Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 2:11 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_2:11-12. A new exhortation: the central thought is expressed in the beginning of 1Pe_2:12. The apostle, after describing its peculiarly lofty dignity, considers the Christian church in its relation to the non-Christian world, and shows how believers must prove themselves blameless before it by right conduct in the different relations of human life. The condition necessary for this is stated in 1Pe_2:11.
Ἀγαπητοί ] This form of address expresses the affectionate, impressive earnestness of the following exhortation.
παρακαλῶ (sc. ὑμᾶς ) ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους ]; cf. Psa_39:13, LXX.
ὡς , as in 1Pe_1:14.
πάροικος , cf. 1Pe_1:17, in its strict sense: Act_7:6; Act_7:29, equal to, inquilinus, he who dwells in a town (or land) where he has no civil rights; cf. Luk_24:18. In Eph_2:19 it stands as synonymous with ξένος , of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God.
παρεπίδημος , cf. 1Pe_1:1. The home of the believer is heaven, on earth he is a stranger. Calvin: sic eos appellat, non quia a patria exularent, ac dissipati essent in diversis regionibus, sed quia filii Dei, ubicunque terrarum agant, mundi sunt hospites; cf. Heb_11:13-15. A distinction between the two words is not to be pressed here; the same idea is expressed by two words, in order to emphasize it the more strongly. Luther inexactly translates παρεπίδημοι by “pilgrims.”
Even if ἀπέχεσθαι be the true reading, the words ὡς παροίκους κ . τ . λ . must be connected with παρακαλῶ (as opposed to de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger), for they show in what character Peter now regarded his readers (Hofmann)[131] in relation to the following exhortations, and have reference not simply to the admonition ἀπέχεσθαι ; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly remarks. Probably, however, ἀπέχεσθε is the original reading, and was changed into the infinitive in order to make the connection with παρακαλῶ more close. ἀπέχεσθαι presents the negative aspect of sanctification, as chap. 1Pe_2:1 : ἀποθέμενοι .
τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ] similar expressions in Gal_5:10; Eph_2:3; 2Pe_2:18. The ἐπιθυμίαι are σαρκικαί , because they have their seat in the σάρξ . Wiesinger improperly says that “the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly” are here meant, for all ἐπιθυμίαι tend to, and do, manifest themselves outwardly, if there be no ἀπέχεσθαι . Schott assumes, without reason, that the ἐπιθυμίαι are here considered “as something outside of the Christian community, and manifesting itself only in the surrounding heathen population;” they are indeed peculiar to the unbelieving world; but the Christian, too, has them still in his σάρξ , though he can and should prevent them from having a determining power over him, inasmuch as in the world over which they rule he is a πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος .[132] This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in the close connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed to Hofmann).
αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ] is not a definition of the σαρκικαί , but as αἵτινες , equal to “as those which,” shows, explains the nature of the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαί , thus giving the reason of the exhortation.
στρατεύειν is not: “to lay siege to” (Steiger), but: “to war,” “fight against,” as in Jam_4:1 (Rom_7:23 : ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι ).
ψυχή has here its usual meaning; it is neither: vita et salus animae (Hornejus, Grotius), nor: ratio (Pott: libidines, quae nos impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt); nor does it mean: “the new man” (Gerhard: totus homo novus ac interior, quatenus est per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the soul, “in so far as it is penetrated by the Holy Spirit” (Steiger), nor: “life as determined by the new Ego” (Schott); but it is here simply, in contradistinction to σῶμα , the spiritual substance of man of which Peter says that it must be sanctified (chap. 1Pe_1:22), and its σωτηρία is the end of faith (chap. 1Pe_1:9); thus also de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann, Fronmüller. In the natural man the ψυχή is under the power of the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαί (which according to Jam_4:1 have their dwelling ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ; cf. also Rom_7:23); in him who is regenerate, it is delivered from them, yet the ἐπιθυμίαι seek to bring it again into subjection, so that it may fail of its σωτηρία ;—in this consists the στρατεύεσθαι κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς .—1Pe_2:12. τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν (chap. 1Pe_1:15; 1Pe_1:17) ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες καλήν ] ἐν τοῖς ἔθν .: “among the Gentiles;” for the churches to whom Peter wrote were in Gentile lands.
