1 Peter 2
Woods1 Peter 2:1-10
- MEANS OF GROWTH
1 Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evel speakings,–“Therefore” (oun) points to the logical inference drawn from the matters considered in the closing portion of the first chapter. The meaning, expanded, is, “In consequence of the fact that you have been regenerated to a new life by the word of God (1 Peter 1:23), lay aside, your former evil dispositions, and particularly that which is inconsistent with fervent love of the brethren” (1 Peter 1:22). The New Testament writers gave much emphasis to this theme, and much space to its elaboration. For a similar discussion of it by Paul, see Ephesians 4:22-31, where most of the terms used by Peter here also occur.
“Putting away” (apothemenoi, aorist participle with imperative force) indicates a definite and decisive act with permanent results; and the proposition (apo-, from) in composition with the verb signifies separation. Thus, those to whom Peter wrote, in one decisive and positive act, and with results so pronounced as not to need repeating, were to separate themselves once for all from the sinful acts and dispositions mentioned, and henceforth to be free of their defilement. The verb apotithemi (from which the foregoing participle is derived) means literally to discard clothing ; and as here figuratively used, signifies the putting away of the evils of one’s former life as one would discard dirty and defiled linen. (Romans 13:12; Colossians 3:8; Colossians 3:10; James 1:21.) There is an interesting and significant tradition which comes down to us from the period of the early church that converts were accustomed to cast off forever their old clothing following their baptism into Christ, and to array themselves in new garments as a symbol of the new life upon which they had entered. The figure is a common one in the New Testament. (Romans 13:14.) Christ is to be “put on” in baptism (Galatians 3:27), and the evils here designated are to be “put off.”
Five terms are used by the apostle to designate the things that are to be put away. (1) “Wickedness (kakian) is evil of any kind, but here, particularly, an evil disposition and a malignant spirit; the desire to injure another. The word “malice” of the Authorized Version exactly represents the meaning here. (2) “Guile” (dolon) is translated from a term the verb of which means to catch with bait; thus, here, artifice, craftiness. (3) “Hypocrisies” are deceptive and deceitful actions and attitudes. (4) “Envies” are feelings of unhappiness because another has that which one desires for himself. (5) “Evil speakings” (katalalias) are slanderous and defamatory statements about others. The word is elsewhere translated “backbitings” (2 Corinthians 12:20); and a verb form of it occurs in 1 Peter 2:12, where it is rendered “speak against.” It should be observed that the sins designated in this catalog are such as operate to destroy the brotherly relationship which begets and maintains love, and to create an attitude of mind and disposition of heart where malice, bitterness and hate reign instead. These evils are closely related and develop from each other. A malicious disposition leads to deception, deceit, envy and defamation; and, the effort to conceal such produces hypocrisy. All such attitudes are utterly foreign to the Spirit of Christ, and to the principles which governed and motivated his life. All such must be resolutely put away if we are to have his approval and commendation. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.” (1 John 4:20.)
2 As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile,–Twice before, in the epistle (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23), the metaphor of a new birth and resultant entrance upon a new life has been used; and here, in the reference to “newborn babes,” the figure is extended and repeated. It is a common one in the New Testament, being first used by the Lord in his teaching regarding the birth from above. (John 3:3; John 3:5.) Paul used it (1 Cor. 4 15), as did John (1 John 5:1); and Jesus often compared his disciples to little children (Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:14-15). The figure is applied in the Old Testament to those who, like children, are teachable and guileless. (Isaiah 28:9.) Babes (brephe) in the text signifies children of the earliest infancy; and the words “long for” (epipotheo) suggest great eagerness and an ever-recurring desire for the word of God such as is characteristic of infants in their passionate longing and yearning for the milk which alone constitutes their food. As babes instinctively turn to their mothers’ breasts as the only source of their life, so are all children of God here admonished to desire the spiritual milk which is “without guile,” and which alone can sustain their spiritual life. The appetite for spiritual food is not often as intense, alas, as that which prompts a baby to return again and again to its mother’s breast. Infants do not have to be constantly urged and admonished to seek the source of their life!
The word “milk” in the text continues the figure of the new birth, and is used in opposition to the solid food (meat, 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12), adaptable to the more mature. Under this figure reference is made to the simpler and more primary matters of the Christian life which are adaptable to the young and immature in Christ, in contrast to those matters which are profound and involved, and thus applicable only to the “full-grown.” (Hebrews 5:14.) Here, as often elsewhere in the scriptures, emphasis is given to the fact that Christianity involves growth, such being comparable to that characteristic of an infant in its development from childhood to maturity, attained through feeding on the food especially adaptable to one’s need.
The milk is described as spiritual (logikon), rational, because it appeals to the reason, thus nourishing and sustaining it instead of performing the functions of ordinary milk in sustaining the body, the flesh. The word occurs only once elsewhere in the New Testament (Romans 12:1), where it describes the character of the service we are to render to God. There the Authorized, or King James’ Version renders it “reasonable,” i.e., a service of the reason, one originating with, and performed by, the reason.
“Without guile” is, literally, “unadulterated.” In ancient times milk was often adulterated with gypsum, a chalky-like substance to increase its volume, thus rendering it impure and contaminated. Such adulteration became a figure of the admixture of false doctrine with the pure word of God. Irenaeus, an early Christian writer, born between 120 and 140 A.D., said of the heretics of his time, “They mix gypsum with the milk, they taint the heavenly doctrine with the poison of their errors.”
That ye may grow thereby unto salvation.– “That” introduces a purpose clause, meaning “in order that.” “Thereby” is, actually, “therein.” It is in feeding on the proper spiritual food that growth and development follow; and this is the purpose of the feeding. The salvation unto which one grows is the deliverance which awaits the faithful at the consummation of all things. “Grow” is, literally, to be nourished, such being the sole purpose of the milk which is “without guile.” Such nourishment results in and produces salvation.
3 If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious:–This is an exact quotation of Psa 34:8, as it appears in the Septuagint, a translation from Hebrew into Greek, made in 280 B.C., so the tradition runs, and used by Christ and the New Testament writers. The passage, in our text of the Old Testament, reads: “Oh taste and see that Jehovah is good.” The conditional particle “if” with which the quotation begins does not imply doubt, but is a fulfilled condition, meaning “since you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” “Gracious,” from chrestos in the Greek text, and Cobh in the Hebrew, means “good,” and is so translated in Psalms 34:8 and Luke 5:39. The metaphor of tasting that the Lord is good continues the figure suggested by reference to the milk beginning in verse 2. As an infant, once directed to the breast continues to desire it, so their first experience in partaking of the delectable delights of the Lord should prompt them to return again and again to that feast.
4 Unto whom coming, a living stone rejected indeed of men, but with God, elect, precious.–From the figure of milk with which the apostle has been illustrating his teaching he now turns to that of a building, and particularly to the corner stone thereof, by which he represents Christ. There is a similar transition in Paul’s writings when, in 1 Corinthians 3, after asserting that he had fed the Corinthians with milk and not with meat, he resorts to the illustration of builders laying a foundation, and writes that “other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:1-11.)
