The Interpretation of
The Epistles of St. Peter, St John
and St. Jude
By
R. C. H. Lenski
Augsburg Publishing House
Minneapolis, Minnesota, EUA
1996
V. 11
indice
Capitulo 1.........................................................................................................03
Capitulo 2.........................................................................................................40
Capitulo 3.........................................................................................................73
Capitulo 4.......................................................................................................106
Capitulo 5.......................................................................................................131
Conclusão.......................................................................................................140
1 Peter
CHAPTER I
The Greeting, v. 1, 2
1) The greetings found in both of Peter's epistles are distinct. The regular three members of a greeting appear, but in the third member Peter has the optative of wish, an effective aorist passive, which is unusual and also places the first two members, the nominative "Peter," etc., and the dative "foreigners," etc., into an independent construction. Peter's method of greeting offers no particular difficulty; we may say that the nominative and the dative are used ad sensum. In regard to the absence of the articles the usual explanation, that this construction stresses the qualitative force of the nouns, should be amplified: "in sentences which bear the nature of captions" the article tends to drop out (Hort, cited by Moulton, Einleitung 131). Many phrases, many nouns with genitives, many personal designations do not have the article in the Greek. All of this applies here whether or not we may be able to indicate it in the translation. Many little niceties are lost when one translates.
Peter, Jesus Christ's apostle, to (such as are) elect foreigners of (the) Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in accord with God (the) Father's foreknowledge in connection with (the) Spirit's sanctincation for obedience and sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood: grace to you and peace be multiplied!
Jesus himself gave Simon Bar-Jona the name "Peter" (ne'Tpos, to be distinguished from irerpa, feminine ; see Matt. 16:17, 18). This came to be the apostle's regular name. Its use at this late period of his life when he writes to so many Gentile readers needs no comment. The brief apposition: "apostle of Jesus Christ," or as we may render: "Jesus Christ's apostle," states in what capacity Peter writes, namely as one commissioned by Jesus Christ. The motive for writing as well as the purpose of writing are combined. The readers will be most ready to hear and to heed what Christ's apostle feels impelled to say to them. "An apostle" in our versions makes the impression that Peter is only one of a number, which is not the point here. The genitive is possessive yet implies an agency. As an "apostle" Peter belongs to Jesus Christ because Jesus appointed him to his office. Peter now acts in that office. He is responsible to his Head, under his authority, and speaking by his authority. This suffices. The readers are designated more elaborately. Much
is gained when we read all that follows as a compact unit: "to (such as are) elect foreigners of (the) Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in accord with God (the) Father's foreknowledge in connection with (the) Spirit's sanctification for obedience and sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood." We resist the temptation to insert commas. This whole characterization states what Peter regards the readers to be, and what they are to consider themselves to be while Peter speaks to them. As such people he addresses them. Peter will use still other characterizations as he does in 2:9. The entire letter is intended for people who are thus elaborately described; the whole of it is shaped to fit them. This long designation reflects to a high degree all that follows in the epistle. Even Paul has no dative that might be compared with this one in any of his epistolary greetings. While we must dwell on each item in this long designation of the readers we must ever keep its unity in mind. The absence of the article expresses quality: "to such as are elect foreigners, etc." All the readers are such people. 'ExAeKroi', the verbal adjective, is found also in Matt. 22:14, but in the parable of Jesus the word is used as a noun while Peter uses it as an adjective: "to elect foreigners," etc. The A. V. is more correct in its translation of this word as an adjective than the R. V. which makes the word a noun: "to the elect who are sojourners" and even adds the article, which removes the qualitative sense. The verbal adjective has the force of a past passive participle: foreigners "elected by God" and thus made his own. The whole eternal elective act of God is suggested by
this verbal. All that the Scriptures say about this act of God and about the persons involved in it may be thought of in this connection. Peter had all of it in mind. Note "elect race" in 2:9; also "a living stone with God elect" in 2:4.
UapeiriSrJfJiol are persons who belong to some other land and people, who are temporarily residing with apeople to whom they do not belong. They are for the time being aliens, foreigners, strangers and not natives. They never expect to become the latter. They do not want to be considered or treated as natives by the S^Jiio? or people among whom they happen to be living; in fact, they know that they may even be expelled as Claudius once expelled the Jews from Rome. Aliens are often held in contempt by the natives among whom they dwell. To this day they may be placed under severe restrictions in times of war; they may be interned or even repatriated. Yet, despite this estimate of the natives, by calling his readers "elect foreigners" Peter exalts his readers far above the natives among whom they live: they are God's chosen people while the people amon^ whom they are scattered are nothing of the kind. In fact, God's election has made the Christians "foreigners" to the rest. At one time these Christians were common natives and lived on the same low level as the rest; now they are such no longer. They would not and, of course, should not descend to their former state from which God has raised them by his grace.
They live in the world but are no longer of the world. They no longer belong. They have become like Abraham, they are merely sojourners in a land that is
now strange to them. They look for a city which has foundations, whose designer and maker is God; heaven is their home and fatherland. They confess that they are ^evoi and wapeTri'S^/xoi on the earth; their desire is for a better country, that is, a heavenly one, the city God has prepared for them (Heb. 11:9-16). Peter uses vapwiSrifwi in 2:11 and there combines it with the synon-
ymous vdpoiKoi, is the two words are used in the LXX of Gen. 23:4 and Ps. 39:13. While these are Old Testament terms, the combination "elect foreigners of (the) Dispersion of Pontus," etc., is decidedly Peter's own. The five provinces he names limit the Dispersion to the territory they cover. He might have written: "to such as are elect foreigners in Pontus," etc. By inserting the genitive Sioowopas Peter brings out the thought that his readers are scattered far and wide in these provinces; they are found in little groups here and there as Zahn states it; they are not like the Mormons who live close together in Utah but are like small oases in the desert or like islands in the sea. This emphasizes still more their situation as foreigners: they are small, scattered minorities surrounded by great, pagan majorities. Peter uses the word Diaspora as it is employed in James 1:1. The Diaspora or Dispersion is a Jewish term to designate all those Jews who dwelt outside of the Holy Land in Gentile countries (John 7:35) ; it implied that the real home of all these Jews was their Holy Land, which alone they could love as such, to which their hearts were ever drawn. When this word is applied to Christians, "Dispersion" implies that heaven is their true home, that the earth and the world are to them a foreign land which they would at any time gladly leave for their home above. It is good Greek to add the names of the provinces by means of genitives; in English we should say "in Pontus," etc. Regarding these five provinces and the order in which Peter lists them see the introduction. Some say that the readers are Christian Jews. They understand "Diaspora" literally and concretely: "Jews in Gentile lands," and they make the genitive case partitive: a part of these Jews, namely that part of them whose divine election has made them foreigners to the nonelect and unbelieving Jews. The answer to this interpretation is the fact that no Jews ever lived in these provinces (see the introduction). The genitive is qualitative, an abstract and not a concrete noun, it is therefore also used without the article: the readers were "Diaspora foreigners," their election had made them such. "Of Diaspora" places them in contrast, not merely with nonbelieving Jews, but also with all who are unbelieving and nonelect, most of whom were pagans. In fact, it is impossible to say that one kind of Jews constitutes "a Diaspora" among other Jews.
Did the readers understand this description of themselves? They surely understood what their election meant and how it made them foreigners to the
world of other men. Moreover, their scattered condition was rather self-evident. The Old Testament allusion (Gen. 23:4; Ps. 39:13), coupled with the Jewish term "Diaspora," although this was a new designation for Christians, were as clear to Peter's readers as was Paul's designation in Eph. 2:19: "You are no more strangers and foreign dwellers, ^ivoi and wapoiKoi, but you are fellow citizens with the saints." Besides, Peter's entire epistle elucidates what he means by this designation. The opinion that Peter had visited these Christians, say on his journey to Rome, is only an opinion without a hint in this epistle or elsewhere to support it.
2) The three phrases beginning with xara, ev, and ew cannot be attached to d'n-oaroX.o's, which is not only too far removed from them but is also found in the first member of the greeting. The phrases are usually construed with exAeKTois because this is a verbal and thus may have adverbial modifiers. The A. V. even puts the adjective into v. 2: "elect according to the foreknowledge," etc. It is correctly objected that Peter would then have written enXenTol's Kara irpoyvwvw. Too much material intervenes between the adjective and the phrases. The phrases modify the entire dative: "to such as are elect foreigners of (the) Dispersion of Pontus," etc. They are such "in accord with God (the) Father's foreknowledge in connection with (the) Spirit's sanctification for obedience," etc. There is no need to supply rots before the phrases, nor is it necessary to insert commas between them. Rom. 8:28: "those whom he foreknew he also predestinated" is not an exact duplicate although the same foreknowledge is referred to. Peter includes the condition of the Christians in the localities named in the Father's foreknowledge, i. e., also their being foreigners, their being a scattered Diaspora in these provinces. They are entirely what they are in accord with God the Father's foreknowledge.
The noun "foreknowledge" occurs only once again, in Acts 2:23, but it does -not differ in meaning from the verb "to foreknow." The noun merely designates the act. The preposition wpo does not alter the act, it only dates the act. The kind of yi/oxri? referred to is in no way in doubt in view of passages such as Ps. 1:6: "The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous"; Amos 3:2: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth"; negative with regard to the wicked Matt.
7:23: "I never knew you"; John 10:14: "I know my sheep, and am known of mine"; II Tim. 2:19: "The Lord knoweth them that are his." This has been defined as noscere cum affectu et effectu, "to know (foreknow) with affection and with a resultant effect." No better definition has been offered. The dating in "fore-knowing" or "foreknowledge" is only with reference to us who are bound to time and not with reference to God who is superior to time. To subject God to limitations of time or to stop his foreknowing at any point of time is to make a serious mistake. Some change the act of knowing into an act of the will as when Calvin makes "foreknowledge" == "adoption," or when others make it Vorbeschluss, Zwoorer-kueren. It is a little more difficult to define the noun in this way than the verb. Luther has the odd term Versehung, which substitutes the idea of seeing for that of knowing and the perfective verfor the temporal vorher-, neither of which is correct. See Rom. 8:29 for a
further treatment of this subject. As the Kara phrase modifies the whole dative with its genitives, so the ev phrase modifies this whole dative plus the Kara phrase; and, we add, the el's phrase also modifies all that precedes. 'Ei/ does not="by," German durch, Latin per (8id), and is not instrumental. Nor does this phrase modify exAeKTots and state "the historic execution of the eternal election." 'Ev == "in connection with," and to the entire preceding description of the readers the phrase adds the further fact of their connection with the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification. 'AywTfws, like the following pavTw/ws, is a word that expresses an action. It is not Heiligkeit, aywavvr), the state, but Heiligung, the Spirit's work of setting apart for God (G. K., 114, etc.). To restrict this activity to baptism is to make its force entirely too narrow. As God's elect foreigners who are scattered throughout many lands true Christians are what they are "in accord with the foreknowledge," which is a great comfort to them; and they are all that they are in such comforting accord "in connection with the sanctifying work of the Spirit" who keeps them ever separate as foreigners to the world by making them more and more separate and holy. llvevfw, is used as a proper name and thus, like ®eos Tiarrjp and 'Irjaov: Xpioros, appears without the article. Peter intends to name the three persons of the Godhead in these three phrases and to connect what his readers are in the world with the Holy Trinity: elect foreigners dispersed in these provinces, as such graciously and lovingly foreknown of God the Father—as such in connection with the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work — as such, to carry the matter still farther, intended for obedience and sprinkling by the blood of
Jesus Christ. A few commentators think of the "spirit," namely "in connection with sanctification of our spirit" (objective genitive) ; but the majority notes the trinitarian reference and the subjective genitive.
The order of the three phrases cannot be changed. Eis in the third points to intention and to result: "for obedience and sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood." The phrase recalls Exod. 24:7, 8: when the people heard what Moses read they said: "All that the Lord hath said we will do and be obedient," and then Moses sprinkled them with the blood. This explains why "obedience" precedes "sprinkling." On the latter compare also Heb. 10:22 and 12:24. 'Yiraxoi; is not found in secular Greek; it is here without modification and denotes the obedience of faith, which should not be converted into a mere moral obedience. Peter uses the word again in v. 14 and 22. The sanctifying work of the Spirit leads to obedience. If w'oTis were used here, this would bring out the thought of confidence and trust; by using maico^ Peter obtains the connotation of submission as it appears also in
Exod. 24:7.
This last phrase has two objects, the second being "sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood." "Of blood" is the objective genitive. We do not make it a compound: "Jesus Christ's blood-sprinkling," for "Jesus Christ's" is the possessive genitive with "blood" and not the subjective genitive with "sprinkling" (so also in the preceding phrase HvevfwTo's is the subjective genitive). Who sprinkles us is not stated; we take it that he who sanctifies us is this one, for it is this sprinkling that sanctifies. We should not reduce either the anctifying or the sprinkling to the one act of our baptism. Since it is placed last, we should include all that follows baptism, namely the constant cleansing from sin. "Blood" has the connotation of expiation. It is the blood shed for us on Calvary. "Sprinkling" == the application of this sacrificial blood; unless it is applied to the sinner, he remains in his sins. Living in obedience and constantly being cleansed with Christ's blood, we are what God intends us to be: total strangers to the world of men around us, wherever we may live. To state that Gentile Christians would not understand Peter's expression, that only Jewish Christians would be able to do so, is to assume that the Old Testament was not used when Gentile converts were taught, but see v. 10-12. All Paul's letters to Gentile churches establish the contrary. By saying of himself only that he is writing as an apostle but designating his readers so fully Peter shows that their interests and needs prompt him to write. The third member of the greeting: "grace to you and peace be multiplied," is, unlike Paul's greetings, the optative of wish; we find it again in Second Peter and in Jude. On "grace to you and peace" see Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2, and several other epistles of Paul. The aorist passive optative is effective, and the verb, which is derived from wAi^os, "mass or multitude," means "may grace and peace be made yours in a multitude of ways.
The Great Doxology, v. 3*12
3) Peter's great doxology resembles that which Paul wrote in Eph. 1:3-14. Yet each is decidedly distinct and original. In Paul's the Trinity indicates the division into three sections; in Peter's we also have the Trinity, but only in the second part (v. 5-9), since in the third part (v. 10-12) of the doxology only the second and the third persons are introduced. Paul's reaches from eternity to eternity; Peter's from our regeneration to heaven and to the Parousia. Paul wrote his doxology when he contemplated the whole Una Sancta and the whole soteriological work of the Trinity ; Peter when he contemplates his readers and himself in their present state amid afflictions in the world. Paul introduces the divine election in the doxology; Peter has it already in the greeting. Paul speaks of the quickening from death in a separate section (Eph.
2:1, etc.); Peter speaks of the regeneration in the doxology itself. The purpose of Paul's doxology leads him to the summation of all things under Christ; Peter's purpose restricts him to the distress of his readers as foreigners (v. 1) in this world, whose hope and faith he inspires. Peter's doxology has little in common with that which Paul wrote in II Cor. 1:3, etc., the key word of which is consolation, but a consolation that was prompted by the consolation which Paul himself had just experienced. It is exceptional to begin with a doxology, especially with one as grand as that of Peter. When Paul strikes such a note in Ephesians, this is but natural; he has the great Una Sancta before his eyes. When Peter breaks forth into a doxology when he is writing to Christians as foreigners in the world, that is a difevent matter; he sings the praise of God because of the hope which God has given us, because of the end of our faith at the revelation of Jesus Christ, because of the fulfilled prophecies that are now preached to us, things into which even angels desire to look. To be sure, we are foreigners in this world, little groups scattered here and there, but we are not inferior to those who treat us as being inferior. As already the adjective "elect" shows, and more fully the three phrases which set forth the connection.
of Father, Spirit, and Christ with our state in this world, we as foreigners in this world are made strange and alien to it by the wondrously high position which God has bestowed upon us. We are a royal aristocracy, natives of a heavenly kingdom, and thus foreigners to this poor, wretched world. Instead of merely telling the readers this in a calm, prosy way Peter expresses his joy in an exalted praise in order to sweep the hearts. of his readers upward to the same joy and praise. Note that the whole of v. 3-12 is one grand unit.
Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! the One who according to his great mercybegot us again unto living hope by means of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and unstained and unfading, safeguarded in (the) heavens for you, the ones being protected in connection with God's power by means of faith for salvation ready to be revealed in connection with the last season; in which, etc.
E^Ao-y^Tos is regular in doxologies; its use in these great Christian doxological outbursts is not to be compared with the Jewish formulas which are introduced at the mention of the holy name, exclamations such as. "blessed be he." These great Christian doxologies have their antecedents in the great Old Testament psalms, such as Psalm 103. This is no mere adoration of thename; this is adoration of God for all that he has done for us. The grammarians debate as to whetherto supply cirri, elvf, or «n-<o; we supply nothing, this is an exclamation: "Blessed the God and Father!" The verbal means "well-spoken." We speak well of God when we truly say what he is and does in his attributes and his works. No task should give us greater delight. There is too little contemplation of God, too little praise of him in our hearts, especially in our earthly distress. The Scriptures constantly show us the better
way. They teach no immersion in God, no sinking away of the mind and the emotions in God as these are cultivated by the mystics, even the best of whom are morbid, the rest, like those of India, pagan. Peter sings the true glory of God when he is contemplating his great soteriological acts and blessings. Like Paul, he uses the full liturgical name: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," he in whom our whole salvation is bound up. This name is really a concentrated confession. All that the Scriptures reveal of our Savior God is crowded into this name. The discussions of the commentators as to whether Peter intends to say that God is only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or also his God, generally overlook the great point just stated. In v. 2 ®eos TiaT^p needs neither the article nor nai; in v. 3 both are in place, but in the usual Greek manner the one article makes one person of the two nouns.
For Jesus according to his human nature God is his God, and for Jesus in his deity God is his Father; his od since the incarnation, his Father from all eternity. See the discussion in connection with II Cor. 1:3. In Eph. 1:17 we have "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." We note also Matt. 27:46, and John 20:17. But note "our Lord" which connects us with Christ and through him with God. "Lord" is whoily soteriological: he who purchased and won us, to whom we belong as. Our Savior King. We take issue with those who seek to eliminate everything "metaphysical," in particular the generatio aetema which the church has always found in the designation "Father of Jesus Christ." For this we are offered the substitute that "God" refers to the omnipotence and "Father" to the love displayed for "our Lord Jesus Christ" in the work of salvation. Yet, unless our Lord is "true God, born of the Father from eternity" and thus also "true man, born of the Virgin Mary," no salvation remains for which to glorify God. '0 avayewriva's is an apposition: "the One who begot us again." This verb, which is used here and in v. 23, is peculiar to Peter: "to beget spiritually, to a new spiritual life." This is the new birth referred to in John 3:3, the quickening mentioned in Eph. 2:5, 6 and Col. 2:13, "the new creation spoken of in Eph. 2:10 and Gal. 6:15. We are begotten again when the life from God is implanted into our souls. This is the same as the implanting of faith in Christ which fills the heart with new powers, new motives, thoughts, volitions, etc., so that a new creature appears. The aorist participle is historical and states a past fact. This act of God's took place "in accord with his great mercy," it harmonized with his mercy. "EAeos is the proper word, for its connotation is the pitiful condition in which we lay and from which God raised us to an entirely different state. One begets children whom he then loves, on whom he showers fatherly gifts, who are his heirs. All these great connotations are suggested by the apposition and appear in hundreds of Scripture passages. The greatness of God's mercy appears when we see what we were at one time by virtue of our natural birth and what we now are by virtue of our spiritual rebirth. It was, indeed, an evidence of great mercy for God to stoop down to such wretched creatures as we were. Great also is the evidence of mercy when we note to what God begot us: "to living hope," the opposite of an empty, false, deceptive hope. This hope is not "lively" (A. V.) or "living" because it is bright, strong, active in us but because God guarantees and produces its fulfillment. All men have some sort of hope, but while so many deceive themselves with the dead hopes of their own making, we, whom God himself begot, have a living hope that rests on God's promises and power. When the hopes of others go to pieces in the last flood, our hope will sail triumphantly into the harbor of eternal fulfillment. Note how Peter combines the beginning of our spiritual life with its consummation. So much lies between these two extremes; but when we as strangers are called to suffer in this world which is now so alien and often so hostile to us, our hearts praise the great mercy of him who begot us as his own and who will presently
usher us into heaven and his own glorious presence. We might say a great deal more about hope; take a concordance and note the references yourself (v. 21; 3:15; and especially those mentioned in the New Testament) .
Shall we translate: "living by means of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead" ("hope living by means of" is the same) ? We do not think that "living" requires such a modifier, the meaning of which would be obscure. Nor do we insert a comma and thus have two parallel phrases, both equally modifying wayfyv^aw. We construe as Peter wrote: "he who begot us to living hope by means of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead." "Us" does not refer only to the apostles who saw the risen Lord but to Peter and to his readers. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crowning point of his redemptive work which showed that he is, indeed, the Son of God and the Savior of the world, and that his dying sacrifice is sufficient to cancel the sins of the world and to satisfy the righteousness of God. Peter has already mentioned "Jesus Christ's blood." Christ's resurrection is the heart of the gospel and thus ever constitutes the means for begetting us to a living hope. No man has spiritual life and hope save by the resurrection of Christ. He is the resurrection and the life; we live because he lives. For the fourth time Peter names "Jesus Christ." He loves the very sound of the words. 'Awo-racris is active, and "Jesus Christ" is the subjective genitive. The phrase ex venpw is discussed fully in connection with Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; Acts 3:16. Modernistic and former rationalistic denials of Christ's resurrection destroy the heart of his saving work, here in particular also our regeneration and our living hope. Note the effective correspondence of the terms employed: avayewrjaa's . . . t,waav . . . 81' avaardaws, "the One who begot—living—by resurrection."
4) The subjective hope is followed by the objective thing hoped for; the second ew phrase is thus appositional to the first. We were begotten, writes Peter, "unto an inheritance," etc. Our inheritance is the heavenly kingdom in all its glory. It is already ours now, for we are the born heirs; as such heirs we shall presently enter upon full possession and enjoyment of it. Being such heirs and waiting in hope for our heavenly inheritance makes us the "elect foreigners" that we are in this world (v. 1). The children of this world have no inheritance awaiting them at the end of their existence. Wonderful, certain, and not far off is this our inheritance. Three beautiful adjectives describe it: wfiOaprov, aiJLiavrov, Kai a/Mpavrov, all three have a 'privativum. "Incorruptible" == which neither moth, rust, thieves, nor any other destructive force can in any way injure as they do the inheritances of the earth. Even if any man obtains these, they are subject to corrupting forces, are transient, unenduring. "Unstained" == without the least stain or defilement of sin, so pure and lofty that we can let our hope and desire go out to this inheritance without reserve, something that we can say of no earthly inheritance. "Unfading" == "amaranthine," imperishable, never withering, disappointing, becoming old and worn. The delight of it will never lessen or grow stale. Huss, who was martyred at Constance, combines the three attributes: Our inheritance will never lose anything through age or sickness on our part or through any damage to itself; it will never be marred by impurity; and it will never lessen in delight because it has been enjoyed so long. We note that the three terms are negative. Even Peter could not alter that fact. The glory of our heavenly inheritance is so far beyond direct human conception that the Scriptures must often resort to figures of speech instead of to literal terms or to weak comparisons with earth and thus to such negatives, which tell us what will not be in heaven. The realities themselves transcend human language.
The certainty of our inheritance is expressed by a participle and a relative clause: the inheritance it-self is safeguarded for us, the heirs, and we, the heirs,
are likewise guarded and protected so that we shall not lose the inheritance. The perfect participle has present and continuous implication: "having ever been and thus ever continuing to be safeguarded in the heavens for you." The passive makes God the one who guards and keeps our inheritance for us. He keeps it safe. Many an earthly heir has never obtained his inheritance; false, faithless, weak guardians lost it for him. E«? v^ == a dative as it does in modern Greek, R. 535. From "us" Peter turns to "you" as Paul often does and applies what he says to his readers in the most direct way.
5) An apposition to "you" states the other side, namely that the readers, too, are under a protecting guard, ^povpelv is a military term and this harmonizes with Sura/us, "power." We are amid foes who are bent on robbing us of our inheritance; but the keeper of Israel sleeps not nor slumbers. "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him and delivereth them," Ps. 34:7. "We pray that God would so guard and keep us that the devil, the world, and our flesh may not deceive us nor entice us into misbelief and other great shame and vice; and though we be assailed by them, we may finally prevail and obtain the victory." Luther. Awa/ws is omnipotence. While it is doctrinally safe to think of the gracious power of the Holy Spirit, the connection with (f>povpdv excludes this; <v is not "by," nor is it instrumental, it means "in connection with" God's omnipotent power, the connection being apparent from the context. It is a serious misunderstanding to think of God's omnipotence as filling our faith with power and making it able to overcome all our foes. It is still more serious to suppose that omnipotence produces faith in us and to base this supposition on Eph. 1:19, see the discussion of this passage. Nowhere do the Scriptures confuse grace and omnipotence. Faith is kindled and is preserved and made strong by grace alone. Grace alone reaches into the heart and the soul and works spiritual effects; and this grace always uses the Word and the sacraments as its means. Omnipotence has a different function; it does not operate in or upon our faith but above, over, around us, upon our enemies. It kept Daniel in the lions' den, the three men in the fiery furnace, set bounds for Satan in afflicting Job, freed Peter from Herod's prison, preserved Paul amid dangers, hardships, persecutions, etc. Great and wonderful is this protection of omnipotence, without which we should soon be overwhelmed. That is why the military verb <f>povpelv is used: in connection with his omnipotence God posts sentinels and guards for our protection. We may well think of his holy angels (Heb. 1:14). The A. V.'s translation is inexact in placing the three phrases together after the participle; the R. V. places the phrases as Peter does: "who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto salvation." Despite Peter's care in the order of the words some think that God's omnipotence uses our faith as its means, the omnipotence making our faith its weapon. These ideas are foreign to Scripture. Aia wto-Teos means that faith trusts the guarding and protecting power of God's almighty power. In every danger our faith turns to God, prays to him that he may use his power to shield us, make a way of escape for us (I Cor. 10:13). When, like Peter on one occasion, we are foolhardy and depend on our own strength we fall as Peter on that occasion denied Christ. The aim of this protection is "salvation," the inheritance incorruptible, etc., mentioned in v. 4, safely kept for us in heaven and "ready to be revealed in connection with the last period or season." Everything is ready and complete for its glorious unveiling. The last Kaipos is now here, has been here ever since Christ finished his redemption and ascended on high. Chiliasts think of a period of a 1,000 years yet to come when Christ will do still more work in the millennium. We are now living in the last time; in a little while the great curtain shall be drawn aside, our entire salvation shall be revealed. Peter is speaking of the immense things that are impending in the mighty power of God and thus does not deal with the death of individual Christians before Christ's Parousia, when their souls enter heaven while their bodies still wait in the dust of the earth.
6) First, certainty; next, joy. First, living hope, an inheritance safely kept for us in heaven, and we ourselves kept for this inheritance; next, while we wait, joy despite trials, these trials only refining us like gold. The grand doxology simply moves forward with a relative clause. This is Greek, which loves connectives, tying though to thought; in English we should place a period and begin a main clause. Peter thus proceeds: in which you continue to exult though now for a little while, if it is necessary, put to grief in manifold trials in order that the testing out of your faith, (a testing out) more precious than of gold that perishes though tested out by means of fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at Jesus Christ's revelation, whom, etc.
The ev Kaipy eayarw is not to be regarded as a date for the revelation of our salvation. The word xaipos should obviate this thought. Peter does not say "at
the last day" or mean "at the last period" (a kairos of a 1,000 years) but says "in connection with the last period." The revelation of our salvation is connected with the present period of time in which we are living. The connection is the thought that the revelation may occur at any moment in this period. This was not the case during any previous period. Those who think of
a future date make the present tense a future: "you will exult," and then labor to prove this correct. Or they make "in which" a neuter: in which things we exult, namely in our inheritance and in the coming revelation of our salvation. Yet ayaXA.iao/A<u is never construed with ev but with eiri to state the object "over" which one exults. "In which" is purely temporal, it equals "in this period" in connection with which our salvation is ready, is to be revealed at any moment. "We continue to exult" is the durative indicative; there is nothing in this relative clause to indicate that this verb form is an imperative. This form of this verb is not found in the secular Greek; it generally occurs in the middle voice: jubelndes und danksa.gendes Lob preisen (G. K., 18). Its meaning is much stronger than "rejoice," yet we see no reason for making it a cultus term or for restricting the exultation to eschatology. Peter says that in this whole period we ever and ever exult, jubilate, celebrate, and do this in spite of the fact that we are subject to grief in manifold trials. The participle is concessive: "though now for a little while (accusative to indicate duration), if it is necessary, put to grief in manifold trials." Compare James 1:2: "Consider it all joy when you fall into all kinds of trials," where the same word wei.pwrfwi is used, which means "trial" and not "temptation." James regards the trials themselves as occasions for joy; Peter admits that they produce grief, but that our exulting is not lessened thereby. Two points are touched upon in connection with this grief: it is only for a little while, it will soon cease; it occurs only when God finds it necessary. Robertson regards Seov eon as a periphrastic present tense; the neuter participle is but an adjective in the Greek, and there is no reason for a periphrastic present, which would overstress the duration and would conflict with "a little while." In this wicked world, where we live as foreigners (v. 1), our trials are "manifold," being now of one kind, now of another. They often hurt severely, yet we keep on jubilating and celebrating.
7) This sounds paradoxical. Like James (1:3), Peter solves the paradox. We see God's purpose in these trials: "in order that the testing out of your faith, (a testing out) more precious than of gold that perishes though tested out by means of fire, may be found (aorist, definitely found) unto praise," etc. We continue to exult; so little is the short grief of our trials able to stop us from exulting that, seeing God's purpose in these trials, we exult the more. Gold is nothing but a perishing metal (descriptive present participle); it will not outlast this earth although it is now tested out by fire to prove that it is gold and not brass or something else. Paul loves the words Somiws,soki/m^o), the figure of testing out metals, coins, etc. The form SoKifiws is now recognized as an adjective on the basis of the papyri; both Peter and James (1:3) substantivize it and add the same genitive: "the testing out of your faith," i. e., the genuineness of our faith established by test. This testing is more precious than that of gold even when (8e) it is tested out and proved genuine by means of fire. If gold, perishable though it is, being only of earthly, temporal value, is tested out and proved genuine, how much more should faith with its eternal value for us not also be tested and proved genuine? By mentioning fire as the means for proving gold genuine Peter alludes to our trials which often seem to be fiery. "In the fiery oven the straw burns, but the gold is purified." Augustine. "The fire does not lessen the gold but makes it pure and bright, removing any admixture. So God lays the cross upon all Christians in order to purify and cleanse them well that their faith may remain pure even as the Word is pure, and that we may cling to the Word alone and trust in nothing else. For we all need such a purifying and cross greatly because of our old, gross Adam." Luther. These fathers add a thought: that of removing dross from the gold, that of purifying our faith. Peter speaks only of proving the gold to be gold, the faith to be faith to So/ci'/uov, die Echtheit, the genuineness (B.-P. 316). We are not merely put to grief but are put to grief for this great purpose of God: "to be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
We should not suppose that the genuineness of our faith will not be discovered by God (passive, not the middle) until the last day when Christ is revealed at the Parousia. "At the revelation of Jesus Christ" is not attached to "may be found" but belongs where Peter has it: "praise and glory and honor at (or in connection with, ev) the revelation," etc. God finds the testing out, the genuineness, now whenever a successful test is made; and thus at Christ's revelation he will bestow upon us "praise," namely his commendation, "glory," like the glory of Christ, and "honor," high distinction. What God now finds (actually finds, aorist) is what pertains to the reward of grace which he will bestow upon us at the last day. The claim that ro Sonl^wv means Pruefungsmittel has Peter say that the means for testing us, namely the trials, are by God to be found more precious than fire which tests gold as though the comparative value of the means of testing us and of fire is to be determined. Peter speaks of the tested genuineness of our faith which God intends to find so as to reward it at the last day and states that such genuineness is more valuable than any tested genuineness of gold although men do test out gold even by fire in order to make sure that it is genuine gold. Peter does not say that faith is like gold, trials like fire, but that the genuineness of the one is like that of the other, save that that of faith is the more valuable.
In v. 5 our "salvation is to be revealed"; now Peter uses the noun and says "at Jesus Christ's revelation." Now we appear only as foreigners in the world (v. 1), all the praise, glory, and honor are still unseen; so christ, too, is hidden and veiled, and men do not see him. I John 3:2. A complete revelation shall take place at the last day. When Christ shall be revealed to the whole earthly universe, our heavenly salvation shall also be revealed. This double revelation is one that shall take place before the universe, no less. No wonder Christians jubilate and exult.
8) Peter continues with relative clauses: whom not having seen you continue to love, in whom, now not seeing yet believing, you continue to exult with joy inexpressible and glorified, bringing away the end of your faith, salvation of souls.
We usually love one whom we have seen and have in this way come to prize, we also continue to love him after he is gone. But Peter's readers had never seen Jesus and therefore could not love him in this way. Although they had never looked upon him with their natural eyes they continue to love him (ayavdv) with the high love of intelligence and corresponding purpose. A contrast with Peter himself is implied, for Peter had seen Jesus both before and after his resurrection (John 21:15, etc.: "Lovest thou me?" asked first with ayavav and then with even <^iA,eii/). Peter silently places himself below his readers. It is more praiseworthy to love as they do than to love as Peter does.
Peter mentions love first and faith second, the fruit and then the tree; he could, of course, have reversed this order. We note, too, that he uses two finite verbs to express the loving and the exultation, for he intends to coordinate these two feelings. Faith is expressed by a participle, but only in order to make it the source of the exultation: "in whom, now not seeing yet believing, you continue to exult," etc. Ei'? Sv is to be construed with wwTeuovTK, their trust goes out to him. This is the same conception of faith that we find in Heb. 11:1, "conviction in regard to things not seen." Peter must have had in mind the words of Jesus: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed!" John 20:29. Thomas demanded to see before he would believe; it was no credit to him. Peter's readers were doing far better than that. Ov with a participle is exceptional, /^ is the common negation with participles. When the former is used, there is always a reason for such a construction; that is especially the case in this sentence where both ov and ^ appear. To speak of objective and subjective negation is a distinction that was formerly made; likewise to speak of fact and of condition or to deny that there is a distinction. "Here ov harmonizes with the tense of 'iSovTes as an actual experience while ^ with opwvre's is in accord with the concessive idea in contrast with wioreuovTcs." R. 1138. You did not (<n<) see him states the clear-cut fact as such a fact; you do not (/xi;) see him simply states the present fact in the ordinary Greek way. Peter repeats "you continue to exult" from v. 6. The tense is the same although some texts have the active form instead of the middle of the second verb. It is again stated that this present tense must have a future meaning: "you shall exult." We are told that exulting with inexpressible and glorified joy can refer only to the exultation at the last day, and that not seeing Jesus now implies that we shall see him at the last day, and that this gives a future meaning to "you exult." But these efforts to secure a future meaning for the verb are misdirected. We have three verbs in the present tense: "you continue to exult (v. 6) —you continue to love—you continue to exult," the third verb even repeating the first. This third present verb is modified by two present participles, "believing while not seeing" (actions that certainly take place now) and "bringing away the end of your faith," an action that also takes place now as one after the other of the readers dies and thus brings away the end of his faith, eternal salvation. In the face of this it is impossible to put a future meaning into this plain present indicative "you are exulting." But is our exulting now a jubilation "with joy inexpressible and glorified" (perfect participle: one that has been and thus is now glorified) ? The answer is found in 4:14: "If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed (are you)! because the Spirit of the (divine) glory and of God is resting upon you." This beatitude has us exult now with a joy which is beyond poor human utterance (areKAaA^Tos) and glorified by the Spirit of glory. We are not yet glorified, but our joy is, for we have tasted of the powers of the eons to come (Heb. 6:5) and cannot utter what this taste really is because it is filled with glory. Peter puts "glorified" in the second place, because he would state why our joy cannot be put into utterance. Those who call this extravagant language have not caught the spirit of Peter. It is sometimes assumed that the construction of
aya\\iaarffe is loose or irregular; Peter is carried away by is thought. It is expected that with e;s w, icrA., Peter should state in whom the readers exult just as he states whom we love. Since Peter does not do this, an irregularity is assumed. But let us note what Peter writes: "whom not having seen you continue to love; believing in whom you do not now see, you continue to exult/* etc. The second verb needs no object; as it needs and has none in v. 6, so again it needs none in v. 8. In v. 6 Peter writes: "we continue to exult though having been grieved," etc.; in v. 8 he writes in the same way but now uses two participles: "believing, we continue to exult, bringing away the end of our faith," etc. All is as regular as one could wish it.
9) Kofu^ofJievoi is used as it is in Heb. 10:36; 11:13, 19, 39 and means, "carrying or bringingaway for your-selves" so as to have and ever after to enjoy. The present participle is iterative: one by one carries away the re'Ao?, "the end or goal" of his faith, which Peter himself defines as "salvation of souls," namely the final rescue when the soul enters heaven. $^17 is not in con- trast with "body" as though only the soul is finally ^ved; the word designates the person, the real being that is saved, and not merely a part of it. When the soul is saved, the body, too, is saved and will in due time join the soul.
10) First, certainty; next exultation; and now as the third part of the great doxology, the divine means for bestowing both on the readers, the gospel of the prophets that was preached by the preachers who were sent by the Holy Spirit. As it did in v. 6, the doxology continues with a relative, the antecedent of which is incorporated: concerning which salvation there earnestly sought and searched prophets, they •who prophesied concerning this grace regarding you, searching in regard to what or what kind of period the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when testifying in advance about the sufferings regarding Christ and the glories after them;
to whom, etc. "For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them," Matt. 13:17.
What the prophets sought to find out concerned the salvation which Peter has just mentioned; the question they sought to answer shows that it concerned this salvation and thus why Peter speaks of their search, their question, and its answer in his doxology. Theverb is repeated for the sake of emphasis, and both verbs are compounded with intensifying ex: "they earnestly sought and earnestly searched." The former is more general, the latter more specific, applying, as it does, also to documents (the simplex is used in John 6:39: "Search the Scriptures"). The second verb is even repeated with a participle: "searching" (v. 11), which drops en as is usual in such repetitions (R. 563). "Prophets" did this, i. e., men who were prophets. The apposition does not restrict this word to a certain number as though not all of them searched thus; it describes all of them as "the men who prophesied concerning this grace regarding you" (el? occurs several \ times in this sense). The repetition "prophets — they i who prophesied" emphasizes the character and the function of these men: men who were chosen by God 'as his mouthpiece. "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began," Luke 1:70. "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," Luke 24:26, 27. Note also: "the Lord God of the holy prophets," Rev. 22:6. The apposition is Peter's own; it is he who says that they prophesied "concerning this grace regarding you"; the fulfillment of their prophecies had become reality when Peter wrote. The article used with xapiros and the attributive phrase mean "this grace regarding you." "Grace" has the same force it had in v. 2: all the unmerited favor Dei which Peter's readers were receiving. The ancient prophets had told all about it throughout all of the past ages. We should not omit David (Acts 2:30), nor Moses (John 5:46; Acts 26:22; Deut. 18:15, 18). Peter's reference to the prophets does not make all his readers former Jews. Not only did the whole Gentile church have the Old Testament as its Bible; from beginning to end this Bible told of the grace of God regarding also the Gentiles.
