1 Peter 3
Woods1 Peter 3:1-6
- DUTIES OF WIVES TO
1 In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; –From the consideration of duties derived from the relationship of servants and masters, discussed at length in the preceding chapter, the apostle passes to another element in the social life of the people involving, according to the concepts which then prevailed, an almost equal degree of subordination–that of wives to their husbands. Here, as elsewhere throughout the epistle, Peter’s design appears to be to inculcate such principles as would enable the suffering saints to whom he wrote to bear patiently and worthily their burdens, however heavy and galling such should be.
The lot of women in non-Greek countries, particularly before the influence of the gospel began to be felt, was a deplorable one. Aristotle writes that among the barbarians (non-Greeks) women and slaves held the same rank; and though among the Greeks her position was not quite so degraded, they considered her as holding only an intermediate position between free persons and slaves, mother of her children, but not worthy to educate them, qualified to receive orders, but never to give them.
As the influence of Christianity began to exercise itself such barbarous ideas were destined to fail; slavery was to perish, and women to be elevated to their proper place in society; it was essential to the well-being of the cause which was to produce such effects, however, that these changes should be gradual and not violent; produced by instruction and not by revolution. Hence, the instructions given.
“In like manner” (omoios, in the same manner), i.e., in harmony with the principles taught as to the duty of Christian slaves to be subject to their masters, so wives are to be constantly submitting (present participle, middle voice) themselves to their own husbands. The word “own,” in the text, is emphatic and significant. Christian women, with heathen husbands, might be tempted to despise their husbands and exhibit contempt for them, feeling obligated only to those Christian men with whom they were associated in the church. The effect of such an attitude would be disastrous, not only to the church, but to the family and to society in general. Though Christians, and in an enviable position, they were not to forget the obligations that are fundamental and vital to the permanence of society.
That, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; –In some in-stances both the husband and the wife would obey the gospel; in others, only the wife; and it is of the latter with which the apostle deals here. “The word” in the phrase, “if any obey not the word,” is the gospel. (Romans 1:16.) “Obey not” is translated from a term which denotes a degree of antagonism in addition to disobedience, plus an element of stubbornness. It means, literally, not to allow one’s self to be pursuaded. The text, as it runs in our translation, makes the apostle assert that such men may “without the word” be gained, i.e., they may be led to the word of truth without the word of truth! Such an idea is contradictory and does not correctly represent what the apostle actually said. The Greek article does not appear before the noun “word” in the phrase, “may without the word be gained . . .” Here, “word” does not refer, as it does in the former phrase, to the word of truth–the gospel. Instead, it refers to the exhortations, the persuasions of the wives.
These husbands had heard the gospel and were familiar with its demands. They had thus far been stubborn, rebellious, disobedient. Peter admonished the wives of such men to desist from further importunity, lest such should descend to nagging; and instead, by godly conduct and discreet behavior to encourage them to do that which they already understood to be their duty. Properly translated, the passage reads: “If any obey not the word, they may without a word (from the wife) be gained by her godly behavior.” This is an instance when silent eloquence is more effective than vigorous and vehement debate. “Be gained” is a significant and important statement. Every soul saved is a gain to the Lord, to the church, and to itself. “Behavior” sums up the conduct of the wives addressed.
2 Beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear.–The word “beholding” occurs also in 1 Peter 2:12, where see notes. It suggests the scrutiny of an eyewitness, and implies information from close and minute observation. From such examination, these unbelieving husbands would be able to form an evaluation of the chaste behavior of their wives and attribute such to the influence of Christianity. “Fear” in the text is reverence, awe, and is with reference to the husband, and not God. It is the same sort of fear as that designated by Paul in Ephesians 5:33. From Clement of Alexandria, born about the middle of the second century, comes this excellent comment: “The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness. And should that be found impractical, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband’s consent in everything, so as never to do anything against his will, with exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, page 432.)
