성경 주석서

1 Peter 2:1-2. ἀποθεμενοι οὖν … ἐπιποθήσατε] The admonition which commences here stands, as οὖν shows, in close connection with what precedes; in 1 Peter 2:22 the apostle had exhorted to unfeigned love one of another, which love he shows to be conditioned by ἁγνίζειν ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας, and grounded on ἀναγεγεννημένον εἶναι; from this deducing the ἀποτίθεσθαι πᾶσαν κακίαν κ.τ.λ., he now exhorts ἐπιποθεῖν τὸ λογικὸν γάλα. The apostle’s intention, explaining at once the connection of this with the foregoing admonition, and the relation in which the thought of the participial clause ἀποθέμενοι stands to that of the imperative ἐπιποθήσατε, is that the Christians should show themselves τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (1 Peter 1:14), not each for himself, but united together, an οἶκος πνευματικός (1 Peter 2:5), γένος ἐκλεκτόν κ.τ.λ. (1 Peter 2:9). Schott acknowledges this reference (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church; it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which stand in direct antagonism to the φιλαδελφία ἀνυπόκριτος (1 Peter 1:22). The participle ἀποθέμενοι stands to ἐπιποθήσατε in the same relation as ἀναζωσάμενοι to ἐλπίσατε in chap. 1 Peter 1:13; it is therefore then not equal to postquam deposuistis, but expresses the continued purification of the Christian; comp. Ephesians 4:22; Hebrews 12:1; specially also Colossians 3:8; and for the whole passage, Jam 1:21.

πᾶσαν κακίαν κ.τ.λ.] Calvin: non est Integra omnium enumeratio quae deponi a nobis oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant Apostoli, quaedam vitia praeponunt in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium designant. κακία means here, as in Colossians 3:8, not generally: “wickedness,” but specially “malice,” nocendi cupiditas (Hemming). πᾶσαν denotes the whole compass of the idea: “every kind of malice.” The same is implied by the plural form in the words following ὑποκρίσεις, etc.; in πάσας καταλαλίας both are combined. The same and similar ideas to those here expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the N. T.; comp. Romans 1:29-30. “The admonitions which follow are in essential connection with this comprehensive exhortation; comp. chap. 1 Peter 2:22 ff.; especially chaps. 1 Peter 3:8 ff., 1 Peter 4:8 ff., 1 Peter 5:2 ff.” (Wiesinger). For the force of the separate terms, comp. Lexicon. Augustin: malitia maculo delectatur alieno; invidia bono cruciatur alieno; dolus duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat linguam; detrectatio vulnerat famam.

καταλαλία occurs only here and in 2 Corinthians 12:20; in the classics the verb is to be found, never the subst.—1 Peter 2:2. ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη] is not to be connected with ἀποθέμενοι, but with what follows. It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but, in view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring to 1 Peter 1:23 : ἀναγεγεννημένοι) to designate the readers as those who had but recently been born again.[108] In Bengel’s interpretation: denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae N. T., a false reference is given to the expression. The particle ὡς is not here either used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. 1 Peter 1:14.

ΤῸ ΛΟΓΙΚῸΝ ἌΔΟΛΟΝ ΓΆΛΑ ἘΠΙΠΟΘΉΣΑΤΕ] ΓΆΛΑ is not here contrasted with ΒΡῶΜΑ, as in 1 Corinthians 3:2, or with ΣΤΕΡΕᾺ ΤΡΟΦΉ, as in Hebrews 5:12; but it denotes the word of God, in that it by its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man. The term ΓΆΛΑ, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained simply from the reference to ἈΡΤΙΓΈΝΝΗΤΑ ΒΡΈΦΗ (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). This view results quite naturally from the comparison with chap. 1 Peter 1:22-23. If Peter had intended to convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as to have been understood.[109]

λογικόν] does not state an attribute of evangelical doctrine: “rational;” Gualther: quod tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi, nor even in the sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred: nihil credendum esse quod ratione adversetur; but it is added in order to mark the figurative nature of the expression γάλα (to which it stands related similarly as in chap. 1 Peter 1:13 : τῆς διαν. ὑμ. to τὰς ὀσφύας), so that by it this milk is characterized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: “spiritual, what is drawn in by the soul, what the heart must seek;” thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Fronmüller, Hofmann. It has here the same signification as in Romans 12:1, where it does not mean “rational” as contrasted with what is external (de Wette). The interpretation on which λογικὸν γάλα is taken as equal to γάλα τοῦ λόγου, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi (it is supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, Wolf, and others). Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss (p. 187), that by “λογικόν is to be understood that which proceeds from the λόγος (i.e. Word);” thus γάλα λογικόν would be the verbal milk of doctrine.[110] The second adjective: ἄδολον (ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ.), strictly “without guile,” then “pure, unadulterated,” is not meant to give prominence to the idea that the Christians should strive to obtain the pure gospel, unadulterated by heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies purity as a quality belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott).[111] It is, besides, applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative ΓΆΛΑ, but only to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).[112]

ἐπιποθήσατε] expresses a strong, lively desire, Php 2:26. Wolf: Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte sua et impetu quodam naturali in lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture of Grotius: ἐπιποτίζετε, is quite unnecessary.

ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε] ἵνα, not ἐκβατικῶς, but τελικῶς; it states the purpose of the ἐπιποθήσατε. ἐν is more significant than διά, equivalent to “in its power.” The verb αὐξηθῆτε, used in connection with ἀρτιγενν. βρέφη, denotes the ever further development and strengthening of the new life. Although the aim which the apostle has in view in his exhortation is to mark the destination of Christians to be an οἶκος πνευματικός, still it is incorrect to affirm that αὐξηθῆτε has reference, not to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the transforming of the church as such, “to the conception of a building which is being carried up higher and higher to its completion.” Apart from the fact that αὐξάνεσθαι plainly refers back to ἀρτιγ. βρέφη, and is not equivalent to “to be built up,” it must be remarked that the church can become what it should be only by individual members growing up each of them ever more and more to the ἀνὴρ τέλειος.

εἰς σωτηρίαν] omitted in the Rec., states the final aim of all Christian growth. Schott’s explanation, that by σωτηρία “the final glorious transfiguration of the church” is meant, is only a consequence of his erroneous and one-sided reference of the apostle’s exhortation to the church as such.

[108] It must be observed that the expression was used by the Jews also to designate the proselytes; corroborating passages in Wetstein in loc.

[109] Calvin understands γάλα to mean: vitae ratio quae novam genituram sapiat; Hemming: consentanea simplici infantiae vivendi ratio; Cornelius a Lapide: symbolum candoris, sinceritatis et benevolentiae. All these interpretations are contradicted by the fact that γάλα is not a condition of life, but means of nourishment. It is altogether arbitrary to explain γάλα to be the Lord’s Supper (Estius, Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ as the incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. in Paedag. i. c. 6; Augustin in Tract. iii. in 1 Ep. John); Weiss, too, is mistaken when he says: “the nourishment of the new-born child of God is Christ Himself, who is preached and revealed in the word.”

[110] Besides, how does this agree with Weiss’s opinion, that γάλα means Christ Himself? The verbal Christ?!

[111] Wolf: lac ἄδολον ideo appellari puto, ut indicetur, operam dandam esse, ne illud traditionibus humanis per καπηλεύοντας τὸν λόγον, 2 Corinthians 2:17, corruptum hauriatur.

[112] Hofmann rightly observes: “What tends to the Christian’s growth may be compared to the pure milk which makes the child to thrive at its mother’s breast, and therefore it is termed τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα.”

1 Peter 2:3. εἰ [εἴπερ] ἐγεύσασθε, ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] Based on the Old Testament passage, Psalm 34:9 : γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος; the words καὶ ἴδετε are omitted, not being suitable to the figure γάλα.

εἰ is here, as in 1 Peter 2:17, hypothetical indeed: “if,” but it does not express a doubt; thus Gerhard correctly explains εἴπερ: non est dubitantis, sed supponentis, quod factum sit. Comp. Romans 8:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

γεύομαι is used here of inward experience, comp. Hebrews 6:4-5; it alludes to the figurative γάλα, inasmuch as the Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the spiritual milk tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted that the Christians had already made inward experience of the goodness of their Lord (κύριος; in the Psalms, God; here, Christ), not merely in the instruction which preceded baptism, or in baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum fidem evangelii susceperunt (Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians; as the new-born child, not once only, but ever anew refreshes itself on the nourishment offered by a mother’s love. With such experience, it is natural that believers should ever afresh be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the imparting of which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested: nam gustus provocat appetitum (Lorinus).[113]

ὍΤΙ, not equal to quam (Grotius), but: “that.”

χρηστός, “kind, gracious,” not exactly suavis (Grotius: ut a gustu sumta translatio melius procedat); in this sense it would be more applicable to γάλα than to ΚΎΡΙΟς.

Several interpreters assume that in ΧΡΗΣΤΌς Peter plays upon the word ΧΡΙΣΤΌς; but this is more than improbable.

[113] Schott insists “that the apostle is not here anxious about the readers’ desire in general for the word, but that such desire should be combined with the purpose of finally attaining salvation.” But is there anywhere a desire after the word of God without such intent?—Nothing in the context indicates that that in which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested is “those rare moments of heavenly joy in which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory” (Schott).

1 Peter 2:4-5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally (ὅν) as internally, inasmuch as the imperative (οἰκοδομεῖσθε) is preceded by a participle (προσερχόμενοι), and an adjunct introduced by ὡς, defining the subject more nearly.

Starting from ὁ κύριος the apostle says: πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι] προσέρχεσθαι (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann).[114] Luther incorrectly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were the part. praet.; Hornejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat.

