Articles on

1 Peter 1

1 Peter 1:2 KJV (With Strong’s)

Electc according to
kata (Greek #2596)
(prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined)
KJV usage: about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, (charita-)bly, concerning, + covered, (dai-)ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from ... to, godly, in(-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), ... by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-)on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through(-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-)to(-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where(-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution, or intensity.
Pronounce: kat-ah'
Origin: a primary particle
the foreknowledge
prognosis (Greek #4268)
KJV usage: foreknowled ge.
Pronounce: prog'-no-sis
Origin: from 4267
d of God
theos (Greek #2316)
a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very
KJV usage: X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).
Pronounce: theh'-os
Origin: of uncertain affinity
the Father
pater (Greek #3962)
a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote)
KJV usage: father, parent.
Pronounce: pat-ayr'
Origin: apparently a primary word
, through
en (Greek #1722)
"in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.
KJV usage: about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-)by (+ all means), for (... sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-)in(-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-)on, (open-)ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, (speedi-)ly, X that, X there(-in, -on), through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), under, when, where(-with), while, with(-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) preposition.
Pronounce: en
Origin: a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537)
hagiasmos (Greek #38)
properly, purification, i.e. (the state) purity; concretely (by Hebraism) a purifier
KJV usage: holiness, sanctification.
Pronounce: hag-ee-as-mos'
Origin: from 37
e of the Spirit
pneuma (Greek #4151)
a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit
KJV usage: ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590.
Pronounce: pnyoo'-mah
Origin: from 4154
, unto
eis (Greek #1519)
to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases
KJV usage: (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).
Pronounce: ice
Origin: a primary preposition
f obedience
hupakoe (Greek #5218)
attentive hearkening, i.e. (by implication) compliance or submission
KJV usage: obedience, (make) obedient, obey(-ing).
Pronounce: hoop-ak-o-ay'
Origin: from 5219
kai (Greek #2532)
and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words
KJV usage: and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
Pronounce: kahee
Origin: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force
rhantismos (Greek #4473)
aspersion (ceremonially or figuratively)
KJV usage: sprinkling.
Pronounce: hran-tis-mos'
Origin: from 4472
g of the blood
haima (Greek #129)
blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred
KJV usage: blood.
Pronounce: hah'-ee-mah
Origin: of uncertain derivation
of Jesus
Iesous (Greek #2424)
Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites
KJV usage: Jesus.
Pronounce: ee-ay-sooce'
Origin: of Hebrew origin (03091)
Christos (Greek #5547)
anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus
KJV usage: Christ.
Pronounce: khris-tos'
Origin: from 5548
: Grace
charis (Greek #5485)
graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude)
KJV usage: acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(- ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy).
Pronounce: khar'-ece
Origin: from 5463
unto you
humin (Greek #5213)
to (with or by) you
KJV usage: ye, you, your(-selves).
Pronounce: hoo-min'
Origin: irregular dative case of 5210
, and
kai (Greek #2532)
and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words
KJV usage: and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
Pronounce: kahee
Origin: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force
eirene (Greek #1515)
peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity
KJV usage: one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again.
Pronounce: i-ray'-nay
Origin: probably from a primary verb εἴρω (to join)
, be multiplied
plethuno (Greek #4129)
to increase (transitively or intransitively)
KJV usage: abound, multiply.
Pronounce: play-thoo'-no
Origin: from another form of 4128

More on:


