1Pe_1:12.
οἷς
ἀπεκαλύφθη
] is linked on by way of explanation to
ἐρευνῶντες
: “to whom it was revealed,” i.e. “in that it was revealed to them.” This is to be taken neither as an antithesis to the searching, nor as the result of it, but as an element accompanying—and stimulating—it; see Wiesinger and Schott in loc.
ὅτι
οὐχ
ἑαυτοῖς
ὑμῖν
(
ἡμῖν
)
δὲ
διηκόνουν
αὐτά
]
ὅτι
is not causal here (Luther: “for;” so also Luthardt and Hofmann). Opposed to this is the circumstance that if
ὅτι
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. be taken as a parenthesis, and the
ἃ
νῦν
ἀνηγγέλη
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. following be joined with
ἀπεκαλύφθη
(Hofmann), this sentence is strangely broken up; if, on the other hand,
ἃ
νῦν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. be united with what immediately precedes (Luther),
ἀπεκαλύφθη
is plainly much too bald. Nor can it be denied that
ὅτι
naturally connects itself with
ἀπεκαλύφθη
, and
ἃ
νῦν
is joined with
διηκόνουν
αὐτά
.
ὅτι
states, then, not the reason, but the contents of what was revealed to the prophets.[74]
ΔΙΑΚΟΝΕῖΝ
, both in the N. T. and in the classics, is frequently a transitive verb joined with the accusative, and that in such a way that the accusative denotes either the result of the
ΔΙΑΚΟΝΕῖΝ
, or the thing to which the service is directed (1Pe_4:10). Here, where
ΑὐΤΆ
is the accusative dependent on
ΔΙΗΚΌΝΟΥΝ
, the latter is the case; for that which is announced to the Christians is not the result of the prophets’ ministrations, but that to which they were directed. That “they did their part in bringing to pass by their ministration the salvation which is now preached” (Wiesinger, and Schott also), is a thought in no way hinted at here, and in which: “did their part” is a purely arbitrary addition. The ministration of the prophets consisted not in the bringing to pass of the salvation, but in the proclaiming of that which was revealed to them (Brückner); and this is what is conveyed by
αὐτά
.
They exercised this ministration,
ΟὐΧ
, etc., “not for their, rather for your (our) benefit,” i.e. in such a way that its application was to you (us), not to themselves.
On
δέ
after the negation, as distinguished from
ἈΛΛΆ
, cf. Winer, p. 411 [E. T. 621].[75] The difference in the reading
ὑμῖν
or
ἩΜῖΝ
does not essentially affect the meaning, since by
ὙΜῖΝ
, though the readers of the epistle are indeed addressed in the first instance, all the rest of the Christians are naturally thought of as included. Still, the idea expressed in the
ὙΜῖΝ
or
ἩΜῖΝ
ΔΈ
is not without difficulty. Taken strictly, the
ΟὐΧ
ἙΑΥΤΟῖς
alone was known to the prophets—and along with this likewise, that it was for others, i.e. for those who lived at the time of its fulfilment. But as these others are the Christians, the apostle directly opposes
ὑμῖν
δέ
to
ΟὐΧ
ἙΑΥΤΟῖς
—that is, inserts the definite for the indefinite.
Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner join
ΑὐΤΆ
closely with the
Ἅ
which follows: “the same as that which now is proclaimed to you;” this is, however, incorrect.
ΑὐΤΆ
is nowhere in the N. T. construed thus with a relative to which it is antecedent; it applies rather to what has been formerly mentioned; here, therefore, doubtless to that of which the
ΠΝΕῦΜΑ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ
testified beforehand to the prophets, and what they prophesied of the
ΧΆΡΙς
, of which the readers had been made partakers. It is less fitting to limit the reference to the
ΤᾺ
ΕἸς
ΧΡΙΣΤῸΝ
ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ
,
Ἃ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
. being joined to it in a somewhat loose way.
It is entirely arbitrary for Hofmann to assert that “Peter does not speak of any prophecies in general, but of the written records in which were contained the prediction of the prophets, who had foretold the extension of grace to the Gentile world;” there is nothing here to lead to the supposition that the apostle makes any reference to written records,—and predictions with regard to the heathen.
By means of the following
Ἃ
ΝῦΝ
ἈΝΗΓΓΈΛΗ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
., the apostle insists that what the prophets foretold is that which is now proclaimed to the readers.
ΝῦΝ
emphasizes the present, in which the facts of salvation are proclaimed as having already taken place, as contradistinguished from the time when they were predicted as future.
ΔΙᾺ
ΤῶΝ
ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΑΜΈΝΩΝ
ὙΜᾶς
(
ἘΝ
)
ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ
ἉΓΊῼ
] For the construction of the verb
ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ
, c. acc, cf. Gal_1:9; Winer, p. 209 [E. T. 279].
If the reading:
ἘΝ
ΠΝ
. be adopted, the Holy Spirit is conceived of as the power, as it were, encompassing and swaying them; if the other reading, as the moving and impelling cause. Like prophecy (1Pe_1:11), the preaching of the gospel proceeds from the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit.
ἈΠΟΣΤΑΛΈΝΤΙ
ἈΠʼ
ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ
] refers to the events of Pentecost; since then the Holy Spirit has His abode and is at work in the church.[76] Though the same Spirit was already in the prophets, 1Pe_1:11, He had not yet at that time been sent from heaven. Who the individuals were who had preached the gospel to the readers, Peter does not say. No doubt the form of the apostle’s expression does not compel us to think of him as excluded from the
τῶν
εὐαγγελ
.; yet it is very probable that Peter, had he intended to include himself, would somehow have given this to be understood.