11) The question which all of the prophets sought to answer from their own prophecies was "in regard to what (period) or what kind of period the Spirit in them was indicating when testifying in advance about the sufferings regarding Christ and the glories after them." The question is alternative, and "or" is not disjunctive (as if two contrasted questions are referred to) but conjunctive (one question that could be stated either way): "What or what kind of period is this? In regard to this the prophets kept making search. The idea is not that they were learned theologians who were pursuing scholarly investigations; they were men who were filled with a great desire for the arrival of this great "period" of grace, who longed for nothing more than themselves to see this period. "Was indicating" is the imperfect and describes how the Holy Spirit kept making such indication.
It is noteworthy that Peter writes "the Spirit of Christ" just as in other passages the Scriptures use the expression "the Spirit of God." The deity and the pre-existence of Christ are involved: Christ's Spirit testified in advance about Christ's sufferings and glories, i. e., when as the incarnate Logos he would suffer in his humiliation and after that be crowned with glories in his exaltation. We usually note the singular "glory" in such connections; here the plural "glories" matches the plural "sufferings" and is used on this account. Both "sufferings" and "glories" pertain to Christ's human nature. The two el's == "regarding," "in regard to"; they are like the el's used in v. 10. Two great thoughts are stated: 1) the Holy Spirit was in the prophets when he testified as he did; 2) these prophets studied their own utterances and writings in order to discover what they contained. This comprises the entire doctrine of the Inspiration of the Scriptures. The Spirit spoke through the prophets; much that he said the prophets themselves did not at once grasp but studied to discover it somewhat as a messenger may study some message he is ordered to transmit. "For not by man's will has prophecy ever come, but, being borne along by the Holy Spirit, men made utterance from God," II Pet. 2:21. It is asked: "Where do the prophets say that they are ever searching in regard to what period or what kind of period the Spirit indicates in the prophecies about Christ?" One may reply by asking: "Where does the Old Testament say that many prophets and kings desired to see and to hear what the Twelve saw and \ heard?" (Matt. 13:17). The longing for the days of I the Messiah runs through the entire Old Testament. 'It begins with Eve (Gen. 4:1). On the strength of such a question to make these prophets New Testament prophets, and to state that these are not the apostles but other prophets, is to invite the counterquestion: "Where does the New Testament say that these prophets made such inquiries?" Therefore this view cannot be successfully sustained.
12) The two aorists occurring in v. 10: "prophets earnestly sought and earnestly searched," already imply that they obtained an answer to their question. This is now stated: to whom it was revealed that not for themselves but for you they were ministering the things which now have been announced to you by means of those preaching the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit commissioned from heaven, into which things (even) angels desire to look.
The answer came to the prophets by means of revelation, through the same Spirit who testified to them about the suffering and the glorified Savior. There is no need to regard this as a special, separate revelation, apart from and different from the revelations which the prophets received otherwise. We know of no such peculiar difference. Matt. 13:17 extends the longing beyond the prophets themselves; it includes many righteous. "Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?" was the cry of many (Isa. 22:11) ; and the prophet foretells that Israel's "watchman shall lift up the voice" when the beautiful feet of messengers bring the tidings of salvation (Isa. 52:7, 8). In the meantime the revelation granted to the prophets was to the effect that not for themselves but for the readers of Peter's letter were they ministering in regard to the things which the gospel messengers had now announced to Peter's readers. The imperfect "were ministering" is descriptive, it does not, however, imply that their ministry had nothing to do with themselves and with the generations of their time but that the great events which the Spirit was testifying to in advance, the sufferings pertaining to Christ and his glories, were to occur in the future, were to be announced or proclaimed (second aorist passive) as having occurred to future generations and thus to Peter's present readers. It is stated that this was not a satisfactory answer to the question of the prophets. It was a most pertinent answer. Like so many of the answers that Jesus gave to questions that were put to him, this answer which was revealed to the prophets stated the main thought, namely that, following Christ's humiliation and exaltation, there would come the world-wide announcement of the saving gospel. The Spirit thus shed a flood of light on all the Messianic prophecies that reached beyond the Jewish nation, thus on Gen. 22:17, 18, Abraham's children that are to be as numerous as the stars, his seed blessing "all the nations of the earth"; on Isa. 2:2-5, all nations flowing unto the exalted house of the Lord. These are but a few samples. We have the corresponding thought of the New Testament : Jesus picturing many coming from the east and the west to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom (Matt. 8:11) ; the writer of Hebrews (11: 40) saying that the Old Testament believers are to reach the goal "not without us" of the New Testament. These are again but a few samples. Instead of stating the thought abstractly, namely that the prophets were ministering to future generations in many nations, Peter states it concretely and personally: "ministering to you," and even adds: "these things which have been announced (aorist in the Greek which cares to state only the past fact) to you by means of those gospelizing you," etc. Avra 5 belong together; it is incorrect to say that the relative clause introduces a new line of thought. It is likewise incorrect to assert that "the ones who preached the gospel to you" (u/*as, this verb is construed with the dative or with the accusative) does not include the apostles, in this case Paul who labored in Galatia and in the province of Asia. We know what these things were which the gospel preachers published, which Peter's readers had heard and believed, the very things which the Spirit had testified in advance, the sufferings and glories of Christ, now no longer to be awaited, now realities that had come to pass. All these preachers used the old prophecies in all of their preaching; the old prophets were, indeed, ministering to Peter's readers. The whole New Testament gospel rests on the Spirit's Old Testament testimony that was made through the Old Testament prophets. Cancel that testimony, and you remove the basis of the gospel of Christ. It was revealed to the prophets that their ministry was to be far grander than a ministry merely for themselves and for their time; it was a ministry for all of the future ages, for Peter's readers as well as for us to this day. The doxology of Peter is thus justified also in view of the means which God employed for our salvation and faith, namely the prophetic Word of the Old Testament followed by the New Testament preaching. It makes little difference whether we have a simple dative Tlvevfuin 'Ayi'y or ev with this dative: "by the Holy Spirit" or "in connection with the Holy Spirit." The addition "sent or commissioned from heaven" undoubtedly refers to the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost. The Spirit moved these gospel preachers. If we could limit "those gospelizing you" to the apostles we should be willing to make this reference to the Spirit refer to inspiration; but we see no way of establishing this limitation. Not even historically. Was Barnabas inspired every time he preached in Galatia? Were the other assistants of Paul always inspired when they preached in Asia? We do not know who the preachers were that evangelized Pontus, Bithynia, and Cappadocia but we hesitate to claim inspiration for them. In fact, Gal. 2:11, etc., teaches us that even Peter was not always inspired. The 5. clause is paralleled by the el's 5. clause, and both depend on avrd. So great and blessed are the things pertaining to Christ that the Spirit who inspired the prophets testified them in advance; that the Spirit enabled the gospel preachers to announce them where-over they went; and that even "angels desire to look into them." We may recall Exod. 25:20, 21, the cherubim on the mercy seat in the Tabernacle; the seraphim in Isa. 6:2-8; the angels in connection with the givingof the law. Acts 7:53; the angels in connection with the birth and in connection with the resurrection of Christ, and many other instances; their ministering to the heirs of salvation; and then Eph. 3:10, the manifold wisdom of God, hidden from the beginning in God, made known to the angels by means of (8ia) the New Testament Una Sancta. The anarthrous ayyeAci emphasizes the fact that these beings are "angels." The aorist infinitive means "to look into" effectively so as to understand. The verb itself does not mean a mere glance, "to peep covertly into," but simply "to look"; it conveys the thought that even when they do look such heavenly beings cannot fully understand all that these great things pertaining to Christ and to our salvation contain. Peter has the climax: prophets — gospel preachers — angels, all concerned with Christ and our salvation, the Holy Spirit being back of them all. Add this third part of the doxology to the other two parts with all that they touch upon and it will become evident that this doxology is in grandeur second only to the one Paul wrote in Eph. 1:3-14.
Hortations
Due to the Relation to God, 1:13-2:10
Be Holy in All Your Conduct, v. 13-16
13) With 810 Peter bases his hortation on the entire preceding doxology in which he expects his readers to join. Realizing all that his doxology says of them in their blessed relation to God, the readers will be ready to respond to the admonitions that are then justified. The first of these is that their whole manner of life should be holy even as the God whose praise they sing is holy.
Wherefore, having girded up the loins of your mind, as being sober, set your hope completely on the grace being brought to you in connection with Jesus Christ's revelation, as children of obedience not fashioning yourselves to the former lusts in the (old) ignorance, on the contrary, in accord with the Holy One who called you be you also on your part holy in all conduct!
Girding up the loins refers to the long, loose robes worn by Orientals, which were drawn up and belted at the waist when one wanted to walk or work with energy. This expression is used figuratively with reference to the mind, which includes thinking as well as the resultant willing, and the thought is: "Make up your minds decisively!" hence the aorist is used. Instead of letting their thoughts, purposes, decisions hang loose while they move leisurely along in life as impulse and occasion may move them, the readers are to gird up their minds like people who are energetically set on going somewhere. To gird up the loins means business, decision, action, not idling, not drifting after this and that momentary attraction. The first participle is a decisive aorist, the second a present tense that describes a state: "as being sober," as having this quality. Our versions translate it with an imperative, but they do so only in order to make their English smoother. Both participles, the one denoting an act, the other a state, are subsidiary to the main verb "set your hope upon"; in order to do this one must make up his mind (aorist) and must be in a state of soberness (present). Sobrietas spiritziaMs is referred to, which is so frequently inculcated in Scripture : 4 ;7; 5:8; I Thess. 5:6, 8; Titus 2:4, 6; etc. Soberness is the opposite of infatuation with the things of this world, a calm, steady state of mind which weighs and estimates things aright and thus enables us to make the right decision. Not only the world with its allurements but also the various forms of religious error and delusion intoxicate the mind. The tenses determine the order: in a sober state of mind the readers are to make up their mind. Thus they are to set their hope completely, with finality, on the grace being brought to them in connection with Jesus Christ's revelation. We cannot agree with Hort and M.-M. 629, who construe the adverb with the participle, even when the combination is understood to mean: "being sober with perfect sobriety." TeA.ei'ft>s does not mean "perfectly"; it conveys he idea of reAos and thus == "with finality," in a way hat ends matters. One is not sober in this way, but ne may set his hope on something in this way. The English translation "to be perfectly sober" should not mislead the reader in regard to this Greek adverb. The aorist imperative goes well with the adverb: "set your hope with finality on the grace being brought to you," i. e., do not set your hope on this grace only tentatively or in a halfhearted way. This aorist is not constative as combining all of the hoping in the readers' lives; it denotes one decisive act. Peter reverts to v. 3, to the living hope to which the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ begot the readers. Hope is a key word of this epistle. It expects something in the future. Peter has already said that this is an inheritance incorruptible, unstained, unfading, kept for us in the heavens. He is not repeating this sure object of our hope but tells his readers on what they are to rest their hope for the heavenly inheritance, namely on God's grace (v. 2 and 10), "the grace now being brought to us in connection with Jesus Christ's revelation." Some again misunderstand ev when they translate (as do our versions) "at Jesus Christ's revelation." In the first place, as was the case in v. 7, "Jesus Christ's revelation" undoubtedly is his Parousia (compare, 4:13; I Cor. 1:7; II Thess. 1:7; Eev. 1:1) and not some other revelation (the incarnation or the resurrection). Are we to set our hope on a future grace at the end of the world so that the present participle "being brought" really means "will be brought"? These misunderstandings are cleared up when ev is properly understood. The grace on which we are to set our hope is the same as that mentioned in v. 2 and 10, which is brought to us now in Word and sacrament (constantly brought, present participle), and this grace is connected with (ev, in connection with) Christ's coming revelation, with his Parousia; for all the grace which we constantly receive points us to the glory and the inheritance of the last day. That is why we are to set our hope on this grace, it will •carry us safely to the last day.
14) Hope and holiness are closely associated in the Scriptures and must not be separated in life; compare, I John 3:3: "And everyone that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." So Peter writes: "as children of obedience not fashioning yourselves to the former lusts in the (old) ignorance etc. "Children of obedience" takes us back to v. 3 God "begot us again to a living hope"; also to v. 2: "in sanctification unto obedience." Childhood and obedience go together. Luther and the A. V. translate: "as obedient children"; but the genitive is stronger than that. It describes the constitution and the character of these children, which is impressed upon them from their very birth, belongs to their very nature. In the same way they are termed "children of light," Eph. 5:8; the ungodly are "the sons of the disobedience," Eph. 2:2, and in v. 3, "children of wrath," in II Pet. 2:14, "children of curse." The obedience here referred to is obedience to God's saving will or to the gospel and not a mere legal obedience or a moral life apart from the gospel. It consists in believing in Christ and in following him in love. "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent," John 6:29. What we are by virtue of our new spiritual nature must be manifested in our life and actions. Thus negatively: "not fashioning yourselves to the former lusts in the (old) ignorance." Suoy^aTi^eoftu = to adopt a certain ir^a for oneself, and here o-x^a (our "scheme") is a certain form, fashion, or design of life, a habitus. Instead of referring to the wrong fashion of others as Paul does in Rom. 12:2: "Be not fashioned according to this world," Peter points to the wrong fashion of life which his readers themselves formerly had: not fashioning yourselves "to the lusts formerly in your ignorance." "Formerly" == before God begot you again (v. 3). "Formerly in the ignorance" is attributive, being placed between rat's and f.wiOvfi.icu's, and thus describes the lusts referred to, Begierden, which is really a vox media, "desires," but is seldom used in a good sense. It would be monstrous for children of obedience to go back and to fashion and fit themselves again to those lusts of a former time "in the ignorance" in which they then lived. What have children of obedience to do with those old castoff lusts? The involuntary response must be: "Nothing whatever!" "The ignorance" means pagan ignorance as it does in Acts 17:30 and Eph. 4:18. An issue is made of the use of this word in the present connection; it is said that the word shows that the readers were former Jews. Now ignorance is predicated also of the Jews in Acts 3:17; Rom. 10:3 (Luke 2?:34; John 8:19); I Tim. 1:13. But there was this difference: the Jews knew God and his Word, the pagans did not. The Jews were zealous about God, "but not according to knowledge," Rom. 10:2; the pagans ran after idols. The Jews ignorantly tried to set up their own righteousness, Rom, 10:3, etc.; the pagans were ignorant of even the false Jewish righteousness. The Jews, too, lived "in the lusts of their flesh," Eph. "2:3, but not because of ignorance; they made the law an outward, formal thing, but the very Word they had contradicted them. Pagan ignorance was a mark of the lusts of pagans. One cannot prove that Peter's readers were former Jews by means of these lusts formerly "in ignorance." Some were former Jews, most of them were former pagans.
15) From the negative side Peter turns to the positive with the strong adversative a\\d; he does not, however, continue the participial construction but changes to a strong imperative: "on the contrary, in accord with the Holy One who called you be you also n your part holy in all conduct!" R. 127 calls the way in which Peter places modifiers between the article and the noun Thucididean; thus i-w icaXcaavra v/xds aywv. God is called "the Holy One" as our Caller in order to show that we, too, must be holy. To the ideas of Father, children, being begotten again, Peter adds that of being called. The call brings us to him; and since he is holy, all those who are called must also be holy. God is holy in that he loves all that is pure and good and hates, abominates, and punishes all that is sinful. God is absolutely and per se immutably holy from all eternity, and he has without deviation revealed himself to men as being holy. But this revelation was given for the purpose of lifting us, who had fallen into sin, back unto holiness, for God is the source of holiness for men. Peter writes that the Holy One has called us to communion with himself, out of the darkness of ignorance to his own marvelous light (2:9), out of evil unto blessing (3:9), out of shame to eternal glory in Christ (5:10). The aorist participle "called you" is historical and states the fact. The tense also implies that the call was effective, it brought the readers to faith and fellowship with the Holy One. The call is always issued by means of the gospel, which comes through "those preaching the gospel" (v. 12) and is filled with the saving power of grace. Avroi is emphatic: "you also on your part," and the aorist imperative yw^e-qre, which matches the aorist iX-Jrware, is simply a substitute for the aorist of <3.vai, which is not used. The passive form is only a form. The Koine loves and even coins such passives. The meaning is not "become!" but "be!" i. e., be decisively, settle it once for all that you be holy. When wd<s has the article following it, it denotes a whole; when it is used without the article, as it is here, it summarizes a multiplicity: all or every manner of conduct, whether in business or pleasure, labor or rest, joy or sorrow, easy or difficult situations. To be holy is our obligation, but not in the sense of an outward, legal requirement that is laid upon us, for which we must furnish the ability and the power, but as the result of God's call which furnishes the power and the ability. The gospel call to holiness always includes the bestowal of this spiritual power. The hand that points us to holiness is the hand that extends its grace to us to make us holy; by pointing us upward it lifts us upward. Thus the plea is cut off: "I am not able to be holy." The call to be holy implies that we still lack complete holiness, but also that we are able to overcome this lack by grace. This call spurs us on to use God's grace to the fullest extent in every part of our conduct so as to make it pleasing to the Holy One.
16) An Old Testament statement is cited to fortify Peter's injunction: wherefore it has been written and thus stands on record to this day (perfect tense) : Holy shall you be because I myself am holy. Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:26. The future tense is imperatival. The requirement of holiness is fundamental for God's children in both Testaments. What God asked of Israel when he made that people his own he now asks and must ask of us whom he has called by Jesus Christ. God does not connive at sin and unholy living since forgiveness has come through Christ. Let no one think that he can remain among the children of obedience while he still fashions his conduct according to the old lusts. Only the pure in heart shall see God, and without holiness it is impossible to see him. Christ died, not to save us in our sins, but from our sins.
Conduct Yourselves in Fear, v. 17-21
17) When Peter calls God "the Holy One," who himself emphasizes the fact that he is holy, he indicates that men are to fear God, especially when they approach him. For that reason this second hortation ollows the first, that the Holy One's children must themselves be holy. As the Holy One, God is the incorruptible Judge whom even we, his children, must face. Rabbinical Judaism preserved the conception of the rex tremendae majestaMs who is approached only in fear. In the Jewish prayer Shemone-Esre he is addressed as the "great, mighty, and terrible God," and again: "Holy art thou, and terrible is thy name." G. K. 98. With our great hope in God we must combine holy fear in all our earthly conduct.
Thus Peter continues: And if you call as Father upon him who without respect to persons judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear for the time of your being transients, knowing that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed out of your vain conduct handed down by your fathers but with precious blood as of a lamb blemishless and spotless, (namely that) of Christ, foreknown, on the one hand, before the world's foundation, made manifest, on the other hand, at the end of the times because of you, the believers through him in God, the One who raised him from the dead and gave him glory so that your faith and hope is with respect to God.
Kai' connects this section directly with the previous hortation; the third hortation, v. 22, has no connective. "As children of obedience" of the One who begot us (v. 3) and is holy we, too, must be holy (v. 16). As his children we will call upon him as "Father," we will draw near to the Holy One in prayer, and we must, therefore, conduct ourselves for the time that we are aliens in this world with holy fear lest at any time we lift up to the Holy One hands that are not holy (I Tim. 2:8) but stained with sin. The condition "if you call upon" is one of reality and takes it for granted that the readers do so, the present tense is iterative. To keep calling upon God "as Father" is to assume the position and to perform the acts of "obedient children" (v. 14) and to ask for this Father's gifts and blessings. Our calling upon him as Father is our answer to his having called us to be his own (v. 15). But note well that when we call upon God "as Father," it is God, "the Holy One," he who in his holiness "without respect to persons judges each one's work." Obedient children will be the last to approach God with presumption and to imagine that all they need to do is to call him "Father" in order to be acknowledged as his children. This the scribes and Pharisees once did (John 8:3), whom Jesus told that they knew neither him nor the Father (v. 19) and by their deeds proved to them that God was not their Father, that their father was the devil (v. 42-44), for he that is of God heareth God's words, which they did not do because they were not of God, they were not his children, he was not their Father (v. 47). Peter has in mind the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father who art in heaven," but also all that he had heard Jesus say to the scribes and Pharisees, all that Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount about the Father seeing in secret (Matt. 6:4, 6), as well as many another word about God's Fatherhood and our childhood and sonship.
So many still think only of the word "Father and forget that he is "the Holy One who without respect to persons judges each one according to his works." They convert him into an indulgent grandfather God who shuts an eye to the sins of his children, who, like Eli of old, takes no stern measures with them when they disobey. Not in vain do the apostles constantly repeat that God is no respecter of persons, that as such he accepts both Jewish and Gentile believers as children (Acts 10:34) but also judges all with absolute impartiality (Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1). This compound of wpoawirov, "face, countenance," and A,a/A/?awv, "to take or accept," means that a judge shows favoritism to the person at the bar in disregard of the evidence and the facts of the case. God judges every man without favoritism or partiality of any kind "in accord with that man's work." Tiarepa is the predicate object, rov Kpivovra the direct object, the substantivized present participle being qualitative: "him who judges" now or at any time. The plural "works" is usually used, and this spreads them out; the singular "work" summarizes. We should not think that God selects only one work or a few that are either fair or faulty; he takes the real sum and substance of each man's life, which is either a doing of his gospel will or a rejection of that will. There is no discrepancy between judging according to work and judging according to faith: the work is the evidence of the presence or of the absence of faith. God sees and knows both the faith and its work as also the unbelief and its work; but in his public judgment he refers to the work because this is the public evidence which all men and all angels can see, all thus corroborate God's just and impartial judgments. No Christian is exempt from judgment. In fact, every Christian is happy to be judged, for his faith itself i& the truest obedience, and all its fruit of work is evidence of that obedience and itself also true obedience. On this ground Peter rests his hortation "conduct yourselves (second passive in the middle sense, intransitive) for the time of your vapoixia (your being transients or rapoucol, 2:11) in fear." The verb resumes avaaTpo^ri which was used in v. 16; the aorist imperative is peremptory and is in line with the imperatives used in v. 13 and 15. This is not the "fear" of slaves which casts out love (I John 4:18), nor the awe of the infinite Creator in which the creature must stand, but the fear which is opposed to security, lightness, and indifference of mind in regard to God and his saving will and Word. "Fear God" (2:17). "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God," II Cor. 7:1. We call the impartial Judge our Father and ask his fatherly gifts and blessings ; instead of destroying this relation our fear conserves it. Knowing that this impartial Judge is our Father, our fear will keep us from compelling him to disown and disinherit us. As long as we are in this our vapoucia, living as outsiders in this sinful world ("foreigners," in v. 1), beset with temptations and assailed even by our own flesh, this true and proper fear should never leave our hearts. Barnabas, one of the postapostolic fathers, wrote: "Let us be careful lest we yield to slothful rest and go to sleep in our sins after we have already been called so that the evil one may not get us into his power and exclude us from the kingdom of God." Quenstedt adds: "The apostle does not mean, lest we be not in God's grace but lest we fall from grace.Fear is the opposite of [false] security, not of joyful faith; and we do not reject the fear of vigilance and caution which is afraid of insulting God and falling into the danger of forsaking him, but we reject the fear that is due to doubt." When men demand a God whom they need not fear, they demand an idol that does not exist. To decry the holy fear of God as an unethical motive is to pervert it. To be sure, those who are not obedient children of this Father and holy Judge cannot have the right conception of this motive; what awaits them is the terror of the Lord whom they defy. The truer the child of God, the more this child will dread to offend, even to ignore God and his just judgment. A prevalent opinion thinks that only the Old Testament preaches fear, the New Testament nothing but love. Jesus and the entire New Testament bid us fear God.
18) What prompts this fear and must ever be its source is the preciousness of the ransom paid for us. The participle is causal: "conduct yourselves in fear because you know" (the participle is an aorist like the imperative). Called of God, the Holy One, Who is the absolutely impartial Judge, and by that call made holy and obedient children who may approach and call upon God as their Father, the readers certainly know the great cost of their ransom from the old conduct which they inherited from their pagan forefa thers. This immense price should keep them in holy fear lest it have been paid in vain for them, and the impartial Judge should be compelled to renders verdict against them who, after being called, after being his children, regarded that price as nothing and went back to their old conduct. What verdict this impartial Judge would have to pronounce upon them is apparent. Matt. 11:20-24; 12:41-45. 'EXvTfwfhfTc has its full native meaning, "you were ransomed," set free by the payment of a Xvrpw, a ransom price. This ransom is named together with the slavery and bondage from which it set the readers free.
"The Son of man came ... to give his life a ransom for many," Xurpov am vo\\wv. See also Rom. 3:24; Col. 1:14; I Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14; I Cor. 6:20. "You were bought with a price." Peter emphasizes the greatness of the ransom price: "not with corruptible things," and then names "silver or gold" as samples; compare v. 7, "gold that perishes." The most precious earthly metals are corruptible and perishable because they have value only among men, only for time. They are here fitly singled out since earthly captives are ransomed by the payment of a money price. "Out of your vain conduct handed down from your fathers" states the bondage from which no gold or ilver and no price that men could pay was able to ransom them. All the treasure of the world could not ransom a single pagan and save him from his pagan life. No corrupt ransom can save from a corrupt life. 'Aroorpo^i; repeats the noun that was used in v. 15 and the verb that was used in v. 17. Peter calls this conduct /Mirai'a, "vain," in the sense that it fails to lead to the proper end. It was not Ken}, "empty," because it was filled with godlessness, lusts, and countless sins; but it led to no good end, it carried the readers farther and farther from God, and they became men who were hopelessly lost. This conduct the readers had "given over to them from their fathers," it was the tradition they inherited; their fathers and former generations had nothing better to pass on to their descendants. peter does not mention original sin directly but implies its existence. Save for God and the ransom he provided, the readers would have remained in their frightful bondage. Peter speaks only of ransoming from former conduct and not from the bondage of guilt. The reason is apparent, namely his admonition to holy conduct. In ^,? his explanation of the Second Article of the Creed ^Luther also states this purpose of the ransoming: "pur IIs chased and won me ... not with silver or gold but ^ with his holy, precious blood, and-with his innocent suffering and death, that I may be his own, and live under him in his kingdom and serve him," etc., with a totally new conduct. The ransoming out of vain conduct and out of guilt always go together. The old, unregenerate conduct is full of guilt and curse; to be placed in the new, regenerate conduct means to be freed from the old conduct and from its guilt. "Handed down by your fathers" has been regarded I; as a reference to the Jews in an attempt to prove that Peter's readers were former Jews, for were they not sgtrong traditionalists who clung to the teachings of their fathers? But the real fathers of the Jews were the patriarchs, prophets, etc. Peter's adjective refers to the entire conduct and not to a matter such as the traditions of the Pharisees who were but a Jewish sect.
Peter has in mind the whole round of pagan life; he is writing to Christians who, for the most part, have come ut of paganism and its dreadful bondage.
19) Great was the ransom price that was paid, was "precious blood." The ord os is already sigificant, for animal blood would scarcely be called precious." recious fits the idea of ransom, for ransom prices are high, a cheap ransom ia out of the question, even silver and gold do not suffice. The fact that precious "blood" was paid as the ransom price for the readers at once suggests that someone died in their stead. Peter surely has in mind Matt. 20:28: Sovval Tipf ffiVJ^iv avrov \vt(>ov am iro\\wv, "to give his life a ransom for many"; also John 10:15 (and 17): -rriv ^iv\riv iwv riQiffi.i mep rwv vpofSarw, "my life I lay down in behalf of the sheep." When Peter says "with precious blood" he undoubtedly means sacrificial blood shed in a sacrificial, expiatory death. That is why he does not say "death," for a death might occur in many ways and not necessarily by the shedding of blood. The connotation of sacrifice and substitution in "blood" has been denied; but all that one needs to do is to review the passages which deal with Christ's blood and his bloody death to see that this denial must itself be denied. We construe together: "with precious blood as of a lamb blemishless and spotless." This combination brings out completely the thought that sacrificial, expiatory, substitutional blood is referred to. The very word "lamb" == one slain in sacrifice. Peter undoubtedly has in mind John 1:29, the words of the Baptist, whose disciple Peter had once been: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," plus v. 34: "This is the Son of God," whose blood is "precious" indeed. It is generally assumed that Peter is thinking of Isa. 53, but it is debated whether he has in mind also the other sacrifices of lambs, in particular the Paschal lamb. Of what did the Baptist think when he called Jesus "the Lamb of God"? In our opinion this debate is misleading. It is settled when we note that Peter does not use us as a comparative, in the sense of "like of a lamb," i. e., like some lamb in the Jewish sacrifices, but in the sense of reality, "as of a lamb." Heb. in another instance: o»s vial's viuv wpw^eperai 6 ®eos: "as with sons, who are actually sons and not only like sons, God is dealing with you." The Old Testament and the Baptist do no more than to furnish the term "lamb" to Peter, by which he means Christ himself in his sacrifice, he being the one and only Lamb. This clears up several other points. First of all the two adjectives: a.iwp.ov ical aaviXov, "of a lamb blemishless and spotless." The second adjective is not used in the Old Testament with reference to the lambs to be sacrificed. Peter is thinking of Christ himself, of the ri antitype which exceeds the type, and thus designates him as "a lamb." The point is that Christ is the great Original, the types are only imperfect copies. This must not be reversed in our thinking so that Christ is made the copy. While amriXos may be used with reference to an animal, this is not done when blood and sacrifice are the context. Compare Eph. 5:27, "not having spot," also II Pet. 3:14, both refer to persons. The observation is correct that the second adjective determines the force of the first and not vice versa. In other words, the person of Christ himself is in the mind of the writer and not an animal (lamb) and its physical condition. The absence of the article which makes "of a lamb" qualitative, is like Rev. 5:6: apviov us Mif>ayft.wov, "a Lamb as having been slain," the noun is qualitative, w again denotes actuality and is not to be taken in the sense of "like." The meaning is not: "some lamb" belonging to a class of lambs, all of which are blemishless and spotless; but Christ alone as such a lamb, there being no other. Secondly, this explains why the apposition "as of a lamb," etc., is placed before "of Christ." To state that this relation must be reversed, that "of Christ" W the apposition, implies that one does not understand "the refined accuracy" (Bigg, page 4) with which Peter uses n>s, an accuracy that is found in "the masters style"; Bigg furnishes examples from Plato, Josephus, and the skillful writer of Hebrews (12:7) : "This subtilty was a stumbling block in later Greek." In 2:12 Peter has the other order, the apposition being placed
20) Mev and 8e balance the two participial modifiers, which bring out the thought that our ransom was certainly not paid with cheap, perishable values; it consists of precious blood of an incomparable lamb, namely of Christ, "foreknown, on the one hand (fiev), before the foundation of the world, made manifest, on the other hand (8e), at the end of the times on your account," etc. First a perfect passive participle to denote the entire extent of the foreknowing; next an aorist passive participle to indicate the one historical act of making manifest or publishing; both have God as the agent. Here, as in v. 1, efforts have been made to change God's foreknowing into an act of the will, a decree, a foreordination or predestination. Peter might have said that Christ was predestinated, foreordained, elected, but he does not use such a term. Other coordinate activities are necessarily cobnected with God's foreknowledge, especially decisions of his will. These may precede or may follow his foreknowledge ; but however closely related to it they may be, these acts are not the foreknowledge itself. When we say this we must ever remember that God is not subject to time, that for him there is no "before" and no "after"; to speak of a sequence in connection with God is to use poor human language because we cannot even think in other, more adequate terms. So we say that in regard to Christ and to his precious blood the foreknowledge of God rested on his gracious decision to send him as our Ransomer; because God so decided he foreknew, the verb implies, not a bare previous knowledge, but one in which God was most deeply concerned cum affectu et effectu. The two activities are clearly distinct as Peter himself shows in Acts 2:23, where be speaks of Christ's deliverance into his sacrificial death "by the determinate counsel and (resting on this Qov\ij) foreknowledge of God." In the same way God's foreordination and counsel in regard to Christ are mentioned in Acts 4:28, but his foreknowledge is not referred to. For God, Christ was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," Rev. 13:8. Brenz writes thus: "The eye of God sees history in an entirely different way from the eye of flesh. God's eye sees everything in an instant. If in the eyes of God, Christ had not already existed as the One incarnate, dead, and glorified in the time of Adam and of Abraham, the patriarchs could never have obtained forgiveness of sins and justification." Besser's statement is still better; he says that Christ's sacrifice was seen by God as eternally present. "Before the foundation of the world" is an apostolic phrase, it == before time existed, thus in eternity, timelessly. God foreknew. But all such references to eternity, as well as all connection between time and eternity, are beyond human comprehension. The foreknowledge in regard to Christ is connected with the foreknowledge concerning all who in the course of time come to believe in him, although in regard to them the foreordination follows the foreknowledge while in regard to Christ it precedes as we remind ourselves anew in the poor human way of thinking to which we are bound, to which also Scripture condescends. All that was foreknown by God before time and the world existed "was made manifest (or public) at the end of the times," of those between Adam and the days of Christ on earth. This publication was made when our Ransomer finally appeared and shed his blood, and when the gospel news of his ransoming was announced to all the world. The question is asked as to whether Peter includes Christ's pre-existence. It seems an idle question since Christ is the Son of God. The adjective irnarw is used as a noun; compare "in the last days," Acts 2:17, and cir' ea^aTov rwv fifs.tpw rovrw, "at the end of these days," Heb. 1:1. The blood of him who was thus foreknown by God eternally and manifested in the fulness of time has a preciousness which utterly outranks any ransom that consists of corruptible things. This blood is able to ansom our souls. We who know and consider this properly are bound to prize our ransoming so as to walk in fear in order that at the end God, the impartial Judge, may not pronounce upon us the awful verdict we should deserve if we disregarded or scorned this ransom.
21) Peter makes all that he says about Christ's precious blood most personal when he says that Christ was foreknown and made manifest "because of you, the believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory." The publication was intended for all men. When Peter says: 81' {i/xas, "because, on account of you" or "for your sakes" he singles out his readers because God's saving acts were accomplishing their blessed purpose in them. Hence the apposition: you, "the believers through him in God," etc.; viaroi, like Trio-Two, is construed with eis. What Peter says may be addressed to us believers today. Christ and his ransoming blood are conceived as the medium or means that produce faith in the readers; and thus they are described as "the believers in God, the One who raised him from the dead and gave him glory," etc. By means of these acts God declared that Christ's blood was efficient as a ransom.
God raised up him who sed his blood and laid down his life for us and then xalted him in glory. Both statements refer to Christ's human nature; on the tlory compare John 17:1, 4, 5; on both acts Heb. 2:9, 10; 13:20. In both acts all the grace of God toward us is manifested mightily, which justifies our faith in him completely and sets before us foreigners in this world the most glorious hope. But we should remember that this God is our holy and impartial Judge who will most certainly judge us whom he ransomed for himself at so great a price. "Of the sixty-two instances of wre with the infinitive in the New Testament nearly all are consecutive, not final nor even subfinal," R. 1000; hence: "so that your faith and hope is with respect to (or toward) God" and not "might be" (our versions). The emphasis is on ci's ®ew; he is the great surety for both our faith or confidence and our hope. The latter is added with reference to Peter's readers because they are addressed as "foreigners" in this world who have been begotten of God to a "living hope" (v. 1 and 3) and are to set their hope on God's grace (v. 13). With their faith and their hope so solidly anchored, the readers are to watch their conduct so that it may ever be that of "obedient children" who are passing the time of their position as aliens in tl»is foreign world in fear. It is rather fanciful to find a parallelisiwus membrorum in this statement: faith directed to God as the One who raised up Christ, hope directed to him as to One who gave Christ glory. Both faith and hope are directed to God, both are supported by God's raising up and glorifying Christ. Just as our faith looks to these two acts of God, so also does our hope. Nor should we say that "our faith is also hope toward God." To say that v^w applies only to faith, and that "hope" is thus a predicate, is to misunderstand the Greek; "our" is to be construed with both nouns and need not be repeated. Hope is added to faith because "living hope" was mentioned in v. 3 and because of our setting our hope on God's grace (v. 13). To place all the emphasis on "hope" is to do more than Peter himself does. Faith is never called "also hope." To live as "foreigners" in this world is possible only when we have both faith and hope, both of them looking to God and to what he has done in Christ, our ransom, who freed us from the old bondage.
Love Each Other from the Heart, v. 22-25
22) God's call makes us his obedient children (v. 14), and by putting us into this relation to him (faith, hope, fear) it also places us into relation with each other. Thus love to each other follows the fear of God. We may say that when all "foreigners" (v. 1) in a foreign land are of the same nation they will surely stick together and aid each other; much more will this be the case if they are brothers and sisters who have the same Father (v. 17, also v. 3). The two admonitions: e^TTt'o-are (v. 13) and amo-rpa^Te (v. 17) are closely connected and are, therefore, connected with nai; this ird admonition: ayairyrare, a decisive aorist like the other two and thus belonging to them, is without a coordinating k<u, it is thus left to stand more independently.
Having purified your souls in the obedience to the truth for unhypocritical brotherly affection, love each other from the heart strenuously as having been begotten again, not from corruptible seed, but from incorruptible by means of God's living and abiding Word.
The two perfect participles, the one standing before, the other after the imperative, denote states that began in the past and are continuing: fiyviic6rev— avayfyewrfiJievoi, the purified state, the regenerate state that began at the time of the conversion of the readers is still their state. The second participle is passive, they were begotten (in v. 3 we have the simple aorist active to denote the past fact: "the One who begot"). If these two perfects were aorists, they would simply register the past facts; if they were present tenses they would denote only the present condition, the perfects say more. "Having purified" goes back only to the result of "having been begotten," and hence the latter is added: the former is the proximate, the latter the ultimate reason; the one states what we were able to do, the other what God did regarding us. •Ayitf<<) is used with reference to ritual purifying, bat to the present connection it is moral: "having purified your souls in the obedience to the truth" (rfp ahiffeia's, an objective genitive). This recalls the "obedience" mentioned in v. 2 as well as the "children of obedience" mentioned in v. 14. "To the obedience" with its article is specific to denote the obedience which the truth requires and embraces the whole of it, the acceptance of the truth in faith and the submission to it in life. This truth is the whole gospel reality (a\riQeia, "reality"). Yet Peter refers only to that feature of the obedience which is especially required here: "for unhypocritical (unfeigned, sincere, honest) brotherly affection," <^iAa8eA^t'a, a compound of ^lAi'a affection, not aydini, which is reserved for the imperative. Brethren should have brotherly affection for each other (see the two verbs ayavav and <f>i\w in John 21:15-17). The adjective = not wearing a mask such as ancient actors wore on the stage to represent some fictitious character. There is always danger that we pretend like an actor instead of having actual affection.
To have purified our souls for sincere, brotherly affection is to have removed all evil thoughts and feelings from our hearts regarding our brethren; love has free room to exert itself. Purity and truth match. Truth itself is pure and produces purity; all impurity conflicts with the gospel truth. Truth and "unhypo- critical" also match. Truth is honest, lies pretend and hide behind masks and shams. The A. V. follows the ill-attested variant which adds "through the Spirit," which is correct enough but is not a part of the text. With such purified souls Peter tells his readers to love each other from the heart strenuously. Again he writes an effective, strong aorist imperative (as he did in v. 13, 17). 'ek na.pSia.-s (no article is needed with such phrases) recalls I John 3:18: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue, but in deed and truth." "From the heart" marks the depth while the adverb eKwos marks the intensity, "strenuously" as one stretches out and extends his effort to the limit. It is a mark of Peter's style to have one modifier preceding, another following, each being placed with discrimination. Our loving efforts are not always appreciated, are sometimes received with coldness or even rebuffs. Often, too, brethren are not very lovable, and while we ourselves have love in our heart we do not always manifest it fully. Many a child has loved father or mother, but when death calls one or the other away, it has regretted too late that it has not shown its love more fully while the parent was still alive. Peter is unlocking the floodgates so that the full stream may gush forth.
