1Pe_1:6.
ἐν
ᾧ
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
] The verb expresses the liveliness of the Christian joy, equivalent to: exult; it is stronger than
χαίρειν
, with which it is sometimes connected (chap. 1Pe_4:13; Mat_5:12; Rev_19:7[59]).
ἐν
ᾧ
refers either to the preceding thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed (Calvin: articulus “in quo” refert totum illud complexum de spe salutis in coelo repositae; so also Estius, Grotius, Calov, Steiger, Jachmann, de Wette, Brückner, Steinmeyer, Schott; similarly Gerhard, who, however, applies it to all that precedes:
ἀναγεννήσας
, etc.), or to
καιρῷ
ἐσχάτῳ
(Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, Wiesinger, etc.). In the first construction
ἀγαλλ
.—in form as in meaning—is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the Christians over their future salvation (
ἐν
ᾧ
: over which, cf. chap. 1Pe_4:4[60]). In the second construction a double interpretation is possible, inasmuch as
ἐν
ᾧ
may denote either the object or the time of the joy; in the first case the sense is: the
καιρὸς
ἔσχατος
is for you an object of joy, because in it the salvation will be revealed; in the second case the sense is: in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger and Hofmann); here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may be easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged against this view (as opposed to Brückner). The last of these different views deserves the preference, both on account of the subsequent
ὀλίγον
ἄρτι
…
λυπηθέντες
, which forms a distinct antithesis to
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
, and of the idea peculiar to the epistle, that in the present time the Christian has to suffer rather than to exult, and only in the future can he expect the full joy;—and the prevalent manner of conjunction, too, precisely in this section of the epistle, by which what follows is linked directly on to the word immediately preceding, cf. 1Pe_1:5; 1Pe_1:8; 1Pe_1:10, shows that
ἐν
ᾧ
applies to
καιρῷ
ἐσχάτῳ
. In this combination, however, it is more natural to take
ἐν
in the same sense as in that which it has before
καιρῷ
, rather than in another.[61]
Doubtless the present
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
will then have a future force; but this occasions no difficulty, there being nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 331 f.]).
The present tense strongly emphasizes the certainty of the future joy, rays of which fall even on the present life.[62]
ὈΛΊΓΟΝ
ἌΡΤΙ
]
ὈΛΊΓΟΝ
not of measure (Steiger), but of time, chap. 1Pe_5:10, where it forms the antithesis to
ΑἸΏΝΙΟς
; cf. Rev_17:10;
ἌΡΤΙ
denotes present time. The juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle’s hope that the
ΚΑΙΡῸς
ἜΣΧΑΤΟς
would soon begin.
ΕἸ
ΔΈΟΝ
ἘΣΤΊ
] not an affirmative (Bengel), but a hypothetical parenthesis: si res ita ferat: if it must be so, that is, according to divine decree; cf. chap. 1Pe_3:17. Incorrectly Steinmeyer: qui per peregrinationis spatium, quamdiu necessarium est, contristati estis.[63]
ΛΥΠΗΘΈΝΤΕς
ἘΝ
ΠΟΙΚΊΛΟΙς
ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῖς
] The aorist with
ἌΡΤΙ
has reference to the future joy: “after that ye have now for a short time been made sorrowful.” “It signifies the inward sadness, in consequence of outward experiences” (Wiesinger).
Particula
ἐν
non solum est
ΧΡΟΝΙΚΉ
, sed etiam
ΑἸΤΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΉ
(Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into each other, so that
ἘΝ
is not to be interpreted as synonymous with
ΔΙΆ
.
ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ
are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved or also tempted; here, specially the persecutions which he is called upon to endure at the hands of the unbelieving world, cf. Jam_1:2; Act_20:19. By the addition of the adjective, the manifold nature of their different kinds is pointed out.
[59] Steinmeyer, whilst combating the opinion that
ἀγαλλ
. has a stronger force than
χαίρειν
, correctly describes the
ἀγαλλίασις
as affectio fervidior animi hilaris, but
χαρά
unwarrantably as: perpetua ilia cordis laetitia, quae neque augeri queat neque imminui.
[60] Brückner explains
ἐν
ᾧ
as above stated, but he understands
ἀγαλλιᾶσθς
in a future sense, “of that which shall most surely come to pass;” this interpretation is undoubtedly inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assurance of the future salvation, stated in ver. 5, may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but will not be so then, when that future salvation itself is attained.
[61] Schott’s assertion, that, as a rule,
ἀγαλλ
. is connected by
ἐν
with its object, is erroneous. In the N. T. the passage, Joh_5:35, at the most, can be quoted in support of this construction; whilst in Luk_10:21,
ἐν
accompanies the simple indication of time. In Luk_1:47,
ἀγαλλ
. is construed with
ἐπί
c. dat.; Joh_8:56, with
ἵνα
.
[62] It is altogether inappropriate to interpret
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
, with Augustine, as an imperative; the exhortations begin only in ver. 13.
[63] The older Protestant commentators, more especially, sometimes employ this passage to combat the arbitrary seeking after suffering; thus Luther says: “It is not to be our own works which we choose, but we must await what God lays upon us and sends, so that we may go and follow, therefore thou mayest not thyself run after them.”
REMARK.
When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation here given, maintains the purely present force of
ἀγαλλ
. on the ground that “it must be the apostle’s object to commend by way of exhortation the readers for their present state of mind,” it is to be remarked—(1) That the apostle here gives utterance to no exhortation; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well direct his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to strengthen them for the patient endurance of their present condition of suffering. It is perfectly arbitrary to assert, with Schott, that by
ἄρτι
the present trials as transitory are contrasted with the present joy as enduring, as also to maintain “that by the aorist
λυπηθέντες
the suffering is reduced to the idea of an ever-changing variety of individual momentary incidents which, in virtue of the uniform joy, may always lie behind the Christian surmounted”(!).
Schott insists again, without reason, that
εἰ
δέον
[
ἐστι
] cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in that it is “impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of the
λυπηθῆναι
hypothetical with respect to the will of God;” for it is not clear why Peter should not characterize the
λυπηθῆναι
ἐν
ποικ
.
πειρασμοῖς
as something hypothetical here, where he does not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts. Nor can it be assumed that
εἰ
δέον
(
ἐστί
) is added in order to remind the readers that the
τοικιλοὶ
πειρασμοί
should in reality occasion no sadness,—the less so that thus the intimately connected
λυπηθέντες
ἐν
ποικ
.
πειρασμοῖς
are torn asunder.