From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain First Peter Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 2:13-25
WEB: Therefore
subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to
the king, as supreme;
Young’s: Be
subject, then, to every human creation, because of the Lord, whether to a king,
as the highest,
Conte (RC): Therefore, be subject to every human
creature because of God, whether it is to the king
as preeminent,
to every
ordinance of man. All human laws which
are not in opposition to the law of God.
[14]
The word translated
“ordinance” is the one commonly signifying “creation” or “creature,” and is not
used in the sense in which it is employed here elsewhere in the New
Testament. As something that man has
created or established, a human institution, it is here properly rendered
“ordinance.” [16]
Macknight translates the
clause, Be subject to every human creation of magistrates; observing
that “the abstract word creation is put for the concrete, the person
created; just as governments and powers are put for persons exercising
government and power. The phrase, human
creation of magistrates, was formed by St. Peter with a view to condemn the
principles of the zealots, who maintained that obedience was due to no
magistrates but to those who were appointed by God, as the Jewish kings had
been.” [47]
for the Lord's
sake. For Christ’s sake or
because it is His will. [16]
We cannot truly submit to Christ, unless we yield
obedience to all his laws--to those which relate to our conduct in civil
life, as well as those which are given to regulate the inmost workings of our
souls towards God. [10]
Because civil government is His institution for affording to all men the inestimable benefits of law and order, without which human society could not exist; or it may be for the sake of the Lord as the Head of the Church, as the Church and its Head would be brought into disrepute if it was supposed to be on the side of lawlessness. [41]
Or: An utilitarian rationale?
Because anything else will give unbelievers an excuse
to speak ill of the Lord and His people. They are to submit, but not because of
the original source from which the authority flows, but because of the
practical consequences of not submitting.
It must be done “for the Lord’s” (i.e., Jesus Christ’s) “sake,” i.e., in
order not to bring discredit upon His teaching, and persecution upon His
Church. This difference of treatment, in
the midst of so much resemblance, shows that at the date of Peter’s letter
there was much more immediate cause for laying stress on political
subordination. Paul, writing to the
Roman Church, urges submission to Claudius, because the Roman Jews (among whom
the Christians were reckoned) were often in trouble and expelled from the city
of Rome (Acts 18:2); Peter, writing in all probability from the Roman Church,
urges submission to Nero and the provincial governors because “ignorant and
foolish men” were beginning to misrepresent the Christian Church as a kind of
Internationalist or Socialist conspiracy.
[46]
whether it be to the
king, as supreme. The emperor, styled king
by Greek writers. [2]
It has been commonly
supposed that there is reference here to the Roman emperor, who might be called
king, because in him the supreme power resided.
The common title of the Roman sovereign was, as used by the Greek
writers, ᾀυτοκράτωρ autokratōr, and among the Romans
themselves, “imperator,” (emperor;) but the title king
was also given to the sovereign. John
19:15, “we have no king but Cesar.” Acts
17:7, “and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cesar, saying that there is
another king, one Jesus.” Peter
undoubtedly had particular reference to the Roman emperors, but he uses a
general term, which would be applicable to all in whom the supreme power
resided, and the injunction here would require submission to such authority, by
whatever name it might be called. The
meaning is, that we are to be subject to that
authority whether exercised by the sovereign in person, or by those who are
appointed by him. [31]
supreme. The distinction between “the king as
supreme” and “governors sent by him” implies that “if the king command one
thing, and the subordinate magistrate another, we ought rather to obey the
superior” [Augustine in Grotius]. [20]
In depth: God prescribes obedience to government and not any particular governmental form [10]. It is called, in my text, “an ordinance of man:” and so it is, as far as related to the particular form of government established in any particular kingdom. In some countries absolute monarchy is established: in our own, a limited monarchy. In some, there are republics; in others, the power is vested in an aristocracy. In fixing the precise mode in which the affairs of any nation shall be administered, the agency of man has been altogether employed: God having never interposed by an authoritative mandate from heaven, except in the case of the Jewish people.
The
history of our own nation sufficiently informs us, that the changes which take
place in human governments are the result of human deliberation, or of human
force. Yet, in its original
appointment, civil government proceeds from God himself. He has ordained, that man shall not be left
in the state of the brute liberty to follow the bent of his own inclinations,
without any regard to the welfare of others:
but that power shall be vested in some for the good of the community;
and that every one in shall be responsible to that power for his own conduct,
as far as the welfare of the community is concerned.
WEB: or to
governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to those
who do well.
Young’s: whether
to governors, as to those sent through him, for punishment, indeed, of
evil-doers, and a praise of those doing good;
Conte (RC): or to leaders as having been sent
from him for vindication over evildoers, it is truly
for the praise of what is good.
Subordinate officers, appointed by the chief
magistrate, over provinces. Perhaps
Roman proconsuls are here particularly intended. [31]
As a matter of form,
some governors were appointed by the Roman Senate, but these appointments were
controlled by the emperor; and practically all the governors were his
representatives. [45]
The “Governors”
include the Pro-consuls or Pro-praetors of Roman provinces, and all officials
such as the town-clerk of
as unto them that
are sent by him. The tense of the Greek participle
indicates that obedience was to be paid to those who, from time to time, were the
local representatives of the central supreme authority. The identity of thought with Romans 13:3-4,
will be noticed as another interesting coincidence in the teaching of the two
Apostles. Both alike recognize that even
an imperfect and corrupt government works, on the whole, for a greater good
than lawless anarchy. Both therefore are
against revolutionary attempts to destroy an established order. [38]
for the punishment
of evildoers. No tyranny ever has been so unprincipled as that some appearance of equity was not
maintained in it. Although bad kings
often oppress the good, yet that is scarcely ever done by public authority (and
it is of what is done by public authority that Peter speaks), save under the
mask of right. Tyranny harasses many, but anarchy overwhelms the whole state [Horneius]. [20]
Ulpian, the celebrated
Roman lawyer, who flourished two hundred years after Christ, thus describes the
power of the governors of the Roman provinces:
“It is the duty of a good and vigilant president to see to it that his
province be peaceable and quiet. And that he ought to make diligent search
after sacrilegious persons, robbers, man-stealers, and thieves, and to punish
everyone according to their guilt.”
