Ch. 3: Second Series of Exhortations

(continued).

1. Third Exhortation (particular), addressed to wives whose husbands are unbelievers. Likewise. Beginning a new exhortation, it directs to the preceding one (2:18), but it must not be understood as hinting that the "subjection" of wives to their husbands is of the same nature as that of servants to their masters.

Be in subjection. As in 2:18, the exact translation is, being subject, and, like the participle in that place, must be connected with the verb in 2:13.

Your own. No such contrast between their own husbands and other men is intended as to imply warning against being led into illicit connections, though some strongly insist that there is. On the other hand, the original word, which is not a mere possessive pronoun, seems intended to express something more than the mere fact that they are their husbands. See Critical Notes.

The duty enjoined can neither be reasoned away nor ridiculed away. The same requirement is made by the Holy Spirit through Paul. (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12; Titus 2:5.) That Paul was never married is nothing to the purpose; it is certain that the Spirit of God could give a just command to wives through an unmarried apostle; but as if to rebuke mockers of Paul, a married apostle is authorized to say the same thing. " It is certainly a noticeable coincidence that these exhortations should be found exclusively in the Epistles addressed to Asiatics, nor is it improbable that they were more particularly needed for them than for Europeans." But in Rome, Athens, and Corinth, the relation of husband and wife had long been so very unlike what it ought to have been, that to us there seems to have been no less necessity for exhorting Christian wives there to be in subjection to their husbands, than Christian wives in Asia Minor; and no less necessity for exhorting husbands to love their wives. The silence referred to by the writer above cited is of little consequence; it was not to be expected that such a singling out of classes would be made in every epistle. The prominence recently given to the subject of man's relation to woman should make us more desirous to ascertain, fearlessly, the teachings of the Bible. These can be indicated only in the briefest manner.

Before the Fall.

1. The subordination of the woman to the man was ordained by the Creator. The man was created first; the woman next. The man was created from the earth; the woman "from the body of man. By this the priority and superiority of the man, and the dependence of the woman upon the man, are clearly established as an ordinance of divine creation." (Keil.) See Gen. 2:7, 21, 22. "To create another human being wholly distinct in substance from himself, would introduce into the world a being independent of himself, antagonistic to him, and having no hold on his sympathy as part of himself." (Dr. T. J. Conant.) 2. This original authority of the husband and subordination of the wife, so far at least as it is based upon the ground that the man was created first, is recognized by Paul. (1 Tim. 2:13.) 3. Nature teaches that unless the marriage tie may be dissolved upon every difference of opinion which may arise between the husband and the wife, some means must be used for adjusting the difference. One way of effecting this would be force — the method most prevalent among those not enlightened by Christianity. The weaker — be it the man or the woman — would be under the necessity of yielding. But the use of force is forbidden by nature. Another way remains — i. e., subordination either of the man to the woman, or of the woman to the man. Had the woman been created first, and had the man been formed out of one of the woman's ribs, it is clear that the worn an should have been regarded as having the authority, and then the man would have been under obligation to receive the woman's decision in case of difference of opinion. 4. That this subordination of the woman to the man, even while both were without moral fault, was to be maintained in love by the woman, and that' the superiority of the man was to be maintained in tenderness, and not in lordly superciliousness, is clear from two facts: a. That the woman was made from the man. b. That she was to be a helpmeet for him — "a helper suited to him" (Conant); "'a help of his like' (Keil) — 'that is, a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognize himself" (Delitzsch.) In her subordination Eve was not restive, and in his superiority Adam was not exacting.

After the Fall.

1. The woman loses sight of the relation in which she stood to Adam, and, in independence of his authority, does what will issue in destroying the purer form of the love which had existed between them. She should have done nothing which would seem like aiming to be her husband's co-ordinate, much less what would seem like aiming to get the upper hand of him. "Adam might have done the same thing." Possibly, but it is the business of the interpreter to deal with the actual rather than with the possible. This disregard of her relation to Adam as her constituted superior, is not, indeed, the main thing in her sin, but it is that with which we are just now concerned. 2. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen. 3:16.) This foretells the subordination of the wife as it was to become in consequence of the fall. Subordination, in this new form, intensified by human passion on both sides, is here represented as a punishment of the woman for her sin. How fearfully has the prophecy been fulfilled! In Pagan and Mohammedan countries the wife has failed to recognize in any religiousness of spirit her subordination to the husband. The husband has equally failed to recognize the tender nature of the authority with which he was originally invested.

I will be master of what is mine own;

She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,

My household stuff, my field, my barn,

My horse, my ox, my ass, my any thing;

And here she stands, touch her whoever dare.

This is true, not only of the half-civilized and the savage, but also of Athenians and Romans. The wife has been rebellious, and no wonder; the husband has been a tyrant, and no wonder.

After the Coming of Christ.

1. Christianity aims to restore the husband and the wife to the right relation. It requires the husband to love his wife (Eph. 5:25, 28; Col. 3:19) as a companion, a helper, an adviser; and it aims to make the wife worthy of such love. It aims to bring to an end (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 3:26-28) that separation of interests which has so marked domestic life since the fall, and to make the interests of the husband and the wife as completely one¹ as that between Christ and the Church. "Not a rivalry with the functions of man, but an elevation of her own functions as high as his" (Gladstone), is the further aim of Christianity. But Christianity does not purpose to accomplish this by reversing the original relation. It therefore says most distinctly that the husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23), even as Christ is the Head of the Church, and enjoins upon the wife submission to the husband. "Without making the wife the coordinate of the husband, it gives her substantial equality with him. When the husband recognizes all this as the aim of Christianity, and when the wife also recognizes it, happiness will mark the domestic state. "Authority, kindly exercised, and subordination, quietly acknowledged, promote the development of the affections, to which there is nothing more dangerous than rivalry." (Hugh Davey Evans, LL. D.)

2. In spite of the elevating influence of Christianity upon woman, views have been urged upon the public which, if generally adopted, would sling domestic life into chaos. The viler doctrines promulgated can never, perhaps, be generally received; but the tendency of some modern views is to turn married life back into that state of separate and rival interests which has been the curse of both the husband and the wife wherever revealed religion has been unknown or disregarded. Secretiveness, and even deception in either toward the other, may thus come to characterize the relation which, more than any other of an earthly kind, Christianity requires to be distinguished for openness and confidence. Peter's direction, then, viewed in the light shed upon it from other parts of the word of God, is at once most important and just. Reduced to the last point, there remains this: when, after mutual presentation of views upon a given course, agreement is impossible, the woman should yield to the opinion of her husband, those cases excepted in which she would sin by so doing; and in yielding, should feel herself not dishonored, but honored; because doing precisely that which Christianity requires. In yielding to her husband, she yields to him who is the â– wise Author of the relation. Submission to the final decision of the husband may be pointed and poisoned by the accusation that the decision is unjust; in which case, the very quintessence of obstinacy can be seen through the thin disguise of submission. It may be added that in much that has recently been said concerning woman's subordination to man, the entire tendency is to disregard the teachings of the Scriptures as of no account. But the Bible is as good authority upon this question as upon the duty of man to do all in his power to effect the intellectual and religious elevation of woman.