ἔχοντες καλήν : Luther inexactly: “lead a good mode of life;” καλήν is a predicate: “having your mode of life good (as one good);” cf. chap. 1Pe_4:8.
ἔχοντες (antithesis to ἀπέχεσθε , 1Pe_2:11) is not here put for the imperative, but is a participle subordinate to the finite verb; if ἀπέχεσθαι be read, there is here, as in Eph_4:2, Col_3:16, an irregularity in the construction by which the idea contained in the participle is significantly made prominent.
ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν κ . τ . λ .] “that in the matter in which they revile you as evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they themselves have beheld, glorify God,” i.e. in order that the matter which was made the ground of their evil-speaking, may by your good works become to them the ground of giving glory to God.
ἵνα states the purpose; not for ὥστε ; ἐν ᾧ is not: ἐν ᾧ χρόνω , as in Mar_2:19 (Pott, Hensler), for the καταλαλεῖν and the δοξάζειν cannot be simultaneous; nor is it: pro eo quod (Beza), such a construction has no grammatical justification; but ἐν specifies here, as in verb. affect., the occasioning object (cf. chap. 1Pe_4:4), and the relative refers to a demonstrative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to δοξάζωσι as ἐν ᾧ to καταλαλοῦσιν . It is not then τοῦτο , but ἐν τούτῳ , which is to be supplied (Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann). If τοῦτο were to be supplied it would be dependent on ἐποπτεύσαντες ; but such a construction is opposed by the circumstance that it is not this participle, but δοξάζωσι , which forms the antithesis to καταλαλοῦσι . The participle is interposed here absolutely (as in Eph_3:4 : ἀναγινώσκοντες ), and ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is connected with δοξάζωσι , the sense being: “on account of your good works.” Steiger specifies the καλὰ ἔργα as that which occasions the καταλαλεῖν ,—and later the δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν ,—but the subsequent ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων does not agree with this; de Wette gives: “the whole tenor of life;” the connection with what precedes might suggest the ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκ . ἐπιθυμιῶν ;[133] but it is simpler, with Hofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian profession.
With κακοποιοί , cf. 1Pe_2:14; 1Pe_4:15; Joh_18:30. Brückner, Wiesinger, Weiss (p. 367) justly reject the opinion of Hug, Neander, etc., that ΚΑΚΟΠΟΙΌς here, in harmony with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Ner. c. 16: Christiani genus hominum superstitionis novae et malificae, is equivalent to “state criminal.” In the mouth of a heathen the word would signify a criminal, though not exactly a vicious man; one who had been guilty of such crimes as theft, murder, and the like (cf. 1Pe_4:15), which are punished by the state[134] (cf. 1Pe_2:14).
ἘΚ ΤῶΝ ΚΑΛῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ ] The ΚΑΛᾺ ἜΡΓΑ , in the practice of which the ἈΝΑΣΤΟΦῊ ΚΑΛΉ ) of the Christians consists, are here presented as the motive by which, when they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute the glorifying of God for their evil-speaking; as the Christians too, on their part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, that thus they may overcome the opposition of the Gentiles, cf. chap. 1Pe_3:2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets ἘΚ Τ . ΚΑΛ . ἜΡΓΩΝ ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς : “if the heathen judge of your Christianity by your good works;” for ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΕΙΝ does not mean “to judge of.” With ἐκ τ . καλ . ἔργων … δοξάσωσι τ . Θεόν , comp. Christ’s words, Mat_5:16, which, as Weiss not without reason assumes, may have here been present to the apostle’s mind.
ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς ] “goes back in thought to the ΚΑΛᾺ ἜΡΓΑ , in harmony with the linguistic parallel in 1Pe_3:2 and the grammatical parallel in Eph_3:4” (de Wette). It makes no essential difference in the sense whether the present or, with the Rec., the aorist be read (see critical remarks). The word occurs only here and in 1Pe_3:2, where it is used with the accusative of the object (for the subst. ἐπόπτης , see 2Pe_1:16). It expresses the idea of seeing with one’s own eyes, more strongly than the simple ὉΡᾷΝ . There is no reference here to the use of the word as applied to those who were initiated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries.