Cross References


Ministry on This Verse

1 Peter 2:9• 9But *ye* are a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a possession, that ye might set forth the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness to his wonderful light; (1 Peter 2:9)
Deut. 7:6• 6For a holy people art thou unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be unto him a people for a possession, above all the peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deut. 7:6)
Isa. 65:9,22• 9And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah a possessor of my mountains; and mine elect shall possess it, and my servants shall dwell there.
22they shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
(Isa. 65:9,22)
Matt. 24:22,24,31• 22and if those days had not been cut short, no flesh had been saved; but on account of the elect those days shall be cut short.
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall give great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the one extremity of the heavens to the other extremity of them.
(Matt. 24:22,24,31)
Mark 13:20,22,27• 20and if the Lord had not cut short those days, no flesh should have been saved; but on account of the elect whom he has chosen, he has cut short those days.
22For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and give signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
27and then shall he send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from end of earth to end of heaven.
(Mark 13:20,22,27)
Luke 18:7• 7And shall not God at all avenge his elect, who cry to him day and night, and he bears long as to them? (Luke 18:7)
John 15:16‑19• 16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and have set you that ye should go and that ye should bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide, that whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he may give you.
17These things I command you, that ye love one another.
18If the world hate you, know that it has hated me before you.
19If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on account of this the world hates you.
(John 15:16‑19)
Rom. 8:29,33• 29Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be the firstborn among many brethren.
33Who shall bring an accusation against God's elect? It is God who justifies:
(Rom. 8:29,33)
Rom. 11:2,5‑7,28• 2God has not cast away his people whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the scripture says in the history of Elias, how he pleads with God against Israel?
5Thus, then, in the present time also there has been a remnant according to election of grace.
6But if by grace, no longer of works: since otherwise grace is no more grace.
7What is it then? What Israel seeks for, that he has not obtained; but the election has obtained, and the rest have been blinded,
28As regards the glad tidings, they are enemies on your account; but as regards election, beloved on account of the fathers.
(Rom. 11:2,5‑7,28)
Eph. 1:4‑5• 4according as he has chosen us in him before the world's foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love;
5having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(Eph. 1:4‑5)
Col. 3:12• 12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering; (Col. 3:12)
2 Tim. 2:10• 10For this cause I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that *they* also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Tim. 2:10)
Titus 1:1• 1Paul, bondman of God, and apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God's elect, and knowledge of the truth which is according to piety; (Titus 1:1)
2 John 1,13• 1The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom *I* love in truth, and not *I* only but also all who have known the truth,
13The children of thine elect sister greet thee.
(2 John 1,13)
the foreknowledge.
 Sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ and for the sprinkling of His blood, that is to say, on the one hand to obey as He obeyed, and on the other to be sprinkled with His blood and thus to be perfectly clear before God. (1 Peter 1 by J.N. Darby)
 “According to,” indicating character. “Through,” indicating the means employed. “Unto,” indicating the end in view. (1 Peter 1 by F.B. Hole)
 God’s election is never capricious and the idea of a sinner earnestly desiring salvation, and yet prevented by an adverse decree, is a nightmare of human reason and not Scripture. (1 Peter 1 by F.B. Hole)
 His choice is made effectual “through sanctification of the Spirit” (ch. 1:2). The root idea of “sanctification” is “setting apart for God” and the Holy Spirit is He who, by His inward life-giving work, sets apart the one who is the subject of it. (1 Peter 1 by F.B. Hole)
 Read Ex. 24:3-8, and you will observe there the order, first the obedience promised which the law demanded, then the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice in ratification. Peter, addressing believers who were very familiar with this, carefully observes this order, only showing that we Christians have these things on a far higher plane in a vital and spiritual way. (1 Peter 1 by F.B. Hole)
 sanctification of the Spirit as here spoken of is for (εἰς) obedience, and such as Christ's in contrast with a mere Israelite's. It is also for " sprinkling with His blood," for the new life or divine nature in the saint wishes to obey God even before it knows the efficacy of His blood in a purged conscience; and hence the perfect order of the words in the phrase. (On 1 Thessalonians 2:13-20 by W. Kelly)
 The Christian Jews, believing in Jesus not only Lord and Christ but Son of the living God, as our apostle first confessed Him, were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. (1 Peter 1:2 by W. Kelly)
 The Spirit's activity is immediate and abiding, the ground of the practical holiness that ensues, which is but partial and relative; whereas what the apostle here introduces is a principle absolute, unfailing, and personal. (1 Peter 1:2 by W. Kelly)
 We are thus sanctified, not externally but in the new life imparted, to obey as Christ obeyed and to be sprinkled with His precious blood. (1 Peter 1:2 by W. Kelly)
 Behold, the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you concerning all these words. The blood here was the special sanction of death, signified by the blood-sprinkling, in case of disobedience. With this ministry of legal condemnation for the sinner the apostle contrasts the Christian (1 Peter 1:2 by W. Kelly)

J. N. Darby Translation

elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctificationf of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the bloodg of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

JND Translation Notes

Hagiasmos, see Note i, Rom. 1.4.
"Jesus Christ" is connected with "obedience," as well as with "sprinkling of the blood."

W. Kelly Translation

elect, according to foreknowledge of God [the] Father, in[the] Spirit’s sanctification, unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace be multiplied1.

