Dinca tapes fay 4 Eo ie nk Alpe aby hsaaee Oi f S ct i, iE herd ett tr rr o Woda ae oketay ‘nash rca tase 5 ey ali ie * typ) et) Uh J we fl apy Solna btbed i Fe rabetian z a9 RY, 13009 147 bady tay PHD PP tee roy 9h ’ bie: O54 abv rgahie tt MWe " 4 til $ oats ce hy, Hr ictrve bases + ae S42 08M reine: yh ‘a3 ptheened 4 eit vt yt ‘ . a rat ie iv (heh Ld # D Dianne pa tate ON aby 1 8b4 ym Maye G48 th eds 193 of 4a ah | bat) "> H ; yr og Moncada he ire ' ai eds Ady 5 NH Go ph Cpe batbe bey: Help takak eek ) 4 as { Hie bibs thet yeav 3h ae - BML AWE ma Harpe ge Lariocur’ H air oe f) Meta WhOOs 478 alae Ae i Pes rf in Hey 4 ae A Weer y v - Muang: Meghtad ot yah ane x nae Pest ito oye! the siohett Parorte + leit ie be, ie iiatng: J \e ; fouls talige: v4 mass ieee rae “4 tye tes bot ae erie ae Hit iemos yh, btn fe te dactrstei $19 Od gag nis iw ie ae wy 4 i, me ewan s by 4 P terbrne Me y Avie 4h A Mbey: 1h ATE ray Pete Teoh, | | ub HK ae oy “91 Heh og bop 193 Fie h S4ay ie tl res Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/firstepistleofped0john sighs Ni 7 Met VAT rch *~ THE FIRST- EPISTLE OF PETER. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, ; : . - HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, = > ~ - GEO. HERBERT. NEW YORE, .« . . . SCRIENER AND WELFORD. A. S ~ “A ¢¢1¢-4) ¢ aw THE GICAL SE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER: REVISED TEXT, WITH Introduction and Commentary. A “ BY VA ROBERT JOHNSTONE, LL.B., D.D., PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS IN THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. EDINBURGH: T & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1888. “Vv , , > ld Lipwv, Simwv, . . . ov wore exiotpewas / ‘\ 3 , oTHpitov Tos adeAGovs Tov. LUKE xxii. 31, 32, TO THE REV. JOHN CAIRNS, D.D., LL.D., THE REV. DAVID DUFF, D.D., LL.D., THE REV, JAMES A. PATERSON, M.A., Chis Book is Enscribed BY THEIR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, NEE AUTHOR: rs | | | | dt seh, AY ana ATT. ue sc Cite CLE RT I AT)” AM AORTNT A PREFACE Iy the Commentary which forms the larger part of this book the author’s aim has been, by a careful examination of the grammatical structure of the Epistle, to ascertain, as exactly as the data permit, what is taught in it, and how the different parts of the teaching are related to each other. His chief desire has been to trace the course of thought, and he trusts that, whilst words and constructions have been discussed with what seemed adequate fulness, yet it will be found that at no point has the principal purpose of the work been lost sight of in mere philological or grammatical disquisition. In studying this Epistle one has in but small measure that illus- tration of specialties of thought or expression which is supplied by other writings or recorded utterances of the same author, —such as is enjoyed so abundantly by a student occupied with a work of Paul or John. Some helpful hints of this kind, however, have been obtained, especially from the dis- courses of Peter preserved in Acts. But the chief aid to be found in Scripture for the elucidation of the apostle’s language is derived from the Septuagint. His style is to so great an extent moulded by its influence, and his thoughts, even when he is not formally quoting, or in any definite way following Old Testament lines, so tend to clothe themselves in the phraseology of the Alexandrian version, that the help afforded by reference to it—important in the study of any Hellenistic writing—is pre-eminently valuable here. Outside of Scripture, illustration of the apostle’s words and construc- tions has been sought for mainly in Philo and in the earliest post-apostolic Christian literature. Vill PREFACE. All those commentators on the Epistle from whom the author had any reason to believe that help might be obtained have been carefully consulted. His obligations are specially great to Bengel, Wiesinger, and Professor Salmond of Aberdeen. From several of the less strictly critical expositions of the Epistle, also, he has in various ways and degrees received help, particularly from the classic work of Leighton, and from the Expository Lectures of Professor John Brown of Edinburgh, and Dr. John Lillie of Kingston, New York. In the discussion of passages susceptible of different interpretations, only views of the meaning which seemed to have at least a moderate degree of likelihood have been dealt with in the Commentary, or indeed, as a rule, even mentioned,—the book being intended, not as a storehouse of curiosities or whimsical conceits, but as an aid to the practical study of Scripture. An endeavour has been made also to avoid loading the pages with needless lists of the names of scholars holding the various positions. Names have been mentioned only when they seemed to be in them- selves to a certain extent arguments, or to afford something of interesting or helpful illustration. On questions con- nected with the specialties of Hellenistic Greek, the New Testament Grammars of Winer and Alexander Buttmann are frequently referred to (the references being made to the English translations by Moulton and Thayer), occasionally also the excellent little work of Sheldon Green. For the grammar of classical Greek, Jelf and Donaldson have been used. There are no formal Dissertations or Hwcursus. Several of the discussions, in particular those on the exegesis of chap. i. 19, 20, and chap. iv. 6, are considerably detailed; but the arrangement of the book—zin which the text is printed, not over the expository notes, but at the beginning—permitted these to be kept in their place in the Commentary. In the Table of Contents a reference is made to matters treated with special fulness. The text which is given in the volume may be described PREFACE. 1x as, in substance, that of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott ‘and Hort, for there are but few passages in the Epistle with respect to which there is not a consensus of critical authority. On the more important of the passages regarding which there is not agreement, short notes indicate the grounds on which the reading of the text has been adopted. The author is greatly indebted to his friend the Rev. Alexander Mair, D.D., Morningside, Edinburgh, for aid most kindly and efficiently rendered in the revision of the proots. May the Father of lights, from whom has come the “ good and perfect gift” of Holy Scripture, bless this humble attempt to expound a portion of His Word! May He forgive its errors and defects, and graciously use it in some measure as an instrument for advancing the interests of truth and righteousness ! UNITED PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, EDINBURGH, February 1, 1888. j ; i) # en. ens z 4 ; =i : : ap aR afd a" ah i ial we ‘ a ei, th K mike igen. Wik Tee eA ah. cl SALE , iu ron hy by ; aa 70 ) heishay ‘e tt ie ¢ Dy ube 7 eye: 1 ride f, Th BG" von Ae Ui hata ( ie : : } : ‘ster far) Bis. ie pay aa iby FAG rh in fi 5 wy CONTENTS. 0 PAGE TEXT AND CRITICAL NOTES, . ; ; : : J), Mie INTRODUCTION. § 1. Genuineness, . : : ‘ , : : il § 2. To whom written, : : : : : : 10 § 3. Occasion and date, ; : , : : P 18 §$ 4. Place where written, . : : ; : 22 § 5. Structure and literary characteristics, 28 COMMENTARY. CHAPTER I. : i : 40 Meaning of zpoyvaois, ver. 2, ; , ¢ A 3 43 Meaning of dy:aspds, ver. 2, . E : ; : 46 Present or future reference of vv. 6-9, : ; 60 Interesting use of od and wy, ver. 8, .-——+- ‘/ '. ; F 72 “Spirit of Christ,” ver. 11, . : : : 78 Force of &uapos, ver. 19, \/ . : , : ‘ : 99 | CHAPTER: If, ‘ : me LES Meaning of dévdparivn xriats, ver. 13, ; , : : 152 Connection of precepts in ver. 17, . - : : SFO. Meaning of cvqveyxev, ver. 24, ; ; ‘ , al ie’? | CHAPTER. III. : : 2 192 | Summary of section iii. 18-iv.6, . : 4 5 . 243 “Quickened in spirit,” ver. 18, : - : : . 246 | “Spirits in prison,” vv. 19, 20, ; ; : : . 249 | Meaning of txeparnwea xra., ver. 21, . : 5 : . 292 xl CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV; Force of réravra: &meprious, ver. 1,. Force of a&vaxvoss, ver. 4, : Meaning of vexpois ebnyyeaisdn xrh., ver. 6, “Spirit of glory and of God,” ver. 14, “ Judgement beginning from God’s house,” ver. 17, . CHAPTER V., Meaning of weprus xra., ver. 1, Meaning of or:Qavos déuapevtivos, ver. 4, Force of tyxou Botan, ver. 5, PAGE 301 303 316 319 359 366 378 379 388 393 |W) ge OF aa 9k Garey 5 1 ITETPOYX arcctonros *Incod Xpictov éxdextols trape- mudoyuots Suacmopas IIovtov, Tadatias, Kamaédoxias, bo / a \ "Acias, cal Bidvvias, kata tpoyvoow Oeod Ilatpos, év e A II , ») c \ \ e \ / ayiacwa@ IIvevparos, eis tTaKxony Kal pavticpov aipatos > a rn an Incod Xpictov: yYapis bpiv Kal eipnvn TANOvVOein. \ e \ nan lal ’ cal 3 Evnoyntos 0 Geos kal ILatnp tob Kupiov nuayv 'Inood n ¢€ \ bh \ lal r Xpictov, 0 KaTa TO TOAV avTOD EXEoS avayevYnoas as nr >] rn n eis éAtrida Saoav 8: avactacews “Inood Xpiotod éx ° a > f ” WW Mice ag Ne Phone 7; 4 vexpOv, cis KAnpovopiav apOaptov Kal apiavtov Kal apa- / lal a 5 pavtov, TeTnpNnuEvny €v ovpavots Eis Duds Tous ev Suvdmer le / XN if , Ocod dpovpovpevovs Sia Tictews eis cwTHpiav EéEToluny 6 amoxadrug@ivat év Kaip@ éoydTw. év w ayadacbe, Ori- c é x > / / , ud lal t/ yov aptt, et déov, AuTNOEVTES ev TroLKINOLS TrELpPacpots, iva \ i n a / / TO OoKiloy UMaV TS TioTEwWs, TOAVTLLOTEPOY ypvaiou, an / \ \ / A Tov aTro\Xvpévou Sia Tupos Sé SoKipalopévov, etpeOy eis Z \ / ’ a érawov Kat dofav Kat Ttipny ev atroxarirpe. “Inood CriticaL NotEs. With regard to all but a few passages in this Epistle, the evidence of our authorities for the text is so clear and satisfying that there is agree- ment among the principal critical editors. Of those places where the reading is uncertain, there are two or three of which, through the bearing of the variation on exegesis, it has been found convenient to discuss the reading not here but in connection with the exposition. On these a simple reference to the Commentary will be found below. On the others, a brief statement is given here of the grounds for preferring the reading of the text. No attempt is made to set forth the full evidence for the variants ; which is abundantly accessible in the Digests of Tischendorf and Tregelles. What is aimed at is simply to indicate those elements in each case which appear most important. X1V IIETPOY A. (I. me A b O07 nr > A Yj Nt e lal 8 Xpictod* oy ove iSovTes ayaTraTe, Eis Ov APTL fn OpaVvTES iJ \ na A muaTevovTes O€ ayadNiaTe Yapa avexdadyTw Kal dedoEa- / , \ oe lal 9 cpevyn, Kopslopevos TO TEXOS THS TicTEews DuaV, TwTHpiaV a i! ge , , \ 10 Wuyedv. ITlepi %5 cwrnpias é&eCytncav Kai éEnpavynocay nr e \ a a Tpopytat ol Tepl THS Els Upas YapiTos TpopyTevoartes, 11 €pavvavtes eis tiva 7) Totov Katpov édndouv TO év avTots lal nr / ‘ IIvedpa Xpictod tpowaptupopevoy ta eis Xpiotov madn- 1p \ X \ an 86 L e 5] / eo ’ 2 pata Kai Tas peta Tabta Sofas ois aTrexahvgOn bts ovy i a e nan \ / > \ ray a > } c re ny Eavtois tiv O€ OunKkovovy avTa, & voV avnyyérn vpiv S.A a > / e a / ¢ / bd / TOV evayyedicapévwy vuas IIvevpats “Ayiw atootahévte > °) > rn by aA >] a“ ” , am’ ovpavod, els & émiBupodow ayyedos TapaKkvwat. ‘ \ / an lal 13 4wo avafwodpevor tas oadvas ths Svavolas tpov, / / tal vypovtes, Tedelws EATIcaTE él THY EepomevnY vpiv / ih lal rn lol 14 yapw év aroxadv re ’Incod Xpiotod, ws tTéxva bTaKo;s, \ 1 a 1 S a kn cuvoxnwatiCouevor Tais mpotepov ev TH ayvola Luav \ a \ 15 éwvOuplas, GAA KaTa TOY KadécavTa ipuds “Ayov Kal > 4 b] / b) a / / / 16 avroi ayvoe év Tacn avactpody yevnOnte SioTe yéyparrrat, / ¥ Bre 17 “Aywou Eveabe, Ott éyw ayvos. Kal ef Ilatépa émixandeiobe : ‘3 TOV ATPOTWTOAHUTTWS KPLWOVTA KATA TO EKaoTOV Epyor, > yo} \ a / e a / > / év doB@ Tov Tis Tapoixias vuav xpovoy avactpadyte, O/ 4 > al b) / x ’ > , 7) > 18 eidotes Ste od POaptois, apyupiw 7) xpucio, edkuTpwOnTE ex rn / € lal bd a pres > \ 19 Ths pataias vtudv avactpodis tTatpoTrapadotov, adda / cs id > lal ’ ‘A il > / cal Tym aiwaTe @S auvod auomov Kal aotiov Xpiotod, a7 / ia 20 mpoeyvwopévov pev po KataBorns Kecpov, davepwOEvtos be > ’ > / lal / 5 9! id lal \ 8 ’ > lal 21 dé ém écxydtov Tav ypovwv d1 buds Tors bt’ avTod \ \ \ A muaTtous eis Oeov tov éyeipavtTa avtTov €K vexpav Kal / > a 4 4 \ U ci a sh > / do€av ai’t@® Sovta, woTe THY TicTW tov Kal édTida / elvat ets Oeov. I. 8. The active éyeaaére appears to be the true reading here. The occurrence of this rare form in at least two authorities of the first class, B, and a citation in Origen, and probably also in C,—whilst the ordinary middle form is found without variation a few lines before (ver. 6),— cannot well be accounted for except on the supposition that it was in the original. The only thing at all likely to have led copyists to write the active by mistake is the assonance with éyardérs in the clause preceding ; and if this really had any influence in determining the form, it may with at least as great probability be supposed to have led the apostle himself to choose the active, as to have turned transcribers astray. Os ~I 10 1 TIETPOY A. XV \ Nj ( lal e ‘ 2) a ¢ lel lel b) Yh Tas wuxas tov iyvixotes €v Th UTAaKO; THs adnOeias > Nae A 5) / els pidadeAdiay dvuToKpitov, ék Kapdias adArdous lal / > o ayaTnoaTe eKTEVOS, avayeyevynMevol OVK ek o7TTOpas a \ , a a pOaptis adda adGaptov, Sia AOyou Cavtos Ocod Kai y ‘ , = \ e / \ A , pévovtos* dots Ilaca capé ws yxoptos, Kal Taca Sofa > a e ” / Z ] , ¢ , \ \ avTis ws avOos xyoptov' €EnpavOn oO yoptos, Kai TO A es \ x tn rp , t > \ . A avOos é&emecev’ TO O€ phua Kupiov péver eis Tov alova. lol / > \ en x > \ > € lal TovTo O€ éaTW TO phua TO eEvayyedicbev Els pas. LA bé 5 ca) / \ / 60 \ Amoféwevo. ody tacav Kakiav Kal tavta Sodov kal e / \ Ie \ , SY ¢ b) UToKplces Kat POovous Kal Tacas KaTaXadias, WS apTt- / \ \ yevynta Bpépyn TO NoyLKOV Adorov Yara eruTOOHcaTe, iva > b) a“ DE OF > / 3 ’ / fa} iA \ €v avT@ avénOjte els owTnplay, Eb eyevoacbe OTL ypnaTos ¢ / \ e / / al 0 Kuptos. IIpos ov mpocepyopevor, AGov Cavta, wo ’ , \ > / x ai a b] \ avOpoTav péev atrocedokipwacpévoy Tapa d€ Oew éxrexTOov »” \ > \ e 10 A ’ 5 fal A) 5 évtywov, Kat avtol ws NiGoe Cavtes otKodopmetoOe oixos e 7 “e > “ TVEVMATLKOS Els lepaTevpa ayLoY, avEveyKaL TVEUPATLKAS lal \ a fol / Oucias evtrpocdéxtovs Oem dia "Incod Xpiotod: S.07e n \ JA \ / mepuexes ev ypady, Idov riOnus év Siwy diOov axpoyoue- al ¢ 4 A aiov éxNexTov évTysov, Kal oO TLaTEvwV eT avT® ov p1) an ¢ al 5S \ lal Ve KkatacoyvvOn. “Puiv obv tTiyn Tois muaTEvovoWW" amTr- na \ yj A > / Md >] a e otovow b¢ Aldos dv amedoxipacay of oiKodomodyTEs, ovTOS >) fA ’ \ / \ / / eyevnOn els Keharynv yovias Kat ALGos TpocKoppatos \ if a / Kal méTpa oKavOddov' of TpocKOTTTOVaWW TH OYw aTret- a 5 > A \ Ss, e a \ / > \ Ootvtes’ eis 0 Kal eTéOncav. wtpeis Sé yévos éKNEKTOD, / € / ” 7 \ ? fe Bacidevov lepatevpa, €Ovos aytov, Aaos Eis TEpLTToincwy, ee \ > \ b] / a DI ¢ la) / Omws Tas apetas eEayyelnTe TOU €K OKOTOUS Uuas KAaNE- ’ A \ ’ a a e \ >) \ an cavTos eis TO Oavpactov avTod Pas, ot ToTé od Aads, vdV lal e / fa \ S€ Aads Oeod, of ovK Hrenpmévol, Vdv dé é€XenOEvTes. > an / Ayarntol, Tapaxadea ws TAapoiKovs Kal TapETTLOnmousS / a na a iL atréyer0ar THY capKikov eTLOUmLOY, aiTiVEs OTpPATEvOYTAL \ fel fod ee \ > NS (- fal 3 lal ” Kata THS Wuyns' THY avactpodyy tywav év Tois eOvecw ” \ ~e > ® lel cs! an c a EXOVTES KAANV, WA EV wW KATANANOUTLY LUBY WS KAKOTOLWY, >, a lal ” 5) / / XN \ b] EK TOV KAXOV Epywv EToTTEVOVTES Oofdcwow TOV Oeov év / fo) ¢ nuepa emicxomys. “Lrotaynte waon avOpwrivy Ktice Py wy \ Ko =) ” B NY nr ie ¢e f ” (¥ , wa Tov Kupiov' cite Baoidel ws vTrepéyovTt, elite aryewoow + fa) / lal x ws Ov adrod Teumopmévols eis exdiknow KakoTTOLaV Erato b XV1 TETPOY (A; (IL. Ss a ¢ ¢ \ / na n 15 6€ dyaborody’ 6tt ovTwas éotiv TO OéAnwa TOD Oecod, > la al \ lal > , bd lA ayaboro.obyvtas § dimoty thy Tav adpovev avlpwrwyr ? cee toes 2 / \ \ ¢ B) / ” 16 ayvwciav' ws édevOepor, Kai pr ws ETLKGAUEMA EXOVTES a x an fal 7 Ths Kaxias Thy édXevOepiav, aAN ws Ocod SoddrAoL. + TavTas ie \ > / an \ \ lal TYLNTATE, THY AdEeAPOTHTA ayaTaTe, Tov Oeov doPeEiaGe, NX 2 nan Tov Bactiéa Tiare. e > fd / , lal 18 Ot oixétTat, vTotTaccopevoe ev Tavti doBw Tots de- , > , a > a \ b] Ud by N \ oTOTaLs, ov movoy Tols ayabots Kal éTLELKeoLY ANA Kas 19 tots cKodois. TovTO yap yapis, e Oia cvvEldnow Oceod *) e , ve / Tei a bk i > 20 umopeper tis AUTAS TacywV adikws. Tolov yap KNéEoS Et ia / / al ’ auaptavovtes Kal Koradifouevor vmomevette ; aA Et na cr al , ayabotro.obvTes Kat TdoXOVTES UTTOmEvEtTE, TOUTO yYapLs 9 \ a >) lal \ ’ / e \ \ 21 mapa Oc@ els TovTO yap exrnOnTE, OTL Kai Xpiotos ig lal nr % ig émaley uTep Uuav, Uuly UTOhUTaVaY UTOYypaymov wa 99 , r bn, a. y. > a, A e t > 22 é€maxodovOjonte Tois ixverw avTov'’ Os dpapTiay ovK 99° 5) / Oe ¢ ‘Q oor 3 a , >) na, a 23 émolnoev, ovde evpéOn Soros Evy TH TTOMAaTL avTOV' OS / > ’ , / > ’ Novdopovpevos ovK avTEAOLOOPEL, TATYXWY OVK HTrEINEL, TAP- 24 5 5 6e a / } / oN \ ¢ if e a 24 edidov O€ TH KpWwovTL diKaiws’ OS Tas dpapTias Huov rie ees > / 5) a , > la) LLEAGY \ / (ed avTos avnveyKev EV TO THMATL aUTOD emi TO Evrov, iva a / a / a Tais apaptias atroyevomevo, TH OiKavocvyvy Snowpev’ ov Ww Ou A SN b} 10 * Ly 4 2 id 8 Ds , TO KBWAWTL La NTE NTE YAP WS TPO ATA TAAVOMEVOL, > a5 / fal SEN \ , Am ue) , a aX é€TEecTpUPNTE VUV ETL TOY TOLMEVA Kal ETLOKOTIOY TOV n € fal WvyOv VLODV. II. 24. The question whether edzrod should be read after woawz: is somewhat perplexing. There is good MS. authority both on the side of inserting and of omitting the word, and the two oldest copies are on opposite sides, 8 having the pronoun and B omitting. Tischendorf has the word in his text, and Tregelles on his margin. As very frequently, consideration of probabilities with regard to transcription gives little aid. It is hardly possible to say with decision whether it is more likely that a sense of grammatical propriety led to the leaving out of the redundant pronoun, or that a remembrance of edrod, as it stands in LXX., in the very familiar passage cited by Peter (Isa. lil. 5), led to its being inserted in the apostle’s relative clause,—the ear having become accustomed to the Hellenistic redundancy of expression, through its occasional oceur- rence elsewhere in N. T. Left to this line of inquiry, one might perhaps incline to think the former supposition on the whole the more probable. 3ut there seems to be a preponderance of MS. testimony in favour of omitting the pronoun. mi] TIETPOY A. XVil 3 e / a G / a 07 b) , Opoiws yuvaikes, UTotaccopevat Tots idiots avdpacuw, WA fal a U a a a iva Kai et tives aTreOodow TO NOY, Oia THS TOV yuVvaLKaV y) BJ an ” Xo 8 Q / > 7 \ avaoctpopys avev Noyou KepdnOyncovtal, éTOTTEVTAVTES THY 3 3 ¢ \ > \ € lal oe ” > is e& @ ev HoBw ayvnv avactpopyy vuav. wv éotw ovy Oo eEwlev an lal / / XN / euTAoKhs Tpryov Kal TepiOécews ypvotwy i eévdvoews va 9 / ’ ’ e \ lal / ” J A (patiwv Koopos, GAN oO KpuTTOs THs Kapdias avOpwrros év A fal Le wd TO aPOdptw Tov Tmpakws Kal novylov TVEvpaToS, 0 EoTLY 5 / fa) a / cf / \ e 5 €vwrloy tod Oeov modvTEdEs. OVTWS Yap TOTE Kal al SA a e > / ? \ SV: e ‘\ aytat yuvatkes at érmifovcar eis Ocov éxoopovy éavtTas, e / lal , i i} / e / e / 6 wrotaccopevat Tois idiots avdpacw, ws Yappa wryKov- a "AB N / Seas. \ a fe 2 > Nal ce TO paap, KUploy avTov Kadovca’ Hs eyevnOnTeE / “) a ‘S \ / / Téxva, aya0orowdcar Kal pr oBovpevae pndeutay / TTONGL. ~T e BA e / rc \ a e Oi dvdpes opoiws, cvvoixodvTes KaTa YVOoW ws / lal / \ acbevertépm oKEVEL TO YUVALKELW, ATOVEWOVTES TLV WS \ ye a \ \ , Kal suVKAnpoVvomows yapiTos Swis, eis TO pn evKoTTec Oat TAS Tpocevyas VMav. “ e t a , 8 To d€ TéXos mavTes opmodpores, cuuTAGeis, puradedpot, , AN > / \ \ 9 evoTrAayyvot, TaTrewodpoves, wn aTodovTEs KAKOV aVTL lol 3 / / \ KaKov 7% oldopiavy avtt NoLvdopias, Tov’vayTtov bé EvAO- na e ’ lal b) / ~ b) i youvTes, OTL els TOTO ExANOnTE, va EvAOYiav KANpoVo- \ na al / 10 ponte. ‘O yap Odrov fCwijy ayaray Kat tdeiv ajpéepas a \ a /- r ayabas TavcaTw THY YA@CCAaY aTTO KaKOD Kai yElAn TOD \ a / , > \ A 11 py AarAjoat Sorov' éexkduwwdtTw Sé ato Kakod Kal TroLN- 9 / ’ A6 - , Ward? \ PS) 4 b Le edhe d 12 catw ayabov' Sntncdtw eipyvnv Kail dwwEatw avdTyny' OTL ‘ 5 > a / opOarpot Kupiov él d«xalovs, kal Ota avtod eis dénow a , / a 13 aitov tpocwrov 5€ Kupiov émi tovodvtas Kaxd. Kai / e , ee aN 2\ fa) > a \ / Tis 0 Kakwowv tmas, €av TOV ayalod Enrwtal yévnoe ; 14 GdX & Kai madcyoute bia Sixarocvvny, waKdptor. Tov é¢ III. 6. On the question between dxryxovcey (NS A C) and dxgxoven (B), see Commentary, in loc. Ill. 7. Between cuvzanpovewo: and ovyxanpovewors authorities are much divided. Hither suits the structure of the sentence. The weight of the evidence of B and the Vulgate,—and also of 8, for though in its earliest form that MS. shows the accusative plural, this cannot well be anything else than a clerical error for the dative,—seems to prove that the dative was probably the original reading. XVill TIETPOY A. [III. U lal A A 15 goSov avtav pry PoBnOjre pnde tapaydjte, Kipiov oé \ \ lal a tov Xpiotov ayiacate év tals Kapdiais vuav' Eroumor del \ / A fal a a Tpos aTONOYiay TAVTL TO aiTodVTL Umas AOYOV TeEpl THs ev 16 vpivy édaridos, dd\AG peta TpaiitnTos Kal PoPou, cuveldnow ” ? \ a 5) ® a a Exovtes ayabny, va év @ Katadadeicbe cataroyvvOaow ca) , e a \ > \ 5) a > / ot emNpeaCovTes UmaV THY aya0ny ev XpiotTo avactpodyy. 17 Kpetrtov yap ayalorowodvtas, ef Oédor TO OeAnMa TOD 18 Ocovd, macyew 7) KakoTovotytas. 6Tt Kal Xpiotos araké \ e a ’ / wh e \ 2QO/ ¢ c r Tept awaptiav améVavev, dikavos vmép abdikov, va bas / lal a \ iM ‘ Nt mpocayayn TO Oe@, Gavatwbeis pev capxi, Gwomombeis \ UA A > @ \ Lal ’ A“ 4 19 6€ wvevpate ev w Kal Tois ev hudaKH TrEvpacW TopeEv- ; ' ¢ = 20 eis éxypuéev, arevOjoaciv mote, bte amekedéyeTo 9 TOU Ocod paxpoOvpia év nyuépars Noe, KatacKevalopévns a > A »~ 7 (ocak tae MTA ? \ \ Ul KiBwTOv, els iv OALYOL, TOOT EcTW OKTw ruyal, SLETw- ’ ec A \ € cal b) t lal , 21 Oncav & wdatos. 6 Kal vpads avtituvToy viv cater , > \ ’ / Care ’ \ a Barticpa, od capKos aTrdfeots puTov adda ovVELONTEWS III. 18. For d&zédavey (supported by & A C and the early versions), B and three late uncial copies, with many cursives, read éradev. West- cott and Hort, having éxééavev in their text, place the other in their margin. The similarity of the words in form, and the familiarity of them both, and practical equivalence, as here applied, obviously made confusion very easy. In ii. 21 precisely the same question presents itself, —the preponderance of authority there, however, in favour of iradcyv being quite decisive. Here the evidence for déxedavey pre- ponderates. Its documentary support is greater ; and, having regard to the specialties of this Epistle, it seems much more likely that a copyist would stumble from ézédavey into ¢radey than vice versa, because, whilst aérobvyoxey is not found elsewhere in the Epistle, reoxyev 1s a markedly favourite word of the apostle, occurring oftener in this short letter than in the whole of Paul’s writings. In ii. 21, 23, iv. 1, it is used with reference to Christ. The recy of the verse preceding the present also might most naturally lead a copyist to write ¢vaéev. For ves (supported by B and a number of cursives), yués 1s given by 8° AC, two late uncials, and the majority of cursives. The versions are pretty equally divided. A preponderance of documentary authority is thus on the side of 444%. But when probability with regard to tran- scriptional error is considered, the likelihood seems very decidedly to be that vues; was the original reading. Into the easy, familiar, natural form in a connection like the present, “bring us to God,” a copyist might most readily stumble,—into the singular and remote “you,” only by a casual clerical error in an isolated case, which does not at all account for the wide diffusion of the reading. IV.] TIETPOY A. xi dyabns émepotnua eis Ocdv, Ov avactacews “Inood bo bo lal ¢) ’ A nr \ > \ Xpictov, ds eat év deEid Oeovd, Topeviets ets ovpavor, e al /- \ ’ a \ / UmoTayevT@V avTo ayyédkwv Kal éEovcwdy Kal Suvdapeor. c rn > , \ ¢ ad \ >’ \ , 4 Xpictod ody waBovtos capki, Kai vpeis THY avTHY EvvoLay e 7 e \ , , > 2 omAlcacGe, Ott 0 TaP@v capKl TETAVTAL apmapTials, ELS \ / a \ TO pnKeTe avOpwrrav émiOvyiats GANA OeXyjpate Ocod Tov r / > \ \ ¢ 3 émiNoutrov €v capKi Bidcat xpovov. apKeTos yap Oo Tape- \ / \ / la! b) lal / Anrvbas xpovos TO BovrAnwa Tav eOvav KaTepyacbat, / > > / ) / > / mMeTropeupévous ev aceryelas, emriOupiais, oLvopdvyiats, / / > e A 4 K@pots, TOTO, Kal aBepitors eidwroAaTplas’ ev w Eevi- \ / e lal ’ \ > \ a b / CovTat, “1 TVYTPEXOVTWY UBOY ELS THY AUTHV TIS aTwTIAS Or if fal a / / ne / avaxyvow, Pacdnuovvtes’ ol aTod@aoVGLW NOYOV TO ETOL- ou al lal rn \ \ pws éxovTe Kpivar Cavtas Kat vexpovs. els TOUTO yap Kal lal 4, lal \ \ , vexpois evnyyedicOn, va KpiOdor pev Kata avOpwtrous \ a \ \ \ if capkl, Cao. dé kata Ocov Tvevpmatu. ~I IIavrwv 6&8 To TéXos HyyiKev. cwdppovncate ovv Kat / > / AN / Si > e \ 8 vypate els TMpocevyas Tpo TavTwY THY Els EaUTOUS > i b) an ” e/ ’ lf / a ayaTnv eKkTEevh Exovtes, OTL ayarH KadUTTEL TAHOOS lal 2 a 9 apaptiav’ gircEevor eis addAjAOUS avev Yyoyyvopov" 4 \ ” / ? e \ ae, N 10 &kactos Kaas édaPev ydapicpa, ets EavTovs avTo diaKo- fal , lal 11 vobvtes ws Kadoi oiKovomor TrotKirns yapiTos Oeod™ ev Tus A , a a , e Aarel, WS Aoyra Ocod' et Tis Swaxovel, ws €E iayvos 75 xopnyet 0 Ocos iva év Tacw SoEdfyTrar 0 Oeds Sua ‘Inaod IV. 1. For duepriess (found in 8°B), dueprias is read by 8* A C and later MSS. The rendtring of the Vulgate (a peccatis), and that of the Peshito Syriac, which is similar, sustain &epricesc, there being no trace in the Greek copies of the genitive plural as a reading. That transcribers might most readily, by dropping the iota, change the somewhat peculiar construction with the dative into the familiar construction with the genitive, is obvious,—whilst the converse change is not at all likely. IV. 5. For fygovre xpives (which is given by 8 A and the MSS. generally), B, with probably C, and also a very few minor authorities, reads xpivovt:. Westcott and Hort have put this latter in their text, while no other editors have even given it an alternative place on the margin, and Scrivener describes it as a “frigid gloss.” The canon of difficulty is no doubt in its favour ; yet, considering the somewhat anomalous, and, in its connection here, not very natural combination r@ éro(mas xpivovrs,—and the fewness of the authorities which support the reading,—it seems likely that it has sprung, by error of some kind, out of the other. XVill TIETPOY A. [III. I a \ a \ a 15 goSov avtav pr doBnOjtre pnde tapaydjte, Kipiov &é \ a a Tov Xpiotov aytacate év tais Kapdlais buav™ Erowpor det eer / \ ae Cea Cars / Neheeny 5 TpOS uTrOhOYtav TAVTL TO ALTOUVTL UM“AS oyov TeEpl Tis EV 16 vpiv édaridos, ara peta Tpai’TynTos Kat PoBou, cvveldnow ” > \ ov ) @ an a exovtes ayabny, va év @ KaTtadareicbe KataicxvvOdcw 28) , Cars \ by) \ > lala 2) A ol emnpeafovtes vuav THv ayabnv év Xpict@ avactpopnp. 17 Kpetttov yap ayalorowodvtas, ef Oédot TO OeAnpa TO 18 Ocov, wacyew 1) KakoTrowobyTas. OTL Kal Xpuotos amak \ y a b) / J e \ 2QO/ vA ¢ n Tept apaptiav améVavev, Sikavos Umép adikov, a vmas tf fal a > \ \ \ mpocayayn TO Oe@, Gavatwbels pev capki, Swomombeis sy 7 a & x al bp a fe 19 6€ wvevpate ev @ Kal Tois ev dudaKH TvevpactY Toper- 20) @ \ b / > fa} / f e 2 b¢é t a 20 Geis exnpv&ev, avevOnoaciv mote, OTe amreEedéyeTo TOU fal / > ec / na 7 Ocod paxpobvuia év ipépats Node, xatacKkevafopevns an > aA 5] / aL) ae, > \ \ , KIPwTod, els iv OALYOL, TOUT EoTLW OKTw Ypuyal, dlEeTo- ’ ec A \ ¢ a by) t n , 21 Oncav & wdaTos. 6 Kal vpads avtituTOy viv cater , > \ ° / Cat: ’ \ / Barticpa, ov capKos aTodecis putTov adda CTUVELONTEWS III. 18. For e&zébavey (supported by 8 A C and the early versions), B and three late uncial copies, with many cursives, read exadev. West- cott and Hort, having ézédevey in their text, place the other in their margin. The similarity of the words in form, and the familiarity of them both, and practical equivalence, as here applied, obviously made confusion very easy. In ii. 21 precisely the same question presents itself, —the preponderance of authority there, however, in favour of Eradev being quite decisive. Here the evidence for aézdxvey pre- ponderates. Its documentary support is greater ; and, having regard to the specialties of this Epistle, it seems much more likely that a copyist would stumble from éz¢éavey into gradey than vice versa, because, whilst ézobvjoxery is not found elsewhere in the Epistle, raoyev is a markedly favourite word of the apostle, occurring oftener in this short letter than in the whole of Paul’s writings. In ii. 21, 23, iv. 1, it is used with reference to Christ. The racxeu of the verse preceding the present also might most naturally lead a copyist to write ¢radev. For tues (supported by B and a number of cursives), 4ué> is given by &° AC, two late uncials, and the majority of cursives. The versions are pretty equally divided. A preponderance of documentary authority is thus on the side of 444%. But when probability with regard to tran- scriptional error is considered, the likelihood seems very decidedly to be that veeés was the original reading. Into the easy, familiar, natural form in a connection like the present, “bring us to God,” a copyist might most readily stumble,—into the singular and remote “you,” only by a casual clerical error in an isolated case, which does not at all account for the wide diffusion of the reading. IV.] TIETPOY A. X1x | rn > / > \ eo] bd , > A ayabis erepoTnua eis Ocdv, dv avactacews ‘Incod ‘ fal ¢ ’ A lal \ >’ \ 22 Xpictov, 6s eat ev deEva Ocod, wopevieis ets ovpavor, e fal I \ ’ al \ / UToTayevTay avT@ ayyédwv Kal é€ovorwv Kai Suvdpewr. = > , Ne Ue an \ Say Y 4 Xpictod ody TaPovtos capki, Kal vpeis THY avTHY évvotav e / ec e \ \ / ec ' >) 2 omArlcacOe, O71 0 Taf@v capKi TEeTAUTaL apapTials, Els A / a \ TO pnKéte avOpworrav émiOuplats Gra OerrpaTe Oeod Tov \ r ly ? \ \ e 3 émiNoumrov év capKt Bidaat xpovoy. apKEeTOs yap oO Tape- / \ uA fal lal / Anrvbas ypovos TO BovAnua Tov eOvaY KaTepyaoba., / > > / 5 / ’ / meTopeupevous €v aceryelas, émifupias, olvoprvyiats, / / ’ > i / 4 K@pots, TOTOLS, Kal aDepitors eidwAOAAaTpPLaLs’ Ev w Eevi- s / lal ’ \ > \ nan > i CovTal, M1) TUVTPEXOVT@V ULOV ELS THY AUTHVY THS aTwTLas ~ ’ , a Co emes , / Colieeks / 5 avayvow, PLacgypovvtes’ ol atrodwaovaw oyov TO ETOL- 2 f lal a AN / ’ rn \ \ 6 paws éyovte Kpivat Cavtas Kal vexpous. els TOUTO yap Kat lal WA lal ‘ \ b] , vekpois evnyyedicOn, wa KpiOdor pev Kata avOpwrous \ na x \ \ / capkl, Caou de Kata Ocov mvevparTe. / \ \ / ” / io \ Ilavrwv 5é To Tédos HyyeKev. cwppovycate ovv Kat / > / i \ / \ > e€ \ 8 vypate els Tpocevyds’ pO TavTwWY THY Els EaUTOUS > re 3 lel ” ee b] , / an ayaTny €eKTevh ExovTes, OTL WyaTG KadUTTEL TAHOOS a la li a 9 dwaptiav' dirokevot eis addANAOVS avEV YoryyUTpov" wa \ Be / ? e \ San 10 &xactos Kalas éhaBev yapiopa, eis EavTovs avTo dvaKo- a ¢ Ue SE , / , ne of 11 voovtes ws KaXoi oiKovomor TroLKiAns yapiTos Oeod" et Tus a , A A > , e Aarel, ws Aoyla Oeod' et Tis dvaKovel, ws €& iayvos 15 xopnyel 0 Ocos iva év Tacw SoEafyrar 6 Oeos dua ’Inaod IV. 1. For duecpriess (found in N°B), duaprias is read by S* A C and later MSS. The rendtring of the Vulgate (a peccatis), and that of the Peshito Syriac, which is similar, sustain &epricsc, there being no trace in the Greek copies of the genitive plural as a reading. That transcribers might most readily, by dropping the dota, change the somewhat peculiar construction with the dative into the familiar construction with the genitive, is obvious,—whilst the converse change is not at all likely. IV. 5. For éyovre xpives (which is given by 8 A and the MSS. generally), B, with probably C, and also a very few minor authorities, reads xpivovt:. Westcott and Hort have put this latter in their text, while no other editors have even given it an alternative place on the margin, and Scrivener describes it as a “frigid gloss.” The canon of difficulty is no doubt in its favour ; yet, considering the somewhat anomalous, and, in its connection here, not very natural combination r@ éro/mas xp/vovrs,—and the fewness of the authorities which support the reading,—it seems likely that it has sprung, by error of some kind, out of the other. XX HETPOY, “A, [IV. 3. a e ie / \ \ / ’ % dan Xpictov, © é€otw 1 Sofa Kal TO Kpatos els Tods al@vas lal / TOV AlwveVv. apn. ? \ \ / A a 12 Ayarnrtol, wy EeviferPe TH ev buiv tupwcer Tpos \ c lal fa / fal TeLpacmov viv ywvouern, ws Eévou viv ovpPaivovtos’ \ \ lal an al nr fe 13 adda Kalo Kowwveite Tois ToD Xpictod Tabjpwacw xat- es \ ’ a > 4 a / =| a rn pete, Wa Kal €v TH aTroxadder THS SoEns ad’Tod yaprTeE , UJ r 14 dyad\XNwpevor. Ei ovevdifer0e ev ovopate Xpiortod, te v4 \ a / la) n la) pakaploe’ OTe TO THS SoENS Kal TO TOD Ocod IIvedpa ed’ 15 e a > he \ ‘ ¢ an i ec \ BY 5 Upads avarraveta. pun yap Tis buav TacyéTw ws hovers 7) / DY \ > 16 KAXérTNS 1) KaKoTrOLOS, 4) WS aNAOTPLETIicKOTTOS’ Ei OE WS \ \ / nS A Xpirtvavos, wn aioyvvécbw, doEavérw Se Tov Ocov ev TH Fi tt, , cy e \ ry, \ / > \ 17 ovopats TovT@. OTL 0 KaLpos TOD apEacPat TO Kpia a7rO a v a al > \ a ohruey aks a / \ / Tov olxov Tov Oeov' e¢ 5€ TpaTov ap Hu@yv, TL TO TEAOS a , a a n e 18 tav areWovvTwy TH Tod Ocod evayyerim; Kal Ei o / / , e J \ \ e x lal dikatos pods owletar, 0 aceByns Kat apapTwros Tov 19 aveitat; wote Kal of TdoyovTes KaTa TO OédAnpwa TOD @ lal A U / 5. X > lal > co TLOT@ KTIGTH TapaTiOécOwoav Tas Wuyas avTa@y év ayaborroua. é / 9 ’ id Lal A e , D IIpecButépovs ody év byiv wapaxado 6 cuvrperButepos / a a lal e lol Kal paptus Tov Tov Xpicrov taOnuatav, 0 Kal THs / 2 perrovons atoxadvTrecbat So€ns Kowwvos ToLsavaTe TO > € lal / lal fal \ bd Lal > M\ € / €v vty Troipviov ToD Ocod, 1 avayKacT@s adda EKOVTIWS 3 Kata Oedv, undé aicypoxepdas ara Tpoddpas, pwnd ws IV. 14. On additions to the text of this verse, v which are found in some copies, see Commentary, in loc. V. 2. Before wy dvayxacra;, A, with most of the later MSS. and the versions, reads érioxoxovvrec, Which S B and some other authorities omit. In a passage like this, which no doubt was much quoted in hortatory addresses to church office-bearers, the participle was very apt to slip in,— giving, as it does, a certain rhetorical roundness to the sentence. That, if in the original text, it would have been omitted, is very improbable. The words zara& Osov, after éxoveiws, have a much stronger claim to be regarded as genuine. They are supported by 8 A and many later MSS., and by the Vulgate, Memphitic, and some other versions,—but omitted by B, the majority of the later MSS., and the Peshito Syriac. The words are not such as would be at all likely to slip into the text ; whilst, on the other hand,—from their very grandeur, when viewed as exhibiting a model for pastoral care,—the use of them might readily be shrunk from in oral citation, and omission in MSS. might thus easily enough arise. 5 al HETPOY A. Har a , \ , Ud lol KATAKUpLEVOVTES TOV KANPWY GANA TUTTOL YLVOMEVOL TOD 4 troiupviov' cal gavepwOévtos Tod apyxeToipevos Kopetobe \ 2 , an , / ¢ / , 5 Tov auapavtivoy THs do€s otépavov. “Opoiws vewtepor, e / / 4 \ b) / \ UToTaynTe TpeTBuTEpols’ TavTES dé GAAHAOLS THY TATELVO- , « ce dpocvynv éyxouBacacble’ ott ‘O Ocos vrepnpavals avtt- / a \ / / TacoeTat, TaTrewvois 5é Sidwatv yapwv. . i) N va) an lal He 6 TarewoOnrte obv vTo THY Kpataav yYelpa ToD Oeod, iva rn A a \ lal 7 tpas tryaon év Kaip@, Tacav THY péplyuvay Lpov EeTupi- « A / \ a / 8 wavtes em avTov, OTL avT@ péder Tept Luov. Nate, y 6 CPs) , c lal / e / b] , ypnyopyjacate’ 0 avTioiKos Lav SuadBodos ws Lewy @pvOpeE- a lal / fal @ b) , ) vos mwepitatel Sntav Tiva KaTaTLEly @ avTIoTHTE oTEpEOL a 0 bes \ \ lal ie fol ~ , TH TWloTel, ELOoTES TA AUTA TOV TAOnLATwOY TH EV TH KOT WO a , an ¢ \ 10 tpov adedpornte emeTerctcOar. “O d€ Oeds maons / ¢€ / e a > \ bad b] a , > XUplTos, 0 Karécas Upas Els THY alwvioy avTod Sokap év Bi A 2 / / \ Xpist@ odyov waGovtas, avtos Kataptice, otnpiéen, , > ”“ \ / > \ 7A > / 11 c@evecer. avT@ TO KpaTos Eis TOUS alavas. auny. V. 8. On the reading tive xarazisiv, see Commentary, 7 loc. V.10. After céevace:, S and the great body of MSS., supported by a number of versions, add éeweasooes. A B and the Vulgate, with a few minor authorities, omit it. This evidence for omission, though scanty, is very strong in quality. From the nature of the verse one may safely assume that in the early ages, as in our own time, it was much employed in sermons and in prayers,—this latter use, indeed, being proved by the large number of copies in which the verbs have received a petitionary form by being put in the optative. Now the natural tendency in oral citation and free application of a passage of a cumulative structure, such as this, is always, for supposed effectiveness, to add to the cumulus, not to diminish. Considering this fact, and the high authority of those copies which leave the word out, the great probability seems to be that it did not belong to the original text. The particular verb deweasdy might readily suggest itself, from its similarity in sense to the verbs used by the apostle, and from the remembrance of the way in which Paul has employed it in passages which also, no doubt, like the present, were familiar as quotations in homilies, Eph. iii. 17 ; Col. i. 23. V. 11. After rods wiaves, S A, and most other authorities, add ray aiavav. B and a few others omit these words. Considering the great tendency to expansion in doxologies, and, in the present case, particularly the tendency to conform the language entirely to that of iv. 11 (a tendency showing itself at work in the beginning of our verse in the reading, found in very many copies, 7 60x xai before ro xocroc), the likelihood is very strong that the shorter reading is the original. XXil TIETPOY A. [V. 12 = Aa Strovavod wpiv tod wictod adedrod, ws AoyiCopar, du’ ddtyav éypaya, Tapaxaddv Kal éripaptupav TavTnv 13 eivat adnOh yapw tod Ocod: eis Hv othte. °Aowabetar vuas 7 €v BaBvawve cuvekrextH Kat Mapxos 0 vids pov. 14 ‘Aoracacbe dddjrovs ev hiypate ayaTns. Elonvn tuiv waow tots év Xpiato tpnvn vely 7 is plato. INTRODUCTION. 0 I—GENUINENESS. 1. IN its opening words the letter distinctly claims the Apostle Peter as its writer; and this claim is sustained by such abundant evidence, external and internal, that it cannot on any reasonable critical principles be impugned. With | regard to no book in the New Testament is the proof of genuineness more thoroughly satisfying. 2. In the early Church the Epistle was universally accepted as by Peter. On this point the statement of Eusebius (7. £. ill. 3), based on an intimate acquaintance with the Christian literature of the first centuries, is quite express: I[Tétpou pév ov éTLeTOAN pla, 7) AEyoMevNn AUTOD TpoTépa, avwmoroynTaL TavTn 6€ Kal of Tadat TpEecBUTEpoL Ss avaudir€KT@ év ToIs oPOv AVTOV KATAKEXPHYTAL OVYYpaupacy. The first reference which we find to the letter is that implied in the devrépay of the Second Epistle (iii. 1), a docu- ment which, whether its genuineness is admitted or not, is unquestionably of very early date: tavtnv 6n, ayamnrol, deuTépav vuiv ypadw émicToNnD. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 59), has éxdXecev Huds ato oKOTOUs eis hws,—which cannot well be doubted to be from 1 Pet. 11. 9, especially when we find Clement in another passage (§ 36) using the full expression about the light: 1 écxotwpévn dvavola jyav avabanrre eis TO Pavpactov avtod das. In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (i. 4) the precept A 2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. am@éYyou TOV CaPKLKOY Kal copaTiKay éviOvuLay seems clearly to have for its basis 1 Pet. 11. 11. The passages just quoted from Clement and from the 4idax7 can hardly be called absolutely certain reminiscences of Peter, though their being such is probable in a very high degree. But in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians there are several quite indisputable quotations. In § 1 we find eds dv ovx iSovtes TioTeveTe Yapa avexraryjTw Kat SedoEacuéry, from 1 Pet. i. 8; in § 2, muctevoavtes eis Tov éyeipavta Tov Kupiov npov Incodv Xpiotov éx vexpov Kat dovta avt@ do€ay, trom 1 Pet. i. 21, and px amodidovtes Kaxov avTt Kaxod 1) Novdopiav avTt Aovwopias, from 1 Pet. iii. 9; in § 8, Os avyveyKev Huav Tas dpaptias TO idiw cwpate éwt TO EUV, Os dpwapTtiay ovK érroincer, ovd€e etpéOn Soros Ev THO aTOmaTL avTod, from 1 Pet. i. 24, 22. Of Polycarp’s contemporary Papias we are told by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39): Kéypntar 5€ 0 avdtos paptuplats amo Ths "Iwavvov mpotépas émuctoNhs, Kat ato THs Ilétpov opoiws. Besides those passages which have now been quoted from Clement, the 4:day7, and Polycarp, there are also in others of the very early Christian writings—the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Homily of unknown authorship formerly called the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians—probable reminiscences of the First Epistle of Peter; the most striking of which, as also some from the writers already cited, will be found mentioned in the notes on the various passages apparently referred to. The early Gnostic Basilides says (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 12): iva fn) WS KaTadLKoL él KaKOis OpmoNoyoupevols TaOwaL, nde Rovdopovpevor HS O poryos 7) O hoveds, ANN OTL ypLoTtLavol mepucores, OTEp adTods Tapnyopnaer unde Tacyeww SoKeiv,—a passage which one can hardly doubt to have had for its basis 1 Pet. iv. 14-16. The persecuted Christians of Vienne and Lyons say in their Epistle (Euseb. H. Z. v. 2): érametvouy éavtods bo Tip INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 2 Kpataiav xelpa, Up Hs iKavas voy etotv bywuévor, from 1 Pet. me Trenzeus is the first who attaches the writer’s name to his quotations from the Epistle. In iv. 9. 2: Petrus ait in epistola sua,—*“ Quem non videntes diligitis,” inquit, “in quem nunc non videntes credidistis, gaudebitis gaudio inenarrabili,’ from 1 Pet. i. 8; in iv. 16. 5: Propter hoc Petrus ait, “non vela- mentum malitiz habere nos libertatem,” from 1 Pet. ii. 16. From this point it is unnecessary to give quotations, because the free use of the Epistle, with the apostle’s name attached, by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and the Fathers generally, shows that in every part of the Church it was unhesitatingly received as genuine. In the very earliest versions of the New Testament, the Old Latin and Syriac, the Epistle was included. In the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon it is not mentioned. Since, as we have seen, there is ample proof of the full acceptance of the Epistle long before any date to which, with the least likelihood, the composition of this list can be referred, the omission is probably to be explained by the supposition—to which the character of the document and the condition of the extant copy give every support— either that a sentence has been accidentally left out in translating from the original Greek, or that at the first the list was somewhat defective in its structure. See the thorough discussion on this subject in Westcott, On the Canon. 3. With the position so abundantly sustained by external proof, that the letter is a genuine production of the Apostle Peter, everything in it perfectly accords. It breathes through- out the spirit of quiet dignity, and shows everywhere the spiritual wisdom, the richness of tender sympathy, the aptness to teach, which are reasonably to be looked for in a writing from the hand of an apostle of Christ. 4. Some interesting and striking coincidences of thought and expression are found between the Epistle and the dis- courses of Peter recorded in the Book of Acts. Comp. i. 21 4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. with Acts ii, 16; ii. 7 with Acts iv. 11; ii 24 with Acts v. 30, x 39°; lv. 5 with Acts x. 42, The first @om tiese cases is particularly striking, the resemblance being in a somewhat peculiar thought; tods 6 avtod miotovs in the Epistle, 4 wiotes 9 80 adtod in Acts. 5. There are in the Epistle, also, modes of expression which tend to show that the writer had personally known the Lord Jesus, and which are of so incidental and indirect a character, that design to produce the impression of our having autoptic testimony is out of the question. Ini. 8 the use of ov« with the aorist participle éOovtes, and of jw with the present opavres, sets forth the “ not having seen Christ ” simply objectively, as a fact, but the “not seeing Him now,” as a fact viewed in subjective relations. It is hardly conceivable that this little distinction would have been made except by one to whom it came instinctively, through the fact that the “not having seen the Lord” had for him zo direct subjective relations, as he had seen Him,—whilst the “ not seeing Him now” was an experience common to writer and readers. Again, in ili. 22 the participial statement, zopevOeis eis ovpavoy, is really implied in the previous clause, 6s éotuv ev def&a Oeovd, and it is hard to imagine that it would, in such a sentence, have found expression by itself, except from a ‘writer to whom, in connection with the thought of the Lord’s being “at the right hand of God,” memory immediately brought up, with vivid power, His departure from the Mount of Olives to heaven, as a scene at which he himself was present. The mode, too, in which the Saviour’s sufferings, and His demeanour under them, are described, leads a reader irresistibly to the thought of the action of memory. “The meek conduct of Jesus, His silent endurance of all revilings and accusations, His quiet patience, even unto the cross (i. 19, ii, 21-24, i, 18),—all this is described in such a manner that we involuntarily get the impression of an eye-witness” (Lechler, Apost. and Post-Apost. Times, E. T vol. i. jp 8). INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5 6. The Petrine authorship of the Epistle ‘does not seem to have been disputed till the rise of the modern destructive ‘school of eriticism. The Paulicians, an Oriental sect of the eighth and ninth centuries, kindred to the Manicheans, set aside the Epistle through hatred of the apostle or of his doctrine (pessime adversus illum affecti, as the contemporary chronicler, Petrus Siculus, has it); but not the slightest hint , 1s given that they doubted Peter to be the writer. By the / Tiibingen critics the authorship has been denied, mainly on | the ground of the obvious familiarity of the writer with letters of the Apostle Paul, and his manifest harmony with Paul in » doctrine. Thus Schwegler says, “The Epistle is an attempt } of a disciple of Paul to reconcile the Pauline and Petrine parties, by putting into Peter’s mouth a testimony to Paul’s - soundness in the faith, along with a statement of the Pauline system of doctrine, coloured somewhat through the views of Peter” (Nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. 1. p. 22). This admitted want of discord between our Epistle and the Epistles of Paul has weight against the Petrine authorship, of course, only with persons who concede the fundamental position of the critical structure associated specially with the names of Baur and his school—namely, that Paul and the apostles of the circumcision were keenly opposed to each other in doctrine and in feeling. A few years ago it would have been needful, in the Introduction to a critical commentary on 1 Peter, to discuss this question with some fulness; but the impression produced by the boldness, learning, and dialectic skill of the Tiibingen scholars has now toa great extent passed away. Any measure of belief that the Clementine romance of the latter half of the second century exhibits the course of the history of the primitive Church more faithfully than the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, and Justin, is now confined to a very small circle. Even by critics of strongly negative tendencies it has been recognised that the Tiibingen position with respect to the divisions of the primitive Church is utterly untenable. Keim, for ex- 6 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. ample, in his last work, Aus dem Urchristenthum,—published in 1878, a short time before his death,—enters fully into a discussion of the supposed data in Scripture for Baur’s conclusions, and shows these data to have been obtained only by misinterpretations and fallacies. Schenkel, too, in his Das Christusbild der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit, published in 1879, expresses his utter disbelief in the Tiibingen doctrine. The same ground, or ground nearly the same, has been reached by Pileiderer, Weizsiicker, Renan, and others. Thus, now, in discussing the genuineness of the Epistle, the objection that anything in what is known, or probably supposed, with respect to Peter’s theological views, or his relations to the Apostle Paul, is inconsistent with his having written this letter, may quite reasonably be regarded as already obsolete and out of the way. 7. Exception has been taken by some to the claim of the Epistle to have been written by Peter, on the ground that it contains little which is not abundantly taught in the New Testament elsewhere, and thus lacks the independence and originality which are to be looked for in a document coming from the hand of an eminent apostle. To this objection the answer is obvious. The test or standard proposed—that every apostolic writing must abound in strictly new teaching—is a purely arbitrary one. The only positions on this subject which are not arbitrary, but plainly sustained by what we know of the commission and special qualifications of the apostles, are such as these-—that, without doubt, in writing letters to the Churches, as in preaching sermons to them, the apostles had definite aims with respect to giving their brethren spiritual help,—that, if the satisfactory attainment of the special spiritual aim of the writer required the announcement of truth previously hidden, then this truth was made known,— and that in every case, whether a letter contained new revelations or not, certainly by a fresh divinely-taught mode of presenting truth in suitable aspects and relations the Church had ministered to it richly the particular aid which was INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 7 intended. Regarding the First Epistle of Peter the testimony of the Church of all ages has been most explicit, that, applying to it the tests based on these reasonable and scriptural principles, it has found nothing in the document but what is most fully accordant with its claim to be an apostolic writing. With various minor objects, the special aim of the Epistle is plainly to cheer and strengthen the believer amid difficulty and trial, by bringing vividly before him the truth of a wise and loving Father’s providence, and brightening his path with the light of hope. Every spiritually- minded reader feels that the letter fulfils this design in a measure which can be ascribed only to the wisdom of heaven. To no portion of the Bible, probably—with the single exception of the Lord’s parting address to His disciples on the eve of His Passion—does a Christian, when sorely tried, more naturally turn for guidance and comfort than to this Epistle. Its wealth of consolation sustains the heart; and at every point, too, the calm authoritativeness and dignity of the utterance accord perfectly with its claim to have been written by the Apostle Peter. 8. From two statements in the Epistle arguments have been drawn against the Petrine authorship. One of these state- ments is that found in the superscription, that the Churches to which the letter was written were those in Asia Minor, —Churches which are known to have been founded by the Apostle Paul or his associates. “It is improbable,” says Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introduction to Study of N. T., vol. i, p. 425), “that Peter should write to the Churches. of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, which Paul had founded and instructed ; at least while the apostle himself was alive.” It certainly is prima facie improbable ; and just for that reason it is much more likely that the letter which has, as a matter of fact, come down to us from early times addressed to those Asiatic Churches, and distinctly claiming to be by Peter was actually written by him, than that it was from the hand of an impostor. The unlikelihood of Peter’s writing to these 8 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. Churches is so obvious, that an impostor would certainly not have gratuitously burdened his task with this obstruction in the way of having his imposture accepted; whereas circum- stances may most easily be conceived of a kind to make it perfectly natural for Peter to send these Churches a letter. This point is dealt with in § III. 9. The other statement in the letter from which an objection to the validity of its claim to be by the Apostle Peter has been derived is that made in iv. 16, that, at the time it was written, the simple name of “Christian” was a ground of accusation before courts of law. It has been maintained that this points to a considerably later date than Peter’s lifetime. Admitting that example, in Ephesus, Philippi, and elsewhere proved— as Paul’s experience, for Christians were liable from the beginning, in any part of the empire, to persecution in various forms, through outbreaks of popular fanaticism, or through false accusations raised by private foes, it is held, at the same time, that persecution taking the shape of bringing a man to the tribunal charged simply with being a Christian was possible only after an Imperial edict expressly prohibiting Christianity had been issued ; which, it is said, was not till Trajan’s time, in the beginning of the second century. There are serious flaws in this argument. There appears to be no sufficient basis for the assertion that an edict was needed to make the profession of Christianity a ground of accusation and of punishment. The principle of the Romans was, that unless a religion was expressly sanctioned, it was illegal. Judaism was a religio licita, and for a considerable number of years Christianity had the protection afforded by the fact that it was held to be merely a form of Judaism. But as soon as it was seen that, in some important respects, Judaism and Christianity were distinct from each other, then ipso facto Christianity was a forbidden system; and whilst, no doubt, the putting of the law in force might be but occasional, due to local and temporary influences, yet a magistrate could INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 9 not constitutionally refuse to receive a charge made against a man of being a Christian, if such an accusation were formally raised at his judgement-seat. In fact, that very correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, from which the definite illegality of Christianity is by those scholars who raise this objection to the Petrine authorship of the Epistle supposed to date, itself shows clearly that the case was not so, but that Pliny found judicial dealing with Christians, simply _ as Christians, already in action when he went to his province. Pliny’s language leaves on this point no doubt whatever : “Sol- lemne est mihi, domine, omnia de quibus dubito ad te referre. Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere, vel ignorantiam extruere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui nunquam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut queeri. Nec mediocriter hesitavi sitnealiquod discrimenetatum an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant,—detur poenitentize venia an el qui omnino Christianus fuit desisse non prosit,—nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohxrentia nomini puniantur. Interim in iis qui ad me tanquam Christi- ani deferebantur hune sum secutus modum. _Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani. Confitentes iterum ac tertio interro- gavi, supplicium minatus: perseverantes duci jussi.” Trajan’s reply also most distinctly assumes that there was no question in hand of making a new law prohibiting Christianity or enjoining persecution. Quite plainly the law continued as it had been, the wise and humane emperor merely introducing some mitigations. How long Christians had been liable in this way to perse- cution, and whether the state of things was due to an edict of some former emperor, expressly condemning Christianity, or had been brought about merely through the fact that the profession of this religion had not been expressly authorized, we cannot tell. By far the most probable date for the beginning of judicial dealing with men simply on the ground of being Christians, is the reign of Nero. It is likely enough that, in connection with the persecution which followed the 10 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. creat fire, that emperor issued an edict prohibiting Christianity, though this has not been recorded. At all events it cannot well be doubted that, at the time of his persecution, the Jews of Rome, in order to escape suffering along with the Chris- tians, made strenuous endeavours to show clearly to the government, and to the people generally, the distinction between the two religious systems. There appears to be a great probability, therefore, that from the year 64 the pro- fession of Christianity was, either as being definitely prohibited, or simply as being unsanctioned, criminal in the eyes of Rtoman law. Now various lines of evidence converge to fix the date of our Epistle a year or two later than 64. On the question dealt with in the present paragraph, Professor Salmon’s Jntroduction to N. T., pp. 543, 544, may be con- sulted, and particularly a characteristically thorough and satisfying discussion by Bp. Lightfoot, in his edition of Ignatius, vol. i. pp. 2-21. IlL—TO WHOM WRITTEN. 1. The Epistle is addressed (i. 1) to the Christians in certain districts of Asia Minor, the districts specified covering the whole of that region except the south coast. The first division named is Pontus. Under what circum- stances Christianity made its entrance into this province we have no information. Jews and proselytes from it are mentioned among those who were in Jerusalem at the ever- memorable Pentecost (Acts ii. 9); and by some of these knowledge of Christian truth may have been carried to their homes. Aquila, the friend of Paul, was a nativesof Pontus (Acts xviii. 2). Of the preaching of the gospel by Paul in Galatia, the district next named, of the cordial reception which was given to him and to his teaching, and of the fickleness of spirit exhibited by many of his converts,—a trait so cha- IyTrop. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 11 racteristic of the Gallic race to which they belonged,—full information is supplied in the apostle’s letter to the Christians there. From Cappadocia, which follows, there had been Jews at Jerusalem at Pentecost. No other mention of this province than that and the present is found in the New Testament. In later times its ecclesiastics included some of the most eminent of Christian bishops and writers,—Czsarea, the See of Basil the Great, Nyssa, that of his brother Gregory, and Nazianzus, that of their common friend, the other Gregory, being all in Cappadocia. Asia, by which here, as always in the New Testament, is meant the Roman province of that name, stretching along the west coast, included by this time many well-known Churches, —Ephesus, Colosse, Laodicea, and others, — most of them founded by Paul or by his evangelistic helpers. Of Bithynia, the last district named by the apostle, we hear little in the New Testament, the only other mention of it being a statement in Acts (xvi. 7), that Paul, immediately before his first mission to Europe, had a wish to visit this region, but was forbidden by the Spirit. In later times we find Christianity flourishing in this province. It was with regard to it that in the year 112 Pliny the younger, at that time the governor, wrote his famous letter to Trajan, in which he describes the extraordinary progress of the new religion. “ Multi omnis etatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam,” as he mentions, were accused before the magistrates on the charge of being Christians; further, “neque civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atque agros, superstitionis istius contagio per- vagata est;” and yet further, with regard to the power of this new faith in the way of diminishing the attention paid by the people to the heathen worship, “ prope jam desolata templa—et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa,” whilst of animals offered for sale in the markets to be sacrificed to the gods, there had been for some time but “rarissimus emptor.” In Bithynia, too, was the city of Niciea, where, in 325, met the ie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IvrRop. memorable Gicumenical Council which condemned the Arian heresy. 2. The language of the superscription of the Epistle, EKAEKTOIS TrapeTLOnuors SvacTopas IIovtov KTX., suggests at first sight that it was addressed, not to the Christians generally who lived in the districts named, but to those of them who were of the Jewish race. In a simple piece of prose writing like this, the genitive dvacmopas cannot naturally be taken (as in the Authorized English Version) as equivalent to the participle Svecwappévors. Considering that for many generations this word dvaemopa had been employed in a special way as the designation of that portion of the Jewish race who lived beyond the bounds of Canaan, their covenant home (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 17, LXX.; Judith v. 19; 2 Mace. i. 27; John vii. 35; Jas. i. 1), there cannot well be a doubt that, as used by Peter here, it has this meaning, “the scattered ones of the house of Israel.” | 5. But investigation into the precise thought which was intended by the apostle in using the expression does not quite end here. In the body of the Epistle nothing presents itself which seems specially applicable to Jewish Christians, nothing of such specialty of teaching as we find in the Epistle of James and in that to the Hebrews. Not merely is no subject discussed which we can suppose to have been, from their peculiar history, or ritual, or temptations, more interesting or important to them than to converts from heathen- ism; but no clause or phrase even seems to have any unquestionable special suitableness for them. The expres- sion 7 patala tuav avactpody tatpotapasotos (i. 18) has been by some thought of as having a special applicability to Jews; but, in truth, it has an equally natural and full reference to the empty, profitless modes of thought and life handed down by one generation of heathen to another. The use of Ta €Ovn also, in ii. 12 and iv. 3, has been supposed to discriminate those addressed in the letter from the Gentiles ; but there is clear proof that, as was most natural, the word ee INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 13 é0vn began very early in the history of the Christian Church to have the reference to religion so prominent in it that reference to race was often quite in the background. We find such to be the case in the apostolic Epistles. Except where there is special and manifest reference to the dis- tinction of the Jews from other nations, Greeks and Romans who have accepted Christ are not thought and spoken of as “Gentiles.” In writing to Churches mainly composed of converts from heathenism, Paul employs €@vn in such a way that the converts are quite clearly not included; see, for example, 1 Thess. iv. 5; Eph. iv. 17 (true reading). Whilst thus there is nothing in the Epistle which appears to be specially suitable for Jewish Christians, there are modes of expression which seem more naturally addressed to converts from heathenism. The most striking passage of this kind is iv. 83. The whole of the catalogue of vices there mentioned is much more characteristic of the heathen than of the Jews of that age, so far as we know anything of the kind of sins by which they were usually marked; and the a@éucrou elowroAaTpias cannot at all be ascribed to Jews, except in a metaphorical sense, such as is not in the least suggested by the context. Such expressions as of moré ov dads, too (ii. 10), and #5 (Sarah’s) éyevnOnte téxva (iii. 6), while in a measure applicable to all Christians, yet have decidedly more special applicability to converts from heathenism than to Jewish believers. 4. With regard to the address of the letter, looked at in the light of these facts, various views may be entertained. We may hold that the apostle writes in the first instance to the Christian converts from Judaism, and occasionally speaks somewhat specially to those of them who originally had been heathen, but at the time of their conversion to Christ had been Jewish proselytes,—with whom may be also naturally enough conjoined persons who had entered the Christian Church directly from heathenism. Or we may hold that Peter, being well known everywhere as one of those apostles 1+ FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROpD. who laboured mainly in the Jewish field, might judge it a matter of kindly courtesy to acknowledge at the outset a specially close relation to those of the Asiatic believers who were his brethren after the flesh, while really intending the letter for the whole body of Christians, and anticipating that, when it was read, its tenor would soon show this. Neither of these suppositions seems perfectly adequate to explain the facts in the case. The most natural and _ satis- factory view appears to be that the letter was intended for, and is really addressed to, all the Christians, of whatever nationality, the apostle’s form of expression vrapemdnpous dvao7ropas being employed in a secondary sense, and gather- ing up all the believers as the spiritual Israel. From the Septuagint rendering of David’s words in Ps. xxxix. (Xxxvili. Sept.) 12,—a quotation and spiritual application of Abraham’s statement to the children of Heth (Gen. xxill, 4),—7dpovxos éyo eit Tapa col Kal TapeTlOnuos, KaBws TavTEs ol TaTépes pov, we see that the word zraperidnwos was early in use to represent the believer’s life on earth, with its alien surround- ings for the citizen of heaven, its foreign language, foreign manners, foreign views and feelings. In the only passages of the New Testament besides the present where the word occurs (ii. 11; Heb. xi. 13) this is its use. One of these passages, it will be observed, is in our Epistle; and else- where, too, the apostle gives evidence how vividly he had this pilgrim aspect of the Christian life before his mind (see i. 17). With regard to dsaocropa, also, the tenor of the Epistle affords reason for doubt whether it is not to be taken with a secondary rather than with the primary refer- ence. In the course of the letter, the fact that the great Catholic Church of the New Dispensation—the Church in which the distinction between Jew and Greek is lost — is the spiritual Israel, the body by whom the realization of all the covenant promises to Abraham’s seed is enjoyed in glorious fulness, is illustrated by the apostle in considerable detail by the application to Christians of the Old Testament INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LS descriptions of Israel, “a chosen nation,” “a royal priesthood,” and the like (ii. 5, 9,10). Msaczopa in the first verse, then, may be supposed to be so employed as, at the very beginning, to point to this position of Christians, —the combination TapeTlonuot ScacTopas meaning “ sojourners, or pilgrims, of the scattered spiritual Israel.” It may appear somewhat unnatural to attach a spiritual reference to words of this kind occurring in the address of a letter, a position where, as a rule, not figurative language, but the plainest and most business-like, is in place. Closer examination, however, removes or, at least, greatly modifies this feeling with respect to the present case. It can hardly be questioned that the one term, zrapemidjuois, is most naturally taken with a spiritual reference. This was evidently the ordinary use of the word among believers, and, if taken here literally, it appears to come in cumbrously and, indeed, tautologically, in place of the simple tots év dvaomropa, or James’s tals dwdexa hudais tais év TH duacropa. It is inter- esting, too, to notice that—-whether simply through the influ- ence of the same feeling which our apostle appears to have had here, or directly suggested by this passage—in the immedi- ately post-apostolic age the mention of the pilgrim life entered not unfrequently into the superscription of public religious letters, —as in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and that of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdom of Polycarp. Seeing, then, the obvious familiarity of the early Christians with the thought that their hfe on earth was a pilgrimage, and considering the fact that aaperidnwos was a word commonly employed among them to express this thought,— such, indeed, being with them, as New Testament usage suggests, its ordinary application——we may fairly assume that, on the occurrence of the word in the heading of this Epistle, the spiritual reference at once presented itself to the apostle’s readers as that which was intended by him. ‘They might not unnaturally also carry forward this reference into 16 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IvTRop. the next and closely kindred term dvacmopas,—holding this word indeed, perhaps, in the first instance as somewhat ambiguous, but soon made certain of the reference by the catholicity of the tone of the letter, and particularly by that application of Old Testament designations of Israel to the Christian Church which has been already spoken of. 5. In a dissertation, published in the Journal of Sacred Literature (January 1861), Dr. Quarry maintains that the Epistle is addressed to Roman Christians who, under the pressure of Nero’s persecution, had fled from the city and taken refuge in Asia Minor, This position has the great weight also of Prof. Salmon’s authority (Zntrod. N. T. p. 551), thus far, at least, that he “feels much inclined” to adopt it. Of Dr. Quarry’s argument, the main point is that 2 Pet. iii. 15 contains a distinct reference to Rom. i. 4 (a view in which he is supported by Grotius, Neander, and others), and that the words éypawev vuiv are to be taken strictly. The proof thus afforded, that the Second Epistle was written to Roman Christians, is valid also for the First—2 Ep. iii. 1 showing that the two were written to the same persons. This argument, though supported by Dr. Quarry with much ingenuity, does not seem really very strong. The reference in 2 Pet. ui, 15 is not by any means certainly to a passage in Romans, and, even if it were, there is no necessity for taking the expression, “ wrote to you,’ in the narrow sense demanded by Dr. Quarry; but, on the contrary, nothing in the least forced in viewing it as said to natives of Asia who had read the Epistle to the Romans,—all Scripture being really intended for and practically addressed to all to whom it comes, whoever might be the first recipients of the particular portion. Thus weak, as regards positive support, Dr. Quarry’s position is confronted also with serious difficulties. Besides the objections which present themselves (see § IV. of this Introduction) to taking “Babylon” in chap. v. 13 to mean Rome,—an interpretation needful to give anything of InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. A likelihcod to the view,—the proposed application of the word dtaorropad to a body of fugitive Romans is not very natural. Dr. Quarry feels this, and makes a somewhat desperate attempt to obtain an analogy, by proposing to explain the words tiv Siacropay Tov “EXAHvor, in John vii. 35, as “the scattered Gentiles,” in place of “the (Jewish) dispersion among the Gentiles.” According to the ordinary view of the meaning of these words, the use of the genitive is, no doubt, a little peculiar, though not very different from that of ITovrou xT. in the first verse of our Epistle; but the proposed interpretation makes é:ac7opay practically unmeaning. A yet more weighty objection than any which is merely linguistic, to the view that the persons addressed by Peter were fugitives from Rome, lies in the fact that in the two Epistles not a single expression occurs which can be sup- posed with any naturalness to refer to flight, or to previous residence in Italy; whilst, on the other hand, there are references which naturally suggest that the persons addressed had been for a considerable time settled residents in the region where they lived. Such, for example, are (1 Ep. ii. 18 foll.) the mention of slaves, not fugitives from their masters, nor fugitives along with Christian masters, but owned by persons who were cruel to them; and (ili, 1) the mention of wives, not fugitives along with Christian husbands, but living at the time with non-Christian husbands. 6. On the whole, the most probable view seems to be that the Epistle is addressed to the Christians generally who were ) . : : : “TL: resident in the districts named, the apostle’s words describing them as being all spiritually “sojourners, or pilgrims, of the | scattered Israel of God.” The truth that all Christians, whatever their nationality, are spiritually of the seed of _ Abraham, must, long before the date of Peter’s letter, have become familiar to the Asiatic believers to whom he wrote, through references to the subject in Paul’s Epistles to ' Churches among them; see, for example, Gal. iii, 29, iv. 28 ; mol, i. 11. B 18 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InTROp. IIL—OCCASION AND DATE. 1. Of the Churches throughout a large part of the area covered by the provinces named in the superscription of the Epistle, we know certainly, from statements in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles, that they were founded by Paul, or by evangelists labouring in special association with him. With respect to the Churches in the rest of the region also, it is highly probable, considering the abundant communication between the different districts of Asia Minor, that they origi- nated through the efforts of assistants or converts of Paul. In Peter’s letter there is no allusion necessitating or naturally leading to the supposition that he had any personal acquaint- ance with the Christian brethren whom he addresses. He knew their circumstances in a general way, but apparently merely by report. That the apostle ever visited those parts, there is no satisfactory evidence. Origen, Eusebius, and other Fathers, indeed, speak of his having done so; but their language is of a vague kind, such as to suggest that what they say is not based on information, but was merely an inference from the occurrence of the names of the Asiatic provinces at the head of the Epistle. 2. What led to Peter’s writing to the Christians in those districts we can only conjecture. The way in which, in v. 12, Silvanus is spoken of makes it a somewhat likely supposition that this evangelist — possibly, and not improbably, the Silvanus or Silas who was for a time a fellow-labourer of Paul, and that in Asia as well as other parts—had, after a missionary tour through those districts, visited Peter, and given him an account of the condition of the Churches ; and that the apostle was thus led to send to them some words of Christian instruction and cheer through Silvanus when he went back. Many years previously, as we know, an arrangement regarding division of labour had been made among the apostles, to the effect that Peter and some of the others a InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 19 should devote their energies mainly to the Jews, and Paul and his associates should give theirs mainly to work among the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 9). This, however, was not at all intended—no such arrangement among Christian men could, in any circumstances, possibly be intended—as absolute in its character. The aim of these brethren was not to make men followers of Paul or -of Peter, but of Christ; and accordingly the apostles of the circumcision, and the apostle of the Gentiles and his companions, respectively, felt them- selves in no way restrained from going for a time out of their’ own special province, if they saw that the interests of the great common cause called for their doing so. Wherever, in his travels, Paul found Jews, his first offer of Christ was made to them. There are very strong grounds, too,—the adverse criticism of Weiss, Lechler, and others notwithstanding,— for thinking that the Epistle specially addressed to the Hebrew believers came from the Pauline group of evangelists, whoever was the particular writer. That Peter again should, when oecasion seemed to him to call for it, write a letter of brotherly counsel to Churches mainly composed of Gentile converts,—such as the references in Acts and the Pauline Epistles lead us to think most of these Churches of Asia Minor must have been,—was a most natural thing in the apostle who had been specially chosen by God to begin, in the house of Cornelius, the direct preaching of the gospel to the uncircumcision. 3. Considering the very close and tender relations which these Churches of Asia held to the Apostle Paul, it is obviously probable in a high degree that, when Peter wrote them a letter of religious counsel and stimulus, Paul, their special guide, to whom in the first instance they would naturally have looked for such a communication, was known by his brother apostle to be at the time not in a position to do the needed work. The thought occurs that from this we may obtain some indication of the date of the Epistle. The hint thus afforded, however, is altogether vague ; and neither by it nor by* any- wy) 0 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [INTROD. thing in the letter are we enabled to determine the date to a particular year. It does not seem very likely that the writing of the letter is to be placed after the death of Paul. Both that apostle and Peter, according to statements of the Fathers which cannot well be doubted, suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero. Now the data which we have in the pastoral Epistles and in these patristic statements, appear to put Paul’s death near the close of Nero’s reign, so near the close as to make it scarcely probable that Peter survived his friend long enough for us reasonably to place the writing of the Epistle in that time,—at all events if we take the “ Babylon,” from which it was written (v. 13), to be the distant city on the Euphrates, and if we also accept the genuineness of the Second Epistle, written, as it would seem, after a considerable interval. Assuming, then, both the apostles to have been alive at the time when our Epistle was written, we may suppose that Peter knew Paul to be at the time unable to hear of the condition of his Asiatic converts or to send them a com- munication,—being occupied, it may be, on some very distant missionary expedition, fulfilling, perhaps, his long-formed intention of visiting Spain (Rom. xv. 24, 28; cf. also Clem. tom. § 5). On the whole, it seems more likely that the letter was written under some such circumstances than that it belongs to the time after Paul’s death. Be this as it may, however, it can hardly be doubted, at all events, that the date of the letter falls between the end of the year 64 and the year 68. To this period a number of facts lead us. The limit in the one direction is 68, because in that year Nero’s reigon ended. To or towards the end of 64, as the earliest time when we can think of the letter as having been written, several lines of proof converge. ‘The acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans which is shown in Peter’s letter — (see § V.) makes the date certainly not before the year 58; — and, if knowledge also of the Epistle to the Ephesians be acdmitted,—which is, at the least, probable—this carries us InrRop.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. vi 4s 8 | forward to the year 61 or 62. Again, of Paul’s life between | the time of his first missionary visit to Central Asia Minor and the year 63 we have a detailed narrative in Acts; and } no period presents itself within that time when it seems \ likely that another apostle would have written to the ‘Churches there. Now of his history between the time of -/his release from the first Roman imprisonment and_ his | martyrdom we know nothing except what we gather from | the pastoral Epistles; and circumstances may most easily have occurred then which made it natural and fitting that Peter should write to Paul’s converts. Yet again, that the Epistle was not written earlier than the latter part of the year 64, is made highly probable by the references in it to persecution of fiery severity (iv. 12 foll.), and particularly by the intimation given in iv. 16, that the simple profession of Christianity was at the time recognised by the magistrates in Asia Minor as a ground for a criminal charge. By far the most likely starting-point for this state of things appears, as has been shown in § [, to have been the persecution of the Christians in Rome, begun in 64 after the great fire. Certainly the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians give no hint that at the time they were written (61 or 62) there was persecution in Asia Minor. On the whole, therefore, it seems that we may safely date the Epistle between 64 and 68 A.D. Besides the grounds for this judgement which have been already stated, some little additional support seems to be _ given to it by the apostle’s reference in v. 13 to “ Marcus ” as sending greetings. Remembering the intimate relations with Peter which early writers—Papias, Irenzus, and others— ascribe to Mark the evangelist, who is almost certainly to be identified with John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas and associate at various times of Paul, it seems most likely that we are to recognise him in this Mareus. From the fact of his specially sending salutations to the Churches of Asia Minor, we may naturally deem it at least not improbable 29 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IntROD. that he had become acquainted with some of them. Now in Colossians (iv. 10) Roman imprisonment an Epistle written during the jirst we find that Mark, then with Paul in Rome, had thoughts of visiting Asia Minor; and in 2nd Timothy, the last of Paul’s letters, written during the second Roman imprisonment, we learn (iv. 11) that Mark then was in Asia Minor. It is obvious that the supposition of his having gone from Asia Minor to Babylon at some time during those years, to join Peter there in his labours for a season, fits in with all the data. 4, By one or two of the older scholars an early date for the Epistle was thought of, about 46 or 48 a.p.; and recently it has been maintained by Weiss that it was written before the Apostle Paul’s influence was much felt in Asia Minor,— certainly, therefore, before the year 54, when the apostle’s third missionary tour began, which left such a deep impress on all that region (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1-20). The improba- bilities involved in this view, with respect to the existence of fully-organized Christian Churches over a large part of Asia Minor before Paul’s third journey,—with respect to the similarities between this Epistle and some of the Pauline letters, the original writer, according to Weiss, being, of course, Peter, and Paul the secondary,—and especially with respect to the subjection of Christianity at that early time to formal legalized persecution,—these improbabilities are so great that this view of the date can hardly but be ascribed less to calm consideration of facts than to & priori theorizing. IV.—PLACE WHERE WRITTEN. 1. In v. 13 the apostle sends the salutations of “ the Chureh that is at Babylon;” from which it is naturally inferred that, when he wrote the letter, he was himself either in that city or in the immediate neighbourhood. To our giving the name “Babylon” here the reference INTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 23 which prima facie suggests itself to every reader, to the famous city on the Euphrates, there does not le any serious objection in the fact that no ancient writer speaks of Peter’s having visited Babylonia; because with respect to his scenes of labour during the whole of the latter part of his life we are entirely without trustworthy information. No region was more likely to be visited by an apostle who had it as his special work to “go to the circumcision;” seeing that for many generations a multitude of Jews had been resident in those parts. Some doubt, however, has been entertained by scholars whether the well-known Babylon can be meant in this passage, from the fact that, as Josephus tells us (Andtig. xvill. 