Bible Commentaries

1 Peter 4:1. Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος [ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] σαρκί] In these words the apostle returns to chap. 1 Peter 3:18, in order to subjoin the following exhortation.

σαρκί is not: “in the flesh” (Luther), but: “according to the flesh;” comp. 1 Peter 3:18. This is made prominent because the believer’s sufferings, too, under persecutions, touch the flesh only; comp. Matthew 10:28. παθόντος is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before His death, but comprehends the latter also. It is, however, incorrect to understand, with Hofmann, παθόντος at once as identical with ἀποθανόντος, and in connection with σαρκί to explain: “that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for our sake to a suffering which befell Him—that for our sake He allowed His life in the flesh to come to an end”(!).

καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε] καί with reference to Christ; “ye also:” the disciple must be like the master. It lies to hand to translate ἔννοια (besides here, only in Hebrews 4:12) as equivalent here to “disposition of mind” (de Wette; Weiss, p. 288); but ἔννοια means always “thought, consideration” (Wiesinger, Schott).[231] There is here also no reference to the mind of Christ in His sufferings, ΤῊΝ ΑὐΤῊΝ ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ refers back to the ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ of Christ Himself, so that the sense is, that since Christ suffered according to the flesh, they too should not refuse the thought of like Him suffering according to (or on) the flesh, ὍΤΙ gives the ground of the exhortation. Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Schott take ὍΤΙ as explaining ΤῊΝ ΑὐΤ. ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ. Incorrectly; for the ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς will not admit of an application to Christ, inasmuch as the expression does not presuppose generally a former “relation to sin,” but former sinning itself.

The verb ὉΠΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ, in the N. T. ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ., is in classical writers often construed with the accus. (Soph. Electra, v. 991: θράσος ὁπλίζεσθαι); while applied to every kind of equipment, e.g. of ships, it here refers to the Christian’s calling as one of conflict.

ὅτι ὁ παθὼν ἐν σαρκὶ ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς] In Luther’s translation: “for he who suffers on the flesh, he ceaseth from sin,” the present is incorrectly substituted for the preterite tense: ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ; correctly: “on the flesh.” Hofmann’s rendering is wrong: “in the flesh,” which, compared with the ἐν σαρκί preceding, would imply “that whilst Christ’s life in the flesh ended with His suffering, our sufferings took place with continued life in the flesh”(!). The reading ΣΑΡΚΊ, “according to the flesh,” conveys the same idea; cf. Winer, 384 (E. T. 513).

ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς] The mid. ΠΑΎΟΜΑΙ is in the classics frequently joined with the genitive, e.g. II. vii. 290: παυσώμεθα μάχης; Herod, i. 47: τῆς μάχης ἐπαύσαντο; Herodian. vii. 10, 16: τῆς τε ὀργῆς ὁ δῆμος ἐπαύσατο. In this way ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ here is explained by most interpreters as equivalent to: “he has ceased from sin, that is, he has given up sinning.” The word may also be taken as the perf. pass. according to the construction ΠΑΎΕΙΝ ΤΙΝΆ ΤΙΝΟς, equivalent to: “to cause one to give up, to desist from a thing.” ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς would then mean: “he has been brought to cease from sin, to sin no more” (Schott: “brought away from sinful conduct”). Hofmann erroneously asserts that “ΠΑΎΕΙΝ ΤΙΝᾺ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς would in a quite general way mean: action such as brings it about that the individual is ended with sin;” that is to say, in the sense, that his relation to sin is at an end.[232] For the genitive with παύειν denotes always a condition or an activity of him who is the object of παύειν.

It makes no essential difference in the thought whether παύειν be taken here as a middle (Weiss) or as a passive (de Wette, Wiesinger). The idea: “through Christ immunitatem nactus sum,” is expressed here neither in the one case nor in the other (Wiesinger).