That if any. 'That' indicates the reason why they should submit.

Also is misplaced; it should stand before if, and be changed into even, thus: that even if any (some) obey not. It may perhaps be inferred that the husbands of most of them were believers. But even if some obeyed not, it was possible that they might be won, etc.

Obey not. It seems to imply positive rejection of the word. (2:8 and compare 1:22.)

Without the Word. Peter uses no article — 'Without word.' He refers, not to the word as publicly preached, but probably to talking by the wives themselves; not that all speaking to their husbands is forbidden, but he suggests as the chief means of winning them their conversation — i.e., walk, conduct —

The silence often of pure innocence

Persuades, when speaking fails.

Sharp criticism of the husband on account of his defects, even if they are moral defects, and a habit of complaining at her lot, will not only not win him to the gospel — it will make his rejection of it the stiffer. Paul says: "Faith Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"; and so if the husband shall be won by means of the holy walk of the wife, it will be none the less true that the word will lie at the basis of the other instrumentality.

2. While they behold. See on 2:12.

Your chaste, etc. — your deportment chaste in fear — 'chaste' used in the general sense of pure, as in James 3:17.

Fear — awe either toward God or toward the husband; more probably the latter. As the husband is exhorted (ver. 7) to honor his wife, the fear is far from slavish. It is holy apprehension of doing anything which shall appear to conflict with the duty enjoined in ver. 1, and so creating an obstacle to his conversion.

3. In this and ver. 4, submission to their husbands is still enjoined, but this is done by exhorting them to the exercise of qualities which will certainly lead to it — meekness and quietness of spirit; and to these qualities they are exhorted negatively, in contrast with that vanity which would lead them to make the adornment of their persons, their bodies indeed, the chief object of concern. Literally, whose adorning let it be, not the outward of plaiting the hair, etc. In the Common Version 'adorning' is repeated, and is printed in italics. The repetition is necessary, in order to express what the Greek says without repetition, and that very necessity makes the italics needless: Whose adorning let it be, not the outward adorning,... but let it be, etc.

Plaiting — braiding, not for convenience, which might be allowable, but for ornament.

Gold — golden ornaments, jewels of gold. (Revised Version.)

Apparel — garments (plural in the original), worn for show; no reference to convenience. 'Plaiting,' 'wearing,' 'putting on.' Notice the activity of women in this sort of self-adorning. Vanity makes nimble fingers. Notice also the very emphatic position of 'not'; yet the negative thought which it introduces is not the leading one; that is introduced by 'but.' (ver. 4.) The meaning of this prohibition will escape us, unless we bear in mind the extravagant love of ornament which characterized the Oriental mind, and the great irreligiousness which led to it. The Egyptian monuments tell surprising tales of female vanity, and the inspired prophet speaks of "the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the head bands, and the tablets, and the ear rings, the rings, and the nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." (Isa.3:18-23.) It is what Calvin calls the morbum vanitati.s quo mulieres laborant (in Huther), the disease of vanity under which women labor, that Peter blames. Woman's love of ornament is a root of all evil, not less than man's love of money. "Women may sin by wearing too little clothing as well as by wearing too much ornament. As the remedy for love of money in man is holiness (1:15, 16; 2:9), so also is holiness the remedy for love of outward adornment in woman. Giving too little attention to the decoration of their bodies will not, probably, very soon become a besetting sin of women.

4. The apostle tells them what their adorning ought to be. The hidden man of the heart. This is the general form of expressing the contrast with outward adorning. The ornaments in which their irreligious neighbors delight appeal to the eye; this, the man of the heart, is 'hidden,' pertains to what is within. Compare Rom. 7:22 (the inward man); Eph. 3:16 (the inner man); 2 Cor. 4:16 (the inward man).

In that which is not corruptible, etc., may be rendered: in the incorruptibleness of a meek and quiet spirit. It is this of which the hidden man consists. Instead of fondness for outward ornament, they should adorn themselves with meekness (Matt. 5:5) and quietness; and, unlike gold and superfluous apparel, such qualities are not corruptible — are imperishable. With such virtues they cannot fail to be submissive to their husbands. This spirit, whatever may be said of the world's judgment, is in the sight of God of great price. God is infinitely able to estimate the respective values. Man judges by a false standard. ' Great price,' costly; applied by Paul (1 Tim. 2:9) to "array " (raiment), and by Mark (14:3) to "spikenard." Compare ver. 3, 4, with 1 Tim. 2:9, 10.

5. For strengthens the main exhortation (ver. 1) and the subordinate one of vs. 3, 4.

After this manner — in the way just described. He draws an illustration from the times of the Old Testament.

Trusted in God — hoped. The comma of the English (both the Common and the Revised Version) ought not to have been inserted between 'also' and 'who'; the connection is closer than the comma indicates. It was not holy women only who adorned themselves, but holy women 'who hoped in God.' According to the commonly received Greek, hoped upon God; but according to valuable manuscripts, hoped in God. They were adorned within.

Being in subjection. See on the same in ver. 1. Submitting themselves to their own husbands was one of the manifestations of their meekness and quietness.

Their own. See on the same in ver. 1, and in Critical Notes.

6. An eminent example is seen in Sarah, the wife of their distinguished progenitor. Even — a needless insertion.

Obeyed. The original term is a mild one, listened. She listened to him, and it is implied that she listened to him in submissiveness of spirit.

Calling him lord (Gen. 18:12); doubtless the customary way of addressing him. Sarah was not faultless. In the affair of Hagar and Ishmael she showed more independence than was delicate, and more feeling than was necessary. A meek and quiet spirit even then would have been more womanly, and better would it have been had she respectfully and gently declined to unite with her liege lord in one or two instances of deception. Yet she was usually so decorous and obedient that the apostle deemed her worthy of imitation by all pious women. "There be many women now-a-days that break away from their husbands." Compare 1 Sam. 25:10.

Whose daughters. The Greek means children, whether sons or daughters. Whose children

ye are (became at the time of their conversion, but implying that they are so now), in the sense of spiritual descent.

As long as — inserted by the Revisionists of 1611 to aid in bringing out what they supposed to be the meaning; but reference to time is erroneous. Nor ought if (Revised Version) to be supplied, as if they became Sarah's spiritual children on condition that they do good; nor because, as if they became children of Sarah because they do good. The meaning may be expressed thus: Whose children ye became, as shown by your well-doing — that is, in "their entire course of life, with especial reference to their marriage relations." (Huther.)

