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 2:1-12
2:1 Translations
WEB: Putting
away therefore all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisies, envies, and all evil
speaking,
Young’s: Having
put aside, then, all evil, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envyings, and all evil speakings,
Conte (RC): Therefore, set aside all malice and
all deceitfulness, as well as falseness and envy and
every detraction.
2:1 Wherefore. The word refers to
the reasonings in the first chapter. In view of the considerations stated there,
we should renounce all evil. [31]
laying aside
[putting aside, NASB]. These are such sins as both destroy charity
and hinder the efficacy of the word, and consequently they prevent our
regeneration. [5]
There is not here a complete
enumeration of all those things which we ought to lay aside; but when the
Apostles speak of the old man, they lay down as examples some of those vices
which mark his whole character. [35]
This “putting away” is a figure
taken from clothing and is often used in Scripture (Ephesians
all. Every kind of and every
instance of, and so throughout [the repetitions of the word in] the verse. [45]
all malice. The word “malice” we commonly apply now to a particular kind of
evil, denoting extreme enmity of heart, ill-will, a disposition to injure
others without cause, from mere personal gratification, or from a spirit of
revenge--Webster. The Greek word, however,
includes evil of all kinds. [31]
Each
succeeding one springs out of that which immediately precedes,
so as to form a genealogy of the sins against love. Out of malice springs guile;
out of guile, hypocrises (pretending to be
what we are not, and not showing what we really are; the opposite of “love
unfeigned,” and “without dissimulation”); out of hypocrisies, envies of
those to whom we think ourselves obliged to play the hypocrite; out of envies,
evil-speaking, malicious, envious detraction of others. Guile is the permanent disposition;
hypocrisies the acts flowing from it. “Malice delights in another‘s hurt; envy
pines at another‘s good; guile imparts duplicity to the heart; hypocrisy
(flattery) imparts duplicity to the tongue; evil-speakings
wound the character of another” [Augustine].
[20]
Or: There had been “malice” (i.e.,
ill will put into action) on the part of these Hebrew Christians against their
Gentile brethren, and “guile,” and “hypocrisies,” and “jealousies,” which are
all instances of concealed malice . Of these three, the first plots, the second
pretends not to plot, and the third rejoices to think of the plot
succeeding. [46]
all guile and
hypocrisies and envies. Guile wrongs; hypocrisy deceives; envy assails a
neighbor: all these things are injurious to love, on which see 1 Peter
1:22. [26]
“Guile” is deceitful and insincere; “hypocrisies” counterfeit and put forth the seeming
for the being; “envies” are displeased at and
depreciate the ability, prosperity, performance, or reputation of others. [39]
and all guile
[deceit, NKJV]. i.e
every form of the disposition to reach selfish ends artfully or by
deception. In 1 Peter
Giving up
“some” of our pet “demons” is not necessarily all that hard. We will decide to get drunk “only” on
Saturday nights; we will use illegal drugs “only” if it’s been a really bad
week. What Peter is urging is that we
aim to eradicate them rather than just more-or-less “minimize” them (a
mentality that unfortunately leaves plenty of “fudging” room). The challenge becomes especially difficult
when we have allowed any of our faults to become habitual, our “norm.” Changing “norms” of behavior can be hard because
change, typically, is hard. But
that does not eliminate its desirability.
[rw]
and hypocrisies. e.g, putting the
intended victim of wickedness and guile off his guard by a show of
friendliness. [45]
The word means, feigning to be what we are not;
assuming a false appearance of religion; cloaking a wicked purpose under the
appearance of piety. [31]
These ‘hypocrisies’ are in strong contrast to the
love “unfeigned,” literally “unhypocritical,” in 1
Peter 1:22. The word (which is used in
Galatians
and envies. The
“envies” (the only vice in this list which is explicitly named in Paul’s
enumeration of the “works of the flesh,” Galatians
We often think
of envy as targeting the “big” things in life, such as fame and fortune, and it
certainly operates in those spheres. But
it can also operate in the “minor” areas as well: he has a new lawnmower, he had
a car that’s a year newer than mine; he got a better room at the resort
than I did. Allowing envy to continue
easily leads to hypercriticism and blinds us to the times when we were
the “lucky ones.” Should we treat others
with the annoyance we would recognize as unjust if we ourselves were the
targets? [rw]
and all evil speakings. Evil-speakings insinuate, defame, backbite, and carry
injurious tales. [39]
Slander, scandal, ill-natured gossip. These vices, it is implied, are a survival of
the old bad life, “the body of this death” (Romans
The term is one of
rare occurrence. The cognate verb,
indeed, is found occasionally in the Classics, and there with the twofold sense
of “babbling” and “railing.” But the
noun itself is unknown to classical Greek, although it is found occasionally in
the Septuagint (Wisdom
2:2 Translations
WEB: as
newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby,
Young’s: as
new-born babes the word's pure milk desire ye, that in it ye may grow,
Conte (RC): Like newborn infants, desire the milk
of reasonableness without guile, so that by this you
may increase unto salvation,
2:2 As
newborn babes. The [Greek] word signifying
peculiarly a child at birth, or of tender years. See Luke 18:15; Acts 7:19. Of the infant Jesus, Luke
The
suggestion of spiritual infancy is not intended here as a rebuke, but rather as
an encouragement to seek for the growth which all partakers of the new life
need. [7]
There is a true sense
in which the Christian should never grow out of infancy. As our Lord said, Matthew
18:3, “Except ye become as little children (παιδία) ye
cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” So here Christians, whatever may be their
standing, are to retain the simple innocent cravings of a babe at his mother’s
breast who desires no other food. [37]
Comparison of the imagery as used by
Paul and by Peter [23]. The
sense in which this expression is used here differs from the use of it in 1
Corinthians 3:1: “And I, brethren, could
not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in
Christ.” The spiritual growth of the
Corinthians had been arrested and dwarfed; they never developed, but remained
babes, a spiritual monstrosity. But the
meaning here is entirely different.
Believers should be at all times like new-born babes hungering for that
which the Lord has provided for spiritual growth, the milk in all its purity as
found in His Word. The mother by which
we are begotten again, that is the living and abiding Word of God, has also the
nourishment for the life we have received.
In this sense the child of God must always be like a healthy babe,
always craving, hungering and thirsting for the pure milk as provided in His
Word. [23]
desire. The word for
“desire” here is a strong word—get an appetite for it. Bengel is perhaps
right when he says on “newborn babes,” “It is their only occupation, so strong
is their desire for it.” St. Peter here
again seems to lend a thought to the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews
the sincere [pure,
NKJV]. The pure spiritual
truths of the gospel. [14]
Guileless, unadulterated, and
undiluted. Irenaeus
says of heretics, “They mix chalk with their milk.” [39]
The negative of the word translated “guile” in the
first verse. [13]
The epithet “sincere” should have been rendered
guileless, as it contains a contrast with “guile” in the verse before; perhaps
the intention of the epithet may be to rebuke the attempt to deal deceitfully
with the Old Testament Scriptures. [46]
milk of the
word.