'Ayavav == the love of full intelligence and understanding coupled with corresponding purpose. This verb is often faultily defined even in the dictionaries although it is found throughout Scripture. In the LXX it may still be used to denote the lower forms of love; in the New Testament the definition we here give is the one that applies throughout even when publicans love publicans.
23) "Having been born again" (compare v. 3) brings out the thought that Peter's readers are, indeed, brethren, and are that in a far higher than the common, physical sense: "not from corruptible seed (oTi-opa, Aussaat, sown seed) but from incorruptible." We have the same word which was used in v. 18: "not with corruptible things were you ransomed." Corruptible seed brings forth flesh unto death; the incorruptible seed of the Word brings forth life everlasting. In v. 3 the One who begot us and to what he begot us are made prominent; now the divine seed or sowing by which we have been begotten as children of God is emphasized. "Out off" ex, states the source of spiritual the and names the seed; Sia adds the thought that this seed is the means for our being begotten and adds the idea of what this seed really is: "by means of God's living and abiding Word," v. 25: "And this is the utterance, the one proclaimed as good news to us," i. e., the gospel. "Living" recalls v. 3, "unto a living hope." We construe both participles with )wyov and not with ®eov. God is, indeed, often called "living," but not "abiding." With the expression "living and abiding Word" Peter simply states the main point of the quotation from Isa. 40:6-8; hence the R. V. margin should be canceled. Heb. 4:12 calls the Word "living and active"; Jesus says: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Word shall not pass away," Matt. 24:35. The point is to show the exalted nature of the life that is in us believers, the life that makes us brethren in the divine sense: we all have been begotten of incorruptible seed by means of God's living and abiding Word. This life in us constitutes us "foreigners" to all unregenerate men, "elect," and far above them (v. 1), a family and a brotherhood whose true fatherland is heaven, "the city that has the foundations, whose architect and maker is God," Heb. 11:10. While we are, indeed, to love all men, yet as brethren we are able to love only those who are equally regenerated with us. "Love the broth-erhood" (2:17). "Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith," Gal. 6:10.
24) Alon introduces a quotation, yet not as a proof but only as a statement of the ancient prophet that says exactly what Peter himself says about the nature of the Word. It is so much to the point because it compares the corruptible and the incorruptible (flesh and the Word): for (to use the words of another, namely Isa. 40:6-8)
All flesh (is) as grass, and all its glory as bloom of grass. Withered the grass, fallen the bloom! But the utterance of the Lord abides for the eon. And this is the utterance, the one proclaimed as good news for you.
"All flesh" == all men in their natural state as they ^xist in their bodily, natural life, as they are born to their earthly parents. All flesh is "as grass," x°pros, herbage that grows in meadow and in field, mostly grass. The second line heightens the simile: "and all its glory as bloom of grass." The Hebrew has "goodliness," all that is fair, attractive, grand about "flesh." It is like "bloom of grass," its tasselled flower. The simile is true: all that man is proud of in his earthly existence, beauty, strength, wealth, honor, art, education, learning, virtue, achievement, greatness, is but the bloom of the grass and no more. Stunning is the third line which has the verbs placed forward: "Withered the grass, fallen the bloom!" two gnomic aorists to denote what always happens. The tenses are timeless. In the hot Orient the sun blasts grass and herbage even more rapidly than in our temperate climate. 'S.-rjpaivw == "to dry up"; wiri-irrw, "to fall off." Transient, indeed!
25) But the prj{ia, the spoken Word, of the Lord (Yahweh) remains for the eon, ew rov a'mva, forever. From this p.evu Peter has taken his /leiwiw; as that of Isaiah is construed with p^a Kvplov, so that of Peter is construed with \oyov ®eov. Ae adds the explanatory statement: "Now this is the utterance that is gospeled (or was gospeled) for you," for the gospel, too, is God's own utterance. Preached as glad tidings to you, it entered your hearts and regenerated you, imparted its eternal life to you, overcame what is corruptible and perishing by replacing it with what is incorruptible and remains forever. It is for us, then, to rejoice in our ransoming and regeneration, in our faith and our hope, and ever to remember the price of the former and the power of the latter so that, living in fear and exercising our new life in love, we may reach the end of our faith, "salvation of souls" (v. 9).
CHAPTER II
Long for the Guileless Milk of the Word, v. 1-3
1) The great doxology (1:3-12) begins with praise to God, who is the One who begot us again. All hortations that follow grow out of this our relation to God: 1) since he who begot us is holy, we, too, must be holy (1:13-16) ; 2) since he is our Judge and has ransomed us at so great a price, we must conduct ourselves with fear (1:17-21) ; 3) since we are begotten of the incorruptible seed of the Word we are brethren, and thus our relation to each other must be one of love, of children of the one Father (1:22-25). So Peter now proceeds to the next hortation: 4) since we have been begotten by means of the eternal Word we should long for the milk of the Word as our true and proper nourishment. We thus see how Peter's hortations advance step by step in propff order.
Accordingly, having put away from yourselves all baseness and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all defamations, as newborn babes long for the milk native to the Word, without guile, in order that in connection with it you may be made to grow unto salvation, if you did taste that the Lord is benignant.
Ow adds this admonition as being one that accords with what has just been said in 1:23-25 about our having been begotten again by means of God's living and abiding Word. Born anew of the Word, we must be nourished to growth by the Word. Our having been begotten again means that we have once for all broken with our past life and have started anew in a spiritual life: "having put away from yourselves (aorist: definitely, effectively, as (76) being reborn by the Word) all baseness," etc. This must be emphasized, for without this decisive break with the past it would be useless for Peter to urge his readers to nourish themselves with the Word. The vices that must be put away are those that pertain to our relation with men. The idea is not that sins that are committed directly against God do not matter, but that our treatment of men is the evidence and the result of our new relation to God. We note that this truth is expressed in I John 4:20. It is an easy matter to apply this test in any case, and it is the more proper here where the admonition to the love of the brethren has just preceded. In Matt. 5:23 Jesus, too, bids his hearers to get into the right relation with a fellow man before they try to draw nigh to God.
We should distinguish between icast'a, "baseness," and wonipia, "wickedness," and hence not translate as the R. V. does. Nor does this word mean "malice" (A. V., R. V. margin) ; the word means "baseness," meanness, all good-for-nothingness, and connotes disgracefulness. It includes all the sins against the second table of the law. The rest of the vices are specifications of "all baseness." "All guile" == craft, cunning, which intends to deceive and to mislead others to their own hurt and to our own supposed advantage, the original meaning of 8dA,os being a bait for fish. We should group together "all guile and hypocrisies and envies," for the three "all" introduce three separate groups. One form of guile is hypocrisy toward others (compare the ex- planation of "unhypocritical" in 1:22). Back of this guile and hypocrisy there is often envy, the ill-will that is stirred up at sight of the good fortune of others. The two plurals indicate the different forms of these sins, which are types of "all baseness." The third group, "all defamations" == all speaking against others that ru us them down. This is also plural because Peter has begun to use plurals. Like Jesus in Matt. 5 '.22,, Peters stops with the misuse of the tongue and does not add base deeds. It is sufficient to stop with this because defamations are the first outward evidence, and where this is absent, base deeds will not follow. First the tongue lashes out, then the hand or the fist follow.
2) "As just-now-born babes" matches the participles used in 1:3, 23; all three expressions refer to our regeneration and new birth. The S.pn, "now or just now," of this compound verbal is not to be understood in a literal sense: recent converts who are still n the condition of babes and sucklings, who are, there fore, to be fed only milk and not solid food. Peter does not introduce a contrast between milk and solid food such as that mentioned in I Cor. 3:2 and Heb. 5:13, 14. An argument in regard to the length of time Peter's readers have been Christians that is based on this expression, is unsound. Paul's work in Galatia and in the province of Asia had been done many years ago, and Peter also includes all of these earliest converts. Peter wants all of his readers, whether they are beginners or veterans in the new life, to act as just-born babes in regard to their longing to be nourished with the Word. The point of the figurative language is this: as a babe longs for nothing but its mother's milk and will take nothing else, so every Christian should take no spiritual nourishment save the Word. The imagery is beautiful and expressive. Look at a babe at its mother's breast! In this way you should ever drink the milk of the Word. Peter understood the intent of Jesus' action which is recorded in Matt. 18:2, 3 and here carries the illustration which Jesus used still farther, down to babes that have just been born. The rendering of the A. V.: "the sincere milk of the Word," is truer to the sense than that of the R. V. The crv'x interpretum is found in the first adjective nf the expression ro Aoyucoy oSoAov ya\a. We have no oroper English word to render Xoyucw, which is found only here and in Rom. 12:1. The opinion that Peter adds this world in order to indicate that "milk" is to be understood figuratively so that we may translate "the spiritual milk," is unwarranted since the figurative "just-born" babes precedes and needs no addition to convey the idea that it is not to be taken literally. AoyiKos is used by secular writers in the sense of "reasonable," "logical" (see Liddell and Scott for samples); but whereas this might be considered as a meaning in Rom. 12:1, who would think of using it in connection with "milk," although the R. V. Margin does so? We note that SSo\.ov, "guileless," resumes the idea of 8o^os (v. 1) ; and thus it seems that Xoyuiw resumes the thought of 8ia \6yov in 1:23 and thus designates this milk as being that of the Word, derived from the Word, or — preferably — as being of the same nature as the Word, say "native to the Word." We note in support of this view that the first meaning of ^oyucos is "belonging to speech, capable of speech" (Liddell and Scott), thus here belonging to \oyov, the one mentioned in 1:23: "God's Word living and abiding." Wordmilk is the meaning. The A. V.'s translation "the milk of the Word" thus approaches Peter's meaning, considering the fact that the English lacks an adjective such as the Greek has in ^oyocos, which is derived from Aoyos. Compare also such words as <^<u(os (for which we have no English term), weu/xaTOcos, etc.: belonging to and of the nature of ifw^ (the natural life); belonging to and of the nature of irvevfia or spirit, for which word we do have "spiritual." By calling this milk Xoyucov Peter would state its nature: the milk that belongs to the divine Aoyos or Word; by adding a&o\ov he brings out the thought that this milk is unlike that found in any other Adyos: it is without the least guile to mislead or to deceive. All other (human) word (teaching, doctrine, spoken or written) is not "guileless." This divine Word is; "guileless" states the moral quality of this Word-milk. It is perfectly safe for babes to take although they, being just born, have no ability to be careful as to what they drink. We do not think that a8o-iioy means "unadulterated." As far as the two adjectives are concerned, why should we suppose that only the first and not also the second indicates that "the milk" is figurative, spiritual milk—if such an indication were necessary, which it is not? "Long for this milk!" Peter writes and uses the decisive aorist imperative exactly as he did in 1:13, 17, 23. These aorists are used because they are stronger than present imperatives would be. Call them constative if you will. The implication is: long for this milk and for none other. Even Christians often hanker after the fleshpots of Egypt and grow tired of the simple, wholesome, saving Word, which is manna for the soul. To cease longing for the divine milk is the most serious sign of spiritual decline, which soon ends in spiritual death. A starved babe pales and dies. Note Ps. 119:20: "My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times." "In order that in connection with it you may be made to grow unto salvation" does not mean that the readers cease to be newborn babes and grow up to be men. Paul speaks of childhood and manhood in this way by making full-grown manhood the ideal. Not so Peter. As he states no contrast between milk and solid food, so he has no advance from babes to men. We are ever babes, ever long for this divine milk, and so grow- unto salvation, the end of our faith, salvation of souls (1:9). 'Ev means "in connection with" this milk. We should not extend the idea of the verb av^erjre as though it indicates a growth from babyhood to old age. It is an aorist passive and deals only with babes, who grow in the sense of being alive and hearty and thus as babes attain eternal salvation. God makes them grow thus; while the aorist is constative it has its termination only in salvation and not in any stage of growth. Peter's thought is quite simple and should not be made complex.
3) When Peter attaches the condition of reality: "if you did taste that the Lord is benignant," he asks his readers to recall their experience with the Lord and counts on the fact that they have found the Lord w'vn-o'i, kind or benignant, bestowing only what is wholesome and pleasant. There is no play on words between ^o-ros and Xpiords, for Peter uses Kvpws, and the adjective that is derived from ^pdofnat has nothing to do with ^plw, "to anoint, the Anointed." He alludes to Ps. 34:9: "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!" Peter is not quoting; he simply appropriates the psalmist's statement to express his own thought. What is true of Yahweh is equally true of Christ. Having tasted that the Lord is benignant does not make the Lord "the milk" as some suppose. They overlook the passive verb "be made to grow," which implies an agent, namely this beneficent Lord. It would be a strange conception to picture the Lord as nnlk. Nor does Peter say, nor does the psalmist say that we are to taste the Lord but that we are to taste "that he is good," beneficent in bestowing this precious nulk of the Word upon us, in making us grow unto salvation. Do we know of anyone else who has such food for us? What we taste is his benignity, thich we experience in his Word. "Taste" is a suitable word for both "milk" and benignity.
Living Stones in a Spiritual House
Yea, a Holy and Royal Priesthood, v. i-10
4) A new line of thought is begun: from the idea of babes "who merely receive the beneficent care of the Lord, Peter advances, with imagery that is entirely different, to living stones in a spiritual house, yea, to holy, royal priests who render acceptable sacrifice. Yet by starting this new line of thought with a relative clause Peter indicates that this and the preceding paragraphs belong together, our experience of the Lord's care and what he makes of us. He retains the idea of life in the expression "living stones," the life to which we have been begotten (1:3, 23). He pictures us as "a spiritual house," namely the Lord's temple, and advances from that image to the figure of priests serving in this temple. This is, indeed, a distinguished priesthood, especially when we remember what we once were (v. 9b, 10).
The simplicity of the connection by means of a relative clause is admirable. The striking change of figure plus the advance from a house to priests in that house, is no less than grand. This is the great doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, and that a royal priesthood, one that was long forgotten in Catholicism but was brought fully to light again by Luther and the Reformation. Four hortations have preceded, but this paragraph is not a hortation. Peter does not urge: "Be such stones, such a house, such a priesthood!" He declares that we ore all of this. This means that he now sets forth the basis on which the preceding hortations rest. No wonder he bids us to be holy in all our conduct (1:13-16), to conduct ourselves in fear of God (v. 17-21), to be bound together in love (v. 22-25), to keep only to the Word (2:1-3) —all four hortations growing directly out of our connection with Go as children who have been begotten by him. We only point out these things; they deserve our fullest, penetrating study. Still more is to be said. We are "elect foreigners" in this world and are now fully shown what this means, and why at the beginning of this letter Peter breaks forth in exalted praise of God for what he has made of us who at one time were no people of his at all (v. 10). Our holy relation to God as his holy and royal priesthood makes us foreigners to the profane world. What if the unholy world visits manifold trials, hardships, persecutions upon us to cause us grief (1:6) ; what are these in comparison with our heavenly birth and our royal, priestly standing with God? This section closes the first part of Peter's letter, closes it in the same grand way in which the doxology (1:3-12) began it; and it is now apparent how closely knit this whole first part is, also how perfectly it is adapted to the readers and meets their need as foreigners in this world.
Peter writes: To whom coining, a living stone,by men, indeed, having been on test rejected, with God, however, elect, in honor, you yourselves also as living stones are built a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Is o'lKoSofJteivffe an indicative passive: "you are being built," or an imperative passive or middle: "be built" or "build yourselves"? To point to the preceding imperatives as proof for the use of another imperative means to overlook the fact that the four preceding imperatives are aorists, which this fifth would not be. This cannot be accounted for by saying that durative action is now in place whereas such action is not in Place in the other imperatives. Quite the contrary; "be setting your hope" (1:13), "be conducting your selves" (1:17), "be loving" (1:22), "be longing for" (2:2) would be entirely in place if "be built, let your-selves be built, or build yourselves" were intended as a fifth imperative. The argument for another imperative overlooks the fact that we now have a relative clause, and that an imperative is not to be expected in a relative connection. Furthermore, to find an imperative idea in the participle "to whom coming" or in the infinitive "to offer up sacrifices" is unwarranted even if the main verb were imperative. Then, too, a passive: "be built," would be incongruous. A command to build would apply only to the builder and order that he build and not to the stones which the builder uses. This is also true in the case of the permissive "let yourselves be built." Stones do not let themselves be built. "Build yourselves" (middle reflexive) cannot be the sense, for when the verb (or its compound "build up") is so used, the reflexive pronoun is added as the examples show. This "whole paragraph states what God is doing for us and what we now are (note v. 9) in contrast with that we once were (v. 10). Therefore the connection is properly made by means of a relative clause, relative to our connection with Christ, not commanding anything but setting forth our connection with Christ the Lord (v. 3), which includes his Word, which serves as the basis for the four hortations occurring in 1:13-2:3. If we were not being built up as is here stated, if we were not what v. 9 states that we are, such hortations could not be addressed to us. We may ask why Peter uses such a figure in support of his hortations: a temple and a priesthood which culminate in the grand designations used in v. 9. "Elect," here and in v. 9, "those once not a people but now God's people," (v. 10), "living stones," and all that is said of Christ and of our connection with him, should lead us to see the pertinency of Peter's figure and of the Scripture that supports it. We are "elect strangers" in the world (1:1), ours is a "living hope" /1:3); thus we are God's holy temple and a priesthoodin the world and thus foreigners to the world. Looked down upon by the world and subjected to many trials as foreigners, we are in reality foreigners because God has elected and made us far superior to the world (John 15:19-21). It has no use for such a holy temple and such a priesthood, for the world is low and utterly profane. The Christ that is our all the world rejects; to the world he is a stone of stumbling (v. 8). If we follow out these connections, the thought of Peter will rise before us in all its power. "To whom coming" is merely descriptive without special reference to time; hence the verb is not an aorist, "having come," which would be historical. Peter needs only to say "to whom coming" since in 1:15 he has mentioned "the One who called you" and has described his readers as "the believers through Christ in God," 1:21. There is no need of taking the present tense to refer to a constant coming to Christ; it is enough to think of our contact with him, which is also indicated by repetition of the vpo's of the participle instead of the usual dative, wpo's being the face-to-face preposition as Robertson calls it. God's gracious call brings us to Christ and makes us believers; and thus "coming to Christ" we are built up, etc. Ai'^or ^wvra is so. apposition to the relative w and describes Christ to whom the readers come. When we translate "a living stone," this is due only to the helplessness of the English. The absence of the Greek article intends only to stress the qualitative force °f the noun "stone," which the added modifiers make entirely definite so that we may also translate "the ^ving stone," etc. Peter himself cites the Old Testament passages which describe Christ as "the living stone." Stones are dead; we even say "stone-dead." This fact makes the paradox of the living stone all the greater. There is in reality a double figure in "stone." There is first a reference to other stones as they are used for a building, and there is secondly a reference to stumbling over a stone (v. 8), which Jesus himself greatly intensifies in Matt. 21:44 by picturing this stone as also falling on the unbeliever and crushing him to powder. "Living" describes this stone as one that is full of life and has all the power of life, for this stone is the person of our Lord. Ai0os, too, is the proper word because a stone that is used for building is referred to. Peter does not use irerpos, "a rock" or "boulder," nor verpa, embedded rock, which would be fitting only in the case of stumbling (v. 8), compare Rom. 9:33. Peter quotes Ps. 118:22 (Matt. 21:42), the very passage which he, like Jesus, once used against the Sanhedrin, Acts 4:11: "by men, indeed, (jner) having been on test rejected, with God, however (Se), elect, in honor." There is a contrast between men and God. Peter amplifies: those who first rejected this stone were "the builders" (v. 7), the leaders of Israel, the Sanhedrin; all others who still reject him merely repeat that act of the Jews, hence Peter says rejected "by men." The perfect participle a.voSeSoKi.ii.affp.tvov contains these thoughts: men tested this stone, in their judgment this stone did not meet the test, thus they rejected this stone, and it now remains in this condition, namely tested by them and rejected. "On the other hand (8e), with God elect, in honor" does not add the counterpart: "tested by God and approved as genuine" as though God needed to test Christ; no, this stone ever was "with God elect, in honor" (v. 6; Isa. 28:16). God chose this stone in the first place because he knew it was what it was; he orized and honored it accordingly, and there was never a question that it would fulfill its great purpose. By the very tests which these men who reject this stone apply they show that they want only a poor, earthly stone; by their tests and their findings they place them-selves most violently in opposition to God.
5) Peter borrows the words "stone," "rejected," "elect, in honor" from the Old Testament; but Peter himself adds the paradoxical conception that this wonderful stone is living. This stunning paradox he extends so as to include his readers who, by coming to the living stone, are also no less than "living stones." Christ himself declares that he is the life (John 14:6; 11:25; compare 1:4) ; he has life in himself just as the Father has (John 5:25). The truth that those who through God's call come to'Christ as believers are partakers of Christ's life is likewise frequently declared (John 3:15, 16). The fact that Peter combines this life with the imagery of stones is the striking and significant feature in this connection. Peter uses m as he used it in 1:19. He would not say that his readers are like living stones — for nature has no such stones — but desires to say that they are such stones, strange as this may sound. Yet, after having called Christ "the living stone" to say that the readers k(u avrol are such living stones takes away some of the newness of the conception, especially when the great predicate is at once added. When he is speaking of Christ, Peter does not use w but the direct apposition \i6ov ^wra; when he is
speaking of his readers e says w \i0oi, ^<3iw. The fact that they are "as living stones" is due to their connection with Christ, "the living stone." The terms "Christ" and "Christian" show the same similarity of expression. Both of Peter's expressions become clear and Pertinent when we consider the predication "you yourselves are built a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices," etc. These living stones do not lie about loosely, they constitute a "spiritual house for a holy priesthood," etc. We have been prepared for this predicate by the preceding participle "coming to the Lord" (Christ). Peter does not go beyond this coming to him; all his readers are joined to Christ and thus are this house; the circumstance that this fact also joins all the readers to each other need not be added. The agent back of oucoSo/wo-ffe is God. The present tense, like that of the participle irpoaep^oii.wot, is merely descriptive. Some regard the tense as a progressive present to indicate God' continuous work in the readers ; we deem it better not to understand it as referring to an unfinished house because no priesthood could function in such a temple. At any period of its history the Una, Sancta is a completed temple in which God dwells and accepts the sacrifices offered to him. This fact explains why the aorist "were built" would be inappropriate, for that tense would refer only to the historical past as though a certain date when the house was finished were in the mind of the writer; but we could not name such a date. When these living stones are combined, the result is "a spiritual house," "the church of the living God," I Tim. 3:15. "Spiritual" is the opposite of material. This word helps us to understand what kind of life is referred to by the participle "living" as we now look at the result of this our coming to Christ. Israel had a material temple, a type and a symbol of the spiritual house that Israel itself was to be yet failed to be. The New Testament church is this true spiritual house of God. Peter does not write lepw, "temple," because that word would also include the courts and the additional buildings about the sanctuary proper. So he also does not write voos, "sanctuary," because that would imply auxiliary structures since a sanctuary was never without these. Olxos, "house," avoids both of these connotations which are not wanted here.
We read the entire predication an a unit: "are built n spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices," etc. We insert no comma. The house and its purpose belong together. In this passage olicov does not mean a dwelling for a family; all priests do not dwell in one residence, and still less do they offer up sacrifices in their residences. The reference to "priesthood" and to "sacrifices" makes this house a temple or sanctuary in which God dwells and receives these sacrifices.The A. V.'s translation omits el's on insufficient textual authority. Its omission causes the incongruity of making priesthood" an apposition to "house" and thus states that both are built of living stones. A spiritual house "for" a holy priesthood is conceivable; stones built into a priesthood are not. As Paul does in a number of figures, Peter, too, lets the reality dominate the figure and not, as we are often inclined to do, the figure the reality. Thus he does not let the living stones (his readers) be a mere house in which others (who would they be?) offer sacrifices to God; Peter's readers are "a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up sacrifices," etc., i. e., they are both this house and this priesthood; the house and its priesthood are never separated. Hence this is a spiritual house. 'lepdrevii.a is not "priesthood" (abstract) in the sense of priestly office, although this idea would simplify the thought, but the whole body of priests (concrete). The distinction between high priest and common priests no longer exists since one is our High Priest forever, who, after offering up himself once for all, has Passed into the heavens. So all believers now constitute the priesthood on earth. No longer are some persona Priests while many more are the people for whom such priests function. All of the material, bloody sacrifices have been abolished; all believers have the same right of direct priestly access to God, all of their sacrifices are now purely "spiritual." Credit Luther with bringing this great Scriptural fact to light once more and let no self-constituted priesthood ever insert itself between us believers and God! "Holy priesthood" separated unto God. We are constantly called S.yw, "holy ones" (saints), in Holy Writ (1:15, 16); this is sometimes changed to ^yiaoyei/oi, "they who have been made holy," have been cleansed and sanctified by the truth (John 17:17-19) in justification and in a new life. The main task of the Old Testament priests was the offering of material, anial sacrifices, all of which pointed to Christ's great sacrifice to come. These are no longer needed since Christ offered his all-sufficient sacrifice once for all. Now there remain for God's holy priesthood only the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, seeing that all the treasures of God's grace are now poured out upon us through Christ. Thus Peter writes regarding all his readers: "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ," weveyKal, aorist, derived from avacfiepeiv, to carry or bring up on the altar of their hearts. The aorist infinitive is effective: actually to bring. "Spiritual sacrifices" matches "spiritual house," the adjectives are placed chiastically, the repetition emphasizes the fact that everything in the relation of the readers to God through Christ is now altogether spiritual. Regarding these sacrifices note Heb. 13:15: "Through him, therefore, let us keep offering up sacrifice of praise constantly to God, that is, fruit of lips confessing his name; moreover, the doing of good and fellowship do not be forgetting, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Rom. 12:1: "To present your bodies a living sacrifice well pleasing to God." Paul uses "living" much as Peter does. Phil. 4:18: "An odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." Rev. 8:3; "The prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne." The public preaching of the Word is not included among these sacrifices of the universal priesthood of believers because, although this work is also to be rendered as a sacrifice to God, a special call to perform this duty is necessary, and it is allotted only to those who are thus specifically called. These sacrifices are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" because they are rendered in his name and for his honor as evidences and fruits of the life he has begotten in us (1:3, 23). "Through Jesus Christ" == their acceptance is mediated wholly through him (Sia to express mediation). We approach God only through Christ, on the strength of his sacrifice for us; and he and his sacrifice cover up all imperfections that still cling to our sacrifices. It should be generally known that Masonry uses this passage from Peter in its ritual; but it significantly omits this last phrase "through Jesus Christ" and thus certifies to its own anti-Christian character.
Peter's words suggest an implied contrast with the Old Testament people of God: they had a house of God, but we ourselves are now the house; their temple was built of dead stones, we are living stones; they approached God through a priesthood, we ourselves are the priesthood; they offered up material sacrifices, ours are purely spiritual. Rome insists that we must still approach God through a specific priesthood, the papal hierarchy; others have similar ideas about the office of the ministry being an intermediary between the believers and God. Regarding these errors compare C. Tr. 523, 63-69.
6) What Peter has just said is contained already in the Old Testament prophecies which speak of Christ as a wonderful stone. God would lay this stone, and the prophecies state what this stone and God's laying of it mean for those who believe as well as for those who reject this stone and are disobedient in unbelief. These quotations are not to be regarded as a proof for what Peter says in vs. 4, 5. We see at a glance that they contain nothing about the priesthood and the sacrifices of believers. All of the citations deal with Christ as the great stone elect and honored by God, our blessed relation to this stone, and this stone's effect on those who reject it. We may thus say that Peter proves from Scripture that Christ is, indeed, the living stone (v. 4). But this is too narrow a view, for these Old Testament passages elucidate and add to what Peter himself says about this stone. Peter lets the Old Testament Scriptures speak for him instead of himself saying what they contain. Verses 4, 5 are expository of v. 6-8, the latter also being expository of the former. This is the object of the quotations; vs. 4-8 are a unit. After we understand the purpose of these quotations, their form of citation will also become clear to us. Peter takes three passages which have the figure of the stone or rock. Since he is concerned about the substance of the thought, verbatim accuracy would be pedantic, interpretative rendering is what Peter offers just as we to this day adapt the wording of a quotation for the purpose we may have in hand save in regard to those words which are essential for our purpose. The formula 8i<m wepieyi ev ypa^y thus states no more than that the quotations are found somewhere in the Scripture. The verb is impersonal, the connective indicates that Scripture warrants the way in which Peter speaks of Christ in v. 4, 5.
Wherefore it is contained in Scripture: Behold, I place in Zion a stone as comerhead, elect, in honor; And the one believing on him shall not be ashamed (Isa. 28:16) ; for you, accordingly, is the honor as the ones believing, but for such as disbelieve The stone which those building did on test reject, This One became comer-head (Ps. 118:22) ; and: A stone of stumbling and a rock of entrapment (Isa. 8:14), who stumble against the Word by being disobedient, for which they also were appointed.
The Hebrew reads: "Behold, I lay in Zion for a. foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; he that believes shall not make haste." The LXX renders ad sensum and interpretatively: "Behold I lay for the foundations of Zion a stone of great value, elect, corner-head, precious, or her foundations; and he who believes on me shall not be ashamed." Peter cites only what he needs for his purpose: "stone" and "elect, precious," which he uses, in v. 4; then the elucidating adjective aKpoywvialov, "as cornerhead," plus the clause about the one believing (in v. 4: "to whom coming," i. e., in faith). Peter does not make use of the two references to "the foundations" (LXX, ra eep£\ia.). He does not follow Eph. 2:20; only after a fashion does he follow I Cor. 3:11, 12 where Paul makes Christ the entire foundation without reference to a cornerstone. Peter speaks of his readers as being built up, as living stones, as forming a spiritual house. Thus he retains from Isaiah the adjective which speaks of the cornerstone and indicates. that the prophecy contains the same conception, which is sufficient for Peter. His interest lies in the purpose of this house or building which is intended "for a holy priesthood" (v. 5), to which he reverts in vs. 9, 10. We thus see the pertinency of the way in which he uses Isa.28:16. Astounding, indeed, is the fact that God should place such a stone, hence the exclamation "lo" or "behold." The tense is the prophetic present. The value of the stone is expressed by ocAticTor, SvTifwv, the purpose it serves by alcpoyoivuilov. This figure is often misunderstood; it is thought that the cornerstone merely joins two walls, Jewish and Gentile Christians, as if these were the foundation whereas Christians are the house, Zion (a name for the church). Or it is though that the whole house is carried or is held together by the cornerstone. Or that the cornerstone is the first one to be laid at the bottom of the excavation, or the one last laid to complete the foundation. The cornerstone is the significant stone of the entire structure. Hence it is idealized, and we still lay it with a special ceremony as we lay no other stone. It governs all the angles and all the lines of both the foundation and the building and is thus placed at the head of the corner, i. e., to form the projecting (not the inner) angle. Peter retains the LXX's translation of the second line: "the one believing shall not be ashamed," which is interpretative of the Hebrew "shall not make haste or flee," for the one who must hurry away in flight does so because he is ashamed, his misplaced faith ends in bitter disappointment, and he thus hastens to get away and to hide. The negation is a litotes: the one who rests his faith and confidence on Christ (evi is the proper preposition) shall stand solid and safe forever.
7) At this point Peter himself interprets: "for you, accordingly, is the honor as the ones believing." Both vfdv at the beginning and rois wwraovviv at the end have the emphasis, the latter thus also being juxtaposed in sharp contract with tmorowt. Despised as the readers are in the world as merely tolerated foreigners (1:1), all this honor with which God honors Christ devolves also on them as the ones believing on Christ. Joined as living stones to Christ, the living stone, his honor is also theirs. They need never be ashamed; every where in the world they are the spiritual house for God's priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. Honor, indeed! But all of it comes through Christ alone. In sharp contrast to these believers Paul sets "such as disbelieve." He omits the article in order to stress the quality more. But he now weaves the quotations into his own statement "but to such as disbelieve 'the stone which those building did on test reject, this one became corner-head' (Ps. 118:22), and 'A stone of stumbling and a rock entrapment' (Isa. 8:14), who stumble," etc. This wondrous stone means everything also to any and to all who refuse to believe: their rejection is fatal to them. In the first place, God nullifies their rejection and makes this stone the corner-head; in the second place, this stone destroys them. The first passage reads like a brief parable. There was a certain stone, and there were builders busily at work. For the kind of building they were planning they took many stones, but this particular stone they considered totally unfit, ma'am, "to reject," LXX, airoSoKi/tc^eiv, "to reject after a test," the same verb that was used in v. 4. Yet, strange to say, this stone "became corner-head." We know how it became this; the Psalmist adds that it is Yahweh's doing, marvelous in our eyes. It was done in spite of the builders. Delitzsch states that ro'sh -phiniwh cannot be translated "cornerstone," but Eduard Koenig in his excellent Woerterbuch defines "head of the corner cornerstone" exsctly as the LXX). So we do not accept such definitions as the stone at the top of the gable, the keystone of the arch, the capstone of a pillar at the eaves where the gable starts, also those listed in connection with v. 6. The prophecy of the psalm has in mind the Jewish Sanhedrin when it speaks of "those building." And, for what they wanted to make of Israel Jesus was, indeed, wholly unfit. They wanted a political house in which they could continue their secular domination of Israel and extend their power over the Gentiles. The Jewish nation followed them in disbelief. Peter applies the prophecy of the psalm to all who still repeat this disbelief and this rejection. The two verbs tiTTcSoKi'/tao-ar and e^wrfQr), "did reject," "did become," are prophetic aorists, both speak of the coming fact as being already history. Note what Jesus adds to the prophecy in Matt. 21:44 and in Luke 20:18.
8) With a simple "and" Peter borrows a double designation of Christ for such as disbelieve from Isa. 8:14: "A stone of stumbling and a rock of entrapment." Peter wants only these two designations; \i6o's, "stone," is again mentioned but is now elucidated by verpa, "a rocky mass or cliff." Both terms reveal the destructive effect of Christ; the genitives are qualitative. Tipdaicofii.fita is not a word that expresses an action, "stumbling," but a term that indicates a result as the suffix -/m (R. 151) shows: the smash or crash accomplished. Since the two designations are synonymous, this stone is not one against which the disbelievers strike merely a foot and are thrown down and rise up more or less hurt, but one against which they strike with the entire body in a dreadful crash which knocks out their brains. This stone (\iffo<i, a dressed stone to be placed in the foundation) is of vast size; it is the cornerstone of the whole Una Scmcta,. Its character for unbelievers is marked by this frightful effect. Look at Israel (Rom. 9:33) ; it is shattered, broken, demolished completely as Isaiah foretold. In iitTpa. the idea of a stone for the purpose of building is dropped, and only the idea of size is retained; it is a great rocky cliff, and the genitive aicavsaov, "entrapment," brings out fully the thought of the deadliness of this rocky mass for all disbelievers. A skandalon is the crooked stick of a trap, to which the bait is affixed, by which the trap is sprung that kills the victim. If we translate metaphorically "offense," it is offense with a deadly effect, from which recovery is impossible. The idea of luring or enticing into the deadly trap with bait is included. In Isa. 8:14 the figures of the gin and the snare are added; both are also deadly to the victim. To state that a rocky cliff does not act as a deadly trap is to forget the fact that the reality governs the figure and not the figure the reality. Strange, indeed! Men cannot let this rock alone by simply walking past it, by wholly ignoring it; unbelievers are drawn to it as to a deadly trap, they are lured to run against this towering rock and kill themselves. Continuing with his own words, Peter adds the relative clause: "they who stumble against the Word ly being disobedient, for which they also were appointed," and thus further describes "such as disbelieve" which was stated in v. 7. Peter uses only the thought that is expressed in Trpoo-ico/ijiia but would also include that suggested by aKdvSa\ov. All who disbelieve "smash against (anpraUen, B.-P. 1149) the Word by being disobedient." Some German commentators and the R. V. Margin construe rw \6yw with the participle: "to the Word being disobedient." They do this because they think that after "stone of stumbling" "the Word" cannot be named as that against which these disobedient ones stumble unless Peter intends to identify "stone" and "the Word." They overlook the fact that Peter's rel; tive clause advances the thought How do these people come into hostile contact with Jesus as "a stone of stumbling," etc.? By means of "the Word." They stumble against Christ when they run foul of the Word, stumble against that. Stone and Word are not identified in Peter's explanatory clause, yet rw \oyy is to be construed with ol wpoo-KoTn-owi. "By being disobedient" is thus properly added as showing how they run against the Word: they refuse to obey that Word which brings Christ to them. They refuse to cling to the Rock of Ages. Although disbelieving and disobeying are different concepts, the second elucidates the first. Eve disbelieved the plain Word of God by disobeying it. The worst type of disobedience is disbelief. The will of God is that we believe on him whom he has sent for our salvation (John 6:40) ; his will is found in the Word. To believe is, first of all, to obey. It is startling to read: "for which they also were
placed (set, appointed)." Calvi ists explain this as an eternal decree of reprobation, all Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding. They place the action of the verb in the voluntas antecedents whereas it belongs in the voluntas consequens. The former does not take into account man's reaction to Christ and to the Word; the latter does as Mark 16:16 plainly states. God can not and will not change either Christ or his Word. He will certainly not remove this great stone and rock, his Son, our Savior, to please wicked men; that would entail to abandon all men to damnation. So when, after God's grace is brought to men to save them by faith, they reject this grace and God's Savior they are to be crushed and destroyed. This Christ is "set for the fall of many, a sign which shall be spoken against" in disobedient unbelief, Luke 2:34. He that believeth not shall be damned.
9) After having thus fully described the "living stone" with which Peter begins in v. 4 he proceeds to the "holy priesthood" which he mentioned in v. 5
by developing this as it is to be applied to his readers:
You, however, (are) a race elect, a royal priest hood, a nation holy, a people for possession in order that you may announce abroad the fame of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light — those once no people, now, however. God's people — those not having been granted mercy, now, however, granted mercy.
From a wide range of Old Testament passages the apostle selects these illustrious designations and applies them to his readers. They are, indeed, "foreigners" to the world (1:1; 2:11), but, to, what "elect foreigners" (1:1) ! Let the world treat them as outsiders, theirs is the most sacred aristocracy.
A race elect recalls such passages as Deut. 7:6, 7; Isa. 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2, "elect" is applied also to Christ, the cornerstone, in 2:6. As God chose Abraham and the Abrahamitic nation, so the readers are now "a race elect." Israel was chosen on the condition that it should abide in God's covenant, and when it hardened itself in unbelief. God rejected this race and expelled it out of Canaan as a standing sign for all time. In Peter's readers his grace prevails as believing ones (v. 7), and so they are "a race elect" among all the races of the world. Peter refers to their present state. With the terms "race, priesthood, nation, people," Peter considers his readers as one body, as belonging to the great Una, Sancta on earth. Natural descent and all other differences are obliterated, swallowed up by the spiritual condition and status of the readers. How happy they should be to read what the apostle calls them!