9. § 8), during the reign of Caius Cesar many of the Jews of Babylon were led, through hostility of the heathen and throuch pestilence, to migrate from that city, now greatly decayed, to the flourishing neighbouring city of Seleucia. There is not much force in this, however. The language of the historian does not necessarily imply that the whole Jewish population left Babylon; and supposing that it did imply this, more than twenty years had elapsed between the time of the migration spoken of and the period at which, with any likelihood, the writing of this Epistle can be fixed,—an interval long enough to allow of a renewal of the Jewish element in the population sufficient to invite the apostle’s labours. 2. Influenced, however, by this supposed difficulty in the way of taking the well-known Babylon to be meant, many expositors have looked elsewhere for the place which Peter so names. Several purely arbitrary conjectures on the subject have been made, which need not be discussed. To the claims of two places a certain measure of plausibility attaches. One of these is a small town in the Delta of Egypt, the other is the city of Rome. 3. In favour of the former of these, little can be said except simply that, beyond question, the place bore the name 24 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. of Babylon,—in consequence, as tradition asserted, of its having been built by natives of the great Eastern Babylon, who had come to Egypt in the expedition of Cambyses, or earlier. Egypt, too, no doubt—extensively occupied as it was by Jews—was perhaps as likely as Babylonia to be visited by the Apostle Peter; and tradition associates the name of the evangelist Mark—probably the “ Mareus my son” of chap. v. 13 of our Epistle—with the founding of the Church of Alexandria. But nothing which is known of this Egyptian Babylon leads one to suppose it a place where Jews were likely to be found in any considerable numbers, or which on any ground was fitted to attract the special atten- tion of the apostle. Moreover, though, from the time of the Emperor Augustus, it had some provincial importance as a military station, we have no reason whatever to think that it was much known out of Egypt; and the great probability is that of those Christians of Asia Minor to whom Peter wrote, only a very few, who had family or commercial connections with Egypt, knew of the existence of this town. It is therefore unlikely in a very high degree that, supposing the apostle to have written his letter from this little place in Egypt, he would, without any minute specification, have used a name which would certainly convey a wrong impres- sion of where he was, and of what Church it was whose Christian salutations he sent. 4. In favour of the claim of Rome to have been the scene of the apostle’s labours at the time when he wrote the Epistle, the following arguments present themselves :—/irst, The name of the great city which so grievously oppressed the Church of God under the old economy was a most fitting symbolical one for the great city which oppressed the Christian Church. Secondly, The “Babylon” of the Book of Revelation has been generally identified with Rome. Thirdly, According to patristic tradition, Peter did visit Rome, and, whilst much which is demonstrably false has gathered round the original nucleus, yet the consensus of a large number of early authori- INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 25 ties makes it hardly possible to doubt that he did suffer martyrdom there, and may not improbably have been in the city for some time previously. Fourthly, By early Fathers— as Papias and Clement of Alexandria (or possibly Papias or Clement, for the passage of Eusebius, H. #. 1. 15, which is our authority on the point, is a little vague) and Jerome— the name “ Babylon” in this Epistle was believed to designate Rome. Through the influence of these considerations, the position that Peter wrote the Epistle in Rome has been maintained by a great many scholars, including the Roman Catholic writers generally, and also a large number of Protestants—of quite recent writers, for example, Godet (NV. 7. Studies), Salmon (Introduction to N. T.), Cook (Speaker's Commentary), Mason (Commentary for English Readers, edited by Bishop Ellicott). That a plausible case in favour of Rome is established there can be no doubt; yet the real argumentative force of the facts which have been mentioned appears to grow con- siderably less as one looks at them. Admitting that the apostle probably suffered martyrdom in Rome, he may yet quite well at the time of writing this letter have been in a region far distant from Rome; because the precise date of the letter is uncertain within several years. Again, a symbolical name, perfectly suitable and natural in a book of visions like the Apocalypse, does not seem to come in at all naturally in a quiet, business-like, unmystical statement like that in chap. v. 15 of our Epistle. It will be observed, too, that, on any reasonable view of the dates of the two books, the writing of the Epistle was almost certainly prior to that of the Apocalypse; and there is no evidence—nor, considering the history of the Church up to that time, any likelihood—that “ Babylon” had already come to be known among the Chris- tians as a designation of Rome. On the supposition under discussion, then, Peter, in a piece of calm unimpassioned prose, employed a familiar name in an altogether unfamiliar sense, without adding a word of explanation, or giving the slightest 26 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. hint that he was writing mystically. The patristic opinion, that the apostle’s reference is to Rome, is of little moment ; because, long before the time even of Papias, Rome had shown herself clearly as a cruel oppressor of the Church, and the Book of Revelation had made the symbolical sense of the name Babylon familiar to all Christians. In such circum- stances the tradition of Peter’s connection with Rome might most naturally lead to the thought that, in the name as employed in his Epistle also, the mystical meaning was to be recognised. By Mason, Quarry, and others it is suggested that, sup- posing Rome to be meant by Babylon in our apostle’s use of the name, the reason for his so speaking might be that at the time it was dangerous for him, or for the Roman Church, to have it known beyond the ranks of the believers in Christ where he was. The name was therefore disguised in such a way that while Christians—this peculiar use of ‘“ Babylon” being perhaps already known to them—might recognise what was intended, enemies, should a copy of the Epistle fall into their hands, would be led astray. This is as likely an explanation as could be given; and yet it is far-fetched, seeing that obviously, if such was the apostle’s position, the simple course was open to him of saying nothing at all in the letter with respect to where he was, leaving it to his messenger, Silvanus, to give information on this subject should it seem needful or desirable to do so, Dr. Quarry ventures also the singular conjecture regarding the names Pontus, Cappadocia, and the rest at the beginning of the Epistle, that “the apostle, having adopted Babylon to desig- nate Rome, might, for the same reason, have employed these other Asiatic names to represent regions which it would have been dangerous to mention by their real names.” The only thing in the Epistle which has been thought of as fitted to cast light on the question whether it was written in the Eastern Babylon or in Rome, is the order in which INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 2G the names of the provinces mentioned in the first verse stand. To this, with characteristic acuteness, attention was drawn by Bengel: Quinque provincias nominat eo ordine quo occur- rebant scribenti ex oriente. Supposing the course which his messenger would take in travelling through Asia Minor for the purpose of encouraging the Churches, and of delivering copies of the Epistle, to have been in Peter’s mind while he was writing, the order of the names certainly suggests that he was in a place not west of Asia Minor, but east,—some region from which a traveller would. first reach the north-east district, Pontus, and then go on westward. The somewhat zigzag arrangement of the names exactly accords with the probable course of a messenger sent from the east to visit all the important Churches in the region. The argument, while not perhaps so strong as Bengel apparently thought it, seems to be by no means without force. Quite conceivably, no doubt, something altogether different from thought of the route which Silvanus would take in travelling with the letter might dictate the order in which the apostle has put the names; yet this explanation does appear the most natural,—for one certainly expects the address of a com- munication which is to be delivered successively to several individuals or communities to follow what is likely to be the order of delivery. Canon Cook (Speaker's Commentary, Intro- duction to First Peter, § 4) feels the force of the argument, and—holding that Rome was the place of writing—attempts to show that it tells in favour of his view. “The first district mentioned,” he says, “is Pontus. Now Pontus was a district in constant communication with Rome; a vessel proceeding from Rome would probably proceed there directly, if its course was determined by the lines of traffic; and, whether we suppose that it was sent on public or on Chris- tian business, the seaports of Pontus would be equally con- ‘venient. On the other hand, had the messenger of St. Peter started from Babylon, it is impossible that Pontus should have been the first district which he reached, or that which 28 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. would naturally present itself first to the apostle’s mind.” The last of these sentences appears to be simply an arbitrary contradiction of a general, natural, reasonable belief; for whilst, no doubt, Cappadocia was the nearest to Babylon of the provinces named, yet innumerable circumstances might have directed the messenger’s route to Pontus first. The likelihood of the supposition set forth in the earlier part of the quotation must be left to be determined by individual judgement. 5. On the whole, Wetstein’s conclusion seems sound: Cur Babylon in Italia potius aut AZgypto quam in Mesopotamia sit querenda, causam non video. No really strong reason presents itself for departing from the prima facie sense of the name. V.—STRUCTURE AND LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EPISTLE. 1. The Epistle is an earnest and affectionate pastoral address to a number of congregations which, besides the common difficulties incident to all Christians, had also the special anxieties and spiritual dangers connected with present and growing persecution. 2. This special element in the position of those believers for whose benefit, in the first instance, the apostle wrote, has in great measure determined the tone of the letter. What is distinctive in it, as compared with the other N. T. writings, is mainly its peculiar wealth of teaching fitted to cheer persecuted Christians, and sustain them in faith and in holy resolution. It is particularly with respect to the bearings of the gospel on the various kinds of spiritual peril which this form of trial brings with it—temptation to impatience, to unbelief and distrust, to despondency, to sinful compromises with the world—that Peter “exhorts and testifies” that the way of life through Christ, of which the InTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 29 Asiatic Churches had heard from Paul and other evan- gelists, was “the true grace of God” (v.12). “The great and permanent merit of our Epistle is to have first distinctly set forth the right view as to the position of Christians in reference to the whole power of heathendom, and to its persecutions of the Church ” (Ewald, cited by Cook). 3. The structure of the letter is in every respect simple and natural. Jteminders of the richness and grandeur of the Christian’s privileges and hopes, set forth to comfort and to stimulate, lead easily into direct inculeation of holiness of heart and life, and of the special obligations attaching to particular stations and relations. Throughout the whole letter, sympathy with the Asiatic believers in their trials shows itself distinctly, and strong desire so to guide their thoughts and affections that the persecution may be to all of them a helpful discipline; and in the latter part of the Epistle this subject is dealt with expressly and at large. 4. The outline of the letter is as follows. After the superscription and salutation @. 1, 2) comes a singularly rich and beautiful description of the privileges of believers (i. 3-9), and of the glory of that gospel which is proclaimed to them, —a gospel looked forward to with eager longing by the holy prophets of old, and gazed down into with intensest loving interest by the angels G. 10-12). On this representation of privilege naturally bases itself an exhortation to duty ; and this, first, general, to the cultivation of holiness (i. 13-11. 10)—an obligation manifestly resting on the believers as being called by and children of God (i. 13-17), and redeemed with the blood of Christ (i. 18-21). Having received into their souls by faith God’s word of life, the readers are to seek to know this word ever more deeply, and to grow in that spirit of love, without which there cannot be increasing assimilation of the word for spiritual nourish- ment (i, 22—11.3). Thus they will be built in as living stones in the temple which rests on the living foundation, Christ,— who is a stone of stumbling to His foes, but precious to them 30 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InTROD. that believe (ii. 4-8). This general section of the practical portion of the Epistle closes with another inspiriting sketch of the privileges of Christians, and this in Old Testament language which was originally employed to describe the blessed position of Israel as Jehovah’s people, and thus, as used in the Epistle, represents the Church of Christ as the spiritual Israel (i. 9, 10). In the second section of the practical part we have a series of injunctions to the performance of special duties (u. L1-v. 9), introduced by an appeal to all the Christians to remember that, as citizens of heaven who at the present are pilgrims in an alien world, they should show to all around them a winning heavenly beauty of life (ii. 11,12). One important element in such beauty of life was submission to those under whose authority God’s providence had placed them,—the submission of subjects to their rulers (11. 13-17) ; of servants to their masters, and this with patient endurance even of cruel wrong, as Christ, the Sinless One, meekly bore the cruelties of those sinners whom He came to save (11. 18-25); of wives to their husbands (iii. 1-6). By correla- tion, this last injunction suggests the duty of husbands to their wives (iil. 7). To all believers now, whatever their special positions and relations, the apostle addresses an appeal to cultivate mutual love (iii, 8), and under the hostility of the men of the world to return good for evil (ui. 9), -— the appeal being enforced by a quotation from the Old Testament (iii. 10-12). At this point counsels specially addressed to the believers as members of a persecuted Church begin; and the thought of trial seems to be vividly before the writer’s mind to the close of the practical part of his letter Gi. 13—v. 9), though there are occasionally short passages in which it does not definitely show itself. Under persecution, believers, feeling that, because they are God’s children, they cannot suffer permanent harm, should be restful, stedfast, and manly (iii. 18-15), having ever before their hearts as the matter INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ol of main concern the prayerful resolution that their sufferings shall be in and for well-doing, and never in and for evil-doing (iii. 16, 17). The fact, signally illustrated in the case of the Redeemer Himself, that suffering for righteousness’ sake in flesh brings quickening in spirit, is fitted to give to His people under persecution peculiar consolation and peculiar stimulus (iii. 18-iv. 6). The thought of His second coming also should be much before their minds (iv. 7a), leading to prayer and watchfulness (iv. 70), and sustaining brotherly love (iv. 8), which should show itself in kind dealings towards each other, both in the way of aid in the matters of this world, hospitality being specified (iv. 9), and in spiritual helpfulness (iv. 10, 11). A fiery trial was upon the apostle’s readers, which ought not to astonish and depress them as if it were something wholly different from what, as Christians, they might have expected (iv. 12). On the contrary, they should rejoice as they thought of the connection between present fellowship with Christ in His sufferings and future fellowship with Him in His glory (iv. 15); nay, they should count the very suffering for Him to be itself true glory (iv. 14). But let them see to it that they suffered never for evil-doing, but always strictly as Christians (iv. 15, 16). Their sufferings were fitted to awaken in them a thankful remembrance of God’s grace to them in Christ; for, if sin be so evil that even His own people need for discipline such painful trials here, how awful must that doom be which awaits His enemies hereafter, and from which His love saves believers (iv. 17, 18)! Therefore, thinking of all His goodness, let them trust Him fully, earnestly doing His will (iv. 19). At this point the apostle proceeds to give special injunc- tions to the elders of the various congregations (v. 1-3), and encourages them in their work by reminding them of the glorious reward which awaits Christ’s faithful servants (v. 4). By correlation, this naturally leads to a special word of exhortation to the younger members (v. 5a), followed by injunctions for all to be humble, trustful, and watchful ae FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InrRop. against the temptations of the devil (v. 50-9). The hortatory part of the Epistle then closes with an affectionate prayer for the suffering brethren, ending with a doxology (ye alO.5141)), After this come a few concluding words. The apostle makes a kind reference to his messenger Silvanus, and states in a summary way what had been his purpose in writing the letter (v. 12); sends the Christian salutations of the Church at Babylon, and those of Marcus (v. 13); calls on his readers to “greet one another with a kiss of love” (v. 14a); and ends, as he began, with a benediction (v. 14). 5, This outline of the contents of the letter shows suf- ficiently that the apostle does not write specially to teach theology, but, by practical advice and kind encouragement, to strenethen the religious life of persons assumed to be already well-informed Christians. His references to theology include nothing which is not, in substance, set forth also in other parts of the New Testament,—with the exception, according to one interpretation of chap. i. 19, 20, iv. 6, of a statement regarding the Lord’s work during the three days between His death and resurrection. 6. As compared with Paul, the apostle of faith, and John, the apostle of love, Peter is sometimes called the apostle of hope. There is ground for this name. The words eAmis and édrifew, indeed, do not occur in the letter unusually often G. 3, 13, 21, i. 5, 15); but—as was most natural, in any circumstances, in an old man, worn with labour and looking forward to the martyr’s death, of which his Lord had long before told him, and specially natural when he was writing to Christians placed in the midst of sore trial—he constantly turns his own thoughts and theirs to the joys and glories of the future life (cf. i 3-8, 13, i. 7, iv. 13, v. 1, 4, 6, 10). “ Everything is seen in the light of the end. The ‘ appearing’ of Jesus Christ fills the view” (Salmond). Yet at the same time this loving, eager anticipation associates itself in the Epistle, in a very interesting way, with an unusual abundance INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oo of reference to the Old Economy. A peculiarly cherished aspect, evidently, in the apostle’s mind, of the Church of Christ—one which is presented to us in the first words of the superscription, and constantly, in many ways, throughout— is that of the spiritual Israel of God. The retrospective and prospective tendencies harmonize beautifully; and it is hardly too much to say with Bonifas (L’Unité de lenseigne- ment apostolique, p. 55, cited by Lechler) that all the teaching of the Epistle is grouped round this central idea, L’Evangile —accomplissement des promesses,—et promesse a son tour. For a systematic exhibition of the doctrinal teaching found in the Epistle, Schmid’s or Weiss’s Biblical Theology of N. T. may be consulted, or Lechler’s Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times; and as to the Christology in particular, Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 294-299. 7. While thus our Epistle has very little in its teaching which can strictly be called distinctive, it has at the same time a well-marked character of its own. Those of the Pauline Epistles to which the aim and structure of Peter’s give it most resemblance are Philippians and First Thessalonians. But from these, as from all Paul’s writings, it is distinguished by its having announcements and exhortations merely, with little or nothing of formal reasoning; and also through the rarity in it of any reference to the writer’s own history and feelings, such as constitutes one most striking feature of Paul’s letters. Such reference is not altogether wanting here (v. 1); and, of course, in an Epistle like the present, addressed to Christians whom in all probability the apostle had not visited, there was in any ease less likelihood of much personal allusion than in Paul’s Epistles to the Churches of Philippi and Thessalonica, which he had himself founded. But, comparing Peter’s letter with those to the Romans and the Colossians, Churches which at the time of writing Paul knew only by report, we see Peter to be much nearer the impersonal in style than evidently was possible for the temperament of his brother apostle. 8. From the style of the Epistle of James, again, that of C 34 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INrROD. Peter's is very clearly marked off; in that, though Peter employs Old Testament phraseology considerably more than James does, his whole tone and current of thought are much more distinctively New Testament than James’s, whose writing is like that of a Joel or Amos of Christian times. 9. With the evidence regarding one feature of the Apostle Peter’s character which is afforded by the wealth of Christian consolation found in the Epistle, its literary structure also accords in a somewhat singular measure. From this literary structure itself one might gather him to have been a man of eminently sympathetic and receptive mind, one exceedingly open to impression from men or from books-—a characteristic which, whilst at times betraying his impulsive nature into what was weak or wrong, as on the occasion when he incurred Paul’s rebuke at Antioch, must have been one great element in his manifest power to win affection. The union of sympathy with the noble strength that lay at the basis of his character was the secret of his vast influence for good. The flower wreathed and beautified the “ rock.” This receptiveness of nature is illustrated in the frequency, referred to a moment ago, with which Old Testament language is employed by the apostle, not merely in the way of definite quotation, but as the vesture in which his own thoughts are clothed. It shows itself still more strikingly in his use of the writings of his fellow-apostle Paul. That echoes of these are to be recognised in our Epistle, hardly admits of reason- able doubt. It is true that on a considerable number of those coincidences of thought or of expression which are to be found no conclusion to this effect could safely be rested, because the coincidence may be sufficiently explained as due simply to the employment by both apostles of what had become commonplaces of the religious thought and language of their age. But some of the similarities, from their nature and from the connections in which they present themselves, cannot well be accounted for in this way. Such are the InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 30 following,—1 Pet. 11. 13, 14, compared with Rom, xii. 1, 3, 4; ty Pets i: 24, with’ Rom. vi... S—14; 1. Pet. ii. 8, 9, with coment. 102 M3=" 7251 Petsavs 15/2) fwith Rom. vi'6;. 7°; 1 Pet. 11. 16, with Gal. v.13. These are perhaps the strongest cases, and they seem to afford satisfactory proof of Peter's familiarity with Romans, and a strong probability also of his knowing Galatians. Similarities, more or less striking, of thought or expression, or both, between our Epistle and several others of Paul’s have been noticed. As regards Ephesians, in particular, some scholars—Holtzmann, Renan, Salmon, and others—have deemed the evidence of use by Peter to be satisfactory ; and there certainly is a probability, but the cases of likeness adduced do not appear to be so decisive as with respect to Romans." 1 The following similarities, in addition to those mentioned in the text, have been pointed out by one writer or another :— 1 Pet. i. 1, 2, with Eph. 1. 4-7. Ga. 2 » 2 Chess. ii. 13. ar re hee +n) up Ie 3 3 2 Cor. 1 3: Pom enoy ay ral. Bl ae BE a. AL) a pipe » LHph. ii. 3; Rom. xii. 2. ede LS, po pho tve 7, pete 2X); 5 Rom. iv; 24 xvi: 25; Col: 1.26: er ee 5, Kom. iv. 24. ee a De, 4 Om. XA1.,'9. 5 aL, io Coles 8: UO, » Rom. xii. 1; Eph. ii. 20-22. » li. 6-10, Oe ONL wx, .2o7 a2 for, ae dap vicky 5 Latova,. yyalih, Bp gee eS oe Ome. xl, 10; Sy) lila ish » mph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22. atl e2l » Rom. vi. 18. 2 ai a » Lph. v.22); Col. ii. 18. se nlilienes fA ey een in: inl Tsk oo pho 18, : 109, 12, Pella. 22, » Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20-22. el iv. 9; 5 bil sid., 14, saeuvs. 20 toll » Rom. xii. 6 foll. iver ls, SP eRoms vaio 7. re ale Se ROM. willl. Ss a Wats ye, eve 2 ai PASVE, Se » . Thess. v. 6. ri er, Eph. vi. 10. Bid) EA Se etre. Phil. ty. 19, Sor. Won det, a el Corexva. 20a -Rom ya! 165.11 Thess, v.26, In a good many of these cases the resemblance is exceedingly slight. 36 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [InrRop. 10. The question occurs whether, in thus again and again making use of passages in Paul’s Epistles, when writing to Churches which Paul had founded, and by many members of which in all likelihood some of these Epistles were well known, the Apostle Peter might not perhaps have a definite intention to suggest, in a quiet and unobtrusive but very convincing way, how complete was his confidence in Paul, and how warm his affection for him. This is obviously possible, and seems to be not improbable. here is evidence, both in statements of the New Testament and in early post- apostolic Christian literature, that, whilst complete cordiality and mutual confidence existed among the apostles themselves, yet in various places members of the Church «misapprehended entirely the relations of Peter and Paul to each other. An arrangement for division of labour adopted simply on grounds of expediency, and those slight diversities “in modes of procedure incident to the diversity in their ‘fidlds of action, were taken as evincing an important difference of religious opinion between the apostles of the circumcision on the one side, and Paul and his associates on the other. We have no information, nor any data from which we could reasonably infer, that among the Churches of Asia Minor there was anything like the definite sectarianism of Corinth, which had for battle-cries “I am of Paul,’ “and I of Cephas.” Still, remembering how active and influential, a few years before the probable date of our Epistle, Judaizers of different types had been in Galatia and at Colossee,—all of which class of teachers probably professed to regard the apostles of the circumcision as their special religious leaders——it seems far from unlikely that some misconceptions with respect to the relations between Peter and Paul may have been entertained in some of the Churches. The supposition that there did exist erroneous beliefs of this kind, of which Peter had heard, is certainly not at all needful to account for his use of Paul’s writings in his letter, nor indeed is it perhaps strictly necessary for the explanation of anything that occurs in the INTROD.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ok letter; but it does place his making use of Paul’s Epistles in a peculiarly beautiful light, and it gives, too, a special importance and force to such a statement as that so empha- tically made in i. 12, that Paul and the other founders of the Churches in those parts had “ preached the: gospel to them with the Holy Ghost sent down from. heaven,” and that other in v. 12, where Peter mentions it as one of his objects in writing the Epistle, “to testify that this”—the system of beliefs and hopes which he had illustrated in. his. letter, and which all his readers must have felt to be at every point essentially the same as that which Paul had: taught them— “was the true grace of God,” and urges them to “stand in this grace.” Language like this-reasonably suggests that the writer knew some among his readers to have been disposed to set a Petrine doctrine of “the grace of God” over against the Pauline, and that therefore Peter judged it needful to- declare, in the most explicit way, that Paul’s gospel and _ his- gospel were one—which had been taught to Paul, as to him,. “ by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” Such suggestion comes forward in the latter of the passages just quoted more definitely and vividly if we read év 7, éoryjxare than if we follow the better- supported reading o7jTe; but with the imperative also it seems naturally to present itself in some measure. 11. There appears to be considerable reason to believe that echoes of the Epistle of James also, as well as. of the Pauline writings, are to be recognised in Peter’s letter. When we remember the impressibleness and receptiveness of Peter’s mind, this is antecedently probable.. James and he had long been closely associated in labour, and in all likeli- hood were intimate friends; and there can be little doubt that James’s Epistle had been published many years before the time when Peter wrote his. Two of the similarities of the one letter to the other are hardly, in themselves, proofs of reminiscence, namely, the quotations from O. T. which are madean' Jag.) yO, EL, tv. 205-and also’: in’ 1. Pet: - i, 24, 3 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [INTROD. iv. 8; for the passages cited are such as may reasonably be assumed to have been familiar to every pious Jew. In both instances, moreover, the quotations are more full in Peter than in James, and are applied somewhat differently. Buta comparison of Jas. i. 2, 3, with 1 Pet. i 6, 7, and of Jas. iv. 6-10, with 1 Pet. v. 5—9, certainly establishes a strong likelihood that in these places the one writer influenced the other. 12. Whilst, however, the Epistle thus gives evidence of the receptiveness of the apostle’s mind, individuality also, as has already been said, shows itself clearly in the mode in which the various subjects are dealt with. Looking at them from a point of his own, his treatment has always freshness and interest. As regards the sufferings of Christ, for instance, whilst clearly bringing out their atoning character (i. 18, 19, ii. 24, iii, 18), he dwells also with peculiar fulness on the aspect of example which they present to believers amid the oppositions of the world, both in that they were wholly undeserved, and in that they were borne with perfect patience and sweetness of spirit (ii. 21-23, iii. 17, 18, iv. 1, 13). The mediatorial position of the Lord, too,—the fact that all holiness and all happiness for men are “through” Him,— comes before us in the letter with striking frequency, and occasionally in somewhat unusual aspects. The hope of His people has life “through His resurrection” (i. 3). Faith in God comes to men “through Him” (i. 21). The spiritual sacrifices of the saints are acceptable to God “through Him ” (ii. 5). Salvation is “through His resurrection” (iii. 21). In the wise use of spiritual gifts by Christians God is glorified “through Him” (iv. 11). Closely analogous also is that pointed enunciation of the truth that before the incarnation, as well as since, divine revelation to man has been “through Christ,” which is given by the name “the Spirit of Christ” (i. 11), applied to the Divine Teacher of the prophets, and also—according to what seems to be the probable meaning of the passage—by the statement (i111. 19, 20) that the pre- InTROD. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 39 incarnate Logos “preached” to the antediluvians. But the chief specialty of the apostle’s cast of thought, as represented in this letter, is that to which attention has previously been directed, the singularly interesting union of retrospect and prospect, his living so much in musings on O. T. words and scenes, and at the same time so much in anticipation of the “olorious appearing” of the Lord, and the blessedness of the New Jerusalem. The apostle has some striking individualities of phrase. Such, for instance, are the “living hope” (i. 3), and “ for con- sciousness of God” (ii. 19). Lexically, also, our Epistle has a good deal which is peculiar, there being sixty words which occur only here in N. T.,.— including several found elsewhere only very rarely, or not at all, such as ampocwroAjpTtTas, adAoTpLETLO KOTTOS, apYLToluny, auvekdexTos. These last words, or one or other of them, may possibly be creations of the apostle himself, a natural enough outcome of his eager, impetuous temperament. 13. As regards syntax, the apostle’s style of expression has little which is peculiar. His sentences are generally simple and lucid. They are often short; and expansion, where it does occur, is of an easy and natural kind,— one rather favourite form with him, especially in hortatory passages, being the keeping of a considerable series of thoughts in connection with one main verb, by using participles (see, for instance, ii, 13 foll.). Paul also somewhat loves this structure (see, for example, Rom. xi. 9 foll.). Peter is fond, too, of introducing what are substantially new sentences by the relative pronoun (cf. i. 6, 8, 10, 12, ii. 4)—a mode of expression which crept into the later Greek probably through the influence of Latin. It is not infrequent also in other parts of N. T., but is somewhat specially common in Peter. * A list of these words is given in the Appendix to Thayer's edition of Grimm’s N. T. Lexicon. COMMENTARY. —-0 CHAPTER: sf Vv. 1, 2. Superscription and Salutation. Ver. 1. The new name given to the apostle by his Master appears to have been, as was natural, that which he com- monly employed, and by which he was generally known in the Church,—usually in the Greek form, as here, not unfre- quently also in the Aramaic, “ Cephas” (Paul using the two indifferently). The name “Simon” or “Symeon,’ however, familiar to his early friends, was not discarded either by them or by him (cf. Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet.i.1). His appending to his name his official appellation, aootodos “Incod Xpiotod, natural and usual in any case in a letter of this kind, has obviously a special pertinence in the present instance, from the fact that Peter was writing to Churches which he had not himself planted, ner even perhaps ever visited. The title “apostle” is a reminder at the outset that the writer was one of that little group of servants of Christ to whom had been given by the Master the oversight, not of particular congrega- tions, but of the whole Church. By some good interpreters (as Leighton and Brown) it has been held that é«Aextots here does not point to God’s eternal choice, but to the result of that choice, the selection and separation in time—the “calling,” in fact—of the persons spoken of. In support of this sense reference is made to the use of ékAéyeoOae in John xv. 19; 1 Cor.i. 26-28. To this view of the meaning in the present passage these scholars are led by consideration of the adjunct in ver. 2, €v dyacpe I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 41 IIvevpatos. Obviously, when these words come in, the actual separation from the sinful world is in the apostle’s mind, the preposition év, in the connection, clearly indicating a means, whilst of the divine eternal choice this dysacpos is un- doubtedly a result. But it is not needful on this account to suppose that our apostle uses é«AexTots with a different refer- ence from that which the word usually has. Starting with the thought of the all-efficient divine choice, the mind of a reader follows down the line of the operation of this choice towards the actual severance which it brings about; and thus an allusion to means has in it nothing unnatural. On the other hand, when looked at in connection with the jirst of the adjuncts, KaTa Tpoyvwow KTX., any other reference of éxAexTols than to the eternal choice does seem unnatural and improbable ; for one instinctively thinks of the passage thus far as being precisely parallel to Paul’s ods mpoéyvw kal mpowpice (Rom. viii. 29). As to the meaning of wapemiOdypmous Svacrropas, and as to the history of the Churches in the various districts named, see the Introduction, § II. The words émiédnwos and éridnpety are found employed by writers of the best age in the sense of making a temporary home among strangers (e.g. Plato, Apol. Soc. § 4), as well as with their primitive force of living among one’s own people; and among the later writers the secondary use became the prevalent one (cf. Acts i. 10, xvii. 21). In the compound srapemidnwos prominence is given to this thought of temporary residence by the pre- position,—living “ beside” the dwellers, not strictly “ among” them. On the pilgrim state of believers compare, besides references given in the Introduction, Phil. iii. 20, Heb. xii. 14, also a fine chapter of Hermas, Sim. i., and the well-known and exquisite passage in the Epistle to Diognetus, chap. v. Ver. 2. The grammatical connection of the three expres- sions which form the first part of this verse is not altogether clear. By a number of the older interpreters, as Oecumenius and Theophylact (with whom a few of the modern agree, as Kahnis and—alternatively, but seemingly with preference— 42 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2. Canon Cook), these adjuncts are attached to dmooTonos. A statement similar to that which we should thus have here respecting divine appointment to the apostleship, and respect- ing the aim of that office, is found in the superscription of several of the Pauline Epistles, the one in Romans, in particular, corresponding pretty closely to that supposed to be given here. But Peter’s arrangement of words is utterly against this view of the connection. In every case Paul ends all that he means to say in the way of expanding the designation “apostle,” before he proceeds to name those to whom he writes. Cook’s position, that Peter’s mention of the persons addressed—which is quite evidently one of the two main parts of the sentence—may be regarded as paren- thetical, is wholly unnatural and untenable. Huther takes the connection of these adjuncts to be with é«dexTols mapemonuwows ; but, having regard to the meaning of the clauses, it seems to be decidedly most natural, with the majority of interpreters, to attach them immediately and simply to é«dexrois. In beginning a letter of specifically Christian instruction and counsel, the apostle of necessity had the distinctive position, privileges, and character of Christians vividly present to his mind; and the thought regarding these which rose up before him most prominently was that of the glorious grace of God to which they were due. Thus he naturally gave é«Xexrois the emphatic position which it has,—thus he naturally carried the thovght of exdextots with him over the enumeration of the provinces, and to 7 attached the words which follow,—thus naturally also, immediately after the superscription and salutation, he opens the letter itself with a glowing doxology, acknowlede- ing God’s “abundant mercy.”——The three adjuncts set forth respectively the origin of election, the means by which it acts, and its aim. In this series we observe a distinct reference to the Trinity, these expressions exhibiting the loving interest and participation of the Three Persons of the Godhead in the work of redemption,—here particularly in the application of I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 43 redemption. The choice of God’s peculiar people has its origin in the will of the Father, works out its purpose through the renewing and consecrating influence of the Spirit, and has for its aim full enjoyment by them of the salvation purchased through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The first of this series of epexegetical statements, as has been said, exhibits the origin of the ékAoyn. In the connec- tion there can be no reasonable doubt that this is what is indicated by cata. The primary sense of this preposition (cf. Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 182) seems to be “in line with ” (see, for example, Acts xxvii. 7). From this all its varied applications naturally spring. In that most common use exemplified in the present passage, where the preposition is an expression of parallelism or correspondence in the most general way, answering to our English “according to,” the precise nature of the relation intended depends on the nature of the objects which are exhibited in connection with each other. Now, seeing that in our passage the three adjuncts evidently set before us a cowrse, which is carried forward éy, and leads es, cata is naturally taken to indicate the origin- ating influence; and, comparing Scripture teaching elsewhere with respect to the relation between election and the divine foreknowledge (Rom. viii. 29), we cannot hesitate in the judgement that the force of xara is “ by virtue of, in pursuance of.’ The connection is one of cause and effect. By mpoyveors, as the word is here employed, more appears to be meant than simple prescience. As has been already seen, it is clearly represented as being an active power, the influence which originates a course of procedure. This being borne in mind, then, there appear to be, if we take simple prescience to be meant, two possible complements. (1) The meaning might be, “ by virtue of God’s foreknowledge of what in all circum- stances would best promote the grand ultimate aim of all His working, His own glory.” This would be true and relevant. But the connection in which wpdyvwous here stands seems to forbid our filling out the thought with anything so general as 44 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ten os this, and to require something referring specifically to the €xAexTot themselves. This objection is sustained, too, by the fact that in both the places where the verb mpoywooxew occurs in N. T. in any connection similar to the present (Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2), its object is personal. (2) Supposing, then, a special reference to the elect, we might take the meaning to be “by virtue of God’s foreknowledge of excellence or attractiveness, faith or holiness, in certain persons.” But the position that election is Kata mpdoyvwouv, with such a force of rpoyvwars as this, is directly opposed to the teaching of Scripture (eg. 2 Tim. 1. 9; Rom. ix. 11), cause and effect, indeed, being by such a representation made to change places (Eph. i. 3, 4),—-and self-contradiction is thus introduced into the present passage, even taken simply by itself, for it describes those of whom it speaks as being é«AexTol evs vmaxonv. With neither of what appear to be the only possible complements, therefore, is the sense of mere prescience tenable. Besides the objections which have been mentioned, another presents itself in the structure of the sentence, there being, as has been seen, in the series of adjuncts a clear reference to the Three Divine Persons. This structure seems plainly to require in the first member of the series what is obvious in the other two, not mention of a general attribute of the Godhead, but of something which Scripture has taught us to recognise as special in the relation borne to the work of redemption by the Divine Person named. Now, with regard to God the Father, the eternal purpose is what is constantly made prominent; cf. eg. Eph.i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9; Jas a 28s Thus we are naturally led to think of the idea of purpose, predetermination, as involved with prescience, in the sense of mpoyvwors as the word is used in our passage. It is true that this cannot be shown to have been a classical use of either the substantive or its cegnate verb, a fact which, according to his wont, is decisive with Meyer in his lengthened and able discussion of the question (on Rom. viii. 29). But with the fact before us that a quite familiar classical use ay 9] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 45 of the simple verb ysyvo@oxe is in the sense of “ resolve, decide”. (as Herod. i. 74, 78), there seems to be nothing arbitrary, or other than entirely natural, in our giving the corresponding force to the compound with po in N. T., if the course of thought in the places where the word occurs appears plainly to call for some such sense. It may, like many other words, receive a heightening of its significance when baptized into Christianity; just as, for example, an element of approbation and affection enters sometimes into the sense of the simple verb yiyveoxery in N. T. use (as Matt. vii. 23; 1 Cor. vill. 3), in accordance with a common use of the Hebrew YV (as Amos iii. 2). That the course of thought in those passages in N. T., where zrpoywockey and mpoyvects are said of God, does demand something additional to the simple sense of prescience, has been felt by a very large proportion even of those expositors who doubt whether “ predetermination”” is meant; many (as Tholuck, Hofmann, Delitzsch, T. 8. Green) adopting in some form that notion of affectionate regard which has just been mentioned as found sometimes in the simple verb. But this does not suit all the passages; see Acts il. 23, and ver. 20 of the present chapter. The sense of purpose fits all the places; and it cannot but be felt that, as applied to God, this meaning attaches itself to “‘mpoyvecis altogether naturally, for the prescience of “ Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” is simply His consciousness of His:own purpose in all its ramifications. Supposing an element of purpose to be in- cluded in the force of the word, still plainly in our passage ““ election,’ as in Rom. vill. 29 “ predestination,” is distin- cuished from it. What the distinction is, we have not data for judging, further than that evidently the divine tpoyvaats is represented as the basis on which the divine é«Xoy7 or Tpoopioos rises, or the source from which it springs. The fact that with regard to the counsels of the Infinite One we cannot determine with precision the respective reference of the words, is plainly not in itself any reason for concluding 46 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2. that the element of purpose does not enter at all into the sense of mpoyvears ; but it is a good reason why, not assuming to know more than we do know, we should content ourselves in translation with the simple rendering of the word which the Spirit has chosen to employ, “ foreknowledge.” On the force of rpoyvwars, cf. Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 29. - The second of the adjuncts to éxNextois, év aylacue IIvevparos, sets forth the means by which the divine choice reaches its aim, “in (through) consecration of (by) the Spirit.” The force of the root ay-, in &ycos, &yos, dfowas KTH, Sanscr. jag, is “ religious reverence or awe;” cf. Curtius, Gr. Ltym. (KE. T.) i. p. 199. Into &yos and its derivatives biblical usage poured a rich ethical significance, no word perhaps showing more the transfiguring power of divine revelation. The sense of “to be revered simply as set apart for the service of God,” presents itself when ayos is used of the temple, the shewbread, the oil for anointing the priests, and the like. Similarly, when the sinless Lord Jesus applies the word dyagev to Himself (John x. 56, xvii. 19), the simple sense of the verb is “ consecrate, set apart for priestly service.” But where sinful beings are said dysdfeo@ar, reference to character becomes prominent, the spiritual unction to service imparting that holiness without which there can be no true service. On the N. T. meaning of a&ysos and its cognates, cf. particularly the excellent discussion of Cremer. The substantive aysacpos— which, like the verb, is unknown to classical Greek—denotes strictly, according to its termination, an act in process, and this primarily (cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. §§ 357, 361) in immediate relation to the actor, that is to say, answering to the active voice of the verb, — transition, however, to the passive aspect, or ultimately to the state resulting, being easy and frequent. In the case before us the course of thought appears to lead most naturally to the passive aspect, €v ayracue being thus equivalent to év 7@ (or dua Tob) aydfeo ar. In most of the passages in N. T. where dysacqos occurs, it seems to be used (cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19) not, according to the I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 47 primary force of this class of nouns, of the formation of holy character, but, according to that tertiary force mentioned above to which they often tend, of the character itself, “ holiness.” In 2 Thess. ii. 13, however, where the whole combination found here occurs, and still more decidedly in the place before us, the idea of process seems to be distinctly required. The course of thought suggests, too, that “consecration” is the exact word, rather than “ sanctification.” “ Sanctification,” with its specific ethical reference, would seem, with “ unto obedience ” following immediately, to involve something of tautology, which is avoided by the more general “ consecra- tion ””— separation to sacred function and privilege. If, moreover, we take “ sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ ” to mean “ justification,” as is natural, then obviously the wide word “consecration” is the suitable one in describing the means. This designates the gracious work of the Spirit of God on the souls of God’s chosen, in its full length and breadth,—pointing in the first instance to conversion, but including also that continued stimulating and supporting influence, that continued “ unction,’ which maintains the - consecration in constant freshness. — IIvevyatos might be regarded as an objective genitive, the “spirit” being that of man; but N. T. usage with regard to this word in connec- tions at all like the present favours the sense of “the Divine ? Spirit;” and the clear reference in the series of adjuncts to the Trinity is quite decisive—As mentioned above, the com- bination é€v aysaopo IIvevparos occurs also in 2 Thess. ii. 13. The striking character of the expression, and the kindred nature of the sentences in which it occurs in the two Epistles, make it not improbable that this is one of our apostle’s occasional reminiscences of Paul’s writings. The last of the three adjuncts sets forth the aim of election. Summarily stated, this aim is eternal life. Of this the apostle exhibits the two main elements separately. A question of construction presents itself here. It is possible to regard the genitive Inood Xpiotod as governed by traxonv 48 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ir as well as by aiuatos, and the combination traxony Xpictod occurs in 2 Cor. x. 5. Some, as Steiger, favour this construc- tion, being mainly influenced by the structure of the other two adjuncts, in each of which there is compactness, “ the Father’s foreknowledge,” “the Spirit’s consecrating grace.” This does raise a certain likelihood that here also the apostle is looking at all he says as in immediate relation to Christ. But the double construction is somewhat awkward and unnatural, the genitive being objective in relation to the one governing sub- stantive, and possessive in relation to the other. Coming in, moreover, as the expression eds vmaxonv does, to express the aim, as regards character, of “election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,’ who in the scheme of redemption represents the majesty of the Godhead, it seems probable that the exact form of the apostle’s thought was “unto obedience to God;” which is readily suggested by the expression taken absolutely, “ unto obedience.” The initial act of evangelical obedience is faith in Christ (John vi. 29; 1 John ii. 25), and the fundamental element in all evangelical obedience is continued faith. In various combinations draxovew and tbmaxon are employed in N. T. to set forth this aspect of faith; cf Acts vi. 7; Rom. vi. 17, x. 16, xvi. 26. In baxoy, therefore, as here used plainly with its broadest reference, faith is included ; and the apostle’s mode of speaking elsewhere in the Epistle leads naturally to the thought that probably, in employing the word here abso- lutely, this particular form or element of obedience had special prominence in his mind; cf. 1. 22, and, as regards the negative aspect, ii. 8, iii, 1, iv. 17. Again, faith is shown by the references made to it in vv. 5, 7, 9, to have been vividly present to the apostle’s thoughts throughout the whole of the opening passage. Thus, when a reader, seeing how in our clause “ obedience” is linked to “ the sprinkling of the blood of Christ,” and stands first in the combination, instinctively puts faith in the foreground in his conception of the intended meaning of “ obedience,” he seems to be fully supported by 1:52.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 49 all the data. To take wmaxon here, however, as precisely equivalent to the expression vraxon Tis adnOelas (ver. 22),— that is to say, as meaning “ faith” simply,—would certainly be unnatural and contrary to analogy. The word means “ obedience ” in the widest sense, submission of heart and life to God (cf. ver. 14 ; Rom. vi. 16), but with faith, as the funda- mental element of obedience, intended to stand ont with special vividness. Like @ysacpos (on which see note above), pavtucpos belongs only to biblical Greek. Here also, as- with év dysacpe, the sense is naturally taken to be passive, “ unto sprinkling” being =“ to be sprinkled.” When under the Old Economy sacrificial blood was sprinkled, this represented the applica- tion of its power; see Ex. xii, 2, xxiv. 8. In N. T. this mode of expression is employed with regard to the great Antitype; see Heb. x. 22, and particularly xii. 24, where the Saviour’s blood is spoken of under the striking name of atua pavticpov,—that is, plainly, “ blood, the grand purpose of the shedding of which was that it might be sprinkled on sinners.” Thus in our passage eis pavticwov xTX. means “ unto ex- perience of the saving application of the power of Christ’s sacrifice.” What then is pointed to by this expression,—the justifying power of the atonement, or its sanctifying power, or both ? By some expositors (as Steiger) the second of these references is maintained, the meaning of the whole clause being taken to be “unto obedience and experience ”—that is, practically, “and this through experience ”__* of the spiritu- ally purifying efficacy of Christ’s blood,” its power to open the way for the bestowal of the influence of the Holy Ghost, and to stir men to holy action by the exhibition of the strongest motives to love and obedience. The structure of the clause would thus be closely analogous to that expression in John iil. 5, “ born of water and of the Spirit,” taken in what is probably the true meaning, “ born of moral renewal, and this through the Spirit.”. The chief or only ground suggested for adopting this view of the meaning of Peter’s words is that to D Bit) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 2. say “unto obedience and justification” seems to be to put the words in the inverse order from that which N. T. teaching would lead us to expect, seeing that a justified man alone can give evangelical obedience. But this difficulty is obviated, at all events to a great extent, when it is seen, through a con- sideration of various data, that in all likelihood the thought of fuith was with special vividness before the mind of the apostle in the meaning which he attached to vzaxony, Supposing this objection out of the way, there cannot well be any hesitation in admitting that the probable reference of pavticpov KTX. is to justification. That in a passage setting forth the gracious purpose of God with respect to His chosen people there should not be any mention of the standing which they have before Him as accepted in His Son, is certainly unlikely ; and that in such a passage there should not be any reference to this even where the blood of Christ is expressly mentioned, is unlikely in the very highest degree. What was primarily denoted in the sprinkling of blood under the Old Economy was, there can be no reasonable doubt, the removal of guidt— liability to punishment. The case of the Passover in Egypt, when the sprinkled blood secured for Israel safety from the stroke of the destroying angel, shows this with special clear- ness. It cannot well be questioned, therefore, that by his words here our apostle pointed to justification. Had varaxoyjy been absent from the clause, or had there been reason to take uraxonv as precisely equivalent to wio7w, there might have been some ground for regarding pavticmov «7X. as referring both to justification and sanctification,—as, for example, a reader readily holds both to be pointed to by the language found in 1 John i. 7 and Rev. vii. 14. But this is not natural here. Of the ordinary apostolic formula of salutation, “ grace to you and peace,” the basis, no doubt, is the customary word of greeting among the Semitic races, “ Peace” (Matt. x. 12, 13). The comprehensive application of the Hebrew pibe’__which a large induction of cases shows to stretch out, in its reference, from tranquillity to comfort and prosperity generally, “welfare” I. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5d in the widest sense—may safely be recognised also in the N. T. etpyvn. At the same time, the original element is always the main one, “ peace, restfulness of heart.” By including yapis in their formula, the apostles lead up the thoughts of their readers to the great Fountain of true peace. The sequence was similar in the later members of the Jewish priestly benediction, “The Lord . . . be gracious unto thee, the Lord .. . give thee peace” (Num. vi. 25, 26); and it is not impossible that this may have influenced the form of the apostolic salutation. Some scholars regard the N. T. formula as having sprung from a combination of the Hebrew with the usual Greek epistolary greeting, yaipew (Acts xv. 23, xxiii, 26; Jas. i. 1),—the combination symbolizing perhaps the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ, and thus indirectly making an appeal for unity of spirit between the Jews and Gentiles who were members of those Christian congregations to which the apostles wrote. This suggestion is ingenious and interesting, but its soundness seems questionable. It accords with the data only in a superficial way, for though yapss and xyaipew are no doubt cognate, yet the meaning of the one is considerably removed from that of the other. Had such been the origin of the formula, yapa seems to be the substantive which would naturally have been employed.—While Paul, in his letters, following the Hebrew form, omits a verb in his salutation, Peter both here and in the Second Epistle, and Jude also, have wAnOuvGein. This is found in O. T. in the salutation of two royal proclamations (Dan. iv. 1 [iii 31, LXX.], vi. 25), and occurs occasionally also in the Rabbinical writings (see Wetstein, 7 loc.). Of course there is no sub- stantial difference of meaning between wAnOurOein and the understood e’ of the Pauline form: only Peter’s form implies, or at least suggests, what the other taken simply by itself does not, that those to whom he writes already in some measure enjoy “ grace and peace.” In this form of expression, as in so much else, Polycarp in his Epistle follows Peter,— Clement of Rome also. On the anarthrousness which is 52 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [l: 3: common in the superscriptions of Greek letters, as in addresses of letters and headings of documents of all kinds among ourselves, and which is very marked in these first two verses, cf. Winer, p. 140, n. 6. Vv. 3-9. Ascription of praise to God for His grace in Christ, . which not only secwres to His people a glorious imheritance - in heaven, but gives them here unspeakable joy, even though Sor a time they may have sore trials. Ver. 3. On the apostle’s course of thought (seen in the superscription), which naturally leads him to begin his letter proper with a doxology, cf. above, near beginning of notes on ver. 2.—EvAoynrtos is in N. T. said of God only, the parti- ciple evAoynwévos being employed where men are spoken of as “blessed.” In the LXX. also this distinction is generally eround is no doubt this, that whilst the o participle simply states the fact, “blessed,” the adjective observed. Its either directly asserts, or even if used participially suggests by its form, worthiness of blessing. By Philo attention is drawn to this distinction : evAoynTos, od povoy evAoynmévos’ TO per yap T@ TepuKévat evrdoyias aEvov, TO SE TO vomiCecHau AéyeTat povoyv (Migr. Abrah., Mang. p. 453).—It is not quite clear whether the verb to be supplied in this and similar doxologies is eln (“ praised be”) or éoré (“ worthy to be praised is ”) ; cf, A. Buttmann, p. 137. In iv, 11 and in Rom G@azonen indicative is expressed, and in 2 Cor, xi, 31 there is a parti- ciple answering to an indicative. In these cases, however, the clause is a secondary one, and therefore the construction appears hardly to present a perfect analogy to that in the place before us, where we have the main clause of the sentence, and in it the predicate evAoynros stands at the beginning with an emphasis which may naturally be judged to suggest that the sentence is expressive of a direct longing of the Christian heart, thus requiring the supplement ev, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. vO = 2° Leeed! rather than simply a doctrinal statement ¢€o7/; cf. Job i, 21 (Heb. and LXX.). The designation of God as 0 Oeds kal IIatip tod Kupiov nav ’Incov Xpiotovd occurs several times in N. T.: Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3,—a little differently, 2 Cor. xi. 31; cf. also Rev. i. 6. IIatnp, as applied to God, being often employed anarthrously in N. T., the construction may be “God and the Father—ze. He who is God, and is the Father—of our Lord Jesus Christ;” but seeing that the name, “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ is perfectly con- sistent with Scripture usage (Eph. i. 17; John xx. 17; Matt. xxvii. 46), there seems to be no good reason for departing from what is the most natural and obvious construction, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’—-The whole of this clause, from etAoyntos to Xpiorod, occurs also in Ephesians and in 2 Corinthians, occupying in both Epistles precisely the same position as here, namely, at the beginning of the paragraph which immediately follows the superscription. As used by Peter, the words may be a reminiscence from one of these Epistles; but the clause is in itself so natural a one to introduce our apostle’s train of thought, and the words are so simple and natural a vesture for the idea, that the proof of reference to Paul cannot be deemed strong. The ground of the evAoy/a, which has been already implied in the name, “ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” is expressly set forth in the long participial clause which follows, going on to the close of the 5th verse—The verb avayevvaw occurs in N. T. only here and in ver. 23 of this chapter, but the thought conveyed by it is found in the apostolic writings everywhere, under various forms of expres- sion, — Paul’s waduyyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5), John’s réxva Ocod yevéeoOar and ex Ocod yevynOjvac (John i. 12, 13), James's amoxvelaGat oyw adnOcias (Jas. i. 18), whilst Peter's word here'is only a slightly altered form of our Lord’s own yevvn- Ojvar dvwGev (John iii. 3)—The thought of the goodness of God in redemption being the starting-point of the sentence, 54 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ho the apostle, in speaking of regeneration, naturally introduces a reference to its origin in the divine grace, cata (here prac- tically causal, as in ver. 2) Td mroAv avdrod édeos; cf. Eph. ii. 4, 7. On the occasional placing of a’rod between the article and the substantive, particularly where, as here, this position is occupied also by another attributive expression, see A. Buttmann, p. 116. On the exact force of €Xeos as distin- guished from yapis, see Trench, Syn. V. 7. § 47.—The imme- diate purpose of God in His work of grace is set forth in the form “ that we may enjoy (e/s) a hope which has life,” ze. not merely “which has vividness and energy,’ but particularly (f@cav being taken in its fullest sense, as afOaptov and audpavrov in the parallel clause which follows seem to sug- gest) “ which is imperishable,’—sustained by divine grace, and certainly coming through eternity to ever fuller fruition (cf. i, 23; John iv. 10, vi. 51, vii. 38). “ Living” is a favourite epithet with Peter; besides i. 23 just referred to, cf. also i. 4, 5. The connection in which the last words of the verse, 6v’ avactacews “I, X. éx vexpov, are meant to be taken, is not clear. They, may with equal grammatical propriety be attached to avayevynocas or to Cacav. If we adopt the former of these constructions, various meanings are possible. (1) The participle may point to the time of the actual regenera- tion of each believer, and the sense might be, perhaps, “ who regenerated us through Christ’s resurrection believed “wn,” “through Christ’s resurrection as that which, when believed in, gave us full trust in Him, being seen by us to seal all His claims and all His promises.’ This seems to be a strained and unnatural interpretation of the expression, “ through Christ’s resurrection.” (2) The participle may point to the time of our Lord’s resurrection, in which case the meaning will be that then God (virtually) “introduced us and all the rest of Christ’s people into newness of life by raising our Head from the dead.” This mode of representing the relation between Christians and their Lord—the dependence of our n~ I. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5d life upon His—is very common in the writings of Paul; cf. eg. Eph. ii. 4-6; Col. iii, 1. But it is to be observed that the representation of the case given here by Peter's word avayevynoas is considerably different from that of Paul, who to express the thought uses such terms as ouvSworovety and cuveyeipew, With these the Lord’s resurrection has a most exact and manifest accordance, whereas Peter’s word pictures the great spiritual change not as a rising from the dead, but as the origination of a new life by birth. Now with this the resurrection of our Lord corresponds only in a remote way. It is true that in Col. i. 18 and Rev. i. 5 our Lord is called TpwToToKos (ex) Tov vexpaov, language in which evidently His resurrection is conceived of as a birth from the dark womb of the grave; and that one or two other modes of expression elsewhere in N. T. appear to imply the same metaphor (thus, perhaps, for example, @dtvas in Acts ii, 24). But to that considerably harder and more obscure application of this figure, with the secondary reference, which, according to the view now under discussion, we are to recognise in the passage before us, there does not appear to be any analogy. “ Regene- ration through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” is a thought peculiar, unique indeed, and, as regards its precise sense, obscure. (3) Taking the verb dvayevvaw with a secondary force, the clause may be regarded (so Huther) as meaning “who awoke or aroused us anew to hope when we were in gloom and despair.” But that the verb is to be taken in this way is far from likely, when we consider the definite- ness of the conception of regeneration throughout the N. T., the fact that the apostle employs the word with its proper force in ver. 23, and the perfect suitableness of this proper force in the present place,—its special fitness, indeed, in the relation borne by the verb to e¢s «Anpovouiay which follows. If we join & dvactacews xT. in construction with Cacav, we have an interesting and beautiful thought given us, which is perfectly lucid, and is as fully relevant to the apostle’s purpose as any form of thought yielded by the other connection. 56 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Dae According to this view of the construction, the hope into which God introduces us by regeneration “ has life through the resurrection of Christ.” Hopes which are only of the earth have the curse of death upon them: they fail of realization, or, if they are realized in form, anticipated happiness is yet not attained. But the hope of those to whom God gives the new life of His children has itself life, and this through the trium- phant rising of the Lord, their Representative and Head. The sense yielded by this connection of the words is clear, suitable, and beautiful; and this construction seems on the whole preferable to the other. It has approved itself to Oecumenius, Bengel, Steiger, De Wette, Hofmann, and other expositors. Ver. 4. Thus far, in describing the position of privilege into which God’s grace brings His people through regenera- tion, the apostle has spoken of what is subjective, “hope,’— his special thought being, it is likely (considering the mean- ing of advayevynoas and of xAnpovouiav,—cf. Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal. iv. 7), “hope as a son.” In €acav a specialty of the hope of the child of God has been presented, this epithet implying a security of permanence which is wholly wanting to mere earthly hopes. In ets xAnpovouiay we pass to an express assurance that, as certainly as God’s children are begotten again to enjoy the hope of inheritance, are they begotten again to enjoy the inheritance itself—-By one or two expositors, indeed (as Jachmann), it has been proposed to construe e¢s KAnpovoutav, not as co-ordinate with efs éAziéa of ver. 3, but as dependent on édmida (cf. éAXaricate eri, ver. 13), —thus, “hope towards, or for, an inheritance,” = edmida kKXnpovoutas. But nothing whatever favours this connection. The sense which it yields is less forcible than that of the other; and the usage of the language and the balance of the sentence are both against it. As usual in the N. T. representation (e.g. Col. i. 24; Heb. ix. 15), the “inheritance” spoken of is the blessedness and glory of heaven, the spiritual privileges enjoyed by the Christian in this life being merely the appa@wv (Eph. i. 14). 4] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 57 To this inheritance the apostle ascribes attributes by which it is strikingly contrasted with the heritages of earth. It is apOapros, insusceptible either of decay from within or of injury from without; diavtos, absolutely free from moral taint or stain, such as is so apt to attach directly or indirectly to the possessions and inheritances of this world (hence our Lord’s wapwvas THs aduxias, Luke xvi. 9); and audpartos (ct. the sister form in v. 4), never in any degree losing the power to satisfy, not merely in its nature imperishable, but retaining for ever the bloom and fragrance of its joys. On apOapros and audpartos, see Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 68.—This great inheritance, Peter says further, though as yet only an object of hope, is in safe keeping. “To keep in store, keep for after bestowal,” is a common N. T. sense of typety (cf. eg. John ii. 10, xii. 7), and is especially frequent in Peter (ef. 2 Ep. ii. 4, 9, 17, iii. 7). Peter's word rernpnyévny here answers to Paul’s dzoxepévnr, Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8.—The frequent use in N. T. of the plural odpavoi is probably due to a natural imitation of the Hebrew plurale tantum DY2', which received its plural form, perhaps, through the tendency of Hebrew to express in this way the notion of extension. In this case, however, the general notion defined itself into a prevalent conception “ of a celestial structure rising by storeys, three or seven, advancing in brightness and glory. Of this idea there is a clear illustration in Heb. iv. 14; Eph. iv. 10” (T. S. Green, Crit. Notes, on Luke x. 18, 20). The transition from ds of ver. 3 to buds of ver. 4 is quite natural. The early clauses are purely a doxology, and the thought of “owr regeneration ”—of the divine goodness in this to the apostle himself as to other Christians—was pro- minent. But under the easily understood movement of the apostle’s mind the sentence bends itself towards that practical end of counselling and sustaining his brethren which was before his thoughts from the beginning: thus tuds enters.— Eis vuas, “unto you, with a view to you,” differs from the dative very nearly as in English “for” from “to,” when we 58 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LE oe speak of “giving to” but of “keeping for.” An interval of time is suggested, with also, in certain connections, the action of an intermediate agent; cf. vv. 10, 11; Mark vii. 193 Acts xxiv. 17; Eph. iii. 2; and see T. S. Green, WV. 7. Gram. peadi2: Ver. 5. The main purpose of this clause is evidently to sustain Christians against the fear of coming short of heaven, —to answer the cry of the anxious heart, “We doubt not that the inheritance is kept safe, but amid the temptations of the world what security have we that we shall not be swept far away from it?” To this natural question the apostle replies, “Be of good cheer, for as certainly as heaven is kept by God for His people, they are guarded by Him for heaven.” Bengel with characteristic pointedness says: Here- ditas servata est; heredes custodiuntur; neque illa his neque hi deerunt illi. P®povpovpévovs—with its military metaphor, “kept safe as in a povpsov” (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 32; Phil. iv. 7) —is obviously a word peculiarly fitted to sustain Christians when distressed by the thought of the number and power of their spiritual foes; and to this fitness contributes also the fact that the form here is that of the present participle, “who (already at the present moment) are within this glorious euardianship.” The words év dvvayes Ocod have been by some supposed to represent the power of God as itself the fortress (ppovpsov) within which Christians are guarded. This is perhaps giving greater detail and exactness to what appears to be a mere passing figure than is natural. Substantially the same sense is obtained in a perfectly satisfactory way by accepting the force of év already seen in é€v dyitacpwe (ver. 2), and so familiar everywhere in Hellenistic Greek, for position within an encompassing element or atmosphere which exerts an instrumental influence on the matter in hand. The power of God is an atmosphere surrounding and pervading the Christian, through which he is shielded from evil. When év, employed in this way, and dia come together, as here, év Eb. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. a9 sets forth a general causal or instrumental influence, whilst dia exhibits the special and immediate instrumentality ; ef. Heb. x. 10, Phil. i. 26,and see a not very satisfactory note in Winer, p. 486. In the present case, faith is the spiritual energy which enables the Christian to resist temptation successfully, and keeps him in that relation to God whereby is secured his ultimate enjoyment of the blessed inheritance of the saints,— motes thus being within and under the action of the dvvayis @cov. It is the encompassing, protecting, sustaining power of God which gives to faith that certainty of continued efficiency here asserted of it by the apostle. Peter had very special cause to remember that the continued existence of faith, as well as its origination, is absolutely dependent on the gracious exercise of “the power of God;” see Luke xxii. 32. The words which follow, e’s cwtnpiav xrX., are by some expositors joined to advayevyngas (ver. 3), the amplification of the thought of that verb by eds being taken to be threefold, els €drrida, els KANPoVoutay, eis owTnpiav. The rhetorical roundness of expression thus obtained hardly accords with the apostle’s general style; and a more serious ground of doubt whether this is the intended construction, lies in the fact that whilst there is a real advance of thought from the subjective “hope” to the objective “inheritance,” there is no advance from “inheritance” to “ salvation,’—these two, as the words are here used, being (cf. Heb. i. 14) as nearly as possible equivalent to each other. The ordinary construction, which takes the words e’s cwtypiay «Td. as stating the aim of gpovpovpévous xTA., is much more natural. Instead of pre- senting this aim simply by efs adrny (viz. tHv KAnpovomiar), the apostle yet more fully illustrates his subject by substitut- ing owtnpiay (cf. cwtnpias—xadprtos, ver. 10), and for the further comfort and stimulus of his brethren appends the assurance that not merely are the blessings which are repre- sented by this word laid up in the heavens, but that they are fully prepared, “ready” to be bestowed at the appointed time (cf. our Lord’s érouwdfew, John xiv. 2, 3). The use of 60 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 6-9. cwTnpla, as here, for the fulness of salvation to be reached in the future life, is very common in N. T.; cf. eg. Rom. xl. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 10.—The use of the aorist dvroxadupOjvar brings before us the sudden flashing forth of the glory of salvation on the sight of God’s children, when the appointed day of revelation comes; cf. Rom. viii. 18: tiv pédrAXovcav dofav amoxadudOfjvat. In v. 1, Peter has tijs peddovons atoxadurrtec Oat So0&ns, where the suddenness and vividness of the revelation are not made prominent,—the thought, perhaps, being rather of the revelation as beginning at our Lord’s coming, to grow fuller and richer throughout eternity.