Chú giải Kinh Thánh

1 Peter 1:1-2. The superscription, while corresponding in fundamental plan with those of the Pauline Epistles, has nevertheless a peculiar character of its own.

Πέτρος] As Paul in his epistles calls himself not by his original name Σαῦλος, so Peter designates himself not by his original name Σίμων, but by that given him by Christ, which “may be regarded as his apostolic, his official name” (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: Συμεὼν Πέτρος.

An addition such as διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not always, makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unnecessary for Peter.

Peter designates his readers by the words: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπίδημοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου κ.τ.λ.] he calls the Christians to whom he writes—for that his epistle is addressed to Christians cannot be doubted—“elect strangers;” and withal, those who belong to the διασπορά throughout Pontus, etc. ἐκλεκτοί the Christians are named, inasmuch as God had chosen them to be His own, in order that they might be made partakers of the κληρονομία (1 Peter 1:4) reserved for them in heaven; cf. chap. 1 Peter 2:9 : ὑμεῖς γένος ἐκλεκτόν.

παρεπίδημος is he who dwells in a land of which he is not a native (where his home is not); in the LXX. it is given as the rendering of תּוֹשָׁב, Genesis 23:4; Psalm 39:12 (in other passages תּוֹשָׁב is translated by πάροικος; cf. Exodus 12:45; Leviticus 22:10; Leviticus 25:23; Leviticus 25:47, etc.); in the Apocrypha παρεπίδημος does not occur; in the N. T., besides in this passage, it is to be found in chap. 1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 9:13.

If account be taken of 1 Peter 1:4; 1 Peter 1:17 (ὁ τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνος), and particularly of chap. 1 Peter 2:11, it cannot be doubted that Peter styled his readers παρεπίδημοι, because during their present life upon earth they, as Christians, were not in their true home, which is the κληρονομία … τετηρημένη ἐν οὐρανοῖς. The expression is understood in this sense by the more modern writers, in particular by Steiger, Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Reuter’s Repertor. 1855, Nov.), Schott, Hofmann, etc.[32] It is incorrect to refer the word here to an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by de Wette, and in like manner by Weizsäcker (in Reuter’s Repert. 1858, No. 3).[33]

[32] It is inexact to interpret παρεπίδημοι simply by “pilgrims of earth;” Steinmeyer, on the other hand (Disquisitio in ep. Petr. I. prooemium), rightly observes: “quum mansio in terra sempiterna permittatur nemini, in universos omnes vox quadaret, nee in eos solos, qui per evangelium vocati sunt;” but when Steinmeyer adds: “quare censemur, παρεπίδ.… significare … in mundo viventes, cujus esse desierint, cui ipsi sint perosi,” he thus gives an improper application to the word, the more so that the conception κόσμος, in an ethical sense, is foreign to the Epistle of Peter.—Weiss weakens the idea by saying: “The Christian is in so far a stranger on the earth, as he is aware of the inheritance reserved for him in heaven; this knowledge the unbeliever cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel himself a stranger on earth.” It is not the knowing and feeling, but the really being, which is of consequence.

[33] It is still more erroneous to suppose, as Reuss does (Gesch. der h. Schriften N. T. § 147, note), that the readers are here termed παρεπίδ., “because they are looked upon as גֵּרִים proselytes, i. e. Israelites according to faith, not according to the form of worship.” This view, however, is opposed to the usus loquendi, since παρεπίδημοι nowhere denotes proselytes.

REMARK.

In the O. T. תּוֹשָׁב occurs in its strict signification in Genesis 23:4; Exodus 12:45; Leviticus 22:10; Leviticus 25:47 (LXX. πάροικος). In Leviticus 25:23, the Israelites are called נֵּדִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים, in a peculiar connection; God says that such they are with Him (עִמָּדִי, cf. Genesis 23:4), in that the land wherein they should dwell belongs to Him . The same idea is to be found in Psalm 39:12, where the Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is נֵּד and תּוֹשָׁב with God (עִמָּךְ), as were his fathers; for although in 1 Peter 1:5-7 the shortness of human life is made specially prominent, yet there is nothing to show that in 1 Peter 1:12 there is any reference to this. On the other hand, in 1 Chronicles 29:15 (1Chr. 30:15.), David in prayer to God speaks of himself and his people as נֵּרִים and תּוֹשָׁבִים, because they have no abiding rest on earth (בַּצֵּל יָמֵינוּ עַל־חָאָרֶץ וְאֵין מִקִוֶה); here it is not the preposition עִמָּד, but לִפְנֵי which is used. In the passage Psalm 119:19, the relation in which the Psalmist speaks of himself as a stranger is not expressed בָּאָרֶץ, Psa 1:54; he calls his earthly life מְגוּרָי, as Jacob in Genesis 47:9, which points evidently enough to the circumstance that the Israelites were not without the consciousness that their real home lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, Hebrews 9:13-14, and Delitzsch in loc .

Whilst the expression ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις—wherein not ἐκλεκτοῖς (Hofmann) but παρεπιδήμοις is the substantival idea—is applicable to all Christians, the following words: διασπορᾶς Πόντου κ.τ.λ., specify those Christians to whom the epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline Epistles).

διασπορά] strictly an abstract idea, denotes, according to Jewish usage: “Israel living scattered among the heathen,”—that is, it is a complex of concrete ideas, 2Ma 1:27; John 7:35; cf. Meyer in loc.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb., see under “Zerstreuung.”[34] The question is now: Is the word to be taken as applying only to the Jewish nation? From of old the question has, by many interpreters, been answered in the affirmative (Didymus, Oecumenius, Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Weiss, etc.), and therefrom the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the epistle were Jewish-Christians.[35] But the character of the epistle is opposed to this view (cf. Introd. § 3). Since the Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel, of which the Israel of the O. T. was only the type (1 Peter 2:9), there is nothing to prevent the expression being applied, as many interpreters hold (Brückner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rettberg in Ersch-Gruber, see under “Petrus,” and others), to the Christians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No doubt this land had not for the N. T. church the same significance which it possessed for that of the O. T., still it was the scene of Christ’s labours, and in Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Christendom.[36] Some interpreters, like Aretius, Schott, Hofmann, leave entirely out of view the local reference of the word, and take it as applying to the whole of Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto orbe, in so far as the latter represents “a concrete corporeal centre around which the members of the church were locally united,” and “has its point of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand of God” (Schott[37]). Against this, however, it must be urged that Peter, if he had wished the word ΔΙΑΣΠΟΡΆ to have been understood in a sense so entirely different from the established usage, would in some way or other have indicated this.

It is entirely erroneous to suppose, with Augustine (contra Faustum, xxii. 89), Procopius (in Jes. 15:20), Cassiodorus (de instit. div. litt. ii. p. 516), Luther, Gualther, and others, and among more recent authors Steiger, that in the expression used by Peter the readers are designated as heathen Christians, or even with Credner (Einl. p. 638), Neudecker (Einl. p. 677), as aforetime proselytes. The one correct interpretation is, that in the superscription those readers only are described as “Christians who constituted the people of God living, scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in consequence of their election, had become strangers in the world, but who had their inheritance and home in heaven, whither they were journeying” (Wiesinger). The reason why Peter employed this term with reference to his readers lies in the design of the epistle; he speaks of them as ἐκλεκτοί, in order that in their present condition of suffering he might assure them of their state of grace as ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ, that they might know that they belonged to the home of believers in heaven. But it is at least open to doubt whether in ΔΙΑΣΠΟΡᾶς there is any reference to the present want of direct union around Christ (Schott).

