1 Peter 3 - Expositor's Greek Testament vs Calvin John

1 Peter 3

1 Peter 3:1

1 Peter 3:1-6. Duty of wives (Ephesians 5:21-24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:4)—Submissiveness and true adornment.—τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, your own husbands, the motive for submissiveness, Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:4. St. Peter assumes knowledge of the reason alleged by St. Paul (Eph. l.c.; 1 Corinthians 9:3) after Genesis 3:16, αὐτός σου κυριεύσει.—καὶ εἰ … λόγῳ, even if in some cases your husbands are disobedient to the word (1 Peter 2:8), i.e., remain heathens in spite of the preaching of the Gospel. St. Paul found it necessary to impress upon the Corinthian Church that this incompatibility of religion did not justify dissolution of marriage (1 Corinthians 12:10 ff.).—ἄνευ λόγου, without word from their wives. Peter deliberately introduces λ. in its ordinary sense immediately after the technical τῷ λ.—an example of what the grammarians call antanaclasis and men a pun. In his provision for the present and future welfare of the heathen husbands whose wives come under his jurisdiction he echoes the natural aspiration of Jews and Greeks; so Ben Sira said, a silent woman is a gift of the Lord … a loud crying woman and a scold shall be sought out to drive away enemies (Sir 26:14; Sir 26:27) and Sophocles, Silence is the proper ornament (κόσμος) for women (Ajax 293). St. Paul forbids women to preach or even ask questions at church meeting (1 Corinthians 14:34 : at Corinth they had been used to prophesy and pray).—ἵνα … κερδηθήσονται, be won, cf. ἵνα κερδήσω in 1 Corinthians 9:20 ff. = ἵνα … σώσω, 1 Corinthians 9:22, (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:16.).

1 Peter 3:2

1 Peter 3:2. ἐποπτεύσαντες, having contemplated; see on 1 Peter 2:12. τὴν … ὑμῶν. ἐν φόβῳ, cf. 1 Peter 1:17 and Ephesians 5:21. ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ· αἱ γυναῖκες: as no object is expressed, τοῦ θεοῦ must be supplied.—ἁγνήν not merely chaste but pure, cf. 1 Peter 1:22 and 1 Peter 3:4.

1 Peter 3:3

1 Peter 3:3. The description of the external ornaments proper to heathen society seems to be based on Isaiah 3:17-23. where the destruction of the hair, jewels and raiment of the daughters of Zion is foretold.—ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, braiding of hair. 1 Timothy 2:9, πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ refers to the golden combs and nets used for the purpose; cf. ἐμπλόκια, Isaiah 3:18, for שביסים. Juvenal describes the elaborate coiffures which Roman fashion prescribed for the Park and attendance at the Mysteries of Adonis: tot premit ordinibus tot adhuc compagibus altum aedificat caput (Sat. vi. 492–504). Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 Peter 3:1-4, in his discussion of the whole subject (Paed., III. xi.); and in regard to this particular point says ἀπόχρη μαλάσσειν τὰς τρίχας καὶ ἀναδεῖσθαι τὴν κόμην ἐντελῶς περόνῃ τινι λιτῇ παρὰ τὸν αὐχένα … καὶ γὰρ αἱ περιπλοκαὶ τῶν τριχῶν αἱ ἑταιρικαὶ καὶ αἱ τῶν σειρῶν ἀναδέσεις … κόπτουσι τὰς τρίχας ἀποτίλλουσαι ταῖς πανούργοις ἐμπλοκαῖς, because of which they do not even touch their own head for fear of disturbing their hair—nay more sleep comes to them with terror lest they should unawares; spoil τὸ σχῆμα τῆς ἐμπλοκῆς (p. 290. P).—περιθέσεως χρυσίων, i.e., rings bracelets, etc., enumerated in Isa. l.c.—ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων. Stress might be laid on κόσμος, or the crowning prohibition regarded as an exaggeration intended to counteract an ingrained bias. In either case the expression points to a remarkable precedent for this teaching in Plato’s Republic IV., iii. ff. “Plato’s assignment of common duties and common training to the two sexes is part of a well-reasoned and deliberate attempt by the Socratic school to improve the position of women in Greece … Socrates’ teaching inaugurated an era of protest against the old Hellenic view of things.… In later times the Stoics constituted themselves champions of similar views” (Adam, ad loc.). Accordingly gymnastics must be practised by women as by men: ἀποδυτέον δὴ ταῖς τῶν φυλάκων γυναιξὶν ἐπείπερ ἀρετὴν ἀντὶ ἱματίων ἀμφιέσονται.

1 Peter 3:4

1 Peter 3:4. Yours be the secret man of the heart not the outward ornament. A better antithesis and a pretty paradox would be secured by supplying ἄνθρωπος with ὁ ἔξωθεν and taking κ. as predicate: your ornament be cf. οὕτως ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς (1 Peter 3:5). But the order in 1 Peter 3:3 is against this and a Greek reader would naturally think of the other sense of κ.= world universe and remember that man is a microcosm and “the universe the greatest and most perfect man” (Philo, p. 471 M.).—ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, the hidden man that is the heart (or which belongs to the heart) is the equivalent of the Pauline inner man (Romans 7:22), i.e., Mind as contrasted with the outward man, i.e., flesh (Rom. l.e., cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16). St. Peter employs the terms used in the Sermon on the Mount; cf. St. Paul’s ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος and περιτομὴ καρδίας, Romans 2:29.—ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ clothed in the incorruptible thing (or ornament, sc. κόσμῳ) contrasted with corruptible goldens; cf. Jam 2:2, ἀνὴρ … ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ.—τοῦ … πνεύματος, namely, the meek and quiet spirit. The adjectives are perhaps derived from the version of Isaiah 64:2, known to Clement of Rome (Ep. i. xiii. 4), ἐπὶ τίνα ἐπιβλέψω ἀλλʼ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν πρᾳὺν καὶ ἡσύχιον καὶ τρέμοντά μου τὰ λόγια. Jesus professed Himself, πρᾳὺς καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ. For πνεύματος compare πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, Romans 1:4. In Romans 2:29, πν. is coupled with heart as contrasted with flesh and outwardness. ὅ which spirit or the posssesion of which reference.—πολυτελές suggests use of conception of Wisdom which is precious above rubies (Proverbs 3:15, etc.); cf. Jam 1:21; Jam 3:13, ἐν πρᾳύτητι σοφίας and description of the wisdom from above, Jam 3:17.

1 Peter 3:5

1 Peter 3:5. ποτε refers vaguely to O.T. history as part of αἱ … θεόν. References to the holy women of the O.T. are rare in N.T. and this appeal to their example illustrates the affinity of Peter to Heb. (Hebrews 11:11; Hebrews 11:35). Hannah is the obviously appropriate type (cf. Luke 1 with 2 Samuel 1 f.); but Peter is thinking of the traditional idealisation of Sarah.

1 Peter 3:6

1 Peter 3:6. ὡς … καλοῦσα. The only evidence that can be adduced from the O.T. narrative is Sarah laughed within herself and said … “but my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12). The phrase, if pressed, implies a nominal subjection as of a slave to her lord, but the context at any rate excludes any hope in God. Philo, who starts with the assumption that Sarah is Virtue, evades the difficulty; her laughter was the expression of her joy, she denied it for fear of usurping God’s prerogative of laughter (de Abr., ii. p. 30 M). The Rabbinic commentaries dwell upon the title accorded to Abraham and draw the same inference as Peter; but there are also traces of a tendency to exalt Sarah “the princess” as superior to her husband in the gift of prophecy, which St. Peter may wish to correct (as St. James corrects the exaggerated respect paid to Elijah, Jam 5:17).—ἧς … τέκνα. Christian women became children of Sarah who is Virtue or Wisdom: (Philo) just as men became children of Abraham. But the fact that they were Christians is still in the background; the essential point is that they must do the works traditionally ascribed to Sarah (cf. Romans 4.; John 8.) and so justify their technical parentage, whether natural or acquired. Oec. compares Isaiah 41:2, Sarah your mother.—ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι the present participle emphasises the need for continuance of the behaviour appropriate to children of Sarah.—μὴ … πτόησιν, from Proverbs 3:25, LXX. Peter regards Sarah’s falsehood (Gen. l.c.) as the yielding to a sudden terror for which she was rebuked by God. Fearlessness then is part of the character which is set before them for imitation and it is the result of obedience to the voice of Wisdom. Rabbinic exegesis as sociates the ideas of ornament with the promised child and that of peace between husband and wife with the whole incident.

