Bible Commentaries

1 Peter 3:1. From here to 1 Peter 3:6 an exhortation to wives.

ὁμοίως] not simply particula transeundi (Pott); on account of the subsequent ὑποτασσόμεναι it stands related rather to the exhortation contained in what precedes; the participle here as in chap. 1 Peter 2:18.

αἱ γυναῖκες] Form of address, like οἱ οἰκέται (as opposed to Steiger); vid. ὑμῶν, 1 Peter 3:2; τῶν γυναικῶν (instead of ὑμῶν) is used here, not because the thought is a general one (de Wette, Wiesinger), nor “because Peter means to say that the heathen men should be won over by their own wives” (Schott), but because the apostle wishes clearly to point out how the wives too may be able to advance the kingdom of God. The words are addressed generally to all Christian wives, though, as the sequel shows, with special reference to those who have unbelieving husbands.

ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν] ἰδίοις is used here, not by way of contradistinction (Glossa inter.: suis viris, non adulteris, or according to Calvin: ut Ap. castitatis uxores admoneat avocetque a suspectis obsequiis virorum aliorum; so, too, Fronmüller), but only to express the idea of belonging together more strongly than the simple pronoun; cf. also Winer, p. 145 f. [E. T. 191 f.].

With the thought here expressed, cf. Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:9. It is self-evident,—although many interpreters have discussed the question at considerable length,—that the subjection of the wife to the husband is of quite a different kind from that of the slave to the master. The apostle, however, does not go into the subject further, but contents himself with simply emphasizing that point.[166]

ἽΝΑ ΚΑῚ ΕἼ ΤΙΝΕς ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΣΙ Τῷ ΛΌΓῼ] ΚΑῚ ΕἼ, i.e. “even then when,” supposes not only a possible, but a particularly unfavourable case; that is to say, when men who are joined to Christian wives oppose the λόγος, even then may such be gained over by the Christian walk of their wives;[167] τινες must be conceived as referring to heathen men with Christian wives.

With τῷ λόγῳ, cf. chap. 1 Peter 2:8.

The expression ἀπειθεῖν denotes here, as in chap. 1 Peter 2:7, not a simple negation only, (Pott: ad religionem christianam nondum accessisse), but an opposition to.

διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς] ἑαυτῶν must be supplied to γυναικῶν; it is not wives in general who are here meant, but only the wives of heathen husbands.

ἀναστροφή; quite generally: the Christian walk of women, with special reference, however, to their relation to their husbands; it is precisely obedience that most easily wins the heart.

ἄνευ λόγου] Huss incorrectly: sine verbo praedicationis publicae (so, too, Fronmüller); the words are used here to emphasize more strongly διὰ τῆς … ἀναστροφῆς, and must be held to refer to the conduct of wives (de Wette, Wiesinger). Schott wrongly unites ἄνευ λόγου with the preceding τῆς … ἀναστροφῆς into one idea; Peter could never have meant to say that the walls of women should be a silent one. The apostle’s thought is this: if the husbands oppose the Word, the wives should all the more diligently seek to preserve a Christian walk, in order by it to win over their husbands, even without words, i.e. “without preaching and exhortation on their part” (de Wette). Oecumenius incorrectly refers these words to the conduct of husbands in the sense: cessanti omni verbo et contradictione.

κερδηθήσονται] that is to say, for the faith, and by it for the kingdom of God; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff.; so, too, Schott indeed, who, however, unjustifiably thinks that the apostle’s meaning is, that the preservation of the marriage relation is the primary object which is to be attained by the good behaviour of the wives. On the indie, with ἵνα, cf. Winer, p. 269 ff. [E. T. 361].

[166] For similar remarks of the ancients, see in Steiger; that of the humorist Philemon (in a Fragment, ver. 123) is particularly significant: ἀγαθῆς γυναῖκός ἐστιν, ὧ Νικοστράτη, μὴ κρείττονʼ εἶναι τʼ ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλʼ ὑπήκοον.

[167] Hofmann maintains that if the protasis be thus understood, the apodosis is not suited to it, “inasmuch as no other case could be supposed in which the husband could be won, without words, by the conduct of his wife, than that of his being disobedient to the Word,” and that the difficulty can only be removed if εἴ τινες be interpreted as equal to οἵτινες. But the difficulty Hofmann alludes to clearly still remains, though in fact it has no existence if only the idea ἀπειθοῦσι receive the precision it is entitled to.

1 Peter 3:2. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν] for ἐποπτ., cf. chap. 1 Peter 2:12. The participial clause here serves as a further explanation of the preceding διὰ κ.τ.λ.

