Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 5:12 - 5:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_5:12-14. Concluding remarks; first, 1Pe_5:12, as to the letter itself.
διὰ Σιλουανοῦ … ἔγραψα ] There is no reason to doubt that this Silvanus is the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul. Whilst in the Acts he is named “Silas,” Paul, like Peter, calls him “Silvanus.” He was sent from the convention of apostles, along with Paul, Barnabas, and Judas Barsabas, as bearers of the epistle to Antioch. After this he accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey. He is not mentioned afterwards, nor is it known at what time he came to Peter. διὰ … ἔγραψα does not designate Silvanus either as the translator or the writer of the epistle, but simply as the bearer of it. διά has here the same sense as in the subscriptions of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc.; it is synonymous with διὰ χειρός , Act_15:23.—“It is evident that the choice of Silas for this (mediatory) mission was a particularly happy one, as he had been Paul’s companion in former times, and had assisted him in founding the greater part of the churches here addressed” (Wieseler).
ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ] ὑμῖν can be joined either with the following ἔγραψα , or with πιστοῦ ἀδ . If the latter combination be adopted (it is more simple if τοῦ be erased as spurious, but is also possible if τοῦ be retained; equivalent to: “who is the faithful brother unto you”), the apposition indicates that an intimate relation subsisted between Silvanus and the churches to which Peter writes. The connection with ἔγραψα , however, is the more natural one, ὑμῖν being inserted between, as in Gal_6:11.
ὁ πιστὸς ἀδελφός is the name given to Silvanus, because generally he had proved faithful in the performance of every service for the church of Christ. There is no reason why the expression should be referred specially to his relation to the churches of Asia Minor only (as formerly in this commentary), or particularly to that in which he stood to Peter (Hofmann). Still, it is not improbable that Peter, by this designation, alludes to the confidence he has, that he will also prove faithful in the service which is now required of him.
The following words: ὡς λογίζομαι , may be applied either to the opinion just expressed on Silvanus (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Wichelhaus), or to the subsequent διʼ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα (Steiger, Hofmann). It is hardly possible to come to a definite conclusion. At any rate, λογίζομαι does not express an uncertain conjecture; cf. Rom_3:28; Rom_8:18; Heb_11:19. In the first case, by the confirmation which it contains of the opinion just uttered, it serves to strengthen the confidence of the churches in Silvanus; in the second, the apostle indicates that, considering the importance of his subject and the yearning of his heart, he looks on his letter as a short one.[283] This last appears the more probable.
ΔΙʼ ὈΛΊΓΩΝ ] equal to ΔΙᾺ ΒΡΑΧΈΩΝ , Heb_13:22 : “in few words;” cf. Thucyd. iv. 95.
ἜΓΡΑΨΑ ] refers to this epistle, which the apostle is on the point of closing, and not, as Erasmus, Grotius, etc., altogether unwarrantably assume, to a former one which has been lost;[284] cf. Phm_1:19; Phm_1:21.
παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ] Although by these two words the apostle indicates two distinct subjects, still these are not to be separated in such a way as to be applicable to different parts of the epistle (de Wette, Brückner);[285] but the παράκλησις and the ἐπιμαρτύρησις are throughout the whole letter closely bound up together. As the contents of the ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν are stated, but not those of the παρακαλεῖν , the chief stress is laid on the former, the latter ( παρακαλῶν ) being placed first, in order thereby to give prominence to the character of the ἐπιμαρτύρησις . Contrary to its common usage, de Wette interprets ἐπιμαρτυρῶν : in addition to, i.e. testifying in addition to the exhortation. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν simply means: to bear witness to anything (opp. ἀντιμαρτυρεῖν , see Pape and Cremer, s.v.; in the N. T. ἅπ . λεγ .; ἐπιμαρτύρεσθαι occurs in the LXX. and in the Apocr., but not ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν ); Bengel is therefore wrong in interpreting: testimonium jam per Paulum et Silam audierant pridem: Petrus insuper testatur; so, too, is Hofmann in saying that in ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν it is presupposed that the readers themselves already know and believe what Peter testifies.
ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ] Contents of the ἐπιμαρτύρησις : “that this is the true grace of God;”[286] ΤΑΎΤΗΝ does not refer to that of which the apostle has written, but its more precise definition follows in the subsequent relative clause. Peter accordingly sets forth, in conclusion, that his epistle testifies to the readers that that grace in which they already stood is the true grace, from which, therefore, they should not depart (cf. with this, chap. 1Pe_1:12; 1Pe_1:25, 1Pe_2:10; 1Pe_2:25). No doubt this was the χάρις which had been brought to them by means of the preaching of Paul, but it does not follow that the purpose of Peter’s ἘΠΙΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΣΙς was to set, for the readers, the seal on that preaching. It is not the preaching which is here in question, but the ΧΆΡΙς in which the readers stood, quite apart from the person through whose instrumentality it was brought to them. Had Peter intended to bear a testimony to Paul, he would surely have done so in clear terms; nor does anything in the epistle allude to an uncertainty on the part of the readers as to whether Paul had preached the true gospel to them. ΧΆΡΙς is not: doctrina evangelii (Gerhard); but neither is it: “the state of grace” (de Wette), for with this the adjunct τοῦ Θεοῦ would not harmonize. But it denotes the objective divine grace, into the sphere of which the readers have entered by means of faith; cf. Rom_5:2.
ἈΛΗΘῆ ] stands here as the leading conception, not with any polemical reference to an erroneous doctrine (for there is no trace of any such polemic in the epistle), but is intended by the apostle to mark in itself the truth and reality of this ΧΆΡΙς , in order that the readers may not be induced by the persecutions to abandon it.
ΕἸς ἫΝ ἙΣΤΉΚΑΤΕ ] for this construction, cf. Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 516 ff.]. If the reading ΣΤῆΤΕ be adopted, this adjunct expresses the exhortation to continue in that grace. Here, however, the nearer definition necessary to ταύτην is wanting; for as the ἘΠΙΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΣΙς is not something added on to the epistle ( ἜΓΡΑΨΑ ), ΤΑΎΤΗΝ ΧΆΡΙΝ cannot be the grace of which I have written to you.
[283] Hofmann’s opinion is purely arbitrary, “that since the individual churches received the epistle, intended as it was for so wide a circle, only in a transcription of a transcription, and had again to send it on, a modest remark, that he had not made his letter too long in order to venture to ask them to take this trouble, was not inappropriate.” Nothing alludes to the taking of any such trouble.—Fronmüller’s view is also incorrect. He thinks that ὡς λογίζ . should be taken with διὰ Σιλου . ἐγρ ., in the sense of: “I count upon your receiving this epistle by Silvanus,”—for there is no question here of the receiving of it.
[284] In this interpretation ὡς λογίζομαι is applied to the writing of the former epistle. Erasmus: per Silvanum … qui non dubito, quin epistolam bona fide reddiderit. Similarly Pott: antehac et, si recte memini (“if I remember aright!”) per Silv. epistolam vobis scripsi. Differently Wetstein: scripsi, ut ipse sentio et apud me, omnibus rite perpensis, statuo, ita etiam alios hortor, ut idem mecum profiteantur: doetrinam Christi esse veram.
[285] “The first statement of the contents of the epistle applies to chap. 1Pe_1:13 to 1Pe_5:9; the second, to 1Pe_1:3-12; and one or two passages in the hortatory portion, as 1Pe_1:18-20; 1Pe_1:25, 1Pe_2:9 f., 1Pe_3:18, 1Pe_4:12 f.”
[286] Hofmann lays stress on the want of the article before χάριν , and therefore interprets: “that it is real grace of God, that that is in truth grace from God, wherein they have come to stand;” but if Peter had meant this, he would not have written ἀληθῆ , but ἀληθῶς . In this interpretation also the rule of assimilation is wrongly applied.