λίθον ζῶντα] in apposition to ὅν; it is not necessary to supply ὡς (Wolf). What follows shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies, Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16 (cf. Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11; Romans 9:33). The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more concerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in λίθος ζῶν, than to draw attention to the fact that in these passages of the O. T. Christ is the promised λίθος. In using this term, Peter had already in view the subsequent οἰκοδομεῖσθε. The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on which it rests. In order that the church may become ever more completed as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with reference to those predictions.

The explanatory adjective is added, as in 1 Peter 2:2, to the figurative λίθον; and by it, on the one hand, the expression is marked as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger); and, on the other, the nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. ζῶντα is to be taken here as in John 6:51 and similar passages. Flacius correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus, non tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos vivificat.[115]

ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον] a nearer definition, according to Psalm 118:22. What is there said specially of the builders, is here applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be obtained to the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ. The want of the article τῶν does not warrant a toning down of the interpretation to mean “by men,” i.e. by some or by many men (Hofmann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the article is wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whom Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here regarded “as an exception” (Steiger).

παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, ἔντιμον] after Isaiah 28:16; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only; “that is to say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of God” (Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to ἀποδεδοκ.; ἐκλεκτός is neither equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to προεγνωσμένος (Steiger); but: “elect,” i.e. chosen as the object of love; cf. 1 Timothy 5:21.

παρὰ Θεῷ] not: a Deo (Vulg.), but: ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, coram Deo, Deo judice, “with God.” Worthy of note is the “antagonism between the human judgment and the divine” (Wiesinger), the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of Christ.—1 Peter 2:5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε] καὶ αὐτοί places the Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes αὐτοί as also applying to the verb οἰκοδομ.). As He is a living stone, so are they also living stones, i.e. through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus comparantur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is inadequate. Further, ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες states the qualities which the readers already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the οἰκοδομεῖσθαι (Schott); that unto which they should be built is stated in what follows.

οἰκοδομεῖσθε is, according to the structure of the sentence, not indicative (Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), but imperative (Beza, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Luthardt, Schott, etc.). The objection, that the verses following are declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which precedes them.[116] If 1 Peter 2:4-5 serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation, this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is passive: “be ye built up,” i.e. “let yourself be built up,” i.e. by Christ, as the foregoing πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι shows. Corresponding with the reading ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ super illum, i.e. Christum, is generally understood; an unnecessary supplement; the thought is: that (not: on which) the Christians should let themselves be built up, to that, namely, which the following words state.

οἶκος πνευματικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον] In the Rec. without εἰς the two conceptions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΑΙ: “to the spiritual house, to the holy priesthood;” but if the reading οἰκ. πν. εἰς ἱεράτ. ἅγ. be adopted, then “ἹΕΡΆΤ. ἍΓ. is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual house” (Brückner). Hofmann holds that ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ. is in apposition to the subject contained in ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ, and that ΕἸς ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ. alone is directly dependent on ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ; the former view is, however, more expressive, inasmuch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to a spiritual house, ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ. contains the expression of the passive, ἹΕΡΆΤ. ἍΓ., on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be opposed to the reading ΕἸς, since an ΟἾΚΟς cannot be transformed into a ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that εἰς serves only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (de Wette, Wiesinger).

οἶκος means, in the first instance, “house,” and not “temple;” nor does the attribute ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς mark it as a temple. We must either hold by the conception “house” (Luthardt, Hofmann),[117] or assume that by the house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference on account of the close connection with what follows; comp. the passages 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 4:17.

ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς is the house raised from “living stones,” in contradistinction to the temple built from dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears His nature on it.[118]

ἱεράτευμα is here not the “office of priest” (2Ma 2:17), but the “priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacerdotum); comp. 1 Peter 2:9; Exodus 19:6; “not instead of ἱερεῖς ἅγιοι, but including the essential idea of a community” (de Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that if the reading ΕἸς be adopted, ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ must be understood of the priestly office. ἍΓΙΟΝ subjoined to ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ does not mark a characteristic of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old Testament, but one which belongs essentially to the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ (of course “as ordained by God,” Hofmann) as such. Here, too, there lies in the connection of thought a special emphasis on ἍΓΙΟΝ, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly calling cannot be truly fulfilled.

ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚᾺς ΘΥΣΊΑς] is closely conjoined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E.T. 399f.]) and purport with what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ. This consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ, which is never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the meaning “to sacrifice,” strictly speaking “to bring the offering to the altar.”

The θυσίαι which the N. T. priesthood, i.e. the Christian church in all its members, has to offer are called πνευματικαί, because they have their origin in the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ, and bear on them its nature and essence. Calvin says in what they consist: inter hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre quicquam possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsos in sacrificium obtulerimus, quod fit nostri abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et gratiarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis exercitia. Cf. with this Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15-16.

ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔΈΚΤΟΥς Τῷ ΘΕῷ] ΕὐΠΡΌΣΔΕΚΤΟς (Romans 15:16), equivalent to ΕὐΆΡΕΣΤΟς (Romans 12:1; Romans 14:18; Php 4:18, and other passages).

ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ] belongs not to ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ (Beda), but either to ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ. Τ. ΘΕῷ (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur, quae alias non culmo digna haberet; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.), or to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ (Grotius, Aretius, de Wette, Weiss, etc.).[119] No doubt Hebrews 13:15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction; but in favour of the former are—(1) That the ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ as a priestly function stands in such close connection with ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ., that it seems out of place to suppose a medium (ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣ. ΧΡ.) in addition; and (2) With ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜ. ΘΥΣΊΑς the idea is substantially completed, ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ. being a mere adjunct, to which therefore ΔΙᾺ Ἰ. ΧΡ. also belongs.

[114] The single passage, 1Ma 2:16, by no means proves that προσέρχεσθαι πρός has in itself a stronger force than προσέρχ. cum dat. (as against Hofmann). According to Schott, by προσέρχ. is meant: “not the individual Christian’s deepening experience of community of life with Christ, but only the conduct of the believer, by which, as a member of the church, he gives himself up to the Lord as present in His church, in fact to the church itself!”

[115] De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any reference to the conception of the saxum vivum as opposed to broken stones (Virg. Aen. i. 171; Ovid. Metam. xiv. 741). Inappropriate is Schott’s opinion: “that ζῶν indicates that by the self-unfolding(!) of His divinely human life, Christ causes the church to grow up from Himself the foundation stone.” Hofmann would erroneously exclude the second of the above-mentioned ideas from the λίθον ζῶντα, although it is clearly indicated by the very fact that through connection with the stone Christians themselves become living stones.

[116] The structure of the clause is in favour of the imperative, inasmuch as it is thus brought into conformity with the imperative preceding. When Hofmann asserts that the sentence must necessarily be indicative in form, “because the words subjoined to χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος must state that to which the goodness of Christ brings them,” he does so without reason, for the clause may also state that to which they should allow the goodness of Christ to lead them.

[117] Luthardt: “οἶκος is not equal to ναός; nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for the emphasis lies on πνευματικός. οἶκος is chosen because of οἰκοδομεῖσθε: be ye built as a spiritual house! To this is joined: to an holy priesthood.”

[118] Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in the O. T. temple “the indwelling of God was confined to the Holy of Holies, and visible to the eye” (?); whilst, on the contrary, in the Christian church there is “a real and direct indwelling of God.”

[119] Brückner and Schott think it is correct to connect διὰ Ἰ. Χρ. not with ἀνενέγκαι only, but with the entire thought; but it is self-understood that in the first combination, not the mere ἀναφέρειν, but the ἀναφέρειν πνευματικὰς θυσίας κ.τ.λ., must be considered as effected by Christ.

REMARK.

In this description of the Christians’ calling, the apostle’s first object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had an house of God—the Christian church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inanimate stones, this of living stones; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be an holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into the church; the Christian church is called to be a ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον in this sense, that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like; those of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ well-pleasing to God.

The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all teaching with regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting on divine mandate, and necessary for the communication of salvation (i.e. priestly importance).

1 Peter 2:6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in 1 Peter 2:4-5 by a quotation of the passage, Isaiah 28:16, to which reference was already made in 1 Peter 2:4.

διότι] cf. 1 Peter 1:24.

περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ] an uncommon construction, yet not without parallel, see Joseph. Antt. xi. 7: βούλομαι γίνεσθαι πάντα, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ (i.e. ἐπιστολῇ) περιέχει; indeed περιέχειν is more than once used to denote the contents of a writing, see Acts 23:25; Joseph. Antt. xi. 9: καὶ ἡ μὲν ἐπιστολὴ ταῦτα περιεῖχεν. Either ἡ περιοχή (or ὁ τόπος) must, with Wahl, be supplied here as subject; or better, περιέχει must be taken impersonally as equal to, continetur; cf. Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 316]; Buttmann, p. 126.

The words of the passage in the O. T. (Isaiah 28:16) are quoted neither literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the Hebrew text. In the LXX. it is: ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν (instead of which we have here, exactly as in Romans 9:33 : ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν) λίθον πολυτελῆ (this adject. here omitted) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον (these two words here transposed) ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς (the last two words εἰς … αὐτῆς here left out) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (ἐπʼ αὐτῷ added) οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (Romans 9:33 : καὶ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται). Whatever may be understood by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or the house of David, or the promise given to David, 2 Samuel 7:12; 2 Samuel 7:16 (Hofmann), this passage, which certainly has a Messianic character,—inasmuch as the thought expressed in it should find, and has found, its fulfilment in Christ,—is not here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, ad Jes. I. p. 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, according to Delitzsch (cf. in loc.), is directly meant by the stone (“this stone is the true seed of David, manifested in Christ”). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theophylactus, assumes that Christ is called λίθος ἀκρογων. because He has united Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the one church; this Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a subtilius philosophari. In the words: καὶ ὁ πιστεύων κ.τ.λ., πιστεύων corresponds to προσερχόμενοι, 1 Peter 2:4. οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ does not refer to the glory which consists for the believer in this, “that he, as a λίθος ζῶν, will form part of the οἶκος πν.” (Wiesinger), but to “the final glory of salvation which is the aim of the present πιστεύειν” (Schott); cf. 1 Peter 2:2 : εἰς σωτηρίαν.[120]

[120] Hofmann is wrong in asserting that it is here said “that οὐ μὴ καταισχύνθῃ is meant to call back to mind the εἰς σωτηρίαν in ver. 2.”