3 Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; –The teaching of this verse is closely associated with that which immediately precedes it. Christian wives, far from following the tactics by which their worldly sisters attract and hold the attention of their husbands, are to give emphasis instead to “the hidden man of the heart,” the “incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God of great price.” (Verse 4.) Their adornment was thus not to be the (a) braiding of the hair; (b) wearing of jewels of gold; or (c) putting on of apparel. It is obvious from the mention of putting on apparel that the apostle’s words are to be regarded as hortatory rather than unconditionally prohibitive. Taken literally, and without qualification, they would forbid not only the braiding of the hair and the wearing of jewels of gold, but also the putting on of clothing. It is, therefore, clear that Peter did not intend for his words to be interpreted as an unqualified and unconditional prohibition of the things mentioned, but as an exhortation to regard such as secondary and trivial in comparison with the inner adornment of character exhibited in the meek and quiet spirit composing the incorruptible apparel which he enjoins. The form of exhortation here followed–sometimes styled a Hebraism–is a common one in the sacred writings.
Jesus said, “Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life.” (John 6:27.) Literally, these words forbid one to work for his daily bread; regarded as a Hebraism, which they are, they simply mean that one is not to place his chief emphasis on material things, but to give paramount attention to that which abideth unto eternal life. So here, the apostle does not forbid women to wear jewels, or to adorn themselves with modest apparel; he does admonish them to regard such as utterly worthless in comparison with the graces which adorn the Christian character, and which alone determine one’s worth in God’s sight.
Paul also gave attention to the vanity characteristic of worldly women in adorning themselves with “braided hair, gold or pearls or costly raiment” (1 Timothy 2:9), and from the historians of the period in which Peter wrote, we learn that women were disposed to go to extreme lengths in braiding and plaiting their hair, often arranging massive whorls of it several inches above the head into which had been woven twisted strands of gold and chains of pearls which glistened and scintillated in the light, thus making an impression of great brilliance. Clement of Alexandria says that many women of his time dared not touch their heads for fear of disarranging their hair, and that they regarded sleep with terror lest during it they should destroy their waves. It is such vanity as this that the apostle condemns. Forbidden is any lavish display of artificial adornments and all gaudiness contributing to the vanity of those participating. Christians, whether men or women, should array themselves in modest and unassuming garments, befitting their station in life, and the cause which they have espoused.
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.–The “hidden man of the heart” is equivalent in meaning to that of the “inward Man” of 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Romans 7:22, and the “new man” Colossians 3:10. “Of the heart” (genitive of apposition) indicates that the life of this “hidden man” manifests itself in the realm of the heart, and not in ornamental display. It is said to be an “incorruptible apparel” because it is not perishable and worthless like the ornaments of gold and silver which the worldly minded use; and it consists of a meek and quiet spirit. A “meek spirit” is one not characterized by self-will, envy, pride, presumption or obstancy; and a “quiet spirit” is one that is calm, tranquil, and at peace. The adjective “great” modifying “price” in the text (poluteles) is used in Mark 14:3 to describe the value of the ointment (“pure nard very costly”) which Mary used to anoint the Lord “beforehand” for his burying, thus indicating the preciousness with which God regards those women who adorn themselves in the manner which Peter admonishes.
5 For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:–To the precepts of the preceding verses, the apostle adds the example of faithful and godly women of old. These saintly sisters of the Old Testament period are styled “holy women” because they were set apart to a life of faithfulness to God and to their husbands; and they are said to have “hoped in God” because their expectations were grounded in him. The basis of their acceptance with God and their value to their husbands was not in the gaudy and spectacular ornaments of the thoughtless and vain, but in the worthy lives and submissive attitudes exhibited. For such they are imperishably inscribed in Inspiration’s Hall of Fame. (Hebrews 11:11; Hebrews 11:35.)
