From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain First Peter Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2017
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 1:13-25
WEB: Therefore,
prepare your minds for action, be sober and set your hope fully on the grace that
will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ--
Young’s: Wherefore
having girded up the loins of your mind, being sober, hope perfectly upon the
grace that is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ,
Conte (RC): For this reason, gird the waist of your
mind, be sober, and hope perfectly in the grace that
is offered to you in the revelation
of Jesus Christ.
Or:
“Wherefore,” that is, in view of the deliverance from distresses and the
heavenly inheritance which will be theirs when Christ appears “girding up the
loins of your mind.” [7]
Other alternatives: “Wherefore:” the exhortation is
thus made immediately dependent on the previous statement of grace. The duty is born of the privilege. The “wherefore,” however, points back to the
idea which called forth the ascription of praise with which the introduction
opened, and not merely to the thought of the necessity of trial (de Wette), the grandeur of the grace (Calvin), the destination
of the salvation from of old for these very readers (CEc.),
or anything else which comes in only in the train of the leading idea. The connection, therefore, is not of the
indeterminate form, “Seeing this salvation was designed for you, and is so
studied even by angels, be not ye unregardful of it”
(so substantially Alford, etc.). It is
far more pointed than that, and amounts to this,—“God, then, by so marvelous a
provision of His mercy, having begotten you unto a living hope, see that you
make that hope your own, and live wholly up to it.” [51]
Gird up [prepare, NASB]. Be
awake, attentive, and steadfast in the faith and practice of the gospel. [14]
A figure drawn from the custom of girding the loins when about to
start on a journey. So the Christian must prepare himself as on a
journey. [22]
The act of tucking up the loose Eastern tunic in preparation for traveling or running, for work or conflict, or for any kind of exertion (cf. Israel’s preparation for the flight from Egypt, Exodus 12:11; Elijah’s for running before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel, 1 Kings 18:46; and David’s for the battle, Psalms 18:32, 39), is the natural figure of a certain mental preparedness. There is an evident fitness in applying the figure to men in the pilgrim state described in 1 Peter 1:1 and 1 Peter 2:11, and it is possible that Christ’s own injunction (Luke 12:35) may have given form to Peter’s phrase. The tense indicates that the attitude of mind here in view must first be taken up definitely and once for all before the kind of hopefulness which is charged on these sojourners can be made good. [51]
the loins of your
mind. Prepare to pursue them with vigor, constancy,
and perseverance, and to perform the various duties which they lay you under an
indispensable obligation steadily to practice.
The loins of the mind is a figurative expression for the
faculties of the soul, the understanding, memory, will, and affections, which
the apostle signifies must be gathered in and girded, as it were, about the
soul by the girdle of truth, so as to be in a state fit for continual and
unwearied exertion in running the Christian race, fighting the good fight of
faith, and working out our salvation with fear and trembling. [47]
Martin Luther:
Here Peter speaks of a spiritual girding of the mind, just as one girds
his sword to the loins of his body. This
girding has Christ also enforced, Luke 12[:35], where He says, “Let your loins
be girt about.” In some places the
Scriptures speak of the loins with reference to bodily lust; but here St. Peter
speaks of the loins of the spirit. [21]
What is it to gird
up the loins of our minds? It is surely
to put out of the way anything which may hinder us in our race or in our
conflict. If we find that lawful things,
pursuits, amusements, tastes—otherwise innocent—hinder us, we are to put these
things away, to tie them up so that they be no impediment. [41]
be sober
[sober-minded, ESV]. Lit., being sober. Primarily, in a physical sense, as opposed to
excess in drink, but passing into the general sense of self-control and equanimity. [2]
Christians among
heathen must be self-restrained, like sober men among drunkards. [24]
One interpretation:
Avoid unjustifiable excesses produced by your spiritual enthusiasm: It may also have respect to the fact that the
love of Christ revealed in the Gospel is calculated to inflame the utmost
enthusiasm which would carry those under its influence beyond all bounds, and
degenerate into fanaticism if it was not tempered by overmindedness. [41]
Another interpretation:
Avoid allowing the injustice of the world to stir you up to wrongful
attitudes or actions: In the
New Testament [the word is found] only in 1 Thessalonians (twice), 2 Timothy
4:5, “Be sober in all things”), and 1 Peter 4:7, 8; “refrain from undue
excitement” (cf. 4:7). Those who are
steadfast under persecution may be excited to a bitter, restless, unbridled
anger towards their persecutors. Alike
trials, delay, and the glorious hope of deliverance might cause restless
excitement. Another explanation is,
“refrain from immoderate self-indulgence” (cf. verse 14). But the word does not seem to be used in this
way, either in this Epistle or in the rest of the N.T. [45]
and hope to the
end.
Never depart from this
mind-frame and pattern of behavior. It
is one designed both for “today” and however many “tomorrows” there may turn
out to be. [rw]
and hope to the
end for the grace [rest your hope fully upon the grace, NJKJV].
Literally, hope perfectly, or, thoroughly, or, with completeness. “Indeed this hope,” says Leighton, “is
perfect in continuance, it is a hope unto the end,
because it is perfect in its nature.”
The chief thought, however, is that the hope should not be half-hearted,
dispirited. St. Peter brings us back to
what he began with, that ours is a living hope.
The exhortation is exactly of the same nature as that which pervades the
Epistle to the Hebrews (see, for instance, Hebrews 3:6, 3:14, 6:11), and for
the same reason—i.e., that spiritual sloth, combined with fear of man, was
beginning to turn these Jewish Christians back to dead works. “Hope on,” in
these passages, is tantamount to “remain Christians.” [46]
Mistranslated by the A.V., “Hope to
the end for the grace.” Another
view connects “perfectly” with the preceding word, “Be perfectly sober.” The R.V., like the Greek, may mean either (1)
“Cherish a confident expectation that you will receive the grace,” &c.; or
(2) “Let the grace, &c., be above all else, the assured ground of your
hopes, i.e., the circumstance which encourages you to hope.” The former is simpler; but the latter is also
quite consistent with the general tone of the Epistle, which treats the second
coming, the revelation of Jesus Christ, as an assured fact, which renders
deliverance from present trouble certain.
