CHAPTER 2:1–10. Continuation of practical admonition with appeal to additional ground-principles illustrating the thesis of 1:10.
Ver. 1. Put away then all malice—all guile and hypocrisy and envy—all backbiting. οὖν resumes διό (1:13). The faults to be put away fall into three groups, divided by the prefix all, and correspond to the virtues of 1:22 (ὑπόκρισιν ἀνυπόκριτον). The special connection of the command with the preceding Scripture would require the expression of the latent idea, that such faults as these are inspired by the prejudices of the natural man and belong to the fashion of the world, which is passing away (1 John 2:17).—ἀποθέμενοι, putting off. Again participle with imperative force. St. Peter regards the metaphor of removal as based on the idea of washing off filth, cf. σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου (3:21). St. James (1:21, διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας) which seems to combine these two phrases and to deduce the familiarity of the spiritual sense of filth (cf. Apoc. 22:11, ῥυπαρὸς κἅγιος). St. Paul has the same word but associates it with the putting off of clothing (Col. 3:5 ff.; Eph. 4:22; Rom. 13:12—all followed by ἐνδύσασθαι).—κακίαν, probably malice rather than wickedness. Peter is occupied with their mutual relations and considering what hinders brotherly love, not their vices, if any, as vice is commonly reckoned. So James associates the removal of κακία with courtesy; and St. Paul says let all bitterness and anger and wrath and shouting and ill-speaking be removed from you with all malice (Eph. 4:31; cf. Col. 3:8). κ. is generally eagerness to hurt one’s neighbour (Suidas)—the feeling which prompts backbitings and may be subdivided into guile, hypocrisy, and envy.—δόλον, Guile was characteristic of Jacob, the eponymous hero of the Jews, but not part of the true Israelite (ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν John 1:47). It was also rife among the Greeks (μεστοὺς … δόλου, Rom. 1:29) as the Western world has judged from experience (Greek and grec = cardsharper; compare characters of Odysseus and Hermes). δ. is here contrasted with obedience to the truth (1:22), 2:22, 3:10.—ὑπόκρισιν is best explained by the saying Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites.… This people honours me with their lips but their heart is far away from me (Mark 7:6 f. = Isa. 29:13). It stands for חנף profane, impure in Symmachus’ version of Ps. 35:16; so ὑποκριτὴς in LXX of Job (34:30, 36:13), and Aquila (Prov. 11:9), etc. In 2 Macc. 6:25, ὑ is used of (unreal?—not secret) apostasy perhaps in accordance with the earlier sense of ח֙ which only in post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic = hypocrisy. In His repeated denunciations of the hypocrites Jesus repeated the Pharisees description of the Sadducees that live in hypocrisy with the saints (Ps. Sol. 4:7). Polybius has ὑ. in the classical sense of oratorical delivery, and once contrasted with the purpose of speakers (xxxv. 2, 13).—καταλαλιάς, detractiones (Vulgate), of external slanders in 2:12, 3:11. For internal calumnies, cf. Jas. 4:11; 2 Cor. 12:20 illustrates one special case, for φυσιώσεις κᾳταλαλιαὶ correspond to εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου of 1 Cor. 4:6 (cf. 1:12).
Ver. 2. ὡς, inasmuch as you are newborn babes: cf. ἀναγεγεννημένοι (1:23). The development of the metaphor rests upon the saying, unless ye be turned and become as the children (ὡς τὰ παιδία) ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3).—βρέφη (only here in metaphorical sense) is substituted for παιδία (preserved by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 14:20) as = babes at the breast. A παιδίον might have lost its traditional innocence but not a βρέφος (= either child unborn as Luke 1:41, or suckling in classical Greek). For the origin of the metaphor, which appears also in the saying of R. Jose, “the proselyte is a child just born,” compare Isa. 28:9, Whom will he teach knowledge?.… Them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts, which the Targum renders, To whom was the law given?.… Was it not to the house of Israel which is beloved beyond all peoples?—τὸ … γάλα. The quotation of ver. 3 suggests that the milk is Christ; compare St. Paul’s explanation of the tradition of the Rock which followed the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4) and the living water of John 4:14. Milk is the proper food for babes; compare Isa. 55:1, buy … milk (LXX, στέαρ) without money (cf. 1:18). This milk is guileless (cf. δόλον of ver. 1) pure or unadulterated (cf. μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. 4:2). The interpretation of λογικόν (pertaining to λόγος) is doubtful. But the use of λόγος just above (1:23) probably indicates the sense which St. Peter put upon the adjective he borrowed (?) from Rom. 12:1, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν. There and elsewhere λ. = rationabilis, spiritual; here belonging to contained in the Word of God, delivered by prophet or by evangelist. St. Paul in his use of λ. and of the metaphor of milk (solid food, 1 Cor. 3:1 ff.) follows Philo and the Stoics.—ἵνα … σωτηρίαν, that fed thereon ye may grow up (cf. Eph. 4:14 f.) unto salvation; cf. Jas. 1:21, “receive the ingrafted word which is able to save your souls”.
Ver. 3. St. Peter adopts the language of Ps. 34:9, omitting καὶ ἔδετε as inappropriate to γάλα. χρηστός (identical in sound with χριστός) = dulcis (Vulg.) or kind (cf. χρηστότης θεοῦ, Rom. 2:4, 11:22). Compare Heb. 6:4 f. γευσαμένους τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου … καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα.
Vv. 4–10. Passages of scripture proving that Christ is called stone are first utilised, then quoted, and finally expounded. The transition from milk to the stone may be explained by the prophecy the hills shall flow with milk (Joel 3:18), as the stone becomes a mountain according to Dan. 3:21 f.; or by the legend to which St. Paul refers (1 Cor. 10:4); compare also ποτίσαι of Isa. 43:20, which is used in ver. 9. This collection of texts can be traced back through Rom. 9:32 f. to its origin in the saying of Mark 12:10 f.; Cyprian (Test. 2:16 f.) gives a still richer form.
Ver. 4. πρὸς ὃν προσερχ. from Ps. 34:6, προσελθόντες πρὸς αὐτὸν (Heb. and Targum, they looked unto Him; Syriac, look ye.…). Cyprian uses Isa. 2:2 f.; Ps. 23:3 f. to prove that the stone becomes a mountain to which the Gentiles come and the just ascend.—λίθον ζῶντα, a paradox which has no obvious precedent in O.T. Gen. 49:24 speaks of the Shepherd the stone of Israel, but Onkelos and LXX substitute אביך thy father for אבן stone. The Targum of Isa. 8:14, however, has אבן מחי a striking stone, for אנגף which might be taken as meaning reviving or living stone, if connected with the foregoing instead of the following words. The LXX supports this connection and secures a good sense by inserting a negative; the Targum gives a bad sense throughout. ὑπʼ … ἔντιμον, though by men rejected, yet in God’s sight elect precious. ἀποδεδοκ. comes from Ps. 118:22 (see ver. 7); ἐκλ. ἐντ. from Isa. 28:6 (see ver. 6). ἀνθρώπων is probably due to Rabbinic exegesis “read not בונים builders but בני אדם sons of men”. St. Peter insists upon the contrast between God’s judgment and man’s in the sermon of Acts 2.
Ver. 5. Fulfilment of the saying, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it (John 2:19). Christians live to God through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:11). For this development of the figure of building, cf. especially Eph. 2:20 ff.—οἰκοδομεῖσθε, indicative rather than imperative. “It is remarkable that St. Peter habitually uses the aorist for his imperatives, even when we might expect the present; the only exceptions (two or three) are preceded by words removing all ambiguity, 2:11, 17, 4:12 f”. (Hort).—οἶκος … ἅγιον, a spiritual house for an holy priesthood. The connection with priesthood (Heb. 10:21) and the offering of sacrifices points to the special sense of the House of God, i.e., the Temple; cf. (4:17; 1 Tim. 3:5) ναὸς ὅς ἐστε ὑμεῖς, 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:21. So Heb. 3:5 f., οὗ (Χριστοῦ) οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς …—Ἱεράτευμα, body of priests, in Exod. 19:6 (Heb. priests) 23:22; 2 Macc. 2:17; cf. 9 infra. Here Hort prefers the equally legitimate sense, act of priesthood. Usage supports the first and only possible etymology the second. The ideal of a national priesthood is realised, Isa. 61:6.—ἀνενέγκαι … Χριστοῦ. to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.—δια Ἰησοῦ Χ. is better taken with ἀν. than εὐπροσδ.; cf. Heb. 13:15, διʼ αὐτοῦ, where the thankoffering is singled out as the fit type of the Christian sacrifice. Spiritual sacrifices are in their nature acceptable to God (John 4:23) and Christians are enabled to offer them through Jesus Christ. ἀναφέρειν in this sense is peculiar to LXX, Jas. and Heb.