The Gospel of Christ. [42]
The life which has been begotten in the regeneration
must also be nourished; and as they, because they had only been recently
converted, can yet be compared with little children, their food is here termed
milk. And for this food they must have a
longing as a child has for its mother’s milk, so that their newly begotten life
may be developed farther toward the goal of redemption, whereas the natural man
only with the impure motive of selfishness seeks to harm the neighbor. [9]
Peter here calls the Word of God “milk,” because by its indwelling divine power it nourishes the new life. There is no antithesis here between the milk (rudiments of the faith) and the meat (deeper truths) of the Word, as in 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 6:1. [50]
It is simply a figurative expression for the food
which they must have, seeing that they are now in a new life. What the food is which is indicated by the
“milk,” is not stated, but is left to be inferred from the context, which
certainly points neither to the Eucharist, as some strangely imagine, nor even
to Christ, as the Logos preached in the Word (so Weiss), but simply to the Word
itself. [51]
that ye may grow
thereby. To full maturity in
knowledge and grace. [39]
Grow in Christian knowledge and wisdom, in
faith, hope, and love; in humility, resignation, patience, gentleness,
long-suffering, in all holiness and righteousness, unto the full measure of
Christ’s stature. In the former chapter
the apostle had represented the word of God as the incorruptible seed, by which
the believers, to whom he wrote, had been born again, and by obeying which they
had purified their souls; here he represents it as the milk by which the
new-born babes in Christ grow up to maturity.
The word, therefore, is both the principle by which the divine life is produced
in the soul, and the food by which it is nourished. [47]
[Added at end of
verse: into salvation, ESV; in respect to salvation, NASB]. The
better MSS. add the words unto salvation. Though not essential to the sense, they give
a worthy completeness to it, and it is not easy to understand how they came to
be omitted in the later MSS. [38]
Comments on “unto
salvation:” Growth
needed continual nourishment.
“Salvation,” originally deliverance from physical danger, or a state of
safety, is commonly used in the New Testament of the deliverance wrought by
Christ. It is not thought of as
something [fully, rw]
accomplished at the time of conversion, but as the mature state, into which
the new life will ultimately grow, or as a gift to be bestowed when maturity is
attained (1:5); cf. Romans 13:11, “Now is salvation nearer to us than when we
first believed”; Philippians 2:12, “Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling”; and, for the general idea of growth, Ephesians 4:11-15, “ . . .
unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature
of the fullness of Christ: that we may
be no longer children . . . but . . . may grow up in all things into him.”
In depth: “Newborn” and the intended audience for the
epistle [45]. It has
been argued from the use of the word “newborn” that they Epistle must have been
addressed to recent converts, and therefore not to the Pauline churches in Asia
Minor, some of which had existed fifteen or twenty years when 1 Peter was
written—supposing the Epistle [was] written about A.D. 60-65—but to churches
recently formed, perhaps from amongst the Jewish communities in Asia
Minor. But in his use of the terms “new
birth,” “begotten again,” &c., our author is not thinking of the recent
date of the conversion of his readers, but of the complete change which it
should have wrought in their life and character.
In
churches which had only existed fifteen or twenty years, during which
Christianity had been spreading rapidly, a large proportion of the members must
have been recent converts. Even to men
who had been Christians a dozen years or more, their religion would still seem
a novelty in comparison with their former heathen faith in which they had been
born, and grown up, and perhaps come to middle life, and which their ancestors
had held for centuries.
2:3 Translations
WEB: if
indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious:
Young’s: if so
be ye did taste that the Lord is gracious,
Conte (RC): if it is true that you have tasted that
the Lord is sweet.
2:3 If so be ye have
tasted. The word “tasted” as applied to those
experiences follows naturally, as in Hebrews 6:4, on the imagery of the
milk. [38]
The tense (a simple
historical past, not “have tasted,” as both A.V. and R.V. give it) describes
the experience as one belonging definitely to the past, and points, therefore,
to what they found the Lord to be when they first came to know Him. [51]
that the Lord is gracious. The
Greek word for “gracious” itself carries on the metaphor of the tasting, being
applied in Luke 5:39 to express the mellowness of wine ripened by age. [38]
The quotation, or rather adaptation, from Psalms 34:8
is, no doubt, suggested by the metaphor of “milk.” A curious little point about our translation
here is that the word “gracious” has been adopted to suit the Prayer Book
version of the Psalm. It is scarcely
suitable to the Greek word, which, originally signifying “usable,”
“serviceable,” passes on to be used of anything mild and pleasant, as, for
instance, in Luke 5:39, of the mellowness of old wine. Here, therefore, the word seems to be
peculiarly used with reference to the sense of taste. A more important point, doctrinally, is that
Peter is here applying to Jesus Christ (as the next verse shows) a passage
which otherwise we might not have thought of applying to Him in
particular. It gives quite a new
complexion to the 34th Psalm, when we see that in Peter’s view the Psalmist was
speaking prophetically of our Lord. We shall find him quoting the same Psalm in
the same sense again in 1 Peter 3:10. [46]
the Lord. The
Lord Jesus Christ, as appears by the next verse. [28]
In depth: Thoughts on the source and application of the
text. From
Psalms 34:8: compare Hebrews 6:5. The
Lord in the Psalm is Jehovah. As in
other places in NT, words spoken of Him are applied to Christ, through whom God
is manifested to man (Hebrews
It is possible that
he may have been led to choose the quotation from the close resemblance in
sound between the two Greek words for “Christ” (Christos) and “gracious” (Chrestos). The
acceptance of the name of Christian as carrying with it this significance, and
being, as it were, nomen et omen, was common in the second century (Tertullian Apol.
100:3), and it would have been quite in accordance with Jewish habits of
thought for Peter to have anticipated that application. [38]
In the Psalm the term refers to what may be
tasted and seen, and does not, therefore, describe a quality peculiar to food,
but applies to Jehovah as the giver of blessings, whose goodness is
known by tasting and seeing His gifts.
So here also, according to the “gracious” of the English Versions, a
meaning it often has in the N.T. But
both in the N.T. and the LXX, chrestos is used
of food, in a sense also common in classical Greek, viz., “palatable,
wholesome, nourshing”—of figs in Jeremiah 24:2,
&c., of wine in Luke 5:39. Cf. also
Matthew 11:30, “My yoke is chrestos,” E.V.
“easy.” Moreover, the “and see” of the
Psalm may be ignored in order to continue the figure of food consistently to
the end. Hence the Vulgate translates
“how sweet the Lord is,” and this view is taken by many modern scholars. [ - ]
2:4 Translations
WEB: coming
to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious.
Young’s: to
whom coming -- a living stone -- by men, indeed, having been disapproved of,
but with God choice, precious,
Conte (RC): And approaching him as if he were
a living stone, rejected by men, certainly, but elect
and honored by God,
2:4 To whom coming. By
faith: q.d. In whom believing, John
And: The believer must continually come to
the Lord Jesus Christ in prayer, “drawing near with a true heart in full
assurance of faith” (Hebrews
as unto a living stone. Living from eternity; alive
from the dead. [15]
This expression is intended to denote, not merely
that it is only in a figurative sense that Christ is called a stone, but
likewise that he has life in himself, and therefore does not crumble away, as
the broken in contrast with the live stone.