6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.–Genesis 18:12 is an instance of that to which Peter alludes in his reference to Sarah the faithful wife of the patriarch Abraham. In referring to him as “lord” (a term which, as here used, is a title of honor addressed to one regarded as superior), Sarah revealed an attitude of habitual and continuous subordination. Because she recognized the supremacy of her husband and gladly assumed her proper sphere in the home, she serves as an example for Christian wives today. “Whose children ye now are” is, literally, “whose daughters you became” (hes egnethete tekna), i.e., by following the pattern of Sarah. By adorning themselves as Sarah did they became daughters of her to the extent that a child is like its parent. It is significant that this figure–a common one in the sacred writings–is used of those who follow in the steps of Abraham as believers: “Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham.” (Galatians 3:7.) “And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumrision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them.” (Romans 4:11.)
The words “if ye do well” contain the condition on which such a relationship to Sarah is obtained, and by which it is kept. Sarah earned her right to be regarded as the mother of those wives who do well by her own godly conduct and her daughters are those who imitate her example. The “terror” against which the apostle warns in the final clause of the verse is not the “fear” (phobos) which he enjoins in verse 2, but the shrinking, shuddering fear (ptoesis) of one in the grip of extreme trepidation. In his admonition to Christian wives to avoid such an attitude, the writer appears to be guarding them from running out of one extreme into another. Those who had unbelieving husbands would often have heavy burdens to bear, and much abuse to hear, and if they exhibited terror in the presence of such husbands as if constantly expecting curses or blows, such an attitude might provoke the very thing they were seeking to avoid. Hence, Peter instructed them to “do well” and then to proceed with their daily tasks with calm, unruffled spirit, whatever might be the attitude of their husbands.
1 Peter 3:7
- DUTIES OF TO WIVES
The exhortation of this portion of the epistle, like that of the two preceding sections–to Christian slaves (1 Peter 2:18-25). and to Christian wives of unbelieving husbands (1 Peter 3:1-16) –is closely connected with 1 Peter 2:11-17 in which the apostle admonishes godly conduct before the world as the most effective answer to the slanders evil men were disposed to utter against them. In discharging worthily and properly the duties of the relationship in which they lived they would demonstrate a worthy life, show honor to all men, and evidence reverence toward God.
The instruction to husbands is brief and appears to have been inserted parenthetically to guard against abuse to the wives just addressed. The general tenor of the epistle is to show the duty of submission and the obligation to recognize and accept the subordination characteristic of one’s position in life; and lest the husbands should conclude that there were no mutual obligations and that, though the wives were bound, they were loosed with reference to any duties in the marriage state, these lines were penned. It is also significant that while the apostle particularly addressed himself to the wives of unbelieving husbands, the implication here is that the wives of these believers were also Christians. This was a logical conclusion from the nature of the society then existing. Wives might occasionally obey the gospel without their husbands, but not likely would husbands become Christians without their wives.
7 Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge,–“Dwell,” translated from a term which denotes domestic association, sums up the relationships of the marriage state. Such association is to be “according to knowledge,” i.e., with due understanding of the nature of the marital relation, each showing proper regard for the other, and both discharging the duties peculiarly theirs.
Giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; –The word “giving,” translated from a term which occurs nowhere else in the scriptures (aponemo), means to assign; to apportion; and “honor” in the text is the rendering of the same word translated “precious” in 1 Peter 1:19. Christian husbands are to regard their faithful wives as precious and to assign to them the honor that is their due. The woman is called a “weaker vessel” not because of moral or intellectual weaknesses, but solely from the fact that she lacks the physical prowess commonly characteristic of man. The husband is exhorted to dwell with his wife in due consideration of the fact that she is physically weaker; and to regard her always as a fellow heir of the grace of life–life eternal–which awaits all of the faithful. (John 17:3.) In styling the wife as the weaker vessel the implication is that man is also a vessel–both the husband and wife being instruments which God uses in his service.
