1 Peter 3

CHAPTER III

Wives, v. 1–6

1 Peter 3:1

1 The entire series of admonitions from 2:13 to 3:12 is conceived as a unit, and this is indicated by the construction: the finite ὑποτάγητε at the beginning in 2:13, followed in 2:18 by the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι, in 3:1 by ὑποτασσόμεναι, in 3:7 by another participle, and in 3:8 by adjectives. This is the structural framework; all else, however it may be construed, whether as independent sentences or not, is conceived as being subordinate. When this structure is understood, we shall not connect the participle in 2:18 or the one in 3:1 with any of the imperatives in 2:17, or make imperatives and finite verbs of the participles.

Likewise, wives continuing in subjection to their own husbands in order that, even if some are disobedient to the Word, by means of the conduct of the wives without word they may be gained, having looked upon your conduct pure in fear.

“Likewise” means that for “wives” there are also requirements that are due to their station and relation, namely in relation to their husbands. By leaving out the article and by simply using “wives,” Peter stresses the qualitative force of this noun. This is not a vocative (our versions) any more than are “the houseslaves” in 2:18, “the husbands” in 3:7, and “all” in 3:8; vocatives would call for finite verbs. “Continuing to be subject” is again the Christian obligation just as it was in the case of slaves, but, as the qualitative (anarthrous) “wives” indicates, in this case a subjection of a quality befitting wives; those now addressed are not slaves but wives. Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18 are close parallels.

All Scripture, in particular also the New Testament, asks Christian wives to be subject to their husbands, and what is asked of the husbands should certainly make any wife’s subjection a delight instead of an infliction. Paul enters upon a fuller discussion of this whole subject, not only as it pertains to wives alone, but also as it pertains to the whole Christian status of women as this goes back to creation itself. Peter is content with the simple participial statement: “continuing in subjection to their own husbands,” “their own” emphasizing the close relation of wives to husbands. Peter has the third person and not “your” (our versions) and thus no vocative.

The purpose clause applies only to Christian women whose husbands are still unbelievers. The fact that such wives will also be subject to their pagan husbands is taken for granted. These wives have a special goal in view which they greatly desire to have realized, namely that their husbands “may be gained” for Christ. In the Koine the future indicative may follow ἵνα, R. 984. Peter indicates the most effective means for attaining this purpose and places the phrases forward for the sake of emphasis: “by means of the conduct of the wives without word”; they are to let their Christian conduct do the speaking, are not to argue about religion with their husbands. “Without word” cannot mean “without the Word,” for no man is converted without the Word, and the simple λόγος, here given the second place after ὁλόγος, cannot have the same meaning as the articulated noun. Overanxious wives attempt to talk their husbands into conversion, which is generally a great mistake. “Without word” (argument) does not mean that they are never to speak about religion, but that they are not to resort to constant argument and persuasive or nagging discussion.

1 Peter 3:2

2 True wisdom is shown by living so that the husbands may be gained “on having looked upon your conduct pure in fear.” By constantly having a true Christian wife before his eyes, by having seen the blessed change produced in her by the gospel, many a husband will also be gained. It is excellent Greek to place the modifiers between the article and the noun: τὴνἐνφόβῳἁγνὴνἀναστροφὴνὑμῶν, the adjective means morally “pure” in the whole of life and not just sexually “chaste” (our versions). “Conduct” is the same word that was used in 1:16, 17 (verb), 18. “In fear” is to be understood in the same sense as it was in 1:17 and 2:18, namely the holy fear of God.

1 Peter 3:3

3 With ὑμῶν, “your conduct,” Peter turns to the second person, but with ὧν he drops back into the third: whose let be, not the outward adornment of plaiting of hair and of placing around gold things or of putting on robes but the hidden man of the heart in connection with the incorruption of the meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.

In ὧνἔστω we have the common Greek idiom of the genitive with εἶναι, here with the genitive of a relative pronoun; we should say “theirs let be” or “to whom let belong, not the outward adorning … but the hidden man,” etc. We need not supply another word. Ὁκόσμος and its modifiers and ὁἄνθρωπος, etc., are the subjects; the one is not to belong to Christian wives, the other is to belong to them. Οὑ and not μή is used, not because of the sharp contrast In ἀλλά (R. 1161), but quite regularly as negating a single concept: “not the adorning,” etc.; κόσμος is to be understood in its original sense: Schmuck, Putz, orderly arrangement or ornament. The fact that the word has come to be used in the meaning “cosmos,” “world,” has no effect on its meaning here; nor should we say that it suggests the thought of “worldly adornment.”

We may call the genitives appositional (R. 498): the outward adornment which these women are not to have consists in plaiting of hair (an idiomatic plural in the Greek), putting around the neck, fingers, wrists, and ankles χρυσία, gold objects (chains, rings, bracelets, not “jewels of gold,” R. V.), or of putting on of robes. It is interesting to compare Isa. 3:18–23. James 2:2 presents a finely dressed gentleman. Like Peter, Paul also writes about woman’s finery: braids, gold, pearls, costly apparel (1 Tim. 2:9). The idea both express is not that women should dress in Quaker drab, but that they should be beyond the vanity of display in order to attract attention to themselves.

Both Peter and Paul mention the hair because the style of that day preferred elaborate and startling coiffures. R. 127 and others call attention to the fact that all the modifications are placed between the article and the noun; they call this stylistic arrangement Thucydidean. Some, however, doubt that Peter could have written in this manner because in their estimation he was a rather unlearned Jew.

1 Peter 3:4

4 Objection is raised because “the outward adornment,” etc., and “the hidden man,” etc., are not true contrasts. They are not; ordinary writers would contrast “the outward adornment” with “the inward adornment.” In the positive member of the contrast Peter advances beyond mere ornament and names “the hidden man of the heart” as the inward personality which is to shine with spiritual beauty. This exceeds mere rhetorical style; this is no less than mastery of thought. Peter may well have remembered Ps. 45:13. He writes as Paul does in Rom. 2:28, 29, and in Rom. 7:22 and 2 Cor. 4:16 Paul has only “the inner man.”

Yet “the hidden man of the heart” is not a designation of the regenerate or spiritual man. Only the body can wear outward ornamentation, the man of the heart is “hidden” as is the heart (the seat of the real personality). We regard the genitive as appositional: the hidden, man is the heart. Since it is hidden, the real being of a person must have something better than silk and satin, gold trinkets, and skillfully dressed-up hair. The heart must be “in connection with the incorruption of the meek and quiet spirit” which is produced by regeneration. Only a few commentators note that Peter uses τὸἄφθαρτον as an abstract substantive (the A.

V. does); most of them, like the R. V., think that this is an adjective and supply κόσμῳ: “in the incorruptible ornament of a meek and quiet spirit” (R. V.: “in the incorruptible apparel”). Peter substantivizes the adjective in a truly classic and elegant manner; some, we may suppose, would again place such a stylistic nicety beyond him.

We do not place a comma before ἐν but read the whole as a unit just as also ὁ … κόσμος is a unit. Without the incorruption of a meek and quiet spirit the hidden man of the heart would be filled with a vain, proud, self-assertive spirit, the mark of an unregenerate heart. Πνεῦμα is to be understood in the ethical sense of temperament or character. Peter does not name the virtues when he uses the nouns “meekness” and “quietness” because he does not want to parallel them with the outward ornamentation of the body. These Christian virtues are far more than adornments which are put on for a while so that men may see and admire them and are then taken off again. Peter avoids such a parallel. The incorruption is permanently connected with the hidden man of the heart, and it is the meek and quiet spirit (appositional genitive) which constitutes this thing that is incorruptible. In 1:7 Peter says of gold that it is “perishing”; in 1:18 gold and silver are termed “corruptible things.” This indicates why he now uses “incorruption.” The meek and quiet spirit in the heart is imperishable; it is the true beauty, not one that is put on, but one that is inherent; it is not an earthly, bodily, outward thing but is inherent in the soul.

The two adjectives “meek and quiet” match the participle “continuing in subjection” and bring out the true Christian character of the wife’s submissiveness. Although it is inward, these adjectives state that this spirit at the same time manifests itself outwardly by the entire conduct. Paganism knew meekness as a human virtue only to a slight degree, only in the sense of an equitable mind; the Scriptures elevate meekness and regard it as a spiritual virtue that is pleasing to God. Paganism despised the person who was not masterful, who did not assert his own will and make others bow to it; Christianity elevated lowliness and did not regard it as a form of weakness but as a mark of inner, spiritual strength. See what Jesus says about the meek in Matt. 5:5; so meekness is ever extolled. It springs from our relation to God, from the consciousness of our sinfulness and thus extends also to men and suggests a willing bearing of what their sins inflict upon us (see Trench). All this was beyond the pagan conception because it belongs to our regenerate spirit or character, to our life in the kingdom.

“Meek and quiet” go together, the doubling intensifies the virtue. This meekness is always quiet; loudness, intemperate, irate speech and action are foreign to it. A steady, balanced strength keeps it on an even keel. Such a Christian wife is a treasure for any husband. When a heathen husband sees that by conversion his wife is changed from vanity, love of display, and other feminine vices to the true beauty of a new spirit, he must surely be drawn to a religion that is able to produce such wonders of grace. Paul notes cases of the opposite kind, where the unbelieving spouse may even depart and thus break up the marriage (1 Cor. 7:15); Peter passes these cases by, they are not pertinent to his simple admonitory purpose.

“Which in the sight of God is of great price” with its neuter ὅ refers to the entire preceding clause; we should not say that the antecedent of “which” is doubtful. God regards such virtue and conduct as πολυτελές, as valuable indeed. In order to produce this inner, spiritual excellence and beauty in every wife and woman he sends us his Word and Spirt.

