Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 4:3 - 4:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_4:3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought expressed in the previous verse, that the Christians should no longer live after the lusts of men, but according to the will of God; hence γάρ .
ἀρκετός ] Mat_6:34; Mat_10:25; correctly Wiesinger: “the expression is here a μείωσις .” Gerhard: in eo quod ait “sufficit” est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua mitigat Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a foreign application when he explains: “in it you have enough to repent of and to make amends for.” The construction as in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): ἱκανὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος , ἐν ᾧ τι τῶν δεινῶν οὐ γέγονε ; comp. ἰκανούσθω , Eze_44:6; Eze_45:9. ἐστι simply is to be supplied, not, with Steiger, “should be.”
ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος ] points back to μηκέτι ; in contrast to τὸν ἐπίλοιπον … χρόνον .
τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατείργασθαι ] The infinitive is, in free construction, dependent on ἀρκετός , as it also stands with ἀρκεῖ ; cf. Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T. 401 ff.]. The inf. perf. is selected “to designate the former life of sin, which has once for all been brought to a close” (Schott).
τῶν ἐθνῶν ] is not evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. When Jachmann says: “the apostle could never say of the heathen, that they lived according to the will of the heathen,” it must be observed, that if the readers were formerly heathen, the βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν was undoubtedly their own βούλημα , but that ἐθνῶν is explained by the fact, that they were now heathen no longer (as opposed to Weiss).
πεπορευμένους ] must be referred to ὑμᾶς , to be supplied in thought to κατειργάσθαι . If the right reading be ἡμῖν after ἀρκετὸς γάρ , Peter would include himself, and ἡμὰς would have to be supplied. The Vulg. is indefinite: his qui ambulaverunt. Beza’s view is inappropriate, that Peter refers here not only to the readers of the epistle (whom he considers to have been Jewish-Christians), but also to their ancestors, i.e. the former ten tribes of Israel. With πορεύεσθαι ἐν , cf. Luk_1:6; 2Pe_2:10.
ἀσελγείαις ] “excesses of every kind,” embracing specially unchastity; cf. Rom_13:13; 2Co_12:21; Gal_5:19; 3Ma_2:26, etc.; Buddeus considers it to mean nothing else than: obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo; Lucian has the expression: ἀσελγέστεροι τῶν ὄνων .
ἐπιθυμίαις ] in the plural denotes fleshly lusts in themselves; although not limited to sensual desires only, it yet includes these chiefly.
οἰνοφλυγίαις ] ἅπ . λεγ . in the N. T.; the verb οἰνοφλυγεῖν , LXX. Deu_21:20, Heb. ñÈëÈà ; Luther: “intoxication;” better: “drunkenness.” Andronicus Rhodus, lib. περὶ παθῶν , p. 6: οἰνοφλυγία ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος . Philo (V.M. 1, § 22) calls οἰνοφλυγία an ἀπλήρωτος ἐπιθυμία .
κώμοις ] besides here, only in Rom_13:13, Gal_5:21, where, as here with πότοις , it is joined with μέθαι : commissationes, properly: “carousals;” cf. Pape, s.v.
πότοις ] ἅπ . λεγ .; chiefly applied to social drinking at the banquet; Appian, B. C. I. p. 700: ὁ δὲ Σερτώριος … τὰ πολλὰ ἦν ἐπὶ τρυφῆς , γυναίξι καὶ κώμοις καὶ πότοις σχολάζων .
καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρείαις ] designates heathen idolatrous practices specially. ἀθέμιτος , in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage, only in Act_10:28, gives marked prominence to that in the nature of εἰδωλ . which is antagonistic to the divine law. Bengel: quibus sanctissimum Dei jus violatur.[235] This description is only applicable to such persons as were formerly heathen, not to the Jews; to the latter only in the days before the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in opposition to this, wrongly appeals to Rom_2:17 ff.; for the reproach there made against the Jews bears an impress entirely different from the description here given; nor is the ἱεροσυλεῖν in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry. It is altogether arbitrary to take the expression εἰδωλολατρείαι here in a wider sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper; and it is further opposed by the expression ἀθεμίτοις .
[235] Schott unjustifiably maintains that the εἰδωλολατρείαι are termed ἀθέμιτοι not in themselves, but on account of the immoral, voluptuous ceremonies connected with them. The adject. is added because they form an antithesis, in the strictest sense, to God’s holy prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert that εἰδωλολατρεία could only be termed ἀθέμιτος when practised by the Jews, not when by the heathen.