Again, “They who govern whole provinces, have
the power of sending to the mines.” And
again, “The presidents of provinces have the highest authority, next to the
emperor.” [31]
and for the praise
of them that do well. A minimalist interpretation of the point: The
praise they obtain consists in the protection and care accorded to them by the
government. There is no mention here of
any extra praise or recompense. [6]
Or: Praise here stands opposed to punishment, and
means commendation, applause, reward.
That is, it is a part of their business to reward in a suitable manner
those who are upright and virtuous as citizens.
This would be by protecting their persons and property; by defending
their rights, and, perhaps, by admitting those to share the honors and emoluments
of office who showed that they were worthy to be trusted. It is as important a part of the functions of
magistracy to protect the innocent, as it is to punish the wicked. Praise here stands opposed to punishment,
and means commendation, applause, reward.
That is, it is a part of their business to reward in a suitable manner
those who are upright and virtuous as citizens.
This would be by protecting their persons and property; by defending
their rights, and, perhaps, by admitting those to share the honors and
emoluments of office who showed that they were worthy to be trusted. It is as important a part of the functions of
magistracy to protect the innocent, as it is to punish the wicked. [31]
In depth: Limitations
on the duty of obedience to government [51]. Peter says nothing of the
questions which may be forced upon the Christian when the idea of the
office is perverted, or when the governor sinks the office in his person and
personal ends. Neither does he suggest
that the duty of submission extends the length of abstention from the use of
ordinary civil rights in withstanding the unjust action of rulers. Paul made the most of his rights as a Roman
citizen, and carried his appeal from governor to Caesar (Acts
WEB: For
this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men:
Young’s: because,
so is the will of God, doing good, to put to silence the ignorance of the
foolish men;
Conte (RC): For such is the will of God, that by
doing good you may bring about the silence of
imprudent and ignorant men,
that with well
doing. By positive behavior in your own life and by
beneficial, helpful behavior to others--showing that Christianity has changed
you for the better. [rw]
ye may put to
silence. [In Greek] a very
graphic word, meaning to muzzle or to gag. [2]
A good life best confounds
the slanderer. [14]
The mention of this
“putting to silence” in the same breath with the authorities,
perhaps implies that they would vindicate the innocence of the Christians. Pilate publicly declared that Christ had no
wrong (Mark
the ignorance. In
classical Greek it is an ignorance arising from not coming into contact with
the person or thing to be known. It
occurs only once again in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 15:34. Here it signifies not want of acquaintance,
but of understanding; a state of ignorance. [2]
The word “ignorance,” used elsewhere in the New
Testament only in 1 Corinthians
Habitual and general [ignorance], as Wiesinger says, “having ever its
mouth open rather than its eyes.” [39]
These are slanderers referred to in verse 12;
their slanders were not deliberate lies, but, being ignorant and foolish, they
were eager to believe the worst of those whom they disliked. [45]
of foolish men. The
“foolish men” are the accusers and slanderers of 1 Peter
The best answer to
calumny, suspicion and ignorance is uprightness of conduct and life. No argument is so
unanswerable as good works. [40]
WEB: as
free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants
of God.
Young’s: as
free, and not having the freedom as the cloak of the evil, but as servants of
God;
Conte (RC): in an open manner, and not as if
cloaking malice with liberty, but like servants
of God.
Or: That is, free from the law
of Moses and the tradition of the elders, because not under the old
covenant. Peter cautioned them not to
use their freedom as license, since they were under the obligation of the higher law of
loyalty to their master. [1]
The
consciousness of spiritual freedom pertaining to the Christian may easily be
perverted into worldly and carnal licentiousness, as was shown by the revolt of
the peasantry at the time of the Reformation.
Against this danger the apostle gives warning. “Because,” to use the words
of Dr Luther, “he who is spiritually free, is at the same time the servant of
every man; for he is, and continues to be, most of all, the servant of
God.” [6]
Scholarly aside: The English text gives the impression that
the word “free” is closely connected with the preceding verse. In the Greek, however, the adjective is in
the nominative and cannot be in apposition with the preceding participle for
“well-doing” which is in the accusative case.
We are led therefore to connect it with what follows. “As being free . . . honur
all men . . .” The
fact that men had been made free with the freedom which Christ had given
(compare John
And:
“As free, &c.,” has been variously connected with verses 12, 15, and
17. In any case, it really qualifies the
general ideas of the paragraph. The
Christian is to obey authorities, not in any servile spirit, but as a free man,
whose freedom consists in loyal service to God, and therefore includes
obedience to those who are doing God’s work.