“Unto whom coming” does not refer to the primary steps of salvation when the alien sinner first comes to Christ, but to the constant approaching of the Lord characteristic of all who find strength and support from the “living stone.” It is only through continually reaching forth to Christ–the standard and ideal of Christianity–that the means and method of constructing the Christian structure may be found. The approach is made by faith, and is constant and continuous if one is to realize the communion and union with the Lord without which all spiritual life must fail.
Christ is a “living stone,” (1) because, unlike the inert, lifeless stones of the earth, he is a stone of energy, vitality, and life; and (2) having been raised from the dead, he lives to die no more. Being alive himself, he is thus the source of life to his followers. Though Peter was himself a stone (petros), he was wholly unlike the stone (lithos) which he describes here. Petros is a fragment of native rock, unhewn; whereas, lithos is one shaped and fitted for the purpose designated.
“Rejected” is from apodokimadzo, to reject after trial and examination, as one casts aside worthless and spurious coins. The Jews examined the claims of Jesus, and because he did not conform to their expectations of a Messiah, nor establish the earthly kingdom they desired and expected, they rejected him as spurious. That men professedly religious could thus test and reject as worthless metal the Lord of glory is a measure of the appalling unbelief which obtained in that day, and which extends to our time on the part of those who still stumble after the same manner of unbelief. While this passage which Peter cites in support of his statement here (Psalms 118:22) limits the rejection of the stone to the builders (see below under verses 7, 8), he extends it to embrace all of those who through unbelief repudiate and reject the Saviour.
The Stone was “with God elect,” literally, “by the side of God (para) chosen.” Though wicked men rejected him, God chose him, and sent him into the world a fitted and shaped stone (lithos) for the mission he was destined to fulfil. Moreover, God regarded him as “precious” (entimos), worthy of honor, in opposition to the attitude of repudiation and rejection characteristic of the “builders,” the unbelieving Jews. “Precious” in 1 Peter 1:19, descriptive of the blood of Christ, is not the same in meaning as here. There it is translated from timios, that which has intrinsic value; here it is entimos, God’s recognition of that intrinsic value. The contrast is further drawn out with reference to the manner in which God and men regarded Jesus. Though the Jews “rejected him,” God “chose” him; though they counted him spurious and without value, God regarded him as worthy of great honor.
5 Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.–Continuing the figure of a building in which Christ is the foundation stone, Peter declares that the followers of the Lord “as living stones” are built up into it so as to constitute a “spiritual house.” In view of the fact that Christ is a “living stone” (verse 4), Christians are similarly described because they derive their life from his. In comparing believers to a building, Peter was doubtless recalling the famous words of the Lord to him in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi when he said to him, “And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18.) The “spiritual house” is the church. (1 Timothy 3:14-15.)
In this spiritual house–the church–there is a “holy priesthood.” Here the figure changes from a building contemplated as a structure composed of many stones to a house occupied by servants. The servants are designated as priests. Under the law of Moses the priests constituted a special class empowered to officiate in worship. Inasmuch as all Christians are authorized to engage in the worship of God, all Christians are priests, and thus together constitute a priesthood of believers. This priesthood is “holy,” because its members have been separated to the sacred purpose of worship before the altar of God. The word translated “holy” has, as its basic idea, separation for a special purpose. Derived from the same root are the words saint, sanctify, and sanctification.
The kind of sacrifices which this holy priesthood is to offer is described as “spiritual” to distinguish them in nature and character from the sacrifices required by the law of Moses. They are also spiritual to conform to the nature of the building (church) in which they are offered; to the priests which are to offer them; and to the God to whom they are to be offered. “Offer up,” from anaphero, suggests the bearing up of sacrifices to the altar; and the aorist tense which occurs in the text here distinguishes between such acts contemplated as regular and habitual and a once-for-all dedication of the life on the altar of God, the meaning here., Prayer, praise, the contribution, indeed, all the items and acts of worship are thus figuratively included in the sacrifices which Christians, as priests officiating under Christ, the High Priest (Hebrews 9:11-28), are to offer in the spiritual temple, the church “Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name. But to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” (Hebrews 13:15-16.)
The purpose of these sacrifices is to be pleasing to God “through Jesus Christ.” “Acceptable” is from a word which means not only something received from another, but which, in addition, brings pleasure to the recipient (euprosdektos). Such is “through Jesus Christ,” because God is approachable in no other way. (John 14:6.)
6 Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.–The prophecy to which Peter refers is recorded in Isaiah 28:16, though the quotation varies somewhat from both the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint texts. It is a free rendering, such as one would make were he quoting the prophecy from memory. In Paul’s citation of the same text (Romans 9:33), there is an even greater variation. Peter’s quotation more nearly conforms to the Greek Septuagint text than to the original Hebrew. It does not include the words “a tried stone” and “a sure foundation,” and for “shall not be in haste” it has “shall not be put to shame.” For the meaning and significance of the phrases “a tried stone” and “a sure foundation,” see comments under verses 4, 5.
The phrase “shall not be in haste,” which Peter interprets to mean “shall not be put to shame,” indicates an attitude of mind and disposition of heart enabling one to be calm and unflurried, hence not stampeded into fearful and hasty flight. Those whose confidence is resolutely fixed on the Lord shall never have occasion to be ashamed thereof..
Christ is the “chief corner stone, elect precious,” which has been laid in Zion. It is the function of a corner stone to unite and securely fasten the two walls of a building. Under the same figure, and in a passage which illustrates the meaning here, Paul wrote to the Ephesians: “For through him (Christ) we both (Jew and Gentile) have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but we are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:18-22.) Thus, in the joining of the Jew and Gentile into “one body”–the church–there is henceforth but one building, and in it Christ occupies the position of chief corner stone. The metaphor of the “chief corner stone” (akrogoniaios lithos) emphasizes the function Jesus performed in uniting Jews and Gentiles into the one body, the church. (Ephesians 4:4.)
The “Stone” is said to have been laid “in Zion (Jerusalem, 1 Kings 8:1), because there Jesus died; there he fulfilled the old law and removed it, nailing it to his cross; and there, on the first Pentecost following the resurrection, the Christian dispensation was inaugurated.
7 For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, the stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.–In view of the fact that the Stone (Christ) is precious (verse 6), its preciousness (time, literally honor), is transferred to those that believe. The preciousness of the stone of the foundation is acquired by the “living stones” (children of God) which rest upon it. This preciousness is available only to those that believe; those who disbelieve have rejected (cast aside as spurious) the living stone, Christ, and are in the same position of builders which have rejected a stone which they regarded as worthless but later discovered to be the head stone of the corner. The word “disbelieve” means more than the mere absence of faith in it is the definite suggestion of positive disobedience. The words, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner,” is a quotation from Psalms 118:22. The builders were the Jewish teachers; the stone which they rejected was Christ.