The clause here has the form of a general statement, the meaning of which is, that by suffering as to the flesh a ceasing of sin is effected.[233] This idea, in many respects a true one, may according to the connection be defined thus: he who suffered on account of sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, has in such wise broken with sin that it has no more power over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with several of the earlier commentators, as also Schott, to understand ΠΑΘΏΝ in a spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, according to Romans 6:7 (Schott), or of the putting to death of the old man (Gerhard: qui carnem cum concupiscentiis suis in Christo et cum Christo crucifigit, ille peccare desinit; Calvin: passio in carne significat nostri abnegationem). Opposed to such an interpretation is the subjoined ΣΑΡΚΊ, by which this παθών here is expressly marked as identical with the ΠΑΘΏΝ, used with reference to Christ; and the apostle in no way hints that that ΠΑΘΏΝ is employed in a spiritual sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to understand by Ὁ ΠΑΘΏΝ Christ, as Fronmüller does,

ΠΈΠ. ἉΜΑΡΤ. being thus in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains: “because Christ hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that it is possible to be without sin”(!)); nor is it less so to assume, finally, with Steiger, that here “the apostle unites together the different persons, the head and the members in their unity,” so that the clause would contain the double idea: “Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin,” and: “we, by participating through faith in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin.” Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the clause the double reference—to Christ and to the Christians; to Christ, “in as far as He by His bodily death was finished with sin, which He took upon Himself for the purpose of atoning for it;” to the Christians, “in so far as he is spiritually dead whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a life in which he goes free from the guilt and slavery of sin.” In these interpretations thoughts are supplied to which the context makes no allusion.[234]

[231] Reiche erroneously appeals in support of this meaning: “disposition of mind,” to the passages in Proverbs 5:2; Proverbs 23:19, LXX., and Wis 2:14.

[232] Thus, too, Schott: “He who has experienced the παθεῖν σαρκί is delivered from his former relation to sin.” But Schott admits that “a release from sin must be thought of, in so far as sin determined the conduct and made it sinful.”

[233] Genuinely catholic is the remark of Lorinus on πέπ. ἁμαρτίας: Peccatorum nomine absolute posito gravia intelliguntur, quae vocamus mortalia; nam desinere atque quiescere a levibus et venialibus, eximium privilegium est, praeterque Deiparam definire non possumus, an alii ulli concessum.

[234] Reiche regards the entire sentence as spurious, because of the difficulty and indistinctness of the thought.

1 Peter 4:2. εἰς τὸ μηκέτι κ.τ.λ.] The words may be connected either with the exhortation ὁπλίσασθε or with πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. De Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. justly prefer the former connection, inasmuch as the infinitival clause expressive of a purpose stands related more naturally to the imperative, than to a subordinate clause containing a general statement (otherwise Zezschwitz and the former exposition in this commentary). Still, it is incorrect to connect εἰς here with ὁπλίζεσθαι, as in the common phrase: ὁπλίζεσθαι εἰς τὸ μάχεσθαι (Schott). Had the apostle meant this, he could not have separated by a parenthesis words which so directly belong to each other; εἰς can only add the nearer definition of the aim to which ὁπλιζ. is directed.

ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις. ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ] The datives are to be explained either as τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζῆν, chap. 1 Peter 2:24 (Brückner, Wiesinger), or they express the pattern according to which (Hofm.); as in Acts 15:1, Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:25, etc. Gerh.: praecipit ut normam vitae nostrae statuamus non hominum voluntatem, sed Dei voluntatem. The latter view is to be preferred on account of the idea τὸν … βιῶσαι χρόνον. “ἀνθρώπων and Θεοῦ are antitheses, as are also the manifold lusts of men and the one uniform will of God” (Wiesinger). The notion that by ἐπιθυμίαι are to be understood the lusts, not of the readers, but of those only by whom they were surrounded (Schott, Hofm.), must be rejected as arbitrary.

τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρὸνον] With ἐν σαρκί, comp. 2 Corinthians 10:3, Galatians 2:20; Php 1:22; Php 1:24. σάρξ expresses as little here as in 1 Peter 4:1 an ethical conception; it denotes the earthly human nature to which the mortal body belongs.

The verb βιοῦν is ἅπ. λεγ. in the N. T. The form βιῶσαι is to be found in the Attic writers, but it is less common than the 2 aor.: βιῶναι.

ἐπίλοιπος, in like manner, ἅπ. λεγ.: “the remaining time in the flesh;” an idea similar to ὁ τῆς παροικίας χρόνος, chap. 1 Peter 1:17. With the whole thought, comp. Romans 12:2.

1 Peter 4:3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought expressed in the previous verse, that the Christians should no longer live after the lusts of men, but according to the will of God; hence γάρ.

