2. General Doctrine: The Greatness Of Your Salvation (1:3–2:10)
2. GENERAL DOCTRINE: THE GREATNESS OF YOUR SALVATION (1:3–2:10)
Some commentators see this reference to new birth as an indication that this section is a hymn of thanksgiving (or a section of liturgy) which was used at baptism. This is unlikely, not only because baptism is not specifically mentioned, but also because it misses the evident fact that when Peter refers to the beginning of the Christian life he speaks not of the outward ceremony (baptism) but of the inward spiritual reality (being given new birth): note 1:3 and 23. Peter is speaking of the beginning of the Christian life here, not a ceremony which may or may not have occurred close to it in time. (See Introduction on ‘Nature and possible sources of 1 Peter’.)
Kelly’s translation, ‘as a result of faith’, is an extremely unlikely rendering of the very common construction dia with genitive (the few examples of this construction meaning ‘as a result of’ which are suggested in BAGD, p. 180, IV, are all ambiguous, and Kelly himself gives no examples).
The only possible exception is John 5:35, yet even here it seems to indicate a rejoicing (or willingness to rejoice) in the new work which God was doing by sending John the Baptist and thereby ending 400 years in which he had sent no prophets to his people.
Other examples in the New Testament include Matt. 5:12; Luke 10:21; John 8:56; Acts 2:26; 1 Pet. 1:8; Rev. 19:7. The LXX frequently uses agalliaō to speak of rejoicing in the Lord (Ps. 90(89):14; Hab. 3:17–18). The related noun is used in Ps. 126(125):5–6: ‘Those that sow in tears shall reap in joy … They shall surely come with exaltation bringing their sheaves with them.’ See also Pss 2:11; 16:9; 32:11; 51:8; 84:2.
Selwyn, p. 127, argues against translating the participle in a concessive sense (‘although’), and prefers to see here rejoicing because of suffering. But rejoicing in the NT is not generally based on suffering itself. Rather, believers are said to rejoice because of the benefits resulting from, and the future heavenly reward that follows, suffering (Matt. 5:12).
The grammatical structure here (‘first class condition’) does not affirm that the facts of the ‘if-clause’ are true (cf. Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1008–1009), but only that the speaker in this sentence is for a moment assuming them to be true in order to make his point.
Calvin, p. 235.
Especially when an aorist participle is placed after the main verb, as it is here, it frequently refers to action simultaneous with the main verb (see, for example, Mark 15:30; Luke 2:16; Acts 10:33, Phil. 4:14; 1 Thess. 1:6; cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 1113).
See Deissmann, p. 260, with the quotation of a papyrus scrap which mentions gold buckles of good (dokimion) gold (cf. pp. 260–261; BAGD, p. 203). Thus, the NASB mg., ‘genuineness’, is a better translation than the NASB text, ‘proof’.
See E. D. Burton, Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), pp. 480–481; MHT 1, pp. 67–68.
Selwyn, pp. 259–268, argues that Peter is referring not to OT prophets but to Christian prophets of the 1st century. But he can suggest no linguistically valid sense for the phrase ‘predicting the sufferings of Christ’ (he must import into the text the idea that it is people, rather than sufferings, which are ‘toward’ [eis] Christ). Moreover, searching Scripture for Messianic prophecies was simply not a primary activity of NT prophets (see Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians [Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982], pp. 139–144; 181–185; 201–210; 219–222). Further objections to Selwyn on this point are in Best, pp. 83–84; see also the discussion below on v. 11, ‘the sufferings of Christ’.
Kelly thinks this means ‘Christ himself conceived of as divine spirit’ (p. 60), but Christ is nowhere in the Bible called ‘the Spirit of Christ’. Moreover, ‘Spirit of Christ’ in Rom. 8:9 is interchangeable with ‘Spirit of God’, and in Acts 16:7 ‘the Spirit of Jesus’ must be the same person as ‘the Holy Spirit’ in v. 6; see also 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19.
Selwyn, pp. 263–264; J. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980), p. 159; N. Hillyer, TynB 21 (1970), p. 66; J. W. Pryor, RTR 45 (1986), p. 2.
A different construction (hypo with genitive) is Peter’s ordinary way of speaking of an action that was done by someone (so 1 Pet. 2:4; 2 Pet. 1:17, 21; 3:2, etc.).
So also Hort, p. 59.
C. C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922).
C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphal (Leipzig: 1966).
‘In the New Testament we see a tendency for poios to become the adjective corresponding to the pronoun tis’ (G. D. Kilpatrick, ‘1 Peter 1:11 tina ē poion kairon’, NovT 28:1 (Jan. 1986), p. 92.
