Chapter 1:1. Our language is not so lacking in power to characterize that it should be necessary to introduce “a” or “the” where Greek does not. Thus Peter, “apostle of Jesus Christ” is really more expressive and correct than “an” apostle. Of course a similar remark applies to 2 Cor. 1:11Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: (2 Corinthians 1:1), Gal. 1:11Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1), Eph. 1:11Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 1:1), Col. 1:1, 11Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother, (Colossians 1:1)
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother, (Colossians 1:1) and 2 Tim. 1:11Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, (2 Timothy 1:1), Titus 1:11Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; (Titus 1:1), Phil. 1:11Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Philippians 1:1), James 1:11James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1), if not to Rom. 1:11Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Romans 1:1), and 1 Cor. 1:11Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (1 Corinthians 1:1), where the context modifies. 2 Peter 1:11Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1) and Jude 11Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: (Jude 1) have nothing to render the indefinite article needful. Again “to the elect who are sojourners” is surely to go beyond the text which speaks only of “elect sojourners” dispersed in Pontes, &c. In 2 we come to an important matter. 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. 1:1616For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1:16) and Heb. 1:88But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8), 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,” &c. 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,” &c., which is doubly a falsification of God's word. Him followed our Geneva Version of 1555, “unto sanctification of the Spirit through obedience,” &c. The Rhemish says, “unto sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience,” &c. This would be inexplicable, as being destitute of just meaning, if we did not know that the Vulgate has “in sanctificationem Sp. in obedientiam,” &c. 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 Ex. 24:7, 87And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. (Exodus 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. 6:1111And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 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. In 3 it is “living,” not lively, hope; not in this world, but above it by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. In 7 “of” gold is rightly dropt. But in 10 it should be “prophets,” not “the” prophets, as in the Authorized and Revised Versions, not the class viewed in their totality, but persons coming ender that category. In 11 they rightly say “glories.” In 12 “you” displaces “us” with reason as being more homogeneous: one way or another a common confusion in the MSS. In 17 they correct the Authorized Version, “the” Father for “him as Father,” and “every,” for “each,” man's work, “here” being quite an expletive. In 22 the omission of “pure” rests on A B and the Vulgate, a feeble basis as against àp.m. C K L P, all the cursives, and the mass of ancient versions and ecclesiastical writers, one perhaps excepted. But earlier in the verse “by the Spirit” is an addition without due warrant, as is “forever” at the end of 23, and “of man” for “its” in 24.
2:2 affords some difficulty for translation in the word λογικόν, unless we take it with the Authorized Version as “of the word.” “Reasonable” as in the Authorized Version of Rom. 12:11I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12:1) falls too low, but is not the Revisers' “spiritual” too high? At least, it is not inherent in the word nor necessitated by its usage. “Unto salvation” at the end is sure on ample authority; for salvation, in Peter's writings—save in one exception that proves the rule, by the modification of the phrase to ensure a difference of meaning—looks onward to the final victory at Christ's revelation. In 5 εἰς, “for,” is read by high and ample authority, and adopted by the Revisers in their phrase “to be.” Verse 6 begins with “Because” on almost universal suffrage, “wherefore also” as in Text. Rec. has scarce a shadow of authority. But what is more important, the beautiful force of the first clause of 7 was lost in the Authorized Version, and even the marginal alteration was a mistranslation. Tyndale unhappily misled, and all the public English versions followed. Faith sees according to God. Christ is in God's eyes a chief corner stone, elect, precious. “To you therefore that believe [is] the preciousness.” Was it needful to define the general phrase εἰς π.. in 9 by interpolating “God's own?” In the same verse “excellencies” is right. In 12 “which they behold” is not much in advance of the lax Authorized Version, “which they shall behold,” as a reflexion of ἐποπτεύοντες. “Being spectators” would seem more correct—If “your freedom” be the necessary force of τὴν έλ., why not “your” wickedness, or malice, of τὴς κ. in 16? They are really common cases of abstracted usage. Dean Alford is more consistent in claiming the same possessive or quasi-possessive force for the articles with both words. And here it may not be uninstructive to note the weak and unsound attempt of that same dignitary to account for τῶν άφρ. άνθρ. in 15, as limited to such as reviled Christ as evil doers. For the apostle really speaks of men as a whole, and declares the race as such senseless. The phrase imports nothing less. In 21 it is “you” twice, not “us” as in Authorized Version following Steph. (not Elz). The last clause supports the reading of the ancient MSS. The margin of 24 ignorantly repeats the unfounded alternative of the Authorized Version, for both word and tense forbid the idea of a carrying up of our sins in Christ's body to the tree. Usage in the Septuagint, as in the New Testament, limits άνή... έπὶ to the single great act of bearing them on the tree.