8 And, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.–Verses 7 and 8 contrast those who believe, and the honor that is theirs through believing, with those who disbelieve and the consequences attending such unbelief. The meaning, expanded, is, “For you who believe, there is the preciousness of the stone transferred to you; but to you who disbelieve, the stone, instead of being a source of preciousness (honor), becomes a stone (lithos) of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offence.” The. words “stone of stumbling” and “rock of offence” are from Isaiah 8:14. Paul, in Romans 9:23, cites this passage and makes a similar application to that of Peter. It is interesting to observe that both Peter aind Paul, in their reference to this prophecy, follow the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint.
“Stumbling” (proskomma), to collide with something, thus suffering hurt or injury), and “offence” (skandalon), a trap wherein with bait the unwary are caught), are terms suggestive of the ruin and utter calamity certain to overtake those who through unbelief are opposed to Christ. The passage means much more than mere vexation and mental annoyance at the claims of the Lord it includes the ultimate consequence of unbelief and damnation awaiting those who have arrayed themselves against the “tried stone.” The ruin awaiting such is put in contrast with the preciousness belonging to those who obey him. Peter, in his reference to the rock of offence, must have recalled his own brief period of unbelief when the Lord addressed him as a “stumbling-block” (skandalon). (Matthew 16:23.)
Those who stumble at the word do so because they are disobedient; and this disobedience is the natural fruit of unbelief. The words, “Whereunto they were appointed,” do not mean that they were predestined to such disobedience by arbitrary and immutable decree, but because such stumbling is the inevitable result of unbelief. Having given themselves over to unbelief, the fact that they stumbled was neither fortuitous nor accidental; it was simply the working out of the principle applicable in both the natural and the spiritual realms. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7.) God has ordained that to those who disbelieve Christ is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence against which all such shall destroy themselves. These of whom Peter wrote were unbelievers. Hence, they were appointed to the destruction which is the inevitable lot of all such. It is idle to suppose that these individuals who deliberately repudiated Christ would have stood in the same relationship to God had they died in infancy.
Had Judas been born a thousand years earlier he could not have sinned in the fashion he did. One may elect whether he will believe in Christ or not. If not, then through his own choice he places himself among those appointed to destruction. The word “appointed” (tithemi) means to set under certain and definite circumstances; to place, arrange, etc.; and God, in placing man under circumstances involving the possibility of great benefit as well as terrible dangers, expects man to seize the benefits and avoid the dangers; and if man refuses to do so, he cannot complain that God is unjust.
9 But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession,–“But” (de) is a disjunctive, and the “ye” is emphatic, the meaning of which is, “But as for you, in contradistinction to the Jews who rejected Christ, you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.” The statement is designed to put in vivid contrast those who, through unbelief, were appointed to the penalties of disobedience (verse 8), and those who, through obedience, became the recipients of blessings belonging only to the children of God. The phrases, an elect race, a royal priesthood,” etc., were selected from various Old Testament passages originally applicable to the Israelite people, formerly regarded as the Lord’s “chosen” (Isaiah 43:20-21); but who, through their unbelief, were “broken off” (Romans 11:13-24), thus permitting the Gentiles, through Christ, to be “grafted in.” It follows, therefore, that Christians are the true “Israel of God,” today, the only Jews whom God recognizes! (Romans 2:28-29.)
Peter describes the people of God as “an elect race,” because they have been chosen (eklekton) to salvation, “in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” having been “called” by the gospel. Inasmuch as the gospel is addressed to all (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 11:28), all who believe and obey it are chosen to salvation, and thus comprise the elect race to which Peter refers. Such are also a priesthood, because empowered to officiate in worship (see comments under verse 5); and the priesthood is a “royal” one because of its relationship to the King. This portion of. Peter’s quotation is from Exodus 19:6, where the Hebrew has “kingdom of priests” instead of “a royal priesthood.” The ideas are very similar. Children of God constitute a “holy nation” (a) because the company to which they belong is a monarchy with Christ as King; and (b) it is “holy” because dedicated to a sacred purpose.
The subjects of this holy nation are described as “a people for God’s own possession,” because they belong to him in a special and intimate sense characteristic of no other. This is cited from Deut.. 7:6. Malachi 3:17 (Authorized Version) refers to them as the Lord’s “jewels,” i.e., a peculiar treasure belonging only to the Lord. The meaning of the words, “a people for God’s own possession,” literally suggests the idea of something acquired, gained, and includes the idea of preserving, keeping to one’s self. It follows therefore that Christians are today the special, acquired treasure of God, precious jewels which he proposes to keep for himself. How we should rejoice that it is so!
That ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:–The words “show forth” mean, literally, to proclaim, to publish abroad, and the verse thus reveals the obligation of all children of God to herald abroad and give wide publicity to the excellencies (virtues, gracious dealings as exhibited in the plan of salvation) of him who called us from a sinful life into the marvelous light of truth. These words are especially applicable to those among Peter’s readers who had formerly been idol worshipers; these, through the gospel, had been called from the darkness of heathenism to the glorious light of the truth. The words apply, however, to all, both Jew and Gentile, the state of sin being often described by the sacred writers as a condition of darkness, and Christianity as a world of light. (1 John 1:5; 1 John 1:7, and often elsewhere, particularly in John’s writings, and those of Paul, Ephesians 5:8.)
10 Who in times past were no people, but are now the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.–This is a quotation from Hosea 2:23. Paul cites it in Romans 9:25-26, and applies it to the Gentiles, as Peter apparently does here. Here, again, as often elsewhere in the epistle, it appears that the Gentiles were in the mind of the writer, and that the address to the “elect sojourners of the Dispersion” (verse 1 of the first chapter) is to be understood in a figurative sense as including children of God without regard to their racial origins. The Gentiles, before they obeyed the gospel, were “no people,” being scattered through all the nations, with separate languages, governments, customs, etc., but through their obedience to the gospel were constituted into a holy nation with common interests, obligations, government and king. Formerly they had not “obtained mercy” (eleemenoi, perfect passive participle. literally, were up to a definite time unpitied) but now have “obtained mercy” (eleethentes), passive aorist participle, obtained pity in a single act, and at a definite time, viz., at their conversion. Formerly unpitied and the objects of aversion and wrath, they had, by their conversion to Christ, become the objects of compassion and pity. This change in attitude on the part of God toward them was due to their renunciation of the evil which had characterized them, and to their acceptance of the truth in Christ.
1 Peter 2:11-12
- CONDUCT BEFORE
11 Beloved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; –Here, quite obviously, is the beginning of a new section of the epistle. Somewhat after the fashion of Paul who often ranged widely over the whole of the scheme of redemption, only to return to the starting point from which to launch a new survey, so here, Peter returns to that point in his letter when he addressed the “elect sojourners of the Dispersion” (verse 1 of the first chapter), from which to begin the practical portion of the epistle which follows. To this point Peter had given particular emphasis to the manner of life which should characterize his readers in view of their relationship to God; here he exhorts them to walk worthily and godly before unbelievers and their persecutors.
