Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 1:22 - 1:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_1:22. From 1Pe_1:22 to 1Pe_1:25 the third exhortation,[99] and its subject is love one of another. Gerhard incorrectly joins this verse with verse 17, and regards 1Pe_1:18-21 as a parenthesis.
τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ] The participle does not here express the accomplished act as the basis of the exhortation, as if it were: “after that ye, or since ye, have purified” (Bengel, Wiesinger), but it stands closely linked on to the imperative, and denotes the duty which must ever be fulfilled (hence the perf.) if the ἀγαπᾶν is to be realized (de Wette-Brückner, Schott, Fronmüller);[100] Luther inexactly: “make chaste … and,” etc.
ἁγνίζειν , a religious idea denoting in the first instance the outward, and afterwards the inward consecration and sanctifying also (cf. Joh_11:55; Act_21:24; Act_21:26; Act_24:18); in passages too, as here, where it expresses moral cleansing from all impurity (here more especially from selfishness), it does not lose its religious significance; cf. Jam_4:8; 1Jn_3:3.[101]
ἘΝ Τῇ ὙΠΑΚΟῇ Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς ] Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ is the truth revealed and expressed in the gospel in all its fulness. Calvin’s limitation of the idea is arbitrary: veritatem accipit pro regula, quam nobis Dominus in evangelio praescribit.
ὑπακοή , not “faith” (Wiesinger), but “obedience.” The genitive is not the gen. subj.: “the obedience which the truth begets,” but the gen. obj.: “obedience to the truth.” This ὙΠΑΚΟΉ , however, consists in believing what the truth proclaims, and in performing what it requires (thus Weiss also).
The preposition ἐν exhibits ὙΠΑΚΟΉ as the element in which the Christian must move in order to procure the sanctification of his soul.
If the reading ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς be adopted, the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not the human spirit, but the Spirit of God; Luther incorrectly: that the apostle here means to observe that the word of God must not only be heard and read, but be laid hold of with the heart.
εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον ] does not belong to the ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΤΕ following, either as denoting the terminus of love, and the sense being: diligite vos in fraternam caritatem, i.e. in unum corpus fraternae caritatis; or as: διά (Oecumenius), and thus pointing out the “agency by which;” nor, finally, is it embatic: ita ut omnibus manifestum fiat, vos esse invicem fratres (Gerhard);—but it is to be taken in conjunction with ἩΓΝΙΚΌΤΕς , and specifies the aim towards which the ἉΓΝΊΖΕΙΝ is to be directed. Sanctification towards love, by the putting away of all selfishness, must ever precede love itself.
ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΊΑ ] love of the brethren peculiar to Christians, cf. 2Pe_1:7; Rom_12:9-10; 1Th_4:9.
With ἈΝΥΠΌΚΡΙΤΟς , cf. 1Jn_3:18, where true unfeigned love is described.
ἘΚ ( ΚΑΘΡᾶς ) ΚΑΡΔΊΑς ] is not to be joined with what precedes,—it being thus a somewhat cumbrous adjunct,—but with what follows, setting forth in relief an essential element of love; with the expression ἘΚ ΚΑΡΔΊΑς , cf. Rom_6:17; Mat_18:35 ( ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ΚΑΡΔΙῶΝ ὙΜῶΝ ); on the Rec. ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας , see 1Ti_1:5.[102]
ἈΛΛΉΛΟΥς ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΤΕ ἘΚΤΕΝῶς ] ἈΓΑΠᾶΝ is not to be limited, as Wiesinger proposes, “to the manifestation of love in act;” the passages, chap. 1Pe_4:8, 1Jn_3:18, do not justify this limitation.
ἘΚΤΕΝῶς , “with strained energies;” it denotes here “the persevering intensity of love” (in like manner Weiss, p. 336; Fronmüller, Hofmann); Luther translates “ardently;” Schott without any reason asserts that in all the N. T. passages the word is used only in the temporal sense of duration, and therefore is so to be taken here; Luk_22:24, Act_12:5; Act_26:7, 1Pe_4:8, are evidence not for, but against Schott’s assertion. The chief emphasis lies not on ἀγαπήσατε , but on ἘΚ ( ΚΑΘΑΡᾶς ) ΚΑΡΔΊΑς and ἘΚΤΕΝῶς .
[99] Hofmann, without any sufficient reason, supposes the third exhortation to begin with ver. 18, although the amplifications contained in vv. 18–21 serve eminently to inculcate the preceding exhortation. The expression εἰδότες can be joined either with a preceding or a subsequent idea, yet it must be observed that in the N. T. the first combination is more frequent than the second, and that in the latter case εἰδότες is always accompanied by a particle, by which it is marked as the first word of a subsequent set of phrases; Hofmann altogether overlooks this. Here undoubtedly καί would have been prefixed to εἰδότες .
[100] Hofmann declares himself opposed to both of these interpretations, or rather he seeks to unite them after a fashion, by assuming that the participial clause partakes of the imperative tone of the principal clause. He likewise characterizes personal purification, presupposed by that love which is ever and anon manifested, as that which should have been accomplished once for all (as if it were possible to command that something should have taken place); he then adds that he who has not yet dedicated his soul to brotherly love must do so still(!).
[101] Schott leaves this religious reference entirely unnoticed. He states that the original meaning of the word ἁγνός , “is that purity of mind which regards one thing only as the foundation and aim of all practical life—the truly moral.” Cremer, too, thinks that although originally it had the religious sense “to dedicate,” it is (Joh_11:55, Act_21:24; Act_21:26; Act_24:18 excepted) as a term, techn. foreign to the N. T., and is here only equal to “to purify,” “to cleanse” (without the secondary meaning “to dedicate”).
[102] This participial clause joins itself naturally with what precedes, and is not, with Hofmann, to be taken with what follows (chap. 1Pe_2:1); ἀποθέμενοι , as οὖν shows, begins a new sentence. The connection proposed by Hofmann would give rise to a very clumsy phraseology. Were it true that regeneration has nothing to do with brotherly love, then of course neither has it anything to do with the laying aside of those lusts which are opposed to love, spoken of in chap. 1Pe_2:1. Hofmann says, indeed, that 1Pe_2:1 describes the contraries of ἁπλότης (childlike simplicity), not of φιλαδελφία ; but is not the opposite of the one the opposite of the other also? The construction in Rom_13:1 ff. is only in appearance similar to that which Hofmann understands as occurring here.