Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 DET 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Prof. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic21huth 
 

 
hit vi 
 Te Nena 
 WR ea 
 ie fe nA’ 
 N ἡ { Eh 
 N 
 
 N 
 
 WON te N 
 } hf ἢ 
 i} 
 
 ur 
 
 NA JEAN ALL 
 RT ISIN 
 
 N ) 
 ols 
 N) aL 
 
 ἢ NEE OAT A 
 ΜΗ Hut 
 
 δ} Ὁ 
 
 iy 
 
 hae N 
 
 ᾿ iy ᾿ x 
 ) Ln (Uy ἡ 
 WEA N AA Aw. 
 Μὲ op eee 
 ἢ In et ny mai vi 
 i Lod 1 
 
 
 

 

 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 V 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM “MEYER, Tn.D, 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 Srom the German, With the Sanction of the Author. 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND JUDE. 
 BY 
 
 Dr. J. E. HUTHER. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 ic 1 CLARK, 33. GEORGE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXI 
 
NOTICE, TO “SUBSCRIBERS: 
 
 un 
 
 
 
 This Issue completes the ‘ Meyer’ series of COMMENTARIES on 
 the NEW TESTAMENT, with the exception of 
 
 Hebrews, One Volume, and 
 
 The Epistles of James and John, One Volume, 
 
 which will be ready in a few months. 
 
 Diisterdieck on Revelation 
 
 will not be translated in the meantime. 
 
 The completed series will therefore occupy Twenty Volumes. 
 
ee ran 
 oN 
 
 ar 
 CRITICAL AND. EXEGETICAL 
 
 
 
 HANDBOOK 
 
 TO 
 
 THE GENERAL EPISTLES 
 
 OF 
 
 ERTER AND. #0 DE 
 
 BY 
 
 v 
 JOH, ED. HUTEHER, TuD;; 
 
 PASTOR AT WITTENFÖRDEN, SCHWERIN, 
 
 BEINBURGH;: 
 iow T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 MDCCCLXXXI 
 
 (aw 
 13%! 
 
THE TRANSLATION OF 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF PETER 
 
 HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY 
 
 D. B. CROOM, M.A. 
 
 THE EPISTLE -OR JUDE 
 
 PATON 7 G0 AG.) em: 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 
 
 
 SUN revising this Commentary on the Epistles of Peter 
 | for the present fourth edition, the work which I 
 had chiefly to consider and subject to a careful 
 examination was the Exposition of the Epistles by 
 von Hofmann. This accordingly I did. — Von Hofmann 
 often seeks to surmount the exegetical difficulties presented 
 in the epistles by a new exposition, and, of course, no excep- 
 tion can be taken to this; but it is to be regretted that the 
 interpretations are not unfrequently of so artificial a nature, 
 that they cannot stand the test of an unprejudiced examina- 
 tion, and are consequently little calculated to promote the true 
 understanding of the text. 
 
 As regards the origin of the Second Epistle, my renewed 
 investigations have produced no result other than that which 
 I had formerly obtained. I can only repeat what I said in 
 the preface to the third edition of this Commentary: “ If I 
 should be blamed for giving, in this edition also, no decisive 
 and final answer to the question as to the origin of Second 
 Peter, I will say at the outset, that it seems to me more 
 correct to pronounce a non liquet, than to cut the knot by 
 arbitrary assertions and acute appearances of argument.” 
 
 Although this Commentary on the whole has preserved its 
 former character, yet it has been subjected to many changes in 
 particulars, which I hope may be regarded as improvements. 
 
 I would only add, that in the critical remarks it is princi- 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 pally Tischendorf’s Recension that has been kept in view. 
 Tisch. 7 refers to the editio septima critica minor, 1859; 
 Tisch. 8, to his editio octava major, 1869. Where the two 
 editions agree in a reading, Tisch. simply is put. 
 
 J. ED. HUTHER. 
 
 WITTENFORDEN, May 1877. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. 1.—THE APOSTLE PETER. 
 
 I HE apostle’s real name was Σίμων (according to 
 ἘΠ another pronunciation Συμεών, Acts xv. 14; 
 2 Pet.i.1). A native of Bethsaida on the Sea 
 of Galilee (John i. 45), he dwelt afterwards in 
 Capernaum (Luke iv. 31, 38), where he was married (ef. 
 1 Cor. ix. 5), and where his mother-in-law lived. In the 
 tradition, his wife is called at one time Concordia, at another 
 Perpetua, and is said (Clem. Alex. Strom. 7) to have suffered 
 martyrdom before him. Along with his father Jonas (Matt. 
 xvi. 17; called ᾿Ιωάννης also, John i, 43, xxi. 15) and 
 his brother Andrew, he was by occupation a fisherman on 
 the Sea of Galilee. When the Baptist began his ministry 
 at the Jordan, the two brothers resorted to him. On 
 John’s testimony Andrew, and through his instrumentality 
 Peter, attached themselves to Jesus, who gave to the latter 
 the name full of promise, Cephas. From that time forth 
 Peter, and along with him Andrew, remained a disciple of 
 Christ. After he had accompanied Jesus—as there is no 
 reason to doubt—on the journeys recorded by John, chaps. 1]. 
 2-iv. 43, we find him, it is true, again engaged in his earthly 
 calling; but from this there is no reason for concluding that 
 he had forsaken Jesus, who Himself was then living in Caper- 
 naum, Matt. iv. 13, 18. At that time he received his call to 
 enter on the service of Christ. On the occasion of the miracu- 
 lous draught of fishes he was impressed powerfully, and as 
 he never before had been, by the revelation of his Master's 
 1 PETER. A 
 
 
 
2 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 glory ; to his words: ἔξελθε am’ ἐμοῦ, the reply is given: ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ viv ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ Swypav. Received afterwards into 
 the number of the apostles, he forthwith gained a prominent 
 place among them. Not only was he one of the three who 
 stood in most trusted fellowship with Jesus, but on himself 
 pronouncing in his own name and in that of his fellows the 
 decisive confession: σὺ el ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (cf. John 
 vi. 67 ff.), Jesus confirmed the name formerly given to him, 
 and added the promise: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου 
 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν... καὶ δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν 
 οὐρανῶν. Thus a primacy was lent to him which is in 
 harmony with the word of Christ later on: στήριζον τοὺς 
 ἀδελφούς σου (Luke xxii. 32), and the charge of the Risen One: 
 βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου (John xxi. 15-17). And for such a call- 
 ing Peter was peculiarly fitted, by the energy prompting to 
 decisive action, which formed an essential feature of his 
 character ; though not until his natural man had been purified 
 and sanctified by the Spirit of the Lord. For, on the one 
 hand, his resolute character betrayed him more than once 
 into vaingloriousness, self-will, and unthinking zeal; and, on 
 the other, he was wanting in the patience and even firmness 
 which might have been expected from him who was surnamed 
 the Rock. Whilst, too, he pressed on swiftly to the end he 
 had in view, as if to take it by storm, confronted with 
 danger he was seized of a sudden with faint-heartedness ; his 
 nature was suited more to quick action than to patient suffer- 
 ing. As proofs of this may be taken his walking on the sea 
 and his sudden fear (Matt. xiv. 28-31), his rebuke of Christ 
 (Matt. xvi. 22), his question as to the sufficient measure of 
 forgiveness (Matt. xviii. 21), his inquiring what reward they, 
 
 ! That Luke (v. 1 ff.) and Matthew (iv. 18 ff.) relate the same fact, admits of 
 no doubt ; not only are the scenes and the persons identical, but the words in 
 Matthew: ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, agree in sense with those in Luke addressed 
 specially to Peter. Neither is there any inward difference (cf. Meyer on Luke 
 v. 1ff.), for the “point ” of Matthew’s narrative is not the mere injunction and 
 promise, as in Luke’s it is not the ‘‘ miracle of the draught of fishes,” but the call 
 to become fishers of men. Nor does Luke contradict himself, for what is related 
 in v. 8 doeg not prove that previous to this Peter had had no experience of 
 miracles, since that which produced the impression on Peter—related by Luke 
 — was not necessarily the first miracle he witnessed. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 the disciples, would have, in that they had forsaken all for 
 Christ's sake (Matt. xix. 27). In still more marked lines 
 does the picture of his distinctive character stand out in the 
 background of Christ’s passion, when he first in vain self- 
 confidence promises to the Lord that he would never forsake 
 Him, but would go with Him even unto death, and then on 
 the Mount of Olives is unable to watch with Him ; he wishes, 
 thereupon, to save his Master with the sword, and follows 
 Him even to the court of the high priest, but in sudden 
 cowardice denies Him before the men-servants and maids, and 
 as quickly, feeling the whole weight of his guilt, leaves the 
 judgment-hall in tears. On account of these unquestionably 
 serious vacillations in feeling and conduct, he nevertheless can- 
 not be accused of indecision of character. If he showed himself 
 weak on particular occasions, this was the result partly of his 
 sanguine temperament, in which action instantaneously fol- 
 lowed on excited feeling, and partly of his great self-confidence, 
 into which he was betrayed by the consciousness of his own 
 strength. The denial of Christ led to his inward purification ; 
 all the more that after His resurrection Christ revealed Him- 
 self to Peter first among the apostles. And so to the thrice 
 repeated question of the Lord, if he loved Him more than 
 the others, he returned the answer, humble yet full of faith: 
 “ Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.” 
 
 After the ascension of Christ, Peter appears standing at the 
 head of the apostles, for it is at his advice that their number 
 is again increased to twelve. After the descent of the Spirit, 
 however, he becomes in reality the Rock, as Christ had 
 ordained him ; henceforth the direction and furtherance of the 
 church rests chiefly in his hand. It was his sermon—the first 
 apostolic sermon—by means of which, on the day of Pentecost, 
 three thousand were added to the church of God; and if after- 
 wards he laboured at first in connection with John, it was yet him- 
 self who was the real actor (Acts iii. 1, 4 ff, 11 ff). He healed 
 the lame man, addressed the people, and on both apostles 
 being brought before the ecclesiastical authorities, it was he who 
 was the speaker. He had to execute judgment on Ananias 
 and Sapphira (Acts v. 1-10); and when the whole of the 
 apostles were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrim, it is 
 
4 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 he, too, who in the name of all testifies for Christ. Again, in 
 Samaria, whither he went along with John to continue the 
 work begun by Philip, John appears beside him only as an 
 accompanying fellow- worker. — During the time that the 
 churches had rest after the conversion of Paul, Peter journeyed 
 throughout the districts of Palestine bordering on the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea ; in Lydda he healed Aeneas (Acts ix. 32 ff.), and 
 raised up Tabitha in Joppa (ix. 36 ff.). — In accordance with 
 the position assigned to him by Christ, he was permitted by 
 God to bring into the church the first-fruits of heathenism ; 
 for although Paul was destined to be the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, it was still Peter who should first preach the gospel 
 to the heathen and administer the ordinance of baptism, that 
 thus also he might retain the primacy and be the Rock of the 
 Church. — During the persecution raised shortly before his 
 death by Herod Agrippa L, Peter was cast into prison. After 
 his miraculous release he quitted Jerusalem’ for a time, but 
 later on again returned thither. The last circumstance which 
 the Acts of the Apostles relates of him is his justification of 
 Paul at the so-called convention of apostles in Jerusalem. 
 
 The labours of Paul among the heathen, and the reception 
 of believing Gentiles into the Christian church, occasioned the 
 first division amongst the Christians. What position did 
 Peter then take up? After what he himself had witnessed 
 at the conversion of Cornelius, he could not make common 
 cause with the judaistically - minded Christians ; in the pro- 
 ceedings at Jerusalem, too, he placed himself decidedly on the 
 
 1 We are not told where Peter went; Acts xii. 17 only says: ἐσορεύθη εἰς 
 ἕτερον τόπον. Thestatement of several Fathers, that Peter then betook himself to 
 Rome, and there founded the Christian church, has, without sufficient warrant, 
 been accepted by Thiersch (die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 96 ff.). This is 
 decidedly opposed not only by the Epistle to the Romans, but also by the 
 indefinite expression employed here. Ewald also (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 
 VI. p. 618 ff.) thinks “that the old legend as to Peter’s sojourn in Rome 
 during the reign of Claudius, and his meeting here with Simon the magician, was 
 not altogether without foundation,” but that the Christian church in Rome 
 had then already been established. — But it is not credible, either that if Peter 
 had visited the church in Rome, Paul should not have made the slightest 
 allusion to the fact in his Epistle to the Romans, or that Peter should have gone 
 to Rome with the intention of there, as in Samaria, opposing Simon ; cf. 
 Hofmann, p. 200 ff. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 side of Paul, and spoke against the subjugation of the heathen 
 to the law. It was then, on Peter formally recognising the 
 grace given by the Lord to Paul, that an agreement was come 
 to, that Paul and Barnabas should labour among the Gentiles, 
 whilst he himself, along with John and James, should 
 devote themselves to the Jews (Gal. ii. 9)—the field of mis- 
 sionary enterprise being in this way divided among them. — 
 In thus limiting his activity to the Jewish people, Peter 
 detracted in no way from his primacy; for this, which had 
 never in any sense been absolute, remained intact, as is 
 evident from the circumstance that Paul took especial care to 
 assure himself of Peter’s consent, and acknowledged his fore- 
 most position among the apostles (cf. Gal. ii. 7, 8). 
 
 That Peter, with all his recognition of Paul’s principles, was 
 wholly unfit to undertake the direction of missions to the 
 Gentiles, is proved by his conduct at Antioch, for which he 
 was called to account by Paul. He was not wanting, it is 
 true, in a right perception of the relation in which the gospel 
 stood to the law, so that without any misgivings he entered 
 into complete fellowship with the Gentile-Christians ; still, 
 as regarded his own conduct, this perception was not vivid 
 enough to preserve him from the hypocrisy which drew forth 
 Paul’s rebuke (Gal.ii.12). For, when “certain came” to Antioch 
 “from James,” Peter withdrew himself from them, fearing 
 those of the circumcision, doubtless because he did not wish 
 to appear in the light of a transgressor of the law. How 
 dangerous his example was, became evident even then; and it 
 is clear further that the Jewish-Christians hostilely disposed 
 to the heathen-converts were only too ready to appeal to the 
 example of Peter in their opposition to Paul. From this, 
 however, it must not be concluded that there was any want of 
 harmony in principle between Paul and Peter, and that by 
 the δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ BapvaBa κοινωνίας is to be under- 
 stood a mere “temporary truce,” which they had concluded 
 
 1 As in Gal. ii. 2, 8, 9, 15, τὰ ἔθνη means not Gentile - Christians, but 
 Gentiles, Paul seems, by the expression in ver. 12: μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν, to 
 have meant heathens also. But even if they were only Gentile-Christians 
 with whom Peter ate, it is not their Christianity, but their Gentile nationality 
 
 and customs, as distinguishing them from the Jews, which Paul has here in 
 
 his eye. 
 
6 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 with each other in a purely external manner, and whilst 
 holding fast their internal differences." 
 
 As to where and with what result Peter worked after Paul 
 commenced his labours, all precise and reliable information is 
 wanting; from 1 Cor. ix. 5 it follows only that he made 
 missionary journeys to various regions. If by Babylon (chap. 
 v. 13) that city itself and not Rome is to be understood, he 
 must have been at the time our epistle was written in 
 Babylon, whence by means of this letter he extended his 
 influence to the churches of Asia Minor, which, in part at least, 
 had been founded by Paul. 
 
 The account which the Fathers give of the life of the 
 apostle is pervaded by many mythical traits. The more 
 important his position, the more natural it was for a one-sided 
 Judaeo-Christianity, as well as for the Catholic Church, to draw 
 by invention, intentional or unintentional, the picture of the 
 apostle’s labours in their own interests. Without any sifting 
 of the legendary elements, Hieronymus describes the subse- 
 quent life of Peter in the following manner: “Simon Petrus 
 princeps apostolorum post episcopatum Antiochensis ecclesiae 
 et praedicationem dispersionis eorum, qui de circumcisione 
 crediderant, in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia 
 secundo Claudii imperatoris anno ad expugnandum Simonum 
 Magum, Romam pergit, ibique viginti quinque annis cathedram 
 sacerdotalem tenuit, usque ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est, 
 
 1 The Tübingen school confessedly considers the first apostles, and Peter in 
 particular, to have been narrow Judaists, and accordingly ascribes to them pre- 
 cisely those views which Paul so decidedly combats in those of his epistles which 
 are undoubtedly genuine. Though compelled to admit that it was not the first 
 apostles themselves who opposed Paul and his gospel at Corinth and elsewhere, 
 Pfleiderer (der Judaismus, p. 299), nevertheless, maintains that they supported 
 those who did so. He explains Peter’s conduct in Antioch (p. 296) in this way : 
 that the apostle, in order to please the heathen-Christians, adopted there a mode of 
 life freer than was really permissible from his dogmatic standpoint. The fact, on 
 the contrary, was that his mode of life was stricter than was consistent with his 
 principles, for which reason Paul accused him of ὑπόκρισις. It is more than 
 singular that Pfleiderer should so entirely overlook the dishonour thus brought 
 upon Paul by maintaining that the first apostles preached a different gospel from 
 that which he taught. For how could Paul, without grossly violating his own 
 conscience, accept the δεξιὰ κοινωνίας offered him by James, Peter, and John, if his 
 ἀνάθεμα ἔστω (Gal. 1. 7, 8) was applicable to each of them as the preacher of a 
 ἕσερον εὐαγγέλιον ἵ 
 
INTRODUCTION, 7 
 
 decimum quartum. A quo et affixus cruci martyrio coronatus 
 est, capite ad terram verso et in sublime pedibus elevatis, 
 asserens se indignum, qui sic crucifigeretur ut dominus suus. 
 Sepultus Romae in Vaticano juxta viam triumphalem totius 
 orbis veneratione celebratur” (De seriptor. eccl. cap. 1. de Petro). 
 
 In this narrative the following particulars are mythical :— 
 (1) The episcopate of Peter in the church at Antioch; the 
 saying, too, of Eusebius (Chronicum ad annum, ili.), that Peter 
 founded the church at Antioch, must be considered apocryphal, 
 as contradicting Acts xi. 19-22. (2) His personal activity in 
 the regions of Asia Minor; this is doubtless mentioned already 
 by Origen as probable ;* but it must be regarded simply as 
 an inference from 1 Pet. 1. 1, as even Windischmann (Vindiciae 
 Pet. ὃ 112 f.) admits. (3) His journey to Rome for the pur- 
 pose of combating Simon Magus.” This story is based on 
 a passage in Justin’s Apologia maj. c. 26, which speaks of 
 a statue in Rome with the following inscription: S,IMQNI 
 AEQ SATKTA, which, however, has been discovered to be 
 the dedication not to that Simon, but to the Sabine god 
 Semo Sanctus. (4) The twenty-five years’ residence of Peter 
 in Rome (cf. on this Wieseler’s Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, 
 p. 571 fi). Perhaps also (5) the peculiar manner of his 
 crucifixion, which has been recorded by Origen already (in 
 Euseb. H. #. iii. 1: ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς) ; the motive 
 given for it by Hieronymus must certainly be looked upon as 
 an arbitrary addition. As indisputable fact, there remains, 
 in the first instance, only the martyrdom of the apostle, which 
 is corroborated by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, and 
 especially by John xxi. 19;* the residence in Rome appears 
 
 WBinsebsehl. 2. ait. ἃ: Πέτρος ἐν Πόντῳ κι τ... κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐν διασπορᾷ ᾿Ιουδαίοις 
 EOIREV, 
 
 2 The stories about Peter and Simon M. in the Clementine [/omilies are mere 
 legendary formations. Even Ewald’s opinion, that Peter, after his release, went 
 to Rome for a short time, in order there to oppose Simon M.; that, on his return 
 to Jerusalem, he had visited the districts in the north-east, and there founded 
 the churches to which he later addressed this epistle,—is too destitute of secure 
 historical foundation to be regarded as correct. 
 
 3 The explanation given in this verse of the prophecy contained in ver. 18 is 
 indisputably correct. Mayerhoff is wrong in calling it in question (Hinl. in d. 
 Petr. Schriften, p. 87) by applying Christ’s words to Peter, not to the martyr- 
 dom he was about to suffer, but to the apostle himself, as destined to be the leader 
 
8 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 more open to doubt, still the reasons which can be urged 
 against it are not sufficient to prove the purely legendary 
 character of the tradition. Although Clemens Rom. (Ep. ad 
 Corinth. c. 5) does not say that Peter suffered martyrdom in 
 Rome, yet Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. H. E. ii. 25), Irenaeus 
 (adv. Haer. iii. 1), Tertullian (contra Mare. iv. 5, and de prae- 
 script. adv. haeret. c. 36), and Origen (Euseb. H. £. 1]. 1) 
 do; and so early as by the presbyter Cajus mention is made 
 of the τρόπαια of the two apostles Peter and Paul. Doubt- 
 less these testimonies are mixed up with many inexact and 
 inaccurate particulars; but this does not justify doubt as to 
 the truth of the circumstance to which Ignatius seems to 
 refer in the words: οὐχ ws Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι 
 (Ep. ad Rom.c. 4). It is less certain that Peter was in Rome 
 at the same time with Paul; nor, as Wieseler wrongly asserts, 
 are all the witnesses of the second century who speak of 
 the martyrdom of Peter in Rome guarantees for it. For, with 
 the exception of the author of the Praedicatio Pauli, whose 
 testimony is uncertain, not one of these witnesses speaks of a 
 meeting and a conjoint labour of the two apostles in Rome, 
 although all relate that both of them in Rome had a part 
 in founding the church, and that they suffered martyrdom 
 there. Even the circumstance mentioned by Dionysius of 
 Corinth (Euseb. H. E. ii. 25): ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν 
 καιρόν, does not prove that at any previous time they had 
 lived together ; for. this expression allows, as Wieseler himself 
 grants, the possibility of a period of time— provided it be 
 not too long— having elapsed between the deaths of the 
 two apostles. “What remains then as the kernel of ecclesi- 
 
 of the church: ‘‘ He explains to Peter the necessity of a ministry of this 
 kind, by pointing out to him that active support of the needy is a duty imposed 
 by love to Christ.” Meyer gives the right explanation of this passage. Cf. 
 in loc. 
 
 1 The words of Dionysius: καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέρων Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες 
 ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς σὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν 
 αὐτὸν καιρόν, admit on the whole of but a doubtful inference, the more so that 
 what is said here of Peter’s labour in Corinth appears to have arisen only from 
 the fact that there was at an early period in Corinth a party calling itself by 
 Peter’s name. A legend such as this could originate all the more easily from 
 the endeavour to bring the two apostles as near as possible to each other; the 
 κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν may also have arisen from that endeavour. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 9 
 
 astical tradition is this: that towards the end of his life Peter 
 came to Rome, that he there laboured for the propagation of the 
 gospel, and that he suffered martyrdom under Nero” (Wiesinger; 
 cf. also Bleek, Introd. to N. T. p. 563 ff. [E. T. II. 157 ff.]). 
 As, then, the Epistle of Peter is addressed to Pauline churches 
 (42. those churches which were either founded by Paul himself, 
 or had sprung from such as had been so founded), and as Peter 
 could hardly feel himself called upon during Paul’s lifetime to 
 interfere with the latter’s field of missionary operations, it is not 
 at all improbable that he suffered martyrdom later than Paul. 
 This is supported by the circumstance that after Paul’s death, 
 and then only, was the fitting time for him to labour in Rome. 
 Had Peter been there earlier, some trace surely of his presence 
 would have been found in Paul’s epistles written from Rome. 
 If, then, Paul suffered martyrdom at the earliest in the year 
 64, the death of Peter must have taken place in the time 
 between 65-67 A.D.’ 
 
 SEC. 2.—CONTENTS, AIM, AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.” 
 
 The contents of the epistle are in the order of thought as 
 follows: First of all, thanksgiving to God for the hope of the 
 eternal inheritance in heaven, of which the Christians had 
 been made partakers, of which they can with joy be certain, 
 although for a time here they have to suffer tribulation, and 
 of which the glory is so great that the prophets diligently 
 searched after it, and the angels desired to behold it. ‘This is 
 followed by a series of exhortations, which may be divided 
 
 1 According to Ewald, Peter suffered martyrdom before Paul—that is to say, 
 during the persecutions of the Christians by Nero, A.D. 64, whilst Paul, having 
 been released from his Roman captivity, was in Spain. 
 
 5 The epistle is one of those termed already by Origen, the seven ἐπισσολαὶ 
 καθολικαί; for the meaning of the designation, cf. Introd. to the N. T., and 
 Herzog’s Encyclopädie, VII. p. 497 ff. The most probable view is this: that 
 when the Pauline Epistles were classified together as a whole, the other epistles 
 of the N. T. canon were united together under the title of catholic epistles, 
 because they were not addressed to individual churches or particular persons, 
 but as circular letters to Christendom generally, or to a somewhat extensive 
 system of churches, just as Origen termed the apostolic epistle, Acts xv. 22, an 
 ἐπιστολὴ xaboruxy. The objection may doubtless be raised to this view, that 
 
10 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 into three classes. The first class (i, 13-ii. 10) is linked on 
 to the thought of the glory promised to the Christians, and 
 has sanctification in general as its object. Foremost and as a 
 starting-point stands the summons to a full hope of the future 
 grace (τελείως ἐλπίσατε); then follows the exhortation to an holy 
 walk (ἅγιοι γενήθητε) in the fear of God the impartial judge, 
 based on a conscious knowledge of the redemption wrought by 
 the blood of Christ (i. 14-21); then, to a pure and unfeigned 
 love of the brethren (ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε), 85 became those who 
 were born of incorruptible seed (1. 15-25); and lastly, laying 
 aside all κακία, to desire the pure milk, and firmly cleaving to 
 Christ, as living stones to build themselves up more and more 
 to the spiritual house, in accordance with their calling as Chris- 
 tians (τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα Emimoßnoare ... ὡς λίθοι 
 ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε), ii, 1-10.—The second series οἵ ex- 
 hortations (ii. 11—iv. 6), which are of a special nature, is in 
 connection with the position of the Christians in the world 
 (παρακαλῷ ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους". .. τὴν ἀνα- 
 στροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες, vv. 11, 12), and has 
 reference—(1) To the relation to civil authorities (ii. 13-17); 
 (2) To the particular relations of domestic life: (a) exhortation 
 to the slaves (οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι... τοῖς δεσπόταις, 
 18-25) to obedience towards their masters in patient endur- 
 ance, even of unjust suffering, based on a reference to the 
 sufferings of Christ; (Ὁ) exhortation to the women to be sub- 
 ject unto their husbands, and to an holy walk, with reference 
 to the godly women of the O. T., especially Sarah, ui. 1-6; 
 (c) exhortation to the men to a discreet treatment of their 
 wives ; (3) To the relation to the world persecuting the church ; 
 after a short exhortation to unity and love (ver. 8), the apostle 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews should be included among these, whilst Second and 
 Third John should be excluded fromthem. But the addition of the former to the 
 Pauline Epistles is explained by its having been believed to have been by Paul ; 
 and the inclusion of the latter among the catholic epistles, by the circumstance 
 that, having in later times only come to be regarded as canonical, they were 
 added on to the much more important First Epistle of John. Hofmann’s 
 opinion, ‘‘that the seven epistles have the above designation because they are 
 writings neither arising from nor pertaining to any personal relation of the 
 writer to those whom he addresses,” is contradicted by the term itself, since 
 
 the expression καθολικός contains not the slightest allusion to a relation subsist- 
 ing between the writer and those to whom he writes, 
 
INTRODUCTION. ΠῚ 
 
 exhorts not to return evil for evil (vv. 9-14); with meekness 
 to give a reason for their own hope (ver. 15), and in the 
 midst of suffering to give proof of faithful submission to the 
 divine will (vv. 16,17). These exhortations are based on 
 a reference to Christ, who through suffering entered into His 
 glory (vv. 18-22), and who by His death appeals to believers 
 not to continue their former life, but to lead a new one, even 
 though they should be reviled for it. Lastly, the apostle 
 reminds his readers of the future judgment of Christ (iv. 1-6). 
 — The third class of exhortations (iv. 7-v. 9) has special refer- 
 ence to life in the church, and is connected with the thought 
 of the nearness of the end of all things (iv. 7). The several 
 particulars to which prominence is given are: soberness unto 
 prayer (ver. 7), ardent love towards each other (ver. 8), hospi- 
 tality (ver. 9), a faithful administration of spiritual gifts for 
 the general good (vv. 10, 11), joyful bearing of the sufferings 
 of Christ (vv. 12-19). Hereupon follows an exhortation to 
 the elders to guide the church in a right manner, reference 
 being made to the reward which awaits them (v. 1-4); then 
 a command to the younger to submit themselves to the elder 
 (ver. 5); on this, admonitions to all to an humble behaviour 
 towards each other, and to humiliation before God (vv. 6, 7); 
 lastly, a summons to watchfulness against the temptations of 
 the devil (vv. 8, 9).— The epistle concludes with the bene- 
 diction and a doxology (vv. 10, 11), an observation on this 
 epistle itself (ver. 12), and sundry commissions (vv. 13, 14). 
 The aim of this epistle is stated by the apostle himself (v. 
 12) in the words: ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην 
 εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε. Accordingly 
 he proposed ἃ παρακαλών and an ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, both in close 
 connection with each other, as the immediate juxtaposition 
 of the ideas shows. The occasion of them lay in this, that 
 the readers, as professing Christians, had to endure severe 
 afflictions through the slanders of the heathen. In view of 
 the dangers lying therein, the apostle was careful, on the one 
 hand, to exhort them to patience, by directing their minds to 
 the future κληρονομία, as also to the continuance in holiness, 
 and to a conduct towards each other and towards the heathen 
 such as would lead the latter to see how groundless their 
 
12 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 manders were; and, on the other hand, that his exhortation 
 slight not be without a firm basis, to assure them that a state of 
 suffering was the true divine state of grace. Accordingly the 
 epistle bears neither a polemical nor a doctrinal, but an entirely 
 hortatory character. No doubt dogmatic ideas are interwoven 
 in some passages ; these, however, are never treated doctrinally, 
 but are always made subservient to the purpose of exhortation. 
 
 REMARK.— Schott regards this epistle as, in the first instance, 
 a letter of consolation, in which the readers are calmed and 
 comforted, on the one hand, with respect “ to the accusations of 
 the heathen, that they as matter of principle denied a moral 
 basis to social life ;” and, on the other, as regards their fears, lest 
 the fact of God’s permitting persecutions should be a proof to 
 them that they were without the “complete moral certainty of 
 their salvation in Christ.” In opposition to this, it is to be 
 remarked that Peter uses παρακαλεῖ only in the sense of “to 
 exhort,” and that even if the apostle in the treatment of his 
 subject does introduce some words of comfort, the whole 
 epistle cannot on that account be styled a letter of consolation, 
 the less so that these very words are always made subservient to 
 purposes of exhortation ; cf. Weiss, die petrin. Frage, p. 631 f.— 
 Several interpreters assume from ἐπιμαρτυρῶν x.7.A., that Peter 
 composed his hortatory epistle with the intention also of 
 formally confirming the preaching of the gospel, aforetime 
 addressed to his readers. Wiesinger says: “Peter in his 
 epistle to Pauline churches has impressed the seal of his 
 testimony on the gospel as preached by Paul.” Weiss, while 
 questioning this, in that he does not consider the church to 
 have been Pauline, nevertheless asserts that “the apostle wished 
 by his apostolic testimony to confirm the preaching already de- 
 livered to the readers,” and for this reason precisely, “ that it had 
 not yet been proclaimed to them by an apostle.” But although 
 in i. 12, 25 we have it attested, that the true gospel is preached 
 unto them, and in v. 12, that thus they are made partakers of 
 the very grace of God, still this testimony is not made in such 
 a form as to warrant the conclusion that the Apostle Peter 
 considered it necessary to confirm by his apostolic authority 
 the preaching by which the readers had been converted; nor 
 does it imply that the readers had begun to doubt of its truth, 
 because it had come to them—directly or indirectly—from Paul, 
 or even from one who was no apostle. The double testimony 
 is rather to be explained simply thus: the apostle was desirous 
 of preserving his readers from the danger to which they were 
 
INTRODUCTION. ie 
 
 exposed, by the trials that had befallen them, of entertaining 
 doubts as to their state of grace, and of confirming them in the 
 confident trust in the grace of which they had been made 
 partakers, apart altogether from the person by whom the gospel 
 had been preached to them.— Hofmann, while justly recognis- 
 ‘ing the hortatory character of the epistle, thinks that Peter’s 
 intention in it was “to secure the fruits of Paul’s labours 
 in a way possible only to the Apostle of the Circumcision.” 
 But in the epistle there is not the smallest hint of any such 
 intention, nor is there any mention made of a difference 
 between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostle of the 
 Circumcision. Besides, if such were his intention, it is im- 
 possible to understand how Peter could have written a hor- 
 tatory epistle of such length. This same objection may be 
 urged against Bleek’s idea, that the sole occasion of the epistle 
 was the journey of Silvanus to Asia Minor. — Pfleiderer (as 
 above, p. 419) correctly gives the design of the letter thus: “an 
 exhortation to patience and perseverance under severe persecu- 
 tion from without, as also to a blameless life, by means of which 
 the Christian church might avoid every occasion for a justifiable 
 persecution.”—On Schwegler’s hypothesis, that the letter was 
 written with the design of effecting a compromise between the 
 followers of Paul and those of Peter, see § 4, Introd. Ewald’s 
 view, that this circular letter was composed chiefly with the 
 design “ of teaching the true relation to all heathen and heathen 
 rulers,” is refuted by the contents themselves, which go far 
 beyond this. 
 
 The peculiar character of the epistle is due as much to the 
 individuality of its author as to its own hortatory tendency ; 
 but not to this, that its author preached a Christianity different 
 from that of the other apostles, that is to say, a narrow Jewish 
 Christianity. The Christianity of Peter, in its subjective as in 
 its objective side, is the same as that of Paul and John. As 
 regards the objective side, there are no conceptions of the 
 person of Christ here expressed lower than in the other 
 books of the N. T. Weiss, who draws a distinction between 
 the historical and the speculative methods of viewing the 
 person of Christ in the N. T., is no doubt of opinion that 
 only the former of these is to be found here, and that there- 
 fore Peter’s conception is, in this respect, only a preliminary 
 step to those of Paul and John. But although Peter does not 
 speak of the pre-existence of Christ in so many words, yet the 
 
14 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 significance which, according to him, Christ had for the realiza- 
 tion of the eternal purposes of God toward humanity (i. 2, 
 3, 7, 8, 10-12, 18-20, ii. 4-10, 21-25, iii. 18-iv. 6, iv. 
 13, 14, v. 4, 10), goes to prove that he did not regard 
 Christ “as a mere man,” distinguished from other men only 
 in that “ He was anointed by God at His baptism with the 
 Holy Spirit, and thus equipped for the office of Messiah.” 
 Besides, however, there are not wanting hints which point 
 to a higher conception than this. If Christ be not called vids 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, God is spoken of directly as πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (chap. i. 3, 2); and the name κύριος, which 
 Peter, according to the O. T. usage, frequently applies to God, 
 is by him attributed without any explanation to Christ 
 also. Again, if the Trinity, to which reference is made in 
 chap. 1. 2, be only the economical Trinity, still in it Christ is 
 placed in such a relation to God “as could absolutely never, 
 and especially never in the domain of Old Testament faith, be 
 applied to a mere human instrument” (Jul. Köstlin). Still 
 further, in chap. i. 20, mpoeyvwouevov πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- 
 μου, where even Weiss is forced to find an idea expressed 
 beyond any that can be explained on the “ historic principle,” 
 though it be true that here it is not—as Schumann (die Lehre 
 v. d. Person Christi, p. 449) assumes—the real, but only, in 
 the first instance, the ideal pre-existence that is affirmed, yet 
 this very ideal pre-existence undeniably points beyond the 
 simple humanity of Christ. It is, too, a mere makeshift for 
 Weiss to assert that the idea was formed in Peter’s mind, 
 from the circumstance only, that Christ had already been 
 predicted by the prophets, for πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου plainly 
 goes far beyond this. And lastly, even if Weiss’ interpretation 
 of τὸ... πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, chap. i. 11 (see Comment. in loe.), 
 were admissible, it would also follow, from the very fact that 
 Peter spoke of the working of God’s Spirit in the prophets, 
 according to its indwelling in Christ, that he had a conception 
 of Christ’s nature higher than any Weiss would allow him to 
 have had. 
 
 Peter’s estimate also of the work of Christ, as of His person, 
 is in no way different from that of the other apostles. For him, 
 too, it is the death and resurrection of Christ which lays the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 foundation of man’s salvation, the communication of the Spirit 
 of the glorified Christ by which that salvation is appropriated 
 by man, and the second coming of Christ by which it is 
 completed. No doubt Weiss thinks that Peter attributes to 
 the blood of Christ a redemptive, but not an expiatory power, 
 and that certainly the idea of sacrifice is foreign to him, if 
 that of substitution be not; but this opinion can be justified 
 only by a misconception of the particular points in the 
 passages in question (1. 18, 19, ii. 24, iii. 18). 
 
 With respect to the subjeetive side of Christianity, Peter 
 has in reference to it also no peculiar teaching. According to 
 him, it is again faith which is made the condition of a partici- 
 pation in the salvation of Christ; cf. i 5, 7, 8, 9, 21, ii. 7 
 (iv. 13), v. 9. True, the πίστις of Peter is not characterized 
 as specifically Christian by any adjunct such as eis Χριστόν; 
 but that none other than a faith on Christ can be meant is 
 evident, partly from the reference to the redeeming death of 
 Christ which pervades the whole epistle, and partly from the 
 circumstance, that when God is spoken of as the object of 
 faith (i. 21), the phrase: τὸν éyelpayta αὐτὸν (Χριστὸν) ἐκ 
 νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα (comp. Rom. iv. 24), is added to 
 Θεόν by way of nearer definition. It can with no justification 
 be asserted that faith according to Peter is, on the one hand, 
 only the trust in God based on the miracle of the resurrection, 
 and on the other simply the recognition of the Messianic 
 dignity of Christ, and that accordingly he does not, like Paul, 
 make reference to the atonement accomplished by the blood of 
 Christ. For, precisely because Peter regards the death of Christ 
 as the ground of salvation, it is plainly impossible that he 
 should think of this faith by which redemption is obtained, 
 without reference to the death of Christ and its effects. 
 Weiss, though he admits that this faith, according to the view 
 taken of it not merely by Paul and John, but also by Peter, 
 introduces into real community of life with Christ, does so 
 only under this restriction, that Peter's conception is based 
 entirely on the utterances of Christ, and has not as yet been 
 worked into didactic shape ;—as if the living faith were not 
 necessarily conscious of community of life with Christ, and 
 as if the matter contained in an epistle written with the view 
 
16 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 of imparting instruction must of necessity be brought into 
 didactic form. If, according to Peter, the life of faith be, from 
 its earliest commencement, a life of obedience, there is taught 
 in this nothing different from what Paul more than once 
 affirms’ (Rom. vi. 17, xv. 18, xvi.-19; 20; 2 Coral: 
 but that Peter “makes the idea of obedience so prominent, 
 that faith as the fundamental condition of the possession of 
 salvation retires completely into the background” (Weiss), is an 
 unfounded assertion.—Since, then, the epistle is written with 
 the design παρακαλεῖν the Christians, who were enduring 
 affliction for their faith’s sake, the reference to a future and 
 complete salvation—xAnpovopia, σωτηρία, δόξα, χάρις Cons— 
 forms, along with the exhortation to a pious Christian walk of 
 life, a chief feature in it, and it is therefore quite natural that 
 the ἐλπίς should appear as the centre of its apostolic παρά- 
 KAnous (chapsa: 3,439,021, jum 5, 19,15, av. Mauer 
 10). But although it is peculiar to Peter to gaze on the 
 future completion of salvation with a hope that stretched 
 away beyond the present possession of it, yet we must not on 
 that account seek to draw a distinction between him as the 
 apostle of hope and Paul as the apostle of faith ; and still less, 
 with Weiss, attribute to him a different conception of doctrine 
 in that, whilst according to Paul hope is only a single con- 
 stituent of faith, Peter saw in faith only “the preliminary 
 step to hope.” 
 
 REMARK.—Whilst Weiss considers the doctrinal conception 
 in the epistle as a preliminary step to Paulinism, Pfleiderer, on 
 the other hand, characterizes it as “a Paulinism popularised, 
 and thereby rendered weak and insipid.” In reference to this, the 
 following remarks must be made :—(1) Pfleiderer indeed admits 
 that the emphasis laid on the death of Christ as the means of 
 our redemption is a genuinely Pauline feature; at the same 
 time, however, he is of opinion that the death of Christ must 
 be taken here as referring not, as with Paul, to the expiation of 
 the guilt of sin, but only to the removal of a life of sin, and 
 that its redemptory effects can only be considered as morally 
 communicated, in order that it may as a powerful example 
 bring about the resolution to an obedient imitation of Christ. 
 But this is clearly incorrect, for it is apparent from an un- 
 prejudiced perusal of the passages in question that redemption 
 
INTRODUCTION, 17 
 
 from the guilt of sin is viewed as the primary effect of Christ’s 
 death, though there is undoubtedly also reference to its final 
 aim in delivering from the power of sin. How can redemption 
 from a life of sin be conceived of without the forgiveness of 
 sin? The very expression ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος “I. X. (i. 2) is a 
 proof that our author regarded the forgiveness of sin as the 
 effect of the blood of Christ. The idea that man must earn pardon 
 for himself by his own obedient following of Christ, is totally 
 foreign to this epistle. (2) If Pfleiderer asserts that here we 
 have faith presented in an aspect different from that of Paul, 
 inasmuch as its object is not Christ the historical Redeemer 
 from sin, but Christ the Glorified One, it must be urged in 
 reply, that Christian faith, in the nature of it, has reference 
 at once to the abased and to the exalted Christ,—to the former 
 because He is exalted, to the latter in that He was made low,— 
 and that in this passage also between Paul and the writer of 
 this epistle there was no difference and could be none. (3) In 
 opposition to Pfleiderer’s assertion, that obedience also has for 
 each of the two a different import, inasmuch as, while Paul con- 
 siders moral obedience to be the fruit of faith, the author of this 
 epistle looks on morality as a particular element of faith itself, 
 it must be remarked, that if obedience be the fruit of faith, 
 it must in germ be contained in faith, that is, be an element 
 of faith. (4) With respect to the πνεῦμα, Pfleiderer admits 
 that it is for both in every way the life-principle of Christi- 
 anity, only he finds it worthy of notice that in this epistle the 
 communication of the Spirit is not made to stand in any way 
 connected with baptism. But it is clearly a quite unjustifiable 
 demand, that this relation should find expression in the single 
 passage in which reference is made to baptism.—No doubt it 
 cannot be denied that the several particulars of Christian faith, 
 knowledge, and life have received from Paul a fuller develop- 
 ment, and as a consequence a clearer definition, than in our 
 epistle ; but this can be accounted for as much by the individu- 
 ality of the two apostles as by the purely hortatory character of 
 this epistle, and is no evidence of the correctness of Pfleiderer’s 
 view.—Hofmann justly remarks: “The epistle contains nothing 
 by which its author can be recognised as the advocate of an 
 
 . Insipid Paulinism, and nothing either which betrays his 
 dependence on Pauline forms of thought.” 
 
 The peculiar character of the epistle, by which it is distin- 
 guished from the writings of Paul and John, has its origin 
 not in any doctrinal difference, but on the one hand in the 
 individuality of its author, and on the other in its own practical 
 
 1 PETER. B 
 
18 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 design. Peter does not mean to teach, he is anxious rather to 
 exhort in accordance with his practical mind,’ as far removed 
 from the dialectic bent of Paul as from the intuitive of John. 
 —tThe epistle bears further a characteristic impress in the 
 “Ὁ. T. modes of thought and expression peculiar to it.” In 
 none of the writings of the N. T. do we find, comparatively 
 speaking, so numerous quotations from and references to the 
 O. T. (comp. chap. i. 16, 24, 25, ü. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,10, 22-24, 
 iii. 10-12, 13, 14, iv. 8, 17, 18, v. 5, 7). But more than 
 this, the author lives and moves so much in O. T. conceptions, 
 that he expresses his thoughts by preference in O. T. language. 
 When he wishes to set forth the dignity of the Christian 
 church, or to make reference to the future salvation of 
 believers, or to exhort to a walk becoming Christians, he does 
 so for the most part in the manner peculiar to the O. T. 
 Even when he speaks of the death of Christ as the ground of 
 salvation, it is in O. T. language that he lays stress on its 
 significance. And all this without so much as hinting at the 
 specific difference between the O. and N. T. So that all the 
 ideas, more especially, which are in Paul rooted in the clear 
 consciousness of the difference between the two economies: 
 δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ τῆς πίστεως, υἱοθεσία, the relation of affection 
 between God and Christians as His children,’ ete., occupy here 
 an entirely subordinate position. Nevertheless the tone of 
 the whole epistle is decidedly Christian, not only in that it is 
 inspired by that spirit to which Christ referred when He said 
 to James and John: “Know ye not what spirit ye are of?” 
 but because there is to be found in it no trace of Mosaic 
 legality, or of the national narrowness peculiar to the Jewish 
 
 1 Strangely enough, Hofmann takes offence at what is here said, although he 
 himself describes ‘‘ Peter’s mind as one which directly apprehended the duty of 
 the moment, as the moment presented it, and set about fulfilling it by word 
 and deed without eireumlocution or hesitation,’ —proof evidently of a practical 
 mind. 
 
 2 According to Hofmann, it is not the conception, but the manner of ex- 
 pression, that is that of the O. T.; but is not expression determined by con- 
 ception ? 
 
 3 This, too, Hofmann questions, assigning as his reason chap. i. 17; but 
 the expression Father is applied to God in the O. T. also (Isa. Ixiii. 16; Jer. 
 xxxi. 9), without the relation of child being conceived in the same way as it 
 is by Paul. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 people. The Christian church is a γένος ἐκλεκτόν just in 
 that it is Christian, and not in any way because the greater 
 part of it belongs to the nation of Israel, “into which the 
 others have only been ingrafted.” The Mosaic law is not 
 so much as mentioned, nor does the expression νόμος once 
 oceur. No doubt it is strongly insisted upon that Christians 
 should live an holy life; but the obligation is deduced not 
 from any law, but from the fact that they are redeemed from 
 their ματαία ἀναστροφή by the τέμιον αἷμα of Christ, and are 
 born again of seed incorruptible, while, as the means through 
 which they are to procure their sanctification, the πνεῦμα is 
 mentioned, not the legal letter (a γράμμα). From this it 
 follows that the name “ Apostle of the Circumcision” (Weiss), 
 given to Peter, is inappropriate, if it be understood in a sense 
 different from that in Gal. ii. 7, 8. It can nowhere be proved 
 from his epistle that circumcision had for Peter any significance 
 whatever for the Christian life. Rather is he penetrated by 
 O. T. ideas only in so far as they obtain their true fulfilment in 
 Christianity, and no allusion whatever is made to those of them 
 which had already found their realization in Christ.—Further, 
 the epistle bears a peculiar character from the traces in it which 
 prove the author to have been an eye-witness and an ear-witness 
 of Christ. Not only does the apostle style himself μάρτυς τῶν 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, but the way in which he discourses 
 of the sufferings and glory of Christ is a proof that he speaks 
 from a personal experience, the power of which he himself 
 had directly felt. Nor this alone. Oftentimes in his expres- 
 sions the very words he had heard from Christ are re-echoed, 
 and hence the many points of accord, especially with the 
 discourses of Christ as these are contained in the synoptic 
 Gospels ; cf. chap. 1. 4 with Matt. xxv. 34; 1. 8 with John xx. 
 23; 1.10 ff. with Luke x. 24; 1. 13 with Luke xu. 35; ü 
 12 with Matt. v. 10; ii. 17 with Matt. xxi 21; ii. 13-15 
 with Matt. x. 28; and v. 10, 11, iv. 13, 14, with Matt. v. 
 12; v. 3 with Matt. xx: 25, 26; v. 6 with Matt. xxiii. 12.' 
 
 1 Hofmann, indeed, disputes that there is here any allusion to the words of 
 Christ ; he admits, however, that it is possible that ‘‘the expression used by our 
 Lord, Matt. v. 16, was present to the mind of the apostle when writing ii. 12;’ 
 and he says: “the ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε shows clearly enough that it is written 
 
20 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Lastly, the epistle shows an unmistakeable kinship with 
 various writings of the N. T. Did this consist merely in 
 the occurrence here and there of single cognate thoughts, 
 conceptions, or expressions, there would still be no proof of 
 interdependence. In the whole of the N. T. writings there 
 is contained a gospel substantially one and the same, and 
 there must have prevailed in the intercourse of believers 
 with one another — every allowance being made for diver- 
 sity in the individual—a common mode of thought and 
 expression, which had its origin chiefly in the writings 
 of the O. T. But the affinity which is apparent between 
 the Epistle of Peter and several of the Epistles of Paul and 
 the Epistle of James, goes far beyond this. Among Paul’s 
 writings there are several passages in the Epistles to the 
 Romans and Ephesians to which Peter’s epistle stands in a 
 relation of dependence. Almost all the thoughts in Rom. xii. 
 and ΧΙ]. are to be found repeated in the Epistle of Peter,— 
 only here they are scattered throughout the whole letter ;— 
 and not detached thoughts alone, but whole trains of thought, 
 in which there is a similarity of expression even in what is 
 of secondary moment; cf. from Rom. xii, ver. 1 with 1 Pet. 
 il. 5, ver. 2 with i, 14, vv. 3-8 with iv. 10, ver. 9 with 1. 22, 
 ver. 10 with ii. 17, ver. 13 with iv. 9, more especially vv. 14-19 
 with iii, 8-12; and from chap. xiii., vv. 1-7 with ü. 13, 14 
 (see on this Weiss, p. 406 ff.). But echoes of other passages in 
 Romans are to be found; cf. Pet. 1. 21 with Rom. iv. 24; 
 Pet. ii. 24 with Rom. vi. 18; Pet. iii. 22 with Rom. viii. 34; 
 Pet. iv. 1, 2 with Rom. vi. 7 (here it is not the clauses only 
 which correspond: ὁ παθὼν «.7.r. and ὁ ἀποθανὼν «.T.A., but 
 the subsequent thought of Peter: eis τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων 
 K.T.\., answers to the previous idea of Paul: τοῦ μηκέτι Sov- 
 λεύειν K.T.A.); Pet. v. 1 with Rom. viii. 18; particularly 
 striking is the agreement between Pet. ii. 6 and Rom. ix. 33 
 (x. 11). — The kinship between the Epistle of Peter and that 
 to the Ephesians is based not on single passages only, but at the 
 same time on the composition of the two writings. If our epistle 
 
 ” 
 
 by one who has seen the Lord.” Hofmann is wrong in denying that the words 
 μάρτυς τῶν σοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, v. 1, bear the meaning here presupposed. 
 See Hofmann in loc. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 be in superscription and introduction similar to the epistles of 
 Paul, it bears a peculiar resemblance to that to the Ephesians, 
 inasmuch as the thanks expressed in the latter have reference 
 not to the particular circumstances of a special church, but to 
 the common salvation of which the Christians had been made 
 partakers ; the formula of thanksgiving, too, is in both literally 
 the same: εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς x.7.d. (thus 2 Cor.). The contents, 
 too, of the epistles present many points of similarity both in 
 the general exhortations to a walk in love towards each other, 
 humility, and meekness, and a renunciation of their former 
 heathenish life in fleshly passions and lusts, and in the special 
 exhortations with respect to domestic relations ; further, in the 
 summons to resist the devil, and lastly, in the concluding wish 
 of peace. The following particular passages may be compared 
 
 with each other: Pet. 1. 1 (ἐκλεκτοῖς... κατὰ πρόγνωσιν 
 Θεοῦ... ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος) and Eph. i. 4 (ἐξελέξατο 
 ἡμᾶς... πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, εἶναι ἡμ. ἁγίους) ; Pet. 1. 5 
 
 and Eph. i.19; Pet. i. 14 and Eph.ii. 3; Pet. i.18 and Eph. 
 iv. 17; Pet. ii. 4, 5 and Eph. ii. 20-22; Pet. ii. 18 and Eph. 
 vi. 5; Pet.iii. 1 and Eph.v. 22; Pet. iii. 18 (προσάγειν) and 
 Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12 (mpocaywyn); Pet. iii. 22 and Eph. i. 20, 
 21; Pet. v. 8,9 and Eph. vi. 10 ff. It is also worthy of 
 special remark that in both epistles the goal of the Christian 
 is indicated by the word κληρονομία, and that in both the 
 angel world is represented as standing in a relation to Christ’s 
 work of redemption; cf. Pet. i. 12 and Eph. iii. 10; Peter 
 seems to make reference also to Eph. iv. 8-10. 
 
 The similarity between particular passages of Peter’s epistle 
 and Paul’s other epistles is not of such a nature as to 
 warrant the conclusion that there is a dependence of the 
 former on the latter. If, eg., Pet. iii. 2, etc, and 1 Tim. u. 9 
 treat of the ornaments of women, and the order in which the 
 particular objects are brought forward be in both cases the 
 same, this may doubtless be a merely accidental circumstance. 
 Besides, the nomenclature varies—On the other hand, the 
 agreement between particular passages in the Epistles of 
 James and Peter is of such a kind that it cannot be regarded 
 as accidental; see Pet. i. 6, 7 and Jas. i. 2, 3 (comp. ἀγαλ- 
 λιᾶσθε and xapav ἡγήσασθε ; λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασ- 
 
22 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 pots and ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσετε ποικίλοις, and in both 
 passages the identical τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως) ; further, 
 Pet. ii. 1 and Jas. i. 21 (there: ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν κακίαν ; 
 here: ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν kaklas; there: 
 τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπυποθήσατε;; here, the not very dis- 
 similar thought: δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον ; there, the aim: 
 ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν ; here, the similar thought 
 in the participial clause: τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς 
 ὑμῶν) ; lastly, Pet. v. 5-9 and Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10, where in 
 both passages there is the same quotation from the O. T., 
 then the exhortation to humble submission to God, and 
 thereon the summons to withstand the devil; besides this, 
 Pet. v. 6 is almost identical with Jas. iv. 10." 
 
 The dependence of Peter’s epistle on the writings already 
 mentioned, whilst it is acknowledged by almost all inter- 
 preters (in recent times more especially by Wiesinger, Schott, 
 and Hofmann; in like manner, too, by Ewald, Reuss, Bleek ; 
 Guericke’s opinion is doubtful), is denied by Mayerhoff, Rauch, 
 and Brückner. Brückner, while admitting that there still 
 remains the general impression of so many echoes, which 
 always seems to point back to the dependence of Peter's 
 epistles, is nevertheless of opinion that the similarity can be 
 ~ explained simply from the circumstance that cognate ideas in 
 the minds of the apostles called for cognate terms, especially 
 if there be taken into account the power of primitive Chris- 
 tian tradition on early Christian style, and the prevalent 
 modes of expression which had arisen out of conceptions 
 formed under the influence of the Old Covenant. This result, 
 however, he obtains in the following way :—He resolves the 
 similar thoughts into their several elements; and having 
 directed special attention to these, he lays particular stress on 
 the differences he discovers. This process of separation is of 
 necessity misleading, and if it be not employed, the similarity 
 is so great that there can be no doubt as to the dependence of 
 
 1 Although several of the citations from the Epistles to the Romans and 
 Ephesians, and from that of James, might lead to the supposition that the pas- 
 sages in question in Peter’s epistle are not dependent on them (cf. Hofmann, 
 p- 206 ff.), yet, as is fully recognised by Hofmann, that in no way alters the 
 matter itself. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 23 
 
 the one composition on the other. Weiss has demonstrated 
 this at full length with respect to the relation between the 
 Epistle of Peter and those to the Romans (chaps. xii. and xiii.) 
 and Ephesians. He is wrong, however, when he says that 
 the dependence is on the side of Paul, and not on that of 
 Peter. With regard to Rom. xii. and xiil., it must be remem- 
 bered—(1) That it is entirely improbable that Paul should, 
 quite contrary to his usual custom, have been at the trouble 
 to collect the thoughts here arranged from an epistle where 
 they occur in a quite different connection ; whilst there is in 
 itself nothing improbable in the supposition,—if he were 
 acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans, and more espe- 
 cially the above chapters,—that Peter wrote under the influence 
 of Paul's expression in the different passages of his epistle, 
 where the course of his own thoughts suggested to him the 
 same ideas. (2) That the views of Weiss necessarily lead 
 to a depreciation of the literary capability of Paul. Weiss 
 himself says that Paul’s dependence on Peter caused him to 
 place in chap. xii. 6, 7, διακονία, in the narrower sense, which 
 is “evidently jarring,’ between the three spiritual gifts; to 
 introduce in ver. 11, “ without any purpose,” the exhortation 77 
 ἐλπίδι xalpovres; to put the thought in ver. 15 in the wrong 
 place ; and in ver. 16 to interpolate the idea quite inappropri- 
 ately.’ As to the Epistle to the Ephesians, it must be remarked 
 —(1) That no foreign influence can be recognised in it,—when 
 compared with the other Pauline Epistles. Its dissimilarity is 
 to be explained from its own individual tendency as a circular 
 letter. (2) That the special peculiarities by which this Epistle 
 is distinguished from the other letters of Paul, even from that 
 to the Colossians, have nothing whatsoever in common with 
 the Epistle of Peter. In addition to this, let it be noted that 
 the independence of Paul, which is apparent in every one of 
 his epistles, stands in sharpest contradiction with the assump- 
 
 1 Since Weiss himself uses the expressions above quoted, the accusation that 
 he detracts from Paul’s independence is certainly not without justification. If 
 he complain that even in this commentary regard is not paid to ‘‘the general 
 considerations” (pp. 403-406 in der Petrin. Lehrbegriff), we must observe in 
 reply, that general possibilities do not issue in much,—more especially when 
 concrete circumstances prevent that being regarded as a reality which is in 
 itself possible. 
 
24 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 tion that the apostle was indebted to those passages in Peter’s 
 epistle ; whilst, on the other hand, the leaning which Peter 
 had to the O. T. and to the words of Christ, shows that to 
 allow his mode of expression to be shaped by the influence of 
 another was in no way opposed to the peculiar character of 
 his mind, but entirely in harmony with it, as part of a nature 
 “ easily determined, receptive, and peculiarly open to personal 
 impressions,” Schott. 
 
 REMARK. — Weiss, in his essay entitled Die Petrinische 
 Frage, written for the purpose of defending his views on the 
 dependence of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, 
 against objections raised to them, substantially repeats what 
 he had formerly said, and hardly adduces anything new. In 
 denying that there subsists any relation of dependence between 
 Rom. vi. 7 and Pet. iv. 12, and between Rom. vi. 2, 18 and Pet. 
 11. 24, Weiss overlooks the fact that the resemblance rests not 
 alone on the two expressions ὁ ἀποθανών and ὁ παθὼν σαρκί, and that 
 his interpretation of σαῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι 18 AN erroneous one. 
 A more minute examination of the several clauses of chaps. xii. 
 and xii. of Romans can result merely in the conclusion, that it 
 is not in itself impossible that this epistle was conceived under 
 the influence of Peter’s letter. But the priority of the latter 
 is not thereby proved. The hortatory design of this epistle 
 explains why it is that Peter has confined himself to these two 
 chapters, and why in his composition are to be found none “ of 
 the developments of Christian doctrinal conceptions peculiar 
 to Paul.” Besides, it must be noted that although Peter says 
 nothing of the relation of the νόμος and the ἔργα rod νόμου, he is 
 completely at one with Paul in the fundamental conception 
 that sinful man can obtain salvation only through faith in 
 Christ. — With respect to the affinity between the Epistle of 
 Peter and that to the Ephesians, Weiss himself admits that 
 “evidence for the originality of the Petrine passages can be 
 led with still less strictness from a comparison of details.” 
 Weiss wrongly affirms that the Epistle to the Ephesians is 
 related to that of Peter precisely in those very points which 
 distinguish it from the rest of Paul’s writings. For the peculiar 
 and distinctive character of the Epistle to the Ephesians does 
 not consist only in that it is a circular letter (an assertion 
 which, however, is decidedly denied by many critics, and 
 particularly by Meyer; see his commentary, Hinl. § 1), and 
 that its commencement is of an import more general than that 
 of the other Pauline Epistles, but more especially in the whole 
 
INTRODUCTION, 25 
 
 diction, which, in the rich fulness of its expression, bears an 
 impress different from the rest of the apostle’s writings. That 
 this peculiarity, however, cannot be traced to a knowledge on 
 the apostle’s part of Peter's epistle, needs not to be proved. 
 When Weiss finds it a characteristic of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians that its “ ethical exhortation culminates in advices for 
 the several stations of life,” he must have forgotten that exactly 
 the same is the case with the Epistle to the Colossians, which 
 plainly was not written under the influence of Peter’s epistle. 
 
 The dependence of this epistle on Paul and James is not, 
 as Schott assumes, to be attributed to Peter’s intention to show 
 the agreement of his doctrine with that of these two men. 
 For it is precisely their doctrinal peculiarities which are not 
 echoed in the related passages; and altogether a doctrinal 
 intent is nowhere discernible. It must therefore be assumed 
 that Peter, from his familiarity with these epistles, was so 
 penetrated by their prevailing modes of thought and expres- 
 sion, and the connection of their ideas, that recollections 
 of these, although not unconsciously still involuntarily,’ 
 became interwoven with his style. Such reminiscences, too, 
 would press themselves upon his mind the more readily in 
 the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that it was addressed 
 to the same churches in Asia Minor which Peter felt himself 
 urged to confirm and strengthen in their state of grace.” 
 
 With all this dependence, however, the epistle has still 
 its peculiar impress different from that of the epistles of Paul 
 and James. Although it abound in conceptions which are 
 
 1 Schott’s opinion is far-fetched, that Peter’s continual references to the Pauline 
 Epistles arose from his tender anxiety lest he should add to “the disquiet and 
 apprehension of his readers, by giving any direct expression to his apostolic 
 individuality, unknown as it was to them.” He thinks that for this reason Peter 
 had, ‘‘ without mentioning his intention, unnoticed, and as it were by chance, 
 here and there, sometimes more distinctly and sometimes less so, allowed his 
 readers to hear the well-known voice of their real pastor.” 
 
 ® Hofmann goes too far in maintaining that Peter ‘‘ purposely ” connected 
 his epistle with that to the Ephesians, making the opening passages of the 
 former thus similar to those of the latter, ‘‘in order that from the commence- 
 ment his heathen readers must perceive his intention, and recognise the 
 harmony subsisting between that which was written by the Apostle of the 
 Circumcision and that formerly penned by the Apostle of the Heathen.” This 
 assertion arises from the mistaken views which Hofmann has formed as to the 
 design of the epistle. 
 
26 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 common to all the apostles, there are yet to be found in it 
 not only particular expressions and terms, but also many ideas, 
 which are foreign to the other writings of the N. T. Thus 
 it is distinctive of this epistle, that the work of salvation is 
 characterized as something after which the prophets searched, 
 and into which the angels desired to look (i. 10-12); that 
 the Christians are called πάροικοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι (ii. 11); 
 that the exhortation to an holy walk is based on this, that 
 thereby the heathen would recognise the groundlessness of 
 their accusations (ii. 12, 111. 16); and that the endurance of 
 wrong is termed a xapıs. Further, peculiar to this epistle 
 are: the exhibition of Christ’s sufferings as a type of their 
 own sufferings for the faith’s sake (ii. 21 ff.); the idea that 
 Christ has preached to the spirits in prison (111. 19, iv. 6); 
 the consolation drawn from the similarity of the affliction of 
 the Christian brethren (v. 9); Sarah, in her subjection to 
 Abraham, held up to women as an example (iii. 6); the 
 comparison drawn between baptism and the flood, and the 
 designation of the former as συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα 
 (ii. 21); the thought that the sufferings of Christ form the 
 beginning of judgment (iv. 12); the exhortation to the elders 
 (v. 1-3); the term ἀρχυποιμήν as (v. 4) applied to Christ, ete. 
 It. cannot justly be urged against this epistle that it is 
 wanting in logical development of thought. Since the epistle 
 bears an hortatory character, there is nothing to excite surprise 
 when the author makes a transition from more general to more 
 special precepts, and again from more special to more general, 
 and when he, as the spirit moves him, builds now one 
 exhortation, now another, on this or on that fact of redemp- 
 tion, finding here again occasion for fresh admonitions. But 
 that with all this there is no want of a definite train of 
 thought, is proved by the above summary of contents. The 
 style does not abound in aphorisms, like that of the discourses 
 of Jesus and the Epistle of James, but is distinguished by 
 thoughts connected by means of participles, relative pronouns, 
 copulative particles, as in the Pauline Epistles. A peculiarity, 
 too, is to be found in the frequent condensation of several 
 conceptions into a substantival or adjectival idea by means 
 of the definite article (chap. 1. 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 17, etc.); further, the frequent use of the particle ws (chap 
 iit, 19, im 5 5 16, iv. 10, 11, 15,16, v. 3); lastly, the 
 construction of the participle, both with an imperative either 
 preceding (i. 13, 14, 22, ii. 1, 4, 16) or following it (i. 18, 23, 
 ii. 1, 2, 5, 7), as also its employment in an absolute and 
 independent way, without being joined to a particular finite 
 verb (it. LS, ii. 1, 7,9, 16, iv. 8). 
 
 Whilst de Wette looks on the epistle as hardly worthy of 
 an apostle, others praise, and rightly too, the freshness and 
 vividness of its style,’ its “richness in Christian doctrine,” 
 and the “noble artlessness which feels itself satisfied and 
 blessed in the simple and believing reception, and calm and 
 quiet possession, of the facts of a divinely given salvation” 
 
 (Schott). 
 
 SEC. .—THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE; THE TIME AND PLACE OF 
 ITS COMPOSITION. 
 
 Whilst the epistle itself gives no precise information as to 
 who the readers addressed are, its superscription shows them 
 to have been Christians in Asia Minor, more especially those in 
 Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (by which term proconsular 
 Asia is to be understood), and Bithynia; that is to say, the 
 Christians in regions where Paul and his companions, according 
 to his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, had first preached 
 the gospel and founded the Christian church.—In ancient 
 times the prevalent view was that the epistle was addressed to 
 Jewish-Christians. This opinion was entertained by Eusebius, 
 Didymus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lactus; and among more recent authors, by Erasmus, Calvin, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Augusti, Hug, Bertholdt, Pott, and others. 
 Several interpreters, like Wolf, Gerhard, Jachmann, etc., have 
 modified this view, in so far that they hold the epistle to have 
 been written principally (principaliter) no doubt for Jewish- 
 Christians, but in a certain sense (quodammodo) for Gentile- 
 Christians also (fidei interna ac loci externa unitate illis con- 
 
 1 Grotius : habet haec epistola τὸ σφοδρόν, conveniens ingenio principis aposto- 
 lorum. Bengel: mirabilis est gravitas et alacritas Petrini sermonis lectorem 
 suavissime retinens, 
 
28 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 junctos). This is the position taken up by Weiss. He 
 assumes that the majority of church members were Jewish- 
 Christians, and that these were regarded by Peter as the real 
 body of the congregations; for this reason, and not thinking of 
 the admixture of heathen which had everywhere taken place, 
 the apostle addresses the Jewish-Christians only. Weiss’ view 
 is very closely bound up with his opinion, that the churches 
 in question had already been founded before the missionary 
 journey of Paul to Asia Minor, by Jews of that region who 
 had been converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost or 
 subsequently to it. This assertion, however, is not only with- 
 out any foundation whatsoever in history, but is opposed to 
 all that is told us of the Apostle Paul’s labours in Asia Minor, 
 in his epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles, inasmuch as 
 there is in neither the smallest hint that when he commenced 
 his work there, a Christian church was in existence anywhere 
 in that land. It is surely inconceivable that Paul should have 
 pursued his missionary work in that region without in any 
 way taking notice of the church already established there, 
 and all the more so if that church had by that time risen to 
 such importance as to draw on itself the persecuting hate of 
 the heathen.—The proofs adduced by Weiss, that the epistle 
 was addressed to Jewish-Christian churches, are as follow :— 
 1. The designation of the readers in the superscription of the 
 letter; 2. The style of expression so strongly based on the O. T.; 
 3. The occurrence of several passages, namely: chaps. 1.14, 18, 
 ii. 9, 10, i. 6, iv. 3, which point apparently to Gentile, but in 
 reality to Jewish-Christians as readers. The irst proof falls to 
 the ground when the expression ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς 
 Πόντου «.r.X. is correctly understood (see comment. to i. 1). 
 With regard to the second proof, however, it must be noted 
 that the references to the O. T. were for Gentile-Christians 
 (who of course cannot be conceived of without some acquaint- 
 ance with the ©. T.) not less intelligible than for Jewish- 
 Christians. Paul himself makes frequent enough allusion to 
 the O. T. in his epistles addressed to Gentile-Christians (cf. eg. 
 1 Cor. i. 19, 31, ü. 9, 16, iii. 19, 20, etc.).’—With respect 
 
 1 Weiss wrongly tries (die Petrin. Frage, p. 623) to neutralize the evidential 
 value of this remark, by saying ‘‘that it does not touch the very pith of his 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 to the third proof, the previous condition of the readers in 
 the passages quoted is not in appearance only, but as a matter 
 of fact, characterized as heathenish, and that not positively 
 simply, but negatively also. For in these verses there is not 
 the faintest intimation that the readers before their con- 
 version had stood, as Israelites, in the covenant relation to 
 God to which Paul invariably makes reference when he 
 speaks to Jews or of them. The whole character of the 
 epistle speaks not against, but much more in favour of the 
 assumption that the churches here addressed, at least the larger 
 part of them, were composed not of Jewish, but of Gentile- 
 Christians. In favour, too, of this view, is the circumstance that 
 these same churches are represented as suffering persecution, 
 not at the hands of the Jews, but of the heathen ; which goes 
 to show that the latter did not regard these Christians merely 
 as a sect within Judaism, as would naturally have been the 
 case had they been formerly Jews, or for the most part Jews. 
 The persecuting zeal of the heathen was directed against it 
 only when Christianity began to draw its professors no longer 
 from Judaism chiefly, but from heathendom; and it was not 
 Jewish, but Gentile-Christian churches which were the objects 
 of detestation. Justly, then, did Augustine (contra Faustum, 
 xii. 89) already, and Cassiodorus (de instit. div. lit. ii. p. 516) 
 later on, Luther and Wetstein, and in recent times Steiger, de 
 Wette, Brückner, Mayerhoff, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, as 
 also Neander, Guericke, Reuss, Lechler, Schaff, Jul. Köstlin, 
 Bleek, and others, pronounce in favour of the opinion that the 
 churches in question must be held to have been composed of 
 Gentile-Christians. The hypothesis of Benson, Michaelis, 
 Credner, and some others, that this epistle is designed for 
 
 argument, which consists in this, that Peter expressly quotes the O. T., as Paul 
 does only ini. 16, ii, 6.” For, on the one hand, Paul, too, employs O. T. expres- 
 sions and phrases without adding γέγραπται or the like, e.g. in the passage above 
 quoted, 1 Cor. ii. 16. On the other hand, the O. T. expressions employed by Peter 
 without the formula of quotation, are of such a kind as to have been intelli- 
 gible to the Christians as such, irrespective of whether they formerly had been 
 heathens or Jews ; nor do they by any means ‘‘ presuppose so intimate a know- 
 ledge of the O. T. as is conceivable only in those who had formerly been 
 Jews.” With regard to their acquaintance with the O. T., cf. Meyer on Rom. 
 vii. 1, where Paul speaks of the Christians, without exception, as γινώσκοντες 
 voLov, 
 
30 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 such Gentile-Christians as had before their conversion to 
 Christianity been “ Proselytes of the Gate,” is evidently a 
 purely arbitrary one. 
 
 As to their condition, we gather from the epistle for the 
 most part only, that the churches were at that time exposed 
 to many persecutions at the hands of the heathen, which, 
 however, consisted more in contumelies and revilings than 
 in actual ill-treatment. That these manifold persecutions 
 were instituted by the state cannot, with Hug, Mayerhoff, 
 and Neander, be concluded from the expressions amoAoyia 
 and κακοποιός in 111. 15, 16. Schott’s conjecture, that they 
 were connected with those which arose under Nero, is refuted 
 on the one hand by their character as described in the epistle, 
 and on the other by the testimony of history, which confines 
 the Neronic persecution solely to Rome. A too gloomy 
 picture of the moral condition of the readers must not be 
 drawn from the exhortations given to them relative to the 
 persecutions, although it is not ineredible that the short- 
 comings brought here and there to light by the persecutions 
 may have induced the apostle to compose this epistle; open 
 blame is nevertheless not expressed. Nor is there anything 
 to indicate that the church was disturbed by heretical tenden- 
 cies, or opposing parties of Jewish and Gentile-Christians.— 
 The notion that Peter was personally acquainted with his 
 readers, is opposed as much by the want of any personal 
 relations on his part to his readers, as by the distinction he 
 makes between himself and those who had proclaimed the 
 gospel to them. 
 
 Only one passage (v. 13) has reference to the place where 
 the epistle was composed. From the circumstance that Peter 
 sends greetings from the church (not from his wife) in Babylon, 
 it may correctly be inferred that during the composition of the 
 epistle he was in that city. - But whether by Babylon is to 
 be understood the Babylon properly so called, on the banks of 
 the Euphrates, or Rome rather, the capital of the world, is a 
 question by no means settled as yet (cf. on this the remarks 
 to the passage). It is not at all improbable in itself that Peter 
 was for a time in Babylon proper, and laboured there as an 
 apostle, the less so that from of old, in that very city, 
 
INTRODUCTION. a4 
 
 there were large Jewish communities, which stood in intimate 
 connection with Jerusalem. 
 
 In order to settle more precisely the time of the composition, 
 it must be observed principally — (1) That the epistle is 
 directed to Pauline churches; (2) That it presupposes the 
 acquaintance of its author with the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 If these two points, above proved to be correct, are estab- 
 lished, the epistle can neither, as Weiss assumes, have been 
 composed at the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey, 
 nor, as Brückner conjectures, at the end of it; its origin 
 must be relegated rather to a later date. Assuming that 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul during 
 his captivity at Rome, Wieseler would place the composition 
 of our epistle in the latter part of that captivity. But the 
 following facts militate against this; on the one hand, that the 
 persecutions of the Christians in the provinces of Asia Minor, 
 which occasioned this letter of Peter, are mentioned neither 
 in the Epistle to the Ephesians nor in that to the Colossians ; 
 and, on the other, that in the former there is no reference to 
 those false teachers whose appearance these epistles presuppose. 
 Peter, too, if he had composed his epistle at that time, would 
 certainly not have left the imprisonment of Paul unnoticed, 
 the more especially that he was writing to a Pauline church. 
 The letter can have been composed, then, only after the two 
 years’ imprisonment of Paul in Rome. Ewald and Hofmann 
 are of opinion that it was written immediately after his release 
 from captivity. But it is more than improbable that an epistle 
 addressed to a Pauline church was composed when Paul was 
 still alive and engaged in work. If such had been the case, 
 Peter would certainly not have omitted to specify the relation 
 in which he stood to Paul, and the motive which induced him 
 to write to a Pauline church, since by so doing he was evi- 
 dently encroaching by his apostolic labours on the missionary 
 territory of Paul” Accordingly, it must be assumed that the 
 epistle was not written until after Paul had been removed by 
 
 1 Hofmann’s remark is singular: that those only were guilty of an interference 
 who attempted to turn away from Paul the Gentile-Christian churches founded 
 by him, and that Peter would only have been guilty of an encroachment if he 
 had aimed at forming a number of Gentile-Christian churches. 
 
32 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 martyrdom from the field of apostolic labour, and withal at a 
 time when this fact had become known to the churches, other- 
 wise Peter could not have passed it over in silence. We must 
 agree, then, with those critics who place the composition of 
 the epistle in the closing years of Peter's lifetime, at the 
 earliest in the year 66 (as Reuss, Bleek, Wiesinger, Schott). 
 If Peter died under Nero, that is, about the year 67 A.D., 
 the period which extends from the Neronic persecution of 
 the Christians and the death of Paul—especially as he 
 suffered martyrdom soon after the conflagration in Rome, 
 64 A.D.—to the time when this epistle was composed, is long 
 enough to allow of it seeming natural that Peter in his epistle 
 should leave those two events unnoticed.’ 
 
 All that we learn from the epistle as to the circumstances 
 in which the churches in question were placed, and in parti- 
 cular, respecting the persecutions to which they were exposed, 
 is in harmony with this date. For although the Christians 
 had to suffer persecution even during the time of Paul’s 
 missionary labours (cf. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14; 2 Thess. 1. 4, etc.), 
 yet this was by no means so generally the case—a statement 
 Hofmann unjustly calls in question—as our epistle seems to 
 presuppose, but took place for the most part then only when 
 the heathen were instigated by the Jews (Acts xvii. 5, xviil. 
 12), or by particular individuals to whose interests Christianity 
 was opposed (cf. Acts xvi. 16 ff, xix. 23 1). And albeit 
 Tacitus records that the Christians, even so early as the burning 
 
 1 The opposite view (Hofmann’s), that the epistle was written between the 
 autumn of the year 63 and that of 64, is based on assumptions, the correctness 
 of which cannot be proved. Hofmann supposes that immediately after Paul’s 
 release Peter undertook the journey from Jerusalem to Rome, passing through 
 Asia Minor by way of Ephesus, withal ‘‘in order that he might restrain those 
 whose enmity towards Paul threatened to produce a dissension which would 
 have been specially injurious to the church of the world’s capital ;” further, 
 that during this journey he became acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 with which he ‘‘ purposely” connected his own ; and that he took Mark, who was 
 with him when he composed his epistle, away with him from Ephesus, ‘‘ because, 
 that of all the Jewish converts who, without belonging to the company of the 
 apostle of the Gentiles, were preaching Christ in Rome at the time of Paul’s 
 imprisonment, he was perhaps the only one whose conduct towards Peter was 
 influenced by love instead of by jealousy and enmity ;” that, immediately upon 
 his arrival at Rome, he wrote his epistle. All these suppositions are purely 
 fictions, nor can the slightest trace of them be found in the Epistle of Peter. 
 
INTRODUCTION. ae 
 
 of Rome, were the “odium humani generis” and “ per flagitia 
 invisi,” they could have begun to be so only after Christianity 
 had shown itself a power capable of advancing on heathendom 
 and convulsing it. This it became only in consequence of 
 Paul’s missionary labour; and Weiss is not justified in taking 
 advantage of the fact to support his views as to the early 
 date of composition. On the other hand, the epistle shows 
 that, at the time of its origin, the hostility of the Gentiles 
 towards Christianity had not risen to such a height that the 
 heathen authorities sought to suppress that religion as a 
 religio nova fraught with danger to the state, but had con- 
 fined itself as yet to slanders and the like, to which the 
 heathen population were incited for the reasons given in 
 chap. iv. All this, in like manner, harmonizes with the 
 date above mentioned. Weiss concludes that the epistle 
 belongs to a time considerably earlier, from the following 
 circumstances: “that these sufferings were for the Christians 
 still something new, at which they wondered ;” and “ that to 
 the heathen it was a thing novel and strange that the Chris- 
 tians should renounce their vicious life;” and from this also, 
 that “the apostle still expresses the naive (!) hope that the 
 heathen, on becoming better acquainted with the holy walk 
 of the Christians, would cease from their enmity, as having 
 arisen from ignorance.” The conclusion, however, is unwar- 
 ranted, the more so that, on the views above expressed as to 
 the origin of the churches of Asia Minor and the date of the 
 epistle’s composition, the time during which the churches 
 had existed was even shorter than on the theory supported 
 by Weiss; according to the latter, they had already been in 
 existence for about twenty years; according to the former, 
 for only about fifteen. Under these circumstances, which he 
 has omitted to take into account, Weiss can naturally draw 
 nothing favourable to his own opinions from the expression 
 occurring in chap. ii. 2: ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη. The mention, too, 
 of the νεώτερου, in contrast to the πρεσβύτεροι (chap. v. 5), is 
 not evidence that the epistle was composed at an earlier date, 
 for there is no proof that such νεώτεροι were no longer to be 
 found in the churches of Asia Minor, say, ten years after the 
 time mentioned by Weiss. But the chief reason which Weiss 
 1 PETER. σ 
 
2 
 
 34 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 adduces as proof that the churches in question were not 
 Gentile-Christian, but Judaeo-Christian communities which 
 had already been in existence before the apostolie career of 
 Paul, and that Peter’s epistle had been written before the 
 literary labours of the former had commenced, is his own 
 affirmation, that the doctrinal system of Peter’s epistle “is pre- 
 paratory to that of Paul.” This assertion, in itself erroneous 
 and opposed to the real state of the case (cf. more particularly 
 Jul. Köstlin, “ Einheit und Mamniefaltigkeit in d. neutest. 
 Lehre,” in the Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1858), can be 
 brought as evidence of the early composition of the epistle, 
 the less that it in no way admits of proof that Paul became 
 acquainted with the opinions of Peter by means only of this 
 epistle, and that Peter afterwards renounced his own system 
 for that of Paul. From the presence of Silvanus and Mark 
 with Peter at the time he composed this epistle, nothing with 
 any exactitude can be concluded, since the former is mentioned 
 in Acts xviii. 5 as the companion of Paul; the latter, although 
 he was in: Rome (Col. iv. 10) during Paul’s first imprison- 
 ment, and during the second (2 Tim. iv. 11) in Asia Minor, 
 may have been with Peter at any other time. 
 
 SEC. 4.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The epistle is one of the writings of the N. T. the authen- 
 ticity of which is most clearly established from antiquity. 
 Although in the works of the Apostolic Fathers, Clemens 
 Romanus, Barnabas, and Ignatius, there are no formal citations 
 from the epistle, but only echoes of it, the direct reference of 
 which cannot with certainty be established, still, on the other 
 hand, it is undeniable, not only that it is mentioned in the 
 so-called Second Epistle of Peter, but that Polycarp also 
 quotes verbatim several passages from it, thus justifying the 
 remark of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 14), that Polycarp had already 
 made use of it; we have it likewise on the testimony of 
 Eusebius that Papias did the same in his work, λογίων kupıa- 
 κῶν ἐξεγήσεις. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alex., Origen, 
 Cyprian, quote passages from the epistle with direct reference 
 
INTRODUCTION. 35 
 
 to it by name, and that without the smallest hint that there 
 had ever a doubt been entertained as to its genuineness. It is 
 found also in the older Peschito, which contains only the three 
 catholic epistles. Eusebius justly, then, numbers it with the 
 Homologumena. In the so-called Muratorian Canon our epistle 
 is doubtless not definitely quoted, but the passage to which 
 reference is made is not of such a nature that it can be used 
 to impugn the authenticity of the epistle.' The words of 
 Leontius of Byzantium do not prove that Theodoret of Mop- 
 suestia disbelieved in its genuineness (contr. Nestor. et Hutych. 
 iii. 14), on which Theodorus: “ob quam causam, ut arbitror, 
 ipsam epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas 
 abrogat et antiquat.” The fact, however, that the Paulicians, 
 according to the testimony of Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich. 
 p. 17), rejected it, plainly does not affect the question. 
 
 In more recent times, Cludius (Uransichten des Christen- 
 thums) was the first to deny the epistle’s genuineness—on 
 
 1 The passage runs thus: Epistola sane Judae et superscripti Johannis duas in 
 eatholica habentur. Etsapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. 
 Apocalypsis etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidem ex nostris 
 legi in ecclesia nolunt.—Hug, who looks upon the whole document as a transla- 
 tion from the Greek, puts a full stop after Johannis, and connects the words 
 Apocalypsis etiam Johannis with what precedes; he regards tantum as a mis- 
 understood translation of μόνην, and quam quidem (or quidam) = ἧς παρὲξ τινες. 
 Guericke agrees with Hug, only with this difference, that instead of ἧς παρέξ τινες, 
 he considers ἥν τινες to be the original text. — Wieseler likewise unites the first 
 words with the preceding passage, and then reads: quem quidam, so that the 
 sense is: “ Of Peter also we accept as much (as of John, who was previously 
 mentioned, i.e. two epistles and an Apocalypse), which some amongst us would 
 not allow to be read in the church.” — Dietlein’s conjecture and explanation is 
 still simpler (die kath. Briefe, Th. I. p. 47). According to it, instead of Apoca- 
 lypsis, there should be ‘‘ Apocalypses,” and the passage would be translated : 
 “ Furthermore, of Apocalypses we accept only those of John and Peter, which 
 (latter) some amongst us would not allow to be read in the church.” — Thiersch’s 
 change of ‘‘tantum ” into ‘‘unam epistolam,” and of the words ** quam quidem” 
 into ‘‘alteram quidam,” is rather too bold. According to Hofmann, the epistle 
 is not alluded to in the Fragment; he, like Hug, accepts an original Greek 
 document, and takes the first half of the passage to say of the Epistle of Jude, 
 and of the two—as stated in the superscription—by John (consequently the first 
 is not included, for it has no superscription), that they are valued in the church 
 as utterances of wisdom written by friends of Solomon (i.e. Christ) to his honour ; 
 in the second part of the passage he understands the writer to say: we so far 
 accept the revelations both of John and Peter, as, indeed, some of us will not 
 allow them to be read in the church. 
 
36 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 grounds, however, entirely insufficient, the weightiest of them 
 being, that in thought and expression it bears a too great 
 similarity to the Pauline Epistles ever to have been composed 
 by Peter. This is what brought Eichhorn to the hypothesis 
 that the epistle was written by some one who had jor a long 
 time been connected with Paul, and had consequently adopted 
 his current ideas and phrases. But as this cannot be applicable 
 to Peter, and yet as all worth must not be denied to ecclesi- 
 astical tradition, Eichhorn goes further, and concludes that 
 Peter supplied the material, but that Mark worked it up into 
 the epistle before us.’ Bertholdt, while justly rejecting this 
 hypothesis, has defended the opinion hinted at already by 
 Hieronymus, and more definitely expressed by Baronius, that 
 the epistle was not originally written in Greek (but in 
 Aramaic ; according to Baronius, in Hebrew), and translated by 
 an interpreter (Baronius holds by Mark, Bertholdt by Silvanus) 
 into Greek. But this hypothesis is not less arbitrary than 
 that of Eichhorn; for, on the one hand, it is an assertion 
 incapable of proof that Peter could not have been familiar 
 with the Greek language; and, on the other, as much the 
 entire diction of the epistle as the harmony with the corre- 
 sponding passages in the epistles of Paul and James, and the 
 whole manner of quotation from the O. T., are evidence against 
 any other than a Greek original. De Wette speaks with 
 some vacillation as to the genuineness.” He recognises, indeed, 
 the weight of the external testimony, and thinks it would be 
 hazardous in the face of it to condemn the epistle as spurious ; 
 yet still he is of opinion that its character is evidence rather 
 against than for its genuineness,—especially on account of its 
 want of distinctive features, and the reminiscences of the 
 
 1 Ewald’s assertion is no less arbitrary, that Peter, not being able to speak 
 and write Greek fluently, employed Silvanus to write the epistle. 
 
 2 Reuss, too (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften N. T.), while no doubt recognising 
 that the tradition of the church from the earliest times unanimously pronounces 
 Peter to be the author, still thinks that there is much in the epistle (more 
 especially its dependence on the Pauline Epistles already mentioned, without 
 any understanding of the system of Paul) which appears strange as coming 
 from Peter. He himself, however, attempts to refute his own objections, though 
 without being able to make up his mind to acknowledge decidedly the authen- 
 ticity of the epistie. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 37 
 
 epistles already repeatedly mentioned. In reply, it must be 
 urged that the epistle is in no wise wanting in individual 
 impress, and that the writings referred to, if Peter had read 
 and become familiar with them, might have left such an 
 impression on him that echoes of them should be discernible 
 without this in any way interfering with a free and independent 
 development of thought, or standing in contradiction to the 
 personal and apostolic character of the composition. That the 
 Tiibingen school should hold this epistle to be spurious, was of 
 course to be expected from its views respecting the apostolic 
 and post-apostolic age." The reasons which Schwegler urges 
 against the genuineness are the following :—(1) The want of 
 any definite external occasion, and the general character of its 
 contents and aim.—But such a want is not apparent, and the 
 general character is to be explained, partly by the fact that 
 the apostle was personally unacquainted with the members of 
 the church, and partly by the designation of the epistle as a 
 circular letter. (2) The want of any literary or theological 
 character bearing the impress of individuality.—It has, how- 
 ever, been shown in $ 2, that in the epistle there is no want 
 of individuality ; but that this must necessarily be as sharply 
 defined as in Paul and John, is an unwarrantable demand. 
 (3) The want of any inner connection of thought——But the 
 tendency of the epistle is opposed to any such “ firm, definite 
 progression of thought” as Schwegler demands, and as is to 
 be found in the Pauline Epistles. (4) It was impossible that 
 Peter, while labouring in the far East at a time and in a region 
 destitute of any means of literary communication, could have 
 had in his hand the later epistles of Paul—supposing these 
 to be genuine—so short a time after their composition—But 
 in Peter’s epistle there are no echoes of the latest of Paul’s 
 epistles. It cannot be denied that between the composition 
 of this epistle and that to the Ephesians, a period of time 
 elapsed sufficiently long to allow of the possibility of Peter's 
 having become acquainted with the latter; nor will it be 
 
 1 Pfleiderer’s opinion, that the Apostle Peter was in favour of a Judaic Christi- 
 anity, whilst the epistle expresses a feeble and insipid Paulinism peculiar to 
 later times (see on this $ 2, p. 16 f.), must necessarily lead him to deny the 
 authenticity also, 
 
38 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 disputed that even before his residence in Babylon Peter 
 might have known it. (5) The impossibility—on the assump- 
 tion of its having been composed in Babylon—of harmonizing 
 the Neronic persecution, presupposed in the epistle, with the 
 martyrdom of Peter in Rome during that persecution—But 
 the supposition that the persecution here referred to was the 
 Neronic, finds no support in the epistle ; nor is it by any means 
 a necessary assumption for “the friends of the conservative 
 school of historians, and a positive criticism,” that the perse- 
 cution reforred to be the Neronic.—For his theory, that the 
 epistle was written in post-apostolic times, and withal under 
 Trajan, Schwegler chiefly depends (here Pfleiderer agrees with 
 him) on this, that the persecution presupposed in the epistle 
 is not the Neronic, but the Trajanic; and for the truth of his 
 assertion he brings the following proofs:—(1) The calm, unim- 
 passioned tone of the epistle as contrasted with the impression 
 which the Neronic persecution made upon the Christians. (2) 
 Under Nero the Christians were persecuted, inasmuch as they 
 were accused of participation in fire-raising, that is to say, on 
 account of a definite crime ; but at the time of this letter they 
 suffered persecution as Christians (ὡς χριστιανοί), on whom 
 suspicion was sought to be thrown on account of their general 
 behaviour (ὡς κακοποιοί). (3) It is incapable of proof, and 
 incredible, that the Neronic persecution extended beyond 
 Rome. (4) The epistle takes for granted investigations, with 
 regular trial and under legal forms; whilst the Neronic per- 
 secution was a tumultuary act of popular law. (5) The 
 position of Christianity in Asia Minor, presupposed in the 
 epistle, corresponds with the description of it given in Pliny’s 
 letter to Trajan—Of all these, however, this one point alone 
 must be conceded, that the persecution referred to cannot be 
 regarded as due directly to the burning of Rome — all the 
 other assertions being based simply on arbitrary assumptions 
 or on false interpretations.’ It is also entirely out of place 
 
 1Jn opposition to Schwegler, it must be remarked—(1) The passionless tone 
 would remain equally admirable in the Trajanic persecution as under that of 
 Nero ; any other style would have been hardly becoming an apostle. (2) From 
 the first, and not under Trajan alone, the Christians had to suffer from the very 
 fact of their being Christians. (3) Although the persecution of Nero, ie. the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 for Schwegler to understand the formula of salutation (v. 12) 
 symbolically, so as to find in it the expression of the later 
 church tradition “as to the presence of Peter in Rome, along 
 with his ἑρμενευτής Mark,” and to assert that v. 2 points to an 
 ecclesiastico - political constitution (!) which had overspread 
 the whole of Christendom, and to the sway of hierarchical 
 tendencies (!) which had already forced their way into it. 
 Schwegler sees the real design of the epistle expressed in the 
 passage v. 12, according to which “it is simply the attempt 
 on the part of one of Paul’s followers to reconcile the two 
 opposing schools of Peter and Paul, by putting into the mouth 
 of Peter, as testimony to the orthodoxy of his fellow-apostle 
 Paul, a somewhat Petrine-coloured presentation of the Pauline 
 system.” Schwegler seeks to establish this hypothesis, which 
 even Pfleiderer calls in question, thus: that, on the one hand, 
 in the epistle are to be found “almost all the chief conceptions 
 and fundamental ideas” of Paul; on the other, the latter’s 
 doctrine of justification is wanting, and thoughts, views, and 
 expressions occur which are peculiar to Petrinism. It is not 
 to be denied that Schwegler, in carrying out his idea, has 
 sought out every point which could in any way be used in 
 its favour; his labour, however, has been in vain—the unten- 
 ableness of the hypothesis being too apparent. For if the 
 maintenance of the churches in the gospel preached to them 
 be a matter obviously near to the apostle’s heart, yet in 
 its whole composition there is no justification for the assertion 
 that the epistle has for its aim a conciliatory design which is 
 nowhere apparent in it. How strange that the matter of 
 (hief moment should be, not the exhortations of which the 
 cpistle is composed, but something entirely different—nowhere 
 expressed in it, not even in ver. 5! How can a Paulinism be 
 conceived of from which the very pith is wanting, the doctrine 
 
 one which he himself instituted, did not extend beyond Rome, still in his day 
 the Christians might, through the hatred of the people, have had to endure 
 persecution in the provinces as well. (4) No mention is made in our epistle of 
 any judicial persecution of the Christians according to legal form. (5) The 
 description given in Pliny’s letter does not prove that the persecution mentioned 
 here was that under Trajan ; in the latter, the Christians were punished formally 
 with death ; whilst there is nothing in our epistle to show that such took place 
 in the former. 
 
40 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 of justification by faith, with its characteristic terminology : 
 δικαιοσύνη and δικαιοῦσθαιΣ Precisely the absence of this 
 doctrine, and the other points which Schwegler brings forward 
 as evidence of a Petrine colouring, show that the epistle 
 cannot have been composed by one who belonged to the school 
 of Paul, but must be the production of Peter, or of one of his 
 disciples.’ Lastly, opposed to Schwegler’s hypothesis as to 
 the post-apostolic origin of the epistle, is the circumstance that 
 it is hardly conceivable how a forger should have attempted 
 to palin off on definitely formed churches, some fifty years after 
 his death, a letter professing to have been written by Peter, 
 in which they are comforted in their present affliction; and 
 that he should have been so successful, that the fraud was 
 detected by no one in the churches (comp. against Schwegler, 
 in particular Brückner, Introd. ὃ 5a)—Although the charac- 
 teristic traits which Krummacher (Zvangel. Kirchenzeitung, 
 1829, No. 49), and after him Guericke, brings as proof of the 
 genuineness, namely, “the manner of exhortation, so human 
 and evangelical, so strong and gentle; the urgent directions 
 to stedfastness of faith in lowliness and patience, with reference 
 to the example and the glory of Christ; the urgent appeals 
 to more watchfulness and sobriety the higher their calling as 
 believers ; the repeated summonses to humility; the way in 
 which the general aim is kept in view ; the clearness, precision, 
 and emphatic character of the style,’—these characteristic 
 features, although in themselves they do not prove Peter to 
 have been the author of the epistle, still show that it breathes 
 an apostolic spirit such as is not peculiar to post-apostolic 
 writings, and that in its inward structure there is nothing to 
 justify a doubt as to its genuineness. 
 
 1 Namely, the great stress laid on καλὰ ἔργα, on ἀγαθὴ ἀνασαροφή, On ἀγάπη (!), 
 on ἀγαθοποιεῖν, on ἐλπίς, as a dogmatic fundamental idea synonymous with 
 πίστις ; the symbolizing of the Jewish temple and sacrificial services; the 
 conception of Christians as the true Messianic people ; the introduction into the 
 
 new covenant of the idea of the O. T. priesthood; the expression διασπορά in 
 the superscription. 
 
Πέτρου ἐπιστολὴ a.) 
 
 Instead of this superscription, which A Ο κα have, B reads 
 Πέτρου αἱ ; in some min. it is: Πέτρου καθολικὴ πρώτη ἐπιστολή, and 
 in G: ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ a) τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου ἀποστόλου Ilerpov. 
 
 CHAPTER. I. 
 
 Ver. 6. εἰ δέον ἐστί] Tisch. omits éor/; it is wanting also in Bx, 
 Clem. etc.; Lachm. has retained it; the most of the codd. 
 (A CK LP, etc.) read it, indeed, but it is more easy to explain 
 how it was afterwards added, than how it was left out later. — 
 λυπηθέντες)] The reading λυπηθέντας, in LS and several min., is 
 probably only an error in copying. — Ver. 7. σπολυτιμότερον] 
 adopted by Griesb. already, instead of σολὺ τιμιώτερον in K, etc. 
 — Instead of τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν (Rec., according to Καὶ L P, etc.), 
 Lachm. and Tisch. read δόξαν καὶ τιμήν, which is supported by 
 A BCR, many min, several vss. etc.— Ver. 8. εἰδότες] Rec. 
 after A K L P, etc., Copt. Clem. Theoph. etc.; Lachm. and 
 Tisch., following B C s 27, etc., Syr. Aeth. etc., read iöövrss; as 
 both readings give a fitting sense, and as both are attested by 
 high authorities, it cannot with certainty be decided which is 
 the original. Brückner and Hofmann are in favour of ἰδόντες, 
 Schott of εἰδότες, Wiesinger uncertain. — Ver. 9. After πίστεως, 
 Tisch. 7, following B, several min. Clem. Aeth. ete., omits ὑμῶν, 
 attested though it be by most of the authorities (A C K LPs, 
 al., ete.); Tisch. 8 has retained. Although it may be superfluous 
 for the meaning, yet its omission is not justified. — Vv. 10, 11. 
 Instead of ἐξηρεύνησαν and ἐρευνῶντες, Tisch., following A B, has 
 adopted ἐξηραύνησαν, and after B* ἐραυνῶντες. -- Ver. 11. B omits 
 Χριστοῦ, which must be regarded as a correction. — Ver. 12. 
 Instead of the Received ἡμῦ 62 (K, al., Copt. etc.), Griesb. 
 Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have rightly adopted the reading ὑμῖν δέ, 
 attested by ABCLP®, al., Vulg. ete.! — ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ] Rec., 
 
 1 Buttmann has retained the Rec. ἡμῖν δέ, after B, as he asserts. De Wette 
 holds the Rec. to be the original reading, it being natural that the apostle 
 should include himself, and οἷς rather than ἃ... ὑμῖν would be expected after 
 ὑμῖν ; Brückner justly gives preference to the opposing testimony. 
 
 41 
 
42 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 after C K L PX, etc., Copt. Theoph. etc. (Tisch. 8); Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 7 omit ἐν, after A B, al., Slav. Vulg. Cypr. Didym. ete. 
 Possibly ἐν was interpolated on account of the usage prevalent 
 elsewhere in the N. T. — Ver. 16. Tisch. 7 reads after yeyparraı: 
 ὅτι ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ; On the other hand, Tisch. 8 omits ὅτι before 
 ἅγιοι, and has after ἔσεσθε: διότι. With the preponderance of 
 authorities ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι 15. to be read; almost B alone is in 
 favour of ὅτι before ἅγιοι ; and for διότι, only N. — γένεσθε] Rec., 
 after K Ῥ, ete. — Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read ἔσεσθε, after 
 ABCs, al., Vulg. Clem. Syr.; γένεσθε is a correction after the 
 preceding γενήθητε. In the LXX. ἔσεσθε stands.—In A B*N 
 Clem. Cyr. siz: is wanting after ἅγιος; Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 justly omitted it.— Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read, 
 instead of ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων (fec., after Καὶ L P, etc.) : ἐπὶ ἐσχάτου (A B 
 Cs, al., Copt. Syr. utr. etc.).— Instead of ὑμῶς, A and several 
 min. have ἡμᾶς, which, however, must be considered as a 
 correction. — Ver. 21. σιστεύοντας) Rec., according to C K LP x, 
 etc., several vss. Theoph. Oec.; still the reading πιστούς might 
 be preferred as the more difficult, with Lachm. and Tisch., after 
 A B, especially as morig eis does not occur elsewhere in the 
 N. T.; Wiesinger and Schott also consider πιστούς the original 
 reading, whilst Hofmann gives the preference to the Rec. — 
 Ver. 22. The ec. has the words διὰ #veiuurog after ἀληθείας, 
 following K L P, Theoph. ete., which Griesb. already considers 
 suspicious; Lachm. and Tisch. have justly omitted them 
 (following A B C8, many min. etc.).— Lachm. and Tisch. read 
 ἐκ καρδίας (A B, Vulg.); the Zee. is ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας (Ὁ Καὶ 
 LPs, al. nearly all the vss. etc.); καθαρᾶς is certainly very 
 suspicious, since its addition is more easily explained than its 
 omission; cf. 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. ü. 22; on the other hand, 
 however, see Rom. vi. 17. Hofmann assumes that καθαρᾶς is 
 omitted only by mistake. — Ver. 23. The words eis τὸν αἰῶνα, 
 following in the Rec. after μένοντος, which in A B CR and 
 other authorities are wanting, were justly omitted already by 
 Griesb.— Ver. 24. Lachm. omits ὡς before χόρτος, after A, several 
 min. Syr. ete. Most of the witnesses are in favour of ὡς, the 
 omission of which is to be regarded as a correction after the 
 text of the LXX. — δόξα αὐτῆς] after A B C K L P, etc., instead 
 of the Zec., to be found almost only in min. Rec. : δόξα, ἀνθρώπου. 
 In 8 pr. m. is to be found the reading: ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ. ---- After 
 τὸ ἄνθος the Rec. has αὐτοῦ, retained by Tisch. 7, after C K 
 LP, ete., Vulg. Copt. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted it after 
 A BS, etc.; it is certainly suspicious, since it may have been 
 interpolated as an explanation ; on the other hand, its omission 
 may be a correction after Isa. xl. 7, LXX. 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 43 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. The superscription, while corresponding in funda- 
 mental plan with those of the Pauline Epistles, has nevertheless 
 a peculiar character of its own. — Πέτρος] As Paul in his 
 epistles calls himself not by his original name Σ᾽ αῦλος, so 
 Peter designates himself not by his original name Σίμων, but 
 by that given him by Christ, which “may be regarded as his 
 apostolic, his official name” (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: 
 Συμεὼν Πέτρος. ---- An addition such as διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, 
 or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not always, 
 makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unneces- 
 sary for Peter. — Peter designates his readers by the words: 
 ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπίδημοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου «.7.r.] he calls 
 the Christians to whom he writes—for that his epistle is 
 addressed to Christians cannot be doubted—“elect strangers ;” 
 and withal, those who belong to the διασπορά throughout 
 Pontus, etc. ἐκλεκτοί the Christians are named, inasmuch as 
 God had chosen them to be His own, in order that they 
 might be made partakers of the κληρονομία (ver. 4) reserved 
 for them in heaven; cf. chap. li. 9: ὑμεῖς γένος ἐκλεκτόν. 
 — - παρεπίδημος is he who dwells in a land of which he is 
 not a native (where his home is not); in the LXX. it is 
 given as the rendering of in, Gen. xxiii. 4; Ps. xxxix. 12 
 (in other passages VIM is translated by πάροικος ; cf. Ex. 
 xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 23, 47, etc.) ; in the Apocrypha 
 παρεπίδημος does not occur; in the N. T., besides in this 
 passage, it is to be found in chap. ii. 11; Heb. xi. 13. 
 — If account be taken of vv. 4, 17 (ὁ τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν 
 χρόνος), and particularly of chap. ii. 11, it cannot be doubted 
 that Peter styled his readers παρεπίδημοι, because during 
 their present life upon earth they, as Christians, were not in 
 their true home, which is the κληρονομία... τετηρημένη Ev 
 οὐρανοῖς. The expression is understood in this sense by the 
 more modern writers, in particular by Steiger, Briickner, 
 Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Reuter’s Repertor. 1855, Nov.), 
 Schott, Hofmann, etc.’ It is incorrect to refer the word here to 
 
 1It is inexact to interpret παρεπίδημοι simply by “pilgrims of earth ;” 
 Steinmeyer, on the other hand (Disquisitio in ep. Petr. I. prooemium), rightly 
 observes: ‘‘ quum mansio in terra sempiterna permittatur nemini, in universos 
 omnes vox quadaret, nec in eos solos, qui per evangelium vocati sunt ;” but 
 
44 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by de Wette, and 
 in like manner by Weizsäcker (in Reuter’s Repert. 1858, No. 3).' 
 
 REMARK.—In the O. T. 3v4n occurs in its strict signification in 
 
 Gen. xxiii. 4; Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 47 (LXX. πάροικος). In 
 Lev. xxv. 23, the Israelites are called paviny Oa, in a peculiar 
 connection; God says that such they are with “Him Cty, cf. Gen. 
 xxiii. 4), in that the land wherein they should dwell belongs fo 
 Him. The same idea is to be found in Ps. xxxix. 12, where the 
 Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is 73 
 and avin with God (Ry), as were his fathers; for although in 
 vv. 5-7 the shortness of human life is made specially prominent, 
 yet there is nothing to show that in ver. 12 there is any refer- 
 ence to this. On the other hand, in 1 Chron. xxix. (xxx.) 15, 
 David in prayer to God speaks of himself and his people as ὮΝ} 
 and D'2vin, because they have no abiding rest on earth (32%) bys 
 
 mpd PS passmby) here it is not the preposition my, but saab 
 
 which is used. In the passage Ps. cxix. 19, the relation in 
 which the Psalmist speaks of himself as a stranger is not 
 expressed N83, ver. 54; he calls his earthly life RD, as Jacoh 
 
 in Gen. xlvu. 9, which ae evidently enough to the circum- 
 stance that the Israelites were not without ‘the consciousness 
 that their real home lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, 
 Heb. xi. 13, 14, and Delitzsch in loc. 
 
 Whilst the expression ἐκλεκτοῖς mapemiönuoıs— wherein 
 not ἐκλεκτοῖς (Hofmann) but παρεπιδήμοις is the substantival 
 idea—is applicable to all Christians, the following words : 
 διασπορᾶς IIovrov K.T.X., specify those Christians to whom the 
 epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline 
 Epistles). — διασπορά) strictly an abstract idea, denotes, 
 
 when Steinmeyer adds: ‘‘quare censemur, παρεπίδ, . . . significare. .. in 
 mundo viventes, cujus esse desierint, cui ipsi sint perosi,” he thus gives an 
 improper application to the word, the more so that the conception κόσμος, in an 
 ethical sense, is foreign to the Epistle of Peter.— Weiss weakens the idea 
 by saying: ‘‘ The Christian is in so far a stranger on the earth, as he is aware 
 of the inheritance reserved for him in heaven ; this knowledge the unbeliever 
 cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel himself a stranger on earth.” 
 It is not the knowing and feeling, but the really being, which is of consequence. 
 
 It is still more erroneous to suppose, as Reuss does pies der h. Schriften 
 N. T. § 147, note), that the readers are here termed παρεσίδ., ‘ because they are 
 looked upon as D’N) proselytes, 1.6, Israelites according to ἘΠῚ: not according 
 
 ” 
 
 to the form of worship.” This view, however, is opposed to the usus loquendi, 
 since rap:r/dnuo nowhere denotes proselytes. 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 45 
 
 according to Jewish usage: “ Israel living scattered among the 
 heathen,’—that is, it is a complex of concrete ideas, 2 Mace. 
 i. 27; John vii. 35; cf. Meyer in loc. ; Winer, bibl. Real- 
 wörterb., see under “Zerstreuung.”' The question is now: 
 Is the word to be taken as applying only to the Jewish 
 nation ? From of old the question has, by many interpreters, 
 been answered in the affırmative (Didymus, Oecumenius, 
 Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Weiss, etc.), and there- 
 from the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the 
 epistle were Jewish - Christians” But the character of the 
 epistle is opposed to this view (cf. Introd. $ 3). Since the 
 Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel, of which 
 the Israel of the O. T. was only the type (ii. 9), there is 
 nothing to prevent the expression being applied, as many 
 interpreters hold (Brückner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rettberg 
 in Ersch-Gruber, see under “ Petrus,” and others), to the Chris- 
 tians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No 
 doubt this land had not for the N. T. church the same 
 significance which it possessed for that of the O. T., still it 
 was the scene of Christ’s labours, and in Jerusalem was the 
 mother-church of all Christendom.’ Some interpreters, like 
 Aretius, Schott, Hofmann, leave entirely out of view the local 
 reference of the word, and take it as applying to the whole of 
 Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto orbe, in so far as the latter 
 represents “a concrete corporeal centre around which the 
 members of the church were locally united,” and “has its 
 point of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand 
 
 1 The LXX. translate nm (as a collective noun), Deut. xxx. 4, Neh. i. 9, by 
 διασπορώ, and as inexactly and even incorrectly am Jer, xxxiv. 17; TM", 
 Jer, xv. 7; Syn my Isa. xlix. 6. 
 
 ® Taken in this way, the genit. διασπορῶς must be interpreted as genit. 
 partit., thus: the members of the διασπορώ who have become Christians 
 (ἐκλεκσοὶ παρεπίδημοι). Weizsäcker is altogether mistaken (Reuter’s Repert. 
 1858, No. 3) in his opinion that the reference is to ‘‘ the Christians who, in as 
 far as they dwell among the dispersed Jewish communities, are members of the 
 Diaspora.” 
 
 3 It is worthy of note that Paul also considers the Christian church to be the 
 Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα, that he looks upon the converted heathen as the branches 
 ingrafted into Israel, that he was ever anxious to keep up the connection 
 between the heathen Christian churches and the mother church in Jerusalem, 
 and that he distinctly terms the church triumphant ἡ ἄνω ‘I:pourwaru. 
 
46 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 of God” (Schott ’). Against this, however, it must be urged 
 that Peter, if he had wished the word διασπορά to have been 
 understood in a sense so entirely different from the established 
 usage, would in some way or other have indicated this——It is 
 entirely erroneous to suppose, with Augustine (contra Faus- 
 tum, xxii. 89), Procopius (in Jes, xv. 20), Cassiodorus (de 
 instit. div. litt. 11. p. 516), Luther, Gualther, and others, and 
 among more recent authors Steiger, that in the expression 
 used by Peter the readers are designated as heathen Christians, 
 or even with Credner (Hind. p. 638), Neudecker (Einl. p. 
 677), as aforetime proselytes. The one correct interpretation 
 is, that in the superscription those readers only are described 
 as “Christians who constituted the people of God living, 
 scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in con- 
 sequence of their election, had become strangers in the world, 
 but who had their inheritance and home in heaven, whither 
 they were journeying” (Wiesinger). The reason why Peter 
 employed this term with reference to his readers lies in the 
 design of the epistle; he speaks of them as ἐκλεκτοί, in order 
 that in their present condition of suffering he might assure 
 them of their state of grace as παρεπίδημοι, that they might 
 know that they belonged to the home of believers in heaven. 
 But it is at least open to doubt whether in διασπορᾶς there 
 is any reference to the present want of direct union around 
 Christ (Schott). — Πόντου, Γαλατίας «.r.A.] The provinces of 
 Asia Minor are named chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia 
 westward from Pontus, then the enumeration continues with 
 Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to say, in the 
 east, and goes from thence westward towards Asia, after which 
 Bithynia is mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern 
 part of Asia Minor. So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as 
 opposed to Wiesinger) when he says: Quinque provincias 
 nominat eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex oriente. If 
 in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem. 
 v. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, 
 Pisidia, and a part of Lycaonia,—which, however, is impro- 
 
 1 Schott, however, grants that “ Peter considers Jerusalem and the mother 
 
 church in Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all believers under the New 
 Covenant.” 
 
CHAP, 1.1, 2. 47 
 
 bable,—the provinces mentioned by Peter will embrace 
 almost the whole of Asia Minor. — In the N. T. there is no 
 mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus, 
 Cappadocia, and Bithynia.— Ver. 2. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν x.7.d.| 
 The three adjuncts, beginning with different prepositions, are 
 not to be taken with ἀπόστολος, as Cyrillus (de recta fide), 
 Oecumen., Kahnis (Lehre v. Abendm. p. 65), and others think, 
 but with ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, pointing out as they do the 
 origin, the means, and the end of the condition in which the 
 readers as ἐκλεκτοὶ πωρεπίδημοι were. It is further incorrect 
 to limit, as is prevalently done, their reference simply to the 
 term ἐκλεκτοῖς, and to find in them a more particular defini- 
 tion of the method of the divine election. Steinmeyer, in 
 violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different 
 reference to each of the three adjuncts joining cata πρόγν. 
 with ἐκλεκτοῖς, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ with παρεπιδήμοις, and eis ὑπακ. 
 with ἁγιασμῷ. But inasmuch as the ideas ἐκλεκτοῖς παρε- 
 πιδήμοις stand in closest connection, the two prepositions 
 κατά and ἐν must apply equally to them. κατά states that 
 the ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι are such in virtue of the πρόγνωσις 
 Θεοῦ; κατά denotes “the origin, and gives the pattern accord- 
 ing to which” (so, too, Wiesinger). πρόγνωσις is translated 
 generally by the commentators as: predestination ;” this is 
 no doubt inexact, still it must be observed that in the N. T. 
 πρόγνωσις stands always in such a connection as to show 
 that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, 
 but without the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance 
 being lost. It is the perceiving of God by means of which 
 the object is determined, as that which He perceives it to be. 
 
 1 Hofmann supports this application as against that to 'ταρεπιδήμοις, ““ because 
 the state of being a stranger, even though taken spiritually, is not a condition 
 to which the prepositional determinations are suited.” Hofmann does not state 
 the ground of this assertion ; as the idea of being a stranger is identical with 
 that of being a Christian, these are very well adapted to ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεσπιδήμοις. 
 The mere circumstance that the question here is not one of a nearer definition 
 of election, but of the condition in which the readers were, is opposed to a con- 
 nection with ἐκλεκτοῖς. Cf. 1 Cor. i. 1, where διὰ ¢sAnearos stands connected 
 with zAnros ἀπόστολος “Inc. Xp. and not with πλησός ; see 2 Cor. 1. 1. 
 
 2 Lyranus: praedestinatio; Erasmus : praefinitio; Beza: antegressum decre- 
 tum s. propositum Dei; Luther: the foreseeing of God; Gerhard: πρόϑεσις juxta 
 quam facta est electio; de Wette: βουλή or προορισμός. 
 
48 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Cf. Meyer on Rom. viii. 29: “It is God’s being aware in His 
 plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by 
 Him to salvation, He knows who are to be so destined by 
 Him.” It is incorrect, therefore, to understand the word as 
 denoting simply foreknowledge ;' this leads to a Pelagianizing 
 interpretation, and is met by Augustine’s phrase: eligendos 
 facit Deus, non invenit. Estius translates πρόγνωσις at once 
 by: praedilectio; other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, 
 Schott, would include the idea of love, at least, in that of 
 foreknowledge; but although it must be granted that the 
 πρόγνωσις of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of 
 without His love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of 
 love is not made prominent.” Hofmann says: “πρόγνωσις is 
 —-precognition ; here, therefore, a work of God the Father, 
 which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom 
 He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homo- 
 geneous are known, that is, of an approving knowledge.” — 
 πατρός is added to Θεοῦ ; the apostle has already in his mind 
 the following πνεύματος and ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in order thereby 
 to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election. 
 Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salutis nostrae 
 innuitur hoc versu. — ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος] It seems 
 simplest and most natural to interpret, with Luther and most 
 others, “ through the sanctifying of the Spirit, —that is, taking 
 ἁγιασμός actively, and ἐν as denoting the instrumentality. 
 The only difficulty in the way is, that ἁγιασμός, a word 
 foreign to classical Greek, and occurring but seldom in the 
 Apocrypha, has constantly the neutral signification: “ sancti- 
 
 1 The word has not this signification in the N. T. ; it has it, however, in the 
 Book of Judith ix. 6 and xi. 19.—The verb προγιγνώσκειν has the meaning of 
 simple foreknowledge in Acts xxvi. 5 and 2 Pet. iii. 17 (so, too, Book of Wisd. 
 vi. 13, viii. 8, xviii. 6); the sense is different in Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2, and 1 Pet. 
 i. 20. 
 
 2 Schott’s assertion, that “ γιγνώσκειν is always a cognizance of this kind, 
 since he who is cognizant gives himself up in his inmost nature to the object 
 in question, so as again to take it up into his being and to appropriate it to 
 himself,” — further, that ‘‘the perceiving of God creates its own objects, and 
 consequently is a xpoyiyywoxe,” and that accordingly neither death nor sin can 
 be the objects of God’s foreknowledge, —contradicts itself by the clearest state- 
 ments of Scripture ; cf. Deut. ix. 24, xxxi. 27 ; Matt. xxii. 18; Luke xvi. 15; 
 John v. 42; 1 Cor. iii. 20, ete. 
 
CHAP, I. 1, 2. 49 
 
 fication ;”! cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19. Now, since the word, 
 as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings (ef. 
 Buttmann, ausführl. griech. Sprachl. ὃ 119, 20), it is certainly 
 permissible to assume that here—deviating from the general 
 usus loquendi—it may have an active signification, as perhaps 
 also in 2 Thess. ii. 15. If the preposition ev be taken as 
 equal to “through,” there results an appropriate progression of 
 thought from origin (κατά) to means (ev), and further to end 
 (eis). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, 
 the interpretation must be: “the holiness wrought by the (Holy) 
 Spirit, so that the genitive as gen. auct. has a sienification 
 similar to that in the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ; in this 
 interpretation ev may equally have an instrumental force. No 
 doubt, many interpreters deny that ἐν can here be equal to διώ, 
 since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy 
 Spirit. But this ground gives way if the three nearer defini- 
 tions refer not to the election——as a divine activity,—and so 
 not to the ἐκλεκτοῖς alone, but to the state into which the 
 readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to 
 
 1Cf. Rom. vi. 19, where it is contrasted with ἀνομία ; 1 Cor. i. 30, where it is 
 connected with δικαιοσύνη, 1 Tim. ii. 15 with ἀγάπη, and 1 Thess. iv. 4 with 
 σιμή; 1 Thess. iv. 7, where it stands in antithesis to ἀκαθαρσία : and Heb. 
 xii. 14, where, like εἰρήνην (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 11: δίωκε δικαιοσύνην), it depends on 
 διώκετε; in 1 Thess. iv. 3 also it has the meaning referred to. If it be here taken 
 in an active sense, and ὑμῶν be the objective genitive, the subject is wanting ; 
 but if ὑμῶν be the subjective genitive, then it is the object which is wanting. 
 Liinemann’s interpretation accordingly: ‘‘that you sanctify yourselves,” is 
 unwarranted, ἁγιασμός can only be artificially interpreted by ‘‘sanctifying ” in 
 the passages quoted. A striking example of this is Hofmann’s interpretation 
 of 1 Thess. iv. 4. Only in 2 Thess. ii. 13, where the expression, as here, is: 
 ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, does the active meaning seem to correspond better than 
 the neuter with the thought. There is no foundation whatever for the opinion 
 of Cremer, cf. s.v., that—whilst in the Apocrypha the word never has an active 
 signification, but is either ‘‘ sanctuary ” (thus also in the LXX. Ezek. xlv. 4 and 
 Amos ii. 11) or ‘‘ sanctity ”—it is in the N. T. for the most part ‘‘sanctifying.” 
 —Schott very justly calls in question the active signification of the word; but 
 when, not content with the rendering “ sanctification,” he interprets: ‘‘ the 
 condition of holiness being increasingly realized,” he confuses the conception by 
 references which are simply imported. 
 
 2 The idea of holiness is here by no means inappropriate, since the readers 
 would not be ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι if they had not become ἅγιοι through the 
 Holy Spirit. It is this ἅγιον εἶναι which is here expressed by ἁγιασμός. Also 
 in 2 Thess. ii. 13, there is no urgent reason for departing from this signification 
 of the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to 2 Macc. xiv. 36 ; cf. Cremer, s.v. 
 
 1 PETER. D 
 
50 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 the ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις. It is incorrect to attribute to ἐν 
 here a final signification ; Beza: ad sanctificationem ; de Wette: 
 εἰς TO εἶναι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ; the conception of purpose begins 
 only with the subsequent eis. — The explanation, that ἐν dy. 
 mv. points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the 
 readers are ἐκλ. maper. (formerly supported in this com- 
 mentary), is wanting in the necessary clearness of thought. — 
 eis ὑπακοὴν Kal pavrıouov αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp.] The third 
 adjunct to ex. παρεπίδ., giving the end towards which this 
 condition is directed. The preposition eis is not to be con- 
 nected with ἁγιασμός (de Wette, Steinmeyer); for although 
 such a construction be grammatically possible, the reference to 
 the Trinity goes to show that these words must be taken as 
 a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses. 
 Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction καί 
 would hardly be awanting. ὑπακοή is to be construed neither 
 with ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, whether taken as a subjective genitive 
 (Beza: designatur nostrae sanctificationis subjectum, nempe 
 Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where eis 
 is arbitrarily rendered by διά), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, 
 as an objective genitive: “obedience towards Christ” (for 
 then this genitive would stand in a relation other than to 
 αἵματος 1), nor with αἵματος. ὑπακοή must be taken here 
 absolutely, as in ver. 14; cf. Rom. vi. 16. With regard to the 
 meaning of ὑπακοή, many interpreters understand by it faith 
 in Christ; so Luther, Gerhard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, 
 Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.; others, on the contrary, take it to 
 signify “moral obedience ;” so Pott, de Wette, Schott, etc. 
 Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is 
 meant “which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to 
 it” (Hofmann), whilst by the latter it is emphasized that that 
 
 1 Hofmann thinks that since ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος forms one conception, and 
 ὑπακοή can be accompanied by an objective genitive, Ἴησοῦ Χριστοῦ, being the 
 subjective genitive to αἵματος, might at the same time be objective genitive to 
 ὑπακοή. In opposition to this, we observe (1) that it is self-contradictory to say 
 that ῥαντ. αἵματος forms one conception, and that Ἰησοῦ Xp. is dependent on 
 αἵματος ; and (2) that it is grammatically inadmissible to take the same genitive 
 as being at once subjective and objective genitive. — This much only is correct, 
 that the nearer definition, which must be supplied to ὑπακοή, has, in sense, to 
 be borrowed from the subsequent genitive Ἰησοῦ Xp. 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2 51 
 
 moral obedience is meant which springs from faith, so that both 
 interpretations are substantially in accord. It may then be said 
 that ὑπακοή is the life of man conformed in faith and walk to 
 the will of the Lord, which the ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι as such 
 must realize; so that there is no reason why the idea should 
 be limited towards the one side or the other; cf. 1 John 
 iii. 23. The second particular: καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 “Χριστοῦ, is closely linked on to ὑπακοή. Some commentators 
 have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based 
 was the paschal lamb (thus Beda: “ aspersi sanguine Christi 
 potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per agni sanguinem 
 Aegypti dominatum declinavit ;” Aretius, etc.), Others think 
 that the ceremonial of the great day of atonement is meant 
 (thus Pott, Augusti, Steiger, Usteri, etc.). Wrongly, however ; 
 for although in both cases blood was employed, neither the 
 blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering of atonement 
 was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts 
 were tinged; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. 
 Steinmeyer is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling 
 with water (Lev. xix.) of him who had been defiled through 
 contact with a corpse, from the fact that the LXX. have 
 ῥαντισμός only in this passage. For apart from the artificial- 
 ness of the explanation which Steinmeyer’ thus feels himself 
 compelled to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling 
 is inapt, since mention is made here of a sprinkling of blood, 
 and not of water. A sprinkling of the people with blood took 
 place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the covenant. 
 
 1 Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that the LXX. translate the Hebrew 773 9 
 
 (which is not, in his view, equal to “ water of purification,” but to ‘‘ water of 
 
 impurity”) by ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ, concludes that ῥαντισμός does not simply mean 
 aspersio, but ea aspersio, cujus ratio, causa, effectus verbis 77) m descripta sunt, 
 A 
 
 —that is, since that water was tanquam mortis instar, quum in ipsius mortis 
 communionem ita redigeret immundos, ut reducerentur inde in munditiem vitae, 
 ejusmodi aspersio quae in naturam sparsae aquae trahit, atque virtute ipsius 
 sparsos penitus imbuit, he explains javrırz. air. ’I. Xp. as a sprinkling with the 
 blood of Christ, qua in mortis salvatoris nostri communionem trahamur. 
 
 2 When Wiesinger remarks : ‘‘ But in Heb. xi. 22, ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ 
 συνειδ, πονηρᾶς is based on the typical sacrifice of the great day of atonement, 
 although ἐῤῥαντισμένοι is transferred here to persons, and ἀπό points to a cleansing 
 and freeing from the consciousness of guilt,” we cannot in this agree with him ; 
 nor do either Lünemann or Delitzsch see here any reference to the great sacri- 
 
52 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 The O. T. type on which the expression is founded is no otner 
 than the making of the covenant related in Ex. xxiv. 8, to 
 which even Gerhard had made reference, and as, in more 
 recent times, has been acknowledged by Briickner, Wiesinger, 
 Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Heb. ix. 19 (λαβὼν To 
 αἷμα τῶν μόσχων ... πάντα τὸν λαὸν Eppavrıce) and xü. 
 24, where αἷμα ῥαντισμοῦ, 1.6. “the blood by means of the 
 sprinkling of which the ratification of the covenant took 
 place,” is connected with the immediately preceding «al 
 διαθήκης νέας μεσίτης. Accordingly, by ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος 
 "Inc. Xp. is to be understood the ratification of the covenant 
 relation grounded on the death of Christ, with those thereto 
 ordained; the reference here, however, being not to the com- 
 mencement, but to the continuance of that relation. For by 
 this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his 
 readers of the end God had in view in their election, but to 
 set before them what the purpose of their election is, which, 
 like the ὑπακοή, should therefore be realized in them as the 
 elect strangers. They are then ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι, in order 
 that they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in 
 Him constantly possess the forgiveness of sins.'— The καί 
 standing between ὑπακοὴν and ῥαντισμόν is taken by Stein- 
 meyer as an explicative ; he explains: “ in obedientiam, atque 
 in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. e. ut 
 vos in mortis Jesu Christi communionem trahi patiamini.” 
 Incorrectly : “inasmuch as the active idea of obedience can 
 never be explained by the passive being sprinkled ” (Wiesinger) ; 
 and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary. —It is 
 further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression 
 
 fice of atonement. The former explains the expression ‘‘on the analogy of the 
 sprinkling with blood by which the first Levitical priests were consecrated ;”’ 
 while the latter quotes by way of explanation the passage Heb. xii. 24, where he 
 terms the aiza ῥαντισμοῦ the antitype of the blood with which Moses sprinkled 
 the people at the institution and consecration of the covenant. 
 
 1 Hofmann is accordingly wrong in maintaining that ‘‘ what is here meant 
 has taken place once for all for the readers, and is not continually to be done.” 
 Nor does this altogether accord with his own interpretation, when he says, ‘‘ the 
 readers are chosen to become obedient to Christ, and partakers of His propitiation 
 for sin.” The Christian, on being received into communion with Christ, has 
 been sprinkled with His blood, but still he requires a continual cleansing, and 
 this he receives, if he walk in the light ; cf. 1 Johni. 7. 
 
CHAP. I. 3. 53 
 
 last used: pavt. αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, here for the first 
 time characterized directly as Christians, all the previous 
 designations having been equally applicable to the children of 
 Israel. A circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter 
 regards the Christian church as the true Israel, and that with- 
 out making it in any way dependent on national connection. 
 — As regards the lexicology, it must be remarked that in 
 classical Greek pavrıouos never occurs, and ῥαντίζειν only in 
 later writers: the usual word is paivew, e.g. Euripides, Iphig. 
 in Aul. 1589: ἧς αἵματι βωμὸν paiver ἄρδην τῆς Θεοῦ; in 
 the LXX. both verbal forms: ῥαντισμός, only in Num. xix., 
 in a somewhat inexact translation, however. — χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ 
 εἰρήνη mANOvVOein] The distinction between χάρις and εἰρήνη 
 is thus drawn by Gerhard: “pax a gratia distinguitur tan- 
 quam fructus et effectus a sua causa.” In harmony with this, 
 xapıs is regarded by the interpreters for the most part as 
 “ the subjective in God” (Meyer on Rom. i. 7); but Paul’s use 
 of ἀπό and the subsequent πληθυνθείη show that by χάρις 
 in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow 
 from it (the manifestation of grace). εἰρήνη specifies this gift 
 more closely according to its nature (see on 1 Tim. i. 2’). 
 πληθυνθείη] Luther: “ye have peace and grace, but not yet 
 to the full;” on the salutation form in the N. T., besides here 
 only im, Ὁ Pet, 2, and Jude, 2; ἴῃ. Ὁ: 7. in. Dan. iii, 31, 
 LXX.: εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη;; cf. Schoetigen: horae hebr. 
 et talm., on this passage. 
 
 Vy. 3-12. Praise to God for the grace of which the Chris- 
 tians had been made the partakers. The prominence which 
 the apostle gives to avayevvav eis ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, as also his 
 designation of them as ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι, is occasioned by 
 the present state of suffering in which his readers were, and 
 above which he is desirous of raising them. 
 
 Ver. 3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Kup. ἡμ. “I. Xpic- 
 τοῦ] The same formula occurs in 2 Cor. 1. 3; Eph. 1. 3.— 
 
 1 When Schott, in order to preserve the objectiveness of εἰρήνη, erroneously 
 understands it to mean ““ the state of matters which to those who are in it occa- 
 sions inwardly no want or unrest, and externally no harm or disturbance,” it 
 must be urged in opposition that the inwardness of a possession does not in any 
 way affect its objectiveness. 
 
4 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 σι 
 
 εὐλογητός, not: “worthy of praise,” but: “praised ;” in the 
 LXX. the translation of 773; in the N. T. the word εὐλογητός 
 used only with reference to God. ein and not ἐστίν is probably 
 to be supplied, as is done by most commentators, cf. Meyer 
 on Eph. 1. 1; Winer, p. 545 [E. T. 732] (Schott; Buttm. p. 
 120); at least from the fact that in the doxologies introduced by 
 means of relatives, ἐστίν is to be found (cf. Rom. i. 25; also 
 1 Pet. iv. 11), it cannot be concluded that the indicative is to 
 be supplied in an ascription of praise quite differently con- 
 structed, cf. LXX. Job i. 21. The adjunct καὶ πατὴρ «7.2. 
 to ὁ Θεός is explainable as a natural expression of the Chris- 
 tian consciousness. It is possible “that the whole formula of 
 doxology has its origin in the liturgical usage, so to speak, in 
 the primitive Christian church” (Weiss, p. 401). --- ὁ κατὰ τὸ 
 πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος avayevvnoas ἡμᾶς} The participial clause 
 states the reason why God is to be praised. πολύ gives 
 prominence to the riches of the divine mercy, Eph. ü. 4: 
 πλούσιος ὧν Ev ἐλέει. κατά is used here in the same sense as 
 in ver. 2. avayevvncas has its nearer definition in the subse- 
 quent eis ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν. De Wette joins these intimately 
 connected ideas in a somewhat too loose way, when he 
 thus interprets: “who hath awakened us to repentance and 
 faith, and thereby at the same time to a hope.” Similarly 
 Wiesinger, who takes avayevvnoas as a self-contained idea, 
 and connects eis ἐλπίδα with it, in this sense, “that in the idea 
 of regeneration this particular determination of it is brought 
 into prominence, that it is a new birth to living hope, we. 
 as born again we have attained unto a lively hope;” thus 
 Schott. This view, however, refutes itself, because it necessi- 
 tates unjustifiable supplements. More in harmony with the 
 expression is Briickner’s interpretation, according to which eis 
 denotes the aim of the new birth (“the hope is conceived of 
 as the aim of him by whom the readers have been begotten 
 again ;” thus Morus already: Deus nos in melius mutavit, cur ? 
 ut sperare possimus). But if the attainment of σωτηρία be 
 conceived as the aim and end of the new birth, the hopes 
 directed to it cannot be so, all the less that this hope forms an 
 essential element of the new life itself. The verb avayevvav 
 is here taken not as an absolute, but as a relative idea, its 
 
CHAP. I. 3. TEN 
 
 supplement lying in εἰς ἐλπ. € (so also Steinmeyer, Weiss, 
 Hofmann). The ἐλπὶς ζῶσα is then to be thought of as the 
 life into which the mercy of God has raised or begotten the 
 believer from the death of hopelessness (Eph. ii. 12: ev τῷ 
 καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ... ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες) ; the con- 
 nection is the same as in Gal. iv. 24, where the simple γεννᾷν 
 is also construed with eis." This view is justified, not only 
 by the close connection of eis with the idea avayevvav, but 
 also by the corresponding adj. ζῶσαν. In this there is no 
 weakening of the idea avayevvav (in opposition to Wiesinger), 
 for ἐλπίς need not be conceived as representing one single side 
 of the Christian life, but under it may be understood the 
 whole Christian life in its relation to the future σωτηρία. It 
 is incorrect to take ἐλπίς here in the objective sense, as: 
 object of hope; Aretius: res, quae spel subjectae sunt, ἢ. e. 
 vita aeterna; Bengel: haereditas coelestis; so also Hottinger, 
 Hensler, etc. It is used rather in the subjective sense to 
 denote the inward condition of life.—The expression ζῶσα 
 has been variously translated by the commentators; thus 
 Beza explains it as: perennis ; Aretius: solida; Piscator: vivi- 
 fica; Gualther: spes viva certitudinem salutis  significat ; 
 Heidegger: ζῶσα: quia et fructus vitae edit, et spes vitae est 
 et permanet; quia non languida, infirma est, sed παῤῥησίαν et 
 πεποίθησιν habet et perpetua simul semperque exhilarans est, 
 neque unquam intermoritur, sed semper renovatur et refocil- 
 latur; in the first edition of this commentary; “the hope of 
 the Christian is pervaded by life, carrying with it in undying 
 power the certainty of fulfilment (Rom. v. 5), and making the 
 heart joyful and happy ;” it “ has life im itself, and gives life, 
 and at the same time has life as its object” (de Wette). 
 Taken strictly, ζῶσα characterizes the hope as one which has 
 
 ? Against this interpretation Schott urges: that dvayewzy does not mean ‘‘to 
 awaken,” that ‘a death of despair” is not alluded to, that neither ἐλσίς nor 
 ἐλπὶς ζῶσα denotes ‘‘a life of hope.” These reasons are insignificant, for (1) the 
 expression ‘‘ awakened” is not employed in order to give the full meaning of 
 ἀναγεννᾷν ; (2) even on the opposite interpretation their former condition may be 
 considered as a hopeless one, and can undoubtedly be regarded as a death; and 
 (3) it cannot be denied that hope is life. In opposition to Schott’s assertion, 
 that ἀναγεννᾷν is everywhere a self-contained idea, it is to be noted that the word 
 occurs in the N. T. only here aiid in ver. 23. 
 
56 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 life in itself, and is therefore operative. All else may as a 
 matter of fact be connected with it, but is not contained in 
 the word itself (Weiss, p. 92); more especially, too, the idea 
 that it has the certainty of its own realization (Hofmann) ; cf. 
 i. 23: λόγος Cav; ii. 4, 5: λίθος ζῶν. Gerhard incorrectly 
 interprets ἐλπίς by fides, sive fiducialis meriti Christi appre- 
 hensio quae est regenerationis nostrae causa formalis. For apart 
 from the fact that Peter is not here speaking of regeneration 
 at all, ἐλπίς and πίστις are in themselves separate ideas, 
 which cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. It is 
 erroneous also, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to resolve 
 ἐλπὶς ζῶσα into ἐλπὶς ζωῆς : ζῶσα denotes not the end, but 
 the nature of the hope. — δι ἀναστάσεως “Inc. Χριστοῦ 
 ἐκ νεκρῶν] is not to be joined with ζῶσαν (Oecum., Luth., 
 Bengel, Lorinus, Steiger, de Wette, Hofmann), but with ava- 
 γεννήσας, more nearly defined by eis... ζώσαν (Calvin, Gerhard, 
 Knapp, Weiss, p. 299; Schott, Brückner"); for ζῶσαν does 
 not define a particular kind of hope, but only gives special 
 prominence to an element already contained in the idea 
 ἐλπίς. The resurrection of Christ is the means by which 
 God has begotten us again to the living hope. It is the fact 
 which forms the living ground of Christian hope. Wiesinger 
 joins δι᾿ ἀναστ. somewhat too loosely with avay., explaining as 
 he does: “ He hath begotten us again, and thus in virtue of the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ hath aided us to living hope.”—As 
 ζῶσαν corresponds to the term ἀναγεννήσας, so does ἀνάσ- 
 racıs in the most exact manner to both of these ideas. By 
 the resurrection of Christ the believer also is risen to life. It 
 must be remarked the prepositions κατά, ev, eis, ver. 2, are 
 used to correspond with κατά, eis, διά ; cf. ver. 5, the use of 
 the prepositions: ev, διά, eis. 
 