1 Peter 3:5

5 “For” explains by introducing examples; it is often used for this purpose. For thus at one time also the holy wives, those hoping in God, kept adorning themselves, continuing in subjection to their own husbands as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you became, continuing doing good and fearing no terrifying.

While the word γυναῖκες may mean either women or wives, we prefer the latter meaning in this connection because of the following “their own husbands” (ἄνδρες may also mean either men or husbands, here, as in v. 1, it has the latter meaning). This does not prevent us from making applications to unmarried women. In what sense these wives of old are called “holy” is indicated by the participle “those hoping in God,” which does not pertain only to some of these holy women but to all of them; their holiness consisted in their hoping in God, in their expecting all their glory from him when he should call them to himself, hence they cared nothing for corruptible, earthly vanities. “Thus,” as just stated in v. 4, “they kept adorning themselves” (imperfect); the verb resumes ὁκόσμος, the idea of “adornment” spoken of in v. 3, but is now to be understood in the true spiritual sense. The hidden man of the heart made them spiritually beautiful, and for this beauty they constantly strove.

The feature of their holiness which especially interests Peter he adds by means of the participle “continuing in subjection to their own husbands” (compare v. 11). This, in particular, made them lovely. When some wives today imagine that such subjection is a loss to them they are sadly mistaken. These holy women still shine from the sacred page; but look at the other kind.

1 Peter 3:6

6 Sarah is singled out. We are given the reason. The fact that she obeyed Abraham and called him “lord” (Gen. 18:12) is only the mark of her character, her being subject to her own husband. The real reason for singling her out lies in the relative clause “whose children you became” when you were converted by the gospel. Of none of the other holy women could Peter appropriately say that the wives whom he addresses became their children. Abraham is the father of believers, and thus Abraham’s wife Sarah is after a fashion placed on the same level; all believing wives are also called her children. This certainly exalts Sarah, yet does so only because she was obedient to Abraham and called him her lord.

Peter does not enter more fully into the history of Sarah. Gen. 18:12 is not merely one historical incident in her life but one that reveals her constant attitude toward her husband: as she then called him “my lord” so she ever called and trusted him. This is the force of the present, durative participle καλοῦσα, which modifies the constative aorist ὑπήκουσε. This would also be the sense of the inferior variant which has the imperfect ὑπήκουε. in conformity with the imperfect ἐκόσμουν.

Mistaken conceptions regarding the gnomic aorist cause the A. V. to render ἐγενήθητε whose children “you are,” the R. V. even translates “ye now are.” This rendering is also due to the two following present participles. But the gnomic aorist is not used in personal relative clauses. This aorist is historical: the wives addressed as “you” are Christian wives, and they “became” such by their conversion. Peter states the past fact as such a fact, for only because they are Christian wives can he admonish them as he does in this whole paragraph.

But what about the two present participles “doing good,” etc.? They are not causal. In order to be causal they should be aorists. Then, however, the resultant sense would be misleading, for how much good would a wife have to do, or how long would she have to do good and not fear before she became a child of Sarah by these actions? We now see why our versions render the aorist as a present tense; this enables them to translate “as long as ye do well,” etc., (A. V.), “if you do well,” etc., (R.

V.). To be sure, if they stopped doing well, etc., they would not be Sarah’s children; but, true as this is, these tenses do not say this. These durative present participles are subsequent to the aorist “you became.” These wives “became” Sarah’s children and are thus doing good, etc. A past, definite fact is followed by continuous actions. There are a number of examples in the New Testament where present participles have this force.

The objection that these participles are admonitory is not warranted, not even when it is urged that, if these wives are now doing good, etc., this whole admonition would be unnecessary. Are we to be admonished only when we do wrong? Do all the Biblical admonitions imply that we are not doing what they bid us do? This is an unwarranted assumption. These objections are answered by the first present participle found in v. 1: ὑποτασσόμεναι, “continuing to be in subjection,” which implies that these wives are now doing what Peter asks. The same is true with regard to the same participle which is addressed to the slaves in 2:18; likewise with regard to the participle that is addressed to the husbands in 3:7.

All of these participles are compliments to these persons, Peter’s acknowledgment that they are doing what they ought to do. He admonishes them to continue in this way. The very best of us ever need such admonitions. Thank God, the Scriptures constantly tell us to continue. Yet, while the present participle in v. 1 is admonitory, this is not the case with regard to these two closing participles. The admonition has been given; these two participles are pure acknowledgment on the part of Peter. They are full of encouragement to these wives, something that they and we all need in addition to admonition.

“Doing good” means as wives to their husbands just as “doing good” in 2:20 means as slaves to their masters; we extend neither to signify saving good in particular. When Peter means this he states it with all clearness as he does regarding wives and their unbelieving husbands. Here Sarah and Abraham are mentioned. Abraham was certainly saved without Sarah’s doing good to him in order to effect his salvation.

Μὴφοβούμεναιμηδεμίανπτόησιν alludes to Prov. 3:25: οὑφοβηθήσῃπτόησινἐπελθοῦσαν: “fear not terror that has come up nor coming desolation of ungodly ones.” In the expression “fearing terror” we have what R. 479 calls an analogous accusative; it is not a cognate accusative, which would be φόβον. The sense is that these Christian women are to let nothing terrifying frighten them from their course. Pagan women may disdain and insult them because they have adopted a nobler wifehood, they yet remain unafraid. Pagan husbands may resent their Christianity; this, too, does not frighten them. While πτόησις is a word that expresses an action it is here used in the objective sense: “not a single frightening.”

Husbands, v. 7

1 Peter 3:7

7 The husbands, likewise, continuing to dwell according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, the wifely one, continuing to render honor as also joint heirs of life’s grace, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Both the nominative and the participle have been explained in 2:18 and in 3:1; we have neither a vocative nor an imperative. As was the case in 2:18 and 3:1, the participle is descriptive, and because it is appended to the imperative used in 2:13, it has a gentle hortative force: Peter wants to see all the husbands continuing to dwell, etc. As it did in v. 1, “likewise” applies to all that is said. Something pertains to wives especially as something pertains to houseslaves; what pertains to wives naturally concerns itself with “their own husbands,” and v. 1–6 tell us what it is. So it is with regard to “the husbands.” Peter “likewise” has something to say to them as a class; it naturally concerns itself with their wives, and we hear what it is.

To refer “likewise” to all of the imperatives occurring in 2:17 or to any one of them is contrary to the sense. This adverb is to be construed with the whole statement: as something pertaining to the station and the relation of others, so also something pertaining to the station and the relation of this class, “the husbands,” is here set down.

The first participle governs the first ὡς, the second participle the second ὡς. We correct the inversion found in both of our versions, which combines the two ὡς with the second participle. Was there any danger that the Christian husbands would not continue to dwell with their wives so that Peter had to tell them that this was expected of them? We supply nothing after the participle. These husbands are living with their Christian wives and are not in danger of running away. What is expected of them is their “continuing to dwell according to knowledge as with a weaker utensil, (namely) the wifely one, continuing (thus) to render honor,” etc. These husbands are doing this; what is indicated is their continuance to do so.

Peter merely points out the main things, not as though these were new, but simply in order to call them to mind. One of these things is that they follow knowledge, which means Scripture knowledge, over against pagan ignorance regarding the relation of husband and wife. The other is that in accord with such knowledge the Christian husbands dwell “as with a weaker vessel, (namely) the wifely one.” Peter uses σκεῦος as Paul does in 1 Thess. 4:4. Paul states how a Christian man acquires a wife in a sanctified and honorable way, Peter how a Christian husband lives with a wife.

The expression “a weaker vessel” implies that the husband, too, is a vessel. Neither the participle nor “vessel” has a special sexual meaning. The fact that a sexual union is referred to the word “husbands” and the word “wives” in v. 1 indicate. The reason our versions supply “them” (A. V.) and “your wives” (R. V.) after the participle is due to the fact that the subject, “the husbands,” is plural while the dative object, “with a weaker vessel,” is singular; but Peter must write the singular “as with a weaker vessel,” for a plural might easily be understood as admitting the possession of several “weaker vessels.” This would be polygamy.

“As with a weaker vessel” is made clear by the addition of the articulated adjective “the wifely one.” When it is thus added it is a sort of apposition (as all such adjectives are, R. 776) and avoids what the R. V. margin takes the Greek to mean: “the female vessel as weaker.” “As” is to be construed with “a weaker vessel,” and “the wifely (one)” states the one referred to. Nor does γυναικεῖον mean “female” (for which concept the Greek has a different word) but either “wifely” or “womanly.” Since “the husbands” are mentioned, “wifely” is evidently the better translation. The thought that this neuter adjective (neuter only because of σκεῦος) is here substantivized and made a noun is unwarranted, for if Peter had wanted a noun for the word “wife” he could have written γυνή, “wife.” Pardon these explanations; they are offered only because such interpretations have been given to these words of Peter.

The wife is the weaker vessel. Paganism always tends to abuse her on this account. Her rights are reduced, often greatly. Her status is lowered, often shamefully. Heavy loads are put upon her. She is made man’s plaything or man’s slave. The fact that she is weaker is always exploited. That is why Peter inserts the phrase regarding “knowledge.” Christian knowledge will accord the wife all the consideration and the thoughtfulness which God intends for her “as a weaker vessel” in her “wifely” relation. Peter himself had a wife (1 Cor. 9:5). Whether she was still alive at this time and was with Peter at this writing we do not know.