ΠΌΝΤΟΥ, ΓΑΛΑΤΊΑς Κ.Τ.Λ.] The provinces of Asia Minor are named chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia westward from Pontus, then the enumeration continues with Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to say, in the east, and goes from thence westward towards Asia, after which Bithynia is mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern part of Asia Minor. So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as opposed to Wiesinger) when he says: Quinque provincias nominat eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex oriente. If in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem. v. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and a part of Lycaonia,—which, however, is improbable,—the provinces mentioned by Peter will embrace almost the whole of Asia Minor.

In the N. T. there is no mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia.—1 Peter 1:2. ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] The three adjuncts, beginning with different prepositions, are not to be taken with ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς, as Cyrillus (de recta fide), Oecumen., Kahnis (Lehre v. Abendm. p. 65), and others think, but with ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, pointing out as they do the origin, the means, and the end of the condition in which the readers as ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ were. It is further incorrect to limit, as is prevalently done, their reference simply to the term ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς,[38] and to find in them a more particular definition of the method of the divine election. Steinmeyer, in violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different reference to each of the three adjuncts joining ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΡΌΓΝ. with ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς, ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ with ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς, and ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. with ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ. But inasmuch as the ideas ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς stand in closest connection, the two prepositions ΚΑΤΆ and ἘΝ must apply equally to them. ΚΑΤΆ states that the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ are such in virtue of the πρόγνωσις Θεοῦ; κατά denotes “the origin, and gives the pattern according to which” (so, too, Wiesinger). ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς is translated generally by the commentators as: predestination;[39] this is no doubt inexact, still it must be observed that in the N. T. πρόγνωσις stands always in such a connection as to show that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, but without the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance being lost. It is the perceiving of God by means of which the object is determined, as that which He perceives it to be. Cf. Meyer on Romans 8:29 : “It is God’s being aware in His plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to salvation, He knows who are to be so destined by Him.” It is incorrect, therefore, to understand the word as denoting simply foreknowledge;[40] this leads to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met by Augustine’s phrase: eligendos facit Deus, non invenit. Estius translates ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς at once by. praedilectio; other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, would include the idea of love, at least, in that of foreknowledge; but although it must be granted that the ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of without His love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of love is not made prominent.[41] Hofmann says: “πρόγνωσις is—precognition; here, therefore, a work of God the Father, which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homogeneous are known, that is, of an approving knowledge.”

ΠΑΤΡΌς is added to ΘΕΟῦ; the apostle has already in his mind the following ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς and ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, in order thereby to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election. Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salutis nostrae innuitur hoc versu.

ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς] It seems simplest and most natural to interpret, with Luther and most others, “through the sanctifying of the Spirit”—that is, taking ἁγιασμός actively, and ἘΝ as denoting the instrumentality. The only difficulty in the way is, that ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς, a word foreign to classical Greek, and occurring but seldom in the Apocrypha, has constantly the neutral signification: “sanctification;”[42] cf. Meyer on Romans 6:19. Now, since the word, as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings (cf. Buttmann, ausführl. griech. Sprachl. § 119, 20), it is certainly permissible to assume that here—deviating from the general usus loquendi—it may have an active signification, as perhaps also in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. If the preposition ἐν be taken as equal to “through,” there results an appropriate progression of thought from origin (ΚΑΤΆ) to means (ἘΝ), and further to end (ΕἸς). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, the interpretation must be: “the holiness wrought by the, (Holy) Spirit,” so that the genitive as gen. auct. has a signification similar to that in the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ;[43] in this interpretation ἐν may equally have an instrumental force. No doubt, many interpreters deny that ἘΝ can here be equal to ΔΙΆ, since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy Spirit. But this ground gives way if the three nearer definitions refer not to the election,—as a divine activity,—and so not to the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς alone, but to the state into which the readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς. It is incorrect to attribute to ἘΝ here a final signification; Beza: ad sanctificationem; de Wette: ΕἸς ΤῸ ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ; the conception of purpose begins only with the subsequent ΕἸς.

The explanation, that ἘΝ ἉΓ. ΠΝ. points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the readers are ἘΚΛ. ΠΑΡΕΠ. (formerly supported in this commentary), is wanting in the necessary clearness of thought.

ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚΟῊΝ ΚΑῚ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸΝ ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡ.] The third adjunct to ἘΚΛ. ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔ., giving the end towards which this condition is directed. The preposition ΕἸς is not to be connected with ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς (de Wette, Steinmeyer); for although such a construction be grammatically possible, the reference to the Trinity goes to show that these words must be taken as a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses. Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction ΚΑΊ would hardly be awanting. ὙΠΑΚΟΉ is to be construed neither with ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, whether taken as a subjective genitive (Beza: designator nostrae sanctificationis subjectum, nempe Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where ΕἸς is arbitrarily rendered by ΔΙΆ), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, as an objective genitive: “obedience towards Christ” (for then this genitive would stand in a relation other than to ΑἽΜΑΤΟς[44]), nor with ΑἽΜΑΤΟς. ὙΠΑΚΟΉ must be taken here absolutely, as in 1 Peter 1:14; cf. Romans 6:16. With regard to the meaning of ὙΠΑΚΟΉ, many interpreters understand by it faith in Christ; so Luther, Gerhard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.; others, on the contrary, take it to signify “moral obedience;” so Pott, de Wette, Schott, etc. Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is meant “which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to it” (Hofmann), whilst by the latter it is emphasized that that moral obedience is meant which springs from faith, so that both interpretations are substantially in accord. It may then be said that ὙΠΑΚΟΉ is the life of man conformed in faith and walk to the will of the Lord, which the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ as such must realize; so that there is no reason why the idea should be limited towards the one side or the other; cf. 1 John 3:23. The second particular: ΚΑῚ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸΝ ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, is closely linked on to ὙΠΑΚΟΉ. Some commentators have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based was the paschal lamb (thus Beda: “aspersi sanguine Christi potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per agni sanguinem Aegypti dominatum declinavit;” Aretius, etc.). Others think that the ceremonial of the great day of atonement is meant (thus Pott, Augusti, Steiger, Usteri, etc.). Wrongly, however; for although in both cases blood was employed, neither the blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering of atonement was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts were tinged; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. Steinmeyer is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling with water (Leviticus 19.) of him who had been defiled through contact with a corpse, from the fact that the LXX. have ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς only in this passage. For apart from the artificialness of the explanation which Steinmeyer[45] thus feels himself compelled to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling is inapt, since mention is made here of a sprinkling of blood, and not of water. A sprinkling of the people with blood took place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the covenant.[46] The O. T. type on which the expression is founded is no other than the making of the covenant related in Exodus 24:8, to which even Gerhard had made reference, and as, in more recent times, has been acknowledged by Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Hebrews 9:19 (ΛΑΒῺΝ ΤῸ ΑἿΜΑ ΤῶΝ ΜΌΣΧΩΝ … ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤῸΝ ΛΑῸΝ ἘῤῬΆΝΤΙΣΕ) and Hebrews 12:24, where ΑἿΜΑ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΟῦ, i.e. “the blood by means of the sprinkling of which the ratification of the covenant took place,” is connected with the immediately preceding καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτης. Accordingly, by ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸς ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣ. ΧΡ. is to be understood the ratification of the covenant relation grounded on the death of Christ, with those thereto ordained; the reference here, however, being not to the commencement, but to the continuance of that relation. For by this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his readers of the end God had in view in their election, but to set before them what the purpose of their election is, which, like the ὙΠΑΚΟΉ, should therefore be realized in them as the elect strangers. They are then ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ, in order that they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in Him constantly possess the forgiveness of sins.[47]

The καί standing between ὙΠΑΚΟΉΝ and ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌΝ is taken by Steinmeyer as an explicative; he explains: “in obedientiam, atque in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. e. ut vos in mortis Jesu Christi communionem trahi patiamini.” Incorrectly: “inasmuch as the active idea of obedience can never be explained by the passive being sprinkled” (Wiesinger); and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary.

