Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 4:14 - 4:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_4:14. In order to strengthen the exhortation: μὴ ξενίζεσθε … ἀλλὰ χαίρετε , Peter adds the assurance: εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε κ . τ . λ .; cf. chap. 1Pe_3:14 and Mat_5:11.
Pott, without any reason, explains εἰ by καίπερ .
ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ ] The explanation: propter confessionem Christi (de Wette), is inaccurate, for ὄνομα is not: confessio; the meaning is the same as that in Mar_9:41 : ἐν ὀνόματι , ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστέ , thus: “because ye bear the name of Christ, and therefore belong to Him.” Schott: “for the sake of your Christian name and Christian profession;” Steiger: “as servants of Christ.”
μακάριοι ] sc. ἐστε .
ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης [ καὶ δυνάμεως ] καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεῦμα ] δόξα : glory in its highest sense, heavenly, divine glory.[255] According to Greek usage, τὸ τῆς δόξης may be a circumlocution for ἡ δόξα ; see Matth. ausf. Gr. Gram. 2d ed. § 284; but this form of expression does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 135]); nor is it easy to understand why the apostle should not simply have written ἡ δόξα . Accordingly, it is preferable to take τό with the subsequent πνεῦμα , and to assume an additional πνεῦμα (as is done by the greater number of commentators, de Wette, also Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott); the Spirit of Glory is, then, the same as that which is also the Spirit of God ( καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πν . subjoined epexegetically). But in consideration of ὀνειδίζεσθε , He is styled the Spirit of δόξα , i.e. to whom δόξα belongs (Calvin: qui gloriam secum perpetuo conjunctam habet; cf. Eph_1:17), and who therefore also bestows it. τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ is added in order to show that this Spirit of δόξα is none other than the Spirit of God Himself. It must be allowed that, on this interpretation, there is an inexactness of expression, καί being evidently out of place; cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 565: περὶ τὸ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερόν ; cf. Winer, p. 125 [E. T. 165].
Hofmann proposes, therefore, to supply to τό not πνεῦμα , but ὄνομα , from what precedes. But if Peter had had this thought in his mind, he would certainly have given definite expression to it; and it is self-evident, too, that on him who is reproached ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ , as a bearer of it, that name rests.
ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται ] after Isa_11:2, where the same expression is used of the πνεῦμα τ . Θεοῦ (in like manner ἐπαναπαύεσθαι , Num_11:25; 2Ki_2:15, LXX.; of εἰρήνη , Luk_10:6). The accus. ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς is to be explained as with ἔμεινεν , Joh_1:32; Wahl: demissus in vos requiescit in vobis; it points to the living operation of the Spirit on those upon whom He rests. The thought contained in these words gives the reason ( ὅτι ) of what has been said: not, however, the logical reason (Aretius: crux, quam bonus fert pro Christo, indicat, quod Spir. Dei in illo quiescat; similarly, too, Hofmann: “they should consider themselves happy, that they are reproached for bearing the name of Christ; every such reproach reminds them of what, by bearing it, they are”); but the actual reason, that is, inasmuch as this resting of the Spirit of δόξα , on those who are reproached ἐν ὀνόμ . Χριστοῦ , is a sealing of their eternal δόξα . It is inappropriate to insert, with Calvin, a nihilominus, so that the sense would be: in spite of that reproach, the Spirit of God still dwells in you; the more so that the reproach of unbelievers was called forth by the very fact, that the life of the Christians was determined by the Spirit which rested upon them.
In the additional clause found in the Rec., and connected with what goes before: κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται , κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται , the subject can hardly be πνεῦμα Θεοῦ taken from the explanatory clause immediately preceding, but is more probably ὄνομα Χριστοῦ from the previous clause, and on which the principal stress is laid. Schott wrongly thinks that this addition interrupts the connection of thought; but Hofmann is equally in error in holding the opposite opinion, that it is of necessity demanded by the γάρ , 1Pe_4:15; for γάρ may be equally well applied to the idea that the Spirit of God rests on those who are reproached ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ , as to this, that the name of Christ is glorified καθʼ ὑμᾶς . Since the rendering of κατά by “with” (as formerly in this comment.), or by “on the part of” (Hofmann), cannot be supported,[256] the meaning “with regard to” (de Wette) must be maintained. The interpretation will then be: “by their … your conduct” or “according to their … your opinion.”
[255] Bengel erroneously understands δόξα pro concrete, and that, ita ut sit appellatio Christi, adding: innuitur, Spiritum Christi eundem esse Spiritum Dei Patris.
[256] Although Hofmann appeals for this signification to chap. 1Pe_4:6, still, in interpreting that passage, he himself takes κατά in a sense other than it is supposed to have here.—Pott uses the circumlocution κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν for κατὰ αὐτούς ; whilst he explains κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς by quod autem ad vos attinet, i.e. vestra autem agendi ratione, although κατά must have the same meaning in both clauses.