leaving the contrasted
terms “ righteous” and “unrighteous” in uninterrupted view,
to give the supreme marvel (Rom. v. 6-8) its full power; see
1. 10, note on wpodjrat. Of this clause there seems to be
a reminiscence and expansion in the Hp. to Diogn. § 9, Adtos
tov tocov Yicv amédoto AUTpPOV UTép HuwV, TOY dyLoy UTEP
avopoVv, TOV adkaKov UTép TOV KaKOY, TOV OikaLloy UTép TOV
aoiKov.
The form in which the purpose of the Saviour’s self-sacrifice
is here set forth by the apostle, “that He might bring you to
God,” shows that some such picture of the state of man by
nature rose up before him as has been already given in i. 25,
Man was far away from God, under His just sentence of exile,
severed from His fellowship, and thus from true goodness and
wisdom and happiness, avi moditou duyas (Philo, Mund. Opi,
246 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 18.
Mang. p. 40). The propitiatory work of Christ was wrought
to the intent that, all obstacles being thereby removed, He
might through His Spirit lead His wanderers home to God.
The verb mpooayeuv is not employed elsewhere in N. T. with
this spiritual reference, but the cognate substantive mpocaywyy
is; cf. Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, 11.12. Bengel, pressing the
force of the dative t@ Oe@ as compared with the more rigidly
local zpos Tov Ocor, finds the joyful readiness of God to receive
back His banished ones implied in the case: “ Deo id volenti ;
plus notatur per dativum quam si diceretur ad Deum.” But
this is over-refining, for the dative is the regular construction
with this verb in N. T., wherever a remoter object is expressed :
ef. Matt. xviii. 24; Acts xvi. 20.
The participles at the close of the verse belong to the clause
which is introduced by iva. They clearly go together; and it
is obvious that the second of them could not be attached to
the main verb a7é@avey as an expansion or circumstantial
addition. But in the clause of purpose both participles are
perfectly in place. The apostle designs to show in the case
of the Saviour—the typical, or, more exactly, the germinant
case, as all His people, living in and through Him, know it to
be—how suffering for righteousness’ sake brings advantage,
according to the xpetrtoy of ver. 17. This has been pointed
to, as we have seen, by daé. In the participial clauses
before us it is explicitly set forth, both as to fact and mode,—
the Saviour’s death in flesh being described as essentially
associated with new and glorious life in spirit.
By some excellent interpreters (as Huther, Wiesinger,
Alford) fwo7romfeis is thought, in accordance with the strict
sense of that verb, to refer to our Lord’s resurrection. Huther,
having defined cap to cover everything in the constitution of
man by which he stands related to and has communication
with the world, as distinguished from tendencies and faculties
having to do with his relation to God (which belong to the
mvevpa), goes on to give this as his view of Peter’s meaning,
—that “Christ entered into the state of death, in so far as the
Hi: 18.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 247
odpێ pertained to Him,so that His life in the flesh (sein sarhisches
Leben) ceased; but from death He was brought again to life-—
was raised up,—in so far as the wvedua pertained to Him, so that
the new life was purely spiritual (pnewmatisch).” Wiesinger’s
way of stating the case is that, “as regarded soul and body,
Christ ceased to live fleshwise (sarkisch), living thenceforward
spiritually (pnewmatisch).’ This exegesis is beset with very
serious difficulties. - First, in whatever way we translate the
dative mvevwatc— in, with, according to, spirit,” “ spiritwise,”
or in any other way consistent with the force of the case—
the meaning of “raised to life with a spiritual body” is not
obtained at all naturally, is indeed quite decidedly forced.
Supposing the reference of fwo7romneis to be to the resurrec-
tion of our Lord, the only meaning which wvevpats, in the
present antithesis, would naturally yield would be that He
had a spiritual but in no sense a bodily resurrection. Secondly,
the supposed meaning, looked at, as it must be, in the light of
the antithesis, is contrary to fact. Huther, admitting that
Tvedpa is not = cape tmvevpatixov (1 Cor. xv. 44), attempts
to justify his position with respect to the sense here, by main-
taining that, in the body with which the Lord rose from the
erave, He was “no longer év capxi, but entirely év wvedparu.”
Now, whatever changes there may have been in the constitution
of our Lord’s body at His rising from the dead, this statement of
Huther could not possibly meet with a more direct contradic-
tion than is given by Christ’s own words spoken with respect
to His resurrection body, mvedwa capka . . . odx exer, Kaas
€wée Oewpeire éyovta (Luke xxiv. 39). Thirdly, the supposed
force of wvedua is not congruous with its use, express or im-
plied, in the rest of the paragraph. Quite evidently, as we
have seen, the central thought throughout is of the bearing
which suffering in flesh has on life and energy in spirit. Now
a reference in our present passage, the starting-point of this
course of thought, to our Lord’s resurrection, and to His
spiritual body, would introduce an element which does not
naturally associate itself in any way with the use made of
248 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 18.
the antithesis subsequently. Considering these difficulties,
we may most safely, with the great majority of expositors,
hold that wozroinGeis is not meant by the apostle to describe
our Lord’s resurrection.
The dative in capxi and mvevpare is that familiar one of the
‘sphere to which a general predicate is limited; and the absence
of the article indicates—particularly seeing that there is no pre-
position—that in the writer’s mind the form which the concep-
tion took was not specific, “in His flesh,” “in His spirit,” but
had the utmost generality, “in flesh,” “in spirit ;” cf. iv. 1, 6;
Gal. iii1.3. The one sphere is that of what is bodily, outward,
material, in which the physical life dwells (cf. év capxié, iv. 2);
the other is that of the moral nature, of thought, will, affection,
—and this here, according to the usual reference of wvedua in
N. T., viewed on its directly Godward side. In a place where
the contrast is so direct as here, it is obviously quite unnatural
to suppose different forces of the dative in the two nouns, and (as
A. E. V., deviating in this from the older English versions) to
translate “in the flesh,” “dy the spirit.” It is manifest at the
same time, however, from the nature of the case, that the anti-
thesis in the two clauses is not absolutely exact. As regarded
“flesh,” there was the departure of life; as regarded “ spirit,”
the only possible reference of fwozrounfeis, when spoken of the
Lord Jesus Christ, is not to a departure of death, to a begin-
ning of life where formerly there had been death, but to an
accession of power and energy, a “quickening” so great and
glorious as naturally to suggest the image of “life from the
dead” (Rom. xi. 15). As C. F. Fritzsche expresses it, pointedly,
though with a slight alteration as regards the precise form of
the thought, “ Christ’s death was no doubt death for His body,
but for His spirit it was birth” (Nova Opusc. Acad. p. 287).
In every language, words which mean “quicken, enliven,”
naturally tend towards a somewhat free use, such as this.
We see the action of this tendency in N. T. in the case of
fwo7rovety (as in 2 Cor. ili. 6; Gal. ili, 21); and the “ quick-
ening” of the seed through death (1 Cor. xv. 36, od 0 o7retpers
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 249
ov Cworroveital, €av pn» atroGuvy) is as exact a parallel in every
way to the case before us as could well be conceived.
The course of thought distinctly shows that the “quickening
in spirit” resulted from the “being put to deathsin flesh”
(ef. John xii. 24, where, though the word Gwozroleiy is not
used, the parallelism of thought with the present passage is
so close that a reader may reasonably think of the saying of
the Lord Jesus there as not improbably in our apostle’s mind
at this point). But the antithesis does not determine the
time of the quickening. We may hold it to have followed
immediately upon the Lord’s death, or to have been coincident
with His resurrection. Supposing, however, that it coincided
in time with His resurrection, still, as we have seen, the facts
designated by “resurrection” and by “ quickening,” as the
word is here used, were distinct.
Vy. 19, 20. The difficulty connected with this famous
passage does not to any great extent lie in uncertainty with
respect to the meaning of separate words or phrases. As to
the exact sense of two or three of these, however, there has
been some variety of opinion; and it seems desirable to clear
the way for discussion of the main question by dealing first
with these—By a few scholars the antecedent to év # has been
thought to be either the leading statement of the previous verse,
avé@avev, or the immediately preceding participial clause,—
the meaning then being “ whereby,’ — dva tod atrofaveiy, or
dua Tod mvevpate CworroinOhvar,—or possibly even (cf. Heb.
vi. 17) “wherefore” (dvti tod 500, aitiodoyixes, Cicumen.).
The proposed construction is no doubt grammatically possible,
and, if an exegesis of the verse otherwise probable required
the adoption of it, no decided objection could be made to
“whereby ;” the somewhat exceptional “ wherefore” cannot
well be called for here. But the prima facie antecedent to
is not the clause, but simply its last word, the substantive
mvevpate; and the judgement of interpreters generally is that
there is no ground for seeking another. Accepting this con-
nection as in all likelihood the true one, év @ means “in
250 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
which” as a mode of being, or a sphere of action, the idea of
“through which” being also possibly present, but not pro-
minent. The closest parallel to the way in which év is here
used is probably edccarwOn év mvevpate, 1 Tim. iii. 16.
The words tots év dudaky mvedpacw cannot mean anything
else than “to the spirits in prison.” Such translations of év
gvadaky as “in a watch-tower,” or “in safe keeping,” have been
proposed by some expositors (as Calvin, Horsley), who hold the
apostle’s statement to have reference to a preaching of Christ
to the spirits of pious dead, guarded from all evil, and looking
out eagerly for the full blessedness of the resurrection. But
renderings like these are devoid of support from N. T. usage.
With regard to the force of éxjpu£ev also the usage of N. T.
is decisive. Whilst, no doubt, this verb in itself simply
means “to make proclamation as a herald” (so in Rey. v. 2),
and might therefore readily enough be employed in reference
to an announcement of a stern as well as to one of a gracious
tenor, yet, in fact, in the language of our Lord and His apostles
it is never used of such, but habitually —whether construed
with an accusative (To evayyéAcov, Tov Aoyor, or the like), as
Gal. ii. 2, 2 Tim. iv. 2; or, as here, without one, as Matt. xi. 1,
Mark iii. 14—the verb designates the setting forth of some
aspect of God’s grace in Christ. The thought, therefore,
which has been suggested by some of those interpreters who
hold the passage to speak of a visit of Christ to Jost spirits
(as Hollaz, Zezschwitz, Schott), that the word here points to
an announcement of doom, a preedicatio (or concio) damnatoria,
is untenable. Where Christ is said to have “preached,”
without any specification of what was the subject, the natural
conclusion, beyond all doubt, is “that the contents and design
of this «jpvyua were in harmony with the «kypuvyya of Christ
elsewhere” (Huther). It may safely be said that, had the
apostle intended to speak of an announcement of doom, he
could not by possibility have employed a word which, both in
his own memory and in that of his readers, had always been
associated with mercy. It is obvious also that in a passage
Ill. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pat
like the present—immediately following a statement of the
gracious work and purpose of Christ, and intended, as a reader
cannot but think, to illustrate in some way that “ quickening
in spirit” through which He was to “ bring us to God ”—the
mention of a visit to lost souls to declare their perdition seems
far from natural or relevant. The same objections hold to
the view maintained by Bengel (which Calvin, whose inter-
pretation of this passage is rather vague, seems also, Jns¢. 11.
16. 9, tosome extent to favour), that the “ heralding ” was two-
fold, of grace and of doom, according to the spiritual condition
before death: “quibusdam (preconium) evangelicum, ad con-
solationem,—aliis, et fortasse plerisque, legale, ad terrorem.”
The translation of the two verses accordingly runs thus:
“Tn which (spirit) also He went and preached to the spirits in
prison, disobedient once (or, aforetime) when the long-suffering
of God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while an ark
was a preparing, in which few (persons), eight souls, namely,
were saved through water.” What is it that is here referred
to? What is meant by “the spirits in prison,’ —and
when and how did Christ “preach” to them? As one
possible view of the reference supports, or seems to support, a
certain doctrinal position with regard to the bearing of the
work of Christ on the prospects of souls between death and the
resurrection, dogmatic prepossessions naturally tend to influ-
ence somewhat the judgements of expositors, and no doubt
have done so,—probably, from the nature of the subject, on
both sides, and with not very unequal force. Some modern
commentators give it as their opinion that, however much
mystery may attach to the subject on which the apostle
touches, yet what it is that he states is amply clear, and that
to dogmatic prejudice alone is due the supposition of any
difficulty in determining this. Seeing, however, that, as a matter
of fact, to innumerable scholars of piety, learning, and sound
judgement—many of them not keen dogmatists, but men of a
quiet spirit and of much holy candour, such, for example, as
Leighton—the exegesis of the verses has seemed very per-
=
252 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [II]. 19, 20.
plexing, there is prima facie likelihood that the difficulties are
not altogether projected into plain words by theological pre-
possessions, but to some extent lie in the passage itself. The
very inability to see that this is so may possibly itself arise,
in a measure, from dogmatic prejudice. There seem to be
real difficulties, both when one looks carefully at the passage
by itself, and when its relation to the context is brought into
consideration.
One view of the apostle’s reference, which has commended
itself to very many expositors, is that he speaks of something
which was done by the Saviour after His death, in the region
of separate souls. Eliminating as untenable, on grounds
already mentioned, those forms of this exegesis in which our
Lord’s mission is supposed to have been to pious souls, or,
being to souls of wicked men, to have been for the denuncia-
tion of doom,—we have lett for consideration, as the supposed
meaning of Peter’s statement, that the Lord Jesus after His
death—either while still disembodied (so most of those who
maintain this interpretation), or after assuming His new body
(so Huther, Wiesinger, and some others)—visited the region
of lost souls, and there made proclamation of His work of
grace to the spirits of that wicked generation who perished in
the Deluge. The sense here attached to the expression
“ spirits in prison,” as equivalent to “souls of bad men in
their place of punishment,” is beyond doubt the natural one; '
and @vAaxy with a closely kindred application is found in
tev. xx. 7; cf. 2 Petsii. 4; Jude 6. Wright (Bibl. Essays,
p- 167) well cites also, as to some extent illustrative, Isa.
xxiv. 21, 22, where the words in LXX. are decuewrnpiov and
oyvpoua. Peter's dvdaxyn here corresponds exactly to Justin
Martyr’s ya@pos yelpwv, in Tas pev Tav eloeBav (xpuyas) ev
KpeiTTOVL TOU Yopw pévewv, Tas SE adiKovs Kal Tovnpas év
xElpovl, TOV THS Kplaews éxdeyouevas ypovov (Tiryph. 5).
It is quite clear that, in considering the meaning of the
passage, we cannot deal with it as if it contained an isolated
anecdote, but must have regard to its relations to the con- V
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Zoo
text. It occurs in the course of a paragraph of counsel and
encouragement to persecuted believers. The example of the
Lord Jesus has been adduced; and the words now before us
are closely connected, as éy @ indicates, with the last state-
ment of the previous verse, that, “having been put to death
in flesh, Christ was quickened in spirit,,—-a statement which,
as examination of the modes of expression in iv. 1, 6, has
already shown us, had great prominence at the time in the
apostle’s thoughts, and indeed determined to a certain extent
the whole line of his observations throughout the paragraph.
We naturally conclude? then, that the present relative sentence
was meant to illustrate this statement in some way; and, on
that view of the reference which has just been given, we
must suppose that our Lord’s “preaching to the spirits in
prison ” is mentioned as affording a most striking proof cf His
having been “quickened in spirit.” Both in the sentence
taken by itself, and when it is thus viewed in its relation to
the context, very grave difficulties in the way of this exegesis
present themselves.
In the first place, it will be observed that the participle
aretOncacw has no article-—a fact which, attached in con-
struction as the word is to a substantive which has the
article, intimates, according to one of the least variable of all
the rules of Greek syntax, that the participle is employed, not
attributively, but as a part of the predicate, being intended to
explain or illustrate the statement contained in the verb to
which the participle is subordinate, by adding some informa-
tion with regard to time, cause, manner, or the like. If such
a participial clause be rendered in English by a relative
pronoun (as here in both A. and R. V.,—cf. 2 Tim. i. 10),
it has to be borne in mind, for exactness of thought, that the
relative is appended somewhat loosely, and conveys really
such a force as would be given by “when,” “seeing that,”
“although,” “if,” or some other conjunction. Now, what is
the logical force of the participle in the place before us,
supposing the reference in the main verb éxypvfev to be to a
204 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
“ preaching” by the Saviour after His death in the region of
lost souls? Mere precédence in time of the disobedience
(“after they had been disobedient”) cannot be thought of as
relevant, millenniums having intervened; neither can the
causal use (“because they had been disobedient”) well be
deemed possible; and manner and hypothesis are out of the
question. No other force of the participle than the con-
cessive, “although,” seems to present itself as even possibly
suitable ; and this can hardly be judged very natural. Seeing
that in the incarnation, and at every stage of His work and
His sufferings, our Lord “commended His love toward us”
supremely through this, that “although” we were sinners,
hard-hearted and disobedient, still He dealt with us in grace,
it does not seem likely that the apostle—purposing to illus-
trate the glorious increase of spiritual power which followed
His sufferings and death—would, speaking of His “ preaching ”
to certain lost souls, add “ although they were aforetime dis-
obedient.” Such a clause hardly has the strength and point
characteristic of Scripture expression. Had such been the
thought, moreover, this would obviously, in the connection,
have very special stress laid upon it, and xaimep, one may
naturally think, would probably have been prefixed,—ef. cy.
2 Pet. i: 12; Heb. v. 8,'vii. 5; xi 17. On’ thistiastapeme
however, while from the structure of the sentence some weight
may be laid, yet we cannot fairly lay much, when we compare
e.g. 1 Tim. i. 7, 13.—This point in the grammar of the passage,
one plainly by no means unimportant in its bearing on the
exegesis, is to a somewhat singular extent overlooked or
slurred over by commentators,—perhaps because the frequent
translation by a relative pronoun tends to hide the precise
state of the case. Wiesinger, with his characteristic careful-
ness and candour, has had regard to the anarthrous construc-
tion, and has translated, in accordance with rule, by “afterv/
they had been disobedient,” subsequently explaining this to
mean, in the connection, “although they had been dis-
obedient.” But many, most perhaps, of those who support
Hd. 19; 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
i)
Pay
that view of the reference of the passage which is now under
discussion, seem silently to disregard the want of the article,
translating and commenting as if it were present. De Wette,
for example, rendering “ who aforetime were disobedient,” has,
as his sole note on this,—“ A further description of these
spirits through specification of their guilt.” Huther does
touch on the grammatical question, and expressly maintains
that the absence of the article makes no difference in the
meaning. He criticises Wiesinger’s rendering “although,”
observing—with some reason, as has been already seen—that
“an adversative relation of this kind would have needed to
be more plainly expressed;” and, as his own position, he
asserts that “the participle attached in an adjectival way to
a substantive is often enough joined to it without an article.”
No instance, however, is cited. The remark is either wholly
irrelevant, having reference to the case of an anarthrous
participle connected with a substantive which is itself anar-
throus, or it is curiously divergent from commonly received
erammatical doctrine. Sheldon Green, whose discussion of
the use of the article in his Gram. of N. 7. is among the
fullest and the most philosophical and satisfactory to be found
anywhere, expressly (p. 54) adduces the present passage as
one of his examples of proof given by anarthrousness that a
participle is not employed for the purpose of more full defini-
tion, but is closely associated with the main verb, and has a
force which may be paraphrased by a conjunction.
Secondly, on that view of the reference of the passage
which is now before us, the proportions, and the relations to
each other, of the two parts of the sentence are hard to
explain, — whatever be regarded as the precise form of
thought lying in the connection of the participle with the
main verb, whether “although” or some other. The sub-
ordinate clause beginning with ame@ncacuw is three times as
long as the principal one,—a fact certainly fitted to suggest
that much of the force of the apostle’s illustration or proof of
our Lord’s being “ quickened in spirit” is to be found in that
256 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IIL 19, 20.
clause; yet in truth, on the present exegesis, not merely has
the clause no particular force, but of some of it even the
relevancy is, to say the least, not obvious. The mention of
“the patient waiting of the divine long-suffering in the days
of Noah,” and the reference to the “few” who were saved,
—a fact seemingly judged by Peter of such weight in his
course of thought that he adds the precise number,—would
have been entirely pertinent by way of contrast, had it been
stated in the main clause that the Lord’s brief preaching
after His death had been effectual, having turned a multitude
of the wicked spirits, or all of them, to repentance ; but on
this head not the slightest hint is given. No doubt, suppos-
ing “although” to represent the link of thought, a certain
relevancy may be discerned in the earlier statement of the
participial clause,—as bringing out impressively the guilt of
the antediluvian sinners, by describing the long-suffering
which they spurned. The latter part, however, regarding
the small number of the saved, does not seem to fit in
naturally. With “although” as the introductory word, this
part of the sentence must be supposed to point out the all
but universality of impenitence in that generation. Now,
the stress of the whole statement really resting on this,
it seems very unlikely that the apostle would have left it
to come before the mind simply by inference,—what he
expresses being that divine mercy was shown to the penitent
' few.
Thirdly, the fact adverted to above, that nothing more is
said with regard to our Lord’s supposed work among the lost
spirits than that He “ preached” to certain of them, constitutes
in itself a difficulty in the way of accepting the view under
consideration. The death of Christ brought life to men. His
“ quickening in spirit” has been proved by the joy and holi-
ness of a multitude which no man can number. This we
know. Now, natural as it might seem to speak of these
triumphs which have been achieved by the “quickened”
Christ in this world, we may no doubt suppose it to have
IIT. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 250
nevertheless been Peter's intention, on some ground, in giving
a proof of the Lord’s power in spirit, to speak of action by
Him in the regions of the dead rather than among men on
earth. But the simple announcement that Christ “ preached”
in Hades to the spirits of a certain class of wicked men, seems
to lack that great and manifest weight as evidence which in
the connection is naturally looked for.
Fourthly, it is difficult, looking at the apostle’s manner of
expression, to think anything else than that he believed him-
self to be in this passage saying something as far as possible
from obscure, something which, as regarded its meaning and
its bearings, every reader would at once understand and
recognise as fully pertinent to the course of thought. At no
point does his tone suggest, “ Behold, I show you a mystery.”
In particular, the way in which in the subordinate clause he
dwells on the conduct and fate of the antediluvians while on
earth, gives a reader irresistibly the impression—assuming the
interpretation under discussion to be true—that in the writer’s
mind his statement that in the regions of the lost the Saviour
preached to the spirits of these men, had a special and obvious
relevancy to his line of remark, and a distinct and manifest
bearing on the circumstances of those whom he addresses.
Now, in point of fact, special relevancy of any kind in
a reference to the position or history of the antediluvian
unbelievers, as analogous to or having any peculiar bearing
whatever cn that of the Asiatic Christians, is so far from
being obvious, that of all the attempts which have been made
by scholars holding the exegesis under consideration to exhibit
such, no one makes even a slight approach to reasonable like-
lihood. At every point the position of the apostle’s readers
stood in direct contrast to that of the antediluvian sinners.
Instead of being impenitent, living obstinate under the divine
long-suffering during many years of outward prosperity, those
to whom this letter was written were servants of God, sorely
tried by persecution for their faithfulness to Him; and the
present passage is a prominent part of a paragraph of
kh
256 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
encouragement to hope, and to patient cleaving to Christ and
His service, notwithstanding persecution. Not merely, there-
fore, does nothing specially suited to their case in the detailed
mention of the antediluvians present itself, but the absence of
parallelism is somewhat marked. And the thought of the
application of a contrast, or of a parallel with the position of
the adversaries of the Asiatic believers, does not seem to have
the slightest naturalness, or at all to suit the details of the
passage. It may be said that perhaps teaching given orally
to these Churches by Peter or—to his knowledge—by some
other evangelist, may have made them familiar with the Lord’s
preaching in Hades to the spirits of the antediluvians, and
trained them to see certain subtle analogies between the case
of these ancient rebels against God and their own, or bearings
of it of some kind on their circumstances such as might make
a reference to it specially helpful. Nothing at all, however,
can be said in support of this supposition, except that, if it
were true, the particular form of exegesis now before us would
be somewhat simplified thereby. It has no historical support,
and, while of course not impossible, seems to be in a very high
degree unlikely. That a statement of so remarkable a kind
should be made over the Pauline region of Asia Minor, so
early, widely, and fully, as would be implied in the appre-
hension of Peter’s supposed statement here as something
thoroughly familiar by the members of all the Churches
throughout all the provinces named in the beginning of the
Epistle,—and yet that not the slightest allusion to this teaching
should be found in any of the Apostle Paul’s letters, nor any
tradition of it in later literature,—is exceedingly improbable.
Accordingly we have every reason to think that, if the inter-
pretation of the apostle’s language which we have now before
us be the true one, then in a passage, the structure and con-
nection of which appear distinctly to imply the writer’s belief
that its statements were familiar, and their argumentative
force and special pertinence obvious, to those for whom he
wrote, the main statement—one of a very remarkable nature
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 259
—was in fact startlingly new to them, and the logical bearing
of the whole obscure in the extreme.
These difficulties in the way of accepting this exegesis seem
to be very grave. By many of those who accede to it, a
great deal has been read into the passage. It has been
supposed that the apostle’s words may legitimately be taken
as intended to suggest that Christ’s preaching to the spirits
of the antediluvians carried with it saving power; and also
that these spirits represent the whole class of human souls
which have passed out from this earthly life impenitent.
Supposing the thought thus amplified, while some of those
objections to the interpretation which have been mentioned
would remain in their full strength, the relation of the main
statement to the apostle’s line of thought in the context
would be simplified. The Lord’s “quickening in spirit”
would be impressively illustrated. But all this reading in
of teaching additional to what the apostle expresses is purely
arbitrary. There is not a word in the passage, or in the
context, to hint either that the antediluvians are spoken of
as representing any wider class, or that the “preaching” of
the Lord was effectual. The very fact, indeed, that by adding
certain ideas we satisfy in some measure the requirements of
the context, while, as the words stand, there seems to be but
very imperfect accordance with these requirements, goes to
show it to be unlikely that we may justly add these ideas.
The apostle’s own impulse, yearning as he was to comfort
and stimulate his brethren, must have been to state his case as
strongly as, consistently with what he knew to be true, he
was able to do,—or at least up to the point where no sense
of disappointment with respect to the aptness and force of
the illustration or evidence which he brings forward could
reasonably be felt. His stopping where he has done, there-
fore, seems to show that he could not go farther,—or else
that what he has said was meant by him with a different
reference from that which this exegesis gives it.
A few interpreters indeed—including, singularly enough
260 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
the generally so judicious Bengel—have endeavoured to make
out that the assumption of a wider reference than to the
spirits of the antediluvian unbelievers is not arbitrary,—this
reference lying in the statements of the passage itself. They
take tots év dudaxh tvevuacw to mean all the lost spirits,
and assume that then the apostle goes on—with an under-
stood “particularly,” or “for example” —to speak in some
detail of a certain class, a species under the afore-mentioned
genus. ‘This is a refuge of desperation. Nothing can be more
certain than that, according to the principles of Greek writing,
aTevOnoacw does not answer to Tols vevpacw as the second
member of a parallelism to the first (which is obviously the
kind of structure supposed), but that it is in the strictest
sense in agreement with it, and precisely co-extensive. Reuss
(Christ. Theol, E. T. vol. ii. p. 274) says candidly, “ The
difficulty, that Peter seems to restrict the ‘preaching’ to the
contemporaries of Noah, is insoluble-—unless we are prepared
to say that the author, in commencing the phrase in ver. 20,
was so preoccupied with the typological comparison he meant
to institute between the Flood and baptism, that he thus forgot
to insert some word which would have shown that the ante-
cedent phrase had a universal application to the unbelievers
of former days, and that the victims of the Deluge were
introduced only as a particular example.” If supplementary
dealing with Scripture-in the way here suggested by Reuss
were recognised as legitimate, the boundaries of Christian
doctrine might be extended very rapidly.
According to another view of the apostle’s meaning in this
passage, which has been held by some excellent expositors (as
Schottgen, Grotius, Leighton ultimately, Bp. Burnet, and
Professor John Brown), he speaks of the proof of the
Lord’s having been mightily “quickened in spirit” which
was given by the marvellous and widely diffused saving
efficiency of His “preaching” threugh the apostles from
Pentecost onwards. The human race in its universality and
continuity is supposed to be spoken of. The expression,
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 261
“the spirits in prison,” designates living men, who are by
nature in a prison-house, in bondage to sin and Satan (cf. Isa.
xlii. 7, eEayayetv é€& olxov gdudaxns, Sept. ; xlix. 9, lxi 1).
The reference to the condition of mankind in the time before
the Deluge (the same race as those to whom the apostles
preached, “iidem non apse, ut Aristoteles loquitur, sed genere,”
Grotius) is made, and this in a somewhat detailed way, “ to
show the greater efficacy of Christ's preaching than of Noahs,
though he was a signal preacher of righteousness ” (Leighton).
This is ingenious and attractive. It accords well with the
course of thought in the context, and accounts to some extent
for the structure of ver. 20. The ascription of the apostolic
preaching directly to the Lord, in whom it was carried on
and from whom came its power, has an exact parallel in Eph.
ii. 17, and a close analogy in Acts xxvil. 23. Any objec-
tion connecting itself with év 6, too, might be overcome by
adopting the construction—already recognised as possible,
though not probable—which takes as antecedent to the rela-
tive, not mvevuare alone, but the clause Cwomombels mrevpato.
But there are serious and indeed insuperable difficulties in
the way of accepting this interpretation. The use, in a
passage like the present, of tois év @vAakn mvevpacw in the
highly poetical sense here assumed seems to be exceedingly
unlikely, there being nothing whatever in the context to
direct the mind to such a meaning. It is true that the
word xnpvcoev occurs in the LXX. rendering of Isa. lx. 1,
IIvetpa Kupiov aréotarKé poe xnpv&at aixwarwros adeow.
This verb, however, is one in very common use, and no
indication can reasonably be recognised in éxnpu€er of our
passage that that verse of Isaiah was in Peter’s mind. But
the fatal objection to the exegesis lies in its making the
principal clause and the subordinate apply to different sets
of persons. The nature of the passage is not such as at all
to admit this variety of reference. The following sentence
has been given as one analogous in structure to the apostle’s,
—“God sent the gospel to the Britons, who in the days of
Zo2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I1I. 19, 20.
Cesar were painted savages.” This is a natural and intelli-
gible sentence; and the persons spoken of in the relative
clause, whilst of the same race with those spoken of in the
main clause, were a different generation. Thus far there is
an analogy with what this exegesis takes the apostle’s words
to mean. But it is obvious that, in the sentence quoted, the
words of the relative clause would be altogether irrelevant
and unnatural, if at the time when God sent the gospel, and
subsequently, the Britons had continued to be painted savages.
Difference of circumstances is essential to the subordinate
clause’s having any pertinence. Now in our passage the
absence of difference of circumstances, with regard to what,
in the connection, is evidently the principal point, namely,
spiritual condition, stands out prominently on the face of the
sentence,—seeing that, according to the exegesis, those to
whom our Lord preached through the apostles are expressly
declared to have been “in the prison-house of sin.” Toa
main clause which says this, the statement with respect to
the men of the former generation, “ disobedient aforetime,”
does not attach itself with the least naturalness.
The two forms of exegesis which have been discussed
make the “preaching” spoken of to have taken place after
the occurrences mentioned in the 18th verse. These inter-
pretations take for their chief guide regarding the reference
of the passage the 19th verse, as containing the principal
clause of the relative sentence, and that which first meets a
reader. According to it, the prima facie likelihood un-
doubtedly is that the events are set before us in the order of
time in which they occurred, adréOavev (which @avatadets
echoes), GworroinOeis mvevpate, TopevOels exnpv€er.
A third exegesis remains to be considered, which—finding
it difficult to reconcile the first clause, when looked on as
mentioning an occurrence in sequence of time, with the latter
part of the sentence—hbegins with the consideration of this
latter part, and gathers from it that the reference in év @
mopevdets éxnpvéev is an incidental one to a gracious work
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 2°63
of Christ long prior to the events touched on in ver. 18. In
this case éxypv&ev is conveniently, for distinctness, translated
by a pluperfect,—the precise grammatical view of the case,
however, being not that the aorist is here used with the force
of a pluperfect, but that the writer prefers to make his
statement in a simple narrative way by itself, without
formally indicating the priority of the one past event to the
other. In such a case, indeed, as Alex. Buttmann remarks
(Gram. p. 200), an author seems for the moment to transfer
himself as a narrator to the time of the past event last men-
tioned, and then, quite naturally, to speak also of the event
prior to it by a tense of the simple past. This use of the
narrative preterite occurs occasionally, no doubt, in all lan-
guages: in English, particularly in conversational style, it is
frequent. In classical Greek the aorist employed in this
way is not uncommon in subordinate clauses; and in the
Hellenistic writers, influenced by the Hebrew mode of expres-
sion, it is found in such clauses very frequently. With
relative pronouns and adverbs it occurs many times in N. T.:
chegu Math. (xxvinn bop Luke vir 18. :xix:, 3.7:;;dehni xi, b.
In the parallels, Matt. xxvii. 60, Mark xv. 46, the aorist
occurs in the one and the pluperfect in the other. In the
passage now before us the relative clause makes approach,
from the obvious weightiness of its statement, whatever
precisely is the reference, to the position of a principal rather
than a subordinate one. The relative pronoun is used with
something of that continuative force which our apostle favours
(cf. ver. 21, i. 6, 8, 10),—not, however, in the present
instance, to the extent of making this a separate sentence,
but merely one requiring to be marked off from what precedes
by a semicolon rather than a comma. In a statement of so
much independent weight, the use of the aorist where the
time is pluperfect is not at all so common as in subordinate
clauses strictly so called. It does occur occasionally, how-
ever; cf. particularly the well-defined main statement in
Matt. xiv. 3. Looking at N. T. usage with regard to this
264 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
point, as a whole, there can be no reasonable doubt that,
supposing it to have been the apostle’s purpose to refer in this
relative clause to an event prior to those mentioned in the
preceding verse, he might readily enough use the aorist ; and
if, in speaking of such an event, it was in his mind to employ
the word xnpvocce.v, there was a very great likelihood that he
would avail himself of this tense, because the perfect and
pluperfect active of this verb appear to have been but little
used, probably because the forms were felt to be somewhat
cumbrous and hardly euphonious. For the uncompounded
verb xnpvacew, indeed, no instance at all of either the perfect
or the pluperfect is cited by Veitch (/rreg. Gr. Verbs, s.v.).
The supposition that in the present place a pluperfect force
belongs to éxypufev, is not confined to advocates of the
exegesis now under consideration, Thus Alford, who
strenuously maintains the reference to be to a work done by
our Lord after His death, holds that SwozrounOeis speaks of
His resurrection, but that the “preaching” took place between
death and resurrection, “because €vy @ kat xTd. might very
well be a taking up again of wvevparu, recapitulating some
former act also done in the spirit.”
According to the exegesis now before us, the apostle’s state-
ment is,—“in which also He went” (with the force of “had
gone”) “and preached to the spirits in prison, when dis-
obedient aforetime,’ etc. The reference is in this case, of
course, to a gracious work done by our Lord in His divine
nature before His incarnation. In looking at the likelihood
of this mode of interpretation, we are apt, at first sight, to
have a sense of difficulty in passing from the antecedent
mvevpate, as it stands connected with Cwomomfeis, to the
relative @,—difficulty, however, which on a moment’s con-
sideration we see to be possibly, and on further consideration
may see to be probably, due to our attaching to mvevpate a
limitation of reference which was not in the writer’s mind.
What has been said in the close of the previous verse is that,
“having been put to death in flesh ” (and manifestly, according
Ct
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 26
to the course of thought, through being put to death in
flesh), “ Christ was quickened ”—introduced into new and
glorious energy—“ in spirit.” The manifestation given of the
divine righteousness through the Lord’s propitiatory suffer-
ings and death made it a possible thing for Him, consistently
with the majesty of God’s government, to bless men with life
everlasting (Rom. iii. 25, 26). His entering into this sphere
of full life-giving gracious activity was His being “quickened
in spirit.” Now, as was formerly observed, the words capxi
and mvevmate have plainly, from their anarthrousness—and
this particularly seeing that they are used without a preposi-
tion —the greatest generality of reference possible in the
connection in which they stand. They designate constituents
of the Person of our Lord,—but this specially as spheres of ._
certain distinct kinds of experience and action, of which the
writer is mainly thinking. Not merely when one carefully
considers the line of thought in this passage itself, but still
more decidedly when we examine the use of capxi in iv. 1,
and of capi and mvevpare in iv. 6,—a use quite indisputably
resting on the way in which the terms are employed here,—
it is plain that this idea of spheres of experience stands fore-
most in the writer's mind. We seem to have no reason to
suppose that, when the apostle wrote wvevuare, he was thinking
in a definite specific way of the Saviour’s human “ spirit”
(Luke xxiii. 46), or of its distinctions from and relations to
His divine nature,—distinctions and relations which, beyond
question, were to Peter, as they are to us, a profound mystery.
What the apostle had before his mind, apparently, was simply
the sphere in which (primarily and radically) saving energy
acts ; and this is the moral nature, vedua, which is the organ
of communication between man and God,—for, as “God is a
spirit,” so, through His blessed will, “There is a spirit in man,
and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understand-
ing.” Thus wvedya is the sphere or form of existence in
which the application of redemption takes place. Sapé,
taken by itself, can influence only that which is material ;
266 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
mvevpa alone can exert that power on moral natures by
which cwtnpia wWuydv (i. 9) is to be effected. Now, whilst
of death the human nature alone of our Lord was susceptible,
the unity of His Person at the same time giving infinite
dignity and value to the sacrifice, the Christian heart, in
praising Him as “the Life,” looks directly both to His God-
head and His Manhood. The eévae of eternal existence and
the yiyveoOar of beginning to be have both place here: éy
Ait@ fon Hv (John i. 4) and (éyévero) 6 éxyatos "Adam eis
mvevpa Cworrotovv (1 Cor. xv. 45). , Thus, having spoken of
mvevpa in the most general way as the sphere in which the
Lord was “quickened,” the apostle may naturally attach to
this 7vedua a relative clause mentioning a work of grace done
by Him in His pre-incarnate mode of being,—which was
mvevua. It is to be noted, indeed, that in the only two places
in N. T. besides the present in which the odp£& and the
mvevpa of the Lord Jesus are placed in express antithesis
(Rom. i. 3; 1 Tim. iii. 16), rvedua means, according to the
most probable exegesis, His divine mode of being,—which
may possibly be the reference of the word in Heb. ix. 14 also.
It does not seem natural in our passage to take the antithesis
in the end of ver. 18 quite in the same way as in the places
just referred to. Yet these passages certainly show that
there is nothing in the least alien from what may reasonably
be supposed to have been an apostle’s mode of thought or
expression, in regarding Peter as from mvevwats—used in its
most general form, and with the thought of “the sphere in
which grace works” prominently attached to it—passing on,
in a relative clause connected with it, to speak of a work
of grace done by our Lord in His divine nature. And
in such a rapid transition from mention of experiences of
the incarnate Lord to mention of acts performed by Him
in His pre-incarnate state, there is nothing inconsistent with
the usage of Scripture. Frequently, through full view of the
oneness of the Person of the Son of God, the economical
modification of that Person by the assumption of human
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 261
nature is not specially regarded. The historic Christ Him-
self, in the midst of His controversies with captious men
when in the world, said, “Before Abraham was, I am”
(John viii. 58). He told His disciples, “I came out from
the Father and am come into the world; again I leave the
world and go unto the Father” (John xvi. 28). In His
high-priestly prayer on the night before. He was crucified,
one of His petitions was, “O Father, glorify Thou Me with
Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before
the world was” (John xvii. 5).