[6]
Christ is called a “stone” or rock, “because after
the manner of rocks, He remains ever the same, unchangeably powerful and
invincible; because His word is firm and immovable, and because God has
ordained and designed Him to be the foundation of His spiritual temple” (Fronmueller). He is
called a living stone, because He is
“the Living one, “alive for evermore” (Revelation
A
widespread prophetic precedent? Observe how very frequently the rock of stone
is in Holy Scripture a type or name of the Lord Jesus. The stone which Jacob anointed (Genesis
28:18); the rock stuck by Moses (Exodus 17:6); the great rock whose shadow
gives shelter in a weary land (Isaiah 32:2); the stone cut out of the mountain
(Daniel 2:34-35); the stone laid before Joshua (Zechariah 3:9); the white stone
(Revelation 2:17); the rock on which David prays to be set up (Psalm 61:3); the
rock upon which the wise man built his house (Matthew 7:24): all these—and there are many other such
expressions—are types or prophecies of Christ our Savior. [42]
Isaiah
28 specifically in mind? The apostle alludes to Isaiah 28:16,
where the formation of a Christian church, for the spiritual worship of God, is
foretold under the image of a temple, which God was to build on the Messiah as
the foundation-stone thereof. There is a
wonderful beauty and energy in these expressions, which describe Christ as a
spiritual foundation, solid, firm, durable; and believers as a spiritual
building erecting thereon, in preference to that temple which the Jews
accounted their highest glory; and Peter, speaking of him thus, shows he did
not judge himself, but Christ, to be the rock on which the church was
built. [47]
“Stone”
and the name “Peter.” The word for stone here is an
entirely different word from the term which is identical with the personal name
Peter, and this prevents us from supposing (with Bengel,
Canon Farrar, etc.) that the apostle was thinking here of the new name (Peter =
rock or stone) which he had himself received from Christ. He uses the term simply as a well-understood
Old Testament title of Messiah, as he uses it again in his discourse after the
healing of the cripple (Acts 4:11), and as Christ Himself employs it in order
to point the application of the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matthew
21:42). Peter, indeed, as some suppose,
may have been that “one of His disciples” who, as Jesus “went out of the
temple,” said unto him, “Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings
are here,” and who now pointed his readers to that Master Himself as the chief
corner-stone of a more glorious temple slowly rising out of more imperishable
material. [51]
disallowed [rejected,
NKJV] indeed of men. Rejected, not only by
the unbelieving Jews and their rulers formerly, but still by the unbelieving
world. [28]
There is no
reference here to the Jews as distinguished from others. There is simply a broad contrast drawn
between two kinds of treatment accorded to the “living stone,” one on the side
of men, and another on the side of God. [51]
but chosen of God. i.e chosen by God as
qualified for His object. [51]
Chosen by God
by meeting the standards He has prescribed for acceptance. Governments with a military “choose” the
criteria for service and those who don’t meet it are rejected. Similarly, God has set the criteria for being
part of His people and it is by the voluntary act of accepting and embracing
those requirements that one becomes part of His people. [rw]
and precious. Peter
has reference to Isaiah 28:16, “a tried stone, a precious cornerstone of sure
foundation.” This Christ is the chosen servant in whom God delighteth (Isaiah xlii. 1), precious, held in honor. The
contrast lies between the human judgment, rejected,
leading to His crucifixion, and the divine,
chosen, and honored, leading to
His glorification. [50]
2:5 Translations
WEB: You
also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ.
Young’s: and ye
yourselves, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ.
Conte (RC): be also yourselves like living stones,
built upon him, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood,
so as to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ.
2:5 Ye also, as
lively stones. Better, “as living stones,”
there being no reason for a variation in the English [from “a living stone” in
verse 4], to which there is nothing corresponding in the Greek. The repetition of the same participle gives
prominence to the thought that believers are sharers in the life of Christ, and
that, in the building up of the spiritual temple, each of these “living stones”
takes its voluntary, though not self-originated, part. [38]
All sinners are the
devil’s dead rocks, while Christians are God’s living stones. The
are built up a
spiritual house. Being spiritual yourselves, and an habitation of God through the Spirit. [15]
A spiritual temple,
not made of perishable materials, like that at Jerusalem net composed of
matter, as that was, but made up of redeemed souls--a temple more appropriate
to be the residence of one who is a pure spirit. [31]
He is not thinking
of an actual house. He is thinking of
the Christians of Asia Minor: You can
[picture them] as going into this spiritual building of which Christ is a
living stone, the foundation. Did
anybody ever say anything like that to Peter?
“Thou art Peter. On this rock I
will build.” [43]
The figure changes
to the coming together of stones to a cornerstone to form a building, a New
Testament figure for the close and permanent union of Christians with their
Master and with one another; such union can only exist as the result of the
mutual affection on which the Apostle is insisting. The stones of a building cannot be rightly
united with and adjusted to the corner stone if they do not also fit into and
support each other. Cf. Ephesians
2:20-21, “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building,
fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in
the Lord.” The figure is similarly used
in 1 Corinthians 3:17,
house. The church. God's spiritual temple of
which the temple was a type. [22]
Though the noun
means simply “house,” and not “temple,” and the adjective “spiritual” is added
simply to distinguish it from a material structure, it is no doubt the temple
that Peter has in view. The phrase
itself may be in apposition to the subject “ye” (Hofmann, etc.), or (as most
prefer) it may express the end contemplated in the being built. It may be that they are to be built up on
the Foundation in the character of, or because they are, a spiritual
house; or it may be rather that they are to be built up in order to make
a spiritual house. At this point Peter
introduces the idea which was so alien to the Jewish mind (cf. Mark 14:58; John
2:21), but by this time as familiar to him as it was to Paul (Ephesians
2:20-22, etc.), that the real temple of God was not the great House in
Jerusalem, and that Christ’s flock, without distinction, too, of Jew and
Gentile, was the true Israel, temple, and priesthood of God. [51]
an holy
priesthood. This is said, not of a distinct class, as of
ministers, but of the whole body of believers.
[39]
The legal sacrifices were to be offered by the
priests alone, and only in the temple:
accordingly the Christian church is here represented as God’s temple;
the praises they offer up to God in their assemblies are styled “spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ,” Hebrews
And it is called a royal priesthood, as
Christians may be called metaphorically kings, by governing their passions, or
because they are invited to reign with Christ in his kingdom, to sit on his
throne. See Apocalypse 3:21. [12]
They are to be so built in order to make not only a
spiritual house, but also a holy priesthood, and the spiritual house itself is
to rise with a view to, or, so as also to become, the holy
priesthood. As
God’s people once were, the house and the priesthood were distinct; now they
are one. [51]
Old
Testament precedents possibly in mind. [They are]
not only God’s temple, but the priests that serve him in that temple; that is,
persons dedicated to and employed for God.
Thus, [in] Isaiah 61:6, it is foretold that, in the days of the Messiah,
the people of God should be named the priests of the Lord, and the
ministers of our God; as also Isaiah 66:21.
Christians are called a priesthood, in
the same sense that the Israelites were called a kingdom of priests, Exodus 19:6. The apostle’s design, in giving these titles
to real Christians, is partly to show that they are dedicated to God in heart
and life, and also that in the Christian church or temple, there is no need of
the mediation of priests to present our prayers to God. Every sincere worshipper has access to the
Father through Christ, as if he were really a priest himself. [47]
holy. The epithet “holy” simply marks off the priesthood as consecrated according to the idea of a priesthood. [51]
priesthood. The noun expressing the priesthood itself is
one entirely strange to profane Greek, but found in the LXX, and once again in
the N.T. (1 Peter 2:9 of this chapter).
It denotes priests not in their individual capacity, but as a collective
body or college. It by no means follows,
however, that it implies the existence of different degrees of
priesthood among Christians (Canon Mason), or that it bears upon “the office of
a vicarious priesthood, representing and acting on behalf of the body
corporate” (Canon Cook). The one thing
it affirms is that all Christians as such, and without distinction,
constitute a priestly fraternity corresponding to the community of priests
established under the Law, and realizing the complete idea of a priesthood
which the former college, with its limitation in numbers, and its sharp
separation from the people, and its ritual service, imperfectly and distantly
exhibited. “The name priest,” says John
Owen, “is nowhere in Scripture attributed peculiarly and distinctly to the
ministers of the Gospel as such; that which puts a difference between them and
the rest of the people of God’s holiness seems to be a more direct
participation of Christ’s prophetical, not sacerdotal, office. When Christ ascended on high, He gave some to
be prophets, Ephesians 4:11;
none, as we find, to be priests. Priests are a sort of church-officers whom Christ never appointed”
(see Dr. John Brown in loc.).