As the first participle is followed by ὡς, so is the second one. Neither ὡς=“like,” both point to facts; nor is the second causal: “because also fellow heirs.” Both participles introduce considerations which the Christian husbands’ “knowledge” provides for their conduct toward their Christian wives. This second participle is subordinate to the first: “continuing to render honor as also joint heirs of life’s grace.” Καί should not be transposed: “and as” (A. V.); Peter writes “as also.” While she is “a weaker vessel,” every Christian wife is “also” an heir of God’s grace, and there is no difference in this respect between her and her Christian husband (Gal. 3:28).

This participle also denotes continuance and asks the husbands to do what they have been doing. We may indicate the relation of the two participles thus: “continuing to dwell, etc., while continuing to render honor,” etc. The honor here referred to is different from the honor which Christians accord to “all” or to the king (2:17). To be fellow heirs of the eternal kingdom is the highest position to which poor mortals may rise, and it is this spiritual height which prompts mutual honoring.

Peter properly uses the plural “joint heirs”; we have indicated why the singular “weaker vessel” is necessary. The nominative “as also (being) joint heirs” is by no means improved by the few copyists who changed it into a dative; “as also to joint heirs.” The preceding dative does not call for another dative, for the dative “as with a weaker vessel” is due to σύν in the first participle. “As also joint heirs” simply states the fact and implies that, as the Christian husbands are heirs, so their Christian wives are heirs with them. As far as the case, the nominative or the dative, is concerned, this makes no change in the fact that the wives are “joint heirs,” and neither case makes the husbands “joint heirs” except as all heirs are joint heirs.

The insertion “of manifold grace of life” is another supposed improvement, “manifold” being taken from 4:10. Our mutual inheritance is “grace,” here as always God’s unmerited favor toward sinners which pardons them and takes them into his kingdom of grace. It is Peter’s combination when he writes “life’s grace” (both nouns are qualitative) or “grace of life.” This is the spiritual life we now possess. We have no warrant to think only of the life to come. We are heirs who have already inherited so much and live in the enjoyment of this our inheritance. The genitive “of life” is objective (not appositional): grace for life or grace producing spiritual life.

The question is raised as to whether Peter speaks only of Christian wives or includes also such as are not Christian. All argument for including also the latter is unconvincing. To point to v. 1 where the Christian conduct of the wife is to win her pagan hushand to the faith and to claim that Peter ought now to say the same thing regarding the husband’s conduct producing the same effect, does not make two classes of “joint heirs,” one actual, the other prospective as we have this second class in v. 1: “even if some are disobedient.” Peter presupposes intelligent readers who will themselves make the application to unbelieving wives on the basis of what is said in v. 1 about unbelieving husbands. That is why he is so brief when he speaks about “the husbands.” Moreover, in v. 2–6 and especially in vs. 5, 6 the reference to unbelieving spouses is dropped, it has already been attended to (v. 1). This applies also to v. 7.

Εἰςτό to does not always express pure purpose; here it indicates contemplated result. These husbands have been treating their Christian wives as they should. Peter takes it for granted that they will continue to do so and thus names the contemplated result: “so that your prayers may not be hindered.” How could they engage in prayers or expect God to hear them if they persist in, or fall back into, the old pagan ignorance in the treatment of their wives?

Ἐγκόπτεσθαι, to have an obstacle thrown in the way, does not restrict the thought to preventing the prayers from reaching their destination at God’s throne of grace. The thought includes all manner of hindering. A husband who treats his wife in the wrong way will himself be unfit to pray, will scarcely pray at all. There will be no family altar, no life of prayer. His worship in the congregation will be equally affected.

Peter’s word to “the husbands” is brief but contains a great deal. In fact, it covers their whole Christian obligation.

All, v. 8–12

1 Peter 3:8

8 From the specific relation to government (2:13–17) and from the three special groups and relations of the members (2:18–3:7, slaves, wives, husbands), Peter turns to the obligations resting on all the members as they live in this world in contact with each other and with their Gentile neighbors and thus harks back to 2:11, 12 and closes this part of his letter as he began it. The underlying thought is throughout that genuine Christian conduct not only hushes up vilification of Christians but also wins many non-Christians. Even aside from this fact God’s calling lays these obligations upon us.

Now, finally, all, same-minded, sympathetic, fraternally friendly, compassionate, lowly-minded, not giving back a base thing for a base thing or reviling for reviling but contrariwise, continuing to bless, because for this you were called that you inherit blessing.

“All” is a nominative as is explained in 2:18; 3:1; 3:7, which have similar nominatives. Instead of using predicative participles Peter now uses adjectives which simply describe (like the participles occurring in 2:18; 3:1; 3:7) and have a mild hortatory note. R. 945 thinks that the imperative ἔστε is to be supplied; we think that nothing is to be supplied.

All the readers are expected to continue to be “same-minded,” all intent on the same thing. Sentiment, aim, purpose are to be identical; there is to be no division even inwardly. Peter rightly puts “same-minded” first, for nothing will so impress the world about us nor be so good for our own selves. To be contrary-minded is to harm oneself and others. Peter does not need to say that this “same” mind is the one that was in Christ (Phil. 2:5).

“Sympathetic,” like “same-minded,” is a hapaxlegomenon: sharing the feelings of others whether these are joyful or painful. The adjective “fraternally friendly” or “affectionate” occurs twice in Maccabees; Peter has the noun in 1:22. “Same-minded, sharing feelings, fraternally affectionate” apply to all Christians in their relation with each other. “Compassionate” applies also to non-Christians, to any who may be in distress. Some texts have φιλόφρονες, “friendly-minded,” but the support for this reading is too weak. “Lowly-minded,” the opposite of haughty or high-minded, is the virtue of which Paul says so much in Phil. 2.

1 Peter 3:9

9 Peter returns to a use of participles and now adds specifications: “not giving back a base or mean thing for a base or mean thing,” retaliating, tit for tat, taking vengeance (Rom. 12:17) in this manner. “Or” adds a more specific wrong: “reviling for reviling” (2:23, Christ’s example: “he reviled not again”); ἀντί is explained by R. 573 as denoting exchange. “But the very contrary” is the Christian’s conduct, namely “blessing” (Matt. 5:44; Rom. 12:14), calling down good on those who revile us.

The supposition that ἵνα always denotes purpose cannot be valid here; here ἵνα introduces a clause that is appositional to τοῦτο, and τοῦτο cannot refer to anything that precedes. “For this were you called (by him who called you, 1:15) that you inherit a blessing,” effective aorist subjunctive: actually inherit. God called us to inherit his infinite blessing; this impels us to bless others. The exposition appears in 18:21–35. The interpretation that we inherit the blessing which we bestow on others breaks down on the word “inherit”; no one inherits what he bestows. We are called to bless because we ourselves were blessed by God through his call.

1 Peter 3:10

10 With a simple “for” Peter introduces Ps. 34:12–16a, not as proof, but as elucidation: we are called to inherit a blessing, God’s own everlasting blessing. Let us, then, not lose it as the unmerciful retainer lost his as recorded in Matt. 18:32–34. Peter quotes the LXX which renders the Hebrew well and changes only to the third person to fit the present connection and thus also makes the opening question the subject of the imperatives. For,

He who wants to love life

And to see good days,

Let him stop the tongue from any base thing

And lips from uttering guile;

Moreover, let him incline away from baseness and do good;

Let him seek peace and pursue it.

Because the Lord’s eyes (are) upon righteous ones

And his ears for their begging;

But the Lord’s countenance (is) against such as are doing things base.

“To love life” means to love it with intelligence and corresponding purpose. Such love includes the γνῶσις referred to in v. 7; the word Peter employs is not merely φιλεῖν, “to like” life. The thought is wanting a life here on earth that is worth while, that one can love with full intelligence and purpose. The parallel line expounds: “and to see good days” (Hebrew: “days that he may see good”; LXX: “loves to see good days”), i. e., days that are really beneficial and not vain and empty. David and Peter are not thinking of easy, pleasant, sunshiny days but of a life and of days that are full of rich fruit.

The negative prescription for such a life is: “Let him stop the tongue from any base thing”; read what James 3:6, etc., says about the tongue, which amply shows how the tongue ruins so many lives. The word κακόν means “what is base or mean” morally. The parallel line repeats and adds the illuminating word “guile”: “and lips from uttering guile” (no guile was found in Christ’s mouth, 2:22). In 2:1 baseness and guile are to be put away, see δόλος there. It goes without saying that only a heart that is free from anything base and from guile is able to control the tongue and the utterance. In the ablative (R. 1061) τοῦμὴλαλῆσαι, the μὴ is redundant (R. 1171) and thus not translated.

1 Peter 3:11

11 Δέ, “moreover,” introduces the positive side of the prescription with its negative and its positive features: leaning away from anything base and doing what is good and truly beneficial; which the parallel line expounds: “Let him seek peace and pursue it” in order to capture it. As we take ἀγαθόν in its fullest sense, so we also regard εἰρήνη: first, good for the soul, next, shalom, peace for the soul, well-being, when God is our friend. Combine Rom. 14:19 and Heb. 12:14, plus Rom. 12:18.

1 Peter 3:12

12 The fact that this is the meaning the great final reason for this prescription makes plain: “Because the Lord’s eyes (are) upon such as are righteous” (no article, qualitative), ever watching them to bless them, “and his ears (are) for their begging,” to answer them with help, comfort, support. He finds them “righteous ones” in his judgment and never fails them.

But “such as are doing things base” have another experience: the Lord’s countenance is against them. Ἐπί has both meanings: “over” and “against”; the context determines which is to be selected. Although base men may seem to prosper, Ps. 73 shows what it means to have Yahweh set his face against them.

With these significant lines from Holy Writ itself Peter closes his series of hortations regarding the Christian’s life in general among men, brethren and outsiders.