As has been already said, it is not improbable that to
many students this supposed generality in the use of mvevparu,
through which é€v @, attached to it, can introduce a clause
speaking of our Lord’s work in His pre-incarnate state, may
seem somewhat forced and unlikely. It did for a time to the
present writer. But the more fully the anarthrous forms
capki and mvevuarte are looked at, the more distinctly does it
appear that no reference except a very general one is con-
sistent with grammar, and that our having a difficulty in
accepting this reference is due to our coming to the examina-
tion of the passage with a preconceived notion that the
apostle could not but express himself with the precision which
systematic theology aims at. If a student sees his way clear
to regarding this reference of wvevpare év as legitimate, there
appears to be nothing else in the language of the verses which
should made him hesitate to recognise the exegesis under
discussion as possibly the true one,—its likelihood, of course,
remaining to be tried by its fitness to explain the whole
structure of the passage, and its suitableness to the context.
There are, however, several points with respect to the
language which claim a few remarks.
That circumstantiality which in some measure belongs to
all fresh simple narration, and which is in particular a marked
feature of Oriental narrative, shows itself in the Greek Scrip-
tures in, among other things, the frequent prefixing of such
participles as €A@wv, dvaotds, wopevOeis, to a verb of action.
268 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
Whilst generally designating actual bodily movement, these
words seem occasionally to serve simply to express in a
graphic way the starting to exertion, it may be mental
or moral; cf. Matt. ix. 13. Naturally, in accordance with
that anthropomorphic representation which God has_ so
graciously, and with such abundance and variety, employed
in His revelation, in order that a vivid impression of His
character and working may be made on men, His manifesta-
tions of power, whether of an outward kind or over men’s
hearts, are often described by words of local motion (in LXX.
epxet Oar, Topevec Oar, Kew KTr.). The use with reference to
God of the participle prefixed is exceptional; see, however,
Gen. xi. 7, kataBavtes cuyyéwpev adtav éxel THy yAdooav.
In N. T. also the same mode of representing the divine pro-
cedure by verbs of motion is found (eg. John xiv. 23), The
words in Eph. ii. 17, in particular, regarding the spiritual
action of the glorified Saviour through His apostles and other
preachers, €A@wv evnyyedicato eipyvnv, form a very close
parallel to zropevOeis éxnpv&ev in the passage before us, as
these words are taken in the exegesis now under discussion,
—and this as regards both the use of the participle of the
verb of motion, and the application of éxypuEev to teaching
of the divine Logos through intermediate agencies. The
mopev0eis which occurs in ver. 22 has by some expositors
been thought to stand in a certain correspondence with the
participle as occurring here (ver. 19), and to show that the
present is one of a series of statements in sequence of time,—
the Lord’s death, going to preach in Hades, resurrection,
ascension. But there seems to be no real force in this.
The verb zropevec@au is an exceedingly common one; it is
used somewhat differently in the two places,—here, in that
subordinate way, introductory to the main verb, which was
spoken of above,—there, with its full force, efs odpavov being
expressly added; and there is no indication of any kind that
in the apostle’s mind the participle in ver. 19 and that in
ver. 22 were thought of as being in correlation. Viewed as
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 269
connected with a “preaching” in the days of Noah, mopev@eis
before é€xypuev has a very natural and beautiful force, intensi-
fying that expression of earnestness and persistence in the
work of grace which is so marked in ver. 20, and the object
of which—supposing this the true exegesis—will be spoken
of afterwards. IIopeveis sets forth the eager movement of
love, similarly, in so far,—though, of course, with obvious
differences,—to the “running” of the Father to meet His
returning prodigal, or to the “standing” of Jesus on the right
hand of God, as risen ready to welcome His persecuted
servant Stephen.
According to the exegesis at present before us, the time
pointed to in the participle azrevOjcacwv is not prior to, but
coincident with, that of éxyjpuvéev. To our accepting here
this very familiar N. T. time of an aorist participle joined to
a main verb in the aorist, Wiesinger objects on the ground
that, as the disobedience was long continued, the participle of
the imperfect, drevPovow, would have been the natural form ;
and refers to li. 6, v. 12, as showing Peter’s practice to be
2?
confirmatory of this. But the “ preaching” also was of long
continuance, and if the apostle gathers this up, and by the
aorist presents it as one historic fact (ef. 11. 22), its concomi-
tant, the disobedience, is quite naturally exhibited in the
same form. It is to be remembered also that, with relation
to éxnpuEev, antecedence to a certain extent, causality indeed,
is to be recognised in dtrev@jcacuv, as well as concomitance :
ef. Acts xiv. 2; Heb. iii. 18, xi. 31, all of them cases of this
particular aorist participle, arevOjcas, used with a main verb
in the aorist, and all with a force very similar to that found
here on the view under discussion. Wiesinger’s references,
given above, are not relevant, because in the former of the
two passages aorist participles could not have been used
without materially altering the meaning (see notes in loc.),
and in the other the aorist is one of form merely, to which
only present participles could naturally attach themselves,
The particle woré belongs without dcubt immediately to
270 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IIT,. 19, 20,
el
aTevOncacw,—not, as has been maintained by Hofmann, to
éxypvéev. Its position connects it with the participle, and
quite decidedly its correlation with d7e, because—the clause
introduced by éte plainly going with moré—dresPjoacw would,
unless mworé belongs to it, stand unnaturally isolated. The
fact that this particle is joined to awev@jcacw appears at
first sight to favour somewhat strongly the view that the
main clause and the participial refer to different times,—
that the “disobedience” spoken of was long prior to the
“preaching.” “Si sermo esset de praeconio per Noe, 70
‘aliquando’ aut plane omitteretur, aut cum ‘ predicavit ’
conjungeretur ” (Bengel). On consideration, however, it will
be seen that there is not really much weight in this argument.
There would have been, if the Epistle had been a document
written in a leisurely way, and with minute attention to
literary form. But the just comparison of the style of the
epistolary writings of N. T., and in a measure indeed of the
style of N. T. generally, is with that of our own familiar
letters or of conversation. Now,—applying this comparison,
and supposing the reference in “preached” and “ dis-
obedient ” to be to the same time,—how should we express
the sentence, if it were our own, occurring in friendly dis-
cussion or in a private letter? If we were speaking or
writing with deliberation, and had the thought in all its
amplification distinctly before us when we began the sentence,
we should naturally say, “in which He went (had gone) long
before, and preached to those who are now spirits in prison,
when disobedient at the time when,” etc. But there would
be nothing in the least degree unnatural—supposing our
speaking or writing rapidly, and taking up the thought at a
slightly different angle—in our saying, as Peter does, “in
which He went (had gone) and preached to the spirits in
prison,—when disobedient long before, at the time when,”
etc. We have all myriads of times constructed sentences
somewhat in this way. The immediate connection of ozé,
therefore, proves nothing with respect to the chief question in
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OTe
the exegesis. It will be seen also that, if the thought pre-
sented itself to the apostle in the shape just supposed,—that
is, without his having, at the moment when he began the
sentence, the form in which he would expand it distinctly
before his mind,—then the expression of a viv (tots viv év
gvraky mvevpacw) to mark off in a formal way the time of
the “preaching” (and of the active disobedience in the
world) from that of the “imprisonment,” would not have
been altogether natural. There stood out in view before him
simply the gracious pleading of the divine Logos with certain
persons, and the failure of that pleading to convert,—a failure
evinced by the fact that, as these persons came before his
mind, they were ta €v g@uAakn mvevpata. The difference of
time between the pleading and the proof of persistence in
obduracy which was afforded by the imprisonment, was a
matter of course, and, with the illustration arising before him
in the form supposed, could not naturally present itself as a
distinct thought finding expression in a vov.
Dean Alford says that “it must be evident to every un-
prejudiced scholar how alien such an interpretation ”—that
now before us—“ is from the plain meaning and connection
of the words and clauses.” Allowing for the strength of ex-
pression somewhat characteristic of Alford’s style, and judging
from the detailed remarks which follow, these words mean, in
substance, pretty nearly what Huther says in a more measured
way,— Had Peter closed his sentence with éxyjpuéev, it could
have occurred to no one that he was here speaking of a
preaching of Christ which took place at a time long gone by.”
This statement of Huther is true,—but has really no argumen-
tative force. The general fact that an immense proportion of
the sentences of every writer and speaker have the main
clause in such a form that, unless the light which later clauses
throw on details and modifications be waited for, a hearer or
reader would largely—often entirely—misconceive the mean-
ing, is so patent that, no doubt, Huther’s reference is to
specialties found in the present case. Now, as regards the
272 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
whole structure of the passage, the same may safely be said
which was put forward a moment ago respecting the position
of woré in particular, that any sense of difficulty which arises
in the way of accepting the exegesis under consideration as
legitimate springs from applying canons of literary exact-
ness which are not justly applicable—the style of N. T.,
especially of the Epistles, having everywhere the freedom
of animated conversation or of the letters of intimate
friends. In talk or writing of this kind there occur continu-
ally sentences in all respects such as the present is, on the
supposition that preaching of Christ to the antediluvians
while they lived in this world is spoken of. <A friend who
has been travelling tells us, “I visited the town of A., then
went on to B., and ultimately came to C.—where I pleaded
with the unhappy young men in prison, when I saw them
years ago taking the first steps on the road which has led
them to ruin.” Let this sentence stop with the word
“prison,” and, undoubtedly, after the previous preterites,
”?
“ pleaded ” would naturally be taken as in narrative sequence.
But, when the words which follow are reached, the mind has
no sense of anything in the least unnatural in accepting the
reference as a retrospective one,—which in speaking is marked
by the tone, and in writing, it may be, by the punctuation.
This sentence, it will be observed, answers to Peter’s with
respect to several points in which his may be thought to
deviate from rigid precision of construction—the use of the
aorist with a pluperfect reference,—the absence of vdv from
toils ev hudakh Tvevpacwv,—and the insertion of qoré in
the subordinate instead of in the chief clause. Examined by
the true standard, that of conversational style, there is nothing
in any of these points, or in the combination of them, in the
smallest degree unnatural. As regards the use of the simple
preterite “pleaded,” for “had pleaded,” another remark may
be made. One feels that the fact which is implied in the
article, “ the unhappy young men,” and indeed in the whole
tone of the reference to them,—that the person addressed has
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 21a
already some knowledge respecting them and respecting the
“pleadings” alluded to,—makes the employment of the
simple preterite, as the more direct and less formal tense,
somewhat specially natural; and this answers precisely to the
effect of rots in Tots év dudaKkyH Tvevpacw.
On the whole, therefore, there appears to be nothing in the
language of the passage to prevent our reckoning the exegesis
now under consideration as possibly the true one,—nothing
which, when the free, inartificial style of N. T. is kept in
mind, could reasonably be judged strained in the mode of
expression, supposing that the apostle meant here to speak of
Christ’s preaching in His pre-incarnate state to the ante-
diluvians while living in this world.
If such really be the reference, éxjpv&ev would seem to be
naturally taken with a wide application. Every mode in which
the Personal Word of God pleaded with men is included. The
ordinary influences of His providence, and the special appeal
which the building of the ark—with its, no doubt, well-
known purpose—made to that generation, were forms of the
“preaching.” But whilst these may quite reasonably be in-
cluded, it appears to be purely arbitrary, and altogether
unsatisfactory, to exclude from the reference (with some recent
advocates of this exegesis, as Schweizer, Salmond, Wright)
the personal teaching and exhortation of Noah. In the
remarkable statement made by Peter in i. 11, the word
mvedpa is, no doubt, not employed as in our present passage,
but designates the Holy Ghost ; still very striking and interest-
ing testimony is obviously at the same time given by his
language there as to the vividness with which the thought
of the pre-incarnate Christ as the teacher of the O. T. sages,
through the mission of His Spirit, stood out before Peter's
mind. To our apostle, therefore, evidently, it would be a
natural form of thought that in Noah’s preaching it was
Christ who preached ; and—assuming the interpretation now
before us to be the true one—the use of the particular word
éxnpvéev appears to suggest the presence in Peter’s mind of
S
274 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IIL 19, 20.
precisely this thought,—seeing that in 2 Ep. u. 5 Noah is
expressly called ducaioctvns xipv—. Exactly in the same
way, in a passage which has been already referred to (Eph.
ii. 17), we are told that the glorified Saviour “came and
preached (etyyyeAicato) peace” to the Ephesians—inasmuch
as with the indwelling of His Spirit Paul and other evangelists
did this. The fact that Noah “preached” is not mentioned
in the O. T., but had been preserved by tradition, and was
very familiar. Of this familiarity, and that the particular
word xnpvocew was that employed with regard to him, there
is ample evidence besides that which is afforded by the
expression in 2 Peter; cf. Clem. Rom. § 7, Nae éxnputev
peTavotay, Kal of UTaKovcartes éowOnaayr, and the references to
a number of similar statements in the earliest writers, which
are given by Bishop Lightfoot, in a note there in his edition.
The fact that Noah himself was one of those “ eight” men-
tioned in the latter part of ver. 20, who, believing the divine
warnings, availed themselves of the ark, has been urged as an
objection to the view that his personal preaching is here
referred to. But this has no force whatever. Noah, like
every true servant of God, preached to himself whenever he
preached to others; and, apart from this, it is plain—con-
sidering that the persons saved from the Flood were well
known to have been, and were constantly thought and spoken
of as, a single family of eight persons (cf. Iven. i. 18. 3)—
that the apostle, supposing him to be thinking of Christ’s
preaching through Noah, could not in a sentence like this, if
for any reason he wished to specify the number of the saved,
speak otherwise than he has done, without an excessive
and wholly unnatural fastidiousness regarding precision of
expression.
The great strength of the exegesis now under consideration
lies in the fact that it
tions
alone of all the proposed interpreta-
appears to accord perfectly with the whole structure
of the paragraph. The apostle, exhorting persecuted believers
to firmness and patience, has it as his leading thought (this
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 275
being distinctly shown, as has been seen, when iii. 18, iv. 1, 6,
are compared with each other) that suffering for righteous-
ness’ sake in. the sphere of flesh brings life, joy, power, in the
sphere of spirit. He introduces the observations through
which this line of thought runs, by speaking of the case of
our Redeemer and Forerunner. The Lord suffered in flesh
even to death, and in consequence of this was “quickened ”
—raised to a measure of power and energy such as seemed
life from the dead—‘in spirit.” At this stage of Peter’s
remarks nothing could possibly be more natural than a
reminder given to the reader regarding a work done long
before by Christ “in the sphere of spirit,” in which, though
His gracious pleading had been carried on with signal per-
sistence, there had yet been but little fruit; this reference,
of course, serving to bring out most vividly the contrast when,
now “quickened,” He is bringing multitudes everywhere to
salvation. The apostle shows, by two pictures set in contrast,
how gloriously had been realized the assurance given of old
through the prophets,—and which sounds out in particular so
often and so joyously in Isaiah,—that, when Messiah came,
there would be a vast increase in the manifestation of spiritual
power in the world,—that the gleaning of the grapes in “the
acceptable year of the Lord” would be richer far than the
vintage of former days. From exact parallelism of form in
the contrast the apostle is turned aside by the correspondence
which presents itself to him between the water of the Flood,
covering the accursed world, that a new and purer world
might appear, and the water of baptism, covering the believer's
moral defilement, that, old things having passed away, all
things may become new. With entire exactness of substance,
however, we have, in “ Baptism now saves you” (ver. 21), a
statement of the wondrous harvest which the “ quickening”
brings. Detailed antithesis to the odAvyou of ver. 20 is plainly
quite superfluous, through the knowledge which all the readers
had, and which was their constant wonder and joy, of the
rapid and wide diffusion and acceptance of gospel light,—
276 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
the simple fact indeed that “vow ”—believers over all parts
of Asia Minor—* are being saved,” itself sufficiently attesting
the glorious progress of salvation. “Observe, too,” the
apostle continues, “that this salvation comes to you through
influences flowing from an immeasurable fulness of power and
energy,—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is now
on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels
and authorities and powers being made subject to Him”
(ver. 22). To all this the words “quickened in spirit”
pointed. Thus we are brought with irresistible force to the
practical appeal (iv. 1), “ Forasmuch, then, as Christ suffered
in flesh” (and thereby passed into such fulness of life “in
spirit ”), “arm ye yourselves also with the same mind.”
This mode of exegesis explains quite satisfactorily the use
of the anarthrous participle a7re@ncacuv, in that it states the
occasion of éxjpvev; it brings out without any forcing a
perfect relevancy in the apostle’s dwelling on the long-suffering
of God with the antediluvians, and on the fewness, notwith-
standing all that patience of gracious dealing, of those: who
were saved,—statements which otherwise are not accounted
for in any satisfying way; and it gives a unity to the whole
paragraph.
One marked advantage of this interpretation is_ that,
according to it, the passage is not a specially mysterious one,
but contains simply a reference to well-known facts of O. T.
history, as seen in the light of N. T. Christology. The view
of those expositors who regard the 19th verse as speaking
of an event occurring in the unseen world, is one which for
the imaginative side of our nature has a special attraction ;
but, as has been already shown, that very element in the
exegesis which stimulates the imagination constitutes, when
the structure and connection of the sentence are considered,
a most serious difficulty in the way of believing that the
supposed sense is that which the apostle meant. The writer
appears evidently to intend the exhibition of an illustration,
or proof, or argument, the nature of which, and its bearings
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. QUT
on his line of remark, were likely at once to suggest them-
selves. Nothing whatever in his mode of expression seems
to imply that he knew himself to be referring to a matter
unmentioned, unhinted at, in any other part of Scripture.
Now the interpretation before us answers precisely to the
requirements of the case in this respect. The apostle might
most safely assume that all his readers knew something of
the facts connected with the history of the Flood. It is
reasonable to think that, from the awful impressiveness of
that judgement, no portion of O. T. history was more familiar
to Christians everywhere; and with this supposition the
frequency and the form of N. T. references to the Deluge
quite accord: cf. Matt. xxiv. 37-39; Luke xvii. 26, 27;
Heb. xi. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 5, iii. 6. The “striving of God's
Spirit with men” in the time before the Flood is expressly
mentioned in Scripture (Gen. vi. 3); and though the fact
that the preaching of Noah was one of the instrumentalities
employed in this divine “striving” is not there recorded, it
was yet, there is every reason to believe, as has been already
shown, preserved by tradition and well known. That the
“Spirit” who thus wrought graciously among men in O. T.
days was “the Spirit of Christ,’ was, as is shown by his
language in i. 11, a thought vividly present to our apostle’s
mind; and through those words, as well as by other teaching,
it had also been brought distinctly before the minds of his
readers. Not merely, therefore, from intrinsic fitness to
show a most impressive contrast to the saving energy of
the “quickened” Lord, but from their familiarity to all his
readers, the facts connected with the pleading of Christ
through His Spirit with the generation before the Flood, and
the small success of this pleading, were plainly admirably
suited to Peter’s present purpose.
The directness and immediateness, also, of the illustration
of the apostle’s course of thought, which is given by vv. 19,
20, according to this exegesis, constitute a manifest advantage,
when placed in comparison with the peculiarity and remote-
278 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
ness of that which the other interpretation presents. In
ver. 18 he has said, “ Christ died for sins, to the intent that,
having been put to death in flesh, quickened in spirit, He
might (thus) bring you to God.” Now, on that view of
the meaning which the exegesis we are now considering
exhibits, the “quickening ” which was “to bring you to God”
is directly illustrated by mention (vv. 21, last clause, 22)
of the glorious power and energy which were attested by the
Lord’s resurrection, ascension, and sitting down at the right
hand of God,—power and energy through which His gracious
dealing “now saves you” (6c’ dvaotacews *I. X., ver, 21, and
by consequence the whole of ver. 22, being in immediate
connection with o#fe). That the brightness of this sublime
scene of energy and triumph may have its full impressiveness,
a background has been prepared in vv. 19, 20, through the
detailed description of the little result which followed Christ’s
gracious and persistent appeals to men in an age before the
“ quickening ”—men living, like ourselves, in the world, and
amid similar difficulties and temptations to those which beset
us. The illustration thus given of the “quickening” which
was intended “to bring yow to God” has unity, and most plain
and direct pertinence. On the other exegesis, the proof of
this “ quickening” is supplied by mention of the Lord’s going
after His death and preaching to certain wicked spirits in
the regions of woe. Doubtless these were human souls; and
if such a visit was paid by Christ, and lost souls saved
through His “preaching,” this did show that He had been
“quickened in spirit;” yet even so it seems a singular and
remote illustration of that power which the Lord won through
death “to bring you to God.’ But when we consider that
not a hint is given of success in this mission,—that why
the spirits of the antediluvian sinners in particular were
addressed by the Saviour is an entire mystery,—that the
relevancy of the details given in ver. 20 of the divine
patience with that generation and of the fewness of the saved
is, to say the least, far from obvious,—and that the connection
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 279
between vv. 19, 20, and those which follow, is, at the best,
loose and uncertain, —it must be felt that, as respects
precision, lucidity, directness, unity, the exegesis which refers
the “ preaching” of Christ spoken of to His gracious dealings
with the antediluvians while they were on earth, has great
advantages.
On the whole, comparing the two modes of interpretation
which alone practically are before us,—for that which refers
Peter’s statement in ver. 19 to Christ’s preaching through the
apostles is confronted with quite insuperable objections,—it
appears that that which supposes the apostle to speak of a
preaching by our Lord in the regions of the dead fails either
to explain the structure of the sentence in which the state-
ment occurs, or to fit in with the general line of thought in
the paragraph; whilst that which regards the reference to be
to Christ’s gracious pleading with the generation before the
Flood while they were living on earth, fulfils both of these
requisites of a satisfactory exegesis,—and that there is nothing
in the use of words, or in the construction, inconsistent with
the view that this is the meaning.
A sketch of the history of exegetical dealing with this
passage is given by several commentators, Pott, De Wette,
Wiesinger, and others. This history has some points of
interest ; but the details with regard to what scholar held this
view and what scholar that, give in the present case little or
no help in the work of exposition. There are circumstances
under which such information does supply a measure of aid.
It does so when it shows us that of learning, sound judgement,
and Christian candour, a decided preponderance is in favour
of one particular view. In the present instance there is no
help to be obtained in this way. Where we find among the
defenders of one position an Athanasius and a Calvin, among
the defenders of another a Grotius and a Schottgen, among
the defenders of a third a Scaliger and a Pearson,—where a
Bengel and a Leighton are opposed to each other,—and these
names representative of many on the various sides of opinion,
280 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19, 20.
—it is plain that in favour of no one of the forms of exegesis
is there any approach to a consensus of erudition, robustness
of intellect, or Christian devoutness and singleness of purpose
in the study of Scripture. Again, if a history of the inter-
pretation of a passage show that the Greek commentators, to
whom the language of N. T. was native, agree with respect to
the force of certain obscure words or of an obscure construc-
tion,—or if, from the agreement or the tone of the oldest of
them, there may seem to be a likelihood that tradition had
brought down from apostolic times to their day some view of
the meaning which might possibly at least be from an authori-
tative source, or knowledge of some fact connected with a
statement made in the passage under discussion which may
be tributary to its correct interpretation,—an expositor obvi-
ously may here find advantage. But in the present case no
help of this kind shows itself. On nothing, either in the
separate words or in the construction, do the Fathers cast any
special light,—nor indeed was there any reason to look for
such light, or any need for it, the language employed being
common and simple. Neither is there any reason to think
that the believers of the immediately post-apostolic Church
had any authoritative explanation preserved to them from the
earlier day. It is true that there was among the Fathers a
strong belief in our Lord’s having, during the interval between
His death and His resurrection, exerted an activity of some
kind among the spirits of the dead. But that this belief was
founded on 1 Pet. iii. 19, or indeed that in the earliest ages
this passage was looked on as having any bearing on the point
at all, there is no evidence. In speaking of the apocryphal
Gospel of Nicodemus, which some scholars suppose to be in
substance derived from a document of the second century,
and which contains a very fantastic account of the Saviour’s
visiting Hades, Dr. Plumptre—a keen advocate of the view
that a visit to Hades is spoken of in our passage—observes
that, throughout the whole of the apocryphal writer's nar-
rative, there is no reference to the verses, 1 Pet. iii. 18—20,
III. 19, 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 281
iv. 6, “which might have seemed the most natural starting-
point for it;” and he goes on frankly to admit that, “ whatever
may be the right interpretation of those verses, the belief would
appear to have had an existence altogether independent of
them” (The Spirits in Prison, p. 82). Total absence, thus
acknowledged, of any reference in the literature of the earliest
times to our passage as supporting what we know to have
been then a prevalent belief, seems by legitimate inference to
tell us somewhat of a negative kind with respect to the exegesis
of the passage in the immediately sub-apostolic age. There is
abundant proof that our Epistle was from the earliest times
one of the most familiar of N. T. writings. To Ireneus,
among others, as his quotations show, it was well known.
The fact, therefore, that Irenzeus, when again and again deal-
ing systematically with the subject of a visit of Christ to the
world of the dead, does not even in the slightest way allude
to Peter’s words,—words which, if they refer to such a visit,
are certainly by far the most direct and full with regard to it
to be found anywhere in Scripture,—affords strong reason for
thinking that in his day (from about 130 a.p. to the end
of the century) the passage was not supposed to speak of
a preaching in Hades. His chief stay, in maintaining his
position, is a passage not found in Scripture, but which he,
and Justin Martyr also, believed to belong to the prophecies
of Jeremiah or Isaiah. This is quoted or referred to by him
four or five times. In the N. T. his appeal is to Eph. iv. 9.
Not merely this absence of reference, but also the form in
which the belief regarding a visit of the Lord to the region of
separate souls was entertained by the Fathers of the second
century, shows that it was in no respect based on our passage ;
for in all of them the position upheld is that in Hades Christ
preached to the patriarchs and prophets,—as to which Peter's
words give neither statement nor suggestion.
Clement of Alexandria is the first whom we know to have
interpreted the words in Peter of a descensus ad inferos (Strom.
vi. 6). Two centuries after his time we find Augustine main-
282 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 19
taining the exegesis which takes Peter’s reference to be to the
preaching of the pre-incarnate Logos to the antediluvians, and
this without a word to indicate that he thought himself to be
opposing any current of Church tradition. Whilst he is the
first whom we know to have held this view of the meaning,
it may, of course, quite possibly have been the prevalent or the
sole exegesis from the apostolic time to that of Clement of
Alexandria, in the beginning of the third century; and there
seems to be reasonable likelihood that it was. The argument
against the supposition that the passage was in those early
days interpreted of a reference to a visit to Hades, which has
been already stated, based on the silence of Irenzeus, has all the
conditions present which are needed to give validity to an
argument of this kind; and the only tenable alternative with
respect to the apostle’s meaning is the view which commended
itself to Augustine. For references to statements of the earlier
Fathers as to the supposed visit of Christ to Hades, see a note
of Bp. Lightfoot on Ignat. Magn. § 9 ; for references to the later
Fathers, Pearson On the Creed, Art. v.
Ver. 19. In addition to those points in this verse which
have been dealt with in the preceding general discussion,
one or two others claim a word of comment. Kai may be
attached to tois €v gvAakyn tvevpaciv with the force of
?
“even;” and so Wiesinger takes it. But, on any exegesis
of the passage, this sense of the word here seems to be
somewhat abrupt, and hardly natural. The common opinion
of expositors is that the meaning is “also,” and that the
connection of the particle is not specially with “to the
spirits in prison,” but with the whole statement made in
the clause. The use of «aé in this way in a relative clause
which, like the present, is not strictly subordinate, but tends
towards being a distinct sentence, is common in N. T., as in
the later Greek generally ; cf. A. Buttmann, p. 283 (where its
force in such circumstances is illustrated by that of the
German auch in Was er auch that). The additional fact set
forth in such a clause with regard to the antecedent, may be,
III. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 283
in historical writing, either contemporaneous, or subsequent, or,
as on what seems to be the most probable exegesis is the case
here, brought in by retrospect: cf. ii. 8; John xxi. 20, The
meaning here is, “in which—to remind you, for illustration
of the CworomOjvac by contrast, of another fact regarding
the Lord—He had gone,” etc.
That the apostle assumes his readers to be familiar with
the history of the Flood, is implied in the definiteness of “to
the spirits in prison.” The wickedness of that generation on
which the Flood came, as of the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah of a later time, was proverbial; and, if the thought
of the pious followed these men into the unseen world, it
regarded them as lying under the divine wrath. The force
of the apostle’s tots then is, “to those of whom you and I
have heard so often, and of whom, under the leadings of
God’s word, we think solemnly as being spirits in prison.”
—The name mvevpata is naturally employed of them when
looked at, as at this point, in their present disembodied state ;
ef. Heb. xii. 23; Luke xxiv. 37, 39,—also the similar use of
apuyat, Rev. vi. 9, xx. 4. There is in the present place,
however, an additional element of suitableness in the use of
the term mvevyata. In the connection, the mind is instinc-
2?
tively carried back to “quickened in spirit;” and since, as
has been seen, the prominent thought of the apostle in that
expression was of “spirit” as being the sphere of moral life,
action, influence, he most fitly employs also with regard to
those men of whom he here speaks the word which sets forth
the fact that they too had moral natures which might have
been influenced by Christ. This being the main thought,
the mind passes readily, without any sense of force, to azrec-
Ojncacw, which tells of what they did, of how their moral
natures acted, when they were embodied spirits.
Ver. 20. On adzrevOetv, ef. ii. 8, note. On moré, cf. ver. 5.
—The double compound aexdéyec@as occurs very rarely else-
where than in N. T., where it is not uncommon. The
prepositions in the compound seem naturally to express
284 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [1II. 20.
special persistence in waiting, somewhat like the English
“to wait it out”; and this force well suits the line of
thought in the places where the verb occurs, eg. Rom. viii.
19)).23,.25 ;. Phil. iii: 205, Heb... ix..28. The wordgaspais-
cussed by C. F. A. Fritzsche (Opuse. Acad. p. 156), who
exhibits its force in the present passage by the translation,
Dei patientia patienter exspectavit (more exactly exspectabat, for
?
the “ patient waiting ” is set in specially full view by the use
of the imperfect azmefedéyero, in which we have the divine
goodness pictorially before us, so to speak, in its endurance
from year to year of the obduracy of the wicked). Similarly
Bengel represents the thought by easpectabat donee exspectandi
jinis erat. This intensity of earnest waiting is obviously, on
that view of the meaning of the passage which has been
maintained above, quite in place,—the apostle presenting in
the strongest form his statement of the persistence of the
pleadings of divine love, in order that the comparative
slightness of the spiritual result may be the more marked,
and thus the contrast of the spiritual success of the
“quickened” Christ all the more vividly felt——For paxpo-
@upia as ascribed to God the Father or to Christ, cf. Rom.
i. 4, ix. 22; 1 Tim.i.16; 2 Pet. iii. 15; and as to the precise
force of the word, see Trench, Syn. WV. 7., § 53.—Like the
use of rots with mvevpacuy in the previous verse, the expres-
sion €v 7épats Noe also implies acquaintance of the apostle’s
readers with the history which is referred to; cf. Matt. xxiv.
373: Luke xvitx 26,
The reason of the absence of the article from «xsBwrTod is
not altogether obvious. Wiesinger and others account for it
on the ground of the familiarity of the name «iBwrtos as
applied to Noah’s vessel, from its being used so many times
in the narrative of the Flood as given in LXX.,—the word,
like xvpsos and others, whilst in itself general, being assumed
to have come, through frequent use with a certain specific
application, to be regarded, when applied in that particular
way, almost as a proper name. The meaning therefore is
II. 20.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 285
supposed, of course, to be precisely as if the apostle had
employed the article. This view would accord with that
intimate knowledge of Noah’s history which we have already
spoken of as assumed in the form of the passage. The only
objection to it—but that a serious one—is the absence of
evidence that in the case of this particular word the usage
was as supposed. In the references of after times to the
ark, the article seems to be as regularly attached as it is in
the narrative in Genesis; ef. 4 Macc. xv. 81; Matt. xxiv.
ser uuke xvi. 27> Clem, Rom. $ 9) Mireny.i9 18) Sri
Heb. xi. 7, indeed, xi8w7ov is anarthrous, but there the
indefinite form “an ark” seems to represent the intended
shade of thought. The use of the word as a kind of proper
name not being proved, therefore, it seems not unlikely that
here also we should think of the indefinite force as being
intended. This supposition agrees sufficiently with the apostle’s
practice elsewhere, the omission of the article in order to
give full weight to the signification of a substantive by itself
being not infrequent with him; cf. 1.10, note on mpodjrar.
Supposing «:BwrTod thus indefinite, the prominent thought
would seem to be of the merciful design of the ark,—“ while
an ark
a means of deliverance—was a preparing.” These
words would thus join themselves in effect to the mention
which has been made of the divine “ long-suffering,” and of
its “ patient waiting,” to show the fulness and earnestness of
the pleading of the Logos of God with that generation. The
slow rising up before them from day to day of what was
distinctly and constantly announced by God’s servant to be a
means of escape from a certainly coming destruction, was
in itself a form of “ preaching,’ and gave support to all the
other forms. Rhetorically there seems to be a certain special
suitableness in this indefinite way of taking «GwTod, in view
of that statement of general disregard of the offered deliver-
ance which immediately follows, in the form of a relative
clause attached to «uBwrod.
The relative clause which exhibits the smallness of the
286 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [UI. 20.
result of the pleadings of divine grace with the men of
Noah’s generation has no word indicating the precise nature
of its connection with what precedes, no “nevertheless” or
“notwithstanding,’—gaining thus in terseness and point:
“He preached to the spirits in prison when disobedient
aforetime, when the long-suffering of God kept patiently
waiting, while an ark was a preparing,—din which few
(persons), eight souls to wit, were saved.” Every reader
feels the power of the specification of the number,—eight
persons out of a world.
The words of this clause, while their general meaning is
sufficiently clear, may yet be taken with several different
shades of meaning. According to a use of duacwlev, not
uncommon in classical writers, and occasionally found in
N. T. (Acts xxiii. 24, xxvii. 44, xxvii. 4), we may translate,
“into which few, etc., were brought safely through water.”
This is given on the margin of R. E. V. Grammatically
unobjectionable, this view of the meaning cannot be sustained
on other grounds. Every reader instinctively feels it to be a
strangely imperfect statement of deliverance, that the persons
spoken of were brought safely into the ark, when we know
that in fact they were, in the ark, brought safely through the
perils of the Deluge. But, besides this, the words “through
water,” connected in this way, assert what contradicts the
distinct O. T. statement on the subject (Gen. vii. 4, 7-10),
that the Flood did not begin till the patriarch and his family
had entered the ark, and been “shut in” by God. But, in
perfect consistency with N. T. usage, we may take eés in
what is known as its pregnant sense (on which cf. v. 12,
els })v oTHTE, With note), thus obtaining the sense, “in which”
(fully exhibited, “7 which, having been brought by God
into it”) “a few, etc., were carried safely through water”
—water which encompassed and threatened to overwhelm
them. This is true and graphic, and the view that this was
the apostle’s meaning might be legitimately supported by
the suggestion that there was echoing in Peters memory
III. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 287
du’ VdaTos of Ps. Ixvi. (xv. Sept.) 12, and of Isa. xliii. 2,—in
each of which passages the words are, as here, attached toa
verb compounded with dca (diAOopev, 5caB8aivys), and in each
of which also the statement has reference to a divine deliver-
ance. If it were not for the relative clause which follows
(ver. 21), this would seem decidedly to be the probable
meaning of our passage. The meaning of that clause, how-
ever, and the kind of connection which it has with that now
before us, prevent our accepting this sense. There we read
“which” (that is, water) “in a corresponding way saves you
also.” This plainly proves, through the “ corresponding ”
and the “also,” that in 6 dédatos the apostle had been
thinking of water, not as a foe threatening to destroy, but
as a friend, a bringer of deliverance. This idea does not
seem to associate itself very naturally with the local force
of the preposition sé, unless with a somewhat undue amount
of supplement, “through the midst of the water, which
sustained them and bore them out of all peril.” It appears
therefore likely, though one yields a little reluctantly in
this matter to the pressure of seeming exegetical require-
ments, that the vivid picture given by the local use of Ova
should be put aside. The compound dvac@few is freely
used as simply a nearly equivalent form (originally rather
stronger) for cwfew: cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3; Acts
xxvil. 43. On the whole it seems that the verb is employed
in this way here, and that ova before déatos has its common
instrumental force-—the sense of the clause thus being, “in
which few, eight souls to wit, were saved through (means of)
water.”
With the putting aside of the local representation,
“passing through water,’ the relation of the 5a in com-
position to the other dvd is interrupted. Neither can da-
cwlew well be supposed to have that stronger force, as
compared with the simple verb, which has just been men-
tioned as strictly given by the preposition; because in the
very next clause, with which to a certain extent the present
288 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 20.
is contrasted, the simple verb is employed to describe a
deliverance grander by far than that from the Flood. As
hinted above, diacwfew had to a great extent lost in use the
special, intenser force which it originally possessed: cf. eg.
the references to Luke and Acts given just above. The apostle
employed the compound here probably partly through the
familiar assonance of dca in composition with 6ésa@ separate,
and partly because though, in the end, the instrumental
sense of the preposition as it stands before téda7os was
uppermost in his mind, yet the picture of “passing through
the water” was or had been also in a measure before
him.
Clement of Rome (§ 9) says, Nae micros evpeBels Sia THs
AetToupylas avTOD Taduyyevetiay Koope éexnpvEecv, Kal Siecwoev
&’ avtod o Aeomotns Ta eicedOovta ev omovoia faa eis THY
KiBwrov. Quite distinct as this statement is from Peter’s,
still the coming together, in association with the mention of
the ark, of the words éknpugev and duéowcev, suggests as at
least possible that Clement was thinking of our passage. If
maduyyevertay were interpreted with a spiritual reference, and
something like the idea of the first clause of ver. 21 supposed
to be in Clement’s mind, the likelihood that Peter’s words
were floating before him would, of course, be much increased ;
but (see Lightfoot, 7 Joc.) such a view of his meaning does
not seem to be at all probable. In any case we cannot
gather from the sentence anything with respect to Clement’s
exegesis of Peter.
By some scholars it has been thought that the use of
yvyai in this clause may have been specially suggested to
the apostle by that same thought of moral natures and their
relations to the divine Logos, which, as has been seen, we
are almost certainly to recognise in mvevpacw (ver. 19).
This is, of course, possible; and there can be no doubt that,
whilst the deliverance immediately spoken of was an outward
one, yet the main thought intended, in the connection, to
stand out before us is that it was through subjection, to a
Ta. .21;] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 289
greater or less extent, to spiritual influences,—through accept-
ance in some measure of the divine teaching and warnings,—
that these eight persons were led to avail themselves of the
means of rescue. Still, considering the free use in N. T. of
wuyai in enumerations (like “souls,” often, in English)
simply for “persons” (Acts ii. 41, vii. 14, xxvii. 37,
according to a common LXX. mode of expression, eg. Gen.
xlvi. 15; Ex. 1.5; Deut. x. 22), it hardly seems likely that
anything special was intended here in the use of this
particular word. The natural view is that, when from the
general word 6déyou, “ few persons,’ Peter went on to specify
the number, he instinctively adopted the formula familiar to
him in enumerations, “ eight souls.”