1 Peter 2:7. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] Conclusion, with special reference to the readers, ὑμῖν, drawn from 1 Peter 2:6 (οὖν), and in the first instance from the second half of the O. T. quotation, for τοῖς πιστεύουσιν evidently stands related to ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, hence the definite article. On the position of τοῖς πιστ., cf. Winer, p. 511 [E. T. 687]; only, with Winer, it must not be interpreted: “as believers, i.e. if ye are believers,” but: “ye who are believers.”

From the fact that ἡ τιμή echoes ἔντιμον, it must not be concluded that ἡ τιμή here is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the meaning is: “the worth which the stone has, it has for you who believe” (Wiesinger). The clause would then have read perhaps: ὑμῖν οὖν ὁ λίθος ἐστι ἡ τιμή, or the like. ἡ τιμή stands rather in antithesis to καταισχυνθῆναι, and takes up positively what had been expressed negatively in the verse immediately preceding. Gerhard: vobis, qui per fidem tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram Deo (so, too, de Wette-Brückner, Weiss, Schott); ὑμῖν, sc. ἐστι: “yours therefore is the honour;” the article is not without significance here; the honour, namely, which in that word is awarded to believers (Steiger).

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] an explanatory adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end.

ἀπειθοῦσι [ἀπιστοῦσιν] δέ] antithesis to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν; ἀπειθεῖν denotes not only the simple not believing, but the resistance against belief; thus also ἀπιστοῦσιν here, if it be the true reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by: quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, de Wette, etc.). The words: λίθος (λίθον) … γωνίας, are borrowed literally from Psalm 118:22, after the LXX. What is fatal for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become the corner-stone (κεφ. γων. equals λιθ. ἀκρογ.) is stated in the following words, which are taken from Isaiah 8:14 : לְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף וּלְצוּר מִכְשׁוֹל.[121] In a manner similar though not quite identical, these passages of the O. T. are woven together by Paul in Romans 9:33. The words do not denote the subjective conduct of the unbelievers (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling or offence which they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief (Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller); cf. Luke 20:17-18, where the corner-stone is also characterized as a stone of destruction for unbelievers. It is therefore without any foundation that Hofmann asserts “the thought that, to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone seems impossible,” if ἀπειθοῦσιν be taken as the dat. incommodi. So that it is in no way necessary to accept a construction so uncommon as that adopted by Hofmann, who considers the two clauses: ὑμῖν … οἰκοδομοῦντες to be, with an omitted ὤν, in apposition to the following οὗτος, looking on ἡ τιμή as a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the three following expressions: εἰς κεφ. γων., λιθ. προκόμμ., and πέτρα σκανδ. in such a way as to refer the first to believers and the other two to unbelievers, although no such division is anywhere hinted at.

[121] Schott rightly observes that κεφαλὴ γωνίας, as the corner-stone, must not be understood, with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which one stumbles and falls. This is not contained in the idea, corner-stone, in itself.

1 Peter 2:8. οἱ προσκόπτουσι] links itself on to ἀπειθοῦσι κ.τ.λ.: “that is to those who,” etc., not to what follows, as if εἰσι were to be supplied: “they who stumble are those who are,” etc.

προσκόπτειν has here the same meaning as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different; there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, namely, the ground of their destruction; here, on the contrary, that they are really overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains προσκόπτουσι incorrectly: verbo offenduntur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur.

τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες] It is better to connect τῷ λόγῳ with ἀπειθοῦντες than with προσκόπτουσι (either: “who at the word are offended,” or: “who by the word suffer hurt”). For, on the one hand, the leading idea προσκ. would be weakened by its connection with λόγῳ; and, on the other, the nearer definition requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be inappropriate “that λόγος should of a sudden take the place of Christ, who in 1 Peter 2:7 is, as λίθος, the object of προσκ.” (Brückner). Wolf: qui impingunt, nempe: in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur.

εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν] εἰς ὅ not equal to ἐφʼ ᾧ, “on account of which;” nor is it equal to εἰς ὅν (sc. λόγον or λίθον); Luther: “on which they are placed;” or similarly Bolten: “they stumble at that, on which they should have been laid” (he makes εἰς ὅ refer to the omitted object of προσκ.), but it points rather to the end of ἐτέθησαν.[122]

τίθημι] is here, as frequently in the N. T., “to appoint, constituere” (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:9). It is clear from the connection of this verse with the preceding, that εἰς ὅ does not go back to 1 Peter 2:5 (Gerhard: in hoc positi sunt, videlicet, ut ipsi quoque in hunc lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be referred either to ἀπειθεῖν (Calvin, Beza, Piscator, and others) or to προσκόπτειν and ἀπειθεῖν (Estius, Pott, de Wette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger,[123] etc.), or, more correctly, to ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΕΙΝ (Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter (not on ἈΠΕΙΘΕῖΝ) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and ΕἸς Ὃ Κ.Τ.Λ. applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated. The ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΕΙΝ it is to which they, the ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, were already appointed, and withal on account of their unbelief, as appears from the Τῷ ΛΌΓῼ ἈΠΕΙΘ. This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for it is simply the ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς and ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, together with the blessing and curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without any reference being made to the precise ground of faith and unbelief. Vorstius correctly: Increduli sunt designati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate.