Hortations Due to Sufferings and Trials, 3:13–5:11

How to Suffer for Doing Good, v. 13–17

1 Peter 3:13

13 Divide the epistle as one may, the subject of suffering and trials begins at this point; the naming of certain classes (2:18; 3:1; 3:7) and then of “all” (3:8) has reached its end. The simple connective καί and the fact that Peter still speaks of doing good lead some to attach these verses to the preceding ones; but the new note is introduced in the very first clause, namely someone’s treating the readers basely. This is the subject of the last grand part of the letter. It rests on all that Peter has thus far written, and καί is thus proper. The real purpose of Peter has now been reached, namely to enlighten, comfort, and strengthen the readers in suffering and trial. They have had some taste of it in their previous experience; now there is the prospect that these sufferings will become far more severe. We have pointed out the change that was taking place at Rome, Nero’s hostility to Christianity, which was bound to have its effect also in the provinces of the empire (see the introduction); Peter writes mainly for this reason, in order to fortify the readers in advance.

And who is he that will treat you basely if you get to be zealots for the good? The rhetorical question implies that no one will do this. It is mighty hard for anybody to mistreat people who are zealots for goodness, i. e., for doing what is beneficial to others. Peter substantivizes the future participle (rarely used) by writing ὁκακώσων, which agrees with the ἐάν clause, the apodosis of which has a future tense. Ἐάν introduces an expectancy, and γένησθε is ingressive: “if, as I expect (ἐάν), you get to the point of not merely doing good but of being actual zealots for the good,” people whose one great passion is “the good” (the classic use of the adjective as a noun).

Peter’s meaning is not that his readers will thus escape all base treatment and persecution, for this is the very subject with which he proposes to deal. Despite all the good which Christians may do, the world does not really like them and is on occasion bound to vent its hatred. What Peter says is that zealousness for the good robs opponents of any real reason for mean treatment of the readers; as in the case of Jesus, who constantly went about dispensing good, some other reason for mean treatment will have to be trumped up.

1 Peter 3:14

14 Nevertheless, if also you should be suffering for righteousness’ sake, blessed (are you)! While nobody can in reality make zealousness for good a reason for base treatment, Christians may have to suffer “for righteousness’ sake.” The unrighteous world cannot tolerate righteousness. The very presence of true righteousness irritates it, for this righteousness silently condemns its own unrighteousness. Thus Christians may often have to suffer in various ways. Peter now deals with such sufferings; in 4:12 he speaks of trials. Some commentators confuse εἰκαί and καὶεἰ; the latter hints at improbability: “even if,” the former means “if also” and treats the protasis as a matter of indifference: “If there is a conflict, it makes no real difficulty.

There is sometimes a tone of contempt in εἰκαί. The matter is belittled,” R. 1026. That is the case here.

We see why. Because to suffer thus, as already Jesus said in Matt. 5:10, assures to you the verdict: “Blessed!” Jesus expresses the same beatitude. We regard it as being exclamatory. Μακάριοι is the ʾashre of the psalms (e. g., Ps. 1:1). It is a judgment with reference to those to whom it is addressed, a divine judgment which declares that theirs is true spiritual soul blessedness for which they must be called fortunate in the highest sense; the opposite is οὑαί, “Woe!”

We have εἰ with the optative (present, durative or iterative), a very rare construction in the Koine; it is a condition of potentiality: “might have to be suffering.” Peter states it thus in the hope that the readers may, after all, despite the threatening clouds that are arising in Rome, escape special suffering. To say that he indicates an improbability is not exact. What he has in mind is not a balancing of probability and improbability. When he looks at the future he expresses his own desire that the readers may be spared; yet, if this should not be the case, it is really of no moment since any suffering that might come would be only blessedness. One always speaks subjectively when using conditional clauses. In this connection Peter wants his readers to think of suffering only as something that might come. Even when one is rather certain that something will come he may yet wish to speak of it in this way.

With δέ Peter adds the other, namely the negative, side and alludes to the wording of Isa. 8:12: And do not fear their fear, neither be disturbed (shaken, upset), but sanctify the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, ready always for defense to everyone asking you reason concerning the hope in you, but with meekness and fear, keeping a good conscience in order that in what they continue to speak against you they may be put to shame who abuse your good conduct in connection with Christ.

If Peter had in mind improbability or only remote possibility, these strong imperatives, three decisive aorists, would be out of place. Then the strong words about fear and being shaken would also not have been written.

“Do not fear their fear!” is a strong expression because it has the cognate accusative. The sense of the translation of the LXX is: “Do not fear with the fear the people have!” Peter is not quoting but only alluding to Isaiah and thus says “their fear,” the fear they would inspire in you (the subjective genitive is to be understood in this sense). The sense is: “Do not let them scare you!” Αὑτῶν needs no formal antecedent. “Neither be disturbed!” means both in your minds and your conduct.

1 Peter 3:15

15 In the face of suffering the readers must sanctify the Lord, Christ, in their hearts; that will keep out all fear of men. The A. V. follows the very inferior variant “the Lord God,” which is only an alteration that was made in agreement with the LXX’s “the Lord of hosts” (God). The R. V. translates “Christ as Lord” because it regards Κύριον as a predicative apposition since it lacks the article and τὸνΧριοτόν as the object since it has the article. This construction might pass if it were not for the allusion to Isa. 8:13. Κύριον is a proper name and thus has no article.

Because it is a name for God in Isa. 8:13, Peter must add τὸνΧριστόν since he refers “the Lord” to Christ. The article must be used to indicate that Χριστόν is a second name and thus an apposition, for ΚύριονΧριστόν would be a unit designation, “Lord Christ.” Because Peter has only an allusion, the Christological import of his use of Κύριος to designate Christ is so strong. As the word refers to God’s deity in Isa. 8:13, it here refers to the deity of Christ. We are to sanctify Christ in our hearts as the prophet demands this same sanctifying of the Lord of hosts by Israel in their hearts.

To sanctify Christ in our hearts is ever to keep him in our hearts as “the Holy One.” In order to do this properly we ourselves must be “holy,” ἅγιοι, sanctified. He is ours, and we are his; we separate him for our hearts and are separated for him. This sanctifying of him means that we keep ourselves from sin and give the world no cause for slandering either him or ourselves. And it further means that we fear him alone lest we sin against him by fearing men instead of him and by letting their threats prevent us from bowing to him alone. The objection that “in our hearts” is not found in Isa. 8:13; that a reference not to hearts but to conduct would be in place here if “sanctify” is to be modified; that, therefore, the phrase is to be construed with what follows, forgets the fact that this is allusion and not quotation, that sanctifying starts in the heart, and that “conduct” duly follows in v. 16.

With hearts that are ever sanctifying Christ the readers face their opponents, “ready always for defense to everyone asking you reason concerning the hope in you.” This is the “living hope” mentioned in 1:3 to which we have been begotten again by God, the hope in God (1:21; 3:5), and it comprises all that we expect from God on the basis of Christ. Ἀπολογία, is the regular term for the defense which a defendant makes before a judge (Acts 22:1; 25:16). He must first be heard (John 7:51). Peter is not thinking only of court trials, for he lets “everyone” ask λόγον, “account,” Rechenschaft (which is not only a classical term but also a juridical term).

Let whoever will constitute himself a judge, the Christian is never to evade or to put him off, he is to be ready to present his case, his defense, to render account as to what his hope embraces, and as to why he holds it in his heart. We may say that he is to be ready always to testify, to correct ignorance about Christ, to spread the gospel light, to win others for Christ, to justify his own hope, and as Peter adds here (v. 16), to silence evil speakers with his good conduct which certainly speaks for itself and puts slander to shame.

But this defense is ever to be made “in company with (μετά) meekness and fear.” On “meekness” see “the meek spirit” referred to in 3:4. “When you are asked about your hope you are not to answer with haughty words and carry things off with audacity and force as though you meant to tear up trees, but with fear and humility as though you stood before God’s judgment and were making answer. For if it should now come to pass that you were to be called before kings and nobles and had equipped yourself a good while with statements and thoughts: Just wait, I will answer them right! it may well come about that the devil takes the sword out of your hand, and before you are aware gives you a thrust so that you stand disgraced and have equipped yourself in vain, might also snatch out of your heart the statements which you fixed best so that you would be left even if you had them well in mind, for he has noted your thoughts in advance. Now God lets this happen to dampen your haughtiness and to humble you.” Luther, who certainly had plenty of experience. “With fear” means the fear of Christ as it did in 1:17; 2:18; 3:2.

1 Peter 3:16

16 Hence Peter also writes: “having (keeping) a good conscience,” yet not only before but also after making a defense. Do so with this purpose, that in the very thing in which accusers speak against you they may be put to shame who abuse your good conduct in connection with Christ (ἀναστροφή as in 1:15, the verb in 1:17). It is not correct to state that the verb ἐπηρεάζω is always intransitive and thus cannot have “conduct” as its object; see Luke 6:28. This does not mean that all who are thus put to shame will cease their slander; yet something will be accomplished as is noted also in 2:15, in fact, a good deal may be accomplished.

1 Peter 3:17

17 Peter concludes these directions with the motivating consideration: For better (it is) while doing good, if the will of God should will, to suffer than while doing ill. The statement is entirely general and thus brings to a succinct, axiomatic expression what has been said already in 2:15, 19, 20: “So is the will of God that by doing good you muzzle the ignorance of foolish men”; “This is grace if because of consciousness of God one bears up under griefs, suffering wrongfully … if doing good and suffering you shall stand it, this is favor with God.” Also 3:14: “Blessed if you suffer for righteousness’ sake!” In 4:14 we have another such “blessed.” Add 4:14–19. Peter explains himself.