[45]
and not using your liberty. While
the Jews prided themselves upon their liberty, and gloried that they never were
in bondage to any man, John 8:33, Peter would prompt them not to rest in the
mere barren assertion of freedom, however fascinating that claim might be, but
to beware of turning it to an evil account and betraying the cause they fain
would serve. Rather should they rejoice
in being the servants of God, and being in that service that they should not
use their liberty to the prejudice of their duty. “To serve God,” says Augustine,
“is the highest liberty.” And
for a cloke. Cloke [in Greek] only here in New Testament. Literally, a veil. The idea is that of using Christian freedom
as a mask for ungodly license. Paul uses
the kindred verb (Rom. iv. 7) of the covering of sins. On the sentiment, compare Galatians
5:13. [2]
Luther: “This is said especially for us, who have
heard of Christian freedom, that we may not go on and abuse this freedom,
making a cloak of it; that is to say, under the name and show of Christian
freedom do all that we lust after.” [50]
The uncommon word
here used means any kind of covering, but not in the sense of a garment, so
that we must not insist on the metaphor of the word “cloke.” The same Greek word is used in Exodus 26:14
to express the second covering of the tabernacle there mentioned, i.e., the
uppermost, outermost covering. Grimm
quotes a fragment of the comic poet Menander, “Wealth
is a covering of many a bad thing;” this helps us to see that what Peter means
is not ordinary hypocrisy. The man does
not profess to be better than he is, but loudly asserts that he is not a
slave. Men admire such freedom of
speech, and excuse his vices just because of their openness. [46]
of maliciousness. Baseness[.] The word
just given answers better to the comprehensive meaning of the Greek word than
the more specific “maliciousness.” In
Galatians
but as the
servants of God. Free, yet servants; bound to obey God,
and therefore to obey those to whom he commands us to “submit’ ourselves.
[39]
Not free from all restraint; not at liberty to
indulge in all things, but bound to serve God in the faithful obedience of his
laws. Thus bound to obey and serve him,
they could not be at liberty to indulge in those things which would be in
violation of his laws, and which would dishonor him. [31]
WEB: Honor
all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
Young’s: to all
give ye honour; the brotherhood love ye; God fear ye;
the king honour ye.
Conte (RC): Honor everyone. Love brotherhood.
Fear God. Honor the king.
Or:
That is, no more than that which is due them as men. [16]
Peter had been
taught of God “not to call any man common or unclean” (Acts
Honour. The first “honor” [in this verse, rw] is in the Greek aorist imperative, implying, “In
every case render promptly every man‘s due” [Alford]. The second is in the present tense,
implying, Habitually and continually
honor the king. Thus the first is the general precept; the three following are
its three great divisions. [20]
Love the brotherhood. Christians, who are all equally children of God. [14]
The whole fraternity of Christians,
regarded as a band of brothers. [31]
We are connected with them by a closer relationship.
And so Peter did not omit this connection; but yet he reminds us, that though
brethren are to be specially regarded, yet this ought not to prevent our love
from being extended to the whole human race [as well]. [35]
Fear God. In such a manner shall lead you to obey
Him. [14]
They are to fear God with the holy reverential awe of
sons, with that fear which is “the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs
1:7). [38]
Live as in the very presence of God, with an holy awe, dreading in any way, either by thought, word,
or deed, to grieve the love of God. [50]
Honor the king. But rather because they are the servants of
God, they must, in perfect liberty, and not yielding to external forces, but
because it is God’s will, prove their doing good by
their subordination to the government.
The latter certainly does not demand anything else than showing the
emperor the honor due him, just as they are to show every one the proper
respect which he has a right to claim on account of his station and his
prominence, and this is as little in conflict with the duty of brotherly love
as it is with the duty of fearing God.
Here we catch an echo of the word of the Lord in Mark 12:17. Conflicts such as the times of the
persecution of the Christians called forth, are still entirely outside of the
horizon of the Apostle. [9]
They are not to fear man more than God, however great
may be the authority with which he is invested.
Paul’s conduct before the high-priest, Felix, Festus and Agrippa (Acts
23-26.) may be noted as a practical illustration of Peter’s precept. We may, perhaps, trace in the juxtaposition
of the two precepts a reproduction of the teaching of Proverbs 24:21. [38]
We honor the emperor, king, president, or
governor, when we obey the laws which are administered by the authority of
government. [50]
WEB: Servants,
be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and
gentle, but also to the wicked.
Young’s: The
domestics! be subjecting yourselves in all fear to the
masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cross;
Conte (RC): Servants, be subject to your masters
with all fear, not only to the good and meek, but also to the unruly.
He does not address them as slaves, the word employed by Paul, but as “household servants,” a term which, in that day, included free men and women, even clerks and musicians and teachers and physicians; thus the passage applies to the attitude of all employees toward their employers and bears upon the vexed modern problems of labor and capital. [7]
Now
since the conduct of Christian servants or slaves would be likely to influence
the opinions of their superiors respecting Christianity, it therefore became a
matter of importance; and hence the injunctions of St. Peter and
An implication of the ethnicity of
the recipients of the Letter?