Ver. 6. περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ, it is contained in Scripture. The formula occurs in Josephus (Ant. xi. 7, βούλομαι γενέσθαι πάντα καθὼς ἐν [τῇ ἐπιστολῇ] περιέχει) and is chosen for its comprehensiveness.—περιέχει is intransitive as the simple verb and other compounds often are; cf. περιοχή, contents, Acts 8:32.—γραφῇ. being a technical term, has no article.—ἰδοὺ … καταισχυνθῇ, formal quotation of Isa. 28:16, preceding quotation from Psalms, as prophets always precede the writings. The LXX has ἰδοὺ ἐμβάλλω ἐγὼ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια (unique expansion of normal θεμελιῶ = יסד of Heb., cf. εἰς τὰ θ. below; Targum, ממני I will appoint) Σειὼν λίθον πολυτελῆ (π. duplicate of ἔντιμον; Heb., a stone a stone; Targum, a king a king; pointing to Jewish Messianic interpretation) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρ. ἔντ. εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς (a foundation a foundation, Heb.) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (+ ἐπʼ αὐτῷ א AQ) οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (= יבוש for יחיש of Heb. = shall not make haste; Targum, when tribulation come shall not be moved). The chief difference is that St. Peter omits all reference to the foundation, and substitutes τίθημι; LXX is conflate, ἐμβάλλω εἰς being the original reading and τὰ θεμ. added by some purist to preserve the meaning of the Hebrew root. This omission may be due to the fact that Christians emphasised the idea that the stone was a corner stone binding the two wings of the Church together (Eph. 2:20) and regarded this as inconsistent with εἰς κεφ.
Ver. 7 f. The second quotation is connected with the first by means of the parenthetic interpretation: The “precious”-ness of the stone is for you who believe but for the unbelievers it is … “a stone of stumbling”. It is a stereotyped conflation of Ps. 118:22 and Isa. 8:14, which are so firmly cemented together that the whole is cited here where only the latter part is in point. The same idea of the two-fold aspect of Christ occurs in St. Paul more than once; e.g., Christ crucified to Jews a stumbling-block … but to you who believe … 1 Cor. 1:23. The problem involved is discussed by Origen who adduces the different effects of the sun’s light.—ἡ τιμή, the τιμή involved in the use of the adjective ἔντιμον., or rather Heb. יקרה underlying it. The play on the peculiar sense thus required does not exclude the ordinary meaning honour (for which cf. 1:7; Rom. 2:10).—λίθος ὃν … γωνίας = Ps. l.c. (LXX)—the prophetic statement in scriptural phrase of the fact of their unbelief. The idea may be that the raising of the stone to be head of the corner makes it a stumbling-block but in any case λίθος … σκανδάλου is needed to explain this.—λίθος προσκόμματος κ. π. σκ. from Isa. 8:14; LXX paraphrases the original, which St. Peter’s manual preserves, reading καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθῳ προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πετρας πτώματι (common confusion of construct, with Gen.).—οἱ … ἀπειθοῦντες, description of the unbelieving in terms of the last quotation, who stumble at the word being disobedient. τῷ λόγῳ is probably to be taken with πρ. or both πρ. and ἀ. in spite of the stone being identified with the Lord. Stumbling at the word is an expression used by Jesus (Mark 4:17, διὰ τὸν λόγον σκανδαλίζονται; Matt. 15:12, ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν; John 6:60, τοῦτο—ὁ λόγος οὗτος—ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει). For ἀ. cf. 4:17, τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ.—εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν, whereunto also (actually) they were appointed. ἐτέθησαν comes from τίθημι (6); stone and stumbler alike were appointed by God to fulfil their functions in His Purpose. For the sake of the unlearned he only implies and does not assert in so many words that God appointed them to stumble and disobey; but his view is that of St. Paul (see Rom. 9, 11, especially 9:17, 22); cf. Luke 2:34. Didymus distinguishes between their voluntary unbelief and their appointed fall. If any are tempted to adopt such ingenious evasions of the plain sense it is well to recall the words of Origen: “If in the reading of scripture you stumble at what is really a noble thought, the stone of stumbling and rock of offence, blame yourself. You must not despair of this stone … containing hidden thoughts so that the saying may come to pass, And the believer shall not be shamed. Believe first of all and you will find beneath this reputed stumbling-block much holy profit (in Jer. 44 (51):22, Hom. xxxix. = Philocalia x.).
Vv. 9 f. The Church, God’s new people, has all the privileges which belonged to the Jews. In enumerating them he draws upon a current conflation of Isa. 43:20 f., ποτίσαι τὸ γένος μου το ἐκλεκτὸν (1) λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην (4) τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι with Exod. 19:6, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (2) καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον (3) ἔσεσθέ μοι λαὸς περιούσιος (4) ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν (1); and Ps. 107:14, καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκ σκιᾶς θανάτου … ἐξομολογησάσθων τῷ κυρίῳ τὰ ἐλέη αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων—to which is appended Hos. 1:6, 8.—γένος ἐκλεκτόν, Isa. l.c. LXX (Heb., my people my chosen); γένος, race implies that all the individual members of it have a common Father (God) and are therefore brethren (cf. υἱοὶ γένους Ἁβραάμ, Acts 13:26); cf. 1:1, 6.—βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, a royal priesthood, from Exod. l.c. LXX (Heb., a kingdom of priests = Apoc. 1:6, βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς). Christians share Christ’s prerogatives. The priesthood is the chief point (see 2:5) it is royal. Clement of Alexandria says: “Since we have been summoned to the kingdom and are anointed (sc. as Kings)”. The comparison of Melchizedek with Christ perhaps underlies the appropriation of the title.—ἔθνος ἅγιον, to the Jew familiar, with the use of ἔθνη for Gentiles, as much a paradox as Christ crucified. But λαός, the common rendering of עם in this connexion is wanted below, and St. Peter is content to follow his authority.—λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, a people for possession = עם סגלה. The source of the Greek phrase is Mal. 3:17, but the Hebrew title variously rendered occurs in the two great passages drawn upon. Deut. (17:6, etc.) has λαὸς περιούσιος which is adopted by St. Paul (Tit. 2:14); but the phrase εἰς π. is well established in the Christian vocabulary, Heb. 10:39; 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:14, and the whole title is apparently abbreviated to περιποίησις in Eph. 1:14.—ὅπως … ἐξαγγείλητε, from Isa. l.c. + Ps. l.c., the latter containing the matter of the following designation of God. In Isa. τὰς ἀρετάς μου stands for תהלהי my praise; and this sense reappears in Esther 14:10. ἀνοῖξαι στόμα ἐθνῶν εἰς ἀρετάς ματαίων, the praises of idols. Elsewhere it stands for הוד. glory (Hab. 3:3; Zach. 6:13). In the books of Maccabees (especially the fourth) it has its ordinary sense of virtue, which cannot be excluded altogether here. The whole clause is in fact the pivot on which the Epistle turns. Hitherto Peter has addressed himself to the Christians and their mutual relations, now he turns to consider their relations to the outside world (1:2 f.). In 2 Peter 1:3, ἀ. corresponds to θεία δύναμις, a sense which might be supported by Ps. l.c. (for discussion of other—very uncertain—evidence see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 95 ff., 362) and the events of Pentecost (see especially Acts 2:11).—τοῦ … φῶς is derived from Ps. l.c.; the natural antithesis light is readily supplied (cf. Eph. 5:8, 14); darkness = heathenism in cf. 10.
Ver. 10, from Hosea 1:6, 2:1(3); cf. Rom. 9:25 (has καλέσω κάλεσον of Hos.); the terms are so familiar that μου is omitted by Peter as unnecessary (cf. γένος ἐκ. for τὸ γ. μου ἐ.).
Vv. 11 f. indicate generally the subject to be discussed. Beloved I exhort you to abstain from the lusts of the flesh, because they wage war against the soul. Slanders and even torments can only affect the body. But the lusts natural or acquired which you have renounced may hinder your salvation, as they have already impeded your mutual love. For the sake of your old friends and kinsfolk refuse to yield to their solicitations. If rebuffed they resort to persecution of whatever kind, remember that it is only a passing episode of your brief exile. Let your conduct give them no excuse for reproach; so may they recognise God’s power manifest not on your lips but in your lives.—ἀγαπητοί, not an empty formulæ but explanation of the writer’s motive. He set before them the great commandment and now adds to it as Jesus did, Love one another as I have loved you, John 13:34.—ὡς π. καὶ παρεπιδήμους with ἀπεχ. (motive for abstinence in emphatic position) rather than παρακαλῶ (as νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν, 2 Thess. 3:15—the motive of exhortation is here expressed by ἀγ.) echoes παρεπιδήμοις of 1:1 and παροικίας of 1:17. The combination (= גר וחושב) occurs twice in LXX (Gen. 33:4; Ps. 39:13). Christians are in the world, not of the world.—ἀπέχεσθαι, cf. Plato, Phaedo, 82 C, true philosophers, ἀπέχονται τῶν κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἐπιθυμιῶν ἁπάσων—not for fear of poverty, like the vulgar, nor for fear of disgrace, like the ambitious, but because only so can he, departing in perfect purity, come to the company of the gods”.—τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, the lusts of the flesh. St. Peter borrows St. Paul’s phrase, ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν (Eph. 2:3), but uses it in his own way in a sense as wide as τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐ. (Tit. 2:12). For the flesh is the earthly life (cf. Col. 3:5) the transitory mode of existence of the soul which is by such abstinence to be preserved (1:9).—αἵτινες … ψυχῆς, because they are campaigning against the soul.—στρατεύονται (cf. 4:1 f., for military metaphor) perhaps derived from Rom. 7:23, “I perceive a different law in my members warring against (ἀντιστρατευόμενον) the law of my mind;” cf. Jas. 4:1, the pleasures which war in your members, and 4 Macc. 9:23, ἱερὰν καὶ εὐγενῆ στρατείαν στρατεύσασθε περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας.—κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς. The lusts of this earthly life are the real enemy for they affect the soul. Compare Matt. 10:28, which may refer to the Devil and not to God, and the Pauline parallel, ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος … ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντικεῖται (Gal. 5:17).