ἀρκετός] Matthew 6:34; Matthew 10:25; correctly Wiesinger: “the expression is here a μείωσις.” Gerhard: in eo quod ait “sufficit” est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua mitigat Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a foreign application when he explains: “in it you have enough to repent of and to make amends for.” The construction as in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): ἱκανὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ τι τῶν δεινῶν οὐ γέγονε; comp. ἰκανούσθω, Ezekiel 44:6; Ezekiel 45:9. ἐστι simply is to be supplied, not, with Steiger, “should be.”

ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος] points back to μηκέτι; in contrast to τὸν ἐπίλοιπον … χρόνον.

τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατείργασθαι] The infinitive is, in free construction, dependent on ἀρκετός, as it also stands with ἀρκεῖ; cf. Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T. 401 ff.]. The inf. perf. is selected “to designate the former life of sin, which has once for all been brought to a close” (Schott).

τῶν ἐθνῶν] is not evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. When Jachmann says: “the apostle could never say of the heathen, that they lived according to the will of the heathen,” it must be observed, that if the readers were formerly heathen, the βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν was undoubtedly their own βούλημα, but that ἐθνῶν is explained by the fact, that they were now heathen no longer (as opposed to Weiss).

πεπορευμένους] must be referred to ὑμᾶς, to be supplied in thought to κατειργάσθαι. If the right reading be ἡμῖν after ἀρκετὸς γάρ, Peter would include himself, and ἡμὰς would have to be supplied. The Vulg. is indefinite: his qui ambulaverunt. Beza’s view is inappropriate, that Peter refers here not only to the readers of the epistle (whom he considers to have been Jewish-Christians), but also to their ancestors, i.e. the former ten tribes of Israel. With πορεύεσθαι ἐν, cf. Luke 1:6; 2 Peter 2:10.

ἀσελγείαις] “excesses of every kind,” embracing specially unchastity; cf. Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 3Ma 2:26, etc.; Buddeus considers it to mean nothing else than: obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo; Lucian has the expression: ἀσελγέστεροι τῶν ὄνων.

ἐπιθυμίαις] in the plural denotes fleshly lusts in themselves; although not limited to sensual desires only, it yet includes these chiefly.

οἰνοφλυγίαις] ἅπ. λεγ. in the N. T.; the verb οἰνοφλυγεῖν, LXX. Deuteronomy 21:20, Heb. סָכָא; Luther: “intoxication;” better: “drunkenness.” Andronicus Rhodus, lib. περὶ παθῶν, p. 6: οἰνοφλυγία ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος. Philo (V.M. 1, § 22) calls οἰνοφλυγία an ἀπλήρωτος ἐπιθυμία.

κώμοις] besides here, only in Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:21, where, as here with πότοις, it is joined with μέθαι: commissationes, properly: “carousals;” cf. Pape, s.v.

πότοις] ἅπ. λεγ.; chiefly applied to social drinking at the banquet; Appian, B. C. I. p. 700: ὁ δὲ Σερτώριος … τὰ πολλὰ ἦν ἐπὶ τρυφῆς, γυναίξι καὶ κώμοις καὶ πότοις σχολάζων.

καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρείαις] designates heathen idolatrous practices specially. ἀθέμιτος, in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage, only in Acts 10:28, gives marked prominence to that in the nature of εἰδωλ. which is antagonistic to the divine law. Bengel: quibus sanctissimum Dei jus violatur.[235] This description is only applicable to such persons as were formerly heathen, not to the Jews; to the latter only in the days before the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in opposition to this, wrongly appeals to Romans 2:17 ff.; for the reproach there made against the Jews bears an impress entirely different from the description here given; nor is the ἱεροσυλεῖν in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry. It is altogether arbitrary to take the expression εἰδωλολατρείαι here in a wider sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper; and it is further opposed by the expression ἀθεμίτοις.

[235] Schott unjustifiably maintains that the εἰδωλολατρείαι are termed ἀθέμιτοι not in themselves, but on account of the immoral, voluptuous ceremonies connected with them. The adject. is added because they form an antithesis, in the strictest sense, to God’s holy prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert that εἰδωλολατρεία could only be termed ἀθέμιτος when practised by the Jews, not when by the heathen.