εἰς
ἃ
ἐπιθυμοῦσιν
ἄγγελοι
παρακύψαι
] The relative
ἅ
clearly goes back to
ἃ
νῦν
ἀνηγγέλη
. It is arbitrary to understand (with Schott) by that which the angels desired to see, “the nature and origin of the moral transformation wrought by the proclamation of the gospel;” or, with Hofmann, to give it this reference, “that Christ has died, and been glorified in such a way that now He can and should be preached to the heathen as having died, and been glorified for them;” it includes not only the
παθήματα
and
δόξαι
of Christ (Wiesinger), but the whole contents of the message of salvation (Brückner), which, as it is a testimony to the facts of redemption, is also a preaching of the
σωτηρία
founded on them, which is
ἑτοίμη
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
ἐν
καιρῷ
ἐσχάτῳ
(1Pe_1:5), and which the believers will obtain (1Pe_1:9).[77]
ἐπιθυμοῦσι
must not be taken as an aorist (Irenaeus, c. Haer. iv. 67; Oecumenius:
ὧν
τὴν
γνῶσιν
καὶ
ἔκβασιν
καὶ
αὐτοὶ
οἱ
ἄγγελοι
ἐπεθύμησαν
), for the question is not as to what the angels did at the time of the prophets, but as to what they are now doing. That after which they long is the
παρακύψαι
εἰς
αὐτά
. On the inf. aor. after
ἘΠΙΘΥΜΟῦΣΙΝ
, see Winer, p. 310 f. [E. T. 416].
ΠΑΡΑΚΎΠΤΕΙΝ
, properly, “to bend to the side so as to examine a thing,” means when joined with
ΕἸς
not only: “to look towards,” but: “to look into anything,” and that in order to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the object in question.[78] The
παρά
of the verb indicates that the angels stand outside the work of redemption, inasmuch as it is not for them, but for man (cf. Heb_2:16). The addition of this clause brings prominently forward the idea, not that the work of salvation is a mystery,—concealed even from the angels,—but that that which has been proclaimed to the readers is something so glorious that even the angels had a wish and a longing to see what was its fashion, and what the course of its development (cf. Eph_3:10). Nor is it implied in
ἐπιθυμοῦσι
that “the angels cannot attain to a knowledge of the economy of salvation” (Schott). It is more than doubtful whether there be here any reference to Exo_25:20, as several interpreters assume. Beza: alludit Ap. ad duos illos Cherubim opercula Arcae insistentes, conversis in ipsam arcam oculis. Piscator: videtur respicere ad Cherubim super arcam foederis, tanquam ad typum.
[74] Luthardt interprets: “for there the object was a future one, from which the veil had to he removed by single acts of God; here, it is a present one, which accordingly the messengers simply proclaim, in the power of the now ever present Spirit of God,”—how much is imported here! Steinmeyer admits that
ὅτι
is not to he taken
αἰτιολογικῶς
, but denies at the same time that it states the argumentum
τῆς
ἀποκαλύψεως
; he assumes an inversion, which is to be resolved thus:
οἷς
ἀπεκαλύφθη
(sc.
ταῦτα
, namely
τὰ
παθ
.
κ
.
δόξαι
Χρ
.)
οὐχ
ἑαυτοῖς
,
ἀλλʼ
ὅτι
ὑμῖν
διηκόνουν
αὐτά
, and then interprets: h. e. quibus manifestata sunt, non in ipsorum commodum, sed quia nobis ea ministrare jussi erant. But is
ὅτι
then not still
αἰτιολογικῶς
? And on what ground should an inversion so very harsh be adopted?
[75] Schott’s singular assertion, that “
οὐ
…
δέ
does not cancel
ἑαυτοῖς
simply, and put
ὑμῖν
in its place, but that
δέ
adds only something new to the preceding which remains standing” (in spite of the
οὐ
!), is based on a misconception of what is said by Hartung, Partikellehre, I. 171, to which Schott appeals. “Others than those addressed are not excluded; the latter only are indicated as those for whom the prophecy was intended;” thus Hofmann, too, incorrectly.
[76] Weiss’s assertion (Die Petrin. Frage, above mentioned, p. 642) that, “if there be here an allusion to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Paul could not have belonged to those who had preached the gospel to the readers,” is without foundation, as it is not said here that the
εὐαγγελισάμενοι
ὑμᾶς
belonged to those who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but only that they preached in that Spirit, which was sent from heaven at Pentecost; and this applies to Paul no less than to the other apostles, etc.
[77] The Vulg. translates
εἰς
ἅ
by in quem (i.e. in Spiritum sanctum).
[78] Although Hofmann may not be wrong in asserting that
παρακύπτειν
is used also to denote a cursory glance at anything (cf. Dem. 4:24, in Pape, s.v.), yet in connection with
εἰς
it is chiefly employed in cases where a more accurate knowledge is implied; precisely as Pape also interprets
παρακύπτειν
, “to stand beside a thing, and to bend down so as to see it more distinctly;” cf. further, Sir_21:23 (Sir_14:23), and in the N. T. besides Jam_1:25, also Joh_20:11 (Luk_24:12; Joh_20:5).