 Ver. 4. eis κληρονομίαν] co-ordinate with the conception 
 ἐλπίδα ; it is nevertheless not dependent on it, but on avayev- 
 νήσας, although it denotes the objective blessing to which the 
 ἐλπίς has regard. It is added by way of apposition, in order 
 
 1 Schott and Brückner, while accepting the construction above indicated, 
 
 ε . . . . . . > > 2 , ss ΄ 
 apply it, in accordance with their interpretation of ἀναγ. εἰς ἐλπίδα, δ ἀναστά- 
 σεως, both to regeneration and the hope therewith connected, which, however, they 
 term ‘‘a single homogeneous fact.” 
 
CHAP. I. 4. 57 
 
 to describe more nearly the substance of the hope with respect 
 to its aim. — κληρονομία means, no doubt, in the O. and N. T. 
 (Matt. xxi. 38 ; Luke xii. 13) sometimes inheritance; but more 
 frequently it has the signification of “ possession.” In the O. T. 
 it often serves to denote the land of Canaan and its separate 
 parts, promised and apportioned to the people of Israel (Deut. 
 xii.9; Lam.v. 2; Josh. xiii. 14, and other passages): ἡ γῆ, ἣν 
 κύριος ὁ Θεός σου δίδωσί σοι Ev κλήρῳ, Deut. xxiv. 2, or ἣν 
 ... δίδωσί σοι κληρονομῆσαι. In the N. T., and so here also, 
 by the term is to be understood the completed βασιλεία τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ with all its possessions, as the antitype of the land of 
 Canaan (cf. in particular, Heb. ix. 15). As this use of the 
 word is not based on the signification “ inheritance,” it cannot 
 be maintained, with Wiesinger (Schott agreeing with him), that 
 κληρονομία stands here with reference to ἀναγεννήσας, “to 
 designate that of which the Christians as children of God have 
 expectations.”’ The following words: ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον 
 καὶ ἀμάραντον] state the gloriousness of the κληρονομία." 
 ἄφθαρτος (cf. chap. 111. 4), opposite of φθαρτός (ver. 18 equal to 
 ἀπολλύμενος, ver. 7), cf. ver. 23; Rom. i. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 25, 
 xv. 53, 54; “not subject to the φθορά. ἀμίαντος (Jas. i. 27 ; 
 Heb. vii. 26), “undefiled, undefilable.” ἀμάραντος da. rey. 
 (auapavrıvos is similar, chap. v. 4), “unfading;” in the last 
 expression prominence is given to the imperishable beauty of the 
 κληρονομία. Steinmeyer’s opinion is incorrect, that ἀμίαντος 
 has nearly the same meaning as πολύτιμος and τίμιος, ver. 19. 
 —It is not to be assumed that Peter alludes to the character 
 “of the earthly κληρονομία (Weiss, Ὁ. 74) of the people of Israel,” 
 especially as there is nothing in the expressions auapavros 
 and ἄφθαρτος which can without artificial straining admit 
 of such a reference.” — τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς eis ὑμᾶς) The 
 
 ! No doubt Rom. viii. 17 might be appealed to in support of this interpretation, 
 yet it would be unwarrantable to maintain that the idea there expressed belongs 
 also to Peter. It must also be observed that even Paul, where he makes use of 
 the term κληρονομία, never alludes to that idea,—a circumstance which has its 
 reason in the current usage of the word. 
 
 * Calvin inaccurately : tria epitheta quae sequuntur ad gratiae Dei amplifica- 
 tionem posita sunt. 
 
 3 In ἀμίαντος, Weiss sees an allusion to the pollution of Judea by the people of 
 Israel itself or its enemies (Jer. ii. 7; Lev. xviii. 28; Num. xxxv. 34; Ezek. 
 
58 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 apostle having up to this time spoken generally, makes a 
 transition, and addresses his readers directly: avayevv. ἡμᾶς ; he 
 thereby assures them that that κληρονομία is a possession 
 intended and reserved for them. For the conception here 
 expressed, cf. especially Col. i. 5, and Meyer in loc. The perf. 
 rernpnuevnv (Luth. inexactly: “which is kept”) stands here 
 with reference to the nearness of the time when their κληρονομία 
 will be allotted to believers; ver. 5: ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, 
 
 Ver. 5. As the basis of the thought: rernpnnevw .. . 
 eis ὑμᾶς, the apostle subjoins to ὑμᾶς the additional τοὺς 
 ἐν δυνάμει φρουρουμένους . . . eis σωτηρίαν, by which is 
 expressed not the condition on which the readers might hope 
 for the heavenly κληρονομία, but the reason why they possess 
 expectations of it. The chief emphasis lies not on ἐν δυνάμει 
 Θεοῦ (Schott), but on φρουρουμένους ... eis σωτηρίαν, inas- 
 much as the former expression serves only to define the φρου- 
 ρεῖσθαι more precisely. Gerhard incorrectly makes the accu- 
 sative depend on avayevvjoas. The prep. ἐν (as distinguished 
 from the following διά) points out the δύναμις Θεοῦ as the 
 causa efficiens (Gerhard), so that Luther’s : “ out of God’s power” 
 is in sense correct ; the φρουρεῖσθαι is based on the δύν. Θεοῦ. 
 Steinmeyer wrongly explains, referring to Gal. ii. 23, the 
 δύναμις Θεοῦ as the φρουρά within which the Christians as 
 believers (διὰ πίστεως equal to mıorevovres!) are kept, velut sub 
 vetere T. lex carcerum instar exstitit, in quibus of ὑπὸ νόμον 
 ὄντες custodiebantur. To assume an antithesis between the δύν. 
 Θεοῦ and the daw in explanation of this passage, is entirely 
 unjustifiable. By δύν. Θεοῦ is not to be understood, with de 
 Wette and Weiss (p. 189), the Holy Spirit; He is never in 
 any passage of the N. T. (not even in Luke i. 35) designated 
 by these words. The means by which the power of God effects 
 the preservation is the πίστις, the ultimate origin of which 
 
 xxxvi. 17; Ps. xxix. 1, where the LXX. has μιαίνειν) ; and in ἀμάρωντος to the 
 scorching of the country by thesimoom. Weiss thinks that ἄφθαρτος may allude 
 to the φθείρειν σὴν γῆν, Isa. xxiv. 3; still he himself does not consider this probable. 
 
 1 Hofmann, in disputing this by saying that the perf. partic. is not explained 
 by the nearness of the time when the believers will be in possession of the 
 inheritance, calls in question an assertion which is nowhere here made. 
 
 2 σίστις implies the entire and full Christian faith ; not simply confidence in 
 God (Weiss), nor the mere ‘‘ confident assurance of the salvation which is ready 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 59 
 
 nevertheless is also the gracious will of God.—On &povpov- 
 μένους, Vorstius rightly remarks: notatur talis custodia, quae 
 praesidium habet adjunetum.' The word by which the apostle 
 even here makes reference to the subsequent ἐν ποικίλοις 
 πειρασμοῖς, ver. 6, has its nearer definition in the following 
 eis σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, which by Calvin (haec 
 duo membra appositive lego, ut posterius sit prioris expositio, 
 rem unam duobus modis exprimit), Steiger, and others is 
 joined to ἀναγεννήσας as a co-ordinate adjunct to eis κληρο- 
 vouiav. It is preferable to connect them with &povpovuevovs ; 
 the more so that κληρονομία, “with its predicates, so fully 
 characterizes the object of hope, that eis σωτηρίαν «.T.X. would 
 add nothing further” (Wiesinger). The introduction of ὑμᾶς, 
 too, is decidedly opposed to the former construction. There 
 is nothing to support the connection with πίστεως, in which 
 σωτηρία would be resarded as the object of faith. According 
 to the correct construction, the verbal conception is more nearly 
 defined by the addition of the origin, means, and end, cf. vv. 
 2, 3? The word σωτηρία is here—as the conjoined ἑτοίμη 
 ἀποκαλυφθῆναι shows—a positive conception ; namely: the 
 salvation effected and completed by Christ, not simply a negative 
 idea, “deliverance from ἀπώλεια" (Weiss, p. 79). It does not 
 follow from the circumstance that κληρονομία and σωτηρία are 
 synonymous terms, that the former is “ only the negative side 
 of the completed salvation.”—-The verb ἀποκαλυφθῆναι is here, 
 as elsewhere, used to denote the disclosure of what is already 
 
 to be revealed ” (Hofmann) ; these are single elements which it includes, but 
 Which do not exhaust the idea. According to Schott, the apostle has omitted 
 the article, in order to emphasize the fact that he means “that faith which, as to 
 its inmost nature, is not dependent on sight ” (!). 
 
 1 Aretius rightly observes: militare est vocabulum φρουρώ : praesidium. ΡΠ 
 igitur, dum sunt in periculis, sciant totidem eis divinitus parata esse praesidia : 
 millia millium custodiunt eos. Finis est salus. — Bengel also aptly says: 
 haereditas servata est ; haeredes custodiuntur, neque illa his, neque hi deerunt 
 1111. 
 
 2 Schott justly calls attention to the relation of φρουρουμένους to τετηρημένην: “IE 
 the reserving of the inheritance for Christians is not to be fruitless, it must be 
 accompanied by ἃ . . . preserving of them on earth for that inheritance.” He 
 states the difference between the two expressions thus: ‘‘ As regards the inherit- 
 ance, it is only necessary that its existence should not cease. Christians, on the 
 other hand, must be guarded and preserved from influences endangering their 
 state of salvation.” 
 
60 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 in existence (with God ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ver. 4), but as yet hidden. 
 ἕτοιμος is here, like μέλλων often, joined cum. inf. pass. (see 
 Gal. iii. 23. On the use of the inf. aor. in this connection, see 
 Winer, p. 311 f [E. T. 419 f.]); μέλλων nevertheless has a 
 less strong force. The future salvation lies ready to be revealed, 
 that is to say: ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, by which is denoted the time 
 when the world’s history will be closed (not “the relatively 
 last; Bengel: in comparatione temporum V.T.; but absolutely 
 the last time ἐν ἀποκαλύψει "I. Xp., ver. 7.” Wiesinger'). 
 When this time will be, the apostle does not say; but his 
 whole manner of expression indicates that in hope it floated 
 before his vision as one near at hand; cf. chap. iv. 7. 
 
 Ver. 6. ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε] The verb expresses the liveliness 
 of the Christian joy, equivalent to: exult; it is stronger than 
 χαίρειν, with which it is sometimes connected (chap. iv. 13; 
 Matt. v.12; Rev. xix. 7°). — ἐν ᾧ refers either to the preced- 
 ing thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed (Calvin: 
 articulus “ in quo” refert totum illud complexum de spe salutis 
 in coelo repositae; so also Estius, Grotius, Calov, Steiger, 
 Jachmann, de Wette, Briickner, Steinmeyer, Schott; similarly 
 Gerhard, who, however, applies it to all that precedes: avayev- 
 νήσας, etc.), or to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, 
 Wiesinger, etc.). In the first construction ayaA\.—in form as 
 in meaning—is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the 
 Christians over their future salvation (ev @: over which, cf. 
 chap. iv. 4°). In the second construction a double inter- 
 pretation is possible, inasmuch as ἐν ᾧ may denote either the 
 object or the time of the joy; in the first case the sense is: 
 the καιρὸς ἔσχατος is for you an object of joy, because in it 
 
 1 Schott unjustifiably supposes that the want of the article indicates that ‘‘the 
 σωτηρία would take place at a time which, from this very fact, must be regarded 
 as the last.” ; 
 
 2 Steinmeyer, whilst combating the opinion that ἀγαλλ. has a stronger force 
 than χαίρειν, correctly describes the ἀγαλλίασις as affectio fervidior animi hilaris, 
 but χαρά unwarrantably as : perpetua illa cordis laetitia, quae neque augeri queat 
 neque imminui. 
 
 3 Brückner explains ἐν # as above stated, but he understands ἀγαλλιᾶσθε in 
 a future sense, “ of that which shall most surely come to pass ;” this interpreta- 
 tion is undoubtedly inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assurance of the 
 future salvation, stated in ver. 5, may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but 
 will not be so then, when that future salvation itself is attained. 
 
CHAP 1. 6: 61 
 
 the salvation will be revealed; in the second case the sense is: 
 in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger and Hofmann); 
 here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may be 
 easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged 
 against this view (as opposed to Briickner). The last of these 
 different views deserves the preference, both on account of 
 the subsequent oAdyov ἄρτι... λυπηθέντες, which forms a 
 distinct antithesis to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, and of the idea peculiar to 
 the epistle, that in the present time the Christian has to suffer 
 rather than to exult, and only in the future can he expect the 
 full joy ;—and the prevalent manner of conjunction, too, pre- 
 cisely in this section of the epistle, by which what follows is 
 linked directly on to the word immediately preceding, cf. vv. 5, 
 8, 10, shows that ἐν applies to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. In this 
 combination, however, it is more natural to take ἐν in the same 
 sense as in that which it has before καιρῷ, rather than in 
 another.'—Doubtless the present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε will then have 
 a future force; but this occasions no difficulty, there being 
 nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, 
 p. 249 [E. T. 331 f.]).—The present tense strongly emphasizes 
 the certainty of the future joy, rays of which fall even on the 
 present life.’ — ὀλέγον ἄρτι] ὀλίγον not of measure (Steiger), 
 but of time, chap. v. 10, where it forms the antithesis to 
 αἰώνιος ; cf. Rev. xvii. 10; ἄρτι denotes present time. The 
 juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle’s 
 hope that the καιρὸς ἔσχατος would soon begin. — ei δέον ἐστί] 
 not an affirmative (Bengel), but a hypothetical parenthesis: 
 si res ita ferat: if it must be so, that is, according to divine 
 decree ; cf. chap. iii. 17. Incorrectly Steinmeyer : qui per pere- 
 grinationis spatium, guamdiu necessarium est, contristati estis.” 
 --- λυπηθέντες Ev ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς] The aorist with ἄρτι 
 
 1 Schott’s assertion, that, as a rule, ἀγαλλ. is connected by ἐν with its object, 
 is erroneous. In the N. T. the passage, John v. 35, at the most, can be quoted 
 in support of this construction ; whilst in Luke x. 21, ἐν accompanies the simple 
 indication of time. In Luke i. 47, ἀγαλλ. is construed with ἐπί ce. dat.; John 
 viii. 56, with ἵνα. 
 
 5 It is altogether inappropriate to interpret ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, with Augustine, as an 
 imperative ; the exhortations begin only in ver. 13. 
 
 3 The older Protestant commentators, more especially, sometimes employ this 
 passage to combat the arbitrary seeking after suffering ; thus Luther says: “It 
 
62 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 has reference to the future joy: “after that ye have now for a 
 short time been made sorrowful.” “It signifies the inward 
 sadness, in consequence of outward experiences” (Wiesinger). 
 —Particula ἐν non solum est χρονική, sed etiam αἰτιολογική 
 (Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into each other, so that ἐν 
 is not to be interpreted as synonymous with dvd. — πειρασμοί 
 are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved 
 or also tempted ; here, specially the persecutions which he is 
 called upon to endure at the hands of the unbelieving world, 
 ef. Jas. i. 2; Acts xx. 19. By the addition of the adjective, 
 the manifold nature of their different kinds is pointed out. 
 
 REMARK.—When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation 
 here given, maintains the purely present force of ἀγαλλ. on the 
 ground that “it must be the apostle’s object to commend by 
 way of exhortation the readers for their present state of mind,” 
 it is to be remarked—(1) That the apostle here gives utterance 
 to no exhortation ; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well 
 direct his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to 
 strengthen them for the patient endurance of their present con- 
 dition of suffering. It is perfectly arbitrary to assert, with 
 Schott, that by äprı the present trials as transitory are contrasted 
 with the present joy as enduring, as also to maintain “that by 
 the aorist λυπηθέντες the suffering is reduced to the idea of an 
 ever-changing variety of individual momentary incidents which, 
 in virtue of the uniform joy, may always lie behind the Chris- 
 tian surmounted ” (!).—Schott insists again, without reason, that 
 εἰ δέον [ἐστ] cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in 
 that it is “impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of 
 the λυπηθῆναι hypothetical with respect to the will of God ;” for 
 it is not clear why Peter should not characterize the λυπηθῆναι 
 ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς aS Something hypothetical here, where he does 
 not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts. Nor 
 can it be assumed that εἰ δέον (ἐστί) is added in order to remind 
 the readers that the σποικιλοὶ sıpaswoi should in reality occasion 
 no sadness,—the less so that thus the intimately connected 
 λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς are torn asunder. 
 
 Ver. 7. ἵνα] states the aim of the λυπηθῆναι ἐν. .. πειρασ- 
 pots, in order to console the readers with respect to it, “that 
 is not to be our own works which we choose, but we must await what God lays 
 
 upon us and sends, so that we may go and follow, therefore thou mayest not 
 thyself run after them.” 
 
CHAP. I. 7. 63 
 
 the approvedness of your faith may be found more precious than 
 (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire, to (your) 
 praise, and glory, and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” 
 — δοκέμιον here, as in Jas. 1. 3 (ef. in loco), equal to δοκιμή, 
 the approvedness as the result of the trial (Rom. v. 3, 4; 
 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13; Phil. ii. 22) The strict signification 
 “medium of proof” is inappropriate, inasmuch as the aim of 
 the λυπηθῆναι ἐν πειρασμοῖς cannot be stated as the glori- 
 fication of these πειρασμοί, but as only that of faith in its 
 approvedness (in opposition to Steinmeyer). Unsuitable, too, is 
 the interpretation “trial” (Brückner, Wiesinger), τὸ δοκέμιον τῆς 
 πίστεως being taken for ἡ πίστις δοκιμαζομένη, inasmuch as 
 it is not the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is 
 to be compared with the gold. This substitution of ideas is 
 not justifiable, inasmuch as the process applied to an object 
 cannot be put for the object itself to which it is applied. 
 Only if δοκίμιον denote a quality of faith, can a substitution 
 of this kind take place. δοκίμιον must be taken as: “ approved- 
 ness,’ and by approvedness of faith, the “approved,” or rather 
 “the faith approving itself.” ? 
 
 REMARK.— What Schott had formerly alleged with respect 
 to δοκήμιον is repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried 
 further. By an highly artificial interpretation of Ps. xii. 7, 
 LXX., and by the application of the rule established by him, 
 “that the neuter of the adjective does not stand in the place 
 of an abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of some- 
 
 1 δοκιμή in the N. T. has either an active or a passive signification ; in the 
 former it means: ‘‘ the trial which leads to approvedness,” as in 2 Cor. viii. 2; 
 in the latter : “the approvedness effected by trial,” as in the passages quoted ; 
 or better still: ‘‘a distinction must be drawn between a present and a perfect 
 force, in that δοκιμή has a reflexive sense, either, then, the having approved itself, 
 or the approving itself,” Cremer, s.v. 
 
 2 Brückner raises the following objections to this interpretation :—(1) That 
 δοκίμιον can linguistically only be understood as: means of proof, trial ; and (2) 
 That the part. pres., standing in opposition to χρυσίου (δοκιμαζομένου), does not 
 presuppose the purification of the gold to have already taken place, and that, 
 consequently, the πίστις δοκιμαζομένη only can be considered as compared with 
 χρυσίον δοκιμαζόμενον. But against this it must be observed that δοκίμιον has only 
 the signification of ‘‘means of proof,” not of trial; and (3) That in the above 
 interpretation it is not the already approved faith, but that faith which is being 
 approved, or approving itself in tribulation, which is contrasted with gold which 
 is being tried. 
 
64 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 thing as a concrete reality, and in conjunction with a genitive 
 denotes the object thereby named in this its condition,” Hof- 
 mann makes out that it is here affirmed that “at the revelation 
 of Christ it will be found that the faith of the readers has been 
 subjected to purification, and is in consequence free from dross.” 
 This whole interpretation is a pure matter of fancy, for δοκήμιον 
 —a circumstance which both Schott and Hofmann have left 
 unnoticed—is not an adjective, but a real substantive; for δοκιμεῖον. 
 —Cremer explains: “ δοκ. is not the touchstone only, in and for 
 itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore rö 
 δοκ. τῆς πίστεως is that which results from the contact of πίστις 
 with πειρασμοῖς, that by which faith is recognised as genuine, equal 
 to the proof of faith.” But in opposition to this it must be 
 remarked that fire and not touchstone is here conceived as the 
 means of testing. 
 
 --πολυτιμότερον K.T.A.] is by most interpreters closely con- 
 nected with εὑρεθῇ, by others again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, 
 Wiesinger, Hofmann) separated from it, and considered as in 
 apposition to TO δοκίμιον tp. τ. mıor. The following facts, 
 however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1) That— 
 as Wiesinger admits—this appositional clause expresses “ some- 
 thing understood of itself.” (2) That the intention here is not 
 to make an observation on faith, but to state what is the 
 design of sorrow, namely, that the faith which is approving 
 itself may be found to be one πολύτιμος. (3) That thus 
 εὑρεθῇ would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the 
 subsequent eis has reference not to εὑρεθῇ alone, but to the 
 whole idea expressed. Yet it cannot well dispense with a 
 nearer definition (in opposition to Hofmann).—The genitive 
 χρυσίου is, as almost all the interpreters take it, to be joined 
 in sense directly with the comparative: “ than the gold,” so that 
 the δοκίμιον of the faith is compared with the gold. Some com- 
 mentators, like Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinmeyer, Hofmann, 
 assume an ellipsis (cf. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), supplying 
 before χρυσίου the words ἢ τὸ δοκίμιον. In opposition it may 
 be urged, however, not precisely “that this is cumbrous ” 
 (Brückner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the 
 approval of faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. 
 Whilst comparing the faith with the gold, the apostle places 
 the former above the latter; the reason of this he states in the 
 
CHAP, I. 7. 65 
 
 attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου connected with χρυσίου, by which 
 reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this 
 first attribute he subjoins the second: διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζο- 
 μένου, in order to name here also the medium of proving, 
 to which the πειρασμοί, with respect to faith, correspond. 
 Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinmeyer are wrong in asserting 
 that in the interpretation here given the attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυ- 
 μένου is inappropriate. — ἀπολλύμενος : φθαρτός, cf. vv. 18, 23; 
 also John vi. 27. For the position of the adjective with art. 
 after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f. [E.T. 174]. — 
 διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαξομένου] The particle δέ seems to place this 
 second adjunct in antithesis to the first (ἀπολλυμένου) (thus 
 de Wette: “which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire ;” 
 so also Hofmann). But opposed to this view is the eircum- 
 stance that the trial and purification of what is perishable is 
 by no means anything to occasion surprise; it is therefore 
 more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that 
 by it the idea of the δοκιμάζεσθαι is brought prominently 
 forward. Vorstius remarks to the point: aurum igni com- 
 mittitur non ad iteritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides cruci ad 
 gloriam subjieitur.—For this comparison, see Job xxiii. 10; 
 Prov. xvii. 3; Zech. xiii. 9. — εὑρεθῇ eis ἔπαινον καὶ δόξαν καὶ 
 τιμήν] The verb εὑρεθῆναι, “to be found to be,’ is more 
 significant than εἶναι (cf. Winer, p. 572 f. [E. T. 769 f.]), and 
 has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of 
 judgment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole 
 preceding thought: ἵνα... εὑρεθῆ. Beza rightly: hie agitur 
 de ipsorum electorum laude, etc. ; thus: “to your praise, glory, 
 and honour.” Schott quite arbitrarily interprets ἔπαινος as 
 in itself: “the judicial recognition” (as opposed to this, cf. 
 Phil. 1. 11, iv. 8); τιμή: “the moral estimation of the person 
 arising therefrom” (as opposed to this, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7), and 
 δόξα: “the form of glory” (as opposed to this, cf. Gal. i. 5; 
 Phil. i. 11). Steinmeyer incorrectly applies the words not to 
 the persons, but to their faith. δόξα and τιμή in the N. T. 
 stand frequently together; in connection with ἔπαινος, here 
 only. The juxtaposition of these synonymous expressions 
 serves to give prominence to the one idea of honourable 
 recognition common to them all. Standing as δέξα does 
 1 PETER. E 
 
66 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 between ἔπαινος and τιμή, it cannot signify: “the allotment 
 of the possession of glory” (Wiesinger), but it is: “glory, 
 praise.” ---- ἐν ὠποκαλύψει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] not: “ through,” 
 but: “at,” the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of 
 His return, which is at once the ἀποκάλυψις δικαιοκρισίας 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom. ii. 5) and the ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 (Rom. vii. 19). 
 
 Ver. 8. The longing of the believers is directed to the 
 ἀποκάλυψις ‘Inc. Χριστοῦ, He being the object of their love 
 and joy. This thought is subjoined to what precedes in two 
 relative clauses, in order that thereby the apostle may advert 
 to the glory of the future salvation. — dv οὐκ εἰδότες 
 ἀγαπᾶτε] “whom, although ye know Him not (that is, accord- 
 ing to the flesh, or in His earthly personality), ye love.” The 
 object of εἰδότες is easily supplied from ὅν, according to the 
 usage in Greek. The reading iöovres expresses substantially 
 the same thought. — Since ἀγάπη, properly speaking, pre- 
 supposes personal acquaintance, the clause οὐκ εἰδότες is 
 significantly added, in order to set forth prominently that the 
 relation to Christ is an higher than any based on a knowledge 
 after the flesh. — In the clause following—co-ordinate with 
 this—the thought is carried further, the apostle’s glance being 
 again directed to the future appearance of Christ. — eis ὃν 
 ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε] As regards the 
 construction, εἰς ὅν can hardly be taken with ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, the 
 participles ὁρῶντες and πιστεύοντες thus standing absolutely 
 (Fronmüller), but, as most interpreters are agreed, must be 
 construed with πιστεύοντες. The more precise determination 
 of the thought must depend on whether ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is, with 
 de Wette, Brückner, Winer, Steinmeyer, Weiss, Schott, to be 
 taken as referring to present, or, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, 
 to future joy. In the first case, ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is joined in the 
 closest manner with πιστεύοντες, and dprı only with μὴ 
 ὁρῶντες (de Wette: “and in Him, though now seeing Him 
 not, yet believing ye exult”); in the second, eis ov... 
 πιστεύοντες δέ is to be taken as the condition of the ayaX- 
 λιᾶσθε, and ἄρτι to be joined with πιστεύοντες (Wiesinger : 
 “on whom for the present believing,—although without seeing, 
 —ye exult”). In support of the first view, it may be 
 
CHAP, L 8. 67 
 
 advanced, that thus ἀγαλλιᾶσθε corresponds more exactly to 
 ἀγαπᾶτε, and that μὴ ὁρῶντες forms a more natural antithesis 
 to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε than to πιστεύοντες ; for the second, that it is 
 precisely one of the peculiarities characteristic of this epistle, 
 that it sets forth the present condition of believers as one 
 chiefly of suffering, which only at the ἀποκάλυψις of the Lord 
 will be changed into one of joy; that the more precise 
 definition: χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ, as also the 
 subsequent κομιζόμενοι, have reference to the future; that the 
 ἄρτι seems to involve the thought: “now ye see Him not, 
 but then ye see Him, and shall rejoice in beholding Him ;” 
 and lastly, that the apostle, iv. 13, expressly ascribes the 
 ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι to the future. On these grounds the second view 
 is preferable to the first. The present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε need excite 
 the less surprise, that the future joy is one not only surely 
 pledged to the Christian, but which its certainty makes 
 already present. It may, indeed, be supposed that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε 
 must be conceived as in the same relation to time with ἀγαπᾶτε; 
 yet, according to the sense, it is not the ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, but the 
 πιστεύειν, which forms the second characteristic of the Chris- 
 tian life annexed to ἀγαπᾷν. It is not, however, the case, 
 that on account of the present πιστεύοντες, ἀγαλλ. also must 
 be taken with a present signification (Schott), since love and 
 faith are the present ground of the joy beginning indeed now, 
 but perfected only in the future. The particle of time ἄρτι 
 applies not only to μὴ ὁρῶντες, but likewise to πιστεύοντες δέ; 
 the sense of μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δέ is not this, that 
 although they now do not see, yet still believe—the not seeing 
 and the believing do not form an antithesis, they belong to 
 each other; but this, that the Christians do not indeed see, 
 but believe. On the distinction between οὐκ εἰδότες and μὴ 
 δρῶντες, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 609].— χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ 
 καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ] serves to intensify ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. ἀνεκλάλητος, 
 am. λεγ., “ unspeakable,” is either “what cannot be expressed 
 in words” (thus ἀλάλητος, Rom. viii. 26), or “what cannot 
 be exhausted by words.”' δεδοξασμένη, according to Weiss, 
 means: “the joy which already bears within it the glory, in 
 
 'Steinmeyer gives an unjustifiable application to the word, by saying: 
 ““Meminerimus σῶν ποικίλων πειρασμῶν. Si quidem plurimae illae tentationes 
 
68 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 which the future glory comes into play even in the Christian’s 
 earthly life ;” similarly Steinmeyer: “hominis fidelis laetitia 
 jam exstat δεδοξασμένη, quoniam δόξαν ejus futuram prae- 
 sentem habet ac sentit;” but on this interpretation relations 
 are Introduced which in and for itself the word does not possess. 
 δεδοξασμένος means simply “ glorified ;” χαρὰ δεδοξασμ. is 
 accordingly the joy which has attained unto perfected glory ; 
 but “the imperfect joy of the Christian here (Wiesinger, 
 Hofmann), and not the joy of the world, which as of sense and 
 transitory is a joy ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ (Fronmiiller), is to be regarded 
 as its antithesis; so that this expression also seems to show 
 that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is to be understood of the future exultation. 
 Ver. 9. κομιζόμενοι TO τέλος K.T.A.] gives the reason of that 
 joy; the participle links itself simply on to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, 
 “inasmuch as ye obtain,” etc., and supplies confirmation that 
 what is here spoken of is not present, but future joy. It is 
 arbitrary to interpret, with de Wette and Briickner: “ inas- 
 much as ye are destined to obtain;” or with Steiger: 
 “inasmuch as even now in foretaste ye obtain.” Joined with 
 the future present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, the participle must also be in 
 the present.’ Cf. with this passage, more especially chap. v. 4. 
 — κομίζειν : “obtain” (cf. chap. v. 4), is in the N. Τὶ frequently 
 used of the obtaining of what will be assigned to man at the last 
 judgment; 2 Pet. ἢ. 13; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25. 
 Steinmeyer incorrectly explains the word: secum portare. — 
 τὸ τέλος, not “the reward” = μισθός (Beza, Vorstius, etc.), 
 neither is it “the reward of victory” (Hofmann);? but it is 
 
 totidem laetitiae causas afferunt, sine dubio ἡ xap2 eodem sensu ἀνεκλάλησος 
 exstat, quo σειρασμοί nequeunt enumerari.” 
 
 1 Winer, in the 5th ed. (p. 403), gives the same interpretation as de Wette ; in 
 the 6th (p. 306 [E. T. 429]) and the 7th (p. 330), on the other hand: ‘‘as 
 receiving (they are that already in the assurance of faith).” Schott: ‘‘since ye 
 are about to, or on the way to, gather in (!) like a harvest the end of your faith.” 
 Schott is clearly wrong when he asserts that if the apostle had had the future 
 joy in his mind, he must have written κομισάμενοι on account of the δεδοξασμένῃ, 
 “ because the attaining of the end of salvation, which is still in the act of being 
 accomplished, could not be placed parallel with the final glorification which has 
 already taken place,” since there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that the joy 
 of the Christians is glorified when they receive the end of their salvation. 
 
 2 The expression xogiZew indeed shows that Peter pictured to himself the σέλος 
 of faith as a trophy, but not that τέλος literally means: ‘‘ trophy.” 
 
CHAP. I. 10. 69 
 
 the end of faith, that to which it is directed; see Cremer, s.v. 
 — τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν] refers back to πιστεύοντες, ver. 8. — 
 σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν] The salvation is indeed one already present; 
 but here is meant the Christians’ completed salvation, of which 
 they shall be partakers, ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (ver. 5).— On 
 ψυχῶν, Bengel remarks: anima praecipue salvatur: corpus 
 in resurrectione participat; cf. Jam.i.21; John xu. 25; Luke 
 xo, 19. 
 
 Vv. 10-12. The design of this paragraph is not to prove 
 the truth of the apostolic doctrine by its agreement with that 
 of the prophets (Gerhard), but to bring prominently forward 
 the glory of the σωτηρία before spoken of, by presenting it 
 as the object of prophetic search. Calvin: “ salutis hujus 
 pretium inde commendat, quod in eam toto studio intente 
 fuerunt prophetae.” Wiesinger also; in such a way, however, 
 that he holds the real tendency to be this, that the readers 
 should recognise themselves as “those favoured ones who, by 
 the preaching of the gospel, had been made partakers of the 
 salvation foretold in the O. T.” Schott thinks that here the 
 position of the Christians is compared very favourably with 
 that of the prophets, since the latter had to cling to a bare 
 word referring to an indefinite time; the former, on the other 
 hand, have in their possession of salvation the pledge of a 
 blessed future—indeed, in a certain sense even possess it. — 
 But how much is here introduced ! 
 
 Ver. 10. περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηρεύνησαν 
 προφῆται) The σωτηρία, to which the search of the prophets 
 was directed, is, as the connection: περὶ ἧς cwr., shows, 
 the previously mentioned σωτηρία ψυχῶν, which is the τέλος 
 of faith. Wiesinger and Schott extend the idea so as to 
 include within it the present salvation. This is correct thus 
 far, that the future salvation is only the completion of the 
 present; but it is precisely to the completion that the apostle’s 
 glance is directed. De Wette is wrong in understanding by 
 σωτηρία “the work of salvation.” — Both verbs express the 
 earnest search. e£epevvav is in the N. T. dz. Aey. (LXX. 
 1 Sam. xxiii. 23: den; 1 Chron. xix. 3: 727). The prefixed 
 ἐκ serves to intensify the idea, without hinting that the 
 prophets selected the right time from among different periods 
 
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 (Steiger) ; see the other passages in the N. T. where the verb 
 ἐκζητεῖν occurs. The aim of their search is more precisely 
 defined in ver. 11. Luther’s translation is inexact: “ after 
 which salvation;” wrepi means rather: in respect to, with 
 regard to.— Calvin justly remarks: quum dicit prophetas 
 sciscitatos esse et sedulo inquisivisse, hoc ad eorum seripta aut 
 doctrinam non pertinet, sed ad privatum desiderium quo quis- 
 que aestuavit. A distinction is here drawn between the 
 individual activity put forth on the basis of the revelation of 
 which they had been made partakers, and that revelation 
 itself (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). To προφῆται is sub- 
 joined the nearer definition: of περὶ τῆς eis ὑμᾶς xapıros 
 προφητεύσαντες) by which some prophets are not distinguished 
 from others, as Hofmann thinks, but all are characterized 
 according to their function. Bengel: Articulus hic praeter- 
 missus grandem facit orationem, nam auditorem a determinata 
 individuorum consideratione ad ipsum genus spectandum 
 traducit ; sic ver. 12: angeli.— 1 eis ὑμᾶς χάρις] either from 
 the prophets’ standpoint: “destined for you” (de Wette, 
 Briickner), or from that of the apostles: “the grace of which 
 ye have been made partakers” (Wiesinger, Schott). The first 
 is the preferable view. xapıs is not to be taken as identical 
 with σωτηρία (as opposed to Wiesinger), but the difference in 
 expression points to a distinction in idea. χάρις denotes both 
 the present and the future, σωτηρία only the future. Hofmann 
 attaches particular importance to the fact that ὑμᾶς and not 
 ἡμᾶς is here used; assuming that by ὑμᾶς the readers must 
 be understood to be heathen - Christians. This is, however, 
 incorrect, since Peter nowhere in his epistle makes a distinc- 
 tion between heathen and Jewish - Christians; by ὑμᾶς the 
 readers are addressed not as heathen-Christians, but as Chris- 
 tians in general; cf. also vv. 3, 4: ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς ... 
 τετηρημένους εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
 
 Ver. 11 stands in close grammatical connection with the 
 
 1 Steinmeyer denies this distinction, and says, interpreting τίνα 1 ποῖον καιρόν, 
 ver. 11, by de sola inde indole temporis : neminem latebit, eos saepenumero 
 de crescente piorum hominum desiderio nee non de aucta improborum proter- 
 vitate verba fecisse ; ... ecce σὰ σημεῖα τοῦ μέλλοντος καιροῦ, quae indagata 
 
 praedicarunt. According to this, ἐκζητεῖν and ἐξερευνᾷν would be indagata 
 praedicare (!). 
 
CHAP. I. 11 ZL 
 
 preceding, ἐρευνῶντες being conjoined with the verba finita of 
 ver. 10; what follows states the object of the Epevvav. — 
 eis τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν] τίνα refers to the time itself, ποῖον to 
 its character.’ Steinmeyer (appealing without justification to 
 Rom. iv. 13) explains 7 incorrectly: vel potius; vel, ut rec- 
 tius dicam. — ἐδήλου] not: “referred to” (Luth. or significaret, 
 Vulg.), but: “ revealed,’ as Heb. ix. 8, xi. 17, ete. Vorstius 
 supplies: gratiam illam exstituram, de qua et ipsi vaticinaban- 
 tur; this is incorrect. εἰς. .. καιρόν is conjoined rather 
 directly—though not as its real object, but as a secondary 
 determination— with ἐδήλου. An object is not to be supplied 
 (neither ταῦτα nor τὴν χάριν ταύτην, Steiger), as ἐδήλου is in 
 intimate union with the participle προμαρτυρόμενον (de Wette, 
 Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott), by which “at once the act of 
 δηλοῦν and its object are exactly determined” (de Wette). — 
 τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς mveüua Χριστοῦ] By this the revealing subject 
 is mentioned: the prophets only expressed what the Spirit 
 within them communicated to them; “the τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς is to 
 be taken as a special act of ἐδήλου " (Wiesinger), cf. besides, 
 Matt. xxii. 43 and 2 Pet.i. 21.2—This Spirit is characterized 
 as the τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, not in that it bears witness 
 of Christ (Bengel: Spiritus Christi: testans de Christo; thus 
 also Grotius, Augustine, Jachmann), for Χριστοῦ is the subjec- 
 tive and not the objective genitive, but because it is the Spirit 
 “which Christ has and gives” (Wiesinger); see Rom. viii. 8. 
 The expression is to be explained from the apostle’s conviction 
 of the pre-existence of Christ, and is here used in reference 
 strictly to the προμαρτυρόμενον ta eis Χριστὸν παθήματα 
 K.T.A. directly conjoined with it. Barnabas, chap. v.: prophetae 
 ab ipso habentes donum in illum prophetarunt. 
 
 REMARK. — By far the greater number of the interpreters 
 rightly see in the term here applied to the Spirit a testimony 
 
 1 Bengel: in quod vel quale tempus; guod innuit tempus per se, quasi 
 dicas aeram suis numeris notatam: quale dicit tempus ex eventibus variis 
 noscendum. 
 
 = Hofmann is indeed not mistaken in saying that 70 ἐν αὐτοῖς vv. Xp. is a desig- 
 nation of the Spirit working prophetic knowledge in the prophets, and not of a 
 constant indwelling of it,—only it must be observed that the expression here 
 employed says nothing as to how or in what manner the Spirit dwelt in the 
 prophets, 
 
72 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 to the real pre-existence of Christ. Not so de Wette, who finds 
 in it merely the expression ofthe view “ that the work ofredemp- 
 tion is the same in both the O. and N. T., and that the Spirit of 
 God at work in the former is identical with the Spirit of Christ ;” 
 and Weiss (pp. 247-249), who explains the name thus: that 
 the Spirit which was at work in the prophets was the same as 
 “that which Christ received at His baptism, and since then 
 has possessed ;” similarly Schmid also (bibl. Theol. p. 163), “ the 
 Spirit of God which in after time worked in the person of 
 Christ.”— Weiss seeks to prove, indeed, that “Christ had in the 
 pre-existent Messianic Spirit an ideal, or in ὦ certain sense a real 
 pre-existence,’—but in this way reflex ideas are attributed to 
 the apostles, which certainly lay far from their mind. Besides, 
 Weiss himself admits that in 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, reference is made to 
 the pre-existent Christ ; but it cannot be concluded from Acts 
 ii. 36 that Peter did not believe it. Schott, too, in his inter- 
 pretation, does not abstain from introducing many results of 
 modern thought, when he designates rö mv. Xp. here as the Spirit 
 “of the Mediator continually approaching the consummation of 
 salvation (!), but as yet supernaturally concealed in God.” 
 Steinmeyer does not touch the question of the pre-existence of 
 Christ ; he finds an adequate explanation of the expression in 
 the remark of Bengel, although he takes Χριστοῦ as a subject. 
 gen. 
 
 —— προμαρτυρόμενον] This verb. compos. occurs nowhere else 
 in the N. T., and in none of the classical writers ; the simplex 
 means properly: “to call to witness;” then, “to swear to, to 
 attest ;” προμαρτύρεσθαι is therefore: “to attest beforehand.” * 
 — The object of ἐδήλου... mpopapt. is τὰ eis Χριστὸν 
 παθήματα Kai Tas μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας] On this Luther remarks, 
 that it can be understood of both kinds of suffering, of those 
 which Christ Himself bore, as well as of those which we 
 endure. The majority of interpreters conceive the reference 
 to be to the former: Oecumenius, Theophyl., Erasmus, Grotius, 
 Aretius, Piscator (cf. Luke xxiv. 26), Vorstius, Hensler, Stolz, 
 Hottinger, Knapp, Steiger, de Wette, Brückner, Steinmeyer, 
 
 1 Schott justly remarks that δηλοῦν and προμαρτύρεσθαι are not identical with 
 προφητεύειν, but that they denote the “action of the Spirit,” by means of which 
 “(Ἢ 8. communicated to the prophets the prophecies after which they were to 
 inquire.” But he is evidently mistaken when he asserts that this identification 
 takes place in the above interpretation.—Nor is Schott warranted in supposing 
 
 that in +powap. the apostle emphatically shows that the manner of communication 
 ‘was a revelation in the form of speech, and not an inward vision.” 
 
CHAP, I. 11. 18 
 
 Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann, ete. ; 
 but not so Calvin: non tractat Petr. quod Christo sit proprium, 
 sed de universali ecelesiae statu disserit; Bolten and Clericus 
 explain it of the sufferings of the Christians; the same posi- 
 tion is taken up in the first edition of this commentary. Since 
 the main tendency of the paragraph, vv. 10-12, is to give 
 special prominence to the glorious nature of the believers’ 
 σωτηρία, the latter view is favoured by the connection of 
 thought. But, on the other hand, there is nothing opposed to 
 the assumption, that the apostle here mentions the facts on 
 which the σωτηρία is founded, as the substance of the 
 testimony ofthe Spirit of God in the prophets. The expression 
 Ta eis Χριστὸν παθήματα too, which must be interpreted on 
 the analogy of τῆς eis ὑμᾶς χάριτος, goes to show that by it are 
 to be understood the sufferings which were ordained or appointed 
 to Christ (Wiesinger). — On the plural tas . . . δόξας, Bengel 
 says: Plurale: gloria resurrectionis, gloria ascensionis, gloria 
 judicii extremi et regni coelestis; thus also Grotius, de Wette, 
 Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. But it might be more 
 correct to explain the plural in this way, that as the one 
 suffering of Christ comprehends in it a plurality of sufferings, 
 so does His δόξα a plurality of glories. Hofmann: “by παθή- 
 para is to be understood the manifold afflictions in which the 
 one suffering of Christ consisted, while the manifold glorify- 
 ings which go to make up His glory are included under δόξαι," * 
 Besides, it must be noted that the suffering of Christ is always 
 designated by the plural παθήματα (with the exception of in 
 Heb. ii. 9, where we have: τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου), but His 
 glory always by the singular d0fa.—As the παθήματα and 
 δόξαι of Christ are the object of ἐδήλου προμαρτυρόμενον, so by 
 καιρός, to which the ἐρευνᾷν of the prophets was directed, the 
 time is referred to when this salvation would actually be 
 accomplished. For this reason, then, ἐξηρεύνησαν, ver. 10,cannot 
 again be repeated in ἐρευνῶντες (Wiesinger, Schott), as if the 
 eis τίνα... καιρόν referred directly to the appearance of 
 the owrnpia; the apostles thought is rather this, that in 
 
 1 Hofmann’s opinion, that Peter had chiefly in his mind the passages in Isa. 
 
 xlix. 6, 7, lii. 15, arises from the fact that he applies ὑμᾶς specially to the 
 Gentiles. » 
 
74 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 their search as to the time of the sufferings, ete. of Christ, 
 the prophets had before their eyes, as that with respect to 
 which they sought to obtain knowledge, the σωτηρία of which 
 believers were to be made partakers. 
 
 REMARK.—Definite corroboration of the ideas here expressed 
 is to be found in the Book of Daniel, chap. xu. 4, 9, 10, 13. 
 The fundamental presupposition is, that the “when” of the fulfil- 
 ment was unknown to the prophets; according to ver. 12, all 
 that was revealed to them was, that it would take place only in 
 the times to come. De Wette asserts too much when he says, 
 that searching as to the time cannot be predicated of the 
 genuine prophets of ancient Judaism, but of Daniel only, who 
 pondered over the seventy years of Jeremiah. But although the 
 words of Daniel may have given occasion for the apostle’s state- 
 ment, still that statement is not incapable of justification. If 
 the apostles searched as to the time when the promises of Christ 
 would receive accomplishment, why should it not be pre- 
 supposed that similarly the prophets, too, inquired into that 
 which the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ testified beforehand to them, more 
 especially as to the zaspés of its fulfilment ? 
 
 Ver. 12. οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη] is linked on by way of explana- 
 tion to ἐρευνῶντες : “to whom it was revealed,” i.e. “in that it 
 was revealed to them.” This is to be taken neither as an 
 antithesis to the searching, nor as the result of it, but as an 
 element accompanying—and stimulating—it; see Wiesinger 
 and Schott in loc. — ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν (ἡμῖν) δὲ διηκόνουν 
 αὐτά] ὅτι is not causal here (Luther: “ for;” so also Luthardt 
 and Hofmann). Opposed to this is the circumstance that if ὅτι 
 κιτιλ. be taken as a parenthesis, and the ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη K.T.A. 
 following be joined with ὠπεκαλύφθη (Hofmann), this sentence 
 is strangely broken up; if, on the other hand, ἃ νῦν «.T.X. be 
 united with what immediately precedes (Luther), ἀπεκαλύφθη 
 is plainly much too bald. Nor can it be denied that ὅτε natu- 
 rally connects itself with ἀπεκαλύφθη, and ἃ νῦν is joined with 
 διηκόνουν αὐτά. ὅτι states, then, not the reason, but the con- 
 tents of what was revealed to the prophets.’ -- διακονεῖν, both 
 
 1 Luthardt interprets: ‘‘for there the object was a future one, from which the 
 veil had to be removed by single acts of God ; here, it is a present one, which 
 accordingly the messengers simply proclaim, in the power of the now ever 
 present Spirit of God,”—how much is imported here! Steinmeyer admits that os 
 
CHAP. I. 12. 75 
 
 in the N. T. and in the classics, is frequently a transitive verb 
 joined with the accusative, and that in such a way that the 
 accusative denotes either the result of the διακονεῖν, or the 
 thing to which the service is directed (iv. 10). Here, where 
 αὐτά is the accusative dependent on διηκόνουν, the latter is the 
 case; for that which is announced to the Christians is not the 
 result of the prophets’ ministrations, but that to which they 
 were directed. That “they did their part in bringing to pass 
 by their ministration the salvation which is now preached” 
 (Wiesinger, and Schott also), is a thought in no way hinted at 
 here, and in which: “did their part” is a purely arbitrary addi- 
 tion. The ministration of the prophets consisted not in the 
 bringing to pass of the salvation, but in the proclaiming of that 
 which was revealed to them (Briickner); and this is what is con- 
 veyed by avrd.—They exercised this ministration, οὐχ, ete., “ not 
 Jor their, rather for your (our) benefit,’ 1.6. in such a way that its 
 application was to you (us), not to themselves.—On δέ after the 
 negation, as distinguished from ἀλλά, cf. Winer, p. 411 [E. T. 
 621]. The difference in the reading ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν does not 
 essentially affect the meaning, since by ὑμῖν, though the readers 
 of the epistle are indeed addressed in the first instance, all the 
 rest of the Christians are naturally thought of as included. 
 Still, the idea expressed in the ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν δέ is not without 
 difficulty. Taken strictly, the οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς alone was known 
 to the prophets—and along with this likewise, that it was 
 for others, 1.6. for those who lived at the time of its fulfil- 
 ment. But as these others are the Christians, the apostle 
 directly opposes ὑμῖν de to οὐχ Eavrois—that is, inserts the 
 
 is not to be taken αἰτιολογικῶς, but denies at the same time that it states the 
 argumentum τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ; he assumes an inversion, which is to be resolved 
 thus : οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη (sc. ταῦτα, namely τὰ rad, x. δόξαι Xp.) οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι 
 ὑμοῖν διηκόνουν αὐτά, and then interprets: h. e. quibus manifestata sunt, non in 
 ipsorum commodum, sed quia nobis ea ministrare jussi erant. But is ὅτε then 
 not still αἰτιολογικῶς δ And on what ground should an inversion so very harsh be 
 adopted? 
 
 1 Schott’s singular assertion, that ‘‘cd.. . δὲ does not cancel ἑαυτοῖς simply, and 
 put ὑμῖν in its place, but that δέ adds only something new to the preceding which 
 remains standing” (in spite of the οὐ 1), is based on a misconception of what is 
 said by Hartung, Partikellehre, I. 171, to which Schott appeals. ‘‘ Others than 
 those addressed are not excluded ; the latter only are indicated as those for whom 
 the prophecy was intended ;” thus Hofmann, too, incorrectly. 
 
76 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 definite for the indefinite —Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner join 
 αὐτά closely with the ἅ which follows: “the same as that 
 which now is proclaimed to you;” this is, however, incorrect. 
 αὐτά is nowhere in the N. T. construed thus with a relative 
 to which it is antecedent; it applies rather to what has been 
 formerly mentioned; here, therefore, doubtless to that of 
 which the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ testified beforehand to the prophets, 
 and what they prophesied of the xapıs, of which the readers 
 had been made partakers. It is less fitting to limit the refer- 
 ence to the ra eis Χριστὸν παθήματα, ἃ x.T.r. being joined to 
 it in a somewhat loose way.—It is entirely arbitrary for 
 Hofmann to assert that “Peter does not speak of any pro- 
 phecies in general, but of the written records in which were 
 contained the prediction of the prophets, who had foretold 
 the extension of grace to the Gentile world ;” there is nothing 
 here to lead to the supposition that the apostle makes any 
 reference to written records —and predictions with regard to 
 the heathen.— By means of the following ἃ viv ἀνηγγέλη 
 x.7.X., the apostle insists that what the prophets foretold is that 
 which is now proclaimed to the readers. — νῦν emphasizes the 
 present, in which the facts of salvation are proclaimed as having 
 already,taken place, as contradistinguished from the time when 
 they were predicted as future. — διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων tas 
 (ev) πνεύματι ἁγίῳ] For the construction of the verb evay- 
 γελίζεσθαι, c. acc., cf. Gal. 1. 9; Winer, p. 209 [E. T. 279].— 
 If the reading: ἐν mv. be adopted, the Holy Spirit is conceived 
 of as the power, as it were, encompassing and swaying them ; 
 if the other reading, as the moving and impelling cause. Like 
 prophecy (ver. 11), the preaching of the gospel proceeds from 
 the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit. — ἀποστα- 
 Aevrı ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ] refers to the events of Pentecost; since then 
 the Holy Spirit has His abode and is at work in the church.’ 
 Though the same Spirit was already in the prophets, ver. 11, 
 
 1 Weiss’s assertion (Die Petrin. Frage, above mentioned, p. 642) that, “if 
 there be here an allusion to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
 Paul could not have belonged to those who had preached the gospel to the 
 readers,” is without foundation, as it is not said here that the sbeyysaiwauevn 
 ὑμᾶς belonged to those who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but only that 
 they preached in that Spirit, which was sent from heaven at Pentecost; and this 
 applies to Paul no less than to the other apostles. etc. 
 
CHAP. I. 12. Fu 
 
 He had not yet at that time been sent from heaven. Who 
 the individuals were who had preached the gospel to the 
 readers, Peter does not say. No doubt the form of the apostle’s 
 expression does not compel us to think of him as excluded 
 from the τῶν evayyer.; yet it is very probable that Peter, 
 had he intended to include himself, would somehow have 
 given this to be understood. — eis ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι 
 παρακύψαι) The relative & clearly goes back to ἃ νῦν avny- 
 yéAn. It is arbitrary to understand (with Schott) by that 
 which the angels desired to see, “the nature and origin of the 
 moral transformation wrought by the proclamation of the 
 gospel ;” or, with Hofmann, to give it this reference, “that 
 Christ has died, and been glorified in such a way that now 
 He can and should be preached to the heathen as having died, 
 and been glorified for them;” it includes not only the παθή- 
 ματα and δόξαι of Christ (Wiesinger), but the whole contents 
 of the message of salvation (Briickner), which, as it is a 
 testimony to the facts of redemption, is also a preaching of 
 the σωτηρία founded on them, which is ἑτοίμη ἀποκαλυφθῆναι 
 ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (ver. 5), and which the believers will obtain 
 (ver. 9).'—émi@vuodoe must not be taken as an aorist 
 (Irenaeus, c. Haer. iv. 67; Oecumenius: ὧν τὴν yvagıv καὶ 
 ἔκβασιν καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐπεθύμησαν), for the question is 
 not as to what the angels did at the time of the prophets, but 
 as to what they are now doing. That after which they long is 
 the παρακύψαι eis αὐτάς, On the inf. aor. after ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, 
 see Winer, p. 310 ἢ [E. T. 416]. — παρακύπτειν, properly, “to 
 bend to the side so as to examine a thing,” means when joined 
 with eis not only: “to look towards,” but: “to look into any- 
 thing,” and that in order to obtain a more accurate knowledge 
 of the object in question.” The παρά of the verb indicates that 
 the angels stand outside the work of redemption, inasmuch as 
 
 1The Vulg. translates εἰς & by in quem (i.e. in Spiritum sanctum). 
 
 ® Although Hofmann may not be wrong in asserting that rapaxdrrey is used 
 also to denote a cursory glance at anything (cf. Dem. iv. 24, in Pape, s.v.), yet 
 in connection with εἰς it is chiefly employed in cases where a more accurate 
 knowledge is implied ; precisely as Pape also interprets παρακύπαειν, ‘to stand 
 beside a thing, and to bend down so as to see it more distinctly ;” cf. further, 
 Ecclus. xxi. 23 (xiv. 23), and in the N. T. besides Jas. i, 25, also John xx. 11 
 (Luke xxiv. 12; John xx. 5). 
 
78 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 it is not for them, but for man (cf. Heb. 11.16). The addition 
 of this clause brings prominently forward the idea, not that 
 the work of salvation is a mystery,—concealed even from 
 the angels,—but that that which has been proclaimed to the 
 readers is something so glorious that even the angels had a 
 wish and a longing to see what was its fashion, and what 
 the course of its development (cf. Eph. iii. 10). Nor is 
 it implied. in ἐπιθυμοῦσι that “the angels cannot attain to a 
 knowledge of the economy of salvation” (Schott). It is more 
 than doubtful whether there be here any reference to Ex. 
 xxv. 20, as several interpreters assume. Beza: alludit Ap. 
 ad duos illos Cherubim opercula Arcae insistentes, conversis in 
 ipsam arcam oculis. Piscator: videtur respicere ad Cherubim 
 super arcam foederis, tanquam ad typum. 
 
 Ver. 13. The first group of exhortations extends from this 
 verse to the end of the chapter. — Ver. 13. First exhortation, 
 which forms the basis of those which follow. The τελείως 
 ἐλπίζειν is the foundation upon which the whole moral-reli- 
 gious life of the Christian must be raised. — διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι 
 Tas ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν] διό does not refer back to 
 any single thought in what precedes, certainly not to the glory 
 of the σωτηρία touched upon in vv. 10 ff. (Calvin: ex mag- 
 nitudine et excellentia gratiae deducit exhortationem), still less 
 to the thought expressed vv. 5-9: “that the Christian goes 
 through trial towards a glorious destiny” (de Wette), but to 
 the whole of the foregoing lines of thought (Schott), which, 
 however, have their point of convergence in this, that unto the 
 Christian begotten again eis ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, the σωτηρία is 
 appointed as the τέλος τῆς πίστεως (similarly Brückner). — 
 ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας] a figurative expression taken from 
 the runners (and others) who tucked up their dress, so as to 
 prosecute their work with less hindrance. ἀναζώννυμι, ar. 
 rey. (Prov. xxxi. 17; LXX., ed. van Ess xxix. 17), means to 
 tuck wp; Luther incorrectly: “therefore so gird yourselves” 
 (thus Wiesinger also translates, although he justly says: “ The 
 figure taken from the tucking wp of a long under garment 
 denotes preparedness for something,” etc.); cf. the passages, 
 Luke xii. 35 and Eph. vi. 14 (in both passages, however, 
 περιζώννυμι). The figure is the more appropriate, that the 
 
CHAP, I. 18. 79 
 
 Christian is a παρεπίδημος, on his way to the future «Anpo- 
 νομία. The figurative tas ὀσφύας finds its own explana- 
 tion in the epexegetical genitive τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν. Aretins 
 interprets incorrectly : lumbi mentis i. 6. ipsa recta ratio renati 
 hominis recte judicans de negotio pietatis; διάνοια means 
 here, as in Col. i. 21: the “ disposition of mind.” The mean- 
 ing of the phrase applies not only to deliverance from evil 
 desires (Gerhard: quarumvis passionum et cupiditatum car- 
 nalium refrenatio praescribitur), but to all and every needful 
 preparation of spirit for the fulfilling of the exhortations 
 following; “it is the figure of spiritual preparedness and 
 activity” (de Wette). The aorist participle points to this 
 spiritual preparedness as the preliminary condition of ἐλπίζειν 
 (Schott). — νήφοντες) cf. chap. iv. 7, v. 8 (1 Thess. v. 6, 8; 
 2 Tim. iv. 5). Calvin correctly: non temperantiam solum in 
 cibo et potu commendat, sed spiritualem potius sobrietatem, 
 quum sensus omnes nostros continemus, ne se hujus mundi 
 illecebris inebrient ; similarly most interpreters. Otherwise, 
 however, Weiss (p. 95 f.), who supposes an antithesis between 
 ἀναζωσάμενοι and νήφοντες, inasmuch as the former is opposed 
 “to want of courage and apathy,” the latter to “unnatural 
 overstraining and excitement,’ and “unhealthy exaltation.” 
 But no such antithetical relation is (as little as there is in chap. 
 v.8 and 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, between γρηγορεῖν and νήφειν) here 
 anywhere hinted at, nor is there anything in the whole epistle 
 to lead us to suppose that Peter considered it necessary “to warn 
 his hearers against the extravagant enthusiasm of a Messianic 
 glory.” Rather in νήφοντες is prominence given to an im- 
 portant element in the ὠναζώσασθαι, without which a τελείως 
 ἐλπίζειν cannot exist, namely, the clearness and soberness of 
 mind with which the goal of hope and the way leading 
 thither is kept in view. — τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην 
 K.T.r.] τελείως, dr. Ney., belongs not to νήφοντες (Oecumenius, 
 Benson, Semler, Mayerhoff, Hofmann), but to ἐλπίσατε: it 
 
 
 
 1 The reasons which Hofmann brings forward for the combination of τελείως 
 With νήφοντες are not by any means conclusive ; for as the chief accent lies on 
 ἐλπίσατε, a strengthening of this expression by τελείως is entirely appropriate, 
 whilst νήφοντες requires no such support. The position of the word, too, is in 
 favour of the connection with ἐλπίσατε, 
 
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 shows emphatically that the hope should be perfect, undivided, 
 unchangeable (“ without doubt or faint-heartedness, with full 
 surrender of soul,” de Wette; Wiesinger adds further: “ ex- 
 cluding all ungodly substance and worldly desire, and includ- 
 ing the μὴ συσχηματ., ver. 14;” and Schott: “ with reference 
 also to the moral conduct of earnest sanctification”). Weiss 
 (p. 93) finds the τελειότης of hope in this, that it does not 
 allow itself to be overcome by suffering—but of suffering there 
 is here no mention. Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel take it unsatis- 
 factorily, only ratione temporis, 1.6. “ad finem usque.” — 
 ἐλπίζειν, frequently with eis, ev, ἐπί c. dat., is construed with 
 ἐπί cum. accus. only here and in 1 Tim. v. 5; it means “to 
 place his hope on something.” The object connected with it 
 by means of ἐπί is not the proper object of hope; the latter 
 stands in the accusative, or is expressed by a verb, either in 
 the infin. or with ὅτι; but it is that from which the fulfil- 
 ment of hope is expected.’ If, as here, ἐπί be construed with 
 the accusative, the disposition of mind with respect to the 
 object is expressed; whilst if it be taken with the dative, the 
 object is presented to us as the basis of hope, that on which it 
 is founded. — ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει 
 "Ins. Χριστοῦ] Several commentators interpret so that the sense 
 runs: “place your hope on the grace which has been shown 
 you by the revelation of Jesus Christ ;” thus Erasmus, Luther, 
 Calov, Bengel, Gerhard, Steiger, etc.; according to this, depo- 
 μένην is the ἀντίστροφον of κομίζεσθαι (1... “which has been 
 already offered or communicated to you”), xapıs, “the for- 
 giveness of sins effected by Christ,” and ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 “Χριστοῦ, “the revelation of Christ which has already taken 
 place.” In the more exact definition of the term ἀποκάλυψις, 
 
 1 The expression ‘‘to hope for something,” confidently to expect it, may lead 
 to the supposition that this meaning is expressed by taviZew ἐπί σι, In the N. T, 
 this is usually rendered by ἀπεκδέχεσθαι. Even in the construction with eis the 
 thing accompanying it is not the object of hope, cf. John v. 45 ; 2 Cor. i. 10; 
 only in Ecelus. ii. 9 is the object of ἐλσίζειν construed with eis (ἐλπίσατε εἰς 
 ἀγαθὰ καὶ sis εὐφροσύνην). Hofmann wrongly attaches importance to whether εἰς is 
 followed by a person or a thing, asserting that in the latter case the thing is the 
 object ; for it is quite as possible to set one’s hope on a thing as on a person. 
 Cremer rightly quotes this passage as one of those in which &rriZ:w has the 
 meaning of “‘ setting one’s hope on something.” 
 
CHAP. I. 13. 81 
 
 these interpreters again diverge from one another; whilst 
 Luther, Calov, Steiger, and others hold it to be “ the revela- 
 tion which has taken place in the gospel;” Bengel, ete., on 
 the other hand, understand it of “the incarnation of Christ.” 
 Erasmus gives both: sentit de mysterio evangelii divulgato 
 per quod Christus innotuit, seu de adventu Christi. Steiger, 
 im support of the first view, appeals to Luke ii. 32; Rom. 
 myo || ΤΠ 5 Eph. i, 17; 2 Cor. χα 1; Eph. ii: 3; 
 but all these passages do not furnish the proof desired. In no 
 passage is the revelation of the gospel called the ἀποκάλυψις 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But the other view is opposed by the N. T. 
 usus loquendi, according to which arox. always denotes the 
 future coming of Christ only. It must also be held to be 
 unwarrantable to interpret ev ἀποκ. Inc. Xp. here in a dif- 
 ferent sense from that given shortly before in ver. 7 (and chap. 
 iv. 13).— Not less opposed to the former interpretation is 
 the present participle φερομένην, since the present may not 
 arbitrarily be taken in the sense of the preterite, but must be 
 looked upon as a realization of the future. Steiger is no 
 doubt right in holding that ἡ dep. tu. χάρις “ does not speak 
 of the object of hoping, but the ground on which hope is 
 built.” But from this it does not follow that by the phrase 
 “something already accomplished ” must be understood, for why 
 should the Christian not be able to set his hopes of salvation 
 on the grace which in the future will be offered to him at and 
 with the return of Christ? Piscator incorrectly explains 
 xapıs: coelestis felicitas et gloria, quam Deus nobis ex gratia 
 daturus est. Aretius, again, is right: benevolentia Dei, qua 
 nos amplectitur in filio: the grace of God from which the 
 Christian has to expect the coelestis felicitas.— With qepo- 
 μένην, cf. Heb. ix. 16. φέρειν: “to bring, to present” (not 
 “to bring nearer,’ Schott), points here to the free grace of 
 God. That is, then: “place your hope on the grace which will 
 be brought to you at (in and with) the revelation (the second 
 coming) of Christ.” It is rightly interpreted by Oecumenius, 
 Calvin (who errs in this only, that he takes ἐν for eis, 1.6. 
 usque ad adventum Christi), Beza, Grotius, Estius, Semler, 
 Pott, de Wette, etc. 
 
 JtrmMarK.—The more recent interpreters take up different 
 
 1 PETER. FT 
 
82 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 positions with respect to the view here presented. Wiesinger, 
 Brückner, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann, agree with the inter- 
 pretation of ἀποκάλυψις, but are opposed to that of Errilew ἐπί. 
 Weiss and Zöckler (De vi ac notione voc. ἐλπίς in N. T. 1856, 
 p. 15 ff.), on the other hand, are against the latter, but in favour 
 of the former. — As regards 2aaiZ. Zockler : Ea est vis praeposi- 
 tionis ἐσί c. acc. constructae, ut finem designet 5. localem 5. tem- 
 poralem s. causalem, in quem tendat actus verbi. Qui tamen 
 finis s. terminus sperandi ita discernendus est a simplici objecto 
 sperandi, ut hoc significet rem, quam sibi obtingere speret sub- 
 jectum, finis vero ille simul auctor sit, e quo pendeat vel satis- 
 facere votis sperantis, vel deesse;+ in support of which he 
 justly quotes, in addition to this verse, 1 Tim. v. 5 (to which 
 Wiesinger appeals without any justification), and a not incon- 
 siderable number of passages from the LXX.; cf. Weiss also 
 (p. 36 ἢ). De Wette interprets ἐλπίζειν correctly, but thinks that 
 inasmuch as the σωτηρίω is conceived as a χάρις, it is at once the 
 ground and the object of the hope. With this Brückner agrees, 
 finding “in this intermingling a part of the peculiarity of the 
 thought ;” whilst, on the other hand, Weiss sees in it only a 
 makeshift, conveying no clear idea at all.— With regard to the 
 term ἀποκάλυψις, Weiss explains it as: manifestatio Christi, quae 
 fit in verbo evangelii in hac vita (Gerhard). But this interpreta- 
 tion is decidedly opposed to the N. T. usage; in no passage is 
 the revelation, of which by the gospel we become partakers, 
 described as an ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, although ἀποκωλύστειν 15 
 used of the different kinds of revealing. The reference to the 
 gospel is an evident importation. Weiss raises two objections 
 to the correct view—(1) “It is, as a matter of fact, impossible 
 that the Christian should set his hope on the grace that is to be 
 brought at the revelation of Christ ;”—but why should this be 
 impossible ? How often does it happen that the individual bases 
 his hope for the fulfilment of his wish on an event as yet future, 
 but which he is assured will happen! (2) “ That the second 
 coming of Christ is not a revelation of grace at all, but of just 
 judgment ;”—but the latter in no way excludes the former; and 
 how could the Christian contemplate the second coming of 
 Christ with calm, yes, even with joy, if there were no grace ? 
 
 Ver. 14. Second exhortation (extending to ver. 21). — ὡς 
 τέκνα ὑπακοῆς} does not belong to what precedes (Hofmann), 
 but serves to introduce the new exhortation.? — ὧς does not 
 
 1 This interpretation is correct. The only point under dispute is ‘ simul.” 
 
 * Hofmann connects not only these words, but the subsequent participial 
 clause also: μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι x.7.a., with what precedes. This, however, is 
 
CHAP. I. 14. 83 
 
 here introduce a comparison (as ii. 2, 5, iii. 7), but marks the 
 essential quality of the subject. Lorinus correctly remarks on 
 ii. 14: constat hujusmodi particulas saepe nihil minuere, sed 
 rei veritatem magis exprimere ; it corresponds to our “as,” dae. 
 as becomes you who should be τέκνα ὑπακοῆς. ---- ὑπακοή is 
 used here as absolutely as in ver. 2, and has the same signifi- 
 cation as there. The spirit which pervades the life of believers 
 is the spirit of obedience, and therefore they should be rexva 
 ὑπακοῆς. According to the analogy of similar compounds in 
 the N. T., as τέκνα φωτός, Eph. v. 8; its opposite: τέκνα 
 κατάρας, 2 Pet. ii. 14; τέκνα τῆς ὀργῆς, Eph. ii. 3; particularly 
 viol τῆς ἀπειθείας, Eph. ii. 2,—the expression τέκνα ὑπακοῆς 
 may be explained so as that rexva shall denote only the relation 
 in which the persons in question stand to the idea of the accom- 
 panying genitive; cf. Winer, p. 223 ἢ [E. T. 298]; Butt- 
 mann, Ὁ. 141 ; Meyer on Eph. ii. 2 (thus Grotius, Jachmann, 
 etc.; Fronmüller too). De Wette, Brückner, Schott, Weiss too 
 most probably, p. 172, take rexva as the “children of God,” 
 and ὑπακοῆς as the genitive of character (as Luke xvi. 8: ὁ 
 οἰκόνομος τῆς ἀδικίας ; xviii. 6: ὁ κρίτης τῆς ἀδικίας). But as 
 it is in ver. 17 that mention is first made of the sonship 
 relation of the Christian, it remains at least doubtful whether 
 the apostle had in this expression that relation in view ; at 
 any rate the emphasis here lies not on τέκνα, but on ὑπακοῆς. 
 — μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι] μή occurs here on account of the 
 imperative cast of the whole sentence. Neither γενήθητε 
 (Bengel) nor any other similar word is to be supplied to the 
 part., inasmuch as it does not correspond to the äyıos γενήθητε 
 but to the κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον (Wiesinger) ; there 
 is here no “departure from the construction” (de Wette). The 
 word ovoxnuaritecdaı, occurring in the N. T. only here and 
 in Rom. xii. 2, and nowhere but in later Greek, means: “to 
 form his σχῆμα like that of another ;”* it has reference not 
 
 opposed, on the one hand, by the correspondence which exists between τέκνα 
 ὑπακοῆς and the subsequent exhortations ; and, on the other hand, by ἀλλά, 
 ver. 15, which is in antithesis to μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι, and therefore not to be 
 separated from it, as though it commenced a new paragraph. 
 
 1 When, in objection to this, Hofmann urges that συσχηματίζεσθαι should 
 here be interpreted not according to Rom. xii. 2, but on the principle of the 
 expression: ovax. τοῖς λεγομένοις ; ‘so to conduct oneself as to give adequate 
 
84 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 to the outward conduct merely, but to the whole outward and 
 inward conformation of life, as the connection with the follow- 
 ing words shows: ταῖς πρότερον Ev τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις. 
 The ἐπιθυμίαι, ic. the sinful desires (not “the satisfied lusts, 
 or a life of pleasure,” as de Wette understands), which formerly 
 held sway in them, are the σχῆμα, according to which they are 
 not to fashion themselves in their new life.’ Luther’s transla- 
 tion is inexact: “take not up your former position, when ye in 
 your ignorance lived according to your lusts.” The ἐπιθυμίαι 
 are more precisely characterized as formerly belonging to them 
 ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ; ἐν specifies not merely the ¢ime (Calvin: tempus 
 ignorantiae vocat, antequam in fidem Christi vocati essent), 
 but likewise the origin (Wiesinger). ἄγνοια is used here as in 
 Acts xvii. 30, Eph. iv. 18, ignorance in divine things, and 
 is to be understood, if not exactly of idolatry, at least of 
 heathenism, which is far from the knowledge of the living 
 God and of His will. Paul, in Rom. i. 18 ff., shows how the 
 obscuring of the consciousness of God is the source of moral 
 corruption. 
 
 REMARK.—In answer to Weiss, who can see in this passage 
 no proof that the readers were Gentile-Christians, Wiesinger 
 justly remarks, Schott and Briickner agreeing with him: “the 
 ἄγνοια of which the Jews (Acts 111. 17; Rom. x. 3) are accused, 
 or which Paul attributes to himself, 1 Tim. 1. 13 (the same 
 applies to Luke xxiii. 34; John viii. 19), is of quite a different 
 kind ; not an ἄγνοια of the moral demands of the law, but the 
 misapprehension of the purpose of salvation manifesting itself 
 also through the law.” If Weiss, on the other hand, insists 
 (Die Petr. Frage, p. 624) that the invectives of Christ most 
 plainly teach how, in the Jewish conception of the law, at that 
 time its deeper moral demands were misapprehended ; it must, 
 as opposed to him, be observed that Christ’s attack was specially 
 directed against the Pharisaic conception of it, and can in no 
 
 expression to the words used,”—he does not consider that in this verse the - 
 verb ‚has the same force as in Rom. xii. 2, for it means: ‘‘to conform your 
 σχῆμα to that which your words express.” 
 
 1 Schott terms this interpretation ‘‘ inexact ;” for “it is not the lusts them- 
 selves, but the mode of life which is essentially characterized by these lusts, 
 according to which they are not to fashion themselves ;” but does then 
 ἐπιθυμίαι mean ‘‘ the mode of life”? Besides, Schott himself says that the 
 thought is not altogether correctly expressed. 
 
CHAP, I. 15, 16. 85 
 
 way be applied to the people of Israel as such. Paul, in 
 describing them, expressly allows to the Jews, Rom. ii. 17 ff., 
 the γινώσκειν τὸ θέλημα ; and an ἄγνοια, in the absolute sense 
 here implied, is nowhere cast up to them.—The O. T. dis- 
 tinction between “sins of weakness (03, LXX.: χατ ἄγνοιαν, 
 
 ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ) and insolent sins of disobedience” (707 2) (Weiss, 
 p. 175) does not apply here. 
 
 Vy. 15, 16. ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς Ayıov] Steiger: 
 “this positive instruction, instead of forming a participial 
 clause of its own, like the preceding (negative), is in animated 
 discourse at once merged into the principal clause ;” there is, 
 accordingly, nothing to be supplied ; still Oecumenius explains, 
 in sense, correctly: ἀλλὰ viv γοῦν, λέγει, τῷ καλέσαντι 
 συσχηματιζόμενοι, ἁγίῳ ὄντι K.T.A. — ἅγιον] is here a substan- 
 tive, to which the participle «ad. is added as nearer definition 
 (cf. 2 Pet. 11. 1), and that by way of strengthening the exhorta- 
 tion (“ as ye are bound to do, since He hath called you”). The 
 behaviour of those called must correspond with the nature of 
 Him who has called them. Schott rightly remarks that the 
 καλεῖν must here be taken as “an effectual calling,” by which 
 the readers are delivered from their state of estrangement from 
 God, and introduced into one of fellowship with Him. — καὶ 
 αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε] καὶ αὐτοί forms the 
 antithesis to τὸν ἅγιον ; Schott incorrectly: “as against what 
 God has, on His part, by His calling, done to you and made 
 you.” — ἐν πάσῃ avaorpobn] not: in (your) whole (de Wette), 
 but in (your) every walk." — yevn@nre] denotes not the becoming, 
 but the being; Luther correctly: like Him.... . be ye also holy. 
 — Ver. 16. διότε γέγραπται] διότι, 1.0. διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι, “ for this 
 
 1 For it must be observed that in the case of a collective expression, πᾶς is 
 accompanied by the article when the totality is conceived of as forming one 
 whole ; the article is wanting when it is considered as composed of many ; e.g. 
 πᾶς 6 λαός means: ‘‘the whole people,” but πᾶς λαός : ““all people,” when 
 not: ‘‘every people,” in which case the collective expression is the special 
 ide 
 
 2 Wiesinger asks why? The reasons are—(1) because both in the LXX. and 
 Apocrypha of the O. T., as also in the N. T., instead of the imper. of sivas, 
 
 which is but rarely used, there is very generally the imper. aorist of γίγνομαι, 
 in the LXX. translation of 771, 39M (cf. specially Ps. Ixix. 26) ; (2) because the 
 
 exhortation ‘‘be holy” is more suited to the condition of Christians than 
 “become holy.” 
 
86 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 reason because,” indicates the reason for the preceding exhor- 
 tation, and not simply for the use of the word ἅγιον (de 
 Wette). The apostle goes back to the command given to 
 Israel, as to the reason why the Christians, called as they 
 were by the God of holiness, should be holy in their every 
 walk. The holiness of God laid Israel under the obligation 
 to be holy, since God had chosen them to be His people— 
 the same is the case, as Peter suggests by καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς, 
 with the N. T. church of believers, the true Israel, on whom, 
 though doubtless in a form adapted to them, for this reason 
 the commandments of the O. C. are still binding. Schott justly 
 observes that the passage quoted by Peter is not meant to 
 establish the duty of holiness in itself, but to show that the 
 fact of belonging to God involves as a matter of duty the 
 necessity of an holy walk. The expression, which the apostle 
 quotes, occurs more than once in the book of Leviticus, xi. 44, 
 ui, 2, xxsı7, 26. 
 
 Ver. 17. From here to the end of the verse the preceding 
 exhortation is continued; the connection is shown by the 
 copula καί.-- καὶ ei πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε] corresponding to 
 the ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, ver. 14. ei is here: “particula non 
 conditionalis, sed assertiva, non dubitantis, sed rem notam 
 praesupponentis” (Calvin). The form of the sentence is, how- 
 ever, hypothetical; the sense is: “if you act thus and thus, 
 as ye are indeed now doing.” By this form the language is 
 made more impressive than it would have been by a simple 
 causative particle. — ἐπικαλεῖσθαι) as medium, means to “ call 
 upon” (for the meaning “to name,’ as Wiesinger, de Wette, 
 Briickner take it, is supported in the classics only by a 
 doubtful passage in Dio Cass. Ixxvii. 7). marepa is the 
 accusative of more precise definition (thus Hofmann also) ; 
 Luther: “since ye call on Him the (cc. as, ὡς) Father.” The 
 sense is: “if ye look on Him as Father who, etc., and ye 
 acknowledge yourselves as His children.” * It is to be noticed 
 that the ἐπικαλεῖσθε corresponds to the καλέσαντα, v.15; God 
 has called believers,—and they answer with the call to Him, in 
 which they name Him Father. This mutual relationship lays 
 
 1 It is possible, and as Gerhard and Weiss (p. 172) think probable, that Peter 
 here alludes to the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
CHAP. I. 17. 87 
 
 the Christians under obligations to be holy as He is holy.! — 
 τὸν ἀπροσωπολήπτως κρίνοντα TO ἑκάστου ἔργον] a circum- 
 locution for God full of significance, instead of the simple τὸν 
 Θεόν, corresponding to the ἅγιον, ver. 15. — ἀπροσωπολήπτως, 
 a dq. Aey., formed on the noun προσωπολήπτης (Acts x. 34), 
 which is composed of πρόσωπον and λαμβάνειν ; see Meyer 
 on Gal. ii. 6. — The present κρίνοντα indicates that impartial 
 judgment is a characteristic function of God. The apostle 
 mentions τὸ ἔργον as that according to which the judgment of 
 God is determined ; in this connection the plural is generally 
 found (Rom. ii. 6); by the singular the whole conduct of man 
 (outwardly and inwardly) is conceived as a work of his life. 
 — ἑκάστου] not without emphasis. It implies that the Chris- 
 tian also—a son of God though he be—will, like all others, be 
 judged according to his work; it is arbitrary to limit the appli- 
 cation of the general term ἑκάστου to Christians only (Schott) ; 
 there is no thought here of the distinction between Jew and 
 Gentile (Bengel). — The term judge, as applied to God, stands 
 in a peculiar contrast to πατέρα. The Christian, while con- 
 scious of the love of God shed abroad in his heart (Rom. v. 5), 
 must still never forget that God judges the evil, that His love 
 is an holy love, and that sonship involves obligation of obedi- 
 ence towards a just God.— ev φόβῳ τὸν... ἀναστράφητε] 
 corresponding to the ἅγιον ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, 
 ver. 15; the feeling which harmonizes with the thought of 
 the impartial judge is the φόβος; thus Peter places φόβος 
 first by way of emphasis. φόβος is here, indeed, not the 
 slavish fear which cannot co-exist with love (see 1 John 
 iv. 18), no more is it the reverence which an inferior feels for 
 a superior (Grotius, Bolten, etc.); but it is the holy awe of 
 a judge who condemns the evil; the opposite of thoughtless 
 security. Calvin: timor securitati opponitur; cf. chap. 
 i, 17; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Phil. ii. 12.2 — τὸν τῆς mapoılas 
 
 1 Schott rightly remarks that ἐπικαλεῖσθαι is based on the same common 
 relationship as in the preceding verses ; but here it is not considered as estab- 
 lished by God, but as realized in practice by the readers, i.e. as subjectively 
 known and acknowledged by them. 
 
 * Weiss (p. 170) thinks that the passage, Rom. viii. 15, proves Paul’s funda- 
 
 mental views of Christian life to have been different from those of Peter ; this 
 opinion, however, is sufficiently contradicted by Weiss himself, who admits that 
 
88 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 ὑμῶν χρόνον] specifies the duration of the walk ἐν φόβῳ; 
 παροικία: “the sojourn in a foreign country ; in its strict 
 sense, Acts xiii. 17 (Ezra viii. 34, LXX.); here applied 
 to the earthly life of the Christian, inasmuch as their κλη- 
 ρονομία is in heaven, ver. 1. This expression serves to 
 give point to the exhortation expressed, hinting as it does 
 at the possibility of coming short of the home; cf. chap. 
 1.1. 
 
 Ver. 18. The apostle strengthens his exhortation by remind- 
 ing his readers of the redemption wrought out for them by 
 the death of Christ. It is an assumption too far-fetched to 
 suppose that this verse serves to show “ the causal connection 
 between the protasis and the apodosis of ver. 17” (Schott). 
 —eidores] not: “since ye know,” but: “ considering,” 
 “reflecting;” Gerhard: expendentes; cf. 2 Tim. 11. 23 and my 
 commentary on the passage. — ὅτε οὐ] The negation is placed 
 foremost in order the more to give prominence to the position. 
 — φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ] φθαρτοῖς is not an adjective 
 here (Luther: “ with perishable silver and gold”), but a sub- 
 stantive: “with perishable things ;” see Winer, p. 491 [E. T. 
 662]. — Benson thinks that by ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ the 
 apostle alludes to the custom of paying money as a sign of 
 reconciliation, according to Ex. xxx. 12-16; Num. iii. 44-51, 
 xviii. 16; this is possible, but not probable. — ἐλυτρώθητε] is 
 here used in its strict signification of, to ransom, or redeem by 
 a λύτρον (cf. Matt. xx. 28), as in Tit. ii 14, whilst in Luke 
 xxiv. 21 this definite application is lost sight of; with the 
 thought, ef. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The ransom is stated in the follow- 
 ing verse. — ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς] cf. ver. 14. 
 μάταιος, “empty, without real contents,’ does not occur in an 
 ethical sense in the classics; LXX. Isa. xxxii. 6 translation 
 of MS is not to be limited specially to the idolatry of the 
 heathen (Carpzov, Benson, etc.), still less to the ceremonial 
 
 in 2 Cor. vii. 1, ‘* Paul mentions the fear of God as a peculiar mark of the Chris- 
 tian’s life, and that he often speaks of a fear of Christ.” — Schott insists, in the 
 first place, that φόβος be understood absolutely (without special reference to God 
 as the judge) as the consciousness of liability to err, but afterwards more pre- 
 cisely defines the expression as that fear which is anxious that nothing should 
 happen which might cause God, as the righteous judge, to refuse the inheritance 
 to him who hopes to attain it. 
 
OHAP: 1. 19. 89 
 
 service of the Jews (Grotius).! — πατροπαραδότου] belongs to 
 the whole idea preceding: ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς (see 
 Winer, p. 489 [E. T. 659]). Aretius explains it by innata 
 nobis natura; but this is not appropriate to ἀναστροφῆς ; cor- 
 rectly Erasmus: quam ex Patrum traditione acceperatis; Steiger: 
 “by upbringing, instruction, and example” (thus also de Wette- 
 Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott). This attribute emphati- 
 cally shows that the ματαία ἀναστροφή is peculiar, not to the 
 individual only, but to the whole race, and has been from 
 the earliest times, and consequently is so completely master 
 of the individual that he cannot free himself from it. — There 
 is here no “special reference to Judaeo-Christian readers ” 
 (Weiss, p. 181). 
 
 Ver. 19. ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι] τιμίῳ forms the antithesis to 
 φθαρτοῖς, in so far as the perishable is destitute of true worth. 
 — αἵματι] refers not only to the death, but to the bloody 
 death of Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 22.— os ... auvod ἀμώμου 
 καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ] ws... domiAov is in antecedent 
 apposition to Χριστοῦ (Wiesinger, de Wette-Brückner), as in 
 chap. ii. 7, where likewise ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει is in similar 
 apposition to τῷ γυναικείῳ (sc. σκεύει). It is incorrect to 
 supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, “aluarı” before duvod, 
 taking Χριστοῦ either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or 
 connecting it directly with αἵματι (Schott, Hofmann). — ὡς] 
 is also here not merely comparative, as, among others, Schott 
 and Hofmann hold, maintaining that “ by auvod only an actual 
 lamb is meant,” but it emphasizes that Christ is a blameless 
 and spotless lamb (Gerhard, de Wette-Brückner).” — ἀμνός is, 
 as Brückner also assumes, to be understood: of a sacrificial lamb. 
 This is clear both from the connection—since the ransom by 
 
 1 Although ματαία avacrpopn πατροπαράδοτος does not necessarily apply to the 
 heathen (Schott), yet the expression more aptly characterizes their mode of life 
 than the Jewish. 
 
 * If ὡς be taken as instituting a comparison, there then arises the singular 
 thought, that the blood of Christ is as precious as that of a lamb without 
 blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoids this conclusion by supplying to ὡς not 
 σιμίῳ αἵματι, but αἵμασι only, and observes that the shedding of blood alone 
 (not the shedding of precious blood) is compared to the slaying of a spotless 
 lamb ; but there is not the slightest justification for thus separating τιμίῳ from 
 
 αἵματι. The apostle would in some way have indicated it by prefixing at least 
 a simple αἵματι to zuvor. 
 
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the αἷμα of Christ (Lev. xvii. 11) is here in question—and 
 from the attributes ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος, of which the former 
 is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of 
 animals taken for sacrifice (BR, LXX.: duwwpos),—to this 
 class lambs also belonged. The precise designation: a lamb, 
 was probably suggested to Peter by Isa. 111. 7 (ef. chap. 
 ii. 22 ff.); from this it must not, however, be inferred, with 
 Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any 
 reference to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage 
 in Isaiah compares the servant of God to a lamb simply on 
 account of the patience he exhibited in the midst of his 
 sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice, 
 and the sufferings of Christ are so expressly presented as 
 propitiatory, that it is easily explainable how, with this 
 passage applied to Him, Christ could have been thought of 
 precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not Peter’s 
 intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ 
 is the sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah’s prophecy; for in 
 that case the definite article would not have been wanting (cf. 
 John i. 29, and Meyer in Joc.); but alluding to the above 
 passage, Peter styles Him generally a /amb,—which, however, 
 he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allu- 
 sion (Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (de Wette-Briickner, 
 Schott) ; the want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though 
 he has justly recognised this, still firmly holds by the reference 
 to the paschal lamb ;—only in thus far, however, that he terms 
 the slaying of it “the occurrence” which “was here present to 
 the apostle’s mind.”* But the fact that the blood of this 
 lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out of Egypt, but to 
 preserve them from the destroying angel, is opposed to any 
 such allusion. Further, it must not be left unnoticed that in 
 the N. T.the paschal lamb is always styled ro πάσχα; and in 
 the passage treating of it in Ex. xii. in the LXX., the expres- 
 sion πρόβατον only, and never ἀμνός, is employed. — The 
 
 1 Hofmann says: ‘‘The meaning is not, that the same was done to Christ as 
 to the paschal lamb, but the recollection of the paschal lamb explains only how 
 Peter came to compare the shedding of Christ’s blood with the shedding of the 
 blood of a spotless lamb.” — As to whether the paschal lamb should be con- 
 
 sidered as a sacrificial lamb (Keil on Gen. xii.) or not, is a matter of dispute, 
 which cannot be decided here. 
 
CHAP. I. 19. 91 
 
 adjunct: ὡς... ἀσπίλου, serves to specify particularly the 
 blood of Christ as sacrificial, and not merely to give a nearer 
 definition of its preciousness (the τίμιον), inasmuch as, “ ac- 
 cording to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence 
 (denoted here by the two attributes) and the patience (con- 
 veyed by ἀμνός) which give to the suffering its τιμή" (as 
 opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of the blood 
 lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ ; its redemptive 
 power in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without 
 blemish and fault..— With ἄμωμος, cf. in addition to Lev. 
 xxii. 18 ff., especially Heb. ix. 14. — dominos] is not to be 
 found in the LXX. and in the N. T. only metaphorically ; the 
 two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the Dn 
 jam NP Dw-53, Lev. xxii. 18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the com- 
 mentators construe «Χριστοῦ with what precedes, Hofmann 
 only excepted, who separates it therefrom, and connects it 
 with what follows, taking Χριστοῦ mpoeyvwopévov K.T.r. as an 
 absolute genitive (1.6. “in that . .. Christ... . was foreordained,” 
 ete.). But this construction does not specify by whose blood 
 the redemption was accomplished, nor does it give a clear 
 logical connection between the thought of the participial and 
 that of the principal clause. 
 
 REMARK. — It must be observed that whilst the power of 
 propitiation, 1.6. of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of 
 the sacrifice, Lev. xvi. 11, the blood of Christ is here specified 
 as the means by which we are redeemed from the ματαία 
 ἀναστροφῇῆ. From this it must not be concluded, with Weiss 
 (p. 279), that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the 
 blood of offering, inasmuch “as the sacrifice can have an 
 expiatory, but not a redemptory worth ;”—for the two are in no 
 way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different 
 from the redemption, 7.6. ransom from the guilt by the blood 
 freely shed. Zhe redemption, however, which is here spoken of, 
 though doubtless not identical with expiation, is yet a necessary 
 
 1 Schott, in opposition to this, asserts : “this blood can redeem because it is 
 that of the divine Mediator (Χριστός), but it is valuable in that it is the blood of 
 an innocent Saint.” This is, however, erroneous, since this blood has power to 
 redeem only, because Christ shed it as a sacrifice for propitiation. But it is not 
 clear why this blood should not even have its full worth from the fact that it is 
 the blood of the Mediator. 
 
92 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 condition of it,—a circumstance which Pfleiderer also fails to 
 observe, when he says that the passage has reference only “ to 
 the putting away of a life of sin, to moral improvement, not to 
 expiation of the guilt of sin.” 
 
 Ver. 20. προεγνωσμένου μέν] is indeed not simply and at 
 once: praeordinatus (Beza), but the foreknowledge of God is, 
 with respect to the salvation He was to bring about, essen- 
 tially a providing, ef. ver. 2: πρόγνωσις. In regard to Christ 
 it was provided (προεγνωσμένου refers not directly to ἀμνοῦ, 
 but to Χριστοῦ) that He should appear (φανερωθέντος δέ) as 
 a sacrificial lamb to redeem the world by His blood. The 
 passage does not say that Christ would have appeared even 
 though sin had never entered. — πρὸ καταβολῆς kconov] a 
 frequent designation of antemundane eternity, John xvii. 24; 
 Eph. i. 4. This nearer definition specifies the sending of 
 Christ as having originated in the eternal counsels of God, in 
 order thus to give point to the exhortation contained in 
 ver. 17.— davepwdevros δέ] here of the first appearing of 
 Christ, which in this passage is represented as an emerging 
 from the obscurity in which He was (chap. v. 4, of His second 
 coming); it is incorrect to refer φανερωθέντος to the 
 obscurity of the divine counsels (as formerly in this com- 
 mentary), since davepwdevros applies as much as προεγνωσ- 
 μένου to the person of Christ. Between the πρόγνωσις and 
 the davépwars lies the προφητεία, ver. 10. Rightly interpreted, 
 φανερωθέντος testifies to the pre-existence of Christ! The 
 sequence of the aorist participle on the participle προεγνωσ- 
 μένου is to be explained from this, that by φανερωθέντος an 
 historical fact is mentioned. — em ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων) 
 ἔσχατον : a substantival use of it, “at the end of the times.” 
 This ἔσχατον of the times is here conceived as the whole 
 period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His 
 second coming; in like manner Heb. i. 1; otherwise 2 Pet. 
 iii. 3, where by ἔσχατον is meant the time as yet future, 
 immediately preceding the second coming of Christ; in like 
 
 1 Schmid rightly says (bibl. Theol. II. p. 165): ““ προεγνωσμένου does not deny 
 the actual pre-existence, because Χριστοῦ includes a designation which is not 
 yet realized in the actual pre-existence, but will be so only in virtue of the 
 
 φανερωθῆνα:.᾽" 
 
CHAP. I. 21. 93 
 
 manner 1 Pet. i. 5.'— Note the antithesis: πρὸ xaraß. x. 
 and em’ ἐσχάτου τ. xp.: beginning and end united in Christ. 
 — δ ὑμᾶς] refers in the first instance to the readers, but 
 embraces at the same time all ἐκλεκτοί. Believers are the aim 
 of all God’s schemes of salvation ; what an appeal to them to 
 walk ἐν φόβῳ τὸν τῆς παροικίας xpövov! There is as little 
 here to indicate any reference to the heathen (Hofmann) as 
 there was in eis ὑμᾶς, ver. 10. 
 
 Ver. 21. τοὺς dv αὐτοῦ (i.e. Χριστοῦ) πιστεύοντας (or πισ- 
 τοὺς) eis Θεόν] τούς : the same clausal connection as in vv. 4 
 and 5.—The construction πιστεύειν eis is very frequent in the 
 N. T., especially in John; Christ is for the most part named 
 as the object; God, as here, in John xu. 44, xiv. 1.—This 
 adjunct, by giving prominence to the fact that the readers are 
 brought to faith in God by Christ, confirms the thought 
 previously expressed by δι ὑμᾶς. Nor should it ever have 
 been denied that by it the readers may be recognised as 
 having been heathens formerly.— τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ 
 νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα)" not subjoined aimlessly as 
 an accidental predicate applied by the apostle to God; but, 
 closely linked on to Θεόν, the words serve to describe Θεόν 
 more nearly as the object of the Christian faith. The conviction 
 that God has raised and glorified Christ the Crucified belongs 
 essentially to the Christian faith in God; with the first half of 
 this clause, cf. Rom. iv. 24, viii. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Gali. 1; 
 with the second, John xvii. 5, 22; and with the whole 
 thought, Eph. 1. 20; Acts 1. 32 f. This adjunct, defining 
 Θεόν more nearly, is not meant to declare “ how far Christ by 
 His revelation has produced faith in God” (Wiesinger),—the 
 
 1 It is indeed correct that, as Schott says, the end of the times is so, through 
 the manifestation of Christ ; but it is an arbitrary assertion to say that ἐσί serves 
 to give more prominence and precision to this thought. 
 
 * Hofmann : ‘‘ The assertion that Christ was foreordained and made manifest 
 for their sake is actually justified in this, that they have faith in God through 
 Him.” 
 
 3 Weiss (p. 248) lays stress on δόντα in order to prove the low plane of Peter’s 
 conception of the person of Christ ; yet Christ also says in the Gospel of John, 
 that God had given Him ζωή, κρίσις, ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός, δόξα, etc. Paul, too, 
 asserts that God exalted Christ and gifted Him (ἐχαρίσατο) with the ὄνομα τὸ 
 ὑπὲρ σἂν ὄνομα ; there is a similar passage too in Hebrews, that God has appointed 
 or made Him κληρόνομοος πάντων. 
 
94 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 whole structure of the clause is opposed to this —but what is 
 the faith to which through Christ the readers have attained. 
 — ὥστε] not: ἵνα (Oecumenius, Luther: “in order that;” 
 thus also the Syr., Vulg., Beza, etc.), nor is it: itaque, as if a 
 “Set” or a “χρή were to be supplied to eivaı (Aretius); but: 
 “ so that,” it denotes the fruit which faith in God, who raised up 
 Christ from the dead, has brought forth in the readers, which 
 supplies the confirmation that Christ has appeared for their 
 sake (δι᾿ adtovs). — τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι eis Θεόν] 
 Most interpreters translate: “so that your faith and your 
 hope are directed to God;” Weiss, on the other hand (p. 43), 
 Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann, take it: “so that 
 your faith is at the same time hope toward God.” The 
 position of the words seems to favour this last translation, 
 since the genitive ὑμῶν stands between the two substantives, 
 whilst otherwise either ὑμῶν τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἐλπίδα (or τὴν 
 ὑμῶν mior.), cf. Rom. i. 20, Phil. i. 25, 1 Thess. ii. 12, or 
 THY π᾿ K. ἕλπ ὑμῶν; cf. Phil. i. 20, 1 Thess. iii. 7, would 
 have been expected ;—but this is not decisive, inasmuch as 
 in Eph, iii. 5 τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ Kal προφή- 
 ταῖς occurs. On the other hand, the connection of thought 
 gives the preference to the latter view ; for, in the former case, 
 not only is it noticeable that “the result is exactly the same 
 as that denoted by τοὺς πιστούς" (Weiss), but in it ἐλπίδα 
 seems to be nothing more than an accidental appendage, 
 whilst in reality it is the point aimed at in the whole 
 deduction ; that is to say, the truth and livingness of faith 
 (in the resurrection and glorification of Christ) are manifested 
 in this, that it is also an hope; cf. vv. 3,6,9, 13.1 Schott is 
 wrong in thinking that eis Θεόν has reference not only to 
 ἐλπίδα, but at the same time to τὴν πίστιν ; for though by 
 πίστις here only πίστις eis Θεόν can be understood, yet it is 
 grammatically impossible to connect the final eis Θεόν, which 
 is closely linked on to ἐλπίδα, likewise with τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. 
 —The object of hope is specified in the words τὸν ἐγείραντα 
 αὐτὸν K.T.A.; it is the resurrection and attainment of the 
 δόξα which is given to Christ; cf. Rom. viii. 11, 17. 
 
 1 Weiss is wrong in saying that, according to Peter’s view, faith is but the 
 preparatory step to hope, since it rather includes the latter. 
 
CHAP. I. 22. 95 
 
 Ver. 22. From ver. 22 to ver. 25 the third exhortation,! 
 and its subject is love one of another. Gerhard incorrectly 
 joins this verse with verse 17, and regards vv. 18-21 as a 
 parenthesis. — τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες] The participle does 
 not here express the accomplished act as the basis of the 
 exhortation, as if it were: “after that ye, or since ye, have 
 purified” (Bengel, Wiesinger), but it stands closely linked 
 on to the imperative, and denotes the duty which must ever 
 be fulfilled (hence the perf.) if the ἀγαπᾶν is to be realized 
 (de Wette-Brückner, Schott, Fronmüller) ;” Luther inexactly : 
 “make chaste ... and,” etc.—dyvifew, a religious idea denoting 
 in the first instance the outward, and afterwards the inward 
 consecration and sanctifying also (cf. John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 
 24, 26, xxiv. 18); in passages too, as here, where it expresses 
 moral cleansing from all impurity (here more especially from 
 selfishness), it does not lose its religious significance; cf. 
 Jas. iv. 8; 1 John iii, 3.°— ev τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας] 
 ἡ ἀλήθεια is the truth revealed and expressed in the gospel 
 in all its fulness. Calvin’s limitation of the idea is arbitrary : 
 veritatem accipit pro regula, quam nobis Dominus in evan- 
 gelio praescribit. — ὑπακοή, not “faith” (Wiesinger), but 
 
 1 Hofmann, without any sufficient reason, supposes the third exhortation to 
 begin with ver. 18, although the amplifications contained in vv. 18-21 serve 
 eminently to inculcate the preceding exhortation. The expression εἰδότες can 
 be joined either with a preceding or a subsequent idea, yet it must be observed 
 that in the N. T. the first combination is more frequent than the second, and 
 that in the latter case εἰδότες is always accompanied by a particle, by which it is 
 marked as the first word of a subsequent set of phrases; Hofmann altogether 
 overlooks this. Here undoubtedly καί would have been prefixed to εἰδότες. 
 
 * Hofmann declares himself opposed to both of these interpretations, or rather 
 he seeks to unite them after a fashion, by assuming that the participial clause 
 partakes of the imperative tone of the principal clause. He likewise charac- 
 terizes personal purification, presupposed by that love which is ever and anon 
 manifested, as that which should have been accomplished once for all (as if it 
 were possible to command that something should have taken place) ; he then adds 
 that he who has not yet dedicated his soul to brotherly love must do so still (!). 
 
 3 Schott leaves this religious reference entirely unnoticed. He states that the 
 original meaning of the word ἁγνός, “is that purity of mind which regards one 
 thing only as the foundation and aim of all practical life—the truly moral.” 
 Cremer, too, thinks that although originally it had the religious sense ‘‘to 
 dedicate,” it is (John xi. 55, Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18 excepted) as a term. techn. 
 foreign to the N. T., and is here only equal to “to purify,” ‘‘ to cleanse” (with- 
 out the secondary meaning ‘to dedicate”). 
 
96 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 “obedience.” The genitive is not the gen. subj.: “the 
 obedience which the truth begets,’ but the gen. obj.: 
 “obedience to the truth” This ὑπακοή, however, consists 
 in believing what the truth proclaims, and in performing 
 what it requires (thus Weiss also). — The preposition ἐν 
 exhibits ὑπακοή as the element in which the Christian must 
 move in order to procure the sanctification of his soul. — 
 If the reading διὰ πνεύματος be adopted, the πνεῦμα is not 
 the human spirit, but the Spirit of God; Luther incorrectly : 
 that the apostle here means to observe that the word of God 
 must not only be heard and read, but be laid hold of with the 
 heart. — eis φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον] does not belong to the 
 ἀγαπήσατε following, either as denoting the terminus of love, 
 and the sense being: diligite vos in fraternam caritatem, 1.6. 
 in unum corpus fraternae caritatis; or as: διά (Oecumenius), 
 and thus pointing out the “agency by which;” nor, finally, is 
 it embatic: ita ut omnibus manifestum fiat, vos esse invicem 
 fratres (Gerhard) ;—but it is to be taken in conjunction with 
 ἡγνικότες, and specifies the aim towards which the ἁγνίξειν is 
 to be directed. Sanctification towards love, by the putting away 
 of all selfishness, must ever precede love itself—d¢iradergia] 
 love of the brethren peculiar to Christians, cf. 2 Pet. 1. 7; 
 Rom. xii. 9,10; 1 Thess. iv. 9—With ἀνυπόκριτος, cf. 1 John 
 iii. 18, where true unfeigned love is described.—ex (καθαρᾶς) 
 καρδίας] is not to be joined with what precedes,—it being thus 
 a somewhat cumbrous adjunct,—but with what follows, setting 
 forth in relief an essential element of love; with the expres- 
 sion ἐκ καρδίας, cf. Rom. vi. 17; Matt. xviii. 35 (ἀπὸ 
 TOV καρδιῶν ὑμῶν); on the Lec. ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, see 
 1 Tim. i. 5.’ — ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς] ἀγαπᾶν is not 
 
 1 This participial clause joins itself naturally with what precedes, and is not, 
 with Hofmann, to be taken with what follows (chap. ii. 1); ἀποθέμενοι, as 
 οὖν Shows, begins a new sentence. The connection proposed by Hofmann would 
 give rise to a very clumsy phraseology. Were it true that regeneration has 
 nothing to do with brotherly love, then of course neither has it anything to do 
 with the laying aside of those lusts which are opposed to love, spoken of in 
 chap. ii. 1. Hofmann says, indeed, that ii. 1 describes the contraries of ἁπλότης 
 (childlike simplicity), not of φιλαδελφία ; but is not the opposite of the one the 
 opposite of the other also? The construction in Rom. xiii. 11 ff. is only in 
 appearance similar to that which Hofmann understands as occurring here. 
 
CHAP. L 23. 97 
 
 to be limited, as Wiesinger proposes, “to the manifestation of 
 love in act;” the passages, chap. iv. 8, 1 John iii. 18, do not 
 justify this limitation. — ἐκτενῶς, “ with strained energies ;” it 
 denotes here “ the persevering intensity of love” (in like manner 
 Weiss, p. 336; Fronmüller, Hofmann); Luther translates 
 “ardently ;” Schott without any reason asserts that in all the 
 N. T. passages the word is used only in the temporal sense of 
 duration, and therefore is so to be taken here; Luke xxii. 24, 
 Acts xii. 5, xxvi. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 8, are evidence not jor, but 
 against Schott’s assertion. The chief emphasis lies not on 
 ἀγαπήσατε, but on ἐκ (καθαρᾶς) καρδίας and ἐκτενῶς. 
 
 Ver. 23. ἀναγεγεννημένοι] gives the ground of the preceding 
 exhortation, by referring to the regeneration from incorruptible 
 seed already accomplished, which, as it alone renders the 
 ἀγαπᾷν ἐκτενῶς possible, also demands it. Luther: “ as those 
 who are born afresh;” cf. 1 Johniv. 7,v. 1. This regeneration 
 is described, as to the origin of it, by the words which follow, 
 and withal in such a way that here, as in ver. 18, the posi- 
 tion is strengthened by placing the negation first. — οὐκ ἐκ 
 σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς, ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου] σπορά, strictly, “ the 
 sowing, the begetting,” is not here used with this active force 
 (Aretius: satio incorrupta h. e. regeneratio ad vitam aeternam. 
 Fronmiiller: “the energizing principle of the Holy Spirit ”),. 
 but it is “ seed,’ because, as de Wette says, the epithet 
 suggests the idea of a substance. By σπορὰ φθαρτή is 
 to be understood not the semen frugum, but the semen 
 humanum (de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann) ; 
 ef. John i, 13.— The question arises, in what relation do 
 ἐκ σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου and διὰ λόγου stand to one another ? 
 The direct connection of the figurative expression (σπορά) 
 with the literal (λόγος), and the correspondence which evi- 
 dently exists between ἀφθάρτου and ζῶντος κ. μένοντος, do 
 not allow of the two ideas being considered as different, nor of 
 omopa being taken to denote the “ Holy Spirit” (de Wette- 
 Briickner). On the other hand, the difference of the preposi- 
 tions points to a distinction to which, from the fact that σπορά 
 is a figurative, λόγος a real appellative (Gerhard, Weiss, Schott’), 
 
 1 Weiss is of opinion that, as an explanation of the metaphor, διά only can be 
 employed with λόγος, not ἐκ, which belongs exclusively to the figure. This is, 
 
 1 PETER, G 
 
98 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 justice has not yet been done. The use of the two prepo- 
 sitions is to be understood by supposing a different rela- 
 tion of the same thing (of the λόγος) to the regeneration ; in ἐξ 
 we have its point of departure, and not merely its “ originating 
 cause” (Hofmann!) ; we have the word of God looked upon as 
 the principle implanted in man working newness of life (ὁ λόγος 
 ἔμφυτος, Jas. i. 21); διά, on the other hand, points to the 
 outward instrumentality by which the new life is effected. — 
 διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος] refers back to ver. 22: 
 ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθ. ; the Christian is laid under obligation 
 to continued sanctification ἐν ὑπ΄. τ. aX., inasmuch as he has been 
 begotten again to newness of being, by the word of God, 2.2. the 
 word of truth. — λόγος Θεοῦ is every word of divine revelation ; 
 here especially the word which, originating in God, proclaims 
 / Christ, ae. the gospel. Schwenkfeld erroneously understands 
 v—ıy it the Johannine Zogos, which, indeed, even Didymus had 
 considered possible—On the construction of the adj. ζῶντος 
 and μένοντος, Calvin says: possumus legere tam sermonem 
 viventem Dei, quam Dei viventis; he himself prefers the 
 second combination ; thus also Vulg., Oecum., Beza, Hensler, 
 Jachmann, etc. Most interpreters give preference, and 
 with justice, to the jist, for which are decisive both the 
 contents of the following verses, in which the emphasis is 
 laid, not on the abiding nature of God, but of the word of 
 God, and the position of the words — otherwise ζῶντος, on 
 account of the subsequent καὶ μένοντος, must have stood after 
 Θεοῦ. The superaddition of μένοντος arises from the cireum- 
 stance that this attribute is deduced from the previous one, 
 and is brought in so as to prepare the way for the passage of 
 Scripture (ver. 25: μένει) (de Wette”). The characteristics 
 
 however, incorrect ; διά would doubtless not have been suited to swopz, but ἐκ 
 might very well have been used with λόγου (cf. John iii. 5), indeed, must have 
 been so if the λόγος itself were regarded as exspz. The two prepositions express, 
 each of them, a different relation. 
 
 1 Also in the passages quoted by Hofmann, John i. 13, iii. 5, Matt. i. 18, ἐκ 
 indicates more than a mere causal action. 
 
 3 Hofmann strangely enough explains the position of Θεοῦ by assuming it to 
 be placed as an apposition between the two predicates to which it serves as 
 basis ; he accordingly thinks the words should be written thus: διὰ λόγου ζῶντος, 
 Θεοῦ, καὶ μένοντος (!). 
 
CHAP. I. 24, 25. 99 
 
 specified by these attributes are applicable to the word of 
 God, not in its form, but in its inner substance. It is living 
 in essence as in effect, and it is enduring, not only in that its 
 results are eternal, but because itself never perishes. If the 
 subjoined eis τὸν αἰῶνα be spurious, then without it the μένειν 
 must not be limited to the present life.’ 
 
 Vy. 24, 25. Quotation from Isa. xl. 6, 8, slightly altered 
 from the LXX. in order to confirm the eternal endurance of 
 the word by a passage from the Old Testament.’ — διότι, as in 
 ver. 16; the passage here quoted not only confirms the idea 
 μένοντος, but it gives the reason why the new birth has taken 
 place through the living and abiding word of God (so, too, Hofm.). 
 The reason is this, that it may be a birth into life that passes 
 not away. — πᾶσα σάρξ] 1.. πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ; caro fragilitatem 
 naturae indicat (Aretius) ; not “all creature existence,” embrac- 
 ing both stones and plants, etc. (Schott), for of a plant it cannot 
 be said that it is ὡς χόρτος. ---- ὡς χόρτος] is to be found 
 neither in the Hebrew text nor in the LXX. — καὶ πᾶσα δόξα 
 αὐτῆς] instead of αὐτῆς, the LXX. has ἀνθρώπου ; in Hebrew, 
 Dn. Incorrectly Vorstius: Ap. nomine carnis et gloriae ejus 
 intelligit praecipue legem Mosis et doctrinas hominum ; Calvin 
 again rightly: omne id quod in rebus humanis magnificum 
 dicitur. — ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος x.7.d. gives the point of com- 
 parison, that wherein the σάρξ and its δόξα resemble the 
 χόρτος and its ἄνθος ; but it does not emphatically assert that 
 “the relation of the flesh to its glory in point of nothingness 
 is quite the same as that of the grass in its bloom” (Schott). — 
 Kal τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε] αὐτοῦ, if it be the true reading, is 
 
 ! The word, as the revelation of the Spirit, is eternal, although changeable, 
 according to its form ; to the word also applies what Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. 54: 
 this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immor- 
 tality. Luther admirably says: ‘‘The word is an eternal, divine power. For 
 although voice and speech pass away, the kernel remains, i.e. the understanding, 
 the truth which the voice contained. Just as, when I put to my lips a cup 
 which contains wine, I drink the wine, although I thrust not the cup down my 
 throat. Thus it is with the word which the voice utters; it drops into the 
 heart and becomes living, although the voice remains outside and passes away. 
 Therefore it is indeed a divine power, it is God Himself.” 
 
 2 The context in no way indicates that the apostle had particularly desired 
 to make emphatic ‘‘ that natural nationalities, with all their glory, form but 
 a tie for these earthly periods of time” (Schott). 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 an addition made by Peter, for it is to be found neither in the 
 LXX. nor in the Hebrew text. By the preterites ἐξηράνθη 
 and ἐξέπεσε the transitoriness is more strongly marked ; cf. 
 Jas. i. 11, v. 2.— Ver. 25. Instead of κυρίου, the LXX. have 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμών, AAD, κυρίου can hardly have been written 
 on purpose by Peter “because he had in his mind Christ’s 
 word” (Luthardt). James refers to the same passage here 
 cited by Peter, without, however, quoting it verbatim. — In 
 the following words the apostle makes the application: τοῦτο 
 δέ ἐστιν] τοῦτο is not used “ substantively here,” as the pre- 
 dicate of the sentence equal to: that is; 1.6. eternally abiding 
 word of God is the word of God preached among you (Schott) ; 
 but it refers back simply to the preceding τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, 
 and is equivalent to: this word, of which it is said that it 
 remaineth for ever, is the word which has been preached 
 among you.— τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθέν] Periphrasis for the 
 gospel. In the O. T. it denotes the word of promise, here the 
 gospel. Peter identifies them with each other, as indeed in 
 their inmost nature they are one, containing the one eternal 
 purpose of God for the redemption of the world, distinguished 
 only according to different degrees of development. — eis ὑμᾶς] 
 1.0. ὑμῖν ; in the expression here used, however, the reference to 
 the hearers comes more distinctly into prominence ; cf. 1 Thess. 
 ii. 9, and Lünemann in Joc. — In the last words Peter has 
 spoken of the gospel preached to the churches to which he 
 writes, as the word of God, by which his readers are begotten 
 again of the incorruptible seed of divine life, so that, as such, 
 in obedience to the truth thus communicated to them, they 
 must sanctify themselves to unfeigned love of the brethren. 
 
CHAP. IL. 101 
 
 CHAPTER AIL 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of ὑποκρίσεις, B reads ὑπόκρισιν; correction after the 
 preceding δόλον, with which it is in signification closely linked 
 on. In like manner the reading πᾶσαν καταλαλίαν, N (pr.m.), 
 for πάσας καταλαλίας, is to be taken as an alteration. In A, some 
 vss. πάσας is wanting before χαταλαλίας ; it could easily have 
 fallen aside, inasmuch as the two preceding words are without 
 adjectives. — Ver. 2. After αὐξηθῆτε, most codd. (A BC K Ῥ καὶ, al.) 
 etc. read : sis σωτηρίαν (accepted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.). 
 The adjunct is wanting in the Zee. (after L and several min.) ; 
 it may be omitted, inasmuch as an adjunct of this kind is not 
 necessary to the words: ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε. ---- Ver. 3. The Lee. εἴπερ, 
 after CK LP, al., Vule. (si tamen), is retained by Tisch. 7; 
 on the other hand, Tisch. 8 and Lachm. have adopted the 
 simple ei. This is supported by A Bs (m. pr. C has corrected 
 εἴπερ), Cyr. Clem. The ec. seems to have made the alteration 
 for the sake of the sense.— Ver. 5. Instead of οἰκοδομεῦσθε (Tisch. 7), 
 A** C x, several min. Vulg. Cyr. read ἐποικοδομεῖσθε (Tisch. 8), 
 which, however, seems to be a correction after Eph. 11. 20. — 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read the prep. εἰς between οἶκος πνευματικός 
 and ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, after A BC ® 5, al., several vss. and K V. 
 The common reading is supported by K 1, P, many min., Vulg,, 
 other versions, Clem. etc.; Tisch. 7 has retained it; de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche have in like manner declared them- 
 selves in favour of the Zee. ; de Wette speaks of the interpola- 
 tion of eis “as facilitating a transition, otherwise abrupt, to 
 another conception ;” on the other hand, Brückner and Hof- 
 mann prefer the other reading, which is attested by weightier 
 witnesses. The εἰς may be omitted, inasmuch as the thought 
 might seem inappropriate that an οἶκος should be built up to an 
 ἱεράτευμα. ---- τῷ before Θεῷ is doubtful; for it are L P, etc.; against, 
 ABCxs,al. Lachm. and Tisch. have doubtless correctly omitted 
 it. — Ver. 6. ösrı] with Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. etc., 
 according to almost all the authorities instead of the Ree. διὸ καί, 
 which is to be found only in min. and in Orig. — ἐν τῇ γραφῇ] Rec., 
 after K L P, several min. etc.; Tisch. reads, after A B καὶ 38, 73: 
 ἐν γραφῇ; Lachm. has adopted ἡ γραφή, which is found in C, several 
 
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 min. Vulg. Hier. Aug. This last reading seems, however, to be 
 only a correction, in order to avoid the difficulty which lies in 
 connecting the verb περιέχει with ἐν (τῇ) γραφῇ. --- Instead of én” 
 αὐτῷ, N (pr. m.) has ἐπὶ αὐτόν, which is not supported by other 
 witnesses. — Ver. 7. Instead of the ἀπειθοῦσιν of the Rec., after 
 A K LP, etc. (Tisch. 7, Lachm. Buttm.), Tisch. 8, after B 
 Cx, al., has adopted ἀπιστοῦσι. Perhaps the Zee. is a cor- 
 rection after ver. 8.— Aidov] Rec. after C** K L Ps (pr. m.), 
 al., Thph. — Retained by Tisch.; in its stead Lachm. has λίθος ; 
 ‚this reading is found in A B C* several min. Oec. Since in 
 Greek it is by no means uncommon that the substantive is often 
 put in the same case as the relative which it precedes, λίθον need 
 occasion no surprise; as in addition to this, A/dov is found in 
 the LXX., λίθος seems to have been the original reading, which 
 became changed into λήθον, following the LXX. and the conımon 
 usage in Greek. — The words λίθος... γωνίας καί are wanting 
 in the Syr. ver.; Grotius, Mill, Semler, Hottinger, therefore 
 consider them spurious, for which, nevertheless, sufficient justi- 
 fication is wanting. — Ver. 11. ἀπέχεσθαι) Rec., after B K N, 
 several min. vss. and K V; retained by Lachm. and Tisch., whilst 
 A CL P, several min. read ἀπέχεσθε, which Buttm. has adopted ; 
 see on this the commentary; Lachm. adds ὑμᾶς, after the Vulg., 
 as Tisch. remarks: ex errore de C.— Ver. 12. Instead of 
 ἐποπτεύσαντες, Rec, after A Καὶ 1, P, al., ἐποπτεύοντες must be 
 read, with Lachm. and Tisch., after Β Cx, al., Thph. Oec.; on 
 account of the δοξάσωσιν following, the present could easily have 
 been changed into the aorist.— Ver. 13. ὑποτάγητε οὖν] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 omit οὖν, after A BC 8, al. Didy. Cassiod. ; οὖν 
 (Tisch. 7) is supported only by Καὶ 1, P, many min. ete.; it is 
 possible that οὖν was interpolated in order to obtain a firmer 
 connection of thought. In Cod. 8 (pr. m.) ἀνθρωπίνῃ is wanting, 
 but is supported by almost all witnesses. — Ver. 14. The Ree., 
 following C and several min., retains μέν after ἐκδίκησιν, which 
 had been rightly rejected already by Griesbach.— Ver. 18. 
 N has after δεσπόταις the pron. ὑμῶν. ---- Ver. 19. Different adjuncts 
 to χάρις are found in different codd., as Θεοῦ, Θεῷ, παρὰ Θεῷ, παρὰ 
 τῷ Θεῷ, which have been all interpolated later, in order to define 
 the idea more precisely. — Several min. and C have, instead of 
 συνείδησιν Θεοῦ: συνείδησιν ἀγαθήν; in A* both readings are combined: 
 συνείδησιν Θεοῦ ἀγαθήν. --- Ver. 20. The Lec. has τοῦτο χάρις; 
 this reading Tisch. 8 has retained, as he asserts, following B 
 CK LPs, οἷο; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7 
 read τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, after A. According to Buttm., this reading 
 is found also in B (8 ?).— Ver. 21. The codices vary between 
 the ec. (ed. Elzev.) ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, which is found in A B, 
 
CHAP. IL 1, 2. 103 
 
 Cs, several min. Oec. Amb. etc. (Lachm. Tisch. 8); ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 
 ὑμῖν in K 1, Ῥ, al., Slav. Vulg. Cyr. etc. (Scholz, Tisch. 7, Reiche), 
 and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν in several min. etc. (Zee.). Tisch. remarks: 
 nil probabilius quam ἡμῖν ὑμῖν in caussa fuisse, cur bis ab aliis 
 ὑμῖν ab aliis ἡμῖν scriberetur. Quod tota oratio ad lectores inci- 
 tandos instituta est, id emendatori magis ὑμῖν quam ἡμῖν com- 
 mendabat. According to almost all the authorities, iui is the 
 original reading; it is possible that in accordance with it ἡμῶν 
 was changed into ὑμῶν; it is also possible that the application 
 of Xp. ἔπαθεν to the readers alone seemed inappropriate to the 
 copyist, and that he changed ὑμῶν into ἡμῶν. Wiesinger, Schott, 
 and Hofm. hold ἡμῶν, and Brückner ὑμῶν, to be the original 
 reading; the weightiest authorities decide for tjuév.—w reads 
 ἀπέθανεν instead of ἔπαθεν, supported by general testimony, and 
 in ver. 23, ἐλοιδόρε; (pr. m.) instead of ἀντελοιδόρει. ----- Ver. 24. The 
 αὐτοῦ after μώλωπι, (Zee) is supported only by LP (pr. m.) 
 40, al., Thph. Oec., whilst A BC K have it not; Lachm. has 
 accordingly omitted it, whilst Tisch., on the other hand, has 
 retained it. Although αὐτοῦ is in itself the more difficult, still, 
 on account of the preponderating evidence against it, it can 
 hardly be regarded as the original reading; its addition can be 
 explained also partly from the endeavour to form this relative 
 clause as similarly as possible to the preceding ὃς... αὐτός, 
 partly from the circumstance that it is to be found in Isa. 111]. 5, 
 LXX. ; although Tisch. says: ob . . . αὐτοῦ emendatori deberi 
 incredibile est; nec magis credibile αὐτοῦ ex LXX. inlatum esse 
 servato inepte οὗ. Wiesinger, Brückner, Schott, Hofm. hold 
 αὐτοῦ to be original. — Ver. 25. πλανώμενα] Rec, after C Καὶ 
 LP, ete., Thph. Oec.; on the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch., 
 following A Bx, ete., Tol. Harl. Fulg. have adopted πλανώμενοι, 
 which is probably the original reading; the change into πλανώμενα 
 was very natural on account of the πρόβατα immediately pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. ἀποθεμενοι οὖν... ἐπιποθήσατε] The admonition 
 which commences here stands, as odv shows, in close connection 
 with what precedes; in ver. 22 the apostle had exhorted to 
 unfeigned love one of another, which love he shows to be con- 
 ditioned by ayvifew Ev τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας, and grounded 
 
 > [4 - = = 3 / 
 on ἀναγεγεννημένον εἶναι; from this deducing the ἀποτίθεσθαι 
 
 a / > m \ \ / 
 πᾶσαν κακίαν K.T.\., he now exhorts ἐπιυποθεῖν τὸ λογικὸν γάλα. 
 The apostle’s intention, explaining at once the connection of 
 this with the foregoing admonition, and the relation in which 
 the thought of the participial clause ἀποθέμενοι stands to that 
 
104 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 of the imperative ἐπιποθήσατε, is that the Christians should 
 show themselves τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (i. 14), not each for himself, 
 but united together, an οἶκος πνευματικός (ver. 5), γένος 
 ἐκλεκτόν K.T.A. (ver. 9). Schott acknowledges this reference 
 (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church ; 
 it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which 
 stand in direct antagonism to the φιλαδελφία ἀνυπόκριτος 
 (i, 22). The participle ἀποθέμενοι stands to ἐπιποθήσατε in 
 the same relation as ἀναζωσάμενοι to ἐλπίσατε in chap. i. 13; 
 it is therefore then not equal to postquam deposuistis, but 
 expresses the continued purification of the Christian; comp. 
 Eph. iv. 22; Heb. xii. 1; specially also Col. ii. 8; and for 
 the whole passage, Jas. 1. 21.— πᾶσαν κακίαν «.r.X.) Calvin: 
 non est integra omnium enumeratio quae deponi a nobis 
 oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant Apostoli, quae- 
 dam vitia praeponunt in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium 
 designant. κακία means here, as in Col. iii. 8, not generally : 
 “ wickedness,” but specially “ malice,’ nocendi cupiditas (Hem- 
 ming). πᾶσαν denotes the whole compass of the idea: “ every 
 kind of malice.” The same is implied by the plural form in 
 the words following ὑποκρίσεις, etc. ; in πάσας καταλαλίας both 
 are combined. The same and similar ideas to those here 
 expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the N. T.; 
 comp. Rom. i. 29, 30. “ The admonitions which follow are 
 in essential connection with this comprehensive exhortation ; 
 comp. chap. 11. 22 ff; especially chaps. iu. 8 ff, iv. 8 ff, v. 2 ff.” 
 (Wiesinger). For the force of the separate terms, comp. 
 Lexicon. Augustin : malitia maculo delectatur alieno ; invidia 
 bono eruciatur alieno; dolus duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat 
 lincuam ; detrectatio vulnerat famam. — κατωλαλία occurs only 
 here and in 2 Cor. xii. 20; in the classics the verb is to be 
 found, never the subst. — Ver. 2. ὡς dptiyévynta βρέφη] is 
 not to be connected with ἀποθέμενοι, but with what follows. 
 It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but, in 
 view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring 
 to 1, 23: ἀναγεγεννημένοι) to designate the readers as those 
 who had but recently been born again.’ In Bengel’s interpre- 
 
 ! It must be observed that the expression was used by the Jews also to 
 designate the proselytes ; corroborating passages in Wetstein i loc. 
 
CHAP. II. 1, 2. 105 
 
 tation: denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae N. T., a false reference 
 is given to the expression. The particle ws is not here either 
 used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. i. 14. — 
 TO λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε] γάλα is not here 
 contrasted with βρῶμα, as in 1 Cor. il. 2, or with στερεὰ 
 τροφή, as in Heb. v. 12; but it denotes the word of God, in 
 that it by its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man. 
 The term γάλα, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained 
 simply from the reference to aprıyevvnra βρέφη (Wiesinger, 
 Schott, Hofmann). This view results quite naturally from the 
 comparison with chap. 1. 22, 23. If Peter had intended to 
 convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as 
 to have been understood.! — λογικόν] does not state an attri- 
 bute of evangelical doctrine: “rational;” Gualther: quod 
 tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi, nor even in the 
 sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred: 
 nihil credendum esse quod ratione adversetur ; but it is added 
 in order to mark the jigurative nature of the expression γάλα 
 (to which it stands related similarly as in chap. i. 13: τῆς 
 Sıav. ty. to Tas ὀσφύας), so that by it this milk is charac- 
 terized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: “ spiritual, what 
 is drawn in by the soul, what the heart must seek ;” thus, too, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It has 
 here the same signification as in Rom. xii. 1, where it does not 
 mean “rational” as contrasted with what is external (de Wette). 
 The interpretation on which λογικὸν γάλα is taken as equal 
 to γάλα τοῦ λόγου, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi 
 (it is supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, 
 Wolf, and others). Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss 
 (p. 187), that by “λογικόν is to be understood that which pro- 
 ceeds from the λόγος (i.e. Word) ;” thus γάλα λογικόν would be 
 
 1 Calvin understands γάλα to mean : vitae ratio quae novam genituram sapiat ; 
 Hemming: consentanea simplici infantiae vivendi ratio ; Cornelius a Lapide : 
 symbolum candoris, sinceritatis et benevolentiae. All these interpretations are 
 contradicted by the fact that γάλα is not a condition of life, but means of nourish- 
 ment. It is altogether arbitrary to explain γάλα to be the Lord’s Supper (Estius, 
 Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ as the incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. 
 in Paedag. i. c. 6; Augustin in T’raet. iii. in 1 Hp. John) ; Weiss, too, is mis- 
 taken when he says: ‘‘ the nourishment of the new-born child of God is Christ 
 Himself, who is preached and revealed in the word.” 
 
106 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the verbal milk of doctrine.’ The second adjective: ἄδολον 
 (A. Aey.), strictly “ without guile,’ then “ pure, wnadulterated,” 
 is not meant to give prominence to the idea that the Christians 
 should strive to obtain the pure gospel, unadulterated by 
 heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies purity as a quality 
 belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott).? It is, besides, 
 applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative yada, but 
 only to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).” — ἐπε- 
 moßncare] expresses a strong, lively desire, Phil. ii. 26. Wolf: 
 Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte sua et impetu quodam 
 naturali in’ lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture of 
 Grotius: ἐπυποτίζετε, is quite unnecessary.— iva ἐν αὐτῷ 
 αὐξηθῆτε] ἵνα, not ἐκβατικῶς, but τελικῶς ; it states the pur- 
 pose of the emimoßnoarte. ἐν is more significant than dud, 
 equivalent to “in its power” The verb αὐξηθῆτε, used in 
 connection with dptuyevy. βρέφη, denotes the ever further 
 development and strengthening of the new life. Although 
 the aim which the apostle has in view in his exhortation is to 
 mark the destination of Christians to be an οἶκος πνευματικός, 
 still it is incorrect to affirm that αὐξηθῆτε has reference, not 
 to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the 
 transforming of the church as such, “to the conception of a 
 building which is being carried up higher and higher to its 
 completion.” Apart from the fact that αὐξάνεσθαι plainly 
 refers back to aprıy. βρέφη, and is not equivalent to “to be 
 built up,” it must be remarked that the church can become 
 what it should be only by individual members growing 
 up each of them ever more and more to the ἀνὴρ τέλειος. 
 — eis σωτηρίαν] omitted in the Rec, states the final 
 aim of all Christian growth. —Schott’s explanation, that by 
 σωτηρία “ the final glorious transfiguration of the church” 
 is meant, is only a consequence of his erroneous and one- 
 
 1 Besides, how does this agree with Weiss’s opinion, that γάλα means Christ 
 Himself? The verbal Christ ? ! 
 
 * Wolf: lac ἄδολον ideo appellari puto, ut indicetur, operam dandam esse, ne 
 illud traditionibus humanis per καπηλεύοντας σὸν λόγον, 2 Cor. 11. 17, corruptum 
 hauriatur. 
 
 3 Hofmann rightly observes: “ What tends to the Christian’s growth may be 
 compared to the pure milk which makes the child to thrive at its mother’s breast, 
 and therefore it is termed ro λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα. 
 
CHAP, II. 3-3. 107 
 
 sided reference of the apostle’s exhortation to the church as 
 such. 
 
 Ver. 3. ei [εἴπερ] ἐγεύσασθε, ὅτι x.7.d.] Based on the Old 
 Testament passage, Ps. xxxiv., 9: γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι 
 χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος ; the words καὶ ἴδετε are omitted, not being 
 suitable to the figure γάλα. ---- ei is here, as in ver. 17, hypo- 
 thetical indeed: “if,” but it does not express a doubt; thus 
 Gerhard correctly explains eiwep: non est dubitantis, sed sup- 
 ponentis, quod factum sit. Comp. Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. 1. 6. 
 — yevouaı is used here of inward experience, comp. Heb. 
 vi. 4, 5; it alludes to the figurative γάλα, inasmuch as the 
 Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the 
 spiritual milk tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted 
 that the Christians had already made inward experience of the 
 goodness of their Lord (κύριος; in the Psalms, God ; here, Christ), 
 not merely in the instruction which preceded baptism, or in 
 baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum fidem evangelii susceperunt 
 (Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians; as 
 the new-born child, not once only, but ever anew refreshes 
 itself on the nourishment offered by a mother’s love. With 
 such experience, it is natural that believers should ever afresh 
 be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the imparting of 
 which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested: nam gustus 
 provocat appetitum (Lorinus).' — ὅτι, not equal to quam 
 (Grotius), but: “ that.” — χρηστός, “ kind, gracious,’ not 
 exactly suavis (Grotius: ut a gustu sumta translatio melius 
 procedat); in this sense it would be more applicable to 
 γάλα than to κύριος. ---- Several interpreters assume that in 
 χρηστός Peter plays upon the word Χριστός ; but this is more 
 than improbable. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar 
 to that of the previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, 
 externally (öv) as internally, inasmuch as the imperative 
 (οἰκοδομεῖσθε) is preceded by a participle (προσερχόμενοι), and 
 
 1 Schott insists ‘‘ that the apostle is not here anxious about the readers’ desire 
 in general for the word, but that such desire should be combined with the pur- 
 pose of finally attaining salvation.” Butis there anywhere a desire after the word 
 of God without such intent ?—Nothing in the context indicates that that in which 
 
 the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested is ‘‘ those rare moments of heavenly joy 
 in which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory” (Schott), 
 
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 an adjunct introduced by ὡς, defining the subject more nearly. 
 —Starting from ὁ κύριος the apostle says: πρὸς ὃν mpocep- 
 χόμενοι] προσέρχεσθαι (elsewhere in the N. T. always con- 
 strued with the dative) denotes the going spiritually to the 
 Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in union with 
 Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming 
 united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann).' 
 Luther incorreetly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were 
 the part. praet.; Hornejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, 
 sed continuatum designat. — λίθον ζῶντα] in apposition to ὅν ; 
 it is not necessary to supply ὡς (Wolf). What follows shows 
 that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the 
 prophecies, Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16 (cf. Matt. xxi. 
 42; Acts iv. 11; Rom. ix. 33). The want of the article 
 points to the fact that the apostle was more concerned to lay 
 stress on the attribute expressed in λίθος ζῶν, than to draw 
 attention to the fact that in these passages of the ©. T. Christ 
 is the promised λίθος. Im using this term, Peter had already 
 in view the subsequent οἰκοδομεῖσθε. The church is the 
 temple of God, the individual Christians are the stones from 
 which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on which 
 it rests. In order that the church may become ever more 
 completed as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians 
 should unite themselves ever more closely with Christ. The 
 apostle enlarges on this thought with reference to those pre- 
 dictions—The explanatory adjective is added, as in ver. 2, to 
 the figurative λίθον ; and by it, on the one hand, the expression 
 is marked as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger) ; 
 and, on the other, the nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. 
 ζῶντα is to be taken here as in John vi. 51 and similar 
 passages. Flacius correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus, non 
 tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, 
 quia nos mortuos vivificat.? — ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκι- 
 
 1 The single passage, 1 Mace. ii. 16, by no means proves that προσέρχεσθαι xpos has 
 in itself a stronger force than #poe:>x. cum dat. (asagainst Hofmann). According 
 to Schott, by προσέρχ. is meant: ‘‘not the individual Christian’s deepening 
 experience of community of life with Christ, but only the conduct of the 
 believer, by which, as a member of the church, he gives himself up to the Lord 
 
 as present in His church, in fact to the church itself!” 
 2 De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and Steiger) is right in refusing to see here 
 
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 109 
 
 μασμένον] a nearer definition, according to Ps. exviii. 22. 
 What is there said specially of the builders, is here applied 
 generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may 
 be obtained to the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ. The want of the article 
 τῶν does not warrant a toning down of the interpretation to 
 mean “by men,” 1.6. by some or by many men (Hofmann). 
 The thought is general and comprehensive; the article is 
 wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whom 
 Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers 
 are here regarded “ as an exception” (Steiger). — παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ 
 ἐκλεκτὸν, ἔντιμον) after Isa. xxvii. 16; Peter has, however, 
 selected two attributes only; “that is to say, he passes over 
 the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation to the 
 building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of 
 God” (Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to a7ode- 
 dox.; ἐκλεκτός is neither equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to 
 προεγνωσμένος (Steiger); but: “elect,” i.e. chosen as the object 
 of love; cf. 1 Tim. v. 21.— παρὰ Θεῷ] not: a Deo (Vulg.), 
 but: ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, coram Deo, Deo judice, “ with God.” 
 Worthy of note is the “antagonism between the human judg- 
 ment and the divine” (Wiesinger), the former given effect to 
 in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of Christ. — 
 Ver. 5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ws λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε] καὶ αὐτοί 
 places the Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger 
 inappropriately takes αὐτοί as also applying to the verb 
 οἰκοδομ.). As He is a living stone, so are they also living 
 stones, 1.6, through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus com- 
 parantur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur 
 (Carpzov, Morus), is inadequate. Further, ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες 
 states the qualities which the readers already possessed, not 
 those which they were to obtain only through the oixo- 
 δομεῖσθαι (Schott); that unto which they should be built is 
 stated in what follows. — οἰκοδομεῖσθε is, according to the 
 
 any reference to the conception of the saxum vivum as opposed to broken stones 
 (Virg. Aen, i.171; Ovid. Metam. xiv. 741). Inappropriate is Schott’s opinion : 
 “that ζῶν indicates that by the self-unfolding (!) of His divinely human life, 
 Christ causes the church to grow up from Himself the foundation stone.” Hof- 
 mann would erroneously exclude the second of the above-mentioned ideas from 
 the λίθον ζῶντα, although it is clearly indicated by the very fact that through 
 connection with the stone Christians themselves become living stones. 
 