In the next few verses, Peter lingers lovingly over this great principle
of grace, the priesthood of all believers, the right of every soul to go direct
to God with its sins, and receive for itself His forgiveness through Christ—the
principle which the early Church proclaimed (“are not we who are laics also
priests?”—Tertullian, de Exhort. Castitatis, chap, 7), which was lost in the theology and
ecclesiasticism of the
to offer up
spiritual sacrifices. Prayer, thanksgiving,
adoration, and praise. [14]
It
is called sacrifice, not because it makes an expiation
for sin, but because it is of the nature of worship. [31]
If Christians are
the spiritual house and the holy priesthood which make all necessity for a
separate temple and a limited priesthood vanish, they must serve in priestly
fashion Him whose house they make. Their
service is to offer “sacrifices,” and these, in conformity with the service
itself, must be not material but “spiritual.”
[51]
“Offer up” is the common word for presenting upon the
altar; but the “sacrifices” are bloodless and “spiritual.” First
of all, is the sacrifice of ourselves and our entire
existence; then follow our thoughts, words, actions, with the specific acts of
thanksgiving, praise, prayer, mercy, and beneficence, for the Lord’s sake. It is significant that Peter omits all intimation
of a sacerdotal order, with himself at its head, and all allusion to himself as
of more importance in building God’s house than any of his brother
apostles. [39]
acceptable to God. So
Romans 12:1, “I beseech you . . . to present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable to God;” Philippians 4:18, “having received . . . the things
that come from you . . . a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God;” Hebrews
13:16, “to do good and to bestow alms, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is
well-pleased.” The same idea is also
found in the Old Testament, e.g., Psalms 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit;” cf. also 1 Samuel
by Jesus Christ. Cf. Hebrews 13:15, “Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God.” As nourished by the life of Christ, bound up with him, and therefore with one another, like the stones of a building with its corner-stone, we are able to make acceptable offerings. [45]
The meaning, therefore, seems to be (as Luther, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, Huther, etc., read it) = to offer up spiritual sacrifices
which through Jesus Christ are acceptable to God. To Him to whom we owe our first consecration
as priests to God, we owe also the continued acceptance of all that we offer in
our priestly ministry. [51]
In depth: The broadness of the priesthood concept in
Peter and Paul [51]. The best interpreters are
practically at one in recognizing the doctrinal bearings of this brief but
important section. Peter here expresses what Bishop Lightfoot (Comm. on Philip,
2:6 Translations
WEB: Because
it is contained in Scripture, "Behold, I lay in
Young’s: Wherefore,
also, it is contained in the Writing: 'Lo, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone,
choice, precious, and he who is believing on him may not be put to shame;'
Conte (RC): Because of this, Scripture asserts:
“Behold, I am setting in
elect, precious. And whoever will have believed
in him will not be confounded.”
2:6 Wherefore also it is
contained in the scripture. The quotation is taken from Isaiah 28:16,
where the believer is encouraged to trust to the sure foundation-stone, laid by Jehovah in
The scripture” never
means the Old Testament as a whole, which would be called “the Scriptures,” but
is always the particular book or passage of the Old Testament. [46]
Behold, I lay in Sion. So Paul,
too (Romans
a chief corner stone. The principal stone on which the corner of the edifice rests.
A stone is selected for this which is large and solid, and, usually, one which
is squared, and worked with care; and as such a stone is commonly laid with
solemn ceremonies, so, perhaps, in allusion to this, it is here said by God
that he would lay this stone at the foundation. The solemnities attending this
were those which accompanied the great work of the Redeemer. [31]
The corner-stone is that stone in the foundation on
which the angle of the building rests, and which is all-important to the
stability of the building and the coherence of its parts. There is no reference here, however, to the
union effected through Christ between Jew and Gentile (as Luther supposes), far
less to Christ as “the connecting link of the Old and New Testaments” (Fronmüller). [51]
But whether the stone immediately in
Isaiah’s view is to be identified with Jehovah Himself, with the Davidic King,
with the theocracy, with the Temple, or with the promise made to David and his
house (2 Samuel 7:12, 16), in Peter it is Christ Himself who is that Son of
David in whom the kingdom was to reach its final glory, and in whom that
promise is fulfilled. [51]
elect. Hence, "chosen by God" (1 Peter
2:4). [22]
precious. “Precious” is used in the two senses of “honored” or “honorable,” and “valuable,” and would suggest both meanings to a Greek reader. “Precious” is an unfortunate translation, because it suggests “precious stones” or “jewels,” and it is certainly not meant that the “stone” was a jewel. [45]
and he that
believeth on him shall not be confounded [put to shame, NKJV]. The
meaning of the Hebrew is fairly expressed by the English version, “He that
believeth shall not make haste,” i.e. shall go on his way calmly and
trustfully, shall not be put to a hurried or hasty flight. Here Peter follows the LXX which expresses
substantially the same thought. [38]
The clause which appears at once in Peter, in Paul,
and in the LXX as “shall not be confounded” (or rather, put to shame),
stands in the Hebrew text as “shall not make haste,” or “shall not flee in
trepidation,” i.e. shall stand firm.
The clause, therefore, is not a mere parallel to the previous “grow unto
salvation,” pointing to security in the final judgment (Schott), but gives a
general assurance expressive of the confidence of those to whom the prophetic
promise is fulfilled in Christ. [51]
In depth: Argument
that Peter is citing the text as illustration
of the truth rather than in the narrower sense of directly prophetic of the fact being argued [51]. [The key
words discussed are translated “because it is contained in scripture”
[ASV, ERV]; “therefore” in NKJV; “for this is contained in Scripture,”
NASB. rw]
The
formula by which the passage is introduced (not “wherefore also,” but, as the
best authorities read, “because”) is the same as has been found twice already
in similar connections (1 Peter
This is confirmed by the indefinite and impersonal
phrase, it is contained in Scripture, or, in a scripture (the reading “in the Scripture” is
doubtful), as well as by the fact that the words are given neither exactly as
they stand in the Hebrew text nor exactly as the LXX Version renders them, but
(as is also the case with Paul’s use of them in Romans 9:33) with a number of
significant variations. The point of the
passage, therefore, seems to be this: the reason why they are to be built up
into a spiritual house with the view to being a holy priesthood offering
spiritual sacrifices, lies in its having been God’s will, as that is expressed
in Scripture, to make Christ the foundation of His Church with that object (cf.
Hofmann, Schott, etc.).
In depth: Isaiah
28:16 in its two New Testament apostolic quotations in 1 Peter 2:6 and Romans
Isaiah 28:16 is also quoted
in Romans
Probably Peter had
Romans 9:33 before him, or in his mind, when he was writing this passage: because (1) this passage and Romans agree in
some details of expression in which both differ from the LXX; (2) both combine
with Isaiah 28:16 the phrase from Isaiah 8:14; (3) both agree in omitting
certain phrases in the LXX.
It is true that there 1
Peter differs from Romans it agrees with the LXX; but Peter may have partially
corrected his quotation from the LXX; or, being familiar with both the LXX and
Romans, and writing from memory, he may have unconsciously combined the two.
An alternative view is
that both 1 Peter and Romans are based on an edition of the LXX, differing from
the one preserved in extant manuscripts.