Following the construction of 1 Peter 2:7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes ΟἹ ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΟΥΣΙΝ not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to the subsequent ΕἸς Ὅ, which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of 1 Peter 2:7. Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun[124] or the method here resorted to, of connecting apodosis with protasis. The words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction. Oecumenius[125] is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answering the question: quis autem illos sic posuit? by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit.

[122] The application to the Word or to Christ occurs already in the older commentators; thus Beda says: in hoc positi sunt i. e. per naturam facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et ejus voluntati obtemperent; and Nicol. de Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: illis data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum secundum quod dicitur Galatians 3. lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo; et ipsi pro majore parte remanserunt increduli.

[123] Different interpreters seek in various ways to soften the harshness of the dea here presented. Thus Estius, by explaining ἐτέθησαν only of the permission of God; Pott, by paraphrasing the idea thus: “their lot seemed to bring this with it;” Wiesinger, by asserting that “the passage here speaks of the action of God as a matter of history, not of His eternal decrees.” But what justifies any such softening down? While Hofmann, in the 1st edition of his Schriftbeweis, I. p. 210, says precisely: that God has ordained them to this, that they should not become obedient to His word, but should stumble at it and fall over it; in the 2d ed. I. p. 237, it appears that the meaning only is: “that the evil which befalls them in the very fact of their not believing, is ordained by God to those who do not obey His message of salvation, as a punishment of their disposition of mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in it the idea of ἐτέθησαν in relation to ἀπειθοῦντες is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott expressly says that unbelievers, by their own state of mind, “appoint themselves to unbelief,” he can look on unbelief only in so far as the result of a divine decree, that God has appointed faith impossible with a carnal disposition. But a limitation of this kind is here all the more inappropriate, that Peter in the passage makes no allusion to the disposition which lies at the foundation of unbelief. Hofmann in his commentary says: “it is the word which is preached to them that they refuse to obey, but by the very fact of their doing so they stumble at Christ and fall over Him, as over a stone that lies in the way. Both are one and the same thing, named from different sides; the one time from what they do, the other from what is done to them.” Yet these are two different things; the one the cause, the other the effect.

[124] Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matthew 26:50; but the interpretation of this passage is so doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the various interpretations in Meyer on this passage; in Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]; in Buttmann, p. 217.

[125] Οὐχ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἀφωρισμένοις, εἴρηται· οὐδευία γὰρ αἰτία ἀπωλείας παρὰ τοῦ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλοντος σωθῆναι βραβεύεται· ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἑαυτοῖς σκευή κατηρτικόσιν ὀργῆς καὶ ἡ ἀπείθεια ἐπηκολούθησε, καὶ εἰς ἣν παρεσκεύασαν ἑαυτοὺς τάξιν ἐτέθησαν. Thus also Didymus: ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi; and Hornejus: constituti ad impingendum et non credendum ideo dicuntur, quia cum credere sermoni Dei nollent, sed ultro eum repellerent, deserti a Deo sunt et ipsius permissione traditi ut non crederent et impingerent.

1 Peter 2:9. ὑμεῖς δέ] The apostle returns again to his readers, contrasting them with the unbelievers (not “with the people of Israel,” as Weiss thinks) he had just spoken of. The nature of believers, as such, is described by the same predicates which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God (cf. Exodus 19:5-6), but have found their accomplishment only in that of the N. T. Schott justly remarks that “what in 1 Peter 2:5 had been expressed in the form of an exhortation, is here predicated of the Christians as an already present condition.”

γένος ἐκλεκτόν] after Isaiah 43:20 (עַמִּי בְחִירִי, LXX.: γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν); cf. also Deuteronomy 7:6 ff.; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:1-2; Isaiah 45:4, etc. This first designation sets forth that the Christians, in virtue of God’s love, have been elected to be a people which no longer belongs to this world; cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:1.

βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα] after Exodus 19:6, LXX. (in Hebrew מַמְלֶכֶת בֹּהֲנִים, “a kingdom of priests”); most interpreters take it as simple combination of the two ideas: “kings and priests.” Still it is more correct to regard ἱεράτευμα as the principal idea (cf. 1 Peter 2:3), and βασίλειον as a more precise definition: “a royal priesthood.” Several commentators explain: “a priesthood possessing a royal character,” inasmuch as it not only offers up sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), but exercises sway (over the world); cf. Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10 (Wiesinger). Weiss (p. 125), on the other hand: “a priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just as we speak of the royal household.” Since all the other predicates express the belonging to God, the second explanation deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far as to include in βασίλ. not only the relation of service, but that also of belonging to and participation in the glory of the king founded thereon. Schott is not justified in assuming that Peter did not intend to convey the force of the Greek, but that of the Hebrew expression: מַמְלֶכֶת בֹּהֲנִים, namely: “a kingdom which consists of priests.” It is inadequate to understand, with Hofmann, by the term: “a priesthood of princely honours,” or βασίλειον as equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the expression of the highest freedom[126] (subject only to God) (de Wette).

