Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 4:1 - 4:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_4:1. Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος [ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ] σαρκί ] In these words the apostle returns to chap. 1Pe_3:18, in order to subjoin the following exhortation.
σαρκί is not: “in the flesh” (Luther), but: “according to the flesh;” comp. 1Pe_3:18. This is made prominent because the believer’s sufferings, too, under persecutions, touch the flesh only; comp. Mat_10:28. παθόντος is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before His death, but comprehends the latter also. It is, however, incorrect to understand, with Hofmann, παθόντος at once as identical with ἀποθανόντος , and in connection with σαρκί to explain: “that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for our sake to a suffering which befell Him—that for our sake He allowed His life in the flesh to come to an end”(!).
καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε ] καί with reference to Christ; “ye also:” the disciple must be like the master. It lies to hand to translate ἔννοια (besides here, only in Heb_4:12) as equivalent here to “disposition of mind” (de Wette; Weiss, p. 288); but ἔννοια means always “thought, consideration” (Wiesinger, Schott).[231] There is here also no reference to the mind of Christ in His sufferings, ΤῊΝ ΑὐΤῊΝ ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ refers back to the ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ of Christ Himself, so that the sense is, that since Christ suffered according to the flesh, they too should not refuse the thought of like Him suffering according to (or on) the flesh, ὍΤΙ gives the ground of the exhortation. Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Schott take ὍΤΙ as explaining ΤῊΝ ΑὐΤ . ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ . Incorrectly; for the ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς will not admit of an application to Christ, inasmuch as the expression does not presuppose generally a former “relation to sin,” but former sinning itself.
The verb ὉΠΛΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ , in the N. T. ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ ., is in classical writers often construed with the accus. (Soph. Electra, v. 991: θράσος ὁπλίζεσθαι ); while applied to every kind of equipment, e.g. of ships, it here refers to the Christian’s calling as one of conflict.
ὅτι ὁ παθὼν ἐν σαρκὶ ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ] In Luther’s translation: “for he who suffers on the flesh, he ceaseth from sin,” the present is incorrectly substituted for the preterite tense: ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ ; correctly: “on the flesh.” Hofmann’s rendering is wrong: “in the flesh,” which, compared with the ἐν σαρκί preceding, would imply “that whilst Christ’s life in the flesh ended with His suffering, our sufferings took place with continued life in the flesh”(!). The reading ΣΑΡΚΊ , “according to the flesh,” conveys the same idea; cf. Winer, 384 (E. T. 513).
ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ] The mid. ΠΑΎΟΜΑΙ is in the classics frequently joined with the genitive, e.g. II. vii. 290: παυσώμεθα μάχης ; Herod, i. 47: τῆς μάχης ἐπαύσαντο ; Herodian. vii. 10, 16: τῆς τε ὀργῆς ὁ δῆμος ἐπαύσατο . In this way ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ here is explained by most interpreters as equivalent to: “he has ceased from sin, that is, he has given up sinning.” The word may also be taken as the perf. pass. according to the construction ΠΑΎΕΙΝ ΤΙΝΆ ΤΙΝΟς , equivalent to: “to cause one to give up, to desist from a thing.” ΠΈΠΑΥΤΑΙ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς would then mean: “he has been brought to cease from sin, to sin no more” (Schott: “brought away from sinful conduct”). Hofmann erroneously asserts that “ ΠΑΎΕΙΝ ΤΙΝᾺ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς would in a quite general way mean: action such as brings it about that the individual is ended with sin;” that is to say, in the sense, that his relation to sin is at an end.[232] For the genitive with παύειν denotes always a condition or an activity of him who is the object of παύειν .
It makes no essential difference in the thought whether παύειν be taken here as a middle (Weiss) or as a passive (de Wette, Wiesinger). The idea: “through Christ immunitatem nactus sum,” is expressed here neither in the one case nor in the other (Wiesinger).
The clause here has the form of a general statement, the meaning of which is, that by suffering as to the flesh a ceasing of sin is effected.[233] This idea, in many respects a true one, may according to the connection be defined thus: he who suffered on account of sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, has in such wise broken with sin that it has no more power over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with several of the earlier commentators, as also Schott, to understand ΠΑΘΏΝ in a spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, according to Rom_6:7 (Schott), or of the putting to death of the old man (Gerhard: qui carnem cum concupiscentiis suis in Christo et cum Christo crucifigit, ille peccare desinit; Calvin: passio in carne significat nostri abnegationem). Opposed to such an interpretation is the subjoined ΣΑΡΚΊ , by which this παθών here is expressly marked as identical with the ΠΑΘΏΝ , used with reference to Christ; and the apostle in no way hints that that ΠΑΘΏΝ is employed in a spiritual sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to understand by Ὁ ΠΑΘΏΝ Christ, as Fronmüller does,
ΠΈΠ . ἉΜΑΡΤ . being thus in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains: “because Christ hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that it is possible to be without sin”(!)); nor is it less so to assume, finally, with Steiger, that here “the apostle unites together the different persons, the head and the members in their unity,” so that the clause would contain the double idea: “Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin,” and: “we, by participating through faith in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin.” Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the clause the double reference—to Christ and to the Christians; to Christ, “in as far as He by His bodily death was finished with sin, which He took upon Himself for the purpose of atoning for it;” to the Christians, “in so far as he is spiritually dead whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a life in which he goes free from the guilt and slavery of sin.” In these interpretations thoughts are supplied to which the context makes no allusion.[234]
[231] Reiche erroneously appeals in support of this meaning: “disposition of mind,” to the passages in Pro_5:2; Pro_23:19, LXX., and Wis_2:14.
[232] Thus, too, Schott: “He who has experienced the παθεῖν σαρκί is delivered from his former relation to sin.” But Schott admits that “a release from sin must be thought of, in so far as sin determined the conduct and made it sinful.”
[233] Genuinely catholic is the remark of Lorinus on πέπ . ἁμαρτίας : Peccatorum nomine absolute posito gravia intelliguntur, quae vocamus mortalia; nam desinere atque quiescere a levibus et venialibus, eximium privilegium est, praeterque Deiparam definire non possumus, an alii ulli concessum.
[234] Reiche regards the entire sentence as spurious, because of the difficulty and indistinctness of the thought.