Ver. 21. The language of the first clause is condensed,
but not to serious obscurity: “ which (¢.e. water), correspond-
ing, now saves you also, baptism.” The meaning of this is
plainly, “ which, as corresponding ” or “answering” (that is,
the force of the adjective being such as is best represented in
English by an adverbial combination, “in a corresponding
way ”), “ now saves you also—that is to say, baptism.” The
adjective avtiturov is appositional to 6; and then afterwards
for distinctness we have Bawtuicpua as a second apposition, which
comes in quite naturally and intelligibly, though logically the
appositional relation is somewhat loose, “ water—that is to say,
the new covenant ordinance in which water is employed as an
emblem.”
The apostle does not institute or suggest any extended
analogy between the deliverance of Noah and his family and
that of Christians, but simply notes the fact that, from some
points of view, the water of the Flood might be regarded as
having a certain analogy to the water of baptism. As the
water of the Flood covered the earth which was accursed, and
at the same time bore up God’s people in safety, so baptism,
when it is that spiritual reality which the apostle goes on to
describe, covers and purifies the sin-blighted nature, and brings
into salvation. The analogy is brought forward by the apostle
i
290 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IIL 21.
here chiefly, it would appear, to exhibit with liveliness the
relation of the picture already presented to that now intro-
duced, by giving prominence to what, though in different
ways, was yet common to both scenes of Christ’s gracious
action, as an agent in the deliverance. “Under His working
long ago, water saved but eight persons out of the world:
under His working now, as quickened in spirit, water is
saving you Asiatic believers, representing, as you know, many
thousands over the world.”
The translation of avtitutov by “as antitype,” or “ as anti-
typical,” would be somewhat misleading, through the technical
sense—natrower than that of the Greek word as used in N. T.
—which these derivatives have in our current theological
language. There is no likelihood that the apostle meant us
to understand that the water of the Flood was, in the strict
theological sense, a “type” of baptism,—amainly intended, that
is to say, to exhibit on a lower plane the same principles which
baptism sets forth, and thus in a measure to prepare men for
the fuller revelation which was to come. That both with
reference to judgement and to grace the Flood had a typical
force is no doubt true, but as regards the water, which is the
thing here in hand, the thought of an indication of grace in it
—while present, as is seen on reflection—is yet only secondary,
indeed remote, the immediate and main purpose of the water
being the destruction of the ungodly. “Avtitu7ros, as used in
N. T., indicates resemblance or correspondence to something
prior, accordance with a pattern (rv7ros). This sense is not,
or but very doubtfully, found in classical writers. One mean-
ing which the word has in these is “adverse,” and by one or
two scholars (as Hammond) this has been thought of as per-
haps the sense in our passage, “ which on the contrary.” 4a
vdatos at the close of ver. 20 is then, of course, taken with
the force of “through water as hostile or threatening,” opposed to
which here is twas oofer. But «ai with duds, “you also,” and
the way in which ayrituzogs is used in the only other N. T. pas-
sage where it occurs, Heb. ix. 24, conclusively set this view
III. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 291
of the meaning of the word aside. The adjective, in its sacred
application, does not of itself imply anything with respect to
the quality of that of which it speaks; but merely intimates
that it comes, in time, second to the tumos thought of. The
avtituTov may be inferior, as where of heavenly originals
there are earthly, material, temporary counterparts or tran-
scripts (Heb. ix. 24),—or, as in our present passage, superior,
as a finished work to a rough model: cf. Lightfoot’s note on
the Ancient Homily formerly called the 2nd Epistle of Clem.
Rom., § 14. In the formularies of the Greek Church the
bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are called aytitu7a of
the body and blood of Christ.
For analogies to the strong expression employed here re-
garding the efficacy of baptism, twas cle, cf. Mark xvi. 16;
Acts 17,38, xxi. 16; Rom. vi..3; 43 Gal. ii 273 Eph.vi 26;
Col. ii, 12; Tit. in. 5—Hermas (Vis. ii. 3) has a remark
on baptism which looks somewhat like a reminiscence of our
clause taken in association with the last clause of ver. 20 :
7) an tpov dia datos €owWOn Kal cwOnoeTat.
To obviate misconceptions into which abundant experience
proves the proneness of men to fall—and which might, in the
present case, appear at first sight to be sustained by the par-
ticular comparison here instituted, the deliverance of Noah
and his family being of an external kind—the apostle adds a
definition of what, in saying that “ baptism saves,’ he means
by baptism. He does not by that name designate anything
which is merely outward. He means a sincere profession, made
in the appointed manner, of subjection of heart to Christ.
The ordinance saves, he intimates in substance, not through
any action of a material, mechanical kind, but solely as it is
a channel for the communication of divine grace, and used in
accordance with the divine intention. “ Debemus in baptismo
agnoscere spirituale lavacrum: debemus illic testimonium
remissionis peccatorum et renovationis nostre pignus amplecti:
sic tamen relinquere et Christo et Spiritui Sancto suum honorem,
ut nulla pars salutis ad signum transferatur ” (Calvin).
292 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 21.
For distinctness and impressiveness the apostle describes
what he means both negatively and positively. In the first
place, by “ baptism,” as he has used the word in the statement
just made by him, he means “ not a putting away of filth of
flesh ” (that is, “ not an outward or bodily purification,” cap&
being used throughout the Epistle with this force only, though
the adjective capxuxos has the ethical reference, ii. 11). From
the arrangement of the words some interpreters are disposed
to regard the genitives as both governed by ao@eots, with
different references (so in N. T. occasionally, e.g. Phil. 11. 30),
capkxos being subjective and pvzov objective, “ flesh’s putting
away of filth.” The ascription of action in this way to capé,
however, is plainly not natural; and though, supposing capes
to be governed by pu7rov, the order is certainly unusual, yet there
is an exact parallel in Rev. vii. 17, Cwhs mnyas tdatos. The
explanation, no doubt, is that capxds had in the apostle’s mind
the emphasis of antithesis, his thought, though in the second
part he deviates from precise exactness in the expression of it,
being od capkos atoeots pitrou adda TrEVpaTos Kabapiopos,
or something similar.—aAn interesting parallel to the state-
ment of the apostle here, though with a somewhat different
immediate reference, is found in Justin Martyr (7ryph. 14)
when speaking of the Jewish lustrations, 7¢ yap dpedos éxelvou
tod Barticpatos, 0 THY capKa Kal povoy TO coma paLdpvver ;
BarricOnte Thy Yuxnv.
Of the positive part of the apostle’s definition the words
which are used, and the context, make the general meaning
sufficiently clear,—“ but sincere surrender to God.” The
exact form of the thought, however, is very far from being
clear,—the obscurity being adequately represented in R. E. Y.
by “ but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,”
with two marginal alternative renderings for “ interrogation,”
“inquiry” and “appeal.” We have in the words that am-
biguity which not unfrequently arises from the fact that the
genitive may be subjective or objective, uncertainty also what
érepoTnwa as here employed means, and doubt regarding the
III, 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 293
precise connection and force of eds. The noun érepwornua
occurs in N. T. here only, but the verb éwepwrdw often. As
the simple verb épwtaw has freely in Hellenistic use, like our
English “ask,” the sense of “ request, petition” (whether the
appeal be addressed to God—so eg. John xvii. 9,20; 1 John
v. 16—or to man), as well as the classical meaning “ put a
question,” so the compound é7repwtdw, whilst usually “ ques-
tion” (eg. Luke ii. 46 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 35), means in Matt. xvi. 1,
“request.” Similarly in LXX. the verb has generally (ey.
Gen. xxvi. 7; Ezek. xiv. 7, 10) the force of “ question;” yet in
Ps, exxxvil. (cxxxvi.) 3, it has unequivocally the sense of
“request.” In Dan. ii. 10, 31, also, this is possibly the
meaning, but more probably “question.” The substantive is
found in O. T. Greek in Dan. iv. 17 (14) only, where its
meaning almost certainly is “request.” As used by classical
writers, the meaning of the word is “question.” Every ren-
dering of the apostle’s language, which from these data seems
to be possible, has found supporters; “inquiry proceeding
from, and inquiry or examination addressed or applied, to, a
good conscience,” “petition from, and petition for, a good
conscience,” “the petitioned-for boon of a good conscience”
(€repwmtnua being in this case regarded as having that passive
force which strictly belongs to nouns in -ya); es taken with
the force of “to, toward,” or with that of “in reference to,”
and joined to “inquiry” or “ petition,” or to “conscience.”
Another class of renderings, too, has been thought of. It is
not unnatural to suppose that in the apostle’s words there is
a reference to that questioning which, certainly from very
early times, and perhaps from the apostolic age, preceded the
administration of the rite of baptism. An early formula was
"Arotdcon TH Ratava ;’Atotdccopat, YuvtdconT@ XpioTe ;
Svvtdcoowar, Reference here to such catechizing being
assumed, the apostle’s word has been supposed to cover the
whole of this transaction, and to point in the present case
chiefly to the answering—as sometimes in modern English
the word “examination” is employed with reference mainly
294 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (II. 21.
to the answers. An application of érepwracdar and its cog-
nates, somewhat of this kind, resting on the usual system of
bargaining by question and answer in the transactions of
common life, is found in the later Byzantine legal phraseology
—the words being employed with the force of “ stipulating,
engaging, promising.” Thus we come to a possible rendering
of our passage, “the engagement, or promise, toward God of
a good conscience,’—that is, either subjectively, “given by a
good conscience,” or objectively, “to maintain a good con-
science.” The view that érepmtnua here is to be taken
somewhat in this way, as used metonymically, or with a
broadened reference, has commended itself to a great many
excellent interpreters (as Beza, Grotius, De Wette, Lillie), and
has led to such renderings as “in that a good conscience
consenteth to God” (Tyndale), and “the answer of a good
conscience toward God” (A. E. V.). Whilst, however, the
meaning thus given is ina measure satisfactory, it seems
questionable whether it has not been reached rather a prior,
by a consideration of what the apostle might suitably say,
than by an altogether legitimate dealing with what he has
said. The metonymy of “ answer” for “ question” is a strong
one, and can hardly be accepted without some proof of con-
temporary usage. Now there is no evidence that that
particular application of éwepwradcPat, and words derived
from it, which has been mentioned above as made in the
technical language of the later Greek lawyers, was in use in
the first century. No doubt, quite conceivably, the words
with this application may have passed into Byzantine use
from the legal phraseology of some of the Eastern provinces,
where they may have been so employed for centuries. Of this,
however, there is no proof. It being certain, moreover, that
no use of the word or its cognates with anything like such a
meaning occurs in LXX., N. T., or the early Fathers, one finds
it difficult to imagine that, even if the apostle and the Chris-
tians of Asia Minor knew ézrepwtnya as so applied, he would
be in the least likely, in a connection like the present, to
IIT, 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 295
employ it in a sense which had no sacred associations what-
ever, and was known merely of buying and selling, and that
only or mainly in technical law. It may reasonably be
doubted, therefore, whether the assumption of a metonymical
use of évepeétnua in the passage is justified.
On the other hand, if we are thrown back on the sense of
“inquiry” or “petition” as alone legitimate (so, among
others, Bp. Lightfoot, referring to the point in his book, On the
Revision of A. V., p. 136), it may be felt that no one of
the possible meanings seems quite to fill up what is naturally
looked for in a definition of the spiritual significance of
baptism. It is to be remarked, however, that the definition
is brought in in an altogether informal, occasional, paren-
thetical way, simply to give an incidental suggestion of the
true line of thought on the matter. Those renderings which
appear to have any considerable measure of likelihood are
the following :— First, “the inquiry of a good conscience
after God:” so Bretschneider, Winer, Alford. This rendering
is supported by a reference to 2 Sam. xi. 7, where we read
emnpwTnce Aavid eis eipnvnv "IwaB. To this view the ob-
jection presents itself, that, whilst true religion may well be
described as a continued seeking or inquiring after that
spiritual knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ,
which “is life eternal” (John xvii. 3), yet as a definition,
however informal, of baptism, “an inquiry after God” does
not seem natural or specially pertinent, seeing that baptism is
rather a public testimony to having already positively learned
something in this sublime field of research, to having taken
the first great step in the knowledge of God. Secondly,
“inquiry addressed by a good conscience to God:” so
Gerhard, Besser, Salmond, and perhaps R. E. V. Thirdly,
“a petition addressed by a good conscience to God:” so
Bengel, Schmid, and the Geneva English Version (“in that a
good conscience maketh request to God”). In these two
renderings there is obviously something of vagueness and
incompleteness. Gerhard, for example, has to supplement
296 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (UI. 21.
“an inquiry addressed to God” by “quomodo Deus erga
baptizatum affectus sit;” and Besser, in the direct form, “ Art
not Thou my Father? Am I not Thy child?” Similarly
Steiger—who appears to hesitate between these two views of
the meaning, somewhat preferring “inquiry ”—supplements
his rendering thus, “with regard to salvation,’—“ of which
the person receiving baptism longs to have assurance.” On
neither of these translations, moreover, do the apostle’s words
seem to have anything like special suitableness to serve as a
statement of the spiritual significance of baptism. owrthly,
“a petition addressed to God for a good conscience:” so
Lechler, Weiss, Hofmann, Wiesinger. This appears to be, on
the whole, the most satisfactory view. The thought as given
by it is distinct, and expressed with adequate fulness, and has
plainly a special relevancy to the matter in hand. The fact
that the mention of “water” is what has introduced the
allusion to baptism leads a reader to anticipate with confidence
that anything which is said regarding the meaning of the
ordinance will deal with it not merely in its general aspect,
as the beginning of a Christian profession, but to some extent
with respect to the specific teaching of the emblem employed.
This is most unequivocally the case with the negative part of
the definition, “not a putting away of filth of flesh;” and
in the positive part the mind, beyond doubt, expects something
which at least approaches to the nature of a direct antithesis
to the negative, some statement of that spiritual purification
which to the eye of faith is pictured in baptism. The position
of a sincere and intelligent receiver of baptism is that of one
who solemnly engages to be pure in heart and life, through
the promised grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the apostle in
the present section of his letter, and indeed only a few lines
before (ver. 16, where see note), has exhorted his readers to
“have a good conscience” (cf. also ii. 19). No form of
expression, therefore, could more naturally present itself to
him here to describe spiritual purity than this ; and it appears
natural also, and quite in accordance with the general style
II. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 297
of apostolic teaching, that, having in the former place made
mention of the duty, he should now, when speaking of the
baptismal pledge to do the duty, point directly to where the
strength for doing it is to be found, and how it is to be
obtained. In making his baptismal engagement the sincere
Christian is praying, and that with intensity. Thus “ an
entreaty addressed to God for a good conscience ” seems to be
Peter’s meaning.
Some expositors have attached the words 6.’ avactacews
*Inood Xpictod immediately to cuvedynocews ayabijs, or to
érrepotnua. No connection of this kind seems to be justified,
however, because the words “through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ” stand in such close association with the
following verse that it would go with them in the construc-
tion, and thus we should have an entire overthrow of the
balanee of the sentence,—an incidental elucidation of the
spiritual significance of baptism drawing with it the whole
of the latter part, whilst the principal statement tyas cwfer
would be without a word of illustration. The sense, too,
which is obtained by joining 8? dvactdcews ’I. X. with ower
being, to say the least, not less satisfactory than that given by
the other connection, we may safely hold the construction
with cwfer to be that which the writer intended.
Having so defined baptism as to show that, when he
ascribes a saving efficiency to “ water,” he is not attributing
this virtue to anything which is merely outward, Peter
proceeds here to show that the salvation spoken of is really
and wholly through Christ. Earlier in the Epistle he has
repeatedly pointed to the resurrection and heavenly glory of
the Lord Jesus as the object through the believing contempla-
tion of which Christian hope has its life @. 3, 21). Here
salvation itself is set forth as coming to us through His
resurrection. In ver. 18 the Lord’s atoning sufferings and
death have been spoken of: at the stage which we have now
reached, the apostle’s thought has regard to the application of
redemption, to the work done by Christ when, after and
298 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 22.
through His death, “quickened in spirit.” With what a
magnificent sweep he brings before us the evidence of
the completeness of the “quickening,” and thus the ground
which we have for assurance of the glorious success of His
work as a Saviour in these gospel times,—in contrast with
the little fruit of His pleadings with the sinners before the
Deluge! “ The water which bore up the ark that sheltered
God’s people saved but few,—but eight out of a numerous
generation,—though the Word of God had been for many
years graciously pleading with men to repent and live: the
water which correspondingly saves you has its power through
the resurrection of the Incarnate Word, which has attested
His triumph over all the force of death and hell. Your
tepresentative and Lord, who died for you, is risen from the
dead for you, to be a quickening Spirit, to be the Resur-
rection and the Life. The power of His resurrection is
perpetuated, for He is now at the right hand of God, in
surpassing glory and invested with boundless authority. He
has gone to heaven, and the loftiest of God’s creatures are
made subject to Him. How sublime in kind, in degree, in
extent, must the salvation be which He gives, thus wondrously
quickened in spirit—His measureless grace wielding measure-
less power to influence moral natures, to guide and sustain
and bless!” Something like this would seem to be the line
of thought in the last words of ver. 21 and in ver. 22: cf.
Peter’s words in Acts i. 32, 33; also Matt. xxviii. 18, 19;
Heb. vii. 25.
Ver. 22. The arrangement of the clauses shows clearly that
the apostle desired to pass at once from mention of the
historic event of the resurrection of the Lord to the statement
of His present position, thus bringing out the continued ful-
ness of His life and saving power. Then by participles he
mentions two facts, the view of which contributes to the
depth and distinctness of our impression of the glory of the
“quickened” Saviour. Reference to the session of Christ
at the right hand of God is very abundant in N. T., eg. Rom.
III. 22.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 299
viii. 34 ; Eph. i. 20 ; Heb. i. 3,—the foundation passage on the
subject, Ps. ex. (cix. Sept.) 1, being also expressly cited a con-
siderable number of times, eg. Matt. xxii. 44; Acts il. 34;
Heb. i, 13.—A clause which the Vulgate adds here, deg/utiens
mortem, ut vite ceterne heredes efficeremur, while no doubt
merely a gloss, is yet interesting, as showing how, in the mind
of the early Bible student who wrote it, the thought of Christ
as “quickened in spirit,” and thus become with glorious
fulness the Life-giver, ran as the main thought through the
paragraph.
The participial clause qopevOels efs odpavoy has much
interest. If we looked on the verse as being simply an
unimpassioned list of facts connected with the Saviour’s
exaltation, it might seem as if, according to the arrangement
adopted by the apostle, the mention of this particular fact
was almost superfluous,—the main statement already made,
that He is at God’s right hand, presupposing His having gone
to heaven. But just here enters the special importance of
Peter’s words. It is quite clear that this thought, wopev@ets
els ovpavov, rose up before the apostle’s mind as one which to
himself brought home with peculiar vividness a sense of the
clory of the Lord. Now there seems to be no natural way of
accounting for this, except by his memory’s giving him
a picture of that scene on Olivet when, while blessing His
apostles, Jesus “was parted from them and carried up into
heaven.” The great event of the Ascension of Christ is related
in but a very few passages of N. T., probably because it was
thought of by the first Christians simply as being the comple-
tion or legitimate sequel of the resurrection. Even of those
few passages which do state it, moreover, one or two are vexed
with serious textual difficulties. It is of no little moment,
then, to have from an eye-witness, like the Apostle Peter,
what cannot be naturally explained but as a distinct historic
reminiscence. The same remembrance is very probably —
actually present in d0£av ait@ dovra of i. 21, but is not so
obvious.
300 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 22.
The genitive absolute clause with which the verse closes
contains an expansion of a part of what is implied in és éotuy
év de&ia Oeod. The inhabitants of heaven are placed in sub-
jection to Christ. The words é£ovo.wv Kat duvamewv, taken
by themselves, might apply to earthly powers (cf. Luke xii.
11; Tit. iii, 1), the whole combination thus describing the
mediatorial authority of the Lord over heaven and earth ;
but the abruptness of the transition from ayyéAwv, and the
fact that in several other passages (e.g. Eph. i. 21, iii. 10; Col.
1. 16) 退ovc’a and kindred words are grouped to describe
orders of the heavenly hierarchy, lead quite decidedly to the
judgement that this is what was in the apostle’s mind here.
The natural construction is not to subordinate the latter terms
in the group to “angels,” “angels (both authorities and
powers),” but to co-ordinate the three, “ angels and authorities
and powers,’—the aim of the combination being, as is
manifest, simply to illustrate the might and glory of Jesus
by declaring that all those exalted spirits who compass the
throne of God, by whatever name they may be known, obey
the behest of Him who once hung upon the cross and lay in
the grave. The differences in the words which are employed
in the various passages referred to above, and the variety in
the order of their arrangement in the groups, show clearly
that the sacred writers did not mean to teach anything with
respect to the details of the distinctions existing among the
inhabitants of heaven. The groupings are made merely
for general impression, “For the Christian faith there
suffices the testimony as to different degrees and categories
in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more
than is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain
of theosophy” (Meyer on Col. i. 16). Lightfoot, in his note
on the same passage in Colossians, gives a sketch of some of
the speculations of Jewish and Judeo-Christian theosophies
with respect to the grades of the heavenly spirits.
BV, 1-4. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 301
CHAPTER ITV:
Vv. 1-4. The division of chapters is not at all happily
made here, the first six verses of chap. iv. being in very close
connection with the last five of chap.ili. At iii. 18, as has been
seen, the apostle began an argument in support of the state-
ment made by him in the previous verse to his persecuted
brethren, that it is “a good thing” (meaning by this both
that it is morally excellent and that, from every worthy point of
view, it brings advantage) to suffer for righteousness’ sake. His
position is that such suffering in the lower sphere, the material,
capé, brings life, power, energy in the higher—that of the
moral nature, 7vedua. This he has illustrated by the case
of our Divine Forerunner. He was “put to death in flesh ”
and thereby “ quickened in spirit” (ver. 18),—introduced into
a measureless plenitude of saving power (vv. 21, 22), which
stands in striking contrast with the small success of His work
of grace in the ages preceding the dying and quickening
(vv. 19, 20). At iv. 1 comes the direct exhortation based on
all this. ‘“ Your Forerunner, then, having suffered in flesh ”
(“and this” as, of course, in the connection, the thought
inevitably goes on, “ with such glorious issues”), “be ye also
ready to suffer.”
The form in which the apostle couches his exhortation
seems to show that the choice open to those whom he was
addressing presented itself to him as one simply of alterna-
tives. From the essential antagonism between “ the world ”
—the aggregate of carnal hearts—and Christ, and from the
excitement of feeling which had arisen among the heathen
throughout Asia Minor, there was no middle course between
502 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Vv.
living freely as these heathen lived and accepting “ suffering”
of some kind “in flesh.” Thus the appeal is “ Resolve, and
that unflinchingly, to suffer, not to sin. Surely your profession
as Christians implies that you feel your past life to be enough
to have given to sin (vv. 1-3); and, indeed, those calumnies
and persecutions with which you are now beset are due simply
to the wonderment and irritation of those around you at the
evidence which you have already been giving that you feel
this” (ver. 4).
Ver. 1. The T. R. reads in the first clause ma@ovros izrép
jwav capxi, and in the last 6 wa@wv év capxi. The changes
which, on ample evidence, criticism has made, omitting vzrep
nov in the one place and év in the other, render the apostle’s
course of thought more obvious. When the true reading in
the two clauses respectively is seen to be simply wa@ovtos
capki, wab@v capki, the expression, repeated in so marked a
way, and standing out in its bareness and generality, at once
leads the mind unhesitatingly to recognise a parallelism with
Oavatwbeis capxé in the first verse of the paragraph (iii. 18)
and with «ps@acr capki in the last verse (iv. 6),—and to con-
sider that a prominent thought—the governing thought, in fact
—in the apostle’s mind throughout the paragraph is that of the
antithesis which is fully expressed in the first and last of the
places, suffering in flesh and life in spirit. With tép Auav
read in the first clause, moreover, the chief force of that
clause is the setting forth of the motive of gratitude to the
great Atoner: with these words left out, the relation of the
Lord to His people that comes into the foreground is that
of Example,—which vv. 17, 18 of chap. iii. have led us to
expect.
Those temptations which, through the action of fear, connect
themselves with a state of persecution, are, as strong and
bitter foes, to be opposed by the Christian suitably armed:
“do ye also arm yourselves with the same mind” (on the
ficure cf. particularly Eph. vi. 10-17). Sophocles (Zlect.
995,996) has an interesting parallel to the mode of expression
Wt] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 3038
here, in the combination Opdcos ordifecPat. The simple verb
omAifev occurs here only in N. T.; the compound xcadordifew
in Luke xi. 21.
Occasionally in classical writers (see the Lexicons), according
to a development illustrated in all languages, évyoia, “a
thought,” has the idea of purpose more or less definitely
present. This is found also in the Hellenistic use of the word
(Susann. 28); and indeed its meaning in LXX. seems generally
to include with thought also the affections and resolutions
naturally connecting themselves with such thought (cf. Prov.
ili, 21, v. 2). This is apparently its force in our passage, and
is adequately represented by “mind” (of both A. and R. E. V.),
—‘“the same mind” meaning “the same conviction of the
absolute hatefulness of sin, and the same spirit of determination
to suffer to any extent in order that sin may be overthrown.”
Elsewhere in N. T. évvoca occurs only in Heb. iv. 12 (there in
the plural), where both versions give “ intents.”
The exact force of the statement in the last clause, “he
that hath suffered in flesh hath ceased (or, taken passively,
been brought to a cessation) unto (with regard to) sins,” is
not altogether obvious ; but consideration of the context aids
to a determination of the meaning. A mystical sense of
maGev has been thought of, as referring to death with Christ
in baptism (Schott, Webster and Wilkinson), or to the eruci-
fixion of the old nature (Calvin, Gerhard) ; but this is not
natural. Ia@ovtos of the first clause is unquestionably literal,
and the aim of the whole paragraph is to give support in literal
physical suffering from persecution. The unmistakeable and
emphatic reference in the repeated “hath suffered in flesh”
to the closing words of iii. 18, suggests in a decided way that
in the present clause the expression “has come to an end with
relation to sins” answers to “has been quickened in spirit,”
presenting this in a special aspect suited to the hortatory
character of the sentence. The subject is general,—he who
(every one who) has suffered in flesh” (that is, of course, as
distinctly indicated by the drift of the whole paragraph, “ who
304 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [fv. 1
has suffered in flesh for righteousness’ sake”). From the
manifest reference of the words of this clause to those of the
first, it is clear that our Lord is included in the category
intended. The view, however, of some scholars (as Fronmiiller)
who deny the generality of the subject, making 0 wa@ov
designate Christ only, is discordant with the indications given
by the form of expression,—the natural mode of setting forth
this idea being plainly by za@eyv alone without the article,
thus, “ because, having suffered, he hath ceased,” etc.
Whilst the general statement is true both of the Lord and
of His people, yet, as of necessity is the case whenever in any
representation of His fellowship with them thought of relation
to sin enters, the aspect is different. The sinless Sinbearer
ended, when He died, His relation to sin pressing on Him
as a burden. Thenceforth He is ywpis awaptias (Heb. ix.
28). When any of His people are called on to suffer unto
death for His sake, that stroke of the persecutor which closes
their earthly life closes therewith for ever all the influence of
sin over them, dismissing them to the life of perfect holiness
and to the enjoyment of the specially glorious crown of the
martyr. The strong word wézavrat naturally suggests that
this case, that of death for adherence to God’s cause,—the
closest possible analogy in the experience of the Lord’s people
to His,—was prominent in the apostle’s mind. He recalled,
it may be, this instance. and that of which he had heard, of
persecution even to this point among the Christians of Asia
Minor (cf. the very emphatic expression TH év tuiv mupwcel,
ver. 12), and, looking forward to yet more trying days which
were approaching, he longed to “strengthen his brethren.”
His words, however, are evidently meant to cover much
more than a reference to the comparatively rare case of a
martyr’s death. Every sincere and intelligent acceptance, with
a brave and patient heart, of any manifestation of the world’s
hostility to us because we follow Christ, is a spiritual victory,—
sin and Satan being in so far cast down, and an impressive
testimony given to our having in heart completely broken
WW, i] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 305
with them, our having “ceased from,” “ended,” love and
subservience to sin. Proof shown in this way that the soul
has received “not a spirit of fearfulness, but of power”
(2 Tim. i. 7), secures for it a well-marked new stage for the
aitainment of yet higher practical conformity to the divine
will, A note of triumph thus rings out from mésavtac
dpaptiass, precisely as from Cworounbels mvevuare in ili. 18;
and the clause sets forth a most powerful and invigorating
motive: “Arm yourselves with holy resolution to follow
Christ in suffermg for righteousness, because he who has
suffered in flesh has come to an end with regard to sins, thus
gaining the position which as Christians you most desire.” In
addition to the stimulus afforded by the simple statement of
this fact, the truth which is always the supreme support of
Christ’s people—that, namely, of His victory already won, and
of their spiritual union to the Conqueror—is also implied in
the form in which the statement is made. “In the world
ye have tribulation, but be of good cheer,—I have overcome
the world” (John xvi. 33). On the clause before us, Rom.
vi. 7 should be compared : though the thought here is different,
literal suffering and death, not mystical, being spoken of, still
it is difficult to think that that verse was not more or less
definitely before our apostle’s memory.
There are scarcely data for determining whether tézavtaz
is to be regarded as a passive, “has been made to cease,” in
which case the Divine Agent and the instrumental action of
the suffering are directly suggested to the mind (“ by God’s
grace, through the trial”),—or as a middle, meaning simply
“has ceased.” The perfect of this verb does not occur else-
where in N. T. The LXX. use of it—as in Isa. xxiv. 8,
Xxxlil. 8—appears to be middle, The perfect of the com-
pound dvamravowas is found in 2 Cor. vii, 13, Philem. 7, in
both places with passive meaning.
The clause may be taken, and has been by many (as Bengel,
Brown, Wiesinger), as stating what the évvoa (in this case
simply “thought and conviction”) was,—o7e being rendered
U
306 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ry. at
not “because,” but “that.” The sense is satisfactory —*“ Arm
yourselves with the conviction that to suffer for obedience to
the will of God is a triumph over sin.” But tay adtipy
presents a difficulty. These words in themselves may mean
one of two things,—either that this “thought” was “the
same” which sustained the Lord Jesus in His sufferings, or
that the apostle would have those whom he addresses to hold
this sentiment wnanimously, each believer cherishing “the
same thought” with his brethren. This latter meaning is in
the connection untenable, because thus the exhortation would
proceed without any reference at all to the first clause of the
verse, with which plainly from the mode of expression it is
intended to be very closely associated. Accepting then the
other view of the sense as the true one, “the same thought
which sustained the Lord,” two objections present themselves
to our going on with “namely, that,” etc. First, in this case
the exhortation is not quite what the opening clause of the
verse leads a reader to expect. From “Christ having suffered
in flesh,” the direct hortatory deduction is simply “ Arm your-
selves with the same mind” (that is, “Be ye ready also to
suffer ”),—-any reference to a special sentiment which had
animated the Lord coming in, if at all, as a distinct thought.
Secondly, whilst the “thought” ascribed to the Lord is in
itself suitable, being indeed substantially that implied in the
statement made in Heb. xil. 2, that “for the joy which
was set before Him He endured the cross,” yet the form in
which it is here presented—as a general proposition, and that
expressed somewhat peculiarly—seems to be such as would
not naturally have been chosen for a sentiment attributed
directly to our Lord, unless it had been well known as
enunciated by Himself. Now nothing at all resembling it is
recorded as having been uttered by Jesus. On the whole,
therefore, there seems to be good ground for considering the
clause not to set forth the contents of the évvoa, but to
exhibit a motive in support of the exhortation “ Arm your-
selves,’— 67e thus meaning “ because.”—With reference to the
IV. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 307
reading dpaptiais, see Critical Notes; and on this free use of
the dat. comm. et tncomm., frequent in N. T., ef. 1. 24, tais
dpaptiats atoyevopevot, With note.
Ver. 2. The question presents itself whether this verse is to
be regarded as a continuation of the clause introduced by
ott (so A. E. V.) or to be connected immediately with the
imperative clause, “Arm yourselves with the same mind”
(so R. E. V., giving the other on the margin). The former
of these views is beset with difficulties. ist, our verse,
so taken, is but a somewhat enfeebling expansion of the
striking, pointed, forcible statement, mémavtav dpaptiass.
Secondly, on this connection the words tov émidouroy év
capxt ypovov imply that the case of death by martyrdom—
which, as has been seen, seems to be naturally thought of as
the most prominent case in 6 wafwv capi of ver. 1—is not
included at all. Thirdly, this verse, implying evidently, as it
does, what is distinctly expressed in ver. 3, that in the earlier
part of the life of those spoken of there had been sin, would,
if joined to the clause introduced by 67s, exclude the Lord
Jesus entirely from the category intended by o zadav
capxi,—thus making the structure of the first verse far from
natural, and materially weakening the force of the motive
exhibited by é7z. To connecting the verse immediately with
the imperative there is no objection, further than that the
sentence thus conceived is a little loose in its texture, so that
our idiom would perhaps repeat the exhortation,—*“ Arm
yourselves, I say, with the same mind, so as no longer,” etc,
The apostle thus illustrates the aim of his injunction, and this
on the lines of the intermediate clause, which has spoken of
suffering for righteousness’ sake as a triumph over sin.
In pnxéte and tov éridorrov xpovoy there is plainly a
tautology, of a kind very natural in a sentence of intensely
earnest pleading expressed in the free language of a familiar
letter. The genesis of it may have been that when myxére was
written, the apostle did not intend to mention time again, but,
as he went on with the clause, the thought which he expresses
308 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 2.
in the next verse, “ Sufficient is the past time for sin,” rose up
before him so vividly that he instinctively brought in here
by anticipation “the rest of the time,’— which he trusted
would be given to holiness. The datives éw@upiaus and
OeXnwate may be explained either as datives of advantage,
“for,” i.e. “doing service to,” or as datives of rule, standard,
“according to” (ef. Acts xxi. 21; Gal. vi. 16; and see Winer,
p. 270; A. Buttmann, p. 184). The fact that the former of
these constructions occurs immediately before (duaptiais of
ver. 1, on which see note) makes it likely that here also the
apostle’s thought took the same mould.—By the generality of
his mode of expression, av@porav émiOvuiars (contrast the
strictly personal form, i. 14, tais rpotepov év TH ayvoia vuav
émiOupiats), and by his using also the similar ro BovAnua Tov
€Ovev in ver. 3, the apostle shows us clearly what his course
of thought is (see introductory note on vv. 1-4), Prominent
in his mind, evidently, at this point, is not thought of the
moral weakness and perversity of the professing Christians
themselves, but of the demands and influences of the wicked
around. “The case is one of alternatives, with no middle
course possible. Your lives must be given either to compliance
with the will of God (and this involves suffering in flesh)
or to compliance with the evil desires of men. Your Christian
profession intimates that you have chosen to serve God ; arm
yourselves then with the mind of Christ, a readiness to bear
patiently every evil which the hostility of the world may
bring you,—that thus you may serve the Lord fully.”—
Bengel well calls attention to the plural éwv@upiass, marking
the innumerable and often conflicting directions of worldly
lusts, in contrast with the singular @eA7pare, the one all-perfect,
absolutely harmonious will of God. On the issues of devotion
to “the lusts of men” and to “ the will of God” respectively,
see 1 John ii. 17.
’EriXouros, a common word in the classics and in LXX.,
oceurs here only in N. T.—On év capxi Buodv, cf. év capkt
¢nv, Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i 22, It will be observed that
TV. 3:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 309
throughout this paragraph, wherever expressly or by implica-
tion the apostle uses capxi as antithetic to mvevmarte, and as
one of the main words in his course of thought (ili. 18, iv. 1
bis, 6), he presents it in the bare form capxi, without a pre-
position. The place now before us, in which ¢v is used, is
obviously quite distinct from these—The verb Avodv is not
found elsewhere in N. T. The Ist aorist, used here, is
somewhat rare; the 2nd aorist é@iwy being more common.
By the Hellenistic writers, however, ¢8iooa seems to have
been preferred; cf. Wisd. xii. 23; Ecclus. xl. 28. On the
distinctions between Auodv and Cv, see Trench, Syn. N. 7.
§ 27.
Ver. 3. An argument in support of the preceding exhorta-
tion. Life according to the “lusts of men” is sketched in its
most repulsive features, to impress the reader with a sense of
the madness and enormity of continuing such a life——which, as
we have seen that the line of thought obviously implies, was the
only way of avoiding “ suffering in flesh ” through the hostility
of the heathen. “Arm yourselves with the mind of Christ,
that ye may do the will of God,—for surely your past life is
long enough for you to have given to that frivolous and impure
revelry, which, enlightened as you are by the gospel, you
cannot but see to be altogether unworthy of rational and
immortal creatures, and utterly offensive in the eye of a holy
God. And what profit had ye then in the things whereof ye
are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.”
As in the latter part of the sentence the apostle piles up his
list of forms of wickedness, his readers could not but think of
every moment which had been spent in these with shame and
horror, as having been deplorably squandered. The rhetorical
understatement (Actors or peiwois), found in the application
to a time regarding which they must have had such feelings,
of the mild, indeed colourless, word dpxerds, constitutes
obviously a grave irony, and has peculiar quiet force. It is not
impossible that, in using this mode of expression here, some
remembrance of Ezek. xliv. 6, xlv. 9, was before the apostle’s
310 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. GEV...8)
mind. The LXX., however, does not use dpxetos or apket
there, but (kavovcOw duiv. A certain specialty of force lies
perhaps also in the compound kateipyacOat, “to have wrought
efficiently, accomplished ;” but this verb is occasionally used
in such a way as to prevent our feeling certain that in the
present case the preposition is meant to give peculiar strength ;
cf. eg. Rom. i. 27, ii. 9. As to the complementary infini-
tive xatepyacOar after dapxetos (€oTw), see Winer, p. 401;
A. Buttmann, p. 259.—In ro BotAnua tov é@vav—that is,
the mode of life which those who have not the light of God’s
revelation desire for themselves, and love to see followed by
those around them—Peter in substance repeats avOpw7rwv
émrtOupiats of ver. 2 (on which see note), in a form somewhat
stronger, and answering with exactness to the actual position
of his readers. The transition (according to the true reading)
from the use of @édnpa in ver. 2 to that of the synonym
BovAnuwa here is perhaps due to an instinctive, reverential
shrinking from employing with reference to men who were
alienated from God a word which had just been used of God
Himself. The change can hardly be ascribed to any special
inherent suitableness of the one word to the one application,
and of the other to the other; for in Rom. ix. 19, BovAnpa is
said of God, and @éAnua, whilst predominantly said of God, yet
is also, not very unfrequently (eg. John i. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 37 ;
Eph. ii. 3), used of men. ‘The line of demarcation between the
force of 6éAw and that of BovNopas is hard to define with pre-
cision. On the frequent N. T. use of €@vn with relation to
religion and not to race, cf. 11. 12, note.