It is further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression last used: ῥαντ. αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, here for the first time characterized directly as Christians, all the previous designations having been equally applicable to the children of Israel. A circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter regards the Christian church as the true Israel, and that without making it in any way dependent on national connection.

As regards the lexicology, it must be remarked that in classical Greek ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς never occurs, and ῬΑΝΤΊΖΕΙΝ only in later writers: the usual word is ῬΑΊΝΕΙΝ, e.g. Euripides, Iphig. in Aul. 1589: ἧς αἵματι βωμὸν ῥαίνετʼ ἄρδην τῆς Θεοῦ; in the LXX. both verbal forms: ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς, only in Numbers 19., in a somewhat inexact translation, however.

ΧΆΡΙς ὙΜῖΝ ΚΑῚ ΕἸΡΉΝΗ ΠΛΗΘΥΝΘΕΊΗ] The distinction between ΧΆΡΙς and ΕἸΡΉΝΗ is thus drawn by Gerhard: “pax a gratia distinguitur tanquam fructus et effectus a sua causa.” In harmony with this, χάρις is regarded by the interpreters for the most part as “the subjective in God” (Meyer on Romans 1:7); but Paul’s use of ἈΠΌ and the subsequent ΠΛΗΘΥΝΘΕΊΗ show that by ΧΆΡΙς in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow from it (the manifestation of grace). ΕἸΡΉΝΗ specifies this gift more closely according to its nature (see on 1 Timothy 1:2 [48]). πληθυνθείη] Luther: “ye have peace and grace, but not yet to the full;” on the salutation form in the N. T., besides here only in 2 Peter 1:2 and Judges 1:2; in O. T. in Dan. 3:31, LXX.: εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη; cf. Schoettgen: horae hebr. et talm., on this passage.

[34] The LXX. translate נִדָּה (as a collective noun), Deuteronomy 30:4, Nehemiah 1:9, by διασπορά, and as inexactly and even incorrectly זְוָעָה, Jeremiah 34:17; מִזְרָה, Jeremiah 15:7; נְצוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, Isaiah 49:6.

[35] Taken in this way, the genit. διασπορᾶς must be interpreted as genit. partit., thus: the members of the διασπορά who have become Christians (ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι). Weizsäcker is altogether mistaken (Reuter’s Repert. 1858, No. 3) in his opinion that the reference is to “the Christians who, in as far as they dwell among the dispersed Jewish communities, are members of the Diaspora.”

[36] It is worthy of note that Paul also considers the Christian church to be the Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα, that he looks upon the converted heathen as the branches ingrafted into Israel, that he was ever anxious to keep up the connection between the heathen Christian churches and the mother church in Jerusalem, and that he distinctly terms the church triumphant ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ.

[37] Schott, however, grants that “Peter considers Jerusalem and the mother church in Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all believers under the New Covenant.”

[38] Hofmann supports this application as against that to παρεπιδήμοις, “because the state of being a stranger, even though taken spiritually, is not a condition to which the prepositional determinations are suited.” Hofmann does not state the ground of this assertion; as the idea of being a stranger is identical with that of being a Christian, these are very well adapted to ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις. The mere circumstance that the question here is not one of a nearer definition of election, but of the condition in which the readers were, is opposed to a connection with ἐκλεκτοῖς. Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:1, where διὰ θελήματος stands connected with κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Ἰησ. Χρ. and not with κλητός; see 2 Corinthians 1:1.

[39] Lyranus: praedestinatio; Erasmus: praefinitio; Beza: antegressum decretum s. propositum Dei; Luther: the foreseeing of God; Gerhard: πρόθεσις juxta quam facta est electio; de Wette: βουλή or προορισμός.

[40] The word has not this signification in the N. T.; it has it, however, in the Book of Jdt 9:6; Jdt 11:19.—The verb προγιγνώσκειν has the meaning of simple foreknowledge in Acts 26:5 and 2 Peter 3:17 (so, too, Book of Wis 6:13; Wis 8:8; Wis 18:6); the sense is different in Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2, and 1 Peter 1:20.

[41] Schott’s assertion, that “γιγνώσκειν is always a cognizance of this kind, since he who is cognizant gives himself up in his inmost nature to the object in question, so as again to take it up into his being and to appropriate it to himself,”—further, that “the perceiving of God creates its own objects, and consequently is a προγιγνώσκειν,” and that accordingly neither death nor sin can be the objects of God’s foreknowledge,—contradicts itself by the clearest statements of Scripture; cf. Deuteronomy 9:24; Deuteronomy 31:27; Matthew 22:18; Luke 16:15; John 5:42; 1 Corinthians 3:20, etc.

[42] Cf. Romans 6:19, where it is contrasted with ἀνομία; 1 Corinthians 1:30, where it is connected with δικαιοσύνη, 1 Timothy 2:15 with ἀγάπη, and 1 Thessalonians 4:4 with τιμή; 1 Thessalonians 4:7, where it stands in antithesis to ἀκαθαρσία; and Hebrews 12:14, where, like εἰρήνην (cf. 1 Timothy 6:11 : δίωκε δικαιοσύνην), it depends on διώκετε; in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 also it has the meaning referred to. If it be here taken in an active sense, and ὑμῶν be the objective genitive, the subject is wanting; but if ὑμῶν be the subjective genitive, then it is the object which is wanting. Lünemann’s interpretation accordingly: “that you sanctify yourselves,” is unwarranted. ἁγιασμός can only be artificially interpreted by “sanctifying” in the passages quoted. A striking example of this is Hofmann’s interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:4. Only in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, where the expression, as here, is: ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, does the active meaning seem to correspond better than the neuter with the thought. There is no foundation whatever for the opinion of Cremer, cf. s.v., that—whilst in the Apocrypha the word never has an active signification, but is either “sanctuary” (thus also in the LXX. Ezekiel 45:4 and Amos 2:11) or “sanctity”—it is in the N. T. for the most part “sanctifying.”—Schott very justly calls in question the active signification of the word; but when, not content with the rendering “sanctification,” he interprets “the condition of holiness being increasingly realized,” he confuses the conception by references which are simply imported.

[43] The idea of holiness is here by no means inappropriate, since the readers would not be ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι if they had not become ἅγιοι through the Holy Spirit. It is this ἅγιον εἶναι which is here expressed by ἁγιασμός. Also in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, there is no urgent reason for departing from this signification of the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to 2Ma 14:36; cf. Cremer, s.v.

[44] Hofmann thinks that since ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος forms one conception, and ὑπακοή can be accompanied by an objective genitive, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, being the subjective genitive to αἵματος, might at the same time be objective genitive to ὑπακοή. In opposition to this, we observe (1) that it is self-contradictory to say that ῥαντ. αἵματος forms one conception, and that Ἰησοῦ Χρ. is dependent on αἵματος; and (2) that it is grammatically inadmissible to take the same genitive as being at once subjective and objective genitive.—This much only is correct, that the nearer definition, which must be supplied to ὑπακοή, has, in sense, to be borrowed from the subsequent genitive Ἰησοῦ Χρ.

