Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 2:24 - 2:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_2:24. A further expansion of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν , 1Pe_2:21.
ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν κ . τ . λ .] “Who Himself bore our sins on His body to the tree.”
ὅς , the third relative clause; though a climax too, cannot fail to be recognised here: He suffered innocently,—patiently (not requiting evil for evil),—vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that this third clause predicates anything of Christ in which He can be an example for us (Hofmann); the thought here expressed itself contradicts this assertion.
The phraseology of this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isaiah 53, and the actual fulfilment of the prophecy herein contained. The words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind of the apostle, are those of 1Pe_2:12, LXX. καί αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε ( ðÈùÒÈà ); cf. also 1Pe_2:11 : καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει , ( éÄñÀáÌÉì ) and 1Pe_2:4 : οὗτος τ . ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει ( ðÈùÒÈà ). The Hebrew ðÈùÒÈà with the accus. of the idea of sin, therefore: “to bear sin,” is equivalent to, “to suffer the punishment for sin,” either one’s own or that of another. Now, as ἀνήνεγκε is in the above-quoted passage a translation of ðÈùÒÈà , its meaning is: “He suffered the punishment for the sins of many.”[156]
This suffering of punishment is, in the case of the Servant of God, of such a nature that by it those whose the sin is, and for whom He endures the punishment, become free from that punishment; it is therefore a vicarious suffering.[157] Since, then, Peter plainly had this passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be no other than this: that Christ in our stead has suffered the punishment we have merited through our sins, and so has borne our sins. But with this the subsequent ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον , which means not “on the tree,” but “on to the tree” does not seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to take ἀναφέρειν in the sense which it has in the phrase: ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ ΤΙ ἘΠῚ ΤῸ ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ (cf. Jam_2:21; Lev_14:20; 2Ch_35:16; Bar_1:10; 1Ma_4:53); cf. 1Pe_2:5; where ΤῸ ΞΎΛΟΝ would be conceived as the altar (Gerhard: Crux Christi fuit sublime illud altare, in quod Christus se ipsum in sacrificium oblaturus ascendit, sicut V. Testamenti sacrificia altari imponebantur). But against this interpretation, besides the fact that ἈΝΑΦΈΡ . is thus here taken in a sense different from that which it has in Isaiah 53, there are the following objections: (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. is the cross of Christ represented as the altar on which He is offered;[158] (2) That neither in the O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin anywhere spoken of as the offering which is brought up to the altar.[159] ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον might be explained by assuming a pregnant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs: bajulavit omnia peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad crucem,[160] that is: “bearing our sins He ascended the cross” But the assumption of such a construction is not necessary, since ἀναφέρειν can quite well be taken to mean “carrying up,” without depriving the word of the signification which it has in the passage in Isaiah, since “carrying up “implies “carrying.” In no other way did Christ bear our sins up on to the cross than by suffering the punishment for our sins in the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punishment. The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitution here contained, by the addition of αὐτός , which, as in Isa_53:11, stands by way of emphasis next to ἩΜῶΝ ; but by ἘΝ Τῷ ΣΏΜΑΤΙ ΑὐΤΟῦ —not “in,”[161] but “on His body”—we are reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was accomplished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross and died thereon. It is quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger assumes, is meant at the same time to serve the purpose of expressing the greatness of that love which moved Christ to give His body to the death for our sins; but that there is in it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord (Weiss, p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support it. The addition of ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον is explained by the fact itself, since it is precisely Christ’s death on the cross that has redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins. Peter also uses the expression τὸ ξύλον to denote the cross, in his sermons, Act_5:30; Act_10:39. It had its origin in the Old Testament phraseology, òÅõ , rendered ξύλον by LXX., denoting the pole on which the bodies of executed criminals were sometimes suspended; cf. Deu_21:22-23; Jos_10:26. Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the shame of the punishment which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, since there is no reference to it in any way, whether Peter, like Paul, in Gal_3:13, used the expression with regard to the curse pronounced in Deu_21:22 (as Weiss, p. 267, emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). Bengel is entirely mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον the apostle alludes to the punishment of slaves (ligno, cruce, furca plecti soliti erant servi).