110 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 structure of the sentence, not indicative (Hornejus, Bengel, 
 Gerhard, etc.; more recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), 
 but imperative (Beza, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, de Wette- 
 Briickner, Luthardt, Schott, etc.). The objection, that the 
 verses following are declarative, may be quite as well used 
 for the imperative force of that which precedes them. If 
 vv. 4, 5 serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation, this 
 turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several inter- 
 preters (as Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal 
 form as middle; it is passive: “be ye built up,” ve. “let 
 yourself be built up,” i.e. by Christ, as the foregoing πρὸς ὃν 
 προσερχόμενοι Shows. Corresponding with the reading ἐποικο- 
 δομεῖσθε super illum, 1.6. Christum, is generally understood ; 
 an unnecessary supplement; the thought is: that (not: on 
 which) the Christians should let themselves be built up, to 
 that, namely, which the following words state. — οἶκος mvevpa- 
 τικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον] In the Lec. without eis the two 
 conceptions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the oixo- 
 δομεῖσθαι: “to the spiritual house, to the holy priesthood ;” but 
 if the reading οὐκ. rv. eis ἱερώτ. dy. be adopted, then “ tepar. 
 äy. is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual 
 house” (Brückner). Hofmann holds that οἶκος πν. is in 
 apposition to the subject contained in οἰκοδομεῖσθε, and that 
 eis ἱεράτευμα ay. alone is directly dependent on οἰκοδομεῖσθε ; 
 the former view is, however, more expressive, inasmuch as it 
 prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to 
 a spiritual house. οἶκος mv. contains the expression of the 
 passive, ἱεράτ. @y.,on the other hand, that of the active relation 
 of the church to God (Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner). The 
 dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be opposed to the 
 reading eis, since an οἶκος cannot be transformed into a 
 ἱεράτευμα; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered 
 that the house here spoken of is built of living stones. It is 
 clearly not the case that eis serves only to facilitate an other- 
 
 1 The structure of the clause is in favour of the imperative, inasmuch as it is 
 thus brought into conformity with the imperative preceding. When Hofmann 
 asserts that the sentence must necessarily be indicative in form, ‘‘ because the 
 words subjoined to xpnerös ὁ κύριος must state that to which the goodness of 
 
 Christ brings them,” he does so without reason, for the clause may also state 
 that to which they should allow the goodness of Christ to lead them. 
 
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 111 
 
 wise abrupt transition to a new idea (de Wette, Wiesinger).— 
 οἶκος means, in the first instance, “ house,” and not “temple ;” 
 nor does the attribute πνευματικός mark it as a temple. We 
 must either hold by the conception “ house” (Luthardt, Hof- 
 mann),' or assume that by the house Peter thought of the 
 temple. The latter view deserves the preference on account 
 of the close connection with what follows; comp. the passages 
 © Cor iii, 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 1 Pet. iv. 17.—avenpa- 
 τικός is the house raised from “living stones,’ in contradis- 
 tinction to the temple built from dead ones, inasmuch as their 
 life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears His nature on it.” 
 — ἱεράτευμα is here not the “ office of priest” (2 Mace. ii. 17), 
 but the “priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacer- 
 dotum) ; comp. ver. 9; Ex. xix. 6; “not instead of ἱερεῖς ἅγιοι, 
 but including the essential idea of a community” (de Wette). 
 It has unjustly been maintained that if the reading eis be 
 adopted, ἱεράτευμα must be understood of the priestly office. 
 ἅγιον subjoined to ἱεράτευμα does not mark a characteristic of the 
 ἱεράτευμα of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old 
 Testament, but one which belongs essentially to the ἱεράτευμα 
 (of course “ as ordained by God,” Hofmann) as such. Here, too, 
 there lies in the connection of thought a special emphasis on 
 äyıov, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly calling 
 cannot be truly fulfilled. — ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας is 
 closely conjoined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E.T.39 9f.]) 
 and purport with what precedes, pointing out as it does the func- 
 tion of the ἱεράτευμα. This consists, as under the Old Covenant, 
 in offering sacrifice. The word ἀναφέρειν, which is never used 
 by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in the LXX., in 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the 
 meaning “to sacrifice,” strictly speaking “to bring the offering 
 to the altar.”—The θυσίαι which the N. T. priesthood, 1.6. the 
 Christian church in all its members, has to offer are called 
 
 ! Luthardt : ‘* οἶκος is not equal to ναός ; nor in the context is a temple alluded 
 to, for the emphasis lies on πνευματικός, οἶκος ischosen because of οἰκοδομεῖσθε : be 
 ye built as a spiritual house! To this is joined : to an holy priesthood.” 
 
 2Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in the O. T. temple ‘‘the indwell- 
 ing of God was confined to the Holy of Holies, and visible to the eye” (?); 
 whilst, on the contrary, in the Christian church there is ‘‘a real and direct 
 indwelling of God.” 
 
112 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 πνευματικαί, because they have their origin in the πνεῦμα, 
 and bear on them its nature and essence. Calvin says in 
 what they consist: inter hostias spirituales primum locum 
 obtinet generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre quiequam 
 possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsos in sacrificium obtulerimus, 
 quod fit nostri abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et 
 gratiarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis exercitia. 
 Cf. with this Rom. xii. 1; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. — εὐπροσδέκτους 
 τῷ Θεῷ] εὐπρόσδεκτος (Rom. xv. 16), equivalent to εὐάρεστος 
 (Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Phil. iv. 18, and other passages). — διὰ 
 ’Insod Χριστοῦ) belongs not to οἰκοδομεῖσθε (Beda), but 
 either to εὐπροσδ. τ. Θεῷ (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea 
 opera a Deo aestimentur, quae alias non culmo digna haberet ; 
 Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann, ete.), or to aveveyras 
 (Grotius, Aretius, de Wette, Weiss, etc.).! No doubt Heb. 
 xi. 15 might be appealed to in support of the latter con- 
 struction; but in favour of the former are—(1) That the 
 ἀνενέγκαι as a priestly function stands in such close connec- 
 tion with ἱεράτευμα ay., that it seems out of place to suppose 
 a medium (διὰ “Ino. Xp.) in addition ; and (2) With ἀνενέγκαι 
 πνευμ. θυσίας the idea is substantially completed, εὐπροσδ. 
 being a mere adjunct, to which therefore διὰ "I. Xp. also belongs. 
 
 REMARK.—In this description of the Christians’ calling, the 
 apostle’s first object is not to state the difference between the 
 church of the Old and that of the New Covenant, but to show 
 distinctly that in the latter there is and should have been 
 fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the 
 former, but had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatis- 
 factory way. The points of difference are distinctly set forth. 
 Israel had an house of God—the Christian church is called to 
 be itself that house of God. That house was built of inanimate 
 stones, this of living stones; it is a spiritual house. Israel was 
 to be an holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular 
 priesthood introduced into the church; the Christian church is 
 called to be a ἱεράτευμα dys in this sense, that each individual 
 in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The sacrifices 
 
 1 Brückner and Schott think it is correct to connect διὰ "I. Xp. not with 
 ἀνενέγκαι only, but with the entire thought ; but it is self-understood that in the 
 first combination, not the mere ἀναφέρειν, but the ἀναφέρειν πνευματικὰς θυσίας 
 x,7.A., must be considered as effected by Christ. 
 
CHAP. II. 6. eS 
 
 which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like ; 
 those of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, 
 through Christ well-pleasing to God. — The idea of a universal 
 priesthood, here expressed, is opposed not only to the catholic 
 doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all teaching with 
 regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament 
 which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in 
 the church, resting on divine mandate, and necessary for the 
 communication of salvation (1.6. priestly importance). 
 
 Ver. 6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in 
 vv. 4,5 by a quotation of the passage, Isa. xxviii. 16, to 
 which reference was already made in ver. 4. — διότι] ef. 1. 24. 
 — περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ] an uncommon construction, yet not 
 without parallel, see Joseph. Antt. xi. 7: βούλομαι γίνεσθαι 
 πάντα, καθὼς Ev αὐτῇ (ie. ἐπιστολῇ) περιέχει; indeed περιέ- 
 yew is more than once used to denote the contents οὗ ἃ 
 writing, see Acts xxill. 25; Joseph. Antt. xi. 9: καὶ ἡ μὲν 
 ἐπιστολὴ ταῦτα περιεῖχεν. Either ἡ περιοχή (or ὁ τόπος) 
 must, with Wahl, be supplied here as subject; or better, 
 περιέχει must be taken impersonally as equal to, continetur ; 
 ef. Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 316]; Buttmann, p. 126. — The words 
 of the passage in the O. T. (Isa. xxviii. 16) are quoted neither 
 literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the Hebrew 
 text. In the LXX. it is: ἐδού, ἐγὼ ἐμβάχλω eis τὰ θεμέλια 
 Σιὼν (instead of which we have here, exactly as in Rom. 
 ix. 33: (ov, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν) λίθον πολυτελῆ (this adject. 
 here omitted) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον (these two words here 
 transposed) ἔντιμον eis τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς (the last two words 
 εἰς... αὐτῆς here left out) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ added) 
 οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (Rom. ix. 33: καὶ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ 
 αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται). Whatever may be understood 
 by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or 
 the house of David, or the promise given to David, 2 Sam. 
 vil. 12, 16 (Hofmann), this passage, which certainly has a 
 Messianic character,—inasmuch as the thought expressed in it 
 should find, and has found, its fulfilment in Christ,—is not 
 here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, ad Jes. 
 I. p. 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, 
 according to Delitzsch (cf. in loc.), is directly meant by the 
 stone (“ this stone is the true seed of David, manifested in 
 
 1 PETER. H 
 
114 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Christ”). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theophylactus, 
 assumes that Christ is called λίθος axpoywy. because He has 
 united Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the 
 one church; this Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a 
 subtilius philosophari. In the words: καὶ ὁ πιστεύων K.T.A., 
 πιστεύων corresponds to προσερχόμενοι, ver. 4. οὐ μὴ 
 καταισχυνθῇ does not refer to the glory which consists for 
 the believer in this, “that he, as a λίθος ζῶν, will form part 
 of the οἶκος mv.” (Wiesinger), but to “ the final glory of salva- 
 tion which is the aim of the present πιστεύειν ” (Schott); ef. 
 ver. 2: eis σωτηρίαν." 
 
 Ver. 7. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] Conclusion, with 
 special reference to the readers, ὑμῖν, drawn from ver. 6 (οὖν), 
 and in the first instance from the second half of the O. T. 
 quotation, for τοῖς πιστεύουσιν evidently stands related to ὁ 
 πιστεύων Em αὐτῷ, hence the definite article. On the posi- 
 tion of τοῖς πιστ., cf. Winer, p. 511 [E. T. 687]; only, with 
 Winer, it must not be interpreted: “as believers, 1.6. if ye 
 are believers,” but: “ye who are believers.” — From the fact that 
 ἡ τιμή echoes ἔντιμον, it must not be concluded that ἡ τιμή 
 here is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the 
 meaning is: “the worth which the stone has, it has for you 
 who believe” (Wiesinger). The clause would then have read 
 perhaps: ὑμῖν οὖν ὁ λίθος ἐστι ἡ τιμή, or the like. ἡ τιμή 
 stands rather in antithesis to κατωισχυνθῆναι, and takes up 
 positively what had been expressed negatively in the verse 
 immediately preceding. Gerhard: vobis, qui per fidem 
 tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram 
 Deo (so, too, de Wette-Brückner, Weiss, Schott) ; ὑμῖν, sc. ἐστι: 
 “yours therefore is the honour ;” the article is not without 
 significance here; the honour, namely, which in that word is 
 awarded to believers (Steiger). — τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] an explana- 
 tory adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end.— 
 ἀπειθοῦσι [ἀπιστοῦσιν] δέ] antithesis to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ; 
 ἀπειθεῖν denotes not only the simple not believing, but the 
 resistance against belief; thus also ἀπιστοῦσιν here, if it be 
 the trve reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by: 
 
 1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that it is here said “that οὐ μὴ καταισχύνθῃ 
 is meant to cail back to mind the εἰς σωτηρίαν in ver. 2.” 
 
CHAP. IL. 8. 11:5 
 
 quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, de Wette, 
 etc.). The words: Aidos (λίθον)... γωνίας, are borrowed 
 literally from Ps. exvili. 22, after the LXX. What is fatal 
 for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become the corner- 
 stone (xed. yar. equals AO. axpoy.) is stated in the following 
 words, which are taken from Isa. vill. 14: ΡΣ my 72 jad! 
 In a manner similar though not quite identical, these passages 
 of the O. T. are woven together by Paul in Rom. ix. 33. The 
 words do not denote the subjective conduct of the unbelievers 
 (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling or offence which 
 they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective 
 destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief 
 (Steiger, de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller) ; 
 cf. Luke xx. 17, 18, where the corner-stone is also characterized 
 as a stone of destruction for unbelievers. It is therefore with- 
 out any foundation that Hofmann asserts “ the thought that, 
 to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone seems 
 impossible,” if ἀπευθοῦσιν be taken as the dat. incommodi. So 
 that it is in no way necessary to accept a construction so 
 uncommon as that adopted by Hofmann, who considers the 
 two clauses: ὑμῖν... οἰκοδομοῦντες to be, with an omitted 
 ὦν, in apposition to the following οὗτος, looking on 7 τιμή as 
 a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the 
 three following expressions: eis κεφ. ywv., WO. προκόμμ., and 
 πέτρα okavd. in such a way as to refer the first to believers 
 and the other two to unbelievers, although no such division is 
 anywhere hinted at. 
 
 Ver. 8. οἱ προσκόπτουσι] links itself on to ἀπειθοῦσι κ.τ.λ.: 
 “that is to those who,’ etc., not to what follows, as if εἰσι were 
 to be supplied: “they who stumble are those who are,” ete. 
 — προσκόπτειν has here the same meaning as that contained 
 in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different ; 
 there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, 
 namely, the ground of their destruction; here, on the contrary, 
 that they are really overtaken by this destruction ; Lorinus 
 explains προσκόπτουσι incorrectly: verbo offenduntur et 
 
 1 Schott rightly observes that κεφαλὴ γωνίας, as the corner-stone, must not be 
 
 understood, with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which one stumbles and falls. 
 This is not contained in the idea, corner-stone, in itself. 
 
116 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loguuntur. — 
 TO λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες] It is better to connect τῷ λόγῳ with 
 ἀπειθοῦντες than with προσκόπτουσι (either: “who at the 
 word are offended,” or: “ who by the word suffer hurt”). For, 
 on the one hand, the leading idea προσκ. would be weakened 
 by its connection with λόγῳ ; and, on the other, the nearer 
 definition requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes ; 
 it would, too, be inappropriate “ that λόγος should of a sudden 
 take the place of Christ, who in ver. 7 is, as λέθος, the object 
 of προσκ." (Brückner). Wolf: quit impingunt, nempe: in 
 lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et 
 offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur. — eis ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν] eis 
 ὅ not equal to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, “on account of which ;” nor is it equal 
 to eis ὅν (sc. λόγον or λίθον); Luther: “on which they are 
 placed;” or similarly Bolten: “they stumble at that, on 
 which they should have been laid” (he makes eis 6 refer to 
 the omitted object of προσκ.), but it points rather to the end 
 of ἐτέθησαν. ---- τίθημι] is here, as frequently in the N. T., “to 
 appoint, constituere ” (cf. 1 Thess. v. 9). It is clear from the 
 connection of this verse with the preceding, that eis 6 does not 
 go back to ver. 5 (Gerhard: in hoc positi sunt, videlicet, ut 
 ipsi quoque in hunc lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be 
 referred either to ἀπειθεῖν (Calvin, Beza, Piscator, and others) 
 or to προσκόπτειν and ἀπειθεῖν (Estius, Pott, de Wette, 
 Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger,’ etc.), or, more correctly, to προσ- 
 κόπτειν (Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), 
 
 1 The application to the Word or to Christ cccurs already in the older com- 
 mentators ; thus Beda says: in hoc positi sunt i. e. per naturam facti sunt 
 homines, ut eredant Deo et ejus voluntati obtemperent ; and Nicol. de Lyra, 
 applying it specially to the Jews: illis data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Chris- 
 tum secundum quod dicitur Gal. iii. lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo ; et 
 ipsi pro majore parte remanserunt increduli. 
 
 ? Different interpreters seek in various ways to soften the harshness of the 
 dea here presented. Thus Estius, by explaining ἐσέθησαν only of the permission 
 of God; Pott, by paraphrasing the idea thus: ‘‘their lot seemed to bring this 
 with it ;” Wiesinger, by asserting that ‘‘the passage here speaks of the action 
 of God as a matter of history, not of His eternal decrees.” But what justifies 
 any such softening down? While Hofmann, in the 1st edition of his Schrift- 
 beweis, I. p. 210, says precisely: that God has ordained them to this, that 
 they should not become obedient to His word, but should stumble at it and fall 
 over it ; in the 2d ed. I. p. 237, it appears that the meaning only is: ‘that 
 the evil which befalls them in the very fact of their not believing, is ordained 
 
Lard 
 
 CHAP. II. 8. {ΠΕ} 
 
 since on the latter (not on ἀπειθεῖν) the chief emphasis of 
 the thought lies, and eis ὃ «.r.X. applies to that which is 
 predicated of the subject, that is, of the ἀπειθοῦντες, but not 
 to the characteristic according to which the subject is desig- 
 nated. The προσκόπτειν it is to which they, the ἀπειθοῦντες, 
 were already appointed, and withal on account of their 
 unbelief, as appears from the τῷ λόγῳ ame. This inter- 
 pretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, 
 for it is simply the πιστεύοντες and ἀπειθοῦντες, together with 
 the blessing and curse which they respectively obtain, that are 
 here contrasted, without any reference being made to the 
 precise ground of faith and unbelief. Vorstius correctly: 
 Increduli sunt designati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive 
 exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate. — Following the con- 
 struction of ver. 7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes οἱ προσ- 
 κόπτουσιν not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but 
 as protasis to the subsequent eis 6, which, according to him, 
 contains the apodosis expressed in the form of an exclamation. 
 This interpretation falls with that of ver. 7. Besides, it gives 
 rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there 
 is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative 
 pronoun’ or the method here resorted to, of connecting 
 apodosis with protasis. The words are added by the apostle in 
 order to show that the being put to shame of unbelievers, 
 takes place according to divine determination and direction. 
 
 by God to those who do not obey His message of salvation, as a punishment of 
 their disposition of mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in it the idea 
 of ἐσέθησαν in relation to ἀπειθοῦντες is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott 
 expressly says that unbelievers, by their own state of mind, ‘‘ appoint them- 
 selves to unbelief,” he can look on unbelief only in so far as the result of a 
 divine decree, that God has appointed faith impossible with a carnal disposition. 
 But a limitation of this kind is here all the more inappropriate, that Peter in the 
 passage makes no allusion to the disposition which lies at the foundation of 
 unbelief. Hofmann in his commentary says: ‘‘it is the word which is preached 
 to them that they refuse to obey, but by the very fact of their doing so they 
 stumble at Christ and fall over Him, as over a stone that lies in the way. Both 
 are one and the same thing, named from different sides ; the one time from what 
 they do, the other from what is done to them.” Yet these are two different 
 things ; the one the cause, the other the effect. 
 
 1 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matt. xxvi. 50 ; but the interpretation of this 
 passage is so doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; ef. the various interpretations 
 in Meyer on this passage ; in Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]; in Buttmann, p. 217. 
 
118 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Oecumenius’ is not justified by the context in laying special 
 stress on the personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answer- 
 ing the question: quis autem illos sic posuit? by non Deus 
 certe, sed Satan tales posuit. 
 
 Ver. 9. ὑμεῖς δέ] The apostle returns again to his readers, 
 contrasting them with the unbelievers (not “with the people 
 of Israel,’ as Weiss thinks) he had just spoken of. The 
 nature of believers, as such, is described by the same predicates 
 which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God (ef. 
 Ex. xix. 5, 6), but have found their accomplishment only in that 
 of the N. T. Schott justly remarks that “ what in ver. 5 had 
 been expressed in the form of an exhortation, is here predi- 
 cated of the Christians as an already present condition.” — 
 γένος ἐκλεκτόν] after Isa. xliii. 20 (2 ey, LXX.: γένος μου 
 To ἐκλεκτὸν) ; cf. also Deut. vii. 6 ff.; Isa. xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2, 
 xlv. 4, ete. This first designation sets forth that the Chris- 
 tians, in virtue of God’s love, have been elected to be a people 
 which no longer belongs to this world; cf. chap. i. 1.— 
 βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα] after Ex. xix. 6, LXX. (in Hebrew 
 073 N32, “a kingdom of priests”); most interpreters take 
 it as simple combination of the two ideas: “kings and priests.” 
 Still it is more correct to regard ἱεράτευμα as the principal 
 idea (cf. ver. 3), and βασίλειον as a more precise definition : 
 “a royal wprvesthood.” Several commentators explain: “a 
 priesthood possessing a royal character,” inasmuch as it not 
 only offers up sacrifices (ver. 5), but exercises sway (over the 
 world) ; cf. Rev. 1. 6, v. 10 (Wiesinger). Weiss (p. 125), on 
 the other hand: “a priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just 
 as we speak of the royal household.” Since all the other 
 predicates express the belonging to God, the second explana- 
 tion deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far as 
 to include in Bacid. not only the relation of service, but that 
 also of belonging to and participation in the glory of the king 
 
 1 Οὐχ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἀφωρισμένοις, εἴρηται" οὐδεμία γὰρ αἰτία ἀπωλείας 
 παρὰ ποῦ πάντας ἀνθρώπου: θέλοντος σωθῆναι βραβεύεται" ἀλλὰ τοῖς faurois σκευή 
 κωτηρτικόσιν ὀργῆς καὶ ἡ ἀσείθεια ἐπηκολούθησε, καὶ εἰς ἣν παρεσκεύασαν ἑαυπσοὺς τάξιν 
 ἐπέθησαν. Thus also Didymus: ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi ; 
 and Hornejus : constituti ad impingendum et non eredendum ideo dieuntur, 
 
 quia cum credere sermoni Dei nollent, sed ultro cum repellerent, deserti a Deo 
 sunt et ipsius permissione traditi ut non crederent et impingerent. 
 
CHAP. II. 9 119 
 
 founded thereon. Schott is not justified in assuming that Peter 
 did not intend to convey the force of the Greek, but that 
 of the Hebrew expression : 0275 nam, namely: “a kingdom 
 which consists of priests.” It is inadequate to understand, with 
 Hofmann, by the term: “a priesthood of princely honours,” 
 or βασίλειον as equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, 
 Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the expression of the highest 
 freedom! (subject only to God) (de Wette).— ἔθνος ἅγιον] in 
 like manner after Ex. xix. 6, LXX. (WP Ya). — λαὸς eis 
 περιποίησιν} corresponding passages in the (Ὁ. T. are Deut. 
 vii. 6 (53D DY), Mal. iii. 17 (7220), and especially Isa. xliii. 21, 
 LXX.: λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι 
 (Med! ‘neon ‘my Woy). The words following show that the 
 apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind; still it must 
 be noted that this idea is contained already in Ex. xix. 5 
 (λαὸς περιούσιος). περιποίησις is strictly the acquiring (Heb. 
 x. 89); here, what is acquired, possession ; neither destinatus 
 (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to be supplied to eis, they 
 would not correspond with the sense; eis is here to be 
 explained from Mal. iii. 17, LXX.: ἔσονταί wou... eis mept- 
 ποίησιν ; on εἶναι eis, cf. Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; in sense 
 it is equivalent to λαὸς περιούσιος, Tit. 11. 14. Schott attri- 
 butes to this expression an eschatological reference, explaining: 
 “a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition ;” this is 
 incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out. of all analogy 
 with the other expressions. The apostle does not here state 
 to what the Christian church is destined, but what she already 
 is; “her complete liberation from all cosmic powers is not,” 
 as Brückner justly remarks, “an acquiring on God’s side, but 
 only the final redemption of those whom He already possesses.” 
 Schott’s assertion, that in the N. T. περυποίησις has always an 
 eschatological reference, is opposed by Eph. i. 14; cf. Meyer 
 in loc. — Although a difference of idea founded on the etymo- 
 logies of γένος, ἔθνος Aaos is not to be pressed ; yet it must 
 
 1 Clemens Al. interprets: regale, quoniam ad regnum vocati sumus et sumus 
 Christi sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae fit orationibus et doctrinis, 
 quibus adquiruntur animae, quae afferuntur Deo. 
 
 2 Steiger draws the following distinction : γένος is the race, people of like 
 descent ; %¢v0s, a people of like customs ; λαός, people as the mass. Schott thinks 
 
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 be observed that by these expressions, as also by ἱεράτευμα, 
 Christians are spoken of as a community united together in 
 itself, and although diverse as to natural descent, they, as belong- 
 ing to God (and all the names employed by the apostle point to 
 this), form one people, from the fact that God has joined them 
 to Himself. — ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε Tod K.7.r.] ὅπως 
 connects itself, after Isa. xliii. 21, in the first instance with 
 what immediately goes before, in such a way, however, that the 
 . . . . . Ν » / 
 
 preceding ideas point towards it as their end. — τὰς ἀρετάς} 
 thus the LXX. translate nban in the above-mentioned passage 
 (in general, in the LXX., ἀρετή occurs only as the translation 
 of sin, Hab. iii. 3, Zech. vi. 18 ; ἀρεταί as the translation 
 of Moan, Isa. xlii. 8, 12, xliii. 21, and of nimm, Isa. Ixiii. 7); 
 accordingly the Alexandrine translators understand by Tin and 
 nm in the passages in question, not the “glory or praise” of 
 God, but the object of the glory, that is, the excellence or the 
 glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this 
 meaning of it, from them.’ — ἐξαγγείλητε] cf. Isa. xlii. 12, 
 LXX.: tas ἀρετὰς αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις amayyeAodaı; ἐξαγ- 
 γέλλειν ; strictly, iis qui foris sunt nunciare quae intus fiunt 
 (Xen. Anab. 11. 4. 21), is employed for the most part without 
 this definite application; in the LXX. the translation of 75D ; 
 in the N. T. in this passage only; it is possible that Peter 
 thought of the word here in its original force (Bengel, 
 Wiesinger). — τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος] 1.6. Θεοῦ, not 
 Χριστοῦ; καλεῖν is almost uniformly attributed to God. — 
 that 265 includes within it a reference to the intellectual and moral charac- 
 teristics of the people, and that λαός points to its being gathered together under 
 one Lord. In this urging of distinctions—which are not even correctly drawn— 
 is to be found the reason why Schott exchanges the Greek expression βασιλ. 
 ἱεράσευμα for the Hebrew, because ἱερώτευμα is not analogous to the other three 
 designations, whilst βασίλεια is so, as a national community. — Peter certainly, 
 in selecting these expressions, did not reflect on the original distinction of the 
 ideas, but made use of them simply as they were presented to him in the O. T. 
 
 1 It is arbitrary to understand the word to mean only this or that attribute of 
 God ; nor must the meaning, as is done by Gerhard, be limited to the virtutes 
 Dei, quae in opere gratuitae vocationis et in toto negotio salutis nostrae 
 relucent. Schott’s interpretation is linguistically incorrect : αἱ ἀρεταί equal to 
 τὰ μεγαλεῖα «. ©. (Acts ii. 11), ‘the great deeds of God.” Cornelius a Lapide 
 entirely misses the point in explaining: virtutes, quas Christus in nobis opera- 
 
 tur, humilitatem, caritatem, ete.; and Salmeron : virtutes Christi, quas in 
 diebus carnis suae exhibuit. 
 
CHAP. II. 10. ἜΖΗ 
 
 σκότους, not equivalent to, miseria (Wahl), but is used to 
 designate the whole unhappy condition of sin and lying in 
 which the natural and unregenerate man is, cf. Col. i. 13; 
 here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former 
 heathenism of the readers. — eis τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὑτοῦ φῶς] To 
 render φῶς by cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken 
 the force of the word; it is rather the complete opposite of 
 σκότος, and denotes the absolutely holy and blessed nature— 
 —as αὑτοῦ shows—of God. The Christian is translated from 
 darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this 
 light, and is illumined by it.! Schott incorrectly understands 
 by σκότος : “heathen humanity left to itself,” and by τὸ... 
 αὑτοῦ φῶς : “the church ;” the church lives in God’s light, but 
 it is not the light of God. — καλεῖν is here applied, as it is by 
 Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God. — θαυμαστόν (cf. 
 Matt. xxi. 42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the φῶς Θεοῦ. 
 Ver. 10. A reference to Hos. ii. 25, linking itself on to the 
 end of the preceding verse, in which the former and present 
 conditions of the readers are contrasted. This difference the 
 verse emphasizes by means of a simple antithesis. The 
 passage in Hosea runs: *BY-NDD ‘AVON nam δ ΠΣ SAN 
 ΠΡ τον, LXX.: ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην καὶ ἐρῶ TO οὐ 
 λαῷ pov’ λαός μου εἶ σύ (the Cod. Alex. and the Ed. Aldina 
 have at the commencement the additional words: ἐλεήσω τὴν 
 οὐκ ἠλεημένηνὶ. ---- οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός] Grotius, Steiger, Weiss 
 incorrectly supply: Θεοῦ. λαός is here used absolutely 
 (Bengel: ne populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). ov 
 belongs not to ἦτε to be supplied, but is closely connected 
 with λαός, equivalent to “ no-people” In like manner οὐκ 
 ἠλεημένοι as equal to “ not-obtained mercy.” “The meaning is 
 not that they once were not what they now are, but that they 
 were the opposite of it” (Wiesinger). But οὐ... λαός isa 
 people who, in their separation from God, are without that 
 unity of life in which alone they can be considered by Him 
 
 1 Wiesinger disputes this interpretation, holding that what is meant is ‘‘ that 
 light which has appeared to the world in Christ ;” but is not this light the light 
 of God?— Certainly φῶς is here not i. q. Χρισσός. According to de Wette, 
 αὑτοῦ designates the light as the work of God, and consequently a different thing 
 from the φῶς which He is Himself. 
 
122 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 as a people; or, more simply, who do not serve God who is 
 the true King of every people; cf. Deut. xxxii. 21, and Keil 
 in loc. De Wette is hardly satisfactory: “they were not a 
 people, inasmuch as they were without the principle of all 
 true nationality, the real knowledge of God,” etc.; now they 
 are a people, even a people of God, inasmuch as they not only 
 serve God, but are received also by God into community of 
 life with Himself. — of οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, viv δὲ ἐλεηθέντες] The 
 part. perf. denotes their former and ended condition. Stand- 
 ing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substantive, like οὐ 
 
 λαός, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part. (in 
 opposition to Hofmann). The aorist part. points, on the other 
 hand, to the fact of pardon having been extended: “ once not 
 in possession of mercy, but now having become partakers of it ” 
 (Winer; p. 322" TE. T. 431]). 
 
 Vv. 11,12. A new exhortation: the central thought is 
 expressed in the beginning of ver. 12. The apostle, after 
 describing its peculiarly lofty dignity, considers the Christian 
 church in its relation to the non-Christian world, and shows 
 how believers must prove themselves blameless before it by 
 right conduct in the different relations of human life. The 
 condition necessary for this is stated in ver. 11. — 'Ayarnroi] 
 
 1 In the original passage these words apply to Israel; but from this it does 
 not follow that Peter writes to Jewish-Christians. For if Paul—as he clearly 
 does—applies the passage (Rom. ix. 25) to the calling of the heathen, then Peter 
 surely, with equal right, could use it with reference to the heathen converts. 
 They had been, in its full sense, that which God says to Israel: may; and 
 
 they had become that to which He would again make Israel, His people. It 
 must be observed, however, that God in that passage addresses Israel as 
 ay=nd, only because it had forsaken Him and given itself up to the worship of 
 
 Baal, and consequently incurred punishment. Apart from this, Israel had 
 always remained the people of God. — If only Jewish converts were meant here, 
 then Peter would assume that they in their Judaism had been idolaters, which 
 is absolutely impossible, or at least Peter must then have said why they, who 
 as Israelites were the people of God, could not in their former state be regarded 
 as such. Accordingly, od λαός is here in no way applicable to Israel, but only to 
 the heathen ; and it is not (as Weiss maintains, p. 119) purely arbitrary to 
 apply the passage, in opposition to its original sense, to heathen Christians. 
 Whilst Briickner says only that the words cannot serve to prove the readers to 
 have been Jews formerly, Wiesinger rightly and most decidedly denies the 
 possibility of applying them to Jewish converts; so, too, Schott.— Weiss’s 
 assertion is by no means justified by his insisting (die Petr. Frage, p. 626) 
 that nothing tenable has been brought forward against it. 
 
CHAP. II. 11, 12. 129 
 
 This form of address expresses the affectionate, impressive 
 earnestness of the following exhortation. — παρακαλῶ (se. 
 ὑμᾶς) ὡς παροίκους Kal mapemiönwovs]; cf. Ps. xxxix. 13, 
 LXX. — os, as ini. 14. — mapoıkos, cf. i. 17, in its strict 
 sense: Acts vii. 6, 29, equal to, inquilinus, he who dwells in 
 a town (or land) where he has no civil rights; cf. Luke 
 xxiv. 18. In Eph. ü. 19 it stands as synonymous with 
 ξένος, of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God. 
 — παρεπίδημος, cf. i. 1. The home of the believer is heaven, 
 on earth he is a stranger. Calvin: sic eos appellat, non quia 
 a patria exularent, ac dissipati essent in diversis regionibus, 
 sed quia filii Dei, ubicunque terrarum agant, mundi sunt 
 hospites ; cf. Heb. xi. 13-15. A distinction between the 
 two words is not to be pressed here; the same idea is expressed 
 by two words, in order to emphasize it the more strongly. 
 Luther inexactly translates παρεπίδημοι by “pilgrims.” — Even 
 if ἀπέχεσθαι be the true reading, the words ὡς παροίκους K.T.A. 
 must be connected with παρακαλῶ (as opposed to de Wette- 
 Briickner, Wiesinger), for they show in what character Peter now 
 regarded his readers (Hofmann)! in relation to the following 
 exhortations, and have reference not simply to the admonition 
 ἀπέχεσθαι; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly remarks. Probably, 
 however, ἀπέχεσθε is the original reading, and was changed 
 into the infinitive in order to make the connection with 
 mapakanre more close. ἀπέχεσθαι presents the negative aspect 
 of sanctification, as chap. 11. 1: ἀποθέμενοι. ---- τῶν σαρκικῶν 
 ἐπιθυμιῶν] similar expressions in Gal. v. 10; Eph. i. 3; 
 2 Pet. ii. 18. The ἐπιθυμίαι. are σαρκικαί, because they have 
 their seat in the σάρξ. Wiesinger improperly says that 
 “the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly ” are here 
 meant, for all ἐπιθυμίαν tend to, and do, manifest themselves 
 outwardly, if there be no ἀπέχεσθαι. Schott assumes, without 
 reason, that the ἐπιθυμίαι are here considered “as something 
 outside of the Christian community, and manifesting itself 
 only in the surrounding heathen population ;” they are indeed 
 peculiar to the unbelieving world; but the Christian, too, has 
 them still in his σάρξ, though he can and should prevent them 
 
 1 In the former exhortations Peter had regarded them as τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, as such 
 who call on God as Father, as regenerate. 
 
124: THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 from having a determining power over him, inasmuch as in the 
 world over which they rule he is a πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος." 
 This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in the close 
 connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed 
 to Hofmann). — αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς] is not a 
 definition of the σαρκικαί, but as αἵτινες, equal to “as those 
 which,” shows, explains the nature of the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαΐ, 
 thus giving the reason of the exhortation. — στρατεύειν is not: 
 “to lay siege to” (Steiger), but: “to war,” “ fight against,” as 
 in Jas. iv. 1 (Rom. vii. 23: ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι). ---- ψυχή has 
 here its usual meaning; it is neither: vita et salus animae 
 (Homejus, Grotius), nor: ratio (Pott: libidines, quae nos 
 impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt); nor 
 does it mean: “the new man” (Gerhard: totus homo novus 
 ac interior, quatenus est per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the 
 soul, “in so far as it is penetrated by the Holy Spirit” 
 (Steiger), nor: “life as determined by the new Ego” (Schott) ; 
 but it is here simply, in contradistinction to σῶμα, the spiritual 
 substance of man of which Peter says that it must be sancti- 
 fied (chap. i. 22), and its σωτηρία is the end of faith (chap. 
 i. 9); thus also de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Hofmann, 
 Fronmiiller. In the natural man the ψυχή is under the 
 power of the ἐπιθυμίαι oapkıral (which according to Jas. 
 iv. 1 have their dwelling ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν; cf. also Rom. 
 vii. 23); in him who is regenerate, it is delivered from them, 
 yet the ἐπεθυμίαι seek to bring it again into subjection, so that 
 it may fail of its σωτηρία ;—in this consists the στρατεύεσθαι 
 κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς.-- Ver. 12. τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν (chap. 
 i. 15, 17) ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες καλήν] ἐν τοῖς ἔθν.: “ among 
 the Gentiles ;” for the churches to whom Peter wrote were in 
 Gentile lands. —— ἔχοντες καλήν : Luther inexactly: “lead a 
 good mode of life;” καλήν is a predicate: “having your mode 
 of life good (as one good);” cf. chap. iv. 8. ----ἔχοντες (antithesis 
 to ἀπέχεσθε, ver. 11) is not here put for the imperative, but is 
 
 1 Calvin interprets: carnis desideria intelligit, non tantum crassos et cum 
 pecudibus communes appetitus, sed omnes animae nostrae affectus, ad quos 
 natura ferimur et ducimur. This goes too far, as it would demand the destruc- 
 tion not alone of the striving against the Spirit, natural to man in his sinful 
 condition, but of the entire life of the soul. Cf. Gal. v. 17. 
 
CHAP. II. 11, 12. 25 
 
 a participle subordinate to the finite verb; if ἀπέχεσθαι be 
 read, there is here, as in Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 16, an irregu- 
 larity in the construction by which the idea contained in the 
 participle is significantly made prominent. — ἵνα ἐν @ kara- 
 λαλοῦσιν K.7.r.] “that in the matter in which they revile you as 
 evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they them- 
 selves have beheld, glorify God,’ 1.6. in order that the matter 
 which was made the ground of their evil-speaking, may by your 
 good works become to them the ground of giving glory to 
 God. — ἵνα states the purpose ; not for ὥστε; ἐν ᾧ is not: ἐν 
 ᾧ χρόνω, as in Mark ii. 19 (Pott, Hensler), for the καταλαλεῖν 
 and the δοξάζειν cannot be simultaneous; nor is it: pro eo 
 quod (Beza), such a construction has no grammatical justitica- 
 tion ; but ἐν specifies here, as in verb. affect., the occasioning 
 object (cf. chap. iv. 4), and the relative refers to a demon- 
 strative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to 
 δοξάζωσι as ἐν @ to καταλαλοῦσιν. It is not then τοῦτο, but 
 ἐν τούτῳ, which is to be supplied (Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, 
 Hofmann). If τοῦτο were to be supplied it would be dependent 
 on eromrevcavres; but such a construction is opposed by the 
 circumstance that it is not this participle, but d0fafwov, which 
 forms the antithesis to καταλαλοῦσι. The participle is inter- 
 posed here absolutely (as in Eph. iii. 4: ἀναγινώσκοντες), and 
 ἐκ TOV καλῶν ἔργων is connected with δοξάζωσι, the sense 
 being: “on account of your good works.” Steiger specifies the 
 καλὰ ἔργα as that which occasions the καταλαλεῖν,--ἃπα 
 later the δοξάζειν τὸν Ocov,—but the subsequent ἐκ τῶν καλῶν 
 ἔργων does not agree with this; de Wette gives: “the 
 whole tenor of life ;” the connection with what precedes might 
 suggest the ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκ. ἐπιθυμιῶν; but it is simpler, 
 
 1 So formerly in this commentary, with the observation : ‘‘ Of this ἐπέχεσθαι 
 Peter says, chap. iv. 3, 4, that it seemed strange to the heathen ; for it is pre- 
 cisely this abstinence which gives the Christian life its peculiar character, and 
 distinguishes it from that of the heathen. It became the ground of evil report 
 for this reason, that immoral motives were supposed to be concealed behind it ; 
 and this was all the more natural that the Christian had necessarily to place 
 himself in opposition to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and that from 
 a Gentile point of view his obedience to the will of God must have appeared 
 a violation of the law. This prejudice could not be better overcome than by the 
 
 practice of good works; hence, τὴν ἀναστρ. tu. . . . καλήν, and the reference to 
 it in ἐκ σ. καλ. pyar.” 
 
126 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 with Hofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian 
 profession. — With κακοποιοί, cf. ver. 14, iv. 15; John xviii. 
 30. Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss (p. 367) justly reject the 
 opinion of Hug, Neander, ete., that κακοποιός here, in harmony 
 with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Wer. c. 16: Christiani 
 genus hominum superstitionis novae et malificae, 15. equiva- 
 lent to “state criminal.” In the mouth of a heathen the 
 word would signify a criminal, though not exactly a vicious 
 man; one who had been guilty of such crimes as theft, 
 murder, and the like (cf. iv. 15), which are punished by the 
 state! (cf. ver. 14).— ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων] The καλὰ ἔργα, 
 in the practice of which the ἀναστοφὴ καλή of the Christians 
 consists, are here presented as the motive by which, when 
 they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute 
 the glorifying of God for their evil-speaking; as the Chris- 
 tians too, on their part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, 
 that thus they may overcome the opposition of the Gentiles, cf. 
 chap. 111. 2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets ἐκ τ. καλ. ἔργων 
 ἐποπτεύοντες : “if the heathen judge of your Christianity by 
 your good works ;” for ἐποπτεύειν does not mean “to judge of.” 
 With ἐκ τ. kax. ἔργων... δοξάσωσι τ. Θεόν, comp. Christ’s 
 words, Matt. v. 16, which, as Weiss not without reason 
 assumes, may have here been present to the apostle’s mind.— 
 emomrevovres] “goes back in thought to the καλὰ ἔργα, in 
 harmony with the linguistic parallel in 111. 2 and the gram- 
 matical parallel in Eph. iii. 4” (de Wette). It makes no 
 essential difference in the sense whether the present or, with 
 the Zee., the aorist be read (see critical remarks).. The 
 word occurs only here and in ui. 2, where it is used with the 
 accusative of the object (for the subst. ἐπόπτης, see 2 Pet. 
 1.10). It expresses the idea of seeing with one’s own eyes, 
 more strongly than the simple opav. There is no reference 
 here to the use of the word as applied to those who were 
 initiated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries. — 
 
 ! Schott’s assumption : ‘‘ that it was the burning of Rome that first increased 
 the universal hatred and aversion of the Christians to a special accusation of 
 criminal and immoral principles,” is unwarranted. He attempts to justify it 
 only by charging Tacitus with an error in the account he gives of the accusa- 
 tions brought by Nero against the Christians, 
 
CHAP, II. 11, 12. 127 
 
 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς} ἐπισκοπή is in the LXX. a translation 
 of 7728, the visitation of God, whether it be to bless (Job 
 x. 12) or to chastise (Isa. x. 3); ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς is there- 
 fore the time when God gives salvation, or the time when 
 He punishes, be it in the general sense (Beda: dies extremi 
 judicii), or more specially with reference either to the Chris- 
 tians or the heathen.—The connection of thought seems to 
 point decisively to that time as meant when the καταλα- 
 Aodvres shall be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to 
 “the gracious visitation of the heathen” (Steiger) ; as ὁ καιρὸς 
 τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς cov, Luke xix. 44, is used with regard to the 
 Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the 
 Fathers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, 
 Erasm., Hemming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, 
 Hofmann, etc. On the other hand, Oecumenius, Wolf, Bengel, 
 ete., apply the ἐπισκοπή not to God, but understand by it the 
 ἐξέτασις of the Christians at the hands of the heathen. But 
 for this there is absolutely no ground. Luther’s interpreta- 
 tion: “ when it shall be brought to light,” is wrong; it is equi- 
 valent to that of Gerhard: simplieissime accipitur de visitatione 
 illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam variis modis in lucem 
 producit. — Akin to this is the view held by some of the 
 scholastics, that ἐπισκοπή is to be understood of the trial of 
 the Christians by alllietion ; see Lorinus in Joc. 
 
 REMARK.—At variance with this explanation is that given 
 by Schott, who interprets the passage in this way: In order 
 that the heathen may glorify God in the day of judement, from 
 this that (by the fact that) they slander you as evil-doers in 
 consequence of your good works of which they are witnesses. 
 The idea that the undeserved calumnies of the heathen serve at 
 last to the glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as 
 a basis for the exhortation given in the context. The resolution, 
 too, of ἐν ᾧ into ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι, has grammatically nothing against 
 it; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Rom. 11. 1; cf. Heb. 
 11. 18, where Liinemann has recourse to a like construction, 
 though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more 
 than one objection may be urged against this interpretation— 
 (1) A reference is given to δοξάζειν different from what is con- 
 tained in καταλαλεῖν,, Imasmuch as it is taken, as in 1 Cor. vi. 20, 
 in the sense of: “by action;” (2) δοξάζειν must be thought of as 
 
128 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 something which the heathen bring about “without knowing or 
 willing” it, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any 
 such nearer definition ; (3) δοξάζειν can only in a loose sense be 
 conceived of as an act of the heathen ; it is simply the result of 
 what they do (of their zurar.«ren) ; and (4) In comparing these 
 words with those of Christ, Matt. v.16: ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ 
 ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσι τὸν πωτέρω ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, the thought 
 cannot be got rid of that Peter had this passage here in his 
 mind. Schott’s objection, that “ δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν is a strange and, 
 specially here, a doubly inappropriate expression for conver- 
 sion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb thus 
 taken with 2&,as equal to: in consequence of, is a hard and 
 inelegant construction,” amounts to very little, since in the 
 acceptation of the passage which he calls in question the verb 
 is by no means made to bear any such meaning. 
 
 Vy. 13, 14. The apostle now goes on to name the different 
 relations of life ordained of God in which the Christian 
 should show his holy walk. First of all, an exhortation to obey 
 those in authority. — ὑποτάγητε] the aor. pass. is used here, as 
 it often is, with a middle, not a passive—as Wiesinger thinks 
 —foree. It is not: “be made subject, but “ make yourselves 
 subject ” (cf. ταπεινώθητε, chap. v. 60). The more liable liberty 
 in Christ was to be misunderstood by the heathen, and even to 
 be abused by the Christians themselves, the more important 
 it was that the latter should have inculcated upon them as 
 one of their principal duties this ὑποτάσσεσθαι (ver. 18, chap. 
 ili. 1) in all circumstances of life. — πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει 
 κτίσις is here, in accordance with the signification peculiar to 
 the verb κτίζειν : “to establish, to set up,” the ordinance, or 
 institution (“ an ordinance resting on a particular arrangement,” 
 Hofmann). In connection with the attribute ἀνθρωπίνη, this 
 expression seems to denote an ordinance or institution estab- 
 lished by men (so most expositors, and formerly in this 
 commentary). But it must be noted that κτίζειν (and its 
 derivatives) are never applied to human, but only to divine 
 agency ; besides, the demand that they should submit them- 
 selves to every human ordinance would be asking too much. 
 
 
 
 1 Winer is wrong in attributing (p. 245 [E. T. 327]) a passive signification 
 to this ταπεινώθητε, as also to σπροσεκλίθη in Acts v. 36 hnt is right in ascribing 
 it to παρεδόθηφε, Rom. vi. 17. 
 
CHAP. II. 13, 14. 129 
 
 It is therefore preferable to understand, with Hofmann, by 
 the term, an ordinance (of God) applying to human relations 
 (“regulating the social life of man”). By the subsequent 
 εἴτε... εἴτε, the expression is referred in the first instance to 
 the magistracy ; but this does not justify the interpretation of 
 it as equal directly to: “authority,” or even : persons in autho- 
 rity (Gerhard : concretive et personaliter: homines, qui magis- 
 tratum gerunt). That Peter’s exposition of the idea had 
 direct reference to persons in authority, is to be explained 
 from the circumstance that the institution possessed reality 
 only in the existence of those individuals.” At variance with 
 this view is de Wette’s (following Erasmus, Estius, Pott) 
 interpretation of the expression: “to every human creature, 
 2.6. to all men.” Not only, however, the singular circumlocu- 
 tion: κτίσις ἀνθρωπίνη for dv@pw7os,—for which de Wette 
 wrongly quotes Mark xvi. 15 and Col. i. 23,—but the very idea 
 that Christians should be subject to all men,—and in support 
 of it no appeal can be made either to chap. v. 5 or to the 
 following exhortation: πάντας Tıuncare,—is decisive against 
 this view” The fact that Peter places the general term 
 πᾶσα κτίσις first, is explained most naturally in this way: 
 that it was his intention to speak not of the magistracy 
 merely, but also of the other institutions of human life—The 
 motive for the submission here demanded is given by διὰ 
 κύριον, 1... Χριστόν (not Θεόν, as Schott thinks), which must 
 be taken to mean: “ because such is the will of the Lord,” or, 
 with Hofmann: “ out of consideration due to Christ, to whom 
 the opposite would bring dishonour.” The latter, however, is the 
 
 1 This view avoids the certainly arbitrary interpretation given, for example, 
 by Flavius, who applies the expression specially to life connected with the state. 
 He says : dicitur humana ordinatio ideo quia politiae mundi non sunt speciali 
 verbo Dei formatae, ut vera religio, sed magis ab hominibus ipsorumque indus- 
 tria ordinatae. 
 
 * It is arbitrary to regard καίσις (with Luther, Osiander, etc.) as meaning the 
 laws given by the magistrates. 
 
 ® Brückner endeavours, indeed, to defend de Wette’s interpretation, yet he 
 decides to understand the expression in question as: “every ordinance of human 
 civil society,” and solves the difficulty presented by the adjective dvépwaivn (comp. 
 with Rom. xiii. 1) by remarking that “the ordinances of national life which 
 have been developed historically and by human means possess a divine element 
 in them.” 
 
 1 PETER, 1 
 
130 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 less likely interpretation. Still less natural is it to say, with 
 Wiesinger, that this adjunct points to the θεῖον in ordinances 
 under which human life is passed. Incorrectly Huss: propter 
 imitationem Dei i. e. Christi—Inthe enumeration which follows, 
 the apostle is guided by the historical conditions of his time. 
 It must be remarked that ὑποτάσσεσθαι is inculcated not only 
 with regard to the institutions of the state, but to the persons 
 ‚in whom these are embodied, and this quite unconditionally. 
 Even in cases where obedience, according to the principle laid 
 down in Acts iv. 19, is to be refused, the duty of the 
 ὑποτάσσεσθαι must not be infringed upon. — εἴτε βασιλεῖ] 
 βασιλεύς is here the name given to the Roman emperor; cf. 
 Joseph. de bello jud. v. 18, ὃ 6. Bengel: Caesari, erant enim 
 provinciae romanae, in quas mittebat Petrus. — ὡς ὑπερέχοντι] 
 ws here also assigns the reason; ὑπερέχειν expresses, as in 
 tom. ΧΙ]. 1, simply the idea of sovereign power; non est 
 comparatio cum aliis magistratibus (Calvin). In the Roman 
 ‘Empire the emperor was not merely the highest ruler, but 
 properly speaking the only one, all the other authorities being 
 ‚simply the organs through which he exercised his sway. — 
 Ver. 14. εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν] ἡγεμόνες praesides provinciarum, qui a 
 Caesare mittebantur in provincias (Gerh.). — ὡς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, etc. ] 
 dv αὐτοῦ does not, as Gerh., Aretius, and others take it, refer to 
 κύριον, but to βασιλεῖ. The ἡγεμ., although ὑπερέχοντες too, are 
 so not in the same absolute sense as the βασιλεύς. They are 
 so in relation to their subordinates, but not to the βασιλεύς. ----- 
 eis ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ ἀγαθοποιῶν) is joined 
 grammatically to πεμπομένοις, not to “ὑπερέχοντι also (Hofm., 
 Schott); yet, from the fact that the ἡγεμόνες are sent by the 
 βασιλεὺς eis ἐκδίκησιν x.T.X., it is implied that the latter, too, 
 has an office with respect to ἐκδίκησις x.7.d. — Oecumenius 
 arbitrarily narrows the thought when he says: ἔδειξε καὶ 
 αὐτὸς ὁ Πέτρος τίσι Kat ποίοις ἄρχουσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι δεῖ, 
 ὅτι τοῖς τὸ δίκαιον ἐκδικοῦσιν. The apostle insists rather, 
 
 1 Hofmann is consequently wrong in asserting that in this connection ‘‘the 
 duty of submission to him who makes over the exercise of his power to others 
 is derived from and based alone on his possession of that power, whilst sub- 
 mission to those to whom that power has been entrusted originated in, and is 
 founded on, the moral purpose for which that is done.” 
 
CHAP. II. 15, 16. 131 
 
 without reserve, on submission to the ἡγεμόνες, because (not if) 
 they are sent by the emperor to administer justice.’ — &xdi- 
 knows, here as often: “punishment ;” ἔπαινος, not precisely: 
 “reward,” but: “laudatory recognition.” — ἀγαθοποιός is to be 
 found only in later authors, in N. T. ἅπ. Aey. The subs. 
 occurs chap. iv. 19. 
 
 Ver. 15. ὅτι] gives the ground of the exhortation: ὑπο- 
 TaYNTE K.T.A. — οὕτως ἐστὶν TO θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] with οὕτως ; 
 cf. Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]; Buttm. p. 115: “ of such a nature 
 is the will of God.” Schott gives the sense correctly: “In this 
 wise is it with the will of God.” The position of the words 
 is opposed to a connection of οὕτως with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας 
 (Wiesinger, Hofmann). — ἀγαθοποιοῦντας) sc. ὑμᾶς ; ἀγαθο- 
 ποιεῖν, in Mark iii. 4; Acts xiv. 17 the word has reference to 
 deeds of benevolence. Here, on the other hand, it is used in 
 a general sense: to do good, with special reference to the 
 fulfilment of the duties towards those in authority. — φιμοῦν 
 τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν) φιμοῦν (cf. 1 Tim. 
 v. 18) here in the cognate sense of: “to put to silence,’ 
 Wiesinger ; “the ἀγνωσία is here conceived of as speaking; 
 ef. v.12: καταλαλοῦσι ty. ὡς κακοποιῶν." — ἀγνωσία (except 
 here, only in 1 Cor. xv. 34) is the self-caused lack of any com- 
 prehension of the Christian life. Because they are without 
 this, they in their foolishness (hence ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων) 
 imagine that its characteristic is not ayadoroıeiv, but κακο- 
 ποιεῖν. Beda incorrectly limits οὗ ἄφρονες ἄνθρωποι to those 
 persons in authority ; but the reference is rather quite general 
 to the καταλαλοῦντες, ver. 12. 
 
 Ver. 16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι] is not, as Lachm., Jachmann, Steiger, 
 Fronmüller think, to be joined with what follows (ver. 17), 
 but with a preceding thought; either with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας 
 (Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger, Hofm.), or with ὑποτώγητε 
 (Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, de Wette, Schott, ete.). 
 
 ! Calvin very aptly puts it: Objiei possit: reges et alios magistratus saepe 
 sua potentia abuti ; respondeo, tyrannos et similes non facere suo abusu, quia 
 maneat semper firma Dei ordinatio. 
 
 * Hofmann justly says: ‘‘We cannot think of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, 
 for its contents would not suit πάντας riznoare—even should it be connected with 
 this only (Fronmiiller), which is quite impossible—not to speak of σὴν ἀδελῴο. 
 Tnra OY τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε," 
 
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not 
 because in the former a change of construction would take 
 place, but because the special point to be brought out here 
 was, that the freedom of the Christians was to be manifested 
 in submission to (heathen) authorities. What follows shows 
 this, inasmuch as those Christians who had not attained unto 
 true freedom, might easily be led to justify their opposition to 
 those in power on the ground of the liberty which belonged 
 to them in Christ. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι states the position which 
 the Christians are to take up inwardly towards the authori- 
 ties; their subjection is not that of δοῦλοι, since they recog- 
 nise them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral 
 ends." — καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας τὴν 
 ἐλευθερίαν] καί is epexegetical: “and that,’ since what 
 follows defines the idea ἐλεύθεροι first negatively and then 
 positively. — ὡς belongs not to ἐπικάλυμμα, but to ἔχοντες : 
 “and that not as those who have.” — ἐπικάλυμμα is the more 
 remote, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν the proximate, object of ἔχοντες : 
 “who have the ἐλευθερία as the ἐπικάλυμμα τ. Kak.” — 
 ἐπικάλυμμα, Am. rey.; for its original meaning, cf. Ex. xxvi. 14, 
 LXX.; here used metaphorically (cf. Kypke ὧν loc). The 
 sense is: “not as those to whom their freedom serves as a 
 covering for their κακία" (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19; Gal. v. 13), ae. 
 who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their 
 Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Phari- 
 saism of those who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart 
 by an outward conformity to the law. — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς δοῦλοι Θεοῦ] 
 expresses positively the nature of the truly free. True liberty 
 consists in the δουλεία Θεοῦ (Rom. vi. 16 ff.) ; it refers back 
 to the τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and further still to διὰ κύριον. 
 
 Ver. 17. Four hortatory clauses suggested to Peter by the 
 term ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ; in the last he returns, by way of con- 
 clusion, to the principal theme. In the first three there is a 
 climax.” — πάντας τιμήσατε] πάντας must not, with Bengel, be 
 
 1 It is not probable that Peter here refers, as Weiss (p. 349) thinks, to the 
 words of Christ, Matt. xvii. 27, since they apply to circumstances altogether 
 different from those mentioned here ; see Meyer in loc. 
 
 * To distribute these four exhortations over ‘‘the two provinces of life: the 
 
 natural and civil, and the spiritual and ecclesiastical communities” (Schott), is 
 warranted neither by what precedes nor by anything the clauses themselves 
 
CHAP. II. 17. 133 
 
 limited to those: quibus honos debetur, Rom. xiii. 7,! nor to 
 those who belong to the same state (Schott); it expresses totality 
 without any exception. — τιμᾷν is not equivalent to ὑποτάσ- 
 σεσθαι (de Wette); but neither is it equal to, civiliter tractare 
 (Bengel) ; the former is too strong, the latter too weak ; it is 
 the opposite, positively stated, of καταφρονεῖν, and means: to 
 recognise the worth (τιμή) which any one possesses, and to act 
 on the recognition (Briickner, Weiss, Wiesinger, Schott). 
 This exhortation is all the more important for the Christian, 
 that his consciousness of his own dignity can easily betray 
 him into a depreciation of others. It refers to the τιμή which 
 is due to man as man, and not first in respect of any particular 
 position he may hold (Flacius: unicuique suum locum et debita 
 officia exhibete.) — τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε] ἀδελφότης, also 
 in chap. v. 9, corresponding to our: brotherhood, 1.6. the totality 
 of the Christian brethren, cf. ἱεράτευμα vv. 5, 9. The apparent 
 contradiction of Matt. v. 44, here presented, where love to 
 enemies is also enjoined, is to be explained on the following 
 principle: that the ayarrn is differently conditioned, according 
 as it has different objects. In perfect harmony with its 
 inmost nature, it can exist only between Christians, for only 
 among them is there community of life in God, cf. chap. 1. 22. 
 Pott interprets ἀγαπᾷν here superficially by “entertain goodwill 
 to.” — τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε] cf. chap.i.17; a command not only 
 of the Old, but of the New Testament, inasmuch as a lowly awe 
 before the holy God is an essential feature of the filial rela- 
 tion to God. — τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε] Reiteration of the com- 
 mand (ver. 13) as a conclusion to the whole passage ; cf. Prov. 
 xxiv. 21, φοβοῦ τὸν Θεὸν, vie, καὶ βασιλέα. ---- rıuare has here 
 the same meaning as previously: “show to the king the 
 
 contain. —Hofmann, who denies the climax, determines the relation of the four 
 maxims to each other in a highly artificial manner. He holds that the second 
 sentence is in antithesis to the first, and the fourth to the third ; that the first 
 is akin to the fourth, and the second to the third ; that in the first stress is laid 
 on πάντας, whilst on the second, on the other hand, it lies not on ἀδελφότητα, 
 but on ἀγαπᾶτε, and that in the first antithesis it is the first member that is 
 emphatic, in the second it is the last, 
 
 1 In like manner Hornejus: non de omnibus absolute loquitur, quasi omnes 
 homines etiam pessimi honorandi sint, sed de iis, quibus honor propter potes- 
 tatem quam habent, competit. 
 
134 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 respect which pertains to him as king;” what that is the 
 apostle has explained in ver. 13. Hornejus * incorrectly thinks 
 that in the conjunction of the last two commands, he can here 
 discover an indication of the limits by which obedience to the 
 king is bounded.—The difference in the tenses of the impera- 
 tive, in the first exhortation the imperat. aor., in the three others 
 the imperat. pres., is to be regarded as accidental, rather than 
 as in any way arising from the substance of the command.” 
 Ver. 18. An exhortation to the slaves, extending from this 
 verse to the end of the chapter. — οὗ οἰκέται] οἰκέτης, properly 
 speaking, “a domestic,” a milder expression for δοῦλος. It is 
 improbable that Peter employed this term in order to include 
 the freedmen who had remained in the master’s house (Steiger). 
 —ot otk. is vocative; nor is chap. 1. 3 (as Steiger thinks) opposed 
 to this. — ὑποτασσόμενοι] It is quite arbitrary to supply ἦτε 
 (Oecumenius, etc.), or to assert that the participle is used here 
 instead of the imperative. The participle rather shows that the 
 exhortation is conceived of as dependent on a thought already 
 expressed; not on ver. 17 (de Wette), but on ver. 13, which 
 vy. 11 and 12 serve to introduce; droraynte . . . κύριον, the 
 institution of the household implied in the relation of servant 
 to master, is comprehended in the general term πᾶσα ἀνθρωπ. 
 κτίσις. ---- ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ] φόβος (vid. i. 17) is stronger than 
 reverentia, it denotes the shrinking from transgressing the 
 master’s will, based on the consciousness of subjection, cf. Eph. 
 vi. ὅ Doubtless this shrinking is in the case of the 
 Christian based on the fear of God, but the word φόβος does 
 not directly mean such fear, as Weiss (p. 169) holds and seeks 
 to prove, especially from the circumstance that Peter in chap. 
 11. 6, 14 condemns the fear of man, forgetting, however, that 
 this fear too may be of different kinds, cf. in loco. — παντί is 
 intensive. πᾶς φόβος is: every kind of fear; a fear wanting 
 
 ! Explicat Petr. quomodo Caesari parendum sit, nempe ut Dei interim timori 
 nihil derogetur. 
 
 2 Hofmann’s view is purely arbitrary : that in the foremost clause the aorist is 
 put because, in the first place, and chiefly, it is required to honour all ; and after 
 this, that the Christian should love his brethren in Christ. Nor can it be at all 
 supported by Winer’s remarks, p. 294 [E. T. 394]. 
 
 3 Thus, too, in substance Schott: ‘‘ Fear in general, as it is determined by the 
 circumstances here mentioned.” 
 
CHAP. 11. 19. 135 
 
 in nothing that goes to make up true fear. — τοῖς δεσπόταις] 
 ef. 1 Tim. vi. 1, Tit. ii, 9, equals τοῖς κυρίοις, Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. 
 iii. 22.— οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς 
 σκολιοῖς] The moral conduct of the servant, which consists 
 in ὑποτάσσεσθαι towards the master, must remain unchanged, 
 whatever the character of the latter may be; the chief 
 emphasis, however, rests here on ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ox. — ἀγαθοί 
 here is equal to “kind;” for ἐπιεικής, cf. 1 Tim. 111. 3; it 
 does not mean “ yielding” (Fronmiiller), but, properly speaking, 
 one who “acts with propriety,’ then “ gentle.” — σκολιός, lite- 
 rally, “crooked,” “bent,” the opposite of straight, denotes 
 metaphorically the perverse disposition; Phil. 11. 15, synony- 
 mous with διεστραμμένος ; in Prov. xxviii. 18, ὁ σκολιαῖς ὁδοῖς 
 πορευόμενος forms the antithesis to ὁ πορευόμενος δικαίως (οἴ. 
 Luke ui. 5). It has the same force in the classics (Athen. 
 xv. p. 695; σκολιὰ φρονεῖν, opp. to εὐθέα φρονεῖν). It denotes, 
 therefore, such masters as conduct themselves, not in a right, 
 but in a perverse manner towards their servants—are hard 
 and unjust to them; Luther’s “ capricious” is inexact.! 
 
 Ver. 19. τοῦτο yap χάρις, ei] The ground of the exhorta- 
 tion. τοῦτο refers to the clause beginning with ei. — xapıs 
 has not the special meaning “ grace ” here, as if it were to be 
 explained, either with the older commentators: gratiam con- 
 cilians; or as if by it were to be understood “the gift of 
 grace” (Steiger: “it is to be regarded as grace, if one can 
 suffer for the sake of God ;” so, too, Schott), or “ the condition 
 of grace” (Wiesinger: “in the ὑπομένειν is manifested the 
 actual condition of grace”); for this expression is not parallel 
 with κλέος, ver. 12: and how can a summons be issued in a 
 manner so direct, to the performance of a duty, by repre- 
 senting it either as a gift of grace or a proof of a state of 
 grace? Besides, Wiesinger alters the term “grace” into “sign 
 of grace.”—Some commentators, on account of ver. 20, explain 
 χάρις as Synonymous with κλέος, but without any linguistic 
 justification ; thus already Oecumenius (Calvin: idem valet 
 nomen gratiae quod laudis; qui patienter ferunt injurias, ii 
 
 1 That Peter made special reference to heathen masters lies in the nature of 
 
 the circumstances, but is not to be concluded from the adject. σκολιός (as opposed. 
 to Schott). 
 
136 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 laude digni sunt). In profane Greek xapıs denotes either 
 the charm or the loveliness, or also the favour which one person 
 has for another (to which are linked on the meanings, expres- 
 sions of goodwill and thanks). Both senses are to be found 
 in the Scriptures.’ If the first signification be adopted, the 
 enduring of the adversity of which Peter here speaks is 
 characterized as something lovely; and so Cremer (see under 
 χάρις, p. 576) seems to take it. But it is more natural to 
 hold by the second sense, and to explain “this 7s favour,” as 
 equal to “ this causes favour.” Several interpreters explain 
 χάρις as equal directly to “delight,” substituting for the 
 substantive the adjective “ well-pleasing,” and supplying 
 mapa τῷ Θεῷ from ver. 20. Thus Gerhard: hoc est Deo 
 gratum et acceptum; de Wette: “Favour with God, 1.6. well- 
 pleasing before God;” so, too, Hofmann. But both of these 
 are open to objection. Hofmann no doubt gives as the 
 ground of his supplement: “that the slave who lived up to 
 the apostle’s injunction has to look for the approval of none.” 
 This is, however, surely an unjustifiable assertion. It is not 
 clear why Peter did not add the words supplied if he had 
 them in his mind; χάρις and κλέος in ver. 20 are therefore— 
 in consideration of vv. 12 and 15—to be taken quite generally. 
 The following clause indicates a good behaviour, by which 
 the καταλαλία of the heathen is to be put to silence. — εἰ διὰ 
 συνείδησιν Θεοῦ ὑποφέρει K.T.A.] ei refers back to τοῦτο; διὰ 
 συνείδησιν Θεοῦ 15 placed first by way of emphasis, συνείδησις 
 Θεοῦ is neither “ God’s knowledge of us” (Morus: quia Deus 
 conscius est tuarum miseriarum; similarly Fronmiiller: “on 
 account of the knowledge shared by God, since God knows 
 all”), nor is it “conscientiousness before God” (Stolz); but 
 Θεοῦ is the object. genit. (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. x. 2), there- 
 fore the meaning is: the (duty-compelling) consciousness of 
 God. Calov: quia conscius est, id Deum velle et Deo 
 eratum esse ; so, too, de Wette, Schott, etc. A metonymy does 
 not require to be assumed (Grotius: per metonymiam objecti 
 
 1 Χάρις has the first meaning, Ps. xlv. 3; Prov. i. 9, x. 32, ete.; also Ecclus, 
 vii. 19, etc. ; in the N. T. Luke iv. 22; Col. iv. 6, ete. The second significa- 
 tion, Prov. xxii. 1, ete.; in the N. T. Luke i. 30, ii. 52; Acts 11, 47, etc. 
 Cf. besides Cremer and Wahl: Clavis libr. V. T. apocryphi. 
 
CHAP, IL 20, 137 
 
 dieitur conscientia ejus, quod quis Deo debet). Steiger intro- 
 duces what is foreign to it when he extends the idea so as to 
 include the conscious knowledge of the divine recompense. In 
 διὰ ovveıd. Θεοῦ is expressed substantially the same thought as 
 in ὡς Θεοῦ δοῦλοι, ver. 16, and διὰ τ. κύριον, ver. 13; διὰ τὴν 
 συνείδησιν Without Θεοῦ is to be found in Rom. xiii. 5. — ὑπο- 
 φέρει τις λύπας] ὑποφέρειν: “to bear the burden put on one;” 
 the opposite of succumbing under a burden, ef. 1 Cor. x. 13, 
 2 Tim. iii. 11; nevertheless, the apostle seems here to have in 
 mind more the antithesis to being provoked to anger and 
 stubbornness (Hofmann).— Avraı here: outward afflictions, 
 -- πάσχων ἀδίκως] “whilst (not although) he suffers wrong 
 (from the master, 1.0. undeserved on the part of the slave).”— 
 It is not suffering itself, but patient endurance in the midst of 
 undeserved suffering, and that διὰ συνείδησιν Θεοῦ, which Peter 
 calls a yapis—This thought, general in itself, is here applied 
 to the relation of servant to master, 
 
 Ver. 20. ποῖον yap κλέος] Gerhard: interrogatio respondet 
 h, 1. negationi; this interrogation brings out the nothingness, 
 or at least the little value of the object in question; cf. Jas. 
 iv. 14; Luke vi. 32.— κλέος, not sc. ἐνώπιον Tod Θεοῦ (Pott), 
 but quite generally, for the thought “ refers back to the point 
 of view, stated in vv. 12—15, from which this exhortation is 
 given ” (Wiesinger). — εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι 
 ὑπομενεῖτε] The two participles stand in the closest connec- 
 tion with each other, so that ἁμαρτάνειν is to be conceived as 
 the cause of the κολαφίζεσθαι. Luther's translation is accord- 
 ingly correct: “if ye suffer punishment on account of your 
 evil deeds ;” the only fault to be found with this is, that it 
 weakens the force of the idea ὑπομένειν. --- ὑπομένειν is 
 synonymous with ὑποφέρειν : the sense is: “it is no glory to 
 show patience in the suffering of deserved punishment.” The 
 view of de Wette, that Peter referred only “to the reluctant, 
 dull endurance of a criminal who cannot escape his punish- 
 ment,” misses the apostle’s meaning, and is correctly rejected 
 by Briickner and Wiesinger. Steiger remarks justly: “that 
 when any one endures patiently deserved punishment, he is 
 only performing a duty binding on him by every law of right 
 and authority.” “ ὑπομενεῖτε is in the future with reference to 
 
138 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the standpoint of the exhortation” (Wiesinger). — κολαφίζειν : 
 apud LXX. non occurrit, in N. T. generaliter pro plagis ac 
 percussionibus. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 7 
 (Gerh.); the strict signification is “to give blows with the 
 fist, or slaps on the ear.” Bengel: poena servorum eaque 
 subita. — ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες Kal πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε)] 
 The interpretation of Erasmus: si quum beneficiatis et tamen 
 affligamini, suffertis, is incorrect, for between dyador. and 
 macy. there exists the same relationship as between dpap- 
 ravovres and κολαφιζόμενοι ;* Luther correctly: “if ye suffer 
 on account of good-doing;” cf. iii. 17.— τοῦτο yap χάρις 
 mapa Θεῷ] before these words—ydp is the correct reading 
 — the apodosis taken out of ποῖον κλέος: “this is true 
 praise,’ must be added to what precedes, and these words 
 form the basis of an argument in which τοῦτο refers to εἰ 
 ἀγαθοποιοῦντες . . . ὑπομενεῖτε. The meaning is: because 
 this di God’s sight is a χάρις (not equal to: in the judgment 
 of God, cf. Luke ii. 52), therefore it is a κλέος. 
 
 Ver. 21 gives the ground of the exhortation to bear 
 undeserved suffering patiently, by a reference to the sufferings 
 of Christ. — eis τοῦτο yap ἐκλήθητε] eis τοῦτο refers to εἰ 
 ἀγαθοποιοῦντες . . . UTTomevette. Many interpreters incorrectly 
 make it apply only to suffering as such; but, as Hemming 
 rightly remarks: omnes pii vocati sunt, ut patienter injuriam 
 ferant.—The construction with εἰς occurs frequently ; cf. Col. 
 ii. 15; 2 Thess. ü. 14—In harmony with the connection, 
 οἱ οἰκέται is to be thought of as the subject to ἐκλήθητε ; 
 accordingly it is the slaves in the first instance, not the 
 Christians in general, who are addressed (as in chap. ili. 9, 
 14, 17); but as this κληθῆναι applies to them not as slaves 
 but as believers, it holds true at the same time of all Christians. 
 — ὅτε καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] örı: such suffering is 
 part of ἃ Christian’s calling, for Christ also suffered: ἔπαθεν 
 
 Nor is this relation sufficiently perceived by Schott in his explanation: ‘‘if 
 they show patience under ill-treatment which accompanies good conduct.” In 
 urging against the interpretation given, that “if ἀγαθοποιεῖν apply to the labour 
 of servants, then, that which the slave suffers is not caused by his actions,” 
 Hofmann has failed to observe (1) that the context does not render the idea of 
 
 servants’ work only necessary ; (2) that the well-doing of the Christian was not 
 always in harmony with heathen views ; cf. chap. iv. 4. 
 
CHAP. II. 21. 139 
 
 is here the emphatic word; and with it καί also must be 
 joined (which Fronmiiller erroneously interprets by “even ”). 
 Wiesinger incorrectly takes καί with ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in this 
 sense, that, as Christ suffered for us, “so we should endure 
 affliction for Him, for His sake, and for His honour and 
 glory in the world,” thus introducing a thought foreign to the 
 context. The obligation to suffer under which we who are 
 Christ’s people are laid, from the very fact that Christ also 
 suffered, is for us all the greater that the sufferings of Christ 
 were ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (not: ἀνθ᾽ ἡμῶν, but “ for our advantage ”), 
 and therefore such as enable us to follow the example which 
 He has left us in His sufferings. Inasmuch as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν 
 implies that Christ suffered not for His own sins, but for 
 ours, we are no doubt justified in recognising these sufferings 
 as undeserved, but not in concluding, with Hofmann, that ὑπὲρ 
 ὑμῶν is meant to mark only the undeservedness of Christ’s 
 sufferings. — ὑμῖν ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπογραμμόν] ὑπολιμπάνω, 
 Gm. λεγ. Another form οἵ ὑπολείπω (used of the leaving 
 behind at death, Judith viii. 7). Bengel: in abitu ad patrem. 
 ὑπογραμμός (dr. Ney.) : specimen, quod imitentur, ut pictores 
 novitiis exemplaria dant, ad quae inter pingendum respiciant : 
 equivalent in sense to ὑπόδειγμα, John xiii. 15 (τύπος ; 
 2 Thess. iii. 9). It is not Christ’s life in general that is 
 here presented by way of example, but the patience which 
 He showed in the midst of undeserved sufferings." The 
 participle is connected with ἔπαθεν ὑπ. ty. as giving the 
 nearer definition of the latter: He thus suffered, as in doing so 
 to leave you an example, withal to the end that, etc.” — ἵνα 
 ἐπακολουθήσητε τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ] Sicut prior metaphora a 
 pictoribus et scriptoribus, ita haec posterior petita est a viae 
 duce (Gerhard); with eraxox. cf. 1 Tim. v. 10, 24. -- ἴχνος, 
 
 ! Wherever Scripture presents Christ as an example, it does so almost always 
 with reference to His self-abasement in suffering and death ; Phil. ii. 5; John 
 xiii. 15, xv. 12; 1 John iii. 16; Heb. xii. 2. Only in 1 John ii. 6 is Christ 
 presented as an example in the more general sense. 
 
 * Hofmann wrongly asserts that ‘iz stands only in place of an infinitive 
 clause, as after ἐντολή (John xiii. 34), βουλή (Acts xxvii. 42),” inasmuchas “΄ ὑπο- 
 γραμμός is no more than a direction to do likewise.” But this interpretation 
 of ὑπογρωμμός is erroneous, and therefore ἵνα ἐπακχολουθήσητε cannot be resolved 
 into an infinitive clause. 
 
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 besides here, in Rom. iv. 12 (στοιχεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι) and 2 Cor. 
 ΧΗ, 18 (mepımareiv τοῖς ἴχνεσι). 
 
 Ver. 22. The first feature in the exemplary nature of 
 Christ’s sufferings: His innocence. — After Isa. liii. 9, LXX.: 
 ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε, οὐδὲ δόλον ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ (Cod. 
 Alex. οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στ. αὐτοῦ). Gerhard: nec 
 verbo nec facto unquam peccavit. The second half of the 
 sentence expresses truth in speech. With δόλος, cf. chap. ii. 1, 
 John i. 48. For the difference between εὑρίσκεσθαι and 
 eivaı, cf. Winer, p. 572 [E. T. 769]. 
 
 Ver. 23. The second feature: the patience of Christ in 
 His sufferings. A reference, however slight, to Isa. liii. 7, 
 cannot but be recognised. — ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, 
 πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει] De Wette and Wiesinger rightly draw 
 attention to the climax between Aosdop. and πάσχων, ἀντελοιδ. 
 and ἠπείλει, λοιδορία omnis generis injuriae verbales; παθή- 
 para omnis generis injuriae reales (Gerhard). — ἀντιλοιδ, 
 am. λεγ.; cf. ἀντιμετρέω, Luke vi. 38. — ἠπείλει is here used 
 of threat of vengeful recompense. The announcements of 
 divine judgment on unbelievers, to which Christ more than 
 once gave expression, are of a different nature, and cannot be 
 considered as an ὠπειλεῖν, in the sense in which that word is 
 here used. Comp. with this passage the exhortation of the 
 apostle, chap. iii. 9.— παρεδίδουν δὲ τῷ xpivovrı δικαίως] 
 παρεδίδου not in a reflexive sense: “He committed Himself” 
 (Winer p. 549 [E. T. 738]; de Wette),' neither is causam 
 suam (Gerhard, etc.) nor κρίσιν (from xplvovrı) to be supplied ; 
 the supplement is rather λοιδοροῦσθαι and πάσχειν (Wiesinger, 
 Schott). Luther’s translation is good: “ He left it to Him.”? 
 — Didymus arbitrarily understands παρεδίδου of Christ’s 
 prayer for His enemies;* the meaning is rather that Christ 
 
 1 In Mark iv. 29, too, to which de Wette appeals, παραδιδόναι has no reflexive 
 force; see Meyer on this passage, 
 
 * The Vulg. strangely translates: tradebat judicanti se injuste; according to 
 which Lorinus interprets : tradidit se Christus sponte propriaque voluntate tum 
 Judaeis, tum Pilato ad mortem oblatus. Cyprian (de bono patientiae) and 
 Paulinus (Zp. 2) quote the passage as it stands in the Vulg. Augustin (T'raet. ix 
 John xxi.) and Fulgentius (ad Trasimarch. lib. I.), on the other hand, have juste. 
 
 > From the fact that Christ’s prayer is not mentioned here, de Wette unwar- 
 rantably concludes that it was unknown to the writer of the epistle. 
 
CHAP. IL. 24, 141 
 
 left it to the God who judges justly to determine what should 
 be the consequences of the injustice done to Him on those 
 who wrought it. That His desire was only that they should 
 be punished, is not contained in παρεδίδου (similarly Hof- 
 mann). Consequently the reference formerly made in this 
 commentary to Jer. xi. 20, xx. 12, as illustrative of the 
 passage, is erroneous. With τῷ δικαίως κρίνοντι, cf. chap. 
 1. 17: τὸν ἀπροσωπολήπτως κρίνοντα, “a direct designation 
 of God, whose just judgment is the outcome of His being ” 
 (Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 24. A further expansion of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ver. 21. — 
 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν κ-τ.λ.] “ Who Himself 
 bore our sins on His body to the tree.”— ὅς, the third relative 
 clause; though a climax too, cannot fail to be recognised 
 here: He suffered innocently,—patiently (not requiting evil 
 for evil),—-vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that 
 this third clause predicates anything of Christ in which He 
 can be an example for us (Hofmann); the thought here 
 expressed itself contradicts this assertion. — The phraseology of 
 this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isa. liii., and 
 the actual fulfilment of the prophecy herein contained. The 
 words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind 
 of the apostle, are those of ver. 12, LXX. καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας 
 πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε (Nw); cf. also ver. 11: καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
 αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει (?2DN), and ver. 4: οὗτος τ. ἁμαρτίας 
 ἡμῶν φέρει (δ). The Hebrew NW) go the accus. of the 
 idea of sin, therefore: “to bear sin, is equivalent to, “to 
 suffer the punishment for sin,’ either one’s own or that of 
 another. Now, as ἀνήνεγκε is in the above-quoted passage a 
 translation of δὲ), its meaning is: “He suffered the punish- 
 ment for the sins of many.” '—-This suffering of punishment 
 
 1 It admits of no doubt that 72] in connection with NOM or NY has the 
 meaning above given; cf. Lev. xix, 17, xx. 19, xxiv. 15; Num. ν. 31, 
 SVerots) Brek. iv. 5, xive 10, ΧΥΙ 58, xxii. 35, etc, (lam: vad: 530); 
 generally, indeed, the LXX. translate this NY) by λαμβάνειν, but also by 
 κομίζειν and ἀποφέρειν; in the passage quoted, Isa. liii. 4, by φέρειν; in Num. 
 xiv. 33, as in Isa. liii. 12, by ὠναφέρειν. This proves how unwarranted Hofmann 
 (Schriftbeweis, 11. 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) is in saying “that in view of the Greek 
 translation of Isa. 1111, 11, 12, it is arbitrary to assume that ἀναφέρειν means 
 
142 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 is, in the case of the Servant of God, of such a nature that by 
 it those whose the sin is, and for whom He endures the 
 punishment, become free from that punishment; it is there- 
 fore a vicarious suffering.’ Since, then, Peter plainly had 
 this passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be 
 no other than this: that Christ in our stead has suffered the 
 punishment we have merited through our sins, and so has 
 borne our sins. But with this the subsequent ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, 
 which means not “on the tree,” but “on to the tree,’ does not 
 seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to 
 take ἀναφέρειν in the sense which it has in the phrase: 
 ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (cf. Jas. ii. 21; Lev. 
 xiv. 20; 2 Chron. xxxv. 16; Bar. 1.10; 1 Maec.w. 53); ® 
 ver. 5; where ro ξύλον would be conceived as the altar 
 (Gerhard: Crux Christi fuit sublime illud altare, in quod 
 Christus se ipsum in sacrifieium oblaturus ascendit, sicut V. 
 Testamenti sacrifieia altari imponebantur). But against this in- 
 terpretation, besides the fact that ἀναφέρ. is thus here taken in 
 a sense different from that which it has in Isa. liii., there are the 
 following objections: (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. 
 is the cross of Christ represented as the altar on which He is 
 offered ;? (2) That neither in the O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin 
 anywhere spoken of as the offering which is brought up to the 
 
 simply to carry.” Of course every one knows that in and of itself ἀναφέρειν does 
 not mean ‘‘to carry ;” but from this it does not follow that the LXX. did not 
 use it in this sense in the phrase above alluded to, the more so that they 
 attribute to the word no meaning opposed to its classical usage ; cf. Thue. 
 iii. 18: κινδύνου: avagip.; Pol. 1. 30: φθόνους καὶ διαβολὰς ἀναφέρ., see Pape, 8.0. 
 ὠναφέρω, and Delitzsch, Komment. z. Br. an die Hebr. p. 442.—Doubtless Ni) 
 ἡ ΠΝ, Lev. x. 17, is said of the priests bearing away sin (making atonement), 
 but there the LXX. translate N by ἀφαιρεῖν. Plainly there can here be no 
 allusion to the meaning “to forgive sin.” 
 
 ! Weiss is inaccurate when he asserts (p. 265) that the passages, Lev. 
 xix. 17, Num. xiv. 33, Lam. v. 7, Ezek. xviii. 19, 20, allude to a vicarious 
 suffering ; these passages, indeed, speak of a bearing of the punishment which 
 the sins of others have caused, but this is suffering with, not instead of others, 
 without those who have done the sin being freed from its punishment. 
 
 * Schott, whilst admitting the above, asserts ‘‘ that it will hardly be contra- 
 dicted that in all the passages which speak of Christ’s death on the cross as a 
 sacrifice, the cross must be presupposed to be that which served as altar.” This 
 is decidedly to be contradicted, the more so that the animal sacrificed suffered 
 death not upon, but before the altar. 
 
CHAP. II. 24. 143 
 
 altar.! ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον might be explained by assuming a preg- 
 nant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs: bajulavit 
 omnia peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad 
 erucem,” that is: “bearing our sins He ascended the cross.” 
 But the assumption of such a construction is not necessary, 
 since ἀναφέρειν can quite well be taken to mean “ carrying 
 up,’ without depriving the word of the signification which it 
 has in the passage in Isaiah, since “carrying up” implies 
 “carrying.” In no other way did Christ bear our sins up on 
 to the cross than by suffering the punishment for our sins in 
 the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punish- 
 ment. The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitu- 
 tion here contained, by the addition of αὐτός, which, as in Isa. 
 111. 11, stands by way of emphasis next to ἡμῶν; but by ἐν 
 τῷ σώματι aurodo—not “ὧι, but “on His body ”—we are 
 reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was 
 accomplished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross and died 
 thereon. It is quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger 
 assumes, is meant at the same time to serve the purpose of 
 expressing the greatness of that love which moved Christ to 
 give His body to the death for our sins; but that there is in 
 it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord 
 (Weiss, p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support 
 
 1 If ἀναφέρειν be here taken as equivalent to ‘‘ to offer sacrifice,” as in Heb. 
 vii. 27, not only would the thought—which Delitzsch (p. 440) terms a corrupt 
 one—arise: per semet ipsum immolavit peccata nostra, but ἐπὶ +o ξύλον would then 
 have to be interpreted: ‘‘ on the cross.” Luther: ‘‘ who Himself offered in sacri- 
 fice our sins on His body on the tree.”—Here, too, Schott admits what is said 
 above, but seeks to destroy its force as a proof, by claiming for ἀναφέρειν the sense: 
 “*to present or bring up in offering,” at the same time supplying—as it seems— 
 
 as the object of offering, the body of Christ, which the expression of the apostle 
 in no way justifies. 
 
 2 Schott brings the baseless accusation against the circumlocution of the Syr. 
 translation, “that in it peccata is to be taken differently in the first clause from 
 the second ;” in the former, as equivalent to “the punishment of our sin;” in 
 the latter, as ‘‘ the sin itself,” for peccata has the same meaning in both members, 
 although the bearing of the sins consists in the suffering of the punishment for 
 them. Comp. Num. xiv. 33, where in the expression ἀνοίσουσι ray wopysiav ὑμῶν, 
 the word πορνεία has by no means the meaning ‘‘ punishment for fornication,” 
 although ἀναφέρειν τὴν πορνείαν means as much as ‘‘to suffer the punishment for 
 fornication.” 
 
 3 So, too, Schott, who interprets iv τῷ σώματι as equal to “in His earthly 
 bodily life” (!). 
 
144 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 it. The addition of ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον is explained by the fact 
 itself, since it is precisely Christ’s death on the cross that has 
 redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins. Peter 
 also uses the expression τὸ ξύλον to denote the cross, in his 
 sermons, Acts v. 30, x. 39. It had its origin in the Old 
 Testament phraseology, }'Y, rendered ξύλον by LXX., denoting 
 the pole on which the bodies of executed criminals were 
 sometimes suspended; cf. Deut. xxi. 22, 23; Josh. x. 26. 
 Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the shame of the 
 punishment which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, 
 since there is no reference to it in any way, whether Peter, 
 like Paul, in Gal. iii. 15, used the expression with regard to 
 the curse pronounced in Deut. xxi. 22 (as Weiss, p. 267, 
 emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). 
 Bengel is entirely mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct 
 ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον the apostle alludes to the punishment of slaves 
 (ligno, cruce, furca plecti soliti erant servi). 
 
 REMARK 1. The interpretation of many of the commentators 
 is wanting in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two 
 senses, which dvagépe has in the different phrases: ἀναφέρειν τὰς 
 ἁμαρτίας and ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τ. θυσιωστήριον, are mixed up with 
 each other. Vitringa (Vix uno verbo !upusıs VOCIS ἀναφέρειν 
 exprimi potest. Nota ferre et offere. Primo dicere voluit 
 Petrus, Christum portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa ipsi 
 erant imposita. Secundo ita tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum 
 obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a distinction between 
 the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in his 
 mind, which of course is impossible. — Hofmann explains 
 ἀναφέρειν... ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον on the analogy of the phrase: ἀναφέρειν 
 σι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, Without, however, understanding the cross 
 as the altar; the meaning then would be: “He lifted up His 
 body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins, that 
 is to say, atoning for our sins.” Although Hofmann admits 
 that Peter had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he neverthe- 
 less denies that ἀνήνεγκε has here the same meaning as there. 
 In his Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., he gives a similar interpretation, 
 only that there he says: “He took up our sins with Him, and 
 so took them away from us.” He, however, justly adds that 
 ἀναφέρειν has the same meaning here as in Heb, ix. 28. 
 Wiesinger has adopted this interpretation, as also, in substance, 
 Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the 2d edition of the 
 Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation; but, 
 
CHAP. II. 24. 143 
 
 on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that ἀναφέρειν here is 
 “the ἀναφέρειν of Heb. vii. 27.” —Schott justly combats Hof- 
 mann’s view, that the sufferings of Christ for our sins consisted 
 essentially only in what befell Him as the result of our sins, 
 and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. 
 His own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally 
 inadmissible, since he attributes to ἀναφέρειν the meaning: “ to 
 bring up or present in offering ;” yet adding to the idea of “ offer- 
 ing” an object other than ἁμαρτίας which stands with ἀνήνεγκεν, 
 thus giving to the one word two quite different references. 
 Schott makes σῶμα Χριστοῦ the object of “ offering,” taking it 
 out of the supplementary clause: ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ; but this 
 he is the less justified in doing, that he explains these words 
 by “in His earthly corporeal life.” — This is not the place to 
 enter fully into Schott’s conception of the propitiation wrought 
 by Christ’s death on the cross. Though it contains many 
 points worthy of notice, it is of much too artificial a nature, 
 ever to be considered a just representation of the views of the 
 apostle-—Luthardt interprets: “ He bore His body away from 
 the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which 
 Christ brought His body up; but the peculiarity lies precisely 
 in this, that His body should at the same time hang on the. 
 accursed tree.” “Away from the earth to God” is evidently 
 an addition; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross as. 
 the accursed tree, he would have added τῆς xarapés." 
 
 REMARK 2.—This interpretation agrees substantially with that 
 given by de Wette-Briickner and Weiss; yet de Wette’s refer- 
 ence to Col. ii. 14 is inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage: 
 has a character entirely different, both in thought and expres- 
 sion, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is wanting 
 in accuracy when he says that “ Christ ascended the cross, and 
 there bore the punishment of our sins,” since already in the 
 sufferings which preceded the crucifixion, the bearing of our 
 sins took place. — Nor can it be conceded to these commenta- 
 tors that the zdea of sacrifice was absent from the conception 
 of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in 
 Isa. liii., in spite of the DV, ver. 10. No doubt prominence is 
 given, in the first instance, to the idea of substitution; but 
 Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is connected 
 in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the 
 
 1 Pfleiderer (p. 422) is entirely unwarranted in maintaining the sense to be: 
 “that Christ, by His death on the cross, took away, removed our sins, so that 
 they no longer surround our life,” and ‘‘ that by this removal is meant, that we 
 free our moral life and conduct from sin” (!). 
 
 1 PETER. K 
 
146 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 idea of sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of 
 substitution is that upon which the sin-offering is based, Lev. 
 xvii. 11. And was there any other substitutionary bearing of 
 sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be concluded 
 that each word in the expression, and especially ἐσὶ τὸ ξύλον, 
 must have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice. 
 
 ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι] Oecumenius: ἀπογενό- 
 μενοι" ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀποθανόντες ; cf. Rom. vi. 2, 11 (Gal. 11. 19). 
 Bengel’s rendering : γίνεσθαι τινός fieri alicujus dicitur servus, 
 ἀπὸ dieit sejunctionem; Germ. “to become without,” which 
 Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since azro- 
 γίγνεσθαι in this sense is construed with the genitive. For 
 the dative, see Winer, p. 398 [E. T. 532]. ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις 
 corresponds to the foregoing τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν. The use of 
 the aor. part. shows that the being dead unto sin is the con- 
 dition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ 
 Tas ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν k.TN. The actions of 
 the Christians should correspond with this condition ; this 
 the apostle expresses by Wa... τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν ; cf. 
 Rom. vi. — δικαιοσύνη means here not: justification or 
 righteousness, as a condition of him whose sins are forgiven, 
 but it is the opposite of ἁμαρτία : righteousness which consists 
 in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling of His will. 
 The clause, introduced here by the final particle ἵνα (as in 
 i. 18), does not give the primary aim of Christ’s substitutionary 
 death : that, namely, of reconciliation, but further the design : 
 that of making free from the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) 
 is wrong in thinking that Peter “did not here conceive the 
 redemption as already completed in principle by the blood of 
 Christ,” but “ accomplished in a purely physiological way, by 
 the impression produced by the preaching of His death and 
 the incitement to imitation which* it gave.” Thus Pfleiderer 
 also. The refutation of this is to be found in what follows. 
 — οὗ τῷ μώλωπι [αὐτοῦ] iadmre] Isa. liii. 5, LXX.; return 
 
 1 In his Lehrbuch der bibl. Theol. (p. 172), Weiss only says: “It follows 
 from ii. 24 that the being released from sin is certainly a consequence, but only 
 the indirect consequence of the death of Christ. Because it has released us from 
 the guilt of our former sins, the further consequence will be, that henceforward 
 we will renounce those sins which He vicariously expiated.” 
 
CHAP. IL. 25. 147 
 
 to the direct form of address: μώλωψ' is, properly speaking, 
 marks left by scourging (Sir. xxviii, 17, πληγὴ μάστυγος 
 ποιεῖ μώλωπας) ; therefore, taken strictly, the expression has 
 reference to the flagellation of Christ only; but here it stands 
 as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of Christ’s 
 sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point. — 
 By ἐάθητε the apostle declares that, through the suffering of 
 Christ (of course by the instrumentality of faith), the Chris- 
 tians are translated from the sickness of a sinful nature into 
 the health of a life of righteousness. 
 
 Ver. 25. ἦτε yap ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενοι] This explana- 
 tory clause (yap) points back, as the continuance in it of the 
 direct address ((a4@nTe . . . ἦτε) shows, in the first instance, to 
 the statement immediately preceding οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε, 
 but at the same time also to the thought ἵνα... τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ 
 ζήσωμεν, to which that assertion is subservient. For the 
 foregoing figure a new one is substituted, after Isa. li. 6: 
 LXX. πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν ; if πλανώμενοι be the 
 correct reading, then from it the nearer definition of πρόβατα 
 is to be supplied, the sheep are to be thought of as those 
 which have no shepherd (Matt. ix. 36: ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ 
 ἔχοντα ποιμένα ; comp. Num. xxvii. 17; 1 Kings xxii. 17). 
 —For the figure describing the state of man Separated in his 
 sin from God, comp. Matt. xviii, 12,13; Luke xv. 4 ff. — 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεστράφητε νῦν] ἐπεστράφητε is, in harmony with the 
 uniform usage of Scripture, to be taken not in a passive 
 (Wiesinger, Schott), but in a middle sense: “ye have turned 
 yourselves.” * Luther translates: “but ye are now turned.” 
 The word ἐπιστρέφειν means to turn oneself away from (ἀπό, 
 ἐκ), towards something (ἐπί, πρός, eis), (sometimes equal to: 
 to turn round) ; but it is not implied in the word itself that 
 the individual has formerly been in that place towards which he 
 has now turned round, and whither he is going (therefore, in 
 Gal. iv. 9, πάλιν is expressly added). Weiss (p. 122) is 
 
 1 Schott’s counter-remark: ““ The question is not here what they did, but 
 what in Christ was imparted to them,” has all the less weight, that conversion, 
 though the personal act of the Christian, must still be regarded as effected by 
 Christ. Hofmann maintains, without the slightest right to'do so, that in this 
 
 passage the chief emphasis lies on the readers’ ownact, though at the same time 
 he correctly understands ἐπεστράφητε in a middle sense. 
 
148 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 therefore wrong when from this very word he tries to prove 
 that by ποιμήν God, and not Christ, is to be understood, 
 although the term sometimes includes in it the secondary idea 
 of “back;” cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22.— ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ Emi- 
 σκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν] cf. especially Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12, 16, 
 LXX.: ἐγὼ ἐκζητήσω τὰ πρόβατά μου καὶ ἐπισκέψομαι αὐτά, 
 ὥσπερ ζητεῖ ὁ ποιμὴν τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ... τὸ πλανώμενον 
 ἀποστρέψω ; besides, with ποιμήν, Ps. xxiii, 1; Isa. xl. 11. 
 From the fact that in these passages God is spoken of as the 
 shepherd, it must not be concluded, with Weiss, that ποιμὴν 
 καὶ ἐπίσκοπος refers not to Christ, but to God. For not only 
 has God, calling Himself a shepherd, promised a shepherd 
 (Ezek. xxxiv. 24, LXX.: ἀναστήσω Em αὐτοὺς ποιμένα ἕνα 
 
 . τὸν δοῦλον μου Δαυίδ, xxxvii. 24), but Christ, too, speaks 
 of Himself as the good Shepherd ; and Peter himself, in chap. 
 v. 4, calls Him ἀρχιποιμήν. In comparison with these pas- 
 sages, chap. v. 2 is plainly of no account. All interpreters— 
 except Weiss—rightly understand the expressions here used 
 as applying to Christ. The designation ἐπίσκοπος would all 
 the more naturally occur to the apostle, as it was, like ποιμήν, 
 the name of the presidents of the churches who were, so to 
 speak, the representatives of the One Shepherd and Bishop, 
 the Head of the whole church. — τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν belongs, 
 as the omission of the article before ἐπίσκοπον shows, to both 
 words; with the expression, cf. chap. 1. 9, 22. 
 
CHAP. III, 149 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 VER. 1. αἱ γυναῖκες] Rec. after C K L P, ete. (Tisch. 7); Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 omit αἱ, after A B; αἱ omitted perhaps in order 
 to mark the vocative. — Almost all authorities (as also 8), even 
 Griesb., along with Lachm. and Tisch., support the reading 
 κερδηθήσονται instead of χερδηθήσωντα. The future conjunct., oc- 
 
 urring only in later writers (see Winer, p. 72 [E. T. 89]), is to be 
 found only in win.; it is put here because of ἵνα ; superfluously, 
 however, as ἵνα in the N.T. is often construed cum. Ind., John 
 xvil. 2; Rev. xxii, 14.— Ver. 3. ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως] 
 Lachm. substitutes: ἐμπλοκῆς ἢ περιθέσεως, in C.— The most 
 important authorities, however, support the usual reading 
 (Tisch.).— Ver. 4. πρῴέος καὶ ἡσυχίου) Rec. after AC LK PS, 
 most min. Clem. Thph. etc. — Lachm.: ἡσυχίου καὶ πρᾳξέος, in B, 
 Vulg. Copt. ete. Instead of σρῳᾳέος, Tisch. reads σρᾳέως, cf. A. 
 Buttmann, p. 23.— Ver. 5. Millius, without sufficient reason, 
 regards the words: αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, aS Spurious, because 
 they are not in the vss. Aethiop. — However, according to A 
 BC, etc., and Lachm, and Tisch., eis should probably be read 
 for ἐπί. The article τόν, which is found almost only in min., 
 must be deleted (Lachm. Tisch.), so that the original text pro- 
 bably runs: αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς Θεόν. N reads αἱ ἐλπ. ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν after 
 the word ἑαυτάς. ---- Ver. 6. ὑπήκουσε] Lachm.: ὑπήκουεν, is insuffi- 
 ciently attested by B, Vulg.— Ver. 7. The Rec. συγκληρονόμοις 
 (Tisch.) is found in several min. (3, 7, 8, ete.), in Vulg. Syr. Aeth. 
 Arm. Arr.,in Thph. Oec. Aug. etc. ; it is doubtfulif inB.' Ins 
 we find at first hand: συγκληρονόμους, and as correction : συγκληρο- 
 νόμοις (according to Buttm.). In A C KL P, many min., several 
 versions, and Hier., on the other hand, we find the nominative : 
 συγκληρονόμοι (Lachm.). The opinion of critics as to which is 
 the original reading, is much divided; almost all commentators 
 prefer the Zee. ; so, too, Reiche ; whilst Hofm. holds an opposite 
 view. According to the handwriting, the nominative appears 
 clearly to be the better attested reading; but for this see the 
 
 1 Birch has given as the reading of B: συγκληρονόμοι, but has been accused of 
 error by Majus. Buttm. in his ed. reads συγκληρονόμοι, and gives this also as the 
 reading of B. On the other hand, in his Recensus lectt. Cod. x, he gives συγκλη- 
 peywos as the reading adopted by him. 
 
150. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 commentary on the verse. — A C** s, several min. Hier. add the 
 adjective ποικίλης to χάριτος, Which is probably taken from chap. 
 iv. 10, but which Hofm. nevertheless considers genuine. — 
 Instead of Rec. ἐκκόπτεσθαι, after C** K L, several min. and 
 Theoph. (Tisch. 7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read, after AB ¥, etc. : 
 ἐγκόπτεσθαι (Tisch. 8: ἐνκ.), which Hofmann also considers the 
 original reading. Both readings occur in Oec. It cannot be 
 decided with certainty. Buttm., following B, has accepted the 
 dative ταῖς προσευχαῖς in place of the accus. τὰς προσευχάς. Gram- 
 matically no objection can be raised (“so that no hindrance be 
 given to your prayers ”); but as this reading is only found in B, 
 it can hardly be considered the original one. — Ver. 8. rarswö- 
 gpoves | after A B C8, etc., Syr. Erp. etc.; accepted even by Griesb. 
 and Scholz instead of the φιλόφρονες of K and several min. In 
 some Cod. both words are placed side by side, which may, 
 according to Hofmann, be taken as the original reading. — 
 Ver. 9. According to almost all authorities: A Β Ο Καὶ 8, al, 
 Syr. utr. Copt. etc., as also Lachm. and Tisch., εἰδότες should be 
 deleted. — Ver. 10. The ec. gives the pronoun αὐτοῦ after 
 γλῶσσαν (K L P 8, etc.); in AB C and several min. it is 
 wanting here, as also after χείλη; Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 accordingly omitted it in both passages. — Ver. 11. After ἐχκλι- 
 νάτω several Codd.: A B C* have the particle δέ (Lachm. Tisch. 
 7), which in the Zee. is wanting after C** KLPN, ete. 
 (Tisch. 8). The omission seems to be a correction. — Ver. 
 12. οἱ öpdaruoi] The article is wanting in A Β Οὗ K LP ®, οἵο.; 
 omitted by Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.; Griesb., too, regards οἱ as 
 doubtful. In the original passage, Ps. xxxiv. 16, LXX., it is 
 wanting. — Ver. 13. ζηλωταί] after ABC x, al. (Lachm. Tisch. 
 8), instead of the Rec. μιμηταί in Καὶ L P, several min. Oec. 
 (Tisch.). μιμηταί appears to be a correction. red ἀγαθοῦ having 
 been taken as masc., and ζηλωταί not being suitable thereto, 
 μιμηταῖ, following such passages as Eph. v. 1, 1 Thess. i. 6, 
 very naturally presented itself; de Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, 
 Hofmann prefer wunras; Brückner and Schott: ζηλωταί. Instead 
 of ἐὰν. .. γένησθε, B reads: εἰ. .. γένοισθε, as Buttm. notes, 
 without, however, receiving it into the text. — Ver. 14. Instead 
 of ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἴῃ A and several min.: εἰ 62. — μηδὲ ταρωχθῆτε, omitted 
 in B L 43, but yet received into the text by Buttm. — Ver. 15., 
 σὸν Θεόν] Rec. after K L P, several min. Thph. Oec. Instead of, 
 this, Lachm. and Tisch. read τὸν Χριστόν (considered by Griesb. 
 to be probably the genuine reading); attested by A BC καὶ 7, 
 al., Syr. utr. Copt. etc., Clem. Fulgent. The alteration to τὸν Θεόν 
 is explained by Isa. viii. 13. — After ἕτοιμοι the Rec. adds δέ; 
 according to Tisch.’s statement, it stands in A K, etc., but not in 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAP, III. ; 151 
 
 B C8, etc.; Buttm. affirms that it is also to be found inB; 
 Tisch. 7 has retained it; Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have not. — 
 In place of αἰτοῦντι, 8 has the correction: ἀπαιτοῦντι. — A B 
 Ο καὶ 5, al., Copt. Syr. ete., have ἀλλά before μετά, which Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have justly accepted ; it may be considered as the 
 original, not only from the testimony of the authorities (it is 
 wanting only in Καὶ LP, some min. and versions, in Oec. Beda), 
 but also as being the more difficult reading.— Ver. 16. The 
 reading which is best attested by the authorities is: ἐν ᾧ xara- 
 λαλοῦσι ὑμῶν ὡς xaxoroay,asin AUOKN,ete. Instead of the indi- 
 cative, Zec. has the conjunctive: χαταλαλῶσιν. B, on the other 
 hand, simply has καταλαλεῖσθε, which Tisch. has accepted; he is, 
 however, hardly justified in doing so, as it is too insufficiently 
 attested, and appears rather to be a correction for the purpose 
 of making the passage less difficult (cf. Schott and Hofmann). — 
 Ver. 17. εἰ θέλοι] justly accepted even by Griesb. instead of the 
 Ree. εἰ Ae. — Ver. 18. ἡμῶν, following upon ἁμαρτιῶν in C** al., 
 Syr. Arr. etc., has been accepted by Lachm. in his small edition ; 
 it appears to have been inserted in consideration of ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσα- 
 γάγῃ r. ©.— Instead of the Rec. ἔπαθε in B K L P, pl. Thph. Oec. 
 Aug. (Tisch. 7), A C8, 5, al, Cypr. Didym., several versions 
 (Lachm. Tisch. 8) have ἀπέθανε; de Wette - Brückner ex- 
 plain ἀπέθανε to be a gloss, after Rom. v. 6, vi. 10; Heb. iv. 
 27; to this Wiesinger agrees; it is, however, possible that ἔπαθεν 
 arose from chap. ii. 21, as Hofm. also thinks. According to 
 Tisch., the reading of the Codd. A C* G before the verb is. ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν vel ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: N has ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; but whether this addition 
 be genuine, cannot with certainty be decided ; it may equally 
 well have been left out as superfluous, as added in order to 
 give prominence to the peculiar significance of the death of 
 Christ, — Instead of ἡμᾶς (A CK τ al., pl., several versions, 
 etc., Lachm. Tisch. 8), B and several min. have ὑμᾶς (Tisch. 
 2); ‘insufficiently attested. In the original handwriting x has 
 neither ἡμᾶς nor ὑμᾶς; in the correction: ἡμᾶς. In B τῷ Θεῷ 
 after xpoouyéyn is wanting, for which reason Buttm. has omitted 
 it. — πνεύματι] accepted even by Griesb. instead of Rec: τῷ 
 “νεύματι. ---- Ver. 20. ἀπεξεδέχετο] undoubtedly the correct render- 
 ing, instead of the ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο, which is hardly supported by 
 any authority. Tisch. remarks: videtur ex conjectura Erasmi 
 fluxisse, qui sic edidit inde ab ed. 2.— oriyaı] Rec. after CKL 
 P, many min. Thph. Oec. (Griesb. Scholz); Lachm. and Tisch., 
 on the other hand, following A Bx, al., Vulg. Orig. etc., have 
 accepted éA‘yo. ὀλίγαι seems to be a correction, because 
 of the subsequent ψυχαί. --- Ver. 21. ö] Rightly accepted by 
 Griesb., instead of the reading ᾧ in the ed. Elz. —In K, many 
 
152% THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 min. Thph. etc., the opening words—evidently as a correction 
 for the sake of simplification—are thus transposed: ὃ ἀντίτυπον 
 νῦν ὑμᾶς owZe.—Instead of the ἡμᾶς in the Lec. (C KL, Copt. etc., 
 Thph. Oec.), Lachm.and Tisch. have adopted ὑμᾶς(Α BP δα, several 
 vss. and Fathers); doubtless rightly, as the change to ὑμᾶς can. be 
 explained on the principle that the more general ἡμᾶς seemed 
 better suited to the context. Reiche prefers yé.— Ver. 22, 
 According to almost all authorities, the article rod stands before 
 Θεοῦ (Rec. Lachm. Tisch. 7); Tisch. 8, however, following B 
 and &, has dropped it. 
 
 Ver. 1. From here to ver. 6 an exhortation to wives. — 
 ὁμοίως} not simply particula transeundi (Pott); on account 
 of the subsequent ὑποτασσόμεναι it stands related rather to 
 the exhortation contained in what precedes; the participle 
 here as in chap. il. 18.—ai γυναῖκες] Form of address, like 
 οἱ οἰκέται (as opposed to Steiger); vid. ὑμῶν, ver. 2; τῶν 
 γυναικῶν (instead of ὑμῶν) is used here, not because the 
 thought is a general one (de Wette, Wiesinger), nor “ because 
 Peter means to say that the heathen men should be won over 
 by their own wives” (Schott), but because the apostle wishes 
 clearly to point out how the wives too may be able to advance 
 the kingdom of God. The words are addressed generally to 
 all Christian wives, though, as the sequel shows, with special 
 reference to those who have unbelieving husbands. — ὑποτασ- 
 copevat τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν] ἰδίοις is used here, not by way 
 of contradistinction (Glossa interl.: suis viris, non adulteris, 
 or according to Calvin: ut Ap. castitatis uxores admoneat 
 avocetque a suspectis obsequiis virorum aliorum ; so, too, Fron- 
 miiller), but only to express the idea of belonging together 
 more strongly than the simple pronoun; cf. also Winer, 
 p. 145 £. [E. T. 191 f£.]—With the thought here expressed, cf. 
 Eph. v. 22-24; Col. ii. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 9. It is self-evident, 
 —although many interpreters have discussed the question at 
 considerable length, —that the subjection of the wife to the 
 husband is of quite a different kind from that of the slave to 
 the master. The apostle, however, does not go into the subject 
 further, but contents himself with simply emphasizing that point." 
 
 1 For similar remarks of the ancients, see in Steiger; that of the humorist 
 Philemon (in a Fragment, ver. 123) is particularly significant : ἐγαθῆς γυναῖκός 
 ἰστιν, ὦ Nixoorparn, μὴ xpsirrov εἶναι τ᾿ ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπήκοον. 
 
CHAP, III. 1. 193 
 
 — iva καὶ ei τινες ἀπειθοῦσι τῷ λόγῳ] καὶ ei, 1... “even then 
 when,’ supposes not only a possible, but a particularly un- 
 favourable case; that is to say, when men who are joined 
 to Christian wives oppose the Adyos, even then may such be 
 gained over by the Christian walk of their wives;! τίνες must 
 be conceived as referring to heathen men with Christian wives. 
 — With τῷ λόγῳ, cf. chap. ii. 8.— The expression ἀπειθεῖν 
 denotes here, as in chap. ii. 7, not a simple negation only, 
 (Pott: ad religionem christianam nondum accessisse), but an 
 opposition to. — διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀνωστροφῆς] ἑαυτῶν 
 must be supplied to γυναικῶν ; it is not wives in general who 
 are here meant, but only the wives of heathen husbands. — 
 avactpopy ; qvite generally: the Christian walk of women, 
 with special reference, however, to their relation to their 
 husbands; it is precisely obedience that most easily wins the 
 heart.— ἄνευ λόγου] Huss incorrectly: sine verbo praedicationis 
 publicae (so, too, Fronmiiller); the words are used here to 
 emphasize more strongly dia τῆς... ἀναστροφῆς, and must 
 be held to refer to the conduct of wives (de Wette, Wiesinger). 
 Schott wrongly unites ἄνευ Aöyov with the preceding τῆς. 
 
 ἀναστροφῆς into one idea; Peter could never have meant to say 
 that the walk of women should be a silent one. The apostle’s 
 thought is this: if the husbands oppose the Word, the wives 
 should all the more diligently seek to preserve a Christian 
 walk, in order by it to win over their husbands, even without 
 words, z.c. “ without preaching and exhortation on their part” 
 (de Wette). Oecumenius incorrectly refers these words to 
 the conduct of husbands in the sense: cessanti omni verbo et 
 contradictione. — κερδηθήσονται] that is to say, for the faith, 
 and by it for the kingdom of God; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff.; so, 
 too, Schott indeed, who, however, unjustifiably thinks that the 
 apostle’s meaning is, that the preservation of the marriage 
 relation is the primary object which is to be attained by the 
 
 1 Hofmann maintains that if the protasis be thus understood, the apodosis is 
 not suited to it, ‘‘inasmuch as no other case could be supposed in which the 
 husband could be won, without words, by the conduct of his wife, than that of 
 his being disobedient to the Word,” and that the difficulty can only be removed if 
 εἴ vives be interpreted as equal to οἵτινες. But the difficulty Hofmann alludes to 
 clearly still remains, though in fact it has no existence if only the idea ἀπειθοῦσι 
 receive the precision it is entitled to. 
 
154 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 good behaviour of the wives. On the indie. with ἵνα, cf. 
 Winer, p. 269 ff. [E. T. 361]. 
 
 Ver. 2. Emomrevcavres τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν 
 ὑμῶν] for ἐποπτ., οἵ. chap. 11.12. The participial clause here 
 serves as a further explanation of the preceding διὰ k.T.A. — 
 ἁγνός : “ chaste,’ in the full extent of the word, not only in 
 contradistinetion to πορνεία proper, but to whatsoever violates 
 the moral relation of the subjection of the wife to her 
 husband. This ἁγνεία is determined by ἐν φόβῳ (not equal to, 
 in timore Dei conservato: Glossa interl.; Grotius too, Bengel, 
 Jachmann, Weiss, Fronmiiller, etc., understand by &0ßos here 
 the “fear of God”), as connected in the closest possible way 
 with the shrinking from every violation of duty towards the 
 husband ;? ef. chap. ii. 18. 
 
 Ver. 3. ὧν ἔστω] The genitive ὧν does not depend on a 
 κόσμος to be supplied from the predicate ὁ ἔξωθεν... 
 κόσμος (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); such a con- 
 struction, arbitrary in itself, is here entirely inadmissible on 
 account of the remoteness of the predicate, from which the 
 idea wanting is to be taken. The genitive is rather ruled by 
 ἔστω. εἶναί τινος expresses, as usual, the relation of belong- 
 ing to; the sense is therefore: “whose business let it be,” ü.e. 
 who have to occupy themselves with.” — οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν «.T.A.] 
 As often in our epistle, the negative preceding the positive. — 
 ὁ ἔξωθεν is closely joined together with κόσμος. The genitives 
 which stand between, and are dependent on κόσμος, serve to 
 determine the idea more precisely ; their position immediately 
 after ὁ ἔξωθεν is explained from the intention of the writer 
 to lay special emphasis on them, since it belongs to women to 
 take pleasure in adorning themselves in this wise. The 
 
 1 Schott unwarrantably maintains that in this interpretation it is not ὠνασσροφή 
 which is more precisely defined by the homogeneous adjectival expression ἐν φόβῳ 
 ἁγνή, but ἁγνὴ dveorp. by ἐν φόβῳ. 
 
 ? When Hofmann would advance against this construction that the affirmative 
 subject (ver. 4) is not suitable to it, ‘‘ since it may be said of the hidden man of 
 the heart, that it should be the woman’s adornment, but not that it should be 
 her business, for she herself is that hidden man,” it must be observed in reply 
 that it is not ὃ xpurcis . . . ἄνθρωπος in itself, but 6 xpurcis . . . ἄνθρωπος ἐν σῶ 
 ἀφθάρτῳ x.¢.2., which is to be taken as that which should be characteristic of 
 
 women ; as Hofmann also in his expositions says, the adornment of women is 
 not indicated by the simple, but by the compound expression. 
 
CHAP. 111. 4. 155 
 
 whole expression is to be interpreted thus: “ outward adorn- 
 ment wrought by the plaiting of hair, the wearing of gold, or 
 the putting on of apparel.” — ἐμπλοκή, am. rey. (in the 
 passage specially to be compared with this, 1 Tim. ii. 9, πλέγ- 
 para is used), not: “the plaits,” but “the plaiting ;” it is an 
 active idea, like mepideoıs and ἔνδυσις : “ these verbalia de- 
 seribe the vain occupation of worldly women” (Wies.); χρύσια 
 are golden ornaments generally. — The last two members of the 
 clause, united by ἤ, are connected with the first by καί, because 
 they have reference to things which are put on the body. 
 
 Ver. 4. As antithesis to what precedes, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἔσωθεν κόσμος 
 would have been expected; instead of this, however, the 
 author at once states in what that adornment does consist. 
 — 0 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος) does not mean: the 
 virtutes christ. quas Spir. s. per regenerationem in homine 
 operatur (Gerhard; so, too, Wiesinger and Fronmiiller), for 
 here there is no mention either of the Holy Ghost or of 
 regeneration. It denotes simply the inner man, in contradis- 
 tinction to the outward man (so, too, de Wette, Briickner, 
 Weiss, Schott, Hofmann); κρυπτός, antithesis to ἔξωθεν, ver. 3; 
 cf. ὁ ἔσω avOp., Rom. vii. 22; Eph. iii. 16; ὁ ἔσωθεν, sc. avOp., 
 2 Cor. iv. 16; οὗ, too, such expressions as: T4 κρυπτὰ τῆς 
 καρδίας, 1 Cor. xiv. 25, and τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἄνθρ., Rom. 11. 16. 
 The apostle selected the expression κρυπτός as a contrast to 
 the conspicuous adornment formerly spoken of. τῆς καρδίας 
 is not gen. qualitatis (Schott) ; καρδία itself denotes no quality; 
 it is the genitive of apposition subjoined, in that καρδία is the 
 seat of the feeling and the disposition. — ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ] τὸ 
 ἄφθαρτον, substantive (like φθαρτά, chap. i. 18), “the imperish- 
 able” (incorrectly, Hofmann: ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, sc. κύσμῳ), in 
 contrast to the perishable ornaments above mentioned. The 
 prepos. ἐν points out the sphere in which the inner hidden 
 man should move. If “ ὧν ὁ κόσμος ἔστω" be supplied after 
 ἀλλά, then “ ἐν is to be joined with it, so as to show in what, 
 and with what, this their inward hidden man should be their 
 ornament” (Schott; so, too, Hofmann). — τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ 
 ἡσυχίου πνεύματος] a more exact definition of the ἄφθαρτον; it 
 denotes not the wv. ἅγιον of God, but the spirit of man. The 
 meek and quiet spirit (here emphasized with special reference 
 
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 to ὑποτασσόμενοι, ver. 1) is that “ imperishable,” in which the 
 hidden life of woman should exist and move. —6 ἐστιν ἐνώπιον 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ πολυτελές] 6 does not apply to the whole (Grotius), 
 nor to τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ (Bengel, Pott, Steiger, Schott), since it is 
 self-evident that the ἄφθαρτον is in God’s eyes πολυτελές. It 
 is to be taken with the immediately preceding: πνεύματος (de 
 Wette, Wiesinger). Such a πνεῦμα is, in the judgment of 
 God (1 Tim. ii. 3), πολυτελές (Mark xiv. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 9), 
 whilst outward adornment, worthless to the divine mind, 
 possesses a value only in the eyes of men? 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. οὕτω γάρ] ground for the exhortation: ὧν ἔστω, 
 etc., by the example of the saintly women of the O. T. οὕτω 
 refers back to what precedes. — ποτὲ καὶ ai ἅγιαι γυναῖκες] 
 ποτέ, i.e. in the time of the Old Covenant.—dayvat: because they 
 belonged to the chosen people of God (Schott), and their life 
 was sanctified and consecrated to God in faith. — ai ἐλπίζουσαι. 
 eis [ἐπὶ] Θεόν] cf. 1 Tim.v. 5. This nearer definition is sub- 
 joined not only because hope in God, zc. in ‘the fulfilment of 
 His promises, was the characteristic mark of the piety of these 
 holy women, rooted as it was in faith, but specially “to explain 
 why it did not, and could not, occur to them ever to delight 
 in empty show” (Hofmann).?— With ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς, cf. 
 1 Tim. 11. 9.— ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἀνδράσιν is linked on to 
 
 1 The two expressions : πραῦς and ἡσύχιος, must not be sharply distinguished ; 
 πραὔτης stands contrasted specially with ὀργή (Jas. 1. 20, 21) or ζῆλος (Jas. iii. 
 13, 14), synonymous with ἐσιεικεία (2 Cor. x. 1), μακροθυμία (Col. iii. 12), 
 ὑσομονή (1 Tim. vi. 11), etc. ; it is peculiar to him who does not allow himself to 
 be provoked to wrath. ἡσυχία is related to ἀκαταστασία ; a ἡσύχιος is he who is 
 peaceable and does not care for noisy life. Bengel interprets : mansuetus (πραύς): 
 qui non turbat ; tranquillus (ἡσύχιος) : qui turbas aliorum fert placide ; the con- 
 trary would be more correct. 
 
 2 Luther: ‘‘ A woman should be thus disposed as not to care for adornment. 
 Else when people turn their minds to adornment, they never give it up ; that is 
 their way and their nature; therefore, a Christian woman should despise it. 
 But if her husband wish it, or there be some other good reason for adorning 
 herself, then she is right to do so.” Calvin, too, rightly observes: Non 
 quemvis cultum reprehendere voluit Petrus, sed morbum vanitatis, quo mulieres 
 laborant. 
 
 3 According to Schott, this addition is meant to express that ‘‘the complete 
 development of the Christian church, to which they belonged, was only as yet 
 an object of hope ;” but this introduces a reference which the words do not 
 oontain. 
 
CHAP. II. 5, 6. 19% 
 
 ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς, showing wherein lay the proof that they had 
 adorned themselves with the meek and quiet spirit. There is 
 but one (de Wette) characteristic indeed here mentioned, but, 
 according to the connection, it is the chief manifestation of 
 that spirit. It is incorrect to resolve (as was formerly done 
 in the commentary) the participle into: “ from this fact, that.” 
 — Ver. 6. ὡς Zappa ὑπήκουσε τῷ Aßpaay] A simple compari- 
 son of the contents of the two passages is a sufficient refuta- 
 tion of de Wette’s supposition that, in the words before us, 
 there is a reference to Heb. xi 11.— os: particula allegandi 
 exemplum: Bengel. Sarah is mentioned, because, as the wife 
 of Abraham and ancestress of the people of Israel, she had 
 especial significance in the history of redemption.’ — ὑπήκουσε 
 refers not merely to the single case which the apostle had 
 partieularly before his mind, but denotes the habitual be- 
 haviour of Sarah towards Abraham: the aor. is used here as 
 in Gal. iv. 8 (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). — κύριον αὐτὸν 
 καλοῦσα] she showed herself submissive to the will of 
 Abraham in this, that she called him κύριος. The allusion is 
 here to Gen. xviii. 12 (cf. also 1 Sam. i. 8, LXX.).— ἧς 
 ἐγενήθητε τέκνα] Lorinus: non successione generis, sed imita- 
 tione fidei; Pott incorrectly explains the aorist by the future 
 (ἔσεσθε) ; the translation, too, of the Vulg.: estis, is inexact ; 
 Luther is right: “whose daughters ye are become.” As Paul 
 calls the believing heathen, on account of their faith, children 
 of Abraham, so Peter here styles the women who had become 
 Christians, children of Sarah. — ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι] does not 
 belong to ὑποτασσόμεναι, as if ὡς Σάῤῥα... τέκνα were a 
 parenthesis (Bengel, Ernesti, etc.), but to ἐγενήθητε, not, how- 
 ever, as stating how they become (Weiss, p. 110 £.)” or “have 
 
 ! Schott applies ὡς to that which directly precedes, in this sense : that “the 
 conduct of the holy women was regulated only according to the standard of 
 Sarah.” Hofmann thus : that Sarah ‘‘ is mentioned as a shining example of the 
 conduct of holy women.” Both are wrong, since neither is alluded to by as. 
 
 2 It must be held, with Wiesinger, Brückner, and Schott, in opposition to 
 Weiss and Fronmiiller, that it is more natural to take these words as applying 
 to Gentile-Christian rather than to Jewish-Christian readers. For inasmuch as 
 the latter, before their conversion, were already τέκνα τῆς Σάῤῥως, some allusion 
 must have been made to their not having been so in a vight manner, and as they 
 
 now had become. It does not follow from John viii. 39 (as Weiss thinks) that 
 an allusion of this kind was unnecessary. 
 
158 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 become” children of Sarah (to the first interpretation the aorist 
 ἐγενήθητε is opposed, to the latter the pres. partic.), but as 
 showing the mark by which they proved themselves children 
 of Sarah. It may be resolved into: “since,” or: “ that is to say 
 if,’ ete. It is grammatically incorrect to see in ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι 
 the result of ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα, and to explain: “in this 
 way have they become the children of Sarah, that they are 
 now in accordance therewith ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι and μὴ poBovpevar” 
 (Schott). By ἀγαθοποιεῖν is to be understood here not speci- 
 ally benevolence (Oecum.);* the word denotes rather the whole 
 moral activity of Christian life in its fullest extent, although 
 here, as the connection shows, with particular reference to 
 the marriage relation. — καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν] 
 πτόησις equals φόβος (Pollux v. 122: συστολὴ, θόρυβος, 
 ταραχή), in the N. T. ἅπ. Ney. (Luke xxi. 9, xxxvii. 9, the verb 
 πτοηθέντες is connected with ἔμφοβοι γενόμενοι) ; it denotes 
 not the object causing fear, but the fear itself which is felt; 
 and it can be looked on either objectively as a power threaten- 
 ing man, or laying hold of him (as Prov. 111. 25, LXX.: καὶ 
 ov φοβηθήσῃ πτόησιν ἐπελθοῦσαν ; 1 Mace. 111. 25: ἡ πτόησις 
 ἐπιπίπτει ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ; the synonymous terms φόβος, τρόμος, 
 are used also in a like manner), or taken in a sense purely 
 subjective. Most commentators understand πτόησις here in 
 the first of these senses, only they do not take the conception 
 strictly by itself, but identify it with that which causes fear ; 
 in the first edition of this commentary the second meaning is 
 attributed to πτόησις : φοβεῖσθαι mronow equal to φοβεῖσθαι 
 φόβον: “to experience fear” (Mark iv. 41; Luke ii. 9; ef. 
 Winer, p. 210 £.[E.T. 280]); but this explanation is opposed by 
 the fact “that in such a connection the substantive must be taken 
 not in idea only, but in form also from the verb” (Briickner). 
 The idea here is quite as universal as in ayador.; and accord- 
 ingly it must be conceived as the fear generally which the enmity 
 of the unbelieving world occasions to believers ; still, according 
 to the connection, the apostle had doubtless in his mind more 
 particularly the conduct of heathen men towards their Chris- 
 tian wives.—Luther’s translation is inexact: “if ye... are 
 
 1 Mera σοῦ εὐκόσμου καὶ πρέποντος Χριστιανοῖς κόσμου καὶ ἐλεήμονας αὐτὰ; εἶναι 
 
 3 € ; x ἘΞ 5 ee SE ; 
 παραινεῖ, μηδὲν ὑποβλεπόμενας τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτῶν διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλογισμόν, 
 
CHAP. III. 7. 159 
 
 not so fearful.” The rendering of Stephanus is incorrect, s.v. 
 ‘mTonots: jubentur mulieres officium facere etiam, cum nullus 
 eas metus constringit i. e. sponte et ultro. 
 
 Ver. 7. οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως] ὁμοίως, with the participle follow- 
 ing, refers back, as in ver. 1, to ὑποτώγητε πάσῃ ἄνθρ. κτίσει, 
 with which the exhortation begins (Hofmann); though there 
 is no ὑποτασσόμενοι (cf. ii. 18, iii. 1), there lies something 
 corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part 
 possesses a τιμή to be acknowledged by the husband. Pott 
 erroneously renders ὁμοίως by “ vicissim, on the other hand ;” 
 nor is it, as de Wette thinks probable, to be expanded: “in 
 like manner, ye men also, hear my exhortation.” — ovvor- 
 kodvres] συνοικεῖν (Am. dey.) is not a euphemismus de tori 
 conjugalis consuetudine (Hieronym. contra Jovian. lib. 1. c. 4; 
 Augustin. in Ps. exlvi. ete.); the reference is rather to life 
 together at home. — κατὰ γνῶσιν] As γνῶσις is here anar- 
 throus, it is wrong to understand γνῶσις as referring directly 
 to “ Christian recognition of the relation of wife to husband” 
 (Brückner, Schott); κατὰ γνῶσιν is rather an adverbial ex- 
 pression, in which γνῶσις is to be understood generally, as 
 Wiesinger correctly remarks: “according to recognition, 1.0. so 
 that home life must be regulated by knowledge and under- 
 standing” (so also Hofmann). Similar adverbial expressions, 
 formed by a conjunction of κατά with an anarthrous subst., 
 occur frequently both in classical and N. T. Greek. It is 
 evident from the context that cata γνῶσιν has here special 
 reference to the marriage relation; but from this it does not 
 follow that the interpretation: “in a judicious, discerning 
 manner, or Luther’s: “ with reason,” is incorrect (in opposi- 
 tion to Briickner and Schott). De Wette is completely mis- 
 taken in rendering γνῶσις by: “that knowledge of men and 
 self, in fact, that inward discernment, which is the condition 
 of all moderation,” as is Bengel also directly by : moderatio.' — 
 ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ] is erroneously connected 
 
 ! Oecumenius understands this exhortation in connection with ver. 6 as having 
 a special application to the household : of ἄνδρες. . . συνοικοῦντες᾽ τουτέστιν: αἴσθησιν 
 ΄ ~ ~ ar ΄ \ “ν᾽ ΄ ᾽ ~ SA: ΄ 
 λαμβάνοντες τῆς τοῦ θήλεος κουφότητος καὶ τοῦ εὐπαραφόρου ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ εἰς μικροψυχίαν 
 εὐολίσθου, μαωκρόθυμοι γίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτὰς, μὴ λόγον ἀπαιτοῦντες πικρῶς τῶν κατὰ τὴν 
 οἰκίων αὐτῶν εἰς ταμιείαν παρακατεθέτων. 
 
160 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 by Luther and others with ἀπονέμοντες ; it belongs, however, 
 to συνοικοῦντες, which requires a nearer definition. — The 
 word σκεῦος is used to designate the wife in 1 Thess. iv. 4 (see 
 Lünemann in loc.) with reference to the husband; the same 
 meaning, though with various applications, is here attributed 
 to it by many interpreters. Beza: est femina vas i. e. comes 
 et adjutrix viro ad fideliter coram Deo transigendam vitam 
 adjuncta ; Bengel: denotat hoc sexum et totum ingenium 
 temperamentumque foemineum. But this view is incorrect, 
 for τῷ γυναικείῳ, sc. σκεύει, is subjoined by way of explana- 
 tion, and the comparative ἀσθ. shows that the husband also 
 is thought of as σκεῦος. σκεῦος must be taken here in its 
 specific meaning of a utensil (or instrument) serving a par- 
 ticular purpose, and is accordingly to be understood as 
 specially applicable to man, in so far as the latter is used by 
 God for the accomplishment of His will (cf. Acts ix. 15). It 
 is inaccurate, nor can it be justified by Rom. ix. 21 ff, to take 
 the word in the general sense of “creation” (so Wiesinger, 
 and formerly in this commentary). Hofmann understands 
 σκεῦος here as referring both to the husband and the wife, 
 inasmuch as “in a life united in marriage, one part is destined 
 to be and to accomplish something for the other;” but the 
 reference to this mutual relation is purely arbitrary.! — 
 aodevestepw] Bengel: Comparativus, etiam vir habet infirmi- 
 tatem ; in like manner Steiger: “the less weak is called upon 
 to assist the more weak” (thus also Fronmüller). This view 
 is, however, incorrect ; it is the husband rather as the stronger 
 oKxevos—there is no reference made here to his weakness— 
 who is here contrasted with the wife as the weaker (de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). And, because he is such a 
 σκεῦος, it is demanded of him that he live with his wife κατὰ 
 γνῶσιν ; ὡς here also states the reason: because the wife is a 
 ok. ἀσθενενέστερον, it is accordingly incumbent on the man to 
 behave towards her κατὰ γνῶσιν. Schott erroneously sees in 
 
 1 Schott arbitrarily asserts that the creature is here termed σκεῦος, “as a 
 vessel which is destined to receive into itself, as its real contents, the realization 
 of the divine will.” Even though a vessel containing something can be termed 
 a σκεῦος, it does not follow that σκεῦος must be understood as meaning this and 
 nothing else, 
 
CHAP. III. 7. 161 
 
 κατὰ γνῶσιν the determining reason why the man should 
 treat her as a ox. aoO.; but this can the less be maintained, 
 that «. yv. cannot signify: “because he recognises her as 
 such,” but states the manner of the συνοικεῖν. ---- ἀσθενεστέρῳ 
 σκεύει, stands in apposition to τῷ γυναικείῳ, sc. σκεύει, and is 
 put first by way of emphasis. — γυναικεῖος, dz. Aey., Lev. 
 myn 22>) Dents zei du EXX x Esthy ἢ 11 74 a7rove- 
 novres τιμήν] “in that ye show honour (respect) to them ;” 
 ἀπονέμειν in the N. T. da. Aey.— The participle is not co- 
 ordinate with the foregoing (cvvotxody Tes), but subordinate to 
 it, since it brings prominently forward one of the chief ways 
 in which the preceding exhortation may be carried into effect. 
 The thought here must not be arbitrarily limited to any 
 special relation (e.g. to that of maintenance or of continence, 
 ete.). The husband should, in every relation, show the respect 
 due to his wife. — ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις --οἱ] xapıros ζωῆς] 
 serves as ground of the exhortation; if the reading be: συγ- 
 κληρονόμοις, the reference is to the wives; if συγκληρονόμοι, 
 to the husbands (in opposition to Pott, who somewhat sineu- 
 larly interprets as equal to eioı yap συγκληρονόμοι, sc. ai 
 γυναῖκες). The dative is more in harmony with the structure 
 of the sentence and the thought, and therefore is to be 
 preferred to the nom. supported by the authorities; although 
 the nom. may be defended on the ground that husbands, as 
 cvykX. of their wives, should in turn regard the latter as their 
 συγκλ. But since this last is really the point of importance, 
 it can hardly be assumed that the apostle would only have 
 hinted at it— without openly giving expression to it.' — καὶ 
 συγκληρονόμοις] de Wette-Brückner explain: “as (those who) 
 
 1 In the 2d edition of this Commentary it was said: “Why should not the 
 apostle base his exhortation to the men to honour their wives, by reminding 
 them (the men) that they are called to inherit the χάρις ζωῆς along with their 
 wives?” Reiche says: scilicet quia absurdum (!) esset, sic argumentari ; 
 Brückner maintains that meaning to be “ altogether inappropriate and foreign 
 to the purpose of the address.” These assertions, however, can by no means be 
 accepted, since the consciousness of being a fellow-heir of salvation with any one 
 may very well lead to a recognition of the τιμή which he possesses. Nor is 
 there anything improbable in the circumstance itself, that the apostle, whilst 
 basing the exhortation: συνοικεῖν κατὰ γνῶσιν, on the position of the women, 
 should ground the ὠπονέμειν σιμήν on the position of the men.—Schott passes too 
 lightly over the whole question. 
 
 1 PETER. L 
 
162 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 also (like yourselves) (are) fellow-heirs (one with another).” 
 The reference here attributed to ovv—simply on account of 
 xai—is inappropriate, since it is a thought entirely foreign to 
 the context, that the wives are heirs with each other. If the 
 reading συγκληρονόμοις be adopted, συν applies to the hus- 
 bands, equivalent to “with you;” kai may stand with refer- 
 ence to the foregoing ἀσθενεστέρῳ, adding a second particular 
 to it (Schott); or it may also serve simply to intensify συν, 
 since, strictly speaking, it is redundant.' If, however, cvy- 
 κληρονόμοι be read, καί is to be taken in the latter way, and 
 is not to be explained thus: “by ἀπονέμοντες something 
 further is enjoined, which goes beyond the .. . κατὰ γνῶσιν" 
 (Hofmann) ; for ovvorkodvres κατὰ γνῶσιν stands imperatively, 
 whilst συγκληρονόμοι does not say what the husbands should 
 be, but what they are. With the idea κληρονόμοι, cf. chap. 1. 4; 
 the expression συγκληρ., Rom. viii. 17; Eph. iii. 6; Heb. 
 xi. 9.—yadpitos ζωῆς] ζωῆς states in what the χάρις, of 
 which they are and will be κληρονόμοι, consists. It is 
 erroneous to resolve the expression into χάρις ζῶσα (Erasmus) 
 or χάρις ζωοποιοῦσα (Grotius). Hofmann, assuming ovy- 
 κληρονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος ζωῆς to be the true reading, 
 gives an interpretation different from the above: “as such who, 
 with their wives, share a life of manifold grace, 1.6. of those 
 divine favours which are experienced in common in every 
 marriage by believers and unbelievers.” In this way, how- 
 ever, justice is done to neither of the ideas, nor is it pointed 
 out what the favours in married life referred to are.’ — eis 
 τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι (Lec. ἐκκόπτεσθαι) Tas προσευχὰς ὑμῶν] 
 
 1 On the redundance of καί in comparisons, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 548] ; but 
 this use of it cannot be appealed to, since ὡς here is not a comparative particle. 
 Wiesinger thinks that σὺν perhaps contains the reference to a community to 
 which man and wife equally belong ; but what this was, would have been indi- 
 cated by the context, as Eph. iii. 6; such, however, is not the case here. To 
 the expression ‘‘strictly” Reiche adds a ?, without ever thinking that, since 
 the same idea is expressed by καί and σὺν, one of the two must be redundant, 
 and that ‘“‘strictly” is only meant to show that καί is in so far not purely 
 redundant, that it serves to strengthen the idea expressed by σὺν. 
 