1 Peter 3:7

1 Peter 3:7. Duty of husbands to their wives. Application of principle πάντας τιμήσατε.—κατὰ γνῶσιν, for the woman is the weaker vessel—the pot—which the stronger—the cauldron—may easily smash (Sir 13:2). ὡς, κ.τ.λ. point with comma after γνῶσιν and τιμήν. σκεύει. The comparison of Creator and creature to potter and clay is found first in Isaiah 29:16, but is latent in the description of the creation (יצר) of Adam from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7 f.). In the prophets it is developed and applied variously (Isaiah 45:9 f., Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6). In Sap. 15:7, there is an elaborate description of the maker of clay images, in which σκεῦος replaces πλάσμα and vessels which serve clean uses are distinguished from the contrary sort. Thence St. Paul adopts the figure and employs it to illustrate the absolute sovereignty of the Creator, as Isaiah had done (see Romans 9:21), distinguishing vessels intended for honour from those intended for dishonour. Lastly 2 Timothy 2:20 exemplifies the particular application of the figure, on which Peter’s use of σκεῦος rests—ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ (1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 4:17) … κ.τ.λ. The comparative ἀσθενεστέρῳ proves that both husband and wife are vessels and assists to exclude the notion that St. Paul could mean to call a wife the vessel of her husband in 1 Thessalonians 4:4.—ὡς … ζωῆς, inasmuch as they are also heirs with you of the grace (1 Peter 1:10; 1 Peter 1:13) of life (1 Peter 2:24): the heavenly inheritance is not distributed according to earthly custom, which gave the wife no rights of her own.—εἰς … ὑμῶν. If the prayers are those of all (1 Peter 3:8) compare 1 Corinthians 7. (τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδότω … ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ). Peter teaches that married life need not—if the wife be properly honoured—hinder religious duties, as St. Paul feared (1 Corinthians 7:32 ff.). If ὑμῶν = you husbands (as v.l. συγκληρονόμοι requires) cf. Jam 5:4.

1 Peter 3:8

1 Peter 3:8 f. Sweeping clause addressed to all, inculcating detailed φιλαδελφία after Romans 12:10; Romans 12:15-17.

1 Peter 3:8. τὸ … τέλος, finally. Oecumenius brings out the possible connotations of the word goal and also the law for all love since love is the end of the law.—ὁμόφρονες, of one mind, united, an Epic word. St. Paul’s τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν but here wider than parallel expressing Romans 12:16, τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες.—συμπαθεῖς summarises χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων of Romans 12:15; cf. Hebrews 4:15 (of Christ), Hebrews 10:34 (particular example of sympathy with “the prisoners”).—φιλάδελφοι, cf. 1 Peter 1:22; Romans 12:10, τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι.—εὔσπλαγχνοι, kind-hearted, in Ephesians 4:32 (only here in N.T.) coupled with kind … forgiving one another; epithet of Jehovah in Prayer of Manasses, 1 Peter 3:7 = compassionate, in accordance with metaphorical use of σπλάγχνα κ.τ.λ. derived from different senses of רחם. Here = ἐνδύσασθε … τὰ σπλάγχνα τῆς χρηστότητος, Col.—ταπεινόφρονες = τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι, Romans 12:16, cf. Proverbs 29:23, LXX, insolence humbleth a man but the humble (ταπεινόφρονας) Jehovah stayeth with glory (κ. ὕβρις).

1 Peter 3:9

1 Peter 3:9. μὴ … κακοῦ, from Romans 12:17; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:15; Proverbs 20:22, Say not I will recompense evil (LXX τίσομαι τὸν ἐχθρόν): an approximation to Christ’s repeal of the lex talionis (Matthew 5:38 ff.) which Plato first opposed among the Greeks (see Crito., p. 49, with Adam’s note).—λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας refers to pattern left by Christ (1 Peter 2:23).—τοὐναντίον, contrariwise.—εὐλογοῦντες with λοιδ., 1 Corinthians 4:21; cf. Romans 12:14, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας Luke 6:28.—ὅτι … κληρονομήσητε, Christians must do as they hope to be done by. They are the new Israel called to inherit blessing in place of the Jews, who are reprobate like Esau; cf. Hebrews 12:17, ἴστε γὰρ ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη. So St. Paul reverses the current view which identified the Jews with Isaac and the Gentiles with Ishmael (Galatians 4:22 ff.).

1 Peter 3:10

1 Peter 3:10-12 = Psalm 34:12-17 a. introduced by mere γάρ as familiar. The lips of Christians who wish to love life must be free from cursing and from guile as were Christ’s (cf. Isa. apud ii. 23). If Jehovah is to hear their petition as He heard Christ’s they also must turn from evil and do good (cf. ἀγαθοποιεῖν above) seeking peace within and without the Church.

1 Peter 3:10. Peter omits the rhetorical question τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, which introduces ὁ θέλων in the original (LXX = Hebrew) but is influenced by it in the substitution of the third for the second person throughout. The change of ἀγαπῶν (= Hebrew) to ἀγαπᾶν καὶ removes the barbarisms θέλων ζωήν and ἀγαπῶν ἰδεῖν (= Hebrew) and secures the balance between the clauses disturbed by the omission of the opening words.—ἰδεῖν ἡμ. ἀγαθάς is the natural sequel of the alteration of the original (days to see good), which is already found in the LXX (ἡμ. ἰ. ἀγαθάς).—ζωήν = earthly life in the original corresponding to days. The text adopted by Peter makes it mean eternal life, parallel good days. Only with this interpretation is the quotation pertinent to his exhortation: cf. that ye might inherit blessing (9) with fellow-inheritors of the grace of life (7).—παυσάτω, κ.τ.λ., parallel μὴ … λοιδορίαν (9); cf. 1 Peter 2:22 f.

1 Peter 3:11

1 Peter 3:12

1 Peter 3:12. πρόσωπον Κυρίου, Jehovah’s face, i.e., wrath (Targum, the face of Jehovah was angry) as the following clause, to cut off the remembrance of them … shows; cf. Lamentations 4:16; Psalm 21:9. But Peter stops short and leaves room for repentance.

Ver, 13. κακώσων echoes ποιοῦντας κακά (as ζηλ. τοῦ ἀγ. echoes ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν); but the phrase comes also from O.T.: Isaiah 1:9, Κύριος βοηθήσει μοι· τίς κακώσει με;—τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ. The phrase sums up 1 Peter 3:11. All that was good in Judaism, however it may have been perverted, finds its fulfilment in the new Israel (Romans 10:2). Some Jews were zealots, boasting their zeal for the Lord or His Law, like Phinehas and the Hasmonaeans (1 Maccabees 2. passim): all Christians should be zealots for that which is good. So Paul says of himself as Pharisee that he was a zealot for his ancestral traditions (Galatians 1:14). For him as for the colleague of Simon the Zealot the word retained a flavour of its technical sense; cf. Titus 2:14, that He might cleanse for Himself a peculiar people, zealot of good (καλῶν) works; cf. similar use of ἀφωρισμένος = Pharisee (Romans 1:1). τοῦἀγ. in emphatic position.