ἁγνός: “chaste,” in the full extent of the word, not only in contradistinction to πορνεία proper, but to whatsoever violates the moral relation of the subjection of the wife to her husband. This ἁγνεία is determined by ἐν φόβῳ (not equal to, in timore Dei conservato: Glossa interl.; Grotius too, Bengel, Jachmann, Weiss, Fronmüller, etc., understand by φόβος here the “fear of God”), as connected in the closest possible way with the shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband;[168] cf. chap. 1 Peter 2:18.

[168] Schott unwarrantably maintains that in this interpretation it is not ἀναστροφή which is more precisely defined by the homogeneous adjectival expression ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνή, but ἁγνὴ ἀναστρ. by ἐν φόβῳ.

1 Peter 3:3. ὧν ἔστω] The genitive ὧν does not depend on a κόσμος to be supplied from the predicate ὁ ἔξωθεν … κόσμος (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); such a construction, arbitrary in itself, is here entirely inadmissible on account of the remoteness of the predicate, from which the idea wanting is to be taken. The genitive is rather ruled by ἔστω. εἶναί τινος expresses, as usual, the relation of belonging to; the sense is therefore: “whose business let it be,” i.e. who have to occupy themselves with.[169]

οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν κ.τ.λ.] As often in our epistle, the negative preceding the positive.

ὁ ἔξωθεν is closely joined together with κόσμος. The genitives which stand between, and are dependent on κόσμος, serve to determine the idea more precisely; their position immediately after ὁ ἔξωθεν is explained from the intention of the writer to lay special emphasis on them, since it belongs to women to take pleasure in adorning themselves in this wise. The whole expression is to be interpreted thus: “outward adornment wrought by the plaiting of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.”

ἐμπλοκή, ἅπ. λεγ. (in the passage specially to be compared with this, 1 Timothy 2:9, πλέγματα is used), not: “the plaits,” but “the plaiting;” it is an active idea, like περίθεσις and ἔνδυσις; “these verbalia describe the vain occupation of worldly women” (Wies.); χρύσια are golden ornaments generally.

The last two members of the clause, united by ἤ, are connected with the first by καί, because they have reference to things which are put on the body.

[169] When Hofmann would advance against this construction that the affirmative subject (ver. 4) is not suitable to it, “since it may be said of the hidden man of the heart, that it should be the woman’s adornment, but not that it should be her business, for she herself is that hidden man,” it must be observed in reply that it is not ὁ κρυπτὸς … ἄνθρωπος in itself, but ὁ κρυπτὸς … ἄνθρωτος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ κ.τ.λ., which is to he taken as that which should be characteristic of women; as Hofmann also in his expositions says, the adornment of women is not indicated by the simple, but by the compound expression.

1 Peter 3:4. As antithesis to what precedes, ἀλλʼ ὁ ἔσωθεν κόσμος would have been expected; instead of this, however, the author at once states in what that adornment does consist.

ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος] does not mean: the virtutes christ. quas Spir. s. per regenerationem in homine operatur (Gerhard; so, too, Wiesinger and Fronmüiller), for here there is no mention either of the Holy Ghost or of regeneration. It denotes simply the inner man, in contradistinction to the outward man (so, too, de Wette, Brückner, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann); κρυπτός, antithesis to ἔξωθεν, 1 Peter 3:3; cf. ὁ ἔσω ἀνθρ., Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16; ὁ ἔσωθεν, sc. ἄνθρ., 2 Corinthians 4:16; cf., too, such expressions as: τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας, 1 Corinthians 14:25, and τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἄνθρ., Romans 2:16. The apostle selected the expression κρυπτός as a contrast to the conspicuous adornment formerly spoken of. τῆς καρδίας is not gen. qualitatis (Schott); καρδία itself denotes no quality; it is the genitive of apposition subjoined, in that καρδία is the seat of the feeling and the disposition.

ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ] τὸ ἄφθαρτον, substantive (like φθαρτά, chap. 1 Peter 1:18), “the imperishable” (incorrectly, Hofmann: ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, sc. κόσμῳ), in contrast to the perishable ornaments above mentioned. The prepos. ἐν points out the sphere in which the inner hidden man should move. If “ὧν ὁ κόσμος ἔστω” be supplied after ἀλλά, then “ἐν is to be joined with it, so as to show in what, and with what, this their inward hidden man should be their ornament” (Schott; so, too, Hofmann).

τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος] a more exact definition of the ἄφθαρτον; it denotes not the πν. ἅγιον of God, but the spirit of man. The meek and quiet spirit (here emphasized with special reference to ὑποτασσόμενοι, 1 Peter 3:1) is that “imperishable,” in which the hidden life of woman should exist and move.[170]

Ὅ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἘΝΏΠΙΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΠΟΛΥΤΕΛΈς] Ὅ does not apply to the whole (Grotius), nor to Τῷ ἈΦΘΆΡΤῼ (Bengel, Pott, Steiger, Schott), since it is self-evident that the ἌΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ is in God’s eyes ΠΟΛΥΤΕΛΈς. It is to be taken with the immediately preceding: ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς (de Wette, Wiesinger). Such a ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is, in the judgment of God (1 Timothy 2:3), ΠΟΛΥΤΕΛΈς (Mark 14:3; 1 Timothy 2:9), whilst outward adornment, worthless to the divine mind, possesses a value only in the eyes of men.[171]

[170] The two expressions: πραΰς and ἡσύχιος, must not be sharply distinguished; πραΰτης stands contrasted specially with ὀργή (Jam 1:20-21) or ζῆλος (Jam 3:13-14), synonymous with ἐπιεικεία (2 Corinthians 10:1), μακροθυμία (Colossians 3:12), ὑπομονή (1 Timothy 6:11), etc.; it is peculiar to him who does not allow himself to be provoked to wrath. ἡσυχία is related to ἀκαταστασία; a ἡσύχιος is he who is peaceable and does not care for noisy life. Bengel interprets: mansuetus (πραύς): qui non turbat; tranquillus (ἡσύχιος): qui turbas aliorum fert placide; the contrary would be more correct.

[171] Luther: “A woman should be thus disposed as not to care for adornment. Else when people turn their minds to adornment, they never give it up; that is their way and their nature; therefore, a Christian woman should despise it. But if her husband wish it, or there be some other good reason for adorning herself, then she is right to do so.” Calvin, too, rightly observes: Non quemvis cultum reprehendere voluit Petrus, sed morbum vanitatis, quo mulieres laborant.

1 Peter 3:5-6. οὕτω γάρ] ground for the exhortation: ὧν ἔστω, etc., by the example of the saintly women of the O. T. οὕτω refers back to what precedes.

ποτὲ καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες] ποτέ, i.e. in the time of the Old Covenant.

ἅγιαι: because they belonged to the chosen people of God (Schott), and their life was sanctified and consecrated to God in faith.

αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς [ἐπὶ] Θεόν] cf. 1 Timothy 5:5. This nearer definition is subjoined not only because hope in God, i.e. in the fulfilment of His promises, was the characteristic mark of the piety of these holy women, rooted as it was in faith, but specially “to explain why it did not, and could not, occur to them ever to delight in empty show” (Hofmann).[172]

With ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς, cf. 1 Timothy 2:9.

ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΌΜΕΝΑΙ ΤΟῖς ἈΝΔΡΆΣΙΝ is linked on to ἘΚΌΣΜΟΥΝ ἙΑΥΤΆς, showing wherein lay the proof that they had adorned themselves with the meek and quiet spirit. There is but one (de Wette) characteristic indeed here mentioned, but, according to the connection, it is the chief manifestation of that spirit. It is incorrect to resolve (as was formerly done in the commentary) the participle into: “from this fact, that.”—1 Peter 3:6. ὡς Σάῤῥα ὑπήκουσε τῷ Ἀβραάμ] A simple comparison of the contents of the two passages is a sufficient refutation of de Wette’s supposition that, in the words before us, there is a reference to Hebrews 11:11.

Ὡς: particula allegandi exemplum: Bengel. Sarah is mentioned, because, as the wife of Abraham and ancestress of the people of Israel, she had especial significance in the history of redemption.[173]

ὙΠΉΚΟΥΣΕ refers not merely to the single case which the apostle had particularly before his mind, but denotes the habitual behaviour of Sarah towards Abraham: the aor. is used here as in Galatians 4:8 (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott).

ΚΎΡΙΟΝ ΑὐΤῸΝ ΚΑΛΟῦΣΑ] she showed herself submissive to the will of Abraham in this, that she called him ΚΎΡΙΟς. The allusion is here to Genesis 18:12 (cf. also 1 Samuel 1:8, LXX.).

Ἧς ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΤΕ ΤΈΚΝΑ] Lorinus: non successione generis, sed imitatione fidei; Pott incorrectly explains the aorist by the future (ἜΣΕΣΘΕ); the translation, too, of the Vulg.: estis, is inexact; Luther is right “whose daughters ye are become.” As Paul calls the believing heathen, on account of their faith, children of Abraham, so Peter here styles the women who had become Christians, children of Sarah.

ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι] does not belong to ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΌΜΕΝΑΙ, as if Ὡς ΣΆῤῬΑ … ΤΈΚΝΑ were a parenthesis (Bengel, Ernesti, etc.), but to ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΤΕ, not, however, as stating how they become (Weiss, p. 110 f.)[174] or “have become” children of Sarah (to the first interpretation the aorist ἐγενήθητε is opposed, to the latter the pres. partic.), but as showing the mark by which they proved themselves children of Sarah. It may be resolved into: “since,” or: “that is to say if,” etc. It is grammatically incorrect to see in ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι the result of ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα, and to explain: “in this way have they become the children of Sarah, that they are now in accordance therewith ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι and μὴ φοβούμεναι” (Schott). By ἀγαθοποιεῖν is to be understood here not specially benevolence (Oecum.);[175] the word denotes rather the whole moral activity of Christian life in its fullest extent, although here, as the connection shows, with particular reference to the marriage relation.

ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΦΟΒΟΎΜΕΝΑΙ ΜΗΔΕΜΊΑΝ ΠΤΌΗΣΙΝ] ΠΤΌΗΣΙς equals ΦΌΒΟς (Pollux v. 122: ΣΥΣΤΟΛῊ, ΘΌΡΥΒΟς, ΤΑΡΑΧΉ), in the N. T. ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ. (Luke 21:9; Luke 24:37, the verb ΠΤΟΗΘΈΝΤΕς is connected with ἜΜΦΟΒΟΙ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ); it denotes not the object causing fear, but the fear itself which is felt; and it can be looked on either objectively as a power threatening man, or laying hold of him (as Proverbs 3:25, LXX.: ΚΑῚ Οὐ ΦΟΒΗΘΉΣῌ ΠΤΌΗΣΙΝ ἘΠΕΛΘΟῦΣΑΝ; 1Ma 3:25 : Ἡ ΠΤΌΗΣΙς ἘΠΙΠΊΠΤΕΙ ἘΠῚ ΤᾺ ἜΘΝΗ; the synonymous terms ΦΌΒΟς, ΤΡΌΜΟς, are used also in a like manner), or taken in a sense purely subjective. Most commentators understand ΠΤΌΗΣΙς here in the first of these senses, only they do not take the conception strictly by itself, but identify it with that which causes fear; in the first edition of this commentary the second meaning is attributed to ΠΤΌΗΣΙς: ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΠΤΌΗΣΙΝ equal to ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΦΌΒΟΝ: “to experience fear” (Mark 4:41; Luke 2:9; cf. Winer, p. 210 f. [E. T. 280]); but this explanation is opposed by the fact “that in such a connection the substantive must be taken not in idea only, but in form also from the verb” (Brückner). The idea here is quite as universal as in ἈΓΑΘΟΠ.; and accordingly it must be conceived as the fear generally which the enmity of the unbelieving world occasions to believers; still, according to the connection, the apostle had doubtless in his mind more particularly the conduct of heathen men towards their Christian wives.

Luther’s translation is inexact: “if ye … are not so fearful.” The rendering of Stephanus is incorrect, s.v. πτόησις: jubentur mulieres officium facere etiam, cum nullus eas metus constringit i. e. sponte et ultro.

[172] According to Schott, this addition is meant to express that “the complete development of the Christian church, to which they belonged, was only as yet an object of hope;” but this introduces a reference which the words do not contain.

[173] Schott applies ὡς to that which directly precedes, in this sense: that “the conduct of the holy women was regulated only according to the standard of Sarah.” Hofmann thus: that Sarah “is mentioned as a shining example of the conduct of holy women.” Both are wrong, since neither is alluded to by ὡς.

[174] It must be held, with “Wiesinger, Brückner, and Schott, in opposition to Weiss and Fronmüller, that it is more natural to take these words as applying to Gentile-Christian rather than to Jewish-Christian readers. For inasmuch as the latter, before their conversion, were already τέκνα τῆς Σάῤῥας, some allusion must have been made to their not having been so in a right manner, and as they now had become. It does not follow from John 8:39 (as Weiss thinks) that an allusion of this kind was unnecessary.

[175] Μετὰ τοῦ εὐκόσμου καὶ πρέποντος Χριστιανοῖς κόσμου καὶ ἐλεήμονας αὐτὰς εἶναι παραινεῖ, μηδὲν ὑποβλεπόμενας τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτῶν διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλογισμόν.