Peter’s use of the text as referring to faithful believers
of his own day rather than those at the time of the original prophet [46]. Our
version of Isaiah translates the Hebrew original by the unintelligible “shall
not make haste.” It really means, shall
not flee. While all the Jewish rulers,
who had turned faithless and trusted in their finesse with
This, of course, did not come literally true in the
first instance, where a common temporal overthrow came upon faithful and
faithless alike, from
St. Peter adds to “believe” the words “on Him” or “on it,” which are found in neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of Isaiah, such an addition being quite in keeping with the Rabbinic method of quotation, which frequently alters words (compare Matthew 2:6) to bring out the concealed intention more fully.
The general quality of “faith” of which the prophet
spoke, i.e., reliance on the promises of God, becomes faith in Him in whom the
promises are fulfilled. For a like cause
Peter prefers the LXX “be ashamed” to the Hebrew “flee away,” there being
(except at the Fall of Jerusalem) no opportunity for actual flight. It comes to the same thing in the end: “shall not find his confidence misplaced.”
2:7 Translations
WEB: For
you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those
who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected, has become
the chief cornerstone,"
Young’s: to
you, then, who are believing is the preciousness; and to the unbelieving, a
stone that the builders disapproved of, this one did become for the head of a
corner,
Conte (RC): Therefore, to you who believe, he is
honor. But to those who do not believe, the stone
which the builders have rejected, the same has been
made into the head of the corner,
2:7 Unto you therefore
which believe he is precious
[So the honor is for you who believe, English Standard Version]. Christians
are often called simply “believers,” because faith in the Savior is one of the
prominent characteristics by which they are distinguished from their
fellow-men. It sufficiently describes
any man, to say that he is a believer in the Lord Jesus. [31]
Comments based upon the alternative translation: More
accurately, “Unto you therefore that believe there is the honour.” The
last words stand in direct connection with the “shall not be ashamed” of the
previous verse, and are not a predicate asserting what Christ is, but declare
that honor, not shame, is the portion of those who believe on Him. [38]
Most interpreters now agree that the subject of the
sentence is not Christ Himself, but what is called (in reference, that is, to
the dignity expressed in the former sentence) “the honor,” i.e. the
honor already spoken of, and that the predicate is the “for you.” This was also recognized, indeed, by Wycliffe
and the Rheims Version. There is some difference, however, as to the
precise reference of the noun. Some
(Gerhard, Brückner, Weiss, Schott, Huther, etc.) take it to
repeat in positive form what was implied in the negative clause, “shall not be
put to shame.” Others (Wiesinger, etc.) think it goes back to the definition of
the Stone as “precious” or “honorable” (1 Peter 2:6), the sense being that the
value which the Stone has in God’s sight is a value
which it has for them who believe. This
seems favoured by the rendering of the R.V., “for you
. . . is the preciousness.” Others (Alford,
Fronmüller, Cook) combine
these references, and this comes nearest the truth. The sentence takes up the whole idea, which
has just been expressed, of an honor in which the foundation stands with God,
and what that fact carries with it to believers. Mr. Humphry,
therefore, rightly takes the full sense to amount to this, “For you who believe
in Him, for your sakes, is this preciousness, this honor which He possesses;
that so far from being ‘put to shame’ (1 Peter 2:6), ye may partake in it, be
yourselves precious in the sight of God” (Comm. on Rev. Version, p.
440). [51]
but unto them
which be disobedient. Literally,
“unwilling to be persuaded,” (ἀπειθὴς apeithēs) that is, those who refused to believe. [31]
The Greek word, like the English, expresses something
more than the mere absence of belief and implies a deliberate resistance. [38]
Two
variants of the nature of this disobedience: The reverse side of the
prophetic assurance is now exhibited, and, as the omission of the article
indicates, the persons are named now in a more general way, not as if definite
individuals were in view, but so as to include all of a certain kind. The reading varies here between two
participles, both of more positive import than the simple “unbelieving,” and
differing slightly from each other. They
mean “disbelieving,” or “refusing belief,” and point, therefore, either to the
state of disobedience which is the effect of unbelief (Alford), or (as the form
which is on the whole better supported rather implies) to the mind that
withstands evidence. [51]
the stone which
the builders. Jewish rulers. Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11. [14]
disallowed [rejected,
NKJV]. The
irony in this is that builders are supposed to be “professionals,” to know well
their craft. This is especially true of
those working in stone, who can so easily ruin a
structure’s quality or appearance by selecting the wrong material. But here they had the, literally, perfect
“stone”—and consciously rejected it.
What can this be but the most horrible of blunders? [rw]
the same is made the head of the corner [chief cornerstone, NKJV]. Without which the structure could not be built. [22]
The stone which once the builders, i.e. the leaders
of the people of
This
quotation is applied to our Lord by himself in Mark 12:10 and parallels, and by
Peter in Acts
The logic of the Old Testament text (Psalms 118:22) as
applied to Jesus of
The words which follow are quoted directly from the
LXX, and properly represent the Hebrew.
Almost all the best modern critics consider the Psalm from which this
verse is cited to be a late Psalm, written subsequent to the return from
In its first application the passage seems to mean as
follows: The speaker is
Thus this interpretation at once suggests the
admission of the Gentiles, humanity at large, into the architecture.
In the fulfillment Christ takes the place of
A further point is given to the quotation if we
suppose, with Hengstenberg, Delitzsch,
and others, that the remembrance of Isaiah’s prophecy of the “corner-stone” was
suggested to the original Psalmist by the works of the
Leighton well points out how sore a trial it was to
the faith of Jewish Christians to see that their own chosen people, even the
most learned of them, rejected Christ, and adds, “That they may know this makes
nothing against Him, nor ought to invalidate their faith at all, but rather
testifies with Christ, and so serves to confirm them in believing, the Apostle
makes use of those prophetical scriptures that foretell the unbelief and
contempt with which the most would entertain Christ.”
The historical setting of the Old
Testament text (Psalms 118:22) [51]. That Psalm is generally
regarded as a post-Exilian composition, and its
occasion has been variously identified with the celebration of the Feast of
Tabernacles in the year of the Return, as recorded in Ezra 3:4 (so Ewald, etc.), with the laying of the foundation-stone of
the Second Temple, as described in Ezra 3:8-13 (so Hengstenberg,
etc.), with the consecration of the Temple, as related in Ezra 6:5-18 (Delitzsch, etc.), or with the celebration of the Feast of
Tabernacles which Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:13-18) reports to have taken place on
the completion of the new Temple. In the
Psalm, therefore, the Stone would be a figure of
2:8 Translations
WEB: and,
"a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." For they stumble at
the word, being disobedient, to which also they were appointed.
Young’s: and a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offence -- who are stumbling at the word,
being unbelieving, -- to which also they were set;
Conte (RC): and a stone of offense, and a rock
of scandal, to those who are offended by the Word;
neither do they believe, though they also have
been built upon him.
2:8 And a stone of
stumbling, and a rock of offence. Literally
kicking at, and a rock of lameing. [3]
And
a stone of stumbling. In the original (Isaiah
Another quotation, no doubt suggested by the word “a stone,” but
conveying a totally different metaphor.
We shall find Peter in 1 Peter
and a rock of
offence [or: a rock to trip over,
Holman; a rock that makes them fall, NIV]. In the
sense of “offence:” anger, annoyance, because it causes offence by
making them stumble (“a rock of stumbling”).
Otherwise the stumbling image is to be taken as reinforced by the double
reference to it causing them to stagger or fall. [rw]
Namely, [a rock to trip over] to
the unbelieving and disobedient.