The verb zropevecOat, employed Hebraistically (like repu-
mate) for a course of life, is construed, as here, with ev (of
the various paths, or the various fields through which the
paths lead) in Luke i. 6, 2 Pet. ii. 10; elsewhere with the
simple dative (as Acts ix. 31), or with xara (as 2 Pet. ili. 3).
The apostle uses here the participle of the perfect, instead of
what might seem more natural, that of the imperfect. This is
analogous to the case, common in N. T., of an aorist participle
IV, '3:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 311
joined to a main verb in the aorist and coincident with it in
time. The choice of memropevpévous instead of sropevopévous
accords strikingly with the tone of the whole sentence, one
obviously of intense desire that the time of “ working the will
of the Gentiles” should be regarded as absolutely done with.
As to the use of the accusative mrevopevpévous, the construction
preferred in N. T. in a clause of this kind, instead of making
the participle agree with duiv (understood with dpxerds), cf.
Winer, p. 782; A. Buttmann, p. 305. In the present place, the
fact that duiv is not expressed would have made the dative of
the participle hardly natural.
In a cataloeue of vices given in the course of an impas-
sioned exhortation, punctiliously sharp discrimination with
regard to the spheres which respectively the different names
cover is not intended nor needed, what is aimed at being
general impression. In the list given by the apostle here the
first two names probably overlap each other to some extent,
and also the following three. The main division is sufficiently
clear, and is approximately represented by “ debauchery,
dissipation, and impiety,” — “debauchery” answering to
doenyelats, ériOupiass, “ dissipation” to oivopruvylais, Kopmas,
motos, whilst “impiety” represents in a somewhat loose
way dOepuitos eidwroratpiats. All the nouns, it will be
observed, are put in the plural, in order to bring out impres-
sively the habitual wickedness of average heathen life, the
frequency and variety of its acts of grossness.
"Acédyea (a word of uncertain etymology) is “ wantonness,
regardlessness of all restraints,’—often with special reference
to fleshly impurity (as Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 19), but also
more generally (so apparently, from the arrangement of the
names of vices, in Mark vii. 22). On this word, see Trench,
Syn. N. T. § 16.—EOupia is, in the connection which it
has here, naturally taken to designate some particular class of
the av@pwmav é7ifvpiat mentioned in the previous verse,—
where evidently the word has its full original breadth of
reference. Knowing, as we do, how gross and glaring were
312 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [iv. 3.
and are sins of uncleanness among the heathen, and how con-
stantly these are pointed to in N. T. wherever there is any
reference to the moral working of heathenism, a reader at once
recognises a strong likelihood that this class of lusts is mainly
intended here in éwvOvpiass ; and the fact that the word im-
mediately follows adoeXyetats, which, as has been said, has in
N. T. use pretty decidedly a special reference to impurity,
confirms this view.
Oivodruvyia (the latter component being from ¢aAveuw,
“swell up, overflow”) occurs here only in N. T., seldom in
classical writers, and never in the LXX., the cognate verb, how-
ever, oivopAvyetv, being found in Deut. xxi. 20; Isa. lvi. 12.
According to more than one ancient definition, the word refers
strictly to desire, “an excessive love of wine;” but it is com-
monly used of actual indulgence in long and deep drinking.
“Debauch” is probably the best English representative——The
two words which follow point, judging from their ordinary
use, particularly to drinking in company, designating gather-
ings of which drinking was a main purpose. Koos (found
also in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 31, in both places in the plural,
and in both associated with mé@av) means “a revel, merry-
making,” frequently in honour of a god, particularly Bacchus,
and ending usually in the party’s sallying forth from their
banqueting-room to parade the streets and indulge in what-
ever folly or wickedness suggested itself. IToros (here only in
N. T.) was “a drinking-party,” like cvpadcvov, This word was }
not in itself one, like ofvofdvyia and K@pos, implying of
necessity folly and excess. It was used of the moderate
banquets of good men (eg. Gen. xix. 3; 2 Sam. iil. 20, LXX.) ;
but frequent excess (cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 36) had evidently in the
apostle’s days given it a bad repute. On oivopdAvyia, K@pos,
and motos, see Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 61.
In using the plural e/dwAoratpiais, the apostle probably
intends reference both to the worshipping of many gods, and
to the many forms in which devotion to the idols was shown.
"A@éustos (found elsewhere in N. T. only in Acts x. 28,
IV.. 3.1. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 313
Peter’s words) is “ unlawful,’—-strictly, however, in the sense
of being opposed to law as laid down by instinctive convic-
tions with respect to what is right (fs), rather than to law as
set forth in a statute: thus, for example, Philo, in opposing a
certain doctrine, says that, granting it, 0 O«ds POaptos éorar,
—Omep ovdé Oduis (ic. dep AOusTov) vonoar (Leg. Alleg. ii.
Mang. p. 67). In the connection in which the word appears
in the present passage, the apostle seems to imply that the
thought set forth in the epithet might and should have
suggested itself to his readers whilst still heathen. His
reference, therefore, would appear to be to that law written on
the heart, and legible to all men unless wilfully blinded (Rom.
i. 19-23), which forbids the rendering of worship to any
but the living God. It is obvious that in the place which
this adjective holds here, in a passage of intensely earnest
pleading, it has far greater strencth of meaning than where it
occurs in Acts. To represent the precise thought by a single
English word is perhaps impossible. “ Abominable,” of both
A.and R. E. V. (after Tyndale), answers in a general way to the
probable meaning, but not quite to the form of the thought.
“ Nefarious” again suits perfectly in this latter respect; but
its connotation, as commonly used, hardly accords with the
requirements of the present connection.
On the catalogue of sinful practices here given, cf. Rom.
xiii, 13, Gal. v. 19-21, and particularly Rom. 1. 18-32,
where the direct connection between departure from the
worship of the true God and immorality is exhibited with
peculiar clearness and impressiveness. Peter’s words in this
passage do not, of course, imply that all his readers had been
guilty of that grossness of iniquity which he has sketched.
As regards the extreme of profligacy, probably what had been
the case was simply as Paul states it to the Corinthians
(1 Cor. vi. 11), “And such were some of you.” There were,
doubtless, everywhere among the heathen persons whom
thoughtfulness, and instinctive purity and delicacy of feeling,
restrained from many of the debasing practices seen around
SLe FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 4.
them. But everything which we gather from the literature of
Greece and Rome, as well as from the references made to the
subject in N. T., leads us to think that a deplorably large pro-
portion of the people, cultivated and uncultivated alike, lived
to some extent in vice, and that in large measure conscience
had become torpid.
Of several passages of this Epistle which go to show that
those to whom it was addressed were mainly Gentiles, the
present gives the most decided testimony to that effect.
The whole list of vices suits a heathen population far
more than it does a Jewish, in so far as we know anything
of the sins to which respectively Gentiles and Jews specially
tended; and the reference to “idolatries” cannot, without
the strongest forcing, be made to point to Jews. Compare
Introd. § II.
Ver. 4. There is brought out expressly here what, as has
been seen, is implied in the preceding verses, when viewed
in their relation to the context,—namely, that to those whom
the apostle addresses there are for choice only alternatives, —
either living in frivolity and sin, at which Christian enlighten-
ment revolts, or acceptance of dislike——which in certain
circumstances may lead to active persecution—from the
world. The world wonders at the Christian’s abstinence from
modes of life in which it delights; and with the wonderment
is conjoined irritation, because through the more or less dis-
tinct teaching of conscience (Rom. ii. 15), even when conscience
has grown to a considerable extent blind and dull, the lives of
Christians are felt to be a reproof and reproach to sin.
Generally in N. T. the verb &eviferv has, as in the old
classical Greek, the sense of “to entertain a stranger, lodge
him” (eg. Acts x. 23; Heb. xiii. 2). Here, as not unfre-
quently in the later Greek writers, Polybius, Josephus, and
others, it means “to give a sense of strangeness, to surprise”
(Germ. befremden) : so also in the 12th verse of this chapter,
and (active voice) in Acts xvii. 20. The exhibition of the
object causing amazement by év (é€v w meaning “ at which”)
IV. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ad
is on the analogy of such combinations as év @ ayaddrao be
(i. 6), Sofatérw Ocdov év TH dvomare (iv. 16),—on which see
notes: cf. also (according to what appears to be the most
probable connection of the words in that passage) @avpafew év,
Luke i, 21, With respect to the antecedent of @, there is
a little uncertainty. The simplest view seems to be that
what was immediately before the apostle’s mind was the
thought which he has made specially prominent in the pre-
ceding verse (see note there on the use of the perfect participle
meTropevévovs),—that for Christians the life of sin is now
done with, a thing of the past; or (this being practically the
same) that idea of “regarding the past time as having been
sufficient,” etc., which his whole tone assumes as certainly to
be ascribed to every one of the believers. “ At this ”»—the
fact that their living in vice is ended through the new faith
which they have accepted—the heathen around them “are
surprised.” Then the clause in the genitive absolute attaches
itself as an epexegesis of the manifestly somewhat ambiguous
©,—“ since you run not with them,” etc. Some good exposi-
tors (as Hofmann, Huther, Salmond) regard the most obvious
antecedent as that which is intended, namely, “your having
lived like the others,’—the precise source of the wonderment
being then ‘explained, by the gen. abs. clause, to be the dis-
cordance between the past and the present. But this does
not appear natural. Had the relative expression been “ with
respect to which matter” (vep/ or some similar preposition
being employed), this construction would have been probable
enough ; but év exhibits the basis of the wonderment, and—
even supposing the thought of 4 ovvtpexovtwy «rd. already
rising before him—one can hardly imagine that, however
transitionally, the apostle’s thought took the form, “The
heathen wonder at your having lived as they did.”
On the joining of a gen. abs. to £evifovtas, cf. a closely
parallel case with éydapnv, 3 John 3.—The particle yw here
has very distinctly its proper subjective force, the fact of
“your not running with them” being represented as before
3G FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [Iv. 4.
the minds of the heathen and occasioning their surprise—On
the eagerness expressed by ouvtpeyovtwv, Prof. John Brown
aptly cites the vivid description given by Ovid (Met. iii. 528,
foll.) of the hurry and frantic excitement seen at the festivals
of Bacchus.—On doortia, cf. Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6,—also
Luke xv. 13 (the adverb dowtas), and Prov. vii. 11, LXX.
(the adjective dowrtos). The best English representative
seems to be “profligacy.” “Actos is plainly, according to
the etymology of the word, one so given up to evil courses
that men think of him as co@fecOae fur) Svvapevos,— past
redemption,” as we say. It is found frequently with special
application to pecuniary extravagance, but in the place before
us has plainly its widest reference. On this word, cf. Trench,
Sym. LES 16.
What is the exact force of avayvous here is not clear.
The word is not a very common one, and is variously used.
It occurs with its primary force as a verbal substantive, “out-
pouring ;” thus Philo (AZwnd. Opif., Mang. p. 13) speaks of the
sun extinguishing the light of stars 77 Tod Péyyous avayvaen.
Again Strabo (iii, A. 206) says, Aéyovtas 5é avayvoes ai
TAnpovpevat TH OadratTn Koidades ev Tais TAHppUpioL Kal
ToTapav Siknv avatrrous els THY pEecoyaLav Exoveat,—that is,
inlets or estuaries. The lexicographers Hesychius and Suidas
give also “weakness” (a state of “poured -out-ness” of
strength, so to speak) as a meaning. This last sense is not
suitable. So understood, the statement would lack vigour ;
and, moreover, cvytpeyovtwy eis distinctly leads us to think of
dvayvovw here as having a figurative local signification. Some
(as Alford) take “slough” or “mire” to be the meaning,
because portions of certain inlets of the sea answer somewhat
to such terms when the water has receded. ‘The idea is good;
but there does not seem to be authority for such a translation.
Strabo does not in the least degree lead a reader to suppose
that the word in itself gave any suggestion of an offensive
residuum. The probable sense here seems to be “effusion,
gush, flood.” The bitter waters of profligacy are—as an
IV. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, aly
accursed stream, foul and destructive—sweeping over the
lands; and the men of the world, rushing down to its banks
to bathe in it, and drink of it, and in the end to be carried
away by it to ruin, are astonished and angry that the
Christians will not run with them. Something like this
appears to be the picture before the apostle’s mind; and the
few words in which he outlines it for us have a singular
energy. “The whole phrase vividly describes the rush of the
multitude to do evil—that general working of all uncleanness
with greediness, which is the unfailing characteristic of every
community in which is no knowledge and no fear of the
living God. In the absence of all divine and eternal sanctions,
the restraints of conscience and shame oppose but a feeble
barrier to the torrent of evil; and that very social nature
which was meant for the shelter and encouragement of
virtue adds an almost irresistible momentum to the current.
Such was eminently the case in that dissolute age” (Lillie).
It can hardly be doubted that, in the connection, Sracdn-
fouvtes indicates calumnious reproaches addressed immediately
to the believers, at whose ceasing from complicity with them
in vice the heathen were surprised and made angry. They
closed their eyes to the conclusiveness of the Christian’s
justification of his conduct, so magnificently stated by
Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. iii. 12), when, after quoting
from Peter the verse preceding the present, he says, “Opov
éxouev Tov otavpoyv tov Kupiov' & mepictavpovpeba Kat
mepiOpuyxovpeba TeV TpoTépwy apaptiav. Because the
Christians refused to join in idolatrous services, and in
dissipation and debauchery, they were charged with being
godless, and with gloomy misanthropy, moroseness even to
odium generis humani (Tacit. Ann. xv. 44). At the same
time, whilst this is no doubt the immediate reference of
Bracdnpodrtes, the predominance in N. T. of that special
force which this verb and its cognates obtained among the
Jews, as designating language dishonouring to God, makes
it reasonable to regard this particular thought as having, in
318 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 5.
all likelihood, been in the minds of the sacred writers when
they speak of revilings directed against Christians for Christian
modes of acting by the name of “blasphemies.” The irritation
of the heathen, as has been seen, was due undoubtedly to a
vague sense that in the pure lives of Christians there was
given from heaven a merited reproof for their own vicious
lives. Implicitly, therefore, in reviling Christians, they
reviled God. The best rendering is perhaps “ blasphemously
reviling you.” This thought of insult offered to God
leads with special impressiveness to the statement which
immediately follows regarding the Divine Judgement.
Ver. 5. The solemn statement made here is in the direct
line of the apostle’s course of thought. His readers were
perplexed in spirit (see particularly ver. 12) by the troubles
to which they were exposed. Under the government of a
God almighty and infinitely gracious, they, His children,
were treated by bad men with derision and cruelty,—and no
outward proof came to them of His interest in them or His
displeasure with their enemies. God’s people were crushed,
and His foes were triumphing. “ Nevertheless,” says the
apostle, “ your Father cares for you; and whilst for wise
purposes, which you will understand better afterwards, He
permits these things now, the great Assize is near, at which
your enemies will have to give account of all their works of
ungodliness, and of all the hard things which they have spoken
against Him (Jude 15). The Lord Jesus, who is Himself
reviled and persecuted when His brethren are (Acts ix. 4),
will be the Judge, and your Vindicator.” That this last
thought was before the apostle’s mind—the thought not
merely in a general way of Divine Judgement (as i. 17), but
specifically of the Lord Jesus as the Judge—can scarcely be
questioned when we remember his words in the house of
Cornelius (Acts x. 42), in which he exhibits it as being a
main subject of that preaching and testimony for which the
apostles were commissioned, 671 obtés €otw 6 wpiopévos bd
tod Ocov xpitis Cwvtwy Kat vexpov. The close resemblance
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 319
in these words to the language of our present passage shows
that in both the object of thought was precisely the same ;
and by what had been said a sentence or two before (iii. 22),
with respect to the exaltation of Christ, the minds of the
apostle’s readers were prepared to apprehend at once his
reference here to the Lord’s glory as Judge.
The combination Aeyov amodidovac is found with the same
application as here in Matt. xii. 36; Heb. xiii. 17; Rom.
xiv. 12 (the reading in this last place, however, being doubtful
between the compound and the simple verb), and with minor
references in Luke xvi. 2; Acts xix. 40.—On éroiwws éyew,
eh Actwaxi) 135-2. Cor. xi, 14,—also 2: Cor. x06... -On
éTotwos in its present connection, cf. i. 5, with note. The
next grand manifest divine intervention in the affairs of this
world will be the appearance of the Lord to judgement; and
to faith, which measures time by the standards of eternity,
this great event is always near: cf. vv. 7, 17, with notes.
‘Etoiuws éxovts being in the present place joined with the
aorist infinitive, the decisiveness of the judgement (once for
all) is with much energy set forth by the combination, as
well as the nearness—On xpivar Cavtas Kal vexpovs, cf.
(besides Acts x. 42, cited above) 2 Tim. iv. 1. It cannot
reasonably be doubted that the force of the expression in
these three places is the same, and that in it the words
“living and dead” are to be taken in their ordinary accepta-
tion,—the object of the sacred writer being to set forth the
absolute universality of the judgement of men by the Lord
Jesus, those who shall be alive on the earth at His coming,
and those who shall previously have died, being all alike
summoned to His tribunal. The interpretation “spiritually
alive” and “spiritually dead,’—hbelievers and unbelievers,—
which, in view of a particular mode of explaining the difficult
verse that follows, some scholars have in our passage attached
to the words, is clearly untenable.
Ver. 6. This verse is obscure,—judged, indeed, by many
scholars to be as hard of interpretation as any statement found
320 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (Iv. ¢.
in Scripture (“certainly among the most intricate passages in
the whole book of God,” Brown), by some absolutely given up as
a locus desperatus (“Hune locum non intelligo,ideoque ad verbum
transtuli,” Castalio). There is a measure of ambiguity in some
of the words, taken separately, or as here associated ; and the
relation of the verse to the context is not obvious. Considering
the variety of reference which is possible for ydp, it seems
best, before trying to determine precisely the connection of
the passage with what precedes, to endeavour, aided by the
general indications which are given by the drift of the whole
paragraph, to ascertain what the probable meaning of the
verse is.
Nexpois has been regarded as used here of spiritual death,
the sense of the verse being either “To this intent the gospel
was preached to men dead in trespasses and sins, that through
its working they might have the body of sin destroyed, the
flesh with its lusts being mortified (which, in the judgement
of the unregenerate — Kata dav@peTovs,—is no better than
death), and might in the spirit have that holiness and happi-
ness which, in the sight of God, constitute true life,’-—or “To
this intent,” etc., “that, though persecuted as to their external
circumstances by men (cata avO@pwrovs), they might, through
the gracious working of God, enjoy true life in spirit.” In
both of these forms of exegesis there are thoughts which could
scarcely be brought out of the words of the passage without
force. But, whatever be made of the details, the taking of
vexpots as speaking of spiritual death seems at all events to
be untenable. This word cannot naturally be viewed as
having a different reference from vexpovs immediately pre-
ceding,—the force of which, as we have seen, appears quite
decidedly to be “ dead” in the ordinary sense.
But whilst vexpots cannot naturally be understood other-
wise than as designating persons who are “dead” in the same
sense aS vexpous of ver. 5, it is not necessary to take the
reference in the one as being coextensive with that of the
other. As it stands in the 5th verse, the word undoubtedly
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 321
means all the dead: that this is also certainly the case with
vexpois does not follow. A number of interpreters have
maintained, indeed, with much decision, that it does follow,—
but on insufficient grounds. The anarthrousness of vexpovs
(ver. 5), though the word there means all the dead, is in
accordance with a not unfrequent licence of the language in
cases where nouns are grouped by a conjunction: cf. ey.
Matt. x. 37, matépa 7) pntépa, viov 7) Ovyatépa. In English,
also, we say similarly, “ The child has lost both father and
mother ;” whilst, in speaking of one parent only, we should
have to say “his father,” “his mother” (in Greek, likewise,
Tov Tatépa, THY wntépa). That the use of this licence with
grouped nouns does not affect the necessity of either of them,
if definite, taking the article, when mentioned separately, even
if this should be in the same sentence as the group, is shown
by another verse in that chapter which has just been referred
to (Matt. x. 28), in the case of Wuyi Kai copa. Similarly,
in English, we have no difficulty in saying “able to destroy
both soul and body ;” and we also, like the sacred writer in
his Greek, have to say, “from those who kill the body, but
cannot kill the soul.” Thus the absence of the article from
vexpots (ver. 6), standing separate, shows that the word is
employed indefinitely, “to dead men.” These may, in fact,
be all, or only some; all that the word, as here used, states, is
that the persons meant are dead. Wherever in N. T. vexpoé
occurs without the article, the context shows that the sense is
indefinite (e.g. Matt. x. 8; Mark xii. 27; Luke vii. 22; Acts
xxvil. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 16), except in cases of recognised
licence,—that is to say, groups such as have already been
spoken of, instances where the word is governed by a pre-
position, and the combination, seemingly used as a proper
?
name, advdoTacs vexpov.
The use of evnyyeAicOn appears to be impersonal,—“ glad
tidings were carried,’—that is, specifically, according to the
regular N. T. application of the verb, “the gospel of Christ
was made known.” No such supplement as 0 Xpictos (Bengel)
x
aaa FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6.
is needful, or naturally suggested by what precedes.—On eis
tovto iva, cf. ili. 9; John xviii. 37; Acts ix. 21; Rom.
xiv, ‘9;
The second of those exegeses mentioned above, in which
vexpots is regarded as referring to the spiritually dead, assumes,
it will be observed, that in the double clause introduced by
iva the stress is on the latter of the two members. It seems
plain, on examination of the passage, that the case is so.
We have here an instance of that Hellenistic structure——not
unfrequent in N. T. (see note on S074, i. 24), and most strik-
ingly illustrated in Rom. vi. 17,—according to which thoughts
are in form co-ordinated, whilst really one is subordinate to
the other. Thus here the purpose of God in having the
gospel preached was that, through its influence, those who
heard it might have life; and the former of the two clauses
presents a subordinate antithetical thought, helpful to the
effect of the main one,—the meaning really being, “ that, whilst
(or, although) judged in flesh, they might live in spirit.”
Kpc@dcw is naturally taken to have a reference to xptvae of
the previous verse ; and thus a reader’s first thought is that,
like xpivau, it speaks of the general Judgement. The adjuncts
which are attached to it, however, appear to show that this is
not its application. api scarcely accords with such a
reference. It is true that the resurrection of the body will
be prior to the general Judgement ; but the term “ flesh ” does
not appear to be anywhere used in Scripture to designate the
resurrection-body. Job xix. 26 may perhaps be thought of;
but the obscurity of the passage, both as regards the meaning
of the words and as regards the reference, prevents anything
being rested upon it. The particular word oap£&, moreover, it
may be remarked, is not used in LXX. in that place. The
fact that our Lord speaks of the odp& of His resurrection-body
while He was still on earth (Luke xxiv. 39), cannot with
security be held to prove anything with respect to the
applicability of this word to the body given to men at the
general Resurrection, particularly when the statement made
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Sue
in 1 Cor. xv. 50 is taken into view. On the other hand,
many passages (e.g. Phil. i. 22; Heb. v. 7) point in a marked
way to the earthly existence as that to which cap& belongs;
and in the paragraph which the verse now before us closes,
capki, occurring four times besides the present (ili. 18, iv. 1
bis, 2), means quite unequivocally the body here on earth. In
three of these places, too (iii. 18 expressly, iv. 1 by obvious
implication), the same antithesis appears as that distinctly
intimated in our passage between suffering “in flesh” and
receiving quickening “in spirit.” Now as physical suffering
on earth is meant in those other places, the presumption that
here also the same is intended by xpi@dcu capxi is so strong,
when all the various facts which have just been dealt with
are considered, that only evidence of its being impossible to
obtain a satisfactory exegesis of the verse on this view of the
meaning of the expression would justify departure from it.
The fact that vexpod are expressly described as the subjects of
the statement, suggests that dying itself is the “being judged
in flesh ” which is referred to; and when we find that the
antithesis is “ living in spirit,” this is confirmed to conviction.
We feel that xpiOdcv péev capci, aor dé mvevpars, is very
closely parallel to the foundation statement of the whole
paragraph, OavatwOels pév capki, Gworrounfeis de mvevpate
(ili. 18). .
It would seem, therefore, so far as at this stage of our
examination we are able to determine, that the mention in
ver. 5 of our Lord’s being “ready to judge the living and
the dead” at the Last Day, brought up vividly before the
apostle’s mind, on some ground, thought of God’s judicial
dealing in, according to the principles of His moral admini-
stration, inflicting physical death (d:a@ tis awaptias 0 Odvatos,
Rom. v. 12). Subjection to this penalty of sin he calls
kpivecOar. Similarly, in 1 Cor. xi. 30-32, bodily illness and
>
death are spoken of as “judgements;” and, a little later in
our Epistle, Peter calls persecution and other outward trials
kpipa (iv. 17).
324 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. FLV. 6.
Kata avOperovs appears in the connection to mean “ after
the manner of men,” “as men are judged,’—that is, “ accord-
ing to the doom which for sin has come on the whole human
race ;” and correspondingly cata Oeov is “ after the manner
of God,” “as God lives,’—this latter statement being kindred
to that other of Peter (2 Ep. i. 4), ta yévno@e Oelas Kowwvot
dvcews. On Kata Oecov, cf. v. 2, note. With xata avOpo-
mous cf. Paul’s familiar form of expression in the singular,
individualizing, cata dvOpwrop (eg. Rom. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor, iii. 3):
in the present place, universality being of the essence of the
thought intended, the singular would not have been suitable.
Ignatius (Zrall. § 2) has cata av@pw@rous faves, “ living as
?
men live:” «ata Oeov also occurs a number of times in his
writings (e.g. Magn. § 1).
If the conclusions which have now been reached with
regard to the force of the words and phrases are well based,
the natural interpretation of the verse is, “ For to this intent ”
(the position of eis todto shows that on the purpose the stress
of the sentence rests) “ was the gospel made known also to
persons who are dead, that, whilst judged (subjected to the
judgement of death) in flesh, as men are, they might in spirit
live as God lives (live a life of holy blessedness, kindred to
God’s, kata Tov “Aytov Kat adtol ayo, i. 15).” Two objec-
tions are urged to this being accepted as the sense intended by
the apostle. First, this view of the meaning proceeds on the
supposition that vexpots speaks of “ persons who are now
dead,” but who were alive at the time when “ the gospel was
preached to them,’—whereas, according to the prima facie
force of vexpois evnyyedia On, a preaching to men dead at the
time of the preaching is described—an evangelizing of dead
men. ‘This is no doubt the sense which the mind attaches
first to the two words taken by themselves; but there is
nothing in the least degree forced, or indeed at all uncommon,
in a combination of words like this being used in the other
way, the rest of the sentence suggesting the meaning intended
by the writer. A sense of the continued oneness of the per-
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 325
sonality leads constantly to expressions of this kind. Suppose
that a naval officer of distinction happened to be mentioned in
conversation, and that an old schoolmaster in the company
said, “I taught the admiral navigation,’—not a moment’s
doubt would be felt by any hearer that the old man spoke of
the admiral long before he had become an admiral; nor would
there be the least feeling that the mode of speaking was
strained or odd. Even the transition into the state of the
dead does not interfere with the entire naturalness of this
form of expression. When a newly-made widow says of a
friend, “I shall always be grateful to him, because he loved
—nhonoured—showed kindness to—the dead,” the statement
is at once understood to point to kindness shown during life
to him who is now dead. Soin Ruth i. 8, “The Lord deal
kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead (wera tov
teOvnxotwv, LXX.):” similarly also ii. 20. The only difference
between such statements and that at present before us is that,
in those which have been spoken of, the reference to something
done in life to persons who are now dead presents itself at
once and inevitably to, the mind of the reader or hearer,
through the knowledge of the circumstances which is possessed,
—whilst in this verse we have but a passing allusion, to the
exact force of which we are not immediately guided by the
context. But that the apostle’s first readers—able, from their
perfect acquaintance with those circumstances in their position
which specially had induced the apostle to write to them, to
see ina moment the purport of the slightest allusion—did not
attach to the words before us a reference to experiences prior
to death as directly as we do to the words of Naomi, or that
they had any more consciousness of strain in doing so with
these words than we have with hers,—this is manifestly a
quite unsupported assumption. The probabilities of the
case must be argued out from consideration of the nature
of the statement, according to the force of its words and
clauses and connection,—the combination vexpois evnyyericOn
accommodating itself readily to either of the positions with
326 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6.
respect to time. The question is obviously in kind precisely
the same with that as to the reference of tots ev gudaky
mvevpacwy in iii. 19, which was fully discussed.
The second difficulty in the way of admitting that meaning
of the verse which has been given above is found in the
obscurity of the connection of the passage, when thus under-
stood, with what precedes. But when one bears in mind the
main drift of the whole paragraph, particularly as shown in
summary form in the last clause of iii. 18 and iniv. l, a
natural connection for our verse readily presents itself. The
central thought throughout has been that suffering in flesh for
righteousness’ sake brings life and strength in spirit. Now
plainly the present verse, the last of the paragraph, echoes
those verses just mentioned, and this in a specially marked
way through the emphatic position given to capxi and
mvevpatt, We seem, therefore, to be naturally led—obliged
indeed—to think of persecuted Christians as the subjects of
the apostle’s statement here; and, seeing that these are
expressly called vexpoi, and that “ being judged as men are in
flesh,” which was their pathway to “living as God lives in
spirit,” appears in the connection undoubtedly to mean death,
the natural conclusion seems to be that the persons immedi-
ately before the apostle’s thoughts were Christians who under
persecution had died for the cause of their Lord. On the
likelihood that, in the later years of Nero, and from that time
onward, there may have been now and again even severe
persecutions in different parts of the empire, of which no
record has been preserved, see Lightfoot, Zgnatius, vol. i. pp.
15,16. The entirely casual way in which we learn—and
this not from a Christian but a heathen souree—of the severe
persecution in Bithynia in a.p. 112, is very suggestive in this
direction. That the oppression under which the believers in
Asia Minor were suffering at the time of this Epistle had
already gone so far as the subjection of some to a violent
death—really, whether avowedly or not, for their religion—
may quite reasonably be held to be hinted in iv. 1 (see note
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oor
there) ; and the supposition accords well with the statement
made in iv. 12. JIvpwovs in this last passage is a very
strong word, and the persecution indicated by it was not about
to come, but had already begun (yivopern).
Supposing the reference in our verse then to be to Christian
martyrs, the connection exhibited by yap must be not immedi-
ately with what is said in ver. 5, but, as very frequently in
the case of this conjunction, with an intermediate thought,
natural and generally obvious. The apostle has said that
the blasphemous calumniators of the Christians shall have to
“give account to Him who is ready to judge living and dead.”
This last expression is universal in its reference, pointing to
the judgement both of friends and enemies of Christ, per-
secutors and persecuted alike. The practical force of the
statement is therefore, of course, that in that Day the folly
and sin of the persecutors will be publicly made manifest,
and the servants of Christ gloriously vindicated. While,
with this wide reference, he writes the word vexpovs, the
remembrance comes up vividly before him of some of his
Christian brethren in Asia Minor who, as he knew, had
already been placed in this class of vexpod directly through
the cruelty of the heathen. He was aware also, we may
suppose, that the thought of these martyrs was with much
liveliness before the minds of those to whom he was writing,—
and that among them that deep and painful sense of mystery
which we know (1 Thess. iv. 13-18) to have existed among
some of the early Christians, when they saw around them
those who loved the Lord dying before He came again in His
glory, was intensified exceedingly by seeing Christ’s people
die—perhaps amid torments—expressly because they served
Christ. In the state of mind in which some at least of
Peter's readers evidently were with respect to suffering for
Christ’s sake generally, such a sight as this they certainly
could not but “think strange” (iv. 12) in a very high degree.
To this difficulty, then, the apostle adverts,—and that in such
a way as to place the copestone on the whole invigorating
328 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6.
teaching of the paragraph, with regard to the “ quickening ”
power of “suffering in flesh” for righteousness’ sake. He
tells them that, when the persecutor does that which, from
his point of view, is his very worst, he is, in truth, but
introducing the Christian into a far higher sphere of that
spiritual life which he had begun to live here, a life kindred
to the life of God. “Your revilers shall give account to Him
who is ready to judge living and dead. Dead, remember,
brethren, as well as living. Your martyred dead, of whom
your hearts, I know, are full, will have a triumphant vindica-
tion; for this was the very purpose for which the gospel
was made known to men also who are dead (as well as to
you and me who are still alive),—this,—that, whilst judged,
as men are, in flesh, there should be for them nothing further
of judgement involving suffering, but that they might live in
spirit as God lives.” On this view of the connection, the
transition from the application of «pivas in ver. 5 to the
general judgement to that made here of xpu@aou to dying, is
easy, and has a special tenderness and beauty ; and all parts
of the verse have their full natural force. While the course
of thought certainly seems, as has been said, to lead to the
view that martyrs are immediately in the apostle’s mind,
yet obviously the declaration of the verse really gives its full
comfort to all who mourn over Christian dead. The apostle’s
statement is parallel to that of Paul (Rom. viii. 10), Ev 6é
Xpictos év tyiv, TO pev cHpa vexpov Sia apaprtiav, TO Se
mvedpa For dva Suxavocvvnv,—the structure there also, sin-
gularly enough, having the same kind of irregularity as here,
for clearly the formally co-ordinate clause To péev c@ma Kr,
is really subordinate.
If it be objected to that connection of the passage which
has now been sketched, that the train of thought assumed to
link the 5th verse to the 6th is not altogether obvious, a
sufficient answer appears to be at hand. The question
whether there had been, among those to whom the apostle
wrote, some recent deaths by martyrdom, is one with respect
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 329
to which, from the imperfect knowledge we have of the
history of Asia Minor during that age, nothing more than
conjecture is possible. A probability that the case was so
seems, as has been said, to present itself from the modes of
expression employed in iv. 1,12. If we suppose that there
really had been such deaths, and bear in mind that tender-
ness of feeling respecting their loss which must have existed
for a lone time among the surviving brethren, we can hardly
doubt that, when the Epistle was read in the various churches,
the martyrdoms would be prominently in the thoughts of the
people throughout the whole of the present paragraph and
much which follows. Thus, at any point, the force of the
slightest turn of language naturally bearing on the death of
their friends:would be perfectly obvious to them,—however
it may be at first to us somewhat obscure. Given the
supposed circumstances,—and these are probable,—the course
of thought connecting the 5th and 6th verses is altogether
natural, and the meaning assumed to be yielded by the 6th
verse is quite accordant with the force of its words and of
their construction, and in entire and beautiful consistency
with the whole paragraph which the verse winds up.
By a few of those interpreters who regard the persons
spoken of in the verse as having heard the gospel in their
lifetime (as Hofmann), the reference of vexpoi is supposed to
be to persecutors, and the apostle’s object to be to comfort
the suffering Christians with the assurance that in no case
will their oppressors escape their merited punishment. “They
shall give account to Him who is ready to judge living and
dead,—yes, those of them who may be dead when the Lord
comes, shall be brought to stern judgement as fully as those
who may be alive, for they heard the gospel and rejected it.”
This view is untenable. The tone of feeling thus supposed
to be in the passage is not consistent with the general spirit
of N. T. That the delightful sketch, a Gao. kata Oecov
mvevpatt, Should be given merely to serve as a bright back-
ground for a dark record of condemnation, is, in the connec-
300 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Iv..6.
tion, altogether unnatural. The course of thought throughout
the paragraph regarding the efficiency, for quickening in the
sphere of spirit, of the bearing of persecution for Christ—
a course marked, as by guide-posts, by the occurrence time
after time of the antithesis of capxi and mvevpatv—is entirely
interrupted by making the reference of this antithesis to be
in the present verse to the persecutors. Various serious
objections of detail also present themselves on a careful con-
sideration of this exegesis, which are well stated by Wiesinger,
—who has given to this position of Hofmann an almost
needlessly long and elaborate discussion.
Many expositors make the prima facie force of vexpois
eunyyertcOn a fixed point—the fixed point—in their exegesis,
—“the gospel was preached to dead men” at the time when
they were dead; and endeavour in various ways to make the
other parts of the verse, and the connection with ver. 5,
square with this. Naturally, this class of exegetes includes
most of those who see in iil. 19, 20, an announcement of our
Lord’s preaching in the regions of the dead. The fact that
within the same paragraph, though at a considerable distance .
from each other, two passages occur which, on a surface view,
may be held both to speak of a proclamation of the gospel to
the dead, arrests the attention of every student of the Epistle ;
and the coincidence may not unreasonably be held to establish
a measure of likelihood that this really is the meaning in both
the passages. Yet the measure of probability thus established
is in itself but slight, and has no appreciable counterbalancing
weight, when serious difficulties, grammatical and logical, are
seen to obstruct the acceptance of this view of the sense in
either place. In literature and in life superficial coincidences,
as striking or more striking, show themselves every day, which
yet, on examination, often prove to be merely casual, with no
underlying relation. As regards the meaning of our present
passage, the fact is worthy of note that to the consensus among
those expositors who see a preaching to the dead in iii. 19,
in seeing the same here also, one exception—out of several—
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. So
is Bengel, a commentator ranking certainly among the very
foremost, if not himself absolutely the foremost, for learning,
breadth of judgement, and spiritual insight. The tendency
must have been strong with him, since he had been led to
interpret iii, 19 of a visit to Hades, to recognise the same
here. But he saw clearly that the natural reference of kpu@act
capxt, in the connection which it has in this sentence, is to
dying,—and that this cannot reasonably be viewed as prior
to ednyyedicOn, of which it is by ta expressly indicated to
be, so far as regards the form of the sentence, a part of
the purpose: “ex quo ipso” (that is, the clause ta Kpiaor
capxi) “etiam patet evangelii preedicationem innui morte illa
priorem, non posteriorem.”
By those who interpret ednyyeA/oOn of a preaching in the
regions of the dead, the connection of vy. 5, 6, is thought to
be as follows :—* Our Lord is ready to judge the dead,—and
with reason, for even they have not been without opportunity
of receiving His gospel.” This, which is Alford’s statement,
adequately represents the general position of those who hold
this exegesis. Now, in this supposed connection itself there
lie difficulties. In the first place, if vv. 5 and 6 stand related
to each other in this way, the course of thought appears
singular. There can be no doubt that, springing as it does
out of mention in the 4th verse of the persecuting spirit of
the heathen in Asia Minor (Sracdnuodvtes), the statement
made in the 5th verse has in it very prominently a solemn
sternness. Now, the sequence is, to say the least, peculiar:
“Your persecutors shall render account to Him who is ready
to judge living and dead,—to judge the dead also, I say, for
to this intent the gospel has been preached to the dead, that
they may enjoy eternal life” (this last being undoubtedly the
main thought in the clause introduced by ta). Secondly, the
assumption involved in this mode of connection, that at the
great day of final account the judgement will, with respect
to every member of the human race, be determined by his
having accepted or refused Jesus Christ as made known in
302 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6.
the gospel, does not seem to be based on Scripture-—which
simply affirms that judgement will be according to the varied
measures of light granted to men, and that the Judge of all
the earth will do right (Luke xii. 47, 48; Rom. i. 18-20,
li, 9-16, etc.). Thirdly, supposing it were admitted that
the reason alleged to be given in ver. 6 for the statement
made in ver. 5 with respect to the judgement of the dead is
scriptural, and is expressed in a natural way, still it is hard
to see the relevancy in this place of such a justification of
Christ’s judging the dead. Nothing in the paragraph, or
indeed anywhere in N. T., suggests in the remotest way that
difficulties on this head perplexed or distressed the early
Christians anywhere ; and certainly, to state the case in the
mildest way, an explanation of the kind supposed seems to
have no special suitableness in the present connection. As
Professor Salmond puts the matter excellently, “ Peter is not
dealing with any such question as how it shall stand with
those who have not heard the gospel in this world, but with
a plain case where the gospel is known,—the case where
Christians are slandered by their heathen neighbours for their
fidelity to the gospel. How should the mention of a gospel
preached to the dead in the under-world bear upon the
position of living Christians who are misrepresented by living
detractors in the upper world 2? What encouragement to
patient endurance of heathen slander should Christians find
in the information that their heathen persecutors are assured
of a new period of favour in the other world? Or how
should the mention of Christ’s graciousness towards the
unrighteous dead incite the righteous living to a persevering
separation from heathen impurity ?”