ἘΝ ἩΜΈΡᾼ ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς ] ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ is in the LXX. a translation of ôÌÀ÷ËãÌÈä , the visitation of God, whether it be to bless (Job_10:12) or to chastise (Isa_10:3); ἩΜΈΡΑ ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς is therefore the time when God gives salvation, or the time when He punishes, be it in the general sense (Beda: dies extremi judicii), or more specially with reference either to the Christians or the heathen.
The connection of thought seems to point decisively to that time as meant when the ΚΑΤΑΛΑΛΟῦΝΤΕς shall be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to “the gracious visitation of the heathen” (Steiger); as Ὁ ΚΑΙΡῸς Τῆς ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠῆς ΣΟΥ , Luk_19:44, is used with regard to the Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the Fathers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, Erasm., Hemming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc. On the other hand, Oecumenius, Wolf, Bengel, etc., apply the ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ not to God, but understand by it the ἘΞΈΤΑΣΙς of the Christians at the hands of the heathen. But for this there is absolutely no ground. Luther’s interpretation: “when it shall be brought to light,” is wrong; it is equivalent to that of Gerhard: simplicissime accipitur de visitatione illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam variis modis in lucem producit.
Akin to this is the view held by some of the scholastics, that ἘΠΙΣΚΟΠΉ is to be understood of the trial of the Christians by affliction; see Lorinus in loc.
[131] In the former exhortations Peter had regarded them as τέκνα ὑπακοῆς , as such who call on God as Father, as regenerate.
[132] Calvin interprets: carnis desideria intelligit, non tantum crassos et cum pecudibus communes appetitus, sed omnes animae nostrae affectus, ad quos natura ferimur et ducimur. This goes too far, as it would demand the destruction not alone of the striving against the Spirit, natural to man in his sinful condition, but of the entire life of the soul. Cf. Gal_5:17.
[133] So formerly in this commentary, with the observation: “Of this ἀπέχεσθαι Peter says, chap. 1Pe_4:3-4, that it seemed strange to the heathen; for it is precisely this abstinence which gives the Christian life its peculiar character, and distinguishes it from that of the heathen. It became the ground of evil report for this reason, that immoral motives were supposed to be concealed behind it; and this was all the more natural that the Christian had necessarily to place himself in opposition to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and that from a Gentile point of view his obedience to the will of God must have appeared a violation of the law. This prejudice could not be better overcome than by the practice of good works; hence, τὴν ἀναστρ . ὑμ .… καλήν , and the reference to it in ἐκ τ . καλ . ἔργων .”
[134] Schott’s assumption: “that it was the burning of Rome that first increased the universal hatred and aversion of the Christians to a special accusation of criminal and immoral principles,” is unwarranted. He attempts to justify it only by charging Tacitus with an error in the account he gives of the accusations brought by Nero against the Christians.
REMARK.
At variance with this explanation is that given by Schott, who interprets the passage in this way: In order that the heathen may glorify God in the day of judgment, from this that (by the fact that) they slander you as evil-doers in consequence of your good works of which they are witnesses. The idea that the undeserved calumnies of the heathen serve at last to the glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as a basis for the exhortation given in the context. The resolution, too, of ἐν ᾧ into ἐν τούτῳ , ὅτι , has grammatically nothing against it; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Rom_2:1; cf. Heb_2:18, where Lünemann has recourse to a like construction, though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more than one objection may be urged against this interpretation—(1) A reference is given to δοξάζειν different from what is contained in καταλαλεῖν , inasmuch as it is taken, as in 1Co_6:20, in the sense of: “by action;” (2) δοξάζειν must be thought of as something which the heathen bring about “without knowing or willing” it, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any such nearer definition; (3) δοξάζειν can only in a loose sense be conceived of as an act of the heathen; it is simply the result of what they do (of their καταλαλεῖν ); and (4) In comparing these words with those of Christ, Mat_5:16 : ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσι τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς , the thought cannot be got rid of that Peter had this passage here in his mind. Schott’s objection, that “ δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν is a strange and, specially here, a doubly inappropriate expression for conversion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb thus taken with ἐξ , as equal to: in consequence of, is a hard and inelegant construction,” amounts to very little, since in the acceptation of the passage which he calls in question the verb is by no means made to bear any such meaning.