1 Peter 3:13

1 Peter 3:14

1 Peter 3:14. ἀλλʼ … μακάριοι. Nay if ye should actually suffer—if some one, despite the prophet (1 Peter 3:13), should harm you—for the sake of righteousness, blessed are ye. Peter appeals to the saying, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (Matthew 5:10).—πάσχοιτε, ει with optative (cf. 1 Peter 3:17, εἰ θέλοι) is used to represent anything as generally possible without regard to the general or actual situation at the moment (Blass, Grammar, p. 213). The addition of καί implies that the contingency is unlikely to occur and is best represented by an emphasis on should. The meaning of the verb is determined by κακώσων above, if ye should be harmed, i.e., by persons unspecified (αὐτῶν).—δικαιοσύνην. perhaps suggested ζηλωταί, cf. 1Ma 2:27-29, πᾶς ὁ ζηλῶν τῷ νόμῳ … ἐξελθέτω … τότε κατέβησαν πολλοὶ ζητοῦντες δικ. καὶ κρίμα.—τὸν δὲ φόβον … ὑμῶν. An adaptation of Isaiah 8:12 f. LXX, τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε· κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε καὶ αὐτός ἔσται σου φόβος. The scripture corresponding to the saying, Fear not them that kill the body; but fear rather him that can destroy both soul and body (Matthew 10:28 parallels Luke 12:4 f. where the description of God is modified). The sense of the original, fear not what they (the people) fear; Jehovah of Hosts Him shall ye count holy and let Him be the object of your fear, has been in part abandoned. For it is simpler to take the fear as referring to the evil with which their enemies try to terrify them, than to supply the idea that their enemies employ the means by which they themselves would be intimidated. Compare 1 Peter 3:6.—τὸν χριστόν, gloss on κύριον = Jehovah; cf. 1 Peter 2:3.—ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις sc. mere profession. Peter is probably thinking of the prescribed prayer, Hallowed be thy name, elsewhere in N.T. it belongs to God to sanctify Christ and men.—ἔτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν, ready for reply. The contrast between the inward hope (parallels sanctification of Christ in the heart) and the spoken defence of it is not insisted upon; the second δέ is not to be accepted. The use of the noun in place of verb is characteristic of St. Peter. The play upon ἀπολογίαν back-word and λόγον cannot be reproduced. Properly speech in defence, ἀ. is used metaphorically ([153] [154] παντί) here as by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:3, ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογία τοῖς ἐμὲ ἀνακρίνουσιν; where also, though another technical word is introduced, no reference is intended to formal proceedings in a court of law. St. Peter is thinking of the promise which he himself once forfeited lor unworthy fear, I will give you mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:14 f., Luke 12:11, uses ἀπολογεῖσθαι; Matthew 10:19, λαλεῖν).—παντι … λόγον, to every one (for dative cf. 1 Corinthians 9:3) that asketh of you an account. The phrase (compare Demosthenes Against Onetor, p. 868, ἐνεκάλουν καὶ λόγον ἀπῄτουν) recalls the Parable of the Steward of Unrighteousness, of whom his lord demanded an account (Luke 16:1 ff.), as also the metaphor of 1 Peter 4:10, ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι.—μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, with meekness (cf. 1 Peter 3:4) and fear of God (Isa. l.c. has the same play on the senses of fear).—συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, intermediate step between διὰ σ. θεοῦ and the quasi-personification of σ. ἀ. in 1 Peter 3:21; so St. Paul says οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα (1 Corinthians 4:4) but goes on beyond the contrast between self-judgment and that of other men to God’s judgment. 1 Peter 3:17 supplies the explanation here.—ἵνα … ἀναστροφήν, generalisation of Peter’s personal experience at Pentecost, when the Jews first scoffed and then were pierced to the heart (Acts 2:13; Acts 2:37). Misrepresentation is apparently the extent of their present suffering (17) and this they are encouraged to hope may be stopped. The heathen will somehow be put to shame even if they are not converted (1 Peter 2:12).—ἐν ᾧ, in the matter in respect of which; see 1 Peter 2:12.—ἐπηρεάζοντες, occurs in Luke 6:28, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς, and therefore constitutes another hint of contact between St. Luke and Peter (cf. χάρις, 1 Peter 2:19). Aristotle defines ἐπηρεασμός as “hindrance to the wishes of another not for the sake of gaining anything oneself but in order to baulk the other”—the spirit of the dog in the manger. Ordinarily the verb means to libel, cf. λαλῆσαι δόλον (10).—ὑμῶν … ἀναστροφήν, your (possessive genitive precedes noun in Hellenistic Greek) good-in-Christ behaviour: ἑν Χριστῷ (1 Peter 4:14; 1 Peter 4:16) is practically equivalent to Christian, cf. if any is in Christ a new creature.

[153] cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels).

[154] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

1 Peter 3:15

1 Peter 3:16

1 Peter 3:17

1 Peter 3:17. κρεῖττον, cf. 1 Peter 2:19 f., where χάρις κλέος correspond to μισθὸν περισσόν of the sources.—εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα θεοῦ. Again optative implies that it is a purely hypothetical case (cf. 1 Peter 3:14). For the semi-personification of the will of God compare Ephesians 1:11, where the θέλημα has a βουλή; so Paul is Apostle through the will of God (1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1). For the pleonastic expression cf. the verbal parallel ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, John 7:17. So God’s patience was waiting (1 Peter 3:20).

1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18. The advantage of suffering for well-doing is exemplified in the experience of Christ, who gained thereby quickening (1 Peter 3:21) and glory (1 Peter 3:22). How far the pattern applies to the Christian is not clear. Christ suffered once for all according to Hebrews 9:24-28; the Christian suffers for a little (1 Peter 3:10). But does the Christian suffer also for sins? St. Paul and Ignatius speak of themselves as περίψημα περικαθάρματα; compare the value of righteous men for Sodom. But even if Peter contemplated this parallel it is quite subordinate to the main idea, in which (spirit) even to the spirits in prison he went and preached them that disobeyed once upon a time when the patience of God was waiting in the days of Noah while the ark was being fitted out.… The spirits who disobeyed in the days of Noah are the sons of God described in Genesis 6:1-4. But there as in the case of Sarah St. Peter depends on the current tradition in which the original myth has been modified and amplified. This dependence supplies an adequate explanation of the difficulties which have been found here and in 1 Peter 3:21, provided that the plain statement of the preaching in Hades is not prejudged to be impossible. The important points in the tradition as given in the Book of Enoch (vi.–xvi. cf. Jubilees v.) are as follows: the angels who lusted after the daughters of men descended in the days of Jared as his name (Descent) shows. The children of this unlawful union were the Nephilim and the Eliud. They also taught men all evil arts so that they perished appealing to God for justice. At last Enoch was sent to pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon these watchers, who in terror besought him to present a petition to God on their behalf. God refused to grant them peace. They were spirits eternal and immortal wi.o transgressed the line of demarcation between men and angels and disobeyed the law that spiritual beings do not marry and beget children like men. Accordingly they are bound and their children slay one another leaving their disembodied spirits to propagate sin in the world even alter it has been purged by the Flood. But Christians believed that Christ came to seek and to save the lost and the captives; all things are to be subjected to Him. So Peter supplements the tradition which he accepts. For him it was not merely important as connected with the only existing type of the Last Judgment or an alternative explanation of the origin and continuance of sin but also as the greatest proof of the complete victory of Christ over the most obstinate and worst of sinners.—ἐν ᾧ sc. πνεύματι: as a bodiless spirit in the period between the Passion (18) and the Resurrection-Ascension (22).—καί, even to the typical rebels who had sinned past lorgiveness according to pre-Christian notions.—τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν, the spirits in prison, i.e., the angels of Gen. l.c. who were identified with my spirit of Genesis 6:3, and therefore described as having been sent to the earth by God in one form of the legend (Jubilees, l.c.). The name contains also the point of their offending (Enoch summarised above); cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Judges 1:6; and the prophecy of Isaiah 51:1 (which Jesus claimed, Luke 4:8 f.), κηρῦξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. These spirits were in ward when Christ preached to them in accordance with God s sentence, bind them in the depths of the earth (Jub. 1 Peter 5:6).—ἐκήρυξεν = εὐηγγελίσατο, cf. Luke 4:8. Before Christ came, they had not heard the Gospel of God’s Reign. Enoch’s mediation failed. But at Christ’s preaching they repented like the men of Nineveh; for it is said that angels subjected themselves to Him (1 Peter 3:22, cf. ὑποτάσσεσθαι, throughout the Epistle.—ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε, their historic disobedience or rebellion is latent in the narrative of Genesis 6. and expounded by Enoch; cf. 1 Peter 2:7)., 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 4:17. In LXX ἀπ commonly = rebel (מרה).—ἀπεξεδέχετο … μακροθυμία, God’s long-suffering was waiting. The reading ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο is attractive, as supplying a reference to the present period of waiting which precedes the second and final Judgment (Romans 2:4; Romans 9:22) The tradition lengthens the period of πάρεσις (Romans 3:25); but St. Peter limits it by adding while the Ark was being fitted out in accordance with Gen. If Adam’s transgression be taken as the origin of sin the long-suffering is still greater. The idea seems to be due to ἐνεθυμήθην, I reflected, of the LXX, which stands for the unworthy anthropomorphism of the Hebrew I repented in Genesis 6:6. Compare for language Jam 5:7; Matthew 24:37 f.; Luke 17:26 f.—εἰς ἣν, sc. entered and.—ὀλίγοι κ.τ.λ. St. Peter hints that here in the typical narrative is the basis of the disciple’s question, εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σωζόμενοι (Luke 13:23).—ὀκτὼ ψυχαί so Genesis 7:7; ψ. = persons (of both sexes), cf. Acts 2:41, etc. The usage occurs in Greek of all periods; so נפש in Hebrew and soul in English.—διεσώθησαν διʼ ὕδατος, were brought safe through water. Both local and instrumental meanings of διʼ are contemplated. The former is an obvious summary of the whole narrative; cf. also διὰ τὸ ὕδωρ (Genesis 7:7). The latter is implied in the statement that the water increased and lifted up the ark (Genesis 7:17 f.); though it fits better the antitype. So Josephus (Ant. I., iii. 2) says that “the ark was strong so that from no side was it worsted by the violence of the water and Noah with his household διασῴζεται”. Peter lays stress on the water (rather than the ark as e.g., Hebrews 11) for the sake of the parallel with Baptism (Romans 6:3; cf. St. Paul’s application of the Passage of the Red Sea, 1 Corinthians 10:1 f.).