The exegesis of those who regard the verse as speaking of
a preaching of the gospel among the dead takes various forms.
By most of these scholars xpidou capi is—rightly, as we
have seen reason to believe—judged to refer to physical
death; and those intended by vexpois are either certain
sections of the dead (as, the antediluvian sinners mentioned
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 333
in the previous chapter,—so de Wette; or, more widely,
those who died before the coming of Christ,—so some of the
older interpreters), or the dead generally (so Wiesinger,
Huther, and others). ‘hose difficulties in the way of logical
connection which have been indicated above affect the
exegesis in any of these forms. All of them are confronted,
too, with a most serious grammatical objection in the twist
which they give to tva xpiOaov, making these words speak of
a death which is past. While it is true, as has already been
said, that the former of the two members of the clause intro-
duced by tva is in sense subordinate, the stress of thought
being on Gaov, yet in form it is clearly a co-ordinate part of
the statement of the aim intended in evnyyedicOn. Now it
seems impossible that in the mind of any logical thinker—
under whatever Hebraizing influences—the clause could
present itself as one of purpose relatively to evnyyedicOn, if
the «piOjvac had taken place before the evayyerroOAvat, and
was at the time present to the consciousness of the writer as
having been prior. A number of commentators pass this
point by with some slight observation to the effect that the
clause is tantamount to one in which wa governed Sax only,
the intervening thought being represented by a participle.
Now, however true this is in fact, it does not really touch
the difficulty. Wiesinger, always thorough and candid, mani-
festly—and reasonably—finds it hard in the utmost degree to
satisfy himself that «ps@dor can mean what his exposition
makes it mean, “be in the state of having been judged,” or,
“of being judged” (the state of death being deemed a con-
tinuation of the “judging in flesh” begun at death). He
appeals to but one passage, 1 John iii. 23, as analogous; and
gains nothing thereby, because, in the first place, it is not by
any means certain that the aorist there is the true reading,—
and, secondly, even if it is, the natural reference of muctevowpev
to a decisive act of faith is in every way suitable, “ the decisive
act of faith being treated as the foundation of the abiding work
of love” (Westcott, a loc.). In every case in N. T. in which
334 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6.
iva is construed with an aorist and a present, the distinction
is quite obviously the regular one between an act and a state,
—as here between dying and living; ef. John ix. 39, x. 38.
One case of a conceivably retrospective aorist subjunctive is
to be found in John xii. 7 (true reading); but the construc-
tion is uncertain, the view that the force of the tense is
retrospective not being the most probable,—and, in any case,
in the way in which a verb is used after agsévae iva there lies
no true analogy to the passage before us, where wa plainly
has in purity its regular sense of purpose.
Where, as with the majority of the recent advocates of the
exegesis under discussion, the word vexpots is supposed to
indicate all the dead, there is, besides the difficulty found in
iva xpiOeor, another, almost equally serious, connected with
evnyyertc@n. The only natural view of the force of this verb
here is as an ordinary narrative aorist, there being nothing
whatever in the structure or relations of the sentence to
suggest the gnomic force (as 1, 24), or any other kindred
use of this tense. Now obviously the historic statement
evnyyedio@n—whilst sufficient, if the supposed preaching of
the Lord to the antediluvian sinners is thought of as referred
to here, or some similar proclamation of truth to the dead
of the pre-Christian ages generally—is an inadequate form
of expression if all who die before the Lord’s Advent to
Judgement be deemed to be pointed to.
A few interpreters (Plumptre, Mason, and one or two
more) understand xpi@dov capxi not of death, but of some
judicial action of God at the time of resurrection and general
judgement. All these scholars seem to regard vexpots as
designating the dead generally. Thus their exegesis leg
under the objection just stated with respect to the force of
evnyyedic On ; and whilst they escape that connected with the
time of xpi9a@ou, they are confronted with equal difficulties
of another kind, in the peculiar application of capx:, and in
the marked deviation which they make from the contextual
reference of the antithesis between oapxi and mvevuate.
IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 335
Mason maintains, though somewhat hesitatingly, that the
verse means that wicked men who in Hades believe in
Christ, through the supposed preaching to them there, shall
not have resurrection of the body (the withholding of this
constituting their being “ judged in flesh”), but in some sense
shall, “as God sees it” («ata Oeov), live in spirit. Dean
Plumptre’s language does not give a reader the idea that he
holds exactly the same view as Mr. Mason, but what he does
hold it is not easy to determine with precision. “The dead
had the gospel preached to them, that they might be judged
by a judgement, which was remedial as well as penal, in
that lower sensuous nature in which they had sinned,’—and
“live, in the highest sense of life, in that element of their
nature which was capable of knowing God, and therefore of
eternal life”’ “Such,” he observes, “seems the simple,
natural interpretation of the words;” and he goes on to
remark on the influence of “dogmatic prepossessions” in
swaying men from it (Cambridge Bible for Schools, in loc.). In
another book, The Spirits in Prison, published in 1884, five
years later than that just quoted, Dr. Plumptre (p. 119)
states as the sense of our verse, “They, too” (“the dead
generally”), “were to have the opportunity of being conformed
to the likeness of Christ, dying as He died, and thus bearing,
as He bore, the penalty of sin, that so they might be sharers
in His life.” The meaning of this may possibly be the same
as that of the other statement.
The exegesis of this verse is certainly not obvious or easy ;
but, on a retrospect of the whole discussion, the direction in
which probability points with regard to the apostle’s meaning
appears to be marked with sufficient distinctness. On the
one side, we have as difficulties the facts that there must be
attached to vexpois a’reference as respects time, different from
that which prima facie suggests itself,—and that the connection
between vv. 5 and 6 is based on a view with regard to the
severity of the persecution under which the Asiatic Christians
were suffering at the time of the letter, that rests to some
336 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV: 7-14.
extent on conjecture. The proposed reference of vexpois,
however, though not the first which occurs, is in itself
perfectly natural, and accords with frequent use; and the
assumed severity of the persecution—its having already
brought some believers to a violent death—has in it nothing
which is at all improbable, and seems, indeed, to be directly
pointed to by various modes of expression in the Epistle.
Conceding these two positions, the meaning obtained is
entirely accordant with the sense of the words and with
their construction, —is in itself beautiful, and eminently
fitted to comfort the distressed Christians to whom the
letter was written,—and is in the direct line of the current
of thought traceable throughout the whole paragraph which
the verse closes. This last point is one of very special
moment, seeing that the reappearance here of that antithesis
which has come in again and again between “suffering in
flesh” and “life in spirit” seems with much emphasis to
indicate that the verse is 727 the main current, not in a mere
eddy.
On the other side, there are most serious grammatical
difficulties, connected both with evnyyertc@n and with cpibdct
capki; and, on any form of the exegesis, a considerable
measure of unnaturalness presents itself in the relation of the
verse to that which precedes, and seemingly an utter want of
relevancy to the general drift of the paragraph.
Vv. 7-11. On the duties of Christians as associated in
congregations,
In the practical part of his letter the apostle has, up to
this point, been giving advices bearing on difficulties and
sufferings to which his readers, in the various positions they
oceupied, were exposed in carrying on the general work of
life. He proceeds now to speak specially of the duties
incumbent on them as associated in congregations, the thought
IV. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 337
of trouble and anxiety to the Church from persecution being
also still prominently before his mind.
Ver. 7. The words wavtwy to Tédos cannot be naturally
taken to mean anything else than the close of the proba-
tionary history of our earth through the Second Coming of
Christ, His coming to raise the dead and judge the world.
By some interpreters the reference has been supposed to be
to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, beyond question, that
awful catastrophe could not fail to make a very deep impres-
sion on the minds of Christians everywhere throughout the
world, and was one in which they would certainly and justly
recognise a “coming of the Son of Man” for judgement. But
that to Christians living at a great distance from Jerusalem,
and many of them of Gentile birth, the overthrow of the
Jewish capital and commonwealth would be spoken of by the
apostle under such a name as “the end of all things,” is a
wholly unnatural thought, and could scarcely have been enter-
tained by any, but for the difficulty lying in the word jyyuxer,
—on which see below.—The emphatic position of tavtwv
suggests an antithesis with some partial “end” mentioned
before. This must lie in vexpots and kpiOaou capxi of ver. 6,
Some interpreters, accordingly, take mdvtwy as masculine.
This is striking; but it may be questioned whether such an
expression as “the end of all men” has likelihood in N. T.
Where “the end” of men is spoken of (ver. 17, below; 2 Cor.
xi. 15; Phil. iii. 19), the reference is always to the wicked.
The occurrence of language which would distinctly say that
the day of the Saviour’s appearing is to be, in any sense, “ the
end” of those who, through faith in Him, have passed into
“the life eternal,’ seems improbable. Neither does there
appear to be any need for such formal exactness of contrast.
“The end of all things,’ which is undoubtedly the rendering of
the words, taken by themselves, that rises first to the mind, is,
from its generality—“the end of the present constitution of
things ”—not liable to objection, and with abundant pointed-
ness presents to every conscience this thought, “the end for
<
338 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 7.
all of the time of probation, the presence for all of the
Judge.” The transition from the 6th verse to this is
natural and easy: “But, passing from the thought of the
death of this friend and of that, and of the issues in the
unseen world to them, let us bear in mind and be habitually
influenced by the contemplation of that transcendent event
which is so momentous to every one of us, and which is near.”
The perfect ayysxev (as ey. Rom. xiii. 12; Jas. v. 8) is
practically = éyy’s éorev (Mark xiii. 29 ; Phil. iv. 5), differing
from it only by intimating that there has been previous
approach. Now, how can this statement of Peter, the similar
declarations of the other apostles (as in the passages of
Philippians and James, just referred to), and the promise of
our Lord Himself, “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. iii. 11,
xxii. 7, 12, 20), be reconciled with the facts of history ?
Kighteen centuries have passed away, and “the sign of the
Son of Man” has not yet appeared in the sky. How then
could the Lord’s Second Advent and “the end of all things”
be in those old days predicted as at that time near? The
answer—one which the Christian, in the measure of the liveli-
ness and intelligence of his faith, sees and feels to be satis-
factory—seems clearly to be that the matter is here set before
us as it is viewed from heaven. ‘The force of such words as
“near” and “distant” is very variable, according to the
standard applied. To the young man of twenty a possible
half-century of coming life seems something vast. To the
old man, who looks back over his seventy or eighty years as
on a tale which has been told, the tale seems to have been a
very short one; and the aged Christian’s pleading with the
youth would be that, even if he knew certainly that he should
see eighty years, yet he would act wisely in always counting
the end as near. In the case before us the standard of
eternity is applied, because on those who know themselves
immortal the consciousness that “the end of all things” is
near, is pre-eminently fitted to exert an influence leading them
habitually to live as becomes immortality. Alike for stimulus
BVs 7.1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 339
and for cheer, God would have us to be ever in an attitude of
waiting for the coming of the Lord. When the faith of the
Church is lively, and her love glowing, she does thus wait,
looking with eager, longing anticipation for “that blessed
hope” as near of fulfilment. As under the clear sky of the
east a range of lofty mountains seems through many days’
journey almost at hand, so in the pellucid atmosphere of
faith the great towering event of the future, dwarfing all else,
appears close above us. See the statement of the principle of
the reckoning in 2 Pet. ii. 8, 9; and compare Paul’s estimate
of the Christian’s affliction—affliction spread perhaps over
threescore years and ten—as “ but for a moment,” because the
standard by which he computed was the “eternal” duration
of the “ weight of glory” that was to follow (2 Cor. iv. 17).
Whether the apostles themselves, pondering the data which
God had made known to them, thought it likely that “the
end of all things” would come during their own generation, is
a question to which we are not in a position to give an
answer. Considering how wide, according to what the Lord
had told them, the diffusion of the gospel throughout the
world was to be,—and also the fact that they themselves
received communications from the Spirit with regard to events
which appearances could not lead them to look upon as
probably of immediate or very speedy occurrence, such as the
general conversion of the Jews (Rom. xi.),—it may reasonably
be doubted whether they did entertain such an opinion.
What was their private anticipation, however, whilst an
interesting question, is not one of theological importance ;
whereas it is of vast moment to see clearly that their teaching
is Im no respect inconsistent with truth. Now they have
nowhere said anything beyond what the Apostle John in the
Apocalypse gives us again and again as the express utterance of
the Lord Jesus Himself in His glory, “ Behold, I come quickly.”
An impressive argument for the divine origin of Scripture
is afforded by the fact that, even in connection with those
elements of its teaching which, to mere human view, might
340 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OV: 7,
seem likely to produce fanatical excitement, the ethical advices
given are always calm and well ordered,—and that in the
history of the Church, wherever belief on such points has
been in accordance with Scripture, the ethical influence of the
belief has been proved to be healthful, calming and strengthen-
ing. The mention of the Second Coming of Christ as near is
associated, as a rule, with references to the duty and the
reasonableness of self-control, of patience under trouble -
(Jas. v. 7-9), of gentleness towards opponents, and restfulness
of heart in God (Phil. iv. 5-7), of watchfulness, purity, un-
worldliness and love (Rom. xiii, 11-14; 1 Thess. v. 1—8).
In the passage before us, similarly,—the great introductory
statement being intended, no doubt, to bear on the whole
section,—the legitimate moral effect of a remembrance that
“the end of all things is near” is represented to be the
stirring up of the soul to prayerfulness, sobriety of feeling,
and active Christian love.
The apostle speaks first of prayer, and of the state of the
heart which meetens it for prayer. Communion with God in
prayer is the centre and spring of spiritual life, and hence
plainly whatever gives peculiar vividness to the thought of
God, and of our relations to Him, has as its primary result an
intensifying of the Christian’s interest in prayer—In using
the plural mpocevyas the apostle is evidently thinking of
different acts of prayer, or different classes of prayers. In
similar counsels elsewhere in N. T. the singular is found,
“Give yourselves to prayer,’ “Continue in prayer” (77
mpocevyy, Rom. xii. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 5; Col. iv. 2),—which is
obviously the natural form when the duty in general is
thought of. But as what follows in this section of the Epistle
shows that duties connected specially with church life are
in the apostle’s mind, it seems likely that this specialty of
reference is to be recognised also in the use here of the
plural,—pointing to the duty of prayer as discharged under
various circumstances, to social prayer as well. as _ private.
The form suggests this, and thus leads into the more explicit
haem | FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Ok
mention of church duties. — For earnestness and power in
prayer, purity of soul is needful. To the obstruction caused
by sin in the way of true prayer, the apostle has already
adverted (iii. 7). In the verse now before us he calls on his
readers to cultivate a pure and elevated spirit, to the intent
that their prayers may be gladsome and efficacious. In the
N. T., as by classical writers, cw¢povety is used both in its
primary sense as opposed to insanity, “to be of sound mind ”
(eg. Luke viii. 35), and (here and in Tit. ii. 6) in its
secondary, as opposed to the moral madness of lavish indul-
gence in any kind of sensuality,—‘ to maintain habitual self-
government, holding all the passions under restraint;” cf.
Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 20. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. p. 17)
makes cwdpocvvyn the opposite of adxoracia. As to wndey,
cf. 1. 13, note. In their secondary use, as here, cwdpoveiv
and vygev are so very nearly synonymous that to draw a
distinction is difficult. We are perhaps justified, however, in
throwing ourselves back on the etymology and primary force
of cwdpovetv, regarding it therefore as pointing to clear and
accurate views with regard to living above the power of
sensuality and worldliness, “to be (morally) sound-minded ; ”
whilst vide refers rather to feelings and conduct accordant
with this soundness of mind, purity and unworldliness of
spirit and life. For the rendering of mjdeww by “watch,”
which here and in 2 Tim. iv. 5 the translators of the
A. E. V. have substituted for “be sober” (the translation
given by them in the other places where the word occurs),
there appears to be no adequate authority ; and therefore the
tevisers have in these passages,—as also with the adjective
vnpadtos in 1 Tim. iii. 2, rendered in the A. V. “ vigilant,’—
rightly altered the translation.
When the clause before us, then, stands thus, “ Be sound-
minded, therefore, and be sober, in order to prayers,” there
seems to be no reason why both the verbs should not be
regarded as connected with e¢s mpocevyds; and, indeed, they
seem to be somewhat unnaturally severed from each other, if,
342 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OV OR:
as in A. V., the connection be made only with the second
verb. Tyndale joins the last words with both verbs,—‘“ Be ye
therefore discrete and sober, that ye maye be apte to prayers.”
The R. V. by its punctuation parts the verbs,—‘“ Be ye
therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer.”—Here,
as always, the aorist imperative gives a quick decisive com-
mand; and where, as here, this form is employed in verbs
descriptive of a state of mind or of life which is to be
habitually maintained, it seems to point, taken strictly, to the
first vigorous effort to attain the state; cf. eg. Jas. v. 7,
paxpoOvpjcate.—Polycarp (§ 7) has an evident reference to
the last clause of this verse, vydovtes mpos Tas evyds.
Ver. 8. In this verse and those which follow throughout
the section the apostle attaches his precepts to the first,
cwdpovicate kat vyrvate, by a series of participles, or of
adjectives with évtes understood,—a kind of construction
which he somewhat specially favours; cf. ii, 13-iii. 9, iii.
15,16. In the present case, as to some extent in the former
of the two passages just referred to, he does not seem to
intend the participles to be taken as strictly subordinate
in thought to the expressed imperative with which the series
of injunctions opens, but rather to the general appeal of which
that imperative is a special form, “ Seek to be in heart and
life what those who look for the end of all things as near may
reasonably be expected to desire to be.”—The first of the
participial clauses contains an exhortation to fervour of mutual
love, which is represented as of paramount importance (7po
wavtwv; cf. Jas. v. 12). This, of course, does not at all
imply that other duties — such as those which have been
mentioned in the previous verse—might safely be neglected,
but simply draws special attention to the transcendent im-
portance of this grace,—as constituting, indeed, the atmosphere
in which all the other graces bloom their fairest and bear their
richest fruits (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12, 13). In urging the cultiva-
tion of brotherly love all the apostles, following the example
of their Master, take great delight. Peter has touched on this
W.'8] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 345
subject again and again (i. 22, ii. 17, ii. 8). In the present
place his mode of expression (r7v) assumes the existence of
love in some measure among his readers, as belonging indeed
to the essence of spiritual religion; and his injunction is to
have the love “fervent, intense.”—-The use, as here and in
ver. 10, of the reflexive pronoun for the reciprocal dAdo,
“one another,” is common in N. T., as in classical writers ;
cf. Jelf, § 654. 5—The adjective éxrevy, standing outside of
the combination with the article, is predicative: on the
construction, cf. ii. 12, rv advactpopyy Exovtes Kadypy ; and on
extevy, cf. 1. 22, éxtevas.
With respect to the exact reference of the statement made
in the second clause of the verse there is some doubt. The
expression Kadv’mTew TAHGos duapti@v occurs also in Jas.
y. 20, and there it is spoken of a zealous Christian who,
leading a sinner to repentance, thus “covers a multitude
of sins” by bringing the man within the sphere of God’s
covenant mercy, which hides his sins. This kind of “cover-
ing” is that spoken of in Ps. xxxu. 1 (a passage which was
possibly in James’s mind when using the word in this par-
ticular way), waxdaproe ov érexarvPOnoav ai apaptiar (LXX.).
3ut though these words may have been floating before James's
memory, the origin of the expression appears with very great
likelihood—especially when we look at it as it stands in the
verse before us, with ayamn as the subject—to be Prov. x. 12,
thus given in A. E. V., “ Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love
covereth all sins (transgressions, R. V.).”. The LX-X. wanders
in the second clause quite away from the true meaning, having
mavtas S& Tovds pu) Piroverxodvtas Kadiier gidria. Peter's
words are not a literal rendering of the clause in Proverbs,
TAHGos apaptiov representing Dyin D3 only loosely; still
the resemblance seems much too close to be merely casual.
How the particular form of words arose which is found in
James and Peter, cannot be determined. Possibly the passage
stood so in some Greek version used by the apostles: on the
likelihood that even before the time of our Lord there were,
344 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 8
besides the LXX., other Greek versions of at least certain
books of O. T., cf. Salmon, Introd. NV. 7., 2nd ed., Lecture 26.
The sense of the clause as it occurs in Proverbs is shown quite
clearly by the antithesis with the first part of the verse to be
that love, as far as is possible, hides the offences of others.
As Luther has it (cited by Wiesinger), “ Gleichwie Gott mit
seiner Liebe meine Siinde decket wenn ich glaube, so soll ich
meines Nichsten Siinde auch decken.”
As the words occur in Peter, there is nothing at all so
decisive in the context with regard to their precise force
as either in Proverbs or in James ; and expositors have been
considerably divided in opinion respecting it. (1) The refer-
ence may be to the sins of the man himself who cherishes the
love: “Love covers (secures the covering by God of) a
multitude of sins, through its proving the soul to have true
fruit-bearing faith” (cf. Matt. vi. 14). As thus stated, this
view of the meaning has been held by many Protestant
interpreters ; whilst with Roman Catholics — bringing in,
however, the thought of personal desert in the love manifested
—it has been the usual one. (2) Again, the meaning may
be, somewhat as in James, to this effect, “ Love is the grand
impelling power to effort for the edification of the Church and
the extension of the knowledge of the gospel, and thus brings
men under the covering mercy of God.” To this view there
are the two serious objections, that, there being no such
indication in the context here as in James, leading towards
this meaning, the language would be very obscure ; and that
the whole section seems to bear on the relations of Christians
with other recognised Christians,—having nothing in it to
show that evangelistic effort among the unbelieving or the
lapsed was at this point specially in the apostle’s thoughts.
(3) Yet again, the words may be taken as in Proverbs, “ Love
hides the faults of brethren.” In favour of this sense it may
be urged that where a passage of Scripture is quoted,—not, as
in James, a mere convenient application made of certain
words,—the presumption prima facie is that it is employed in
IV. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Sa
the sense of the original,—which therefore should be adhered
to if it suits the context. The verses which follow show that
what was at the moment foremost in Peter’s mind was a wish
to excite his readers to hearty unity and mutual helpfulness.
Now obviously nothing can be imagined more destructive of
peace and comfort in any Christian community than its
including members who are quick to take offence, or who pry
into the affairs of their brethren, and rake out into the sunlight
faults and imprudences. On the other hand, the love which
never seeks to know evil of others, and in all circumstances
shuns and discourages needless talk on such matters, is plainly
a most blessed binding power, the cement of the Christian
temple ; cf. Matt. xviii. 15-17, 21, 22 ; Luke xvii. 3, 4; 1 Cor.
viii. 12. To Peter personally the remembrance of the conversa-
tion related in Matt. xviii. 21, 22, would, as regarded “ hid-
ing” wrongs by forgiving and forgetting them, give a peculiar
“
intensity and vastness of reference to the expression “a
multitude of sins.” The use of the expression duaptycn eis oé
in Luke xvii. 4, shows it to be legitimate to take duapriaz, in
our passage, in the sense of “ faults” or “ offences ” committed
in the intercourse of brethren with each other.
The connecting particle 67. implies that the statement made
in the clause is one which obviously presents a strong motive
to Christians for “ having their love to one another fervent.”
Such a motive is actually set forth on any view of the mean-
ing: whether on any one of the views more force and
obviousness of motive present themselves than on the others
can, perhaps, hardly be determined. On the whole, the last
view of the reference of the clause, according to which its
meaning in Peter is the same which it undoubtedly has in its
original place in Proverbs, appears to be the most likely. There
seems to be a greater suitableness and naturalness in attaching
to an appeal for the cultivation of brotherly love mention of
a motive derived from the increased peace and comfort of the
whole Christian community, than in attaching one immediately
based on the personal good of the individual.
346 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ; [iv.9.
The quotation ayarn xTX. is found also in Clem. Rom. § 49,
and in the Ancient Homily formerly called the 2nd Epistle
of Clement, § 16,—in both places exactly as in Peter. The
reference of the homilist is undoubtedly to covering one’s own
sins ; that of Clement is uncertain, but not improbably to
covering the sins of others.
Vv. 9-11. In these verses we have certain fruits of
brotherly love exhibited,—tirst (ver. 9), a generous use of
worldly property for the benefit of brethren; and secondly,
(vv. 10, 11), a generous use, for their good, of spiritual gifts.
Ver. 9. Hospitality was a duty to which the circumstances
of the primitive Christians afforded a peculiarly frequent and
urgent call. In many cases converts were, through the cruelty
of kinsfolk, or through other forms of persecution, reduced to
penury, and rendered for a time literally homeless: and “ even
when the business occasions of believers merely took them
temporarily from home, they must have shrunk from the con-
tamination of the heathen inns along the road as much as
from the insult and outrage which they might meet with
there” (Lillie). Hence with remarkable frequency and
earnestness this duty of entertaining strangers is urged in
N. T., especially on office-bearers (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8);
but this not at all as if the duty were incumbent on these
only, but because in this, as in all Christian excellences,
those who bear office should be “ensamples to the flock.’ All
believers (Rom. xii. 13 ; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 John 5, 6) were to
keep in mind that their Master had expressly declared that a
characteristic of true discipleship to which He would bear
testimony from the throne was, “I was a stranger, and ye
took me in.” The praise of hospitality is very abundant in
the earliest sub-apostolic writers: eg. cf. Clem. Rom. §§ 1, 10,
11, 12; Hermas, Mand. viiiim*< God loveth a cheerful giver”
(2 Cor, ix. 7), and therefore, our apostle continues, to be accept-
able to Him the hospitality must be shown cordially,—avev
yoyyvopod, “ without murmuring,” secret or expressed, at the
trouble and expense involved,—w1) é« Avs 1) €E avayens, as
IV. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 847
Paul has it in the passage of 2 Cor. just referred to. For
yoyyuopos, cf. Acts vi. 1; Phil. ii. 14: cf. also Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles, iv. 7, od Svotdcers Sodvat ovdEe didovs
yoyyvces (found verbatim also in Barnabas c. xix.) This
last clause, enjoining heartiness, thorough sincerity, in Chris-
tian work, is characteristic of Peter: cf. i, 22, psraderdpiav
avuTroKpitov ; ii, 1, aoOéuevoe Travta Sorov Kai UTroKpLoELs.
Ver. 10. In the free exercise of spiritual gifts, also, for the
benetit of Christian brethren, love is to show itself; cf. Clem.
Rom. §§ 38, 48. The word yapicpa has in N. T. usage some-
thing of aspecialty of application to those extraordinary powers
which in the first ages of the Church were bestowed by the
Holy Ghost on many believers (cf. e.g. Rom. xii. 6 ; 1 Cor, xii.
4, 9, 28); and this is no doubt the primary reference in the
present passage. But in such a precept as that given here,
natural abilities also are plainly included, being in all men
“endowments ” from God, in the Christian such in double
measure—as given by Him at first, and as quickened and
consecrated by His grace: cf. Rom. xii. 6-8, where, under the
name of yapicpara, gifts, ordinary and extraordinary, are
erouped together. With regard to all the powers which God
has bestowed on them, then, believers are ever to bear in mind
that these have been given not to be held as private property,
for their own personal edification and comfort merely, but to
be dealt with as belonging to God, and entrusted to their
charge for the benefit of all the brotherhood. Each Christian
is to regard himself as an ofxovopos for the otcos of Christ—
appointed to see that from the “gifts” placed in his hands all
the members of the household receive their portion in due
season (Luke xii. 42). If every believer be animated by
brotherly love to obey the precept, then through the joint
action the whole household will partake of the full blessing,
Touikns xapitos Ocod, “ God’s grace” (here collective, the
entire gracious bestowment, the aggregate of the xyapicpata)
“manifold” (rich in its variety), each as (in the measure
in which) he has received a gift ” (the aorist €\aSev pointing
348 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TV eit
back strictly to the time when the gift of grace was granted),
“ministering it to one another ” (literally, “into the midst of,
among yourselves”), “as (in the capacity of, doing the part
of) good (faithful) stewards of God’s manifold grace.”
Whilst oixovouos is sometimes applied specially to office-
bearers in the Church (1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. 1. 7), there is
nothing whatever so to limit the reference here: €«actos
seems clearly to be general, “ each believer,’ as in Rom. xii. 3;
1 Cor. xii. 7; Eph. iv. 7. To adrd, here, Bengel and others
give an emphatic force, “it and not another,’—4g.d. “ taking
care not to encroach on the sphere properly occupied by other
men’s gifts” (“id ipsum, non affectato alio,” Bengel). But it
seems very doubtful whether N. T. usage generally, or Peter’s
in particular, justifies us in finding any emphasis in the pro-
noun: cf.i1,12; Mark ix. 18; John xxi. 6; Col. ii. 14 (these
last three references illustrating the quite unemphatic use of
the pronoun as object in cases in which, as in the verse before
us, it stands before the governing verb—a comparatively rare
arrangement, and therefore one in which it might possibly be
thought that adro had emphasis through its position).—For
diaxoveiv governing an accusative, cf. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 18.
Ver. 11. The subject of spiritual gifts is continued, the
apostle passing on to impress upon his readers the importance
of constantly cherishing grateful and reverential remembrance
of the fact that all these endowments came from God. No-
thing of a spirit of self-complacency in connection with the
possession of any of the gifts, or of a desire for self-glorification
in connection with the exercise of them, was to be entertained;
but in everything God was to be acknowledged as their Giver,
and the advancement of His cause as their purpose. Thus
through the gifts He would be glorified, both in the hearts of
those who received them, and in the hearts of others who were
made sharers in the benefit. To this supremely important
thought the reference in the previous verse to the “ steward-
ship ” of believers evidently directly leads.
Of the yapicpara the apostle, to present his precept in a
IV. 11.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 349
lively and impressive way, specifies two leading classes—those
which were exercised through speech, as prophecy, teaching,
hortatory and quickening address, and those which had as
their sphere the Church agencies for such work as collecting
and distributing money for the poor, and caring for the sick
and for strangers (all summed up in the early Church under
the general name Scaxovia, and probably also the same which
are intended by Paul in 1 Cor, xii. 28 under the name
avTiAnets, “ services of help ”).
The injunctions of this verse are so plainly in close connec-
tion with those which precede—as part of a series,—that it
is natural to regard the participial structure as still in the
apostle’s mind. The forms of the verbs to be supplied, there-
fore, are not AaAeiTa, diaxove(tw, but AaXodvTeEs, SiaxovodryTes,
—the clauses introduced by e? tvs standing connected with
these participles very similarly to the way in which the
clause with éxaoros in the previous verse is connected with
duaxovovvtes expressed there. The particle #s has its very
frequent force of representing the statement made as sub-
”
jective: “ If any man speaks, speaking ” (or rather, for sim-
plicity and clearness according to English idiom, the imperative
“Speak ye ”) “ with the full remembrance
which shows your having the full remembrance—that you are
speaking oracles of God; if any man engages in the work of
Christian help, do it with the full and clearly-shown sense
that you are doing it by the strength which God supplies.”—
In N, T., as in the classics, the word Aeyov is used in the
cf Acts vis 38 ¢ Rom, 11. 2;
Heb. v.12. The principle of the apostle’s injunction here ob-
and in @ manner
2
sense of “a divine utterance :
viously holds whether,—as sometimes in the primitive Church,
—a man was speaking what had been given him by the im-
mediate extraordinary suggestion of the Divine Spirit, or
simply communicating to his brethren the result of studies in
the word of God, studies prosecuted under the ordinary euid-
ance of the Spirit invoked by prayer. In 2 Cor. ii. 17 we
have from Paul, set forth in detail, the right spirit and manner
350 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Eve att
of Christian “speaking,” here stated by our apostle in the con-
densed form, @> Aoysa Ocod.—The verb yxopryetv, originally
“to bring out, or defray the expense of bringing out, a chorus,”
came naturally enough among the drama-loving Athenians to
be used for “ to give abundant supply” generally. The verb
in the simple form occurs in N. T. only here and in 2 Cor.
ix. 10 ; somewhat more frequently the compound ézvyopnyetv,
ergaGral aid: ty: Bi Pet. 150d.
The object of this remembrance and acknowledgement of
God to which the apostle has been urging his readers is now
explicitly stated: “that in them all (all the yapécparta, thus
exercised with true Christian humility) God may be glorified
through Jesus Christ.” ITaovw may be masculine, “in all (the
brethren),” and so De Wette and (alternatively) Calvin take
it,—but the other view seems decidedly more accordant with
the apostle’s course of thought. The essence of spiritual life
is lovingly and joyously to recognise God as the Fountain of
all good ; and thus the supreme end of Church life is to “ show
forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness
into His marvellous light.” This the Church does when, living
to Him, she testifies continually that her life is through Him,
that all her energies and beauties are “gifts” and “graces”
from His hand. Conscious ever too of her own unworthiness,
she knows, feels, testifies that as only “through Jesus Christ ”
her spiritual emancipation was granted to her by God, so only
through Him can her answering praise go up before God with
acceptance ; cf. 11. 5, note.
This statement of aim leads the apostle naturally, according
to the impulses of the new life, to lift up his own soul, and
invite his readers to unite with him in a direct doxology to
God,—which at the same time is in its form, through the use
of the present indicative (€o7iv), an express statement that
“the glory” (here, in the connection, the glory of redemption
and of all its blessings and “gifts” to the Church) “and the
might” (by which the work of redemption was wrought out,
and will throughout eternity have all its blessed results main-
Ii 01.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ao
tained) are God’s. Thus this doxology, whilst a true direct
lifting up of the soul to God, presents at the same time the
ground of the preceding ta do€afntrat. The natural reference
of the relative therefore seems not to be to ’Incod Xpiotod,
but, as has been assumed in the outline just given, to @eos,
the subject of the clause; cf. Winer, p. 196.—The form of
the doxology here is very nearly as in Rev. i. 6; cf. also Rev.
v. 13.—For éotw in a doxology, cf. Rom. i. 25, and see note
on 1, 3.—In doxologies generally, as here (but not invariably ;
cf. Luke ii, 14; 1 Tim.i. 17; Jude 25), the article is found
with d0£a, cparos, and other substantives similarly used. It
may in such cases have its usual force when attached to
abstract nouns—presenting the “glory,” “ might,” and the rest,
in their utmost breadth of reference, and thus setting forth the
fulness of the ascription of praise ; or it may mean “ that which
is due, which it is right, and which all God’s moral creatures,
unless wilfully blinded, feel it to be right to ascribe to Him ;”
cf. Winer, p. 154. Probably both thoughts are intended.
In the present passage the articles accord with the close rela-
tion of the doxology to the verb do€a€yrav in the immediately
preceding clause.
The expression eés tods aidvas, frequent in N. T,, is of O. T.
origin, being a LXX. rendering for piviy (Ps. xxvii. 8), as
also for the sing. poiyd (Ps. civ. 31). ‘The strengthened
form found in the present passage, e¢s To’s al@vas TOV aiovar,
—also frequent in N. T., particularly in Revelation,—accords
likewise with LXX. forms, eés ai@va atwvos (Ps, xix. 10), ets
Tov al@va Tov aidvos (Ps. xlv. 7). The expression is evidently
intended to present the thought of eternity in the very strongest
way, answering to our English “for ever and ever.” It is
formed on the analogy of such Hebrew superlative combina-
tions as OTP Mp, ow Ww, and the like. The exact
form of the conception seems to be that of a series of ages
flowing on endlessly, in each of which a number of other
shorter ages are gathered up.
aoe FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 12-19.
Vy. 12-19. Persecution for Christ's sake should be deemed an
honour and a grownd of rejoicing.
From iii. 13 to the end of the Epistle the difficulties and
temptations specially connected with persecution are evidently
so much in the apostle’s mind throughout, that a reference to
some aspect of this particular form of trial may present itself
naturally enough at any point. In the present section he
enters into this subject somewhat systematically, directing
attention more distinctly than elsewhere to the deep and
varied sources of comfort which are open to the persecuted
believer. It is not improbable that his taking up the theme
in this way just at this point was immediately suggested by
the doxology in ver. 11. In any age of the Church, Christians,
unless thoughtful and mature, are apt to be startled and to
find themselves prone to impatience if sudden and severe
trouble fall upon them. To the Church of apostolic times—
exulting, as we now do, in the knowledge that their Saviour
had become Head over all things for the Church, and with
no record of the experience of any past generations of His
people, such as we possess, to guide their judgement with
respect to the mode in which for their good He would
administer His authority—persecution must have been pecu-
liarly surprising and depressing. It is true that, in His
addresses to His disciples, the Lord had frequently warned
them that they ought to be prepared for the bitter hostility
of the world; but, amid the glow of hope in the young Church,
these intimations were very likely to be by a large proportion
of the members forgotten. As Peter himself had in former
days “thought it strange” that his Lord should suffer (Matt.
xvi. 22), so practical proof that by the Ruler of the universe
it was for a time to be permitted that those who loved and
served Him should suffer insult and wrong at the hands of
those who hated Him, must to a multitude of Christians have
come as a most painful surprise—at first even to the extent of
IV. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 3 Dick
utter bewilderment. Where this sense of wonderment existed
in some degree, a doxology to God expressly as the Author of
the blessings of redemption, as in ver. 11, was plainly fitted
to bring up the feeling with vividness: and now, accordingly,
as if hearing from his suffering brethren the cry, “ How strange
this dealing of our God and Father!” the apostle makes answer,
with an intensity of affectionate appeal marked by his use of
ayatntol, which is a very rare form of address with him in
this Epistle (cf. ii. 11). He reminds them that affliction is
one of the modes through which God confers His highest
blessing of spiritual quickening, and that therefore nothing
was more in accordance with His character as the God of
salvation, and more fitted to call forth from enlightened minds
grateful praise, than that very discipline by trouble which to
some of them seemed “ strange.”
Ver. 12. On £evifw cf. iv. 4, note. The dative joined to the
verb here is that of the instrument: “be not surprised by ;”
ef. Polyb. iii. 8, eEeniGovto TO 76 cupBeBnKos eiva Tapa THY
mpocdoxiay. This view, that the dative is instrumental (on
which cf. T. 8. Green, Crit. Notes, in loc.), seems to be simpler
and more natural than that of Winer (p. 262), who, in his
explanation of the construction, associates fevifecOar with
atovoyetoOar and other verbs, in which some shade of the
idea of “direction towards” is involved. The joining to the
verb of an instrumental dative here, and of év in ver. 4, answers
exactly to the freedom with which in English we may pass
from “surprised by” to “surprised at.” That in the present
instance the sense of “strangeness” was of a kind to depress
and sadden—obvious from the nature of the case—is brought
out particularly by the use of the strong adversative adda at
the beginning of the next verse, placing yaipere in contrast
with £evifer@e.—The word wvpwors occurs also in Rey. xviii.