Thus Simeon (Luke
even to them which stumble at the word. Are offended at the
gospel and reject it. [14]
The “word,” as
before, is the sum and substance of the Gospel. Men opposing themselves to that
word, looking on it as an obstacle to be got rid of, were as those who rush
upon a firm-fixed stone, and who falling over it are sorely bruised. [38]
being disobedient. The stone rejected and disallowed becomes a criterion between the obedient and disobedient. It assumes even an active and hostile character, bringing retribution upon the disobedient and unbelieving. [40]
Instead of availing themselves of the blessings offered by the gospel, they refuse to submit to its influence, and so come into collision with the power and authority of Christ. At “being disobedient” the language ceases to be figurative and becomes literal. [45]
The
stumbling (again in the objective sense) and the disobedience are
related to each other as simultaneous things, or as cause and effect. Christ is what He is declared to be to a
certain class, when or because they disobey the Word. He is made a stone of stumbling only to those
who, by rejecting that Word, in point of fact turn God’s grace in Christ to
their own hurt. [51]
whereunto also they were
appointed. By God, who will bring upon them the
punishment they deserve. [14]
The [image developed] has suggested that the
stumbling naturally follows from unbelief; and the Apostle adds that such a
consequence of unbelief and disobedience is “also” part of the Divine
purpose. Cf. Jude 4, “They who were of
old set forth unto this condemnation.” [45]
In depth: “Appointed
to stumble”—in what sense? It wasn’t obligatory that they be disobedient, but
it was inevitable that so long as
there is freedom to choose there would be those who would make the wrong choice. They were “appointed” to the consequences of their free will
decision. This appears to be the point
Albert Barnes was driving at when he wrote the following [31]. The word “whereunto
“means unto which. But
unto what? It cannot be supposed
that it means that they were “appointed” to believe on him and be saved by him;
for: (1) this would involve all
the difficulty which is ever felt in the doctrine of decrees or election; for
it would then mean that he had eternally designated them to be saved, which is
the doctrine of predestination; and (2) if this were the true interpretation,
the consequence would follow that God had been foiled in his plan--for
the reference here is to those who would not be saved, that is, to those who
“stumble at that stumblingstone,” and are destroyed.
Calvin supposes
that it means, “unto which rejection and destruction
they were designated in the purpose of God.”
So
Clemens Romanus says it
means that “they were appointed, not that they should sin, but that, sinning,
they should be punished.” See Wetstein. So Macknight. “To which punishment
they were appointed.”
In reference to the meaning of this difficult
passage, it is proper to observe that there is in the Greek verb necessarily
the idea of designation, appointment, purpose.
There was some agency or intention by which they were put in that
condition; some act of placing or appointing (the word τίθημι tithēmi meaning to set, put, lay, lay down, appoint, constitute) by
which this result was brought about.
The fair sense, therefore, and
one from which we cannot escape, is, that this did not happen by chance or
accident, but that there was a divine arrangement, appointment, or plan on the
part of God in reference to this result, and that the result was in conformity
with that. So it is said in Jude [verse]
4, of a similar class of people, “For there are certain men crept in unawares,
who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.”
The facts
were these: 1) That
God appointed his Son to be the cornerstone of his church. (2) That there was a portion of the world
which, from some cause, would embrace him and be saved. (3) That there was another portion who, it was certain, would not embrace him. (4) That it was known that the appointment of
the Lord Jesus as a Savior would be the occasion of their rejecting him, and of
their deeper and more aggravated condemnation.
(5) That the
arrangement was nevertheless made, with the understanding that all this would
be so, and because it was best on the whole that it should be so, even
though this consequence would follow.
That is, it was better that the arrangement should be made for the
salvation of people even with this result, that a part would sink into deeper
condemnation, than that no arrangement should be made to save any. The primary
and originating arrangement, therefore, did not contemplate them or their
destruction, but was made with reference to others, and notwithstanding they
would reject him, and would fall. The
expression “whereunto” refers to this plan, as involving, under the
circumstances, the result which actually followed. And,
(6) It might he said in this sense, and in this connection, that
those who would reject him were appointed to this stumbling and falling. It was what was foreseen; what entered into
the general arrangement; what was involved in the purpose to save any. It was not a matter that was unforeseen, that
the consequence of giving a Savior would result in the condemnation of those
who should crucify and reject him; but the whole thing, as it actually
occurred, entered into the divine arrangement.
It may be added, that as, in the
facts in the case, nothing wrong has been done by God, and no one has been
deprived of any rights, or punished more than he deserves, it was not wrong in
him to make the arrangement. It was better that the arrangement should be made
as it is, even with this consequence, than that none at all should be made for
human salvation. They are not forced or
compelled to do it; but it was seen that this consequence would follow, and the
plan was laid to send the Savior notwithstanding.
On the same
broad theme: predestined to stumble or
predestined to stumble if they decide to
reject Christ [47]? Even to
them which stumble, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed —
This translation of the clause seems to imply that those who are disobedient
were appointed to be so; but the original does not convey that sense, but is
literally rendered, Who, disobeying the word, stumble, to which also they
were appointed: that is, those
who disobey the word are appointed to stumble, namely, at the stone of
stumbling here spoken of, according to the prediction of Isaiah, Isaiah
8:14-15; He shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling,
&c., to both the houses of Israel; that is, to those that are
unbelieving and disobedient; and many among them shall stumble and fall, and
be broken, and snared, and taken. This is what God has appointed, that they who reject Christ shall
stumble at him, and fall into misery and ruin: or, that he who believeth not shall be
damned: the unalterable decree of
the God of heaven. Or the words may,
with equal propriety, be rendered, Unto which stumbling they were
disposed; those who disbelieve and disobey the gospel; being, through
blindness of mind and perverseness of will, disposed to reject Christ, stumble
at him, and fall into eternal ruin. [47]
On the same theme: It is to be observed, too, that
the verb introduced here is not the term which bears the technical sense of foreordaining,
but one which (with a single doubtful exception in 1 Thessalonians 5:9) is
always used in the New Testament of things done in time (cf. John 15:16; Acts
20:28; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11). There is, therefore, no affirmation here
of a predestination of some to unbelief.
Whatever ordination is asserted, is, as Wetstein
briefly puts it, an ordination “not that they shall sin, but that, if
sinning, they shall be punished.”
Just as it is said in 1 Peter 2:6, “Behold, I lay (or, set)
in
2:9 Translations
WEB: But
you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's
own possession, that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out
of darkness into his marvelous light:
Young’s: and ye
are a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that
the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of
darkness did call you to His wondrous light;
Conte (RC): But you are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, an acquired people,
so that you may announce the virtues of him who
has called you out of darkness into his marvelous
light.
2:9 But ye are. In a higher sense than ever the Jews
were. [15]
a chosen. Literally, elect, (or
choice, select, excellent) generation, a kingly priesthood. [3]
These words
were all said of the older election, the people of
generation [race, ESV, NASB]. This seems to refer to Deuteronomy 10:15: “Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day;” and Isaiah 43:20, “I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen,” but this latter may refer more particularly to the people of God under the New Dispensation. [41]
They are the chosen generation (cf. Is. 43:20), a priesthood serving God as their King (cf. Exodus 19:6), a holy nation, a people chosen to be the property of God (cf. Malachi 3:17), which, according to Isaiah 43:21, had the mission of proclaiming the glorious attributes of God, as the one who has called them from the darkness of misery to the wonderful light of His salvation, and glorifying Him unto all the world. [9]
It
is more than doubtful whether, in the use of the successive terms race,
nation, people (which are simply taken from the LXX), Peter had in view any
such distinctions as those between people as of like descent, people as of like
customs, and people as an organized body (Steiger). But all four terms point to the fact that
believers are not a mere aggregate of individuals, but form a unity, and, indeed,
the only unity worthy of the name. So
they are designated, first of all, in words suggested probably by Isaiah 43:20,
a race (not merely a generation, as the A.V. here, and only here,
renders the term), a body with community of life and descent. [51]
a royal
priesthood. “Royal” as appointed by their King, royal as
called, to share his dignity and his glory.