Ver. 12. Adaptation of the saying, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Matt. 5:16). The good behaviour on which the resolved ἀναστρέφεσθαι permits stress to be laid is the fruit of the abstinence of ver. 2; cf. Heb. 13:8; Jas. 3:13. This second admonition is disjointed formally—against formal grammar—from the first; cf. Eph. 4:1 f., παρακαλῶ … ὑμᾶς … ἀνεχόμενοι.—ἐντοῖς ἔθνεσιν, the people of God (2:9) is a correlative term and implies the existence of the nations, who are ignorant and disobedient. The situation of the Churches addressed justifies the use of Dispersion in 1:1. But the point of the words here is this: you—the new Israel must succeed where the old failed, as it is written my name is blasphemed ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν on your account (Isa. 52:5; LXX, cited Rom. 2:24).—ἵνα … ἐπισκοπῆς, in order that as a result of your good works they may be initiated into your secrets and come to glorify God in respect to your conduct when He at last visits the world, though now they calumniate you as evildoers in this matter.—ἐν ᾧ in the case of the thing in which, i.e., your behaviour generally; cf. 3:16, 4:4, and for δοξ. τὸν θεὸν ἐν, 4:11, 16.—καταλαλοῦσιν ὡς κ. Particular accusations are given in 4:15. This popular estimate of Christians is reflected in Suetonius’ statement: Adflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominium superstitionis novae et maleficae (Ner. 16).—ἐποπτεύοντες takes Acc. in iii. 2 (overlook, behold, as in Symmachus’ version of Ps. 10:14, 33:13); but here the available objects are either appropriated (θεόν with δοξ). or far off (ἀναστροφήν). It will therefore have its ordinary sense of become ἐπόπτης, be initiated. The Christians were from the point of view of their former friends members of a secret association, initiates of a new mystery, the secrecy of which gave rise to slanders such as later Christians brought against the older mysteries and the Jews. St. Peter hopes that, if the behaviour of Christians corresponds to their profession, their neighbours will become initiated into their open secrets (for as St. Paul insists this hidden mystery has now been revealed and published).—δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεόν, come to glorify God—like the centurion, who said of the crucified Jesus, Truly this was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)—i.e., recognise the finger of God either in the behaviour of the Christians or in the whole economy (see Rom. 11.).—ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, from Isa. 10:3, What will ye do—ye the oppressors of the poor of my people—in day of visitation (יּום פקדה) i.e. (Targum), when your sins are visited upon you. But St. Peter looks for the repentance of the heathen at the last visitation (cf. 4:6), though the prophet found no escape for his own contemporaries. Compare Luke 19:44.
Vv. 13–17. The duty of the Christian towards the State; compare Rom. 13:1–7.—πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει, every human institution, including rulers (14), masters (18), and husbands (3:1). κτίζειν is used ordinarily in many senses, e.g., of peopling a country, of founding a city, of setting up games, feasts, altar, etc. In Biblical Greek and its descendants it is appropriated to creation. Here κτίσις is apparently selected as the most comprehensive word available; and the acquired connotation—creation by God—is ruled out by the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ. It thus refers to all human institutions which man set up with the object of maintaining the world which God created.—διὰ τὸν κύριον, for the sake of the Lord. διά may be (1) retrospective—i.e., because Jesus said, Render what is Cæsar’s to Cæsar or, generally, because God is the source of all duly-constituted authority; or (2) prospective for the sake of Jesus (Jehovah); your loyalty redounding to the credit of your Master in heaven.—βασιλεῖ, the Roman Emperor, as in Apoc. 17:9, etc.; Josephus B.J., v. 136, v. infra.—ὑπερέχοντι, pre-eminent, supreme, absolute, as in Sap. 6:5, where τοῖς ὑπερέχουσιν corresponds to those who are underlings of His Sovereignty (4), to whom power was given from the Lord (3); cf. διʼ αὐτοῦ below.—ἡγεμόσιν, properly Governors of provinces, but Plutarch uses the singular = Imperator. Peter rather follows the conventional rendering of the saying of Jesus, ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε, interpreted in the light of popular usage (cf. Luke 21:12) or of Jer. 39:3, ἡγεμόνες βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος. Contrast vague general term, ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχ· ὡς … which St. Paul employed before his visit to Rome.—πεμπ., as being sent through the Emperor. διά implies that the governors are sent by God acting through the Emperor; so Rom. 13:1–7 (cf. Sap. 6:3) and John 19:11, εἰ μὴ ἦν δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν.—εἰς ἐκδίκησιν, κ.τ.λ. The ruler executes God’s vengeance (Rom. 12:19) and voices God’s approval (Ps. 22:25, παρὰ σοῦ ὁ ἔπαινός μου). The former function of governors has naturally become prominent, the latter is exemplified in the crowns, decrees and panegyrics with which the Greek and Jewish States rewarded their benefactors if not mere well-doers.—οὕτως … since this is so (referring to 13 f.) God’s will is that … (cf. Matt. 18:14, οὕτως οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα where οὕτως refers to the preceding parable) rather than God’s will is thus namely that … or … well-doing thus. Since God has set up governors who express His approval of well-doers, you as well-doers will receive official praise and thus be enabled to silence the slanderers. St. Peter is thinking of the verdict pronounced in the case of St. Paul and of Jesus himself.—φιμοῦν, (1) muzzle (1 Cor. 9:9), (2) silence as Jesus did (Matt. 22:34, ἐφίμωσεν τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους).—τὴν ἀγνωσίαν, a rare word—perhaps borrowed from Job 35:16, ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ ῥήματα βαρύνει, He multiplieth words without knowledge. In 1 Cor. 15:34, ἀγνωσίαν γαρ θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσιν, it is derived from Sap. 13:1, οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία. It is the opposite of γνῶσις (ἀγνωσίας τε καὶ γνώσεως, Plato, Soph., 267 B) cf. ἄγνοια, of Jews who crucified Jesus, Acts 3:17.—τῶν ἀφρόνων = the foolish men who calumniate you (12). ἀ. is very common in the Wisdom literature (especially Proverbs); as used by Our Lord (Luke 11:40) and St. Paul (2 Cor. 11); it implies lack of insight, a point of view determined by external appearances.
Ver. 16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι, the contrast with τῆς κακίας supports the connection of ἐ, in thought with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, which explains the nature of the self-subjection required. Christians are free (Matt. 17:26 f. q.v.; John 8:36; Gal. 2:4) and therefore must submit to authority. Peter generalises summarily St. Paul’s argument in Gal. 5:13, which refers to internal relations.—καὶ μὴ … ἐλευθερίαν, and not having your freedom as a cloak of your malice. For ἐπ. cf. Menander (apud Stobaeum Florileg.) πλοῦτος δὲ πολλῶν ἐπικάλυμμʼ ἐστιν κακῶν. The verb is used in Ps. cited Rom. 4:7 = כפר; and this sense may perhaps be contemplated here; early Christians regarded their freedom as constituting a propitiation for future as for past sins.
Ver. 17. Sweeping clause based partly on Rom. 13:7 f. (cf. Matt. 22:21), partly on Prov. 24:21, φοβοῦ τὸν θεὸν υἰὲ καὶ βασιλέα καὶ μηθετέρῳ αὐτῶν ἀπειθήσῃς.—πάντας τιμήσατε. The aorist imperative is used because the present would be ambiguous; cf. ἀπόδοτε, Rom. l.c., and for matter, Rom. 12:10, τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι, since πάντας covers both the brotherhood and the emperor.—οἱ οἰκέται, vocative; the word is chosen as being milder than δοῦλος and also as suggesting the parallel between slaves and Christians who are God’s household (2:5)—ὑποτασσόμενοι has force of imperative resuming ὑποτάγητε or goes with τιμήσατε (17) as being a particular application of that general principle.—τοῖς δεσπόταις, to your masters, not excluding God, the Master of all, as is indicated by the insertion of in all fear (cf. 17, etc.) and τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν (cf. Ps. 86:4, σὺ κύριος χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικής).—τοῖς σκολιοῖς, the perverse, cf. Phil. 2:15, ἵνα γένησθε … τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης, where the full phrase is cited from Deut. 32:5 (σκ. = עקש), The Vulgate has dyscolis = δυσκόλοις; Hesychius, σκολιός. ἄδικος; Prov. 28:18, ὁ σκολιαῖς ὁδοῖς πορευόμενος χ. ὁ πορευόμενος δικαίως.