The word for word for servants is not the same as in other places where
their duties are inculcated, as in the Epistles of Paul. He invariably uses the word [for slave]: here it is [the one for] household or
domestic servants. Bishop Wordsworth
gives a reason why it should be so in this Epistle, because it is mainly
intended for Jews, who were not to have their brethren as bond slaves, at least
not to compel them to serve as such, according to Leviticus 25:40: “But as an hired servant and as a sojourner
he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee.” Peter is writing to Jewish Christians who
would not regard their domestics of their own nation as slaves, as the heathen
masters did theirs. [41]
be subject to your
masters. This “subjection” however, is like that previously suggested
toward kings and governors: it implies
not only obedience but also loyalty; servants are not only to submit but to be
faithful and to advance the interests of their masters. [7]
with all fear. Here fear does not mean terror, but deep anxiety lest in some respect service might fall short of a perfect fulfillment of each duty. [1]
The “fear” is not of punishment, but denotes anxious fidelity and deference under all circumstances, the desire to avoid all offense. [7]
not only to the
good. Kind. [20]
and gentle. “Reasonable,” “considerate.” [45]
but also to the
forward [harsh, NKJV]. The unreasonable, the
cruel, and the unjust. [7]
The word rendered “froward” (σκολιοῖς skoliois) means properly “crooked, bent;” then perverse, wicked, unjust,
peevish. Anyone who is a servant or
domestic is liable to be employed in the service of such a master; but while
the relation continues, the servant should perform his duty with fidelity,
whatever may be the character of the master.
Slaves are certainly liable to this; and even those who voluntarily
engage as servants to others, cannot always be sure that they will have kind
employers. [31]
In depth: The need for instruction to this category of believers due to their changed status in the eyes of God and fellow believers [38]. The counsels thus opening are carried on to the close of the chapter. The fullness with which slaves are thus addressed, here and in Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, indicates the large proportion of converts that belonged to that class. Nearly all the names in Romans 16 and many of those of other members of the Church are found in the Columbaria or Catacombs of Rome as belonging to slaves or freedmen.
The term for “servants,” here and in Luke 16:13, Acts 10:7, Romans 14:4, differs from the more common word as pointing specially to household servants, the “domestics” of a family. It may have been chosen by Peter as including the wide class of libertini or freedmen and freedwomen who, though no longer in the status of slavery, were still largely employed in the households of the upper classes, as scribes, musicians, teachers, physicians, needle-women and the like.
It is obvious that the new thoughts of converts to the faith of Christ must have brought with them some peculiar dangers. They had learnt that all men were equal in the sight of God. Might they not be tempted to assert that equality in word or act?
They felt themselves raised to a higher life than their heathen masters. Could they endure to serve loyally and humbly those whom they looked on as doomed to an inevitable perdition? Was it not their chief duty to escape by flight or purchase from the degradation and dangers of their position?
The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:21-23, as
well as in the passages above referred to, shows how strongly he felt the
urgency of this danger.
WEB: For
it is commendable if someone endures pain, suffering unjustly, because of
conscience toward God.
Young’s: for
this is gracious, if because of conscience toward God any one doth endure
sorrows, suffering unrighteously;
Conte (RC): For this is grace: when, because of
God, a man willingly endures sorrows, suffering
injustice.
Or: So in Luke
if a man for
conscience toward God. i.e. [awareness] of His
presence as seeing, judging, helping, rewarding, His suffering servants. The phrase is analogous to the “conscience of
the idol” in 1 Corinthians 8:7. [38]
Or: That
consciousness which we have of God, which at once inspires the sense of duty
and elevates the idea of duty. The idea
at its root is knowledge—knowledge specially of the
moral quality of our own acts. It is the
“understanding applied to the distinction of good and evil, as reason is the
same applied to the distinction of truth and falsehood” (see Godet on Romans 2:15). [51]
endure grief. The pain
and distress caused by abuse, confinement in a slave-prison, beating, and other
forms of torture. Greeks and Orientals
treated their slaves, as a rule, more humanely than the Romans, but in the
hands of a “froward” master the slave’s lot was
deplorable anywhere. [45]
The “grief” of the A. V. should be griefs, grievances, or pains. It carries us back to the “pained” of 1
Peter 1:6, and points to objective external inflictions. It is the phrase used in Isaiah 53:4. The verb “endure” here (which occurs only
twice again in the N.T., 1 Corinthians
suffering wrongfully. Without any good reason.
You’ve done nothing to deserve what you are going through. [rw]
WEB: For
what glory is it if, when you sin, you patiently endure beating? But if, when
you do well, you patiently endure suffering, this is commendable with God.
Young’s: for
what renown is it, if sinning and being buffeted, ye do endure it? but if, doing good and suffering for it, ye do endure, this
is gracious with God,
Conte (RC): For what glory is there, if you sin
and then suffer a beating? But if you do well and
suffer patiently, this is grace
with God.
if, when ye be
buffeted [beaten, NKJV] for your faults. That is, if you are punished when you
deserve it. The word “buffet”
(κολαφίζω kolaphizō) -- means, to
strike with the fist; and then to strike in any way; to maltreat, Matthew
26:67; Mark 14:65; 1 Corinthians
ye shall take it
patiently [endure it, Holman, NIV]?
“If, even then, you evince an uncomplaining spirit, and bear it with
the utmost calmness and patience, it would be regarded as comparatively no
virtue, and as entitling you to no honor.
The feeling of all who saw it would be that you deserved it, and there
would be nothing to excite their sympathy or compassion. The patience evinced might indeed be as great
as in the other case, but there would be the feeling that you deserved all that
you received.” The expression here is,
doubtless, to be understood comparatively.
The meaning is not that absolutely there would be no more credit
due to one who should bear his punishment patiently when he had done wrong,
than if he had met it with resistance and complaining; but that there is very
little credit in that compared with the patience which an innocent
person evinces, who, from regard to the will of God, and by control over all
the natural feelings of resentment, meekly [= respectfully] endures wrong. [31]
but if, when ye do
well [good, NKJV], and suffer for it. Sometimes
you may be blamed for what is someone else’s fault but you can’t prove it. Sometimes you are doing something that is
honorable and it is misunderstood or misrepresented. In other cases, the one in charge is angry because
you did the right thing in defiance of their wishes or preferences. [rw]
It is a pity that the translators have limited
Peter’s meaning by the insertion of the last two words “for it.” It is unnecessary to understand the suffering
to be directly provoked by the well-doing. It would have done just as well to say, “when ye do well, and yet are ill-treated.” The “froward”
master makes his servants suffer without thinking what he makes them suffer
for. [46]
ye take it
patiently.