1 Peter 3:7. οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως] ὁμοίως, with the participle following, refers back, as in 1 Peter 3:1, to ὑποτάγητε πάσῃ ἄνθρ. κτίσει, with which the exhortation begins (Hofmann); though there is no ὑποτασσόμενοι (cf. 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 3:1), there lies something corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part possesses a τιμή to be acknowledged by the husband. Pott erroneously renders ὁμοίως by “vicissim, on the other hand;” nor is it, as de Wette thinks probable, to be expanded: “in like manner, ye men also, hear my exhortation.”

συνοικοῦντες] συνοικεῖν (ἅπ. λεγ.) is not a euphemismus de tori conjugalis consuetudine (Hieronym. contra Jovian, lib. l. c. 4; Augustin. in Psalms 146., etc.); the reference is rather to life together at home.

κατὰ γνῶσιν] As γνῶσις is here anarthrous, it is wrong to understand γνῶσις as referring directly to “Christian recognition of the relation of wife to husband” (Brückner, Schott); κατὰ γνῶσιν is rather an adverbial expression, in which γνῶσις is to be understood generally, as Wiesinger correctly remarks: “according to recognition, i.e. so that home life must be regulated by knowledge and understanding” (so also Hofmann). Similar adverbial expressions, formed by a conjunction of κατά with an anarthrous subst., occur frequently both in classical and N. T. Greek. It is evident from the context that κατὰ γνῶσιν has here special reference to the marriage relation; but from this it does not follow that the interpretation: “in a judicious, discerning manner,” or Luther’s: “with reason,” is incorrect (in opposition to Brückner and Schott). De Wette is completely mistaken in rendering γνῶσις by: “that knowledge of men and self, in fact, that inward discernment, which is the condition of all moderation,” as is Bengel also directly by: moderatio.[176]

ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ] is erroneously connected by Luther and others with ἀπονέμοντες; it belongs, however, to συνοικοῦντες, which requires a nearer definition.

The word σκεῦος is used to designate the wife in 1 Thessalonians 4:4 (see Lünemann in loc.) with reference to the husband; the same meaning, though with various applications, is here attributed to it by many interpreters. Beza: est femina vas i. e. comes et adjutrix viro ad fideliter coram Deo transigendam vitam adjuncta; Bengel: denotat hoc sexum et totum ingenium temperamentumque foemineum. But this view is incorrect, for τῷ γυναικείῳ, sc. σκεύει, is subjoined by way of explanation, and the comparative ἀσθ. shows that the husband also is thought of as σκεῦος. σκεῦος must be taken here in its specific meaning of a utensil (or instrument) serving a particular purpose, and is accordingly to be understood as specially applicable to man, in so far as the latter is used by God for the accomplishment of His will (cf. Acts 9:15). It is inaccurate, nor can it be justified by Romans 9:21 ff., to take the word in the general sense of “creation” (so Wiesinger, and formerly in this commentary). Hofmann understands σκεῦος here as referring both to the husband and the wife, inasmuch as “in a life united in marriage, one part is destined to be and to accomplish something for the other;” but the reference to this mutual relation is purely arbitrary.[177]

ἈΣΘΕΝΕΣΤΈΡῼ] Bengel: Comparativus, etiam vir habet infirmitatem; in like manner Steiger: “the less weak is called upon to assist the more weak” (thus also Fronmüller). This view is, however, incorrect; it is the husband rather as the stronger ΣΚΕῦΟς—there is no reference made here to his weakness—who is here contrasted with the wife as the weaker (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). And, because he is such a ΣΚΕῦΟς, it is demanded of him that he live with his wife ΚΑΤᾺ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ; Ὡς here also states the reason: because the wife is a ΣΚ. ἈΣΘΕΝΕΝΈΣΤΕΡΟΝ, it is accordingly incumbent on the man to behave towards her ΚΑΤᾺ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ. Schott erroneously sees in ΚΑΤᾺ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ the determining reason why the man should treat her as a ΣΚ. ἈΣΘ.; but this can the less be maintained, that Κ. ΓΝ. cannot signify: “because he recognises her as such,” but states the manner of the ΣΥΝΟΙΚΕῖΝ.

ἈΣΘΕΝΕΣΤΈΡῼ ΣΚΕΎΕΙ stands in apposition to Τῷ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΊῼ, sc. σκεύει, and is put first by way of emphasis.

ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕῖΟς, ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ., Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 22:5, LXX.; Esther 2:11; Esther 2:17.

ἈΠΟΝΈΜΟΝΤΕς ΤΙΜΉΝ] “in that ye show honour (respect) to them;” ἀπονέμειν in the N. T. ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ.