Vv. 19 f. Summary application of the teaching of Jesus recorded in Luke 6:27–36 = Matt. 5:39–48.—χάρις seems to be an abbreviation of the O.T. idiom to find favour (תן) with God—cf. χάρις παρὰ θεῷ (20)—taken from St. Luke’s version of the saying, εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἔστιν (6:32).—Compare χάριτας = רצון that which is acceptable in Prov. 10:32.—διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ (i.) because God is conscious of your condition (θεοῦ subjective genitive), a reproduction of thy Father which seeth that which is hidden … (Matt. 6:4, etc.); so συνείδ. in definite philosophical sense of conscience is usually followed by possessive genitive OR (2.) because you are conscious of God (θ. objective genitive), cf. σ. ἁμαρτίας, Heb. 10:2. The latter construction is preferable: the phrase interprets διὰ τὸν κύριον with the help of the Pauline expression διὰ τὴν ς. (Rom. 13:5; 1 Cor. 10:25) employed in the same context.—πάσχων ἀδίκως, emphatic. Peter has to take account of the possibility which Jesus ignored, that Christians might deserve persecution; cf. 20, 25.—ποῖον κλέος, what praise rather than what kind of reputation (κλ. neutral as in Thuc. 2:45) cf. ποία χάρις τίνα μισθόν, (only twice in Job in LXX) corresponds to ἔπαινος above: χάρις παρὰ θεῷ shows that the praise of the Master who reads the heart is intended.—κολαφιζόμενοι, from description of the Passion, Mark 14:65, ἤρξαντό τινες … κολαφίζειν αὐτόν, cf. Matt. 5:39, ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει. So also St. Paul recalls the parallel between Christ’s and the Christians’ sufferings (1 Cor. 4:11) κολαφιζόμεθα.—ἀγαθοποιοῦντες, opposed to ἁμαρτάνοντες, explains ἀδίκως (19).—χάρις, see on 10. ver. 19.
Ver. 21. εἰς τοῦτο, sc. to do well and to suffer, if need be, without flinching, as Christ did.—ἐκλήθητε, sc. by God; cf. διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν θεοῦ.—ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ver. 22 supplies the essential point, which would be readily supplied, but Christ’s suffering was undeserved (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, 3:18).—καί also with reference to the similar experience of Christians; so Phil. 2:5, τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ.—ὑπογραμμόν (1) outline, 2 Macc. 2:28, to enlarge upon the outlines of our abridgment; (2) copy-head, pattern, to be traced over by writing-pupils (Plato, Protag., 227 D; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., v. 8, 49, gives three examples of which βεδιζαμψχθωπληκτρον σφιγξ is one).—ἐπακολουθήσητε, reminiscence of jesus’ word to Peter, ἀκολουθήσεις ὕστερον, John 13:36.
Ver. 22 = Isa. 43:9, ἁμ. being put for ἀνομίαν (חמם) and εὑρ. δόλος (so אca AQ, etc.) for δόλον (= Heb.) of LXX. The latter variation is due to conjunction of Zeph. 3:13, οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ έν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν γλῶσσα δολία: Christ being identified with the Remnant. The former appears in the Targum: “that they might not remain who work sin and might not speak guile with their mouth”.
Ver. 23. Combination of the Scripture οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα (Isa. 43:7) with the saying ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν και διώξωσιν (Matt. 5:11). For λοιδ. cf. 1 Cor. 4:12. λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν of Matt. l.c.), John 9:28, the Jews ἐλοιδόρησαν the once blina man as Jesus’ disciple and, for O.T. type Deut. 33:8, ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας (Levi = Christ the Priest, cf. ἀντιλογία, Heb. 12:3).—οὐκ ἠπείλει the prophecy ἀπειλήσει τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσιν (Isa. 66:14) is yet to be fulfilled (Luke 13:27). Oec. notes that He threatened Judas, seeking to deter him and reviled the Pharisees, but not in retort.—παρεδίδου. It is doubtful what object, it any, is to be supplied. The narrative of the Passion suggests two renderings: (i.) He delivered Himself (ἑαυτὸν omitted as in Plato, Phaedrus, 250 E). cf. Luke 23:46 (Ps. 31:5), παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου and Isa. 53:6; κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, ib. 12 παρεδόθη. (ii.) He delivered the persecutors (latent in passive participles λοιδ. and πάσχων), when He said Father forgive them. In ordinary Greek παραδίδωμι without object = permit; but this hardly justifies the rendering He gave way to (cf. δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, Rom. 12:19), i.e., permitted God to fulfil His will. But most probably παρ. τῷ … represents the Hebrew ellipse, גל אלֹ י״ commit to Jehovah (Ps. 22:9) for the normal commit, way, works, cause; LXX (Syriac) has ἤλπισεν = Matt. 27:43. Compare Joseph. Ant. vii. 9, 2, David περὶ πάντων ἐπιτρέψας κριτῇ τῷ θεῷ.—τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως, cf. 1:17; the award was the glory.
Ver. 24. Christ was not only well-doer but benefactor.—τὰς ἁμ.… ἀνήνεγκεν comes from Isa. 53:12, LXX, καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν (נשא usually translated λαμβάνειν), used also Heb. 9:28. Christ is the perfect sin-offering: “Himself the victim and Himself the priest. The form of expression offered up our sins is due to the double use of חטאה for sin and sin-offering.—ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, a Pauline phrase derived from the saying, This is my body which is for you (1 Cor. 11:24), explaining αὐτός of Isa. l.c.—ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, replaces the normal complement of ἀναφέρειν, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, in view of the moral which is to be drawn from the sacrificial language adopted. So Jas. 2:21, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον is substituted for ἐπάνω τῶν ξύλων of the original description of the offering of Isaac, Gen. 22:9. Christ died because He took our sins upon Himself (cf. Num. 4:33, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν … ἀνοίσουσιν τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν). Therefore our sins perished and we have died to them, Col. 2:14.—ἵνα … ζήσωμεν. Compare Targum of Isa. 53:10, “and from before Jehovah it was the will to refine and purify the remnant of His people that He might cleanse from sins their souls: they shall see the kingdom of His Christ an … prolong their days”.—ἀπογενόμενοι = (i.) die (Herodotus, Thucydides) as opposite of γενόμενοι come into being OR (ii.) be free from, as in Thuc. i. 39, τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπογενόμενοι. The Dative requires (i.), cf. Rom. 6:2, οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτία. The idea is naturally deduced from Isa. 53, Christ bore our sins and delivered His soul to death, therefore He shall see His seed living because sinless.—οὗ … ἰάθητε from Isa. 53:5; μώλωπι properly the weal or scar produced by scourgeing (Sir. 28:17, πληγὴ μάστιγος ποιεῖ μώλωπας) thus the prophecy was fulfilled according to Matt. 27:26, φραγελλώσας. The original has ἰάθημεν. The paradox is especially pointed in an address to slaves who were frequently scourged.
Ver. 25 = Isa. 53:6, πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν combined with Ez. 34:6, where this conception of the people and their teachers (the shepherds of Israel) is elaborated and the latter denounced because τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἐπεστρέψατε Further the use of this metaphor in the context presupposes the saying I am the good shepherd.… I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15).—ἐπίσκοπον, cf. Ez. 34:11, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐκζητήσω τὰ πρόβατά μου καὶ ἐπισκέψομαι αὐτά. It is to be noted that the command which Jesus laid on Peter, feeding sheep, comes from Ez. I.c.
CHAPTER 3:1–6. Duty of wives (Eph. 5:21–24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:4)—Submissiveness and true adornment.—τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, your own husbands, the motive for submissiveness, Eph. 5:22; Tit. 2:4. St. Peter assumes knowledge of the reason alleged by St. Paul (Eph. l.c.; 1 Cor. 9:3) after Gen. 3:16, αὐτός σου κυριεύσει.—καὶ εἰ … λόγῳ, even if in some cases your husbands are disobedient to the word (2:8), i.e., remain heathens in spite of the preaching of the Gospel. St. Paul found it necessary to impress upon the Corinthian Church that this incompatibility of religion did not justify dissolution of marriage (1 Cor. 12:10 ff.).—ἄνευ λόγου, without word from their wives. Peter deliberately introduces λ. in its ordinary sense immediately after the technical τῷ λ.—an example of what the grammarians call antanaclasis and men a pun. In his provision for the present and future welfare of the heathen husbands whose wives come under his jurisdiction he echoes the natural aspiration of Jews and Greeks; so Ben Sira said, a silent woman is a gift of the Lord … a loud crying woman and a scold shall be sought out to drive away enemies (Sir. 26:14, 27) and Sophocles, Silence is the proper ornament (κόσμος) for women (Ajax 293). St. Paul forbids women to preach or even ask questions at church meeting (1 Cor. 14:34: at Corinth they had been used to prophesy and pray).—ἵνα … κερδηθήσονται, be won, cf. ἵνα κερδήσω in 1 Cor. 9:20 ff. = ἵνα … σώσω, ib. 22, (cf. 7:16.).
Ver. 2. ἐποπτεύσαντες, having contemplated; see on 2:12. τὴν … ὑμῶν. ἐν φόβῳ, cf. 1:17 and Eph. 5:21. ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ· αἱ γυναῖκες: as no object is expressed, τοῦ θεοῦ must be supplied.—ἁγνήν not merely chaste but pure, cf. 1:22 and 3:4.