 * There is no warrant for the opinion that the apostle’s exhortation must 
 apply also to such husbands as have unbelieving wives, since a case so special 
 might well have been passed over. If the apostle had wished to make reference 
 to this, he would in some way have alluded to it; cf. ver. 1 ff. 
 
CHAP, III. 8. 163 
 
 ἐγκόπτειν, strictly, incidere, then intereidere, from which 
 arises the further meaning impedire (Hes. ἐμποδίζειν, δια- 
 κωλύειν) ; ἐκκόπτειν, pr. excidere, whence stirpitus delere ; cf. 
 Job xix. 10, LXX.: ἐξέκοψε δὲ ὥσπερ δένδρον τὴν ἐλπίδα 
 μου; the idea of the latter word is stronger than that of the 
 former, but the thought in both readings remains substantially 
 the same, since both expressions denote the ceasing of prayer. 
 Wiesinger incorrectly understands the meaning of the term 
 Eykomrr. to be: “prayer in the meantime there still is, but the 
 way is closed to it.” In like manner de Wette, following 
 Bretschneider: ne viam praecludatis precibus vestris, remarks : 
 “ Prayer is by sin hindered from mounting up to the throne of 
 God;” and such is in substance Hofmann’s view." This idea 
 would, however, have been more definitely expressed. The 
 apostle does not say that the power and the hearing of prayer 
 are hindered, but that the prayer itself is (this also in opposi- 
 tion to Reiche). In harmony with the connection of this 
 last clause, by τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν is to be understood either 
 the joint prayer of married persons (Weiss, p. 352),? or the 
 prayers which those here addressed offer up, as the husbands 
 of their wives (or, further, as heads of households). Deprecia- 
 tion of the wife, in spite of union with respect to the «Anpo- 
 vouia, necessarily excludes prayer from married life.” Schott: 
 “Where the husband does not recognise that the union of 
 natural life in marriage is also union in the state of grace, 
 there can naturally be no expression of the spiritual and 
 Christian fellowship of marriage, no prayer in common.” 
 
 Ver. 8. Exhortations of a general character follow, without 
 
 1 In this interpretation the reference to the coming of prayer to God is a 
 simple importation. Hofmann adds to the interpretation, that ‘‘the sighs of the 
 wife bar the road to the husband’s prayers, by accusing him to God before his 
 prayer, thus rendered worthless, reaches Him.” But this is a thought altogether 
 foreign to the context. 
 
 2 Although in ver. 7 it is the husbands who are addressed, still, as the verse 
 treats of their behaviour towards their wives, ὑμῶν can well apply to both. 
 
 3 Hieronymus, Oecumenius, etc., apply the words according to 1 Cor. vii. 3, 
 ad honorem impertiendum uxoribus a viris, qui sit abstinentia a congressu, ut 
 orationi vacare possint (Lorinus), which is connected with the false interpreta- 
 tion of συνοικοῦντες ; Nicol. de Lyra says more correctly: cum vir et uxor non 
 sunt bene concordes, minus possunt orationi vacare. The Scholion in Matthaei, 
 p. 199, is inadequate : 6 γὰρ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν θόρυβος τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν ἔργων ἐμπόδιον. 
 
164 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 regard to the various conditions of men, yet in connection with 
 chap. ü. 11 ff They deal with the relations of the Christians 
 towards each other, and towards those who are inimically 
 disposed to them. — τὸ δὲ τέλος] here adverbially : “finally, 
 lastly ;” in the classics τέλος δέ occurs frequently. Pott 
 explains erroneously, by appeal to 1 Tim. i. 5: pro κατὰ δὲ 
 τὸ τέλος summa cohortationum mearum jam eo redit (in like 
 manner Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Steiger, etc.). Oecumenius 
 marks the transition very well thus: τὲ χρὴ ἰδιολογεῖσθαι ; 
 ἁπλῶς πᾶσι φημί" τοῦτο yap τέλος καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ὁ σκόπος 
 ἐφορᾷ τῆς σωτηρίας. ---- πάντες) emphatically, in contrast to 
 what preceded: slaves and masters, husbands and wives. — 
 ἔστε or some such word is usually supplied here; it is more 
 correct, however, to consider the following adjectives, etc., as 
 standing in a dependence similar to that of the parkieiples 
 ‘anes ; only that the apostle has in his mind, instead of the 
 particular ὑποτάγητε x.7.r. in 11. 13, the more general exhor- 
 tation to obedience toward God.— ὁμόφρονες] in the N. T. 
 dm. Ney. (Theognis, 81, ὁμόφρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντες) ; frequently 
 ro αὐτο φρονεῖν, Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii 11; Phil. 
 ii. 2; similar expressions, 1 Cor. i. 10; ΤῊΝ iv. 3; Phil. 
 11. 16 ; Luther: “ like-minded.” — συμπαθεῖς] “ sympathizing,” 
 in N. T. da. Xey.; the verb, Heb. iv. 15, x. 34; for the 
 explanation, comp. Rom. xii. 15. Oecumenius explains: 
 συμπάθεια" ὁ πρὸς τοὺς κακῶς πάσχοντας ὡς Kal ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς 
 ἔλεος ; where, however, it is incorrect to limit the appli- 
 cation to suffering only. Bengel: ouodp.: mente, συμπα- 
 Geis: affectu in rebus secundis et adversis. — dıAadeAdor] 
 “ brotherly,” Luther ; also ἅπ. Aey.; the substantive occurs in 
 chap. i. 22. — εὔσπλαγχνοι] to be found, besides here, in Eph. 
 iv. 32, “compassionate ;” in classical Greek: qui robustis est 
 visceribus, as in Hippocr. p. 89 C; and figuratively equal to 
 εὐκάρδιος, avopetos; in the sense of compassionate it does 
 not occur in the classics. — ταπεινόφρονες] am. Aey.; the 
 ταπεινοφροσύνη (humility) as well before God (Acts xx. 19) 
 as towards our neighbour (chap. v. 5, Phil. ii. 3, where it is 
 joined with σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ) ; here, with the latter refer- 
 ence. — Calvin: humilitas praecipuum conservandae amicitiae 
 vinculum. Hofmann justly questions whether “ὑποτάσσομαυ, 
 
CHAP. III. 9. 165 
 
 the leading idea of the series of exhortations which here comes 
 to a close, is, as it were, echoed in ταπεινόφρ.᾽ (Wiesinger). 
 For a panegyric on humility, see Lorinus in loc. In the 
 classics ταπεινόφρων means “ mean-spirited and faint-hearted.” 
 The word φιλόφρονες (spurious here) is explained by Gerhard: 
 qui student facere ea quae alteri amica sunt et grata. The 
 first three expressions show the loving relation in which 
 Christians stand to each other; the last two (or three), the 
 conduct of Christians towards all without distinction (Hof- 
 mann). 
 
 Ver. 9. Behaviour towards the hostile world. μὴ ἀποδι- 
 δόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ] the same phrase occurs Rom. xii. 17, 
 1 Thess. v. 15; comp. Matt. v. 43 ff.— ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ 
 λοιδορίας] comp. chap. ii. 23. Nicol. de Lyra: non reddentes 
 malum pro malo in factis injuriosis, nec maledictam pro male- 
 dicta in verbis contentiosis. — τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες] 1... 
 in return for κακόν and λοιδορία ; εὐλογεῖν in the N. T., when 
 used of man, is equal to bona apprecari, opposed to karapäac- 
 Gat; cf. Matt. v.44; Luke vi. 28 ; Rom. xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; 
 Jas. iii. 9. Taken in this sense (Wiesinger, Brückner, Hof- 
 mann’), it expresses simply the opposite of the preceding 
 λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας. It is more in harmony with the 
 context, however, to understand it as referring equally to 
 κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ; in which case it will have a wider sense, 
 and be equivalent to “wishing well and showing kindness by 
 word and deed” (Fronmüller). This is supported by the 
 subsequent εὐλογίαν; nor does the N. T. usage stand in the 
 way, in so far as in 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6, at least, εὐλογία denotes 
 something accomplished by human action, though Hofmann 
 strangely seeks to lessen its force by understanding it of “a 
 personal greeting.” — ὅτε eis τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε] comp. chap. ii. 21. 
 — ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε] From chap. ii. 21 it is natural 
 to take eis τοῦτο as referring to what precedes (εὐλογοῦντες) 
 
 1 Schott no doubt insists that the blessing of man is accomplished in word 
 only and not in deed, but he does not say whether it means a wish expressed in 
 prayer (bona apprecari), or whether any operation through the word is to be 
 understood, for he renders εὐλογεῖν by “to bestow good in word.” If the former 
 be implied, then it is wrong to say: “that God’s blessing is in truth accom- 
 panied by deeds, but man’s must stop short at the word.” If the second, then 
 man’s blessing is also in deed. 
 
166 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 (Oecumenius, Grotius, Calvin, Steiger, de Wette-Briickner, 
 Fronmiiller, Reiche, Hofmann, etc.) ; in which case ἵνα would 
 belong either to εὐλογοῦντες, ὅτε... ἐκλήθητε thus forming a 
 parenthesis, or to ἐκλήθητε. But in the first case the close 
 connection of the clauses is broken, whilst in the second the 
 somewhat inadequate idea arises, that we are called upon to 
 bless, in order that we ourselves may obtain a blessing. It is 
 therefore better to take eis τοῦτο with the subsequent wa 
 (Luther, Beza, Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.); comp. chap. 
 iv. 6; John xviii. 37; Rom. xiv. 9. The consciousness that 
 we, as Christians, are called to obtain a blessing, should be an 
 incitement to us to bring blessing to others ; the more so, that 
 otherwise we shall fall short of the blessing to which we are 
 called. On εὐλογίαν Bengel rightly remarks: benedictionem 
 aeternam, cujus primitias jam nunc pii habent. If εἰδότες 
 before örı be the correct reading, it must be taken as in chap. 
 118, 
 
 Vv. 10-12, Quoted from Ps. xxxiv. 13-17, IX a 
 strengthening the foregoing exhortations by a reference to the 
 divine judgment. In the original the first clause forms an 
 interrogation, to which the following clauses, in the second 
 person imperative, give the answer. —0 yap θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾷν, 
 καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς] The translation of the LXX., an 
 inexact reproduction of the Hebrew,' runs: τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος 
 ὁ θέλων ζωὴν, ἀγαπῶν ἡμέρας ayabds; Peter’s deviation from 
 it by the conjunction of θέλων ἀγαπᾷν is striking. — θέλων 
 is not used adverbially here, equivalent to “ fain ;” but neither 
 must another conception be substituted for ἀγαπᾷν; de 
 Wette: “he who will show? love for life” (ü.e. a yearning desire 
 
 1 In the original Hebrew the passage is: 
 
 ONn pany DIN 
 
 ain nisnd Dip) sank 
 2 Similarly already the Glossa interl.: qui vult ostendere, se dilectionem 
 habere.— Lorinus thinks that the combination of the two words serves to 
 intensify the idea : si recte dieitur quis concupiscere, desiderare (Ps. exviii. 20), 
 quidni velle, quod est verbum generale, amare? Innuit duplicatio non solum 
 vehementiam desiderii amorisve, sed infirmitatem quoque carnis revocantis sub- 
 inde voluntatem, ne ita velit acriter et assiduo. But in Ps. exviii. 20 (Vulg.: 
 
 concupivit anima mea desiderare justificationes tuas) the connection is different 
 from here. 
 
CHAP, IL 10-12. 167 
 
 after it). The idea “show,” besides being an arbitrary intro- 
 duction, is inappropriate, inasmuch as it is love of life itself, and 
 not the showing of it, that is here in question. Wiesinger is 
 more happy: “He who is really in earnest as to the love of life.” 
 θέλων is then to be explained on the principle that love of 
 ζωή, no less than the possession of it, is conditioned by a 
 certain course of conduct on the part of man. Bengel, appeal- 
 ing to Eccles. ii. 17, interprets still better: qui vult ita vivere, 
 ut ipsum non taedeat vitae; 1.0. who will have life so that he 
 cam love it; so, too, Schott ; similarly Hofmann, only that the 
 latter unnecessarily understands ἀγαπᾷν to mean simply “ to 
 enjoy a thing.”—xal ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ayadas] with ἐδεῖν in this 
 connection, comp. Luke ii. 26; Heb. xi. 5; John iii. 3. — The 
 passage in the Psalms has evidently reference to earthly 
 happiness; according to de Wette, on the other hand, the 
 apostle had the future and eternal life in view here; this, 
 however, is not the case, for in the passage before us the 
 reference is likewise to the present life (Wiesinger, Schott, 
 and Brückner), only it must be observed that for the believer 
 happiness in this life consists in something different from that 
 of the man of the world; to the former, days of suffering also 
 may be ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί, If this be correct, γάρ cannot refer 
 to the thought immediately preceding, but only “to the whole 
 exhortation, vv. 8, 9” (Wiesinger, Schott). — παυσάτω «.T.X.] 
 The LXX., keeping to the Hebrew original, here and in what 
 follows preserve the second person. —aveıv, “to cause to cease, 
 to hold back;” in classical Greek never joined with ἀπό; the 
 subsequent genitive τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι stands in conformity with 
 the use of the verb among the Greeks; comp. Winer, p. 305 
 [E. T. 409]. — κακόν has a wider range than δόλος - there is 
 no ground for limiting the application of the term here simply 
 to words of reprimand (de Wette). With δόλος, comp. chap. 
 il. 1, 22.— Ver. 11. ἐκκλινάτω δὲ κ.τ.λ.] ἐκκλίνειν ἀπό ; comp. 
 Rom. xvi. 17. The same thought in the same words, Ps. 
 xxxvil. 27; comp. further, Isa. i. 16,17; Rom. xii, 9.— δὲ 
 if it be genuine, serves to bring into prominence the new idea, 
 distinct from the preceding. — ζητησάτω κ.τ.λ.] διώκειν (comp. 
 1 Tim. vi. 11, etc.), stronger than ζητεῖν (comp. Matt. vi. 33 ; 
 Col. iii. 1). — The first half contains the general thought, the 
 
168 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 second emphasizes one more special. Although the exhorta- 
 tions of the apostle refer more particularly to the conduct of 
 Christians towards their persecutors, yet they are not confined 
 to this, but go beyond it (in opposition to Schott). — Ver. 12. 
 ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου K.T.A.] ὅτι is inserted by the apostle in 
 order to mark more precisely the connection of thought. The 
 exhortations are founded on a reference to the manner of God’s 
 dealings. On the first hemistich Bengel remarks: inde vitam 
 habent et dies bonos. The apostle omits the words Tod 
 ἐξολοθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς TO μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν in the Psalm, 
 added to πρόσωπον... κακά (not because, as de Wette thinks, 
 he considered them too strong), and thus deprives the last 
 member of the verse of a nearer definition. Calvin, Grotius, 
 Beza, de Wette, accordingly take the ἐπί of this member in a 
 sense different from that which it has in the first, namely, as 
 conveying the idea of “punishment,” equivalent to “ against ;” 
 this, however, is arbitrary. Hensler, Augusti, and Steiger find 
 in all three members the expression of “ attentive observation ” 
 only ; but this view—itself, according to the thought, inade- 
 quate—is opposed by the particle δέ, which indicates rather 
 a contrast, and is not to be translated, with Hensler, by “ but 
 also.” If, now, the antithesis be not contained in ἐπί, it can 
 be sought for only in πρόσωπον, which, though in itself 
 doubtless a vox media (comp. Num. vi. 25, 26; Ps. iv. 7), is 
 nevertheless in this passage of the Psalms to be thought of as 
 one full of wrath, and, as such, was present to the mind of the 
 apostle. Strictly speaking, indeed, this should have been 
 expressed ; but not necessarily so, since the antithesis between 
 this and the preceding member of the verse makes it suffi- 
 ciently apparent. A similar interpretation is given by 
 Wiesinger, Briickner, and Schott. 
 
 Ver. 13 serves further to emphasize the exhortation to 
 well-doing, and at the same time introduces the following 
 paragraph, in which Peter calls upon the Christians to suffer 
 persecutions patiently. — καί } unites what follows with what 
 precedes. A new reason, the truth of which is attested by 
 the thought contained in ver. 12, is added in ver. 13 to the 
 argument advanced for the preceding exhortation of ver. 12. 
 The sense is: Do good, for to the good God is gracious, with 
 
CHAP. III. 13. 169 
 
 the wicked He is angry; and those who do good, for this 
 very reason none can harm.—Tis ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς] an im- 
 pressive and passionate question (stronger than a simple 
 negative), in which must be noted the form ὁ κακώσων, sc. 
 ἐστί instead of κακώσει, as also the sharp contrast between 
 κακοῦν and the subsequent ἀγαθοῦ. “Do harm,” as a render- 
 ing of κακοῦν (Wiesinger, de Wette), is too weak. The word 
 is used for the most part of <l-treatment (Acts vil. 6, 19, 
 xii, 1, xviii. 10), and denotes here, with reference to the 
 preceding xaxa, such evil-doing as is really harmful for him 
 who suffers it. It is possible that the apostle had in his 
 mind Isa. 1. 9, LXX.: ἰδοὺ κύριος κύριος βοηθήσει μοι, τίς 
 κακώσει pe. The interrogative form expresses the sure confi- 
 dence of the apostle, that to those who do good no one either 
 will or can do harm. Steiger’s interpretation is too pointless : 
 “and indeed who then will seek to do you harm, as you imagine, 
 if you really,” ete.;* for the reservation must be added that 
 every proverb has this peculiarity, that it is not without ex- 
 ception (Benson), or that the statement in the oratio popularis 
 must not be taken too strictly. The strong and consoling 
 expression of an unshaken faith is thus reduced to a somewhat 
 empty commonplace.?— ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε] τοῦ 
 ἀγαθοῦ was taken by some of the older interpreters (Lorin., 
 Aret., etc.) to be the gen. masc., probably on account of the 
 article (as distinguished from the anarthrous ἀγαθόν, ver. 
 11). Weiss also thinks that by it Christ perhaps may be 
 understood. Most commentators, however, correctly regard it 
 as the neuter; comp. ver. 11. The article is put, inasmuch 
 as in this term all the single virtues, formerly mentioned, are 
 
 1 Gualther’s paraphrase is not less insipid : quis est, scilicet tam impudens et 
 iniquus, qui vos affligat, si beneficentiae sitis aemulatores? Wiesinger’s inter- 
 pretation also is inappropriate : ‘‘ If ye follow my exhortations, it is to be hoped,” , 
 etc.—The words do not hint that ‘‘the trials which the readers had endured 
 were not altogether undeserved on their part” (Wiesinger). 
 
 ? Schott’s interpretation, according to which κακοῦν is ““to make evil-doers in 
 the judgment of God,” is altogether wide of the mark. Although κακοῦν, --- 
 corresponding to the Hebrew y*yiq7,—as applied to a judge, may mean: ‘‘to 
 
 condemn,” or properly : “to declare a person a κακός, it does not follow there- 
 from that it may also have the meaning of ‘‘ causing God to declare a person a 
 κακός. 
 
170 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 included; it stands first by way of emphasis. — ζηλωταί; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12; Tit. ii. 14. If the reading μιμηταί be 
 adopted, its connection with the neuter is somewhat singular, 
 still the verb μιμεῖσθαι does occur with names of things; 
 comp. Heb. xiii. 7; 3 John 11. 
 
 Ver. 14. ἀλλ᾽ ei καὶ πάσχοιτε] adda expresses the anti- 
 thesis to the negation contained in the preceding question: 
 “but even though you should suffer ;” cf. Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 
 367]; a species of restrietion which, however, is not intended 
 to weaken the force of the foregoing thought. No doubt the 
 possibility of suffering is admitted, yet in such a way that the 
 Christian is considered blessed on account of that suffering. 
 πάσχειν is not identical with κακοῦσθαι, but, as Bengel 
 rightly remarks: levius verbum quam κακοῦσθαι. Every 
 Christian has a πάσχειν, but he need never fear a κακοῦσθαι. 
 — διὰ δικαιοσύνην) recalls Matt. v.10. δικαιοσύνη is here 
 (ef. chap. ii. 24) synonymous with τὸ ἀγαθόν and ἡ ἀγαθὴ ἐν 
 Χριστῷ ἀναστροφή, ver. 16.— μακάριοι] sc. ἐστέ. Even 
 suffering itself contributes to your blessedness. — τὸν δὲ φόβον 
 «.T...] These and the words which begin the following verse 
 are “afree use” (Schott) of the passage, Isa. vil. 12,13, LXX.: 
 τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ (i.e. TOD λαοῦ) οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε, οὐδὲ μὴ 
 ταραχθῆτε" κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατες The thought here is not 
 quite the same, the sense of the Old Testament passage 
 being: do not share the terror of the people, and do not be 
 moved by what alarms them. If φόβος be here taken objec- 
 tively, then φόβος αὐτῶν is “the fear emanating from them,” 
 or “the fear which they excite” (de Wette, Brückner); cf. Ps. 
 xci. 5: οὐ φοβηθήσῃ ἀπὸ φόβου νυκτερινοῦ; cf. also in this 
 chap. ver. 6. If, on the other hand, it be taken in a subjective 
 
 ! These words also are wrongly explained by Schott, since he takes ἀλλ᾽ as 
 quickly denying the previous statement, and introducing a new turn of thought, 
 separates εἰ καί from each other, and connects καί with rzexar: in the sense of 
 “even.” For the first, Schott appeals to Hartung’s Partikell. II. p. 37 ; for the 
 second, to Hartung, I. p. 140, note; but without any right to do so. For, as to 
 
 the former, he overlooks that ἀλλ᾽ here follows on a sentence negative in mean- 
 
 ing; and as to the latter, that καί has here a position, in which a separation of 
 it from εἰ could not fora moment be thought of. The apostle would have ex- 
 pressed the idea: ‘‘if for righteousness’ sake you should have to experience (not 
 only not happiness and blessing, but) even suffering,” by εἰ διὰ δικαιοσύνην καὶ 
 
 TUTTE. 
 
CHAP, Ill. 13, 17} 
 
 sense, then αὐτῶν is equal to “of them,” therefore: “do not 
 fear with the fear of them, ze do not be afraid of them” 
 (Schott and Hofmann also). In both cases the meaning is 
 substantially the same. Wiesinger is inaccurate when he takes 
 φόβος subjectively, and interprets αὐτῶν as de Wette does. 
 Ver. 15. κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστόν] κύριον, in Isaiah equivalent 
 to τὸν Θεόν ; a substitution of this kind is frequently found in 
 the N. T., where reference is made to passages in the O. T., 
 and can be easily explained on the principle that a conscious- 
 ness distinctively Christian was asserting itself; “ κύριον is 
 placed first, as antithesis to αὐτῶν" (Wiesinger). Schott 
 denies that κύριον stands in apposition to τὸν Χριστόν, hold- 
 ing that κύριον is to be taken rather as a predicate of the 
 object, equivalent to, “as Zord;” for this reason, that κύριος 
 stands here without the article, and that the simple conjunc- 
 tion of κύριος and Χριστός does not occur. But against the 
 first objection the expression κύριος ὁ Θεός may be urged, and 
 against the second the verse Luke ii. 11. It is more natural, 
 and at the same time more in harmony with the passage in 
 the O. T., to connect κύριος directly with τὸν Χριστόν : “ but 
 . . the Lord, the Messiah.” — ἁγιάσατε] in antithesis to 
 φοβηθῆτε and ταραχθῆτε; “hold, 1.6. honour, fear as holy” 
 (de Wette); the sanctifying comprehends within it the fear 
 of God; cf. Isa. vill. 18, xxix. 23; it thus forms the contrast 
 to the fear of man; where the former is, the latter must give 
 way. — ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν] added by the apostle in order 
 to mark the inward nature of the dyiafecv. — ἕτοιμοι] Whether 
 δέ be the original reading or not, this clause is undoubtedly 
 intimately connected in thought with that which precedes it. 
 Without de this being ready is conceived as a proof of the 
 ἁγιάζειν Xp.; with δέ the thought is this, that the ἁγιάζειν Xp. 
 «.T.X., Which banishes all fear of man, should not exclude the 
 ἀπολογία before men (de Wette, Wiesinger). Hofmann takes 
 the particle here as equal to “rather;” but against this is the 
 fact that here κύριον... ὑμῶν would have to be taken as a 
 simple parenthesis, inasmuch as δέ would refer only to what 
 precedes, and a second antithesis would then be added to the 
 already antithetical κύριον δὲ «.7.X.— del πρὸς ἀπολογίαν 
 παντὶ τῷ κ.τ.λ.] ἕτοιμος πρός, cf. Tit. iii. 1.— “ The injunction 
 
172 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 exempts neither time (dei) nor person (παντί) (Steiger). — To 
 limit its application to a judicial examination is arbitrary, and 
 militates against παντί. — ἀπολογία not equal to satisfactio 
 (Vulg.), but here rather quaevis responsio, qua ratio fidei (more 
 correctly spei) nostrae redditur (Vorstius; Phil. i. 7, 16; Acts 
 xxvi. 2). — παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι K.T.X.] The dative depending on 
 ἀπολογίαν, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 3; for airew with double accusative, 
 cf. Winer, p. 212 ἢ [E. T. 281]. λόγον αἰτεῖν : “to demand 
 account of, only here, cf. chap. iv. 5; Rom. xiv. 12.— περὶ τῆς 
 ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος] περί: as to its nature and ground. — ἐλπίς, 
 not equivalent to πίστις (Calvin: spes hic per synecdochen 
 pro fide capitur), but the hope of the Christian looking, on 
 the ground of faith, into the future salvation.! — ἀλλὰ peta 
 πραὕτητος καὶ φόβου] If ἀλλά be the true reading, as there 
 can hardly be any doubt it is, it will serve to make more 
 sharply prominent the way and manner, in which the ἀπολογία 
 should be conducted; de Wette: “as it were: but remember.” 
 — uera, to be connected not with ἕτοιμοι, but with ἀπολογίαν ; 
 πραὔὕτητος opposed to passionate zeal. φόβου is to be applied 
 directly neither to God (Aretius: reverentia et timor Dei; thus 
 Weiss also, p. 169), nor to men before whom testimony is to 
 be borne (according to some: the civil authorities); but it 
 denotes the being afraid—based, of course, on the fear of God 
 —of every unseemly kind of ἀπολογία, and stands especially 
 opposed to all arrogant self-confidence (Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 16. συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν] These words are taken 
 by several interpreters (Bengel, Steiger, de Wette, etc.) with 
 ἁγιάσατε, ver. 14, as co-ordinate with ἕτοιμοι ; Wiesinger con- 
 strues them with ἕτοιμοι, as subordinate to it. The latter is 
 to be preferred, for avveid. ex. denotes “the point essentially 
 important, to being ever prepared to give an answer in a right 
 manner” (Wiesinger). But it is better still to assume that it 
 —like μετὰ mpaitntos—helongs in a loose way to ἀπολογίαν, 
 equivalent to “with good conscience,” i.e.in that your walk does 
 
 1 That this ‘‘ account” had special reference to the removal of the suspicion 
 that the kingdom of Christ was of this world, is nowhere alluded to in the con- 
 text (de Wette, Schott). And Schott is hardly justified in giving the apostle’s 
 exhortations special application ‘to the divinely ordained ordinances of natural 
 social life.” 
 
CHAP-UN: 17: 113 
 
 not give the lie to your confession." Calvin says correctly : 
 
 al 
 
 quia parum auctoritatis habet sermo absque vita. — ἵνα ἐν ᾧ 
 «.T.r.| The construction is here the same as in chap. 1]. 12; 
 see the exposition of this passage, where, too, Schott’s inter- 
 pretation of ἐν ᾧ, equal to “in this, that,” is considered. The 
 conjunctive of the Lec. καταλαλῶσιν would represent the 
 case as possible, equal to “ in which they may possibly slander 
 you.” — iva, as a final particle, refers to the whole preceding 
 thought, especially to ovveid. ἔχ. ἀγαθήν. ---- καταισχυνθῶσιν] 
 comp. 2 Cor. vil. 14: “that they may be put to shame,” 1.6. since 
 their slanders are openly proved to be lies.— οἱ ἐπηρεά- 
 fovres «.7.A.| The subject stands, by way of emphasis, at the 
 end of the sertence. ἐπηρεάζειν, “to revile,’ Matt. v. 44; 
 Luke vi. 28. Hensler distinguishes, without any ground, the 
 ἐπηρεάζοντες from the καταλαλοῦντες, as different persons ; 
 the former he considers to be the accusers of the Christians, 
 who bring the slanders of others before the judge. — ὑμῶν τὴν 
 ἀγαθὴν Ev Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν] 1.0. “the good life which you 
 lead in Christ (1.6. as Christians).” 
 
 Ver. 17. κρεῖττον γάρ] yap gives the ground of the exhor- 
 tation contained in συνείδ. ἔχ. ay.; the explanation of this 
 κρεῖττον is contained in chap. ii. 19 ff. — ἀγαθοποιοῦντας .. . 
 πάσχειν] The connection between these two ideas is the same 
 as that between ἀγαθοποιοῦντες Kat πάσχοντες, chap. 11. 20, 
 the participles giving not simply the special circumstances, 
 as Hofmann asserts, but the reason of the suffering; this 
 Schott denies as regards the first member: ἀγαθοποιοῦντας." 
 — The parenthetical clause: ei θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 belongs to πάσχειν ; the optative denotes the possibility: “ «/ 
 such should be the will of God.” —On the pleonasm: θέλοι τὸ 
 
 1 Hofmann says, “that it should not be joined with ἀπολογία, for the meaning 
 is that they should do that whereunto they must be prepared with eagerness, and 
 a good conscience which they should bring to it.” To this it is to be replied, 
 that the ἀπολογία itself is precisely the thing for which they are to be ready. It 
 is evidently arbitrary “to supplement an imperative (which?) to ἀλλά, and to 
 connect συνείδησιν ἔχοντε: ay. With it.” 
 
 2 It must, indeed, be noted that those sufferings which the believers, as such, 
 have to endure from the unbelieving world, overtake them because of their ἀγαθο- 
 woziv; Christians who, though confessing Christ, at the same time live entirely 
 like the children of the world, are well liked by the world. 
 
174 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 
 
 θέλημα, see Winer, p. 562 [E. T. 755]. The thought here is 
 not quite the same as that of chap. ii. 20. There, chief stress 
 is laid on ὑμομένειν, to which no special prominence is here 
 given. But, as in the former case the exhortation is enforced 
 by reference to Christ, <.e. to His sufferings, so is it here also, 
 in the following paragraph on to the end of the chapter, only 
 that in this passage the typical character of His sufferings is 
 less emphasized, whilst the exaltation which followed them is 
 brought specially forward. 
 
 Ver. 18. First, mention of the death of Christ by way of 
 giving the reason. —örı καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν 
 ἔπαθε [ἀπέθανε] ὅτι is connected with the idea immediately 
 preceding, and gives the ground of the xpetrrov ; καὶ Χριστός (as 
 in chap. 11. 21) places the sufferings which the Christians have 
 to bear, as ἀγαθοποιοῦντες, side by side with the sufferings of 
 Christ, περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, so that καί must be taken as referring 
 not to ἔπαθε [ἀπέθανε] only (as is done by most commentators, 
 among them de Wette), but, as the position of the words (περὶ 
 dpapt. before ἔπαθε) clearly shows, to περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε 
 [ἀπέθανε] (Wiesinger, Brückner, Schott). Hofmann’s applica- 
 tion of it to the whole “ statement here with respect to Christ” 
 is open to objection, from the fact that in what follows there 
 are elements introduced which go too far beyond the compari- 
 son here instituted. Christ’s sufferings were on account of 
 sin, and such also should be the sufferings of the Christians.’ 
 This does not preclude the possibility of His sufferings having 
 had a significance different from what theirs can have. This 
 peculiar significance of Christ’s sufferings is marked by δίκαιος 
 ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, or, as Schott holds, by ἅπαξ. ἅπαξ gives pro- 
 minence to the fact that in relation to His subsequent life 
 (davarwdeıs .. . ζωοποιηθείς) Christ’s suffering took place but 
 once, as in Heb. ix. 27, 28 (Hofmann: “once it took place 
 that He died the death He did die, and what followed thereon 
 forms, as what is enduring, a contrast to what passed over but 
 
 1'The subsequent δίκαιος proves that the sins for which Christ suffered were 
 not His own sins ; thus also the believer’s sufferings should not arise out of his 
 own sins, he should not suffer as a κακοποιῶν, but as an ἀγαθοποιῶν, Rejecting 
 this application, Hofmann finds the point of comparison in this, ‘ that we 
 
 should let the sins which those who do us wrong commit. be to us the cause of 
 sufferings to us” (ἢ). 
 
CHAP. II. 18. 175 
 
 once”); doubtless not without implying the secondary idea, 
 that the sufferings of Christians take place only once also, 
 and come to an end with this life!— περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, which 
 states yet more indefinitely the purpose of Christ’s sufferings : 
 “on account of sin, finds a more precise definition in what 
 follows. — δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, “as the just for the unjust ;” 
 comp. Rom. v. 6: ὑπέρ, equivalent to, in commodum, is not in 
 itself, indeed, equal to ἀντί; but the contrast here drawn 
 between δίκαιος and ἀδίκων suggests that in the general rela- 
 tion, the more special one of substitution is implied (Weiss, 
 p- 261); comp. chap. ii. 21. The omission of the article is 
 due to the fact that the apostle holds it of importance to mark 
 the character of the one as of the other. — ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ 
 τῷ Θεῷ] gives the purpose of ἔπαθεν [ἀπέθανε], which latter 
 is more closely defined by that which immediately precedes 
 and follows; προσάγειν does not mean “to sacrifice ;” (Luther, 
 Vulg.: ut nos offerret Deo), neither “to reconcile ;” but “to 
 bring to,” i.e. “ to bring into communion with God,’ which goes 
 still beyond the idea of reconciliation; the latter presupposes 
 Christ’s death for us; the former, the life of Him who died for 
 us. Weiss maintains, without sufficient reason (p. 260), that 
 the word here points to the idea of the Christians’ priesthood 
 (chap. ii. 5). The verb occurs here only; the substantive 
 mpocayoyn, Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, ii. 12. -- davarwdeis 
 
 1 Oecumenius finds in ἅπαξ an allusion to: τὸ rod παθόντος δραστήριόν τι καὶ 
 δυνατόν, or to the brevity also of the sufferings. Gerhard unites all three elements 
 by saying : ut ostendat (Ap.) passionis Christi brevitatem et perfectionem sacri- 
 ficii et ut doceat Christum non amplius passioni fore obnoxium. — According to 
 Pott, it is also meant to express the contrast to the frequent repetition of the 
 Ὁ, T. sacrifices,—an application entirely foreign to the context. According to 
 Schott, ἅπαξ indicates that Christ suffered once for all, so that any further 
 suffering of the same kind is neither necessary nor possible. This is no doubt 
 correct, but it does not follow that Peter—whose words combine the typical and 
 specifically peculiar significance of the sufferings of Christ—should not have 
 had in his mind the application of ὥπαξ to believers, as above stated. It is with 
 
 ἅπαξ ἃ5 with περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ; it is impossible for believers to suffer περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν 
 in the same sense that Christ suffered περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. 
 
 * It is certainly very doubtful whether the purpose also of the death of Christ, 
 here stated, ‘‘ admits of application to us,” in that “it should likewise be our 
 object, by the manner in which we endure undeserved sufferings, to bring those 
 by whom we are wronged to bethink themselves, and to lead them to a know- 
 ledge of Christ” (Hofmann). 
 
176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 μὲν σαρκί, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι] This adjunet does not 
 belong to ἔπαθεν (de Wette), but to προσαγάγῃ (Wiesinger) ; : 
 it is end: in order to show prominently how the προσά- 
 yeıv can take place through Christ; the chief stress is laid on 
 the second member. According to Schott, both partieiples are 
 to be considered as “ an exposition of ἅπαξ ;᾽ this assumption 
 is contradicted, on the one hand, by the distance between 
 them and the latter word; and, on the other, that they must 
 necessarily be attached to a verb.— The antithesis between 
 the two members of this sentence is strongly marked by μὲν 
 
 . δέ The datives σαρκί, πνεύματι, state with reference to 
 what the verbal conceptions davarwdeis, Eworomdeis holds 
 good ; “they serve to mark the sphere to which the general 
 predicate is to be thought of as restricted” (Winer) ; comp. 
 1 Cor. vü. 34: ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι; Col. 11. 5: τῇ 
 σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἶμι. Schott explains— 
 somewhat ambiguously—the datives “ as general more precise 
 adverbial definitions,” which state “ what is of determinative im- 
 portance in both facts,” and “ the nature of the actual condition 
 produced by them.” — πνεύματι is by some understood instru- 
 mentally ; incorrectly, for σαρκί cannot be taken thus; the 
 two members of the clause correspond so exactly in form, that 
 the dative in the one could not be explained differently from 
 the dative in the other, as Wiesinger, Weiss, von Zezschwitz, 
 Brückner, Schott, and Fronmiiller justly acknowledge. — σαρκὶ 
 
 . πνεύματι ; this antithesis occurs frequently in the N. T.; 
 with reference to the person of Christ, besides in this passage, 
 in Rom. i. 3: κατὰ σάρκα... κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, and 
 1 Tim. ii. 16: ἐν σαρκὶ... ἐν πνεύματι (cf. also chap. iv. 6). 
 — The antithesis of the two conceptions proves it to be 
 erroneous to assign to the one term a sphere different from 
 that of the other, and to suppose σάρξ to mean the body of 
 Christ, and πνεῦμα the Spirit of God. Antithesis clare ostendit 
 quod dicatur in alia quidem sui parte aut vitae ratione mor- 
 tificatus, in alia autem vivificatus (Flacius). It must be 
 observed that both are here used as general conceptions 
 (Hofmann), without a pronoun to mark them as designations 
 applicable only to Christ; for which reason σάρξ cannot 
 relate exclusively to the human, and πνεῦμα to the divine 
 
 
 
CHAP, II. 18. Bin Gy 
 
 nature of Christ.! As general conceptions (that is, as applicable 
 not to Christ alone, but to human nature generally), σάρξ and 
 πνεῦμα must, however, not be identified with σῶμα and ψυχή." 
 For σάρξ is that side of human nature in virtue of which man 
 belongs to the earth, is therefore an earthly creature, and 
 accordingly perishable like everything earthly ; and πνεῦμα, on 
 the other hand, is Zhat side of his nature by which he belongs 
 to a supernatural sphere of existence, is not a mere creature of 
 earth, and is accordingly destined also to an imperishable exist- 
 ence.’— Wiesinger (with whom Zezschwitz agrees) deviates 
 from this interpretation thus far only, that he understands 
 πνεῦμα, not as belonging to the nature of man, “but as that 
 principle of union with God which is bestowed upon man at 
 regeneration.” This deviation may arise from the reluctance 
 to attribute a πνεῦμα to man as such (also in his sinful 
 condition); as, however, according to Peter, the souls of the 
 
 1 Accordingly, interpretations like those of Calvin are incorrect : caro hic pro 
 externo homine capitur, spiritus pro divina potentia, qua Christus victor a morte 
 emersit ; Beza: πνεύματι, i.e. per divinitatem in ipso corporaliter habitantem, 
 equal to ἐκ δυνάμεως Θεοῦ, 2 Cor. xiii. 4; Oecumenius: θανατωθεὶς μὲν τῇ φύσει τῆς 
 σαρκός, τούτεστι τῇ ἀνθρωπίνη, ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ δυνάμει τῆς θεότητος. It is equally in- 
 correct, with Weiss (p. 252), to understand σάρξ as meaning ‘‘ the human nature 
 of Christ” (instead of which he no doubt also says: ‘‘ the earthly human nature 
 of Christ”), and πνεῦμα as meaning “the pre-existent divine πνεῦμα communi- 
 cated at baptism to the man Jesus” (which, as Weiss maintains, constitutes, 
 according to Peter, the divine nature of Christ). Weiss, for the sole purpose of 
 representing the apostle’s doctrinal conception as still in a very undeveloped 
 state, imputes to Peter a view of the person of Christ which—as he himself says. 
 —is possessed of ‘‘a duality which somewhat endangers the unity of His person.” 
 Nor has Wichelhaus hit the true explanation when he says: ‘“ Peter here con- 
 siders Christ as, on the one hand, a true man in body and soul liable to all 
 suffering . . .; and, on the other hand, in so far as He was anointed by the 
 Holy Ghost.” 
 
 ? capt and σῶμα are proved to be two distinct conceptions by the fact that after 
 the resurrection man will have a σῶμα, but no σάρξ. The difference between 
 πνεῦμα and ψυχή is clear from passages such as Matt. vi. 25. If in other passages 
 πνεῦμα be used as synonymous with Ψυχή (comp. e.g. John xii. 27 with John 
 xiii. 21), this is explained by the two-sidedness of the human soul. 
 
 3 To Weiss’s remark, that Peter terms that side of human nature by which 
 man is rendered capable of religious life ψυχή, it must be replied that the ψυχή 
 possesses such capacity for this very reason, that even under the power of the 
 oapé it has never ceased to be spiritual. In place of rvevuars, ψυχῆ would not 
 be at all appropriate here, in the first place, because ψυχή forms no antithesis 
 to σάρξ, and then because the idea of what is celestial, peculiar to πνεῦμα, would 
 not find expression in it. 
 
 1 PETER. M 
 
178 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 departed are πνεύματα (ver. 19), it is thus presupposed that an 
 unregenerate man also possesses a πνεῦμα during his earthly 
 existence. It must also be observed that σάρξ and πνεῦμα 
 are here not ethical antitheses, but are contrasted with each 
 other as natural distinctions. — Havarwdeis . . . ζωοποιηθείς] 
 θανατόω incorrectly interpreted by Wahl here, as in other 
 passages of the N. T., by capitis damno, morti addico; for 
 although it may sometimes occur in this sense in the classics, 
 still in the N. T. it means only to kill. By θανατωθεὶς σαρκί, 
 then, the apostle says of Christ, that He was put to death in 
 His earthly human nature (which He along with all the rest 
 of mankind possessed '), 1.6. at the hand of man by the cruci- 
 fixion. — G€worrovéw does not mean “ to preserve alive,” as several 
 commentators explain, e.g. Bellarmin (de Christo, lib. iv. cap. 13), 
 Hottinger, Steiger, and Giider ;—this idea, in the Old as in the 
 New Testament, being expressed by ζωογονεῖν and other words 
 (see Zezschwitz on this passage); but “to make alive” (de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Weiss, Zezschwitz, Schott, Kohler, Hofmann, and 
 others) ; it often applies to the raising up of the dead; cf. John 
 v. 21; Rom. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 22,ete. In this sense alone does 
 ‚£woroimdeis answer the preceding θανατωθείς. Bengel: vivifi- 
 -catio ex antitheto ad mortificationem resolvi debet. The latter 
 idea assumes the anterior condition to have been one of death, 
 whilst the former—in contradiction to @avat.—would pre- 
 suppose one of life. Christ then, according to the apostle, 
 entered into the actual state of death, that is, in so far as the 
 σάρξ pertained to Him, so that His life in the flesh came to an 
 end ;* but from death He was brought back again to life, that 
 is, was raised up, as far as the πνεῦμα pertained to Him, so that 
 the new life was purely pneumatical. But the new life began 
 by His reunitmg Himself as πνεῦμα to His σῶμα, so that 
 
 1 Schott is wrong in maintaining that the antithesis to what is here said should. 
 be, ‘‘ that Christ was quickened according to His glorified human nature ;” the 
 antithesis to ‘‘ earthly,” however, is not ‘‘ glorified,” but “ celestial.” 
 
 2 « Zur Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt,” in the Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 
 u. Kirche, by Delitzsch and Guericke, 1864, H. 4. 
 
 3 Schott substantially agrees with this interpretation, but thinks that the 
 above expression does not say decidedly enough that ‘‘ this was an entire cessa- 
 tion of His life.” However, this “entire” is saying too much, since σαρκί evi- 
 dently points to a limitation. 
 
CHAP. III. 19. 179 
 
 thus this σῶμα itself became pneumatical.’— According to 
 Bengel, with whom Schmid (bibl. Theol.), Lechler, and Fron- 
 müller agree (comp. also Hahn, neutest. Theol. I. 440), &woroın- 
 θείς does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, but to His 
 deliverance from the weakness of the flesh, effected by His 
 death, and, based upon this, his transition to a higher life 
 (which was followed by the resurrection).? Against this, how- 
 ever, is to be observed: (1) That the going of His πνεῦμα to 
 the Father, connected with His death (Luke xxii. 46), is, as 
 little as His ascension, spoken of in Scripture as “a becoming 
 quickened ;” (2) That as in davarwdeis the whole man Christ 
 is meant, the same must be the case in ζωοποιηθείς : and 
 (3) That this view is based on what follows, which, however, if 
 rightly interpreted, by no means renders it necessary. Buddeus 
 is therefore entirely right when he says: vivificatio animae 
 corporisque conjunctionem denotat.’ 
 
 Ver. 19. With this verse a new paragraph—extending to 
 ver. 22 inclusive—begins, closely connected by ἐν @ (ie. 
 πνεύματι) with what precedes, and in which reference is 
 made to the glory of Him who was quickened according to 
 
 1 Hofmann says, not quite accurately (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 473): “the 
 antithesis éaver. z.7.a. denotes the end of life in the flesh, and the commence- 
 ment of life in the spirit.” For spiritual life was in Christ during His life in 
 the flesh, and after it, before His resurrection. At His death He committed 
 His πνεῦμα to His Father; it was therefore in Him before, and continued 
 to live after His death. — Hofmann remarks correctly, however: ‘‘ As it was 
 the Christ living in the flesh who, by being put to death, ceased to be any 
 longer in that bodily life in which from His birth He had existed, so His 
 quickening of that which was dead is a restoration of a spiritual nature to a 
 bodily life.” 
 
 2 Bengel: Simul atque per mortificationem involucro infirmitatis in carne solu- 
 tus erat, statim vitae solvi nesciae virtus modis novis et multis expeditissimis sese 
 exserere coepit. Hance vivificationem necessario celeriter subsecuta est excitatio 
 corporis ex morte et resurrectio e sepulcro. — Schmid : *‘ The πνεῦμα is a prin- 
 ciple which He possessed in a special manner, . . . this, in consequence of death, 
 is set free from the trammels of sensuous bodily nature, it now enters upon its 
 full rights, and developes in its fulness that ζωή which was in Him.” 
 
 3 Schott explains, indeed, Zworanécis rightly in itself, but he objects to the 
 identification of ζωοποίησις with ἀνάστασις, and thinks that the former is the 
 fundamental condition of the latter, which is the “side of the resurrection con- 
 cealed and as yet hidden in the depths” (). But where does the apostle make 
 any allusion to any such distinction between two sides in the resurrection of 
 Christ? 
 
180 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the Spirit. It may appear singular that in this passage Peter 
 should make mention of those who were unbelieving in the 
 days of Noah, and of baptism as the antitype of the water of 
 the deluge; but this may be explained from the circumstance 
 that he looks on the deluge as a type of the approaching 
 judgment. It must be observed that it is not so much the 
 condemnation of the unbelieving, as the salvation of believers 
 that the apostle has here in his mind. — ἐν ᾧ καὶ «.7.r.] “ in 
 which (spirit) He also went and preached unto the spirits in 
 prison (to them), which sometime were unbelieving when,” ete. 
 The close connection of these words with what immediately 
 precedes—by ἐν ©, sc. mvevpats—favours the view that 
 ἐκήρυξε refers to an act of Christ which, as the ζωοποιηθεὶς 
 πνεύματι, He performed after His death, and that with refer- 
 ence to the spirits ev φυλακῇ of the unbelievers who had 
 perished in the deluge. This is the view of the oldest Fathers 
 of the Greek and Latin Church ; as also of the greater number 
 of leter and modern theologians. Augustin, however, opposed 
 it, and considered ἐκήρυξεν as referring to a preaching by 
 Christ ἐν πνεύματι long before His incarnation, in the days of 
 Noah, to the people of that generation, upon whom the judg- 
 ment of the deluge came because of their unbelief: This 
 view, after being adopted by several theologians of the Middle 
 Ages, became prevalent in the Reformed Church. In recent 
 times, it has been defended more especially by Schweizer, 
 Wichelhaus, Besser, and Hofmann. The chief arguments 
 which those who maintain it advance in opposition to that 
 first mentioned, are the following :—(1) The idea that Christ 
 preached to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ would be an isolated one 
 occurring nowhere else in Scripture; and, further, preaching 
 such as this, if conceived as judicial, would have been entirely 
 useless, whilst, looked on as a proclamation of salvation, it 
 would stand in contradiction to the uniform teaching of 
 Scripture regarding the state of man after death. To this, 
 
 1 It must be observed, that whilst Hofmann considers the preaching of Christ 
 as having taken place through Noah, Schweizer most decidedly disputes this, 
 and is of the opinion that it was addressed to Noah himself as well as to his 
 contemporaries. In support of this, he very rightly appeals to the fact that 
 
 Noah is not here—as 2 Pet. ii. 5—termed a κῆρυξ. But he does not say by 
 whom this preaching must be considered to have taken place. 
 
CHAP. III. 19. 181 
 
 however, it must be replied, that isolated ideas are to be 
 found expressed here and there in Scripture, and that the 
 reconciliation of the idea of a salvation offered to the spirits 
 ev φυλακῇ with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most 
 be termed a problem difficult of solution; nor must it be 
 forgotten that the eschatological doctrines comprehend within 
 them very many problems. (2) This view does not corre- 
 spond with the tendency of the entire passage from ver. 17 to 
 ver. 22, and therefore does not fit into the train of thought. 
 But this assertion is to the point only if those who make it 
 have themselves correctly understood the tendency of the 
 passage, which in this instance they have not done. (3) It 
 cannot be understood how Peter comes so suddenly to speak 
 of the spirits in prison. But, in reply, it may be urged, with 
 at least equal justification, that it is not easy to understand 
 how Peter comes so suddenly to speak of an act of Christ 
 before His incarnation. (4) The want of the article before 
 ἀπειθήσασι compels us to translate this participle not: “ which 
 sometime were unbelieving,’ but: “when they sometime 
 were unbelieving.” This, however, is not the case, since the 
 participle, added with adjectival force to a substantive, is often 
 enough joined to the latter without an article. If Peter had 
 put the words πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε before τοῖς... πνεύμασι, NO 
 difficulty would have presented itself in the translation under 
 dispute (“the sometime unbelieving spirits in prison”). The 
 translation to which preference is given is grammatically 
 untenable.’ — Finally, appeal has been made to the fact that 
 καί is placed after ἐν @, indeed even to ἐν @ itself; but a 
 correct explanation offers no justification for so dcing. Besides 
 the close connection of the relative clause with that imme- 
 diately preceding, the following points favour the interpreta- 
 tion attacked :—(1) The correspondence of the πνεύματι to be 
 supplied to ἐν ᾧ with the subsequent πνεύμασιν ; (2) mopev- 
 θείς, which must be taken in the same sense as the πορευθείς 
 
 1 Hofmann, indeed, says that since the expression is not σοῖς ὠπειθήσασι, the 
 translation should not be ‘‘ those spirits in durance, which sometime were dis- 
 obedient ;” but he grants that, from a grammatical point of view, it remains 
 doubtful ‘‘ whether or: signifies the past as related to the time of Christ’s 
 preaching, or the past as revards the present of the writer.” 
 
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 in ver. 22; (3) The fact that ποτέ does not stand with 
 ἐκήρυξε, but in ver. 20 with ἀπειθήσασιν, which shows that 
 the ἀπειθεῖν took place previous to the κηρύσσειν ; and, lastly, 
 (4) The circumstance that had Peter closed his sentence with 
 ἐκήρυξεν, it could have occurred to no one that Peter was 
 here speaking of a preaching of Christ which took place in a 
 time long gone by. — ἐν ᾧ] is not equivalent to διό (airıo- 
 λογικῶς with reference to ἔπαθε, Theophylact) ; but whilst & 
 refers back to πνεύματι, ev ᾧ states in what condition Christ 
 accomplished that which is mentioned in what follows —He 
 accomplished it not ἐν σαρκί (for after the σάρξ He was put 
 to death), but ἐν πνεύματι (for after the πνεῦμα He was made 
 alive). ἐν stands here in a position similar to that which it 
 holds in Rom. viii. 8, where, however, σάρξ and πνεῦμα form 
 an ethical antithesis, which here is not the case. Hofmann 
 wrongly attributes to év here an “instrumental force” equivalent 
 to “by means οἵ ; he is induced to do solely by his explana- 
 tion of the πνεύματι to be supplied. Although it is evident 
 that πνεύματι here must be taken in no sense different from 
 that of the foregoing πνεύματι, Hofmann nevertheless holds 
 it to be identical with the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ mentioned in 
 chap. i. 11, while he himself says that the πνεύματι subjoined 
 to ζωοποιηθείς cannot be understood of the Holy Ghost.’ — 
 Peter says, then, that Christ, in the Spirit according to which 
 He was made alive, preached to the spirits ev φυλακῇ, which 
 cannot be understood to mean anything else than that He did 
 it as a πνεῦμα (in His pneumatical condition). Fronmüller 
 erroneously interprets: “in the existence-form of a spirit 
 separated from the body ;” for the quickened Christ lives not 
 as a simple spirit, but is in possession of a glorified spiritual 
 body. — καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν] By 
 τὰ... πνεύματα are to be understood, neither angels (Heb. 
 
 1 Hofmann says that the accusation made against him, that he effaces the 
 distinction between πνεῦμα as a term used to designate the precise nature of 
 Christ, and πνεῦμα as the third Person in the Trinity, is the result of that con- 
 fusion of ideas by which “in the Spirit” and ‘‘as a Spirit” are understood to 
 mean the same thing. But it must be replied that rather is the identification 
 of two different ideas, contained in his interpretation, the result of the confusion 
 of ideas, leading him as it does to hide the difference by defining πνεῦμα as ‘‘ the 
 Spirit of Christ’s life.” 
 
CHAP. III. 19. 183 
 
 i. 141) nor “men living upon the earth” (as Wichelhaus 
 explains), but the souls of men already dead, as in Heb. 
 xii. 23, which in Rev. vi. 9, xx. 4, Wisd. iii. 1, are called 
 ψυχαί. ἐν φυλακῇ designates not only the place, but denotes 
 also the condition in which the πνεύματα are. Hofmann 
 wrongly—because in opposition to the uniform usage in the 
 N. T.—denies all local reference to the expression, and would 
 therefore translate ev φυλακῇ by “in durance.” The meaning 
 is, that the πνεύματα were in prison as prisoners.” The 
 expression occurs in the N. T. with the article and without it, 
 and its more precise force here is clear from the passages : 
 Rev. xx. 7; 2 Pet. iii 4; Jude 6. It does not denote 
 generally the kingdom of the dead (Lactant. Inst. I. 7, c. 21: 
 omnes [animae] in una communique custodia detinentur), but 
 that part of it, which serves as abode for the souls of the ungodly 
 until the day of judgment.’ The dative depends, indeed, on 
 ἐκήρυξεν, not on πορευθείς ; but the addition of the latter 
 word gives prominence to the fact that Christ went to those 
 spirits, and preached to them in that place where they were. 
 Hofmann is not altogether wrong when, in support of his own 
 view of the passage, he says: “ the operation of the spirit of 
 Christ, by which Noah was made the organ of His proclama- 
 tion, might be termed a ‘going and preaching’ on the part 
 of Christ” (comp. especially the passage, Eph. ii. 17: ἐλθὼν 
 evnyyedicato; see Meyer in loc, to which Hofmann might 
 have appealed). But that πορευθείς cannot be so taken here 
 is shown by the πορευθείς in ver. 22, with which it must 
 be identical in sense.“ ἐκήρυξε is the same verb as that so 
 
 ! Baur (Tub. theol. Jahrb. 1856, H. 2, p. 215) understands it to mean the 
 ἄγγελοι ἁμαρτήσαντες, 2 Pet. ii. 4, who, according to Gen. vi. 1 ff., had fallen 
 previous to the deluge. Thisinterpretation is sufficiently contradicted by ver. 20. 
 
 * The interpretation of Wichelhaus—who by circumlocution explains σὰ ἐν 
 pur. πνεύματα as equal to of ἀπειθοῦντες σηρούμενοι, φρουρουμένοι εἰς ἡμέρων τοῦ xara 
 κλυσμοῦ---ἰθ altogether erroneous. 
 
 ® Justin (Dial. ὁ. Tryph. e. 5): τὰς μὲν τῶν εὐσεβῶν (ψυχὰς) ἐν κρείπσονί πον 
 χώρῳ μένειν, σὰς δ᾽ ἀδίκους καὶ πονηροὺς ἐν χείρονι τὸν σῆς κρίσεως ἐνδεχομένας χρόνον. 
 
 * Luthardt so thoroughly recognises the vis of this πορευθείς, that he says he 
 should interpret the passage as Hofmann does, if the πορευθείς did not prevent 
 him from doing so.—Besides, it is certain that the coming of the Holy Spirit is 
 at the same time a coming of Christ; but it must not be overlooked that in 
 the N. T. it is nowhere indicated as being a coming of Christ ἐν πνεύματι. 
 
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 often used in the N. T. of the preaching (not the teaching) of 
 Christ and His apostles. Usually it is accompanied by an 
 object (TO εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστόν, or 
 the like); but it is frequently, as here, used absolutely, cf. 
 Matt. xi. 1; Mark i. 38, etc. — It cannot be concluded, with 
 Zezschwitz, from the connection of this relative clause with 
 ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι, that ζωοποίησιν illam spiritualem quasi 
 fundamentum fuisse concionis idemque argumentum ; nor 
 does the word itself disclose either the contents or the pur- 
 pose of that preaching; but since Christ is called the κήρυξας 
 without the addition of any more precise qualification, it must 
 be concluded that the contents and design of this κήρυγμα 
 are in harmony with the κήρυγμα of Christ elsewhere. It is 
 accordingly arbitrary, and in contradiction to Christ’s signi- 
 ficance for the work of redemption, to assume that this 
 preaching consisted in the proclamation of the coming 
 judgment (Flacius, Calov., Buddeus, Hollaz, Wolf, Aretius, 
 Zezschwitz, Schott, ete.), and was a praedicatio damnatoria.' 
 Wiesinger justly asks: “ This concio damnatoria— what does it 
 mean in general, what here especially ?”—-It is unjustifiable to 
 deny, with some commentators, that the apostle regarded this 
 \ ΒΡ ἢ = 2 ı . > 7 
 πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε as an actual reality. — kat, following ev ᾧ, 
 must not be explained, as Schweizer does, in this way, that 
 Peter, wishing to hold up Christ to his readers as a pattern 
 of how they should conduct themselves under suffering, 
 adduces two examples, vv. 19 ff., His death on the cross, and 
 His preaching; the whole structure of the clauses, as well as 
 1 Hollaz: Fuit praedicatio Christi in inferno non evangelica, quae hominibus 
 tantum in regno gratiae annunciatur, sed legalis elenchthica, terribilis eaque tum 
 verbalis, qua ipsos aeterna supplicia promeritos esse convincit, tum realis, qua 
 immanem terrorem lis incussit. This interpretation, which has its origin in 
 dogmatic views, Zezschwitz seeks to found on exegesis by characterizing the idea 
 of judgment as the leading conception of the whole passage, to which, however, 
 the context gives no warrant, and also by maintaining that otherwise Peter would 
 have used the word εὐαγγελίζειν, or acompound of ἀγγέλλειν. Itis certainly correct 
 when Schott and Köhler say that κηρύσσειν is not in itself equal to εὐαγγελίζειν ; 
 but it does not follow that it may not be applied to a message of salvation. It 
 must be remembered that Christ’s aim, even as a preacher of judgment, ever was 
 
 the accomplishment of salvation, as he declared Luke xix. 10 ; John xii. 47. 
 * Thus Picus-Mirandola says: Christus non veraciter et quantum ad realem 
 
 praesentiam descendit ad inferos, sed solum quoad effectum. Cf., too, J. R. 
 Lavater, de descensu Christi ad inf. lib. I. c. 9, —Many interpreters unwarrant- 
 
CHAP. III. 20. 185 
 
 their contents, contradicts this. Nor can it be explained, as 
 Hofmann assumes, “from the antithesis between us whom 
 Christ wished to bring to God, and those who as spirits are in 
 durance.” This would hold good only if, in ver. 18, it were 
 affirmed that Christ did the same to us as to those spirits, 
 that is, preached to us. It is likewise incorrect to take καί 
 as equivalent to “even” (Wiesinger, Fronmüller) ; for a dis- 
 tinction between these spirits and others is nowhere hinted 
 at. καί is put rather in order to show prominently that 
 what is said in this verse coincides with the ζωοποιηθεὶς 
 πνεύματι of ver. 18. Zezschwitz: ut notio, quae in enuncia- 
 tione ev ᾧ latet (wom. πνεύματι) urgeatur. 
 
 Ver. 20. The words which begin this verse: ἀπειθήσασίν 
 ποτε, characterize the spirits who are in prison according to 
 their former conduct. The participle must not, with Wie- 
 singer, be resolved into: “although, notwithstanding the fact 
 that they had been disobedient ;” an adversative relation of 
 this kind must have been more plainly expressed.’ — Accord- 
 ing to the uniform usage of the N. T., the word ἀπειθεῖν has 
 here also the meaning of wnbelief involving resistance ; cf. 
 ¢hap is 7, 8, 1. d,.iv 17. ~The translation: “tobe: dis- 
 obedient,” is too inexact, for the word forms the antithesis to 
 πιστεύειν. --- ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο K.T.‘.] serves not only to specify 
 the time when these spirits were unbelieving, but also to 
 mark the guilt of the areıdeiv. — ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, according to 
 N. T. usage, equivalent to: “patient waiting,’ is here used 
 absolutely, as in Rom. vii. 25 (comp. ἐκδέχεσθαι, Heb. x. 13; 
 
 ably weaken at least ἐκήρυξε, in so far as to make it synonymous with ‘‘showed 
 Himself,” or, at any rate, they say that the preaching of Christ was potius 
 realiter, quam verbaliter. This the author of the article, *‘ Die Höllenfahrt 
 Christi,” in the Erlanger Zeitschrift fiir Protest. 1856, should not have 
 sanctioned. Schott is not free from this arbitrary method of interpretation, in 
 that he characterizes κηρύσσειν “as a bearing witness to oneself, not only in 
 word, but also in deed,” and calls “this bearing witness to and showing forth 
 of Himself by Christ in the glory of His mediatorial person,” a concio 
 damnatoria. 
 
 1 Hofmann has now justly given up his former explanation : ‘‘ without being 
 obedient.” Walther’s interpretation is evidently entirely arbitrary: ‘‘to the 
 spirits, i.e. the devils and the damned in general, particularly to those damned 
 who,” etc. But neither is there a warrant for inserting οἷον (Bengel: subaudi οἷον, 
 i, e, exempli gratia, in diebus Noe ; subjicitur generi species maxime insignis). 
 
186 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 thus Schott also). The narrative itself shows the object to 
 which this waiting of God’s long-suffering was directed. Its 
 duration is not to be limited to the seven days mentioned in 
 Gen. vu. 4 (de Wette), for this is in keeping neither with the 
 ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ. . . μακροθυμία, nor the subsequent κατα- 
 σκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, but embraces the whole period of 
 120 years mentioned in Gen. vi. 3.— The time specified 
 by ὅτε «.r.X. is still more precisely defined in the subsequent 
 Ev ἡμέραις Noe and the κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ; in such 
 a way, however, that these adjuncts contain a reference to the 
 exhortation to repentance then given, for Noah was not like 
 the others, an unbeliever, but a believer, and the preparation 
 of the ark gave unmistakeable testimony to the approaching 
 judgment. — “ κιβωτός without the article, the expression used 
 by the LXX. for 73h, equal to ark, arca ; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38; 
 Luke xvii. 27; Heb. xi. 7” (Wiesinger). 
 
 REMARK 1.—Some of the interpreters who do not apply this 
 passage to the descensus ad inferos, as Luther (in his Ausle- 
 gung der Ep. Petri, 1523), the Socinians, Vorstius, Amelius, 
 Grotius, etc. explain ἐκήρυξε as referring to the preaching of 
 the apostles, assuming that the unbelievers in the time of Noah 
 are mentioned only as types of the unbelievers in apostolic 
 times. τὰ ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύματα they understand to mean the 
 heathen alone, or those along with the Jews. Amelius: σπνεύμ. 
 hic in genere denotant homines, quemadmodum paulo post 
 uxyar ἐν φυλακῇ: In captivitate erant tum Judaei, sub jugo 
 legis existentes, tum quoque gentiles, sub potestate diaboli 
 jacentes. Illos omnes Christus liberavit; praedicationem verbi 
 sui ad ipsos mittens et continuans et Apostolos divina virtute 
 instruens. 
 
 REMARK 2.—Even interpreters who apply this passage to the 
 descensus ad inferos, and understand ἐκήρυξε of the preaching of 
 salvation,’ are guilty of much arbitrariness, and especially in 
 designating more precisely those to whom the preaching is 
 addressed. Several of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
 
 1 Τὸ must further be remarked that several commentators: Athanasius, 
 Ambrosius, Erasmus, Calvin (in his Jnstit. lib. II. 2, e. 16, § 9), understand 
 Christ’s preaching as at once a praedicatio salvifica and praed. damnatoria. 
 Calvin, however, does hold by the idea of κηρύσσειν, when he says: Contextus vim 
 mortis (Christi) inde amplificat, quod ad mortuos usque penetraverit, dum piae 
 animae ejus visitationis, quam sollicite exspectaverant, praesenti aspectu sunt 
 potitae ; contra reprobis clarius patuit, se excludi ab omni salute. 
 
CHAP. III. 20. 187 
 
 Hippolytus; many of the Scholastics; further, Zwingli, Calvin 
 (in his Comment.), and others,—hold those to have been the 
 pious, especially the pious of the O. T.\—Marcion thinks the 
 χήρυγμω was addressed to those who, though in the O. T. termed 
 ungodly, were actually better than the O. T. believers. — 
 Clemens Al. supposes the δίκαιοι κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, who, however, 
 were still without faith and in the trammels of idolatry. — 
 Several commentators assume that not all unbelievers in the 
 days of Noah are meant, but those only who, at first indeed 
 unbelieving, had still repented at the last moment when the 
 flood came upon them; this is the view of Suarez, Estius, 
 Bellarmin, Luther (zu der Erklärung der Genesis, 1536, und 
 zu Hosea IV. 2, v. J. 1545), Peter Martyr, etc. Bengel says: 
 Probabile est, nonnullos ex tanta multitudine, veniente pluvia, 
 resipuisse: cumque non credidissent, dum expectaret Deus, 
 postea, cum .. . poena ingrueret, credere coepisse, quibus 
 postea Christus eorumque similibus se praeconem gratiae prae- 
 stiterit. Wiesinger agrees with this interpretation, at least in 
 so far that he assumes that the moral condition of the individual 
 (at the time of the flood) was not in every case the same, but 
 extremely varied; although, on the other hand, he finds fault 
 with it on the ground “that, in contradiction to the context, 
 it limits the ἐκήρυξε only to a part.” Schott remarks, as against 
 Wiesinger, “that although some may in respect of moral con- 
 dition have differed from the majority, or still have repented in 
 the last moment, yet these were not among the spirits in 
 durance who listened to Christ’s preaching.” 
 
 REMARK 3.— The view commonly accepted is that this 
 preaching by Christ took place before His resurrection, whilst 
 His body lay in the grave. Many even of the older dogmatists 
 of the Lutheran Church, however, hold it to have been accom- 
 plished after His quickening, that is, in the time between this 
 and His going forth from the grave. Quenstedt says: Christus 
 θεάνθρωπος totaque adeo persona (non igitur secundum animam 
 
 1 Calvin’s exposition is singular: he interprets φυλακή equal to specula vel 
 ipse excubandi actus; ro ἐν φυλ. zy. equals: the spirits of those who were on the 
 watch-tower, i.e. in the expectation of salvation, or also in anxietas expectationis 
 Christi, and then continues: Postquam (Ap.) dixit, Christi se mortuis mani- 
 festasse, mox addit: quum increduli fuissent olim, quo significat nihil nocuisse 
 sanctis Patribus quod impiorum multitudine paene obruti fuerunt. Exemplum 
 vero ex tota vetustate prae aliis illustre deligit, nempe cum diluvio submersus 
 fuit mundus. He removes the scruple, that the dative ἀπειθήσασι is not in 
 harmony with this explanation, by observing that the apostles sometimes 
 employ one case in room of another. 
 
 2 On Luther’s vacillation in interpreting this passage, see Kohler as above, and 
 Schweizer as above, p. 7. 
 
188 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 tantum nec secundum corpus tantum) post redunitionem animae 
 ac corporis ad istud damnatorum ov descendit; he fixes the 
 time when this happened: illud momentum, quod intercessit 
 inter ζωοποίησιν et ἀνάστασιν Christi stricte ita dictam. Hollaz: 
 distinguendum inter resurrectionem externam et internam ; illa 
 est egressio e sepulcro et exterior coram hominibus manifes- 
 tatio; haec est ipsa vivificatio; so, too, Hutter, Baier, Buddeus, 
 etc. In like manner Schott: “in the new spiritual life which 
 in that mysterious hour of midnight He had put on, and before 
 appearing with it on the upper world by His resurrection, He 
 descended.” — The verse does not indeed say that the éxjpuge 
 belongs to this very moment, but it does certainly point to the 
 preaching having taken place after Christ’s restoration to life, 
 as de Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Zezschwitz, have rightly 
 acknowledged; for referring as ἐν ᾧ does to the πνεύματι con- 
 nected with ζωοποιηθείς, it is arbitrary to find in πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε 
 mention made of an act of Christ which took place after the 
 θανωτωθείς indeed, but yet before the ζωοποιηθείς. As, then, both 
 expressions apply to Christ in His entire person, consisting of 
 body and soul, what follows must not be conceived as an activity 
 which He exercised in His spirit only and whilst separated from 
 His body. In addition to this, if according to His intention 
 His preaching was to be indeed a preaching of salvation, it 
 must have had for its substance the work of redemption, com- 
 pleted only in the resurrection. Weiss (p. 232) objects that 
 πνεῦμα is not equal to σῶμα πνευματικόν, and this is undoubtedly 
 true; but it cannot prove anything against the view that Christ 
 as the Risen One, that is, in His glorified body, preached to the 
 spirits in prison, inasmuch as in Zhis body the Lord is no 
 longer ἐν σαρκί, but entirely ἐν πνεύματι. ---- Thus the passage says 
 nothing as to Christ’s existence between His death and 
 resurrection. If Acts ii. 31 presuppose the going of the dead 
 Christ into Hades, the common dwelling-place of departed 
 souls, this descensus ad inferos must not be identified with the 
 one here mentioned, as also Wiesinger, Briickner, and Schott 
 rightly observe; so that by drawing this distinction the disputed 
 question, too, whether Christ descended into Hades, quoad 
 animam or quoad animam et corpus, finds its correct solution. 
 It must further be added that this passage gives no support 
 whatever either to the doctrine of the Form. concordiae, that 
 in Hades Christ “overcame the devil, destroyed the power of 
 hell, and despoiled the devil of his might,” or to that of the 
 Catholic Church of the limbus Patrum and Purgatory. 
 
 Connected with the words κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ are 
 
CHAP. III. 20. 189 
 
 the thoughts which follow, in which stress is laid, not so much 
 on the judgment which overtook unbelievers in the flood, as on 
 the deliverance of the few.: eis ἣν oAlyoı. — διεσώθησαν δι 
 ὕδατος] The preposition διώ is to be explained not as equal to 
 ἐκ (Acts xxviii. 4: ὃν διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης), nor as if 
 it were ev (in medio aquarum), nor equivalent to non obstante 
 aqua (Gerhard), nor even as a preposition of time (eo tempore, 
 quo aquae inundaverant); but isto be taken either locally or 
 instrumentally. δι ὕδατος is then either: “through the 
 water, or equivalent to: “by means of water” The former 
 view (Bengel, Steiger, de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, formerly 
 Hofmann also) seems to be confirmed by the verbum compos. 
 διεσώθησαν. But dvacwfew, both in the LXX. and in the 
 N. T. (cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3, etc.), is often used as a 
 strengthened form of σώζειν, without the peculiar force of 
 διά being pressed. And thus it must be taken here, inasmuch 
 as it contradicts the historical narrative in Genesis, to say 
 that Noah and his family were saved by passing through the 
 water. διά has accordingly here an instrumental force, so 
 that δι’ ὕδατος indicates water as the medium through which 
 the Noahites were delivered" And this interpretation is 
 alone in harmony with the context, inasmuch as the apostle 
 in what follows gives special prominence to the fact that the 
 N. T. deliverance is likewise effected by means of water. If 
 water was the means of deliverance to Noah and those with 
 him, “in so far as it bore those hidden within the ark, and 
 thus preserved them from destruction, comp. Gen. vii. 17, 18” 
 (Weiss, p. 313; thus also Wolf, Pott, Jachmann, Schott), 
 this implies recourse to a pregnant construction, inasmuch as 
 the apostle unites the two thoughts in one: “they were saved 
 by going into the ark,” and “they were saved dv ὕδατος." 
 Hofmann seeks to avoid the assumption of a pregnancy by 
 explaining ὕδωρ here as the water “which began to overflow 
 the earth,” and which compelled Noah to enter with those 
 
 1 Wiesinger has expressed himself in favour of the first version, but then 
 remarks: ‘‘the writer conceives the water at the same time as the saving 
 element ;” Fronmiiller, too, combines both interpretations: “in which few souls 
 sought shelter, and were saved through the water and by it ;” this is evidently 
 altogether unwarrantable, 
 
190 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 belonging to him into the ark, in support of which he appeals 
 to Gen. vii. 11, 13. But although these passages state that 
 both the entering into the ark and the beginning of the 
 deluge took place on the same day, still the latter event is 
 not indicated as the motive of the former. According to 
 the narrative in Genesis, it was the command of God 
 which moved the Noahites to enter the ark, and as soon as 
 they had done so, and God had closed the ark, the deluge 
 commenced ; cf. Gen. vii. 1, 16, 17. — Further, on Hofmann’s 
 interpretation water can be regarded only in a very loose 
 sense as the medium of deliverance; nor would it be in keep- 
 ing with the subsequent parallelism. It must be noted that 
 ὕδατος is anarthrous, and although by the term no other 
 water can be understood than that of the flood, yet Peter’s 
 object here is not to show that the same water which destroyed 
 some served as the means of deliverance for others, but 
 merely to state that the deliverance of Noah and those with 
 him was effected by water, in order that this water then may 
 be recognised as the type of the saving water of baptism 
 (comp. Schott). — ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί] τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν 
 x.T.X. justifies the use of the expression ὀλύγοι ; so much stress is 
 laid on this particular, very probably in order to point out, on 
 the one hand, the great number of those who perished, and on 
 the other, the proportion to be looked for at the final judgment. 
 
 Ver. 21. ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς [ἡμᾶς] ἀντίτυπον viv σώζει βάπτισμα] 
 ὃ does not apply to the thought expressed in the previous 
 verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the reading ᾧ, explains: isti 
 conservationi tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis baptis- 
 mus velut ἀντίτυπον respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, 
 Morus, Hottinger, Hensler, etc.), but it refers back to ὕδατος, 
 and, withal, so that by it water generally is to be understood, 
 and not that particular water through the medium of which 
 the Noahites were saved; water saved them, and it is water 
 by which you too are saved. The general term receives a 
 more precise definition in the adjectival ἀντίτυπον, by means 
 of which the water which now saves is contrasted as antitype* 
 with the water which saved Noah and those with him. 
 
 1 Raphelius : τύπος res aliud quid praefigurans, ἀντίτυπος res illa praefigurata. 
 ἀντίτυπος has another meaning in Heb. ii. 24, where the τύπος is the ἀληθινόν. 
 
CHAP, 111. 21. 191 
 
 What this antitypical water is, is stated by the subjoined 
 βάπτισμα, which as an apposition must be explained in the 
 sense: “as baptism” (comp. Winer, p. 491 [E. T. 665)]). 
 Differently Hofmann; he would take the apposition in the 
 sense of: “a baptism namely;” he says: “in the explanatory 
 apposition the apostle substitutes the term ‘baptism’ for 
 “water, without, by the anarthrous βάπτισμα, directly 
 indicating Christian baptism. What kind of baptism he 
 means is stated by the apposition subjoined to βάπτισμα." 
 On this it must be remarked that βάπτισμα would certainly 
 convey to the readers only the idea of a definite Christian 
 baptism, and that the apposition following is not fitted to 
 mark the term baptism, indefinite in itself, as the specifically 
 Christian baptism, but only to point out in what way baptism 
 possesses in itself the saving power attributed to it. — Without 
 any cogent reason, Steiger interprets βάπτισμα as equivalent 
 to “baptismal water” The direct conjunction which takes 
 place here ceases to occasion surprise, if it be considered that 
 the typical character of the deluge, as regards baptism, consists 
 not only in the sameness of the elements, but in the similarity 
 of the relation of the water to those saved. If δι ὕδατος be 
 rendered “through the water,’ an incongruity will arise, 
 disturbing to the parallelism, and which attempts have been 
 made to overcome by supplying intermediate ideas. Accord- 
 ing to de Wette, the antitypical character of baptism consists 
 in this: “that in it the flesh must perish and, as it were, be 
 judged ; whilst, at the same time, through faith in the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, pure spiritual life is attained, and the believer 
 saved.” By these and such like supplements, which the 
 apostle himself in no way suggests, elements are introduced 
 foreign to his conception.' — The present σώζει is put here 
 
 1 Schott, indeed, justly remarks “that the antitypical nature of baptism, and 
 therefore the typical nature of that to which baptism corresponds as antitype, 
 consists precisely in what is asserted of both, namely, in their saving power and 
 effect.” He thinks, however, “ that the antitypical nature of the water applies to 
 what was essentially peculiar to the great flood.” What this is he explains by 
 saying that ‘‘ the flood was a judgment which destroyed mankind from the earth, 
 so that from out of it only a small number, belonging to the church of believers, 
 were saved ;” that is, “it was a judgment of extirpation in such a way that it 
 was the means of effecting a salvation.” 
 
192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 neither instead of the preterite nor the future; it denotes 
 rather the effect which, from the moment of its accomplish- 
 ment, baptism produces on the persons who submit to it. 
 The latter resemble the Noahites whilst by means of water 
 they were being preserved in the ark from destruction (ἀπώ- 
 Aeva). — The antithesis which exists between ὑμᾶς and the 
 preceding ὀλίγοι, indicates that the proportion saved by 
 baptism to the unbelieving is but small. ὀλίγοι has accord- 
 ingly a typical significance. It is more doubtful whether the 
 same is the case with the ark; Oecumenius already saw in it 
 the church, whilst others regard it as a symbol of Jesus 
 Christ. Thus Hemming: quemadmodum aqua per se non 
 salvavit Noe, sed mediante arca, ita aqua baptismi per se non 
 salvat, sed mediante arca, h. 6. Christo Jesu.— οὐ σαρκὸς 
 ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ἀλλά] Apposition to βάπτισμα, which, how- 
 ever, does not state the nature of baptism generally, but only 
 in what sense it effects σώζειν. This is stated first negatively, 
 in order thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. 
 Almost all commentators take σαρκός as a genitive depending 
 on ῥύπου, and preceding it only for the sake of emphasis. 
 Bengel, on the other hand, joins it—as genit. subj.—directly 
 with ἀπόθεσις : “carni adscribitur depositio sordium ; ideo 
 non dicitur: depositio sordium carnis.” The sense would 
 then be: baptism does not consist in this, “that the flesh 
 lays aside its uneleanness” This explanation, corresponding 
 as it does to the position of the words, is well suited to the 
 idea ἀπόθεσις, which does not necessarily presuppose the 
 activity of the subject, but can be used when the subject is, 
 strictly speaking, passive; comp. 2 Pet. 1. 14, the only other 
 passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. Hofmann is 
 accordingly mistaken in asserting that “the laying aside of 
 uncleanness cannot be regarded as an act of the flesh.” — An 
 antithetical allusion to the Jewish washings can hardly be 
 here assumed (cf. Justin M. dial. ὁ. Tryph. p. 331: τί yap 
 ὄφελος ἐκείνου τοῦ βαπτίσματος (the Jewish washing), ὃ τὴν 
 σάρκα καὶ μόνον τὸ σῶμα φαιδρύνει ; βαπτίσθητε τὴν 
 ψυχήν). --- ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν] 
 
 1 Augustin’s opinion (contr. Faust. e. 12 et 13), with which Beda and others 
 agree, is quite inappropriate. It is, that the apostle here alludes to the baptism 
 
 NS 
 
CHAP. III. 21. 193 
 
 The positive, as contrasted with the negative character of 
 baptism. συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς can be either the subjective or 
 the objective gen.’ ἐπερώτημα, a ἅπ. Aey. in the N. T. (in 
 the O. T. only once, LXX. Dan. iv. 14, as a translation of 
 NAPNY), is used in classical Greek only in the sense of 
 “question.” Holding by this meaning, commentators have 
 explained it as—(1) the question concerning a good conscience 
 addressed to God (thus Wiesinger, who, however, prefers the 
 translation “ ingwiry” to “ question”), or (2) “the question of 
 a good conscience directed to God” (Gerhard, Steiger, Besser). 
 The first of these renderings is not in harmony with the nature 
 of baptism, inasmuch as the person to be baptized already 
 knows how the good conscience is to be obtained. From the 
 second there results only an incomplete idea, necessitating 
 arbitrary supplements.? Now, as ἐπερωτᾷν, which doubtless 
 means only “to ask a question,” is used also of such questions 
 as would obtain something from the person asked (Matt. 
 xvi. 1; Ps. exxxvi. 3, LXX.), the meaning has been assigned 
 to ἐπερώτημα : “the inquiring desire,” “the inquiring request.” 
 Some commentators here take συν. ay. as a subj. gen., and 
 interpret: “the request of a good conscience addressed to God” 
 
 
 
 of the heretics. Calvin’s assertion, too, that this negative apposition emphasizes 
 the fact that baptism, as an outward form, is of no use, introduces a foreign idea 
 into the words of the apostle. 
 
 1 This is denied, indeed, by several commentators, specially by Hofmann and 
 Schott, because a good conscience does not precede, but is the fruit of baptism. 
 But this assertion presupposes the identification of the good conscience with 
 that conscience which by Christ is reconciled with God, and is released from the 
 feeling of guilt. For this, however, the N. T. phraseology gives no warrant. 
 According to it, συνείδησις ἀγαθή rather means: ‘‘the consciousness of pure 
 intentions,” or ‘‘the consciousness of sincerely willing that which is good” 
 (Heb. xiii. 18: καλὴν συνείδησιν ἔχομεν, iv πᾶσι καλῶς θέλοντες ἀνασερέφεσθαι ; cf. 
 also 1 Pet. iii. 16; Acts xxiii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 5, 19, iii. 9). If baptism is really 
 to bring a blessing to the person baptized, he must surely desire it with a good 
 conscience. 
 
 2 Gerhard : quomodo deus erga baptizatum affectus sit, etc. ; Steiger: ‘‘ for 
 the salvation of which he who receives baptism would be assured ;” Besser : 
 Art thou not my father? am I not thy child? The interpretation given in the 
 Erlanger Zeitschrift, 1856, p. 293 ff., is evidently altogether erroneous: “the 
 proof of the good conscience attained in baptism is the ἐπερώτημα eis ©., i.e. the 
 question : Am I not saved by my baptism from the judgment on an unbelieving 
 world?” Apart from all else, the matter here treated of is not a question which 
 is only put after baptism, since baptism itself is designated as the ἐπερώτημα. 
 
 1 PETER. N 
 
194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 (thus Bengel, with whom Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N. T. p. 199, 
 agrees: salvat nos rogatio bonae conscientiae, i. e. rogatio, 
 qua nos Deum compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis 
 remissis et depositis'); but this also gives rise to an incom- 
 plete idea, inasmuch as the contents of the request are not 
 stated. On this rendering of ἐπερώτημα, it is better to regard 
 the gen. as an olject. gen., thus: “the request addressed to 
 God for a good conscience ;” Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizsiicker 
 (Reuter’s Repert. 1858, H. 3), Hofmann, Schott ; Wiesinger, too, 
 is inclined to agree.” But to this also objections which cannot 
 be overlooked arise: (1) Although the reception of baptism be 
 founded on the desire for a reconciled conscience, yet it does not 
 follow that baptism itself can be described as the expression 
 of this desire; (2) Taken thus, the proper meaning of ἐπερώ- 
 τημα is entirely lost sight of; the word is used in a sense in 
 which it occurs nowhere else,—a proceeding which is all the 
 more open to question that the apostle had certainly other 
 words at his command wherewith to give the idea of request ; 
 (3) The object which the recipient of baptism requests, namely, 
 “the reconciled conscience,” is inadequately expressed by συνεί- 
 δησις ἀγαθή, for here no stress is laid on the essential element 
 —the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation eis 
 Θεόν is only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. 
 i. 21 and iii. 18, show that the chief emphasis lies on eis Θεόν 
 
 1 To this interpretation of Bengel, Hofmann rightly objects: ‘‘ that treparnux 
 cannot well mean something which presupposes the reception of baptism ;” but 
 if the “ peccatis remissis et depositis” be not looked upon as belonging to the 
 idea of a good conscience, Hofmann’s objection loses its validity. 
 
 2 The same view is to be found already in Seb. Schmidius, only that he 
 regards ἐπερ. as meaning the petitio addressed to God by him who baptizes, and 
 συν. ay. as the gift which he implores for the person baptized ; evidently this is 
 entirely arbitrary. 
 
 3 Hofmann, in support of the interpretation here called in question, appeals 
 to the circumstance, ‘that the petition for the cleansing of the conscience from 
 past sins forms the only suitable antithesis to the putting away of filth con- 
 tracted outwardly.” But it must be remarked in opposition, that however suit- 
 able this antithesis may appear in itself, it does not follow that the apostle had 
 it in his mind in the way here stated. It is rather improbable that he had, 
 since in this positive nearer definition of baptism its application to cleansing is in 
 no way alluded to.—The explanation given in Weissagung und Erfüllung, 11. 
 p- 234: “the happiness of a good conscience asked of God,” he passes over in 
 silence in his Schriftbeweis, 11. 2.—The interpretation given by Winer in the 
 
CHAP. III. 21, 195 
 
 — Even from early times interpreters have attempted to explain 
 ἐπερώτημα in this passage, not according to common, but 
 according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to σύμφωνον, 
 stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: “covenant”), referring at the 
 same time to the act of question and answer, which took place 
 at baptism: ἀποτάσσῃ TO Σατανᾶ ; ἀποτάσσομαι' συντάσσῃ 
 τῷ Χριστῷ ; συντάσσομαι" abrenuntias ? abrenuntio ; credis ? 
 credo (Tertull. lib. de resurr. carn.: anima non lavatione, sed 
 responsione sancitur). Aretius interprets: Deus in baptismo 
 nobis promittit, quod velit nos filiorum loco habere propter 
 Christum; contra nos promittimus, nos serio victuros pie; 
 haec est mutua stipulatio; this interpretation, however, is 
 erroneous, as even in legal phraseology ἐπερώτημα does not 
 mean a “reciprocal” contract. De Wette’s is likewise wrong : 
 “by metonymy, because questions were addressed to the 
 individual who took the vow, ἐπερωτᾶσθαι acquired the 
 meaning promittere, spondere, and ἐπερώτημα that of sponsio;” 
 for ἐπερώτημα is not derived from ἐπερωτᾶσθαι, but from 
 ἐπερωτᾷν, and therefore never had or could have had the 
 signification: “solemn pledge.” Further, it has been not 
 unjustly remarked, in opposition to this view, according to 
 which συν. ay. is considered as an object. gen., that it would 
 have been better to have spoken of ἀναστροφὴ ἀγαθή as that 
 which has to be vowed.' Briickner has substantially corrected 
 de Wette by pointing out that in the language of the Byzan- 
 tine lawyers ἐπερωτᾷν is used in the sense: “to conclude a 
 treaty, a contract, stipulari,’ taking συν. ay. as a subject. gen. 
 But his exposition suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he 
 too declares ἐπερώτημα to be synonymous with “treaty,” 
 indeed with “ vow,’ which is certainly not the case. The facts 
 are these: a contract was concluded in the form of question 
 and answer: spondesne ? spondeo (comp. Puchta, Curs. der 
 Instit. v. 3, p. 97); by the question, on the one side, the 
 agreement was proposed; by the reply, on the other, it was 
 
 5th ed. of his Gr.: “The inquiry of a good conscience after God, i.e. the 
 turning to God, the seeking Him,” does not occur in the subsequent editions, 
 nor is there any justification for it. 
 
 1 Estius, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Pott, Hensler, etc., interpret similarly to de 
 Wette, 
 
196 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 concluded. ἐπερώτημα is then this question by which the 
 conclusion of a contract began, not then the contract itself, 
 and still less the pledge which was taken rather by him who 
 replied. The questioner bound himself by his question to 
 accept that which he who gave the reply promised. If, then, 
 the designation of baptism as συνειδήσεως ay. ἐπερώτημα εἰς 
 Θεόν is to be explained from legal procedure, it can only be 
 spoken of as such, inasmuch as the person baptized, by the 
 reception of baptism, enters into a relation—as it were of 
 contract—with God, in which he submits in faith to God’s 
 promise of salvation. Nor can it be denied that this is really 
 in harmony with the nature of baptism, more especially if it 
 be considered that in the legal proceedings, connected with 
 the conclusion of a contract, the respondent pronounced his 
 spondeo in the expectation that the interrogator would fulfil 
 the conditions previously stipulated, to which he had pledged 
 himself. This explains the expression συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς, 
 which points to the circumstance that the recipient of baptism, 
 in submitting to it, has the honest purpose faithfully to fulfil 
 the conditions under which the divine assent is given. This 
 interpretation is distinguished from those above mentioned by 
 its concrete precision. No doubt ἐπερώτημα in this juristic 
 sense is to be found only in writings of a later date ; but since 
 this form of concluding a contract belonged to an earlier time, 
 it may be assumed that the word had previously been in use 
 thus in legal phraseology. The adjunct: δι ἀναστάσεως 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, by referring back to ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι, 
 brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The 
 words are not appended in a loose way to ἐπερώτημα for 
 the purpose of stating how this is effected, as Grotius, Pott, 
 Hensler, Zezschwitz, Hofmann, Schott, and others assume ;? 
 
 1 After the explanation here given, it is evidently incorrect when Hofmann 
 says that ‘‘ ἐπερώσημα could only be the question addressed by him who closes an 
 agreement, to the person who is to consent to it.” The very opposite is the 
 case. The question is not addressed from the former to the latter, but from the 
 latter to the former ; that is, then, not from God to the person baptized, but 
 from the person baptized to God. 
 
 2] Kings xxii. 7 : ἔσι sis ἔστιν ἀνὴρ eis TO ἐπερωτῆσαι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν κύριον, has been 
 appealed to in favour of this construction. Erroneously, since δ᾿ αὐτοῦ applies to 
 a person. Between it, therefore, and δύ ἀναστάσεως no parallel can be drawn.— 
 
CHAP. III. 22. 197 
 
 they are rather conjoined with the verb of the clause σώζει, 
 inasmuch as they state that through which the βάπτισμα 
 exercises its saving effect (de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss). The 
 former construction is the less justifiable, that it is more 
 natural to unite the concluding adjunct with the leading idea 
 than with the secondary thought which specifies the nature 
 of baptism. It is still less appropriate to connect the words 
 directly with συνειδήσεως ay. (as against Fronmiiller). 
 
 Ver. 22. ὅς ἐστιν Ev δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ] This brings to a close 
 the whole train of thought with reference to Christ, from ver. 
 18 and onwards, inasmuch as to His sufferings, death, resur- 
 rection, and going to the spirits in prison, there is now added, 
 His sitting down at the right hand of God. This expression, 
 which points out the present condition of the glorified Redeemer, 
 occurs likewise in Rom. viii. 34, Col. viii. 1, and in other 
 passages of the N. T.— πορευθεὶς eis οὐρανόν] corresponds to 
 πορευθείς, ver. 19. — ὑποταγέντων. . . δυνάμεων) added in 
 order to give prominence to the unlimited sway of Christ 
 (deplı21.271,% 22:5 Col. simi; 1) Cor: xvs 27 3). Hebs tix 8), 
 extending even over all heavenly powers, whatever their name 
 or office. — The expressions ἐξουσίαι and δυνάμεις are—with 
 the exception of in this passage—used only by Paul as names 
 of angels (with öwvaueıs, cf. Ps. οἷ. 21, elxvüi. 2, LXX.); 
 and in the same sequence. ἄγγελοι is not here the general 
 term to which ἐξουσίαι and δυνάμεις (καὶ... καί, equivalent to 
 cum ... tum) are subordinate, but the three conceptions are 
 co-ordinate, and connected by the repeated copula. This is 
 shown by Rom. vii. 38, where, instead of ἐξουσίαι, the name 
 ἀρχαί is used. For the various names, comp. Meyer on 
 Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16.— ὑποταγ. expresses, not enforced, but 
 voluntary subjection. 
 
 With regard to the relation of this whole passage to what 
 precedes, ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς... ἔπαθεν shows that in the first 
 instance confirmation is given to the thought that it is better 
 to suffer for well than for evil doing, by reference to the 
 
 According to Hofmann, διά states that which the person baptized appeals to in 
 support of his desire for the remission of sin. The passages, however, which he 
 quotes (1 Cor. i. 10 and Rom. xii. 1) by no means prove that the prep. &% has 
 this signification. 
 
198 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 sufferings of Christ, similarly as is done in chap. ii. 21. But 
 as the last-mentioned passage passes beyond the limits of the 
 typical—that is, first by the addition of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἔπαθεν, 
 and then by the statements of ver. 24,—the same takes place 
 here. There, reference is made to the redeeming death of the 
 abased Christ ; here, to the living work of the glorified Christ. 
 The chief separate points have already been stated. The 
 allusion of baptism appears indeed to be a digression, yet it 
 belongs essentially to the train of thought; for after that 
 mention had been made of Christ’s work among the spirits in 
 prison in His exalted condition, it was necessary to call atten- 
 tion likewise to His redeeming work on earth, the effects of 
 which are communicated through baptism. That Peter speaks 
 of this medium (not that of the word, etc.) is explained by 
 his reference to the deluge as the type of the approaching 
 judgment, and to the water by which Noah and those with 
 him were saved, and which appeared as a τύπος of baptism.’ 
 
 ! Since that which is stated in this paragraph does not keep within the 
 
 limits of the typical, it may very well—in spite of Hofmann’s assertion to the 
 contrary—be described as a digression, 
 
CHAP. IV, 199 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 VER. 1. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] Ree. after AK L Ῥ δὲ (corr.; after m. pr.: 
 ἀποθάνοντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), al., is wanting in B C, several min. Sahid. 
 Vulg. Aug. Fulgent. ete.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Perhaps 
 it is inserted in order to complete the idea; Reiche considers ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν to be the original reading; so, too, Hofm. The. Rec. has 
 ἐν σωρκί before πέπαυται, after K, several min. ete. In ABC 
 L &, etc. ete., the preposition is wanting. Even Griesb. recom- 
 mends its omission; Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἐν. Buttm. has 
 retained ἐν, as, according to his statement, it occurs in B. 
 Wiesinger inclines to explain the reading σαρκί from what 
 precedes; Reiche, on the other hand, explains ἐν σαρκί from 
 what follows. The authorities, as well as the idea itself, decide 
 for the omission of ἐν. ---- Ver. 3. jun] Rec. after CK LP, al., 
 Occ. Hier., can hardly be genuine; it is wanting in AB, al, 
 Syr. utr.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Steiger’s remark, that 
 “it is pleasing to us to observe how the apostle does not think 
 higher of his own former conduct than of that of the others,” 
 does not prove the genuineness of ju. The reading vun, too, 
 in N and several min., must be regarded as a correction; it lay 
 to hand to insert a dative in order to complete the sentence. — 
 Following K L P, several min., ete., the Rec. has τοῦ βίου after 
 “χρόνος, Which is wanting in ABCN, ete. etc. Tittmann 
 brackets it, Lachm. and Tisch. rightly omit it. — βούλημα] after 
 A BC R8,ete. Clem. Theoph. (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the 
 Lee. θέλημα, Which occurs only in Κα LP, several min. Oec. — 
 The aorist χατεργάσασθωι is attested only by Καὶ 1, P, Oec.; it is 
 accordingly better to read the perfect with Lachm. and Tisch. : 
 κατειργάσθαι, after A BC, al, Clem. The change could easily 
 have taken place from the fact that the aorist form of the word 
 is the prevailing one in the N. T. (eg. Rom. vii. 8; 1 Cor. v. 3; 
 2 Cor. vii. 11, ete.).— Ver. 5. Instead of τῷ érofuws ἔχοντι κρῆναι, 
 Buttm. reads: τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι, a reading which is attested 
 only by B.— Ver. 7. εἰς τὰς προσευχάς] The article τάς is very 
 suspicious; Lachm. has omitted it; Tisch. has now again 
 adopted it, with the remark: articulus non intellecta ea quam 
 
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 habet vi omittendus videbatur. It is wanting in A B ¥, and 
 several min., and seems to be inserted here following chap. iii. 
 7.— Ver. 8. πρὸ πάντων δὲ] The omission of δέ in A B, 13, Arm. 
 Tol. ete., is a correction in order to connect the participle clause 
 directly with the preceding verbb. fin. —n ἀγάπη] Rec. after 
 several min. and Theoph. — 4, however, is spurious, after A B 
 K LP xs,etce. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted the article; 
 Griesb. regards it as at least suspicious. — καλύπτει] after A B 
 K, al., Copt. Arm. etc., Clem. Rom. Syr. etc. (Lachm. Tisch., 
 much recommended by Griesb.); instead of the Rec. καλύψει, 
 after L P 8, which is easily explained from Jas. v. 20. — Ver. 9. 
 γογγυσμῶν] Rec. after K L P, Oec.; on the other hand, A BX, ai, 
 m. Syr. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. etc, are in favour of the singular, 
 adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.: γογγυσμοῦ. The plural from 
 Phil. ii. 14.— Ver. 13. καθό] instead of the Rec. καθώς, rightly 
 accepted by Griesb. after almost all authorities. — Ver. 14. rd 
 τῆς δόξης] Scholz and Lachm. add καὶ δυνάμεως, which occurs in 
 A PR (ris duv.), several min. etc. In B K L, many min. and 
 Fathers, the adjunct is wanting; Tisch. too has omitted it. 
 It may quite as well have been omitted later as superfluous, as 
 added by way of strengthening. — ἀναπαύεται) Instead of this, 
 A and several min. have ἐπαναπαύεται, after Luke x. 6; some 
 other authorities read ἀναπέπαυται, after 2 Cor. vi. 13. — The 
 genuineness of the words: κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲ 
 ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται, is at least doubtful; it is supported by Κα Τ, Τ, 
 etc., Harl. Tol. etc., Thph. Oec. Cypr.; whilst it is opposed by 
 A Br, al., Syr. Aeth. Copt. ete., Tert. Ambr. Beda (Lachm. and 
 Tisch.). Whilst de Wette and Wiesinger declare the adjunct 
 to be suspicious, and Schott looks upon it as spurious, Hofm. 
 considers it genuine, because, in his opinion, without it the 
 proper connection of ver. 15 with what precedes would be 
 wanting. — Ver. 15. Instead of ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, Lachm., follow- 
 ing B, writes: ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος; on it Tisch. observes: videtur 
 elegantiae causa ejectum o.— Ver. 16. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ] 15 
 the reading of A B 8, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Cypr. Ephr. 
 Oec. (Lachm. Tisch.). There is less evidence for the Ree. ἐν τῷ 
 μέρει τούτῳ, Which occurs in K L P, etc., and probably arose out 
 of 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3.— Ver. 17. Instead of ἡμῶν, A** al., Aeth. 
 Slav. Thph. ete., read ὑμῶν. ---- Ver. 19. ὡς σιστῷ κτιστῇ] Ree. 
 according to Καὶ L P, almost all min., several vss. and Fathers 
 (Tisch. 7). Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted ὡς, after A 
 Bx, several min. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Athan. It is difficult 
 to decide which is the correct reading; ὡς may have been 
 inserted, following Peter’s habitual mode of expression; on the 
 other hand, it may have been omitted in order to make πιστῷ 
 
CHAP. IV. 1. 201 
 
 χτιστῇ purely terminative. — αὐτῶν, after AG K yx, etc. ete., is 
 to be preferred to éauréy.— Instead of éyadoroig, which occurs 
 in BK LP x, pl. al, Theoph. Oec., and is accepted by Tisch. 
 Lachm., after A, a/., Vulg. etc., reads the plural ἀγαθοποιΐαις. 
 
 Ver. 1. Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος [ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] σαρκί In these 
 words the apostle returns to chap. iii. 18, in order to subjoin 
 the following exhortation. — σαρκί is not: “in the flesh” 
 (Luther), but: “according to the flesh ;” comp. 111. 18, This 
 is made prominent because the believer's sufferings, too, 
 under persecutions, touch the flesh only; comp. Matt. x. 28. 
 παθόντος is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before 
 His death, but comprehends the latter also. It is, however, 
 incorrect to understand, with Hofmann, παθόντος at once as 
 identical with ἀποθανόντος, and in connection with σαρκί to 
 explain: “that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for 
 our sake to a suffering which befell Him—that for our sake 
 He allowed His life in the flesh to come to an end” (!). — 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε] καί with reference to 
 Christ: “ye also:” the disciple must be like the master. It 
 lies to hand to translate ἔννοια (besides here, only in Heb. 
 iv. 12) as equivalent here to “ disposition of mind” (de Wette; 
 Weiss, p. 288); but ἔννοια means always “ thought, considera- 
 tion” (Wiesinger, Schott)." There is here also no reference to 
 the mind of Christ in His sufferings. τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν refers 
 back to the πάσχειν σαρκί of Christ Himself, so that the sense 
 is, that since Christ suffered according to the flesh, they too 
 should not refuse the thought of like Him suffering according’ 
 to (or on) the flesh. ὅτι gives the ground of the exhortation. 
 Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Schott take ὅτε as explaining τὴν 
 αὖτ. ἔννοιαν. Incorrectly ; for the πέπαυται äpaprıas will 
 not admit of an application to Christ, inasmuch as the expres- 
 sion does not presuppose generally a former “relation to sin,” 
 but former sinning itself. — The verb ὁπλίζεσθαι, in the N. T. 
 am. Ney., is in classical writers often construed with the accus. 
 (Soph. Electra, v. 991: θράσος ὁπλίζεσθαι) ; while applied to 
 every kind of equipment, eg. of ships, it here refers to the 
 Christian’s calling as one of conflict. — ὅτε ὁ παθὼν Ev σαρκὶ 
 
 1 Reiche erroneously appeals in support of this meaning: “disposition of 
 mind,” to the passages in Proy. v. 2, xxiii, 19, LXX., and Wisd. ii. 14. 
 
202 THE FIRST. EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 πέπαυται apaptias| In Luther’s translation: “for he who 
 suffers on the flesh, he ceaseth from sin,” the present is 
 sincorrectly substituted for the preterite tense: ἐν σαρκί; 
 correctly: “on the flesh.’ Hofmann’s rendering is wrong: 
 “in the flesh,” which, compared with the ἐν σαρκί preceding, 
 would imply “that whilst Christ’s life in the flesh ended with 
 His suffering, our sufferings took place with continued life in 
 the flesh” (!). The reading σαρκί, “according to the flesh,” 
 conveys the same idea; cf. Winer, 384 (E. T. 513).— 
 πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας] The mid. παύομαι is in the classics 
 frequently joined with the genitive, ey. ZZ. vil. 290: παυσώ- 
 μεθα μάχης; Herod. i. 47: τῆς μάχης ἐπαύσαντο Herodian. 
 vii. 10, 16: τῆς τε ὀργῆς ὁ δῆμος ἐπαύσατο. In this way 
 πέπαυται here is explained by most interpreters as equivalent 
 to: “he has ceased from sin, that is, he has given up sinning.” 
 The word may also be taken as the perf. pass. according to the 
 construction παύειν twa τινος, equivalent to: “to cause one 
 to give up, to desist from a thing.” πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας 
 would then mean: “he has been brought to cease from sin, to 
 sin no more” (Schott: “ brought away from sinful conduct”). 
 Hofmann erroneously asserts that “ παύειν τινὰ ἁμαρτίας would 
 in a quite general way mean: action such as brings it about 
 that the individual is ended with sin;” that is to say, in the 
 sense, that his relation to sin is at an end." For the genitive 
 with παύειν denotes always a condition or an activity of him 
 who is the object of παύειν. ---- Τῦ makes no essential difference 
 in the thought whether παύειν be taken here as a middle 
 (Weiss) or as a passive (de Wette, Wiesinger). The idea: 
 “through Christ immunitatem nactus sum,” is expressed here 
 neither in the one case nor in the other (Wiesinger). — The 
 clause here has the form of a general statement, the meaning 
 of which is, that by suffering as to the flesh a ceasing of sin 
 is effected.” This idea, in many respects a true one, may 
 
 1 Thus, too, Schott: ‘‘He who has experienced the raéziv σαρκί is delivered 
 from his former relation to sin.” But Schott admits that ‘‘a release from sin 
 must be thought of, in so far as sin determined the conduct and made it sinful.” 
 
 2 Genuinely catholic is the remark of Lorinus on πέσ. ἁμαρτίας : Peccatorum 
 nomine absolute posito gravia intelliguntur, quae vocamus mortalia; nam 
 desinere atque quiescere a levibus et venialibus, eximium privilegium est, prae- 
 terque Deiparam definire non possumus, an alii ulli concessum. 
 
CHAP. IV. 2. 203 
 
 according to the connection be defined thus: he who suffered 
 on account of sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, 
 has in such wise broken with sin that it has no more power 
 over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with several of the earlier 
 commentators, as also Schott, to understand παθών in a 
 spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, 
 according to Rom. vi. 7 (Schott), or of the putting to death 
 of the old man (Gerhard: qui carnem cum concupiscentiis 
 suis in Christo et cum Christo crucifigit, ille peccare desinit ; 
 Calvin: passio in carne significat nostri abnegationem). Op- 
 posed to such an interpretation is the subjoined σαρκί, by 
 which this παθών here is expressly marked as identical with 
 the παθών, used with reference to Christ; and the apostle in 
 no way hints that that παθών is employed in a spiritual 
 sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to understand by ὁ 
 παθών Christ, as Fronmiiller does,—zém. ἅμαρτ. being thus 
 in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains : “ because 
 Christ hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that 
 it is possible to be without sin” (!)); nor is it less so to 
 assume, finally, with Steiger, that here “the apostle unites 
 together the different persons, the head and the members in 
 their unity,’ so that the clause would contain the double 
 idea: “ Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin,” 
 and: “we, by participating through faith in the sufferings of 
 Christ, die unto sin.” Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the 
 clause the double reference—to Christ and to the Christians ; 
 to Christ, “in as far as He by His bodily death was finished 
 with sin, which He took upon Himself for the purpose of 
 atoning for it;” to the Christians, “in so far as he is spiritually 
 dead whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a 
 life in which he goes free from the guilt and slavery of sin.” 
 In these interpretations thoughts are supplied to which the 
 context makes no allusion." 
 
 Ver. 2. eis τὸ μηκέτι «.7.r.] The words may be connected 
 either with the exhortation ὁπλίσασθε or with πέπαυται 
 ἁμαρτίας. De Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. 
 justly prefer the former connection, inasmuch as the infinitival 
 
 1 Reiche regards the entire sentence as spurious, because of the difficulty and 
 indistinctness of the thought. 
 
204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 clause expressive of a purpose stands related more naturally 
 to the imperative, than to a subordinate clause containing a 
 general statement (otherwise Zezschwitz and the former ex- 
 position in this commentary). Still, it is incorrect to connect 
 eis here with ὁπλίζεσθαι, as in the common phrase: ὁπλί- 
 ζεσθαι eis TO μάχεσθαι (Schott). Had the apostle meant this, 
 he could not have separated by a parenthesis words which so 
 directly belong to each other; eis can only add the nearer 
 definition of the aim to which ὁπλιζ, is directed. — ἀνθρώπων 
 ἐπιθυμίαις, ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ] The datives are to be ex- 
 plained either as τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζῆν, chap. ii. 24 (Brückner, 
 Wiesinger), or they express the pattern according to which 
 (Hofm.) ; as in Acts xv. 1, Gal. v. 16, 25, ete. Gerh.: praecipit 
 ut normam vitae nostrae statuamus non hominum voluntatem, 
 sed Dei voluntatem. The latter view is to be preferred on 
 account of the idea τὸν... βιῶσαι χρόνον. “ ἀνθρώπων and 
 Θεοῦ are antitheses, as are also the manifold lusts of men 
 and the one uniform will of God” (Wiesinger). The notion 
 that by ἐπιθυμίαι are to be understood the lusts, not of the 
 readers, but of those only by whom they were surrounded 
 (Schott, Hofm.), must be rejected as arbitrary. — τὸν ἐπίλοιπον 
 ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον] With ἐν σαρκί, comp. 2 Cor. x. 3, Gal. 
 ii. 20; Phil. 1. 22, 24. σάρξ expresses as little here as in 
 ver. 1 an ethical conception; it denotes the earthly human 
 nature to which the mortal body belongs. — The verb βιοῦν 
 is @. Aey. in the N. T. The form βιῶσαι is to be found in 
 the Attic writers, but it is less common than the 2 aor.: 
 βιῶναι. ---- ErriXormos, in like manner, a. Ney.: “the remain- 
 ing time in the flesh ;” an idea similar to 6 τῆς παροικίας 
 χρόνος, chap.i.17. With the whole thought, comp. Rom. xii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought 
 expressed in the previous verse, that the Christians should no 
 longer live after the lusts of men, but according to the will of 
 God; hence yap. — ἀρκετός] Matt. vi. 34, x. 25; correctly 
 Wiesinger: “the expression is here a μείωσις. Gerhard: in 
 eo quod ait “sufficit” est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua 
 mitigat Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a 
 foreign application when he explains: “in it you have enough 
 to repent of and to make amends for.” The construction as 
 
CHAP. IV. 3. 205 
 
 in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): ἱκανὸς yap ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος, 
 ἐν ᾧ TL τῶν δεινῶν οὐ γέγονε ; comp. ἱκανούσθω, Ezek. xliv. 6, 
 xlv. 9. ἐστι simply is to be supplied, not, with Steiger, 
 “ should be.” — ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος] points back to μηκέτι; 
 in contrast to Tov EmiAoımov . . . χρόνον. --- τὸ βούλημα τῶν 
 ἐθνῶν kareipyacdaı) The infinitive is, in free construction, 
 dependent on ἀρκετός, as it also stands with ἀρκεῖ; cf. 
 Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T. 401 ff]. The inf. perf. is selected 
 “to designate the former life of sin, which has once for all 
 been brought to a close” (Schott).— τῶν ἐθνῶν} is not 
 evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. 
 When Jachmann says: “the apostle could never say of the 
 heathen, that they lived according to the will of the heathen,’ 
 it must be observed, that if the readers were formerly heathen, 
 the βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν was undoubtedly their own βούλημα, 
 but that ἐθνῶν is explained by the fact, that they were now 
 heathen no longer (as opposed to Weiss). — πεπορευμένους] 
 must be referred to ὑμῶς, to be supplied in thought to κατειρ- 
 γάσθαι. If the right reading be ἡμῖν after apkerös yap, Peter 
 would include himself, and ἡμᾶς would have to be supplied. 
 The Vulg. is indefinite: his qui ambulaverunt. Beza’s view 
 is Inappropriate, that Peter refers here not only to the readers 
 of the epistle (whom he considers to have been Jewish- 
 Christians), but also to their ancestors, ©.e. the former ten 
 tribes of Israel. With πορεύεσθαι Ev, cf. Luke i. 6; 2 Pet. 
 ii. 10. — ἀσελγείαις] “ excesses of every kind,” embracing speci- 
 ally; unchastity ; cf: Rom. xiii, 13; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v.19; 
 3 Mace. ii. 26, ete.; Buddeus considers it to mean nothing 
 else than: obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo ; 
 Lucian has the expression: ἀσελγέστεροι τῶν dvwv. — ἐπι- 
 θυμίαις] in the plural denotes fleshly lusts in themselves ; 
 although not limited to sensual desires only, it yet includes 
 these chiefly. — οἰνοφλυγίαις] ἅπ. Ney. in the N. T.; the verb 
 οἰνοφλυγεῖν, LXX. Deut. xxi. 20, Heb. 82D; Luther: “ intoxi- 
 cation;” better: “ drunkenness.’ Andronicus Rhodus, lib. 
 περὶ παθῶν, p. 6: οἰνοφλυγία ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος. 
 Philo (V. Μ. 1, § 22) calls οἰνοφλυγία an ἀπλήρωτος ἐπιθυμία. 
 — κώμοις] besides here, only in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 21, 
 where, as here with πότοις, it is joined with μέθαι : commissa- 
 
206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 tiones, properly : “ carousals,;” ef. Pape, 5.0. — πότοις] ἅπ. dey. ; 
 chiefly applied to social drinking at the banquet; Appian, 
 B.C. I. p. 700: ὁ δὲ Σερτώριος... τὰ πολλὰ ἣν ἐπὶ τρυφῆς, 
 γυναίξι καὶ κώμοις καὶ πότοις σχολάζων. ---- καὶ ἀθεμίτοις 
 εἰδωλολατρείαις) designates heathen idolatrous practices speci- 
 ally. ἀθέμιτος, in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage, 
 only in Acts x. 28, gives marked prominence to that in the 
 nature of eiöwA. which is antagonistic to the divine law. 
 Bengel: quibus sanctissimum Dei jus violatur.! This deserip- 
 tion is only applicable to such persons as were formerly 
 heathen, not to the Jews; to the latter only in the days before 
 the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in 
 opposition to this, wrongly appeals to Rom. ii. 17 ff.; for the 
 reproach there made against the Jews bears an impress entirely 
 different from the description here given ; nor is the ἱεροσυλεῖν 
 in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry. It is 
 altogether arbitrary to take the expression eiöwAoAarpeiaı here 
 in a wider sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper; and 
 it is further opposed by the expression ἀθεμίτοις. 
 
 Ver. 4. ἐν ᾧ &evifovrar] Many interpreters apply ev ᾧ 
 directly to the thought contained in the following clause: μὴ 
 συντρεχόντων . . . ἀνάχυσιν; Pott: ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Levit, ὅτι 
 μὴ συντρέχετε; incorrectly; ἐν ᾧ is connected rather with 
 what precedes. Still it can hardly be right to explain, that as 
 the perfects kareıpydodaı and πεπορευμένους point to the fact, 
 that they no longer live as they had lived, this was the matter 
 of wonderment (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott,” and in this com- 
 mentary). It is more natural to take it thus—ev equivalent 
 to: “on the ground of this” (that is, because ye have thus 
 lived), and the absolute genitive following as equal to: “ in- 
 asmuch as ye run not with them,” so that the sense is: “on 
 account of this, that ye thus walked in time past, your country- 
 
 1 Schott unjustifiably maintains that the edwroA@rpeiaı are termed aéeuaros not 
 in themselves, but on account of the immoral, voluptuous ceremonies connected 
 with them. The adject. is added because they form an antithesis, in the 
 strictest sense, to God’s holy prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert that 
 εἰδωλολασρεία could only be termed ἀδέμισος when practised by the Jews, not 
 when by the heathen. 
 
 2 It is true that “a surprise calling forth displeasure” (Schott) is meant ; but 
 this does not lie in the word itself. 
 
CHAP, IV. 5, 207 
 
 men think it strange when ye do so no longer” (Hofm.); with 
 ἐν @, comp. John xvi. 30 and Meyer in loc. The genitive 
 absolute assigns, as it frequently does, the occasioning cause 
 (Winer, p. 195 [E. T. 259]). The word ξενίζεσθαι (in its 
 common meaning is equivalent to: “to bea guest;” thus it is 
 used frequently in the N. T.) here means: “to be amazed,” “ to 
 feel astonishment ;” comp. ver. 12; Acts xvii. 20.1 — μὴ ovv- 
 τρεχόντων ὑμῶν] “ μή refers the matter to the amazement of 
 the heathen.” συντρέχειν, Mark vi. 33 and Acts iii. 11: to 
 run together, confluere ; here: “to run in company with any 
 one.” — εἰς THY αὐτὴν Ths ἀσωτίας avayvow] states the aim 
 of the cuvtp. With aowria, comp. Eph. v. 18; Tit. ἃ. 6: 
 “lewd and dissolute conduct.” The word avayvaıs is to be 
 found in Aelian, de an. xvi. 15, used synonymously with 
 ἐπίκλυσις, and Script. grace. ap. Luper. in Harpocr. with ὑπέρ- 
 kAvaıs;, it means, accordingly: the overflowing. This sense 
 is to be kept hold of, and τρέχειν eis ἀσωτίας to be explained 
 of the haste with which dissoluteness is allowed to break 
 forth and to overflow. According to Hofm., it denotes the 
 doings of those who are in haste to pour out from them their 
 indwelling lasciviousness, so that it overflows and spreads in 
 all directions. From the explanation of Strabo, ii. p. 206 A: 
 λέγονται ἀναχύσεις αἱ πληρούμεναι TH θαλάττῃ κοίλαδες ἐν 
 πλημμυρίσι, it is unjustifiable to derive the meaning “ sentina, 
 mire” (2d ed. of this commentary), or “flood” (3d ed.), or 
 “stream” (Schott).”— βλασφημοῦντες] characterizes their 
 amazement more nearly as one which prompts them to speak 
 evil of those whose conduct causes them astonishment (not 
 “ Christianity,’ as Hofmann thinks). Schott justly remarks 
 that “it is not the being struck with amazement in itself 
 which is, strictly speaking, of significance here, but that 
 definite form of it expressed by βλασφημοῦντες, placed last 
 for the sake of emphasis.” 
 
 Ver. 5 points to the judgment which awaits the evil- 
 
 1 The object. to ξενίζεσθαι is either in the dative, as ver. 12 (Polyb. iii. 68. 9: 
 ἐξενίζοντο τῷ τὶ συμβεβηκὸς εἶναι παρὰ nv προσδοκίαν), or is subjoined by means of 
 διά τι Or ἐπί τινι. 
 
 2. Hesych. and Suidas interpret ἀνάχωσις also by βλακεία, ἔκλυσις ; thus 
 
 Gerhard : virium exolutio, mollities ; according to de Wette it means : profusio, 
 wantonness ; but it is better to keep to the above signification. 
 
208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 speaking heathen: of ἀποδώσουσι λόγον] ἀποδ. λόγον (Matt. 
 xii. 36; Heb. xiii. 17; Acts xix. 40). Antithesis to αἰτεῖν 
 λόγον, chap. iii. 15. — τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι] “that is, the Saviour 
 risen, and seated at the right hand, chap. iii. 22,” de Wette. 
 — The expression: ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, “to be ready,” with the 
 exception of here, only in Acts xxi. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 14.— 
 κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς] As often in the N. T. of the last 
 judgment, which by ἑτοίμ. ἔχ. is pointed out as near at hand; 
 comp. ver. 7. ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς does not denote some 
 dead and some alive, but the ageregate of all, whether they 
 be living or already dead when the day of judgment comes ; 
 comp. Acts x. 42; 2 Tim. iv. 1." It is erroneous to under- 
 stand by the quick and the dead the Christians only (Wichel- 
 haus, Schott), or those who speak evil only. Peter, by naming 
 Him to whom the evil-speakers shall render an account, the 
 Judge of the quick and the dead, implies thereby that they 
 are not to remain unpunished, whether they die before the day 
 of judgment or not. And this, as a testimony to the justice 
 of God, should serve to comfort the Christians under the 
 calumnies which they had to endure, and exhort them not to 
 be led aside by them to a denial of their Christian walk. — 
 It must further be observed, that this passage adds the last to 
 those elements of the glory of the exalted Saviour mentioned 
 at the close of the last chapter, namely, the office of judge 
 which He will execute at the end of the days. 
 
 Ver. 6. This verse, which has been explained in very 
 diverse ways,” is meant, as the γάρ following upon eis τοῦτο 
 shows, to give the ground or the explanation of a statement 
 going before. The question is: Which statement is it? The 
 sound of the words serves to suggest that in νεκροῖς we have 
 
 1 Gerhard: vivos, quos judex veniens reperiet vivos, mortwos, quos ex 
 sepulcris in vitam revocabit. Several commentators erroneously understand the 
 words ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς in a figurative sense; Joh. Huss: vivos in gratia ad 
 beatitudinem, mortuos in culpa ad damnationem ; Bened. Arias: vivos adhuc in 
 carne illa Adami: mortuos in Christo. 
 
 2 Lorinus enumerates twelve different interpretations; nor does that com- 
 plete the number. Many commentators are uncertain, and confess that they 
 do not understand the true meaning of the verse ; thus also Luther, who even 
 thinks it possible that the text has been corrupted. Reiche, too, is inclined to 
 regard the passage as a gloss added by a later hand. 
 
CHAP. IV. 6. 209 
 
 a resumption of the νεκρούς immediately preceding, and that 
 what is said in this verse is to be regarded as the ground of 
 the thought that judgment will be pronounced, not only upon 
 the living, but upon the dead also. This assumption seems 
 to be corroborated by the «ai before νεκροῖς. The fact—to 
 which Peter appeals—on which this thought is based is 
 expressed in εὐαγγελίσθη. But it is precisely this idea, that 
 the gospel was preached to the dead,—to all the dead,—which 
 has induced the interpreters to deviate from the explanation 
 lying most naturally to hand. It is entirely unjustifiable, 
 with Zezschwitz (thus Alethaeus already, and Starkius in 
 Wolf), to connect the verse with vv. 1 and 2, regard vv. 3-5 
 as a digression, and understand under νεκροῖς the Christians 
 who are already dead when the day of judgment arrives. γάρ 
 certainly must refer back to ver. 5; according to Schott, it 
 applies to the whole homogeneous statement of ver. 5 ; accord- 
 ing to Bengel, to τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι ; in their opinion, likewise, 
 νεκροῖς is to be understood of Christians already dead. This 
 determination of the expression, however, is arbitrary, as no 
 mention is made in ver. 5 of the Christians.’ It lies more to 
 hand to take the vexpots as meaning the evil-speakers mentioned 
 in ver. 5. On this interpretation, the apostle tells the Chris- 
 tians who were being evil spoken of not to forget that those 
 calumniators who died before the judgment would not on that 
 account escape punishment. Still, it is difficult to see why 
 the apostle should give such special prominence to this— 
 more especially with the further remark, that the gospel was 
 preached unto them, va... ζῶσι «.r.A. Wiesinger justly 
 remarks: “that the author should so expressly accept the 
 assumption of their death, does not well agree with the ἑτοίμως 
 ἔχειν, and not with the subsequent πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος 
 ἤγγικε." — Hofmann, whilst correctly recognising that by 
 vexpots the apostle here does not denote Christians only, or 
 unbelievers only, gives a closer definition of the term by 
 applying it to those of the dead to whom, during their life- 
 time, the gospel had been preached. At the same time, 
 
 1 It is evidently still farther fetched to understand νεκροῖς as meaning the 
 believers of the O. T., as is done by several of the earlier commentators— 
 Bullinger, Aretius, etc. 
 
 1 PETER. O 
 
210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 however, he assumes that the thought here expressed “ serves 
 to confirm or explain the whole statement that the slanderers, 
 without exception, whether living or dead, must render account 
 to the Lord.” But, on the one hand, the apostle in no way 
 alludes to the limitation of the idea here too supposed ; and, 
 on the other, it is incorrect to understand by ζῶντας καὶ 
 νεκρούς, ver. 5, the calumniators only. If all arbitrariness is 
 to be avoided, then vexpots must here be taken in the same 
 wide sense as νεκρούς in ver. 5. Any limitation of the general 
 idea is without justification,—indicated, as such is, neither by 
 the want of the article before νεκροῖς, nor by the circumstance 
 that the slanderers are the subject in ver. 5. Accordingly, it 
 cannot be denied that the apostle gives expression to the 
 thought that the gospel has been preached to all, who are 
 dead, at the time when the last judgment arrives. With the 
 view of chap. iii. 19, 20, which is in harmony with the words, 
 this thought need occasion no stumbling. In that passage, it 
 is true, the ἐκήρυξεν applies only to the spirits of those who 
 perished in the flood. But they alone are mentioned there 
 not because the κήρυγμα was addressed exclusively to them, 
 but because the apostle recognised in the deluge the type of 
 baptism.? Accordingly, though there be a close connection of 
 thought internally between what is here said and chap. 11]. 
 19, 20, it is nevertheless erroneous, with Steiger, König, 
 Güder, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 228 f., to take εὐηγγελίσθη as 
 applying only to those there named. — εὐηγγελίσ θη] is 
 put here impersonally: “the gospel was proclaimed :” neither 
 ὁ Χριστός nor ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Bengel, Grotius, Pott, 
 etc.), nor anything similar, is to be supplied. 
 
 eis τοῦτο... ἵνα (comp. chap. iii. 9; John xviii. 37, and 
 other passages) points to the design of the fact stated in 
 εὐηγγελίσθη; on this the chief accent of the sentence lies. 
 The apostle bases the thought, that the Lord stands ready to 
 
 1 The phrases: ἐγείρειν, ἐγείρεσθαι, ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 
 153]), go to prove that the expression νεκροί, when applied to all the dead, has 
 not necessarily the article prefixed to it. Elsewhere, too, νεκροί has no article ; 
 cf. Luke xvi. 30; Acts x. 42; Rom. xiv. 9. 
 
 ® Erroneous is the opinion of several commentators (Pott, Jachmann, König, 
 Grimm in theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1835), that these only are named by way 
 of example, because they were specially ungodly. 
 
CHAP. IV. 6. ZA 
 
 judge the dead also, not alone on the circumstance that the 
 gospel has been preached to them too, but that it has been 
 preached for the purpose which he states in what follows. 
 This purpose is expressed in the sentence consisting of two 
 members: ἵνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκι, ζῶσιν δὲ 
 κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι. According to the grammatical structure, 
 κριθῶσιν and ζῶσιν are co-ordinate with each other, and both 
 are equally dependent on iva. In sense iva applies, however, 
 only to ζῶσιν, inasmuch as the first member must be regarded 
 as a parenthesis. The construction here is similar to that 
 which is frequently to be found in classical writers in clauses 
 connected by μὲν ... dé (see Matthiae, ausf. griech. Gr. 2d ed. 
 p. 1262). This conjunction, as Hartung (Lehre v. d. Partikl., 
 Part II. p. 406) remarks, discloses the contrast. The aorist 
 κριθῶσιν shows the judgment to be one which, at the com- 
 mencement of the last judgment, is by their very death 
 executed upon those who are then dead, and this quite inde- 
 pendently of whether the gospel was preached to them before 
 or after death. It is accordingly erroneous to understand this 
 judgment (κριθῶσιν) to mean the judgment of repentance 
 (Gerhard), or that of the flood (de Wette) ; it is the judgment 
 of death, as nearly all expositors have rightly acknowledged. 
 Hofmann, with only an appearance of rightness, asserts that 
 the expression of the apostle can be appropriately applied only 
 to those who did not suffer this judgment of death till after 
 the gospel had been preached to them. The apostle could 
 express himself thus as regards those also with whom this was 
 not the case, all the more readily that they were not set free 
 from the condition of death immediately on hearing the gospel 
 preached, nor then even, when they had received it in faith. 
 Accordingly, the interpretation is: “in order that they, after 
 the flesh, indeed, judged by death, may live according to the spirit” 
 (Wiesinger). The antithesis σαρκὶ :.. πνεύματι is here in 
 the same sense as in chap. iii. 18. Güder’s opinion, that σάρξ 
 here denotes the sinful bias which the dead possess, is unwar- 
 ranted; nowhere in Scripture is σάρξ attributed to the 
 already departed. — κατὰ ἀνθρώπους means neither: “ by 
 men,” nor: “ according to the judgment of men;” but: “accord- 
 ing to the manner of men, as is peculiar to them.” — The 
 
212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 second member: ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι, corresponds as 
 to form entirely with the first clause, only that here the verb 
 is present, because it mentions the future condition aimed at. 
 ζῆν is antithetical to κριθῆναι, and denotes the eternal life 
 which in the judgment is awarded to those who in faith have 
 received the gospel. It is more nearly defined by κατὰ Θεόν, 
 which (corresponding to the κατὰ ἀνθρώπους) can only mean, 
 “according to the manner of God, as corresponds with the 
 character of God.’*— This final clause states the purpose 
 which this εὐωγγελίζεσθαι should serve; whether, and in how 
 far, the object is attained is not said. 
 
 Ver. 7. Here begins the third series of exhortations, which 
 has special reference to life in the church, and is linked on to 
 the thought of the nearness of the end of all things (see 
 Introd. ὃ 2). — πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν] δέ marks clearly 
 the transition to another train of thought. It is accordingly 
 incorrect to connect the clause with what precedes (Hofmann). 
 πάντων TO τέλος, equal to: “the end of all things,” refers back 
 to the foregoing ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι; with the judgment 
 comes the τέλος. πάντων, placed first by way of emphasis, is 
 not masc. (Hensler: “the end of all men”) but neut.;” comp. 
 2 Pet. iii. 10,11; with τέλος, Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. — ἤγγικε] 
 comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Jas. v.8; Phil.iv.5. That the apostle, 
 without fixing the time or the hour of it, looked upon the 
 advent of Christ and the end of the world, —in its condition 
 hitherto,—therewith connected, as near at hand, must be 
 simply admitted.* — σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε! The first 
 exhortation, grounded (οὖν) on the thought of the nearness of 
 
 1 Hofmann interprets κατὰ Θεόν incorrectly by: “ because of God,” to which 
 he adds the more precise definition : ‘‘ since it is God who gives this life, so that 
 it is therefore constituted accordingly.” — Jachmann’s view is very singular ; he 
 holds that xarz Θεόν means ‘‘ with reference to their divine part ;” nor, he 
 thinks, should this occasion surprise, for, as the sensuous nature of man is in 
 biblical language personified by ὁ ἄνθρωπος, so too his invisible, divine nature 
 might be personified by ὁ Θεός. 
 
 2 Oecumenius gives two interpretations: +d τέλος" ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἡ συμπλήρωσις, 
 συντέλεια" 4 σίλος ἠγγικέναι τῶν πάντων προφητῶν᾽ τοῦτο δὲ ἀληθεῖ λόγῳ, 6 Χριστός, 
 πάντων γὰρ τελειότης, αὐτός ἔστιν. The second is evidently false. 
 
 3 According to Schott, ἤγγικε means as much as: ‘‘ not only is there nothing 
 more between the Christian’s present state of salvation and the end, but the 
 former is itself already the end, i.e. the beginning of the end.” 
 
 So Ss 
 
CHAP. IV. 8. aie 
 
 the end of the world. cawdp.; Vulg.: estote prudentes ; in this 
 sense the word is not in use in the N. T.; it means rather tem- 
 perateness of spirit, &.e. the governing omnium immoderatorum 
 affectuum; with the passage comp. 1 Tim. i. 9; Tit. ii. 6 
 (Hemming: σωφροσύνη, equal to affectuum et voluntatis 
 harmonia), in contrast to the licentiousness of the heathen 
 described in ver. 2 (Wiesinger). — vate] Vulg.: vigilate, 
 inexactly ; νήφειν has here the same meaning as in chap. 1.13. 
 It is not enough to understand both expressions of abstinence 
 from sensual indulgence. — eis [tas] προσευχάς) not: in 
 orationibus (Vulg.), for eis states the aim of the σωφρ. and 
 νήφειν, but: “ unto prayer,” that is, so that you may always be 
 in the right frame of mind for prayer. If tds be genuine, it 
 is to be explained on the supposition that the apostle took the 
 prayers of Christians for granted. — A mind excited by 
 passions and lusts cannot pray. The plural points to repeated 
 prayer (Schott). Schott, without any warrant, would under- 
 stand by it the prayers of the church only. — The fact that 
 both ideas are synonymous, forbids any separation, with de 
 Wette and Hofmann, of σωφρονήσωτε from νήψατε, and the 
 conjoining of eis τ, προσευχάς with the latter term only. 
 
 Ver. 8. πρὸ πάντων δέ] cf. Jas. v. 12.— τὴν eis ἑαυτοὺς 
 (1... ἀλλήλους) ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες. The second exhorta- 
 tion. The participle shows that this and the first exhortation 
 belong closely together. Luther translates inexactly: “have... 
 a burning love.” Love one to another, as the characteristic 
 sign (John xiii. 35) of Christians, is presupposed ; the apostle’s 
 exhortation is directed to this, that the love should be exrevns 
 (Bengel: amor jam praesupponitur, ut sit vehemens, praecipitur). 
 — For ἐκτενής, cf. chap. i. 22. There is nothing to show that 
 the apostle gave expression to this exhortation with special 
 reference to the circumstance “that in the case of his readers 
 brotherly love was united with danger and persecution” 
 (Schott). — ὅτε [ἡ] ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν] A 
 proverbial saying after Prov. x. 12: on Ὁ Wyn nay 
 mans AIA D'yeia-da (the second half is incorrectly translated 
 by the LXX.: πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει 
 φιλία) : “ Love covereth (maketh a covering over) all sins.” 
 The sense of the words is evident from the first half of the 
 
214 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 verse ; whilst hatred stirs up strife and contention (by bring- 
 ing the sins of others to the light of day), love, with forgiving 
 gentleness, covers the sins of others (and thus works concord).’ 
 — In its original meaning, accordingly, the proverb has refer- 
 ence to what love does as regards the sins of others; love in 
 its essential nature is forgiveness, and that not of some, but of 
 many sins; 1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7; Matt. xvii. 21, 22. In this 
 sense Estius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Steiger, Wiesinger, 
 Weiss (p. 337 f.), Schott, Fronmiiller, etc., have rightly inter- 
 preted the passage, which then, serving as the basis of the 
 preceding exhortation,” is intended to set forth the blessed 
 influence of love on life in the church. Hofmann unjustly 
 denies this (Beza: caritatem mutuam commendat ex eo, quod 
 innumerabilia peccata veluti sepeliat, ac proinde pacis ac con- 
 cordiae sit fautrix et conservatrix. Wiesinger: “Only by the 
 forgiving, reconciling influence of love, can the destructive 
 power of sin be kept away from church life”). Steiger 
 (with whom Weiss and Fronmiiller agree) explains: “ the 
 apostle recommends the Christians to extend the limits of 
 brotherly love and to strengthen themselves in it, because true 
 love covers a multitude of sins;” but this is not to the point, 
 inasmuch as the covering of many sins is peculiar to the 
 ἀγάπη itself, and constitutes the reason why it should be 
 ἐκτενής. Several expositors (Grotius, etc.) understand the 
 words to have the same meaning here as in Jas. v. 20 (see 
 Comment. in loe.), that is, that love in effecting the sinner’s 
 conversion, procures the divine forgiveness for his many sins ; 
 but, on the one hand, “the apostle does not here regard his 
 readers as erring brethren, of whom it might be the duty of 
 some to convert the others” (Wiesinger) ; and, on the other, 
 
 1 As opposed to the view that Peter had this passage in his mind, de Wette 
 asserts, that in “that case the apostle must have translated from the Hebrew 
 the passage incorrectly rendered by the LXX. This, however, is in itself 
 improbable, as he would then have written πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας, or rather, 
 πάντα τὰ ἀδικήματα (cf. Prov. xvii. 9).” But though it may be questioned 
 whether Peter quoted directly from it, there can be no doubt, as even Briickner, 
 Wiesinger, and Weiss admit, that the proverbial phrase arose out of that 
 passage. 
 
 * Hottinger : ὅτι indicare videtur (better : indicat) incitamentum aliquod, quo 
 christianis amor iste commendatur, 
 
CHAP. IV. 9, 10. 215 
 
 “there is here not the slightest indication that the expression 
 is not to be understood directly of the covering of sins as 
 such, but of reclaiming labours” (Weiss). — Oecumenius 
 already (ὁ μὲν yap eis τὸν πλησίον ἔλεος, TOY Θεὸν ἡμῖν ἵλεων 
 ποιεῖ), and after him many Catholic expositors (Salmeron, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Lorinus, etc.), and several Protestants also 
 (the latter sometimes, whilst distinctly defending the Protestant 
 principle against Catholic applications of the passage’), under- 
 stand the maxim of the blessing which love brings to him 
 who puts it into practice. But if Peter had wished to express 
 a thought similar to that uttered by Christ, Matt. vi. 14, 15, 
 he would assuredly not have made use of words such as these, 
 which in the nature of them bear not upon personal sins, but 
 on those of others. 
 