Patience under undeserved punishment would be exceptional and
specially meritorious; Christians might take pride
(“glory”) in such conduct on the part of their brethren. The parallel passages (Ephesians 6:5-9;
Colossians
this is acceptable [commendable, NKJV]
with God. The Greek word is the same
as that rendered “thankworthy” in the previous verse. It would obviously have been better, though
“acceptable” expresses the sense fairly enough, to have retained that word here
also. [38]
Timidity about St. Peter’s theology has caused a
difference between the rendering of the same word in
two consecutive verses. It should be
translated “thankworthy” here as well as above, and must be taken in precisely
the same sense. Observe that the Apostle does not continue, “this
is glory,” as we might have expected; a Christian is not supposed to care for
such trash as fame. But a Christian may
well care to win the thanks of God! And
such endurance of griefs for God’s sake is now
distinctly said to be “thankworthy with God”—i.e., from God’s point of
view. Many things are strictly duty, and
yet we do not expect to find them done, and are proportionably
grateful when we see that they are done.
And shall we, for the sake of a doctrinal thesis like that, “that man
can deserve nothing at the hand of God,” deny to God the possibility of
enjoying one of the happiest exercises of love, the sense of gratitude? [46]
Living justly under an unjust
system that we cannot change: He gives no hint that the
slave should break with his bondage.
Neither does he give him over to political impotence or social
helplessness. He sets before him
principles on which he is to [live] like a Christian, abiding in his calling,
principles which also were to work like solvents on the system itself, and
gradually to secure its extinction without revolution. “Nothing indeed marks the Divine character of
the Gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of
political revolution. The Founder of
Christianity and His apostles were surrounded by everything which could tempt
human reformers to enter on revolutionary courses. . . . Nevertheless our Lord
and His apostles said not a word against the powers and institutions of that
evil world. Their attitude towards them
all was that of deep spiritual hostility, and of
entire political submission” (see Gold win Smith, Does the Bible sanction
American Slavery, p. 55,—a brief but invaluable discussion). [55]
There is a profound difference between
something that is undesirable and something that is inherently immoral
and sinful: depending upon when and
where you are born, you could land up an “inferior” in a slave society, a
political dictatorship, a country explicitly run on an ideology founded in
atheism or other unbelieving systems of thought. All are undesirable, but still provide a
governing framework that permits society to function. In such situations the responsibility remains
yet the same: However ugly the
particular system is in theory or practice, you still have the obligation to
live with personal honor in a system that could easily push you to a
violent response. [rw]
WEB: For to this you were called,
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should
follow his steps,
Young’s: for to
this ye were called, because Christ also did suffer for you, leaving to you an
example, that ye may follow his steps,
Conte (RC): For you have been called to this
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an
example, so that you would follow
in his footsteps.
because Christ also
suffered for us. Undeservedly, as Peter
shows in the next three verses. [50]
As referring to His
death: This is the most obvious frame of reference since it is His crucifixion
and death on the cross that was used by God to bring redemption to all who
would seek it. But that does not mean it
has to be the only one. [rw]
As referring to all
the injustice and opposition He endured throughout His life: This is the practical rather than the
dogmatic view of Christ’s sufferings—a word which must be regarded as relating
not to His passion on the cross, but to all that He endured during His life, as
is apparent from verse 23, “when He was reviled, reviled not again etc.” [16]
for us [you, ESV, NASB]. Hyper, “for your benefit,” in your behalf. We need not insist that this proposition means the same as anti, “in your stead,” as if the doctrine of vicarious atonement depended upon the doubtful meaning of a preposition (anti, “in place of,” is however used by Christ in Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), for the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is clearly taught by Paul in all his Epistles, as well as by Peter (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18). [50]
The best authorities give the second person here
[“for you”] instead of the “for us” of the Received Text. The phrase means here, too, not “in your
stead,” but “in your behalf,” or “for your good.” The idea is that the servant cannot expect to
be greater than the Master. They do not
stand alone in suffering. They are only
called to endure as Christ endured. He suffered, and that, too, not on His own
account, but in their cause and for their benefit. [51]
leaving us an example. Of innocence and patience.
[15]
The word rendered “example” (ὑπογραμμὸν hupogrammon) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly “a writing copy,” such as
is set for children; or an outline or sketch for a painter to fill up; and
then, in general, an example, a pattern for imitation. [31]
[The Greek term] is used in this literal sense in 2 Maccabees 2:28-29,
and in the metaphorical sense it occurs repeatedly in the Epistle of Clement;
in one passage (chap. 16) apparently with a reminiscence of this place, for the
author has been quoting the passage of Isaiah to which we shall come presently,
and then adds, “See then, beloved sirs, what is the copy which has been set us;
for if the Lord was so lowly-minded, what shall we do who through Him have come
under the yoke of His grace?” The leaving us of this copy was one of the
benefits of His passion implied in “suffered for you.” [46]
It is not without significance that in almost every
instance in which the example of Christ is referred to, it is in special
connection with His patience under sufferings.