[45]
for the grace that
is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Their
salvation at the day of judgment. [14]
Not
“which is to be brought,” as if the object of hope were remote, and
wholly of the future; but “which is a-bringing,” already on the
wing, and bearing ever nearer. [51]
The grace here is rather the gift, the gift
of immortality of body as well as of soul; it is the “inheritance
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away,”
of verse 4. [41]
at the revelation
of Jesus Christ. Not at death, but at the Second Advent. [41]
In depth: The gradual “revealing” of Jesus both
prophetically and literally [10]. Jesus Christ was revealed in the first
promise that was made to man (Genesis
WEB: as
children of obedience, not conforming yourselves according to your former lusts
as in your ignorance,
Young’s: as
obedient children, not fashioning yourselves to the former desires in your
ignorance,
Conte (RC): Be like sons of obedience, not
conforming to the desires of your
former ignorance,
The
Christian is represented as related to the motive principle of his life as a
child to a parent. [2]
The phrase is more
or less a Hebraism, like “children of wrath,” Ephesians 2:3, or the more
closely parallel “children of disobedience” in Ephesians 5:6. The “cursed children,” literally, children of a curse, of 2 Peter
Literally,
as children of obedience—children, i.e., in the sense of relationship, not of
age. The “as” means “in keeping
with your character of,” just as we say in common English, “Do so like obedient
children.” [46]
There are three, and
only three, motives for obedience: [Self-]Interest;
Fear; Love. There is the obedience of
the hireling; of the slave; of the child.
God will not be served by mercenaries nor by
slaves. Who then will serve Him? The Apostle answers, children. This word resumes the whole subject: absolute
dependence upon God, holy respect, tender love.
It reminds us of the motives we have for obedience. It removes whatever
of servility or [self-]interest might mingle with
Christian obedience. [49]
not fashioning
yourselves. That is, your conduct and character. [34]
Not forming or modeling your life. The idea is, that
they were to have some model or example, in accordance with which they were to
frame their lives, but that they were not to make their own former principles
and conduct the model. He is to be
governed by new laws, to aim at new objects, and to mould his life in
accordance with new principles. [31]
according to the former
lusts. There is no denying what we once were or our
weaknesses that we (happily?) indulged; the past we can never change. All we can change is the future. [rw]
The word used for ‘lusts’ covers not only sensual
passions, but all those unregulated desires which are summarily comprehended
under ‘the lust of the eye,’ as well as ‘the lust of the flesh’ (1 John
2:16). [51]
in your ignorance. Their unconverted state.
[14]
Before you became acquainted with the truth in Christ. [34]
In depth: the argument that the wording shows that the epistle was written to Gentiles is at least partially balanced—in his judgment, overcome—by the fact that it also fits many Jews of the time as well [46]. The same assumption is made here which we shall find again below in 1 Peter 2:9, and still more in 1 Peter 4:3, that the recipients of this Letter had lived in ignorance and in vice up to a certain point of their lives. And it is contended, with much plausibility, that both accusations show the recipients of the letter to be of Gentile and not of Jewish origin.
It is true that lusts of the flesh are not usually
laid to the charge of the Jews, as they are of the Gentiles. (See, for instance, 1 Thessalonians 4:5;
Ephesians 4:17.) It is also true that
the ignorance with which the Jews are charged (for instance, Acts
But it may be answered that such details are of
little weight in comparison with the direct evidence of the first verse, and
the indirect evidence of the whole tone of the Letter; also that, putting out
of sight expressions of Paul’s which have nothing to do with Peter, “ignorance”
is surely not an unnatural word to represent the contrast between the state of unregenerate
Jews and the same persons when they have attained to knowledge higher than that
of prophets or of angels; that even Jews were men of flesh and blood, and
therefore not exempt from the temptations of the flesh, from which mere
legalism was quite insufficient to protect them (see Romans 7:8, “sin through
the commandment wrought in me every lust”); that in Hebrews 5:2, 9:7, Jewish
people are supposed to have need of a high priest to bear with and atone for
their “ignorance” and “ignorances;” that the same
writer contemplates the possibility of “many” of his Hebrews being “defiled”
through fleshly sin (Hebrews 12:15-16), and deems it necessary to urge strongly
the sanctions of marriage (Hebrews 13:4).
WEB: but
just as he who called you is holy, you yourselves also be
holy in all of your behavior;
Young’s: but according as He who did call you is holy, ye also, become holy in all behaviour,
Conte (RC): but in accord with him who has called
you: the Holy One. And in every behavior, you
yourself must be holy,
R.V. margin, “like the Holy One which called you.” There is no practical difference; in either
case the point of the clause is the duty of imitating the Divine holiness. [45]
so be ye holy. The root
idea of holiness is that of “separation,” of dedication, particularly to the
character belonging to God Himself. [7]
The word holy means
that which is God’s own, and which belongs to Him alone, or as we render it in
Dutch (geweiht), consecrated. . . . Holiness
is not that which consists in the estate of monks, priests, and nuns: the wearing of the tonsure and cowl; it a
spiritual word meaning that there is an inward holiness in the spirit
before God. – Martin Luther [21]
The usual equivalent in the LXX of the Hebrew
qadosh (so, for instance, in the following
quotation [in verse 16]), the term used for things and persons withdrawn from
common use, and consecrated to the service of Jehovah. Thus qadosh
meant “belonging to God,” “Divine,” and came to be used to describe Jehovah’s
nature as God. Hence it came to imply
the moral character which God Himself possessed, and which should be imitated
by persons consecrated to His service.
Similarly, hagios in classical Greek
meant “devoted to the gods and their service,” and came to mean “pious,
moral.” In the N.T. it often retains its
original sense of “set apart for the worship or service of God”; so, for
instance, in Acts 21:28, the Temple is called the “holy place,” and so, Jude 3,
the members of the church are called the “saints,” literally the holy; so too
the Divine Spirit is called the Holy Spirit.
But it naturally implies moral character, and this is often its chief
sense, so here; cf. James 3:17. [45]
in all manner of
conversation [conduct, NKJV]. Better, in every form of
conduct. The word “conversation,”
once used in its true meaning (conversari
= living, moving to and fro, with others), has during the last hundred and
fifty years settled down almost irrecoverably into a synonym for
“talking.” Swift is, I believe, the
first writer in whom the later meaning takes the place of the earlier. In Cowper’s poem “Conversation” it is used
without even a reminiscence of the fuller significance of the word. [38]
The clause means, “In the different concerns
of life, at home, in business, in your pleasures, in social and political
affairs, act as becomes the called of God.”
[45]
WEB: because
it is written, "You shall be holy; for I am holy."
Young’s: because
it hath been written, 'Become ye holy, because I am holy;'
Conte (RC): for it is written: “You shall be holy,
for I am Holy.”
