Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Peter 2

For this reason—that is, because the Pauline teaching, which brings the Gentiles to the same level as the Jews, is correct. It may be observed that this newly stated principle is called by Peter in the final verse of the preceding chapter a “gospel,” or piece of good news, for all parties.

Laying aside—This implies that before, they had been wrapped up in these sins. There had been malice (i.e., ill will put into action) on the part of these Hebrew Christians against their Gentile brothers, and guile, and hypocrisies, and jealousies, which are all instances of concealed malice. Of these three, the first plots, the second pretends not to plot, and the third rejoices to think of the plot succeeding. The term all evil speakings is literally, all talkings down—this is “malice” in word.

Archbishop Leighton well says, “The Apostles sometimes name some of these evils, and sometimes others of them; but they are inseparable, all one garment, and all comprehended under that one word (Ephesians 4:22), the old man, which the Apostle there exhorts to put off; and here it is pressed as a necessary evidence of this new birth, and furtherance of their spiritual growth, that these base habits be thrown away, ragged, filthy habits, unbecoming the children of God.” All these vices (natural vices to the Jewish mind) are contrasted with the unfeigned brotherly kindness (literally, un-hypocritical) of 1 Peter 1:22.

As newborn babes.—The word “newborn” means, of course, newly or lately born, not born anew, although the birth referred to is the new birth mentioned in 1 Peter 1:23. They are said to be still only newborn because they are still so far from maturity in Christ, as these sins testified. This metaphor is said to be not uncommon among Rabbinical writers to denote proselytes. St. Peter would, therefore, be describing Jews who had newly received the word of God as proselytes of the new Israel. “As” means “in keeping with your character as.” (Compare to 1 Peter 1:14.)

Desire the sincere milk.—The word for “desire” here is a strong one—get an appetite for it. Bengel is perhaps right when he says concerning “newborn babes,” “It is their only occupation, so strong is their desire for it.” St. Peter here again seems to echo a thought from the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews 5:12–14). In both places, Jewish Christians are beginning to rebel against the Gospel teachings, and in both places, they are warned that they have not yet outgrown the need for the very simplest elements of the Gospel. The epithet “sincere” should have been rendered guileless, as it contains a contrast with “guile” in the preceding verse; perhaps the intention of the epithet may be to rebuke the attempt to deal deceitfully with the Old Testament Scriptures, following the example of the Septuagint passage quoted above.

Of the word.—This translation of the original adjective cannot possibly be right. The only other place in the New Testament where it is used, Romans 12:1, will show its meaning here clearly enough. There it is rendered “your reasonable service”—that is, not “the service which may be reasonably expected of you,” but “the ritual worship which is performed by the reason, not by the body.”

So here, “the reasonable guileless milk” will mean “the guileless milk which is taken in, not by the lips, but by the reason.” The metaphor of milk (though used by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 3:2) was not as commonplace then as it is today; and the Apostle wished to soften it a little, and explain it by calling it “mental milk,” just as (so Huther points out) he explained the metaphor in 1 Peter 1:13, by adding “of your mind.” It is needless to add that this “mental milk” would, in fact, be “the milk of the word,” and that the Apostle is urging his readers to cling with ardent attachment to the evangelical religion taught them by the Pauline party.

That you may grow thereby.—All the best manuscripts and versions add “unto salvation,” which may confidently be adopted into the text. “Grow” is, of course, said in reference to the still infant state of the converts, and the maturity set before them (children long to be grown up) is spoken of as “salvation.” When we compare this with 1 Peter 1:18, we see that the perfect emancipation from Jewish superstitions is a main part of the “salvation” to which they are to grow up.

If indeed you have tasted.—The phrase “if indeed,” as elsewhere (2 Thessalonians 1:6, Note), constitutes a strong appeal to the readers to affirm that this was so. St. Peter confidently believes that it is so.

The sense should rather be you tasted, looking back to a definite past time, probably that of the first conversion, when the taste of spiritual things is most delicious. How sad to be past the relish for evangelical truth!

The quotation, or rather adaptation, from Psalm 34:8 is undoubtedly suggested by the metaphor of “milk.” A curious little point about our translation here is that the word “gracious” has been adopted to suit the Prayer Book version of the Psalm. It is hardly suitable to the Greek word, which, originally signifying “usable” or “serviceable,” came to be used for anything mild and pleasant, such as the mellowness of old wine (Luke 5:39).

