Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 1:1 - 1:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_1:1-2. The superscription, while corresponding in fundamental plan with those of the Pauline Epistles, has nevertheless a peculiar character of its own.
Πέτρος ] As Paul in his epistles calls himself not by his original name Σαῦλος , so Peter designates himself not by his original name Σίμων , but by that given him by Christ, which “may be regarded as his apostolic, his official name” (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: Συμεὼν Πέτρος .
An addition such as διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ , or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not always, makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unnecessary for Peter.
Peter designates his readers by the words: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπίδημοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου κ . τ . λ .] he calls the Christians to whom he writes—for that his epistle is addressed to Christians cannot be doubted—“elect strangers;” and withal, those who belong to the διασπορά throughout Pontus, etc. ἐκλεκτοί the Christians are named, inasmuch as God had chosen them to be His own, in order that they might be made partakers of the κληρονομία (1Pe_1:4) reserved for them in heaven; cf. chap. 1Pe_2:9 : ὑμεῖς γένος ἐκλεκτόν .
παρεπίδημος is he who dwells in a land of which he is not a native (where his home is not); in the LXX. it is given as the rendering of úÌåÉùÑÈá , Gen_23:4; Psa_39:12 (in other passages úÌåÉùÑÈá is translated by πάροικος ; cf. Exo_12:45; Lev_22:10; Lev_25:23; Lev_25:47, etc.); in the Apocrypha παρεπίδημος does not occur; in the N. T., besides in this passage, it is to be found in chap. 1Pe_2:11; Heb_9:13.
If account be taken of 1Pe_1:4; 1Pe_1:17 ( ὁ τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνος ), and particularly of chap. 1Pe_2:11, it cannot be doubted that Peter styled his readers παρεπίδημοι , because during their present life upon earth they, as Christians, were not in their true home, which is the κληρονομία … τετηρημένη ἐν οὐρανοῖς . The expression is understood in this sense by the more modern writers, in particular by Steiger, Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Reuter’s Repertor. 1855, Nov.), Schott, Hofmann, etc.[32] It is incorrect to refer the word here to an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by de Wette, and in like manner by Weizsäcker (in Reuter’s Repert. 1858, No. 3).[33]
[32] It is inexact to interpret παρεπίδημοι simply by “pilgrims of earth;” Steinmeyer, on the other hand (Disquisitio in ep. Petr. I. prooemium), rightly observes: “quum mansio in terra sempiterna permittatur nemini, in universos omnes vox quadaret, nee in eos solos, qui per evangelium vocati sunt;” but when Steinmeyer adds: “quare censemur, παρεπίδ .… significare … in mundo viventes, cujus esse desierint, cui ipsi sint perosi,” he thus gives an improper application to the word, the more so that the conception κόσμος , in an ethical sense, is foreign to the Epistle of Peter.—Weiss weakens the idea by saying: “The Christian is in so far a stranger on the earth, as he is aware of the inheritance reserved for him in heaven; this knowledge the unbeliever cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel himself a stranger on earth.” It is not the knowing and feeling, but the really being, which is of consequence.
[33] It is still more erroneous to suppose, as Reuss does (Gesch. der h. Schriften N. T. § 147, note), that the readers are here termed παρεπίδ ., “because they are looked upon as âÌÅøÄéí proselytes, i. e. Israelites according to faith, not according to the form of worship.” This view, however, is opposed to the usus loquendi, since παρεπίδημοι nowhere denotes proselytes.
REMARK.
In the O. T. úÌåÉùÑÈá occurs in its strict signification in Gen_23:4; Exo_12:45; Lev_22:10; Lev_25:47 (LXX. πάροικος ). In Lev_25:23, the Israelites are called ðÌÅãÄéí åÀúåÉùÑÈáÄéí , in a peculiar connection; God says that such they are with Him ( òÄîÌÈãÄé , cf. Gen_23:4), in that the land wherein they should dwell belongs to Him . The same idea is to be found in Psa_39:12, where the Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is ðÌÅã and úÌåÉùÑÈá with God ( òÄîÌÈêÀ ), as were his fathers; for although in 1Pe_1:5-7 the shortness of human life is made specially prominent, yet there is nothing to show that in 1Pe_1:12 there is any reference to this. On the other hand, in 1Ch_29:15 (1Chr. 30:15.), David in prayer to God speaks of himself and his people as ðÌÅøÄéí and úÌåÉùÑÈáÄéí , because they have no abiding rest on earth ( áÌÇöÌÅì éÈîÅéðåÌ òÇìÎçÈàÈøÆõ åÀàÅéï îÄ÷ÄåÆä ); here it is not the preposition òÄîÌÈã , but ìÄôÀðÅé which is used. In the passage Psa_119:19, the relation in which the Psalmist speaks of himself as a stranger is not expressed áÌÈàÈøÆõ , Psa 1:54; he calls his earthly life îÀâåÌøÈé , as Jacob in Gen_47:9, which points evidently enough to the circumstance that the Israelites were not without the consciousness that their real home lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, Heb_9:13-14, and Delitzsch in loc .