"A royal priesthood" as well as "a holy nation" and "a people for possession" allude to Exod. 19:5, 6, where ^ read, "a kingdom of priests," "a holy nation," "a Peculiar treasure unto me above all people." With the words "royal priesthood" Peter resumes the "holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (v.5). "Elect race," elected to be no less than a priesthood, which is already high, yea, a "royal," "kingly" priesthood. As was already stated in v. 5, priests have the right and the authority to approach God directly, no ons is to speak to God for them, or come between them and God.
The fact that these priests (Peter's readers) are priests in the true sense of the word, men who offer sacrifices, v. 6 has already shown. Without the work of offering up sacrifices no one is a priest. This basic conception is not elaborated here; another idea is added and even emphasized, namely that we occupy so high a position that no man can be higher in this life: as a "priesthood," a body that is made up entirely of priests, no man stands between us and God, and as a body of "royal" priests no man stands over us in our relation to God. The adjective as well as the noun reveal in a double way the exaltation of our position and our function, the constant direct, immediate contact with God. While Exodus 19 describes Israel, too, as being "a kingdom of priests," Israel still had its Levitical priesthood with its many ceremonial sacrifices, who functioned between Israel and God and were placed over the people in their contact with God. This priesthood was, however, only temporary, provisional, represented and typified the eternal priesthood of the royal Priest, Christ. Although Israel was "a kingdomof priests," etc., (Exodus 19), it was not yet such a body of priests in the fullest sense of the word; the complete "royal priesthood" in the fullest sense of this designation could not appear until our "great High Priest's" (Heb. 4:14) work had been done. Then the provisional Levitical priesthood came to an end. The expression used in Exodus 19, "a kingdom of priests," and Peter's wording, "a royal priesthood," emphasize a feature that is far above all that we find in the Levitical and Aaronitic priesthood of Israel. This priesthood was not royal, kingly. None of hose who functioned in it were kings. When it was established at Sinai, and the Tabernacle was built, Israel had no kings; centuries elapsed before Israel received its first king, Saul. "A royal priesthood" takes us back to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1, etc.) who was both king and priest, whom Abraham himself honored accordingly, who typified Christ who was King and Priest in one, who was not from the tribe of Levi but of Judah as Hebrews explains all of this. "A royal priesthood" thus connects us directly via Melchizedek with the King-priest, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we offer up our sacrifices accepted of God (v. 5). He has made us "a kingdom," "priests" (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). Our royalty and our priestliness are derived from our relation to him alone. Both the adjective and the noun denote our objective standing with God through Christ. This we are to realize fully. All too few do so. Learn to think of yourself as highly as Peter and as John do. The fact that our character and our conduct should be according is self-evident, but there is an application we should make. The basic concept is found in the noun "priesthood," the addition is the adjective "royal"; hence the thought is not: "a kingdom consisting entirely of priests"; but: "priests who are royal" like Melchizedek and thus like Christ. But the noun and the adjective are a unified concept like the other designations used in this verse, "race elect" and "a nation holy"; there is no man between us and God, no being over us save God. See the author's little volume. Kings and ' Priests, where much more is added from Scripture. "A holy nation" is one that is wholly separated from the unholy and dedicated to God (1:15,16; Exod. 19:6). "Eft/os is the regular word for "nation" which is also used when speaking of the Jews as a national body. It aptly describes Peter's readers. Although they have come from many earthly nations, spiritually they now formed a distinct, "holy," superior, and exalted nation, and thus were "foreigners" among the common, earthly nations (1:1 and 2:11). By way of application we may say that we should completely give up the desire "to be like other people," for this would cause us to lose our standing with God. Our holiness is obtained by imputation and, resting on this, by acquisition (Eph. 5:26, 27). The fourth term: >w, w vcpivoirivw, "a people for possession," also harks back to Exod. 19:5: "a peculiar treasure unto me above all people"; Deut. 7:6: "a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth"; Mal. 3:17: "They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels (margin: special treasure)." Similarly Paul writes \ao's veptovaio-s in Titus 2:14, "a people select." Ilepnroirj<Ti's = the act of possessing as one's own. We are bought with a price (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23) and thus are in God's possession. Aaos is the proper word; it is often used in a sort of sacred sense with reference to the people of Israel. All four nouns; "race, priesthood, nation, people," are collectives, each has its own connotation, all of them include the whole Una, Sancta, the communion of saints. It would be a mistake to suppose that we can be all that Peter states and at the same time sit down quietly and contemplate our honor and our excellence. These are not static but dynamic terms; they include what Peter puts into the purpose clause, in which we may read an undertone of admonition: "in order that you may announce abroad (announce effectively, aorist) the fame of the one who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." This is what v. 5 means then it states: "To offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." A commoner way of stating this same truth is that used by Jesus: to confess him or his name before men. Peter uses the thought of Isa. 43:21 (compare 42:12) : "This people have I formed for myself, that they show forth my praise." On the meaning of aper'/i (the singular occurs in II Pet. 1:3; the plural here) in secular and in Scriptural usage we refer the student to G. K. 457, etc.; B.-P., 166. Suffice it to say that here, where Peter repeats Isa. 43:21: "they shall show forth my praise," the rendering "praises" (A. V.) is to the point (not "virtues," A. V. margin), not "excellencies" (R. V.), but the plural of the German Ruhm, "fame," which we do not pluralize although we may say "all the fame." The genitive indicates what fame and praise are referred to: "of the One who called us," etc., (1:15). Because of what we are it is our great function that by word and by deed, by our confession and by our conduct we at all times and under all circumstances publish in our own midst and to all men about us him who called us out of darkness, etc. 'ek in the verb gives it the meaning announce "out" or "abroad." True believers cannot keep still, they simply must speak out with lip and with life. Thus they function as a royal Priesthood and ever offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. This is the confessional and the missionary spirit and activity of God's people; for the sake of this God lets us remain in the world. "Darkness" is the terrible state of the world under tie prince of darkness, the state of blindness, lifelessos, death, in which the world still lies. God's call, Perating through the gospel, brought us out of this state "into his marvelous light," the light of truth, life, blessedness which are found in his kingdom of grace. Instead of hiding the fact that we are foreigners in this world we proclaim it and tell with delight who as made us what we are and how he has done what he did. Is this divine purpose being carried out by you? Supply the applicatory thoughts yourself.
10) Peter closes with a double, most effective apposition : "those once no people, now, however. God's people; those not having been mercied, now, however, mercied." Peter adapts expressions found in Hosea 2:23 to his own use, compare Deut. 32:21. We see what God has done for the readers: "once a non-people" (ov negates Xaos), not a people in any sense, nothing but sheep without a shepherd; "now God's people," the extreme opposite. All who are far from God and Christ are a non-people spiritually; only those who come to Christ (v. 4) are a real people. God's people, he being their King, Savior, Protector, Provider, Benefactor. The inwardness of this thought is brought out by the second apposition. "Those not having been mercied," with the perfect passive participle, are those who during the past were left in their sad condition for a long time. Peter again (1:3) uses the thought of "mercy" and not that of "grace" because he thinks of the wretched consequences which sin produces. Those who believe that the readers of this epistle were former Jews and not former Gentiles encounter a difficulty here; Peter could not say of Jews that they have not been granted mercy. In Rom. 9:25 Paul, too, applies Hosea's phrases to former Gentiles. The aorist in the expression "now, however, mercied" may simply indicate the past historical fact or may be ingressive: "got mercy bestowed on them." This closes the first main part of the epistle (1 :l3- 2:10).
Hortations
Due to the Relations to Men,2:11.3:12
Summary, v. 11, 12
11) All of these hortations deal with our relations to men and thus naturally follow those that emanate from our relation to God. Peter begins with a brief summary admonition, a preamble to the specific relations that follow.
Beloved, I urge that as outsiders and foreigners you hold yourselves aloof from fleshly lusts which are of a kind that campaign against the soul, having your conduct among the Gentiles excellent in order that in what they speak against you as doers of baseness, due to your excellent works, when they look upon (them), they may glorify God in the day of visitation.
Peter urges his readers to keep away from all fleshly lusts for the sake of their own souls and so to conduct themselves in their pagan surroundings that
the very thing for which they are slandered may make these slanderers glorify God when he visits them with his grace. We readily see that Peter turns to a different set of admonitions, and that this first admonition is preliminary and comprehensive. Here and in 4:12 he employs the address ayairyroi', "beloved." He draws his readers closely to his heart with intelligent, purposeful love, a love that will call forth a corresponding love and a readiness to obey. napaxaAto === I urge, admonish, exhort, comfort, according to the context; here the first meaning is the best; "beseech" is not correct. In 1:3 Peter has used the term irapcviSrip.oi, "foreigners"; he now doubles this ^y adding wapoiKoi, "outsiders." In Heb. 11:9 we have the verb: Abraham "lived as an outsider" in Canaan, e land that God had willed to him in his testament. A paroikos is one who dwells beside the native citizen who is allowed to do so under restricted rights which are less than those granted the citizens. We have seen how Christians have become such outsiders and foreigners to the people among whom they have always dwelt and together with whom they are actually cit- izens of the land in which they dwell: their new relation to God has made them aliens, and the doubling of the nouns emphasizes this fact.
Peter, therefore, urges them "to hold themselves aloof from fleshly lusts." The Gentiles among whom they live are natives of the world and thus follow the
promptings of the flesh and its many lusts; o-apxiKos Kara o-apxa, what accords with flesh, "fleshly"; oapKiiw ==aa.p^ &v, what is flesh, "fleshy." Right here we see how Christians appear as outsiders and aliens to their Gentile neighbors: they hold themselves aloof from these neighbors in regard to all such lusts, they are spiritual in their nature and their conduct, no longer fleshly. There is a gulf between them and their neighbors. AZ'Tives is both qualitative and causal (R. 728) : these lusts are of such a kind and for that reason campaign against the soul like a aTpaTevpa. or army. The verb used is not iroAe/Aeir, "to war," but arparmwOai., "to engage in a campaign," and personifies these fleshly lusts •which intend to capture the soul in order to enslave and to destroy it. The appeal of this relative clause is one of spiritual self-interest.
12) Since Peter has a participle follow the infinitive, we see that ave^eaffai. and the danger to our souls are the supreme thought, and that S^ows, which stresses the interest of the other people whom we may be able to influence for good, is dependent on the safety of our own souls. Peter has already admonished his readers in regard to "conduct" in their relation to God and has used the same word that is here employed, nvoffTpo^ (1 '•15' 18); ^re he stresses the fact that their conduct "among the Gentiles" must ever be ko^, morally excellent, noble, the adjective conveying the thought that it is even admirable in the eyes of those pagans who have any moral sense left. The word i6vq does not make Peter's readers former Jews. Peter says nothing about conduct toward unconverted Jews. "Gentiles" is used in the religious sense of pagans, "a non-people" as far as God is concerned, such as Peter's readers themselves were before they got to be mercied of God (v. 10) and became Christians. The purpose of such noble conduct is this, that these pagans "in what they speak against you as doers of baseness may (in this very thing), due to the noble works, when they look upon them, glorify God in the day of visitation." The relative phrase "in which thing" is to be construed with both verbs: the thing in connection with which they at first speak against you, in connection with that very thing they may eventually glorify God when the day of their visitation arrives, i. e., when God looks in on them with his mercy and brings them to conversion. The relative is neuter and singular and thus does not resume the feminine "conduct," nor is it the same as "the noble works," which is plural. The relative refers to this thing, that Peter's readers have become outsiders and foreigners to their pagan neighbors, have deserted the pagan gods for the true God, have become all that v. 9 records of them. This arouses the hostility of the pagan community; in connection with it (ev) they speak against you as taxoToioi', "bad actors," which does not mean "criminals" but persons who do what is bad, base, good-for-nothing.
There is no need to extend the meaning of the ^rd nor to specify the charges that were brought Gainst the readers. In any case, when a number of People in a pagan city cut markedly loose from the rest and adopt a religion that condemns the old religion of the rest as radically as the Christian faith condemes paganism, this minority will certainly hear themselves called bad actors in the whole matter. At the time when Peter writes this hostility was being intensified since Nero himself and the capital of the empire were beginning no longer to regard Christianity as a part of Judaism, which was tolerated and privileged, but as a religio illicita (see the introduction). The provinces would follow the attitude of Rome and of Nero. Christians were thus bound to be "spoken against as bad actors" more than ever. Yet, ex Twv Ka\wv ipyw, as the result or outcome of the excellent works of the readers when they conduct themselves among their pagan neighbors in a morally excellent way, when these pagans look upon these excellent works (the participle needs no object in the Greek), they will in many cases be so impressed as themselves to be drawn to Christianity, become converted as Peter's readers were converted, and will thus actually (aorist) glorify God when this day of grace arrives for them. The good works of true believers have a strong missionary power. Deeds that are done by consistent conduct speak louder than words. Deeds that re-enforce doctrine, the gospel in both Word and life, draw men to God through Jesus Christ. Worldly Christians hinder home missionary work. Note that KaA.os is repeated; it is once found in the comprehensive singular "excellent conduct" and then in the multiplied plural "excellent works." The addition ev •fniepa emwo^s excludes the thought that these pagans glorify God only by praising the noble works of the Christians while they remain pagans. The expression "glorify rw ®ew, the true God, is too strong for that thought; still stronger is the phrase "in the day of visitation," which recalls Luke 19:44: "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." Isa. 10:3 has the phrase, Jeremiah has much to say about God's visitation, others, too, mention it. God visits also with punishment, but here, as in Luke 19, the visitation takes place when God looks upon a person with grace and mercy (v. lOb). To t.hink of the last day is not in the line of the thought; likewise to compromise: glorify God at the last day as people whom God has converted during their day of life on earth. Peter is restating the word of Jesus spoken in Matt. 5:16: "that they may see your excellent works and may glorify your Father, the One in the heavens." This brief but comprehensive summary heads the following admonitions, all of which deal with our relations to men while the relation to God (1:13-2:10) is ever kept in mind. In these relations our own soul's interest is vital, and it is this for the sake of the glory of God and the salvation of other men.
Government, 18-17
13) We do not think that Peter follows an abstract outline and thus starts with obedience to the government. Peter's readers were, of course, under a pagan government, and the question was always asked in how far and on what principle God's people should obey pagan rulers. The question became acute when Christians were spoken against as xoKoiroioi, "bad actors," and were treated as such by the government when some of them were accused and indicted before the authorities. There was more danger of this at the time when Peter writes, and it is thus that he takes up this subject.
Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether to a ing as supreme or to governors as having been sent through him for vengeance on doers of baseness and praise on doers of good.
The aorist imperative is as decisive and as strong as the aorists used in 1:13, 17, 22; 2:2; the passive of woTdo-o-ii) is used in the middle sense. Kri'ms reation, here "every human creation" in the sense of "every human institution" created by man. Some stress the point that government is here said to be human as though this were a view that is different from Paul's: "there is no authority except from God." Peter is said to be a republican, Paul a monarchist, so that Peter would represent the modern view of government as emanating from the people and not the view of rule by divine right. But this supposed difference is specious. Paul says that the e^ovata in all government, whatever its human form may be, is of divine origin, a statement that Peter would not think of contradicting. Peter is not speaking of the source of the e^ovvia. or "authority" in government but of its form, which is, indeed, "a human creation," that has a king as supreme and governors who are sent through him and govern in his name. No special form of government is advocated by the New Testament. Peter deals with the human form as it was then existing in the Roman empire, Nero being the Caesar who is included under paaiXwy ws virepe^mv: "whether a king as supreme." It also includes his "governors," no matter whether they were legati Augusti, proconsuls, procurators, or had some other title. While the citizens of Rome refused to call the emperor rex, the Greek-speaking people of the empire commonly called him "king."
14) We need not hesitate to connect the w phrase only with "governors." They were sent by the king "for vengeance on doers of baseness and praise on
doers of good" (Rom. 13:3, 4). They were to act as the king's representatives in this double function, and thus the phrase need not modify "king" who certainly, by appointing these governors, himself aimed to punish evil men and to praise good men. The absence of the article makes all the nouns qualitative. Peter uses icaKOTToioi, the same word that was used in v. 12; the context differs; in v. 12 the Christians are vilified as bad actors, in v. 14 the bad actors are proven to be such in court. Ancient rulers, too, had praise for good men and often honored them in a public way as governments in all lands still do. Peter speaks of the rulers in their normal functions as Paul does in Rom. 13. What Peter has to say when rulers become tyrannous his early record shows, Acts 4:19; 5:29. The way in which Peter speaks of the functions of rulers has been used to prove that his readers were in no danger at the present time, and that no danger from the government was threatening in the near future. But v. 12 sounds a different note. Nor is the present paragraph on government merely abstract and theoretical. Christians need admonition regarding government when government is likely to turn against them; they are then to be admonished that their course of conduct is not to be rebellion but submission. To extend this submission to the point of denying the faith on a ruler's demand is obviously wrong even if we did not have Acts 4:19 and 5:29. The submission is to be the normal one, always Sia rov Kurion, "because of, for the sake of the Lord," which we regard as meaning more than that the Lord's name may not be vilified; Paul says "for conscience's sake," a conscience bound by the Lord (i. e., Christ).
15) "On states the reason for this submission:
because so is the will of God that by doing good you muzzle the ignorance of foolish men, as free and not as having this freedom as a veil for baseness but as slaves of God.
Peter does not say: "Submit because your submission is God's will." That fact has already been said in a much finer way; it has not been given by a legal command but by an appeal to a gospel motive: "for the Lord's sake." What Peter makes prominent is one particular reason for submission for the Lord's sake, namely that what God has willed (0eA.^a, a term expressing a result) is owws "so" or "thus," as follows, namely "that by doing good you keep muzzling the ignorance of foolish men," such as try to speak against you as doers of baseness (v. 12). Owox; is not rowo, "this"; the adverb cannot refer backward: "thus by submitting yourselves," because God never considered the alternative that his people would not be subject to human institutions such as government, and because on already points forward to the reason for submission, namely the form of what God willed. The infinitive is not in apposition to oSrcus (R. 1078) or to Oe\7)iJia but to both, to "so is the will of God that," etc. God wants us to do good irrespective of foolish men, for the highest kind of reasons in regard to himself as well as also to ourselves; it is only incidental, secondary, that his will is as it is, that by our doing good we muzzle the ignorance of foolish men who seek to find something base in our deeds and in their ignorance do not see that all baseness is lacking. Toiro would change the sense and leave the impression that this muzzling is a main reason for our doing good, the infinitive means "to muzzle" and only metaphorically "to silence." the original meaning is in place, for these ignoramuses want to bite us like dogs. Our constant doing good acts like a constant muzzling. "Ignorance" implies that they ought to have more sense; moreover, it is a mild judgment and recalls the not knowing voiced in Luke 23:34, the ignorance mentioned in Acts 3:17; I Tim. 1:13. The durative "keep muzzling" appears to imply a constant tendency to bark and to bite.
16) The addition "as free," etc., is still subordinate. The nominative is not a change of construetion, for this continues the subject of wrorayriTe and not the implied accusative subject of ifx.p.ovv; nor is ^ due to the imperative, it is the common negative with participles. We subject ourselves to government for the Lord's sake as being perfectly free and in no way as slaves to men; how free Acts 4:19 and 5:29 indicate. K<u is important. It is not 8e, "but," for our very freedom is this, that we do not have this our freedom "as a veil for baseness," practice some sort of baseness behind this veil in secret. See Gal. 5:1, 13. The word is not "cloak" but veil, and naicia is the same word that was used in the compounds found in v. 12 and 14; it is not "maliciousness" (A. V.), "malice," "wickedness" (R. V. and margin), but "baseness" as already explained. "Free," indeed, "but as slaves of God," whom he has bought for his own (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23), who have no will of their own but obey only the will of their master, God. This slavery to God is the truest and most complete human freedom; all other so-called freedom is fiction.
17) Some commentators are puzzled because Peter concludes this hortation with an aorist imperative plus three present imperatives, only the last of which deals with government. This is not a sudden broadening beyond government that returns to the main point in the last imperative; this is not saying that loving the brethren and fearing God are not in conflict with honoring the king and the government. Peter specifies how we are to do good so as to shut the mouths of ignorant men. Honor all! This is the decisive aorist which we have in 1:13, 17, 22; 2:2, 13. Peter separates and puts the next three imperatives into a group by themselves and makes them durative presents. Keep loving the brotherhood! This is the same injunction that is found in 1:22 save for the tense, "love" is to be taken in the same sense, compare Heb. 13:1. The limitation is the same as that found in Gal. 6:10: to those who are one with us we are able to show manifestations of love which we cannot show to others; the same is true also with regard to God and his children. "Brotherhood" conceives all the brethren as one body. Keep fearing God! — "in fear" (1:17), avoiding all sin and disobedience to him. Keep honoring the king! i. e., as a king, as one in this office. It is mentioned in the singular because we honor one in this office in a distinct way and not as we honor all men in general. What can even ignorant men say against us if we follow these injunctions? What charge can they bring against us before any magistrate if we live thus: honoring all men, in particular loving our brethren, fearing God in holy reverence, honoring the king?
Slaves, v. 18-25
18) In Paul's admonitions to different classes of members slaves have the ast place; Peter speaks of them first because, as his readers were under pagan rulers, so Christian slaves were under pagan masters. Peter does not call them Sov\oi. or slaves as Paul does but oocerai, "houseslaves," who belong to the Lcos or familia; this term is like the Latin famulus or our "domestic." There were many slaves throughout the empire, and when Christianity was preached to them, many slaves were converted to it. The subject of slavery is a large subject, both as to the nature of slavery in the empire and as to the attitude of Christianity toward slavery. See The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to Philemon.
The houseslaves, continuing in subjection in all fear to the masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the perverse!
In this way they are to conduct themselves as Christians in their station of life. The sentence has no finite verb, the nominative participle is not intended as a verb, nor is wre or wi to be supplied, for the participle merely continues the idea of wrorayye expressed in v. 13. We have the same construction in 3:1 regarding "wives," and in 3:7, 8 it is also extended to other participles that no longer continue the idea of subjection. This is good Greek, the desire being to make all of these admonitions a continued chain by means of participles. Subjection to the masters is the part of Christian slaves, not a subjection like that of pagan slaves, which is due to mere human compulsion, but one that is due to submission to God's will. In v. 13 we have: "to every human institution," one that is only "human" and not a divine arrangement. God did not institute slavery, men did that, but Christian slaves bow submissively to this human bondage. "In all fear" does not mean in fear of the masters, in dread of punishment from them. The dative rols SeoTTOTdi? depends on the participle and is not equal to a genitive: "in all fear of the masters." Roman law gave great power to owners of slaves, but Christian H slaves conduct themselves "in all fear of God" (1:17), they dread to transgress his will and to sin against him. "The houseslaves" and "the masters" name these classes objectively. The former is a nominative and ' not a vocative although vocatives often have the article. Our versions have translated this nominative as a vocative. It was comparatively easy to live under good and gentle masters, yet Christian slaves were to be just as ready to serve and to obey "the perverse," rois o-xoAiots, "crooked," those who order one thing now and just about the opposite then. "Froward" (our versions) makes the impression that these masters were contrary, obstinate. Peter refers to masters that were hard to please because they order a thing done in one way, and when it is done that way, scold because they wanted it done another way and thus keep the poor slaves in constant uncertainty because of their whims. 'En-ieuo;? is a beautiful word; it is a companion to wpam. The latter is found in the heart, the former is manifested toward others and is always the kindliness of a superior toward an inferior. Trench: "The greatly forgiven servant in the parable (Matt. 18:23) had known the emeuceio. of his lord and king; the same was therefore justly expected of him." We may translate this word "gentle" or "kindly." Whether their masters made it easy or hard for them, Christian slaves were to be submissive: not presumptuous in the one case, not grumbling and surly in the other.
19) For this is grace, if because of consciousness of God one bears up under griefs, suffering wrongfully. For what sort of reputation (is it) if sinning and getting cuffed you shall stand it? But if doing good and suffering you shall stand it, this (is) favor with God.
The motive that should prompt slaves to be subject to even perverse masters is shown by pointing to what this means for them in regard to God, which also comforts and cheers them in their trying position. The "if" clause is in apposition to "this," and xapis = "favor" (not "thankworthy" or "thank," A. V. and margin; not "acceptable," R. V.). The action described in the "if" clause assures the Christian slave of God's favor. The first meaning of owei'Syni is "consciousness," "co-knowledge": "The word would seem to have been 'baptized' by Paul into a new and deeper connotation, and to have been used by him as equivalent to ro avvciSov 'conscience' " (M.-M. 604). Since it is here construed with the objective genitive, we render "because of consciousness of God" in preference to our versions' rendering of the genitive: "for conscience toward God." "Conscience" alone is not sufficient, for even pagans have a conscience; Peter has in mind an enlightened conscience, one that judges a person's acts in connection with God. If, for the sake of such a conscience, a slave "bears griefs, suffering wrongfully," this is favor with God. Arbitrary pagan masters may abuse the slave and often do this because he has become a Christian. All such "griefs," which are inflicted to make the poor, helpless slave suffer, are in reality "grace or favor" that comes to him from God if he, indeed, bears up under (vvo4iepei) them because he is conscious of God who sees all and will reward him.
20) Peter adds the negative side and then repeats the positive. "For what kind of reputation (xAeos, Ruf, Ruhm, fame) is it if sinning and cuffed you shall stand it?" Suppose this Christian slave, whose master keeps abusing him, should become resentful and, instead of keeping conscious of God (obeying his conscience), should sin against it and cease to do his best for his master and thus get cuffed, slapped, fisticuffed since this is his lot under his mean master anyway — what kind of a reputation would that be for him as far as God is concerned? Our versions have K\eo-s == "glory" because they could perhaps find no better word; the word == "report, rumor," which, when it is spread "fame." Could God look with favor on such action? The two "if" clauses are placed chiastically. We should also note that in v. 19 the emphasis rests on the phrase that mentions the conscience and thus in the case of the other two "if" clauses on sinning (against conscience) and on doing good and not on the two secondary participles "being cuffed and suffering"; for, as v. 19 shows, this abuse is the poor slave's lot under his ugly master in any case. His choice lies between resentment ("sinning" against what his Christian conscience tells him) and suffering in that way and losing God's favor or doing good to his master (as his conscience tells him) and suffering in this way and thus continuing in God's favor. The choice should not be difficult to make. His master will not show him favor but only abuse. God will show him favor if this slave keeps true to his Christian conscience; he himself forfeits this divine favor if he resents his master's treatment and thus sins against God. The two wo/werre do not mean "shall take it patiently" but simply "shall endure or stand it." From "anyone," which he used in v. 19, Peter advances to the personal plural "you"; the future "shall stand it" is future to the participle when the cuffing and the suffering come. Verses 19 and 20 are closely connected and are worded with concise precision, especially in regard to the emphatic placement of the Sia phrase and of the participles. Suffering runs through the three statements : this slave and any of the readers who are under such masters will have to suffer and be cuffed and knocked about in any case. That, too, is why vdcr^ovrtv in v. 20 reverts to 7raa\wv in v. 19 with KoAa^i^ojaevoi intervening. When this feature of Peter's style is noticed, his meaning will become clear.
21) For for this you were called because also Christ suffered in your behalf, leaving behind for you a writing-copy in order that you may ollow his tracks — he the One who did not do sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; he the One who, being reviled, kept not reviling in turn; suffering, kept not threatening but kept committing (himself) to the One judging righteously; he the One who his own self carried up our sins in his body on the wood in order that, having ceased to exist for the sins, we may live for righteousness; he the One with whose stripes you were healed!
touto has the same force as the two rovro in verses 19 and 20, "for this," namely not merely to suffer, not merely to do good to others, but to do good and to suffer for and while doing it. We see how well this applies to slaves who were maltreated by their masters, often only because they had become Christian and in spite of the good, conscientious service which they rendered. Such poor slaves Peter points to the example of Jesus, whom they were called to follow by the gospel. While Peter points to Jesus' example for these slaves in their distressful condition in order to keep them true to their saving call, this blessed example has value for all of his readers and also for all of us to this day. For this all of us are called to suffer and to be abused while we as followers of Christ conscientiously do good to others. By thus holding up the example of Jesus, Peter by no means makes him only an example as rationalists and modernists do. From start to finish Peter presents Jesus, our example, as our Savior, who, by becoming our example, also enables us to follow his example by ridding us of our sins by bearing them for us and thus placing us into a new life. "On = "because"; it is not declarative "that." The reason these slaves are called "for this," namely to suffer while doing good, is due to the fact that they are called to follow a Savior who, in order to save us and to do us the highest good, suffered infinitely more for our sins. There is, of course, a great difference. It ia not merely the fact that his example is perfect in every way while our following is always imperfect, but the fact that his suffering for our good was expiatory while ours, however severe it may be, cannot be that, need not be that. His expiation is complete. "Also Christ suffered in our behalf" is to be understood in the sense of 3:18: "because also Christ suffered once for sins. One righteous instead of unrighteous ones," etc. We see that wrep, "in behalf of," means no less than "instead of." We reserve the fuller exposition for 3:18. By all this suffering of his the Christ who suffered thus leaves us a woypa.ii.iuov (found only here in the Scriptures), a writing or a drawing that is to be placed under another sheet and to be retraced on that upper sheet by the pupil, "writing to be used as a perfect model for copy." The Iva clause explains by using another figure: "in order that we may follow his tracks," 'i\vo's, the German Spur, footprints left in the soil. The aorist means "actually follow." We must go the way the Master went. When he was doing the highest good for others he suffered; this is the reason that our call obligates us to suffer in our humble way when we do good to others for conscience's sake.
22) Four relatives follow. All four are not mere relatives but have demonstrative force, a use of the relative that is quite regular, and one that is the more assured here because of the emphatic repetition. So we do not translate with a common "who" but with "he, the One who." "He did not do sin," sin of any kind; the aorist states the great fact as such; he was absolutely sinless. "Neither was guile found in his mouth," not even this trace of sin. Peter uses Isa. 53:9: "because lawlessness (avo^iav, LXX) he did not do, nor guile in his mouth"; yet Peter does not quote, he only restates. He has already described Christ as "a lamb blemishless and spotless" in 1:19. Note the reference to "all guile" in 2:1 and "not speaking guile" in 3:10. The thought agrees with James 3:2, that sin of any kind will show itself first of all by means of the tongue. Peter's use of Isaiah 53 is so pertinent because he has used aiJw.pTMovTc'i in v. 20, and because maltreated slaves would be tempted to use "guile" to deceive their masters in order to escape being cuffed. These slaves, like all of us, must ever look at Christ who was without sin and guile. The Gospel records substantiate what Peter says. Jesus stands forth as the sinless One. In all his clashes with his cunning enemies no trace of evasion, guile, deceit, trickery is found, nothing but the pure, holy truth; with that alone he discomfited them. Some think that "was found" refers to his trial before the Sanhedrin when all the false witnesses failed to fasten anything adverse upon him and when, with his life at stake, he made oath to the truth that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. On Christ's sinlessness compare Luke 23:41; John 8 ;46; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15.
23) The second demonstrative relative selects two points of the sinless conduct of Jesus, which may refer to Isa. 53:7, a lamb not opening his mouth: reviled, Jesus did not retort with reviling; suffering, he did not reply by threatening; instead of this he was silent and committed himself to God, the One who judges righteously. Here we have three descriptive imperfects which stand out amid the simple aorists of fact. They, too, state facts but present them as on a moving film, the present participles letting us picture the scenes of reviling and suffering, the imperfect verbs letting us dwell on the silent victim as no reviling, no threatening reply issues from his lips. Peter has in mind the scenes of the great passion in which the provocation to retaliate was extreme. We think especially of the mockery and the abuse of the Sanhedrin, of the scourging and the mockery of the soldiers, and of the mockery and the reviling under the cross. Some think of the patience of Jesus, but Peter says nothing about this although Jesus suffered in perfect patience. TiapeSiSov has no object and is not reflexive but active. The Germans can help themselves by translating steUte es heim and leave "it" undefined. Since a personal object is used in juridical connections, our versions appear to be correct when they supply this object in their English translations: "he committed himself," which is better than "his cause" (margins). The application of this example of Jesus to maltreated slaves lies on the surface; let them ever commit themselves to him who judges righteously and keep their hearts and their lips from muttering reviling and threatening replies.
24) The third demonstrative relative states that all this sinless suffering of Christ, which is such an example for those who are called to Christ and must suffer, was a suffering for them, to rid them of their sins, to give them a new life in which they may live for righteousness. The point is not the fact that there were wicked men on earth when Christ lived here, and that he suffered terribly at their hands, and that there are still wicked men, and that some of us, like these helpless slaves, also suffer much from them; but that what Christ suffered was suffered in our behalf (mrep v/ji.wv, v. 21), was inflicted upon him by our sins, from which to save us he died on the cross. The example of Christ will be of no avail unless we note his expiation of our sins, get free of them through him, get into the new life, and so live in the true righteousness and patiently endure, like Christ, what men inflict upon us. Peter is not a moralist, he preaches the full gospel of expiation, substitution, and regeneration: "he the One who his own self carried up our sins in his body up on the wood in order that," etc. 'A.va<j>€pw is a ritual term. We see it so used in Lev. 14:20 (LXX, avoi'o-ei cm, shall bring up upon the altar) and in James 2:21, aweyKas eiri', "having brought Isaac, his son, up upon the altar." The verb thus tells us that Christ made a sacrifice. The object is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and ^v and avro-s are juxtaposed: "the sins that are ours he himself carried up in his body," etc. Peter speaks as his old teacher, the Baptist, did in John 1:29, 36. Himself sinless, Jesus carried up our sins and acted as our substitute. Yahweh laid on him the inquity of us all, Isa. 53:6, made his soul (life) an offering for sin (v. 10), to bear their iniquities, pouring out his soul (life) unto death (v. 11, 12). Peter is exact; Christ carried up our sins "in his body" (Heb. 10:5; "a body didst thou fit for me"). We see Christ on his way to Golgotha, his body loaded with all our sins, bruised, broken, suffering, to die the bloody death on the cross. Awos, "he himself" (emphatic) carried up our sins voluntarily. For this he had become incarnate. 'eot to ^v\ov, "upon the wood" ("tree," our versions), is highly significant (Acts 5:30; 10:39), for Gal. 3:13 points out the fact that to be hung on wood (a post or gibbet) means no less than to become accursed according to Deut. 21:23: "Accursed everyone that hangs on wood." He took the curse of our sins on his own body and by his sacrificial death on the wood expiated the curse in our stead. What is the suffering which we now endure compared to that? Since Christ's suffering is expiatory and sacrificial it is not only far greater but also entirely different from our poor sufferings. Our sins, guilt, curse he bore, they brought him to the wood; shall we, then, not quietly bear our suffering and follow in his tracks? This he did "in order that we, having ceased to exist for the sins, may live for the (true) righteous. ness." 'Airoyi'ro/Mii is rare and is used as the opposite of yivofuu which explains the dative rais ajiiapTiais: "having ceased to exist for the sins." To cease to exist is thus taken to mean "to die" (our versions) ; but this is inexact, for then Peter, like Paul, would have used the verb "to die"; "to cease existing" for something is stronger and more to the point. To state that "to die" is a correct translation because "may live" follows (these two being opposites) is only to say that Peter should have used the verb "to die," but he does not use it even with reference to Christ. The aorist means actually ceasing to exist even as the aorist ^ow/ier, means actually to live (not "might live," R. V., which is too potential). Peter intends to statf ^"A he and his readers have actually ceased to exist for the sins and are thus actually to live for the righteousness, the one that is such in God's judgment. This cessation occurred by repentance and faith, and thus this new life for righteousness began. It is specious to argue that the sins for which we ceased to exist are past sins because they are the ones which Christ carried up upon the wood. Christ atoned for all our sins, and we should not date them. Shall we regard also the fourth relative as a demonstrative? This is usually not done even as the other three are not so regarded. Yet this last relative is stronger when it is regarded as a demonstrative: "he with whose stripes you were healed" (using Isa. 53:5). This fourth pronoun, a genitive, rounds out the great statement about Christ. The dative of means i-ai im\.wn'i is collective so that we translate it with the plural "stripes." This reference to "stripes" is so appropriate because slaves, too, were whipped and scourged, and this paragraph is intended especially for maltreated slaves. The expression is highly paradoxical because stripes, which make bloody welts and lay even the flesh bare, are said to have wrought healing. It is solved by remembering that they were administered on Christ's body and thus healed us. It has been well said that here we again have the doctrine of Christ's vicarious, substitutionary suffering. We see no reason for inserting the idea "healed of our disease," Isaiah mentions griefs and sorrows but not disease. Peter's thought concerns the wounds that sins inflict on us; these were healed by means of Christ's wounds. The healing stripes of Christ save us from eternal death (Luke 12:48, -n-Xriyai) ', any Christian slave may then well bear the blows which his ugly master inflicts on him. We cannot approve the interpretation: "Christ has borne our sins, thus others' sins, and therewith in tended to bring about our conversion. Thus also Christian slaves and Christians in general should bear and suffer others' sins, the wrong done them by the adversaries of their faith, and do this also with the intent, if possible, of converting them." Our suffering from other men's sins is never expiatory. Christ's bearing fremde Suende is never a true parallel to our bearing fremde Suende. It is dangerous to say so. Peter does not hint that abused slaves are to bear their abuse with missionary intent; "doing good" in v. 20 means rendering sincere, beneficial service as slaves and cannot be taken to mean more than this.
25) "For" is explanatory of not merely the last relative clause but of all four of these clauses:
For you •were as sheep wandering astray but turned yourselves now to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Peter appropriates still more of Isa. 53, in this first clause a part of v. 6. It is argued that because "sheep" is used, Peter's readers cannot be Gentiles but must be Jewish Christians who were in the fold as sheep and then wandered away and have now returned. John 10:16: "Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring," is brushed aside with the remark that Peter lived entirely in the Old Testament. These were Gentile Christians who were at one |i time pagan, who wandered astray like sheep without a shepherd. The tense is not periphrastic; v^avwiwoi is only a descriptive participle that is derived from v\avdw, "to make wander away," thus the passive (used in the middle sense) means "to wander astray." The passive of evwrpi^w is also used in the middle sense although the passive "were turned" would be fitting here; the form is the second passive. The aorist simply states the past fact to express which the English uses the perfect: "did turn yourselves now" means "now" since Christ has borne your sins. The use of but one article makes both nouns a unified designation: "the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." Now these slaves who are being addressed by Peter, like all other readers, are under Christ who is their Shepherd. We need not quote all the passages which call Christ our "Shepherd" and state all that we thus have in him. By doubling the term and adding "Overseer" Peter makes the thought more emphatic. Wandering sheep have no one to look after them and are thus doomed to perish; Christ looks after his sheep. The rendering "bishop" is inadequate because it suggests the much later ecclesiastical use of this word. Tipevpwpo's, "elder," and also cTi'o-xoiros are used in the New Testament with reference to the pastors of the church; Peter's use of the latter word with reference to Christ has nothing in particular to do with this congregational office. Peter has in mind only the general figure of sheep who once went astray and had no one to guard them and then came to Christ who cares for their needs. The thought that the slaves who are compelled to suffer at the hands of their masters have Jesus as their Shepherd and Overseer is one of great comfort to them. His gentle hand keeps them, and he is not unmindful of their hard condition. To be sure, evwicovov denotes one who is placed over us; but, compared with vptapvTcpo's, it is a term that denotes service; the thought of dignity is far more prominent in the latter term.