To the end that your prayers be not hindered.–The word “hindered” is the rendering of a word which means literally to cut in, to interrupt. Where strife and discord obtain in a home, prayer is cut into and interrupted–the message to heaven is short-circuited! Bitterness, division, and bickering are opposed to the spirit of prayer and operate to terminate all efforts in that respect. Only where peace and harmony prevail can the husband and wife join their efforts in united prayer to the throne of grace.
1 Peter 3:8-12
- DUTIES OF TO ONE ANOTHER
8 Finally, be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humbleminded:–“Finally” (to telos, the end) does not, of course, indicate the end of the epistle, but the conclusion of the special addresses to the various classes. Having addressed slaves, Christian wives, and husbands, this portion of the epistle is concluded with an exhortation to Christians generally in their relations with each other. These duties are embraced in five Greek words, three of which occur nowhere else in the New Testament. “Likeminded” is unity of mind and purpose, agreement in all the major details of Christian life and activity; “compassionate.” derived from the Greek sumpatheis, from which we get our word sympathy, is that attitude of mind which leads one to rejoice when others rejoice, and to weep when others weep; “loving as brethren” (literally, brother lovers) is the special feeling which brothers of a common parentage have for each other ; “tenderhearted” (literally, goodhearted) is an attitude which manifests itself in pity and affection; and “humbleminded” is the opposite of arrogance and pride. These are fundamental Christian principles and must be characteristic of all who desire to follow in the footsteps of the Master.
9 Not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were ye called, that ye should inherit a blessing.–Here Peter (as did Paul in Romans 12:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:15) echoes the spirit of the sermon on the mount in those significant words of our Lord: “But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39.) “Not rendering” is, literally not giving back; and the preposition “for” as here used denotes something given in exchange. Christians are, under no circumstances, to give back evil in exchange for evil done them, or to engage in reviling though reviled themselves. This verse was designed to forbid all retaliation, whether in word or in deed.
In the phrase, “but contrariwise blessing,” the word “blessing” is not a noun, but a present participle. The meaning is, “Instead of giving back evil in exchange for evil, or reviling when reviled, be continually blessing!” This, too, is in harmony with what the Lord taught in the mountain instruction when he said, “Love your enemies and pray for (bless, King James translation) them that persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44.) Christianity is, itself, a blessing; and those who are Christians are called to receive the blessing which it offers and thus should ever be blessing others themselves. Our Father blesses us; we must, then, bless others; from him we receive forgiveness for our sins; therefore we must be constantly forgiving others. Retaliation for evil done us operates to deprive us of the blessing to which we, as Christians, have been called.
10 For, he that would love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:–To support his argument that Christians should refrain from all wrongdoing and evil speaking, in order to be assured of the protection, approbation and blessing of God, the apostle cites a statement from Psalms 34:12-16. The quotation extends from verse 10 through 12 and follows the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament with slight variation. “He that, would love life” is, literally, “he that willeth to love life,” that is, who now loves life and wishes to continue to do so. The “good days” are days of happiness, usefully and worthily spent. To enjoy such one must “refrain” his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. “Refrain” is translated from a term (pauo) which means to cease, and implies a natural unruliness on the part of the tongue to utter evil things. The evil to be refrained from includes all perverse speaking, and the guile is deceit and all deception. (See the word defined more particularly in the comments on 1 Peter 2:1.) In each of these verses which Peter cites from the Psalms, we have excellent examples of the parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in which the movement and rhythm are obtained by a repetition of the idea in slightly different form.
11 And let him turn away from evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and pursue it.–“Turn away” is from ekklino , to bend away from, as one inclines himself in a narrow path to let another pass. The Christian must, therefore; shun, avoid, and turn aside from all appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22) and do only that which is good. He is to “seek peace” because in a world of war and strife it is not always apparent, and, when seen, may be seized and possessed only by diligent pursuit.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears unto their supplication: but the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil.–The preposition “upon” in this passage is from the Greek word (epi). The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous and the evil. His eyes are upon the righteous with approval, and his ears are tuned to their supplications, but his face is upon those who do evil with extreme displeasure. (Isaiah 59:1-2; John 9:31.) “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” (Proverbs 28:9.)