Are not afraid, etc., is, literally, fearing no frightening, no dread; or, as some, not quite exactly, would say, fearing no fear. "Feared exceedingly" (Mark 4:41), is, literally, feared a great fear. In 1 John 5:16 is a similar peculiarity, "sin a sin"; in Col. 2:19, "increaseth with the increase." It is an intense form of expression, and was not very seldom used in the Hebrew language before it came into use in the Greek. The peculiarity, though not quite so marked, is found here also. The apostle exhorts them not to fear that which, in itself, is adapted to make them fear; or, not to fear those who may attempt to make them fear. The men of the world, or, as the context requires, their ungodly husbands, may oppose; but they are not to fear. Some take from 'as' to 'ye are' as a parenthesis; thus: being in subjection to their own husbands (as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children ye are become), doing well, and not being afraid. This assumes that the participle for 'doing well' is to be connected with ' women ' in ver. 5. If this is the right construction (which is by no means certain), it follows that after speaking of the ' holy women ' of former times, the writer pauses a moment to illustrate by the case of Sarah as one of the class, and then, resuming, completes his description of the holy women, characterizing them as 'doing well,' etc. The Revised Version has this form in the margin as an alternative reading, and W^estcott and Hort's Greek Testament has the same.

7. Fourth Exhortation (particular); addressed to husbands. Likewise — directs to the exhortation given to wives at ver. 1, and hints that husbands are under obligations to their wives, as well as wives to their husbands. The form of the obligation is in part different. Husbands, neither here nor elsewhere, are required to be in subjection to their wives. The spirit of the obligation is the same — that is, the same in so far as both the husband and the wife are to be controlled by love.

Dwell with them — refers to general daily intercourse.

According to knowledge. In your marriage relations show intelligence and judgment.

Giving honour, etc. In this part of the verse the meaning is not well given. Translate: Dwelling according to knowledge with the female vessel as the weaker, rendering honor [to them] as also fellow heirs. 'Vessel.' The husband is a vessel as well as the wife; but the wife is the weaker vessel. The word is applied to men (1 Thess. 4:4); to human beings without distinction of sex. (Rom.9:21.) 'Weaker.' Not the man is a weak vessel, and the woman a weaker one. No such comparison is intended, and such a comparison would spoil the appeal; for it is just because the man is here assumed to be a strong vessel that he is exhorted to discharge his obligations to the woman. ' The weaker' cannot mean weaker in mind, for that women as a class would prove themselves, under equally favorable conditions, constitutionally inferior to men as a class, has not 3'et been shown to be even probable. Every century has been brilliant with women of mental capacity which quite overtopped that of a large majority of men. The wife is the weaker vessel because she has been made subordinate. In harmony with this subordination she is inferior to man in strength of body. "But Peter speaks of the woman as the weaker vessel without intending thereby disparagement or offence to the sex, or to any particularly strong-minded or strong-bodied member of it. It is no insult to the vine to say that it is weaker than the tree to which it clings; or to the rose to say that it is weaker than the bush which bears it." (Lillie.)

Giving honour unto the wife — expresses the chief thought. The wife's submission, then, is not dishonorable.

And as being fellow heirs, etc. Not fellow heirs with one another, but with their husbands. The wife is to receive the incorruptible possession (1:4), as well as the husband, which is a good reason for rendering honor — i. e., by esteeming her. See Rom. 8:17; Eph. 3:6; Heb. 11:9.

Grace of life — grace consisting of life.

Your prayers — perhaps family prayers offered by the husband or by both. Of Philip Henry it is said that "he and his wife constantly prayed together morning and evening; and never, if they were together at home or abroad, was it intermitted." (Dr. Mombert in Fronmüller.) Inference: Their married life must have been harmonious. They must have constantly borne in mind the relation which each was required to maintain toward the other, without, however, being distinctly conscious of a purpose to do so. Private prayers may be included.

Hindered — cut into, cut in pieces, from which came the meaning — impede, hinder. (Huther.) Some say, prevented from rising to the throne of God; but Peter is aiming to prevent their prayers from being omitted. What may cause them to be omitted? Not dwelling according to knowledge with the wife as the weaker vessel, and not honoring her as a fellow heir, etc. The disharmony which will result will cut prayer to pieces; the services will be wholly omitted. The same thing might happen if the wife should be unmindful of her own obligation; but Peter plies the wife with one kind of argument, and the husband with another kind.

8. Exhortations to distinct classes having been closed, the apostle concludes this second series with exhortations to all, growing out of their relations to persecutors. It is remarkable that in this section the most simple practical hints are found in juxtaposition with one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. Working quietly and openly among the easy things of the Christian life, the apostle suddenly plunges (18-20) out of sight into a subject of the most difficult nature. Finally — indicative not of the termination of the Epistle, but of a purpose to avoid further particulars, and to utter thoughts of a general nature.

All — every individual of every class named. What follows is expressed by means of five adjectives, no other word being used. It is a beautiful cluster of virtues — united, sympathetic, brotherly, compassionate, humble; or, using the more active form — like-minded, sympathizing, brother-loving, tender-hearted, lowly-minded.

Like-minded refers more to feeling than to opinion, yet union of heart tends to create greater union of opinion. Opinions, however unlike, ought not to bristle with prejudice. Christendom has long needed more oneness of doctrine, but much more has it needed oneness of heart. Even true churches have always needed this divine exhortation (Rom. 12:16; 15:5; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4 3); how much more has Christendom needed it! Making infants church members in the early ages of Christianity at length filled churches with unregenerate persons, and the practice continuing to the present day, doctrines and rites have been forced upon men by assemblies, councils, emperors, popes, and legislatures, concerning which the Scriptures say nothing whatever. The divisions of Christendom are the progeny, not of Christianity, but of the world.

Having compassion — sympathizing, sympathy — brought into our language from the Greek, is feeling with. The readers are dissimilar, socially and intellectually, yet each is required to make the joys, and especially the sorrows of others, his own. (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 12:26; Heb. 13:3.)

So two, together weeping, make one woe.

Sympathy is a rational emotion; may be much developed; and, though often moving with great rapidity, may become, under the influence of the moral judgment enlightened by the Scriptures, a permanent power, bearing the soul forward with planet-like order through the entire course of life. Mock suffering (the theatre) and suffering described (fiction) are but feeble stimulants to sympathy. Tears may be wasted when sympathy is hoarded.

Love as brethren — brotherly, in the Greek, philadelphoi. A philadelphian is a lover of his brethren, (1:22; 4:8; Rom. 12:10.) The English, love as brethren, may leave an erroneous impression.

Pitiful — tender-hearted, so translated in Eph. 4:32.

Courteous. This stands for a word which has much less manuscript authority than another, which is properly rendered as above, lowly-minded. The trait is to be manifested toward one another (5:5; Phil. 2:3), and especially toward God. (5:6; Acts 20:19.) The opposite is self-conceit, which is self-esteem with its eyes shut against God. The wolf may dwell with the lamb, but selfconceit with humility never.

9. The previous verse refers to their relations to each other, this to their relations to the unregenerate world; yet the virtues enjoined in ver. 8 have an anticipatory reference to what was about to be said concerning their relations to the world.

Evil for evil — evil deeds; railing — words. Peter knows that his Lord did neither (Matt. 26:62,63; 27:12); and he remembers what a wrong use he himself once made of the sword. (Matt. 26:51.)