Ver. 3. The description of the external ornaments proper to heathen society seems to be based on Isa. 3:17–23. where the destruction of the hair, jewels and raiment of the daughters of Zion is foretold.—ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, braiding of hair. 1 Tim. 2:9, πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ refers to the golden combs and nets used for the purpose; cf. ἐμπλόκια, Isa. 3:18, for שביסים. Juvenal describes the elaborate coiffures which Roman fashion prescribed for the Park and attendance at the Mysteries of Adonis: tot premit ordinibus tot adhuc compagibus altum aedificat caput (Sat. vi. 492–504). Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 Peter 3:1–4, in his discussion of the whole subject (Paed., III. xi.); and in regard to this particular point says ἀπόχρη μαλάσσειν τὰς τρίχας καὶ ἀναδεῖσθαι τὴν κόμην ἐντελῶς περόνῃ τινι λιτῇ παρὰ τὸν αὐχένα … καὶ γὰρ αἱ περιπλοκαὶ τῶν τριχῶν αἱ ἑταιρικαὶ καὶ αἱ τῶν σειρῶν ἀναδέσεις … κόπτουσι τὰς τρίχας ἀποτίλλουσαι ταῖς πανούργοις ἐμπλοκαῖς, because of which they do not even touch their own head for fear of disturbing their hair—nay more sleep comes to them with terror lest they should unawares; spoil τὸ σχῆμα τῆς ἐμπλοκῆς (p. 290. P).—περιθέσεως χρυσίων, i.e., rings bracelets, etc., enumerated in Isa. l.c.—ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων. Stress might be laid on κόσμος, or the crowning prohibition regarded as an exaggeration intended to counteract an ingrained bias. In either case the expression points to a remarkable precedent for this teaching in Plato’s Republic IV., iii. ff. “Plato’s assignment of common duties and common training to the two sexes is part of a well-reasoned and deliberate attempt by the Socratic school to improve the position of women in Greece … Socrates’ teaching inaugurated an era of protest against the old Hellenic view of things.… In later times the Stoics constituted themselves champions of similar views” (Adam, ad loc.). Accordingly gymnastics must be practised by women as by men: ἀποδυτέον δὴ ταῖς τῶν φυλάκων γυναιξὶν ἐπείπερ ἀρετὴν ἀντὶ ἱματίων ἀμφιέσονται.
Ver. 4. Yours be the secret man of the heart not the outward ornament. A better antithesis and a pretty paradox would be secured by supplying ἄνθρωπος with ὁ ἔξωθεν and taking κ. as predicate: your ornament be cf. οὕτως ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς (ver. 5). But the order in ver. 3 is against this and a Greek reader would naturally think of the other sense of κ.= world universe and remember that man is a microcosm and “the universe the greatest and most perfect man” (Philo, p. 471 M.).—ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, the hidden man that is the heart (or which belongs to the heart) is the equivalent of the Pauline inner man (Rom. 7:22), i.e., Mind as contrasted with the outward man, i.e., flesh (Rom. l.e., cf. 2 Cor. 4:16). St. Peter employs the terms used in the Sermon on the Mount; cf. St. Paul’s ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος and περιτομὴ καρδίας, Rom. 2:29.—ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ clothed in the incorruptible thing (or ornament, sc. κόσμῳ) contrasted with corruptible goldens; cf. Jas. 2:2, ἀνὴρ … ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ.—τοῦ … πνεύματος, namely, the meek and quiet spirit. The adjectives are perhaps derived from the version of Isa. 64:2, known to Clement of Rome (Ep. i. xiii. 4), ἐπὶ τίνα ἐπιβλέψω ἀλλʼ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν πρᾳὺν καὶ ἡσύχιον καὶ τρέμοντά μου τὰ λόγια. Jesus professed Himself, πρᾳὺς καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ. For πνεύματος compare πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, Rom. 1:4. In Rom. 2:29, πν. is coupled with heart as contrasted with flesh and outwardness. ὅ which spirit or the posssesion of which reference.—πολυτελές suggests use of conception of Wisdom which is precious above rubies (Prov. 3:15, etc.); cf. Jas. 1:21, 3:13, ἐν πρᾳύτητι σοφίας and description of the wisdom from above, ib. 17.
Ver. 5. ποτε refers vaguely to O.T. history as part of αἱ … θεόν. References to the holy women of the O.T. are rare in N.T. and this appeal to their example illustrates the affinity of Peter to Heb. (11:11, 35). Hannah is the obviously appropriate type (cf. Luke 1 with 2 Sam. 1 f.); but Peter is thinking of the traditional idealisation of Sarah.
Ver. 6. ὡς … καλοῦσα. The only evidence that can be adduced from the O.T. narrative is Sarah laughed within herself and said … “but my lord is old” (Gen. 18:12). The phrase, if pressed, implies a nominal subjection as of a slave to her lord, but the context at any rate excludes any hope in God. Philo, who starts with the assumption that Sarah is Virtue, evades the difficulty; her laughter was the expression of her joy, she denied it for fear of usurping God’s prerogative of laughter (de Abr., ii. p. 30 M). The Rabbinic commentaries dwell upon the title accorded to Abraham and draw the same inference as Peter; but there are also traces of a tendency to exalt Sarah “the princess” as superior to her husband in the gift of prophecy, which St. Peter may wish to correct (as St. James corrects the exaggerated respect paid to Elijah, Jas. 5:17).—ἧς … τέκνα. Christian women became children of Sarah who is Virtue or Wisdom: (Philo) just as men became children of Abraham. But the fact that they were Christians is still in the background; the essential point is that they must do the works traditionally ascribed to Sarah (cf. Rom. 4.; John 8.) and so justify their technical parentage, whether natural or acquired. Oec. compares Isa. 51:2, Sarah your mother.—ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι the present participle emphasises the need for continuance of the behaviour appropriate to children of Sarah.—μὴ … πτόησιν, from Prov. 3:25, LXX. Peter regards Sarah’s falsehood (Gen. l.c.) as the yielding to a sudden terror for which she was rebuked by God. Fearlessness then is part of the character which is set before them for imitation and it is the result of obedience to the voice of Wisdom. Rabbinic exegesis as sociates the ideas of ornament with the promised child and that of peace between husband and wife with the whole incident.
Ver. 7. Duty of husbands to their wives. Application of principle πάντας τιμήσατε.—κατὰ γνῶσιν, for the woman is the weaker vessel—the pot—which the stronger—the cauldron—may easily smash (Sir. 13:2). ὡς, κ.τ.λ. point with comma after γνῶσιν and τιμήν. σκεύει. The comparison of Creator and creature to potter and clay is found first in Isa. 29:16, but is latent in the description of the creation (יצר) of Adam from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7 f.). In the prophets it is developed and applied variously (Isa. 45:9 f., 64:8; Jer. 18:6). In Sap. 15:7, there is an elaborate description of the maker of clay images, in which σκεῦος replaces πλάσμα and vessels which serve clean uses are distinguished from the contrary sort. Thence St. Paul adopts the figure and employs it to illustrate the absolute sovereignty of the Creator, as Isaiah had done (see Rom. 9:21), distinguishing vessels intended for honour from those intended for dishonour. Lastly 2 Tim. 2:20 exemplifies the particular application of the figure, on which Peter’s use of σκεῦος rests—ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ (1 Peter 2:5, 4:17) … κ.τ.λ. The comparative ἀσθενεστέρῳ proves that both husband and wife are vessels and assists to exclude the notion that St. Paul could mean to call a wife the vessel of her husband in 1 Thess. 4:4.—ὡς … ζωῆς, inasmuch as they are also heirs with you of the grace (1:10, 13) of life (2:24): the heavenly inheritance is not distributed according to earthly custom, which gave the wife no rights of her own.—εἰς … ὑμῶν. If the prayers are those of all (ver. 8) compare 1 Cor. 7. (τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδότω … ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ). Peter teaches that married life need not—if the wife be properly honoured—hinder religious duties, as St. Paul feared (ib. 32 ff.). If ὑμῶν = you husbands (as v.l. συγκληρονόμοι requires) cf. Jas. 5:4.
Vv. 8 f. Sweeping clause addressed to all, inculcating detailed φιλαδελφία after Rom. 12:10, 15–17.
Ver. 8. τὸ … τέλος, finally. Oecumenius brings out the possible connotations of the word goal and also the law for all love since love is the end of the law.—ὁμόφρονες, of one mind, united, an Epic word. St. Paul’s τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν but here wider than parallel expressing Rom. 12:16, τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες.—συμπαθεῖς summarises χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων of Rom. 12:15; cf. Heb. 4:15 (of Christ), 10:34 (particular example of sympathy with “the prisoners”).—φιλάδελφοι, cf. 1:22; Rom. 12:10, τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι.—εὔσπλαγχνοι, kind-hearted, in Eph. 4:32 (only here in N.T.) coupled with kind … forgiving one another; epithet of Jehovah in Prayer of Manasses, ver. 7 = compassionate, in accordance with metaphorical use of σπλάγχνα κ.τ.λ. derived from different senses of רחם. Here = ἐνδύσασθε … τὰ σπλάγχνα τῆς χρηστότητος, Col.—ταπεινόφρονες = τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι, Rom. 12:16, cf. Prov. 29:23, LXX, insolence humbleth a man but the humble (ταπεινόφρονας) Jehovah stayeth with glory (κ. ὕβρις).
