Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 2:4 - 2:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_2:4-5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally ( ὅν ) as internally, inasmuch as the imperative ( οἰκοδομεῖσθε ) is preceded by a participle ( προσερχόμενοι ), and an adjunct introduced by ὡς , defining the subject more nearly.
Starting from ὁ κύριος the apostle says: πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι ] προσέρχεσθαι (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann).[114] Luther incorrectly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were the part. praet.; Hornejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat.
λίθον ζῶντα ] in apposition to ὅν ; it is not necessary to supply ὡς (Wolf). What follows shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies, Psa_118:22 and Isa_28:16 (cf. Mat_21:42; Act_4:11; Rom_9:33). The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more concerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in λίθος ζῶν , than to draw attention to the fact that in these passages of the O. T. Christ is the promised λίθος . In using this term, Peter had already in view the subsequent οἰκοδομεῖσθε . The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on which it rests. In order that the church may become ever more completed as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with reference to those predictions.
The explanatory adjective is added, as in 1Pe_2:2, to the figurative λίθον ; and by it, on the one hand, the expression is marked as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger); and, on the other, the nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. ζῶντα is to be taken here as in Joh_6:51 and similar passages. Flacius correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus, non tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos vivificat.[115]
ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον ] a nearer definition, according to Psa_118:22. What is there said specially of the builders, is here applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be obtained to the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ . The want of the article τῶν does not warrant a toning down of the interpretation to mean “by men,” i.e. by some or by many men (Hofmann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the article is wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whom Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here regarded “as an exception” (Steiger).
παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν , ἔντιμον ] after Isa_28:16; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only; “that is to say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of God” (Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to ἀποδεδοκ .; ἐκλεκτός is neither equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to προεγνωσμένος (Steiger); but: “elect,” i.e. chosen as the object of love; cf. 1Ti_5:21.
παρὰ Θεῷ ] not: a Deo (Vulg.), but: ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ , coram Deo, Deo judice, “with God.” Worthy of note is the “antagonism between the human judgment and the divine” (Wiesinger), the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of Christ.—1Pe_2:5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε ] καὶ αὐτοί places the Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes αὐτοί as also applying to the verb οἰκοδομ .). As He is a living stone, so are they also living stones, i.e. through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus comparantur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is inadequate. Further, ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες states the qualities which the readers already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the οἰκοδομεῖσθαι (Schott); that unto which they should be built is stated in what follows.
οἰκοδομεῖσθε is, according to the structure of the sentence, not indicative (Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), but imperative (Beza, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, de Wette-Brückner, Luthardt, Schott, etc.). The objection, that the verses following are declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which precedes them.[116] If 1Pe_2:4-5 serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation, this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is passive: “be ye built up,” i.e. “let yourself be built up,” i.e. by Christ, as the foregoing πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι shows. Corresponding with the reading ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ super illum, i.e. Christum, is generally understood; an unnecessary supplement; the thought is: that (not: on which) the Christians should let themselves be built up, to that, namely, which the following words state.
οἶκος πνευματικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ] In the Rec. without εἰς the two conceptions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΑΙ : “to the spiritual house, to the holy priesthood;” but if the reading οἰκ . πν . εἰς ἱεράτ . ἅγ . be adopted, then “ ἹΕΡΆΤ . ἍΓ . is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual house” (Brückner). Hofmann holds that ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ . is in apposition to the subject contained in ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ , and that ΕἸς ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ . alone is directly dependent on ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ ; the former view is, however, more expressive, inasmuch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to a spiritual house, ΟἾΚΟς ΠΝ . contains the expression of the passive, ἹΕΡΆΤ . ἍΓ ., on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be opposed to the reading ΕἸς , since an ΟἾΚΟς cannot be transformed into a ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that εἰς serves only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (de Wette, Wiesinger).
οἶκος means, in the first instance, “house,” and not “temple;” nor does the attribute ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς mark it as a temple. We must either hold by the conception “house” (Luthardt, Hofmann),[117] or assume that by the house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference on account of the close connection with what follows; comp. the passages 1Co_3:16-17; 2Co_6:16; 1Pe_4:17.
ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌς is the house raised from “living stones,” in contradistinction to the temple built from dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears His nature on it.[118]
ἱεράτευμα is here not the “office of priest” (2Ma_2:17), but the “priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacerdotum); comp. 1Pe_2:9; Exo_19:6; “not instead of ἱερεῖς ἅγιοι , but including the essential idea of a community” (de Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that if the reading ΕἸς be adopted, ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ must be understood of the priestly office. ἍΓΙΟΝ subjoined to ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ does not mark a characteristic of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old Testament, but one which belongs essentially to the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ (of course “as ordained by God,” Hofmann) as such. Here, too, there lies in the connection of thought a special emphasis on ἍΓΙΟΝ , inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly calling cannot be truly fulfilled.
ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚᾺς ΘΥΣΊΑς ] is closely conjoined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E.T. 399f.]) and purport with what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ . This consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ , which is never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the meaning “to sacrifice,” strictly speaking “to bring the offering to the altar.”
The θυσίαι which the N. T. priesthood, i.e. the Christian church in all its members, has to offer are called πνευματικαί , because they have their origin in the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ , and bear on them its nature and essence. Calvin says in what they consist: inter hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre quicquam possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsos in sacrificium obtulerimus, quod fit nostri abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et gratiarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis exercitia. Cf. with this Rom_12:1; Heb_13:15-16.
ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔΈΚΤΟΥς Τῷ ΘΕῷ ] ΕὐΠΡΌΣΔΕΚΤΟς (Rom_15:16), equivalent to ΕὐΆΡΕΣΤΟς (Rom_12:1; Rom_14:18; Php_4:18, and other passages).
ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ] belongs not to ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ (Beda), but either to ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ . Τ . ΘΕῷ (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur, quae alias non culmo digna haberet; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.), or to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ (Grotius, Aretius, de Wette, Weiss, etc.).[119] No doubt Heb_13:15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction; but in favour of the former are—(1) That the ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ as a priestly function stands in such close connection with ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓ ., that it seems out of place to suppose a medium ( ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣ . ΧΡ .) in addition; and (2) With ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜ . ΘΥΣΊΑς the idea is substantially completed, ΕὐΠΡΟΣΔ . being a mere adjunct, to which therefore ΔΙᾺ Ἰ . ΧΡ . also belongs.
[114] The single passage, 1Ma_2:16, by no means proves that προσέρχεσθαι πρός has in itself a stronger force than προσέρχ . cum dat. (as against Hofmann). According to Schott, by προσέρχ . is meant: “not the individual Christian’s deepening experience of community of life with Christ, but only the conduct of the believer, by which, as a member of the church, he gives himself up to the Lord as present in His church, in fact to the church itself!”
[115] De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any reference to the conception of the saxum vivum as opposed to broken stones (Virg. Aen. i. 171; Ovid. Metam. xiv. 741). Inappropriate is Schott’s opinion: “that ζῶν indicates that by the self-unfolding(!) of His divinely human life, Christ causes the church to grow up from Himself the foundation stone.” Hofmann would erroneously exclude the second of the above-mentioned ideas from the λίθον ζῶντα , although it is clearly indicated by the very fact that through connection with the stone Christians themselves become living stones.
[116] The structure of the clause is in favour of the imperative, inasmuch as it is thus brought into conformity with the imperative preceding. When Hofmann asserts that the sentence must necessarily be indicative in form, “because the words subjoined to χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος must state that to which the goodness of Christ brings them,” he does so without reason, for the clause may also state that to which they should allow the goodness of Christ to lead them.
[117] Luthardt: “ οἶκος is not equal to ναός ; nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for the emphasis lies on πνευματικός . οἶκος is chosen because of οἰκοδομεῖσθε : be ye built as a spiritual house! To this is joined: to an holy priesthood.”
[118] Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in the O. T. temple “the indwelling of God was confined to the Holy of Holies, and visible to the eye” (?); whilst, on the contrary, in the Christian church there is “a real and direct indwelling of God.”
[119] Brückner and Schott think it is correct to connect διὰ Ἰ . Χρ . not with ἀνενέγκαι only, but with the entire thought; but it is self-understood that in the first combination, not the mere ἀναφέρειν , but the ἀναφέρειν πνευματικὰς θυσίας κ . τ . λ ., must be considered as effected by Christ.
REMARK.
In this description of the Christians’ calling, the apostle’s first object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had an house of God—the Christian church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inanimate stones, this of living stones; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be an holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into the church; the Christian church is called to be a ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον in this sense, that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like; those of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ well-pleasing to God.
The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all teaching with regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting on divine mandate, and necessary for the communication of salvation (i.e. priestly importance).