But contrariwise — on the contrary. Do directly the opposite, and talk directly the opposite. Implore blessing upon them, bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal. "Wonderful precepts! and with the strength of Christ as easily obeyed as any others, if one has the lowliness of mind enjoined at the close of ver. 8. Pride is the spur of retaliation. Knowing. The Greek has little reason for being accepted as genuine. Read thus: Because to this end ye were called, that ye should inherit blessing; that ye should come into possession of the blessings of the gospel provided for this life and the next. They were called (2:21) by the Holy Spirit. If they are possessors of such blessings, surely they ought to implore blessings on those who maltreat and malign them.

10. The Old Testament (P8.34:12-16) again lends its aid to the apostle of the New, for the purpose of strengthening the exhortations of ver. 9. The usual form of quotation is wanting, yet with slight variations the words are those of David, as reproduced in the Septuagint.

For is Peter's, and connects the quotation with the preceding verse.

He that will love life. 'Will' is not the usual auxiliary sign of the future. Read: He that desires to love life; or, that would. It takes for granted that life may be one of true happiness. The thought is peculiar. It is Peter's rather than David's; for David says: "He that desireth life." Peter gives prominence to loving life. The pessimist, if consistent, hates life.

To see good days is to experience them — that is, to have them and enjoy them. Notice the use of the word in Luke 2:26; Heb. 11:5; John 3:3. 'Good days,' in this life — the possession of none but believers. Even the sorrow of those who love God cannot make good days bad days. (Rom. 8:28; 2 Cor.4:16; 6:10.)

Let him refrain, etc. — as if it were impossible to desire to love life, if the tongue were allowed to have its way. See James 3.

Guile, deceit. See on 2:1, 22.

11. Eschew, etc. — turn away from evil. It is a general, comprehensive precept, referring to evil of whatever kind.

And do good, also a comprehensive precept, but it enjoins a positive virtue. " Went about doing good," was said of Christ by this very apostle. (Acts 10:38.) The farmer who merely abstains from sowing bad seed will reap nothing.

Seek peace — a more particular direction. See Matt. 5:9. To live peaceably in heaven with all will be easy; to live so here with all is scarcely possible (Rom. 12:18); yet we are not only to seek peace, but we are to ensue (pursue) it. We are to make a vigorous and determined effort to make others peaceable and peaceful, and this is most easily done by being peaceable and peaceful ourselves. Much freedom must be granted to one another to do the usual work of life in the way preferred — in the family for example, and in the place of business, if peace is to thrive. There is no better trade to which to put a child than peace-making. In affairs moral and religious, we must be "first pure, then peaceable ' ' (James 3:17), yet persecution for religious opinions, even in the mild form of uncharitableness, is utterly contrary to the spirit of Christ.

12. For. This, too, is Peter's word, not David's. It points to the ground upon which the exhortations of ver. 11 rest — namely, the Lord's relation to the righteous and the wicked.

Are over — are upon; that is, turned upon.

Unto their prayers — toward them. 'Against,' 'upon' — the same word in the Greek as stands before the word for righteous. The contrast, then, between the Lord's course toward the righteous and toward the wicked is not expressed in the preposition, nor in face. The contrast is expressed by but — and the contrast how great!

Lord. As nothing in the context requires it to be applied to Christ, it may have the reference which it has in the Psalm from which the words are taken.

13. Intensity is given to the thought by the interrogative form. Peter once had sharp experience of the power of questions. (John 21:1-17) The apostle would here confirm the exhortation to do good. Will harm — too feeble. The rendering is stronger in Acts 7:6, 19 (entreat evil, evil entreated); in 12:1 (vex); in 18:10 (to hurt thee).

Followers — imitators. But valuable manuscripts have a word which means zealous — if ye are zealous of that which is good. There are two possible meanings of the first part of the question: Who is he that will be able to do you evil? and, Who is he that will be disposed to do you evil? If the latter is the meaning, the question must have been asked in view of the supposition that usually the world will not be disposed to persecute those who lead a truly Christian life; but it can scarcely be said that in apostolic times this was usually the case. If the former is the sense, it implies that no one can do them any real and essential evil. God will parry the blow. Which is the correct view is uncertain. See Isa. 50:9; Rom. 8:31, 33, 34.

14. But and if — a "barbarous" translation (Lillie), an "innocent archaism" (Schaff). The English Revisers, as the latter reminds us, naturally adhere to these archaisms. Read: But if also ye should suffer.

For righteousness' sake — on account of their Christian life. See righteous in ver. 12, a good conscience and good conversation in ver. 16, and well doing in ver. 17.

Happy — blessed, which is less suggestive of hap, luck, chance. 'Happy'' has taken on a Christian meaning, but even now it has less aroma than blessed. The sentiment which Peter here expresses fell upon his ear from the lips of Christ when upon the Mount (Matt. 5:11.) Persecution will make these Christians more blessed here, and this fragrant result of suffering will extend into the next life, never to be diminished., but ever to be augmented.

Be not afraid of their terror — fear not their fear; be not afraid of the terror with which they would harass you. See on ver. 6. Those words and the first clause in ver. 15 may be a "free translation" of Isa. 8:12, 13.

15. But sanctify — reverence as holy. Compare "Hallowed be thy name." (Matt. 6:9.)

The Lord God — Lord the Christ; or perhaps better, the Christ as Lord, according to the approved reading. The exhortation stands in contrast with the one immediately preceding: Fear not them, but fear as holy the Christ as Lord. Isa. 8:13 is literally: "Sanctify Jehovah of hosts." For Jehovah Peter uses Lord. Thus the apostle enjoins the duty of sanctifying Christ as Jehovah, which may be a proof of Christ's Deity. Had Peter, at an earlier period, had more reverence for the Lord, he would not have feared men, and denied him. Compare Matt. 10:28. He has been qualified by bitter experience to exhort others. Fearing God makes one superior to the fear of men. Some fear the world even when the world bears no sword.

In your hearts — otherwise there is no reverence.

And be ready — being ready. The Greek for 'and' is not genuine. They must not only reverence Christ in the heart, but must also be ready to make an oral expression.

To give an answer — literally, be ready for an apology — that is, for a "defence" (Phil. 1:7); "what clearing of yourselves" (2 Cor. 7:11); "answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) The use of the word implies that those who are supposed to ask for the reason of their hope, ask with little sympathy, not to say with some opposition, (ver. u, 16.) The answcr given is therefore of the nature of a defence.

Always — never unprepared, never unwilling, never timid.

Every man — without respect to his position or his character. A reason of — a reason concerning.

The hope — the hope in Christ, with all the blessed results. See on 1:3, 13, 21. Be ready to make as full a statement as the circumstances may require. As they are to be always ready to do it, it follows that the reference is not specially to the first profession of faith. Lips which opened then, but never afterward, would seem to have opened mechanically, not under the sweet influence of a renewed heart. Too many are like the silent letters of our language — nothing would be lost if they were all dropped out.

With meekness, etc. In several manuscripts the Greek is preceded by a word meaning but or yet, which makes the contrast more striking. They must be ready with a defence, but the defence must be made in the right spirit, They' must avoid the appearance of arrogance, and must fear lest their defence be such as to do more harm khan good.