Be ye holy; for I am holy. The words quoted occur several times in
Leviticus (Leviticus
In depth: How and why
“holiness” became a natural attribute to describe God [37]. ἅγιος,
like the Hebrew קָדו ̇שׁ, meant originally “set apart,” distinct
from ordinary things. It was at first
applied to persons (e.g. Exodus
Some would suggest that it was because God was regarded as “set apart,” separated from what was common or unclean. Others think that as things set apart for God were required to be without stain or blemish, the word ἅγιος applied to them acquired the meaning of “pure,” “unblemished,” and, as applied to persons, moral purity as well as physical would gradually be understood as being necessary. In this sense (the idea of “set apart” being lost sight of) the word might be applied to God.
And in proportion as the conception of God became elevated and purified so the idea of God’s Holiness would acquire a more [intense] purity (e.g. Isaiah 6:3). But in either case, when once the word ἅγιος had come to be applied to God, the idea of what “holiness” must mean in God would react upon all the lower applications of the word to men. Those who claimed a special relationship to God would be understood as requiring to have a moral character conformable to that of God.
Generally in the N.T. the title ἅγιος describes the
Christian’s privilege, as one whom God has “set apart” for Himself, rather than
the Christian’s character. But such
consecration to God demands a corresponding character, and here St Peter
emphasizes that demand by quoting the standard laid down in the “Law of
Holiness,” “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy,” Leviticus 11:44-45; Leviticus
19:2. In the former passage the words
are connected with things which were to be regarded as clean or unclean, but in
the latter they are connected with various moral laws.
WEB: If
you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to
each man's work, pass the time of your living as foreigners here in reverent
fear:
Young’s: and if
on the Father ye do call, who without acceptance of persons is judging
according to the work of each, in fear the time of your sojourn pass ye,
Conte (RC): And if you invoke as Father him
who, without showing favoritism to persons, judges
according to each one’s work, then act in fear during
the time of your sojourning here.
In Him the offices of Father and Judge are inseparably united; the Father never lost sight of in the Judge, and the Judge never lost sight of in the Father. [41]
if. It is implied that the hypothesis is
correct, that they did call on God as Father. Therefore since they claimed to be God’s
children, let them respect His authority.
Cf. Jeremiah
ye call. With an
expectation of being heard; or, as you desire or expect audience and acceptance
at God’s hands. [47]
who without
respect of persons. A [Greek] word only found in this passage and
in comments on it. The same idea is
expressed in Peter’s speech at the house of Cornelius the centurion (Acts
Among
men it is but too common for parents to feel an undue bias in concerns relating
to their children. But God has
established one mode of procedure for all.
His written law is the standard to which every thing shall be
referred. [10]
We note the
prominence of this thought, derived originally from the impression by our
Lord’s words and acts (Matthew
judgeth. God is judging men according to their works
every day: compare Psalms 7:11; John 12:31.
There is a sense in which men shall be judged according to their works
at the last day: see Matthew 16:27;
Romans 2:6; Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation
Father . . .
who . . . judgeth. There is no antithesis between God’s
sovereignty [= kingship?] and His fatherhood.
The fatherhood includes the sovereignty and much more. In ancient times the authority of a father
over his children was, if anything, more absolute than that of a sovereign over
his subjects; the father could put his children to death or sell them for
slaves. The obedience and deference due
to a father and his “judgments” would affect life much more constantly than
those exacted by the state. [45]
It seems improbable that, except as abstract
theory, such considerations would much affect the vast bulk of first century
individuals. The concept of the father
centered on the Father as fulfilling parental responsibilities and exercising
loving control over his offspring (Matthew 7:9-11). [rw]
according to every man’s
work. The principles from which our actions flowed,
the manner in which they were performed, and the end for which they were done,
will be minutely investigated, and a sentence passed upon us according to their
real quality. There will be no
difference in this respect between Jew or Gentile,
rich or poor; nor will any regard be shown to men’s professions. [10]
I do not think it is
extravagant attention to niceties to ask you to notice that the Apostle does
not say “works,” but “work;” as if all the separate actions were gathered into
a great whole, as indeed they are, because they are all the products of one
mind and character. The trend and drift,
so to speak, of our life, rather than its isolated actions and the underlying
motives, in their solemn totality and unity, these are the materials of this
Divine judgment. [27]
pass the time of
your sojourning here in fear. That
fear of God which would lead them to obey Him, and that fear of sin which would
lead them to avoid it. [14]
sojourning. The word παροικια,
here rendered sojourning, properly signifies the stay which travelers
make in a place while finishing some business.
The term, therefore, is applied with great propriety to the abode of the
children of God in the present world, as it signifies that this earth is not
their home, and that they are to remain in it only a short time. See Hebrews 11:13. [47]
fear. Not in slavish fear, but in reverential awe
of the greatness and unspeakable majesty of Him Who
allows us to call Him Father. [41]
The
“fear” which is urged upon them, is not the terror of slaves, but the
reverential awe of sons, even the true fear of the Lord which is “the beginning
of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7).
Compare also Luke 12:4-5. [38]
In depth:
Relationship of verse 18 to verse 17 [51]. Most interpreters regard the
18th verse as simply supplementary to the 17th, and as pointing the injunction
to a walk in godly fear more strongly.
Some (e.g. Hofmann), on the other hand, take the thought of 1
Peter
Weymouth: knowing,
as you do, that it was not with a ransom of perishable wealth, such as silver
or gold, that you were set free from your frivolous habits of life which had
been handed down to you from your forefathers,
WEB: knowing
that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from
the useless way of life handed down from your fathers,
Young’s: having
known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed
from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers,
Conte (RC): For you know that it was not with
corruptible gold or silver that you were redeemed
away from your useless behavior in the traditions
of your fathers,
Ye were ransomed. The word is used of deliverance from slavery
or from exile, e.g. of the deliverance of
The “ransom” concept in the Old Testament: In the Old
Testament, the term and its cognates are used in a variety of cases, e.g. of
recovering something which has been devoted by substituting an equivalent in
its place (Leviticus 27:27), of buying back something that has been sold
(Leviticus 25:25), of ransoming souls by a money payment to the Lord when
Israel was numbered (Exodus 30:12-16), of redeeming the first-born by a price
paid to Aaron (Numbers 3:44-51). The
terms apply in the New Testament to ransoming from the bondage of evil (Titus
from your vain
conversation [aimless conduct, NKJV]. Because unprofitable to, and insufficient
for, righteousness and salvation, conversation [= conduct], viz. in your
Judaism, wherein you were so much addicted to uncommanded
rites and ceremonies, as to have little respect for God’s law. [28]
In 1611, when the English Bible was translated,
conversation, from the Latin conversatio,
meant not only our words, but moral character, deportment and living. In the
last two hundred years that word has been spoliated
of about nine-tenths of its original meaning.