Here, therefore, the word seems to be particularly used with reference to the sense of taste. A more important point, doctrinally, is that St. Peter is here applying to Jesus Christ (as the next verse shows) a passage that we might not otherwise have thought of applying to Him in particular. It gives quite a new understanding to Psalm 34 when we see that in St. Peter’s view the Psalmist was speaking prophetically of our Lord. We will find him quoting the same Psalm in the same sense again in 1 Peter 3:10.

To whom coming. The word used is the one that gives rise to the name of a “proselyte.” (Compare to Note on 1 Peter 2:2.) It is also strangely used in a similar sense in 1 Timothy 6:3: “Joining Him therefore as proselytes.”

It is not that St. Peter has any notion of a mere external joining. The Apostolic writers do not contemplate the possibility of a difference between the visible and invisible Church. From this point, the regeneration idea, which characterized the whole of the previous part of the Epistle, suddenly disappears. The thought is no longer that of a spiritual seed instead of a carnal seed, but of a spiritual Temple instead of the stone temple at Jerusalem.

A living stone. The very structure and order of the sentence puts Jesus Christ first: foundation first, building afterwards. It is a pity to insert “as unto” with our version; it detracts from the striking, attracting effect of the sudden metaphor. St. Peter is fond of explaining his metaphors—e.g., “inheritance . . . in heaven,” “tested genuineness . . . more precious than of gold,” “gird up . . . loins of your minds”—so here, “living stone.”

It is more than doubtful whether St. Peter, in what follows, had in mind the giving of his own surname. The word he uses here is neither petros nor petra, but lithos; and indeed, the whole idea of the relative position of the Church to the petra and to the lithos is quite different. Neither petros nor petra could possibly be used for the squared, wrought stone, but represent the native, rocky, unhewn substratum—part or whole—which pre-exists before any building is begun, even before the “chief corner-stone” would be placed. (Compare to Matthew 7:24.)

Here, therefore, the idea is quite different: the substratum is not thought of at all, and Jesus Christ is a carefully selected and hewn stone (lithos), specially laid as the first act in the work of building. The only thing, therefore, which is, in fact, common to the two passages is the simple thought of the Christian Church being like a building.

Our present verse gives us no direct help towards finding how St. Peter understood the famous name-passage. All we can say for certain is that he did not interpret it to mean that an official connection with his own person was the one essential of the true Church. Otherwise, when again using the metaphor of building the Church (though in a different connection), he could hardly have omitted all mention of himself.

He is, apparently, thinking only of the Messianic interpretation of Old Testament sayings as expounded by our Lord—the unsophisticated milk of the word (1 Peter 2:2).

Disallowed indeed of men. This is a direct reference to the passage (Psalms 118:22), which is quoted below in 1 Peter 2:7. It says “men” here, rather than “builders,” in order to contrast them more forcibly with God. The word “disallowed,” or “rejected,” implies a form of trial or probation that comes to an unsatisfactory conclusion. The human builders examine the stone, inspect all its qualifications, and find it unsuited to the edifice which they have in hand, refusing it not only the place of honour but any place at all in their architecture. St. Peter wishes to bring out strongly the absolute opposition between God and the Jews.

But chosen of God, and precious. Literally, but with God elect, honoured. This is a direct allusion to the passage Isaiah 28:16, which is quoted in 1 Peter 2:6.

While the human builders saw the qualities of the stone and rejected it because it did not fit in with their ideal, on the other hand, “with God”—i.e., in God’s counsel and plan—it was “elect.” I.e., choice had been laid upon it; it had been selected for God’s building purposes.

And it was not only “elect” (for this might be equally said of all the “living stones”; see 1 Peter 1:2, where the word has precisely the same meaning), but also “honoured.” This is further explained to mean singled out for the place of honour, i.e., for that of corner-stone. The designation of this stone as “elect” brings out again what we have noted in 1 Peter 1:11 and 1 Peter 1:20, namely, the eternal predestination of Jesus to the Messiahship.

You also, as lively stones, are built up.—This is true enough: they were in the process of being built up. However, it suits the exhortatory character of the whole Epistle better to take it (one interpretation is as grammatical as the other) in the imperative sense: Be you also as living stones built up. The rendering “lively,” instead of “living,” as in 1 Peter 2:4, is arbitrary, as the Greek is precisely the same. The intention is to show the complete conformation of believers to Him who is the type and model for humanity. “Built up,” too, only expresses a part of the Greek word, which implies “built up upon Him.”