Peter does not need to say that if we do ill, it might be God’s will that we suffer. But many are surprised to be made to suffer when they are doing good. Yet that is precisely what God’s will wills in some instances. We have the potential optative as in v. 14, and it is to be understood in much the same sense. When this happens, if it should so happen in some instance (as Peter states it), it is certainly “better,” i. e., preferable in every way than to suffer when doing basely. The latter would be shame and disgrace (2:20a); the former is noble, in fact, is like the suffering of Christ.

When a Christian growls and grumbles or accuses God of injustice for letting him suffer he, of course, spoils it all. He no longer has the glory of suffering innocently. This is gone, he should hang his head in shame.

The Exaltation of Christ an Assurance to Those Who Suffer, v. 18–22

1 Peter 3:18

18 The only reason we have for making a special paragraph of this section is the fact that this piece forms a sedes doctrinae and throughout deals with Christ. It belongs to v. 13–17 in reality as ὅτικαί, “because also Christ,” plainly shows.

It is essential to understand this connective. In 2:21 we also have ὅτικαὶΧριστὸςἔπαθεν, “because also Christ suffered,” but there Peter at once adds ὑπολιμπάνωνὑπογραμμόν, “leaving behind for you a writing-copy in order that you may follow his tracks.” Such an addition is not appended here. In 2:21 Peter presents Christ’s sufferings as an example which mistreated slaves are to follow. In the present connection Peter does nothing of the kind. Here the sufferings of Christ are combined with his exaltation; this exaltation is presented at length and is made the main thought. We have the picture of Christ being infinitely exalted over the disobedient who are now in hell, who were made to see his triumph. This goes far beyond 2:21–25, far beyond the Sufferer, sinless, patient, never opening his mouth to revile when he was reviled, to threaten when suffering, committing himself to the righteous Judge, carrying our sins up upon the wood to save us, so that we have him as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls.

Here the great point is assurance for us when by the will of God we suffer for righteousness’ sake. Then we are μακάριοι, “blessed.” Christ’s mighty exaltation after his suffering proves this. The proof and the assurance are tremendous. For Christ was not only glorified in his own person; he not only leads us to God as the fruit of his suffering in our behalf; in his exaltation he triumphed over the disobedient who were consigned to prison in hell. Are we, then, not blessed indeed when we suffer for his sake? Now the disobedient exalt themselves and tread us under foot; but see the disobedient in hell! Noah and his family are saved; we, too, are saved “by the resurrection of Christ,” by this exaltation of Christ at God’s right hand.

It is a misunderstanding of this section to think that Christ is presented as another example for us. To point to ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, “doing good,” to take this to mean that by our suffering we should try to win our persecutors for Christ (to interpret “doing good and suffering” in 2:20 in the same way, the slaves thus seeking to win their mean masters for Christ), is to misunderstand all that follows. Some find the thought in this section that the gospel is still being preached in hell, that continued mission work is being carried on in hades! Some even add the complete apokatastasis, the conversion of the devils. The fact that Christ descended to hell in glory while we are to do good in order to save our persecutors by our suffering, is disregarded.

The idea of “doing good” in order to save those who hurt us is found in v. 1. But Peter does not speak of “doing good” when he addresses the wives of unbelieving husbands; he speaks of “being in subjection” when he is addressing all wives, and in the case of those who have pagan husbands he speaks of “your pure conduct in fear (of God).” This missionary idea of “doing good,” which is extended into hell, is wanting at its very source. In v. 17 (as in 2:20) suffering while doing good refers to the whole good life of Christians (and so also of slaves, 2:20) as “grace with God,” as our own sanctification whether men appreciate it or not. As far as men are concerned, our being “zealots for the good” (v. 13) robs them of all just reason for treating us basely (v. 13); it puts them to shame when they speak against us and abuse our good conduct connected with Christ (v. 16). That is what Peter says.

Because also Christ suffered once for sins, One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones, in order that he may bring us to God, (he), on the one hand, put to death by means of flesh, on the other hand, vivified by means of spirit; in connection with which, etc.

“Because also,” etc., connects this section with the whole of v. 13–17 and not only with v. 17. So also this connective joins the whole of v. 18–22 and not only v. 18 to the preceding. As it is impossible to separate v. 17 from what precedes, so it is impossible to separate v. 18 from what follows. We who are saved suffer and are blessed because Christ suffered and was glorified as our Savior. His glorification is the cause (ὅτι) of this our being “blessed,” and since our blessedness still lies in the future to so large an extent (1 John 3:2), this “because” is the guarantee or assurance for us.

Here are the great facts: also Christ suffered once for sins, One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones, suffered to the extent that by means of his flesh he, on the one hand (μέν), was actually put to death, but, on the other hand (δέ), as the Righteous One who suffered and died in place of the unrighteous, was vivified by means of his spirit and thus did what follows: assured us that we who suffer for righteousness’ sake are, indeed, μακάριοι (v. 14). The textual question as to whether to read ἔπαθεν, “suffered,” or ἀπέθανεν, “died,” is a matter for the text critics to decide, seeing that Codex Aleph changes “suffered” into “died” also in 2:21 and 4:1, and both A and C insert ὑπὲρἡμῶν (ὑμῶν) before ἀπέθανεν in 3:18. “Christ suffered” resumes this verb which was used in v. 13 and 17; the fact that this was suffering which ended in death is made plain by θανατωθείς, “put to death.”

“Once” he suffered “concerning sins.” Both the adverb and the phrase bring out the thought that Christ’s suffering was one of expiation, and both “once” and the aorist “he did suffer” imply that the expiation was effected; see this valuable “once” (ἅπαξ) in Heb. 9:26, 28. The thought is emphasized by the addition of the apposition: “One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones”; it was vicarious, substitutionary suffering. In Acts 3:14 Peter calls Christ “the Holy and Righteous One” (Ps. 16:10); Stephen calls him “the Righteous One” in Acts 7:52; Ananias calls him this in Acts 22:14; compare Luke 23:47; Matt. 27:19, 24; 1 John 2:1. The terms are purposely juridical: “One Righteous—unrighteous ones,” and refer to God’s verdicts and are thus more significant than “One Sinless—sinners.” God’s verdicts regarding Jesus appear in Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:35; John 12:28, God’s voice from heaven; and the fact of God’s raising him from the dead and placing him at his right hand is especially such a verdict.

On ὑπέρ as denoting substitution in the meaning “instead of” in hundreds of connections in the papyri and in the decisive New Testament passages see the pertinent chapter in Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament, 35, etc., also his Grammar, 630, etc. “It is futile to try to get rid of substitution on grammatical arguments about ὑπέρ.” “The papyri forbid our emptying ὑπέρ of this wealth of meaning in the interest of any theological theory.” Robertson refers to the theories that deny Christ’s substitution and invent something else on the claim that Peter’s and Paul’s ὑπέρ cannot mean substitution and was used by them to deny this very thought. Ὑπέρ, “over,” then “in behalf of,” gets the meaning “in place of” in all connections in which “in behalf of” brings no benefit unless there is a substitution “instead of.” This is plain both here and in 2:21. Here substitution is joined to expiation. One may reject both but one cannot deny that Peter states both here.

We do not think that προσάγω means what some find in it, namely that Christ brings us to God as a pure and holy sacrifice; the verb is used here as it is used in Lev. 3:12; 4:4; 8:14. Not as sacrificial victims are we brought to God. Others think that Christ enabled us to become priests (2:5, 9), brought us to draw nigh to God as priests. This thought is sometimes elaborated: we are to do priestly service for others and by our doing good to bring them to conversion, which is the idea noted above. Both sacrifice and priesthood are foreign to Peter’s words. We are brought to God (aorist, effectively, actually) when we who are unrighteous are by faith in Christ’s vicarious expiation justified and declared righteous. Beyond that Peter’s words do not go. On our “priesthood” see 2:5, 9.

How Christ’s having suffered concerning sins just once does, indeed, bring us to God is shown by his glorification. As a further apposition Peter adds two illuminating participles: “put to death by means of flesh, vivified by means of spirit,” and balances them by μέν and δέ, which, however, do not mean zwar, “although” (concessive) and aber, “but” (adversative), but: “on the one hand—on the other hand” (balance, correlation). The two great facts are to be taken together and are to be construed with “Christ suffered once regarding sins, One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones,” with saving effect upon us believers. All three, the verb and the participles, are aorists, mighty historical facts.

The participles are passive. They do not say that Christ died and became alive but that he was put to death, was made alive—“whom you crucified, God made both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36); “whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead” (Acts 4:10:). Christ’s suffering was of such a nature that he was put to death. That is not said in order to show its greatness or to make some kind of a comparison with our suffering; that is said because the suffering of Christ “concerning sins” was sacrificial, expiatory, “One Righteous in place of unrighteous ones,” i. e., substitutionary so that the sacrificial victim must be put to death. “Vivified,” brought back to life, is placed beside “put to death.” The sacrifice “concerning sins” was all-sufficient, was attested as sufficient by the vivification. God accepted the sacrifice of Christ and attests the acceptance by his act of returning Christ to life. The Scriptures add that this includes the glorification; Peter himself adds it in what follows.