The section begins with a term of endearment. “Beloved,” as a form of address, often occurs in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 John 3:2, etc.), though only once more elsewhere in the epistle. (4:12.) The term reveals the warm affection Peter felt for his readers, his good will in their behalf, and the close and intimate relationship he sustained toward them.
The exhortations which follow take the form of an entreaty “I beseech you . . .” The word “beseech” (parakaleo, to call to one’s side and tenderly admonish, thus, to entreat, to exhort, to plead with) suggests the tenderness which characterized the approach of the apostle to the matters to be discussed.
Those thus addressed were regarded as “sojourners and pilgrims.” (A sojourner (paroikos) is one who lives as a foreigner in a strange land; a pilgrim (parepidemos) is one who remains in a place but a short while, as a traveler on a journey. Here, and in Ephesians 2:11, the meaning is metaphorical and describes the Christian who, though resident on the earth, has his real and permanent home in heaven. Though sojourning on the earth, he dwells there as a temporary tenant only, his citizenship being in heaven (Philippians 3:20), whence he derives his rights, privileges, laws, etc. The more nearly he conforms to the laws of the kingdom in which he has citizenship, the more apparent becomes the difference which obtains between himself and those of the land in which he sojourns; being a citizen of that, he is alien to this; and because his life is dedicated to him who reigns above, he must ever be on guard against the evil influences of him who is the prince of this world. (John 12:31.) Such has ever been the attitude of God’s faithful. Abraham “became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own”; and the patriarchs “confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” (Hebrews 11:9; Hebrews 11:13.) Such a relationship sets up obligations and establishes responsibilities. Christians, being strangers in the world, are (a) not to partake of the customs and characteristics peculiar to it (1 John 2:15; James 4:4); and (b) not to offend unnecessarily those among whom they dwell (c) in addition, they are to seek the good of those about them, and encourage them also to look “for the city which bath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:10.)
Because such a relationship obtains, Christians are to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul.” “Abstain” (apecho, to hold back from), here, present, middle, infinitive thus to keep constantly holding one’s self back from fleshly lusts, as a constant, ever-present duty. The fleshly lusts are all evil desires, the effect of which is to war against the soul, i.e., against the best interests of the soul; and the word “war” (present, indicative middle of strateuo) does not mean merely a state of antagonism, but rather a constant, active, aggressive conflict which must be evermore resisted. See Galatians 5:16-24 for a graphic description of this warfare by Paul. The “soul,” in this passage, is man’s higher nature, embracing the spirit, the immortal part of man directly derived from God. (Hebrews 12:9.)
12 Having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles;–This subdivision of the epistle, consisting of verses 11, 12, contains two general exhortations, the first negative, the second positive. Through abstinence from the fleshly lusts mentioned in verse 11, these addressed by Peter were, by their godly conduct to silence the mouths of their accusers and prompt them to glorify God. Here, the word “Gentiles” embraces the unconverted heathen resident in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1), and is figuratively used to designate the ungodly world in the midst of which the Christians of these provinces lived. “Seemly,” sometimes translated good, and at other times comely, means more than mere moral rectitude. It also includes that which is beautiful, harmonious, lovely, and symmetrical. Works, in order to be good in God’s sight, must also be beautiful; and it matters not how much one’s life may conform to the laws of morality and right, it is imperfect unless it also measures to the law of beauty, i.e., to beautiful and lovely conduct. We are just as obligated to make our lives attractive and beautiful to others as we are to make them pure. He who exhibits a stern and unbending disposition; though his life be an exemplary one, is lacking in the qualities which are described in the Bible as good. (Matthew 5:16; Matthew 26:10.)
That, wherein they speak against you as evildoers,–“Wherein,” i.e., in the very matter in which they speak. The speaking designated is critical and adverse, literally “to speak down,” and to find evil satisfaction in such criticism. In spite of such Peter admonished his readers to live so circumspectly that their accusers would be able to see in their conduct occasion not only to reverse their opinion, but actually to glorify God in so doing. It is worthy of note that the word “evildoers” is the same as that which the chief priests applied to our Lord, and in thus being stigmatized, they were but suffering the same calumnies as the Saviour. (1 Peter 2:21.) The disciples of the period in which Peter wrote, and for many years afterward, were subjected to the most bitter calumny and the severest sort of persecution. They were charged with “turning the world upside down,” with acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, and with blaspheming the names of the popular gods and goddesses of the day. Unbelieving Gentiles, encouraged and led on by Jews, were most active in leveling false charges against the saints, charges based on numerous grounds.
On political considerations they were charged with being enemies of the government (Acts 17:6-7) on religious considerations as opposed to the prevailing idolatry (Acts 19:27-29); on business grounds as having interfered with the manufacture of idols; and on ethical considerations as having sought to abolish the customs and practices of the day. They were, by their enemies, held responsible for, and blamed with, all the national evils of the day. Wrote Tertullian (born about 160 A.D., died between 220 and 240 A.D.), “If the Tiber rises to the walls of the city, if the Nile does not irrigate the fields, if an earthquake takes place, if famine or the pestilence arise, they cry forthwith: Away with the Christians to the lions.” Heathen writers, when not possessed of the bitterness of spirit and maliciousness of heart characteristic of those actively engaged in persecution of the church, were led by the popular feeling to speak of them in similar contemptuous vein, and to join in the condemnation which all but universally prevailed during the early years of Christianity. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny–all prominent and well-known Roman authors and historians–imbibed the prevalent spirit and described the early Christians as being possessed of a perverse and excessive superstition, wicked and deadly in its nature. In suffering such the disciples were simply experiencing that which Jesus had predicted would come to pass, and were following in his own footsteps, in demonstration of the adage that the servant is not above his lord.
They may be your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.–“By your good works” is, literally” “out of your beautiful deeds.” Here, again, it should be observed that the word translated “good” is that which is not only morally right, but beautiful, orderly, harmonious. These beautiful deeds their enemies “behold” (epopteuontes, present active participle of epopteuo, to scrutinize minutely, to examine carefully), on examining until, though their original motive was to find occasion for further accusation, they are led from such minute scrutiny to reverse their attitude and glorify God “in the day of visitation.” The design of beautiful conduct on the part of Christians is, therefore, that God should be glorified and his name made great in the earth. To this end Jesus taught the disciples, “Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16.) Thus, the ultimate design of such conduct is not to attract to oneself honor and praise, but that God may be honored and glorified among men. As praise bestowed on a child because of its pleasing manners and obedient conduct is, in reality, praise given to the parents for the training and instruction which produced such obedience, so when men praise the good works of Christians, they are actually praising and honoring the name of him who is the author of such works.