[156] It admits of no doubt that ðÈùÒÈà in connection with çÅèÀà or òÂåÉï has the meaning above given; cf. Lev_19:17; Lev_20:19; Lev_24:15; Num_5:31; Num_14:34; Eze_4:5; Eze_14:10; Eze_16:58; Eze_23:35, etc. (Lam_5:7 : ñÈáÇì ); generally, indeed, the LXX. translate this ðÈùÒÈà by λαμβάνειν , but also by κομίζειν and ἀποφέρειν ; in the passage quoted, Isa_53:4, by φέρειν ; in Num_14:33, as in Isa_53:12, by ἀναφέρειν . This proves how unwarranted Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) is in saying “that in view of the Greek translation of Isa_53:11-12, it is arbitrary to assume that ἀναφέρειν means simply to carry.” Of course every one knows that in and of itself ἀναφέρειν does not mean “to carry;” but from this it does not follow that the LXX. did not use it in this sense in the phrase above alluded to, the more so that they attribute to the word no meaning opposed to its classical usage; cf. Thuc. 1Pe_3:18 : κινδύνου ; ἀναφέρ .; Pol. 1:30: φθόνους καὶ διαβολὰς ἀναφέρ ., see Pape, s.v. ἀναφέρω , and Delitzsch, Komment. z. Br. an die Hebr. p. 442.—Doubtless ðÈùÒÈà àÆúÎòÂåÉï , Lev_10:17, is said of the priests bearing away sin (making atonement), but there the LXX. translate ðÈùÒÈà by ἀφαιρεῖν . Plainly there can here be no allusion to the meaning “to forgive sin.”
[157] Weiss is inaccurate when he asserts (p. 265) that the passages, Lev_19:17, Num_14:33, Lam_5:7, Eze_18:19-20, allude to a vicarious suffering; these passages, indeed, speak of a bearing of the punishment which the sins of others have caused, but this is suffering with, not instead of others, without those who have done the sin being freed from its punishment.
[158] Schott, whilst admitting the above, asserts “that it will hardly be contradicted that in all the passages which speak of Christ’s death on the cross as a sacrifice, the cross must be presupposed to be that which served as altar.” This is decidedly to be contradicted, the more so that the animal sacrificed suffered death not upon, but before the altar.
[159] If ἀναφέρειν be here taken as equivalent to “to offer sacrifice,” as in Heb_7:27, not only would the thought—which Delitzsch (p. 440) terms a corrupt one—arise: per semet ipsum immolavit peccata nostra, but ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον would then have to be interpreted: “on the cross.” Luther: “who Himself offered in sacrifice our sins on His body on the tree.”—Here, too, Schott admits what is said above, but seeks to destroy its force as a proof, by claiming for ἀναφέρειν the sense: “to present or bring up in offering,” at the same time supplying—as it seems—as the object of offering, the body of Christ, which the expression of the apostle in no way justifies.
[160] Schott brings the baseless accusation against the circumlocution of the Syr. translation, “that in it peccata is to be taken differently in the first clause from the second;” in the former, as equivalent to “the punishment of our sin;” in the latter, as “the sin itself,” for peccata has the same meaning in both members, although the bearing of the sins consists in the suffering of the punishment for them. Comp. Num_14:33, where in the expression ἀνοίσουσι τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν , the word πορνεία has by no means the meaning “punishment for fornication,” although ἀναθέρειν τὴν πορνείαν means as much as “to suffer the punishment for fornication.”
[161] So, too, Schott, who interprets ἐν τῷ σώματι as equal to “in His earthly bodily life”(!).
REMARK 1. The interpretation of many of the commentators is wanting in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two senses, which ἀναφέρειν has in the different phrases: ἀναφέρειν τὰς ἁμαρτίας and ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τ . θυσιαστήριον , are mixed Up with each other. Vitringa (Vix uno verbo ἔμφασις ; vocis ἀναδέρειν exprimi potest. Nota ferre et offere. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa ipsi erant imposita. Secundo ita tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a distinction between the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in his mind, which of course is impossible.
Hofmann explains ἀναφέρειν … ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον on the analogy of the phrase: ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον , without, however, understanding the cross as the altar; the meaning then would be: “He lifted up His body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins, that is to say, atoning for our sins.” Although Hofmann admits that Peter had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he nevertheless denies that ἀνήνεγκε has here the same meaning as there. In his Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., he gives a similar interpretation, only that there he says: “He took up our sins with Him, and so took them away from us.” He, however, justly adds that ἀναφέρειν has the same meaning here as in Heb_9:28. Wiesinger has adopted this interpretation, as also, in substance, Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the 2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation; but, on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that ἀναφέρειν here is “the ἀναφέρειν of Heb_7:27.”