Other sacrificial victims remain dead; not so Christ. Whatever the efficacy of such deaths may be, of Christ alone as one who was “vivified” can it be said that “he leads us to God.” All the Old Testament sacrifices could only point to Christ’s sacrifice and become effective because of the efficacy of his sacrifice; for their value they all depended on him as one who was “put to death and vivified.” It is true, “vivified” crowns “put to death”; but this lies in the fact itself and not in the use of μέν … δέ as some have thought. There is no thought of paralleling our suffering with Christ’s, our resurrection with his vivification. Christ’s resurrection is not mentioned until v. 21. What is here said about Christ’s sacrificial suffering and being put to death and then being vivified is intended to be the basis for our being “blessed” when we must suffer “for righteousness’ sake” in this hostile world, the basis of our assurance of being thus “blessed” (v. 13, 14).

One is a bit surprised to note that the dictionaries and the grammars have no reference to the two datives, and that commentators, too, hesitate to classify these datives. The R. V. has: “in the flesh—in the spirit”; the A. V.: “in the flesh—by the Spirit”; Luther has two nach, “according to.” Yet Peter has written neither ἐν nor κατά. Few will attempt to construe the two datives differently as the A. V. does. The discussion centers on the significance of σάρξ and πνεῦμα, especially on the latter, and this is what seems to cause the reluctance in regard to classifying these datives.

They are datives of means. They indicate neither sphere nor norm. On Calvary we see how Christ was “put to death”; they nailed his body to the ξύλον or “wood”; in 2:24 “he carried up our sins in his body upon the wood”; compare as being pertinent Col. 1:22: “in the body of his flesh by means of the death.” It was “by means of flesh,” by having flesh, our human bodily nature, that men slew Christ; the absence of the article makes “flesh” qualitative. How did Christ die? Mark 15:37, 39 use ἐκπνέω; Luke 23:46 does likewise: “he breathed out,” breathed his last, the breath left his body. Matt. 27:50 says more: ἀφῆκετὸπνεῦμα, “he let go the spirit”; John 19:30, παρέδωκετὸπνεῦμα, “he gave up the spirit,” which recalls Luke’s εἰςχειράςσουπαρατίθεμαιτὸπνεῦμάμου: “Father, into thy hands I deposit my spirit.” All the Evangelists use choice terms when they describe Jesus’ death.

Although in John 10:15, 17 Jesus himself says, τὴνψυχήνμουτίθημι, “I lay down my life” (the ψυχή that animates my body), no Evangelist uses this word when he describes Jesus’ death. To be sure, Jesus died when his ψυχή or “life” went out of him; but the ἐγώ, the real personality, has its seat in the πνεῦμα, in the human spirit. This spirit of his Jesus deposited into his Father’s hands, this he let go or gave up in the instant of death. Death sundered its connection with his σῶμα or body (2:24), which connection was by way of his ψυχύ. His spirit went to heaven, to Paradise, to his Father’s hands; his body, his flesh was left dead on the cross. See further The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 1103, etc.; or that of St. John, 1285, etc.

How was Christ vivified? The human spirit which went to heaven returned to the body that was lying in the tomb. Spirit and body, which had been separated in death, were reunited in the vivification. How else than “by means of spirit” (again qualitative) could Christ have been made alive again after having been put to death?

Simple as this is, the comments of some interpreters are rather confusing. Some look upon this as an act of the Holy Spirit (C.-K. 950) and, like the A. V., regard one of these datives as a dative of the agent. Some think that σαρκί means “according to his human nature” and πνεύματι “according to his divine nature,” and others oppose this as being wrong. Rom. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 9:14 are referred to as proof that “spirit” denotes Christ’s divine nature.

The matter regarding the two natures of Christ is simple. As true man Jesus has body, soul, and spirit; but as true God the person and the nature of the eternal Logos, the divine ἐγώ, takes the place of what in us is a human, creature ἐγώ. Thus God became man (did not join himself to some man). Ever since the incarnation body, soul, spirit (all human) belong to the Logos, are his forever in an indissoluble union. Death did not affect this union, did not sunder this union. The lifeless body was still that of the Logos; the human spirit, which had been torn from it by death, was in heaven. On Easter morning body and spirit were reunited. That is all. Whether the agent of the passive ζωοποιηθείς is God or Christ himself makes no difference; all the opera ad extra are indivisa out communa.

Do the two aorist participles denote an action that is subsequent to that of the aorist verb? The acts, of course, occurred in this order: suffered—put to death—vivified, about which there is no question, grammatical or otherwise. R. 1111, etc., finds no subsequence in aorist participles, but one need not be satisfied with Burton’s view, which R. 1114 adopts, that the two participles define the whole preceding clause. They are added appositionally to the subject, each having only its aoristic, punctiliar force. For not merely the fact that Christ suffered enables him to lead us to God; this Sufferer was actually put to death and was vivified.

1 Peter 3:19

19 Peter continues: in connection with which also to the spirits in prison, on having gone (to them), he made herald proclamation, (these spirits) such as were disobedient at one time when the long-suffering of God kept waiting in Noah’s days while the ark was being constructed, in which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through by means of water; etc.

We now see why Peter stops with the vivificatio in v. 18 and does not at once proceed to the resurrectio by saying “raised up.” The latter term is regularly used so as to include both the vivification of Christ’s dead body and its appearances to chosen witnesses. Peter must restrict his thought to the vivification because he intends to speak of what occurred before Jesus appeared to his disciples on earth. Until Easter morning Christ’s body lay dead in the tomb while his spirit (in English we may also say his “soul” because we use “soul” much as we do “spirit”; to use ψυχή in the Greek would be wrong) was in heaven. Then Christ’s spirit was suddenly reunited with his body. This is the vivificatio.

In that instant, after body and spirit had been united, Christ left the closed tomb. The linen wrappings were suddenly empty and lay flat, the body having miraculously gone out of them (John 20:5–8), mute, but eloquent, evidence of what had occurred. In that instant, but timelessly, Christ in his human body and spirit descended to hell and did what Peter relates. In the other world time and space as we know both here on earth do not exist. Our minds are chained to both in their thinking and in their language; hence we ask so many useless questions where acts that take place in eternity and in the other world are concerned. In the other world no act requires time for its execution.

This is really inconceivable to our minds; we are compelled to speak as if time were involved and must thus ever tell ourselves that this is not in fact the case. In this way we are kept from deductions that are based on our concepts of time, knowing that such deductions would be false. How long after the cloud enveloped the ascending body of Jesus did it take that body to reach heaven and the right hand of God in the glory of heaven? This part of the ascension was timeless.

The translation “in which spirit” Christ went, etc., is misleading. Not in his human spirit alone did Christ descend to hell. Not in his divine nature alone. This is said to those who think that πνεῦμα in v. 18 refers to the divine nature. Not “by the Holy Spirit” (A. V.; also C.-K.; etc.) was the descent made.

Because Christ went to speak to πνεῦματα, “spirits,” it was not necessary that he himself come to them as a πνεῦμα, “a spirit.” Jesus spoke to the devil and to the demons in the possessed without being a bodiless spirit. Peter uses ἐν in its first and original sense: Christ descended into hades “in connection with” the spirit by means of which his body had been made alive in the tomb. The descent followed the quickening which joined spirit and body. The assumption that the body was left behind in the descent does not agree with what Peter says in the plainest way.

This idea led Calvin and his followers to date the descent, not at the time of the vivificatio of the body on Easter morning, but at the time of the death on Good Friday, and to make the descent the climax of Christ’s humiliation, Christ entered hell to suffer there until Easter morning as though Peter had written: θανατωθεὶςσαρκὶπορευθείς, κτλ., and then ζωοποιηθεὶςπνεύματι, “put to death by means of flesh he went” to hades and after that “he was vivified.” Peter states the opposite: the vivification is the entrance of Jesus into the state of glorification and exaltation, and his first act in that state is his glorious descent into hell with body and spirit united. The death pertained to Christ’s human nature; the vivification likewise; the descent ad inferos also; and, let us add, also the ascent to heaven and the sessio at God’s right hand.

Peter has the data and the order of the Apostles’ Creed: “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead (v. 21) and sitteth at the right hand of God, etc.” (v. 22). The return to judgment is mentioned in 5:4.

The participle πορευθείς is to be construed with the verb ἐκήρυξεν. In English we should coordinate: “he went and made herald proclamation” (as our versions do); the Greek is more exact and by using the participle marks the act of having gone as subsidiary to that of speaking as a herald. The dative states to whom Christ spoke: τοῖςἐνφυλακῇπνεύμασι, “to the spirits in prison”; and these words are placed before the verb because they are emphatic. The Scriptures know of only one φυλακή, “prison,” that confines “spirits,” namely hell, “hades,” “the Gehenna of the fire” (Matt. 5:22; 18:9). To call this the Totenreich, the realm of the dead, is to give a strange meaning to the word φυλακή, “prison,” for all the dead are supposed to go into this fictitious Totenreich, this place between heaven and hell, a recent Romanizing Protestant invention. Note 2 Pet. 2:9, 10, in fact, all of v. 4–10.

1 Peter 3:20

20 It is to be observed that ἀπειθήσασίποτε, κτλ., is not added attributively by means of a repetition of the article τοῖς, but predicatively without the article (R. 778). This is speaking grammatically; but it brings out the thought that Peter intends to say that Christ did not make herald proclamation to those only who were disobedient at the time of the flood, which thought would require τοῖςἀπειθήσασι (the article repeated), but to all the spirits in prison, all these being such as were disobedient (the participle is merely qualitative) when (to instance a notable case) the longsuffering of God waited no less than 120 years, waited in vain, before sending the judgment.

Some suppose that this anarthrous participle means that Christ made herald proclamation only to the victims of the flood and thus raise the question: “Why just to these?” and supply such answers as the following: that Peter selects these because they perished by water and because he refers to baptism; that by selecting these Peter does not intend to exclude the rest of the damned in hell. This question is excluded by the anarthrous and qualitative character of the participle. Moreover, these people perished in the flood while baptism saves; the eight souls of Noah’s family were saved but not the spirits in prison.