Stress is laid on his suffering for us, as
making the analogy of the pattern sufferer more complete. He, too, was “buffeted” for no fault of His
(Matthew 26:67). [38]
that ye should
follow.
Follow closely, as the verb strictly means, which
occurs again in Mark 16:20; 1 Timothy 5:10; 1 Timothy 5:24 (in this last verse
pointing to the closeness with which some men’s sins pursue them to
judgment). [51]
his steps. That we
should follow him, as if we trod exactly along behind him, and should place our
feet precisely where his were. The
meaning is, that there should be the closest imitation
or resemblance. The things in which we
are to imitate him are specified in the following verses. [31]
WEB: who
did not sin, "neither was deceit found in his mouth."
Young’s: who
did not commit sin, nor was guile found in his mouth,
Conte (RC): He committed no sin, neither was
deceit found in his mouth.
Who did no sin. And therefore did not deserve to suffer
any thing. [47]
It is suggestive as indicating the line of prophetic
interpretation in which the Apostle had been led on, that as soon as he begins
to speak of the sufferings of Christ, he falls, as it were, naturally into the
language of Isaiah 53:9, as he found it (with the one exception that he gives
“sin” for “iniquity”) in the LXX version.
[38]
neither was guile. There
was no deceit, hypocrisy, or insincerity. He was in all respects what he professed
to be, and he imposed on no one by any false and unfounded claim. [31]
found in his mouth. In anything He actually said. [rw]
Tie in with “leaving
us an example” (verse 21):
that is, He committed neither open nor secret sin. Words most suitable for the admonition of
servants, who easily fall into sins and deceits, reproaches towards their
fellow-servants, and threats, arising from anger without strength. [26]
In depth: Peter’s unique position to know this was true [51]. Of all the apostles, Peter, with the single exception of John, had known the Christ of history most intimately, and had seen Him in the circumstances, both public and private, most certain to betray the sinfulness of common human nature, had such been latent in Him. Peter had felt, too, not less strongly than others, how the type of holiness which Christ taught conflicted with his own traditional Jewish notion of a holiness bound up with the rigid observance of Sabbath laws and ceremonial rules of life. But with what quiet strength of fixed conviction does he proclaim Christ’s blamelessness!
Nor can Peter’s confession of that sinlessness, as he lingers over it in this section, be said
to come behind either Paul’s “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians
The choice of the verb “was found” or “was
discovered” (see also 1 Peter 1:7) is in harmony with the idea of a sinlessness which had stood the test of suspicious sifting
and scrutiny. The statement is given,
too, with the direct and positive force of simple historical tenses, which may
imply (as Alford puts it) that in no instance did He ever do the wrong
deed, or say the guileful word.
WEB: Who,
when he was cursed, didn't curse back. When he
suffered, didn't threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously;
Young’s: who
being reviled -- was not reviling again, suffering -- was not threatening, and
was committing himself to Him who is judging righteously,
Conte (RC): And when evil was spoken against
him, he did not speak evil. When he suffered, he did
not threaten. Then he handed himself over to him
who judged him unjustly.
He was accused of being a seditious man; spoken of as
a deceiver; charged with being in league with Beelzebub, the “prince of the
devils” and condemned as a blasphemer against God. This was done: (a) by the great and the influential of the
land; (b) in the most public manner; (c) with a design to alienate his friends
from him; (d) with most cutting and severe sarcasm and irony; and, (e) in
reference to everything that would most affect a man of delicate and tender
sensibility. [31]
reviled not again. He asked
that justice might be done. He demanded
that if he had spoken evil, they should bear witness of the evil; but beyond
that he did not go. He used no harsh
language. He showed no anger. He called for no revenge. He prayed that they might be forgiven. He calmly stood and bore it all, for he came
to endure all kinds of suffering in order that he might set us an example, and
make an atonement for our sins. [31]
when he suffered. Although sometimes difficult, it is
obviously much easier to keep things from coming out of our mouth that ought
not when all that is involved is a verbal disagreement. When it involves physical pain, brutality,
and death—that raises the difficulty to a far, far higher level. [rw]
he threatened not. This
verse shows how the actual conduct of Christ corresponded to the description,
“there was no guile found in his mouth,” and is obviously intended to commend
his behavior in this respect as an example to the readers. This verse is specially illustrated by the
incidents of the trial and Passion. [45]
but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. The meaning is, that he committed his cause,
his name, his interests, the whole case, to God. The meaning of the phrase “that judgeth righteously” here is, that God would do him exact
justice. Though wronged by people, he
felt assured that he would do right. He
would rescue his name from these reproaches; he would give him the honor in the
world which he deserved; and he would bring upon those who had wronged him all
that was necessary in order to show his disapprobation of what they had done,
and all that would be necessary to give the highest support to the cause of
virtue. Compare Luke 23:46. [31]
What was being committed to God? “But committed himself.” So the text of the
Revisers, Winer, DeWette,
Sadler, Plumptre, Lillie, and others; His cause, so margin of Revisers,
Calvin, Gerhard, Cook, and others; it,
i.e., His wrongs [suffered], so Luther, Huther, Wiesinger, Weiss, Keil, and
others. In the verb no object is
expressed, unless it is take in the reflexive sense, he committed himself. There
can be no possible objection to such an interpretation, grammatically or
otherwise. It is true, however, that
Christ not only committed Himself, but also His cause, His wrongs
[suffered], and even His wrong-doers
“to him that judgeth righteously,” i.e., to God the
Father. [50]
Additional options: What is it, however, that Christ is said to have committed to this Righteous Judge? Many interpreters (e.g. Winer, de Wette, etc.) and Versions (including Wycliffe, the Rhemish, and both the A.V. and the R.V. in the text) supply himself as the object of the committal. This however, is to give the active verb a reflexive force; of which there is no example in the case of this verb, Mark 4:24, which is appealed to, not being really in point. Hence others make it = committed his judgment, or his cause (so Gerhard, Calvin, Beza, the Syriac, Tyndale, and the margin of both the A.V. and the R.V.), or his punishment (the Genevan), or his vengeance (Cranmer).