Ver. 9. μὴ … κακοῦ, from Rom. 12:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:15; Prov. 20:22, Say not I will recompense evil (LXX τίσομαι τὸν ἐχθρόν): an approximation to Christ’s repeal of the lex talionis (Matt. 5:38 ff.) which Plato first opposed among the Greeks (see Crito., p. 49, with Adam’s note).—λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας refers to pattern left by Christ (2:23).—τοὐναντίον, contrariwise.—εὐλογοῦντες with λοιδ., 1 Cor. 4:21; cf. Rom. 12:14, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας Luke 6:28.—ὅτι … κληρονομήσητε, Christians must do as they hope to be done by. They are the new Israel called to inherit blessing in place of the Jews, who are reprobate like Esau; cf. Heb. 12:17, ἴστε γὰρ ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη. So St. Paul reverses the current view which identified the Jews with Isaac and the Gentiles with Ishmael (Gal. 4:22 ff.).
Vv. 10–12 = Ps. 34:12–17a. introduced by mere γάρ as familiar. The lips of Christians who wish to love life must be free from cursing and from guile as were Christ’s (cf. Isa. apud ii. 23). If Jehovah is to hear their petition as He heard Christ’s they also must turn from evil and do good (cf. ἀγαθοποιεῖν above) seeking peace within and without the Church.
Ver. 10. Peter omits the rhetorical question τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, which introduces ὁ θέλων in the original (LXX = Hebrew) but is influenced by it in the substitution of the third for the second person throughout. The change of ἀγαπῶν (= Hebrew) to ἀγαπᾶν καὶ removes the barbarisms θέλων ζωήν and ἀγαπῶν ἰδεῖν (= Hebrew) and secures the balance between the clauses disturbed by the omission of the opening words.—ἰδεῖν ἡμ. ἀγαθάς is the natural sequel of the alteration of the original (days to see good), which is already found in the LXX (ἡμ. ἰ. ἀγαθάς).—ζωήν = earthly life in the original corresponding to days. The text adopted by Peter makes it mean eternal life, parallel good days. Only with this interpretation is the quotation pertinent to his exhortation: cf. that ye might inherit blessing (9) with fellow-inheritors of the grace of life (7).—παυσάτω, κ.τ.λ., parallel μὴ … λοιδορίαν (9); cf. 2:22 f.
Ver. 12. πρόσωπον Κυρίου, Jehovah’s face, i.e., wrath (Targum, the face of Jehovah was angry) as the following clause, to cut off the remembrance of them … shows; cf. Lam. 4:16; Ps. 21:9. But Peter stops short and leaves room for repentance.
Ver, 13. κακώσων echoes ποιοῦντας κακά (as ζηλ. τοῦ ἀγ. echoes ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν); but the phrase comes also from O.T.: Isa. 50:9, Κύριος βοηθήσει μοι· τίς κακώσει με;—τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ. The phrase sums up ver. 11. All that was good in Judaism, however it may have been perverted, finds its fulfilment in the new Israel (Rom. 10:2). Some Jews were zealots, boasting their zeal for the Lord or His Law, like Phinehas and the Hasmonaeans (1 Macc. 2. passim): all Christians should be zealots for that which is good. So Paul says of himself as Pharisee that he was a zealot for his ancestral traditions (Gal. 1:14). For him as for the colleague of Simon the Zealot the word retained a flavour of its technical sense; cf. Tit. 2:14, that He might cleanse for Himself a peculiar people, zealot of good (καλῶν) works; cf. similar use of ἀφωρισμένος = Pharisee (Rom. 1:1). τοῦἀγ. in emphatic position.
Ver. 14. ἀλλʼ … μακάριοι. Nay if ye should actually suffer—if some one, despite the prophet (13), should harm you—for the sake of righteousness, blessed are ye. Peter appeals to the saying, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (Matt. 5:10).—πάσχοιτε, ει with optative (cf. 17, εἰ θέλοι) is used to represent anything as generally possible without regard to the general or actual situation at the moment (Blass, Grammar, p. 213). The addition of καί implies that the contingency is unlikely to occur and is best represented by an emphasis on should. The meaning of the verb is determined by κακώσων above, if ye should be harmed, i.e., by persons unspecified (αὐτῶν).—δικαιοσύνην. perhaps suggested ζηλωταί, cf. 1 Macc. 2:27–29, πᾶς ὁ ζηλῶν τῷ νόμῳ … ἐξελθέτω … τότε κατέβησαν πολλοὶ ζητοῦντες δικ. καὶ κρίμα.—τὸν δὲ φόβον … ὑμῶν. An adaptation of Isa. 8:12 f. LXX, τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε· κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε καὶ αὐτός ἔσται σου φόβος. The scripture corresponding to the saying, Fear not them that kill the body; but fear rather him that can destroy both soul and body (Matt. 10:28 parallels Luke 12:4 f. where the description of God is modified). The sense of the original, fear not what they (the people) fear; Jehovah of Hosts Him shall ye count holy and let Him be the object of your fear, has been in part abandoned. For it is simpler to take the fear as referring to the evil with which their enemies try to terrify them, than to supply the idea that their enemies employ the means by which they themselves would be intimidated. Compare 3:6.—τὸν χριστόν, gloss on κύριον = Jehovah; cf. 2:3.—ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις sc. mere profession. Peter is probably thinking of the prescribed prayer, Hallowed be thy name, elsewhere in N.T. it belongs to God to sanctify Christ and men.—ἔτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν, ready for reply. The contrast between the inward hope (parallels sanctification of Christ in the heart) and the spoken defence of it is not insisted upon; the second δέ is not to be accepted. The use of the noun in place of verb is characteristic of St. Peter. The play upon ἀπολογίαν back-word and λόγον cannot be reproduced. Properly speech in defence, ἀ. is used metaphorically (NB παντί) here as by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 9:3, ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογία τοῖς ἐμὲ ἀνακρίνουσιν; where also, though another technical word is introduced, no reference is intended to formal proceedings in a court of law. St. Peter is thinking of the promise which he himself once forfeited for unworthy fear, I will give you mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:14 f., 12:11, uses ἀπολογεῖσθαι; Matt. 10:19, λαλεῖν).—παντι … λόγον, to every one (for dative cf. 1 Cor. 9:3) that asketh of you an account. The phrase (compare Demosthenes Against Onetor, p. 868, ἐνεκάλουν καὶ λόγον ἀπῄτουν) recalls the Parable of the Steward of Unrighteousness, of whom his lord demanded an account (Luke 16:1 ff.), as also the metaphor of 4:10, ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι.—μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, with meekness (cf. ver. 4) and fear of God (Isa. l.c. has the same play on the senses of fear).—συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, intermediate step between διὰ σ. θεοῦ and the quasi-personification of σ. ἀ. in ver. 21; so St. Paul says οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα (1 Cor. 4:4) but goes on beyond the contrast between self-judgment and that of other men to God’s judgment. Ver. 17 supplies the explanation here.—ἵνα … ἀναστροφήν, generalisation of Peter’s personal experience at Pentecost, when the Jews first scoffed and then were pierced to the heart (Acts 2:13, 37). Misrepresentation is apparently the extent of their present suffering (17) and this they are encouraged to hope may be stopped. The heathen will somehow be put to shame even if they are not converted (2:12).—ἐν ᾧ, in the matter in respect of which; see 2:12.—ἐπηρεάζοντες, occurs in Luke 6:28, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς, and therefore constitutes another hint of contact between St. Luke and Peter (cf. χάρις, 2:19). Aristotle defines ἐπηρεασμός as “hindrance to the wishes of another not for the sake of gaining anything oneself but in order to baulk the other”—the spirit of the dog in the manger. Ordinarily the verb means to libel, cf. λαλῆσαι δόλον (10).—ὑμῶν … ἀναστροφήν, your (possessive genitive precedes noun in Hellenistic Greek) good-in-Christ behaviour: ἑν Χριστῷ (4:14, 16) is practically equivalent to Christian, cf. if any is in Christ a new creature.
Ver. 17. κρεῖττον, cf. 2:19 f., where χάρις κλέος correspond to μισθὸν περισσόν of the sources.—εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα θεοῦ. Again optative implies that it is a purely hypothetical case (cf. ver. 14). For the semi-personification of the will of God compare Eph. 1:11, where the θέλημα has a βουλή; so Paul is Apostle through the will of God (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1). For the pleonastic expression cf. the verbal parallel ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, John 7:17. So God’s patience was waiting (ver. 20).