The ὅτε clause leads some to think that in hell Christ dealt only with the antediluvians who perished in the Flood, and they then seek for reasons that Christ singled these out. But ποτεὅτε, “once when,” is not intended as such a restriction or limitation of τοῖςπνεύμασι. This would be expressed by a second τοῖς before ἀπειθήσασι and by a third τοῖς with a participial clause in place of ὅτε, at least by the latter. “Once when” introduces only a sample of the unbelief of disobedience, which is illustrative of all the spirits of the damned in prison. All God’s longsuffering could do nothing with these antediluvians as it could do nothing with all these spirits which God had to consign to hell. This sample is the more in point because the Flood is a standing type of the final judgment.

By means of “once when” Peter might have referred to Sodom and Gomorrah as Jesus does in Matt. 10:15, and Paul in Rom. 9:29, Jude in v. 7, and Peter himself in 2 Pet. 2:6 and made them “an example of those about to be ungodly,” which is the same idea that is expressed in our passage. But this “example” would not be fitting. Lot was not saved “by means of” the fire which destroyed these cities, he was saved only from this fire. Noah was saved “by means of water,” διʼ ὕδατος, as we, too, are now saved by means of the water of baptism. As in 2 Pet. 2:6 the ungodly of Sodom and Gomorrah are a ὑπόδειγμα or “example” of all future ungodliness, so the disobedience of the men who lived at the time of Noah and the flood is the mark and the quality of all the damned in hell. They “disobeyed” has the same meaning it had in 2:8, “disobedient to the Word,” and in 4:17, “those disobeying the gospel of God.” Peter has in mind the disobedience of unbelief which, to be sure, includes also moral wickedness, but only as the outgrowth of unbelief’s disobedience.

God’s longsuffering (his holding out long under heavy provocation) waited in the days of Noah, delayed the judgment, waited for repentance and faith 120 years—alas, in vain! During those 120 years the world had Noah “as a herald of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5) who condemned the world because of its unbelief and its unrighteousness (Heb. 11:7; see the exegesis). Noah’s preparation of the ark is especially mentioned, the participle in the genitive absolute being the same as the verb used in Heb. 11:7, for this building of the ark was itself a factual preaching of the impending judgment. Peter’s brief reference recalls all that Gen. 6 states. Men remained fixed and hardened in their disobedience of unbelief “in the days of Noah.” Even all this warning left them unmoved. Did they laugh at Noah for building a big boat on dry land?

How would it ever reach water and float? When had the earth ever had a flood of such proportions as to drown all living things? This is the character and the quality of all “the spirits in prison”; this brought them to hell.

We may now look at ἐκήρυξεν in v. 19, about which there has been so much discussion. The verb means to make a herald proclamation, has always meant this. He who κηρύσσει is a κῆρυξ, “herald”; what he proclaims is a κήρυγμα, “a herald’s announcement.” The word has ever been a vox media. Hence in scores of places, when the announcement made is the gospel, the objects appended say so: to herald the Word (Mark 1:45), the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke 4:19), the gospel (Matt. 4:23 and often), Christ or Jesus (Acts 8:5 and often). This verb is sometimes used together with εὑαγγελιζεσθαι, “to proclaim good news.” But it is also used when the law is its object (Rom. 2:21, not to steal), when circumcision (Gal. 5:11) is the object. When it is without an object as we have it here, the context should indicate what the κήρυγμα or heralded proclamation may be.

It lies in the nature of the case that in the New Testament κηρύσσειν is used to indicate the heralding of the gospel, for this was to be publicly proclaimed in all the world as if by heralds. With it went the proclamation of the law: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” In 2 Pet. 2:5 Noah is called a κῆρυξ or “herald,” and he certainly proclaimed the coming judgment of the flood. And we are told that because the verb is so often used in the New Testament to indicate gospel heralding it must have this meaning in our passage: Christ preached the gospel to the spirits in prison. It is claimed that when no object is added the verb must have this sense. Any substantial difference between κηρύσσειν and εὑαγγελίζεσθαι is thus erased. Even some dictionaries agree with this interpretation.

Fortunately, they all register the fact that κηρύσσειν means “to herald.” When C.-K., 599, adds that the thing demands Nachachtung, this may be understood correctly: those who hear are to pay attention; yet he, perhaps, intends to say: those who hear are to obey or savingly to believe. When we are further told that κηρύσσειν is used here because of ἀπειθήσασι we feel that this statement wants to leave the door open for such as were disobedient to Christ but now at last “in prison” obey, believe, and are saved.

Those who claim that Christ preached the gospel in hell have a probation after death. Some elaborate this thought. If Christ did this, it must somehow still be done: missionary work will be carried on in hell. Most of them, however, seek to tone down this idea. This probation after death is intended for those who disobeyed ignorantly, who never heard the gospel. They point to the many babes that perished in the flood as if Peter makes a restriction, as if “disobeyed” does not mean actual disobedience of the Word which Noah preached. As for the eternal fate of babes, this concern is pointless since the question pertains to all babes who die without means of grace, regarding which we have no revelation save the hint in Matt. 18:14 (see the exposition).

The Scriptures teach no probation after death, no missionary work in hell, and none in a Totenreich, for none exists. Mark 16:16; Heb. 9:27. In hell Dives says to Abraham at the mention of Moses and the prophets: “No, father Abraham!”—the same fixed disobedience of unbelief. We need not elaborate the subject.

Like the fire of Sodom, etc., the flood is recorded in Scripture as a type of the final judgment. Neither could be a type of this judgment if probation and being saved were still possible after judgment. The time of grace ends when the μακροθυμία or “longsuffering” of God is exhausted as it was “in the days of Noah.” When Peter wants to speak about εὑαγγελιζεσθαι he uses this word as witness 1:12 and 4:6; here and in 2 Pet. 2:5 (which also deals with Noah) heralding alone is the thought; Noah is the herald of a judgment that is impending; Christ is the far greater Herald who has a proclamation for those who are already judged.

Let us note that Peter’s interest does not lie in the contents of Christ’s proclamation. The fact that Christ went to hell and made it, went there in the instant of his vivification after his death and made a proclamation to the damned in hell—this is the point that Peter impresses. The fact that the proclamation was not evangelical but damnatory goes without saying. When one is answering the question as to why Peter says this about the descent into hell one should not think only of these damned spirits since Peter himself adds all that follows about those who were saved in the flood, what their saving typifies for his readers through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his enthronement in heaven at God’s right hand with all angels, authorities, and powers subject to him who died and was vivified in his human nature. The descent and the ascent with its eternal enthronement belong together. Our comment should not separate them.

The ὅτι in v. 18 fortifies the whole of v. 13–17 by the whole of v. 18–22. Even before we look at the details about the eight souls that were saved, our baptism, and the new life, about Christ’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement, we see Peter’s object in bringing all these facts regarding Christ (passion to final glorification) to the attention of his readers. Μακάριοι are they, “blessed” indeed when suffering for righteousness’ sake in this wicked world. This fact is the cause and the assurance of their blessedness, that down to the disobedient in hell all enemies of Christ are under his feet while for the readers, from the time of their baptism onward, there is salvation through him who died and rose again and sits at God’s right hand. With all this before them, the readers will count themselves “blessed,” will not fear the fear of men or be shaken, will sanctify the Lord, Christ, in their hearts, will be ready to answer men at any time regarding their hope, always keep a good conscience, etc. (v. 14–16). This is the mighty way in which Peter fortifies his readers in the face of impending persecution.

“While the ark was being constructed” points back to the disobedience of unbelief which had this warning but scorned it. The thought is, of course, not that men, too, should have constructed arks to save them as Noah did but that, if they had repented in obedience to the warning, they would not have been destroyed by a flood (compare Nineveh). The relative clause εἰςἥν (static εἰς, “wherein,” our versions; not the old “into,” which still appears in B.-D. 205) turns to the blessed side of Noah’s deliverance and with this to the salvation of the readers. Only a few, namely eight souls, were saved.

This mention of “few,” so very few at that time, is made for the comfort of the readers who are “a little flock” compared with the whole unbelieving world about them. Look at all unbelievers who perished in the flood, whose spirits are now with all the other damned in hell. How they cowered when Christ appeared to them in their eternal prison! Peter correctly writes “eight ψυχαί” and not πνεύματα; “souls” or “persons” or even “lives” is the correct rendering. Those in hell were disembodied “spirits,” their bodies were still on earth.

We translate: these eight “were brought safely through by means of water.” Διά in the phrase is not due to the διά in the verb as R. 560 supposes but simply states the means by which the eight were brought through with complete safety. It is not local with reference to the ark moving “through the water.” Water was the means for destroying all the rest; that same water was the means for floating the ark with its eight souls. Water was a means of judgment in the case of those, a means of saving in the case of these. We may add that Christ also has the same effect upon men (Luke 2:34); the Christ whom the damned saw in terror in hell is the same Christ who is our hope in heaven.

1 Peter 3:21

21 We have already stated why Peter selected the judgment by water instead of Sodom and the judgment by fire: it enables him to refer to baptism and its saving water: which as a type saves also you now as baptism, not a putting away of filth of flesh but an offer of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ’s resurrection, he who is at God’s right (hand), having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers having been placed in subjection to him.

The subject is ὅ, its antecedent is “water.” The preliminary apposition to ὅ is ἀντίτυπον: water “as a type” saves you now, namely as a type of the water “by means of which” Noah and his family were brought safely through the flood judgment. The final apposition βάπτισμα states which water has this saving effect, “baptism,” the suffix -μα denoting a result, the accomplished baptism. Two further appositions follow, but these define what the inner effect of baptism is, i. e., show how it indeed “saves.”