3. In 1 and 2 “behavior is no doubt more intelligible English for our day than the obsolete “conversation” for manner of life in the Authorized Version. But is it correct to soften the force of the past participle in 2 in this case? In 8 “jewels of gold,” not gold merely. The last word of 8 should be not “courteous,” but “humbleminded,” on ample authority, an evident link of connection with the gracious endurance which knows how to bless in presence of injury. In 13 ζ. is more than “followers” or “imitators” (as in the Text. Rec. μ.) meaning neither, but zealous or emulous of good. In 15 it is “the Christ,” not God as such who is to be sanctified as Lord in their hearts. In 18 to print “spirit” without a capital initial is matter for regret, if there be no real ground to doubt that the Spirit of God is meant. Had the phrase been as in the Text. Rec., τῷ πν., there might so far have been a better ground for supposing the spirit of. Christ as man, though it would not have been decisive against the Holy Spirit. But the anarthrous phrase distinctly points to that Divine Person, though presented in character rather than objectively; and what is added conclusively proves this— “in which (or in the power of which Spirit) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison,” &c. As the Spirit of Christ in the prophets (1:11) testified beforehand of Christ's sufferings and the glories that should follow, so did His Spirit in Noah (Gen. 6:33And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)) strive with the antediluvians on the sure coming of the flood that was to take them all away from the earth. But this was not all; for disobedient as they were, they were to be, as they are, reserved in prison (certainly not paradise) for a judgment far more solemn. So the unbelieving Jews now might taunt those who believed, with a Christ rejected on earth and absent in heaven, as well as with their fewness; but the apostle reminds them that there were still fewer saved when the flood came, and rebellions unbelief entails a judgment graver far than anything which befalls the body, as illustrated by a time of waiting and testimony which the Lord also compares with that which precedes His return in power and glory. Is it accurate to render the beginning of 20, ἀπ. π. “which aforetime were disobedient “? Would not this require τοῖς ἀπ.? Is not the force rather “disobedient as they once proved when,” &c.? Their being in prison was in consequence of their previous disobedience to God's patient warning. At the close of the verse “through water” is right, not “by” it. Water was the destructive element, through which grace saved Noah and those with him in the ark: cf. Cor. iii. 15. In 21 the Authorized Version followed Beza (as did Elz.) in rejecting Stephens' reading, which is the ancient one, the Sinaitic cutting the knot by rejecting both. “You” is probably right; but ἐπερώτημα is rather “demand,” anything interrogated, than the interrogation which suggests a dubious or misleading sense.
4:5: why more than “living and dead?” Why “the “? Is it not equally good in English as in Greek? It is not the same sense. “The” makes judgment universal; whereas Scripture contrasts it with eternal life. and salvation. See John 5 and Heb. 9—Why “even” to dead? Why not “also “? As in 3:19, 20, the apostle spoke of wicked dead, so does be here of righteous dead, as is implied in living according to God in the Spirit? Here also we have good news brought, not preaching only. Ver. 11 is given fairly well. The meaning is that when one gifted of God speaks, it should be as oracles of God; not according to the oracles of God, the Scriptures (which is not in question, though in itself of course most right), but as expressing God's mind on that before us, as His mouthpiece: serious, but not too serious; consideration; for has He not also given us His Spirit? And wherefore? Truly it supposes dependence on and confidence in God. Ministry also, it is well to remark, is distinguished from speaking, which is apt to become everything among idle people or the active-minded, and knowledge taking practically the place of faith as well as of love.
5: 2. “Tend” is better, as being more comprehensive, than “feed,” cf. John 21—never to be forgotten by Peter—any more than by John. But is the rendering of 8 exact? It is incomparably better than what the Authorized Version here gives, but “over the charge allotted to you” might be construed into one's church or chapel, one's congregation or parish or diocese. Now τῶν κλ. very simply means the (i.e. your) possessions; and the point is that the elders should not lord it over the saints as their belongings, but ever tend them as the flock of God. Thus were they to be models for them. In 4 it is of course “the” unfading crown of glory. In 5 the needless addition of ὑποτ. “be subject and” in the Authorized Version, following the Text. Rec., is with reason excluded to the unimpeded and energetic flow of the exhortation. In 8 the added ὅτι of the Text. Rec. clogs the vigor of words clear and ringing as a trumpet call. In 9 the difficulty of the article reappears, with the unhappy result of the old rendering put in the margin, and a worse adopted in the text. The real question seems to be between “in” or “with” faith. Take Rom. 14:11Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Romans 14:1): have not the Revisers rightly said “weak in faith"? It is the counterpart of the phrase before us. Here, not content with “the,” they descend to “your.” These things ought not so to be—They rightly give “you” for “us” in 10, as the context ought to have shown, in confirmation of the best external authority. Further, it is “shall,” not the opt. as in Text Rec., with a few copies of slight account. In 12 “as I suppose” or “account” is no slight or doubt of Savanna, but the contrary. “Stand” is the reading of high authority, uncial and cursive, instead of the more popular “ye stand.” It is singular that the Sinaitic is not without a slight support in the margin if two cursives, and some of the oldest Latin copies say expressly what the Authorized Version gives in italics. But the Revisers seem justified in holding it to be some well-known sister, perhaps Peter's wife: the salutation of Marcus that follows confirms this. Dogmatically too it is difficult to suppose elect, or co-elect, said after Christ came otherwise than of individuals. In the Old Testament we have it said corporately or nationally; in the New Testament individually.