16. Having a good conscience. This connects with 'ready.' (ver. 15.) A good conscience is a conscience unstained with conscious guilt, or with unforgiven sin, or with intention to do wrong. It implies that the conscience has been made white through faith in Christ. Without a good conscience, their readiness for defence would be false.

That whereas, wherein, or, in the matter in which. It is similar to the form of expression in 2:12, upon which see note.

Your good conversation in Christ — good manner of life in communion with Christ.

Be ashamed — desirable even if nothing more should come from it. Oh, that the consciences of all were so pure that the accusations were false and the accusers ashamed!

17. For. In ver. 16 the apostle virtually exhorts them to have a good conscience, and now he gives a reason in support of the exhortation.

If the will of God be so, literally, if the will of God should will it. The noun refers to the will of God as a faculty, and the verb to exerting the faculty. 'The will of God" refers to the suffering. The form of the verb implies the possibility that such maybe God's will. Should it be his will that you suffer at all, it is better to suffer for the reason that you do well than for the reason that you do ill. See 2:20 and comments.

Better — more for the honor of Christ, better for yourselves, for such suffering will bring the usual blessed result — sanctification. Or, let better be explained by 2:19-21.

18-20. The Descent of Christ to Hell. Such is the title which a large majority of interpreters, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, would prefix to this section, with what reason may appear after examination. No passage in the New Testament, none perhaps in the Bible, has been considered during at least fourteen hundred years more difficult. They must be ready with a defence, but the ' The main statement, with the subordinate clauses, has received almost innumerable explanations. Many of the people, while disinclined to accept the view that Christ, in the interval between his death and resurrection, descended to the abode of lost spirits and preached to them, yet have been so bewildered by what Peter is made by our translators and many of the expositors to say, that they have settled down in despair of ever arriving at a satisfactory view. The meaning is made no plainer by the Revised Version. Some of the reasons for the interpretation about to be given will be found in the Critical Note.

For, because. It indicates that the apostle is to give a reason for something, and that something is implied in ver. 17 — namely, the duty of bearing up under suffering in well-doing. This duty is urged by two considerations: 1. Christ suffered; 2. He preached to wrong-doers. The wrong-doing is set in a stronger light by presentation of the circumstances under which it continued to be committed. To preach to such men required long-suffering.

Also is to be connected with suffered for sins. Notice the striking contrast between their suffering for well-doing and Christ's suffering for sins. The appeal, which is from the greater to the less, is one of incomparable strength.

For sins, on account of sins.

Once. It implies only once. See Heb. 9:26,28; Rom. 6:9, 10. It may be referred to the entire period of his earthly suffering, but the context shows that the apostle was thinking chiefly of his final sufferings.

The just for the unjust, the righteous for the unrighteous.

Hath suffered, should be suffered, for Peter refers to what occurred and was completed at some previous time. Some manuscripts give another reading, which means died, and this is put in the margin of the Revised Version. Many critics prefer it. 'For' the unjust. See Critical Note on the same preposition in 2:21. The idea of substitution is clearly indicated in the context, even if it is not expressed in the preposition itself.

That he might bring us to God. Men are separated from God — that is, they are in want of that life which consists of communion with God. So far, then, as respects themselves, the object of Christ's suffering is to restore them to God's life — that is, to bring them into constant communion with their Creator. The verb implies very near approach to God. The scientific saying, Omne vivutn ex vivo (all life conies from Life) fails of verification in man viewed as a being of spiritual capacities; for in man there is no life to generate life. See Eph.2:5 ("when we were dead . . . quickened us"). "The spiritual life is the gift of the living Spirit." (Drummond, "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," Biogenesis.)

Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; in spirit is the more correct rendering. The meaning is not, that flesh as mere flesh died, and that the spirit as mere spirit was made alive, but that the death of Christ was the death of Christ in flesh, and that the quickening of Christ was the quickening of Christ in spirit. The Common Version, by the Spirit (as if there were allusion to the Holy Spirit), is here wrong. In the Greek the contrast is more strongly expressed. See Rom. 1:3, 4; 1 Tim. 3:16. As pre-existent, Jesus Christ was glorious in his "spiritual essence," but through all his earthly life that glory was partly veiled in flesh, and in flesh he was put to death. But at his resurrection, (compare ver. 21) he was quickened in spirit — that is, he came into repossession of the glory of his spiritual nature. That this quickening in spirit occurred at the resurrection, not between the death and the resurrection, is clear from Rom. 1:4. How, then, could Christ be said to have gone in that spirit (ver. i9) to the abode of the lost between his death and his resurrection? But whether he went at all is to be seen chiefly in ver. 19, 20.

19. By which — in which spiritual nature.

Also — not, as Lange and some others, even. It looks back to the also of ver. 18, thus: Because Christ also suffered, etc. (the one fact); he also preached (the other fact). These two facts are reasons why the readers should bear up under suffering in well-doing.

He went, etc. Translate the remainder of the verse and the first clause of ver. 20, not as in the Revised Version, but, he went and preached to the spirits in prison when formerly they were disobedient. Those who heard the preaching, heard it when they were living in disobedience. They rejected the preaching, were lost (ver. 20, last clause; 2 Pet. 2:5), and now, while Peter is writing, are in prison, disembodied, and are therefore spoken of as spirits.

In prison. See Rev. 20:7; Matt. 5:25. The word is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and means a place of confinement. Here it means the place in which the wicked are punished after death. It is very necessary to the correct understanding of this passage, to notice that the word does not express the idea which the ancient classics attached to hades, and the ancient Hebrews, sometimes, to sheol — namely, the place of disembodied spirits, good and bad. The conception of such a place is entirely foreign to the New Testament. In the New Testament, hades is the place in which the wicked are punished (Luke  16:23); in the Common Version, hell, transferred in the Revised Version, hades. The good are not there. They are in heaven, called, in three instances, paradise. (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12;14; Rev.2:7.) Jesus died before the robbers. (John 19:32, 33.) Those who affirm that Christ went to hades — descended to hell (the phrase found in some of the most widely accepted creeds), and there preached to the wicked, invariably imply that he went immediately. But if he went immediately, he must have torn himself from his impenitent hearers just as their attention was becoming aroused, in order to fulfill his promise by meeting a penitent in paradise. The contradiction between the words of Jesus (Luke 23; 43), " Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise,"' and the representation made by Peter, as commonly explained, is complete. Christ could not have been with the saved robber in Paradise, and, at the same time with the lost antediluvians in "hell." A very remarkable attempt has recently been made2 by Dr. Davidson, of London, to save Peter as witness to a second probation for the antediluvians, by denying the authenticity of the words in Luke. The denial is based upon the one fact that the words were wanting in the copy used by Marcion, a heretic; and though admitting that Epiphanius says that Marcion "cut them off," Dr. Davidson will not admit that Epiphanius is in this to be believed. The scholar may do well to consult the Critical Apparatus in the Eighth Edition of Tischendorf's Greek Testament. Marcion took liberty with the text of Luke, which is not to be justified. ("Westcott on the Canon.") If the interpretation of Peter now to be given is correct, there is no contradiction between the apostle and the evangelist. But the question turns chiefly on the meaning of the next verse.