[7]
“A kingdom of priests,”
Exodus 19:6. Every believer is
both king and priest. [39]
It is hypocrisy for
men to claim for the laity the honor of priesthood, whilst they do nothing to
remind them of the duties of priesthood.
[41]
an holy nation. Exodus
19:6. Because called by a holy God. [39]
A nation separated from others, consecrated unto God,
and expected to manifest the moral nature and purity of God. [7]
A nation holy in the
sense of dedicated or consecrated to God, which they were by their passage
through the
a peculiar
people [His own special people, NKJV]. “God’s flock,” that is what the old word
“peculiar” used to mean. [43]
This somewhat singular word calls for a special
note. The English translators appear to
have used the term in its strictly etymological and almost forensic sense. The people of Christ, like
Or:
This is a remarkable phrase, and seems to be an application of
Deuteronomy 4:20: “The Lord hath taken
you and brought you out of the iron furnace, to be unto him a people of
inheritance, as ye are this day.” The
Revisers translate it, “A people for God’s own possession.” Peculiar is right if we understand by it a
peculiar or special possession. [41]
that ye should shew forth [proclaim, NKJV]. By your whole behavior, to all mankind. [15]
the praises [excellencies, ESV] of him. “The praises of him,” rather “the virtues of Him,” meaning by virtues His power and attributes, as well as His love to men. [41]
The word for “praises” is that commonly used by Greek
ethical writers for “virtue,” and is so rendered in Philippians 4:8 and 2 Peter
1:3, 5. Peter’s choice of the term was
determined apparently by its use in the LXX of Isaiah 43:21. Here, since the associations of the word in
English hardly allow us to speak of the “virtues” of God, “excellences” would
perhaps be a more adequate rendering. [38]
who hath called
you out of darkness into his marvellous light. In this
and the next verse Peter surely has in mind Gentile Christians. [22]
darkness. The realm of ignorance,
sin, and wretchedness. [39]
Darkness is, of course, the natural symbol for man’s
ignorance of God (compare John
This does not refer to converts from Gentilism only. All
unbelieving Jews were in darkness, as the Lord said: “I am the light of the world, he that
believeth in me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”
(John
In depth: By “a royal
priesthood” does Peter mean a priesthood ruled
by a king or a kingdom consisting of
priests [51]? His
second title is taken from the description of
The form of the adjective used here (and probably nowhere else in the New Testament) means, however, belonging to a king, or worthy of a king, and never “consisting of kings,” or “having kingly rule.” The phrase itself, too, represents a Hebrew phrase which is understood, indeed, by the Syriac Version, the Targums, the Septuagint, and a few commentators, such as Keil, to denote a kingship of priests, or a body of priests with kingly honor, but is held by most to mean a kingdom consisting of priests, a community ruled by a king, and dedicated to His service, and having the priestly right of access to Him (see Dillmann on Exodus 19:6).
Hence the import of the title as applied by Peter
depends on the question whether he uses it in the proper sense of the Greek
terms, or in the sense of the original Hebrew as inexactly rendered by the
LXX. In the latter case, it will mean “a
kingdom indeed, but one of priests.” In
favor of this it is urged that it retains the analogy of the other titles, each
of which names some purely natural or national community, and qualifies it by a
distinctive epithet. They are named, that is to say, a race, but are
distinguished from others as elect, a nation but a holy one,
a people but a peculiar one, and, in the same way, a kingdom but
one of priestly order and membership. In
the former case, the idea will be simply that of a priesthood “belonging to a
king,” or “of kingly honor.”
WEB: who
in time past were no people, but now are God's people, who had not obtained
mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Young’s: who
were once not a people, and are now the people of God; who had not found
kindness, and now have found kindness.
Conte (RC): Though in past times you were not a
people, yet now you are the people of God. Though
you had not obtained mercy, yet now you have
obtained mercy.
Or: Not
even a people, much less the people of God.
[26]
but are now the people of God. In them
is fulfilled what in Hosea 2:23 is written concerning the people of God who
were formerly rejected on account of this sin, but who in the age of redemption
had again been taken back in grace. For,
before their conversion, they, too, had been led, by their life among the
heathen, to become deeply involved in the sins of the Gentiles; but in Christ,
not only has God accepted them in grace, but they, and
they alone, are those in whom all the promises of their nation are to be fulfilled. [9]
There is an allusion here to the passage in Hosea
2:23. It is, however, a mere allusion,
such as one makes who uses the language of another to
express his ideas, without meaning to say that both refer to the same
subject. In Hosea, the passage refers
evidently to the reception of one portion of the Israelites into favor after
their rejection; in Peter, it refers mainly to those who had been Gentiles, and
who had never been recognized as the people of God. The language of the prophet would exactly
express his idea, and he therefore uses it without intending to say that this
was its original application. [31]
In Hosea these words apply to
which had not
obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. The
church began with repentant Jews who rightly saw in Jesus the long promised
Messiah. Their loyalty to Him grew out
of the long emphasized demand that Jews were supposed to follow God’s will and these
were determined to do so even if it led them away from the priests and rabbis
who refused to embrace the Nazarene. As
the church expanded, it gained an increasing number of Gentiles who had never
been part of God’s people. Now--“now”
they were such and God had generously bestowed upon them the same “mercy” as
the repentant among the Jews. [46]
WEB: Beloved,
I beg you as foreigners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war
against the soul;
Young’s: Beloved,
I call upon you, as strangers and sojourners, to keep from the fleshly desires, that war against the soul,
Conte (RC): Most beloved, I beg you, as new
arrivals and sojourners, to abstain from carnal
desires, which battle against the
soul.
The injunction is
given in terms of tender urgency. The
opening designation occurs no less than eight times in the Epistles of Peter,
and in every case except the present the A.V. translates it simply “beloved,”
not “dearly beloved.” Paul has a
peculiar fondness for it (cf. Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians
I beseech you.
The verb embraces at least the two ideas of beseeching and
exhorting and is variously rendered in different connections by the A.V.
call for (Acts 28:20, etc.), entreat (Luke
as strangers [sojourners,
NKJV] and pilgrims. Neither of these words emphasized the idea
which we commonly associate with “pilgrims,” namely, those who are journeying
to a heavenly land, yet both emphasize a closely related truth. The first describes those who are in a
foreign country, as “aliens”; the other, those who are remaining in such a
country for only a short time; thus both words remind us that “our citizenship
is in heaven.” [7]
And: The word sojourners emphasizes the idea that the
home of the believer is in heaven, the second pilgrims, that on earth he is a stranger. [50]
If, as is implied
here, the life of the foreign country is inferior to that of the “sojourner’s”
native land, he must be careful not to adopt its immoral customs ([verse] 11),
but yet he must behave honorably and generously towards his hosts ([verse] 12). [45]
abstain from fleshly lusts. The
“lusts” of which we are warned do not refer merely to impure, bodily appetites,
but to all wrong and selfish desires and impulses which threaten to take
captive and to destroy the soul. [7]
Actually
here the emphasis appears to be solely on the “fleshly” ones—not that
they are (as pointed out above) the only kinds, but that they are the
kind Peter wishes to emphasize at this point.