[45] Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that the LXX. translate the Hebrew מֵי נִדָּה (which is not, in his view, equal to “water of purification,” but to “water of impurity”) by ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ, concludes that ῥαντισμός does not simply mean aspersio, but ea aspersio, cujus ratio, causa, effectus verbis מֵי נִדָּה descripta sunt,—that is, since that water was tanquam mortis instar, quum in ipsius mortis communionem ita redigeret immundos, ut reducerentur inde in munditiem vitae, ejusmodi aspersio quae in naturam sparsae aquae trahit, atque virtute ipsius sparsos penitus imbuit, he explains ῥαντισμ. αἵμ. Ἰ. Χρ. as a sprinkling with the blood of Christ, qua in mortis salvatoris nostri communionem trahamur.

[46] When Wiesinger remarks: “But in Hebrews 11:22, ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδ. πονηρᾶς is based on the typical sacrifice of the great day of atonement, although ἐῤῥαντισμένοι is transferred here to persons, and ἀπό points to a cleansing and freeing from the consciousness of guilt,” we cannot in this agree with him; nor do either Lünemann or Delitzsch see here any reference to the great sacrifice of atonement. The former explains the expression “on the analogy of the sprinkling with blood by which the first Levitical priests were consecrated;” while the latter quotes by way of explanation the passage Hebrews 12:24, where he terms the αἷμα ῥαντισμοῦ the antitype of the blood with which Moses sprinkled the people at the institution and consecration of the covenant.

[47] Hofmann is accordingly wrong in maintaining that “what is here meant has taken place once for all for the readers, and is not continually to be done.” Nor does this altogether accord with his own interpretation, when he says, “the readers are chosen to become obedient to Christ, and partakers of His propitiation for sin.” The Christian, on being received into communion with Christ, has been sprinkled with His blood, but still he requires a continual cleansing, and this he receives, if he walk in the light; cf. 1 John 1:7.

[48] When Schott, in order to preserve the objectiveness of εἰρήνη, erroneously understands it to mean “the state of matters which to those who are in it occasions inwardly no want or unrest, and externally no harm or disturbance,” it must be urged in opposition that the inwardness of a possession does not in any way affect its objectiveness.

1 Peter 1:3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰ. Χριστοῦ] The same formula occurs in 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3.

εὐλογητός, not: “worthy of praise,” but: “praised;” in the LXX. the translation of בָּרוּךּ; in the N. T. the word εὐλογητός used only with reference to God. εἴη and not ἐστίν is probably to be supplied, as is done by most commentators, cf. Meyer on Ephesians 1:1; Winer, p. 545 [E. T. 732] (Schott; Buttm. p. 120); at least from the fact that in the doxologies introduced by means of relatives, ἐστίν is to be found (cf. Romans 1:25; also 1 Peter 4:11), it cannot be concluded that the indicative is to be supplied in an ascription of praise quite differently constructed, cf. LXX. Job 1:21. The adjunct καὶ πατὴρ κ.τ.λ. to ὁ Θεός is explainable as a natural expression of the Christian consciousness. It is possible “that the whole formula of doxology has its origin in the liturgical usage, so to speak, in the primitive Christian church” (Weiss, p. 401).

ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς] The participial clause states the reason why God is to be praised. πολύ gives prominence to the riches of the divine mercy, Ephesians 2:4 : πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει. κατά is used here in the same sense as in 1 Peter 1:2. ἀναγεννήσας has its nearer definition in the subsequent εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν. De Wette joins these intimately connected ideas in a somewhat too loose way, when he thus interprets: “who hath awakened us to repentance and faith, and thereby at the same time to a hope.” Similarly Wiesinger, who takes ἀναγεννήσας as a self-contained idea, and connects εἰς ἐλπίδα with it, in this sense, “that in the idea of regeneration this particular determination of it is brought into prominence, that it is a new birth to living hope, i.e. as born again we have attained unto a lively hope;” thus Schott. This view, however, refutes itself, because it necessitates unjustifiable supplements. More in harmony with the expression is Brückner’s interpretation, according to which εἰς denotes the aim of the new birth (“the hope is conceived of as the aim of him by whom the readers have been begotten again;” thus Morus already: Deus nos in melius mutavit, cur? ut sperare possimus). But if the attainment of σωτηρία be conceived as the aim and end of the new birth, the hopes directed to it cannot be so, all the less that this hope forms an essential element of the new life itself. The verb ἀναγεννᾷν is here taken not as an absolute, but as a relative idea, its supplement lying in εις ἐλπ. ζ. (so also Steinmeyer, Weiss, Hofmann). The ἐλπὶς ζῶσα is then to be thought of as the life into which the mercy of God has raised or begotten the believer from the death of hopelessness (Ephesians 2:12 : ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ … ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες); the connection is the same as in Galatians 4:24, where the simple γεννᾷν, is also construed with εἰς.[49] This view is justified, not only by the close connection of εἰς with the idea ἀναγεννᾷν, but also by the corresponding adj. ζῶσαν. In this there is no weakening of the idea ἀναγεννᾷν (in opposition to Wiesinger), for ἐλπίς need not be conceived as representing one single side of the Christian life, but under it may he understood the whole Christian life in its relation to the future σωτηρία. It is incorrect to take ἐλπίς here in the objective sense, as: object of hope; Aretius: res, quae spei subjectae sunt, h. e. vita aeterna; Bengel: haereditas coelestis; so also Hottinger, Hensler, etc. It is used rather in the subjective sense to denote the inward condition of life.

The expression ζῶσα has been variously translated by the commentators; thus Beza explains it as: perennis; Aretius: solida; Piscator: vivifica; Gualther: spes viva certitudinem salutis significat; Heidegger: ζῶσα: quia et fructus vitae edit, et spes vitae est et permanet; quia non languida, infirma est, sed παῤῥησίαν et πεποίθησιν habet et perpetua simul semperque exhilarans est, neque unquam intermoritur, sed semper renovatur et refocillatur; in the first edition of this commentary; “the hope of the Christian is pervaded by life, carrying with it in undying power the certainty of fulfilment (Romans 5:5), and making the heart joyful and happy;” it “has life in itself, and gives life, and at the same time has life as its object” (de Wette). Taken strictly, ζῶσα characterizes the hope as one which has life in itself, and is therefore operative. All else may as a matter of fact be connected with it, but is not contained in the word itself (Weiss, p. 92); more especially, too, the idea that it has the certainty of its own realization (Hofmann); cf. 1 Peter 1:23 : λόγος ζῶν; 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 5 : λίθος ζῶν. Gerhard incorrectly interprets ἐλπίς by fides, sive fiducialis meriti Christi apprehensio quae est regenerationis nostrae causa formalis. For apart from the fact that Peter is not here speaking of regeneration at all, ἐλπίς and πίστις are in themselves separate ideas, which cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. It is erroneous also, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to resolve ἐλπὶς ζῶσα into ἐλπὶς ζωῆς; ζῶσα denotes not the end, but the nature of the hope.

διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν] is not to be joined with ζῶσαν (Oecum., Luth., Bengel, Lorinus, Steiger, de Wette, Hofmann), but with ἀναγεννήσας, more nearly defined by εἰς … ζῶσαν (Calvin, Gerhard, Knapp, Weiss, p. 299; Schott, Brückner[50]); for ΖῶΣΑΝ does not define a particular kind of hope, but only gives special prominence to an element already contained in the idea ἘΛΠΊς. The resurrection of Christ is the means by which God has begotten us again to the living hope. It is the fact which forms the living ground of Christian hope. Wiesinger joins ΔΙʼ ἈΝΑΣΤ. somewhat too loosely with ἈΝΑΓ., explaining as he does: “He hath begotten us again, and thus in virtue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ hath aided us to living hope.”

