1Pe_1:7.
ἵνα
] states the aim of the
λυπηθῆναι
ἐν
…
πειρασμοῖς
, in order to console the readers with respect to it, “that the approvedness of your faith may be found more precious than (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire, to (your) praise, and glory, and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
δοκίμιον
here, as in Jam_1:3 (cf. in loco), equal to
δοκιμή
, the approvedness as the result of the trial (Rom_5:3-4; 2Co_2:9; 2Co_9:13; Php_2:22).[64] The strict signification “medium of proof” is inappropriate, inasmuch as the aim of the
λυπηθῆναι
ἐν
πειρασμοῖς
cannot be stated as the glorification of these
ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ
, but as only that of faith in its approvedness (in opposition to Steinmeyer). Unsuitable, too, is the interpretation “trial” (Brückner, Wiesinger),
ΤῸ
ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ
Τῆς
ΠΊΣΤΕΩς
being taken for
Ἡ
ΠΊΣΤΙς
ΔΟΚΙΜΑΖΟΜΈΝΗ
, inasmuch as it is not the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is to be compared with the gold. This substitution of ideas is not justifiable, inasmuch as the process applied to an object cannot be put for the object itself to which it is applied. Only if
δοκίμιον
denote a quality of faith, can a substitution of this kind take place.
δοκίμιον
must be taken as: “approvedness,” and by approvedness of faith, the “approved,” or rather “the faith approving itself.”[65]
[64]
δοκιμή
in the N. T. has either an active or a passive signification; in the former it means: “the trial which leads to approvedness,” as in 2Co_8:2; in the latter: “the approvedness effected by trial,” as in the passages quoted; or better still: “a distinction must be drawn between a present and a perfect force, in that “
δοκιμή
has a reflexive sense, either, then, the having approved itself, or the approving itself,” Cremer, s.v.
[65] Brückner raises the following objections to this interpretation:—(1) That
δοκίμιον
can linguistically only be understood as: means of proof, trial; and (2) That the part, pres., standing in opposition to
χρυσίου
(
δοκιμαζομένου
), does not presuppose the purification of the gold to have already taken place, and that, consequently, the
πίστις
δοκιμαζομένη
only can be considered as compared with
χρυσίον
δοκιμαζόμενον
. But against this it must be observed that
δοκίμιον
has only the signification of “means of proof,” not of trial; and (3) That in the above interpretation it is not the already approved faith, but that faith which is being approved, or approving itself in tribulation, which is contrasted with gold which is being tried.
REMARK.
What Schott had formerly alleged with respect to
δοκίμιον
is repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried further. By an highly artificial interpretation of Psa_11:7, LXX., and by the application of the rule established by him, “that the neuter of the adjective does not stand in the place of an abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of something as a concrete reality, and in conjunction with a genitive denotes the object thereby named in this its condition,” Hofmann makes out that it is here affirmed that “at the revelation of Christ it will be found that the faith of the readers has been subjected to purification, and is in consequence free from dross.” This whole interpretation is a pure matter of fancy, for
δοκίμιον
—a circumstance which both Schott and Hofmann have left unnoticed—is not an adjective, but a real substantive; for
δοκιμεῖον
.
Cremer explains: “
δοκ
. is not the touchstone only, in and for itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore
τὸ
δοκ
.
τῆς
πίστεως
is that which results from the contact of
πίστις
with
πειρασμοῖς
, that by which faith is recognised as genuine, equal to the proof of faith.” But in opposition to this it must be remarked that fire and not touchstone is here conceived as the means of testing.
πολυτιμότερον
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] is by most interpreters closely connected with
εὑρεθῇ
, by others again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Hofmann) separated from it, and considered as in apposition to
τὸ
δοκίμιον
ὑμ
.
τ
.
πιστ
. The following facts, however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1) That—as Wiesinger admits—this appositional clause expresses “something understood of itself.” (2) That the intention here is not to make an observation on faith, but to state what is the design of sorrow, namely, that the faith which is approving itself may be found to be one
πολύτιμος
. (3) That thus
εὑρεθῇ
would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the subsequent
εἰς
has reference not to
εὑρεθῇ
alone, but to the whole idea expressed. Yet it cannot well dispense with a nearer definition (in opposition to Hofmann).
The genitive
χρυσίου
is, as almost all the interpreters take it, to be joined in sense directly with the comparative: “than the gold,” so that the
δοκίμιον
of the faith is compared with the gold. Some commentators, like Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinmeyer, Hofmann, assume an ellipsis (cf. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), supplying before
χρυσίου
the words
ἢ
τὸ
δοκίμιον
. In opposition it may be urged, however, not precisely “that this is cumbrous” (Brückner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the approval of faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. Whilst comparing the faith with the gold, the apostle places the former above the latter; the reason of this he states in the attribute
τοῦ
ἀπολλυμένου
connected with
χρυσίου
, by which reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this first attribute he subjoins the second:
διὰ
πυρὸς
δὲ
δοκιμαζομένου
, in order to name here also the medium of proving, to which the
πειρασμοί
, with respect to faith, correspond. Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinmeyer are wrong in asserting that in the interpretation here given the attribute
τοῦ
ἀπολλυμένου
is inappropriate.
ἀπολλύμενος
:
φθαρτός
, cf. 1Pe_1:18; 1Pe_1:23; also Joh_6:27. For the position of the adjective with art. after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f. [E. T. 174].
διὰ
πυρὸς
δὲ
δοκιμαζομένου
] The particle
δέ
seems to place this second adjunct in antithesis to the first (
ἀπολλυμένου
) (thus de Wette: “which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire;” so also Hofmann). But opposed to this view is the circumstance that the trial and purification of what is perishable is by no means anything to occasion surprise; it is therefore more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that by it the idea of the
δοκιμάζεσθαι
is brought prominently forward. Vorstius remarks to the point: aurum igni committitur non ad iteritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides cruci ad gloriam subjicitur.
For this comparison, see Job_23:10; Pro_17:3; Zec_13:9.
εὑρεθῇ
εἰς
ἔπαινον
καὶ
δόξαν
καὶ
τιμήν
] The verb
εὑρεθῆναι
, “to be found to be,” is more significant than
εἶναι
(cf. Winer, p. 572 f. [E. T. 769 f.]), and has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of judgment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole preceding thought:
ἵνα
…
εὑρεθῇ
. Beza rightly: hic agitur de ipsorum electorum laude, etc.; thus: “to your praise, glory, and honour.” Schott quite arbitrarily interprets
ἔπαινος
as in itself: “the judicial recognition” (as opposed to this, cf. Php_1:11; Php_4:8);
τιμή
: “the moral estimation of the person arising therefrom” (as opposed to this, cf. 1Pe_3:7), and
δόξα
: “the form of glory” (as opposed to this, cf. Gal_1:5; Php_1:11). Steinmeyer incorrectly applies the words not to the persons, but to their faith.
δόξα
and
τιμή
in the N. T. stand frequently together; in connection with
ἔπαινος
, here only. The juxtaposition of these synonymous expressions serves to give prominence to the one idea of honourable recognition common to them all. Standing as
δίξα
does between
ἔπαινος
and
τιμή
, it cannot signify: “the allotment of the possession of glory” (Wiesinger), but it is: “glory, praise.”
ἐν
ἀποκαλύψει
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
] not: “through,” but: “at,” the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of His return, which is at once the
ἀποκάλυψις
δικαιοκρισίας
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
(Rom_2:5) and the
ἀποκάλυψις
τῶν
υἱῶν
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
(Rom_8:19).