The Gk. phrase is literally ‘as children of obedience’, a construction echoing the Heb. construct state by use of a genitive of definition (see MHT 3, pp. 440–441, and note similar phrases in Eph. 2:3 and 5:8).
This is the first of several times where Peter uses a participle as an imperative: cf. 2:18; 3:1, 7–9; 4:8–10; David Daube, ‘Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter’, in Selwyn, pp. 467–488.
See John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1961; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 88–94.
See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 61971; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, 1941), pp. 73–74.
Note that 1 John 4:18, ‘perfect love casts out fear’, refers in context to eternal judgment: see v. 17, and the term kolasis, ‘divine retribution, punishment’ in v. 18. ‘Perfect love’ casts out all fear of eternal punishment, but it does not banish that godly fear which is essential to holiness (cf. Rev. 11:18; 15:4; 19:5).
Leighton, pp. 85, 87.
See the thorough discussion of lutroō by Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale Press, 31965), pp. 11–27, 39; and on the concept of ‘redemption’ generally, see ibid., pp. 11–64, and, in somewhat more popular format, his The Atonement (Leicester: IVP, 1983), pp. 106–131. Beare, p. 104, objects that if payment of a price were in view Peter would have used the genitive of price rather than the instrumental dative, but this objection is unpersuasive: instrumental dative of a price paid is found in Exod. 34:20; 1 Chr. 21:24; Rev. 5:9.
W. C. van Unnik, summarizing a detailed survey of patroparadotos in extra-biblical literature in his article, ‘The Critique of Paganism in 1 Pet. 1:18’, Neotestamentica et Semitica (Fs. M. Black), eds. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), p. 141.
So Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 112–126.
For the expression ‘the Lamb of God’ in John 1:29 Leon Morris examines several possible backgrounds (John, NIC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], pp. 143–148) and concludes, ‘All that the ancient sacrifices foreshadowed was perfectly fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ’ (p. 148).
This verse is one of several which some claim to be excerpts from an early hymn or creedal statement. But the evidence for this claim is unpersuasive: admittedly the Greek sentence is balanced and stylistically elegant—but that is not surprising, since the entire letter is well-written.
The RSV mg., ‘so that your faith is hope in God’ (so R. Bultmann, TDNT 6, p. 208) might seem possible grammatically but a survey of actual usage shows how unlikely it is that any first-century reader would take it that way: a search of all 656 NT instances of adverbial kai (which were listed on the GRAMCORD data base at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois) yielded no other examples of the sequence kai with predicate nominative with eimi or ginomai. This sense is also conceptually improbable, for ‘faith’ and ‘hope’, while related, are not equated in the NT (cf. Heb. 11:1).
Rom 1:5 and 16:26 are ambiguous, but see BAGD, p. 837; cf. also the comments at 1:2 above.
Beare (p. 110), Stibbs/Walls (p. 93), and Mounce (p. 22) claim that the perfect participle must refer to a particular past act, not a process. However, the perfect participle can refer to a completed past process: note Heb. 4:15 (we have a high priest who ‘in every respect has been tempted as we are’); 5:14 (solid food is for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil); 12:3, 11; Jas 5:15; 1 Pet. 4:3; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; etc.
However, there is considerable overlap in meaning between the two word groups, and the popular conception of agapē as pure God-like love is not entirely justified by the way in which agapaō is sometimes used (see 2 Pet. 2:15; John 3:19). Moreover, phileō is also used of God’s love (see John 5:20; 11:3; 36; 16:27; 20:2; Rev. 3:19).
Here again many assume a reference to baptism, but with insufficient warrant (see v. 3 above, p. 60, n. 1).
NEB mg., ‘through the word of the living and enduring God’, is grammatically possible but ruled out by contextual considerations: Peter’s point is to emphasize the permanency of God’s word (see E. A. LaVerdiere, ‘A Grammatical Ambiguity in 1 Pet. 1:23’, CBQ 36 (1974), pp. 89–94).
So also Beare: ‘Precisely because the new life is immortal in its essence, it must find expression in the love of the brethren with whom we share it’ (p. 111).
The Greek pasa sarx, which is the LXX translation of the Hebrew phrase kol-āśār, is found with the sense ‘every person’ at Luke 3:6; John 17:12; Acts 2:17. Yet Peter’s insertion of ‘its’ (antes) instead of the LXX ‘man’s’ in the phrase ‘all its glory’ makes a reference to ‘every person’ difficult, and ‘all natural human existence’ therefore more likely.