1 Peter 4:4. ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται] Many interpreters apply ἐν ᾧ directly to the thought contained in the following clause: μὴ συντρεχόντων … ἀνάχυσιν; Pott: ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ξενίζ., ὅτι μὴ συντρέχετε; incorrectly; ἐν ᾧ is connected rather with what precedes. Still it can hardly be right to explain, that as the perfects κατειργάσθαι and πεπορευμένους point to the fact, that they no longer live as they had lived, this was the matter of wonderment (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott,[236] and in this commentary). It is more natural to take it thus

ἐν ᾧ equivalent to: “on the ground of this” (that is, because ye have thus lived), and the absolute genitive following as equal to: “inasmuch as ye run not with them,” so that the sense is: “on account of this, that ye thus walked in time past, your countrymen think it strange when ye do so no longer” (Hofm.); with ἐν ᾧ, comp. John 16:30 and Meyer in loc. The genitive absolute assigns, as it frequently does, the occasioning cause (Winer, p. 195 [E. T. 259]). The word ξενίζεσθαι (in its common meaning is equivalent to: “to be a guest;” thus it is used frequently in the N. T.) here means: “to be amazed,” “to feel astonishment;” comp. 1 Peter 4:12; Acts 17:20.[237]

μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν] “μή refers the matter to the amazement of the heathen.” συντρέχειν, Mark 6:33 and Acts 3:11 : to run together, confluere; here: “to run in company with any one.”

εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσιν] states the aim of the συντρ. With ἀσωτία, comp. Ephesians 5:18; Titus 1:6 : “lewd and dissolute conduct.” The word ἀνάχυσις is to be found in Aelian, de an. xvi. 15, used synonymously with ἐπίκλυσις, and Script, graec. ap. Luper. in Harpocr. with ὑπέρκλυσις; it means, accordingly: the overflowing. This sense is to be kept hold of, and τρέχειν εἰς ἀσωτίας to be explained of the haste with which dissoluteness is allowed to break forth and to overflow. According to Hofm., it denotes the doings of those who are in haste to pour out from them their indwelling lasciviousness, so that it overflows and spreads in all directions. From the explanation of Strabo, iii. p. 206 A: λέγονται ἀναχύσεις αἱ πληρούμεναι τῇ θαλάττῃ κοίλαδες ἐν πλημμυρίσι, it is unjustifiable to derive the meaning “sentina, mire” (2d ed. of this commentary), or “flood” (3d ed.), or “stream” (Schott).[238]

βλασφημοῦντες] characterizes their amazement more nearly as one which prompts them to speak evil of those whose conduct causes them astonishment (not “Christianity,” as Hofmann thinks). Schott justly remarks that “it is not the being struck with amazement in itself which is, strictly speaking, of significance here, but that definite form of it expressed by βλασφημοῦντες, placed last for the sake of emphasis.”

[236] It is true that “a surprise calling forth displeasure” (Schott) is meant; but this does not lie in the word itself.

[237] The object. to ξενίζεσθαι is either in the dative, as ver. 12 (Polyb. iii. 68. 9: ἐξενίζοντο τῷ τὶ συμβεβηκὸς εἶναι παρὰ τὴν προσδοκίαν), or is subjoined by means of διά τι or ἐπί τινι.

[238] Hesych. and Suidas interpret ἀνάχυσις also by βλακεία, ἔκλυσις; thus Gerhard: virium exolutio, mollities; according to de Wette it means: profusio, wantonness; but it is better to keep to the above signification.

1 Peter 4:5 points to the judgment which awaits the evil-speaking heathen: οἱ ἀποδώσουσι λόγον] ἀποδ. λόγον (Matthew 12:36; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 19:40). Antithesis to αἰτεῖν λόγον, chap. 1 Peter 3:15.

τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι] “that is, the Saviour risen, and seated at the right hand, chap. 1 Peter 3:22,” de Wette.

The expression: ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, “to be ready,” with the exception of here, only in Acts 21:13; 2 Corinthians 12:14.

κρῖναι ξῶντας καὶ νεκρούς] As often in the N. T. of the last judgment, which by ἑτοίμ. ἔχ. is pointed out as near at hand; comp. 1 Peter 4:7. ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς does not denote some dead and some alive, but the aggregate of all, whether they be living or already dead when the day of judgment comes; comp. Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:1.[239] It is erroneous to understand by the quick and the dead the Christians only (Wichelhaus, Schott), or those who speak evil only. Peter, by naming Him to whom the evil-speakers shall render an account, the Judge of the quick and the dead, implies thereby that they are not to remain unpunished, whether they die before the day of judgment or not. And this, as a testimony to the justice of God, should serve to comfort the Christians under the calumnies which they had to endure, and exhort them not to be led aside by them to a denial of their Christian walk.

