Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 1:11 - 1:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_1:11 stands in close grammatical connection with the preceding, ἐρευνῶντες being conjoined with the verba finita of 1Pe_1:10; what follows states the object of the ἐρευνᾷν .
εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν ] τίνα refers to the time itself, ποῖον to its character.[70] Steinmeyer (appealing without justification to Rom_4:13) explains ἤ incorrectly: vel potius; vel, ut rectius dicam.
ἐδήλου ] not: “referred to” (Luth. or significaret, Vulg.), but: “revealed,” as Heb_9:8; Heb_12:17, etc. Vorstius supplies: gratiam illam exstituram, de qua et ipsi vaticinabantur; this is incorrect. εἰς … καιρόν is conjoined rather directly—though not as its real object, but as a secondary determination—with ἐδήλου . An object is not to be supplied (neither ταῦτα nor τὴν χάριν ταύτην , Steiger), as ἐδήλου is in intimate union with the participle προμαρτυρόμενον (de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott), by which “at once the act of δηλοῦν and its object are exactly determined” (de Wette).
τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ] By this the revealing subject is mentioned: the prophets only expressed what the Spirit within them communicated to them; “the τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς is to be taken as a special act of ἐδήλου ” (Wiesinger), cf. besides, Mat_22:43 and 2Pe_1:21.[71]
This Spirit is characterized as the ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , not in that it bears witness of Christ (Bengel: Spiritus Christi: testans de Christo; thus also Grotius, Augustine, Jachmann), for ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ is the subjective and not the objective genitive, but because it is the Spirit “which Christ has and gives” (Wiesinger); see Rom_8:8. The expression is to be explained from the apostle’s conviction of the pre-existence of Christ, and is here used in reference strictly to the ΠΡΟΜΑΡΤΥΡΌΜΕΝΟΝ ΤᾺ ΕἸς ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ Κ . Τ . Λ . directly conjoined with it. Barnabas, chap. 1 Peter 5 : prophetae ab ipso habentes donum in illum prophetarunt.
[70] Bengel: in quod vel quale tempus; quod innuit tempus per se, quasi dicas aeram suis numeris notatam: quale dicit tempus ex eventibus variis noscendum.
[71] Hofmann is indeed not mistaken in saying that τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πν . Χρ . is a designation of the Spirit working prophetic knowledge in the prophets, and not of a constant indwelling of it,—only it must be observed that the expression here employed says nothing as to how or in what manner the Spirit dwelt in the prophets.
REMARK.
By far the greater number of the interpreters rightly see in the term here applied to the Spirit a testimony to the real pre-existence of Christ. Not so de Wette, who finds in it merely the expression of the view “that the work of redemption is the same in both the O. and N. T., and that the Spirit of God at work in the former is identical with the Spirit of Christ;” and Weiss (pp. 247–249), who explains the name thus: that the Spirit which was at work in the prophets was the same as “that which Christ received at His baptism, and since then has possessed;” similarly Schmid also (bibl. Theol. p. 163), “the Spirit of God which in after time worked in the person of Christ.”
Weiss seeks to prove, indeed, that “Christ had in the pre-existent Messianic Spirit an ideal, or in a certain sense a real pre-existence,”—but in this way reflex ideas are attributed to the apostles, which certainly lay far from their mind. Besides, Weiss himself admits that in 1Co_10:4; 1Co_10:9, reference is made to the pre-existent Christ; but it cannot be concluded from Act_2:36 that Peter did not believe it. Schott, too, in his interpretation, does not abstain from introducing many results of modern thought, when he designates τὸ πν . Χρ . here as the Spirit “of the Mediator continually approaching the consummation of salvation(!), but as yet supernaturally concealed in God.” Steinmeyer does not touch the question of the pre-existence of Christ; he finds an adequate explanation of the expression in the remark of Bengel, although he takes Χριστοῦ as a subject. gen.