Ἀντίτυπος ordinarily means nachgebildet, formed as a copy of an original. But this adjective is also, though less frequently, used without expressing this inner relation in which the copy is viewed as being inferior to the original. This is the case here, where we have only a correspondence or likeness: water in each case—also a saving effect of water. The fact that the second water, that of baptism, saves in a far higher way is apparent and is also stated by Peter at length. This excludes the idea that antitupon means that the water of the flood is a type-prophecy of baptism. As far as the eight souls and as far as Peter’s readers are concerned, there is only an analogous saving effect of water. We may translate with an adverbial expression, “by way of a type,” or, as we do, by substantivizing the adjective: “as a type.”

This is one of the passages (Titus 3:5; Mark 16:16) which says directly that baptism “saves,” yea, that the water of baptism saves, certainly not as mere water but as the water of baptism, i. e., connected with the Word (Eph. 5:26), with “the Name of the Father,” etc., (Matt. 28:19). “Which (water) now saves also you.”

Peter even explains what baptism is and justifies his statement that its water “saves.” These appositions have the effect of explanatory clauses as if Peter had written: “for it is not … but it is,” etc. “Not a putting away of filth of flesh” = not a bodily cleansing, an outward, bodily rite. The deductions that the readers held this view, and that Peter corrects them, are unwarranted. One of the commonest means of emphasizing the positive is to place it in contrast with the negative. There were, indeed, ceremonial lustrations; the Jews had them, for instance the washing which the high priest had to undergo before officiating. All such washings really cleansed only the body and were symbolical; they did not “save” spiritually, were never intended to do so. Peter denies that baptism is such a minor rite and thus gives an answer to those who see in baptism only “an ordinance,” a symbol, a sign of grace already obtained or yet to be obtained, or a mere mark of obedience.

Immersionists also find little support for their view here. The only persons who were immersed were those who were drowned by the flood waters. Their case is like that of the Egyptians who were drowned by immersion in the Red Sea (Exod. 14:28, 29; compare 1 Cor. 10:1, 2).

The sacrament “saves” because it is not a mere outward rite but “an offer of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ’s resurrection,” etc. The A. V. selects the common meaning of ἐπερώτημα, “an answer,” one made to God by us. The R. V. does less well with its “interrogation,” margin “inquiry,” “appeal,” addressed to God by us. This is taken to mean that we ask God for a good conscience in the act of baptism, or that by obeying the command to be baptized we have a good conscience because of this our act of obedience and the answer we thereby make to God in baptism. See Thayer in regard to the way in which this is understood; he interprets it as the vow to have a good conscience in regard to God.

This word is forensic; the whole expression is parallel to the negative “not a putting away of filth of flesh.” C.-K., 455. Bengel approached this meaning but made the word subjective: the rogatio qua nos deum compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis, the claim which a good conscience has upon God with sins remitted and abolished. Schlatter has the correct interpretation: this ἐπερώτημα is God’s Antrag or Anbietung. “God puts the question before man as to whether he wants to have a good conscience and receives the answer in the believing ‘yes’ of the one accepting baptism.” The forensic sense lies in God’s formal proposition, which, when it is accepted, is rechtskraeftig, legally binding.

The genitive “of a good conscience” is objective, and εἰςΘεόν is to be construed with it (as our versions have it). The order of the words parallels the negative which has σαρκός before ἀπόθεσις and ῥύπου after, and thus “of a good conscience” is put before ἐπερώτημα and εἰςΘεόν after. This careful order puts the emphasis first on “flesh” and again first on “a good conscience” and thus places these two into opposition: flesh-cleansing amounts to nothing, a good conscience is everything. Secondly, also “filth” is emphatic, and, like it, “toward God”: to get rid of bodily dirt is nothing, but to be right εἰς (toward or regarding) God is everything.

The point of all this is the fact that in baptism God bestows something on us which becomes ours by baptism. Peter calls this “a good conscience toward God,” and a glance at v. 16 shows the reason: men speak against us, but we keep the good conscience bestowed on us by baptism, these evil men are able to revile only our good conduct. So baptism truly “saves,” so we remain “blessed,” when, if God wills, we suffer from the disobedient in the world. All of this is the direct opposite of the view that we bring something to God in baptism, say obedience to the “ordinance” of baptism, a good conscience, a request for one, the answer of one, or the vow to have one.

We construe: “God’s ἐπερώτημα through Jesus Christ’s resurrection, he who,” etc. In baptism God extends the saving proffer of a good conscience toward him only “by means of Jesus Christ’s resurrection”; διά = means or mediation. We have already stated the difference between the vivification and the resurrection and have pointed out that the latter also includes the glorious appearance of the living Savior to the disciples and to chosen witnesses (1 Cor. 15:4–8). The vivification is sufficient for the descent to hell. Christ, again alive, descended gloriously in body and in soul. Now, however, all that is comprised in his resurrection for the baptized believers is the basis of their blessedness, the medium of the good conscience toward God that was bestowed on them in and by baptism.

One might construe the phrase with “saves”: “saves also you … through Jesus Christ’s resurrection.” This is in substance the same as construing: God’s “offer through,” etc. Christ’s suffering and death are crowned by his resurrection, his ascension, and his sessio at God’s right hand. These glorious acts complete his work. The resurrection (here we have the active term, his rising up) is the factual evidence that his substitutionary expiation of our sins is all-sufficient and that it has been accepted as such by God.

Thus the risen Lord instituted baptism for all nations (Matt. 28:19) with the promise that it saves (Mark 16:16). Without his resurrection there is no baptism, no salvation, no conscience-cleansing to comfort us when we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, in fact, no righteousness at all. Redemption was finished on the cross (John 19:30); the resurrection is God’s own attestation to this effect (Acts 2:36, with v. 38 on baptism; 5:30–32).

1 Peter 3:22

22 Ὅς is a demonstrative relative: “he who is at God’s right (hand), having gone into heaven, angels,” etc. The demonstrative force is felt when we note that this is not a genitive “of Jesus Christ, of whom,” but a nominative “he who.” Peter intends to say: “This is the One who arose from the dead, whose resurrection assures us all blessedness.”

He went into heaven = his ascension. One should note that πορευθείς is the same participle that was used in v. 19 to denote the descent into hell. Both are predicated of Christ’s human nature (body and soul) which is in union with the divine. No man saw the descent; the ascent was seen in its first stage but not after the cloud enveloped Christ, when it became timeless. Since it is expressed by means of a participle the ascent is made subsidiary even as it was a single act. The sessio at God’s right hand is the supreme thought. Peter has the simple statement that he “is at God’s right.” For further explanation see the other passages which have fuller expressions, notably Heb. 1:3; 12:2.

The full exaltation of being at God’s right hand in heaven is indicated by the genitive: “made subject to him angels and authorities and powers.” One can only shake his head when these angels are identified with “the spirits in prison” (v. 19), which were human spirits. Nor can we accept the view that the three terms are to be regarded as indicating three ranks. These are good angels. As angels they are subservient to Christ and are his messengers (Heb. 1:14). All these angels have authority, they likewise have power and are thus designated according to the degree of authority and of power bestowed on each of them. The same is true in Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21.

We do not divide perpendicularly but horizontally as is explained in the interpretation of these other passages. Christ in his human nature is at God’s right hand. By virtue of the divine attributes bestowed on his human nature at his incarnation the man Christ Jesus now rules with divine glory and majesty over heaven, earth, and hell, all God’s holy angels being his ministrants in this rule. Let the readers dismiss all fear of men (v. 14, 15).

Peter does not mention the demons, neither in v. 18 nor here. Only by deduction can we think of the demons, and it is immaterial whether from the descent into hell we deduce that the demons are powerless before Christ, or from his enthronement at God’s right hand that they are under his feet.

What Peter does not introduce Paul treats in Col. 2:15. Both of these passages deal with the descent into hell. We refer the student to the exposition of Col. 2:15, which states that God, “having stripped the rulerships and authorities (i. e., the demons) put them to shame publicly by causing a triumph over them in connection with him” (literal translation). Paul writes in disdain of the Judaizers in Colossse, who imagined that demons could hurt Christians through certain foods and earthly elements, of which up-to-date Christians had to beware; but all demons were abjectly crushed by Christ’s descent into hell. The two sedes doctrinae supplement each other, and we may add Eph. 4:8 (Ps. 68:18).

We append the following in regard to v. 19. Augustine held the view that Christ preached to the antediluvians here on earth before the flood, preached to them non in carne, quia nondum erat incarnatus. sed in spiritu, i. e., secundum divinitatem praedicavit. Gerhard, von Hofmann, Besser, etc., have adopted his view. This interpretation cannot, however, be supported by the text of this passage.

Zezschwitz has the following. Peter adopts the fables of the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and “Jewish tradition.” In order to frustrate the plan of sending a Savior to be born of men the demons (Gen. 6:4) cohabited with women and begot a terrible progeny, half-devil, half-human, which was as little redeemable as were their fathers. In order that the whole human race might not become infected God wiped it out by the flood, save the family of Noah. The spirits of these half-devils were held in prison, namely apart in the lowest dungeons of hell, so that on the day of judgment they might not appear before God’s tribunal together with the other sinners. Christ descended to them and pronounced their doom in advance of the final judgment. This is called the type.

The antitype is the Antichrist, a spiritual son of Satan who by a generatio spiritioalis seeks to corrupt the souls of men. This is the counterpart to the cohabitation of the demons mentioned in Gen. 6:4. This second effort Christ will destroy at his Parousia. Such an interpretation can scarcely be called exegesis.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.