It must further be observed, that this passage adds the last to those elements of the glory of the exalted Saviour mentioned at the close of the last chapter, namely, the office of judge which He will execute at the end of the days.

[239] Gerhard: vivos, quos judex veniens reperiet vivos, mortuos, quos ex sepulcris in vitam revocabit. Several commentators erroneously understand the words ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς in a figurative sense; Joh. Huss: vivos in gratia ad beatitudinem, mortuos in culpa ad damnationem; Bened. Arias: vivos adhuc in carne illa Adami: mortuos in Christo.

1 Peter 4:6. This verse, which has been explained in very diverse ways,[240] is meant, as the ΓΆΡ following upon ΕἸς ΤΟῦΤΟ shows, to give the ground or the explanation of a statement going before. The question is: Which statement is it? The sound of the words serves to suggest that in ΝΕΚΡΟῖς we have a resumption of the ΝΕΚΡΟΎς immediately preceding, and that what is said in this verse is to be regarded as the ground of the thought that judgment will he pronounced, not only upon the living, but upon the dead also. This assumption seems to be corroborated by the καί before ΝΕΚΡΟῖς. The fact—to which Peter appeals—on which this thought is based is expressed in ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΣΘΗ. But it is precisely this idea, that the gospel was preached to the dead,—to all the dead,—which has induced the interpreters to deviate from the explanation lying most naturally to hand. It is entirely unjustifiable, with Zezschwitz (thus Alethaeus already, and Starkius in Wolf), to connect the verse with 1 Peter 4:1-2, regard 1 Peter 4:3-5 as a digression, and understand under ΝΕΚΡΟῖς the Christians who are already dead when the day of judgment arrives, γάρ certainly must refer back to 1 Peter 4:5; according to Schott, it applies to the whole homogeneous statement of 1 Peter 4:5; according to Bengel, to Τῷ ἙΤΟΊΜΩς ἜΧΟΝΤΙ; in their opinion, likewise, ΝΕΚΡΟῖς is to be understood of Christians already dead. This determination of the expression, however, is arbitrary, as no mention is made in 1 Peter 4:5 of the Christians.[241] It lies more to hand to take the νεκροῖς as meaning the evil-speakers mentioned in 1 Peter 4:5. On this interpretation, the apostle tells the Christians who were being evil spoken of not to forget that those calumniators who died before the judgment would not on that account escape punishment. Still, it is difficult to see why the apostle should give such special prominence to this,—more especially with the further remark, that the gospel was preached unto them, ἵνα … ζῶσι κ.τ.λ. Wiesinger justly remarks: “that the author should so expressly accept the assumption of their death, does not well agree with the ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, and not with the subsequent πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικε.”

Hofmann, whilst correctly recognising that by νεκροῖς the apostle here does not denote Christians only, or unbelievers only, gives a closer definition of the term by applying it to those of the dead to whom, during their life time, the gospel had been preached. At the same time, however, he assumes that the thought here expressed “serves to confirm or explain the whole statement that the slanderers; without exception, whether living or dead, must render account to the Lord.” But, on the one hand, the apostle in no way alludes to the limitation of the idea here too supposed; and, on the other, it is incorrect to understand by ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, 1 Peter 4:5, the calumniators only. If all arbitrariness is to be avoided, then νεκροῖς must here be taken in the same wide sense as νεκρούς in 1 Peter 4:5. Any limitation of the general idea is without justification,—indicated, as such is, neither by the want of the article before νεκροῖς,[242] nor by the circumstance that the slanderers are the subject in 1 Peter 4:5. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the apostle gives expression to the thought that the gospel has been preached to all, who are dead, at the time when the last judgment arrives. With the view of chap. 1 Peter 3:19-20, which is in harmony with the words, this thought need occasion no stumbling. In that passage, it is true, the ἘΚΉΡΥΞΕΝ applies only to the spirits of those who perished in the flood. But they alone are mentioned there not because the ΚΉΡΥΓΜΑ was addressed exclusively to them, but because the apostle recognised in the deluge the type of baptism.[243] Accordingly, though there be a close connection of thought internally between what is here said and chap. 1 Peter 3:19-20, it is nevertheless erroneous, with Steiger, König, Güder, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 228 f., to take εὐηγγελίσθη as applying only to those there named.