The reason is presumably to make the maximum contrast between the war
between flesh and spirit—or, as worded here, the conflict between “fleshly
lusts” and “the soul.” Flesh/soul and
flesh/spirit are natural contrasts and anything modifying “flesh” makes the
contrast that much more emphatic . [rw]
Sermon outline: A fleshly lust is either the
desire for anything inherently sinful, or the inordinate and excessive appetite
for anything inherently harmless or indifferent. The attribute “fleshly” points to the origin
and sphere and aim. Being fleshly, they
cannot but war against the soul. I. Indirectly they act on body and mind.—[There is
a] close connection between soul and body through the mind. II. In their
direct influence— (a) They
blunt conscience and stifle its faithful warning, and demoralize. (b) They separate the soul from God
and that fellowship which is its true life.
Under shame and fear men hide from God, [knowing] that they cannot have
fellowship with Him and keep their lusts.
Withdrawal from God is deadly to the soul. (c) They whet the appetite for
repetition. They grow by what they
feed on, demand fresh gratification. (d)
They inflict future and eternal injury.
Sowing to the flesh, so as to be the hopeless slave of corruption, must
inevitably lead to exclusion from the holy kingdom. Lusts indulged in lessen the capacity of the
soul for God. [49]
which war [that do
battle, NET] against the soul. “Which war:” Very suggestive—not only do these
lusts hinder and obstruct, but they fight “against the soul,”
which is to be saved and purified by obedience to the truth (
The
“which” might be rendered “as they.”
Peter, as the particular pronoun indicates, does not signalize certain
lusts, namely, those which war against the soul, but takes fleshly lusts as
a whole, and describes them as being all of a quality hostile to the soul,
and this quality in them he makes a reason for abstaining from them. [51]
the soul. Our sinful desires and preferences endanger
the welfare not just of our “fleshly” body but of the very soul within. By sufficient repetition an evil can become
so dominant that our inner being will no longer be “programmed” to deliver its
warnings against such excess. [rw]
Or:
“Soul” (psuche)
here may be man’s higher nature instinct with the new life bestowed by Christ;
an idea expressed by Paul by “spirit” (pneuma) or “mind” (nous). The selfish
impulses fight against the inclination to serve and love God. Cf. Romans 7:23, “I see a
law . . . in my members warring against the law of my mind;” and James 4:1,
“Your pleasures that war in your members.” But “soul” may be used in its ordinary
meaning of the personal life, whose interests are assailed by evil impulses. [45]
WEB: having
good behavior among the nations, so in that of which they speak against you as
evildoers, they may by your good works, which they see, glorify God in the day
of visitation.
Young’s: having
your behaviour among the nations right, that in that
which they speak against you as evil-doers, of the good works having beheld,
they may glorify God in a day of inspection.
Conte (RC): Keep your behavior among the
Gentiles to what is good, so that, when they slander
you as if you were evildoers, they may, by the good
works that are seen in you, glorify God on the day
of visitation.
honest [honorable,
NKJV]. We have no word adequate to represent
this charming adjective. It is rendered
“good” immediately below and in John
A natural adaptation of the Jewish
use of the word for non-Jews. [45]
among the Gentiles. The pagans by whom you are surrounded, and who will certainly
observe your conduct. [31]
For the churches to which Peter wrote were in Gentile
lands. [50]
that, whereas they
speak against you as evildoers. Because as Christians they could not
conform to heathenish customs, they were accused of disobedience to all legal
authority; in order to rebut this charge, they are told to submit to every
ordinance of man (not sinful in itself).
[20]
The words indicate the growth of a widespread feeling
of dislike showing itself in calumny. So
in Acts 28:22 the disciples of Christ are described as
“a sect everywhere spoken against.” The
chief charge at this time was probably that of “turning the world upside down”
(Acts 17:6), i.e. of revolutionary tendencies, and this view is confirmed by
the stress laid on obedience to all constituted authority in the next
verse. With this were probably
connected, as the sequel shows (1 Peter
they may by your good works, which they shall
behold.
See with their own eyes. [15]
God does not wish the extirpation of any element of
our nature, but its consecration. We
must not allow wrong things; and we must not allow the abuse or excess of right
ones. The silent witness of a holy life
or a well-ordered home is of incalculable worth. [33]
Justin Martyr
says of himself, that he was led to believe the Christians falsely accused, by
the apparent impossibility of people who lived so blamelessly being guilty of
the unnatural vices imputed to them. [39]
Scholarly aside: [“Shall behold:”] The verb which St Peter uses is an unusual
one, occurring in the New Testament only here and in 1 Peter 3:2. The use of the cognate noun in the
“eye-witnesses” of 2 Peter 1:16 may be noted as a coincidence pointing to
identity of authorship. The history of
the word as applied originally to those who were initiated in the third or
highest order of the Eleusinian mysteries is not without interest. If we can suppose the Apostle to have become
acquainted with that use of it, or even with the meaning derived from the use,
we can imagine him choosing the word rather than the simple verb for “seeing”
to express the thought that the disciples were as a “spectacle” (1 Corinthians
4:9; Hebrews 10:33) to the world around them, and that those who belonged to
that world were looking on with a searching and unfriendly gaze. [38]
glorify God in the day of visitation. The time when God specially forces the truth upon the attention of the unconverted. [13]
Whether in wrath or mercy, is not said; and the
phrase is used in both senses. But only
the latter fits the word “glorify.” [39]
Not only think more favorably of you, but of your
religion; acknowledge the grace of God in you, and more readily subject
themselves to Him, (the best way of glorifying Him), it being usual with God to
make way for the conversion of sinners by the holy [behavior] of saints. [28]
In depth: Identifying
the time and nature of “the day of visitation”—Interpretive options [31]. Many different opinions have been entertained
of the meaning of this phrase, some referring it to the day
of judgment; some to times of persecution; some to the destruction of
The prevailing use of the word in the New Testament
would seem to lead us to suppose that the “visitation” referred to was designed
to confer favors rather than to inflict punishment, and indeed the word seems
to have somewhat of a technical character, and to have been familiarly used by
Christians to denote God’s coming to people to bless them; to pour out his
Spirit upon them; to revive religion.
This seems to me to be its meaning here; and, if so, the sense is, that
when God appeared among people to accompany the preaching of the gospel with
saving power, the result of the observed conduct of Christians would be to lead
those around them to honor him by giving up their hearts to Him; that is, their
consistent lives would be the means of the revival and extension of true
religion.
In depth: Additional thoughts on the nature of the “visitation” [37]. The following explanations have been given of the phrase [1] the day when Christians are brought to trial, [2] the day when their enemies are themselves judged, [3] the day when God’s mercy “visits” or comes home to them.
In the O.T. God is sometimes described as “visiting”
people in mercy, e.g. to deliver them from Egypt or from Babylon, and so
our Lord weeping over Jerusalem lamented her misuse of “the time of her
visitation” evidently referring to lost opportunities of blessing, cf. Luke
1:78, “The dayspring from on high shall visit us.” But elsewhere God is described as “visiting”
sinners with judgment, so ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς
in Isaiah 10:3. But frequently God’s
judgments are themselves a means of bringing His mercy home to men. So here St Peter seems to anticipate some
judgment of God which will open the eyes of heathen opponents and lead them to
give glory to God through the memory of His servants’ lives. The whole passage manifestly alludes to our
Lord’s words, Matthew 5:16, “Let your light so shine
before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is
in heaven.”
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.