1 Peter 3:19

1 Peter 3:20

1 Peter 3:21

1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is generally the antitype of the deliverance of Noah. Christians pass through water (in both senses) to salvation; in each microcosm are the sins which must be washed away and the remnant which is to be saved. Therefore the antitypical water saves us (ὅ = τὸ ὕδωρ > διʼ ὕδατος) being οὐ σαρκὸς, κ.τ.λ.; cf. Titus 3:5.—βάπτισμα if not an interpolation explains ὁ ἀντ. which corresponding to the (pre-existent) type (cf. Hebrews 9:24 the earthly temple is ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν). The following definition by exclusion contrasts Christian baptism with Jewish and pagan lustrations and also with the Deluge which was a removal of sin-fouled flesh from the sinners of old (1 Peter 4:6); the former affected the flesh and not the conscience (Hebrews 9:13 f.), the latter removed the flesh but not the spiritual defilement proceeding from past sin. σαρκός and συνειδήσεως stand before their belongings for emphasis and not merely in accordance with prevalent custom. For ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου compare Isaiah 4:4 (sequel of the description of the daughters of Zion which is used above 1 Peter 3:3), Jehovah shall wash away their filth (τὸν ῥύπον: LXX chivalrously prefixes of the sons and). ἐπερώτημα is explained by Oecumenius as meaning earnest, pledge as in Byzantine Greek law. Its use for the questions put to the candidate in the baptismal service (dost thou renou nee.…?) is probably due to St. Peter here. In ordinary Greek (Herodotus and Thucydides) it = question ἐπ. having no force, as if implying a second additional question arising out of the first). Here the noun corresponds to the verb as used in Isaiah 65:1, quoted by St. Paul in Romans 10:20, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσι = (1) a seeking, quest after God or (2) request addressed to God (supported by εἰς cf. the formula ἔντευξις εἰς τὸ βασίλεως ὄνομα, a petition addressed to the king’s majesty). In the latter case Peter will still be thinking as above and below of the disobedient spirits who presented a petition (ἐρώτη σις) to God inspired by an evil conscience (see Enoch summarised above). At any rate συνειδ. is probably subjective or possessive rather than objective genitive. The believer who comes to baptism has believed in Christ and repented of his past sins, renounces them and the spirits which prompted them and appeals to God for strength to carry out this renunciation in his daily life.—διʼ ἀναστ. with σώζει; compare 1 Corinthians 15:13-17.

1 Peter 3:22

1 Peter 3:22. Christ went into Heaven—and now is on God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1)—when angels and authorities and powers had subjected themselves to Him in accordance with prophecy (Psalm 8:7; cf. Hebrews 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:24 ff.). For the orders of angels see also Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:21. Clearly they include the rebels of 1 Peter 3:19 f. whom Jubilees calls the angels of the Lord (Jub. iv. 15) and Onkelos the sons of the mighty and their children (?) the giants.

1 Peter 3

He proceeds now to another instance of subjection, and bids wives to be subject to their husbands. And as those seemed to have some pretense for shaking off the yoke, who were united to unbelieving men, he expressly reminds them of their duty, and brings forward a particular reason why they ought the more carefully to obey, even that they might by their probity allure their husbands to the faith. But if wives ought to obey ungodly husbands, with much more promptness ought they to obey, who have believing husbands.

But it may seem strange that Peter should say, that a husband might be gained to the Lord without the word; for why is it said, that “faith cometh by hearing?” Rom 10:17. To this I reply, that Peter’s words are not to be so understood as though a holy life alone could lead the unbelieving to Christ, but that it softens and pacifies their minds, so that they might have less dislike to religion; for as bad examples create offenses, so good ones afford no small help. Then Peter shews that wives by a holy and pious life could do so much as to prepare their husbands, without speaking to them on religion, to embrace the faith of Christ.



2. While they behold For minds, however alienated from the true faith, are subdued, when they see the good conduct of believers; for as they understood not the doctrine of Christ, they form an estimate of it by our life. It cannot, then, be but that they will commend Christianity, which teaches purity and fear.



3. Whose adorning The other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in particular, — that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things in which excesses especially appear.

It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one’s-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides, ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation.



4. But let it be the hidden, man of the heart The contrast here ought to be carefully observed. Cato said, that they who are anxiously engaged in adorning the body, neglect the adorning of the mind: so Peter, in order to restrain this desire in women, introduces a remedy, that they are to devote themselves to the cultivation of their minds. The word heart, no doubt means the whole soul. He at the same time shews in what consists the spiritual adorning of women, even in the incorruptness of a meek and quiet spirit “Incorruptness,” as I think, is set in opposition to things which fade and vanish away, things which serve to adorn the body. Therefore the version of Erasmus departs from the real meaning. In short, Peter means that the ornament of the soul is not like a fading flower, nor consists in vanishing splendor, but is incorruptible. By mentioning quiet and a tranquil spirit, he marks out what especially belongs to women; for nothing becomes them more than a placid and a sedate temper of mind. (36) For we know how outrageous a being is an imperious and a self-willed woman. And further, nothing is more fitted to correct the vanity of which Peter speaks than a placid quietness of spirit.

What follows, that it is in the sight of God of great price, may be referred to the whole previous sentence as well as to the word spirit; the meaning indeed will remain the same. For why do women take so much care to adorn themselves, except that they may turn the eyes of men on themselves? But Peter, on the contrary, bids them to be more anxious for what is before God of a great price.

(36) The best construction is to regard “adorning,” or ornament, as understood after “incorruptible:”

“But the hidden man of the heart, clothed in (or with) the incorruptible adorning of a mild and quiet spirit.”

“Mild” or meek, not given to passion or wrath, patient, not proud nor arrogant; quiet, peaceable, not garrulous, not turbulent, nor given to strife and contention. — Ed.



He sets before them the example of pious women, who sought for spiritual adorning rather than outward meretricious ornaments. But he mentions Sarah above all others, who, having been the mother of all the faithful, is especially worthy of honor and imitation on the part of her sex. Moreover, he returns again to subjection, and confirms it by the example of Sarah, who, according to the words of Moses, called her husband Lord. (Gen 18:12.) God, indeed, does not regard such titles; and it may sometimes be, that one especially petulant and disobedient should use such a word with her tongue; but Peter means, that Sarah usually spoke thus, because she knew that a command had been given her by the Lord, to be subject to her husband. Peter adds, that they who imitated her fidelity would be her daughters, that is, reckoned among the faithful.