The unnamed object, however, should naturally be
supplied from the things dealt with in the immediate context. These are clearly the wrongs patiently
endured by Christ. With Luther,
therefore, etc., we may best render it indefinitely “left it,” understanding
the “it” to refer to the subjection to reviling and suffering just
mentioned. This is better than (with
Alford) to make it = committed His revilers and injurers; although
we might thus secure an allusion to Christ’s prayer in behalf of His enemies
(Luke
WEB: who
his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to
sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.
Young’s: who
our sins himself did bear in his body, upon the tree, that to the sins having
died, to the righteousness we may live; by whose stripes ye were healed,
Conte (RC): He himself bore our sins in his body
upon the tree, so that we, having died to sin, would
live for justice. By his wounds, you have been
healed.
Here again we have
an unmistakeable reference to the language of Isaiah
53:12. The Apostle, though he has begun
with pointing to the sufferings of Christ as an example, cannot rest satisfied
with speaking of them only under that aspect.
He remembers that his Lord had spoken of Himself as giving His life a
ransom for many (Matthew
bare our sins. The penalty for our sins.
[34]
The
effect of them. [14]
The Greek verb for “bare” (anapherein) is always used with a liturgical
sacrificial meaning, sometimes, in a directly transitive sense, of him who
offers a sacrifice, as James 2:21 (“Abraham … when he had offered
Isaac”), Hebrews 7:27, 13:15, and in this very chapter (1 Peter 2:5); sometimes
of the victim offered, as bearing the sins of those who have transgressed, and
for whom a sacrifice is required, as in Hebrews 9:28 and the LXX of Isaiah
53:12. Here, Christ being at once the
Priest and the Victim, one meaning seems to melt into the other. He offers Himself: He
bears the sins of many.
[38]
in his own body. Cf.
Colossians 1:21-22, “You . . . hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh
through death;” and the clause, “This is my body” (1 Corinthians
on the tree. The wood of the cross.
[22]
But if there was a priest and a sacrifice, where was
the altar? The Apostle finds that altar
in the cross, just as many of the best commentators, including even Roman
theologians like Estius and Aquinas, recognize a
reference to the cross in the “we have an altar” of Hebrews 13:10. In the word for “tree,” used instead of that
for “cross,” we have the same term as that in Galatians 3:13, where St Paul’s
choice of it was obviously determined by its use in the LXX of Deuteronomy
21:23. The word was somewhat more
generic than “cross,” and included a whole class of punishments to which slaves
were subject, impaling, the stocks (Acts
that we, being dead
to sins. Wholly delivered both
from the guilt and power of it: indeed, without an atonement first made for the
guilt, we could never have been delivered from the power. [15]]
The Greek word for “being dead” is a somewhat unusual
one, and is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. As a word it has to a certain extent an
euphemistic character, like “departing,” “being away,” and is so far analogous
to the exodos or
“decease” of 2 Peter 1:15. The context
leaves no doubt that the English rendering of the word fairly expresses its
true meaning. “Having died” would
perhaps give more accurately the force of the aorist participle. The thought presents another instance of
parallelism between Peter and Paul (Romans 6:2, 11; Galatians
should live unto righteousness. i.e., the purpose of Christ’s death (not necessarily the whole purpose) was the moral reformation of character and conduct. Peter’s great object in this Epistle is to induce the professing Christians whom he addresses to live worthily of the gospel; and, to this end, he urges many different considerations in various ways. [45]
The ransom, from the necessity of ourselves
bearing the consequences, or legal liabilities of our sins, however, is not an
end to itself. It is done with a view to
the killing of the practical power of sin in us, and to our leading a new life. A death unto the sins which He bore is
given here as the position into which we were brought once for all by Christ’s
great act of sin-bearing. Hence the use of the historical past “having died.” The idea of this death, though it is
expressed by a term not found elsewhere in the New Testament, is the same as
the Pauline idea (Romans 6:2;
by whose stripes
ye were healed. In consequence of whose
sufferings. Isaiah 53:5. [14]
The word for “stripes” means strictly the livid mark
or wheal left on the flesh by the scourge.
Compare Sirach 28:17. We may well believe that the specific term
was chosen rather than any more general word like “sufferings” or “passion,” as
bringing before the minds of the slave readers of the Epistle the feature of
greatest ignominy in their Lord’s sufferings (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15), that
in which they might find the closest parallelism with their own. When the scourge so freely used in Roman
households left the quivering flesh red and raw, they were to remember that
Christ also had so suffered, and that the stripes inflicted on Him were part of
the process by which He was enabled to be the Healer of mankind. The words are cited from the LXX of Isaiah
53:5. [38]
And (?): Mr. Cradoc supposes
the meaning of this is, as if he had said:
The blood of Christ, by which your souls are saved, may be a sufficient
balm for those wounds and bruises which your cruel masters may inflict upon
you; that is, it may so delight your minds as to raise you above an undue
regard to and concern about such corporeal sufferings. [17]
In depth: A more detailed examination of whether the
cross was the “altar” on which our sins were sacrificed [51]. [For the “altar” interpretation see above under “on the tree.”] How,
then, is the central phrase “bare our sins” to be understood? The verb occurs indeed in the New Testament
(see also 1 Peter 2:7) in the simple sense of carrying up, or bringing
up, as e.g. of Christ bringing Peter and James and John up to
the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), of Christ being carried up into
heaven (Luke 24:51), etc. It has also
the sense, frequent enough in the Classics, of sustaining.