The participle is not co-ordinate with the foregoing (ΣΥΝΟΙΚΟῦΝΤΕς), but subordinate to it, since it brings prominently forward one of the chief ways in which the preceding exhortation may be carried into effect. The thought here must not be arbitrarily limited to any special relation (e.g. to that of maintenance or of continence, etc.). The husband should, in every relation, show the respect due to his wife.

ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις[-οι] χάριτος ζωῆς] serves as ground of the exhortation; if the reading be: ΣΥΓΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΙς, the reference is to the wives; if ΣΥΓΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΙ, to the husbands (in opposition to Pott, who somewhat singularly interprets as equal to ΕἸΣΙ ΓᾺΡ ΣΥΓΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΙ, sc. αἱγυναῖκες). The dative is more in harmony with the structure of the sentence and the thought, and therefore is to be preferred to the nom. supported by the authorities; although the nom. may be defended on the ground that husbands, as ΣΥΓΚΛ. of their wives, should in turn regard the latter as their ΣΥΓΚΛ. But since this last is really the point of importance, it can hardly be assumed that the apostle would only have hinted at it—without openly giving expression to it.[178]

ΚΑῚ ΣΥΓΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΙς] de Wette-Brückner explain: “as (those who) also (like yourselves) (are) fellow-heirs (one with another).” The reference here attributed to συν—simply on account of ΚΑΊ—is inappropriate, since it is a thought entirely foreign to the context, that the wives are heirs with each other. If the reading συγκληρονόμοις be adopted, ΣΥΝ applies to the husbands, equivalent to “with you;” καί may stand with reference to the foregoing ἈΣΘΕΝΕΣΤΈΡῼ, adding a second particular to it (Schott); or it may also serve simply to intensify ΣΥΝ, since, strictly speaking, it is redundant.[179] If, however, συγκληρονόμοι be read, καί is to be taken in the latter way, and is not to be explained thus: “by ἀπονέμοντες something further is enjoined, which goes beyond the … κατὰ γνῶσιν” (Hofmann); for συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν stands imperatively, whilst συγκληρονόμοι does not say what the husbands should be, but what they are. With the idea κληρονόμοι, cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:4; the expression συγκληρ., Romans 8:17; Ephesians 3:6; Hebrews 11:9.

χάριτος ζωῆς] ζωῆς states in what the χάρις, of which they are and will be κληρονόμοι, consists. It is erroneous to resolve the expression into χάρις ζῶσα (Erasmus) or χάρις ζωοποιοῦσα (Grotius). Hofmann, assuming συγκληρονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος ζωῆς to be the true reading, gives an interpretation different from the above: “as such who, with their wives, share a life of manifold grace, i.e. of those divine favours which are experienced in common in every marriage by believers and unbelievers.” In this way, however, justice is done to neither of the ideas, nor is it pointed out what the favours in married life referred to are.[180]

εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι, (Rec. ἐκκόπτεσθαι) τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν] ἐγκόπτειν, strictly, incidere, then intercidere, from which arises the further meaning impedire (Hes. ἐμποδίζειν, διακωλύειν); ἐκκόπτειν, pr. excidere, whence stirpitus delere; cf. Job 19:10, LXX.: ἐξέκοψε δὲ ὥσπερ δένδρον τὴν ἐλπίδα μου; the idea of the latter word is stronger than that of the former, but the thought in both readings remains substantially the same, since both expressions denote the ceasing of prayer. Wiesinger incorrectly understands the meaning of the term ἐγκόπτ. to be: “prayer in the meantime there still is, but the way is closed to it.” In like manner de Wette, following Bretschneider: ne viam praecludatis precibus vestris, remarks: “Prayer is by sin hindered from mounting up to the throne of God;” and such is in substance Hofmann’s view.[181] This idea would, however, have been more definitely expressed. The apostle does not say that the power and the hearing of prayer are hindered, but that the prayer itself is (this also in opposition to Reiche). In harmony with the connection of this last clause, by τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν is to be understood either the joint prayer of married persons (Weiss, p. 352),[182] or the prayers which those here addressed offer up, as the husbands of their wives (or, further, as heads of households). Depreciation of the wife, in spite of union with respect to the ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ, necessarily excludes prayer from married life.[183] Schott: “Where the husband does not recognise that the union of natural life in marriage is also union in the state of grace, there can naturally be no expression of the spiritual and Christian fellowship of marriage, no prayer in common.”