6. And are not afraid The weakness of the sex causes women to be suspicious and timid, and therefore morose; for they fear lest by their subjection, they should be more reproachfully treated. It was this that Peter seems to have had in view in forbidding them to be disturbed by any fear, as though he had said, “Willingly submit to the authority of your husbands, nor let fear prevent your obedience, as though your condition would be worse, were you to obey.” The words may be more general, “Let them not raise up commotions at home.” For as they are liable to be frightened, they often make much of a little thing, and thus disturb themselves and the family. Others think that the timidity of women, which is contrary to faith, is generally reproved, as though Peter exhorted them to perform the duties of their calling with a courageous and intrepid spirit. However, the first explanation is what I prefer, though the last does not differ much from it. (37)

(37) The words are, “Whose daughters ye become, when ye do well and fear no terror.” Terror here stands for what terrifies. The paraphrase of Macknight seems to give the real and simple meaning of the passage, “Whose daughters ye Christian women have become, by behaving well towards your husbands, and not being frightened to actions contrary to your religion through fear of displeasing them.”



7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them. From husbands he requires prudence; for dominion over their wives is not given them, except on this condition, that they exercise authority prudently. Then let husbands remember that they need prudence to do rightly their duty. And doubtless many foolish things must be endured by them, many unpleasant things must be borne with; and they must at the same time beware lest their indulgence should foster folly. Hence the admonition of Peter is not in vain, that the husbands ought to cohabit with them as with a weaker vessel. Part of the prudence which he mentions, is, that the husbands honor their wives. For nothing destroys the friendship of life more than contempt; nor can we really love any but those whom we esteem; for love must be connected with respect.

Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honor with which God favors them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner contrary, — that honor ought to be given to wives, because they are weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together where love exists. It is evident, that God is despised in his gifts, except we honor those on whom he has conferred any excellency. But when we consider that we are members of the same body, we learn to bear with one another, and mutually to cover our infirmities. This is what Paul means when he says that greater honor is given to the weaker members, (1Co 12:23;) even because we are more careful in protecting them from shame. Then Peter does not without reason command that women should be cared for, and that they should be honored with a kind treatment, because they are weak. And then as we more easily forgive children, when they offend through inexperience of age; so the weakness of the female sex ought to make us not to be too rigid and severe towards our wives.

The word vessel, as it is well known, means in Scripture any sort of instrument.

Being heirs together (or co-heirs) of the grace of life Some copies have “of manifold grace;” others, instead of “life,” have the word “living.” Some read “co-heirs” in the dative case, which makes no difference in the sense. A conjunction is put by others between manifold grace and life; which reading is the most suitable. (38) For since the Lord is pleased to bestow in common on husbands and wives the same graces, he invites them to seek an equality in them; and we know that those graces are manifold in which wives are partakers with their husbands. For some belong to the present life, and some to God’s spiritual kingdom. He afterwards adds, that they are co-heirs also of life, which is the chief thing. And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex.

That your prayers be not hindered For God cannot be rightly called upon, unless our minds be calm and peaceable. Among strifes and contentions there is no place for prayer. Peter indeed addresses the husband and the wife, when he bids them to be at peace one with another, so that they might with one mind pray to God. But we may hence gather a general doctrine — that no one ought to come to God except he is united to his brethren. Then as this reason ought to restrain all domestic quarrels and strifes, in order that each one of the family may pray to God; so in common life it ought to be as it were a bridle to check all contentions. For we are more than insane, if we knowingly and wilfully close up the way to God’s presence by prayer, since this is the only asylum of our salvation.

Some give this explanation, that an intercourse with the wife ought to be sparing and temperate, lest too much indulgence in this respect should prevent attention to prayer, according to that saying of Paul,

“Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.” (1Co 7:5.)

But the doctrine of Peter extends wider: and then Paul does not mean that prayers are interrupted by mutual cohabitation. Therefore the explanation which I have given ought to be retained.

(38) The received text is the most approved, and there is no different reading of any importance. — Ed.



Now follow general precepts which indiscriminately belong to all. (39) Moreover he summarily mentions some things which are especially necessary to foster friendship and love. The first is, Be ye all of one mind, or, think ye all the same thing. For though friends are at liberty to think differently, yet to do so is a cloud which obscures love; yea, from this seed easily arises hatred. Sympathy (συμπάθεια) extends to all our faculties, when concord exists between us; so that every one condoles with us in adversity as well as rejoices with us in prosperity, so that every one not only cares for himself, but also regards the benefit of others.

What next follows, Love as brethren, belongs peculiarly to the faithful; for where God is known as a Father, there only brotherhood really exists. Be pitiful, or merciful, which is added, means that we are not only to help our brethren and relieve their miseries, but also to bear with their infirmities. In what follows there are two readings in Greek; but what seems to me the most probable is the one I have put as the text; for we know that it is the chief bond to preserve friendship, when every one thinks modestly and humbly of himself; as there is nothing on the other hand which produces more discords than when we think too highly of ourselves. Wisely then does Peter bid us to be humble-minded (ταπεινόφρονες,) lest pride and haughtiness should lead us to despise our neighbors. (40)



(39) In the previous statements of particular duties belonging to various relations in life, the duty of masters towards their servants is omitted. Some have hence inferred that there were no masters who were Christians among those to whom Peter wrote. But this could not have been the ease, and for this reason, because Paul, in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, expressly specifies the duty of masters towards their servants; and Ephesus and Colosse were included in Asia Minor, and it was to Christians scattered throughout that country that Peter wrote his Epistle.

But this omission is somewhat singular. At the same time, though the master’s duty is not specifically mentioned, we may yet consider this verse as having a special reference to masters, as sympathy, brotherly love, and compassion or commiseration, are here inculcated.

The construction of the whole passage, beginning at the 17th verse of the last chapter, and ending at the 12th of this (for at the 13th of this, he resumes the subject he left off at the end of the 16th of the last) deserves to be noticed. “Honour all,” is the injunction which he afterwards exemplifies as to servants, wives, and husbands; for the construction is “Honour all — the servants being subject, etc. — in like manner, the wives being subject, etc. — in like manner, the husbands, cohabiting according to knowledge, giving honor, etc.” Then follows this verse in the same form, “And finally, all being of one mind, sympathizing, loving the brethren, compassionate, friendly-minded (or humble-minded,) not rendering, etc.” And thus he proceeds to the end of the 12th verse. Afterwards he resumes the subject respecting the treatment the Christians met with from the world.

May we not then conclude, that as the duty of masters does not come under the idea of honoring, he did not specifically mention them, but referred only to the spirit and temper they ought to have exhibited? — Ed.

(40) Griesbach has given the preference to ταπεινόφρονες and has introduced it into the text. — Ed.



9. Not rendering evil for evil In these words every kind of revenge is forbidden; for in order to preserve love, we must bear with many things. At the same time he does not speak here of mutual benevolence, but he would have us to endure wrongs, when provoked by ungodly men. And though it is commonly thought that it is an instance of a weak and abject mind, not to avenge injuries, yet it is counted before God as the highest magnanimity. Nor is it indeed enough to abstain from revenge; but Peter requires also that we should pray for those who reproach us; for to bless here means to pray, as it is set in opposition to the second clause. But Peter teaches us in general, that evils are to be overcome by acts of kindness. This is indeed very hard, but we ought to imitate in this case our heavenly Father, who makes his sun to rise on the unworthy. What the sophists imagine to be the meaning, is a futile evasion; for when Christ said, “Love your enemies,” he at the same time confirmed his own doctrine by saying, “That ye might be the children of God.”

Knowing that ye are thereunto called He means that this condition was required of the faithful when they were called by God, that they were not only to be so meek as not to retaliate injuries, but also to bless those who cursed them; and as this condition may seem almost unjust, he calls their attention to the reward; as though he had said, that there is no reason why the faithful should complain, because their wrongs would turn to their own benefit. In short, he shews how much would be the gain of patience; for if we submissively bear injuries, the Lord will bestow on us his blessing.