WK Translation Notes

[whole verse]: [See note to 1 Peter 1:1]
in [or, by]... unto: Now sanctification in the ordinary sense cannot be said to be for or "unto obedience," seeing that it very largely consists of obedience, and cannot exist without it; but sanctification of the Spirit as here spoken of is for εἰς obedience, and such as Christ’s in contrast with a mere Israelite’s.... The want of seeing this has greatly embarrassed the commentators, and has even led to positive falsification, as in Beza’s Latin Version and the Geneva English Version, which render the clause unto (ἐν) sanctification of the Spirit through (εἰς), obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ! This is to sacrifice, not grammar merely, but God’s word to a defective system of theology, which only acknowledges the sanctification that is consequent on justification, and ignores the primary setting of the person apart to God by the Spirit, which is true of every saint from his conversion, when he may not yet rest by faith in Christ’s blood. Erasmus, though perplexed, is nearer the truth than the Vulgate, followed by the Rhemish, which yields no just sense whatever. Archbishop Leighton is one of the few who saw that sanctification here does not mean inherent, gradual or practical holiness, but that work of the Spirit which from first to last separates from nature and the world to God (compare 2 Thess. 2:13). (Epistles to the Thessalonians, p.24-6)
in [or, by]... unto:... but the theological systems omit the very important bearing in scripture, and therefore to real faith, of sanctification before justification.... Hence the difficulty both for Roman Catholics and for Protestants. The Vulgate gives "in sanctificationem Spiritus, ad" etc., which the Rhemish version (1582) reproduces "into sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," as the Geneva version (1557) had yet farther strayed in saying "vnto sanctification of the sprite, through obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”
It was the influence of Theodore de Beze, which acted so banefully on the English exiles; for he in his just preceding version (1556) had ventured to translate "ad sanctificationem Spiritus, per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis I. C." and even to argue for this perversion in the notes of his subsequent editions. In his first Greek and Latin New Testament (Tiguri, 1559, as in all for later) he boldly says, "Ad sanctificationem Spiritus, ἐν ἀγιασμῷ πνεύματος. Id est εἰς ἀγ….Erasmus, Per sanctificationem Spiritus; non satis apposite. Per obedientiam, εἰς ὐπακοήν. Id est δἰ ὐπακοῆς, etc." Now it was not ignorance of either Latin or Greek which led the French Reformer into these stupendous mis-renderings; it was a defective though presumptuous theological system which still exercises a similar tyranny over men’s minds. For, learned or unlearned, they go to scripture, not to learn in simplicity what God has there revealed to His children, but to get proof if they can of tenets they have imbibed from the nursery and never think of bringing to the absolute test of the scriptural standard. Thus it is plain that the prevalent error as to sanctification led Beza, who assumed it to be the truth, to change the force of the inspired words doubly. Erasmus may not have hit the mark in "per sanctificationem Spiritus," but he is incomparably nearer than his critic. For ἐν must often be and is rightly rendered "by" or "with," not "through" like διά of agency or means, but expressing a characteristic cause or abiding state, where "in" would scarcely suffice or suit.
It is therefore a question here between "by" or "in," but "to" or "unto" is positively and inexcusably false, and can never be in such a context the meaning of ἐν... By the obedience and blood of Jesus may suit Protestant confessions of faith, but it is a painful inversion of the apostle’s language; as to say εἰς ὐπ. = δἰ ὐπ. is unworthy of a scholar far beneath the erudite and able successor of Calvin. (Epistles to the Thessalonians, p.183-186)
in [or, by]... unto: And Mr. [Teulon] ought to have learned, from one of the papers he cites, the hopeless difficulties into which the prevalent ignoring of sanctification in its primary New Testament sense brings even able and pious men. Take for instance Beza’s version "ad sanctificationem spiritus, per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis I. C.” To what was such a perversion due? Certainly not to lack of scholarship, for none of the early Protestants was a better Greek and Latin scholar than the successor to Calvin. It was owing solely to the same mischievous tradition which blots out the fundamental and primary New Testament sense of sanctification, seeing scarce anything more than the secondary progressive sense which nobody combats. It is worse even than the unmeaning Vulgate version, which makes ἐν and εἰς equivalent; for Beza renders ἐν ad and εἰς per! If he had known the truth to which Brethren have recalled attention, the difficulty would have vanished. (Bible Treasury 14:333)
in [or, by]... unto: It may help souls if I give a few proofs, not from persons of extreme views, but from the most intelligent among the Reformers, of their looseness on this subject and their divergence from scriptural truth. It is needless to speak of Romanists; for they are too stupefied by tradition to afford the least hope of finding real and intelligent subjection to the teaching of the apostles.