9, 18, but only here in the figurative sense. In LXX. it is
found in Prov. xxvii. 21, with the sense of “trial (of metals)
by fire;” cf. the use of the verb mupodc@ai in Rev. iii. 18.
In the present passage, however, it is plain that the word,
Z
BoA: FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 12.
taken by itself, simply sets forth the severity of the persecu-
tion,—the gracious purpose of the affliction, as “ trial,” being
presented in the next clause: cf. i. 8. Compare also an inte-
resting parallel, possibly a reminiscence of this passage, in
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, xvi. 5, tore (that is,in the age
immediately preceding Christ's Second Advent) }£e0 9 xricus
Tov avOporav eis THy Tipwow Ths Soxyacias— Ev viv
means “among you,” the persecution immediately affecting
only certain individuals in the Christian community. The
case, however, is one illustrating with much distinctness the
way in which év came to have this secondary sense of “ among,”
—for the trouble was “in” « body so organized that, when
one member suffered, there was sympathetic pain throughout
the whole.— The article 77 imphes that the “ burning” is
already distinctly before the minds of the readers, the present
participle yevouevn intimating indeed that it is not merely
imminent (as the mode of expression in the A. E. V. naturally
suggests), but already begun. Nothing more, however, than
the simple fact of the existence of the mvpwaus is, by the way
in which the article is employed, assumed as known. The
participial clause, having no article, is predicative, — the
emphatic words mpds tetpacuov setting forth the thought
which explains the divine dealing, and which those Chris-
tians who “ thought it strange” had plainly for the moment
forgotten. To the combination with the article, exhibiting
something already known, new information is added by this
participial combination without the article. The meaning is:
“Be not astonished at it——coming upon you as it does (or,
seeing that it comes upon you) for the purpose of trial.” For
a precisely similar construction, cf. John ii. 9, To tSwp oivor
ryeyevnpévor, “the water, which had now become wine,’—the
fact of the changing to wine being here stated for the first
time, and the participle accordingly left without the article.
In the familiar construction exemplified in the last clause
of the verse, a genitive absolute introduced by os, the os
simply places the statement in a subjective connection, and
FV. \13:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 955
is often best rendered by “thinking that,” “saying that,” or
the like; cf. eg. 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. v. 20; and see Jelf,
§ 701; Winer, p. 770; A. Buttmann, p. 318.—Bengel and
some other expositors regard cupPaivovtos as in antithesis
With ‘pds mecpacpov yivowévy, stress being laid on cupBatvoytos
as involving an idea of chance, and the thought thus obtained,
that what was really being done by God in His providence
for a gracious end was perhaps by some of the apostle’s
readers looked at in moments of faithless impatience as merely
“happening” blindly, aimlessly,—or, more exactly, that their
feeling about the matter was as if they regarded it in this
way. It is probable that such a feeling was entertained by
some cf them, and reference to it by Peter would have been
perfectly relevant to his course of remark. But the idea does
not seem to be expressed. Nothing in the position of the
words of the clause suggests a special emphasis on cvpPaivovtos,
nor does the use of this verb elsewhere in N. T. naturally
lead a reader to think specially of blind chance; cf. eg.
Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. x. 11. Neither does the circumstance
that by giving prominence to the idea of chance we obtain a
new and distinct thought, while otherwise the clause, coming
after ur EeviGeoPe, may appear tautological, seem to have
much weight. The simple fact that, having written FevifeoOe,
the apostle afterwards uses the cognate adjective Eévou, shows
that on this word the stress of the clause les,—the apostle
having mainly before his mind the error of deeming the
cc
coming of persecution upon Christians to be “a strange
thing,” when Christ Himself had plainly pointed out that
persecution arose naturally out of the antagonism of the
spirit of the world to the Spirit of God. The clause is
tautological only as, through the expansion of thoughts that
are felt to be important, tautology enters into all speak-
ing and writing which aims at popular impression and
conviction.
Ver. 15. In this verse the apostle reminds his readers that
those of them to whom persecution for Christ’s sake seemed
356 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {Iv. 13:
“ strange,” had forgotten that Jesus was the Forerunner of
His people as well as their Saviour and Lord, and that, as
He had passed to the crown by way of the cross, so must
His followers do. For personal sanctification, and for the
good, in various ways, of fellow-believers, Christians must
suffer, each in his sphere “ filling up that which is behind of
the afflictions of Christ, for His body’s sake, which is the
Church” (Col. i. 24). Spiritual religion being Christlike,
and the world hating Christ, it follows that an invariable
attendant of spiritual religion is in some form “ participation
in the sufferings of Christ.” All down the generations the
Lord’s word holds, “If they have persecuted Me, they will
also persecute you.” The other part of the truth on the
subject is, “It is a faithful saying, If we suffer we shall also
reion with Him.” On the basis of this divine order, first
suffering with Christ, then glory with Him, the apostle rests
his present precept, “See that now ye accept the trial in a
Christian spirit, im order that, being thus proved true
believers, ye may have the blessed experiences of believers in
the day of the Lord’s appearing;” cf. Rom. viii. 17, where
also we have wa, intimating God’s aim in sending the
sufferings—which, being cordially acquiesced in by His people,
becomes their aim in bearing them. But Peter presents the
duty in a specially interesting and pointed form. Under
both kinds of experience—that now of trouble, and that
by and by of glory—the true Christian spirit is essentially
the same. In the measure of the liveliness and intelligence
of his faith, the believer “ rejoices in the Lord alway” (Phil.
iv. 4), yea, he “glories in tribulations also” (Rom. v. 8).
Though, on the surface of his nature, “in heaviness” (AvmnGeis),
when “manifold trials” come upon him (i. 6), yet deep down
in his heart he has rest, joy, because he knows that the trials
come from his Father, and are intended and fitted to make
him more holy. Thus the precept can take the form,
“ Rejoice in tribulation now, that ye may rejoice in glory
hereafter.”
IV. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oo
Ka6@o is an adverb of proportion, not therefore “ inasmuch
as” (A. V.) in the ordinary causal sense of that combination,
but in its strict etymological sense, “ according as,” “in pro-
portion as:” cf. Rom. vii. 26; 2 Cor. vii. 12. The more
abundant the “ participation in Christ’s sufferings,” the ampler
to the enlightened Christian mind is the ground of joy.—
That construction of the verb coivwveiy which is found here,
with a dative of the thing participated in, is the usual one in
N. T., in place of the ordinary classical construction with the
genitive: cf. Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; 2 John 11.
The genitive is found only in Heb. ii. 14. The construction
with a dative of the thing was originally, in all likelihood,
an extension of the regular construction of this verb with a
dative of the person, and implied “communion with” rather
than “ participation in,” there being thus an approach to
personification of the object: cf. especially 1 Tim. v. 22;
2 John 11; and see Winer, p. 250; A.-Buttmann, p. 160;
_ Ellicott on Gal. vi. 6—On dazoxaduyus, cf. i. 7,13. Most
naturally, instead of, as in these other places, “the revelation
of Christ,” we have here “the revelation of His glory,”’—the
thought of the out-flashing of the glory pressing itself on the
writer's mind, in vivid contrast with the previous time of
obscuration in the Lord’s life of humiliation, and in the long
ages of seemingly triumphant persecution of His people by the
wicked.—<According to N. T. usage yapire év may go together
in construction, “ may rejoice in the revelation” (as the ground
of your joy). But seeing that yadpere in the first part of the
sentence stands absolutely, and that in a sentence of this
kind a reader instinctively looks for a note of time,—“here-
after,” expressed in some way, in contrast with the sombre-hued
present,—it seems most natural to take yapj7e also as absolute,
and év as temporal; so in the other places, i. 7, 13.—To
yapite is attached adyaddwpevos ; cf. 1.6, 8—also Matt. v. 12,
a passage which, looking at the context there and here, was
not improbably in the apostle’s mind in writing the words
before us. In contrast with the simple yadpete of the first
3958 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Five 1a
clause, which enjoins a joy that in its nature is a triumph of
faith over sense, pain and “ heaviness” being often present,
?
is here placed the “ exulting ” joy of the day of the Lord, when
the happiness of God’s children will have no shadows.
Ver. 14. The precept of ver. 13, yadpere, implying obviously
“Ye have abundant grounds of joy,” ver. 14 amplifies this
implied statement. The special reference in the first clause
to reproach for Christ’s sake is seemingly a reminiscence of
Matt. v. 11, and was not improbably suggested by the
immediately preceding words yaphre ayadduwpevor ; cf. last
note. “If the men of the world reproach you and treat you
with contempt, in that very fact you are blessed, because your
being hated for Christ’s sake by the world which hated and
crucified Him gives proof that His Spirit,—the Spirit of God,—
through whose influences alone God’s moral creatures have
true glory, is resting upon you. Thus the very contempt
which you endure is really an honour, and ought to be to you
a source of happiness.” Reproach against the Christians as
a@eou, as fools, as kill-joys, and the like, was no doubt very
common everywhere; and from the liability of the believers
to meet with this particular form of persecution, not merely on
occasions for which their energies might be deliberately braced
up, such as judicial investigations, but at every turn of ordinary
social life, it must have been peculiarly harassing and
wearying. This form of trouble is specified by the apostle
again and again; cf, ii. 12, ili. 16, iv. 4.
The most satisfactory explanation of the various applications
which are made in N. T. of the expression év dvopate is
afforded by looking back to the original local sense of the
preposition. The “name” is regarded as, so to speak, an
element or atmosphere surrounding whatever is referred to
as said or done. “ Within” this atmosphere the command is
given, the act performed, and the like,—that is to say, a
special and indeed essential connection is exhibited as exist-
ing between whatever is referred to and him “in” whose
“name” it takes place. In most cases, naturally, “in the
IV. 14] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 359
name of God,” or “ of Christ,” means “in recognition of God,
Christ, as the source of some authority or power which is
exercised, or as the object of veneration and love.” In the
place before us the application of the expression is obviously
different, but is also quite accordant with its general force ;
the reproach spoken of is “in express connection with Christ,”
2.e. is specifically on the ground of the profession of disciple-
ship to Him, and loyalty to His authority. Closely similar
is the use of eds évoua, Matt. x. 41, 42, where we read of
receiving a prophet els évowa mpopytov, “expressly as, or
because he is, a prophet;” cf. also Mark ix. 41, and see
Winer, p. 487. For perfect clearness as to the meaning, it
seems best in the present passage to render by “for the
name of Christ.”——-The form of expression ovesdiferOe év
ovopate Xpuctod (as also Tov dvevducpov Tod Xpiotod,
Heb. xi. 26) was possibly somewhat determined by a
remembrance of Ps. Ixxxix. (Ixxxvill. Sept.) 50, 51—On
paxapvot, cf. ili. 14, note.
The mode of expression in 70 Tis do&ns Kat TO Tod Ocod
IIvedua is somewhat peculiar, and the words have been
explained in several ways. (1) From the previous clause
Hofmann would supply dvowa to govern 50&ns,—with little
naturalness, and no very satisfying sense. (2) To tijs
do&ms may be taken as meaning “what belongs to, or is
implied in, glory” (cf. eg. Matt. xxi. 21; 2 Pet. 11. 22); and
on certain classical analogies (cf. Jelf, §§ 380. 1, 436, Obs. 1)
this has been held by some expositors to be equivalent to
the simple “elory.” But no reason whatever can be sug-
gested why Peter should use such a singular expression in
the present connection as “what belongs to glory,” “the
element, or principle, of glory” (Plumptre); and the employ-
ment of the combination with the force of the simple noun
has no support in N. T. usage. (3) Accepting the construc-
tion which prima facie seems the natural one, namely, that
both genitives are governed by IIvedpua, Bengel is disposed
to regard d0fa here (as also in Eph. i. 17 and Jas, ii. 1) as
360 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 14.
an appellation of Christ, and therefore to translate thus, “the
Spirit of The Glory and of God.” This is ingenious and
interesting, but the passages cited do not by any means
sufficiently support the view that “glory” is a personal
appellation. (4) A perfectly satisfactory sense is obtained
by following the same construction, but taking d0€a with its
ordinary force as an abstract: “the Spirit of glory (the
Spirit, Himself glorious, whose resting on any of God’s
moral creatures brings them true glory, by producing in
them a likeness of character to God) and of God,’—the
“and,” with a measure of ascensive power almost = “ yea,
indeed,” bringing in the mention of that name which sums
up all good and all glory. The repeated 70 accords with a
usage occasionally found in the best classical writers, in cases
where to one substantive are attached two attributes —
adjectives, substantives with prepositions, or governed geni-
tives—somewhat distinct from each other in kind, and both
important; thus, To év "Apxadia 70’ Tod Avos iepov, Plat. Rep.
vil. p. 565 (Steph.): cf. Jelf, § 459. 5; Winer, p. 163.
No instance given in the grammars has a xaté, the attributes
being simply placed side by side; but xaé here is obviously
(see above) quite natural. The feeling which in such cases
dictated to the Greeks the repetition of the article is illus-
trated in our own language. We say instinctively not “the
Spirit of glory and God,” but “the Spirit of glory and of
God,” the repetition of the preposition serving with us the
same purpose as in Greek the repetition of the article.
The exquisite thought of the Spirit of God “resting” on
a soul, as in a home, is found also in O. T.; and indeed it
seems exceedingly likely that, as is his wont, the apostle is
here quoting a passage (Isa. xi. 2) with changes suited to his
line of thought. The passage occurs in one of the chief
predictions of Messiah,—of whom it is declared, avamavcertat
én avtov IIvedpa tod Ocodv, LXX. Through recalling this
O. T. prophecy, the apostle’s language was manifestly fitted
to give his readers a measure of support and cheer even
AV.15; 16] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 361
beyond what was directly conveyed by the words, inasmuch
as it reminded them that the Spirit who rested on them was
the same who had rested on their Lord, and had strengthened
Him for that life of sufferimg from which He had ascended to
_ glory. On émi with the accusative even with verbs of rest,
ef. 1. 24, note.
From some cause—possibly frequent oral citation and
amplification in times of persecution—an unusual amount
of textual variation is found in this verse. Two of the
variants claim notice. After d0& 5 a considerable number
of authorities, some of them early, insert Kai dvvapews.
The words are suitable to the context, but their omission
by the best ancient witnesses, and the fact that those which
have the addition present it in somewhat different forms,
sufficiently show it not to belong to the original text. Again,
at the close of the verse stands in T. R. the clause cata pév
avtovs BrXacdyucitas, Kata € twas SoEaferar. This is quite
inadequately supported, and seems to have been originally a
gloss on the verse: “Among them (or, as regards them, so
far as they are concerned—your persecutors, namely) He
(the Spirit of God) is blasphemed (in that those beliefs and
modes of conduct which are due to Him, and show His
presence with you, are with them a ground for speaking of
you reproachfully), but among you He is glorified” (that
is, seemingly, from the antithesis with PAacdnpetrat, “ is
praised”). The author of the gloss appears to have taken
the expression “the Spirit of glory” to mean not specially,
what probably in the connection it does mean, “ the Spirit
from whom alone glory comes to His creatures,” but generally,
“the Spirit to whom ali glory belongs” (as His people know,
and acknowledge by their praises).
Vv. 15, 16. These verses give the reason for the emphasis
which, as all readers feel, rests on the words “in the name of
Christ,” in the previous sentence. “In what I have said of
your being blessed under reproach, I have specified as an
absolutely essential condition, that the reproach be distinctly
o62 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. FIN. 15
on the ground of your calling yourselves and living as
Christians; for no man who suffers for evil-doing of any
kind has the slightest right, on the ground of his taking to
himself the name of Christian, to count his suffering a source
of blessedness or glory. He who suffers strictly as a Chris-
tian may justly so count it, and may praise God for it.” In
all ages the Church of Christ has had unworthy members, in
some instances members guilty of gross crimes. In a vast
proportion of such cases the criminal has, no doubt, the
fullest knowledge that the religion which he professes is in
no way responsible for his wickedness,—that indeed he has
acted in direct defiance of its dictates. In times of peculiar
excitement, however,—as amid the glow of heart which in
the days of the primitive Church connected itself with the
then new and startling teaching about the kingdom of Christ,
in which all men were free and equal, or later, amid Fifth
Monarchy agitations in the time of the English Common-
wealth, amid the London riots of 1780, and the like——the
motives by which men are led on to criminal acts, even
to murder, may easily include, and no doubt often have
included, a certain religious enthusiasm, in singular and
unhallowed union with greed and brutality. On cases of
this kind the apostle’s precept seems from its connection
intended specially to bear,—its form at the same time being
general.
Ver. 15. As occasionally, in place of the statement of a
reason, which we expect after yap, there is substituted with
liveliness and naturalness a precept implying and _ based
on the statement; cf. Heb. xii. 3. Of the connection of
yap with imperatives, this is perhaps a more natural
explanation than that which goes back to the original
sense of the particle, according to its components yé and
apa, and translates the word in this case “ verily,” “yea,” or
the like. The mind demands a closer connection than such
a translation gives. On the sense and use of ydp generally,
cf. Winer, p. 558 foll.— “Murderer,” “thief,” and “ evil-
IV. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 363
doer,” obviously belong to one class, which in fact the last
word, general and summary, is meant to define,—the class
of “evil-doers” in a universally understood sense; whereas
the “meddler in other men’s matters” is the representative
of that large class who, through folly rather than wickedness,
become mischief-makers, disturbers of social order, and this
sometimes to the extent that their conduct may reasonably
be visited not merely with the censure of public opinion, but
with penalties inflicted by the law. The apostle indicates
that these two classes are before his mind as distinct, by the
position which he gives to os, the first @s covering the first
three words, while a@\XotprerricKxorros has the particle repeated
for itself. The singularly expressive and pointed word adXo-
TpleTicKoTros, “an overseer of what belongs to other people,’
occurs here only in N. T., and elsewhere only once or twice
in ecclesiastical writers——and was possivly formed by the
apostle. References to the evil of this kind of conduct,
however, occur again and again: cf. 1 Thess. iv. 11; 1 Tim.
v. 13. One can easily believe that, in many Christians, a
natural tendency to meddle with matters of various kinds
with which they had no proper concern, might be intensified
by a misapprehension as to what was involved in the duty
of believers to “shine as lights in the world.” Knowing
that they had received instruction from heaven affecting
every question, great or small, on which moral principles
bore, they might be apt to obtrude their knowledge in such
circumstances, and in such modes, as by their procedure to
irritate instead of winning those around them. Error of this
kind was not confined to the first Christian age. On addXo-
tpueticxotros Wetstein aptly cites Horace’s Aliena negotia
cwro (Sat. ii. 3. 19), and Terence’s Tantumne est ab re tua oti
tibi Aliena ut cures, eaque nihil que ad te attinent ? (Heaut. 1.
1. 23).
Ver. 16. For the ellipsis in the protasis, the mind at
once from the first clause of the previous verse supplies tis
maoxet.—The name “ Christians ”—Christ’s people, adherents,
364 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 16,
on the analogy of “Czesarians,’ “ Pompeians,” and similar
names of parties—originated, as we are told in Acts xi. 26,
at Antioch. There can be little doubt that it arose among
the heathen, when they began to distinguish the followers of
Jesus from the Jews. Involving as the form of the name
does, or may be taken to do, an assertion that Jesus was the
Christ promised in O. T., we may be certain that it was not
given by the Jews; and though it came before long (see
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, xii. 4; Ignat. Rom. § 3) to be
used with pleasure by Christians themselves, yet N. T. usage
seems to show that it did not originate among them, and
indeed was not accepted by them in the first age. They still
called themselves “ the brethren,” “the believers,” “ the saints.”
The word Xpictiavos occurs in only two passages besides
Acts xi. 26; and in both there is the suggestion of a name
habitually employed by the enemies of Christ. In the
familiar statement of Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 28), the circum-
stances, the character of the speaker, and particularly the
parallelism in Paul’s magnificent reply, lead one to think
that, as used by the king, the name Xpiotvavos connoted a
person despised and lable to bonds. Similarly in the verse
now before us @s indicates, or at least suggests, that the
form of accusation was, “This man is a Christian,’—just as
in the cases supposed in the previous verse it would be,
“This man is a murderer,” or “a thief.” A most interesting
illustration of this “as a Christian” is afforded by the words
of Pliny to Trajan, with reference to the forms of judicial
procedure against Christians of Asia Minor, in the beginning
of the second century; see Introd. § I. 9. Similarly, with
respect to the latter half of the second century, we learn
from the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons
(ch. 10) that the Christians there cvvexdelovro as Xpiotiavoi,
pnoewlas ards aitias avtois émupepopevns ; cf. also Justin’s
Second Apology, c. 2.
On do0falérw tov Ocov Bengel says well, “ Poterat Petrus,
antitheti vi, dicere, ‘honori sibi ducat;’ sed honorem Deo
je |
IWed7;,18.) . FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 36
resignandum esse docet.” The suffering believer is to “ glorify
God ”—to praise Him for having given His servant blessing
and honour—éev 7@ dvopate TovT~. Some expositors take
these last words as equivalent to another reading, not so well
supported, év T@ pépes Tovtw (for which cf. 2 Cor. iii. 10,
ix. 3), “in this respect, department, matter,’—the name or
heading standing for the matter itself. Seeing, however, that
the words come immediately after the mention of the name
“ Christian,’ as being that, the simple bearing of which was
of itself deemed by the heathen a ground of punishment, the
natural reference of dvoua seems quite decidedly to be to this
same name. The name which the heathen applied as a
reproach was to be reckoned by the persecuted as an honour,
because it represented suffering for and with the Saviour.
The preposition é€v is employed here, as often in N. T., to
express the occasion or ground of the action (cf. Winer, p. 484),
—a use in the present case particularly natural, seeing that
dofalétw Ocov év is simply a slight extension of the familiar
construction yaipew év, ayaddaolar év, Kavyao8at év, and
the like. Here, as with regard to év dvduate Xpiotod in
ver. 14, the best English rendering is perhaps “for this
name.”
Polycarp has an echo of this verse (§ 8): dav maoyopwev
dua TO dvoua avTod, So€alwpev avrov.
Vv. 17, 18. In these verses we see proof that the solemn
statement of ver. 7, “The end of all things is at hand,” is still
prominently before the apostle’s mind. Immediately, however,
they stand in close logical connection with the injunction of
the previous verse, exhibiting a strong ground why the be-
liever, if called to “suffer as a Christian,” should “ glorify God
for this name.” By this suffering—at the heaviest and the
longest a “light affliction which is but for a moment ”—he
may naturally have brought impressively before him the
thought how vast beyond all estimate is the woe from which
as a Christian he is saved through God’s grace. “If even
you, the children of God, have because of sin to be subjected
366 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 17.
to such sore trial, how awful must be the doom of God’s
enemies—that doom from which His mercy saves you!” That
such is the course of the argument, and that what the apostle
specially intends to present to the minds of his readers is the
grace of God in saving them from the unspeakable punish-
ment of the lost, is plain on a careful examination of the
passage in its connection both with the close of ver. 16 and
with the exhortation of ver. 19. He does not state the
thought fully, however, and in the abbreviated representation
there is a singular impressiveness. He gives in outline the
a fortiort argument from the sufferings of Christians to the
sufferings of unbelievers,—and there he pauses. Setting his
Christian readers face to face with a misery which he does
not attempt to describe, but only suggests by an unanswered
question,— Peter leaves it to their own hearts to ponder the
love which to them makes this unspeakable doom a subject
of contemplation merely, not of experience.
Ver. 17. Whilst formally belonging only to the statement
which occupies the first part of the verse, 674 logically belongs
to that statement as applied by the hypothetical sentence
which forms the second part, and this (see summary of the
argument, above) regarded also in connection with a further
unexpressed thought. On the frequent co-ordination, in
Hellenistic style, of clauses, one of which is in the course
of thought subordinate to the other, cf. i. 24, note on use
of dvdTe.
The apostle opens his argument by the statement that
“The time is come” (or simply that “It is the time,” the
easy and familiar supplement éor/ being sufficient, the some-
what harder mdpeote unnecessary) “for the judgement to
begin from the house of God.” It is shown not merely by
the general course of thought, but expressly by the parallel in
the next clause, af’ ev, that by “the house of God” is
meant, according to the well-known N. T. figure, the Church
of Christ; cf.1 Tim. i. 15; Heb. ii 6. In the present
place, and in the passage just referred to in Timothy (whatever
IV. 17.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 367
may be the case in that in Hebrews), the representation seems
to be not of “a house” in the secondary use of the word, as
equivalent to “a family,” but in its primary sense of “a
building,” God’s temple: cf. ii. 5, also 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph.
ul. 21. The general force of the apostle’s statement, then,
viewed in its connection, is this,—that, looking up from the
immediate human agencies, his readers should regard their
persecutions as manifestations of the divine judgement, and
that the time in which they were living was one when the
judgement was to begin with God’s own people. God deals
as Judge with all sin committed by any of His moral creatures,
But His judicial dealings with Christians are at the same
time, through His grace, Fatherly chastisements, and—being
such, and intended to meeten spiritually for heaven—they
belong only to this earthly life. Thus all the sufferings of
believers are the beginnings of that divine judgement upon
sin—“ the judgement,” as the apostle has it expressly,—the
full development and terribleness of which will be seen in
what is commonly called specifically “ the Day of Judgement.”
In that day believers, “finding mercy of the Lord,’ shall
know nothing of condemning judgement, but shall stand
clothed in the righteousness of their Redeemer. Then shall
be the judgement of the enemies of God. It is true that
they, too, during their life on earth have sufferings, and that
these, in their case also, are judgements of God; but in the
dark shadow of the awfulness of final judgement these divine
dealings with unbelievers during this life pass utterly out of
the apostle’s view. Thus to his eye the beginnings of judge-
ment are strictly and simply with the spiritual temple of God,
God’s own people. For illustration of Peter's course of
thought here, cf. 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32,—a passage which shows
in a pointed way how such a statement as the present,
regarding xp(uwa coming on believers, is harmonized with its
verbal contradictory, John iii. 18, 0 micrevwy eis adtov ov
xpivetat: that xpiveo@ae which in its nature is a madeverOar
is Intended to prevent the cataxpivec@ac which is meant
368 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ve 17%,
by xpivecOas in the passage in John (cf. also iv. 6, with
note).
In speaking of “the time” for the judgement to begin
from the house of God, the apostle refers seemingly to the
Christian Dispensation. Doubtless, in the ages before the
Lord’s incarnation also there had been disciplinary judgements
on believers. The apostle, however, appears to look at these
rather as having been premonitory of, than as themselves
belonging to, “the judgement ;” seeing that of God’s dealings
with the world final judgement was not then the next great
stage. In those days the great Revealer of God was yet to
be manifested. Now He has come,—everything which, con-
sistently with the glory of His character and government,
God can do to touch the hearts of men, and lead them to
Himself, has been done,—the Christian Dispensation is “the
last time,” the close of which is the Day of Judgement; and
of what will thus be the special work of the next great
manifest divine intervention in human history we have the
beginnings presented now in the sufferings of believers.
Such seems to be the apostle’s meaning: “Unum idemque
est judicium a tempore evangelii per apostolos pradicati
usque ad judicium extremum” (Bengel).
Another possible view of Peter’s teaching here regarding
the xatpos is this,—that he would have us understand that
there are in the history of the world certain periods in which,
by the sending of calamities, God signally shows Himself to
men as Judge, beginning with His own people, and passing
on to send far more terrible troubles upon those who oppose
and persecute them. The age in which Peter wrote, he—on
this view of his meaning—intimates to be such a_ period.
The commencement of the judgement was seen in the perse-
cution to which the Christians were exposed; and its further
stage, one may suppose, was to be the awful visitation which,
a very few years after the date of this Epistle, befell the Jews,
the virulent enemies of the Christians and keen instigators of
persecution, in the destruction of Jerusalem. This view, of a
BV. 17] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 369
series of xacpoi, is perhaps consistent with the language
employed,—naturally enough if xacpds alone be read, “a time,”
hardly so naturally if the article be read with it, in which
case, on this view of the reference, the meaning apparently
would be “owr xatpos, that of our generation.” It may be
also that, in various prominent periods of persecution during
the subsequent history of the Church, something in the
sequence of judgements may be recognised similar to what
was seen in the first age. A most serious difficulty in the
way of accepting this view of the sense, however, lies in the
fact that a reference simply to earthly calamities, as the
judgements spoken of on the enemies of God, is quite incom-
patible with the deep solemnity of the apostle’s words on
this subject in the latter part of this verse and in the 18th,
These words evidently point, if not solely, at least mainly, to
the final Judgement. No doubt the fall of Jerusalem, echoing
throughout the world, was fitted greatly to attract the atten-
tion of Christians everywhere, and—particularly when looked
at in the light of our Lord’s predictions—must have been felt
to be both in itself a judgement and a notable prefiguration
of the great final Judgement; but any interpretation which
regards the xaspos spoken of by Peter as ending with the
fall of Jerusalem, or which considers his words as pointing to
it other than, if at all, in an altogether subsidiary way,
appears beset with insuperable difficulties.
The use, according to a reading not certain but probable,
of the article with xaspos, and the bareness of the form of
statement, seem to imply that on some ground the thought
here set forth by the apostle was deemed by him to be not
unfamiliar to his readers. He had seemingly in his mind
such passages in the prophets as Jer. xxv. 29, xlix. 12;
Ezek. ix. 6; Amos iii. 2. These passages were fitted to
prepare the minds of Christians alike for the thought of
chastisement at the hand of God for their sins, and for the
expectation that stern punishment would come on His and
their adversaries; and it can hardly be doubted that by a
2
370 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (EVE a7
remembrance of the passage just referred to in Ezekiel the
form of Peter’s statement was moulded,—one of the clauses
in that verse being “Begin at My sanctuary” (amo top
aylev pov dpEacbe, LXX.)—Kpiua, which properly—accord-
ing to the form of the word, and according to ordinary usage,
classical and N. T.—means “the thing judged or decided,
decree, sentence,” is employed here, as occasionally (cf. John
ix. 39; Acts xxiv. 25), according to a tendency to transitions
of meaning seen in verbal substantives in all languages, with
a reference to the action of judging, its force therefore being
indistinguishable from that of xpiow.—The construing of
dpxerOar with azo, to mark distinctly the starting-point of a
course or series, is common in the classics——particularly in
Herodotus,—and occurs also often in N. T.; ef. eg. Luke
REV, 273 Acts 1.72.2:
In the second half of the verse the apostle shows the
purpose which he had in making the statement in the first
clause. This is to present an argument @ minori ad majus,
which he does in a hypothetical form (cf. our Lord’s question,
Luke xxiii. 31): “ Now, if sin is so hateful in God’s sight
that even those who through faith are His children—loved and
cherished by Him
are visited with judgements so sore as those
which are come and coming upon you, what must be the fate
of His enemies? If the beginnings of a growing tempest are
such as you now experience, what will the end be which is
destined for those who refuse the divine mercy?” The
nature and the conclusiveness of the argument are clear; but
there are two little peculiarities in the mode of expression
which require a moment’s notice. In that substantial
repetition of the first clause of the verse, which constitutes
the protasis of the hypothetical sentence, “ Now, if first from
us,” it is plain—the words “from us” answering to “from
the house of God” of the previous clause—that “it (the
judgement) begins (apyerar)” is to be supplied. With
dpxetar the adverb mp@rop is, strictly speaking, pleonastic,
but it is not therefore useless, because it shows vividly the
VY. -17.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. eg:
stress which the apostle lays on the point of the beginning,—
“Tf the jirst visitation of judgement, the first stage in an
accelerating course, be such.” In the apodosis, also—the
question “ What shall the end be ?”—there is something of
peculiarity. A reader instinctively regards this “end” as
correlative with that “beginning” to which the words dpyerau
and mpotov have both drawn attention,—the “end” therefore
being “the closing stage of judgement.” Yet this reference
of TéXos does not answer well to the connection in which
that substantive stands with trav ameWovvtTwv, KTrA.,—*“ the
end of them who disobey” seeming to be a somewhat forced,
unnaturally constructed expression, if taken to mean “the
end of the judgement, which is the stage belonging to, destined
for, those who disobey.” It appears more natural to think
that we have here a well-known use of TéAos for “the end,
or issue, of a man’s life or character” (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 15; Phil.
iil. 19); and a comparison of the parallel clause in the next
verse, 7ov davettar, confirms the idea that this latter use of
TéXos was in the apostle’s mind, and was indeed prominent.
Taking all the data into consideration, the reasonable conclu-
sion seems to be, that, through the intensity of his emotion at
this point, Peter has in his rush of thought laid on téAos a
double burden,—his thought fully exhibited being something
like this, “If the beginning of judgement, in God’s dealings
with His own people, be so severe as you are now experi-
encing, what will the end of it be, when those who are dis-
obedient to the gospel shall meet their end?”
On dreBovvtov 6 evayyedio, ci. ii. 8, 76 Royo
ateWodvtes, with note. The expression “ disobedient to the
glad tidings” brings out very pointedly the truth that the
invitations of the gospel are at the same time commands;
and, as added here to “the gospel,” the words “of God”
have plainly a special foree—emphasizing the awfulness of
the criminality of dei@ea—In 76 Tod Ocod evayyeriw (cf.
tom. i. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 2) the genitive is manifestly of the
Originator and Sender; where Xpiorod is used (as Rom.
3%2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PLY, 18:
xv. 19; Phil. i. 27), the force of the case may be either this,
or of the object presented, or quite possibly both, “the gospel
which comes from Christ and which tells of Christ.”
Ver. 18. In this verse, to deepen impression, the solemn
question of the 17th is in substance repeated under a different
form: “And if the righteous man is saved with difficulty,—
the ungodly and sinful man, where shall he appear?” As
so often, the apostle avails himself of LXX. language to
express his thought. From ed to the end, the verse coincides
verbatim with Prov. xi. 31, except that Peter omits the
particle wév before dtkatos. The rendering from the Hebrew
is somewhat free,—the exact sense being as given in the
inglish Version, “ Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed
in the earth, much more (how much more, R. V.) the wicked
and the sinner.” At first sight it might appear that in the
first clause the LXX. has missed the meaning altogether.
On consideration, however, it will be seen that, since “the
righteous,” so long as he is in this world, has his righteous-
ness shaded by sin, there is a certain ambiguity in “recom-
pensed ;” and, on the whole, from the character of the
sentence it seems probable that the LXX. is substantially
correct ; cf. Delitzsch, in loc. Luther similarly renders, So der
Gerechte auf Erden leiden muss. The settlement of this
exegetical question, however, is immaterial, so far as regards
the use of the LXX. rendering by Peter; because the apostle
is not appealing to the O. T. in support of his position, but
simply adopting words familiar to him and probably to his
readers, which happened to be suitable for the clothing of
his thought.
The precise force of pods here is “ with difficulty ;” ef.
Acts xxvii. 7, 8,16. This sense answers to the etymolo-
gical connection of the word with orcs (usually uedros),
“moil, toil,” just as the synonymous adverb poyis is cognate
with poyos (Germ. Miihe), “ toil, trouble.” The expression does
not at all suggest any uncertainty with respect to the ultimate
salvation of all true believers, but simply intimates that God’s
IV. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Sis
mode of bringing His people to their final rest in the fulness
of salvation is through hard and painful discipline. Not
merely is the gate strait, but the way also to which the
gate admits ; so that sometimes the believer, compassed with
ditficulties, becomes almost despondent, the fightings without
having naturally accordant fears within. The rendering of
pors here in the A. V., “scarcely,” is not very happy, indeed
almost misleading ;
@; and it seems singular that the Revisers
have retained it AgeB7s means “devoid of reverence for
”
God, ungodly, impious ;” auaptwdos, according to its ordinary
use (eg. Mark viii. 38; John ix. 16; Jas. iv. 8), designates
one who is “defiled with manifest sin.” The connection of
the two here implies plainly that from the first characteristic
the second naturally follows. In 1 Tim. i. 9, also, these
two words are placed together exactly as here, and in
Jude 15 they stand together without a conjunction. — On
mod daveira, cf. Ps. i. 4-6, v. 5. Every reader feels the
peculiarly solemn effect produced by the apostle’s form of
expression,—an unanswered question.
Ver. 19. The practical conclusion here presented in the
form of a precept is naturally taken in special connection
with the two verses immediately preceding; yet, as the verse
plainly closes a paragraph, other arguments which have been
set forth in the paragraph may also be included in the basis
on which the conclusion rests. “Wherefore, seeing that
divine grace, whilst for ends of infinite kindness it sends
trials on Christians, yet saves them from those immeasurably
greater judgements which are to come on God’s enemies,—and
seeing that participation in Christ’s sufferings is a proof of
the presence of the Spirit of glory and of God,—let them also
who suffer, because God wills it, commit their souls, with no
less confidence and restfulness than those believers who for
the time are preserved from suffering, to a faithful Creator,—
remembering always that this surrender of their souls can
have reality and efficiency only when it is surrounded with
an atmosphere of well-doing.”
3174 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 19.
On the construction, occasionally found in classical writers,
and pretty frequent in N. T. (eg. 1 Cor. i, 21, xv. 58; Phil.
a construction in which
ii. 12), of dore with an imperative
the particle, instead of its ordinary subordinative force, has
the sense of “and so” (exactly the Latin itaque), “ conse-
quently ”—cf. Jelf, § 867; Winer, p. 377; A. Buttmann,
p. 243.—By some expositors it has been thought that «av
belongs to wate, “wherefore also;” but there is no reason
for supposing a deviation here from the regular usage which
joins cat to what follows. The thought set forth in the
paraphrase above with respect to the two divisions of the
apostle’s readers, those who at the time were enduring per-
secution, and those who were free from it, sufficiently explains
the words “also those who suffer,’-—and enters here most
naturally when we remember what has been said in the
12th verse regarding the likelihood that some of these were
tending to despondency and unbelief, “thinking it strange ”
that they should be exposed to persecution.
The expression of mdoyovtes KaTa TO GédXnua TOD Oeod is
naturally taken as equivalent to “those who suffer because
God wills it” (cf. Gal. i. 4), and as intended to bring up the
thought which has been already presented in a similar con-
nection (iii. 17), and which must be the basis of all reason-
able comfort under affliction, that the trouble is not a product
of blind chance—something thrusting itself, so to speak,
from some alien clime into the well-ordered domain of
divine administration (ws Eévou tuiv cupPatvortos, ver. 12)—
but is appointed by God Himself. Other views of the sense
of the combination here have been suggested,—* those who
suffer in connection with (¢.e. because of doing) the will of
God,” or “those who suffer with a spirit accordant with the
will of God.” It does not seem at all likely that, had the
former of these thoughts been in the apostle’s mind, he would
have chosen the preposition xara to express it,—a mode, to
say the least, very obscure. Neither, perhaps, for the other
thought would «ata be the most natural particle, but rather
IV. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 375
mpos (Luke xii. 47). This latter view of the sense, moreover,
gives the verb wdaoyev an ethical shade of meaning, not
simply “to be subjected to suffering,” but “to dear suffer-
ing,’—a sense which, though in all languages a tendency to
this transition shows itself (as, for example, with trodépew
in Greek and “endure” in English), tacyew does not seem
to have. These views of the meaning have, no doubt, been
thought of in consequence of the fact that the category,
“those who suffer because God wills it,” appears to be indis-
tinctive, seeing that the sufferings of the enemies of God, as
well as of His friends, come upon them “ because He wills
it.” But there is no real difficulty here. Throughout the
whole section, and particularly from ¢¢ 6€ @s Xpioteavos in
ver. 16, every reader carries with him the knowledge that it
is specifically suffering for Christ's sake of which the apostle
is speaking. The category is really simply “those—among
you Christians—who suffer;” and “according to the will of
God” is an additional thought, brought in, parenthetically
almost, to show clearly the basis on which the precept of the
verse rests. The apostle’s meaning fully given is “Those
among you who suffer,—and this, let these sufferers remember,
because God wills that they should suffer.”