προμαρτυρόμενον ] This verb. compos. occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and in none of the classical writers; the simplex means properly: “to call to witness;” then, “to swear to, to attest;” προμαρτύρεσθαι is therefore: “to attest beforehand.”[72]
The object of ἐδήλου … προμαρτ . is ΤᾺ ΕἸς ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ ΚΑῚ ΤᾺς ΜΕΤᾺ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΔΌΞΑς ] On this Luther remarks, that it can be understood of both kinds of suffering, of those which Christ Himself bore, as well as of those which we endure. The majority of interpreters conceive the reference to be to the former: Oecumenius, Theophyl., Erasmus, Grotius, Aretius, Piscator (cf. Luk_24:26), Vorstius, Hensler, Stolz, Hottinger, Knapp, Steiger, de Wette, Brückner, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann, etc.; but not so Calvin: non tractat Petr. quod Christo sit proprium, sed de universali ecclesiae statu disserit; Bolten and Clericus explain it of the sufferings of the Christians; the same position is taken up in the first edition of this commentary. Since the main tendency of the paragraph, 1Pe_1:10-12, is to give special prominence to the glorious nature of the believers’ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ , the latter view is favoured by the connection of thought. But, on the other hand, there is nothing opposed to the assumption, that the apostle here mentions the facts on which the σωτηρία is founded, as the substance of the testimony of the Spirit of God in the prophets. The expression ΤᾺ ΕἸς ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ too, which must be interpreted on the analogy of Τῆς ΕἸς ὙΜᾶς ΧΆΡΙΤΟς , goes to show that by it are to be understood the sufferings which were ordained or appointed to Christ (Wiesinger).
On the plural τὰς … δόξας , Bengel says: Plurale: gloria resurrectionis, gloria ascensionis, gloria judicii extremi et regni coelestis; thus also Grotius, de Wette, Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. But it might be more correct to explain the plural in this way, that as the one suffering of Christ comprehends in it a plurality of sufferings, so does His ΔΌΞΑ a plurality of glories. Hofmann: “by ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ is to be understood the manifold afflictions in which the one suffering of Christ consisted, while the manifold glorifyings which go to make up His glory are included under ΔΌΞΑΙ .”[73] Besides, it must be noted that the suffering of Christ is always designated by the plural παθήματα (with the exception of in Heb_2:9, where we have: τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου ), but His glory always by the singular δόξα .
As the παθήματα and δόξαι , of Christ are the object of ἐδήλου προμαρτυρόμενον , so by καιρός , to which the ἐρευνᾷν of the prophets was directed, the time is referred to when this salvation would actually be accomplished. For this reason, then, ἐξηρεύνησαν , 1Pe_1:10, cannot again be repeated in ἐρευνῶντες (Wiesinger, Schott), as if the εἰς τίνα … καιρόν referred directly to the appearance of the σωτηρία ; the apostle’s thought is rather this, that in their search as to the time of the sufferings, etc. of Christ, the prophets had before their eyes, as that with respect to which they sought to obtain knowledge, the σωτηρία of which believers were to be made partakers.
[72] Schott justly remarks that δηλοῦν and προμαρτύρεσθαι are not identical with προφητεύειν , but that they denote the “action of the Spirit,” by means of which “He communicated to the prophets the prophecies after which they were to inquire.” But he is evidently mistaken when he asserts that this identification takes place in the above interpretation.—Nor is Schott warranted in supposing that in προμαρ . the apostle emphatically shows that the manner of communication “was a revelation in the form of speech, and not an inward vision.”
[73] Hofmann’s opinion, that Peter had chiefly in his mind the passages in Isa_49:6-7; Isa_52:15, arises from the fact that he applies ὑμᾶς specially to the Gentiles.
REMARK.
Definite corroboration of the ideas here expressed is to be found in the Book of Daniel, chap. Dan_12:4; Dan_12:9-10; Dan_12:13. The fundamental presupposition is, that the “when” of the fulfilment was unknown to the prophets; according to 1Pe_1:12, all that was revealed to them was, that it would take place only in the times to come. De Wette asserts too much when he says, that searching as to the time cannot be predicated of the genuine prophets of ancient Judaism, but of Daniel only, who pondered over the seventy years of Jeremiah. But although the words of Daniel may have given occasion for the apostle’s statement, still that statement is not incapable of justification. If the apostles searched as to the time when the promises of Christ would receive accomplishment, why should it not be presupposed that similarly the prophets, too, inquired into that which the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ testified beforehand to them, more especially as to the καιρός of its fulfilment?