ἜΘΝΟς ἍΓΙΟΝ] in like manner after Exodus 19:6, LXX. (גּוֹי קָדוֹשׁ).

ΛΑῸς ΕἸς ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙΝ] corresponding passages in the O. T. are Deuteronomy 7:6 (עַם סְגֻלָּה), Malachi 3:17 (סְגֻלָּה), and especially Isaiah 43:21, LXX.: ΛΑΌΝ ΜΟΥ ὋΝ ΠΕΡΙΕΠΟΙΗΣΆΜΗΝ ΤᾺς ἈΡΕΤΆς ΜΟΥ ΔΙΗΓΕῖΣΘΑΙ (עַם־זוּ יָצַרְתִּי לִי תְּהִלָּתִי יְסַפֵּרוּ). The words following show that the apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind; still it must be noted that this idea is contained already in Exodus 19:5 (ΛΑῸς ΠΕΡΙΟΎΣΙΟς). ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙς is strictly the acquiring (Hebrews 10:39); here, what is acquired, possession; neither destinatus (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to be supplied to ΕἸς, they would not correspond with the sense; ΕἸς is here to be explained from Malachi 3:17, LXX.: ἜΣΟΝΤΑΊ ΜΟΙ … ΕἸς ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙΝ; on ΕἾΝΑΙ ΕἸς, cf. Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; in sense it is equivalent to ΛΑῸς ΠΕΡΙΟΎΣΙΟς, Titus 2:14. Schott attributes to this expression an eschatological reference, explaining: “a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition;” this is incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out of all analogy with the other expressions. The apostle does not here state to what the Christian church is destined, but what she already is; “her complete liberation from all cosmic powers is not,” as Brückner justly remarks, “an acquiring on God’s side, but only the final redemption of those whom He already possesses.” Schott’s assertion, that in the N. T. ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙς has always an eschatological reference, is opposed by Ephesians 1:14; cf. Meyer in loc.

Although a difference of idea founded on the etymologies of γένος, ἔθνος λαός is not to be pressed;[127] yet it must be observed that by these expressions, as also by ἱεράτευμα, Christians are spoken of as a community united together in itself, and although diverse as to natural descent, they, as belonging to God (and all the names employed by the apostle point to this), form one people, from the fact that God has joined them to Himself.

ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ κ.τ.λ.] ὅπως connects itself, after Isaiah 43:21, in the first instance with what immediately goes before, in such a way, however, that the preceding ideas point towards it as their end.

τὰς ἀρετάς] thus the LXX. translate תְּהִלָּה in the above-mentioned passage (in general, in the LXX., ἀρετή occurs only as the translation of הוֹד, Habakkuk 3:3, Zechariah 6:13; ἀρεταί as the translation of תְּהִלָּה, Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 42:12; Isaiah 43:21, and of תְּהִלּוֹת, Isaiah 63:7); accordingly the Alexandrine translators understand by הוֹד and תְּהִלָּה in the passages in question, not the “glory or praise” of God, but the object of the glory, that is, the excellence or the glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this meaning of it, from them.[128]

ἐξαγγείλητε] cf. Isaiah 42:12, LXX.: τὰς ἀρετὰς αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις ἀπαγγελοῦσι; ἐξαγγέλλειν; strictly, iis qui foris sunt nunciare quae intus fiunt (Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 21), is employed for the most part without this definite application; in the LXX. the translation of סִפֵּר; in the N. T. in this passage only; it is possible that Peter thought of the word here in its original force (Bengel, Wiesinger).

τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος] i.e. ΘΕΟῦ, not ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ; ΚΑΛΕῖΝ is almost uniformly attributed to God.

ΣΚΌΤΟΥς, not equivalent to, miseria (Wahl), but is used to designate the whole unhappy condition of sin and lying in which the natural and unregenerate man is, cf. Colossians 1:13; here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former heathenism of the readers.

ΕἸς ΤῸ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΤῸΝ ΑὙΤΟῦ Φῶς] To render Φῶς by cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken the force of the word; it is rather the complete opposite of ΣΚΌΤΟς, and denotes the absolutely holy and blessed nature—as ΑὙΤΟῦ shows—of God. The Christian is translated from darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this light, and is illumined by it.[129] Schott incorrectly understands by σκότος: “heathen humanity left to itself,” and by τὸ … αὑτοῦ φῶς: “the church;” the church lives in God’s light, but it is not the light of God.

καλεῖν is here applied, as it is by Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God.