Consequently it is no longer an adequate translation of the
original. [48]
received by tradition
from your fathers. And so not only by their
example and practice, but by their doctrine and precepts, Matthew 15:3,
&c.; Mark 7:7, &c. See
likewise Galatians 1:14. [28]
Some
suppose that Peter has the Gentiles in his mind when he uses these words; but
it is very unlikely, for “tradition” is almost always applied to what was
handed down among the Jews. The words of
Peter in the council held at
from your fathers. Either
your ancestors, as Ezekiel
The
ancient religion had a strength—not merely vis inertiae—which
often baffled both Jewish and Christian missionaries: “to subvert a custom delivered to us from
ancestors the heathen say is not reasonable” (Clem. Ac. Protr.
x.). This power
of the dead hand is exemplified in the pains taken by the Stoics and New
Pythagoreans to conserve the popular religion and its myths by allegorical
interpretation. [36]
[Their lifestyle] is further described
by a term meaning “ancestral,” “hereditary,” or “traditional,” which indicates
how mighty a spell it must have wielded over them. It was a life “fortified and almost
consecrated to their hearts by the venerableness of
age and ancestral authority” (Lillie), and thereby entrenched the more strongly
in its vanity. Both these terms suit
Gentile life. The “vain” expresses what
a life is which has no relation to God.
It rules the other phrase “ancestral,” or “handed down from your
fathers,” and makes it descriptive of a Gentile life rather than a Jewish. What could set them free from the despotism
of a life, poor as the life might be, which not only ran the course of natural
inclination, but laid upon them those strong bonds of birth, respect for the
past, relationship, habit, example?
Nothing but a new moral power, Peter reminds them, which it cost
something incalculably more precious than silver or gold to bring in, namely,
the sinless life of the Messiah. [51]
WEB: but
with precious blood, as of a faultless and pure lamb, the blood of Christ;
Young’s: but
with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's --
Conte (RC): but it was with the precious blood of
Christ, an immaculate and undefiled lamb,
of Christ. Notice
that it is not “Jesus,” but “Christ,” i.e., the Messiah. No price short of the “blood,” i.e., the
death, of the Messiah could free the Jews from the thraldom
of their “vain conversation.” (Compare 1
Peter 1:2.) [46]
as of a lamb. Peculiarly
appropriate from Peter. See John
1:35-42. The reference is to a sacrificial
lamb. [2]
The blood of an innocent and patiently suffering
Lamb, as the Messiah is described to be in Isaiah 53:7. [9]
Does Peter have the daily
Temple sacrifice in mind?:
Christ being perfect, and without spot or sin, was typified by the lamb
offered daily for their sins; and that lamb being bought with the half shekel
every one gave for the buying of the daily sacrifice (Exodus 30:12, 15, 16, and
which was therefore styled [in Greek] “the money of expiations,” and was sent
up to Jerusalem from every city of Judea, and all the provinces where the Jews
lived, in silver and gold). The apostle
may here allude to this, when he saith, “Ye were not
redeemed with silver and gold, by which the daily sacrifice was bought, which
made atonement for your souls, but with the precious blood of Jesus, who shed
his blood for your redemption from that death which by your sins ye had
contracted.” [4]
Does Peter have in
mind the Passover lamb? The lamb particularly in Peter’s view
here, is variously identified, as e.g. with the Paschal Lamb (Wiesinger, Hofmann, Alford, etc.), with the lamb of Isaiah
53 (Schott, Huther, etc.), or with the general idea
signified by the various lambs of the Old Testament service and realized in
Christ. The dispute is of small
importance, as it is not probable that these different lambs would be sharply
distinguished in the consciousness of the Israelite. The fact that Peter is dealing here with the
question of a ransom from a certain bondage makes it reasonable to suppose him
to have before his eye some lamb that occupied a well-understood place in God’s
service under the old economy, and points, therefore, to the Paschal Lamb, which
was associated with the release from the bondage of Egypt, and was also the
only animal that could be used for the service to which it was dedicated. On the other hand, it may be urged in favor
of the lamb of Isaiah 53:7, that Peter elsewhere seems to have that section of
prophecy in view, that the Old Testament itself (in the Greek Version) employs
a different term for the Paschal Lamb in capital sections, and that the New
employs statedly another word than the one used by
Peter for the Paschal Lamb. In either
case the lamb is introduced here not with immediate reference to its sacrificial
character, but in respect of those ethical qualities which are expressed by
the adjectives. The expiatory or
sacrificial value of Christ’s death is no doubt at the basis of the
statement. [51]
without blemish.
Representing the Old-Testament phrase for absence of physical defect
(Exodus 12:5; Leviticus
The reference here is to the Paschal lamb whose blood was sprinkled upon the door posts as a testimony of obedience to the command of Jehovah, and thus a protection from the death which fell upon the Egyptians (Exodus 12.5). [1]
and without spot. From the world. [15]
Compare 1 Timothy 6:14;
James 1:27; 2 Peter 3:14. In each case in a moral sense. [2]
Without any other deformity. The lamb might have no defect, but yet might
have some spot; and it was to be perfect, Exodus 12:5, which implied its having
neither the one nor the other. Christ
was such a Lamb, perfect in holiness, and free from all sin, John 8:29, 46; Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22. [28]
WEB: who
was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at
the end of times for your sake
Young’s: foreknown,
indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times
because of you,
Conte (RC): foreknown, certainly, before the
foundation of the world, and made manifest in
these latter times for your sake.
“Foreknown”—i.e., by God. So in
Authorized [Version/KJV] in Romans 8:29, 11:2; but here “foreordained.” [44]
See
John 1:29. Christ was the center of
God's plans of salvation from the beginning.
[22]
before the foundation
of the world. Before it was created. [rw]
The phrase, “before the foundation of the world,”
used by Paul (Ephesians 1:4), and by Christ Himself in reference to His own
pre-incarnate life (John 17:24), and occurring also repeatedly in the form “from
the foundation of the world” (Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50;
Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8), carries us above
all time into an eternity out of which time and history issued, and in which
God’s purpose was formed. In this
pre-mundane eternity Christ was contemplated and recognized as that which He
was shown to be in time. [51]
but was manifest. Not only
by his incarnation, 1 Timothy
His manifestation “in these last times” implies a
previous unmanifested existence, as in 1 Timothy 3:6; Hebrews 9:26. [16]
in these last
times for you. The Gospel dispensation, called the last
times, as we have often seen, because never to be succeeded by any other. [18]
The Greek for “these last times” is literally the end of the times.
