Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Peter 1:11

"searching what [time] or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them." — 1 Peter 1:11 (ASV)

Searching. This further explains the “inquired and searched” mentioned above; it specifies the object of the inquiry. They knew that they spoke “concerning a salvation,” but they did not know the details. The present passage is perhaps the most striking in the whole New Testament regarding the doctrine of prophetic inspiration. Assuming that the prophets did not speak simply from their own human calculation, but somehow under the influence of the Divine Spirit, we are brought to face the question of how far their utterances were their own, and how far they were suggested to them from above.

The doctrine of Montanism, which has not entirely died out of the Church even now, asserts that from first to last prophecy is superhuman. It claims that every word and letter is forced upon the person by a power not their own, which leaves them no choice. God, and God alone, is responsible for every syllable. The human will and intelligence need not even concur in the message they deliver, nor even be conscious that they are delivering it. Thus Montanus makes God say through him: “Look, man is like a lyre, and I am like the one who strikes the chords: the man is unconscious, and I alone am awake.”

On the other hand, some of the early opponents of Montanism went so far as to say that the inspired writers had a clear and immediate perception, a complete insight into the mysteries they foretold—that Isaiah, for instance, saw Mary and Jesus in his prophecy of Immanuel as plainly as we do.

Our present verses show a doctrine between the two. The prophets found themselves impelled to say words they were conscious of choosing and using, but which they felt had a deeper meaning than they themselves were conscious of intending. It is clear to them (1 Peter 1:12) that what they meant primarily as applying to present circumstances was, in reality, being overruled by the Spirit to apply more fully to the future. But what that future was, they struggled, and partly in vain, to know. We may apply to them what Keble says of the Greek poets:

“As little children lisp, and tell of Heaven,
So thoughts beyond their thoughts to those high bards were given.”

What, or what manner of time. If this is right, it must mean, “what exact or approximate date.” But the simplest translation would be, to whom, or what period, the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing. This would give new significance to the sentence. They were aware that they were speaking of a Messiah; but who the person should be who would hold that office, or at what period of their history he would appear, this was what they longed to know. They foresaw a Christ, but they could not foresee Jesus; they could give to their Christ no definite position in future history. (Luke 3:15; Luke 23:35; John 3:28; John 7:26; John 7:41; Acts 2:36, and often.)

The Spirit of Christ which was in them. They are conscious of a power within them that is not themselves, “moving” them. And this power is described as “the Spirit of Christ.” Now, observe that a change has come over Saint Peter’s way of speaking. Previously, he has always said, “Jesus Christ,” his object being to keep constantly before the eyes of these Hebrews the truth which he was the first person to enunciate, namely, “Thou art the Christ” (Matthew 16:16), that Jesus was the person who fulfilled all that was expected of the Messiah. “Christ” is not once used by Saint Peter (as it is often by Saint Paul) as a proper name: it always marks the office, not the person.

Therefore we may not prove by this expression two doctrines, however true they may be in themselves, which are commonly sought to be supported by it: namely, the preexistence of our Lord, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from Him as well as from the Father. In spite of a well-quoted passage in Barnabas (1 Peter 5:0), “The prophets had the gift from Him, and prophesied of Him,” it cannot here mean, “the Holy Spirit given them by our Lord Himself.”

Besides, it is theologically incorrect to say that Christ as the Anointed had any pre-existence, except as an indefinite hope in the minds of the Hebrews. The Son, the unincarnate Word, pre-existed, but it is Apollinarianism to say that Jesus had any existence before the Incarnation—and even more so Christ, since it may be doubted whether the Incarnate Word became “Christ” until His baptism. That, at least, appears to be Saint Peter’s doctrine (Acts 10:38).

“The Spirit of Messiah,” then, in any case when applied to the ages before Christ came, must have a different meaning. It is probably not exactly “the Spirit that was to anoint and be in the Messiah,” but rather, “the Messiah-spirit” or “the Messianic spirit.” The prophets wondered who the person was, and where he would live, to whom this Messianic inspiration they felt within was pointing. Saint Peter himself, we repeat, was the first person who fully knew the answer.

When it testified beforehand. This is a much more solemn word in the original than it looks in English, and it is used by no other writer than Saint Peter. It does not mean simply, “when it bore witness beforehand”; but “testifying” means an appeal to Heaven to mark and record the words so spoken: “when with a solemn appeal it announced beforehand.” Was he not thinking of the awe-inspiring appeal in Daniel 12:7?

The sufferings of Christ. This inadequately conveys the fullness of the Greek, which reads, the sufferings for Christ (just as we had before “the grace for you”), that is, “these sufferings in reserve for Messiah.” The Old Testament passages that may be supposed to be chiefly indicated are Isaiah 53:0 and (still more)Daniel 9:24–26.

If it is asked how Saint Peter knew that the prophets had these longings and doubts, we answer that it was not only a probable guess, but the result of a study of Daniel, who records again and again the prophetic agony of his search into the future.

Beware of treating the title “Christ” as a proper name. Eight out of the ten times that Saint Peter uses the word by itself, that is, without “Jesus” or “the Lord,” it is in direct connection with suffering (here, and in 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 4:1; 1 Peter 4:13–14; 1 Peter 5:1).

Conversely, he never speaks of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. That is to say, he loves to dwell upon the Passion of our Lord, not in its personal but its official aspect.

The striking point is that the Messiah should have suffered in this way. It was especially necessary to show this in any effort to retain the faith of the Hebrews. (Compare to Luke 24:26-46 (Peter present); Acts 3:18 (Peter speaking); Acts 17:3 (to Hebrews); Acts 26:23).

And we can see a reason for this insistence in Saint Peter’s history. The very same day, apparently, when he had announced his belief that Jesus was the Messiah, he rebuked Him for speaking of sufferings and shame. He never could forget the reprimand, like a sword-cut, which he received. The entire Epistle may be said to be an expansion of what Jesus said in answer (Matthew 16:23–27).

Some commentators include in this phrase “the sufferings in reserve for Messiah” the thought of the sufferings of the Church as well; but this seems far-fetched, especially when we see the true meaning of the word “Christ.”

Finally, we may add that some would join the words for “signify” and “testifying beforehand” very closely together. This would give us the following sense: “examining, in reserve for whom, or for what period, the Spirit, with its solemn appeal beforehand, was pointing out these sufferings in reserve for Messiah.” This is possible, and keeps the same meaning, but it unnecessarily complicates the sentence.

And the glory that should follow. Literally, and the glories after them. The plural “glories” corresponds to the plural “sufferings”—the one as multiform as the other; resurrection, ascension, reassumption of the divine glory (John 17:5), triumphs of Church history, and the restitution of all things. The sufferings and subsequent glories of the Christ, of course, together form the whole of the gospel.