Schott justly combats Hofmann’s view, that the sufferings of Christ for our sins consisted essentially only in what befell Him as the result of our sins, and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. His own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally inadmissible, since he attributes to ἀναφέρειν the meaning: “to bring up or present in offering;” yet adding to the idea of “offering” an object other than ἁμαρτίας which stands with ἀνήνεγκεν , thus giving to the one word two quite different references. Schott makes σῶμα Χριστοῦ the object of “offering,” taking it out of the supplementary clause: ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ; but this he is the less justified in doing, that he explains these words by “in His earthly corporeal life.”
This is not the place to enter fully into Schott’s conception of the propitiation wrought by Christ’s death on the cross. Though it contains many points worthy of notice, it is of much too artificial a nature, ever to be considered a just representation of the views of the apostle.
Luthardt interprets: “He bore His body away from the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which Christ brought His body up; but the peculiarity lies precisely in this, that His body should at the same time hang on the accursed tree.” “Away from the earth to God” is evidently an addition; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross as the accursed tree, he would have added τῆς καταρᾶς .[162]
[162] Pfleiderer (p. 422) is entirely unwarranted in maintaining the sense to be: “that Christ, by His death on the cross, took away, removed our sins, so that they no longer surround our life,” and “that by this removal is meant, that we free our moral life and conduct from sin”(!).
REMARK 2.
This interpretation agrees substantially with that given by de Wette-Brückner and Weiss; yet de Wette’s reference to Col_2:14 is inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage has a character entirely different, both in thought and expression, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is wanting in accuracy when he says that “Christ ascended the cross, and there bore the punishment of our sins,” since already in the sufferings which preceded the crucifixion, the bearing of our sins took place.
Nor can it be conceded to these commentators that the idea of sacrifice was absent from the conception of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in Isaiah 53, in spite of the àÈùÑÈî , 1Pe_2:10. No doubt prominence is given, in the first instance, to the idea of substitution; but Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is connected in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the idea of sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of substitution is that upon which the sin-offering is based, Lev_17:11. And was there any other substitutionary bearing of sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be concluded that each word in the expression, and especially ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον , must have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice.
ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι ] Oecumenius: ἀπογενόμενοι · ἀντὶ τοῦ , ἀποθαυόντες ; cf. Rom_6:2; Rom_6:11 (Gal_2:19). Bengel’s rendering: γίνεσθαι τινός fieri alicujus dicitur servus, ἀπὸ dicit sejunctionem; Germ. “to become without,” which Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since ἀπογίγνεσθαι in this sense is construed with the genitive. For the dative, see Winer, p. 398 [E. T. 532]. ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις corresponds to the foregoing τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν . The use of the aor. part, shows that the being dead unto sin is the condition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν κ . τ . λ . The actions of the Christians should correspond with this condition; this the apostle expresses by ἵνα … τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν ; cf. Romans 6.
δικαιοσύνη means here not: justification or righteousness, as a condition of him whose sins are forgiven, but it is the opposite of ἁμαρτία : righteousness which consists in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling of His will. The clause, introduced here by the final particle ἵνα (as in 1Pe_1:18), does not give the primary aim of Christ’s substitutionary death: that, namely, of reconciliation, but further the design: that of making free from the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) is wrong in thinking that Peter “did not here conceive the redemption as already completed in principle by the blood of Christ,” but “accomplished in a purely physiological way, by the impression produced by the preaching of His death and the incitement to imitation which[163] it gave.” Thus Pfleiderer also. The refutation of this is to be found in what follows.
οὗ τῷ μώλωπι [ αὐτοῦ ] ἰάθητε ] Isa_53:5, LXX.; return to the direct form of address: μώλωψ is, properly speaking, marks left by scourging (Sir_28:17, πληγὴ μάστιγος ποιεῖ μώλωπας ); therefore, taken strictly, the expression has reference to the flagellation of Christ only; but here it stands as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of Christ’s sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point.
By ἰάθητε the apostle declares that, through the suffering of Christ (of course by the instrumentality of faith), the Christians are translated from the sickness of a sinful nature into the health of a life of righteousness.
[163] In his Lehrbuch der bibl. Theol. (p. 172), Weiss only says: “It follows from 1Pe_2:2 that the being released from sin is certainly a consequence, but only the indirect consequence of the death of Christ. Because it has released us from the guilt of our former sins, the further consequence will be, that henceforward we will renounce those sins which He vicariously expiated.”