Kelly, p. 84, sees another reference to baptism here, which, he claims, involved ‘undressing completely’ in the early church. However, the earliest evidence for this (in Cyril of Jerusalem) is around AD 350, and there is insufficient evidence to say that the practice was widespread. No evidence exists for such practice at the time of the NT, nor is there good reason for thinking that the command ‘put away all malice …’ would suggest baptism to Peter’s readers.
To say that this verse views the readers as new Christians (so Beare, p. 114; Kelly, p. 84) would be similar to saying that the author of Psalm 42 thinks himself to be a hart or deer when he exclaims, ‘As a hart longs for flowing streams, so longs my soul for thee, O God’ (Ps. 42:1). The point of comparison is merely the intensity of the longing. (Selwyn, p. 154, notes the similar phrase, ‘as a roaring lion’ [5:8], which does not imply that the devil is a lion.) Newborn does not imply ‘just now baptized’ (as some have claimed), for (1) it must be said again that here as elsewhere Peter speaks of new ‘birth’, not ‘baptism’; and (2) the commands to ‘put away’ and ‘long for’ as they now stand in the text are addressed to all Peter’s readers in many different churches, even those who had been believers for as long as thirty years. Moreover, (3) ‘therefore’ or ‘so’ in v. 1 refers back to 1:22, ‘love one another’; thus, 2:1–2 must be addressed to the same persons as are addressed by this command in 1:22—all the members of the churches to which he is writing.
The translation ‘the pure milk of the word’ (NASB, cf. AV) does not seem to be supported by known uses of logikos, and is apparently based on a mistaken assumption of similarity in sense to the related word logos, ‘word’.
Beare, p. 116, says the ‘pure spiritual milk’ may be the eucharist (the Lord’s supper), but more probably it refers to Christ himself, because of v. 3. He rightly dismisses ‘of the word’ as a translation of logikos, but does not consider the possibility that ‘pure spiritual milk’ is a metaphorical description of Scripture without actually naming it as ‘the word’. (See below for an alternative view of the relationship to v 3.)
The Greek word is ei, often translated ‘if, but here (as in 1:17) the indicative mood of the verb shows that Peter is assuming the following fact to be true; thus, since is an appropriate translation (cf. BAGD, p. 219, I.1.a; also III).
Kelly, p. 87, sees a reference to partaking in the Lord’s supper here, because Ps. 34:8 was used in communion services later in church history. But that in no way implies that Ps. 34:8 had to be used this way, or that Peter was using it this way: certainly it could not have meant this in the original Psalm. Stibbs/Walls rightly notes Peter’s ‘explicit reference to the word, and the absence of any reference to the sacrament, as the proper means of spiritual nourishment’ (p. 96).
N. Hillyer, ‘ “Rock-Stone” Imagery in 1 Peter’, TynB 22 (1971), pp. 58–81, gives extensive discussion of OT and extra-biblical Jewish background to this imagery. C. F. D. Moule, ‘Some Reflections on the “Stone Testimonia” in Relation to the Name Peter’, NTS 2 (1955–56), pp. 56–59, suggests that the theme here has a possible connection to the name Peter (‘rock’) itself.
The verb oikodomeisthe has a form that could be either passive or middle. Even if middle it would hardly take the sense ‘build yourselves up’ (NASB mg.) for which a reflexive pronoun would be required for clarity (see 1 Cor. 14:4; 1 Thess. 5:11), but rather ‘build up for your own benefit or with your own intensive involvement’, a sense scarcely distinguishable from the active voice. (No clear middle of this verb occurs in the NT.)
J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, NovTSup 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), labours long (but unpersuasively) to deny that this passage teaches a universal priesthood of believers, arguing that the ideas of election and holiness are sufficient by themselves to account for the ‘priestly’ themes in 2:4–10.
Selwyn argues (p. 163) that the phrase en graphē here must mean ‘in writing’ rather than ‘in Scripture’, because the NT authors use the definite article (‘the’) before graphē when they want to refer to Scripture. But Selwyn’s argument is incorrectly based: graphē without the definite article means ‘Scripture’ in John 19:37; Rom. 1:2; 16:26; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20. Moreover, the uniform meaning of graphē as ‘Scripture’ fifty other times in the NT means that any other sense would need extremely strong contrary evidence from the context—but here the immediately following quotations are clearly from OT ‘Scripture’, not just from some other ‘writing’. Finally, the article is often omitted in common or fixed prepositional phrases (BDF, sec. 255).