CHAPTER III
Wives, v. 1-6
1) The entire series of admonitions from 2:13 to 3:12 is conceived as a unit, and this is indicated by the construction: the finite vmTdyljre at the beginning in 2:13, followed in 2:18 by the participle moraaaoiievoi, in 3:1 by wordocro/tei/ai, in 3:7 by another participle, and in 3:8 by adjectives. This is the structural framework; all else, however it may be construed, whether as independent sentences or not, is conceived as being subordinate. When this structure is understood, we shall not connect the participle in 2:18 or the one in 3:1 with any of the imperatives in 2:17, or make imperatives and finite verbs of the participles.
Likewise, wives continuing in subjection to their own husbands in order that, even if some are disobedient to the Word, by means of the conduct of the wives without word they may be gained, having looked upon your conduct pure in fear.
"Likewise" means that for "wives" there are also requirements that are due to their station and relation, namely in relation to their husbands. By leaving out the article and by simply using "wives," Peter stresses the qualitative force of this noun. This is not a vocative (our versions) any more than are "the houseslaves" in 2:18, "the husbands" in 3:7, and "all" in 3:8; vocatives would call for finite verbs. "Continuing to be subject" is again the Christian obligation just as it was in the case of slaves, but, as the qualitative (anarthrous) "wives" indicates, in this case a subjection of a quality befitting wives; those now addressed are not slaves but wives. Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18 are close parallels. All Scripture, in particular also the New Testament, asks Christian wives to be subject to their husbands, and what is asked of the husbands should certainly make any wife's subjection a delight instead of an infliction. Paul enters upon a fuller discussion of this whole subject, not only as it pertains to wives alone, but also as it pertains to the whole Christian status of women as this goes back to creation itself.
Peter is content with the simple participial statement: "continuing in subjection to their own husbands," "their own" emphasizing the close relation of wives to husbands. Peter has the third person and not "your" (our versions) and thus no vocative. The purpose clause applies only to Christian women whose husbands are still unbelievers. The fact that such wives will also be subject to their pagan husbands is taken for granted. These wives have a special goal in view which they greatly desire to have realized, namely that their husbands "may be gained" for Christ. In the Koine the future indicative may follow !va, R. 984. Peter indicates the most effective means for attaining this purpose and places the phrases forward for the sake of emphasis: "by means of the conduct of the wives without word"; they are to let their Christian conduct do the speaking, are not to argue about religion with their husbands. "Without word" cannot mean "without the Word," for no man is eonverted without the Word, and the simple \6yo<s, here given the second place after 6 xdyos, cannot have the same meaning as the articulated noun. Overanxious wives attempt to talk their husbands into conversion, which is generally a great mistake. "Without word" (argument) does not mean that they are never to speak about religion, but that they are not to resort to constant argument and persuasive or nagging discussion.
2) True wisdom is shown by living so that the husbands may be gained "on having looked upon your conduct pure in fear." By constantly having a true Christian wife before his eyes, by having seen the blessed change produced in her by the gospel, many a husband will also be gained. It is excellent Greek to place the modifiers between the article and the noun: tijv w <f>6f!w ayvrpi avaffTpo^v v^w', the adjective means morally "pure" in the whole of life and not just sexually "chaste" (our versions). "Conduct" is the same word that was used in 1:16, 17 (verb), 18. "In fear" is to be understood in the same sense as it was in 1:17 and 2:18, namely the holy fear of God.
3) With 'ufi.w, "your conduct," Peter turns to the second person, but with <Lv he drops back into the third:
whose let be, not the outward adornment of plaiting of hair and of placing around gold things or of putting on robes but the hidden man of the heart in connection with the incorruption of the meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.
In &v eo-Tci) we have the common Greek idiom of the genitive with elvni, here with the genitive of a relative pronoun; we should say "theirs let be" or "to whom let belong, not the outward adorning . . . but the hidden nan," etc. We need not supply another word. '0 Kooyos and its modifiers and 6 avOpwvo';, etc., are the subjects; bhe one is not to belong to Christian wives, the other is to belong to them. On and not /-ay is used, not because of bhe sharp contrast in a\\d (R. 1161), but quite regularly as negating a single concept: "not the adorning," etc.; Koa-fwi is to be understood in its original sense: Schmuck, Putz, orderly arrangement or ornament. The fact that the word has come to be used in the meaning "cosmos," "world," has no effect on its leaning here; nor should we say that it suggests the lought of "worldly adornment. We may call the genitives appositional (R. 498): the outward adornment which these women are not to have consists in plaiting of hair (an idiomatic plural in the Greek), putting around the neck, fingers, wrists, and ankles \pvaia, gold objects (chains, rings, bracelets, not "jewels of gold," R. V.), or of putting on of robes. It is interesting to compare Isa. 3:18-23. James 2:2 presents a finely dressed gentleman. Like Peter, Paul also writes about woman's finery: braids, gold, pearls, costly apparel (I Tim. 2:9). The idea both express is not that women should dress in Quaker drab, but that they should be beyond the vanity of display in order to attract attention to themselves. Both Peter and Paul mention the hair because the style of that day preferred elaborate and startling coiffures. R. 127 and others call attention to the fact that all the modifications are placed between the article and the noun; they call this stylistic arrangement Thucydidean. Some, however, doubt that Peter could have written in this manner because in their estimation he was a rather unlearned Jew.
4) Objection is raised because "the outward adornment," etc., and "the hidden man," etc., are not true contrasts. They are not; ordinary writers would contrast "the outward adornment" with "the inward adornment." In the positive member of the contrast Peter advances beyond mere ornament and names "the hidden man of the heart" as the inward personality which is to shine with spiritual beauty. This exceeds mere rhetorical style; this is no less than mastery of thought. Peter may well have remembered Ps. 45:13. He writes as Paul does in Rom. 2:28, 29, and in Rom. 7:22 and II Cor. 4:16 Paul has only "the inner man." Yet "the hidden man of the heart" is not a designation of the regenerate or spiritual man. Only the body can wear outward ornamentation, the man of the heart is "hidden" as is the heart (the seat of the real personality). We regard the genitive as appositional: the hidden man is the heart. Since it is hidden, the real being of a person must have something better than ailk and satin, gold trinkets, and skillfully dressed-up hair. The heart must be "in connection with the incorruption of the meek and quiet spirit" which is produced by regeneration. Only a few commentators note that Peter uses ro Si<pffaprov as an abstract substantive (the A. V. does); most of them, like the R. V., think that this is an adjective and supply Koer/xy: "in the incorruptible ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" (R. V.: "in the incorruptible apparel"). Peter substantivizes the adjective in a truly classic and elegant manner; some, we may suppose, would again place such a stylistic nicety beyond him. We do not place a comma before o- but read the whole as a unit just as also 6 ... Kocr/xos is a unit. With- out the incorruption of a meek and quiet spirit the hidden man of the heart would be filled with a vain, proud, self-assertive spirit, the mark of an unregenerate heart. IIi/ri^a is to be understood in the ethical sense of temperament or character. Peter does not name the virtues when he uses the nouns "meekness" and "quietness" because he does not want to parallel them with the outward ornamentation of the body. These Christian virtues are far more than adornments which are put on for a while so that men may see and admire them and are then taken off again. Peter avoids such a parallel. The incorruption is permanently con nected with the hidden man of the heart, and it is the meek and quiet spirit (appositional genitive) which constitutes this thing that is incorruptible. In 1:7 Peter says of gold that it is "perishing"; in 1:18 gold and silver are termed "corruptible things." This indicates why he now uses "incorruption." The meek and quiet spirit in the heart is imperishable; it is the true beauty, not one that is put on, but one that is inherent; it is not an earthly, bodily, outward thing but is inherent in the soul. The two adjectives "meek and quiet" match the participle "continuing in subjection" and bring out the true Christian character of the wife's submissiveness. Although it is inward, these adjectives state that this spirit at the same time manifests itself outwardly by the entire conduct. Paganism knew meekness as a human virtue only to a slight degree, only in the sense of an equitable mind; the Scriptures elevate meekness and regard it as a spiritual virtue that is pleasing to God. Paganism despised the person who was not masterful, who did not assert his own will and make others bow to it; Christianity elevated lowliness and did not regard it as a form of weakness but as a mark of inner, spiritual strength. See what Jesus says about the meek in Matt. 5:5; so meekness is ever extolled. It springs from our relation to God, from the consciousness of our sinfulness and thus extends also to men and suggests a willing bearing of what their sins inflict upon us (see Trench). All this was beyond the pagan conception because it belongs to our regenerate spirit or character, to our life in the kingdom. "Meek and quiet" go together, the doubling intensifies the virtue. This meekness is always quiet; loudness, intemperate, irate speech and action are foreign to it. A steady, balanced strength keeps it on an even keel. Such a Christian wife is a treasure for any husband. When a heathen husband sees that by conversion his wife is changed from vanity, love of display, and other feminine vices to the true beauty of a new spirit, he must surely be drawn to a religion that is able to produce such wonders of grace. Paul notes cases of the opposite kind, where the unbelieving pouse may even depart and thus break up the marriage (I Cor. 7:15) ; Peter passes these cases by, they are not pertinent to his simple admonitory purpose.
"Which in the sight of God is of great price" with its neuter 3 refers to the entire preceding clause; we should not say that the antecedent of "which" is doubtful. God regards such virtue and conduct as iroAvTcAA, as valuable indeed. In order to produce this inner, spiritual excellence and beauty in every wife and woman he sends us his Word and Spirt.
5) "For" explains by introducing examples; it is often used for this purpose. For thus at one time also the holy wives, those hoping in God, kept adorning themselves, continuing in subjection to their own husbands as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you became, continuing doing good and fearing no terrifying.
While the word yvvalicc's may mean either women or wives, we prefer the latter meaning in this connection because of the following "their own husbands" (dvSpe.1 may also mean either men or husbands, here, as in v. 1, it has the latter meaning). This does not prevent us from making applications to unmarried women. In what sense these wives of old are called "holy" is indicated by the participle "those hoping in God," which does not pertain only to some of these holy women but to all of them; their holiness consisted in their hoping in God, in their expecting all their glory from him when he should call them to himself, hence they cared nothing for corruptible, earthly vanities. "Thus," as Just stated in v. 4, "they kept adorning themselves" (imperfect) ; the verb resumes o Koo^os, the idea of "adornment" spoken of in v. 3, but is now to be understood in the true spiritual sense. The hidden man of the heart made them spiritually beautiful, and for this beauty they constantly strove. The feature of their holiness which especially interests Peter he adds by means of the participle "continuing in subjection to their own husbands" (compare v. 11). This, in particular, made them lovely. When some wives today imagine that such subjection is a loss to them they are sadly mistaken. These holy women still shine from the sacred page; but look at the other kind.
6) Sarah is singled out. We are given the reason. The fact that she obeyed Abraham and called him "lord" (Gen. 18:12) is only the mark of her character, her being subject to her own husband. The real reason for singling her out lies in the relative clause "whose children you became" when you were converted by the gospel. Of none of the other holy women could Peter appropriately say that the wives whom he addresses became their children. Abraham is the father of believers, and thus Abraham's wife Sarah is after a fashion placed on the same level; all believing wives are also called her children. This certainly exalts Sarah, yet does so only because she was obedient to Abraham and called him her lord. Peter does not enter more fully into the history of Sarah. Gen. 18:12 is not merely one historical incident in her life but one that reveals her constant attitude toward her husband: as she then called him "my lord" so she ever called and trusted him. This is the force of the present, durative participle icaXowa, which modifies the constative aorist wnyxowe. This would also be the sense of the inferior variant which has the imperfect mninove in conformity with the imperfect wap.ovv. Mistaken conceptions regarding the gnomic aorist cause the A. V. to render eyei^^re whose children "you are," the R. V. even translates "ye now are." This rendering is also due to the two following present participles. But the gnomic aorist is not used in personal relative clauses. This aorist is historical: the wives addressed as "you" are Christian wives, and they "became" such by their conversion. Peter states the past fact as such a fact, for only because they are Christian wives can he admonish them as he does in this whole paragraph. But what about the two present participles "doing good," etc.? They are not causal. In order to be causal they should be aorists. Then, however, the resultant sense would be misleading, for how much good would a wife have to do, or how long would she have to do good and not fear before she became a child of Sarah by these actions ? We now see why our versions render the aorist as a present tense; this enables them to translate "as long as ye do well," etc., (A. V.), "if you do well," etc., (R. V.). To be sure, if they stopped doing well, etc., they would not be Sarah's children; but, true as this is, these tenses do not say this. These durative present participles are subsequent to the aorist "you became." These wives "became" Sarah's children and are thus doing good, etc. A past, definite fact is followed by continuous actions. There are a number of examples in the New Testament where present participles have this force. The objection that these participles are admonitory is not warranted, not even when it is urged that, if these wives are now doing good, etc., this whole admonition would be unnecessary. Are we to be admonished only when we do wrong? Do all the Biblical admonitions imply that we are not doing what they bid us do? This is an unwarranted assumption. These objections are answered by the first present participle found in v. 1: moravvoii.fval, "continuing to be in subjection," which implies that these wives are now doing what Peter asks. The same is true with regard to the same participle which is addressed to the slaves in 2:18; likewise with regard to the participle that is addressed to the husbands in 3:7. All of these participles are compliments to these persons, Peter's acknowledgment that they are doing what they ought to do. He admonishes them to continue in this way. The very best of us ever need such admonitions. Thank God, the Scriptures constantly tell us to continue. Yet, while the present participle in v. 1 is admonitory, this is not the case with regard to these two closing participles. The admonition has been given; these two participles are pure acknowledgment on the part of Peter. They are full of encouragement to these wives, something that they and we all need in addition to admonition.
"Doing good" means as wives to their husbands just as "doing good" in 2:20 means as slaves to their masters; we extend neither to signify saving good in particular. When Peter means this he states it with all clearness as he does regarding wives and their unbelieving husbands. Here Sarah and Abraham are mentioned. Abraham was certainly saved without Sarah's doing good to him in order to effect his salvation. M^ <^0j8oi!juer(u fi.iftcfua.v •mm\iJW alludes to PrOV. 3:25: w ^o/^yrg vTorfvw e-ireX.Oovcrav: "fear not terror that has come up nor coming desolation of ungodly ones." In the expression "fearing terror" we have what R. 479 calls an analogous accusative; it is not a cognate accusative, which would be ^d/iov. The sense is that these Christian women are to let nothing terrifying frighten them from their course. Pagan women may disdain and insult them because they have adopted a nobler wifehood, they yet remain unafraid. Pagan husbands may resent their Christianity; this, too, does not frighten them. While vroiym's is a word that expresses an action it is here used in the objective sense: "not a single frightening.
7) The husbands, likewise, continuing to dwell according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, the wifely one, continuing to render honor as also joint heirs of life's grace, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
Both the nominative and the participle have been explained in 2:18 and in 3:1; we have neither a vocative nor an imperative. As was the case in 2:18 and 3:1, the participle is descriptive, and because it is appended to the imperative used in 2:13, it has a gentle hortative force: Peter wants to see all the husbands continuing to dwell, etc. As it did in v. 1, "likewise" applies to all that is said. Something pertains to wives especially as something pertains to houseslaves; what pertains to wives naturally concerns itself with "their own husbands," and v. 1-6 tell us what it is. So it is with regard to "the husbands." Peter "likewise" has something to say to them as a class; it naturally concerns itself with their wives, and we hear what it is. To refer "likewise" to all of the imperatives occurring in 2:17 or to any one of them is contrary to the sense. This adverb is to be construed with the whole statement: as something pertaining to the station and the relation of others, so also something pertaining to the station and the relation of this class, "the husbands," is here set down. The first participle governs the first ws, the second participle the second ws. We correct the inversion found in both of our versions, which combines the two <os with the second participle. Was there any danger that the Christian husbands would not continue to dwell with their wives so that Peter had to tell them that this was expected of them? We supply nothing after the participle. These husbands are living with their Christian wives and are not in danger of running away. What is expected of them is their "continuing to dwell according to knowledge as with a weaker utensil, (namely) the wifely one, continuing (thus) to render honor," etc. These husbands are doing this; what is indicated is their continuance to do so. Peter merely points out the main things, not as though these were new, but simply in order to call them to mind. One of these things is that they follow knowledge, which means Scripture knowledge, over against pagan ignorance regarding the relation of husband and wife. The other is that in accord with such knowledge the Christian husbands dwell "as with a weaker vessel, (namely) the wifely one." Peter uses anevo's as Paul does in I Thess. 4:4. Paul states how a Christian man acquires a wife in a sanctified and honorable way, Peter how a Christian husband lives with a wife. The expression "a weaker vessel" implies that the husband, too, is a vessel. Neither the participle nor "vessel" has a special sexual meaning. The fact that a sexual union is referred to the word "husbands" and the word "wives" in v. 1 indicate. The reason our versions supply "them" (A. V.) and "your wives" (R. V.) after the participle is due to the fact that the subject, "the husbands," is plural while the dative object, "with a weaker vessel," is singular; but Peter must write the singular "as with a weaker vessel," for a plural might easily be understood as admitting the possession of several "weaker vessels." This would be polygamy.
"As with a weaker vessel" is made clear by the addition of the articulated adjective "the wifely one." When it is thus added it is a sort of apposition (as all such adjectives are, R. 776) and avoids what the R. V. margin takes the Greek to mean: "the female vessel as weaker." "As" is to be construed with "a weaker vessel," and "the wifely (one)" states the one referred to. Nor does •ywoiice^ov mean "female" (for which concept the Greek has a different word) but cither "wifely" or "womanly." Since "the husbands" are mentioned, "wifely" is evidently the better translation. The thought that this neuter adjective (neuteronly because of anno's) is here substantivized and made a noun is unwarranted, for if Peter had wanted a noun for the word "wife" he could have written yvvq, "wife." Pardon these explanations; they are offered only because such interpretations have been given to these words of Peter.
The wife is the weaker vessel. Paganism always tends to abuse her on this account. Her rights are reduced, often greatly. Her status is lowered, often shamefully. Heavy loads are put upon her. She is made man's plaything or man's slave. The fact that she is weaker is always exploited. That is why Peter inserts the phrase regarding "knowledge." Christian knowledge will accord the wife all the consideration and the thoughtfulness which God intends for her "as a weaker vessel" in her "wifely" relation. Peter himself had a wife (I Cor. 9:5). Whether she was still alive at this time and was with Peter at this writing we do not know. As the first participle is followed by <as, so is the second one. Neither <os == "like," both point to facts; nor is the second causal: "because also fellow heirs." Both participles introduce considerations which the Christian husbands' "knowledge" provides for their conduct toward their Christian wives. This second participle is subordinate to the first: "continuing to render honor as also joint heirs of life's grace." Kcu should not be transposed: "and as" (A. V.); Peter writes "as also." While she is "a weaker vessel," every Christian wife is "also" an heir of God's grace, and there is no difference in this respect between her and her Christian husband (Gal. 3:28).
This participle also denotes continuance and asks the husbands to do what hey have been doing. We may indicate the relation of the two participles thus: "continuing to dwell, etc., while continuing to render honor," etc. The honor here referred to is different from the honor which Christians accord to "all" or to the king (2:17). To be fellow heirs of the eternal kingdom is the highest position to which poor mortals may rise, and it is this spiritual height which prompts mutual honoring. Peter properly uses the plural "joint heirs"; we have indicated why the singular "weaker vessel" is necessary. The nominative "as also (being) joint heirs" is by no means improved by the few copyists who changed it into a dative; "as also to joint heirs." The preceding dative does not call for another dative, for the dative "as with a weaker vessel" is due to avv in the first participle. "As also joint heirs" simply states the fact and implies that, as the Christian husbands are heirs, so their Christian wives are heirs with them. As far as the case, the nominative or the dative, as concerned, this makes no change in the fact that the wives are "joint heirs," and neither case makes the husbands "joint heirs" except as all heirs are joint heirs. The insertion "of manifold grace of life" is another supposed improvement, "manifold" being taken from 4:10. Our mutual inheritance is "grace," here as always God's unmerited favor toward sinners which pardons them and takes them into his kingdom of grace. It is Peter's combination when he writes "life's grace" (both nouns are qualitative) or "grace of life." This is the spiritual life we now possess. We have no warrant to think only of the life to come. We are heirs who have already inherited so much and live in the enjoyment of this our inheritance. The genitive "of life" is objective (not appositional): grace for life or grace producing spiritual life. The question is raised as to whether Peter speaks only °^ Christian wives or includes also such as are not Christian. All argument for including also the latter is unconvincing. To point to v. 1 where the Christian conduct of the wife is to win her pagan husband to the faith and to claim that Peter ought now to say the same thing regarding the husband's conduct producing the same effect, does not make two classes of "joint heirs," one actual, the other prospective as we have this second class in v. 1: "even if some are disobedient." Peter presupposes intelligent readers who will themselves make the application to unbelieving wives on the basis of what is said in v. 1 about unbelieving husbands. That is why he is so brief when he speaks about "the husbands." Moreover, in v. 2-6 and especially in vs. 5, 6 the reference to unbelieving spouses is dropped, it has already been attended to (v.
1). This applies also to v. 7. E;s to does not always express pure purpose; here it indicates contemplated result. These husbands have been treating their Christian wives as they should. Peter takes it for granted that they will continue to do so and thus names the contemplated result: "so that your prayers may not be hindered." How could they engage in prayers or expect God to hear them if they persist in, or fall back into, the old pagan ignorance in the treatment of their wives ''EyKowreaOal, to have an obstacle thrown in the way, does not restrict the thought to preventing the prayers from reaching their destination at God's throne of grace. The thought includes all manner of hindering. A husband who treats his wife in the wrong way will himself be unfit to pray, will scarcely pray at all. There will be no family altar, no life of prayer. His worship in the congregation will be equally affected. may indicate the relation of the two participles thus: "continuing to dwell, etc., while continuing to render honor," etc. The honor here referred to is different from the honor which Christians accord to "all" or to the king (2:17). To be fellow heirs of the eternal kingdom is the highest position to which poor mortals may
rise, and it is this spiritual height which prompts mutual honoring. Peter properly uses the plural "joint heirs"; we have indicated why the singular "weaker vessel" is necessary. The nominative "as also (being) joint heirs" is by no means improved by the few copyists who changed it into a dative; "as also to joint heirs." The preceding dative does not call for anothe dative, for the dative "as with a weaker vessel" is due to ovv in the first participle. "As also joint heirs" simply states the fact and implies that, as the Christian husbands are heirs, so their Christian wives are heirs with them. As far as the ease, the nominative or the dative, is concerned, this makes no change in the fact that the wives are "joint heirs," and neither case makes the husbands "joint heirs" except as all heirs are joint heirs. The insertion "of manifold, grace of life" is another supposed improvement, "manifold" being taken from 4:10. Our mutual inheritance is "grace," here as always God's unmerited favor toward sinners which pardons them and takes them into his kingdom of grace. It is Peter's combination when he writes "life's grace" (both nouns are qualitative) or "grace of life." This is the spiritual life we now possess. We have no warrant to think only of the life to come. We are heirs who have already inherited so much and live in the enjoyment of this our inheritance. The genitive "of life" is objective (not appositional) : grace for life or grace producing spiritual life.
The question is raised as to whether Peter speaks only of Christian wives or includes also such as are not Christian. All argument for including also the latter is unconvincing. To point to v. 1 where the Christian conduct of the wife is to win her pagan hushand to the faith and to claim that Peter ought now to say the same thing regarding the husband's conduct producing the same effect, does not make two classes of "joint heirs," one actual, the other prospective as we have this second class in v. 1: "even if some are disobedient." Peter presupposes intelligent readers who will themselves make the application to unbelieving wives on the basis of what is said in v. 1 about unbelieving husbands. That is why he is so brief when he speaks about "the husbands." Moreover, in v. 2-6 and especially in vs. 5, 6 the reference to unbelieving spouses is dropped, it has already been attended to (v. 1). This applies also to v. 7. 'El's to does not always express pure purpose; here it indicates contemplated result. These husbands have been treating their Christian wives as they should. Peter takes it for granted that they will continue to do so and thus names the contemplated result: "so that your prayers may not be hindered." How could they engage in prayers or expect God to hear them if they persist in, or fall back into, the old pagan ignorance in the treatment of their wives''EyKovreaOa.i, to have an obstacle thrown in the way, does not restrict the thought to preventing the prayers from reaching their destination at God's throne of grace. The thought includes all manner of hindering. A husband who treats his wife in the wrong way will himself be unfit to pray, will scarcely pray at all. There will be no family altar, no life of prayer. His worship in the congregation will be equally affected. Peter's word to "the husbands" is brief but contains a great deal. In fact, it covers their whole Christian obligation.
AM, v. 8-12
8) From the specific relation to government (2: 13-17) and from the three Epecial groups and relations of the members (2:18-3:7, slaves, wives, sbands),
Peter turns to the obligations resting on all the members as they live in this world in contact with each other and with their Gentile neighbors and thus harks back to 2:11, 12 and closes this part of his letter as he began it. The underlying thought is throughout that genuine Christian conduct not only hushes up vilification of Christians but also wins many non-Christians. Even aside from this fact God's calling lays these obligations upon us.
Now, finally, all, same-minded, sympathetic, fraternally friendly, compassionate, lowly-minded, not giving back a base thing for a base thing or reviling for reviling but contrariwise, continuing to bless, because for this you were called that you inherit blessing.
"All" is a nominative as is explained in 2:18; 3:1; 3:7, which have similar nominatives. Instead of using predicative participles Peter now uses adjectives which simply describe (like the participles occurring in 2:18; 3:1; 3:7) and have a mild hortatory note. R. 945 thinks that the imperative iare is to be supplied; we think that nothing is to be supplied. All the readers are expected to continue to be "same-minded," all intent on the same thing. Sentiment, aim, purpose are to be identical; there is to be no division even inwardly. Peter rightly puts "sameinded" first, for nothing will so impress the world about us nor be so good for our own selves. To be contrary-minded is to harm oneself and others. Peter does not need to say that this "same" mind is the one that was in Christ (Phil. 2:5). "Sympathetic," like "same-minded," is a hapax-legomenon: sharing the feelings of others whether these are joyful or painful. The adjective "fraternally friendly" or "affectionate" occurs twice in Maccabees; Peter has the noun in 1:22. "Same-minded, sharing feelings, fraternally affectionate" apply to all Christians in their relation with each other. "Compassionate" applies also to non-Christians, to any who may be in distress. Some texts have ^>iAo^>pores, "friendlyminded," but the support for this reading is too weak. "Lowly-minded," the opposite of haughty or highminded, is the virtue of which Paul says so much in Phil. 2.
9) Peter returns to a use of participles and now adds specifications: "not giving back a base or mean thing for a base or mean thing," retaliating, tit for tat, taking vengeance (Rom. 12:17) in this manner. "Or" adds a more specific wrong: "reviling for reviling" (2:23, Christ's example: "he reviled not again") ; avri is explained by R. 573 as denoting exchange. "But the very contrary" is the Christian's conduct, namely "blessing" (Matt. 5:44; Rom. 12:14), calling down good on those who revile us. The supposition that Iva, always denotes purpose cannot be valid here; here Iva introduces a clause that is appositional to rovro, and rovro cannot refer to anything that precedes. "For this were you called (by him who called you, 1:15) that you inherit a blessing," effective aorist subjunctive: actually inherit. God called us to inherit his infinite blessing; this impels us to bless others. The exposition appears in Matt. 18: 21-35. The interpretation that we inherit the blessing which we bestow on others breaks down on the word "inherit"; no one inherits what he bestows. We are called to bless because we ourselves were blessed by God through his call.
10) With a simple "for" Peter introduces Ps. 34:12-16a, not as proof, but as elucidation: we are called to inherit a blessing. God's own everlasting blessing. Let us, then, not lose it as the unmerciful retainer lost his as recorded in Matt. 18:32-34. Peter quotes the LXX which renders the Hebrew well and changes only to the third person to fit the present connection and thus also makes the opening question the subject of the imperatives.
For, He who wants to love life
And to see good days,
Let him stop the tongue from. any base thing
And lips from uttering guile;
Moreover, let him incline away from base-
ness and do good;
Let him seek peace and pursue it.
Because the Lord's eyes (are) upon righteous
ones
And his ears for their begging;
But the Lord's countenance (is) against such
as are doing things base.
"To love life" means to love it with intelligence and corresponding purpose. Such love includes the •yvwafs referred to in v. 7; the word Peter employs is not merely <f>i\w, "to like" life. The thought is wanting a life here on earth that is worth while, that one can love with full intelligence and purpose. The parallel line expounds: "and to see good days" (Hebrew: "days that he may see good"; LXX: "loves to see good days"), i. e., days that are really beneficial and not vain and empty. David and Peter are not thinking of easy pleasant, sunshiny days but of a life and of days that are full of rich fruit.
The negative prescription for such a life is: "Let him stop the tongue from any base thing"; read what James 3:6, etc., says about the tongue, which amply shows how the tongue ruins so many lives. The word ko.kov means "what is base or mean" morally. The parallel line repeats and adds the illuminating word "guile": "and lips from uttering guile" (no guile was found in Christ's mouth, 2:22). In 2:1 baseness and guile are to be put away, see So\o's there. It goes without saying that only a heart that is free from anything base and from guile is able to control the tongue and the utterance. In the ablative (R. 1061) rov p.^ \a\vj(rai, the p-r) is redundant (R. 1171) and thus not translated.
11) Ae, "moreover," introduces the positive side of the prescription with its negative and its positive features : leaning away from anything base and doing what is good and truly beneficial; which the parallel line expounds : "Let him seek peace and pursue it" in order to capture it. As we take a-yaffov in its fullest sense, so we also regard elp-qvri: first, good for the soul, next, shalom, peace for the soul, well-being, when God is our friend. Combine Rom. 14:19 and Heb. 12:14, plus Rom. 12:18.
12) The fact that this is the meaning the great final reason for this prescription makes plain: "Because the Lord's eyes (are) upon such as are righteous" (no article, qualitative), ever watching them to bless them, "and his ears (are) for their begging," to answer them with help, comfort, support. He finds them "righteous ones" in his judgment and never fails them. But "such as are doing things base" have another experience: the Lord's countenance is against them. 'eti' has both meanings: "over" and "against"; the context determines which is to be selected. Although base men may seem to prosper, Ps. 73 shows what it means to have Yahweh set his face against them. With these significant lines from Holy Writ itself Peter closes his series of hortations regarding the Christian's life in general among men, brethren and outsiders.
Hortations Due to Sufferings and Trials,
3:13-5:11
How to Suffer for Doing Good, v. 13-17
13) Divide the epistle as one may, the subject of suffering and trials begins at this point; the naming of certain classes (2:18; 3:1; 3:7) and then of "all" (3:8) has reached its end. The simple connective xai and the fact that Peter still speaks of doing good lead some to attach these verses to the preceding ones; but the new note is introduced in the very first clause, namely someone's treating the readers basely. This is the subject of the last grand part of the letter. It rests on all that Peter has thus far written, and nal is thus proper. The real purpose of Peter has now been reached, namely to enlighten, comfort, and strengthen the readers in suffering and trial. They have had some taste of it in their previous experience; now there is the prospect that these sufferings will become far more severe. We have pointed out the change that was taking place at Rome, Nero's hostility to Christianity, which was bound to have its effect also in the provinces of the empire (see the introduction) ; Peter writes mainly for this reason, in order to fortify the readers in advance,
And who is he that will treat you basely if you get to be zealots for the good?
The rhetorical question implies that no one will do this. It is mighty hard
for anybody to mistreat people who are zealots for goodness, i. e., for doing what is beneficial to others. Peter substantivizes the future participle (rarely used) by writing 6 KaKoxrtDr, which agrees with the ear clause, the apodosis of which has a future tense. 'Ear introduces an expectancy, and yevrjvOe is ingressive: "if, as I expect (edv), you get to the point of not merely doing go°d ""t °f being actual zealots for the good," people whose one great passion is "the good" (the classic use of the adjective as a noun). Peter's meaning is not that his readers will thus escape all base treatment and persecution, for this is the very subject with which he proposes to deal. Despite all the good which Christians may do, the world does not really like them and is on occasion bound to vent its hatred. What Peter says is that zealousness for the good robs opponents of any real reason for mean treatment of the readers; as in the case of Jesus, who constantly went about dispensing good, some other reason for mean treatment will have to be trumped up.
4) Nevertheless, if also you should be suffering for righteousness* sake, blessed (are you) ! While nobody can in reality make zealousness for good a
reason for base treatment, Christians may have to suffer "for righteousness' sake." The unrighteous world cannot tolerate righteousness. The very presence of true righteousness irritates it, for this righteousness silently condemns its own unrighteousness. Thus Christians may often have to suffer in various ways. Peter now deals with such sufferings; in 4:12 he speaks of trials. Some commentators confuse el nal and ica'i el; the latter hints at improbability: "even if," the former means "if also" and treats the protasis as a matter of indifference: "If there is a conflict, it makes do real difficulty. There is sometimes a tone of contempt in el ko.l The matter is belittled," R. 1026. That is the case here. We see why. Because to suffer thus, as already Jesus said in Matt. 5:10, assures to you the verdict: "Blessed!" Jesus expresses the same beatitude. We ^gard it as being exclamatory. Mcucapioi is the 'ashre °f the psalms (e. g., Ps. 1:1). It is a judgment with reference to those to whom it is addressed, a divine judgment which declares that theirs is true spiritual soul blessedness for which they must be called fortunate in the highest sense; the opposite is oval, "Woe!" We have el with the optative (present, durative or iterative), a very rare construction in the Koine; it is a condition of potentiality: "might have to be suffering." Peter states it thus in the hope that the readers may, after all, despite the threatening clouds that are arising in Rome, escape special suffering. To say that he indicates an improbability is not exact. What he has in mind is not a balancing of probability and improbability. When he looks at the future he expresses his own desire that the readers may be spared; yet, if this should not be the case, it is really of no moment since any suffering that might come would be only blessedness. One always speaks subjectively when using conditional clauses. In this connection
Peter wants his readers to think of suffering only as something that might come. Even when one is rather certain that something will come he may yet wish to speak of it in this way. With 8e Peter adds the other, namely the nega-
tive, side and alludes to the woding of Isa. 8:12:
And do not fear their fear, neither be disturbed (shaken, upset), but sanctify the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, ready always for defense to everyone asking you reason concerning the hope in you, but with meekness and fear, keeping a good conscience in order that in what they continue to speak against you they may be put to shame who abuse your good conduct in connection with Christ.
If Peter had in mind improbability or only remote possibility, these strong imperatives, three decisive aorists, would be out of place. Then the strong words about fear and being shaken would also not have been written. "Do not fear their fear!" is a strong expression because it has the cognate accusative. The sense of the translation of the LXX is: "Do not fear with the fear the people have!" Peter is not quoting but only alluding to Isaiah and thus says "their fear," the fear they would inspire in you (the subjective genitive is to be understood in this sense). The sense is: "Do not let them scare you!" Avrw needs no formal antecedent. "Neither be disturbed!" means both in your minds and your conduct.
15) In the face of suffering the readers must sanctify the Lord, Christ, in their hearts; that will keep out all fear of men. The A. V. follows the very inferior variant "the Lord God," which is only an alteration that was made in agreement with the LXX's "the Lord of hosts" (God). The R. V. Translates "Christ as Lord" because it regards Kvpwv as a predicative apposition since it lacks the article and rov Xptarov as the object since it has the article. This construction might pass if it were not for the allusion to Isa. 8:13. Kvpiov is a proper name and thus has no article. Because it is a name for God in Isa. 8:13, Peter must add rov Xpio-rdr since he refers "the Lord" to Christ. The article must be used to indicate that Xpurrov is a second name and thus an apposition, for Kvpiov Xptoroi/ would be a unit designation, "Lord Christ." Because Peter has only an allusion, the Christological import of his use of Kvpws to designate Christ is so strong. As the word refers to God's deity in Isa. 8:13, it here refers to the deity of Christ. We are to sanctify Christ in our hearts as the prophet demands this same sanctifying of the Lord of hosts by Israel in their hearts. To sanctify Christ in our hearts is ever to keep him in our hearts as "the Holy One." In order to do "this properly we ourselves must be "holy," ayioi, sanctified. He is ours, and we are his; we separate him for our hearts and are separated for him. This sanctify, ing of him means that we keep ourselves from sin and give the world no cause for slandering either him or ourselves. And it further means that we fear him alone lest we sin against him by fearing men instead of him and by letting their threats prevent us from bowing to him alone. The objection that "in our hearts" is not found in Isa. 8:13; that a reference not to hearts but to conduct would be in place here if "sanctify" ig to be modified; that, therefore, the phrase is to be construed with what follows, forgets the fact that this is allusion and not quotation, that sanctifying starts in the heart, and that "conduct" duly follows in v. 16. With hearts that are ever sanctifying Christ the readers face their opponents, "ready always for defense to everyone asking you reason concerning the hope in you." This is the "living hope" mentioned in 1:3 to which we have been begotten again by God, the hope in God (1:21; 3:5), and it comprises all that we expect from God on the basis of Christ. 'AiroXoyi'a is the regular term for the defense which a defendant makes before a judge (Acts 22:1; 25:16). He must first be heard (John 7:51). Peter is not thinking only of court trials, for he lets "everyone" ask \6yov, "account," Rechenschaft (which is not only a classical term but also a juridical term). Let whoever will constitute himself a judge, the Christian is never to evade or to put him off, he is to be ready to present his case, his defense, to render account as to what his hope embraces, and as to why he holds it in his heart. We may say that he is to be ready always to testify, to correct ignorance about Christ, to spread the gospel light, to win others for Christ, to justify his own hope, and as Peter adds here (v. 16), to silence evil speakers with his good conduct which certainly speaks for itself and puts slander to .shame. But this defense is ever to be made "in company with ({urd) meekness and fear." On "meekness" see "the meek spirit" referred to in 3:4. "When you are asked about your hope you are not to answer witk haughty words and carry things off with audacity and force as though you meant to tear up trees, but with fear and humility as though you stood before God's judgment and were making answer. For if it should now come to pass that you were to be called before kings and nobles and had equipped yourself a good while with statements and thoughts: Just wait, I will answer them right! it may well come about that the devil takes the sword out of your hand, and before you are aware gives you a thrust so that you stand disgraced and have equipped yourself in vain, might also snatch out of your heart the statements which you fixed best so that you would be left even if you had them well in mind, for he has noted your thoughts in advance. Now God lets this happen to dampen your haughtiness and to humble you." Luther, who certainly had plenty of experience. "With fear" means the fear of Christ as it did in 1:17; 2:18; 3:2.
16) Hence Peter also writes: "having (keeping) a good conscience," yet not only before but also after making a defense. Do so with this purpose, that in the very thing in which accusers speak against you they may be put to shame who abuse your good conduct in connection with Christ (avaarpo^ri as in 1:15, the verb in 1:17). It is not correct to state that the verb wiyea^a) is always intransitive and thus cannot have "conduct" as its object; see Luke 6:28. This does not mean that all who are thus put to shame will cease their slander; yet something will be accomplished as is noted also in 2:15, in fact, a good deal may be accomplished.