— Kaupos is freely used by the apostle, as by the other Hellenistic writers, in the sense of “a defined time” generally, not limited, as commonly in the classics, to “an opportune time;” cf.i.11, iv. 17, v. 6. The revelation of full salva- tion is to be made “in (or at) the last time,’—the time which is to end the history of the world under its present conditions of contending truth and falsehood, mingled happiness and misery; cf. the use of €oydtn jyépa, John vi. 39, xi. 24, xii. 48. Vv. 6-9. With regard to some parts of this sub-section the question arises whether the reference is to the present or to the future condition of believers. Obviously, so far as surface indications go, the present is spoken of, the main verbs being in the present tense. Looking a little more closely, however, we find that the language in which Christian joy is described is so very strong that it may seem inapplicable to the experi- ences of earth,—ayaAduay, itself a verb expressive of a high degree of joy, having attached to it the exceedingly emphatic words yapa avexdadytw Kai dedoEacpévyn. The statement, ayardaobe AvTnOévtes ev Trovkinows TEeipacmois, appears to bring this inapplicability prominently into view, and may be thought indeed to involve a distinct self-contradiction on the supposition that the main verb, as well as the participle, relates to the earthly life. The fact, too, that this participle is aorist may be judged to accord best with the supposition that the time of dyaddvdcGe is that of the heavenly life, I. 6-9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 61 when the AvrnPjvae will have for ever passed away,—“ after having been distressed.” Again, the clause forming ver. 9, which is attached to aya\Nate, and seemingly belongs to the same time as that verb, may appear to be suited only to the perfect emancipation from sin and sorrow. Still further—it being to a certain extent characteristic of the apostle’s style to begin sentences after the Latin fashion, with a relative pronoun referring to a subject spoken of in the preceding sentence, and particularly at the close of the preceding sentence (cf. vv. 8, 10), év at the beginning of ver. 6 may - seem to refer to év xatp® éoyato, and to mean “ at which time,” that is, the time of the Lord’s appearing. If these arguments be sound, then a@yaddacbe of ver. 6 and ayarmate of ver. 8 are to be regarded as what may be called presents of vivid prophecy, used in place of a future tense (cf. wapadidorat, Matt. xxvi. 2; xatapyeiras, 1 Cor. xv. 26). This view of the meaning of the passage has commended itself to a large number of excellent interpreters, including, of the more recent, Wiesinger, Huther, and Alford. Had the passage ended with the 7th verse, few probably would have differed from them, seeing that the obvious antithesis in a@pte AvTnGévtes to the thought, expressed or implied, of the future blessedness, suggests quite naturally the taking of aya\\aoGe as a present of vivid prediction. But it is plain that vv. 8, 9 are closely connected with vy. 6, 7, the whole constituting one paragraph. Vv. 8, 9, indeed, substantially, though with some difference in the mode of representation, take up and expand the leading thought of ver. 6, €v @ ayadNdaobe, which, through the coming in of the long subordinate clause on suffering and its aim, had there been exhibited only in the barest way. Whatever is the reference of ayad\vate in ver. 8, then, is also naturally taken to be the reference of a@yaAX\doGe in ver. 6. Now to take the verb in ver. 8 as referring to the future involves very grave difficulties. That in the two relative clauses whiclr appear to be so closely parallel to each other, év ov« 62 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [I. 6-9. KTA. and eis Ov apts KTr., the verb of the one, aya7arte, should be a real present (which beyond all question it is), and the verb of the other, aya\\ate, should be a present in form merely, with its real time future, is very unlikely. Again, that in the second of these relative clauses the parti- ciples belonging to ayaAAva7e should relate to a different time from their main verb (both their meaning and the particle dpte distinctly showing them to refer to the present life), and this without any tore (1 Cor. xiii. 12), or év odpavois, or other indication that ayaANG@te is in time severed from its participles and belongs to the future-——this is unnatural in the very highest degree. As regards the structure of the second relative clause, moreover,—supposing that ayaddate be taken as In meaning future, with its participles true presents, the antithesis between the described experience of Christians “now” (daptu), “Ye see Him not, but believe in Him,” and their described experience in the future, “ Ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,” is plainly imperfect, and imperfect in a way which in such a sentence is not natural, —some such statement as d@yad\adte opavTes avTov Kaos eo7t being required. Still further,—on the supposition that the references in this sub-section to the joy of Christians relate to the future life, it would be hard to see any definite purpose consistently followed out through the passage. As a whole, no doubt, the verses would contain a sketch of the blessedness of “the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time ” (ver. 5), setting forth its exceeding joy in contrast with the sorrows of the present life. Now, supposing this to be the apostle’s general aim in writing the passage, the clause “ whom having not seen ye love,” seems to come in somewhat irrelevantly. On the other hand, supposing the whole passage to refer to the present life, a consistent purpose can be traced out to the remotest ramifications of the sentence. In this case the apostle appears to be illustrating, not the closing words, but the central thought, of ver. 5, namely that the children of I. 6-9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 63 God are guarded by His power through faith unto salvation,— expanding particularly the idea “ through faith,” and, by an appeal to the experience which his readers already had of the power of faith, strengthening their hope that by God’s grace faith would sustain them through to glory. “ Think,” he says to them, “of what you already know on this matter by experi- ence. Through the thought of heaven presented to you vividly by faith you have great happiness, even though at the present for wise reasons you have not a few troubles, at times sore troubles. Hard as it is to cherish strong affection for one whom you have never seen, still, as your consciousness tells you, you are enabled by faith to do this. Hard as it is to have, or even to conceive of one having, intense pleasure in a kind of intercourse with another which is not maintained through any bodily sense, but is purely spiritual, still you have such joy, unspeakable, and, as you feel, of heavenly origin. In these fruits of faith—loving fellowship with Christ, and the exquisite and sublime happiness which such fellowship yields—you possess already the essential elements of heavenly blessedness. You are thus already in such measure receiving that end which your faith teaches you to long and to hope for, even the salvation of your souls, that you may well repose unwavering trust in the power of God, acting through the faith which He sustains, as able, notwith- standing all the distractions and oppositions of the world, to bring you safe to that fulness of salvation which yet remains to be revealed.” The view of the apostle’s object set forth in this paraphrase seems to accord with the whole structure of the passage; and the prominent way in which aiéotis and moTevelv are used in the section appears to show that some- thing of this kind really was his line of thought. The arguments urged in favour of taking the paragraph with a future reference look less strong after close examina- tion than they do at first sight; and, on the whole, the difficulties in the way of accepting the prima facie reference of the passage to the present life appear to be considerably 64 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. REN Gs less weighty than those which beset the other view. The language employed of Christian joy is undoubtedly very rich and intense, richer and intenser than accords with the average spiritual happiness of most believers; but probably every Christian has a remembrance of some times of peculiarly close communion with the Saviour, for which no words less strong than those of the apostle would seem fit. Not a few Christians have many such seasons. Now, if the apostle’s purpose was to point out to his readers what great things faith can do, as illustrated already in their own experience, then the memory of times of “joy unspeakable and full of vlory” was enough for his object, since every believer feels that such rich spiritual happiness is a. fruit of lively faith, aud that, if he has but little of it, this is due mainly to his living, through worldly influences, on a low level of faith. Other points will be dealt with in the course of exposition. Ver. 6. "Ev @ may have xatp@ as its antecedent, the meaning being either “at which (time),”—a sense suitable only on the supposition that the paragraph refers to the future, —or “at (or in) which,” with the force of “in the thought > or anticipation of which,” ayad\ao@au, like yatpew and other verbs of rejoicing, taking év to express its ground or basis (cf. John v. 55). But the most natural construction seems to be, keeping to this latter force of év, to take the pronoun as neuter, its antecedent being the gracious assurance con- tained in the previous sentence generally (cf. iv. 4)—The Hellenistic verb ayadAtaouat looks like a strengthened form for the classical aya\Xopas, with which it agrees in meaning. A. Buttmann, however (Gram. p. 51, note), observing it to be often used in the LXX. for the Hebrew 3, inclines to regard it as having arisen among the Greek-speaking Jews out of this Hebrew word, the Yod by a phonetic change familiar to philologists being represented by an iofa put after the liquid, and the form perhaps influenced somewhat by the Greek verb ayd\nowat. The word is a very strong one, “rejoice exceed- ingly, exult.” Besides that thought of a reference to the me Gs FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 65 future to which this strength of the language employed has led many interpreters, and which has already been discussed, the form ayad\aoGe is by some (as Augustine) on the same ground supposed to be perhaps imperative instead of indicative. The imperative, however, would be abrupt and not very natural here, and is wholly unnatural in the 8th verse. But the indicative employed to set forth the ideal of Christian experience, as often in Scripture, has really to the mind of every thoughtful believer the force of an imperative. The next clause, od\iyov «TX., sets forth a difficulty in the way of a@yadXlaows, by which the sublime power of faith, in enabling the Christians addressed actually ayad\acOat, is vividly illustrated. The participle, AurnOévres, has evidently its common concessive force, “though distressed:” ef. John xii. 837; 1 Cor. ix. 19. “Apte simply contrasts the present life with that of heaven,—in which (év #), as an object of thought and hope, the believer has his joy,—and therefore the aorist participle might conceivably point to a past within this present life. But the whole tone of the Epistle shows that with very many of the apostle’s readers the Au7etcOae was a present experience, and quite obviously the natural supple- ment to et déov is the present éoriv (which, as a matter of fact, is found in very many MSsS.). Peter’s thought, therefore, seems clearly to be of joy, not after, but in the midst of trouble, exactly as Paul’s “ distressed (Avmovpevor), yet always rejoicing,” “exceeding joyful in all our tribulation” (2 Cor. vi. 10, vii. 4). Our apostle’s choice of the aorist participle instead of the present seems to have been made to indicate— quite.in accordance with the regular force of this tense, and with many analogies as regards this particular kind of appli- cation (cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. § 427, especially section dd) —the transitoriness of earthly trouble, “but for a moment,” when viewed in the light of eternity. Trouble is to the Christian as a passing wreath of cloud, obscuring the sun for an instant,—already past almost before it was recognised, This E 66 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I]. 6. force of the aorist cannot well be brought out in an English rendering; we seem obliged to translate by the present, “though ye are distressed, put to grief’ Another possible explanation of the choice of the aorist here, one which has to be given of the use of this tense not unfrequently in N. T. (cf. eg. Jas. v. 4-6), is that the apostle throws his mind forward—as from his immediately preceding strain of remark, which is referred to by év 6, he quite naturally might do—to the future life, and from it looks back on the earthly troubles, now all past. This conception of the form of the thought— which the presence of apts in the clause seems to make hardly so likely a one as the other—appears to be that which is represented in the R. E. ViThe sense of oddyov in N. T. varies between reference to degree, “a little, slightly” (as Luke vii. 47), and reference to time, “for a little” (as Mark vi. 31). Either of these would in a measure suit the present passage, either, as Paul has it, “ our light affliction,” or, “ which is but fora moment;” but in the connection. brevity seems most likely the intended thought. The interjected conditional clause, e¢ déov (éoriv), prepares: the minds of the readers to receive aright the mention of their sore troubles, by recalling to them the truth that these come to believers only at the time, and in the measure, in which their heavenly Father sees affliction to be needful for the soul’s welfare. The force of e¢ with the present indicative is often shown by the context to be “if (as is the case) ”— that is, practically, in such a connection as here, “since.” But all that this form of construction in itself indicates is that the condition is with special vividness assumed to be realized,—uncertainty, though out of view, not being denied ; and in the present case nothing calls on us to think that the apostle intended to be more definite than “if it is needful.” Many of the Christians of Asia Minor might not actually at the time be exposed to any special troubles—’Ev qrovxirous meipacmots, “in (and thus through) manifold trials,” varied discipline according to varied “needs.” ITIetpacucs is here, as eral FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 67 often elsewhere in N. T., applied, like “trial” in English, specially to affliction looked upon as a testing agency; cf. Luke xxii. 28; Acts xx. 19; Jas. i. 2—By persons who look at the matter from a merely earthly point of view, the judgement might readily be formed that Peter’s statement here, dyadd\doOe AvTNOéyTes, or as Paul has it, Avrovpevor, ae 8€ yalpovres (2 Cor. vi. 10), is self-contradictory. The apostles do not stop to say anything in bar of this judgement. They are writing for men of spiritual discernment; and the Christian consciousness knows perfectly that there is no inconsistency. Says Calvin (2m Jloc.): “ Melius experimento norunt fideles illos contrarios affectus simul consistere, quam verbis exprimi queat.” Ver. 7. This verse contains an explicit statement of the eracious divine purpose in affliction——which has been implied in et Séov (ver. 6). Whilst the general meaning of the sentence is plain, the exact form of the thought is not altogether obvious. Prima facie, “the trial of faith” is said to be “more precious than gold.” Now, according to the proprieties of the figure, it is faith itself of which this would naturally be predicated. The simplest and most satisfactory explanation of the little difficulty appears to be that which is implied in the rendering of the A. E. V., “than of gold,” —namely that, immediately, the comparison instituted is not between faith and gold, but between the trial of faith and the trial of gold, and that by a slight inaccuracy of expression (comparatio compendiaria)—found occasionally, no doubt, in every language, in inartificial speaking or writing, and par- ticularly common in Greek—the link tod doxipiov is left out, so that we read “than gold,” whilst the intended meaning is, “than that of gold;” cf. Matt. v.20; John v. 36; and see Jelf, § 781; Winer, p. 307; A. Buttmann, p. 168. Cf. also 1 John ii. 2, where the antithesis with weTépwy makes the supposition of a very similar irregularity of construction, Tept Tov Kocpov for Tept TOV (4uapTidv) ToD KOcpou, greatly more probable than that of an intended change in the form 68 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. lee of thought; see the full regular expression in Heb. vii. 27. The other possible explanation supposes something of irregu- larity in the form, not of the predicate, but of the subject, taking “the trial of your faith” to mean “ your tried (and approved) faith.” This running together of the meaning of the two substantives seems to be without adequate analogy, particu- larly seeing that, not doxyu7, but the more stubborn and decidedly concrete-looking form Soxiwov is used. Dr. Hort (Gr. Test., App., note in loc.), supposing “ approved faith ” to be the subject of comparison, and feeling that doxiwsov does not at all naturally yield this sense, is inclined to regard as the true reading the neuter adjective d¢«c:uov, which is found as a variant, but only in three or four cursive MSS.—ro Soxtmov, “the approved excellence,” needing less force than the other to give the desired sense. This seems to be an entirely gratuitous resort to a kind of refuge legitimate only in a case of desperation. The similarity both of thought and of phraseology gives good ground for believing that in this verse and the preceding Peter had Jas. i. 3 before his mind ; and it is natural to suppose, unless our apostle’s course of thought require a different sense to be put on the words, that he uses 70 doxipwov THs wiotews with the same meaning as James, which is quite unequivocally “the testing of faith.” Now, instead of being in any way alien from Peter’s line of thought, this sense fits in with it perfectly; for in this parenthetical verse — introduced to explain the apparently anomalous fact that those who were children of God and heirs of heaven were “distressed through manifold trials »— the immediate subject of thought is clearly not the value of faith, but the value of the testing of faith by suffering. Suppos- ing this to be the subject, moreover, all the parts of the sentence come in in an obviously orderly way, and with, as it appears, somewhat more of relevancy and force than if we regard the subject to be “your approved faith.” If instead of “testing, trial,” we were to take Soxiutov in what seems to be its first meaning, “test,” and suppose the immediate com- te Fl FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 69 parison to be between affliction, the test of faith, and fire, the test of gold, the course of thought would be substantially the same; but this mode of looking at the matter is not very natural, does not well accord with the relegation of dia mupos to a position in a secondary clause, and differs from James’s use of Soxiuiov. On doximsov, found in N. T. only here and in the passage in James, cf. particularly Fritzsche, Prélim. p. 40. TIodvtipotepov is best taken (so both A. and R. E. V.) in apposition with doxiusov. If it be joined with evpe@p as a part of the predicate—in which case, of course, the words els émawov KTA. are viewed as appended in a loose adverbial way, to set forth the ultimate issues—the sentence moves more heavily. Moreover, whether the subject spoken of is held to be “faith” or “the testing of faith,” the apostle, writing to Christians, would be likely to assume their know- ledge that this was more valuable than gold or than the testing of gold, rather than to describe a certain divine procedure as chosen with the view of their by and by finding it to be more valuable; whereas with respect to the much stronger predication evpeO7 ets Erauvoy kTX. the same difficulty does not present itself.—The article, which ypvovov, being taken in its widest generality, would naturally have, is omitted, as frequently where an attribute with the article follows; cf. Jelf, § 458; Winer, p. 174; A. Buttmann, py U3: The thought yielded by the rendering which the A. E. V. gives of the clause tod amoddupévov «7X, “that perisheth though it be tried with (is proved by, R. E. V.) fire,” is natural and relevant : “the trial of faith is more valuable— more precious, from the nature of its issues—than the trial of gold; inasmuch as gold, even though tried by fire, must ultimately perish like other corruptible things, whereas faith carries down to eternity all the gain which its trials give it.” But this thought does not seem to come easily out of the apostle’s words. The only way in which it can be reached "0 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. bag is this,—“ which perisheth,’—(then, parenthetically) “and yet it was tested by fire.” Now, certainly, for this sense the natural form of the participle would have been the aorist or perfect instead of the present. The thought yielded by the prima facie rendering of the words, “which perisheth, but (yet) is tested by fire,’ is one which also quite suits the context. “Of such value is the trying of gold considered by men to be, that though the metal so highly esteemed by them is perishable, and though in the crucible not dross only may be removed, but some of the gold itself may be lost, still it is tried by fire. This analogy from men’s mode of dealing with their precious things may help us to recognise the _ wisdom and kindness of God, when to a more valuable kind of testing He subjects our faith—which, as we know, is imperishable, suffering through the crucible of affliction into which it is cast absolutely no loss.” In the spiritual sphere this earthly life is, as regards issues of thought, effort, hope, largely a time of seeking: the day of “the revelation of Jesus Christ” will be the season of finding. To this end, the apostle says, God appoints affliction to His people as a purifying agency,—that in that great day of discoveries this trial of their faith “may be found unto— ae. certainly issuing in—praise and glory and honour.” The construction evpePjvar eis is not common, and this is an argument which has been used in favour of our taking the predicate of the sentence to be etpeOj woAvtipotepov. The combination, however,—which, from the force of eés, and the readiness with which the mind supplies an év in connection with evpeF, is in itself a perfectly natural and intelligible one, — does occur, quite certainly, notwithstanding Steiger’s argument to the contrary, in Rom. vii. 10.—Some interpreters have minutely distinguished the three substantives here employed,—€zrauvos being the praise given from the throne by the Divine Judge,—éo€a, the admission into His glory following thereon,—and tip, the honour among the angels and glorified saints consequent on the éwawos and dd€a. rR] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, via It may be doubted whether, in a passage like the present, such rigid exactness of dealing with a group of terms of this kind is altogether justified. It seems rather as if the apostle, labouring under a sense of the immeasurable glory of the inheritance of the saints, simply piles up word upon word as if to overwhelm utterly the remembrance of the AvrnPhvar €v TroltKinows Teipacuois: aS Beza has it, “quibus nimirum synonymis voluit Petrus tentationum dedecus et ignominiam obtegere.” A passage in Hermas (V%s. iv. 3)-is somewhat parallel to— this verse, and possibly a reminiscence,—the language, how- ever, being too general and the figure too obvious and com- mon to permit any definite conclusion on this head: wo7ep yap TO ypuciov Soximakeras Sia Tod mupos Kal evypnoToV ylveTat, oUTws Kal buets Soxialer Oe. Ver. 8. This verse evidently resumes and expands the thought contained in ver. 6, év @ ayadd\aole——which was there expressed only in the briefest way, in consequence of the entering in of the weighty subsidiary clause, forming ver. 7,on the purpose of affliction. In taking up the thought again, the apostle presents it in a most interesting and beautiful form, immediately and naturally suggested by the mention of the Saviour’s name at the close of the previous verse. In ver. 6 he said, “Ye exult in the contemplation and hope of heaven;” here he dwells particularly on the power exerted over the heart of the Christian by the one most precious element in his thoughts with respect to heaven,— the thought that his Redeemer is there, and that, through the communion which He holds with His people now, He is preparing them for the time when they too shall be there, and see Him as He is. Peter here brings into much pro- minence the fact that an wnseen Saviour is at the present the object of the Christian’s affection and the source of his joy; evidently setting this fact forth as, for all who know the vastness of the power exercised over men by what is visible and tangible, a most impressive proof of the sublime 72 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [eS and divinely sustained energy of Christian faith,—thus con- firming the assurance of ver. 5 that the children of God “are guarded through the power of God by faith unto salvation.” This same thought, of the extreme difficulty for a creature like man of being filled with love for an object unseen, presents itself in a different connection in 1 John iv. 20. Peter brings the point forward in two aspects. First, “ You have not seen Him, and yet you love Him.” Then he passes to the present, “not > on from the historic, “ not having seen,’ seeing.” This is climactic. “To declare that not having seen Him you love Him, is to say a great thing regarding the power of faith; but it is even a greater to say that from day to day, not seeing Him, but simply believing in Him, you have through that faith exulting delight in Him.” The difference of the negative particle in what appear to be precisely parallel statements, od« édovtes, pi opavTes, arrests attention. In the later Greek the particle uw came to be used with increasing frequency in participial clauses, even in cases where the subjective element of thought was not naturally very prominent; until in the Greek of the present day a participle negatived always takes yu. In the language of N. T., whilst yy is found with participles much oftener than ov, still there are only a very few passages in which the distinctive force of this particle cannot be clearly recognised ; though, no doubt, in a considerable number of those cases in which a subjective force can be recognised, a classical writer would probably have chosen rather to set forth simply the objective fact; cf. Winer, p. 606; A. Butt- mann, p. 390. In the place before us, where in clauses so closely similar the apostle employs od with the one participle and px with the other, he obviously looked at the two cases in those different lights which the two particles in their strict use indicate. Regarding the Christians whom he addresses, the words ov« éSovtes set forth their not having seen the Lord merely as a fact: 2) op@vrTes seems to bring before us their not seeing Him as a fact present to their own — I. 8] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 75 thoughts, while yet they were enabled through faith to rejoice in Him. In ov« idovtes we have the negation simply as standing before Peter’s own mind as an historical fact ; and plainly the fact was of a kind fitted particularly to impress a man who, like him, had been a companion of the Lord Jesus, and one which he might very naturally and indeed quite in- stinctively prefer to look at for a moment by itself, historically merely, —out in the open, so to speak,—vrather than as present to the consciousness, and influencing the spiritual exercises, of the believers of and to whom he is speaking. To Peter himself this experience was something purely objective, in which he himself had no share, but which in its character was well fitted to impress his mind as an evidence of the glorious power of faith. He himself had seen the Lord, and, as the memory of innumerable proofs which he had witnessed of His grace and tenderness came up before him, it seemed to him a most easy and natural thing for him to have learned to love Jesus; but for those Christians of Asia Minor, ov« idovras, certainly there was something peculiarly sublime in the power which had taught them to love Him. There rose up vividly before the apostle’s mind—as the form which the next clause takes leads one to think—a remembrance of our Lord’s words about the peculiar blessedness of those who, “not having seen, believe” (John xx. 29). With regard to the second case, my opa@vtes, muatevovTes Sé, the apostle’s experience was substantially ¢he same as that of the brethren to whom he wrote. He, like them, had often felt the chilling influence which is exerted on the spiritual life of Christians, when unwatchful, by things seen and temporal; and yet he and they, pa op@vtes, “not seeing their Redeemer, and fully conscious of this,’ exulted in Him. The od and the un respectively are plainly used with entire naturalness in the two places; cf. a somewhat parallel case, Matt. xxii. 11,12. On the testimony to the genuineness of the Epistle afforded by the obviously unforced autoptic touch in this clause, see Introduction, § I. 5. 74 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. eg In the clause eds dv «rX., these first words belong in construction to the participle muorevovtes. The combination els 6év, indeed, is no doubt one which readily permits its force to pass over in a loose way to the main verb @yad\ate, but not so exactly as “in whom” does in English. *Aryaddsav and the verbs of its class are not construed with eds, and opav is so only exceptionally, and in a different sense from that here required (cf. John xiv. 37, with Meyer's note). But wiorevew often takes efs; and, the chief subject of the whole section (vv. 6-9) being the power of faith as already proved in the spiritual experiences of Christians, the thought mainly in the writer's mind from the beginning of the present clause was naturally that of “believing,” eds 6v muotevovtes; whilst to the interjected yu opavtes the mind at once supplies av’rov, and to a@yadNdate, év avto—The rare active form ayaddav occurs also in Luke i. 47; Rev. xix. 7; the passage in Luke, however, being the only one of the three where the middle is not found as a variant. Assuming the active to be the true reading here, it would seem, from its being used so soon after the middle (ver. 6), that to Peter the one form came as naturally as the other. The epithets appled to the joy of believers are peculiarly rich and striking. “AvexAdAntos is a somewhat rare word; see Ionat. Eph. § 19; Iven. i. 14. 5; and cf. ddadyTos, Rom. vill. 26. By dedoacpévn Christian joy is described as in its nature distinctly heavenly. Like the face of Moses (tnv do£av Tov TpocwTrov avTod, 2 Cor. ili. 7), or of Stephen (Acts vi. 15), it is touched with a beam from above, reflecting the glory of God. Ver. 9. Several even of those expositors who admit the previous verses of the paragraph to refer to Christian experience in the present life think of this verse as pointing to the future, somewhat thus: “receiving by and by, as ye know that ye are to do, the end of your faith.” This is wholly unnatural. Had Peter meant this he would ( H 9.1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fie: certainly have used the future, the form which he actually has in the only other places where he employs the verb KopitecOa (v. 4; 2 Ep. ii. 18, the reading in this latter passage, however, being doubtful). The clause explains and justifies the exultant hope of believers by exhibit- ing their present position, describing them as already enjoy- ing in a measure, and according to the intelligence and liveliness of their faith knowing themselves to be enjoying, the essential elements of the life eternal. In their peace of conscience, fellowship with God, growth in holy beauty and energy, they were already receiving to some extent “the end” to which their faith looked, and for which it longed, “the salvation of their souls.” From the nature of the truth of which faith lays hold, this “end” begins to be gained from the very commencement of true faith in any soul. It is gained always more as faith grows in intelligence and strength, until in heaven it is attained perfectly. This “end of faith” is described by the apostle in the most general way, without articles, “salvation of souls,” as if leaving to his readers room for expatiating in all directions in the contemplation of the breadth and length and depth and height of this sublime blessing. In naming specially the salvation of the “soul,” the apostle brings out distinctly the radical and therefore gloriously complete nature of the deliverance; cf. Jas. i. 2; Heb. x. 39. It does not seem to be over-refining, too, to say that whilst the apostle is no doubt thinking of salvation in its fulness (as the unquestionably general wept 7s cwtnpias which follows shows), yet his form of expression gives prominence to that sphere or element in which his readers were actually in the present life xopsfopevor owtnpiavy,— the body, indeed, being dead because of sin, but the spirit being life because of righteous- ness” (Rom. viii. 10). 76 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 10. Vv. 10-12. Confirmation of what has been said regarding the greatness und the certainty of the Christian salvation, by a reference to the deep interest taken in everything connected with wt by prophets and by angels. Ver. 10. On the spelling (late, and perhaps mainly Alex- andrian), €pavvay for épevvadv, prevalent in the oldest texts of N. T., see particularly Dr. Gregory’s Proley. to Tischendort’s Sth ed. p. $1.—It is not needful to distinguish minutely between é&e€jtncay and éEnpavyynoay, the two verbs being plainly employed in order to exhibit with special strength their common idea of “seeking.” This combination is found also in 1 Mace. ix. 26; and fnrety and éfepavvdy are used in a parallelism in Prov. ii. 4.—On the omission of the article with wpodjrast, cf. ver. 7, note on xpuolov. It is possible, however, and not unlikely, that the present is not simply a case of omitting the article in order to lighten a con- struction. Having regard to the anarthrousness of dyyedou also (ver. 12), it seems as if with both words the apostle, by withholding the article, meant to concentrate the attention of his readers on that dignity of position which is intimated by the designations, and which the article —implying as it does a certain familiarity with the thought—would tend to make less prominent; “ prophets—angels—are interested in the gospel.” Anarthrousness, obviously or probably with this design of making the substantive or adjective stand out in full prominence, is somewhat favoured by our apostle; cf. AMGov, ii. 4 ; Slkavos, iii. 18 ; KeBwrod, iii. 20; xtlorn, iv. 19 ; and see T. 8. Green’s NV. 7. Gram. p. 34. Mr. Green appears inclined to think that to this purpose of making the inherent notion of the substantive stand out with vividness is perhaps to be ascribed the whole class of cases where a noun to which an attributive combination is postfixed with the article is itself anarthrous.—Dr. Plumptre (Cambridge Bible for Schools, tm loc.) has propounded the view that the “ prophets” here 41.4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. arg spoken of are the eminent class of Christian ministers of the first age called by this name in N. T., such as Silas and Agabus. The ordinary view of the reference has some difficulties, but this has immeasurably more. Dr. Plumptre bravely faces even mpouaptupowevov and ovy éavtois tpiv éé, but totally fails to make his exegesis look in the smallest degree natural.— Instead of simply referring to cwtnpias by a pronoun, “ who prophesied of it,” the apostle amplifies (cf. ver. 5, note on owtnpiav), bringing in a new and most winning description of salvation, tis els tuds yapitos, “the grace (ze. the gift or manifestation of grace) for you”—‘“destined for you;” on this use of eds, cf. els vpas, ver. 4, note. These words evidently contain in themselves a strong argument. “Ages ago, in the promises of grace given through the prophets, God had you in His thoughts: can your faith in Him fail when you remember this ?” Ver. 11. We are here told what were those points with respect to salvation as to which the prophets “ made diligent inquiry and search.” The coming of a great Deliverer was made known to them,—not a little also, as the prophetic ages rolled on, with regard to the glory of His Person and the nature of His work; but the ¢tzme of the deliverance they were not told. The picture which they were enabled to form in their minds lacked distinctness of perspective. On this point, through the intense interest with which they contemplated the revealed Saviour and His salvation, they earnestly, through prayerful study of the data which they possessed, sought for more light. Their inquiries, we are told, related to tiva Karpov, “ what time” God had fixed for the advent of the Deliverer,— and also to wotov kacpor, 3 “what manner of time,’ what kind of age in the world’s history, politically and morally; cf. Clem. Rom. § 38, avaroyic@peba ovv, aderAdol, Totor Kal tives elondAOaper eis Tov koopov. One can easily understand how the question with regard to vofov as well as tiva xacpov should arise in 78 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [aet ide their minds. Many of the facts revealed to them respecting Messiah and His work were so strange in themselves, and especially in their combination, that marvel was natural as to what class of circumstances could bring about the realiza- tion of such predictions as that the Christ was to be “ cut ? off out of the land of the living ”——and to “prolong His days,’ — to be “forsaken,” “ bruised,’ “put to grief” by Jehovah — and to be His “elect,” “in whom His soul delighted,’ — and other similar seeming mutual contra- dictions—By some interpreters (as Peile and Mason) tiva is taken as unconnected with xacpov, its meaning being “whom.” This is, of course, grammatically possible; but obvious advantage in exegesis would be required to justify disregard of the strong prima facie likelihood that in such a clause as the present tiva and rotov eo together in construction, Now, in fact, difficulty arises; for if tiva have a personal reference, this is plainly much the more important of the questions, yet in what is said in the following verse to have been “revealed” to the prophets there is nothing which seems in any way to relate to such a question. Eis tiva KaLpov means “with reference to what time,” the construction which follows being either that éd/Aou has an understood object, “them,” 7c. Ta ets Xpictov raOjnpata xTX., the apostle having already the participial clause so vividly present to his mind that he construes the main verb as if he had expressed that clause before it,—or that édA0uv and mpopaptupopevov are to be taken together as conjointly having ta waOjpyata xT. as object, thus, “ was by prophetic testimony showing” (cf. Acts xxvill. 25, the construction of e€eTiMeTo Siapaptupomevos). To suppose éd7Aou used here in an exceptional way as intransitive, and therefore having ecs attached, with the sense “was pointing to,” on such an analogy as the rare construction found in John xix. 37, dyovtau eis, 1S unnecessary.— For the expression mvevpa Xpiorov, see Rom. viii. 9; Phil. 1,19; cf. also Acts xvi. 7 E11.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 79 (true reading); Gal. iv. 6. Such a sense of mvetpa Xpiotod as “the Spirit who spoke of Christ” (Grotius), could not very naturally attach to the words in any circumstances, and here plainly would be utterly tautological. The render- ing, “the Spirit who—in the fulness of the times—rested on Christ” (Weiss), is grammatically possible; but a force of the genitive, decidedly different from that which it has in the other places where the combination occurs, is thus introduced without the slightest suggestion in the context. No other force of the expression is in the least degree natural than “the Spirit who is Christ’s, and whom He sends forth” (John xv. 26, xvi. 7). “ Procul dubio Petrus Spiritum Sanctum Christi Spiritum propterea vocavit, quod Christus, quum, priusquam homo factus esset, divina majestate apud Deum splenderet (Phil. 1. 6), Spiritus Sancti afflatum prophetis dedisset” (C. F. Fritzsche, Nova Opuse. Acad. p. 259). This application of the name “Christ” to the Word not yet made flesh is like that of Paul, 1 Cor. x..4; cf. also John xii, 41. 3y the function here ascribed to “the Spirit of Christ,” as the Teacher of the prophets, He is at once identified with “the Spirit of Jehovah” who “spake by” them (2 Sam. xxiii. 2), The truth that the pre-incarnate Word was the Giver of the Spirit to the prophets was one which much interested the early Fathers; cf. Barnab. § 5, ot wpodgnras, am’ avtov (ie. Christ) éyovtes thy yadpuv, eis adtov émpodn- tevoav,—also Ionat. Mugn. § 9; Justin Martyr, I. Apol. 36, 63; Iren. iv. 20. 4. In e’s Xpiorov the preposition accords with the prophetic point of view, “destined, appointed, for Christ,” exactly as in THs els twas yapitos of ver. 10: contrast the form of expression from the eye-witness’s point of view, v. 1, padptus Tov ToU Xpictov taOnudtwv. By the fact that in the preceding paragraph prominence has been given to the contrast between the sufferings of believers on earth and their glory in heaven, some interpreters have been led to think that in the present verse also the reference is not to Christ 80 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 12. but to His people; and they would translate thus, “the sufferings with relation to Christ” (or “ until Christ,” de. until His Second Coming) “and the glories thereafter.” Neither of these translations of e¢s is a likely one-—the former, because of its vagueness, seeing that the apostle, if such had been his thought, had the distinct 60a Xpiotov ready at hand, —the latter, because eés in the sense of “until,” joined to a personal name, is exceedingly rare in N. T., if found at all (cf. the Commentators on Gal. ili. 24). On the other hand, the use of es in the immediately preceding verse, in what prima facie appears to be a precisely parallel combination, obviously invites us to take the preposition here in the same sense. There can be no doubt, moreover, that what must mainly have excited the eager inquiries of the prophets, and what the angels mainly desired to look into, was the history of Christ; and to all intelligent believers the sequence of thought in the apostle’s letter, supposing the reference here to be to Christ Himself, presents itself at once as most natural, the basis of His people’s hopes being His sufferings and glories.—In using the plural of doa, a somewhat rare form (in N. T. only in 2 Pet. ii. 10 and Jude 8, in both places in a peculiar sense), the apostle no doubt had in his mind the more or less distinct predictions of the various stages of our Lord’s course of triumph, the Resurrection, Ascension, Mediatorial Reign, and Second Coming. Ver. 12. A communication was made by God to the prophets—to the longing heart of each seer, age after age, we may suppose—to the effect that not to themselves but to men of after times they were ministering their revelations respecting Messiah. Of course the reference here is to the blessed realization of the promises in Christ’s incarnation and redemptive work: as regarded spiritual benefit, the prophets ministered largely to themselves and their contemporaries (on this see a beautiful paragraph in Leighton). The infor- mation given to the prophets in answer to their prayerful longings was probably very general ; but the simple announce- I. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 81 ment of the distant futurity of the Messianic age was sufficient to show them that they did not need detailed knowledge of “what and what manner of time.”—-Construed as here with an accusative and a dative, dvaxovety, “to serve,’ means “ to serve one with something,’—in the present instance, of course, “to supply information ;” cf. Joseph. Antig. vi. 13. 6. Its object here, avta, “them,” “ these things,’ points obviously to Ta Syndovpmeva mrept TaV els Xpiotov TaOnudtwv KTr. The rendering of the A. E. V. here seems, as occasionally (cf. Phil. iv. 3), to indicate a certain confusion in the minds of the translators between the force of avros and that of ovtos. Avra really ends the first half-sentence, and the point perhaps ought to be a semicolon,—the second half- sentence being made up of the two co-ordinate relative clauses, which are attached a little loosely, “the which things,” ete. By some expositors (as Huther, Alford, and Lillie) a different view of the meaning of this first clause of the verse is held. They regard the apostle as speaking, not of a com- munication made to the prophets after, and in gracious response to, their eager inquiries, but (a7exadupOn being taken with that practically pluperfect force which the aorist not unfrequently has, particularly in relative clauses) of a com- munication given previously—involved, indeed, in those very Messianic revelations which they had received, and which had led to their longings and questionings. The one main statement of the passage is supposed to be that the prophets felt a deep interest in their predictions regarding Christ and His salvation (vv. 10, 11); and the clause ofs dexadrvdOn KTX. 1s thought to be added in a subsidiary way, to show the unselfishness of this interest,—thus, “ to whom (however, or, be it noted) it had been revealed (7c. practically, although it had been revealed to them), that it was not to themselves but to you they were ministering the precious things of which they spoke.” In this case the apostle’s line of thought is— “Tf the ancient seers, knowing that the Messianic predictions F §2 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [hens were not for them, still studied them with earnest love, what should your interest in the contemplation of Christ be, to whom His salvation has actually come!” The grounds urged in support of this view of the meaning are, that no statement is found in O. T. about an answer given to a prophet with respect to such questionings, except to Daniel (Dan. vii. 16), and that in many of the Messianic predictions a remote futurity of fulfilment is so distinctly implied that the seer would not need any further revelation to that effect. This last position is, at the least, open to question, the obviousness to us now, after fulfilment, of indications given in the pro- phecies themselves of a remote time of realization by no means proving that these evidences could be clearly seen by those to whom the oracles were first given. On the whole, the arguments do not appear adequate to overturn the strong prima facie probability that, coming after a detailed account of certain inquiries, the words ofs dmexadvdOn are to be held as, according to the common use of the aorist, setting forth in historical sequence the answer given by Ged. That the apostle’s statement here is a generalization from the one case of Daniel is not at all a necessary supposition, and does not appear to be a likely one, when we take into view what he says immediately afterwards about the interest felt by the angels in Messianic study. There does not seem to be any passage in O. T. on which this latter statement is specially based; and whilst, no doubt, what we are told throughout Scripture of the character and work of the angels leadg: most naturally to the thought here expressed, yet the apostle presents it with a definiteness suggestive rather of a revelation made to him, or of a remembrance of teaching of the Lord, than of a mere inference. If it be judged that, from their nature, the facts mentioned in this verse were not likely to have been communicated to the apostle by special revelation, there is perhaps nothing forced or fanciful in thinking that both of them may be reminiscences from the discourse which he had heard between Jesus and Moses and Elijah on the I. 12:1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 83 Holy Mount, with respect to “the decease to be accomplished at Jerusalem,” or from the converse of the Lord with His disciples after His resurrection (Luke xxiv. 4, 5). By some interpreters 67 after advexadv¢Oy has been taken in the sense of “ because, for.” Thus Luther translates, “ Welchen es geoffenbaret ist. Denn sie haben’s nicht ihnen selbst sondern uns dargethan,’ us.w. The bareness and abruptness of ois amexadvpOn, according to this construction, make it an exceedingly unlikely one. Neither is much satisfaction to be found in an attempt which has been made to obviate this objection, by putting the words from 67s to avrta into a parenthesis, and connecting the following relative clause with amexarvpon,—thus, “ to whom were revealed the things which have now been announced to you,’ etc. The parenthesis is but feebly relevant; the main statement, thus taken, seems to intimate what is inconsistent with all the analogies of God’s mode of communication of truth,—that the facts com- prised in the N. T. gospel proclamation were made known in clearness and detail to the ancient prophets; and the relative clause, construed in this way, largely loses the force which apparently it is meant to have in the apostle’s argument. The two relative clauses, co-ordinate with each other, with which the verse and the section end, wind up the passage with singular impressiveness,—the statements being eminently fitted to strengthen in the apostle’s readers a sense of the glory of the gospel, and of the lively gratitude and firm faith which became them.—WNov here plainly, in the connection, has a reference of considerable breadth, “in these Christian times,” as contrasted with the age of the prophets: thus the aorist, pointing to the first proclamation of the gospel in Asia Minor, stands in the clause with perfect propriety,—cf. Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 80. This construction of vdv with the aorist, when vov covers a lengthened period, is found also occasionally in the classics; eg. Plato, Symp. 193 A.—JIn drootanévte am’ ovpavod the apostle by using the aorist seems to point to the great scene at Pentecost; though his words may simply 84 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (ey 12s have regard to the time of the bestowment of the Spirit on each evangelist, the fulness of the phraseology being intended to illustrate the grandeur of this gift—_The basis for appeal for the cultivation of faith and hope is evidently made broad and strong in the words of this little clause: “Those wondrous events to which the prophets looked forward so eagerly are the very events which have been related to you by the gospel messengers ; and they have been told to you under the same divine guidance which before was granted to the prophets——the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the preachers of Christ, indeed, having been manifested with peculiar distinctness and impressiveness.” On the object of Peter in this and similar references, full of love and confidence, to the Pauline body of evangelists who carried the glad tidings through Asia Minor, cf. Introduction, § V. 10. The last clause has great rhetorical beauty and power. “ Blest as the holy angels have been since their creation with the beatific vision of God, still they recognise in the Person and work of Christ a new and surpassingly sublime revelation of the divine excellences, into which they long to gaze.”—On the anarthrousness of ayyedoz, see note on mrpodyras, ver. 10.— Tlapaxtrrewv, properly “to bend aside,’ commonly “ to bend so as to look at,” is often in classical Greek “ to take a slight side glance ;” but in N. T. use the meaning seems unquestion- ably to be “to look earnestly,”’—the exact idea being “to bend ef. Luke xxiv..12.5\ John sa2j3peie bs so as to see distinctly ;’ Jas. i. 25. Compare also the use of another compound, eyxurrrew, in Clem. Rom. § 40, éycexugortes eis Ta Baby Tis Gelas yvwoews. The thought has been entertained by many expositors, that in the present clause the apostle alludes to the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, represented as stooping down and looking with affection and reverence toward the Ark of the Covenant covered by the blood-besprinkled Mercy- seat. This supposition is interesting and attractive, but its basis is insecure. It is doubtful whether such was the attitude of the figures; and that the cherubic symbol had any I. 13:4 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 85 reference at all to angels is exceedingly questionable ; cf. Fair- bairn, Typology of Scripture, Bk. II. chap. 3. HORTATORY PART OF THE EPISTLE, I. 13-V. 9. This part subdivides itself into two main sections,—the jirst, extending to li. 10, containing a somewhat general exhortation to the cultivation of holy character; the second, from that point to ver. 9 of the last chapter, giving precepts bearing on particular circumstances and relations. Vv. 13-16. Call to hope and to holiness. Ver. 13. By 6&0 the apostle reminds his readers of the vital connection between the belief of those central truths of which he has spoken in his first section and Christian affec- tions and conduct. Seeing that the particle introduces a main division of the letter, its reference is naturally taken to he, not specially to the clause or clauses immediately preceding, but to all that has gone before ——“ Seeing that God has given to you such exceeding great and precious promises and privileges.” From this, two immediate practical inferences plainly are, “You ought to cherish a lively hope of the promised blessedness,” and “You ought to seek meetness of character for that blessedness.” To both of these the apostle adverts, to the jivst in a single sentence, the echo of which, however, is heard through the whole Epistle; to the second, very fully. First, of hope. Two conditions necessary to the mainten- ance of Christian hope are prefixed by the apostle, in a participial form, to his precept €Amicate,—the participles themselves, of course, having in their connection practically an imperative force. The sense of the metaphor in dvafwodpevor KTr. at once suggests itself, from our knowledge of the long 86 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [1.913. loose attire of the Orientals, and the need of gathering it up for labour: “ preparing yourselves for vigorous and sustained spiritual exertion,” “ arousing yourselves from your listlessness and dissipation of mental energy.” These first words of the verse are quoted by Polycarp (§ 2).— The epexegetical genitive Ths diavoias tuov is added to tas oopvas in a free and natural way, bringing fully out the apostle’s meaning,— “Do with your minds what is so familiar to you in bodily action, gird up your loins mentally.” Cf. the words of Clem. tom. § 57, in a similar and striking metaphor, capapavtes Ta yovata ths Kxapdias tuov. The word dsavora has a special suitableness in the connection, designating particularly as it does the mind as at work in life, in dealing with men and things, ranging “through” all kinds of circumstances and infiuences, many of them in their nature calculated to weaken or to pervert; cf. Westcott on 1 John v. 20. As to the force of this clause, ef. Luke xii. 35 ; Eph. vi. 14; and also, if the thought of araperidnuors Suactropas (ver. 1) be judged to have been still in any degree in the minds of the readers, Ex, xi. 11. The compound dvafwvvivae occurs here only Im NTs Act aProvs exec aie leX ox, From the preparatory work set forth by the aorist participle, the apostle proceeds to exhibit by the present participle vypovtes a constant accompaniment of true Christian hope. The verb v7idew—strictly “to be sober” in the specific sense of the word, “ free from intoxication ”—is employed in N. T. (eg. 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, and twice elsewhere in our Epistle, iv. 7, v. 8), as occasionally by classical writers, in the wider sense of “ to be sober-minded,” free from subjection to worldly influences generally. Christian hope can live only with spirituality of thought and feeling and consequent purity of life. In effect, yjpovres sums up the result of the chief part of the mental preparation enjoined in the previous clause; cf. Luke xxi. 34. By some (as Westcott and Hort) vedetws is joined to the participle; but it seems more natural to regard the force of this strong word as thrown on I. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 87 the main verb éAmdcare. The sense given to Tedelws in A. E. V., “to the end” (=péyps Térous of Heb. i. 6, els téXos of Matt. x. 22), appears to be without analogy ; and the ordinary meaning of the adverb, “ perfectly,” is quite satistac- tory, including the other and more, “ with full intelligence and intensity and stedfastness.” ' The force of the combination introduced by éexé may be conceived in more than one way. “Evi followed by an accusa- tive is joined to éenmritey only once elsewhere in N.T., 1 Tim. v. 5, where the accusative is Oedv, and the meaning “ to hope in, or on, God.” In LXX. this construction is common, the word governed by ézé being almost always Kvpvov or some pronoun referring to God. On these analogies some scholars take émi yapwv also as denoting, not the object, but the basis of the hope, “rest your hope perfectly on the grace—the divine favour—which is being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The use of the present participle depouévny has suggested, moreover, to some that “the revelation of Jesus Christ ” here meant is that made in the gospel : “ rest your hope on the grace which comes to you from day to day in (through) the revelation of Jesus Christ.” This reference of “ the revela- tion,” however, is not tenable. The expression adroxaduyis I. X,. is a familiar one in N. T. with clear reference to the Second Coming, whereas the other reference here supposed has only one or two remote analogies; and the fact that but a few lines before (ver. 7) the apostle has employed the whole phrase, exactly as here, unquestionably of the Second Coming, seems quite decisive as to his meaning here also. The use of the present participle in a pregnant sense, as including the future, is in this place perfectly natural, and has a peculiar richness of assurance: “ which is now on its way to you, and will reach you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ When this, then, is recognised to be the force of the last words of the clause, and we go back to look at yapw, we feel that with depopevny it is not naturally taken with its primary foree—as “ grace,” an attribute of God, the basis of hope,—but according to its very 88 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ri t14. common secondary use (eg. ver. 10), as “ the gift bestowed by grace,” the object of hope. °Emi with an accusative may manifestly quite as naturally indicate aim as basis; and the analogy of a combination in which the word “ God” or “ Lord” is that which ém¢ governs, can scarcely with safety be held to determine absolutely what is the sense in a case lke the present, where a word of a quite different kind occurs. The closely similar construction éAwifew eis, moreover, is found with both applications; cf. 2 Cor. 1. 10; Ecclus. ii. 9. There seems to be sufficient reason therefore for, with the great majority of expositors, regarding the object of hope as indicated : “hope perfectly for, set your hope perfectly on.’ On the various constructions of éAmifev, see A. Buttmann, p. 175. The yapis meant is obviously that which was the great subject of the previous section, the final fulness of salvation, the “ inheritance” (ver, 4), “ salvation” (ver. 5), “ praise and glory and honour” (ver. 7). Hope which has this as its object, and which is perfect in purity, in liveliness, and in persistence, is evidently fitted to exert a mighty influence in giving men much of heaven’s character and much of heaven’s happiness even here. Ver. 14. The grammatical structure of the passage at this point is not altogether clear. The adversative add at the beginning of ver. 15 is so plainly suggested by the imme- diately preceding clause, and sets the words which follow so sharply in contrast with it, that the course of thought is dislocated to some extent if adAa be made to begin a new sentence, Neither, however, does it seem perfectly satisfactory to have a full break at the end of ver. 13. The absence of a connective particle at the beginning of ver. 14 does not indeed certainly prove, according to our apostle’s mode of writing (cf. ver. 22), that he is not here beginning a sentence ; yet this, taken in connection with the perfect relevancy of the clauses of ver. 14 when regarded as subordinate to édicate of ver. 13,—expanding in fact vojpovres,—seems to render it somewhat unnatural to put these verses into distinct sentences. Erie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 89 At the same time, the nature of the clauses of ver. 14 appears to show that the apostle’s thoughts are there somewhat more thrown forward on the appeal to holiness than backward on that to hope; and therefore Huther, Westcott and Hort, and others, do begin a new sentence here. On the whole, the view adopted by the Revisers of the E. V., that vv. 13-16 form one sentence, with a slight irregularity of construction in the beginning of the 15th, is perhaps the most likely. The apostle here glides in an easy and informal way from “Cultivate hope,” the first of his practical deductions from that account of the privileges and prospects of believers which he had given in the earlier part of the chapter, into the second, “Cultivate holiness.” He begins his exhortation by reminding his readers that through the nature of their position as Christians they were “children of obedience,’—an expres- sion closely corresponding to “elect through consecration of the Spirit unto obedience” (vv. 1, 2). By os this position is set forth as an argument,—this particle, as often (cf. eg. il. 2, 11, 15), being used eetiologically, “seeing that you are,” “as beseems.” The genitive vmaxojns may be explained in two ways, the sense yielded being in substance the same, but the aspects a little different. It may be the Hebraistic genitive of quality, practically equivalent to an adjective; cf. Luke xvi. 8, xviii. 6; Jas. i. 25; and see Winer, p. 297; A. Buttmann, p. 161. In this case the meaning is “ obedient children (of God).” Seeing, however, that the governing substantive is téxva, the combination may be taken as analogous to viot THs aevelas, Téxva pwtos (Eph. v. 6, 9), and the like, where, according to a familiar Semitic mode of thinking, “ disobedience,” “light,’—-or whatever it may be,— is set forth as the originating, formative, parental power ; cf. particularly Steiger on the present passage, also Ellicott on 1 Thess. v. 5. On this view, the thought immediately presented is not “children of God who are obedient,” but “persons whose parent is obedience,” persons spiritually springing from, having their character determined and moulded 90 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PEs ka. by, obedience. Now the Fatherhood of God to His people has been alluded to early in the Epistle, in “ begat us again to an inheritance” (vv. 3, 4), and is expressly introduced again in ver. 17; but in the present sentence the designation “ He who called you” is not such as to suggest that in “children of obedience” the writer had sonship to God immediately in his thoughts. Probably, therefore, the second view of the force of the genitive is that which was in his mind. His readers, by their old nature “children of disobedience,” were now through the nature of the new life which they had in Christ “ children of obedience.” The apostle’s exhibition of the character which beseemed “children of obedience” is made first negatively: “not fashioning yourselves (not fashioning your lives in any respect or in any department) in accordance with the desires which you formerly had in your ignorance,’—“ evil desires, lusts,” according to a frequent, perhaps the most common, use of émvOupia in classical Greek, and certainly its prevailing use in N. T.—With the word pop¢y and its derivatives there naturally associates itself a certain idea of permanence, and with oyfma and its derivatives one of transitoriness ; springing from the fact that wopdy designates the “form” under which the essence of anything reveals itself, whilst oxiwa, “fashion,” indicates rather what is superficial, accidental, variable. The vanity of delight and hope in the life of sin, and the permanence of the joy of holiness, thus explain the change of verb in Rom. xu. 2, from ouvveyn- patifecGe in the first clause to werayopdodoe in the second : and similarly we may contrast Peter's use of cuvexnparifer Oar here with Paul’s longing (Phil. iii, 10) cuppoppifec@ar to Gavatw Xpictod,—where in the language a sublime paradox presents itself, “to be conformed, linked in character, to Christ’s death” implying “to be linked with Christ to glorious immortality.” On popdy and cyijpa, cf. Trench, Syn. N. T.§ 70, and Bp. Lightfoot’s exhaustive and admirable detached note on Phil. ii. 6. 1! 15. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 91 Rigid exactness of construction would have required here with cuveynpatifopevos a dative of the model ; not therefore precisely as it stands, “along with, or similarly to, the lusts,” but “similarly to those who live under the power of the lusts,”’—that is, specially, in the present case, as the connec- tion suggests, “similarly to the madas avOpwros in you,” “similarly to your own selves while you were still ev 77 ayvoia.” But the free construction chosen by the apostle is perfectly natural, and the meaning obvious. Paul’s con- struction of the same verb in Rom. xii. 2 is also somewhat free, though not quite in the same way. From the occurrence of mportepoy in the clause, é¢v in the combination év 77 ayvoia seems to be temporal, “in the time of,” with also, however, a suggestion of the instrumental force which this preposition so often has in N. T.—Whilst dyvoia, “ (spiritual) ignorance,” belongs to all men by nature, yet plainly if we suppose those to whom Peter wrote to have been originally heathen, the word has a special fulness of significance ; cf. Eph. iv. 18, and see Introd. § IT. Ver. 15. In this verse there is a little irregularity of construction. Having enjoined his readers not to take their old sinful lives as a model to be now imitated by them, the apostle is naturally led to set forth in direct contrast the Supreme Model, and another participial clause might in strictness have been expected, introduced by adda, somewhat thus, dAAa cuppopdifopevor TO KaréoavTse bpas ayio. But, in place of this, his earnestness of appeal leads him most naturally to forget the exact structure of his sentence, and, while presenting the thought of God as His people’s Pattern by a slightly different mode of expression, to make his verb a main one in the imperative, instead of a participle. The preposition card is often in N. T., as by classical writers, used in the sense of “after the model of;” ef. eg. Rom. xv. 5; Eph. iv. 24. In the combination here governed by xara the simplest view of the construction is to regard tov dyvov as going together, “the Holy One,” and xarécavta wpas, 92 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 15. “who called you,” as inserted, according to an arrangement of words somewhat favoured by the apostle (eg. ver. 14, Tais mpoTepov KTA.),—instead of tov aylov Tov vuads KadecavTa. For a specially close parallel to the present arrangement, cf. 2 Ep. ii 1. The construction of a&yvov predicatively, as in A. E. V. and text of R. E. V., seems hard and unlikely. Had this been intended, we should probably have had xa@as 0 Upas Karéoas aylos éotuv, or something similar. To the designation of God, “the Holy One,” the expression “who called you” is attached with obvious force. Suggesting the thought of duty by their reference to that radical change of moral life to which the readers had been “ called,’ the words add a strong argument in support of the injunction given, by reminding them of the grace which had brought them into that new life. As always in the Epistles, xanetv used in this way means “to call effectually,’—the apostles assuming that the professing Christians to whom they wrote were Christians in truth. In the present place it seems likely, from the quotation appealed to in ver. 16, that the “calling” of Israel into covenant engagements and privileges —which appears to be the basis of the N. T. theological use of «adety—was with special vividness before Peter's mind. The words «ai. avtot (cf. ii. 5) set the apostle’s readers distinctly face to face with the great divine Model, calling on them, as they contemplate His character, to take that as the standard for their own: “like to the Holy One, be ye your- selves also holy.’—’Avactpogy is a favourite word with our apostle, being used in his writings oftener than in all the rest ~ of N. T. His form of expression here, “every avactpogy,” shows that he is taking the word in the sense of “a department of conduct.” —TIevyOnre illustrates a tendency prevalent in the later Greek, and largely shown in N. T., to use aorists of the passive form in a middle sense; sometimes, as in this case, introducing into common use a previously unused or only provincial passive form, and employing both it and | i / I. 17-21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 93 the older middle form; cf. Winer, p. 327; A. Buttmann, Dy, ol, Ver. 16. To the apostle’s injunction is in this verse appended, as its ground, a reminder that—as is recorded again and again in Scripture (Lev. xi. $4, xix. 2, xx. 7)— God had given as a fundamental precept to Israel, “ Ye shall be holy, for Tam holy.” vcore always in N. T. (with perhaps the single exception of Acts xx. 26, where, if, as seems likely, this is the true reading, it cannot well but be equivalent to the other reading 60), as frequently also in classical writers, has its antecedent involved in it,=6dsa todTo 671, propterea quod, “because.” The future form of the injunction, very familiar to us from O. T. usage, is peculiarly impressive,—obedience to Him whose right to reign over all creatures is absolute being assumed rather than expressly commanded, as if nothing else were even conceivable-——The quotation obviously sustains to the full the apostle’s precept, aylor yevnOnre; and it suggests also, though it does not directly state, the standard, “as Iam holy;” cf. Eph. iv. 24. In its connection here this quotation distinctly shows, too, how fully the apostle regarded the Church of God under all the economies of grace as being one, with respect to spiritual relations and obligations. Vv. 17-21. Continued exhortation to holiness, and especially to the cherishing of a spirit of holy awe. The particular thought with which the section opens was perhaps suggested by Tov carécavta buds (ver. 15): “God called you to be His, and ye show recognition of your relations to Him by calling upon Him.” The antithesis, however, if such was thought of, is not formally set forth, there being no emphatic twets here. The substance of the section is, “ Live habitually in fear, remembering your relations to God and His Son Jesus Christ.” Taking the precept of ver. 17, év dow 94 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ii ea ind avaotpagpnre, in association with that of ver, 13, Tedelws éXriaate, we have something of a paradox,—which yet accords with the whole teaching of Scripture and with universal Christian experience,—the fear being that of humility and filial reverence ; cf. Phil. ii. 12, iii.1. “ Spei adjungitur timor: utrumque ex eodem fonte: timor prohibet ne spe excidamus ” (Bengel). Ver. 17. Ei, while, as here used, practically equivalent to “seeing that,” has a special power of appeal. It does not formally asswme the truth of the position stated, on which the following argument is to be based, but calls on the reader to think the whole matter out for himself: “If ye invoke as Father Him who judgeth impartially according to each man’s work.” We might have expected s before zarépa, but this is occasionally omitted, particularly where, as here, the predica- tive word stands in an emphatic position in the clause, the emphasis itself giving the force of ws; cf. chap. ii. 15 (correct reading); 1 Thess. v. 8. One might readily translate by, “If ye call Him Father who judgeth;” but to this there lies the. objection that the middle émicadetcbat nowhere else among the many places where it occurs in the N. T. means simply “call,” and, indeed, that its use in this sense by any writer is doubtful. In chap. iii. 6, Peter employs the ordinary mode of expression for “call.” Practically in the present place there is exceed- ingly little difference. In ed matépa éwixareioGe there is possibly a reference to the Lord’s Prayer as habitually em- ployed by the believers. In Tov arpocwrodnuTTe; Kpwovta the apostle, by using ‘ the present participle, points to a characteristic of the divine procedure at all times, not specifically to the decisions of the great day of final account. The Hebraism mpocwmoy AapPavew (Luke xx. 21; Gal. ii. 6; Lev. xix. 15, LXX.; ef. Brérew eis wpoowov, Matt. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14, and Gavydlew mpocwrov, Jude 16, Job xiii. 10, LXX.) answers to DVD NY2, The expression “to accept a person” is ia ea FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 9 Or obviously in itself colourless as regards motive, and in the O. T. it occurs at least as often without as with a bad reference. In the N. T., however, the meaning is always “ to have regard as a judge to persons instead of to principles, to be swayed by something in the individual concerned which is irrelevant to the question at issue, to be partial.’ The compound forms TpOTWTOAHLTTNS, TpocwToAnurpia, Tporw- ToAnpTTELy, and ampocwmToAuTTes are not found earlier than N. T. The adverb occurs in N. T. only in the present passage, and elsewhere very rarely. Cf. Acts x. 34 (Peter’s words), where the sentiment is the same as here, and where alone mpoow7roAnpmrns occurs. In the passage before us, the specific reference, with respect to impartiality, appears to be to God’s not being biassed by any regard to religious pro- fession or privilege, but looking simply to the épyov; cf. Rom. ii. 11; Gal. ii. 6—‘Exdotov individualizes sharply. Before (God no man can become lost in a party, so as to receive acquittal or condemnation simply as a member of the party.— In the singular épyov (as Gal. vi. 4) each man’s life—the ageregate of the épya (Rom. ii. 6; Rev. xx. 12)—is regarded as one great work, according to the predominating spirit,—a service of God or an opposition to God. Faith, the initial step in the épyov of a Christian life, is itself emphatically spoken of by our Lord as To Epyov tod Oeov (John vi. 29).— Though the relation of a justified man’s work to his justifica- tion is not precisely analogous to that of an unjustified man’s work to his condemnation, yet the expression kata To éxdaTou epyov is in place universally with regard to God’s judgement of men, the preposition cata pointing to the criterion or test. Among the justified themselves, too, the difference in the rewards of grace will be “according to each man’s work” (Luke xix. 16-19 ; 1 Cor. i, 15).—A probable reminiscence of the clause before us is found in the Epistle of Barnabas, iv. 12, 0 Kupios ampocwrodnumtas Kpivel TOV KOcmov' ExacToS Kabas éroincev Komtettat.—In a clause such as the present, where on the one hand the predicative word vrarépa is plainly ite) ler) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 18. emphatic, and on the other hand the mode in which the imme- diate object of émuxanelobe is expressed brings one particular feature of the divine character and administration into great prominence, it is evident that the argument is intended to rest largely, perhaps equally, on both. “To what kind of life should you be led by consideration of the absolute impartiality of God’s judicial dealings, conjoined with remem- brance that this impartial Judge is your Father, and is habitually prayed to by you as such ?” Of év po8w... avactpadyrte, the simple translation, “ Live in fear,” fails to represent the emphasis given by the position of év doBw: some such rendering as “ Let fear mark your life” is required.—The word vapoixias brings up before the minds of Christians a prominent ground of “ fear,” in the thought of the powerful perverting influence which may be exerted on the citizen of heaven by his alien surroundings during his “sojourn” in this world; cf. u. 11; Acts vu. 6, 29. Ver. 18. “Knowing as ye do the divine estimate of the value of a human soul, shown by the price which was paid for your deliverance ; and discerning the grounds presented in that price for gratitude and love and holy obedience.”——* Not with corruptible things, silver or gold,’—the ordinary means of redeeming from outward slavery or of purchasing any of the good things of this world, but which plainly cannot by pos- sibility furnish any approach to an equivalent, when the question concerns the ransom of an imperishable moral being : on this clause cf. Isa. li. 3 (ov peta apyuplov AvTpwOnceTOe, LXX.), which was possibly echoing in the apostle’s memory, if not definitely before his thoughts. The derivatives of AwvTpov are occasionally and quite naturally used in a somewhat loose secondary sense, simply of deliverance from bondage in a way accordant with right, without the idea of ransom specially pre- senting itself; cf. Luke i. 68, xxiv. 21; Acts vi. 35. Here, however, quite obviously from the specification of price, AuTpovcOar is to be taken with its proper force, “to eman- cipate by paying a ransom, to redeem;” cf. Tit. 1. 14; I. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 97 Heb. ix. 12. Compare also the use of ayopdfw, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vil. 25; 2 Pet. ii. 1; and of its compound éfayopafw, Gal. ii. 13, iv. 5. Redemption is primarily from curse, the state of condemnation (Gal. iil, 13); secondly, and as the erand aim, from the thraldom of sinful dispositions and habits, —it being by the atonement rendered consistent with the elory of the divine administration to send forth those influences by which the power of sin is overthrown. This is the aim exhibited here ; so in Tit. i. 14; Heb. ix. 12-14,— The avactpody of nen by nature is pataia, “ vain, profitless,” destitute of good fruits, as regarded from the only worthy point of view, the moral and spiritual: on partatos, cf. Trench, Syn. N. T. § 49. The dvacrpogy is described also as matpotapdootos, “ handed down from ancestors.” In connec- tion with avaotpody, “life among our fellows,” this adjective plainly does not point immediately to the bequest from one generation to another of innate depravity, but to the influence y exerted by the issues of depravity, evil training and associa- tions, evil modes of thought and life-—which to so great an extent form a chain binding each new generation, a slavery ? from which “redemption ” is needed.—The non-repetition of the article before matpowapaéorov is in accordance with clas- sical usage in such a case as this, where the substantive already has an adjective; cf. Gal. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 166, with Moulton’s note 3; A. Buttmann, p. 91. An adjective or par- ticiple thus attached has a prominence which gives it to some extent the force of a distinct predication: cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. §§ 407 and 489, foll. Ver. 19. Several translations of this verse are possible, according to the construction given to the genitive Xpuctod, and according as @s is taken to be a particle of comparison, thus making duvod a mere simile, or to point to function or capacity, in which case a@uvod is a metaphor. Thus we have (1) “with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, namely (the blood) of Christ;” (2) “with the precious blood of—as a lamb unblemished and spotless— G 98 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 19. Christ,” ze. according to the usual arrangement of words, “ of Christ, as a lamb unblemished and spotless ;” (3) “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unblemished and _ spot- less” (so A. V.). To the first of these, which is a natural rendering according to the order of words, the objection lies that by it mere blood, one of the @@ap7a, and that the blood of one of the lower animals, is—and this manifestly, in the connection, as a ransom for sinners—called tisov, and seem- ingly likened in value to the blood of Jesus. The third rendering again is met by the difficulty that a mere simile appears to lack force in a passage of this kind. The second view of the meaning seems to be in all respects suitable. The connection immediately suggests the thought of “a sacrificial lamb,” from the well-known ritual usages of the Jewish temple, with perhaps a special reference to the paschal service. From John the Baptist’s memorable words (John i. 29, 36) the thought of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” must have been very familiar to Peter and to all the others of the first Christians who had been disciples of John, or intimately associated with any of his disciples. Peter’s very first acquaintance with Jesus was as “the Lamb of God;” and thus no aspect of the Lord’s character and position was likely ever to present itself to the apostle more vividly than this. Assuming the construction to be that which has just been preferred, namely, that aipwate governs XpioTod, and the intervening s auvod is in apposition to Xpsorod, the arrangement of words, though not very common, is by no means unexampled. See, for instance, a similar case, also with ws, in chap. iii. 7, @s dcGevertépm oxever KTA. In such cases the interjected words gain from their unusual position a special prominence, which accords with their argu- mentative importance. Here, for example, the apposition has the force of “seeing that,’ accounting for tule attached to aiwate; and in the connection the particle @s gives distinct- ness to this special force (@s, etiologia rod “ pretioso,” Bengel). An interesting parallel to Peter's tiui@ aiwate Xpiotod, possibly a reminiscence, is found in Clem. Rom. § 7, dte- 119, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 99 vicwpev €is TO aipa ToD XpicTov, Kal yvapev ws EotLV TiwLoV T@ TaTpl avTod. "Apwpos and domXos are so nearly synonymous, that the employment of the two is in all likelihood simply to set forth the one common thought with special fulness and impressive- ness; see, however, Bengel’s distinction below. In LXX. usage the word papos has passed from its classical sense of “reproach” to a special meaning connected with ritual, “blemish” (ground of reproach and rejection) in an animal presented for sacrifice; and similarly auapos from the sense of “irreproachable” to that of “unblemished.” Both words occur in the LXX, frequently, pamos answering to D1, and du@pos commonly to DF; see, for example, Lev. xxii. 19 foll. It is not improbable that this sacrificial use of wamos may have sprung from the similarity of sound between it and the Hebrew o3,— perhaps, indeed, from the one word’s having been regarded by the translators as radically the same as the other. Not a few LXX. renderings, some of them much less defensible, seem to have been determined by some such view or feeling ; compare eg. Toxos (Ps. lv. 12), tpody) (Ps. exi. 5), payes (1 Sam. v. 4) with the correspondent Hebrew. The most interesting case of this kind is the use of oxnvy and of the verb oxnvovv and other derivatives, answering to and appa- rently intended to have the special force of the Rabbinical m2; ef. eg. Ps. Ixxviii. 60 ; similarly in N. T., eg. John i. 14 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Rev. vii. 15, xxi. 3. Whether in all the passages of the N. T. where duwpos occurs allusion to sacrifice is to be supposed, and the special Hellenistic force attached to the word, or whether in some of them we should give it the wider sense of the classics,—which is found also sometimes in the LXX.,—may be a question; but manifestly in the place before us the thought of sacrifice is present, and thus the meaning of the word is “unblemished.” “Aazvdos does not occur in the LXX., but in the connection dwapos at once draws this adjective also into the sacrificial reference; and the stress which, by the employment of the two synonyms, is 100 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [I. 20. given to the one thought of freedom from all defect answers —perhaps intentionally—to the fulness of expression in the Law (Lev. xxii. 21): “It shall be perfect (LXX. au@por) ; there shall be no blemish (wos) therein.” The thought of the apostle in our passage thus seems to be, “ with the blood of Christ as an all-perfect sacrifice.” But whilst this is the general thought, the terms @uwpos Kal domidos also obviously present the special idea—one plainly peculiarly suitable in the course of an appeal to the “followers of the Lamb” (Rev. xiv. 4) to be holy—that one grand element of the perfection of the Lord as the sacrificial victim was His personally “knowing no sin.” With respect to the character of the Lord, Bengel thus distinguishes between the two adjectives here employed: a@wepov, Jesus Christus in se non habuit labem, —kal aorinov, neque extrinsecus maculam contraxit. Whilst this is ingenious and interesting, and fairly accords with the force of the words, it can hardly be insisted on: at all events, in Eph. v. 27 dmwpos and pa) Eyovoa o7idov appear to be used as almost exactly equivalent to each other. Compare also 2 Pet. iii, 14, damier Kat apeopntot; ii. 13, oidot Kal Oot. Vy. 20, 21. The statement is here continued of the grounds of that gratitude to God from which springs naturally the holy @é80s of ver. 17. “From eternity, in the purposes of | divine love, the Redeemer was destined for you; and you are among those who enjoy the privilege of knowing that He is | actually come, and who live under those gracious influences which He bestows.” | Ver. 20. As to mpoeyvwopévou, see note on tpoyveacw in ver. 2.—TIpo xataBorys xoopouv (John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4) is—not necessarily, indeed, but, as used in the N. T., actually —equivalent to “from eternity.” — In the antithesis, davepw- Gévros might not unreasonably be supposed to mean that Christ (the Mediator who in one Person united the two | natures, the OedvOpwros) having from eternity existed as such in the mpoyvwow of God, “passed from designed into, I. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 101 actual existence.” This mode of expression, however, would be singular; and the way in which ¢avepodc@au is used else- where of our Lord’s incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John i. 2, il. 5, 8) suggests rather the bringing in of another thought than that of the mpoyvwous, namely, a reference to His personal pre-existence In His divine nature. In v. 4+ (where see note) the apostle uses davepodcbat of our Lord’s Second Coming. —’Em’ écyatov tav ypovwyv, “in the end of the times (or ages),” 2.¢. specially here, no doubt, the times in the world’s history which have been marked off from each other by variety in the modes and measures of God’s revelation of His will, times in which are recognised different “ dispensa- tions.” The previous “times” were all preparatory for the appearance of Christ, and from His advent onwards is “ the last time,” the consummation or culmination of “ the times.” ‘Ecyatov is probably neuter, “the end;” cf. Heb. i. 1, also Acts i. 8.— By 6c’ twas is pointed out the direct practical bearing of the preceding doctrinal statements on the main theme of the sentence, év do8w avactpadnte, eidores OTL KTH. (vv. 17,18). The words practically repeat the argument set forth in éAutp@Onte (ver. 18), presenting, however, here not merely the fact, but the fact as being the issue of God’s gracious purpose. On the last clause cf. a passage in the ancient homily formerly called the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, § 14: épavepaOn dé (6 Incods) eT ETYAT@V TOV MEPaV, iva Iwas THON. Ver. 21. This verse seems designed to gather up the force of the long sentence, showing the perfect relevancy of the reference made in vv. 18-20 to the work of Christ, as an argument in support of the injunction in ver. 17, “If ye call on God as your Father, walk before Him in holy fear.” In substance ver. 21 says, “It is only through Christ that you reach this recognition of God as your Father; and thus in connection with this name ‘Father’ all the tender appeal to the Christian heart, which is made by the remembrance of the advent and sufferings of Christ, naturally presents itself.” The 102 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Pie rot. apostle does not, indeed, in our present verse formally refer to the words of the 17th by saying tods da Xpsotod (or ev Xpistd) watépa émiKadovpévovs tov Ocov, or the like. But the statements, “It is da Xpictod that ye are moto es @cor,” and “It is through the proof of the acceptance by God of Christ’s work which has been given in His raising Him from the dead that you have riot cai édmida eis Ocov,” are such as, in the connection of the sentence, are fitted to bring up the other. That Peter intended this verse to recall the first clause of ver. 17, is reasonably inferred from the aptness of his language to do this,—from the compactness of struc- ture which this view gives to the sentence,—and especially from the proof that the Fatherhood of God to believers was still prominently in the writer's mind, which is afforded by piraderdiav in ver. 22, avayeyevynuévor KT. In ver. 23, and perhaps aptuyévynta Bpédy in ii. 2. IIicros followed by eis (a construction found with the adjective only here in the N. T.) has evidently what is known as its active sense (frequent in N. T.), “believing,” = miorw éywv eis, Ac’ avtov may be paraphrased; by “through the revelation of God given in Christ, and through the influence of the Holy Spirit sent forth by Christ.” The thought that faith is “through Christ” appears to have been a favourite one | with this apostle ; ef. his words in Acts iii. 16, 4) miotis 9 80 avtov.