The phrase “day of visitation,” with slight variation, occurs in Luke 19:44. “Visitation” (Greek, episkopes) is derived from the same source from which our words bishop and overseer come. Peter’s use of the phrase was doubtless prompted by his remembrance of the Lord’s use thereof (“Because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation,” Luke 19:44), where it is applied to the time when God comes to oversee his people, not only to rebuke them, but to bring them, if possible, to repentance; and such appears to be its meaning here, expanded to include his coming in providence to all men, and in all the ways in which his gracious influence is wrought upon the world of mankind. It was thus the expressed hope of Peter that the godly conduct of the disciples to whom he wrote would be the means of influence for good in inducing many of the unbelievers who had formerly been their traducers and accusers to turn to God in penitence as they learned more and more of the salvation which had been vouchsafed to men. The context and the similarity which obtains between this phrase and the Lord’s use of it prompts us to conclude that the “visitation” here was a coming in grace, rather than of judgment, as the term sometime means. Though God “visits” men with judgment, he also visits them with salvation. (Psalms 106:4.)
1 Peter 2:13-17
- TO CIVIL RULERS
13 Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:–One of the most common slanders uttered against the early disciples by the enemies of Christianity was that they were disorderly in conduct, and disposed to disregard the edicts of civil authority. In Thessalonica, for example, it was charged that “they act contrary to the decrees of Caesar.” (Acts 17:7.) To refute such slanders, and to give special emphasis to those matters most likely to be observed by people in general, the apostle, from a discussion of general precepts dealing with conduct before unbelievers in general, passes to specific exhortation with reference to the conduct of Christians in relation to the secular authorities.
“Be subject” is from hupotagete, aorist passive of hupotasso, here used with the force of the middle, signifying to place one’s self under subjection; to render one’s self subordinate. The word occurs in Romans 8:20; 1 Corinthians 14:32; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Luke 2:51, and often elsewhere in the New Testament. Peter uses it again in 3:22, in the phrase, “angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.”
“Ordinance” (ktisis), literally “a creation,” and so translated in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 1:15, denotes that which has been made, and the prepositional phrase “of man” indicates that the creation contemplated is human in origin. The Greeks and Romans were accustomed to describe the appointment of officers as the creation of them; and here, the reference is to the institution, which they administered–the civil government. Peter thus exhorted those to whom he wrote to put themselves in submission to the prevailing and secular power. It should be observed that neither here nor elsewhere in the scriptures do the sacred writers designate any special form of government to which Christians are to subject themselves, or attempt to determine the type of government best suited to their needs. Aware that the saints would have no choice in the nature of the secular power under which they lived, these writers concerned themselves solely with the conduct which should characterize them, regardless of the form of government to which they owed allegiance. Whether the government was monarchal, democratic, or totalitarian, the obligation was the same.
Christians under it were “to be subject to every ordinance of man.” It is noteworthy that the form of government which then obtained was dictatorial, totalitarian, and tyrannical; and the men who dispensed the laws thereof were corrupt, depraved, and dissolute in the extreme. That the Christian’s allegiance thereto was not unconditional, however, follows from the fact that the apostle who penned the words of this text himself disregarded the edicts of constituted authority when forbidden to preach in the name of Jesus. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard.” (Acts 4:1-22.)
When the law of God and the edicts of men are not in conflict, the Christian is obligated to obey both. When conflict exists, he must disregard the secular for the divine. Peter announced the principles that must govern in all such cases when he said, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29.)
The submission here enjoined by the apostle was not to be from motives purely human, nor from the fear of punishment which follows disobedience, but because “the powers that be are ordained of God (Romans 13:1 ff.), and to be in subjection to them is to be in subjection to God, who ordained them. The submission contemplated is to be “for the Lord’s sake,” i.e., because he commanded it (Matthew 17:26-27), and his name is honored as the leader of those rendering such submission.
Whether to the king, as supreme; –The king alluded to was the infamous Nero, emperor of Rome, and one of the most wicked, depraved and ungodly kings who ever reigned. Under him Paul suffered martyrdom; under him, multitudes of saints died rather than renounce the faith once delivered to the saints. These to whom Peter wrote were admonished to obey him, wicked though he was, since he derived his powers from God who ordains civil government. (Romans 13:1.) Because God does not determine the form of government under which his people live, or arbitrarily select the ruler, wicked men are often elevated to positions of authority therein. An example will be seen in John 19:11.
The word “supreme” is the same adjective as that translated “higher” in the phrase “higher powers” in Romans 13:1. It is used here to distinguish between the rulers in the highest position and those in more obscure places and who derived their powers through (verse 14) the king.
14 Or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to them that do well.–The “governors” were the proconsuls and magistrates of the provinces, subordinate officials variously designated as “Asiarchs,” town clerks, proconsuls, etc. (Acts 19:31; Acts 19:35; Acts 19:38.) The word “governors” means leaders (from hegeomai, to lead).
“By him” is, in the Greek text, literally “through him” (di’autou), the pronoun “him” referring to the king (verse 13), and not the Lord. Peter’s design here was to show that these “governors” exercised their powers by virtue of the supreme authority of the king by whom they were sent. The purpose for which this was done–the design, incidentally, of all civil authority –was (a) to punish the wicked, and (b) encourage good works by protecting those engaged therein. It is significant that throughout this passage there is similarity in form and in meaning to that of Paul in the well-known passage in Romans 13:1-7.
The obligation of the Christian to conform to the laws of the land in which he lives, even though the government itself is corrupt, and the officials who administer the laws depraved, is here, and in the passage above alluded to by Paul, clearly taught. The test is simply this: is the edict in harmony with the law of God? If yes, it must be obeyed whatever the nature of the government, and despite the depravity of its officials; if no, it must be resisted, however worthy the government and benevolent its rulers in other respects. This principle admits of no exceptions. It is fatal to disregard it.
15 For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:–Instead of indulging in vehement vindication of their character and conduct, of foolish men:16 as free, and not the saints to whom Peter wrote were admonished to make their good deeds the most conspicuous feature of their lives, this being the most effective defence available to them against the false and malicious slanders which they were suffering at the hands of their enemies. “For so” (outos esti), “in this way,” the will of God was discharged. This was the manner in which God wanted them to defend themselves against such attacks; and it is the way he waits us to meet such today. “Silence,” in the text, is from phimoun, present infinitive active of phimoo, literally, to muzzle, to gag; thus, figuratively, to silence. Instances of its literal meaning, and where it is thus rendered are 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. Here, metaphorically, wicked men were to be muzzled, and the muzzle to be used was the saints’ good deeds! As a muzzle renders even a vicious and ill-tempered dog harmless, so the godly behavior of Christians effectively muzzles their most malevolent foes.
The “ignorance” designated was not merely the lack of information characteristic of the uninformed (agnoia), but a type of ignorance that is willful, persistent, and disgraceful in nature (agnosia). It is the same as that which Paul regarded as shameful in 1 Corinthians 15:34. “Foolish” (aphron), senseless, indicates an evil condition not only of the mind but also of the heart, i.e., folly preceding not simply from lack of understanding, but from evil and corrupt motives also. The article appears before the word foolish in the text, thus designating these foolish men as a .special class engaged in slandering the children of God, and not simply foolish men in general.