17) Peter concludes these directions with the Motivating consideration: For better (it is) while doing good, if the will of God should will, to suffer than while doing ill. The statement is entirely general and thus brings to a succinct, axiomatic expression what has been said already in 2:15, 19, 20: "So is the will of God that by doing good you muzzle the ignorance of foolish men"; "This is grace if because of consciousness of God one bears up under griefs, suffering wrongfully ... if doing good and suffering you shall stand it, this is favor with God." Also 3:14: "Blessed if you suffer for righteousness' sake!" In
4:14 we have another such "blessed." Add 4:14-19. Peter explains himself. Peter does not need to say that if we do ill, it might be God's will that we suffer. But many are surprised to be made to suffer when they are doing good. Yet that is precisely what God's will wills in some instances. We have the potential optative as in v. 14, and it is to be understood in much the same sense. When this happens, if it should so happen in some instance (as Peter states it), it is certainly "better," i. e., preferable in every way than to suffer when doing basely. The latter would be shame and disgrace (2:20a) ; the former is noble, in fact, is like the suffering of Christ. When a Christian growls and grumbles or accuses God of injustice for letting him suffer he, of course, spoils it all. He no longer has the glory of suffering innocently. This is gone, he should hang his head in shame.
Exaltation of Christ an Assurance to Those
Who Suffer, v. 18-22
18) The only reason we have for making a special paragraph of this section is the fact that this piece forms a sedes doctrinae and throughout deals with Christ. It belongs to v. 13-17 in reality as on nal, "because also Christ," plainly shows. It is essential to understand this connective. In 2:21 we also have on xai Xpioros IvaQev, "because also Christ suffered," but there Peter at once adds vvo^i.fwa.vwv v7roypa.iitwv, "leaving behind for you a writing copy in order that you may follow his tracks." Such an addition is not appended here. In 2:21 Peter presents Christ's sufferings as an example which mistreated slaves are to follow. In the present connection peter does nothing of the kind. Here the sufferings of Christ are combined with his exaltation; this exaltation is presented at length and is made the main thought. We have the picture of Christ being infinitely exalted over the disobedient who are now in hell, who were made to see his triumph. This goes far beyond 2:21-25, far beyond the Sufferer, sinless, patient, never opening his mouth to revile when he was reviled, to threaten when suffering, committing himself to the righteous Judge, carrying our sins up upon the wood to save us, so that we have him as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls.
Here the great point is assurance for us when by the will of God we suffer for righteousness' sake. Then we are {i.ana.pwi, "blessed." Christ's mighty exaltation after his suffering proves this. The proof and the assurance are tremendous. For Christ was not only glorified in his own person; he not only leads us to God as the fruit of his suffering in our behalf; in his exaltation he triumphed over the disobedient who were consigned to prison in hell. Are we, then, not blessed indeed when we suffer for his sake? Now the disobedient exalt themselves and tread us under foot; but see the disobedient in hell! Noah and his family are saved; we, too, are saved "by the resurrection of Christ," by this exaltation of Christ at God's right hand. It is a misunderstanding of this section to think that Christ is presented as another example for us. To point to ayaGoTTowvvra's, "doing good," to take this to mean that by our suffering we should try to win our persecutors for Christ (to interpret "doing good and suffering" in 2:20 in the same way, the slaves thus seeking to win their mean masters for Christ), is to misunderstand all that follows. Some find the thought in this section that the gospel is still being preached in hell, that continued mission work is being carried on in hades! Some even add the complete apokatastasis, the conversion of the devils. The fact that Christ descended to hell in glory while we are to do good in order to save our persecutors by our suffering, is disregarded. The idea of "doing good" in order to save those who hurt us is found in v. 1. But Peter does not speak of "doing good" when he addresses the wives of unbelieving husbands; he speaks of "being in subjection" when he is addressing all wives, and in the case of those who have pagan husbands he speaks of "your pure conduct in fear (of God)." This missionary idea of "doing good," which is extended into hell, is wanting at its very source. In v. 17 (as in 2:20) suffering while doing good refers to the whole good life of Christians (and so also of slaves, 2:20) as "grace with God," as our own, sanctification whether men appreciate it or not. As far as men are concerned, our being "zealots for the good" (v. 13) robs them of all just reason for treating us basely (v. 13) ; it puts them to shame when they speak against us and abuse our good conduct connected with Christ (v. 16). That is what Peter says.
Because also Christ suffered once for sins, One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones, in order that he may bring us to God, (he), on the one hand, put to death by means of flesh, on the other hand, vivified by means of spirit; in connection with which, etc.
"Because also," etc., connects this section with the whole of v. 13-17 and not only with v. 17. So also this connective joins the whole of v. 18-22 and not only y. 18 to the preceding. As it is impossible to separate v. 17 from what precedes, so it is impossible to separate v. 18 from what follows. We who are saved suffer and are blessed because Christ suffered and was glorified as our Savior. His glorification is the cause (5n) of this our being "blessed," and since our blessedness still lies in the future to so large an extent (I John 3:2), this "because" is the guarantee or assurance for us. Here are the great facts: also Christ suffered once for sins. One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones, suffered to the extent that by means of his flesh he, on the one hand (/zev), was actually put to death, but, on the other hand (8e), as the Righteous One who suffered and died in place of the unrighteous, was vivified by means of his spirit and thus did what follows: assured us that we who suffer for righteousness' sake are, indeed, /icucapioi (v. 14). The textual question as to whether to read Swaffev, "suffered," or amOavev, "died," is a matter for the text critics to decide, seeing that Codex Aleph changes "suffered" into "died" also in 2:21 and 4:1, and both A and C insert vvep fi/uav (vii.wv) before amffavev in 3:18. "Christ suffered" resumes this verb which was used in v. 13 and 17; the fact that this was suffering which ended in death is made plain by ftnw^ei's, "put to death." "Once" he suffered "concerning sins." Both the adverb and the phrase bring out the thought that Christ's suffering was one of expiation, and both "once" and the aorist "he did suffer" imply that the expiation was effected; see this valuable "once" (airaf) in Heb. 9:26, 28. The thought is emphasized by the addition of the apposition: "One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones"; it was vicarious, substitutionary suffering. In Acts 3:14 Peter calls Christ "the Holy and Righteous One" (Ps. 16:10) ; Stephen calls him "the Righteous fication. God accepted the sacrifice of Christ and attests the acceptance by his act of returning Christ to life. The Scriptures add that this includes the glorification; Peter himself adds it in what follows. Other sacrificial victims remain dead; not so Christ. Whatever the efficacy of such deaths may be, of Christ alone as one who was "vivified" can it be said that "he leads us to God." All the Old Testament sacrifices could only point to Christ's sacrifice and become effective because of the efficacy of his sacrifice; for their value they all depended on him as one who was "put to death and vivified." It is true, "vivified" crowns "put to death"; but this lies in the fact itself and not in the use of /w . . . 8e as some have thought. There is no thought of paralleling our suffering with Christ's, our resurrection with his vivifieation. Christ's resurrection is not mentioned until v. 21, What is here said about Christ's sacrificial suffering and being put to death and then being vivified is intended to be the basis for our being "blessed" when we must suffer "for righteousness' sake" in this hostile world, the basis of our assurance of being thus "blessed" (v. 13, 14). One is a bit surprised to note that the dictionaries and the grammars have no reference to the two datives, and that commentators, too, hesitate to classify these datives. The R. V. has: "in the flesh — in the spirit"; the A. V.: "in the flesh — by the Spirit"; Luther has two nach, "according to." Yet Peter has written neither w nor Kara. Few will attempt to construe the two datives differently as the A. V. does. The discussion centers on the significance of o-ap^ and wmiw, especially on the latter, and this is what seems to cause the reluctance in regard to classifying these datives. They are datives of means. They indicate neither sphere nor norm. On Calvary we see how Christ was "put to death"; they nailed his body to the Sy\ov or "wood"; in 2:24 "he carried up our sins in his body upon the wood"; compare as being pertinent Col. 1:22: "in the body of his flesh by means of the death." It was "by means of flesh," by having flesh, our human bodily nature, that men slew Christ; the absence of the article makes "flesh" qualitative. How did Christ die? Mark 15:37, 39 use wrviw; Luke 23:46 does likewise: "he breathed out," breathed his last, the breath left his body. Matt. 27:50 says more: di^ice ro irvmfia, "he let go the spirit"; John 19:30, vaptSwice ro irvwiw., "he gave up the spirit," which recalls Luke's eli ^eipas aov irapaT^e/xal to wevfid /aou; "Father, into thy hands I deposit my spirit." All the Evangelists use choice terms when they describe Jesus' death. Although in John 10:15, 17 Jesus himself says, •njv <pv\riv jnou Ti^/zi, "I lay down my life" (the </'v^iy that animates my body), no Evangelist uses this word when he describes Jesus' death. To be sure, Jesus died when his ifrv^-q or "life" went out of him; but the eya, the real personality, has its seat in the wwiw., in the human spirit. This spirit of his Jesus deposited into his Father's hands, this he let go or gave up in the instant of death. Death sundered its connection with his oro/io. or body (2:24), which connection was by way of his iln\ri. His spirit went to heaven, to Paradise, to his Father's hands; his body, his flesh was left dead on the cross. See further The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, 1103, etc.; or that of St. John, 1285, etc. How was Christ vivified? The human spirit which went to heaven returned to the body that was lying in the tomb. Spirit and body, which had been separated in death, were reunited in the vivifieation. How else than "by means of spirit" (again qualitative) could Christ have been made alive again after having been Put to death? Simple as this is, the comments of some interpreters are rather confusing. Some look upon this as an act of the Holy Spirit (C.-K. 950) and, like the . V., regard one of these datives as a dative of the agent. Some think that crapici means "according to his human nature" and ww/w.ti "according to his divine nature," and others oppose this as being wrong, Rom. 1:4; I Tim. 3:16; Heb. 9:14 are referred to as proof that "spirit" denotes Christ's divine nature. The matter regarding the two natures of Christ is simple. As true man Jesus has body, soul, and spirit; but as true God the person and the nature of the eternal Logos, the divine eya, takes the place of what in us is a human, creature eyw. Thus God became man (did not join himself to some man). Ever since the incarnation body, soul, spirit (all human) belong to the Logos, are his forever in an indissoluble union. Death did not affect this union, did not sunder this union. The lifeless body was still that of the Logos; the human spirit, which had been torn from it by death, was in heaven. On Easter morning body and spirit were reunited. That is all. Whether the agent of the passive ^ao-a-oi^ei'; is God or Christ himself makes no difference; all the opera ad extra are indivisa wwk communa. Do the two aorist participles denote an action that is subsequent to that of the aorist verb? The acts, of course, occurred in this order: suffered — put to death —vivified, about which there is no question, grammatical or otherwise. R. 1111, etc., finds no subsequence in aorist participles, but one need not be satisfied with Burton's view, which R. 1114 adopts, that the two participles define the whole preceding clause. They are added appositionally to the subject, each having only its aoristic, punctiliar force. For not merely the fact that Christ suffered enables him to lead us to God; this Sufferer was actually put to death and was vivified.
19) Peter continues: in connection with which also to the spirits in prison, on having gone (to them), he made herald proclamation, (these spirits) guch as were disobedient at one time when the longsuffering of God kept waiting in Noah's days while the ark was being constructed, in which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through by means of water; etc.
We now see why Peter stops with the vivificatio in v. 18 and does not at once proceed to the resurrectio by saying "raised up." The latter term is regularly used so as to include both the vivification of Christ's dead body and its appearances to chosen witnesses. Peter must restrict his thought to the vivification because he intends to speak of what occurred before Jesus appeared to his disciples on earth. Until Easter morning Christ's body lay dead in the tomb while his spirit (in English we may also say his "soul" because we use "soul" much as we do "spirit"; to use ifiv-fyi in the Greek would be wrong) was in heaven. Then Christ's spirit was suddenly reunited with his body. This is the vivificatio. In that instant, after body and spirit had been united, Christ left the closed tomb. The linen wrappings were suddenly empty and lay flat, the body having miraculously gone out of them (John 20:5-8), mute, but eloquent, evidence of what had occurred. In that instant, but timelessly, Christ in his human body and spirit descended to hell and did what Peter relates. In the other world time and space as we know both here on earth do not exist. Our minds are chained to both in their thinking and in their language; hence we ask so many useless questions where acts that take place in eternity and in the other world are concerned. In the other world no act requires time for its execution. This is really inconceivable to our minds; we are compelled to speak as if time were involved and Must thus ever tell ourselves that this is not in fact the case. In this way we are kept from deductions that sre based on our concepts of time, knowing that such deductions would be false. How long after the cloud enveloped the ascending body of Jesus did it take that body to reach heaven and the right hand of God in the glory of heaven? This part of the ascension was time. less. The translation "in which spirit" Christ went, etc., is misleading. Not in his human spirit alone did Christ descend to hell. Not in his divine nature alone. This is said to those who think that irvwim in v. 18 refers to the divine nature. Not "by the Holy Spirit" (A. V.; also C.-K.; etc.) was the descent made. Because Christ went to speak to wwpara, "spirits," it was not necessary that he himself come to them as a mmiia, "a spirit." Jesus spoke to the devil and to the demons in the possessed without being a bodiless spirit. Peter uses w in its first and original sense: Christ descended into hades "in connection with" the spirit by means of which his body had been made alive in the tomb. The descent followed the quickening which joined spirit and body. The assumption that the body was left behind in the descent does not agree with what Peter says in the plainest way. This idea led Calvin and his followers to date the descent, not at the time of the vivificatio of the body on Easter morning, but at the time of the death on Good Friday, and to make the descent the climax of Christ's humiliation, Christ entered hell to suffer there until Easter morning as though Peter had written: 6avarw()ei's vapid vopevOei's, kt\., and then !,uwvoirjffw Trvevfiwrh "put to death by means of flesh he went" to hades and after that "he was vivified." Peter states the opposite: the vivification is the entrance of Jesus into the state of glorification and exaltation, and his first act in that state is his glorious descent into hell with body and spirit united. The death pertained to Christ's human nature; the vivificat<«on likewise; the descent adferos also; and, let us add, also the ascent to heaven and the sessio at God's right hand. Peter has the data and the order of the Apostles' Creed: "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead (v. 21) and sitteth at the right hand of God, etc." (v. 22). The return to judg- ment is mentioned in 5:4. The participle vopevOw is to be construed with the verb eicrjpv^ev. In English we should coordinate: "he went and made herald proclamation" (as our versions do); the Greek is more exact and by using the participle marks the act of having gone as subsidiary to that of speaking as a herald. The dative states to whom Christ spoke: rois w ^v^amy weu/xao-i, "to the spirits in prison"; and these words are placed before he verb because they are emphatic. The Scriptures know of only one ^>v\a.Kri, "prison," that confines "spirits," namely hell, "hades," "the Gehenna of the fire" (Matt. 5:22; 18:9). To call this the Totenreich, the realm of the dead, is to give a strange meaning to the word ^iiAaKiy, "prison," for all the dead are supposed to go into this fictitious Totenreich, this place between heaven and hell, a recent Romanizing Protestant invention. Note II Pet. 2:9, 10, in fact, all of v. 4-1.0.
20) It is to be observed that airtie-yraai vare, icr\., is not added attributively by means of a repetition of the article rois, but predicatively without the article (R. 778). This is speaking grammatically; but it brings out the thought that Peter intends to say that Christ did not make herald proclamation to those only who were disobedient at the time of the flood, which thought would require rois aireift^atri (the article repeated), but to all the spirits in prison, all these being such as were disobedient (the participle is merely qualitative) when (to instance a notable case) the longsuffering of God waited no less than 120 years, waited in vain, before sending the judgment. Some suppose that this anarthrous participle means that Christ made herald proclamation only to the victims of the flood and thus raise the question: "Why just to these?" and supply such answers as the following: that Peter selects these because they perished by water and because he refers to baptism; that by selecting these Peter does not intend to exclude the rest of the damned in hell. This question is excluded by the anarthrous and qualitative character of the participle. Moreover, these people perished in the flood while baptism saves; the eight souls of Noah's family were saved but not the spirits in prison. The Sre clause leads some to think that in hell Christ dealt only with the antediluvians who perished in the Flood, and they then seek for reasons that Christ singled these out. But wore Src, "once when," is not intended as such a restriction or limitation of rocs iryeu'/xao-i. This would be expressed by a second rois before (Mreiftyo-ao-i. and by a third to;? with a participial clause in place of ore, at least by the latter. "Once when" introduces only a sample of the unbelief of disobedience, which is illustrative of all the spirits of the damned in prison. All God's longsuffering could do nothing with these antediluvians as it could do nothing with all these spirits which God had to consign to hell. This sample is the more in point because the Flood is a standing type of the final judgment. By means of "once when" Peter might have referred to Sodom and Gomorrah as Jesus does in Matt. 10:15, and Paul in Rom. 9:29, Jude in v. 7, and Peter himself in II Pet. 2:6 and made them "an example of those about to be ungodly," which is the same idea that is expressed in our passage. But this "example" would not be fitting. Lot was not saved "by means of" the fire which destroyed these cities, he was saved only from this fire. Noah was saved "by means of water," 81' SSaros, as we, too, are now saved by means of the water of baptism. As in II Pet. 2:6 the ungodly of Sodom and Gomorrah are a wi^eiy/ia or "example" of all future ungodliness, so the disobedience of the men who lived at the time of Noah and the flood is the mark and the quality of all the damned in hell. They "disobeyed" has the same meaning it had in 2:8, "disobedient to the Word," and in 4:17, "those disobeying the gospel of God." Peter has in mind the disobedience of unbelief which, to be sure, includes also moral wickedness, but only as the outgrowth of unbelief's disobedience. God's longsuffering (his holding out long under heavy provocation) waited in the days of Noah, delayed the judgment, waited for repentance and faith 120 years — alas, in vain! During those 120 years the world had Noah "as a herald of righteousness" (II Pet. 2:5) who condemned the world because of its unbelief and its unrighteousness (Heb. 11:7; see the exegesis). Noah's preparation of the ark is especially mentioned, the participle in the genitive absolute being the same as the verb used in Heb. 11:7, for this building of the ark was itself a factual preaching of the impending judgment. Peter's brief reference recalls all that Gen. 6 states. Men remained fixed and hardened in their disobedience of unbelief "in the days of Noah." Even all this warning left them unmoved. Did they laugh at Noah for building a big boat on dry land ? How would it ever reach water and float? When had the earth ever had a flood of such proportions as to drown all living things? This is the character and the quality of all "the spirits in prison"; this brought them to hell. We may now look at eicripv^ev in v. 19, about which there has been so much discussion. The verb means to make a herald proclamation, has always meant this. He ^o icripwffti is a icrjpv^, "herald"; what he proclaims is a «pvyjiia, "a herald's announcement." The word has everleen a vox media. Hence in scores of places, when the anouncement made is the gospel, the objects appendd say so: to herald the Word (Mark 1:45), the acceftable year of the Lord (Luke 4:19), the gospel (Mat. 4:23 and often), Christ or Jesus (Acts 8:5 and oftem. This verb is sometimes used together with evaff^eaOat, "to proclaim good news." But it is also used when the law is its object (Rom. 2:21, not to steal, when circumcision (Gal. 5:11) is the object. Whe it is without an object as we have it here, the contet should indicate what the Kripvyp.a or heralded proamation may be. II lies in the nature of the case that in the New Testanent K-rjpwaeiv is used to indicate the heralding of the pspel, for this was to be publicly proclaimed in all tie world as if by heralds. With it went the proclamdon of the law: "He that believeth not shall be darned." In II Pet. 2:5 Noah is called a KjpvS or "henid," and he certainly proclaimed the coming judgment of the flood. And we are told that because the verlis so often used in the New Testament to indicate gospl heralding it must have this meaning in our pasage: Christ preached the gospel to the spirits in prim. It is claimed that when no object is added the verlmttst have this sense. Any substantial difference beteen icripvvaw and evayye>.i!,eaGai is thus erased. Even son; dictionaries agree with this interpretation. Fortumbely, they all register the fact that KiJpvcrvei.v means "to herald." When C.-K., 599, adds that the thing demnds Nachachtung, this may be understood corredy: those who hear are to pay attention; yet he, periaps, intends to say: those who hear are to obey or avingly to believe. When we are further told that wifMJtw is used here because of airei^o-ao-i we feel that thisstatement wants to leave the door open for such as were disobedient to Christ but now at last "in prison" obey, believe, and are saved. Those who claim that Christ preached the gospel in hell have a probation after death. Some elaborate this thought. If Christ did this, it must somehow still be done: missionary work will be carried on in hell. Most of them, however, seek to tone down this idea. This probation after death is intended for those who disobeyed ignorantly, who never heard the gospel. They point to the many babes that perished in the flood as if Peter makes a restriction, as if "disobeyed" does not mean actual disobedience of the Word which Noah preached. As for the eternal fate of babes, this concern ; is pointless since the question pertains to all babes ! who die without means of grace, regarding which we have no revelation save the hint in Matt. 18:14 (see the exposition).
The Scriptures teach no probation after death, no missionary work in hell, and none in a Totenreich, for none exists. Mark 16:16; Heb. 9:27. In hell Dives says to Abraham at the mention of Moses and the prophets: 'Wo, father Abraham!'" — the same fixed disobedience of unbelief. We need not elaborate the subject. Like the fire of Sodom, etc., the flood is recorded ; in Scripture as a type of the final judgment. Neither could be a type of this judgment if probation and being saved were still possible after judgment. The time of grace ends when the {lanpoOvfua. or "longsuffering" of God is exhausted as it was "in the days of Noah." When Peter wants to speak about mayyeXi^caQai he uses this word as witness 1:12 and 4:6; here and in II Pet. 2:5 (which also deals with Noah) heralding alone is the thought; Noah is the herald of a judgment that is impending; Christ is the far greater Herald who has a proclamation for those who are already judged. Let us note that Peter's interest does not lie in the contents of Christ's proclamation. The fact that Christ went to hell and made it, went there in the instant of his vivification after his death and made a proclamation to the damned in hell — this is the point that Peter impresses. The fact that the proclamation was not evangelical but damnatory goes without saying. When one is answering the question as to why Peter says this about the descent into hell one should not think only of these damned spirits since Peter himself adds all that follows about those who were saved in the flood, what their saving typifies for his readers through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his enthronement in heaven at God's right hand with all angels, authorities, and powers subject to him who died and was vivified in his human nature. The descent and the ascent with its eternal enthronement belong together. Our comment should not separate them. The 5n in v. 18 fortifies the whole of v. 13-17 by the whole of v. 18-22. Even before we look at the details about the eight souls that were saved, our baptism, and the new life, about Christ's resurrection and heavenly enthronement, we see Peter's object in bringing all these facts regarding Christ (passion to final glorification) to the attention of his readers. Maicapioi are they, "blessed" indeed when suffering for righteousness' sake in this wicked world. This fact is the cause and the assurance of their blessedness, that down to the disobedient in hell all enemies of Christ are under his feet while for the readers, from the time of their baptism onward, there is salvation through him who died and rose agan and sits at God's right hand. With all this before them, the readers will count themselves "blessed," will not fear the fear of men or be shaken, will sanctify the Lord, Christ, in their hearts, will be ready to answer men at any time regarding their hope, always keep a good conscience, etc. (v. 14-16). This is the mighty way in which Peter fortifies his readers in the face of impending persecution. "While the ark was being constructed" points back to the disobedience of unbelief which had this warning but scorned it. The thought is, of course, not that men, too, should have constructed arks to save them as Noah did but that, if they had repented in obedience to the warning, they would not have been destroyed by a flood (compare Nineveh). The relative clause el's fjv (static eis, "wherein," our versions; not the old "into," which still appears in B.-D. 205) turns to the blessed side of Noah's deliverance and with this to the salvation of the readers. Only a few, namely eight souls, were saved. This mention of "few," so very few at that time, is made for the comfort of the readers who are "a little flock" compared with the whole unbelieving world about them. Look at all unbelievers who perished in the flood, whose spirits are now with all the other damned in hell. How they cowered when Christ appeared to them in their eternal prison! Peter correctly writes "eight if/v\a.i" and not weviui.ra; "souls" or "persons" or even "lives" is the correct rendering. Those in hell were disembodied "spirits," their bodies were still on earth. We translate: these eight "were brought safely through by means of water." Aia in the phrase is not due to the Sia in the verb as R. 560 supposes but simply states the means by which the eight were brought through with complete safety. It is not local with reference to the ark moving "through the water." Water was the means for destroying all the rest; that same water was the means for floating the ark with its eight souls. Water was a means of judgment in the case of those, a means of saving in the case of these. We may add that Christ also has the same effect upon men (Luke 2:34) ; the Christ whom the damned saw in terror in hell is the same Christ who is our hope in. heaven. 21) We have already stated why Peter selected the judgment by water instead of Sodom and the judgment by fire: it enables him to refer to baptism and its saving water: which as a type saves also you now as baptism, not a putting away of filth of flesh but an offer of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ's resurrection, he who is at God's right (hand), having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers having been placed in subjection to him.
The subject is 5, its antecedent is "water." The preliminary apposition to 5 is avrtrwov: water "as a type" saves you now, namely as a type of the water "by means of which" Noah and his family were brought safely through the flood judgment. The final apposition fiavrwiw states which water has this saving effect, "baptism," the suffix -/ia denoting a result, the accomplished baptism. Two further appositions follow, but these define what the inner effect of baptism is, i. e., show how it indeed "saves." 'Avri'nnros ordinarily means nachgebildet, formed as a copy of an original. But this adjective is also, though less frequently, used without expressing this inner relation in which the copy is viewed as being inferior to the original. This is the case here, where we have only a correspondence or likeness: water in each case also a saving effect of water. The fact that the second water, that of baptism, saves in a far higher way is apparent and is also stated by Peter at length. This excludes the idea that antitupon means that the water of the flood is a type-prophecy of baptism. As far as the eight souls and as far as Peter's readers are concerned, there is only an analogous saving effect of water. We may translate with an adverbial expression, "by way of a type," or, as we do, by substantivizing the adjective: "as a type." This is one of the passages (Titus 3:5; Mark 16:16) which says directly that baptism "saves," yea, that the water of baptism saves, certainly not as mere water but as the water of baptism, i. e., connected with the Word (Eph. 5:26), with "the Name of the Father," etc., (Matt. 28:19). "Which (water) now saves also you." Peter even explains what baptism is and justifies his statement that its water "saves." These appositions have the effect of explanatory clauses as if Peter had written: "for it is not . . . but it is," etc. "Not a putting away of filth of flesh" = not a bodily cleansing, an outward, bodily rite. The deductions that the readers held this view, and that Peter corrects them, are unwarranted. One of the commonest means of emphasizing the positive is to place it in contrast with the negative. There were, indeed, ceremonial lustrations; the Jews had them, for instance the washing which the high priest had to undergo before officiating. All such washings really cleansed only the body and were symbolical; they did not "save" spiritually, were never intended to do so. Peter denies that baptism is such a minor rite and thus gives an answer to those who see in baptism only "an ordinance," a symbol, a sign of grace already obtained or yet to be obtained, or a mere mark of obedience. Immersionists also find little support for their view t' here. The only persons who were immersed were those who were drowned by the flood waters. Their case is like that of the Egyptians who were drowned by immersion in the Red Sea (Exod. 14:28, 29; compare I Cor. 10:1, 2).
The sacrament "saves" because it is not a mere outward rite but "an offer of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ's resurrection," etc. He A. V. selects the common meaning of eirepwn)iia, "an answer," one made to God by us. The R. V. does less well with its "interrogation," margin "inquiry," "appeal," addressed to God by us. This is taken to mean that we ask God for a good conscience in the act of baptism, or that by obeying the command to be baptized we have a good conscience because of this our act of obedience and the answer we thereby make to God in baptism. See Thayer in regard to the way in which this is understood ; he interprets it as the vow to have a good conscience in regard to God. This word is forensic; the whole expression is parallel to the negative "not a putting away of filth of flesh." C.-K., 455. Bengel approached this meaning but made the word subjective: the rogatio qua nos deum compellamus cum hona, conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis, the claim which a good conscience has upon God with sins remitted and abolished. Schlatter has the correct interpretation: this tmpwrriya is God's Antrag or Anbietung. "God puts the question before man as to whether he wants to have a good conscience and receives the answer vi the believing 'yes' of the one accepting baptism." The forensic sense lies in God's formal proposition, which, when it is accepted, is rechtskraeftig, legally binding. The genitive "of a good conscience" is objective, and el's ®wv is to be construed with it (as our versions have it). The order of the words parallels the negative which has o-apKos before awdOws and pvwov after, and thus "of a good conscience" is put before wtpwrrifut and ew €>wv after. This careful order puts the emphasis first on "flesh" and again first on "a good conscience" and thus places these two into opposition: flesh-cleansing amounts to nothing, a good conscience is everything. Secondly, also "filth" is emphatic, and, like it, "toward God": to get rid of bodily dirt is nothing, but to be right el's (toward or regarding) God is everything. The point of all this is the fact that in baptism God bestows something on us which becomes ours by baptism. Peter calls this "a good conscience toward God," and a glance at v. 16 shows the reason; men speak against us, but we keep the good conscience bestowed on us by baptism, these evil men are able to revile only our good conduct. So baptism truly "saves," so we remain "blessed," when, if God wills, we suffer from the disobedient in the world. All of this is the direct opposite of the view that we bring something to God in baptism, say obedience to the "ordinance" of baptism, a good conscience, a request for one, the answer of one, or the vow to have one. We construe: "God's eirepunjpa through Jesus Christ's resurrection, he who," etc. In baptism God extends the saving proffer of a good conscience toward him only "by means of Jesus Christ's resurrection"; Sia means or mediation. We have already stated the difference between the vivification and the resurrection and have pointed out that the latter also includes the glorious appearance of the living Savior to the disciples and to chosen witnesses (I Cor. 15:4-8). The vivification is sufficient for the descent to hell. Christ, again alive, descended gloriously in body and in soul. Now, however, all that is comprised in his resurrection for the baptized believers is the basis of their blessedness, the medium of the good conscience toward God that was bestowed on them in and by baptism. One might construe the phrase with "saves": "saves also you ... through Jesus Christ's resurrection." This is in substance the same as construing: God's "offer through," etc. Christ's suffering and death are crowned y his resurrection, his ascension, and his sessio at God's right hand. These glorious acts complete his work. The resurrection (here we have the active term, his rising up) is the factual evidence that his substitutionary expiation of our sins is all-sufficient and that it has been accepted as such by God. Thusthe risen Lord instituted baptism for all nations (latt. 28:19) with the promise that it saves (Mark 3:16). Without his resurrection there is no baptismno salvation, no conscience-cleansing to comfort us ihen we are persecuted for righteousness' sake, in fact, 10 righteousness at all. Redemption was finished 01 the cross (John 19:30) ; the resurrection is God's o'n attestation to this effect (Acts 2:36, with v. 38 01 baptism; 5:30-32). 22) "0's is a demonstrative relative: "he who is at God right (hand), having gone into heaven, angels/etc. The demonstrative force is felt when we note thfc this is not a genitive "of Jesus Christ, of whom/but a nominative "he who." Peter intends to say: "lis is the One who arose from the dead, whose resurrebion assures us all blessedness." He 'ent into heaven is ascension. One should note thb wopwQw is the same participle that was used in v. ISto denote the descent into hell. Both are predicated c Christ's human nature (body and soul) which is in uion with the divine. No man saw the descent; the ascat was seen in its first stage but not after the cloud eveloped Christ, when it became timeless. Since it is esressed by means of a participle the ascent is made sbsidiary even as it was a single act. The sessio at God' right hand is the supreme thought. Peter has the simie statement that he "is at God's right." For furtheiexplanation see the other passages which have fuller cpressions, notably Heb. 1:3; 12:2. Th(full exaltation of being at God's right hand in hea'°n is indicated by the genitive: "made subject to himangels and authorities and powers." One can only skke his head when these angels are identified with "ie spirits in prison" (v. 19), which were human spirits Nor can we accept the view that the three terms ire to be regarded as indicating three ranks. These re good angels. As angels they are subservient to Christ and are his messengers (Heb. 1:14). All these angels have authority, they likewise have power and are thus designated according to the degree of authority and of power bestowed on each of them. The same is true in Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21. We do not divide perpendicularly but horizontally as is explained in the interpretation of these other passages. Christ in his human nature is at God's right hand. By virtue of the divine attributes bestowed on his human nature at his incarnation the man Christ Jesus now rules with divine glory and majesty over heaven, earth, and hell, all God's holy angels being his ministrants in this rule. Let the readers dismiss all fear of men (v. 14, 15). Peter does not mention the demons, neither in v. 18 nor here. Only by deduction can we think of the demons, and it is immaterial whether from the descent into hell we deduce that the demons are powerless before Christ, or from his enthronement at God's right hand that they are under his feet. What Peter does not introduce Paul treats in Col. 2:15. Both of these passages deal with the descent into hell. We refer the student to the exposition of Col. 2:15, which states that God, "having stripped the rulerships and authorities (i. e., the demons) put them to shame publicly by causing a triumph over them in connection with him" (literal translation). Paul writes in disdain of the Judaizers in Colosse, who imagined that demons could hurt Christians through certain foods and earthly elements, of which up-to-date Christians had to beware; but all demons were abjectly crushed by Christ's descent into hell. The two sedes doctrinae supplement each other, and we may add Eph. 4:8 (Ps.68.-18). We append the following in regard to v. 19. Augustine held the view that Christ preached to the antediluvians here on earth before the flood, preached to them non in came, quia nondum erat incamatvs. sed in spiritu, i. e., secundum divinitatem yraedicavit. Gerhard, von Hofmann, Besser, etc., have adopted his view. This interpretation cannot, however, be supported by the text of this passage. Zezschwitz has the following. Peter adopts the fables of the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and "Jewish tradition." In order to frustrate the plan of sending a Savior to be born of men the demons (Gen. 6:4) cohabited with women and begot a terrible progeny, half-devil, half-human, which was as little redeemable as were their fathers. In order that the whole human race might not become infected God wiped it out by the flood, save the family of Noah. The spirits of these half-devils were held in prison, namely apart in the lowest dungeons of hell, so that
on the day of judgment they might not appear before God's tribunal together with the other sinners. Christ descended to them and pronounced their doom in advance of the final judgment. This is called the type. The antitype is the Antichrist, a spiritual son of Satan who by a generatio spiritzudis seeks to corrupt the souls of men. This is the counterpart to the cohabitation of the demons mentioned in Gen. 6:4. This second effort Christ will destroy at his Parousia. Such an interpretation can scarcely be called exegesis.
CHAPTER IV
Suffering in the Light of Death and the
Judgment, v. 1-6
1) Christ, then, having suffered by means of flesh, do you also equip yourselves with the same idea.
Oiw is only transitional. The genitive absolute states only the fact that Christ suffered by means of flesh. The dative is also a dative of means as are the two datives vapnl and Trvmp.aTi in 3:18. Christ became flesh (John 1:14), assumed our earthly human nature in order to live as man here on earth, and thus he suffered "by means of flesh." Peter has already mentioned the fact of Christ's suffering in 2:21 and 3:18, in the latter passage he added the detail that he suffered "once." The aorist participle refers to Christ's suffering as having been finished and completed. He suffered until he was put to death by means of flesh (3:18). "Suffered" is to be understood in this sense. Some texts add "for us" in analogy with "for you," 2:21; but this brings in a thought that has already been treated in 2:21 and more fully in 3:18, a thought that would upset the present context; vvep filuov must be canceled. "Do you also equip yourselves with the same Ivwiav, idea." Paul's use of wr\a in Rom. 6:13 makes us hesitate to translate "do you also arm yourselves" (a military figure). A S7r\ov is any useful tool and a military weapon only where the context speaks of a soldier or of war, which is not the case here. The ^vvoia, Einsicht or thought, idea, is not for the purpose of fighting anybody but is a useful tool for us while we are still living this earthly life and are thus suffering by means of flesh. "The same idea"==the one just expressed, namely that of suffering by means of flesh until death brings it to an end. Peter does not say that Christ had this idea regarding himself, that he was so equipped, but that this idea is to be taken by us for our use from the fact that Christ suffered by means of flesh. When we now suffer, and much or little suffering brings us to our death, it is a useful thing to see how Christ suffered by means of flesh. The commentary is John 15:20; compare Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16. If Christ was persecuted, we, his followers, shall also be; we cannot expect to be above our heavenly Master, The fact that we suffer "for righteousness' sake," for doing good, is understood, having been stated already in 3:13-17. Peter is fortifying his readers in view of impending persecutions (see the introduction). The thought of this first sentence is complete.
Because the one who suffered by means of flesh has ceased from sin so as no longer to live the rest of the time in flesh for lusts of men but for God's will.
There is a discussion as to whether Sri is causal or declarative. Those who assert that it is the latter think that the clause states the contents of the iwow.: "the same idea, that the one who suffered has ceased from sin." But this would include Christ and would state that he, too, had ceased from sin by having suffered by means of flesh. Yet Christ never sinned and never ceased from sin. In answer to this reply we are told that, when his suffering was completed, Christ ceased from sin in the sense that he had nothing more to do with wwr sins, nothing more to suffer for them, while we cease from sinning when we ourselves commit no more sin. But this double meaning was scarcely Peter's intention. What is true of Christ in one peculiar, exceptional sense, and true of him alone, cannot be associated with what is true of us in a totally different sense and be called "the same idea." More may be said. The Scriptures nowhere express the thought that Christ ever wanted to get through with suffering for our sins and have no further contact with them. "On is causal (our versions are correct). This clause does not refer to Christ; it refers only to us. We alone cease from sin, i. e., stop sinning. The tenses are important. The substantivized participle is an aorist, and 5 vaOw crapici expresses the same completed suffering by means of flesh as does the aorist TraddvToy aapKi which precedes. This means that the sufferer has reached death. This is not the present participle 6 waa^wv, the one whose suffering is still in progress. It would not be true to say that a Christian who still suffers "has ceased from sin." We are surprised to be told that even wicked men are stopped from sinning by suffering, and that suffering acts in the same way with regard to Christians. The wicked rage at their suffering when their sins find them out. Many a Christian grumbles and complains and even begins to question the justice of God. Read what Herod the Great did during his last suffering, or that other Herod mentioned in Acts 12:23 (compare the accounts of Josephus). True enough, suffering leads many a Christian to deeper repentance and thus, in the providence of God, has its wholesome uses; affliction sometimes also aids in inducing a sinner to repent. But even repentant sufferers must still pray
the Lord's Prayer, mus still confess their sins as John (I John 1:8, 9) and James (3:2) did. Although Peter's statement is general, it applies only to Christians, and to each of them only when their suffering for Christ's sake is at an end, when they have died. And we do not include the wicked and say that death stops them from sinning. This is done by those who think that at death their spirits enter the so-called Toteweich, where they lead a shadowy existence, are inert, and are thus unable to sin. But lives was in hell; he suffered torture in a flame; he cried with the old obduracy of unbelief: "No, father Abraham!" The supposition that one must have flesh or a body in order to be able to sin is unwarranted. Is the lack of a body the factor that stops a deceased Christian from sinning? It is the last repentance and divine cleansing; it is the glorification of his soul on entering heaven that does so. The aorist participle is not gnomic, nor is the perfect we-travrai. These tenses are in relation to each other: when the suffering is finished at death, the ceasing from sin sets in and then continues forever. When the soul of the Christian is with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:23), all sinning is forever at an end. The pertinency of this fact in the present connection is apparent. Because this goal awaits every Christian who suffers for righteousness' sake (3:14), he can, indeed, equip himself with the idea (woia) of suffering by means of flesh, drawing it from no less a source than Christ himself who suffered and was put to death by means of flesh but is now at God's right hand in glory.