θαυμαστόν (cf. Matthew 21:42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the φῶς Θεοῦ.

[126] Clemens Al. interprets: regale, quoniam ad regnum vocati sumus et sumus Christi sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae fit orationibus et doctrinis, quibus adquiruntur animae, quae afferuntur Deo.

[127] Steiger draws the following distinction: γένος is the race, people of like descent; ἔθνος, a people of like customs; λαός, people as the mass. Schott thinks that ἔθνος includes within it a reference to the intellectual and moral characteristics of the people, and that λαός points to its being gathered together under one Lord. In this urging of distinctions—which are not even correctly drawn—is to be found the reason why Schott exchanges the Greek expression βασιλ. ἱεράτευμα for the Hebrew, because ἱεράτευμα is not analogous to the other three designations, whilst βασίλεια is so, as a national community.—Peter certainly, in selecting these expressions, did not reflect on the original distinction of the ideas, but made use of them simply as they were presented to him in the O. T.

[128] It is arbitrary to understand the word to mean only this or that attribute of God; nor must the meaning, as is done by Gerhard, be limited to the virtutes Dei, quae in opere gratuitae vocationis et in toto negotio salutis nostrae relucent. Schott’s interpretation is linguistically incorrect: αἱ ἀρεταί equal to τὰ μεγαλεῖα τ. Θ. (Acts 2:11), “the great deeds of God.” Cornelius a Lapide entirely misses the point in explaining: virtutes, quas Christus in nobis operatur, humilitatem, caritatem, etc.; and Salmeron: virtutes Christi, quas in diebus carnis suae exhibuit.

[129] Wiesinger disputes this interpretation, holding that what is meant is “that light which has appeared to the world in Christ;” but is not this light the light of God?—Certainly φῶς is here not i. q. Χριστός. According to de Wette, αὑτοῦ designates the light as the work of God, and consequently a different thing from the φῶς which He is Himself.

1 Peter 2:10. A reference to Hosea 2:23, linking itself on to the end of the preceding verse, in which the former and present conditions of the readers are contrasted. This difference the verse emphasizes by means of a simple antithesis. The passage in Hosea runs: וְרִחַמְתִּי אֶת־לֹא רֻחָמָה וְאָמַרְתִּי לְלֹא־עַמִּי עַמִּי־אַתָּה, LXX.: ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ οὐ λαῷ μου· λαός μου εἶ σύ (the Cod. Alex. and the Ed. Aldina have at the commencement the additional words: ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην).

οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός] Grotius, Steiger, Weiss incorrectly supply: Θεοῦ. λαός is here used absolutely (Bengel: ne populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). οὐ belongs not to ἦτε to be supplied, but is closely connected with λαός, equivalent to “no-people.” In like manner οὐκ ἠλεημένοι as equal to “not-obtained mercy.” “The meaning is not that they once were not what they now are, but that they were the opposite of it” (Wiesinger). But οὐ … λαός is a people who, in their separation from God, are without that unity of life in which alone they can be considered by Him as a people; or, more simply, who do not serve God who is the true King of every people; cf. Deuteronomy 32:21, and Keil in loc. De Wette is hardly satisfactory: “they were not a people, inasmuch as they were without the principle of all true nationality, the real knowledge of God,” etc.; now they are a people, even a people of God, inasmuch as they not only serve God, but are received also by God into community of life with Himself.

οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες] The part. perf. denotes their former and ended condition. Standing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substantive, like οὐ … λαός, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part. (in opposition to Hofmann). The aorist part. points, on the other hand, to the fact of pardon having been extended: “once not in possession of mercy, but now having become partakers of it” (Winer, p. 322[130] [E. T. 431]).

[130] In the original passage these words apply to Israel; but from this it does not follow that Peter writes to Jewish-Christians. For if Paul—as he clearly does—applies the passage (Romans 9:25) to the calling of the heathen, then Peter surely, with equal right, could use it with reference to the heathen converts. They had been, in its full sense, that which God says to Israel: לֹא־עַמִּי; and they had become that to which He would again make Israel, His people. It must be observed, however, that God in that passage addresses Israel as לֹא־עַמִּי only because it had forsaken Him and given itself up to the worship of Baal, and consequently incurred punishment. Apart from this, Israel had always remained the people of God.—If only Jewish converts were meant here, then Peter would assume that they in their Judaism had been idolaters, which is absolutely impossible, or at least Peter must then have said why they, who as Israelites were the people of God, could not in their former state be regarded as such. Accordingly, οὐ λαός is here in no way applicable to Israel, but only to the heathen; and it is not (as Weiss maintains, p. 119) purely arbitrary to apply the passage, in opposition to its original sense, to heathen Christians. Whilst Brückner says only that the words cannot serve to prove the readers to have been Jews formerly, Wiesinger rightly and most decidedly denies the possibility of applying them to Jewish converts; so, too, Schott.—Weiss’s assertion is by no means justified by his insisting (die Petr. Frage, p. 626) that nothing tenable has been brought forward against it.