16 As free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.–Though they were free, the freedom which Peter’s readers enjoyed was not license to ungodly indulgence. New Testament writers, and Paul particularly, gave much emphasis to the fact that children of God are free (Galatians 5:1), free from the law, free from sin, free from fear, but with many cautions that this freedom must be kept within circumscribed bounds. Men were, in that day, especially disposed to allege their freedom as ground for disregarding the sanctions of the law, and as license to fleshly indulgence. Some Gentile sects confusing liberty with libertinism, maintained that grace meant deliverance from all law (a view likewise held today by those who subscribe to the doctrine of impossibility of apostasy), and the Jews, on the plea that they were in possession of the oracles of God, often claimed immunity from law originating with man.
To guard his readers against such wicked conclusions, Peter penned these words of caution. They were to remember that, though free, they were under definite obligation and with responsibilities not to be disregarded. These the apostle presented both negatively and positively. (a) This freedom they enjoyed was not to be used as a cloak (covering, veil) for wickedness; (b) instead, they were to live as “bondservants” of God. Free, they were, nevertheless, servants; the paradox being a well known Christian characteristic. There is indeed no such thing as absolute personal liberty. Liberty without restraint is license; and unrestrained license is abject bondage. The alcoholic, the dope addict, because they recognize no restraint, are in the most helpless slavery.
17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.–Four rules of conduct are here designated. The first, “honor all men,” being more general than the others, is in the aorist tense; the last three are present imperatives. As occasion arises, all men are to be honored; the brotherhood is to be continuously loved, God is evermore to be feared, and there is a constant, unceasing obligation to honor the king where such form of government exists.
Inasmuch as all men have in them the image of God, however greatly marred it may be, they are to be accorded the respect that is their due. The “brotherhood” is the church of the Lord in its aggregate sense; the affection we are admonished to feel for it is the love which obtains between those of the same family with common parentage, common interests, and common aims. Though not as universal as the command of the Lord in Matthew 5:44, “love your enemies,” the special love which Christians are to feel for each other by no means excludes the love there enjoined for our enemies. The injunction to “fear God” and “honor the king,” being so closely joined, suggests a relationship between them. To “fear God” is to show him holy, reverential awe; and to “honor the king” is to accord him the respect that is due one in such a position of authority. The “fear” we are to feel for God is not dread nor terror; it is rather fear of offending, of causing pain through misconduct. “The fear (Hebrew yirah, reverence) of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7.) Though we do not live under a monarchy such as was characteristic of the saints to whom Peter wrote, the principle applies to the public servants empowered to administer the laws of the land, and these we are to honor.
1 Peter 2:18-25
- DUTIES OF TO MASTERS
18 Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.–A common word for “servant,” and that by which Paul often designated himself in the familiar phrase, “servant of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1), is doulos, slave. Here, “servants” is from the milder oiketes, a domestic servant, a household slave. This class of servants, being more constantly in contact with their masters than would those slaves whose work was customarily in the fields and shops, would be subjected to greater provocation from evil masters, and are thus particularly addressed here. It is well known that many in the church during the apostolic age were in bondage; and instruction to those under such restraint is significantly large in the New Testament. (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1-2.) The reason is obvious. As Christians, they had learned of their equality with all men before God, and had come to recognize that in Christ Jesus all fleshly distinctions have been abolished. (Galatians 3:28-29.) There was thus grave danger that these considerations would prompt them to disregard their obligations, and to repudiate the relationship which subsisted between them and their earthly masters. The institution of slavery was opposed to the very spirit and genius of Christianity, and destined to perish as the influence thereof came to be dominently felt; yet, so deeply rooted was it in the social and economic fabric of the time that a frontal attack upon it would have been disastrous to the cause of Christianity. The sacred writers thus tolerated it and regulated it until such time as it would disintegrate under the impact of the cross.
The relationship must have been an exceedingly trying one, particularly to those with heathen masters. In the first place it was difficult for them to reconcile subjection to men with spiritual liberty; and most difficult of all when these masters were evil men, and disposed to oppress and mistreat them. Yet, it was a relationship which, for the time, they could not escape; and these instructions were vitally essential to the progress and good name of Christianity among the heathen.
The “subjection” enjoined is to be related to that designated in verse 13, “be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” the relationship of servants and masters being one of the ordinances of men there implied. It is also to be identified with the teaching of the entire context as another means by which to “silence” (muzzle) the mouths of their accusers and prompt those about them to “glorify God in the day of visitation.”
The service commanded was to be rendered “with all fear.” There are many kinds of fear: fear of punishment; fear of offending God; fear of bringing reproach on the name of Christ–all of which is to be included here. These to whom Peter wrote were not only to fear the displeasure of their earthly masters, but especially God, their highest Master. (Ephesians 6:5.) Moreover, their service was to be the same whether their masters were kind and benevolent or cruel and vindicative. It was to be given “not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” (Eph.. 6:6.) The word “good,” descriptive of humane masters, denotes inner goodness, kindness of heart; “gentle,” that which is mild and considerate; “froward” is, literally, crooked, here figuratively used to indicate that disposition which is perverse, surly, opposed to gentle. Good and gentle masters were those who showed consideration for their servants; the froward were masters who oppressed and abused them.
19 For this is acceptable, if for conscience toward God a man endureth griefs, suffering wrongfully.–“This” (touto, neuter singular, this thing) refers to that immediately preceding–obedience to wicked and oppressive masters. “Acceptable” is translated from the same word (charis) as “thank” in the passage, “And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye” (Luke 6:32), where it signifies not only thanks, but also reward and praise. Here, as in that passage, such is contemplated as being witnessed by the Father, i.e., under his eye, and proceeding from his hand. The term is descriptive of the credit which belongs to those who exceed what might be ordinarily expected. Slaves of the world resent and rebel against the surly disposition and abusive conduct of their wicked masters; but Christians, in the same relationship, suffer such uncomplainingly because of their consciousness of God’s presence and approval. Peter is not to be understood as affirming here that suffering of itself is an occasion for commendation from God it is only when such proceeds from one’s determination to do that which is right that it is “acceptable” (thankworthy, A.V.) in God’s sight.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted for it, ye take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.–“Glory” here is not that which affords occasion for boasting, but is that impression which, by worthy conduct, is made upon others. The word literally signifies renown, fame, praise earned by commendable achievement. Where punishment is suffered because of improper conduct, no praise accrues to the sufferer; good people feel that in such cases the culprit is merely receiving that which he deserved. “Buffeted” (kolaphizo, to strike with the fist, here present passive participle) means to be repeatedly. pummelled, perhaps literally here to indicate the type and extent of the punishment slaves often received from their “froward” masters. When punishment is undeserved, and is administered because of the wickedness of the master, and Christian slaves endure it patiently because they desire to do their duty to God, he approves and blesses. The word “acceptable” is similarly derived, and means the same as in verse 19. When men endure such treatment for conscience sake they are exceeding that which their fellows ordinarily do under such circumstances, and are therefore regarded as “thankworthy” in God’s sight. The early Christians often found occasion to rejoice amidst the most severe persecution and trial. (Acts 5:40-42; Acts 16:25.)