2) Christians are to equip themselves for the reason or cause just stated, and the result is to be that they no longer live the remaining time in flesh (in their earthly, bodily existence) for lust of men (human lusts) but for God's will. Eis ro denotes result. The clause depends on bvXiaaaQe but includes the reason for this equipment with the proper Christian idea. In fact, the result which Peter demands rests on all that precedes in this chapter. One should not confuse the tenses and have the result clause depend on the perfect wevavTai. and then argue that, because we are to spend the rest of our earthly lives aright, ceasing from sin must also have occurred during our present earthly life. The cessation from sin sets in when the suffering by means of flesh has ended (6 vaOwv, aorist), which occurs when we have no further life to live in flesh. It is the Christian's goal and hope to cease from sin forever. That is why after his conversion he wants to live the rest of his life here in flesh no longer for human lusts but for God's will. The two thoughts correspond. How can one who continues the old lusts and disregards what God wills (Oe^iio.) expect to enter the heavenly, sinless life at death? Every convert must regret the time in his unconverted state that he spent in living for man's (i. e., for human) lusts.
Biaiorai to live the earthly course of one's life; and the negated aorist infinitive definitely, decisively no longer to live for lusts but for God; the two datives are dativi commodi. "Of men" and "of God" emphasize the opposition. We may observe that when Peter intends to say "in flesh" he writes an ev and does not use a simple dative, a fact which it is well to note with regard to the datives used in v. 1 and in 3:18.
8) "For" adds a pertinent remark: For enough the time that has passed to have wrought out the counsel of the Gentiles, having proceeded in excesses, lusts, wine-swillings, carousals, drinking bouts, and unlawful idolatries; etc.
"Enough" is mild and is the stronger for that reason. It was more than enough, the time, now happily passed and gone, for having worked out the counsel of the Gentiles. BoA^/io, is what one intends, hence "counsel"; in v. 2 Be^iia is what one wills or has decided. Note the perfect tenses: time "that has passed," that has lasted a while but is now ended; "to have wrought" for a time but now no longer; "having proceeded" but now never again occurring. All of these tenses indicate a past continuance that has come to an end in the past. The last participle, vcTopevtJievovs, is in the accusative; it is regarded as modifying the implied accusative subject of the infinitive which Peter leaves indefinite by the same meiosis that he has used in connection with the adjective "enough." All of the six items in the plural refer to public pagan sins and thus to the worst types of open sin. These are named because they make Peter's readers realize fully what "the counsel of the Gentiles" really is; they now blush at the reminder. But these public and open sins do not excuse or minimize the many others that might be listed here, private or secret. One sees most readily what a certain counsel is by noting its more glaring products. 'Ao-e^yeiai = excesses, Ausschweifungen, when there is no check or rein, when men let themselves go; Second Peter uses this word several times. "Lasciviousness" is not exact. "Lusts" is equally comprehensive (note verse 2) and adds the inner vicious desires that drive to outward excesses. The next four are specific: owo^Auyi'ais (derived from wine and to bubble), "wineswillings" will do; K<o/xoi, Gelage, "carousings" (Gal. 5: 21); ttotcu, "drinking bouts" (M.-M. 531). Finally, "unlawful idolatries." Peter is listing the pagan excesses that were connected with the practice of idolatry, the things commonly done at the celebrations in honor of heathen gods.
Because Peter says "the counsel of the Gentiles, and especially because he adds the adjective afft/uro's to "idolatry," which means "unlawful" and not "abominable" (our versions), we are told that Peter is not writing to former Gentiles but to former Jews. We are referred to Rom. 2; but Rom. 2 deals with pagan moralists (in v. 1-16) and with Jewish moralists (in v. 17, etc.), see the author's Interpretation. We are pointed to Jews who adopted pagan ways; but unless these Jews ceased to be Jews and became outright pagans — which mighty few ut" them did — they would not participate in orgies that honored idols. We are told that Peter could not say "unlawful" from the pagan standpoint; but he was writing to Christians from the Christian standpoint. On the question regarding the readers see the introduction.
4) Peter continues: in which connection they deem strange your not continuing to run with (them) into the same outpouring of dissoluteness, (they) blaspheming—they the ones who shall give due account in fuN to him who is ready to judge living and dead.
The plural verbs with the unnamed subject are understandable as they are written. Peter refers to the heathen communities in which his readers lived. The relative "in which" is to be construed with "they deem strange" and is properly singular: "in connection with this they deem it strange," the genitive absolute adds (almost like an object clause) what strikes them as strange: "your not continuing to run with them into the same outpouring of dissoluteness" (ao-om'a,, Liederlichkeit, see Eph. 5:18; Titus 1:6), "the same" as you ran into before. B.-P. 98 has Strom der Liederlichkeit. This refusal to join them as you formerly did arouses the ire of the pagans so that they blaspheme the Christians, their God, and their religion. The Greek participle has case, number, and gender and is thus far more flexible and intelligible than the English participle; the plural nominative masculine at once applies "blaspheming" to the subject "they." There is no reason for toning down this word to the meaning "speaking evil"; they cursed the Christians and the whole religion which made people the opposite of what they had once been.
5) "Eyo with an adverb = to be; it is here substantivized : "he who is ready to judge." "Living and dead" are qualitative, which is more strongly felt in the Greek than in English, where such points are generally ignored. This Judge is Christ; "living and dead" are all men, some of whom will be living here on earth when the Judge arrives. Peter says that the Judge stands ready and prepared to judge, he may proceed to judge at any moment. Then what about these blasphemers? Whether they are living or dead, they are the ones (ol with demonstrative force "sudden vehement use" as it has been termed) who shall give due account in full for their blaspheming and their attacks upon the Christians; \oyov= "account," and a™ in the verb has the force of "due" and "in full," note the expression in Matt. 12:36; Luke 16:2; Acts 19:40; Heb. 13:17. Since it is here used with reference to blasphemers, "to render due account in full" has its full severity. This emphatic clause rings with doom for these blasphemers. The fate that awaits them at the hands of him who is ready to judge living and dead is to fortify the readers for bearing the blasphemous attacks made on them and for forsaking all the pagan riotous and shameful ways. Unmoved, they are to meet the world's dread frown. The Master praises, what are men?
6) rap adds a word of explanation. In so many instances the German commentators regard this connective as begruendend and thereby get into difficulties. Scores of yap are not illative but explanatory as R. 1190 points out; in fact, the illative use is not the primary one. This fact is of importance here.
For for this the gospel was proclaimed even to dead men in order that they be judged, on the one hand, according to men by means of flesh, on the other hand, that they live according to God my means of spirit.
E;s Tovro is not "for this cause" (A. V.) but "unto this end" (R. V.) if "end" is understood in the sense of purpose, for the Iva clause is in apposition to rovro and denotes aim or purpose. God's purpose in the preaching of the gospel is to have those who hear it to live forever. This was his purpose in having the gospel preached "even to such as are dead." Peter says this in order to explain the threat uttered in v. 5, that all blasphemers of Christians shall give due account in full to the Judge of living and dead. They are not men who never heard the gospel; they came in full contact with it, saw its power exemplified in their own communities, in the Christians who forsook all heathen ways, who patiently bore the blasphemies heaped on them. Yet these blasphemers go on blaspheming; no wonder they have a terrible account to render to the Judge of the living and the dead. This is the more evident, as Peter explains (yap), when we note the blessed purpose of gospel preaching; this has always been that they may be judged and may live. "For this even to dead men the gospel was proclaimed." The dative is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, icai aids the emphasis: "even to dead men." The absence of the article makes the noun qualitative just as t.wvra's kw. vexpovs are qualitative. The fact that the dative refers to physically dead men just as vtKpom does in v. 5 is plain. Those who have the dative ^spiritually dead men while they let the preceding accusative signify physically dead men cannot justify this shift from one meaning of veKpoi to another. The fact that the gospel always finds men spiritually dead when it is first preached to them is beyond question, for Peter himself says that the purpose of this preaching was that even the physically dead to whom it was preached should live. The aorist passivo even to dead men "it was gospeled" (impersonal), for which we say in English, "good tidings or the gospel was proclaimed." The tense is most important. It agrees with the dative. It denotes the historical past. Peter does not say that the gospel is being preached even to the dead but was preached. When? When these physically dead were still among the living, when the purpose of such preaching could yet be attained. We have the same verb that was used in 1:12: "they who preached the gospel unto you," ol ewyyeAio-a/woi; it is not icifpwwv, "to herald," as in 3:19. No vox media here but the vox positivci. Yet there is an obvious difference between the two veitpoi mentioned in v. 5 and in v. 6. Christ stands ready to judge "living and dead," all who are still living when he comes to judgment, all who are dead when that day comes. Peter is thinking of the future as also the future tense shows: "they (the blasphemers) shall give due account"; whether they appear among the living or among the dead at that day, their reckoning shall be made. In v. 6 the tense is the aorist: "it was gospeled," was when Peter wrote; "to dead men," dead when Peter wrote. These are not all of the dead who shall face the Judge at the last day but
those to whom the gospel was preached prior to Peter's writing, (by the gospel preachers mentioned in v. 1, 12), who at this writing were already dead. We say this at length, but it lies on the surface in Peter's words. / The purpose of this gospel preaching was (what it has always been, is, and will be) : that they who heard it and have since then died "be judged, for one thing, or on the one hand, for another thing, or on the other hand, go on living." Mev . . . 8e balance the two verbs. We cannot reproduce these neat and delicate particles; we can only indicate their balancing force by our cumbersome English. But /iev is not concessive over against 8e. Those German commentators are not correct who reproduce these particles by the neat German: zwar . . . aber, "while they be judged . . . yet may live." The purpose for which the gospel was preached to these dead was a double purpose: that they be judged — that they go on living. The particles do no more than to fix attention on each verb separately, fUv letting us expect 8e. "To be judged" is not the whole purpose of gospel preaching, it is only one side of it. We have already been told that Christ shall judge dead men. The other side of this purpose of gospel preaching was that they who heard it should live. These two belong together, and /xev .... 8e/ join them. Because Peter has brought in the reference to Christ's judging in connection with the blasphemers he now connects the act of being judged with the gospel that was preached to dead men. He uses the same verb icpiveiv, "to judge," a vox media, even the same tense, aorists, because the rendering and the reception of a verdict are punctiliar acts. Only the voice differs: Christ judges, men receive the judgment, are judged. In plain contrast with these is the present tense ^owi: the purpose of gospel preaching for such as are now dead was that they live continuously, forever: "though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25). Both subjunctives have corresponding modifiers, and it is because of their correspondence that p.cv . . 8e balance the verbs: "for one thing, be judged according to men by means of flesh, for the other, go on living according to God by means of spirit." The icaro phrases and their anarthrous nouns are not at once as clear in the English as they are in the Greek. The two datives should be clear; but already when they were interpreting 3:18 the commentators have not always regarded them as datives of means, which applies also to the one dative found in 4:1, 2. The sense is: in the human way (naro.) by means of flesh (dative of means) in the divine way (icaro.) by means of spirit (dative of means). It is not the purpose of gospel preaching to exempt the hearers of it from Christ's judgment but to make clear that we shall be judged as all men are judged. It is, in fact, the gospel's intent to prepare us for judgment, to meet Christ's judgment with irappyna, confident assurance of acquittal. It is the gospel preaching's intent that those who hear it shall be judged naro. avffpwrovs vapid, the phrase and the dative belong together : "in the way of men by means of flesh." When they are thus judged, on the one hand, they are to be living "in the way of God by means of spirit," naro. ®cov •irvevp.a.Tt, the phrase and the dative again belong together. Men have "flesh," body, bodily existence; thus flesh is the means for judging them. In this connection one might refer to II Cor. 5:10: "that each one may receive the things (done) by means of the body," and all the many references to the body, the bodily members, the deeds for which we employ them in this life. The reply that Peter writes "flesh" and not "body" is met by Col. 1:22: "in the body of his flesh by means of death." It is met again by the three o-apxi' occurring in 3:18 and 4:1, 2: Christ suffered "by means of flesh"; the Christians suffered "by means of flesh." These three vapid place the meaning of the fourth, the one occurring in our passage, beyond doubt. But we should leave these datives datives and not make them phrases by translating "in the flesh," or as the Germans say, am Fleisch. This German translation would have Peter say that death is the judgment, i. e., that Christians are not spared the judgment of physical death. This idea occurs only to German commentators who have this preposition an; the English commentators have no exact equivalent for it and hence do not express this idea here or in 3:18 and 4:1, 2. Physical death is not the judgment for a blasphemer nor for a Christian. A secret judgment takes place at the moment of death, but that judgment is not the sundering of the body and the spirit, nor is it restricted to the body (flesh); it is a judgment on the whole man, body and spirit (or soul). Peter does not speak of the preliminary, secret judgment; his two aorists icplvat and Kpiffwi speak of Christ's final judgment. This is quite evident in regard to the former; and the force of the latter is determined by the former. When we again look at II Cor. 5:10 and at all those passages that speak of the judgment we note that they make the final judgment turn on what man has done in the body. This mpid alone answers the questions about gospel preaching to dead men in hades (usually called Totenreich) and that of any connection between our passage and 3:19, 20. No advocate of missionary work in hell has attempted to show that its purpose could be a judgment of the spirits in hell vapid. The departed leave the flesh or body in the grave. Let us suppose that they did believe the gospel in hell, then the resultant judgment could not be vapid. We must say that any act in hell would take place wholly apart from their dust in the grave here on earth. Nor is it satisfactory to advance the restriction that the dead referred to are only those who never heard the gospel in this life. Then the aorist emiyycXivffvi should be changed to the present tense; and vapid would again offer difficulties. This idea of gospel preaching in hell has won adherents because it satisfies speculative minds in regard to a question which the Scriptures leave unanswered, namely, how will the Lord deal with those who never heard the gospel during this earthly life? The fact that Peter does not touch upon this question but speaks of blasphemers who scorned the gospel in this life, whose judgment is certain, is overlooked. Mev already points to the 8e even as the first half of the wa clause is incomplete without the second half: "that they live according to God by means of spirit," ever live in the divine way, after the manner of God (no longer in a mere earthly existence), and do this, of course, by means of spirit. The A. V., which translated TrvwiwTi in 3:18 "by the Spirit," is not consistent and does not render this same dative "in the Spirit" in the present passage. Likewise, those who regard "spirit" in 3:19 as the divine nature shrink from doing so in 4:6 although the two datives are the same. This TTveuiia is the human spirit. As to Christ, we need to say only that without it he could not have been true man; by the return of his spirit to his body that body was vivified in the tomb. The aim of gospel preaching is that those who hear it may live in the way of God in spirit. Since this is here said of those who are al- ready dead and are awaiting the final judgment, the clause speaks of the life which they shall be living by means of spirit after judgment day. All that Peter writes about the Christian hope is pertinent here. It centers in the judgment and in the eternal glorious life that follows. The fact that this involves the new life here on earth, a life that temporal death cannot touch, a life of which, by virtue of the resurrection, the body, too, shall partake, need not be mentioned in detail. See John 6:40, 44, 54; 11: 25, 26; even John 3:15,16. "By means of spirit" these shall live, for the real seat of life eternal is man's spirit and not his 'frv\ri or his aap.a. Already in our earthly existence we worship God ev wevp.an (John 4:23), "in spirit." When our bodies are dust, our spirits live in glory. That life Christ's last judgment affirma forever. Yes, it is Kara ®e6v and not Kara avOpwaows; it is like the glorious life of God. It is the ultimate feature of the aim of the gospel. We may now revert to yap and to the context. What is said about the aim of gospel preaching has a double bearing. Christians who have died after bearing p»gan blasphemies are safe indeed. The gospel that they heard brings them to the judgment of life. But what about the blasphemers who make Christians suffer during the time that they live in flesh? Whether they are dead or still alive, a terrible reckoning awaits them when they face the Judge. These are the facts that are to fortify Peter's admonition: "since Christ suffered by means of flesh, do you also equip yourselves with the same idea" (v. 1). To state that Peter expounds Christ's right to judge the living and the dead, that Christ has this right only because the gospel is preached also to those in hell, and that Peter makes clear the absolute universality of the gospel by pointing to its saving promulgation even in hell, is to do an injustice to the holy Apostle Peter and to Christ himself. What he says about the final judgment is not offered by Peter as an assurance against the misgiving or fear that the blasphemies of their pagan attackers might after all be true. Stoeckhardt seconds von Hofmann: "What a muddled Christian he would have to be whose anxiety worried him that the blasphemies against his upright life might remain uncontradicted and unrefuted and might thus deprive him of eternal salvation! It is, indeed, a comfort over against such blasphemies, or rather over against such blasphemies against Christianity, that our salvation does not depend on human judgment but on Christ's verdict, but not a comfort that quiets us regarding our salvation as though we might fare as we should deserve if our blasphemers were right, but a comfort that makes it easy to bear their blasphemies because there lives one who will not leave them unpunished.
Exercising Christian Virtues in View
of the End, v. 7-11
7) In v. 5 the Lord is ready to judge living and dead. In v. 7 the end is near. In v. 1-6 the negative side is prominent, the pagan sins we must avoid even at the price of suffering men's blasphemies for so doing; now in v. 7-11 all is positive. Moreover, these positive virtues are to appear in the contacts of Christians with each other. This paragraph ends with a doxology. Now the end of all things has come near. Peter writes exactly as Paul does about the nearness of the end of all things, wavro. without the article (ra •n-a.vra would be the existing things). Although it is here construed with "all things," to Te'A.os, which is quite definite because of the article, has the same meaning that it has in v. 17 where the genitive denotes persons: "the end of the ungodly." B.-P. 1298 makes the first Aufhoeren, cessation; the second Ziel, "goal." C.-K. 1044 is much better. The Greek never uses reXos to denote a merely temporal end; Te^eim; is the proper word for this idea. Even in temporal connections reXoi retains the idea of goal, not mere cessation but the
conclusion, the Erfolg, the outcome or success. Thus iroAejuou t£a,o? does not mean that war has just stopped, but that victory has been reached; re^os avSpov, that a man has come to maturity; the end of seed is its ripeness. Thus here and in v. 17 "the end" has the same meaning: Ausgang, Abschluss, the final goal. All things shall not cease (Rom. 8:19, etc.), shall not be annihilated; those who were disobedient to the gospel of God shall not cease to exist (v. 17). They shall reach their final goal. The perfect rjyyiKe has its present connotation "has come near" and thus "is near" and may be translated "is near." Since Christ's first coming there is nothing more to expect except his second coming to judgment, and this may occur at any time. The apostles had no revelation as to the date of it. They were in the same position in which we are at this date; they spoke as we must now speak. None of us knows but what we may live to see the end. We have the advantage of knowing that it has been delayed for centuries, but we know this, not from Scripture, but from the fact, from history. To charge Paul or Peter with false prophecy for saying 1900 years ago that the end is near, is to treat them unfairly. They, as we, had to live in constant expectation of Christ's sudden return. Accordingly, be of sound mind and be sober for prayers! Compare Titus 2:1-6 where Paul inculcates this soundness of mind, this balance in thought and disposition, which is never flighty, unbalanced, carried away by notions of our own or by attacks of men. Peter adds: "Be sober for prayers." In II Tim. 4:5 Paul says, "Be thou sober in every way." Peter has already said (1:13), "Having girded up the loins of your mind as being sober." This is spiritual sobriety, another term for soundness of mind; but it is here connected with worship, "prayers"; the singular as well as the plural of this word often refer to the whole Christian worship (Acts 2:42). Peter begins his positive exhortation with the mind and disposition of his readers, with the inner steadiness that should control them. Before he mentions what they are to do for each other he reminds them of their relation to God. They who pray aright to God, who worship as they should, will gladly do all that is here asked, will be aided and enabled in every way. The aorist imperatives are like all of those that precede: urgent, strong, decisive, and are used for this reason alone.
8) Before everything else having the love to yourselves fully exerted because love hides a multitude of sins.
"Before all things" does not, of course, mean before even your prayers and worship, but when you have turned from your worship, where you have strengthened your bond with God and with Christ, let your first concern be the fullest exercise of love to your own selves. This is aya^, the love of intelligence and true understanding coupled with corresponding purpose. The predicate adjective does not mean "fervent" (our versions) nor nachhaltig, constant, enduring, but "stretched out, put to full strain, exerted to the limit of its strength." The opposite is slight or ineffective effort. In cKreri;? there lies the thought of exertion. There will be sins on the part of the brethren, which may tend to slacken our love for them; such sins make it hard to show them love. Although the strain may be great, love is to stand it. "For yourselves" is not quite the same as the reciprocal "for each other" but brings out the thought that all Christians are one body. The thought is that expressed in I Cor. 12:12, etc. Every Christian is one of ourselves, and thus we are to love all of them. The participle ^ovre-s is not equal to an imperative (A. V., commentators, and grammars). It marks this "having" as being subordinate to the imperatives used in v. 1; an imperative would not do that. Peter wants to express this thought. It is fine, indeed, and most true. This love for ourselves blossoms when all of us engage in true worship as one body; it will grow limp and slack when such worship is omitted or is engaged ^ in with only flighty, superficial minds. We also note the reference to the pagans who blaspheme such worship si ce it separates Christians from their former idolatries (v. 5). Christians know what they are doing when they gather together for prayers by themselves; they are separate, a body of their own, and thus, connected with this fact (as the participle shows), they have this love for themselves. This is lost when the participle is not understood as a participle but it considered equal to an imperative. The reason for having this love is the fact that it "hides a multitude of sins." Love hides them from its own sight and not from God's sight. Hate does the opposite; it pries about in order to discover some sin or some semblance of sin in a brother and then broadcasts it, even exaggerates it, gloats over it. It is unjust to the apostle to say that he wants Christians to hush up and to hide criminality or vice that have occurred in their midst. Peter purposely says v^oi, "a multitude of sins," and thereby indicates the mass of daily sins of weakness which come to the attention of Christians because of their constant contact and assojt elation. It has been well said that we all pray daily I for their forgiveness when we offer the Lord's Prayer. | Only when Christians become mean and ugly do they |favor the devil by dragging each other's failings out into public and smiting each other in the face. Peter is not referring to sins that are committed against each other so that hiding means forgiving. What we are to do when a real offense has been committed in private Jesus tells us in Matt. 18:15, etc.; here, too, love handles the case and does all that it possibly can to remove the offense without publishing it, and when it must be made known to the church,
this is also done in love and becomes a sad task. As far as mutual forgiving is concerned, Peter knew what Jesus had told him in Matt. 18:21, etc. How public offense is to be met by public rebuke Gal. 2:12-21 exhibits most clearly. We mention these things because many will think of them; Peter does not enter upon a discussion of them. Hundreds of sins of weakness, faults, mistakes, failings we ignore, dismiss. We bear with each other because we know our own failings. The fact that, when we deem it necessary, we warn, correct, strengthen each other need not be added in a compact admonition such as Peter here offers. Yet we may note that wwrp and ir^Oos correspond. To cover a multitude calls for a greater strain than to cover a few.
9) Peter continues with a nominative plural adjective which is not equal to an imperative but, like the participle used in v. 8, is in a subordinate relation to v. 7: hospitable to each other without murmuring. The reciprocal a\\ri\ovi is in place here. Much may be said about this ancient hospitality which provided lodging for a traveling Christian, gave him necessary information and help to become located, to transact his business, to find work, to expedite him on his journey. Some had to flee from their homes in other cities because of persecution and were often destitute. During their many extensive travels the apostles were guests at many Christian homes. Note Acts 16:15; Philemon 22. Hence all these references to hospitality in the apostolic letters. Also note Matt. 10:9-13. Even pagans remarked about how the Christians loved each other and received a wholly strange Christian as a brother. While even the poorest would be ready to exercise such hospitality, those with means in any local church would open their doors first. The characteristic of this form of love is the fact that it is exercised "without grumbling." This is the sense of the phrase and not the implication that Peter's readers were grumblers and needed correction.
10) Peter continues with another participle: according as each one received a charisma, ministering it for yourselves as excellent stewards of God's manifold grace.
Luther has the idea that natural charismata are excluded: "Gifts you have, which are not born with you, nor did you bring them as your own inheritance from your mother's body." Peter, however, says that "each one" did receive a charisma, and a glance at Rom. 12:6, etc., shows that many a charisma is only some natural endowment or possession which is sanctified in the Christian by the Spirit. Not all charismata were miraculous abilities such as those mentioned in the list recorded in I Cor. 12:8-10. Peter has the same idea that Paul had: not only does every Christian have a ^dpia/m, i. e., some endowment that was graciously bestowed on him, but God intends that such an endowment is to be used in SiciKona, service for the members of the church, a service to be rendered for the sake of service and benefit to others with no thought of self save the joy of thus "ministering." The pronoun eavTow is again in place. As excellent stewards" explains what "received" implies. An oucoro/xos is one to whom certain property is entrusted to be administered according to the. owner's will and directions. In Luke 16:1 such an oikonomos is presented; but they were often slaves; they were at times placed over great estates; they were often men of high education and ability although they were slaves. Peter mentions only the feature that God has entrusted some charisma or other to each Christian. To be "an excellent steward" he must administer it as the Bestower wants him to. The objective genitive "of God's manifold grace" brings out two points:
1) every charisma, whatever its nature, is a gift of God's pure undeserved favor (x°p"), which we should employ accordingly; 2) this grace is "manifold," that is, while it is the same favor for all it bestows all manner of charismata, not only in order to employ "each one" of us, but also that we may minister "for yourselves," i. e., for the whole body of Christians so that it may lack nothing as a body. What ne cannot do, another will be able to do. 11) Peter omits the verbs in the two apodosea SRd thus continues the construction and makes v. •-11 a unit verbally as it is a unit in thought. We e compelled to insert participles in English; this is not necessary in the Greek, in fact, it would sound pedantic. A new sentence is not begun; we merely have two specifications:. if one speaks — as God's sayings; if one ministers—as out of strength which God supplies. One may help with word or with deed. A reference to Acts 6:2, 4 is remote, for this passage suggests the office of preaching, about which Peter says nothing here. He refers to any Christian, man or woman. If such a one opens his mouth to speak (\a\d), to impart something, it should be a speaking "as God's sayings," i. e., as offering God's own logia. We should observe that Peter always uses ws to introduce realities, and thus "logia of God" are statements made by God, the word logia being used as it is in Rom. 3:2 and Heb. 5:12. We do not think that Peter uses A.oyia. in the sense of "oracles" (our versions; C.-K. 680), for that is a pagan conception; compare xp^/xaTw (nds. Peter wants a plural, and since \oyo<s Qwv, "Word of God," is a concept that canot be pluralized without misunderstanding, he uses the allied term logia, which is naturally a plural. The thought seems to be that in their talk Christians are to be governed by the pertinent things that God has said. It is an extravagant idea to understand this to mean that "a Christian is to consider that the words flowing from his mouth are all charismatic, be they doctrine, prophecy, or speaking with tongues, produced by God, not originating with men." Were all Christians inspired? The idea that Peter is referring only to the services as Paul does in I Cor. 14:26, etc., is unwarranted. He refers to the common, daily talk of any and of all Christians, of women as well as of men; this is always to be helpful and is thus to be governed by what God has told us. The same holds true with regard to deeds: "if anyone ministers." We have the same verb that was used in the participial form in verse 10, but it is now distinct 11 from talk and is restricted to deeds. These, too, are to. be truly helpful: "as out of strength which God supplies," "^s, "strength" as possessed, "ability," (A. V.); Kparixs would mean strength inaction. For both the tongue and the hand Christians are to use what God furnishes them and are thus to be good stewards of God. ''Hs is the attracted fjv, and ^op-iJyew (originally, providing a grand donation for the expense of putting on a Greek chorus) is to be understood in the common sense of "provide" or "supply."
The aim of all of this is: in order that in every way God through Jesus Christ may be glorified. Every word and every deed are to glorify God through Christ, i. e., are to honor, praise, and magnify him. I Cor. 10:31 shows how far this extends. While God's glory is unchangeable, its recognition is to be increased. Thus we glorify him. 'Ey a-ao-i is neither "in all things" nor "in all men" but "in every respect" (B.-P. 1012).
Peter himself is moved to glorify God by a doxology (see the long one in 1:3-12) : to whom belongs the glory and the might for the eons of the eons! Amen. The relative is emphatic: "he to whom," "he the One to whom." The dative with am' is the common idiom for "belongs to him." There is some discussion as to whether the antecedent is "God" or "Jesus Christ." It is grammatically incorrect to construe: "to whom through Jesus Christ belongs the glory." In no other ascription is such a Sia phrase placed before the relative; if it were intended to modify the relative clause, the Sia phrase would have to follow the relative. It is asked why Peter did not write 6 last if he intended to apply the ascription of glory to God and thus bring the antecedent and the relative together. To state it frankly, Peter knew his Greek too well. "God through Jesus Christ" is correct; "through Jesus Christ God" is strange. We have no interest whatever in denying the ascription of divine glory to Christ; he is God, equal with the Father. The glory is ascribed to him in Heb. 13: 20, 21; II Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:6, and elsewhere. Here, however, Peter has four decidedly emphatic placements of "God," which suffice to asure us that "to whom" to God. In addition there is eo-w. This relative clause is thus not an exclamation as it is in all cases where the copula is omitted. This means that So^a^rai and i; Sd^o, should be construed together: "in order that there may be glorified (constantly, present subjunctive) God through Jesus Christ — to whom belongs (indeed and of right) the glory and the might," etc. The relative
clause states a fact; it does not express only Peter's feeling or voice his own glorification of God or of Christ. Like many relatives, this relative clause states the reason that all Christians should glorify God through Jesus Christ; it is because the glory belongs to him. With it is associated the Kparos, which has already been explained. And these belong to him in saecula saeculorum, "for the eons of the eons," eons multiplied by eons, the plural with the genitive plural denoting a superlative in the highest degree: "forever and ever." Eternity is timelessness, a concept that is beyond human ability of comprehension; hence we must use terms that express time to designate what is not time. The phrase occurs twenty-one times; see further, for instance, Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; I Tim. 1:17, where "Amen" also occurs. Far from being merely liturgical, C.-K. 143 rightly says, this Hebrew "amen" compels us to examine the reason in each instance of its use. It is not an expression of intellectual conviction but of an exalted, God-praising conviction of faith. Placed at the end and meaning "truth," "verity," this "amen" is solemn, confessional, in the nature of a seal.
Rejoice in Suffering that You May Rejoice
at the Revelation of Christ's Glory,
v. 12-19
12) The address "beloved" (see 2:11) does not indicate the beginning of a new section of the epistle after the "amen," for this amen only concludes the ascription of glory to God. The assurance of Peter's love for his readers by his once more calling them "beloved" is due to the subject matter that is now presented, the severity of the sufferings that may come upon some of his readers.
Beloved, be not deeming strange the fire-glow among you •when occurring to you •with a view of trial as something strange meeting you; but to the degree you are fellowshiping the sufferings of Christ be rejoicing in order that also at the revelation of his glory you may rejoice as exulting.
After all the aorist imperatives occurring in the preceding hortation the present imperatives Sevl^eaffe and ^aipere are notable. These imperatives, together with the present participles yivop.tvrj and crvp.lSaivovre'i and the present indicative KowmvuTe of the subordinate clause, lead us to believe that Peter is no longer speaking of sufferings such as his readers had already experienced and of which there would naturally be a continuance but of impending sufferings that would be far more severe. None that they have thus far experienced have deserved to be called Trvpwmi, "fireglow," fiery ordeal; these, "when occurring to you," deserve this epithet. They are on the way. The introduction explains how the situation has changed completely, and how this change prompts Peter to write to all these people in the provinces mentioned in 1:1. Nero and the imperial government in Rome are taking a hostile attitude oward Christianity, are treating it as a religio iUicita so that the worst is to be expected. The Roman authorities in the provinces will soon adopt the same attitude. When they do, the readers are not to be surprised but are to rejoice that they are called upon to fellowship the sufferings of Christ who was put to death by the Jews (3:18). Some of the commentators disregard these present tenses and their significance. Some of them think that Peter is now speaking of sufferings that are arising in the midst of the readers themselves from renegades in the churches. They place the major emphasis on the attributive phrase iv viuv and regard this as the new feature which Peter introduces at this point. Peter writes: "be not surprised on account of the fiery ordeal among you when it comes to you with a view of or for the purpose of (irpos) trial." 'Ev {i/ziv is merely at- tributive and intends to say that this fire and burning will occur "among you," will not strike all of you but only some of you. The dative is not the object of the imperative but denotes cause (R. 532). The vpcxs phrase at once adds the purpose of this coming fiery ordeal, namely the fact that it is occurring or coming to you to try you. Nobody translates wci.pavp.o's "temptation," all see that it means "trial," that it is not the same as SoKi/xor or Sox.ip.ri (a test to prove something genuine) but only a trial as to what one can endure. While only some will be struck by the Fezierglut as Peter's ev viuv plainly indicates, all the readers will be affected by what is coming. It will try them all. Peter says to all of them, "be not surprised because of it," deem it not strange, "as a strange thing meeting you" (avfipaivw, walking with you).
13) It is not a wov, "a strange thing," at all, to be deemed strange (^vi^ai); it is only fellowshiping the sufferings of Christ." The use of Kowwvew after ov^alvw is both beautiful and illuminating: when this awful thing walks together with the readers (associative avv in the participle), the readers are only in fellowship with the sufferings of Christ. This is athought that is prominent and fully carried out by Paul in Rom. 8:17; II Cor. 1:7; 4:10; Phil. 1:29; 3:10; Col. 1:24. It goes back to Christ's word (John 15: 20, 21).
We fellowship Christ's sufferings when we suffer for his name's sake, when the hatred that struck him strikes us because of him. Never is there a thought of fellowshiping in the expiation of Christ's suffering, our suffering also being expiatory. In Matt. 5:12 persecution places us in the company of the persecuted prophets (high exaltation indeed) ; here it places us in the company of Christ himself, into an even greater communion or icoivwvia. Is that "a strange thing" or to be deemed strange ? It is what we should deem proper, natural, to be expected, yea, as Peter says (following Matt. 5:12), a cause for joy. 'K.a.Oo "to the degree" you so fellowship, be rejoicing. The degrees will vary even as Peter says that the fiery ordeal will appear "among you," some will be struck fully, fearfully, the rest will be affected more or less. Thus Ka.66 takes care of both classes. Those that are struck the worst are not to lament; the fiercer the ordeal, the more reason for their rejoicing, the closer their fellowship with Christ's sufferings. Those involved to lesser degrees are not to be envied because of their partial escape; they, too, fellowship, but not so deeply. The thought is that Christ is drawing all the readers into closer fellowship with his sufferings, an honor, a distinction indeed, a cause for deepest rejoicing. This is the true view of what impends for the readers; Peter calls on them to adopt it in advance. In the va clause he carries the joy forward to the last day: "in order that also at the revelation of his glory you may rejoice as exulting." Joy now in the ordeals as they come, but oh, what joy at that great day! Peter has spoken about "the end" (v. 7), about the judgment (v. 5), and he now keeps in line with this; but he here uses "the revelation of Christ's glory," the tremendous opposite of "the sufferings of Christ" during the days of his humiliation. Peter has in mind what Jesus says in Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8 (8:38; 9:26) ; compare Paul, Rom. 8:17, 18; II Tim. 2:11, 12. Peter has already mentioned the a.7roKd\v<{iL<s, "the revelation of Jesus Christ," in 1:7. It is the revelation occurring at his Parousia when all the angels of God shall appear with him, when all the glory of the deity shall shine forth in his human nature before the whole universe of angels and of men. Peter says "be rejoicing" now to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ "in order that you may rejoice" then "as exulting." This last word is properly an aorist (second aorist passive), rejoicing with finality, with utter completeness. 'AyaAAiMjuevoi is the same word that was used in 1:6, 8. Our versions translate as though we had a cognate of "rejoice": "may rejoice (be glad) with exceeding joy." This is not such a cognate term but a participle which to rejoice adds the idea of exulting, jubilaing, skipping and bubbling over with shouts of delight. Although we now rejoice to share Christ's sufferings (like the Twelve in Acts 5:41), this is as nothing when compared with the joy at that great day. Peter just had to add this participle to bring out this thought. Yes, the worst persecution can be borne with joy when the eye is fixed on the revelation of Christ's glory and the unbounded joy that awaits the faithful.
14) If you are being reproached in connection with Christ's name, blessed (are you)! because the Spirit of the glory and of God is resting upon you!
The condition is one of present reality; Peter has in mind such reproaches as ;ire being heaped upon his readers. These reproaches are in substance the same as the blaspheming mentioned in v. 4. In v. 4, 5 the connection points to what the Judge will do with these blasphemers of the Christians; now the connection points to what the Holy Spirit does for the Christians who are so blasphemed and reproached. In v. 3, 4 the cause of the blasphemy is the fact that the Christians refuse to run with the pagan community in its riot of vices and idolatries, a negative side of their conduct; now Peter touches the positive side, the reproach "in connection with the name of Christ." This phrase is often not correctly understood; neither the ev nor the woxa. The German bei or ueher or um willen and the English "for," "the matter of," "by," are not satisfactory. So also is the supposition that Christ is the object of the reproaches and that the Christians are in Christ, which disregards 6voiia. The phrase is not the same as "in Christ." His "name" is his revelation. By his name and revelation Christ draws near to us and is apprehended by us, by his name alone. We believe in his name or revelation, are baptized in his name, confess his name, etc. ''Ev = "in connection with." Christians are reproached "in connection with" this holy, blessed name or revelation of Christ, i. e., the gospel of Christ which they believe and follow in their lives. Our enemies hate this name (revelation) and us because we cling to it. If we are thus reproached "in connection with" this name, "blessed" are we, Mucaptoi. This same beatitude was written in 3:14 and was stated in the same exclamatory way, as a verdict on those so reproached. See 3:14. Every reproach causes our ears to hear a voice from heaven crying "Blessed, blessed!" upon us. The harsher the reproaches, the sweeter this heavenly verdict. Instead of shame, elation and joy should fill us on hearing such reproaches; instead of hanging our heads, we should lift them up to Christ with radiant faces. In 3:14 "blessed" is followed by the negative: "Fear not their fear!" This is now amplified by the positive: "because the Spirit of the glory and of God is resting upon you." When Peter wrote 3:13, 1 he had in mind what he now writes, namely the positive reason for the great beatitude. The thought is that this reproach is so much strong evidence that God's Spirit rests upon us. The Spirit of God is mentioned because he brings us the name (revelation) of Christ; a helpful comment is found in John 16:13, 14 (be sure to read it). We have the entire Trinity: God his Spirit — Christ, all are connected with us. Peter says more than that the Spirit of God rests upon us; he calls him "the Spirit of glory." The genitives ts Soli's and Toii Qeoii are placed attributively between the article r6 and its noun llmi/ia, and this article is repeated in order to make each of the genitives stand out separately. Another plain reason for repeating ro is the fact that Peter could not write: to riys So^s row eov llveii/xo, for this would mean: "the Spirit of the glory of God"; nor could he write thus and insert xai: "the Spirit of the glory and of God," as if "the glory" and "God" were parallel and coordinate concepts, the two genitives being alike. They are not alike. The Spirit bestows the glory upon us and thus makes us blessed; the Spirit belongs to God and is sent by God. "Of the glory" is not qualitative, is not "the glorious
Spirit"; nor is "of God" qualitative == "the divine Spirit." The sense is not "the glorious, divine Spirit" nor "the glorious and divine Spirit." From our enemies come reproaches, from the Spirit comes the glory that makes us blessed. Reproaches heap shame upon us ("let him not be ashamed," v. 16) ; the Spirit bestows the glory upon us. These two are made opposites. Peter achieves this by using one to with this genitive, another ro with the second genitive which connects the Spirit with God. This is perfeet Greek: not only the doubling of ro but also the placing of each genitive between ro and Ilvm/m. So also is the wording "of the glory," rijs Sos, not some glory (indefinite) but "the glory" (specific). This is "the glory" which is connected with Christ, which the Spirit bestows on us. Jesus says: "He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you," John 16:15. "Show it" is the wo/io, or revelation. Jesus even adds: "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." Just so Peter connects God — the Spirit — Christ, and he connects these with what is the Father's and thus Christ's and is taken by the Spirit to show us and to give us the glory in the oro/ia, the name, the gospel revelation.