— This clause gives some support to the view that the Christians addressed in this Epistle were mainly persons | brought out of heathenism. It is true that, taking “ faith in | God” in a specially deep and rich sense, it may be said of any class of converts that this was reached by them only | through their saving knowledge of Christ. But in this passage the language is general, without any express or obvious reference to peculiar liveliness or intelligence or operative power of faith. In such a sentence it seems much less likely that the words are used of Jews, who had from their childhood believed in God, and indeed “made their boast” of Him, than that they are spoken of persons who, I. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 103 “being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,’ had in early life been “ without God in the world.” The participial clause tov éye(pavta «TX. is epexecetical of &: ab’tod miatods eis Ocov. Believing knowledge of Christ produces loving faith in God through the ample evidence presented—especially by our Lord’s resurrection—that God loved and honoured Him, and accepted His work for men. — Kai dofav aire dovta is obviously not a mere feeble addition to the mention of the resurrection, “and therein glorified Him,” but carries forward the thought, speaking of the ascension and session at the right hand of the Father; ef. Acts ii. 36 (Peter’s words), If we attach to wore in the last clause of the verse its usual meaning, and translate in the way which first suggests itself, “so that your faith and hope are in God,” the statement has in some measure the look of a tautology, after TOUS muatous eis Meov. Some scholars, therefore, have taken the conjunction to be used in the sense of iva (so A. E. V.), thus making the differentia of the thought as given in this clause to lie in the divine purpose. Words of purpose and words of result have all a tendency to pass into the sphere of each other; and in N. T. there are some unquestionable cases of @ote as telic; cf. Matt. xxvii. 1; Luke ix. 52. It is to be observed, however, that in these instances the subject of the” clause introduced by @o7te is the same as that of the clause to which it is subordinate,—an easier case somewhat for transi- tion from the one sense to the other than that which is before us here, as is now and again illustrated in English by colloquial uses of “so as to.” Another possible translation is, “so that your faith is also hope in God.” But faith and’ hope, whilst closely allied to each other, are yet in N. T. regularly distinguished ; and the epigrammatic pointedness of expression obtained by this proposed translation belongs rather to modern literary style than to that of ancient writers, and 4 particularly that of Scripture. The position of vuay between \/ the substantives rather favours this predicative construction of 104 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [L 29, €dvida,—the ordinary arrangement where nouns which are coupled by «aé and have a common article govern a genitive in common being different; cf. eg. Phil. i. 20, 25. But the order in Eph, i. 5 is as here; and to some extent probably the arrangement was often determined by euphony. On the whole, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for departing from the prima facie rendering of the clause, “so that your faith and hope are in God.” The apostle appears purposely to refer to his previous words tovs muctovs eis Ocov, and _ to intimate simply that the clause tov éyeipayta xTX. has _ explained the genesis of that wiotus—his “so that” being 9 practically equivalent to, “and thus it is that;” whilst éAaiéa is added most naturally, the mention of the glorious proofs of God’s having accepted His Son’s mediatorial work bringing up vividly before the writer's mind the hope - producing character of Christian faith. Vv. 22-25. Exhortation to the cultivation of brotherly love. The connection seems to be somewhat of this kind: “ Whilst it is true that, so long as you are here, sojourners in the alien world, you have many spiritual perils, such as to make it needful for you to walk in fear (ver. 17), bear ever in mind at the same time that even here there is also for you spiritually a home life. As you look on God as your Father in Christ Jesus (ver. 17), remember the many around you who also rejoice in being His spiritual children, and who are thus your - brethren. Love them sincerely and ardently. A heart defiled with sin turns ever further towards selfishness ; but your hearts are purified through faith to be abodes of love.” Ver. 22. We find occasionally elsewhere in the Epistle a section beginning without a connective particle (as 1. 13); but the present case is the most striking—The participle nyvixotes has its full perfect foree—*seeing that, according to your Christian profession, you have from your conversion I. 23.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 105 onward been purifying.” In ayvixotes «TX, as in any clause attached in this way to an ethical injunction, there lies for the conscience a suggestion of command or appeal ; but the participle is not to be regarded as having itself a directly imperative force,= dyvicate ... Kai ayarnoate. This sense of a participle which stands in connection with an imperative—common with the participle of the present and the aorists—is not common, if it occur at all, with the participle of the perfect; and the course of thought set before us by giving to the participle its frequent force of “ seeing that” is, to say the least, quite as natural as the other— Lraxon THs adnGeias, “submission to the truth,” an expression obviously of wide range, has here reference most prominently to the primary and fundamental element in such submission, namely, “belief.” In and through this spiritual element or atmosphere, mio, the purification of the heart takes place: see note on vmakonv, ver, 2, and for an interesting parallel, showing that the thought given in this clause was a favourite one with Peter, see Acts xv. 9.—In els idAaderdiav the telic force of the preposition, while present, is yet not prominent. Eis sets forth the natural tendency which the purifying work wrought by faith upon the heart has, a tendency which, of course, becomes a definite conscious aim with the Christian in so far as the matter comes before him in thought.— Whilst kalapas of T. R., before xapédias, is no doubt a gloss, it is obviously one supplied with thorough intelligence as to the line of thought, for there is substantially, though not quite exactly, a threefold correspondence of expression between the imperative clause and the participial—adAdyArovs ayaryoate answering to els didadeddiav, éxtevas loosely to avuToxpitor, and €« Kapdias to Tas uxas Uuav iyviKOTEs. Ver. 23. As to dvayeyevynuévor, see note on davayevyycas, ver. 3. priest, cf. Ex. xxviii. 38. Ver. 6. Azores here is not strictly causal, but introduces evidence from Scripture; cf. i. 24. Proof is given of both of the statements which have been made, that respecting the glorious position of Christ in the sight of God, as a Living Stone elect and precious, and that respecting the honoured standing before God of Christ’s people. Ample attestation of both is given simply by quoting in full that Wet FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 6. passage of Isaiah from which the description of Christ in the 4th verse, as é«XexTOs, évtypos, has been taken.—The verb qrepiéxew, properly transitive, “to contain” (as in Acts xxiii. 25), is here used peculiarly. Either some such subject as 1) Teployy or Oo Toros, “the passage,” must be understood, with the quoted words construed as object, or the verb must be regarded as employed semi-impersonally, “it runs thus.” From the frequent intransitive and impersonal use of éyew and its compounds, the latter seems to be the preferable explanation; and this is sustained by a similar use of TEPLEXEL in Josephus (Antig. xi. 4. 7), Bovropar yevéo@ar Twavta xabas év aith (Kupov émictody) mepsexer. With this varied lise of wrepvéyes may be compared the somewhat similar use in English of the word “ read,”—“ How do you ead the passage ¢” “The passage reads thus.” A certain difficulty in the con- struction of wepuexer seems to have been felt by some ancient transcribers, for a reading which is found in a few early authorities, 4 ypady in place of €v ypady, is in all likelihood 73 an attempt to simplify Ev ypady means “in a Scripture” (i.e. passage of Scripture)—or perhaps, taking the noun as collective, “in Scripture.” Bp. Lightfoot (on Gal. ii. 22) maintains that the singular ypady always in N. T. means a particular passage of Scripture. That this is the general use there is no doubt; but to take Acts viii. 32, Gal. i. 22, and especially 2 Pet. i. 20, in this way, seems forced. The apostle quotes the passage Isa. xxvii. 16 very nearly as it is rendered (in substantial accordance with the Hebrew) by LXX., substituting, however, a somewhat more simple and exact translation of the first word or two, omitting one of the epithets applied to the stone, and in the last clause adding the words é7’ air@. Portions of this same verse are quoted in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, and two of the divergences from LXX., which are found here, occur there also, namely the substitution of ti@nus év Siwy for euBdadrrw eis ta Oewedra Swwov, and the addition of ew avt@. These common divergences, however, hardly establish a likelihood Il. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. TZ ol that Paul’s use of the passage was in Teter’s mind, because there is not identity of form throughout, Paul giving the last clause somewhat differently from LXX., with which Peter agrees; whilst, as regards Té@nwe év, it has to be said that this is the most obvious and natural rendering of the Hebrew, such as might readily occur to the apostles sepa- rately. The fact that the words é7’ adr are added in all the three quotations of the last clause of the verse which are made in the N. T., seems to show either that in the days of the apostles this addition was read in LXX., or that the passage had come to be usually filled up in this way when cited in apostolic teaching. To the former view support is given by the fact that these words are found in the text of LXX. as given in Codex B, whilst Codex A has the variation év avt@. Supposing the words to have been in LXX., it is likely that the translators meant by them “ on it” (7@ ALOq). If, on the other hand, they constituted an apostolic supple- ment, then the thought intended is more naturally taken to be directly personal, “on Him.” Indeed, whatever was the origin of these supplementary words, the way in which the Apostle Paul quotes the clause by itself in Rom. x. 11 suggests that he at least was thinking not of “77,” the image, but of “ Him,’ the reality. — Aifos dxpoywriaios, “a stone for the point or extremity of the corner,” elsewhere described (see ver. 7) as kepada yewvias, seems clearly, from the struc- ture of the figure in the passages where the terms occur, to designate not the copestone, as some have supposed, but the ereat stone which was laid for the foundation at the place where two walls met, and was consequently reckoned the chief stone (xefady), being of peculiar importance with regard to the stability of the building. The expression eés Ta Oeuédia of the LXX. rendering in Isa. xxviii. 16 shows decisively that the Alexandrian translators at least had no doubt about the Ai@os dxpoywuatos being a foundation-stone. —tThe precise meaning of the last words of the verse in the original Hebrew is “shall not make haste;” but this is 126 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. FIT, 7. substantially equivalent to od my KataicyvvOy of LXX., which is here adopted by the apostle; for the “haste” spoken of is evidently flight in consequence of the proved insecurity of a support which had been trusted in, Vv. 7-10. The glory of the position of privilege enjoyed by Christians. The apostle, starting with an application of the closing words of that quotation from Isaiah which has been made in ver. 6, confirms the faith of his readers by pointing out the dignity of their position——the impressive contrast pre- sented by the position of unbelievers being also touched upon, in natural accordance with that antithesis between God’s judgement of Christ and the world’s, to which he had adverted a little before (ver. 4). Ver. 7. The meaning of the first clause, paraphrased, is: “ According to the last words of the prophecy just quoted, then, you observe, it is for your good—who are believers— that the preciousness or value serves which belongs to the stone, and which has been expressly ascribed to it by the epithet évtupos.” Another view of the force of vyiv than that which has been followed in this paraphrase is grammatically possible. The dative may be taken (so R. E. V. marg.) as one, not of advantage, but of opinion (see Acts vii. 20; 1 Cor. 1. 23, 24; and cf. Winer, p. 265), “in your judgement or sight.” To this view there are very strong objections. (1) If it be accepted, the rest of the clause cannot be quite satisfactorily construed. The meaning yielded is, “It is then in the judgement of you believers that the stone is évtipos.” This is obtained in one of two ways. To 7 tiu) may be supplied T® Ow éeotiv; but such a supplement is plainly very hard and unlikely. Or 1) ty may be regarded as not subject but predicate, and equivalent to évtimos, the subject being “ the i re FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 127 stone,” or, personally, “Christ:” so A. E. V. This also is a mode of construction so forced, that nothing but absolute inability to bring out a satisfactory meaning in any other way could justify resort to it, (2) The whole section—vvy. 7-10 —seems undoubtedly to constitute a unity. ‘Twets 6€ of ver. 9 is in sharp antithesis to amucrovew of ver. 7; which again is in as direct and manifest antithesis to viv at the beginning of that verse. Now quite indisputably vv. 9, 10 describe objective results of Christian faith, in the dignities which God confers on believers. We naturally assume then that the contrasted passage introduced by admictovow is similarly objective; and this the structure of that passage accords with, and its substance requires, for, as a matter of fact, the Stone is not in the judgement of unbelievers the head of the corner. That clause again being antithetical to the first, which is now under consideration, there appears an utter want of naturalness in taking this as other than also objective. On these grounds it may safely be held that the force of the clause is that which has been given in the paraphrase above. The immediate reference of ody—practi- cally answering here very nearly to our English “you see” —is to the last clause of the prediction quoted in ver. 6, in which it was said that “the believers in Christ shall assuredly not be put to shame.” This security of believers is then thought of by the apostle in its connection with that tun Which in the epithet évtiwos had been ascribed to the Stone-—As to the use of the article in 7) teu to exhibit a definiteness connected with the amplification of a thought contained in a previous word, cf. e.g. Acts vil. 41, To efddrAw, where the article refers to éuwocyotoincav; Matt. i. 24, Tod umvou, referring to kat’ dvap. The present case is even simpler than these, through the fact that the same root is found in both words, With respect to the precise sense to be attached to teu and éytywos in this passage, there is some doubt. Classical usage favours “honour” and “held in honour.” In LXX,, 128 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (rn 393 however, the other shade of the meaning of the words of this root, “ value,” is abundantly prominent, as they are used to represent the Hebrew 7?', “ to be precious,” and its cognates ; and in particular this is the case with évtsmos in the very passage of Isaiah quoted in ver. 6. This makes it at least extremely probable that “ value” was the thought in Peter’s mind. In the exegesis of the first clause of ver. 7, too, it seems as if the idea of “ value”—that value through which actually the security spoken of in the previous clause, and referred to in this clause by odv, was obtained—more natur- ally presents itself than “recognition of value, honour.” “ Precious” and “ preciousness ” seem therefore, on the whole, the preferable renderings. If, however, “honour” be taken to be the shade of meaning intended, the sense of vuly odv 7 tyun would appear to be, “To you then, you observe, from the promise that believers shall not be put to shame—to you, as living stones built upon the living foundation—the honour which belongs and is in the prophecy ascribed to the founda- tion, is in a measure extended,’—there being thus a reference to the participation by Christians in the glory of their Lord, according to His declaration (John xvii. 22). Whether this great thought—relevant in the connection undoubtedly, but not in any express way led up to in the context—would naturally have been presented in so very contracted and obscure a form as that in which the words of this clause would give it, may be doubted—By Tots muctevovow the apostle recalls attention to 6 muotevwv in the last clause of the prediction just cited from Isaiah, and thus to the condi- tion, as regards state of soul, which, in using the word of direct address, duiv, he has assumed to be complied with by his readers. The position of this participial adjunct, at the end of the clause, separated from duty by several words, gives it a strong emphasis, and adds also to the effect of the anti- thesis with amctovou', the immediately following word. Throughout the rest of this section, while not formally making a quotation, as he did in ver. 6, the apostle clothes Il. §.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 129 his thoughts to a great extent in O. T. forms of expression. First, continuing the figure of the stone, he cites in full Ps. exviii. 22, already referred to in ver. 4. The citation is precisely in the words of LXX., except that, according to the most ancient authorities for the text, the regular construction by the nominative A/os is substituted for the slightly irregular M@ov of LXX. As to the original reference of Ps. cxviii. as a whole, and of this verse in particular, see notes on ver. 4; as to cepadi) ywvias, note on axpoywviaiov in ver. 6. As to the construction eivae or yiryverOar els tt,=—on the whole a Hebraism, though with classical precedent for a certain sphere of its use,—cf. Winer, p. 229, and especially A. Buttmann, p. 150.—Odros, in its familiar redundant use to gather up the subject and bring-it into immediate connection with the predicate, has obviously here a decided emphasis, “that very stone.” Ver. 8. Seeing that amietovow has so emphatic a position at the beginning of this part of the sentence, obviously as a dative of disadvantage, it is thus, of course, implied that the state- ment regarding the stone’s having become the chief stone of the corner was at the moment standing out before the apostle’s mind in its relation particularly to: wnbelievers, as involving for them—all unbelievers having been represented by the builders—the disgrace of folly and failure. In ver. 8 he carries this thought forward, exhibiting the stone as being to the unbeliever, through its advancement to the headship of the corner, an instrument of loss and punishment. This he expresses in words of Isaiah (viii. 14), not quoting LXX., but translating more exactly. Paul translates in the same way in Rom. ix. 33, incorporating the words with portions of Isa. xxviii. 16.—Between the sense of Aos tpoocKdpparos and 7étpa cxavdarov there seems to be no appreciable differ- ence, the doubling of the expression being simply for solemn emphasis.—The “stumbling” here spoken of is not intellectual difficulty found in the way of accepting the doctrine of Christ crucified and glorified: such a sense here would be discordant I tog FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 8. with the objective tenor of the whole passage, and would give no advance of thought. It is the stumbling of fall, loss, punishment, punishment coming from the glorified Lord (for it is through the Stone that they stumble),—the thought of the loss, however, as coming by wilful folly and perversity being that which is prominent. It can hardly be doubted that before Peter’s mind was present Christ’s solemn applica- tion of the same passage from the 118th Psalm (Matt. xxi. 42,44; Luke xx. 17, 18); and that application thus serves as a commentary on the apostle’s meaning. Compare also Prov. iv. 19; Jer. xiii. 16. To some expositors it has seemed that the apostle, in attaching Isaiah’s words Gos mpoc- Koppatos «TA, to the Psalmist’s statement regarding the stone’s having been made the head of the corner, had before his mind a picture of the foundation-stone as projecting in some way on the surface, and thus tripping up heedless passers-by. The freedom found in the structure of Scripture imagery generally, and in particular the analogy of the Lord’s language in His application of Ps. exviii. 22 on the occasion just adverted to, show that there is no need for this somewhat awkward and difficult supposition. The thought which is carried forward from the one figurative sketch to the other, is simply that of the stone-—no more.—The influence of Peter’s linking together in vy. 6—8 quotations from Isa. vill, 14, xxviii. 16, and Ps. exvill. 22, is perhaps to be recognised in Barnab. Ep. vi. 2—4, where the same three passages are associated, the reference to Isa, viii. 14, how- ever, being a little uncertain. But if the combination was suggested by a remembrance of Peter, this is all that can be said, for the quotations are considerably different in form. In the relative clause of mpocxomtovcw xtXr., the dative 7™® AOy may grammatically be connected with either the main verb or the participle ; “ who (ae. of course, unbelievers, the antecedent being azuotovowy) stumble at the word, being disobedient ” (so both A. and R. E. V.), or “who stumble, IT’ 8.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ibe being disobedient to the word” (so R. E. V. marg.). As to the former of these constructions, cf. Rom. ix. 32. In the present place the second mode of connection has much in its favour. First, it appears that this particular thought, “ disobedience to the divine word,” was one very familiar to Peter, seeing that of the three other places in which he employs the verb dzreety, one (ili. 1) has precisely the combination here, aveeiv tH Aoyo, with no ambiguity of construction, and another (iv. 17) the closely similar ameeiv TH ToD Ocod evayyerio. The circumstance that, differently from the order in these instances, the dative in the present verse stands before azevfovrtes, scarcely affects the weight of this argument, position being so largely determined by a writer’s sense of rhythm or of emphasis. Secondly, it appears unnatural to represent “the word” directly as the stumbling-block, when from the language immediately preced- ing the mind instinctively carries forward the thought of the stone, ue. the Lord Himself. Thirdly, the thought yielded most naturally by the combination mpookortew Td Gyo is simply that of intellectual difficulty in the way of accepting the word, while the tenor of the whole passage, as has been seen, leads us to regard the conception as objective, “ suffer loss, punishment.” This thought is given by the other mode of connection,—“ stumble, being (7c. practically, in or through being) disobedient to the word.”—The clause brings in an explanation of the statement which has just been made, that Christ is to unbelievers “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ;” “who stumble, namely (or “for they stumble,” Rk. E. V.), inasmuch as they are disobedient to the word.” The unbelief which is expressed in the antecedent amuctodcw is here in the relative clause stated to be, in fact (according to the uniform N. T. meaning of azeetv), disobedience, the issue from a perverse spirit (John 111. 18—20) ; and the disobedience is said to be to “the word,” no doubt because the teaching which the apostle has given regarding the importance of the word and of spiritually assimilating it, in that paragraph 132 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (ST, 8: (i. 23-11. 3) which led into the line of thought pursued in the section before us, is still in his mind. He aims, by his statement here that amiotia is amei/feva, to deepen in the thoughts of his Christian readers a sense of the vast import- ance of bearing ever in mind the definition which he has again and again given them of miotis, as being baxon, Umaxon THS ddnOelas (i. 2, 22). In joining the present participle dmeWodvtes to mpookor- tovo.v, the apostle teaches evidently that the disobedience and the stumbling are coincident. The disobedience involves of necessity—it is itself, in fact—prodigious loss, considering the nature, possibilities, and ends of a moral being; and as disobedience grows, spiritual death deepens.—On eis 0 éré@noar, cf. as to phraseology and construction, 1 Tim. 1.7; 2 Tim. i. 11. In the connection it does not appear natural to regard as the antecedent to 6 either the main verb of the preceding clause, or the participle, taken separately, but the whole statement,—-the stress of the reference, however, falling natur- ally on the main verb. Unbelievers have been appointed or ordained by God to loss, punishment, as involved in, and necessarily resulting from, their disobedience to His word. The purpose of this little clause appears to be to deepen in the minds of the readers the conviction that the pooxorrew which has been spoken of is not something casual, but in the strictest sense punishment from God. This thought plainly is directly in the line of the whole paragraph. Peter’s aim throughout is to incite his readers to cleave to Christ notwith- standing that the world around them, including multitudes more learned and in many ways more eminent than them- selves, oppose and deride His claims. “Men rejected Christ ; but God glorified Him. To those who believe, thus accepting God’s judgement of Him, He is found to be an infinite security and honour; upon unbelievers, on the other hand—who by their unbelief join themselves, as regards judgement and treat- ment of Him, with the foolish and wicked builders—come condemnation and punishment from God.” The «ai, “also,” II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. itso is thus pretty nearly equivalent to “mark this other important fact in the case.” On the use of «ai in relative clauses, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 283. Ver. 9. The apostle turns now, with a delight which is manifest in the richness and free flow of his language, from the contemplation of the sin and punishment of the unbeliever, to speak of the blessed estate of the Christian. In the first clause of ver. 7 he began the practical application of Isaiah’s prediction with a brief reference to this pleasant side; but having afterwards dwelt longer on the painful aspect, he gladly takes up again, for more full exhibition, the position Lpiv ody 1) TYun Tots MLcTEVoVoL. A passage very similar in structure is Rom. ii, 6—-10.—The description here by Peter of the condition of Christians is throughout a free adaptation of language used in O, T. regarding Israel,—the apostle thus obviously intimating in the most distinct way that the dignity and privileges connected with being the chosen people of God are enjoyed in their highest forms by the Church of Christ. Supposing, as seems likely (see Introduction, § II.), that those Christians to whom the Epistle was addressed were to a great extent members of Gentile races, it is easy to see how cheering and strengthening, amid the opposition of unconverted Jews and the narrowness and arrogance of many Christians of Jewish birth, must have been—particularly as coming from the great Apostle of the Circumcision—the teaching that the community of Christ’s followers in all its length and breadth is the true spiritual Israel, the elect of God. The first designation here applied to believers, “a chosen (and thus loved and blessed) race,” is from Isa. xl. 20. Believers form a yévos, “a body of common origin, a com- munity of kinsfolk,” inasmuch as they are all children otf God; and they are such through the €xAoyy of His sovereign love.—tThe next two titles in the description, “a kingly priest- hood, a holy (consecrated) nation,” are from Ex. xix. 6. The Hebrew for which Bacinevoy ieparevya is the LXX. rendering is DTD nado, “a kingdom of priests,” ac. a priesthood form- 134 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 9. ing an organized community — people, body of subjects — under the immediate government of the Divine King. In Rev. i. 6, where the same passage is cited, such appears to be the thought given by the best supported text, Sacvrelay, lepets. By some scholars it has been thought that, whatever might be the sense intended by the Alexandrian translators in their rendering, the words Pacideoy iepatevwa, as employed by Peter at least, ought perhaps to be taken with a force approaching that of the original Hebrew,—thus, “a priest- hood belonging specially to the Divine King,” on the analogy of such designations, natural enough in any language, as “royal chaplains, royal household,” and the hke. This sup- position appears to be, in the connection in which the words occur here, somewhat forced, and is not at all needful. The N. T. writers not unfrequently, in passing references, employ LXX. language which represents the thought they wish to express, even though it may not happen to answer with perfect precision to the Hebrew in the place where it origin- ally occurs. Indeed, they do this sometimes even in formal quotations, in cases where, though the form may be consider- ably different, yet, as regards general tenor, the translation substantially accords with the original: eg. Rom. x. 20, 21, xi. 9,10. It seems likely that in his free application here of the words in Exodus the apostle was acting in this way, and that the combination should be taken in the sense which undoubtedly is first suggested to a reader, that of “a kingly priesthood,” the apostle by this condensed expression bringing out the truth that the glorious privilege of believers is to be at once kings and priests. — As distinguished from ryévos, “a body having community of origin,” €@vos, according to etymology, appears to be “a body organized through com- munity in the usages of life (€@y).” This distinction has been adverted to by some expositors; but, whilst probably true, it seems hardly to have any claim to enter into the exegesis, strictly so called, of the passage, for there is nothing in the context leading to the thought that it was Il. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. tea specially before the apostle’s mind.—As to dyov, cf. note on aylacpo, i. 2. In the rest of the verse the apostle reverts to Isa. xliii., where immediately after the already cited yévos éxXextov we find (ver. 21) Aaov pov bv TepteTroLncaunY Tas apeTds pou Sinyetc@ar, This Peter freely quotes and expands. Con- sidering the probable present application of the language by the apostle to Gentiles, it is important to bear in mind the frequent special use of Aaes in LXX. and N. T. for Israel as the people of God’s choice, the theocratic nation. For ov mepteTroinoauny, “which I acquired for myself,” the apostle, apparently from a somewhat similar passage in Malachi (iii. 17) which flits into his memory, substitutes the equivalent eis mepiTroinawy, “for a possession” (cf. Eph. i. 14). In Malachi the words are in connection with écovtas, and thus, to explain Peter’s construction, we must supply the participle #y ; as to this Hebraism, see ver. 7, éyevOn eis xkehadnv, note. The designation Xads els mepitroinow describes Christians as being, in a specially rich and full sense, “ God’s own,” peculiarly prized and cared for. The words e¢s reputroinow appear to be as precisely as possible equivalent to the adjective mepsovaros (Tit. 1. 14), this latter word being the representative in Ex. xix. 5, and elsewhere, of the same Hebrew term mp3D (“a treasure”), which in the passage in Malachi is rendered by eis wepimoinow. The rendering of A. V. both in Tit. ii. 14 and here, “ peculiar,” is after the Vulgate peculiaris, and was no doubt meant by the translators to carry with it the special force of the Latin substantive peculiwm. On the precise force of els trepsroinow and treptovoros, cf. an interest- ing discussion by Bishop Lightfoot, in the Appendix to his work, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament.— The next clause sets forth the grand end for which believers are thus taken by God as “a people for His special pos- session,’ — namely, to show forth His glory. That in the apostle’s mind the immediate connection of this clause of purpose was as just represented,— namely, with the words 136 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ik ‘9; Aads els TEpiToinow,— may be inferred from the verse in Isaiah ; but, of course, the force is substantially the same if we join it with the whole preceding description —* Ye are a chosen race, etc., to the intent that.’—Having in this citation from Isaiah substituted for the relative clause with its verb, Ov cTepleTroLnodunv, an equivalent expression with a sub- stantive, the apostle is naturally led, according to Greek usage, to substitute also in the following clause of purpose, 67s in place of the infinitive construction of LXX. For dinyeto bar of LXX., too, Peter, moving quite freely in his choice of O. T. phraseology employed in various places to illustrate the same line of thought in which he is now engaged, substitutes é£ayyéAXew, used in LXX. of proclaim- ing the praises of God (Ps. ix. 14, lxxvilil. 13). The word occurs in N. T. only here. The thought of “telling forth,” so as to make known far and wide, is evidently made prominent by the preposition of the compound. —’Apetn is used by Peter more than by any other of the N. T. writers, occurring, besides the present place, also in 2 Ep. 1. 3, 5,—elsewhere only in Phil. iv. 8. In LXX. the word is not unfrequent,—the plural in particular, as in the passage of Isaiah on which Peter’s present words are based, being employed to represent the Hebrew nan or nibnn, God’s “ praise ” or “ praises.” The translators thus adopted a word which explicitly pointed to the grounds of the praise, the divine “ excellences ;” cf. Isa. xlii. 8, 12, lxiii. 7. Philo also employs the word in the same way (Quis rer. div. her., Mang. p. 488). Its reference appears to be quite general, like that of our English “excellences” in its widest use,—including God’s power and wisdom as well as His moral perfections. For the simple @cod or Kupiov, answering to pov of Isaiah, Peter gives a magnificent paraphrase, pointing out the grandeur of the work done by God for and in believers, the consequent greatness of His claim upon their faithfulness and zeal in telling forth His excellences, and the special meetness of the duty to the condition of Christians,—enlightenment of the II. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 137 dark world by those who out of darkness have been themselves brought into light. The particular form of this paraphrase was possibly suggested to Peter (cf. Phil. ii, 15) by a remembrance, as he wrote the words é7ws x7X., of that great statement regarding the vocation of Christians which was given by our Lord Himself in the Sermon on the Mount, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. v.16). This precept of the Saviour is almost certainly referred to a few lines farther on (ver. 12), in Wa é« Tov Kaa@v épywv étomTevoytes Sofdowor Tov Ocov, and from the identity of the thought with that in dmws tas apetas KTH. could, one may reasonably suppose, scarcely but suggest itself already here—bringing into the apostle’s mind consequently the thought of light. While natural, however, the supposition is not necessary. Light and darkness are most familiar O. T. images for knowledge and ignorance, and by legitimate exten- sion also for holiness and happiness and their opposites,— images the truth and beauty of which at once commend themselves to all. No description of the divine work of grace, therefore, could occur more readily than the exhibition of it as a calling out of darkness into light—light beautiful and benign as enjoyed in the Christian life here, and ever broadening and strengthening towards “the perfect day ;” ef. Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 12,13. In the passage before us the prepositions 逫 and es imply that before the writer's mind was the conception of spheres or regions of darkness and light respectively, in the one of which the natural man is, in the other the children of God. The light is God’s light (avrod), as kindred to—an outflow from—that light “full of glory” in which He dwells, which is indeed His own nature {1 John i, 5). The apostle’s epithet @avpacrov— “marvellous” through transcendent sublimity—is echoed by the experience of every believer—and this always the more fully as he grows in knowledge of himself and in knowledge of God. According to the analogy of general N. T. usage, by 138 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [H. 10. Tov KadécavTos is to be understood God the Father; cf. i. 15, note. Ver. 10. To deepen in the hearts of his readers a sense of thankfulness to God, and thus to increase their zeal in “ telling forth God’s excellences,” the apostle gives yet another word of description regarding the condition of Christians,—and this in the form of an impressive contrast between their former and their present spiritual state. This he clothes in language freely adapted from Hos. ii. 23 (cf. also Hos. 1. 6, 8,i1,1). This same verse of Hosea is formally cited by Paul in Rom. ix. 25, in a somewhat different connection of thought from that in which it appears here-—The sentence of ver. 9 is continued here, but with a change of form. From the simple predications “ Ye are a chosen race,” etc., we pass now to the construction of a participle with the article, equivalent to a relative clause,—a construction employed in the N. T. with even more freedom than by classical writers: “Ye are persons who,” etc. In the first clause, the fact that the participle giving with oi the meaning “who were” is left to the mind to supply, perhaps aids a reader somewhat to give at once to ov the connection which from the passage in Hosea we see to be intended,—that is to say, not as negativing the copula, but as an integral part of the predicate,—thus, literally, “who were a not-people,” iz. a body of persons in whom the characteristic features of a Aaos were not to be found; cf. Deut. xxxii. 21 (LXX.), é od Oc@, em ovK EOver, Hosea having “not-My-people” (r@ ob Aad pov, LXX.), some expositors are of opinion that in the verse before us we are intended to regard the @eod of the antithetical clause following as belonging to this clause also. But this would be grammatically hard, and, as the apostle in his adaptation of the words of Hosea omits to give any representative of the pronoun ov which he found in Hosea, it appears reasonable to assume that he meant dads to stand out here by itself before the minds of his readers. The thought underlying his language seems to be somewhat of this kind —that, from a Ee 10, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 139 religious point of view, the sinful world has no real com- munity of life or of interest, but is merely an aggregate of isolated persons, the tendency of sin being ever, through the working of selfishness and hatred, toward social disintegration. The loneliness and dreariness of the unconverted state, especi- ally amid the intense darkness and debasement of heathenism, appears to be the prominent idea; and thus, with a consider- able difference in form, we seem to have a close resemblance in thought to the present statement, in ver. 25, ite os mpoBata TAavopevot. On the combination of ov« with a substantive, so as practically to make a compound, a mode of expression not without analogies in classical Greek, but to be regarded in the N. T. as due to the influence of Hebrew, and found, indeed, only in passages quoted from the LXX. (ef. Rom. x. 19), see Winer, p. 597; A. Buttmann, p. 353.—If of rote ov Aads means what has now been said, of course the antithesis is a climax: “From this position of isolation you have passed through grace to become a real community, closely bound together in love by oneness in the most import- ant interests; and not a people only, but the most glorious and blessed of all peoples, God’s people.” The second clause of the verse is adapted from that which stands first in Hosea. There the ordinary text of the LXX. has dyarijow thy ovK Hyatnuévnv. The apostle’s rendering here by forms of éAeetv, which answers more exactly to the Hebrew, may be due either to his translating for himself, or possibly to the use of another text of the LXX. (some extant authorities for that version, indeed, particularly Codex A, having the forms from éAeeiv). The force of woré of the previous clause obviously repeats itself before od« 7Xenuévor, and here also the ov« joins itself. completely to the predicate, so that we have not simply “not compassionated,’ but “uncompassionated.” When a participle which has the article is negatived, the particle employed is in N. T. usage regularly 4, not ov«, antithetical passages like the present forming the only exception; cf. A. Buttmann, p. 350. In the use of the 140 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TT 113012; perfect participle we have state presented. In their time of darkness, had any one of them obtained some true knowledge of the circumstances in which he was, he would have had to say, “ We are and have been uncompassionated,’—that is, Edeos being “active pity,’ “We have not been visited by God with proofs of redemptive compassion and grace for us as sinners.” But the aorist participle €denOévtes in the other division of the clause points to definite acts of mercy: “ Now —since the day-spring from on high visited us—we are able to say "Hden@nuer, glorious compassion was manifested to us in the work of our Saviour for us, in sending us the glad tidings of that work, and in leading us by the influences of the Holy Spirit to accept Him.” On the combination of perfect and aorist participles, cf. Winer, p. 431. With respect to the use of viv with aorists, when the particle has a some- what wide sense, as “since Christ came,’ or “since the knowledge of Christ was sent to us,” cf. 1. 12, note. Vv. 11,12. Call to purity of life, with special enforcement of the thought that thus heathen onlookers may be led to glorify God. The second and much the longer subdivision of the hortatory part of the Epistle begins here. The first sub- division, extending from i. 13 to i. 10, has dealt with those duties of Christians which spring out of their immediate relations to God, and their relations to fellow-Christians. In the second subdivision, which extends to v. 9, we have exhortations to duties arising out of the various relations in which men are placed in life, and advices and encouragements as to the spirit and conduct becoming believers exposed to persecution,—as evidently many of those were to whom in the first instance the apostle wrote. Throughout the whole of this portion of the Epistle, Peter seems to have vividly before his mind the special trials, difficulties, and duties of Christians who are surrounded by heathen, and of necessity brought into frequent intercourse with them. A ruling thought with him te 11) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 4 everywhere is that by the purity of character of believers, the faithfulness with which they do their work in the various spheres occupied by them, and the meekness and patience with which they bear their troubles, even their adversaries may be drawn to recognise the presence in the Church of a power from heaven, and led themselves to join the Christian ranks. This thought has already appeared in the last clause of ver. 9, which prepared the way for the present section ; and we have it set forth still more expressly in vv. 12, 15, ui. 1,16. This specialty of aspect throughout this part of the letter obviously presents in itself an element of difference, even where, as occasionally, a precept which occurs here is in substance very nearly the same as one that has been given before,—for example, comparing ver. 11 with i. 14. The exhortation in vv. 11, 12 is general in its character. It serves as an introduction to the subdivision, both by giving a summary statement of a wide range of Christian duty, and by definitely announcing the point of view, just adverted to, from which, in what follows, the apostle is about to look at the position of his readers. Ver. 11. The affectionate word of address ayamnrtoi is employed in this Epistle only here and in iv. 12,—in both places with great naturalness and force, as introducing ex- hortations of a kind in which the loving sympathy of the apostle with his readers was specially called forth, and would be felt as peculiarly refreshing. IIapaxado, following on ayarntot, and written down amid the same pressure of affec- tionate feeling, is thus perhaps best taken, as in both A. and kh. E. V., with something of its familiar entreating shade of meaning, “ I beseech,” rather than with the hortatory shade, also common, “1 exhort.”——-On the omission of tuas here (which, though not in the least causing ambiguity, still in such a connection as the present would be somewhat peculiar in any writer, and is specially remarkable in Hellenistic Greek), cf. Winer, p. 179.—In the words as (“as _beseems,” ae. practically, “since you are”) apoixovs Kal trapeTidypous ge FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fits ids there is something of a climax,—zdpoixo., “ by-dwellers,” being residents beside or among the citizens of a country, yet not of them, their own citizenship being elsewhere, whilst the designation trape7iénot, substantially the same, adds, accord- ing to its ordinary use, the idea of brevity of residence, “ sojourners.” As to wapotxous, cf. i. 17, note; and as to TmapeTLonjovs, i. 1, note. To some expositors (basing their opinion mainly on the expression “among the Gentiles ” in ver. 12, and holding that this Epistle is addressed solely to Jewish Christians) it seems that by the words “strangers and sojourners ” Peter simply refers to their being of the duaczopa, Jews absent from Palestine. By the mention of “ Gentiles,’ however, as we shall see, a contrast with Jews is not in the Epistles of the N. T. necessarily suggested; and even if it were, the reference to Gentiles does not come in this verse. In any case, when we remember that the character of Chris- tians was exposed to even more of keen and jealous observation by enemies of the truth in Palestine than in pagan lands, such an argument in support of an appeal to abstain from “fleshly lusts” as, “ because ye are absent from Palestine,” would manifestly be pointless and irrelevant in the extreme. On the other hand, the argument from the fact that Christians are citizens of heaven, called upon therefore during their sojourn on earth not to imbibe the spirit or live the life of citizens of this world, has plainly the greatest pertinence and force. With this view of the meaning the prominence which already in the Epistle has been given to the thought of heaven as the believer’s inheritance and the object of lively hope (i. 8-5, 13) wholly accords; also the way in which zrapocxia is used in i. 17; and, still further, the language of David in a passage which one cannot reasonably doubt to have been in Peter’s mind when he wrote the words now before us, Ps. xxxix. 12, “I am a stranger with thee and a sojourner” (rdpovkos Kal taper (Onuos, LXX.).—We may join @s tapoixous Kal TapeTLoynpovs either with the object of mapaxad® or with ~ the subject of dvéyeo@ar; and it is of little moment which of 10 es ee FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 1435 the constructions be adopted. If we join the words with the infinitive, it is then perhaps a shade easier to understand the omission of vtuas,—“I exhort (or, I make entreaty), as strangers and sojourners to abstain,” etc.; cf. ver. 15 (where, however, the analogy is but slight). On the other hand, at the beginning of a long series of exhortations, all of which may legitimately be enforced by an appeal to the pilgrim state of the readers, it appears most natural to attach the words to mapaxar®, the introductory word of the whole section. This latter construction is therefore probably to be preferred: “I beseech you as strangers and sojourners, that ye abstain,” ete. °EOvpia, “ desire,” in itself a word of general reference (see eg. Phil. i. 23), but quite predominantly in N. T., as by classical writers, used of wicked desire, is here defined as such by the adjective capxixyn,—oadp£& here, as so often in N. T., standing for the corrupt nature, which has its stimuli and instruments in the flesh. The émvOupiae capkixat (otherwise éifupiar tijs capKos, Eph. ii. 3, 2 Pet. ii, 18, and émiOupiae xoopixai, Tit. ii. 12) are the different forms of the one pervasive éi@upia capkos spoken of in Gal. v. 16, the “fulfilling” of which is the opposite of “walking in the Spirit,’—“ for the flesh lusteth (émvOvpet) against the Spirit.” Prominent no doubt in Peter’s mind among the “ fleshly lusts ” were desires for sinful indulgences of the flesh in the strict sense,—those desires which John gathers up under 7 émi@uuia tis capKds, as he uses the expression with a specific reference (1 Ep. ii. 16),— particularly desires for those impurities which were so gene- rally practised in heathen society of every rank that, conscience having becoming torpid with regard to them, they thus pre- sented strong temptations even to converted heathen. The expression covers, however, much more than sensual desires, in the usual meaning of that phrase. Paul, in Gal. v. 19-21, gives a considerable list of the forms of feeling and conduct which fall under the name ta épya ts capxés; in which, beginning with impurities, he goes on to include “ hatred, 144 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [EF 12: wrath, envying, and such like,”’—everything, in fact, which contrasts with “the fruit of the Spirit ” (ver. 22). The compound relative aitwes has in the connection, as frequently, the force of “seeing that they,” quwippe que, utpote que; cf. Eph. iii. 13; Phil. i. 28, and on the various uses of doTis see an excellent note by Ellicott on Gal. iv. 24.—The clause exhibits a lively and expressive figurative representa- tion of the work of the “ fleshly lusts.” As usual with Peter (see 1. 9, 22, ii. 25, iv. 19), Wuyy is here not looked at as distinct from mrvevywa (as 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12), but as designating the whole inner nature,—intellect, affections, and will,—that immaterial element of our being whose salvation is the primary aim of divine grace, and against which Satan wars through his instruments, evil desires. These desires “ campaign against the soul,’—strive like an armed band to destroy it, by obscuring its vision, troubling its peace, enfeebling its energies, dulling its interest in God and in fellowship with Him; cf. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. p. 19), ToNéu“ou ToD KaTa Avy, Os arrevdas éoTL TOAEU@Y apyaheo- tatos Kal Bapvtatos. A close parallel to the clause occurs in Jas. iv. 1. Polycarp (§ 5) has an obvious reference to it, in which, however, the form of expression is a little affected by a remembrance also of Gal. v.17: waéoa émiOupia kata Tov Tvevpatos otpatevetat. A sentence, too, in the Epistle to Diognetus (§ 6) seems to be-a reminiscence of this verse, though the form of the thought is a little different: pice? Ty ~uyny 1 capE Kai Todepel, dvoTe Tais HSovats KwAVeEeTaL pho Gat. Ver. 12. The participial clause here presents the duty in a positive form, and under a special aspect, its force being, “thus having,” etc. This clause implies that whilst, in accordance with the radical character of all the ethical teach- ing of Christianity, the duty enjoined has been enunciated in ver. 11 in very comprehensive terms, yet at the moment the outward forms of indulgence in the “ fleshly lusts” were specially before the apostle’s mind, because he was mainly IL. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 45 occupied with the thought of influence on others——The use of the nominative éyovTes, instead of the grammatically regular accusative éyovtas, is in accordance with a tendency, found not unfrequently in the Epistles, to give to participial clauses which contain a particularly important thought more pro- minence and independence of form than they might otherwise have, by employing the nominative even where regular con- struction would require an oblique case; cf. Eph. iv. 2; Col. ili. 16; and see Winer, p. 716. A number of scholars have held (recently T. 8. Green, V. F. Gram. p. 180), that in at least some of these cases, including that now before us, the participial clause is not to be looked upon as merely a secondary part of the sentence, but that the participle is meant to have an independent imperative force. This is satisfactorily answered by Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 732, note 5). Indeed, as regards any form of independent sentence, there appears much reason to doubt whether a mere participle is ever in N. T. style, as has often been supposed, employed, on Hebrew analogies, to represent a main verb ; see an excellent discussion by A. Buttmann, p. 291 foll. The words év tots €Oveow are attached to the clause in a somewhat loose fashion, which, however, is perfectly natural and intelligible. Their immediate grammatical connection may be regarded to be in either of two ways. It may be looked upon as with tyv avactpodny tuav, “ Your mode of for the substantive avaorpody, ? life among the Gentiles ;’ being cognate with a verb which would be construed with the preposition €v, accommodates itself most readily to the simple addition of the adverbial combination, without repetition of the article (Winer, p. 170; A. Buttmann, p. 92). Indeed a repeated tv would scarcely be suitable here, seeing that it would at least appear to limit the range of the obligation of moral comeliness to those departments of life which were under the eye of the heathen. But the connection may also be regarded as with the participle @yovres. Looking at what seems to be the exact logical relation of the words in question K 146 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (II. 12. to the rest of the clause, this latter construction is the pre- ferable. Of course, whatever had been the surroundings of the apostle’s readers, he would have called on them to have life morally comely ; but the words év tots €@veow bring in an argument additional to those which might have been in force in other circumstances,—thus, “remembering specially that you are among the Gentiles.”——The contrast with Gentiles here does not necessarily imply that the persons addressed by the apostle were Jews, and nothing in the context naturally suggests that they were. In the Epistles, the name “Gentile” often has a purely religious reference, “ heathen,’—the ethnical sense passing so out of view that Greeks and Romans cease to be spoken of as Gentiles when they accept Christianity, unless the specifically Jewish use of the word is in some way directly suggested. For a short discussion of this point, see Introduction, § II. 3—Kandnyv is obviously predicative; and its position at the end of the clause gives it a certain sharp emphatic force; “ thus having your mode of life—particularly remembering that it is lived among the Gentiles—comely.” In the connection which the word has here, its radical sense is plainly prominent, the apostle’s thought being of the beauty of holiness.—Polycarp (§ 10) seems to have quoted this clause, the Latin version giving conversationem vestram trreprehensi- bilem habentes in gentibus. There is no reason for taking év ® in any other than its most obvious meaning, “in the matter (sphere, field) in which;” ef. Rom. ii. 1, xiv.22. The apostle’s thought is, “that in the very sphere namely, your Christian life—where, superficially looked at, your enemies now imagine themselves to find grounds for harsh accusations, they may by and by through the leadings of God’s grace see, looking more heedfully, ground for praising Him as the Giver of moral excellence.” By some expositors the temporal use of év #, “at which time, whilst” (Mark ii. 19; John v. 7), has been thought of here ; but this is quite unsuitable, the time of do&acwor being not coincident with, but subsequent to, that of xatadXanovou. | | ak] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 147 The sense of “ whereas” (A. E. V., after pro eo quod of Beza) is in itself suitable enough to the passage, but is unsupported by the use of év 6 elsewhere. On the various uses of év 0, cf. Winer, pp. 482, 484, and a good note of Alford on Heb. ii. 18. —In @s ckaxovroiwv the @s marks caxozrovoi as the name which was given to the Christians by the catadaXobvtes, or as sum- ming up the allegations which were made against them; cf. A. Buttmann, p. 307. This name «axozrovoi suggested (see ver. 14), just as “ evil-doers” does with us, that whether as a matter of fact the followers of Christ were dealt with by the tribunals or not, their conduct, the issue of their peculiar principles, deserved to be punished by the judges. In being subjected to such a charge, the Christians were bearing the cross after their Lord (John xviii. 30). Both by N. T. and by secular writers it is shown that calumny, and calumny taking this particular form, the charge of criminal conduct, arose against the Church very early and prevailed very widely. The Jews in Rome, at the time when Paul arrived there, stated, as the sum of their knowledge about Christians, that they were “a sect everywhere spoken against” (Acts xxviii. 22). At this stage probably the main accusation was the same which had been made against the Lord (John xix. 12), a charge of disloyalty to the Emperor, and, associated with this, of a revolutionary spirit generally, a disposition to “turn the world upside down” (Acts xvii. 6). That this was the most prominent form among the calumnies to which the Churches directly addressed by the apostle were subjected, is likely from the fact that he begins immediately (ver. 13 foll.) to speak to them on the subject of obedience to constituted authority. With the charge of revolutionary tendencies as regarded the State, was probably associated, as we may infer from exhorta- tions which follow (ver. 18 foll., iii. 1, 7), the accusation of stirring up discords and disorderliness in households. Some- what later, in all likelihood, was the rise of calumnies of a yet more unjust and indeed utterly monstrous kind, of which we read,—charges of the practice of gross impurities and cruel- 148 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5 ae es ties in the Christian gatherings, and the like. So widely diffused among all classes of the heathen did belief in atro- cious falsehoods of this kind become, that even a philosophic historian like Tacitus could speak of the Christianos per flagitia invisos, while their religion presented itself to him as exttiabilis superstitio (Ann. xv. 44); and similarly to Sue- tonius the Christiani appear a genus hominum superstitionis nove. ac malefice (Nero, 16). In the clause introduced by tva, rigid regularity and com- pleteness of construction would have given us €v TovT@, “in that field,” as grammatical antecedent to év @. Instead of this, the apostle sets before us what may be described as the Jruits which are produced in the field of a true Christian dvaotpody, and which cannot but be seen by the watchful eyes of the heathen passers-by. These fruits are the «cada épya which will be discerned in every department of a believer’s conduct, in proportion to the intelligence and liveli- ness of his faith. As already noticed under ver. 9, there appears to be in this clause a distinct reminiscence of our Lord’s precept in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 16), AauWatw Td POs tuov KTA.—The use of the article in Toy Karov épywv implies a reference to éyovtes THy avactpopiy vuav Kadnv,—these words, of course, clearly assuming that the separate épya which make up the avactpogn are kana: on definiteness thus given by implication in a previous word, cf. note on % Ten in ver. 7. y The verb évomtevew occurs in N. T. in Peter only (here and iii. 2); the cognate substantive also (2 Ep.i. 16). This word intimates here that, whilst the source of the cataXaXua/ is the ayvecia (ver. 15) connected with listening to foolish hearsay, or with utter superficiality of observation, on the other hand “ eye-witness,” in any worthy sense of the word—real personal contemplation of a Christian’s mode of life—may reasonably be expected to lead to a recognition that in Christianity the power of heaven is present, and thus to bring the observer to glorify God. It will have this effect with all who have Il. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 149 not entirely blinded within them that faculty which, even in unregenerate men, testifies to the original image of God,— the faculty which “Feels how awful goodness is, and sees Virtue in her shape how lovely.” Through the use of the present ésomrevovtes we have the viewing from day to day set before us, whilst the aorist SoEacwor points to the great decisive act which the apostle trusts will come “in the day of visitation,’—the acceptance of the evidence that Christianity is from God, and thus the surrendering of the soul to glorify God by personal faith.— The participle évom7evovtes stands in the sentence somewhat peculiarly, through the absence of an expressed object. Having substantially the force of dca tod éromtevev, it is closely interwoven with the main thought; but its absoluteness, as regards construction, makes it resemble a parenthesis,—* that by means of your good works—witnessing (them)—they may glorify God ;” cf. dvaywecxKortes, Eph. iii. 4. On the sub- stance of the present clause, cf. ii. 1, 2. The closing words, €v ijuépa éemicxoTns, are in form so general that various meanings may be attached to them. God is often in O. T. said to “visit” men, and this either for purposes of mercy (eg. Job x. 12; Ps. vill. 4) or purposes of judgement (Isa. x. 12; Jer. vi 15). The meaning here might thus be, “when God visits the calumniating heathen for judgement,”—and that either in this life, by sending affliction, or at the great day of final account. On this view of the sense, however, with either of these references, the words do not appear to connect themselves very naturally with the main thought of the clause, that regarding the influence of personal contemplation of the good works of believers ; and, supposing the reference to be to the last day, then the force of doEaew would be different from that which the rest of the clause leads a reader to expect. By some expositors the apostle’s expression has been supposed to indicate a minute and formal investigation, whether strictly judicial or other, . 150 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 18-17. made by the heathen themselves into the conduct of Christians. But this mode of interpretation, besides yielding a somewhat jejune meaning, is not accordant with the usus loguendi as to émicxoTn and its verb émioxémtecOar, when employed in any such connection as the present,—and especially as regards the combination %pépa or Kaspos érioxom is (Isa. x. 3, LXX. ; Luke xix. 44). The natural reference of the expression, as here used, seems certainly to be to visitation by God, not by man. In the New Testament, wherever either the verb or the noun is used of a divine visitation, a gracious one is always referred to (Luke i. 68, 78, vii. 16, xix. 44; Acts xv. 14; Heb. ii. 6). We may therefore most safely take the meaning here also to be “in the day of (God’s) visitation (in mercy),” a sense which accords with the whole tone of the passage, and also with the closely similar passage, ili. 1, 2. In language which, from the general interest of the occasion, and from the fact that the immediate reference was to his own work in the house of Cornelius, Peter could hardly have for- gotten, and may well have had present to his mind as he was writing the words before us, the Apostle James said that “God had visited (é€recxéyvato) the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name” (Acts xv. 14); and in thinking here of the calumnious opponents of believers, Peter’s hope is that for these particular Gentiles there may come a “day” of this dealing of grace. Vv. 15-17. On the duty of obedience to civil rulers, This section contains the first of the apostle’s exhortations to duties which arise out of particular relations of ordinary life. It deals with the relations of subjects to their rulers. To persons of a lively imagination, and whose minds at the same time are ill-informed and ill-regulated, the doctrine of Christ regarding His kingdom on earth may easily present itself in such a form as to imply the reasonableness, and 1%, 13:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 151 indeed obligation, of disregarding other rule. A tendency to error of this kind has been often shown during the history of the Church, appearing particularly, as was to be expected, in times of religious upturning and excitement, as among the German Anabaptists at the Reformation, and among the extreme sectaries in the time of the English Commonwealth. Missionaries find that they have occasionally to deal with the same error at the present day." Where, as with those Asiatic communities to whom Peter wrote, the rulers were them- selves heathen, the tendency to doubt whether duty called on or permitted Christians to give obedience to these rulers was obviously specially apt to show itself; and positive antagonism to Christ exhibited by the rulers, through persecuting His fol- lowers, might readily fan what otherwise would have remained mere theory into a flame of feeling resulting in conduct very injurious to the interests of the Church. It is evident that the primitive Christian teachers were deeply impressed with a sense of the hazard of their converts falling into what might prove most serious errors on this subject; for, in Romans, Paul similarly has devoted a considerable paragraph to teaching and warnings respecting the duty of civil obedience (xiii. 1-7). That passage and the present are mutually illus- trative. To Titus also Paul gives a special injunction with regard to ministerial duty in the matter of setting forth truth on this point (iii, 1). The influence exerted on the early Church by this apostolic teaching is strikingly shown by the boldness of the statement which Justin Martyr felt himself justified in making with respect to the habitual dutifulness, as subjects, of the Christians throughout the empire (I. Apo/. 17). Ver. 13. The connection of thought is no doubt correctly given by ody of T. R.; but MS. authority is decidedly for the omission of the conjunction. Occasionally elsewhere the 1 A friend of the writer, a missionary in India of long experience, requested some young helpers in Scotland, who were engaged in writing or painting texts in the native language for his mission rooms, to include 1 Pet. ii. 17, and this expressly because he found mistakes on the subject of relations to civil authority prevalent among his converts. 52 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [ay 23) apostle begins a period without a connective word; cf. i, 22. —RKemembering the necessity of divine influence for sancti- fication, we may take wbotdynte here, tazresv@Onte (v. 6), or any other similar moral precept couched in a passive form, as really passive in meaning. Such exhortations, however, naturally take a reflexive form, and the unquestionable tendency of later Greek, illustrated often in N. T., to use passive aorists with the force of the middle voice, makes it highly probable that the-apostle’s thought was “subject yourselves” or “ be subject,” rather than “be subjected:” cf. Winer, p. 327; A. Buttmann, pp. 51, 52. Kriows, in the various applications which it has in N. T, use, coincides throughout with our English “ creation,’—desig- nating (1) the act (Rom. i. 20); (2) the product of the act, collectively (Col. 1. 15); (3) one particular product of the act, “@ creation,” = xticpa, “acreature” (Heb. iv.13). In every passage of the N. T. where «tious or any cf its cognates occurs, except the passage now before us, the reference is to (God's work; and the combination here, aca av@pwrivyn Krtiots, regarded simply by itself, would naturally in the first instance be taken, similarly, as meaning “every human creature (of God).” Some expositors have held to this sense, regarding the precept as analogous to those found in Rom. xii. 10, “to prefer one another in honour;” Eph. v. 21, “to be subject (urotdoocec Oa, as here) to one another in the fear of Christ ;’ and in another part of our present Epistle (v. 5), “ Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility to serve one another.” The view that in meaning the present precept is similar to these, however, is not tenable. The peculiar form of tbe exhortation, in which the appeal for mutual subjection, so pro- minent in all the others, is wanting, and the remarkable inten- sity of the periphrasis chosen for the simple zavti av@poTe, constitute a considerable difficulty in the way of accepting it, though not perhaps, taken alone, an insuperable one. But having regard to the division of xt/ce. which immediately follows, presenting in the first instance solely different classes 1B 13¢] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 153 of magistrates, elre Batre? elite ryepoowy, and in subsequent sections relations of life which, from their nature, imply rule on the one side and subjection on the other,—to the manifest main reference of the paragraph, as a whole, to civil government,— and to the fact that, whilst the duty of “ honouring all men” is enjoined in the 17th verse, that precept enters by a line of thought connected with the closing words of the verse and of the paragraph, “honour the king,” we cannot doubt that the meaning of the injunction before us is not at all so wide as “Be subject to every human creature.” Kriows appears to be undoubtedly employed here—in a way strange to Hellenistic usage, but which to the Asiatic Christians, accustomed to hear xtitw and its derivatives employed with much freedom of reference in the Greek of their heathen neighbours, would not appear unnatural or hard—for “a creation” of man’s thought, “an institution ;’ and this is limited by the preceding uTotaynte, by that mention of magistrates which immediately follows, and which is placed in closest connection with this word, and by the tenor of the following section, to an institu- tion for rule in a State, or generally in such societies, required or naturally brought about by God’s arrangements, as involve subordination,—a household, for example. To some interpreters (as Hofmann and Huther) it appears that definition of the object of the particular kind of «rious meant by the apostle is intended by him in using the adjec- tive av@pw7rivy, which they understand to signify “applying to human relations,” and explain to mean here particularly “for man in his social relations.’ But obviously nothing is thus gained, for the specific part of this explanation, namely, “in his social relations,’ does not lie in the Greek word, but is a supplement gathered from the context. Looking at the apparent antithesis between this adjective and é:a Kupuov, it seems far more natural to take avOpwrivy in the sense of _ origin, “ devised by man.” The form of mistake into which Christians were apt to fall is readily inferred from the nature of the case, and is made evident by the emphasis with which 154 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Ee 13: our apostle presents his dca Kvpvov, and with which, in Rom. xiii. 1-6, Paul enunciates and reiterates the position that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” magistrates being thus “ministers of God.” The error was this: “Seeing that we are now governed immediately by a Divine King, whose laws we know from His word, and with whom we have direct communication through His Spirit, and that earthly princes and magistrates are merely human creations, — man-made institutions, full of ignorance and often of wickedness,—we are therefore free from their authority, not bound to obey them, indeed bound not to obey them.” Considering that this was plainly the nature of the mistake——and that the peculiar sense of «xtiots found in the present passage was one much more likely to suggest itself to persons familiar with the free uses of xr/Gw and its derivatives in ordinary Greek than to a Jew, to whom “create” was a sacred word, employed only of God’s work,—it seems reasonably probable that the combination avOpwrivn Kticts had become known to the apostle as one occasionally, or often, employed among converts from heathen- ism (perhaps specially among those Asiatic believers to whom he now wrote) in discussions on the duty of Christians to earthly authorities. This probable enough supposition satis- factorily explains the peculiar form of expression. In the paragraph already referred to in Rom. xiii, Paul lays stress on the fact that civil government is “an ordinance of God.” It is such, not through the same express kind of appointment as that which, for example, constitutes private or social prayer His ordinance, but through the fact that—from the instincts which He has implanted in men, and the necessities arising out of the circumstances in which He has placed them —He has called on them to live in society, and this organized, that is to say, under magistracy of some kind. The form which government takes in any particular nation is determined by the thoughts and actions of men themselves, and is thus a KTtlots av9pwrivy ; but civil government, taken generally, being an absolutely needful element in social life, is a «tious Beta. II. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Lae Peter in the verse before us says, not dua Oeov, but da rov Kdprov; and Kupuos, according to ordinary N. T. usage (followed by our apostle; cf.ii.3 and iii.15, true reading), designates Christ. By this word, therefore, whilst suggesting the same thoughts about the basis of magistracy which Paul explicitly sets forth in Romans (seeing that “ by Christ all things consist”), he also presents motives to obedience specially connected with the Saviour. “For the Lord’s sake” means, when expanded— (1) “ because of the teaching of the Lord, personally (Matt. xxi. 17-21) as well as through His apostles ; and (2) from regard to the interests of His Church.” This latter motive has been already illustrated in ver. 12, and is dwelt on again in vv. 15, 16. In that specification of forms of “human institutions” for civil rule, into which, to give distinctness and impressiveness to his exhortation, the apostle now enters, he naturally selects the functionaries of that particular system under which his readers were placed. By the absence of the article, “king” and “governors” are spoken of quite generally; but in the first instance the king intended was the Roman Emperor. He was freely called “king” by the Greeks, the Jews, and his other Eastern subjects (cf. John xix. 15), though the Romans curiously imagined themselves to retain something of independence by calling their lord not rex, but wmperator. temembering, then, that the system of government which was immediately within the view of the Apostles Paul and Peter, when they earnestly exhorted their converts to obey all constituted civil authority, was a harsh despotism, and that the despot reigning at the time was Nero, we see clearly the wide and unhesitating sweep of the inspired injunction. Authority recognised by those among whom Providence has cast a Christian’s lot is, even though it may have originated in crime and may be exercised with much iniquity, still to be obeyed, so long as the civil ruler keeps within his sphere, and does not traverse commands of the Supreme King. Faithful obedience to civil government is abundantly com- 156 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [U. 14. patible with that free and manly spirit which the principles of Christianity are fitted to generate, and with most vigorous exertion to have bad laws abrogated and good laws enacted. With altogether abnormal conditions the teaching of the apostles does not directly deal; but it may safely be said that, where exceptional circumstances cast a Christian among the excitements of a political revolution, he will find that intelligent obedience to constituted authority in quieter times has, through the blessing of the Spirit, matured in him moral wisdom and strength with respect to the questions which he has to consider and determine.—The particle s before vrepexovTt, and (ver. 14) before 6: avtod teutropévols KTH, has its frequent subjective force, = “remembering him (them) to be,” or the like; the grounds being thus introduced why respect and deference should be shown, in measures and forms accordant with the positions of the various magistrates. ‘Trepéyov7s, which involves a comparative idea, seems here clearly, from the mode in which respectively “king” and \“ governors” are named, with a descriptive phrase attached to each, to mean “chief magistrate,’ the comparison being with the governors. In Rom. xiii, 1, the only other place in N. T. where this word occurs with reference to civil dignity, it is employed of all magistrates, “higher powers,” the com- parison being with the people generally. Ver. 14. The “governors” (heads of provinces or similar districts—the designation applying practically to all regularly appointed subordinate magistrates) are to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are commissioned from time to time (this is the force of the present participle weywropévors) through him—the king —for the vindication of justice on evil-doers and for the praise of well-doers. The words 6v’ avdrod distinctly suggest vmo Kupiov, the chief of the state being the minister of the Lord in commissioning the subordinate magistrates; but the expression certainly does not itself mean “by Him (the Lord),” as some expositors have supposed. Nothing in the connection leads specially to the thought either of Christ as IL. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. L157 Mediator, or of that prominence of the immediate agency of the Divine Being in carrying out His own purposes, which is occasionally expressed by the preposition da (as Rom. xi. 36 ; Heb. ii. 10); and only in the one or the other of these ways could a reference of 6¢ avtod to the Lord be explained. Besides, on this view of the meaning, the position of these words in the sentence would seem altogether singularly to confine to subordinate magistrates the Lord’s providential relations—’Exdécnows, meaning simply “the vindication of justice,” may govern a genitive either of those whose rights are vindicated (as Luke xviii. 7, 8), or, as here, of those upon whom the claims of justice are asserted by punishment.—The reference of ézravvos here is, of course, to practical commen- datory recognition, rather than to words of praise, — the recognition of well-doers which a magistrate can give, more- over, being in the vast majority of cases simply the securing to them of peace and liberty, and only in exceptional instances the bestowal of positive honours of any kind—A direct connection of efs éxdixnow KTr. with vaepéyovTt, as well as with ov adtovd mewropévols, is not grammatically impossible; thus, “ whether to the king, as holding supreme authority—or to governors, as commissioned through him— for the punishment,” etc. But this structure is not a very natural one. The purpose of the king’s authority, however, suggests itself quite readily from the other clause. The true end of civil government, God’s end in instituting it, is in the verse represented by the apostle as being to some extent in the mind of the king in sending forth his subordinate macis- trates,—and thus also, of course, by implication, as being the view which the monarch entertains of the purpose of his own position and power. By very many magistrates, no doubt, both supreme and subordinate, this grand end of their functions has been in great measure forgotten; but the duty of the Christian is to honour civil government as designed for a noble and gracious end. Ver. 15. Well-doing—excellence of conduct in all depart- baste FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (Il. 15. ments of life, and thus here particularly in the relations of subjects to their rulers—is, according to the divine will, to be the great apologia of Christianity. Through consistent obedience shown by the followers of Christ to constituted authority (the participle aya@oro.odvtas in the connection evidently = dca Tod dya@oroueiv), the calumnies of the foolish men spoken of in ver. 12—for to them clearly the article in tov adpovev avOpeérwv points—are to be put to silence. In his form of expression here the apostle has a lively personification, for the spiritual ignorance of the men is represented to be the utterer of the calumnies,—dyvecia being always disposed statt der Augen immer den Mund offen zu haben (Wiesinger).—Some scholars are inclined to connect ovtws With adyaboroodvtas or with diwoty—thus, “ because it is the will of God that by well-doing in this way (ae. submission to civil authority) ye silence,’ or “that in this way, by well-doing, ye silence.” The sense is good; but according to Greek usage the arrangement of words is decisively against the construction, Ot7tws is no doubt to be taken predicatively, as in Matt. i. 18, xix. 10. Thus employed, the adverb, answering exactly to “on this wise,” is felt by a reader to be a little less sharply definite in form, a little more general, than the demonstrative pronoun would be. On the N. T. use of adverbs as predicates, not uncommon also in classical Greek, cf. Winer, p. 554; A. Buttmann, p. 131. A specially interesting case is the adverbial use of toa in Phil. ii. 6.—The infinitive clause is plainly an expansion of the predicate otrws ; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 3, with Ellicott’s note. The omission of vuds, the subject of gepotv, is easily understood from the generality of the thought —much more easily than the omission of the same pronoun in ver, 11. The form for the infinitive here, ¢euotv, in place of the regular duodv, appears to have preponderant MS. authority. Similarly in Matt. xiii. 32 and Mark iv. 32 the best supported form seems to be xatacxnvoty, and in Heb. vii. 5, arodexatoiv ; cf. Tischendorf, note on Heb. vii. 5, and II. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 159 Westcott and Hort, Introd. § 410, and App. p. 166. The verb ¢uwow means properly “to muzzle;” but, except in two quotations of a passage from the LXX. (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18), the secondary sense “to silence” is alone employed in N. T., eg. Matt. xxii. 34; Mark i. 25.—In the word ayvwcia, as used by the Hellenistic writers, the element of moral blameworthiness (“ignorance which is wilful or obstinate”) appears to be more prominent than in ayvoa ; Cie, wnGomh xy. joss: JOD “xxx. lb; (Wisds xii! 1's) ‘also Clem. Rom. § 59. Whilst, in so far as it is wilful, dyywota of God and of duty to Him is in itself supreme folly (ef. tom. 1. 22), the apostle, in describing these men as also adpoves, probably refers particularly to the folly of their conduct in denouncing a system of thought and of life which they had not taken pains to understand. Ver. 16. The syntactical structure of the closing part of this section is somewhat doubtful. The sentence beginning with uworaynte (ver. 13) may be supposed to end with ver. 15, and vv. 16, 17 to constitute another—-thus, “As free,” ete, “honour all men,” etc. The form of sentence which vv. 16, 17, taken together, would thus give us—a participial clause leading the way to an imperative—is something of a favourite with our apostle (eg. 1. 