Whilst the expression ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις —wherein not ἐκλεκτοῖς (Hofmann) but παρεπιδήμοις is the substantival idea—is applicable to all Christians, the following words: διασπορᾶς Πόντου κ . τ . λ ., specify those Christians to whom the epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline Epistles).
διασπορά ] strictly an abstract idea, denotes, according to Jewish usage: “Israel living scattered among the heathen,”—that is, it is a complex of concrete ideas, 2Ma_1:27; Joh_7:35; cf. Meyer in loc.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb., see under “Zerstreuung.”[34] The question is now: Is the word to be taken as applying only to the Jewish nation? From of old the question has, by many interpreters, been answered in the affirmative (Didymus, Oecumenius, Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Weiss, etc.), and therefrom the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the epistle were Jewish-Christians.[35] But the character of the epistle is opposed to this view (cf. Introd. § 3). Since the Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel, of which the Israel of the O. T. was only the type (1Pe_2:9), there is nothing to prevent the expression being applied, as many interpreters hold (Brückner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rettberg in Ersch-Gruber, see under “Petrus,” and others), to the Christians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No doubt this land had not for the N. T. church the same significance which it possessed for that of the O. T., still it was the scene of Christ’s labours, and in Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Christendom.[36] Some interpreters, like Aretius, Schott, Hofmann, leave entirely out of view the local reference of the word, and take it as applying to the whole of Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto orbe, in so far as the latter represents “a concrete corporeal centre around which the members of the church were locally united,” and “has its point of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand of God” (Schott[37]). Against this, however, it must be urged that Peter, if he had wished the word ΔΙΑΣΠΟΡΆ to have been understood in a sense so entirely different from the established usage, would in some way or other have indicated this.
It is entirely erroneous to suppose, with Augustine (contra Faustum, xxii. 89), Procopius (in Jes. 15:20), Cassiodorus (de instit. div. litt. ii. p. 516), Luther, Gualther, and others, and among more recent authors Steiger, that in the expression used by Peter the readers are designated as heathen Christians, or even with Credner (Einl. p. 638), Neudecker (Einl. p. 677), as aforetime proselytes. The one correct interpretation is, that in the superscription those readers only are described as “Christians who constituted the people of God living, scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in consequence of their election, had become strangers in the world, but who had their inheritance and home in heaven, whither they were journeying” (Wiesinger). The reason why Peter employed this term with reference to his readers lies in the design of the epistle; he speaks of them as ἐκλεκτοί , in order that in their present condition of suffering he might assure them of their state of grace as ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ , that they might know that they belonged to the home of believers in heaven. But it is at least open to doubt whether in ΔΙΑΣΠΟΡᾶς there is any reference to the present want of direct union around Christ (Schott).
ΠΌΝΤΟΥ , ΓΑΛΑΤΊΑς Κ . Τ . Λ .] The provinces of Asia Minor are named chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia westward from Pontus, then the enumeration continues with Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to say, in the east, and goes from thence westward towards Asia, after which Bithynia is mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern part of Asia Minor. So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as opposed to Wiesinger) when he says: Quinque provincias nominat eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex oriente. If in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem. v. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and a part of Lycaonia,—which, however, is improbable,—the provinces mentioned by Peter will embrace almost the whole of Asia Minor.