As ζᾶσαν corresponds to the term ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝΉΣΑς, so does ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς in the most exact manner to both of these ideas. By the resurrection of Christ the believer also is risen to life. It must be remarked the prepositions κατά, ἐν, εἰς, 1 Peter 1:2, are used to correspond with ΚΑΤΆ, ΕἸς, ΔΙΆ; cf. 1 Peter 1:5, the use of the prepositions: ἘΝ, ΔΙΆ, ΕἸς.

[49] Against this interpretation Schott urges: that ἀναγεννᾷν does not mean “to awaken,” that “a death of despair” is not alluded to, that neither ἐλπίς nor ἐλπὶς ζῶσα denotes “a life of hope.” These reasons are insignificant, for (1) the expression “awakened” is not employed in order to give the full meaning of ἀναγεννᾷν; (2) even on the opposite interpretation their former condition may be considered as a hopeless one, and can undoubtedly be regarded as a death; and (3) it cannot be denied that hope is life. In opposition to Schott’s assertion, that ἀναγεννᾷν is everywhere, a self-contained idea, it is to be noted that the word occurs in the N. T. only here and in ver. 23.

[50] Schott and Brückner, while accepting the construction above indicated, apply it, in accordance with their interpretation of ἀναγ. εἰς ἐλπίδα, διʼ ἀναστάσεως, both to regeneration and the hope therewith connected, which, however, they term “a single homogeneous fact.”

1 Peter 1:3-12. Praise to God for the grace of which the Christians had been made the partakers. The prominence which the apostle gives to ἀναγεννᾷν εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, as also his designation of them as ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι, is occasioned by the present state of suffering in which his readers were, and above which he is desirous of raising them.

1 Peter 1:4. εἰς κληρονομίαν] co-ordinate with the conception ἐλπίδα; it is nevertheless not dependent on it, but on ἀναγεννήσας, although it denotes the objective blessing to which the ἐλπίς has regard. It is added by way of apposition, in order to describe more nearly the substance of the hope with respect to its aim.

κληρονομία means, no doubt, in the O. and N. T. (Matthew 21:38; Luke 12:13) sometimes inheritance; but more frequently it has the signification of “possession.” In the O. T. it often serves to denote the land of Canaan and its separate parts, promised and apportioned to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 12:9; Lamentations 5:2; Joshua 13:14, and other passages): ἡ γῆ, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσί σοι ἐν κλήρῳ, Deuteronomy 24:2, or ἣν … δίδωσί σοι κληρονομῆσαι. In the N. T., and so here also, by the term is to be understood the completed βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ with all its possessions, as the antitype of the land of Canaan (cf. in particular, Hebrews 9:15). As this use of the word is not based on the signification “inheritance,” it cannot be maintained, with Wiesinger (Schott agreeing with him), that κληρονομία stands here with reference to ἀναγεννήσας, “to designate that of which the Christians as children of God have expectations.”[51] The following words: ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον] state the gloriousness of the κληρονομία.[52] ἄφθαρτος (cf. chap. 1 Peter 3:4), opposite of φθαρτός (1 Peter 1:18 equal to ἀπολλύμενος, 1 Peter 1:7), cf. 1 Peter 1:23; Romans 1:23; 1 Corinthians 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; “not subject to the φθορά.” ἀμίαντος (Jam 1:27; Hebrews 7:26), “undefiled, undefilable.” ἀμάραντος ἅπ. λεγ. (ἀμαράντινος is similar, chap. 1 Peter 5:4), “unfading;” in the last expression prominence is given to the imperishable beauty of the κληρονομία. Steinmeyer’s opinion is incorrect, that ἀ μίαντος has nearly the same meaning as πολύτιμος and τίμιος, 1 Peter 1:19.

It is not to be assumed that Peter alludes to the character “of the earthly κληρονομία (Weiss, p. 74) of the people of Israel,” especially as there is nothing in the expressions ἀμάραντος and ἄφθαρτος which can without artificial straining admit of such a reference.[53]

ΤΕΤΗΡΗΜΈΝΗΝ ἘΝ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς ΕἸς ὙΜᾶς] The apostle having up to this time spoken generally, makes a transition, and addresses his readers directly: ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝ. ἩΜᾶς; he thereby assures them that that ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ is a possession intended and reserved for them. For the conception here expressed, cf. especially Colossians 1:5, and Meyer in loc. The perf. τετηρημένην (Luth. inexactly: “which is kept”) stands here with reference to the nearness of the time when their κληρονομία will be allotted to believers; 1 Peter 1:5 : ἙΤΟΊΜΗΝ ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ.[54]

[51] No doubt Romans 8:17 might be appealed to in support of this interpretation, yet it would be unwarrantable to maintain that the idea there expressed belongs also to Peter. It must also be observed that even Paul, where he makes use of the term κληρονομία, never alludes to that idea,—a circumstance which has its reason in the current usage of the word.

[52] Calvin inaccurately: tria epitheta quae sequuntur ad gratiae Dei amplificationem posita sunt.

[53] In ἀμίαντος, Weiss sees an allusion to the pollution of Judea by the people of Israel itself or its enemies (Jeremiah 2:7; Leviticus 18:28; Numbers 35:34; Ezekiel 36:17; Psalm 79:1, where the LXX. has μιαίνειν); and in ἀμάραντος to the scorching of the country by the simoom. Weiss thinks that ἄφθαρτος may allude to the φθείρειν τὴν γῆν, Isaiah 24:3; still he himself does not consider this probable.

[54] Hofmann, in disputing this by saying that the perf. partic. is not explained by the nearness of the time when the believers will be in possession of the inheritance, calls in question an assertion which is nowhere here made.

1 Peter 1:5. As the basis of the thought: τετηρημένην … εἰς ὑμᾶς, the apostle subjoins to ὑμᾶς the additional τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει φρουρουμένους … εἰς σωτηρίαν, by which is expressed not the condition on which the readers might hope for the heavenly κληρονομία, but the reason why they possess expectations of it. The chief emphasis lies not on ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ (Schott), but on φρουρουμένους … εἰς σωτηρίαν, inasmuch as the former expression serves only to define the φρουρεῖσθαι more precisely. Gerhard incorrectly makes the accusative depend on ἀναγεννήσας. The prep. ἐν (as distinguished from the following διά) points out the δύναμις Θεοῦ as the causa efficiens (Gerhard), so that Luther’s: “out of God’s power” is in sense correct; the φρουρεῖσθαι is based on the δύν. Θεοῦ. Steinmeyer wrongly explains, referring to Galatians 3:23, the δύναμις Θεοῦ as the φρουρά within which the Christians as believers (διὰ πίστεως equal to πιστεύοντες!) are kept, velut sub vetere T. lex carcerum instar exstitit, in quibus οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον ὄντες custodiebantur. To assume an antithesis between the δύν. Θεοῦ and the law in explanation of this passage, is entirely unjustifiable. By δύν. Θεοῦ is not to be understood, with de Wette and Weiss (p. 189), the Holy Spirit; He is never in any passage of the N. T. (not even in Luke 1:35) designated by these words. The means by which the power of God effects the preservation is the πίστις,[55] the ultimate origin of which nevertheless is also the gracious will of God.