ΕὐΗΓΓΕΛΊΣΘΗ is put here impersonally: “the gospel was proclaimed:” neither ὁ Χριστός nor Ἡ ΔΙΔΑΧῊ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ (Bengel, Grotius, Pott, etc.), nor anything similar, is to be supplied.

[240] Lorinus enumerates twelve different interpretations; nor does that complete the number. Many commentators are uncertain, and confess that they do not understand the true meaning of the verse; thus also Luther, who even thinks it possible that the text has been corrupted. Reiche, too, is inclined to regard the passage as a gloss added by a later hand.

[241] It is evidently still farther fetched to understand νεκροῖς as meaning the believers of the O. T., as is done by several of the earlier commentators—Bullinger, Aretius, etc.

[242] The phrases: ἐγείρειν, ἐγείρεσθαι, ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]), go to prove that the expression νεκροί, when applied to all the dead, has not necessarily the article prefixed to it. Elsewhere, too, νεκροί has no article; cf. Luke 16:30; Acts 10:42; Romans 14:9.

[243] Erroneous is the opinion of several commentators (Pott, Jachmann, König, Grimm in theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1835), that these only are named by way of example, because they were specially ungodly.

εἰς τοῦτο … ἵνα (comp. chap. 1 Peter 3:9; John 18:37, and other passages) points to the design of the fact stated in εὐηγγελίσθη; on this the chief accent of the sentence lies. The apostle bases the thought, that the Lord stands ready to judge the dead also, not alone on the circumstance that the gospel has been preached to them too, but that it has been preached for the purpose which he states in what follows. This purpose is expressed in the sentence consisting of two members: ἵνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκι, ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι. According to the grammatical structure, κριθῶσιν and ζῶσιν are co-ordinate with each other, and both are equally dependent on ἵνα. In sense ἵνα applies, however, only to ζῶσιν, inasmuch as the first member must be regarded as a parenthesis. The construction here is similar to that which is frequently to be found in classical writers in clauses connected by μὲν … δέ (see Matthiae, ausf. griech. Gr. 2d ed. p. 1262). This conjunction, as Hartung (Lehre v. d. Partikl., Part II. p. 406) remarks, discloses the contrast. The aorist κριθῶσιν shows the judgment to be one which, at the commencement of the last judgment, is by their very death executed upon those who are then dead, and this quite independently of whether the gospel was preached to them before or after death. It is accordingly erroneous to understand this judgment (κριθῶσιν) to mean the judgment of repentance (Gerhard), or that of the flood (de Wette); it is the judgment of death, as nearly all expositors have rightly acknowledged. Hofmann, with only an appearance of rightness, asserts that the expression of the apostle can be appropriately applied only to those who did not suffer this judgment of death till after the gospel had been preached to them. The apostle could express himself thus as regards those also with whom this was not the case, all the more readily that they were not set free from the condition of death immediately on hearing the gospel preached, nor then even, when they had received it in faith. Accordingly, the interpretation is: “in order that they, after the flesh, indeed, judged by death, may live according to the spirit” (Wiesinger). The antithesis σαρκὶ … πνεύματι is here in the same sense as in chap. 1 Peter 3:18. Güder’s opinion, that σάρξ here denotes the sinful bias which the dead possess, is unwarranted; nowhere in Scripture is σάρξ attributed to the already departed.

κατὰ ἀνθρώπους means neither: “by men,” nor: “according to the judgment of men;” but: “according to the manner of men, as is peculiar to them.”

The second member: ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι, corresponds as to form entirely with the first clause, only that here the verb is present, because it mentions the future condition aimed at. ζῆν is antithetical to κριθῆναι, and denotes the eternal life which in the judgment is awarded to those who in faith have received the gospel. It is more nearly defined by κατὰ Θεόν, which (corresponding to the κατὰ ἀνθρώπους) can only mean, “according to the manner of God, as corresponds with the character of God.”[244]

This final clause states the purpose which this ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ should serve; whether, and in how far, the object is attained is not said.