The plainest conceivable instance of the way in which popular error works may be seen in the following extract from Beza’s Version and Annotations. I quote from the latest edition (1598) during his life, where his thoughts are given most fully and correctly. "Electis ex praecognitione Dei Patris ad sanctificationem Spiritus, per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis Jesu Christi." Such is his version: of the note this will suffice.
“Its complexus fuerit Petrus omnes proprias salutis nostrae causas quae a Deo manant, nempe efficientem summam causam, Dei Patris praescitiam, id est decretum aeternum: Formalem, vocationem efficacem, quam electionis nomine intelligit: (nam ut alibi diximus, tam demum re ipsa eligimur quum Deus aeternum suum decretum in nobis per vocationem exequitur) Finem, sanctificationem electorum: Materiam ipsam, Christi justitiam, cujus imputation justi coronamur.”
First his version is as unfaithful as one can imagine. He not only departs from the necessary force of the apostle’s words in two most weighty particulars, but inverts the prepositions employed so as to alter completely the revealed mind of the Spirit. It is true that in one of these errors the Vulgate had led the way; for it is impossible fairly to render ἐν ἀγιασμῷ by "in sanctificationem." Beza should have been rather warned by such a flaw, especially as Erasmus from the first had correctly given "per sanctificationem," as none could justify the taking ἐν and εἰς as both = "in" with the accusative. But Beza allowed his system of doctrine so completely to warp his mind that he proceeded to the still greater error of representing εἰς by "per," a rendering which not only falsifies the meaning but has not the smallest shadow of justification from the Greek idiom in any work of any author from Homer down to the fall of Constantinople. And, secondly, this bold and excessive perversion is the foundation of his comment; which, being wholly unfounded, calls for no remark further than that it is just the common notion on the subject. For, spite of the English Bible, which is in the main right, people continue to fancy that the Lord means here that the Christian is elect according to God the Father’s forknowledge unto sanctification of the Spirit by the obedience of Christ and the sprinkling of His blood.
Much more right was his leader, J. Calvin, though he speaks hypothetically. "If there be parts or effects of sanctification, then sanctification is to be taken here somewhat differently from what it means when used by Paul; that is, more generally. God then sanctifies us by an effectual calling; and this is done when we are renewed to an obedience to his righteousness, and when we are sprinkled by the blood of Christ, and thus are cleansed from our sins." Even he is mistaken in thinking that Paul does not use sanctification in this more general way, as I have shown on 1 Cor. 6:11. But plainly the Genevese chief owns a sense of sanctification different from that which is ordinarily seen and admitted. 2 Thess 2:13 appears to me another clear witness of Calvin’s limiting this more general usage to Peter. For there the apostle speaks of God’s having chosen the Thessalonian saints from the beginning unto salvation by sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. It was in virtue of the Spirit’s setting them apart and their faith in the truth of the gospel that God thus chose them to salvation: doctrine strikingly in analogy with the statement of Peter, if we allow for the difference in presenting the thought to Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Again, the excellent Archbishop Leighton, in his well-known Commentary upon the first epistle of Peter, is perplexed by this obedience. He rejects Beza’s application to Christ’s obedience actively (though he took it as His obedience unto the death of the cross); and he himself thinks that it is contained in (yea, chiefly understood to signify) that obedience which the Apostle in Romans 1 calls the obedience of faith, by which the doctrine of Christ is received, and so Christ Himself. When he adds that "by obedience sanctification is here intimated," it appears to me that he gets confused by not holding fast the more general sense of sanctification. The apostle certainly treats of obedience in this place as flowing from the setting apart to God or sanctification which precedes it. Besides, I think he mistakes the nature of the obedience by understanding it as the obedience of faith when a soul receives the gospel. In my judgment the phrase means that we are thus set apart to obey as Christ did, in the consciousness of our sonship, and with the assurance of being purged by blood. Much more correctly does he say later (Works, vol. i. pp. 15,16, Jerment’s edition) that "sanctification in a narrow sense, as distinguished from justification, signifieth the inherent holiness of a Christian, or his being inclined and enabled to obedience mentioned in this verse; but it is here more large, and is co-extended with the whole work of renovation, and is the separating of men to God by His Holy Spirit, drawing them unto Him; and so it comprehends justification (as here) and the first working of faith, by which the soul is justified through its apprehending and applying the righteousness of Jesus Christ." (Pamphlets, p. 174-176)