Ver. 18. The advantage of suffering for well-doing is exemplified in the experience of Christ, who gained thereby quickening (ver. 21) and glory (ver. 22). How far the pattern applies to the Christian is not clear. Christ suffered once for all according to Heb. 9:24–28; the Christian suffers for a little (v. 10). But does the Christian suffer also for sins? St. Paul and Ignatius speak of themselves as περίψημα περικαθάρματα; compare the value of righteous men for Sodom. But even if Peter contemplated this parallel it is quite subordinate to the main idea, in which (spirit) even to the spirits in prison he went and preached them that disobeyed once upon a time when the patience of God was waiting in the days of Noah while the ark was being fitted out.… The spirits who disobeyed in the days of Noah are the sons of God described in Gen. 6:1–4. But there as in the case of Sarah St. Peter depends on the current tradition in which the original myth has been modified and amplified. This dependence supplies an adequate explanation of the difficulties which have been found here and in ver. 21, provided that the plain statement of the preaching in Hades is not prejudged to be impossible. The important points in the tradition as given in the Book of Enoch (vi.–xvi. cf. Jubilees v.) are as follows: the angels who lusted after the daughters of men descended in the days of Jared as his name (Descent) shows. The children of this unlawful union were the Nephilim and the Eliud. They also taught men all evil arts so that they perished appealing to God for justice. At last Enoch was sent to pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon these watchers, who in terror besought him to present a petition to God on their behalf. God refused to grant them peace. They were spirits eternal and immortal who transgressed the line of demarcation between men and angels and disobeyed the law that spiritual beings do not marry and beget children like men. Accordingly they are bound and their children slay one another leaving their disembodied spirits to propagate sin in the world even after it has been purged by the Flood. But Christians believed that Christ came to seek and to save the lost and the captives; all things are to be subjected to Him. So Peter supplements the tradition which he accepts. For him it was not merely important as connected with the only existing type of the Last Judgment or an alternative explanation of the origin and continuance of sin but also as the greatest proof of the complete victory of Christ over the most obstinate and worst of sinners.—ἐν ᾧ sc. πνεύματι: as a bodiless spirit in the period between the Passion (18) and the Resurrection-Ascension (22).—καί, even to the typical rebels who had sinned past forgiveness according to pre-Christian notions.—τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν, the spirits in prison, i.e., the angels of Gen. l.c. who were identified with my spirit of Gen. 6:3, and therefore described as having been sent to the earth by God in one form of the legend (Jubilees, l.c.). The name contains also the point of their offending (Enoch summarised above); cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; and the prophecy of Isa. 51:1 (which Jesus claimed, Luke 4:8 f.), κηρῦξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. These spirits were in ward when Christ preached to them in accordance with God’s sentence, bind them in the depths of the earth (Jub. 5:6).—ἐκήρυξεν = εὐηγγελίσατο, cf. Luke 4:8. Before Christ came, they had not heard the Gospel of God’s Reign. Enoch’s mediation failed. But at Christ’s preaching they repented like the men of Nineveh; for it is said that angels subjected themselves to Him (22, cf. ὑποτάσσεσθαι, throughout the Epistle.—ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε, their historic disobedience or rebellion is latent in the narrative of Gen. 6. and expounded by Enoch; cf. 2:7)., 3:1, 4:17. In LXX ἀπ commonly = rebel (מרה).—ἀπεξεδέχετο … μακροθυμία, God’s long-suffering was waiting. The reading ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο is attractive, as supplying a reference to the present period of waiting which precedes the second and final Judgment (Rom. 2:4, 9:22) The tradition lengthens the period of πάρεσις (Rom. 3:25); but St. Peter limits it by adding while the Ark was being fitted out in accordance with Gen. If Adam’s transgression be taken as the origin of sin the long-suffering is still greater. The idea seems to be due to ἐνεθυμήθην, I reflected, of the LXX, which stands for the unworthy anthropomorphism of the Hebrew I repented in Gen. 6:6. Compare for language Jas. 5:7; Matt. 24:37 f.; Luke 17:26 f.—εἰς ἣν, sc. entered and.—ὀλίγοι κ.τ.λ. St. Peter hints that here in the typical narrative is the basis of the disciple’s question, εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σωζόμενοι (Luke 13:23).—ὀκτὼ ψυχαί so Gen. 7:7; ψ. = persons (of both sexes), cf. Acts 2:41, etc. The usage occurs in Greek of all periods; so נפש in Hebrew and soul in English.—διεσώθησαν διʼ ὕδατος, were brought safe through water. Both local and instrumental meanings of διʼ are contemplated. The former is an obvious summary of the whole narrative; cf. also διὰ τὸ ὕδωρ (Gen. 7:7). The latter is implied in the statement that the water increased and lifted up the ark (ib. 17 f.); though it fits better the antitype. So Josephus (Ant. I., iii. 2) says that “the ark was strong so that from no side was it worsted by the violence of the water and Noah with his household διασῴζεται”. Peter lays stress on the water (rather than the ark as e.g., Heb. 11) for the sake of the parallel with Baptism (Rom. 6:3; cf. St. Paul’s application of the Passage of the Red Sea, 1 Cor. 10:1 f.).
Ver. 21. Baptism is generally the antitype of the deliverance of Noah. Christians pass through water (in both senses) to salvation; in each microcosm are the sins which must be washed away and the remnant which is to be saved. Therefore the antitypical water saves us (ὅ = τὸ ὕδωρ > διʼ ὕδατος) being οὐ σαρκὸς, κ.τ.λ.; cf. Tit. 3:5.—βάπτισμα if not an interpolation explains ὁ ἀντ. which corresponding to the (pre-existent) type (cf. Heb. 9:24 the earthly temple is ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν). The following definition by exclusion contrasts Christian baptism with Jewish and pagan lustrations and also with the Deluge which was a removal of sin-fouled flesh from the sinners of old (4:6); the former affected the flesh and not the conscience (Heb. 9:13 f.), the latter removed the flesh but not the spiritual defilement proceeding from past sin. σαρκός and συνειδήσεως stand before their belongings for emphasis and not merely in accordance with prevalent custom. For ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου compare Isa. 4:4 (sequel of the description of the daughters of Zion which is used above 3:3), Jehovah shall wash away their filth (τὸν ῥύπον: LXX chivalrously prefixes of the sons and). ἐπερώτημα is explained by Oecumenius as meaning earnest, pledge as in Byzantine Greek law. Its use for the questions put to the candidate in the baptismal service (dost thou renounce.…?) is probably due to St. Peter here. In ordinary Greek (Herodotus and Thucydides) it = question ἐπ. having no force, as if implying a second additional question arising out of the first). Here the noun corresponds to the verb as used in Isa. 65:1, quoted by St. Paul in Rom. 10:20, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσι = (1) a seeking, quest after God or (2) request addressed to God (supported by εἰς cf. the formula ἔντευξις εἰς τὸ βασίλεως ὄνομα, a petition addressed to the king’s majesty). In the latter case Peter will still be thinking as above and below of the disobedient spirits who presented a petition (ἐρώτησις) to God inspired by an evil conscience (see Enoch summarised above). At any rate συνειδ. is probably subjective or possessive rather than objective genitive. The believer who comes to baptism has believed in Christ and repented of his past sins, renounces them and the spirits which prompted them and appeals to God for strength to carry out this renunciation in his daily life.—διʼ ἀναστ. with σώζει; compare 1 Cor. 15:13–17.
Ver. 22. Christ went into Heaven—and now is on God’s right hand (Ps. 110:1)—when angels and authorities and powers had subjected themselves to Him in accordance with prophecy (Ps. 8:7; cf. Heb. 2:8; 1 Cor. 15:24 ff.). For the orders of angels see also Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21. Clearly they include the rebels of ver. 19 f. whom Jubilees calls the angels of the Lord (Jub. iv. 15) and Onkelos the sons of the mighty and their children (?) the giants.
CHAPTER 4:1. Christ having died to flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought that (or because) he that died hath ceased to sins.—παθόντος σαρκί Peter goes back to the starting point of 3:18 in order to emphasise the import of the first step taken by Christ and His followers, apart now from the consequences. The new life implies death to the old.—τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν. ἐ. only occurs once elsewhere in N.T., Heb. 4:12, τῶν ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας, but is common in LXX of Proverbs; compare (e.g.) Prov. 2:2, ἔννοια ὁσία (תבונה, discernment) shall keep thee. Here it is the noun-equivalent of φρονεῖτε δ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ (Phil. 2:1). Christ’s thought (or purpose) which He had in dying is shared by the Christian: and it is defined by ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.—ὁπλίσασθε, sc. for the fight with sin and sinners whom you have deserted.—ὅτι … ἁμαρτίαις. This axiom is better taken as explaining the same thought than as motive for ὁπλ. St. Paul states it in other words, ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας; compare the death-bed confession of the Jew, “O may my death be an atonement for all the sin … of which I have been guilty against thee”. One dead—literally or spiritually—hath rest in respect of sins assumed or committed; so Heb. 9:28 insists that after His death Christ is χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. πέπαυται echoes παυσάτω of 5:10. In the Greek Bible the perfect passive occurs only once (Exod. 9:34) outside Isa. 1.–39., where it is used three times to render שבת (cf. σαββατισμός, Heb. 4:9). The dative ἁμ. is analogous to that following ζῆν ἀποθανεῖν (παθεῖν); the v.l. ἁμαρτίας is due to the common construction of παυ.