The verb, κληρονόμειν, to inherit, seems to express perpetuity, as though Peter had said, that the blessing would not be for a short time, but perpetual, if we be submissive in bearing injuries. But God blesses in a way different, from men; for we express our wishes to him, but he confers a blessing on us. And on the other hand, Peter intimates that they who seek to revenge injuries, attempt what will yield them no good, for they thus deprive themselves of God’s blessing.



10For he He confirms the last sentence by the testimony of David. The passage is taken from the thirty-fourth Psalm, [Psa 34:12,] where the Spirit testifies that it will be well with all who keep themselves from all evil-doing and wrong-doing. The common feeling indeed favors what is very different; for men think that they expose themselves to the insolence of enemies, if they do not boldly defend themselves. But the Spirit of God promises a happy life to none except to the meek, and those who endure evils; and we cannot be happy except God prospers our ways; and it is the good and the benevolent, and not the cruel and inhuman, that he will favor.

Peter has followed the Greek version, though the difference is but little. David’s words are literally these, — “He who loves life and desires to see good days,” etc. It is indeed a desirable thing, since God has placed us in this world, to pass our time in peace. Then, the way of obtaining this blessing is to conduct ourselves justly and harmlessly towards all.

The first thing he points out are the vices of the tongue; which are to be avoided, so that we may not be contumelious and insolent, nor speak deceitfully and with duplicity. Then he comes to deeds, that we are to injure none, or cause loss to none, but to endeavor to be kind to all, and to exercise the duties of humanity.



11Let him seek peace It is not enough to embrace it when offered to us, but it ought to be followed when it seems to flee from us. It also often happens, that when we seek it as much as we can, others will not grant it to us. On account of these difficulties and hindrances, he bids us to seek and pursue it.



12For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, or, on the righteous. It ought to be a consolation to us, sufficient to mitigate all evils, that we are looked upon by the Lord, so that he will bring us help in due time. The meaning then is, that the prosperity which he has mentioned depends on the protection of God; for were not the Lord to care for his people, they would be like sheep exposed to wolves. And that we for little reason raise a clamor, that we suddenly kindle unto wrath, that we burn with the passion of revenge, all this, doubtless, happens, because we do not consider that God cares for us, and because we do not acquiesce in his aid. Thus in vain we shall be taught patience, except our minds are first imbued with this truth, that God exercises such care over us, that he will in due time succor us. When, on the contrary, we are fully persuaded that God defends the cause of the righteous, we shall first attend simply to innocence, and then, when molested and hated by the ungodly, we shall flee to the protection of God. And when he says, that the ears of the Lord are open to our prayers, he encourages us to pray.

But the face of the Lord By this clause he intimates that the Lord will be our avenger, because he will not always suffer the insolence of the ungodly to prevail; and at the same time he shews how it will be, if we seek to defend our life from injuries, even that God will be an adversary to us. But it may, on the other hand, be objected and said, that we experience it daily far otherwise, for the more righteous any one is, and the greater lover of peace he is, the more he is harassed by the wicked. To this I reply, that no one is so attentive to righteousness and peace, but that he sometimes sins in this respect. But it ought to be especially observed, that the promises as to this life do not extend further than as to what is expedient for us to be fulfilled. Hence, our peace with the world is often disturbed, that our flesh may be subdued, in order that we may serve God, and also for other reasons; so that nothing may be a loss to us.



13Who is he that will harm you He further confirms the previous sentence by an argument drawn from common experience. For it happens for the most part, that the ungodly disturb us, or are provoked by us, or that we do not labor to do them good as it behoves us; for they who seek to do good, do even soften minds which are otherwise hard as iron. This very thing is mentioned by Plato in his first book on the Republic, “Injustice,” he says, “causes seditions and hatreds and fightings one with another; but justice, concord and friendship.” (41) However, though this commonly happens, yet it is not always the case; for the children of God, how much soever they may strive to pacify the ungodly by kindness, and shew themselves kind towards all, are yet often assailed undeservedly by many.



(41) Στάσεις γάρ που ἥγε ἀδικία καὶ μίσεα καὶ μάχας ἐν ἀλλήλοις παρέχει, ἡδὲ δικαιοσύνη ὁμόνοιαν καὶ φιλίαν. — Rep. lib. 1.



14. Hence Peter adds, But if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake The meaning is, that the faithful will do more towards obtaining a quiet life by kindness, than by violence and promptitude in taking revenge; but that when they neglect nothing to secure peace, were they to suffer, they are still blessed, because they suffer for the sake of righteousness. Indeed, this latter clause differs much from the judgment of our flesh; but Christ has not without reason thus declared; nor has Peter without reason repeated the sentence from his mouth; for God will at length come as a deliverer, and then openly will appear what now seems incredible, that is, that the miseries of the godly have been blessed when endured with patience.

To suffer for righteousness, means not only to submit to some loss or disadvantage in defending a good cause, but also to suffer unjustly, when any one is innocently in fear among men on account of the fear of God.

Be not afraid of their terror He again points out the fountain and cause of impatience, that we are beyond due measure troubled, when the ungodly rise up against us. For such a dread either disheartens us, or degrades us, or kindles within us a desire for revenge. In the meantime, we do not acquiesce in the defense of God. Then the best remedy for checking the turbulent emotions of our minds will be, to conquer immoderate terrors by trusting in the aid of God.

But Peter no doubt meant to allude to a passage in the eighth chapter of Isaiah; [Isa 8:12;] for when the Jews against the prohibition of God sought to fortify themselves by the aid of the Gentile world, God warned his Prophet not to fear after their example. Peter at the same time seems to have turned “fear” into a different meaning; for it is taken passively by the Prophet, who accused the people of unbelief, because, at a time when they ought to have relied on the aid of God and to have boldly despised all dangers, they became so prostrate and broken down with fear, that they sent to all around them for unlawful help. But Peter takes fear in another sense, as meaning that terror which the ungodly are wont to fill us with by their violence and cruel threatenings. He then departs from the sense in which the word is taken by the Prophet; but in this there is nothing unreasonable; for his object was not to explain the words of the Prophet; he wished only to shew that, nothing is fitter to produce patience than what Isaiah prescribes, even to ascribe to God his honor by recumbing in full confidence on his power.

I do not, however, object, if any one prefers to render Peter’s words thus, Fear ye not their fear; as though he had said, “Be ye not afraid as the unbelieving, or the children of this world are wont to be, because they understand nothing of God’s providence.” But this, as I think, would be a forced explanation. There is, indeed, no need for us to toil much on this point, since Peter here did not intend to explain every word used by the Prophet, but only referred to this one thing, that the faithful will firmly stand, and can never be moved from a right course of duty by any dread or fear, if they will sanctify the Lord.

But this sanctification ought to be confined to the present case. For whence is it that we are overwhelmed with fear, and think ourselves lost, when danger is impending, except that we ascribe to mortal man more power to injure us than to God to save us? God promises that he will be the guardian of our salvation; the ungodly, on the other hand, attempt to subvert it. Unless God’s promise sustain us, do we not deal unjustly with him, and in a manner profane him? Then the Prophet teaches us that we ought to think honourably of the Lord of hosts; for how much soever the ungodly may contrive to destroy us, and whatever power they may possess, he alone is more than sufficiently powerful to secure our safety. (42) Peter then adds, in your hearts. For if this conviction takes full possession of our minds, that the help promised by the Lord is sufficient for us, we shall be well fortified to repel all the fears of unbelief.

(42) ”Sanctify” here, seems to have the same meaning as in our Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed,” or sanctified “be thy name;” where it means honored or glorified. And to honor or glorify God in our hearts is what Calvin very correctly explains. — Ed.