 Ver. 9. In this and the following verses two manifestations 
 of love are brought prominently forward, in which its minister- 
 ing nature is revealed. First: φιλόξενοι eis ἀλλήλους] cf. 
 ποτα πα: 13); Heb. xis 2);) 30 John. 5 30 1 ‘Tims, i. 2) ete: 
 The chief emphasis lies on the words which serve more closely 
 to define the statement: ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, “ without murmur- 
 ing, 1.0. murmuring at the trouble caused by the hospitality 
 shown to brethren. The same thing is said in a more general 
 way, Phil. ii. 14: πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλο- 
 γισμῶν ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7: μὴ ἐκ λύπης, ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 
 
 Ver. 10. Second manifestation of love. It is presupposed 
 that each one has received a χάρισμα: ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβε 
 
 1 Vorstius: intelligit Ap. caritatem in causa esse, ut non tantum proximi nostri 
 peccata humaniter tegamus, verum etiam ut Deus nobis ex pacto gratuito nostra 
 peccata condonet, non quod propter meritum seu dignitatem caritatis id fiat, sed 
 quia caritas erga fratres conditio est, sine qua Deus nobis ignoscere non vult. 
 
 2 De Wette gives a peculiar combination of the various interpretations: ‘‘ As 
 the love which is required of us is a common love, so the writer refers to the 
 common sins still defacing the whole of Christian social life, but which, as single 
 blemishes (!), are overshone, and made pardonable in God’s eye, by the light of 
 that love which penetrates all ; that is, in that this love produces mutual recon- 
 ciliation and improvement.” On this Briickner remarks, that what is true here 
 is the thought that reciprocalness is a characteristic not of love only, but of all 
 her actions, i.e. “" He whose love covers the sins of others, sees in like manner his 
 own sins covered by the love of others.” But this makes ‘the interpretation 
 only more artificial, and removes it still farther from the simple phraseology of 
 our passage ” (Weiss). — Clemens Al. and Bernhard of Clairvaux (Sermo 23 in 
 Cant.) understand ἀγάπη to mean the love of Christ (!). 
 
216 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 χάρισμα] καθώς, not equal to ὅς, but pro ratione qua, prouti 
 (Wahl), “ according as.” — χάρισμα] as in Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 4, 28; not an office in the church. Every man should, 
 according to the kind of gift he has received (not: according 
 to the measure of it, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέτρῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἔλαβε vel ut 
 Paulus: ὡς ὁ Θεὸς ἐμέρισε μέτρον χαρισμάτων, Rom. xii. 3. 
 Pott: still less can καθώς be referred to the manner of receiv- 
 ing; Lorinus: sicut gratis accepimus, ita gratis demus), 
 administer it for his brethren, eis ἑαυτούς, 1.0. for their benefit, 
 and therefore for that of the entire community. διακονεῖν (a 
 transitive verb, as in chap. i. 12): vocula emphatica ; innuit 
 Ap. quod propter dona illa nemo se debeat supra alios efferre, 
 aut dominium in alios affectare, sed aliorum ministrum sese 
 sponte constituere (Gerhard). —@s καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης 
 χάριτος Θεοῦ] With os, cf. chap. i. 14: as is peculiar to the 
 καλοῖς οἰκονόμοις, which, from their vocation, Christians should 
 be. With οἰκονόμοι, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7. According to 
 de Wette and Weiss, there is here an allusion to the parable 
 of the talents, Matt. xxv. 14. — καλός] expression of irre- 
 proachable excellence ; see 1 Tim. iv. 6; 2 Tim. u. 3. The 
 Lord of the Christians, as the οἰκονόμοι, is God; the goods 
 which He entrusts to their stewardship are His ποικίλη χάρις; 
 xapıs is here the sum of all that has fallen to the share of 
 believers through the grace of God; the individual manifesta- 
 tions of it are the χαρίσματα, the homogeneous character of 
 which is marked by the sifgular, and their variety by ποικίλη 
 here subjoined with reference to the preceding καθὼς... 
 χάρισμα. 
 
 Ver. 11. Species duas generi subjicit (Vorstius). From 
 the general term χάρισμα, Peter selects two special functions 
 for greater prominence. — εἴ tis λαλεῖ] λαλεῖν is here the 
 preaching in the church, which includes the προφητεύειν, 
 διδάσκειν, and παρακαλεῖν, mentioned in Rom. xii. 6-8. Pott 
 is inexact in paraphrasing εἴ tus λαλεῖ by εἴ τις ἔχει TO 
 χάρισμα Tod λαλεῖν (so, too, Schott: “if any one have the gift 
 and vocation to speak”), for λαλεῖν is not the gift, but the 
 exercise of it. It is arbitrary to limit the application of the 
 term to the official duties of the elders (Hemming: si quis 
 docendi munus in ecclesia sustinet), for in the assemblies 
 
CHAP, IV. 11. >17 
 
 every oné who possessed the necessary χάρισμα was at liberty 
 to speak. — ὧς λόγια Θεοῦ] λαλείτω ἃ λαλεῖ must be sup- 
 plied ; or better still, with Wiesinger: λαλοῦντες ; cf. ἕκαστος 
 . . . διακονοῦντες above; Aöyıa—as in classical Greek, chiefly 
 of oracular responses—is applied in the N. T. only to the 
 utterances or revelations of God; either to those in the O. T., 
 as in Acts vii. 38, Rom. iii. 2, or those in the N. T., as Heb. 
 v. 12. The idea, prophecies, is too narrow. This exhorta- 
 tion presupposes that whoever speaks in the congregation, 
 gives utterance, not to his own thoughts, but to the revelations 
 of God, and it demands that he should do so in a manner (ὡς) 
 conformable to them. — εἴ tis διακονεῖ] διακονεῖν must not 
 be understood as applying to the official work of the appointed 
 deacons only; it embraces quaevis ministeria in ecclesia ab 
 docendi officio distincta (Gerhard; so, too, Wiesinger, who 
 here cites Rom. xii. 8 and 1 Cor. xi. 28), but it refers 
 specially to the care of the poor, the sick, and the strangers, 
 either official, or according to the free-will of individual 
 members of the church. — ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος «.T.A.] sc. διακονείτω, 
 or better διακονοῦντες : “ so ministering, as of, etc. Here, too, 
 it is presumed that the person ministering is not wanting in 
 that strength which God supplies, and the exhortation is, that 
 he should exercise his ability in a way corresponding with 
 the fact, that he received the strength necessary thereto from 
 God, and not as “of himself possessing it.” χορηγεῖν, besides 
 in this passage, occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 10. (emixopnyeiv 
 is to be met with frequently, eg. 2 Pet. i. 5.)— ἵνα] as 
 stating. their purpose, refers back to the exhortations in vv. 10 
 and 11, with special reference to the determinative clauses 
 introduced by ws. — ἐν πᾶσιν] “in all things” (Wiesinger), 
 ae. “in the practice of all the gifts, the exercise of which was 
 connected with matters relating to the churches” (Schott) ; 
 not equivalent to ev πᾶσιν ἔθνεσιν (Oec.), or “in you all” 
 (de Wette: “as His true instruments”); cf. 1 Tim. üi. 11. 
 — δοξάζηται ὁ Θεός] “in order that God may be glorified,” ie. 
 that He obtain the praise, since it will be evident from your 
 conduct that you as His οἰκονόμοι have received (καθὼς ἔλαβε) 
 all things (τὰ λόγια, τὴν ἰσχύν) from Him.— διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ] belongs to δοξάξηται, and points out that not the 
 
218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 ability only, for the λαλεῖν and διακονεῖν, is communicated 
 to the Christian through the agency of Christ, but that all 
 actual employment of it is effected by Christ. It is mistaken, 
 with Hofmann,—who is not justified in appealing to Rom. 
 xvi. 27 and Heb. xiii. 21 in support of his assertion,—to 
 connect διὰ “I. Xp. with the following relative clause. Such 
 a view is opposed not only to the natural construction, but to 
 the thought, since God did not receive His δόξα and His 
 xparos first through Christ. — As a close, the doxology: @, 
 may be referred either to Θεός (Oecumenius Calvin, Bengel, 
 de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann) or 
 to “I. Χριστοῦ (Grotius, Calov, Steiger). The first is the 
 correct application, since ὁ Θεός is the subject of the clause 
 and ἡ δόξα points back to δοξάζηται. Comp. chap. v. 11. 
 The doxology states the reason of the ἵνα δοξάζηται ὁ Θεός 
 (Schott) ; because God is (ἐστιν) the glary and the power, there- 
 fore the endeavours of the church should be directed to bring 
 about a lively acknowledgment of this, to the praise of God. —. 
 Identical with this is the doxology, Rev. 1. 6 (cf. also Rev. v. 13). 
 
 Ver. 12. Exhortation with reference to the sufferings under 
 persecution. dyamnroi] see chap. ii. 11.— μὴ ξενίζεσθε) cf. 
 ver. 4; Nicol. de Lyra translates incorrectly : nolite a fide 
 alienari; Luther correctly: “let it not astonish you.’ — τῇ ἐν 
 ὑμῖν πυρώσει] The construction cum dat. occurs also in 
 classical Greek ; πύρωσις, besides in this passage, t6 be found 
 only in Rev. xviii. 9, 18, where it is equal to, incendium. The 
 LXX. translate 47¥ and even 02 by πυρόω ; the substantive, 
 Prov. xxvii. 21, is an inexact translation of “3 in the sense 
 of “refining furnace ;” Oec. correctly: πύρωσιν τὰς θλίψεις 
 εἰπὼν, ἐνέφηνεν ws διὰ δοκιμασίαν ἐπάγονται αὐτοῖς αὐταί. 
 The word, however, does not in itself contain the reference to 
 purification, this is introduced only in what follows; Gualther: 
 confert erucem igni, nos auro. — ἐν ὑμῖν] “among, with you ;” 
 not equal to “affecting some in your midst” (de Wette), but 
 “the readers are regarded as a totality, and the rip. as 
 present in the midst of them” (Wiesinger). — The definite 
 purpose of the πύρωσις is brought out in the subsequent 
 
 * Calvin: quia quicquid habemus ad ministrandum virtutis solus ipse nobis 
 suggerit, 
 
CHAP. IV. 13. 219 
 
 words: πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν γινομένῃ. πειρασμός here means the 
 trial with intent to purify (elsewhere it has also the secondary 
 signification of designed temptation to sin); ef. chap. i. 7. — ὡς 
 ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντος) ξένου points back to μὴ ξενίζεσθε. 
 Luther: “as though some strange thing happened unto you;” 
 ie. something strange to your destination, unsuited to it.’ 
 
 Ver. 13. ἀλλὰ . . χαίρετε] Antithesis to Eevieode; non 
 tantum mirari vetat Petrus, sed gaudere etiam jubet (Calvin) ; 
 the measure of the joy is indicated by καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασι. ---- καθό, not equivalent to, “that,” 
 nor to, quando (Pott), but to, quatenus, in quantum; cf. Rom. 
 vii. 26, 2 Cor. viii. 12.— ra τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα is 
 inexactly interpreted by Vorst. as: afflictiones Christi membris 
 destinatae, nempe quas pil propter justitiam et evangelium 
 Christi sustinent; they rather mean the sufferings which 
 Christ Himself has endured. Of these the believers are 
 partakers (κοινωνοῦσιν αὐτοῖς), for the world shows the same 
 enmity to them as to Christ, since it is He who is hated in 
 them ; cf. my commentary to Col. 1. 24, and Meyer to 2 Cor. 
 i. 5, 7 (so, too, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 293 f., Schott). Steiger? 
 is wrong in thinking of the inward suffering endured by the 
 Christian, whilst, by the power of Christ’s death, he dies unto 
 sin. — The object to be supplied in thought to χαίρετε is the 
 πύρωσις previously mentioned by the apostle. — ἵνα καί] 
 states the design of xaipeıv: the Christians are to rejoice 
 now, in order that they may also (καί lays stress on the future 
 in relation to the present) rejoice ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, etc. ; for 
 this future joy is conditioned by that of the present, as the 
 future partaking of the δόξα of Christ by the present sharing 
 of His παθήμασι Schott unreasonably opposes as “ gram- 
 
 1 Schott here again supposes that in consequence of persecutions the leaders 
 had become perplexed as to the moral truth of their state of salvation. This 
 the context in no way justifies. What causes astonishment is rather the fact 
 that the church belonging to the glorified Christ is exposed to the obloquy of 
 the world. 
 
 2 «The κοινωνεῖν σ. af. consists in the inward fellowship of the sufferings of 
 Christ, in the participation in that strength which arises from the justifying 
 confidence in their value, and which causes us even to die unto sin.” 
 
 3 Weiss (p. 291 ff.), while denying that Peter has the Pauline idea of com- 
 munity of life with Christ, supplements, as an intermediate thought that 
 
220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 matical pedantry” the application of iva to the preceding 
 χαίρετε, for he remarks, it is the sufferings themselves 
 which hold out to us the future joy. But he omits to con- 
 sider that the κοινωνεῖν τοῖς τ. Xp. mad. holds out future 
 happiness to him only who finds his joy in it. Schott incor- 
 rectly appeals in support of his construction to John xi. 15.— 
 It is not correct to explain, with Gerhard, ete., ἵνα, ἐκβατικῶς. 
 — ev TH ἀποκαλύψει «.7.d.] not “because of,” but “at” 
 (Luther: “at the time of”) the revelation; cf. chap. i. 17. 
 The expression: ἀποκάλ. τῆς δόξης Χριστοῦ (with which com- 
 pare Matt. xxv. 31),is to be found only here. By it the 
 apostle indicates that he who is now a partaker of the 
 sufferings of Christ, and rejoices in them (Col. iii. 4), will one 
 day be partaker of His glory, and in it rejoice everlastingly. 
 ἀγαλλιώμενοι is added to χαρῆτε by way of giving additional 
 force to the idea (chap. i. 8; Matt. v. 12): quia prius illud 
 gaudium) cum dolore et tristitia mixtum est, secundum cum 
 exsultatione conjungit (Calvin). 
 
 Ver. 14. In order to strengthen the exhortation: μὴ Eevi- 
 Geode . . . ἀλλὰ χαίρετε, Peter adds the assurance: εἰ ὀνειδί- 
 ζεσθε x.7.r.; cf. chap. iii. 14 and Matt. v. 11. — Pott, without 
 any reason, explains et by καίπερ. ---- ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ) The 
 explanation: propter confessionem Christi (de Wette), 
 inaccurate, for ὄνομα is not: confessio; the meaning is the 
 same as that in Mark ix. 41: ἐν ὀνόματι, ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστέ, 
 thus: “ because ye bear the name of Christ, and therefore belong 
 to Him.” Schott: “for the sake of your Christian name and 
 Christian profession ;” Steiger: “as servants of Christ.” 
 μακάριοι] 50. Eore. — ὅτε TO τῆς δόξης [καὶ δυνάμεως] Kal τὸ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεῦμα] δόξα: glory in its highest sense, heavenly, 
 divine glory... According to Greek usage, τὸ τῆς δόξης may 
 be a circumlocution for ἡ δόξα; see Matth. ausf. Gr. Gram. 
 2d ed. § 284; but this form of expression does not occur 
 elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 135]); nor is 
 participation in the sufferings of Christ is the necessary mark of the true 
 disciples. But this is to give a much too superficial conception of the relation ; 
 and could Peter have thought it possible to be a disciple without community of 
 life ? 
 
 1 Bengel erroneously understands δόξα pro concreto, and that, ita nt sit appellatio 
 Christi, ‘adding : innuitur, Spiritum Christi eundem esse Spiritum Dei Patris. 
 
 Vy 
 
CHAP. IV. 14, DAL 
 
 it easy to understand why the apostle should not simply have 
 written ἡ δόξα. Accordingly, it is preferable to take τό with 
 the subsequent πνεῦμα, and to assume an additional πνεῦμα 
 (as is done by the greater number of commentators, de Wette, 
 also Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott); the Spirit of Glory is, then, 
 the same as that which is also the Spirit of God (καὶ τὸ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ rv. subjoined epexegetically). But in consideration of 
 ὀνειδίζεσθε, He is styled the Spirit of δόξα, 1.6. to whom δόξα 
 belongs (Calvin: qui gloriam secum perpetuo conjunctam 
 habet ; ef. Eph. i. 17), and who therefore also bestows it. τὸ 
 tod Θεοῦ is added in order to show that this Spirit of δόξα 
 is none other than the Spirit of God Himself. It must be 
 allowed that, on this interpretation, there is an inexactness of 
 expression, καί being evidently out of place; cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 
 565: περὶ τὸ ἐν “Apxadia τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερόν ; cf. Winer, p. 125 
 [E. T. 165].— Hofmann proposes, therefore, to supply to τό 
 not πνεῦμα, but ὄνομα, from what precedes. But if Peter 
 had had this thought in his mind, he would certainly have 
 given definite expression to it; and it is self-evident, too, 
 that on him who is reproached ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, as a 
 bearer of it, that name rests. — ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται) after 
 Isa. xi. 2, where the same expression is used of the πνεῦμα 
 τ. Θεοῦ (in like manner ἐπαναπαύεσθαι, Num. xi. 25; 
 2 Kings ii. 15, LXX.; of eipyvn, Luke x. 6). The accus. ἐφ᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς 15 to be explained as with ἔμεινεν, John i. 32; Wahl: 
 demissus in vos requiescit in vobis; it points to the living 
 operation of the Spirit on those upon whom He rests. The 
 thought’ contained in these words gives the reason (ὅτι) of 
 what has been said: not, however, the logical reason (Aretius : 
 crux, quam bonus fert pro Christo, indicat, quod Spir. Dei in 
 illo quescat ; similarly, too, Hofmann: “they should consider 
 themselves happy, that they are reproached for bearing the 
 name of Christ; every such reproach reminds them of what, by 
 bearing it, they are”); but the actual reason, that is, inas- 
 much as this resting of the Spirit of δόξα, on those who are 
 reproached ἐν ὀνόμ. Χριστοῦ, is a sealing of their eternal δόξα. 
 It is inappropriate to insert, with Calvin, a nihilominus, so 
 that the sense would be: in spite of that reproach, the Spirit 
 of God still dwells in you; the more so that the reproach of 
 
222 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 unbelievers was called forth by the very fact, that the life of 
 the Christians was determined by the Spirit which rested upon 
 them. — In the additional clause found in the Ree, and 
 connected with what goes before: κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασ- 
 φημεῖται, kata δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται, the subject can hardly be 
 πνεῦμα Θεοῦ taken from the explanatory clause immediately 
 preceding, but is more probably ὄνομα Χριστοῦ from the pre- 
 vious clause, and on which the principal stress is laid. Schott 
 wrongly thinks that this addition interrupts the connection of 
 thought; but Hofmann is equally in error in holding the 
 opposite opinion, that it is of necessity demanded by the γάρ, 
 ver. 15; for yap may be equally well applied to the idea that 
 the Spirit of God rests on those who are reproached ἐν ὀνόματι 
 Χριστοῦ, as to this, that the name of Christ is glorified καθ᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς. Since the rendering of κατά by “ with” (as formerly in 
 this comment.), or by “on the part of” (Hofmann), cannot be 
 supported,’ the meaning “with regard to” (de Wette) must 
 be maintained. The interpretation will then be: “by ther 
 . your conduct,” or “according to their . . . your opinion.” 
 Ver. 15. With reference to the assumption contained in 
 what precedes— whether expressed in the clause εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε 
 . .. ἀναπαύεται, or in the doubtful adjunct κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξά- 
 ferat—the apostle by way of explanation adds the following 
 warning: μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ws φονεὺς «.7.r.] The 
 particle γάρ does not here assign a reason, it gives an ex- 
 planation : “that is to say,”” “that is, let none of you suffer as 
 a murderer;” ὡς φονεύς, 1.0. because he is a murderer. The 
 two special conceptions, φονεύς and κλέπτης, are followed by 
 the more general κακοποιός, in order that every other kind of 
 crime may be therein included. These three conceptions 
 1 Although Hofmann appeals for this signification to chap. iv. 6, still, in 
 interpreting that passage, he himself takes κατά in a sense other than it is 
 supposed to have here. — Pott uses the cireumlocution κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν for 
 κατὰ αὐτούς ; Whilst he explains κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς by quod autem ad vos attinet, i.e. 
 
 vestra autem agendi ratione, although κατά must have the same meaning in both 
 clauses. 
 
 2 Calvin: Particula causalis hic supervacua non est, quum velit Ap. causam 
 reddere, cur tantum ad societatem passionum Christi hortatus sit fideles et simul 
 per occasionem eos monere, ut juste et innoxie vivant, ne‘ justas sibi poenas 
 arcessant propria culpa. aa rightly remarks: non enim cruciatus 
 martyrem facit, sed causa. 
 
CHAP. IV. 16. 228 
 
 belong very closely to each other, for which reason ὡς is not 
 repeated. On the other hand, the fourth conception, ἀλλο- 
 τριοεπίσκοπος, is, by the prefixed os, distinguished from the 
 others as entirely independent. Etymologically, this word 
 denotes one who assumes to himself an oversight of other 
 people’s affairs with which he has nothing to do. The con- 
 sciousness of a higher dignity could easily betray the 
 Christian into such a presumption, which must make him all 
 the more odious to strangers. Oecumenius takes the word as 
 equivalent to ὁ τὰ ἀλλότρια περιεργαζόμενος ; Calvin, Beza, 
 etc., to, alieni cupidus, appetens; Pott, to, “a disturber of the 
 public peace.” But all these interpretations are not in har- 
 mony with the etymology of the word. 
 
 Ver. 16. Antithesis to the foregoing. — εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανὸς 
 (sc. τὶς πάσχει) μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω] The name Χριστιανός, besides 
 here, is to be found only in Acts xi. 26, where its origin is 
 mentioned (cf. Meyer in loc.), and Acts xxvi. 28.— os Xp., 
 4.6. because of his being a Christian, synonymous with ἐν 
 ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, ver. 14. Calvin: non tam nomen quam 
 causam respicit. — μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω : “let him not consider it a 
 disgrace;” cf. Rom. i. 16; 2 Tim. i. 8, 12.— δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν 
 ©eöv] cf. Acts v. 41. Bengel: Poterat Petr., antitheti vi, 
 dicere: honori sibi ducat, sed honorem Deo resignandum esse 
 docet. —év τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ] goes back to πάσχειν ὡς 
 Χριστιανός: de Wette regards it as synonymous with the 
 reading: ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3: “in this 
 matter,” “in this respect ;”' ὄνομα can, however, be retained in 
 its strict sense (Wiesinger), in which case it will mean the 
 name Χριστιανός ; ἐν will then designate this name as the 
 reason of the δοξάζειν (see Winer, p. 362 [E. T. 484]). Hof- 
 mann, who gives the preference to the reading ἐν τῷ μέρει 
 τούτῳ, “in this respect,” refers the word to what follows, thus 
 attributing to δοξαζέτω an application different from that of 
 μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω. When, then, he states that the cause for 
 praise arises from this circumstance, that the Christian’s suf- 
 ferings are appointed by God, he is introducing a thought in no . 
 way alluded to, and still less expressed, by the apostle. 
 
 1 Schott interprets μέρος artificially as, ‘‘that piece of life apportioned to 
 Christians, which consists in suffering.” 
 
Ἅ 273. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Ver. 17, The apostle’s exhortation: μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξα- 
 ζέτω δέ, is based on ‘a reference to the judgment which 
 threatens the unbelieving. The connection of thought is the 
 same here as in vv. 4 and 5.— Calvin differently: Nam haec 
 necessitas totam Dei ecclesiam manet, ut—Dei manu casti- 
 getur: tanto igitur aequiori animo ferendae sunt pro Christo 
 persequutiones. But in this, as in the following verse, the 
 chief stress is laid not so much on the first as on the second 
 half. It is purely arbitrary for Pott to assert that örı is 
 superfluous. — ὅτε ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα] Luther’s 
 translation: “it is time,” is inexact. The article before καιρός 
 must not be overlooked ; thus: “for it is the time of the beginning 
 of the judgment, that is, in which the judgment is beginning ;” 
 ἐστί is to be supplied; the genitive is directly dependent on 
 ὁ καιρός (cf. Luke i. 57), and not “on καιρός taken out of 
 the subject, ὁ καιρός " (Hofmann). By κρίμα is to be under- 
 stood the definite judgment (τό), that is, the final judgment, 
 which Peter, however, here thinks of, not in its last decisive 
 act, but in its gradual development. It begins with the Chris- 
 tians (Matt. xxiv. 9 ff.) in the refining fire of affliction, ver. 12, 
 and is completed in the sentence of condemnation pronounced 
 on the unbelieving world at the advent of Christ. In opposi- 
 tion to the apostle’s manner of expressing himself, Hofmann 
 maintains that reference is here made only to the judgment 
 of the unbelieving world, the beginning of which Peter recog- 
 nised in the fact that God permitted it to persecute the 
 Christians, to do unto them that which makes itself ripe for 
 judgment (!). — ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ Θεοῦ] ἀπό is here pregnant: 
 the judgment takes place first in the oix. τοῦ Θεοῦ: thence it 
 proceeds further on; with the construction ἄρχεσθαι ἀπό, cf. 
 Acts i. 22, viii. 35, x. 37.1! — οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ is the church of 
 believers; 1 Tim. iii. 15 (chap. ii. 5, οἶκος πνευματικός). ---- εἰ 
 δὲ πρῶτον ab ἡμῶν] By these words the apostle passes over to 
 the chief thought of the verse. Either τὸ κρίμα ἄρχεται may 
 be supplied, and πρῶτον regarded as a pleonasm intensifying 
 
 1 Schott thinks that Peter really intended to write: ‘‘for the time is come, 
 that the judgment of the world must begin, but its beginning must be at the 
 house of God.” But why then did Peter not write as he intended? Schott 
 introduces an idea into the second clause, which Peter has in no way expressed. 
 
\e 
 
 / 
 CHAP. IV. 18. 225 
 
 the idea ἄρχεται; or it may be assumed, with de Wette, that 
 the expression arose from a mingling of the two thoughts, εἰ 
 δὲ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν TO κρίμα ἄρχεται and ei δὲ πρῶτον ἡμεῖς Kpwo- 
 μεθα. The first is more probable; πρῶτον presented itself to 
 the apostle, because he wished to lay stress on the fact that 
 the Christians had to suffer only the beginning of the judgment, 
 not its close.’ — ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν corresponds with the preceding oik. 
 
 “7. Θεοῦ. The sense is: If God does not exempt us, the members 
 
 of His house (His family), from judgment, but permits it 
 to take its beginning at us, how should the unbelievers be 
 exempted ? (cf. Luke xxiii. 31). — τί τὸ τέλος τῶν K.7.A.] sc. 
 ἔσται. ---- τὸ τέλος, not: “the reward,” but: the final term, the 
 end, to which the ἀπειθοῦντες τῷ εὐαγγ. (i.e. those who in hos- 
 tility oppose the gospel of God) are going. Schott explains 
 τὸ τέλος (antithetically to πρῶτον) as the final judgement itself, 
 and the genitive τῶν ἀπειθούντων as a concise, nearer defini- 
 tion (“the part of the judgment which falls to the lot of the 
 unbelievers”). But as little as πρῶτον means initiatory judg- 
 ment, so little does τὸ τέλος final judgment. — On the interro- 
 gative form of the clause, Gerhard rightly remarks: exaggeratio 
 est in interrogatione ; cf. Luke xxiii. 31. The echo? in this 
 verse of passages of the Old Testament, like Jer. xxv. 29, xlix. 
 12, Ezek. ix. 6, can the less fail to be recognised, that the 
 words which follow are borrowed from the Old Testament. 
 Ver. 18. Strengthening of the foregoing thought by 
 quotation of the O. T. passage, Prov. xi. 31, after the LXX., 
 whose translation, however, is inexact (cf. Delitzsch in Joc.). 
 — ὁ δίκαιος “is he who stands in a right relation to God” 
 (Schott), that is, the believer who belongs to the οἷκ. τ. 
 Θεοῦ; ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός, the unbeliever (ὁ ἀπειθῶν 
 τῷ τ. ©. evayy.). μόλις σώζεται is not, with Gerhard, 
 to be referred to the fact, that for the pious non nisi per 
 multas tribulationes ingressus in reenum coeleste pateat, but 
 
 1 Schott’s interpretation, that πρῶτον should be taken as a substantive (equal 
 to “a first”), and that a general verb, expressive of what takes place, should be 
 supplied out of ἄρξασθαι (ἀπό being at the same time zeugmatically repeated), 
 contradicts itself by its artificialness. 
 
 5 Calvin : Hane sententiam ex trita et perpetua Scripturae doctrina sumpsit 
 Petrus; idque mihi probabilius est, uam quod alii putant, certum aliquem 
 locum notari. 
 
 1 PETER. P 
 
226 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 that it is difficult (μόλις, scarcely, with great difficulty) to stand 
 in the judgment (ver. 17), and to attain σωτηρία. --- ποῦ 
 φανεῖται] “ where will he appear?” that is, he will not stand, 
 but will be annihilated. The same thought as in Ps. 1. 5. 
 Ver. 19. The exhortation contained in this verse is closely 
 connected with vv. 17 and 18, in such a way, however, “that 
 it brings to a close the whole section which treats of suffer- 
 ing for the sake of Christ” (Hofmann); Hornejus: clausula est 
 qua totam exhortationem obsignat. — ὥστε] as in Rom. vii. 4, 
 and often elsewhere, with a finite verb following (Winer, p. 282 f. 
 [E. T. 377]) “therefore.” — καί does not belong to ot πάσ- 
 xovres, equivalent to “those also who suffer,” with reference to 
 those who do not suffer (Wiesinger, Hofmann), for there is no 
 allusion in the context to any distinction between those who 
 suffer because of their Christian profession and those who have 
 not so to suffer,’ but it is united with ὥστε, and applies to the 
 verb, “and just for this reason” (cf. Winer, p. 408 [E. Τὶ 544 ff.]). 
 Incorrectly, Bengel: καί concessive cum participio i. 4. ei καὶ 
 πάσχοιτε. --- οἱ πάσχοντες] namely, the believers. — κατὰ τὸ 
 θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] that is, πρὸς πειρασμόν, ver. 12. Wiesinger: 
 “looking back to ver. 17, inasmuch as they as Christians 
 are overtaken by the judgment God pronounces on His house.” 
 Besser incorrectly takes it as referring to their subjective 
 behaviour under suffering. — ὡς πιστῷ κτιστῇ maparıdec- 
 Owoav κ.τ.λ.] Gerhard: ὡς exprimit causam, propter quam, hi 
 qui patiuntur animas suas apud Deum deponere debeant, 
 nimirum quia est earum creator et fidelis custos. If ὡς be the 
 correct reading, then from the foregoing τοῦ Θεοῦ an αὐτῷ 
 must be supplied, to which ὡς πιστῷ κτιστῇ applies. — 
 κτιστής is not possessor (Calvin), but the creator; ὁ κτίσας, 
 Rom. i. 25. It is used here in its strict sense, and not 
 with reference to the new creation (Steiger, Schott connect 
 both together); cf. Acts iv. 24 ff.: “this prayer is an actual 
 example of what is here demanded” (Weiss, p. 190). In 
 the N. T. κτίστης is ἅπ. λεγ., in the O. T. it occurs fre- 
 quently ; Judith ix. 12; 2 Mace. i. 24. πιστός : Oecumenius, 
 equivalent to: ἀσφαλὴς καὶ ἀψευδὴς κατὰ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας 
 1 Schott explains καί by the contrast between “the individual sufferers” and 
 
 “the church ;” but nothing in the context alludes to this. 
 3 
 
CHAP, IV. 19. 22% 
 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐάσει ἡμᾶς πειρασθῆναν ὑπὲρ ὃ δυνάμεθα; 
 ef. 1 Cor. x. 13.— With παρατίθεσθαι, cf. Acts xiv. 23, xx. 
 32: “to commit to the protection of any one.” — ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐἴᾳ] 
 ἀγαθοποιΐα, am. Ney.; the adjec., chap. ii. 14. This addition 
 shows that the confident surrender to God is to be joined, not 
 with careless indolence, but with the active practice of good. 
 Oecumenius erroneously paraphrases the word by tazrecvo- ᾿ 
 
 φροσύνη. 
 
228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 CHAPTER WV. 
 
 Ver. 1. A B, several min. read οὖν after πρεσβυτέρους (Lachm.) ; 
 K LP, ete., Copt. Thph. ete., on the other hand, τούς (Ree. 
 Tisch. 7); δὲ has both, 2.¢. οὖν τούς. This reading, accepted by 
 Tisch. 8, is perhaps the original one; οὖν may have been omitted, 
 because the subsequent exhortation does not appear to bea 
 conclusion from what goes before. — Ver. 2. ἐπισκοποῦντες] is 
 wanting only in B &, 27, 29, Hier. ete.; it is adopted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 7, and omitted by Tisch. 8.— After ἑκουσίως, A PN, 
 several min. vss. οἷο, Lachm. and Tisch. ὃ have: κατὰ Θεόν. 
 The words are wanting in the Zee. after BKL, etc., Oec. ete. ; 
 Tisch. 7 had omitted them; they are probably a later addition, 
 in order to complete the idea. — μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς] Free. after BK 
 Ps, etc., Vulg. Copt. Thph. Beda (Lachm. Tisch. 8); Tisch. 7 
 reads, instead of μηδέ, μή, after A L, 68, al., Syr. etc., Oec.; this, 
 however, appears to be a mere alteration on account of the pre- 
 ceding μή and the subsequent w7dz.— Ver. 3. Following B, 
 Buttmann has omitted the entire third verse; but as all autho- 
 rities retain it, it cannot be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 5. 
 ὑποτωσσύμενοι] Zeec. according to K 1, P, ete., Thph. Oec.; is omitted 
 in A By, 13, etc, several vss. etc. Lachm. and Tisch. are 
 probably right in omitting it, as it appears to be a correction 
 introduced in order to make the sense plainer, perhaps after 
 Eph. v. 21. Wiesinger and Schott are against the Rec., Reiche 
 is in favour of it. — Instead of ὁ Θεός, Buttm. has, following B, 
 adopted Θεός (without article). — Ver. 6. ἐν καιρῷ] In A and the 
 most of the vss. ἐπισχοπῆς follows here; adopted by Lachm., 
 erroneously, however, as it is a later addition after chap. ii. 12. 
 — Ver. 8. Following the most numerous and best authorities, 
 Griesb. already has justly erased the ὅτι of the Rec. before ὁ ἀντί- 
 δικος. ---- τίνα καταπίῃ} Rec. after A, al, Vulg. Syr. Cyr. etc. 
 (Tisch. 7); in its place Καὶ L P x, al., mult. Cop. etc. read swe 
 καταπιεῖν (Lachm.: τινά ; Tisch. 8: τίνα) ; B has the inf. only, 
 without τινα. The commentators (as also Reiche) prefer the 
 fee. ; it appears, too, to be the more natural reading; but that 
 very fact makes it suspicious. The reading of B is evidently a 
 
CHAP. V. 229 
 
 correction, as τινὰ seems to be inappropriate. — Ver. 9. Bx have 
 the art. τῷ before κόσμῳ (Tisch. 8); in the Zee. it is omitted, 
 after AK LP, ete. (Tisch. 7). — Ver. 10. ques] Rec. according 
 to K, several min. Vulg. Syr. etc.; in place of it the most im- 
 portant authorities, A BL Ps, very many min. and several 
 vss. support ὑμᾶς, which is accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., 
 and rightly declared to be genuine by de Wette, Wiesinger, 
 Schott, Reiche. The codd. A KL P have the name ᾿Ιησοῦ after 
 Χριστῷ (Rec. Lachm. Tisch. 7); in B δὲ there is only Χριστῷ 
 (Tisch. 8). The Zee. runs: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς, στηρίξαι, obevwonı, θεμε- 
 λιώσαι. Although these optatives convey an appropriate idea, 
 still there is too little evidence for their genuineness; in the 
 three last verbs the optative occurs only in min. several vss. 
 Thph. and Oec.; in the first verb it is found also in Καὶ L Ῥ. 
 As, however, the future zarupr/ce, etc., occurs in almost all 
 authorities, it is to be preferred. Erasmus reads καταρτίσαι and 
 then στερίξει. In similar passages of the N. T. the optat. is 
 mostly used (thus undisputedly in Rom. xv. 13; Heb. xiii. 21; 
 1 Thess. v. 23, etc.), and this explains how, in employing the 
 future, a change could have been made to the optative ; cf. 2 Cor. 
 ix. 10; Phil. iv. 19. There is less force in the reason given for 
 the use of the indicative, viz. that it is better suited to the sub- 
 sequent doxology (Bengel), in opposition to which de Wette 
 rightly refers to Heb. xiii. 21.— The pronoun ὑμᾶς is wanting 
 in the A Bx, etc, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its 
 genuineness is at least doubtful; not less so is that of θεμελιώσει, 
 which, however, Tisch. has retained, following Καὶ L P ¥, etc., 
 whilst it is omitted in the A B, Vulg. etc. (Lachm.). — Ver. 11. 
 ἡ δόξα καί does not occur in AB, 23, Aeth. Vule.; omitted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch.; perhaps a later addition, after chap. 
 iv. 11.— τῶν αἰώνων is erased by Tisch. 7, after B, 36, 99, Copt. 
 Arm.; but retained by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, who follow A 
 K LPs, the majority of min. several vss. etc.— Ver. 12. 
 Lachm. omits the article τοῦ before πιστοῦ, appealing to B. 
 Tisch., however, remarks on this: errabat circa B. The omis- 
 sion, for which certainly there is too little warrant, may be 
 explained by the transcriber having construed iui with πιστοῦ. 
 According to Tisch., however, it is not certain whether B has 
 the article or not; according to Buttm., it does not occur in B. 
 — Instead of ἑστήκατε (Rec.), Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after A Bx, 
 many min. etc., read στῆτε. This reading would seem to be 
 favoured by the fact that it is the more difficult one, and that 
 the Rec. may have arisen out of Rom. v. 2; but the idea itself 
 decides in favour of ἑστήκατε, which is retained by Tisch. 7, fol- 
 lowing Καὶ L P, ete., Theoph. Oec. — The reading ἐν 7 (instead of 
 
230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 εἰς ἥν) in A is evidently a correction for the sake of simplicity. 
 Ver. 14. Instead of Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Rec. Καὶ L PS, al., pler. 
 Vulg. Copt. ete., Thph. Oec.) Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted 
 Χριστῷ only (A B, etc., Syr. Aeth. etc.). The final ἀμήν (Ree. in 
 G Καὶ x, etc.) is likewise wanting in A B, etc., and is therefore 
 omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.— The subsequent addition of 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ and ἀμήν is undoubtedly more easy of explanation than 
 the subsequent omission of it. 
 
 
 
 Ver. 1. New exhortations in the first place to the πρεσ- 
 βύτεροι and the veorepo: as far as ver. 5; then to all, without 
 distinction, vv. 5-9. — πρεσβυτέρους οὖν τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν mapa- 
 καλῶ] πρεσβύτεροι are the presidents of the congregations. 
 The name is employed here probably not without reference to 
 age (“the elders”) (see ver. 5), though this is disputed by 
 Hofmann, who, however, fails to give any reason for so doing. 
 The article is awanting “ because peoß. is considered as 
 definite of itself” (Wiesinger), and not “ because Peter had not 
 a more accurate knowledge of the constitution of the churches ” 
 (Schott). If the reading odv be adopted, these and the fol- 
 lowing exhortations connect themselves, as conclusions drawn 
 from it, with the preceding conception ἀγαθοποιΐα, for the 
 passages 1 Thess. iv. 1 and Matt. vi. 15 do not prove that 
 οὖν expresses “only the continuance of the exhortation” 
 (Hofmann). The reading ἐν ὑμῖν, without τούς, is opposed by 
 the want of the article before πρεσβυτέρους. --- ὁ συμπρεσβύ- 
 Tepos καὶ κιτ.λ.1 Peter adds these designations of himself, in 
 order thus to give the more weight to his παρακαλεῖν. - He 
 calls himself ovumpeoßürepos because of his office. What 
 the elders were for the individual congregations, that were the 
 apostles for the whole church, since they had the superintend- 
 ence of the entire system of congregations. By this name 
 Peter, in humble love (Gualter: nota humilitatem Petri qui 
 minime jus primatus in se cognovit), places himself on an equal 
 footing with the elders proper; Bengel: hortatio mutua inter 
 aequales et collegas imprimis valet. It is less natural to 
 assume, with Hofmann, that in thus speaking of himself Peter 
 
 ‘Hofmann: “The apostles were the overseers of the universal church of 
 
 Christ ; each of them therefore in so far shared in the administration of all the 
 single congregations, inasmuch as these were in the universal church.” 
 
CHAP. V. 1. Zak 
 
 “would emphasize the share he had in responsibility for the 
 weal and woe of the congregations.” — καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ παθημάτων] By ta τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα must 
 not be understood the sufferings which the apostle had to 
 undergo in following Christ, but those which Christ Himself 
 endured; cf. chap. iv. 13. Yet Peter calls himself a 
 μάρτυς, not only because he was an eye-witness of them (cf. 
 Acts x. 39) (Aretius: oculatus testis, qui- praecipuis ejus 
 aerumnis interfui), but also because he proclaimed those suf- 
 ferings which he himself had seen’ (cf. Acts i. 8, 22, xiii. 31). 
 This he did, in the first place, by his words, but at the same time 
 also by his sufferings (a fact which Hofmann should not have 
 denied), in which he was a κοινωνὸς τῶν τοῦ Xp. παθημάτων 
 (chap. iv. 13) (Wiesinger, Schott). What follows seems also 
 to refer to this?— De Wette thinks that whilst by “ συμ- 
 peoß.” Peter puts himself on an equality with the elders, he 
 by the second designation places himself above them. But if 
 this had been his intention, he would hardly have included 
 both under the one article; the elders, too, were equally called 
 to be μάρτυρες τῶν Xp. παθ., although Peter, as an eye-wit- 
 ness, occupied “a special position” (Briickner).—.6 καὶ τῆς 
 μελλούσης. . . κοινωνός] Several of the older commentators 
 incorrectly supply “τοῦ Χριστοῦ to δόξης ; it is not merely 
 the glory of Christ which is meant, but the δόξα, which, at 
 the revelation of that glory, shall be revealed in all those who 
 are His; cf. Rom. viii. 18; Col. iü. 4; 1 John üi. 2.— 
 κοινωνός means simply the participation in that glory. Al- 
 though it is not equivalent to συγκοινωνὸς (Phil. 1. 7), still 
 the apostle has in his soul the consciousness of being a fellow- 
 sharer with those to whom he is speaking. — The particle καί, 
 “also,” unites the two ideas: μαρτὺς τῶν... παθημάτων 
 and κοινωνὸς τῆς... δόξης together ; because the apostle is the 
 former, he will also be the latter. Yet this does not compel 
 the adoption, with Hofmann, of the reading “6” (equal 
 
 1 Τὸ cannot be denied that, in accordance with its almost uniform usage in 
 the N. T., the word weprvs possesses this secondary meaning (as opposed to 
 Hofmann). 
 
 2 Wiesinger: ‘‘The antithesis ὁ καὶ τῆς wera. ἀπόοκ. δόξης κοινωνός Presupposes 
 the κοινωνεῖν τοῖς τ. Xp. rad.” 
 
22 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 to δι’ 6, “ wherefore”) instead of ὁ. Although μάρτυς, which is 
 closely connected with συμπρεσβύτερος, has no article, it 
 does not follow that κοινωνός can have none either. The 
 N. T. usage is opposed to the interpretation of 6 by δι᾿ 6, 
 Gal. ii. 10; cf. Meyer in loc.; cf. also Winer, p. 135 
 BB, Wick 78), 
 
 Ver. 2. ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ] The work 
 of directing the church is often in the N. and O. T. repre- 
 sented by the figure of pasturing (cf. Acts xx. 28; John 
 xxi. 16; Jer. xxiii. 1-4; Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff.), and the church 
 by that of a flock (Luke xii. 52). τοῦ Θεοῦ is added here very 
 significantly. By it the flock is designated as belonging, not 
 to the elders who tend it, but to God as His peculiar property. 
 Luther takes a too narrow view of the idea of tending—he 
 limits it to the preaching of the gospel. It applies rather to 
 all and everything that is done by the elders, for the welfare 
 of the individual as well as for that of the entire congregation. 
 τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν must not be separated from ποίμνιον, as if it were 
 equal to quantum in vobis est (cf. Rom. i. 15), i. e. mtendite 
 omnes nervos (Calvin); it rather forms one idea with ποίμνιον. 
 The greater number of commentators understand ἐν in a local 
 sense, either: in vestris regionibus (Pott), or: “with you, 
 within your reach” (Luther, in the commentary, Hensler, de 
 Wette, Besser, Schott,! ete.). Since ἐν ὑμῖν, as a more precise 
 local definition, stands somewhat significantly, and “the 
 churches only are the place where the elders are, and not vice 
 versa” (Hofmann), ἐν ὑμῖν must, according to the analogy of 
 κεῖσθαι ἔν τινι, be interpreted: “that which is committed to 
 you” (Luther’s translation, Bengel, Steiger), or: “ that which 
 is placed under your care (hand).” ἐν ὑμῖν then serves to 
 give point to the exhortation. — ἐπισκοποῦντες, cf. the critical 
 notes. It must be observed that ἐπίσκοπ. is here placed in 
 conjunction with ποιμάνατε, as in chap. ii. 25: ποιμήν and 
 ἐπίσκοπος. This participle, with the adverbs belonging to it, 
 
 1 Schott’s opinion, that in ἐν ὑμῖν this antithesis to rod Θεοῦ is expressed, ‘‘ that 
 the church, belonging to heaven, is yet at present in the bodily and visible 
 vicinity of the elders, and surrounded by them,” must be rejected as purely 
 arbitrary. —Gerhard’s interpretation : qui vobiscum est, videlicet cum quo unum 
 
 corpus, una ecclesia estis, brings out an idea which is in no way indicated by 
 the apostle. 
 
CHAP. V. 2. 238 
 
 states what should be the character of the ποιμαίνειν The 
 verb (which, except here, occurs only in Heb. xii. 15), equiva- 
 lent to: “to give heed,” denotes the labours of the elders in 
 caring for the congregation, but with the implied meaning 
 of oversight. The still closer definition follows in three 
 adjuncts, each of which consists of a negative and a positive 
 member. The thought is aptly given by Calvin: Dum Pas- 
 tores ad officium hortari vult, tria potissimum vitia notat, 
 quae plurimum obesse solent, pigritiam scilicet, lucri captandi 
 eupiditatem et licentiam dominandi; primo vitio opponit ala- 
 eritatem aut voluntarium studium, secundo liberalem affectum, 
 tertio moderationem ac modestiam. — ἀναγκαστῶς (an expres- 
 sion foreign to Greek usage, and occurring only here, which 
 Hofmann erroneously denies) and ἑκουσίως (this adverb occurs 
 in the N. T., besides in this passage, only in Heb. x. 26; the 
 adjective in Philem. 14) are opposed to each other, in such a 
 way that the former characterizes the work as undertaken 
 from outward motives only, the latter as from inward. The 
 same antithesis occurs in Philem. 14: κατὰ ἀνάγκην... κατὰ 
 ἑκούσιον (similarly the antithesis of ἄκων and ἑκών, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 17); with ἑκουσίως, cf. Ex. xxxvi. 2. The position, etc., 
 must be regarded as the outwardly inciting or compelling 
 motive. Bengel is incorrect: id valet et in suscipiendo et in 
 gerendo munere; to the former there is in this case no allu- 
 sion. — According to the Rec., ἑκουσίως is yet further strensth- 
 ened by κατὰ Θεόν (cf. chap. iv. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10), equal 
 to κατὰ To θέλημα τοῦ Ocod.— αἰσχροκερδῶς (the adverb 
 occurs here only, the adjective 1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 7; Tit. 
 1. 11: αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν) ; “the apostle places the im- 
 pure motive side by side with the unwillingness of dvayk.” 
 (Wiesinger). — προθύμως (in the N. T. the adverb occurs here 
 only; more frequently the adjective and substantive) as 
 antithesis to atoypoxepdas: “ out of love to the thing itself ;” 
 Luther: “from the bottom of the heart.” ? 
 
 1 It is doubtless correct that the adverbs do not simply define more nearly the 
 term ἐπισκοποῦντες, in and for itself considered ; but it is wrong to make them 
 co-ordinate with this idea (as against Hofmann) ; closely joined with ἐπισκοποῦντες, 
 they, with this participle, are connected with ποιμάνετε. 
 
 * Hofmann : “ With a joyous devotion—which excludes all secondary con- 
 siderations—-to the work which has to be done.” 
 
234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Ver. 3. μηδ᾽ ὡς kararvpıevovres τῶν κλήρων] 1.6. “not as 
 those, who,” etc. With κατακυρ. cf. for meaning and expres- 
 tion Matt. xx. 25-28; 2 Cor. i. 24; it is not equal to 
 κυριεύειν (Steiger), but the prefixed «ara intensifies the idea 
 of κυριεύειν: “to exercise a sway, by which violence is 
 offered to those who are under 10. --- κλῆρος, properly 
 speaking, the lot, then that which is apportioned by lot, then 
 generally, that which is allotted or assigned to any one, 
 whether it be an office, a possession, or anything else. Here 
 it is the congregation (τὸ ποίμνιον) that is to be understood ; 
 not as though κλῆρος in itself meant the congregation, but 
 the churches are thus designated, because they are assigned 
 to the elders as a possession, in which to exercise their 
 official duties. The plural is put, because different elders 
 filled offices in different congregations (Calov, Steiger, de 
 Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Compare the passage in Acts 
 xvil. 4, where it is said of those converted by Paul and Silas: 
 προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Sidra. It is incorrect 
 to supply τοῦ Θεοῦ, as is done by Beza, etc, and to derive 
 the expression from the O. T., where the congregation of Israel 
 is termed the κλῆρος (nena) of God, Deut. ix. 29, LXX. But 
 it is equally incorrect when Hofmann applies kararvpıevovres, 
 not to the πρεσβύτεροι, but to others, and, taking ὡς as 
 instituting a comparison, understands κλῆρον to signify “the 
 estates belonging to some one himself,” translating accordingly : 
 “not as those who exercise rule over estates belonging to 
 themselves.” The apostle’s idea thus would be: “the elders 
 are not to treat the church as an object over which they 
 exercise right of possession, and do with as they please.’—-How 
 should the apostle have thought of bringing forward a com- 
 parison so far-fetched ?— and how arbitrary it appears to 
 interpret ὡς differently in this passage from in chap. 1. 14, 
 li. 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, ete.; to allow the article τῶν to take the 
 place of the possessive pronoun, and to attribute a meaning to 
 κλῆροι which it often has in profane Greek, but never either 
 
 ‘Thus Hofmann interprets, correctly. He is mistaken, however, in main- 
 taining that κατα here does not imply an hostile antithesis, since a violent rule 
 is one by which he who is ruled over is injured in his rights. 
 
CHAP. V. 4. 235 
 
 in the O. or in the N. T.!!— aaa τύποι γινόμενοι τοῦ 
 ποιμνίου] The antithesis here is a different one from that in 
 the passage quoted from Matt. The elders, as the leaders of 
 the church, necessarily possess a kind of κυριότης over it; but 
 they are not to exercise this in a manner opposed to the 
 character of Christian life in the church (which would be a 
 κατακυριεύειν), but by being examples to the congregations, 
 shining before them in every Christian virtue (1 Tim. iv. 12; 
 Tit. ui, D;.ch 2 Thess, iii. 9; Phil, ni, 17. 
 
 Ver. 4. Assurance of the future reward for the faithful 
 fulfilment of the exhortation just given.— καί] simply con- 
 nects the result with the exhortation (cf. Winer, p. 406 
 [E. T. 542]), and is not to be taken αἰτιολογικῶς for ἵνα. ---- 
 φανερωθέντος Tod ἀρχιποιμένος] With φανερ. cf. Col. iii. 4; 
 1 John ii. 28; Christ is here termed ἀρχιποιμήν (ἅπ. Aey., 
 chap. ii. 25: ὁ ποιμήν; Heb. xiii. 20: ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ peyds) as 
 He “to whom the elders, with the flock they tend, are sub- 
 ject ” (Hofmann). — κομιεῖσθε (cf. chap. i. 9) τὸν auapavrıyov 
 τῆς δόξης στέφανον] The greater number of commentators 
 consider duapavrıvos as equal to auapavros in chap. 1. 4; but 
 the direct derivation of the word from μαραίνεσθαι is hardly 
 to be justified. It comes rather from the substantive auap- 
 avros, and therefore means, as Beza explains: ex amaranto 
 videlicet, cujus floris (inquit Plinius) summa natura in nomine 
 est, sic appellato quoniam non marcescit. Accordingly the 
 figure present to the mind of the apostle was an ama- 
 ranthine wreath; thus also Schott.” It is at least uncertain 
 whether στέφανος here (as frequently in the writings of Paul) 
 is thought of as a wreath of victory (thus the greater number 
 of commentators), since among the Jews, also, wreaths of 
 flowers and leaves were in use as tokens of honour and 
 rejoicing (cf. Winer’s bibl. Realwörterbuch, s.v. Kränze). — τῆς 
 δόξης is the genitive of apposition; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8; Jas. 
 
 1The opinion of Oecumenius: κλῆρον rd ἱερὸν σύστημα καλεῖ, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν 
 ἡμεῖς (i.e. the priesthood), which mary Catholic commentators have followed, 
 requires no refutation ; and as little does that of Dodwell, who understands 
 κλῆροι to mean church property. 
 
 2 Perhaps, however, Hofmann may be right when he supposes that ἀμαράντινος 
 
 stands in the same relation to ἀμώραντος as ἀληθινός to ἀληθής and ὑγιεινός to 
 ὑγιής, and that accordingly the word should be written ἀμαραντινός. 
 
ho 
 oo 
 σὺ 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 i. 12; Rev. ii. 10: the δόξα is the unfading crown which 
 they shall obtain. 
 
 Ver. 5. ὁμοίως] cf. chap. ili. 1, 7; here also ὁμοίως is not 
 a mere particle of transition (Pott). The exhortation to 
 humility, expressed in this verse, corresponds to those ad- 
 dressed to the elders, wherein they are admonished to submit 
 themselves to the duties of their office with humility, and 
 without seeking their own advantage. — νεώτερος ὑποτάγητε 
 πρεσβυτέροις] Who are these vewrepor? Certainly not the 
 whole of the members of the congregation (in contrast to the 
 elders), as Beda, Estius, Pott, Wiesinger, etc., assume, but 
 either the younger members generally, or such of them as 
 were employed in many ministrations, suitable neither for the 
 elders nor the deacons. The first assumption (Luther, Calvin, 
 Aretius, Gerhard, etc.) is opposed by the circumstance that 
 πρεσβυτέροις here seems to have the same official significa- 
 tion as above in ver. 1 ff. If this be so, then it is plainly 
 inconsistent to take the expression νεώτεροι as specifying only 
 a particular time of life. The second (Weiss, p. 344 ff, 
 Schott, Briickner), founded chiefly on Acts v. 6, 10, is contra- 
 dicted by the fact, that there is no historical testimony for the 
 existence of an office, such as it takes for granted. If νεώτεροι 
 indicate only a particular time of life, then the like may be 
 said of the accompanying πρεσβυτέροις. The difficulty which 
 arises from the same name being employed first as an official 
 title, and then to denote a particular age, is solved, in a 
 measure at least, by supposing that since the word contained 
 both references, the apostle might, as he proceeded in his 
 exhortation, lose sight of the one in the other.’ — The special 
 exhortation is followed by the general: πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις] 
 If ὑποτασσόμενοι is to be erased after ἀλλήλοις, the words 
 may then be taken either with what precedes (Lach. gr. Ausg., 
 Buttmann, Hofmann) or with what follows. In the first case 
 there is something fragmentary in the structure of the clause, 
 while the second, adopted by almost all commentators (formerly 
 
 1 The view that πρεσβυτέροις indicates an office, but νεώτεροι a time of life (de 
 Wette), is opposed by the circumstance that ‘‘it remains incomprehensible why 
 the exhortation, which is surely meant to apply to the whole church, should be 
 addressed to the younger members only ” (Hofmann). 
 
CHAP. V. 5. Zoe 
 
 also in this commentary), is opposed by the dative ἀλλήλοις, 
 which is too easily passed over with the remark that it is the 
 dative of reference, equivalent to: “for each other,” or “ with 
 reference to each other.” All the passages which Winer 
 (p. 202 [E. T. 270]) brings forward to prove that the dative 
 is used of everything with reference to which anything takes 
 place, are of a different nature. πάντες denotes the whole of 
 the members of the church without distinction. — τὴν ταπει- 
 vobpoovvnv ἐγκομβώσασθε] In interpreting the word éyxou- 
 βώσασθε, commentators have not unfrequently, but erroneously, 
 started from the meaning of the substantive ἐγκόμβωμα,, under- 
 standing (certainly without justification) it to signify “a 
 beautiful dress,’ and rendering: “ adorn yourselves with 
 humility ;” thus Calvin, ete.; or else, whilst correctly explain- 
 ing the word as the apron worn by slaves, they find in the 
 verb itself the reference to humility in behaviour; thus 
 Grotius, Hornejus, Steiger, de Wette, etc.” — Rather, however, 
 must that sense of the verb be retained which is to be had 
 by deriving it from κόμβος, “a band:” “to tie on, or fasten 
 anything by means of a κόμβος, 1.6. a band.” Since, now, it is 
 used for the most part of the fastening of a garment, it lies to 
 hand to take the expression here as having the same sense 
 with ἐνδύεσθαι (cf. Col. iii. 12), yet so that the idea of making 
 fast is more strongly brought out in the former than in the 
 latter: “to clothe oneself firmly, wrap oneself round with 
 rareıvobp;” Bengel: induite vos et involvite, ut amictus 
 humilitatis nulla vi vobis detrahi possit (thus also Wiesinger, 
 Schott). Other interpreters hold by the one or the other 
 meaning only, 1.6. either by that of clothing (Oecumenius: 
 ἐνειλήσασθε καὶ mepıBarNeode) or that of making fast (Luther : 
 
 1 Steph. s.v. ἐγκομβόω: illigo, involvo; Hesych. enim ἐγκομβωθείς exponit 
 δεθείς et ἐγκεκόμβωται aflert pro ἐνείληται, --- Ἐγκόμβωμα vestimenti genus est; 
 scribit enim Poll. 4, 119, τῇ δὲ τῶν δούλων ἐξωμίδι προσκεῖσθαι καὶ ἱματίδιόν τι 
 λευκόν, Quod ἐγκόμβωμα 8. ἐπίβλημα nominari. 
 
 2 Hofmann holds by this reference (although he does not derive the meaning 
 of the verb from that of the substantive). He says that the verb, of itself, has 
 that sense, since he who prepared himself for the duties of a servant girded him- 
 self with a garment fastened by means of a band. This conclusion would be 
 established if &yxo«ßov» were used only of the putting on of a slave’s apron, 
 which, however, is not the case. 
 
238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 “hold fast by humility ;” Erasmus: humilitatem vobis fixam 
 habete). Similar exhortations to humility towards one 
 another: Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3; Rom. xu. 16. The ex- 
 hortation is strengthened by the quotation of the Old Testa- 
 ment passage, Prov. iii. 34, after the LXX., where, however, 
 κύριος stands instead of ὁ Θεός. The same quotation is to be 
 found in Jas. iv. 6, where, as here, there is first of all the 
 injunction to submit to God, and then that to resist the 
 devil; cf. also Luke i. 51. 
 
 Ver. 6. Conclusion drawn from the Old Testament passage, 
 ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ K.T.r.| see Jas. iv. 6; not: “become 
 humble,” as Wiesinger interprets, on account of the passive 
 (for if the meaning must be passive, in accordance with the 
 form, it ought to be: “be made humble”), but in a middle 
 sense: “humble yourselves.” Ver. 7 shows that this self- 
 humbling here refers to the lowly and submissive bearing of 
 afflictions (otherwise in Luke xiv. 11). — τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα] 
 Old Testament expression denoting the power of God which 
 rules and judges all; cf. Deut. iii. 24, LXX.; it does not 
 refer here to the laying on of afflictions only (de Wette), 
 but to the being exalted out of them (so, too, Brückner) ; cf. 
 Luke 1. 51: ἐποίησε κράτος Ev βραχίονι αὐτοῦ" διεσκόρπισεν 
 ὑπερηφάνους... καὶ ὕψωσε ταπεινούς. The purpose of 
 this subordination: ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὕψωσῃ, is the glory which 
 follows upon the sufferings; ἵνα is not put ἐκβατικῶς (Pott), 
 but τελικῶς.---ἐν καιρῷ] Matt. xxiv. 45: “tempore statuto ;” 
 Erasmus: ut vos extollat, cum erit opportunum, cum judicabit 
 id vobis expedire vel in hoc saeculo, vel in die judicii; this 
 last is here the principal point of view. 
 
 Ver. 7 is closely connected with ver. 6 ; hence the participle. 
 The idea and expression are taken from Ps. lv. 22, LXX. 
 (ἐπίῤῥιψον ἐπὶ κύριον THY μέριμνάν σου Kal αὐτός σε SiaOpéerper), 
 although somewhat altered ; πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν:" “ your 
 whole care ;” the singular unites all individual cares together 
 into one uniform whole. Hofmann, without reason, assumes 
 that in this passage μέριμνα does not mean care itself, but the 
 object which causes care. The context shows that the care 
 
 1 Gerhard : ** μέριμνα significat curam sollicitam et dubiam, quae mentem in 
 partes divisas velut dividit, a μερίζειν rev voov.” 
 
= 
 
 CHAP. V. 8. 239 
 
 specially meant here is that which is occasioned by the suffer- 
 ings; cf. Matt. vi. 25; Phil. iv. 6. — ὅτε αὐτῷ «.r.A.] “for He 
 careth for you ;” the same construction of the verb with περί 
 occurs frequently in the N. T., eg. John x. 13; em αὐτὸν, ὅτι 
 αὐτῷ, “are intentionally brought together” (Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 8. νήψατε (chap. iv. 7), γρηγορήσατε, cf. 1 Thess. v. 6; 
 placed in juxtaposition by asyndeton “in nervous conciseness, 
 in virtue of which ὅτι, too, is omitted before ὁ ἀντίδικος ” 
 (Wiesinger). Temperance and watchfulness are specially 
 necessary, in order to remain faithful amid all the temptations 
 of suffering. The reason is given in what follows. — ὁ avri- 
 δικος ὑμῶν διάβολος] Hensler’s explanation: “slandering op- 
 ponents,” requires no refutation. — διάβολος is a substantive, 
 in explanatory apposition to ὁ avriö. ὑμῶν, which latter is 
 used, in this passage only, to designate the devil (corresponding 
 to the Hebrew j¥, which, however, the LXX. always trans- 
 late by διάβολος). The word denotes strictly an opponent 
 in a court of justice ; but it occurs also in a general sense as 
 “adversary.” Schott would retain the original application, 
 after Zech. iii. 1 ff, Rev. xii. 10, in that “the devil will, as 
 it were, compel God to declare in condemnatory judgment 
 that the Christians have forfeited salvation ;” but there is no 
 allusion to the divine judgment here, the καταπίνειν is rather 
 indicated as the aim of the devil.— ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος] ἢ 
 ὠρύεσθαι peculiariter dicitur ἐπὶ λιμῷ κλαιόντων λύκων, ἢ 
 λεόντων, ἢ κυνῶν (Hesych.), cf. Ps. civ. 21.— περιπατεῖ 
 (Job 1. 7,1. 2) ζητῶν τίνα καταπίῃ] περιπατεῖν and ζητῶν 
 belong strictly to each other, so that the comparison with the 
 lion applies to both (Steiger). The efforts of the devil are 
 directed against Christians, who, as such, do not belong to 
 him ; as long as they remain faithful to their Christian calling, 
 he can do them no harm (1 John v. 18), therefore he is on 
 the look-out whom (according to the reading: τίνα καταπίῃ) 
 he may devour, or if he may devour any one (according to the 
 reading: τινὰ καταπιεῖν), by alluring to unfaithfulness.? — 
 
 1 Augustin (Sermo 46 de divers. ce. ii.) : Christus leo propter fortitudinem, 
 diabolus propter feritatem ; ille leo ad vincendum, iste leo ad nocendum. 
 
 * Hofmann irrelevantly remarks that Zureiv, followed by an interrogative, 
 means: to consider a thing ; the word above is evidently stronger than that. 
 
240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 καταπίνειν, “ devour,’ denotes complete destruction. Chrysos- 
 tom (Homil. 22, ad popul. Antioch.): circuit quaerens, non 
 quem mordeat vel frangat, sed quem devoret. 
 
 Ver. 9. @ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει] cf. Jas. iv. 7; Eph. 
 vi. 11 ff. τῇ πίστει does not belong to ἀντίστητε (Bengel), 
 but to στερεοί; not as the dat. instrum. (Beza, Hensler), 
 but as the dative of nearer definition: “firm in the faith ;” 
 cf. Acts xvi. 5; Col. ii. 7; ef. Winer, p. 202 [E. T. 270]. It 
 is only a firm faith that can resist the devil. — εἰδότες τὰ 
 αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων... ἐπιτελεῖσθαι] Almost all inter- 
 preters assume that the construction here is that of the accus. 
 c. inf. Hofmann nevertheless denies this, remarking that in 
 the N. T. εἰδότες (in the sense of “ knowing”) never takes the 
 accus. c. inf, but always the particle ὅτι, and that when 
 εἰδότες is followed by the accus. c. inf., it signifies “to under- 
 stand how to do a thing”! If this be correct, ἐπιτελεῖσθαι 
 must have an active meaning, ra αὐτὰ τῶν mad. be the 
 accusative after it, and the dative τῇ... ἀδελφότητι be depen- 
 dent on ra avta. Explaining ἐπιτελεῖσθαι on the analogy of 
 the phrase: τὰ Tod γήρως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι (Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 8), 
 and seeing in τὰ αὐτά the idea of measure expressed, Hofmann 
 translates: “ knowing how to pay for your Christianity the same 
 tribute of affliction as your brethren in the world.” This ex- 
 planation cannot be accepted without hesitation. For, on the 
 one hand, from the fact that in other parts of the N. T. εἰδότες 
 does not take the accus. c. inf., it cannot be concluded that here 
 it does not do so either, the more especially that the construction 
 of the accus. c. inf. occurs comparatively rarely in the N. T.; and, 
 on the other hand, the phrase: τὰ... τῶν wal. ἀποτεέλ,, is not 
 analogous with the expression: τὼ Tov γήρως ἐπίιτελ., since in 
 the former there is no conception corresponding to τοῦ γήρως. 
 Hofmann inserts, indeed, as such, the idea of the Christian 
 calling, but it is purely imported, and nowhere hinted at in the 
 text. Accordingly, emıreteioda—grammatically considered 
 —can have a passive signification, not, indeed, equivalent to: 
 “are completed” (Thuc. vii. 2; Phil. i. 6, and other passages), 
 for this idea would not be suitable here, but rather: “ are being 
 
 1 Cf. the passages quoted by Hofmann: Matt. vii. 11; Luke xi. 18, xii. 36; 
 Jas, iv, 17; Phil. iv. 12΄; 1 Tim. 2.55 2 Pet. ai, 9. 
 
CHAP, V. 10, 11. 241 
 
 accomplished” (thus Herod. 1. 51, in connection with τὰ 
 ἐπιτασσόμενα; Thuc. i. 138: ἐπιτελέσαι ἃ ὑπέσχετο). This 
 idea is, in truth, not very appropriate either; it seems to be 
 more fitting to take the verb in a middle sense, as equivalent 
 to: “are accomplishing themselves ;” and to translate : “ know- 
 ing (or better rather: considering) that the same sufferings are 
 accomplishing themselves in the brethren.” This rendering 
 is to be preferred to all others. The Vulg. translates Erı- 
 Ter. by fieri; Luther by “befall;” both are too inexact 
 renderings of the sense." In the explanation above given, τὰ 
 αὐτώ is used as a substantive, as frequently happens with the 
 neuter of adjectives (Winer, p. 220?[E.T. 294]), and is put here 
 to emphasize the sameness of the sufferings (thus de Wette, 
 Wiesinger); TH .. . ἀδελφότητι is to be taken as the more 
 remote object; on no condition can the dative be understood 
 as equivalent to ὑπό in passives. With the idea ἀδελφότητι, 
 cf. chap. ii. 17.—The addition, ἐν κόσμῳ, alludes to the reason 
 of the afflictions (Steiger). Wiesinger justly remarks: “in 
 the world, the dominion of the Evil One, the Christian can 
 and dare expect nothing else.” Possibly it may contain at 
 the same time a reference to the ἀδελφότης, which the Lord 
 has already taken to Himself ἐκ τοῦ κόσμους The thought 
 that the brethren have to bear the same afflictions, serves to 
 give strength in resisting the devil, since the consciousness of 
 bearing similar afflictions in common with all Christian 
 brethren, encourages to patient endurance. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. Promise of blessing and doxology. — ὁ δὲ Θεός, 
 placed by way of emphasis at the beginning. That which 
 has gone before has told the readers what they should do; in 
 contrast to this (δέ), the apostle now says what God will do 
 (Schott) ; with the expression: Θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, cf. 2 Cor. 
 i. 3: Θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως. God as the author of all 
 erace; χάρις conceived as a possession. Like the whole 
 promise of blessing, this very designation of God serves to 
 comfort and strengthen the readers in their afflictions. — o 
 καλέσας ὑμᾶς, «.7.r.] cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12 (2 Thess. ii. 14); that 
 
 1 The translation of Wichelhaus: ‘‘to be laid upon,” is entirely unjustifiable. 
 2 Hofmann erroneously appeals to Hartung’s Gr. II. p. 238, in support of the 
 interpretation : “the same measure of suffering.” 
 
 1 PETER. Q 
 
242 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 is: to participation in His (God’s) own δόξα. The participation 
 is here thought of as future, although for believing Christians 
 it is even now present in its beginning (2 Pet. 1. 4). In this 
 calling there is already contained the pledge of the promises 
 that follow: καταρτίσει x... — ἐν Χριστῷ belongs to 
 καλέσας, more nearly defined by ὑμᾶς eis etc. (de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Schott), not to δόξαν (Hofmann). God possesses 
 the glory not first in Christ, as Hofmann says, but He has 
 had it from all eternity, although in Christ it is first revealed. 
 Gerhard interprets incorrectly : propter meritum Christi. ἐν 
 is by several interpreters inaccurately taken as equivalent to 
 διά ; but though ἐν denote instrumentality, this is of a more 
 inward nature than that expressed by διά. The sense is: by 
 God having brought you into union with Christ (thus also 
 de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The connection of ev Xp. with 
 ὀλίγ. παθόντας following (Glossa interl.: sicut membra in illo 
 patientes ; Nicol de Lyra) has nothing to commend it.—oAyov 
 παθόντας] ὀλίγον, as in chap. i. 6: “a little while.” — 
 παθόντας is to be joined with καλέσας x.7.r. (Steiger, de 
 Wette, Wiesinger), but in such a way that in sense it does 
 not apply so much to καλέσας, as to the obtaining of the δόξα 
 of God, since the aorist must not arbitrarily be interpreted as 
 a present. Hofmann rightly observes: “Peter subjoins this 
 aorist participle as if it had been preceded by eis τὸ δοξά- 
 ζεσθαι. Lachmann and Tischendorf (om. ὑμᾶς after καταρ- 
 τίσει) have connected these words with what follows, as also 
 the Vulg. translates: modicum passos ipse perficiet (so also 
 Wichelhaus). Many, particularly among the older commen- 
 tators, even retaining the ὑμᾶς, have adopted this construction ; 
 Luther: “The same will make you, that suffer a little while, 
 fully prepared,” etc. Opposed to this, however, is as much 
 the fact that the καταρτίζειν does not take place after the 
 afflictions only, but during them, as that the present affliction 
 and the future glory belong closely together; ef. ver. 1.—If, 
 as is highly probable, the ὑμᾶς after karapriceı be spurious, 
 it must be supplied out of the duds that precedes. — αὐτός] is 
 
 ! Schott’s explanation, that “to the apostle as he looks from the present, 
 
 in so far as it already contains their completion, back on the present of actual 
 reality, the sufferings appear as past,” is inappropriate. 
 
CHAP, V. 12—14. 243 
 
 placed emphatically: the God..., who hath called you, He 
 will, etc., the same God; the calling already contains the 
 guarantee for the καταρτίζειν, k.T.A. — καταρτίσει, κ.τ.λ.] KaTap- 
 τίζειν, Luke vi. 40; 1 Cor.i. 10; Heb. xiii. 21 ; Luther rightly 
 translates: “fully prepare;” Bengel: ne remaneat in vobis 
 defectus. — ornpifew, 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3, and other passages. 
 Bengel: ne quid vos labefactet. — σθενοῦν, da. rey. Bengel: 
 ut superetis vim omnem adversam. — θεμελιοῦν (see the 
 critical notes); in its proper sense, Matt. vii. 25; Luke vi. 
 48; figuratively: Eph. iii. 18 (τεθεμελιωμένον synonymous 
 with ἐῤῥιζωμένοι) ; Col. 1. 23 (synonymous with é8paioz). 
 —The future expresses the sure expectation that, as the 
 apostle wishes, God will perfect, etc, the believers—If 
 καταρτίσαι be read, this form must not be taken as the infini- 
 tive (Pott), but as the optative.'—The heaping up of expressions 
 connected by asyndeton is rhetorical, and arises from the 
 natural impulse of an agitated heart to find full expression 
 for its feelings——Ver. 11. The same doxology as in chap. 
 iv. 11. It sets the seal on the hope just expressed. 
 
 Vv. 12-14. Concluding remarks; first, ver. 12, as to the 
 letter itself. — διὰ Zırovavod ... ἔγραψα] There is no reason 
 to doubt that this Silvanus is the well-known companion of 
 the Apostle Paul. Whilst in the Acts he is named “ Silas,” 
 Paul, like Peter, calls him “ Silvanus.” He was sent from 
 the convention of apostles, along with Paul, Barnabas, and 
 Judas Barsabas, as bearers of the epistle to Antioch. After 
 this he accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey. 
 He is not mentioned afterwards, nor is it known at what time 
 he came to Peter. διὰ... éypayra does not designate Silvanus 
 either as the translator or the writer of the epistle, but simply 
 as the bearer of it. διώ has here the same sense as in the 
 subscriptions of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, 
 etc. ; it is synonymous with διὰ χειρός, Acts xv. 23. — “It is 
 evident that the choice of Silas for this (mediatory) mission 
 was a particularly happy one, as he had been Paul’s companion 
 in former times, and had assisted him in founding the greater 
 
 1 Erasmus, by first reading καταρτίσαι and then στηρίξει, etc., understands this 
 and the subsequent words as substantives: perficiet fultura confirmatione, 
 fundatione. 
 
244 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 part of the churches here addressed” (Wieseler). — ὑμῖν τοῦ 
 πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ] ὑμῖν can be joined either with the following 
 ἔγραψα, or with πιστοῦ ad. If the latter combination be 
 adopted (it is more simple if τοῦ be erased as spurious, but is 
 also possible if τοῦ be retained; equivalent to: “ who is the 
 faithful brother unto you”), the apposition indicates that an 
 intimate relation subsisted between Silvanus and the churches 
 to which Peter writes. The connection with &ypayra, how- 
 ever, is the more natural one,.öwiv being inserted between, as 
 in Gal. vi. 11.—o πιστὸς ἀδελφός is the name given to 
 Silvanus, because generally he had proved faithful in the 
 performance of every service for the church of Christ. There 
 is no reason why the expression should be referred specially 
 to his relation to the churches of Asia Minor only (as formerly 
 in this commentary), or particularly to that in which he stood 
 to Peter (Hofmann). Still, it isnot improbable that Peter, by 
 this designation, alludes to the confidence he has, that he will 
 also prove faithful in the service which is now required of 
 him. — The following words: ὡς λογίζομαι, may be applied 
 either to the opinion just expressed on Silvanus (Briickner, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Wichelhaus), or to the subsequent δι᾿ ὀλύγων 
 ἔγραψα (Steiger, Hofmann). It is hardly possible to come 
 to a definite conclusion. At any rate, λογίζομαι does not 
 express an uncertain conjecture; cf. Rom. iii. 28, viii 18; 
 Heb. xi. 19. In the first case, by the confirmation which it 
 contains of the opinion just uttered, it serves to strengthen 
 the confidence of the churches in Silvanus ; in the second, the 
 apostle indicates that, considering the importance of his sub- 
 ject and the yearning of his heart, he looks on his letter as 
 a short one.’ This last appears the more probable. — δι᾽ 
 ὀλίγων} equal to dua βραχέων, Heb. xiii. 22: “in few words;” 
 cf. Thucyd. iv. 95. — ἔγραψα] refers to this epistle, which the 
 
 1 Hofmann’s opinion is purely arbitrary, ‘‘ that since the individual churches 
 received the epistle, intended as it was for so wide a circle, only in & transcrip- 
 tion of a transcription, and had again to send it on, a modest remark, that he 
 had not made his letter too long in order to venture to ask them to take this 
 trouble, was not inappropriate.” Nothing alludes to the taking of any such 
 trouble, — Fronmiiller’s view is also incorrect. He thinks that ὡς acyiZ. should 
 be taken with διὰ Σιλου, ἐγρ., in the sense of: ““1 count upon your receiving this 
 epistle by Silvanus,”—for there is no question here of the receiving of it. 
 
CHAP, V. 12-14. 245 
 
 apostle is on the point of closing, and not, as Erasmus, Grotius, 
 etc., altogether unwarrantably assume, to a former one which 
 has been lost;} cf. Philem. 19, 21. — παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπι- 
 μαρτυρῶν] Although by these two words the apostle indicates 
 two distinct subjects, still these are not to be separated in 
 such a way as to be applicable to different parts of the epistle 
 (de Wette, Brückner) ;* but the παράκλησις and the émmap- 
 τύρησις are throughout the whole letter closely bound up 
 together. As the contents of the ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν are stated, but 
 not those of the παρακαλεῖν, the chief stress is laid on the 
 former, the latter (παρακαλῶν) being placed first, in order 
 thereby to give prominence to the character of the ἐπεμαρ- 
 τύρησις. Contrary to its common usage, de Wette interprets 
 ἐπιμαρτυρῶν : in addition to, 1.6. testifying in addition to the 
 exhortation. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν simply means: to bear witness to 
 anything (opp. ἀντιμαρτυρεῖν, see Pape and Cremer, s.v. ; in 
 the N. T. dz. λεγ.; ἐπιμαρτύρεσθαι occurs in the LXX. and 
 in the Apocr., but not ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν) ; Bengel is therefore 
 wrong in interpreting: testimonium jam per Paulum et Silam 
 audierant pridem: Petrus insuper testatur ; so, too, is Hofmann 
 in saying that in ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν it is presupposed that the 
 readers themselves already know and believe what Peter 
 testifies. — ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] Contents of 
 the ἐπιμαρτύρησις : “that this is the true grace of God;”* 
 ταύτην does not refer to that of which the apostle has written, 
 but its more precise definition follows in the subsequent rela- 
 tive clause. Peter accordingly sets forth, in conclusion, that 
 
 1 In this interpretation 4; λογίζομαι is applied to the writing of the former 
 epistle. Erasmus: per Silvanum.. . qui non dubito, quin epistolam bona fide 
 reddiderit. Similarly Pott: antehac et, si recte memini (‘if I remember 
 aright! ”) per Silv. epistolam vobisscripsi. Differently Wetstein : scripsi, ut ipse 
 sentio et apud me, omnibus rite perpensis, statuo, ita etiam alios hortor, ut idem 
 mecum profiteantur: doctrinam Christi esse veram. 
 
 2 «“ The first statement of the contents of the epistle applies to chap. i. 13- 
 v. 9; thesecond, toi. 3-12 ; and one or two passages in the hortatory portion, 
 as i. 18-20, 25, ii. 9f., iii. 18, iv. 12 f.” 
 
 3 Hofmann lays stress on the want of the article before χάριν, and therefore 
 interprets : “that it is real grace of God, that that is in truth grace from God, 
 wherein they have come to stand ;” but if Peter had meant this, he would not 
 have written ἀληθῆ, but ἀληθῶς. In this interpretation also the rule of assimila- 
 tion is wrongly applied. 
 
246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 his epistle testifies to the readers that that grace in which 
 they already stood is the true grace, from which, therefore, 
 they should not depart (cf. with this, chap. i. 12, 25, 
 ii. 10, 25). No doubt this was the χάρις which had been 
 brought to them by means of the preaching of Paul, but it 
 does not follow that the purpose of Peter’s ἐπιμαρτύρησις was 
 to set, for the readers, the seal on that preaching. It is not 
 the preaching which is here in question, but the χάρις in 
 which the readers stood, quite apart from the person through 
 whose instrumentality it was brought to them. Had Peter 
 intended to bear a testimony to Paul, he would surely have 
 done so in clear terms; nor does anything in the epistle 
 allude to an uncertainty on the part of the readers as to 
 whether Paul had preached the true gospel to them. χάρις 
 is not: doctrina evangelii (Gerhard); but neither is it: “ the 
 state of grace” (de Wette), for with this the adjunct τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 would not harmonize. But it denotes the objective divine 
 grace, into the sphere of which the readers have entered by 
 means of faith; cf. Rom. v. 2. — ἀληθῆ) stands here as the 
 leading conception, not with any polemical reference to an 
 erroneous doctrine (for there is no trace of any such polemic 
 in the epistle), but is intended by the apostle to mark in 
 itself the truth and reality of this xapıs, in order that the 
 readers may not be induced by the persecutions to abandon it. 
 — εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε] for this construction, cf. Winer, p. 386 f. 
 [E. T. 516 ff]. Ifthe reading στῆτε be adopted, this adjunct 
 expresses the exhortation to continue in Zhat grace. Here, 
 however, the nearer definition necessary to ταύτην is wanting ; 
 for as the ἐπιμαρτύρησις is not something added on to the 
 epistle (ἔγραψα), ταύτην χάριν cannot be the grace of which 
 I have written to you. 
 
 Ver. 13. Salutation. — The notion that ἡ... συνεκλεκτή 
 denotes the apostle’s wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) 
 finds no support from 1 Cor. ix. 5; it is contradicted by the 
 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι" inserted between. By far the greater number 
 of commentators rightly consider it to mean: “the church in 
 
 According to several commentators, cvvexa., though not meaning definitely 
 
 Peter’s wife, yet refers to some other excellent woman of the church. Wolf 
 even thinks it may be understood as a proper name. 
 
CHAP, V. 13. 247 
 
 Babylon” (x has the word ἐκκλησίᾳ after Βαβυλῶνι; Oec. 
 u. Vulg. ecclesia). According to Hofmann, ἐκκλησία is not to 
 be supplied to συνεκλεκτή, “but the churches to which the 
 apostle writes are, as such, ἐκλεκταί, and the church from 
 which he sends greetings is, as such, a συνεκλεκτή, as she from 
 whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an ἀδελφὴ 
 ἐκλεκτή" (2 John 13). But in John’s Epistle, ver. 1, κυρία, 
 and ver. 13, ἀδελφή, are put along with ἐκλεκτή ; accordingly, 
 it does not follow that συνεκλεκτή, without the additional idea 
 ἐκκλησία, would of itself mean a church. The σὺν refers to 
 the churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the 
 former, cf. chap. i. 1.! According to Eusebius (7. E. c. 15), 
 Papias already was of opinion that the name Babylon is here 
 used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be understood. 
 The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, 
 Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic inter- 
 preters ;” in more recent times by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, etc. The principal reasons brought forward 
 in support of this view are—(1) The tradition of the primitive 
 church, which speaks of the apostle’s stay in Rome, but makes 
 no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) The designa- 
 tion of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. xiv. 8, xviil. 
 2,10; (8) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the 
 time of the Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph. Ant. 
 i.18,c. 12. But these reasons are not conclusive, for—(1) The 
 tradition has preserved altogether very imperfect and uncertain 
 notices of the apostles; (2) In Revelation this designation is 
 very naturally explained from the reference to O. T. prophecy; 
 (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand 
 that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity 
 (see Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff, and Wieseler, p. 557£.)” Although 
 
 1 It is far-fetched when Schott says that ἡ covexa. ἡ ἐν Baß. is not written 
 here, but ἡ ἐν Baß. cvvsxa., because the very fact of her being in Babylon (i.e. 
 Rome) makes the church a συνεκλεκτή, i.e. the real associate of the churches who 
 read the epistle ; namely, in as far as thus reference is made to a like condition 
 of suffering. 
 
 2 Lorinus remarks: Omnes quotquot legerim interpretes catholici romanam 
 intelligunt ecclesiam. Calvin says of this interpretation: hoc commentum 
 Papistae libenter arripiunt, ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae praefuisse. 
 
 3 Hofmann maintains that it is ‘‘ indiscoverable how Peter had come to know 
 
248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 de Wette’s rejoinder, that “the allegorical designation is 
 unnatural in a letter, especially in the salutation,” may be 
 going too far, still it is improbable that Peter, in simply con- 
 veying a greeting, would have made use of an allegorical name 
 of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not 
 to be taken literally. This could admit of explanation only 
 if, at the time the epistle was written, it had been customary 
 among the Christians to speak of Rome as Babylon; and that 
 it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly, Erasmus, Calvin, 
 Gerhard, Neander, de Wette-Briickner, Wieseler, Weiss, Bleek, 
 Reuss, Fronmüller, etc, have justly declared themselves 
 opposed to the allegorical interpretation. The view that by 
 Babylon is meant the Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, 
 1, 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa, Wolf), has nothing to commend 
 it, the less so that this Babylon was simply a military 
 garrison.’ — καὶ Μάρκος ὁ vids mov] The correct interpreta- 
 tion of υἱός μου is given already by Oecumenius: Μάρκον 
 υἱόν, κατὰ πνεῦμα καλεῖ, GAN οὐ κατὰ σάρκα. It is un- 
 doubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is meant. 
 Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother, 
 it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by 
 Peter. The idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own 
 after the flesh, named Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), 
 could receive support only if auverAexrn were used to desig- 
 nate the apostle’s wife. 
 
 Ver. 14. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης] Paul 
 uses a similar expression, Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 
 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. The members of the church 
 are by turns to greet one another (not each other in Peter’s 
 name) with the kiss of charity, thus testifying to their 
 brotherly love for each other (see Meyer on 1 Cor. xvi. 26). 
 Instead of the Pauline: ἐν ἁγίῳ φιλ,., there is here: ἐν Gir. 
 ἀγάπης, “ with the kiss of love,” i.e. the kiss, which is the type 
 and expression of Christian brotherly love. — The final bene- 
 the two Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians,” if he wrote his epistle- 
 in Babylon. But the composition of the epistle in Rome is not by any means 
 proved by so uncertain an assertion. 
 
 1 It is clearly quite arbitrary when some scholars, like Capellus, Spanheim, 
 
 and Semler, understand Babylon here as a name for Jerusalem, or even for the 
 house where the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost. 
 
CHAP, V. 14. 249 
 
 diction is likewise similar to those in the epistles of Paul; 
 only that in these χάρις stands in the place of εἰρήνη (Eph. 
 vi. 23, 24, both occur; cf. too, 3 John 15). By the addi- 
 tion of τοῖς ἐν Xp. the πάντες are designated according to 
 their nature as such, who live in union with Christ, and to 
 
 whom, therefore, the benediction here pronounced belongs. 
 

 
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. 1—OCCASION, CONTENTS, AND CHARACTER OF THE 
 EPISTLE. 
 
 
 
 
 TAS HE epistle on its own testimony professes to have 
 | 3% δ᾿ been written by the Apostle Peter (chap. i. 1, 14, 
 iA: A| 16-18, iii. 1, 15) subsequent to his first epistle 
 ~ — (ehap. iii. 1; comp. also i. 16), and addressed to 
 the same churches. Its occasion and aim are stated in chap. 
 iii. 17,18. The author is in anxiety as to the false teachers 
 who were about to appear,—he nevertheless pictures them as 
 actually present,—and therefore he wishes to warn his readers 
 against them, that they might not be led astray, and exhorts 
 them to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ. The false teachers against whom the 
 epistle is directed are the Libertines (chap. ii.) and the deniers 
 of the Parousia of Christ, and the destruction of the world 
 connected therewith (chap. iii). It is commonly assumed 
 that in chap. iii. the persons meant are the same as those 
 described in chap. ii. But an identity of this kind is nowhere 
 suggested ; indeed, the way and the terms in which the 
 Eumaiktaı are introduced in chap. iii. seem rather to indicate 
 that by the latter—although mention is also made of their 
 sensual life (κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι)--- 
 different individuals are intended from those portrayed in 
 chap. ii. (Weiss)—-De Wette’s opinion, that the author had in 
 his eye “vicious persons” simply, and not “false teachers,” 
 251 
 
252 TIIE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 is erroneous, it being abundantly evident from vv. 18, 19 
 that the persons described in chap. ii. based their actions on a 
 definite principle ; moreover, they are expressly termed revöo- 
 διδάσκαλοι, ver. 1. It is also equally erroneous to take 
 them to be Gnostics, properly so called, or more particularly, 
 with Grotius, followers of Carpocrates. Bertholdt calls them 
 Sadducee Christians; but this term is wanting in the necessary 
 precision. Cf. my Introduction to Jude’s Epistle. 
 
 The epistle falls into two principal divisions, each con- 
 sisting of two parts. In the first part of the first division 
 (chap. i. 1-11), the author reminds the Christians of the 
 blessings, more especially the ἐπαγγέλματα, of which by the 
 power of God they had been made partakers, linking on to 
 this the exhortation to give abundant proof of the virtues 
 which are the fruits of faith,—those especially in which he 
 that is wanting is like unto one blind, and he only who 
 possesses can enter into the eternal kingdom of Christ—In 
 the second part (chap. i. 12-21), the author, as the Apostle 
 Peter, mentions first, what had induced him to give the exhor- 
 tation at this particular time, and then refers his readers to 
 the certainty of Christ’s advent, confirmed as it was both by 
 the divine words which himself had heard at the Saviour’s 
 τι transfiguration and by the prophecies of the Old Covenant. 
 —In the first part of the second division (chap. ii.), the author 
 portrays the immoral character of the Libertines. He begins 
 by announcing their coming, future as yet; calls them deniers 
 of the Lord who would seduce many, but would not escape 
 punishment (vv. 1-3); then he proves the certainty of their 
 punishment by the examples of the fallen angels, those who 
 perished in the flood, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 not forgetting, however, in the last two cases to call to remem- 
 brance Noah and Lot, just men both, and therefrom to draw 
 the conclusion as to the righteousness of God (vv. 4-9). In 
 vv. 10-22 follows the more minute description of the sensual 
 character of the false teachers.—The author commences the 
 last part of this division by stating the design of this second 
 epistle, and then goes on to mention the scoffers who would 
 walk after their own lusts, and would deny the advent of the 
 Lord (chap. iii. 1-4); this he follows up by a refutation of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 278 
 
 the arguments on which the denial is based, foretelling the 
 coming destruction of the world by fire, and representing the 
 apparent delay of the judgment as an act of divine patience 
 (vv. 5-10); and to this he subjoins the exhortation to an 
 holy walk, in expectation of the new heaven and the new 
 earth (vv. 11-13).—The epistle concludes with the mention 
 of the Apostle Paul’s epistles, coupled with the warning 
 against wresting the difficult passages contained in them. 
 Finally, the author gives forth exhortations by way of caution, 
 in which he makes apparent the design of the epistle; on this 
 follows the doxology. 
 
 The fundamental idea which runs through the whole epistle 
 is that of the ἐπέγνωσις Χριστοῦ, which consists essentially 
 in the acknowledgment of the δύναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ. 
 Advancement in this ἐπέγνωσις, as the ground and aim of the 
 exercise of all Christian virtue, is the prominent feature of 
 every exhortation. Hence the τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα are desig- 
 nated as that by which κοινωνία with the divine nature is 
 effected, and which must move the Christian to show all 
 zeal in supplying the Christian virtues. The author is 
 therefore at pains to prove the certain fulfilment of those 
 promises, and to refute the sceptical doubts of the false 
 teachers. 
 
 As regards its structure, the epistle has encountered much 
 adverse criticism from the opponents of its authenticity. 
 Mayerhoff reproaches it, more especially, with a clumsy and 
 illogical development; but it cannot fail to be observed that] 
 there is a clear and firm line of thought, by which all particu- 
 lars are joined together and form a well-arranged whole (ef. 
 Brückner, Einl. ὃ 1 a; Hofmann, p. 121 ff.). The thoughts 
 which form the commencement of the epistle prepare the way | 
 for the warnings against the false teachers, and have as their 
 aim the concluding exhortations which point back to the, 
 heresy. The prominence given to the thought that τὰ πρὸς 
 ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν are bestowed upon us (i. 3), and the 
 exhortation to furnish the Christian virtues (i. 5-11), are all 
 aimed at the false teachers, who would indulge in ἀσελγείαις, 
 and by whom the ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας would be brought into 
 disrepute (ii. 2); whilst the emphasis laid on the emayyer- 
 
254 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 para (i. 4), as also the reference to the incidents of the trans- 
 figuration as a proof of the δύναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ 
 (i. 16-18), point to the prophetic announcement of the coming 
 of the ἐμπαῖκται who would deny the advent of the Saviour 
 (iii. 3 ff.). Still it is surprising that the whole of the second 
 chapter may be omitted without the connection of thought 
 being in any way injured thereby. For, inasmuch as the 
 scoffers are characterized as men who walk κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας 
 αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας, the moral exhortations introduced in 1. ὃ, 4, 
 and to which iii. 12 has retrospect, may be applicable to them 
 also; and although 11. 1 is closely connected with 1. 19-21 
 by the words: ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται Ev τῷ λαῷ, yet 
 μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προ- 
 φητῶν (ili. 2) can equally be joined with them. It may 
 accordingly be conjectured that chap. 11. was afterwards added, 
 either by the writer himself, or by some later hand; but 
 again, opposed to such a supposition is the circumstance that 
 chap. ii. in no way disturbs the unity of the whole. 
 
 Besides several echoes of the Pauline Epistles and the First 
 Epistle of Peter, this letter, as is well known, presents in the 
 second chapter, and in one or two passages of the first and 
 third, a striking resemblance to the Epistle of Jude, which 
 cannot possibly be considered accidental. Rather must one 
 of these epistles be regarded as the oricinal, of which the 
 author of the other made use. In former times the prevalent 
 view was that the Second Epistle of Peter was the original, 
 thus Luther, Wolf, Semler, Storr, Pott, etc.; but afterwards 
 the opposite opinion obtained most favour, thus already Herder, 
 Hug, Eichhorn, Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, de Wette, 
 Guericke ; and in more recent times it has been supported by 
 Reuss, Bleek, Arnaud, Wiesinger, Brückner, Weiss, and F. 
 Philippi ;—that is to say, not only by opponents of the 
 authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, but by defenders 
 of it also (Wiesinger, Briickner, Weiss). A different judg- 
 ment, however, is passed by Thiersch, Dietlein, Stier, Luthardt, 
 Schott, Steinfass, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. Appeal is made 
 chiefly to this circumstance, that at the time when the Epistle 
 of Jude was composed the false teachers were already present, 
 while in Second Peter their appearance is looked upon as 
 
INTRODUCTION. 255 
 
 future, and is the subject of prophecy. But this, as Weiss 
 has shown, is an argument only in appearance, and is in no 
 way capable of proof. That the passages Jude 17 and 18 
 have no reference to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3 and üi. 2, 3, is plain 
 from this, that had Jude seen in the appearance of the 
 Libertines the fulfilment of the prediction contained in Second 
 Peter, he would have styled them, not ἐμπαῖκται «.r.A., but 
 rather ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. For in Second Peter it is not the 
 Libertines described in chap. 11. that are called euratkraı, but 
 the deniers of the Parousia spoken of in chap. 111., whom Jude 
 does not even mention. Nor is it easy to see why Jude, if 
 in vv. 17 and 18 he really had in his mind the prophecy 
 given by Peter, should not have directly said so, but should 
 rather have spoken of the actual word of the actual Peter as 
 τὰ ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου. 
 In favour of the view that the Second Epistle of Peter is | 
 dependent on the Epistle of Jude, is the latter’s entirely 
 individual manner of thought and diction, which bears the 
 distinct impress of originality ;’ whilst in Second Peter, on 
 the other hand, there is apparent the endeavour to tone down 
 the expression by simplification, addition, or omission. Further, 
 the circumstance that the more the expression in Peter’s second 
 epistle coincides with that of Jude, the more does what is 
 otherwise peculiar to the epistle tend to disappear? And 
 finally, the absence of any tenable reason which might have 
 induced Jude to collect together separate passages from a 
 larger apostolic writing, in order to compose therefrom a new 
 epistle, which, seeing that the former was already in existence, 
 must have had the less significance that it omits from the 
 
 1 Herder : ‘‘See what a thoroughly powerful epistle, like a fire-wheel running 
 back into itself ; take now that of Peter, what introduction he makes, how he 
 tones down, omits, confirms,” etc.—‘‘ Jude has always the most precise and the 
 strongest expression.” Even Schott grants, in opposition to Dietlein, ‘‘ that 
 the Epistle of Jude bears the impress of much greater literary originality on the 
 part of the writer than that of Second Peter ;” and that “it must be allowed to 
 possess a by far greater intellectual originality and pithiness.” 
 
 5 This Weiss brings very decidedly forward : ‘‘It plainly appears that wher- 
 ever in the parallel passages it strikingly coincides with that of Jude, the ex- 
 pression is to be found nowhere else in Second Peter ; but wherever it deviates 
 from that of Jude, or becomes entirely independent, it is at once in surprising 
 conformity with the form of expression in this or the First Epistle of Peter.” 
 
256 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 delineation important particulars which are contained in 
 Second Peter." 
 
 In discussing the question as to which is the original epistle, 
 two points must be remembered,—(1) “ That in neither have 
 we a slavish dependence or a mere copy, but that the corre- 
 spondence of the one with the other is carried out with literary 
 freedom and licence” (Weiss); and (2) The circumstance that 
 this question is not identical with that as to the authenticity 
 of the Second Epistle of Peter; Wiesinger, Weiss, Briickner, 
 defend its authenticity, although they question its priority. 
 —The reasons which Schott adduces for the priority of the 
 Epistle of Jude are simple assertions, which a closer examina- 
 tion by no means justifies, inasmuch as they are either plainly 
 arbitrary, or presuppose artificial interpretations and pure in- 
 ventions. Steinfass thinks, strangely enough, that to accept 
 the originality of Jude’s Epistle is somewhat hazardous for that 
 composition itself, and not only for Second Peter, inasmuch 
 as, on the assumption, he takes the repeated reference to the 
 Pseudo-Enoch to be an offence, many examples a redundancy, 
 much conciseness constraint, and the whole arrangement pretty 
 much confusion. Fronmüller bases his argument for the 
 priority of Second Peter specially on this, that it is incon- 
 ceivable that Peter, the prince of the apostles, should have 
 borrowed expressions, figures, and examples from one who was 
 plainly less gifted than himself. Hofmann would completely 
 settle the whole question by asserting that Peter composed his 
 second epistle soon after his first, that is to say, before the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, while Jude wrote after (ver. 5!) that 
 event. But when, nevertheless, quite superfluously, he by 
 way of proof goes into particulars, he on the one hand bases 
 his arguments on many unjustifiable assertions, as, for example, 
 that Peter exhorts to an holy walk, but Jude to the aggressive 
 maintenance of the Christian faith, or that Jude was dealing 
 only with some unworthy members of the church in the present, 
 whilst Peter had in view teachers who were to arise in the 
 future ; and, on the other hand, the proofs he adduces have also 
 to be supported by erroneous interpretations and judgments 
 purely subjective.—If, now, following the course of thought in 
 the Epistle of Jude, we consider the individual passages in 
 
 1 When Luthardt thinks to explain this by observing ‘‘that Jude could 
 certainly assume that his readers were acquainted with Second Peter, in which 
 enough had already been said as to the παρουσία, he entirely overlooks the fact 
 _ that the latter epistle treats equally at length of the false teachers, and that 
 consequently Jude might have left his entire letter unwritten. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 257 
 
 their relation to what is similar to them in Second Peter, these 
 results are obtained :—In the opening of his epistle, Jude intro- 
 duces his opponents without any bias as τινὲς ἄνθρωποι, without 
 even hinting that they are those whose appearance Peter had 
 before predicted. The first description of them by τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν is peculiar toJude. Itisin 
 no way probable that the expression ἀσέλγεια is taken from the 
 passage 2 Pet. ii. 2. The following δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι is found in 
 Peter also, but to whom it originally belongs cannot be concluded 
 from the nearer definitions connected therewith. The fact 
 that the particular features by which Jude characterizes his 
 opponents are to be found in 2 Pet. ii. 1-3, others being here 
 added, however, and with a less original turn of expression, 
 tends to show rather that the Epistle of Jude had exercised an 
 influence on that of Peter than vice versa (Wiesinger). In the 
 one epistle as in the other, the examples of divine judgment 
 follow the first and special description of the adversaries. Yet 
 these are not in both the same, and in Peter's epistle, in the 
 second and third cases, there is added to the mention of the 
 punishment of the ungodly a reference to the deliverance of the 
 just, more especially of Noah and Lot. The order in which the 
 examples of judgment are brought forward is in Peter’s composi- 
 tion chronological, and in so far eminently natural; still the 
 selection of the first is striking, since in Gen. vi. 2 ff. there is 
 no mention made of a punishment of the angels. Now, as 
 there is nothing in the connection of thought here which 
 could have determined Peter to bring forward this example, 
 he must have been moved to do so by something external to 
 it, that is, by the influence which the Epistle of Jude had 
 upon him. The order of examples of judgment in Jude is of 
 so singular a nature, that so far from showing even the faintest 
 trace of a dependence on Peter, it is rather on the assump- 
 tion of any such quite incomprehensible. How could it 
 ever have occurred to Jude, supposing he drew from Second 
 Peter, to place the case of the unbelieving Israelites first, and 
 to omit that of the flood? Jude’s manner of presentation is 
 based on a conception so entirely original, that it cannot 
 possibly have been suggested to him by that in Second Peter. 
 It is difficult to see what could have moved Jude to avoid the 
 two-sided character of Peter's examples, if it really lay before 
 him—it was equally well suited to his purpose. Noticeable, 
 also, is the latter’s prevailing tendency to generalization. The 
 last two examples adduced by Jude have reference to a quite 
 definite sin, the ἐχπορνεύειν καὶ ἀπέρχεσθαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας: 
 Peter, on the other hand, deals only with the general distinction 
 2 PETER. kh 
 
258 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 between godly and ungodly ; and whilst Jude characterizes the 
 conduct of the angels as it lay to his hand in the tradition, or 
 in the Book of Enoch itself, Peter contents himself with the 
 more general ἁμαρτησάντων, and avoids all distinct reference to 
 that tradition. But whence had he, then, the σειραῖς ζόφου 
 x.7.a., if he did not write under the influence of Jude’s epistle ? 
 After the examples of judgment there follows, in both epistles, 
 the description of the libertines, according to their sensual 
 walk and their despising and defamation of the supernatural 
 powers. Amidst much that is similar there are nevertheless 
 many points of disagreement, so that, in general, it may be open 
 to dispute in which epistle the more original expression pre- 
 vails. This is, however, not the case as regards the difference 
 between Jude 9 and 2 Pet. 11. 11, for instead of Jude’s concrete 
 description according to apocryphal tradition, we have again in 
 Peter, as in the mention of the angels formerly, an entirely 
 general expression, which, however, must refer to something 
 special. It has indeed been asserted (Schott, Hofmann) that 
 Peter’s expression finds its explanation in Zech. iii. 1; but if 
 the apostle had this verse in view, he would have made more 
 distinct reference to it; nor, again, could any reason be assigned 
 why Jude should have alluded, not to the fact recorded in that 
 passage, but to one entirely apocryphal. This also speaks 
 decidedly in favour of the priority of Jude’s epistle. Dietlein 
 asserts with regard to Jude 10, as compared with 2 Pet. ii. 12, 
 “that the higher degree of pure elaboration proves Jude to 
 have been the reviser;” but this is unjustifiable, as even Stein- 
 fass admits. Wiesinger and Brückner rightly say, that here 
 also, in the whole mode of expression, the priority of Jude’s 
 epistle is recognisable—In Jude the woe follows, breaking in 
 upon the text, and as the basis of it the comparison of the 
 Libertines with Cain, Balaam, and Korah. To this is added 
 a more minute description of them in a series of figurative 
 expressions, coupled with Enoch’s prophecy of judgment. In 
 the Epistle of Peter, subjoined to φθαρήσονται, ver. 12, is the 
 reference to the reward of the ἀδικία of the Libertines, and on 
 this a description of the ἀδικία itself,—the false teachers being 
 then at the end classed along with Balaam. It is only after 
 this that several figurative designations follow, which are based 
 on their propagandist doings. The grouping is accordingly 
 different in each of the epistles ; and otherwise, with much that 
 is coincident in detail, there are many divergencies. The train 
 of thought is in both epistles equally suited to the subject- 
 matter, only it is somewhat strange that Jude, if he had the 
 Epistle of Peter before him, should ever have thought of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 259 
 
 interrupting the connection of ideas here existing between 
 vv. 12 and 13 by awoe. This paragraph clearly shows that 
 the dependence of the one author on the other is not to be 
 looked upon as of such a nature that the later changed, and 
 arranged with designed elaboration, the writings of the earlier, 
 but only, that in the description of the same object the manner 
 of presentation of the latter had wrought with manifold deter- 
 mination upon that of the former. The divergencies which 
 here occur are more easily explained on the assumption that 
 the Epistle of Jude, and not that of Peter, was the earlier. 
 Were it otherwise, it would certainly be difficult to understand 
 how Jude left unnoticed not only the characteristic ὀφθαλμοὺς 
 ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, but also the repeatedly recurring 
 δελεάζοντες, and the references generally to the propagandist 
 designs. With regard to this difference, that Jude speaks of 
 Cain, Balaam, and Korah, whilst Peter mentions Balaam only, 
 it is more natural to suppose that Peter, leaving the other two 
 unnoticed, refers simply to Balaam because the latter appeared 
 to him a particularly fitting type of the Libertines (on account 
 of their πλεονεξία, to which special prominence is given, and to 
 which the μισθοῦ of Jude alludes; whilst, in the case of the 
 others, there is no such distinctive trait), than to assume that 
 Jude added the two other illustrations to that of Balaam which 
 he had before him in the Epistle of Peter. The priority of 
 Jude’s epistle may be recognised in this also, that the some- 
 what striking expression μισθοῦ is, in the composition of Peter, 
 supplemented by the explanatory: ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν. 
 Highly characteristic, too, is the relation of the two clauses 
 Jude 124 and Peter ii. 130, especially in their corresponding 
 expressions: σπιλάδες in Jude, and σπῦλοι καὶ μῶμοι in Peter, and 
 ἐν ταῖς dyamaıs ὑμῶν there, and ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν here. In 
 spite of the different expressions, the influence of the one on 
 the other is unmistakeable ; and it is equally plain that it was 
 not Jude who wrote under the influence of Peter, but Peter 
 under that of Jude. For what could have induced Jude to 
 substitute for the clear expression of Peter the uncommon 
 orırdöss, —which, besides, has a different meaning,—and to 
 change the much more general idea ἀπάταις into the special 
 conception dyaruıs? Whatever may be thought of Weiss’ 
 opinion, that Peter allowed himself to be guided simply by the 
 sound of the words, we must certainly agree with him when he 
 says that “Schott’s attempt to save the originality of Peter’s 
 epistle rests on the entirely untenable assumption that the 
 Petrine passage has reference to the love-feasts.’—His omission 
 of the passage from Enoch, quoted by Jude, can be easily 
 
 
 
260 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 enough explained, inasmuch as it was Peter's predominating 
 desire to allow what was apocryphal to recede, especially when 
 by doing so no essential thought was omitted, and in chap. 
 ii. 1, 2, distinct enough reference had been already made to the 
 future judgment. But it is difficult to see what possible reason 
 Jude could have had for inserting the passage from the Apocry- 
 pha in addition to what he found in Peter.— In what follows, 
 each epistle goes its own way, and there are to be found but few 
 traces of any influence of either on the other. Those few are 
 as follows:—(1) The κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι in Jude 
 16, 17, and Pet. iii. 3, and the ἐμπαῖκται closely connected here- 
 with. With regard to this last expression, it is more than 
 improbable that Jude borrowed it from Peter’s epistle, it being 
 there applied to the deniers of the Parousia, whom Jude does 
 not even mention. Peter, on the other hand, might easily have 
 adopted this designation from the Epistle of Jude, as very 
 applicable to those who called the advent in question, the more 
 so that he had already spoken of the Libertines as evdodsdco- 
 καλὸ. Thus, too, is explained the addition from Jude’s epistle 
 of χατὰ ras... πορευόμενοι, Which otherwise, as applied by Peter 
 to a special heresy, is somewhat surprising. (2) The term 
 ὑπέρογκα, Jude 16 and Pet. 11. 18; Jude employs it without any 
 nearer definition, but Peter in relation to ἐλευθερίαν EruyyEr- 
 λεσθαι. This, too, speaks for the priority of Jude’s composition ; 
 for it is not conceivable that Jude, in adopting the expression, 
 would have left unnoticed its nearer definition presented by 
 Peter; whilst, on the other hand, the latter might easily have 
 borrowed it from Jude’s epistle, as well suited to the end he 
 ‚had in view. — The result, then, of an unbiassed comparison 
 can be no other than this, that the Second Epistle of Peter was 
 ‚ composed under the influence of what Jude had written, and 
 | not vice versa. This has been proved by Brückner, Wiesinger, 
 and Weiss in their investigations, which have, in part, been 
 conducted with more attention to particular detail. 
 
 SEC. 2.—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Eusebius (7. E. ii. 23, iii. 5) rightly includes this epistle 
 among the antilegomena, its genuineness having been called in 
 question by many. Origen already expressly says (Eusebius, 
 H. E. vi. 23): Πέτρος... μίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην 
 καταλέλοιπεν' ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν, ἁἀμφιβάλλεται yap. In 
 spite of this verdict, Origen—only, however, in the writings 
 
INTRODUCTION. 261 
 which we possess in Latin translation—treats it as a genuine 
 composition of the apostle, citing it several times ; see Homit. 
 in Josuam vii., Homil. iv. in Levitic., Homil. viii. in Numer., and 
 Comment. in Ep. ad Romanos, viii. 7.— If in his Comment. in 
 Ev. Johannis he speak only of the First Epistle of Peter as 
 catholie, saying, with reference to 1 Pet. iii. 18-20: περὶ τῆς 
 ἐν φυλακῇ πορείας μετὰ πνεύματος παρὰ τῷ Πέτρῳ ἐν τῇ 
 καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ, it can at most be concluded from this, 
 only that he refused to apply that name to the second epistle, 
 perhaps because it had not found general acceptation, but not 
 that he himself had any doubts as to its genuineness. — 
 Origen’s contemporary, too, Firmilianus of Caesarea, seems to 
 have known the epistle, and to have regarded it as genuine ; 
 for when, in his Epistle to Cyprian (Epp. Cypr. ep. 75), he 
 says that Peter and Paul have condemned the heretics in suis 
 epistolis, this seems, as far as Peter is concerned, to be 
 applicable to his second epistle only, as in the first there is 
 no mention of any such persons. — It cannot be definitely 
 asserted that Clemens Alexandrinus commented on this epistle 
 in his Hypotyposes. According to Eusebius (7. E. vi. 14): 
 ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑποτυπώσεσι ξυνέλοντα εἰπεῖν, πάσης τῆς ἐνδια- 
 θήκου γραφῆς ἐπιτετμημένας πεποίηται διηγήσεις" μὴ δὲ τὰς 
 ἀντιλεγομένας παρελθών: τὴν ᾿Ιούδα λέγω καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς 
 ἐπιστολάς" τήν τε Βαρνάβα καὶ τὴν Πέτρου λεγομένην ἀπο- 
 κάλυψιν᾽" καὶ τὴν πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν κιτιλ., Clement 
 commented on the whole of the N. T. writings, the antile- 
 gomena included, and therefore Second Peter, which Eusebius 
 designates as an ἐπιστολὴ avtirey. To this, however, the 
 remark of Cassiodorus is opposed (de instit. div. script. c. 8): in 
 epistolis canonicis Clemens Al. i. 6. in ep. Petri prima, Joannis 
 prima et secunda et Jacobi (or rather Judae) quaedam attico 
 sermone declaravit, etc. — Cum de reliquis epistolis canonicis 
 magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, subito nobis codex Didymi... 
 concessus est, etc. But as Cassiodorus expressly says in the 
 Praefatio: ferunt itaque scripturas divinas V. et N. Testamenti 
 ab ipso principio usque ad finem graeco sermone declarasse 
 Clementem Alex., it may be concluded from this that he did 
 not possess a complete copy of the Hypotyposes, but one only 
 in which several epistles of the N. T., and among these Second 
 
262 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Peter, were awanting. Whilst Brückner says that the remark 
 of Cassiodorus is no certain refutation of the statement made 
 by Eusebius, Weiss declares himself convinced that the 
 epistle was not commented on by Clement. — Neither in the 
 writings of Tertullian nor of Cyprian is there to be found any 
 trace of an acquaintance with the epistle, though both of them 
 know and quote First Peter.— The epistle does not stand 
 in the older Peshito, nor is it mentioned in the Muratorian 
 Canon. Previous to Clemens Al. it is sought for in vain in 
 the apostolic and in the older church Fathers. As to 
 whether in these writers certain echoes of the epistle are to 
 be found which point to an acquaintance with it, Guericke, 
 even, expresses himself very doubtfully : “ The allusions, in the 
 case of some of the apostolic Fathers, are not quite certain ; 
 but, on the other hand, Justin M., Irenaeus, and Theophilus, do 
 really appear to have made unmistakeable reference to it.” 
 Thiersch (p. 362, d. a. Schr.) denies still more decidedly a 
 reference in the earlier church Fathers to this epistle. “The 
 two thoughts only,” says Thiersch, “‘ that one day is with the 
 Lord as a thousand years, and that ‘ the end of the world will 
 come as a conflagration, had at a very early period obtained 
 general diffusion throughout the church;” but he himself 
 shows that these two ideas did not necessarily originate in 
 this epistle. Most of the recent critics agree with Thiersch. 
 Entirely opposed to this, however, is the judgment of Dietlein; 
 he fancies he finds, not only in the three Fathers already men- 
 tioned, but in Polycarp, Ignatius, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, 
 and Hermes, not in some few passages merely, but “ scattered 
 in large numbers throughout the writings of each of them,” 
 indisputable references to our epistle. In his endeavour to 
 discover these, however, Dietlein has failed to observe that the 
 writers of ecclesiastical antiquity all drew! from the same 
 
 ' Even with regard to Philo, Dietlein says: ““ The coincidence between Philo 
 and the N. T. and primitive ecclesiastical writers is by no means always fortui- 
 tous.—Both draw abundantly from the same storehouse of views and expressions, 
 only the use they make of these is very different. ”—This remark is very just ; 
 but why does not Dietlein apply what he says as to Philo to the relation between 
 the primitive Christian writers and those of the N. T.? Is it because the 
 application is in no way different? But, according to his own account, the 
 material which the former drew directly from the latter was often applied in a 
 
INTRODUCTION. 263 
 
 store of conceptions, expressions, and phrases, and that a corre- 
 spondence must necessarily take place, without the dependence 
 of any one upon another following therefrom. By far the 
 most of the passages in those apostolic Fathers to which 
 Dietlein appeals attest only a community of conception and 
 expression, but not a dependence on Second Peter, the less so 
 that the harmony consists almost only in accidental phrases 
 and the like, and not in such ideas as are peculiarly charac- 
 teristic of our epistle; nor has Dietlein been able to show a 
 single sentence in which there is an exact verbal agreement. 
 
 In the Epistle of Barnabas, the words, chap. xv.: ἡ ἡμέρα παρ᾽ 
 αὐτῷ (that is, κυρίῳ) χίλια ἔτη, doubtless call up 2 Pet. 11.8 ; but 
 the thought to which they give expression is there entirely 
 different from that here. Besides, it must be particularly 
 observed—to this Thiersch calls attention—that the conception 
 of the days of the Messiah as a Sabbath of a thousand years is 
 found in the Mischnah, Tractat. Sanhedrin 97b, in connection 
 with Ps. xc. 4; as also that the authenticity of the Epistle of 
 Barnabas is by no means so certain as Dietlein presupposes. — 
 All the other passages in this epistle to which Dietlein appeals 
 (especially in chap. 1. and ii., in the salutation and the conclusion 
 of the epistle) show points of similarity only, which by no means 
 prove the existence of definite references.’ — So, too, with the 
 passages from the Epistle of Clemens Romanus (chap. vii. init. 
 comp. with 2 Pet. i. 12 and iii. 9; chap. viii. comp. with 2 Pet. 
 iii. 9, 16, 17; chap. ix. comp. with 2 Pet. i. 17, etc.; chap. xi 
 with 2 Pet. ii. 6, 7, etc.), and from that of Polycarp (chap. iii. 
 comp. with 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16; chap. vi. fin. and vil. init. with 
 2 Pet. iii. 2, etc.).? Had Polycarp really been acquainted with 
 
 very diverse manner ; and though the difference here be not so great as in the 
 above case, it is only natural it should be so, if the different circumstances be 
 considered. 
 
 1 When Barnabas, in the introduction to his epistle, thus states the purpose of 
 it: ἵνα μετὰ τῆς “πίστεως φσέλειαν ἔχητε καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν, this so entirely corresponds 
 with the contents of the epistle that he certainly cannot have made Second 
 Peter his guide ; that he makes use of the verb σπουδάζειν is all the less objec- 
 tionable, that the word is a very common one. The enumeration of the virtues 
 (chap. ii.) is entirely different from that which occurs in 2 Pet. i. 5-8, and the 
 words : magnarum et honestarum Dei aequitatum abundantiam sciens esse in 
 vobis, have a very feeble similarity to: τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα 
 δεδώρηται, 2 Pet. i. 4, especially as the connection of thought is of quite another 
 kind. 
 
 * Dietlein finds specially in Clement a mass of references to Second Peter ; 
 
264 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Second Peter, and had he wished to refer to it, it is impossible to 
 understand why he does not quote even one sentence from it liter- 
 ally, as he certainly does from First Peter. — Still less than that 
 of the above-mentioned Fathers is the dependence of Ignatius on 
 Second Peter capable of proof, even in a single passage. — As 
 regards Justin Martyr, the earlier critics have traced back the 
 expression in the Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 89 (p. 308, Morelli’s 
 edition) : συνήκαμεν yap τὺ εἰρημένον, ὅτι ἡμέρω πυρίου ὡς χίλιω ern, εἰς 
 τοῦτο συνάγειν, to 2 Pet. iii. 8 as their original source; but the 
 words here have the same meaning as in the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, and, besides, differ still more markedly from those of 
 Second Peter. — Indeed, Justin himself seems to hint that the 
 words are not taken from an apostolic writing ; for he cites 
 them as a saying not unknown to Trypho, whilst he expressly 
 mentions the book of the N. T. from which a quotation imme- 
 diately following is taken: καὶ ἔπειτα (i.e. “and then,” ze. “and 
 further”) Ἰωάννης. .. ἐν ἀποκαλύψει. . . xpoepjrevos.—Subse- 
 quently, indeed, Justin designates the false teachers as "Leuöo- 
 διδάσκαλοι (a word which occurs, no doubt, in the N. T. only in 
 Second Peter), and that, similarly as in 2 Pet. 1]. 1, in connec- 
 tion with the false prophets among the Jews; but this need 
 occasion no surprise, since in after times the name was not 
 uncommon, and the application of it must have suggested itself 
 at once to him in conversation with a Jew. — Nor in Hermas 
 either is there any quotation properly so called from Second 
 Peter. Still appeal has been made to various expressions (in Vis. 
 iii. 7, iv. 3) which no doubt may be traced back to that Epistle; 
 and yet more is this the case in Vis. vii. Whilst, however, 
 Wiesinger admits the dependence on Second Peter, and 
 Briickner is inclined to agree with him, Weiss remarks, that in 
 the Greek text, now brought to light, the supposed references 
 in Hermas lose every semblance of similarity. On the other 
 
 but it is here precisely that the way in which he strains the most natural phrases 
 and expressions becomes apparent. There is no foundation for the assertions, 
 that the expression : ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐσμεν σκάμματι (Which the words καὶ a αὐτὸς nein 
 ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται follow) had its origin, by association of ideas (!), in the ἐφ᾽ ὅσον 
 εἰμὶ iv τούτῳ τῷ σκηνώματι of Peter; that Clement was stimulated by Peter to 
 write the remarks in chap. vii. and xi. ; that when he wished to account for the 
 very special reverence in which Paul was held, he, in doing so, did not act with- 
 out reference to 2 Pet. iii. 15! By what right are expressions such as ὑπακοή, 
 μετάνοια, δικαιοσύνη, ταπεινοφροσύνη, etc., stamped as peculiarly Petrine ?— Dietlein 
 attaches special importance both to the fact that Polycarp mentions Paul, and to 
 the manner in which he does so, as also to his controversy with the heretics, 
 who denied the ἀνάστασις. Yet here, too, it is presupposed that similarities are 
 due entirely to direct reference ; and, moreover, no account whatever is taken of 
 the relation in which Polycarp stood to Clement. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 265 
 
 hand, Hofmann ‘maintains that in Sim. vi. c. 2 ff, the peculiar 
 connection of τρυφή with ἀπάτη, ete., as also the singular calcula- 
 tion, for how long a time pain would follow one day of luxurious 
 living, can only be explained by a reference to Second Peter ; 
 and further, that the vision of the seven virtues (Sim. 111. ο. 8) 
 could have had 2 Pet. i. 5-7 as a pattern. Both of these asser- 
 tions are very questionable—In Theophilus (ad Autol.) it is two 
 passages principally that recall our epistle; in the one it is said 
 of the prophets (1. II. ο. 11, ed. Wolfii, Hamb. 1724): of δὲ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πιευμωτοφόροι πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ προφῆται γενόμενοι um’ 
 αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐμπνευσθέντες καὶ σοφισθέντες ἐγένοντο θεοδίδακτοι καὶ ὅσιοι 
 καὶ δίκαιοι ; in the other (1. II. c. 1), with reference to the Logos: 
 ἡ διάταξις τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν 
 οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ. The similarity of the former passage with 
 2 Pet. i. 21, and of the latter with 2 Pet. i. 18, is indisputable ; 
 but that the one had its origin in the other remains certainly 
 doubtful, the points of difference being not less marked than 
 those of agreement. The conception formed of the prophets is 
 in both cases the same no doubt, but it was also the view gene- 
 rally prevalent, and is found even in Philo; cf. the exposition 
 of 2 Pet. i. 21; the manner of expression, too, is not a little 
 different. As regards the other passages, it must be observed 
 that there is agreement, neither in the figure employed (ἐν οἰκή- 
 pari συνεχομένῳ instead of ἐν αὐχμήρῳ τόπῳ), nor with respect to 
 the object spoken of. — In Irenaeus the thought, that one day is 
 with the Lord as a thousand years, is again found, and that in 
 two passages (Adv. Haeres. v. 23 and 28), but in neither of them 
 is it hinted that the words are taken from an apostolic writing. 
 Tf it had not its origin in some collection of proverbs then in 
 circulation, it is very probable that Irenaeus borrowed it from 
 Justin, since he too uses the expression: ἡμέρα κυρίου (not παρὰ 
 zupiw). — Dietlein, indeed, thinks that instances of reference on 
 Trenaeus’s part to Second Peter may be richly accumulated, the 
 more the finding of them is made an object of study (!). But 
 Trenaeus nowhere mentions the epistle, nor does he anywhere 
 make a quotation from it,—a circumstance more surprising in his 
 case than in that of Polycarp, if he really knew the epistle, and 
 considered it to be an apostolic writing. Cf. Brückner, Zinl. 
 
 § 4. 
 
 The result of an unbiassed examination is, that in Ignatius 
 there are to be found no references to Second Peter; in 
 Clemens Rom., Barnabas, and Polycarp, none in any way 
 probable; in Justin Martyr, Hermas, and Theophilus, none 
 certain; and further, that Irenaeus cannot be looked upon as 
 
266 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 a guarantee for the existence and authority of the epistle in 
 the church. If, then, the apostolic Fathers had already made 
 use of this composition, more especially in the manner in 
 which Dietlein holds that they did, it would be impossible to 
 explain not only how the doubts, spoken of by Origen, arose, 
 but also the circumstance that the epistle is mentioned neither 
 by Tertullian nor by Cyprian. Dietlein’s assertion, that the 
 older Fathers of the church, in making more frequent reference 
 to the Pauline Epistles than to the Petrine, did, in doing so, 
 but follow the hints which Peter himself gave in chap. iii. 
 15, 16, explains nothing ; for, on the one hand, no such hint 
 is contained in that passage; and, on the other, the first 
 epistle must have shared the same fate as the second, which 
 is not the case. — Thiersch, as already remarked, whilst 
 admitting that it cannot be proved that any of the early 
 church Fathers made reference to Second Peter, at the same 
 time allows that none of the reasons which explain the sub- 
 ordinate position held by the antilegomena as compared with 
 the homologoumena, are applicable to this epistle. He is 
 therefore driven to account for the fact that this epistle was 
 not included among the subjects of regular anagnosis, by say- 
 ing that this was due to the fear lest a too early disclosure— 
 as made in his words of thunder (?)—of the evil, in its whole 
 scope, would have had the effect of hastening on the outbreak 
 of it, more especially at a time when all minds were being 
 stirred to their very depths, as was the case when the canon 
 of the homologoumena was fixed. But this reason is in itself 
 very improbable, for there could certainly have been no better 
 weapon against the advancing evil, than the word of an 
 apostle, and especially of Peter. Thus, too, the reflection is 
 cast upon Peter that he was here wanting in true apostolic 
 wisdom, inasmuch as he composed an epistle which could 
 have no other than a disturbing influence. And what, then, 
 is to be said of Jude, who made into a special epistle the 
 sharpest passages, and those likely to exercise that influence 
 most strongly ! 
 
 The circumstance that the epistle is not mentioned by the 
 earliest Fathers of the church remains all the more surprising, 
 when it is considered how important the polemic it contains 
 
INTRODUCTION. 267 
 
 against errors of the worst kind must have made it appear to 
 them. Wiesinger thinks that the exception taken to it by 
 Hieronymus on linguistic grounds (see below), as well as the 
 dogmatic objections raised to it, would be less likely to 
 recommend for use an epistle so special in its contents. But 
 opposed to this is—(1) That if the churches to whom it is 
 addressed did receive it from Peter, they would hardly have 
 compared it in the matter of style with the first epistle ; 
 (2) That it affords no ground for dogmatic objection ; (3) That 
 the special character of its contents is precisely of such a 
 nature as to promote its use, rather than to be an obstacle in 
 the way of it. Weiss justly maintains that the question, how 
 it can be explained that there are no certain traces of the 
 epistle in the second century, is as yet unsolved, in that what 
 has been urged in the way of solution by the defenders of the 
 genuineness, is in a great measure arbitrary and insufficient. 
 
 After the time of Eusebius, the epistle was generally treated 
 as canonical; yet Gregory of Nazianzum already says (Carm. 
 33, ver. 35): καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τινὲς μὲν ἑπτὰ φάσιν, οἱ δὲ 
 τρεῖς μόνας χρῆναι δέχεσθαι; and Hieronymus (8. de Script. 
 eccl. c. 1), who himself holds the genuineness of the epistle, 
 remarks that its Petrine origin is denied by most, and withal 
 propter styli cum priore dissonantiam. — Although it was not 
 in the Peschito, Ephraem Syrus made no doubt as to its 
 genuineness; meantime, and notwithstanding, doubt long 
 maintained itself in the Syrian Church, as may be seen from 
 the words of Cosmas Indicopleustes (Christ. topographia, lib. vi.) : 
 παρὰ Σύροις δὲ εἰ μὴ ai τρεῖς μόναι at προγεγραμμέναι οὐχ 
 εὑρίσκονται, ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Πέτρου καὶ ’Iwavvov‘ αἱ ἄλλαι 
 γὰρ οὔτε κεῖνται παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. 
 
 In the Middle Ages all doubts were silenced, but at the 
 time of the Reformation they immediately revived. Erasmus 
 already said that, juxta sensum humanum he did not believe 
 that the epistle was the composition of Peter; and Calvin 
 is of opinion that there are several probabiles conjecturae, 
 from which it can be concluded that the epistle is the work 
 rather of some one other than Peter. — The older Lutheran 
 dogmatists are not inclined to insist positively on its genuine- 
 ness, on the ground that the church does not possess the 
 
268 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 power, quod possit ex falsis scriptis facere vera, ex veris 
 falsa, ex dubiis et incertis facere certa, canonica et legitima 
 (Chemnitz, Hx. Conc. Trid., ed. 1615, Francof., p. 87 ff). 
 Although the later writers on dogmatics gradually obliterate, 
 more and more, the distinction between homologoumena and 
 antilegomena, and our epistle in ecclesiastical use is treated 
 increasingly as a canonical writing, yet doubt did not wholly 
 disappear. Indeed, since Semler it has grown to such an 
 extent that Schwegler (d. nachapost. Zeitalt. Bd. 1, p. 491) 
 feels warranted in saying: “ From Calvin, Grotius, Scaliger, 
 and Salmasius, to Semler, Neander, Credner, and de Wette, 
 the voices of all competent authorities have united in doubt- 
 ing and rejecting it.” — This is, however, saying too much, for 
 there has never been any want of competent authorities to 
 defend its genuineness. Still, the general voice had certainly 
 become always more unfavourable to the epistle, — till in 
 recent times new defenders of its authenticity appeared.’ 
 Many critics hold that genuine and spurious parts may be dis- 
 tinguished in the epistle; thus Berthold in his Hinl. ς. N. T. 
 and C. Ullmann in his work, Der 2 Brief Petri kritisch unter- 
 sucht, Heidelb. 1821. The former regards the second chapter 
 as spurious, the latter the third also. The first of these two 
 views is refuted by the fact that not the second chapter alone, 
 but likewise several passages of the third, bear a similarity to 
 Jude’s epistle ; and against that of Ullmann are the circum- 
 stances that the first chapter has by no means the character 
 of a completed whole, while, as § 2 proves, there is a firm 
 line of thought running through the epistle, and binding into 
 a unity its several parts, from beginning to end. 
 
 In discussing the question of the authenticity of our 
 
 1 As defenders of its authenticity may be specially named: Nitzsche (Zp. 
 Petri posterior auctori suo imprimis contra Grotium vindicata, Lips. 1785), C. 
 C. Flatt (Genuina secundae ep. Petri origo denuo defenditur, Tub. 1806), J. C. 
 W. Dahl (De authentia ep. Petri poster. et Judae, Rost. 1807), F. Windisch- 
 mann (Vindiciae Petrinae, Ratisb. 1836), A. L. C. Heydenreich (Hin Wort zur 
 Vertheidigung der Aechtheit des 2 Br. Petri, Herborn 1837), Guericke (who in 
 his Beiträge had expressed doubts as to the authenticity) ; besides these, Pott, 
 Augusti, Hug, ete.; and in most recent times, Thiersch, Stier, Dietlein, Hof- 
 mann, Luthardt, Wiesinger, Schott, Weiss, Steinfass ; Brückner is not quite 
 decided. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 269 
 
 epistle, it will be necessary to consider its relation to First 
 Peter. If this latter be held to be spurious, there is of course 
 no need of any further investigation, for, appealing as the second 
 does to the first,it must share its fate. But since First Peter 
 must be regarded as genuine, a comparison of it with our 
 epistle is of the highest importance. 
 
 The doubts as to the authenticity of the second epistle, 
 which result from a comparison of the two writings with 
 each other, are founded not on a dissonantia styli only 
 (Hieron.), but also on a diversity (although not a contradiction) 
 in the mode of conception. No doubt those who call the 
 authenticity in question have not unfrequently gone too far 
 in the production of alleged differences, but that such do 
 exist cannot be denied. Of these the following are the most 
 important :—The prominent feature in both epistles is, indeed, 
 the Parousia of Christ, but the manner in which it is spoken 
 of is in each different; in the first epistle the prevailing 
 conception is the eAris; in the second, on the other hand, it 
 is the emiyvoaıs, —the former expression not occurring in the 
 second epistle, nor the latter in the first. In the first 
 epistle the day of the second advent is looked upon as 
 imminent; in the second, mention is indeed made of a sudden, 
 but not of the near arrival of that day; rather is it expressly 
 indicated as possible that it would not come till farther on in 
 the future. In the first epistle the chief stress is laid on 
 the glorification of believers which shall accompany the return 
 of Christ; in the second epistle prominence is principally 
 given to the catastrophe which shall overtake the whole 
 creation in connection with the advent, that is, to the 
 destruction of the old world by fire, to give place to the new 
 heaven and the new earth. In addition to this, the advent 
 is in the first epistle designated by the word ἀποκάλυψις, 
 and in the second by παρουσία. 
 
 The existence of this difference cannot, as opposed to Hof- 
 mann too, be called in question. Even if, as Wiesinger strongly 
 urges, the passage iii. 14, 15 indicate that the Parousia will be 
 the glorification of believers, still the form under which this is 
 represented as taking place is different from that of the first 
 epistle. When Schott asserts that “the second epistle in no 
 
270 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 way, and least of all ‘expressly,’ alleges the possibility of a later 
 realization of the Parousia,” the statement loses its justifica- 
 tion in presence of ver. 8. Weiss’s objection, that by ἐπήγνωσις 
 is not to be understood a “ theoretical knowledge perfecting 
 the Christian life,” is out of place here, for ἐπίγνωσις and 
 ἐλπίς are certainly different ideas; and even if Weiss be correct 
 in saying that the expectation of the near Parousia is not 
 abandoned in the second epistle, the difference in question 
 would not be removed. 
 
 Whilst in the first epistle the saving truths of the death 
 and resurrection of Christ form the basis of the ἐλπίς and of 
 the Christian’s moral life, in the second epistle these are 
 nowhere mentioned. Nor in the latter epistle is there any 
 trace to be found of the ideas peculiar to the former (cf. 
 Introduction to the epistle); and, on the other hand, the 
 conceptions characteristic of this epistle, as the view ex- 
 pressed in chap. 1. 19; further, the idea of the κοινωνία with 
 the divine nature secured by means of the ἐπαγγέλματα, and 
 the belief that the world was framed by God, and would 
 perish again by fire, are nowhere hinted at in the first 
 epistle. 
 
 These remarks, too, maintain their full force against the 
 objections taken to them; for the question here is, not as to 
 how these differences (not contradictions) are to be explained, 
 on the assumption of an identity of authorship, but as to the 
 fact, which cannot be called in question, that they actually do 
 exist. Is it beside the question for Schott, in reply to the 
 remark that in the second epistle the death and resurrection of 
 Christ are not mentioned, to adduce a mass of citations from it 
 for the purpose of showing, what is no doubt true, that the 
 person of Christ is very decidedly brought forward as the 
 cuarantee of a completed salvation, and the efficient origin of 
 an holy walk; and all the more that, in proportion as the 
 person of Christ is insisted upon, the stranger does it seem 
 that an apostle like Peter should pass over those facts in 
 silence ? 
 
 As regards the style and mode of cxpression in both epistles, 
 it should not be left unnoticed that Peter’s literary character, 
 as seen in his first epistle, is not, like that of Paul or John, so 
 sharply defined and original, that each of his productions reveals 
 its authorship. And just as little must it be forgotten, that the 
 
INTRODUCTION. DL 
 
 first epistle in many passages recalls the epistles of Paul, that 
 the second is, to no inconsiderable extent, dependent on Jude, 
 and that consequently the peculiar character of Peter’s style is 
 difficult to determine, the more so that his writings are only of 
 small extent.’ Still many linguistic differences are to be found, 
 which even in Hieronymus’ time attracted attention, and which 
 cannot be overlooked. It is not to be denied that the freshness 
 of expression of the first epistle, and its richness in com- 
 binations of thought, are here wanting. Whilst in the first 
 epistle one thought follows directly upon another in lively 
 succession, the connection in the second epistle is not unfre- 
 quently effected by means of conjunctions which point back 
 to what precedes, or by a formal resumption of what had 
 previously been said, cf. chap. i. 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, ni 7, 
 10, 12. And whilst, too, in the first epistle there is a 
 richness and variety in the use of prepositions expressive of 
 manifold relationships, a conspicuous uniformity in this 
 respect prevails throughout the second epistle. Many 
 peculiarities which are characteristic of the diction of the 
 first epistle (cf. Introd. to first epistle, § 2), are foreign to 
 the second. In the’ use also of several single expressions 
 
 1 In opposition to what is said above, Schott maintains not only that the 
 Epistle of Jude is dependent on Second Peter, but also that Second Peter con- 
 tains echoes of the Pauline Epistles. He thinks that ἰσόσιμος, i. 1, arose from 
 Eph. ü. 19; droguyavres . . . φθορᾶς, 1. 4, from Rom. viii. 20 ff.; and the 
 passage 1. 12 ff. from Rom. xv. 14, ete. The epistle, further, is supposed to 
 show a special dependence on the Pastoral Epistles, i. 3-11 being only an 
 adaptation of Tit. ii. 12-14, ete. Schott attaches particular importance to this, 
 that leading and fundamental ideas in the epistle are employed in the same 
 prominent manner only here and in the Pastoral Epistles, as εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβής, 
 ἀσεβής, σωτήρ, σώζειν, pacivo With its family, ἐπίγνωσις, βλασφημεῖν, ἐπαγγέλλομαι : a 
 dependence, too, on the Epistle to the Hebrews he considers hardly less evident. 
 — All these assertions, however, are unwarranted. Asa matter of course, there 
 are ideas expressed in Second Peter which correspond to those contained in 
 other epistles ; but this arises from the oneness of the Christian faith, and is no 
 proof of a special reference to any of those epistles. As regards the individual 
 leading and fundamental ideas of the Pastoral Epistles and of Second Peter, 
 adduced by Schott, ἀσεβής (ἀσέβεια) is to be found equally in the Epistle to the 
 Romans ; σωτήρ occurs in other N. T. writings; σώζειν is not used in Second 
 Peter, and as little is μιαίνω; ἐπίγνωσις and βλασφημεῖν are terms which are to 
 be found often enough in the N. T.; ἐπαγγέλλομαι in 2 Pet. ii. 19 has not the 
 meaning which it has in First Timothy ; the terms εὐσεβής, εὐσέβεια alone are 
 almost the only ones which are peculiar to these epistles. 
 