Preached. The original word is not the word which means to preach the gospel; it is more general, meaning to proclaim, to announce, from which some have inferred that it was the preaching, not of glad tidings, but of condemnation. But the more general word is so often used to express the preaching of the gospel (Matt. 4:17; 10:7; 11:1; Mark 1:38), that this may be its import here.

Went. Great weight has been attached to this word in support of the view that Christ went in person to the prison of the lost. But the word does not necessarily imply personal locomotion. See Gen. 11:5-7, and especially Eph. 2:17. Such language would have been entirely admissible (for it would have been in harmony with the genius of the Greek tongue), had Peter desired to say that Christ brought himself into connection with the persons in question, either by his Spirit, or by means of some pious inhabitant of the earth.

20. Which sometime were disobedient — when formerly they were disobedient. See the translation above and Critical Notes. The preaching occurred at the time of the disobedience, not thousands of years afterward. That it occurred long after the disobedient were swept away has been taught by the majority of expositors, including some recent distinguished interpreters of Germany. The common view is held in most remarkable disregard of the construction of the Greek.

In the next two clauses, Peter makes a more distinct statement of time and persons. Once. For this the Greek has scarcely any manuscript authority.

When the long suffering of God, etc. The spirits who were in prison when Peter was writing these words were persons who lived their earthly life in the days of Noah. God's forbearance toward sinners is often mentioned in the Scriptures — e. g., Rom. 2:i; 9:22; and here much vividness is added to the description by waited, especially in the original, where the word for waited is intense, to wait out, to wait long for. God waited one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3), not, as some Say, seven days. (Gen. 7:4.) "This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his four hundred and eightieth year, to be published by him as a 'preacher of righteousness' (2Pet. 2:5) to the degenerate race." (Keil.) He was six hundred years old when the flood came. What long suffering does God still manifest in waiting for the repentance of sinners!

While the ark was a preparing — an ark being in the process of building. Here the time of the long suffering is very exactly given. Every blow of the ax and the hammer was a call to repentance. 'Ark.' Gen. 6:14-16. See Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27; Heb. 11:7.

Wherein — in which, though strictly the original preposition is such as to imply that they first went into it.

That is, eight — a tragical explanation!

Souls. In most cases this word is not a mere equivalent for a personal pronoun — e. g., "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls " (Common Version, for you, 2 Cor. 12:15), but the word gives prominence to their spiritual nature as that which was the chief subject of regeneration. The use of the word soul instead of you contributes to vivacity. (Winer.) The verse before us, however, is one of the few in which the Greek for souls may have no special significance, in which it is equivalent, that is, to persons. 'Eight.' (Gen. 7:7.)

Saved by — through, by means of. In the margin of the Revised Version is the alternative rendering —into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water. But in the next verse the apostle represents water, in baptism, as saving us, and therefore, if the contrast is to be deemed pertinent, it was water through which, by means of which, Noah and his family were saved. But how could they be said to be saved by means of water? Was not the ark the means? Notice again the preposition (εἰς) — into which few (going) were saved by means of water. The apostle associates the idea of going into the ark with the idea of being saved by water. It is impossible to separate the one idea from the other, though, if we make the mistake of interpreting according to the mere letter, we shall say that only the water without its relation to the act of going into the ark was the means of their being saved. But from what were they saved? Clearly, that from which all the others were not saved — that is, from perishing, from death. They were indeed delivered from the prevailing corruption, but this is not the fact here intended. The infants that perished by drowning were as truly saved from the prevailing corruption as the "eight." Punishment (in the case of all but the infants) did indeed follow the drowning, but the first and palpable fact is that they perished by loss of life. Noah and his family were saved. They continued to live. Farrar hits in this case nearer than he sometimes does, for he says: "Perhaps this means 'by water as an instrument' — i. e., because the water floated the ark."

Thus we learn that those to whom Christ preached were the unbelieving people of Noah's time. But how did he preach? That is a question of little importance, and one on which the interpretation of the passage as a whole ought not in any degree to be made to turn. Peter himself does not answer it, yet Christ may have preached through Noah's preaching, for the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets, and testified, etc. (1:11) Or he may have preached by an influence exerted more directly upon their minds. See John 1:4, 5 for proof that before the incarnation the Word was in the world, and wrought upon the souls of men. [See note on John 1:4, 5 for a slightly different view. — A. H.] Those words show that whatever light the antediluvians had, came from Christ before he became flesh. Yet the preaching was more than the general influence of the word upon men before his incarnation.

21. The water by which Noah was saved suggests to Peter the water of baptism. The meaning of the accepted Greek is, which (water), as an antitype (as something resembling it, as a like figure), is now saving you also — namely, baptism. Antitype may not imply that the flood was a type of baptism in the usual sense of the word type. It may express only the idea of resemblance to the flood. As water saved Noah, so baptism is now saving you. You is the rendering of the genuine Greek. But what is meant by baptism saving them? There are a few passages in the New Testament which seem to teach, like this, that baptism precedes in the order of time forgiveness, regeneration, salvation. On the other hand, there are many passages which certainly do teach that baptism must not precede, but follow. To the latter class belong, for example, Matt. 3:6-8; 28:19, 20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41 (presenting an argument of cumulative force, because the number of cases in which baptism followed the spiritual change was three thousand); 8:12; 8:30-39; 9:17, 18; 10:43-48; 16:14, 15, 29-34. Besides these and other proof-texts, the general spirit of the New Testament implies that baptism is preceded by regeneration. The chief passages which seem to teach the precedence of baptism, or, as some would say, regeneration or forgiveness of sin in baptism, are, besides the one before us, the following:" Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit" — more exactly, of water and the Spirit (John 3:5); "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord " (Acts 22:16); "Repent and be baptized, every one of you. . . for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38.) Ought these special exceptions to the general rule to govern the interpretation of the very numerous passages above cited, or ought the many passages to govern the interpretation of these few? If the latter, then the few passages cannot mean that water-baptism is a condition of baptism by the Spirit, and the doctrine that men must be baptized in order to be born again is unscriptural. Equally unscriptural, therefore, is the view that regeneration cannot be expected to occur "on the sea or in the chamber, on the highway or in the field, in the mill, the shop, or the store" — "at any point of time in man's life." After coming to a result by this general law of interpreting the few passages by the many, one may examine each of the few passages in detail, and it will be seen that not one of them teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, so strongly pronounced by Professor Adams to be the "keystone of the arch " of all the Christian doctrines, including even "the atonement of our blessed Redeemer."3