Though this is a new precept, it yet depends on what is gone before, for he requires such constancy in the faithful, as boldly to give a reason for their faith to their adversaries. And this is a part of that sanctification which he had just mentioned; for we then really honor God, when neither fear nor shame hinders us from making a profession of our faith. But Peter does not expressly bid us to assert and proclaim what has been given us by the Lord everywhere, and always and among all indiscriminately, for the Lord gives his people the spirit of discretion, so that they may know when and how far and to whom it is expedient to speak. He bids them only to be ready to give an answer, lest by their sloth and the cowardly fear of the flesh they should expose the doctrine of Christ, by being silent, to the derision of the ungodly. The meaning then is, that we ought to be prompt in avowing our faith, so as to set it forth whenever necessary, lest the unbelieving through our silence should condemn the religion we follow.

But it ought to be noticed, that Peter here does not command us to be prepared to solve any question that may be mooted; for it is not the duty of all to speak on every subject. But it is the general doctrine that is meant, which belongs to the ignorant and the simple. Then Peter had in view no other thing, than that Christians should make it evident to unbelievers that they truly worshipped God, and had a holy and good religion. And in this there is no difficulty, for it would be strange if we could bring nothing to defend our faith when any one made inquiries respecting it. For we ought always to take care that all may know that we fear God, and that we piously and reverently regard his legitimate worship.

This was also required by the state of the times: the Christian name was much hated and deemed infamous; many thought the sect wicked and guilty of many sacrileges. It would have been, therefore, the highest perfidy against God, if, when asked, they had neglected to give a testimony in favor of their religion. And this, as I think, is the meaning of the word apology, which Peter uses, that is, that the Christians were to make it evident to the world that they were far off from every impiety, and did not corrupt true religion, on which account they were suspected by the ignorant.

Hope here is by a metonymy to be taken for faith. Peter, however, as it has been said, does not require them to know how to discuss distinctly and refinedly every article of the faith, but only to shew that their faith in Christ was consistent with genuine piety. And hence we learn how all those abuse the name of Christians, who understand nothing certain respecting their faith, and have nothing to give as an answer for it. But it behoves us again carefully to consider what he says, when he speaks of that hope that is in you; for he intimates that the confession which flows from the heart is alone that which is approved by God; for except faith dwells within, the tongue prattles in vain. It ought then to have its roots within us, so that it may afterwards bring forth the fruit of confession.



16With meekness This is a most necessary admonition; for unless our minds are endued with meekness, contentions will immediately break forth. And meekness is set in opposition to pride and vain ostentation, and also to excessive zeal. To this he justly adds fear; for where reverence for God prevails, it tames all the ferocity of our minds, and it will especially cause us to speak calmly of God’s mysteries. For contentious disputes arise from this, because many think less honourably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity. If, then, we would render approved of God the confession of our faith, all boasting must be put aside, all contention must be relinquished.

Having a good conscience What we say without a corresponding life has but little weight; hence he joins to confession a good conscience. For we see that many are sufficiently ready with their tongue, and prate much, very freely, and yet with no fruit, because the life does not correspond. Besides, the integrity of conscience alone is that which gives us confidence in speaking as we ought; for they who prattle much about the gospel, and whose dissolute life is a proof of their impiety, not only make themselves objects of ridicule, but also expose the truth itself to the slanders of the ungodly. For why did he before bid us to be ready to defend the faith, should any one require from us a reason for it, except that it is our duty to vindicate the truth of God against those false suspicions which the ignorant entertain respecting it. But the defense of the tongue will avail but little, except the life corresponds with it.

He therefore says, that they may be ashamed, who blame your good conversation in Christ, and who speak against you as evil-doers; as though he had said, “If your adversaries have nothing to allege against you, except that you follow Christ, they will at length be ashamed of their malicious wickedness, or at least, your innocence will be sufficient to confute them.”



17For it is better This belongs not only to what follows but to the whole context. He had spoken of the profession of faith, which at that time was attended with great danger; he says now that it is much better, if they sustained any loss in defending a good cause, to suffer thus unjustly than to be punished for their evil deeds. This consolation is understood rather by secret meditation, than by many words. It is what indeed occurs everywhere in profane authors, that there is a sufficient defense in a good conscience, whatever evils may happen, and must be endured. These have spoken courageously; but then the only really bold man is he who looks to God. Therefore Peter added this clause, If the will of God be so For in these words he reminds us, that if we suffer unjustly, it is not by chance, but according to the divine will; and he assumes, that God wills nothing or appoints nothing but for the best reason. Hence the faithful have always this comfort in their miseries, that they know that they have God as their witness, and that they also know that they are led by him to the contest, in order that they may under his protection give a proof of their faith.



18For Christ also It is another comfort, that if in our afflictions we are conscious of having done well, we suffer according to the example of Christ; and it hence follows that we are blessed. At the same time he proves, from the design of Christ’s death, that it is by no means consistent with our profession that we should suffer for our evil deeds. For he teaches us that Christ suffered in order to bring us to God. What does this mean, except that we have been thus consecrated to God by Christ’s death, that we may live and die to him?

There are, then, two parts in this sentence; the first is, that persecutions ought to be borne with resignation, because the Son of God shews the way to us; and the other is, that since we have been consecrated to God’s service by the death of Christ, it behoves us to suffer, not for our faults, but for righteousness’ sake.

Here, however, a question may be raised, Does not God chastise the faithful, whenever he suffers them to be afflicted? To this I answer, that it indeed often happens, that God punishes them according to what they deserve; and this is not denied by Peter; but he reminds us what a comfort it is to have our cause connected with God. And how God does not punish sins in them who endure persecution for the sake of righteousness, and in what sense they are said to be innocent, we shall see in the next chapter.

Being put to death in the flesh Now this is a great thing, that we are made conformable to the Son of God, when we suffer without cause; but there is added another consolation, that the death of Christ had a blessed issue; for though he suffered through the weakness of the flesh, he yet rose again through the power of the Spirit. Then the cross of Christ was not prejudicial, nor his death, since life obtained the victory. This was said (as Paul also reminds us in 2Co 4:10) that we may know that we are to bear in our body the dying of Christ, in order that his life may be manifested in us. Flesh here means the outward man; and Spirit means the divine power, by which Christ emerged from death a conqueror.



19By which also Peter added this, that we might know that the vivifying power of the Spirit of which he spoke, was not only put forth as to Christ himself, but is also poured forth with regard to us, as Paul shews in Rom 5:5. He then says, that Christ did not rise only for himself, but that he made known to others the same power of his Spirit, so that it penetrated to the dead. It hence follows, that we shall not less feel it in vivifying whatever is mortal in us.

But as the obscurity of this passage has produced, as usual, various explanations, I shall first disprove what has been brought forward by some, and secondly, we shall seek its genuine and true meaning.

Common has been the opinion that Christ’s descent into hell is here referred to; but the words mean no such thing; for there is no mention made of the soul of Christ, but only that he went by the Spirit: and these are very different things, that Christ’s soul went, and that Christ preached by the power of the Spirit. Then Peter expressly mentioned the Spirit, that he might take away the notion of what may be called a real presence.

Others explain this passage of the apostles, that Christ by their ministry appeared to the dead, that is, to unbelievers. I, indeed, allow that Christ by means of his apostles went by his Spirit to those who were kept as it were in prison; but this exposition appears incorrect on several accounts: First, Peter says that Christ went to spirits, by which he means souls separated from their bodies, for living men are never called spirits; and secondly, what Peter repeats in the fourth chapter on the same subject, does not admit of such an allegory. Therefore the words must be properly understood of the dead. Thirdly, it seems very strange, that Peter, speaking of the apostles, should immediately, as though forgetting himself, go back to the time of Noah. Certainly this mode of speaking would be most unsuitable. Then this explanation cannot be right.

Moreover, the strange notion of those who think that unbelievers as to the coming of Christ, were after his death freed from their sin, needs no long refutation; for it is an indubitable doctrine of Scripture, that we obtain not salvation in Christ except by faith; then there is no hope left for those who continue to death unbelieving. They speak what is somewhat more probable, who say, that the redemption obtained by Christ availed the dead, who in the time of Noah were long unbelieving, but repented a short time before they were drowned by the deluge. They then understood that they suffered in the flesh the punishment due to their perverseness, and yet were saved by Christ, so that they did not perish for ever. But this interpretation cannot stand; it is indeed inconsistent with the words of the passage, for Peter ascribes salvation only to the family of Noah, and gives over to ruin all who were not within the ark.

