Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 4

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 4


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 4

1Pe_4:1. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ] Rec. after A K L P à (corr.; after m. pr.: ἀποθάνοντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ), al., is wanting in B C, several min. Sahid. Vulg. Aug. Fulgent. etc.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Perhaps it is inserted in order to complete the idea; Reiche considers ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν to be the original reading; so, too, Hofm. The Rec. has ἐν σαρκί before πέπαυται , after K, several min. etc. In A B C L à , etc. etc., the preposition is wanting. Even Griesb. recommends its omission; Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἐν . Buttm. has retained ἐν , as, according to his statement, it occurs in B. Wiesinger inclines to explain the reading σαρκί from what precedes; Reiche, on the other hand, explains ἐν σαρκί from what follows. The authorities, as well as the idea itself, decide for the omission of ἐν .—1Pe_4:3. ἡμῖν ] Rec. after C K L P, al., Oec. Hier., can hardly be genuine; it is wanting in A B, al., Syr. utr.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Steiger’s remark, that “it is pleasing to us to observe how the apostle does not think higher of his own former conduct than of that of the others,” does not prove the genuineness of ἡμῖν . The reading ὑμῖν , too, in à and several min., must be regarded as a correction; it lay to hand to insert a dative in order to complete the sentence.

Following K L P, several min., etc., the Rec. has τοῦ βίου after χρόνος , which is wanting in A B C à , etc. etc. Tittmann brackets it, Lachm. and Tisch. rightly omit it.

βούλημα ] after A B C à , etc. Clem. Theoph. (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Rec. θέλημα , which occurs only in K L P, several min. Oec.

The aorist κατεργάσασαοθατ is attested only by K L P, Oec.; it is accordingly better to read the perfect with Lachm. and Tisch.: κατειργάσθαι , after A B C à , al., Clem. The change could easily have taken place from the fact that the aorist form of the word is the prevailing one in the N. T. (e.g. Rom_7:8; 1Co_5:3; 2Co_7:11, etc.).—1Pe_4:5. Instead of τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι , Buttm. reads: τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι , a reading which is attested only by B.—1Pe_4:7. εἰς τὰς προσευχάς ] The article τάς is very suspicious; Lachm. has omitted it; Tisch. has now again adopted it, with the remark: articulus non intellecta ea quam habet vi omittendus videbatur. It is wanting in A B à , and several min., and seems to be inserted here following chap. 1Pe_3:7.—1Pe_4:8. πρὸ πάντων δέ ] The omission of δέ in A B, 13, Arm. Tol. etc., is a correction in order to connect the participle clause directly with the preceding verbb. fin.

ἡ ἀγάπη ] Rec. after several min. and Theoph.

ἡ , however, is spurious, after A B K L P à , etc. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted the article; Griesb. regards it as at least suspicious.

καλύπτει ] after A B K, al., Copt. Arm. etc., Clem. Rom. Syr. etc. (Lachm. Tisch., much recommended by Griesb.); instead of the Rec. καλύψει , after L P à , which is easily explained from Jam_5:20.—1Pe_4:9. γογγυσμῶν ] Rec. after K L P, Oec.; on the other hand, A B à , al., m. Syr. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. etc., are in favour of the singular, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.: γογγυσμοῦ . The plural from Php_2:14—1Pe_4:13. καθό ] instead of the Rec. καθώς , rightly accepted by Griesb. after almost all authorities.—1Pe_4:14. τὸ τῆς δόξης ] Scholz and Lachm. add καὶ δυνάμεως , which occurs in A P à ( τῆς δυν .), several min. etc. In B K L, many min. and Fathers, the adjunct is wanting; Tisch. too has omitted it. It may quite as well have been omitted later as superfluous, as added by way of strengthening.

ἀναπαύεται ] Instead of this, A and several min. have ἐπαναπαύεται , after Luk_5:6; some other authorities read ἀναπέπαυται , after 2Co_7:13.

The genuineness of the words: κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται , κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται , is at least doubtful; it is supported by K L P, etc., Harl. Tol. etc., Thph. Oec. Cypr.; whilst it is opposed by A B à , al., Syr. Aeth. Copt, etc., Tert. Ambr. Beda (Lachm. and Tisch.). Whilst de Wette and Wiesinger declare the adjunct to be suspicious, and Schott looks upon it as spurious, Hofm. considers it genuine, because, in his Qpinion, without it the proper connection of 1Pe_4:15 with what precedes would be wanting.—1Pe_4:15. Instead of ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος , Lachm., following B, writes: ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος ; on it Tisch. observes: videtur elegantiae causa ejectum ο .—1Pe_4:16. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ ] is the reading of A B à , al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Cypr. Ephr. Oec. (Lachm. Tisch.). There is less evidence for the Rec. ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ , which occurs in K L P, etc., and probably arose out of 2Co_3:10; 2Co_9:3.—1Pe_4:17. Instead of ἡμῶν , A** al., Aeth. Slav. Thph. etc., read ὑμῶν .—1Pe_4:19. ὡς πιστῷ κτιστῇ ] Rec. according to K L P, almost all min., several vss. and Fathers (Tisch. 7). Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted ὡς , after A B à , several min. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Athan. It is difficult to decide which is the correct reading; ὡς may have been inserted, following Peter’s habitual mode of expression; on the other hand, it may have been omitted in order to make πιστῷ κτιστῇ purely terminative.

αὐτῶν , after A G K à , etc. etc., is to be preferred to ἑαυτῶν .

Instead of ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ , which occurs in B K L P à , pl. al., Theoph. Oec, and is accepted by Tisch. Lachm., after A, al., Vulg. etc., reads the plural ἀγαθοποιΐαις .