The Apostle’s language was determined probably in part by the prophecy
of Joel which he cites in Acts 2:17, in part by his belief that with the
manifestation of Christ in the flesh, the last period of God’s dealings with
mankind, the duration of which it was not given to him to measure, had actually
begun. [38]
Or: In that period, the end of the Jewish age and
near the end of the temple and of the Jewish nation. [22]
Or: Last, in comparison of the times of the Old
Testament; the same as the fulness of time, Galatians 4:4. [28]
for you. That you, with other believers, might partake of salvation by him. The fruit of Christ’s redemption reacheth all ages, but much more abundantly the times after
his coming in the flesh. The sum of the
argument is, Christ was ordained from eternity, promised to the fathers, but
manifested to you: your privilege
therefore being greater than theirs, Matthew 13:17; Hebrews 11:39-40, you should be the more holy. [28]
WEB: who
through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him
glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.
Young’s: who
through him do believe in God, who did raise out of
the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God.
Conte (RC): Through him, you have been faithful
to God, who raised him up from the dead and gave
him glory, so that your faith and hope would be
in God.
More in depth:
The word pistos
translated “believer” is used in the New Testament in two senses: (1) “believer” or “believing,” e.g. John
20:27, “Be not faithless (apistos), but believing (pistos).” It is generally taken in this sense
here. The readers of the Epistle had
been led to believe in God through what they had heard of Christ, and through
their experience of his salvation. If
this is the true interpretation, Peter must have chiefly had Gentile converts
in his mind, because their conversion to Christianity also led them to believe
in the true God. (2) Pistos also means “faithful,” as in
Alternative translations and their implications [46]: The sentence is joined on to the foregoing verse just as in 1 Peter 1:5, “Who are kept.” The “who” might be rendered by “and you;” and the clause adds a kind of proof of the foregoing statement, drawn from the result of God’s manifestation of Christ to them. “This Christian doctrine is no innovation, nothing to lead you away from the God of our fathers. That same God had had the scheme in His thoughts from the beginning, and it is in that same God that you have been led thereby to believe.”
There is a better supported and more forcible
reading, “Who through Him are faithful towards God,” which combines the ideas of
believing, i.e., putting the whole trust in God, and of loyal inward observance
of Him. And if any one asks whether it
be possible to say that Hebrew men only came to believe in God through the
revelation of Christ, we must answer by pointing to the whole scope of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and especially to Hebrews 3:12, where it is not faith
in Christ, but faith in a living God, which they are warned not to abandon: and
to Hebrews 6:1, where faith toward God is part of the “word of the beginning of
Christ.”
that raised him up
from the dead and gave him glory. These clauses give the historical facts which
had led them, “through Christ,” to a living faith in God. Though the thought is
common with
that raised him up. Elsewhere
in the N.T. only in the Epistles of Paul, with whom it is a favorite phrase,
used as an epithet with or of “God” (cf. Romans
and gave him glory. “To render praise or homage to God” is a common Biblical sense of “to give glory.” Here it may refer to God’s expression of approval towards Christ, “honored him.” The evidence of such honor would lie in his exaltation to “the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3); cf. Acts 7:55, where Stephen sees “the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Or this exaltation may be the “glory” which is given. [45]
The consistency of this with Peter’s own earliest
teaching (Acts
that your faith and
hope might be in God. “Might be:” or perhaps
“are.” One object or result of
God’s dealings was to stimulate faith and hope.
[45]
An inexact rendering which obscures
the connection. Literally it is,
so that your faith and hope is in (or, toward) God; that is to say, “Your faith
and hope does not stop short in Jesus.”
WEB: Seeing
you have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth through the Spirit
in sincere brotherly affection, love one another from the heart fervently:
Young’s: Your
souls having purified in the obedience of the truth through the Spirit to
brotherly love unfeigned, out of a pure heart one another love ye earnestly,
Conte (RC): So chastise your souls with the
obedience of charity, in fraternal love, and love one
another from a simple heart, attentively.
It
refers not only to the forgiveness of sins but to the pure life that should
follow. [22]
This process might
be termed “sanctifying” in view of its consecrating persons and things to God,
or “purifying” in view of its separating them from common objects. Here, as applied to the soul, it extends
beyond mere external separation from heathen worship and habits to the
abandonment of false principles and beliefs, and evil desires and
passions. [45]
This process was
begun when the truth concerning Christ was first accepted. [7]
your souls. i.e. yourselves; the whole person is implied, the soul being
the principal part. [28]
He is well aware
that the desires of the flesh remain with us after baptism, even to the
grave. Therefore it is not enough that a
person should refrain from works and remain pure outwardly, while he permits
evil lusts to cleave to his heart, but must thereafter beware that the soul be
pure, as well as whatever proceeds out of the heart, and that the soul be
opposed to these wicked lusts and desires, and continually contend therewith,
until it is free from their power. [21]
in obeying the
truth. Truth standing here for
the sum and substance of the revelation of God in Christ. [38]
“The truth” is not so much the definite rules laid
down by Christ and his apostles as a comprehensive term embracing all the
means by which the will of Christ is made known—his teaching and example,
the influence of his character and work, and of his Spirit. Cf. John 14:6, “I am . . . the truth.” Submission to such an authority would involve
complete separation from all that was unworthy in their former life. [45]
through the
Spirit. A
reference to the fact that their obedience had not been one of outward form
alone, but had originated from the determination of their inner spirits to
commit the whole person to the faithful service of God. (This assumes spirit should not be
capitalized: Capitalization is always a
translators’ decision based upon whether they consider the human or divine
spirit to be the most likely subject. [rw]
Or: By the operation of the Spirit working faith
in you. [28]
Modern
“critical” texts normally omit “through the Spirit.” Hence the claim of commentators such as the
following [rw]: “A.V., following inferior
manuscripts, adds “through the Spirit” after “truth.” [45]
unto unfeigned love. The essence of practical Christianity. [16]
Without
hypocrisy or pretence. [39]
The epithet “unfeigned,” in itself,
would suggest that Peter was uneasy about the depth of their brotherly
kindness. And the brotherly kindness is
here, as usual, attachment to other members of the Church, special point being
added to the word here because of the notion of regeneration running through
the whole passage. (See 1 Peter
1:14.) Is it not possible that some
coolness had arisen between the Jewish and Gentile members of the Church, and
that Peter finds it necessary to remind the former that they are truly
brethren, sons of one Father, and that they ought not only unaffectedly to have
done with all jealousy of the Gentile members, but to be far beyond that,
loving one another “from the heart (the [KJV] word ‘pure’ is not part of the
original text, and interrupts the run of the sentence) strenuously?” [46]
love of the
brethren. In classical Greek, of the mutual
affection of actual brothers and sisters; so Ptolemy II and his sister both
received the title Philadelphus, on account of their
devotion to one another. The various
cities named
see that ye love one another with a pure
heart fervently. The
claim is easy enough to make and even some of the actions that go with it: These can actually be produced by the mere
fact that such behavior is expected of us. What Peter is urging is that we do this
because it is right in itself rather than because it meets the standards
others tell us should be met. [rw]
Speculation as to why this
admonition may have been especially
needed: One is a little surprised to find the Apostle
putting this first, and emphasizing it.