In the N. T. there is no mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia.—1Pe_1:2. ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙΝ Κ . Τ . Λ .] The three adjuncts, beginning with different prepositions, are not to be taken with ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς , as Cyrillus (de recta fide), Oecumen., Kahnis (Lehre v. Abendm. p. 65), and others think, but with ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις , pointing out as they do the origin, the means, and the end of the condition in which the readers as ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ were. It is further incorrect to limit, as is prevalently done, their reference simply to the term ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς ,[38] and to find in them a more particular definition of the method of the divine election. Steinmeyer, in violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different reference to each of the three adjuncts joining ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΡΌΓΝ . with ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς , ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ with ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς , and ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ . with ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ . But inasmuch as the ideas ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς stand in closest connection, the two prepositions ΚΑΤΆ and ἘΝ must apply equally to them. ΚΑΤΆ states that the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ are such in virtue of the πρόγνωσις Θεοῦ ; κατά denotes “the origin, and gives the pattern according to which” (so, too, Wiesinger). ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς is translated generally by the commentators as: predestination;[39] this is no doubt inexact, still it must be observed that in the N. T. πρόγνωσις stands always in such a connection as to show that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, but without the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance being lost. It is the perceiving of God by means of which the object is determined, as that which He perceives it to be. Cf. Meyer on Rom_8:29 : “It is God’s being aware in His plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to salvation, He knows who are to be so destined by Him.” It is incorrect, therefore, to understand the word as denoting simply foreknowledge;[40] this leads to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met by Augustine’s phrase: eligendos facit Deus, non invenit. Estius translates ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς at once by. praedilectio; other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, would include the idea of love, at least, in that of foreknowledge; but although it must be granted that the ΠΡΌΓΝΩΣΙς of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of without His love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of love is not made prominent.[41] Hofmann says: “ πρόγνωσις is—precognition; here, therefore, a work of God the Father, which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homogeneous are known, that is, of an approving knowledge.”
ΠΑΤΡΌς is added to ΘΕΟῦ ; the apostle has already in his mind the following ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς and ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , in order thereby to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election. Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salutis nostrae innuitur hoc versu.
ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ] It seems simplest and most natural to interpret, with Luther and most others, “through the sanctifying of the Spirit”—that is, taking ἁγιασμός actively, and ἘΝ as denoting the instrumentality. The only difficulty in the way is, that ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς , a word foreign to classical Greek, and occurring but seldom in the Apocrypha, has constantly the neutral signification: “sanctification;”[42] cf. Meyer on Rom_6:19. Now, since the word, as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings (cf. Buttmann, ausführl. griech. Sprachl. § 119, 20), it is certainly permissible to assume that here—deviating from the general usus loquendi—it may have an active signification, as perhaps also in 2Th_2:13. If the preposition ἐν be taken as equal to “through,” there results an appropriate progression of thought from origin ( ΚΑΤΆ ) to means ( ἘΝ ), and further to end ( ΕἸς ). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, the interpretation must be: “the holiness wrought by the, (Holy) Spirit,” so that the genitive as gen. auct. has a signification similar to that in the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ;[43] in this interpretation ἐν may equally have an instrumental force. No doubt, many interpreters deny that ἘΝ can here be equal to ΔΙΆ , since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy Spirit. But this ground gives way if the three nearer definitions refer not to the election,—as a divine activity,—and so not to the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς alone, but to the state into which the readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΕΠΙΔΉΜΟΙς . It is incorrect to attribute to ἘΝ here a final signification; Beza: ad sanctificationem; de Wette: ΕἸς ΤῸ ΕἾΝΑΙ ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ ; the conception of purpose begins only with the subsequent ΕἸς .
The explanation, that ἘΝ ἉΓ . ΠΝ . points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the readers are ἘΚΛ . ΠΑΡΕΠ . (formerly supported in this commentary), is wanting in the necessary clearness of thought.
ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚΟῊΝ ΚΑῚ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸΝ ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡ .] The third adjunct to ἘΚΛ . ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔ ., giving the end towards which this condition is directed. The preposition ΕἸς is not to be connected with ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς (de Wette, Steinmeyer); for although such a construction be grammatically possible, the reference to the Trinity goes to show that these words must be taken as a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses. Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction ΚΑΊ would hardly be awanting. ὙΠΑΚΟΉ is to be construed neither with ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , whether taken as a subjective genitive (Beza: designator nostrae sanctificationis subjectum, nempe Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where ΕἸς is arbitrarily rendered by ΔΙΆ ), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, as an objective genitive: “obedience towards Christ” (for then this genitive would stand in a relation other than to ΑἽΜΑΤΟς [44]), nor with ΑἽΜΑΤΟς . ὙΠΑΚΟΉ must be taken here absolutely, as in 1Pe_1:14; cf. Rom_6:16. With regard to the meaning of ὙΠΑΚΟΉ , many interpreters understand by it faith in Christ; so Luther, Gerhard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.; others, on the contrary, take it to signify “moral obedience;” so Pott, de Wette, Schott, etc. Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is meant “which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to it” (Hofmann), whilst by the latter it is emphasized that that moral obedience is meant which springs from faith, so that both interpretations are substantially in accord. It may then be said that ὙΠΑΚΟΉ is the life of man conformed in faith and walk to the will of the Lord, which the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ as such must realize; so that there is no reason why the idea should be limited towards the one side or the other; cf. 1Jn_3:23. The second particular: ΚΑῚ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸΝ ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , is closely linked on to ὙΠΑΚΟΉ . Some commentators have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based was the paschal lamb (thus Beda: “aspersi sanguine Christi potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per agni sanguinem Aegypti dominatum declinavit;” Aretius, etc.). Others think that the ceremonial of the great day of atonement is meant (thus Pott, Augusti, Steiger, Usteri, etc.). Wrongly, however; for although in both cases blood was employed, neither the blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering of atonement was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts were tinged; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. Steinmeyer is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling with water (Leviticus 19.) of him who had been defiled through contact with a corpse, from the fact that the LXX. have ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς only in this passage. For apart from the artificialness of the explanation which Steinmeyer[45] thus feels himself compelled to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling is inapt, since mention is made here of a sprinkling of blood, and not of water. A sprinkling of the people with blood took place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the covenant.[46] The O. T. type on which the expression is founded is no other than the making of the covenant related in Exo_24:8, to which even Gerhard had made reference, and as, in more recent times, has been acknowledged by Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Heb_9:19 ( ΛΑΒῺΝ ΤῸ ΑἿΜΑ ΤῶΝ ΜΌΣΧΩΝ … ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤῸΝ ΛΑῸΝ ἘῤῬΆΝΤΙΣΕ ) and Heb_12:24, where ΑἿΜΑ ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΟῦ , i.e. “the blood by means of the sprinkling of which the ratification of the covenant took place,” is connected with the immediately preceding καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτης . Accordingly, by ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜῸς ΑἽΜΑΤΟς ἸΗΣ . ΧΡ . is to be understood the ratification of the covenant relation grounded on the death of Christ, with those thereto ordained; the reference here, however, being not to the commencement, but to the continuance of that relation. For by this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his readers of the end God had in view in their election, but to set before them what the purpose of their election is, which, like the ὙΠΑΚΟΉ , should therefore be realized in them as the elect strangers. They are then ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΠΑΡΕΠΊΔΗΜΟΙ , in order that they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in Him constantly possess the forgiveness of sins.[47]
The καί standing between ὙΠΑΚΟΉΝ and ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌΝ is taken by Steinmeyer as an explicative; he explains: “in obedientiam, atque in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. e. ut vos in mortis Jesu Christi communionem trahi patiamini.” Incorrectly: “inasmuch as the active idea of obedience can never be explained by the passive being sprinkled” (Wiesinger); and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary.
It is further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression last used: ῥαντ . αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , here for the first time characterized directly as Christians, all the previous designations having been equally applicable to the children of Israel. A circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter regards the Christian church as the true Israel, and that without making it in any way dependent on national connection.
As regards the lexicology, it must be remarked that in classical Greek ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς never occurs, and ῬΑΝΤΊΖΕΙΝ only in later writers: the usual word is ῬΑΊΝΕΙΝ , e.g. Euripides, Iphig. in Aul. 1589: ἧς αἵματι βωμὸν ῥαίνετʼ ἄρδην τῆς Θεοῦ ; in the LXX. both verbal forms: ῬΑΝΤΙΣΜΌς , only in Numbers 19., in a somewhat inexact translation, however.