A spiritual house.—The epithet is supplied, just as in “living stone,” to make it abundantly clear that the language is figurative. In the first three verses of the chapter, these Hebrew Christians were treated individually, as so many babes, to grow up into an ideal freedom of soul. Here they are treated collectively (of course, along with the Gentile Christians), as so many stones, incomplete and meaningless in themselves, by arrangement and cemented union to rise into an ideal house of God.

St. Peter does not distinctly say that the “house” is a temple (for the word “spiritual” is only the opposite of “material”), but the context makes it plain that this is the case. The temple is, however, regarded not in its capacity as a place for worship so much as a place for Divine indwelling. “The spiritual house,” says Leighton truly, “is the palace of the Great King. The Hebrew word for palace and temple is one.”

The reason for introducing this figure seems to be to console the Hebrews for their vanishing privileges in the temple at Jerusalem. They are being taught to recognize that they themselves, in their union with one another and with Jesus Christ, are the true abode of the Most High. The Christian substitution of something else instead of the Jerusalem Temple was one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the Hebrews from the very first (John 2:21; Acts 7:48; Acts 21:28; compare also to Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 9:11).

All history is the process of building up a “spiritual palace” out of a regenerate humanity, so that, in the end, the Father Himself may occupy it. This follows from the fact that the Incarnate Son is described as a part of the Temple.

Even through the Incarnation—at least so far as it has yet taken effect—creation has not become as completely pervaded and filled with the Deity as it is destined to be when the “palace” is finished (See 1 Corinthians 15:28). The idea of the Eternal Son occupying such a relation to the Father on one hand, and to humanity and creation on the other, is really the same as when He is called (by an entirely different metaphor) the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

An holy priesthood.—“Being living stones,” says Bengel, “they can be priests as well.” They not only compose the Temple, but minister in it. By becoming Christians, they are cut off from neither Temple nor hierarchy, nor sacrifice; all are at hand, and they themselves are all. The old priesthood, like the old Temple, has “had its day, and ceased to be.”

Note, though, that the Apostle is not dwelling on the individual priesthood of each (though that is involved), but on the hierarchical order of the whole company of Christians: they are an organized body or college of priests, a new seed of Aaron or Levi .

The very word implies that all Christians do not have an equal degree of priesthood. And this new priesthood, like the old, is no profane, intruding priesthood like that of Korah (Jude 1:11), but “holy”—i.e., consecrated, validly admitted to its work.

The way this new metaphor is suddenly introduced—“to whom coming, be built up upon Him . . . to be an holy priesthood”—implies that Jesus Christ is the High Priest just as much as it implies His being Corner Stone. The Incarnate Son heads the adoration offered to the Father by creation, just as He binds creation into a palace for the Father’s indwelling.

To offer up spiritual sacrifices.—The new priesthood is not merely nominal; it is no sinecure. No one is a priest who does not offer sacrifices (Hebrews 8:3). But the sacrifices of the new hierarchy are “spiritual”—i.e., not material, not sacrifices of bulls and goats and lambs. What, then, do the sacrifices consist of? If our priesthood is modeled on that of Jesus Christ, as is here implied, it consists mainly (Calvin points this out) of the sacrifice of self, of the will; then, in a minor degree, of words and acts of worship, thanks and praise .

But to constitute a true priesthood and true sacrifices after the model of Jesus Christ, these sacrifices are offered up on behalf of others (See Hebrews 5:1, and 1 John 3:16). The primary understanding of the priesthood of all believers is not that a mediatorial system is abolished, but that the mediatorial system is extended: whereas, before, only Aaron’s sons were recognized as mediators and intercessors, now all Israel, all the spiritual Israel, all people everywhere are called to be mediators and intercessors between each other and God.

By (or, through) Jesus Christ.—The name again, not the title only. We all help one another to present one another’s prayers and praises, which pass through the lips of many priests; but for them to be acceptable, they must be presented finally through the lips of the Great High Priest. He, in His perfect sympathy with all people, must make the sacrifice His own. We must unite our sacrifices with His—the Advocate with the Father, the Propitiation for our sins—or our sacrifice will be as irregular and offensive as if some Canaanite had taken it upon himself to intrude into the Holy of Holies on Atonement Day (See Hebrews 10:19-25, especially 1 Peter 2:21).