14, 15, 22, ii. 1, 2); but the arrangement is not satisfactory in this place. The con- tents of ver. 16 have no special relevancy as an introduction to at least one part of ver. 17, namely the precept, “ Love the brotherhood ;” whilst more naturally, perhaps, than they lead even into the other precepts of that verse, they attach them- selves to the whole of what has preceded, describing in some detail the state of spirit which will reveal itself in the “ well- doing” of subjection to civil authority. Accepting, then, the connection of ver. 16 with what precedes, we may attach it specially to ver. 15, as meant to expand the idea intended in aya8oro.ovvtas,—the transition to the nominative being in accordance with that occasional irregular usage in the con- struction of participial clauses which is explained in note on 160 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fly dé: éyovtes of ver. 12. Or, keeping to regularity of construction, we may connect ws édevOepos xTA. immediately with vroraynte (ver. 13); and this best without making ver. 15 a formal parenthesis, for ver. 16, even if taken immediately with imotaynte, yet in fact expands and explains the general term aya0otrotovvtas of ver. 15—or, more exactly, enunciates the principles which, as motives, will lead to dyafomouwa. On the whole, this last connection, by which ver. 16 illustrates in the first instance vzoraynte, and thus really also the whole passage, vv. 13-15, seems the preferable. Believers know themselves to be through grace free, “the Lord’s freedmen” (1 Cor. vil. 22),—free from the condemning sentence of the divine law,—from slavish fear,—from the thraldom of sin. This truth may in various ways be mis- understood and abused; and many passages in the apostolic letters show that in the primitive Church, as often since, misapprehension and abuse of it did in fact find place. The freedom of Christians from the law as a condemning power was, by the monstrous heresy of Antinomianism, twisted to mean freedom from the obligation of obedience to the law as a rule of life; and by many also, as we may fairly infer from the present paragraph and the similar teaching of Paul, the general notion of Christian freedom was thought of as includ- ing emancipation from subjection in various of the ordinary relations of life. The mode in which the correction of all such misconceptions is to be obtained is evidently through coming clearly to understand the paradox that, gloriously true as is the doctrine of Christian freedom, yet at the same time the only possible moral condition for man is that of dovAela to the one or the other of two masters. In being delivered from the position of “absolute servants of sin” (dodA0u THs cpaptias, Rom. vi. 17; John viii. 34)—a servitude which, being wholly alien from the true end of man’s existence, is slavery—-we pass at once, from the very nature of the case, into the position of “absolute servants of God” (d0ddo4 @Ocov)—a service which is true freedom: cf. John viii. 31-36 ; He 17:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 161 Rom. vi. 14-23 ; 1 Cor. vii. 22, 23. This is substantially what the apostle teaches in this verse. “Be subject, I beseech you, brethren, to those who have the rule over you,— remembering that you are freemen, and at the same time not deeming that you have this freedom as (¢.e. that, possessing it, a use of éyev somewhat you have a right to employ it as, wider than in ver. 12, stretching toward the sense found in Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26, 46; Phil. 11. 29) a covering of wicked- ness (a covering fitted to hide wickedness from conscience and from divine justice), but ever keeping in mind that you are God’s servants.” On the middle clause, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19, ZO aGal wv. 13: As is assumed in the rendering just given, ws seems in this verse—from the prominence which it has, being used to intro- duce each clause—to have its frequent subjective force, “deeming that you are, that you have,” etc. (as in ver. 14). The repetition of the particle intimates that the apostle would have all the thoughts distinctly present to the minds of his readers, the second and third thought modifying the first, which, taken alone in a certain aspect, might seem to be inconsistent with the injunction “ Be subject.’ The second ws might suitably enough be taken with émicadAvpua. But ddrda before dodXoz plainly answers to wy of the middle clause, and accordingly ws éxovres must go together, corresponding to ws dovXoe (6vtes).—Whilst either “cloak” or “veil,” in the familiar figurative sense of these words, may serve as a translation, the metaphor in émvKadvppa (a word occurring only here in N. T.) is quite general ; cf. in LX-X. Ex. xxvi. 14, where the word is used of the covering of the tabernacle, 2 Sam. xvii. 19, where it is the covering of a cistern—If the article with xakias be other than simply an indication of the abstract, the sense must be hypothetical,—* the wickedness which the words already written, éwxaAvpwa Exovtes, imply as existing in any one of whom they could truthfully be said.” Ver. 17. Occasionally, near the end of the apostolic letters, after the detailed statements, discussions, and appeals, there L / ; ' 162 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il., 17; occur, quite naturally, groups of brief exhortations, given simply as they presented themselves to the writer's mind, and in which, therefore, it is not needful or reasonable to look for a closely connecting line of thought; eg. 1 Thess. v. 15-22. It is plain, however, that such a group of isolated precepts could not well present itself naturally in the present part of our Epistle; and when we find the last precept of ver. 17 to be “ Honour the king,” and remember the tenor of the context from ver. 13 onward, we see at once that the clauses of the verse must be closely associated in thought with each other and with what precedes, and we have also suggested to us what the link is. As has been seen from the previous verses, the peculiar temptation to which partially enlightened Christians were exposed, as regarded their relation to various forms of authority, lay in the thought that, being “ the Lord’s freedmen,” they were thus emancipated from their obligations to their earthly rulers. But another aspect of their position also might influence them. They were not free merely ; they were also, through Christ, placed in a new sphere of life, amid hew surroundings, under new influences. As these Asiatic Christians had been expressly told (Eph. ii. 5, 6), they had been “ quickened with their Lord, and made to sit with Him in the heavenly places.” Through misunderstanding of this delightful representation of Christian privilege, there might (readily arise among persons of a mystical temperament a belief that, having passed eis Ta émroupdvia, they were released not only from obedience to earthly authorities, but from all obligations to unbelievers, and perhaps called on to shun even ordinary intercourse with them. Being “ children of light,” in immediate fellowship with “the Lord of glory,” what had Chris- tians to do any more with men who were only of this world ? Their duty, it might appear, was solely to “ fear God” and— the immediate corollary of that—to “love the brotherhood.” To obviate errors of this kind, the apostle in a singularly pointed way sums up his teaching on the whole subject by giving four injunctions, in which the duties liable to be i hr Ie FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 163 questioned are set down with equal definiteness side by side with those duties which all would admit,—the reader being thus invited to think out for himself the perfect consistency with each other, and the various mutual relations, of all the members of the group of precepts. In this way the group is made up of two pairs, in each of which is an injunction to a duty universally recognised by believers, and one to a duty which, through mistaken views of Christian doctrine, some might doubt,—the first pair having reference to duties toward equals, the other to duties involving subordination and obedience. In the first pair the duty which was questioned by some stands first, and that which all admitted, second. In the other pair, the order is reversed. The ground of this arrangement is obvious, the places of chief prominence and emphasis—namely, that at the beginning of the series, and that at the end—being given to those duties regarding which doubts were or might be entertained, and upon which, therefore, it was desirable to fix special attention. “flonour all men. Have respect toman asman. Appreciate in all those with whom you are brought into contact everything which is worthy of esteem; and, in all your dealings, show that you remember that even in those persons who seem base there are still great possibilities. Perfectly consistent with this is also a special duty, which, whilst all of you heartily recognise it, still greatly calls for thought and prayer and spiritual effort,—love the brotherhood. Then, proceeding to another class of obligations,—as regards authority over you, your supreme duty, as you well know, is with holy, loving reverence to fear God ; and with that duty naturally associates itself, when the subject is rightly understood, another, which some of you perhaps may have almost deemed inconsistent with your relation to God. It is His will, as you have just been told (vv. 14, 15), that you should respect and obey magistrates; wherefore, because ye fear God, honour the king.” It is possible that, as Peter wrote the last two precepts, Prov. xxiv. 21 was floating before his mind. 164 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pie abe The fact that the aorist imperative occurs in the first of the four precepts, and the present imperative in all the others, arrests attention. Alford suggests that the first really stands by itself, as the sum of the exhortations, the other three being an expansion of it; thus, “Give to all their due honour,—to the brotherhood by loving them,—to God by fearing Him,— to the king by honouring him.” This view is open to serious objections. (1) It is at the least doubtful whether it fairly satisfies the requirements of exegesis, as regards the relation of the verse to what precedes, and the relation of the several precepts to each other. (2) From wavtas it excludes a vast multitude whom naturally one quite decidedly expects to find included under the word, that great proportion of the human race who are unconverted. (3) Such a mode of expression, in which God and His creatures are gathered up under one term, wavTas, seems utterly alien from the profoundly reveren- tial mode of speaking found everywhere in Scripture regard- ing God. The true explanation of the difference of tense between the first precept and the others is perhaps somewhat as follows. All four precepts relate to duties of a continued kind, and thus might fittingly take the present imperative. In introducing the series, however, and this with the injunc- tion of a duty respecting which he had reason to believe some of his readers entertained grave misconceptions, the apostle naturally expresses himself in the somewhat more pointed and impassioned form afforded by the aorist imperative-— which, strictly interpreted, calls for a vigorous effort to begin “honouring all men.” Being in the introductory precept of a group, all the members of which from the course of thought are seen to be closely related to each other, this aorist impera- tive is felt to give of itself a vigorous tone to the whole body of injunctions; and, accordingly, in those precepts that follow, the apostle naturally enough falls into the other tense, which brings out the continuousness of the obligation — "Aderporns, found in N. T. only here and in v. 9, has in both passages the collective meaning which, in words II. 18-25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 165 of this kind, readily springs out of the original abstract sense, just as in English with the equivalent term “ brotherhood,” and many others; cf. tepdtevpa (vv. 5, 9). Vy. 18-25. On the duty of servants to obey their masters. Carrying forward his series of exhortations to duties arising out of special relations, the apostle proceeds now to the duty of servants to their masters. The fact that the construction in ver. 18 is not by a main verb, but by a participle, shows (see discussion of the construction below, in note on the verse) how close in the writer's mind was the connection between this section and the preceding,—specially with votaynte (ver. 15). This grammatical dependence of the passage on ver. 13 plainly makes highly probable what has in previous notes been suggested, that by avOpwrivn xticws in that verse is intended, not civil government alone, but generally such institutions—springing indeed out of the needs of that social life to which God has called man, but in their form deter- mined by man himself—as involve some measure of subjec- tion of one to another. The word ofxétaz, “ domestics,’ employed by the apostle in the 18th verse (cf. Luke xvi. 13; Acts x. 7; and see Trench, Syn. N. T. § 9), is not absolutely limited in usage to slaves, and is perhaps purposely used here in place of doddoe, in order to include the freedmen and freedwomen, of whom in large households there were often considerable numbers acting in various capacities as servants. Still undoubtedly, both from the predominant use of the word,—so decidedly predomi- nant that eg. in Esdr. iii. 19 otxérns is placed in direct antithesis to éAev@epos,—and from what we know of the arrangements of social life among those to whom the Epistle was written, by far the most of the persons here addressed were slaves. Here, accordingly,—just as in the previous section regarding obedience to magistrates, where, in the first 166 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 18-25. instance, the precept enjoined obedience to Nero,—we have an extreme case. The slavery which existed everywhere throughout the Roman Empire was of a most oppressive character. Kind and considerate masters were no doubt to be found; but the nature of the system permitted the grossest eruelties, and, as always in such cases, selfishness and brutality often took advantage of the permission. Slaves had practi- eally no legal rights, the law holding them pro nulls, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus. In persons thus situated who became Christians it was obviously natural in the highest degree that the assurance of their freedom in Christ would lead to such thoughts as these: “Can it possibly be that I, Christ’s freedman, a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, a child of God, am to remain the bondman of this heathen, himself a slave of Satan?” Or, supposing the master to be a Christian, the slave’s thought would naturally be, “Since he and I are brethren, it cannot be that in any sense I should continue his bondman, and therefore, even if he fail to see his duty in the matter, I have a right to assert my freedom and leave him, or, should I remain in his house, claim in everything the equality of a brother.” The apostle’s teaching on the subject is the same as that which he had given respecting obedience to magistrates: “Be subject, and this not merely through fear of punishment, but for conscience’ sake. Your obligation, too, is not dependent on the treatment which you receive: to harsh no less than to kind masters give obedience,—remembering, indeed, that it is in your demeanour under cruel dealing, in your maintenance of respectfulness and patience towards exacting and oppres- sive masters, that the distinctively Christian character which is acceptable in the sight of God is especially shown.” Such is the apostle’s exhortation. Similar teaching is found also in all the references made by Paul to the subject, which are numerous,—slaves evidently forming a large proportion every- where of the members of the primitive Church: cf. Eph. vi. 5-8; Col) 13. 22-25; 1 Tim. vi. 1,.2. A most ‘striking II. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Le? practical application of the principle enunciated, too, was given by Paul in sending back the fugitive slave Onesimus to his former master Philemon. The same doctrine with regard to the duty of slaves was faithfully maintained by the Church also after the death of the apostles. In The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, iv. 11, we have the injunction, vpeis dé, SovAo, UrotayjoecGe Tois Kuplow tuov ws TYTM Oeod ev atcxvvyn kat doo. Christianity was assuredly to be “the world-wide revolutionist of the ages” (Lillie), overthrowing all the strongholds of Satan, and among them the awful iniquity of slavery; but this was to be accomplished, not by convulsion, but through the gradual working of principles. It was not the will of Christ that there should be household rebellions, or servile wars, or general social chaos. “ Nothing © indeed marks the divine character of the gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of political revolution. The Founder of Christianity and His apostles were surrounded by everything which could tempt human reformers to enter on revolutionary courses... . Nevertheless our Lord and His apostles said not a word against the powers and institutions of that evil world. Their attitude towards them was that of deep spiritual hostility, and of entire political submission” (Goldwin Smith, quoted by Salmond). The apostle, dwelling specially on patience under wrong, supports his exhortation by the example of the Saviour (vv. 21-23); and, having touched on this, rests lovingly and expatiates for a little, as every Christian heart does when the sufferings of Christ come before it, on their atoning purpose and power (vv. 24, 25). Fora fuller analysis of this latter part of the section, see below, note on ver. 22. Ver. 18. The participial construction has been explained in various ways,—some expositors supposing that here, and in several other passages, the participle has in itself the force of an imperative (on which view cf. note on éyovtes, ver. 12),— others supplying the imperative of the substantive verb, some 168 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 18. of them in the second person, others in the third. None of these methods, however, is necessary, or altogether natural. The fact that both in this section and in the next (iii. 1 foll.) the special duty enjoined is subjection, and that both sections are introduced by the participle of that same verb of which the imperative is given in ver. 13, naturally leads a reader to think that in the apostle’s mind the same general exhortation was being carried forward with different special references. Through obvious correlation with the precept of iii. 1, again, that of ui. 7, though not enjoining subjection, is felt still to belong to the same series ; and, falling under the more general exhortation of ii. 11, 12, which leads into the vaotdynre of ver. 13, it also has a participial form. Still further, through this wider reference of iii. 7, the participial construction is carried forward into the quite general exhortation of ii. 8. Granting therefore that the structure of modern languages may render it desirable, for the sake of clearness, to make the sections grammatically distinct, introducing each by an imperative of its own; yet the exhortation seems plainly to have taken in the writer’s mind the form of one great precept, branching out by means of participles in various directions,— the earlier sections standing attached closely to tzrotaynte of ver. 13 (still felt by a reader to be the main verb of the paragraph, notwithstanding the group of short imperative clauses in ver. 17), the later sections, in a way hardly recognised by rigid grammatical law, yet quite natural and intelligible, to the general call to holiness implied in d7rotaynre and distinctly given in vv. 11, 12. Oc otkéras is naturally taken with the force of a vocative, according to a use of the nominative with the article which is common in N. T., and is found sometimes also in classical writers, though probably rather a colloquialism: cf. Winer, p. 227; A. Buttmann, p. 140. Our nearest idiomatic repre- sentative of the article thus used is perhaps the pronoun of the second person joined to a word of address, as here “ Ye servants.”—In év mavti ¢do8w we have the atmosphere—the Il. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 169 spirit—of the enjoined subjection. Some have taken foo here to mean “fear of God,” or “of Christ,” referring in support of this view to Eph. v. 21; Jude 23. In the former of these passages, however, Xpiotov is expressed, the precept given, moreover, not being at all closely similar to the present; and in the passage in Jude the meaning of the words év ¢08 does not seem to be “in the fear of God.” Whilst, of course, in a Christian the fear of God will always be the grand influence constraining to the cherishing of any spirit or the following of any course which God enjoins, the immediate reference of @oB8os in our passage seems clearly to be to fear of the master; and really analogous passages are Rom. xiii. 7; Eph. v. 33. The best rendering of oo as thus used is probably “reverence.” However little there may often be in a master’s character to awaken or sustain the sentiment of reverence, still the relation in which he stands to his servants is one legitimately calling on them to cherish this sentiment; and their duty is to regard him as being their master through an arrangement of the Providence of Him who is always and infinitely worthy of reverence. The practical outcome of this “reverence” for a master will be “fear” of neglecting duty in any respect, and anxious solici- tude to be free from all grounds of just reproach. These two thoughts, standing in such close connection with each other, may reasonably be supposed to have been both before the apostle’s mind in writing ¢o8o. In a parallel passage on the duty of slaves, Eph. vi. 5, we have the yet stronger expres- sion for “fear” employed, peta doBov cal tpopov (cf. Phil. ii, 12; 2 Cor. vii. 15), and also an explicit statement of the principle underlying the enjoined @oBos, which at once leads us to a correct apprehension of its nature, bmaxoveTe . . . OS T® Xpiote.—Hlarti, whilst best translated “all,” is strictly every kind of,” ae. practically, “full and abiding reverence and solicitude;” cf. i. 24, note. "AyaGots here means obviously “good” as regarded from a servant’s point of view,—ze. “kind :” cf. Tit. ii, 5; 1 Thess. ? 6 TiOVeEnys 170 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IT 19. ill, 6.—Of emsecxéow the precise force appears to be “ con- siderate and forbearing:” cf. Phil. iv. 5; Acts xxiv. 4, and see Tench, Syn. N. T. § 43. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. 25) has the combination évetxeva kal mpaorys, qualities which, he says, are seen Tov Tadov jpepwOévT@y.— J Kodtos in its meta- phorical use presents an image which is universally under- stood. Employed first of paths, as in LXX., Prov. u. 15, ap at Tpi8or cxkorai, it connects itself also readily with the persons themselves who walk in the crooked paths, as Deut. xxxii. 5; Phil. ii. 15, yeved oxodsa cai dvectpappévn, “a genera- tion who—instead of having a character of rectitude, straight- ness in the line of the divine will are in all things crooked and contorted.” As employed in the present passage with reference to masters, and opposed to “good and considerate,” we may perhaps—remembering that both classes of masters were no doubt in most cases heathen, and that not improbably therefore the apostle was thinking of varieties of natural temperament, at least as much as of character based on prin- ciple—take the precise application of the image to be some- what like that of the similar figure in our own colloquial adjective ‘“cross,’—much stronger, however, in its suggestion of harshness than “ cross.” A deootns oxoALds is one Whom his servants find it almost impossible to please, because, when they have worked along the line which from his former utterances seemed likely to satisfy him, they find always that his likings have twisted themselves into a new direction. Caprice, exactingness, and harshness seem all implied in the epithet. ‘“ Perverse,” or the old word “ froward,” represents the image or one similar, but “harsh” is perhaps the best rendering. Ver. 19. In this and the following verses the apostle dwells on the relation of servants to decrotas oKoduol, as being that in which the temptation to rebellious self-assertion was greatest, and in which therefore the ennobling power of Christian principle could specially reveal itself. It appears, too, from the line which his observations take, that, as-regarded II. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ola L “being subject” to their masters, whilst, of course, he had before his thoughts the faithful performance of ordinary daily duty, yet with respect to the case of those servants who had harsh masters, his mind turned specially, as was natural, to their demeanour under undeserved chiding or chastisement. Their duty in such trying circumstances, he would bave them clearly see, was to resist stedfastly the strong temptation to sullenness or passion or disrespectful conduct; “for this is acceptable, — namely, if a man for consciousness of God patiently endures troubles, suffering unjustly.” According to a familiar N. T. usage, the demonstrative as formal subject is employed to point to a coming clause, which is the real subject. This clause might have been in the infinitive, but—also according to a common N. T. construction —is thrown into another form introduced by a conjunction ; cf. Winer, p. 403.—The use of the neuter of the pronoun in Tov7o apis (€o7t) here and in the next verse is in itself natural, and similar constructions are found occasionally in Greek writers of all ages. On the whole, however, it accords with the idiom of modern rather than with that of the classical languages, a pronominal subject being in these, as a rule, made to agree in gender with the predicate: cf. John i. 19, xvii. 3, and see Winer, p. 650; A. Buttmann, p. 128. In the present passage the Vulgate rendering is, hwe est gratia— With regard to yapis here a natural thought is that it is=yapiopa (1 Cor. vii. 7), “a gift from God’s grace,” a spiritual beauty which proves the working of grace on the soul. In ver. 20, however, the apostle, for clearness and impressiveness, fills up the expression with the words mapa Oe, “in God’s sight ;” instead of which, supposing yapes to have been in the writer's mind equivalent to yapiopa, one would have expected rather mapa Oecod, “from God” (cf. ée Qeod, 1 Cor. vii. 7). Look- ing at the cast of the thought in vv. 19; 20, it seems by far most probable that ydpis is used in the same way as in Luke vi. 32, 33, “If ye love them that love you, if ye do good to them that do good to you, mova tply 172 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {II. 19. xXapis €o7iy ;” and indeed it is difficult to resist the impression that that saying of our Lord was present to the apostle’s mind. Now the parallel passage, Matt. v. 46, has téva puo@ov exete (cf. also ver. 35 in Luke),—which shows that yapus must have some such force as “approving recognition,” a sense of the word tending towards, but not identical with, that which it bears in the familiar expression ydpu éxew, “ to thank.” Compare also the Homily formerly known as Ep. ii. of Clem. Rom. § 13, and Ignat. Polyc. § 2, the former being a free citation of the passage just quoted from Luke, and the other an obvious imitation. In our present passage we may take todTo ydpis as a condensed mode of expression, “ this is (means, certainly brings) approving recognition ;” exactly as in Phil. i. 22, rodtd ow Kaprros epyou, “this is (means, brings) fruit of labour.” It does not seem needful to go farther, and assume that the apostle uses ydpis directly in the sense of “an acceptable act or course of conduct.” It suffices that practically, according to the explanation just given, todTo xXapis is equivalent to todto evdpeotov (or amodexTov) eoTWw (ef Coli 20s 1) Mima 3); In the word cuveiénois the preposition of the compound points to the reflective action of the mind, the mind’s con- ference, so to speak, with itself. The special reference of the word therefore, as distinguished from yv@ous, is to the mind’s acquaintance with itself, particularly its acquaintance with what has been written by God on the tablets of the heart regarding Himself and regarding right and wrong, and with the dealings of the soul in relation to right and wrong. In the great majority of the cases of its occurrence in N. T., the word is used either absolutely or with a possessive genitive, and has precisely’the force of our English “conscience,” in the free popular use of that word. In only one other passage where the reading is certain, besides the present, is it con- strued with a genitive of object,—viz. Heb. x. 2, cuveidnouw dpapti@v, “conscience, or consciousness, of sins.” In 1 Cor. vill. 7, cvverdnoes Tov eidHXov, “ consciousness of the idol,” ze. II. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. aa seemingly, consciousness of it as a kind of mind - haunting presence, cuvnfeia appears to have better authority than guvedyncet, In the place now before us, cuvetdnois Oeod cannot well mean anything else than “consciousness of God,” —hknowledge of God and of His relations to us, and this present in consciousness, remembered, thought of, and thus influential over the affections and conduct. This is, no doubt, what is intended by the somewhat peculiar phrase employed by both A. and R. E. V., “conscience toward God.” —Avras—like “griefs” often in the older English, and sometimes still—has, as occasionally, the force of “troubles, vexations, causes of grief” (so Philo, Jund. Opif., Mang. p. 40). Our word “ grievances” nearly corresponds to this use,—only that, as commonly employed, it suggests in itself blame to some one, which Ava does not do. The verb utogépetv, which sometimes is no more than simply “to undergo,” indicating in itself nothing as to the spirit of the sufferer (2 Tim. 11. 11), is evidently to be taken here (as in 1 Cor. x. 13), according to a natural tendency of words of this class in all languages, precisely with the force of U7rouevew of the next verse, “to bear with patience, with holy resolu- tion.” —The adverb aéicws is placed at the end of the clause with marked emphasis, the undeservedness of harsh treatment being, as is illustrated in the following verse, the test of the honourableness of the suffering, and of its claim to be a brightener of Christian hope. Ver. 20. “To bear punishment quietly and submissively, if one has done wrong, is no doubt a creditable thing as compared with accepting the chastisement in a sullen spirit, or with rudeness and rebellion; but what kind of (zoiov) eredit or glory is this in the eyes of any self-respecting man, not to say a Christian! (cf. Luke vi, 32-34). On the other hand, if a man who does well,—who faithfully executes the charge entrusted to him,—and who for that very well-doing suffers through the caprice or brutality of his master, bears this gross injustice patiently, this is acceptable in God’s sight.” 174 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LIT. 20. The two present participles dwaptavovtes Kat Kohapifouevot come in naturally here, in place of what, looking simply at the order of time, might have been expected, duaptijcavtes Kat Kkoradifouevot. This latter form would have been in place, had isolated acts of wrong- doing and of consequent punishment been before the apostle’s mind; but the question in hand being one of character, he has the present participle of both verbs, representing the case as one of continuance, a course of wrong-doing and receiving chastisement. Similarly in the other clause with aya@orovodvTes Kat macxovtes. The future Uropevetre, used in both clauses, answers to the same mode of representation: “if, to one looking down your lives from the present moment, the field of vision shall be found occupied with wrong-doing and punishment,” or, in the other case, “with well-doing and suffering for it.’—Kodadgiew, per- fectly rendered by our English “ buffet,” sets before us primarily what was no doubt often the punishment of slaves for the lighter class of misdemeanours, a smart stroke of the hand on the cheek, and then, according to the secondary use of the word, rough handling generally: cf. Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Cor. iv. 11.—In the Gospels the verb aya@o7ovety follows the special sense of dya@os exemplified in ver. 18,—meaning “to do good, to act beneficently :” see Mark ii. 4; Luke vi. 9,33, 35. In the Epistles (3 John 11, and several times in Peter) it follows the general sense of the adjective,—*to do well, act rightly.” Similarly the nouns dya@orouwa and ayaborows are used by Peter, who alone has them, with the sense respectively of “well-doing” and “ well-doer:” see iv. 19, ii 14.—The combination ayaSotro.odvtTes Kal TwacyovTes might quite fairly mean “doing well and yet (simply as a matter of fact, without the suggestion of any connection of cause and effect) suffering;” but the antithesis duaptavovtes Kat Koradilouevor, where manifestly a causal connection is intended, makes it in a high degree likely that here also this was in the writer’s thoughts,—“ doing well and suffering jor it.” It accords with universal experience that a brutal, low- Ll. 2t.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ye. minded master, irritated by that feeling of moral inferiority which was awakened in him by the sight of the virtuous conduct of his slave, might in many cases subject the slave to cruel treatment, professedly perhaps for some pretended fault, but really, as the slave himself, and everybody around knew, because of the well-doing.—As to todto yapis, see note on ver. 19; and on wapa Oe@, in its present connection, cf. Luke ii. 52. Ver. 21. “ Patient endurance of wrong, I say, is acceptable in God’s sight, for this is one most important element of that experience to which you were summoned by Him when He called you in conversion. You cannot doubt this, because, as you know (674, as often, of evidence, rather than of strict causality), Jesus also, your Forerunner, suffered for you, leaving you an example to the intent that you might follow His footsteps, — and this alike as regards not shrinking from suffering which by God’s appointment comes to you in the path of your duty, and as regards the mode of bearing the suffering.” Tovro here, as is evident from the line of thought, has substantially the same reference as in todTo yapus immediately preceding; only the mind naturally takes it now with a general reference, as pointing to patient endurance of wrong of any kind. The divine “ call,” being to the exhibition of a certain spiritual excellence, includes, of course, also a call to the field in which alone that excellence can be shown—a call, that is to say, to carry out Christian principles manfully in the face of a world which hates Christ, and to accept the sufferings which the world’s hostility may inflict; cf. John xv. 18-21. On nothing did our Lord in His personal teaching lay more stress than on the fact that the very calling to be a disciple involves a calling to take up the cross and follow Him; cf. Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24; Luke xiv. 27.—The verb macyew, simply by itself, appears to have been from a very early time in frequent use among Christians as a summary term for the Lord’s expiatory sufferings generally, 4 176 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II 21. including along with His death—to which, of course, the word mainly pointed—also the agony in the garden, and the mockeries and brutalities of the trial (eg. cf. Acts i. 5; Heb. xiii. 12),—the usage being founded indeed on His own words spoken on the evening before His crucifixion (Luke xr 1). In the connection of this verse with the preceding, v7ep juav is naturally taken as meant to remind the readers of the personal blamelessness of the Saviour, His sufferings being purely vicarious; and to this thought xa’ before Xpictos points forward, presenting the parallelism between the case of the Lord and that of those slaves just spoken of who suffered for well-doing,—“ for Christ also suffered, though Himself innocent, yea, suffered for well-doing.” At the same time the words set forth prominently the grand motive which impels Christians to holy obedience (2 Cor. v. 14, 15)— specially, in the connection, to holy obedience in the way ot patience under trial: “If He suffered for you, you will not shrink from suffering which He sends, and which is calculated, through your spiritual growth under it, to redound to His praise.” — In hearing the English expression “suffered for you,” we feel that,,as regards the sense of the preposition “for,” the ideas of “on behalf of,’ and “in room of,” both pass before us; and similarly, when we remember the famili- arity to the N. T. writers of the doctrine that Christ gave Himself as a ransom for sinners, it seems probable that, where used as here, v7rép, strictly “on behalf of,’ had also in their minds the substitutionary reference ; cf. Winer, p. 479. In the majority of instances, as in the present, there is nothing in the context decisive on this point, and therefore the statement made in such passages cannot with safety be taken as beyond question equivalent to those in which the preposition is av7é (as Matt. xx. 28); but certainly, at all events, in 2 Cor. v. 14, to give validity to the apostle’s argument, t7ép mavTwv, it would seem, must mean “ instead of all.” II. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 17% The prominent position of vuéy in its clause plainly gives to it a strong emphasis, which a reader feels also to be some- what added to by the fact that the word immediately follows umép yuav. The force is perhaps something like this, “to all His people, doubtless, but to you, in your peculiar cir- cumstances, with special fulness and exactness, leaving an example.”—The enlarged form wt7rodturavw, for vroreira, occurs here only in N. T. The exact time and shade of thought probably intended by the apostle in the participle UToNuTravey are indicated by Bengel with his characteristic terseness,—in abitu ad Patrem.—‘Trroypappos, here only in N. T., was primarily used for a writing or drawing copy, put before pupils by their teachers (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 8. 50), and then naturally for the rule implied in a prescribed copy, or, as here, simply for an example (— d7rodeeypa, John xiii. 15; Jas. v. 10); ef. 2 Macc. 11. 28; Clem. Rom. §§ 5,16, 33; Polye. § 8. The fact that immediately, in the clause intro- duced by t&a, Peter passes into the quite different figure of following the footsteps of a leader, seems to show that the image in the word droypaupos was not vividly, or perhaps not at all, present to his mind. In one minute feature the beautiful and instructive picture given us in the last clause of this verse, of the Lord’s people following their divine Forerunner down into the valley of humiliation, may be differently conceived. The verb é7a- ko\ovGew being regularly construed with a dative (1 Tim. v. 10, 24), the meaning may be “Follow His footsteps” as cuides ; or, Tots tyveow being used in N.T. in the sense of “in the footsteps” (Rom. iv. 12 with croyetv, and 2 Cor. xii. 18 with wepuratety), it may be “ Follow (Him, treading) in His footsteps.” Striking and vivid as this latter representation is, yet perhaps the former construction is to be preferred, as being the more obvious——Some expositors would give to érraxoNovéeiv here an intensive force, translating thus, “that ye may follow closely (or earnestly).” That quite naturally, in accordance with its use to indicate motion towards and to M 178 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. LET. 22-95. mark addition, the preposition éz/ in composition does some- times give greater intensity to the signification of the word with which it is compounded, is certain,—the best illustration of this power in the N. T. being perhaps in ézruywooKev as contrasted with the simple yueokew (eg. 1 Cor. xiii. 12). The particular verb now before us, too, is in 1 Tim. v. 10 rendered both by A. and R. E. V. “ to follow diligently,” which is perfectly suitable there, as it would be here also. On the other hand, the verb, in the only other two places where it oceurs in N. T., Mark xvi. 20, 1 Tim. v. 24, is employed— as in any language compounds which were originally strength- ening are apt to be, when they come into frequent use—in a sense not appreciably different from that of the simple verb. It may be doubted, therefore, whether in any of the places a special force was intended in the use of the compound. Vv. 22-25. We have now a series of relative clauses in which, in the first place (vv. 22, 23), the relevancy of an appeal to the Saviour’s example, in consequence of the paral- lelism of the cases—already indicated in a summary way in the words évaGev v7rép tyav—is fully and formally set forth: (a) He was absolutely innocent (ver. 22); yet (8) He suffered, and in His sufferings He showed perfect meekness and patience (ver. 23). Then, in the second place, the apostle proceeds to expand yet further the éva@ev vrép tuov, remind- ing his readers that, whilst Christ’s sufferings have an aspect of example, they bring before us also the expiation of our sin, and thus present to us the most powerful motives to follow the example of the Lord’s patience and holy beauty of character: (vy) He died for our sins, to the intent that we might live to holiness (ver. 24, down to the word jowper) ; and (6) by His wounds His people have, in fact, been spiritu- ally healed (ver. 24, last clause, and ver. 25). Whilst in nowise rhetorically wrought up, but perfectly simple and natural in structure, this passage must be felt by every attentive reader to be one of singular beauty and impressive- ness. 7 LG PPI FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 179 Ver. 22. Throughout the whole passage, vv. 22—25, the apostle’s mind is plainly dwelling much on the great predic- tion of Messiah as a Sufferer, which is contained in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Ver. 22 is a quotation of the latter part of the 9th verse of that chapter, varying from the LX.X. rendering, as it stands in Codex A, only by the substitution of dpaptiav for avopiav. The passage, as here used by the apostle, is evidently one of the highest interest and importance, in its connection with the great apologetic argument based on the perfection of the character of Christ. Peter, one of the very inmost circle of those who were privileged to enjoy the com- panionship of the Lord, makes the prophet’s words his own, and thus most plainly sets to his seal that they are true to the very letter. He testifies that in Jesus, as seen by him for years in public and in private, amid most varied circum- stances,—tested by the special temptations connected with great popularity, and by the special temptations connected with bitter opposition,—there was absolute spotlessness of character. He was pure in conduct, “doing no sin;” and in speech—notwithstanding innumerable snares laid for Him, and the closest listening of many who were eager to find Him in fault (this is pointed to by the word etpé6y)—there was absolute freedom from “ guile,’ — from duplicity, evasion, falsehood in any form,—so that He approved Himself the “perfect man” who “ offendeth not in word” (Jas. i. 2). Precisely similar testimony regarding the Lord’s character to that which is borne here by Peter is given also, it will be remembered, by another of the specially privileged three apostles—* In Him is no sin” (1 John iii. 5).—In the use of the aorists ésroénoev and evpé6n the Lord’s life is looked at, not in its extension and variety, but as a unity, constituting, so to speak, a point in history; cf. John xvii. 4, éd0faca. This is in itself striking, as showing that moral oneness, as it stood out before Peter’s memory, of the eminently full and varied life of the Lord, which made him feel it quite natural to employ for himself the aorists of the LXX. The life seemed 180 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Ln 23. to him to form one great act of holiness. In the next verse, no less naturally, the many scenes and varied forms in which Christ was exposed to “the contradiction of sinners” come up to the apostle’s thoughts, and thus we have imperfects. —On the frequent use in N. T., in place of the simple sub- stantive verb, of the verb evpicxec@ar, by which a lively picture of seekers and finders is presented to view, cf. Winer, p. 769. Ver. 23. It can hardly be doubted, looking at the abundant use of Isa. liij. in the context, that in this verse, whilst not quoting but expanding, the apostle had in his mind the 7th verse of that chapter, which describes Messiah as under oppression “ opening not His mouth, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb.’—-The present participles point us to the many occasions on which He was reviled, as a Sabbath- breaker, a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a blasphemer, a man in league with Satan, and the like, and to the various forms and stages of His sufferings ; under all of which, as the imperfects tell us, He displayed an absolute freedom from the spirit of revenge. The stern warnings which He often gave to the careless and hostile were manifestly of a nature totally distinct from revilings or utterances of revenge, and indeed directly opposed, being spoken with deep solemnity and deep sorrow, and in the spirit of yearning love. In Aodopovpevos, followed by macywv, we have evidently an advance from hatred shown in words to hatred shown in action, and similarly with dvredowdopes and areiAer,—arrerdeiv being the threatening of retaliatory action—As to the force of dé in a sentence of this kind—not, strictly speaking, standing in cor- respondence with the previous ov«, as dAdXa would have done, but, as by a kind of afterthought, introducing a new statement on the subject in a positive form, and answering, therefore, to some such English expression as “ yea, rather,’ or “on the contrary ’—see Winer, p. 551, and Alford’s note on Heb, ii. 6; and cf. Acts xii. 9,14; Heb. 11. 9. Whilst the general sense of the second part of the verse is II. 23.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 181 obvious, yet the precise thought which was present to the apostle’s mind in writing tapedidov is not altogether clear. Considering the frequent intransitive or reflexive use of many verbs properly transitive (ayew, émurtpépew KTX.),—the natu- ralness of this use in such verbs as wapadvdovat, as illustrated by the similar use of “yield” and “surrender” in English,—and the actual reflexive use of this very verb now and again in the LXX. (Isa. xlvii. 3, and, as read in Codex A, Josh. xi. 19), and once, perhaps, in N. T. (Mark iv. 29), one may quite fairly take the force of the word to be reflexive here, and translate thus, “committed Himself.” It must be acknowledged, however, that, for a word which occurs very many times in N. T., the authority supporting this reflexive use is exceedingly scanty ; and even in the one place in Mark some excellent interpreters, as Meyer, Bleek, and the Revisers of the E. V., give the verb a transitive force, “to allow.” In our present passage, also, many scholars hold it to be transitive, the object in the writer's mind being an unemphatic “ it,’ which, as usual in such ” cases, is omitted. This “it” may represent “‘ His cause,’—an object suggested by the scope of the clause, and specially by T@ Kpivovtt, Both the A. and R. E. V., while putting “com- mitted Himself” in the text, have in the margin, as an alternative, “committed His cause.’ More natural, perhaps, than either is the view that the understood “it” designates TO AoLdopeto Far Kai TO Tacyev, taken out of the participles : Jesus did not deal with this Himself in the way of repaying it by counter revilings and threats, but gave it all over into the hands of the Righteous Judge. Others, instead of “it,” prefer the shghtly more remote, and thus not quite so easy, i.e. those who reviled Him and inflicted ? supplement “ them,’ the sufferings. Short discussions regarding the use of wape- di6ov in this passage will be found in Winer, p. 738, and A. Buttmann, p. 145. The sense of the statement is obviously in substance very nearly the same, on any view as to the exact nature of the construction,—“ From the midst of the cruelties and ribaldries of men Jesus always looked away to heaven, 182 FIKST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 24. and gave over the whole matter to Him who sees all actions and all hearts, and who alike on Him and on His foes would give righteous judgement.” The absolutely pure, unrevengeful, loving spirit of this “committing to God” is illustrated by the prayer offered from the cross——With 7@ xpivovts dixaiws, cf. i. 17, Tov ampoowrTodnpTTes Kpivovta. The Vulgate has here the singular rendering “ tradebat autem judicanti se injuste;” as if reading ad/cws, and taking the reference to be to the Lord’s meek surrender of Himself to the unjust judge Caiaphas or Pilate. This reading has no Greek authority, and is self- condemned, because the imperfect mapedidou (tradebat) plainly points, like ov« avtedoidoper and ov« retires, to the Lord’s conduct, not exclusively at the trial and crucifixion, but throughout His whole ministry. This mistranslation is interesting chiefly as being one specialty of the Vulgate, which even Roman Catholic scholars cannot agree to defend,— Estius, for example, making the admission that “librariorum incuria in Codicibus Latinis legitur injuste pro juste.” Ver. 24. “In the sufferings of Christ we have set before us, not merely a perfect example of the meek endurance of wrong, but also the most powerful motive to follow this example, because His sufferings and death were for the expia- tion of our sins, and this to the intent that, saved thereby, we should live to holiness.” With respect to the exact form of the apostle’s thought in the first clause of this verse, different views are possible. In connection with sacrifice, the verb avadépew is used by the Hellenistic writers in two shades of meaning—(1) “to offer, present,” and this either with mention of the altar (ézt To O@votactyptov), as Jas. ii. 21, Gen. viii. 20, or without such mention, as ver. 5 of this chapter, Judg. xi. 31; (2) “to bear,” said of the victim on whose head sin is laid, as Heb. ix. 28; Isa. lili 11, 12,—this latter use of the verb being in accordance with an occasional classical use, “to sustain, bear,” wars, or perils, or troubles of any kind (cf. Thucyd. iii. 38, xuvdvvous; Polyb. i. 36. 3, POovous). The fact that Il. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 183 émi To EvNoy stands in our present passage has led Luther, Lechler, and one or two other expositors—taking these words as answering to ézl To @vcvactyprov—to think that here our Lord is said to have, as a Priest, “offered our sins in His body on the tree,’—our sins being viewed as in the eye of divine justice so identified with Christ that in His death judgement came down upon them, or, so to speak, they were consumed on the altar of the cross by the fire of God. But this is a mode of representation for which there seems to be no Scripture analogy; and &vdov, as employed in our passage (on which see below), is not fitted to suggest the idea of an altar, but only of an instrument for the execution of a capital sentence. Others, putting aside the special sacrificial uses of avapépe, revert to its primary sense (as in Matt. xvii. 1), regarding the apostle’s thought to be that Jesus carried our sins as a burden laid upon Him all through the journey of His earthly life, and up to the tree; some thinking also that perhaps by és ro EvXov is meant to be suggested some such idea as that our sins were carried by the Saviour to the tree to be nailed there, that they might oppress no more (cf. Col. il. 14). On the whole, the most natural and satisfactory interpreta- tion appears to be that which is given by both A. and R. E. V., —“bore our sins on (upon) the tree.” A really decisive argument with regard to the sense in which the apostle uses avyveyxev seems to lie in the fact that he is here expanding a statement of Isaiah, and cannot well be thought to employ the central word of the statement in a different sense from the prophet. It cannot, indeed, be demonstrated that when Peter wrote Tas dwaptias uav avdtos avynveyxev, he was think- ing of Isaiah’s adros dpaptias modkdNOv avijveyxev (liii. 12), with the order of words perhaps affected by the chiming in his memory also of the closing statement of the verse imme- diately preceding, tas duaptias attav adtos dvoice; but when we compare the passages, and bear in mind that, accord- ing to distinct evidence afforded by the context immediately 184 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (If. 24. preceding and immediately following, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah was much before the apostle’s mind throughout the section, there certainly seems to be an exceedingly high pro- bability that the clause under consideration is to be deemed an expansion of Isaiah’s words. Now, beyond reasonable question, the use of ayjveycev in the LXX. rendering of the passage of Isaiah is in the sense of “bore” as a sacrificial victim, bore for expiation. With the view that this is also the sense in which Peter uses it, the added words év To cwpate avtov accord well, better, perhaps, than with any of the other interpretations; for by the preposition év the field or sphere of the dyjveyxev is set forth, which fits perfectly with a simple reference to Christ’s “ bearing our sins” in His propitiatory sufferings (cf. Col. i. 22). In émi to EvXov again there does not really lie any obstacle to our aecepting this view of the meaning; for, according to a tendency seen per- haps in all languages, éwi with the accusative, like several other prepositions of motion, is in N. T. often construed with verbs which do not in themselves imply motion,—the thought of prior motion being easily supplied by the mind; ef. chap. iv. 14; Matt. xviii, 12; Mark iv. 38; Rev. v. 1. Thus the force of the expression is quite adequately given by the R. E. V. when for “on” of the rendering of the A. V. “ bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” it substitutes the preposition of motion “upon,”’—this “ upon” suggesting “ when lifted upon.” It does not appear therefore to be at all needful to resort, with some scholars, to the supposition that whilst the ruling sense of avveyxev in the passage is “bore” as Propitiation, the idea of motion also is to be directly derived from the verb taken in its primary sense,—thus, “who bore our sins in His body to the tree, and as a victim bore them on it.” No inartificial writer, such as our apostle, would be in the least likely to use one word to express two thoughts so considerably divergent from each other as “carried up” and “bore as a victim ;” and no reader would ever naturally understand tlie word to be thus used. II. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 18d The emphasis given by avtos appears to express some such thought as this—“ Measureless as are such love and condescen- sion, yet not through any subordinate agent, not through any arrangement apart from His own substitution for us, was our re- demption wrought out, but He Himself bore our sins.” The A.V. brings out a similar emphasis also in the words “in His own body;” but the meaning seems rather to be simply, as the hk. V. has it, “in His body.” Such evidence as is attainable appears to show that in N. T. the reflexive pronoun of the third person is almost always written fully éavrovd «7X., and therefore that where, as here, the form avtod occurs, it is to be written with a spiritus lenis, avtov; cf. Winer, p. 188; A. Buttmann, p- 111. Even with the reading av7Tod a certain emphasis may be supposed (so Alford), because the pronoun might without any ambiguity have been omitted; but the great abundance of pronouns in the N. T. style, through Hebrew influence, makes it, to say the least, very doubtful whether the apostle wrote the word as anything more than a simple unemphatic possessive. Whilst those sufferings of our Blessed Lord in His atoning work, which were specially of the sowl (Matt. xxvi 38, XXvil. £6), were, as an old writer quaintly says, “the soul of His sufferings,” yet the material element in His Passion—the bodily anguish which He endured for us—is often and naturally prominent in references made to it; because all men can to some extent understand and feel the love which was thus displayed, while the unseen side of the sufferings is, from its nature, deeply mysterious. In the present connec- tion the specification of the field or sphere of suffering by €v T® cwpatt adtod can hardly but seem particularly natural, when we remember that the reference to the Lord’s Passion is made in order to exhibit example and motive to slaves, who, many of them, had from day to day to endure cruel inflictions of bodily pain——To the use in N. T. of the word EvXov, “ timber, log,” for otavpos, our English “tree,” in its old wide signification—still seen in such compounds as “ roof- 186 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Il. 24. tree, cross-trees,” etc.—well answers. This use is not very common. Besides the present place, it is found in Acts v. 30,. x. 39, xiii. 29; Gal. ili. 13,—+the first two of these passages, it may be observed, occurring in addresses of Peter, and thus showing this mode of expression to be one familiar to him. This use of the word voy sprang, as a comparison with each other of the passages cited distinctly shows, from the Jewish practice described in Deut. xxi. 22, 23. After the infliction of capital punishment according to the Hebrew mode, stoning, the bodies of the very worst of malefactors were suspended publicly on a tree or post; and when, under the administra- tion of the Romans, crucifixion was introduced into Palestine, that form of punishment was regarded by the Jews as equi- valent to an exposure of this kind,—an exposure which was held to be a public declaration that the curse of God had come down ona rebel against His law. The thought pro- minent in the mind of every Jewish Christian, therefore, when in speech or writing he employed this name &vAov for the cross of Jesus, was of the sublime, immeasurable grace which led his Lord to be “made a curse for us,” that He might “redeem us from the curse of the law” (Gal. iii. 13), The apostle’s exhibition in this verse of motive to holy obedience divides itself into two parts: (1) The statement that Jesus died for our sins,—the supreme ground of gratitude and love; (2) the statement of His purpose in dying for us, namely that, freed from sin’s oppression, we might be holy, —from which plainly it immediately follows that earnest effort after holiness is the mode in which sincere and intelligent gratitude and love to Him will manifest them- selves. The sanctifying purpose of the Lord in His giving Himself for us—often set forth in N. T., eg. i. 18, 19; Gal. i. 4; Tit. ii, 14—is presented here under a form in which the Apostle Paul greatly delighted to look at it, the believer's death with relation to sin, and life with relation to God and His service; cf. especially Rom. vi. 2, 4, 11. The basis of this representation is the mystical union between Christ II. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 13% and His people, according to which in His death we also died, so as to be no longer either under the condemnation of the law or under the dominion of sin, and in His resurrection we also rose with Him to enjoy a new life of peace and of holy beauty and energy, kindred to His. With the legal union before the eye of God, through which “there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” is inseparably associated a spiritual union, through which by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost we are sanctified —The verb amoyivec@a, here only in N. T., is employed by classical writers in the sense of “to part from, cease from connection with,” and then also, by a euphemism familiar in all languages, “ to depart this life, decease, die.” The primary sense has been adopted here by some expositors; but that the secondary was that in the writer’s mind, seems to be sufficiently clear from the antithesis with €jowpev.—and also from the construction with the dative, the other naturally taking the genitive. The dative joined here to doyevowevos and Syompev— a kind of construction greatly favoured by Paul (Rom. xiv. 6-8, for example, affording abundant illustrations in connec- tion with various verbs) ——seems to fall under the general head of dat. comm. et incomm. Thus, here, whilst possibly all that was present in consciousness to the writer was this thought, “ that, having become dead in reference to our sins, we might live in reference to righteousness,” still really, behind this, there seems in the construction to lie something of personification—our sins being tyrants, to whom now Christians, being dead, have ceased to be of service, whereas to righteousness, our new ruler, we do earnest service through the activity of life; cf. Winer, p. 263, and especially A. Buttmann, p. 178. By some interpreters the datives here have been taken as instrumental, giving the clause this force, “that, having in Christ died by our sins, we might live by His righteousness.” The course of the apostle’s thought, however, and the Pauline parallels, seem to show distinctly that, whilst the truth respecting the change of the believer's fH co (ee) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TIy 24. legal relations to God is, from the nature of the case, vmplied in the clause, yet the aspect of the “dying and living” which is directly presented is ethical, and that thus the force of the datives is not “by” but “to.’—Looking at the connection with each other of the clauses of the verse, we can hardly doubt that the article in tats duaptiars does not merely, as so often, answer practically to a possessive pronoun (fully “the sins Which we all so well know of as ours”), but that in writing it the apostle was consciously reduplicating on tas auaptias nuov of the first clause,—the precise meaning accordingly being “ the sins (spoken of).” Naturally, therefore, perhaps, in the antithesis 77 before dcvcavocvvyn also is not merely the mark of the abstract, but sets before us some such thought as “the righteousness (which belongs to life in Christ).” The division of verses has not been satisfactorily made here. The last clause of the 24th ought to have begun the 25th; because it is not a mere epexegesis of the preceding state- ment, but presents a new thought, which, as yap shows, the 25th verse explains and justifies. This new thought—in advance of ver. 24, which has spoken of the gracious purpose of our Lord’s sufferimgs—is that these sufferings have actually saved those to whom the apostle writes, inasmuch as they had become believers, and had thus passed within the sphere of the life-giving action of Christ’s death. That we have here a distinct link in Peter’s beautiful expansion of the émraGev uTép vuwv of ver. 21, seems to be quite plainly intimated by the fact that, whilst quoting the last clause of Isa. liii. 5, he substitutes od for avrod of the LXX., thus constituting the statement a member of the series of relative clauses (vv. 22, 23, 24). The only other change is the substitution of the cheering form of direct address and assurance to the poor slaves, (a@nte, for nets taOnwev: “assuming that ye are sincere believers in Him, then I tell you that ye have been healed by His stripes.” Mo roy is strictly “a weal,” the livid mark left on the Il. 25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 189 body by a stripe or bruise (cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 17). It is here used collectively, like the Hebrew word 37, for which it stands in Isaiah. Whilst intended, doubtless, to suggest the whole of our Lord’s sufferings—the entire “ chastisement of our peace” — still immediately the word carries our thoughts to the cruel scowrging to which He was subjected ; and the special aptness of such a reference in the present . paragraph will be at once recognised. The paradox “ healed through stripes,” of which every Christian has felt the pathetic power, must have gone with an altogether peculiar force to the hearts of slaves, themselves so_ painfully familiar with unjust stripes (cf. Ecclus. xxiii 10). The fact also, it may be observed in this connection, that the death of the Lord was by crucifixion, was fitted to exert a certain specialty of winning influence over slaves, seeing that the tomans confined this mode of punishment almost exclusively to these despised outcasts. Ver. 25. Proof is here given of the actual healing,—the apostle passing, however, from the figure cf restoration from disease to another familiar scriptural representation of the Christian’s spiritual history, return from wandering. In making this transition, Peter’s mind is still following the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, where immediately after “ with His stripes we are healed,’ comes (ver. 6) “all we like sheep have gone astray” (wdvtes ws mpoBata érravynOnpwev, LXX.). For the aorist, the apostle substitutes the pictorial re Thavepevot, “ye were wandering,’—“ from day to day, as you so vividly remember, you were, some of you for many years, stumbling on from one form of sin and of unhappiness into another,—wandering foolishly, aimlessly, and to your hurt, as sheep are so apt to do.’—The aorist éveotpadyte, “ ye turned,” points historically to the time of conversion ; but in translating, seeing that “ now” is attached to it, English idiom requires a perfect. On this connection of voy with an aorist, see i. 12, note. As éweorpagnre answers in the explanatory clause to ¢ad@n7e in the principal one, perfect parallelism 190 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [II. 25. would require éveotpagynte to be taken, like ca@yre, in a passive sense (so Wiesinger and others); but such minute exactness of correspondence is not at all needed, and accord- ing to ordinary usage, both among classical writers and in N. T., the second aorist passive of émictpédery has a middle force; cf. Mark villi. 33; John xxi. 20. The sense “turn back, return,” which a reader naturally and justly gives to émuatpéepew here, where the thought is of man turning to the true Lord and Friend from whom he had strayed, does not belong to the word etymologically or always; but it frequently has it; eg. ef. 2 Pet. 11. 22; Matt. xii 44. There is abundant N. T. proof that, by the time this Epistle was written, ém7ioxo7mros was the name of an office-bearer in the Christian congregations, the same office-bearer who was otherwise known as mpeo@urepos ; and from Eph. iv. 11 it is clear that, at least among those Asiatic Christians to whom b) Peter was now writing, vovuny, “ pastor,’ was also a recognised name of office. We cannot well doubt, therefore, that when the apostle here describes the Lord Jesus as ITouhy kai ’Etrioxotros, he means the thought of these officers of the Church to come into view. On the one hand, by his present application of the names, he suggests to those who held the offices to rejoice in the privilege and honour which had been given them of being fellow-workers with Christ, and for the same reason to cherish a deep sense of the greatness of their responsibility ; and, on the other hand, he reminds the private members of the Church that they should never in any measure content themselves with earthly ministrations, however attractive, but should live in habitual communion with the Divine Pastor and Bishop. Along with this view of the reference, however, the use of the image of sheep in the earlier part of the verse clearly calls upon us to regard the primary meaning “ shepherd” as present also, and indeed prominent, in 7rounv, and in connection with this to bring out the primary sense of éricxoz7ros, “ overseer,’—which the name “ bishop,” though simply an altered form of “ episcop,” fails to Il. 25.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 191 do to an English reader. “Shepherd,” from its variety of application, serves sufficiently as a rendering of roupnv in the passage, but it is probably impossible by any one English word to exhibit at once the primary and the secondary use of éwtcxotros. The Revisers of our version have had to content themselves with putting “ bishop” in the text and ? “overseer” in the margin. It may fairly be questioned whether, as the image of the return of sheep to their shepherd certainly seems to be in the foreground, and the ecclesiastical reference behind, it would not have been better to relegate “bishop” to the margin, and set “ overseer” in the text. By some expositors—resting on the fact that in O. T. God is sometimes spoken of as the Shepherd of Israel, and that in LXX. Job xx. 29, He is designated ’Eaioxoros —the words Tounv Kav émioKxomos here are applied, not to Christ, but to God the Father. The general N. T. usage, however (our Lord delighting to describe Himself as the Shepherd of His people, as in John x. 11 foll.; Matt. xxvi. 31; cf. also Heb. xiii. 20), aud in particular, quite decisively, the language of Peter himself in chap. v. 4, show that his reference here is to the Lord Jesus. As regards the conjunction of the words tron Kal émioKomos, compare the similar combination of the cognate verbs in chap. v. 2 (according to the ordinary reading),—also, as somewhat similar, LX X. Ezek. xxxiv. 11. There seéms to be an echo of the combination in Ignatius’s words (Rom. § 9): tis év Supia €xkrnolas, rus avtl €wod romév. TO Oew yphrac’ povos avtiy “Incods Xpiotos émucxotnaet.—As to Peter's use of wuyy, ef. ver. 11, note. 192 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PIU, te CHAPT ERA Vy. 1-6. On the duttes of wives. AFTER the counsels to servants we naturally look for a statement of the correlative duties of masters, such as follows the address to servants in Ephesians and in Colossians. But Peter does not touch on these. His mind, as it appears, was wholly occupied, at this stage of his letter, with the thought of positions in which the prominent duty was submission. Starting with the general precept laid down by him in ii. 13, he has dwelt first on civil government and on slavery, doubt- less as being those av@pemivat «tices from the obligation of submission to which Christians were most likely to believe themselves emancipated, seeing that commonly subjects and slaves are such, not through any choice of their own, but by birth or conquest. Now he passes on to speak of marriage, into the formation of which, indeed, personal choice enters or should enter, but in which wives — taught that in Christ “there was neither male nor female,’ so that they stood in fellowship with their Lord, not mediately as represented by their husbands, but immediately as themselves His disciples and friends — might not unnaturally be in some cases tempted to think themselves set free from the obligation of obedience. Ver. 1. The similarity, set forth by omotws, of the case now introduced to that of servants, obviously, as has just been indicated, lies mainly in the fact that tzotayn, the special duty connected with the position of servants, is also that aspect of a wife’s obligations which the apostle’s line of thought 1 eae Bal FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 193 leads him to make prominent. Throughout Greece and the Greek East at this time, as innumerable passages in the clas- sical writers show, the position of a wife was held generally to be not greatly different from that of a slave, and wives were treated by their husbands often with contempt and cruelty. The sublime wisdom of the apostolic mode of presenting those principles, through the working of which Christianity was ultimately to place woman in her true relation to man, is beautifully exemplified in the present address to wives, and in the short one which follows to husbands. The absence of the interjection ® with the vocative yuvatkes is in accordance with ordinary N. T. usage. In most of the instances where @ does occur, indeed, it is not, as with classical writers, a mere sign of address, but an exclama- tion of feeling; cf. eg. Acts xiii. 10; Gal. iz. 1—On the construction of the participle drotaccopevas, see ii. 18, note. —By some expositors /d/o1s here is held to be altogether unemphatic. This is scarcely tenable. In later Greek this adjective (as also ofxetos) came undoubtedly to be employed as equivalent to an unemphatic pronoun; but that in N. T. the word is ever used quite in this way is not altogether clear (on some of the most likely cases, as Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14, cf. Meyer, in Jocc.); and that in the great majority of passages where it occurs the distinctive force of “own” is to be recognised, is certain. In the present case this force of the word is perfectly natural, and in itself presents an argument, thus,—* to those whom, remember, you have taken to be your own, yours in an altogether peculiar sense, and who therefore have, according to the nature of the relation, an altogether peculiar claim on your obedience.” Says Leighton, “ The Christian wife, that hath love to God, though her husband be not so comely, nor so wise, nor so amiable as many others, yet because he is her own husband, therefore she loves and obeys.” —The unelassical construction found here of iva with the future indicative occurs a good many times in N, T,, N 194 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. REDE ale particularly in Revelation: see Winer, p. 361; A. Buttmann, p. 234. Whether «ai ed, e¢ xat, or simply e?, should be read, is very uncertain. MS. authority seems to be somewhat in favour of «al et, which has accordingly been placed in the text. If internal grounds of judgement be regarded, e¢ xa’ might perhaps appear to be more likely,—x«av in this latter combina- tion not, as in the other, belonging to ec, and marking the supposition as an improbable one, but applying to the state- ment made in the clause, and simply indicating that the case supposed is one harder than others to reconcile with the apodosis. On the force of e xaé and xai e, which latter occurs in N. T. much more rarely than the other, see Winer, p. 554, particularly Dr. Moulton’s notes—On azeBotow Te oye, see ii. 8, note. The state of spirit indicated by this expression, in both passages, is not of a mere negative kind, but is that of persons who, possessing some knowledge of the truth, were in positive antagonism to it—The use of tov yuvatkav here instead of vuav has been by some scholars supposed to show that in writing this verse the thought had not in the apostle’s mind the form of direct address, but that the imperative to be supplied is in the 3rd person, and yuvaikes at the beginning to be taken consequently, not as vocative, but nominative. There is no need for this supposi- tion, the use in direct address, in such a clause as this, of the general term “ wives” or of the special “ you” being really equally natural, and the choice between them simply a matter of style. The second part of the same sentence is shown by bev (ver. 2) to be direct ; and the whole series of precepts, of which the present forms a part, seems to have been conceived throughout in the same form ; see ii. 13, 17, 20; iii. 6, 9. The thought is a natural one, that in avev Aoyou the refer- ence intended is precisely the same as in 7@ Noy@ preceding. It is plain, however, that the xepdaiver@at spoken of in the present clause cannot be effected without the word of God: it is, in fact, a being won to the gospel, and through the BIT. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 195 gospel to God. To take the meaning to be “ without the influence of public preaching of the word,” or to refer xeponOncovrat merely to a preparatory conciliation of the un- believing husband, by which a fair hearing will be secured for the gospel, appears somewhat forced: It seems, too, that while, no doubt, in the N. T. style a noun which is unquestionably definite is after a preposition often found without the article, still here, had the apostle meant “the word of God,” the article would probably have been used, considering the risk of ambiguity and the strongly marked definiteness of this particular reference of Aoyov. The meaning therefore probably is, “without speech, without talking” (“ without setting up for a preacher,” sans faire la précheuse, Renan). The case supposed is that in which husbands are in such a state of feeling that they would be irritated and hardened by being spoken to about religion, but may through God’s grace be softened and gained over by the sight of the pure and loving life of their wives. We can hardly help thinking, however, that the apostle had still distinctly in his mind the Avy which he had written im- mediately before, and seeing that, of course, the “talk” pointed to in avev doyou is “talk about the gospel,” we recognise something of linguistic play,—thus, “that if any are dis- obedient to the word, they may without word about it be won.” In the case supposed the gospel, as revealed, not by the lips, but by the life of the believing wives, was to gain the husbands. “The silence often of pure innocence | Persuades when speaking fails” (Winter’s Tale, ii. 2). In its connection here xepdnOjcovtas has evidently a rich comprehensiveness of reference,—“ be won to their God and Saviour, and thereby be won also to their wives as now theirs in a fulness of love and confidence and sympathy unknown before:” cf. 1 Cor. ix. 19 foll. In Phil. iii, 8, Paul by the same verb presents another aspect of the position. Ver. 2. Here we have in a participial clause an epexegesis of the previous statement of instrumentality, dua ris Tav a 196 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [III. 3- yuvarkov avactpopys.—On érortevoarres, and on the thought given in this clause, ef. ii. 12, notes. As the ésromteveuy brings about the xepdaiverOar, the priority of the former is naturally exhibited by the use of the aorist participle— Seeing that evidently (vv. 1, 6) the apostle has the duty of obedience so much before his mind, @o8@ in the connection means, not “fear of God,” but “ reverence for your husbands.” Cf. ii. 18, note, and particularly Eph. v. 33. This being the reference of @oB8os in the passage, the combination év doBo cannot well be naturally taken (as may be in the similarly interjected év dyvoia, i. 14) as having strongly an instru- mental or causal force, seeing that the dyv) avactpody springs immediately from a Christian woman’s loyalty to God, independently of any relation to a husband. The idea in év seems to be simply semi-local, that of the sphere or element, —‘“ manifestly surrounded and pervaded by reverence.” The rendering of the English versions, “ coupled with fear,” while correct so far as it goes, seems hardly adequate——In dyv7 the prominent thought is no doubt that of chastity, but in a passage like the present the wide original reference of the word is naturally to be understood, including generally freedom from everything of grossness and sensuality, “purity ” in the broadest sense of that word. Vy. 3—6. These verses contain an exhortation to Christian wives to regard as their true adornment, not the decoration of the body, but beauty of spirit,—this precept being supported by an appeal to the example of the honoured matrons of Scripture story. That in the apostle’s mind this ex- hortation stood in close connection with that of vv. 1, 2, is shown by the mode in which, in ver. 5, to éxoopouv éavtds is attached drotacccpevas T. t. a. Peter’s aim evidently was to show that the submission he had been urging was, in the relation of wives to their husbands, the legitimate expression of that purity and beauty of heart which Christianity intro- duces ; and that the attractiveness for their husbands, which some of them perhaps tried to secure by undue attention to III. 3-6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 497 external decoration, would be obtained in a far higher- degree by faithful and loving discharge of duty,—through which too, in many cases, the immeasurable joy might be reached of winning their husbands to Christ. The question naturally arises whether the: prohibition here given of outward ornament, seemingly absolute, is really so. Now évévois (watiwv being included in the: prohibition, whilst some iwatia must be worn, it is certain in this case, and from the parallelism is reasonably inferred also as regards the others, that the reference is simply to what is undue, incon- sistent with the principles of Christian decorum and steward- ship for God. Here, as with innumerable other Christian laws, a principle is laid down in Scripture, whilst. very much with regard to the mode of carrying it out amid the varying circumstances of life is left to be determined by individual Christian judgement. The fact that in Peter’s enumeration of the constituents of a worldly woman’s coopos he uses in each instance a substantive expressive of actzon—though, of course, the ornament really consists, not in the éuaAo«n, mepilects, and évduors, but in the plaited hair itself, the jewels, and the fine clothes—seems to show, as Bengel remarks, that a very prominent thought in the apostle’s mind had reference to undue expenditure of time and attention on the work of bodily adornment. To the precept of Peter here, one of Paul’s (1 Tim. 11. 9, 10) is very similar in its substance. When we consider the lateness in Paul’s life of the Epistles to Timothy, however, and the fact that their being in the first instance of a private character would probably make their circulation somewhat slow, it is hardly likely that the passage referred to was before our apostle’s mind in writing. The whole precept— as regards both its details of those forms of bodily display on which women wasted thought and time and money, and its description of a woian’s true adornment—may quite naturally be thought of as having been a commonplace of primitive practical Christian teaching. It is likely that Christian exhortation on this subject was very common, as being— 198 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. PLE. 3 judging from all that we know of the manners of the age— much needed. The excessive devotion of women to elaborate personal adornment, and particularly to the costly decoration of their hair, attracted the attention of thoughtful observers even among the heathen,—Juvenal, Suetonius, and others. From statements of the Fathers too, especially of Clement of Alexandria (Peed. ii. 11, 13, iii. 11), we see that in later times also the conduct in this respect of many Christian women caused anxiety to their spiritual guides. Ver. 3. On the continuative use of the relative pronoun at the beginning of a new sentence, exemplified here in @y (for cai vpov), see A, Buttmann, p. 282. We may construe oy in either of two ways. It may, in accordance with the familiar construc- tion of efvae with a genitive, be connected immediately with éoTw,—“ and let yours (your special possession or distinction, your characteristic) be;” or, from the subject, coopos may be supplied as predicate. At first sight the former of these may seem to suit better the second part of the subject-combination, in which a@pa7os is the leading word. Seeing, however, from the use of the adjective woAuTedés, and especially from ov’Tws yap . .. ékoopouy éavtas which follows, that the ” idea of “ornament” was clearly in the writer’s mind through- out the whole section, it is indifferent, so far as the context is concerned, which construction be chosen ; and the two are about equally natural.—On the fact that even in clauses, like the present, of the kind which most rigidly require the sub- jective negative 7, ov« is occasionally found in cases where, as here, the particle does not belong strictly to the main verb, but to a word or combination which is set in antithesis to another, see A. Buttmann, p. 352. Contrast the construction in v. 2, 3, where the use of ju shows that the thought of the prohibition is more vividly before the writer’s mind than that of the mere antithesis—On the frequent use in N. T., as in classical Greek, of €w@ev and écwOev as practically equivalent to é& and éow, see Winer, p. 592; A. Buttmann, p. 70.—For xXevota in the quite classical sense of “ornaments of gold,” Ill, 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 199 ef. Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 16.