1 Peter 3:13-17
- WHEN
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be zealous of that which is good?–These words contain an inference drawn by the apostle from the teaching of the passage which he had just cited from David and the Psalms. Since the Lord watches for the righteous, and his ears are ever open to their prayers, who can harm them? The word “harm” means to do one real and permanent evil, and is emphatic. It will be observed that the apostle does not affirm that men will not seek to injure them; or, that they will not succeed in such injury; he teaches that with God’s continual watchfulness over them though men do persecute them, eventually all matters will result in their good, and no permanent and real harm will befall them. (See Matthew 10:28; Mark 10:29-30 Romans 8:28.) “Zealous” means to be full of zeal, to devote one-self earnestly to the cause espoused. These words, addressed to suffering saints, were a glorious and heart-warming assurance of ultimate triumph over the difficulties and hardships through which they were even then passing. They offer similar hope for our time.
14 But even if ye should suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye: and fear not their fear, neither be troubled; –To clarify his statement in verse 13, and to guard his readers against the erroneous conclusion that they need expect no difficulties of any nature, these words were penned. They mean, “But if it should happen that sufferings come to you because of your obedience to the Lord, regard this as a blessing, because Jesus said, “Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10.) The word “blessed” means happy, prosperous, and denotes an inner, spiritual form of prosperity. To suffer for righteousness’ sake is to suffer on account of righteousness, i.e., because of the godly life and holy conduct characteristic of the righteous. The final clause, “and fear not their fear, neither be troubled,” is quoted from Isaiah 8:12, and means, “be not influenced by the terror which your persecutors would instill in you, neither be agitated.” It is an injunction to complete composure in the face of bitter and determined enemies.
15 But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord:–This clause, with variations, is from Isaiah 8:13. To sanctify is to set apart; and to sanctify in one’s heart Christ as Lord is to regard him with that reverence and awe befitting the Lord of glory. “But” (de, adversative) suggests “nay, rather,” i.e., instead of being tormented with the fear which your enemies would instill in you, be concerned only with the enthronement of Christ in your hearts as Lord. This done, you may be sure that nothing can disturb you. “Christ” (Hebrew Messiah) means the “anointed one”; “Lord” (kurios), literally a master or owner, here designates him who has authority over all things, both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18-20), the Saviour of the world. Peter offers here direct and unequivocal testimony to the deity of the Lord Jesus, and to his relationship to the God of the universe.
Being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:–This readiness to “give answer” (literally, to make defence, apologia), is to be constant: “being ready always . . .” It is to be given “to every man that asketh . . . a reason,” not necessarily to every scoffer and captious person who lacks the sincerity of honest inquirers. Our Lord often met such inquiries with the dignity of complete silence. It is significant that the words “answer” and “reason” in the text are closely related in meaning: To every one who asks an account we are to give an account. The answer is to be given with reference to the hope entertained, i.e., with respect to the grounds on which the hope is based. This obligation implies sufficient acquaintance with the word of God to substantiate one’s hope therewith, and godliness of life consistent with its teaching. It is said that every citizen in Athens was expected to keep himself sufficiently informed in civic affairs to be able to participate intelligently in any discussion thereof. Christians should be equally well informed in the things of God and as skillful in their presentation.
The defence is to be made with “meekness and fear.” When called on to justify their position, Christians are to do so with reason and logic; but not with bold defiance nor arrogance and pride; the “answer” is to be made with “meekness,” i.e., an attitude free of scorn, haughtiness and bitterness; and “in fear,” fear of God and the judgment.
16 Having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ.–In addition to the attitude of “meekness and fear” enjoined in the preceding verse, he who would successfully defend his faith must have a good conscience, i.e., a firm conviction of the righteousness of his cause, and his worthiness to represent it. However skillful he may be in debate, his work must fail if his life is inconsistent with that for which he contends. Only when .the two harmonize–skillfulness of speech, and godliness of life–is the answer effective and convincing.
When the conscience is clear, the spirit meek and the heart filled with the knowledge and holy fear of God, the false accusers of the righteous will be put to shame. The word “revile” in this passage does not designate formal accusations, but wild, unfounded charges. Those who indulge in such will eventually be put to shame because they will be exposed as liars, slanderers and calumniators of those who are good.
17 For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing.–See a similar statement from the writer earlier in the epistle in 1 Peter 2:20. These words were penned in further confirmation of that which he had said in the preceding verses. The value of suffering for righteousness’ sake is often emphasized in the epistle. To endure patiently and uncomplainingly silences false accusers (verse 16); it is in imitation of Christ’s own example (verse 18); and is “better” because there is the possibility that such is the “will of God” (verse 17). The words, “if the will of God should so will,” are in a construction signifying, not a probability, but merely a possibility: “If it should happen to be the will of God . . .”
1 Peter 3:18-20
AN NOTE ON 1 PETER
Many matters mentioned and otherwise alluded to in this re-markable passage have long been a source of much controversy and disagreement among scholars. Many distinguished commentators have advocated the view that Christ in his own person (and not through the agency of Noah) during the three days’ interval be-tween his death and resurrection and while he was in the spirit realm (Hades), actually and literally preached to the disembodied spirits who lived while the ark was being constructed but who were dead and incarcerated in the prison house of Hades at the time the preaching occurred.
Objections to this view are, in the opinion of this writer, nu-merous and insuperable: (1) Those subscribing to this view are unable to explain why the preaching was limited to the spirits of those who lived just prior to the flood. Since God is no respecter of persons, why were these spirits afforded opportunities not vouchsafed to others? (2) What was the nature of the message proclaimed to spirits who died in disobedience? (a) If the offer was one of salvation, what of the many passages in the scriptures which clearly teach that at death one’s destiny is sealed; that the judgment will be based on the manner of life here; and that be-tween the abode of the righteous and the wicked an impassible gulf stretches? (b) If the offer was not of salvation, why was the preaching done? To inform the faithful that redemption through his death had been accomplished? The preaching was not to the faithful, but to those who died in disobedience.
The simple and obvious import of the words of the text is that of the explanation offered in the comments thereon. (1) A rea-sonable interpretation of the passage leads to this conclusion. (2) The conclusion harmonizes with the general teaching of the scrip-tures regarding the state of the dead. (3) The interpretation is in keeping with the earlier teaching of the epistle in which it is declared that the Holy Spirit preached through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:11.) (4) Noah was “a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and was directed by the Spirit in his preaching (Genesis 6:3.) What impropriety is there then in asserting that in such preaching he was the agent or instrument of Christ?
It is alleged that since it is said that Christ went and preached he must therefore have actually and literally gone in his own per-son. The objection is invalid because no special significance is to be attached to the repetition of the idea involved. It is a simple pleonism for “he preached” of which many examples may be pro-duced. It is, for example, said of Christ that “he came and preached peace to you that were afar off (Gentiles), and to them that were nigh” (Jews). (Ephesians 2:17.) Certainly our Lord never, at any time following his resurrection, preached to the Gentiles in his own person. Such preaching as is here alluded to was done through the apostles, principally by Paul. If Christ could preach to the Gentiles through Paul, why not to the people before the flood through Noah? As a matter of historic fact such he did, and such these passages affirm, Paul and Noah being the agents or instruments through which the preaching was accomplished.
The interpretation set forth in the comments on the passage avoids the difficulties in the way of the view considered above, and accords with the simple and obvious import of the words used. Rightly interpreted this passage yields no support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. This dogma, whether advocated by so-called Protestant scholars or Catholic theologians, is utterly and palpably false.