21 For hereunto were ye called:–Verses 18-20 deal with the duty of servants to continue in well doing, and to submit patiently to whatever trials it is their lot to bear; verses 21-25 establish the motive which should prompt to such manner of life. “Here-unto (eis touto) is, literally, “into this,” i.e., into such a life as they were experiencing had they been called (by the gospel) to do good and to suffer patiently. While primarily applicable to Christian slaves, these words have a general application to all saints, for it is “through much tribulation” that we “enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22), and Paul warned that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus shall “suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). These saints to whom Peter wrote were “called” to such suffering, this being an inevitable consequence of their lot in life. Christianity is, itself, a calling (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14), and trials an invariable characteristic thereof. “Because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf.” (Philippians 1:29.)
Because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow in his steps:–The calling alluded to in the first clause of verse 21 is here explained: “because Christ also (literally, even Christ) suffered for you.” Since the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord, such suffering was to be expected. Two ideas are here advanced: (1) Christ suffered; hence, you, his servants, must likewise suffer ; (2) in suffering the Lord left an example for his disciples to imitate in enduring similar trials.
“Example,” in the text, is from hupogrammon, accusative singular of hupogrammos, from the preposition hupo, under, and gramma, literally, to write under; to copy, and here figuratively, a pattern or model for imitation. It is a figure suggested by the copybook method of teaching penmanship. Christ thus becomes the copyhead, the beautiful writing at the top of the page. Implied in the figure is a copybook, a perfect pattern of writing, a white, unblemished sheet of paper, the student’s effort to transcribe the copy, the awkward attempts in the beginning, persistent determination, constant and unremitting practice; and then, eventually–success!
The purpose for which such an example has been provided is that we should “follow in his steps.” “Steps” is from ichnos, the heel of a shoe; also, a footprint. At this point the figure changes from a copyhead to a guide who goes before and breaks out the path that others may safely and surely follow. The Lord thus becomes for us not only an example of patient resignation in suffering trial and hardship, he went before us marking out the path and leaving us footprints of meekness, gentleness, and fortitude.
Christ’s example was cited as a particular encouragement to the Christian slaves among those to whom Peter wrote to bear patiently the unjust and undeserved reproaches which they received from their heathen masters. Suffering for evil conduct they might have accepted as that which should be expected under the circumstances; but to suffer unjustly and at the hands of unbelieving heathens was indeed a difficult trial to bear. Christ, as an example of an innocent sufferer, is offered to sustain them in bearing similar trials. Though he suffered, and suffered unjustly, this did not prompt him to sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. This pattern Peter’s readers should strive to follow. The conduct of Christ under such great provocation is next alluded to by the apostle.
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth –These words are cited, with slight variation, from the Septuagint translation of Isa 53:9, sin (hamartia) being substituted for violence (anomia, lawlessness) in our version of the Hebrew text. (See, also, Zephaniah 3:13.) “Did” is from epoiesen, aorist tense of poieo, with the negative signifying that never in a single instance did Jesus commit sin. For the meaning of the word “guile,” see comments on 1 Peter 2:1. “Found” is from a word (eurisko) which means to search diligently. No guile (deceit, deception) could be found in the words of our Lord, despite the fact that his enemies sought diligently and searched carefully to discover such. The Saviour’s sincerity thus stood the test of hostile scrutiny. Peter may have cited this prophecy of Isaiah as especially significant to slaves because the Messiah is designated by that prophet as the servant of Jehovah (Isaiah 52:13), and an oppressed and afflicted one. (Isaiah 53:7-8.) Other passages where the sinlessness of Jesus is expressly affirmed are Hebrews 7:26; 2 Corinthians 5:21 ; and 1 John 3:5. He himself alluded to the fact in his challenge to his enemies, “Which of you convicteth me of sin? (John 8:46), a challenge infidels for twenty centuries have never accepted.
Jesus did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, thus exhibiting perfect sinlessness, both in word and in deed. These words were especially relevant to slaves whose servitude and consequent oppression by evil masters laid them open to greater temptation to practice deception and deceit, and to resort to trickery and artifice in evading and avoiding the accusations of their masters. However great the provocation, Peter would have them remember, and imitate the Christ they followed. These words are as pertinent to us today as to those to whom they were originally penned.
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:–The antecedent of “who” is Christ. (Verse 21.) The verbs “reviled” are translated from Greek imperfects, the force of which is to signify that when our Lord was being constantly reviled, he did not retaliate with railing for railing; while suffering the bitter taunts of his most determined enemies he did not utter vain and meaningless imprecations, but committed (Greek, kept on committing) himself to God with the assurance that, though being greatly wronged by man, he would receive righteous judgment at the hands of the Father.
The biographies of Jesus abound with instances of that to which Peter here alludes. The Jews charged him with being a devil, a winebibber, and a glutton, in league with Beelzebub, a blasphemer of God, and violator of the law. When on trial before the Sanhedrin–the supreme court of the Jews–the judges thereof ridiculed his claims, heaped scorn and contempt on his head, and spit in his face. Common soldiers, in further derision of his claims to royalty, placed a purple robe about his shoulders and did mock obeisance at his feet. While dying on the cross a bloodthirsty mob milled and surged about him, shouting, “He saved others himself he cannot save.” (Matthew 27:39.) The stark tragedy of those fateful hours was deeply etched in Peter’s consciousness, and he penned these words in vivid remembrance of scenes in which he himself had performed a disgraceful part.
Again, it should be noted that this instruction was especially pertinent to the Christian slaves to whom it was particularly addressed. (1 Peter 2:18.) They must often have been tempted to retaliate when reviled by their heartless masters. Even so, they were not to forget that their Master under circumstances even more trying had met such ungodly taunts with silent patience. In the indignation which they felt for undeserved and evil treatment incident to their position as slaves they were doubtless often sorely tempted to threaten dire vengeance against their oppressors. They must, in all such instances, remember that while the Lord could have brought to his side twelve legions of angels, he made no defense of himself, and gave utterance to no threats, quietly committing himself into the hands of his Father. As their master had done, so were his servants to do.
The pointed words of condemnation which Jesus sometimes hurled at the Pharisees and others (Matthew 7:5; Matthew 16:3; Matthew 22:18; Matthew 23:13; Matthew 23:25-36) were not the bitter taunts of personal malice, nor the retaliatory retorts for insults received, but the probings of one capable of looking into the innermost recesses of the heart and exposing the corruption there, with the design of saving, if possible, the persons so possessed.
