Meyer's NT Commentary
Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,1 Peter 2:1-2. ἀποθεμενοι οὖν … ἐπιποθήσατε] The admonition which commences here stands, as οὖν shows, in close connection with what precedes; in 1 Peter 2:22 the apostle had exhorted to unfeigned love one of another, which love he shows to be conditioned by ἁγνίζειν ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας, and grounded on ἀναγεγεννημένον εἶναι; from this deducing the ἀποτίθεσθαι πᾶσαν κακίαν κ.τ.λ., he now exhorts ἐπιποθεῖν τὸ λογικὸν γάλα. The apostle’s intention, explaining at once the connection of this with the foregoing admonition, and the relation in which the thought of the participial clause ἀποθέμενοι stands to that of the imperative ἐπιποθήσατε, is that the Christians should show themselves τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (1 Peter 1:14), not each for himself, but united together, an οἶκος πνευματικός (1 Peter 2:5), γένος ἐκλεκτόν κ.τ.λ. (1 Peter 2:9). Schott acknowledges this reference (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church; it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which stand in direct antagonism to the φιλαδελφία ἀνυπόκριτος (1 Peter 1:22). The participle ἀποθέμενοι stands to ἐπιποθήσατε in the same relation as ἀναζωσάμενοι to ἐλπίσατε in chap. 1 Peter 1:13; it is therefore then not equal to postquam deposuistis, but expresses the continued purification of the Christian; comp. Ephesians 4:22; Hebrews 12:1; specially also Colossians 3:8; and for the whole passage, Jam 1:21.
πᾶσαν κακίαν κ.τ.λ.] Calvin: non est Integra omnium enumeratio quae deponi a nobis oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant Apostoli, quaedam vitia praeponunt in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium designant. κακία means here, as in Colossians 3:8, not generally: “wickedness,” but specially “malice,” nocendi cupiditas (Hemming). πᾶσαν denotes the whole compass of the idea: “every kind of malice.” The same is implied by the plural form in the words following ὑποκρίσεις, etc.; in πάσας καταλαλίας both are combined. The same and similar ideas to those here expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the N. T.; comp. Romans 1:29-30. “The admonitions which follow are in essential connection with this comprehensive exhortation; comp. chap. 1 Peter 2:22 ff.; especially chaps. 1 Peter 3:8 ff., 1 Peter 4:8 ff., 1 Peter 5:2 ff.” (Wiesinger). For the force of the separate terms, comp. Lexicon. Augustin: malitia maculo delectatur alieno; invidia bono cruciatur alieno; dolus duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat linguam; detrectatio vulnerat famam.
καταλαλία occurs only here and in 2 Corinthians 12:20; in the classics the verb is to be found, never the subst.—1 Peter 2:2. ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη] is not to be connected with ἀποθέμενοι, but with what follows. It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but, in view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring to 1 Peter 1:23 : ἀναγεγεννημένοι) to designate the readers as those who had but recently been born again. In Bengel’s interpretation: denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae N. T., a false reference is given to the expression. The particle ὡς is not here either used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. 1 Peter 1:14.
ΤῸ ΛΟΓΙΚῸΝ ἌΔΟΛΟΝ ΓΆΛΑ ἘΠΙΠΟΘΉΣΑΤΕ] ΓΆΛΑ is not here contrasted with ΒΡῶΜΑ, as in 1 Corinthians 3:2, or with ΣΤΕΡΕᾺ ΤΡΟΦΉ, as in Hebrews 5:12; but it denotes the word of God, in that it by its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man. The term ΓΆΛΑ, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained simply from the reference to ἈΡΤΙΓΈΝΝΗΤΑ ΒΡΈΦΗ (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). This view results quite naturally from the comparison with chap. 1 Peter 1:22-23. If Peter had intended to convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as to have been understood.
λογικόν] does not state an attribute of evangelical doctrine: “rational;” Gualther: quod tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi, nor even in the sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred: nihil credendum esse quod ratione adversetur; but it is added in order to mark the figurative nature of the expression γάλα (to which it stands related similarly as in chap. 1 Peter 1:13 : τῆς διαν. ὑμ. to τὰς ὀσφύας), so that by it this milk is characterized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: “spiritual, what is drawn in by the soul, what the heart must seek;” thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Fronmüller, Hofmann. It has here the same signification as in Romans 12:1, where it does not mean “rational” as contrasted with what is external (de Wette). The interpretation on which λογικὸν γάλα is taken as equal to γάλα τοῦ λόγου, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi (it is supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, Wolf, and others). Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss (p. 187), that by “λογικόν is to be understood that which proceeds from the λόγος (i.e. Word);” thus γάλα λογικόν would be the verbal milk of doctrine. The second adjective: ἄδολον (ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ.), strictly “without guile,” then “pure, unadulterated,” is not meant to give prominence to the idea that the Christians should strive to obtain the pure gospel, unadulterated by heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies purity as a quality belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott). It is, besides, applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative ΓΆΛΑ, but only to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).
ἐπιποθήσατε] expresses a strong, lively desire, Php 2:26. Wolf: Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte sua et impetu quodam naturali in lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture of Grotius: ἐπιποτίζετε, is quite unnecessary.
ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε] ἵνα, not ἐκβατικῶς, but τελικῶς; it states the purpose of the ἐπιποθήσατε. ἐν is more significant than διά, equivalent to “in its power.” The verb αὐξηθῆτε, used in connection with ἀρτιγενν. βρέφη, denotes the ever further development and strengthening of the new life. Although the aim which the apostle has in view in his exhortation is to mark the destination of Christians to be an οἶκος πνευματικός, still it is incorrect to affirm that αὐξηθῆτε has reference, not to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the transforming of the church as such, “to the conception of a building which is being carried up higher and higher to its completion.” Apart from the fact that αὐξάνεσθαι plainly refers back to ἀρτιγ. βρέφη, and is not equivalent to “to be built up,” it must be remarked that the church can become what it should be only by individual members growing up each of them ever more and more to the ἀνὴρ τέλειος.
εἰς σωτηρίαν] omitted in the Rec., states the final aim of all Christian growth. Schott’s explanation, that by σωτηρία “the final glorious transfiguration of the church” is meant, is only a consequence of his erroneous and one-sided reference of the apostle’s exhortation to the church as such.
 It must be observed that the expression was used by the Jews also to designate the proselytes; corroborating passages in Wetstein in loc.
 Calvin understands γάλα to mean: vitae ratio quae novam genituram sapiat; Hemming: consentanea simplici infantiae vivendi ratio; Cornelius a Lapide: symbolum candoris, sinceritatis et benevolentiae. All these interpretations are contradicted by the fact that γάλα is not a condition of life, but means of nourishment. It is altogether arbitrary to explain γάλα to be the Lord’s Supper (Estius, Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ as the incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. in Paedag. i. c. 6; Augustin in Tract. iii. in 1 Ep. John); Weiss, too, is mistaken when he says: “the nourishment of the new-born child of God is Christ Himself, who is preached and revealed in the word.”
 Besides, how does this agree with Weiss’s opinion, that γάλα means Christ Himself? The verbal Christ?!
 Wolf: lac ἄδολον ideo appellari puto, ut indicetur, operam dandam esse, ne illud traditionibus humanis per καπηλεύοντας τὸν λόγον, 2 Corinthians 2:17, corruptum hauriatur.
 Hofmann rightly observes: “What tends to the Christian’s growth may be compared to the pure milk which makes the child to thrive at its mother’s breast, and therefore it is termed τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα.”
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.1 Peter 2:3. εἰ [εἴπερ] ἐγεύσασθε, ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] Based on the Old Testament passage, Psalm 34:9 : γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος; the words καὶ ἴδετε are omitted, not being suitable to the figure γάλα.
εἰ is here, as in 1 Peter 2:17, hypothetical indeed: “if,” but it does not express a doubt; thus Gerhard correctly explains εἴπερ: non est dubitantis, sed supponentis, quod factum sit. Comp. Romans 8:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:6.
γεύομαι is used here of inward experience, comp. Hebrews 6:4-5; it alludes to the figurative γάλα, inasmuch as the Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the spiritual milk tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted that the Christians had already made inward experience of the goodness of their Lord (κύριος; in the Psalms, God; here, Christ), not merely in the instruction which preceded baptism, or in baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum fidem evangelii susceperunt (Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians; as the new-born child, not once only, but ever anew refreshes itself on the nourishment offered by a mother’s love. With such experience, it is natural that believers should ever afresh be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the imparting of which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested: nam gustus provocat appetitum (Lorinus).
ὍΤΙ, not equal to quam (Grotius), but: “that.”
χρηστός, “kind, gracious,” not exactly suavis (Grotius: ut a gustu sumta translatio melius procedat); in this sense it would be more applicable to γάλα than to ΚΎΡΙΟς.
Several interpreters assume that in ΧΡΗΣΤΌς Peter plays upon the word ΧΡΙΣΤΌς; but this is more than improbable.
 Schott insists “that the apostle is not here anxious about the readers’ desire in general for the word, but that such desire should be combined with the purpose of finally attaining salvation.” But is there anywhere a desire after the word of God without such intent?—Nothing in the context indicates that that in which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested is “those rare moments of heavenly joy in which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory” (Schott).
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,1 Peter 2:4-5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally (ὅν) as internally, inasmuch as the imperative (οἰκοδομεῖσθε) is preceded by a participle (προσερχόμενοι), and an adjunct introduced by ὡς, defining the subject more nearly.
Starting from ὁ κύριος the apostle says: πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι] προσέρχεσθαι (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann). Luther incorrectly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were the part. praet.; Hornejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat.
λίθον ζῶντα] in apposition to ὅν; it is not necessary to supply ὡς (Wolf). What follows shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies, Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16 (cf. Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11; Romans 9:33). The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more concerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in λίθος ζῶν, than to draw attention to the fact that in these passages of the O. T. Christ is the promised λίθος. In using this term, Peter had already in view the subsequent οἰκοδομεῖσθε. The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on which it rests. In order that the church may become ever more completed as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with reference to those predictions.
The explanatory adjective is added, as in 1 Peter 2:2, to the figurative λίθον; and by it, on the one hand, the expression is marked as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger); and, on the other, the nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. ζῶντα is to be taken here as in John 6:51 and similar passages. Flacius correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus, non tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos vivificat.
ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον] a nearer definition, according to Psalm 118:22. What is there said specially of the builders, is here applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be obtained to the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ. The want of the article τῶν does not warrant a toning down of the interpretation to mean “by men,” i.e. by some or by many men (Hofmann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the article is wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whom Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here regarded “as an exception” (Steiger).
παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, ἔντιμον] after Isaiah 28:16; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only; “that is to say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of God” (Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to ἀποδεδοκ.; ἐκλεκτός is neither equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to προεγνωσμένος (Steiger); but: “elect,” i.e. chosen as the object of love; cf. 1 Timothy 5:21.
παρὰ Θεῷ] not: a Deo (Vulg.), but: ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, coram Deo, Deo judice, “with God.” Worthy of note is the “antagonism between the human judgment and the divine” (Wiesinger), the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of Christ.—1 Peter 2:5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε] καὶ αὐτοί places the Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes αὐτοί as also applying to the verb οἰκοδομ.). As He is a living stone, so are they also living stones, i.e. through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus comparantur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is inadequate. Further, ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες states the qualities which the readers already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the οἰκοδομεῖσθαι (Schott); that unto which they should be built is stated in what follows.
οἰκοδομεῖσθε is, according to the structure of the sentence, not indicative (Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), but imperative (Beza, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Luthardt, Schott, etc.). The objection, that the verses following are declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which precedes them. If 1 Peter 2:4-5 serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation, this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is passive: “be ye built up,” i.e. “let yourself be built up,” i.e. by Christ, as the foregoing πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι shows. Corresponding with the reading ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ super illum, i.e. Christum, is generally understood; an unnecessary supplement; the thought is: that (not: on which) the Christians should let themselves be built up, to that, namely, which the following words state.
οἶκος πνευματικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον] In the Rec. without εἰς the two conceptions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΑΙ: “to the spiritual house, to the holy priesthood;” but if the reading οἰκ. πν. εἰς ἱεράτ. ἅγ. be adopted, then “ἹΕΡΆΤ. ἍΓ. is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual house” (Brückner). Hofmann holds that ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ. is in apposition to the subject contained in ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ, and that ΕἸς ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ. alone is directly dependent on ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ; the former view is, however, more expressive, inasmuch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to a spiritual house, ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ. contains the expression of the passive, ἹΕΡΆΤ. ἍΓ., on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be opposed to the reading ΕἸς, since an ΟἾΚΟς cannot be transformed into a ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that εἰς serves only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (de Wette, Wiesinger).
οἶκος means, in the first instance, “house,” and not “temple;” nor does the attribute ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς mark it as a temple. We must either hold by the conception “house” (Luthardt, Hofmann), or assume that by the house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference on account of the close connection with what follows; comp. the passages 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 4:17.
ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς is the house raised from “living stones,” in contradistinction to the temple built from dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears His nature on it.
ἱεράτευμα is here not the “office of priest” (2Ma 2:17), but the “priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacerdotum); comp. 1 Peter 2:9; Exodus 19:6; “not instead of ἱερεῖς ἅγιοι, but including the essential idea of a community” (de Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that if the reading ΕἸς be adopted, ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ must be understood of the priestly office. ἍΓΙΟΝ subjoined to ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ does not mark a characteristic of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old Testament, but one which belongs essentially to the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ (of course “as ordained by God,” Hofmann) as such. Here, too, there lies in the connection of thought a special emphasis on ἍΓΙΟΝ, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly calling cannot be truly fulfilled.
ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚᾺς ΘΥΣΊΑς] is closely conjoined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E.T. 399f.]) and purport with what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ. This consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ, which is never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the meaning “to sacrifice,” strictly speaking “to bring the offering to the altar.”
The θυσίαι which the N. T. priesthood, i.e. the Christian church in all its members, has to offer are called πνευματικαί, because they have their origin in the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ, and bear on them its nature and essence. Calvin says in what they consist: inter hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre quicquam possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsos in sacrificium obtulerimus, quod fit nostri abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et gratiarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis exercitia. Cf. with this Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15-16.
ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔΈΚΤΟΥς Τῷ ΘΕῷ] ΕὐΠΡΌΣΔΕΚΤΟς (Romans 15:16), equivalent to ΕὐΆΡΕΣΤΟς (Romans 12:1; Romans 14:18; Php 4:18, and other passages).
ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ] belongs not to ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ (Beda), but either to ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ. Τ. ΘΕῷ (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur, quae alias non culmo digna haberet; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.), or to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ (Grotius, Aretius, de Wette, Weiss, etc.). No doubt Hebrews 13:15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction; but in favour of the former are—(1) That the ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ as a priestly function stands in such close connection with ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ., that it seems out of place to suppose a medium (ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣ. ΧΡ.) in addition; and (2) With ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜ. ΘΥΣΊΑς the idea is substantially completed, ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ. being a mere adjunct, to which therefore ΔΙᾺ Ἰ. ΧΡ. also belongs.
 The single passage, 1Ma 2:16, by no means proves that προσέρχεσθαι πρός has in itself a stronger force than προσέρχ. cum dat. (as against Hofmann). According to Schott, by προσέρχ. is meant: “not the individual Christian’s deepening experience of community of life with Christ, but only the conduct of the believer, by which, as a member of the church, he gives himself up to the Lord as present in His church, in fact to the church itself!”
 De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any reference to the conception of the saxum vivum as opposed to broken stones (Virg. Aen. i. 171; Ovid. Metam. xiv. 741). Inappropriate is Schott’s opinion: “that ζῶν indicates that by the self-unfolding(!) of His divinely human life, Christ causes the church to grow up from Himself the foundation stone.” Hofmann would erroneously exclude the second of the above-mentioned ideas from the λίθον ζῶντα, although it is clearly indicated by the very fact that through connection with the stone Christians themselves become living stones.
 The structure of the clause is in favour of the imperative, inasmuch as it is thus brought into conformity with the imperative preceding. When Hofmann asserts that the sentence must necessarily be indicative in form, “because the words subjoined to χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος must state that to which the goodness of Christ brings them,” he does so without reason, for the clause may also state that to which they should allow the goodness of Christ to lead them.
 Luthardt: “οἶκος is not equal to ναός; nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for the emphasis lies on πνευματικός. οἶκος is chosen because of οἰκοδομεῖσθε: be ye built as a spiritual house! To this is joined: to an holy priesthood.”
 Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in the O. T. temple “the indwelling of God was confined to the Holy of Holies, and visible to the eye” (?); whilst, on the contrary, in the Christian church there is “a real and direct indwelling of God.”
 Brückner and Schott think it is correct to connect διὰ Ἰ. Χρ. not with ἀνενέγκαι only, but with the entire thought; but it is self-understood that in the first combination, not the mere ἀναφέρειν, but the ἀναφέρειν πνευματικὰς θυσίας κ.τ.λ., must be considered as effected by Christ.
In this description of the Christians’ calling, the apostle’s first object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had an house of God—the Christian church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inanimate stones, this of living stones; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be an holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into the church; the Christian church is called to be a ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον in this sense, that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like; those of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ well-pleasing to God.
The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all teaching with regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting on divine mandate, and necessary for the communication of salvation (i.e. priestly importance).
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.1 Peter 2:6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in 1 Peter 2:4-5 by a quotation of the passage, Isaiah 28:16, to which reference was already made in 1 Peter 2:4.
διότι] cf. 1 Peter 1:24.
περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ] an uncommon construction, yet not without parallel, see Joseph. Antt. xi. 7: βούλομαι γίνεσθαι πάντα, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ (i.e. ἐπιστολῇ) περιέχει; indeed περιέχειν is more than once used to denote the contents of a writing, see Acts 23:25; Joseph. Antt. xi. 9: καὶ ἡ μὲν ἐπιστολὴ ταῦτα περιεῖχεν. Either ἡ περιοχή (or ὁ τόπος) must, with Wahl, be supplied here as subject; or better, περιέχει must be taken impersonally as equal to, continetur; cf. Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 316]; Buttmann, p. 126.
The words of the passage in the O. T. (Isaiah 28:16) are quoted neither literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the Hebrew text. In the LXX. it is: ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν (instead of which we have here, exactly as in Romans 9:33 : ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν) λίθον πολυτελῆ (this adject. here omitted) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον (these two words here transposed) ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς (the last two words εἰς … αὐτῆς here left out) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (ἐπʼ αὐτῷ added) οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (Romans 9:33 : καὶ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται). Whatever may be understood by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or the house of David, or the promise given to David, 2 Samuel 7:12; 2 Samuel 7:16 (Hofmann), this passage, which certainly has a Messianic character,—inasmuch as the thought expressed in it should find, and has found, its fulfilment in Christ,—is not here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, ad Jes. I. p. 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, according to Delitzsch (cf. in loc.), is directly meant by the stone (“this stone is the true seed of David, manifested in Christ”). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theophylactus, assumes that Christ is called λίθος ἀκρογων. because He has united Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the one church; this Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a subtilius philosophari. In the words: καὶ ὁ πιστεύων κ.τ.λ., πιστεύων corresponds to προσερχόμενοι, 1 Peter 2:4. οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ does not refer to the glory which consists for the believer in this, “that he, as a λίθος ζῶν, will form part of the οἶκος πν.” (Wiesinger), but to “the final glory of salvation which is the aim of the present πιστεύειν” (Schott); cf. 1 Peter 2:2 : εἰς σωτηρίαν.
 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that it is here said “that οὐ μὴ καταισχύνθῃ is meant to call back to mind the εἰς σωτηρίαν in ver. 2.”
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,1 Peter 2:7. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] Conclusion, with special reference to the readers, ὑμῖν, drawn from 1 Peter 2:6 (οὖν), and in the first instance from the second half of the O. T. quotation, for τοῖς πιστεύουσιν evidently stands related to ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, hence the definite article. On the position of τοῖς πιστ., cf. Winer, p. 511 [E. T. 687]; only, with Winer, it must not be interpreted: “as believers, i.e. if ye are believers,” but: “ye who are believers.”
From the fact that ἡ τιμή echoes ἔντιμον, it must not be concluded that ἡ τιμή here is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the meaning is: “the worth which the stone has, it has for you who believe” (Wiesinger). The clause would then have read perhaps: ὑμῖν οὖν ὁ λίθος ἐστι ἡ τιμή, or the like. ἡ τιμή stands rather in antithesis to καταισχυνθῆναι, and takes up positively what had been expressed negatively in the verse immediately preceding. Gerhard: vobis, qui per fidem tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram Deo (so, too, de Wette-Brückner, Weiss, Schott); ὑμῖν, sc. ἐστι: “yours therefore is the honour;” the article is not without significance here; the honour, namely, which in that word is awarded to believers (Steiger).
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] an explanatory adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end.
ἀπειθοῦσι [ἀπιστοῦσιν] δέ] antithesis to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν; ἀπειθεῖν denotes not only the simple not believing, but the resistance against belief; thus also ἀπιστοῦσιν here, if it be the true reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by: quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, de Wette, etc.). The words: λίθος (λίθον) … γωνίας, are borrowed literally from Psalm 118:22, after the LXX. What is fatal for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become the corner-stone (κεφ. γων. equals λιθ. ἀκρογ.) is stated in the following words, which are taken from Isaiah 8:14 : לְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף וּלְצוּר מִכְשׁוֹל. In a manner similar though not quite identical, these passages of the O. T. are woven together by Paul in Romans 9:33. The words do not denote the subjective conduct of the unbelievers (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling or offence which they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief (Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller); cf. Luke 20:17-18, where the corner-stone is also characterized as a stone of destruction for unbelievers. It is therefore without any foundation that Hofmann asserts “the thought that, to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone seems impossible,” if ἀπειθοῦσιν be taken as the dat. incommodi. So that it is in no way necessary to accept a construction so uncommon as that adopted by Hofmann, who considers the two clauses: ὑμῖν … οἰκοδομοῦντες to be, with an omitted ὤν, in apposition to the following οὗτος, looking on ἡ τιμή as a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the three following expressions: εἰς κεφ. γων., λιθ. προκόμμ., and πέτρα σκανδ. in such a way as to refer the first to believers and the other two to unbelievers, although no such division is anywhere hinted at.
 Schott rightly observes that κεφαλὴ γωνίας, as the corner-stone, must not be understood, with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which one stumbles and falls. This is not contained in the idea, corner-stone, in itself.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.1 Peter 2:8. οἱ προσκόπτουσι] links itself on to ἀπειθοῦσι κ.τ.λ.: “that is to those who,” etc., not to what follows, as if εἰσι were to be supplied: “they who stumble are those who are,” etc.
προσκόπτειν has here the same meaning as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different; there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, namely, the ground of their destruction; here, on the contrary, that they are really overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains προσκόπτουσι incorrectly: verbo offenduntur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur.
τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες] It is better to connect τῷ λόγῳ with ἀπειθοῦντες than with προσκόπτουσι (either: “who at the word are offended,” or: “who by the word suffer hurt”). For, on the one hand, the leading idea προσκ. would be weakened by its connection with λόγῳ; and, on the other, the nearer definition requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be inappropriate “that λόγος should of a sudden take the place of Christ, who in 1 Peter 2:7 is, as λίθος, the object of προσκ.” (Brückner). Wolf: qui impingunt, nempe: in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur.
εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν] εἰς ὅ not equal to ἐφʼ ᾧ, “on account of which;” nor is it equal to εἰς ὅν (sc. λόγον or λίθον); Luther: “on which they are placed;” or similarly Bolten: “they stumble at that, on which they should have been laid” (he makes εἰς ὅ refer to the omitted object of προσκ.), but it points rather to the end of ἐτέθησαν.
τίθημι] is here, as frequently in the N. T., “to appoint, constituere” (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:9). It is clear from the connection of this verse with the preceding, that εἰς ὅ does not go back to 1 Peter 2:5 (Gerhard: in hoc positi sunt, videlicet, ut ipsi quoque in hunc lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be referred either to ἀπειθεῖν (Calvin, Beza, Piscator, and others) or to προσκόπτειν and ἀπειθεῖν (Estius, Pott, de Wette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger, etc.), or, more correctly, to ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΕΙΝ (Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter (not on ἈΠΕΙΘΕῖΝ) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and ΕἸς Ὃ Κ.Τ.Λ. applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated. The ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΕΙΝ it is to which they, the ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, were already appointed, and withal on account of their unbelief, as appears from the Τῷ ΛΌΓῼ ἈΠΕΙΘ. This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for it is simply the ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς and ἈΠΕΙΘΟῦΝΤΕς, together with the blessing and curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without any reference being made to the precise ground of faith and unbelief. Vorstius correctly: Increduli sunt designati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate.
Following the construction of 1 Peter 2:7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes ΟἹ ΠΡΟΣΚΌΠΤΟΥΣΙΝ not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to the subsequent ΕἸς Ὅ, which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of 1 Peter 2:7. Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun or the method here resorted to, of connecting apodosis with protasis. The words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction. Oecumenius is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answering the question: quis autem illos sic posuit? by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit.
 The application to the Word or to Christ occurs already in the older commentators; thus Beda says: in hoc positi sunt i. e. per naturam facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et ejus voluntati obtemperent; and Nicol. de Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: illis data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum secundum quod dicitur Galatians 3. lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo; et ipsi pro majore parte remanserunt increduli.
 Different interpreters seek in various ways to soften the harshness of the dea here presented. Thus Estius, by explaining ἐτέθησαν only of the permission of God; Pott, by paraphrasing the idea thus: “their lot seemed to bring this with it;” Wiesinger, by asserting that “the passage here speaks of the action of God as a matter of history, not of His eternal decrees.” But what justifies any such softening down? While Hofmann, in the 1st edition of his Schriftbeweis, I. p. 210, says precisely: that God has ordained them to this, that they should not become obedient to His word, but should stumble at it and fall over it; in the 2d ed. I. p. 237, it appears that the meaning only is: “that the evil which befalls them in the very fact of their not believing, is ordained by God to those who do not obey His message of salvation, as a punishment of their disposition of mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in it the idea of ἐτέθησαν in relation to ἀπειθοῦντες is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott expressly says that unbelievers, by their own state of mind, “appoint themselves to unbelief,” he can look on unbelief only in so far as the result of a divine decree, that God has appointed faith impossible with a carnal disposition. But a limitation of this kind is here all the more inappropriate, that Peter in the passage makes no allusion to the disposition which lies at the foundation of unbelief. Hofmann in his commentary says: “it is the word which is preached to them that they refuse to obey, but by the very fact of their doing so they stumble at Christ and fall over Him, as over a stone that lies in the way. Both are one and the same thing, named from different sides; the one time from what they do, the other from what is done to them.” Yet these are two different things; the one the cause, the other the effect.
 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matthew 26:50; but the interpretation of this passage is so doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the various interpretations in Meyer on this passage; in Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]; in Buttmann, p. 217.
 Οὐχ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἀφωρισμένοις, εἴρηται· οὐδευία γὰρ αἰτία ἀπωλείας παρὰ τοῦ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλοντος σωθῆναι βραβεύεται· ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἑαυτοῖς σκευή κατηρτικόσιν ὀργῆς καὶ ἡ ἀπείθεια ἐπηκολούθησε, καὶ εἰς ἣν παρεσκεύασαν ἑαυτοὺς τάξιν ἐτέθησαν. Thus also Didymus: ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi; and Hornejus: constituti ad impingendum et non credendum ideo dicuntur, quia cum credere sermoni Dei nollent, sed ultro eum repellerent, deserti a Deo sunt et ipsius permissione traditi ut non crederent et impingerent.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:1 Peter 2:9. ὑμεῖς δέ] The apostle returns again to his readers, contrasting them with the unbelievers (not “with the people of Israel,” as Weiss thinks) he had just spoken of. The nature of believers, as such, is described by the same predicates which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God (cf. Exodus 19:5-6), but have found their accomplishment only in that of the N. T. Schott justly remarks that “what in 1 Peter 2:5 had been expressed in the form of an exhortation, is here predicated of the Christians as an already present condition.”
γένος ἐκλεκτόν] after Isaiah 43:20 (עַמִּי בְחִירִי, LXX.: γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν); cf. also Deuteronomy 7:6 ff.; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:1-2; Isaiah 45:4, etc. This first designation sets forth that the Christians, in virtue of God’s love, have been elected to be a people which no longer belongs to this world; cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:1.
βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα] after Exodus 19:6, LXX. (in Hebrew מַמְלֶכֶת בֹּהֲנִים, “a kingdom of priests”); most interpreters take it as simple combination of the two ideas: “kings and priests.” Still it is more correct to regard ἱεράτευμα as the principal idea (cf. 1 Peter 2:3), and βασίλειον as a more precise definition: “a royal priesthood.” Several commentators explain: “a priesthood possessing a royal character,” inasmuch as it not only offers up sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), but exercises sway (over the world); cf. Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10 (Wiesinger). Weiss (p. 125), on the other hand: “a priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just as we speak of the royal household.” Since all the other predicates express the belonging to God, the second explanation deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far as to include in βασίλ. not only the relation of service, but that also of belonging to and participation in the glory of the king founded thereon. Schott is not justified in assuming that Peter did not intend to convey the force of the Greek, but that of the Hebrew expression: מַמְלֶכֶת בֹּהֲנִים, namely: “a kingdom which consists of priests.” It is inadequate to understand, with Hofmann, by the term: “a priesthood of princely honours,” or βασίλειον as equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the expression of the highest freedom (subject only to God) (de Wette).
ἜΘΝΟς ἍΓΙΟΝ] in like manner after Exodus 19:6, LXX. (גּוֹי קָדוֹשׁ).
ΛΑῸς ΕἸς ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙΝ] corresponding passages in the O. T. are Deuteronomy 7:6 (עַם סְגֻלָּה), Malachi 3:17 (סְגֻלָּה), and especially Isaiah 43:21, LXX.: ΛΑΌΝ ΜΟΥ ὋΝ ΠΕΡΙΕΠΟΙΗΣΆΜΗΝ ΤᾺς ἈΡΕΤΆς ΜΟΥ ΔΙΗΓΕῖΣΘΑΙ (עַם־זוּ יָצַרְתִּי לִי תְּהִלָּתִי יְסַפֵּרוּ). The words following show that the apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind; still it must be noted that this idea is contained already in Exodus 19:5 (ΛΑῸς ΠΕΡΙΟΎΣΙΟς). ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙς is strictly the acquiring (Hebrews 10:39); here, what is acquired, possession; neither destinatus (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to be supplied to ΕἸς, they would not correspond with the sense; ΕἸς is here to be explained from Malachi 3:17, LXX.: ἜΣΟΝΤΑΊ ΜΟΙ … ΕἸς ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙΝ; on ΕἾΝΑΙ ΕἸς, cf. Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; in sense it is equivalent to ΛΑῸς ΠΕΡΙΟΎΣΙΟς, Titus 2:14. Schott attributes to this expression an eschatological reference, explaining: “a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition;” this is incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out of all analogy with the other expressions. The apostle does not here state to what the Christian church is destined, but what she already is; “her complete liberation from all cosmic powers is not,” as Brückner justly remarks, “an acquiring on God’s side, but only the final redemption of those whom He already possesses.” Schott’s assertion, that in the N. T. ΠΕΡΙΠΟΊΗΣΙς has always an eschatological reference, is opposed by Ephesians 1:14; cf. Meyer in loc.
Although a difference of idea founded on the etymologies of γένος, ἔθνος λαός is not to be pressed; yet it must be observed that by these expressions, as also by ἱεράτευμα, Christians are spoken of as a community united together in itself, and although diverse as to natural descent, they, as belonging to God (and all the names employed by the apostle point to this), form one people, from the fact that God has joined them to Himself.
ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ κ.τ.λ.] ὅπως connects itself, after Isaiah 43:21, in the first instance with what immediately goes before, in such a way, however, that the preceding ideas point towards it as their end.
τὰς ἀρετάς] thus the LXX. translate תְּהִלָּה in the above-mentioned passage (in general, in the LXX., ἀρετή occurs only as the translation of הוֹד, Habakkuk 3:3, Zechariah 6:13; ἀρεταί as the translation of תְּהִלָּה, Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 42:12; Isaiah 43:21, and of תְּהִלּוֹת, Isaiah 63:7); accordingly the Alexandrine translators understand by הוֹד and תְּהִלָּה in the passages in question, not the “glory or praise” of God, but the object of the glory, that is, the excellence or the glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this meaning of it, from them.
ἐξαγγείλητε] cf. Isaiah 42:12, LXX.: τὰς ἀρετὰς αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις ἀπαγγελοῦσι; ἐξαγγέλλειν; strictly, iis qui foris sunt nunciare quae intus fiunt (Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 21), is employed for the most part without this definite application; in the LXX. the translation of סִפֵּר; in the N. T. in this passage only; it is possible that Peter thought of the word here in its original force (Bengel, Wiesinger).
τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος] i.e. ΘΕΟῦ, not ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ; ΚΑΛΕῖΝ is almost uniformly attributed to God.
ΣΚΌΤΟΥς, not equivalent to, miseria (Wahl), but is used to designate the whole unhappy condition of sin and lying in which the natural and unregenerate man is, cf. Colossians 1:13; here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former heathenism of the readers.
ΕἸς ΤῸ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΤῸΝ ΑὙΤΟῦ Φῶς] To render Φῶς by cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken the force of the word; it is rather the complete opposite of ΣΚΌΤΟς, and denotes the absolutely holy and blessed nature—as ΑὙΤΟῦ shows—of God. The Christian is translated from darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this light, and is illumined by it. Schott incorrectly understands by σκότος: “heathen humanity left to itself,” and by τὸ … αὑτοῦ φῶς: “the church;” the church lives in God’s light, but it is not the light of God.
καλεῖν is here applied, as it is by Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God.
θαυμαστόν (cf. Matthew 21:42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the φῶς Θεοῦ.
 Clemens Al. interprets: regale, quoniam ad regnum vocati sumus et sumus Christi sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae fit orationibus et doctrinis, quibus adquiruntur animae, quae afferuntur Deo.
 Steiger draws the following distinction: γένος is the race, people of like descent; ἔθνος, a people of like customs; λαός, people as the mass. Schott thinks that ἔθνος includes within it a reference to the intellectual and moral characteristics of the people, and that λαός points to its being gathered together under one Lord. In this urging of distinctions—which are not even correctly drawn—is to be found the reason why Schott exchanges the Greek expression βασιλ. ἱεράτευμα for the Hebrew, because ἱεράτευμα is not analogous to the other three designations, whilst βασίλεια is so, as a national community.—Peter certainly, in selecting these expressions, did not reflect on the original distinction of the ideas, but made use of them simply as they were presented to him in the O. T.
 It is arbitrary to understand the word to mean only this or that attribute of God; nor must the meaning, as is done by Gerhard, be limited to the virtutes Dei, quae in opere gratuitae vocationis et in toto negotio salutis nostrae relucent. Schott’s interpretation is linguistically incorrect: αἱ ἀρεταί equal to τὰ μεγαλεῖα τ. Θ. (Acts 2:11), “the great deeds of God.” Cornelius a Lapide entirely misses the point in explaining: virtutes, quas Christus in nobis operatur, humilitatem, caritatem, etc.; and Salmeron: virtutes Christi, quas in diebus carnis suae exhibuit.
 Wiesinger disputes this interpretation, holding that what is meant is “that light which has appeared to the world in Christ;” but is not this light the light of God?—Certainly φῶς is here not i. q. Χριστός. According to de Wette, αὑτοῦ designates the light as the work of God, and consequently a different thing from the φῶς which He is Himself.
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.1 Peter 2:10. A reference to Hosea 2:23, linking itself on to the end of the preceding verse, in which the former and present conditions of the readers are contrasted. This difference the verse emphasizes by means of a simple antithesis. The passage in Hosea runs: וְרִחַמְתִּי אֶת־לֹא רֻחָמָה וְאָמַרְתִּי לְלֹא־עַמִּי עַמִּי־אַתָּה, LXX.: ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ οὐ λαῷ μου· λαός μου εἶ σύ (the Cod. Alex. and the Ed. Aldina have at the commencement the additional words: ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην).
οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός] Grotius, Steiger, Weiss incorrectly supply: Θεοῦ. λαός is here used absolutely (Bengel: ne populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). οὐ belongs not to ἦτε to be supplied, but is closely connected with λαός, equivalent to “no-people.” In like manner οὐκ ἠλεημένοι as equal to “not-obtained mercy.” “The meaning is not that they once were not what they now are, but that they were the opposite of it” (Wiesinger). But οὐ … λαός is a people who, in their separation from God, are without that unity of life in which alone they can be considered by Him as a people; or, more simply, who do not serve God who is the true King of every people; cf. Deuteronomy 32:21, and Keil in loc. De Wette is hardly satisfactory: “they were not a people, inasmuch as they were without the principle of all true nationality, the real knowledge of God,” etc.; now they are a people, even a people of God, inasmuch as they not only serve God, but are received also by God into community of life with Himself.
οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες] The part. perf. denotes their former and ended condition. Standing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substantive, like οὐ … λαός, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part. (in opposition to Hofmann). The aorist part. points, on the other hand, to the fact of pardon having been extended: “once not in possession of mercy, but now having become partakers of it” (Winer, p. 322 [E. T. 431]).
 In the original passage these words apply to Israel; but from this it does not follow that Peter writes to Jewish-Christians. For if Paul—as he clearly does—applies the passage (Romans 9:25) to the calling of the heathen, then Peter surely, with equal right, could use it with reference to the heathen converts. They had been, in its full sense, that which God says to Israel: לֹא־עַמִּי; and they had become that to which He would again make Israel, His people. It must be observed, however, that God in that passage addresses Israel as לֹא־עַמִּי only because it had forsaken Him and given itself up to the worship of Baal, and consequently incurred punishment. Apart from this, Israel had always remained the people of God.—If only Jewish converts were meant here, then Peter would assume that they in their Judaism had been idolaters, which is absolutely impossible, or at least Peter must then have said why they, who as Israelites were the people of God, could not in their former state be regarded as such. Accordingly, οὐ λαός is here in no way applicable to Israel, but only to the heathen; and it is not (as Weiss maintains, p. 119) purely arbitrary to apply the passage, in opposition to its original sense, to heathen Christians. Whilst Brückner says only that the words cannot serve to prove the readers to have been Jews formerly, Wiesinger rightly and most decidedly denies the possibility of applying them to Jewish converts; so, too, Schott.—Weiss’s assertion is by no means justified by his insisting (die Petr. Frage, p. 626) that nothing tenable has been brought forward against it.
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;1 Peter 2:11-12. A new exhortation: the central thought is expressed in the beginning of 1 Peter 2:12. The apostle, after describing its peculiarly lofty dignity, considers the Christian church in its relation to the non-Christian world, and shows how believers must prove themselves blameless before it by right conduct in the different relations of human life. The condition necessary for this is stated in 1 Peter 2:11.
Ἀγαπητοί] This form of address expresses the affectionate, impressive earnestness of the following exhortation.
παρακαλῶ (sc. ὑμᾶς) ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους]; cf. Psalm 39:13, LXX.
ὡς, as in 1 Peter 1:14.
πάροικος, cf. 1 Peter 1:17, in its strict sense: Acts 7:6; Acts 7:29, equal to, inquilinus, he who dwells in a town (or land) where he has no civil rights; cf. Luke 24:18. In Ephesians 2:19 it stands as synonymous with ξένος, of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God.
παρεπίδημος, cf. 1 Peter 1:1. The home of the believer is heaven, on earth he is a stranger. Calvin: sic eos appellat, non quia a patria exularent, ac dissipati essent in diversis regionibus, sed quia filii Dei, ubicunque terrarum agant, mundi sunt hospites; cf. Hebrews 11:13-15. A distinction between the two words is not to be pressed here; the same idea is expressed by two words, in order to emphasize it the more strongly. Luther inexactly translates παρεπίδημοι by “pilgrims.”
Even if ἀπέχεσθαι be the true reading, the words ὡς παροίκους κ.τ.λ. must be connected with παρακαλῶ (as opposed to de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger), for they show in what character Peter now regarded his readers (Hofmann) in relation to the following exhortations, and have reference not simply to the admonition ἀπέχεσθαι; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly remarks. Probably, however, ἀπέχεσθε is the original reading, and was changed into the infinitive in order to make the connection with παρακαλῶ more close. ἀπέχεσθαι presents the negative aspect of sanctification, as chap. 1 Peter 2:1 : ἀποθέμενοι.
τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν] similar expressions in Galatians 5:10; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:18. The ἐπιθυμίαι are σαρκικαί, because they have their seat in the σάρξ. Wiesinger improperly says that “the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly” are here meant, for all ἐπιθυμίαι tend to, and do, manifest themselves outwardly, if there be no ἀπέχεσθαι. Schott assumes, without reason, that the ἐπιθυμίαι are here considered “as something outside of the Christian community, and manifesting itself only in the surrounding heathen population;” they are indeed peculiar to the unbelieving world; but the Christian, too, has them still in his σάρξ, though he can and should prevent them from having a determining power over him, inasmuch as in the world over which they rule he is a πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος. This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in the close connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed to Hofmann).
αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς] is not a definition of the σαρκικαί, but as αἵτινες, equal to “as those which,” shows, explains the nature of the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαί, thus giving the reason of the exhortation.
στρατεύειν is not: “to lay siege to” (Steiger), but: “to war,” “fight against,” as in Jam 4:1 (Romans 7:23 : ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι).
ψυχή has here its usual meaning; it is neither: vita et salus animae (Hornejus, Grotius), nor: ratio (Pott: libidines, quae nos impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt); nor does it mean: “the new man” (Gerhard: totus homo novus ac interior, quatenus est per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the soul, “in so far as it is penetrated by the Holy Spirit” (Steiger), nor: “life as determined by the new Ego” (Schott); but it is here simply, in contradistinction to σῶμα, the spiritual substance of man of which Peter says that it must be sanctified (chap. 1 Peter 1:22), and its σωτηρία is the end of faith (chap. 1 Peter 1:9); thus also de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann, Fronmüller. In the natural man the ψυχή is under the power of the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαί (which according to Jam 4:1 have their dwelling ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν; cf. also Romans 7:23); in him who is regenerate, it is delivered from them, yet the ἐπιθυμίαι seek to bring it again into subjection, so that it may fail of its σωτηρία;—in this consists the στρατεύεσθαι κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς.—1 Peter 2:12. τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν (chap. 1 Peter 1:15; 1 Peter 1:17) ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες καλήν] ἐν τοῖς ἔθν.: “among the Gentiles;” for the churches to whom Peter wrote were in Gentile lands.
ἔχοντες καλήν: Luther inexactly: “lead a good mode of life;” καλήν is a predicate: “having your mode of life good (as one good);” cf. chap. 1 Peter 4:8.
ἔχοντες (antithesis to ἀπέχεσθε, 1 Peter 2:11) is not here put for the imperative, but is a participle subordinate to the finite verb; if ἀπέχεσθαι be read, there is here, as in Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:16, an irregularity in the construction by which the idea contained in the participle is significantly made prominent.
ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν κ.τ.λ.] “that in the matter in which they revile you as evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they themselves have beheld, glorify God,” i.e. in order that the matter which was made the ground of their evil-speaking, may by your good works become to them the ground of giving glory to God.
ἵνα states the purpose; not for ὥστε; ἐν ᾧ is not: ἐν ᾧ χρόνω, as in Mark 2:19 (Pott, Hensler), for the καταλαλεῖν and the δοξάζειν cannot be simultaneous; nor is it: pro eo quod (Beza), such a construction has no grammatical justification; but ἐν specifies here, as in verb. affect., the occasioning object (cf. chap. 1 Peter 4:4), and the relative refers to a demonstrative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to δοξάζωσι as ἐν ᾧ to καταλαλοῦσιν. It is not then τοῦτο, but ἐν τούτῳ, which is to be supplied (Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann). If τοῦτο were to be supplied it would be dependent on ἐποπτεύσαντες; but such a construction is opposed by the circumstance that it is not this participle, but δοξάζωσι, which forms the antithesis to καταλαλοῦσι. The participle is interposed here absolutely (as in Ephesians 3:4 : ἀναγινώσκοντες), and ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is connected with δοξάζωσι, the sense being: “on account of your good works.” Steiger specifies the καλὰ ἔργα as that which occasions the καταλαλεῖν,—and later the δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν,—but the subsequent ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων does not agree with this; de Wette gives: “the whole tenor of life;” the connection with what precedes might suggest the ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκ. ἐπιθυμιῶν; but it is simpler, with Hofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian profession.
With κακοποιοί, cf. 1 Peter 2:14; 1 Peter 4:15; John 18:30. Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss (p. 367) justly reject the opinion of Hug, Neander, etc., that ΚΑΚΟΠΟΙΌς here, in harmony with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Ner. c. 16: Christiani genus hominum superstitionis novae et malificae, is equivalent to “state criminal.” In the mouth of a heathen the word would signify a criminal, though not exactly a vicious man; one who had been guilty of such crimes as theft, murder, and the like (cf. 1 Peter 4:15), which are punished by the state (cf. 1 Peter 2:14).
ἘΚ ΤῶΝ ΚΑΛῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ] The ΚΑΛᾺ ἜΡΓΑ, in the practice of which the ἈΝΑΣΤΟΦῊ ΚΑΛΉ) of the Christians consists, are here presented as the motive by which, when they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute the glorifying of God for their evil-speaking; as the Christians too, on their part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, that thus they may overcome the opposition of the Gentiles, cf. chap. 1 Peter 3:2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets ἘΚ Τ. ΚΑΛ. ἜΡΓΩΝ ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς: “if the heathen judge of your Christianity by your good works;” for ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΕΙΝ does not mean “to judge of.” With ἐκ τ. καλ. ἔργων … δοξάσωσι τ. Θεόν, comp. Christ’s words, Matthew 5:16, which, as Weiss not without reason assumes, may have here been present to the apostle’s mind.
ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς] “goes back in thought to the ΚΑΛᾺ ἜΡΓΑ, in harmony with the linguistic parallel in 1 Peter 3:2 and the grammatical parallel in Ephesians 3:4” (de Wette). It makes no essential difference in the sense whether the present or, with the Rec., the aorist be read (see critical remarks). The word occurs only here and in 1 Peter 3:2, where it is used with the accusative of the object (for the subst. ἐπόπτης, see 2 Peter 1:16). It expresses the idea of seeing with one’s own eyes, more strongly than the simple ὉΡᾷΝ. There is no reference here to the use of the word as applied to those who were initiated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries.
ἘΝ ἩΜΈΡᾼ ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς] ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ is in the LXX. a translation of פְּקֻדָּה, the visitation of God, whether it be to bless (Job 10:12) or to chastise (Isaiah 10:3); ἩΜΈΡΑ ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς is therefore the time when God gives salvation, or the time when He punishes, be it in the general sense (Beda: dies extremi judicii), or more specially with reference either to the Christians or the heathen.
The connection of thought seems to point decisively to that time as meant when the ΚΑΤΑΛΑΛΟῦΝΤΕς shall be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to “the gracious visitation of the heathen” (Steiger); as Ὁ ΚΑΙΡῸς Τῆς ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς ΣΟΥ, Luke 19:44, is used with regard to the Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the Fathers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, Erasm., Hemming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc. On the other hand, Oecumenius, Wolf, Bengel, etc., apply the ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ not to God, but understand by it the ἘΞΈΤΑΣΙς of the Christians at the hands of the heathen. But for this there is absolutely no ground. Luther’s interpretation: “when it shall be brought to light,” is wrong; it is equivalent to that of Gerhard: simplicissime accipitur de visitatione illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam variis modis in lucem producit.
Akin to this is the view held by some of the scholastics, that ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ is to be understood of the trial of the Christians by affliction; see Lorinus in loc.
 In the former exhortations Peter had regarded them as τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, as such who call on God as Father, as regenerate.
 Calvin interprets: carnis desideria intelligit, non tantum crassos et cum pecudibus communes appetitus, sed omnes animae nostrae affectus, ad quos natura ferimur et ducimur. This goes too far, as it would demand the destruction not alone of the striving against the Spirit, natural to man in his sinful condition, but of the entire life of the soul. Cf. Galatians 5:17.
 So formerly in this commentary, with the observation: “Of this ἀπέχεσθαι Peter says, chap. 1 Peter 4:3-4, that it seemed strange to the heathen; for it is precisely this abstinence which gives the Christian life its peculiar character, and distinguishes it from that of the heathen. It became the ground of evil report for this reason, that immoral motives were supposed to be concealed behind it; and this was all the more natural that the Christian had necessarily to place himself in opposition to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and that from a Gentile point of view his obedience to the will of God must have appeared a violation of the law. This prejudice could not be better overcome than by the practice of good works; hence, τὴν ἀναστρ. ὑμ.… καλήν, and the reference to it in ἐκ τ. καλ. ἔργων.”
 Schott’s assumption: “that it was the burning of Rome that first increased the universal hatred and aversion of the Christians to a special accusation of criminal and immoral principles,” is unwarranted. He attempts to justify it only by charging Tacitus with an error in the account he gives of the accusations brought by Nero against the Christians.
At variance with this explanation is that given by Schott, who interprets the passage in this way: In order that the heathen may glorify God in the day of judgment, from this that (by the fact that) they slander you as evil-doers in consequence of your good works of which they are witnesses. The idea that the undeserved calumnies of the heathen serve at last to the glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as a basis for the exhortation given in the context. The resolution, too, of ἐν ᾧ into ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι, has grammatically nothing against it; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Romans 2:1; cf. Hebrews 2:18, where Lünemann has recourse to a like construction, though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more than one objection may be urged against this interpretation—(1) A reference is given to δοξάζειν different from what is contained in καταλαλεῖν, inasmuch as it is taken, as in 1 Corinthians 6:20, in the sense of: “by action;” (2) δοξάζειν must be thought of as something which the heathen bring about “without knowing or willing” it, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any such nearer definition; (3) δοξάζειν can only in a loose sense be conceived of as an act of the heathen; it is simply the result of what they do (of their καταλαλεῖν); and (4) In comparing these words with those of Christ, Matthew 5:16 : ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσι τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, the thought cannot be got rid of that Peter had this passage here in his mind. Schott’s objection, that “δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν is a strange and, specially here, a doubly inappropriate expression for conversion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb thus taken with ἐξ, as equal to: in consequence of, is a hard and inelegant construction,” amounts to very little, since in the acceptation of the passage which he calls in question the verb is by no means made to bear any such meaning.
Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;1 Peter 2:13-14. The apostle now goes on to name the different relations of life ordained of God in which the Christian should show his holy walk. First of all, an exhortation to obey those in authority.
ὑποτάγητε] the aor. pass. is used here, as it often is, with a middle, not a passive—as Wiesinger thinks—force. It is not: “be made subject,” but “make yourselves subject” (cf. ταπεινώθητε, chap. 1 Peter 5:6). The more liable liberty in Christ was to be misunderstood by the heathen, and even to be abused by the Christians themselves, the more important it was that the latter should have inculcated upon them as one of their principal duties this ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ (1 Peter 2:18, chap. 1 Peter 3:1) in all circumstances of life.
ΠΆΣῌ ἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝῌ ΚΤΊΣΕΙ] ΚΤΊΣΙς is here, in accordance with the signification peculiar to the verb ΚΤΊΖΕΙΝ: “to establish, to set up,” the ordinance, or institution (“an ordinance resting on a particular arrangement,” Hofmann). In connection with the attribute ἀνθρωπίνη, this expression seems to denote an ordinance or institution established by men (so most expositors, and formerly in this commentary). But it must be noted that ΚΤΊΖΕΙΝ (and its derivatives) are never applied to human, but only to divine agency; besides, the demand that they should submit themselves to every human ordinance would be asking too much. It is therefore preferable to understand, with Hofmann, by the term, an ordinance (of God) applying to human relations (“regulating the social life of man”). By the subsequent ΕἼΤΕ … ΕἼΤΕ, the expression is referred in the first instance to the magistracy; but this does not justify the interpretation of it as equal directly to: “authority,” or even: persons in authority (Gerhard: concretive et personaliter: homines, qui magistratum gerunt). That Peter’s exposition of the idea had direct reference to persons in authority, is to be explained from the circumstance that the institution possessed reality only in the existence of those individuals. At variance with this view is de Wette’s (following Erasmus, Estius, Pott) interpretation of the expression: “to every human creature, i.e. to all men.” Not only, however, the singular circumlocution: κτίσις ἀνθρωπίνη for ἄνθρωπος,—for which de Wette wrongly quotes Mark 16:15 and Colossians 1:23,—but the very idea that Christians should be subject to all men,—and in support of it no appeal can be made either to chap. 1 Peter 5:5 or to the following exhortation: πάντας τιμήσατε,—is decisive against this view. The fact that Peter places the general term ΠᾶΣΑ ΚΤΊΣΙς first, is explained most naturally in this way: that it was his intention to speak not of the magistracy merely, but also of the other institutions of human life.
The motive for the submission here demanded is given by ΔΙᾺ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ, i.e. Χριστόν (not ΘΕΌΝ, as Schott thinks), which must be taken to mean: “because such is the will of the Lord,” or, with Hofmann: “out of consideration due to Christ, to whom the opposite would bring dishonour.” The latter, however, is the less likely interpretation. Still less natural is it to say, with Wiesinger, that this adjunct points to the ΘΕῖΟΝ in ordinances under which human life is passed. Incorrectly Huss: propter imitationem Dei i. e. Christi.
In the enumeration which follows, the apostle is guided by the historical conditions of his time. It must be remarked that ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ is inculcated not only with regard to the institutions of the state, but to the persons in whom these are embodied, and this quite unconditionally. Even in cases where obedience, according to the principle laid down in Acts 4:19, is to be refused, the duty of the ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ must not be infringed upon.
ΕἼΤΕ ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖ] ΒΑΣΙΛΕΎς is here the name given to the Roman emperor; cf. Joseph, de bello jud. v. 13, § 6. Bengel: Caesari, erant enim provinciae romanae, in quas mittebat Petrus.
ὡς ὑπερέχοντι] Ὡς here also assigns the reason; ὙΠΕΡΈΧΕΙΝ expresses, as in Romans 13:1, simply the idea of sovereign power; non est comparatio cum aliis magistratibus (Calvin). In the Roman Empire the emperor was not merely the highest ruler, but properly speaking the only one, all the other authorities being simply the organs through which he exercised his sway.—1 Peter 2:14. εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν] ἩΓΕΜΌΝΕς praesides provinciarum, qui a Caesare mittebantur in provincias (Gerh.).
Ὡς ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ, etc.] ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ does not, as Gerh., Aretius, and others take it, refer to ΚΎΡΙΟΝ, but to ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖ. The ἩΓΕΜ., although ὙΠΕΡΈΧΟΝΤΕς too, are so not in the same absolute sense as the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΎς. They are so in relation to their subordinates, but not to the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΎς.
ΕἸς ἘΚΔΊΚΗΣΙΝ ΚΑΚΟΠΟΙῶΝ, ἜΠΑΙΝΟΝ ΔῈ ἈΓΑΘΟΠΟΙῶΝ] is joined grammatically to ΠΕΜΠΟΜΈΝΟΙς, not to ὙΠΕΡΈΧΟΝΤΙ also (Hofm., Schott); yet, from the fact that the ἩΓΕΜΌΝΕς are sent by the ΒΑΣΙΛΕῪς ΕἸς ἘΚΔΊΚΗΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., it is implied that the latter, too, has an office with respect to ἘΚΔΊΚΗΣΙς Κ.Τ.Λ.
Oecumenius arbitrarily narrows the thought when he says: ἜΔΕΙΞΕ ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤῸς Ὁ ΠΈΤΡΟς ΤΊΣΙ ΚΑῚ ΠΟΊΟΙς ἌΡΧΟΥΣΙΝ ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ ΔΕῖ, ὍΤΙ ΤΟῖς ΤῸ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ ἘΚΔΙΚΟῦΣΙΝ. The apostle insists rather, without reserve, on submission to the ἡγεμόνες, because (not if) they are sent by the emperor to administer justice.
ἘΚΔΊΚΗΣΙς, here as often: “punishment;” ἔπαινος, not precisely: “reward,” but: “laudatory recognition.”
ἀγαθοποιός is to be found only in later authors, in N. T. ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ. The subs. occurs chap. 1 Peter 4:19.
 Winer is wrong in attributing (p. 245 [E. T. 327]) a passive signification to this ταπεινώθητε, as also to προσεκλίθη in Acts 5:36 but is right in ascribing it to παρεδόθητε, Romans 6:17.
 This view avoids the certainly arbitrary interpretation given, for example, by Flavius, who applies the expression specially to life connected with the state. He says: dicitur humana ordinatio ideo quia politiae mundi non sunt speciali verbo Dei formatae, ut vera religio, sed magis ab hominibus ipsorumque industria ordinatae.
 It is arbitrary to regard κτίσις (with Luther, Osiander, etc.) as meaning the laws given by the magistrates.
 Brückner endeavours, indeed, to defend de Wette’s interpretation, yet he decides to understand the expression in question as: “every ordinance of human civil society,” and solves the difficulty presented by the adjective ἀνθρωπίνη (comp. with Romans 13:1) by remarking that “the ordinances of national life which have been developed historically and by human means possess a divine element in them.”
 Hofmann is consequently wrong in asserting that in this connection “the duty of submission to him who makes over the exercise of his power to others is derived from and based alone on his possession of that power, whilst submission to those to whom that power has been entrusted originated in, and is founded on, the moral purpose for which that is done.”
 Calvin very aptly puts it: Objici possit: reges et alios magistratus saepe sua potentia abuti; respondeo, tyrannos et similes non facere suo abusu, quia maneat semper firma Dei ordinatio.
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:1 Peter 2:15. ὅτι] gives the ground of the exhortation: ὑποτάγητε κ.τ.λ.
οὕτως ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] with οὕτως; cf. Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]; Buttm. p. 115: “of such a nature is the will of God.” Schott gives the sense correctly: “In this wise is it with the will of God.” The position of the words is opposed to a connection of οὕτως with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (Wiesinger, Hofmann).
ἀγαθοποιοῦντας] sc. ὑμᾶς; ἀγαθοποιεῖν, in Mark 3:4; Acts 14:17 the word has reference to deeds of benevolence. Here, on the other hand, it is used in a general sense: to do good, with special reference to the fulfilment of the duties towards those in authority.
φιμοῦν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν] φιμοῦν (cf. 1 Timothy 5:18) here in the cognate sense of: “to put to silence,” Wiesinger; “the ἀγνωσία is here conceived of as speaking; cf. v. 12: καταλαλοῦσι ὑμ. ὡς κακοποιῶν.”
ἀγνωσία (except here, only in 1 Corinthians 15:34) is the self-caused lack of any comprehension of the Christian life. Because they are without this, they in their foolishness (hence ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων) imagine that its characteristic is not ἀγαθοποιεῖν, but κακοποιεῖν. Beda incorrectly limits οἱ ἄφρονες ἄνθρωποι to those persons in authority; but the reference is rather quite general to the καταλαλοῦντες, 1 Peter 2:12.
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.1 Peter 2:16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι] is not, as Lachm., Jachmann, Steiger, Fronmüller think, to be joined with what follows (1 Peter 2:17), but with a preceding thought; either with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger, Hofm.), or with ὑποτάγητε (Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, de Wette, Schott, etc.). The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not because in the former a change of construction would take place, but because the special point to be brought out here was, that the freedom of the Christians was to be manifested in submission to (heathen) authorities. What follows shows this, inasmuch as those Christians who had not attained unto true freedom, might easily be led to justify their opposition to those in power on the ground of the liberty which belonged to them in Christ. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι states the position which the Christians are to take up inwardly towards the authorities; their subjection is not that of δοῦλοι, since they recognise them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral ends.
καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν] καί is epexegetical: “and that,” since what follows defines the idea ἐλεύθεροι first negatively and then positively.
ὡς belongs not to ἐπικάλυμμα, but to ἔχοντες: “and that not as those who have.”
ἐπικάλυμμα is the more remote, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν the proximate, object of ἔχοντες: “who have the ἐλευθερία as the ἐπικάλυμμα τ. κακ.”
ἐπικάλυμμα, ἅπ. λεγ.; for its original meaning, cf. Exodus 26:14, LXX.; here used metaphorically (cf. Kypke in loc.). The sense is: “not as those to whom their freedom serves as a covering for their κακία” (cf. 2 Peter 2:19; Galatians 5:13), i.e. who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Pharisaism of those who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart by an outward conformity to the law.
ἀλλʼ ὡς δοῦλοι Θεοῦ] expresses positively the nature of the truly free. True liberty consists in the δουλεία Θεοῦ (Romans 6:16 ff.); it refers back to the τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and further still to διὰ κύριον.
 Hofmann justly says: “We cannot think of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, for its contents would not suit πάντας τιμήσατε—even should it be connected with this only (Fronmüller), which is quite impossible—not to speak of τὴν ἀδελφοτητα or τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε.”
 It is not probable that Peter here refers, as Weiss (p. 349) thinks, to the words of Christ, Matthew 17:27, since they apply to circumstances altogether different from those mentioned here; see Meyer in loc.
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.1 Peter 2:17. Four hortatory clauses suggested to Peter by the term ἀγαθοποιοῦντας; in the last he returns, by way of conclusion, to the principal theme. In the first three there is a climax.
πάντας τιμήσατε] ΠΆΝΤΑς must not, with Bengel, be limited to those: quibus honos debetur, Romans 13:7, nor to those who belong to the same state (Schott); it expresses totality without any exception.
ΤΙΜᾷΝ is not equivalent to ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ (de Wette); but neither is it equal to, civiliter tractare (Bengel); the former is too strong, the latter too weak; it is the opposite, positively stated, of ΚΑΤΑΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ, and means: to recognise the worth (ΤΙΜΉ) which any one possesses, and to act on the recognition (Brückner, Weiss, Wiesinger, Schott). This exhortation is all the more important for the Christian, that his consciousness of his own dignity can easily betray him into a depreciation of others. It refers to the ΤΙΜΉ which is due to man as man, and not first in respect of any particular position he may hold (Flacius: unicuique suum locum et debita officia exhibete.)
ΤῊΝ ἈΔΕΛΦΌΤΗΤΑ ἈΓΑΠᾶΤΕ] ἈΔΕΛΦΌΤΗς, also in chap. 1 Peter 5:9, corresponding to our: brotherhood, i.e. the totality of the Christian brethren, cf. ἱεράτευμα 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9. The apparent contradiction of Matthew 5:44, here presented, where love to enemies is also enjoined, is to be explained on the following principle: that the ἈΓΆΠΗ is differently conditioned, according as it has different objects. In perfect harmony with its inmost nature, it can exist only between Christians, for only among them is there community of life in God, cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:22. Pott interprets ἈΓΑΠᾷΝ here superficially by “entertain goodwill to.”
ΤῸΝ ΘΕῸΝ ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΕ] cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:17; a command not only of the Old, but of the New Testament, inasmuch as a lowly awe before the holy God is an essential feature of the filial relation to God.
ΤῸΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΈΑ ΤΙΜᾶΤΕ] Reiteration of the command (1 Peter 2:13) as a conclusion to the whole passage; cf. Proverbs 24:21, ΦΟΒΟῦ ΤῸΝ ΘΕῸΝ, ΥἹῈ, ΚΑῚ ΒΑΣΙΛΈΑ.
ΤΙΜᾷΤΕ has here the same meaning as previously: “show to the king the respect which pertains to him as king;” what that is the apostle has explained in 1 Peter 2:13. Hornejus incorrectly thinks that in the conjunction of the last two commands, he can here discover an indication of the limits by which obedience to the king is bounded.
The difference in the tenses of the imperative, in the first exhortation the imperat. aor., in the three others the imperat. pres., is to be regarded as accidental, rather than as in any way arising from the substance of the command.
 To distribute these four exhortations over “the two provinces of life: the natural and civil, and the spiritual and ecclesiastical communities” (Schott), is warranted neither by what precedes nor by anything the clauses themselves contain.—Hofmann, who denies the climax, determines the relation of the four maxims to each other in a highly artificial manner. He holds that the second sentence is in antithesis to the first, and the fourth to the third; that the first is akin to the fourth, and the second to the third; that in the first stress is laid on πάντας, whilst on the second, on the other hand, it lies not on ἀδελφότητα, but on ἀγαπᾶτει, and that in the first antithesis it is the first member that is emphatic, in the second it is the last.
 In like manner Hornejus: non de omnibus absolute loquitur, quasi omnes homines etiam pessimi honorandi sint, sed de iis, quibus honor propter potestatem quam habent, competit.
 Explicat Petr. quomodo Caesari parendum sit, nempe ut Dei interim timori nihil derogetur.
 Hofmann’s view is purely arbitrary: that in the foremost clause the aorist is put because, in the first place, and chiefly, it is required to honour all; and after this, that the Christian should love his brethren in Christ. Nor can it be at all supported by Winer’s remarks, p. 294 [E. T. 394].
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1 Peter 2:18. An exhortation to the slaves, extending from this verse to the end of the chapter.
οἱ οἰκέται] οἰκέτης, properly speaking, “a domestic,” a milder expression for δοῦλος. It is improbable that Peter employed this term in order to include the freedmen who had remained in the master’s house (Steiger).
οἱ οἰκ. is vocative; nor is chap. 1 Peter 1:3 (as Steiger thinks) opposed to this.
ὑποτασσόμενοι] It is quite arbitrary to supply ἦτε (Oecumenius, etc.), or to assert that the participle is used here instead of the imperative. The participle rather shows that the exhortation is conceived of as dependent on a thought already expressed; not on 1 Peter 2:17 (de Wette), but on 1 Peter 2:13, which 1 Peter 2:11-12 serve to introduce; ὑποτάγητε … κύριον, the institution of the household implied in the relation of servant to master, is comprehended in the general term πᾶσα ἀνθρωπ. κτίσις.
ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ] φόβος (vid. 1 Peter 1:17) is stronger than reverentia, it denotes the shrinking from transgressing the master’s will, based on the consciousness of subjection, cf. Ephesians 6:5. Doubtless this shrinking is in the case of the Christian based on the fear of God, but the word ΦΌΒΟς does not directly mean such fear, as Weiss (p. 169) holds and seeks to prove, especially from the circumstance that Peter in chap. 1 Peter 3:6; 1 Peter 3:14 condemns the fear of man, forgetting, however, that this fear too may be of different kinds, cf. in loco.
παντί is intensive. Πᾶς ΦΌΒΟς is: every kind of fear; a fear wanting in nothing that goes to make up true fear.
τοῖς δεσπόταις] cf. 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9, equals ΤΟῖς ΚΥΡΊΟΙς, Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22.
Οὐ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΓΑΘΟῖς ΚΑῚ ἘΠΙΕΙΚΈΣΙΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΤΟῖς ΣΚΟΛΙΟῖς] The moral conduct of the servant, which consists in ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ towards the master, must remain unchanged, whatever the character of the latter may be; the chief emphasis, however, rests here on ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΤΟῖς ΣΚ.
ἈΓΑΘΟΊ here is equal to “kind;” for ἐπιεικής, cf. 1 Timothy 3:3; it does not mean “yielding” (Fronmüller), but, properly speaking, one who “acts with propriety,” then “gentle.”
σκολιός, literally, “crooked,” “bent,” the opposite of straight, denotes metaphorically the perverse disposition; Php 2:15, synonymous with διεστραμμένος; in Proverbs 28:18, Ὁ ΣΚΟΛΙΑῖς ὉΔΟῖς ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς forms the antithesis to Ὁ ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς ΔΙΚΑΊΩς (cf. Luke 3:5). It has the same force in the classics (Athen. xv. p. 695; ΣΚΟΛΙᾺ ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ, opp. to ΕὐΘΈΑ ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ). It denotes, therefore, such masters as conduct themselves, not in a right, but in a perverse manner towards their servants—are hard and unjust to them; Luther’s “capricious” is inexact.
 Thus, too, in substance Schott: “Fear in general, as it is determined by the circumstances here mentioned.”
 That Peter made special reference to heathen masters lies in the nature of the circumstances, but is not to be concluded from the adject. σκολιός (as opposed to Schott).
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.1 Peter 2:19. τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, εἰ] The ground of the exhortation. τοῦτο refers to the clause beginning with εἰ.
χάρις has not the special meaning “grace” here, as if it were to be explained, either with the older commentators: gratiam concilians; or as if by it were to be understood “the gift of grace” (Steiger: “it is to be regarded as grace, if one can suffer for the sake of God;” so, too, Schott), or “the condition of grace” (Wiesinger: “in the ὑπομένειν is manifested the actual condition of grace”); for this expression is not parallel with κλέος, 1 Peter 2:12 : and how can a summons be issued in a manner so direct, to the performance of a duty, by representing it either as a gift of grace or a proof of a state of grace? Besides, Wiesinger alters the term “grace” into “sign of grace.”
Some commentators, on account of 1 Peter 2:20, explain χάρις as synonymous with κλέος, but without any linguistic justification; thus already Oecumenius (Calvin: idem valet nomen gratiae quod laudis; qui patienter ferunt injurias, ii laude digni sunt). In profane Greek χάρις denotes either the charm or the loveliness, or also the favour which one person has for another (to which are linked on the meanings, expressions of goodwill and thanks). Both senses are to be found in the Scriptures. If the first signification be adopted, the enduring of the adversity of which Peter here speaks is characterized as something lovely; and so Cremer (see under ΧΆΡΙς, p. 576) seems to take it. But it is more natural to hold by the second sense, and to explain “this is favour,” as equal to “this causes favour.” Several interpreters explain χάρις as equal directly to “delight,” substituting for the substantive the adjective “well-pleasing,” and supplying ΠΑΡᾺ Τῷ ΘΕῷ from 1 Peter 2:20. Thus Gerhard: hoc est Deo gratum et acceptum; de Wette: “Favour with God, i.e. well-pleasing before God;” so, too, Hofmann. But both of these are open to objection. Hofmann no doubt gives as the ground of his supplement: “that the slave who lived up to the apostle’s injunction has to look for the approval of none.” This is, however, surely an unjustifiable assertion. It is not clear why Peter did not add the words supplied if he had them in his mind; χάρις and ΚΛΈΟς in 1 Peter 2:20 are therefore—in consideration of 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 2:15—to be taken quite generally. The following clause indicates a good behaviour, by which the ΚΑΤΑΛΑΛΊΑ of the heathen is to be put to silence.
ΕἸ ΔΙᾺ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠΟΦΈΡΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.] ΕἸ refers back to ΤΟῦΤΟ; ΔΙᾺ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ ΘΕΟῦ is placed first by way of emphasis. ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙς ΘΕΟῦ is neither “God’s knowledge of us” (Morus: quia Deus conscius est tuarum miseriarum; similarly Fronmüller: “on account of the knowledge shared by God, since God knows all”), nor is it “conscientiousness before God” (Stolz); but ΘΕΟῦ is the object. genit. (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:7; Hebrews 10:2), therefore the meaning is: the (duty-compelling) consciousness of God. Calov: quia conscius est, id Deum velle et Deo gratum esse; so, too, de Wette, Schott, etc. A metonymy does not require to be assumed (Grotius: per metonymiam objecti dicitur conscientia ejus, quod quis Deo debet). Steiger introduces what is foreign to it when he extends the idea so as to include the conscious knowledge of the divine recompense. In ΔΙᾺ ΣΥΝΕΙΔ. ΘΕΟῦ is expressed substantially the same thought as in Ὡς ΘΕΟῦ ΔΟῦΛΟΙ, 1 Peter 2:16, and ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΚΎΡΙΟΝ, 1 Peter 2:13; ΔΙᾺ ΤῊΝ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ without ΘΕΟῦ is to be found in Romans 13:5.
ὙΠΟΦΈΡΕΙ ΤΙς ΛΎΠΑς] ὙΠΟΦΈΡΕΙΝ: “to bear the burden put on one;” the opposite of succumbing under a burden, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:13, 2 Timothy 3:11; nevertheless, the apostle seems here to have in mind more the antithesis to being provoked to anger and stubbornness (Hofmann).
λύπαι here: outward afflictions.
ΠΆΣΧΩΝ ἈΔΊΚΩς] “whilst (not although) he suffers wrong (from the master, i.e. undeserved on the part of the slave).”
It is not suffering itself, but patient endurance in the midst of undeserved suffering, and that διὰ συνείδησιν Θεοῦ, which Peter calls a ΧΆΡΙς.
This thought, general in itself, is here applied to the relation of servant to master.
 Χάρις has the first meaning, Psalm 45:3; Proverbs 1:9; Proverbs 10:32, etc.; also Sir 7:19, etc.; in the N. T. Luke 4:22; Colossians 4:6, etc. The second signification, Proverbs 22:1, etc.; in the N. T. Luke 1:30; Luke 2:52; Acts 2:47, etc. Cf. besides Cremer and Wahl: Clavis libr. V. T. apocryphi.
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.1 Peter 2:20. ποῖον γὰρ κλέος] Gerhard: interrogatio respondet h. 1. negationi; this interrogation brings out the nothingness, or at least the little value of the object in question; cf. Jam 4:14; Luke 6:32.
κλέος, not sc. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (Pott), but quite generally, for the thought “refers back to the point of view, stated in 1 Peter 2:12-15, from which this exhortation is given” (Wiesinger).
εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε] The two participles stand in the closest connection with each other, so that ἁμαρτάνειν is to be conceived as the cause of the κολαφίζεσθαι. Luther’s translation is accordingly correct: “if ye suffer punishment on account of your evil deeds;” the only fault to be found with this is, that it weakens the force of the idea ὑπομένειν.
ὑπομένειν is synonymous with ὑποφέρειν; the sense is: “it is no glory to show patience in the suffering of deserved punishment.” The view of de Wette, that Peter referred only “to the reluctant, dull endurance of a criminal who cannot escape his punishment,” misses the apostle’s meaning, and is correctly rejected by Brückner and Wiesinger. Steiger remarks justly: “that when any one endures patiently deserved punishment, he is only performing a duty binding on him by every law of right and authority.” “ὑπομενεῖτε is in the future with reference to the standpoint of the exhortation” (Wiesinger).
κολαφίζειν: apud LXX. non occurrit, in N. T. generaliter pro plagis ac percussionibus. Matthew 26:67; 1 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 12:7 (Gerh.); the strict signification is “to give blows with the fist, or slaps on the ear.” Bengel: poena servorum eaque subita.
ἀλλʼ εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε] The interpretation of Erasmus: si quum beneficiatis et tamen affligamini, suffertis, is incorrect, for between ἀγαθοπ. and πάσχ. there exists the same relationship as between ἁμαρτάνοντες and κολαφιζόμενοι; Luther correctly: “if ye suffer on account of good-doing;” cf. 1 Peter 3:17.
τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις παρὰ Θεῷ] before these words
γάρ is the correct reading—the apodosis taken out of ποῖον κλέος: “this is true praise,” must be added to what precedes, and these words form the basis of an argument in which τοῦτο refers to εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες … ὑπομενεῖτε. The meaning is: because this in God’s sight is a χάρις (not equal to: in the judgment of God, cf. Luke 2:52), therefore it is a κλέος.
 Nor is this relation sufficiently perceived by Schott in his explanation: “if they show patience under ill-treatment which accompanies good conduct.” In urging against the interpretation given, that “if ἀγαθοποιεῖν apply to the labour of servants, then, that which the slave suffers is not caused by his actions,” Hofmann has failed to observe (1) that the context does not render the idea of servants’ work only necessary; (2) that the well-doing of the Christian was not always in harmony with heathen views; cf. chap. 1 Peter 4:4.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:1 Peter 2:21 gives the ground of the exhortation to bear undeserved suffering patiently, by a reference to the sufferings of Christ.
εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκλήθητε] εἰς τοῦτο refers to εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες … ὑπομενεῖτε. Many interpreters incorrectly make it apply only to suffering as such; but, as Hemming rightly remarks: omnes pii vocati sunt, ut patienter injuriam ferant.
The construction with εἰς occurs frequently; cf. Colossians 3:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
In harmony with the connection, οἱ οἰκέται is to be thought of as the subject to ἐκλήθητε; accordingly it is the slaves in the first instance, not the Christians in general, who are addressed (as in chap. 1 Peter 3:9; 1 Peter 3:14; 1 Peter 3:17); but as this κληθῆναι applies to them not as slaves but as believers, it holds true at the same time of all Christians.
ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] ὅτι: such suffering is part of a Christian’s calling, for Christ also suffered: ἔπαθεν is here the emphatic word; and with it καί also must be joined (which Fronmüller erroneously interprets by “even”). Wiesinger incorrectly takes καί with ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in this sense, that, as Christ suffered for us, “so we should endure affliction for Him, for His sake, and for His honour and glory in the world,” thus introducing a thought foreign to the context. The obligation to suffer under which we who are Christ’s people are laid, from the very fact that Christ also suffered, is for us all the greater that the sufferings of Christ were ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (not: ἀνθʼ ἡμῶν, but “for our advantage”), and therefore such as enable us to follow the example which He has left us in His sufferings. Inasmuch as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν implies that Christ suffered not for His own sins, but for ours, we are no doubt justified in recognising these sufferings as undeserved, but not in concluding, with Hofmann, that ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is meant to mark only the undeservedness of Christ’s sufferings.
ὑμῖν ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπογραμμόν] ὑπολιμπάνω, ἅπ. λεγ. Another form of ὑπολείπω (used of the leaving behind at death, Jdt 8:7). Bengel: in abitu ad patrem. ὑπογραμμός (ἅπ. λεγ.): specimen, quod imitentur, ut pictores novitiis exemplaria dant, ad quae inter pingendum respiciant: equivalent in sense to ὑπόδειγμα, John 13:15 (τύπος; 2 Thessalonians 3:9). It is not Christ’s life in general that is here presented by way of example, but the patience which He showed in the midst of undeserved sufferings. The participle is connected with ἔπαθεν ὑπ. ὑμ. as giving the nearer definition of the latter: He thus suffered, as in doing so to leave you an example, withal to the end that, etc.
ἵνα ἐπακολουθήσητε τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ] Sicut prior metaphora a pictoribus et scriptoribus, ita haec posterior petita est a viae duce (Gerhard); with ἐπακολ. cf. 1 Timothy 5:10; 1 Timothy 5:24.
ἴχνος, besides here, in Romans 4:12 (στοιχεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι) and 2 Corinthians 12:18 (περιπατεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι).
 Wherever Scripture presents Christ as an example, it does so almost always with reference to His self-abasement in suffering and death; Php 2:5; John 13:15; John 15:12; 1 John 3:16; Hebrews 12:2. Only in 1 John 2:6 is Christ presented as an example in the more general sense.
 Hofmann wrongly asserts that “ἵνα stands only in place of an infinitive clause, as after ἐντολή (John 13:34), βουλή (Acts 27:42),” inasmuch as “ὑπογραμμός is no more than a direction to do likewise.” But this interpretation of ὑπογραμμός is erroneous, and therefore ἵνα ἐπακολουθήσητε cannot be resolved into an infinitive clause.
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:1 Peter 2:22. The first feature in the exemplary nature of Christ’s sufferings: His innocence.
After Isaiah 53:9, LXX.: ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε, οὐδὲ δόλον ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ (Cod. Alex. οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στ. αὐτοῦ). Gerhard: nec verbo nec facto unquam peccavit. The second half of the sentence expresses truth in speech. With δόλος, cf. chap. 1 Peter 2:1, John 1:48. For the difference between εὑρίσκεσθαι and εἶναι, cf. Winer, p. 572 [E. T. 769].
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:1 Peter 2:23. The second feature: the patience of Christ in His sufferings. A reference, however slight, to Isaiah 53:7, cannot but be recognised.
ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει] De Wette and Wiesinger rightly draw attention to the climax between λοιδορ. and πάσχων, ἀντελοιδ. and ἠπείλει; λοιδορία omnis generis injuriae verbales; παθήματα omnis generis injuriae reales (Gerhard).
ἀντιλοιδ. ἅπ. λεγ.; cf. ἀντιμετρέω Luke 6:38.
ἠπείλει, is here used of threat of vengeful recompense. The announcements of divine judgment on unbelievers, to which Christ more than once gave expression, are of a different nature, and cannot be considered as an ἀπειλεῖν, in the sense in which that word is here used. Comp. with this passage the exhortation of the apostle, chap. 1 Peter 3:9.
παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως] παρεδίδου not in a reflexive sense: “He committed Himself” (Winer p. 549 [E. T. 738]; de Wette), neither is causam suam (Gerhard, etc.) nor ΚΡΊΣΙΝ (from ΚΡΊΝΟΝΤΙ) to be supplied; the supplement is rather ΛΟΙΔΟΡΟῦΣΘΑΙ and ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ (Wiesinger, Schott). Luther’s translation is good: “He left it to Him.”
Didymus arbitrarily understands παρεδίδου of Christ’s prayer for His enemies; the meaning is rather that Christ left it to the God who judges justly to determine what should be the consequences of the injustice done to Him on those who wrought it. That His desire was only that they should be punished, is not contained in ΠΑΡΕΔΊΔΟΥ (similarly Hofmann). Consequently the reference formerly made in this commentary to Jeremiah 9:20; Jeremiah 20:12, as illustrative of the passage, is erroneous. With Τῷ ΔΙΚΑΊΩς ΚΡΊΝΟΝΤΙ, cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:17 : ΤῸΝ ἈΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΛΉΠΤΩς ΚΡΊΝΟΝΤΑ, “a direct designation of God, whose just judgment is the outcome of His being” (Wiesinger).
 In Mark 4:29, too, to which de Wette appeals, παραδιδόναι has no reflexive force; see Meyer on this passage.
 The Vulg. strangely translates: tradebat judicanti se injuste; according to which Lorinus interprets: tradidit se Christus sponte propriaque voluntate tum Judaeis, tum Pilato ad mortem oblatus. Cyprian (de bono patientiae) and Paulinus (Ephesians 2) quote the passage as it stands in the Vulg. Augustin (Tract. in John xxi.) and Fulgentius (ad Trasimarch. lib. I.), on the other hand, have juste.
 From the fact that Christ’s prayer is not mentioned here, de Wette unwarrantably concludes that it was unknown to the writer of the epistle.
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.1 Peter 2:24. A further expansion of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 1 Peter 2:21.
ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν κ.τ.λ.] “Who Himself bore our sins on His body to the tree.”
ὅς, the third relative clause; though a climax too, cannot fail to be recognised here: He suffered innocently,—patiently (not requiting evil for evil),—vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that this third clause predicates anything of Christ in which He can be an example for us (Hofmann); the thought here expressed itself contradicts this assertion.
The phraseology of this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isaiah 53, and the actual fulfilment of the prophecy herein contained. The words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind of the apostle, are those of 1 Peter 2:12, LXX. καί αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε (נָשָׂא); cf. also 1 Peter 2:11 : καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει, (יִסְבֹּל) and 1 Peter 2:4 : οὗτος τ. ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει (נָשָׂא). The Hebrew נָשָׂא with the accus. of the idea of sin, therefore: “to bear sin,” is equivalent to, “to suffer the punishment for sin,” either one’s own or that of another. Now, as ἀνήνεγκε is in the above-quoted passage a translation of נָשָׂא, its meaning is: “He suffered the punishment for the sins of many.”
This suffering of punishment is, in the case of the Servant of God, of such a nature that by it those whose the sin is, and for whom He endures the punishment, become free from that punishment; it is therefore a vicarious suffering. Since, then, Peter plainly had this passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be no other than this: that Christ in our stead has suffered the punishment we have merited through our sins, and so has borne our sins. But with this the subsequent ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, which means not “on the tree,” but “on to the tree” does not seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to take ἀναφέρειν in the sense which it has in the phrase: ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ ΤΙ ἘΠῚ ΤῸ ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ (cf. Jam 2:21; Leviticus 14:20; 2 Chronicles 35:16; Bar 1:10; 1Ma 4:53); cf. 1 Peter 2:5; where ΤῸ ΞΎΛΟΝ would be conceived as the altar (Gerhard: Crux Christi fuit sublime illud altare, in quod Christus se ipsum in sacrificium oblaturus ascendit, sicut V. Testamenti sacrificia altari imponebantur). But against this interpretation, besides the fact that ἈΝΑΦΈΡ. is thus here taken in a sense different from that which it has in Isaiah 53, there are the following objections: (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. is the cross of Christ represented as the altar on which He is offered; (2) That neither in the O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin anywhere spoken of as the offering which is brought up to the altar. ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον might be explained by assuming a pregnant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs: bajulavit omnia peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad crucem, that is: “bearing our sins He ascended the cross” But the assumption of such a construction is not necessary, since ἀναφέρειν can quite well be taken to mean “carrying up,” without depriving the word of the signification which it has in the passage in Isaiah, since “carrying up “implies “carrying.” In no other way did Christ bear our sins up on to the cross than by suffering the punishment for our sins in the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punishment. The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitution here contained, by the addition of αὐτός, which, as in Isaiah 53:11, stands by way of emphasis next to ἩΜῶΝ; but by ἘΝ Τῷ ΣΏΜΑΤΙ ΑὐΤΟῦ—not “in,” but “on His body”—we are reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was accomplished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross and died thereon. It is quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger assumes, is meant at the same time to serve the purpose of expressing the greatness of that love which moved Christ to give His body to the death for our sins; but that there is in it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord (Weiss, p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support it. The addition of ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον is explained by the fact itself, since it is precisely Christ’s death on the cross that has redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins. Peter also uses the expression τὸ ξύλον to denote the cross, in his sermons, Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39. It had its origin in the Old Testament phraseology, עֵץ, rendered ξύλον by LXX., denoting the pole on which the bodies of executed criminals were sometimes suspended; cf. Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Joshua 10:26. Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the shame of the punishment which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, since there is no reference to it in any way, whether Peter, like Paul, in Galatians 3:13, used the expression with regard to the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy 21:22 (as Weiss, p. 267, emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). Bengel is entirely mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον the apostle alludes to the punishment of slaves (ligno, cruce, furca plecti soliti erant servi).
 It admits of no doubt that נָשָׂא in connection with חֵטְא or עֲוֹן has the meaning above given; cf. Leviticus 19:17; Leviticus 20:19; Leviticus 24:15; Numbers 5:31; Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:5; Ezekiel 14:10; Ezekiel 16:58; Ezekiel 23:35, etc. (Lamentations 5:7 : סָבַל); generally, indeed, the LXX. translate this נָשָׂא by λαμβάνειν, but also by κομίζειν and ἀποφέρειν; in the passage quoted, Isaiah 53:4, by φέρειν; in Numbers 14:33, as in Isaiah 53:12, by ἀναφέρειν. This proves how unwarranted Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) is in saying “that in view of the Greek translation of Isaiah 53:11-12, it is arbitrary to assume that ἀναφέρειν means simply to carry.” Of course every one knows that in and of itself ἀναφέρειν does not mean “to carry;” but from this it does not follow that the LXX. did not use it in this sense in the phrase above alluded to, the more so that they attribute to the word no meaning opposed to its classical usage; cf. Thuc. 1 Peter 3:18 : κινδύνου; ἀναφέρ.; Pol. 1:30: φθόνους καὶ διαβολὰς ἀναφέρ., see Pape, s.v. ἀναφέρω, and Delitzsch, Komment. z. Br. an die Hebr. p. 442.—Doubtless נָשָׂא אֶת־עֲוֹן, Leviticus 10:17, is said of the priests bearing away sin (making atonement), but there the LXX. translate נָשָׂא by ἀφαιρεῖν. Plainly there can here be no allusion to the meaning “to forgive sin.”
 Weiss is inaccurate when he asserts (p. 265) that the passages, Leviticus 19:17, Numbers 14:33, Lamentations 5:7, Ezekiel 18:19-20, allude to a vicarious suffering; these passages, indeed, speak of a bearing of the punishment which the sins of others have caused, but this is suffering with, not instead of others, without those who have done the sin being freed from its punishment.
 Schott, whilst admitting the above, asserts “that it will hardly be contradicted that in all the passages which speak of Christ’s death on the cross as a sacrifice, the cross must be presupposed to be that which served as altar.” This is decidedly to be contradicted, the more so that the animal sacrificed suffered death not upon, but before the altar.
 If ἀναφέρειν be here taken as equivalent to “to offer sacrifice,” as in Hebrews 7:27, not only would the thought—which Delitzsch (p. 440) terms a corrupt one—arise: per semet ipsum immolavit peccata nostra, but ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον would then have to be interpreted: “on the cross.” Luther: “who Himself offered in sacrifice our sins on His body on the tree.”—Here, too, Schott admits what is said above, but seeks to destroy its force as a proof, by claiming for ἀναφέρειν the sense: “to present or bring up in offering,” at the same time supplying—as it seems—as the object of offering, the body of Christ, which the expression of the apostle in no way justifies.
 Schott brings the baseless accusation against the circumlocution of the Syr. translation, “that in it peccata is to be taken differently in the first clause from the second;” in the former, as equivalent to “the punishment of our sin;” in the latter, as “the sin itself,” for peccata has the same meaning in both members, although the bearing of the sins consists in the suffering of the punishment for them. Comp. Numbers 14:33, where in the expression ἀνοίσουσι τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν, the word πορνεία has by no means the meaning “punishment for fornication,” although ἀναθέρειν τὴν πορνείαν means as much as “to suffer the punishment for fornication.”
 So, too, Schott, who interprets ἐν τῷ σώματι as equal to “in His earthly bodily life”(!).
REMARK 1. The interpretation of many of the commentators is wanting in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two senses, which ἀναφέρειν has in the different phrases: ἀναφέρειν τὰς ἁμαρτίας and ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τ. θυσιαστήριον, are mixed Up with each other. Vitringa (Vix uno verbo ἔμφασις; vocis ἀναδέρειν exprimi potest. Nota ferre et offere. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa ipsi erant imposita. Secundo ita tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a distinction between the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in his mind, which of course is impossible.
Hofmann explains ἀναφέρειν … ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον on the analogy of the phrase: ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, without, however, understanding the cross as the altar; the meaning then would be: “He lifted up His body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins, that is to say, atoning for our sins.” Although Hofmann admits that Peter had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he nevertheless denies that ἀνήνεγκε has here the same meaning as there. In his Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., he gives a similar interpretation, only that there he says: “He took up our sins with Him, and so took them away from us.” He, however, justly adds that ἀναφέρειν has the same meaning here as in Hebrews 9:28. Wiesinger has adopted this interpretation, as also, in substance, Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the 2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation; but, on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that ἀναφέρειν here is “the ἀναφέρειν of Hebrews 7:27.”
Schott justly combats Hofmann’s view, that the sufferings of Christ for our sins consisted essentially only in what befell Him as the result of our sins, and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. His own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally inadmissible, since he attributes to ἀναφέρειν the meaning: “to bring up or present in offering;” yet adding to the idea of “offering” an object other than ἁμαρτίας which stands with ἀνήνεγκεν, thus giving to the one word two quite different references. Schott makes σῶμα Χριστοῦ the object of “offering,” taking it out of the supplementary clause: ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ; but this he is the less justified in doing, that he explains these words by “in His earthly corporeal life.”
This is not the place to enter fully into Schott’s conception of the propitiation wrought by Christ’s death on the cross. Though it contains many points worthy of notice, it is of much too artificial a nature, ever to be considered a just representation of the views of the apostle.
Luthardt interprets: “He bore His body away from the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which Christ brought His body up; but the peculiarity lies precisely in this, that His body should at the same time hang on the accursed tree.” “Away from the earth to God” is evidently an addition; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross as the accursed tree, he would have added τῆς καταρᾶς.
 Pfleiderer (p. 422) is entirely unwarranted in maintaining the sense to be: “that Christ, by His death on the cross, took away, removed our sins, so that they no longer surround our life,” and “that by this removal is meant, that we free our moral life and conduct from sin”(!).
This interpretation agrees substantially with that given by de Wette-Brückner and Weiss; yet de Wette’s reference to Colossians 2:14 is inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage has a character entirely different, both in thought and expression, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is wanting in accuracy when he says that “Christ ascended the cross, and there bore the punishment of our sins,” since already in the sufferings which preceded the crucifixion, the bearing of our sins took place.
Nor can it be conceded to these commentators that the idea of sacrifice was absent from the conception of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in Isaiah 53, in spite of the אָשָׁמ, 1 Peter 2:10. No doubt prominence is given, in the first instance, to the idea of substitution; but Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is connected in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the idea of sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of substitution is that upon which the sin-offering is based, Leviticus 17:11. And was there any other substitutionary bearing of sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be concluded that each word in the expression, and especially ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, must have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice.
ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι] Oecumenius: ἀπογενόμενοι· ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀποθαυόντες; cf. Romans 6:2; Romans 6:11 (Galatians 2:19). Bengel’s rendering: γίνεσθαι τινός fieri alicujus dicitur servus, ἀπὸ dicit sejunctionem; Germ. “to become without,” which Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since ἀπογίγνεσθαι in this sense is construed with the genitive. For the dative, see Winer, p. 398 [E. T. 532]. ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις corresponds to the foregoing τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν. The use of the aor. part, shows that the being dead unto sin is the condition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν κ.τ.λ. The actions of the Christians should correspond with this condition; this the apostle expresses by ἵνα … τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν; cf. Romans 6.
δικαιοσύνη means here not: justification or righteousness, as a condition of him whose sins are forgiven, but it is the opposite of ἁμαρτία: righteousness which consists in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling of His will. The clause, introduced here by the final particle ἵνα (as in 1 Peter 1:18), does not give the primary aim of Christ’s substitutionary death: that, namely, of reconciliation, but further the design: that of making free from the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) is wrong in thinking that Peter “did not here conceive the redemption as already completed in principle by the blood of Christ,” but “accomplished in a purely physiological way, by the impression produced by the preaching of His death and the incitement to imitation which it gave.” Thus Pfleiderer also. The refutation of this is to be found in what follows.
οὗ τῷ μώλωπι [αὐτοῦ] ἰάθητε] Isaiah 53:5, LXX.; return to the direct form of address: μώλωψ is, properly speaking, marks left by scourging (Sir 28:17, πληγὴ μάστιγος ποιεῖ μώλωπας); therefore, taken strictly, the expression has reference to the flagellation of Christ only; but here it stands as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of Christ’s sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point.
By ἰάθητε the apostle declares that, through the suffering of Christ (of course by the instrumentality of faith), the Christians are translated from the sickness of a sinful nature into the health of a life of righteousness.
 In his Lehrbuch der bibl. Theol. (p. 172), Weiss only says: “It follows from 1 Peter 2:2 that the being released from sin is certainly a consequence, but only the indirect consequence of the death of Christ. Because it has released us from the guilt of our former sins, the further consequence will be, that henceforward we will renounce those sins which He vicariously expiated.”
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.1 Peter 2:25. ἦτε γὰρ ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενοι] This explanatory clause (γάρ) points back, as the continuance in it of the direct address (ἰάθητε … ἦτε) shows, in the first instance, to the statement immediately preceding οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε, but at the same time also to the thought ἵνα … τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν, to which that assertion is subservient. For the foregoing figure a new one is substituted, after Isaiah 53:6 : LXX. πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν; if πλανώμενοι be the correct reading, then from it the nearer definition of πρόβατα is to be supplied, the sheep are to be thought of as those which have no shepherd (Matthew 9:36 : ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα; comp. Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17).
For the figure describing the state of man separated in his sin from God, comp. Matthew 18:12-13; Luke 15:4 ff.
ἀλλʼ ἐπεστράφητε νῦν] ἐπεστράφητε is, in harmony with the uniform usage of Scripture, to be taken not in a passive (Wiesinger, Schott), but in a middle sense: “ye have turned yourselves.” Luther translates: “but ye are now turned.” The word ἘΠΙΣΤΡΈΦΕΙΝ means to turn oneself away from (ἈΠΌ, ἘΚ), towards something (ἘΠΊ, ΠΡΌς, ΕἸς), (sometimes equal to: to turn round); but it is not implied in the word itself that the individual has formerly been in that place towards which he has now turned round, and whither he is going (therefore, in Galatians 4:9, ΠΆΛΙΝ is expressly added). Weiss (p. 122) is therefore wrong when from this very word he tries to prove that by ΠΟΙΜΉΝ God, and not Christ, is to be understood, although the term sometimes includes in it the secondary idea of “back;” cf. 2 Peter 2:21-22.
ἘΠῚ ΤῸΝ ΠΟΙΜΈΝΑ ΚΑῚ ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟΝ ΤῶΝ ΨΥΧῶΝ ὙΜῶΝ] cf. especially Ezekiel 34:11-12; Ezekiel 34:16, LXX.: ἘΓῺ ἘΚΖΗΤΉΣΩ ΤᾺ ΠΡΌΒΑΤΆ ΜΟΥ ΚΑῚ ἘΠΙΣΚΈΨΟΜΑΙ ΑὐΤΆ, ὭΣΠΕΡ ΖΗΤΕῖ Ὁ ΠΟΙΜῊΝ ΤῸ ΠΟΊΜΝΙΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ … ΤῸ ΠΛΑΝΏΜΕΝΟΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΡΈΨΩ; besides, with ΠΟΙΜΉΝ, Psalm 23:1; Isaiah 40:11. From the fact that in these passages God is spoken of as the shepherd, it must not be concluded, with Weiss, that ΠΟΙΜῊΝ ΚΑῚ ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟς refers not to Christ, but to God. For not only has God, calling Himself a shepherd, promised a shepherd (Ezekiel 34:24, LXX.: ἀναστήσω ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ποιμένα ἕνα … τὸν δοῦλον μου Δαυίδ, Ezekiel 37:24), but Christ, too, speaks of Himself as the good Shepherd; and Peter himself, in chap. 1 Peter 5:4, calls Him ἈΡΧΙΠΟΙΜΉΝ. In comparison with these passages, chap. 1 Peter 5:2 is plainly of no account. All interpreters—except Weiss—rightly understand the expressions here used as applying to Christ. The designation ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟς would all the more naturally occur to the apostle, as it was, like ΠΟΙΜΉΝ, the name of the presidents of the churches who were, so to speak, the representatives of the One Shepherd and Bishop, the Head of the whole church.
ΤῶΝ ΨΥΧῶΝ ὙΜῶΝ belongs, as the omission of the article before ἙΠΊΣΚΟΠΟΝ shows, to both words; with the expression, cf. chap. 1 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 1:22.
 Schott’s counter-remark: “The question is not here what they did, but what in Christ was imparted to them,” has all the less weight, that conversion, though the personal act of the Christian, must still be regarded as effected by Christ. Hofmann maintains, without the slightest right to do so, that in this passage the chief emphasis lies on the readers’ own act, though at the same time he correctly understands ἐπεστράφητε in a middle sense.