As he was writing to Christian churches suffering persecution, it might
have been supposed that mutual goodwill could have been taken for granted. Evidently one cause of his anxiety was the
ill-will of Christians to one another, which might go so far as to lead some to
betray their brethren, and induce others to return to heathen life in order to
spite Christians against whom they had grudges.
In our own days men sometimes leave one church for another from similar
motives. Mutual affection, on the other
hand, would comfort the Christians in their trouble, and strengthen them to
endure persecution. Such affection
should naturally spring out of the common faith, experience, and hope; but men
often grudge the self-denial and self-sacrifice which “unfeigned love of the
brethren” demands (cf. 4:8). [45]
fervently [earnestly, ESV, NET]. With the faculty of loving stretched to its full energy, and therefore
earnest and constant. [45]
The
adverb is strictly “intensely” rather than “fervently.” It is noticeable that the only other passage in
which it meets us in the New Testament is in Acts 12:5, where it, or the
cognate adjective, is used of the prayer offered by the Church for St
Peter. [38]
WEB: having
been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the
word of God, which lives and remains forever.
Young’s: being
begotten again, not out of seed corruptible, but incorruptible, through a word
of God -- living and remaining -- to the age;
Conte (RC): For you have been born again, not
from corruptible seed, but from what is incorruptible,
from the Word of God, living and remaining for all
eternity.
Better,
having been begotten again, the verb being the same as
that in 1 Peter 1:3. The
“corruptible seed” is that which is the cause of man’s natural birth, and the
preposition which Peter uses exactly expresses this thought of an originating
cause. In the second clause, on the
other hand, he uses the preposition which distinctly expresses
instrumentality. The “word of God” is
that through which God, the author of the new life,
calls that life into being. [38]
not of corruptible
seed. Not as at first of
mortal parents, born to die. [14]
The word here
translated “seed” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is taken in that sense by almost all
commentators, and this seems to be favored by the qualifying adjective attached
to it. Neither is that a sense
absolutely strange. It is found, though
with extreme rarity, both in the classics and elsewhere (2 Kings
but of
incorruptible. The Christian is redeemed from his old life
by an incorruptible ransom; his new life springs from an incorruptible seed,
and he is born into an incorruptible inheritance. [45]
by the word of
God. We need not discuss whether “the word” means
Christ, or the word of the gospel preached or written; or, again, the word that
is heard in each man's conscience. All
forms of God's speech are summed up in Christ, who is the Truth: compare Hebrews 1:2. [ - ]
It is obvious that
the word of God is more here than any written book, more than any oral teaching
of the Gospel, however mighty that teaching might be in its effects. If we cannot say that Peter uses the term logos
with precisely the same significance as John (John 1:1, 14), it is yet clear
that he thinks of it as a divine, eternal, creative power, working in and on
the soul of man. It was “the word of the
Lord” which had thus come to the prophets of old, of which the Psalmist had
spoken as “a lamp unto his feet,” and “a light unto his path”
(Psalm 119:105). Peter’s use of
the term stands on the same level as that of the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, who speaks of “the word of God” as “quick and powerful . . . a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews
which liveth and abideth for ever.
Communicating and nourishing life which will be eternal. [14]
In depth: Is it God Himself or His word that is attributed
abiding, eternal existence in this verse? A
concise summary of the two views [31]: This
expression may either refer to God, as living forever, or to the word of God,
as being forever true. Critics are about
equally divided in the interpretation. The Greek will bear either
construction. Most of the recent critics
incline to the latter opinion--that it refers to the
word of God, or to his doctrine. So Rosenmuller, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Wolf, Macknight, Clarke.
It seems to me, however, that the more natural construction of the Greek
is to refer it to God, as ever-living or enduring; and this interpretation
agrees well with the connection. The
idea then is, that as God is ever-living, that which
is produced directly by him in the human soul, by the instrumentality of truth,
may be expected also to endure forever.
It will not be like the offspring of human parents,
themselves mortal, liable to early and certain decay, but may be expected to be
as enduring as its ever-living Creator.
A more detailed explanation of the disagreement [51]: It is not quite clear which of the two subjects, God or the Word, is qualified by the adjectives “living” and “abiding.” The order in the Greek is peculiar, the noun “God’s” being thrust in between the two adjectives.
Most interpreters agree with the E.V. in taking the Word to be the subject described here as “living” and “abiding,” in favor of which it is strongly urged that the passage which follows from the Old Testament deals not with God’s own nature, but with that of His Word. The peculiar order of the Greek is then explained as due to the quality “living” being thrown forward for the sake of emphasis. On this view the thing most decidedly asserted is the life which inheres in the Word, and the subsequent citation from Isaiah would be introduced to express the contrast between the Word of God in this respect and the best of all natural things.
The arrangement of the terms points, however, more naturally to God as the subject described by the epithets, and in support of this, Daniel 6:26 is appealed to, where God is similarly described, and, indeed, according to one of the ancient Greek translators, in precisely the same terms. Calvin, therefore, supported by the Vulgate, and followed by some good exegetes, prefers the view that these epithets “living” and “abiding” are given here to God Himself, with reference to His Word, as that in which “His own perpetuity is reflected as in a living mirror.” In this case we should have the same kind of connection between God and His Word as we have also in Hebrews 2:12-13, where the conception of the former as having all things naked and opened to Him, and that of the latter as quick, powerful, and piercing, lie so near each other; and the following citation would have the more distinct design of affirming the Word to be partaker of the very life and perpetuity which inhere in God Himself.
In either case the quality of “abiding” is not a mere superaddition (as Huther, etc., make it), but rather so weighty an inference from the “living” that it alone is expounded in what follows. For the dominant idea is still the kind of love which believers should exhibit toward each other, namely, persevering, lasting love, and the general intention of the closing verses is to show that while to the unregenerate all that is possible may be a love changeful and transient like the nature of which it is born, the regenerate are made capable of, and thereby pledged to, a love of the enduring quality of that new life which, like God Himself and God’s Word, lives and therefore abides.
WEB: For,
"All flesh is like grass, and all of man's glory like the flower in the
grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls;
Young’s: because
all flesh is as grass, and all glory of man as flower of grass; wither did the grass, and the flower of it fell away,
Conte (RC): For all flesh is like the grass and all
its glory is like the flower of the grass. The grass
withers and its flower falls away.