[176] Oecumenius understands this exhortation in connection with ver. 6 as having a special application to the household: οἱ ἄνδρες … συνοικῦντες· τουτέστιν: αἴσθησιν λαμβάνοντες τῆς τοῦ θήλεος κουφότητος καὶ τοῦ εὐπαραφόρου ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ εἰς μικροψυχίαν εὐολίσθου, μακρόθυμοι γίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτὰς, μὴ λόγον ἀπαιτοῦντες πικρῶς τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν εἰς ταμιείαν παρακατεθέτων.

[177] Schott arbitrarily asserts that the creature is here termed σκεῦος, “as a vessel which is destined to receive into itself, as its real contents, the realization of the divine will.” Even though a vessel containing something can be termed a σκεῦος, it does not follow that σκεῦος must be understood as meaning this and nothing else.

[178] In the 2d edition of this Commentary it was said: “Why should not the apostle base his exhortation to the men to honour their wives, by reminding them (the men) that they are called to inherit the χάρις ζωῆς along with their wives?” Reiche says: scilicet quia absurdum(!) esset, sic argumentari; Brückner maintains that meaning to be “altogether inappropriate and foreign to the purpose of the address.” These assertions, however, can by no means be accepted, since the consciousness of being a fellow-heir of salvation with any one may very well lead to a recognition of the τιμή which he possesses. Nor is there anything improbable in the circumstance itself, that the apostle, whilst basing the exhortation: συνοικεῖν κατὰ γνῶσιν, on the position of the women, should ground the ἀπονέμειν τιμήν on the position of the men.—Schott passes too lightly over the whole question.

[179] On the redundance of καί in comparisons, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 548]; but this use of it cannot be appealed to, since ὡς here is not a comparative particle. Wiesinger thinks that συν perhaps contains the reference to a community to which man and wife equally belong; but what this was, would have been indicated by the context, as Ephesians 3:6; such, however, is not the case here. To the expression “strictly” Reiche adds a?, without ever thinking that, since the same idea is expressed by καί and συν, one of the two must be redundant, and that “strictly” is only meant to show that καί is in so far not purely redundant, that it serves to strengthen the idea expressed by συν.

[180] There is no warrant for the opinion that the apostle’s exhortation must apply also to such husbands as have unbelieving wives, since a case so special might well have been passed over. If the apostle had wished to make reference to this, he would in some way have alluded to it; cf. ver. 1 ff.

[181] In this interpretation the reference to the coming of prayer to God is a simple importation. Hofmann adds to the interpretation, that “the sighs of the wife bar the road to the husband’s prayers, by accusing him to God before his prayer, thus rendered worthless, reaches Him.” But this is a thought altogether foreign to the context.

[182] Although in ver. 7 it is the husbands who are addressed, still, as the verse treats of their behaviour towards their wives, ὑμῶν can well apply to both.

[183] Hieronymus, Oecumenius, etc., apply the words according to 1 Corinthians 7:3, ad honorem impertiendum uxoribus a viris, qui sit abstinentia a congressu, ut orationi vacare possint (Lorinus), which is connected with the false interpretation of συνοικοῦντες; Nicol. de Lyra says more correctly: cum vir et uxor non sunt bene Concordes, minus possunt orationi vacare. The Scholion in Matthaei, p. 199, is inadequate: ὁ γὰρ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν θόρυβος τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν ἔργων ἐμπόδιον.

1 Peter 3:8. Exhortations of a general character follow, without regard to the various conditions of men, yet in connection with chap. 1 Peter 2:11 ff. They deal with the relations of the Christians towards each other, and towards those who are inimically disposed to them.

τὸ δὲ τέλος] here adverbially: “finally, lastly;” in the classics τέλος δέ occurs frequently. Pott explains erroneously, by appeal to 1 Timothy 1:5 : pro κατὰ δὲ τὸ τέλος summa cohortationum mearum jam eo redit (in like manner Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Steiger, etc.). Oecumenius marks the transition very well thus: τὶ χρὴ ἰδιολογεῖσθαι; ἁπλῶς πᾶσι φημί· τοῦτο γὰρ τέλος καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ὁ σκόπος ἐφορᾷ τῆς σωτηρίας.

πάντες] emphatically, in contrast to what preceded: slaves and masters, husbands and wives.

ἔστε or some such word is usually supplied here; it is more correct, however, to consider the following adjectives, etc., as standing in a dependence similar to that of the participles formerly; only that the apostle has in his mind, instead of the particular ὑποτάγητε κ.τ.λ. in 1 Peter 2:13, the more general exhortation to obedience toward God.

ὁμόφρονες] in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ. (Theognis, 81, ὁμόφρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντες); frequently τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, Romans 12:16; Romans 15:5; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Php 2:2; similar expressions, 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3; Php 3:16; Luther: “like-minded.”