272 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 there is an established difference: κύριος, when used without 
 more precise definition, is in the second epistle a designation 
 of God, ef. chap. ii. 9 (11), üi. 8, 9, 10; in the first epistle, 
 on the other hand, except in quotations from the O. T., it is 
 used of Christ, cf. chap. ü. 3, 13. In the first epistle the 
 name Χριστός, when not joined with ᾿Ιησοῦς, is frequently 
 treated as a proper name, cf.i.11,19, ü. 21, ii. 16, 18, 
 iv. 1, 13, 14, v. 1; in the second epistle, on the other hand, 
 Χριστός never occurs except in connection with ᾿[ησοῦς. 
 And these divergencies are all the more fitted to excite 
 surprise, if, as Hofmann assumes, the second epistle was 
 written very soon after the first. 
 
 1. The objection raised against the last remark, that the 
 combination of Χριστός with ᾿Ιησοῦς occurs also in the first 
 epistle (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner), is without force, since 
 this is not, and never could have been, denied. And it signifies 
 equally little that, as Hofmann shows, in the second epistle 
 (with the exception of i. 1) ’Ino. Χριστός also is never to be 
 found alone, but always in connection with ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, etc. ; 
 since it cannot be denied that Χριστός is used by itself—often in 
 the first, but never in the second epistle-—Of still less conse- 
 quence are the remarks of Hofmann as’ to the use of χύριος. 
 When Schott asserts that Χριστός, with or without the article, 
 wherever it stands in the first epistle, denotes the Mediator 
 as such, but that in the second epistle there is nothing to lead 
 to the mention of the Mediator, it must be remarked, in reply, 
 that in the second epistle Christ is designated as the Mediator 
 distinctly enough by the name σωτήρ. 
 
 2. Besides the differences here mentioned, Mayerhoff brings 
 forward many others. In doing so, however, he has gone much 
 too far. Thus he lays stress on the fact that in the first 
 epistle the exhortations are commenced concisely with the 
 imperative ; in the second, on the other hand, with a circum- 
 locutory expression, e.g. 1. 12, 13, 15, iii. 1,2,8. But in the 
 first epistle the latter manner of beginning could not occur, 
 inasmuch as the apostle does not there remind his readers of 
 what they had formerly heard from him, as he does in the 
 second epistle; nor, in the second epistle, is the imperative 
 without circumlocution by any means wanting. Further, 
 Mayerhoff speaks of it as peculiar to the second epistle, that 
 ἐν is inserted with a substantive, as in chap. i. 4; yet the same 
 takes place in the first epistle. Of many of the phenomena 
 which are supposed to be peculiar to the first epistle, Mayer- 
 
INTRODUCTION, 273 
 
 hoff himself admits that they are to be found also in the 
 second, only less frequently. To the assertion, that in the two 
 epistles the conception of the Christian religion is not the 
 same, it must be replied that the various expressions denote 
 the different sides of the Christian life. As against Mayerhoff, 
 cf. the discussions of Schott, Brückner, Weiss. 
 
 No doubt their diversity in thought may be traced to a 
 difference in the tendency of the two epistles, nor is the diction 
 either of the second by any means unjustifiable ;' yet it does 
 appear strange that, if Peter wrote this letter from the situa- 
 tion on which the second epistle is based, he should have 
 done so in such a manner that it would present so many 
 diversities in character from that of the first epistle. Never- 
 theless, there are between the two writings many points of 
 coincidence which cannot be overlooked. In both attention 
 is directed chiefly to the Parousia of Christ, and to prepara- 
 tion for it by an holy walk. In both the readers are ex- 
 pressly shown that to be Christians, as they were, is to be in 
 the right and true state of salvation, and they are exhorted at 
 once to give proof of it by an holy behaviour, and to confirm 
 themselves in it. Both epistles, further, have this in common, 
 that they are strongly dependent on the O. T. (on this see 
 Schott and Weiss). In the mode of expression, also, there 
 are to be found many points of coincidence. Thus it may be 
 noted that in i. 4 the ideas καλεῖν and ἀρετή are connected 
 together in a manner which, though not identical with 1 Pet. 
 ii. 9,15 yet similar to it; that as in 1 Pet. 1. 19 the adjectives 
 ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος stand together, so in 2 Pet. iii, 14 
 dominos and ἀμώμητος are conjoined, with which also the 
 expression 11. 13: σπῖλοι Kai μώμοι, corresponds; that the 
 word ἀπόθεσις is to be found only in these two epistles. It 
 is also worthy of remark that the introductions and the con- 
 clusions in both the epistles show an unmistakeable likeness. 
 The commencement points, in the case of each, to the future 
 kingdom of God; 1 Pet. i. 4: eis κληρονομίαν; 2 Pet. 1. 11: 
 
 1 ΤῸ is only these two points, here distinctly expressed, which Hofmann 
 brings forward in order to remove all objections, arising from the different 
 characters of the two epistles, to the view that both are the productions of the 
 same author. 
 
 2 PETER. 5 
 
274 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 eis τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν Inc. Χριστοῦ; and as at the close 
 of First Peter the purpose of the letter is stated by the παρα- 
 καλῶν x.T.r., v. 12, so in Second Peter the design of the 
 composition is given by: φυλάσσεσθε... avfavere, where 
 the φυλάσσεσθε... ἵνα μὴ ἐκπέσητε Tod ἰδίου στηρυγμοῦ 
 corresponds in a particular manner with the στηρίξαι and the 
 ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ, eis ἣν ἑστή- 
 κατε, in First Peter. 
 
 Like the opponents of the authenticity in bringing forward 
 differences, its defenders have not unfrequently overstepped 
 all bounds in the production of supposed points of coincidence. 
 Of this Schott has been especially guilty. He goes so far as to 
 say that even 2 Pet. i. 1 “is an armoury from which all doubts 
 concerning the Petrine origin of the second epistle are repelled,” 
 and everywhere, wherever in thought or conception any resem- 
 blance between the two epistles is to be seen, he seeks to show 
 that the second makes reference to the first, without in any way 
 distinguishing what in conception is Christian and common 
 from what is characteristic and peculiar; and Briickner has 
 accordingly justly protested against many of the arguments 
 advanced by Schott. But even Weiss often goes too far, as 
 when, with reference to the doctrine of redemption, he maintains 
 that the ideas of calling and of election in 2 Peter (i. 10) 
 seem to be synonymous as in 1 Peter, whilst the fact is that no 
 such combination occurs in the latter epistle; when he com- 
 pares the κοινωνία θείας φύσεως (2 Pet. 1. 4) with the thought that 
 the calling is the motive to become like unto him who calls, 
 after 1 Pet.i.15; when he thinks that the deu δύναμις of Christ, 
 which gives all that is necessary for the new life, corresponds 
 with the divine δύναμις which preserves unto salvation (1 Pet. 
 i. 5); further, when he lays stress on the fact that in both 
 epistles the δικαιοσύνη constitutes the central point of Christian 
 moral life, whilst elsewhere also in the New Testament the 
 essence of such life is often enough expressed by δικαιοσύνη ; when 
 he considers that the falling a prey to φθορά (2 Pet. i. 4, ii. 12, 19) 
 recalls the antithesis between φθαρτόν and ἄφθαρτον in the first 
 epistle; when he states that in the second epistle (i. 7) the 
 φιλαδελφίω forms the climax of the Christian virtues in harmony 
 with 1 Pet. 1. 22, since there it is not φιλαδελφία, but ἀγάπη 
 which is spoken of as the climax, and φιλαδελφίω is also made 
 prominent elsewhere in the N. T. With regard to the doctrinal 
 phraseology, Weiss, in the first instance, adduces a number of 
 points of divergence, and then lays stress on the fact that many 
 
INTRODUCTION. 275 
 
 and, in part, striking points of agreement are to be found. But 
 here again Weiss goes too far; the most of the substantives, 
 adjectives, and verbs which he brings forward as significant of 
 the agreement of the two epistles, being in current use in N. T. 
 language. As regards substantives, with the exception of ἀρετή, 
 the term γνῶσις (1 Pet. iii. 7 and 2 Pet.i. 5) only can be adduced 
 as of importance, for τιμή and δόξα occur elsewhere together ; 
 in like manner τέκνα, in a metaphorical sense, is to be found 
 elsewhere; it is plainly incorrect to say that δύναμις in 2 Pet. 
 ii. 11 is used of angels as in 1 Pet. iii. 22; in the latter passage 
 it denotes the angels themselves, but not so in the former. 
 How the adjectives adduced by Weiss should ever have a 
 special significance it is not easy to see, used as they often 
 enough are elsewhere. The same is the case with most of 
 the verbs ; ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἐν and αὐξάνειν ἐν at most can be brought 
 forward as of importance in this connection. And in referring 
 to kindred expressions, Weiss again goes too far. The following 
 at most are to be noted here as worthy of attention: ἐσότημος in 
 the second, and πολύτιμος in the first; ἄθεσμος there, ἀθέμιτος here; 
 the already mentioned ἄσπιλος καὶ ἀμώμητος in the first, and 
 ἄσπιλος καὶ ἄμωμος in the second, but hardly ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρ- 
 τίας and πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 In spite of all points of accord, real and asserted, the ver- 
 dict of Weiss comes only to this, that if these be taken into 
 account there will be an inclination to see in the divergencies 
 no hindrance to an identity of authorship; that the points of 
 agreement are more than those of divergence; and that the 
 old complaint as to the complete difference of style, was 
 founded on very great exaggeration. Similar, though more 
 moderate, is the judgment of Briickner. Schott, however, ex- 
 pressly admits that the outward form of the second epistle as a 
 whole shows, at first sight even, quite other features from those 
 of the first epistle. The question as to how the undeniable 
 difference in thought and expression is to be explained, has 
 been variously answered. On the assumption of the authen- 
 ticity of the epistle, it will not do to explain the difficulty by 
 supposing that Peter wrote “in advanced old age, and when 
 at the very gate of death” (Guericke), for the period between 
 the composition of the first and the second epistles can have 
 been, comparatively speaking, only a brief one, at most four 
 years—a time certainly too short to account for the difference. 
 
276 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Hieronymus tries to make the dissimilarity of style intelligible 
 by assuming that Peter made use of different interpreters for 
 each of his epistles. But this hypothesis of the use of inter- 
 preters is without any valid reason, and, besides, is inadequate 
 to the end it is meant to serve. It is certainly more correct 
 to find the ground of the diversity in the different tendencies 
 of the two epistles. The purpose of the first is to lay down 
 to the readers their true course of conduct in the midst of the 
 persecutions they had to suffer; that of the second, on the 
 other hand, is to protect them against the heresies of the 
 Libertines which threatened them.’ These different tendencies 
 must naturally lend to each of the epistles its own peculiar 
 character. Yet even Schott admits that this alone is insuffi- 
 cient for the solution of the problem. Schott thinks it can 
 be solved only in this way: that Peter in his first epistle, 
 “for the sake of his readers—to whom he was unknown—and 
 in his own interest, of set purpose kept his individuality 
 assiduously in the background, and sought with the utmost 
 possible fidelity all through the epistle to write in a manner to 
 which the Gentile-Christians and the Pauline churches were 
 accustomed. For this reason he elaborated his first epistle 
 with special care, even as to form; but after he had entered into 
 near personal relations with his readers, he had not the same 
 occasion as in the first epistle to keep his own individuality 
 out of sight.” This manner of answering the question under 
 discussion, which Weiss justly calls “ hyperartificial,” needs 
 certainly no refutation. As, then, the difficulty is not to be 
 removed either by separating, with Weiss, the two epistles by 
 an interval of more than ten years,—for the assumption, that 
 the first epistle was written before the letters of the Apostle 
 Paul to the churches of Asia Minor, is an untenable hypo- 
 thesis,—it must be admitted, with Briickner and Weiss, on the 
 
 1 Hofmann thinks that the different tendencies of the two epistles are errone- 
 ously stated here. He holds that the first epistle contains “‘ nothing as to what 
 are usually termed persecutions of Christians,” and that in the second epistle 
 there is “no warning against teachers of false doctrine, to whom the readers 
 were exposed, or who already had appeared in their midst.” Both assertions 
 are false. To what is said above must be added only, that the two epistles, 
 relating as they do to different circumstances, point to the exhortation to lead 
 ‘fan holy and godly life.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. DIT 
 
 supposition of the authenticity, that there is presented here a 
 problem which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. And 
 the difficulty is increased if it be considered that in the two 
 epistles quite different conditions of the churches are presup- 
 posed ; for whilst in the first there is no trace of any dread of 
 heretical trouble, there is wanting in the second all reference to 
 persecutions to which the readers were exposed,—a circumstance 
 which is not to be passed over so lightly as Hofmann does. 
 
 The shorter the time between the composition of the two 
 epistles, the more surprising is this phenomenon ; the longer, the 
 easier is it of explanation. For Weiss, who assumes an interval 
 of over ten years, there is here hardly any difficulty, more espe- 
 cially as he thinks that Peter, after the composition of the first 
 epistle, was personally present in the churches, and in that case 
 did not need to mention the persecutions which had induced him 
 to compose his first letter. Briickner reserves for himself a way 
 of escape from the difficulty caused by this and other surprising 
 phenomena, by holding that as to the close of Peter’s life the 
 received tradition may be wrong. Schott, on the other hand, 
 attaches no importance to these divergencies, although in his 
 opinion the first epistle was written in the year 65, and the 
 second in the year 66. For he assumes, on the one hand, that 
 when Peter wrote his second epistle the persecutions were past ; 
 and, on the other, that even in the first there are references to 
 errors already present, which Peter, “from his tender and fine 
 feeling of the delicate relation in which he stood to a Pauline 
 church as yet in reality unknown to him,” did not wish ex- 
 pressly to censure. Both assumptions are erroneous; for the 
 persecutions which were the occasion of the first epistle are 
 there clearly characterized as persecutions which, after they 
 had arisen, continued (see Introd. to Ep. 1); and as regards the 
 heresies supposed to have been in existence when the first 
 epistle was composed, Weiss justly remarks: “There is nothing 
 to be discovered in it either of the connection with the heresy 
 combatea in the second epistle, which Brückner artificially 
 brings out, nor of its clearly marked features, which Schott pro- 
 fesses to have found.” It is not in any way to be inferred from 
 the First Epistle of Peter, as Schott asserts, “that it shows a 
 greater spread and inward intensity of the evil combated in the 
 Epistle to Timothy,” or that 1 Pet. iv. 2-4 attests that “a com- 
 paratively large section of the readers was prepared, by a liberal 
 concession to immorality in social life, to gain undisturbed 
 security for themselves as professing Christians;” or that in 
 
278 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 111. 18 ff, iv. 5, 6, 17, 18, it is hinted “that the spiritualistic 
 explaining away of the resurrection of the flesh led the 
 readers to deny also a final judicial decision connected with the 
 return of Christ in the body.” Schott, in what he here says, is 
 moving, not on the ground of true exegesis, but in the region 
 of the most arbitrary fiction. 
 
 The less success has attended all efforts to overcome the 
 difficulties which, on the assumption of the authenticity, lie 
 in the relation of the two epistles to each other, the more 
 justifiable does doubt as to the authenticity appear. It has, 
 no doubt, been asserted that a Falsarius would have followed 
 the first epistle so closely as to have avoided these differences ; 
 but it is equally conceivable that a pseudonymous author 
 could have written under the influence of Peter’s epistle 
 indeed, yet still in his own peculiar style, and without being 
 anxiously careful lest the origin of his composition should 
 thus be betrayed. On this assumption the existence both of 
 similarity and divergence is explained. Several considerations 
 have been urged against the authenticity of the epistle :— 
 
 1. The intention of the author to make himself known as 
 the Apostle Peter. To this it may be replied that, looked at 
 from the situation in which the epistle was written, and which 
 it presupposes (i. 13, 14), this so-called intention is neither 
 unnatural, nor need it excite surprise. If Peter, conscious of 
 his approaching death, felt himself impelled to write a last 
 word to the churches with which he had before this become 
 connected, reminding them of his former preaching, and warning 
 them against doubts as to the second coming of Christ, it was 
 certainly not out of place for him to mention himself, his 
 relation to the churches, and more especially that event in his 
 own life by which the glory of Christ was revealed to him in a 
 manner so special. 2. The remark the author makes on the 
 epistles of Paul and the other Scriptures. In itself, the fact is 
 not strange that the epistle bears testimony to an acquaintance 
 with the epistles of Paul, for that some of the latter were 
 known to Peter is evident from the first epistle; nor do the 
 words (chap. iii. 16) imply that the author possessed a formally 
 completed collection of them. But the expression: ὡς καὶ 
 Tas λοιπὰς γραφάς, is certainly striking. For although it is 
 
INTRODUCTION. 279 
 
 arbitrary to understand by it the whole of the other books of 
 the New Testament, yet the expression must have reference to 
 writings which were already in general use in the churches. 
 It is at least open to question whether this could have been 
 said, in Peter’s time, of writings of the New Testament. 
 Several interpreters (Luthardt, Wiesinger) understand by the 
 term the oldest writings; on this point see the exposition. 
 3. The use made of the Epistle of Jude. It is certainly going 
 too far to brand this as a plagiarism (Reuss) ; nor can it be said 
 that to make use of another’s work was in itself unworthy of 
 an apostle. Still it is surprising that an apostle should have 
 incorporated in his epistle, as to the substance of it, a non- 
 apostolic letter. De Wette’s accusations are, however, unjust : 
 that in Second Peter the simple expression of Jude is partly 
 changed by rhetorical and artificial circumlocution, partly dis- 
 figured and singularly superseded, and that a vacillating line 
 of thought takes the place of one firm and definite. The 
 circumlocutions and additions of Second Peter do not bear on 
 them the character of artificialness. If alterations in the 
 latter composition are to be found (cf. Jude 12 with 2 Pet. 
 ii. 13; Jude 12, 13, with 2 Pet. ii. 17), these cannot be said 
 to be distortions (or, according to Schwegler, confusion and 
 misunderstanding); and if the original course of ideas be not 
 firmly maintained owing to the introduction of new relations (cf. 
 2 Pet. ii. 5, 7-9), and a transposition be resorted to (cf. 2 Pet. 
 ii. 13-17, comp. with Jude 11-13), yet the firmness of the 
 line of thought does not in any way suffer thereby. Incorrect, 
 too, is de Wette’s assertion, that “the heretics combated in 
 Second Peter are mere nonentities, and a spurious copy of the 
 seducers in Jude;” as also that of Schwegler, that they are 
 characterized not after life, not from direct knowledge of them, 
 but according to the vague representation of tradition. Not, 
 however, without weight is the circumstance on which de 
 Wette lays stress, that the false teachers are represented at 
 
 1 Weiss takes a too low estimate of the use made of Jude’s epistle when he 
 says: ‘*Second Peter intentionally seeks support in the highly realistic and 
 vivid description given by Jude of his opponents ; and that even apart from this 
 intentional connection, an expression may involuntarily here and there have 
 
 presented itself to the author’s pen from an epistle so important, and which he 
 had probably just read.” 
 
280 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 one time as about to appear in the future, at another as 
 already present. Wiesinger rejects the view, that while in 
 ii. 1-3 the future seducers are meant, ver. 10 ff. has reference 
 to those already present, and assumes that the future ἔσονται 
 applies only to the relation of these seducers to the readers, 
 and their work among them. Weiss combats this assumption, 
 and in opposition to it defends that rejected by Wiesinger. 
 If it be conceivable that the Libertines already present are 
 “the beginning of the end,” and therefore not yet the ψευδο- 
 διδάσκαλοι, ver. 1, still it must not fail to be observed that 
 in the epistle itself no single word definitely points to any 
 such distinction. Even less satisfactory is it to say, with 
 Dietlein, that the first germs of opposition were already in 
 existence ; or, with Luthardt and Schott, to hold that if the 
 author speaks of the false teachers as already present, he does 
 so only im appearance, arising from the circumstance that he 
 passes from the prediction to the description of them. It 
 may perhaps be most correct to assume that the author, in 
 the first instance, quotes the prophetic word in and for itself 
 simply; and that he afterwards, in the description of the 
 Libertines already in existence, hints that the predictions had 
 begun to be fulfilled. Brückner seems to hold a similar 
 opinion; only he unites this view with that of Wiesinger, and 
 thus deprives it of its necessary clearness. — If the authen- 
 ticity be rejected, the difficulty seems to disappear. It would 
 then lie to hand to explain the vacillation by saying, that the 
 author thought to combat the heresies of his time, with better 
 result, by representing them as already predicted by Peter, 
 and by allowing himself, in the description of them, to be 
 guided by a composition in which they were treated as actually 
 in existence. But it can hardly be conceived that the author 
 should fail to perceive how incongruous his conduct was. — 
 Worthy of remark, further, is the endeavour of the author to 
 obliterate all apocryphal traces to he found in Jude.’ The 
 
 1 Schwegler sees in this also a proof that the epistle was not written until the 
 end of the second century, inasmuch as the dislike to quote apocryphal writings 
 was still foreign even to an Irenaeus, a Clement, or an Origen. If importance 
 must be attached to this, the epistle plainly cannot have been written till after 
 the time of Origen, which is impossible. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 281 
 
 total omission of these would have argued nothing against 
 the Petrine authorship; but it is only the words of Enoch 
 (Jude 14, 15) that are left out. The passage relating to the 
 angels: τοὺς μὴ Tnpyoavras ... οἰκητήριον, is—inasmuch as 
 the case of the angels must not be omitted—changed into the 
 more general: ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων, whilst the punishment 
 that befell them is given in almost the same words. The 
 reference to the apocryphal narrative of the contest between 
 the archangel Michael and the devil is likewise not wholly 
 destroyed, but only effaced,—a more general term being em- 
 ployed, which, however, causes the thought itself to lose its 
 clearness and precision. 
 
 4, The heretical denial of the second advent of Christ, 
 and of the final judgment of the world connected therewith. 
 Although, already in Paul’s lifetime, many errors in the 
 teaching as to the last things—as, for example, the denial of 
 the resurrection—had begun to grow up, there is nothing in 
 the other writings of the New Testament to show that the 
 Parousia of Christ was called in question ; yet the denial of it 
 is so naturally connected with that of the resurrection, that it 
 could quite easily have found expression even while Peter was 
 yet alive. On the other hand, it cannot be questioned that the 
 reasons assigned by the false teachers (2 Pet. iii. 4) are such as 
 seem to belong rather to a time later than that of the Apostle 
 Peter, although the words by no means imply that the Parousia 
 had for many generations already been looked for in vain 
 (Schwegler). And, further, there are the facts that the so-called 
 Second Epistle of Clemens Rom. combats the same heresy,— 
 although in an advanced state of development,—and that one 
 similar, at least, is mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp. 
 
 5. The view expressed in this epistle as to the origin and 
 the destruction of the world. The opinion of Mayerhoff and | 
 Neander, that this view “is in harmony neither with the 
 
 
 
 ? Wiesinger and Brückner think that Enoch’s prediction of judgment was 
 omitted only because there was no appropriate place for it in the connection of 
 thought in this epistle, and that the change in the two verses, 4 and 11, does 
 not show a desire to efface what is apocryphal ; that Peter only generalized the 
 special fact mentioned by Jude, ver. 9, presupposing at the same time an acquaint- 
 ance on the part of his readers with the apocryphal incident referred to. But 
 does not such a presupposition contain what must appear unsuited to an apostle ? 
 
282 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 practical, simple mind of Peter, nor with the N. T. develop- 
 ment of doctrine,” reaches certainly too far; it can only be 
 said that it does not find expression elsewhere in the New 
 Testament. Yet the conception that the world arose into 
 being out of the water by the word of God, points back to the 
 history of creation in Genesis; and that of its destruction by 
 fire, though not indeed expressed, has nevertheless the way 
 prepared for it in passages of the O. T., such as Isa. xvi. 15, 
 Dan. vii. 9 sq. (ef. 1 Cor. üi. 13; 2 Thess. i. 8), so that a 
 more precise development of it by Peter is not inconceivable. 
 In opposition to the appeal to the passage in the Clementine 
 Homilies, xi. 24: λογισάμενος ὅτι τὰ πάντα τὸ ὕδωρ ποιεῖ 
 «.7.X., Brückner remarks that it must not be overlooked that 
 in Clement it is water, and in Peter God’s word, to which 
 precedence is given. 
 
 When Credner thinks to prove the spuriousness of the 
 epistle by saying, that an apostle would never have made 
 reference to one of the mythical additions in the gospels like the 
 narrative of Christ’s transfiguration; and Reuss, by asserting 
 that “ the apparent aim of the epistle is to defend the teaching 
 as to the last things, according to the Judaeo-Christian concep- 
 tion of it, and that as much against unbelief as against a 
 spiritualizing interpretation,” their views must be simply 
 rejected. Not less unjustifiable is it, however, for Bleek to 
 base his verdict of rejection on the circumstance that ini. 18 
 the mount of transfiguration is called τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιον, inasmuch 
 as the place is not even mentioned in the gospels, or more 
 nearly described. 
 
 If the numerous difficulties and doubts above mentioned do 
 not render the authenticity of the epistle absolutely impos- 
 sible, many of them are yet of such a nature that the spurious- 
 ness of the epistle appears to be hardly less probable than its 
 genuineness, especially as the only positive evidence for the 
 latter is the statement of the author himself, that he is the 
 Apostle Peter. On the other hand, many reasons seem to 
 speak against its pseudonymity. Guericke insists that the 
 passages characteristic of the epistle are, “living, spiritual, 
 and truly apostolic ;” but, apart from the circumstance that, 
 e.g., the want of any reference to the essential facts of salva- 
 tion does seem strange in the case of the Apostle Peter, this 
 
INTRODUCTION. 283 
 
 in no way excludes the possibility of a non-apostolic origin. 
 He further says that it is not apparent what purpose a 
 Falsarius could have had in writing ; but this is refuted by the 
 epistle itself, which clearly enough states its design. Further, 
 it has been remarked that the epistle, if it be written under 
 a false name, is a palpable fraud, and to this its own moral 
 character is opposed. But, in reply to this, the fact may be 
 brought forward that men of earnest moral character have often 
 thought more effectually to combat heresy by assuming a 
 pseudonym. Thiersch asserts that it was in the period which 
 followed the labours of Paul and preceded those of John that 
 that Libertinism made its appearance in the Pauline churches ; 
 but from this it does not follow that the heresy did not 
 maintain itself for a considerable time, so that after Jude had 
 already combated it in his epistle, a later attack on it would 
 have been no longer timely. 
 
 Weiss, too, has attempted to prove the hypothesis of a 
 pseudonym untenable. He urges, in the first instance, that it 
 is afflicted with an evil contradiction. For the author appears 
 to play his role at one time cleverly, at another very awkwardly, 
 inasmuch as, with all his endeavours to make himself pass for 
 the apostle, he sometimes forgets his part, and thus betrays 
 his pseudonymity; and, whilst the connection with Jude is 
 made in full harmony with his design, it is carried out in 
 direct opposition to it. Weiss in his remarks has omitted to 
 observe that, like many of the opponents of the authenticity 
 too, he attributes to the author various intentions, which the 
 words of the epistle in no way entitle him to do." Again, 
 Weiss seeks to show that, on the assumption of a pseudony- 
 mous author, there is no uniform purpose discoverable in the 
 epistle. But as far as its purpose is concerned, it is irrelevant 
 whether the epistle was composed by the apostle or not. If 
 
 1 The author is supposed to have forgotten his part, from this circumstance, 
 that whilst in the beginning of it he does not name a special class of readers, 
 in order thus to hide the interpolation of his epistle, he indirectly mentions them 
 in iii. 1. But there is no proof that the author intentionally, and for prudential 
 reasons, omitted to name the class of readers whom he addressed. The same 
 holds good with regard to the assertion that he intentionally chose the pro- 
 phetic form, ii. 1ff. and iii. 8, in order that this epistle might contain the 
 prophecy to which Jude in ver. 17 refers. 
 
284 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the three passages in the epistle—the polemic against the 
 Libertines described according to the Epistle of Jude, that 
 against the deniers of the Parousia, and the recommendation 
 of Paul’s writings—form a united whole, it is not clear how 
 they should do so less if they had an author other than Peter. 
 Finally, Weiss seeks to show that no suitable time can be 
 adduced for the composition of the epistle if it be pseudony- 
 mous. But this difficulty is not less than that which arises 
 in specifying the time in the life of Peter when he wrote 
 the epistle; and if it be difficult to show how a pseudonymous 
 composition could have found acceptation in the church, it is 
 not less hard to explain how a genuine composition of the 
 Apostle Peter could have remained for so long a time unused 
 in the service of the church. If, then, the grounds for and 
 against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced, there is 
 here presented a problem which is not yet solved, and which 
 perhaps cannot be solved, so that the guardedness with which 
 Brückner, Wiesinger also, and even Weiss, with all his 
 inclination to regard the epistle as genuine, express them- 
 selves on the question, deserves only acknowledgment. 
 
 If the epistle be not genuine, the question arises by whom, 
 when, and where it was written. — Mayerhoff seeks to show 
 that it was composed by a Jewish-Christian in Alexandria in the 
 middle of the second century. That the author was a Jewish 
 and not a Gentile-Christian the whole character of the epistle 
 shows; but that he lived in Alexandria, cannot be concluded 
 from the reasons brought forward by Mayerhoff.' The date, 
 too, to which he assigns the composition of the epistle is cer- 
 tainly too late, inasmuch as the description of the heretics 
 contains no reference to Gnostic views properly so called. It 
 
 1 These reasons are—(1) The standpoint of γνῶσις, and the speculation as to 
 how the world originated and how it will be destroyed. But the γνῶσις spoken 
 of in our epistle is entirely different from the γνῶσις of Alexandrine-Jewish 
 speculation ; and that the view here expressed as to the beginning—unjustly 
 called a speculation—of the world, had its origin precisely in Egypt, is not 
 proved. (2) The use made of the Epistle of Jude ; but that the latter was com- 
 posed in Alexandria is at least very doubtful. (3) The coincidence between this 
 epistle and the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, in opposing the 
 same heretical tendency ; but, as there is no proof that the quotation occurring 
 
 in this epistle was taken from the εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους, it is also doubtful 
 whether this fragment had its origin in Egypt. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 285 
 
 would be more appropriate to look upon it as a production of 
 the first century. — Schwegler considers Rome to have been 
 the place, and the end of the second century, at the earliest, 
 the time of the epistle’s composition. In Rome, he thinks, 
 endeavours were made, by carrying out a Petrinism and a 
 Paulinism, to realize the idea of the catholic church. In 
 Rome, therefore, it was that—like so many other writings 
 which have reference to these two schools—this epistle was 
 composed. Its object—an entirely conciliatory one—is this, 
 as is evident from chap. ili. 15, 16, and 1, 14, 16 ff, “to bring 
 about from the standpoint of Petrinism a final and permanent 
 peace between the opposing views of the followers of Peter 
 and those of Paul.” In confirmation of this, Schwegler asserts 
 that the peculiarities of the Petrine system are apparent 
 throughout the epistle, whilst that which is specifically 
 Pauline entirely recedes. But if a doubt arise even here as 
 to how a so decided follower of Peter—who, according to the 
 view of Schwegler, must as such have necessarily stood in 
 opposition to him—could have been the eulogist of Paul, it 
 must excite most legitimate astonishment to see what are the 
 reasons he brings forward in support of his view.’ The evi- 
 dence, too, which he leads for the late date of composition 
 possesses no value.” The chief point, the so-called concilia- 
 tory tendency of the epistle, is a pure hypothesis, which has 
 
 1 These reasons are—the employment of expressions peculiar to Judaeo- 
 Christian modes of thought: εὐσέβεια, ἅγιαι ἀνασαροφαί, ἀρετή, ἁγία ἐντολή 
 κι πολ. (but almost all these expressions are to be found in the N. T. writings, 
 which, according to Schwegler, favour Paulinism) ; the high place given to the 
 λόγος προφητικός (as if Paul had set little value on it) ; the countenance given to 
 angelological mysticism (which he thinks is proved by chap. ii. 10, 11!) ; the 
 demand for a tradition as a standard in the interpretation of Scripture (said to 
 be contained in chap. i. 20!) ; ὄγδοος κήρυξ δικαιοσύνης, as applied to Noah ; and the 
 reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews (in support of which chap. i. 17 is quoted). 
 
 2 Thus, when, among other things, Schwegler brings forward as a reason for 
 this, the writer’s acquaintance with such N. T. Scriptures as he supposes to have 
 been composed only after the middle of the second century, i.e. the Pastoral 
 Epistles, the Gospels of John and of Mark. He concludes that the author was 
 acquainted with the Pastoral Epistles, from the fact that some expressions occur 
 only in these and in the epistles of Peter ; as also with the Gospel of John, by 
 asserting that the writer, in chap. i. 14, had the passage, John xxi. 18, 19, in his 
 mind ; and, finally, with the Gospel of Mark, by supposing that chap, 1. 12-15 
 contains allusions to that gospel (!). 
 
286 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 no support in the epistle itself; for neither in the passages 
 quoted by him, nor in any others, are the differences between 
 Petrinism and Paulinism touched upon, much less adjusted or 
 surmounted. No doubt Paul is spoken of in terms of praise ; 
 but, according to the connection of the passage, only for the 
 purpose of warning the churches to which the epistle is 
 addressed, lest they should be led astray by the heretics, who 
 wrested and changed many statements of the apostle for their 
 own purposes.’ 
 
 1 Heydenreich rightly observes: “For that (conciliatory) purpose, the little 
 which chap. iii. says in passing of Paul would not have sufficed ; if the writer 
 had been chiefly anxious to show such a union, he would have adapted the 
 construction and contents of the whole epistle to the conciliatory design.” 
 
CHAP. L 287 
 
 Πέτρου ἐπιστολὴ β΄. 
 
 According to A and B, the Inscriptio is simply: Πέτρου β΄. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. Συμεών] B, several min. and vss. read, according to the 
 usual form: Σιών (Lachm.), which is evidently an alteration.— 
 Ver. 3. After A δὲ, etc., Tisch. 8 reads: στὰ σάντω, instead of the 
 Rec. πάντα, according to almost all authorities (Lachm. Tisch. 7). 
 — διὰ δύξης καὶ ἀρετῆς] A C PS, many min., Copt. Arm. Vulg., 
 ete., read: ᾿δήῳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, which Griesb. thinks probable ; 
 accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., approved of by the modern 
 commentators and Reiche; the Rec. in B (Buttm. has, however, 
 put ἃ ? to B) KL, al., Thph. Oec. appears to be a correction. — 
 Ver. 4. The Rec. is: τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια ; this occurs only in 
 some min., however much the position of the single words 
 varies in the different codd., etc. Buttmann has, following B- 
 τὰ τίμια x. μέγ. ἡμῖν; Lachm. and Tisch. 7, following C, read: ra 
 μέγιστω καὶ τίμια ἡμῖν; so, too, A, only instead of jum: dun. 
 Tisch. 8, following K Ls,and many min., has accepted τὰ τήμια 
 ἡμῶν καὶ μέγιστα. It cannot be determined which reading is the 
 original one. — ἐν κόσμῳ] Rec., according to © K, several min., 
 Thph. Oec. (Tisch. 7); on the other hand, A B LX, etc., attest 
 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (Lachm. Tisch. 8).— Ver. 5. αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ] LRec., 
 sufficiently corroborated by B C* K LP, al. pl. Syr. Oec. — In 
 C** s, several min., Thph., there is αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτος Lachm., 
 according to A, reads: αὐτοὶ δέ, which can only be considered a 
 correction. Tischendorf has rightly retained the Rec. Schott 
 arbitrarily supposes that the original reading might be: χαὶ 
 αὐτοὶ τοῦτο de. — Ver. 8. Instead of ὑπάρχοντα, which is attested 
 by almost all authorities, Lachm., according to A, Vulg. etc., 
 has accepted παρόντα, which probably arose from the subsequent 
 πάρεστι. --- Ver. 9. ἁμαρτιῶν] Rec., according to BC L P,al., Thph. 
 Oec. (Lachm.) ; in its place Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., etc., accord- 
 ing to A Kx, al., Damasc., have ἁμαρτημάτων, which most likely 
 
 
 
288 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 is the original reading; the alteration is easily explained by 
 Heb. i. 3, as well as by ἁμάρτημα being in the N. T. of rarer 
 occurrence. — Ver. 10. σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ 
 ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι] Rec., according to BC K LP, al. pl. Theoph. 
 Oee. etc. (Tisch.) ; in A s, several min., and many vss. the words 
 va διὰ τῶν καλῶν ὑμῶν ἔργων, are Inserted between σπουδάσατε 
 and βεβαίαν (evidently a later explanatory addition), in which 
 the inf. is changed into temp. finit.: ποιεῦσθς (Lachm.; in the 
 small ed.: sorjode). — Ver. 12. οὐκ ἀμελήσω] Rec., after KL, al., 
 Thph. Oee. (Griesb. Scholz) ; onthe other hand, A BC PX, al, 
 Copt. Sahid. Vulg., etc., are in favour of μελιλήσω, which is justly 
 accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., approved of by de Wette- 
 Brückner, Wiesinger, and Schott, whilst Reiche prefers οὐκ 
 ἀμελήσω, ut modestius et urbanius. — According to the testimony 
 of BC K Τ᾿, al. pl., several vss., ete., dei ὑμᾶς (Griesb. Scholz, 
 Tisch.) should be put in place of the Rec. ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ, following A, 
 Vulg. ete. (Lachm.). — Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 reads, after B: ὁ υἱός 
 μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, and remarks, with reference to the 
 Rec.: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου 6 ἀγαπητός (after A Ο K LS, etc., 
 Lachm.): at ita locis parall. omnib. quorum nullo oir. ἐστ. post- 
 ponitur neque Graec. ullus testis μου repetit. Tisch. 8 has 
 accepted the ‚ec. — Ver. 18. According to B C* etc. Tisch. 7 
 reads: ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ oper; but the Rec.: ἐν τῷ ὕρει τῷ ἁγίῳ (Tisch. 8) 
 is too strongly supported by A C*** ἸΓῚΡ δὶ, al, Vulg. ever to 
 be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 21. According to B C K P, al, 
 Copt., ete., Tisch 7 has ποτέ after προφητεία, and Tisch. 8, follow- 
 ing A LS, etc., zor? before προφητεία ; this order of words is the 
 more natural, but for that very reason can hardly be considered 
 the original one. — The Ree. οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ occurs only in several 
 min., some vss. Oec. Vulg.— A has ἅγιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ (Lachm.) ; 
 K LY, al., ἅγιοι Θεοῦ (Griesb. Scholz). Tisch. has adopted in its 
 place: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, according to B, al., Syr. Copt.; Wiesinger, 
 Schott, and Steinfass prefer this reading; Briickner, too, inclines 
 to it; no doubt it was the one which was most likely to give 
 rise to alterations; still it is too little supported by B, ete. 
 Reiche considers ἅγιοι Θεοῦ to be the original reading. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Συμεὼν Πέτρος] The form most in harmony with 
 the Semitic language: Συμεών, as a name of Peter, is to be 
 found, besides here, only in Acts xv. 14; otherwise, cf. Luke 
 li, 25, τι, 30; Rev. vii. 7; Acts xiii. 1. From the addition 
 of the name itself, as little as from its form, can anything be 
 concluded as to the genuineness (in opposition to Dietlein, 
 Schott, Steinfass) or the non-genuineness of the epistle. The 
 
CHAP, T+ 1, 2% 289 
 
 two names Σίμων Πέτρος are directly conjoined also in Matt. 
 xvi. 16; Luke v. 8, etc. ; elsewhere, too, the apostle is called: 
 Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος. The addition of Συμεών serves to 
 mark the author as a Jewish-Christian.1 — δοῦλος καὶ ἀπό- 
 oroXos ’I. ΧΡ] cf. Rom. i 1; Tit. i 1 (Phil. i. 1). ᾿δοθλὸς 
 expresses the more general, ἀπόστολος the more special official 
 relation; cf. Meyer on Rom. i. 1; Schott unjustly denies that 
 δοῦλος has reference to the official relation. According to 
 de Wette, the author has here combined 1 Pet. i. 1 and 
 Jude 1.— τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν] ἰσότιμος is 
 inexactly translated in the Vulgate by coaequaliter ; it is not 
 equivalent to ἴσος (Acts xi. 17: ἴση δωρεά), but means: 
 “having equal honour or worth.” De Wette’s interpretation is 
 as incorrect: “to those who have obtained the same right to 
 participate in faith with us.” The use of the words τιμή, 
 Taw, in Peter’s epistle, does not prove that the expression has 
 here reference specially to the divine privileges of the kingdom 
 (Dietlein). By this word the author gives it to be understood, 
 that the faith of those to whom he writes, has the same worth 
 as that of those whom he designates by ἡμῖν; both have 
 received one and the same faith (as to its objective contents) 
 (Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger) ; Hornejus: dicitur fides aeque 
 pretiosa, non quod omnium credentium aeque magna sit, sed 
 quod per fidem illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina 
 nobis proponantur. — The connection shows that by ἡμῖν all 
 Christians (de Wette) cannot be understood ; the word must 
 only refer, either to Peter (Pott), or to the apostles (Bengel, 
 Wolf, Brückner, Steinfass, Fronmüller), or to the Jewish-Chris- 
 tians generally (Nic. de Lyra, Dietlein, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, 
 Hofm.); the last is the correct application (cf. Acts xi. 17, xv. 
 9-11). Wiesinger: “ That the faith of the apostles should have 
 a different value from that of those who through their preaching 
 had become believers, is an idea totally foreign to the apostolic 
 age.” — Aayodcı points out that faith is a gift of grace; Huss: 
 sicut sors non respicit personam, ita nec divina electio accepta- 
 trix est personarum (cf. Acts 1. 17).—On the breviloquence of 
 
 1 Bengel, assuming the authenticity of the epistle, observes not inaptly that 
 Peter adds Συμεών, extremo tempore admonens se ipsum conditionis pristinae, 
 antequam cognomen nactus erat. 
 
 2 PETER. T 
 
290 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the expression, cf. Winer, p. 579 [E. T. 778]. — ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ «.r.1.] Luther translates: “in the righteousness, 
 which our God gives;” thus δικαιοσύνη would here mean 
 that gift of God’s grace which is the result of faith, whether 
 it is to be understood of the state of justification (Schott), or 
 the Christians’ manner of life conformed to the commandments 
 of God (Brückner). If this view be adopted, however, δικαιο- 
 σύνη cannot be connected with πίστιν, for though ἐν may be 
 regarded as equal simply to cum, or be taken in the sense of, 
 being furnished with (thus Brückner formerly), it would 
 always denote that πίστις is contained in δικαιοσύνη, which 
 certainly does not correspond with the relation in which the 
 two stand to each other; faith is not bestowed on the Chris- 
 tian in righteousness, but righteousness in faith. Hofmann 
 joins ἐν dex. directly with πίστιν, and understands by δικαίο- 
 cvvn here: “the righteousness which makes Christ our 
 Saviour; that in which the world has the propitiation for its 
 sins.” This interpretation assumes that Θεοῦ is predicate to 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (see below); besides, it is opposed by the 
 circumstance that the context makes no allusion to any such 
 nearer definition of the idea, whilst it is arbitrary to render 
 πίστιν Ev δικ.: “that faith which trusts iw the righteousness — 
 of Jesus Christ.” Schott, Steinfass, and now, too, Briickner, 
 connect dix. with ἐσότιμον ; the position of the words, how- 
 ever, is opposed to this, for were ἐν dux. the closer definition 
 of ἰσότιμον, it must have been placed directly beside it. 
 Besides, a somewhat obscure thought results from this com- 
 bination. The simple addition of ἐν dcx. does not assert that 
 the faith of the one has equal value with the faith of the 
 other in this, that in both cases it effects a δικαιοσύνη. 
 δικαιοσύνη is here not a gift, but an attribute of God, or a 
 characteristic of His dealings. Still the expression must not 
 be taken as equivalent either to “kindness” (Eman. a Sa., 
 Pott), or to: “ faithfulness,’ as regards the promises given by 
 Him (Beza, Piscator, Grotius); for although δικαιοσύνη may 
 sometimes come near to the above meanings, it is never 
 identical’ with them, cf. Meyer on Rom. iii. 25. Still less 
 
 ! De Wette thinks that the author, in approximation to the Pauline views, 
 may perhaps have understood the righteousness of God as bringing in righteous-. 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 291 
 
 warrant is there for Dietlein’s view, that righteousness is here 
 “as a kingdom, the totality of the divine action and revelation 
 in contrast to this world full of sin and of uncompensated 
 evil.” Wiesinger (and thus also Fronmiiller) understand by 
 δικαιοσύνη, “the righteousness of God and Christ, which has 
 manifested itself in the propitiation for the sins of the world ;” 
 in opposition to which Brückner correctly remarks, that 
 Christ’s work of atonement is not an act of His righteousness; 
 further, “the righteousness of God which demands the death 
 of the sinner ” (Fronmiiller), may be considered as causing the 
 death of Christ, but not as producing faith. δικαιοσύνη, in 
 harmony with ἰσότιμον, is rather that righteousness of God— 
 opposed to every kind of rpooorwAmypia—according to which 
 He bestows the same faith on all, without respect of persons 
 (cf. Acts x. 34f). ἐν is in meaning akin to διά, but it brings 
 out more distinctly than it, in what the obtaining of the πίστις 
 ἐσοτ. is grounded. The author's thought is accordingly this: 
 “in His righteousness, which makes no distinction between the 
 one and the other, God has bestowed on you the same like 
 precious faith as on us.”!— τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμ. Kal σωτῆρος I. 
 Xp.| Many interpreters (Beza, Hemming, Gerhard, and more 
 recently Schott and Hofmann) take τοῦ Θεοῦ „u. and σωτῆρος 
 as a double attribute of ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp. Others (Wiesinger, 
 Briickner, Fronmiiller, Steinfass) separate the two expressions, 
 and understand τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν of God the Father; and 
 rightly so, although in the similar combination, ver. 11, i. 18, 
 there be but one subject. For Θεός differs from κύριος in this, 
 that it is never conjoined with Χριστός as a direct attribute, 
 whilst κύριος is very often thus employed, as in the very next 
 verse; see my commentary to Tit. ii. 13. There need be no 
 hesitation in taking the article which stands before Θεοῦ with 
 σωτῆρος also, as a second subject,—a statement which Schott 
 and Hofmann have wrongly called in question; cf. (Winer, 
 ness,—or salvation,—or as redemptive righteousness, otherwise termed grace ; 
 and the righteousness of Christ as that love by which He undertook the work of 
 salvation. But διὲκ. means neither grace nor love; and besides, it is altogether 
 arbitrary to give the expression a different meaning with respect to Christ from 
 that which it has when applied to God. 
 
 1 Hofmann most unwarrantably maintains that, in this interpretation, ἐν is 
 taken ‘‘in a sense which cannot be justified.” 
 
292 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 p. 118 [E. T. 162]) Buttmann, p. 84 ff. Dietlein, in his 
 interpretation, adopts a middle course: “of our God and 
 Saviour; and when I speak of God the Saviour, I mean the 
 Saviour Jesus Christ.” But only this much is correct here, 
 that the close conjunction points to the oneness of God and 
 Christ of which the author was assured. — Ver. 2. χάρις... 
 πληθυνθείη) as in 1 Pet. 1. 2. In this passage ἐν ἐπυγνῶσει 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ x. ᾿Ιησοῦ Tod κυρίου ἡμῶν is added. Here, too, ἐν 
 is not, cum, but states in what the increase of grace has its 
 origin, and by what it is effected (de Wette), This is the 
 knowledge of God and Jesus, our Lord; cf. on this John 
 xvii. 3; 2 Pet. 11. 20. Calvin: Dei et Christi agnitionem 
 simul connectit, quia rite non potest, nisi in Christo, Deus 
 agnosci. Although the eriyvocıs here spoken of includes in 
 it acknowledgment, yet it is erroneous to distinguish between 
 ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις, by holding the former to be equivalent 
 to acknowledgment ; ef. the further discussions on the term 
 ἐπίγνωσις in Wiesinger and Schott, which, however, especially 
 in the case of the latter, are not without the mixing up of 
 thoughts foreign to the idea. It is wrong to interpret ev by 
 eis; Aretius: ut colant Deum, quemadmodum sese patefecit 
 in Scripturis et ut coli vult. According to Dietlein, the 
 thought intended to be expressed is that “grace and peace 
 grow and increase from within the soul, outwards, and in thus 
 growing they became ever more and more knowledge of the 
 revealed God” (ἢ. 
 
 Ver. 3. The first paragraph, extending as far as ver. 11, 
 contains exhortations. The first of these is expressed in 
 vv. 5-7, and to it vv. 3 and 4 serve as an introduction. — ὡς] 
 Lachmann connects ὡς directly with what precedes, and puts 
 a full stop after φθορᾶς at the end of ver. 4; thus also Vulg,, 
 Beza, Erasmus, Hornejus, Grotius. This combination, how- 
 ever, is against the analogy of the N. T. epistles, in which the 
 superscription closes with the benediction (in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians alone a relative clause is subjoined, ending, how- 
 ever, with a doxology that marks the conclusion), and is also 
 opposed to the contents of vv. 3, 4, which serve as the basis 
 for ver. 5 (Wiesinger). Gerhard and others consider ὡς as 
 equivalent to καθώς (which Gerhard explains by ἐπεί, 1.0. 
 
CHAP. I. 3. 293 
 
 “postquam” vel “siquidem”), and supply οὕτως to ver. 5; 
 arbitrarily: ὡς belongs much more to the genitive absolute 
 (not pleonastically, Pott). The objective reason expressed in 
 this phrase for the exhortation contained in ver. 5 is by ὡς 
 characterized as a subjective motive; Winer: “ convinced 
 (considering) that the divine power,” ete.; Dietlein: “in the 
 consciousness that;” so, too, de Wette, and the more recent com- 
 mentators generally ; the construction in 1 Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. 
 v. 20, is similar; cf. Matthiä, ausf. Gr. 1825, $ 568, p. 1120. 
 — πάντα... deöwpnuevns] The Vulg. incorrectly : quomodo 
 omnia vobis divinae virtutis sunt, quae ad vitam et pietatem, 
 donata est (another reading is: sunt); and Luther: “since 
 everything of His divine power, that pertains unto life and 
 godliness, is given us;” δεδωρημένης is here not passive, but 
 middle (cf. Gen. xxx. 20, LXX.; Mark xv. 45), and τῆς @. 
 δυνάμεως does not depend on πάντα, but is the subject (thus 
 all modern commentators). — According to the position of the 
 words, αὐτοῦ refers back to “Inco. τ. κυρίου ἡμῶν (Calvin, 
 Schott, Steinfass), and not to Ocod;* if it be applied to Θεοῦ 
 (de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), then θείας (which occurs 
 here only and in ver. 4; Acts xvii. 29: τὸ θεῖον, as subst.) is 
 pleonastic. Dietlein and Fronmiiller refer αὐτοῦ to God and 
 Jesus, which linguistically cannot be justified. — τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν 
 καὶ εὐσέβειαν] the ζωὴ καὶ εὐσέβεια are not spoken of as the 
 object, but: τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν x«.7.r. For the attainment of the 
 former is conditioned by the Christian’s conduct; but in order 
 that it may be put within his reach, everything is granted him 
 which is serviceable to ζωή and εὐσέβεια (cf. Luke xix. 42: τὰ 
 πρὸς εἰρήνην cov). The difference between the two ideas is 
 in itself clear; fw: “blessedness,” indicates the condition ; 
 εὐσέβεια : “ godliness” (except in Acts 111. 12, occurring only 
 in the Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter), the conduct. 
 Grotius incorrectly interprets ζωή as equivalent to vita alterius 
 
 1 Hofmann, indeed, applies it also to Christ, but by passing over ver. 2 to 
 ver. 1, where, as already observed, he considers that it is not God and Christ, 
 but Christ alone who is referred to. 
 
 2 The application to Jesus is also supported by the fact, that otherwise this 
 whole argument would contain no reference to Him ; the application to both 
 
 contains the correct idea, that the gift imparted by Jesus is the gift of God the 
 Father. 
 
294 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 seculi, and εὐσέβεια as pietas in hoc seculo. Both together 
 they form the antithesis to ἡ ἐν κόσμῳ Ev ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορά. 
 πάντα is by way of emphasis placed first, in order to show 
 distinctly that everything, which is in any way serviceable to 
 ζωή and evoeß., has been given us by the divine power of the 
 Lord. Hofmann is wrong in defining this πάντα as faith, 
 hope, and charity, for this triad does not pertain πρὸς 
 εὐσέβειαν, but is the εὐσέβεια itself. — διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως 
 τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς] states the medium through which the 
 sift is communicated to us; with ἐπίγνωσις, cf. ver. 2. God 
 is here designated as ὁ καλέσας ἡμᾶς, since it is only by the 
 knowledge of the God who calls us that the πάντα Ta mp. €. 
 κτλ. are appropriated by us,—the calling being the actual 
 proof of His love to us. The subject to καλεῖν is not Christ 
 (Vorstius, Jachmann, Schott, etc.), but God (Aretius, Hemming, 
 de Wette, Hofmann, ete.), as almost always in the N. T.! Of 
 course καλεῖν does not mean the mere outward, but the 
 inward, effectual calling. — ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ] δόξα denotes 
 the being, ἀρετή the activity; Bengel: ad gloriam referuntur 
 attributa Dei naturalia, ad virtutem ea, quae dicuntur moralia; 
 intime unum sunt utraque. It is arbitrary to understand δόξα 
 as meaning: “that side the nature of the Almighty One that 
 liveth, which is directed outwards,” and by ἀρετή: “the holy 
 loving-kindness of God” (as opposed to Hofmann). — The 
 nature of God represented as the instrumentality, as in Gal. 
 115: καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ; cf., too, Rom. vi. 4. 
 A wrong application is given to the words, if they be taken as 
 referring to the miracles of Christ. It must be observed that 
 this ἐπίγνωσις itself, too, is to be looked upon as wrought 
 by Christ in us. 
 
 Ver. 4 must not, as a simple intervening clause, be enclosed 
 in parentheses; for although ver. 5 is the principal clause 
 
 1 De Wette (with whom Briickner agrees) is accordingly wrong in supposing 
 that τοῦ καλέσαντος ἧμ. stands in place of the simple pron. αὐτοῦ, and is inserted 
 because by this cireumlocution of the active subject the address gains in matter 
 and range. — Schott’s remarks, in which he attempts to justify his assertion 
 that rod καλέσαντος applies to Christ, are only in so far correct, that καλεῖν might 
 indeed be understood of an activity of Christ ; ef. Matt. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17; 
 on the other hand, it is certain that ὁ καλέσας is never applied to Christ, but 
 always to God. 
 
CHAP. I. 4. 295 
 
 standing related to the participial clause in ver. 3, still the 
 latter is determined, in the thought of it, by ver. 4.— δι’ ὧν] 
 ὧν does not refer to the immediately preceding ἐδίᾳ δόξῃ x. 
 ἀρετῇ (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Brückner, this comment.), for it 
 cannot be said that Christ has given us the ErayyeAuara 
 through the δόξα κ. ἀρετή of His Father, but to πάντα τὰ 
 πρὸς «.r.A. (Hofmann). Beza inaccurately interprets δι᾿ ὧν 
 by ex eo quod.— τὰ Tina ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστα ἐπαγγέλματα] 
 ἐπάγγελμα, besides here, occurs only in chap. 111. 13, where it 
 is used in connection with the new heaven and new earth in 
 the future. By it is to be understood, not the promises of the 
 prophets of the ©. C. fulfilled in Christ for us, nor those 
 things promised us, of which we are made partakers in Christ 
 (Hornejus: bona et beneficia omnia, quae Deus per Christum 
 offert et exhibet omnibus, qui in ipsum credunt; Wiesinger, 
 Schott); but, according to ver. 12 ff, chap. ii. 4, ix. 13, the 
 prophecies of the παρουσία of Christ and the future consum- 
 mation of His kingdom, as contained in the gospel (Briickner). 
 Dietlein is wrong in saying that ἐπαγγέλμωτα are not only 
 promises of what is future, but announcements of what is 
 present and eternal. He goes still farther astray when he 
 substitutes for this idea the different one: “the granting of 
 favours which proclaim themselves.” The word ἐπαγγέλλειν 
 (except in 1 Tim. ii. 10, vi. 21) has constantly in the N. T. 
 the meaning: “to promise,” never simply: “to proclaim.” 
 These promises are called “ precious,’ not because they are 
 “no mere empty words” (Schott), but because they promise 
 that which is of the greatest value (Hofmann). The dative 
 ἡμῖν from its position should be connected more probably with 
 τίμια than with δεδώρηται. ---- δεδώρηται] is here also not 
 passive (Dietlein), but middle (all modern interpreters). 
 Gualther erroneously explains it: donatae i. e. impletae sunt. 
 What is here referred to is the communication, not the fulfil- 
 ment of the promises, which are a free gift of divine grace. — 
 The subject to δεδώρ. is not ὁ καλέσας (as formerly in thi 
 
 1 Schott’s assertion, that ἐπαγγέλματα, according to the form of the word, 
 must mean : ‘‘ promised things,” is opposed by chap. iii. 13 ; but why the pro- 
 mises as such should not, as Wiesinger supposes, be the means of effecting the 
 κοινωνία θείας φύσεως, it is difficult to understand. 
 
296 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 commentary), but the same as that to the foregoing dedwpy- 
 μένης, — ἵνα διὰ τούτων] Calvin, de Wette-Briickner, Hof- 
 mann, understand τούτων to refer to τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν K.T.\. as 
 the leading thought; this construction Wiesinger justly calls 
 “a distortion of the structure, justifiable only if all other 
 references were impossible.” Incorrect also is the application 
 to δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ (Bengel). From its position it can apply 
 only to ἐπαγγέλματα (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Schott), and not in 
 like manner to δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ (Fronmüller). διά has here its 
 proper signification, not equal to “because of them ” (Jach- 
 mann), nor to “incited by them; ” as elsewhere the gospel is 
 spoken of as the objective means through which the divine 
 life is communicated, so here the erayyeXuara, which, accord- 
 ing to the conception of Second Peter, form the essential 
 element of the gospel. — γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως] not: 
 that ye may become partakers, but: that ye might be, ete. 
 (Wiesinger). The aorist shows that the author does not look 
 upon the κοινωνία, which for the Christian is aimed at in 
 the bestowal of the promises, as something entirely future 
 (Vorstius: quorum vi tandem divinae naturae in illa beata 
 immortalitate vos quoque participes efficiemini), but as some- 
 thing of which he should even now be partaker! The 
 thought that man is intended to be partaker of the divine 
 nature, or to be transfigured into the divine being,—which is 
 accomplished in him through faith in the promises,—is, 
 though in other terms, often enough expressed in the N. T. 
 (Heb. xii. 10; 1 Pet. 1. 23; John i. 12, 13, and many other 
 passages). Hemming justly remarks: vocat hic divinam 
 naturam id quod divina praesentia efficit in nobis i. 6, con- 
 formitatem nostri cum Deo, seu imaginem Dei, quae in nobis 
 reformatur per divinam praesentiam in nobis. When Hof- 
 mann urges the expression φύσις against this view, because a 
 distinction must be drawn between the φύσις of man and the 
 personal life of man, the former remaining even in him who 
 
 1 Hornejus : incipit ea in hac vita per gratiam, sed perficietur in altera per 
 gloriam ; si enim jam hic in ista imbecillitate divinae naturae consortes sumus 
 per fidem, quanto magis illic erimus per adspectum et si hie per gratiam id 
 adipiscimur, quanto magis illic per gloriam, ubi Deus ipse erit omnia in 
 omnibus. 
 
CHAP, I. 4. 297 
 
 is regenerate always the same, until this σῶμα is changed 
 from a σῶμα ψυχικόν to a σῶμα πνευματικόν, he fails to 
 observe that it is not the human, but the divine φύσις that is 
 here spoken of, and in God there can be no difference made 
 between natural and personal life. The expression φύσις is 
 here quite inappropriately pressed by Hofmann. As opposed to 
 the mystic “ deification,” it must be remarked, with the older 
 interpreters, that the expression φύσις conveys the thought, 
 not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas, 
 Grotius’ interpretation dilutes the idea: ut fieretis imitatores 
 divinae bonitatis, The second person (γένησθε) serves to 
 appropriate to the readers in particular that which belongs to 
 all Christians (ἡμῖν). — ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν [τῷ] κόσμῳ Ev 
 ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς] These words do not express the condition 
 on which the Christian becomes partaker of the divine nature, 
 but the negative element which is most intimately connected 
 with the positive aim. Accordingly, the translation is: 
 incorrect: “if you escape” (Luther, Brückner) ; ἀποφυγόντες 
 is to be translated: “escaping, eluding ;” the aor. part. is 
 put because the verb is closely conjoined with the preceding 
 aorist γένησθε. It is to be resolved into: in order that ye 
 might be partakers of the divine nature, in that ye escape the 
 φθορά" With φθορά, cf. chap, ii. 12, and especially Rom. 
 vil. 21; Gal. vi. 8 (see Meyer on the last passage). By it 
 is to be understood not simply perishableness, but more gene- 
 rally corruption. The term φθορά is here more nearly 
 
 1 Hofmann arbitrarily objects to this interpretation, that a change of persons 
 could not take place in a clause expressive of a design ; rather does it simply 
 depend on the will of the writer, where he wishes it to take place. When the 
 writer of a letter wishes to state the purpose of anything which has been 
 imparted to all, should he not in particular apply it to those to whom he 
 addresses his letter ?— Augusti strangely presses the change of persons, by 
 applying ἡμῖν to the Jews, γένησθε to the heathen-converts, and understanding 
 cia φύσις of the divine descent of the Jews. 
 
 ® Bengel: haec fuga non tam ut officium nostrum, quam ut beneficium 
 divinum, communionem cum Deo comitans, ἢ. 1. ponitur. Dietlein : ‘‘ arog. 
 contains no demand and condition, but only the other side of the fact: Ye have 
 entered the kingdom of the divine nature, therefore ye have left the kingdom of 
 the worldly nature.” — By transferring γένησθε to the future, Schott gives an 
 erroneous (linguistically) interpretation of ἀποφυγόντες as future also: ‘* Ye shall 
 become partakers of the divine nature, as such who have (shall have) precisely 
 thus escaped τῆς... Pfopas.” 
 
298 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 defined as ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φθορά, ic. the corruption which 
 dwells in the (unredeemed) world, and to which all thereto 
 belonging is a prey. The further more precise definition: ἐν 
 ἐπιθυμίᾳ, states that this φθορά has its origin in the evil lust, 
 opposed to what is divine, which has its sway in the world 
 (1 John ii. 16, 17). — ἀποφί, here c. gen.; chap. ii. 18, 20, 
 cum accus. constr. — The sequence of thought in vv. ὃ, 4 is: 
 Christ hath granted us everything that is serviceable to salva- 
 tion and holiness, and that by the knowledge of God who hath 
 called us by His glory ; through it he has given us the most 
 glorious promises, the design of which is the communication of 
 the divine life. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ] Kai... δέ, equivalent to “but 
 also,’ “ and also ;” cf. Winer, p. 412 £.[E.T. 553 f.]; Buttmann, 
 p. 312. καί adds something new to what goes before; δέ 
 brings out that what is added is to be distinguished from 
 what precedes.' — Neither wep/ nor κατά nor πρός is to be 
 supplied to αὐτὸ τοῦτο, which stands here absolutely, equiva- 
 lent to δ αὐτὸ τοῦτο: “for this very reason,’ cf. Winer, 
 p. 134 f. [E. T. 178], and refers back to the thought contained 
 in ὡς mavra ... δεδωρημένης, and further developed in the 
 clauses following: “since ye have been made partakers of all 
 that, therefore,” ete. Grotius: Deus fecit quod suum est, vos 
 quoque quod vestrum est faciete. Dietlein takes αὐτὸ τοῦτο 
 as a simple accusative dependent on ἐπυχορήσατε (thus also 
 Steinfass); but this combination, which would make τοῦτο 
 refer to the subsequent ἐν τῇ . bp. τὴν ἀρετήν, or to τ. ἀρετήν 
 alone, is opposed by the αὐτό beside it, which looks back to 
 what has gone before. Nor does Dietlein fail to see this, for 
 he explains: “the announcements given are now to be 
 produced in the form of Christian virtues;” this, however, 
 
 1 Hofmann, without any reason, ascribes two different meanings to zei... 
 δέ, by saying that “zei... . δέ is either equal to “but now,’ or else to ‘ but 
 also ;’ in the first case καί adds something further, which δέ points out to be 
 something different, and must be added to what precedes by way of explana- 
 tion ; in the second case δέ adds something different, and καί intimates that it 
 is added on to what precedes, which cannot do without it.” xa... has in 
 itself always the same signification ; δέ only emphasizes the new element added. 
 by καί, whether this be merely a different one from what goes before, or alto- 
 gether antithetical to it. 
 
A 
 
 CHAP. L 5, 6 299 
 
 results in a “straining” (Brückner) of the thought. — As 
 regards the connection of clauses, the apodosis belonging to 
 ver. 3 begins with ver. 5, not, however, in quite regular con- 
 struction. Hofmann, on the other hand, holds that the 
 apodosis conveying the exhortations begins already with ἵνα 
 in ver. 4. He looks upon ἵνα as depending on ἐπιχορηγήσατε, 
 and considers that the two participial clauses, ἀποφυγόντες 
 K.TA. and Kab... mapeıoeveykavres, are to be closely con- 
 nected with each other, and both together joined with the 
 imperative; accordingly he translates: “Considering that His 
 divine power hath given us all that is serviceable to life and 
 godliness . . . ye should, in order thereby to become par- 
 takers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in 
 the world occasioned by lust, but for that very reason giving 
 all diligence, supply virtue in and with your faith.” But 
 opposed to this view is: (1) The intolerable cumbrousness of 
 the construction; (2) The circumstance that although a 
 dependent clause may precede the clause on which it depends, 
 this may take place only when the clearness of the style does 
 not thereby suffer, 7c. when the periods are so constructed 
 that the dependent clause cannot, by any rule of language, be 
 taken with a preceding clause,—but this is plainly not the 
 case here; (3) The aorist γένησθε, instead of which the 
 present would have been written; and finally, (4) The impos- 
 sibility of here applying διὰ τούτων to anything that goes 
 before. This becomes the more obvious if the preceding 
 secondary clause be considered as standing after the impera- 
 tival clause émuyopnyjcate . . . ἀγάπην. ---- σπουδὴν πᾶσαν 
 παρεισενέγκαντες) cf. Jude 3: πᾶσαν om. ποιούμενος (Jos. 
 Arch. xx. 9. 2: εἰσφέρειν σπουδήν); παρά points out 
 that believers on their side (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott) 
 should contribute their part, namely, the σπουδή, to what has 
 here been given them. That παρά has not here the implied 
 idea of secrecy, is self-evident; but it is also unjustifiable 
 when Hofmann asserts that παρεισφέρειν σπουδήν means 
 “the application of diligence, which endeavours after some- 
 thing already given in a different manner.” — ἐπιχορηγήσατε 
 ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν] ἐπυιχορηγεῖν, either “ contri- 
 bute,” 6. your contribution to the work of salvation (de 
 
300 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 Wette), or more probably, according to the use of the word 
 elsewhere in the N. T. (2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5; cf. also 
 1 Pet. iv. 11), “to supply” (Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann) ; 
 it is here placed as correlative to the term δεδώρηται, ver. 4, 
 and denotes “the gift which the believer gives in return for 
 the gift of God” (Wiesinger, although the meaning of the 
 word does not quite justify him in doing so, adds: “or more 
 accurately, by which he again presents to God his own gift in 
 the fruit it has produced”). Dietlein’s interpretation is 
 erroneous: “to perform in dance.” This meaning the word 
 never has. Even χορηγεῖν sometimes means “to lead a 
 dance,” but not “to perform anything in dance.” The 
 original meaning of erıxop. is: “to contribute to the expenses 
 of a xopos.” Schott’s assertion is arbitrary, “ that ἐπιχορηγεῖν 
 signifies a supplying of what is due to one in virtue of an 
 official or honorary position.” — Pott incorrectly explains the 
 preposition ev by διά; de Wette inadequately by “in, with, 
 of that which is already present, and to which something else 
 should be added.” The sense is: since you have πίστις, let 
 it not be wanting in ἀρετή. It is not meant: that to the 
 πίστις, as something different from it, ἀρετή should be added; 
 but ἀρετή belongs to πίστις, and for this reason the Christian 
 must put it into practice. The same relation is preserved in 
 the members which follow.! πίστις is presupposed as the 
 origin (Oecumenius: θεμέλιος τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κρηπίς) of all 
 Christian virtues, and in the first instance of the ἀρετή, by which 
 Oecumenius understands ta ἔργα; Gerhard: generale nomen 
 omnium operum et actionum bonarum; Calvin: honesta et bene 
 composita vita; it is best explained by strenuus animae tonus ac 
 vigor (Bengel): “ moral efficiency” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, 
 etc.) — ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν] ἡ γνῶσις is not here 
 ἡ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποκρύφων μυστηρίων εἴδησις (Oecum.), nor 
 is it “the knowledge of God which the Christians possess ” 
 
 1 Steinfass remarks: ‘‘ ἐν conceives the accusatives as involute accusatives, and 
 as elements of the previous datives;” this certainly is correct, but must be 
 supplemented thus far, that the element of the preceding conception, expressed 
 by the accusative, stands forth as a special grace, and thus becomes, as it were, 
 the complement of it. 
 
 * Hofmann : “that disposition which shows itself in the doing of what is right 
 and good,” 
 
CHAP. I. 7% 301 
 
 (Dietl.); but as the matter in hand here is the practical proof 
 of the Christian temper, it must be understood as denoting the 
 perception of that which the Christian as such has to do in 
 all relations of life, and of how he has to do it (Besser, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Brückner, in agreement with 
 this: “discretion ”).'— Ver. 6. The three virtues here named 
 are: the ἐγκράτεια, the ὑπομονή, and the εὐσέβεια. ---- 
 ἐγκράτεια, besides here, in Acts xxiv. 25 and Gal. vi. 22 
 (Tit. 1. 8: ἐγκρατής; 1 Cor. vii. 9, ix. 25: éyxparevopar), 
 denotes the control of one’s own desires; τὸ μηδενὶ ἀποσύ- 
 ρεσθαι πάθει (Oecumenius); cf. on Tit. 1, 8” Compare this 
 with the passage in Jes. Sir. xviii. 30, where under the super- 
 scription ἐγκράτεια ψυχῆς there is the maxim: ὀπίσω τῶν 
 ἐπιθυμιῶν σου μὴ πορεύου, Kal ἀπὸ τῶν ὀρέξεών σου 
 κωλύου. --- ὑπομονή is enduring patience in all temptations. 
 Besser aptly recalls the proverb: abstine, sustine. — With 
 εὐσέβεια, comp. ver. 3; Dietlein, without sufficient justifica- 
 tion, explains it here as: “the godly awe and respect in the 
 personal, domestic relations of life.” If εὐσέβεια do not apply 
 only to our relation to God (eg. Dio Cass. xlviii. 5: διὰ 
 τὴν πρὸς Tov ἀδελφὸν εὐσέβειαν), the other object of it must 
 in this case be definitely stated. 
 
 Ver. 7 adds φιλαδελφία and ἀγάπη to the virtues already 
 named. ‘These are to be distinguished thus, that the former 
 applies specially to the Christian brethren, the latter to all 
 — without distinction; 1 Thess. ii. 12: ἡ ἀγάπη eis 
 ἀλλήλους καὶ eis πάντας (Gal, vi. 10); with φιλαδελφία, οἵ. 
 1 Pet. i, 22. While the apostle calls the love which is 
 extended to all ἀγάπη, he gives it to be understood that 
 what he means is not the purely natural well-wishing, but 
 Christian love springing from the Christian spirit. Dietlein, 
 
 1 Besser is undoubtedly right in trying to prove that Luther’s ‘‘ modesty ” 
 has another signification than that in which the word is at present employed ; 
 still that expression does not altogether coincide with γνῶσις, which Luther 
 understands as meaning that ‘‘ circumspectness” which knows how to maintain 
 the right moderation in all things. 
 
 ? Hofmann unwarrantably disputes this interpretation by saying that &y»p. is 
 “that quality by which a person denies himself all that is unprofitable ;” for 
 the denying oneself that which is unprofitable, for which there is no desire, 
 surely gives no proof whatever of ἐγκράτεια. 
 
302 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 without sufficient reason, thinks that φιλαδελφία is only 
 the opposite of that which is forbidden in the eighth and 
 ninth commandments, whilst the ἀγάπη is the complete 
 antithesis to what is forbidden in the tenth commandment. In 
 this way the conception φιλαδελφία is unjustifiably dis- 
 regarded,—a proceeding to which the language of Scripture 
 gives the less sanction, that where love in all its depth and 
 truth is spoken of, the word φιλεῖν is not unfrequently used ; 
 cf. John v. 20, xvi. 27, etc. — Although the different virtues 
 here are not arranged according to definite logical order, yet 
 the way in which they here belong to each other is not to be 
 mistaken. Each of the virtues to be shown forth forms the 
 complement of that which precedes, and thus gives rise to a 
 firmly-linked chain of thought. ἀρετή supplies the comple- 
 ment of πίστις, for faith without virtue is wanting in moral 
 character, and is in itself dead; that of ἀρετή is γνῶσις, for 
 the realizing of the moral volition is conditioned by compre- 
 hension of that which is needful in each separate case; that 
 of γνῶσις is ἐγκράτεια, for self-control must not be wanting 
 to volition and comprehension ; that of ἐγκράτεια is ὑπομενή, 
 for there are outward as well as inward temptations to be 
 withstood ; that of ὑπομονή is εὐσέβεια, for only in trustful 
 love to God has the ὑπομονή firm support; that of εὐσέβεια 
 the φιλαδελφία, for “ he that loveth not his brother whom he 
 hath seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” 
 (1 John iv. 20); that of φιλαδελφία the ἀγάπη, for without 
 the latter the former would degenerate into poor narrow- 
 heartedness. Thus, in that the one virtue is the complement 
 of the other, the latter produces the former of itself as its 
 natural outcome; Bengel: praesens quisque gradus subse- 
 quentem parit et facilem reddit, subsequens priorem temperat 
 ac perfieit.! 
 Ver. 8. Reason for the foregoing exhortation. — ταῦτα] 1.0. 
 1 According to Dietlein, the three first graces, including «irrıs, correspond to 
 the first table of the law, the three first petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the first 
 article of the Creed, and to faith in the Pauline triad ; the three following graces 
 to the first half of the second table of the law, the fourth petition in the Lord’s 
 Prayer, the second article of the Creed, and the second grace in the Pauline triad ; 
 
 the two last graces to the second half of the second table of the law, the three 
 last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the third article of the Creed, and the third 
 
CHAP, I. 8. 303 
 
 the virtues above mentioned. — γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ 
 πλεονάζοντα) For ὑπάρχειν c. dat. cf. Acts iii. 6; πλεονά- 
 fovra intensifies the idea ὑπάρχοντα; for πλεονάζειν, cf. my 
 commentary to 1 Tim. i. 14; it means either: “to be 
 present in abundance,” strictly, to exceed the measure 
 (abundare), or: “to become more, to increase (crescere).” 
 Here the first of these two meanings seems to deserve the 
 preference; though not so in the judgment of Briickner, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass, Hofmann. The participles may 
 be resolved into “in that,” “since” (Dietlein), or “if” 
 (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to be preferred, 
 inasmuch as this verse refers back to the exhortation ver. 5, 
 and in “ ver. 9 the opposite is assumed as possible” (Brückner); 
 thus: “for af these virtues exist in you, and that in rich 
 measure ;” Luther in his translation has combined the two 
 translations. — οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν] ὑμᾶς 
 is to be supplied. Hornejus: λυτότης est, cum ait: non 
 inertes neque infructuosos pro operosos et fructuosos; 
 Dietlein: “the οὐκ and οὐδέ belong to the adjectives, not to 
 Kabiotnow.’ —For apyös, cf. 1 Tim. v. 13; Tit. i. 12; 
 οὐκ ἀργός, equivalent to “ active ;” ἄκαρπος cannot mean only 
 “without fruit,” but “barren” also; cf. Eph. v. 11 (as 
 against Schott). — καθίστησι: the present is not put here 
 for the future (Hornejus). According to Dietlein, Wiesinger, 
 and Schott, καθίστημι should mean “to cause to appear, to 
 exhibit,” so that the sense would be : “ he who possesses these 
 virtues, he thereby appears as bringing forth fruit with regard 
 to the ἐπίγν. τοῦ κυρίου I. Xp. by which is meant that his 
 knowledge manifests itself as an active one; this is, however, 
 incorrect, for: (1) A meaning is thereby attributed to Ka@ic- 
 Thue which it never has, either in the classics or in the N. T. 
 (not even in Jas. 111. 6, iv. 4, and Rom. v. 19); it means 
 “to set wp,’ but not to set forth, to exhibit, to manifest, etc. 
 (2) It gives a meaning to eis such as that word has nowhere 
 
 grace of that triad. Certainly there is here a good deal that coincides, but this 
 by no means warrants a consistent parallelism of all the individual points, which 
 can only gain an appearance of correctness by an arbitrary narrowing or extend- 
 ing of the ideas and their applications.—It is worthy of remark that the series 
 begins with πίστις and ends with ἀγάπη; in that, then, ver. 11 points to the 
 future, taxis is added, so that the well-known triad is here alluded to (Schott). 
 
304 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 else, since the object with which it is to be taken is always 
 to be thought of as the end, and that even in the more loose 
 connection in which eis is equal to “with regard, with respect 
 to.” (3) It is asomewhat idle, because a self-evident reflec- 
 tion, that if knowledge produce the above-named virtues, it 
 thereby manifests itself as a knowledge that is not inactive.’ 
 It is also inaccurate to translate with Luther: “ where such 
 is present in abundance in you, it will let you be neither 
 idle nor unfruitful in the knowledge,” etc., for eis is not equal 
 to ev. The verb καθίστημι denotes in connection with an 
 adjective: reddere, to make into, to set one up as; cf. Pape, s.v. ; 
 and the preposition eis expresses the direction, so that the 
 thought is: those virtues make you (or more exactly, place 
 you as) active and fruitful with regard to knowledge, ze. by 
 them you are advanced with regard to knowledge; cf. Col. i. 
 10: ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ kapmobopoüvres καὶ αὐξανόμενοι 
 εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ (cf. Meyer in loc.); de Wette: 
 “The author considers all these virtues only as steps to the 
 knowledge of Jesus Christ; and this knowledge he regards not 
 merely as theoretical, but as one to be obtained practically, 
 a living into Him, and, at the same time, perfect ;” thus, too, 
 Briickner, Fronmiiller, Steinfass. 
 
 Ver. 9 gives in negative form an explanation of the pre- 
 ceding verses. —@ yap μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα] antithesis to 
 ταῦτα... πλεονάζοντα, ver. 8. The possession of these 
 eraces furthers knowledge, for he who does not possess them 
 is τυφλός, that is, in so far as he is, and remains, without 
 the true knowledge of Jesus Christ. μή is explained thus, 
 that the idea which lies at the basis is: “he who is so con- 
 stituted, that he is without these virtues” (Hofmann), or so 
 that he must be judged as being without them.’ — τυφλός 
 ἐστι, μυωπάζων] μυωπάζειν (Am. Ney.) means: to be a μύωψ, 
 i.e. one short-sighted:* accordingly μυωπάζων serves more 
 
 1 This third reason also contradicts Hofmann’s interpretation, which he expresses 
 thus: ‘‘ The believer possesses the knowledge of Christ. If then, in aiming at 
 it, he be neither inactive nor unfruitful, he makes this aiming the rule of all his 
 actions, but so that they should be its work, its fruit.” 
 
 * Schott unwarrantably maintains, on the interpretation of ver. 8 here adopted, 
 
 that the translation must be: ““ he becomes blind.” 
 3 Aristotle interprets sec. 31: μυωπάζοντες: of ἐκ yeverns τὰ μὲν ἐγγὺς 
 
CHAP) I. & 305 
 
 nearly to define the term τυφλός as one who can see only 
 what is near, not what is far off. Schott correctly explains 
 μυωπάζων by “weak-sighted.” The older commentators, 
 following Oecumenius, for the most part take μυωπάζειν 
 as synonymous with τυφλώττειν ; thus Calvin, Hornejus, etc. ; 
 but the identification in meaning of these two terms cannot be 
 justified, whilst it gives rise to an intolerable tautology. The 
 translation of the Vulgate: manu tentans (similarly Erasmus : 
 manu viam tentans; Luther: “and gropes with the hand ;” 
 Calvin: manu palpans), has arisen probably from the gloss : 
 ψηλαφῶν, perhaps with reference to Deut. xxvii. 28, 29; 
 Isa. ix. 10. Wolf interprets the word, after Bochart 
 (Hierozoic 1. 1. c. 4), by καμμύειν oculos claudere;' but 
 μυωπάζειν is not derived from pew Tas ὦπας, but from 
 μύωψ. A μύωψ, however, is not one who arbitrarily closes 
 his eyes, but one who, from inability to see far enough, is 
 obliged to blink with his eyes, in order to see a distant 
 object. The same applies to Dietlein, who translates: “one 
 who closes his eyes” by which he conceives a voluntary 
 closing of the eyes, precisely that which is opposed to the 
 meaning of the word. If, then, μυωπάξων mean a short- 
 sighted person, the question arises: What is that near at 
 hand which he sees, and that far off which he does not see ? 
 The first expression is generally understood as applying to 
 earthly, and the second to heavenly things. Hofmann, on 
 the other hand, explains: “he sees only what is present to 
 him: that he is a member of the Christian church; but how 
 he has become so, that lies outside his horizon.” Here, how- 
 ever, the first thought is purely imported, and the second has 
 only an apparent justification in the clause which follows. — 
 λήθην λαβών] Ar. rey. equal to oblitus; Vulgate: oblivionem 
 accipiens ; cf. ὑπόμνησιν λαβών, 2 Tim. i. 5 (ef. Joseph. Ant. 
 ii. vi. 9; Wetstein, Losner, Krebs in loc.); taken strictly, the 
 translation is: “having received the λήθη. Hofmann justly 
 remarks: that this aoristic clause is not only co-ordinate with 
 
 βλέποντες, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀποστάσεω: οὐχ, ὁρῶντες" ἐναντία δὲ πάσχουσιν οἱ γερῶντες τοῖς 
 μυωπἀζουσιν᾽ τὰ γὰρ ἐγγὺς μὴ ὁρῶντες τὼ πόῤῥωθεν βλέπουσιν. 
 1 Τυφλὸς μυωπάζων is dieitur, qui ideo caecus est, quia sponte claudit oculos, 
 ut ne videat. 
 1 PETER. U 
 
306 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the preceding, but is added to it by way of explanation. He 
 is wrong, however, when he thinks that it is intended to 
 elucidate μυωπάζων. By it the author refers not to the con- 
 sequences (Steinfass, and formerly here), but rather to the reason 
 of the blindness, or, more strictly, short-sightedness, which 
 manifests itself in the want of the Christian graces. Dietlein 
 arbitrarily emphasizes this forgetting as a voluntary act. 
 This is justified neither by the expression itself nor by the 
 connection of thought.— τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὑτοῦ 
 ἁμαρτημάτων] “the (accomplished) cleansing from the former 
 sins;” not as Winer formerly, in the 5th ed. p. 214, con- 
 jectured: “the purification, 1.6. the removal of sins ;” cf. Heb. 
 i. 3. As πάλαι shows, καθαρ. does not here mean a con- 
 tinuous (to be obtained by repentance perhaps, etc.), but a 
 completed process. Not, however, the (ideal) καθαρισμός 
 of sins for the whole world of sinners, accomplished through 
 Christ’s death on the cross ——avrod is opposed to this; but 
 the cleansing, 1.6. forgiveness, procured by the individual in 
 baptism (thus to Briickner, Schott, Hofmann; Wiesinger less 
 aptly applies it to the calling), so that πάλαι denotes the 
 time preceding baptism; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
 
 Ver. 10. Resumption of the exhortation. — διὸ μᾶλλον] 
 διό is usually taken as referring to the truth expressed in 
 vv. ὃ, 9, and μᾶλλον interpreted as equal to “all the more.” 
 The meaning is then: that this truth should still more incite 
 to zeal (thus Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Dietlein, 
 on the other hand, takes μᾶλλον as “ ushering in an antithesis,” 
 equal to “rather;” thus also Hofmann. The former supplies 
 the thought: “instead of following a virtueless endeavour 
 after a so-called ἐπίγνωσις, for which, however, in the context 
 there is no warrant. The latter more correctly applies it to 
 what immediately precedes, in this sense, “the readers should 
 do the opposite of that which Peter calls a forgetting that 
 they have received the pardon of sin.”! That the particle 
 μᾶλλον frequently expresses an antithesis cannot be denied ; 
 cf. 1 Cor. v. 2: but as little can it be questioned that it may 
 
 ! Hofmann interprets διό in harmony with his conception of ver. 2: “‘ for 
 
 this reason, because he only, who is possessed of the aforenamed graces, is 
 capable of putting his knowledge into practice.” 
 
CHAP. I. 10. 307 
 
 serve to express intensification; cf. Meyer on 2 Cor. vii. 7. 
 In this way both interpretations are possible. Still that 
 which is usually given appears to be preferable, inasmuch 
 as it seems more natural to apply the very significant thought 
 of this verse to vv. 8, 9, than only to the subordinate idea 
 immediately preceding. — adeAgot] makes the exhortation 
 more urgent. — σπουδάσατε... ποιεῖσθαι] The exhortation 
 here points back to ver. 5: σπουδὴν m. mapeıceveyk. The 
 relations of κλῆσις and ἐκλογή are thus stated by Gerhard: 
 vocatio, qua in tempore ad regnum gratiae vocati estis; electio, 
 qua ab aeterno ad regnum gloriae electi estis; in like manner 
 Wiesinger, Fronmüller, etc.; cf. Lünemann also on 1 Thess. 
 i. 4. But ἐκλογή can also denote the election effected by the 
 κλῆσις, 1.6. the separation of those who are called from the 
 world, and the translation of them into the kingdom of God. 
 And this latter view is supported not only by the position in 
 which the two ideas stand to each other, but by the connection 
 of thought (Grotius, Briickner, Schott, Hofmann'); for the 
 summons βεβαίαν ποιεῖσθαι can apply only to something 
 which has been realiter accomplished in man, not to the 
 decree of God in itself unchangeable and eternal. For this reason 
 Calvin feels himself compelled unwarrantably to paraphrase 
 σπουδ. BEB. . . . ποιεῖσθαι by: studete ut re ipsa testatum 
 fiat, vos non frustra vocatos esse, imo electos.” — For βεβαίαν, 
 cf. Heb. iii. 6, 14. The making sure takes place then, when 
 the Christians, by a conduct such as is directed in vv. 5, 8, 
 do their part to remain the called and elected people; the 
 opposite of this is expressed in ver. 9.— The reading: ἵνα διὰ 
 τῶν καλῶν ὑμῶν ἔργων βεβ. «.7.r. reproduces the thought 
 in substance correctly. — ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες] ταῦτα refers 
 not to the foregoing virtues, as Hofmann thinks, but to that 
 which immediately precedes; “the plural shows that the 
 apostle considered this making sure a very many-sided act” 
 (Dietlein). — οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε] πταίειν means in Jam. 
 1. 10, ili, 2: “to offend” (Vulg.: non peccabitis) ; here as in 
 
 1 Grotius : date operam, ut et vocatio quae vobis contigit per evangelium et 
 electio eam secuta, qua facti estis Dei populus, ratae sint. 
 
 2 Besser too is wrong: ‘‘ the apostle exhorts in these words, that what is stable 
 with God, be also stable with us.” 
 
308 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Rom. xi. 11: “to forfeit salvation ;” thus also Hofmann. 
 It is unjustifiable to combine the two ideas (de Wette: 
 “to fall and so to fail of salvation”). The double negation 
 ov un, and the ποτέ placed at the end, strengthen the 
 statement. 
 
 Ver. 11. οὕτω γάρ] Resumption of the ταῦτα ποιοῦντες ; 
 Dietlein’s interpretation is erroneous: “ precisely when ye in all 
 humility renounce every arrogant striving after distinction ;” for 
 there is no reference here to any such striving. — πλουσίως 
 ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται ὑμῖν ἡ εἴσοδος eis x.7.X.] The conjunction 
 of εἴσοδος and πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται is surprising. It 
 is incorrect to attribute to πλουσίως a meaning different from 
 that which it always has (thus Grotius: promptissimo Dei 
 affectu; Augusti: “in more than one way”). It is, however, 
 also erroneous to make dove. ἐπίχορ. apply not to εἴσοδος 
 itself, but to the condition which is entered upon after the 
 εἴσοδος, “the higher degree of blessedness” (de Wette).* 
 ἐπύχορ. represents the entrance into the eternal kingdom of 
 Christ as a gift; πλουσίως as a gift abundantly; in so far as 
 that entrance is not in any way rendered difficult, or even 
 hindered ; the opposite is the μόλις, 1 Pet. iv. 18. Schott is 
 not quite accurate in applying πλουσίως to the “secure 
 certainty of the entrance.’ Wiesinger adopts both the inter- 
 pretation of Gerhard: divites eritis in praemiis coelestibus, 
 and that of Bengel: ut quasi cum triumpho intrare possitis. 
 Dietlein here inaptly brings in with errıxopmy. “ the conception 
 of a chorus in solemn procession.” It is to be noted that as 
 ἐπιχορηγήσωτε, ver. 5, points back to δεδώρηται in ver. 4, so 
 does this ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται here to ἐπιχορηγήσατες. The 
 Christian’s gift in return must correspond with the gift of 
 God, and the return-gift of God again with that of the 
 Christian. 
 
 Ver. 12. διό] not: “therefore, because the whole duty 
 consists precisely in the not forgetting” (Dietlein), for no 
 expression was given to any such thought here, but: because 
 
 1 Steinfass : ‘‘ This passage treats of the way, of the admission to it, and not 
 of the blessedness which awaits the believer at the end of it.” He is right, only 
 that it is not even the way that is treated of, but merely the admission (or more 
 correctly, the entrance) to it. 
 
CHAP. I. 12. 309 
 
 to him alone,’ who in the supplying of virtues reaches an ever 
 more complete knowledge of Christ, is an entrance into the 
 everlasting kingdom of Christ ministered. — μελλήσω] The 
 same form elsewhere only in Matt. xxiv. 6 ; de Wette interprets 
 it here: “I will ever have a care ;” Schott translates: “I will 
 always be in the position ;” but there is nothing which renders 
 necessary here a translation different from that in the other 
 passage. Hofmann justly says that it is a circumlocution 
 for the future of ὑπομιμνήσκειν, as in Matt. for ἀκούειν, and 
 that dei must be joined with μελλήσω. ---- Luther, following the 
 Rec. οὐκ ἀμελήσω: “therefore I will not cease.” — περὶ 
 τούτων] 1... of all that which has been already mentioned. 
 It is not to be limited to any one thing; and therefore not, 
 with de Wette, to “the kingdom of God and its future ;” nor, 
 with Wiesinger, to “the manifestation of faith in its fruits ;” 
 and still less can τούτων be understood, with Hofmann, of the 
 virtues mentioned in vy. 5-7. In this verse the author 
 promises his readers that he will ἀεί, 1.0. at every time, as the 
 opportunity presented itself (Hofmann in all probability 
 incorrectly: “when I address you”), remind them of this. 
 By what means is not said; but that he does not refer to this 
 epistle is shown by the so strongly expressed future. — καίπερ 
 εἰδότας] Calvin: Vos quidem, inquit, probe tenetis, quaenam 
 sit evangelii veritas, neque vos quasi fluctuantes confirmo, sed 
 in re tanta monitiones nunquam sint supervacuae: quare 
 nunquam molestae esse debent. Simili excusatione utitur 
 Paulus ad Rom. xv. 14. Cf. also 1 John ii. 21; Jude 5. 
 — καὶ ἐστηριγμένους ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ] “and made 
 jirm, Le. are firm in,” etc.; not: “although ye are supported, 
 2.6. have won a firm position by standing on the present truth ” 
 (Dietlein). ἐν τῇ παρ. ἀληθ. is the complement of ἐστηρ., and 
 states not the means by which, but the object in which, the 
 readers have become firm. — παρούσῃ stands here in the 
 same sense as Tod παρόντος (that is, εὐαγγελίου) eis ὑμᾶς, 
 
 23 
 
 ! Hofmann takes exception to this ‘‘only;” wrongly ; for although the apostle 
 merely says : ‘‘that he who would live up to his exhortations would undoubtedly 
 find an entrance open to the everlasting kingdom of Christ ;” still, that is as 
 much as to say that he who does not do so will not find that entrance ; con- 
 sequently the ‘‘ only” is understood of itself. 
 
310 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Col. 1. 6. De Wette, with not quite strict accuracy, 
 interprets παρούσῃ as equal to παραδοθείσῃ, Jude 3. 
 Vorstius, Bengel, etc., incorrectly take it as referring to the 
 fulfilment in the gospel of the Old Testament promises; and 
 Schott, instead of to truth in an objective sense, “to the 
 relation of fellowship with God, in which they stood as 
 Christians.” 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι) “I consider it right and 
 reasonable” (Dietlein: “as a duty”); ef. Phil. i. 7; ver. 14 
 states the reason. — ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ Ev τούτῳ τῷ σκηνώματι] 
 σκήνωμα, like σκῆνος, 2 Cor. v. 1, “ the tabernacle,” a figurative 
 designation of the human body ; ef. Wisd. ix. 15: τὸ γεῶδες 
 σκῆνος. There can hardly be here any direct reference to 
 the nomadic life in tents (Hornejus). — διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς Ev 
 ὑπομνήσει “ to stir you up by reminding you, i.e. to encourage 
 you.” The same combination takes place in chap. 111. 1; 
 διεγείρειν is to be found elsewhere only in the Gospels, and 
 there in its strict signification. — ἐν ὑπομνήσει points back to 
 ὑπομιμνήσκειν in ver. 12, which, in the aim of it, διεγείρειν 
 serves to define more nearly. In de Wette’s opinion, these 
 words are written with special reference to the advent of 
 Christ; but there is nothing to indicate any such limitation 
 of them. It cannot, with Dietlein, be concluded that this 
 letter is linked on to the First Epistle of Peter, from the 
 circumstance that in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9, γρηγορήσατε is to be 
 found followed by στερεοί. -- Ver. 14. εἰδώς] “since I 
 know,’ gives the reason for the δίκαιον ἡγοῦμαι, ver. 13.— 
 ὅτι ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις TOD σκηνώματός μου] The expres- 
 sion ἀπόθεσις is to be explained by “a mineling of the figure 
 of a garment and that of a tent” (de Wette). — ταχινή is 
 taken by most commentators (as also by Wiesinger and 
 Briickner) to mean “soon.” Accordingly some (de Wette, 
 Fronmiiller, and others) think that in the subsequent words 
 the writer does not refer to the prediction of Christ contained 
 in John xxi. 18 ff, but to a later revelation vouchsafed to 
 Peter (such as is mentioned by Hegesippus, De Exeid. Jero- 
 solym. iii, 2, and by Ambrose, Zp. 33); but Bengel already 
 
 1 Steinfass says: ““ The antithesis to παρούσῃ is Peter’s absence ;” it is hardly 
 probable that the writer thought of this antithesis. 
 
CHAP. 1. 15. ΘΠ. 
 
 translated ταχινή ἐστιν correctly by repentina est; observing : 
 Praesens; qui diu aegrotant, possunt alios adhuc pascere. 
 Crux id Petro non erat permissura, Ideo prius agit, quod 
 agendum erat.! In chap. ii. 1 also, taywvds means “ sudden, 
 swift” (Vulg. velox), not “soon.” Peter says here that he 
 will end his life by a sudden (ie. violent) death; so too 
 Steinfass, Schott, Hofmann; the adjective tayw7 states, not 
 the time, but the manner of the ἀπόθεσις. Accordingly the 
 assumption of a later revelation has no foundation in this 
 passage.” — The particle καί after καθώς, for the most part left 
 unnoticed, shows that the words καθὼς «.r.\. are added in 
 confirmation of Peter’s certainty as to his sudden death, equi- 
 valent to “even as indeed.” With ἐδήλωσεν, cf. 1 Pet.i. 11. 
 Ver. 15. σπουδάσω δὲ kai | “but I will, moreover, also zealously 
 take care, that ;” καί connects this sentence with ver. 13; it 
 belongs to σπουδάσω, not to what follows. — ἑκάστοτε] az. 
 Ney. “on every occasion,’ quotiescunque usus venerit (Bengel) ; 
 it belongs to ἔχειν «.7.r., and must not be connected with 
 σπουδάσω. --- ἔχειν ὑμᾶς... ποιεῖσθαι] The construction of 
 σπουδάζειν with the accus. cum inf. only here; &xeıv with the 
 infinitive means: “to be able”— τὴν μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι, here 
 only: “to call up the memory (recollection) of this,” that is, 
 in you; similarly μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι (Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, 
 etc.). — τούτων as in ver. 12. Dietlein, altogether arbitrarily, 
 understands it of the memory of the history of Christ as He 
 appeared in the flesh—Peter promises to his readers, that as 
 it was his intention in ver. 12 to remind them of the truths 
 stated in vv. 3-11, he would also endeavour that after his 
 death they should always be able to remember them, By 
 what means he would do this is in this passage as little 
 stated as in the μελλήσω.... ὑμᾶς ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ver. 12. 
 The reference here is not to the first and second epistles;’ this 
 
 1 Besser: “The Lord had communicated to him that a quick and sudden 
 putting off of the tabernacle of the body awaited him.” 
 
 2 Even if σαχινή meant ‘‘ soon,” it would not be necessary to understand this 
 here; for as John xxi. 18 expressly says: ὅταν δὲ yepéons, Peter could, if 
 writing this epistle in his old age, appeal to those words of Christ as corrobo- 
 rating “his expectation of a speedy death. 
 
 3 Dietlein: ‘‘ Peter finds it necessary, in the first place, to stir up = 
 remembrance during his lifetime, and secondly, to secure it for the time after 
 
>12 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 in like manner is opposed by the future σπουδάσω. The words 
 δὲ καί following on σπουδάσω seem to imply that the author 
 would do something else besides the ὑπομιμνήσκειν, whereby 
 his readers after his death would be put in a position to 
 remember what he had now written to them. This additional 
 something may, however, be regarded as the ἔχειν ὑμᾶς... 
 τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι itself in relation to ὑμᾶς ὑπο- 
 μιμνήσκειν ; that is to say, the latter states what he, the 
 former what they, should do. It is most probable that the 
 author in μελλήσω ὑπομιμνήσκειν and σπουδάσω expresses 
 his intention of continuing for the future also to write to his 
 readers as time and opportunity presented themselves. It is 
 entirely arbitrary to take the promise as referring to copies of 
 his letters (de Wette), or to the composition of the Gospel of 
 Mark, which is supposed to have been done under Peter's 
 superintendence (Michaelis, Pott, Fronmiiller, etc.), or to the 
 appointing of faithful teachers, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 16. οὐ yap σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες 
 γάρ shows that this verse, in which allusion is made to the 
 erroneous teachers, gives the reason for the σπουδάσω. The 
 connection of thought is perfectly plain, so soon as it is 
 observed that all that has gone before has been said in close 
 relation to the “ promises” (ver. 4). — σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις, 
 Luther inexactly : “ clever fables ;” σοφίζειν means in 2 Tim. 
 iii. 15: “to make wise;” this meaning is inappropriate here ; 
 in the classics it occurs in the sense: “to contrive cleverly ;” 
 thus Aristophanes, Nub. 543: del καινὰς ideas σοφίζομαι ; 
 accordingly cecod. μῦθοι are: “cleverly contrived fables ;” Pott: 
 fabulae ad decipiendos hominum animos artificiosae excogitate 
 atque exornatae ;* cf. chap. ii. 3, πλαστοὶ λόγοι. The inter- 
 pretation of Aretius is, on the other hand, incorrect: fabulae 
 falsam habentes sapientiae et veritatis speciem. The expres- 
 sion μῦθοι is to be found in the N. T. only here and in the 
 
 his death ; he wishes to provide for the latter also, at all times, ö.e. he will not 
 stop short at the epistle he has already written, but will make use of the 
 present opportunity for writing a second.” 
 
 1 Dietlein thinks that the expression σεσοφισμένοις contains a double reproach, 
 i.e. not only by the termination ‚Zw, but also in as far as the word σοφία means 
 what is bad ; however, the termination «Zw is by no means always used in a 
 bad sense, nor does σοφία in itself mean what is bad, except only in connection 
 
CHAP. I. 16. Sie 
 
 Pastoral Epistles. As the author makes no special allusion 
 of the kind, it is at least doubtful if he refers to any definite 
 myths; either those of the heathen with reference to the 
 appearances of the gods upon earth (Oecumenius, Estius, Bengel, 
 etc.), or to those of the Gnostics as to the emanation of the 
 aeons (Dietlein), or to the Gnostic myth of the Sophia (Baur), 
 or to the apocryphal legends of the birth and childhood of 
 Christ, especially in the Lv. Infantiae Jesu (Jachmann), or to 
 false myths as to Christ embellished in the spirit of the 
 Jewish Messianic beliefs (Semler), or “apocryphal, didactic, 
 and historical traditions, as these were appended by a later 
 Judaism to the histories of the O. T., especially to the most 
 ancient” (Schott, similarly Steinfass), or to the practice of 
 heathen lawgivers, who, according to Josephus, appropriated 
 to themselves the fables of popular belief, borrowing from them 
 their accounts of the gods (Hofmann). The words express, 
 indeed, an antithesis, but this is of an entirely general kind; 
 either in order to bring out that the apostolic preachers are 
 not like those others who seek the support of myths,—perhaps 
 with special reference to the false teachers alluded to in chap. 
 ii. and iii.,—or, what is less probable, in order to meet the 
 reproaches of these teachers (Wiesinger), and the contrast 
 serves to give the more prominence to the positive statement. 
 — ἐξακολουθήσαντες)] The verb, besides here, only in chap. 
 ii. 2 and 15. The preposition ἐξ does not precisely indicate 
 the error (Bengel), but only the going forth from a particular 
 point; in common usage, however, this secondary meaning 
 often entirely recedes; cf. the passage below, quoted from 
 Josephus, Ant. prooem. ὃ 4. By this negative statement the 
 author denies not only that his message was based on myths, 
 but that in it he followed a communication received from 
 others (Schott). — ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ Kup. ἡμ. I. Xp. 
 δύναμιν κ. παρουσίαν] Several interpreters understand this of 
 
 with τοῦ κόσμου rovrov (1 Cor. 1. 20), ἀνθοωπίνη (1 Cor. ii. 13), etc. Besides, 
 σοφίζειν is mostly employed so as to contain the secondary meaning of cleverness 
 (see Pape, s.v.); consequently Hofmann is wrong in rendering σεσοφισμένος 
 simply by ‘‘ conceived,” asserting that the word means nothing else. Cf. with 
 our passage Joseph. Ant. prooem. 4: of μὲν ἄλλοι νομοθέται ποῖς μύθοις ἐξακο- 
 λουθήσαντες τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτημάτων eis τοὺς θεοὺς τῷ λόγῳ Thy αἰσχύνην 
 μετέθησαν κ.τ.}..---- 
 
314 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 the First Epistle of Peter; in which case the plural is sur- 
 prising, for the author had already spoken of himself in the 
 singular. Hofmann’s objection to this view is, that although 
 in his former epistle Peter refers to the power and coming of 
 Christ, he did not first make it known to the readers. But 
 the passages 1 Cor. xv. 1 and Gal. i. 11, show that γνωρίζειν 
 may also be used of a proclamation, the substance of which 
 had already been communicated to those to whom it was 
 made. Many commentators take the words as referring to 
 the whole preaching of the apostles, understanding ὑμῖν, not 
 of the readers specially, but of the Gentile-Christians generally ; 
 thus Wiesinger, and more decidedly Hofmann. It must be 
 observed, however, in opposition to this, that γενηθέντες and 
 the subsequent ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν must refer to the same subject 
 as ἐγνωρίσαμεν. The most probable explanation is, that the 
 author, remembering that he was not the only witness of the 
 transfiguration, passed from the singular to the plural, and in 
 so doing made use of ὑμῖν in its extended sense. — παρουσία 
 is not here the nativitas Christi, His human birth (Vatablus, 
 Erasmus, Hornejus, Pott, Jachmann, etc.), nor “ His presence 
 during the time He appeared on earth” (Schmid); but, in 
 harmony both with the N. T. usage (chap. iii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 
 3,27; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. 11. 19, etc.) and the connec- 
 tion of thought (vv. 4,17, üi. 4): the return of Christ to 
 judgment (Estius, Semler, Knapp, Dietlein, de Wette-Briick- 
 ner, Hofmann, and the more modern interpreters generally '). 
 δύναμις, however, denotes the fulness of might of the glorified 
 Lord, as it will be more especially revealed in His παρουσία. 
 ’ It is not correct to combine both ideas into one, and with 
 Hornejus to explain: potens adventus; or with Bengel: 
 majestas praesentissima. — ἀλλ’ Emorraı . . . μεγαλειότητος 
 An antithesis, affirmatively stated, to what goes before. 
 ἐπόπτης, am. Aey. (1 Pet. ü. 12, ili. 2: ἐποπτεύω), is the 
 term. techn. for him who had reached the highest degree 
 of initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Keeping to this, 
 Bengel here interprets: ad intima arcana admissi; de Wette, 
 too, thinks that the expression has here the secondary meaning 
 
 1 Fronmüller only interprets : ‘‘ His appearing with miraculous powers in the 
 flesh, along with His expected appearance in glory.” 
 
CHAP, I. 17. 315 
 
 of being initiated, of intimacy. It is no doubt chosen pur- 
 posely with reference to the fact that the μεγαλειότης of 
 Christ, which Peter and the other two disciples beheld, was a 
 mystery hidden from the others. Grotius, Pott, and others take 
 it as synonymous with αὐτόπτης, Luke i. 2. The connection 
 demands that ἐπόπται γενηθέντες should be referred to the 
 fact of the transfiguration (ver. 17). Hofmann is wrong in 
 supposing that Peter here thought of the appearance of the 
 Risen One and His ascension. The assertion is refuted not 
 only by the close connection in which ver. 17 stands to this 
 verse, but by the word μεγαλειότης, which in no sense is 
 expressive only of “greatness.” As the form in which Jesus 
 showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection was 
 the same as that in which they had seen Him before it, they 
 were not then in any way ἐπόπται of his μεγαλειότης ; nor 
 is there the slightest hint that there is here allusion to any 
 fact other than that mentioned in the following verse. — τῆς 
 ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος) that is, the glory in which at His 
 transfiguration Christ showed Himself to the three disciples. 
 Incorrectly Calvin: exemplum unum prae aliis eligit memo- 
 rabile, in quo Christus coelesti gloria ornatus conspicuam 
 divinae magnificentiae speciem tribus discipulis praebuit. 
 The apostle rather regards the transfiguration glory of Christ 
 as the type—and therefore the proof—of the glory of Christ 
 at His παρουσία. 
 
 Ver. 17. λαβὼν yap... δόξαν] yap: “that is;” explana- 
 tion of the immediately preceding: ἐπόπται γενηθέντες. The 
 participle does not require any such supplement as ἣν or 
 ἐτύγχανε, nor is it put instead of the finite verb. For the 
 principal thought is, not that Christ was transfigured, but 
 that Peter was a witness of this transfiguration, which was 
 typical of the δύναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ. The finite 
 verb belonging to the participle λαβών is wanting. Its 
 absence is most naturally accounted for by supposing, that 
 the addition of φωνῆς Evexdeions x.7.r. caused the author to 
 forget to notice that he had not written ἔλαβε yap. How 
 after writing λαβών he intended to proceed, cannot be 
 definitely said; what is wanting, however, must be supplied 
 from that which goes before, not from what follows. Winer, p. 
 
 
 
516 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 330 [E. T. 442], incorrectly supplies the necessary complement 
 from ver. 18, since he says that Peter should have continued : 
 ἡμᾶς εἶχε ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἀκούσαντας, or in a similar 
 manner. But it is still more arbitrary to borrow the supple- 
 ment from ver. 19 (as is done by Dietlein and Schott). — 
 mapa θεοῦ πατρός] πατήρ is applied here to God in His 
 relation to Christ, with reference to the subsequent ὁ υἱός 
 μου. --- τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν) “Honour and glory,” as in Rom. ii. 
 7,10; δόξα denotes not the brightness of Christ’s body at 
 the transfiguration (Hornejus, Gerhard, etc. Steinfass would 
 understand both expressions of the shining figure of Christ). 
 Hofmann is unwarranted in finding in λαβὼν «.T.A. a con- 
 firmation of his opinion that it is the resurrection and ascension 
 that are here referred to, inasmuch as God first conferred 
 honour and glory upon Christ, by raising Him from the dead 
 and exalting Him. To this it may be said that by every act 
 of God which testified to His glory, Christ received τιμὴ 
 καὶ δόξα, ic. “honour and praise.” — davis ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ 
 τοιᾶσδε] states through what Christ received “honour and 
 praise :” the expression φωνὴ φέρεταί τινι, here only; Luke 
 ix. 35, 36, φωνὴ γέγνεται; so also Mark i. 11; Luke üi. 22 
 (cf. John xii. 28, 30); αὐτῷ : the dative of direction, not: in 
 honorem ejus (Pott). ---- ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης] ὑπό is 
 neither equivalent to “accompanied by” (Wahl), nor to “ from 
 
 . out of” (Winer, 5th ed. p. 442 f.): the preposition, even 
 where in local relations it inclines to these significations, 
 always maintains firmly its original meaning: “ under ;” here, 
 as generally in passives, it signifies “ by ;” thus, too, Winer, 
 6th ed. p. 330 [E. T. 462], 7th, 346: “when this voice was 
 borne to Him by the sublime Majesty.” ἡ μεγαλοπρεπὴς 
 (am. Ney.) δόξα means neither heaven nor the bright cloud 
 (Matt. xvii. 5);' it is rather a designation of God Himself 
 (Gerhard, de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Hof- 
 mann); similarly as, in Matt. xxvi. 64, God is called by the 
 abstract expression ἡ δύναμις. With μεγαλοπρεπής, cf. Deut. 
 xxxill. 26, LXX. — οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός) So in 
 
 ‘ Schott, indeed, interprets ὑπό correctly, but yet thinks that σῆς μεγαλ. δόξης 
 
 means the cloud; ‘‘not indeed the cloud in itself, but as the manifestation 
 which God gave of Himself” (!). 
 
CHAP. I. 18, 19. 917 
 
 Matthew ; only with the addition αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε, and instead 
 of eis ὅν : “ἐν @.” In Mark ix. 7 and Luke ix. 35 (where, 
 instead of ἀγαπητός, there is “ ékAedeypévos”), the words eis ὃν 
 ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα are entirely wanting. The reading adopted 
 by Tisch. 7: ὁ vids μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστι, corre- 
 sponds to none of the accounts in the Gospels; cf. with it the 
 O. T. quotation from Isa. xlii. 1 in Matthew (chap. xii. 18): 
 ὁ παῖς μου... ὁ ἀγαπητός μου, eis ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου. 
 — The construction of εὐδοκεῖν with εἰς does not occur else- 
 where in the N. T.; there is no warrant for the assertion that 
 eis points “to the historical development of the plan of salva- 
 tion” (!) (Dietlein). 
 
 Ver. 18. καὶ ταύτην... ἐνεχθεῖσαν ; the author is anxious 
 to show prominently that he has been an ear-witness of that 
 divine voice, as well as an eye-witness of the μεγαλειότης of 
 Christ. — ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθ. is added by way of emphasis, in 
 order to lay stress on the fact that Christ received that testi- 
 mony directly from heaven. — ev τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ] From the 
 epithet τῷ ἁγίῳ it must not, with Grotius, be concluded that 
 the reference here is to the hill on which the temple stood, 
 and that what is alluded to is not the transfiguration, but the 
 incident recorded in John xii. 28. Without any reason, 
 de Wette asserts that that epithet “(instead of which Matt. 
 xvii. 1 has: ὑψηλόν) betrays a view of the case more highly 
 coloured with the belief in miracles than that of the apostles, 
 and belonging to a later period; Calvin already gives the 
 correct interpretation: montem sanetum appellat, qua ratione 
 terra sancta dicitur, in qua Mosi Deus apparuit; quocunque 
 enim accedit Dominus, ut est fons omnis sanctitatis, praesen- 
 tiae suae odore omnia sanctificat; Dietlein: “the ‘in the 
 holy’ is added, not to designate the mountain, but in order 
 to distinguish it on account of this event;” so, too, Briickner 
 and the modern commentators generally. 
 
 Ver. 19. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον] 
 “and we have as one more stable (surer) the word of prophecy.” 
 The second testimony for the glory of Christ in His second 
 coming is “the word of prophecy.” This Luther understands 
 to mean the “gospel;” Griesbach: “New Testament pro- 
 phecies;” Erasmus: “the heavenly testimony mentioned in 
 
318 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 ver. 18.” But the connection with what follows shows that 
 it is the Old Testament promises which are here meant. 
 On the singular Bengel rightly says: Mosis, Esaiae et omnium 
 prophetarum sermones unum sermonem sibi undequaque con- 
 stantem faciunt; non jam singularia dicta Petrus profert, sed 
 universum eorum testimonium complectitur; only that here 
 reference is made specially to the promise with regard to the 
 δύναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ. — The expression προφητικός, 
 besides here, only in Rom. xvi. 26: γραφαὶ προφητικαί. --- 
 The article rov marks this as a definite prophecy, well known 
 to the readers. With regard to it the author says: ἔχομεν 
 βεβαιότερον; for the force of βέβαιος, cf. especially Rom. 
 iv. 16; Heb. ii. 2, 9,17; 2 Cor.i. 6. BeSasörepov is neither 
 to be connected directly with the object, nor is the compara- 
 tive to be taken as synonymous with the positive or with the 
 superlative. Luther trebly inaccurate: “we have a stable 
 prophetic word.” — How then is the comparative to be ex- 
 plained? Oecumenius says by the relation in which the 
 fulfilment stands to the promise, in this sense, that the truth 
 of the latter is confirmed by the former, and that accordingly 
 the prophetic word has now become more sure and stable 
 than it was formerly (thus, too, Fronmiiller). But the promise 
 here in question still awaits its fulfilment. De Wette’s view 
 is more suitable. According to it, the comparative is put with 
 reference to the event mentioned in vy. 17, 18, so that the 
 thought would be: “and the prophetic word is more stable 
 to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that” (thus, 
 too, Schmidt, IT. p.213, Brückner, Dietlein, Schott’). Wiesinger 
 combines this view with that of Oecumenius. There are 
 objections to this view ; de Wette himself raises them: (1) That 
 any more precise allusion to this sense by a νῦν or an ἐκ 
 τούτου is wanting ; (2) That in what follows the thought stated 
 is neither held fast nor developed. These, however, are 
 easily removed, when it is considered that there is no inten- 
 tion here of giving prominence to the point of time, and that 
 in what follows the reference is precisely to the prophetic word 
 
 1 Hofmann, too, interprets thus, only that he looks upon the fact, by which the 
 
 word of prophecy is made “more sure,” not as being Christ’s transfiguration, 
 with the divine testimony, but His resurrection and ascension. 
 
CHAP. I. 19. 319 
 
 confirmed by the above-mentioned fact; cf. Brückner. It is 
 incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the 
 word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this 
 could only be that event mentioned in vv. 16,17." But the 
 very stress laid on it and on the ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς 
 ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος, is opposed to this view. How inappro- 
 priate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy 
 should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure ! 
 The nominative to ἔχομεν is not the apostles generally (against 
 Hofmann), hardly either can it be Peter and his readers ; but, as 
 the close connection of this verse with what precedes shows, 
 the subject to ἔχομεν is no other than that to ἠκούσαμεν. The 
 author does not, indeed, here appeal to any of Christ’s own pro- 
 phecies of His second coming. But this isto be explained, not by 
 assuming that these were unknown to him, nor because “ the 
 rapid succession of the advent on the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 foretold in them, had not taken place” (de Wette), but simply 
 because the writer’s aim here was to point to the testimonies 
 regarding Christ and what related to Him (and thus not to those 
 of Christ Himself) (thus, too, Brückner). — ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε 
 προσέχοντες] “ whereunto to take heed, ye do well,” as Heb. 11. 1 : 
 “to give heed to something with a believing heart.” The 
 searching into the word of prophecy is only the consequence of 
 this. The same construction of καλ. ποιεῖν cum Part. Acts x. 
 33; Phil. iv.14; 3 John 6 (Joseph. Ant. xi. 6.12: οἷς [ypap- 
 μασι ᾿Αμάνου] ποιήσατε καλῶς μὴ προσέχοντες). -- - ὡς λύχνῳ 
 φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῳ τόπῳ] The comparative particle ὡς points 
 to the nature and significance of the λόγος προφ.; it is in the 
 sphere of spiritual life, the same as a Avyvos in outward 
 world of sense. — φαίνοντι, not: qui lucebat (Bengel) ; it is 
 rather the present, an attribute of λύχνῳ. αὐχμηρός (dm. ‘ey.), 
 literally: parched, dry, then: dirty, dingy (opposed to Aau- 
 πρός, Arist. de colorib?) It is used with the latter meaning 
 here. αὐχμηρὸς τόπος has indeed been explained as a desert, 
 
 1 Steinfass, indeed, thinks that the μῦθοι are referred to; Gerhard has already 
 proved the incorrectness of this assumption. 
 
 2 Hofmann’s entirely unwarranted assertion: ‘‘ It isin vain to appeal to the 
 fact, that in Aristotle zixmapss occurs as antithesis to λαμπρός ; the antithesis to 
 λαμπρόν there is Azur; ; on the other hand, auxgnpös, in its original meaning of 
 
320 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 or a “place overrun with wild scraggy wood” (Hofmann) ; but 
 this would make sense only if the idea of darkness or night were 
 added in thought (as by Steinfass), for which, however, there 
 is still no warrant. — ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ] ἕως οὗ (gene- 
 rally construed with ἄν), ὁ. conj. aorist, expresses the duration 
 of the act until the arrival of a future event which is looked 
 upon as possible; that is: “ until the day breaks,’ ete., “ not 
 until the day shall have dawned” (de Wette), cf. Matt. x. 11, 
 23, 39 ff. Some commentators (Bengel, etc., Schott too, and 
 Hofmann) join ἕως od with φαίνοντι ; incorrectly ; it belongs 
 rather to προσέχοντες, which in the context has the accent. 
 Taken with daivovrı it would be a somewhat superfluous 
 adjunct, if it be not at the same time applied, according to the 
 thought, to προσέχοντες, as is done by Dietlein, though without 
 any linguistic justification. — διαυγάζειν, adm. rey., used fre- 
 quently in the classics of the break of day, when the light shines 
 through the darkness; Polyb. iii. 104: ἅμα τῷ διαυγάζειν. --- 
 καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ] φωσφόρος, a7. rey., is not meant to 
 designate the sun (Hesychius, Knapp, etc.), but the morning 
 star; many interpreters (Besser, etc.) incorrectly understand 
 by it Christ. The adjunct καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ serves only 
 further to complete the picture—that of the morning which 
 precedes the full day. — ev ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν] belongs not 
 to προσέχοντες (Schott), far removed from it, to which it 
 would form a somewhat dragging supplement; nor is it to 
 be taken with the subsequent τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες 
 (Hofmann). For, on the one hand, the observation that the 
 reference here is to a heart knowledge, would have a meaning 
 only if γινώσκοντες contained an exhortation to such knowledge; 
 and, on the other, the position of the words is opposed to this 
 connection. Consequently ev ταῖς καρδίαις can be joined only 
 with the clause immediately preceding, ἕως οὗ &.T.X. (de Wette- 
 Brückner, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller). As to the reference of 
 the figure, commentators are much divided among them- 
 selves. De Wette understands αὐχμηρὸς τόπος of “the time 
 
 ‘dry,’ is antithetical to στίλβον ;” is contradicted by the passage itself to which 
 he appeals, and which runs thus: xa? δὲ διαφορὰν καὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν ἢ στίλβον εἶναι 
 To μιγνύμενον ἢ “ποὐναντίον αὐχμηρὸν καὶ ἀλαμπές (Arist.: σερὶ χρωμάτων: Becker, 
 11. 793) ; and how should eriAßos mean ‘‘ wet”? 
 
CHAP. L 19. 321 
 
 previous to Christianity, which still continues for those who 
 were not in the faith, and to whom the readers belonged.” 
 But opposed to this is the fact that in vv. 1, 12, the author 
 speaks of his readers as believing Christians. Gerhard (with 
 whom Briickner formerly concurred) takes the reference to be 
 to the former condition of the readers, when as yet they did 
 not believe. Against this, however, is the present ᾧ καλῶς 
 ποιεῖτε mpooex. The only adequate meaning to attach to 
 τόπος αὐχμ. is: the world in its present condition (Wiesinger, 
 Briickner, in the 3d ed. of de Wette’s Commentary). The 
 world is the dark place which is illumined only by the light 
 of the divine (more precisely: the prophetic) word; therefore 
 the Christians do well to give heed to this word, since otherwise 
 they would be in darkness. In taking exception to this view, 
 Hofmann says that it is “a mistake to identify the place where 
 the light shines with that where those are, for whom it is ht 
 up.” In his view the meaning should be, that to him who 
 looks into the final future, to which the prophetic word points, 
 this word will perform a service similar to that of a light in a 
 ... pathless region at night,—this service, namely, “that the 
 believer does not stand helplessly before the future, which lies 
 before us like a confusion which is enveloped in night.” But 
 against this explanation it must be urged, that the figure em- 
 ployed by Peter would be appropriate only if the place in which 
 the λύχνος shines were compared with that in which the believers 
 are, and that the reference to the uncertain future is purely 
 imported. — The words: ἕως οὗ «.7.r., show that for the be- 
 liever another condition of matters will commence. The time 
 when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians, and the 
 morning star arises, and when consequently they can do with- 
 out the light, has been variously determined. According to 
 Dorner, it is “a time within the development of the Christian 
 life in the individual ; that time, namely, when what is matter 
 of history shall become living knowledge, influencing entirely 
 the whole life” (Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2 ed. part I. p. 104). 
 But such a separation of the development of the Christian life 
 of his readers into two periods can the less be assumed here, 
 that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing a 
 purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that 
 X 
 
 2 PETER. 
 
322 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 he should have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary 
 for the advanced Christian. Early commentators already 
 correctly applied the words to the Parousia. It is erroneous, 
 however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the 
 advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point 
 of time which Peter has in view is that immediately preceding 
 the second coming, the time when the σημεῖον of the Son of 
 man appears (Matt. xxiv. 30), when believers are to lift up their 
 heads because their ἀπολύτρωσις draweth nigh (Luke xxi. 28), 
 when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day 
 shall arise in their hearts ; similarly Wiesinger and Brückner. 
 
 Ver. 20. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες) τοῦτο refers not to 
 anything said before, but to the clause following: ὅτε «.T.A.; 
 cf. chap. iii. 3. — πρῶτον, i. q. πρῶτον πάντων, 1 Tim. i. 1; 
 erroneously Bengel: prius quam ego dico, anglicé: “ before 
 that.” — γινώσκοντες : “whilst ye recognise, bring yourselves 
 to the conscious knowledge that” (de Wette); cf. Jas. 1.3; 
 Heb. x. 34. Without any warrant Pott supplies δέ, and 
 takes the participle as equivalent to “ δεῖ γινώσκειν ὑμᾶς ;” the 
 participle, as such, is rather to be joined closely to «an. ποιεῖτε 
 mpooey. By τοῦτο mp. yw. the author directs the attention 
 of his readers to the point to which they in their προσέχειν 
 (ver. 19) should pay special attention; what that is the words 
 following say: ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία... γίνεται; Maca... οὐ 
 is a Hebraism for οὐδεμέα, cf. Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 29, ete. 
 προφητεία γραφῆς is undoubtedly to be understood of the 
 prediction of the Old Testament, either the prophecy con- 
 tained in Scripture, or that to which the Scripture gives 
 expression. For the construction of γίνεται c. gen., cf. Winer, 
 p. 184 [E. T. 244]; Buttm. p. 142 ; according to Buttmann, the 
 genitive definition of the thing with εἶναι or yiveo Oar frequently 
 denotes a permanent attribute ; thus here: prophecy is of such 
 a kind that it, etc.; the more precise definition depends on the 
 meaning of the words: ἰδίας émiAvcews. Instead of ἐπιλύσεως, 
 
 1 The difficulty of this verse is not diminished by the connection of the words 
 ἐν σ, καρδ. Su. With προσέχ., and of ἕως οὗ ἡ ἡμέρα x.7.a. With φαίνοντι (Schott), since, 
 if these words ἕως οὗ are not to be almost meaningless, the question remains, what 
 that morning is to which they refer. Schott, indeed, passes lightly over this 
 
 difficulty by saying : ‘‘ It is left to the reader to transfer this metaphor correctly 
 to the dawn of the future day of perfect consummation.” 
 
CHAP. I. 20. 328 
 
 Grotius would read: ἐπηλύσεως, and Heinsius: ἐπελεύσεως, 
 so that the sense would be: the προφητεία non est res proprii 
 impetus s. instinctus; but these changes have been justly 
 rejected by Wolf already as arbitrary. Not less unwarranted 
 is it to understand, with Hammond, ἐπίλυσις originally de 
 emissione cursorum e carceribus, deducing therefrom the 
 thought: that the prophets non a se, sed a Deo missi curre- 
 rent ; or, with Clericus: de solutione oris ; or, with Lakemacher, 
 to derive ἐπίλυσις from ἐπιλεύθω (ἐπέρχομαι), instead of from 
 ἐπιλύειν, thus obtaining the idea: that prophecy is not accessus 
 proprie aut talis, quae virtute quadam mentis humanae pro- 
 pria et naturali proveniat et ad hominem quasi accedat (cf. 
 Wolf in loc). The notion that ἐπίλυσιυς is equal to dissolutio 
 (Hardt: omnis promissio non est dissolutionis sed indissolubilis, 
 immutabilis, etc. ; similarly Storr, Opp. 11. 391 ff.) has been re- 
 futed already by Wolf.— eriAvoıs means : solution, explanation, 
 interpretation ; thus Mark iv. 34: ἐπιλύειν ; Gen. xl. 8, Aquila: 
 ἐπιλυόμενος (MD), ἐπίλυσις (NNB); Gen. xli. 12, LXX., ac- 
 cording to some codd.: τὰ ἐνύπνια ἡμῶν, ἀνδρὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐνύπνιον 
 αὐτοῦ ἐπέλυσεν, Phil. de vita contempl. p. 901 A.— Almost 
 all expositors understand ἐπίλυσις as the interpretation of the 
 προφητεία made aforetime; but ἰδίας, however, has been 
 variously applied—(1) It has been taken to refer to the rpo- 
 φητεία itself; Werenfels (cf. Wolf): προφητεία οὐκ ἔχει τὴν 
 ἑαυτῆς ἐπίλυσιν, that is, οὐκ ἐπιλύει ἑαυτήν ; thus also Wahl, 
 Dietlein, Brückner. The positive idea here to be supplied is: 
 but “the interpretation is to be looked for only from God” 
 (Brückner; Dietlein arbitrarily finds the further idea con- 
 tained here, that prophecy must not be treated as allegory). 
 (2) To the prophets themselves; Oecumenius : ἤδεσαν (οἱ προ- 
 φῆται) μὲν Kal συνίεσαν τὸν καταπεμπόμενον αὐτοῖς προφη- 
 τικὸν λόγον, οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ἐπίλυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐποιοῦντο 
 (similarly Knapp, de Wette); and the thought to be supplied 
 here is: the interpretation is then not an easy, but a difficult 
 matter (de Wette: “the author makes this remark in order 
 to excuse the difficulty of the interpretation, and to take 
 away the pretext for unbelief or scoffing”). (3) To the readers 
 or to man generally. This is the view most generally adopted ; 
 it is that of Beda, Erasmus, Luther, Aretius, Gerhard, Pott, 
 
324 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Steiger, Schmid, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, etc. ; 
 and the positive thought to be supplied is: only the Holy 
 Spirit can expound the prediction (Luther: “ act accordingly, 
 and do not think that you can interpret Scripture according 
 to your own reason or cunning; Peter has forbidden it, you 
 are not to interpret, the Holy Spirit must interpret, or it must 
 remain uninterpreted”). But opposed to all these interpre- 
 tations is—(1) The necessity of supplying the positive thought 
 which really contains the point of the remark, but to which 
 the apostle does not give expression; (2) The connection of 
 thought, according to which ver. 20 is subjoined as a confir- 
 mation of the ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες. If the thought 
 here expressed were intended to give a caution with respect to 
 the προσέχειν, or to form, as Wiesinger says, a condition 
 preliminary and necessary to it, this must in some way have 
 been referred to. Besides, it must be noted that εἶναι or 
 γίνεσθαι, c. gen., implies a relation of dependence, and in such 
 a way that the genitive denotes that on which something else 
 depends." Now it may, indeed, be said that the “ understand- 
 ing” of prophecy, but not that prophecy itself, depends on the 
 interpretation of it. The rendering: “ prophecy is not a 
 matter of private interpretation” (or even: “it does not 
 permit of private interpretation,’ Hofmann), takes too little 
 account of the force of the genitive.” For these reasons ἐπί- 
 λυσις must necessarily be understood rather of an “ interpreta- 
 tion” on which the προφητεία is based, on which it depends. 
 But this is the explanation of the problematic future itself, or 
 
 1 Certainly, also, the above construction can merely express the relation of 
 belonging to, as in Heb. xii. 11; but in that passage the ideas παιδεία and χαρᾶς 
 (λύπης) stand in an altogether different relation to each other, from that in which 
 προφητεία here stands to ἐσίλυσις. 
 
 2 Hofmann’s remark is indeed very apodictic, that “ the first of these counter 
 reasons is null, and that accordingly the second is so too, because τοῦτο πρῶτον 
 γινώσκοντες Means a perception, which must be combined with the attending to 
 the word of prophecy . . . but a perception, the substance of which could only be 
 expressed negatively, because meant only to guard the prophecy against an interpre- 
 tation brought about by the conclusions of the individual intellect ;” but the objec- 
 tion to this is the same as that to the second counter reason above. If the author 
 wished the roro . . . γινώσκοντες to be understood in the sense of guarding against, 
 he would at least have added a 3%. — It is not easy to understand why the author, 
 
 if he had wished to express the thought which his words are supposed to contain, 
 did not write: ὅτι ἐπίλυσις προφητείας ob γίνεται ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, or something similar. 
 
CHAP, I. 21. 325 
 
 of the figure under which it presented itself to the prophets 
 (thus, too, Gerlach and Fronmiiller)." The passage above cited 
 makes the matter clear. Gen. xl. 8 : the words, in which Joseph 
 predicted to the prisoners what lay before them, form the προφη- 
 tela ; this presupposes an ἐπέλυσις, interpretation, of the dream 
 by Joseph, and of this Joseph says that it belongs to God. 
 Thus, too, he speaks to Pharaoh: the interpretation is not in 
 me, Gen. xli. 15, 16; cf. Dan. chap. ii. — The thought accord- 
 ingly is this: no prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends 
 on, private (of him who utters the prophecy) interpretation of 
 the future. Taken thus, the verse stands in close and correct 
 connection both with what precedes, for it states why the λόγ. 
 προφ. is βέβαιος whereunto it is right to take heed, as unto a light 
 in a dark place (namely, because it is based on no human inter- 
 pretation); and at the same time with what follows, which 
 serves to explain and confirm the thought (inasmuch as it more 
 precisely defines the idea, and by the positive statement confirms 
 the negation)” Brückner incorrectly, therefore, objects to this 
 interpretation, that although it may be in harmony with ver. 21, 
 it cannot with propriety be connected with ver. 19; and if 
 Briickner and Wiesinger further urge against it that it arbi- 
 trarily supplies the object of ἐπίλυσις, it must be replied, that 
 object is rather supplied of itself out of the connection with 
 προφητεία. The present γίνεται alone seems to be inappropriate, 
 but this may be explained by supposing that the thought is 
 conceived in the form of a general statement; this Brückner 
 has recognised, whilst Wiesinger leaves it unnoticed.’ 
 
 Ver. 21. οὐ yap θελήματι ἀνθρώπου] These words corre- 
 spond with the preceding ἰδίας ἐπιλ. οὐ γίνεται; “not from or 
 by the will of aman ;” cf. Jer. xxiii. 26, LXX.: ἕως ποτὲ ἔσται 
 
 ! Bengel’s interpretation is similar: !riAvsıs dicitur interpretatio, qua ipsi 
 prophetae res antea plane clausas aperuere mortalibus, only that here no definite 
 distinction is drawn between pp. and ἐσπίλυσι:. 
 
 2 On the other hand, in the usual way of understanding this passage, ver. 21 
 is most inappropriately connected with ver. 20, since no explanation is given of 
 the idea that the interpretation of the prophecy, because it is not the work of 
 man, can only be expected from the Holy Spirit. 
 
 3 Steinfass thinks that the author refers to Daniel, chap. xii., and that iriAveıs 
 means the answer given in ver. 12 to Daniel’s question in ver. 8, by which the 
 
 indefinite statement of time is definitely fixed. This singular opinion is, how- 
 ever, contradicted by the single expression πᾶσα, 
 
326 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 . ἐν τῷ προφητεύειν αὐτοὺς τὰ θελήματα τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν. 
 — ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία] Vulg.: allata est; the verb as in 
 vv. 17, 18 (cf. also 2 John 10). De Wette’s translation: 
 “is delivered or uttered,’ is inexact, inasmuch as the idea of 
 a set discourse is not directly contained in the verb. Steinfass’s 
 interpretation of rpod. is wrong from a linguistic point of view: 
 “ sift of prophecy.” — ποτέ belongs closely to the negative ov, 
 equal ‘to “never.” The sense of the clause is: “the cause in which 
 προφητεία has its origin is not the free will of man, deter- 
 mining itself thereto.” — ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι 
 κτλ.) The form of this, which does not exactly correspond 
 with that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into greater 
 prominence the passivity of the prophets. — φερόμενοι : “ borne 
 along” (as by the wind, e.g. the ship was driven, Acts xxvii. 
 15,17). The impelling power is the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Joseph. 
 Ant. iv. 6, 5, says of Balaam: τῷ θείῳ πνεύματι... κεκινη- 
 μένος ; cf. the expressions in the classics: θεοφορεῖσθαι, θεο- 
 &öpnros. Macrob. i. 23: feruntur divino spiritu, non suo 
 arbitratu, sed quo Deus propellit. Calvin correctly remarks : 
 impulsos fuisse dicit, non quod menti alienati fuerint (qualem 
 in suis prophetis ἐνθουσιασμόν fingunt gentiles), sed quia 
 nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum obedienter sequuti sunt 
 Spiritum ducem. — ἐλάλησαν] Hornejus: intellige tam voce, 
 quam scripto. “Men it was who spoke; but their speaking 
 had the active reason of its origin, and its starting-point in 
 God” (Schott). — ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι] In this expression, con- 
 sidered to be genuine, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ denotes the starting-point of 
 the speaking: “men spoke from God.” The prophets are thus 
 significantly called simply ἄνθρωποι, in reference to the ἀνθρώ- 
 mov going before. They were but men; prophets they became 
 only by the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ The Rec. ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι is 
 only a circumlocution for prophets, who are called ἅγιοι avOp. 
 because they were in the service of God, inasmuch as they 
 were the instruments of His πνεῦμα ἅγιον, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 11. 
 
 1 Into this verse also Dietlein inserts much that is foreign, by saying in ex- 
 planation of it: ‘‘not only are man and God placed in antithesis to each other, 
 but over against the designs of man and the unreal world of human thoughts and 
 conceptions (!) stands the Spirit of God, which so powerfully takes hold of the 
 
 prophets only because that which He teaches possesses historical reality, or else 
 will do so in time.” 
 