ΧΆΡΙς ὙΜῖΝ ΚΑῚ ΕἸΡΉΝΗ ΠΛΗΘΥΝΘΕΊΗ ] The distinction between ΧΆΡΙς and ΕἸΡΉΝΗ is thus drawn by Gerhard: “pax a gratia distinguitur tanquam fructus et effectus a sua causa.” In harmony with this, χάρις is regarded by the interpreters for the most part as “the subjective in God” (Meyer on Rom_1:7); but Paul’s use of ἈΠΌ and the subsequent ΠΛΗΘΥΝΘΕΊΗ show that by ΧΆΡΙς in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow from it (the manifestation of grace). ΕἸΡΉΝΗ specifies this gift more closely according to its nature (see on 1Ti_1:2 [48]). πληθυνθείη ] Luther: “ye have peace and grace, but not yet to the full;” on the salutation form in the N. T., besides here only in 2Pe_1:2 and Jud_1:2; in O. T. in Dan. 3:31, LXX.: εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη ; cf. Schoettgen: horae hebr. et talm., on this passage.
[34] The LXX. translate ðÄãÌÈä (as a collective noun), Deu_30:4, Neh_1:9, by διασπορά , and as inexactly and even incorrectly æÀåÈòÈä , Jer_34:17; îÄæÀøÈä , Jer_15:7; ðÀöåÌøÅé éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì , Isa_49:6.
[35] Taken in this way, the genit. διασπορᾶς must be interpreted as genit. partit., thus: the members of the διασπορά who have become Christians ( ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι ). Weizsäcker is altogether mistaken (Reuter’s Repert. 1858, No. 3) in his opinion that the reference is to “the Christians who, in as far as they dwell among the dispersed Jewish communities, are members of the Diaspora.”
[36] It is worthy of note that Paul also considers the Christian church to be the Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα , that he looks upon the converted heathen as the branches ingrafted into Israel, that he was ever anxious to keep up the connection between the heathen Christian churches and the mother church in Jerusalem, and that he distinctly terms the church triumphant ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ .
[37] Schott, however, grants that “Peter considers Jerusalem and the mother church in Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all believers under the New Covenant.”
[38] Hofmann supports this application as against that to παρεπιδήμοις , “because the state of being a stranger, even though taken spiritually, is not a condition to which the prepositional determinations are suited.” Hofmann does not state the ground of this assertion; as the idea of being a stranger is identical with that of being a Christian, these are very well adapted to ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις . The mere circumstance that the question here is not one of a nearer definition of election, but of the condition in which the readers were, is opposed to a connection with ἐκλεκτοῖς . Cf. 1Co_1:1, where διὰ θελήματος stands connected with κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Ἰησ . Χρ . and not with κλητός ; see 2Co_1:1.
[39] Lyranus: praedestinatio; Erasmus: praefinitio; Beza: antegressum decretum s. propositum Dei; Luther: the foreseeing of God; Gerhard: πρόθεσις juxta quam facta est electio; de Wette: βουλή or προορισμός .
[40] The word has not this signification in the N. T.; it has it, however, in the Book of Jdt_9:6; Jdt_11:19.—The verb προγιγνώσκειν has the meaning of simple foreknowledge in Act_26:5 and 2Pe_3:17 (so, too, Book of Wis_6:13; Wis_8:8; Wis_18:6); the sense is different in Rom_8:29; Rom_11:2, and 1Pe_1:20.
[41] Schott’s assertion, that “ γιγνώσκειν is always a cognizance of this kind, since he who is cognizant gives himself up in his inmost nature to the object in question, so as again to take it up into his being and to appropriate it to himself,”—further, that “the perceiving of God creates its own objects, and consequently is a προγιγνώσκειν ,” and that accordingly neither death nor sin can be the objects of God’s foreknowledge,—contradicts itself by the clearest statements of Scripture; cf. Deu_9:24; Deu_31:27; Mat_22:18; Luk_16:15; Joh_5:42; 1Co_3:20, etc.