Beare, for example, says the understanding of the word hymin, ‘you’, required by the translation ‘to you he is precious’ ‘is impossible’ (p. 124); cf. Bigg, p. 131; Selwyn, p. 164; Huther, p. 249; Blum, p. 230.
It is even more unjustifiable to take timē as a predicate and supply the subject ‘he’, again resulting in the sense, ‘he is precious’. If timē were meant to be the predicate, it would not have had the definite article in front of it, and the subject ‘he’ would have needed to be expressed.
E.g., see 1 Kgs 8:8; 2 Chr. 5:9 for this sense of both Gk. kephalē and Heb. rō’š, the words used in Ps. 118:22, which Peter is quoting; cf. also W. Grudem, ‘Does kephalē (“Head”) Mean “Source” or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples’, TrinJ 6, NS (1985), pp. 43–45, 51.
BAGD accepts the sense ‘disbelieve’ in John 3:36; Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 15:31, but adds that this meaning is ‘greatly disputed’ and ‘is not found outside our literature’ (p. 82). Moreover, it must be noted that to ‘disobey the gospel’ in the NT can mean not just to ‘disbelieve’ it but actually to ‘disobey’ it: i.e. to refuse to respond to its command to repent and believe in Christ (note hypakouō, ‘obey’, in this sense in 2 Thess. 1:8; also Acts 6:7; Rom. 10:16). John 3:36, ‘he who does not obey the Son’, is easily understandable in this sense, especially in light of John’s tendency to view obedience as evidence of true faith and disobedience as evidence of lack of faith (1 John 2:4–6, 9; 3:6–10; 4:8, 20–21; 5:18).
Hort (p. 124) draws this conclusion: ‘If it was an overwhelming thought that God Himself had appointed them unto stumbling, it was at last the only satisfying thought, for so it was made sure that they were in His hands and His keeping for ever.’ This is to affirm almost exactly the opposite of what Peter says: he speaks in this verse of ‘destining’ to disobedience, not of predestining to final salvation.
Note the very helpful discussion in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, entitled ‘God So Uses the Works of the Ungodly, and So Bends Their Minds to Carry Out His Judgments, that He Remains Pure from Every Stain’ (vol. 1, pp. 228–237 in the translation by F. L. Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), with discussion of many more scriptural examples. On Rom. 9:1–23 see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983).
Peter quotes the LXX with the phrase ‘royal priesthood’, rather than the Heb. text, which has ‘a kingdom of priests’. The difference is not one of great significance, for in either case kingly and priestly privileges are connected, as they are in Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6.
‘Excellence’ is by far the most common meaning of the word (BAGD, p. 105, says its ‘usual meaning’ is ‘moral excellence, virtue’; cf. LSJ, p. 238, ‘goodness, excellence, of any kind’; also Hort, p. 129). It takes this sense several hundred times in Philo and Josephus. The meaning ‘praise’ is found in the LXX (Esth. 4:17, end; Isa. 42:8; Zech. 6:13), and is possible here, but epainos (1 Pet. 1:7; 2:14) or perhaps ainesis (Heb. 13:15) would have been the expected word if Peter had meant to say ‘praise’. Moreover, the sense ‘excellence’ seems to be the meaning of the Heb. těhillâ which underlies aretē in Isa. 43:21 and 42:12 (see BDB, p. 240). The sense ‘manifestation of divine power, miracle’ is claimed for several instances in the papyri (see BAGD, p. 105, 3), but many of them are ambiguous, and there is no clear example of this meaning in the five collections of literature closest to the language of the New Testament (the NT itself, the LXX, Philo, Josephus, and the Apostolic Fathers). Thus, ‘excellencies’ (NASB) is the most likely sense, ‘praises’ (NIV, AV) is possible but less likely, and ‘wonderful deeds’ (RSV) is quite unlikely.
Blum, p. 231, says that these privileges given to the church do not imply that the church is Israel or that it replaces Israel, and that Rom. 11:13–16, 23–24 guards against such an idea. Certainly we can agree that Rom. 9–11 affirms God’s continuing concern for ethnic Israel and predicts for the Jewish people a great future time of blessing when many will be joined to the church (‘grafted back into their own olive tree’, Rom. 11:24). Peter’s statements do not nullify that promise. But 1 Pet. 2:4–10 does affirm that God’s covenant blessings are presently enjoyed only by those who are in Christ, just as Rom. 9–11 affirms that future enjoyment of covenant blessings will come only through being joined to Christ.