CHAP. IL 327 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 VER. 2. ἀσελγείαις] according to almost all authorities, instead of 
 the Ree. ἀπωλείαις, which only occurs in some min. — Ver. 4. 
 σειρωῖς) Rec. after K LP, etc. (Tisch. 7); AB Cs (Lachm. 
 Tisch. 8) have σειροῖς, where it is uncertain whether this is to be 
 regarded as an uncommon form for σειραῖς (perhaps by mistake), 
 or another form for the more usual σιροῆς (Pape: “ σιρός, written 
 also σειρός : a pit, specially for preserving corn”). The lect. is 
 peculiar in A and 8: σειροῖς ζόφοις, in which σειροῖς is evidently 
 an adjective, equal to “hot.” Commentators take no notice of 
 these various readings ; Reiche rejects them; so, too, Hofmann, 
 who says simply, that the reading σίροις has no claim to atten- 
 tion. — In place of the Lec. τετηρημένους (in several min., Thph. 
 Oec.), Griesb. Tittm. Tisch. (Reiche) have accepted τηρουμένους, 
 after B C* K L P.— Lachmann reads κολαζομένους τηρεῖν (A C** 
 δὲ, etc., Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. etc.); this appears, however, to be 
 taken from ver. 9; Tisch.: “fluxit e v. 9.” — Ver. 6. The 
 word καταστροφῇ is wanting in B Οὗ 27, al., Copt.— Ver. 8. ὁ 
 δίκαιος] Lachm. omits ὁ, after B,—without sufficient reason. — 
 Ver. 9. Tisch. 7 reads πειρασμοῦ (fec., according to almost all 
 authorities) ; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 has σειρασμῶν, after δὲ, 
 corr. and several min. Tischendorf’s observation on πειρασμοῦ: 
 quod multo magis usu venit, does not justify the reading 
 accepted by him in ed. 8.— Ver. 11. παρὰ κυρίῳ] Rec. after 
 BCK LPs, etc., Thph. Oec. (Tisch. 8). — Lachm. and Tisch. 7 
 are hardly correct in omitting it; it is wanting in A, al., Syr. 
 Erp. Vulg. ete. — Ver. 12. Instead of γεγεννημένα (Rec. after A* 
 BCP, al., m. ete., Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 7), A** KLs, al., read: 
 γεγενημένα (Tisch. 8). Whilst the Rec. has φυσικά before yey. (KL, 
 al., pl. Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch. have placed it after yey. (A B 
 C Ps, al.), and rightly ; the transposition is easily explained by 
 assuming that it was thought necessary to connect γεγεννημένα 
 directly with the: sis ἅλωσιν belonging to it. Mill, without 
 reason, regards yeyew. as a Scholion, which has come into the 
 text by way of explanation of φυσικά. Dietlein considers the 
 Rec. to be the original reading. — καταφθαρήσονται] Zec., after C** 
 
328 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 KL, ete., Thph. Oec. (Griesb. Scholz); on the other hand, A B 
 C PX (pr. m.), 7, al., Aeth. Arm. Syr. ete., support καὶ φθαρή- 
 σονται (Lachm. Tisch.). This reading is to be preferred: zus 
 gives peculiar point to the idea; since this was overlooked, and 
 καί only regarded as being in the way, it might easily have been 
 changed into κατα. --- Ver. 13. ἀπάταις] Rec. after A* C KL 
 Px, al., Copt. ete., Thph. Oec. (Griesb. Scholz, Tisch.). In its 
 place A** B, Syr. Arr. Vulg. Ephr. etc, have ἀγάπαις; 
 approved of by Erasmus, Luther, Camerarius, Grotius, etc. ; 
 adopted into the text by Lachm. ; though hardly justly, for in 
 one passage (either here or Jude 12) ἀπάταις, as de Wette also 
 thinks, is probably the original reading ; if so, then rather here 
 than in Jude, all the more that ὑμῶν (in Jude) may be adapted 
 to ἀγάπαις, but not so much αὑτῶν; B has ἀγάπαις in both pas- 
 sages; C, on the other hand, ἀπάταις, which is explained by the 
 one having stood originally in the one passage, and the other in 
 the other. Elsner, Wolf, Wetstein, Bengel, de Wette, and the 
 modern commentators generally, are in favour of ἀπάταις in this 
 passage ; so, too, Reiche. — Ver. 14. The reading μοιχαλίας in 
 AN, several min., Copt. Vulg. etc., instead of μοιχαλίδος, can 
 only be looked upon as a correction for the sake of simplifica- 
 tion. — ἀκατωπαύστους)] Rec. after CK LPs, etc. (Griesb. 
 Scholz, Tisch.) ; instead of which Lachmann reads ἀκαταπάστους, 
 following A B,a word which does not occur elsewhere, and 
 which Reiche accordingly declares to be an error in transcrip- 
 tion ; Buttmann, p. 57, thinks it is not unlikely that the original 
 reading was: καταπάστους, 1.06. “ polluted, defiled,” that then, by 
 mistake, an «, perhaps taken from the previous za, had been 
 added, out of which ἀκαταπαύστους arose. The reading occurring 
 in several min.: ἀκαταπαύστου, gives indeed an appropriate 
 meaning, but cannot be regarded as original. — πλεονεξίας] the 
 reading attested by A B C Καὶ LPs, etc. (Griesb. Scholz, 
 Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Rec. πλεονεξίαις, which is a mere 
 correction. — Ver. 15. Tisch. 7 reads xzurarırövres; Rec. after 
 B*** CK LP; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, has καταλείποντες, fol- 
 lowing A B* s, etc. — Griesb. already has rightly omitted the 
 article τήν before εὐθελαν ; it is opposed by almost all authorities. 
 — Ver. 17. Instead of the Rec. νεφέλαι (L, etc., Thph. Oec.), Griesb. 
 correctly has admitted : ὁμήχλαι into the text, following A BC 8, 
 etc.; so, too, Scholz, Tisch. Lachm. On the other hand, 
 Dietlein, though without sufficient reason, considers the Kee., 
 which is evidently taken from Jude 10, to be original; so, too, 
 Reiche. — εἰς αἰῶνα] according to A Ο L P, ete., Thph. Oec. — 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it (following B 8) ; it seems to 
 have been added from Jude 13; Reiche, however, regards it as 
 
CHAP. IL 1. 329 
 
 original. — Ver. 18. The prepos. ἐν before ἀσελγ. in the ed. Elz. 
 occurs in a few min. Theoph. Oec. only. — ὀλήγως] accepted by 
 Griesb. already, in place of the fec.: ὄντως, according to the 
 testimony of A B, al., Syr. utr. Copt. etc., Aug. Hier. ; so, too, 
 by Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. —- ἀποφεύγοντας] after AB C 8, many 
 min. Syr. Arm. Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Rec. : 
 ἀποφυγόντως, according to K LP, etc. Reiche seeks to prove the 
 originality of the ec. from internal reasons, but these are 
 insufficient ; he prefers also ὄντως to ὀλίγως. ---- Ver. 19. Tisch. 7 
 has τούτῳ καί (Rec. according to A C Κα L P, etc.) ; on the other 
 hand, Tisch. 8 has τούτῳ, and omits zes, following B, etc.; the 
 greater number of authorities are in favour of the Rec, — 
 Ver. 20. ACL PRS, etc., read ἡμῶν after κυρίου (Lachm. Tisch. 8); 
 the Rec. omits ἡμῶν, according to B Καὶ (Tisch. 7).— Ver. 21. 
 ἐπιστρέψαι) tec. according to Καὶ L, «al, Thph. Oec. (Griesb. 
 Scholz, Tisch. 7, de Wette, etc.); BCP, ete., read ὑποστρέψαι 
 (Tisch. 8); As, on the other hand, has eis τὰ ὀπίσω ἀνακάμψαι 
 ἀπό. This latter reading is probably only an explanatory gloss ; 
 but whether éciorp. or üroorp. be the original reading or not, it 
 is difficult to decide with certainty; since the verb has not 
 here the simple meaning of “turning back,” but of “ turning 
 back again to what has gone before,’ a meaning in no way 
 peculiar to the expression ἐπιστρέφειν itself, without any nearer 
 definition, it lies to hand to look upon ὑποστρέψαι as a correction. 
 Lachm. has adopted εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω ὑποστρέψαι ἀπό; but no codex has 
 this reading. — Ver. 22. In A B 8 (pr. m.), Sahid. (Lachm. 
 Tisch.) δέ is awanting ; it is probably added in order to connect 
 ver. 22 more closely with ver. 21.— In the place of κύλισμα 
 (A K LPR, etc, Lachm.), B C* 29 (Tisch.) have the form 
 
 κυλισμόν. 
 
 Ver. 1. From here onwards: a description of the false 
 teachers, who were to arise in the church, and a warning 
 against them. — ἐγένοντο de καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται] de: antithesis 
 to what goes before. καί: “also,” that is, besides the true 
 prophets mentioned in chap. i. 21. The expression: ψευδο- 
 προφήτης, already in the Ὁ. T. LXX., eg. Jer. vi. 13, 
 frequently in the N. T., not after the analogy of ψευδολόγος : 
 “one who prophesies falsely,” but: “one who falsely gives 
 himself out for a prophet,’ on the analogy of ψευδάδελφος, 
 ψευδαπόστολος. --- ἐν τῷ λαῷ] 16. among the people of Israel. 
 These words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a 
 secondary clause: as there were false prophets in Israel, so 
 
330 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 will there be also among you, etc.— ὡς Kat... ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι] 
 ἔσονται; designates the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι as such, who would 
 arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as 
 actually present; see on this, the Introd. ὃ 2, p. 281. The 
 expression ψευδοδιδ. is in the N. T. dz. Aey.; Wiesinger and 
 Brückner interpret: “such as teach les;” Dietlein and Fron- 
 miiller: “ such as lyingly pretend to be teachers.” The analogy 
 of ψευδοπροφ., with which it is here contrasted, makes the 
 last the preferable interpretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both 
 result in the same sense (Schott); what the ψευδοπροφῆται 
 were in the O. T., the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are in the N. T. — 
 οἵτινες] equivalent to quippe qui, “ such as.” — παρεισάξουσι] 
 cf. Jude 4: “to introduce by the side of, with the secondary 
 idea of secrecy.! — αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας) αἱρέσεις, according to 
 N. T. usage, “ party-divisions,’ cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19 (synonymous 
 with σχίσματα) ; Gal. v. 20 (synonymous with δυχοστασίαι) ; 
 also Tit. iii. 10, which have their origin in false doctrine ; 
 thus Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says 
 that the word is to be taken in no sense different from that 
 which it has elsewhere in the N. T., but then interprets it as 
 equivalent to “ particular systems of opinion,” thus attributing 
 to it a meaning which it has nowhere else. Others take 
 αἵρεσις here to mean “ false doctrine, heresy” (Bengel, de 
 Wette, Fronmüller). This interpretation is better suited to 
 the connection, and especially to the verb παρεισάγειν. In 
 the N. T., doubtless, the word has not this meaning, yet 
 Ignatius already uses it with this force. ἀπωλείας (which is 
 not to be resolved into the adject. “ destructive”) designates 
 the heresies as those which lead to ἀπώλεια; cf. vv. 2, 3.— 
 καὶ Tov Ayopacavra ... ἀπώλειαν] Winer (5th ed. p. 399 £.) 
 translates: “since they also, denying the Lord, draw upon 
 themselves swift destruction ;” but the connection of cai with 
 ἐπώγοντες, so far removed from it by τὸν ἀγοράσαντα K.T.A., 
 cannot be justified. Fronmüller connects the member of the 
 clause beginning with καί not with the relative clause oftwes, 
 but with ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. This construction was 
 
 1 Hotmann is wrong in asserting that in classical Greek παρεισάγειν has not the 
 
 secondary meaning of secrecy ; the verb occurs both with this secondary mean- 
 ing and without it, see Pape, s.v. 
 
CHAP, II. 1. Fay 
 
 formerly supported in this commentary, with the remark, how- 
 ever, that a particular species of false doctrine was not, as 
 Fronmiiller assumes, indicated here, but that the participial 
 clause more nearly defined the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, καί being 
 here put in the sense of: “and withal ;” this construction, 
 however, is anything but natural. The καί must undoubtedly 
 be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though 
 not as a simple copula, but in the sense of “also;” thus de 
 Wette and Wiesinger,’ taking καί as an intensification, equi- 
 valent to “even:” “whilst they deny even the Lord who 
 bought them.” On the other hand, Hofmann does not admit 
 any such intensification, and takes καί as equivalent to “ also,” 
 in the sense of addition, and interprets: “ with their particular 
 systems they break up the unity of the church, which, how- 
 ever, they do not do without at the same time denying the 
 Lord.” But, on this interpretation, it is not clear why the 
 author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. 
 ἀρνούμενοι; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of 
 the church, is simply imported. The participle shows that 
 this clause is meant to serve as an explanation or a more 
 precise definition of what goes before. De Wette’s view, 
 accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann; it is, how- 
 ever, also possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregu- 
 larity of the construction, in that the author, led astray by the 
 participle ἀρνούμενοι, wrote the participle erayovres instead of 
 the finite verb ἐπάξουσι; in which case «al must be taken as 
 a simple copula. — The participle ἐπάγοντες is connected in a 
 loose fashion with what precedes, in the sense: “by which 
 they,” etc. The ψευδοδιδάσκωλοι are more precisely charac- 
 terized as: τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι ; with 
 ἀρνούμενοι, cf. Jude 4; Bengel correctly: doctrina et operi- 
 bus. By δεσπότην Christ is here meant; the author speaks 
 of Him thus, in order to lay stress on the fact that they deny 
 that Christ is the Lord ; ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς is added by way 
 of emphasis: they deny the Lord who “ bought” them, 1.6. pro- 
 
 1 Winer (6th ed. p. 314 [E. T. 441], 7th ed. p. 329) says: ‘‘ Both participles, 
 äp. and ἐπάγ., are connected with σπαρεισάξουσιν ; they are not, however, 
 co-ordinate with each other, but ἐπάγοντες is annexed to the clause οἵσινες . . . 
 ἀρνούμενοι 3” he does not state how καί is to be understood 
 
332 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 cured them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does 
 not only serve to emphasize more strongly what is reprehen- 
 sible in the ἀρνεῖσθαι, but points out also that they deny the 
 act to which allusion is made, and by which He has become 
 their Lord. With ἀγοράζειν, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Rev. 
 v. 9; the blood of Christ must be thought of as the purchase 
 price. — ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν) With ἐπάγ. 
 ἑαυτοῖς, cf. ver. 5, as also Acts v. 28. ἑαυτοῖς indicates that 
 they prepare an ἀπώλεια not only for others (αἱρέσεις ἀπω- 
 λείας), but for themselves. —With raxıvnv, see chap. i. 14, not: 
 a speedy ἀπώλεια; Hornejus correctly: inopinatam et inex- 
 spectatam ; the destruction will come over them suddenly, and 
 before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann). 
 
 Ver. 2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν) The activity of these 
 ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι would not be without result ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 17. 
 With ἐξακολ. cf. chap. 1. 16. — αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις] 1.6. their 
 ἀσέλγειαι will serve as a rule to many, so that they give them- 
 selves up to them; cf. Jude 4. The connection of erroneous 
 doctrine with sensual excesses is shown in vv. 18, 19. — δ 
 ods... βλασφημηθήσεται)] dv’ οὕς, not: “by whom ;” Vule.: per 
 quas; but: “on account of whom ;” they (either the ψευδο- 
 διδάσκαλοι, or those led astray by them, or both) by their 
 ἀσέλγειαι give those who are not Christians occasion for βλασ- 
 φημία against the ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας : cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1; Rom. 
 ii. 24. ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας (Barnab. c. v.: via veritatis), a 
 designation of Christianity or of the Christian religion (cf. on 
 the expression ὁδός, Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 
 xvi. 17, xviii. 25), in so far as it is the form of life in harmony 
 with divine truth (not leading to the truth). 
 
 Ver. ὃ. καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ] i.e. as it were encompassed by 
 covetousness, living in it, governed by it ; it is incorrect to trans- 
 late ev by dud. πλαστοῖς λόγοις] Ar. Ney., 1.2. “ with deceitfully 
 invented words,’* which are not in accordance with truth ; in- 
 correctly Hofmann: “artfully contrived doctrines.” — ὑμᾶς ἐμπο- 
 ρεύσονται] “ they will seek gain of you;” Gerhard: quaestum 
 ex vobis facient, ad quaestum suum vobis abutentur ; thus, too, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, de Wette-Briickner; cf. also Winer, p. 209 
 
 1 Plato, Apol. Socrat.: πλάττειν λόγους ; Artemidor. i. 23: πλάσσειν dort... 
 
 3 δὴ es δ N x yo εν» > , \ 2 ΄ 
 aya oy prropas on. Oh TO AN OYTH WS OYTH DEIHYVEIV TAS TEX VAS ταυτᾶς, 
 
CHAP. II. 3. 333 
 
 [E. T. 279]; this meaning of the verb c. acc. in classical 
 Greek is sufficiently assured." The πλαστοὶ λόγοι are not, as 
 Hofmann supposes, “to be thought of as the merchandise which 
 they bring to the market, in order to be repaid for such 
 instruction,’ but as the means by which they carry on the 
 ἐμπορεύεσθαι. Steinfass translates ἐμπορεύεσθαι as equivalent 
 to: to buy, and ὑμᾶς as the direct object of purchase ; thus 
 Pott too: vos sectae suae conciliare conantur. It is undeni- 
 able that the object traded in may stand in the accusative 
 (ef. Prov. iii. 14, LXX.), but the context here is opposed 
 to this, partly on account of the ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, partly because 
 this thought is already contained in the preceding verse. 
 Fronmüller incorrectly renders the word by “ to deceive.” — 
 By deceitful words as to Christian freedom, etc., they sought to 
 delude others, and, in accordance with their covetous desires, 
 to make gain of them; ef. vv. 13, 14, and Jude 16.— οἷς 
 τὸ κρῖμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ) ois: dat. incommodi; refers to 
 the subj. in ἐμπορεύσονται. τὸ κρῖμα is the judgment of God 
 ordering the ἀπώλεια. ἔκπωλαι is not to be combined with 
 τὸ κρίμα into one idea, equal to: κρῖμα ἔκπαλαι αὐτοῖς προ- 
 γεγραμμένον ; cf. Jude 4 (Pott, de Wette); such a mode of 
 combination is to be found nowhere in the N. T. It belongs 
 rather to οὐκ ἀργεῖ. There is not, as de Wette insists, any 
 contradiction involved in this connection, especially as οὐκ 
 ἀργεῖ is a positive idea; strictly: “is not inactive, does not 
 tarry ;” the idea of haste is not implied in it (de Wette). 
 ἔκπαλαι sets forth prominently that for a long time the judg- 
 ment has, as it were, been approaching, that is, ever since it 
 was given and pronounced ; it is living, and will come in due 
 time. It is possible that ἔκπαλαι refers to the judgments 
 mentioned in ver. 4, formerly put into execution (Dietlein, 
 Scott, Wiesinger), which, however, Hofmann disputes. — καὶ ἡ 
 ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν (ver. 1) od νυστάζει] νυστάζειν, strictly: “to 
 nod,” then: to slumber (only elsewhere in Matt. xxv. 5 ; there, 
 however, in its literal meaning), is used in the classics in a 
 
 1Cf. Athenag. xiii. 569 : ᾿Ασπασία ἐνεπορεύεσο πλήθη γυναικῶν. Philo in Flace. 
 p. 984: évemropevero σὴν λήθην σῶν δικαστῶν. J. Chrysostom : σὴν πενίαν τοῦ πλησίου 
 ἐμπορεύεσθαι. The translation of the Vulg. is inexact: de vobis negotiabuntur, 
 as also that of Luther: “they will trade with you.” 
 
334 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 figurative sense; Plato, de repub. iii. 405 C: μηδὲν δεῖσθαι 
 νυστάζοντος δικαστοῦ. Steinfass inexactly : “ to become sleepy.” 
 
 Ver. 4. From here to ver. 6 three examples of divine 
 judgment ; cf. Jude 5 ff.— First example: the fallen angels, 
 Jude 6.— ei γάρ] The apodosis is wanting; Gerhard sup- 
 plies: οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνοις φείσεται. In thought, if not in form, 
 the latter half of ver. 9 constitutes the apodosis (Winer, 
 529 f. [πὰ T. 712 11, de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, and the 
 more modern writers generally). The irregularity of the con- 
 struction is explained by the fact that the third example is 
 dwelt on at much length. — ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ 
 ἐφείσατο] The nature of the sin is not stated; otherwise in Jude." 
 What sin the apostle refers to is only faintly hinted at by the 
 circumstance that the example of the flood immediately follows. 
 It is less likely (against Wiesinger) that ver. 20 contains any 
 reference to it, for in that verse other sins are conjoined with 
 the ὀπίσω σαρκὸς... πορεύεσθαι. ---- ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου... 
 τηρουμένους] “ but (when he) having cast (them) down into Tar- 
 tarus, hath delivered them over to the chains of darkness, as being 
 reserved unto the judgment.” σειραῖς ζόφου is mostly taken in 
 connection with Taprapwpas (sc. δεδεμένους) (de Wette: “ but 
 cast them down into hell with chains of darkness”); but, since 
 the added ζόφου shows that the σειραί are designated as fetters, 
 which belong to the darkness of Tartarus (not: “ fetters 
 which consist in darkness” (Schott), nor: “fetters by which 
 they were banished into darkness,” as Hofmann explains), the 
 enchaining could only have take place there, and therefore 
 (with Calov, Pott, Steinfass, Hofmann, Wahl, s.v. παραδίδωμι) 
 it is preferable to connect the words with παρέδωκεν (as op- 
 posed to de Wette, Brückner, Dietlein, Wiesinger, etc.).? — 
 Instead of σειραῖς ζόφου, Jude has: δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ; ζόφος is 
 not Tartarus itself, but the darkness of Tartarus; the word is 
 to be found only here and in Jude. — raprapovv does not 
 
 1 Fronmiiller is wrong in asserting that the apostasy of Satan is meant here ; 
 it cannot be doubted that the sin meant here is the same as that of which Jude 
 speaks, and it is not that apostasy ; see my Comment. on Jude. 
 
 2 When Brückner says: “the expression becomes more drastic if the act of 
 casting into Tartarus be completed only by the binding with chains,” this sup- 
 ports the construction to which he objects. Schott translates altogether unwar- 
 rantably : ‘‘ but has fastened them down into the depths with chains of darkness.” 
 
CHAP, II. 5. 990 
 
 mean: tartaro adjudicare (Crusius, Hypomn. I. p. 154), but: 
 “to remove into Tartarus” (cf. Homer, 71. viii. 13: 7 μιν ἑλὼν 
 ῥίψω eis τάρταρον ἠερόεντα). The expression Taprapos occurs 
 nowhere else either in the N. T. or LXX. It is not equal to 
 &öns, which is the general term for the dwelling-place of the 
 dead. Nor does the author use it as synonymous with yeevva, 
 for that is “the place of final punishment, the hell fire” 
 (Fronmiiller), but it is used to designate “the place of pre- 
 liminary custody.” ---- παρέδωκεν here, as often, used with the 
 implied idea of punishment. — eis κρίσιν τηρουμένους] κρίσις 
 is the final judgment (κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέρας) ; “ as those who 
 are reserved for the judgment ;” Luther inexactly: “ in order 
 to reserve them.”— On the reading: παρέδωκεν eis κρίσιν 
 κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, the infin. τηρεῖν is dependent on παρεδ., 
 and κολαΐξζ. states, not: the purpose for which, but the condition 
 in which, they are reserved for judgment; the Vulg. therefore 
 translates inexactly: tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari. 
 Dietlein, in opposition to all reliable authorities, insists on 
 reading: rernpnwevovs, which, moreover, he incorrectly para- 
 phrases: “as those who once should have been kept ;” it must 
 rather be: “as those who (until now) have been kept.” 
 
 Ver. 5. Second example: the flood; this is peculiar to the 
 author of this epistle; cf. the corresponding section in Jude. 
 καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο] The clausal formation is 
 the same as that in ver. 4. Subaudienda est particula: εἰ 
 (Gerhard). The words which follow on this tell in what the 
 οὐκ ἐφείσατο consisted: κατακλυσμὸν K.T.r.; there is no men- 
 tion here of a “destruction” (Schott) of the world. — apy. 
 κόσμος, 1.6. mundus antediluvianus.— ἀλλ᾽... ἐφύλαξε] The 
 thought of the deliverance of the righteous is connected 
 with that of the destruction of the ungodly; cf. ver. 7.— 
 ὄγδοον belongs not to κήρυκα (Heinsius, Lightfoot, and 
 Schwegler in his nachapost. Zeitalter, I. p.515; cf, as opposed 
 to him, Hilgenfeld, Clement. p. 185), but directly to Noe; 
 Luther correctly: Noah with seven others; cf. Winer, p. 234 
 [E.T. 312]; Buttmann, p. 26. There is nothing to show that 
 the number eight has a mystical meaning here (Dietlein).’ 
 
 1 “ Peter looked upon Noah as the bearer of the eight, and saw in the church 
 saved from the flood a holy eight, making a final close to the old world.” 
 
336 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 The mention of it naturally arose from the recollection of 
 the event; at the same time, however, it marks the small 
 number of the saved contrasted with that of those who 
 perished (Bengel, Schott, ete.). Besides, Noah and those with 
 him, as also Lot afterwards, are taken by the author as types 
 of the εὐσεβεῖς (ver. 9), on whom the judgment of God will 
 not come. — δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα is added as the reason of 
 God’s preservation (ἐφύλαξε) (thus, too, Wiesinger). By δικαιο- 
 σύνη is to be understood here, not the condition of being 
 justified (Wiesinger), but a believing and godly bearing to- 
 wards God; otherwise in Heb. xi. 7.— κατακλυσμόν] Matt. 
 xxiv. 38, 39; Gen. v. 17, LXX. Heb. $30: the verb kara- 
 κλύζειν, chap. 111. 6.— κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν] antithesis to δικαιο- 
 σύνης κήρυκα; the world is thus named, inasmuch as it had 
 become the dwelling-place of ungodly humanity. — ἐπάξας] 
 on this form of the aorist, see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. ὃ 114, sv. 
 ayo. 
 
 REMARK.—With regard to its position, Dietlein insists that 
 this verse is intimately connected with ver. 4, so that “the 
 judgment of imprisonment on the angels must be considered as 
 one and the same event with the Noachic flood ;” that the judg- 
 ment on the dpxans κόσμος, vv. 4, 5, must be distinguished from 
 the judgment of God within the second world (ver. 6); and that 
 the latter only, not the former, must be regarded as the example, 
 strictly so called; thus, too, Schott. But the whole structure 
 and mode of expression of this section is opposed to any such 
 division ; for (1) The clauses are simply co-ordinate (as ver. 5 
 is joined to ver. 4, so is ver. 6 to ver. 5, merely by xa/); (2) The 
 ἀρχαῖος κύσμος 15. mentioned only here, not in ver. 4; (3) What 
 is stated in ver. 6 is not brousht prominently forward as an 
 event taking place in the new world; (4) In the idea of the 
 κόσμος ἀσεβῶν the angels cannot be included, since the flood came 
 on the ungodly men only; and it is arbitrary and strange to 
 assume that the flood buried mankind “ in the depths, and those 
 spirits which in sin had taken up their abode with them” 
 (Schott). It is arbitrary to regard the judgment on Sodom as 
 the only proper example, since no other position is given to the 
 judgments mentioned in vv. 4, 5 than to that in ver. 6. The 
 chief reason for the division lies in ver. 9, which consists of two 
 members, due, however, to the two foregoing examples. From 
 the fact that only one of the members applies to ver. 4, it does 
 not follow that there no special example can be intended, the 
 
CHAD. IL 6. Sa 
 
 less so that the leading idea is not “the deliverance of the 
 righteous,” but “the confinement of the ungodly.” Equally 
 little is proved by the repetition of the verb: οὐκ ἐφείσατο, which 
 serves rather to mark off the dpyaios κόσμος from the ayyer. 
 ajapr., not to unite them into one idea. Even Brückner has 
 rejected the view of Dietlein and Schott. Hofmann, too, while 
 questioning it, approaches it very closely when he says: “The 
 judgement of the flood was also a judgment upon those spirits 
 which had become involved in the sin and in the fate of the 
 race of men then living.” 
 
 Ver. 6. Third example: The overthrow of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah; cf. Jude 7.—This verse also is still dependent 
 on εἰ, Schott, without any adequate reason, asserts that the 
 author “has even here forgotten the construction of his expres- 
 sion in the protasis with ei.” — πόλεις Zodouwv καὶ Γομόῤῥας] 
 The gen. as apposition. — redpwoas] Suidas: equivalent to 
 ἐμπρήσας, σποδώσας : “by burning them to ashes, by reducing 
 them to ashes.’ --- καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν] not equal to ever- 
 sione s. subversione damnavit i. 6. unditus evertendo punivit 
 (Gerhard, Dietlein, Schott), but καταστροφῇ is the dative of 
 reference; see Buttmann, p. 144; cf. κατακρ. θανάτῳ, Matt. 
 xx. 18; Pott correctly: in cineres redigens damnavit ad ever- 
 sionem ; thus also Wahl, de Wette, Wiesinger, Steinfass, Fron- 
 miiller, Hofmann; only it must be here remarked that xata- 
 κρίνειν includes within it the punishment, the putting into 
 execution of the judgment of condemnation—which Hofmann, 
 without reason, denies, cf. Rom. vill. 3.— It is incorrect to 
 connect καταστροφῇ with τεφρώσας (Bengel). — καταστροφή, 
 in the N. Τ᾿ besides here, only in 2 Tim. ii. 14; there, how- 
 ever, in a figurative sense ; the same word occurs in the narra- 
 tive of the destruction of the cities of the plain, Gen. xix. 29, 
 LXX. — ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς] Jude 7; 
 with ὑπόδειγμα, not equal to “example,” but to “type,” οἵ. 
 Jas. v. 10; Heb. iv. 11, ete. The perf. τεθεικώς corresponds 
 with the πρόκεινται, Jude 7; Hofmann correctly: “God 
 has made them, as the perf. shows, a lasting type of those who 
 ever afterwards should live a godless life.” * 
 
 1 Hofmann attaches particular importance to the circumstance, that the judg- 
 ment which was effected by water was followed by another, which was effected 
 by fire. 
 
 2 PETER. x 
 
338 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 Ver. 7. Contrast to the divine justice in punishing, which 
 is not to be found in Jude. Wiesinger: “ The expansion of 
 the thought, introduced by the mention antithetically of Noah, 
 ver. 5, gains, by the co-ordination (καί) of the deliverance of 
 Lot, independent value, and prepares the way for the double 
 inference, ver. 9.” — καί] has not here an adversative force 
 (Jachmann), but is simply the copulative particle. — δίκαιον 
 Aor] δίκαιος here like δικαιοσύνη, ver. 5.— καταπονούμενον 
 besides here, in Acts vil. 24 (2 Mace. vill. 2, where, however, it 
 is doubtful whether the reading should be καταπονούμενον or 
 καταπατούμενον) ; Pott, Schol. Soph. in Trachin. v. 328, 
 verba: ἀλλ᾽ elev ὠδινοῦσα exponit per καταπονουμένη. ---- 
 ὑπὸ Ths... ἐῤῥύσατο] ὑπό belongs not to ἐῤῥύσατο, but to 
 karamov.; cf. Winer, p. 330 [E. Τὶ 461];—with ἡ ἐν ἀσελγ. 
 ἀναστροφή, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 17.— ἀθέσμων, besides here only in 
 chap. iii. 17: homines nefarii, qui nec jus nec fas curant 
 (Gerhard). | 
 
 Ver. 8. Explanation of the catazrovotpevov.— βλέμματι yap 
 καὶ ἀκοῇ] is to be joined neither with δίκαιος (Vulg.: adspectu 
 et auditu justus erat), nor with ἐγκατοικῶν (Gerhard), but 
 with the finite verb; it was by seeing and hearing that Lot’s 
 soul suffered, and is added in order more strongly to emphasize 
 Lot’s painful position among the ungodly. — ψυχὴν δικαίαν 
 ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν] “he vexed his righteous soul by the 
 ungodly works,” 1.6. his soul, because it was righteous, felt vexa- 
 tion at the evil which he was obliged to see and hear. “ ἐβασάνυ- 
 few serves to show that the pain at the sight of the sinful 
 lives arose out of personal activity, out of inclination of the 
 soul to the good, out of positive opposition to the evil” (Diet- 
 lein). The earlier interpreters have for the most part missed 
 the correct idea; Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, de Wette, and the 
 modern commentators generally, have interpreted correctly.’ 
 
 Ver. 9. This verse in thought, though not in form, consti- 
 tutes the apodosis to the preceding clauses beginning with ei. 
 The thought, however, is expressed in a more extended and 
 
 (Chip Xenophon, hist. Graec. I. 4, Ῥ. 407 : ὥστ᾽ ἐνίους καὶ σῶν συπαομένων, νομίμων 
 δὲ ὄντων ἀνθρώπων, ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχὰς, ἰδόντας τὴν ἀσέβειαν ; only it must be 
 observed that Lot was vexed at the godlessness in itself, not because he personally 
 had to suffer by it. 
 
CHAP. II. 10. 339 
 
 general manner; the special application follows in ver. 10. — 
 οἶδε] Knowledge is conceived at the same time as a divine 
 power. — κύριος] 1... God, ver. 4. — εὐσεβεῖς, like Noah and 
 Lot.—é« πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι) cf. 1 Pet. 1. 6.— ἀδίκους δέ] 
 like the fallen angels, etc. — eis ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους 
 τηρεῖν] κολαζ. is not used here with a future force: cruciandos 
 (Bengel, Calvin, Winer, who, in his 5th ed. p. 405, resolves 
 the clause thus: aöı. τηρεῖ (ὥστε) κολάζειν, and others), 
 but it must be taken as a real present; it refers to the 
 punishment which they suffer even before the last judgment 
 unto which they are kept (τηρεῖν); cf. on ver. 4. Thus also 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner. 
 
 Ver. 10. Compare Jude 8.— μάλιστα δέ) in close con- 
 nection to what immediately precedes. The author passes 
 from the general, to those against whom this epistle is 
 specially directed. Dietlein introduces a foreign reference 
 when he says: “the apostle means the false teachers in 
 contrast to such ungodly persons as did not base their ungod- 
 liness on theoretically developed error.” — As in Jude, the 
 false teachers are characterized in two respects. Whilst in 
 vv. 1-3 they are spoken of as yet to appear, they are here 
 described as already present. — τοὺς ὀπίσω... πορευομένους] 
 cf. besides Jude 8 also 7, and the commentary on the passage. 
 — σαρκὸς stands here without ἑτέρας, and must therefore be 
 taken more generally. Buttmann (p. 160) wrongly translates 
 σάρξ here by “lusts.” — ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ) μιασμοῦ is 
 not to be resolved into an adjec.: cupiditas foeda, impura 
 (Wahl) ;' but it is the objective genitive, and states that 
 to which the ἐπιθυμία is directed (de Wette-Briickner, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, ete.). — μιασμός, dm. Aey., equivalent to 
 pollutio. According to Schott, μιασμός is here used sub- 
 jectively, “what to themselves is dishonouring to the 
 human body, that they make the object of their wild lust.” 
 — καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντες) cf. Jude 8, and the 
 
 ! Hofmann also renders the idea by ‘‘impure desire, filthy lust,” which, 
 taking μιασμοῦ as an attributive genitive, he interprets more closely thus: “a 
 lust which brings defilement with it, since it pollutes not only him who 
 gratifies it, but him also on whom it is gratified ;” but in this interpretation the 
 
 two expressions, “impure lust” and “lust which pollutes,” are erroneously 
 taken as identical. 
 
340 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 exposition. — ToAunrai] The author drops the construction 
 hitherto adopted, and begins a new clause; the word is 
 a ἅπ. Ney. equal to “insolent, daring;” Luther: “ thiirstig” 
 (i.e. bold, from the root tarr; in old High German, gaturstig ; 
 cf. Pischon, Erklär. der hauptsächl. veralteten deutschen Wörter 
 in der Luth. Bibelübers. Berl. 1844, p. 7). — αὐθάδεις] 
 to be found, besides here, only in Tit. i. 7—Most modern 
 expositors understand the two words substantively; but as 
 αὐθάδης is strictly an adject., it can here also be taken 
 as such; thus Schott. It is improbable that they form a 
 passionate exclamation (Schott). They may be either con- 
 nected in a loose way as subject with οὐ τρέμουσι, or they 
 may be regarded as an antecedent apposition to the subject 
 of τρέμουσι (Hofmann). — δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες] 
 For δόξας see Jude 8. The particip. stands here as in chap. 
 i. 19. Vule. strangely: sectas non metuunt (introducere, 
 facere) blasphemantes. 
 
 Ver. 11. Compare Jude 9. What Jude says specially of 
 the archangel Michael is here more generally affirmed of 
 angels. In this its generality the thought is hardly intel- 
 ligible ; the necessary light is obtained only by comparing it 
 with Jude (de Wette). If the priority of this epistle be 
 assumed, the thought here expressed must have reference to 
 Zech. iii. 2 (thus Schott, Steinfass, Hofmann). — ὅπου] cannot 
 stand here as assigning the reason, as it sometimes does in 
 the classics, since it refers back not to τολμηταί, but to 
 δόξας οὐ «.r.X.; but neither is it equal to “ whilst even, since 
 even;” this use can nowhere be established. It is meant 
 rather to indicate the similarity of the relationship (with 
 respect to the δόξαι). The adversative relationship lies not 
 
 in the particle, but in the thought. — ἄγγελοι] according to 
 the parallel passage, not evil, but good angels. — ἰσχύϊ 
 
 καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες] The comparative expresses the 
 relation in which they stand either to the τολμηταί or to the 
 δόξαι. The latter reference deserves the preference, since— 
 and to this Hofmann has called attention, Schriftbew. I. p. 460 
 
 1 It corresponds to “where” in passages such as: some laugh, where others 
 
 weep ; thus here, these rail where the angels οὐ φέρουσιν x.7.a. It must not be 
 interpreted, with Hofmann, as equal to καθ᾽ ὧν. 
 
CHAP. II. 12. 341 
 
 —it is understood of itself that angels are more powerful than 
 men (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass). — οὐ φέρουσι. .. κρίσιν] 
 φέρειν κρίσιν (Jude: ἐπιφέρειν κρίσιν) does not mean “to 
 endure a judgment” (Luth.), but “to pronounce a judgment.” 
 — βλασφημόν, with an eye to βλασφημοῦντες. ---- Kat’ αὐτῶν] 
 not adversum se (Vulg.), but αὐτῶν goes back to δόξας 
 (Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, de Wette, and all the more 
 modern interpreters, with the exception of Fronmiiller), by 
 which are to be understood here—as in Jude—the diabolical 
 powers. The opposite interpretation, according to which the 
 meaning should be that the wicked angels are not able to 
 bear the judgment of God on their blasphemy (Luther, Fron- 
 miiller, ete.), is opposed not only to the language (βλάσφημος 
 κρίσις equal to κρίσις βλασφημίας) but to the context. — 
 παρὰ κυρίῳ] These words, the genuineness of which is 
 doubtful, may not be explained with Bengel: apud Dominum 
 ... Teveriti, abstinent judicio ; for, as Hofmann justly remarks, 
 mapa κυρ. “belongs to that which is denied, and does not 
 explain why that does not happen which is denied.” “The 
 conception is, that angels appear before God, and, before His 
 throne, tell what evil spirits are doing in the world.” Cf. 
 Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 493]. 
 
 Ver. 12. Compare Jude 10. With all their similarity the 
 two passages are nevertheless very different. The character- 
 istics are still further described in Jude 10, but here the 
 punishment is promised to these men. — οὗτοι δέ] antithesis 
 to ἄγγελοι; the predicate belonging to it is φθαρήσονται. — 
 ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα... φθοράν] Parenthetical thought in close 
 relation to φθαρήσονται; Grotius: ita peribunt illi, sicut 
 pereunt muta animantia. — yeyevvnueva φυσικά can hardly 
 be translated: “born as sensuous beings to,” etc. (Wiesinger, 
 and formerly in this commentary). φυσικά is meant rather to 
 bring out that the irrational animals are, according to their 
 natural constitution, born to ἅλωσις. Hofmann takes φυσικά 
 as a second attribute added to γεγεννημένα by asyndeton, 
 equal to: “by nature determined to ἅλωσις, etc. But the 
 only objection to this is that yeyevynuéva alone cannot well 
 be considered as a special attribute. As regards the sense, it 
 makes no difference whether φυσικά be placed before (Rec.) or 
 
342 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 after yeyevr,— eis ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν] According to Luther, 
 a twofold rendering is possible: “First, those who take and 
 strangle ; second, who are to be taken, strangled, and slaugh- 
 tered ;” the latter is the only correct interpretation. The gene- 
 ral interpretation is, “for taking and destroying ;” Schott on 
 the other hand translates, “for taking and conswming ;” and 
 Hofmann, in like manner, who holds that both are active 
 ideas, “that they may be taken and consumed.” This inter- 
 pretation of φθορά, however, is arbitrary, and all the more 
 unwarranted, that in the subsequent ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν, φθορά 
 cannot have this special meaning. According to N. T. usage, 
 what is meant by φθορά here is the destruction to which the 
 beasts are destined; cf. Col. ii. 22. — ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν PAac- 
 φημοῦντες. . . φθαρήσονται] With regard to the construction, 
 cf. Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 784]. According to the usual inter- 
 pretation, ev οἷς is dependent on βλασφημοῦντες, and is to be 
 resolved into: ἐν τούτοις, ἃ ἀγνοοῦσιν, Bracd. (Winer decides 
 in favour of this; so, too, Wiesinger, and Buttmann, p. 128). 
 But ἐν οἷς may also be dependent on ἀγνοοῦσιν, and be 
 resolved: ταῦτα, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν, βλασφημοῦντες. There is 
 no other instance to be found of the construction βλασφημεῖν 
 ev, although βλασφημεῖν eis occurs frequently. Buttmann 
 accordingly says that by ἐν here (not the object strictly 
 speaking, but) “rather the sphere is denoted, within which the 
 evil-speaking takes place ;” nor is the combination of ἀγνοεῖν 
 with ἐν common, “yet it is not without example in later 
 writings ;” it is to be found in Test. XII. patr. in Fabricius cod. 
 pseudepigr. V. T.p. 717. That ἀγνοεῖν, in the sense of it, may 
 be joined with ἐν, is shown by the German expression, “to 
 be ignorant in a matter.” Besides, in both constructions the 
 sense is substantially the same. According to the connection 
 with what precedes (ver. 10) and Jude 8 and 10, the δόξαε 
 are to be understood as that which was unknown to them, 
 and to which their slanders had reference. On account of this 
 irrational evil-speaking, that will happen to them which is 
 expressed in the words: ἐν τῇ φθορὰ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται. 
 φθορά has been understood here to mean moral corruption ; 
 thus de Wette-Brückner, Steinfass, Fronmüller ; erroneously, 
 however, for the word must have the same meaning in this 
 
CHAP, Ip 1% 343 
 
 passage as it had formerly; then, in this case, αὐτῶν does not 
 refer to the Libertines, but to the ζῶα before mentioned, and 
 καί is to be explained from the comparison with these. They 
 (the Libertines) whose irrational slander of that of which they 
 are ignorant, ma‘.es them like unto the zrrational brutes, will 
 also suffer φθορά, like the latter, who by nature are destined 
 thereto. Entirely different from this, however, is the inter- 
 pretation given by Hofmann. He resolves ἐν οἷς into ἐν 
 τούτοις a, and takes ἐν τούτοις with φθαρήσονται; that which, 
 without knowing it, they speak evil of, is, according to him, 
 the things of sense; he understands ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν to be 
 in more definite and explanatory apposition to ἐν τούτοις, and 
 φθορά actively, equivalent to “abuse” In his view, then, 
 the idea here expressed is that the Libertines by abusing, 
 after their lusts, the things of sense, believing them to have 
 nothing in common with God, fall a prey to destruction. The 
 objections to this interpretation are, first, that ἐν οἷς is 
 not applied to any of the verba near it, but to the remote 
 φθαρήσονται ; secondly, that a meaning is attributed to the 
 second φθορά different from that of the first,—the one is taken 
 as equivalent to “consumption,” the other to “abuse,’—and 
 that neither of these significations belongs in any way to the 
 word ; thirdly, that the reference to the things of sense is in 
 no way alluded to in the context; fourthly, that ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ 
 cannot possibly be in apposition to ἐν τούτοις ; and lastly, 
 that, on this interpretation, we should have had ayvoodvres 
 βλασφήμουσι instead of ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες." 
 
 Ver. 13. κομιούμενοιν μισθὸν ἀδικίας) is subjoined by way 
 of explanation to what precedes.” — Cf. 1 Pet. i. 9. — μισθὸν 
 ἀδικίας) not equivalent to μισθὸν ἄδικον (Wolf), but: “the 
 
 ! Schott agrees with Hofmann in regard to the application to things of sense, 
 and to the interpretation of the meaning of the first φδορά, but differs from him 
 in other points. He states the idea contained in the verse thus: ‘‘ As irrational 
 beasts, which . . . made to be taken and consumed . . . come to destruction, 
 so these people shall perish ; since they rail at those matters which they do not 
 comprehend, they themselves shall perish in and with the destruction of those 
 things against which they rail.” This interpretation is quite as unwarrantable 
 as that of Hofmann. 
 
 3 Hofmann considers the reading &&zovesvo—but little attested, however— 
 
 instead of κομιούμενοι to be the original, because the more difficult one. Tisch. 8, 
 on the other hand, says: ἀδικούμενοι, si aptum sensum praebere judicabitur, 
 
344 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 reward for unrighteousness.” — ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι) This and the 
 following participles, as far as the end of ver. 14, are connected 
 with what precedes, as descriptive of the ἀδικία; it is less 
 probable that, as Hofmann assumes, a new period begins with 
 ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι and ends with ver. 16. The three kinds of 
 ἀδικία here spoken of are: 1, luxurious living; 2, fornication ; 
 3, covetousness. De Wette: “they who count it pleasure.” — 
 τὴν Ev ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν] ἐν ἡμέρᾳ is by Oecumenius interpreted 
 as equal to καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, but this is not in accordance with 
 the usage. Several interpreters (Benson, Morus, Fronmüller, 
 Hofmann) take ἡμέρα here as in contrast to the night. This, 
 however, is inappropriate, for it is not easy to see why they 
 should not regard the τρυφή in the night as a pleasure. 
 Gerhard is better: per τὴν ἡμέραν intelligitur praesentis vitae 
 tempus; Luther, “temporal luxurious living” (de Wette- 
 Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott). It stands by way of contrast to 
 the future, to which the fut. κομιούμενοι refers. —omtrov Kal 
 foot] is either to be connected with what follows: “who as 
 om. Kat μῶμοι riot” (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger), or they 
 are independent expressions of displeasure, like τολμηταὶ 
 αὐθάδεις formerly in ver. 10, and κατάρας τέκνα afterwards 
 (Schott, Fronmüller) subjoined to what precedes by way of 
 apposition (Hofmann); the latter is most in harmony with the 
 animated form of address. Instead of σπῖλοι, Jude has 
 σπιλάδες; σπῖλοι (less commonly o7idor) is equivalent to 
 “spots of dirt,” cf. Eph. v. 27.— poepor: ἅπ. Aey., commonly : 
 blame, shame; here: “blemishes.” — ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς 
 ἀπάταις αὐτῶν] ἐντρυφῶντες points back to τρυφήν, and may 
 not therefore be taken, with Hofmann, in the weakened 
 meaning of, “to take delight in anything,” which it probably 
 
 omnino praeferendum erit. Nescio an ‘‘decepti circa μισθὸν ddixias” verti liceat. 
 Hofmann interprets the accus. μισθόν as an accus. of apposition, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 13, 
 and then translates : “evil happens to them as the reward of evil ;” but though 
 ἀδικεῖν occurs in this wider signification, as in Luke x. 19 and often in Revelation, 
 still ἀδικία never does. — Buttmann has accepted not ἀδικούμενοι, as in B, but 
 κομειούμενοι. 
 
 1 Hofmann arbitrarily defines these expressions more precisely as: ‘‘spots 
 which defile the purity of the church, blemishes which attach to her, to her 
 shame ;” they are rather spoken of thus, because both defilement and shame 
 cleave to them. 
 
CHAP. II. 14. 345 
 
 has in Isa. lv. 2, LXX.; it is not to be connected with the 
 following duty in the sense of: illudere, ludibrio habere, but 
 means, as it commonly does: “to riot;” ὑμῖν belongs to 
 συνευωχούμενοι. ---- ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν is explained from 
 vv. 3 and 14; they practised deceit in this way, that they 
 succeeded in procuring earthly advantage to themselves, by 
 praising their vain wisdom (Wiesinger, Fronmiiller); since 
 evrpvpav denotes the actual rioting, ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν 
 cannot state the object of their ἐντρυφᾷν, that is, “the lies 
 with which they practise deceit” (Hofmann; or, according to 
 Schott : “their deceiving appearance of wisdom”). The opinion 
 of Wolf and others, that ἀπάται means the love-feasts, inas- 
 much as they—in opposition to their real nature—are 
 abused by these individuals to their own profit, requires no 
 refutation, — cvvevwyovpevos ὑμῖν) is subordinate to what 
 precedes. They rioted in their deceits, that is to say, by 
 enjoying themselves at the feasts of those among whom they 
 had obtained an entrance by deceit. — Luther’s translation is 
 mistaken: “they make a show of your (ὑμῶν instead of 
 αὐτῶν) alms (incorrect interpretation of aydraıs), they revel 
 with what is yours” (instead of: “ with you”). 
 
 Ver. 14 has no parallel in Jude.— Description of the 
 sensual lust of the eye of the false teachers. — ὀφθαλμοὺς 
 ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος] The adulterous lust is depicted 
 in their eyes; in the expression: μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, the lust 
 after the μοιχαλίς, revealing itself in the eyes, is designated as 
 a being filled of the eye with it, since they look at nothing 
 else but this. The interpretation of Hornejus is not to the 
 point: quasi dicat, tam libidinosos eos esse, ut in ipsorum 
 oculis quasi adulterae habitent, seu ut adulteras semper in 
 oculis ferant. — Hofmann explains μεστός twos by reference 
 to Plato, Sympos. 194 B, here equivalent to: “to be entirely en- 
 grossed, preoccupied with something.” — It is wrong to suppose 
 (as Dietlein does) that it is here in any way stated that a female 
 member of the house, into which they had forced themselves, 
 had already fallen a victim to their seduction. Calvin even! 
 
 1 Calvin : Isti vos ac coetum vestrum foedis maculis aspergunt: nam dum 
 epulantur vobiscum, simul luxuriantur in suis erroribus, amores meretricios et 
 perditam incontinentiam oculis gestuque exprimunt. 
 
346 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 had connected this verse closely with the preceding, as Schott 
 and Hofmann do; but it is not easy to understand why 
 the persons here described should have had adulterous 
 desires only at the feasts. — καὶ ὠκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας] 
 “not satiated, unsatisfied in sin,’ 1.6. eyes, in which is re- 
 flected the restless desire after ever fresh sin; in ἁμαρτία 
 the reference is chiefly to sensual sins. — δελεάζοντες] ver. 18, 
 and Jas. i. 14: “to allure, to entice;” quasi pisces hamo 
 captare (Beza). — ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους] aornpırros (chap. 11]. 
 16), not: “ wanton” (Luther), but: in fide et pietatis studio 
 nondum satis fundatus et formatus (Gerhard). — This idea is 
 doubtless connected more closely with what precedes than 
 with what follows (Hofmann), so that the sense is: they 
 entice them, so as to satisfy their fleshly lusts on them. — 
 καρδίαν... ἔχοντες] Third vice:' covetousness. The construc- 
 tion of the verb yeyvuvaouevnv, c. gen., occurs also in the 
 classics (Philostratus: 2. 15: θαλάττης οὔπω γεγυμνασμένοι ; 
 3.1: Νέστορα πολέμων πολλῶν γεγυμν.; 10. 1: σοφίας ἤδη 
 γεγυμνασμένον): “a heart practised in covetousness ;” Calvin is 
 quite unwarranted in interpreting πλεονεξία here by: cupidi- 
 tates ; cf. ver. 3. — κατάρας τέκνα] cf. Eph. ii. 3 ; 2 Thess. 11. 3 : 
 “men, who have incurred the curse ;” an expression of pro- 
 foundest displeasure; similar to σπῖλοι καὶ μώμοι, ver. 13. 
 It is doubtful whether it is to be connected with the preceding 
 or with the subsequent passage; the first combination is pre- 
 ferable, because in it the language is more passionate. In the 
 other case the construction, from ver. 10 med. onwards, might 
 be taken thus: τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις, as introducing the section 
 down to τρυφήν, ver. 13; σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι that from there 
 to ἔχοντες, ver. 14; and κατάρας τέκνα that as far as mapa- 
 $poviav, ver. 16. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. Comparison with Balaam; cf. Jude 11. The 
 comparisons with Cain and Korah are wanting here. — kara- 
 λυπόντες εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν K.T.A.] with εὖθ. 00. cf. Acts xiii. 16; the 
 
 1 Hofmann erroneously says that this states “not a third, but a second 
 characteristic of their nature, the avaritia, along with the luxuria,” for in the 
 first half of this verse they are accused of something which is identical neither 
 with luxuria nor with avaritia, and this even if öpfaru, ἔχοντες be closely con- 
 nected with the preceding passage, 
 
CHAP. II. 15, 16. 347 
 
 words connect themselves closely with ἐπλανήθησαν, to which 
 then the subsequent participial clause is added by way of a 
 more precise definition. With ἐξακολουθ. cf. chap. 1. 16, 
 ii. 2. The conjunction of this verb with τῇ ὁδῷ is explained 
 by the circumstance that ὁδός is here taken in a figurative 
 sense: manner of life, conduct.—The form Bocöp, Heb. “ia, 
 arises from a peculiar pronunciation of y; Grotius is wrong in 
 regarding the word as the corrupted name of the country, 
 mans, Num. xxii. 5. Several commentators: Krebs, Vitringa, 
 Wolf, Grotius, ete., assume that there is here an allusion to 
 the counsel which Balaam gave to the Midianites to the 
 corrupting of the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 16; Rev. ii. 14) (so, 
 too, Dietlein) ; but, according to ver. 16, the reference is rather 
 to the intended cursing of the people of Israel, to which cer- 
 tainly Balaam, for the sake of reward, was inclined ; hence: ds 
 μισθὸν ἀδικίας (see ver. 13) ἠγάπησεν. Although such 
 inclination on his part is not definitely mentioned in Num. 
 xxl. 1—20, still, judging from the narrative of the ass, it is 
 to be presupposed; οἵ, too, Deut. xxiii. 5. Corroboration 
 from the rabbinical writings, see Wetstein. — Ver. 16. ἔλεγξιν 
 δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας] “but he received (suffered) rebuke 
 (blame) for his trespass;” his παρανομία (not equivalent to 
 vesania (Vulg.), but synonymous with aöırla) consisted in this, 
 that he was willing, for the sake of the reward, if God per- 
 mitted it, to curse Israel, and for this reason went to Balak. 
 idtas stands here in place of the pers. pron. αὑτοῦ. Dietlein 
 presses ἰδίας, by translating: “belonging to him,” and adds 
 by way of explanation: “to him who must be looked upon as 
 the prototype of the false prophets.” Wiesinger, on the other 
 hand, sees the significance of ἐδίας in this, that “he who was 
 a prophet to others, had to suffer rebuke of an ass for his own 
 παρανομ. But neither the one nor the other is alluded to in 
 the context. — That which follows states in what the EXey&ıs 
 consisted. — ὑποζύγιον] properly: a beast that bears a yoke, 
 here as in Matt. xxi. 5, designation of the ass. — ἄφωνον] in 
 contrast to human speaking. — ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξά- 
 μενον] does not state the reason of the ἐκώλυσε, but emphasizes 
 the miraculous nature of the occurrence (ἄφωνον... φωνῇ). 
 -- ἐκώλυσε τὴν τοῦ προφήτου mapabpoviav] Schott under- 
 
348 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 stands Balaam’s παραφρονία to be his striking of the ass; 
 Wiesinger: “ his folly, in setting himself against the angel ;” 
 but it is more correct to understand by it the aforenamed 
 παρανομία, which the angel opposed. Hofmann rightly 
 observes: “the signification of the verb does not imply that 
 it is left undone, but simply that opposition is offered to what 
 is done or is intended to be done; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 16.”' The 
 word mapadpovia, “ folly,” ἅπ. Ney. (the verb in 2 Cor. xi. 23), 
 unusual in the classics also, instead of which παραφροσύνη or 
 παραφρόνησις ; see Winer, p. 90 [E. T. 118]. — τοῦ προφήτου] 
 (ef. Num. xxiv. 4) stands in emphatic antithesis to ὑποζύγιον 
 ἄφωνον. 
 
 Ver. 17. Description of the teachers of false doctrine 
 from another point of view, in as far as by making a false 
 show of freedom they seduce others to immorality. First, a 
 double comparison, of which the second only occurs in Jude 12. 
 — οὗτοί εἰσι πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι] The point of comparison lies in 
 the deceptiveness of a πηγή, which is without water; it 
 awakens an expectation which it does not fulfil (as a contrast, 
 cf. Prov. x. 11; Isa. lviii. 11).— πηγή here (which Hofmann 
 wrongly disputes) means, as in John iv. 6: a spring well; 
 fontes enim proprie sic dieti non carent aqua (Gerhard). — kai 
 ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι] ὁμίχλη properly mist, 
 here clouds of mist, as the plural already goes to prove, as 
 well as the fact that it is not the mist, but the misty clouds, 
 which must be regarded as foretelling rain. — λαίλαψ', accord- 
 ing to Aristotle (lib. de mundo), equal to πνεῦμα βίαιον καὶ 
 εἱλούμενον κάτωθεν ἄνω ; Mark iv. 37. The point of com- 
 parison is the same here as in the previous figure, only that by 
 ὑπὸ λαίλ. ἐλαυν. their want of consistency (not: their punish- 
 ment) is more pointedly referred to.*— οἷς. . . τετήρηται] 
 so, too, in Jude 13; it connects itself with οὗτοι, not with 
 
 1 Formerly in this commentary ἐκώλυσεν was explained thus: that although 
 Balaam’s παραφρονία was not exactly prevented by the ass, still, by the conduct 
 of the latter, a beginning was made to prevent it. 
 
 2 Wiesinger inappropriately remarks : ‘‘ However empty in itself the conduct 
 of these men may be, still for the Christian community it has the effect of a 
 storm which cleanses it ;” for their conduct is not compared to a storm, but to 
 clouds of mist ; nor is reference made to their effect on the Church, but to that 
 of the storm on the clouds of mist. 
 
9 
 
 CHAP. II. 18. 349 
 
 ὁμίχλαι, as Hofmann maintains, for how can this relative clause 
 express “the dissolving of vapour into nothing” ? 
 
 Ver. 18. Cf. Jude 16. --- ὑπέρογκα yap ματαιότητος 
 φθεγγόμενοι] The γάρ does not serve to explain the figurative 
 words, ver. 17 (as formerly in this commentary), for, as Hof- 
 mann justly says, “the description of their conduct contained 
 in this verse goes far beyond those figurative statements as to 
 their nature.” It must be referred either, with Wiesinger, to 
 the judgment expressed in ver. 17,—— ois . . . rernp. being 
 included,—or, as is done by Hofmann, to the relative clause 
 only; the former is probably the more correct view.’ — 
 ὑπέρογκος, “swelling;” in the classics used also of style. 
 ματαιότης gives the nature of the swelling, high-sounding 
 speeches (“the proud words,” Luther); Luther aptly: “since 
 there is nothing behind them.” The word φθεγγόμενοι 
 (besides in Acts iv. 18, to be found only here and in ver. 16) 
 is here the more appropriate that it is used chiefly of loud 
 speaking. — δελεάζουσιν) Cf. ver. 14. — ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς 
 ἀσελγείαις] ἐν is commonly taken as equivalent to dca, and 
 ἀσελγ. as an apposition to ewıd.: “through the lusts of the 
 flesh, through debauchery” (de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, 
 probably Schott too); but thus there is a felt want of a καί, 
 or of a second ev, and the ἐπιθυμίαι of the seducers, too, are 
 not to be considered as the means of allurement. Hofmann 
 explains: “by means of fleshly lusts, which they awaken in 
 them, through acts of wantonness, the enjoyment of which 
 they hold out to them;” but here relations are introduced to 
 which the text makes no allusion. It is therefore better to 
 take ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις o. as designating the condition of the 
 seducers, and aoeAyeiaıs as the dat. instrum.: “in the lusts 
 of the flesh (1.0. taken in them, governed by them) they allure 
 by voluptuousness those who,” etc.; Steinfass correctly : “it 
 is part of their ἐπιθ. cape. that they seek to allure the mem- 
 bers of the church ;” he is wrong, however, when he explains 
 the ἀσελγείαις as that to which they allure them. Luther 
 translates wrongly: “ through lasciviousness to fleshly lust ;” 
 
 1 Bengel: Puteus et nubes aquam pollicentur ; sic illi praegrandia jactant, 
 
 quasi lumina ecclesiae ; sed hi putei, hae nubes nil praebent ; praegrandia illa 
 sunt vanitatis. 
 
350 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις is not equal to eis ἐπιθυμίας. ---- τοὺς ὀλέγως 
 ἀποφεύγοντας] ὀλίγως, dm. λεγ., is hardly to be found else- 
 where. It expresses both time and measure, and corresponds 
 to the English: “ hardly, just” (thus also Schott). Wiesinger 
 and Hofmann understand it only of measure, equivalent to 
 “]Jittle;” Hofmann understands it of space: “they are a little 
 way escaped from those who walk in error.” The pres. of the 
 verb shows that they are, as it were, still in the act of flight 
 from their former condition, and are not yet firmly established 
 in the new; ef. ver. 14: ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους. ---- τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ 
 ἀναστρεφομένους) not an adjunct co-ordinate with what goes 
 before ; Luther: “and now walk in error;” but the accus. 
 is dependent on ἀποφεύγοντας, and οἱ Ev πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφό- 
 μενον are those from whom the persons who are being 
 seduced have separated themselves, those who are not 
 Christians, especially the heathen, who lead a life ἐν πλάνῃ 
 (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann); Steinfass 
 incorrectly understands by the expression the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. 
 
 Ver. 19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι] Explanation of 
 the ὑπέρογκα pat. φθεγγόμενοι; the high speeches have as 
 their contents the praise of liberty. — ἐπαγγελλόμενοι , they 
 assure, promise, those who submit to their guidance that they 
 will conduct them to true liberty. — αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες 
 τῆς φθορᾶς} A sharp antithesis to ἐλευθ. ἐπαγγεδλ. : “though 
 they themselves are slaves of φθορά. By φθορά moral corrup- 
 tion is generally understood, but elsewhere in the N. T. the 
 word never has this meaning; it should rather be taken in 
 the same sense as that which it has in ver. 12. In Rom. 
 viii. 21 it denotes the opposite of δόξα, which Hofmann 
 wrongly denies. Schott erroneously takes it to mean “the 
 things of sense ;” but these, though they be given up to φθορά, 
 yet cannot be directly defined as φθορά itself" The chief 
 emphasis lies on δοῦλοι. The general statement: ᾧ γάρ τις 
 ἥττηται, τούτῳ Kal δεδούλωται, serves to show that the term 
 is applied to them not without justification. The verb 
 ἡττᾶσθαι (with the exception of in this passage and in 
 
 ! Hofmann, appealing to 1 Cor. xv. 50, understands φθορά here also as 
 
 meaning ‘‘the corruptible ;” but in that passage the context itself proves that 
 the abstract idea is put in place of the concrete, which is not the case here. 
 
CHAP. II. 20. 351 
 
 ver. 20, to be found only in 2 Cor. xii. 13) is in classical 
 Greek often used as a passive and construed with ὑπό, and, in 
 harmony with its meaning, frequently with the genitive, and 
 sometimes also with the dative. The latter is the case here: 
 “to whom any one succumbs” The dat. with δεδούλωται 
 expresses the relation of belonging to: to him he is made the 
 slave, i.e. whose slave he is. Schott arbitrarily asserts that 
 ἥττηται with the dat. brings out that the being overcome “is 
 voluntary and desired on principle.” 
 
 Ver. 20 gives an explanation (γάρ, equal to: namely) of 
 the statement contained in ver. 19, that those there described 
 are the δοῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς, after that the general remark: 
 ®... ÖedovAwraı has been applied to them. Almost all 
 interpreters hold that in this verse the same persons are the 
 subjects as in ver. 19; so that the ἀποφυγόντες refers to 
 those with the description of whom the author has 
 throughout the. whole chapter been engaged. Bengel, Fron- 
 müller, Hofmann are of a different opinion. They assume 
 that ἀποφυγόντες refers to those who are led astray, and that 
 the latter accordingly, and not the seducers, are to be regarded 
 as the subject of the clause. In favour of this view may be 
 urged the term ὠποφυγόντες, which seems to refer back to 
 the ἀποφευγόντας in ver. 18. But, on the one hand, it is 
 certainly unnatural to consider those to be the subjects here 
 who are the objects in ver. 18, especially as ver. 19 has the 
 same subject as ver. 18 ; and, on the other, it would be more 
 than surprising if the apostle did not, from here onwards, 
 continue the description of those of whom the whole chapter 
 speaks, but should, all of a sudden, treat of entirely different 
 persons, —and this without in any way hinting at the transition 
 from the one to the other; in addition to this, there is the 
 circumstance that ἡττῶνται corresponds much too directly 
 with ἥττηται. --- εἰ γάρ] The reality, as frequently, expressed 
 hypothetically. Without any reason, Grotius would read: 
 “ot yap” instead of εἰ yap. — ἀποφυγόντες] The participle is 
 not to be resolved by “although,” but by “after that.” — 
 τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου] Ta μιάσματα, a form occurring 
 only here; ver. 10: μιασμός. ---- τοῦ κόσμου, here in an ethical 
 sense, as composed of those who walk (ver. 18) ev πλάνῃ, or, 
 
332 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 with Wiesinger: “as the dominion over which sin rules,” 
 “the defilements which belong to the world.” Without sufficient 
 reason, Hofmann takes ra μιάσματα τ. κ. in a personal sense, 
 and thinks that it means, in the first instance, “those 
 individuals who are the abomination and blemishes of the 
 non-Christian world, and that τούτοις δέ refers to the 
 Christians whom Peter designates as the σπίλοι x. μῶμοι of 
 the church.” But nothing in the context hints at this, and 
 it is arbitrary to understand by τούτοις other μιάσματα than 
 those designated by that word itself. — ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου 
 .. . Χριστοῦ) 1... by their having come to the knowledge 
 of Christ. — τούτοις (1. μιάσμασι) δὲ πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες 
 ἡττῶνται) ἐμπλακέντες is valde emphaticum; ἐμπλέκεσθαι 
 enim dicuntur, qui tricis et laqueis implicantur (Gerhard). 
 The particle δέ places in antithesis either the two participles : 
 ἀποφυγόντες and πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες, or the first participle 
 and the finite verb ἡττῶνται; the former construction is to 
 be preferred as the more correct. — γέγονεν αὐτοῖς... τῶν 
 πρώτων] The same words are to be found in Matt. xii. 45; 
 Luke xi. 26;1 ra πρῶτα: the former condition, in which they 
 were before their conversion; τὰ ἔσχατα: their subsequent 
 condition, into which they have come after their falling away, 
 ae. the condition of complete slavery to the φθορά, from 
 which there is no hope of redemption: with the thought, 
 Cheb! x. 26,24, 
 
 Ver. 21. κρεῖττον yap ἣν αὐτοῖς] The same use of the 
 imperf. where we should employ the conjunct., Mark xiv. 21: 
 καλὸν ἣν auto; cf. on the constr. Winer, p. 265 [E. T. 352]. 
 - pry ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης] ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς 
 δικαίοσ. is not: “the way to virtue,’ or “the way of 
 salvation which leads to the moral condition of righteous- 
 ness” (Schott), but a designation of Christianity in so far 
 as a godly righteous life belongs to it; ef. ver. 2.2—7% 
 ἐπιγνοῦσιν] The dat. instead of the accus., dependent on 
 
 1 There is a similar passage in Past. Herm. iii. 9: quidam tamen ex iis 
 maculaverunt se, et projecti sunt de genere justorum et iterum redierunt ad 
 statum pristinum, atque etiam deteriores quam prius evaserunt. 
 
 * In Steinfass’ observation: “By the δικαιοσύνης of the ὁδὸν δικαιοσύνης 
 
 righteousness is understood as being not the end, but the wayfarer,” the first 
 is right, but the second wrong. 
 
53 
 
 9 
 
 CHAP. II. 22. 
 
 αὐτοῖς; by an attraction not uncommon in Greek. — ém- 
 στρέψαι] is to be taken here in the sense of: “to turn back to 
 the former things ;” cf. ver. 22,as in Mark xiii. 16; Luke xvii. 
 31, where it is connected with eis τὰ ὀπίσω ; in Luke viii. 55, 
 nevertheless, it is used in the same sense without adjunct; 
 see critical remarks. — ἐκ τῆς... ἐντολῆς} With mapado- 
 θείσης αὐτοῖς, cf. Jude 3.—1 ἁγία ἐντολή is the law 
 of the Christian life, ef. 1 Tim. vi. 14; here mentioned 
 because the passage treats of the moral corruption of the 
 false teachers. 
 
 Ver. 22. The two proverbial expressions which form the 
 close bring out how contemptible is the conduct just 
 described. — συμβέβηκε αὐτοῖς) “it has happened to them,” 
 “has befallen them.’ — τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας] The same 
 construction, Matt. xxi. 21: τὸ τῆς συκῆς ; παροιμία denotes 
 a figurative speech or mode of expression generally. ἀληθοῦς 
 is added in order to bring out that the proverb has here 
 too proved true; the author employs the singular παροιμίας, 
 because the two proverbs following have one and the same 
 meaning. — κύων ἐπιστρέψας ... ἐξέραμα)] The verse of the 
 O. T. Prov. xxvi. 11, LXX., runs: ὥσπερ κύων ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ 
 τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον μισητὸς γενῆται, οὕτως ἄφρων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ 
 κακίᾳ ἀναστρέψας ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν ; in spite of the 
 similarity, it is yet doubtful whether the writer had this 
 passage in his eye; probably he took this παροιμία, like that 
 which follows,—which can be traced to no written source,— 
 from popular tradition. — ἐπιστρέψας} is not to be taken as 
 a verb fin., but the predicate is, after the manner of proverbial 
 expression, joined without the copula to the noun (Winer, 
 p. 331 [E.T. 443]): “a dog that has returned to its e&epaua ” 
 (am. Aey.: “what has been vomited”).—ts λουσαμένη. .. 
 βορβόρου] ἐπιστρέψασα may be supplied from what precedes, 
 but thus this second παροιμία would lose its independence ; 
 breviloquence is natural to proverbs (Winer, p. 547 [E. T. 
 735]); eis, according to the sense, points sufficiently to a 
 verb of motion to be supplied: “a sow that has bathed itself, 
 to the κύλισμα βορβόρου. " — κύλισμα (Am. Aey.), equal to 
 
 1 Steinfass interprets erroneously: ‘A sow that was bathed, in order the 
 better to wallow in the mire.” 
 
 2 PETER. Z 
 
354 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 κυλίστρα: the place for wallowing. The genit. βορβόρου 
 (ἅπ. Ney.) shows the nature of the κυλίσμα where the swine 
 wallow; the other reading, κυλισμόν, indicates the act of 
 wallowing. — Similar passages are to be found in the Rabbis. 
 Cf. Pott in loc. 
 
CHAP, IL 353 
 
 CHAPTER 111. 
 
 Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. ἡμῶν, the reading, according to almost 
 all authorities (Lachm. Tisch.), should be: ὑμῶν. ---- Ver. 3. In 
 place of ἐπ ἐσχάτου in K L P, etc, Syr. utr. Oec. etc. (Griesb. 
 Scholz), A B C** s, al., Sahid. Chrys. etc., read : ἐσχάτων (Lachm. 
 Tisch.); the Zee. is probably a correction after Heb.i.1; cf. also 
 Jude 18.— ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ] has been rightly adopted into the text 
 by Griesb. Scholz, etc. ; it is attested by A B C PS 27, etc., Syr. 
 utr. Arr. etc. Its omission (in K L, ete., Rec.) is easily explained 
 by its having seemed superfiuous on account of the subsequent 
 ἐμπαῖκται. ---- Tisch. has placed αὐτῶν before ἐπιθυμίας, following 
 AS, several min. Oec.; however, B Ο K L P, al., m. Theoph. ete., 
 are in favour of placing it after ἐπιθ. (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.).— 
 Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec. τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, after A, Vulg. Copt. 
 ete. (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.8), CL 8, a/., perm. Syr. utr. ete., read: 
 τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ (Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7). According to Buttm., 
 the reading in B is uncertain. On internal grounds it is 
 difficult to decide which is the original reading; Hofmann, 
 however, declares the reading αὐτῷ to be absurd. — Ver. 9. 
 κύριος] instead of the Rec. ὁ κύριος ; the most important authori- 
 ties omit the article. — εἰς ἡμᾶς] Rec. K L, ete.; instead of ἡμᾶς, 
 A BCR, etc., have ὑμᾶς; and instead of eis, A S, etc., read διά. 
 Tisch. 7 has adopted εἰς ὑμᾶς, and Lachm. and Tisch. 8 δ ὑμᾶς; 
 the reading: sis ὑμῶς, is best attested. Reiche considers that: 
 of the £ec. to be the original reading: ob testium majorem 
 numerum (?) et quia hic modestius et convenientius erat, se 
 ipsum. includere; the most of the modern commentators prefer 
 eis ὑμᾶς: Hofm., however, holds the Rec. to be the original 
 reading. Semler looks upon all the three readings as mere 
 interpretamenta. — Ver. 10. In B C, Cyr., the article is wanting 
 before ἡμέρω; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it.— After 
 κλέπτης the Rec. has ἐν νυκτί (after C K L, etc.), already justly 
 omitted by Griesb. as a later supplement from 1 Thess. v. 2 (so, 
 too, Tisch.).— Before οὐρανοί the Rec, after A B C (Lachm. 
 Tisch. 7), has the article οἱ; in KLs it is wanting (Tisch. 8). 
 — In place of λυθήσονται, Rec., after AK L (Tisch. 7), Lachm. and 
 
 
 
356 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Tisch. 8 have adopted the sing. λυθήσεται, following B C δὲ; 
 perhaps it is a correction according to the common usage. — 
 Instead of the Rec. κατακαήσεται in AL, ete, B K P, ete., read 
 εὑρεθήσεται; Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Ree.; the 
 latter observes (8): dubium non est, quin εὑρεθήσεται edere 
 jubeamur, at hoc vix ac ne vix quidem potest sanum esse; οὐχὶ 
 sive οὐκέτι Si praepositum esset, non haerendum esset. The 
 greater number of commentators have left unnoticed the reading 
 εὑρεθήσεται; not so Hofmann; Buttm. reads: & ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα 
 εὑρεθήσεται ; but & instead of τά occurs in no codex. Cod. © 
 reads ἀφανισθήσονται. See further in the exposition. — Ver. 11. 
 τούτων οὖν] Zee. after A K Ly, etc., Vulg. Thph. Oec. (Lachm. 
 Tisch. 8); in its place B has τούτων οὕτως, and Οὐ τούτων δὲ οὕτως; 
 Tisch. 7 had accepted the version of B.— Ver. 12. Instead of 
 σήκεται, Lachm., following C, Vule. etc., reads: τακήσεται; pro- 
 bably a correction, because of the preceding future. — Ver. 13. 
 γῆν καινήν] Rec. according to B C K L P, etc. (Lachm. Tisch. 7); 
 in its place Tisch. 8 reads καινὴν γῆν, according to AN; this 
 appears to be a correction, after the preceding κοινοὺς . « 
 οὐρανούς. ---- xara τὸ ἐπάγγελμα Rec. according to B C K L pP 
 (Tisch. 7); instead of κατά, A, ete., read καί; and in place of 
 ἐπάγγελμα, AN, etc., have: en Lachm. has adopted καὶ 
 τὰ ἐπαγγέλματα; and Tisch. 8: κατὰ τὰ ἐπαγγέλματα. ---- Ver. 15. 
 According to A B C K PX, ete., instead of the Ree. αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν 
 (L, etc.), the reading should be, as in Lachm. and Tisch.: δοθεῖσαν 
 αὐτῷ. ---- Ver. 16. After πάσαις, Tisch. 8, following K L P 8, reads 
 the article sa%; Tisch. 7 and Lachm. omit raz, after ABC, al. 
 — In place of the Rec. ἐν αἷς (Tisch. 8), after A Bs, Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 7 read: ἐν οἷς; on this see the commentary. — Lachm. 
 has retained the ἀμήν, which closes the epistle, according to A 
 CK LPS, al; Tisch., following B, has omitted it, remarking: 
 solet omnino a testibus plerisque addi ad finem epistolarum ; 
 ter tantum (Rom., Gal., Jud.) non satis auctoritatis est, ut 
 omittatur ἀμήν. Pauci addunt ἀμήν 3 Joh. 
 
 Ver. 1. Not the commencement of a new epistle (Grotius), 
 but of a new section, directed against the deniers of the advent 
 of Christ. — ταύτην ἤδη... ἐπιστολήν] “ This epistle I write 
 to you, as already the second.” Pott: αὕτη ἤδη δευτέρα ἐστὶν 
 ἐπιστολὴ, ἣν γράφω ὑμῖν. Fronmüller incorrectly explains 
 ἤδη by: “ now being near my death.” The epistle first written 
 is the so-called First Epistle of Peter. — ἐν ais] applies both 
 to this and the First Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 
 1117]. The prepos. ἐν does not stand here in place of διά 
 
CHAP. 111. 2. 357 
 
 (Gerhard), but refers to the contents. — διεγείρω. . . διάνοιαν] 
 for the phrase: διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει, cf. chap. 1. 13. — ὑμῶν 
 belongs to διάνοιαν. ---- εἰλικρινῆ, cf. Phil. i. 10. 
 
 Ver. 2. Cf. Jude 17; in Jude mention is not made of the 
 apostles, but only of the prophets. — μνησθῆναι) Infin. of pur- 
 pose: “ὧν order that ye may remember,’ equivalent to eis τὸ 
 μνησθῆναι (Vorstius). — τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν 
 ἁγίων προφητῶν] This applies evidently to the Old Testament 
 prophets ; and with especial reference to the prophecies which 
 relate to the παρουσία of Christ (cf. ver. 4 and chap. i. 19). 
 The Vulg. wrongly translates: ut memores sitis eorum quae 
 praedixi verborum a sanctis prophetis (or sanctorum pro- 
 
 - phetarum).— «al τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ 
 ] N 
 
 κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος] On the commonly accepted reading ἡμῶν, 
 a double interpretation has been given; some, making ἡμῶν 
 depend on ἐντολῆς, for the most part regard τῶν ἀποστόλων 
 as in apposition to ἡμῶν, thus: “of our, the apostles’, com- 
 mand” (Luther: “the commandment of us, who are the 
 apostles of the Lord ;” thus, too, Calvin, Hornejus, Wolf, Pott, 
 Dietlein, etc.); whilst Bengel more correctly takes ἡμῶν as in 
 apposition to ἀποστόλων, as in Acts x. 41: μάρτυσι. .. 
 ἡμῖν ; for otherwise ἡμῶν must have stood before ἀποστόλων ; 
 ef. also 1 Cor. 1. 18. Others, again, hold that ἡμῶν is de- 
 pendent on ἀποστόλων ; thus de Wette: “the commandment 
 of our apostles of the Lord, ie. of the apostles who have 
 preached to us, and are sent from the Lord.” But against 
 this interpretation is the circumstance, that whilst he else- 
 where in the epistle designates himself as an apostle, the 
 author of the epistle would thus make a distinction between 
 himself and the apostles? On the true reading: ὑμῶν, the 
 gen. τοῦ κυρίου does not, as was for the most part formerly 
 assumed, depend on ἀποστόλων, but on ἐντολῆς (Brückner, 
 
 1 Of course τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα does not mean “what has been said before,” 
 but “the words aforetime spoken,” and Hofmann did not require to insist upon 
 it ; the more so that the contrary is not asserted in the commentaries against 
 which his argument is directed. 
 
 2 De Wette thinks, indeed, that here the non-apostolie writer has involuntarily 
 betrayed himself; but, as Stier justly observes, it can indeed hardly be sup- 
 posed that the writer should have ‘‘so grossly failed to keep up the part” which 
 he had distinctly assumed. 
 
358 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass); either in the sense: “the com- 
 mandment. . . of the Lord of the apostles, 4.6. the command- 
 ment of the Lord, which the apostles have proclaimed ;” or: “ τοῦ 
 κυρίου is added by way of supplement to evroA.,” and the expres- 
 sion is to be left as it stands originally: “ your command of the 
 apostles, of the Lord, 1.6. which the Lord has given” (Brückner; 
 thus also Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to be preferred. No 
 doubt the parallel passage in Jude runs: ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων 
 Tov κυρίου ἡμῶν; but the whole epistle, and especially this 
 passage of it, shows that the author of our epistle, even if he 
 had Jude’s composition before him, in no way bound himself 
 slavishly to individual expressions in it. According to 
 Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass, by the ar. du. Paul and his 
 fellow-labourers are meant; this, too, is more probable than 
 that the apostle included himself among them. — By ἐντολή is 
 here, as little as in chap. ii. 21, to be understood the gospel 
 or the Christian religion (or, as Dietlein thinks: “the an- 
 nouncement, 2.6. the historical proclamation, of those predic- 
 tions of the prophets, partly fulfilled, partly yet unfulfilled, 
 which was entrusted to the apostles”); but ἐντολῇ means 
 here, as it always does, the commandment; according to de 
 Wette: “the commandment to guard against the false 
 teachers,” after 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. But it is more appropriate, 
 and more in harmony with the connection of thought, to 
 understand by it the command to lead a Christian life, in 
 expectation of the second coming of Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, 
 Brückner); cf. chap. ü. 22,1. 5 ff, ii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 3. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες] cf. chap. 1. 20.— 
 γινώσκοντες] refers in loose construction (instead of an accus.) 
 to the subject contained in μνησθῆναι. ---- ὅτι ἐλεύσονται K.T.r.] 
 Cf. Jude 18.'— ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ}] gives sharp prominence to 
 the conduct of the ἐμπαῖκται. The word is a ἅπ. Aey.; Heb. 
 xi. 36: ἐμπαυγμός ; with the constr. ἔρχεσθαι Ev, cf. 1 Cor. 
 iv. 21. --- κατὰ τὰς... πορευόμενοι] Jude 18 and 16; ἐδίας 
 is added so as to strengthen the pronoun αὑτῶν. 
 
 Ver. 4. The scoffing words of the ἐμπαῖκται. — καὶ 
 
 1 Hofmann unwarrantably assumes that by that, of which the writer would 
 
 have his readers to be specially mindful, he does not mean only the conten‘s of 
 the sentence depending directly on γινώσκοντες, but still more than that. 
 
CHAP. III. 4. 359 
 
 λέγοντες" ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ] The 
 question ποῦ ἐστιν expresses the negation; “quasi dicunt: 
 nusquam est, evanuit ; denique vana est et mendax ;” cf. 1 Pet. 
 iv. 18. The same form of speech with ποῦ ἐστιν: Ps. xlii. 4, 
 Ixxix. 10; Mal. ii. 17; Luke viii. 25. —-avrod, 16. Christi, 
 cujus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat intelligi (Grotius). 
 Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the name 
 of Christ per e£ovdeviowov; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. 
 According to the connection (ver. 2), the ἐπαγγελία meant is 
 that of the O. T. (cf. chap. i. 19 ff’). In what follows we 
 have the thesis of the scoffers in opposition to the ἐπαγγελία, 
 and the basis of it. The thesis is: πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ; its basis is indicated by the words: ἀφ᾽ ἧς 
 (sc. ἡμέρας) of πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν. On the assumption that 
 the ἀφ᾽ ἧς οἱ mar. ἐκοιμ., as used by the scoffers, means the 
 period marking off the commencement of the διαμένει, and 
 that am ἀρχ. kr. serves only as a more precise definition of 
 it (Brückner, Schott), then by οὗ πατέρες must be understood 
 “the ancestors, the first generations of the human race.” But 
 on this view ἀφ᾽ ἧς «.r.X. is an entirely superfluous determina- 
 tion (Wiesinger), nor would there thus be any indication of the 
 ground on which the scoffers based their thesis; if, however, 
 this be contained in ἀφ᾽ ἧς «.r.X., the reference in οὗ πατέρες 
 can be only either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom 
 the ἐπαγγελία was given, cf. Heb. i. 1 (Wiesinger), or those of 
 the generation to which the scoffers belong (de Wette, Thiersch, 
 Fronmiiller, Hofmann). Now, since the falling asleep of the 
 fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be brought 
 as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it 
 referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1 Pet. 
 1. 10 ff), preference must be given to the second view. 
 . Wiesinger, indeed, says that the time of the composition of 
 the epistle does not agree with this; but as the tarrying of 
 
 1 This Hofmann disputes, saying: ‘‘ by the promise is not to be understood 
 the Old Testament promise, nor by the future the future of Christ, since those 
 who speak thus are members of the Christian church ; but with respect to the 
 Old Testament prophecy, they speak of Jehovah’s coming, and, with respect to 
 Christ’s prophecy, of His own coming. ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου might 
 comprehend the one as well as the other ;” the context, however, is in favour 
 of the interpretation which Hofmann disputes. 
 
360 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER 
 
 the παρουσία had already been the occasion of wonder in the 
 church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had 
 now been in existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite 
 possible that even at that time those who held Libertine views 
 could have supported their denial of the Parousia by the fact 
 that the expectation cherished by the early Christians had 
 remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. 
 At any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words 
 here used are represented as to be spoken at a time then 
 still in the future. Ver. 8, which otherwise would stand 
 totally unconnected with ver. 4, also favours this view.’ The 
 connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a 
 loose one, since on none of the different interpretations does 
 ab ἧς «.T.A. stand in close connection with διαμένει. The 
 thought which has been somewhat inadequately expressed is: 
 Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed,—the pro- 
 mise has not been fulfilled,—a proof that everything remains 
 as it has been since the creation. With ἐκοιμήθησαν, cf. 
 1 Cor. vii. 39, xv. 6, and other passages. — οὕτως does not 
 require any supplement properly so called: “the scoffers 
 point as it were with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of 
 the world” (Steinfass). — διαμένει does not mean “has 
 remained,” nor is it “ will remain,” but the present expresses the 
 continuous, uniform duration ; δία strengthens the idea μένειν. 
 — ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως : “since creation took its beginning.” 
 Ver. 5. Refutation of the assertion: πάντα οὕτω διαμένει, 
 by the adducing the fact of the flood.” λανθάνει γὰρ... 
 
 ! Dietlein’s interpretation is altogether wrong. According to it, of πατέρες 
 means : ‘‘ One generation after another always standing in the relation of fathers 
 to the race succeeding it.” Peculiar, but certainly quite unjustifiable, is the 
 opinion of Steinfass, that the scoffers, with reference to the promise contained 
 in the Book of Enoch, understood of πατέρες to mean “the prophetical, or more 
 definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, beginning with Enoch and extending 
 down to Daniel.” 
 
 * Schott disputes this, and maintains that the scoffers appealed to the fact of 
 the flood in support of their opinion, ‘‘in as far as it did not form a definite 
 close of the earthly development of the world, by an annihilation of the world,” 
 and that now what the writer wished to bring forward against it was why that 
 judgment of destruction was executed simply by means of a flood, and conse- 
 quently was not an absolute annihilation, but only a change of form ; but how 
 much here must be read between the lines, and to which no allusion is made, 
 
CHAP, 111. 5. 361 
 
 θέλοντας] yap is not equivalent to δέ, but designates the 
 thought which follows as the reason for their scofling: “Thus 
 they speak because ;” cf. Winer, p. 423 [E. T. 568]. — τοῦτο 
 belongs either to λανθάνει or to θέλοντας ; in the first case it 
 refers to what follows: ὅτι «.r.X.; in which case θέλοντας will 
 mean: “willingly, on purpose” (Brückner, Wiesinger, Fron- 
 miiller, Hofmann; ef. Winer, p. 436 [E. T. 586]; Buttmann, 
 p. 322. Luther: “but they wilfully will not know”); in the 
 second case τοῦτο refers to the contents of the preceding state- 
 ment, and θέλειν means “to assert;” “ for, whilst they assert this, 
 it is hidden from them that” (Dietlein, Schott). The position 
 both of τοῦτο separated from ὅτε by θέλοντας, and of θέλον- 
 tas separated by τοῦτο from λανθάνει, favours the second 
 construction; that θέλειν can be used in the sense of “to 
 assert,” is clear from Herodian, v. 3. 11: εἰκόνα te ἡλίου 
 avepyacrov εἶναι θέλουσι; the word marks the assertion as 
 one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any 
 certain foundation. — ὅτε οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι]ὔ οἱ οὐρανοί, 
 the plural according to the common usage. — ἔκπαλαι; cf. 
 chap. ii. ὃ, not: “of old, formerly,” but: “from of old,” 1.6. jam 
 inde a primo rerum omnium initio (Gerhard). — ἦσαν belongs 
 in the first instance to οὐρανοί; yet the subsequent γῆ is to 
 be taken as applying to it also. — «al γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος Kal Ov 
 ὕδατος συνεστῶσα] συνεστῶσα expresses the idea of origin- 
 ating out of a combination ; συνίστημι is often employed thus 
 by the Greeks in the intransitive tenses, though the reference 
 contained in σὺν sometimes disappears almost entirely. The 
 prepositions ἐξ and διώ must not be regarded as synonymous ; 
 ἐξ refers to the substance, διώ to the means. A twofold 
 significance is thus attributed to the water in the formation of 
 the earth, which is also in harmony with the Mosaic account of 
 the creation, where the original substance is distinctly spoken 
 of as ὕδωρ, and in the formation of the earth water is men- 
 tioned as the instrumental element (Brückner). There is, 
 accordingly, no foundation for the assertion of de Wette, that 
 the author conceived the origin of the world, according to 
 Indo-Egyptian cosmogony, as a species of chemical product of 
 water. Many interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, 
 Fronmüller, Hofmann, as also Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 441], 
 
302 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 explain ἐξ ὕδατος by saying that the earth arose out of the 
 water “in which it lay buried.” But this interpretation is 
 refuted by the meaning of the verbal idea συνεστῶσα, which 
 belongs to ἐξ ὕδατος; thus, too, an element would be intro- 
 duced which would be of only secondary importance.’ Al- 
 though συνεστῶσα belongs grammatically only to γῆ, yet in 
 thought it has been applied to οὐρανοί also; thus Brückner, 
 Wiesinger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference 
 may be justified thus far, that οὐρανοί is understood of the 
 second day’s work of creation, the visible heavens; but it is 
 necessary only if κόσμος, ver. 6, is to be taken as meaning 
 the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the 
 preposition ἐξ only to the earth, and διά to the heavens; the 
 latter in the sense of: “through the water, between the water.” 
 τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ] draws emphatic attention to the fact that 
 the active cause of the creation of the world was the Word of 
 God; to this τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, the τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, ver. 7, 
 corresponds. 
 
 Ver. 6. & ὧν «.7.r.] The question is, to what has ὧν 
 retrospect? The answer depends on the meaning attached to: 
 6 τότε κόσμος. To appearance this phrase must be regarded 
 as identical with οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ, vv. 5 and 7 (vv. 10, 13), 
 and in support of this view appeal may be made also to the 
 τότε as distinguished from νῦν, ver. 7. On this interpretation, 
 accepted by most expositors (as also in this commentary), δι᾽ 
 - . 3 er a a n t 
 ὧν can refer only either to ἐξ ὕδατος and τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ 
 (Gerhard, Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this commentary 
 also), or to ὕδατος alone (Calvin, Pott, ete.)—the plural being 
 explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly 
 spoken of both as substance and as medium. The objection 
 
 1 The interpretation of Hornejus shows to what eccentricities commentators 
 sometimes have recourse : dicitur autem terra consistere ἐξ ὕδατος, i.€. turds ὕδατος 
 seu πρὸς ὕδατι, extra aquam 5. ad aquas ; δ Yara, ὃ.6. μετὰ 5. ἐν μέσῳ ὕδατος CUM 
 aqua 5. in media aqua.—The opinion οἵ Steinfass, too, that ‘‘ συνεστῶσα is to be 
 limited to the creation and existence of human beings, animals, and vegetables,” 
 finds no justification in the words of the epistle. 
 
 ? With this reference Burnet (Archaeol. Philos. p. 467) agrees, yet he incor- 
 rectly explains δύ ὧν by: eam ob causam, or: propter illam (aquam) ; for he 
 strangely assumes that whilst the former world was ex aqua et per aquam con- 
 
 stituta, this constitutio perished by the flood, so that therefore the κόσμος that 
 now is, is no longer, ex aqua et per aquam, but aliter constitutus. 
 
CHAP. III. 7 363 
 
 to this explanation, however, is that in the account of the 
 flood there is nothing to show that it caused the destruction 
 both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only 
 but not the heaven was submerged; Hofmann accordingly 
 understands by ὁ τότε κόσμος, “the world of living creatures,” 
 as Oecumenius already had done: τὸ ἀπώλετο μὴ πρὸς mavra 
 TOV κόσμον ἀκουστέον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μόνα Ta ζῶα. On this view 
 (where viv only, ver. 6, seems to cause difficulty) ὧν refers to 
 οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ (Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fron- 
 miiller, Steinfass, Hofmann).’ 
 
 Ver. 7. of δὲ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ] The νῦν, which applies 
 also to ἡ γῆ, cannot, if by ὁ τότε κόσμος is to be understood 
 the world of living beings, be taken as an antithesis to τότε, but 
 it refers simply to the present continuance of heaven and earth. 
 - τῷ αὐτῷ [αὐτοῦ] λόγῳ] points back τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, 
 ver. 5; if the reading αὐτοῦ be adopted, this adjunct gives 
 expression to the thought that, like as the originating of the 
 heavens and the earth was dependent on the Word of God, 
 so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If, how- 
 ever, αὐτῷ be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied 
 that the reservation of the heavens and the earth unto jude- 
 ment is based already on the words of creation” Though 
 this idea be surprising, it can certainly not, with Hofmann, be 
 said to be paradoxical. It is, however, also possible that αὐτῷ 
 is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping 
 of the heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God 
 equally with that by which they were created. — τεθησαυρισ- 
 μένοι εἰσί] “are stored up,’ like a treasure, which is kept 
 against a particular time, cf. Rom. ü. 5. Dietlein is of 
 opinion that in the word the idea of use must be kept hold of ; 
 he defines it thus: “that heaven and earth are to serve as 
 the material for punishment, in such a manner, however, that 
 they at the same time perish themselves;” but this is justi- 
 fied neither by the reference (Rom. ii. 5), nor by the context. 
 
 ! Beda likewise applies ὧν to heaven and earth, but interprets (evidently 
 erroneously) διά thus, that these are not the causa, but the objectum perditionis ; 
 i.e. δ ὧν as equivalent to in quibus partibus aere et terra. 
 
 5 Dietlein : “The sense is this, that the same λόγος which created the world, 
 assigned also to the post-Noachic world its time and its judgment.” 
 
364 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 — πυρὶ τηρούμενοι K.T.A.] “ In that they are reserved for the 
 fire against the day,’ etc.; πυρί is more appropriately joined 
 with τηρούμενοι (Brückner, Fronmüller) than with τεθησαυρισ- 
 μένοι εἰσί (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this last term does 
 not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the 
 ἦσαν... ovveorwoa, and it is only in the second member 
 of the sentence that mention can be made of the future 
 destruction by fire ig Hherwise, too, τηρούμενοι would be some- 
 what superfluous. ~ The thought alluded to in πυρὶ τηρούμενοι 
 is further developed in ver. 10. Nowhere in the O. T. or 
 N. T. is this idea so definitely expressed as here; yet from 
 this it does not follow that it is to be traced to Greek, more 
 particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or to Oriental mythology. 
 The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future change in the 
 present condition of the world (“ Heaven and earth shall pass 
 away,” Ps. cii. 26, 27), in connection with the appearance of 
 God to judgment; cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6; especially Isa. lxvi., 
 where in ver. 22 a new heaven and a new earth is expressly 
 spoken of; thus, too, Job xiv. 12. Equally is it more than 
 once set forth that God will come to judgment in the destroy- 
 ing fire, Isa. Ixvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9, 10, ete.; how easily, then, 
 from passages such as these could the conception which finds 
 expression here arise,’ the more especially that it was pro- 
 mised that the world would never again be destroyed by a 
 flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire 
 appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world. 
 —Conceptions as to the world’s destruction similar to those in 
 the O. T. are to be found in the N. T. Matt. v. 18 (24, 29), 
 Heb. xii. 27; of fire accompanying the judgment, 1 Cor. 
 ii. 13, 2 Thess. i. 8; of the new heaven and the new earth, 
 Rey. xxi. 1. — els ἡμέραν... avdpwrwv] The final end 
 against which heaven and earth remain reserved for fire ; 
 ἀπώλεια : the opposite of σωτηρία, cf. Phil. i. 28 (chap. ii. 3). 
 —Dietlein erroneously understands τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων 
 as a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the 
 exception of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such 
 
 1 When Schott denies this, and asserts in opposition that the passages Isa. 
 
 Ixvi. 15 ff., together with Mal. iii. 1-3, iv. 1, are ‘‘the complete statements of 
 that event,” surely no judicious expositor will agree with him, 
 
CHAP. 111. 8, 9. 365 
 
 exception there is here no reference; the phrase has reference 
 rather to the ungodly in contrast to the godly. 
 
 Ver. 8 refers to the reason given in ἀφ᾽ ἧς, ver. 4, on 
 which the scoffers based their assertion; it points out that 
 the delay, also, of the Parousia is no proof that it will not 
 take place. — Ev δὲ τοῦτο] “this one thing,” as a specially 
 important point. — μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς] “ let it not be hid from 
 you ;” said with reference to ver. 5.— ὅτε μία ἡμέρα K.T.r.] a 
 thought that echoes Ps. xc. 4. The words lay stress on the 
 difference between the divine and the human reckoning of 
 time. It does not designate God as being absolutely without 
 limitations of time (cui nihil est praeteritum, nihil futurum, 
 sed omnia praesentia ; Aretius), for it is not the nature of God 
 that is here in question, but God’s reckoning of time which 
 He created along with the world, and the words only bring 
 out that it is different from that of man.’ For this purpose 
 the words of the Psalms were not sufficient: χίλια ἔτη ἐν 
 ὀφθαλμοῖς cov ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἐχθές ; and therefore on the basis 
 of them the author constructs a verse consisting of two 
 members. — παρὰ κυρίου] “with God,’ ie. in God’s way of 
 looking at things. Since, then, time has a different value in 
 God’s eyes from that which it has in the eyes of men, the 
 tarrying hitherto of the judgment, although it had been pre- 
 dicted as at hand, is no proof that the judgement will not 
 actually come. 
 
 Ver. 9. Explanation of the seeming delay in the fulfilment 
 of the promise. — ov βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας] The 
 genitive does not depend on κύριος (Steinfass), but on the 
 verb, which here is not intransitive, as if περί (Hornejus), or 
 ἕνεκα (Pott), or some such word were to be supplied, but 
 
 1 Hofmann is consequently equally incorrect when he says that the passage 
 in the Psalm asserts that “for God time is no time,” but here that “for Him it 
 is neither short nor long.” 
 
 * The following thoughts are not expressed here, although they may be 
 inferred from what is said: ‘‘In one single day of judgment God can punish 
 the sin of centuries, and can adjust that great inequality which, by so long a 
 duration, has been introduced into eternity” (Dietlein); and ‘‘in one day a 
 mighty step onwards may be taken, such as in a thousand years could hardly 
 have been expected ; and then again, if retarded by the will of God, the march 
 
 of development will, for a thousand years hardly move faster than otherwise it 
 would have done in a single day” (Thiersch, p. 107). 
 
366 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 
 
 transitive ; although elsewhere it governs the accusative (Isa. 
 xlvi. 13, LXX.: τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ οὐ Apadvvo), 
 it can, in the idea of it, be likewise construed with the 
 genitive.’ — βραδύνει means not simply: “differre, to put 
 off,” for the author admits a delay, but it contains in it the 
 idea of tardiness (Gen. xliii. 10), which even holds out the 
 prospect of a non-fulfilment; Gerhard: discrimen est inter 
 tardare et differre; is demum tardat, qui ultra debitum 
 tempus, quod agendum est, differt. Cf. with this passage, 
 Hab. ii. 3 (Heb. x. 37) and Ecclus. xxxii. 22 (in Luther’s 
 translation, xxxv. 22), LXX.: καὶ ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ;, 
 οὐδὲ μὴ μακροθυμήσει. --- κύριος here, as in ver. 8, is God, 
 not Christ, as Schott vainly tries to prove.—@s τινές 
 βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται] “as some consider it tardiness ;” that is, 
 that, contrary to expectation, the promise has not yet been 
 fulfilled; Grotius: et propterea ipsam quoque rem promissam 
 in dubium trahunt. tives denotes not the scoffers, but mem- 
 bers of the church weak in the faith.— ἀλλὰ μυκροθυμεῖ eis 
 ὑμᾶς) μακροθυμεῖν c. ἐπί: Matt. xviii. 26, 29; Luke xviii. 7, 
 etc.; c. mpos: 1 Thess. v. 14; δ. eis only heres “with 
 reference to you.” — eis ὑμᾶς] not: “towards mankind called 
 of free grace” (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but 
 in ὑμᾶς the readers are addressed to whom the epistle is 
 written, the more general reference to the others being under- 
 stood as a matter of course. The reason of the non-fulfilment 
 hitherto lies in the long-suffering love of God; the nearer 
 definition lies in the words which follow. — μὴ βουλόμενος] 
 The participle in an explanatory sense: “in that he is not 
 willing.” ? — τινὰς ἀπολέσθαι] τινάς, namely, such as still lead 
 a sensual life. — ἀλλὰ πάντας eis μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι] χωρεῖν 
 here similarly as in Matt. xv. 17 (Aeschyl. Pers. v. 385: eis 
 ναῦν; cf. Wahl, sv.), “but come to repentance,’ or perhaps 
 more correctly: “enter into repentance;” not as Dietlein 
 
 1To combine τῆς ἐπαγγελίας with the subsequent ὡς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, 
 so as to make the genitive dependent on βραδύτητα (Hofmann), produces a very 
 clumsy and artificial construction. 
 
 * According to Dietlein, βούλεσθαι expresses a ““ determination of the will ;” 
 θέλειν, ‘willing as a self-determination ; this is incorrect, βούλεσθαι rather 
 
 means willing, arising with and from conscious reflection ; θέλειν, on the other 
 hand, is willing in general, arising also from direct inclination, 
 
CHAP. III, 10. 367 
 thinks: “take the decisive step to repentance;” Calvin 
 would, quite incorrectly, take χωρεῖν either as equivalent to 
 recipere, so that κύριος would be the subject, or as an intrans. 
 verb equal to colligi, aggregari. — With the thought, cf. 1 Tim. 
 in 4; Ezek. xviii, 23, xxxiii, 112 
 
 Ver. 10. ἥξει δὲ [ἡ] ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης] ἥξει δέ 
 stands first by way of emphasis, in contrast to what precedes : 
 “but come will the day of the Lord.” These words express \ 
 the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment, and ὡς 
 κλέπτης its unexpected suddenness; cf. 1 Thess. v. 2 (Matt. 
 xxiv. 43): τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, ver. 12, shows that κυρίου 
 is here also equivalent to Θεοῦ (not to Χριστοῦ; Schott).— 
 ev 7 [ot] οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται] This relative 
 clause states “the event of that day, which makes it 
 essentially what it is” (Schott). ῥοιζηδὸν, dz. Ney., equivalent 
 to μετὰ ῥοίζου, is best taken in the sense peculiar to the word: 
 “with rushing swiftness” (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Pape, 
 sv.); Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the 
 destroying fire; de Wette, on the other hand, of the crash of 
 the falling together. With παρελεύσονται, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35, 
 v. 18; Luke xvi. 17; Rev. xxi. 1. As to how the heavens 
 shall pass away, see ver. 12. ---- στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα 
 λυθήσονται)] στοιχεῖα cannot refer to the so-called four 
 elements, “inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of 
 fire is unthinkable” (Briickner), and it is arbitrary to limit 
 the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two (Estius) elements; as 
 now the position of the words shows that the expression has 
 reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the 
 world as made up of heaven and earth (Pott: elementa totius 
 mundi tam coeli quam terrae; thus, too, Briickner: “the 
 primary substances of which the world, as an organism, is 
 composed ;” similarly Wiesinger, Schott), it must be under- 
 
 1 In order to deprive this passage of all force against the doctrine of pre- 
 destination, Calvin remarks: sed hic quaeri potest: si neminem Deus perire 
 vult, cur tam multi pereunt? Respondeo, non de arcano Dei consilio hic fieri 
 mentionem, quo destinati sunt reprobi in suum exitum: sed tantum de 
 voluntate, quae nobis in evangelio patefit. Omnibus enim promiscue manum 
 illic porrigit Deus, sed eos tantum apprehendit, ut ad se ducat, quos ante con- 
 ditum mundum elegit ; Beza, Piscator, ete., also apply this passage to the 
 electi only. 
 
368 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 stood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corre- 
 sponding to the expression: ai δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, Isa. 
 xxxiv. 4; Matt. xxiv. 29 (cf. Meyer in loc). This view is 
 justified by the circumstance that in the preceding οἱ οὐρανοὶ 
 . . . παρελεύσονται no mention has as yet been made of the 
 destruction of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with 
 this view, Hofmann understands the expression στούχεῖα here 
 as a designation of the stars, arbitrarily asserting that στουχεῖα 
 “cannot be only original component parts, but must also be 
 prominent points which dominate that by which they are 
 surrounded, —appealing to Justin (Apolog. ii. c. 5, and Dial. 
 ὁ. Tr. c. 23), who speaks of the stars as στοιχεῖα οὐράνια. 
 To this view it may be objected, that the author could not 
 picture to himself a burning of the stars, which appeared to 
 him as fiery bodies; neither do any of the corresponding 
 passages of Scripture allude to this. — The verb καυσοῦσθαι 
 only here and in ver. 12: “to burn;” in the classics: “to 
 suffer from heat ;” the participle expresses the reason of the 
 λυθήσονται: “will be dissolved by the burning.” λύειν, in 
 the sense of: to destroy, to bring to nothing, Eph. ii. 14; 
 1 John iii. 8,—very appropriate here if otovyeta be the 
 original elements. — καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ Ev αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαή- 
 σεται] τὰ ἔργα are neither the wicked works of man (after 
 1 Cor. iii, 15), nor his works in general (Rosenmüller, 
 Steinfass, Hofmann); the reference may be either to the 
 opera naturae et artis (Bengel, Dietlein: “the manifold forms 
 which appear on the earth’s surface, in contrast to the earth 
 as a whole;” thus also Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, 
 Fronmüller) ; or the expression may be synonymous with 
 that which frequently occurs in the O. T.: ἡ γῆ Kat τὸ 
 πλήρωμα αὐτῆς, that is to say, the creations of God which 
 belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of 
 creation, cf. Rev. x. 6. Hofmann wrongly urges against this 
 view, that on it τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ would be sufficient; for even 
 though this be true, it does not follow that the addition of 
 the word &pya would prove that it is “the works of men” 
 that are here meant. With reference to the reading 
 εὑρεθήσεται, instead of the Rec. karakanceraı (see critical 
 remarks), Hofmann regards it as original, and considers the 
 
«435: 
 
 CHAP. III. 11, 19. 369 
 
 words καὶ Ta... εὑρεθήσεται as an interrogative clause 
 subjoined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an 
 interrogative clause may be subjoined to an affirmative ; but 
 when Hofmann, in support of his interpretation, appeals to 
 1 Cor. v. 2, he fails to observe that the relation between the 
 statement and the question there is entirely different from 
 that which is supposed to exist here. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. τούτων οὖν πάντων λυομένων] τούτων πάντων 
 refers to all the things before mentioned, and not only, as 
 Hofmann thinks, to the immediately preceding épya. As 
 regards the reading οὕτως, instead of the Zee. οὖν, it is indeed 
 not supported by the preponderance of authorities; it deserves, 
 however, the preference because it (equivalent to: “as has 
 before been stated”) is more significant than the reading οὖν. 
 The present λυομένων is explained by Winer, p. 321 [E. T. 
 430]: “since all this is in its nature destined to dissolution ; 
 the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in those 
 things” (thus also Dietlein, de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger) ; 
 but it is more correct to find expressed in the present the 
 certainty of the event, which is, no doubt, as yet future 
 (similarly Schott), especially as the passing away of all 
 things, as it is formerly described, is in consequence not of 
 their nature, but of the will of God as Judge. Hofmann 
 denies, indeed, any reference to the future, remarking: the 
 present participial clause brings out that this is the fate of 
 the subject; but this fate is one which is realized only in the 
 future. — ποταποὺς δεῖ x«.7..] As regards its arrangement, 
 this period, as far as the end of ver. 12, is divided by many 
 into two portions, of which the first closes either with ὑμᾶς 
 (Pott, Meyer in his translation) or with εὐσεβείαις (Griesbach, 
 Fronmiiller), and forms a question to which the second half 
 supplies the answer. But opposed to this construction is the 
 word: ποταπούς, which in the N. T. is never used as indirect 
 interrogation, but always in exclamation. Consequently the 
 whole forms one clause, which has a hortative sense (so, too, 
 Hofmann), and before which may be supplied for the sake of 
 
 1 Hofmann, however, does not urge the N. T. usage of σοταπούς in favour of 
 this construction, but ‘‘the want of purpose and coldness of dividing the 
 thought into question and answer.” 
 
 2 PETER. 2A 
 
370 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 clearness: “consider therefore.” The sense is: “since all 
 that passes away, consider what manner of persons you ought 
 to be;” Gerhard: quam pie, quam prudenter vos oportet con- 
 servari ; yet ποταπός (in classical writers generally ποδαπός) 
 is not equivalent to quantus (Bretschneider, de Wette- 
 Brückner), but to qualis. — ἐν ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ evoe- 
 βείαις] The plural marks the holy behaviour and the piety 
 in their different tendencies and forms of manifestation. 
 These words may be taken either with what precedes (so 
 most commentators) or with what follows (thus Steinfass) ; 
 the latter is to be preferred, since the force of ποταπούς 
 would only be weakened by this adjunct. — προσδοκῶντας 
 Kal σπεύδοντας THY παρουσίαν τῆς Tod Θεοῦ ἡμέρας] not: 
 “so that,” but: “since ye...in holy walk... look for” — 
 Most of the earlier interpreters arbitrarily supply eis to 
 σπεύδοντας ; Vulg.: exspectantes et properantes in adventum ; 
 Luther: “hasten to the day.” Others attribute to the word 
 the meaning: “to expect with longing,” but this force it 
 never has; in the passages quoted in support of it the word 
 rather means: “to prosecute anything with zeal,” eg. Pind. 
 Isthm. v. 22: σπεύδειν äperäv; Isa. xvi. 5, LXX.: om. 
 δικαιοσύνην ; but then the object is always something which 
 is effected by the action of the σπεύδοντος ; the original 
 signification of hastening, hurrying, is to be kept hold of 
 here. That by which this hastening is to be accomplished is 
 to be gathered from ver. 11, namely, by an holy walk and 
 piety. The context nowhere hints that it is to be accom- 
 plished only by prayer’ (Hofmann, following Bengel). — The 
 expression: τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, occurs nowhere 
 else; with ἡ τ. Θεοῦ my, cf. ver. 10 and Tit. ii. 13; to παρουσίαν 
 Steinfass arbitrarily supplies “ τοῦ Χριστοῦ."--- δι᾿ ἣν οὐρανοὶ 
 «.TA.] A resumption of what is said in ver. 10.— δ ἥν 
 may be referred either to τὴν παρουσίαν (Steinfass, Hofmann) 
 or to τῆς τ. ©. ἡμέρας ; in both cases the sense remains sub- 
 
 1 De Wette gives substantially the correct interpretation : ““ They hasten the 
 coming of the day, in that by repentance and holiness they accomplish the 
 work of salvation, and render the μακροθυμία, ver. 9, unnecessary ;” and 
 Wiesinger further adds: ‘‘and positively bring it on by their prayers” (Rev. 
 3317.17). 
 
CHAP. II. 13. SAL 
 
 stantially the same. It is to be taken neither as equivalent 
 to per (like διά, c. gen.), nor in a temporal sense (Luther: “in 
 which ἢ); but it denotes here, as it always does, the occasioning 
 cause, equal to “on account of” (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott ; 
 ef. Winer, p. 373 [E. T. 498]). Dietlein translates correctly, 
 but arbitrarily explains the phrase by: “in whose honour as 
 it were.” — πυρούμενοι] cf. Eph. vi. 16; Dietlein falsely: “in 
 that they will burn;” the part. is present, not future. — 
 τήκεται] de Wette: “τήκεται must not be taken strictly as 
 meaning to be melted, as if orovy. were to be conceived of as a 
 solid mass, it can be regarded as synonymous with λύεσθαι; 
 the reference to Isa. xxxiv. 4, LXX.: καὶ τακήσονται πᾶσαι 
 at δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν (cf. Micah i. 4), cannot fail to be 
 recognised.. Gerhard: cum tota mundi machina, coelum, 
 terra et omnia quae sunt in ea sint aliquando peritura, ideo ab 
 inordinata mundi dilectione cor nostrum abstrahentes coeles- 
 tium bonorum desiderio et amore flagremus. 
 
 Ver. 13. καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινήν] This verse, 
 which does not depend on δι᾿ ἥν (Dietlein), but is joined in 
 an independent manner to what goes before, forms the anti- 
 thesis to the thought last expressed, and serves to strengthen 
 the exhortation contained in vv. 11, 12. — By καινοὺς. .. 
 καινήν the heaven and the earth of the future are distin- 
 guished as to their character from those of the present, and 
 prominence is given to their glorified condition ; cf. 2 Cor. 
 v. 17.— The same idea of a new heaven and a new earth is 
 expressed in Rev. xxi. 1.— κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ] cf. Isa. 
 Ixv. 17, lxvi. 22. — αὐτοῦ] ic. Θεοῦ; the O. T. promise, 
 principally at least, is meant. προσδοκῶμεν, which looks back 
 to προσδοκῶντας, ver. 12, significantly designates the new 
 heaven and the new earth as the aim of the certain hope of 
 believers. — ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ] A similar thought is 
 contained in Isa. Ixv. 25; cf. also Rev. xxi. 3-27. Erasmus 
 incorrectly refers ἐν οἷς to the subject contained in προσδο- 
 
 1 Although this passage does not finally settle the dispute, whether an entire 
 destruction, an annihilation, or only a transformation of the state of the world 
 is to be looked for, whether the world is to be destroyed by fire, quoad substan- 
 tiam suam, or quoad qualitates suas, still it gives more support to the second than 
 
 the first idea, since, in spite of the strong expressions which the writer makes 
 use of, it is not decidedly stated that the world will be dissolved into nothing. 
 
3712 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 κῶμεν; it plainly goes back to καινοὺς οὐρ. K. γῆν Kaw. 
 δικαιοσύνη, not equivalent to gloria et felicitas coelestis, utpote 
 verae justitiae praemium (Vorstius), but the vera justitia itself, 
 1.0. the holy conduct, completely in harmony with the divine will, 
 of those who belong to the new heaven and the new earth.’ Hof- 
 mann widens the idea too much, when he says that “δικαιοσύνη 
 is to be understood not as applying only to the right conduct 
 of men, but in the sense of integrity of nature generally.” 
 
 Ver. 14. διὸ, ἀγαπητοὶ, ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες] The parti- 
 ciple does not give the explanation of the διό: “ wherefore, 
 because we expect this” (Wiesinger, Schott), but the waiting 
 for it belongs to the exhortation (Dietlein, Brückner, Steinfass). 
 — σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι. . . ἐν εἰρήνῃ] ἄσπιλοι, cf. 1 Pet. 
 i. 19: ἀμώμητοι, besides here only in Phil. ii. 15, “unblamable” 
 (Deut. xxxü. 5: τέκνα μώμηταλ) ; reverse of the false teachers : 
 σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι, chap. li. 13.— αὐτῷ] not equal to ὑπ᾽ 
 αὐτοῦ, nor is it the dat. comm. (Schott); and as little: “with 
 reference to him” (Hofmann); but: “according to His (ie. 
 God’s) judgment.” — εὑρεθῆναι] refers not to the future time 
 of the judgment, but to the present time of the expectation. 
 — ἐν εἰρήνῃ] This adjunct does not belong to προσδοκῶντες, 
 as Beza considers probable, but to εὑρεθῆναι domı&oı K.T.A.; 
 it gives the life-element, in which the Christian must move 
 (so, too, Brückner) ; cf. Eph. i. 4: ev ἀγάπῃ; 1 Thess, iii. 13: 
 ἐν ayıwovvm, if he would be found an ἄσπιλος : εἰρήνῃ is here 
 not “concord” (Pott, Augusti), nor is it “ the good conscience,” 
 but peace, in the full meaning of the word; the addition is 
 explained from ver. 15. Dietlein incorrectly takes ἐν εἰρήνῃ 
 as the object to be supplied to ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι, which 
 are here used not as relative, but as absolute adjectives ; 
 at the same time, too, he limits εἰρήνη, in the conception of it, 
 to “ peace of the church, especially to peace in relation to the 
 
 !In the Book of Enoch also, similar conceptions are to be found; chap. 
 xe. 17: “and the former heavens, they shall pass away and be dissolved, and 
 new heavens will appear ;” chap. liv. 4, 5: “In that day will I cause mine 
 elect to dwell in their midst, and I will change the heavens,” ete. ; ‘I will also 
 change the earth,” ete.; 1.5: “the earth shall rejoice, the righteous shall 
 dwell therein, and the elect shall go and walk therein ;” x. 17: ‘‘The earth 
 shall be purified from all corruption, from all crime, from all punishment, and 
 from all suffering.” 
 
CHAP. III. 15, 16. 313 
 
 church authorities.” Not less erroneous is it to regard, with 
 Steinfass, ev εἰρήνῃ as the opposite “ of all division between 
 the Jewish and the Gentile elements.” The interpretation of 
 de Wette: “to your peace,” equivalent to eis εἰρήνην (Beza: 
 vestro bono, clementem illum videlicet ac pacificum experturi), 
 cannot be justified on linguistic grounds. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν] See 
 ver. 9: “the long-suffering of our Lord, which consists in 
 this, that He still keeps back the last judgment.” It is open 
 to question whether ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν means God (de Wette, 
 Dietlein, Fronmiiller) or Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass) ; 
 what goes before favours the former (vv. 14, 12, 10, 9, 8), 
 the N. T. usage the latter; in both cases the sense is substan- 
 tially the same. — σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε] antithesis to: βραδυτῆτα 
 ἡγοῦνται, ver 9: “the μακροθυμία of the Lord account for 
 salvation,’ 1.6. as something which has your salvation as its 
 aim, that is, by your making such use of the time of grace, 
 that the fruit of it is the σωτηρία. --- καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς 
 ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος x.7.d.] The reference here to Paul is 
 evidently meant to emphasize the exhortation given ; it is, 
 however, more particularly occasioned by the circumstance, 
 that many persons had been guilty of wresting the apostle’s 
 words, and against this the apostle wishes to warn his readers. 
 — ὁ ἀγαπητὸς x.T.r.| designates Paul not only as a friend, or 
 a fellow-Chiristian, but as one with whom Peter feels himself 
 most intimately connected in official relationship. Hofmann, 
 on the other hand, presses the plural ἡμῶν, and thinks that 
 by it the apostle, with a view to his Gentile readers, would 
 unite the Jewish-Christians with himself, so as to show that 
 the apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them as 
 well asto him. The adjunct: κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν, 
 acknowledges the wisdom which has been granted to him, of 
 which also the utterances which the apostle especially has in 
 his eye are the outcome. — ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν] Which epistle or 
 epistles are meant? According to Oecumenius, Lorinus, 
 Grotius, etc., as also Dietlein and Besser: it is the Epistle to 
 the Romans, on account of chap. ix. 22 (ἤνεγκεν Ev πολλῇ 
 μακροθυμίᾳ) and chap. 11. 4; according to Jachmann: the 
 Epistle to the Corinthians (chiefly on account of 1 Ep. i. 7-9), 
 
374 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 in consideration of the words: kata... σοφίαν ; according to 
 Estius, Bengel, Hornejus, Gerhard, ete.: the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, on account of ix. 26 ff., x. 25, 37. These different 
 opinions assume that καθώς applies only to the last thought 
 expressed in this verse. But there is no reason for any such 
 limitation, since this exhortation is joined in the closest 
 manner possible to that which precedes it in ver. 14. 
 Wiesinger rightly rejects the supposition that καθὼς ἔγραψε 
 refers still farther back, namely, to the whole section relating 
 to the Parousia (de Wette, with whom Briickner agrees, and 
 Schott). — Since the document to which the author alludes is, 
 by ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, indicated as one addressed to the same circle 
 of readers as Second Peter, the reference here cannot be to 
 the above-named epistles, nor yet to the Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians (de Wette), but only to the Epistle to the Ephesians 
 (Wiesinger, Schott, Hc fmann: to this Steinfass adds the First 
 Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to the Colossians ; Fron- 
 miiller, the last-named epistle and that to the Romans). In 
 support of this may be urged the character of this epistle as a 
 circular letter, and the echoes of it to be found in First Peter. 
 It must also be observed, that although the precise thought 
 expressed in the beginning of this verse is not to be found in 
 that epistle, yet the epistle itself is certainly rich in ethical 
 exhortations with reference to the Christian’s hope of salva- 
 tion." It is plainly entirely arbitrary to assume, with Pott 
 and Morus, that the apostle here refers to an epistle which we 
 do not now possess. 
 
 Ver. 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις [ταῖς] ἐπιστολαῖς] sc. ἔγραψεν. 
 By this adjunct the epistle of Paul, referred to in ἔγραψεν 
 ὑμῖν, is definitely distinguished from his other epistles; but what 
 is true of the former is asserted also of the latter, 1.6. that they 
 contain the same exhortations, a statement, however, which is 
 more precisely limited by λαλῶν ev αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων. The 
 
 1 Schott must be considered mistaken in appealing to this, that ‘‘ it is pre- 
 cisely the Epistle to the Ephesians, ii. 11-iii. 12, which contains the most exact 
 development of the idea expressed here in ver. 9 and ver. 15, that the divine 
 direction of history, with a view to the completion of salvation, has given the 
 peculiar significance to the present time, to lead into the church the heathen 
 
 world, which will be the subject of the future completion of salvation ;” of all 
 this absolutely nothing is here said. 
 
CHAP, II. 16. 375 
 
 difference in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be 
 put with πάσαις or not, is of trifling importance for the mean- 
 ing, since it is unwarranted to suppose that πάσαις ταῖς marks 
 the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed collection 
 (Wiesinger),—the article only showing that the epistles of Paul 
 were already known as such. — λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων] 
 λαλῶν is not for: ἐν ais χαλεῖ (Pott), but it means: “when 
 in them (ae. in his epistles) he speaks of these things.” περὶ 
 τούτων can only have the same reference as καθώς, ver. 15 ; 
 that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the Parousia as 
 such, but chiefly “to the exhortation given in ver. 14 f.” 
 (Wiesinger), and what is connected with it.— The remark in 
 what follows alludes to that which occasioned the mention of 
 Paul’s epistles. — ἐν οἷς or ais ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα] It can 
 hardly be decided which is the true reading: οἷς or als. 
 Schott thinks that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if αἷς 
 be read, the rıva must be limited to the passages where Paul 
 happens to speak περὶ τούτων; and if ἐν οἷς, the reference can 
 be to those things or questions not generally, but only in the 
 way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a 
 different view; in his opinion, ἐν οἷς refers to those things in 
 themselves, ἐν ais to the epistles generally ; this can, however, 
 hardly be correct, for it is scarcely conceivable that the author 
 should let fall a remark closely conjoined with what had 
 gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of 
 thought. Besides, ev ais deserves the preference not only on 
 account of the external authorities, but because of the follow- 
 ing: ὡς τὰς Aoımas γραφάς (Wiesinger, Brückner, Reiche, 
 Hofmann ; Schott otherwise). τινά is generally regarded as 
 the subject, and övovonra as the predicate belonging to it; the 
 position of the words, however, decides that övov. τινά must 
 be taken together as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By δυσνόητα 
 must not be understood, with Schott, “the things which in 
 themselves are opposed to the human mind,” but the expres- 
 sions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly : 
 “Twa are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb 
 στρεβλοῦσιν is not suited. What the apostle meant can only 
 be gathered from the connection; consequently the reference 
 here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul with respect to 
 
376 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 the Parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any statements 
 of his, such as are to be found in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 12-58. Still less does the connection appear to justify 
 the assumption that “the Pauline doctrine of freedom ” 
 (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s statements 
 with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to 
 the final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms 
 such a characteristic feature of Paul’s teaching, which 
 could only too easily be distorted by misunderstanding, 
 it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author 
 had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expres- 
 sion. —& οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν] auadıns, 
 ar. λεγ., according to de Wette, equivalent to “ unteachable, 
 with the implied idea of stubbornness and of unbelief.” This 
 is incorrect, ἀμαθής means only “ignorant ;” no doubt the 
 secondary idea given by de Wette may be connected with 
 this (as in the passages quoted, Joseph. Antig. i. 4. 1, and 
 iii. 14. 4), but here it is not to be presupposed, since the idea 
 ἀστήρικτος connected with ἀμαθής, although denying strength 
 of faith, does not deny faith itself; with ἀστήρικτοι, cf. chap. 
 ii. 14. Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to 
 the seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the Parousia formerly 
 mentioned ; but as a designation of them the expressions are 
 too weak; chap. ii. 14, too, is opposed to this (Schott). — 
 στρεβλοῦν, am. rey., strictly: “to turn with the arpeßAn.” 
 Here it means: “to distort the words,’ 1.6. to give them a sense 
 other than they actually have; equivalent to διαστρέφειν (cf. 
 Chrysostom on 2 Cor. x. 8: οὗτοι πρὸς Tas οἰκείας διέστρεψαν 
 Ta ῥήματα ἐννοίας); the word is to be found in another 
 figurative sense in 2 Sam. xxii. 27, LXX.— os καὶ Tas λουπὰς 
 γραφάς] This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because 
 all more precise statement of the γραφαί referred to is want- 
 ing, but because by it στρεβλοῦν, which formerly had refer- 
 
 1 According to Hofmann, it is passages such as Eph. ii. 5 f., Col. ii. 12, that 
 are meant, ‘‘ for with these and similar statements the teaching of a Hymenaeus 
 and a Philetus could be combined,—that the resurrection was already past, and 
 that no other resurrection than that which takes place in regeneration is to be 
 looked for. —This doctrine, combined with the other, that the world of sense 
 
 has nothing related to God, would produce that justification of immorality 
 predicted in chap. ii.” 
 
CIIAP. IH. 17, 18. OTC 
 
 ence ouly to the δυσνόητά τινα in the epistles of Paul, is here 
 extended to entire writings; for to interpret γραφαί by 
 “passages of Scripture” (de Wette), is arbitrary. — It is very 
 improbable that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wie- 
 singer, Schott, Steinfass), since the author would certainly 
 have defined them more nearly as such’ (Brückner) ; probably, 
 then, other writings are meant, which, at the time of the com- 
 position of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for 
 the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is 
 possible, therefore, that these included other writings of the 
 N. T.; but that they were only such, cannot be proved. That 
 the words presuppose a collection of N. T. writings properly 
 so called, is without any reason asserted by de Wette (Briickner). 
 — πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν] ἰδίαν serves to intensify 
 αὐτῶν: “to their own destruction” (cf. chap. 11. 1); the wresting 
 of Scripture has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use 
 of the distorted expressions, in order to harden themselves 
 in their fleshly lust. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. Concluding exhortation and doxology. — ὑμεῖς 
 οὖν] Conclusion from what goes before. — προγινώσκοντες] 
 “ since ye know it beforehand ;” 1.6. that such false teachers as 
 have been described will come; not: “that the advent of 
 Christ will take place,” nor: “that the consequences of the 
 στρεβλοῦν will be the ἀπώλεια" (Schott). — φυλάσσεσθε, ἵνα 
 μή] Since φυλάσσεσθε is nowhere else construed with ἵνα μή, 
 iva «.T.X. is not to be taken as an objective clause, but as one 
 expressive of purpose ; “ consequently special emphasis lies on 
 φυλάσσεσθε" (Schott). — τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ ovvamax- 
 θέντες] The ἄθεσμοι (cf. chap. ii. 7) are the aforementioned 
 ἐμπαῖκται and Libertines. — πλάνη is not: “seduction” (Diet- 
 lein: leading astray of others), for the word never has this 
 meaning (not even in Eph. iv. 14); nor would the ovv in 
 the verb agree with this, but, as in chap. ii. 18: “ moral-reli- 
 gious error;” with avvaraxdevres, “carried away along with,” 
 ef. Gal. ii. 13, and Meyer on Rom. xii. 16. — ἐκπέσητε τοῦ 
 ἐδίου στηρυγμοῦ] With ἐκπίπτειν, cf. Gal. v. 4, and Meyer in 
 
 1 Although in other parts of the N. T. ai γραφαί always means the O. T. Scrip- 
 
 tures, still the addition of λοιπαί proves that other Scriptures are here referred 
 to ; it would be different were λοισάς not added. 
 
378 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
 
 loc. — στηριγμός, a. Aey., is the firm position which any one 
 possesses (not: the fortress; Luther); here, therefore, the firm 
 position which the readers as believing Christians take up; 
 cf. i. 12; antithesis to the ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι, ver. 16. 
 Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of the “remaining 
 at peace in the church.”—-Ver. 18. av&dvere δέ] Antithesis to 
 the ἐκπτέσητε ; the remaining in the firm position can take place 
 only where the αὐξάνειν is not lacking. Calvin: ad profectum 
 etiam hortatur, quia haec unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue 
 progredimur. Hofmann incorrectly connects this imperative 
 with φυλάσσεσθε, to which it is supposed to be related as a 
 further addition; this view is opposed by δέ — ἐν χάριτι καὶ 
 γνώσει TOD κυρίου K.r.A.] does not state “the means and the 
 origin of the growing” (Schott), but that in which they should 
 grow or increase; αὐξάνειν, without any nearer definition, 
 would be too bald in presence of the ἵνα py... ἐκπέσητε 
 κατὰ. With regard to the two ideas: χάρις and γνῶσις, 
 Aretius says: illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, 
 quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero ad Dei cultum, qui con- 
 sistit in cognitione Christi; this explanation is wrong; xapıs 
 can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the 
 exhortation would be, that they should seek to acquire the 
 grace of God in ever richer measure (Hornejus, etc.) ; or—and 
 this is preferable-—the state of grace of the Christians (accord- 
 ing to Calvin, ete.: the sum of the divine gifts of grace). — 
 The γνῶσις is here specially mentioned, because the author 
 regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity.— 
 The genitive: τοῦ κυρίου «.r.\., is taken by de Wette, Brück- 
 ner agreeing with him, with reference to xapıs, as the subjec- 
 tive, with reference to γνῶσις, as the objective genitive; im 
 like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same 
 genitive is inconceivable ;' if it belong to both ideas, it can 
 only be the gen. auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass) ; but since it is 
 more natural to explain it in connection with γνῶσις as gen. 
 objec., χάρις must be taken as an independent conception. — 
 Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ; Hemming: testi- 
 monium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam 
 
 1 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Rom. xv. 4; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; but these 
 passages do not prove what they are meant to prove. 
 
CHAP. III. 17, 18. 379 
 
 gloriam, ipsum verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit. — 
 The expression: eis ἡμέραν αἰῶνος, is to be found only here; 
 Bengel takes ἡμέρα in contrast to the night: aeternitas est 
 dies, sine nocte, merus et perpetuus; this is hardly correct ; 
 most interpreters explain the expression as equivalent to 
 tempus aeternum, synonymous with eis τὸν αἰῶνα, 1 Pet. i. 25, 
 or with eis τοὺς αἰῶνας, Rom. xvi. 27; this is too inexact; 
 ἡμέρα αἰῶνος is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with 
 time, begins, which, however, at the same time is eternity 
 itself. — ἀμήν] cf. Jude 25. 
 

 
Pt 1 ἘΝ OR ew Dk. 
 
 LN TOD UC ELON: 
 SEC. 1.—AUTHOR AND READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 =@ HE author to his name Jude subjoins the particular 
 designations : ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος and ἀδελφὸς 
 δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου. The first of these designations is no 
 evidence against his apostleship, as Arnaud cor- 
 rectly observes (see Philip.i. 1; Philem. 1); but the second is, 
 inasmuch as it is not credible that an apostle, in order to 
 make himself known, should have named himself according to 
 his relationship to another, whether that other be an apostle 
 or not. It is true, in order to prove the identity of the author 
 of this Epistle with the Apostle Jude, whom Matthew (x. 3) 
 names Aeßßatos (Lec. adds: ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδδαῖος), and 
 Mark (iii. 18) Θαδδαῖος, the fact has been appealed to that 
 Luke (Acts i. 13 ; Luke vi. 16) calls him ’Iovdas ᾿Ιακώβου; 
 but it is arbitrary to supply to ᾿Ιακώβου, ἀδελφός, instead of 
 the usual supplement vios; see Meyer on Luke vi. 16. 
 It is to be observed, against Winer (bibl. Realw. under the 
 word Judas), who will supply ἀδελφός, because in Matt. x. 
 3 and Mark iii. 18, Lebbäus is directly united by καί with 
 James as an apostolic pair, that this is properly only the 
 case in the first passage; but in that very passage where a 
 brotherly relationship exists, as with Peter and Andrew, and 
 with John and James, this is expressly stated; whilst Philip 
 and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, Simon and Judas 
 Iscariot are united together by «ai, without any assertion that 
 these pairs so united were brothers. The very mode and 
 881 
 
 
 
382 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 manner, then, in which James, the son of Alpheus, and Jude 
 are placed together in the apostolic lists, proves that they were 
 not brothers. — Further, if it be possible that an apostle could 
 refer to the apostles generally, as is done in this Epistle 
 (vv. 17, 18), yet that mode of expression is more natural in 
 the mouth of one who was not an apostle than in the mouth 
 of an apostle. — Jude does not more definitely state who this 
 James was, whom he calls his brother. But doubtless he was 
 that James who, from an early period, stood at the head of the 
 church in Jerusalem. — Since, then, from preponderating 
 proofs (see Introd. sec. 1, to commentary on the Epistle of 
 James), it is to be assumed that this James, who was called 
 the brother of the Lord, is not identical with the Apostle 
 James the son of Alpheus,’ it is also not to be doubted that 
 Jude is not a brother of the latter, but of the former, and 
 consequently likewise a brother of Jesus. That, nevertheless, 
 he does not call himself the brother of Jesus cannot appear 
 strange, since the bodily relationship to the Lord must retire 
 before the spiritual relationship, which he expresses by the 
 appellation ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ; it is the same reason 
 which induced James in his Epistle not to designate himself 
 as a brother of the Lord.— We possess only very uncertain 
 
 1 Thiersch (Herst. des. hist. Standp., ete., p. 430 f.) rightly observes: “If 
 ever a critical view concerning historical persons was artificial and unnatural, 
 assuredly that is which regards the brothers of the Lord as the cousins of 
 Jesus, the sons of Clopas and a Mary, a sister of the mother of Christ. Herder’s 
 argument against this view is so obvious and striking, that it is almost unin- 
 telligible how such an hypothesis, which does violence to a series of passages, 
 should even down to our times be maintained by critics.” — If, on the contrary, 
 Dietlein (“ Review of Arnaud’s Researches,” ete., in the allg. Repert. von Reuter, 
 August 1851) maintains the idea of the Messianic family, in order to reckon 
 among the ἀδελφοῖς, besides the cousins, also the uncle, etc. of Jesus, history is 
 thereby subordinated to hypothesis. The same is the case when Schott main- 
 tains that “it is opposed to the spirit of the N. T. history of salvation, that an 
 actual brother of the Lord should attain to such a high position in the church, 
 as James obtained as chief of the church of Jerusalem ;” and when he declares 
 that ‘‘ it is a historical necessity that the actual brothers of Jesus should retire 
 into the background.” The other proofs by which Schott, who considers the 
 so-called ‘* brothers of Jesus” as his actual brothers, will attempt to prove that 
 the James and Jude here mentioned belong not to them but to the apostles, are 
 not here, but in the commentary to the Epistle of James, discussed ; so also with 
 regard to the view of Hofmann, who likewise regards the author of this Epistle 
 and his brother James as the Apostles Jude and James. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 383 
 
 notices of the personal history and labours of Jude (for an 
 account of them, see Arnaud), which are the less to be con- 
 sidered as historical, since they are not only frequently con- 
 tradictory, but also in them the author of the Epistle and the 
 Apostle Jude are confounded together. 
 