Here, however, its accessories shut us up to a choice between two technical meanings, namely, that of offering up, and that of bearing punishment. Hence some (including the great name of Luther) take the sense to be “made an offering of our sins on the tree,” or “brought our sins as an offering to the tree.”
In favor of this, it may be urged that the same verb has already been used in this sense in 1 Peter 2:5 (as it is again in Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 13:15; cf. also James 2:21), and that there is a distinct analogy in the Old Testament formula used of the priest offering on, or bringing offerings to, the altar (Leviticus 14:20; 2 Chronicles 24:16).
But there are fatal objections to this view, as e.g. the unexampled conception of the sins being themselves the offering; the equally unexampled description of the Cross as an altar (notwithstanding Hebrews 13:10); the fact that it was not upon but before the altar that sacrificial victims under the Old Testament were put to death; and the difference thus created between Peter’s use and Isaiah’s use of the same terms.
The other sense, viz. that of bearing the consequences, or paying the penalty, of sin, is supported by the weightiest considerations, as e.g. the fact that the verb in question is one of those by which the Greek Version represents the Hebrew verb, which (when it has “sin” or “iniquity” as its object) means to bear punishment for sin (whether one’s own or that of others) in numerous passages both of the Pentateuch and the prophets (e.g. Leviticus 19:17; Leviticus 20:19; Leviticus 24:15; Numbers 5:31; Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:5; Ezekiel 14:10; Ezekiel 16:58; Ezekiel 23:35); the New Testament analogy in Hebrews 9:28; the harmony with what is said of the Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 53. The addition in His body brings out the fact that this endurance of the punishment of our sins was discharged by Him, not remotely as was the case with the Israelite under the Law who brought a victim distinct from himself, but directly in His own person.
The phrase to (or, on to, not on) the tree is not inconsistent with this meaning. It gives the whole sentence the force of a picture representing Christ with our sins upon Him, and carrying them with Him on to the final act of penal endurance on the Cross.
The statement, therefore, is more than a figure for securing the forgiveness of sin, and means more than bearing sin sympathetically, burdening one’s heart with the sense of sin, or destroying the power of sin in us. It involves the two ideas of sacrifice and substitution; the latter having additional point given it by the “Himself” (or, as our E.V. puts it, “His own self”), which is set both emphatically first and in antithetical relation to “our sins.”
It can scarcely mean less than what Weiss recognizes when he says: “It is plain, therefore, that in consequence of Isaiah 3, Peter regards this sin-bearing of Christ in behalf of sinners as the means whereby sin has been removed from them, and by which, therefore, the stain of guilt has been effaced’ (Bib. Theol. i. p. 233, Eng. Trans.). It gives no theory, however, of how this sin-bearing carried such efficacy with it.
WEB: For
you were going astray like sheep; but now have returned to the Shepherd and
Overseer of your souls.
Young’s: for ye
were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer
of your souls.
Conte (RC): For you were like wandering sheep.
But now you have been turned back toward the Pastor
and the Bishop of your souls.
The sequence of thought is suggested by the “all we
like sheep have gone astray” of Isaiah 53:6, but the imagery could scarcely
fail to recall to the mind of the Apostle the state of Israel “as sheep that
had no shepherd” (Matthew 9:36), and the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew
18:12-13; Luke 15:4). The image had been
a familiar one almost from the earliest times to describe the state of a people
plunged into anarchy and confusion by the loss of their true leader (Numbers
27:17; 1 Kings
but are now
returned unto the Shepherd. We can scarcely fail to connect the words
with those which Peter had once heard as to the “other sheep” who were not of
the “fold” of
“Shepherd” is often used in the Old Testament for the
leaders of
returned. The same verb is used in 1 Thessalonians
1:9 of the conversion of Gentiles, “Ye turned unto God from idols.” “Turned round to” gives the sense
better. It does not mean that the readers
had once been in true fellowship with God, had wandered away, and then at their
conversion returned to Him; but that once they were wandering far from God in a
direction which led away from Him, and at their conversion they turned round,
and began to move in a direction leading to Christ. [45]
and Bishop
[Overseer, NKJV]. In the word for “Bishop” (episcopos) (better perhaps,
looking to the later associations that have gathered round the English term) guardian or protector, we may,
possibly, find a reference to the use of the cognate verb in the LXX of Ezekiel
34:11. It deserves to be noted, however,
that the Greek noun is often used in the New Testament in special association
with the thought of the Shepherd’s work.
Compare Acts
“Bishop” as a technical ecclesiastical term cannot be
correct here for the Greek episkopos, but “overseer” as Revised Version margin. The word is only used of Christ here in the
New Testament. Episkopos is used of God in the
LXX in Job 20:29b (where E.V., following the Hebrew, has “God”), and in Wisdom
of Solomon 1:6. [45]
of your souls. Here is,
perhaps, a special stress laid on Christ being the Shepherd of their souls. Their bodies
might be subject to the power and caprices of their masters, but their higher
nature, that which was their true self, was subject only to the loving care of
the Great Shepherd. [38]
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.