I therefore have no doubt but Peter speaks generally, that the manifestation of Christ’s grace was made to godly spirits, and that they were thus endued with the vital power of the Spirit. Hence there is no reason to fear that it will not flow to us. But it may be inquired, Why he puts in prison the souls of the godly after having quitted their bodies? It seems to me that φυλακὴ rather means a watchtower in which watchmen stand for the purpose of watching, or the very act of watching, for it is often so taken by Greek authors; and the meaning would be very appropriate, that godly souls were watching in hope of the salvation promised them, as though they saw it afar off. Nor is there a doubt but that the holy fathers in life, as well as after death, directed their thoughts to this object. But if the word prison be preferred, it would not be unsuitable; for, as while they lived, the Law, according to Paul, (Gal 3:23,) was a sort of prison in which they were kept; so after death they must have felt the same desire for Christ; for the spirit of liberty had not as yet been fully given. Hence this anxiety of expectation was to them a kind of prison.



Thus far the Apostle’s words seem to agree together, and with the thread of the argument; but what follows is attended with some difficulty; for he does not mention the faithful here, but only the unbelieving; and this seems to overturn the preceding exposition. Some have for this reason been led to think that no other thing is said here, but that the unbelieving, who had formerly persecuted the godly, found the Spirit of Christ an accuser, as though Peter consoled the faithful with this argument, that Christ, even when dead, punished them. But their mistake is discovered by what we shall see in the next chapter, that the Gospel was preached to the dead, that they might live according to God in the spirit, which peculiarly applies to the faithful. And it is further certain that he repeats there what he now says. Besides, they have not considered that what Peter meant was especially this, that as the power of the Spirit of Christ shewed itself to be vivifying in him, and was known as such by the dead, so it will be towards us.

Let us, however, see why it is that he mentions only the unbelieving; for he seems to say, that Christ in spirit appeared to those who formerly were unbelieving; but I understand him otherwise, that then the true servants of God were mixed together with the unbelieving, and were almost hidden on account of their number. I allow that the Greek construction is at variance with this meaning, for Peter, if he meant this, ought to have used the genitive case absolute. But as it was not unusual with the Apostles to put one case instead of another, and as we see that Peter here heaps together many things, and no other suitable meaning can be elicited, I have no hesitation in giving this explanation of this intricate passage; so that readers may understand that those called unbelieving are different from those to whom he said the Gospel was preached.

After having then said that Christ was manifested to the dead, he immediately adds, When there were formerly unbelievers; by which he intimated, that it was no injury to the holy fathers that they were almost hidden through the vast number of the ungodly. For he meets, as I think, a doubt, which might have harassed the faithful of that day. They saw almost the whole world filled with unbelievers, that they enjoyed all authority, and that life was in their power. This trial might have shaken the confidence of those who were shut up, as it were, under the sentence of death. Therefore Peter reminds them, that the condition of the fathers was not different, and that though the multitude of the ungodly then covered the whole earth, their life was yet preserved in safety by the power of God.

He then comforted the godly, lest they should be cast down and destroyed because they were so few; and he chose an example the most remarkable in antiquity, even that of the world drowned by the deluge; for then in the common ruin of mankind, the family of Noah alone escaped. And he points out the manner, and says that it was a kind of baptism. There is then in this respect also nothing unsuitable.

The sum of what is said is this, that the world has always been full of unbelievers, but that the godly ought not to be terrified by their vast number; for though Noah was surrounded on every side by the ungodly, and had very few as his friends, he was not yet drawn aside from the right course of his faith. (43)

When once the long-suffering of God waited This ought to be applied to the ungodly, whom God’s patience rendered more slothful; for when God deferred his vengeance and did not immediately execute it, the ungodly boldly disregarded all threatenings; but Noah, on the contrary, being warned by God, had the deluge for a long time before his eyes. Hence his assiduity in building the ark; for being terrified by God’s judgment, he shook off all torpidity.



(43) The most satisfactory explanation of this passage is that of Beza, Doddridge, Macknight, and Scott; that the reference is to what was done in the time of Noah, that is, that Christ by his Spirit employed him as a preacher of righteousness, though with no success, as the spirits of the men to whom he preached were then in prison, reserved, as the fallen angels are represented to be, for the judgment of the last day. The Apostle had before said that Christ’s Spirit was in the prophets who foretold his coming, 1Pe 1:11. The passage may be thus rendered, —

19. “By which also he, having gone, preached to the spirits who are in prison, formerly disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,” etc.; or, according to Mackight, “to the spirits now in prison, who formerly were disobedient,” etc. The word “formerly” seems to require “now” in the previous clause, or, “who are,” as rendered by Beza. “He, having gone, preached,” is similar to a phrase in Eph 2:17, “And came and preached,” etc.; or, literally, “And having come he preached,” etc. Paul does not speak of his coming personally, but by his ministers: and Peter evidently speaks of his going in the same sense.

For ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο, Griesbach substitutes ἀπεξεδέχετο as being the most approved reading. — Ed.



21The like figure whereunto I fully think that the relative ought to be read in the dative case, and that it has happened, through a mistake, that ὃ is put, and not ᾧ. The meaning, however, is not ambiguous, that Noah, saved by water, had a sort of baptism. And this the Apostle mentions, that the likeness between him and us might appear more evident. It has already been said that the design of this clause is to shew that we ought not to be led away by wicked examples from the fear of God, and the right way of salvation, and to mix with the world. This is made evident in baptism, in which we are buried together with Christ, so that, being dead to the world, and to the flesh, we may live to God. On this account, he says that our baptism is an antitype (ἀντίτυπον) to the baptism of Noah, not that Noah’s baptism was the first pattern, and ours an inferior figure, as the word is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the ceremonies of the law are said to be antitypes of heavenly things, (Heb 9:9.) Greek writers apply the same word to sacraments, so that, when they speak of the mystical bread of the holy Supper, they call it the antitype. But here there is no comparison made between the greater and the less; the Apostle only means that there is a likeness, and as they commonly say, a correspondence. Perhaps it might more properly be said to be correspondency, (ἀντίστροφον,) as Aristotle makes Dialectics to be the antistrophè of Rhetoric. But we need not labor about words, when there is an agreement about the thing itself. As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.

We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.

But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.

What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

But the answer of a good conscience The word question, or questioning, is to be taken here for “answer,” or testimony. Now Peter briefly defines the efficacy and use of baptism, when he calls attention to conscience, and expressly requires that confidence which can sustain the sight of God and can stand before his tribunal. For in these words he teaches us that baptism in its main part is spiritual, and then that it includes the remission of sins and renovation of the old man; for how can there be a good and pure conscience until our old man is reformed, and we be renewed in the righteousness of God? and how can we answer before God, unless we rely on and are sustained by a gratuitous pardon of our sins? In short, Peter intended to set forth the effect of baptism, that no one might glory in a naked and dead sign, as hypocrites are wont to do.

But we must notice what follows, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ By these words he teaches us that we are not to cleave to the element of water, and that what is thereby typified flows from Christ alone, and is to be sought from him. Moreover, by referring to the resurrection, he has regard to the doctrine which he had taught before, that Christ was vivified by the Spirit; for the resurrection was victory over death and the completion of our salvation. We hence learn that the death of Christ is not excluded, but is included in his resurrection. We then cannot otherwise derive benefit from baptism, than by having all our thoughts fixed on the death and the resurrection of Christ.



22Who is on the right hand of God. He recommends to us the ascension of Christ unto heaven, lest our eyes should seek him in the world; and this belongs especially to faith. He commends to our notice his session on the Father’s right hand, lest we should doubt his power to save us. And what his sitting at the right hand of the Father means, we have elsewhere explained, that is, that Christ exercises supreme power everywhere as God’s representative. And an explanation of this is what follows, angels being made subject to him; and he adds powers and authorities only for the sake of amplification, for angels are usually designated by such words. It was then Peter’s object to set forth by these high titles the sovereignty of Christ.