Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Peter 1

Peter, an apostle.—The authoritative tone of this Epistle is shown at the outset. The writer assumes his full titles; not (as in the Second Epistle) his merely human name of Simeon, nor his humble capacity of “servant,” but the Rock-name which Christ had given him, and the official dignity of an “Apostle of Jesus Christ”—that is, one charged with full delegated authority from Christ (John 17:18; John 20:21)—a vicar of Christ to the Church, and not only a representative of the Church toward God.

Observe also that while St. Paul constantly adds “by the will of God,” or some similar phrase, by way of justifying his assumption of the title, St. Peter has no need to do more than mention it; his claim was never questioned. Again, though St. Silas and St. Mark are with him, they are not associated in the initial greeting, as they would probably have been by St. Paul (for example, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1).

“Apostle” though Silas was (see 1 Thessalonians 2:6), and “faithful brother” to the recipients of the Letter (1 Peter 5:12), his support would have added little weight to the utterances of the Rock-Apostle. And yet, with all this quiet assumption of dignity, St. Peter knows no higher title to bestow on himself than that which he held in common with the other eleven—“an Apostle;” not “the Apostle,” nor “bishop of bishops,” nor (which means the same thing) “servant of servants.”

To the strangers scattered throughout . . .—Literally, to the elect, sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus. The persons for whom the Letter is destined are very clearly specified. In John 7:35 we have “the dispersion of the Greeks,” where it clearly means “those of the dispersed Jews who live among the Greeks,” so here “the dispersion of Pontus,” or “the Pontine dispersion,” will mean “those of the dispersed Jews who live in Pontus.” In James 1:1 the same word is used, and, in fact, it seems to have been the recognised name for all Jews who did not live in Palestine.

The word rendered as “sojourners” means people who are resident for a time among strangers. For instance, it might describe English people who have taken houses in Paris without becoming naturalised. And, as it is here in such close connection with geographical words, it seems forced to interpret it metaphorically (as in 1 Peter 2:11).

Palestine, not Heaven, is the home tacitly contrasted; Pontus, not earth, is the place of sojourn. This, then, makes it clear that the Apostle of the Circumcision is writing to those of the Circumcision. The addition of the words “the blood of Jesus Christ” is the only thing that shows they are Christian Jews.

Pontus, Galatia . . .—The provinces which between them make up the whole, or nearly so, of what we call Asia Minor, are named in no order that can be assigned a meaning, or that indicates the quarter from which the Letter was written. Possibly the circumstances that called for the writing of the Epistle may have been most striking in Pontus. Notice that, at any rate, the churches of Galatia and Asia owed their origin to St. Paul.

Of the founding of the rest we know nothing; perhaps they were founded by St. Silas. However, Jewish settlers from Cappadocia and Pontus had heard St. Peter’s first sermon on the Church’s birthday (Acts 2:9). A few years later, Pliny finds the whole upper shore of Asia Minor overrun and swallowed up by Christians.

Elect.—A true chosen people. This word distinguishes them from the other Jewish settlers in those regions. It is an evasion of the difficulty to say that they were elect only in the mass, as a body.

The election was individual and personal. God selected these particular Hebrews out of the whole number and made them Christians; but what He elected them to is abundantly shown in the following words. Despite their election, they are not certain of salvation, and their title of “elect” implies no more than the fact that God has placed them into the visible Church. (See Notes on 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and 2 Peter 1:10.)

According to the foreknowledge of God.—The origin of this election, its aim, and the means employed are now addressed, and connected with the three Divine Persons respectively.

1. The origin. Their election is not accidental, nor something done on the spur of the moment, an afterthought of God, but “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”—that is, in execution of His pre-arranged scheme. The word implies not simply a perception of the future, but the forming of a decision. (Compare the same word in 1 Peter 1:20, and in Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2.) Though the thought is also common to St. Paul, St. Peter was familiar with it before St. Paul’s conversion. (See Acts 2:23.)
2. The means. The pre-arranged scheme of God embraced not only the choice of these particular persons for a blessing, but also the way in which the choice was to work itself out—“in a course of sanctification by the Spirit.” The words and the thought are identical with those of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but they probably differ in exact meaning in that there “the Spirit” refers to the spirit sanctified, while here it is the Spirit who sanctifies. (Compare also 1 Thessalonians 4:7.) We see that even the blessing of “obedience and sprinkling”—much more that of glory hereafter—is unattainable except through the path of sanctification.
3. The end. That to which God had elected them was not, in the first instance, the participation in the joys of the post-resurrection life, but the benefits of redemption in this life. While other “sojourners of the Pontine dispersion” were allowed to remain in the disobedience that characterized the Jews, trusting to the efficacy of membership in the covenant people, these individuals had, in accordance with God’s plan, been admitted to “obedience”—that is, the reception of the gospel facts and precepts (see Note on 2 Thessalonians 1:8)—and to the—

Sprinkling of the blood.—This important phrase must be compared with Hebrews 9:19 and Hebrews 12:24, passages perhaps suggested by it, unless, indeed, the idea had already become common property within the Church. There is nothing in St. Paul’s writings comparable to it.

