Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Peter 2:5

"ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." — 1 Peter 2:5 (ASV)

Ye also, as lively stones. Greek: "living stones." The word should have been rendered that way. The word lively with us now has a different meaning from "living," and denotes active, quick, sprightly. The Greek word is the same as that used in the previous verse and rendered "living."

The meaning is that the materials of which the temple referred to here were composed were living materials throughout. The foundation is a living foundation, and all the superstructure is composed of living materials. The purpose of the apostle here is to compare the church to a beautiful temple—such as the temple in Jerusalem—and to show that it is complete in all its parts, as that was.

It has within itself what corresponds with everything that was valuable in that temple. It is a beautiful structure like that; and as in that temple there was a priesthood and real and acceptable sacrifices were offered, so it is in the Christian church. The Jews prided themselves greatly on their temple.

It was a most costly and splendid edifice. It was the place where God was worshipped and where He was supposed to dwell. It had an imposing service, and acceptable worship was rendered there.

As a new dispensation was introduced, the Christian system tended to draw worshippers away from that temple. It taught them that God could be worshipped as acceptably elsewhere as at Jerusalem (John 4:21–23). Christianity did not inculcate the necessity of building splendid temples for the worship of God. Indeed, the temple at Jerusalem was about to be destroyed forever.

Therefore, it was important to show that the Christian church possessed all that was truly beautiful and valuable in the temple at Jerusalem. It needed to be shown that the church had what corresponded to the most precious aspects of the temple, and that a most magnificent and beautiful temple still existed on the earth.

Hence, the sacred writers strive to show that everything that had made the temple at Jerusalem so glorious was found in the church. They also aimed to show that the great design contemplated by the erection of that splendid edifice—namely, the maintenance of the worship of God—was now accomplished in a more glorious manner than even in the services of that house.

For there was a temple, made up of living materials, which was still the peculiar dwelling-place of God on the earth. In that temple there was a holy priesthood—for every Christian was a priest. In that temple there were sacrifices offered, as acceptable to God as in the former—for they were spiritual sacrifices, offered continually.

These thoughts were often dwelt upon by the apostle Paul and are here illustrated by Peter, evidently with the same design: to impart consolation to those who had never been permitted to worship at the temple in Jerusalem, and to comfort those Jews, now converted to Christianity, who saw that that splendid and glorious edifice was about to be destroyed.

The peculiar abode of God on the earth was now removed from that temple to the Christian church. The first aspect in which this is illustrated here is that the temple of God was made up of 'living stones'; that is, the materials were not inanimate stones but endowed with life, and so much more valuable than those employed in the temple at Jerusalem, as the soul is more precious than any materials of stone. There were living beings who composed that temple, constituting a more beautiful structure and a more appropriate dwelling-place for God than any edifice could be made of stone, however costly or valuable.

A spiritual house.

A spiritual temple, not made of perishable materials like that at Jerusalem, not composed of matter as that was, but made up of redeemed souls—a temple more appropriate to be the residence of One who is a pure Spirit. (See Barnes on Ephesians 2:19 and following, and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20).

An holy priesthood. In the temple at Jerusalem, the priesthood appointed to minister there and to offer sacrifices was an essential part of the arrangement. It was important to show that this was not overlooked in the spiritual temple that God was raising.

Accordingly, the apostle says that this was amply provided for, by constituting the whole body of Christians to be in fact a priesthood. Every one is engaged in offering sacrifice to God. The business is not entrusted to a particular class to be known as priests; there is not a particular portion to whom the name is to be peculiarly given; but every Christian is in fact a priest and is engaged in offering an acceptable sacrifice to God. (See Romans 1:6: And hath made us kings and priests unto God.)

The Great High Priest in this service is the Lord Jesus Christ (see the Epistle to the Hebrews, where this is discussed throughout); but besides Him, there is no one who sustains this office, except as it is borne by all Christian members.

There are ministers, elders, pastors, evangelists in the church; but there is no one who is a priest, except in the general sense that all are priests—for the great sacrifice has been offered, and there is no expiation now to be made.

The name priest, therefore, should never be conferred on a minister of the gospel. It is never so given in the New Testament, and there was a reason why it should not be.

The proper idea of a priest is one who offers sacrifice; but the ministers of the New Testament have no sacrifices to offer—the one great and perfect oblation for the sins of the world having been made by the Redeemer on the cross.

To Him, and Him alone, under the New Testament dispensation, should the name priest be given, as it is uniformly in the New Testament, except in the general sense in which it is given to all Christians.

In the Roman Catholic communion, it is consistent to give the name priest to a minister of the gospel, but it is wrong to do it. It is consistent because they claim that a true sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is offered in the mass.

It is wrong because that doctrine is wholly contrary to the New Testament. It is derogatory to the one perfect oblation which has been once made for the sins of the world, and it confers on a class of men a degree of importance and power to which they have no claim and which is so liable to abuse.

But in a Protestant church, it is neither consistent nor right to give the name to a minister of religion. The only sense in which the term can now be used in the Christian church is a sense in which it is applicable to all Christians alike—that they "offer the sacrifice of prayer and praise."

To offer up spiritual sacrifices. Not bloody offerings, the blood of lambs and bullocks, but those which are the offerings of the heart—the sacrifices of prayer and praise. As there is a priest, there is also involved the notion of a sacrifice; but that which is offered is such as all Christians offer to God, proceeding from the heart, breathed forth from the lips, and in a holy life. It is called sacrifice, not because it makes an expiation for sin, but because it is of the nature of worship. (See Barnes on Hebrews 13:15; Hebrews 10:14).

Acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (See Barnes on Romans 12:1).

Through the merits of the great sacrifice made by the Redeemer on the cross. Our prayers and praises are in themselves so imperfect, and proceed from such polluted lips and hearts, that they can be acceptable only through Him as our intercessor before the throne of God. (See Barnes on Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 10:19 and following).