Ver. 2. Christians who were baptised into Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom. 6:2–11) are not taken out of the world at once (John 17:15); they have to live in the flesh but not to the flesh, because they have been born not of the will of the flesh nor of man but of God (John 1:13). Their duty is to their new Father.—εἰς τό … gives the result of ὅτι κ.τ.λ. which must be achieved by, and is therefore also the object of, the required ornament.
Ver. 3. The use of the rare ἀρκετός indicates the saying which St. Peter here applies, sufficient unto the day [that is past] its evil. Compare Ezek. 44:6, ἱκανούσθω ὑμῖν ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν ὑμῶν. The detailed description of the evil follows the traditional redaction of the simple picture of absorption in the ordinary concerns of life which Jesus is content to repeat (Matt. 24:37, etc.). Eating, drinking, marrying were interpreted in the worst sense to account for the visitation and become gluttony, drunkenness and all conceivable perversions of marriage; see Sap. 14:21–27, followed by Rom. 1:29, etc.—τὸ … πεπορευμένους, from 2 Kings 17:8, ἐπορεύθησαν τοῖς δικαιώμασιν τῶν ἐθνῶν. The construction is broken (for the will … to have been accomplishe … for you walking) unless κατ. be taken as if middle to πεπορ. as subject.—ἀσελγείαις, acts of licentiousness (as in Polybius); so Sap. 14:26. Earlier of wanton violence arising out of drunkenness (Demosthenes).—οἰνοφλυγίαις, wine-bibbings, Deut. 21:20, οἰνοφλυγεῖ = סבא. Noun occurs in Philo coupled with ἀπλήρωτοι ἐπίθυμίαι.—κώμοις, revellings associated with alien rites, Sap. 14:26. For πότοις cf. ποτήριον δαιμόνων, 1 Cor. 10:14 ff.—ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις, a Jew’s description of current Pagan cults, which were often illicit according to Roman law. For ἀ. cf. Acts 10:28, it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with a foreigner, and 2 Macc. 4:5, 7:1 (of swine flesh).
Ver. 4. ἐν ᾧ, whereat, i.e. (i.) at your change of life (2 f.) explained below by μὴ συντρεχ.… or (ii.) on which ground, because you lived as they did.—ξενίζονται, are surprised, as in ver. 12, where this use of ξ. (elsewhere in N.T. entertain, except Acts 17:20, ξενίζοντα) is explained by ὡς ξένου … συμβαίνοντος. Polybius has it in the same sense followed by dative, acc., διά with acc. and ἐπί with dative. So in Josephus Adam was surprised (ξενιζόμενον) that the animals had mates and he none, Ant., i. 1, 2) and the making of garments surprised God (ib. 4).—συντρεχόντων, from Ps. 50:18, LXX, if thou sawest a thief, συνέτρεχες αὐτῷ, and with adulterers thou didst set thy portion; where תרץ consent has been rendered as if from רוץ run. It thus corresponds to St. Paul’s συνευδοκεῖν (Rom. 1:32).—ἀσωτίας, profligacy. According to Aristotle ἀ. is the excess of liberality, but is applied in complex sense to τοὺς ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηρούς. Prodigality is in fact a destruction of oneself as well as one’s property (Eth. Nic., iv. 13).—ἀσελγείαι … πότοις. Violence and lust are classed with drunkenness, which breeds and fosters them. ἀ. is wanton violence as well as licentiousness. So the classic Christian example of the word is exactly justified; see Luke 15:13, the Prodigal Son squandered his substance, living ἀσώτως.—ἀνάχυσιν, excess, overflow, properly of water (Philo ii. 508 f., description of evolution of air from fire, water from air, land from water). In Strabo (iii. 1, 4, etc.) = estuary. St. Peter is still thinking of the narrative of the Deluge, which was the fit punishment of an inundation of prodigality.—βλασφημοῦντες, put last for emphasis and to pave the way for ver. 5 in accordance with the saying, for every idle word (cf. Rom. 3:8). The abuse is directed against the apostate heathens and implies blasphemy in its technical sense as opposed to the giving glory to God (2:12).
Ver. 5. ἀποδώσουσιν λόγον, will render account—if of their blasphemy, cf. Matt. 12:36, if of their ἀσωτία (see note) cf. the steward of Luke 16:2.—τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι, i.e., to Christ rather than to God (as 1:17). The Christians took over the Jewish doctrine that every man must give an account of his life (Rom. 14:10). As already Enoch (lxix. 27 = John 5:22, 27) taught that this judgment was delegated to Messiah. So St. Peter said at Caesarea this is he that hath been appointed by God judge of living and dead (Acts 10:43). Compare Matt. 25:31 ff. for a more primitive and pictorial statement. The use of ἑτοίμως probably represents עתיד (see 1:5) i.e., the future judge; Greek readers would understand the imminent judge (cf. use of ἑτοίμως = ready, sure to come, Homer, Il., xviii. 96, etc.). The 5., ἑ. ἔχοντι κρῖναι softens the rugged original.
Ver. 6. The judgment is imminent because all necessary preliminaries have been accomplished. There is no ground for the objection “perhaps the culprits have not heard the Gospel”. As regards the living, there is a brotherhood in the world witnessing for Christ in their lives and the missionaries have done their part. As regards the dead Christ descended into Hades to preach there and so was followed by His Apostles. And the object of this was that though the dead have been judged as all men are in respect of the flesh they might yet live as God lives in respect of the spirit.—εἰς τοῦτο, with a view to the final judgment or = ἵνα, κ.τ.λ.—νεκροῖς, to dead men generally, but probably as distinct from the rebel spirits who were presumably immortal and could only be imprisoned. Oecumenius rightly condemns the view, which adds in trespasses and sins or takes dead in a figurative sense, despite the authority of e.g., Augustine (Ep., 164, §§ 1–18).—εὐηγγελίσθη, the Gospel was preached, the impersonal passive leaves the way open for the development of this belief according to which not Christ only but also the Apostles preached to the dead. Hermas, Sim., ix. 16.5–16.7; Cl. Al. Strom., vi. 645 f. So was provision made for those who died between the descent of Christ and the evangelisation of their own countries.—ἵνα, κ.τ.λ., that though they had been judged in respect of flesh as men are judged they might live in respect of spirit as God lives. The parallel between the dead and Christ is exact (see 3:20). Death is the judgment or sentence passed on all men (Ecclus. 14:17 = Gen. 2:17, 3:19). Even Christians, who have died spiritually and ethically (Rom. 8:10), can only hope wistfully to escape it (2 Cor. 5:2 ff.). But it is preliminary to the Last Judgment (Heb. 9:27), at which believers, who are quickened spiritually, cannot be condemned to the second death (Apoc. 20:6).
Ver. 7. But the end of all things and men has drawn nigh; Christians also must be ready, watch and pray, as Jesus taught in the parable of Mark 13:34–37 (cf. 14:38).—σωφρονήσατε parallels ἀσελγ. ἐπιθυμίαις (ver. 3) cf. 4 Macc, 1:31, temperance is restraint of lust. In Rom. 12:3 St. Paul plays on the meaning of the component parts of σω-φρονεῖν, cf. εἰς σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν above.—νήψατε, corresponds to οἰνοφλυγίαις κώμοις πότοις (ver. 3); cf. 1:13, 5:8. St. Paul also depends on parable of Luke 12:42–46 in 1 Thess. 5:6 ff.—εἰς προσευχάς, the paramount duty of Christians is prayer especially for the coming of the Lord (Apoc. 22:20; Luke 11:2; cf. 3:7).
Ver. 8. πρὸπάντων, St. Peter emphasises the pre-eminent importance of love of man as much as St. John; cf. 1:22.—ἑαυτούς put for ἀλλήλους in accordance with the saying thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself as much as with the contemporary practice.—ὅτι … ἁμαρτιῶν, quotation of Prov. 10:12, love hides all transgressions which was adduced by Jesus (Luke 7:47). The plain sense of the aphorism has been evaded by the LXX (πάντας τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία) and Syriac translators substitutes shame for love. The currency of the true version is attested by Jas. 5:20, he that converted a sinner … καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν.
Ver. 9. Hospitality is the practical proof of this love; its practice was necessary to the cohesion of the scattered brotherhood as to the welfare of those whose duties called them to travel. The inns were little better than brothels and Christians were commonly poor. Chrysostom cites the examples of Abraham and Lot (cf. Heb. 13:2). The united advocacy of this virtue was successful—so much so that the Didache has to provide against abuses such as Lucian depicts in the biography of Peregrinus “a Christian traveller shall not remain more than two or three days … if he wishes to settle … is unskilled and will not work he is a Χριστέμπορος, makes his Christian profession his merchandise.”—ἀλλήλους, used despite ἑαυτούς above and below, perhaps because the recipients of hospitality belong necessarily to other Churches.—ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, St. Peter guards against the imperfection of even Christian human nature. Ecclus. 29:25–28 describes how a stranger who outstays his welcome is first set to menial tasks and then driven out.
א Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
א Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
ca Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
A Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
Q An eighth century version of Codex Vaticanus
N cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).
B Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
J.H.A. Hart, “The First Epistle General of Peter,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary, vol. 5 (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 53–73.
![]()
Shop for Expositors Greek Testament ebook from Logos
Posts
.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/quality,q_70/resize,m_mfit,w_350,h_350/format,webp)