Context of the quote: Once more St. Peter clenches his argument by
the authority of Scripture. The quotation is taken from Isaiah 40:6, where the
section of the book of Isaiah begins, in which the new life of the forgiven and
restored nation is proclaimed. [24]
Note on “all flesh:” The phrase “all flesh” (which in the
Old Testament is characteristic of certain books only, occurring, e.g., repeatedly
in the Pentateuch and the second half (never in the first) of Isaiah,
four times in Jeremiah, three times in Ezekiel, once in Zechariah) embraces man
and all that is of man as he is by nature.
[51]
and all the glory
of man [all its glory, ESV, NASB] as the flower of grass. His learning, wisdom, wealth, power, dignity, authority, dominion. [47]
The reading followed
by the E. V., “the glory of man,” must yield to the better reading, “its
glory.” If the “flesh,” therefore, is
compared to grass (a familiar biblical figure of transient human life, cf.
Psalms 90:5-6; Psalms 103:15-16; Job 8:12; Job 14:2; Isaiah 37:27; Isaiah 1:12;
James 1:10-11), and one to which the rapidity of growth and decay in Eastern
climates gives additional force, the “glory” of the flesh, by which is meant
its goodliest outcome, “the most splendid manifestations of man’s life,” is
compared to the still more tender bloom that brightens on the flower only to
fall off. [51]
Love his
politics or hate them,
The grass withereth, and the
flower thereof falleth away. The
quotation from Isaiah (Isaiah 40:6, 8) is changed a little. In Isaiah we read: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth,”
and here it is, “The grass hath withered and the flower fallen,” that is
how faith must look upon the world and all its glory, as withered and fallen,
with no more attraction for the heart which knows God. But those who are born
again are linked with that which abideth for ever, the
Word of the Lord, preached in that ever blessed Gospel [verse 25]. [23]
In depth: Context of the Isaiah quote and its relevance to Peter’s Gentile readers [46]. The citation is from Isaiah 40:6-8 and varies between the Hebrew and the LXX in the kind of way which shows that the writer was familiar with both. But the passage is by no means quoted only to support the assertion, in itself ordinary enough, that the Word of the Lord abideth for ever. It is always impossible to grasp the meaning of an Old Testament quotation in the mouth of a Hebrew without taking into account the context of the original. Nothing is commoner than to omit purposely the very words which contain the whole point of the quotation.
Now these sentences in Isaiah stand in the forefront of the herald’s proclamation of the return of God to Sion, always interpreted of the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. This proclamation of the Messianic kingdom comprises words which Peter has purposely omitted, and they contain the point of the quotation.
The omitted words are, “the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it:
surely the people”—i.e.,
The comment of Bishop Lowth
on the original passage will well bring out what Peter means here: “What is the import of [the
proclamation]? that
the people, the flesh, is of a vain temporary nature; that all its glory fadeth, and is soon gone; but that the Word of God endureth for ever.
What is this but a plain opposition of the flesh to the Spirit; of the
carnal
Here, then, Peter is quoting one of the greatest of Messianic prophecies; and his Hebrew readers would at once understand the Hebrew method of the quotation, and see that he was calling attention to the absolute equality of Jew and Gentile there proclaimed. Generation of the corruptible seed, physical descent from Abraham, was “the glory of the flesh” (observe that according to the best text Peter does not follow the LXX, and insert “of man,” but follows the Hebrew, and says “all the glory thereof,” i.e., of the flesh). On this “the Spirit of the Lord” had breathed (Psalms 104:30); and the merely fleshly glory had withered like grass.
But “the word of our God,” which, mark well, Peter purposely changes into “the Word of the Lord,” i.e., of Jesus Christ, incidentally showing his Hebrew readers that he believed Jesus Christ to be “our God”—this “abideth for ever.” The engendering by this is imperishable, i.e., involves a privilege which is not, like that of the Jewish blood, transitory: it will never become a matter of indifference whether we have been engendered with this, as is the case now (Galatians 6:15) with regard to the [Jewish] “corruptible seed;” no further revelation will ever level up the unregenerate to be the equals of the regenerate.
And in this regeneration “all flesh” share
alike. The teaching of the Baptist, who
fulfilled this prophecy, is here again apparent. (See Matthew 3:9.)
WEB: but
the Lord's word endures forever." This is the word of Good News which was
preached to you.
Young’s: and
the saying of the Lord doth remain -- to the age; and this is the saying that
was proclaimed good news to you.
Conte (RC): But the Word of the Lord endures
for eternity. And this is the Word that has been
evangelized to you.
Any significance in the term translated “word?” The term
used for the “Word” in 1 Peter 1:23 (Logos) gives place now to a
different term (rhema), which is
supposed to express only the word as uttered (while the other denotes the word
whether uttered or unuttered), and to give a more concrete view of it. How far the distinction can be carried out,
however, is doubtful. And it is more
than doubtful whether in the present instance the change is due to aught else
than the fact that the Greek translation which Peter seems to follow uses the
latter word in the passage cited. [51]
endureth for ever. Is unmoved, fixed, permanent. Amidst all the revolutions on earth, the
fading glories of natural objects, and the wasting strength of man, his truth
remains unaffected. Its beauty never fades; its power is never enfeebled. [31]
The Word of God abides:— I. Through the different
periods of human history.— II. Through the manifold
assaults of human opposition.— III. Through
the various stages of human progress.
This is very important to observe; for we not
seldom hear the taunting words of reproach, “The Bible did very well for
those who lived in our father’s days, and in the old time before them; but we
want something more advanced in these days.”
Those who speak thus forget that while there is much progress in outward
things, the real deep sorrows and wants of the heart of man are the same they
always were; and therefore the same consolation and mercy which were needed in
old times are needed now. [49]
and this is the
word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Because it comes from “the Lord” it retains an
authoritativeness long after each of us passes away. We die; it doesn’t. Hence the gospel message remains true for
each and every generation. [rw]
Arguing that the point is that the gospel message was just as much Divine revelation as the prophetic one in Old Testament days: The sentence is not parallel, as it is taken by many, to Romans 10:5-13, where the nearness or accessibility of the Word is in view. What is affirmed is not that this Word, of which things so glorious are said, is yet so near them as to be at their hand in the Gospel, but that the good tidings which were brought to these Asiatic Christians by Paul and his comrades were nothing else than that Word of the Lord of which the prophet spake, and nothing less enduring than the Voice of the desert had proclaimed that Word to be. So Peter identifies the revelation in the form of the ancient word of promise with the revelation in the form of the recent word of preaching; which he says, also, was not merely to them, or for their benefit, but unto them, addressed to them personally and borne in among them.