—It will be observed that the apostle connects “plaiting of hair” with “putting on of gold ornaments” by «ai, and then for the following connective uses 7. In the somewhat parallel passage already referred to, 1 Tim. ii. 9, precisely the same change of conjunctions is found. The ground of this change can hardly be determined with certainty. It may be that the gold ornaments of which the apostles were thinking particularly were for the hair, and therefore the first two specifications went closely together: or perhaps their thought was of bodily adornment as made up of two divisions, viz. elaborate arrangement of the ornament which belongs to the body itself, the hair, and expensive arraying of the body with materials from without,—the sub- divisions of this array being put disjunctively by “ or.” Ver. 4. In contrast with the é&w@ev coopuos of the worldling, the Christian woman is to have the xpumrtos Kocpos of spiritual beauty. “Submission to their own husbands” is to be no superficial thing, but to spring up from the deep hidden fountain of sanctified affections, With growth in Christian wisdom anxiety to be looked at and admired will always become less, whilst longing to have richer beauty investing that inner nature which, though hidden from man, hes full before the view of God, will become always stronger. The word «purTos, while, of course, immediately set in antithesis to éEwev, suggests also and leads on to é€vwmvov tov Ocov.—In illustrating the connection in the note above, the expression KpuTTOS KOo“os Was used; but whilst, as what follows shows, the thought of “ornament” is still distinctly before the apostle’s mind, he does not here employ the word. He proceeds, instead, to bring out directly, and in a most vivid way, the vastness of the contrast between the dead things, the fine clothes and jewels, of the woman of the world, and the adornment of the Christian woman, by joining to xpumtds the word v0 pwrros, implying life, energy, thought, will, affection. This image of ‘ the inner man” for the intellectual and spiritual nature, in contrast with the material element of our being, is 200 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 4. familiar to us in the Apostle Paul’s writings. When we consider that, looking away from Paul’s Epistles, the figure is not found in N. T. except in the present passage,—that it occurs in two of the Pauline letters which may reasonably be supposed to have been known to many of those Asiatic Christians for whom Peter’s letter was intended, the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians,—and that, whereas Paul usually illustrates the image somewhat, in so far at least as by giving a distinct statement of the antithesis, Peter here, by giving no explana- tion, seems to assume its familiarity to his readers,—consider- ing these things, it seems likely that here our apostle had Paul's frequent use of the figure in his mind, and intended to refer the thoughts of his readers to that use. The antithesis in 0 é€w and o éow avOpwros (Rom. vii. 22 ; 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16), to which that here in o éwev Koopos and o KpumTds avOpwmos answers, has obviously distinct elements from that in 0 madatos and o Kawos (véos) avOpwmos (Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii, 10). As a matter of fact, however, “the inner man,” in the places where Paul uses the expression, is not the soul taken generally, but is “the new man,” the soul of a regencrate man, enlightened and sanctified by the Divine Spirit. In our passage also, clearly, seeing that writer and reader carry with them into the clause the thought of the adornment of a Christian woman, the xpumtos avOpwmos is the inner being regarded as regenerate. Some expositors suppose the idea of regenerate not to be given till the words év 7T@ adOdptw xTr.; but the form of the sentence appears decidedly to suggest that in ? the simple name “the hidden man” we are to understand the true ornament as fully set before us, and that the following words only elucidate what has been there already implicitly presented.—* The hidden man ” which seems best taken as having somewhat the force of a is described as THs Kapdias, or possessive genitive, “ the heart’s hidden man:” the affections and energies summed up by the name “man” belong to the heart, from it they start forth, and conduct in the outer life 1d ae FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 201 which professes to be the action of “the hidden man” is really such—has value and beauty in God’s sight—only when it is in vital connection with the heart. Thus the “man” is the heart’s property. Some such notion of possession as this, not meant to be very rigidly defined, suits the proprieties of the figure better than taking the genitive as one of apposition, —‘“the hidden man of (= who is, that is to say) the heart.” A prosaic explanation like this does not seem to accord with the lively poetic form of the sentence. The xapodia, then, which might have been represented as the abode of “the hidden man,” having been, in fact, exhibited rather in something of a possessive relation, the clause goes on to describe his abode (or possibly, for the preposition would suit either view, his apparel),—and this in a way to set forth with emphasis the enduring beauty and glory of this “man,” this true ornament of the Christian. The “outward adorning” is only of the perishable body ; “the hidden man” has his sphere of action, lives and moves, in the immortal spirit. To the imperishableness of this home, contrasting so impressively with the transitoriness of the scene of the display of outward ornaments, special prominence is given by a bright poetic turn in the mode of expression, making to ap@aptov (= 7 apGapcia) stand out as itself the abode. The outward adorn- ? ing dwells in perishableness, “the hidden man” in immortality —that immortality which belongs to the immaterial element of our being, here described by the name employed in Scripture to set it forth in its highest powers and relations, “‘ the spirit,” the glorious moral nature by which we can know God and live in fellowship with Him. In the case supposed this “ spirit,” illuminated and sustained by the Divine Spirit, does live in fellowship with God, and has the heavenly beauty which He imparts. The form of beauty here specified by the apostle is, in accordance with the immediate object of the whole passage, that which should be specially characteristic of Christian women. Between mpaéws and javyiov Bengel draws a dis- 202, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 4. tinction somewhat as of active and passive: the former, gwi non turbat, the latter, gui turbas aliorum fert placide. This distinction has hardly his usual felicity. From the ordinary use of the words one may fairly think that, as so often in similar combinations, the two adjectives have been employed rather to give by accumulation expression to one thought in a strong way, than to two thoughts meant to be precisely dis- criminated. In so far as there is distinction, it seems to be as follows: the second word is somewhat more general than the other, describing the state of soul of which “ meekness” is one manifestation. The English rendering, “meek and quiet,” brings out the sense perfectly,—<“free always from anger, revenge, and sullenness, notwithstanding the troubles and irritations which beset every life, and which are likely very specially to beset the life of a Christian woman married to an unbelieving husband,—and having this meekness inand through quietness of heart, restfulness of soul in the assurance of God’s love and care.” As to the exact force of pais, see Trench, Syn. N. 7. §§ 42,43. It is not impossible that in the combination mpaéws kal javyiov we have one of Peter’s many echoes of O. T. language. In Isa. lxvi. 2, the LXX. has TaTewov Kai jovyLov ; but Clement of Rome (§ 13), quoting this verse of Isaiah, has rpaiy cat aovx0v,—which also is Chry- sostom’s form in his quotations (see reff. in Jacobson, in loc. cit, Clem. Rom.). It is perhaps more likely that this was a various reading of the LXX., than that both of these Fathers should have been swayed away from correct citation by a remembrance of Peter’s words——On the loose connection of év 76 abGapt@ with o kpuTtos dvOpwros, without a repetition of the article, cf. eg. Rom. vi. 4; Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii, 14; and see Winer, p. 169; A. Buttmann, p. 91.—-On the well- supported form of the genitive mpaéws, for mpaéos of the older Greek, see A. Buttmann, p. 26. A similar form, also well supported, is BaOéws, Luke xxiv. 1. Instead of taking “the incorruptible” as for the abstract, “the incorruptibleness or imperishableness,” some scholars Ill. 5.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 203 have from the first part of the sentence brought in cooum as a supplement in this clause, either (so R. E. V.) immediately with 7} a¢@apte, “in the incorruptible adornment (apparel),” or (so A. E. V.) in apposition, “in that which is not corrupt- ible, even the ornament.” This supplement is, looking at the structure of the clause, not very natural, and does not seem to be needed, or to add anything to the beauty or sublimity of the apostle’s picture—The neuter relative, which introduces the last clause of the verse, has as its natural antecedent mvevpatos, or—which in meaning would come to the same thing, if taken as concrete in the way adopted in the A. E, V.— 7® agOdpt». We have seen reason to take To ap@daptw rather as abstract, in which sense it is not suitable as the antecedent. JIvevpatos seems to be the intended reference. It is true that the predicate aoAvtedés describes the pre- ciousness of the ornament of a Christian woman,—which ornament, according to the figure in the sentence, is “the hidden man;” but this does not make it necessary to refer 6 to avOpw7ros and all its adjuncts, gathered up by the neuter as “a thing which.” When the apostle’s expansion of his figure is rigidly construed, the “meek and quiet spirit” is that in which the “hidden man” abides; but the mind, not dwelling on this, easily passes to think of these two as prac- tically synonymous,—so that the relative may quite well be attached immediately to mvevpatos. Vv. 5, 6. The exhortation to give main thought and care to spiritual adornment is supported by a reference to the example of the much-revered godly women of Bible history, Sarah, Hannah, and others. Special mention is naturally made of the case of Sarah, to whom—as the wife of Abraham, and as a woman not indeed without serious flaws of character, yet in true and deep sympathy with her husband in his consecration to God—a like precedence is readily given among the O. T. matrons as among the men of faith has been by all generations allowed to Abraham. Ver. 5 The apparent correlation in this sentence of ot7ws 204 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 5. and ws (ver. 6) is merely accidental,—the course of thought showing clearly enough that ovtws points back, “in that way, viz. “ with meekness and obedience,’ whilst > means “as, for example.”——With regard to the meaning of the word dytos, see note on ayiacpos, i. 2. Whilst the idea of reverend dignity, through separation for God, is never absent from the word, yet in many instances the ethical aspect of the mean- ing is decidedly and obviously prominent. Sometimes, how- ever, both ideas present themselves with much distinctness, as when we read of “the holy prophets” (Luke i. 70; Acts ili. 21), and of “the holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. iii. 5). In the place before us, also, when we read of “the holy women,’ we naturally take this expression somewhat in the same way,—the idea suggested to us, if fully set forth, being “ those pious women to whom, as His servants, God has given a special dignity, by enshrining their names in the historical records included in His word” (“those women of blessed memory,’ Fronmiiller). The epexegetical clause, “ who placed their hope in God,” comes in obviously with much naturalness, seeing that this was the particular side of their piety on which immediately their meekness and submission to their husbands rested. They also, like those women to whom the apostle was now writing, had sometimes difficulties to contend with in their relations to their husbands,—inconsiderate conduct, miscon- ceptions, perhaps wrongs; but, believing in God’s providence and grace, they had a confident expectation (such is the €Azis of Scripture) that He would make darkness light before them and crooked things straight, and therefore they cast their care upon Him. For the construction éAiGecv ets, cf. John v. 45; 2 Cor. i. 10; see also in our Epistle erwifeuv eri, i. 13, note ; and cf. A. Buttmann, p. 175. The words ai édmifovcar may be taken either, according to a frequent use in N. T. of the present participle with the article (eg. Matt. xxvii. 40; Eph. iv. 28), without temporal reference, and almost with the force of a substantive, “the hopers in God” (Winer, p. 444; A. Ill. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 203 Buttmann, p. 296), or as a participle of the imperfect (Winer, p. 428), exactly = ai #Amfov. The latter view seems the more natural.—On the connection of éxdcpovy éavtds with the participial clause dmotaccopevas xTXr,, see above, intro- ductory note on vy. 3-6.—On the force of édéous as here used, see above, ver. 1, note. Ver. 6. Whilst in the words “calling him lord” there is no doubt a reference to Gen. xvill. 12, it seems clear that the aorist vmjKovoev, if the true reading, is not meant to point simply to the particular incidents there described, but to indi- cate general character,—there being, indeed, on the occasion spoken of in that passage, nothing mentioned illustrative of “obedience,” except the proof of respectful feeling given by the mere use of the word “lord.” But the aorist, as employed to exhibit general character, has a quite peculiar strength, the life being, so to speak, gathered up and set forth as a single historical fact; ef. 1. 22, note. The imperfect danxovev is also a well-supported reading here, and it is difficult to decide between it and the aorist. As so often happens, consideration of probability based on internal grounds does not help us much. The aorist may seem to be favoured by the canon of difficulty, inasmuch as a thinking copyist, perceiving that the reference is to general character, and not remembering the occasional use of the aorist in this way, might naturally sub- stitute the imperfect. On the other hand, however, a less sensible though not altogether unthinking copyist might easily at once infer, from the mention of Sarah’s “calling her hus- band lord,” that the sole reference in the passage is to the incident recorded in Gen. xviii., and might therefore substi- tute the aorist for the imperfect. With regard to the measure of reverence illustrated by Sarah’s use, on the occasion imme- diately referred to, of the word “lord,” it is not unimportant to remember that she is represented as employing the term in speaking to herself—a kind of discourse which brings out with special exactness the real habits of thought and feeling. The clause js éyevnOnte téxva enforces the argument 206 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TEE 6. based on the examples just adduced, by reminding the Christian women who are addressed that through faith they had entered into close spiritual relationship with the holy matrons of Israel, particularly with Sarah. She was the representative woman of faith, the mother of God’s Israel,— that Israel which, as Paul had so abundantly and clearly taught his converts, and among them these Asiatic believers, was, as regarded its loftiest functions and its highest and per- manent privileges, not a body of kinsfolk through earthly descent, but a spiritual association through faith, gathered out of all kindreds and peoples. Those women whom Peter addresses, then, had “ become Sarah’s children” when they by faith accepted the God and the Messiah of Israel. This is one of those passages in this Epistle with which the view that in the opening words of the letter the apostle is to be regarded as addressing it solely to Jewish Christians, does not agree at all well. It is no doubt true that Jewish women, when they accepted the Lord Jesus as their Saviour, became Israelites, daughters of Sarah, in a deeper, grander sense than they had been before; but, supposing the reference in the present passage to be to them alone, it would certainly have been natural to add some explanatory phrase,—“ spiritually,” “by faith,” or the like. On the other hand, supposing those addressed to be mainly Gentile women, the spiritual nature of the relation to Sarah was at once understood. The participial clause which closes the verse appears to have the force of a protasis, the connection and sense being substantially this, “ whose daughters ye became,—if, that is to say, ye are proving yourselves Christians indeed by faithful and resolute well-doing.” The present participles as used of conduct subsequent to the “becoming daughters,” associate themselves a little oddly with the aorist éyevnOnte, taken strictly ; but, in a verb of this kind, the sense of the aorist so immediately suggests that of the perfect, or practically of éoté, that the connection is quite natural—On Peter’s use of dyaboroteiv, cf. ii. 15, note-—In wn poBovpevar pyndeuiav III. 6.] _ FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 207 mtTonow the construction does not seem meant to be taken as that of the cognate accusative, “fearing no fear,” that is, simply, “never being afraid.” This construction appears to require, not merely that the substantive and verb be kindred in meaning, but that they be cognate in derivation, as ¢oSov doBetc@at (Mark iv. 41). In the somewhat peculiar expression before us, moreover, there seems to be not improbably a reminiscence of Prov. iii. 25, od un poBnOnon mronow (LXX.), where the parallel in the latter clause of the verse shows distinctly that mrTonow is used—as nouns denoting the emotions of fear, hope, and the like are so apt to be in any language—for the exciting object, “cause of terror.” In our passage, similarly, the probable force is well given by the R. E. V., “not put in fear by any terror.” The language being quite general, the reference is naturally taken to be to any of the many sources of alarm which in a _ heathen country, and in a persecuting age, might, through the action of womanly timidity, shake constancy in the exhibition of Christian character. “The meek and quiet spirit” of the wise Christian woman is to be understood as having nothing in it of feebleness, irresolution, or cowardice. The leading thought in the apostle’s mind, however, was probably one of qualifying the main injunction of the whole section, “ Be obedient to your own husbands, and this even if they be unbelieving,’—the qualification given here being, “but bear in mind always that your supreme duty—that with which nothing can be permitted to interfere—is to obey God, and therefore, should your husbands forbid you, and that with threats, to do anything which you know God to have enjoined, let no terror of this kind frighten you, but rest in the Lord.” The peculiarity at first sight, adverted to above, in the connection of the present participles of this clause with the aorist éyevnO@nte, has led some scholars to take the first part of the verse, from @s Xdppa to téxva, as a parenthesis,—in which case, of course, aya@orro:odcar and goPovpevas agree, 208 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. pal a not with the subject of éyevjOnre, but with ai dyrau yuvaixes, and continue the description of their character. This con- struction does not seem a likely one. Parentheses no doubt abound in N. T., particularly in the writings of Paul; but, if longer than two or three words, they commonly mingle with and modify the construction of the main sentence. Clem, Rom. $ 9) Mireny.i9 18) Sri Heb. xi. 7, indeed, xi8w7ov is anarthrous, but there the indefinite form “an ark” seems to represent the intended shade of thought. The use of the word as a kind of proper name not being proved, therefore, it seems not unlikely that here also we should think of the indefinite force as being intended. This supposition agrees sufficiently with the apostle’s practice elsewhere, the omission of the article in order to give full weight to the signification of a substantive by itself being not infrequent with him; cf. 1.10, note on mpodjrar. Supposing «:BwrTod thus indefinite, the prominent thought would seem to be of the merciful design of the ark,—“ while an ark a means of deliverance—was a preparing.” These words would thus join themselves in effect to the mention which has been made of the divine “ long-suffering,” and of its “ patient waiting,” to show the fulness and earnestness of the pleading of the Logos of God with that generation. The slow rising up before them from day to day of what was distinctly and constantly announced by God’s servant to be a means of escape from a certainly coming destruction, was in itself a form of “ preaching,’ and gave support to all the other forms. Rhetorically there seems to be a certain special suitableness in this indefinite way of taking «GwTod, in view of that statement of general disregard of the offered deliver- ance which immediately follows, in the form of a relative clause attached to «uBwrod. The relative clause which exhibits the smallness of the 286 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [UI. 20. result of the pleadings of divine grace with the men of Noah’s generation has no word indicating the precise nature of its connection with what precedes, no “nevertheless” or “notwithstanding,’—gaining thus in terseness and point: “He preached to the spirits in prison when disobedient aforetime, when the long-suffering of God kept patiently waiting, while an ark was a preparing,—din which few (persons), eight souls to wit, were saved.” Every reader feels the power of the specification of the number,—eight persons out of a world. The words of this clause, while their general meaning is sufficiently clear, may yet be taken with several different shades of meaning. According to a use of duacwlev, not uncommon in classical writers, and occasionally found in N. T. (Acts xxiii. 24, xxvii. 44, xxvii. 4), we may translate, “into which few, etc., were brought safely through water.” This is given on the margin of R. E. V. Grammatically unobjectionable, this view of the meaning cannot be sustained on other grounds. Every reader instinctively feels it to be a strangely imperfect statement of deliverance, that the persons spoken of were brought safely into the ark, when we know that in fact they were, in the ark, brought safely through the perils of the Deluge. But, besides this, the words “through water,” connected in this way, assert what contradicts the distinct O. T. statement on the subject (Gen. vii. 4, 7-10), that the Flood did not begin till the patriarch and his family had entered the ark, and been “shut in” by God. But, in perfect consistency with N. T. usage, we may take eés in what is known as its pregnant sense (on which cf. v. 12, els })v oTHTE, With note), thus obtaining the sense, “in which” (fully exhibited, “7 which, having been brought by God into it”) “a few, etc., were carried safely through water” —water which encompassed and threatened to overwhelm them. This is true and graphic, and the view that this was the apostle’s meaning might be legitimately supported by the suggestion that there was echoing in Peters memory III. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 287 du’ VdaTos of Ps. Ixvi. (xv. Sept.) 12, and of Isa. xliii. 2,—in each of which passages the words are, as here, attached toa verb compounded with dca (diAOopev, 5caB8aivys), and in each of which also the statement has reference to a divine deliver- ance. If it were not for the relative clause which follows (ver. 21), this would seem decidedly to be the probable meaning of our passage. The meaning of that clause, how- ever, and the kind of connection which it has with that now before us, prevent our accepting this sense. There we read “which” (that is, water) “in a corresponding way saves you also.” This plainly proves, through the “ corresponding ” and the “also,” that in 6 dédatos the apostle had been thinking of water, not as a foe threatening to destroy, but as a friend, a bringer of deliverance. This idea does not seem to associate itself very naturally with the local force of the preposition sé, unless with a somewhat undue amount of supplement, “through the midst of the water, which sustained them and bore them out of all peril.” It appears therefore likely, though one yields a little reluctantly in this matter to the pressure of seeming exegetical require- ments, that the vivid picture given by the local use of Ova should be put aside. The compound dvac@few is freely used as simply a nearly equivalent form (originally rather stronger) for cwfew: cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3; Acts xxvil. 43. On the whole it seems that the verb is employed in this way here, and that ova before déatos has its common instrumental force-—the sense of the clause thus being, “in which few, eight souls to wit, were saved through (means of) water.” With the putting aside of the local representation, “passing through water,’ the relation of the 5a in com- position to the other dvd is interrupted. Neither can da- cwlew well be supposed to have that stronger force, as compared with the simple verb, which has just been men- tioned as strictly given by the preposition; because in the very next clause, with which to a certain extent the present 288 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 20. is contrasted, the simple verb is employed to describe a deliverance grander by far than that from the Flood. As hinted above, diacwfew had to a great extent lost in use the special, intenser force which it originally possessed: cf. eg. the references to Luke and Acts given just above. The apostle employed the compound here probably partly through the familiar assonance of dca in composition with 6ésa@ separate, and partly because though, in the end, the instrumental sense of the preposition as it stands before téda7os was uppermost in his mind, yet the picture of “passing through the water” was or had been also in a measure before him. Clement of Rome (§ 9) says, Nae micros evpeBels Sia THs AetToupylas avTOD Taduyyevetiay Koope éexnpvEecv, Kal Siecwoev &’ avtod o Aeomotns Ta eicedOovta ev omovoia faa eis THY KiBwrov. Quite distinct as this statement is from Peter’s, still the coming together, in association with the mention of the ark, of the words éknpugev and duéowcev, suggests as at least possible that Clement was thinking of our passage. If maduyyevertay were interpreted with a spiritual reference, and something like the idea of the first clause of ver. 21 supposed to be in Clement’s mind, the likelihood that Peter’s words were floating before him would, of course, be much increased ; but (see Lightfoot, 7 Joc.) such a view of his meaning does not seem to be at all probable. In any case we cannot gather from the sentence anything with respect to Clement’s exegesis of Peter. By some scholars it has been thought that the use of yvyai in this clause may have been specially suggested to the apostle by that same thought of moral natures and their relations to the divine Logos, which, as has been seen, we are almost certainly to recognise in mvevpacw (ver. 19). This is, of course, possible; and there can be no doubt that, whilst the deliverance immediately spoken of was an outward one, yet the main thought intended, in the connection, to stand out before us is that it was through subjection, to a Ta. .21;] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 289 greater or less extent, to spiritual influences,—through accept- ance in some measure of the divine teaching and warnings,— that these eight persons were led to avail themselves of the means of rescue. Still, considering the free use in N. T. of wuyai in enumerations (like “souls,” often, in English) simply for “persons” (Acts ii. 41, vii. 14, xxvii. 37, according to a common LXX. mode of expression, eg. Gen. xlvi. 15; Ex. 1.5; Deut. x. 22), it hardly seems likely that anything special was intended here in the use of this particular word. The natural view is that, when from the general word 6déyou, “ few persons,’ Peter went on to specify the number, he instinctively adopted the formula familiar to him in enumerations, “ eight souls.” Ver. 21. The language of the first clause is condensed, but not to serious obscurity: “ which (¢.e. water), correspond- ing, now saves you also, baptism.” The meaning of this is plainly, “ which, as corresponding ” or “answering” (that is, the force of the adjective being such as is best represented in English by an adverbial combination, “in a corresponding way ”), “ now saves you also—that is to say, baptism.” The adjective avtiturov is appositional to 6; and then afterwards for distinctness we have Bawtuicpua as a second apposition, which comes in quite naturally and intelligibly, though logically the appositional relation is somewhat loose, “ water—that is to say, the new covenant ordinance in which water is employed as an emblem.” The apostle does not institute or suggest any extended analogy between the deliverance of Noah and his family and that of Christians, but simply notes the fact that, from some points of view, the water of the Flood might be regarded as having a certain analogy to the water of baptism. As the water of the Flood covered the earth which was accursed, and at the same time bore up God’s people in safety, so baptism, when it is that spiritual reality which the apostle goes on to describe, covers and purifies the sin-blighted nature, and brings into salvation. The analogy is brought forward by the apostle i 290 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IIL 21. here chiefly, it would appear, to exhibit with liveliness the relation of the picture already presented to that now intro- duced, by giving prominence to what, though in different ways, was yet common to both scenes of Christ’s gracious action, as an agent in the deliverance. “Under His working long ago, water saved but eight persons out of the world: under His working now, as quickened in spirit, water is saving you Asiatic believers, representing, as you know, many thousands over the world.” The translation of avtitutov by “as antitype,” or “ as anti- typical,” would be somewhat misleading, through the technical sense—natrower than that of the Greek word as used in N. T. —which these derivatives have in our current theological language. There is no likelihood that the apostle meant us to understand that the water of the Flood was, in the strict theological sense, a “type” of baptism,—amainly intended, that is to say, to exhibit on a lower plane the same principles which baptism sets forth, and thus in a measure to prepare men for the fuller revelation which was to come. That both with reference to judgement and to grace the Flood had a typical force is no doubt true, but as regards the water, which is the thing here in hand, the thought of an indication of grace in it —while present, as is seen on reflection—is yet only secondary, indeed remote, the immediate and main purpose of the water being the destruction of the ungodly. “Avtitu7ros, as used in N. T., indicates resemblance or correspondence to something prior, accordance with a pattern (rv7ros). This sense is not, or but very doubtfully, found in classical writers. One mean- ing which the word has in these is “adverse,” and by one or two scholars (as Hammond) this has been thought of as per- haps the sense in our passage, “ which on the contrary.” 4a vdatos at the close of ver. 20 is then, of course, taken with the force of “through water as hostile or threatening,” opposed to which here is twas oofer. But «ai with duds, “you also,” and the way in which ayrituzogs is used in the only other N. T. pas- sage where it occurs, Heb. ix. 24, conclusively set this view III. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 291 of the meaning of the word aside. The adjective, in its sacred application, does not of itself imply anything with respect to the quality of that of which it speaks; but merely intimates that it comes, in time, second to the tumos thought of. The avtituTov may be inferior, as where of heavenly originals there are earthly, material, temporary counterparts or tran- scripts (Heb. ix. 24),—or, as in our present passage, superior, as a finished work to a rough model: cf. Lightfoot’s note on the Ancient Homily formerly called the 2nd Epistle of Clem. Rom., § 14. In the formularies of the Greek Church the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are called aytitu7a of the body and blood of Christ. For analogies to the strong expression employed here re- garding the efficacy of baptism, twas cle, cf. Mark xvi. 16; Acts 17,38, xxi. 16; Rom. vi..3; 43 Gal. ii 273 Eph.vi 26; Col. ii, 12; Tit. in. 5—Hermas (Vis. ii. 3) has a remark on baptism which looks somewhat like a reminiscence of our clause taken in association with the last clause of ver. 20 : 7) an tpov dia datos €owWOn Kal cwOnoeTat. To obviate misconceptions into which abundant experience proves the proneness of men to fall—and which might, in the present case, appear at first sight to be sustained by the par- ticular comparison here instituted, the deliverance of Noah and his family being of an external kind—the apostle adds a definition of what, in saying that “ baptism saves,’ he means by baptism. He does not by that name designate anything which is merely outward. He means a sincere profession, made in the appointed manner, of subjection of heart to Christ. The ordinance saves, he intimates in substance, not through any action of a material, mechanical kind, but solely as it is a channel for the communication of divine grace, and used in accordance with the divine intention. “ Debemus in baptismo agnoscere spirituale lavacrum: debemus illic testimonium remissionis peccatorum et renovationis nostre pignus amplecti: sic tamen relinquere et Christo et Spiritui Sancto suum honorem, ut nulla pars salutis ad signum transferatur ” (Calvin). 292 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 21. For distinctness and impressiveness the apostle describes what he means both negatively and positively. In the first place, by “ baptism,” as he has used the word in the statement just made by him, he means “ not a putting away of filth of flesh ” (that is, “ not an outward or bodily purification,” cap& being used throughout the Epistle with this force only, though the adjective capxuxos has the ethical reference, ii. 11). From the arrangement of the words some interpreters are disposed to regard the genitives as both governed by ao@eots, with different references (so in N. T. occasionally, e.g. Phil. 11. 30), capkxos being subjective and pvzov objective, “ flesh’s putting away of filth.” The ascription of action in this way to capé, however, is plainly not natural; and though, supposing capes to be governed by pu7rov, the order is certainly unusual, yet there is an exact parallel in Rev. vii. 17, Cwhs mnyas tdatos. The explanation, no doubt, is that capxds had in the apostle’s mind the emphasis of antithesis, his thought, though in the second part he deviates from precise exactness in the expression of it, being od capkos atoeots pitrou adda TrEVpaTos Kabapiopos, or something similar.—aAn interesting parallel to the state- ment of the apostle here, though with a somewhat different immediate reference, is found in Justin Martyr (7ryph. 14) when speaking of the Jewish lustrations, 7¢ yap dpedos éxelvou tod Barticpatos, 0 THY capKa Kal povoy TO coma paLdpvver ; BarricOnte Thy Yuxnv. Of the positive part of the apostle’s definition the words which are used, and the context, make the general meaning sufficiently clear,—“ but sincere surrender to God.” The exact form of the thought, however, is very far from being clear,—the obscurity being adequately represented in R. E. Y. by “ but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,” with two marginal alternative renderings for “ interrogation,” “inquiry” and “appeal.” We have in the words that am- biguity which not unfrequently arises from the fact that the genitive may be subjective or objective, uncertainty also what érepoTnwa as here employed means, and doubt regarding the III, 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 293 precise connection and force of eds. The noun érepwornua occurs in N. T. here only, but the verb éwepwrdw often. As the simple verb épwtaw has freely in Hellenistic use, like our English “ask,” the sense of “ request, petition” (whether the appeal be addressed to God—so eg. John xvii. 9,20; 1 John v. 16—or to man), as well as the classical meaning “ put a question,” so the compound é7repwtdw, whilst usually “ ques- tion” (eg. Luke ii. 46 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 35), means in Matt. xvi. 1, “request.” Similarly in LXX. the verb has generally (ey. Gen. xxvi. 7; Ezek. xiv. 7, 10) the force of “ question;” yet in Ps, exxxvil. (cxxxvi.) 3, it has unequivocally the sense of “request.” In Dan. ii. 10, 31, also, this is possibly the meaning, but more probably “question.” The substantive is found in O. T. Greek in Dan. iv. 17 (14) only, where its meaning almost certainly is “request.” As used by classical writers, the meaning of the word is “question.” Every ren- dering of the apostle’s language, which from these data seems to be possible, has found supporters; “inquiry proceeding from, and inquiry or examination addressed or applied, to, a good conscience,” “petition from, and petition for, a good conscience,” “the petitioned-for boon of a good conscience” (€repwmtnua being in this case regarded as having that passive force which strictly belongs to nouns in -ya); es taken with the force of “to, toward,” or with that of “in reference to,” and joined to “inquiry” or “ petition,” or to “conscience.” Another class of renderings, too, has been thought of. It is not unnatural to suppose that in the apostle’s words there is a reference to that questioning which, certainly from very early times, and perhaps from the apostolic age, preceded the administration of the rite of baptism. An early formula was "Arotdcon TH Ratava ;’Atotdccopat, YuvtdconT@ XpioTe ; Svvtdcoowar, Reference here to such catechizing being assumed, the apostle’s word has been supposed to cover the whole of this transaction, and to point in the present case chiefly to the answering—as sometimes in modern English the word “examination” is employed with reference mainly 294 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (II. 21. to the answers. An application of érepwracdar and its cog- nates, somewhat of this kind, resting on the usual system of bargaining by question and answer in the transactions of common life, is found in the later Byzantine legal phraseology —the words being employed with the force of “ stipulating, engaging, promising.” Thus we come to a possible rendering of our passage, “the engagement, or promise, toward God of a good conscience,’—that is, either subjectively, “given by a good conscience,” or objectively, “to maintain a good con- science.” The view that érepmtnua here is to be taken somewhat in this way, as used metonymically, or with a broadened reference, has commended itself to a great many excellent interpreters (as Beza, Grotius, De Wette, Lillie), and has led to such renderings as “in that a good conscience consenteth to God” (Tyndale), and “the answer of a good conscience toward God” (A. E. V.). Whilst, however, the meaning thus given is ina measure satisfactory, it seems questionable whether it has not been reached rather a prior, by a consideration of what the apostle might suitably say, than by an altogether legitimate dealing with what he has said. The metonymy of “ answer” for “ question” is a strong one, and can hardly be accepted without some proof of con- temporary usage. Now there is no evidence that that particular application of éwepwradcPat, and words derived from it, which has been mentioned above as made in the technical language of the later Greek lawyers, was in use in the first century. No doubt, quite conceivably, the words with this application may have passed into Byzantine use from the legal phraseology of some of the Eastern provinces, where they may have been so employed for centuries. Of this, however, there is no proof. It being certain, moreover, that no use of the word or its cognates with anything like such a meaning occurs in LXX., N. T., or the early Fathers, one finds it difficult to imagine that, even if the apostle and the Chris- tians of Asia Minor knew ézrepwtnya as so applied, he would be in the least likely, in a connection like the present, to IIT, 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 295 employ it in a sense which had no sacred associations what- ever, and was known merely of buying and selling, and that only or mainly in technical law. It may reasonably be doubted, therefore, whether the assumption of a metonymical use of évepeétnua in the passage is justified. On the other hand, if we are thrown back on the sense of “inquiry” or “petition” as alone legitimate (so, among others, Bp. Lightfoot, referring to the point in his book, On the Revision of A. V., p. 136), it may be felt that no one of the possible meanings seems quite to fill up what is naturally looked for in a definition of the spiritual significance of baptism. It is to be remarked, however, that the definition is brought in in an altogether informal, occasional, paren- thetical way, simply to give an incidental suggestion of the true line of thought on the matter. Those renderings which appear to have any considerable measure of likelihood are the following :— First, “the inquiry of a good conscience after God:” so Bretschneider, Winer, Alford. This rendering is supported by a reference to 2 Sam. xi. 7, where we read emnpwTnce Aavid eis eipnvnv "IwaB. To this view the ob- jection presents itself, that, whilst true religion may well be described as a continued seeking or inquiring after that spiritual knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, which “is life eternal” (John xvii. 3), yet as a definition, however informal, of baptism, “an inquiry after God” does not seem natural or specially pertinent, seeing that baptism is rather a public testimony to having already positively learned something in this sublime field of research, to having taken the first great step in the knowledge of God. Secondly, “inquiry addressed by a good conscience to God:” so Gerhard, Besser, Salmond, and perhaps R. E. V. Thirdly, “a petition addressed by a good conscience to God:” so Bengel, Schmid, and the Geneva English Version (“in that a good conscience maketh request to God”). In these two renderings there is obviously something of vagueness and incompleteness. Gerhard, for example, has to supplement 296 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (UI. 21. “an inquiry addressed to God” by “quomodo Deus erga baptizatum affectus sit;” and Besser, in the direct form, “ Art not Thou my Father? Am I not Thy child?” Similarly Steiger—who appears to hesitate between these two views of the meaning, somewhat preferring “inquiry ”—supplements his rendering thus, “with regard to salvation,’—“ of which the person receiving baptism longs to have assurance.” On neither of these translations, moreover, do the apostle’s words seem to have anything like special suitableness to serve as a statement of the spiritual significance of baptism. owrthly, “a petition addressed to God for a good conscience:” so Lechler, Weiss, Hofmann, Wiesinger. This appears to be, on the whole, the most satisfactory view. The thought as given by it is distinct, and expressed with adequate fulness, and has plainly a special relevancy to the matter in hand. The fact that the mention of “water” is what has introduced the allusion to baptism leads a reader to anticipate with confidence that anything which is said regarding the meaning of the ordinance will deal with it not merely in its general aspect, as the beginning of a Christian profession, but to some extent with respect to the specific teaching of the emblem employed. This is most unequivocally the case with the negative part of the definition, “not a putting away of filth of flesh;” and in the positive part the mind, beyond doubt, expects something which at least approaches to the nature of a direct antithesis to the negative, some statement of that spiritual purification which to the eye of faith is pictured in baptism. The position of a sincere and intelligent receiver of baptism is that of one who solemnly engages to be pure in heart and life, through the promised grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the apostle in the present section of his letter, and indeed only a few lines before (ver. 16, where see note), has exhorted his readers to “have a good conscience” (cf. also ii. 19). No form of expression, therefore, could more naturally present itself to him here to describe spiritual purity than this ; and it appears natural also, and quite in accordance with the general style II. 21.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 297 of apostolic teaching, that, having in the former place made mention of the duty, he should now, when speaking of the baptismal pledge to do the duty, point directly to where the strength for doing it is to be found, and how it is to be obtained. In making his baptismal engagement the sincere Christian is praying, and that with intensity. Thus “ an entreaty addressed to God for a good conscience ” seems to be Peter’s meaning. Some expositors have attached the words 6.’ avactacews *Inood Xpictod immediately to cuvedynocews ayabijs, or to érrepotnua. No connection of this kind seems to be justified, however, because the words “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” stand in such close association with the following verse that it would go with them in the construc- tion, and thus we should have an entire overthrow of the balanee of the sentence,—an incidental elucidation of the spiritual significance of baptism drawing with it the whole of the latter part, whilst the principal statement tyas cwfer would be without a word of illustration. The sense, too, which is obtained by joining 8? dvactdcews ’I. X. with ower being, to say the least, not less satisfactory than that given by the other connection, we may safely hold the construction with cwfer to be that which the writer intended. Having so defined baptism as to show that, when he ascribes a saving efficiency to “ water,” he is not attributing this virtue to anything which is merely outward, Peter proceeds here to show that the salvation spoken of is really and wholly through Christ. Earlier in the Epistle he has repeatedly pointed to the resurrection and heavenly glory of the Lord Jesus as the object through the believing contempla- tion of which Christian hope has its life @. 3, 21). Here salvation itself is set forth as coming to us through His resurrection. In ver. 18 the Lord’s atoning sufferings and death have been spoken of: at the stage which we have now reached, the apostle’s thought has regard to the application of redemption, to the work done by Christ when, after and 298 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 22. through His death, “quickened in spirit.” With what a magnificent sweep he brings before us the evidence of the completeness of the “quickening,” and thus the ground which we have for assurance of the glorious success of His work as a Saviour in these gospel times,—in contrast with the little fruit of His pleadings with the sinners before the Deluge! “ The water which bore up the ark that sheltered God’s people saved but few,—but eight out of a numerous generation,—though the Word of God had been for many years graciously pleading with men to repent and live: the water which correspondingly saves you has its power through the resurrection of the Incarnate Word, which has attested His triumph over all the force of death and hell. Your tepresentative and Lord, who died for you, is risen from the dead for you, to be a quickening Spirit, to be the Resur- rection and the Life. The power of His resurrection is perpetuated, for He is now at the right hand of God, in surpassing glory and invested with boundless authority. He has gone to heaven, and the loftiest of God’s creatures are made subject to Him. How sublime in kind, in degree, in extent, must the salvation be which He gives, thus wondrously quickened in spirit—His measureless grace wielding measure- less power to influence moral natures, to guide and sustain and bless!” Something like this would seem to be the line of thought in the last words of ver. 21 and in ver. 22: cf. Peter’s words in Acts i. 32, 33; also Matt. xxviii. 18, 19; Heb. vii. 25. Ver. 22. The arrangement of the clauses shows clearly that the apostle desired to pass at once from mention of the historic event of the resurrection of the Lord to the statement of His present position, thus bringing out the continued ful- ness of His life and saving power. Then by participles he mentions two facts, the view of which contributes to the depth and distinctness of our impression of the glory of the “quickened” Saviour. Reference to the session of Christ at the right hand of God is very abundant in N. T., eg. Rom. III. 22.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 299 viii. 34 ; Eph. i. 20 ; Heb. i. 3,—the foundation passage on the subject, Ps. ex. (cix. Sept.) 1, being also expressly cited a con- siderable number of times, eg. Matt. xxii. 44; Acts il. 34; Heb. i, 13.—A clause which the Vulgate adds here, deg/utiens mortem, ut vite ceterne heredes efficeremur, while no doubt merely a gloss, is yet interesting, as showing how, in the mind of the early Bible student who wrote it, the thought of Christ as “quickened in spirit,” and thus become with glorious fulness the Life-giver, ran as the main thought through the paragraph. The participial clause qopevOels efs odpavoy has much interest. If we looked on the verse as being simply an unimpassioned list of facts connected with the Saviour’s exaltation, it might seem as if, according to the arrangement adopted by the apostle, the mention of this particular fact was almost superfluous,—the main statement already made, that He is at God’s right hand, presupposing His having gone to heaven. But just here enters the special importance of Peter’s words. It is quite clear that this thought, wopev@ets els ovpavov, rose up before the apostle’s mind as one which to himself brought home with peculiar vividness a sense of the clory of the Lord. Now there seems to be no natural way of accounting for this, except by his memory’s giving him a picture of that scene on Olivet when, while blessing His apostles, Jesus “was parted from them and carried up into heaven.” The great event of the Ascension of Christ is related in but a very few passages of N. T., probably because it was thought of by the first Christians simply as being the comple- tion or legitimate sequel of the resurrection. Even of those few passages which do state it, moreover, one or two are vexed with serious textual difficulties. It is of no little moment, then, to have from an eye-witness, like the Apostle Peter, what cannot be naturally explained but as a distinct historic reminiscence. The same remembrance is very probably — actually present in d0£av ait@ dovra of i. 21, but is not so obvious. 300 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [III. 22. The genitive absolute clause with which the verse closes contains an expansion of a part of what is implied in és éotuy év de&ia Oeod. The inhabitants of heaven are placed in sub- jection to Christ. The words é£ovo.wv Kat duvamewv, taken by themselves, might apply to earthly powers (cf. Luke xii. 11; Tit. iii, 1), the whole combination thus describing the mediatorial authority of the Lord over heaven and earth ; but the abruptness of the transition from ayyéAwv, and the fact that in several other passages (e.g. Eph. i. 21, iii. 10; Col. 1. 16) 退ovc’a and kindred words are grouped to describe orders of the heavenly hierarchy, lead quite decidedly to the judgement that this is what was in the apostle’s mind here. The natural construction is not to subordinate the latter terms in the group to “angels,” “angels (both authorities and powers),” but to co-ordinate the three, “ angels and authorities and powers,’—the aim of the combination being, as is manifest, simply to illustrate the might and glory of Jesus by declaring that all those exalted spirits who compass the throne of God, by whatever name they may be known, obey the behest of Him who once hung upon the cross and lay in the grave. The differences in the words which are employed in the various passages referred to above, and the variety in the order of their arrangement in the groups, show clearly that the sacred writers did not mean to teach anything with respect to the details of the distinctions existing among the inhabitants of heaven. The groupings are made merely for general impression, “For the Christian faith there suffices the testimony as to different degrees and categories in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy” (Meyer on Col. i. 16). Lightfoot, in his note on the same passage in Colossians, gives a sketch of some of the speculations of Jewish and Judeo-Christian theosophies with respect to the grades of the heavenly spirits. BV, 1-4. ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 301 CHAPTER ITV: Vv. 1-4. The division of chapters is not at all happily made here, the first six verses of chap. iv. being in very close connection with the last five of chap.ili. At iii. 18, as has been seen, the apostle began an argument in support of the state- ment made by him in the previous verse to his persecuted brethren, that it is “a good thing” (meaning by this both that it is morally excellent and that, from every worthy point of view, it brings advantage) to suffer for righteousness’ sake. His position is that such suffering in the lower sphere, the material, capé, brings life, power, energy in the higher—that of the moral nature, 7vedua. This he has illustrated by the case of our Divine Forerunner. He was “put to death in flesh ” and thereby “ quickened in spirit” (ver. 18),—introduced into a measureless plenitude of saving power (vv. 21, 22), which stands in striking contrast with the small success of His work of grace in the ages preceding the dying and quickening (vv. 19, 20). At iv. 1 comes the direct exhortation based on all this. ‘“ Your Forerunner, then, having suffered in flesh ” (“and this” as, of course, in the connection, the thought inevitably goes on, “ with such glorious issues”), “be ye also ready to suffer.” The form in which the apostle couches his exhortation seems to show that the choice open to those whom he was addressing presented itself to him as one simply of alterna- tives. From the essential antagonism between “ the world ” —the aggregate of carnal hearts—and Christ, and from the excitement of feeling which had arisen among the heathen throughout Asia Minor, there was no middle course between 502 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Vv. living freely as these heathen lived and accepting “ suffering” of some kind “in flesh.” Thus the appeal is “ Resolve, and that unflinchingly, to suffer, not to sin. Surely your profession as Christians implies that you feel your past life to be enough to have given to sin (vv. 1-3); and, indeed, those calumnies and persecutions with which you are now beset are due simply to the wonderment and irritation of those around you at the evidence which you have already been giving that you feel this” (ver. 4). Ver. 1. The T. R. reads in the first clause ma@ovros izrép jwav capxi, and in the last 6 wa@wv év capxi. The changes which, on ample evidence, criticism has made, omitting vzrep nov in the one place and év in the other, render the apostle’s course of thought more obvious. When the true reading in the two clauses respectively is seen to be simply wa@ovtos capki, wab@v capki, the expression, repeated in so marked a way, and standing out in its bareness and generality, at once leads the mind unhesitatingly to recognise a parallelism with Oavatwbeis capxé in the first verse of the paragraph (iii. 18) and with «ps@acr capki in the last verse (iv. 6),—and to con- sider that a prominent thought—the governing thought, in fact —in the apostle’s mind throughout the paragraph is that of the antithesis which is fully expressed in the first and last of the places, suffering in flesh and life in spirit. With tép Auav read in the first clause, moreover, the chief force of that clause is the setting forth of the motive of gratitude to the great Atoner: with these words left out, the relation of the Lord to His people that comes into the foreground is that of Example,—which vv. 17, 18 of chap. iii. have led us to expect. Those temptations which, through the action of fear, connect themselves with a state of persecution, are, as strong and bitter foes, to be opposed by the Christian suitably armed: “do ye also arm yourselves with the same mind” (on the ficure cf. particularly Eph. vi. 10-17). Sophocles (Zlect. 995,996) has an interesting parallel to the mode of expression Wt] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 3038 here, in the combination Opdcos ordifecPat. The simple verb omAifev occurs here only in N. T.; the compound xcadordifew in Luke xi. 21. Occasionally in classical writers (see the Lexicons), according to a development illustrated in all languages, évyoia, “a thought,” has the idea of purpose more or less definitely present. This is found also in the Hellenistic use of the word (Susann. 28); and indeed its meaning in LXX. seems generally to include with thought also the affections and resolutions naturally connecting themselves with such thought (cf. Prov. ili, 21, v. 2). This is apparently its force in our passage, and is adequately represented by “mind” (of both A. and R. E. V.), —‘“the same mind” meaning “the same conviction of the absolute hatefulness of sin, and the same spirit of determination to suffer to any extent in order that sin may be overthrown.” Elsewhere in N. T. évvoca occurs only in Heb. iv. 12 (there in the plural), where both versions give “ intents.” The exact force of the statement in the last clause, “he that hath suffered in flesh hath ceased (or, taken passively, been brought to a cessation) unto (with regard to) sins,” is not altogether obvious ; but consideration of the context aids to a determination of the meaning. A mystical sense of maGev has been thought of, as referring to death with Christ in baptism (Schott, Webster and Wilkinson), or to the eruci- fixion of the old nature (Calvin, Gerhard) ; but this is not natural. Ia@ovtos of the first clause is unquestionably literal, and the aim of the whole paragraph is to give support in literal physical suffering from persecution. The unmistakeable and emphatic reference in the repeated “hath suffered in flesh” to the closing words of iii. 18, suggests in a decided way that in the present clause the expression “has come to an end with relation to sins” answers to “has been quickened in spirit,” presenting this in a special aspect suited to the hortatory character of the sentence. The subject is general,—he who (every one who) has suffered in flesh” (that is, of course, as distinctly indicated by the drift of the whole paragraph, “ who 304 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [fv. 1 has suffered in flesh for righteousness’ sake”). From the manifest reference of the words of this clause to those of the first, it is clear that our Lord is included in the category intended. The view, however, of some scholars (as Fronmiiller) who deny the generality of the subject, making 0 wa@ov designate Christ only, is discordant with the indications given by the form of expression,—the natural mode of setting forth this idea being plainly by za@eyv alone without the article, thus, “ because, having suffered, he hath ceased,” etc. Whilst the general statement is true both of the Lord and of His people, yet, as of necessity is the case whenever in any representation of His fellowship with them thought of relation to sin enters, the aspect is different. The sinless Sinbearer ended, when He died, His relation to sin pressing on Him as a burden. Thenceforth He is ywpis awaptias (Heb. ix. 28). When any of His people are called on to suffer unto death for His sake, that stroke of the persecutor which closes their earthly life closes therewith for ever all the influence of sin over them, dismissing them to the life of perfect holiness and to the enjoyment of the specially glorious crown of the martyr. The strong word wézavrat naturally suggests that this case, that of death for adherence to God’s cause,—the closest possible analogy in the experience of the Lord’s people to His,—was prominent in the apostle’s mind. He recalled, it may be, this instance. and that of which he had heard, of persecution even to this point among the Christians of Asia Minor (cf. the very emphatic expression TH év tuiv mupwcel, ver. 12), and, looking forward to yet more trying days which were approaching, he longed to “strengthen his brethren.” His words, however, are evidently meant to cover much more than a reference to the comparatively rare case of a martyr’s death. Every sincere and intelligent acceptance, with a brave and patient heart, of any manifestation of the world’s hostility to us because we follow Christ, is a spiritual victory,— sin and Satan being in so far cast down, and an impressive testimony given to our having in heart completely broken WW, i] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 305 with them, our having “ceased from,” “ended,” love and subservience to sin. Proof shown in this way that the soul has received “not a spirit of fearfulness, but of power” (2 Tim. i. 7), secures for it a well-marked new stage for the aitainment of yet higher practical conformity to the divine will, A note of triumph thus rings out from mésavtac dpaptiass, precisely as from Cworounbels mvevuare in ili. 18; and the clause sets forth a most powerful and invigorating motive: “Arm yourselves with holy resolution to follow Christ in suffermg for righteousness, because he who has suffered in flesh has come to an end with regard to sins, thus gaining the position which as Christians you most desire.” In addition to the stimulus afforded by the simple statement of this fact, the truth which is always the supreme support of Christ’s people—that, namely, of His victory already won, and of their spiritual union to the Conqueror—is also implied in the form in which the statement is made. “In the world ye have tribulation, but be of good cheer,—I have overcome the world” (John xvi. 33). On the clause before us, Rom. vi. 7 should be compared : though the thought here is different, literal suffering and death, not mystical, being spoken of, still it is difficult to think that that verse was not more or less definitely before our apostle’s memory. There are scarcely data for determining whether tézavtaz is to be regarded as a passive, “has been made to cease,” in which case the Divine Agent and the instrumental action of the suffering are directly suggested to the mind (“ by God’s grace, through the trial”),—or as a middle, meaning simply “has ceased.” The perfect of this verb does not occur else- where in N. T. The LXX. use of it—as in Isa. xxiv. 8, Xxxlil. 8—appears to be middle, The perfect of the com- pound dvamravowas is found in 2 Cor. vii, 13, Philem. 7, in both places with passive meaning. The clause may be taken, and has been by many (as Bengel, Brown, Wiesinger), as stating what the évvoa (in this case simply “thought and conviction”) was,—o7e being rendered U 306 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ry. at not “because,” but “that.” The sense is satisfactory —*“ Arm yourselves with the conviction that to suffer for obedience to the will of God is a triumph over sin.” But tay adtipy presents a difficulty. These words in themselves may mean one of two things,—either that this “thought” was “the same” which sustained the Lord Jesus in His sufferings, or that the apostle would have those whom he addresses to hold this sentiment wnanimously, each believer cherishing “the same thought” with his brethren. This latter meaning is in the connection untenable, because thus the exhortation would proceed without any reference at all to the first clause of the verse, with which plainly from the mode of expression it is intended to be very closely associated. Accepting then the other view of the sense as the true one, “the same thought which sustained the Lord,” two objections present themselves to our going on with “namely, that,” etc. First, in this case the exhortation is not quite what the opening clause of the verse leads a reader to expect. From “Christ having suffered in flesh,” the direct hortatory deduction is simply “ Arm your- selves with the same mind” (that is, “Be ye ready also to suffer ”),—-any reference to a special sentiment which had animated the Lord coming in, if at all, as a distinct thought. Secondly, whilst the “thought” ascribed to the Lord is in itself suitable, being indeed substantially that implied in the statement made in Heb. xil. 2, that “for the joy which was set before Him He endured the cross,” yet the form in which it is here presented—as a general proposition, and that expressed somewhat peculiarly—seems to be such as would not naturally have been chosen for a sentiment attributed directly to our Lord, unless it had been well known as enunciated by Himself. Now nothing at all resembling it is recorded as having been uttered by Jesus. On the whole, therefore, there seems to be good ground for considering the clause not to set forth the contents of the évvoa, but to exhibit a motive in support of the exhortation “ Arm your- selves,’— 67e thus meaning “ because.”—With reference to the IV. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 307 reading dpaptiais, see Critical Notes; and on this free use of the dat. comm. et tncomm., frequent in N. T., ef. 1. 24, tais dpaptiats atoyevopevot, With note. Ver. 2. The question presents itself whether this verse is to be regarded as a continuation of the clause introduced by ott (so A. E. V.) or to be connected immediately with the imperative clause, “Arm yourselves with the same mind” (so R. E. V., giving the other on the margin). The former of these views is beset with difficulties. ist, our verse, so taken, is but a somewhat enfeebling expansion of the striking, pointed, forcible statement, mémavtav dpaptiass. Secondly, on this connection the words tov émidouroy év capxt ypovov imply that the case of death by martyrdom— which, as has been seen, seems to be naturally thought of as the most prominent case in 6 wafwv capi of ver. 1—is not included at all. Thirdly, this verse, implying evidently, as it does, what is distinctly expressed in ver. 3, that in the earlier part of the life of those spoken of there had been sin, would, if joined to the clause introduced by 67s, exclude the Lord Jesus entirely from the category intended by o zadav capxi,—thus making the structure of the first verse far from natural, and materially weakening the force of the motive exhibited by é7z. To connecting the verse immediately with the imperative there is no objection, further than that the sentence thus conceived is a little loose in its texture, so that our idiom would perhaps repeat the exhortation,—*“ Arm yourselves, I say, with the same mind, so as no longer,” etc, The apostle thus illustrates the aim of his injunction, and this on the lines of the intermediate clause, which has spoken of suffering for righteousness’ sake as a triumph over sin. In pnxéte and tov éridorrov xpovoy there is plainly a tautology, of a kind very natural in a sentence of intensely earnest pleading expressed in the free language of a familiar letter. The genesis of it may have been that when myxére was written, the apostle did not intend to mention time again, but, as he went on with the clause, the thought which he expresses 308 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 2. in the next verse, “ Sufficient is the past time for sin,” rose up before him so vividly that he instinctively brought in here by anticipation “the rest of the time,’— which he trusted would be given to holiness. The datives éw@upiaus and OeXnwate may be explained either as datives of advantage, “for,” i.e. “doing service to,” or as datives of rule, standard, “according to” (ef. Acts xxi. 21; Gal. vi. 16; and see Winer, p. 270; A. Buttmann, p. 184). The fact that the former of these constructions occurs immediately before (duaptiais of ver. 1, on which see note) makes it likely that here also the apostle’s thought took the same mould.—By the generality of his mode of expression, av@porav émiOvuiars (contrast the strictly personal form, i. 14, tais rpotepov év TH ayvoia vuav émiOupiats), and by his using also the similar ro BovAnua Tov €Ovev in ver. 3, the apostle shows us clearly what his course of thought is (see introductory note on vv. 1-4), Prominent in his mind, evidently, at this point, is not thought of the moral weakness and perversity of the professing Christians themselves, but of the demands and influences of the wicked around. “The case is one of alternatives, with no middle course possible. Your lives must be given either to compliance with the will of God (and this involves suffering in flesh) or to compliance with the evil desires of men. Your Christian profession intimates that you have chosen to serve God ; arm yourselves then with the mind of Christ, a readiness to bear patiently every evil which the hostility of the world may bring you,—that thus you may serve the Lord fully.”— Bengel well calls attention to the plural éwv@upiass, marking the innumerable and often conflicting directions of worldly lusts, in contrast with the singular @eA7pare, the one all-perfect, absolutely harmonious will of God. On the issues of devotion to “the lusts of men” and to “ the will of God” respectively, see 1 John ii. 17. ’EriXouros, a common word in the classics and in LXX., oceurs here only in N. T.—On év capxi Buodv, cf. év capkt ¢nv, Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i 22, It will be observed that TV. 3:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 309 throughout this paragraph, wherever expressly or by implica- tion the apostle uses capxi as antithetic to mvevmarte, and as one of the main words in his course of thought (ili. 18, iv. 1 bis, 6), he presents it in the bare form capxi, without a pre- position. The place now before us, in which ¢v is used, is obviously quite distinct from these—The verb Avodv is not found elsewhere in N. T. The Ist aorist, used here, is somewhat rare; the 2nd aorist é@iwy being more common. By the Hellenistic writers, however, ¢8iooa seems to have been preferred; cf. Wisd. xii. 23; Ecclus. xl. 28. On the distinctions between Auodv and Cv, see Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 27. Ver. 3. An argument in support of the preceding exhorta- tion. Life according to the “lusts of men” is sketched in its most repulsive features, to impress the reader with a sense of the madness and enormity of continuing such a life——which, as we have seen that the line of thought obviously implies, was the only way of avoiding “ suffering in flesh ” through the hostility of the heathen. “Arm yourselves with the mind of Christ, that ye may do the will of God,—for surely your past life is long enough for you to have given to that frivolous and impure revelry, which, enlightened as you are by the gospel, you cannot but see to be altogether unworthy of rational and immortal creatures, and utterly offensive in the eye of a holy God. And what profit had ye then in the things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.” As in the latter part of the sentence the apostle piles up his list of forms of wickedness, his readers could not but think of every moment which had been spent in these with shame and horror, as having been deplorably squandered. The rhetorical understatement (Actors or peiwois), found in the application to a time regarding which they must have had such feelings, of the mild, indeed colourless, word dpxerds, constitutes obviously a grave irony, and has peculiar quiet force. It is not impossible that, in using this mode of expression here, some remembrance of Ezek. xliv. 6, xlv. 9, was before the apostle’s 310 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. GEV...8) mind. The LXX., however, does not use dpxetos or apket there, but (kavovcOw duiv. A certain specialty of force lies perhaps also in the compound kateipyacOat, “to have wrought efficiently, accomplished ;” but this verb is occasionally used in such a way as to prevent our feeling certain that in the present case the preposition is meant to give peculiar strength ; cf. eg. Rom. i. 27, ii. 9. As to the complementary infini- tive xatepyacOar after dapxetos (€oTw), see Winer, p. 401; A. Buttmann, p. 259.—In ro BotAnua tov é@vav—that is, the mode of life which those who have not the light of God’s revelation desire for themselves, and love to see followed by those around them—Peter in substance repeats avOpw7rwv émrtOupiats of ver. 2 (on which see note), in a form somewhat stronger, and answering with exactness to the actual position of his readers. The transition (according to the true reading) from the use of @édnpa in ver. 2 to that of the synonym BovAnuwa here is perhaps due to an instinctive, reverential shrinking from employing with reference to men who were alienated from God a word which had just been used of God Himself. The change can hardly be ascribed to any special inherent suitableness of the one word to the one application, and of the other to the other; for in Rom. ix. 19, BovAnpa is said of God, and @éAnua, whilst predominantly said of God, yet is also, not very unfrequently (eg. John i. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 37 ; Eph. ii. 3), used of men. ‘The line of demarcation between the force of 6éAw and that of BovNopas is hard to define with pre- cision. On the frequent N. T. use of €@vn with relation to religion and not to race, cf. 11. 12, note. The verb zropevecOat, employed Hebraistically (like repu- mate) for a course of life, is construed, as here, with ev (of the various paths, or the various fields through which the paths lead) in Luke i. 6, 2 Pet. ii. 10; elsewhere with the simple dative (as Acts ix. 31), or with xara (as 2 Pet. ili. 3). The apostle uses here the participle of the perfect, instead of what might seem more natural, that of the imperfect. This is analogous to the case, common in N. T., of an aorist participle IV, '3:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 311 joined to a main verb in the aorist and coincident with it in time. The choice of memropevpévous instead of sropevopévous accords strikingly with the tone of the whole sentence, one obviously of intense desire that the time of “ working the will of the Gentiles” should be regarded as absolutely done with. As to the use of the accusative mrevopevpévous, the construction preferred in N. T. in a clause of this kind, instead of making the participle agree with duiv (understood with dpxerds), cf. Winer, p. 782; A. Buttmann, p. 305. In the present place, the fact that duiv is not expressed would have made the dative of the participle hardly natural. In a cataloeue of vices given in the course of an impas- sioned exhortation, punctiliously sharp discrimination with regard to the spheres which respectively the different names cover is not intended nor needed, what is aimed at being general impression. In the list given by the apostle here the first two names probably overlap each other to some extent, and also the following three. The main division is sufficiently clear, and is approximately represented by “ debauchery, dissipation, and impiety,” — “debauchery” answering to doenyelats, ériOupiass, “ dissipation” to oivopruvylais, Kopmas, motos, whilst “impiety” represents in a somewhat loose way dOepuitos eidwroratpiats. All the nouns, it will be observed, are put in the plural, in order to bring out impres- sively the habitual wickedness of average heathen life, the frequency and variety of its acts of grossness. "Acédyea (a word of uncertain etymology) is “ wantonness, regardlessness of all restraints,’—often with special reference to fleshly impurity (as Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 19), but also more generally (so apparently, from the arrangement of the names of vices, in Mark vii. 22). On this word, see Trench, Syn. N. T. § 16.—EOupia is, in the connection which it has here, naturally taken to designate some particular class of the av@pwmav é7ifvpiat mentioned in the previous verse,— where evidently the word has its full original breadth of reference. Knowing, as we do, how gross and glaring were 312 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [iv. 3. and are sins of uncleanness among the heathen, and how con- stantly these are pointed to in N. T. wherever there is any reference to the moral working of heathenism, a reader at once recognises a strong likelihood that this class of lusts is mainly intended here in éwvOvpiass ; and the fact that the word im- mediately follows adoeXyetats, which, as has been said, has in N. T. use pretty decidedly a special reference to impurity, confirms this view. Oivodruvyia (the latter component being from ¢aAveuw, “swell up, overflow”) occurs here only in N. T., seldom in classical writers, and never in the LXX., the cognate verb, how- ever, oivopAvyetv, being found in Deut. xxi. 20; Isa. lvi. 12. According to more than one ancient definition, the word refers strictly to desire, “an excessive love of wine;” but it is com- monly used of actual indulgence in long and deep drinking. “Debauch” is probably the best English representative——The two words which follow point, judging from their ordinary use, particularly to drinking in company, designating gather- ings of which drinking was a main purpose. Koos (found also in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 31, in both places in the plural, and in both associated with mé@av) means “a revel, merry- making,” frequently in honour of a god, particularly Bacchus, and ending usually in the party’s sallying forth from their banqueting-room to parade the streets and indulge in what- ever folly or wickedness suggested itself. IToros (here only in N. T.) was “a drinking-party,” like cvpadcvov, This word was } not in itself one, like ofvofdvyia and K@pos, implying of necessity folly and excess. It was used of the moderate banquets of good men (eg. Gen. xix. 3; 2 Sam. iil. 20, LXX.) ; but frequent excess (cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 36) had evidently in the apostle’s days given it a bad repute. On oivopdAvyia, K@pos, and motos, see Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 61. In using the plural e/dwAoratpiais, the apostle probably intends reference both to the worshipping of many gods, and to the many forms in which devotion to the idols was shown. "A@éustos (found elsewhere in N. T. only in Acts x. 28, IV.. 3.1. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 313 Peter’s words) is “ unlawful,’—-strictly, however, in the sense of being opposed to law as laid down by instinctive convic- tions with respect to what is right (fs), rather than to law as set forth in a statute: thus, for example, Philo, in opposing a certain doctrine, says that, granting it, 0 O«ds POaptos éorar, —Omep ovdé Oduis (ic. dep AOusTov) vonoar (Leg. Alleg. ii. Mang. p. 67). In the connection in which the word appears in the present passage, the apostle seems to imply that the thought set forth in the epithet might and should have suggested itself to his readers whilst still heathen. His reference, therefore, would appear to be to that law written on the heart, and legible to all men unless wilfully blinded (Rom. i. 19-23), which forbids the rendering of worship to any but the living God. It is obvious that in the place which this adjective holds here, in a passage of intensely earnest pleading, it has far greater strencth of meaning than where it occurs in Acts. To represent the precise thought by a single English word is perhaps impossible. “ Abominable,” of both A.and R. E. V. (after Tyndale), answers in a general way to the probable meaning, but not quite to the form of the thought. “ Nefarious” again suits perfectly in this latter respect; but its connotation, as commonly used, hardly accords with the requirements of the present connection. On the catalogue of sinful practices here given, cf. Rom. xiii, 13, Gal. v. 19-21, and particularly Rom. 1. 18-32, where the direct connection between departure from the worship of the true God and immorality is exhibited with peculiar clearness and impressiveness. Peter’s words in this passage do not, of course, imply that all his readers had been guilty of that grossness of iniquity which he has sketched. As regards the extreme of profligacy, probably what had been the case was simply as Paul states it to the Corinthians (1 Cor. vi. 11), “And such were some of you.” There were, doubtless, everywhere among the heathen persons whom thoughtfulness, and instinctive purity and delicacy of feeling, restrained from many of the debasing practices seen around SLe FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 4. them. But everything which we gather from the literature of Greece and Rome, as well as from the references made to the subject in N. T., leads us to think that a deplorably large pro- portion of the people, cultivated and uncultivated alike, lived to some extent in vice, and that in large measure conscience had become torpid. Of several passages of this Epistle which go to show that those to whom it was addressed were mainly Gentiles, the present gives the most decided testimony to that effect. The whole list of vices suits a heathen population far more than it does a Jewish, in so far as we know anything of the sins to which respectively Gentiles and Jews specially tended; and the reference to “idolatries” cannot, without the strongest forcing, be made to point to Jews. Compare Introd. § II. Ver. 4. There is brought out expressly here what, as has been seen, is implied in the preceding verses, when viewed in their relation to the context,—namely, that to those whom the apostle addresses there are for choice only alternatives, — either living in frivolity and sin, at which Christian enlighten- ment revolts, or acceptance of dislike——which in certain circumstances may lead to active persecution—from the world. The world wonders at the Christian’s abstinence from modes of life in which it delights; and with the wonderment is conjoined irritation, because through the more or less dis- tinct teaching of conscience (Rom. ii. 15), even when conscience has grown to a considerable extent blind and dull, the lives of Christians are felt to be a reproof and reproach to sin. Generally in N. T. the verb &eviferv has, as in the old classical Greek, the sense of “to entertain a stranger, lodge him” (eg. Acts x. 23; Heb. xiii. 2). Here, as not unfre- quently in the later Greek writers, Polybius, Josephus, and others, it means “to give a sense of strangeness, to surprise” (Germ. befremden) : so also in the 12th verse of this chapter, and (active voice) in Acts xvii. 20. The exhibition of the object causing amazement by év (é€v w meaning “ at which”) IV. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ad is on the analogy of such combinations as év @ ayaddrao be (i. 6), Sofatérw Ocdov év TH dvomare (iv. 16),—on which see notes: cf. also (according to what appears to be the most probable connection of the words in that passage) @avpafew év, Luke i, 21, With respect to the antecedent of @, there is a little uncertainty. The simplest view seems to be that what was immediately before the apostle’s mind was the thought which he has made specially prominent in the pre- ceding verse (see note there on the use of the perfect participle meTropevévovs),—that for Christians the life of sin is now done with, a thing of the past; or (this being practically the same) that idea of “regarding the past time as having been sufficient,” etc., which his whole tone assumes as certainly to be ascribed to every one of the believers. “ At this ”»—the fact that their living in vice is ended through the new faith which they have accepted—the heathen around them “are surprised.” Then the clause in the genitive absolute attaches itself as an epexegesis of the manifestly somewhat ambiguous ©,—“ since you run not with them,” etc. Some good exposi- tors (as Hofmann, Huther, Salmond) regard the most obvious antecedent as that which is intended, namely, “your having lived like the others,’—the precise source of the wonderment being then ‘explained, by the gen. abs. clause, to be the dis- cordance between the past and the present. But this does not appear natural. Had the relative expression been “ with respect to which matter” (vep/ or some similar preposition being employed), this construction would have been probable enough ; but év exhibits the basis of the wonderment, and— even supposing the thought of 4 ovvtpexovtwy «rd. already rising before him—one can hardly imagine that, however transitionally, the apostle’s thought took the form, “The heathen wonder at your having lived as they did.” On the joining of a gen. abs. to £evifovtas, cf. a closely parallel case with éydapnv, 3 John 3.