 The readers, for whom this Epistle was primarily intended, 
 are described only in the most general terms, and neither their 
 locality nor their condition is definitely stated. There is no 
 indication that the Epistle was written only to Jewish Chris- 
 tians. Arnaud, indeed, with truth remarks: “ Jude expounds 
 his proofs in a manner peculiar to the Jews. From the 
 beginning to the end he uses their mode of speech and their 
 manner of expressing an idea; he employs images and com- 
 parisons, makes allusions, and uses myths, traditions, and 
 examples which were familiar to them.’ But all this might 
 have its reason in the individuality of the writer, without 
 being conditioned by a regard to the readers. Most expositors 
 assume that the readers resided in Asia Minor; on the con- 
 trary, Schmidt, Credner, Augusti, Arnaud, and Wiesinger are 
 of opinion that they are to be sought for in Palestine. The 
 question cannot with certainty be decided. 
 
 SEC. 2.—OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. TIME AND 
 PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION. 
 
 The object of the Epistle is the confirmation of the readers 
 in the gospel published to them by the apostles, in opposition 
 to certain intruders, who, abusing the liberty of the gospel, 
 gave themselves up to immoral excesses, and even to blas- 
 pheming the divine majesty. De Wette, Schwegler, Arnaud, 
 Reuss, Bleek, Briickner, and Hofmann consider them to be 
 only vicious men. On the contrary, Dorner (Entwicklungsgesch. 
 der Lehre von der Person Christi, Thl. I. p. 104) observes: 
 “The opponents of Jude are not only corrupt in practice, but 
 also heretical teachers.” They are not indeed described as 
 actual false teachers; but yet from vv. 4, 8, 18, 19, we can 
 hardly think otherwise than that their libertinism was con- 
 joined with dogmatic (perhaps Gnostic) errors: on which 
 
384 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 account also Briickner states that “they had points which 
 bordered on the dogmatic;” and Hofmann says that “they 
 screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions.” 
 Weiss (Petrin. Frage IL. in Stud. wu. Krit. 1866, H. 2) calls 
 them “ Libertines on principle.” ὁ That they attached them- 
 selves to a particular definite Gnostic system, for example, 
 that of the Carpocratians (Clemens Alexandrinus), cannot be 
 proved. Their tendency appears to have been related to the 
 error of the Nicolaitanes and the Balaamites (Rev. ii.); 
 (Thiersch, Wiesinger, Schott). Jude opposes to them simply 
 the apostolic gospel, without particularly characterizing the 
 points of their contradiction to it. 
 
 It is peculiar to this Epistle, that passages occur in it which 
 appear to be taken from the apocryphal book of Enoch, or, if 
 this should not be the case, at least to have arisen from an 
 apocryphal tradition of Enoch; as the quotation contained in 
 vv. 14, 15; the statement about the sin of the angels and 
 their punishment, ver. 6; the description of the false teachers, 
 ver. 8; also the reference (ver. 9) to the apocryphal tradition 
 of the contest of Michael with the devil is peculiar? This 
 admixture of apocryphal traits can, on an unprejudiced con- 
 sideration, only serve to strengthen the conviction that the 
 Epistle does not proceed from an apostle. 
 
 The train of thought is as follows: After the address, in 
 which the readers are only generally characterized as Chris- 
 tians, the author states that he esteemed it necessary to exhort 
 them to continue in the faith delivered to them (ver. 3), and 
 that because of certain intruders, whom he designates as 
 lascivious men and deniers of Jesus Christ, whose condemna- 
 tion was certain (ver. 4). That this condemnation will come 
 upon them, he confirms by three examples: that of the people 
 
 1 See also Ritschl, Abhandl. üb. die im Br. des Judas charakterisirten 
 Antinomisten in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, part I. p. 103ff. The opinion of 
 Ritschl, that these heretics had retained only abstractly their principle that 
 grace establishes freedom to practise immorality, has been justly rejected by 
 Wiesinger as unwarrantable. 
 
 ? Hofmann disputes this, maintaining that in Jude there occurs only an inter- 
 pretation or expansion of what is stated in Scripture, and which is as justified as 
 that which occurs in Acts vii. 22f., xiii. 21; Gal. iv. 28; Heb. xi. 37 ; 2 Tim. 
 iii. 8; although he grants that more is signified in Jude than in these passages. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 385 
 
 delivered from Egypt, that of the fallen angels, and that of the 
 cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (vv. 5-7). These intruders are 
 then described by two characteristics, namely, as defilers of the 
 flesh and as despisers and blasphemers of heavenly dignities ; 
 the greatness of their sin is brought prominently forward by 
 comparison with the conduct of Michael in his contest with 
 the devil, and a woe is denounced upon them as those who 
 walk in the way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah (vv. 8-11). In 
 the following verses (vv. 12, 13) the author proceeds with his 
 description, adducing their debauchery at the Agapae, and 
 representing in various figurative expressions their vain and 
 impudent conduct, by which he is reminded of the judgment 
 which awaits them, quoting for this purpose a saying of Enoch 
 as a prophecy which holds good of them (vv. 14,15). To 
 this succeeds some additional characteristics of those erroneous 
 teachers, to which an exhortation to the readers is added to 
 be mindful of the words of the apostles who have prophesied 
 of the appearance of such mockers (vv. 16-18). After Jude, 
 with another glance’at his opponents, has exhorted his readers 
 to keep themselves by faith and prayer in the love of God, and 
 to wait for the mercy of Christ (vv. 19-21), he gives a short 
 direction how to behave toward those who have been already 
 perverted (vv. 22, 23). A doxology forms the conclusion of 
 the Epistle (vv. 24, 25). 
 
 The Epistle contains no other data for the determination of 
 the time of its composition than the description of the heretics 
 and the exhortation to attend to the preaching of the apostles; 
 but from these it may be inferred that it belongs not to the 
 earlier, but, as most expositors assume,! to the later apostolic 
 age; although “ there is no necessity, with Reuss, to assign it 
 to the extreme limits of the apostolie literature ” (Brückner). 
 Although in the Pastoral Epistles the immoral life of the 
 heretics there attacked is censured, yet libertinism does not 
 appear to have attained to the same stage of development as 
 with the opponents of Jude; and Jude would hardly have 
 appealed to the preaching of the apostles as a thing of the 
 
 1The reasons by which Schott endeavours to prove that the Epistle was 
 written at the end of the year seventy, or the beginning of the year eighty, are 
 too uncertain to enable us to draw this conclusion with certainty. 
 JUDE. 2B 
 
386 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 
 
 past, if the apostles were yet at the height of their apostolic 
 activity. Bertholdt, Guericke, Stier, Arnaud, and others think, 
 from the fact that there is no mention of the judgment of God 
 on Jerusalem, that it is to be inferred that the Epistle was 
 written before the destruction of that city, since Jude would 
 certainly not have omitted this most fearful and most signi- 
 ficant judgment, if it had already taken place, particularly as 
 he mentions almost all the most noted examples of divine 
 judgments. But this conclusion is very uncertain, especially 
 as the hypothesis on which it is founded is incorrect. Jude 
 takes at random only some of many examples, and indeed such 
 —at least this is evidently the case with the judgment on the 
 angels, and with that on Sodom and Gomorrha—as refer to 
 a definite kind of sin, which is not applicable to the judg- 
 ment on Jerusalem. He mentions neither the deluge nor the 
 first destruction of Jerusalem. From the relation which exists 
 between this Epistle and the apocryphal book of Enoch, nothing 
 certain regarding the period of composition can be inferred, 
 particularly as the opinion concerning that relation is by no 
 means: settled ; for whilst early critics assert the origin of 
 this book, at least in its original condition, to pre-Christian 
 times, and assume later interpolations, as Lücke (Zünleitung in 
 die Offb. Joh., etc.), Ewald, Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen über 
 die evangel. Geschichte), Kostlin (Tübing. theol. Jahrbb. 1856), 
 especially Dillmann (das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt, 
 1853), and others; Hofmann and Ferd. Philippi (in his book, 
 das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter, etc., 1868) attempt to prove 
 that it belongs to the Christian age, and was composed by a 
 Jewish Christian ; the reasons, however, adduced by them are 
 not sufficient to cause us to regard the result of their exami- 
 nation as well founded. 
 
 Mayerhoff (Einl. in die Petrin. Schriften, p. 195) supposes 
 the place of composition to be Egypt, because Clemens 
 Alexandrinus first quotes it, because the images employed 
 in ver. 12 refer to a country which bordered on the sea, and 
 was frequently exposed to drought by the east and south 
 winds, and because the book of Enoch was first used in Egypt. 
 But Schwegler has correctly rejected these reasons as in- 
 sufficient. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 387 
 
 SEC. 8.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE, 
 
 Eusebius reckons this Epistle, as indeed all the Catholic 
 Epistles, except First John and First Peter, among the Anti- 
 legomena, The earliest Fathers who mention it are Tertullian 
 (de habit. mul. c. 3) and Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. iii. 
 p. 431, Paedag. ii. 8, p. 239, ed. Sylb.), who has also com- 
 mented on it. Origen often quotes it, and distinguishes it by 
 special praise; Comm. on Matt. xiii. 55: ᾿Ιούδας ἔγραψεν 
 ἐπιστολὴν, ὀλιγόστιχον μὲν, πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς οὐρανίου 
 χάριτος ἐῤῥωμένων λόγων. He, however, indicates that its 
 genuineness is doubted by many. Jerome also mentions these 
 doubts, saying that many rejected it on account of the 
 quotation from the apocryphal book of Enoch; he himself, 
 however, considered it as genuine. It is wanting in the 
 Peshito (but not in the MS. in the Bodleian Library at 
 Oxford; see Guericke, Hinl. p. 42); but, on the other hand, 
 it is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. Since the fourth 
 century it has been generally acknowledged as a genuine 
 canonical writing. As the author does not call himself an 
 apostle, criticism in more recent times was more inclined to 
 consider it authentic than some other writings of the N. T. 
 Even de Wette observes, that there is no reason why Jude 
 should not be the author of this Epistle; neither its use of 
 the book of Enoch, nor its probable acquaintance with the 
 Epistle to the Romans, nor its harsh style, though betraying 
 a familiarity with the Greek language, are opposed to this.— 
 Schwegler judges otherwise. He infers from vv. 17, 18 that 
 the Epistle belongs to the post-apostolic times, although in 
 point of doctrine its character is very simple and undeveloped. 
 He thinks that the forger chose the name of Jude, the brother 
 of James, in order to indicate the community of principle 
 with this latter person. In opposition to this it is to be 
 observed, that, had the Epistle been written in the interests 
 of Jewish Christianity against Pauline, we should surely have 
 found indications of this; and a forger would hardly have 
 attributed his writing to Jude, a person otherwise so entirely 
 unknown. The above-mentioned verses by no means point 
 
388 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 to a post-apostolic age, since they rather suppose that the 
 readers have heard the preaching of the apostles. The fact 
 that we find no definite references to this Epistle among the 
 early Fathers, and that its genuineness at a later period was 
 not wholly undoubted, is easily accounted for, partly from its 
 special tendency (particularly from doctrine being so little 
 referred to), partly from the apocryphal traits with which it 
 is pervaded, and partly from the fact that the author did not 
 belong to the apostles. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 389 
 
 ᾿Ιούδα ἐπιστολή. 
 
 Instead of this superscription (in A © K) there is found in B 
 only ᾿Ιούδα. 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of ’Ine. Xp. (Rec. after A BLY, etc., several 
 vss. ete., Lachm. Tisch. 8) Tisch. 7 had adopted Χριστοῦ ’Inood, after 
 K P, etc., without sufficient justification. — ἡγιασμένοις] Lee. after 
 K L P, ete.; instead of this ἠἡγαπημένοις, in A BY, 5, al., Syr. 
 utr. Erp. Copt. ete., Orig. Eph., is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 It is true that there are exegetical difficulties connected with 
 the latter reading, but it is too strongly defended by authorities 
 to be on that account considered spurious. Reiche, Schott, 
 Hofmann have declared for it, Wiesinger against it; Briickner 
 is undecided. — Ver. 3. τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας] Rec. after K LP, al. ; 
 Tisch. 7 has retained this reading ; Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the 
 contrary, read κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας, for which A BC x, 5, al., Syr. 
 Erp. Sahid. Theoph. Lucif. testify. The weight of authorities 
 is in favour of this latter reading; it is possible that ἡμῶν was 
 omitted, in order to give to the idea a universal character. — 
 Ver. 4. Instead of the usual form χάριν, Lachm. and Tisch., after 
 A B, read χάριτα, which occurs in classical writers only among 
 the poets (see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprachl. § 44. Anm. 1) 
 [ΕΒ T. 13]. — τὸν μύνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν ’I. Xp. with 
 Griesbach, Scholz, Tittmann, Lachm. Tisch., after the testi- 
 monies of A BC καὶ, 10, Lect. 1, 3, Erp. Copt. Sahid. etc., Eph. 
 Didym. Chrys.— The Rec. has after δεσπότην the word Θεόν (in 
 K LP, etc, Syr. utr. Thph.), which, however, is a later 
 addition, the more definitely to distinguish δεσπότην from κύριον 
 ἡμῶν. In later MSS. many other variations are found, namely : 
 Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην τὸν κύρ. nu. I. Xp., OT δεσπότην καὶ Θεὸν τὸν κύρ. Mk. 
 "I. Xp., OT Θεὸν δεσπότην καὶ κύρ. nu. I. Xp.— Ver. 5. After εἰδότας 
 the Rec. has ὑμᾶς ; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is 
 wanting in AB C** several min. etc., but is found in Καὶ L Ns, 
 etc. It may have been omitted on account of the preceding 
 ὑμᾶς. ---- τοῦτο (Rec. after K L, etc.) appears to be an explanatory 
 correction instead of the original πάντα, for which AB C** x, 
 etc., Vulg. etc, testify; also Reiche considers πάντα as the 
 
 
 
390 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 original reading. N has ἅπαξ after κύριος, so also several 
 versions, yet after ὅτι κύριος. Two reasons co-operated for this 
 displacement: (1) because ἅπαξ did not appear to suit <idéras, 
 and (2) because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to require a 
 word corresponding with σώσας. Tisch. on this observes: quae 
 quidem lectio omnino praeferenda esset alteri, nisi incredibile 
 esset ἅπαξ locum post εἰδότας a quopiam correctore nactum 
 esse. Reiche remarks: loco, quem vulgo occupat, testium 
 auctoritate servari debet.—The Ree. ὁ κύριος is found in KL, 
 most min. some vss. and Fathers; Tisch. 7 has retained it; 
 Tisch. 8 reads, after C* 8, χύριος without the article AB, 
 several min. etc., have Ἰησοῦς instead of κύριος (on this Tisch. ὃ 
 remarks: articulum om. et A B et reliqui qui Ἰησοῦς praebent) ; 
 Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ; C** and Lucif. read 
 ὁ Θεός. The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (instead of κύριος) is indeed very 
 strange, but might for this reason be changed into the other 
 readings. — Ver. 6. Instead of τε after ἀγγέλους (Tisch.), A, some 
 min. ete., have δέ. Lachm. has δέ in the text-edition ; but, on the 
 other hand, in the larger edition he has rightly again adopted 
 re. — Ver. 7. τούτοις τρόπον] Rec. after K L, etc.; a correction 
 instead of τρόπον τούτοις (Lachm. Tisch.) in ABC s, many min. 
 etc. — Ver. 9. Instead of ὁ δὲ Mix. ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε, Lachm., 
 against the testimony of ACKLS, etc., has adopted, after B, 
 ὅτε Mix. ὁ ἀρχ. rire. — Ver. 12. A B, 13, al., m. edd. Syr. utr. 
 (Copt. 2) ete., read after οὗτοί εἶσιν the relative οἱ, which Griesbach 
 considers as probably genuine, and Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 rightly adopted into the text;! the omission must be considered 
 as an explanatory correction. — ἀγάπαις] instead of which A C 
 and some min. read ἀπάταις ; a correction after 2 Pet. ii. 13. — 
 ὑμῶν] Lachm. has in the small edition αὐτῶν, after A, etc., but in 
 the larger edition the Lec. ὑμῶν, which is sufficiently attested 
 by B C K LX, etc; the reading αὐτῶν, which Stier without 
 reason considers as original, is explained from 1 Pet. 11. 13.— 
 Instead of ὑπὸ ἀνέμων, N reads παντὶ ἀνέμῳ ; an evident correction. 
 — παραφερόμεναι] is already by Griesb. Scholz, etc., after almost 
 all authorities, rightly adopted into the text instead of the Lec. 
 περιφερόμεναι. ---- Ver. 13. ἄγρια κύματα 1S in N instead of xtwara 
 ἄγρια, Which is attested by all authorities.— Buttmann has, 
 after B, adopted σλανῆτες instead of σλανῆται, and ζόφος instead 
 of ὁ ζόφος; as the other authorities, so also δὲ testifies for the 
 reading of the Rec. — εἰς αἰῶνα] after A BC 8, etc., instead of the 
 
 1 Reiche incorrectly observes that Buttmann has not adopted οἱ, and has 
 adduced B as a witness for the reading of the Rec. On account of the difficulty 
 which the article presents, Reiche considers the reading of the Rec. as the 
 original, 
 
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 391 
 
 Rec. eis τὸ; αἰῶνα. ---- Ver. 14. Instead of the form προεφήτευσε, 
 attested by almost all authorities, Tisch. has, after B*, adopted 
 ἐπροφήτευσε. ---- ἁγίαις μυριάσιν] after A BKL, etc., instead of the 
 Rec. μυριάσιν ἁγίαις in C; in N the reading is μυριάσιν ἁγίων 
 ἀγγέλων. ---- Ver. 15. ἐλέγξαι] after ABCKL &, etc., instead of 
 the Zee. ἐξελέγξαι. --- After ἀσεβεῖς the Rec. has αὐτῶν, found in 
 K L, some min. vss. and Fathers ; retained by Tischendorf,! and 
 defended by Reiche; on the other hand, it is wanting in ABC 
 (Lachm.) ; its spuriousness is scarcely to be doubted. — ἀσεβείας 
 αὐτῶν is wanting In N; ἀσεβείας in C; the omission is easily 
 explained. — Tisch. 8 inserts after τῶν σκληρῶν the word λόγων, 
 after C 8, and many min.; it is wanting in most authorities 
 (Tisch. 7) ; it appears to have been added from a regard to the 
 preceding τῶν ἔργων. ---- Ver. 18. After ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Tisch. 7, after 
 AC K L, etc, has ὅτι (Rec.); Tisch. 8 has omitted it after 
 B L* s; so also Lachm. in his larger edition, but hardly 
 correctly. — Instead of the Zee. ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ (K 1, P, some 
 min. and Oecumenius), which is an explanatory correction, 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted ἐπ᾽ éoydrov rod “χρόνου ; 
 the article rod is found in AX, al., etc.; its omission is easily 
 explained, because ἐσχάτου was taken for an adjective. — ἔσονται] 
 Whilst Lachm. in his small edition instead of it reads ἐλεύσονται, 
 he has in the large edition rightly adopted the reading of the 
 Rec. The reading ἐλεύσονται (in A C** etc.) is a correction after 
 2 Pet. iii. 3. δὲ has primo manu ἔσονται ; on the other hand 
 corrected ἐλεύσονται. — Ver. 19, After ἀποδιορίζοντες the Rec. has 
 ἑαυτοῖς (C, Vulg. Aug.); an evident correction. — Ver. 20. Instead 
 of the Rec. τῇ ἁγιωτ. ὑμῶν πίστει ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς (K L P, 
 al., pl. Syr. etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐποικοδομοῦντες &uur. τῇ 
 ay. ὑμ. m (A BC 8, al., several vss. etc.). — Vv. 22, 23. The 
 readings are here very various. The Zee. has καὶ οὕς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε 
 διωκρινόμενοι" ods δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε, ἐν τοῦ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. This 
 reading is found in K LP (only τοῦ before συρός is omitted) ; A 
 reads zu) ols μὲν ἐλέγχετε διωκχρινομένους, οὕς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς 
 ἁρπάζοντες, οὖς δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ; Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted 
 this reading, only that instead of ἐλεεῖγε they read, with B: ἐλεᾶτε. 
 — B deviates in this, that in ver. 22 it reads not ἐλέγχετε, but 
 ἐλεᾶτε (so also 8); in ver. 29 it omits the first οὕς δέ, and instead 
 of ἐλεεῖτε has the form éAsére; C agrees on the whole with A, 
 yet C** has in ver. 22 ἐλεᾶτε, as B, and in ver. 23 the words οὕς 
 δὲ ἐλεεῖτε are Wanting in C. The reading of A is held as the 
 original by Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, because the 
 
 1 Tisch. 8 has it likewise in the text, although he says in the notes ; omisimus 
 cum A.B CY, etc. 
 
392 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 
 
 other readings can be most easily explained from it; Hofmann, 
 on the contrary, prefers the reading in s, which is found also 
 in B, only with the inadvertent omission of the words οὕς δέ 
 after διακρινομένους ; whilst de Wette thinks that the original 
 reading is preserved in C. The reading in B probably lies at 
 the foundation of the reading in K L P; the twofold ἐλεῶτε 
 was naturally objectionable, and therefore the words οὕς δὲ 
 ἐλεᾶτε were left out, διακρινομένους changed into the nominative, 
 and ἐν φόβῳ placed before σώζετε. For further observations, see 
 the exposition. — Ver. 24. Instead of ὑμᾶς (ed. Elz; ACL x, 
 al., perm. several vss. Theoph. ete., Lachm. Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 
 had, after K P, al., etc., hardly correctly adopted αὐτούς ; A has 
 juas. — Ver. 25. μόνῳ Θεῷ is correctly adopted by Griesbach, 
 after A B Cx, 6, al., Syr., ete., instead of the Rec. μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ ; 
 σοφῷ is evidently borrowed from Rom. xvi. 27, and is without 
 reason defended by Reiche. — διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is 
 likewise adopted by Griesbach (after A B C, etc.), whilst the 
 words are wanting in the Rec.— The Rec. between δόξα and 
 usyaruciwn has καί after K 1, P, etc., which is correctly omitted 
 by recent critics; on the other hand, the words πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ 
 αἰῶνος, wanting in the fec., are attested by almost all autho- 
 rities. — The subscription of the Epistle is in B: ᾿Ιούδα ; in C: 
 ᾿Ιούδα ἐπιστολὴ καθολική;; and in A: ᾿Ιούδα ἐπιστολή. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. The superscription is in form similar to that of 
 the Epistles of Paul and Peter: “Iovéas ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 δοῦλος K.T.A.] δοῦλος, as its position and Rom. i. 1, Phil. 
 1, 1, Jas. 1. 1 (see also Tit. i. 1), show, denotes not the 
 general service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special 
 service of those appointed to the gospel ministry. The more 
 definite statement of office is here wanting; as the author is 
 not the Apostle Jude (see Introd. sec. 1), so that his position 
 in the Christian church is to be regarded as similar to that 
 which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others occupied, who, 
 without being apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet 
 exercised a ministry similar to the apostolic. — With the first 
 appellation the second ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου is connected by δέ 
 (see Tit. i. 1), which, although not precisely a contrast 
 (Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves 
 not only to indicate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise 
 to justify his writing. Jude does not call himself “the 
 brother of the Lord,” because his bodily relation to Christ 
 
VERSES 1, 2. 398 
 
 stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname 
 already specially belonged to James. — τοῖς ev Θεῷ marpt 
 ἠγαπημένοις [ἡγιασμένοις] καὶ x.7..] According to the 
 reading ἡγιασμένοις, ἐν expresses not the mere instrument of 
 holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God. 
 The participle is either substantive, co-ordinate to the follow- 
 ing ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς, or adjective, which is 
 more probable on account of the similar participial form, τετη- 
 pnmpevors. — According to the reading ἠγαπημένοις, ev Θεῷ 
 πατρί may denote the sphere within which the readers are 
 ἠγαπημένοι, namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of 
 de Wette, “that in this objective designation the subjectivity 
 of the author cannot be mixed,” Col. i. 2 might be appealed 
 to, where Paul names the readers of his Epistle ἀδελφοί, that 
 is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also 2 John 1 
 and 3 John 1); but in relation to what follows: καὶ "Ino. Xp. 
 τετηρημένοις, this view is correct. — In the Vulgate, τοῖς ἐν 
 Θεῷ πατρί is taken as an idea by itself: his qui sunt in Deo 
 Patre, etc. ; and then to this idea the two attributes are added: 
 ἠγαπημένοις and “Ino. Xp. rernp. κλητοῖς. Apart from its 
 harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction that by 
 it the parallelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two 
 members of the clause—which is strongly indicated both by 
 the form of the sentence and also by ἐν τῷ πατρί in refer- 
 ence to the following ’Inood Χριστῷ ----ἰβ destroyed, but also 
 ἠγαπημένοις would then be without any proximate statement. 
 The same is also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf 
 and Schott, that the participles ἠγαπημένοις and ‘I. X. 
 τετηρημένοις are equally subordinate to ἐν Θεῷ πατρί, and 
 explained as expressing “the living ground on which the 
 called possess that which is expressed in the two participles ” 
 (Schott). The supplying of ὑπὸ Θεοῦ or παρὰ Θεῷ, necessary 
 for this view, is at all events arbitrary ; moreover, the juxta- 
 position of τοῖς ev Θεῷ πατρὶ Inc. Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις is 
 extremely harsh. — It is incorrect to take ἐν as equivalent to 
 ὑπό (Hensler); ev is rather to be retained in its proper 
 signification, in which it is entirely suitable to the idea 
 ἀγαπᾶσθαι, as the love which proceeds from any person 
 dwells in him, the κλητοί as they are loved by God so are 
 
394 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 they loved ὧν God. Hofmann incorrectly explains it: “who 
 have been accepted in love by God;” for ἀγαπᾷν never has 
 this meaning, not even in the passages cited by Hofmann : 
 1 Thess. 1. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Col. ii. 12.— God is called 
 πατρί in His relation to Christ, not to men: see Phil. ii. 11; 
 Gal. i. 1; and Meyer on the latter passage. — καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις kAmrois] The dative “Ino. Χριστῷ is not 
 dependent on an ἐν to be supplied from ἐν Θεῷ πατρί (Luther: 
 preserved in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this 
 supplement to Kühner, Gr. II. p. 477; but incorrectly, as this 
 is rendered impossible by ἠγαπημένοις intervening. What 
 Kühner says could only be the case were it written: ἐν Θεῷ 
 πατρὶ καὶ 'Inood Χριστῷ ἠγαπημένοις. Also ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ 
 is not the causative dative with the passive, instead of ὑπό 
 with the genitive, but the dative commodi: for Christ (Bengel, 
 de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The participle 
 τετηρημένοις is used neither instead of the present participle, 
 as Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act 
 completed before God (de Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply 
 denotes that which has taken place up to the time when the 
 Epistle was written; thus: “to the called, who have been 
 kept for Christ ;” namely, in order to belong to Him in time 
 and in eternity (so also Schott)" The idea rernp. is com- 
 pletely explained from the falling away from Christ which had 
 taken place among somany; see ver. 4; comp. also John xvi. 
 11; 1 Pet. i. 5. — Although ἐν Θεῷ πατρί cannot be gram- 
 matically connected with τετηρημένοις, and although it primarily 
 belongs to ἠγαπημένοις, yet it indicates by whom the pre- 
 servation has taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater... 
 Christo... donavit et asservavit huc usque, ne ab impostori- 
 bus seducerentur et perirent. — κλητοῖς] a designation in the 
 Pauline sense ofthose who have not only heard the gospel, but 
 have embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1 Cor. i. 24. 
 Ver. 2. ἔλεος x.7.X.] The word ἔλεος is used in the formula 
 of salutation only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. The 
 addition καὶ ἀγάπη is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the 
 
 ! Arnauld incorrectly explains it: aux appelés gardés par J. Chr., c’est-ä- 
 
 dire : ἃ ceux qui ont été appelés ἃ J. Chr. par la prédication de l’Evangile et que 
 J. Chr. garde fidéles, 
 
VERSES 3, 4. 395 
 
 three terms is thus to be understood: ἔλεος is the demeanour 
 of God toward the κλητοί; εἰρήνη their condition founded 
 upon it; and ἀγώπη their demeanour proceeding from it as 
 the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly ἀγάπη is used here as 
 in Eph. vi. 23 (see Meyer ὧν loco); only here the love is to 
 be limited neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to 
 God (Calov, Wiesinger). Still ἀγάπη may also be the love of 
 God to the κλητοῖς ; comp. ver. 21 and 2 Cor. xiii. 13 [14] 
 (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette-Brückner, Schott, 
 and others). No ground of decision can be derived from 
 πληθυνθείη. With the reading ἠγαπημένοις the second ex- 
 planation merits the preference, although the position of this 
 expression after εἰρήνη is somewhat strange. On πληθυνθείη, 
 see 1 Pet. i. 2; this form is apparently derived from Dan. 
 ὙΠ Ὁ, 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude 
 to write this Epistle: comp. on this 2 Pet. 1. 12 f., ii. 1 £.— 
 ἀγαπητοί] found at the beginning of an Epistle only here 
 and in 3 John 2.— πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος K.T.A.] 
 Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, 
 I felt constrained to write to you, exhorting you to contend for 
 the faith once delivered to the saints. Pricaeus, Lachmann, 
 Buttmann put a comma after the first and after the second 
 ὑμῖν, so that mept . . . σωτηρίας is connected with ἀνάγκην 
 ἔσχον, and παρακαλῶν, etc., is separated from γράψαι. Most 
 expositors, on the contrary, as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, de 
 Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect περὶ σωτηρίας with the pre- 
 ceding γράφειν, and unite παρακαλῶν with γράψαι. Not 
 only the position of the words, but also the train of thought 
 decides for this latter arrangement ; for since, according to ver. 
 4, the ἀνάγκη, inducing the author to write this Epistle, 
 consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so it is evidently 
 more suitable to connect ypdıraı with παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνί- 
 ζεσθαι, having special reference to it, than with the general 
 idea περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, particularly as the contents of 
 the Epistle are anything but a treatise concerning the common 
 salvation" The preceding participial clause states in what 
 
 1 The translation of the Vulgate: omnem solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis 
 de communi vestra salute necesse habui scribere vobis depraecans supercertari, 
 
396 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 condition Jude was when the ἀνάγκην ἔχειν came upon him; 
 the σπουδή to write already existed when the entrance of 
 certain ungodly men constrained him not to write generally 
 περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, but to compose such a hortative 
 Epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that 
 the ἀνάγκη had its reason in the σπουδή (Erasmus: tantum 
 mihi studium fuit, ut non potuerim non scribere vobis); others, 
 that to the σπουδή the ἀνάγκη supervened as a new point; so 
 Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos 
 aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas 
 insuper scribendi imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim 
 addit (so also Calvin and others). De Wette (with whom 
 Briickner agrees) considers that Jude by the first clause 
 expresses that “he had been engaged on the composition of a 
 longer and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we 
 have to lament), when he was for the time called away from 
 that work in order to write the present Epistle ;” but the 
 expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος does not necessarily 
 involve actual writing.’ — σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι is only found 
 here in the N. Τὶ (2 Pet. 1, 5: σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν ; 
 prologue to Ecclus.: προσφέρειν τινὰ σπουδήν) ; the meaning 
 is: to be cagerly solicitous about something; it may refer both 
 to mental activity and to external action; here the former is 
 the case. Luther’s translation: “After I purposed,” is too 
 flat; Meyer’s is better: “since it lies pressingly upon my 
 heart.’ — πᾶσαν serves, as frequently, for the strengthening of 
 the idea.—The participle ποιούμενος, in connection with the 
 aorists ἔσχον γράψαι, is to be taken as the imperfect parti- 
 ciple. Stier incorrectly translates: “when engaged in it I 
 would take diligence.” It expresses the activity which took 
 ete., may also be punctuated in both ways. Lachmann has, in his larger edition 
 of the N. T., punctuated it as he has done in the Greek text ; in other editions 
 of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the other punctuation is found. 
 
 1 De Wette incorrectly appeals for this supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), 
 who thus explains it: dilecti, animus mihi erat, scribere ad vos de communibus 
 doctrinis et spe evangelii ad fidem vestram et Jesu Christi cognitionem amplifi- 
 candam ; jam vero coactum me video, wt hoc institutum deseram et ad cavendum 
 praesens periculum, vos exhorter, ut serio teneatis eam quae vobis tradita est, 
 doctrinam, contra falsos doctores, quos clanculum audio irrepsisse. What de 
 
 Wette regards as accomplished, or in the act of being accomplished, Sherlock 
 considers only as intended. 
 
VERSES 3, 4. 397 
 
 place, when the action expressed by the finite verb occurred, 
 and therefore must not be resolved, with Haenlein, into the 
 perfect or pluperfect.— περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας] states 
 on what Jude intended to write. On κοινῆς, comp. Tit. 1. 4; 
 2 Pet.i.1. There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, 
 to the Jews and Gentiles, as the object common to both. — 
 σωτηρία, not the doctrine of salvation (Jachmann), but the 
 salvation itself, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied 
 to believers. The explanation of Beza: de iis guae ad nostram 
 omnium salutem pertinent, deviates from strict precision, as 
 σωτηρία itself is indicated by Jude as the object of writing. 
 Schott incorrectly explains σωτηρία, state of salvation, possession 
 of salvation. — ἀνάγκην ἔσχον] Comp. Luke xiv. 10, xxiii. 17; 
 1 Cor. vii. 37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate : 
 nihil potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The trans- 
 lation of Luther is too flat: “I considered it necessary ;” for 
 in ἀνάγκην ἔχειν is contained the idea of an objective necessity 
 founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (de Wette, Wiesinger, 
 Schott). The meaning here is: the entrance of false teachers 
 constrained me, made me to recognise it as necessary. On 
 the one hand, Semler inserts a strange reference, paraphras- 
 ing it: accidit interea inopinato, ut statuendum mihi... 
 esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who, in order to 
 emphasize the contrast between the two members of the 
 sentence, finds in avayr. ἔσχον the thought expressed that 
 Jude wrote this Epistle unwillingly, contrary to his inclination. 
 — γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν) παρακαλῶν is closely united to 
 γράψαι, as indicating the kind of writing to which the author 
 felt constrained by circumstances; therefore no comma is to 
 be put after ὑμῖν. ---- ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ... πίστει] eraywvi- 
 ζεσθαι, a am. λεγ., as συναθλέω, Phil. i. 27, connected with 
 the dative of the object which is contended for; Stier: “to 
 fight for the faith ;” comp. Eeclus. iv. 28: ἀγωνίξζειν περί. ----- 
 πίστις is not = doctrina, system of doctrine; nor yet does it 
 here denote the subjective quality of the believing disposition ; 
 but that which is believed by Christians (τοῖς ἁγίοις), the 
 objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect in explaining 
 it: “the conduct arising from faith;” for the notion of con- 
 duct does not suit παραδοθείσῃς The explanation: the way 
 
398 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 
 
 of salvation (Hofmann), is also wanting in correctness; it is 
 not proved by Gal. iii, 23. — As the subject to παραδοθείσῃ, 
 by whom the communication or transmission was effected, 
 God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the apostles, as 
 ver. 17 shows; 2 Pet. ii. 21; Luke i. 2 (comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 
 2, 23, xv. 3); yet the author does not name them, because 
 “he is not concerned here with the personal instruments, but 
 with the mode and manner of transmission contained in 
 ἅπαξ᾽᾽ (Schott). τοῖς ἁγίοις are not the apostles (Nic. de 
 Lyra), but Christians. — @ra£ brings prominently forward the 
 fact that as it once took place, so there is now an end to 
 the παράδοσις ; Bengel: nulla alia dabitur fides. Jachmann 
 incorrectly explains it by ἤδη, olim, jam, appealing to ver. 5 
 and Heb. vi. 4. According to Hofmann’s view, ἅπαξ is 
 used “with reference to the preceding intention of Jude to 
 present to the readers a writing having the common salvation 
 as its object ;” but this reference is not indicated.’ 
 
 Ver. 4. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 1-3. — παρεισέδυσαν yap] the 
 reason of ἀνάγκην ἔσχον. παρεισέδυσαν marks the entrance 
 of false teachers into the church as a secret and unauthorized 
 creeping in of such as do not properly belong to it, but are 
 internally foreign to it (comp. Gal. ii. 4: mapeisakroı, 
 explained by the scholiasts by ἀλλότριοι) ; it is synonymous 
 with παρεισέρχεσθαι ; comp.,2 Tim. iii. 6. — τινες ἄνθρωποι] 
 In the same indefiniteness the false teachers are also men- 
 tioned in 1 Tim. i. 6. Arnaud observes: le mot tuves a 
 quelque chose de méprisant, comme dans Gal. ii. 12; so also 
 Wiesinger and Schott; this is possible; but the appeal to 
 Gal. ii, 12 is unjustified. That the expression ἄνθρωποι is 
 used in order to bring forward the fact that they “ with their 
 entrance into the church remained in their natural state” 
 (Schott), is highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily sepa- 
 rates τίνες from ἄνθρωποι, taking ἄνθρωποι, οἱ K.T.A., as in 
 apposition to tives. — οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι eis τοῦτο TO 
 κρίμα] By the participle with the article a peculiar circum- 
 
 ! When Hofmann maintains that ver. 4 could only have been written by an 
 apostle, he evidently proceeds too far; for why could not also another besides an 
 apostle have cherished the design to address a writing to Christians respecting 
 the common faith ? 
 
VERSE 4. 399 
 
 stance worthy of remark concerning these men is brought 
 forward (Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 167]); but not, as Schott, after 
 Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, “a mark perfectly clear to the 
 readers is given for the recognition of those who are meant; ἢ 
 the article being equivalent to isti, those notorious men. — 
 προγεγρωμμένοι] The preposition πρὸ in this verb indicates 
 either antea, earlier, before; thus always in the N. T.; see 
 Gal. iii. 1 (comp. Meyer im loc.); Rom. xv. 4; Eph. 11 3; 
 or palam. If it has this last meaning, then προγράφειν 
 signifies “to announce something publicly by writing ;” thus 
 in an entirely special sense proscribere; accordingly Wolf 
 explains it: qui dudum sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (eis 
 τοῦτο TO κρίμα) vocati. Yet this is inaccurate, as the peculiar 
 idea of proscribere is not retained; for, if retained, it would 
 not suit eis τ. τ. κρίμα. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains 
 προγράφειν by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others 
 have correctly taken πρὸ here as a preposition of time. 
 According to Isa. iv. 3, LXX.: of ypadevres eis ζωήν, the 
 sense might be: those who are written before (as in God’s 
 book of fate, and consequently destined) eis τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα 
 (Calvin: haec metaphora inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei 
 consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salutem, Liber vocatur); 
 but the term πάλαι is unsuitable, as it is never in the N. T. 
 used of God’s eéernal counsels. προγράφειν is here rather to 
 be understood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T.; 
 and with de Wette a pregnancy of expression is to be 
 assumed ; thus: those who are already before by writing destined 
 to this judgment. Hofmann explains προγεγραμμένοι accord- 
 ing to John i. 46 compared with v. 46 (γράφειν τινα -- yp. 
 περί Twos): “ those of whom it is written before;” and then 
 eis τοῦτο τ. Kp. =“in reference to this judgment;” but with 
 regard to the former it is to be remarked, that the form of 
 expression here is different from John i. 46; and with regard 
 to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its 
 direct connection with wpoyeypaymévor takes place.’ Oecu- 
 menius refers this to the prophecies concerning future false 
 
 1 Luther’s translation : ‘‘ there are certain men crept in, of whom it is written 
 
 before, to this punishment,” by which =poyeyp. is separated from εἰς τ, τ, xp., is 
 contradicted by the natural verbal connection. 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and Peter. Grotius, 
 Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Pet. ii. 
 But πώλαιν combined with rpoyeyp. evidently points back to 
 an earlier period,’ so that only older prophecies can be meant, 
 namely, the prophecies and types of the O. T., and perhaps 
 particularly the prophecies contained in the Book of Enoch: 
 see ver. 14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, 
 who find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, 
 Bengel remarks: non innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae 
 praedictio. — eis τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] Although κρίμα in itself is 
 not equivalent to κατάκριμα, yet here a condemnatory judg- 
 ment is meant; τοῦτο, namely, that which Jude has in view, 
 and which is indicated in the following verse; Stier: “for 
 this judgment, which I now announce to them;” Arnaud: 
 il y a τοῦτο, parceque cette punition est l’objet qui loccupe. 
 It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer τοῦτο 
 τὸ κρίμα to παρεισέδυσαν, as something including judgment in 
 itself ; or, with Schott, to the “ damnable error of those men,” 
 specified in the words τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ «.r.A.; for neither the 
 entering in nor the error can in themselves be called a κρίμα. 
 — ἀσεβεῖς] to be taken by itself; not to be united with οἱ 
 mpoyeypaupevo, (against Tischendorf, who has placed no 
 comma before ἀσεβεῖς). The ungodliness of these men is 
 further indicated, according to its nature, by the participial 
 clauses which follow (comp. 2 Pet. 11. 6).— τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 ἡμῶν χάριν K.T.r.] who pervert the grace of our God into lascivi- 
 ousness. χάρις, not=doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evan- 
 gelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis gratis data (Nicolas 
 de Lyra) ; but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in the 
 forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also 
 Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It is incorrect to explain 
 the idea by “the life of grace” (de Wette-Briickner), or by 
 “the ordinances of grace” (Schott). ἡμῶν, belonging to τοῦ 
 
 1 Schott aud Hofmann contest the fact that πάλαι points to an earlier period. 
 πάλαι, Which ‘‘ generally indicates the past in contrast to the present ” (Pape), 
 may certainly be used when that past is not distant (comp. Mark xv. 44); but, 
 on the one hand, this use of the term is rare; and, on the other hand, it is not 
 here applicable, as the reference to the past generally is already contained in the 
 
 po of the compound verb; πάλαι here can only be put to mark this past as 
 lying in the distance. 
 
VERSE 4. 401 
 
 Θεοῦ, is to be understood as an expression of the feeling of 
 sonship ; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum. — In μετατιθέντες 
 eis ἀσέλγειαν, aoeAy. is either the purpose of the change of 
 the grace of God, or that into which grace is changed. In the 
 former case μετατέθημι here would in itself have a bad sub- 
 sidiary meaning (de Wette: “ who pervert the grace of our God 
 for the purpose of licentiousness ”) ; but it never elsewhere so 
 occurs in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is 
 better (Brückner), according to which the meaning is: they 
 have converted the xapıs, which God gave to them, into some- 
 thing different, namely doeAyeıa; inasmuch as liberty was 
 converted by them into lasciviousness; comp. Gal. v. 13; 
 1 Pet. ii. 16; 2 Pet. ii. 19.— καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ 
 κύριον ἡμῶν “I. Xp. ἀρνούμενοι] In 2 Pet. ii. 1 the epithet 
 δεσπότης is used of Christ; this favours the combination of 
 τὸν μόνον δεσπότην as an attribute with “Inc. Xp. (so de 
 Wette, Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hof- 
 mann). But, on the one hand, in every other place this word 
 denotes God ; and, on the other hand, δεσπότης would hardly 
 be distinguished from the word κύριος, if both were to be 
 referred to Christ ;* add to this that μόνος elsewhere expresses 
 the unity of the divine nature; comp. Jude 25; John v. 44, 
 το: Rom: xvi. 2.7: 1 Tim. 1 17, vit) 15, 16 Reve κυ: 
 against which view Schott incorrectly urges 1 Cor. viii. 6 and 
 Eph. iv. 5. For these reasons, it is more probable that τὸν 
 μόνον δεσπότην is not an appellation of Christ, but a designa- 
 tion of God (Brückner); comp. 1 John ii. 22: 6 ἀρνούμενος 
 τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν (also Enoch xlviii. 10 is to be com- 
 pared: “they have denied the Lord of the spirits and His 
 Anointed”). No argument against this explanation can be 
 drawn from the want of the article before κύριον ; see author’s 
 commentary on Tit. ii. 3 (Winer, p. 121 ff [E. T. 162)? 
 which is in an unjustifiable manner denied by Hofmann. The 
 
 1 Hofmann gives the distinction of these two ideas as follows: “ Christ is our 
 δεσπότης, as we are His property bound to His service ; He is our κύριος, as His 
 will is the standard of ours.” But if this be correct, it is not in favour of 
 Hofmann but against him, because Jude would then in an incomprehensible 
 manner make the weaker idea to follow upon the stronger. 
 
 2 When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for their explanation to the fact that 
 the relation to God is already expressed in the preceding clause, and that there- 
 
 JUDE, 20 
 
402 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 denial may be considered as either practical (comp. Tit. i. 16) 
 or theoretical. Since throughout this Epistle the carnal and 
 godless disposition of these men is brought forward, it is most 
 probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial 
 specially in view. At all events, such explanations as those 
 of Grotius: “abnegabant Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem 
 natum ex homine,” are to be rejected, as Jude never reproaches 
 his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine. 
 
 Ver. 5. From this verse to ver. 7 we have three examples, 
 as representations of the judgment which threatens those 
 mentioned in ver. 4. Compare with this 2 Pet. ii. 4-6. — 
 ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι] δέ is used metabatically (as a 
 mere particle of transition) ; not in order to put ὑπομνῆσαι in 
 contrast to παρακαλῶν (ver. 3), which is only to be justified 
 by the explanation of Schott, that “ Jude intends not properly 
 to exhort the readers, but by παρακαλεῖν he means only that 
 he will remind them.” ὑμᾶς is not the subject, but the object 
 to ὑπομνῆσαι; comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 (Rom. xv. 15). — εἰδότας 
 [ὑμάς] ἅπαξ πάντα] εἰδότας is either in an adversative sense 
 — καίπερ εἰδότας (de Wette); or, which is to be preferred on 
 account of ἅπαξ, the statement of the reason of ὑπομνῆσαι, 
 Nicolas de Lyra: commonere autem vos volo et non docere de 
 novo ; et subditur ratio; Bengel: causa, cur admoneat dun- 
 taxat: quia jam sciant, semelque cognitum habeant ; so also 
 Wiesinger and Schott. — ἅπαξ is not to be united per hyper- 
 baton with σώσας ; also not = first, so that δεύτερον corre- 
 sponding to it would be = secondly, and both referred to εἰδότας 
 (Jachmann) ; but ἅπαξ belongs to εἰδότας, and τὸ δεύτερον to 
 ἀπώλεσεν. Hornejus incorrectly explains ἅπαξ by: jam- 
 pridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous quil’avez su une fois); it has 
 here rather the same meaning as in ver. 3, rendering prominent 
 that a new teaching is not necessary (de Wette, Stier, 
 Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Schott, Hofmann). — πάντα; accord- 
 fore it would be unsuitable to express it here again, it is to be observed that in 
 that clause the relation to Christ is also indicated, since the grace of God is 
 communicated through Christ ; also, there is no reason why Jude should not 
 have indicated μετατιθέναι as a denial both of Jesus Christ and of God. Whilst 
 Schott grants that the expression ‘‘ the only master” may only refer to God, he 
 
 so interprets the article τόν before μόνον dam. that he explains it as equivalent to 
 * he who is.” 
 
VERSE 5. 403 
 
 ing to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad salutem necessaria ; better: 
 everything which is an object of evangelical teaching, here 
 naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to 
 which alone the τοῦτο of the Rec. points! — ὅτε ὁ κύριος 
 (Ἰησοῦς) λαὸν... σώσας] ὅτι belongs not to εἰδότας πάντα, 
 but to ὑπομνῆσαι. — With the reading (6) ᾿Ιησοῦς (Stier calls 
 it: “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude 
 here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does 
 in 1 Cor. x. 4(comp. also 1 Pet. i. 11), according to which all 
 the acts of divine revelation are done by the instrumentality 
 of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer of God. The name 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς, by which Christ is designated in His earthly and 
 human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might 
 have so used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of 
 God and He who was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 
 1 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5). With the reading xcvpsos—certainly 
 the more natural—which de Wette-Briickner and Hofmann 
 prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider ᾿Ιησοῦς as the 
 original—a designation of God is to be understood. — λαόν] That 
 by this the people of Israel is meant is evident; the article 
 is wanting, because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved 
 as an entire people, with reference to the following τοὺς μὴ 
 πιστεύσαντας." — τὸ δεύτερον] is to be retained in its proper 
 meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra 
 and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, aprés), 
 nor, with Grotius and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates 
 that what was said in the preceding participial sentence, 
 namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt, is 
 considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The 
 definite statement of what this second is, is usually derived 
 from the preceding σώσας, and by it is accordingly understood 
 a second deliverance; but there are different views as to what 
 deliverance is meant. In this commentary the deliverance of 
 
 1 Schott, indeed, explains πάντα correctly ; but he erroneously thinks that &rz& 
 with εἰδότας indicates “this knowledge is meant as a knowledge effected by a 
 definite individual act,” and that ἅπαξ is to be understood of the instruction 
 given in Second Peter. 
 
 Calvin observes : nomen populi honorifice capitur pro gente sancta et electa, 
 
 ac si diceret, nihil illis profuisse, quod singulari privilegio in foedus assumpti 
 essent ; but were this correct, a αὑτοῦ would at least have been added. 
 
404 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 the people from the wilderness was designated as this second 
 deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only 
 so that those who believed not did not attain to it, but were 
 destroyed by God in the wilderness (so in essentials, Stier, 
 Brückner, Wiesinger). On the other hand, Schmidt (bibl. 
 Theologie, II.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann understand by it the 
 deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the 
 punishment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, or the overthrow of the Jewish state. But both 
 explanations are arbitrary ; for, first, it is unauthorized to refer 
 τὸ δεύτερον only to σώσας and not to ἐκ γῆς Alyvmrov 
 σώσας; and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliver- 
 ance is not at all indicated’ Whilst, then, Jude thinks on 
 the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he does not men- 
 tion a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed 
 not, as the second deed following the first. But this second 
 is not indicated as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be 
 understood generally what befell the unbelieving in the 
 wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt ; what this was 
 is expressed in the words τοὺς un πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. 
 It is arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history 
 recorded in Num. xxv. 1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer 
 it, with Fronmiiller, to the Babylonish captivity (2 Chron. 
 xxxvi. 16 fl), Compare, moreover, with this verse, Heb. 
 iii, 16-19.— τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας) On μή, with participles, 
 see Winer, p. 449 f. [E. T. 606 f.]; comp. ver. 6: τοὺς μὴ 
 ınpyoavras. It is to be observed that in the corresponding 
 passage, 2 Pet. ii., instead of this example, the deluge is named. 
 
 Ver. 6. A second example taken from the angelic world. 
 As God spared not the people rescued from bondage, so 
 neither did He spare the angels who left their habitation. 
 This also was an admonitory representation for Christians, 
 who, in the face of the high dignity which they possessed by 
 redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice. — ἀγγέλους 
 
 1 Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576 [E. T. 775]: “ the verb connected with 
 πὸ δεύτερον should properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε (ἀλλά x.7.a.); the Lord, after 
 having saved, the second time (when they needed His helping grace) refused 
 them this saving grace, and left them to destruction.” But there is nothing 
 indicated in the context of a state of being in want of grace. 
 
VERSE 6. 405 
 
 TE τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας K.T.A.] is, according to the construction, 
 as the te indicates, closely connected with the preceding. — 
 ἀγγέλους without the article considered generally ; the parti- 
 ciple connected with the article indicates the definite class of 
 angels who are here meant. — For the understanding of this 
 verse the following points are to be observed:—(1) By the 
 twofold participial clause τοὺς μὴ... ἀρχήν and ἀπολι- 
 movtas ... οἰκητήριον, something sinful is attributed to the 
 angels (2 Pet. ii. 4: ἁμαρτησάντων), on account of which the 
 punishment expressed by eis xpioev... τετήρηκε was in- 
 flicted upon them; (2) The two clauses un... aa... so 
 correspond, that the second positive clause explains the 
 first negative clause ; and (3) what Jude says of the angels 
 corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the 
 Book of Enoch. — τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν 
 K.T.A.] ἀρχή must here denote something which the angels by 
 forsaking τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον did not preserve, but gave up or 
 slighted. But by ἀπολ. τὸ ἴδ. οἰκητ., according to the Book 
 of Enoch xii. 4,' is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their 
 descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men 
 (so also Hofmann) ; but not, as Hornejus and others think, the 
 loss of the heavenly dwelling, which they drew upon them- 
 selves by conspiring against God; which would militate 
 against the first observation. —By ἀρχή expositors under- 
 stand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, 
 Hornejus,” and others), or the dominion which originally be- 
 longed to them (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann ; 
 
 1“ Announce to the watchers of heaven, who forsook the hish heaven and 
 their holy eternal abodes, and have corrupted themselves with women ;” xv. 3: 
 ** Wherefore have ye forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven, and have 
 slept with women ?”... Ixiv. : ‘‘ These are the angels who have gone down from 
 heaven to earth ;” and other passages. Gen. vi. 2 liesat the foundation of this 
 tradition, the er planation of which is to this day contested. Whilst Hofmann 
 explains the expression idan „2 as a designation of the angels, Ferd. 
 
 Philippi decidedly rejects this explanation. 
 
 2 Hornejus, after John viii. 44, designates as the original condition here 
 meant, veritas i. e. innocentia et sanctitas. Stier thinks “that the original 
 condition was at the same time the ground of their nature and condition in God, 
 or, as it is now perhaps called, the principle of their true life. They preserved 
 not themselves in God, whilst they surrendered and lost the proper pure ground 
 of their glorious being,” 
 
406 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 Brückner thinks that the meaning dominion pisses over into 
 that of origin). According to the first explanation, the term 
 is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second 
 parallel clause. It is in favour of the second explanation, 
 that in the N. T. angels are often designated by the name 
 ἀρχή, ἀρχαί; as also the prevailing idea among the Jews was, 
 that to the angels a lordship belongs over the earthly creation. 
 By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond; in- 
 stead of administering their office as rulers, they forsook their 
 heavenly habitation, and thus became culpable. The ex- 
 planation, according to which ἀρχὴ ἑαυτῶν denotes not the 
 dominion of the angels, but the dominion of God, to which 
 they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and 
 against the context. — eis κρίσιν... rernpmkev] Statement of 
 the punishment. This also corresponds with the expression 
 in the Book of Enoch, where in chap. x. 12 it is said: “ Bind 
 them fast under the mountains of the earth... even to the 
 day of judgment... until the last judgment will be held 
 for all eternity.1— τετήρηκεν is in sharp contrast to μὴ 
 τηρήσαντας : the perfect expresses an action begun in the 
 past and continued in the present. The mode of retention is 
 more precisely stated by δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] By 
 ἀϊδίοις the chains by which they are bound are designated as 
 eternal, and incapable of being rent. — ὑπτὸ ζόφον} ζύφος only 
 here and ver. 13, and in the parallel passages 2 Pet. 1]. 4 
 and 17; comp. also Wisd. xvii. 2 ;? usually σκότος, the dark- 
 ness of hell; ὑπό is explained by conceiving the angels in 
 the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.’ In rery- 
 
 1 Comp. also x. 4: “ Bind Azäzel, and put him in darkness,” xiv. 5, xxi. 10, 
 ete. In the Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar it is said: Postquam filii Dei 
 filios genuerunt, sumsit eos Deus et ad montem tenebrarum perduxit, ligavitque 
 in catenis ferreis, quae usque ad medium abyssi magnae pertingunt. 
 
 2 Comp. also Hesiod. Theog. v. 729, where it is said: 
 
 “Ἔνθα θεοὶ Tiriives ὑπὸ ζόφῳ ἠρόεντα 
 Κεκρύφαται, βουλῆσι Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο 
 Χώρῳ ἐν εὐρώεντι. 
 
 3 There is an apparent difference between what is here said and the representa- 
 tions of the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan and his éyysau have 
 even now their residence in the air (Eph. ii. 2, or in the upper regions, ἐν τοῖς 
 ἐπουρανίοις, Eph. vi. 12), and although already judged by Christ (John xvi. 11), yet 
 AS κοσμοκρώτορες exercise power over unbelievers, and also lay snares for believers, 
 
VERSE 7. 407 
 
 pnkev is not contained the final doom which will only take 
 place at the general judgment; therefore: eis κρίσιν μεγάλης 
 ἡμέρας] pey. ἡμέρα, without any further designation, used of 
 the last judgment only here ; the same adjective, as an attri- 
 bute of that day, in Acts ii. 20; Rev. vi. 17, xvi. 14. 
 
 Ver. 7. Third example: the judgment on Sodom and 
 Gomorrha and the cities about them, which, however, is not 
 co-ordinate with the preceding two, but is closely connected 
 with the last-mentioned, “ whilst here both times a permanent 
 condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its con- 
 sequence, whereas ἀπώλεσεν (ver. 5) states a judgment of 
 God already past” (Hofmann’s Schriftb. I. p. 428). — ὡς] is 
 not to be connected with the following ὁμοίως, ver. 8 ; nor is 
 ὅτι, ver. 5, to be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι... βούλομαι, (de 
 Wette) = how instead of “that;” it refers rather to what 
 directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofmann, 
 Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and others; Luther: as also), 
 whilst ver. 7 confirms ἀγγέλους... τετήρηκεν by the com- 
 parison with what befell Sodom and Gomorrha: God retains 
 the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom 
 and Gomorrha πρόκεινται δεῖγμα κιτλ. With the connection 
 with ὑὕπομν. βουλ. (ver. 5) a preceding καί would hardly be 
 necessary, also the words τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις indicate the close 
 connection with ver. 6.— Σόδομα καὶ T'owoppa] frequently 
 adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine 
 judgment ; see, for example, Rom. ix. 29. — καὶ ai περὶ αὐτὰς 
 
 in order to bring them again into subjection. Expositors, in general, have 
 attempted to reconcile this by referring this continued activity of the devil to 
 the special permission of God ; Calvin otherwise : porro nobis fingendus non est 
 locus, quo inclusi sint diaboli ; simpliciter enim docere voluit Ap., quam misera 
 sit eorum conditio... nam quocunque pergant, secum trahunt sua vincula et 
 suis tenebris obvoluti manent. Dietlein remarks on 2 Pet. ii. 4: “Not only 
 Tartarus, but also the chains of darkness, are to be understood in a local and 
 corporeal sense, but not of such a locality, or of such an imprisonment in that 
 locality, as would require an exclusion from our locality, or an incapability of 
 movement through our locality.” But all these artificial explanations are to be 
 rejected, inasmuch as Jude does not speak of Satan and his angels, but ofa 
 definite class of angels, to whom, in agreement with the Book of Enoch, he 
 refers Gen. vi. 2, This is correctly observed by Hofmann, Wiesinger, and 
 Schott, with whom Briickner appears to agree ; on the other hand, F. Philippi 
 (p. 140) observes: ‘‘ Jude speaks here of the original fall of the angels from 
 pride, not of their union with earthly women,” 
 
408 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 πόλεις] according to Deut. xxix. 23; Hos. xi. 8: Admah and 
 Zeboim. — τὸν ὅμοιον τρύπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι] τούτοις 
 may grammatically be referred to 308. «. Γόμ. (or, by synesis, 
 to the inhabitants of these cities ; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, 
 Vorstius, and others); but by this construction the sin of 
 Sodom and Gomorrha would only be indirectly indicated. 
 Since, also, τούτοις cannot refer to the false teachers, ver. 4, 
 because, as de Wette correctly remarks, the thought of ver. 
 8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, 
 according to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as 
 the inhabitants of those cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, 
 Jachmann, de Wette, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others). — 
 ἐκπορνεύσασαι, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated as the 
 action of the cities themselves. The verb (often in the LXX. 
 the translation of 731; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. 
 a dm. Ney. The preposition ἐκ serves for strengthening the 
 idea, indicating that “ one by πορνεύειν becomes unfaithful to 
 true moral conduct” (Hofmann), but not that “ he goes beyond 
 the boundaries of nature” (Stier, Wiesinger, and similarly 
 Schott). — καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας) The expres- 
 sion ἀπέρχ. ὀπίσω τινός is found in Mark i. 20 in its literal 
 sense; here it has a figurative meaning ; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10, 
 πορεύεσθαι om.; Jer. ii. 5; Ecclus. xlvi. 10. — Arnaud: ces 
 mots sont ici un euphémisme, pour exprimer Ilacte de la 
 prostitution. In ἀπο is contained the turning aside from the 
 right way. Oecumenius thus explains the import of σὰρξ 
 ἑτέρα : σάρκα δὲ ἑτέραν, τὴν appnva φύσιν λέγει, ὡς μὴ πρὸς 
 συνουσίαν γενέσεως συντελοῦσαν; so also Briickner and 
 Wiesinger. Stier, Schott, Hofmann proceed further, referring 
 to Lev. xviii. 23, 24, and accordingly explaining it: “not only 
 have they practised shame man with man, but even man with 
 beast” (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds to σαρκὸς 
 ἑτέρας, aud only by it do the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 
 6, expressed by ὡς, and the explanation: τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον 
 τούτοις, receive their true meaning. The σάρξ of men was 
 ἑτέρα σάρξ to the angels, as that of beasts is to men. In the 
 parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 6, the sin of the cities is not stated. — 
 πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι] πρόκεινται : 
 they lie before the eyes as a δεῖγμα; not: “inasmuch as the 
 
VERSE 7. 409 
 
 example of punishment in its historical attestation is ever 
 present ” (Schott) ; but: inasmuch as the Dead Sea continually 
 attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring. 
 There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is 
 not the cities and their inhabitants who are πρόκεινται. The 
 genitive πυρὸς αἰωνίου may grammatically depend both on 
 δεῖγμα and on δίκην. Most expositors (particularly Wiesinger, 
 Schott, Briickner) consider the second construction as the 
 correct one; but hardly rightly; as (1) δεῖγμα would then 
 lose its exact definition; (2) πῦρ αἰώνιον always designates 
 hell-fire, to which the condemned are delivered up at the last 
 judgment (see Matt. xxv. 41); (3) the juxtaposition of this 
 verse with ver. 6, where the present punitive condition of the 
 angels is distinguished from that which will occur after the 
 judgment, favours the idea that the cities (or rather their 
 inhabitants) are here not designated as those who even now 
 suffer the punishment of eternal fire! But Jude could 
 designate the cities as a δεῖγμα of eternal fire, considering the 
 fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. 
 Hofmann correctly connects πυρὸς αἰωνίου with δεῖγμα, but he 
 incorrectly designates δεῖγμα πυρ. aiwv. as a preceding 
 apposition to δίκην : “it may be seen in them (δεῖγμα = ex- 
 hibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the 
 fire that has consumed them is enduring in its after-opera- 
 tions ;” by this explanation πῦρ αἰώνιον is deprived of its 
 proper meaning. With δίκην ὑπέχουσαι the fact is indicated 
 that they have continually to suffer punishment, since the 
 period that punishment was inflicted upon them in the time 
 of Lot ;? corresponding to what is said of the angels in ver. 
 6.— δεῖγμα in N. T. äm. ‘ey. (Jas. v. 11, and frequently : 
 
 1 Wiesinger incorrectly observes that “ by this connection we must also 
 assume that those angels also suffer the punishment of eternal fire,” since 
 precisely the contrary is the case. Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assump- 
 tion by taking δεῖγμα as equivalent to example. It is also entirely erroneous 
 when it is asserted that πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκη is an evident type of hell-fire, since 
 xp αἰώνιον is itself hell-fire. To be compared with this is 3 Macc. li. 5: od... 
 Σοδομίτας ... Tupi een κασπέφλεξα:, παράδειγμα σοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις καταστήσας ; and 
 Libanius in reference to Troy : κεῖται παράδειγμα δυστοχία: πυρὸς αἰωνίου. 
 
 2 There is no necessity to derive this representation from Wisd. x. 7, and the 
 various phenomena which lead to the supposition of a subterranean fire at the 
 Dead Sea (see Winer’s bibl. Realw. ; todt:3 Meer). 
 
410 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 ὑπόδειγμα), not = example, but proof, testimony, sign. ὑπέχειν 
 likewise in N. T. ἅπ. Xey.; 2 Mace. iv. 48, ζημίαν ὑπέχειν 
 (2 Thess. i. 9, δίκην Tiew). 
 
 Ver. 8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 
 2 Pet. ii. 10.— ὁμοίως] 1.6. similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, 
 etc. — μέντοι] expresses here no contrast (so earlier in this 
 commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment which has come 
 on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as 
 Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kiihner’s Gramm. 
 II. p. 694, “simply for the strengthening of the expression, 
 putting the emphasis on ὁμοίως : those men, says Jude, actually 
 do the same thing as the Sodomites.”— καὶ οὗτοι] refers back 
 to τινες ἄνθρωποι, ver. 4. — ἐνυπνιωζόμενοιἾ only here and in 
 Acts ii. 17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according 
 to Joel iii. 1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bret- 
 schneider’s explanation: “falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa 
 oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most expositors unite 
 it closely with the following σάρκα μιαίΐίνουσι, and understand 
 it either: de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or 
 of voluptuous dreams, appealing to Isa. lvi. 10 (LXX. ἐνυπνια- 
 ζόμενοι κοίτην, an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew Dh 
 macy), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecumenius). Jachmann 
 
 (with whom Briickner agrees) understands it generally = 
 “sunk in sleep, 1.6. hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” 
 appealing to the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ü. 10 (ev ἐπιθυμίᾳ). 
 Similarly Calvin: est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, 
 ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem 
 turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations 
 the expression is only referred to the first clause of the 
 following sentence ; but this is opposed to the construction : it 
 refers to both clauses,—else it would have been put directly 
 with μιαίνουσι, ----- and denotes the condition in which and 
 out of which they do those things which are expressed in the 
 following clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only 
 the negative point of ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, the want of a clear con- 
 sciousness (Hornejus: tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo 
 sopiti non tantum impure vivant, ete.; Arnaud: qui agissent 
 sans savoir ce quils font); the positive point is chiefly to be 
 observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their 
 
VERSE 8. 411 
 
 own perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths 
 and warnings of the divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fron- 
 miiller, Wiesinger, Schott, Brickner, Hofmann’). The reference 
 to Isa. xxix. 10, LXX.: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος κατανύξεως, 
 is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the 
 discourse is not about a punitive decree of God. — σάρκα 
 μὲν μιαίνουσι) not their flesh, but generally the flesh, both 
 their own and that of others: the thought refers back to 
 ver. 7: ἐκπορνεύσασαι, etc. — κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας de 
 βλασφημοῦσιν) announces a new side of their sinful nature. 
 As this verse is in evident connection of thought with ver. 
 10, where the words ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς... φθείρονται refer 
 back to σάρκα μὲν μιαίν., so κυριότης and δόξαν can only 
 be here such things as suit the words ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν. It 
 is thus incorrect to understand them of political powers 
 (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and others), or 
 of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius”), or of human authorities 
 generally, the two words being either taken as designations 
 of concrete persons, or one of them as a pure abstraction ; 
 Arnaud: par κυριότητα il faut entendre Yautorité en général 
 et par δόξας les dignités quelconques, les hommes méritant, 
 par leur position, le respect et la considération. — Both 
 expressions are to be understood as a designation of super- 
 mundane powers. Almost all recent expositors agree in this, 
 although they differ widely in the more definite statement. 
 These different explanations are as follows:—(1) κυριότης is 
 taken as a designation of God or Christ, and δόξαι as a 
 designation of the good angels (Ritschl) ; (2) the good angels 
 are understood in both expressions (Brückner); (3) κυριότης 
 is understood in the first explanation, but δόξαι is explained 
 of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are 
 understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In 
 order first correctly to determine the idea κυριότης, the rela- 
 
 1 “Those here spoken of are wakeful dreamers, so that they, when they 
 should perceive with their. wakeful senses, have only dreams, and what they 
 dream they esteem as the perception of the wakeful spirit.” 
 
 2 Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking that by κυριότης may also be under- 
 stood ἡ τοῦ xara Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τελευτή, and by δόξαι also ἡ παλαία διαθήκη καὶ ἡ 
 
 viz; on 2 Pet. ii. 10 he observes: δόξας, aro ras θείας φησὶ δυνάμεις, ἢ καὶ τὰς 
 ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀρχάς, 
 
412 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 tion of ver. 8 to what goes before is to be observed. The 
 judgments which have befallen the people (ver. 5), the angels 
 (ver. 6), and the cities (ver. 7), are by Jude adduced as a 
 testimony against the Antinomians (οὗτοι, ver. 8) mentioned 
 in ver. 4, evidently because these persons are guilty of the 
 same sins on account of which those judgments occurred. 
 Since σάρκα μιαίνουσι evidently points back to ἐκπορνεύσασαι, 
 ver.‘7, and further to ἀσέλγειαν, ver. 4, it is most natural to 
 refer κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν to μὴ πιστεύοντας, ver. 5, and, 
 further, to τὸν μόνον δεσπότην . . . ἀρνούμενοι, ver. 4. Con- 
 sequently, by κυριότης --- if one takes τὸν μόνον δεσπότην as 
 a designation of God—-is to be understood the Godhead ; or, 
 if one understands 7. a. 6. as a predicate to “Inc. Xp., Christ. 
 If, now, it is assumed that δόξαν is an idea corresponding to 
 κυριότης, and to be taken along with it, then by it the good 
 angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked 
 that the clause δέξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν is separated from the 
 preceding clause by δέ; and that ver. 9 leads to a different 
 understanding of δόξαι. When in ver. 9 it is said of the 
 archangel Michael that he dared not κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασ- 
 φημίας against the devil, this βλασφημίας evidently refers 
 back to βλασφημοῦσιν, ver. 8, consequently the two ideas 
 δόξας and διάβολος are brought together, so that from this 
 the preference must be given to the explanation which under- 
 stands by δόξας the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. 
 That not only δόξαι, but also κυριότης, is a designation of evil 
 powers, Schott incorrectly appeals to the fact that in 2 Pet. 
 ii. 10, and also here, the unchaste, carnal life of the false 
 teachers is connected with their despising or rejection of 
 κυριίτης ; for although it is presupposed that the recognition 
 of the reverence for κυριότης might restrain these men from 
 the abuse of their fleshly nature, yet it does not follow from 
 this that only evil spirits can be meant, since also the recog- 
 nition of the reverence for the divine power restrains from 
 the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by 
 God. To the identification of κυριότης and δόξαι ---- whether 
 good or evil angels are to be understood—not only is the 
 form of the expression opposed, Jude not uniting the two 
 clauses by καί, but, as already remarked, separating them by 
 
VERSE 8. 413 
 
 δέ but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, 
 whilst they despise (ἀθετοῦσιν; 2 Pet.: καταφρονοῦσιν) the 
 κυριότης, but blaspheme the δόξαι. The clearer this separa- 
 tion and distinction are kept in view, the less reason is there 
 against deriving the exact meaning of δόξαν from ver. 9 (2 Pet. 
 11. 10 from ver. 11), and consequently against understanding by 
 it evil angels (comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed 
 that Jude has used the expression δόξαι as a name for the 
 evil angels as such, but only that, whilst so naming angels 
 generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident from 
 ver. 9. That these may be understood by this designation 
 cannot be denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul 
 in Eph. vi. 12 names them ai ἀρχαί, αἱ ἐξουσίαι, of κοσμο- 
 κράτορες, and says of them that they are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. 
 — ἀθετοῦσιν. . . βλασφημοῦσιν] The first expression is 
 negative, the second positive; the Antinomians manifested 
 the despising of κυριώτης by the carnal licentiousness of 
 their lives, whilst they fancied themselves exempt by 
 xapıs (ver. 4) from the duty of obedience to the will of 
 God (or Christ) as the κύριος requiring a holy life; but 
 their blasphemy of the δόξαι consisted in this, that on 
 the reproach of having in their immorality fallen under 
 diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impo- 
 tent beings. 
 
 REMARK.— According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which 
 Jude here asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only 
 the guilt of their forerunners (namely, the Israelites, ver. 5; the 
 angels, ver. 6; and the Sodomites, ver. 7), and his expressions 
 can therefore only be understood in an indirect and metaphorical. 
 sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the 
 second clause of ver. 10, that the Antinomians understood rela- 
 tions to be understood spiritually φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα Lau, 1.6. 
 that they considered the blessings promised in the kingdom of 
 heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so under- 
 standing the relation of ver. ὃ to the preceding, that δόξας Brace. 
 is to be referred back to ver. 7, κυριότ. ἀθετ. to ver. 6, and σαρκὰ 
 μιαΐν. to ver. 5. According to his view, Jude finds the guilt of 
 the Sodomites (ver. 7) to consist in this, that by the design of 
 
 T Also in 2 Pet. ii. 10, δόξας οὖ πρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες 15 separated from 
 xupiornros καταφρονοῦντας by the intervening rorunrel αὐθάδεις. 
 Ρ Ρ 8 ω 
 
414 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them; the 
 guilt of the angels (ver. 6) in this, that they undervalued their 
 own dominion; and the guilt of the Israelites (ver. 5) in this, 
 that they had criminal intercourse with the impure daughters 
 of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of the Antinomians 
 consisted in this—(1) that they regarded immorality as a privi- 
 lege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with 
 the angels; (2) that by referring their immoral practice to the 
 kingdom of God, they showed a depreciation of the dominion 
 which belongs to Christ, or to which they themselves are called; 
 and (3) that by their ἀσέλγειω they were guilty of the defilement 
 of those connected with them in the Christian church. But both 
 the explanation of the second clause of ver. 10, where there is 
 no mention of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 the statement of the relation of ver. 8 to what goes before, is 
 incorrect, since in ver. 7 the Sodomites and the other cities are 
 reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual 
 doing; in ver. 6 the not preserving their ἀρχή and the forsaking 
 of their οἰκητήριον are indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, 
 but specially on this account, because they did it —as τὸν ὅμοιον 
 τρύπον τούτοις, ver. 7, Shows—for the sake of ἐχπορνεύειν ; and lastly, 
 in ver. 5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of Moab 
 is not indicated as the reason of their ἀπώλεια, but their un- 
 belief (μὴ πιστεύοντας). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly 
 rejected the explanation of Ritschl as mistaken.—The view of 
 Steinfass, expressed on 2 Pet. ii. 10, that the blasphemy of the 
 δόξαι by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to constrain 
 the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other 
 considerations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter 
 nor in Jude is there any reference to charms and love-intrigues 
 with the angels. 
 
 Ver. 9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this 
 blasphemy (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 11). They do something against 
 the δόξαι, which even Michael the archangel did not venture 
 to do against the devil. — ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος] 
 Michael, in the doctrine of the angels, as it was developed 
 during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the 
 seven highest angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the 
 nation of Israel: Dan. xii. 1, may way Toy Kam 787; comp. 
 x. 13, 21; in the N. T. he is only mentioned in Rev. xii. 7. 
 In the Book of Enoch, chap. xx. 5, he is described as “ one 
 of the holy angels set over the best part of the human race, 
 
VERSE 9. 415 
 
 over the people.” — ἀρχώγγελος only here and in 1 Thess. 
 iv. 16 (Dan. xii. 1, LXX, ὁ ἄρχων ὁ péyas); see Winer’s 
 bibl. Reallex.: Angel, Michael. —öre τῷ διαβόλῳ «.r.A.] This 
 legend is found neither in the O. T. nor in the Rabbinical writ- 
 ings, nor in the Book of Enoch ; Jude, however, supposes it well 
 known. Oecumenius thus explains the circumstance: λέγεται 
 tov Μιχαὴλ... τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι" τοῦ γὰρ 
 διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα 
 διὰ τὸν τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου φόνον, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωσέως, 
 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου 
 ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6, the grave 
 of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. This 
 legend, with reference to the manslaughter committed by 
 Moses, might easily have been formed, as Oecumenius states 
 it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside of 
 the Scriptures” (Stier). According to Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν, 
 11, 2), Jude derived his account from a writing known in his 
 age: ἀνάβασις τοῦ Μωσέως." Calvin and others regard oral 
 tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra and others, a special 
 revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a direct in- 
 struction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appear- 
 ance of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette 
 has correctly observed that the explanation is neither to be 
 derived from the Zendavesta (Herder), nor is the contest to 
 be interpreted allegorically (σῶμα Macews = the people of 
 Israel, or the Mosaic law). — διακρινόμενος διελέγετο] The 
 juxtaposition of these synonymous words serves for the 
 
 1 Schmid (δ δ]. Theol. II. p. 149), Luthardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340), 
 Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely) think that the conflict consisted in Michael 
 not permitting the devil to exercise his power over the dead body of Moses, but 
 withdrawing it from corruption ; for which an appeal is made to the fact that 
 “God had honoured Moses to see in the body a vision of His entire nature” 
 (Hofmann), and also that ‘‘ Moses was to be a type of the Mediator conquering 
 death” (Schott), and that Moses appeared with Christ on the mount of trans- 
 figuration. In his explanation of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himself to 
 this effect, that Satan wished’to prevent ‘‘ Moses, who shared in the impurity of 
 death, and who had been a sinful man, from being miraculously buried by the 
 holy hand of God (through Michael).” 
 
 ? See on this apocryphal writing, F. Philippi (das Buch Henoch, p. 166-191), 
 who ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in the second century, and 
 
 assumes that he was induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of Jude ; 
 this at all events is highly improbable. 
 
416 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 strengthening of the idea; by διελέγετο the conflict is in- 
 
 dicated as a verbal altercation. — οὐκ ἐτόλμησε] he ventured 
 not. — κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας] Calovius incorrectly 
 
 explains it by: ultionem de blasphemia sumere ; the words 
 refer not to a blasphemy uttered by the devil, but to a 
 blasphemy against the devil, from which Michael restrained 
 himself. — κρίσιν ἐπιφέρειν] denotes a jndgment pronounced 
 against any one (comp. Acts xxv. 18: αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρειν). --- 
 κρίσιν βλασφημίας] is a judgment containing in itself a 
 blasphemy. By Bdracd. that saying—namely, an invective 
 —is to be understood by which the dignity belonging to 
 another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an 
 invective against the devil, because he feared to injure his 
 original dignity ; instead of pronouncing a judgment himself, 
 he left this to God. Herder: “And Michael dared not to 
 pronounce an abusive sentence.” — ἀλλ᾽ eimev ἐπιτιμήσαι 
 σοι κύριος] the Lord rebuke thee: comp. Matt. xvii. 18, 
 xix. 13, ete. According to Zech. iii. 1-3, the angel of the 
 Lord spoke the same words to the devil, who in the vision 
 of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of the 
 high priest Joshua (LXX.: ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοὶ διάβολε). 
 
 Ver. 10. Description of the false teachers with reference to 
 ver. 8 in contrast to ver. 9; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 12. — They 
 blaspheme, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι, what they know not: the 
 supermundane, to which the δόξαι, ver. 8, belong, is meant. 
 Hofmann: “they know about it, otherwise they could not 
 hlaspheme it; but they have no acquaintance with it, and 
 yet in their ignorance judge of it, and that in a blasphemous 
 manner” (comp. Col. ii. 18, according to the usual reading). 
 Those expositors who understand κυριότητα and δόξας of 
 human authorities, are at a loss for an explanation of the 
 thoughts here expressed ; thus Arnaud: il est assez difficile de 
 préciser, quelles étaient ces choses quwignoraient ces impies. 
 — ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται] a contrast to what goes 
 before ; corresponding to σάρκα μιαίνουσι, ver. 8, only here 
 the idea is carried farther. Jachmann explains it: “the 
 passions inherent in every one;” but this does not suit 
 ἐπίστανται. De Wette correctly: the objects of sensual enjoy- 
 ment; to which the σάρξ (ver. 8) especially belongs. By 
 
VERSE 11. 417 
 
 φυσικῶς (ἅπ. rey. = of nature) ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα is pro- 
 minently brought forward the fact that their understanding 
 is not raised above that of the irrational animals, that to 
 them only the sensual is something known. There is no 
 distinction between eidevaı and ἐπίστασθαι, as Schott thinks, 
 that the former denotes a comprehensive knowledge, and the 
 latter a mere external knowing (“they understand, namely, 
 in respect of the external and sensual side of things, 
 practically applied”); but these two verbs obtain this 
 . distinctive meaning here only through the context in which 
 they are employed by Jude (comp. Hofmann). — ἐν τούτοις 
 φθείρονται] Ev, more significant than διά, designates their 
 entire surrender to these things. — φθείρονται ; Luther, they 
 corrupt themselves; better: they destroy themselves ; namely, 
 by their immoderate indulgences. In Luther’s translation 
 the words ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα are incorrectly attached to 
 this verb. 
 
 Ver. 11. The author interrupts his description of these 
 ungodly men by a denunciation on them, which he grounds 
 by characterizing them after the example of the ungodly in 
 the O. T. (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 15 ff). — οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς] The same 
 denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus: 
 “at once a threatening and a strong disapproval” (de 
 Wette). With this οὐαί Jude indicates the judgment 
 into which the Antinomians have fallen; it refers back to 
 vv. 5-7; Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a 
 mere “exclamation of pain and abhorrence.”' This denun- 
 ciation of woe does not occur with an apostle; frequently 
 in the ©. T.— ὅτε τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν] On the 
 phrase: τῇ ὁδῷ τινος πορεύεσθαι, comp. Acts xiv. 16. (Acts 
 ix. 31: mop. τῷ φόβῳ τ. κυρίου.) τῇ ὁδῷ is to be understood 
 locally (see Meyer on the above passages), not “ instru- 
 mentally” (Schott), which does not suit ἐπορεύθησαν. --- 
 ἐπορεύθησαν ; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the 
 present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in 
 
 1 Hofmann correctly observes: “οὐαί has evil in view, whether it be in the 
 tone of compassion which bewails it (Matt. xxiii. 15), or of indignation which 
 imprecates it (Matt. xi. 21).” As not the first but the second is the case here, 
 Hofmann should not have rejected the explanation of de Wette. 
 
 JUDE. 2D 
 
418 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 ovat αὐτοῖς as fulfilled (de Wette-Brückner). Schott in- 
 correctly explains it: “they have set out, set forth.” Many 
 expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist in this, 
 that whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of 
 the brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, 
 Estius, Grotius (Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit; illi 
 fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius, Hornejus, Schott, and. 
 others. But this conversion into the spiritual is arbitrary, 
 especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not 
 specially brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adher- 
 ing to the murder committed by Cain, think on the per- 
 secuting zeal of these false teachers against believers; so 
 Nicolas de Lyra: sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex 
 invidia et avaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. 
 As the later Jews regarded Cain as a symbol of moral 
 scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes that Jude would 
 here reproach his opponents with this scepticism; but there 
 is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops 
 at the idea that Cain is named as “the archetype of all 
 wicked men;” so also Arnaud! and Hofmann ; but this is 
 too general. Brückner finds the point of resemblance in 
 this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favour shown 
 to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, 
 slew his brother, so these false teachers resisted God, and 
 that from envy of the favour shown to believers. But in 
 the context there is no indication of the definite statement . 
 “ from envy.” It is more in correspondence with the context 
 to find the tertiwm compar. in this, that Cain in spite of the 
 warning of God followed his own wicked lusts ; Fronmiiller : 
 “The point of comparison is acting on the selfish impulses of 
 nature, in contempt of the warnings of God.’—x«al τῇ πλάνῃ 
 τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν] πλάνη, as a sinful moral 
 error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from. the truth ; 
 comp. Jas. v. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 18 (Ezek. xxxiii. 16, LXX. 
 translation of VB). ἐκχεῖσθαι in the middle, literally, to issue 
 forth out of something, construed with εἴς τὸ; figuratively, 
 to rush into something, to give oneself wp with all his might to 
 
 1 Arnaud: J. compare seulement, d’une maniére trés générale, ses adver- 
 saires ἃ Cain, sous le rapport de Ja méchanceté. 
 
VERSE 11. 419 
 
 something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, 3; eis ἡδονὴν 
 ἐκχυθέντες ; several proof passages in Wahl, Elsner, Wetstein) ; 
 it is less suitable to explain the verb according to Ps. Ixxiü. 2, 
 where the LXX. have ἐξεχύθη as a translation of SEX = to 
 slip (Grotius: errare). The dative τῇ πλάνῃ is = eis τὴν 
 πλάνην; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instru- 
 mentalis, since ἐξεχύθησαν requires a statement for the com- 
 pletion of the idea. The genitive μισθοῦ is, with Winer, 
 p. 194 [E. T. 258], to be translated: for reward (see Grotius 
 in loco); so that the meaning is: “they gave themselves up 
 for a reward (i.e. for the sake of earthly advantage, thus from 
 covetousness ; Luther: ‘for the sake of enjoyment’) to the sin 
 of Balaam ;” thus most interpreters, also Briickner, Wiesinger, 
 Hofmann. De Wette, on the contrary, after the example of 
 Erasmus, Vatablus, and others, explains Βαλαάμ, as a genitive 
 dependent on tod μισθοῦ; the dative τῇ πλάνῃ, as = 
 by means of the error; and ἐξεχύθησαν as an intransitive 
 verb = “to commit excesses, to give vent to.” Accordingly, 
 he translates the passage as follows: “ By (by means of) the 
 error (seduction) of the reward of Balaam, they have poured 
 themselves out (in vice).” So also Hornejus: deceptione 
 mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.’ But this 
 construction is extremely harsh, the ideas πλάνη and ἐξεχύ- 
 θησαν are arbitrarily interpreted, and the whole sentence, so 
 interpreted, would be withdrawn from the analogy of the 
 other two with which it is co-ordinate.” Schott construes the 
 genitive with πλάνῃ, whilst he designates it “as an additional, 
 and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake 
 of precision,” and for this he supplies a πλάνῃ : “the error of 
 Balaam, which was an error determined by gain.” This con- 
 struction, it is true, affords a suitable sense, but it is not linguis- 
 tically justified : it is entirely erroneous to take μισθοῦ as in 
 apposition to Βαλαάμ = ὃς μισθὸν ἠγάπησεν, 2 Pet. ii. 15 (Fron- 
 
 1 Calvin: dixit (Ap.), instar Bileam mercede fuisse deceptos, quia pietatis 
 doctrinam turpis lucri gratia adulterant ; sed metaphora, qua utitur, aliquanto 
 plus exprimit; dixit enim effusos esse, quia scilicet instar aquae diffluentis 
 projecta sit eorum intemperies. 
 
 * “The parallelism of the three clauses requires that τῇ xradun ἐξεχύθησαν 
 
 should remain together, accordingly the genitive is equivalent to ἀντὶ μισθοῦ " 
 (Stier), 
 
420 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 miiller, Steiıfass). — De Wette, chiefly from Rev. ii. 14, finds 
 the point of resemblance in this, that “ Balaam as a false prophet 
 and a seducer to unchastity and idolatry, and contrary to the 
 will of God, went to Balak, and that he is also particularly 
 considered as covetous and mercenary.” But there is no 
 indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others 
 to idolatry. Hofmann observes that this clause calls the 
 sin of those described as “a devilish conduct against the 
 people of God, the prospect of a rich reward being too 
 alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires 
 of Balak to destroy the people of God;” but in this ex- 
 planation also a reference is introduced not indicated by the 
 context. That Jude had primarily in view the covetousness 
 of Balaam, μισθοῦ shows; blinded by covetousness, Balaam 
 resisted the will of God; his resistance was his πλάνη, in 
 which, and in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled 
 him (Brückner, Wiesinger) ; whether Jude had also in view 
 the seduction to unchastity (comp. Num. xxxi. 16; Fron- 
 miiller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to 
 find the point of resemblance in this, that the Antinomians 
 “had in view a material gain to be obtained by the rwin of 
 the church of God” (Schott). — καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ 
 ἀπώλοντο] ἀντιλογία, contradiction ; here, seditious resistance. 
 ἀπώλοντο does not mean that “they lost themselves in the 
 avrı\. of Korah,” but “that they perished;” accordingly, 
 τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ is the instrumental dative. The point of re- 
 semblance is not, with Nicolas de Lyra, to be sought in this, 
 that the opponents of Jude formed propter ambitionem 
 honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas; or, with Hornejus, that 
 they assumed the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum ; 
 or, with Hofmann, that they, as Korah (“whose resistance 
 consisted in his unwillingness to recognise as valid the law 
 of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious 
 constitution of Israel rested”), “desired to assert a liberty 
 not restricted;” but it consists in the proud resistance to 
 God and His ordinances, which the Antinomians despise. 
 By Schott’s explanation: “that they opposed to the true 
 holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the 
 holiness alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,” a foreign 
 
VERSE 12. 421 
 
 reference is introduced.! The gradation of the ideas ὁδός, 
 πλάνη, ἀντιλογία, in respect of definiteness, is not to be 
 denied; but there is also a gradation of thought, for although 
 the point about which Cain, Balaam, and Korah are named 
 is one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet. this 
 appears in the most distinct manner in the case of Korah. 
 Ver. 12. A further description of these false teachers ; 
 comp. 2 Pet. ii. 13, 17. — οὗτοί εἰσιν [ot] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις 
 ὑμῶν σπιλάδες] In the reading οἱ, ὄντες is either, with de 
 Wette, to be supplied; thus: “these are they who are 
 σπιλάδες in your ayaraıs;” or of is to be joined to avvevw- 
 xovuevos (comp. vv. 16, 19; so Hofmann). That by 
 aydrats the love-feasts are to be understood, is not to be 
 doubted. Erasmus incorrectly takes it as =charitas, and 
 Luther as a designation of alms.—The word σπιλάδες is 
 usually explained = cliffs (so also formerly in this commentary). 
 If this is correct, the opponents of Jude are so called, inas- 
 much as the love-feasts were wrecked on them (de Wette- 
 Brückner, Wiesinger), 1.6. by their conduct these feasts ceased 
 to be what they ought to be; or inasmuch as they prepared 
 destruction for others, who partook of the love-feasts (Schott, 
 and this commentary). It is, however, against this interpre- 
 tation that σπιλάς does not specially indicate cliffs, but has 
 the more general meaning rocks (Hofmann : “ projecting inter- 
 ruptions of the plain ”), and the reference to being wrecked is 
 not in the slightest degree indicated.” — Stier and Fronmiiller 
 take σπιλάδες as = σπῖλοι, 2 Pet. ii. 13; this is not unwar- 
 ranted, as σπιλάς, which is properly an adjective (comp. 
 
 1 Ritschl finds the point of resemblance between the Antinomians and the 
 three named in this, ‘‘ that they, as these, undertook to worship God in a manner 
 rejected by Him.” But it is erroneous that ‘the Korahites exhibited their 
 assumption of the priesthood by the presentation of an offering rejected by 
 God ; it is incorrect that by ὁδός is indicated ‘‘ the religious conduct ” of Cain ; 
 and it is incorrect that the utterance of the curse willed by Balaam is to be 
 considered as a religious transaction. Moreover, in the description of the 
 Antinomians there is no trace indicating that their view was directed to a 
 particular kind of worship. 
 
 ® The explanation of Arnaud: les rochers continuellement battus par les 
 flots de la mer et souillés par son écume (after Steph.: σσιλάς), is unsuitable ; 
 since, when the Libertines are called cliffs, this happens not because they are 
 bespattered and defiled by others, but because others are wrecked on them. 
 
422 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 σποράς, φυγάς, Noyds), may be derived as well from otros = 
 filth (comp. γῇ σπιλάς = clayey soil; so Sophocles, Trach. 
 672, without γῆ), as from omidos=a rock (comp. πολυ- 
 omıds). In this case σπιλάδες may either be taken as a 
 substantive = what is filthy, spots (these are spots in your 
 agape ; so Stier and Fronmiiller), or as an adjective, which, used 
 adverbially (see Winer, p. 433), denotes the mode and manner 
 of συνευωχεῖσθαι (so Hofmann). The former construction 
 merits the preference as the simpler. — Apart from other 
 considerations, omiAoı καὶ μῶμοι in 2 Puter are in favour of 
 taking σπιλάδες here in the sense of σπῖλοι. — συνευωχού- 
 μενοι] The verb εὐωχεῖσθαι has not indeed by itself a bad 
 meaning, signifying to eat well, to feast well, but it obtains such 
 a meaning here by the reference to the agapé. The συν 
 placed before it may either refer to those addressed, with you, 
 see 2 Pet. ii. 13, where ὑμῖν is added to the verb (Wiesinger, 
 Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann) ; or to those here described by 
 Jude, feasting together, i.e. with one another. Against the first 
 explanation is the objection, that according to it the εὐωχεῖσθαι 
 in their agapé would render those addressed also guilty (so 
 formerly in this commentary); but against the second is the 
 fact that the Libertines held no special love-feasts with one 
 another, but participated in those of the church. The passage, 
 2 Pet ii. 13, is decisive in favour of the first explanation. — 
 The connection of ἀφόβως is doubtful; de Wette-Briickner, 
 Arnaud, Schott, Fronmiiller unite it with cuvevwyovpevor ; 
 Erasmus, Beza, Wiesinger, Hofmann, with ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. 
 In this commentary the first connection was preferred, 
 “because the idea συνευωχ. would otherwise be too bare.” 
 This, however, is not the case, because if the verse is construed, 
 as it is by Hofmann, it has its statement in what goes before ; 
 but if σπιλάδες is taken as a substantive, as it is by Stier and 
 Fronmiiller, then cuvevwy. is more precisely determined by 
 the following ἀφόβως ... ποιμαίνοντες, whilst it is said that 
 
 1 An explanation of this word is found in Xenophon, Memorabilia, lib. üi.: 
 ἔλεγε (namely, Socrates) δὲ καὶ ὡς vo εὐωχεῖσθαι iv τῇ ᾿Αθηναίων γλώππη ἐσθίειν 
 κάλοιτο. Τὸ δὲ εὖ προσκεῖσθαι, ἔφη, ἐπὶ τῷ ταῦτα ἐσθίειν, ἅτινα μήτε τὴν ψυχὴν, μήτε 
 To σῶμα λυποίη, μήτε δυσεύρετα ein; ὥστε καὶ 70 εὐωχεῖσθαι, σοῖς κοσμίως διαιςωμένοις 
 ἀνετίθει. However, εὐωχεῖσθαι sometimes occurs in classical Greek in a bad sense. 
 
VERSE 19, 433 
 
 they so participate in the agapé that their feasting was a 
 ἀφόβως ποιμαίνειν ἑαυτούς. Erasmus takes the latter words 
 in a too general sense: suo ductu et arbitrio viventes; Grotius, 
 Bengel, and others give a false reference to them after Ezek. 
 xxxiv. 2, understanding “that these feed themselves and not 
 the church ” (comp. 1 Pet. v. 2), and accordingly Schnecken- 
 burger thinks specially on the instructions which they engage 
 to give; but this reference is entirely foreign to the context. 
 According to de Wette, it is a contrast to “whilst they suffer 
 the poor to want” (1 Cor. xi. 21); yet there is also here no 
 indication of this reference. — νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι] is to be under- 
 stood no more of the agapé (de Wette, Schott), but generally. 
 ved. @vvöp. are light clouds without water, which therefore, as 
 the addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι makes prominent, are 
 driven past by the wind without giving out rain; comp. Prov. 
 xxv. 14. This figure describes the internal emptiness of 
 these men, who for this reason can effect nothing that is good ; 
 but it seems also to intimate their deceptive ostentation’; the 
 addition serves for the colouring of the figure, not for adducing 
 a special characteristic of false teachers; Nicolas de Lyra 
 incorrectly : quae a ventis circumferuntur i. e. superbiae moti- 
 bus et vanitatibus.— In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 17, 
 two images are united: πηγαὶ dvvöpoı καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαί- 
 λαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι. ---- According to the reading περιφερόμεναι, 
 the translation would be: “ driven hither and thither ;” παρα- 
 φερόμεναι denotes, on the other hand, driven past. A second 
 figure is added to this first, by which the unfruitfulness (in 
 good works) and the complete deadness of these men are 
 described; in the adjectives the gradation is obvious. — 
 δένδρα φθινοπωρινά] are not a particular kind of trees, such 
 as only bare fruit in autumn, but trees as they are in autumn, 
 namely, destitute of fruit (de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, 
 Schott, etc.). It is arbitrary to desert the proper meaning of 
 the word, and to explain φθινοπωρινά according to the etymo- 
 logy of φθίνειν by arbores quarum fructus perit illico=frugi- 
 
 1 Calvin : vanam ostentationem taxat, quia nebulones isti, quum multa pro- 
 mittunt, intus tamen aridi sunt. Bullinger: habent enim speciem doctorum 
 veritatis, pollicentur daturos se doctrinam salvificam, sed veritate destituuntur 
 et quovis circumaguntur doctrinae vento. 
 
424 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 perdae (Grotius; so also Erasmus, Beza, Carpzov, Stier: 
 “which have cast off their fruit in an unripe state”), — 
 ἄκαρπα] not: “ whose fruit has been taken off” (de Wette), 
 but “which are without fruit” (Brückner). Whether they 
 have had fruit at an earlier period, and are now destitute of it, 
 is not said. “The impassioned discourse proceeds from marks 
 of unfruitfulness to that of absolute nothingness” (de Wette). 
 δὶς ἀποθανόντα] Beza, Rosenmüller, and others arbitrarily 
 explain δίς by plane, prorsus. Most expositors retain the 
 usual meaning ; yet they explain the idea ¢wice in different 
 ways ; either that those trees are not only destitute of fruit, 
 but also of leaves (so Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others); or 
 that they bear no fruit, and are accordingly rooted out; or 
 still better, δίς is to be referred to the fact that they are not 
 only fruitless, but actually dead and dried up. That Jude 
 has this in his view, the following expıdwdevra shows. 
 Several expositors have incorrectly deserted the figure here, 
 and explained this word either of twofold spiritual death 
 (Beza, Estius, Bengel, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, Wiesinger, 
 Schott), or of death here and hereafter (so Grotius: neque hic 
 bonum habebunt exitum, neque in seculo altero), or of one’s 
 own want of spiritual life and the destruction of life in others. 
 All these explanations are without justification. ἐκριζωθέντα 
 is in close connection with dis ἀποθανόντα ; thus, trees which, 
 because they are dead, are dug up and rooted out;? thus 
 incapable of recovery and of producing new fruit (Erasmus : 
 quibus jam nulla spes est revirescendi). This figure, taken 
 from trees, denotes that those described are not only at present 
 destitute of good works, but are incapable of producing them 
 in the future, and are “on this account rooted out of the soil 
 of grace” (Hofmann). It is incorrect when Hofmann? in the 
 application refers &s ἀποθανόντα to the fact that those men 
 
 1 Fronmiiller, incorrectly : * trees which have at different times suffered fatal 
 injury by frosts or from insects.” 
 
 * Fronmiiller, linguistically incorrect: ‘‘ trees which still remain in the earth, 
 but which are shaken loose by their roots.” 
 
 3 If, when they became Christians, a fresh sap from the roots, by which they 
 were rooted in the soil of divine grace, appeared to establish them in a new life 
 out of their heathen death in sin, yet this new life was to them only a transition 
 into a second and now hopeless death.” 
 
VERSE 13. 425 
 
 were not only in their early heathenism, but also in their 
 Christianity, without spiritual life. There is no indication in 
 the context of the distinction between heathenism and Chris- 
 tianity. Arnaud observes not incorrectly, but too generally : 
 tous ces mots sont des métaphores énergiques pour montrer le 
 néant de ces impies, la légéreté de leur conduite, la stérilité de 
 leur foi et absence de leurs bonnes oeuvres. 
 
 Ver. 13. Continuation of the figurative description of those 
 false teachers. The two images here employed characterize 
 them in their erring and disordered nature. — κύματα ἄγρια 
 θαλάσσης k.t..| Already Carpzov has correctly referred for 
 the explanation of these words to Isa. lvii. 20; the first words 
 correspond to the Hebrew 2292; the following words: 
 ἐπαφρίξοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, = the Hebrew 2") wm 
 on) YI, only Jude uses the literal word where Isaiah has 
 the figurative expression. — ἐπαφρίζειν] properly: to foam 
 over. Luther well translates it: which foam out their own 
 shame. — αἰσχύνας, not properly vices (de Wette); the plural 
 does not necessitate this explanation, but their disgraceful 
 nature, namely, the shameful ἐπιθυμίαι which they manifest 
 in their wild lawless life; not “their self-devised wisdom ” 
 (Schott). — From the fact that the Hebrews sometimes com- 
 pared their teachers to the sea (see Moses, ¢heol. Samar., ed. 
 Gesenius, p. 26), it is not to be inferred, with Schneckenburger 
 and Jachmann, that there is here a reference to the office of 
 teachers; thisis the more unsuitable as the opponents of Jude 
 hardly possessed that office. — ἀστέρες πλανῆται] These two 
 words are to be taken together, wandering stars ; that is, stars 
 which have no fixed position, but roam about. The analogy 
 with the preceding metaphors requires us to think on actual 
 stars, with which Jude compares his opponents; thus on 
 comets (Bretschneider, Arnaud, Stier, de Wette, Hofmann) or 
 on planets (so most of the early commentators, also Wiesinger). 
 The latter opinion is less probable, because the πλανᾶσθαι of 
 the planets is less striking to the eye than that of the comets. 
 It is incorrect “in the explanation entirely to disregard the 
 fact whether there are such ἀστέρες πλανῆται in heaven or 
 not” (so earlier in this commentary, after the example of 
 Schott), and to assume that Jude, on account of their ostenta- 
 
426 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 tion (Wiesinger, Schott), designates these men as stars, and by 
 πλανῆται Indicates their unsteady nature. De Wette incor- 
 rectly assumes this in essentials as equivalent with πλανῶντες 
 καὶ πλανώμενοι, 2 Tim. iii, 13. Bengel thinks that we are in 
 this figure chiefly to think on the opaqueness of the planets ; 
 but such an astronomical reference is far-fetched. Jachmann 
 arbitrarily explains ἀστέρες = φωστῆρες, Phil. ii, 15, as a 
 designation of Christians. Several expositors also refer this 
 figure to the teaching of those men, appealing to Phil. ü. 15 
 and Dan. xii. 3; so already Oecumenius: δοκοῦντες eis 
 ἄγγελον φωτὸς μετασχηματίζεσθαι.. .. ἀπεναντίας μόνον τοῦ 
 κυρίου φέρονται δογμάτων (Hornejus, and others); but the 
 context gives no warrant for this. — οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους 
 eis αἰῶνα τετήρηται] This addition may grammatically be 
 referred either to what immediately precedes, thus to the 
 ἀστέρες πλανῆται, or to the men who have been described by 
 the figures used by Jude. It is in favour of the first refer- 
 ence (Hofmann: “Jude names them stars passing into eternal 
 darkness, comets destined only to vanish”) that a more pre- 
 cise statement is also added to the preceding figure; thus the 
 addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι. to νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι K.T.A. 
 But it is against it that the expression chosen by Jude is 
 evidently too strong to designate only the disappearance of 
 comets, therefore the second reference is to be preferred 
 (Wiesinger; comp. ver. 6), which also the parallel passage 
 in 2 Pet. ii. 17 favours. The addition of the genitive τοῦ 
 σκότους to 6 ζόφος serves to strengthen this idea. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. The threatening contained in the preceding 
 verses is confirmed by a saying of Enoch. — ἐπροφήτευσε δὲ 
 καὶ τούτοις] καί refers either to τούτοις : “of these as well as 
 of others ;” according to Hofmann, of those who perished in 
 the deluge; or it is designed to render prominent ἐπροφ. 
 τούτοις in reference to what has been before said: “ yea, 
 Enoch also has prophesied of them.” Hofmann, in an entirely 
 unwarrantable manner, maintains that there can be no ques- 
 tion that καί puts its emphasis on the word before which it 
 stands. — προφητεύειν generally with περί here construed 
 with the dative, as in Luke xviii. 31, in reference to these. — 
 ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ ᾿Ενώχ)] ἕβδομος has hardly here the 
 
VERSES 14, 1. 497 
 
 mystical meaning which Stier gives it: “The seventh from 
 Adam is personally a type of the sanctified of the seventh age 
 of the world, of the seventh millennium, of the great earth 
 Sabbath.” Also in the Book of Enoch, he is several times 
 expressly designated as “the seventh from Adam” (x. 8, 
 xclll. 3); not in order to characterize him as the oldest 
 prophet (Calvin, de Wette, and others), but to mark his import- 
 ance by the coincidence of the sacred number seven (Wiesinger, 
 Schott). The saying of Enoch here quoted is found, partly 
 verbally, at the beginning of the Book of Enoch (i. 9): “And 
 behold He comes with myriads of saints to execute judgment 
 on them, and He will destroy the ungodly and judge all flesh 
 concerning all things which the sinners and ungodly have 
 committed and done against Him.”’ These words are taken 
 from a speech in which an angel interprets a vision which 
 Enoch has seen, and in which he announces to him the future 
 judgment of God. 
 
 The question, from what source Jude has drawn these words, 
 is very differently answered by expositors. It is most natural 
 to conceive that he has taken them from the Book of Enoch; 
 but then this presupposes that this book, although only accord- 
 ing to its groundwork, is of pre-Christian Jewish, and not of 
 Jewish Christian origin, which is also the prevailing opinion of 
 recent critics. Hofmann, who denies the pre-Christian com- 
 position of the book, says: “Jude has derived it, in a similar 
 manner as the incident between Michael and Satan, from a 
 circle of myths, which has attached itself to Scripture, amplify- 
 ing its words.” Yet, on the other hand, it is to be observed 
 that it is difficult to conceive that oral tradition should preserve 
 such an entire prophetic saying. F. Philippi thinks that Enoch 
 in Gen. v. 22 is characterized as a prophet of God, and as such 
 prophesied of the impending deluge; and that Jude, by reason 
 of a deeper understanding of Gen. v., could add the exposition 
 already become traditionary, and speak of a prophecy of Enoch, 
 the reality of which was confirmed to him by the testimony of the 
 Holy Ghost ; or that this prophecy of Enoch was imparted to the 
 
 1 The passage thus stands in de Sacy’s version : et venit cum myriadibus 
 sanctorum, ut faciat judicium super eos et perdat impios et litigat cum omnibus 
 carnalibus pro omnibus quae fecerunt et operati sunt contra eum peccatores et 
 impli. 
 
428 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 
 
 disciples by Christ Himself, when the already extant tradition 
 concerning Enoch might have afforded them occasion to ask 
 the Lord about Enoch, perhaps when he was engaged in 
 delivering His eschatological discourses. But both opinions 
 of Philippi evidently rest on suppositions which are by no 
 means probable. As an example of the method by which 
 the older expositors sought to rescue the authenticity of the 
 prophecy, let the exposition of Hornejus suffice: haec quae 
 Judas citat, ab Enocho ita divinitus prophetata esse, dubium 
 non est; sive prophetiam illam ipse alicubi scripsit et scriptura 
 illa vel per Noam ejus pronepotem in arca, vel in columna 
 aliqua tempore diluvii conservata fuit sive memoria ejus tradi- 
 tione ad posteros propagata, quam postea apocrypho et fabulosa 
 illi libro autor ejus inseruerit, ut totum Enochus scripsisse 
 videretur. 
 
 Ev ἁγίαις μυριάσιν] comp. Zech. xiv. 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; 
 Heb. ΧΙ]. 22; (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων) Rev. v. 11.— Ver. 15. 
 ποιῆσαι κρίσιν] see Gen. xviii. 25; John v. 27. — τοὺς 
 ἀσεβεῖς] The pronoun αὐτῶν, according to the Rec., would refer 
 to the people of Israel. — ὧν ἠσέβησαν] the same verb in 
 Zeph. iii. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 6; here used as transitive; comp. 
 Winer, p. 209 [E. T. 279]. The frequcat repetition of the 
 same idea is to be observed: ἀσεβεῖς, ἀσεβείας, ἠσέβησαν, 
 and finally again aoeßeis; a strong intensification of ungodli- 
 ness. — τῶν σκληρῶν) σκληρός, literally, dry, hard, rough ; 
 here in an ethical sense, wngodly, not equivalent to surly 
 (Hofmann); in a somewhat different sense, but likewise of 
 sayings, the word is used in John vi. 60.— κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ] is by 
 Hofmann in an unnecessary manner attached not only to 
 ἐλάλησαν, but also to ἠσέβησαν, in spite of Zeph. iii. 11, 
 where it is directly connected with ἠσέβησαν, which is not 
 here the case. The sentence emphatically closes with dpap- 
 τωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, which is not, with Hofmann, to be attracted to 
 what follows. 
 
 Ver. 16. A further description of the false teachers attached 
 to the concluding words of the prophetic saying: τῶν σκληρῶν 
 ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ avtod; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19. — οὗτοί 
 εἰσι] as in vv. 10 and 19 with special emphasis. — 
 yoyyvotai] dm. rey. in N. T.; the verb is of frequent occur- 
 rence; Oecumenius interprets it: of ὑπ᾽ ὀδόντα Kal ἀπαῤῥη- 
 
VERSE 16. 429 
 
 σιάστως τῷ δυσαρεστουμένῳ ἐπιμεμφόμενοι. Jude does not 
 say against whom they murmur; it is therefore arbitrary to 
 think on it as united to a definite special object as rulers (de 
 Wette), or, still more definitely, ecclesiastical rulers (Estius, 
 Jachmann). Brückner correctly observes that “the idea is 
 not to be precisely limited.” Everything which was not 
 according to their mind excited them to murmuring. The 
 epithet μεμψίμοιροι (dm. Aey.), dissatisfied with their lot, gives 
 a more precise statement; denoting that they in their pre- 
 tensions considered themselves entitled to a better lot than 
 that which was accorded to them. The participial clause, 
 κατὰ Tas ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι, is added to the 
 substantive, which, whilst it unfolds the reason of their dis- 
 satisfaction and murmuring, at the same time expresses a kind 
 of contrast: they were dissatisfied with everything but them- 
 selves. Calvin: qui sibi in pravis cupiditatibus indulgent, 
 simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat. 
 The view of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that Jude has here 
 in view the dissatisfaction of the Jews of that period with 
 their political condition.— καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα] 
 ὑπέρογκα only here and in the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 18. 
 Luther: “proud words” (verba tumentia, in Jerom. contra 
 Jovian. 1. 24); comp. Dan. xi. 36, LXX.: καὶ λαλήσει 
 ὑπέρογκα; such words are meant which proceed from pride, 
 in which man exalts himself, in contrast to the humility of the 
 Christians submitting themselves to God. To this the parallel 
 passage (2 Pet. ii. 18) also points, where the expression 
 ὑπέρογκα refers to boasting of ἐλευθερία. A participial clause 
 is again added to this assertion, as in the former clause, like- 
 wise expressing a kind of contrast: θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα 
 ὠφελείας χάριν. The expression θαυμάζειν πρόσωπα is in 
 the N. T. da. Xey.; in the O. T. comp. Gen. xix. 21, LXX.: 
 ἐθαύμασά cov τὸ πρόσωπον ; Heb, 25 NW); in other passages 
 the LXX. have λαμβάνειν τὸ mp. In Ley. xix. 15 the LXX. 
 translate 5 82 by Aauß. τὸ p.; on the other hand, 35 773 
 by θαυμάζειν τὸ πρόσωπον. Whilst in the first passage the 
 friendly attitude of God toward Abraham is expressed, in the 
 second passage it has the bad meaning of partiality, It has 
 also this meaning here: it is to be translated to render 
 
430 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 
 
 admiration to persons (Herder: to esteem; Arnaud: “admirer, 
 honorer”). In this sense θαυμάζειν occurs in Ecclus. vii. 29 
 (comp. Lysias, Orat. 31, where it is said of death: οὔτε yap 
 τοὺς πονηροὺς ὑπερορᾷ, οὔτε τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς θαυμάζει, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἶσον ἑαυτὸν παρέχει πᾶσιν. This partial treatment of 
 persons consisted in the flattering homage of those who hoped 
 for some advantage from them, as ὠφελείας χάριν shows. It 
 is unwarranted, with Hofmann, to interpret θαυμάζειν πρό- 
 cama: “to gratify and to please a person.” Proud boasting and 
 cringing flattery form indeed a contrast, but yet are united 
 together. Calvin: magniloquentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fas- 
 tuose jactent: sed interea ostendit liberali esse ingenio, quia 
 serviliter se dimittant. — θαυμάξοντες is not parallel with 
 πορευόμενοι, but refers in a loose construction to αὐτῶν ; by 
 this construction the thought gains more independence than if 
 θαυμαζόντων were written. — ὠφελείας χάριν] belongs not to 
 the finite verb, but to the participle. 
 
 Vv. 17,18. Jude now turns to his readers, comforting * 
 and exhorting them in reference to the ungodly above 
 described; see 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3.— ὑμεῖς δέ] an emphatic con- 
 trast to those above mentioned. — μνήσθητε] presupposes the 
 words meant by Jude known to the readers, as learned from 
 the apostles. — τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων] ῥῆμα; the 
 word as an expression of thought. The προ in προειρημένων 
 designates these words not as those which predict something 
 future, but which were already. spoken before (so also 
 Hofmann). — ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κ.τ.λ.] Jude would hardly 
 have so expressed himself were he himself an apostle, 
 which several expositors certainly do not grant, explaining 
 this mode of expression partly from Jude’s modesty and 
 partly from the circumstance that, except himself and 
 John, the other apostles were already dead.— Ver. 18. 
 ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν] ὑμῖν here renders it probable that Jude 
 means such sayings as the readers had heard from the 
 mouth of the apostles themselves; yet the words which follow 
 are not necessarily to be considered as a literally exact quota- 
 
 1 Why Jude should not have intended to comfort his readers by reminding 
 
 them of what the apostles had, at an earlier period, said of the appearance of 
 these men, as he here describes them, cannot be perceived (against Hofmann), 
 
VERSE 19. 431 
 
 tion, but may be a compression of the various predictions of 
 the apostles concerning this subject.! — ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] 
 χρόνου] a designation of the time directly preceding the advent 
 of Christ. In the reading τοῦ χρόνου, ἐσχάτου is the genitive 
 neuter, as in Heb. i. 1.— ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται) only here and 
 in 2 Pet. iii. 3, a word occurring only in later Greek ; the 
 LXX. have translated orsıbym by Ewrr., as they render Sbynin by 
 ἐμπαίζειν. Mockers, that is, men to whom the holy (not 
 merely the resurrection, Grotius) serves for mockery. Aadety 
 ὑπέρογκα is a ἐμπαίζειν of the holy (which Hofmann without 
 reason denies); this is naturally united with a surrender to 
 their own lusts; therefore κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευό- 
 μενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν] τῶν ἀσεβειῶν, an echo of the saying of 
 Enoch, is placed emphatically at the close, in order to render 
 prominent the character and aim of ἐπιθυμίαι. ----- That the 
 apostles in their writings frequently prophesied of the entrance 
 of heretical and ungodly men into the church, is well known ; 
 comp. Sets’ xx, 29; 1 Tim. mL; 2 Time. ii. 2. Π|ὸ-Ὁ yet 
 ἐμπαίζειν is not elsewhere stated as a characteristic mark of 
 these men; this is only the case in 2 Pet. iii. 3, where, how- 
 ever, the mockery is referred only to the denial of the advent 
 of Christ. 
 
 Ver. 19. Final description of the false teachers, not specially, 
 but according to their general nature. — οὗτοί εἰσιν] parallel 
 with ver. 16. — οὗ ἀποδιορίζοντες) the article marks the idea 
 as definite: “ these are they who,” etc. — ἀποδιορίζειν, a word 
 which occurs only in Aristotle’s Polit. iv. 8. 9, is here very 
 differently explained ; with the reading ἑαυτούς it would most 
 naturally be taken as equivalent to separate; thus, “ who 
 separate themselves from the church, whether internally or 
 externally ” (Wahl) ; without ἑαυτούς it is explained either as 
 =to secede (Fronmiiller), or=to cause separations and divi- 
 sions, namely, in the church (Luther: “ who make factions ; ” 
 de Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger ; so also in this commentary). 
 
 1 Entirely without reason, Schott maintains that the intervening words: ὅτι 
 ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, prove that Jude will here give a verbal quotation, and that this must 
 be a writing earlier directed to the readers. or: ἐλ, ou. simply introduces the 
 statement of the contents of the ῥήματα, which were earlier spoken by the 
 
 apostles. The plural is not to be referred to one apostle, and the verb does not 
 in the least degree indicate that this word was written. 
 
432 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 Neither explanation is, however, justified from the use of the 
 word διορίζειν. It is still more arbitrary, with Schott, to 
 explain it: “who make a distinction, namely, between the 
 pneumatical (Pneumatikern), as what they consider themselves, 
 and the psychical (Psychikern), as what true Christians regard 
 them ;” for there is no indication of such a distinction made 
 by them. If we base the explanation on the significance of 
 διορίζειν, the word may be understood as = to make definitions. 
 But in this case what follows must be closely connected with 
 it, by which the mode and manner of their doing so is stated, 
 namely, that they do so as psychical men, who are without 
 the πνεῦμα. Hofmann gives to the verb the meaning: “to 
 determine (define) something exactly in detail” and then 
 assumes that the preceding genitive τῶν ἀσεβειῶν depends on 
 οἱ ἀποδιοριζόμενοι, which may well be the case, because a 
 participle standing for a substantive may as well as a sub- 
 stantive govern the genitive. According to this explanation, 
 Jude intends to describe those men as persons “who make 
 impieties the object of an exercise of thought exactly defining 
 everything, and so are the philosophers of impieties.” © This 
 explanation is condemned by the harsh and artificial construc- 
 tion which it requires." —pvyixol, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες] 
 πνεῦμα is not man’s natural spirit,” for Jude could not deny 
 this to his opponents ; and to explain μὴ ἔχοντες in the sense: 
 “I might say that they have no spirit at all” (Fronmiiller), is 
 completely arbitrary. It is rather to be understood of the 
 Holy Spirit (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann); the 
 want of the article and of an epithet, such as ἁγίου or Θεοῦ, 
 
 1 Certainly the dependent genitive may precede the governing substantive ; 
 but this union is here rendered impossible by the intervening οὗτοι. A participle 
 also, taken as a substantive, may sometimes govern a genitive ; but this is only 
 found with the neuter, and then only rarely. Add to this that οὗτοί εἰσιν here 
 corresponds to the οὗτοί εἰσιν in vv. 16 and 12, and accordingly must stand at 
 the beginning of the sentence. 
 
 * Schott explains πνεῦμα as ‘‘spiritual life in the distinctive character of its 
 being, that it is self-controlled in personal self-consciousness and self-determina- 
 tion,” and so equivalent to ‘‘ free personality of the spirit” (!); but this free 
 personality, Schott further observes, is not denied to them in the sense as “if 
 they were actually deprived of it,” but only that it ‘‘does not attain permanence 
 and reality in actual performance.” This distorted interpretation is contradicted 
 by the fact that Jude simply denies to them πνεῦμα ἔχειν, 
 
VERSES 20, 21. 433 
 
 is no objection against this interpretation, since the simple 
 word πνεῦμα is often used in the N. T. as a designation for the 
 objective Holy Spirit. It is erroneous to affirm that by this 
 interpretation the conclusion of the description is too flat, for 
 nothing worse can be said of a man who desires to be esteemed 
 a Christian than that he wants the Holy Spirit. Moreover, 
 only so understood does πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες correspond to the 
 preceding ψυχικοί, to which it is added as an explanation ; 
 ψυχίικοί they are, inasmuch as their natural spiritual life left 
 to itself is under the unbroken power of the cap&; see 1 Cor. 
 ἘΠ τ Jas: 11.15, 
 
 REMARK. — Schott attempts to prove that the three verses, 
 12, 16, and 19, beginning with οὗτοι, refer to the threefold 
 expression contained in ver. 11, namely, in this manner: that 
 the Antinomians, in showing themselves to be σπιλάδες in their 
 agapé (ver. 12), resembled Cain; that in being γογγυσταὶ 
 μεμιψίμοιροι, and out of greed for material gain indulging in 
 mercenary flattery (ver. 16), they resembled Balaam; and that 
 in establishing a self-invented ungodly sanctity in opposition to 
 the divinely appointed and divinely effective Christian sanctity 
 (ver. 19), they resembled Korah. This juxtaposition, however, 
 is anything but appropriate, resting, on the one hand, on 
 incorrect explanations ; and, on the other hand, on the arbitrary 
 selection of separate points. Itis incorrect to affirm that the 
 similarity of the Antinomians with Cain consisted in this, that 
 what he did corporally they did spiritually ; there is contained 
 in this rather a distinction than a similarity. It is arbitrary to 
 bring forward only the last clause of ver. 16, which reproaches 
 the Antinomians with flattery, and which may also be found in 
 Balaam ; whereas the other expressions in the verse do not suit 
 in the least degree. And lastly, it is erroneous so to interpret 
 ver. 19 that the Antinomians were accused of the setting up of 
 a false sanctity ; even were this correct, yet the sanctity claimed 
 by them is of a totally different nature from that to which 
 Korah and his company laid claim. 
 
 Vy. 20, 21. Exhortation to the readers respecting them- 
 selves. — ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοί] as in ver. 17, in contrast to the 
 persons and conduct of those mentioned in the last verse. — 
 ἐποικοδομοῦντες «.T.r.] The chief thought is contained in the 
 exhortation ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, to which the 
 preceding ἐποικοδομοῦντες... προσευχόμενοι is subordinate, 
 
 JUDE. 2E 
 
434 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 specifying by what the fulfilment of that exhortation is condi- 
 tioned. Yet it is asked, whether προσευχόμενοι is connected 
 with ἐποικοδομοῦντες, or is annexed as an independent sentence 
 to the following imperative; and whether ἐν v. ἁγίῳ is to 
 be united with ἐποικοδ, or with προσευχόμενοι. These ques- 
 tions are difficult to decide with perfect certainty. Wiesinger 
 and Schott apparently correctly unite ἐν wv. ay. with προσευ- 
 χόμενοι, and these taken together with what follows. Hof- 
 mann, on the other hand, unites ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ with what 
 goes before, and προσευχόμενοι with what follows. In this 
 construction, however, the structure of the participial clause 
 becomes too clumsy; also ἐν wv. ay. becomes superfluous, as 
 ἐποικοδομεῖν ἑαυτούς cannot take place otherwise than ἐν πνεύ- 
 ματι ay. It is true, Hofmann observes that ἐν mv. ay. is 
 superfluous with προσευχόμενοι, and that Jude could not intend 
 to say how they should pray, but that they should pray. But 
 this is erroneous, for τηρεῖν ἑαυτούς here mentioned depends 
 not only on this, that one should pray, but that one should 
 pray rightly, that is, ἐν mv. dy. Wiesinger correctly observes, 
 that the first clause gives the general presupposition; the 
 second, on the other hand, the more precise statement how 
 τηρήσατε has to be brought about.—7H ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν 
 πίστει] Both the adjective and the verb show that πίστις is 
 here meant not in a subjective (the demeanour of faith, 
 Schott), but in an objective sense (Wiesinger : “ appropriated 
 by them indeed as their personal possession, yet according 
 to its contents as mapaöodeica ;” so similarly Hofmann). — 
 ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς] When verbs compounded with ἐπί 
 are joined with the dative, as here, this for the most part is 
 used for ἐπί τί, more rarely for ἐπί tive (see Winer, p. 400 f. 
 [E. T. 535]). If the first is here the case, then ἐποικοδομεῖν 
 τῇ πίστει is to be interpreted, with Wiesinger: “ building on 
 πίστις, so that πίστις is the foundation which supports their 
 whole personal life, the soul of all their thinking, willing, and 
 doing” (so also hitherto in this commentary) ;* comp. 1 Cor. 
 iii. 12: ἐποικοδομεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον τοῦτον. If, on the 
 
 1 πίστις is the foundation, the δεμέλιος on which Christians should build them- 
 selves (more and more), by which the representation at the bottom is that they 
 are not yet on all sides of their life on this foundation. 
 
VERSES 20, 21. 435 
 
 other hand, the second is here the case, then it is to be 
 explained, with Hofmann, “ their faith is the foundation which 
 supports their life; and accordingly, in the further develop- 
 ment of their life it should ever be their care that their life 
 rests upon this foundation ;” comp. Eph. ii. 20: ἐποικοδομη- 
 θέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων. The first is, however, 
 to be preferred, because, as already remarked, with these 
 verbs the dative mostly stands for ἐπί τό. Both explana- 
 tions come essentially to the same thing. — ἑαυτούς is not 
 here = ἀλλήλους - the discourse is indeed of a general, but 
 not precisely of a mutual activity; ἑαυτούς with the second 
 person creates no difficulty; comp. Phil. ii. 12. — ἐν πνεύ- 
 ματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι] The expression mpocevy. ἐν mv. ay., 
 it is true, does not elsewhere occur, but similar combinations 
 are not rare (λαλεῖν Ev mv. ay. 1 Cor. xil. 3; see Meyer in 
 loc.) ; it means so to pray that the Holy Spirit is the moving 
 and guiding power (Jachmann, unsatisfactorily : “praying in 
 consciousness of the Holy Ghost”) ; comp. Rom. viii. 26. — 
 ἑαυτοὺς Ev ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ Tnpyoare] Θεοῦ may either be the 
 objective genitive (Vorstius: charitas Dei passiva 1. e. qua nos 
 Deum dilisimus ; so also Jachmann, Arnaud, Hofmann, and 
 others), or the subjective genitive, “the love of God to us” (so 
 de Wette, Schott, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller) ; in the latter case 
 the thought is the same as in John xy. 9,10; this agreement 
 is in favour of that interpretation, nor is the want of the 
 article opposed to it (against Hofmann). This keeping them- 
 selves in the love of God is combined with the hope of the 
 future mercy of Christ, which has its ground, not in our love 
 to God, but in God’s love to us; comp. Rom. v. ὃ ff. — προσ- 
 δεχόμενοι TO ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου K.T.A.] On wpoodey., Tit. ii. 15. 
 — τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is the mercy which Christ will 
 show to His own at His coming. Usually the idea ἔλεος is 
 predicated not of the dealings of Christ, but of God; in the 
 superscriptions of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Second Epistle 
 of John, it is referred to God and Christ. — eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον] 
 may be joined either with ἔλεος (de Wette), or with προσ- 
 δεχόμενοι (Schott), or with τηρήσατε (Stier, Hofmann) ; since 
 the imperative clause forms the main point, the last-mentioned 
 combination deserves the preference, especially as both in 
 
436 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 προσδέχεσθαι and in ἔλεος "Inc. Xp. the reference to ἕω 
 αἰώνιος is already contained. The prominence here given to 
 the Trinity, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Θεός, Inoods Χριστός, as frequently 
 in the N. T., is to be observed. With the exhortation con- 
 tained in vv. 20, 21, Jude has accomplished what he in 
 ver. 3 stated to be the object of his writing. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. The exhortations contained in these verses 
 refer to the conduct of believers toward those who are 
 exposed to seduction by the ἀσεβεῖς (ver. 4) (de Wette); not 
 toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche), for these are of 
 such a kind (ver. 12) that the church should have nothing to 
 do with them. The best attested text is that which codex A 
 affords: καὶ ods μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους" ods δὲ σώζετε ἐκ 
 πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ods δὲ ἐλεεῖτε (Lachmann and Tischendorf, 
 ἐλεῶτε) ἐν φόβῳ ; see critical remarks, — ods μὲν. . . ods δέ 
 instead of τοὺς μὲν. .. τοὺς δέ, see Winer, p. 100. Accord- 
 ing to this reading, three classes of the seduced are distin- 
 guished, and toward each a special conduct is prescribed. It 
 is, however, asked whether, as Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, 
 Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the 
 curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis 
 ad... . insanabiles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum 
 contumacia prohibemur: Reiche) ; or conversely from the in- 
 curable to the curable. Jn. reference to the first class it is 
 said: ods μὲν ἐλέγχετε Ötarpıvouevovs] The verb ἐλέγχειν 
 denotes to rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object 
 for which this is done is not indicated in the word itself; it 
 may be to lead the sinner to the acknowledgment of his sins, 
 and thus to repentance, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 2; Tit. 1. 13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. 
 particularly Jude ver. 15 (John xvi. 8; Tit. 1. 9). The ex- 
 planation of Oecumenius is incorrect: φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσιν 
 τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν. Those who are to be punished are 
 denoted Svaxpwopévovs. Both the translation of the Vul- 
 gate: judicatos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius : 
 κακείνους εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν ἐλέγχετε, are incorrect. 
 διακρίνεσθαι signifies in the N. T. either to contend, which is 
 here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to πιστεύειν ; comp. 
 Matt. xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Rom. iv. 20; especially Jas. i. 6. 
 
VERSES 22, 23. 437 
 
 This last passage shows that, although not equivalent to 
 ἀπιστεῖν, it denotes the condition in which ἀπιστία has the 
 preponderance over πίστις, the latter being a vanishing point. 
 It is evident that Jude does not consider the διακρινόμενοι as 
 weak believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he 
 will employ no other method than ἐλέγχειν (not παρακαλεῖν, 
 or something similar); those seduced are in his view such as 
 (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.” In reference 
 to the second class it is said: ods δὲ σώξετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπά- 
 ζοντες] Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred 
 from the conduct to be observed towards them. Toward those 
 belonging to this class a σώζειν is to be employed, but of such 
 a nature as is more precisely stated by ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. 
 ἐκ πυρός is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius, 
 Fronmiiller), but πῦρ is the present destruction, in which they 
 already are (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott); ἁρπάξειν denotes 
 hasty, almost violent, snatching out, and indicates that those 
 are already in extreme danger of perdition; comp. Amos 
 iv. 11; Zech. iii. 2. Distinguished from the διακρινομένοις, the 
 second class are to be considered as those who have not yet 
 lost the faith, but have, through fellowship with the Anti- 
 nomians, been enticed to their licentious life; these are to be 
 rescued. ow&ere is evidently in contrast to ἐλέγχετε, and 
 denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue, 
 provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out 
 of this fellowship. In reference to the third class, Jude pre- 
 scribes ἐλεεῖν (on the form eXeäre, see Winer, p. 32 [E. T. 
 104]). This verb in the N. T. never means only “to have 
 compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with 
 helpful love, as also ἔλεος is always used only of active com- 
 passion; so that with ἐλεεῖτε the exact contrary is said to 
 what Luther finds expressed, when he explains it: “let them 
 go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.” By this 
 
 1 When Hofmann says, “that διακρίνεσθαι cannot have this meaning requires 
 no proof,” he makes an entirely groundless assumption. 
 
 * In the reading of the Rec.: ods μὲν ἐλεεῖτε δια κρινόμενοι, we are obliged to 
 explain διακρίνεσθαι as = distinguished. Luther: “and make this distinction, 
 that ye compassionate some;” or, more exactly, ‘‘compassionate the one, 
 
 making a distinction,” namely, from others. But διακρινόμενοι must be passive, 
 since not διακρίνεσθαι, but only διακρίνειν, has the meaning to distinguish. 
 
438 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by which 
 the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. 
 As this ἐλεεῖν makes a fellowship necessary with those upon 
 whom it is exercised, Jude defines the same more precisely by 
 ev φόβῳ; accordingly, they must not be wanting in foresight, 
 lest creme suffer injury themselves,’ and he adds the participial 
 sentence as an explanation of.this ἐν φόβῳ: μισοῦντες καὶ 
 «TA. This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third 
 class as those who are indeed already involved, but who, by 
 active compassion, may again be re-established; it is not so 
 bad with them as with those toward whom only ἐλέγχειν is 
 to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those 
 who can only be rescued by hastily snatching them. 
 
 Hofmann considers the reading of 8: xa? οὕς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε Örarpıyo- 
 μένους οὕς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς apoe tonne. ods δὲ ἐλιεῶτε ἐν φύβῳ, as the 
 correct one. In his explanation of this reading he distinguishes 
 not three, but only two classes, assuming that only the first, but 
 not the second oi; δέ stands opposed to ods μέν ; and that this 
 latter ods δέ is to be considered rather as a resumption of the 
 object mentioned in οὕς μέν. This opinion is, however, erron- 
 eous, since, according to it, the third οὖς is understood differently 
 from the first and second οὕς, namely, as a pure relative pro- 
 noun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “ἐν φόβῳ is 
 explained as a consequence, united with an imperative ἐλεᾶτε 
 to be taken from ods ἐλεᾶτε: " “whom ye compassionate, them 
 compassionate with fear.” Also the explanation of the first 
 member of the sentence: “the readers are to compassionate 
 the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against 
 it N. T. usage, according to which διωκρίνεσθαι is never used as 
 the passive of διακρίνειν in the sense of “ to distinguish.” 
 
 The addition μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον 
 μ N 
 
 1 Schott is entirely mistaken when he says that ἐλεεῖν denotes here ‘‘a com- 
 passion which has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no longer in an impulse 
 to help, but only in a fear of acting wrongly, and in consequence of receiving 
 injury ;” in other words, a compassion which is no compassion. 
 
 2 According to the reading of the Rec. ἐν φόβῳ belongs to σώζεσε. Some 
 expositors (Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly explain it of the fear of the 
 persons to be rescued ; correctly Arnaud: c’est ἃ dire, prenant garde que, tout 
 en cherchant & les convertir, ils ne vous séduisent pas vous-memes. Reiche 
 incorrectly, with the reading A, separates ἐν φόβῳ from ἐλεῶσε, and joins it with 
 μισοῦνπες, Whilst it would attract to it a very superfluous addition. 
 
VERSES 24, 25. 439 
 xitava’ is correctly explained by Oecumenius: προσλαμ- 
 βάνεσθε. .. αὐτοὺς... μετὰ φόβου, περισκεπτόμενοι μήπως 
 ἡ πρόσληψις τούτων... λύμης ὑμῖν γένηται αἰτία. ---- καί, 
 even, gives greater emphasis to the thought. The expression 
 τὸν χιτῶνα is to be understood in a literal, and not in a 
 figurative sense (Bullinger: exuvias veteris Adami, concupi- 
 scentias et opera carnis). χιτῶν is the under garment worn 
 next the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact 
 with the flesh unclean by unchastity, etc. is itself soiled 
 (σπιλόω only here and in Jas. iii. 6); comp. Rev. 111. 4. — 
 This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by 
 means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of 
 those men. Calvin: vult fideles non tantum cavere a vitiorum 
 contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contagio pertingat, quicquid affine 
 est ac vicinum, fugiendum esse admonet. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. Conclusion of the Epistle by a doxology. 
 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ] The same commencement of the doxology in 
 Rom. xvi. 28. — ὑμᾶς] Were αὐτούς the correct reading, we 
 could hardly do otherwise than refer it to the last-mentioned 
 ods δέ, to which it is unsuitable, as they are not ἄπταιστοι, 
 who, as such, require only φυλάσσειν. That Jude actually 
 wrote αὐτούς : “in the flight of devotion may have turned 
 from his readers, and spoke of them in the third person” (de 
 Wette), is highly improbable.— ἀπταίστους] ἅπ. Aey., literally, 
 who strikes not against; then figuratively, who stumbles not, 
 does not offend ; here in the moral sense as πταίω, Jas. ii. 10, 
 ili. 2; Vulgate: sine peccato. — καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς 
 δόξης αὑτοῦ ἀμῶμους] Schott correctly remarks on καί: The 
 second effect is the ultimate result of the first, so that καί 
 might be rendered by and so, and accordingly. δόξα is here 
 the glory of God, as it will be manifested at the day of judg- 
 ment. On στῆσαν auepovs, comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Col. i. 22; 
 1 Thess. ii. 13. The meaning is: “who can effect it that 
 ye may appear as ἄμωμοι before His judgment-seat.” — ἐν 
 ἀγαλλιάσει) mentions the condition in which Christians will 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Both in the reading of the Kec. and in the reading of C this addition is 
 surprising ; one may regard it, with Jachmann, as the adversative reason of 
 σώζετε (though ye hate); or, with de Wette, as the real reason (since ye hate, 
 for which de Wette appeals to 1 Cor. v. 6!), 
 
440 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 then be found; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13.— Ver. 25. μόνῳ Θεῷ] 
 see ver. 4; John v. 44; Rom. xvi. 27; 1 Tim. i 17. 
 -- σωτῆρι ἡμῶν] marks, in connection with διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Xp., the essential Christian element in the idea of God; on 
 σωτήρ as a designation of God, comp. 1 Tim. 1. 1. Schott 
 incorrectly joins μόνῳ Θεῷ with σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, as if it meant: 
 “to Him who alone is God, in such a manner that He is our 
 Saviour ;” and the reason which he assigns: “ because μόνος 
 Θεός is never used by itself, but always occurs as a desig- 
 nation of God relative to other attributes,” is contradicted by 
 John v. 44; also by 1 Tim. i. 17 and Jude ver. 4.— διὰ "Ino. 
 Χριστοῦ] belongs to σωτῆρι ἡμῶν (Schott), not to δόξα «.T.A. 
 (Wiesinger) ; in this latter case it would be put after ἐξουσία. 
 — δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη x.7.r.] δόξα and κράτος occur frequently 
 in the New Testament doxologies (see 1 Pet. iv. 11); peya- 
 λωσύνη and ἐξουσία only here; μεγαλωσύνη corresponds to 
 the Hebrew δ, comp. Deut. xxxii. 3, LXX.: δότε μεγα- 
 λωσύνην τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. ----πρὸ παντὸς Tod αἰῶνος] By 
 these words, wanting in the Zee, the idea of eternity is 
 expressed in the most comprehensive manner. Not ἔστω, 
 but ἐστί (de Wette, Schott), is to be supplied; comp. 1 Pet. 
 iv. 11.— ἀμήν] the usual conclusion of doxologies, as in 
 Rom. 1.15; 1 Pet. iv. 11, etc.; it stands in the Epistles to 
 the Galatians and Hebrews, probably also in 2 Peter, as here, 
 at the end of the Epistle. 
 
 MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 
᾽να 
 Bi esky Fi 
 ἢ 
 
 
 

 
ict} 
 Bh 
 
 IRRE, 
 ΔΝ 
 
 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ae 
 
 
 
 
 
 S.A. 
 
 IN U, 
 
 PRINTED