[42] Cf. Rom_6:19, where it is contrasted with ἀνομία ; 1Co_1:30, where it is connected with δικαιοσύνη , 1Ti_2:15 with ἀγάπη , and 1Th_4:4 with τιμή ; 1Th_4:7, where it stands in antithesis to ἀκαθαρσία ; and Heb_12:14, where, like εἰρήνην (cf. 1Ti_6:11 : δίωκε δικαιοσύνην ), it depends on διώκετε ; in 1Th_4:3 also it has the meaning referred to. If it be here taken in an active sense, and ὑμῶν be the objective genitive, the subject is wanting; but if ὑμῶν be the subjective genitive, then it is the object which is wanting. Lünemann’s interpretation accordingly: “that you sanctify yourselves,” is unwarranted. ἁγιασμός can only be artificially interpreted by “sanctifying” in the passages quoted. A striking example of this is Hofmann’s interpretation of 1Th_4:4. Only in 2Th_2:13, where the expression, as here, is: ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος , does the active meaning seem to correspond better than the neuter with the thought. There is no foundation whatever for the opinion of Cremer, cf. s.v., that—whilst in the Apocrypha the word never has an active signification, but is either “sanctuary” (thus also in the LXX. Eze_45:4 and Amo_2:11) or “sanctity”—it is in the N. T. for the most part “sanctifying.”—Schott very justly calls in question the active signification of the word; but when, not content with the rendering “sanctification,” he interprets “the condition of holiness being increasingly realized,” he confuses the conception by references which are simply imported.
[43] The idea of holiness is here by no means inappropriate, since the readers would not be ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι if they had not become ἅγιοι through the Holy Spirit. It is this ἅγιον εἶναι which is here expressed by ἁγιασμός . Also in 2Th_2:13, there is no urgent reason for departing from this signification of the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to 2Ma_14:36; cf. Cremer, s.v.
[44] Hofmann thinks that since ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος forms one conception, and ὑπακοή can be accompanied by an objective genitive, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , being the subjective genitive to αἵματος , might at the same time be objective genitive to ὑπακοή . In opposition to this, we observe (1) that it is self-contradictory to say that ῥαντ . αἵματος forms one conception, and that Ἰησοῦ Χρ . is dependent on αἵματος ; and (2) that it is grammatically inadmissible to take the same genitive as being at once subjective and objective genitive.—This much only is correct, that the nearer definition, which must be supplied to ὑπακοή , has, in sense, to be borrowed from the subsequent genitive Ἰησοῦ Χρ .
[45] Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that the LXX. translate the Hebrew îÅé ðÄãÌÈä (which is not, in his view, equal to “water of purification,” but to “water of impurity”) by ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ , concludes that ῥαντισμός does not simply mean aspersio, but ea aspersio, cujus ratio, causa, effectus verbis îÅé ðÄãÌÈä descripta sunt,—that is, since that water was tanquam mortis instar, quum in ipsius mortis communionem ita redigeret immundos, ut reducerentur inde in munditiem vitae, ejusmodi aspersio quae in naturam sparsae aquae trahit, atque virtute ipsius sparsos penitus imbuit, he explains ῥαντισμ . αἵμ . Ἰ . Χρ . as a sprinkling with the blood of Christ, qua in mortis salvatoris nostri communionem trahamur.
[46] When Wiesinger remarks: “But in Heb_11:22, ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδ . πονηρᾶς is based on the typical sacrifice of the great day of atonement, although ἐῤῥαντισμένοι is transferred here to persons, and ἀπό points to a cleansing and freeing from the consciousness of guilt,” we cannot in this agree with him; nor do either Lünemann or Delitzsch see here any reference to the great sacrifice of atonement. The former explains the expression “on the analogy of the sprinkling with blood by which the first Levitical priests were consecrated;” while the latter quotes by way of explanation the passage Heb_12:24, where he terms the αἷμα ῥαντισμοῦ the antitype of the blood with which Moses sprinkled the people at the institution and consecration of the covenant.
[47] Hofmann is accordingly wrong in maintaining that “what is here meant has taken place once for all for the readers, and is not continually to be done.” Nor does this altogether accord with his own interpretation, when he says, “the readers are chosen to become obedient to Christ, and partakers of His propitiation for sin.” The Christian, on being received into communion with Christ, has been sprinkled with His blood, but still he requires a continual cleansing, and this he receives, if he walk in the light; cf. 1Jn_1:7.
[48] When Schott, in order to preserve the objectiveness of εἰρήνη , erroneously understands it to mean “the state of matters which to those who are in it occasions inwardly no want or unrest, and externally no harm or disturbance,” it must be urged in opposition that the inwardness of a possession does not in any way affect its objectiveness.