Administered as it always ought to be, in its primitive form, baptism is a vivid reproduction in figure, in symbol, of the great FACT, already accomplished, that the soul, having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, has been buried to sin and been raised to holiness; and a vivid representation in figure, in symbol, of the twofold EVENT, yet future, the burial and resurrection of the body, the latter guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ. The figurative representation of the bodily change is so vivid, that the change seems by faith to be occurring now — that is, in the very act of being baptized; and the figurative reproduction of the spiritual change is so vivid that this change also seems by faith to be brought forward to the same point. One might as truly say, therefore, with Christ, Ye must be born of water and the Spirit; or, with Ananias, Be baptized, and wash away thy sins; or, with Peter, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us — as to say. Believe, and be baptized. The latter direction is plain — not figurative, not symbolic, and therefore it expresses exactly the time-relation of faith and baptism.; the former directions are not plain, but are symbolic, figurative, and therefore the exact time-relation is not given. Thus the interpretation of the few, and, it may be added, obscure, passages by the many, concerning which there is no obscurity whatever, is justified. Baptism, then, is the symbolic representation of what literally took place before. 'It pictures in the present what has been experienced in the past. . . . The past is presented again emblematically in baptism, as if it were present." (President A. Hovey.) Coming "to the baptismal font," the soul "comes to ratify in the appointed way its own previous act of surrender.'' (Lillie.) Thus, not more necessary is it here than in the other passages with which it has been classed to see the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Save us (you), as well as Noah and his family.

Now contrasts the present time with that of Noah.

Doth save — not, saved, or will save. The present may here be used to express the general fact that baptism saves; or, it may denote continuance of action, is saving you. In the latter case, it denotes the spiritual influence of baptism continued through life. Such continued influence will be greater or less, according to one's clearness of spiritual perception. It is to be feared that with many persons it is painfully small.

Baptism. The act denoted by this word is an immersion of the entire body As regeneration had respect to the entire man, as the entire man in regeneration is buried to sin and is raised to holiness, and as the bodies of the regenerate are to be buried and to be raised from the grave, the rite is beautifully and wonderfully expressive. (Rom. 6:3,4; Coli. 2:12.) "And how, as for a moment the prostrate form of the disciple disappears beneath the wave, is the whole solemn story of our death in Christ silently rehearsed!" (Dr. A.J. Gordon, "In Christ.") "There can be no doubt," says Dean Goulburn of the Episcopal Church, "that baptism, when administered in the primitive and most correct form, is a divinely constituted emblem of bodily resurrection."

Not the putting away, etc. — a definition, first negative then positive, of what baptism is. Heb. 9:10, 13 makes it not improbable, that Peter had Jewish ceremonials in his eye. In any case, baptism as such has no effect in improving the outward man, though millions have been taught to think otherwise.

But the answer, etc. The difficulties of the passage pertain chiefly to the word translated answer. It is certain that this translation is incorrect, but as the word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, scholars are not agreed as to its meaning. The Revisers show their own uncertainty by translating "interrogation," and putting in the margin, "Or, inquiry, or appeal." Question, request, inquiry, seeking after, asking, are the chief meanings assigned. It is also queried whether the 'good conscience' is already the possession of him who requests or whether it is the object of the request. Some translate: The inquiry of a good conscience after God; some, the question directed to God for a good conscience; some, the asking of a good conscience, meaning, the asking in which we address God with a good conscience, our sins being forgiven and renounced; some, the stipulation (promise) toward God of a good conscience. It is clear that with such variety of translation, positiveness relative to the meaning would be unseemly. On the whole, inquiry or requirement is perhaps the best rendering: Baptism, is the requirement of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is something which a conscience, made sensitive and pure relative to the will of God requires, or, something concerning which it makes inquiry.

A good conscience is a conscience sprinkled with the blood of Christ and also purified by the Spirit. (Heb. 9:14; 10:2, 22.) It is such a conscience which makes request. It became such before baptism, which implies that the subject had already been regenerated.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through is here better than by. Connect with saves and notice its relation to quickened in spirit, (vcr. 18.) It gives the means by which baptism is made symbolically so efficacious. See l:3. There seems to be a silent reference to Christ's death. All turns on the question whether Christ rose from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:14-17.)

Before leaving this part of the chapter, a brief quotation from Dean Stanley's " Christian Institution " (Chiip. I., "Baptism"), may not be amiss:" Baptism was not only a bath, but a plunge — an entire submersion in the deep water, a leap as into the rolling sea or the rushing river, where, for the moment, the waves close over the bather's head, and he emerges again as from a momentary grave. . . . This was the part of the ceremony on which the apostles laid so much stress. It seemed to them like a burial of the old former self and the rising again of the new life. . . . The essence of the material form is gone. There is now no disappearance as in a watery grave. . . . It is but the few drops sprinkled." Saddening as is the departure from apostolic practice, by which a "human invention" (Dean Stanley) has been introduced into the Christian world in place of that which God requires, the Dean expresses himself with entirely too great positiveness, since the apostolic act of baptism is retained throughout the large Greek Church, and is practiced by a great company of believers in the United States, by many in England, and many in other countries, and is pretty rapidly working its way into nearly all the evangelical churches of Christendom.

22. The ascension of Christ, hitherto implied (1:21), is now affirmed. Thus, in this unique passage (18-22) has the apostle swept from the spiritual activity of the unincarnated "Word, in the earlier period of human history, through the deep vale of earthly suffering, to the triumphal appearance on the mediatorial throne. The Sufferer is Sufferer no more. The groundwork of appeal to suffering Christians is complete.

Who is gone into heaven, etc. — who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, is more exact, as in the Revised Version. (Rom. 8:34; Mark16:19; Heb. 1:3; Col. 3:1.) To sit on God's right hand is a peculiar honor granted to Jesus Christ. See Ps. 110:1, quoted by our apostle in his discourse on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:34. 35.) "Supreme dominion is most clearly meant"; "his being seated on the mediatorial throne as the result and reward of his sufferings"; "the sacred writers never speak respecting the Logos (Word, John 1:1) considered simply in his divine nature, as being seated at the right hand of God; but only of the Logos incarnate, or the Mediator, as being seated there." (Stuart on " Hebrews," p. 559, 1833.) See Hackett, "Acts" (belonging to the present Series), 2:34, who makes an ampler quotation from Stuart.

Angels and authorities and powers — not any class of human beings, whether on earth or in heaven, but heavenly beings. Of their difference and employments we know little. But see Heb. 1:14. The three classes may be mentioned in the order of their rank; their rank may be the same. We may know more of them hereafter. More study of God and less inquisitiveness concerning angels would have made some people wiser. Paul uses the same or similar words. See Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16. However exalted the beings are, they are made subject — are subjected to Christ. Thus Christ as Mediator is over all. (Heb. 1; Col. 1:18.)

CRITICAL NOTES. — CHAPTER III.

