1Pe_2:16.
ὡς
ἐλεύθεροι
] is not, as Lachm., Jachmann, Steiger, Fronmüller think, to be joined with what follows (1Pe_2:17),[141] but with a preceding thought; either with
ἀγαθοποιοῦντας
(Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger, Hofm.), or with
ὑποτάγητε
(Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, de Wette, Schott, etc.). The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not because in the former a change of construction would take place, but because the special point to be brought out here was, that the freedom of the Christians was to be manifested in submission to (heathen) authorities. What follows shows this, inasmuch as those Christians who had not attained unto true freedom, might easily be led to justify their opposition to those in power on the ground of the liberty which belonged to them in Christ.
ὡς
ἐλεύθεροι
states the position which the Christians are to take up inwardly towards the authorities; their subjection is not that of
δοῦλοι
, since they recognise them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral ends.[142]
καὶ
μὴ
ὡς
ἐπικάλυμμα
ἔχοντες
τῆς
κακίας
τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν
]
καί
is epexegetical: “and that,” since what follows defines the idea
ἐλεύθεροι
first negatively and then positively.
ὡς
belongs not to
ἐπικάλυμμα
, but to
ἔχοντες
: “and that not as those who have.”
ἐπικάλυμμα
is the more remote,
τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν
the proximate, object of
ἔχοντες
: “who have the
ἐλευθερία
as the
ἐπικάλυμμα
τ
.
κακ
.”
ἐπικάλυμμα
,
ἅπ
.
λεγ
.; for its original meaning, cf. Exo_26:14, LXX.; here used metaphorically (cf. Kypke in loc.). The sense is: “not as those to whom their freedom serves as a covering for their
κακία
” (cf. 2Pe_2:19; Gal_5:13), i.e. who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Pharisaism of those who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart by an outward conformity to the law.
ἀλλʼ
ὡς
δοῦλοι
Θεοῦ
] expresses positively the nature of the truly free. True liberty consists in the
δουλεία
Θεοῦ
(Rom_6:16 ff.); it refers back to the
τὸ
θέλημα
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
, and further still to
διὰ
κύριον
.
[141] Hofmann justly says: “We cannot think of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, for its contents would not suit
πάντας
τιμήσατε
—even should it be connected with this only (Fronmüller), which is quite impossible—not to speak of
τὴν
ἀδελφοτητα
or
τὸν
Θεὸν
φοβεῖσθε
.”
[142] It is not probable that Peter here refers, as Weiss (p. 349) thinks, to the words of Christ, Mat_17:27, since they apply to circumstances altogether different from those mentioned here; see Meyer in loc.