By the apostle’s use of the designation micT@ Ktictn Wwe
are reminded of the wide range of argument for comfort and
spiritual strength over which Christians may and_ should
expatiate. The stimulus and cheer which are afforded by
contemplation of the redemptive aspect of the divine character
and work are so abundant that many believers perhaps almost
forget how much may be found also in the thought of God as
Creator. “He made you: that assures you of His infinite
power to sustain you. His purpose in making you was, like
all His purposes, absolutely wise and good; those therefore
who with simplicity give themselves up to His care may well
feel confident that He will protect and bless them. More-
over, He has expressly declared this purpose of love, pledging
Himself by innumerable promises in His word; and no
376 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 19.
promise of the all-truthful One can remain unfulfilled. To
your Creator, then, faithful to His purpose and to all His
declarations, commit your souls with childlike trust.” “ Con-
servare et volet ut fidelissimus, et poterit ut potentissimus ”
(Gerhard). Cf. Ps. xev. 3-7, ¢. 3,4; Acts iv. 24; and on
motos in particular, 1 Cor. x. 13. The omission of the
article with muot@® xtioty makes the argument which is
involved in the words stand out all the more distinctly,—
as we too feel in using the indefinite article in such a case as
the present, “to a faithful Creator;” on this anarthrousness,
somewhat of a favourite structure with the apostle, cf i. 10,
note on mpodyrat.
In rapatibécbwcay tas yuyas avTov there is probably a
reminiscence of the words of our Lord on the cross (Luke xxiii.
46), which themselves were a reminiscence of Ps. xxxi. 6.
On wrapatiWecOa, cf. also Acts xiv. 23, xx. 32. By the
specification of tas yuyas (where plainly, and this in accord-
ance with the apostle’s general use of the word, wuyx7 is to
be taken in its loftiest and most comprehensive sense,—cf.
1. 9, 22, ii, 11, 25), instead of simply “themselves,” there is
naturally suggested the thought that in the interests of their
spiritual welfare much bodily suffering might still be before
them, and, it might be, a martyr’s death. Meantime the
yuyxai, placed in God’s keeping, would be absolutely safe, and
through the sufferings of the body would grow in beauty and
energy.
Through the emphasis which their position gives them the
words év ayaorowa have a marked incisiveness. It is as
if the apostle said, “And remember that only holiness of
character, faithful and persistent well-doing, can prove that
any supposed surrender of the soul to God is sincere and full.
If, having, as you imagine, made such a surrender, you pro-
ceed to act towards your persecutors as the men of the world
would do, returning evil for evil—or if in any way you
regard iniquity in your heart, or practise it in your life—
your alleged surrender has no meaning or force.” “ He una
IV. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OER
patientium cura,—bene et agere et pati: cetera curabit
Ile” (Bengel). The probable force of the preposition év here
is the semi-local, of element or atmosphere, as exhibited
in the paraphrase above. On ayaGorrovia, cf. ayalorroseir,
ii. 15, 20, iii. 6, 17, and dya0orrotos, ii. 14. The noun
aya0orrouia itself occurs here only in N, T., and is found but
rarely elsewhere; cf. Clem. Rom. §§ 2, 33, 34.
378 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. BY. ds
COVAVE TAA: Wi:
Vv. 1-4. Counsels to Elders.
RETURNING from the somewhat episodical line of remark which
has occupied the passage extending from iv. 12 to the end
of that chapter, and which was apparently suggested by the
doxology immediately preceding, the apostle resumes that
series of injunctions with regard to duties arising out of
Church relations, on which he had been engaged in iv. 7-11.
He speaks first of the duties of elders. IIpec@uvrepou or éri-
oxo7rot—for the names are used in N. T. exchangeably—seem
to have been the only officers regarded as essential to the full
organization of a church; cf. Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5. ‘The
office of deacon, whilst also reckoned of much importance, was
yet subsidiary. We have no account of the institution of the
eldership. The office and the name alike appear to have come
over from the arrangements of the synagogue ; and thus at the
first mention of elders in the history of the Christian Church
(Acts xi. 50) we find the office assumed as existing simply as
a matter of course.
Ver. 1. The connection intimated by odv seems to be with
the closing words of the previous verse, év ayaQo7rotia, to which,
as has been seen, their position gives a special emphasis. The
line of thought appears to run on thus: “In well-doing,—each
in his aliotted sphere of action ; and first then of the elders.” —
The anarthrousness of wpeoPutépous accords with the apostle’s
general style. The attaching of év vuiv immediately to mpeo-
Burtépovs is grammatically a somewhat lax mode of expression,
—offended by which many copyists have inserted tovs,—but
Ve. 1] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 379
the combination is perfectly intelligible, “elders among you,”
“persons among you who are elders.”
Considering those claims to the possession of a right of dictat-
ing to elders which have been based on an asserted succession
to the Apostle Peter, and the style in which the assumed
authority has often been exercised, it is particularly interest-
ing to mark the gentleness and humility of the apostle’s own
mode of dealing. Like Paul (Philem. 9), he “ might have been
much bold in Christ to enjoin,’—“ but, for love’s sake, he
rather,” like him, says, 7apaxado®. In support of his exhorta-
tion, too, he uses a designation which sets him in the position of
one of themselves, their “ fellow-elder ”—-one who personally
felt the responsibilities, and from experience knew the diffi-
culties, of an elder. While the apostleship was an office of
far higher dignity and far wider influence than that which was
held by those brethren who are now addressed, yet essentially
its grand function was that of the eldership which Peter goes
on to describe, “to feed the flock of God.” The compound
ovyTperRutepos occurs in N. T. here only; but we have sub-
stantially the same form of apostolic thought and feeling in the
use of the simple wpecBvtepos, 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. For
the construction, exemplified here in 0 cuvmpeoButepos KTX.,
of apposition to an unexpressed pronoun, cf. Heb. iv. 3;
1 John v. 13. In the cases of this kind which occur in
N. T. the apposition is usually, as in these passages referred
to, a participial combination taking the place of a relative
clause. This is really the construction in our present passage
also, for the structure of the whole verse shows that the
apostle’s thought was 0 ouvmpeaBvtepos Kat pdptus (wv)
’ «7r., “I who am a fellow-elder and witness.”
Of the precise meaning of the description of himself which
the apostle adds to cvvrpecBurtepos, two somewhat different
apparently cognate
views may be taken. The word paptus
with Lat. me-mor—has as its primary force “ one who, recalling
something seen or heard, attests it:” thus oftenin N. T. It
came very naturally to be used among the Christians sometimes
380 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. vs ty
with a special application to those who “bore testimony” to
Christ as their Saviour and Lord by enduring for His sake
suffering and death; so, for example, in Acts xxi. 20; Rev.
i. 13. This latter sense became the prevalent one in ecclesi-
astical use, and is thus that in which the word “martyr” is
preserved in modern tongues. If the designation of himself
here given by the apostle be looked at apart from the others
with which it is associated, no one would doubt that he
employs pdptvs in the general sense. He had personally
known the Lord, and his chief function as an apostle was
to bear witness to what he had seen of Him (Acts 1. 8, 22).
Taken thus, the word reminds the reader in a gentle and
unobtrusive way of the writer’s apostolic authority,—“ fellow-
elder,” no doubt, but more. But the designation which follows,
6 Kal THs So&ns Kowwvos, naturally suggests the question
whether, in here calling himself waptus «tr., Peter does not
intend a thought directly antithetic to that other—something
in the line of that special application mentioned above. He
may be supposed to describe himself as “one who attested
the sufferings of Christ” by participating in such sufferings,
“always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord
Jesus” (2 Cor. iv. 10), and thus to the spiritually-minded
representing and recalling the Lord’s sufferings. To some
excellent interpreters this view of the meaning has com-
mended itself, either along with the usual reference of “ wit-
nessing ” (as Bengel, Wiesinger, Huther), or even excluding it
entirely (as Calvin). Considering the want of analogies to
such a use of waptus when construed as here,—and the readi-
ness at hand, if such had been the idea immediately before
the apostle’s mind, of xowvwvds (used in the next clause) to
attach itself to wa@nuatwyv as freely as to do€ns (cf. iv. 13),
and express without ambiguity the essence of the thought,—
there is good reason to question whether the special force of
“a witness through suffering” was that which was primarily
intended. At the same time, the other two designations
having a reference to what was common to the apostle with
V. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 381
those whom he addresses, and this one being linked closely to
ouvtpecBvtepos by their having but one article, it can hardly
be doubted that Peter meant to suggest also the special refer-
ence. In a letter which is addressed to Christians under
persecution, and in which but a few sentences before (iv. 13)
the relation between participation in the Saviour’s sufferings
and participation in His glory had been explicitly set forth,
mention of these sufferings such as we have here, followed
immediately by mention of sharing in the glory, could not
but give waprus in a secondary way something of the sense
of “ witness through suffering.”
The apostle’s third designation of himself has naturally,
seeing that it brings in a contrast, a separate article. It may
seem that if we apply rigid exactness of construction we
should have to take écouevos as the participial supplement
here. But the apostle’s thought is, no doubt, really richer than
that supplement would allow. The wv which belongs in
thought to the first clause is carried forward,—* who am ”—in
that vivid, joyful anticipation of faith which is “the substance
>
of things hoped for;” so rightly R. E. V., “who am also a par-
taker.” The apostle wishes his brethren—sharers with him
in tribulation for Christ’s sake—to be sharers also in this
gladsome and sustaining energy of “living hope.” He would
have them look not around only, but forward and up. Peter
had no doubt assurances from the Lord with regard to coming
glory, which were specially for the apostles (as Luke xxii. 30),
or even made particularly to himself (John xii. 56); but in
the present connection his mind, we may feel convinced, was
resting mainly on those promises of glory which were spoken
directly of all Christ’s people (as John xvii. 20-—24).—On Tijs
meAXNoVoNS atoxaduTTecOar do€ns, cf. i. 5, note.
Ver. 2. The apostle’s injunction to the elders to care for
those entrusted to them is couched under the figure so common
both in O. T. and N. T., and which has passed into common
”
language in the official name “pastor ;” cf. il. 25, with note.
TIotpaivey is—in accordance with its probable derivation
382 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. EV. 9:
from the root (Sanscr.) pa, “ protect” (Curtius, Gr. Etym.
§ 372)—a word of much wider reference than Booxew; ct.
Ps. xxiii. 1, Kupuos trowwaiver we, and see Trench, Syn. NV. 7.
§ 25. It comprehends all the departments of a shepherd's
work, quaintly summed up by Alford as “leading, feeding,
heeding,” and in English best set forth by the word “tend.”
By the special sharpness and energy of the aorist imperative,
the injunction calls upon the elders to have their official life
as a unity characterized by the spirit of devotion to service ;
on this striking use of the aorist, sometimes also in the indi-
cative, compare ii. 22, note on ézroinoev. On the formation,
prevalent in the later Greek, of the first aorist in -ava from
verbs in -awvo, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 41.—The dignity, and
at the same time the solemn responsibilities connected with
the office and work of spiritual “shepherds,” are impressively
illustrated by the addition to woturiov of tod Oeod (cf. Ps.
e. 3; Isa. xl. 11)—On the substance and form of the whole
of the present injunction, cf. particularly Paul’s words in
Acts xx. 28, 29,—words addressed in all likelihood to some
of those very elders to whom Peter here writes.
The words To év tyuiv have by some (so A. E. V. marge.)
been taken adverbially, attached to zrowwavare, “as much as
in} you is;” ef. To €& vuov, Rom. xii. 18, and perhaps also
TO Kat éué, Rom. i. 15. It does not appear at all probable
that the apostle would append to a precept like the present
a weakening expression such as this,—especially when we
recall the absolute form in which the same commission had
been given by the Lord to Peter himself (John xxi. 16), a
form which, there can be little doubt, was in his mind when
he wrote the words before us. Taking to év tpiv columnov
together, the sense has been supposed to be “the flock
entrusted to you,” on the analogy of the combination eivas
or KkeicGas év touvt, “to depend on some one.” Substantially,
no doubt, the meaning is something of this kind, but to find
the sense of “depend on” in ev alone is forced. With the
echo of the quite unambiguous €v vy of ver. 1 still
Vv. 2.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 383
lingering on the ear, there is good reason to take év vtyiv
here also with the same meaning, that which prima facie
presents itself to every reader,—‘ the flock of God which is
among you” being a free but perfectly natural and in-
telligible mode of saying what is yet more expressly indicated
by the plural «Ajpev in ver. 3, “those portions of the flock
that live in your districts, and are thus under your care.”
Indeed, the fact that in both verses the apostle’s mode of
expression is ev vty, seems to show it as a thought lying in
his mind,—whether the words were definitely intended to
suggest it or not,—that whilst, as is fully recognised, the
elders were in certain respects “over” the private members,
yet the most important relation, claiming to be constantly
remembered by both, was that which is represented by “in,
among,’—“ members one of another” (Rom. xii. 5); cf. Acts
xx. 28, év d.
Whether ézicxorrovytes be read or left out does not sub-
stantially affect the sense. The adverbs connect themselves
quite as naturally with the main verb wowdvate. Supposing
the word to belong to the text, the same uncertainty presents
itself here as in il. 25 (where see note) with respect to the
precise point of view,—whether the primary sense referring
to the shepherd, or the secondary: with the official application,
is prominent in the writer’s mind,—“ exercising the over-
sight” (which belongs to you as shepherds), or “ exercising
your functions as bishops.” ;
The apostle’s precept enters into detail with respect to the
mode of “tending the flock,” giving three particular injunc-
tions, each of these in both a negative and a positive form.
Looking at the first two positive statements, we find that
there is an advance on one line from simple “ willingness ”
to “zeal.” Seeing, however, that when we turn to the nega-
tives we find nothing of this kind, but faults which belong
to distinct categories named,
and this in language so definite
as naturally to fix a specific reference for the somewhat general
positive terms in the antithesis——it seems clear that the apostle’s
384 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 2.
course of thought is not climactic, or at all events is such
only in a secondary way. The three vicious modes of pastoral
dealing which Peter forbids—and which throughout the his-
tory of the Church have wrought incalculable injury to the
character and influence of a vast number of her office-bearers
are, first, mere formal work, without true heartiness, the
work of men whom some kind of social pressure or other
simply external power has forced into a service which they
dislike ; secondly, work done merely, or mainly, for pecuniary
gain ; thirdly, work done in a spirit of personal arrogance,
With the first fault is placed in contrast the sincere “ will-
ingness” of the man who loves his Saviour, and longs to
serve Him. On this whole clause compare as an interesting
commentary (though the reference there is not exactly to
pastoral work) Philem. 14.
A moment’s consideration shows that there is no con-
tradiction between Peter’s 2 dvayxactas and Paul’s avaynn
prot €mrixertat in 1 Cor. ix. 16,—seeing that with Paul the
“necessity ” was that which sprang from a recognition of the
will of Christ, to which the apostle’s own will joyfully assented.
It is obvious that in the measure in which this advayx«n is felt
will really be the efficiency of the discharge of pastoral duty.
—The probable reading «cata QOecov forms a striking and
beautiful close to the first of these clauses of detail. The
preposition seems to be best taken here with its familiar
force of indicating a standard or model (cf. i. 15, iv. 6 ; Eph, iv.
24),—“ exercising the oversight not by constraint, but will-
ingly, like God,” or “as God does” (iii, 12). The meaning
may also be. (cf. Rom. viii. 27 352 Cor. vii. 9, 10, 11),%an
accordance with the will of God.” In Cranmer’s English
Version these words have been inserted, in a somewhat
hesitating way marked by the mode of printing, and in the
form “after a godly sorte.”
With the second wrong mode of procedure mentioned—
namely, acting as elders from love of money—is contrasted
the “hearty readiness, alacrity ” (cf. Rom. i. 15; 2 °Coy
ce oud FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 385
vill. 11, 12), which has its impulse not from the consideration
of anything belonging only to this world, but from the energies
of the new life in Christ (“ut fructus non sit merces, sed
pastura,” Bengel). In pdé aicypoxepdas there is manifestly
nothing opposed to the ordinance “ that they which preach
the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. ix. 14). The
apostle’s reference is expressly to “ base gain.” Now the
payment made by his people to a pastor whose heart is in
his work is not base gain, but the very reverse, a most
honourable support. On the other hand, from the essentially
spiritual objects of office in the Church of Christ, the pay-
ment made to a pastor who holds his office solely, or mainly,
that he may obtain this, becomes in his case “ filthy luere,”
“ wages of unrighteousness.” The adverb aicypoxepdas, “ from,
or in the spirit of, desire for base gain,’ is not found else-
where ; but the adjective occurs both in classical writers
aC imeN st wl Sinai oist itie 7.3 ek also Vitel, Tay
Ver. 5. The sentence passes here into a participial form,
the participles, like the adverbs, describing a right and a wrong
spirit and manner of “tending the flock of God.” Kara-
Kuptevovtes is by some (as Huther) taken to involve that
idea of hostility or oppressiveness which «ata gives in many
compounds, “ tyrannizing over.” But this view of the force
of the word does not seem to be supported either by the
usage of LXX. or N. T. The verb is generally employed,
according to another familiar use of cata in composition, as
simply a somewhat strengthened form for cupiedo, In LXX.
it is applied as freely to gracious government—-see Jer. ili. 14 ;
Ps. Ixxi. (Ixxi. Sept.) 8—as to oppressive—Ps. x. 10 (x. 30,
Sept.), cxix. (cxviil.) 133. In N.T. the verb is found in three
places besides the present. To the statements in Matt.
xx. 25, Mark x. 42, where it occurs, an exact parallel in our
Lord’s teaching is recorded by Luke (xxii. 25) in connection
with a different incident, and there we have the simple
xuptev@. In Acts xix. 16, again, the word means “to master,
overcome,” according to a frequent LX-X. use in places where
2 8B
386 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 3.
quite manifestly no idea of reproach is intended. — The
precise meaning in our passage of T&v Kdnpwv also, “ the
lots, allotments,’ has been debated. The view set forth in
Wycliffe’s rendering, “nether as havynge lordschip in the
clergie,” after the Vulgate in cleris, is an anachronism. This
use of the word, no doubt, originated early (Tertullian has it,
and not as being new), but it has no support in N. T. In
the present passage, moreover, in which only the “ elders ”
and “the flock of God” as a whole are mentioned, and which
is plainly directly addressed to all the elders, such a reference
would be out of place and inconsistent. The interpretation
followed in the Geneva Enelish Version, and adopted by the
Authorized, “ God’s heritage,” exhibits a thought in itself true
and beautiful. The spiritual Israel might well be called, as
ancient Israel is called again and again, the “lot, portion,
heritage” of God, kdAjjpos (Deut. ix. 29), «Anpovouia (Isa.
xix. 25), wepls xai cyolvicwa Kdnpovopias (Deut. xxxii. 9).
This thought is indeed very nearly the same as that set forth
by Peter in ii. 9, Xaos els wepuroinow. But in our passage
the absence of Oeov, and the use of the plural,—which with
kXpos, applied in the way under consideration, seems to have
no analogy, God’s people forming one heritage,—are strong
and apparently decisive objections to our accepting this as
the intended sense. The probable reference is to the various
congregations, as “allotted” by God in His providential
arrangements to different groups of the elders; so Tyndale,
“not as though ye were lordes over the parisshes ;” and R. V.,
“neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you” (in
which “ charges” would surely have been better), This use
of xAjpos, though not found elsewhere in N. T., is in itself
perfectly accordant with the meaning of the word. If mpoce-
KAnpwoOncay in Acts xvii. 4 be taken as passive in meaning,
“were allotted” (as portion, or fruit of ministry), a close
parallel to our passage presents itself; but the sense is not
improbably middle, “cast in their lot with, consorted with.”
—According to the results of our examination of the separate
ee a FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 387
words then, the meaning of the clause appears to be, “ not as
exercising lordship over your allotments.” With regard to
this point of duty, cf. Matt. xx. 25-28; 2 Cor. i. 24.
On the positive side, the direct antithesis would be “ but
as counting yourselves their servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor.
iv. 5). Implying this, the apostle prefers, instead of stating
the duty in this general form, to specify the great mode in
which they will show themselves wise servants of their
brethren, living for their help,— but becoming ”—growing
ever more fully by thoughtfulness, prayerfulness, and definite
effort—* the flock’s ensamples.” On the force of yiveo@ae in
ethical advices to Christians, see iii. 13, note. On tv7rot, as
here used, ef. Phil. iii. 17; 1 Thess. i. 7.
Ver. 4. Promise of a rich reward to the elder who has
faithfully tended the flock of God. Whidst in every age of
the Church Christ’s servants find thought of the reward to be
needful and stimulating, it is obvious that in times of per-
secution, such as the time in which this Epistle was written,
elders, exposed by their prominent position to peculiar hostility
and danger, have for that reason peculiar need to look up from
the cross to the crown.
For xaé used, as frequently, with what is sometimes called
a “consecutive” force, “and so,” ef. eg. Matt. xxii. 32; Phil.
iv. 7,9: on Phil. iv. 12, Ellicott has an excellent note on
the various uses of this conjunction. —The verb davepoda@as,
here used of the Lord’s Second Coming, has been employed
by the apostle elsewhere (i. 20) of the Incarnation. John
also has the word with both references,—to the Incarnation,
1 John iii. 5, 8; to the Second Coming, 1 John ii. 28, iil, 2.
For the present application, cf. also Col. 11. 4.—The word
apxiroiuny is not found in classical writers, and occurs in
N. T. here only; but cf. ii, 25; Heb. xiii 20.—The so-called
Attic future of verbs in -(f (Jelf, § 203), as here copieiode,
is not uncommon in N. T.; eg. a¢opiodow, Matt. xiii. 49 ;
éAmovoww, Rom. xv. 12. Of xopiSouac the future in -toopas
also occurs, Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii, 25: see Westcott and Hort’s
388 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Nias
Gr. Test. App. p. 163.—On the “ crown of glory,” cf. “ crown
of life,’ Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10; “crown of righteousness,”
2 Tim. iv. 8. In all these cases the genitive is one of appo-
sition,—the “glory,” “life,” “righteousness,” being itself the
“crown.” The glory is (cf. ver. 10) participation in the com-
municable glory of the Redeemer—Himself S0& éotepave-
pévov, Heb. ii. 9.—To take auapavtwos as simply another
form for dudpavtos (i. 4) yields a satisfying sense, “the
unfading crown (garland) of glory.” It is to be observed,
however, that both of these words, which do not occur else-
where in N. T., are also rare in secular literature; and the
fact that, using a rare word twice in his short letter, the
apostle has two forms, suggests as likely that the two were
not thought of by him as being quite equivalent in meaning.
Now there is evidence that adudapavtos was used substantively,
to designate an imagined unwithering flower; and in the
form amaranthus the name has been received into scientific
botany as that of a genus of plants which long retain their
freshness. From the substantive duwapavtos is, by the usual
termination indicating material, regularly formed apapdvtwos,
“made of amaranth, amaranthine,’—as &vAwos, “ wooden ;”
podivos, “ made of roses ;” axavOwos, “ made of thorns” (John
xix. 5), Thus we seem to have here really a passing poetic
reference to the garden of the heavenly paradise; and
evidently from our passage, regarded in this light, Milton has
obtained the suggestion of his exquisite lines, Paradise Lost,
iii, 353-356. Cf. also Clem. Alex. Pedag. ii. 8, 0 Kados Tov
Gmapavtov otépavos amdKertat Tots KAaA@S TETTOALTEUMEVOLS.
To the mind of every Christian reader the thought of the
otépavos auapavtivos which the grace of our Lord gives to us,
suggests at once the remembrance of the orépavos axavOwos
which our sin gave to Him.
A question has been raised with regard to the exact
reference and shade of meaning intended by Peter in using
the image of a “crown.” Is this crown the emblem of kingly
dignity,
or of honour for victory in struggle—the garland
Vv. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 389
at the Greek games,—or of festal gladness—the garland worn
at entertainments sometimes among the Jews (Isa. xxviii. 1 ;
Prov. i. 9, iv. 9; Wisd. ii. 8; Ecclus. i. 11), as well as among
the Greeks and Romans? The otédavos tis Swfs of Rev.
ii. 10 is not improbably a royal crown; for, as that book
seems to move throughout in the circle of Hebrew imagery, an
allusion to the eames of the heathen is unlikely ; and in chap.
iv. 4, 10, créfavos appears almost certainly to designate a
royal crown (ef. Trench, Comm. on Epistles to the Seven Churches,
on il. 10). In Jas. i. 12, also, the same expression may
naturally enough—and, when we remember the markedly O. T.
tone of thought characteristic of that Epistle, may with likeli-
hood—be regarded as meaning either a kingly crown or the
festal wreath. In the place before us, however, neither the
royal nor the festal reference is suitable. The floral allusion
which seems to be distinctly present in dpapavtivos shows
Peter’s thought not to be of a diadem, but of a garland; and
the connection suggests certainly the idea of reward of
successful effort rather than that of festal joy. It seems
natural, therefore, to regard him as having had in his mind
the wreath of victory at the games. Looking at Peter’s
obvious familiarity with the Epistles of Paul, in which these
contests and their rewards are often referred to, and at the
fact that he was writing to Christians living in a region
where everything connected with such games was very well
known, there is no difficulty in admitting that this is his
thought here.
Ver. 5. On the duty of the younger people in relation to their
elders, coupled with an injunction of humility of spirit on
all, elder and younger alike.
On opotws used of correlation, cf. iii. 7, note. In the
present case the word is specially suitable, seeing that (as
Bengel observes) humility has been set forth (ver. 3) as the
390 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 5.
proper spirit of the ruling members of the congregation, as
well as, here, of the ruled. It is obvious that rpeoButépos
here has, at least primarily, the same reference as. mpec-
Butépovs in ver. 1, which, beyond question, is to office-
bearers. To take the word in the present verse as not also
having this sense in the foreground is wholly unnatural, and,
in particular, would remove from opotws all relevancy. Who,
then, are the vewtepou 2? There does not seem to be likelihood
in the view of Weiss, that the reference in this word is to
a special class of officials in the Church, set apart for the
discharge of duties requiring physical strength, and spoken of
in Acts v. 6 (vewTepos), 10 (veavicxor), as performing such
duties. Such a class of officers is not mentioned elsewhere ;
and the variation of designation in the verses in Acts seems to
indicate that the explanation which probably presents itself
first to every reader of that passage is the true one,—namely,
that the younger members of the company at once instinc-
tively took upon them a work which naturally fell to them.
Seeing, moreover, that the apostle’s previous injunction spoke
of the duties of elders to the whole body of those placed
under their charge, the correlation marked by opotws leads
one to think here of an address to the Church members
generally—not specially to a certain class of officials, how-
ever pointedly correlative the names mpeoBuvtepos and vewTepor
might in themselves seem. Many expositors accordingly think
of all the non-official members of the various congregations—
all those members who were not officially mpecSuvtepo.—as
being intended by vewtepot. This, however, would not accord
with the recognised sense of the word, except on the supposi-
tion, which we have no reason whatever to regard as well
founded, that all the older members of Christian Churehes
were in the first age chosen to be also officially “ elders.”
The most satisfactory explanation of the verse appears to
be afforded by considering the reference in mpecButépous to
the office-bearers to be, whilst the primary, not the sole one.
That experience given by age which—as in yepoucta, senatus,
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 391
<
os
jo
“alderman,” and the like—the name mpecSvrepos suggests as
an important element of qualification for office, was, it is
reasonable to think, actually present as a rule among the
eldership of the primitive Church; and one can easily under-
stand how, in giving an injunction to the congregations to
show deference to those elderly men among them who were
?
officially “elders,” the apostle might almost unconsciously
class with these the other elderly members, and might thus
address his injunction directly to the “ younger people.” An
objection to this view has been based on the fact that what
Peter enjoins is not “deference,” but “ submission,” which
appears to imply official subordination. But if the official
elders were primarily in the apostle’s mind, this seems
sufficient to explain his using vrotaynte; and the force of
that word—one sometimes of wide reference (cf. Eph. v. 21)
—shades into something more general in relation to other
elderly people. Precisely the same implicit transition from
the special to a general use of mpexPutepor seems to present
itself in Polye. §§ 5, 6. In Clem. Rom. also (§§ 1, 21) there
is something similar, ambiguity, however, being present
here, so that Harnack, for example, thinks official elders to be
spoken of, whilst other editors exclude this reference. It is
obvious that in English, in the same way, an injunction
addressed to the younger members of a Presbyterian congre-
gation to “honour their elders” might be of doubtful or
double reference. In 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, it seems plain from the
structure of the sentence that in mpeoButépm age alone is
referred to: cf. the parallel in Tit. ii. 2, 8, where the words
are mpec Bitar and mpecPuTides.—On the use of the passive
aorist Urotaynte with a middle force, cf. ii. 13.—On the duty
here enjoined, in its special reference, cf. Heb. xiii. 17 ; 1 Thess.
v.12; 1 Tim. v. 17; in its general reference, Lev. xix. 32.
The second part of the verse might almost claim to be
placed in a section by itself. The particle dé, however,
according to its use here, links the new precept so closely to
that just given that it is perhaps best grouped with it. As
392 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 5.
often, d€ has something of a corrective force, which may be
paraphrased thus: “ But why give a series of detailed pre-
cepts, when one injunction really suffices, if prayerfully
pondered, to guide you aright in your relations to each
other?” “Yea,” of both A. and R. V., is an excellent
rendering.
Two constructions are possible for the dative adAndozs.
The first part of the verse may run on to and include this
word, in which case it is governed by vtotdynte understood.
—“ Likewise, ye younger, be subject to your elders; yea, all of
you (be subject) to one another.” The precept given accord-
ing to this arrangement has abundant analogies, as Rom. xii.
10, Phil. ii. 8, and has a verbal parallel in Eph. v. 21. The
transition from the kind of taotayn due to oftice-bearers to
that due generally by one believer to another may seem
abrupt; yet there is scarcely in this a ground of objection to
the construction, seeing that, according to what appears to be
the most likely view of the sense of the first clause of the
verse, there has already been a certain widening out of the
reference of vrordynre. An objection, however, does present
itself in the fact that the following sentence would begin
without a connective particle. Such a structure is not without
parallel in the Epistle where a new paragraph begins (e.g. i.
22,1113); but with the sequence of thought so close as it
appears to be here, the want of a conjunction seems not to be
natural. So unnatural, indeed, does this appear, that if—all
things being taken into account—the construction under dis-
cussion were deemed the true one, there would be fair reason
for deciding to begin a new paragraph with tiv tamresvodpocvyny,
severing the injunction to humility from all reference to the
preceding precept. In that case mdvtes 5€ addnAots would
certainly be an abrupt mode of closing a paragraph. On the
whole, the other division of the words appears to be preferable,
according to which the new sentence begins with aravtes. In
this case, aAAndoLts associates itself with éycouBooacbe, with
that wider force of the dative of advantage which is often
V. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 393
found in N. T. (cf. ii. 24, note), “for, in relation to, one
another.” On “all,’ elder and younger people alike, the
apostle enjoins “ humility.” That lowly opinion of one’s own
character and deserts which is given by candid self-scrutiny
in the light of God’s revelation, conjoined—as true Christian
humility always is—with the disposition to think the best
that is possible of others, is the secret of “sweet reason-
ableness”” and pleasant helpfulness in all the relations of
life; and the prevalence of this spirit in the Church would
gvidently secure concord and happiness, and show to the
world the heavenliness of Christianity. On tazrewodpocvvn,
ef. 111. 8, note.
The verb éyxowBotdc@az occurs in N. T. here only, and but
seldom in Greek literature. It was not employed by Attic writers,
and—judging from the nationality of the first who are known to
have used it, Epicharmus and Apollodorus of Gela—appears
to have been originally a Sicilian provincialism. The meaning
of the verb and its cognates has been largely discussed, the
fullest and best dissertations being by Gataker in his Adver-
saria Miscellanea, and by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum
Opusc. Koos is “a band, a stripe of cloth used for a
fastening :” hence éyxouBovabar, “to fasten or gird on one’s
self.” To the interpretation adopted by some (as A. E. V.),
which makes Peter’s precept here exactly equivalent to Paul’s
in Col. ili. 12, évddcac0e tarewodpocvryny, “put on humility
(as a garment),” Fritzsche’s objection appears insuperable,
“Si nihil aliud nisi hoc Petrus dicere voluisset, mirum videri
quod verbum tam insolens éyxouBooace quam simplex et
in hac re usitatum évdvcacOe ponere maluerit.” Feeling
this, many expositors have added, as naturally suggested by
the force of xou Bos, the idea of firmness, “ bind upon you:”
so Bengel, “induite vos et involvite, ut amictus humilitatis
nulla vi vobis detrahi possit.” But by the way in which the
substantive éyxouBwya was used, other aspects of the mean-
ing of the verb are suggested as at least possible. This name
was given to a white scarf or apron, usually worn by slaves,
394 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. GWe+8.
and regarded as a mark of their condition,—also, however,
worn sometimes by children belonging to other ranks of life.
Now, by his examination of the passages in which the verb
occurs, Fritzsche seems to make out pretty clearly that in use,
instead of its primary generality of sense, it took up into its
meaning, frequently at least, the special force of its derivative
noun, signifying therefore “encomboma sibi incingere.”
Accordingly, applying the servile reference, Fritzsche, follow-
ing Heinsius, translates our passage, “Omnes autem lubenter
alter alteri cedentes modestiam vobis pro servorum encom-
bomate incingite,” and paraphrases thus, “declarant servi
implicato encombomate se heris obnoxios esse,—ita vos omnes
alterum alteri obnoxium esse sumpta modestia ostendite.”
Gataker again, applying the case of the occasional use of the
encomboma by free-born young people, brings in the idea of
adornment, translating thus, “ Humilitatem induite, ut encom-
bomata virgines ingenuse,—quibus,” as he goes on in explana-
tion, “se decore vestitas exhibebant, ubi in hominum conspectum
prodibant.” Among the three specialties which may thus be
thought of as attaching themselves in this verb to the simple
idea of “putting on,’—viz. “firmly,” “for adornment,” “ for
service to others,” preference appears decidedly due to the last,
for the following reasons. First, the prevalence of the wear-
ing of the encomboma by slaves was much more likely to
suggest this as an element in any figurative application than
the occasional use of the garment by free children. Secondly,
as a feature in the representation, this is specially suitable to
the particular grace here spoken of, humility. Thirdly, the
construction of the verb with the dative adAndos suggests
that in the writer’s mind there associated itself with
éyxouSovo8at some definite thought of tendency or action
towards—such as is well brought out by the rendering given
in R. E. V., “gird yourselves with humility to serve one
another.” Regarded in this light, the word was obviously
fitted to bring up before the heart with much vividness the
supreme example of humility, through recalling that amazing
Vv. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 395
scene when the Son of God, about to do the work of a servant,
“took a towel and girded Himself.”
In the last clause of the verse the apostle brings forward
a strong ground for “putting on as servants the garment
of humility,’ in the form of a citation from Prov, ii. 54,
“Because God resisteth—setteth Himself as a warrior in array
against—the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” For a
poetical expansion of this thought, see Mary’s Song, Luke 1.
51-53. In the connection in which Peter has this passage,
the arrogant bearing towards fellow-men which is prompted
by the pride of an unrenewed heart, and the meekness and
kindness towards fellow-men which spring from Christian
humility, are primarily suggested by otmepydavois and
TaTrewvots respectively. At the same time, the aspects of these
states of heart directly towards God present themselves im-
mediately to thought also, and in tazrewwOnrte xTr. of the next
verse these aspects come evidently into the foreground. On
the precise meaning of trepndavos, which makes this adjective
specially suitable in the connection in which the apostle sets
it here (“superbus cum aliorum contemptu et contumelia,”
Tittmann), cf. Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 29, and Westcott on
1 John ii. 16, note on a@dafovia.
The passage is cited by Peter exactly as in LXX., except that
for Kupios he has @eds, a substitution which is found also in
the quotation as made by James (iv. 6). Clement of Rome,
too (§ 30), and Ignatius (Zph. § 5), have Oecos.
Vy. 6-11. Ezhortation to restfulness of heart in God,
conjoined with spiritwal vigilance.
Ver. 6. Some good interpreters (as Calvin and Bengel)
would not begin a new paragraph here, but think that the
subordination of the younger people to their elders, and of
all, according to their varied relations, to each other, is still
prominent in the apostle’s mind,— the argument, on this
396 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Vang!
view, being that it is “God’s mighty hand” which has
instituted such distinctions as call for subjection. , But the
emphasis of the modes of expression, “the mighty hand”
and “casting your anxiety,” seems quite decidedly ‘to show
that that persecution for conscience’ sake to which the apostle
has referred so often in the Epistle, of which he has spoken
with special fulness only a few verses before (iv. 12-19),
and which he expressly mentions again immediately after
(vv. 9, 10), constitutes the ground of his observations
here also. He keeps still to the injunction of “humility,”
but (cf. note on ver. 5) turns here from the manward to
the directly Godward aspect of this grace. He calls upon his
Christian brethren to be so under the influence of a true know-
ledge of their personal unworthiness as patiently to bear the
afflictions which God sends,—deeming it to be of His mercies
that they are not consumed but chastened, and showing their
consciousness, alike of their own helplessness and of God’s
goodness, by casting all their anxiety over upon Him.
“The hand of God” is a familiar O. T. expression (eg.
Ezra vill. 22, 31; Ps. xxxii. 4), and occurs a number of
times with the attribute “ mighty,” yelp xpatata, LXX. (eg.
Deut. ui. 24; Job xxx. 21). The figure, designating simply
the divine activity, obviously may be, and in fact is, applied
either to dealings of mercy or of judgement, the context
indicating the reference. In the present case, whilst, of
course, the strength which can “exalt” when the fit time
comes is suggested to the mind, yet plainly what is directly
pointed to is afflictive discipline; and, by the sharp aorist
imperative, the believers are called on to see that there be
no delay in their “humbling themselves” under this dis-
cipline. The verb tavevwOnre was no doubt immediately
suggested by tamewodpoovyny and tamewots of ver. 5,—
ovv indeed implying this, “seeing that God giveth grace to
the humble.” Compare also, however, in LXX. the last
clause of Gen. xvi. 9, which, though speaking merely of
human relations, has a curious resemblance to the present
W071 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 397
clause, and may conceivably have been echoing in Peter’s
memory.
The conjunction tva presents a thought which the apostle’s
mode of expression throughout the letter shows to have
been specially familiar to him,—* Longing, as I know you
are, to be glorified with Christ, prove, by a right spirit under
suffering, your union to Him in cross-bearing now, in order
that you may have union with Him in crown-wearing here-
after: ” cf. iv. 13. No principle could well have been more
familiar to the personal companions of our Lord than this:
eh Matt.exxiiyi 12; Luke xiv 11; xvini. 14. . 2! Cory xif7
may also be compared for a different thought, presented in a
very striking way by words somewhat similar to those
employed here.—For év xaip@, common in classical writers,
“at the appointed time” (“not thy fancied time, but His own
wisely-appointed time,” Leighton), cf. Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke
xil, 42. The apostle’s main reference, as regards this xazpos,
is doubtless to the Lord’s Second Coming (cf. iv. 7),—not
however, to the exclusion of other seasons of deliverance
which God may grant to His people. A considerable
number of authorities add émicKom}s to carpe. This fills out
what is no doubt the true meaning; but the word is in all
likelihood a gloss from i. 12 (on which see note).—For an
?
interesting reference to this verse in the letter from the
Churches of Vienne and Lyons, see Introd. § I. 2.