1. ἰδίοις is here, and in most other places, properly translated your own — that is, it expresses more emphasis than the Greek personal pronoun. Denied by Meyer; Fronmuller goes to the other extreme. Lillie takes the medium view, as Ellicott also on the parallel passage (Eph. 5:22), the latter saying, "Your own husbands — those especially yours, whom feeling, therefore, as well as duty, must prompt you to obey. Compare 1 Pet. 3:1. The pronominal adjective ἰδίοις; ('your own') is clearly more than a possessive pronoun (De Wette), or, what is virtually the same, than a formal designation of the husband. . . . It seems rather both here, and in 1 Pet. 3:1, to retain its proper force, and imply, by a latent antithesis, the legitimacy (compare John 4:18), exclusiveness (1 Cor. 7:2), and specialty (1 Cor. 14:35) of the Connection. . . . It may still be remarked that the use of ἰδίοις in later writers is such as to make us cautious how far in all cases in the New Testament (see Matt. 22:5; John 1:42), we press the usual meaning." It is not the classic way of expressing the possessive and reflexive sense, but it is the way of the New Testament writers.

20. The New Testament of the Bible Union, the Common Version, and the Revised Version, transhite the words relative to preaching to the spirits in prison in essentially the same way. They all use a relative pronoun and a verb: Which (who) were disobedient. In the same way are the words translated by perhaps the majority. If this rendering is correct, there is no escape from the conclusion that Christ preached to the sinners of Noah's day two thousand years after they died. If the interpretation, which is now to be controverted and rejected is deemed to be necessary (and that is the plea) as a defense of the character of God, it would seem to be the duty of those who take that view to reconcile the hypothesis with the remarkable fact that God permitted those sinners to suffer two thousand years before using any means whatever to bring them to repentance. That two thousand years was a short period compared with eternity is not at all to the purpose. If giving them "another chance" was necessary as a vindication of divine goodness, it is impossible to see the justice of postponing the offer so long.

An examination of the construction, made by President S. C. Bartlett, appeared in the " New Englander," October, 1872. The subject is discussed in the " Bibliotheca Sacra," by Prof. Cowles, and in the "Presbyterian Quarterly," by Dr. Nathaniel West. Dr. Bartlett's article was examined, and its main position rejected, by Dr. W. W. Patton, in the "New Englander," July, 1882. To this President Bartlett rejoins in the "Bibliotheca Sacra" for April, 1883. It is important to see the points at issue. Unto the spirits which were disobedient (τοῖς πνεύμασιν απειθήσασίν). Here is a noun with the article, followed by an aorist participle without the article. It is admitted that if the participle had the article, it could properly be translated with a relative pronoun and verb. Then antecedency of time would not be expressed, and Christ might have preached long after the disobedience. As the participle has no article, it cannot properly be translated who were disobedient. That the aorist participle without the article should be translated in some other way than by using the relative pronoun and the verb, is clear from the teachings of grammarians and from usage.

I. The grammarians are agreed in recognizing the aorist participle when connected with a verb as expressing what occurred before the action of the main verb, as Winer, Buttmann, Kühner, Goodwin, and many others. The grammarians more or less distinctly recognize also the difference between the aorist participle with the article and the aorist participle without the article. With much unanimity they teach, that with the article the participle is attributive — attributes some quality; and without the articleis predicative — predicates or affirms something; and in the latter case, whatever else may be included, expresses antecedency of time.

II. Usage is very clear in support of these distinctions, and this must be the last ground of appeal. President Bartlett cites chiefly from Matthew. We may notice the usage in the Acts. ''When they had fasted," having fasted (13:3) (aorist). "'When Paul and his companions loosed they came"; or, as in the Revised Version: "Paul and his company set sail and came"; ''Having put to sea they came." (13:13.) (Hackett.) In both cases the aorist was required, because the act preceded the act of the verb. Either of the three ways of rendering in the last instance expresses antecedency. "David, having served, after he had served, fell asleep." (13:36.) "The apostles, having heard, having sent, they ran in." (14:14.) The hearing and the sending took place before the running (aorist therefore). "Whom ye slew and hanged." (5:30.) Overlooking the aorist of the participle, the Common Version makes the Jews first to have slain Jesus, and then to have hanged him on a tree! Whom ye slew, having hanged him, or more freely, by hanging him. Many more cases could be cited from the Acts. This usage pervades the New Testament. President Bartlett has "counted more than a hundred in the first sixteen chapters of Matthew, all denoting preliminary action." Winer (§20,1) cites 1 Pet. 5:10:"Peculiarly instructive," he says, "respecting the use and the omission of the articles with participles": "But the God of all grace, who hath called us, after that ye have suffered awhile." Here are both forms, a participle with the article (attributive), and therefore properly translated by means of a pronoun and a verb (who hath called); and a participle without the article, and therefore correctly translated not with the pronoun but with some sign of time, as when or after. Were the three English Versions, already mentioned, as regardless of Greek usage here as they are in the verses before us, they would say, not after that ye have suffered, but who have suffered. Then we should have, who called us who suffered. But the apostle prays that the readers may be perfected, established, and strengthened, after they have escaped; hence the aorist participle without the article. The usage of the Greek language, then, as appears from these and very many other instances which might be cited, shows that the translation, unto the spirits which were disobedient, cannot be sustained. The Greek should be rendered in such a way as to show that the act expressed by the participle occurred before and at the time of the preaching, thus: He preached unto the spirits when formerly they were disobedient; or, "on their being once upon a time disobedient." The participle tells us when Christ did the preaching — when the sinning was done, not thousands of years afterward. See additional confirmation of this view in a note in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," p. 2786, American edition, by Prof. Thayer.

"Probably," says President Bartlett, "the Vulgate (or, rather, Itala) is largely responsible for the acceptance of the common rendering; and it was facilitated by the doctrine of the descent into hades, which, at a later period, found its way into the 'Apostles' Creed,' and thus into the 'Articles of the Church of England,' the Lutheran 'Formula of Confession,' and even into Calvin's 'Institutes.' The theological bias of Christendom has favored the erroneous rendering." It is deeply to be regretted that the doctrine of Christ's "Descent to Hell" should still be taught as a doctrine of Scripture. See Huther, Fronmüller, with an Excursus by Dr. Mombert in the English translation, Farrar in "Early Days of Christianity," and many others. Farrar, with no examination, in the work cited, of the Greek construction, pronounces the doctrine of Christ's "Descent into Hades" ("Descent into Hell," three pages further on) as "inestimably precious," and complains of "the torturing of the passage and of the human perversity expended upon it." It is in support of the dogma of a second probation — that is, a probation after death — that fresh interest in the passage has recently been awakened in certain quarters in our own country; but, if the Greek bears the interpretation here most heartily accepted, that doctrine finds no countenance in this part of our Epistle. If there are any sinners to whom God grants a second probation, they are not such sinners as the contemporaries of Noah. These were giants in wickedness. They had light enough to make their guilt of awful dye. They were among the last persons to whom Peter would represent God as granting another probation; for mark carefully what he says in his Second Epistle. (2:5); "God spared not the old world, but saved (preserved) Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." See also what Christ himself says in Matt. 24:38, 39.

                                        In religion,
What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text
Hiding the grossness with ornament.

1) See the speech of Queen Katharine to the king, in Henry VIII., act 2, scene 4, in illustration of conscious loyalty to a husband.

2) See The Christian Register, March 19, 1885.

3) For an explanation of the passages supposed to teach baptismal regeneration, the reader is referred to the Appendix to the Commentary on the Gospel of John. — A. H.