He gives implicit witness at the same time to the
fact that what he himself had now to teach them was nothing but the same grace
which Paul and others had proclaimed.
Hence the past tense, “was preached,” as referring to their first
acquaintance with the Gospel, when others than he who wrote to them had been
the means of conveying to them the Lord’s enduring Word, and thus creating in
them a life capable of a steadfast and undecaying
love. [51]
In depth: Differences between the original passage in Isaiah 40 and Peter’s use of the text [51]. Having the Gospel immediately in view, Peter substitutes “the word of the Lord” here for “the word of our God,” which is the phrase in Isaiah 40:8, in both the Hebrew text and the Greek.
Other departures from the Old Testament passage, as we have it, also appear, some of which are of minor interest, others of a remarkable kind. Not only is the qualifying “as” introduced before the “grass,” the stronger term “glory” given for “goodliness,” the phrase “flower of grass” substituted for “flower of the field,” and “fadeth” displaced by “fell off,” but the important section of the Hebrew text which ascribes the decadence of grass and flower to the Spirit of the Lord blowing upon them (1 Peter 1:7) is entirely omitted. In these particulars, Peter follows the text of the ancient Greek translation.
On the other hand, he departs from the Greek text,
and returns to the Hebrew, in adopting “all its glory” instead of “all
the glory of man.” It
appears, therefore, that Peter makes a very free quotation, or rather, that he
does not bring in this passage as a formal quotation sustaining his statement
by an appeal to Scripture, but simply expresses in Old Testament words which
come easily to his lips a reason for the incorruptibility which he attributes
to the new life, namely, that it is due to the action of a power which endures
like God Himself. This is supported by
the fact that the passage is introduced not by the ordinary conjunction “for,”
but by a different term, used also in 1 Peter 1:16, meaning rather “because.”
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
1 [Anonymous]. Teacher’s Testament/Nelson’s Explanatory
Testament
Thomas
Nelson & Sons;
2 Marvin
R. Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
Charles
Scribner’s Sons;
3 Robert
Young. Commentary
on the Holy Bible. A. Fullarton & Co;
4 Daniel
Whitby, D.D. and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase
on the New Testament. Carey Hart,
5 Matthew
Henry. Vol. IV: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.
6 Rev. Dr
C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual.
1865
7 Charles
R. Erdman. The
General Epistles.
Press, 1918.
8 Joh. Ed. Huther, Th. D., Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
General
Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude
[Meyer’s Commentary
on the New Testament].
9 Professor
Bernhard Weiss, D.D. A
Commentary of the New Testament Vol. IV.
10 Charles
Simeon, M.A. Horae
Homileticae Vol. XX.
and Ball, 1833.
11 Rev. S.
T. Bloomfield, M.A. Recensio
Symoptica Annotations Sacrae
[
12 George
Leo Haydock. Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary
UTS,
13 Howard
Crosby, D.D. New
Testament, With Brief Explanatory Notes. New
14 Anonymous [Justin
Edwards]. The New
Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This edition has more notes, but Edwards’ name is
attached to a shorter
edition of the
same material at UTS,
15 John
Wesley, M.A. Explanatory Notes upon
the New Testament.
16 Orello Cone, D.D. International Handbooks to the N.T. Vol. 3:
The Epistles. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons / Knickerbocker Press,
1901.
17 Philip
Doddridge, D.D. The Family Expositor
(Paraphrase and Version of
the New
Testament [American edition]).
Amherst, Ms.: J. S. & C.
Adams,
and L. Boltwood;
18 Adam
Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., etc.
The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ Vol. VI.
19 Donald
Fraser, M.A., D.D. Synoptical
Lectures of the Books of Holy Scripture Vol.
II.
20 Rev.
Robert Jamieson, D.D. Rev. A. R. Fausset, A.M. Rev. David Brown D.D. A
Commentary, Critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments Vol. II The S. S. Scranton Company
21 Martin
Luther. The Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude Preached and
Explained (
Gillett.
22 Barton
W. Johnson. People’s New Testament. Internet Edition. 1891.
23 Arno Gaebelein. Annotated Bible. Internet Edition. 1920s.
24 John R. Dummelow. Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible. Internet Edition. 1909.
25 Robert Hawker. Poor Man’s Commentary. Internet Edition. 1828.
26 Johann
A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. Internet Edition.
1742.
27 Alexander
MacLaren. Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. Internet Edition.
18--.
28 Matthew
Poole. English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
Internet Edition.
1685.
29 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Internet Edition.
Written 1600s;
1865-1868 edition.
30 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1835.
31 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. Internet Edition. 1870.
32 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. Internet Edition. 1897-1910.
33 F. B. Meyer. Thru The Bible
(Commentary). Internet Edition. 1914 edition.
34 John and Jacob Abbott. Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament. Internet
Edition. 1878.
35 John Calvin. Commentaries. Internet Edition. Written in 1500s. Printing:
1840-1857.
36 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. Internet
Edition.1897-1910.
37
38
E. M. Plumptre. Internet Edition. 1890.
39 D. D. Whedon. Commentary on the New Testament; volume
5: Titus to
Revelation. Internet Edition.
40 Ariel A. Livermore. The Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistles
of James,
Peter, John, and Jude and the Revelation of John the Divine[:] Commentary
and Essays. Internet Edition.
1881.
41 M[ichael] F.
Sadler. The General Epistles of SS.
James, Peter, John, and
Jude. Second
Edition.
42 Robert S. Hunt. The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
In
the Cottage Commentary series.
43 A. T. Robertson. New Testament Interpretation (Matthew to
Revelation):
Notes on
Lectures. Taken
stenographically. Revised Edition by William
M.
Fouts and Alice M. Fouts.
44 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the Revised Version of the
New
Testament.
45 W. H. Bennett. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John and Jude. In the
Century Bible series.
46 A. J. Mason. “First Epistle of Peter” in Ellicott’s New
Testament
Commentary for English
Readers. Internet Edition. 1884.
47 Joseph Benson. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1811-1815.
48 William B. Godbey. Commentary on the New
Testament. Internet Edition.
1896-1900.
49 James Nisbett,
editor. Church
Pulpit Commentary. Internet Edition. 1876.
[Note: this is not “The Pulpit
Commentary.”]
50 Revere F. Weidner. Annotations on the General Epistles of
James, Peter,
John,
and Jude. In the Lutheran
Commentary series.
Literature Company, 1897.
51 Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet
Edition.
1879-1890.