in [or, by]... unto: I regret to add that none has more impudently tampered with this scripture, to suit his ignorance of it and his desire to uphold mere dogmatic views, than the famous translator and commentator, Beza, or Théodore de Bèze. Dean Alford was bold enough sometimes in squeezing the text and its translation through too much confidence in German critics, and his own real desire to be candid, without sufficient knowledge of the truth or subjection to the divine authority of the written word. But even his occasional temerity shines in comparison with Calvin’s successor in the college of Geneva. For I ask any competent scholar whether the ill-regulated wit of man could devise a worse or more shameless perversion of our text than his rendering, "ad sanctificationem Spiritus, per obedientiam," etc. ἐν = ad! Εἰσ = per! Were it in Homer or Herodotus, one might smile at lapses so absurd on the part of a learned, able, and zealous Christian. But such a dealing with God’s word is atrocious. Yet this flagrant error stands uncorrected in all the five folio editions of his Greek and Latin N.T. from 1559 to 1598. (Epist. of Peter, p.13)
in [or, by]... unto: What is the meaning of "in" sanctification of the Spirit? The Revisers have misrepresented the truth in several instances of dogmatic moment through a fancied accuracy, but mere literality, condemned by their own practice elsewhere. We have seen this in Col. 1:16 and Heb. 1:3, where "in" gives a false sense or nonsense, opening the door to grave error, which, where positive truth is lost, enters in often under cover of the vague or obscure. Now the Revised Version of Matt. 3:11, 5:13, 6:34, 35, 36, 6:7, 7:2, 6, 9:34, suffices to show that the Revisers knew they were in no way limited to "in," for they admit freely "with," "by," etc. But they too often overlook this, where their rendering yields no just sense or opposes other Scriptures. It was the more desirable to be right here, because some early Protestant translators had grievously failed as to it. Take Beza, who, swayed evidently by his theological views, gives us "ad sanctificationem Sp. per obedientiam," etc. which is doubly a falsification of God’s word. Him followed our Geneva Version of 1555, "unto sanctification of the Spirit through obedience," etc. The Rhemish says, "unto sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience," etc. This would be inexplicable, as being destitute of just meaning, if we did not know that the Vulgate has "in sanctificationem Sp. in obedientiam," etc. The Version of Rheims of course follows it dutifully. The late Dean Alford seems to have been the most influential offender in this assumption of accuracy, adhering to "in" for ἐν, when the Authorized Version had idiomatically and correctly "by" or "with." To talk of the conditional element as environing, or the like, is mere jargon to excuse a translation which conveys no sound meaning. It is cloud and not light. Here the apostle lets the dispersed believers of the circumcision know that, instead of being externally separated in the flesh by rites as the chosen people of Jehovah, they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The contrast is with Exod. 24:7, 8, when Israel stood to obey the law under the blood which threatened death as the penalty, instead of cleansing from every sin those whose one desire was to obey as Christ obeyed. Compare 1 Cor. 6:11, where "sanctified" is before "justified," as here sanctification is before obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. It is the absolute setting apart of the soul to God from the first. Practical holiness is relative, and is pressed lower down in this very chapter, ver. 15, 16. (Bible Treasury 14:79)
in [or, by]... unto: ἐν assuredly does not mean "through;" but "by" may sometimes represent it better than "in," which of course is the common equivalent in English. To assume that it should always be "in," is ignorance of or inattention to the usage: see 5 for the difference of "by" and "through." (Bible Treasury 15:62)
^ obedience: Some, again, would limit "of Jesus Christ" at the close to the blood-sprinkling; but this is unfounded and obscures the great truth that the christian is set apart to Christ’s obedience as truly as to the application of His blood. The anarthrous form quite falls in with this: had the article been there, it would have pointed to Him personally; as it is, we have Him giving character to obedience and blood-sprinkling, in contrast with law-obedience and blood of victims which confirmed the old covenant as a penal sanction. The idea is neither obedience of faith (or believing with the heart the gospel), nor obeying what our Lord enjoined; but as He obeyed in the dependence and living confidence of sonship, so we now practically as under grace and possession of eternal life in Him. The strange mis-translation through misunderstanding of the latter words is even more striking among some of the Reformed than in older translations or comments (Bible Treasury 15:62-63)