On φρουρουμένους, Vorstius rightly remarks: notatur talis custodia, quae praesidium habet adjunctum.[56] The word by which the apostle even here makes reference to the subsequent ἘΝ ΠΟΙΚΊΛΟΙς ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῖς, 1 Peter 1:6, has its nearer definition in the following ΕἸς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑΝ ἙΤΟΊΜΗΝ ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ, which by Calvin (haec duo membra appositive lego, ut posterius sit prioris expositio, rem unam duobus modis exprimit), Steiger, and others is joined to ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝΉΣΑς as a co-ordinate adjunct to ΕἸς ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑΝ. It is preferable to connect them with ΦΡΟΥΡΟΥΜΈΝΟΥς; the more so that ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ, “with its predicates, so fully characterizes the object of hope, that ΕἸς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. would add nothing further” (Wiesinger). The introduction of ὙΜᾶς, too, is decidedly opposed to the former construction. There is nothing to support the connection with ΠΊΣΤΕΩς, in which ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ would be regarded as the object of faith. According to the correct construction, the verbal conception is more nearly defined by the addition of the origin, means, and end, cf. 1 Peter 1:2-3.[57] The word ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ is here—as the conjoined ἙΤΟΊΜΗ ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ shows—a positive conception; namely: the salvation effected and completed by Christ, not simply a negative idea, “deliverance from ἀπώλεια” (Weiss, p. 79). It does not follow from the circumstance that ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ and ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ are synonymous terms, that the former is “only the negative side of the completed salvation.”

The verb ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ is here, as elsewhere, used to denote the disclosure of what is already in existence (with God ἘΝ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς, 1 Peter 1:4), but as yet hidden. ἝΤΟΙΜΟς is here, like ΜΈΛΛΩΝ often, joined cum. inf. pass. (see Galatians 3:23. On the use of the inf. aor. in this connection, see Winer, p. 311 f. [E. T. 419 f.]); ΜΈΛΛΩΝ nevertheless has a less strong force. The future salvation lies ready to be revealed, that is to say: ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, by which is denoted the time when the world’s history will be closed (not “the relatively last; Bengel: in comparatione temporum V. T.; but absolutely the last time ἘΝ ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΕΙ Ἰ. ΧΡ., 1 Peter 1:7.” Wiesinger[58]). When this time will be, the apostle does not say; but his whole manner of expression indicates that in hope it floated before his vision as one near at hand; cf. chap. 1 Peter 4:7.

[55] πίστις implies the entire and full Christian faith; not simply confidence in God (Weiss), nor the mere “confident assurance of the salvation which is ready to be revealed” (Hofmann); these are single elements which it includes, but which do not exhaust the idea. According to Schott, the apostle has omitted the article, in order to emphasize the fact that he means “that faith which, as to its inmost nature, is not dependent on sight”(!).

[56] Aretius rightly observes: militare est vocabulum φρουρά: praesidium. Pii igitur, dum sunt in periculis, sciant totidem eis divinitus parata esse praesidia: millia millium custodiunt eos. Finis est salus.—Bengel also aptly says: haereditas servata est; haeredes custodiuntur, neque ilia his, neque hi deerunt illi.

[57] Schott justly calls attention to the relation of φρουρουμένους to τετηρημένην: “If the reserving of the inheritance for Christians is not to be fruitless, it must be accompanied by a … preserving of them on earth for that inheritance.” He states the difference between the two expressions thus: “As regards the inheritance, it is only necessary that its existence should not cease. Christians, on the other hand, must be guarded and preserved from influences endangering their state of salvation,”

[58] Schott unjustifiably supposes that the want of the article indicates that “the σωτηρία would take place at a time which, from this very fact, must be regarded as the last.”

1 Peter 1:6. ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε] The verb expresses the liveliness of the Christian joy, equivalent to: exult; it is stronger than χαίρειν, with which it is sometimes connected (chap. 1 Peter 4:13; Matthew 5:12; Revelation 19:7[59]).

ἐν ᾧ refers either to the preceding thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed (Calvin: articulus “in quo” refert totum illud complexum de spe salutis in coelo repositae; so also Estius, Grotius, Calov, Steiger, Jachmann, de Wette, Brückner, Steinmeyer, Schott; similarly Gerhard, who, however, applies it to all that precedes: ἀναγεννήσας, etc.), or to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, Wiesinger, etc.). In the first construction ἀγαλλ.—in form as in meaning—is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the Christians over their future salvation (ἐν ᾧ: over which, cf. chap. 1 Peter 4:4[60]). In the second construction a double interpretation is possible, inasmuch as ἐν ᾧ may denote either the object or the time of the joy; in the first case the sense is: the καιρὸς ἔσχατος is for you an object of joy, because in it the salvation will be revealed; in the second case the sense is: in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger and Hofmann); here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may be easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged against this view (as opposed to Brückner). The last of these different views deserves the preference, both on account of the subsequent ὀλίγον ἄρτι … λυπηθέντες, which forms a distinct antithesis to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, and of the idea peculiar to the epistle, that in the present time the Christian has to suffer rather than to exult, and only in the future can he expect the full joy;—and the prevalent manner of conjunction, too, precisely in this section of the epistle, by which what follows is linked directly on to the word immediately preceding, cf. 1 Peter 1:5; 1 Peter 1:8; 1 Peter 1:10, shows that ἐν ᾧ applies to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. In this combination, however, it is more natural to take ἐν in the same sense as in that which it has before καιρῷ, rather than in another.[61]

Doubtless the present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε will then have a future force; but this occasions no difficulty, there being nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 331 f.]).

The present tense strongly emphasizes the certainty of the future joy, rays of which fall even on the present life.[62]

ὈΛΊΓΟΝ ἌΡΤΙ] ὈΛΊΓΟΝ not of measure (Steiger), but of time, chap. 1 Peter 5:10, where it forms the antithesis to ΑἸΏΝΙΟς; cf. Revelation 17:10; ἌΡΤΙ denotes present time. The juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle’s hope that the ΚΑΙΡῸς ἜΣΧΑΤΟς would soon begin.

ΕἸ ΔΈΟΝ ἘΣΤΊ] not an affirmative (Bengel), but a hypothetical parenthesis: si res ita ferat: if it must be so, that is, according to divine decree; cf. chap. 1 Peter 3:17. Incorrectly Steinmeyer: qui per peregrinationis spatium, quamdiu necessarium est, contristati estis.[63]

ΛΥΠΗΘΈΝΤΕς ἘΝ ΠΟΙΚΊΛΟΙς ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῖς] The aorist with ἌΡΤΙ has reference to the future joy: “after that ye have now for a short time been made sorrowful.” “It signifies the inward sadness, in consequence of outward experiences” (Wiesinger).

Particula ἐν non solum est ΧΡΟΝΙΚΉ, sed etiam ΑἸΤΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΉ (Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into each other, so that ἘΝ is not to be interpreted as synonymous with ΔΙΆ.

ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved or also tempted; here, specially the persecutions which he is called upon to endure at the hands of the unbelieving world, cf. Jam 1:2; Acts 20:19. By the addition of the adjective, the manifold nature of their different kinds is pointed out.

[59] Steinmeyer, whilst combating the opinion that ἀγαλλ. has a stronger force than χαίρειν, correctly describes the ἀγαλλίασις as affectio fervidior animi hilaris, but χαρά unwarrantably as: perpetua ilia cordis laetitia, quae neque augeri queat neque imminui.

[60] Brückner explains ἐν ᾧ as above stated, but he understands ἀγαλλιᾶσθς in a future sense, “of that which shall most surely come to pass;” this interpretation is undoubtedly inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assurance of the future salvation, stated in ver. 5, may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but will not be so then, when that future salvation itself is attained.

[61] Schott’s assertion, that, as a rule, ἀγαλλ. is connected by ἐν with its object, is erroneous. In the N. T. the passage, John 5:35, at the most, can be quoted in support of this construction; whilst in Luke 10:21, ἐν accompanies the simple indication of time. In Luke 1:47, ἀγαλλ. is construed with ἐπί c. dat.; John 8:56, with ἵνα.

[62] It is altogether inappropriate to interpret ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, with Augustine, as an imperative; the exhortations begin only in ver. 13.