We thus decline to accept the views which take two different concepts of the two to. One is to read to (supply Svofw.) Til's Soli's, so that Peter would say "the name of the glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you." What "the name of the glory" means, and how it is to be coordinated with God's Spirit, is difficult to comprehend. Another view has to substantivize r^s oo^s: "this thing that pertains to the glory." This is a rather abstruse idea, and it is difficult to parallel it with the Spirit of God and to say that such a "thing" rests upon us as does God's Spirit. No Greek reader or hearer would do otherwise than to connect the two to (each having a genitive) with Hvevp.a. Some seek for Old Testament allusions for what Peter says and point I to Isa. 11:2 for the Spirit's resting upon a person; but j for "reproaching" Matt. 5:11 is by far best. The A. V. follows a few inferior readings by adding two clauses which the R. V. rightly cancels.
15) For do not let anyone suffer as a murderer or a thief or a bad actor or as an agitator.
Tap is important for explaining how some Christian might not only be reproached but might have to suffer for an actual crime. Pagan enemies would connect his actions with "the name of Christ" and blame the church and Christ for his crime. Hence: "let no one ever be suffering (present imperative) as a man of this kind." Peter names two crimes as samples: "as a murderer or a thief." All the "or" are disjunctive and not conjunctive. The third term; "or a bad actor" (a doer of what is base, Kanov) intends to cover any other crime. We should note that ws is repeated with the fourth item, which places this fourth term beside the three that precede as denoting a crime of a separate and different class. 'AAAoTpioCT-iaKoTros is found only here, hence there is uncertainty as to its meaning. "A busybody in other men's matters" (A. V.), "a meddler." etc. (R. V.), and other suppositions do not fit the context which not only calls for a crime but for one that parallels all ordinary crimes. C.-K. 1002 follows Windish: a man who tries to supervise what is the affair of others, a political "agitator," Aufruehrer, whom the authorities must squelch. Compare 2:13, etc., on submission to the government. This meaning explains the second w and the fact that this crime is mentioned last.
16) But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in connection with this name.
The implication is that if anyone of the readers suffers as a murderer, etc., this is not suffering as a Christian. Such a reader would suffer as the criminal that he really would be; see Luke 23:41; "justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds." "But if as a Christian" repeats w and puts "Christian" in strong contrast with the four terms that were used in v. 15 to designate criminals. A Christian suffers "for righteousness' sake" (3:14). Again compare Luke 23:41: "but this man hath done nothing amiss." Peter uses XpioTiwos (see Acts 11;26; 26:28) because of its derivation from Xrioros; a Christian suffers innocently as Christ did. We supply "suffers" in the protasis. Those who regard the "busybody" or "meddler" mentioned in v. 15 as a term that does not denote a crime think that the verb means no more than the verb "be reproached" in v. 14 does. But murderers and thieves are made to suffer the due reward of their crime by the government as all KaKowoioi (2:14), "doers of baseness" or "bad actors," are, and we have seen that the fourth term used in v. 15 means "agitators," whom the government also rightly punishes. When Peter now says: "but if (anyone suffers) as a Christian," he certainly means, "suffers for his Christianity as for a crime, suffers at the hands of the government" by being denounced to the authorities (2:12) as a naKovow;, "a bad actor" (criminal). We have shown in the introduction that this had already been done in Rome. Christianity was being regarded by Nero as a religio illicito,, a crime. Peter himself was soon to be executed as such a kakopoios; Paul was to follow. Peter thinks that the Roman governors in the provinces will be getting orders from Nero to prosecute all Christians as criminals, their crime being this illicit religion. Peter says: "If anyone of you has to suffer as a Christian," as a criminal for being a true Christian, "let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in connection with this name." Any church member who is untrue to his Christianity and commits some common crime or, still worse, becomes a political agitator under the profession of Christianity deserves all the shame which the governmental prosecution brings upon him by making him suffer the severity of the law even as he disgraces the name. Vastly different is the case of the church member who suffers imprisonment or even bloody martyrdom for the alleged crime of being a true Christian. "Let him not be ashamed" although all manner of shame be heaped upon him. "Let him glorify God in connection with this name"; we have the same phrase with the same meaning that was used in v. 14. Let him confess "this name" to the glory of God. Let him die for it "if need be" (1:6), "if the will of God should will" (3:17). "Blessed is he (3:14; 4:14)!" The reading ev rw p,c.pu rovTy, which is adopted in the A. V.: "on this behalf" (Luther: in solchem, Fall), is rightly discarded by the R. V. It seems to have been derived from II Cor. 3:10 (9:3). To think that Luther and the A. V. translate ev r<o oro/un-i. roury by the phrases they employ is to overlook the fact that they follow the other reading in their textus receptzis. The idea of adopting ev rw p.epei rovria and making Sri the exposition of "this part" cannot save the inferior reading even if the thought were not sadly confused in this way as Keil has sufficiently shown. "In connection with this name" refers to the name (revelation) of "Christ." The connection is here so clearly apparent in the sufferer who suffers "as a Christian," who truly bears this designation which is derived from "Christ."
17) We regard 5n as consecutivum (explained in R. 1001) : seeing that (it is) the period for the verdict to start from the house of God. In view of this period for the start (aorist infinitive) of the verdict from the house of God every Christian who suffers for being a Christian is not to be ashamed but is to glorify God in connection with the name of Christ. Kpi/ta is the verdict and not the act of judging. This is not the verdict that starts with or on the house of
God (the German am Huse or bei, "with," our versions, "at," which this preposition never means) and then goes on to the rest of men. The very name "the house of God" (see I Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6: "whose house are we"; also ouceioi rov <9eov, "house-members of God") makes it clear that Peter does not say that the first verdict of God shall strike his own house, the church, and after that a second verdict shall strike the wicked in the world. There is no thought that false Christians are to be exposed and the house of God is to be purified by removing them, or that the true Christians are by suffering to be purified from any sins that are still in them. Peter is speaking about the verdict on the enemies of God's house. Ungodly men and sinners (v. 18) such as Nero in Rome are calling out this divine verdict on themselves by persecuting Christianity and Christians because they are Christians. The period in which Peter writes is the one when God's verdict on such men is to start, and its start is awo, from the house of God, from the crimes these men are committing against God's house, his holy church. Every verdict starts from the object involved in the crime. The thought is the same as that expressed in v. 5 regarding blasphemers. Seeking Old Testament passages for judgments on the house of God is following an unsatisfactory trail. Ae is "moreover": moreover, if first from us, what the end of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God? Bad enough is this verdict when it starts first "from us," against whom these crimes are committed. "Us" = "the house of God" (Heb. 3:6: "whose house are we"). How serious this persecution of God's church is Paul lets us understand when he speaks of his own crime in this respect in Gal. 1:13; I Cor. 15:9; I Tim. 1:13. Paul escaped the verdict by finally not being disobedient to the gospel of God (Acts 26:19: "I was not disobedient," a7rei0i}s). But what about these persecutors? "What the end of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?" Terrible enough to sin against "the house of God" how terrible to end by disobeying "the gospel of God"! Terrible to have one's verdict "from us," "from God's house," from what one does to God's church. There is time to repent of that as we see in Paul's case. But what if this "first" is followed by to reXo-s, "the end," namely that which belongs to those who constantly disobey (present participle) what is greater than God's house, namely God's own gospel? The contrast lies between "the house of God" and "the gospel of God." It is frequently thought to lie between "us" and "those disobeying." The fact that the same preposition am makes "from us" merely say what "from the house of God" means is overlooked. A simple pronoun "us" cannot be the opposite of a characterizing, substantivized participle "those disobeying," otherwise Peter would have written "us obeying." This verdict is not for us, the house of God. It is only for those who deserve it, first because of their treatment of God's people, finally because of their treatment of God's gospel. What their end will be the godly readers may tell themselves. As far as testing out and purifying are concerned, Peter has completed the discussion of these in 1:7 (ro Soxi'/xior viiwv Trj<s viarew . . . Sia wpos, "the testing out of your faith ... by means of fire") ; he says nothing about them here. So we do not speak of Laeuterung, "purification." Our purification (or that of gold, 1:7) is never called "the verdict" or Kplfi.a, nor could it be.
18) Not until he reaches this point does Peter compare the righteous and the ungodly: And if the righteous is with difficulty saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear? Peter simply adopts the LXX's version of Prov. 11:31: E; 6 /xev Sinaioi iw\i's {p,6yisf ffw^eTai, 6 ao'e/3^? k<u a.fi.aprwXo's vov (fxivelTca. The Hebrew reads: "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner." Peter wants the thought as it is stated by the LXX. MoAis (see B.-D. 33) "with difficulty" and refers to the hard time that persecution causes the Christian. Our versions have "scarcely," which leaves a wrong impression, as though only a few righteous ones are saved. "Scarcely, rarely," is only the second or derived meaning of the adverb — Thayer; Liddell and Scott define fioyi-s: "with toil and pain"; hence "hardly, scarcely." "The ungodly and sinner (note, only one article), where will he appear?" expects the answer, "Nowhere." The preceding context lets us understand that "the ungodly and sinner" is the "disobedient" who persecutes the house of God and scorns the gospel of God.
19) Concluding the whole subject of the impending persecution of Christians because they are Christians, Peter says: Wherefore also those suffering according to the will of God, let them deposit with a faithful Creator their souls in connection with welldoing. This is the deduction (<5oTe) which those who suffer are to make and to act on. Kai is to be construed with "those suffering." Not all will have to suffer; "according to the will of God" implies the same thought. God's will determines this. This phrase excludes the idea that such suffering is a verdict on the house of God first and on the ungodly second, purifying the former, damning the latter; compare "thus is the will of God" in 2:15. Some will not need to suffer; they need no special admonition. Commentators tell us that martyrdom is not referred to, that "in welldoing" excludes it. This view is not acceptable. Persecution so easily leads to bloody death. Many in Rome were to suffer a horrible death. But this is true, that "those suffering" would suffer in various degrees, and only some would be put to death. llapaTi'^/u means "to deposit" just as •Jrapaffipcri "deposit" (I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 1:12, 14). The idea is that of depositing a treasure into safe and trustworthy hands. So all who suffer for their faith are to deposit rets i^as, "their lives" or "their souls" (1:9), with their faithful Creator. He gave them their lives (souls) ; he allots suffering according to his good and gracious will. The reading "os with a faithful Creator" is too weakly attested; "with a faithful Creator" is stronger; there is no article in order to bring out the qualitative force of this noun. Even if we suffer death in persecution we need not fear (3:14) after we make this deposit. "Creator" indicates God's almighty power; he created heaven and earth. Krwr^s is a hapaxlegomenon. "Faithful" points to his promises which we trust, which he fulfills without fail. We are fortified for the suffering that persecution brings, fortified in every way.
The last phrase should not be understood to mean that the depositing is done by our well-doing. The acts mentioned here differ, the one is a depositing with the faithful Creator by trust and prayer, the other a doing to men by words and by deeds. Peter uses a rare word when he writes a-YaOoiroua; it is found only here in the Bible. 'Er is not auf Grund von', we again take it in its first meaning, "in connection with doing good." This doing good to others in and beyond the bounds of the church is one of the great marks of this epistle. Ever and ever, especially also when and where men make the Christian suffer, he does only what is good to others, what benefits them bodily, morally, spiritually even as Christ did when he, too, bore so much among men.
CHAPTER V
The Elders, Examples of the Flock,
v. l-5a
1) When Peter admonishes the elders he does not at this late point in his epistle deal with them as a group that is comparable to the groups mentioned in 2:18 (houseslaves); in 3:1 (wives); in 3:7 (husbands) ; then "all" in 3:8. These elders do not constitute such a group, for they are over the entire flock, not because of their age, but because of their office. In the persecutions that are about to come their conduct and their care of the flock would be of the highest importance. That is why Peter now singles them out.
Elders, then, among you I urge, the fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, the partaker also of the glory about to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God in your care, overseeing it not constrainedly but voluntarily in accord with God, nor yet in a way out for shameful gain but eagerly, nor yet as lording it over the allotted charges but as being examples to the flock.
The absence of the article from the noun has it refer to "such as are elders" among the readers, and they are named vpcapvrepol, "elders," (presbyters) because of the dignity of their office whereas the word CT-i'OTcoiroi (I Tim. 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7, but "elders" in v. 5) would give them a title that is more in conformity with their work as "overseers." We have discussed this office in the passages cited; see also Acts 11:30. These were the pastors of the New Testament congregations, and each congregation had several who were chosen and called by the congregation; they were nearly always older, experienced men who, how ever, received no salary or pay. We may regard ovv as transitional (B.-P. 945); the idea that it always deduces is unwarranted. llapoucaAoi to urge, to ad monish or to exhort. "I urge, the fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, the partaker also of the glory about to be revealed," adds two appositions (each with 6) to the "I" of the verb. Peter describes himself by means of these, and they show that what Peter urges upon elders he exemplifies in his own life and office. John, too, calls himself "the elder" (II John 1; III John 1); Papias, too, calls John "the elder" and speaks of the apostles as being elders. As apostolic elders they exercised oversight over many flocks; congregational elders exercised such oversight over the one flock that had called them. "Fellow elder" and John's simple "elder" state that the apostolic office was the same office as that held by the congregational elders. We are right in saying that when Jesus called the Twelve as apostles as recorded in Matthew 10 he instituted the office of the ministry. Although these two offices are the same in substance, when he is identifying himself Peter adds the detail: "witness of the sufferings of Christ," not so much in order to indicate that there is a great difference between himself and the congregational elders, for he combines this noun and the other noun under one article, but in order in a direct way to connect him with the sufferings of Christ, which have been so repeatedly mentioned as our example in this epistle. Peter himself was an eyewitness of these sufferings. All Christians are to fellowship these sufferings (4:13, see this passage; 2:21). Peter himself saw them and is able to testify accordingly. To say that this means only that he is preaching these sufferings, that, if Peter intended to state more, he would have to write "the sufferings of Jesus" and not "of Christ," implies stressing one word unduly and taking the force out of another, the word ^.apro-s, "witness." In 4:13, as in 1:11, Peter has written "the sufferings of Christ," exactly as he writes here. Christ suffered, 2:21; 4:1; in fact, Peter always writes Jesus Christ or simply Christ and never simply Jesus. The second apposition: "the partaker also of the glory about to be revealed," places the glory of Christ beside his sufferings; it is not our sufferings and our glory as in Rom. 8:18 but Christ's. As to Christ's sufferings, in 4:13 Peter has already mentioned our fellowshiping them (noaiwveiv) and thus adds owwvw, one who fellowships Christ's glory. In 1:11 Christ's sufferings and his glory are placed side by side just as they are here. We see why Peter adds these appositions : they are to make all these elders most ready to hear what Peter urges upon them. Now, they, indeed, like Peter, may have to suffer much, but, like Peter, they, too, are to be partakers of Christ's glory. Peter knows how to touch upon the right motives just as we see this done so vividly by Paul. Me\\w with the infinitive is a periphrastic future; here we have the present infinitive to express durative future revelation.
2) The hortation follows: "shepherd the flock!" do everything that shepherding requires. We have an effective aorist imperative. Peter passes on to his fellow shepherds the order which Jesus gave him in John 21:16: Troi/xaire to, irpo/Sara /wu, "shepherd my sheep." In John 21:15, 17 Jesus added /Sowcc, "feed," which some regard as having the same force as "shepherd." The shepherding includes the feeding or pasturing (teaching the Word) but extends beyond that to the whole care on the part of a shepherd. Shepherding should not be reduced to preaching. In fine Greek style Peter inserts ev vfulv between the article and the noun, the phrase means "the flock in your care." This is. Not the case with regard to the ev vpiv occurring in verse 1, which is not placed between the article and the noun. The "you" referred to is the "you" implied in the imperative. In John 10:14 and 21:15, etc., Christ calls the sheep "mine"; in Acts 20:28 Paul writes "the church of God." We meet such genitives quite regularly; in 4:17 we have "the house of God." "Flock" brings to mind all the shepherd imagery found in the Scriptures: the sheep gentle, defenseless, liable to stray, needing a shepherd, happy, peaceful under his care, pitiful when lost, scattered, etc. This is "God's flock" that was bought at a great price (Acts 20:28), that is exceedingly precious in his sight, a great trust placed into the hands of human shepherds who are to pattern after Yahweh, the Shepherd (Ps. 23:1), and Christ, the Archshepherd (v. 4). What shepherd could have the care of any part of God's flock and treat it carelessly! Peter's words are sparing but overflow with tender and serious meaning.
Some texts omit eirio-KOTrowTes, but it is singularly appropriate, especially also for introducing all the following adverbial modifiers. This participle introduces the other designation for "elders," namely IviaKovoi, "overseers" (Latin episcopus, our "bishop"). "Overseeing" is often taken to be an activity that is different from "shepherding" (iroip.dvare) as if the latter were the preaching and the teaching and the overseeing the practical management. Some sheep (congregations) even want to do the latter themselves, the pastor is only to conduct the services. Strange sheep! Both terms have the same meaning, the figurative "shepherd the flock" is explained by the literal "overseeing." To oversee is to shepherd, and vice versa. Thus the main point appears in the adverbial modifiers which are negative and positive. "Not constrainedly but voluntarily," not because they must but because they want to; not like drafted soldiers but like volunteers; not needing to be urged to every task but as running to put their hands to it, delighted to do it. Some texts, one of which is quite important, omit Kara t6v as do the A. V. and Luther. We are inclined to accept the phrase as being genuine, as casting light on "voluntarily," this being not a mere human eagerness but an eagerness "in accord with God" who by his Spirit has made the elders overseers of the church of God (Acts 20:28). Fleshly willingness will not do. "Nor yet in a way out for shameful gain but eagerly" adds another point. We have the adjective alir^poKepSri's in I Tim. 3:8 and Titus 1:7; the adverb occurs only here in Peter (G. K. 190). The idea is that any personal gain which is sought in a selfish way is shameful; the ministry is not intended for that purpose. The "for filthy lucre" of our versions is expressive, for filth is shameful. In our day shameful gain generally consists in eagerness to get a large salary and rich perquisites by prostituting the ministry to such low aims, but we should remember that in apostolic times elders were not salaried or paid. They could, however, abuse their office in a mercenary way, not necessarily by pilfering from eleemosynary funds, but by seeking and getting the trade of the church and in other ways. IlpoffvfJwv means "eagerly," with inner devotion.
3) The final contrast is not stated with adverbs but with participles used adverbially; like the preceding adverbs, it is dependent on eirio-Koirowres: "nor yet as lording it over the allotted charges but (as) being examples to the flock" (objective genitive). The shepherds are not to be little popes or petty tyrants. Matt. 20:25; II Cor. 1:24. The use of K\rjpoi. as well as the fact that this is a plural have always caused some difficulty, and we thus have various suggestions as to the meaning. When it is stated that Peter might have said "nor as lording it over the flock but as examples to it," this would be introducing a rather strange figure; it seems somewhat incongruous to speak of lording it over a flock of sheep! On the other hand, too much is put into this word when it is made to emphasize entrusted possession which is God's (C.-K. 604). Israel is called A.aos ?yx^pos rw @w, Deut. 4:20; K\rjpo'i Tov ®eou, Deut. 9:29, and since Israel alone was this, there was no plural for these expressions. In Acts 17:4 we have 7rpocrtit\rjpw0r]va.v: some of them were persuaded and "were allotted" to Paul and Silas. So we deem it safe to make ol K\ijpoi. "the allotted charges." The elders of each congregation had received that congregation as their allotment. The participle and the object agree: one may deem it in his power to do as he pleases with what has been allotted to him. We still have preachers who act in this way. The opposite is: "being rvvoi to the flock," models for the flock to pattern after; as a die is struck, and its impress made by a blow, so the die makes the counterstamp and impress on the material. Peter mentions three common sins of preachers: laziness, greed, popishness, all of which are especially objectionable in days of persecution. Peter demands voluntariness, unselfish devotion, models fit to be patterned after.
4) And the Archshepherd having been manifested, you •will bring away the unfading crown of the glory.
With a beautiful analogy Peter calls Christ "the Archshepherd," which recalls Jesus' own word about "the good Shepherd." He is the supreme Shepherd of the flock, all others are undershepherds, who must learn their shepherding from him. We may translate "having appeared" (not "shall appear") or "having been manifested," the aorist participle denotes a single act. His Parousia or epiphany at the last day is referred to. Then these true elders and shepherds "shall bring away for themselves (future middle) the fadeless crown of the glory," fadeless or amaranthine as in 1:4, and crre<f>avov refers to a chaplet hat encircles the head (on this word see James 1:12). The genitive "of the (heavenly) glory" is appositional like "of the life" in James 1:12. Here, where the context speaks of neither war nor kingship but of shepherd an flock, stephanos, like "the glory," denotes only the highest honor and distinction.
5 a) Likewise, younger men, be in subjection to elders! This rounds out what Peter has to say regarding the elders during these troublous times. While elders are not to act as lords of the congregations, younger men are not to despise the elders and act as if they amount to nothing. Peter shields the standing and the authority of the elders. Younger men are to be in proper subjection to the elders of the church. The second aorist passive imperative is like the other aorist imperative, direct and to the point. The view that Peter only bids the younger people to be subject to older people on the mere score of age is out of the line of the thought that precedes. "Likewise" connects with the foregoing. Peter "likewise" has a word for such as are not elders and pastors, whom he calls iwrepot, "younger." These are not deacons or younger church officers; there is nothing in the context that would suggest such a thought. The youths mentioned in Acts 5:6, 10 are not deacons or officials but simply young men.
The Final Exhortations to All Church Members,
v. 5b-ll
5b) Moreover, do you all with respect to each other apron yourselves with lowly-mindedness. The dative AXA^Aois- puzzles some interpreters. This cannot e translated as a reflexive, "gird yourselves" (R. V.). In order to construe this dative as a reciprocal pronoun one text and some versions (also A. V.) insert wroTawoJiievoi, and the same effect is secured by some editors and some commentators by placing a period after aAXiyAore. These procedures connect the words with the preceding: all are to be subject to one another. Hence the R. V. makes no break at this point but retains v. 1-11 as one paragraph. We feel, however, that the sense calls for a division at this point. With 5a Peter concludes what he has to say as pertaining to the elders. With Travrc's he begins a new paragraph which pertains to "all." There is then no difficulty regarding the dative a\\ri\oi's. It is placed emphatically forward, exactly where it belongs after Peter has said something about the "elders." It is the dative of relation: "All of you in your relation to each other tie on the apron of lowly-mindedness!" Some also have difficulty with eyicofi.fSwa.ffffe. Does this word mean to tie on a girdle or to tie on an apron or to fasten on a stately robe? Some commentaries offer long discussions regarding this verb. When all is said, and especially when we note the object to be tied on, namely "lowly-mindedness," we think of a slave's apron that is tied on with its attached strings; and it may even be possible that Peter had in mind that act of Jesus' in the upper room when he tied on an apron and washed the disciples' feet and performed this slave's service to which none of them would stoop. Remember, too, how Peter behaved on that occasion. Then he had an example of the lowly-mindedness which he now urges upon all. The article used with Tan-eiro^poo-un; "the due lowly-mindedness." The word has the active sense of minding something, namely the superiority of others and our own unworthiness, minding this so that we act accordingly. M.-M. cannot list this noun; it does not appear in the Old Testament or in secular Greek, in Josephus and in Epictetus it is used only in the base sense which the adjective rawewo's has; "pusillanimity," which is a fault and not a virtue. The pagan and secular idea of manhood is strong self-assertion, imposing one's will on all others. When anyone bowed to others, it was done only under compulsion and hence was ignominious. The pagan mind did not have the idea of ethical humility; it lacked the spiritual soil for such a concept. Christ and his ethics were required to make lowly-mindedness a great Christian virtue. Matt. 18:1-3; 20:25-28; the word occurs in Phil. 2:3; Col. 3:12. When he states the reason for tying on due lowlymindedness Peter adopts some words from Prov. 3: 34. We have already seen that Peter does not always quote but in some cases only alludes and in others just adopts. Here he follows the LXX and simply changes Kupios into Teos. James 4:6 quotes this passage from Proverbs and makes the same change. The Hebrew of this passage reads: "Surely, he scorneth the scorners, but he giveth grace unto the lowly." Peter writes: because God resists haughty ones, but gives grace to lowly ones. The word ravecvoi, "lowly ones," makes this passage match "lowly-mindedness." God's x"p" or "favor" with all the blessings that flow from it is intended for "lowly ones," is a glorious gift from God to them. Grace is always a gift, one that God loves to bestow. The lowly do not pretend to lowliness; they know all their sinfulness and weakness. Conscious of this, they are never "haughty." The fact that haughty ones are scorners (Hebrew) is only the manifestation of their overweaning pride. God must scorn or resist their wicked arrogance. See Luke 1:52; 18:14 where Jesus expresses the same thought in other words. The haughty would scorn grace and its gifts; the lowly alone are eager to accept grace.
6) Accordingly, be lowly under the mighty hand of God in order that he may exalt you in due season, etc. VaTrewwOrire repeats the idea of raveivol's and of Tawei.votfspoffvyiJv referred to in v. 5 and should be translated so as to make this evident: "be lowly," the effective aorist imperative. What folly to act haughtily "under the mighty hand of God," icpa.Ta.id, actively "mighty!" Shall this mighty hand be turned against us? The lowly it will "exalt" with its mighty power. See Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11. That is the crowning grace that will be given to them. "In due season" implies that God will let the lowly remain in their lowly condition here on earth; the time for their exaltation is the last day, the day of the manifestation of Christ; then they shall receive the crown of the glory (v. 4). Who are we to be thus exalted and crowned? The very realization of what is here promised bows us under God's mighty hand in deepest lowliness.
7) But what about the time of our lowliness while we wait for our final exaltation? Must we just worry along under the oppression of the wicked world? Peter answers with a participial clause, participial because this is only a subordinate consideration : all your worry casting upon him because he is caring for you, literally: "there is care for him (impersonal verb) concerning you." Mep^iiva worry or anxiety as when one does not know whether to do this or to do that, "distraction." We have the verb in Luke 10:41: Martha was distracted by all she wanted to do, not knowing to what to turn her hand and in desperation going to Jess to have him order Mary to help her.
Everything of this kind we are to throw upon God because he is caring for us, attending to us and to all our needs. This is an allusion to Ps. 55:22: "Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee." Compare Ps. 37:5; also Luke 12:11, 12.
8) Two incisive aorist imperatives follow: Be sober! Watch! This is the same spiritual soberness that was mentioned in 1:13 and 4:7 (II Tim. 4:5), a balance in disposition, thought, and action, never to be flighty, carried away by notions of our own or of others. Next, "watch," be wide awake, not dull and sleepy. The connotation of ypriyopelv is that of being aroused to watch while aypvirvelv connotes merely the absence of sleep. Without a connective Peter states what certainly ought to keep every one of us sober and wide awake: Your opponent, (the) devil, as a lion roaring walks around seeking to swallow someone. 'An-i'SiKos is the word for an opponent in a court before a judge (Luke 18:3) ; but here, where we have the imagery of a raging lion, it is used in the generalized sense of opponent or adversary. Because Sidpo\o<s has no article, some think that it cannot be an apposition, and that avri&uco'i is an adjective. But the position of vi>,wv obviates this; "devil" is minus the article because it is regarded as a proper noun. This is a mere point of grammar that does not affect the sense. "As" is not "like" although "a lion roaring" is figurative; the devil is such a lion. A good deal is suggested by the term "roaring." This lion is not silent, stealthily prowling around; he is letting his frightful roar sound forth. At this very time, under Nero, the roar of frightful persecution was being heard by the poor Christian victims. In October of the year 64 the storm broke. Peter himself became a victim of it. See the introduction for the dangerous situation that called forth this letter. Not always does the devil roar thus although when some preach on this text they often state this. Peter does not say what James 4:7b states. Walking about, roaring, "seeking to swallow someone," picture the danger. Editors and grammarians are at variance with each other as to whether this is an indirect question with riva, which should have the subjunctive (possibly the (infinitive) : "w/hom he may devour"; or the indefinite pronoun: "to devour someone." This, too, has no effect on the meaning. KaToirieir == to drink down and not to eat up or "devour." The suggestion is that of drinking the victim's blood. Did Peter think of martyrs in the arena who were driven out from the dungeons to face actual lions? He must have thought at least of bloody death.
9) He continues: whom stand against, firm as regards the faith, knowing that the same kinds of sufferings are being executed upon your brotherhood in the world. Srtpeoi firm, hard, unbending, and the dative expresses relation: "as regards the faith"; it is not locative "in the faith" (R. 523). Tg irwrci is "the faith," objective faith; "firm as regards the faith," not denying the doctrine of Christianity for fear of a martyr's death. This is not the fides qua, creditur but qwe creditur. The subjective believing is expressed by the adjective "firm." This standing against the devil means refusal to deny Christ under threat of death. In James 4:7 standing against the devil is resisting his assaults when he comes with temptations; hence also when he is withstood he flees as one defeated. Peter is speaking of dying for the faith. Therefore he points them to others who are meeting this same ordeal: "knowing that the same kinds of sufferings are being executed upon your brotherhood in the world." The fact that ra avra has a genitive is exceptional. The sense is not: "the same sufferings" but "the same kinds of sufferings" (R. 505; 687), the same things in the way of sufferings. We regard the present infinitive as a passive: sind der Bruederschaft auferlegt, "are executed upon the brotherhood." Others prefer to regard it as the middle. The dative is due to em in the infinitive or is again a dative of relation. The abstract "brotherhood" is more exact than "brethren" would be. The whole body as such is affected although only some of its members suffer, and a certain number are martyred (I Cor. 12:26). "In the world" means here among men where suffering is our lot as it was that of Christ. Recall all that Peter has said regarding "the sufferings." He promises no cessation of these but only to. avra, the same sort of things.
10) Ae always adds something that is different; here a great promise is added to the admonition stated in v. 9. Moreover, the God of all grace, the One who called you unto his eternal glory in connection with Christ after having suffered a little while, will himself equip, firm, strengthen (you). To him the might for the eons of the eons! Amen. "The God of all grace," with its qualitative genitive, characterizes God as the source of all grace (compare x"p's in v. 5), all divine favor for us who do not deserve it. Compare II Cor. 1:3, "the God of all consolation." The apposition: "the One who called you unto his eternal glory in connection with Christ," points back to what the God of all grace has already done in grace, namely "called you" effectively. Eis states "to" what, and ev "in connection with" whom. This is the gospel call; in the epistles ica\elv always designates the successful gospel call. It assures us of God's eternal glory in heaven "after having suffered a little while." The aorist iraffovra's is made clear by 6\iyov; it is in contrast with alwvwv and is an accusative participle because of the accusative tjuas. We are called unto this glory as our final goal ("the crown of the glory," v. 4); it is not yet ours so that we suffer "a little while" preceding it. The aorist participle should not be construed with the following future tenses so that Peter would appear to say that after his readers have suffered the God of grace will equip, firm, strengthen them. To be so equipped, etc., is needed now and not after all suffering is over with. God's equipping will be done for this little while of suffering. Only "a little while" (6\iyov, sc. xporor) endures the suffering, but the glory is "eternal." This is comfort. The future tenses are not optatives of wish, A. V., but indicate assurance. They are not merely futuristic: "shall equip," etc., but voluntative: "will equip." Awos is emphatic: he, this God of grace, this One who has called you, etc., he will do this for you. A few texts insert Qeii.eXwaei., "will found," so that we have four verbs (A. V., "will settle you"), KarapTio-ei (perfective Kara. plus apri^m, from which we have "artisan") means that God will equip, will outfit us with all that we need for this little while of suffering; arrjpi^ci (areped in v. 9) that he will firm us, make us unyielding, so that we will hold to "the faith" even unto death; aOcvwm that he will give us strength. If we were alone we could not stand; with this help from God we can do so.
11) Peter closes this assurance with a brief doxology, compare 4:11. It is exclamatory and needs no copula. Peter does not use a relative "to whom" but awai, which matches the preceding avro's, "to him." Since all the verbs denote acts of might, Peter names only xparos, "might," and not also "glory" as he does in 4:11. Note the "mighty" hand of God in v. 6. He has "his eternal glory" in v. 10. "For the eons," etc., has the same force it had in 4:11. "To him the might" is confession and acknowledgment: it is, indeed, his. "Amen" is used as it was in 4:11.
Conclusion, v. 12-14
12) By means of Silvanus, the faithful brother, to you have I written, as I reckon, in brevity, urging and testifying that this is God's genuine grace in which stand! Am indicates that Silvanus is the means or the messenger for conveying this letter vpiv, "to you." But we may ask why vpiv is placed next to this 8ia phrase and given so prominent a position. The answer is that Peter wants "through Silvanus to you" close together in order in this way to indicate that Silvanus is the bearer of the letter "to you." The combination of the phrase and the dative "to you" is made even more marked by the placing of the apposition rov marov aSe^ov after vpiv, embedding, as it were, the pronoun in the genitives. That this peculiar position of "to you" should mean: "I have left the composition of this letter to Silvanus and did not really write it myself," is an assumption that stresses the preposition alone while it ignores the dative. From the very beginning and throughout the letter the readers are left under the impression that Peter alone is the writer that is addressing them. Are they now at the very end of the epistle suddenly to learn that that impression has been false, that not Peter, "apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), has been speaking but only Peter's mouthpiece Silvanus; that Peter himself felt incompetent to address them at firsthand in words of his own composition? That supposition is baseless, to say nothing of the way in which it would be conveyed. The letter brings no salutation from Silvanus while it does convey one from Mark. How can that be done if this 8ia makes Silvanus the composer instead of the bearer of this letter? See still further in the introduction. The fact that Peter calls Silvanus "the faithful brother" differs in no way from Paul's fraternal praise of his assistants, especially when he sends them on a mission as Peter here sends Silvanus with this letter. It is not necessary to speculate as to why "the faithful brother" is added. Silvanus was a faithful brother; Peter would not have had him in his company if he were not. The difference of opinion regarding this apposition becomes extreme when Peter is thought to say: "The faithful brother as I account him" (R. V.; the A. V. has a similar translation). But Peter would scarcely thus qualify and reduce the statement that Silvanus is a faithful brother. "I have written, as I reckon, in brevity" is to be construed together. Peter thinks that his letter is rather short. '"Eypa.if/a is the ordinary epistolary aorist (R. 846). Ai' oXi'yw uses the preposition 8ia in the sense of manner, which is an easy transition from the idea of means (R. 583); literally, "by means of few words" (supply \6ymv) == "in brevity." The phrase is not an excuse as though the readers may think the words rather many; they state that Peter purposely intended to write but briefly as the readers may also see.
The participles add Peter's intent: "urging and testifying (eiri, on top of the urging) that this is God's genuine grace," all this that he does and will do for us (v. 10). Although it means suffering for a little while, God's grace supports us, and glory awaits us. Yes, this is genuine grace for us poor sinners. Peter urges this conviction and his own testimony to this fact upon his readers. "In which stand!" This final imperative ori^e is an effective aorist. There is no reason to regard it as unusual because it follows a relative, for in v. 9 Peter has the same construction. Some texts have the indicative eoT-ycare (perfect in the present sense: "in which you stand"), apparently in order to have the more usual construction with the relative.
13) There salutes you the one elect with you in Babylon, also Mark, my son. 'H owex^eicn; is feminine because it refers to €kk\i]<j'm, the church in Babylon, i. e., the entire church,, which is jointly elect with all the readers of this letter. The word "elect" harks back to 1:1: the readers are the elect foreigners in five Roman provinces; the church from which Peter writes and whose salutation he sends is "in Babylon." Is this Babylon, the city on the Euphrates, or is "Babylon" an allegorical, symbolical designation for Rome, the capital of the world? Zahn, Introduction, II, 158, etc., 163, etc., traces the view that Rome is referred to back to the second century; not until the Middle Ages did some scholars think that Peter at one time went to Babylon on the Euphrates, and they sought to prove their opinion by a reference to our passage. But Babylon had disappeared already at Peter's time; this city no longer existed. This is really not a question that concerns Peter alone. We ask further: "Was there ever a time during the days of the apostles when these three men, Peter, Silvanus, and Mark, were together in the far east, in what was once Babylon or in that territory?" No commentator has succeeded in making this view plausible. Some commentators place Peter there; but what about the other two men? Again, the question we have to face is this: "Shall we abandon all the reliable data we possess and all that the ancient tradition reports and operate with a blank as far as the records and the traditions go and have nothing to go on save this phrase in this epistle and set up the hypothesis that Peter wrote this letter from Babylon with Silvanus and Mark at his side?" Add the supposition that these men must then have heard in far-off Babylon about the Christians in Pontus, etc., (1 ;1) and about the imminence of persecution for them, etc. Finally, how could Peter write to churches that belonged to Paul's field? When these questions are convincingly answered, we shall consider the literal Babylon, but not before that has been done. It is objected that not until the time when John's Revelation was written is Rome ever termed "Babylon." She is given that name here by Peter. In Revelation Babylon does not refer to Rome but is used symbolically for the whole world's anti-Christian capital. But why did Peter not say outright "in Rome The figurative "Babylon" is used because of the personification "the one elect with you" and because of the figurative term "my son" as a designation for Mark. "Babylon" emphasizes the paganism of Rome, the great city of the world, all her pagan idolatry and corruption, and also — quite important — all her hostility to God's elect. Those living in this Babylon will be the first to suffer, in fact, it seems that their suffering had already begun when Peter writes. This salutation has the sound of: Morituri scduta.mzts! Since no salutation from Silvanus is added, this implies that he will deliver the letter. Since Mark is the only other person mentioned, we conclude that Peter had only Mark and Silvanus with him at this time. "My son" (wos) reminds us of Paul's rewov as a designation for Timothy, his "child." Mark, it would seem, had been converted by Peter as Timothy had been by Paul. As far as locating Mark in eastern Babylon is concerned, this is difficult to establish. There is a great gap also in his life, but who will synchronize a stay in Babylon with the known data of the life of either Mark or Silvanus?
14) Salute one another with a kiss of love! See at length on Rom. 16:16a. When this sentence is read to the congregation, each person addressed is to act as a proxy for Peter and is to bestow a kiss on another so that it would seem as though each received the salutation of a kiss from Peter himself. In Rom. 16: 16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26, Paul uses "holy kiss." Peter writes kiss "of love" even as he has addressed his readers as "beloved." Peter's love salutes every Christian who hears this letter read. Peace to you all that (are) in connection with Christ! This is the same "peace" that was mentioned in 1:2, the condition when all is well with us in our relation to God, the peace that is established by grace. The readers may suffer severely, but God's peace rests upon them. Tois ev Xpio-rM does not distinguish one group from another group which is not "in connection with Christ." The article with the phrase is an apposition to viuv vwi: "to you all, those in connection with Christ." Faith connects all of them with Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria