CHAPTER IV

Suffering in the Light of Death and the Judgment, v. 1–6

1) Christ, then, having suffered by means of flesh, do you also equip yourselves with the same idea. Οὗν is only transitional. The genitive absolute states only the fact that Christ suffered by means of flesh. The dative is also a dative of means as are the two datives σαρκί and πνεύματι in 3:18. Christ became flesh (John 1:14), assumed our earthly human nature in order to live as man here on earth, and thus he suffered “by means of flesh.” Peter has already mentioned the fact of Christ’s suffering in 2:21 and 3:18, in the latter passage he added the detail that he suffered “once.” The aorist participle refers to Christ’s suffering as having been finished and completed. He suffered until he was put to death by means of flesh (3:18). “Suffered” is to be understood in this sense.

Some texts add “for us” in analogy with “for you,” 2:21; but this brings in a thought that has already been treated in 2:21 and more fully in 3:18, a thought that would upset the present context; ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν must be canceled.

“Do you also equip yourselves with the same ἔννοιαν, idea.” Paul’s use of ὅπλα in Rom. 6:13 makes us hesitate to translate “do you also arm yourselves” (a military figure). A ὅπλον is any useful tool and a military weapon only where the context speaks of a soldier or of war, which is not the case here. The ἔννοια, Einsicht or thought, idea, is not for the purpose of fighting anybody but is a useful tool for us while we are still living this earthly life and are thus suffering by means of flesh. “The same idea” = the one just expressed, namely that of suffering by means of flesh until death brings it to an end.

Peter does not say that Christ had this idea regarding himself, that he was so equipped, but that this idea is to be taken by us for our use from the fact that Christ suffered by means of flesh. When we now suffer, and much or little suffering brings us to our death, it is a useful thing to see how Christ suffered by means of flesh. The commentary is John 15:20; compare Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16. If Christ was persecuted, we, his followers, shall also be; we cannot expect to be above our heavenly Master.

The fact that we suffer “for righteousness’ sake,” for doing good, is understood, having been stated already in 3:13–17. Peter is fortifying his readers in view of impending persecutions (see the introduction). The thought of this first sentence is complete.

Because the one who suffered by means of flesh has ceased from sin so as no longer to live the rest of the time in flesh for lusts of men but for God’s will.

There is a discussion as to whether ὅτι is causal or declarative. Those who assert that it is the latter think that the clause states the contents of the ἔννοια: “the same idea, that the one who suffered has ceased from sin.” But this would include Christ and would state that he, too, had ceased from sin by having suffered by means of flesh. Yet Christ never sinned and never ceased from sin. In answer to this reply we are told that, when his suffering was completed, Christ ceased from sin in the sense that he had nothing more to do with our sins, nothing more to suffer for them, while we cease from sinning when we ourselves commit no more sin. But this double meaning was scarcely Peter’s intention. What is true of Christ in one peculiar, exceptional sense, and true of him alone, cannot be associated with what is true of us in a totally different sense and be called “the same idea.” More may be said. The Scriptures nowhere express the thought that Christ ever wanted to get through with suffering for our sins and have no further contact with them.

Ὅτι is causal (our versions are correct). This clause does not refer to Christ; it refers only to us. We alone cease from sin, i. e., stop sinning. The tenses are important. The substantivized participle is an aorist, and ὅ παθὼν σαρκί expresses the same completed suffering by means of flesh as does the aorist παθόντος σαρκί which precedes. This means that the sufferer has reached death. This is not the present participle ὁ πάσχων, the one whose suffering is still in progress. It would not be true to say that a Christian who still suffers “has ceased from sin.”

We are surprised to be told that even wicked men are stopped from sinning by suffering, and that suffering acts in the same way with regard to Christians. The wicked rage at their suffering when their sins find them out. Many a Christian grumbles and complains and even begins to question the justice of God. Read what Herod the Great did during his last suffering, or that other Herod mentioned in Acts 12:23 (compare the accounts of Josephus). True enough, suffering leads many a Christian to deeper repentance and thus, in the providence of God, has its wholesome uses; affliction sometimes also aids in inducing a sinner to repent. But even repentant sufferers must still pray the Lord’s Prayer, must still confess their sins as John (1 John 1:8, 9) and James (3:2) did.

Although Peter’s statement is general, it applies only to Christians, and to each of them only when their suffering for Christ’s sake is at an end, when they have died. And we do not include the wicked and say that death stops them from sinning. This is done by those who think that at death their spirits enter the so-called Totenreich, where they lead a shadowy existence, are inert, and are thus unable to sin. But Dives was in hell; he suffered torture in a flame; he cried with the old obduracy of unbelief: “No, father Abraham!” The supposition that one must have flesh or a body in order to be able to sin is unwarranted. Is the lack of a body the factor that stops a deceased Christian from sinning? It is the last repentance and divine cleansing; it is the glorification of his soul on entering heaven that does so.

The aorist participle is not gnomic, nor is the perfect πέπαυται. These tenses are in relation to each other: when the suffering is finished at death, the ceasing from sin sets in and then continues forever. When the soul of the Christian is with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:23), all sinning is forever at an end. The pertinency of this fact in the present connection is apparent. Because this goal awaits every Christian who suffers for righteousness’ sake (3:14), he can, indeed, equip himself with the idea (ἔννοια) of suffering by means of flesh, drawing it from no less a source than Christ himself who suffered and was put to death by means of flesh but is now at God’s right hand in glory.

2) Christians are to equip themselves for the reason or cause just stated, and the result is to be that they no longer live the remaining time in flesh (in their earthly, bodily existence) for lust of men (human lusts) but for God’s will. Εἰς τό denotes result. The clause depends on ὁπλίσασθε but includes the reason for this equipment with the proper Christian idea. In fact, the result which Peter demands rests on all that precedes in this chapter. One should not confuse the tenses and have the result clause depend on the perfect πέπαυται and then argue that, because we are to spend the rest of our earthly lives aright, ceasing from sin must also have occurred during our present earthly life. The cessation from sin sets in when the suffering by means of flesh has ended (ὁ παθών, aorist), which occurs when we have no further life to live in flesh.

It is the Christian’s goal and hope to cease from sin forever. That is why after his conversion he wants to live the rest of his life here in flesh no longer for human lusts but for God’s will. The two thoughts correspond. How can one who continues the old lusts and disregards what God wills (θέλημα) expect to enter the heavenly, sinless life at death? Every convert must regret the time in his unconverted state that he spent in living for man’s (i. e., for human) lusts. Βιῶσαι = to live the earthly course of one’s life; and the negated aorist infinitive = definitely, decisively no longer to live for lusts but for God; the two datives are dativi commodi. “Of men” and “of God” emphasize the opposition. We may observe that when Peter intends to say “in flesh” he writes an ἐν and does not use a simple dative, a fact which it is well to note with regard to the datives used in v. 1 and in 3:18.

3) “For” adds a pertinent remark: For enough the time that has passed to have wrought out the counsel of the Gentiles, having proceeded in excesses, lusts, wine-swillings, carousals, drinking bouts, and unlawful idolatries; etc.

“Enough” is mild and is the stronger for that reason. It was more than enough, the time, now happily passed and gone, for having worked out the counsel of the Gentiles. Βούλημα is what one intends, hence “counsel”; in v. 2 θέλημα is what one wills or has decided. Note the perfect tenses: time “that has passed,” that has lasted a while but is now ended; “to have wrought” for a time but now no longer; “having proceeded” but now never again occurring. All of these tenses indicate a past continuance that has come to an end in the past. The last participle, πεπορευμένους, is in the accusative; it is regarded as modifying the implied accusative subject of the infinitive which Peter leaves indefinite by the same meiosis that he has used in connection with the adjective “enough.”

All of the six items in the plural refer to public pagan sins and thus to the worst types of open sin. These are named because they make Peter’s readers realize fully what “the counsel of the Gentiles” really is; they now blush at the reminder. But these public and open sins do not excuse or minimize the many others that might be listed here, private or secret. One sees most readily what a certain counsel is by noting its more glaring products.

Ἀσέλγειαι = excesses, Ausschweifungen, when there is no check or rein, when men let themselves go; Second Peter uses this word several times. “Lasciviousness” is not exact. “Lusts” is equally comprehensive (note verse 2) and adds the inner vicious desires that drive to outward excesses. The next four are specific: οἰνθφλυγίαις (derived from wine and to bubble), “wineswillings” will do; κῶμοι, Gelage, “carousings” (Gal. 5:21); πότοι, “drinking bouts” (M.-M. 531). Finally, “unlawful idolatries.” Peter is listing the pagan excesses that were connected with the practice of idolatry, the things commonly done at the celebrations in honor of heathen gods.

Because Peter says “the counsel of the Gentiles,” and especially because he adds the adjective ἀθέμιτος to “idolatry,” which means “unlawful” and not “abominable” (our versions), we are told that Peter is not writing to former Gentiles but to former Jews. We are referred to Rom. 2; but Rom. 2 deals with pagan moralists (in v. 1–16) and with Jewish moralists (in v. 17, etc.), see the author’s Interpretation. We are pointed to Jews who adopted pagan ways; but unless these Jews ceased to be Jews and became outright pagans—which mighty few of them did—they would not participate in orgies that honored idols. We are told that Peter could not say “unlawful” from the pagan standpoint; but he was writing to Christians from the Christian standpoint. On the question regarding the readers see the introduction.

4) Peter continues: in which connection they deem strange your not continuing to run with (them) into the same outpouring of dissoluteness, (they) blaspheming—they the ones who shall give due account in full to him who is ready to judge living and dead.

The plural verbs with the unnamed subject are understandable as they are written. Peter refers to the heathen communities in which his readers lived. The relative “in which” is to be construed with “they deem strange” and is properly singular: “in connection with this they deem it strange,” the genitive absolute adds (almost like an object clause) what strikes them as strange: “your not continuing to run with them into the same outpouring of dissoluteness” (ἀσωτία, Liederlichkeit, see Eph. 5:18; Titus 1:6), “the same” as you ran into before. B.-P. 98 has Strom der Liederlichkeit. This refusal to join them as you formerly did arouses the ire of the pagans so that they blaspheme the Christians, their God, and their religion. The Greek participle has case, number, and gender and is thus far more flexible and intelligible than the English participle; the plural nominative masculine at once applies “blaspheming” to the subject “they.” There is no reason for toning down this word to the meaning “speaking evil”; they cursed the Christians and the whole religion which made people the opposite of what they had once been.

5) Ἔχω with an adverb = to be; it is here substantivized: “he who is ready to judge.” “Living and dead” are qualitative, which is more strongly felt in the Greek than in English, where such points are generally ignored. This Judge is Christ; “living and dead” are all men, some of whom will be living here on earth when the Judge arrives. Peter says that the Judge stands ready and prepared to judge, he may proceed to judge at any moment. Then what about these blasphemers? Whether they are living or dead, they are the ones (οἵ with demonstrative force—“sudden vehement use” as it has been termed) who shall give due account in full for their blaspheming and their attacks upon the Christians; λόγον=“account,” and ἀπό in the verb has the force of “due” and “in full,” note the expression in Matt. 12:36; Luke 16:2; Acts 19:40; Heb. 13:17. Since it is here used with reference to blasphemers, “to render due account in full” has its full severity. This emphatic clause rings with doom for these blasphemers.

The fate that awaits them at the hands of him who is ready to judge living and dead is to fortify the readers for bearing the blasphemous attacks made on them and for forsaking all the pagan riotous and shameful ways. Unmoved, they are to meet the world’s dread frown. The Master praises, what are men?

6) Γάρ adds a word of explanation. In so many instances the German commentators regard this connective as begruendend and thereby get into difficulties. Scores of γάρ are not illative but explanatory as R. 1190 points out; in fact, the illative use is not the primary one. This fact is of importance here. For for this the gospel was proclaimed even to dead men in order that they be judged, on the one hand, according to men by means of flesh, on the other hand, that they live according to God my means of spirit.

Εἰς τοῦτο is not “for this cause” (A. V.) but “unto this end” (R. V.) if “end” is understood in the sense of purpose, for the ἵνα clause is in apposition to τοῦτο and denotes aim or purpose. God’s purpose in the preaching of the gospel is to have those who hear it to live forever. This was his purpose in having the gospel preached “even to such as are dead.”

Peter says this in order to explain the threat uttered in v. 5, that all blasphemers of Christians shall give due account in full to the Judge of living and dead. They are not men who never heard the gospel; they came in full contact with it, saw its power exemplified in their own communities, in the Christians who forsook all heathen ways, who patiently bore the blasphemies heaped on them. Yet these blasphemers go on blaspheming; no wonder they have a terrible account to render to the Judge of the living and the dead. This is the more evident, as Peter explains (γάρ), when we note the blessed purpose of gospel preaching; this has always been that they may be judged and may live.

“For this even to dead men the gospel was proclaimed.” The dative is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, καί aids the emphasis: “even to dead men.” The absence of the article makes the noun qualitative just as ζῶντας καί νεκρούς are qualitative. The fact that the dative refers to physically dead men just as νεκρούς does in v. 5 is plain. Those who have the dative = spiritually dead men while they let the preceding accusative signify physically dead men cannot justify this shift from one meaning of νεκροί to another. The fact that the gospel always finds men spiritually dead when it is first preached to them is beyond question, for Peter himself says that the purpose of this preaching was that even the physically dead to whom it was preached should live.

The aorist passive εὑηγγελίσθη = even to dead men “it was gospeled” (impersonal), for which we say in English, “good tidings or the gospel was proclaimed.” The tense is most important. It agrees with the dative. It denotes the historical past. Peter does not say that the gospel is being preached even to the dead but was preached. When? When these physically dead were still among the living, when the purpose of such preaching could yet be attained. We have the same verb that was used in 1:12: “they who preached the gospel unto you,” οἱ εὑαγγελισάμενοι; it is not κηρύσσειν, “to herald,” as in 3:19. No vox media, here but the vox positiva.

Yet there is an obvious difference between the two νεκροί mentioned in v. 5 and in v. 6. Christ stands ready to judge “living and dead,” all who are still living when he comes to judgment, all who are dead when that day comes. Peter is thinking of the future as also the future tense shows: “they (the blasphemers) shall give due account”; whether they appear among the living or among the dead at that day, their reckoning shall be made. In v. 6 the tense is the aorist: “it was gospeled,” was when Peter wrote; “to dead men,” dead when Peter wrote. These are not all of the dead who shall face the Judge at the last day but those to whom the gospel was preached prior to Peter’s writing, (by the gospel preachers mentioned in v. 1, 12), who at this writing were already dead. We say this at length, but it lies on the surface in Peter’s words.

The purpose of this gospel preaching was (what it has always been, is, and will be): that they who heard it and have since then died “be judged, for one thing, or on the one hand, for another thing, or on the other hand, go on living.” Μέν … δέ balance the two verbs. We cannot reproduce these neat and delicate particles; we can only indicate their balancing force by our cumbersome English. But μέν is not concessive over against δέ. Those German commentators are not correct who reproduce these particles by the neat German: zwar … aber, “while they be judged … yet may live.” The purpose for which the gospel was preached to these dead was a double purpose: that they be judged—that they go on living. The particles do no more than to fix attention on each verb separately, μέν letting us expect δέ. “To be judged” is not the whole purpose of gospel preaching, it is only one side of it. We have already been told that Christ shall judge dead men. The other side of this purpose of gospel preaching was that they who heard it should live. These two belong together, and μέν … δέ them.

Because Peter has brought in the reference to Christ’s judging in connection with the blasphemers he now connects the act of being judged with the gospel that was preached to dead men. He uses the same verb κρίνειν, “to judge,” a vox media, even the same tense, aorists, because the rendering and the reception of a verdict are punctiliar acts. Only the voice differs: Christ judges, men receive the judgment, are judged. In plain contrast with these is the present tense ζῶσι: the purpose of gospel preaching for such as are now dead was that they live continuously, forever: “though he were dead, yet shall he live” (John 11:25).

Both subjunctives have corresponding modifiers, and it is because of their correspondence that μέν … δέ balance the verbs: “for one thing, be judged according to men by means of flesh, for the other, go on living according to God by means of spirit.” The κατά phrases and their anarthrous nouns are not at once as clear in the English as they are in the Greek. The two datives should be clear; but already when they were interpreting 3:18 the commentators have not always regarded them as datives of means, which applies also to the one dative found in 4:1, 2. The sense is: in the human way (κατά) by means of flesh (dative of means)—in the divine way (κατά) by means of spirit (dative of means).

It is not the purpose of gospel preaching to exempt the hearers of it from Christ’s judgment but to make clear that we shall be judged as all men are judged. It is, in fact, the gospel’s intent to prepare us for judgment, to meet Christ’s judgment with παρρησία, confident assurance of acquittal. It is the gospel preaching’s intent that those who hear it shall be judged κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί, the phrase and the dative belong together: “in the way of men by means of flesh.” When they are thus judged, on the one hand, they are to be living “in the way of God by means of spirit,” κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι, the phrase and the dative again belong together. Men have “flesh,” body, bodily existence; thus flesh is the means for judging them.

In this connection one might refer to 2 Cor. 5:10: “that each one may receive the things (done) by means of the body,” and all the many references to the body, the bodily members, the deeds for which we employ them in this life. The reply that Peter writes “flesh” and not “body” is met by Col. 1:22: “in the body of his flesh by means of death.” It is met again by the three σαρκί occurring in 3:18 and 4:1, 2: Christ suffered “by means of flesh”; the Christians suffered “by means of flesh.” These three σαρκί place the meaning of the fourth, the one occurring in our passage, beyond doubt. But we should leave these datives datives and not make them phrases by translating “in the flesh,” or as the Germans say, am Fleisch.

This German translation would have Peter say that death is the judgment, i. e., that Christians are not spared the judgment of physical death. This idea occurs only to German commentators who have this preposition an; the English commentators have no exact equivalent for it and hence do not express this idea here or in 3:18 and 4:1, 2. Physical death is not the judgment for a blasphemer nor for a Christian. A secret judgment takes place at the moment of death, but that judgment is not the sundering of the body and the spirit, nor is it restricted to the body (flesh); it is a judgment on the whole man, body and spirit (or soul).

Peter does not speak of the preliminary, secret judgment; his two aorists κρῖναι and κριθῶσι speak of Christ’s final judgment. This is quite evident in regard to the former; and the force of the latter is determined by the former. When we again look at 2 Cor. 5:10 and at all those passages that speak of the judgment we note that they make the final judgment turn on what man has done in the body.

This σαρκί alone answers the questions about gospel preaching to dead men in hades (usually called Totenreich) and that of any connection between our passage and 3:19, 20. No advocate of missionary work in hell has attempted to show that its purpose could be a judgment of the spirits in hell vapid. The departed leave the flesh or body in the grave. Let us suppose that they did believe the gospel in hell, σαρκί. The resultant judgment could not be σαρκί. We must say that any act in hell would take place wholly apart from their dust in the grave here on earth.

Nor is it satisfactory to advance the restriction that the dead referred to are only those who never heard the gospel in this life. Then the aorist εὑηγγελίσθη should be changed to the present tense; and σαρκί would again offer difficulties. This idea of gospel preaching in hell has won adherents because it satisfies speculative minds in regard to a question which the Scriptures leave unanswered, namely, how will the Lord deal with those who never heard the gospel during this earthly life? The fact that Peter does not touch upon this question but speaks of blasphemers who scorned the gospel in this life, whose judgment is certain, is overlooked.

Μέν already points to the δέ even as the first half of the ἵνα clause is incomplete without the second half: “that they live according to God by means of spirit,” ever live in the divine way, after the manner of God (no longer in a mere earthly existence), and do this, of course, by means of spirit. The A. V., which translated πνεύματι in 3:18 “by the Spirit,” is not consistent and does not render this same dative “in the Spirit” in the present passage. Likewise, those who regard “spirit” in 3:19 as the divine nature shrink from doing so in 4:6 although the two datives are the same. This πνεῦμα is the human spirit. As to Christ, we need to say only that without it he could not have been true man; by the return of his spirit to his body that body was vivified in the tomb. The aim of gospel preaching is that those who hear it may live in the way of God in spirit. Since this is here said of those who are already dead and are awaiting the final judgment, the clause speaks of the life which they shall be living by means of spirit after judgment day.

All that Peter writes about the Christian hope is pertinent here. It centers in the judgment and in the eternal glorious life that follows. The fact that this involves the new life here on earth, a life that temporal death cannot touch, a life of which, by virtue of the resurrection, the body, too, shall partake, need not be mentioned in detail. See John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:25; 26; even John 3:15, 16. “By means of spirit” these shall live, for the real seat of life eternal is man’s spirit and not his ψυχή or his σῶμα. Already in our earthly existence we worship God ἐν πνεύματι (John 4:23), “in spirit.” When our bodies are dust, our spirits live in glory. That life Christ’s last judgment affirms forever. Yes, it is κατὰ Θεόν and not κατὰ ἀνθρώπους; it is like the glorious life of God. It is the ultimate feature of the aim of the gospel.

We may now revert to γάρ and to the context. What is said about the aim of gospel preaching has a double bearing. Christians who have died after bearing pagan blasphemies are safe indeed. The gospel that they heard brings them to the judgment of life. But what about the blasphemers who make Christians suffer during the time that they live in flesh? Whether they are dead or still alive, a terrible reckoning awaits them when they face the Judge. These are the facts that are to fortify Peter’s admonition: “since Christ suffered by means of flesh, do you also equip yourselves with the same idea” (v. 1).

To state that Peter expounds Christ’s right to judge the living and the dead, that Christ has this right only because the gospel is preached also to those in hell, and that Peter makes clear the absolute universality of the gospel by pointing to its saving promulgation even in hell, is to do an injustice to the holy Apostle Peter and to Christ himself.

What he says about the final judgment is not offered by Peter as an assurance against the misgiving or fear that the blasphemies of their pagan attackers might after all be true. Stoeckhardt seconds von Hofmann: “What a muddled Christian he would have to be whose anxiety worried him that the blasphemies against his upright life might remain uncontradicted and unrefuted and might thus deprive him of eternal salvation! It is, indeed, a comfort over against such blasphemies, or rather over against such blasphemies against Christianity, that our salvation does not depend on human judgment but on Christ’s verdict, but not a comfort that quiets us regarding our salvation as though we might fare as we should deserve if our blasphemers were right, but a comfort that makes it easy to bear their blasphemies because there lives one who will not leave them unpunished.”

Exercising Christian Virtues in View of the End, v. 7–11

7) In v. 4:5 the Lord is ready to judge living and dead. In v. 7 the end is near. In v. 1–6 the negative side is prominent, the pagan sins we must avoid even at the price of suffering men’s blasphemies for so doing; now in v. 7–11 all is positive. Moreover, these positive virtues are to appear in the contacts of Christians with each other. This paragraph ends with a doxology.

Now the end of all things has come near. Peter writes exactly as Paul does about the nearness of the end of all things, πάντα without the article (τὰ πάντα would be the existing things). Although it is here construed with “all things,” τὸ τέλος, which is quite definite because of the article, has the same meaning that it has in v. 17 where the genitive denotes persons: “the end of the ungodly.” B.-P. 1298 makes the first=Aufhoeren, cessation; the second Ziel, “goal.” C.-K. 1044 is much better. The Greek never uses τέλος to denote a merely temporal end; τελευτή is the proper word for this idea. Even in temporal connections τέλος retains the idea of goal, not mere cessation but the conclusion, the Erfolg, the outcome or success. Thus πολέμου τέλος does not mean that war has just stopped, but that victory has been reached; τέλος ἀνδρός, that a man has come to maturity; the end of seed is its ripeness. Thus here and in v. 17 “the end” has the same meaning: Ausgang, Abschluss, the final goal. All things shall not cease (Rom. 8:19, etc.), shall not be annihilated; those who were disobedient to the gospel of God shall not cease to exist (v. 17). They shall reach their final goal.

The perfect ἤγγικε has its present connotation “has come near” and thus “is near” and may be translated “is near.” Since Christ’s first coming there is nothing more to expect except his second coming to judgment, and this may occur at any time. The apostles had no revelation as to the date of it. They were in the same position in which we are at this date; they spoke as we must now speak. None of us knows but what we may live to see the end. We have the advantage of knowing that it has been delayed for centuries, but we know this, not from Scripture, but from the fact, from history. To charge Paul or Peter with false prophecy for saying 1900 years ago that the end is near, is to treat them unfairly. They, as we, had to live in constant expectation of Christ’s sudden return.

Accordingly, be of sound mind and be sober for prayers! Compare Titus 2:1–6 where Paul inculcates this soundness of mind, this balance in thought and disposition, which is never flighty, unbalanced, carried away by notions of our own or by attacks of men. Peter adds: “Be sober for prayers.” In 2 Tim. 4:5 Paul says, “Be thou sober in every way.” Peter has already said (1:13), “Having girded up the loins of your mind as being sober.” This is spiritual sobriety, another term for soundness of mind; but it is here connected with worship, “prayers”; the singular as well as the plural of this word often refer to the whole Christian worship (Acts 2:42).

Peter begins his positive exhortation with the mind and disposition of his readers, with the inner steadiness that should control them. Before he mentions what they are to do for each other he reminds them of their relation to God. They who pray aright to God, who worship as they should, will gladly do all that is here asked, will be aided and enabled in every way. The aorist imperatives are like all of those that precede: urgent, strong, decisive, and are used for this reason alone.

8) Before everything else having the love to yourselves fully exerted because love hides a multitude of sins. “Before all things” does not, of course, mean before even your prayers and worship, but when you have turned from your worship, where you have strengthened your bond with God and with Christ, let your first concern be the fullest exercise of love to your own selves. This is ἀγάπη, the love of intelligence and true understanding coupled with corresponding purpose. The predicate adjective does not mean “fervent” (our versions) nor nachhaltig, constant, enduring, but “stretched out, put to full strain, exerted to the limit of its strength.” The opposite is slight or ineffective effort. In ἐκτενής there lies the thought of exertion. There will be sins on the part of the brethren, which may tend to slacken our love for them; such sins make it hard to show them love. Although the strain may be great, love is to stand it. “For yourselves” is not quite the same as the reciprocal “for each other” but brings out the thought that all Christians are one body. The thought is that expressed in 1 Cor. 12:12, etc. Every Christian is one of ourselves, and thus we are to love all of them.

The participle ἔχοντες is not equal to an imperative (A. V., commentators, and grammars). It marks this “having” as being subordinate to the imperatives used in v. 1; an imperative would not do that. Peter wants to express this thought. It is fine, indeed, and most true. This love for ourselves blossoms when all of us engage in true worship as one body; it will grow limp and slack when such worship is omitted or is engaged in with only flighty, superficial minds.

We also note the reference to the pagans who blaspheme such worship since it separates Christians from their former idolatries (v. 5). Christians know what they are doing when they gather together for prayers by themselves; they are separate, a body of their own, and thus, connected with this fact (as the participle shows), they have this love for themselves. This is lost when the participle is not understood as a participle but it considered equal to an imperative.

The reason for having this love is the fact that it “hides a multitude of sins.” Love hides them from its own sight and not from God’s sight. Hate does the opposite; it pries about in order to discover some sin or some semblance of sin in a brother and then broadcasts it, even exaggerates it, gloats over it. It is unjust to the apostle to say that he wants Christians to hush up and to hide criminality or vice that have occurred in their midst. Peter purposely says πλῆθος, “a multitude of sins,” and thereby indicates the mass of daily sins of weakness which come to the attention of Christians because of their constant contact and association. It has been well said that we all pray daily for their forgiveness when we offer the Lord’s Prayer. Only when Christians become mean and ugly do they favor the devil by dragging each other’s failings out into public and smiting each other in the face.

Peter is not referring to sins that are committed against each other so that hiding means forgiving. What we are to do when a real offense has been committed in private Jesus tells us in Matt. 18:15, etc.; here, too, love handles the case and does all that it possibly can to remove the offense without publishing it, and when it must be made known to the church, this is also done in love and becomes a sad task. As far as mutual forgiving is concerned, Peter knew what Jesus had told him in Matt. 18:21, etc. How public offense is to be met by public rebuke Gal. 2:12–21 exhibits most clearly. We mention these things because many will think of them; Peter does not enter upon a discussion of them. Hundreds of sins of weakness, faults, mistakes, failings we ignore, dismiss. We bear with each other because we know our own failings. The fact that, when we deem it necessary, we warn, correct, strengthen each other need not be added in a compact admonition such as Peter here offers. Yet we may note that ἐκτενής and πλῆθος correspond. To cover a multitude calls for a greater strain than to cover a few.

9) Peter continues with a nominative plural adjective which is not equal to an imperative but, like the participle used in v. 4:8, is in a subordinate relation to v. 7: hospitable to each other without murmuring. The reciprocal ἀλλήλους is in place here. Much may be said about this ancient hospitality which provided lodging for a traveling Christian, gave him necessary information and help to become located, to transact his business, to find work, to expedite him on his journey. Some had to flee from their homes in other cities because of persecution and were often destitute. During their many extensive travels the apostles were guests at many Christian homes. Note Acts 16:15; Philemon 22. Hence all these references to hospitality in the apostolic letters. Also note Matt. 10:9–13. Even pagans remarked about how the Christians loved each other and received a wholly strange Christian as a brother.

While even the poorest would be ready to exercise such hospitality, those with means in any local church would open their doors first. The characteristic of this form of love is the fact that it is exercised “without grumbling.” This is the sense of the phrase and not the implication that Peter’s readers were grumblers and needed correction.

10) Peter continues with another participle: according as each one received a charisma, ministering it for yourselves as excellent stewards of God’s manifold grace. Luther has the idea that natural charismata are excluded: “Gifts you have, which are not born with you, nor did you bring them as your own inheritance from your mother’s body.” Peter, however, says that “each one” did receive a charisma, and a glance at Rom. 12:6, etc., shows that many a charisma is only some natural endowment or possession which is sanctified in the Christian by the Spirit. Not all charismata were miraculous abilities such as those mentioned in the list recorded in 1 Cor. 12:8–10. Peter has the same idea that Paul had: not only does every Christian have a χάρισμα, some endowment that was graciously bestowed on him, but God intends that such an endowment is to be used in διακονία, service for the members of the church, a service to be rendered for the sake of service and benefit to others with no thought of self save the joy of thus “ministering.” The pronoun ἑαυτούς is again in place.

“As excellent stewards” explains what “received” implies. An οἰκονόμος is one to whom certain property is entrusted to be administered according to the owner’s will and directions. In Luke 16:1 such an oikonomos is presented; but they were often slaves; they were at times placed over great estates; they were often men of high education and ability although they were slaves. Peter mentions only the feature that God has entrusted some charisma or other to each Christian. To be “an excellent steward” he must administer it as the Bestower wants him to.

The objective genitive “of God’s manifold grace” brings out two points: 1) every charisma, whatever its nature, is a gift of God’s pure undeserved favor (χάρις), which we should employ accordingly; 2) this grace is “manifold,” that is, while it is the same favor for all it bestows all manner of charismata, not only in order to employ “each one” of us, but also that we may minister “for yourselves,” i. e., for the whole body of Christians so that it may lack nothing as a body. What one cannot do, another will be able to do.

11) Peter omits the verbs in the two apodoses and thus continues the construction and makes v. 7–11 a unit verbally as it is a unit in thought. We are compelled to insert participles in English; this is not necessary in the Greek, in fact, it would sound pedantic. A new sentence is not begun; we merely have two specifications: if one speaks—as God’s sayings; if one ministers—as out of strength which God supplies. One may help with word or with deed. A reference to Acts 6:2, 4 is remote, for this passage suggests the office of preaching, about which Peter says nothing here. He refers to any Christian, man or woman. If such a one opens his mouth to speak (λαλεῖ), to impart something, it should be a speaking “as God’s sayings,” i. e., as offering God’s own logia.

We should observe that Peter always uses ὡς to introduce realities, and thus “logia of God” are statements made by God, the word logia being used as it is in Rom. 3:2 and Heb. 5:12. We do not think that Peter uses λόγια in the sense of “oracles” (our versions; C.-K. 680), for that is a pagan conception; compare χρηματισμός. Peter wants a plural, and since λόγος Θεοῦ, “Word of God,” is a concept that cannot be pluralized without misunderstanding, he uses the allied term logia, which is naturally a plural. The thought seems to be that in their talk Christians are to be governed by the pertinent things that God has said.

It is an extravagant idea to understand this to mean that “a Christian is to consider that the words flowing from his mouth are all charismatic, be they doctrine, prophecy, or speaking with tongues, produced by God, not originating with men.” Were all Christians inspired? The idea that Peter is referring only to the services as Paul does in 1 Cor. 14:26, etc., is unwarranted. He refers to the common, daily talk of any and of all Christians, of women as well as of men; this is always to be helpful and is thus to be governed by what God has told us.

The same holds true with regard to deeds: “if anyone ministers.” We have the same verb that was used in the participial form in verse 10, but it is now distinct from talk and is restricted to deeds. These, too, are to be truly helpful: “as out of strength which God supplies,” ἰσχύς, “strength” as possessed, “ability,” (A. V.); κράτος would mean strength in action. For both the tongue and the hand Christians are to use what God furnishes them and are thus to be good stewards of God. Ἧς is the attracted ἥν, and χορηγέω (originally, providing a grand donation for the expense of putting on a Greek chorus) is to be understood in the common sense of “provide” or “supply.”

The aim of all of this is: in order that in every way God through Jesus Christ may be glorified. Every word and every deed are to glorify God through Christ, i. e., are to honor, praise, and magnify him. 1 Cor. 10:31 shows how far this extends. While God’s glory is unchangeable, its recognition is to be increased. Thus we glorify him. Ἐν πᾶσι is neither “in all things” nor “in all men” but “in every respect” (B.-P. 1012).

Peter himself is moved to glorify God by a doxology (see the long one in 1:3–12): to whom belongs the glory and the might for the eons of the eons! Amen. The relative is emphatic: “he to whom,” “he the One to whom.” The dative with ἐστί is the common idiom for “belongs to him.” There is some discussion as to whether the antecedent is “God” or “Jesus Christ.” It is grammatically incorrect to construe: “to whom through Jesus Christ belongs the glory.” In no other ascription is such a διά phrase placed before the relative; if it were intended to modify the relative clause, the διά phrase would have to follow the relative. It is asked why Peter did not write ὁ Θεός last if he intended to apply the ascription of glory to God and thus bring the antecedent and the relative together. To state it frankly, Peter knew his Greek too well. “God through Jesus Christ” is correct; “through Jesus Christ God” is strange.

We have no interest whatever in denying the ascription of divine glory to Christ; he is God, equal with the Father. The glory is ascribed to him in Heb. 13:20, 21; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:6, and elsewhere. Here, however, Peter has four decidedly emphatic placements of “God,” which suffice to asure us that “to whom” = to God. In addition there is ἐστίν. This relative clause is thus not an exclamation as it is in all cases where the copula is omitted. This means that δοξάζηται and ἡ δάξα should be construed together: “in order that there may be glorified (constantly, present subjunctive) God through Jesus Christ—to whom belongs (indeed and of right) the glory and the might,” etc. The relative clause states a fact; it does not express only Peter’s feeling or voice his own glorification of God or of Christ. Like many relatives, this relative clause states the reason that all Christians should glorify God through Jesus Christ; it is because the glory belongs to him.

With it is associated the κράτος, which has already been explained. And these belong to him in saecula saeculorum, “for the eons of the eons,” eons multiplied by eons, the plural with the genitive plural denoting a superlative in the highest degree: “forever and ever.” Eternity is timelessness, a concept that is beyond human ability of comprehension; hence we must use terms that express time to designate what is not time. The phrase occurs twenty-one times; see further, for instance, Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17, where “Amen” also occurs. Par from being merely liturgical, C.-K. 143 rightly says, this Hebrew “amen” compels us to examine the reason in each instance of its use. It is not an expression of intellectual conviction but of an exalted, God-praising conviction of faith. Placed at the end and meaning “truth,” “verity,” this “amen” is solemn, confessional, in the nature of a seal.

Rejoice in Suffering that You May Rejoice at the Revelation of Christ’s Glory, v. 12–19

12) The address “beloved” (see 2:11) does not indicate the beginning of a new section of the epistle after the “amen,” for this amen only concludes the ascription of glory to God. The assurance of Peter’s love for his readers by his once more calling them “beloved” is due to the subject matter that is now presented, the severity of the sufferings that may come upon some of his readers.

Beloved, be not deeming strange the fire-glow among you when occurring to you with a view of trial as something strange meeting you; but to the degree you are fellowshiping the sufferings of Christ be rejoicing in order that also at the revelation of his glory you may rejoice as exulting.

After all the aorist imperatives occurring in the preceding hortation the present imperatives ξενίζεσθε and χαίρετε are notable. These imperatives, together with the present participles γινομένη and συμβαίνοντες and the present indicative κοινωνεῖτε of the subordinate clause, lead us to believe that Peter is no longer speaking of sufferings such as his readers had already experienced and of which there would naturally be a continuance but of impending sufferings that would be far more severe. None that they have thus far experienced have deserved to be called πῦρωσις “fire-glow,” fiery ordeal; these, “when occurring to you,” deserve this epithet.

They are on the way. The introduction explains how the situation has changed completely, and how this change prompts Peter to write to all these people in the provinces mentioned in 1:1. Nero and the imperial government in Rome are taking a hostile attitude toward Christianity, are treating it as a religio illicita, so that the worst is to be expected. The Roman authorities in the provinces will soon adopt the same attitude. When they do, the readers are not to be surprised but are to rejoice that they are called upon to fellowship the sufferings of Christ who was put to death by the Jews (3:18).

Some of the commentators disregard these present tenses and their significance. Some of them think that Peter is now speaking of sufferings that are arising in the midst of the readers themselves from renegades in the churches. They place the major emphasis on the attributive phrase ἐν ὑμῖν and regard this as the new feature which Peter introduces at this point. Peter writes: “be not surprised on account of the fiery ordeal among you when it comes to you with a view of or for the purpose of (πρός) trial.” Ἐν ὑμῖν is merely attributive and intends to say that this fire and burning will occur “among you,” will not strike all of you but only some of you. The dative is not the object of the imperative but denotes cause (R. 532). The πρός phrase at once adds the purpose of this coming fiery ordeal, namely the fact that it is occurring or coming to you to try you. Nobody translates πειρασμός “temptation,” all see that it means “trial,” that it is not the same as δόκιμον or δοκιμή (a test to prove something genuine) but only a trial as to what one can endure.

While only some will be struck by the Feuerglut as Peter’s ἐν ὑμῖν plainly indicates, all the readers will be affected by what is coming. It will try them all. Peter says to all of them, “be not surprised because of it,” deem it not strange, “as a strange thing meeting you” (συμβαίνω, walking with you).

13) It is not a ξένον, “a strange thing,” at all, to be deemed strange (ξενίζομαι); it is only “fellowshiping the sufferings of Christ.” The use of κοινωνέω after συμβαίνω is both beautiful and illuminating: when this awful thing walks together with the readers (associative σύν in the participle), the readers are only in fellowship with the sufferings of Christ. This is a thought that is prominent and fully carried out by Paul in Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:7; 4:10; Phil. 1:29; 3:10; Col. 1:24. It goes back to Christ’s word (20, 21).

We fellowship Christ’s sufferings when we suffer for his name’s sake, when the hatred that struck him strikes us because of him. Never is there a thought of fellowshiping in the expiation of Christ’s suffering, our suffering also being expiatory. In Matt. 5:12 persecution places us in the company of the persecuted prophets (high exaltation indeed); here it places us in the company of Christ himself, into an even greater communion or κοινωνία. Is that “a strange thing” or to be deemed strange? It is what we should deem proper, natural, to be expected, yea, as Peter says (following Matt. 5:12), a cause for joy.

Καθό=“to the degree” you so fellowship, be rejoicing. The degrees will vary even as Peter says that the fiery ordeal will appear “among you,” some will be struck fully, fearfully, the rest will be affected more or less. Thus Καθό takes care of both classes. Those that are struck the worst are not to lament; the fiercer the ordeal, the more reason for their rejoicing, the closer their fellowship with Christ’s sufferings. Those involved to lesser degrees are not to be envied because of their partial escape; they, too, fellowship, but not so deeply. The thought is that Christ is drawing all the readers into closer fellowship with his sufferings, an honor, a distinction indeed, a cause for deepest rejoicing. This is the true view of what impends for the readers; Peter calls on them to adopt it in advance.

In the ἵνα clause he carries the joy forward to the last day: “in order that also at the revelation of his glory you may rejoice as exulting.” Joy now in the ordeals as they come, but oh, what joy at that great day! Peter has spoken about “the end” (v. 7), about the judgment (v. 5), and he now keeps in line with this; but he here uses “the revelation of Christ’s glory,” the tremendous opposite of “the sufferings of Christ” during the days of his humiliation. Peter has in mind what Jesus says in Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8 (8:38; 9:26); compare Paul, Rom. 8:17, 18; 2 Tim. 2:11, 12. Peter has already mentioned the ἀποκάλυψις, “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” in 1:7. It is the revelation occurring at his Parousia when all the angels of God shall appear with him, when all the glory of the deity shall shine forth in his human nature before the whole universe of angels and of men.

Peter says “be rejoicing” now to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ “in order that you may rejoice” then “as exulting.” This last word is properly an aorist (second aorist passive), rejoicing with finality, with utter completeness. Ἀγαλλιώμενοι is the same word that was used in 1:6, 8. Our versions translate as though we had a cognate of “rejoice”: “may rejoice (be glad) with exceeding joy.” This is not such a cognate term but a participle which to rejoice adds the idea of exulting, jubilating, skipping and bubbling over with shouts of delight. Although we now rejoice to share Christ’s sufferings (like the Twelve in Acts 5:41), this is as nothing when compared with the joy at that great day. Peter just had to add this participle to bring out this thought. Yes, the worst persecution can be borne with joy when the eye is fixed on the revelation of Christ’s glory and the unbounded joy that awaits the faithful.

14) If you are being reproached in connection with Christ’s name, blessed (are you)! because the Spirit of the glory and of God is resting upon you! The condition is one of present reality; Peter has in mind such reproaches as are being heaped upon his readers. These reproaches are in substance the same as the blaspheming mentioned in v. 4. In v. 4, 5 the connection points to what the Judge will do with these blasphemers of the Christians; now the connection points to what the Holy Spirit does for the Christians who are so blasphemed and reproached. In v. 3, 4 the cause of the blasphemy is the fact that the Christians refuse to run with the pagan community in its riot of vices and idolatries, a negative side of their conduct; now Peter touches the positive side, the reproach “in connection with the name of Christ.”

This phrase is often not correctly understood; neither the ἐν nor the ὄνομα. The German bei or ueber or um willen and the English “for,” “the matter of,” “by,” are not satisfactory. So also is the supposition that Christ is the object of the reproaches and that the Christians are in Christ, which disregards ὄνομα. The phrase is not the same as “in Christ.” His “name” is his revelation. By his name and revelation Christ draws near to us and is apprehended by us, by his name alone. We believe in his name or revelation, are baptized in his name, confess his name, etc. Ἐν=“in connection with.” Christians are reproached “in connection with” this holy, blessed name or revelation of Christ, i. e., the gospel of Christ which they believe and follow in their lives. Our enemies hate this name (revelation) and us because we cling to it.

If we are thus reproached “in connection with” this name, “blessed” are we, μακάριοι. This same beatitude was written in 3:14 and was stated in the same exclamatory way, as a verdict on those so reproached. See 3:14. Every reproach causes our ears to hear a voice from heaven crying “Blessed, blessed!” upon us. The harsher the reproaches, the sweeter this heavenly verdict. Instead of shame, elation and joy should fill us on hearing such reproaches; instead of hanging our heads, we should lift them up to Christ with radiant faces.

In 3:14 “blessed” is followed by the negative: “Fear not their fear!” This is now amplified by the positive: “because the Spirit of the glory and of God is resting upon you.” When Peter wrote 3:13, 14 he had in mind what he now writes, namely the positive reason for the great beatitude. The thought is that this reproach is so much strong evidence that God’s Spirit rests upon us. The Spirit of God is mentioned because he brings us the name (revelation) of Christ; a helpful comment is found in John 16:13, 14 (be sure to read it). We have the entire Trinity: God—his Spirit—Christ, all are connected with us.

Peter says more than that the Spirit of God rests upon us; he calls him “the Spirit of glory.” The genitives τῆς δόξης and τοῦ Θεοῦ are placed attributively between the article τό and its noun Πνεῦμα, and this article is repeated in order to make each of the genitives stand out separately. Another plain reason for repeating τό is the fact that Peter could not write: to τὸ τῆς δοξης τοῦ Θεοῦ Πνεῦμα, for this would mean: “the Spirit of the glory of God”; nor could he write thus and insert καί: “the Spirit of the glory and of God,” as if “the glory” and “God” were parallel and coordinate concepts, the two genitives being alike. They are not alike. The Spirit bestows the glory upon us and thus makes us blessed; the Spirit belongs to God and is sent by God. “Of the glory” is not qualitative, is not=“the glorious Spirit”; nor is “of God” qualitative=“the divine Spirit.” The sense is not “the glorious, divine Spirit” nor “the glorious and divine Spirit.”

From our enemies come reproaches, from the Spirit comes the glory that makes us blessed. Reproaches heap shame upon us (“let him not be ashamed,” v. 16); the Spirit bestows the glory upon us. These two are made opposites. Peter achieves this by using one τό with this genitive, another τό with the second genitive which connects the Spirit with God. This is perfect Greek: not only the doubling of τό but also the placing of each genitive between τό and Πνεῦμα. So also is the wording “of the glory,” τῆς δόξης, not some glory (indefinite) but “the glory” (specific). This is “the glory” which is connected with Christ, which the Spirit bestows on us. Jesus says: “He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you,” John 16:15. “Show it” is the ὄνομα or revelation. Jesus even adds: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Just so Peter connects God—the Spirit—Christ, and he connects these with what is the Father’s and thus Christ’s and is taken by the Spirit to show us and to give us the glory in the ὄνομα, the name, the gospel revelation.

We thus decline to accept the views which make two different concepts of the two τό. One is to read to τό (supply ὄνομα) τῆς δόξης, so that Peter would say “the name of the glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you.” What “the name of the glory” means, and how it is to be coordinated with God’s Spirit, is difficult to comprehend. Another view has τό substantivize τῆς δόξης: “this thing that pertains to the glory.” This is a rather abstruse idea, and it is difficult to parallel it with the Spirit of God and to say that such a “thing” rests upon us as does God’s Spirit. No Greek reader or hearer would do otherwise than to connect the two τό (each having a genitive) with Πνεῦμα. Some seek for Old Testament allusions for what Peter says and point to Isa. 11:2 for the Spirit’s resting upon a person; but for “reproaching” Matt. 5:11 is by far best. The A. V. follows a few inferior readings by adding two clauses which the R. V. rightly cancels.

15) For do not let anyone suffer as a murderer or a thief or a bad actor or as an agitator. Γάρ is important for explaining how some Christian might not only be reproached but might have to suffer for an actual crime. Pagan enemies would connect his actions with “the name of Christ” and blame the church and Christ for his crime. Hence: “let no one ever be suffering (present imperative) as a man of this kind.” Peter names two crimes as samples: “as a murderer or a thief.” All the “or” are disjunctive and not conjunctive. The third term: “or a bad actor” (a doer of what is base, κακόν) intends to cover any other crime.

We should note that ὡς is repeated with the fourth item, which places this fourth term beside the three that precede as denoting a crime of a separate and different class. Ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος is found only here, hence there is uncertainty as to its meaning. “A busybody in other men’s matters” (A. V.), “a meddler.” etc. (R. V.), and other suppositions do not fit the context which not only calls for a crime but for one that parallels all ordinary crimes. C.-K. 1002 follows Windish: a man who tries to supervise what is the affair of others, a political “agitator,” Aufruehrer, whom the authorities must squelch. Compare 2:13, etc., on submission to the government. This meaning explains the second ὡς and the fact that this crime is mentioned last.

16) But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in connection with this name. The implication is that if anyone of the readers suffers as a murderer, etc., this is not suffering as a Christian. Such a reader would suffer as the criminal that he really would be; see Luke 23:41: “justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds.” “But if as a Christian” repeats ὡς and puts “Christian” in strong contrast with the four terms that were used in v. 15 to designate criminals. A Christian suffers “for righteousness’ sake” (3:14). Again compare Luke 23:41: “but this man hath done nothing amiss.” Peter uses Χριστιανός (see Acts 11:26; 26:28) because of its derivation from Χριστός; a Christian suffers innocently as Christ did.

We supply “suffers” in the protasis. Those who regard the “busybody” or “meddler” mentioned in v. 15 as a term that does not denote a crime think that the verb means no more than the verb “be reproached” in v. 14 does. But murderers and thieves are made to suffer the due reward of their crime by the government as all κακοποιοί (2:14), “doers of baseness” or “bad actors,” are, and we have seen that the fourth term used in v. 15 means “agitators,” whom the government also rightly punishes. When Peter now says: “but if (anyone suffers) as a Christian,” he certainly means, “suffers for his Christianity as for a crime, suffers at the hands of the government” by being denounced to the authorities (2:12) as a κακοποιός, “a bad actor” (criminal). We have shown in the introduction that this had already been done in Rome. Christianity was being regarded by Nero as a religio illicita, a crime. Peter himself was soon to be executed as such a kakopoios; Paul was to follow. Peter thinks that the Roman governors in the provinces will be getting orders from Nero to prosecute all Christians as criminals, their crime being this illicit religion.

Peter says: “If anyone of you has to suffer as a Christian,” as a criminal for being a true Christian, “let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God in connection with this name.” Any church member who is untrue to his Christianity and commits some common crime or, still worse, becomes a political agitator under the profession of Christianity deserves all the shame which the governmental prosecution brings upon him by making him suffer the severity of the law even as he disgraces the name. Vastly different is the case of the church member who suffers imprisonment or even bloody martyrdom for the alleged crime of being a true Christian. “Let him not be ashamed” although all manner of shame be heaped upon him.

“Let him glorify God in connection with this name”; we have the same phrase with the same meaning that was used in v. 14. Let him confess “this name” to the glory of God. Let him die for it “if need be” (1:6), “if the will of God should will” (3:17). “Blessed is he (3:14; 4:14)!”

The reading ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, which is adopted in the A. V.: “on this behalf” (Luther: in solchem Fall), is rightly discarded by the R. V. It seems to have been derived from 2 Cor. 3:10 (9:3). To think that Luther and the A. V. translate ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ by the phrases they employ is to overlook the fact that they follow the other reading in their textus receptus. The idea of adopting ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ and making ὅτι the exposition of “this part” cannot save the inferior reading even if the thought were not sadly confused in this way as Keil has sufficiently shown. “In connection with this name” refers to the name (revelation) of “Christ.” The connection is here so clearly apparent in the sufferer who suffers “as a Christian,” who truly bears this designation which is derived from “Christ.”

17) We regard ὅτι as consecutivum (explained in R. 1001): seeing that (it is) the period for the verdict to start from the house of God. In view of this period for the start (aorist infinitive) of the verdict from the house of God every Christian who suffers for being a Christian is not to be ashamed but is to glorify God in connection with the name of Christ. Κρῖμα is the verdict and not the act of judging. This is not the verdict that starts with or on the house of God (the German am Hause or bei, “with,” our versions, “at,” which this preposition never means) and then goes on to the rest of men. The very name “the house of God” (see 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6: “whose house are we”; also οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, “house-members of God”) makes it clear that Peter does not say that the first verdict of God shall strike his own house, the church, and after that a second verdict shall strike the wicked in the world. There is” no thought that false Christians are to be exposed and the house of God is to be purified by removing them, or that the true Christians are by suffering1 to be purified from any sins that are still in them.

Peter is speaking about the verdict on the enemies of God’s house. Ungodly men and sinners (v. 18) such as Nero in Rome are calling out this divine verdict on themselves by persecuting Christianity and Christians because they are Christians. The period in which Peter writes is the one when God’s verdict on such men is to start, and its start is ἀπό, from the house of God, from the crimes these men are committing against God’s house, his holy church. Every verdict starts from the object involved in the crime. The thought is the same as that expressed in v. 5 regarding blasphemers. Seeking Old Testament passages for judgments on the house of God is following an unsatisfactory trail.

Δέ is “moreover”: moreover, if first from us, what the end of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God? Bad enough is this verdict when it starts first “from us,” against whom these crimes are committed. “Us”=“the house of God” (Heb. 3:6: “whose house are we”). How serious this persecution of God’s church is Paul lets us understand when he speaks of his own crime in this respect in Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:13. Paul escaped the verdict by finally not being disobedient to the gospel of God (Acts 26:19: “I was not disobedient,” ἀπειθής).

But what about these persecutors? “What the end of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?” Terrible enough to sin against “the house of God”—how terrible to end by disobeying “the gospel of God” ! Terrible to have one’s verdict “from us,” “from God’s house,” from what one does to God’s church. There is time to repent of that as we see in Paul’s case. But what if this “first” is followed by τὸ τέλος, “the end,” namely that which belongs to those who constantly disobey (present participle) what is greater than God’s house, namely God’s own gospel?

The contrast lies between “the house of God” and “the gospel of God.” It is frequently thought to lie between “us” and “those disobeying.” The fact that the same preposition ἀπό makes “from us” merely say what “from the house of God” means is overlooked. A simple pronoun “us” cannot be the opposite of a characterizing, substantivized participle “those disobeying,” otherwise Peter would have written “us obeying.” This verdict is not for us, the house of God. It is only for those who deserve it, first because of their treatment of God’s people, finally because of their treatment of God’s gospel. What their end will be the godly readers may tell themselves. As far as testing out and purifying are concerned, Peter has completed the discussion of these in 1:7 (τὸ δοκίμον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως … διὰ πυρός, “the testing out of your faith … by means of fire”); he says nothing about them here. So we do not speak of Laeuterung, “purification.” Our purification (or that of gold, 1:7) is never called “the verdict” or κρῖμα, nor could it be.

18) Not until he reaches this point does Peter compare the righteous and the ungodly: And if the righteous is with difficulty saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear? Peter simply adopts the LXX’s version of Prov. 11:31: Εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις (μόδις) σώζεται‚ ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται. The Hebrew reads: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.” Peter wants the thought as it is stated by the LXX. Μόλις (see B.-D. 33)=“with difficulty” and refers to the hard time that persecution causes the Christian. Our versions have “scarcely,” which leaves a wrong impression, as though only a few righteous ones are saved. “Scarcely, rarely,” is only the second or derived meaning of the adverb—Thayer; Liddell and Scott define μόγις: “with toil and pain”; hence “hardly, scarcely.”

“The ungodly and sinner (note, only one article), where will he appear?” expects the answer, “Nowhere.” The preceding context lets us understand that “the ungodly and sinner” is the “disobedient” who persecutes the house of God and scorns the gospel of God.

19) Concluding the whole subject of the impending persecution of Christians because they are Christians, Peter says: Wherefore also those suffering according to the will of God, let them deposit with a faithful Creator their souls in connection with well-doing. This is the deduction (ὥστε) which those who suffer are to make and to act on. Καί is to be construed with “those suffering.” Not all will have to suffer; “according to the will of God” implies the same thought. God’s will determines this. This phrase excludes the idea that such suffering is a verdict on the house of God first and on the ungodly second, purifying the former, damning the latter; compare “thus is the will of God” in 2:15. Some will not need to suffer; they need no special admonition. Commentators tell us that martyrdom is not referred to, that “in welldoing” excludes it. This view is not acceptable. Persecution so easily leads to bloody death. Many in Rome were to suffer a horrible death. But this is true, that “those suffering” would suffer in various degrees, and only some would be put to death.

Παρατίθημι means “to deposit” just as παραθήκη=“deposit” (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12, 14). The idea is that of depositing a treasure into safe and trustworthy hands. So all who suffer for their faith are to deposit τὰς ψυχάς “their lives” or “their souls” (1:9), with their faithful Creator. He gave them their lives (souls); he allots suffering according to his good and gracious will. The reading “as with a faithful Creator” is too weakly attested; “with a faithful Creator” is stronger; there is no article in order to bring out the qualitative force of this noun. Even if we suffer death in persecution we need not fear (3:14) after we make this deposit. “Creator” indicates God’s almighty power; he created heaven and earth. Κτίστης is a hapaxlegomenon. “Faithful” points to his promises which we trust, which he fulfills without fail. We are fortified for the suffering that persecution brings, fortified in every way.

The last phrase should not be understood to mean that the depositing is done by our well-doing. The acts mentioned here differ, the one is a depositing with the faithful Creator by trust and prayer, the other a doing to men by words and by deeds. Peter uses a rare word when he writes ἀγαθοποιΐα; it is found only here in the Bible. Ἐν is not auf Grund von; we again take it in its first meaning, “in connection with doing good.” This doing good to others in and beyond the bounds of the church is one of the great marks of this epistle. Ever and ever, especially also when and where men make the Christian suffer, he does only what is good to others, what benefits them bodily, morally, spiritually even as Christ did when he, too, bore so much among men.