Since the people themselves are “sprinkled,” and not their houses, the reference cannot be to the Paschal sprinkling (Exodus 12:22). Instead, as in Hebrews, it refers to the scene under Mount Sinai in Exodus 24:8, where, once for all, the old covenant was inaugurated by the sprinkling of the people. It was to this same scene that our Lord referred when He said of the Eucharistic cup, “This is My blood of the new covenant.”

Thus, “elect unto the sprinkling of the blood” seems to mean “selected for admission into the new covenant inaugurated by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood.”

However, whereas the old covenant was inaugurated by sprinkling the people collectively and once for all, the new covenant is inaugurated repeatedly by individual application. Therefore, the Eucharistic cup was not (according to the Quaker theory) to be drunk only once by the Apostles then present as representatives of the entire subsequent Church.

Neither does this inauguration by sprinkling occur only once in an individual’s lifetime; rather, as often as the covenant is broken by sin, the individual comes to renew it again. Doubtless, the participation in Holy Communion is the act of “sprinkling” St. Peter has in mind here, as it is the one act that signifies membership in the new covenant people, the new Israel.

Of course, the application of blood in both covenants rests on the concept of a death-forfeit being remitted.

Of Jesus Christ.—He does not say “of the new testament,” but substitutes the name of the Victim in whose blood the covenant is inaugurated—Jesus. And who is this Jesus? The Christ! The Messiah! It is as though Israel at Sinai had been sprinkled with the blood of Moses. What a contrast between the other Jews of Pontus, with their Messianic expectations, and these “elect sojourners” sprinkled with Messiah’s blood!

Be multiplied.—This occurs again only in 2 Peter 1:2 and Jude 1:2. (Compare Daniel 4:1.) It contains an exhortation to progress. There are some good things of which we cannot have too much.

Blessed.—A form consecrated to God alone (for example, Mark 14:61; Romans 9:5; 2 Corinthians 11:31), a completely different word from the “blessed,” or happy, of the Beatitudes; and differing from the “blessed” of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:28; Luke 1:42) in that this form implies that blessing is always due on account of something inherent in the person, while that only implies that a blessing has been received. The idea of blessing God (literally, speaking Him well,Psalms 100:3) is, of course, entirely Hebrew.

Of our Lord Jesus Christ.—No longer only “the Lord God of Israel,” as, for example, 1 Chronicles 29:10; 2 Chronicles 6:4; Luke 1:68; He is now in a nearer, tenderer relation to these members of the new covenant. He is the Father of the Messiah, and yet the God whom Jesus adores (John 20:17).

Which according to His abundant mercy.—This is the reason for which God deserves blessing from us. The word “according” never means exactly the same as “in” or “by”; here it rather shows that the particular instance was in keeping with what might have been expected, had we but known, from the “much pity” which God must have felt for creatures so forlorn. Our regeneration was no sudden capricious favour.

Has begotten us again.—Rather, begat us again—the historical moment being here given as that of the resurrection of Christ. This great word, which is St. Peter’s own, being only found again in 1 Peter 1:20, evidently contains the whole meaning of the being “born from above” or “begotten all over again” of John 3:3, of the “fresh creation” of 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15, of the “regeneration” of Titus 3:5, of the “begotten of God” in St. John’s Epistle, and (to a certain extent) of the “brought He us forth” of James 1:18. It seems to indicate that, if it takes effect, it makes a complete change not only in the condition and prospects of the man, but in the man himself: such a change, for example, as would pass over an animal if it were suddenly to receive the powers of a human being.

It is no metaphor when the change from the natural man to a man united with the Incarnate God is described as an act of creation parallel only to those of the creation of matter and force (Genesis 1:1–2), the creation of life (Genesis 1:21), and the creation of humanity (Genesis 1:27), for, according to St. Peter’s teaching, we are thus actually made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

To a lively hope.—Or, into a living hope. Before this regeneration there was nothing to look forward to—at best a kind of dead-alive surmise that there might be something beyond the weary world. But as the animal we have imagined would find himself suddenly new-begotten into a state in which he was conscious of himself and of God, so we found ourselves new-begotten into a state of definite and most energetic expectation of whole sæcula sæculorum—worlds beyond worlds—of bliss before us.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ.—Mystically speaking, the moment of our emergence into this new glow of expectation was that when the Messiah Jesus, who had been cut off, emerged from among the dead. Then we saw it all! St. Peter, indeed, is speaking, so far as himself was concerned, not mystically, but literally, as his history before and after the Resurrection shows. To him, and to the other Apostles, the Resurrection was a regeneration, and they became new beings. To subsequent Christians precisely the same effect takes place when (suddenly or gradually) the fact of the Resurrection is acknowledged and its significance realised. (See what St. Paul says, Philippians 3:10.)