[244] Hofmann interprets κατὰ Θεόν incorrectly by: “because of God,” to which he adds the more precise definition: “since it is God who gives this life, so that it is therefore constituted accordingly.”—Jachmann’s view is very singular; he holds that κατὰ Θεόν means “with reference to their divine part;” nor, he thinks, should this occasion surprise, for, as the sensuous nature of man is in biblical language personified by ὁ ἄνθρωπος, so too his invisible, divine nature might be personified by ὁ Θεός.

1 Peter 4:7. Here begins the third series of exhortations, which has special reference to life in the church, and is linked on to the thought of the nearness of the end of all things (see Introd. § 2).

πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν] δέ marks clearly the transition to another train of thought. It is accordingly incorrect to connect the clause with what precedes (Hofmann). πάντων τὸ τέλος, equal to: “the end of all things,” refers back to the foregoing ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι; with the judgment comes the τέλος. πάντων, placed first by way of emphasis, is not masc. (Hensler; “the end of all men”) but neut.;[245] comp. 2 Peter 3:10-11; with τέλος, Matthew 24:6; Matthew 24:14.

ἤγγικε] comp. Romans 13:12; Jam 5:8; Php 4:5. That the apostle, without fixing the time or the hour of it, looked upon the advent of Christ and the end of the world,—in its condition hitherto,—therewith connected, as near at hand, must be simply admitted.[246]

σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε] The first exhortation, grounded (ΟὖΝ) on the thought of the nearness of the end of the world. ΣΩΦΡ.; Vulg.: estote prudentes; in this sense the word is not in use in the N. T.; it means rather temperateness of spirit, i.e. the governing omnium immoderatorum affectuum; with the passage comp. 1 Timothy 2:9; Titus 2:6 (Hemming: σωφροσύνη, equal to affectuum et voluntatis harmonia), in contrast to the licentiousness of the heathen described in 1 Peter 4:2 (Wiesinger).

ΝΉΨΑΤΕ] Vulg.: vigilate, inexactly; ΝΉΦΕΙΝ has here the same meaning as in chap. 1 Peter 1:13. It is not enough to understand both expressions of abstinence from sensual indulgence.

ΕἸς [ΤᾺς] ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΆς] not: in orationibus (Vulg.), for ΕἸς states the aim of the ΣΩΦΡ. and ΝΉΦΕΙΝ, but: “unto prayer,” that is, so that you may always be in the right frame of mind for prayer. If τάς be genuine, it is to be explained on the supposition that the apostle took the prayers of Christians for granted.

A mind excited by passions and lusts cannot pray. The plural points to repeated prayer (Schott). Schott, without any warrant, would understand by it the prayers of the church only.

The fact that both ideas are synonymous, forbids any separation, with de Wette and Hofmann, of ΣΩΦΡΟΝΉΣΑΤΕ from ΝΉΨΑΤΕ, and the conjoining of ΕἸς Τ ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΆς with the latter term only.

[245] Oecumenius gives two interpretations: τὸ τέλος· ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἡ συμπλήρωσις, ἡ συντέλεια· ἢ τέλος ἠγγικέναι τῶν πάντων προφητῶν· τοῦτο δὲ ἀληθεῖ λόγῳ, ὁ Χριστός, ἡ πάντων γὰρ τελειότης, αὐτός ἐστιν. The second is evidently false.

[246] According to Schott, ἤγγικε means as much as: “not only is there nothing more between the Christian’s present state of salvation and the end, but the former is itself already the end, i.e. the beginning of the end.”

1 Peter 4:8. πρὸ πάντων δέ] cf. Jam 5:12.

τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς (i.e. ἀλλήλους) ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες. The second exhortation. The participle shows that this and the first exhortation belong closely together. Luther translates inexactly: “have … a burning love.” Love one to another, as the characteristic sign (John 13:35) of Christians, is presupposed; the apostle’s exhortation is directed to this, that the love should be ἐκτενής (Bengel: amor jam praesupponitur, ut sit vehemens, praecipitur).

For ἐκτενής, cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:22. There is nothing to show that the apostle gave expression to this exhortation with special reference to the circumstance “that in the case of his readers brotherly love was united with danger and persecution” (Schott).

