1Pe_1:23.
ἀναγεγεννημένοι
] gives the ground of the preceding exhortation, by referring to the regeneration from incorruptible seed already accomplished, which, as it alone renders the
ἀγαπᾷν
ἐκτενῶς
possible, also demands it. Luther: “as those who are born afresh;” cf. 1Jn_4:7; 1Jn_5:1. This regeneration is described, as to the origin of it, by the words which follow, and withal in such a way that here, as in 1Pe_1:18, the position is strengthened by placing the negation first.
οὐκ
ἐκ
σπορᾶς
φθαρτῆς
,
ἀλλὰ
ἀφθάρτου
]
σπορά
, strictly, “the sowing, the begetting,” is not here used with this active force (Aretius: satio incorrupta h. e. regeneratio ad vitam aeternam. Fronmüller: “the energizing principle of the Holy Spirit”), but it is “seed,” because, as de Wette says, the epithet suggests the idea of a substance. By
σπορὰ
φθαρτή
is to be understood not the semen frugum, but the semen humanum (de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann); cf. Joh_1:13.
The question arises, in what relation do
ἐκ
σπορᾶς
ἀφθάρτου
and
διὰ
λόγου
stand to one another? The direct connection of the figurative expression (
σπορά
) with the literal (
λόγος
), and the correspondence which evidently exists between
ἀφθάρτου
and
ζῶντος
κ
.
μένοντος
, do not allow of the two ideas being considered as different, nor of
σπορά
being taken to denote the “Holy Spirit” (de Wette-Brückner). On the other hand, the difference of the prepositions points to a distinction to which, from the fact that
σπορά
is a figurative,
λόγος
a real appellative (Gerhard, Weiss, Schott[103]), justice has not yet been done. The use of the two prepositions is to be understood by supposing a different relation of the same thing (of the
λόγος
) to the regeneration; in
ἐξ
we have its point of departure, and not merely its “originating cause” (Hofmann[104]); we have the word of God looked upon as the principle implanted in man working newness of life (
Ὁ
ΛΌΓΟς
ἜΜΦΥΤΟς
, Jam_1:21);
ΔΙΆ
, on the other hand, points to the outward instrumentality by which the new life is effected.
ΔΙᾺ
ΛΌΓΟΥ
ΖῶΝΤΟς
ΘΕΟῦ
ΚΑῚ
ΜΈΝΟΝΤΟς
] refers back to 1Pe_1:22 :
ἘΝ
Τῇ
ὙΠΑΚΟῇ
Τῆς
ἈΛΗΘ
.; the Christian is laid under obligation to continued sanctification
ἘΝ
ὙΠ
.
Τ
.
ἈΛ
., inasmuch as he has been begotten again to newness of being, by the word of God, i.e. the word of truth.
λόγος
Θεοῦ
is every word of divine revelation; here especially the word which, originating in God, proclaims Christ, i.e. the gospel. Schwenkfeld erroneously understands by it the Johannine Logos, which, indeed, even Didymus had considered possible.
On the construction of the adj.
ζῶντος
and
ΜΈΝΟΝΤΟς
, Calvin says: possumus legere tam sermonem viventem Dei, quam Dei viventis; he himself prefers the second combination; thus also Vulg., Oecum., Beza, Hensler, Jachmann, etc. Most interpreters give preference, and with justice, to the first, for which are decisive both the contents of the following verses, in which the emphasis is laid, not on the abiding nature of God, but of the word of God, and the position of the words—otherwise
ζῶντος
, on account of the subsequent
ΚΑῚ
ΜΈΝΟΝΤΟς
, must have stood after
ΘΕΟῦ
. The superaddition of
ΜΈΝΟΝΤΟς
arises from the circumstance that this attribute is deduced from the previous one, and is brought in so as to prepare the way for the passage of Scripture (1Pe_1:25 :
ΜΈΝΕΙ
) (de Wette[105]). The characteristics specified by these attributes are applicable to the word of God, not in its form, but in its inner substance. It is living in essence as in effect, and it is enduring, not only in that its results are eternal, but because itself never perishes. If the subjoined
εἰς
τὸν
αἰῶνα
be spurious, then without it the
ΜΈΝΕΙΝ
must not be limited to the present life.[106]
[103] Weiss is of opinion that, as an explanation of the metaphor,
διά
only can be employed with
λόγος
, not
ἐκ
, which belongs exclusively to the figure. This is, however, incorrect;
διά
would doubtless not have been suited to
σπορά
, but
ἐκ
might very well have been used with
λόγου
(Cf. Joh_3:5), indeed, must have been so if the
λόγος
itself were regarded as
σπορά
. The two prepositions express, each of them, a different relation.
[104] Also in the passages quoted by Hofmann, Joh_1:13; Joh_3:5, Mat_1:18,
ἐκ
indicates more than a mere causal action.
[105] Hofmann strangely enough explains the position of
Θεοῦ
by assuming it to be placed as an apposition between the two predicates to which it serves as basis; he accordingly thinks the words should be written thus:
διὰ
λόγου
ζῶντος
,
Θεοῦ
,
καὶ
μένοντος
(!).
[106] The word, as the revelation of the Spirit, is eternal, although changeable, according to its form; to the word also applies what Paul says, 1Co_15:54 : this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality. Luther admirably says: “The word is an eternal, divine power. For although voice and speech pass away, the kernel remains, i.e. the understanding, the truth which the voice contained. Just as, when I put to my lips a cup which contains wine, I drink the wine, although I thrust not the cup down my throat. Thus it is with the word which the voice utters; it drops into the heart and becomes living, although the voice remains outside and passes away. Therefore it is indeed a divine power, it is God Himself.”