[63] The older Protestant commentators, more especially, sometimes employ this passage to combat the arbitrary seeking after suffering; thus Luther says: “It is not to be our own works which we choose, but we must await what God lays upon us and sends, so that we may go and follow, therefore thou mayest not thyself run after them.”

REMARK.

When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation here given, maintains the purely present force of ἀγαλλ. on the ground that “it must be the apostle’s object to commend by way of exhortation the readers for their present state of mind,” it is to be remarked—(1) That the apostle here gives utterance to no exhortation; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well direct his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to strengthen them for the patient endurance of their present condition of suffering. It is perfectly arbitrary to assert, with Schott, that by ἄρτι the present trials as transitory are contrasted with the present joy as enduring, as also to maintain “that by the aorist λυπηθέντες the suffering is reduced to the idea of an ever-changing variety of individual momentary incidents which, in virtue of the uniform joy, may always lie behind the Christian surmounted”(!).

Schott insists again, without reason, that εἰ δέον [ἐστι] cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in that it is “impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of the λυπηθῆναι hypothetical with respect to the will of God;” for it is not clear why Peter should not characterize the λυπηθῆναι ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς as something hypothetical here, where he does not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts. Nor can it be assumed that εἰ δέον (ἐστί) is added in order to remind the readers that the τοικιλοὶ πειρασμοί should in reality occasion no sadness,—the less so that thus the intimately connected λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς are torn asunder.

1 Peter 1:7. ἵνα] states the aim of the λυπηθῆναι ἐν … πειρασμοῖς, in order to console the readers with respect to it, “that the approvedness of your faith may be found more precious than (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire, to (your) praise, and glory, and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

δοκίμιον here, as in Jam 1:3 (cf. in loco), equal to δοκιμή, the approvedness as the result of the trial (Romans 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 2:9; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Php 2:22).[64] The strict signification “medium of proof” is inappropriate, inasmuch as the aim of the λυπηθῆναι ἐν πειρασμοῖς cannot be stated as the glorification of these ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ, but as only that of faith in its approvedness (in opposition to Steinmeyer). Unsuitable, too, is the interpretation “trial” (Brückner, Wiesinger), ΤῸ ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς being taken for Ἡ ΠΊΣΤΙς ΔΟΚΙΜΑΖΟΜΈΝΗ, inasmuch as it is not the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is to be compared with the gold. This substitution of ideas is not justifiable, inasmuch as the process applied to an object cannot be put for the object itself to which it is applied. Only if δοκίμιον denote a quality of faith, can a substitution of this kind take place. δοκίμιον must be taken as: “approvedness,” and by approvedness of faith, the “approved,” or rather “the faith approving itself.”[65]

[64] δοκιμή in the N. T. has either an active or a passive signification; in the former it means: “the trial which leads to approvedness,” as in 2 Corinthians 8:2; in the latter: “the approvedness effected by trial,” as in the passages quoted; or better still: “a distinction must be drawn between a present and a perfect force, in that “δοκιμή has a reflexive sense, either, then, the having approved itself, or the approving itself,” Cremer, s.v.

[65] Brückner raises the following objections to this interpretation:—(1) That δοκίμιον can linguistically only be understood as: means of proof, trial; and (2) That the part, pres., standing in opposition to χρυσίου (δοκιμαζομένου), does not presuppose the purification of the gold to have already taken place, and that, consequently, the πίστις δοκιμαζομένη only can be considered as compared with χρυσίον δοκιμαζόμενον. But against this it must be observed that δοκίμιον has only the signification of “means of proof,” not of trial; and (3) That in the above interpretation it is not the already approved faith, but that faith which is being approved, or approving itself in tribulation, which is contrasted with gold which is being tried.

REMARK.

What Schott had formerly alleged with respect to δοκίμιον is repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried further. By an highly artificial interpretation of Psalm 11:7, LXX., and by the application of the rule established by him, “that the neuter of the adjective does not stand in the place of an abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of something as a concrete reality, and in conjunction with a genitive denotes the object thereby named in this its condition,” Hofmann makes out that it is here affirmed that “at the revelation of Christ it will be found that the faith of the readers has been subjected to purification, and is in consequence free from dross.” This whole interpretation is a pure matter of fancy, for δοκίμιον—a circumstance which both Schott and Hofmann have left unnoticed—is not an adjective, but a real substantive; for δοκιμεῖον.

Cremer explains: “δοκ. is not the touchstone only, in and for itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore τὸ δοκ. τῆς πίστεως is that which results from the contact of πίστις with πειρασμοῖς, that by which faith is recognised as genuine, equal to the proof of faith.” But in opposition to this it must be remarked that fire and not touchstone is here conceived as the means of testing.

πολυτιμότερον κ.τ.λ.] is by most interpreters closely connected with εὑρεθῇ, by others again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Hofmann) separated from it, and considered as in apposition to τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμ. τ. πιστ. The following facts, however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1) That—as Wiesinger admits—this appositional clause expresses “something understood of itself.” (2) That the intention here is not to make an observation on faith, but to state what is the design of sorrow, namely, that the faith which is approving itself may be found to be one πολύτιμος. (3) That thus εὑρεθῇ would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the subsequent εἰς has reference not to εὑρεθῇ alone, but to the whole idea expressed. Yet it cannot well dispense with a nearer definition (in opposition to Hofmann).

The genitive χρυσίου is, as almost all the interpreters take it, to be joined in sense directly with the comparative: “than the gold,” so that the δοκίμιον of the faith is compared with the gold. Some commentators, like Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinmeyer, Hofmann, assume an ellipsis (cf. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), supplying before χρυσίου the words ἢ τὸ δοκίμιον. In opposition it may be urged, however, not precisely “that this is cumbrous” (Brückner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the approval of faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. Whilst comparing the faith with the gold, the apostle places the former above the latter; the reason of this he states in the attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου connected with χρυσίου, by which reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this first attribute he subjoins the second: διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζομένου, in order to name here also the medium of proving, to which the πειρασμοί, with respect to faith, correspond. Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinmeyer are wrong in asserting that in the interpretation here given the attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου is inappropriate.

ἀπολλύμενος: φθαρτός, cf. 1 Peter 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; also John 6:27. For the position of the adjective with art. after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f. [E. T. 174].

διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζομένου] The particle δέ seems to place this second adjunct in antithesis to the first (ἀπολλυμένου) (thus de Wette: “which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire;” so also Hofmann). But opposed to this view is the circumstance that the trial and purification of what is perishable is by no means anything to occasion surprise; it is therefore more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that by it the idea of the δοκιμάζεσθαι is brought prominently forward. Vorstius remarks to the point: aurum igni committitur non ad iteritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides cruci ad gloriam subjicitur.

For this comparison, see Job 23:10; Proverbs 17:3; Zechariah 13:9.

εὑρεθῇ εἰς ἔπαινον καὶ δόξαν καὶ τιμήν] The verb εὑρεθῆναι, “to be found to be,” is more significant than εἶναι (cf. Winer, p. 572 f. [E. T. 769 f.]), and has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of judgment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole preceding thought: ἵνα … εὑρεθῇ. Beza rightly: hic agitur de ipsorum electorum laude, etc.; thus: “to your praise, glory, and honour.” Schott quite arbitrarily interprets ἔπαινος as in itself: “the judicial recognition” (as opposed to this, cf. Php 1:11; Php 4:8); τιμή: “the moral estimation of the person arising therefrom” (as opposed to this, cf. 1 Peter 3:7), and δόξα: “the form of glory” (as opposed to this, cf. Galatians 1:5; Php 1:11). Steinmeyer incorrectly applies the words not to the persons, but to their faith. δόξα and τιμή in the N. T. stand frequently together; in connection with ἔπαινος, here only. The juxtaposition of these synonymous expressions serves to give prominence to the one idea of honourable recognition common to them all. Standing as δίξα does between ἔπαινος and τιμή, it cannot signify: “the allotment of the possession of glory” (Wiesinger), but it is: “glory, praise.”

ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] not: “through,” but: “at,” the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of His return, which is at once the ἀποκάλυψις δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ Θεοῦ (Romans 2:5) and the ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Romans 8:19).

1 Peter 1:8. The longing of the believers is directed to the ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ, He being the object of their love and joy. This thought is subjoined to what precedes in two relative clauses, in order that thereby the apostle may advert to the glory of the future salvation.

ὃν οὐκ εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε] “whom, although ye know Him not (that is, according to the flesh, or in His earthly personality), ye love.” The object of εἰδότες is easily supplied from ὅν, according to the usage in Greek. The reading ἰδόντες expresses substantially the same thought.

Since ἀγάπη, properly speaking, presupposes personal acquaintance, the clause οὐκ εἰδότες is significantly added, in order to set forth prominently that the relation to Christ is an higher than any based on a knowledge after the flesh.

In the clause following—co-ordinate with this—the thought is carried further, the apostle’s glance being again directed to the future appearance of Christ.

εἰς ὂν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε] As regards the construction, εἰς ὅν can hardly be taken with ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, the participles ὁρῶντες and πιστεύοντες thus standing absolutely (Fronmüller), but, as most interpreters are agreed, must be construed with πιστεύοντες. The more precise determination of the thought must depend on whether ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is, with de Wette, Brückner, Winer, Steinmeyer, Weiss, Schott, to be taken as referring to present, or, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to future joy. In the first case, ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is joined in the closest manner with πιστεύοντες, and ἄρτι only with μὴ ὁρῶντες (de Wette: “and in Him, though now seeing Him not, yet believing ye exult”); in the second, εἰς ὂν … πιστεύοντες δέ is to be taken as the condition of the ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, and ἄρτι to be joined with πιστεύοντες (Wiesinger: “on whom for the present believing,—although without seeing,—ye exult”). In support of the first view, it may be advanced, that thus ἀγαλλιᾶσθε corresponds more exactly to ἀγαπᾶτε, and that μὴ ὁρῶντες forms a more natural antithesis to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε than to πιστεύοντες; for the second, that it is precisely one of the peculiarities characteristic of this epistle, that it sets forth the present condition of believers as one chiefly of suffering, which only at the ἀποκάλυψις of the Lord will be changed into one of joy; that the more precise definition: χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ, as also the subsequent κομιζόμενοι, have reference to the future; that the ἄρτι seems to involve the thought: “now ye see Him not, but then ye see Him, and shall rejoice in beholding Him;” and lastly, that the apostle, 1 Peter 4:13, expressly ascribes the ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι to the future. On these grounds the second view is preferable to the first. The present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε need excite the less surprise, that the future joy is one not only surely pledged to the Christian, but which its certainty makes already present. It may, indeed, be supposed that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε must be conceived as in the same relation to time with ἀγαπᾶτε; yet, according to the sense, it is not the ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, but the πιστεύειν, which forms the second characteristic of the Christian life annexed to ἀγαπᾷν. It is not, however, the case, that on account of the present πιστεύοντες, ἀγαλλ. also must be taken with a present signification (Schott), since love and faith are the present ground of the joy beginning indeed now, but perfected only in the future. The particle of time ἄρτι applies not only to μὴ ὁρῶντες, but likewise to πιστεύοντες δέ; the sense of μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δέ is not this, that although they now do not see, yet still believe—the not seeing and the believing do not form an antithesis, they belong to each other; but this, that the Christians do not indeed see, but believe. On the distinction between οὐκ εἰδότες and μὴ ὁρῶντες, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 609].

χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ] serves to intensify ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. ἀνεκλάλητος, ἅπ. λεγ., “unspeakable,” is either “what cannot be expressed in words” (thus ἀλάλητος, Romans 8:26), or “what cannot be exhausted by words.”[66] ΔΕΔΟΞΑΣΜΈΝΗ, according to Weiss, means: “the joy which already bears within it the glory, in which the future glory comes into play even in the Christian’s earthly life;” similarly Steinmeyer: “hominis fidelis laetitia jam exstat ΔΕΔΟΞΑΣΜΈΝΗ, quoniam ΔΌΞΑΝ ejus futuram praesentem habet ac sentit;” but on this interpretation relations are introduced which in and for itself the word does not possess. ΔΕΔΟΞΑΣΜΈΝΟς means simply “glorified;” χαρὰ δεδοξασμ. is accordingly the joy which has attained unto perfected glory; but “the imperfect joy of the Christian here (Wiesinger, Hofmann), and not the joy of the world, which as of sense and transitory is a joy ἘΝ ἈΤΙΜΊᾼ” (Fronmüller), is to be regarded as its antithesis; so that this expression also seems to show that ἈΓΑΛΛΙᾶΣΘΕ is to be understood of the future exultation.

[66] Steinmeyer gives an unjustifiable application to the word, by saying: “Meminerimus τῶν ποικίλων πειρασμῶν. Si quidem plurimae illae tentationes totidem laetitiae causas afferumt, sine dubio ἡ χαρά eodem sensu ἀνεκλάλητος exstat, quo πειρασμοί nequeunt enumerari.”

1 Peter 1:9. κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος κ.τ.λ.] gives the reason of that joy; the participle links itself simply on to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, “inasmuch as ye obtain,” etc., and supplies confirmation that what is here spoken of is not present, but future joy. It is arbitrary to interpret, with de Wette and Brückner: “inasmuch as ye are destined to obtain;” or with Steiger: “inasmuch as even now in foretaste ye obtain.” Joined with the future present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, the participle must also be in the present.[67] Cf. with this passage, more especially chap. 1 Peter 5:4.

ΚΟΜΊΖΕΙΝ: “obtain” (cf. chap. 1 Peter 5:4), is in the N. T. frequently used of the obtaining of what will be assigned to man at the last judgment; 2 Peter 2:13; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:25. Steinmeyer incorrectly explains the word: secum portare.

τὸ τέλος, not “the reward” = ΜΙΣΘΌς (Beza, Vorstius, etc.), neither is it “the reward of victory” (Hofmann);[68] but it is the end of faith, that to which it is directed; see Cremer, s.v.

τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν] refers back to πιστεύοντες, 1 Peter 1:8.

σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν] The salvation is indeed one already present; but here is meant the Christians’ completed salvation, of which they shall be partakers, ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (1 Peter 1:5).

On ψυχῶν, Bengel remarks: anima praecipue salvatur: corpus in resurrectione participat; cf. Jam 1:21; John 12:25; Luke 21:19.

[67] Winer, in the 5th ed. (p. 403), gives the same interpretation as de Wette; in the 6th (p. 306 [E. T. 429]) and the 7th (p. 330), on the other hand: “as receiving (they are that already in the assurance of faith).” Schott: “since ye are about to, or on the way to, gather in(!) like a harvest the end of your faith.” Schott is clearly wrong when he asserts that if the apostle had had the future joy in his mind, he must have written κομισάμενοι on account of the δεδοξασμένῃ, “because the attaining of the end of salvation, which is still in the act of being accomplished, could not be placed parallel with the final glorification which has already taken place,” since there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that the joy of the Christians is glorified when they receive the end of their salvation.

[68] The expression κομίζειν indeed shows that Peter pictured to himself the τέλος of faith as a trophy, but not that τέλος literally means: “trophy.”