—The particle yw here has very distinctly its proper subjective force, the fact of “your not running with them” being represented as before 3G FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, [Iv. 4. the minds of the heathen and occasioning their surprise—On the eagerness expressed by ouvtpeyovtwv, Prof. John Brown aptly cites the vivid description given by Ovid (Met. iii. 528, foll.) of the hurry and frantic excitement seen at the festivals of Bacchus.—On doortia, cf. Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6,—also Luke xv. 13 (the adverb dowtas), and Prov. vii. 11, LXX. (the adjective dowrtos). The best English representative seems to be “profligacy.” “Actos is plainly, according to the etymology of the word, one so given up to evil courses that men think of him as co@fecOae fur) Svvapevos,— past redemption,” as we say. It is found frequently with special application to pecuniary extravagance, but in the place before us has plainly its widest reference. On this word, cf. Trench, Sym. LES 16. What is the exact force of avayvous here is not clear. The word is not a very common one, and is variously used. It occurs with its primary force as a verbal substantive, “out- pouring ;” thus Philo (AZwnd. Opif., Mang. p. 13) speaks of the sun extinguishing the light of stars 77 Tod Péyyous avayvaen. Again Strabo (iii, A. 206) says, Aéyovtas 5é avayvoes ai TAnpovpevat TH OadratTn Koidades ev Tais TAHppUpioL Kal ToTapav Siknv avatrrous els THY pEecoyaLav Exoveat,—that is, inlets or estuaries. The lexicographers Hesychius and Suidas give also “weakness” (a state of “poured -out-ness” of strength, so to speak) as a meaning. This last sense is not suitable. So understood, the statement would lack vigour ; and, moreover, cvytpeyovtwy eis distinctly leads us to think of dvayvovw here as having a figurative local signification. Some (as Alford) take “slough” or “mire” to be the meaning, because portions of certain inlets of the sea answer somewhat to such terms when the water has receded. ‘The idea is good; but there does not seem to be authority for such a translation. Strabo does not in the least degree lead a reader to suppose that the word in itself gave any suggestion of an offensive residuum. The probable sense here seems to be “effusion, gush, flood.” The bitter waters of profligacy are—as an IV. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, aly accursed stream, foul and destructive—sweeping over the lands; and the men of the world, rushing down to its banks to bathe in it, and drink of it, and in the end to be carried away by it to ruin, are astonished and angry that the Christians will not run with them. Something like this appears to be the picture before the apostle’s mind; and the few words in which he outlines it for us have a singular energy. “The whole phrase vividly describes the rush of the multitude to do evil—that general working of all uncleanness with greediness, which is the unfailing characteristic of every community in which is no knowledge and no fear of the living God. In the absence of all divine and eternal sanctions, the restraints of conscience and shame oppose but a feeble barrier to the torrent of evil; and that very social nature which was meant for the shelter and encouragement of virtue adds an almost irresistible momentum to the current. Such was eminently the case in that dissolute age” (Lillie). It can hardly be doubted that, in the connection, Sracdn- fouvtes indicates calumnious reproaches addressed immediately to the believers, at whose ceasing from complicity with them in vice the heathen were surprised and made angry. They closed their eyes to the conclusiveness of the Christian’s justification of his conduct, so magnificently stated by Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. iii. 12), when, after quoting from Peter the verse preceding the present, he says, “Opov éxouev Tov otavpoyv tov Kupiov' & mepictavpovpeba Kat mepiOpuyxovpeba TeV TpoTépwy apaptiav. Because the Christians refused to join in idolatrous services, and in dissipation and debauchery, they were charged with being godless, and with gloomy misanthropy, moroseness even to odium generis humani (Tacit. Ann. xv. 44). At the same time, whilst this is no doubt the immediate reference of Bracdnpodrtes, the predominance in N. T. of that special force which this verb and its cognates obtained among the Jews, as designating language dishonouring to God, makes it reasonable to regard this particular thought as having, in 318 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 5. all likelihood, been in the minds of the sacred writers when they speak of revilings directed against Christians for Christian modes of acting by the name of “blasphemies.” The irritation of the heathen, as has been seen, was due undoubtedly to a vague sense that in the pure lives of Christians there was given from heaven a merited reproof for their own vicious lives. Implicitly, therefore, in reviling Christians, they reviled God. The best rendering is perhaps “ blasphemously reviling you.” This thought of insult offered to God leads with special impressiveness to the statement which immediately follows regarding the Divine Judgement. Ver. 5. The solemn statement made here is in the direct line of the apostle’s course of thought. His readers were perplexed in spirit (see particularly ver. 12) by the troubles to which they were exposed. Under the government of a God almighty and infinitely gracious, they, His children, were treated by bad men with derision and cruelty,—and no outward proof came to them of His interest in them or His displeasure with their enemies. God’s people were crushed, and His foes were triumphing. “ Nevertheless,” says the apostle, “ your Father cares for you; and whilst for wise purposes, which you will understand better afterwards, He permits these things now, the great Assize is near, at which your enemies will have to give account of all their works of ungodliness, and of all the hard things which they have spoken against Him (Jude 15). The Lord Jesus, who is Himself reviled and persecuted when His brethren are (Acts ix. 4), will be the Judge, and your Vindicator.” That this last thought was before the apostle’s mind—the thought not merely in a general way of Divine Judgement (as i. 17), but specifically of the Lord Jesus as the Judge—can scarcely be questioned when we remember his words in the house of Cornelius (Acts x. 42), in which he exhibits it as being a main subject of that preaching and testimony for which the apostles were commissioned, 671 obtés €otw 6 wpiopévos bd tod Ocov xpitis Cwvtwy Kat vexpov. The close resemblance IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 319 in these words to the language of our present passage shows that in both the object of thought was precisely the same ; and by what had been said a sentence or two before (iii. 22), with respect to the exaltation of Christ, the minds of the apostle’s readers were prepared to apprehend at once his reference here to the Lord’s glory as Judge. The combination Aeyov amodidovac is found with the same application as here in Matt. xii. 36; Heb. xiii. 17; Rom. xiv. 12 (the reading in this last place, however, being doubtful between the compound and the simple verb), and with minor references in Luke xvi. 2; Acts xix. 40.—On éroiwws éyew, eh Actwaxi) 135-2. Cor. xi, 14,—also 2: Cor. x06... -On éTotwos in its present connection, cf. i. 5, with note. The next grand manifest divine intervention in the affairs of this world will be the appearance of the Lord to judgement; and to faith, which measures time by the standards of eternity, this great event is always near: cf. vv. 7, 17, with notes. ‘Etoiuws éxovts being in the present place joined with the aorist infinitive, the decisiveness of the judgement (once for all) is with much energy set forth by the combination, as well as the nearness—On xpivar Cavtas Kal vexpovs, cf. (besides Acts x. 42, cited above) 2 Tim. iv. 1. It cannot reasonably be doubted that the force of the expression in these three places is the same, and that in it the words “living and dead” are to be taken in their ordinary accepta- tion,—the object of the sacred writer being to set forth the absolute universality of the judgement of men by the Lord Jesus, those who shall be alive on the earth at His coming, and those who shall previously have died, being all alike summoned to His tribunal. The interpretation “spiritually alive” and “spiritually dead,’—hbelievers and unbelievers,— which, in view of a particular mode of explaining the difficult verse that follows, some scholars have in our passage attached to the words, is clearly untenable. Ver. 6. This verse is obscure,—judged, indeed, by many scholars to be as hard of interpretation as any statement found 320 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. (Iv. ¢. in Scripture (“certainly among the most intricate passages in the whole book of God,” Brown), by some absolutely given up as a locus desperatus (“Hune locum non intelligo,ideoque ad verbum transtuli,” Castalio). There is a measure of ambiguity in some of the words, taken separately, or as here associated ; and the relation of the verse to the context is not obvious. Considering the variety of reference which is possible for ydp, it seems best, before trying to determine precisely the connection of the passage with what precedes, to endeavour, aided by the general indications which are given by the drift of the whole paragraph, to ascertain what the probable meaning of the verse is. Nexpois has been regarded as used here of spiritual death, the sense of the verse being either “To this intent the gospel was preached to men dead in trespasses and sins, that through its working they might have the body of sin destroyed, the flesh with its lusts being mortified (which, in the judgement of the unregenerate — Kata dav@peTovs,—is no better than death), and might in the spirit have that holiness and happi- ness which, in the sight of God, constitute true life,’-—or “To this intent,” etc., “that, though persecuted as to their external circumstances by men (cata avO@pwrovs), they might, through the gracious working of God, enjoy true life in spirit.” In both of these forms of exegesis there are thoughts which could scarcely be brought out of the words of the passage without force. But, whatever be made of the details, the taking of vexpots as speaking of spiritual death seems at all events to be untenable. This word cannot naturally be viewed as having a different reference from vexpovs immediately pre- ceding,—the force of which, as we have seen, appears quite decidedly to be “ dead” in the ordinary sense. But whilst vexpots cannot naturally be understood other- wise than as designating persons who are “dead” in the same sense aS vexpous of ver. 5, it is not necessary to take the reference in the one as being coextensive with that of the other. As it stands in the 5th verse, the word undoubtedly IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 321 means all the dead: that this is also certainly the case with vexpois does not follow. A number of interpreters have maintained, indeed, with much decision, that it does follow,— but on insufficient grounds. The anarthrousness of vexpovs (ver. 5), though the word there means all the dead, is in accordance with a not unfrequent licence of the language in cases where nouns are grouped by a conjunction: cf. ey. Matt. x. 37, matépa 7) pntépa, viov 7) Ovyatépa. In English, also, we say similarly, “ The child has lost both father and mother ;” whilst, in speaking of one parent only, we should have to say “his father,” “his mother” (in Greek, likewise, Tov Tatépa, THY wntépa). That the use of this licence with grouped nouns does not affect the necessity of either of them, if definite, taking the article, when mentioned separately, even if this should be in the same sentence as the group, is shown by another verse in that chapter which has just been referred to (Matt. x. 28), in the case of Wuyi Kai copa. Similarly, in English, we have no difficulty in saying “able to destroy both soul and body ;” and we also, like the sacred writer in his Greek, have to say, “from those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.” Thus the absence of the article from vexpots (ver. 6), standing separate, shows that the word is employed indefinitely, “to dead men.” These may, in fact, be all, or only some; all that the word, as here used, states, is that the persons meant are dead. Wherever in N. T. vexpoé occurs without the article, the context shows that the sense is indefinite (e.g. Matt. x. 8; Mark xii. 27; Luke vii. 22; Acts xxvil. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 16), except in cases of recognised licence,—that is to say, groups such as have already been spoken of, instances where the word is governed by a pre- position, and the combination, seemingly used as a proper ? name, advdoTacs vexpov. The use of evnyyeAicOn appears to be impersonal,—“ glad tidings were carried,’—that is, specifically, according to the regular N. T. application of the verb, “the gospel of Christ was made known.” No such supplement as 0 Xpictos (Bengel) x aaa FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6. is needful, or naturally suggested by what precedes.—On eis tovto iva, cf. ili. 9; John xviii. 37; Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv, ‘9; The second of those exegeses mentioned above, in which vexpots is regarded as referring to the spiritually dead, assumes, it will be observed, that in the double clause introduced by iva the stress is on the latter of the two members. It seems plain, on examination of the passage, that the case is so. We have here an instance of that Hellenistic structure——not unfrequent in N. T. (see note on S074, i. 24), and most strik- ingly illustrated in Rom. vi. 17,—according to which thoughts are in form co-ordinated, whilst really one is subordinate to the other. Thus here the purpose of God in having the gospel preached was that, through its influence, those who heard it might have life; and the former of the two clauses presents a subordinate antithetical thought, helpful to the effect of the main one,—the meaning really being, “ that, whilst (or, although) judged in flesh, they might live in spirit.” Kpc@dcw is naturally taken to have a reference to xptvae of the previous verse ; and thus a reader’s first thought is that, like xpivau, it speaks of the general Judgement. The adjuncts which are attached to it, however, appear to show that this is not its application. api scarcely accords with such a reference. It is true that the resurrection of the body will be prior to the general Judgement ; but the term “ flesh ” does not appear to be anywhere used in Scripture to designate the resurrection-body. Job xix. 26 may perhaps be thought of; but the obscurity of the passage, both as regards the meaning of the words and as regards the reference, prevents anything being rested upon it. The particular word oap£&, moreover, it may be remarked, is not used in LXX. in that place. The fact that our Lord speaks of the odp& of His resurrection-body while He was still on earth (Luke xxiv. 39), cannot with security be held to prove anything with respect to the applicability of this word to the body given to men at the general Resurrection, particularly when the statement made IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Sue in 1 Cor. xv. 50 is taken into view. On the other hand, many passages (e.g. Phil. i. 22; Heb. v. 7) point in a marked way to the earthly existence as that to which cap& belongs; and in the paragraph which the verse now before us closes, capki, occurring four times besides the present (ili. 18, iv. 1 bis, 2), means quite unequivocally the body here on earth. In three of these places, too (iii. 18 expressly, iv. 1 by obvious implication), the same antithesis appears as that distinctly intimated in our passage between suffering “in flesh” and receiving quickening “in spirit.” Now as physical suffering on earth is meant in those other places, the presumption that here also the same is intended by xpi@dcu capxi is so strong, when all the various facts which have just been dealt with are considered, that only evidence of its being impossible to obtain a satisfactory exegesis of the verse on this view of the meaning of the expression would justify departure from it. The fact that vexpod are expressly described as the subjects of the statement, suggests that dying itself is the “being judged in flesh ” which is referred to; and when we find that the antithesis is “ living in spirit,” this is confirmed to conviction. We feel that xpiOdcv péev capci, aor dé mvevpars, is very closely parallel to the foundation statement of the whole paragraph, OavatwOels pév capki, Gworrounfeis de mvevpate (ili. 18). . It would seem, therefore, so far as at this stage of our examination we are able to determine, that the mention in ver. 5 of our Lord’s being “ready to judge the living and the dead” at the Last Day, brought up vividly before the apostle’s mind, on some ground, thought of God’s judicial dealing in, according to the principles of His moral admini- stration, inflicting physical death (d:a@ tis awaptias 0 Odvatos, Rom. v. 12). Subjection to this penalty of sin he calls kpivecOar. Similarly, in 1 Cor. xi. 30-32, bodily illness and > death are spoken of as “judgements;” and, a little later in our Epistle, Peter calls persecution and other outward trials kpipa (iv. 17). 324 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. FLV. 6. Kata avOperovs appears in the connection to mean “ after the manner of men,” “as men are judged,’—that is, “ accord- ing to the doom which for sin has come on the whole human race ;” and correspondingly cata Oeov is “ after the manner of God,” “as God lives,’—this latter statement being kindred to that other of Peter (2 Ep. i. 4), ta yévno@e Oelas Kowwvot dvcews. On Kata Oecov, cf. v. 2, note. With xata avOpo- mous cf. Paul’s familiar form of expression in the singular, individualizing, cata dvOpwrop (eg. Rom. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor, iii. 3): in the present place, universality being of the essence of the thought intended, the singular would not have been suitable. Ignatius (Zrall. § 2) has cata av@pw@rous faves, “ living as ? men live:” «ata Oeov also occurs a number of times in his writings (e.g. Magn. § 1). If the conclusions which have now been reached with regard to the force of the words and phrases are well based, the natural interpretation of the verse is, “ For to this intent ” (the position of eis todto shows that on the purpose the stress of the sentence rests) “ was the gospel made known also to persons who are dead, that, whilst judged (subjected to the judgement of death) in flesh, as men are, they might in spirit live as God lives (live a life of holy blessedness, kindred to God’s, kata Tov “Aytov Kat adtol ayo, i. 15).” Two objec- tions are urged to this being accepted as the sense intended by the apostle. First, this view of the meaning proceeds on the supposition that vexpots speaks of “ persons who are now dead,” but who were alive at the time when “ the gospel was preached to them,’—whereas, according to the prima facie force of vexpois evnyyedia On, a preaching to men dead at the time of the preaching is described—an evangelizing of dead men. ‘This is no doubt the sense which the mind attaches first to the two words taken by themselves; but there is nothing in the least degree forced, or indeed at all uncommon, in a combination of words like this being used in the other way, the rest of the sentence suggesting the meaning intended by the writer. A sense of the continued oneness of the per- IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 325 sonality leads constantly to expressions of this kind. Suppose that a naval officer of distinction happened to be mentioned in conversation, and that an old schoolmaster in the company said, “I taught the admiral navigation,’—not a moment’s doubt would be felt by any hearer that the old man spoke of the admiral long before he had become an admiral; nor would there be the least feeling that the mode of speaking was strained or odd. Even the transition into the state of the dead does not interfere with the entire naturalness of this form of expression. When a newly-made widow says of a friend, “I shall always be grateful to him, because he loved —nhonoured—showed kindness to—the dead,” the statement is at once understood to point to kindness shown during life to him who is now dead. Soin Ruth i. 8, “The Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead (wera tov teOvnxotwv, LXX.):” similarly also ii. 20. The only difference between such statements and that at present before us is that, in those which have been spoken of, the reference to something done in life to persons who are now dead presents itself at once and inevitably to, the mind of the reader or hearer, through the knowledge of the circumstances which is possessed, —whilst in this verse we have but a passing allusion, to the exact force of which we are not immediately guided by the context. But that the apostle’s first readers—able, from their perfect acquaintance with those circumstances in their position which specially had induced the apostle to write to them, to see ina moment the purport of the slightest allusion—did not attach to the words before us a reference to experiences prior to death as directly as we do to the words of Naomi, or that they had any more consciousness of strain in doing so with these words than we have with hers,—this is manifestly a quite unsupported assumption. The probabilities of the case must be argued out from consideration of the nature of the statement, according to the force of its words and clauses and connection,—the combination vexpois evnyyericOn accommodating itself readily to either of the positions with 326 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6. respect to time. The question is obviously in kind precisely the same with that as to the reference of tots ev gudaky mvevpacwy in iii. 19, which was fully discussed. The second difficulty in the way of admitting that meaning of the verse which has been given above is found in the obscurity of the connection of the passage, when thus under- stood, with what precedes. But when one bears in mind the main drift of the whole paragraph, particularly as shown in summary form in the last clause of iii. 18 and iniv. l, a natural connection for our verse readily presents itself. The central thought throughout has been that suffering in flesh for righteousness’ sake brings life and strength in spirit. Now plainly the present verse, the last of the paragraph, echoes those verses just mentioned, and this in a specially marked way through the emphatic position given to capxi and mvevpatt, We seem, therefore, to be naturally led—obliged indeed—to think of persecuted Christians as the subjects of the apostle’s statement here; and, seeing that these are expressly called vexpoi, and that “ being judged as men are in flesh,” which was their pathway to “living as God lives in spirit,” appears in the connection undoubtedly to mean death, the natural conclusion seems to be that the persons immedi- ately before the apostle’s thoughts were Christians who under persecution had died for the cause of their Lord. On the likelihood that, in the later years of Nero, and from that time onward, there may have been now and again even severe persecutions in different parts of the empire, of which no record has been preserved, see Lightfoot, Zgnatius, vol. i. pp. 15,16. The entirely casual way in which we learn—and this not from a Christian but a heathen souree—of the severe persecution in Bithynia in a.p. 112, is very suggestive in this direction. That the oppression under which the believers in Asia Minor were suffering at the time of this Epistle had already gone so far as the subjection of some to a violent death—really, whether avowedly or not, for their religion— may quite reasonably be held to be hinted in iv. 1 (see note IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oor there) ; and the supposition accords well with the statement made in iv. 12. JIvpwovs in this last passage is a very strong word, and the persecution indicated by it was not about to come, but had already begun (yivopern). Supposing the reference in our verse then to be to Christian martyrs, the connection exhibited by yap must be not immedi- ately with what is said in ver. 5, but, as very frequently in the case of this conjunction, with an intermediate thought, natural and generally obvious. The apostle has said that the blasphemous calumniators of the Christians shall have to “give account to Him who is ready to judge living and dead.” This last expression is universal in its reference, pointing to the judgement both of friends and enemies of Christ, per- secutors and persecuted alike. The practical force of the statement is therefore, of course, that in that Day the folly and sin of the persecutors will be publicly made manifest, and the servants of Christ gloriously vindicated. While, with this wide reference, he writes the word vexpovs, the remembrance comes up vividly before him of some of his Christian brethren in Asia Minor who, as he knew, had already been placed in this class of vexpod directly through the cruelty of the heathen. He was aware also, we may suppose, that the thought of these martyrs was with much liveliness before the minds of those to whom he was writing,— and that among them that deep and painful sense of mystery which we know (1 Thess. iv. 13-18) to have existed among some of the early Christians, when they saw around them those who loved the Lord dying before He came again in His glory, was intensified exceedingly by seeing Christ’s people die—perhaps amid torments—expressly because they served Christ. In the state of mind in which some at least of Peter's readers evidently were with respect to suffering for Christ’s sake generally, such a sight as this they certainly could not but “think strange” (iv. 12) in a very high degree. To this difficulty, then, the apostle adverts,—and that in such a way as to place the copestone on the whole invigorating 328 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6. teaching of the paragraph, with regard to the “ quickening ” power of “suffering in flesh” for righteousness’ sake. He tells them that, when the persecutor does that which, from his point of view, is his very worst, he is, in truth, but introducing the Christian into a far higher sphere of that spiritual life which he had begun to live here, a life kindred to the life of God. “Your revilers shall give account to Him who is ready to judge living and dead. Dead, remember, brethren, as well as living. Your martyred dead, of whom your hearts, I know, are full, will have a triumphant vindica- tion; for this was the very purpose for which the gospel was made known to men also who are dead (as well as to you and me who are still alive),—this,—that, whilst judged, as men are, in flesh, there should be for them nothing further of judgement involving suffering, but that they might live in spirit as God lives.” On this view of the connection, the transition from the application of «pivas in ver. 5 to the general judgement to that made here of xpu@aou to dying, is easy, and has a special tenderness and beauty ; and all parts of the verse have their full natural force. While the course of thought certainly seems, as has been said, to lead to the view that martyrs are immediately in the apostle’s mind, yet obviously the declaration of the verse really gives its full comfort to all who mourn over Christian dead. The apostle’s statement is parallel to that of Paul (Rom. viii. 10), Ev 6é Xpictos év tyiv, TO pev cHpa vexpov Sia apaprtiav, TO Se mvedpa For dva Suxavocvvnv,—the structure there also, sin- gularly enough, having the same kind of irregularity as here, for clearly the formally co-ordinate clause To péev c@ma Kr, is really subordinate. If it be objected to that connection of the passage which has now been sketched, that the train of thought assumed to link the 5th verse to the 6th is not altogether obvious, a sufficient answer appears to be at hand. The question whether there had been, among those to whom the apostle wrote, some recent deaths by martyrdom, is one with respect IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 329 to which, from the imperfect knowledge we have of the history of Asia Minor during that age, nothing more than conjecture is possible. A probability that the case was so seems, as has been said, to present itself from the modes of expression employed in iv. 1,12. If we suppose that there really had been such deaths, and bear in mind that tender- ness of feeling respecting their loss which must have existed for a lone time among the surviving brethren, we can hardly doubt that, when the Epistle was read in the various churches, the martyrdoms would be prominently in the thoughts of the people throughout the whole of the present paragraph and much which follows. Thus, at any point, the force of the slightest turn of language naturally bearing on the death of their friends:would be perfectly obvious to them,—however it may be at first to us somewhat obscure. Given the supposed circumstances,—and these are probable,—the course of thought connecting the 5th and 6th verses is altogether natural, and the meaning assumed to be yielded by the 6th verse is quite accordant with the force of its words and of their construction, and in entire and beautiful consistency with the whole paragraph which the verse winds up. By a few of those interpreters who regard the persons spoken of in the verse as having heard the gospel in their lifetime (as Hofmann), the reference of vexpoi is supposed to be to persecutors, and the apostle’s object to be to comfort the suffering Christians with the assurance that in no case will their oppressors escape their merited punishment. “They shall give account to Him who is ready to judge living and dead,—yes, those of them who may be dead when the Lord comes, shall be brought to stern judgement as fully as those who may be alive, for they heard the gospel and rejected it.” This view is untenable. The tone of feeling thus supposed to be in the passage is not consistent with the general spirit of N. T. That the delightful sketch, a Gao. kata Oecov mvevpatt, Should be given merely to serve as a bright back- ground for a dark record of condemnation, is, in the connec- 300 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [Iv..6. tion, altogether unnatural. The course of thought throughout the paragraph regarding the efficiency, for quickening in the sphere of spirit, of the bearing of persecution for Christ— a course marked, as by guide-posts, by the occurrence time after time of the antithesis of capxi and mvevpatv—is entirely interrupted by making the reference of this antithesis to be in the present verse to the persecutors. Various serious objections of detail also present themselves on a careful con- sideration of this exegesis, which are well stated by Wiesinger, —who has given to this position of Hofmann an almost needlessly long and elaborate discussion. Many expositors make the prima facie force of vexpois eunyyertcOn a fixed point—the fixed point—in their exegesis, —“the gospel was preached to dead men” at the time when they were dead; and endeavour in various ways to make the other parts of the verse, and the connection with ver. 5, square with this. Naturally, this class of exegetes includes most of those who see in iil. 19, 20, an announcement of our Lord’s preaching in the regions of the dead. The fact that within the same paragraph, though at a considerable distance . from each other, two passages occur which, on a surface view, may be held both to speak of a proclamation of the gospel to the dead, arrests the attention of every student of the Epistle ; and the coincidence may not unreasonably be held to establish a measure of likelihood that this really is the meaning in both the passages. Yet the measure of probability thus established is in itself but slight, and has no appreciable counterbalancing weight, when serious difficulties, grammatical and logical, are seen to obstruct the acceptance of this view of the sense in either place. In literature and in life superficial coincidences, as striking or more striking, show themselves every day, which yet, on examination, often prove to be merely casual, with no underlying relation. As regards the meaning of our present passage, the fact is worthy of note that to the consensus among those expositors who see a preaching to the dead in iii. 19, in seeing the same here also, one exception—out of several— IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. So is Bengel, a commentator ranking certainly among the very foremost, if not himself absolutely the foremost, for learning, breadth of judgement, and spiritual insight. The tendency must have been strong with him, since he had been led to interpret iii, 19 of a visit to Hades, to recognise the same here. But he saw clearly that the natural reference of kpu@act capxt, in the connection which it has in this sentence, is to dying,—and that this cannot reasonably be viewed as prior to ednyyedicOn, of which it is by ta expressly indicated to be, so far as regards the form of the sentence, a part of the purpose: “ex quo ipso” (that is, the clause ta Kpiaor capxi) “etiam patet evangelii preedicationem innui morte illa priorem, non posteriorem.” By those who interpret ednyyeA/oOn of a preaching in the regions of the dead, the connection of vy. 5, 6, is thought to be as follows :—* Our Lord is ready to judge the dead,—and with reason, for even they have not been without opportunity of receiving His gospel.” This, which is Alford’s statement, adequately represents the general position of those who hold this exegesis. Now, in this supposed connection itself there lie difficulties. In the first place, if vv. 5 and 6 stand related to each other in this way, the course of thought appears singular. There can be no doubt that, springing as it does out of mention in the 4th verse of the persecuting spirit of the heathen in Asia Minor (Sracdnuodvtes), the statement made in the 5th verse has in it very prominently a solemn sternness. Now, the sequence is, to say the least, peculiar: “Your persecutors shall render account to Him who is ready to judge living and dead,—to judge the dead also, I say, for to this intent the gospel has been preached to the dead, that they may enjoy eternal life” (this last being undoubtedly the main thought in the clause introduced by ta). Secondly, the assumption involved in this mode of connection, that at the great day of final account the judgement will, with respect to every member of the human race, be determined by his having accepted or refused Jesus Christ as made known in 302 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6. the gospel, does not seem to be based on Scripture-—which simply affirms that judgement will be according to the varied measures of light granted to men, and that the Judge of all the earth will do right (Luke xii. 47, 48; Rom. i. 18-20, li, 9-16, etc.). Thirdly, supposing it were admitted that the reason alleged to be given in ver. 6 for the statement made in ver. 5 with respect to the judgement of the dead is scriptural, and is expressed in a natural way, still it is hard to see the relevancy in this place of such a justification of Christ’s judging the dead. Nothing in the paragraph, or indeed anywhere in N. T., suggests in the remotest way that difficulties on this head perplexed or distressed the early Christians anywhere ; and certainly, to state the case in the mildest way, an explanation of the kind supposed seems to have no special suitableness in the present connection. As Professor Salmond puts the matter excellently, “ Peter is not dealing with any such question as how it shall stand with those who have not heard the gospel in this world, but with a plain case where the gospel is known,—the case where Christians are slandered by their heathen neighbours for their fidelity to the gospel. How should the mention of a gospel preached to the dead in the under-world bear upon the position of living Christians who are misrepresented by living detractors in the upper world 2? What encouragement to patient endurance of heathen slander should Christians find in the information that their heathen persecutors are assured of a new period of favour in the other world? Or how should the mention of Christ’s graciousness towards the unrighteous dead incite the righteous living to a persevering separation from heathen impurity ?” The exegesis of those who regard the verse as speaking of a preaching of the gospel among the dead takes various forms. By most of these scholars xpidou capi is—rightly, as we have seen reason to believe—judged to refer to physical death; and those intended by vexpois are either certain sections of the dead (as, the antediluvian sinners mentioned IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 333 in the previous chapter,—so de Wette; or, more widely, those who died before the coming of Christ,—so some of the older interpreters), or the dead generally (so Wiesinger, Huther, and others). ‘hose difficulties in the way of logical connection which have been indicated above affect the exegesis in any of these forms. All of them are confronted, too, with a most serious grammatical objection in the twist which they give to tva xpiOaov, making these words speak of a death which is past. While it is true, as has already been said, that the former of the two members of the clause intro- duced by tva is in sense subordinate, the stress of thought being on Gaov, yet in form it is clearly a co-ordinate part of the statement of the aim intended in evnyyedicOn. Now it seems impossible that in the mind of any logical thinker— under whatever Hebraizing influences—the clause could present itself as one of purpose relatively to evnyyedicOn, if the «piOjvac had taken place before the evayyerroOAvat, and was at the time present to the consciousness of the writer as having been prior. A number of commentators pass this point by with some slight observation to the effect that the clause is tantamount to one in which wa governed Sax only, the intervening thought being represented by a participle. Now, however true this is in fact, it does not really touch the difficulty. Wiesinger, always thorough and candid, mani- festly—and reasonably—finds it hard in the utmost degree to satisfy himself that «ps@dor can mean what his exposition makes it mean, “be in the state of having been judged,” or, “of being judged” (the state of death being deemed a con- tinuation of the “judging in flesh” begun at death). He appeals to but one passage, 1 John iii. 23, as analogous; and gains nothing thereby, because, in the first place, it is not by any means certain that the aorist there is the true reading,— and, secondly, even if it is, the natural reference of muctevowpev to a decisive act of faith is in every way suitable, “ the decisive act of faith being treated as the foundation of the abiding work of love” (Westcott, a loc.). In every case in N. T. in which 334 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 6. iva is construed with an aorist and a present, the distinction is quite obviously the regular one between an act and a state, —as here between dying and living; ef. John ix. 39, x. 38. One case of a conceivably retrospective aorist subjunctive is to be found in John xii. 7 (true reading); but the construc- tion is uncertain, the view that the force of the tense is retrospective not being the most probable,—and, in any case, in the way in which a verb is used after agsévae iva there lies no true analogy to the passage before us, where wa plainly has in purity its regular sense of purpose. Where, as with the majority of the recent advocates of the exegesis under discussion, the word vexpots is supposed to indicate all the dead, there is, besides the difficulty found in iva xpiOeor, another, almost equally serious, connected with evnyyertc@n. The only natural view of the force of this verb here is as an ordinary narrative aorist, there being nothing whatever in the structure or relations of the sentence to suggest the gnomic force (as 1, 24), or any other kindred use of this tense. Now obviously the historic statement evnyyedio@n—whilst sufficient, if the supposed preaching of the Lord to the antediluvian sinners is thought of as referred to here, or some similar proclamation of truth to the dead of the pre-Christian ages generally—is an inadequate form of expression if all who die before the Lord’s Advent to Judgement be deemed to be pointed to. A few interpreters (Plumptre, Mason, and one or two more) understand xpi@dov capxi not of death, but of some judicial action of God at the time of resurrection and general judgement. All these scholars seem to regard vexpots as designating the dead generally. Thus their exegesis leg under the objection just stated with respect to the force of evnyyedic On ; and whilst they escape that connected with the time of xpi9a@ou, they are confronted with equal difficulties of another kind, in the peculiar application of capx:, and in the marked deviation which they make from the contextual reference of the antithesis between oapxi and mvevuate. IV. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 335 Mason maintains, though somewhat hesitatingly, that the verse means that wicked men who in Hades believe in Christ, through the supposed preaching to them there, shall not have resurrection of the body (the withholding of this constituting their being “ judged in flesh”), but in some sense shall, “as God sees it” («ata Oeov), live in spirit. Dean Plumptre’s language does not give a reader the idea that he holds exactly the same view as Mr. Mason, but what he does hold it is not easy to determine with precision. “The dead had the gospel preached to them, that they might be judged by a judgement, which was remedial as well as penal, in that lower sensuous nature in which they had sinned,’—and “live, in the highest sense of life, in that element of their nature which was capable of knowing God, and therefore of eternal life”’ “Such,” he observes, “seems the simple, natural interpretation of the words;” and he goes on to remark on the influence of “dogmatic prepossessions” in swaying men from it (Cambridge Bible for Schools, in loc.). In another book, The Spirits in Prison, published in 1884, five years later than that just quoted, Dr. Plumptre (p. 119) states as the sense of our verse, “They, too” (“the dead generally”), “were to have the opportunity of being conformed to the likeness of Christ, dying as He died, and thus bearing, as He bore, the penalty of sin, that so they might be sharers in His life.” The meaning of this may possibly be the same as that of the other statement. The exegesis of this verse is certainly not obvious or easy ; but, on a retrospect of the whole discussion, the direction in which probability points with regard to the apostle’s meaning appears to be marked with sufficient distinctness. On the one side, we have as difficulties the facts that there must be attached to vexpois a’reference as respects time, different from that which prima facie suggests itself,—and that the connection between vv. 5 and 6 is based on a view with regard to the severity of the persecution under which the Asiatic Christians were suffering at the time of the letter, that rests to some 336 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV: 7-14. extent on conjecture. The proposed reference of vexpois, however, though not the first which occurs, is in itself perfectly natural, and accords with frequent use; and the assumed severity of the persecution—its having already brought some believers to a violent death—has in it nothing which is at all improbable, and seems, indeed, to be directly pointed to by various modes of expression in the Epistle. Conceding these two positions, the meaning obtained is entirely accordant with the sense of the words and with their construction, —is in itself beautiful, and eminently fitted to comfort the distressed Christians to whom the letter was written,—and is in the direct line of the current of thought traceable throughout the whole paragraph which the verse closes. This last point is one of very special moment, seeing that the reappearance here of that antithesis which has come in again and again between “suffering in flesh” and “life in spirit” seems with much emphasis to indicate that the verse is 727 the main current, not in a mere eddy. On the other side, there are most serious grammatical difficulties, connected both with evnyyertc@n and with cpibdct capki; and, on any form of the exegesis, a considerable measure of unnaturalness presents itself in the relation of the verse to that which precedes, and seemingly an utter want of relevancy to the general drift of the paragraph. Vv. 7-11. On the duties of Christians as associated in congregations, In the practical part of his letter the apostle has, up to this point, been giving advices bearing on difficulties and sufferings to which his readers, in the various positions they oceupied, were exposed in carrying on the general work of life. He proceeds now to speak specially of the duties incumbent on them as associated in congregations, the thought IV. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 337 of trouble and anxiety to the Church from persecution being also still prominently before his mind. Ver. 7. The words wavtwy to Tédos cannot be naturally taken to mean anything else than the close of the proba- tionary history of our earth through the Second Coming of Christ, His coming to raise the dead and judge the world. By some interpreters the reference has been supposed to be to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, beyond question, that awful catastrophe could not fail to make a very deep impres- sion on the minds of Christians everywhere throughout the world, and was one in which they would certainly and justly recognise a “coming of the Son of Man” for judgement. But that to Christians living at a great distance from Jerusalem, and many of them of Gentile birth, the overthrow of the Jewish capital and commonwealth would be spoken of by the apostle under such a name as “the end of all things,” is a wholly unnatural thought, and could scarcely have been enter- tained by any, but for the difficulty lying in the word jyyuxer, —on which see below.—The emphatic position of tavtwv suggests an antithesis with some partial “end” mentioned before. This must lie in vexpots and kpiOaou capxi of ver. 6, Some interpreters, accordingly, take mdvtwy as masculine. This is striking; but it may be questioned whether such an expression as “the end of all men” has likelihood in N. T. Where “the end” of men is spoken of (ver. 17, below; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Phil. iii. 19), the reference is always to the wicked. The occurrence of language which would distinctly say that the day of the Saviour’s appearing is to be, in any sense, “ the end” of those who, through faith in Him, have passed into “the life eternal,’ seems improbable. Neither does there appear to be any need for such formal exactness of contrast. “The end of all things,’ which is undoubtedly the rendering of the words, taken by themselves, that rises first to the mind, is, from its generality—“the end of the present constitution of things ”—not liable to objection, and with abundant pointed- ness presents to every conscience this thought, “the end for < 338 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 7. all of the time of probation, the presence for all of the Judge.” The transition from the 6th verse to this is natural and easy: “But, passing from the thought of the death of this friend and of that, and of the issues in the unseen world to them, let us bear in mind and be habitually influenced by the contemplation of that transcendent event which is so momentous to every one of us, and which is near.” The perfect ayysxev (as ey. Rom. xiii. 12; Jas. v. 8) is practically = éyy’s éorev (Mark xiii. 29 ; Phil. iv. 5), differing from it only by intimating that there has been previous approach. Now, how can this statement of Peter, the similar declarations of the other apostles (as in the passages of Philippians and James, just referred to), and the promise of our Lord Himself, “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. iii. 11, xxii. 7, 12, 20), be reconciled with the facts of history ? Kighteen centuries have passed away, and “the sign of the Son of Man” has not yet appeared in the sky. How then could the Lord’s Second Advent and “the end of all things” be in those old days predicted as at that time near? The answer—one which the Christian, in the measure of the liveli- ness and intelligence of his faith, sees and feels to be satis- factory—seems clearly to be that the matter is here set before us as it is viewed from heaven. ‘The force of such words as “near” and “distant” is very variable, according to the standard applied. To the young man of twenty a possible half-century of coming life seems something vast. To the old man, who looks back over his seventy or eighty years as on a tale which has been told, the tale seems to have been a very short one; and the aged Christian’s pleading with the youth would be that, even if he knew certainly that he should see eighty years, yet he would act wisely in always counting the end as near. In the case before us the standard of eternity is applied, because on those who know themselves immortal the consciousness that “the end of all things” is near, is pre-eminently fitted to exert an influence leading them habitually to live as becomes immortality. Alike for stimulus BVs 7.1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 339 and for cheer, God would have us to be ever in an attitude of waiting for the coming of the Lord. When the faith of the Church is lively, and her love glowing, she does thus wait, looking with eager, longing anticipation for “that blessed hope” as near of fulfilment. As under the clear sky of the east a range of lofty mountains seems through many days’ journey almost at hand, so in the pellucid atmosphere of faith the great towering event of the future, dwarfing all else, appears close above us. See the statement of the principle of the reckoning in 2 Pet. ii. 8, 9; and compare Paul’s estimate of the Christian’s affliction—affliction spread perhaps over threescore years and ten—as “ but for a moment,” because the standard by which he computed was the “eternal” duration of the “ weight of glory” that was to follow (2 Cor. iv. 17). Whether the apostles themselves, pondering the data which God had made known to them, thought it likely that “the end of all things” would come during their own generation, is a question to which we are not in a position to give an answer. Considering how wide, according to what the Lord had told them, the diffusion of the gospel throughout the world was to be,—and also the fact that they themselves received communications from the Spirit with regard to events which appearances could not lead them to look upon as probably of immediate or very speedy occurrence, such as the general conversion of the Jews (Rom. xi.),—it may reasonably be doubted whether they did entertain such an opinion. What was their private anticipation, however, whilst an interesting question, is not one of theological importance ; whereas it is of vast moment to see clearly that their teaching is Im no respect inconsistent with truth. Now they have nowhere said anything beyond what the Apostle John in the Apocalypse gives us again and again as the express utterance of the Lord Jesus Himself in His glory, “ Behold, I come quickly.” An impressive argument for the divine origin of Scripture is afforded by the fact that, even in connection with those elements of its teaching which, to mere human view, might 340 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OV: 7, seem likely to produce fanatical excitement, the ethical advices given are always calm and well ordered,—and that in the history of the Church, wherever belief on such points has been in accordance with Scripture, the ethical influence of the belief has been proved to be healthful, calming and strengthen- ing. The mention of the Second Coming of Christ as near is associated, as a rule, with references to the duty and the reasonableness of self-control, of patience under trouble - (Jas. v. 7-9), of gentleness towards opponents, and restfulness of heart in God (Phil. iv. 5-7), of watchfulness, purity, un- worldliness and love (Rom. xiii, 11-14; 1 Thess. v. 1—8). In the passage before us, similarly,—the great introductory statement being intended, no doubt, to bear on the whole section,—the legitimate moral effect of a remembrance that “the end of all things is near” is represented to be the stirring up of the soul to prayerfulness, sobriety of feeling, and active Christian love. The apostle speaks first of prayer, and of the state of the heart which meetens it for prayer. Communion with God in prayer is the centre and spring of spiritual life, and hence plainly whatever gives peculiar vividness to the thought of God, and of our relations to Him, has as its primary result an intensifying of the Christian’s interest in prayer—In using the plural mpocevyas the apostle is evidently thinking of different acts of prayer, or different classes of prayers. In similar counsels elsewhere in N. T. the singular is found, “Give yourselves to prayer,’ “Continue in prayer” (77 mpocevyy, Rom. xii. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 5; Col. iv. 2),—which is obviously the natural form when the duty in general is thought of. But as what follows in this section of the Epistle shows that duties connected specially with church life are in the apostle’s mind, it seems likely that this specialty of reference is to be recognised also in the use here of the plural,—pointing to the duty of prayer as discharged under various circumstances, to social prayer as well. as _ private. The form suggests this, and thus leads into the more explicit haem | FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Ok mention of church duties. — For earnestness and power in prayer, purity of soul is needful. To the obstruction caused by sin in the way of true prayer, the apostle has already adverted (iii. 7). In the verse now before us he calls on his readers to cultivate a pure and elevated spirit, to the intent that their prayers may be gladsome and efficacious. In the N. T., as by classical writers, cw¢povety is used both in its primary sense as opposed to insanity, “to be of sound mind ” (eg. Luke viii. 35), and (here and in Tit. ii. 6) in its secondary, as opposed to the moral madness of lavish indul- gence in any kind of sensuality,—‘ to maintain habitual self- government, holding all the passions under restraint;” cf. Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 20. Philo (Mund. Opif., Mang. p. 17) makes cwdpocvvyn the opposite of adxoracia. As to wndey, cf. 1. 13, note. In their secondary use, as here, cwdpoveiv and vygev are so very nearly synonymous that to draw a distinction is difficult. We are perhaps justified, however, in throwing ourselves back on the etymology and primary force of cwdpovetv, regarding it therefore as pointing to clear and accurate views with regard to living above the power of sensuality and worldliness, “to be (morally) sound-minded ; ” whilst vide refers rather to feelings and conduct accordant with this soundness of mind, purity and unworldliness of spirit and life. For the rendering of mjdeww by “watch,” which here and in 2 Tim. iv. 5 the translators of the A. E. V. have substituted for “be sober” (the translation given by them in the other places where the word occurs), there appears to be no adequate authority ; and therefore the tevisers have in these passages,—as also with the adjective vnpadtos in 1 Tim. iii. 2, rendered in the A. V. “ vigilant,’— rightly altered the translation. When the clause before us, then, stands thus, “ Be sound- minded, therefore, and be sober, in order to prayers,” there seems to be no reason why both the verbs should not be regarded as connected with e¢s mpocevyds; and, indeed, they seem to be somewhat unnaturally severed from each other, if, 342 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. OV OR: as in A. V., the connection be made only with the second verb. Tyndale joins the last words with both verbs,—‘“ Be ye therefore discrete and sober, that ye maye be apte to prayers.” The R. V. by its punctuation parts the verbs,—‘“ Be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer.”—Here, as always, the aorist imperative gives a quick decisive com- mand; and where, as here, this form is employed in verbs descriptive of a state of mind or of life which is to be habitually maintained, it seems to point, taken strictly, to the first vigorous effort to attain the state; cf. eg. Jas. v. 7, paxpoOvpjcate.—Polycarp (§ 7) has an evident reference to the last clause of this verse, vydovtes mpos Tas evyds. Ver. 8. In this verse and those which follow throughout the section the apostle attaches his precepts to the first, cwdpovicate kat vyrvate, by a series of participles, or of adjectives with évtes understood,—a kind of construction which he somewhat specially favours; cf. ii, 13-iii. 9, iii. 15,16. In the present case, as to some extent in the former of the two passages just referred to, he does not seem to intend the participles to be taken as strictly subordinate in thought to the expressed imperative with which the series of injunctions opens, but rather to the general appeal of which that imperative is a special form, “ Seek to be in heart and life what those who look for the end of all things as near may reasonably be expected to desire to be.”—The first of the participial clauses contains an exhortation to fervour of mutual love, which is represented as of paramount importance (7po wavtwv; cf. Jas. v. 12). This, of course, does not at all imply that other duties — such as those which have been mentioned in the previous verse—might safely be neglected, but simply draws special attention to the transcendent im- portance of this grace,—as constituting, indeed, the atmosphere in which all the other graces bloom their fairest and bear their richest fruits (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12, 13). In urging the cultiva- tion of brotherly love all the apostles, following the example of their Master, take great delight. Peter has touched on this W.'8] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 345 subject again and again (i. 22, ii. 17, ii. 8). In the present place his mode of expression (r7v) assumes the existence of love in some measure among his readers, as belonging indeed to the essence of spiritual religion; and his injunction is to have the love “fervent, intense.”—-The use, as here and in ver. 10, of the reflexive pronoun for the reciprocal dAdo, “one another,” is common in N. T., as in classical writers ; cf. Jelf, § 654. 5—The adjective éxrevy, standing outside of the combination with the article, is predicative: on the construction, cf. ii. 12, rv advactpopyy Exovtes Kadypy ; and on extevy, cf. 1. 22, éxtevas. With respect to the exact reference of the statement made in the second clause of the verse there is some doubt. The expression Kadv’mTew TAHGos duapti@v occurs also in Jas. y. 20, and there it is spoken of a zealous Christian who, leading a sinner to repentance, thus “covers a multitude of sins” by bringing the man within the sphere of God’s covenant mercy, which hides his sins. This kind of “cover- ing” is that spoken of in Ps. xxxu. 1 (a passage which was possibly in James’s mind when using the word in this par- ticular way), waxdaproe ov érexarvPOnoav ai apaptiar (LXX.). 3ut though these words may have been floating before James's memory, the origin of the expression appears with very great likelihood—especially when we look at it as it stands in the verse before us, with ayamn as the subject—to be Prov. x. 12, thus given in A. E. V., “ Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all sins (transgressions, R. V.).”. The LX-X. wanders in the second clause quite away from the true meaning, having mavtas S& Tovds pu) Piroverxodvtas Kadiier gidria. Peter's words are not a literal rendering of the clause in Proverbs, TAHGos apaptiov representing Dyin D3 only loosely; still the resemblance seems much too close to be merely casual. How the particular form of words arose which is found in James and Peter, cannot be determined. Possibly the passage stood so in some Greek version used by the apostles: on the likelihood that even before the time of our Lord there were, 344 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 8 besides the LXX., other Greek versions of at least certain books of O. T., cf. Salmon, Introd. NV. 7., 2nd ed., Lecture 26. The sense of the clause as it occurs in Proverbs is shown quite clearly by the antithesis with the first part of the verse to be that love, as far as is possible, hides the offences of others. As Luther has it (cited by Wiesinger), “ Gleichwie Gott mit seiner Liebe meine Siinde decket wenn ich glaube, so soll ich meines Nichsten Siinde auch decken.” As the words occur in Peter, there is nothing at all so decisive in the context with regard to their precise force as either in Proverbs or in James ; and expositors have been considerably divided in opinion respecting it. (1) The refer- ence may be to the sins of the man himself who cherishes the love: “Love covers (secures the covering by God of) a multitude of sins, through its proving the soul to have true fruit-bearing faith” (cf. Matt. vi. 14). As thus stated, this view of the meaning has been held by many Protestant interpreters ; whilst with Roman Catholics — bringing in, however, the thought of personal desert in the love manifested —it has been the usual one. (2) Again, the meaning may be, somewhat as in James, to this effect, “ Love is the grand impelling power to effort for the edification of the Church and the extension of the knowledge of the gospel, and thus brings men under the covering mercy of God.” To this view there are the two serious objections, that, there being no such indication in the context here as in James, leading towards this meaning, the language would be very obscure ; and that the whole section seems to bear on the relations of Christians with other recognised Christians,—having nothing in it to show that evangelistic effort among the unbelieving or the lapsed was at this point specially in the apostle’s thoughts. (3) Yet again, the words may be taken as in Proverbs, “ Love hides the faults of brethren.” In favour of this sense it may be urged that where a passage of Scripture is quoted,—not, as in James, a mere convenient application made of certain words,—the presumption prima facie is that it is employed in IV. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Sa the sense of the original,—which therefore should be adhered to if it suits the context. The verses which follow show that what was at the moment foremost in Peter’s mind was a wish to excite his readers to hearty unity and mutual helpfulness. Now obviously nothing can be imagined more destructive of peace and comfort in any Christian community than its including members who are quick to take offence, or who pry into the affairs of their brethren, and rake out into the sunlight faults and imprudences. On the other hand, the love which never seeks to know evil of others, and in all circumstances shuns and discourages needless talk on such matters, is plainly a most blessed binding power, the cement of the Christian temple ; cf. Matt. xviii. 15-17, 21, 22 ; Luke xvii. 3, 4; 1 Cor. viii. 12. To Peter personally the remembrance of the conversa- tion related in Matt. xviii. 21, 22, would, as regarded “ hid- ing” wrongs by forgiving and forgetting them, give a peculiar “ intensity and vastness of reference to the expression “a multitude of sins.” The use of the expression duaptycn eis oé in Luke xvii. 4, shows it to be legitimate to take duapriaz, in our passage, in the sense of “ faults” or “ offences ” committed in the intercourse of brethren with each other. The connecting particle 67. implies that the statement made in the clause is one which obviously presents a strong motive to Christians for “ having their love to one another fervent.” Such a motive is actually set forth on any view of the mean- ing: whether on any one of the views more force and obviousness of motive present themselves than on the others can, perhaps, hardly be determined. On the whole, the last view of the reference of the clause, according to which its meaning in Peter is the same which it undoubtedly has in its original place in Proverbs, appears to be the most likely. There seems to be a greater suitableness and naturalness in attaching to an appeal for the cultivation of brotherly love mention of a motive derived from the increased peace and comfort of the whole Christian community, than in attaching one immediately based on the personal good of the individual. 346 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ; [iv.9. The quotation ayarn xTX. is found also in Clem. Rom. § 49, and in the Ancient Homily formerly called the 2nd Epistle of Clement, § 16,—in both places exactly as in Peter. The reference of the homilist is undoubtedly to covering one’s own sins ; that of Clement is uncertain, but not improbably to covering the sins of others. Vv. 9-11. In these verses we have certain fruits of brotherly love exhibited,—tirst (ver. 9), a generous use of worldly property for the benefit of brethren; and secondly, (vv. 10, 11), a generous use, for their good, of spiritual gifts. Ver. 9. Hospitality was a duty to which the circumstances of the primitive Christians afforded a peculiarly frequent and urgent call. In many cases converts were, through the cruelty of kinsfolk, or through other forms of persecution, reduced to penury, and rendered for a time literally homeless: and “ even when the business occasions of believers merely took them temporarily from home, they must have shrunk from the con- tamination of the heathen inns along the road as much as from the insult and outrage which they might meet with there” (Lillie). Hence with remarkable frequency and earnestness this duty of entertaining strangers is urged in N. T., especially on office-bearers (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8); but this not at all as if the duty were incumbent on these only, but because in this, as in all Christian excellences, those who bear office should be “ensamples to the flock.’ All believers (Rom. xii. 13 ; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 John 5, 6) were to keep in mind that their Master had expressly declared that a characteristic of true discipleship to which He would bear testimony from the throne was, “I was a stranger, and ye took me in.” The praise of hospitality is very abundant in the earliest sub-apostolic writers: eg. cf. Clem. Rom. §§ 1, 10, 11, 12; Hermas, Mand. viiiim*< God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor, ix. 7), and therefore, our apostle continues, to be accept- able to Him the hospitality must be shown cordially,—avev yoyyvopod, “ without murmuring,” secret or expressed, at the trouble and expense involved,—w1) é« Avs 1) €E avayens, as IV. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 847 Paul has it in the passage of 2 Cor. just referred to. For yoyyuopos, cf. Acts vi. 1; Phil. ii. 14: cf. also Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, iv. 7, od Svotdcers Sodvat ovdEe didovs yoyyvces (found verbatim also in Barnabas c. xix.) This last clause, enjoining heartiness, thorough sincerity, in Chris- tian work, is characteristic of Peter: cf. i, 22, psraderdpiav avuTroKpitov ; ii, 1, aoOéuevoe Travta Sorov Kai UTroKpLoELs. Ver. 10. In the free exercise of spiritual gifts, also, for the benetit of Christian brethren, love is to show itself; cf. Clem. Rom. §§ 38, 48. The word yapicpa has in N. T. usage some- thing of aspecialty of application to those extraordinary powers which in the first ages of the Church were bestowed by the Holy Ghost on many believers (cf. e.g. Rom. xii. 6 ; 1 Cor, xii. 4, 9, 28); and this is no doubt the primary reference in the present passage. But in such a precept as that given here, natural abilities also are plainly included, being in all men “endowments ” from God, in the Christian such in double measure—as given by Him at first, and as quickened and consecrated by His grace: cf. Rom. xii. 6-8, where, under the name of yapicpara, gifts, ordinary and extraordinary, are erouped together. With regard to all the powers which God has bestowed on them, then, believers are ever to bear in mind that these have been given not to be held as private property, for their own personal edification and comfort merely, but to be dealt with as belonging to God, and entrusted to their charge for the benefit of all the brotherhood. Each Christian is to regard himself as an ofxovopos for the otcos of Christ— appointed to see that from the “gifts” placed in his hands all the members of the household receive their portion in due season (Luke xii. 42). If every believer be animated by brotherly love to obey the precept, then through the joint action the whole household will partake of the full blessing, Touikns xapitos Ocod, “ God’s grace” (here collective, the entire gracious bestowment, the aggregate of the xyapicpata) “manifold” (rich in its variety), each as (in the measure in which) he has received a gift ” (the aorist €\aSev pointing 348 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [TV eit back strictly to the time when the gift of grace was granted), “ministering it to one another ” (literally, “into the midst of, among yourselves”), “as (in the capacity of, doing the part of) good (faithful) stewards of God’s manifold grace.” Whilst oixovouos is sometimes applied specially to office- bearers in the Church (1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. 1. 7), there is nothing whatever so to limit the reference here: €«actos seems clearly to be general, “ each believer,’ as in Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 7; Eph. iv. 7. To adrd, here, Bengel and others give an emphatic force, “it and not another,’—4g.d. “ taking care not to encroach on the sphere properly occupied by other men’s gifts” (“id ipsum, non affectato alio,” Bengel). But it seems very doubtful whether N. T. usage generally, or Peter’s in particular, justifies us in finding any emphasis in the pro- noun: cf.i1,12; Mark ix. 18; John xxi. 6; Col. ii. 14 (these last three references illustrating the quite unemphatic use of the pronoun as object in cases in which, as in the verse before us, it stands before the governing verb—a comparatively rare arrangement, and therefore one in which it might possibly be thought that adro had emphasis through its position).—For diaxoveiv governing an accusative, cf. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 18. Ver. 11. The subject of spiritual gifts is continued, the apostle passing on to impress upon his readers the importance of constantly cherishing grateful and reverential remembrance of the fact that all these endowments came from God. No- thing of a spirit of self-complacency in connection with the possession of any of the gifts, or of a desire for self-glorification in connection with the exercise of them, was to be entertained; but in everything God was to be acknowledged as their Giver, and the advancement of His cause as their purpose. Thus through the gifts He would be glorified, both in the hearts of those who received them, and in the hearts of others who were made sharers in the benefit. To this supremely important thought the reference in the previous verse to the “ steward- ship ” of believers evidently directly leads. Of the yapicpara the apostle, to present his precept in a IV. 11.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 349 lively and impressive way, specifies two leading classes—those which were exercised through speech, as prophecy, teaching, hortatory and quickening address, and those which had as their sphere the Church agencies for such work as collecting and distributing money for the poor, and caring for the sick and for strangers (all summed up in the early Church under the general name Scaxovia, and probably also the same which are intended by Paul in 1 Cor, xii. 28 under the name avTiAnets, “ services of help ”). The injunctions of this verse are so plainly in close connec- tion with those which precede—as part of a series,—that it is natural to regard the participial structure as still in the apostle’s mind. The forms of the verbs to be supplied, there- fore, are not AaAeiTa, diaxove(tw, but AaXodvTeEs, SiaxovodryTes, —the clauses introduced by e? tvs standing connected with these participles very similarly to the way in which the clause with éxaoros in the previous verse is connected with duaxovovvtes expressed there. The particle #s has its very frequent force of representing the statement made as sub- ” jective: “ If any man speaks, speaking ” (or rather, for sim- plicity and clearness according to English idiom, the imperative “Speak ye ”) “ with the full remembrance which shows your having the full remembrance—that you are speaking oracles of God; if any man engages in the work of Christian help, do it with the full and clearly-shown sense that you are doing it by the strength which God supplies.”— In N, T., as in the classics, the word Aeyov is used in the cf Acts vis 38 ¢ Rom, 11. 2; Heb. v.12. The principle of the apostle’s injunction here ob- and in @ manner 2 sense of “a divine utterance : viously holds whether,—as sometimes in the primitive Church, —a man was speaking what had been given him by the im- mediate extraordinary suggestion of the Divine Spirit, or simply communicating to his brethren the result of studies in the word of God, studies prosecuted under the ordinary euid- ance of the Spirit invoked by prayer. In 2 Cor. ii. 17 we have from Paul, set forth in detail, the right spirit and manner 350 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Eve att of Christian “speaking,” here stated by our apostle in the con- densed form, @> Aoysa Ocod.—The verb yxopryetv, originally “to bring out, or defray the expense of bringing out, a chorus,” came naturally enough among the drama-loving Athenians to be used for “ to give abundant supply” generally. The verb in the simple form occurs in N. T. only here and in 2 Cor. ix. 10 ; somewhat more frequently the compound ézvyopnyetv, ergaGral aid: ty: Bi Pet. 150d. The object of this remembrance and acknowledgement of God to which the apostle has been urging his readers is now explicitly stated: “that in them all (all the yapécparta, thus exercised with true Christian humility) God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.” ITaovw may be masculine, “in all (the brethren),” and so De Wette and (alternatively) Calvin take it,—but the other view seems decidedly more accordant with the apostle’s course of thought. The essence of spiritual life is lovingly and joyously to recognise God as the Fountain of all good ; and thus the supreme end of Church life is to “ show forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvellous light.” This the Church does when, living to Him, she testifies continually that her life is through Him, that all her energies and beauties are “gifts” and “graces” from His hand. Conscious ever too of her own unworthiness, she knows, feels, testifies that as only “through Jesus Christ ” her spiritual emancipation was granted to her by God, so only through Him can her answering praise go up before God with acceptance ; cf. 11. 5, note. This statement of aim leads the apostle naturally, according to the impulses of the new life, to lift up his own soul, and invite his readers to unite with him in a direct doxology to God,—which at the same time is in its form, through the use of the present indicative (€o7iv), an express statement that “the glory” (here, in the connection, the glory of redemption and of all its blessings and “gifts” to the Church) “and the might” (by which the work of redemption was wrought out, and will throughout eternity have all its blessed results main- Ii 01.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ao tained) are God’s. Thus this doxology, whilst a true direct lifting up of the soul to God, presents at the same time the ground of the preceding ta do€afntrat. The natural reference of the relative therefore seems not to be to ’Incod Xpiotod, but, as has been assumed in the outline just given, to @eos, the subject of the clause; cf. Winer, p. 196.—The form of the doxology here is very nearly as in Rev. i. 6; cf. also Rev. v. 13.—For éotw in a doxology, cf. Rom. i. 25, and see note on 1, 3.—In doxologies generally, as here (but not invariably ; cf. Luke ii, 14; 1 Tim.i. 17; Jude 25), the article is found with d0£a, cparos, and other substantives similarly used. It may in such cases have its usual force when attached to abstract nouns—presenting the “glory,” “ might,” and the rest, in their utmost breadth of reference, and thus setting forth the fulness of the ascription of praise ; or it may mean “ that which is due, which it is right, and which all God’s moral creatures, unless wilfully blinded, feel it to be right to ascribe to Him ;” cf. Winer, p. 154. Probably both thoughts are intended. In the present passage the articles accord with the close rela- tion of the doxology to the verb do€a€yrav in the immediately preceding clause. The expression eés tods aidvas, frequent in N. T,, is of O. T. origin, being a LXX. rendering for piviy (Ps. xxvii. 8), as also for the sing. poiyd (Ps. civ. 31). ‘The strengthened form found in the present passage, e¢s To’s al@vas TOV aiovar, —also frequent in N. T., particularly in Revelation,—accords likewise with LXX. forms, eés ai@va atwvos (Ps, xix. 10), ets Tov al@va Tov aidvos (Ps. xlv. 7). The expression is evidently intended to present the thought of eternity in the very strongest way, answering to our English “for ever and ever.” It is formed on the analogy of such Hebrew superlative combina- tions as OTP Mp, ow Ww, and the like. The exact form of the conception seems to be that of a series of ages flowing on endlessly, in each of which a number of other shorter ages are gathered up. aoe FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 12-19. Vy. 12-19. Persecution for Christ's sake should be deemed an honour and a grownd of rejoicing. From iii. 13 to the end of the Epistle the difficulties and temptations specially connected with persecution are evidently so much in the apostle’s mind throughout, that a reference to some aspect of this particular form of trial may present itself naturally enough at any point. In the present section he enters into this subject somewhat systematically, directing attention more distinctly than elsewhere to the deep and varied sources of comfort which are open to the persecuted believer. It is not improbable that his taking up the theme in this way just at this point was immediately suggested by the doxology in ver. 11. In any age of the Church, Christians, unless thoughtful and mature, are apt to be startled and to find themselves prone to impatience if sudden and severe trouble fall upon them. To the Church of apostolic times— exulting, as we now do, in the knowledge that their Saviour had become Head over all things for the Church, and with no record of the experience of any past generations of His people, such as we possess, to guide their judgement with respect to the mode in which for their good He would administer His authority—persecution must have been pecu- liarly surprising and depressing. It is true that, in His addresses to His disciples, the Lord had frequently warned them that they ought to be prepared for the bitter hostility of the world; but, amid the glow of hope in the young Church, these intimations were very likely to be by a large proportion of the members forgotten. As Peter himself had in former days “thought it strange” that his Lord should suffer (Matt. xvi. 22), so practical proof that by the Ruler of the universe it was for a time to be permitted that those who loved and served Him should suffer insult and wrong at the hands of those who hated Him, must to a multitude of Christians have come as a most painful surprise—at first even to the extent of IV. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 3 Dick utter bewilderment. Where this sense of wonderment existed in some degree, a doxology to God expressly as the Author of the blessings of redemption, as in ver. 11, was plainly fitted to bring up the feeling with vividness: and now, accordingly, as if hearing from his suffering brethren the cry, “ How strange this dealing of our God and Father!” the apostle makes answer, with an intensity of affectionate appeal marked by his use of ayatntol, which is a very rare form of address with him in this Epistle (cf. ii. 11). He reminds them that affliction is one of the modes through which God confers His highest blessing of spiritual quickening, and that therefore nothing was more in accordance with His character as the God of salvation, and more fitted to call forth from enlightened minds grateful praise, than that very discipline by trouble which to some of them seemed “ strange.” Ver. 12. On £evifw cf. iv. 4, note. The dative joined to the verb here is that of the instrument: “be not surprised by ;” ef. Polyb. iii. 8, eEeniGovto TO 76 cupBeBnKos eiva Tapa THY mpocdoxiay. This view, that the dative is instrumental (on which cf. T. 8. Green, Crit. Notes, in loc.), seems to be simpler and more natural than that of Winer (p. 262), who, in his explanation of the construction, associates fevifecOar with atovoyetoOar and other verbs, in which some shade of the idea of “direction towards” is involved. The joining to the verb of an instrumental dative here, and of év in ver. 4, answers exactly to the freedom with which in English we may pass from “surprised by” to “surprised at.” That in the present instance the sense of “strangeness” was of a kind to depress and sadden—obvious from the nature of the case—is brought out particularly by the use of the strong adversative adda at the beginning of the next verse, placing yaipere in contrast with £evifer@e.—The word wvpwors occurs also in Rey. xviii. 9, 18, but only here in the figurative sense. In LXX. it is found in Prov. xxvii. 21, with the sense of “trial (of metals) by fire;” cf. the use of the verb mupodc@ai in Rev. iii. 18. In the present passage, however, it is plain that the word, Z BoA: FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [IV. 12. taken by itself, simply sets forth the severity of the persecu- tion,—the gracious purpose of the affliction, as “ trial,” being presented in the next clause: cf. i. 8. Compare also an inte- resting parallel, possibly a reminiscence of this passage, in Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, xvi. 5, tore (that is,in the age immediately preceding Christ's Second Advent) }£e0 9 xricus Tov avOporav eis THy Tipwow Ths Soxyacias— Ev viv means “among you,” the persecution immediately affecting only certain individuals in the Christian community. The case, however, is one illustrating with much distinctness the way in which év came to have this secondary sense of “ among,” —for the trouble was “in” « body so organized that, when one member suffered, there was sympathetic pain throughout the whole.— The article 77 imphes that the “ burning” is already distinctly before the minds of the readers, the present participle yevouevn intimating indeed that it is not merely imminent (as the mode of expression in the A. E. V. naturally suggests), but already begun. Nothing more, however, than the simple fact of the existence of the mvpwaus is, by the way in which the article is employed, assumed as known. The participial clause, having no article, is predicative, — the emphatic words mpds tetpacuov setting forth the thought which explains the divine dealing, and which those Chris- tians who “ thought it strange” had plainly for the moment forgotten. To the combination with the article, exhibiting something already known, new information is added by this participial combination without the article. The meaning is: “Be not astonished at it——coming upon you as it does (or, seeing that it comes upon you) for the purpose of trial.” For a precisely similar construction, cf. John ii. 9, To tSwp oivor ryeyevnpévor, “the water, which had now become wine,’—the fact of the changing to wine being here stated for the first time, and the participle accordingly left without the article. In the familiar construction exemplified in the last clause of the verse, a genitive absolute introduced by os, the os simply places the statement in a subjective connection, and FV. \13:] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 955 is often best rendered by “thinking that,” “saying that,” or the like; cf. eg. 