Ver. 7. The apostle here describes the manner in which
the tazresvovaOar of ver. 6 will act,—clothing his thought, as
so often, in an O. T. vesture. He turns into a participial
form the precept with which Ps. lv. (liv., Sept.) 22 begins,
b] U ’ \ / \ S. /
emippiyov émi Kupiov thy péptuvay cov; and the assurance
also which follows in that verse, cal adros ce diab peyves, ov dacet
, \ tA / lal ’ . .
els TOV al@va caddov T@ Sikal@, he gives in substance, though
in wholly different phraseology,—presenting the statement,
moreover, expressly as a ground of confidence, by the use of
ove. Christian humility leads to an entire discarding of trust
in self, and to the casting, by the prayer of faith, of all the
398 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Ws o%
soul’s anxiety, with regard both to this world and the next,
upon God,—and this from the knowledge that He cares for
His people, and therefore will, in His providence, work in all
things for their good, and by His grace bring them at last to
glory. The word “ casting,” distinct from mere quiet “ laying ”
or “placing,” obviously implies difficulty and consequent
energetic effort. On the precept, cf. Ps. xxxvil. 5; Matt. vi.
25; Phil. iv. 6. The aorist participle éripipavres is plainly,
from its meaning, not conceived as antecedent in time to the
main verb razrewvoOnte, but coincident (cf. Mark xv. 30;
Acts xxl. 16, 2nd cl.)—the construction being analogous to
what is found so frequently in N. T., an aorist indicative and
aorist participle coinciding in time: cf. Winer p. 430. In its
connection, the participle has itself practically an imperative
force,—the construction being, indeed, simply a formal change,
in accordance with the structure of the sentence, from the
Psalmist’s émipperyov. On the spelling of émipiaytes with
one p,—which, in the best MSS. of N. T., is found also in a
considerable number of other words that in classical prose
have always the letter doubled, particularly, as here, com-
pounds with prepositions,—cf. A. Buttmann, p. 32.
By employing both “care” and “careth” in this verse, the
A. E. V., and older versions, give an appearance of verbal
correspondence in the two clauses which does not accord
with the original: compare the use of “conformed” and
“transformed” in Rom, xii. 2. Mépsuva is—in accordance
with what (notwithstanding the doubts of some eminent
philologists,—see Curtius, Gr. Etym. §§ 466, 467) may still
be deemed the probable, as it is certainly the prima facie,
connection of the word with pépos, pepiSo — “ distracting
]
care, anxiety,” such as may readily prevent us from “ uniting
the heart” to serve God, and tends to make a man dAbvyos
(Jas. i. 8). Cf. Virgil’s fine sketch, Aen. vii. 19-21, On
pépysva and pepipvaw, cf. Mark iv. 19; Matt. vi. 25, 28.
Wiesinger well remarks on the richness of the assurance
implied in the fact that not ta, but ov, is the conjunction
V..38; 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 399
by which the latter clause of the verse is attached to the
former,—and on the emphasis given to this assurance by the
arrangement of the pronouns, avT@ (uéde) being placed at
the head of its clause to give immediate support to éw adtév
with which the other has ended. “ Humble yourselves under
the mighty hand, because that mighty hand obeys the behest
of a Father’s heart” (Besser). When heathenism in its higher
flights approaches the Christian position of casting the soul’s
burden on God (as in M. Anton. iv. 31, ro 6€ drdXouTrov Tod
Biov dieEehOe ws Oeots péev emutetpopas Ta ceavTod TdyTa
cE Odns THs Wuyis), the most marked point of distinction
from the sentiment as expressed in revelation is the total
absence of that brightness of hope which springs from the
knowledge that “He careth for us.”—For pédex construed
with zrepi (as sometimes in classical writers), cf. Matt. xxii.
16; John x. 13,—which latter passage vividly illustrates
the present by contrast; construed with the simple genitive,
1 Cor. ix. 9; with the nominative of the thing,—the con-
struction in this place being doubtful, however,— Acts xviii. 17.
The first clause of this verse is repeatedly quoted by
Hermas (Vis. i. 11, iv. 2, bis)—probably, however, judging
from the form of a clause appended on the third occasion,
not from Peter, but from the Psalm.
Vv. 8, 9. The apostle’s thought advances in a simple and
natural way. The persecutions of earthly foes, and those
anxieties which these persecutions were apt to excite, made it
—even if the statement of the case ended there—a difficult
thing to live the Christian life of patience and trust in God.
But behind these troubles, and acting through them, was he
who is by pre-eminence tie enemy of God and God’s people,
the personal head of the kingdom of evil,—who is ever
ranging the world, seeking to draw the children of light back
into darkness, and thus destroy them. The Christian there-
fore must always be spiritually-minded and vigilant, and thus
ready to resist the devil. Whilst casting all his solicitude on
the Lord, he must remember at the same time, as perfectly
400 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 8.
consistent with this, that God calls on His people to “ work out
their own salvation with fear and trembling,”’—to be not inert,
but open-eyed and full of energy. “Whilst God careth for you,
be ye sober, watch, resist,” hee vestra cura sit” (Bengel).
Ver. 8. The verb vide signifies a state of mind and heart
unbeclouded by sensual influences : cf. 1.15, note. Ipyyopeiv,
being derived immediately from éyp7jyopa, seems strictly to
describe a waking state, looked on “as the effect of some
arousing effort, and so a condition of alertness and watchful-
ness” (T. S. Green): for illustration of the N. T. force of this
word, cf. particularly Mark xiii. 35-37. The same combina-
tion of verbs as here—in the inverse order, however,—occurs
in 1 Thess. v. 6. The apostle’s call to duty is given with
marked energy and decision, indicated both by the use of the
aorist imperative and by the absence of a conjunction. A
suggestion of Besser is striking, and seems not improbable,
that the particular injunction yenyopjoate may, in its con-
nection here, have been brought into the apostle’s mind by a
remembrance of the command given to himself on an occasion
which we may well believe to have never been very far
away from his memory (Matt. xxvi. 40, 41).
In the correct reading, the second clause has no 670; and
there is a manifest gain in vigour of expression through the
want of the particle in a place lke this, where the nature of
the connection is so obvious.——For dytiéicos used in its
primary and ordinary classical sense, “an adversary at law,”
see Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58, xviii. 3. The secondary use,
for “an enemy” generally, was poetical among the Greeks
(as Aischyl. Agam. 41), and occurs here only in N, T., but
is found sometimes in LXX.,—cf. 1 Sam. i. 10; Isa. xli. 11.
In the present case the word answers to the Hebrew j0¥, not
here, however, as a proper name, but a common noun, the
defining name didBodos following in apposition. On ayti-
dixos, as here employed, compare the use of 0 avtixe/wevos by
Clem. Rom. § 51 (6 dvtixe(wevos of 1 Tim. v. 14 has also by
Chrysostom and many other expositors been understood of
vw. 8:1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 401
Satan, but improbably). The name dsa@Boros, when used of
Satan, is seldom found without the article ; hence some have
been disposed to take as its article here that before davtiScKos,
making ayridicos an adjective, and translating the words
“ your opposing evil spirit” (so Bishop Middleton, Gr. Art.
p. £51), or in some similar way. This is plainly far from
natural, and there is no real need for deviating from the
prima facie construction which takes 8vaBoXos as in apposition
to avtidévcos,—its anarthrousness being due to its being dealt
with as a proper name, in the same way as often Qeos,
Kvpsos, and others ; cf. Winer, p. 148 foll. See a similar
anarthrous use of the word in Acts xiii. 10; Rev. xx. 2; ef.
also cases of Yatavas without its usual article, Mark iii. 23 ;
Luke xxii. 3.
The comparison of the fury of the enemies of God’s people
to that of a wild beast is common in Scripture: cf. Ps. xvii.
12, xxu.13; Ezek. xxii.25. A reader not unnaturally thinks
of this figure as having a somewhat special fitness in the
present passage, after the representation in vv. 2, 3, of the
godly as a “ flock:” cf. John x. 12. The structure of the
passage, however, hardly favours the view that the thought of
the image of sheep is still in the apostle’s mind: the call,
vyate, ypnyopncate, has relevancy only as addressed to men.
—The lion is “ roaring” in the rage of hunger : @pvouevos—
Kupio@s él Ao KAaLOYTWY AVKOY 7 RAEOVT@Y 7) KUVOY
(Hesychius). Cf. also, with regard to the use of the word,
Judg. xiv. 55. Ps. xxii. (xxi, Sept.) 13, civ. (ciil.) 21; Zech.
xi. 3.—On seperate? in its present connection, cf. Job i. 7,
i. 2—If twa belong to the text, it seems likely that the
accentuation as an interrogative represents the thought which
was in the apostle’s mind rather than teva—here somewhat
flat and feeble. The form tiva fits in perfectly with the
current of the sentence. “ The lion is roaming around your
encampment in the wilderness, seeking to devour,—but which
of the pilgrims? He can have real power only over those
who through spiritual torpor fail to be strong in the Lord and
2¢
402 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 9.
in the power of His might ; wherefore, brethren, be sober, be
watchful.” ZnTév tiva Katate is a forcible and per-
fectly natural mixture of two constructions, &)rév tiva
catarun, “seeking whom he may devour” (cf. Luke xii, 29),
and ¢nT@v Twa Katattety, “seeking to devour some one.”
Copyists, according to their wont, attempted to straighten the
construction by substituting the one or the other of these
forms for Peter’s; and, where tiva was taken to be the in-
definite pronoun, its want of force easily led to its being
sometimes omitted. Thus all the varieties of reading are
accounted for.—For the secondary sense of catamivw found
here, “cf, 1 Cor. xv. 545 “Heb: xi. 29);) (Psy Gxxiageeei
Sept.) 3; Prov. 1.12; Jer. li. 34.
Ver. 9. On @ avtiornte, cf. Jas. iv. 7 (a passage which,
from the marked resemblance of vv. 7, 8, 10 there to vv. 5—9
here, we can hardly doubt to have been in our apostle’s mind),
—also Eph. vi. 11 foll—tThe dative wiore: is that familiar one
of the sphere to which a general predicate is to be limited
(Winer, p. 270),—* being firm, stable, in your faith” (Acts
xvi. 5; Rom. iv. 20; Col. ii. 5, 7; and see the contrast,
Eph. iv. 14)—For eidotes, “knowing as ye do,” “ seeing
that ye know,” cf. 1. 18.
In the infinitive clause governed by eddotes, whilst the
general sense is clear, the exact form of the thought is
somewhat doubtful—The use of ta avra, as here, with so
complete a substantive standing as to govern a genitive, seems
to have no parallel. It is evident from the meaning of the
clause that the force of ta avtad is not abstract (on the
analogy of To ypnotov=xpnatorns, Rom. ii. 4, and the like),
but concrete, Ta av’ta Tov Tafyuatwyv being substantially =
Ta avuTa ta0nwata, It seems as if the apostle, having
it in his mind to say “close resemblances, counterparts, of
your sufferings,’ suddenly, to bring out the similarity with
intensity, substituted “the identical,’ “the self-same,’—but
finished the construction as if he had said “ counterparts.”—
The dative aderporn7e may be governed by ta avra, “ the
“Vv. 9.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 403
same sufferings as (or, with) the brotherhood” (cf. 1 Cor.
xi. 5); or it may be joined with ézutedeic Oar as a dat. comm.
of that somewhat general kind not uncommon in N. T.
(cf. dAdXnAOLs, ver. 5), “for, on, with regard to, the brother-
hood.” The dative can hardly, according to N. T. usage
(cf. Winer, p. 274, and particularly A. Buttmann, p. 187), be
taken as that of the actor, for d76 ths adeApotnTos—OF the
verb ézutedeiv, the general N. T. use is with its primary force
of bringing to an end something which has been enjoined,
purposed, begun, “to perform, accomplish, complete: ” cf.
2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 6, 11; Phil. i. 6. Taking émureretoOae in
the present place as middle (to which there is no objection on
the ground of usage, the middle voice of this verb being not
uncommon in classical writers, and éuteXeioGe in Gal. iii. 3
being not improbably middle,—cef. Lightfoot, én loc.), Huther
translates, “ that the same sufferings are accomplishing them-
selves in your brotherhood.” Hofmann, holding to the middle
voice, but taking it with a transitive force, makes ta avta
object instead of subject. He draws attention to the fact that,
where oda is in N. T. followed by an infinitive, the construction
is all but invariably not that of the accusative with the infinitive,
but of an infinitive by itself, the governing verb being employed
in the sense not of “ knowing that,” but of “ knowing to, know-
ing how to,’—eg. Matt. vil. 11; Phil. iv. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 9.
Then, appealing to the occasional classical use of the middle voice
of émeTeXetv with a force similar to that not uncommon in the
active, “pay,” but with a metaphorical application (as in Xeno-
phon, Mem. iv. 8, ta Tod yypws emutedcicPar; Apol. 33, Tov
Odvatov émitedeioOar), he renders the words in our passage,
“ knowing how to pay—for your Christianity—the like tribute
of affliction (den gleichen Leidenszoll zw entrichten) with your
brethren in the world.” This exegesis is characteristically
ingenious; but serious objections to it are, that nothing what-
ever in the context suggests the somewhat peculiar and remote
idea of tribute, and that the article with ma@yuatwy appears
naturally in the connection to point to “ your afflictions.”
404 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 10.
On the whole, the view which probably prima facie occurs
to every reader, that ézutedeio as is passive, and the con-
struction that of the accusative with the infinitive (as
after oda in Luke iv. 41), appears to be the most satis-
factory ; and there is no good ground for deviating from
the ordinary N. T. sense of évutedetv. The meaning then
is, “ Knowing, as ye do, that the same sufferings are being
accomplished on your brotherhood in the world.” Every word
of the clause carries in it a support to the sorely-tried believers.
The Christians of Asia Minor should not deem themselves to
be treated in any exceptional way, or reckon their sufferings
as a “strange thing” (iv. 12). These sufferings (7a@npdrov
having, no doubt, as its direct reference the “ fightings with-
out,” but also by immediate suggestion bringing up the
“fears within,” which were so apt to become pépipvar) were
common to all the brotherhood,—arising, indeed, out of those
common relations to Christ which made them a brotherhood.
As Christ “in the world” was crucified through the an-
tagonism between the spirit of the world and His Spirit, so
also “the brotherhood in the world” must in some form
bear the cross after Him. Then the word “accomplished ”—
peculiar in its present application—is fitted to lead the
thoughts up to a definite plan of Him who is infinitely wise
and kind, of which these “ sufferings” are a part. Involving,
too, as émruTedety seems always to do, the idea of bringing to a
complete and perfect end (see Ellicott on Gal. iii. 3), this
verb vividly suggests the thought which in the next verse
the apostle expresses, that even at the longest the sufferings
of Christ’s people are only for a little time, only while
they are év tH Koouww—in the region of His foes—dOn
aderdorns, cf. ii. 17, note.
Ver. 10. A cheering assurance that the struggling believers
will not be left unaided, but that God will certainly carry on
and complete His work of grace. The adversative 6¢é marks
the transition from thoughts of suffering and strain to a
reminder of that almighty help which ensures triumph. The
Wer 103] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 405
verse is singularly rich in encouragement. At the close one
verb declaratory of the divine strengthening grace is piled
upon another, as if utterly to overwhelm misgivings and fears ;
and, to prepare for an undoubting acceptance of these assur-
ances, every word preceding is laden with truth fitted to
gladden and animate. God is described as “the God of all
grace,’—the God whose characteristic it is to bestow grace
according to every need. On the frequent N. T. use of as,
without an article, with abstract nouns, cf. i. 24, note; and
on the addition to the name of God of a genitive of character,
cf. 2 Cor. i. 3 (where also was is found); Phil. iv. 9; Heb.
xiii, 20. Then the apostle, assuming—according to the usual
tone of the Epistles—that those to whom he wrote were in
reality what their Christian profession intimated, reminds
them that God had “called” them in conversion (cf. i. 15),
“in and through union to Christ” (év Xpior@ being connected
with carécas), “ unto (for, to bring them to) His eternal glory”
(the glory which He destines for His redeemed being His
own glory, in so far as this is communicable to His creatures,
—John xvii. 22; Rev. iii. 21; Rom. v. 2). God’s “ calling”
of Christians is a pledge of all grace needed by them for
ultimately coming to “glory ;” Rom, vui. 30; Phil. i. 6;
1 Thess. v. 24. On the whole clause, compare 1 Thess. il. 12 ;
2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 10. On the position of avrod, cf.
i/o, note,
The words 6A¢yov wafovtas are by many scholars construed
in connection with those verbs which follow them. In this
case, the closing verbs are naturally held to point to the final
act of grace whereby, at the Lord’s Second Coming, His people
shall be, with regard to their whole being, perfected and
glorified. But the accumulation of verbs, and the emphasis
laid on the promise of firmness and strength, suggest much
more readily that this assurance has to do with the time when
believers are still here on earth, still in the midst of struggle
and liable to misgivings. Feeling this, some who adopt this
construction (as Luther and Semler) find themselves compelled
406 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {V. 10.
to treat 7a@ovtas as if it were a present participle ; and others
(as Benson), to hold that the promise includes deliverance for
the Asiatic Christians from their sufferings, while still on
earth, and then strengthening during the subsequent period of
their lives. On the whole, it seems decidedly preferable to
attach odéyov tabovtas to Kadéoas, “who called you in Christ
with the intent to bring you to His eternal glory—after
having suffered for a little while.” The “high calling of God,”
whilst it has “glory” for its end, includes as certainly
“suffering” as a preparatory agency. To oddyov (on which
cf. i. 6, note) the apostle has already provided a sublime
antithesis in alévov; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17. The position of the
words odiyov mafovtas—entering almost as if by second
thought, after the clause appears to have been closed—is
fitted to suggest in a very striking way the comparative
unimportance of earthly sorrows, as seen in the light of
heavenly glory.
Adros has the full emphasis which regularly belongs to the
nominative of this pronoun when expressed: “I have called
on you to watch and to resist ; you know well, however, what
hopeless work this would be if success depended on your own
strength, or on the help of other men,—but God Himself will
sustain you.’—The relation borne to each other by the three
verbs with which the verse closes seems to be as follows. The
first exhibiting God’s sanctifying grace somewhat generally,
the other two speak of the xatapticpos in its action, first, in
the way of resistance to the attacks of spiritual foes, keeping
the soul stable in faith and love; secondly, in the way of vigour
in assailing the enemy, strength to advance the kingdom of
Christ. “ Kataprtices, perficiet, ne remaneat in vobis defectus ;
ornpiéer, stabiliet, ne quid vos labefactet; oOeveces, roborabit,
ut superetis vim omnem adversam” (Bengel). With regard to
the meaning of xatapriferv,—* to make dptios” (2 Tim. iii.
17), “to give a thing perfect adjustment to its purpose,” either
by rectifying something which is wrong, or by supplying
something which is wanting, “to perfect,”—cf. Matt. iv. 21 ;
ie it) 12: ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 407
di Cor..1., 005, 20Corsxitt. 904 5, Heb) xiii 21... On ornplfeay,
ef. 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3. SOevodv is a late and rare word,
occurring here only in N. T.
Ver. 11. The gracious word of promise which God has
given to the apostle for his brethren naturally leads up to a
doxology,—which also most naturally, seeing that the assurance
of the ministration of strength had been so prominent in the
promise, ascribes to God specially to xpatos. For this verse,
see notes on the doxology in iv. 11, of which this is simply a
somewhat shortened form. In the connection here the verb
to be supplied is probably the indicative éo7é, which is
expressed in iv. 11.
Vy. 12-14. Closing observations, salutations, and benediction.
Ver. 12. According to the use of d@ in such a connection
as the present (on which see Bp. Lightfoot’s note on Ignat.
Rom. § 10), dia FiAovavod might describe Silvanus either as
being the apostle’s amanuensis or as the bearer of the letter.
As regards this latter application, cf. dia yerpos adrav, Acts
xv. 23. Silvanus may quite possibly have discharged both
functions, but it seems clear at all events that he was the
bearer. The extended statement of commendation given by
the apostle would hardly have been relevant or natural, except
with reference to one who was himself about to visit the
Churches addressed.
Whether this Silvanus was that eminent evangelist, Silas or
Silvanus (the short form in Acts, the longer in Paul’s Epistles),
who accompanied Paul in his second missionary journey,
cannot be said with certainty. In favour of the supposition
that this is the same, are the facts that the name was not a
very common one, and that Silas, having been a distinguished
teacher in the Church of Jerusalem before he joined Paul
(Acts xv. 22, 32), must certainly have been well known to
Peter. Then there is no difficulty in the way of our taking
408 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12.
him to have been with Peter at any time from about 55 A.D.,
seeing that nothing either in the Acts or in the Epistles gives
ground for thinking of him as having been in association with
Paul after that date. Supposing our Silvanus to have been
Silas, it is obvious that, through his labours in Asia Minor many
years before with Paul,—along with, quite possibly, of course,
more recent visits,—he was peculiarly fitted, from acquaintance
with the Churches in those parts, and from something of a
parental feeling in relation to them, to be a helper of their
faith, enforcing with sympathy and power the teachings of
the apostolic letter which he conveyed. Assuming also as at
least possible (see Introd. § V. 10), that among Peter’s aims in
writing his Epistle one was to show his cordial appreciation
of Paul’s doctrine and work, the fact of his choosing for his
messenger to the Asiatic Churches a minister whom they had
first known as Paul’s colleague and friend, was eminently
calculated to support the influence of the Epistle in this
particular direction.
The construction of tui is uncertain. It may be the
remoter object of éypayya,—in which case, to account for its
position, we must suppose the commendatory words which
follow regarding Silvanus to have entered by a kind of second
thought, after the mention of him had appeared to be disposed
of by the simple “through Silvanus.” We may also connect
the pronoun with tod miatov adeddod, as a dat. comm. On
this view the emphatic position of tuiy would seem to give
the word some such meaning as “the brother trustworthy
in all circumstances, but whom you, from your experience
of him, have special cause to acknowledge as such.’ An
objection to this construction is, that to leave éypaya without
a dative is a little awkward, and not accordant with usage:
ef. Gal. vi 113 P Thess. v.15: 1sDim. ai, 14. | -Still {perapee
on the whole, the latter of the two modes of connection is the
more natural; and we may suppose that tuiv, while immedi-
ately attached to tod muctod adeAdod, served also in the
apostle’s mind—as very readily in such a sentence it might—
V. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 409
for the remoter object of éypayra—On motos, cf. 1 Cor. iv.
ivf Ephavi) 21 2° Pima i. 2:
The little clause @s NoyiGouas vives to that high opinion of
Silvanus, which the article in Tod muctod adeAgod presupposes
to be entertained by the Asiatic believers, the support of the
apostle’s hearty assent. There is nothing in the verb Aoyi-
fouac of that hesitation which the rendering of the A. E. V.,
“T suppose,” suggests as existing in Peter's mind. The word
denotes a judgement founded on consideration of evidence or
argument, “I reckon:” cf. Rom. iii. 28, vi. 11, viii. 18 ; Heb.
x1. 19. Its force here is practically the same as that of
mevoa or wémecpaes in Rom. xv. 14; Gal. v.10; 2 Tim.
i. 5. Toa misapprehension with regard to the force of the
word, and a consequent belief that Peter could not have
appended a clause of the imagined hesitating kind to his
expression of commendation regarding so distinguished a
servant of Christ as Silvanus,—or, indeed, regarding any one,
in such a connection as the present,—must no doubt be
ascribed the construction followed in the Vulgate, and pre-
ferred by Beza and a few other scholars, which attaches ws
Aoyifouas not to what precedes, but to 6s’ drtywv,—“ briefly,
as I consider.” This is decidedly the less natural connection
of the little clause, and the sense yielded is comparatively
pointless.
With ov’ ortyor, cf. dua Bpayéwv, Heb. xiii. 22 ; &v drive,
Eph. iii. 3; and dv’ oAlyav ypaypator, lenat. Rom. § 8 ; Polyc.
§ 7. Whilst the Epistle is no doubt one of considerable
leneth, yet the apostle feels it to be short when looked at in
relation to all that, on subjects so important, he might profit-
ably have said, and from his affectionate interest in his
suffering brethren would have said, had circumstances per-
mitted; cf. the similar statement with respect to the much
longer Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 22). In the connection
in which Peter puts the words here, it seems natural to think
that one object of his mention of the brevity of his communi-
cation was to direct the readers to Silvanus, “the trustworthy
410 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12.
brother,” as one well fitted to expand the teaching and exhorta-
tion which were given them in the letter; ef. 1 Cor. iv. 17.
On the epistolary aorist—the tense used as from the point
of view of the receiver of a letter, and in English rendered by
the present or, as here, the perfect — cf. Winer, p. 347 ;
A. Buttmann, p. 198. As illustrations, see Acts xxii. 30;
Eph. vi. 22; Phil. ii. 28. With respect to the verb ypadeu,
Winer, Ellicott (on Gal. vi. 11, and elsewhere), and some
other scholars, are disposed to doubt whether its aorist is ever
in N. T. to be explained as used in this way, and to regard
éypayva in every case where it occurs as being an ordinary
narrative aorist, referring to an earlier letter (as 2 Cor. ii. 3),
or to the previous part of the letter (as 1 Cor. ix. 15, and
here). As to those cases in which the reference is to an
earlier letter (of which cases some of the older scholars,
without any naturalness or likelihood, and in manifest
inconsistency with devtépav, 2 Ep. iii. 1, imagined the
present to be one) there is, of course, no room for debate ;
but with respect to the rest there does not seem to be suffi-
ecient reason for taking them as other than epistolary aorists.
To count them such explains most naturally in all the
instances the use of this tense, and in at least one, Philem.
19, the other view is wholly unnatural. In Gal. vi. 11, too,
the opinion that éypayra does not refer to the previous part
of the Epistle, may quite reasonably be held to have the
greater likelihood; see Bp. Lightfoot, in Joc. The epistolary
aorist does not seem to have been a form conventionally
employed in certain words merely, but the expression of a
particular mode of thinking. Among the Latin writers this
preterite style in letters prevailed even more than among the
Greek ; ef. Zumpt, Lat. Gram. § 503.
In the clause which follows, Peter mentions the main
constituents of his Epistle in such a way as to indicate what
had been his aim in composing it,—partly hortatory, partly to
give a testimony. He states the two as co-ordinate, as indeed
they are in all healthful religious teaching,—enunciation
V. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 411
of truth having in view the sustenance of practical godliness,
exhortation looking back to doctrine to give it weight and
point. On this ground we may safely say that, while the
apostle speaks of the two elements separately, yet he was not,
as some have imagined, thinking of two distinct parts of his
letter. This does not seem at all natural. It is, no doubt,
true that the first half of the first chapter has more of con-
tinuous doctrine, or “testimony,” than the rest of the letter,
so that we may for convenience speak of it as the doctrinal
section; but with the practical advices which occupy much
of what follows, dogmatic teaching also largely intermingles
itself—The verb mapaxaneiv may, according to N. T. use,
and, con-
>
mean “to exhort,” “to console,” or “ to encourage ;’
sidering what has been the strain of the letter, it is in the
present case (as occasionally elsewhere, eg. 1 Thess. ili. 2)
not quite easy to decide which is the precise idea,—the
writer’s thought, indeed, perhaps really in different degrees
comprehending all. “Exhorting,’ as the word of widest
reference, including all kinds of practical religious injunction
and advice, is probably the best rendering. For mapaxaneiv
used without an expressed object, cf. 2 Cor. v. 20; Tit. 1.9;
Heb. x. 25.—In the verb ézupaptupety (found here only in
N. T.) the preposition has been by some interpreters held to
have the force of “in addition.” Thus Bengel, cnsuper testans,
i.e. aS he explains, “in addition to the testimony given to
you long ago by Paul and Silas.” The classical use of the
word does not appear to support this special force, either as
held by Bengel, or in the derivative form maintained by
Macknight and others, “strongly testifying.” As in many
compounds, éé here merely gives a certain notion of activity
and aim; ef. ii. 21, note.
What the apostle ésriuaprupei—bears testimony to as a
“witness” (v. 1), called on to tell what he had seen of the
work, character, sufferings, and glories of Christ, and what he
had been taught by Him—is “that this is the true grace of God.”
With the reading of T. R., ravtnv would have for its comple-
412 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12.
ment the relative clause efs jv éotnKxate. But, accepting the
much better supported reading ot#te,—out of which éoryxate
has arisen probably through a feeling that this form had
greater naturalness, a feeling sustained by an echo in the
copyist’s memory of Rom. v. 2 and 1 Cor. xv. 1,—we must
regard the demonstrative as retrospective, “that which has
been set forth in the Epistle, and which, writing to you as
Christians, I have throughout assumed you to have embraced.”
Looking to the predicate yapiv, what is referred to in tavrqyv
is naturally taken to be the provision made in Christ for
man’s salvation, and proclaimed in the gospel: “that this is
the true grace of God”—the true manifestation of His mercy
to lost man, on which you may implicitly rely. It is evident,
from the whole tenor of the Epistle, that the trials which had
come upon the Asiatic Churches were known by Peter to
have caused most painful perplexity to many of the members
(cf. especially iv. 12). Was it not, they thought, possible
that, after all, they had been mistaken? Even supposing,
what many strong proofs led them to believe, that Jesus was
the Divine Saviour, still might there not be some fatal defect
in the form of doctrine regarding Him which had been pre-
sented to them? Could it be that, if Christ loved them,
they should suffer such things? The apostle in his letter
has answered such questionings. He has shown his brethren
the gracious object of affliction, has expatiated on the sublime
dignity into which faith in Christ brings men, and has, with
peculiar emphasis, again and again given the assurance that
the form of teaching which the Asiatic Christians had received
was that which truly set forth the salvation (apis, 1. 10)
promised through the prophets, and looked on with profound
interest by the angels (i. 12)—that the message of glad
tidings which had been received by these Churches of Asia
Minor was in very deed the Aoyos Cav Ocod Kai pévor (i. 23,25).
By tavtnyv here, therefore, he means, no doubt, “ this provision
in Christ for salvation which I have illustrated in my letter,
and which you recognise as at all points the same that you
\ te FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 413
have been told of before, and have accepted.” On the special
force of this statement regarded as a cordial recognition by
Peter of the soundness and authoritativeness of the teaching
of the Apostle Paul, through whom the Churches of Asia
Minor had been founded, see Introd. § V. 10.
Seeing that d\n yapw is the predicate, the absence of the
article simply intimates that, whether yapuv is definite or not,
at all events no stress is laid on definiteness. We cannot
by any English rendering exhibit precisely this indeterminate-
ness,—“a true erace” going somewhat too decidedly in one
direction, “ the true grace” in another, and the simple “true
grace” passing from the concrete to the abstract. Knowing,
however, as we do, that the grace spoken of is in fact that in
which all the gifts of divine grace to men are summed up, the
best rendering is with the definite article.
The relative clause which ends the verse “is a short and
earnest exhortation, containing the pith of what has been said
by way of exhortation in the whole Epistle” (Alford): “in
which grace—blessed system of saving influences—stand ye,”
or, more exactly, bringing out fully the thought involved
in the pregnant construction of e¢s joined to a verb of rest,
“into which as ye have entered by faith, so now stand
therein.” For this pregnant use of eis, not uncommon in
classical Greek (Jelf, § 646. 1), and growing more frequent
in the later writers, cf. iii. 20; Mark xiii. 3; John xxi. 4; Acts
vill. 40; Heb. xi. 9; and see Winer, p. 516; A. Buttmann, p.
ao2s8) Oi, also the use! of ert, iv. 14.
Ver. 13. As to what is meant by “ Babylon” here, see
Introd. § IV.—‘H cuvexdrexty, “ the co-elect ” (namely,
“with you,’ €xdextois, i. 1), cannot well have any other
reference than to the Church of Babylon. The supposition
of some interpreters, that Peter’s wife, or some other well-
known Christian woman, is meant, does not accord with the
mode of expression. The words 7 év B., taken thus, would
plainly, through the definiteness of the form, imply that there
was not—and that it was well known that there was not—
414 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Biees
any other believing woman in Babylon. The fact that the
following salutation is from an individual, Marcus, does not
make it even slightly probable that but one person is meant
here also. Supposing that, as was most natural, the Christian
association in Babylon, learning that the apostle, resident at
the time among them, was writing a letter to their brethren
in Asia Minor, expressed in some way their desire that he
should send their united salutation, nothing also was more
natural than that a minister not connected specially with the
Babylonian Church, but who was in the city at the time, and
who, besides, had formerly laboured in Asia Minor (2 Tim. iv.
11), should add his good wishes separately. From very early
times the reference was held to be to the Church. This is
shown by the fact that Codex s, and a considerable number
of other ancient authorities, actually insert the word éxxAnola
before cuvexdAexT. This supplement, however, seems to miss
the precise representation. The apostle’s expression rather
exhibits a personification, based on the very familiar O. T.
language regarding the Church as being “the daughter of
Zion,” who was God's “elect.” The R. E. V. renders well,
“She that is in Babylon, elect with you.” Compare, as per-
haps parallels to this personification, 2 John 1, 13, with
Westoott’s notes. The compound ovvexdextos seems not to
occur anywhere but in the present passage.
There is no hkelihood that, when the apostle calls Marcus
his “son,” we are to regard “son” as used in its literal sense.
It is obviously probable that, in a public circular letter like
the present, a salutation by an individual would not be sent
on the ground solely of relationship to the writer, but only by
a person who, either from general eminence in the Church or
from having himself laboured in those parts, was known to
the Christians addressed. Now tradition, very busy with the
history of the Apostle Peter, has yet not a word of any son
of his as being a minister or a person of note in the Church.
It is natural, therefore, to take vids in the secondary sense of
a warmly-attached and very helpful younger friend or disciple,
V. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 415
perhaps implying also one who had been converted to Christ
through the apostle’s labours. There is no objection to this
view in the fact that the word which the Apostle Paul
employs with this force is téxvov (eg. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18), for
vios is in itself equally suitable for this application, and is
employed both in N. T. and LXX. in the sense of “ disciple”
(Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5).
The identification of the Mark of our passage with Mark
the evangelist has much in its favour. From the very early
time of Papias (as reported by Eusebius, H. #. i. 39)—and
indeed practically, according to Papias’s statement of authority
(6 mpeaRutepos), from the age when Mark was still alive—there
was a uniform tradition that the writer of the second Gospel
was closely associated with Peter, and that his Gospel thus
represented in a special way Peter’s oral teaching regarding
the life of our Lord. Accepting also the other tradition as on
every ground probable, that Mark the evangelist was that John
Mark, cousin of Barnabas, who accompanied Paul and his kins-
man during a part of their missionary tour, we find in the narra-
tive given in Acts xii. 12-17 evidence leading to the belief
that Peter was an intimate friend of Mark’s mother and her
family. Taking all the facts into view, we seem to have a
very strong probability that the Mark of the verse before us
is the same who is known to us elsewhere ; and remembering
that the “sharp contention ” many years before between Paul
and Barnabas, which led to Paul’s taking Silas as the com-
panion of his second journey, had been with reference to the
trustworthiness of Mark, the conjunction of names which we
have here, Mark’s sending his salutation through Silas, is a
pleasant one. All soreness of feeling arising out of the matter
had among all concerned long passed away; cf. particularly
2. Tingoiv,. 1),
Ver. 14. From the earliest times the kiss has been among
Orientals a usual token of kindly and respectful greeting.
How fully this was the case among the Jews, many references
both in the Old and New Testaments show. In the early
416 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [vents
Christian Church the kiss was commonly used everywhere as
an acknowledgement of brotherhood in Christ, the religious
character of the salutation being marked by such names as
that which we have here, firnua ayarns,—ayarn denoting
that pure love which is of God, 1 John iv. 8 (the very word
ayamrn, indeed, being one not used by any heathen writer, but
belonging to the language of revealed religion ; cf. Trench, Syn.
NV. T.§ 12). Elsewhere in Scripture this kiss is called @/Anua
aytov (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Thess.
v. 26). In later writers again we have “osculum pacis” (Tertull.
De Orat. 18), 76 év Kupiw $idnpa (Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12), and
the like. In the first ages the believers seem to have greeted
each other in this way on perhaps every occasion of their
meeting for a religious service; and, even after having been
to a considerable extent discontinued, through abuses which,
amid declining spirituality, connected themselves with the
custom, the kiss was retained for many ages at the observance
of the Communion,—passing quite out of use in the Western
Church only about the thirteenth century. In the Greek and
some other Eastern Churches it is still retained in a measure.
For a full and interesting account of the “kiss of love,” see
Dict. of Christian Antiq., Art. “ Kiss.”
The general principle underlying Peter’s aomdcacOe here,
and Paul’s in the passages referred to above, is obviously that
it is good for Christians, on all fitting occasions, to express
their brotherly interest in each other, not merely by material
kindnesses, but by the forms of courtesy recognised in their
age and country. Immediately, however, we have not here
a general precept, but simply a request bearing on the pro-
cedure of the various congregations at the time when the
Epistle should be read before them. That the aorist impera-
tive, which is used in all the places, has its primary reference
to an act to be done at once, is shown particularly by the mode
of expression in 1 Thess. v. 25, 26,—the immediately preced-
ing clause being a request for habitual help to the apostle
through the prayers of his brethren, and this given by the
V. 14.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 417
present imperative. The wish of the apostles was, that the
hearty acceptance by the believers of the message of advice
and consolation which Christ had sent them through His
servants should be expressed by their giving to each other the
sign of their having that love in Christ without which the
Church is feeble and joyless. At the same time, the kiss given
to each other in such circumstances could not but be felt as
conveying the apostle’s own affectionate greeting to every one
of them.—The preposition év being found with quAyjpate in
all the passages of greeting, it would seem that, when joined
to aomdfecOat, this was the usual form of expression in the
Church. In Luke xxii. 48, where wapaéidovas is the verb,
the simple dative @iAxjmare is used. In the present connec-
tion é€v can hardly be said to have exactly the mere instru-
mental force so common in the Hellenistic writers; rather it
has its semi-local sense,—the salutation itself being found in,
lying in, the “ kiss of love.”
As the apostle had begun the letter with the benediction,
“Peace be to you” (i. 2), so with the same restful word he
closes ; cf. 2 Thess, 111.16. To the simple vuiv acu he ap-
pends rots ev Xpior@, as if saying in love, and at the same
and bear ever
time with deep solemnity, “ Peace be to you,
in mind, dear brethren, that true peace can be only to those
who are in Christ ;” cf. Eph, vi. 24.
THE END.
MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICK.
;
yy
rau
ene
h
=e
ot
<=
Date Due
PRINTED | IN U.S. A, |
¥.
ott bee
Fit ‘ | 7
sy i ‘ |
EN? iles 4 uy |
Pas
v > eben .
“ne ip ears He
BS2795 .J73
The — oe of en —
HV
1 1012 00063 2473
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11