ὅτι [ἡ] ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν] A proverbial saying after Proverbs 10:12 : שִׂנְאָה תְּעֹרֵר מְדָנִים וְעַל בָּל־פְּשָׁעִים תְּכַסֶּה אַהֲבָה (the second half is incorrectly translated by the LXX. πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία): “Love covereth (maketh a covering over) all sins.” The sense of the words is evident from the first half of the verse; whilst hatred stirs up strife and contention (by bringing the sins of others to the light of day), love, with forgiving gentleness, covers the sins of others (and thus works concord).[247]

In its original meaning, accordingly, the proverb has reference to what love does as regards the sins of others; love in its essential nature is forgiveness, and that not of some, but of many sins; 1 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 13:7; Matthew 18:21-22. In this sense Estius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss (p. 337 f.), Schott, Fronmüller, etc., have rightly interpreted the passage, which then, serving as the basis of the preceding exhortation,[248] is intended to set forth the blessed influence of love on life in the church. Hofmann unjustly denies this (Beza: caritatem mutuam commendat ex eo, quod innumerabilia peccata veluti sepeliat, ac proinde pacis ac concordiae sit fautrix et conservatrix. Wiesinger: “Only by the forgiving, reconciling influence of love, can the destructive power of sin be kept away from church life”). Steiger (with whom Weiss and Fronmüller agree) explains: “the apostle recommends the Christians to extend the limits of brotherly love and to strengthen themselves in it, because true love covers a multitude of sins;” but this is not to the point, inasmuch as the covering of many sins is peculiar to the ἀγάπη itself, and constitutes the reason why it should be ἐκτενής. Several expositors (Grotius, etc.) understand the words to have the same meaning here as in Jam 5:20 (see Comment. in loc.), that is, that love in effecting the sinner’s conversion, procures the divine forgiveness for his many sins; but, on the one hand, “the apostle does not here regard his readers as erring brethren, of whom it might be the duty of some to convert the others” (Wiesinger); and, on the other, “there is here not the slightest indication that the expression is not to be understood directly of the covering of sins as such, but of reclaiming labours” (Weiss).

Oecumenius already (ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὸν πλησίον ἔλεος, τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῖν ἵλεων ποιεῖ), and after him many Catholic expositors (Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, Lorinus, etc.), and several Protestants also (the latter sometimes, whilst distinctly defending the Protestant principle against Catholic applications of the passage[249]), understand the maxim of the blessing which love brings to him who puts it into practice. But if Peter had wished to express a thought similar to that uttered by Christ, Matthew 6:14-15, he would assuredly not have made use of words such as these, which in the nature of them bear not upon personal sins, but on those of others.[250]

[247] As opposed to the view that Peter had this passage in his mind, de Wette asserts, that in “that case the apostle must have translated from the Hebrew the passage incorrectly rendered by the LXX. This, however, is in itself improbable, as he would then have written πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας, or rather, πάντα τὰ ἀδικήματα (cf. Proverbs 17:9).” But though it may be questioned whether Peter quoted directly from it, there can be no doubt, as even Brückner, Wiesinger, and Weiss admit, that the proverbial phrase arose out of that passage.

[248] Hottinger: ὅτι indicare videtur (better: indicat) incitamentum aliquod, quo christianis amor iste commendatur.

[249] Vorstius: intelligit Ap. caritatem in causa esse, ut non tantum proximi nostri peccata humaniter tegamus, verum etiam ut Deus nobis ex pacto gratuito nostra peccata condonet, non quod propter meritum seu dignitatem caritatis id fiat, sed quia caritas erga fratres conditio est, sine qua Deus nobis ignoscere non vult.

[250] De Wette gives a peculiar combination of the various interpretations: “As the love which is required of us is a common love, so the writer refers to the common sins still defacing the whole of Christian social life, but which, as single blemishes(!), are overshone, and made pardonable in God’s eye, by the light of that love which penetrates all; that is, in that this love produces mutual reconciliation and improvement.” On this Brückner remarks, that what is true here is the thought that reciprocalness is a characteristic not of love only, but of all her actions, i.e. “He whose love covers the sins of others, sees in like manner his own sins covered by the love of others.” But this makes “the interpretation only more artificial, and removes it still farther from the simple phraseology of our passage “(Weiss).—Clemens Al. and Bernhard of Clairvaux (Sermo 23 in Cant.) understand ἀγάπη to mean the love of Christ(!).