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. v. 20; and see Jelf, § 701; Winer, p. 770; A. Buttmann, p. 318.—Bengel and some other expositors regard cupPaivovtos as in antithesis With ‘pds mecpacpov yivowévy, stress being laid on cupBatvoytos as involving an idea of chance, and the thought thus obtained, that what was really being done by God in His providence for a gracious end was perhaps by some of the apostle’s readers looked at in moments of faithless impatience as merely “happening” blindly, aimlessly,—or, more exactly, that their feeling about the matter was as if they regarded it in this way. It is probable that such a feeling was entertained by some cf them, and reference to it by Peter would have been perfectly relevant to his course of remark. But the idea does not seem to be expressed. Nothing in the position of the words of the clause suggests a special emphasis on cvpPaivovtos, nor does the use of this verb elsewhere in N. T. naturally lead a reader to think specially of blind chance; cf. eg. Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. x. 11. Neither does the circumstance that by giving prominence to the idea of chance we obtain a new and distinct thought, while otherwise the clause, coming after ur EeviGeoPe, may appear tautological, seem to have much weight. The simple fact that, having written FevifeoOe, the apostle afterwards uses the cognate adjective Eévou, shows that on this word the stress of the clause les,—the apostle having mainly before his mind the error of deeming the cc coming of persecution upon Christians to be “a strange thing,” when Christ Himself had plainly pointed out that persecution arose naturally out of the antagonism of the spirit of the world to the Spirit of God. The clause is tautological only as, through the expansion of thoughts that are felt to be important, tautology enters into all speak- ing and writing which aims at popular impression and conviction. Ver. 15. In this verse the apostle reminds his readers that those of them to whom persecution for Christ’s sake seemed 356 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {Iv. 13: “ strange,” had forgotten that Jesus was the Forerunner of His people as well as their Saviour and Lord, and that, as He had passed to the crown by way of the cross, so must His followers do. For personal sanctification, and for the good, in various ways, of fellow-believers, Christians must suffer, each in his sphere “ filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, for His body’s sake, which is the Church” (Col. i. 24). Spiritual religion being Christlike, and the world hating Christ, it follows that an invariable attendant of spiritual religion is in some form “ participation in the sufferings of Christ.” All down the generations the Lord’s word holds, “If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” The other part of the truth on the subject is, “It is a faithful saying, If we suffer we shall also reion with Him.” On the basis of this divine order, first suffering with Christ, then glory with Him, the apostle rests his present precept, “See that now ye accept the trial in a Christian spirit, im order that, being thus proved true believers, ye may have the blessed experiences of believers in the day of the Lord’s appearing;” cf. Rom. viii. 17, where also we have wa, intimating God’s aim in sending the sufferings—which, being cordially acquiesced in by His people, becomes their aim in bearing them. But Peter presents the duty in a specially interesting and pointed form. Under both kinds of experience—that now of trouble, and that by and by of glory—the true Christian spirit is essentially the same. In the measure of the liveliness and intelligence of his faith, the believer “ rejoices in the Lord alway” (Phil. iv. 4), yea, he “glories in tribulations also” (Rom. v. 8). Though, on the surface of his nature, “in heaviness” (AvmnGeis), when “manifold trials” come upon him (i. 6), yet deep down in his heart he has rest, joy, because he knows that the trials come from his Father, and are intended and fitted to make him more holy. Thus the precept can take the form, “ Rejoice in tribulation now, that ye may rejoice in glory hereafter.” IV. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. oo Ka6@o is an adverb of proportion, not therefore “ inasmuch as” (A. V.) in the ordinary causal sense of that combination, but in its strict etymological sense, “ according as,” “in pro- portion as:” cf. Rom. vii. 26; 2 Cor. vii. 12. The more abundant the “ participation in Christ’s sufferings,” the ampler to the enlightened Christian mind is the ground of joy.— That construction of the verb coivwveiy which is found here, with a dative of the thing participated in, is the usual one in N. T., in place of the ordinary classical construction with the genitive: cf. Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; 2 John 11. The genitive is found only in Heb. ii. 14. The construction with a dative of the thing was originally, in all likelihood, an extension of the regular construction of this verb with a dative of the person, and implied “communion with” rather than “ participation in,” there being thus an approach to personification of the object: cf. especially 1 Tim. v. 22; 2 John 11; and see Winer, p. 250; A.-Buttmann, p. 160; _ Ellicott on Gal. vi. 6—On dazoxaduyus, cf. i. 7,13. Most naturally, instead of, as in these other places, “the revelation of Christ,” we have here “the revelation of His glory,”’—the thought of the out-flashing of the glory pressing itself on the writer's mind, in vivid contrast with the previous time of obscuration in the Lord’s life of humiliation, and in the long ages of seemingly triumphant persecution of His people by the wicked.— of things hoped for;” so rightly R. E. V., “who am also a par- taker.” The apostle wishes his brethren—sharers with him in tribulation for Christ’s sake—to be sharers also in this gladsome and sustaining energy of “living hope.” He would have them look not around only, but forward and up. Peter had no doubt assurances from the Lord with regard to coming glory, which were specially for the apostles (as Luke xxii. 30), or even made particularly to himself (John xii. 56); but in the present connection his mind, we may feel convinced, was resting mainly on those promises of glory which were spoken directly of all Christ’s people (as John xvii. 20-—24).—On Tijs meAXNoVoNS atoxaduTTecOar do€ns, cf. i. 5, note. Ver. 2. The apostle’s injunction to the elders to care for those entrusted to them is couched under the figure so common both in O. T. and N. T., and which has passed into common ” language in the official name “pastor ;” cf. il. 25, with note. TIotpaivey is—in accordance with its probable derivation 382 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. EV. 9: from the root (Sanscr.) pa, “ protect” (Curtius, Gr. Etym. § 372)—a word of much wider reference than Booxew; ct. Ps. xxiii. 1, Kupuos trowwaiver we, and see Trench, Syn. NV. 7. § 25. It comprehends all the departments of a shepherd's work, quaintly summed up by Alford as “leading, feeding, heeding,” and in English best set forth by the word “tend.” By the special sharpness and energy of the aorist imperative, the injunction calls upon the elders to have their official life as a unity characterized by the spirit of devotion to service ; on this striking use of the aorist, sometimes also in the indi- cative, compare ii. 22, note on ézroinoev. On the formation, prevalent in the later Greek, of the first aorist in -ava from verbs in -awvo, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 41.—The dignity, and at the same time the solemn responsibilities connected with the office and work of spiritual “shepherds,” are impressively illustrated by the addition to woturiov of tod Oeod (cf. Ps. e. 3; Isa. xl. 11)—On the substance and form of the whole of the present injunction, cf. particularly Paul’s words in Acts xx. 28, 29,—words addressed in all likelihood to some of those very elders to whom Peter here writes. The words To év tyuiv have by some (so A. E. V. marge.) been taken adverbially, attached to zrowwavare, “as much as in} you is;” ef. To €& vuov, Rom. xii. 18, and perhaps also TO Kat éué, Rom. i. 15. It does not appear at all probable that the apostle would append to a precept like the present a weakening expression such as this,—especially when we recall the absolute form in which the same commission had been given by the Lord to Peter himself (John xxi. 16), a form which, there can be little doubt, was in his mind when he wrote the words before us. Taking to év tpiv columnov together, the sense has been supposed to be “the flock entrusted to you,” on the analogy of the combination eivas or KkeicGas év touvt, “to depend on some one.” Substantially, no doubt, the meaning is something of this kind, but to find the sense of “depend on” in ev alone is forced. With the echo of the quite unambiguous €v vy of ver. 1 still Vv. 2.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 383 lingering on the ear, there is good reason to take év vtyiv here also with the same meaning, that which prima facie presents itself to every reader,—‘ the flock of God which is among you” being a free but perfectly natural and in- telligible mode of saying what is yet more expressly indicated by the plural «Ajpev in ver. 3, “those portions of the flock that live in your districts, and are thus under your care.” Indeed, the fact that in both verses the apostle’s mode of expression is ev vty, seems to show it as a thought lying in his mind,—whether the words were definitely intended to suggest it or not,—that whilst, as is fully recognised, the elders were in certain respects “over” the private members, yet the most important relation, claiming to be constantly remembered by both, was that which is represented by “in, among,’—“ members one of another” (Rom. xii. 5); cf. Acts xx. 28, év d. Whether ézicxorrovytes be read or left out does not sub- stantially affect the sense. The adverbs connect themselves quite as naturally with the main verb wowdvate. Supposing the word to belong to the text, the same uncertainty presents itself here as in il. 25 (where see note) with respect to the precise point of view,—whether the primary sense referring to the shepherd, or the secondary: with the official application, is prominent in the writer’s mind,—“ exercising the over- sight” (which belongs to you as shepherds), or “ exercising your functions as bishops.” ; The apostle’s precept enters into detail with respect to the mode of “tending the flock,” giving three particular injunc- tions, each of these in both a negative and a positive form. Looking at the first two positive statements, we find that there is an advance on one line from simple “ willingness ” to “zeal.” Seeing, however, that when we turn to the nega- tives we find nothing of this kind, but faults which belong to distinct categories named, and this in language so definite as naturally to fix a specific reference for the somewhat general positive terms in the antithesis——it seems clear that the apostle’s 384 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 2. course of thought is not climactic, or at all events is such only in a secondary way. The three vicious modes of pastoral dealing which Peter forbids—and which throughout the his- tory of the Church have wrought incalculable injury to the character and influence of a vast number of her office-bearers are, first, mere formal work, without true heartiness, the work of men whom some kind of social pressure or other simply external power has forced into a service which they dislike ; secondly, work done merely, or mainly, for pecuniary gain ; thirdly, work done in a spirit of personal arrogance, With the first fault is placed in contrast the sincere “ will- ingness” of the man who loves his Saviour, and longs to serve Him. On this whole clause compare as an interesting commentary (though the reference there is not exactly to pastoral work) Philem. 14. A moment’s consideration shows that there is no con- tradiction between Peter’s 2 dvayxactas and Paul’s avaynn prot €mrixertat in 1 Cor. ix. 16,—seeing that with Paul the “necessity ” was that which sprang from a recognition of the will of Christ, to which the apostle’s own will joyfully assented. It is obvious that in the measure in which this advayx«n is felt will really be the efficiency of the discharge of pastoral duty. —The probable reading «cata QOecov forms a striking and beautiful close to the first of these clauses of detail. The preposition seems to be best taken here with its familiar force of indicating a standard or model (cf. i. 15, iv. 6 ; Eph, iv. 24),—“ exercising the oversight not by constraint, but will- ingly, like God,” or “as God does” (iii, 12). The meaning may also be. (cf. Rom. viii. 27 352 Cor. vii. 9, 10, 11),%an accordance with the will of God.” In Cranmer’s English Version these words have been inserted, in a somewhat hesitating way marked by the mode of printing, and in the form “after a godly sorte.” With the second wrong mode of procedure mentioned— namely, acting as elders from love of money—is contrasted the “hearty readiness, alacrity ” (cf. Rom. i. 15; 2 °Coy ce oud FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 385 vill. 11, 12), which has its impulse not from the consideration of anything belonging only to this world, but from the energies of the new life in Christ (“ut fructus non sit merces, sed pastura,” Bengel). In pdé aicypoxepdas there is manifestly nothing opposed to the ordinance “ that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. ix. 14). The apostle’s reference is expressly to “ base gain.” Now the payment made by his people to a pastor whose heart is in his work is not base gain, but the very reverse, a most honourable support. On the other hand, from the essentially spiritual objects of office in the Church of Christ, the pay- ment made to a pastor who holds his office solely, or mainly, that he may obtain this, becomes in his case “ filthy luere,” “ wages of unrighteousness.” The adverb aicypoxepdas, “ from, or in the spirit of, desire for base gain,’ is not found else- where ; but the adjective occurs both in classical writers aC imeN st wl Sinai oist itie 7.3 ek also Vitel, Tay Ver. 5. The sentence passes here into a participial form, the participles, like the adverbs, describing a right and a wrong spirit and manner of “tending the flock of God.” Kara- Kuptevovtes is by some (as Huther) taken to involve that idea of hostility or oppressiveness which «ata gives in many compounds, “ tyrannizing over.” But this view of the force of the word does not seem to be supported either by the usage of LXX. or N. T. The verb is generally employed, according to another familiar use of cata in composition, as simply a somewhat strengthened form for cupiedo, In LXX. it is applied as freely to gracious government—-see Jer. ili. 14 ; Ps. Ixxi. (Ixxi. Sept.) 8—as to oppressive—Ps. x. 10 (x. 30, Sept.), cxix. (cxviil.) 133. In N.T. the verb is found in three places besides the present. To the statements in Matt. xx. 25, Mark x. 42, where it occurs, an exact parallel in our Lord’s teaching is recorded by Luke (xxii. 25) in connection with a different incident, and there we have the simple xuptev@. In Acts xix. 16, again, the word means “to master, overcome,” according to a frequent LX-X. use in places where 2 8B 386 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 3. quite manifestly no idea of reproach is intended. — The precise meaning in our passage of T&v Kdnpwv also, “ the lots, allotments,’ has been debated. The view set forth in Wycliffe’s rendering, “nether as havynge lordschip in the clergie,” after the Vulgate in cleris, is an anachronism. This use of the word, no doubt, originated early (Tertullian has it, and not as being new), but it has no support in N. T. In the present passage, moreover, in which only the “ elders ” and “the flock of God” as a whole are mentioned, and which is plainly directly addressed to all the elders, such a reference would be out of place and inconsistent. The interpretation followed in the Geneva Enelish Version, and adopted by the Authorized, “ God’s heritage,” exhibits a thought in itself true and beautiful. The spiritual Israel might well be called, as ancient Israel is called again and again, the “lot, portion, heritage” of God, kdAjjpos (Deut. ix. 29), «Anpovouia (Isa. xix. 25), wepls xai cyolvicwa Kdnpovopias (Deut. xxxii. 9). This thought is indeed very nearly the same as that set forth by Peter in ii. 9, Xaos els wepuroinow. But in our passage the absence of Oeov, and the use of the plural,—which with kXpos, applied in the way under consideration, seems to have no analogy, God’s people forming one heritage,—are strong and apparently decisive objections to our accepting this as the intended sense. The probable reference is to the various congregations, as “allotted” by God in His providential arrangements to different groups of the elders; so Tyndale, “not as though ye were lordes over the parisshes ;” and R. V., “neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you” (in which “ charges” would surely have been better), This use of xAjpos, though not found elsewhere in N. T., is in itself perfectly accordant with the meaning of the word. If mpoce- KAnpwoOncay in Acts xvii. 4 be taken as passive in meaning, “were allotted” (as portion, or fruit of ministry), a close parallel to our passage presents itself; but the sense is not improbably middle, “cast in their lot with, consorted with.” —According to the results of our examination of the separate ee a FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 387 words then, the meaning of the clause appears to be, “ not as exercising lordship over your allotments.” With regard to this point of duty, cf. Matt. xx. 25-28; 2 Cor. i. 24. On the positive side, the direct antithesis would be “ but as counting yourselves their servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. iv. 5). Implying this, the apostle prefers, instead of stating the duty in this general form, to specify the great mode in which they will show themselves wise servants of their brethren, living for their help,— but becoming ”—growing ever more fully by thoughtfulness, prayerfulness, and definite effort—* the flock’s ensamples.” On the force of yiveo@ae in ethical advices to Christians, see iii. 13, note. On tv7rot, as here used, ef. Phil. iii. 17; 1 Thess. i. 7. Ver. 4. Promise of a rich reward to the elder who has faithfully tended the flock of God. Whidst in every age of the Church Christ’s servants find thought of the reward to be needful and stimulating, it is obvious that in times of per- secution, such as the time in which this Epistle was written, elders, exposed by their prominent position to peculiar hostility and danger, have for that reason peculiar need to look up from the cross to the crown. For xaé used, as frequently, with what is sometimes called a “consecutive” force, “and so,” ef. eg. Matt. xxii. 32; Phil. iv. 7,9: on Phil. iv. 12, Ellicott has an excellent note on the various uses of this conjunction. —The verb davepoda@as, here used of the Lord’s Second Coming, has been employed by the apostle elsewhere (i. 20) of the Incarnation. John also has the word with both references,—to the Incarnation, 1 John iii. 5, 8; to the Second Coming, 1 John ii. 28, iil, 2. For the present application, cf. also Col. 11. 4.—The word apxiroiuny is not found in classical writers, and occurs in N. T. here only; but cf. ii, 25; Heb. xiii 20.—The so-called Attic future of verbs in -(f (Jelf, § 203), as here copieiode, is not uncommon in N. T.; eg. a¢opiodow, Matt. xiii. 49 ; éAmovoww, Rom. xv. 12. Of xopiSouac the future in -toopas also occurs, Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii, 25: see Westcott and Hort’s 388 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Nias Gr. Test. App. p. 163.—On the “ crown of glory,” cf. “ crown of life,’ Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10; “crown of righteousness,” 2 Tim. iv. 8. In all these cases the genitive is one of appo- sition,—the “glory,” “life,” “righteousness,” being itself the “crown.” The glory is (cf. ver. 10) participation in the com- municable glory of the Redeemer—Himself S0& éotepave- pévov, Heb. ii. 9.—To take auapavtwos as simply another form for dudpavtos (i. 4) yields a satisfying sense, “the unfading crown (garland) of glory.” It is to be observed, however, that both of these words, which do not occur else- where in N. T., are also rare in secular literature; and the fact that, using a rare word twice in his short letter, the apostle has two forms, suggests as likely that the two were not thought of by him as being quite equivalent in meaning. Now there is evidence that adudapavtos was used substantively, to designate an imagined unwithering flower; and in the form amaranthus the name has been received into scientific botany as that of a genus of plants which long retain their freshness. From the substantive duwapavtos is, by the usual termination indicating material, regularly formed apapdvtwos, “made of amaranth, amaranthine,’—as &vAwos, “ wooden ;” podivos, “ made of roses ;” axavOwos, “ made of thorns” (John xix. 5), Thus we seem to have here really a passing poetic reference to the garden of the heavenly paradise; and evidently from our passage, regarded in this light, Milton has obtained the suggestion of his exquisite lines, Paradise Lost, iii, 353-356. Cf. also Clem. Alex. Pedag. ii. 8, 0 Kados Tov Gmapavtov otépavos amdKertat Tots KAaA@S TETTOALTEUMEVOLS. To the mind of every Christian reader the thought of the otépavos auapavtivos which the grace of our Lord gives to us, suggests at once the remembrance of the orépavos axavOwos which our sin gave to Him. A question has been raised with regard to the exact reference and shade of meaning intended by Peter in using the image of a “crown.” Is this crown the emblem of kingly dignity, or of honour for victory in struggle—the garland Vv. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 389 at the Greek games,—or of festal gladness—the garland worn at entertainments sometimes among the Jews (Isa. xxviii. 1 ; Prov. i. 9, iv. 9; Wisd. ii. 8; Ecclus. i. 11), as well as among the Greeks and Romans? The otédavos tis Swfs of Rev. ii. 10 is not improbably a royal crown; for, as that book seems to move throughout in the circle of Hebrew imagery, an allusion to the eames of the heathen is unlikely ; and in chap. iv. 4, 10, créfavos appears almost certainly to designate a royal crown (ef. Trench, Comm. on Epistles to the Seven Churches, on il. 10). In Jas. i. 12, also, the same expression may naturally enough—and, when we remember the markedly O. T. tone of thought characteristic of that Epistle, may with likeli- hood—be regarded as meaning either a kingly crown or the festal wreath. In the place before us, however, neither the royal nor the festal reference is suitable. The floral allusion which seems to be distinctly present in dpapavtivos shows Peter’s thought not to be of a diadem, but of a garland; and the connection suggests certainly the idea of reward of successful effort rather than that of festal joy. It seems natural, therefore, to regard him as having had in his mind the wreath of victory at the games. Looking at Peter’s obvious familiarity with the Epistles of Paul, in which these contests and their rewards are often referred to, and at the fact that he was writing to Christians living in a region where everything connected with such games was very well known, there is no difficulty in admitting that this is his thought here. Ver. 5. On the duty of the younger people in relation to their elders, coupled with an injunction of humility of spirit on all, elder and younger alike. On opotws used of correlation, cf. iii. 7, note. In the present case the word is specially suitable, seeing that (as Bengel observes) humility has been set forth (ver. 3) as the 390 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 5. proper spirit of the ruling members of the congregation, as well as, here, of the ruled. It is obvious that rpeoButépos here has, at least primarily, the same reference as. mpec- Butépovs in ver. 1, which, beyond question, is to office- bearers. To take the word in the present verse as not also having this sense in the foreground is wholly unnatural, and, in particular, would remove from opotws all relevancy. Who, then, are the vewtepou 2? There does not seem to be likelihood in the view of Weiss, that the reference in this word is to a special class of officials in the Church, set apart for the discharge of duties requiring physical strength, and spoken of in Acts v. 6 (vewTepos), 10 (veavicxor), as performing such duties. Such a class of officers is not mentioned elsewhere ; and the variation of designation in the verses in Acts seems to indicate that the explanation which probably presents itself first to every reader of that passage is the true one,—namely, that the younger members of the company at once instinc- tively took upon them a work which naturally fell to them. Seeing, moreover, that the apostle’s previous injunction spoke of the duties of elders to the whole body of those placed under their charge, the correlation marked by opotws leads one to think here of an address to the Church members generally—not specially to a certain class of officials, how- ever pointedly correlative the names mpeoBuvtepos and vewTepor might in themselves seem. Many expositors accordingly think of all the non-official members of the various congregations— all those members who were not officially mpecSuvtepo.—as being intended by vewtepot. This, however, would not accord with the recognised sense of the word, except on the supposi- tion, which we have no reason whatever to regard as well founded, that all the older members of Christian Churehes were in the first age chosen to be also officially “ elders.” The most satisfactory explanation of the verse appears to be afforded by considering the reference in mpecButépous to the office-bearers to be, whilst the primary, not the sole one. That experience given by age which—as in yepoucta, senatus, FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 391 < os jo “alderman,” and the like—the name mpecSvrepos suggests as an important element of qualification for office, was, it is reasonable to think, actually present as a rule among the eldership of the primitive Church; and one can easily under- stand how, in giving an injunction to the congregations to show deference to those elderly men among them who were ? officially “elders,” the apostle might almost unconsciously class with these the other elderly members, and might thus address his injunction directly to the “ younger people.” An objection to this view has been based on the fact that what Peter enjoins is not “deference,” but “ submission,” which appears to imply official subordination. But if the official elders were primarily in the apostle’s mind, this seems sufficient to explain his using vrotaynte; and the force of that word—one sometimes of wide reference (cf. Eph. v. 21) —shades into something more general in relation to other elderly people. Precisely the same implicit transition from the special to a general use of mpexPutepor seems to present itself in Polye. §§ 5, 6. In Clem. Rom. also (§§ 1, 21) there is something similar, ambiguity, however, being present here, so that Harnack, for example, thinks official elders to be spoken of, whilst other editors exclude this reference. It is obvious that in English, in the same way, an injunction addressed to the younger members of a Presbyterian congre- gation to “honour their elders” might be of doubtful or double reference. In 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, it seems plain from the structure of the sentence that in mpeoButépm age alone is referred to: cf. the parallel in Tit. ii. 2, 8, where the words are mpec Bitar and mpecPuTides.—On the use of the passive aorist Urotaynte with a middle force, cf. ii. 13.—On the duty here enjoined, in its special reference, cf. Heb. xiii. 17 ; 1 Thess. v.12; 1 Tim. v. 17; in its general reference, Lev. xix. 32. The second part of the verse might almost claim to be placed in a section by itself. The particle dé, however, according to its use here, links the new precept so closely to that just given that it is perhaps best grouped with it. As 392 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 5. often, d€ has something of a corrective force, which may be paraphrased thus: “ But why give a series of detailed pre- cepts, when one injunction really suffices, if prayerfully pondered, to guide you aright in your relations to each other?” “Yea,” of both A. and R. V., is an excellent rendering. Two constructions are possible for the dative adAndozs. The first part of the verse may run on to and include this word, in which case it is governed by vtotdynte understood. —“ Likewise, ye younger, be subject to your elders; yea, all of you (be subject) to one another.” The precept given accord- ing to this arrangement has abundant analogies, as Rom. xii. 10, Phil. ii. 8, and has a verbal parallel in Eph. v. 21. The transition from the kind of taotayn due to oftice-bearers to that due generally by one believer to another may seem abrupt; yet there is scarcely in this a ground of objection to the construction, seeing that, according to what appears to be the most likely view of the sense of the first clause of the verse, there has already been a certain widening out of the reference of vrordynre. An objection, however, does present itself in the fact that the following sentence would begin without a connective particle. Such a structure is not without parallel in the Epistle where a new paragraph begins (e.g. i. 22,1113); but with the sequence of thought so close as it appears to be here, the want of a conjunction seems not to be natural. So unnatural, indeed, does this appear, that if—all things being taken into account—the construction under dis- cussion were deemed the true one, there would be fair reason for deciding to begin a new paragraph with tiv tamresvodpocvyny, severing the injunction to humility from all reference to the preceding precept. In that case mdvtes 5€ addnAots would certainly be an abrupt mode of closing a paragraph. On the whole, the other division of the words appears to be preferable, according to which the new sentence begins with aravtes. In this case, aAAndoLts associates itself with éycouBooacbe, with that wider force of the dative of advantage which is often V. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 393 found in N. T. (cf. ii. 24, note), “for, in relation to, one another.” On “all,’ elder and younger people alike, the apostle enjoins “ humility.” That lowly opinion of one’s own character and deserts which is given by candid self-scrutiny in the light of God’s revelation, conjoined—as true Christian humility always is—with the disposition to think the best that is possible of others, is the secret of “sweet reason- ableness”” and pleasant helpfulness in all the relations of life; and the prevalence of this spirit in the Church would gvidently secure concord and happiness, and show to the world the heavenliness of Christianity. On tazrewodpocvvn, ef. 111. 8, note. The verb éyxowBotdc@az occurs in N. T. here only, and but seldom in Greek literature. It was not employed by Attic writers, and—judging from the nationality of the first who are known to have used it, Epicharmus and Apollodorus of Gela—appears to have been originally a Sicilian provincialism. The meaning of the verb and its cognates has been largely discussed, the fullest and best dissertations being by Gataker in his Adver- saria Miscellanea, and by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum Opusc. Koos is “a band, a stripe of cloth used for a fastening :” hence éyxouBovabar, “to fasten or gird on one’s self.” To the interpretation adopted by some (as A. E. V.), which makes Peter’s precept here exactly equivalent to Paul’s in Col. ili. 12, évddcac0e tarewodpocvryny, “put on humility (as a garment),” Fritzsche’s objection appears insuperable, “Si nihil aliud nisi hoc Petrus dicere voluisset, mirum videri quod verbum tam insolens éyxouBooace quam simplex et in hac re usitatum évdvcacOe ponere maluerit.” Feeling this, many expositors have added, as naturally suggested by the force of xou Bos, the idea of firmness, “ bind upon you:” so Bengel, “induite vos et involvite, ut amictus humilitatis nulla vi vobis detrahi possit.” But by the way in which the substantive éyxouBwya was used, other aspects of the mean- ing of the verb are suggested as at least possible. This name was given to a white scarf or apron, usually worn by slaves, 394 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. GWe+8. and regarded as a mark of their condition,—also, however, worn sometimes by children belonging to other ranks of life. Now, by his examination of the passages in which the verb occurs, Fritzsche seems to make out pretty clearly that in use, instead of its primary generality of sense, it took up into its meaning, frequently at least, the special force of its derivative noun, signifying therefore “encomboma sibi incingere.” Accordingly, applying the servile reference, Fritzsche, follow- ing Heinsius, translates our passage, “Omnes autem lubenter alter alteri cedentes modestiam vobis pro servorum encom- bomate incingite,” and paraphrases thus, “declarant servi implicato encombomate se heris obnoxios esse,—ita vos omnes alterum alteri obnoxium esse sumpta modestia ostendite.” Gataker again, applying the case of the occasional use of the encomboma by free-born young people, brings in the idea of adornment, translating thus, “ Humilitatem induite, ut encom- bomata virgines ingenuse,—quibus,” as he goes on in explana- tion, “se decore vestitas exhibebant, ubi in hominum conspectum prodibant.” Among the three specialties which may thus be thought of as attaching themselves in this verb to the simple idea of “putting on,’—viz. “firmly,” “for adornment,” “ for service to others,” preference appears decidedly due to the last, for the following reasons. First, the prevalence of the wear- ing of the encomboma by slaves was much more likely to suggest this as an element in any figurative application than the occasional use of the garment by free children. Secondly, as a feature in the representation, this is specially suitable to the particular grace here spoken of, humility. Thirdly, the construction of the verb with the dative adAndos suggests that in the writer’s mind there associated itself with éyxouSovo8at some definite thought of tendency or action towards—such as is well brought out by the rendering given in R. E. V., “gird yourselves with humility to serve one another.” Regarded in this light, the word was obviously fitted to bring up before the heart with much vividness the supreme example of humility, through recalling that amazing Vv. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 395 scene when the Son of God, about to do the work of a servant, “took a towel and girded Himself.” In the last clause of the verse the apostle brings forward a strong ground for “putting on as servants the garment of humility,’ in the form of a citation from Prov, ii. 54, “Because God resisteth—setteth Himself as a warrior in array against—the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” For a poetical expansion of this thought, see Mary’s Song, Luke 1. 51-53. In the connection in which Peter has this passage, the arrogant bearing towards fellow-men which is prompted by the pride of an unrenewed heart, and the meekness and kindness towards fellow-men which spring from Christian humility, are primarily suggested by otmepydavois and TaTrewvots respectively. At the same time, the aspects of these states of heart directly towards God present themselves im- mediately to thought also, and in tazrewwOnrte xTr. of the next verse these aspects come evidently into the foreground. On the precise meaning of trepndavos, which makes this adjective specially suitable in the connection in which the apostle sets it here (“superbus cum aliorum contemptu et contumelia,” Tittmann), cf. Trench, Syn. N. 7. § 29, and Westcott on 1 John ii. 16, note on a@dafovia. The passage is cited by Peter exactly as in LXX., except that for Kupios he has @eds, a substitution which is found also in the quotation as made by James (iv. 6). Clement of Rome, too (§ 30), and Ignatius (Zph. § 5), have Oecos. Vy. 6-11. Ezhortation to restfulness of heart in God, conjoined with spiritwal vigilance. Ver. 6. Some good interpreters (as Calvin and Bengel) would not begin a new paragraph here, but think that the subordination of the younger people to their elders, and of all, according to their varied relations, to each other, is still prominent in the apostle’s mind,— the argument, on this 396 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Vang! view, being that it is “God’s mighty hand” which has instituted such distinctions as call for subjection. , But the emphasis of the modes of expression, “the mighty hand” and “casting your anxiety,” seems quite decidedly ‘to show that that persecution for conscience’ sake to which the apostle has referred so often in the Epistle, of which he has spoken with special fulness only a few verses before (iv. 12-19), and which he expressly mentions again immediately after (vv. 9, 10), constitutes the ground of his observations here also. He keeps still to the injunction of “humility,” but (cf. note on ver. 5) turns here from the manward to the directly Godward aspect of this grace. He calls upon his Christian brethren to be so under the influence of a true know- ledge of their personal unworthiness as patiently to bear the afflictions which God sends,—deeming it to be of His mercies that they are not consumed but chastened, and showing their consciousness, alike of their own helplessness and of God’s goodness, by casting all their anxiety over upon Him. “The hand of God” is a familiar O. T. expression (eg. Ezra vill. 22, 31; Ps. xxxii. 4), and occurs a number of times with the attribute “ mighty,” yelp xpatata, LXX. (eg. Deut. ui. 24; Job xxx. 21). The figure, designating simply the divine activity, obviously may be, and in fact is, applied either to dealings of mercy or of judgement, the context indicating the reference. In the present case, whilst, of course, the strength which can “exalt” when the fit time comes is suggested to the mind, yet plainly what is directly pointed to is afflictive discipline; and, by the sharp aorist imperative, the believers are called on to see that there be no delay in their “humbling themselves” under this dis- cipline. The verb tavevwOnre was no doubt immediately suggested by tamewodpoovyny and tamewots of ver. 5,— ovv indeed implying this, “seeing that God giveth grace to the humble.” Compare also, however, in LXX. the last clause of Gen. xvi. 9, which, though speaking merely of human relations, has a curious resemblance to the present W071 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 397 clause, and may conceivably have been echoing in Peter’s memory. The conjunction tva presents a thought which the apostle’s mode of expression throughout the letter shows to have been specially familiar to him,—* Longing, as I know you are, to be glorified with Christ, prove, by a right spirit under suffering, your union to Him in cross-bearing now, in order that you may have union with Him in crown-wearing here- after: ” cf. iv. 13. No principle could well have been more familiar to the personal companions of our Lord than this: eh Matt.exxiiyi 12; Luke xiv 11; xvini. 14. . 2! Cory xif7 may also be compared for a different thought, presented in a very striking way by words somewhat similar to those employed here.—For év xaip@, common in classical writers, “at the appointed time” (“not thy fancied time, but His own wisely-appointed time,” Leighton), cf. Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xil, 42. The apostle’s main reference, as regards this xazpos, is doubtless to the Lord’s Second Coming (cf. iv. 7),—not however, to the exclusion of other seasons of deliverance which God may grant to His people. A considerable number of authorities add émicKom}s to carpe. This fills out what is no doubt the true meaning; but the word is in all likelihood a gloss from i. 12 (on which see note).—For an ? interesting reference to this verse in the letter from the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, see Introd. § I. 2. Ver. 7. The apostle here describes the manner in which the tazresvovaOar of ver. 6 will act,—clothing his thought, as so often, in an O. T. vesture. He turns into a participial form the precept with which Ps. lv. (liv., Sept.) 22 begins, b] U ’ \ / \ S. / emippiyov émi Kupiov thy péptuvay cov; and the assurance also which follows in that verse, cal adros ce diab peyves, ov dacet , \ tA / lal ’ . . els TOV al@va caddov T@ Sikal@, he gives in substance, though in wholly different phraseology,—presenting the statement, moreover, expressly as a ground of confidence, by the use of ove. Christian humility leads to an entire discarding of trust in self, and to the casting, by the prayer of faith, of all the 398 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Ws o% soul’s anxiety, with regard both to this world and the next, upon God,—and this from the knowledge that He cares for His people, and therefore will, in His providence, work in all things for their good, and by His grace bring them at last to glory. The word “ casting,” distinct from mere quiet “ laying ” or “placing,” obviously implies difficulty and consequent energetic effort. On the precept, cf. Ps. xxxvil. 5; Matt. vi. 25; Phil. iv. 6. The aorist participle éripipavres is plainly, from its meaning, not conceived as antecedent in time to the main verb razrewvoOnte, but coincident (cf. Mark xv. 30; Acts xxl. 16, 2nd cl.)—the construction being analogous to what is found so frequently in N. T., an aorist indicative and aorist participle coinciding in time: cf. Winer p. 430. In its connection, the participle has itself practically an imperative force,—the construction being, indeed, simply a formal change, in accordance with the structure of the sentence, from the Psalmist’s émipperyov. On the spelling of émipiaytes with one p,—which, in the best MSS. of N. T., is found also in a considerable number of other words that in classical prose have always the letter doubled, particularly, as here, com- pounds with prepositions,—cf. A. Buttmann, p. 32. By employing both “care” and “careth” in this verse, the A. E. V., and older versions, give an appearance of verbal correspondence in the two clauses which does not accord with the original: compare the use of “conformed” and “transformed” in Rom, xii. 2. Mépsuva is—in accordance with what (notwithstanding the doubts of some eminent philologists,—see Curtius, Gr. Etym. §§ 466, 467) may still be deemed the probable, as it is certainly the prima facie, connection of the word with pépos, pepiSo — “ distracting ] care, anxiety,” such as may readily prevent us from “ uniting the heart” to serve God, and tends to make a man dAbvyos (Jas. i. 8). Cf. Virgil’s fine sketch, Aen. vii. 19-21, On pépysva and pepipvaw, cf. Mark iv. 19; Matt. vi. 25, 28. Wiesinger well remarks on the richness of the assurance implied in the fact that not ta, but ov, is the conjunction V..38; 9.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 399 by which the latter clause of the verse is attached to the former,—and on the emphasis given to this assurance by the arrangement of the pronouns, avT@ (uéde) being placed at the head of its clause to give immediate support to éw adtév with which the other has ended. “ Humble yourselves under the mighty hand, because that mighty hand obeys the behest of a Father’s heart” (Besser). When heathenism in its higher flights approaches the Christian position of casting the soul’s burden on God (as in M. Anton. iv. 31, ro 6€ drdXouTrov Tod Biov dieEehOe ws Oeots péev emutetpopas Ta ceavTod TdyTa cE Odns THs Wuyis), the most marked point of distinction from the sentiment as expressed in revelation is the total absence of that brightness of hope which springs from the knowledge that “He careth for us.”—For pédex construed with zrepi (as sometimes in classical writers), cf. Matt. xxii. 16; John x. 13,—which latter passage vividly illustrates the present by contrast; construed with the simple genitive, 1 Cor. ix. 9; with the nominative of the thing,—the con- struction in this place being doubtful, however,— Acts xviii. 17. The first clause of this verse is repeatedly quoted by Hermas (Vis. i. 11, iv. 2, bis)—probably, however, judging from the form of a clause appended on the third occasion, not from Peter, but from the Psalm. Vv. 8, 9. The apostle’s thought advances in a simple and natural way. The persecutions of earthly foes, and those anxieties which these persecutions were apt to excite, made it —even if the statement of the case ended there—a difficult thing to live the Christian life of patience and trust in God. But behind these troubles, and acting through them, was he who is by pre-eminence tie enemy of God and God’s people, the personal head of the kingdom of evil,—who is ever ranging the world, seeking to draw the children of light back into darkness, and thus destroy them. The Christian there- fore must always be spiritually-minded and vigilant, and thus ready to resist the devil. Whilst casting all his solicitude on the Lord, he must remember at the same time, as perfectly 400 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 8. consistent with this, that God calls on His people to “ work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,”’—to be not inert, but open-eyed and full of energy. “Whilst God careth for you, be ye sober, watch, resist,” hee vestra cura sit” (Bengel). Ver. 8. The verb vide signifies a state of mind and heart unbeclouded by sensual influences : cf. 1.15, note. Ipyyopeiv, being derived immediately from éyp7jyopa, seems strictly to describe a waking state, looked on “as the effect of some arousing effort, and so a condition of alertness and watchful- ness” (T. S. Green): for illustration of the N. T. force of this word, cf. particularly Mark xiii. 35-37. The same combina- tion of verbs as here—in the inverse order, however,—occurs in 1 Thess. v. 6. The apostle’s call to duty is given with marked energy and decision, indicated both by the use of the aorist imperative and by the absence of a conjunction. A suggestion of Besser is striking, and seems not improbable, that the particular injunction yenyopjoate may, in its con- nection here, have been brought into the apostle’s mind by a remembrance of the command given to himself on an occasion which we may well believe to have never been very far away from his memory (Matt. xxvi. 40, 41). In the correct reading, the second clause has no 670; and there is a manifest gain in vigour of expression through the want of the particle in a place lke this, where the nature of the connection is so obvious.——For dytiéicos used in its primary and ordinary classical sense, “an adversary at law,” see Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58, xviii. 3. The secondary use, for “an enemy” generally, was poetical among the Greeks (as Aischyl. Agam. 41), and occurs here only in N, T., but is found sometimes in LXX.,—cf. 1 Sam. i. 10; Isa. xli. 11. In the present case the word answers to the Hebrew j0¥, not here, however, as a proper name, but a common noun, the defining name didBodos following in apposition. On ayti- dixos, as here employed, compare the use of 0 avtixe/wevos by Clem. Rom. § 51 (6 dvtixe(wevos of 1 Tim. v. 14 has also by Chrysostom and many other expositors been understood of vw. 8:1 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 401 Satan, but improbably). The name dsa@Boros, when used of Satan, is seldom found without the article ; hence some have been disposed to take as its article here that before davtiScKos, making ayridicos an adjective, and translating the words “ your opposing evil spirit” (so Bishop Middleton, Gr. Art. p. £51), or in some similar way. This is plainly far from natural, and there is no real need for deviating from the prima facie construction which takes 8vaBoXos as in apposition to avtidévcos,—its anarthrousness being due to its being dealt with as a proper name, in the same way as often Qeos, Kvpsos, and others ; cf. Winer, p. 148 foll. See a similar anarthrous use of the word in Acts xiii. 10; Rev. xx. 2; ef. also cases of Yatavas without its usual article, Mark iii. 23 ; Luke xxii. 3. The comparison of the fury of the enemies of God’s people to that of a wild beast is common in Scripture: cf. Ps. xvii. 12, xxu.13; Ezek. xxii.25. A reader not unnaturally thinks of this figure as having a somewhat special fitness in the present passage, after the representation in vv. 2, 3, of the godly as a “ flock:” cf. John x. 12. The structure of the passage, however, hardly favours the view that the thought of the image of sheep is still in the apostle’s mind: the call, vyate, ypnyopncate, has relevancy only as addressed to men. —The lion is “ roaring” in the rage of hunger : @pvouevos— Kupio@s él Ao KAaLOYTWY AVKOY 7 RAEOVT@Y 7) KUVOY (Hesychius). Cf. also, with regard to the use of the word, Judg. xiv. 55. Ps. xxii. (xxi, Sept.) 13, civ. (ciil.) 21; Zech. xi. 3.—On seperate? in its present connection, cf. Job i. 7, i. 2—If twa belong to the text, it seems likely that the accentuation as an interrogative represents the thought which was in the apostle’s mind rather than teva—here somewhat flat and feeble. The form tiva fits in perfectly with the current of the sentence. “ The lion is roaming around your encampment in the wilderness, seeking to devour,—but which of the pilgrims? He can have real power only over those who through spiritual torpor fail to be strong in the Lord and 2¢ 402 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 9. in the power of His might ; wherefore, brethren, be sober, be watchful.” ZnTév tiva Katate is a forcible and per- fectly natural mixture of two constructions, &)rév tiva catarun, “seeking whom he may devour” (cf. Luke xii, 29), and ¢nT@v Twa Katattety, “seeking to devour some one.” Copyists, according to their wont, attempted to straighten the construction by substituting the one or the other of these forms for Peter’s; and, where tiva was taken to be the in- definite pronoun, its want of force easily led to its being sometimes omitted. Thus all the varieties of reading are accounted for.—For the secondary sense of catamivw found here, “cf, 1 Cor. xv. 545 “Heb: xi. 29);) (Psy Gxxiageeei Sept.) 3; Prov. 1.12; Jer. li. 34. Ver. 9. On @ avtiornte, cf. Jas. iv. 7 (a passage which, from the marked resemblance of vv. 7, 8, 10 there to vv. 5—9 here, we can hardly doubt to have been in our apostle’s mind), —also Eph. vi. 11 foll—tThe dative wiore: is that familiar one of the sphere to which a general predicate is to be limited (Winer, p. 270),—* being firm, stable, in your faith” (Acts xvi. 5; Rom. iv. 20; Col. ii. 5, 7; and see the contrast, Eph. iv. 14)—For eidotes, “knowing as ye do,” “ seeing that ye know,” cf. 1. 18. In the infinitive clause governed by eddotes, whilst the general sense is clear, the exact form of the thought is somewhat doubtful—The use of ta avra, as here, with so complete a substantive standing as to govern a genitive, seems to have no parallel. It is evident from the meaning of the clause that the force of ta avtad is not abstract (on the analogy of To ypnotov=xpnatorns, Rom. ii. 4, and the like), but concrete, Ta av’ta Tov Tafyuatwyv being substantially = Ta avuTa ta0nwata, It seems as if the apostle, having it in his mind to say “close resemblances, counterparts, of your sufferings,’ suddenly, to bring out the similarity with intensity, substituted “the identical,’ “the self-same,’—but finished the construction as if he had said “ counterparts.”— The dative aderporn7e may be governed by ta avra, “ the “Vv. 9.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 403 same sufferings as (or, with) the brotherhood” (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 5); or it may be joined with ézutedeic Oar as a dat. comm. of that somewhat general kind not uncommon in N. T. (cf. dAdXnAOLs, ver. 5), “for, on, with regard to, the brother- hood.” The dative can hardly, according to N. T. usage (cf. Winer, p. 274, and particularly A. Buttmann, p. 187), be taken as that of the actor, for d76 ths adeApotnTos—OF the verb ézutedeiv, the general N. T. use is with its primary force of bringing to an end something which has been enjoined, purposed, begun, “to perform, accomplish, complete: ” cf. 2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 6, 11; Phil. i. 6. Taking émureretoOae in the present place as middle (to which there is no objection on the ground of usage, the middle voice of this verb being not uncommon in classical writers, and éuteXeioGe in Gal. iii. 3 being not improbably middle,—cef. Lightfoot, én loc.), Huther translates, “ that the same sufferings are accomplishing them- selves in your brotherhood.” Hofmann, holding to the middle voice, but taking it with a transitive force, makes ta avta object instead of subject. He draws attention to the fact that, where oda is in N. T. followed by an infinitive, the construction is all but invariably not that of the accusative with the infinitive, but of an infinitive by itself, the governing verb being employed in the sense not of “ knowing that,” but of “ knowing to, know- ing how to,’—eg. Matt. vil. 11; Phil. iv. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 9. Then, appealing to the occasional classical use of the middle voice of émeTeXetv with a force similar to that not uncommon in the active, “pay,” but with a metaphorical application (as in Xeno- phon, Mem. iv. 8, ta Tod yypws emutedcicPar; Apol. 33, Tov Odvatov émitedeioOar), he renders the words in our passage, “ knowing how to pay—for your Christianity—the like tribute of affliction (den gleichen Leidenszoll zw entrichten) with your brethren in the world.” This exegesis is characteristically ingenious; but serious objections to it are, that nothing what- ever in the context suggests the somewhat peculiar and remote idea of tribute, and that the article with ma@yuatwy appears naturally in the connection to point to “ your afflictions.” 404 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 10. On the whole, the view which probably prima facie occurs to every reader, that ézutedeio as is passive, and the con- struction that of the accusative with the infinitive (as after oda in Luke iv. 41), appears to be the most satis- factory ; and there is no good ground for deviating from the ordinary N. T. sense of évutedetv. The meaning then is, “ Knowing, as ye do, that the same sufferings are being accomplished on your brotherhood in the world.” Every word of the clause carries in it a support to the sorely-tried believers. The Christians of Asia Minor should not deem themselves to be treated in any exceptional way, or reckon their sufferings as a “strange thing” (iv. 12). These sufferings (7a@npdrov having, no doubt, as its direct reference the “ fightings with- out,” but also by immediate suggestion bringing up the “fears within,” which were so apt to become pépipvar) were common to all the brotherhood,—arising, indeed, out of those common relations to Christ which made them a brotherhood. As Christ “in the world” was crucified through the an- tagonism between the spirit of the world and His Spirit, so also “the brotherhood in the world” must in some form bear the cross after Him. Then the word “accomplished ”— peculiar in its present application—is fitted to lead the thoughts up to a definite plan of Him who is infinitely wise and kind, of which these “ sufferings” are a part. Involving, too, as émruTedety seems always to do, the idea of bringing to a complete and perfect end (see Ellicott on Gal. iii. 3), this verb vividly suggests the thought which in the next verse the apostle expresses, that even at the longest the sufferings of Christ’s people are only for a little time, only while they are év tH Koouww—in the region of His foes—dOn aderdorns, cf. ii. 17, note. Ver. 10. A cheering assurance that the struggling believers will not be left unaided, but that God will certainly carry on and complete His work of grace. The adversative 6¢é marks the transition from thoughts of suffering and strain to a reminder of that almighty help which ensures triumph. The Wer 103] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 405 verse is singularly rich in encouragement. At the close one verb declaratory of the divine strengthening grace is piled upon another, as if utterly to overwhelm misgivings and fears ; and, to prepare for an undoubting acceptance of these assur- ances, every word preceding is laden with truth fitted to gladden and animate. God is described as “the God of all grace,’—the God whose characteristic it is to bestow grace according to every need. On the frequent N. T. use of as, without an article, with abstract nouns, cf. i. 24, note; and on the addition to the name of God of a genitive of character, cf. 2 Cor. i. 3 (where also was is found); Phil. iv. 9; Heb. xiii, 20. Then the apostle, assuming—according to the usual tone of the Epistles—that those to whom he wrote were in reality what their Christian profession intimated, reminds them that God had “called” them in conversion (cf. i. 15), “in and through union to Christ” (év Xpior@ being connected with carécas), “ unto (for, to bring them to) His eternal glory” (the glory which He destines for His redeemed being His own glory, in so far as this is communicable to His creatures, —John xvii. 22; Rev. iii. 21; Rom. v. 2). God’s “ calling” of Christians is a pledge of all grace needed by them for ultimately coming to “glory ;” Rom, vui. 30; Phil. i. 6; 1 Thess. v. 24. On the whole clause, compare 1 Thess. il. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 10. On the position of avrod, cf. i/o, note, The words 6A¢yov wafovtas are by many scholars construed in connection with those verbs which follow them. In this case, the closing verbs are naturally held to point to the final act of grace whereby, at the Lord’s Second Coming, His people shall be, with regard to their whole being, perfected and glorified. But the accumulation of verbs, and the emphasis laid on the promise of firmness and strength, suggest much more readily that this assurance has to do with the time when believers are still here on earth, still in the midst of struggle and liable to misgivings. Feeling this, some who adopt this construction (as Luther and Semler) find themselves compelled 406 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. {V. 10. to treat 7a@ovtas as if it were a present participle ; and others (as Benson), to hold that the promise includes deliverance for the Asiatic Christians from their sufferings, while still on earth, and then strengthening during the subsequent period of their lives. On the whole, it seems decidedly preferable to attach odéyov tabovtas to Kadéoas, “who called you in Christ with the intent to bring you to His eternal glory—after having suffered for a little while.” The “high calling of God,” whilst it has “glory” for its end, includes as certainly “suffering” as a preparatory agency. To oddyov (on which cf. i. 6, note) the apostle has already provided a sublime antithesis in alévov; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17. The position of the words odiyov mafovtas—entering almost as if by second thought, after the clause appears to have been closed—is fitted to suggest in a very striking way the comparative unimportance of earthly sorrows, as seen in the light of heavenly glory. Adros has the full emphasis which regularly belongs to the nominative of this pronoun when expressed: “I have called on you to watch and to resist ; you know well, however, what hopeless work this would be if success depended on your own strength, or on the help of other men,—but God Himself will sustain you.’—The relation borne to each other by the three verbs with which the verse closes seems to be as follows. The first exhibiting God’s sanctifying grace somewhat generally, the other two speak of the xatapticpos in its action, first, in the way of resistance to the attacks of spiritual foes, keeping the soul stable in faith and love; secondly, in the way of vigour in assailing the enemy, strength to advance the kingdom of Christ. “ Kataprtices, perficiet, ne remaneat in vobis defectus ; ornpiéer, stabiliet, ne quid vos labefactet; oOeveces, roborabit, ut superetis vim omnem adversam” (Bengel). With regard to the meaning of xatapriferv,—* to make dptios” (2 Tim. iii. 17), “to give a thing perfect adjustment to its purpose,” either by rectifying something which is wrong, or by supplying something which is wanting, “to perfect,”—cf. Matt. iv. 21 ; ie it) 12: ] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 407 di Cor..1., 005, 20Corsxitt. 904 5, Heb) xiii 21... On ornplfeay, ef. 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3. SOevodv is a late and rare word, occurring here only in N. T. Ver. 11. The gracious word of promise which God has given to the apostle for his brethren naturally leads up to a doxology,—which also most naturally, seeing that the assurance of the ministration of strength had been so prominent in the promise, ascribes to God specially to xpatos. For this verse, see notes on the doxology in iv. 11, of which this is simply a somewhat shortened form. In the connection here the verb to be supplied is probably the indicative éo7é, which is expressed in iv. 11. Vy. 12-14. Closing observations, salutations, and benediction. Ver. 12. According to the use of d@ in such a connection as the present (on which see Bp. Lightfoot’s note on Ignat. Rom. § 10), dia FiAovavod might describe Silvanus either as being the apostle’s amanuensis or as the bearer of the letter. As regards this latter application, cf. dia yerpos adrav, Acts xv. 23. Silvanus may quite possibly have discharged both functions, but it seems clear at all events that he was the bearer. The extended statement of commendation given by the apostle would hardly have been relevant or natural, except with reference to one who was himself about to visit the Churches addressed. Whether this Silvanus was that eminent evangelist, Silas or Silvanus (the short form in Acts, the longer in Paul’s Epistles), who accompanied Paul in his second missionary journey, cannot be said with certainty. In favour of the supposition that this is the same, are the facts that the name was not a very common one, and that Silas, having been a distinguished teacher in the Church of Jerusalem before he joined Paul (Acts xv. 22, 32), must certainly have been well known to Peter. Then there is no difficulty in the way of our taking 408 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12. him to have been with Peter at any time from about 55 A.D., seeing that nothing either in the Acts or in the Epistles gives ground for thinking of him as having been in association with Paul after that date. Supposing our Silvanus to have been Silas, it is obvious that, through his labours in Asia Minor many years before with Paul,—along with, quite possibly, of course, more recent visits,—he was peculiarly fitted, from acquaintance with the Churches in those parts, and from something of a parental feeling in relation to them, to be a helper of their faith, enforcing with sympathy and power the teachings of the apostolic letter which he conveyed. Assuming also as at least possible (see Introd. § V. 10), that among Peter’s aims in writing his Epistle one was to show his cordial appreciation of Paul’s doctrine and work, the fact of his choosing for his messenger to the Asiatic Churches a minister whom they had first known as Paul’s colleague and friend, was eminently calculated to support the influence of the Epistle in this particular direction. The construction of tui is uncertain. It may be the remoter object of éypayya,—in which case, to account for its position, we must suppose the commendatory words which follow regarding Silvanus to have entered by a kind of second thought, after the mention of him had appeared to be disposed of by the simple “through Silvanus.” We may also connect the pronoun with tod miatov adeddod, as a dat. comm. On this view the emphatic position of tuiy would seem to give the word some such meaning as “the brother trustworthy in all circumstances, but whom you, from your experience of him, have special cause to acknowledge as such.’ An objection to this construction is, that to leave éypaya without a dative is a little awkward, and not accordant with usage: ef. Gal. vi 113 P Thess. v.15: 1sDim. ai, 14. | -Still {perapee on the whole, the latter of the two modes of connection is the more natural; and we may suppose that tuiv, while immedi- ately attached to tod muctod adeAdod, served also in the apostle’s mind—as very readily in such a sentence it might— V. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 409 for the remoter object of éypayra—On motos, cf. 1 Cor. iv. ivf Ephavi) 21 2° Pima i. 2: The little clause @s NoyiGouas vives to that high opinion of Silvanus, which the article in Tod muctod adeAgod presupposes to be entertained by the Asiatic believers, the support of the apostle’s hearty assent. There is nothing in the verb Aoyi- fouac of that hesitation which the rendering of the A. E. V., “T suppose,” suggests as existing in Peter's mind. The word denotes a judgement founded on consideration of evidence or argument, “I reckon:” cf. Rom. iii. 28, vi. 11, viii. 18 ; Heb. x1. 19. Its force here is practically the same as that of mevoa or wémecpaes in Rom. xv. 14; Gal. v.10; 2 Tim. i. 5. Toa misapprehension with regard to the force of the word, and a consequent belief that Peter could not have appended a clause of the imagined hesitating kind to his expression of commendation regarding so distinguished a servant of Christ as Silvanus,—or, indeed, regarding any one, in such a connection as the present,—must no doubt be ascribed the construction followed in the Vulgate, and pre- ferred by Beza and a few other scholars, which attaches ws Aoyifouas not to what precedes, but to 6s’ drtywv,—“ briefly, as I consider.” This is decidedly the less natural connection of the little clause, and the sense yielded is comparatively pointless. With ov’ ortyor, cf. dua Bpayéwv, Heb. xiii. 22 ; &v drive, Eph. iii. 3; and dv’ oAlyav ypaypator, lenat. Rom. § 8 ; Polyc. § 7. Whilst the Epistle is no doubt one of considerable leneth, yet the apostle feels it to be short when looked at in relation to all that, on subjects so important, he might profit- ably have said, and from his affectionate interest in his suffering brethren would have said, had circumstances per- mitted; cf. the similar statement with respect to the much longer Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 22). In the connection in which Peter puts the words here, it seems natural to think that one object of his mention of the brevity of his communi- cation was to direct the readers to Silvanus, “the trustworthy 410 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12. brother,” as one well fitted to expand the teaching and exhorta- tion which were given them in the letter; ef. 1 Cor. iv. 17. On the epistolary aorist—the tense used as from the point of view of the receiver of a letter, and in English rendered by the present or, as here, the perfect — cf. Winer, p. 347 ; A. Buttmann, p. 198. As illustrations, see Acts xxii. 30; Eph. vi. 22; Phil. ii. 28. With respect to the verb ypadeu, Winer, Ellicott (on Gal. vi. 11, and elsewhere), and some other scholars, are disposed to doubt whether its aorist is ever in N. T. to be explained as used in this way, and to regard éypayva in every case where it occurs as being an ordinary narrative aorist, referring to an earlier letter (as 2 Cor. ii. 3), or to the previous part of the letter (as 1 Cor. ix. 15, and here). As to those cases in which the reference is to an earlier letter (of which cases some of the older scholars, without any naturalness or likelihood, and in manifest inconsistency with devtépav, 2 Ep. iii. 1, imagined the present to be one) there is, of course, no room for debate ; but with respect to the rest there does not seem to be suffi- ecient reason for taking them as other than epistolary aorists. To count them such explains most naturally in all the instances the use of this tense, and in at least one, Philem. 19, the other view is wholly unnatural. In Gal. vi. 11, too, the opinion that éypayra does not refer to the previous part of the Epistle, may quite reasonably be held to have the greater likelihood; see Bp. Lightfoot, in Joc. The epistolary aorist does not seem to have been a form conventionally employed in certain words merely, but the expression of a particular mode of thinking. Among the Latin writers this preterite style in letters prevailed even more than among the Greek ; ef. Zumpt, Lat. Gram. § 503. In the clause which follows, Peter mentions the main constituents of his Epistle in such a way as to indicate what had been his aim in composing it,—partly hortatory, partly to give a testimony. He states the two as co-ordinate, as indeed they are in all healthful religious teaching,—enunciation V. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 411 of truth having in view the sustenance of practical godliness, exhortation looking back to doctrine to give it weight and point. On this ground we may safely say that, while the apostle speaks of the two elements separately, yet he was not, as some have imagined, thinking of two distinct parts of his letter. This does not seem at all natural. It is, no doubt, true that the first half of the first chapter has more of con- tinuous doctrine, or “testimony,” than the rest of the letter, so that we may for convenience speak of it as the doctrinal section; but with the practical advices which occupy much of what follows, dogmatic teaching also largely intermingles itself—The verb mapaxaneiv may, according to N. T. use, and, con- > mean “to exhort,” “to console,” or “ to encourage ;’ sidering what has been the strain of the letter, it is in the present case (as occasionally elsewhere, eg. 1 Thess. ili. 2) not quite easy to decide which is the precise idea,—the writer’s thought, indeed, perhaps really in different degrees comprehending all. “Exhorting,’ as the word of widest reference, including all kinds of practical religious injunction and advice, is probably the best rendering. For mapaxaneiv used without an expressed object, cf. 2 Cor. v. 20; Tit. 1.9; Heb. x. 25.—In the verb ézupaptupety (found here only in N. T.) the preposition has been by some interpreters held to have the force of “in addition.” Thus Bengel, cnsuper testans, i.e. aS he explains, “in addition to the testimony given to you long ago by Paul and Silas.” The classical use of the word does not appear to support this special force, either as held by Bengel, or in the derivative form maintained by Macknight and others, “strongly testifying.” As in many compounds, éé here merely gives a certain notion of activity and aim; ef. ii. 21, note. What the apostle ésriuaprupei—bears testimony to as a “witness” (v. 1), called on to tell what he had seen of the work, character, sufferings, and glories of Christ, and what he had been taught by Him—is “that this is the true grace of God.” With the reading of T. R., ravtnv would have for its comple- 412 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [V. 12. ment the relative clause efs jv éotnKxate. But, accepting the much better supported reading ot#te,—out of which éoryxate has arisen probably through a feeling that this form had greater naturalness, a feeling sustained by an echo in the copyist’s memory of Rom. v. 2 and 1 Cor. xv. 1,—we must regard the demonstrative as retrospective, “that which has been set forth in the Epistle, and which, writing to you as Christians, I have throughout assumed you to have embraced.” Looking to the predicate yapiv, what is referred to in tavrqyv is naturally taken to be the provision made in Christ for man’s salvation, and proclaimed in the gospel: “that this is the true grace of God”—the true manifestation of His mercy to lost man, on which you may implicitly rely. It is evident, from the whole tenor of the Epistle, that the trials which had come upon the Asiatic Churches were known by Peter to have caused most painful perplexity to many of the members (cf. especially iv. 12). Was it not, they thought, possible that, after all, they had been mistaken? Even supposing, what many strong proofs led them to believe, that Jesus was the Divine Saviour, still might there not be some fatal defect in the form of doctrine regarding Him which had been pre- sented to them? Could it be that, if Christ loved them, they should suffer such things? The apostle in his letter has answered such questionings. He has shown his brethren the gracious object of affliction, has expatiated on the sublime dignity into which faith in Christ brings men, and has, with peculiar emphasis, again and again given the assurance that the form of teaching which the Asiatic Christians had received was that which truly set forth the salvation (apis, 1. 10) promised through the prophets, and looked on with profound interest by the angels (i. 12)—that the message of glad tidings which had been received by these Churches of Asia Minor was in very deed the Aoyos Cav Ocod Kai pévor (i. 23,25). By tavtnyv here, therefore, he means, no doubt, “ this provision in Christ for salvation which I have illustrated in my letter, and which you recognise as at all points the same that you \ te FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 413 have been told of before, and have accepted.” On the special force of this statement regarded as a cordial recognition by Peter of the soundness and authoritativeness of the teaching of the Apostle Paul, through whom the Churches of Asia Minor had been founded, see Introd. § V. 10. Seeing that d\n yapw is the predicate, the absence of the article simply intimates that, whether yapuv is definite or not, at all events no stress is laid on definiteness. We cannot by any English rendering exhibit precisely this indeterminate- ness,—“a true erace” going somewhat too decidedly in one direction, “ the true grace” in another, and the simple “true grace” passing from the concrete to the abstract. Knowing, however, as we do, that the grace spoken of is in fact that in which all the gifts of divine grace to men are summed up, the best rendering is with the definite article. The relative clause which ends the verse “is a short and earnest exhortation, containing the pith of what has been said by way of exhortation in the whole Epistle” (Alford): “in which grace—blessed system of saving influences—stand ye,” or, more exactly, bringing out fully the thought involved in the pregnant construction of e¢s joined to a verb of rest, “into which as ye have entered by faith, so now stand therein.” For this pregnant use of eis, not uncommon in classical Greek (Jelf, § 646. 1), and growing more frequent in the later writers, cf. iii. 20; Mark xiii. 3; John xxi. 4; Acts vill. 40; Heb. xi. 9; and see Winer, p. 516; A. Buttmann, p. ao2s8) Oi, also the use! of ert, iv. 14. Ver. 13. As to what is meant by “ Babylon” here, see Introd. § IV.—‘H cuvexdrexty, “ the co-elect ” (namely, “with you,’ €xdextois, i. 1), cannot well have any other reference than to the Church of Babylon. The supposition of some interpreters, that Peter’s wife, or some other well- known Christian woman, is meant, does not accord with the mode of expression. The words 7 év B., taken thus, would plainly, through the definiteness of the form, imply that there was not—and that it was well known that there was not— 414 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Biees any other believing woman in Babylon. The fact that the following salutation is from an individual, Marcus, does not make it even slightly probable that but one person is meant here also. Supposing that, as was most natural, the Christian association in Babylon, learning that the apostle, resident at the time among them, was writing a letter to their brethren in Asia Minor, expressed in some way their desire that he should send their united salutation, nothing also was more natural than that a minister not connected specially with the Babylonian Church, but who was in the city at the time, and who, besides, had formerly laboured in Asia Minor (2 Tim. iv. 11), should add his good wishes separately. From very early times the reference was held to be to the Church. This is shown by the fact that Codex s, and a considerable number of other ancient authorities, actually insert the word éxxAnola before cuvexdAexT. This supplement, however, seems to miss the precise representation. The apostle’s expression rather exhibits a personification, based on the very familiar O. T. language regarding the Church as being “the daughter of Zion,” who was God's “elect.” The R. E. V. renders well, “She that is in Babylon, elect with you.” Compare, as per- haps parallels to this personification, 2 John 1, 13, with Westoott’s notes. The compound ovvexdextos seems not to occur anywhere but in the present passage. There is no hkelihood that, when the apostle calls Marcus his “son,” we are to regard “son” as used in its literal sense. It is obviously probable that, in a public circular letter like the present, a salutation by an individual would not be sent on the ground solely of relationship to the writer, but only by a person who, either from general eminence in the Church or from having himself laboured in those parts, was known to the Christians addressed. Now tradition, very busy with the history of the Apostle Peter, has yet not a word of any son of his as being a minister or a person of note in the Church. It is natural, therefore, to take vids in the secondary sense of a warmly-attached and very helpful younger friend or disciple, V. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 415 perhaps implying also one who had been converted to Christ through the apostle’s labours. There is no objection to this view in the fact that the word which the Apostle Paul employs with this force is téxvov (eg. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18), for vios is in itself equally suitable for this application, and is employed both in N. T. and LXX. in the sense of “ disciple” (Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5). The identification of the Mark of our passage with Mark the evangelist has much in its favour. From the very early time of Papias (as reported by Eusebius, H. #. i. 39)—and indeed practically, according to Papias’s statement of authority (6 mpeaRutepos), from the age when Mark was still alive—there was a uniform tradition that the writer of the second Gospel was closely associated with Peter, and that his Gospel thus represented in a special way Peter’s oral teaching regarding the life of our Lord. Accepting also the other tradition as on every ground probable, that Mark the evangelist was that John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, who accompanied Paul and his kins- man during a part of their missionary tour, we find in the narra- tive given in Acts xii. 12-17 evidence leading to the belief that Peter was an intimate friend of Mark’s mother and her family. Taking all the facts into view, we seem to have a very strong probability that the Mark of the verse before us is the same who is known to us elsewhere ; and remembering that the “sharp contention ” many years before between Paul and Barnabas, which led to Paul’s taking Silas as the com- panion of his second journey, had been with reference to the trustworthiness of Mark, the conjunction of names which we have here, Mark’s sending his salutation through Silas, is a pleasant one. All soreness of feeling arising out of the matter had among all concerned long passed away; cf. particularly 2. Tingoiv,. 1), Ver. 14. From the earliest times the kiss has been among Orientals a usual token of kindly and respectful greeting. How fully this was the case among the Jews, many references both in the Old and New Testaments show. In the early 416 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. [vents Christian Church the kiss was commonly used everywhere as an acknowledgement of brotherhood in Christ, the religious character of the salutation being marked by such names as that which we have here, firnua ayarns,—ayarn denoting that pure love which is of God, 1 John iv. 8 (the very word ayamrn, indeed, being one not used by any heathen writer, but belonging to the language of revealed religion ; cf. Trench, Syn. NV. T.§ 12). Elsewhere in Scripture this kiss is called @/Anua aytov (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 26). In later writers again we have “osculum pacis” (Tertull. De Orat. 18), 76 év Kupiw $idnpa (Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12), and the like. In the first ages the believers seem to have greeted each other in this way on perhaps every occasion of their meeting for a religious service; and, even after having been to a considerable extent discontinued, through abuses which, amid declining spirituality, connected themselves with the custom, the kiss was retained for many ages at the observance of the Communion,—passing quite out of use in the Western Church only about the thirteenth century. In the Greek and some other Eastern Churches it is still retained in a measure. For a full and interesting account of the “kiss of love,” see Dict. of Christian Antiq., Art. “ Kiss.” The general principle underlying Peter’s aomdcacOe here, and Paul’s in the passages referred to above, is obviously that it is good for Christians, on all fitting occasions, to express their brotherly interest in each other, not merely by material kindnesses, but by the forms of courtesy recognised in their age and country. Immediately, however, we have not here a general precept, but simply a request bearing on the pro- cedure of the various congregations at the time when the Epistle should be read before them. That the aorist impera- tive, which is used in all the places, has its primary reference to an act to be done at once, is shown particularly by the mode of expression in 1 Thess. v. 25, 26,—the immediately preced- ing clause being a request for habitual help to the apostle through the prayers of his brethren, and this given by the V. 14.) FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 417 present imperative. The wish of the apostles was, that the hearty acceptance by the believers of the message of advice and consolation which Christ had sent them through His servants should be expressed by their giving to each other the sign of their having that love in Christ without which the Church is feeble and joyless. At the same time, the kiss given to each other in such circumstances could not but be felt as conveying the apostle’s own affectionate greeting to every one of them.—The preposition év being found with quAyjpate in all the passages of greeting, it would seem that, when joined to aomdfecOat, this was the usual form of expression in the Church. In Luke xxii. 48, where wapaéidovas is the verb, the simple dative @iAxjmare is used. In the present connec- tion é€v can hardly be said to have exactly the mere instru- mental force so common in the Hellenistic writers; rather it has its semi-local sense,—the salutation itself being found in, lying in, the “ kiss of love.” As the apostle had begun the letter with the benediction, “Peace be to you” (i. 2), so with the same restful word he closes ; cf. 2 Thess, 111.16. To the simple vuiv acu he ap- pends rots ev Xpior@, as if saying in love, and at the same and bear ever time with deep solemnity, “ Peace be to you, in mind, dear brethren, that true peace can be only to those who are in Christ ;” cf. Eph, vi. 24. THE END. MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICK. ; yy rau ene h =e ot <= Date Due PRINTED | IN U.S. A, | ¥. ott bee Fit ‘ | 7 sy i ‘ | EN? iles 4 uy | Pas v > eben . “ne ip ears He BS2795 .J73 The — oe of en — HV 1 1012 00063 2473