Our Saviour thus not only taught non-retaliation (Matt. 5 38-48); he practiced it, and under the most trying circumstances possible to conceive. It is only when his disciples do likewise that they reflect his spirit and demonstrate in their lives his influence. Far from calling down upon his enemies the vengeance of his Father, he prayed for and sought their conversion and salvation. “Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me; I will render to the man according to his work.” (Proverbs 24:29.) “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so de ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.” It is idle to claim the Spirit of Christ while disregarding, under any circumstances, the principles taught in this passage. They are universal in nature and applicable to every relationship possible to the Christian.
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree,–In the verses’ immediately preceding (21-23), the example of Christ, as a patient and uncomplaining suffered under extreme provocation, was brought forth, and the Christian slaves, to whom Peter was particularly addressing this instruction, were admonished to “follow in his steps.” Having thus had occasion to refer to the suffering and death of Christ on the cross, and unwilling to pass from this momentous theme when thus far he had pictured the Lord as merely a martyr courageously suffering and dying for a cherished cause, he here dwells on and considers his death in its relation to the redemption of man. Already, in the context, he had pointed out that Christ suffered “for you,” and lest this should be interpreted as meaning no more than an example of patient endurance and an encouragement to holy living, he passes to the contemplation of his death in its atoning aspects and sharpens and extends the remarkable statement of verse 22. Not only had our Lord no sin, not only did he not sin himself, he also bore our sins in his body on the tree.
The word “bore” is translated from the Greek anenegken, second aorist active indicative of anaphero, the word used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament of the bearing up on the altar of the sacrificial victim by the priest. Inherent in the word is thus the idea of sacrifice, and it is idle to attempt to weaken its meaning by its exclusion. The Lord not only died in our behalf; he also died in our stead. The vicarious aspect of the death of Christ is clearly taught here, as often elsewhere in the sacred writings. (Matthew 20:28 Mark 10:45; 1 Tim:2:6.) The position of the pronoun is emphatic he, himself, bore our sins, he alone. This verse is an obvious allusion to the well-known prophecy of Isaiah 53 : “He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sins of man, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:11-12.)
The Lord, in bearing the sins of the world, simply allowed the penalty of the law to fall upon him, the execution of which he suffered in our stead. Moreover, he bore our sins “in his own body.” His body thus became the sacrificial victim, and the cross the altar on which it was offered. Christ in his death became both priest and victim; he bore our sins, thus making an offering for us ; he bore our sins “in his own body,” thus serving as the victim of sacrifice which he offered. (Hebrews 9:25-28.)
He bore our sins in his body “on the tree.” For the cross the apostle uses here the word “tree” (xulon), the same term by which he designated the cross in his speeches in Acts. (Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39.) Paul alluded to the cross in similar fashion (Galatians 3:13), and both apostles were doubtless influenced to this end by Deuteronomy 21:23.
That we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; –The two effects of Christ’s death are here prominently exhibited: (1) by it our sins have been removed; (2) through its effects we are privileged to live unto righteousness. “Having died” is in the aorist tense, and thus refers to a definite and consummated act of renunciation of sin occurring in repentance and the reformation which follows; and the life of righteousness begins when one is raised from the baptismal grave. (Romans 6:1-6.) To live unto righteousness is simply to live in the service of righteousness. “Righteousness” is that state or condition existing when one keeps the commandments. (Psalms 119:172.) The word “died” in this clause is an unusual one, occurring nowhere else in the scriptures. Its literal meaning is “having ceased to be.” By virtue of the sacrificial atonement of Christ, when we turn from a life of sin the relationship which has thus far subsisted ceases to be, and when the “old man of sin” is buried in the watery grave, a new life unto righteousness ensues. (Romans 6:1-6.)
By whose stripes ye were healed.–These words are quoted from the Greek translation of Isa 53:5. “Stripes” is from the Greek molops, a bruised and swollen welt from which blood trickles, the livid mark on the quivering flesh, red and raw, from scourging. In the Greek the word is singular, as it also is in Isaiah 53:5, the body of Jesus being so bruised from the brutal beating he received that there was but one wound or stripe, and this covered his entire body. The instrument by which this punishment was inflicted–the scourge–was a leather whip of cords into which had been woven jagged bits of brass or iron. When these Christian slaves were beaten they were to remember that, however cruel and brutal such beatings were, none equaled that which the Lord suffered prior to his crucifixion.
By his stripes we “were healed.” The word “healed” is here figuratively used for the salvation of the soul from sin, and may not properly be extended to include miraculous healing of the body from disease. The sickness implied in the word is of the soul, and the healing, redemption. An instance of such use by the Lord will be seen in Matthew 13:15. Evidence that bodily healing as a part of the atonement is not taught here or elsewhere in the scriptures follows from the fact that (1) instances abound of individuals known to be saved who nevertheless suffered bodily affliction (Philippians 2:27; 2 Timothy 4:20; 2 Corinthians 12:7; 1 Timothy 5:23); (2) were healing a part of the atonement, sickness in an individual would be proof that the soul is unsaved (3) the context here clearly points to the fact that it is salvation from sin, and not physical healing of the body contemplated in this passage. So-called modern divine healers are guilty of a perversion of this text in extending it to include healing of the body from affliction and disease.
25 For ye were going astray like sheep;–The figure of sheep as representative of a people confused, bewildered, and without a leader is a common one in the scriptures. (Matthew 9:36 Luke 15:4; Numbers 27:17 1 Kings 22:17.) Wandering sheep, away from the fold, and exposed to the manifold dangers of the wilderness, are a fitting representation of those who have forsaken the right way and have gone astray. While the reference here is primarily to Isaiah 53:6 (“All we like sheep have gone astray”), Peter must have recalled the many allusions thereto by the Lord during his public ministry, and particularly the parable of the Good Shepherd. (John 10:1-16.)
But are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.–“Returned” is in the aorist tense, and thus indicates a single act, and a definite occasion when they returned–viz., at their conversion. The verb is also in the passive voice, often used as here with middle sense, to show that the subject acted upon itself to accomplish the desired result. Thus, these to whom Peter wrote, by their obedience to the gospel, were saved from the wandering life of sheep and the dangers incident thereto, and returned unto the"shepherd and bishop” of their souls. The Lord is presented here under two aspects: (1) he is a shepherd, in that he feeds, guides, and protects his sheep; (2) he is a bishop (overseer) because he superintends, supervises, and directs their activity. Those whose duty it is to direct the affairs of the churches are undershepherds in feeding, guiding, and directing the work of the church; and they are bishops in overseeing, under Christ, the work committed into their hands. (Ephesians 4:11; Acts 20:28.) The author of this epistle was an elder (1 Peter 5:1), and Christ is presented as the “chief shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4). There is perhaps significance in the fact that attention is drawn to Christ as shepherd and bishop of souls. Though these to whom Peter primarily wrote were in bondage in the flesh, their souls, their higher nature was free and answerable only to the Great Shepherd