Yet we must not confine the meaning of the words to the effects of this conscious realisation. St. Peter is viewing the transaction theologically, that is, from God’s point of view, not phenomenally, from man’s. He speaks of the begetting, not of the being born—of the Resurrection itself, not of the preaching of the Resurrection. To God, with whom, according to St. Peter, time does not exist (2 Peter 3:8), there is no interval between His begetting of Christ again from the dead (Acts 13:33; Revelation 1:5), and His begetting of us again thereby. In the mystery of our union with the Incarnate Word, His historical resurrection did, through baptism, in some ineffable manner, infuse into us the grace which makes new creatures of us. Archbishop Leighton says well, “Not only is it (the Resurrection) the exemplar, but the efficient cause of our new birth.” (See below, 1 Peter 3:21, and Romans 6:4.)

On verses 3-12:

The Apostle thanks God for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That fact is a regeneration of us, and a pledge of future glory, in view of which such afflictions as beset the Asiatic Hebrews were seen to serve a purpose, and that purpose the very “salvation” which had formed the theme of the Old Testament.

To an inheritance.—This is structurally parallel to and explanatory of the clause into a living hope. We are, as the saying is, born to an estate. This notion of an “inheritance,” or property that we have come to possess, is particularly Hebrew, occurring very frequently in the Old Testament. The Pontine dispersion had lost their “inheritance” in Palestine, but there is a better one in store for them.

Incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away—Exuberant description of the excellencies of the new Canaan. The first epithet contrasts its imperishable nature (2 Timothy 1:10) with the fleeting tenure of the earthly Canaan. The second speaks of its freedom from pollutions such as those that desecrated the first “Holy Land.” Perhaps it may especially mean that the new Holy Land will never be profaned by Gentile incursions and tyrannies. The third, and most poetical of all (which is otherwise only found in Wisdom 6:12), conveys the notion of the unchanging beauty of that land—no winter in the inheritance to which the Resurrection brings us (Song of Solomon 2:11).

Reserved—The perfect tense, which has been reserved for you, i.e., either in the temporal sense—“kept all this time until you came,” or “with you in mind.” (Compare Hebrews 11:40.) He now adds explicitly that it is no earthly, but a heavenly possession.

Who are kept.—This explains the word “you:” “those, I mean, who are under the guardianship of God’s power.” Bengel says, “As the inheritance has been preserved, so are the heirs guarded; neither will it fail them, nor they it.”

Through faith.—The Apostle is fearful for fear that the last words should give a false assurance. God can guard none of us, in spite of His “power,” unless there is a corresponding exertion on our part—which is here called “faith”—combining the notions of staunch fidelity and of trustfulness in spite of appearances. It is through such trustful fidelity that we are guarded.

Unto salvation.—These words “unto” arise like point beyond point in the endless vista. “Begotten unto an inheritance, which has been reserved unto you, who are kept safe unto a deliverance.” This Salvation, spoken of again in 1 Peter 1:9, must not be taken in the simplistic sense of salvation from damnation. Indeed, the thought of the perdition of the lost does not enter at all into the passage. The salvation, or deliverance, is primarily a deliverance from all the trials and persecutions, struggles, and temptations of this life—an emergence into the state of peace and rest, as we can see from the verses that follow.

Ready to be revealed in the last time.—How such an assurance helps to form the very “faith” through which the treasure is secured! That perfect state of peace, that heavenly inheritance, is not something to be prepared in the future, but there it is. If only our eyes were opened, we should already see it. It is all ready, only waiting for the great moment. The tense of the word “revealed” implies the suddenness of the unveiling. It will be only the work of an instant to put aside the curtain and show the inheritance which has been kept hidden so long behind it.

This, however, will not take place until the exact period (so the word for “time” suggests; compare to 2 Thessalonians 2:6), and that period will be the last of the world’s history. For such teaching the Hebrews would be well prepared by the Old Testament—for instance, compare to Daniel 12:9; Daniel 12:13—and it was the earliest kind of teaching selected for converts out of the “oracles of God” (Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:2).