συμπαθεῖς] “sympathizing,” in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.; the verb, Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 10:34; for the explanation, comp. Romans 12:15. Oecumenius explains: συμπάθεια· ὁ πρὸς τοὺς κακῶς πάσχοντας ὡς καὶ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς ἔλεος; where, however, it is incorrect to limit the application to suffering only. Bengel: ὁμόφρ.: mente, συμπαθεῖς: affectu in rebus secundis et adversis.

φιλάδελφοι] “brotherly,” Luther; also ἅπ. λεγ.; the substantive occurs in chap. 1 Peter 1:22.

εὔσπλαγχνοι] to be found, besides here, in Ephesians 4:32, “compassionate;” in classical Greek: qui robustis est visceribus, as in Hippocr. p. 89 C; and figuratively equal to εὐκάρδιος, ἀνδρεῖος; in the sense of compassionate it does not occur in the classics.

ταπεινόφρονες] ἅπ. λεγ.; the ταπεινοφροσύνη (humility) as well before God (Acts 20:19) as towards our neighbour (chap. 1 Peter 5:5, Php 2:3, where it is joined with σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ); here, with the latter reference.

Calvin: humilitas praecipuum conservandae amicitiae vinculum. Hofmann justly questions whether “ὑποτάσσομαι, the leading idea of the series of exhortations which here comes to a close, is, as it were, echoed in ταπεινόφρ.” (Wiesinger). For a panegyric on humility, see Lorinus in loc. In the classics ταπεινόφρων means “mean-spirited and faint-hearted.” The word φιλόφρονες (spurious here) is explained by Gerhard: qui student facere ea quae alteri amica sunt et grata. The first three expressions show the loving relation in which Christians stand to each other; the last two (or three), the conduct of Christians towards all without distinction (Hofmann).

1 Peter 3:9. Behaviour towards the hostile world, μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ] the same phrase occurs Romans 12:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:15; comp. Matthew 5:43 ff.

ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας] comp. chap. 1 Peter 2:23. Nicol. de Lyra: non reddentes malum pro malo in factis injuriosis, nec maledictam pro maledicta in verbis contentiosis.

τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες] i.e. in return for κακόν and λοιδορία; εὐλογεῖν in the N. T., when used of man, is equal to bona apprecari, opposed to καταρᾶσθαι; cf. Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28; Romans 12:14; 1 Corinthians 4:12; Jam 3:9. Taken in this sense (Wiesinger, Brückner, Hofmann[184]), it expresses simply the opposite of the preceding λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας. It is more in harmony with the context, however, to understand it as referring equally to κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ; in which case it will have a wider sense, and be equivalent to “wishing well and showing kindness by word and deed” (Fronmüller). This is supported by the subsequent εὐλογίαν; nor does the N. T. usage stand in the way, in so far as in 2 Corinthians 9:5-6, at least, εὐλογία denotes something accomplished by human action, though Hofmann strangely seeks to lessen its force by understanding it of “a personal greeting.”

ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε] comp. chap. 1 Peter 2:21.

ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε] From chap. 1 Peter 2:21 it is natural to take εἰς τοῦτο as referring to what precedes (εὐλογοῦντες) (Oecumenius, Grotius, Calvin, Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Fronmüller, Reiche, Hofmann, etc.); in which case ἵνα would belong either to εὐλογοῦντες, ὅτι … ἐκλήθητε thus forming a parenthesis, or to ἐκλήθητε. But in the first case the close connection of the clauses is broken, whilst in the second the somewhat inadequate idea arises, that we are called upon to bless, in order that we ourselves may obtain a blessing. It is therefore better to take εἰς τοῦτο with the subsequent ἵνα (Luther, Beza, Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.); comp. chap. 1 Peter 4:6; John 18:37; Romans 14:9. The consciousness that we, as Christians, are called to obtain a blessing, should be an incitement to us to bring blessing to others; the more so, that otherwise we shall fall short of the blessing to which we are called. On εὐλογίαν Bengel rightly remarks: benedictionem aeternam, cujus primitias jam nunc pii habent. If εἰδότες before ὅτι be the correct reading, it must be taken as in chap. 1 Peter 1:18.

[184] Schott no doubt insists that the blessing of man is accomplished in word only and not in deed, but he does not say whether it means a wish expressed in prayer (bona apprecari), or whether any operation through the word is to be understood, for he renders εὐλογεῖν by “to bestow good in word.” If the former be implied, then it is wrong to say: “that God’s blessing is in truth accompanied by deeds, but man’s must stop short at the word.” If the second, then man’s blessing is also in deed.