{"commentary":{"id":"adam-clarke","name":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"92e28c9363c876d215e296f2fe04abb3ab7e34a2aacebdf06bd62ae79c6e3dba","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":57,"totalNumberOfChapters":854,"totalNumberOfVerses":13318,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"1PE","commentaryId":"adam-clarke","name":"1 Peter","commonName":"1 Peter","introduction":"Preface to the First and Second Epistles of Peter Dr. Lardner and Professor Michaelis have done much to remove several difficulties connected with the person of St. Peter, the people to whom he wrote, the places of their dispersion, and the time of writing. I shall extract what makes more immediately for my purpose. \"The land of Palestine, says Cave, at and before the coming of our blessed Savior, was distinguished into three several provinces, Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. In the upper, called also Galilee of the Gentiles, within the division belonging to the tribe of Naphtali, stood Bethsaida, formerly an obscure and inconsiderable village, till lately re-edified and enlarged by Philip the Tetrarch; and, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus, called by him Julias. It was situated upon the banks of the sea of Galilee, called also the lake of Tiberias, and the lake of Gennesareth, which was about forty furlongs in breadth, and a hundred in length; and had a wilderness on the other side called the desert of Bethsaida, whither our Savior used often to retire. \"At this place was born Simon, surnamed Cephas, or Petros, Petrus, Peter, signifying a stone, or fragment of a rock. He was a fisherman upon the forementioned lake or sea, as was also in all probability his father Jonas, Jonah, or John. He had a brother named Andrew: which was the eldest of the two is not certain; for, concerning this, there were different opinions among the ancients. Epiphanius supposed Andrew to be the elder; but, according to Chrysostom, Peter was the first-born. So likewise Bede and Cassian, who even make Peter's age the ground of his precedence among the apostles; and Jerome himself has expressed himself in like manner, saying, 'that the keys were given to all the apostles alike, and the Church was built upon all of them equally; but, for preventing dissension, precedency was given to one. John might have been the person, but he was too young; and Peter was preferred on account of his age.' \"The call of Andrew and Peter to a stated attendance on Jesus is recorded in three evangelists. Their father Jonas seems to have been dead; for there is no mention of him, as there is of Zebedee, when his two sons were called. It is only said of Andrew and Peter that, when Jesus called them, they left their nets and followed him. Follow me, said he, and, I will make you fishers of men. \"Simon Peter was married when called by our Lord to attend upon him; and upon occasion of that alliance, it seems, had removed from Bethsaida to Capernaum, where was his wife's family. Upon her mother our Savior wrought a great miracle of healing. And, I suppose, that when our Lord left Nazareth, and came and dwelled at Capernaum, he made Peter's house the place of his usual abode when he was in those parts. I think we have a proof of it in the history just noticed. When Jesus came out of the synagogue at Capernaum, he entered into Simon's house, Luk 4:38. Compare Mar 1:29, which is well paraphrased by Dr. Clarke: 'Now when Jesus came out of the synagogue, he went home to Peter's house;' and there it was that the people resorted unto him. \"Some time after this, when our Lord had an opportunity of private conversation with the disciples, he inquired of them what men said of him; and then whom they thought him to be. 'Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;' Mat 16:13-16. So far likewise in Mar 8:27-29, and Luk 9:18-20. Then follows, in Mat 16:17-19 : 'And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven:' that is, 'it is not a partial affection for me, thy Master, nor a fond and inconsiderate regard for the judgments of others for whom thou hast a respect, that has induced thee to think thus of me; but it is a just persuasion formed in thy mind by observing the great works thou hast seen me do by the power of God in the confirmation of my mission and doctrine.' 'And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church - and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' By which many of our interpreters suppose that our Lord promised to Peter that he should have the honor of beginning to preach the Gospel after his resurrection to Jews and Gentiles, and of receiving them into the Church; if so that is personal. Nevertheless, what follows, 'And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven;' this, I say, must have been the privilege of all the apostles, for the like things are expressly said to them, Luk 22:29, Luk 22:30, Joh 20:21-23. Moreover, all the apostles concurred with Peter in the first preaching both to Jews and Gentiles. As he was president in the college of the apostles, it was very fit, and a thing of course, that he should be primarily concerned in the first opening of things. The confession now particularly before us was made by him; but it was in answer to a question that had been put to all; and he spoke the sense of all the apostles, and in their name. I suppose this to be as true in this instance, as in the other before mentioned, which is in Joh 6:68, Joh 6:69. In the account which St. John has given us of our Savior's washing the disciples' feet, Peter's modesty and fervor are conspicuous. When the Jewish officers were about to apprehend our Lord, 'Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut of his right ear.' Our Lord having checked Peter, touched the servant's ear, and healed him. So great is Jesus everywhere! They that laid hold of Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas; the rest of the disciples now forsook him and fled; 'but Peter followed him afar off, unto the high priest's palace; and went in and sat with the servants to see the end.' Here Peter thrice disowned his Lord, peremptorily denying that he was one of the disciples, or had any knowledge of him, as related by all the evangelists; for which he soon after humbled himself, and wept bitterly. We do not perceive that Peter followed our Lord any farther; or that he at all attended the crucifixion. It is likely that he was under too much concern of mind to appear in public; and that he chose retirement, as most suitable to his present temper and circumstances. \"On the first day of the week, early in the morning, when Mary Magdalene and other women came to the sepulcher, bringing sweet spices which they had prepared, 'they saw an angel, who said unto them, Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus who was crucified: he is not here, for he is risen: Go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead.' As in Matthew, 'Tell his disciples and Peter.' As in Mark, 'Behold he goeth before you into Galilee.' That was a most gracious disposal of Providence to support the disciples, Peter in particular, in their great affliction. \"Our Lord first showed himself to Mary Magdalene, and afterwards to some other women. On the same day likewise on which he arose from the dead, he showed himself to Peter, though the circumstances of this appearance are nowhere related. And it has been observed, that as Mary Magdalene was the first woman, so Peter was the first man, to whom Jesus showed himself after he was risen from the dead. \"We have nowhere any distinct account of this apostle's travels: he might return to Judea, and stay there a good while after having been at Antioch, at the time spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. However, it appears from Epiphanius that Peter was often in the countries of Pontus and Bithynia; and by Eusebius we are assured that Origen, in the third tome of his Exposition of the Book of Genesis, writes to this purpose: 'Peter is supposed to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; who, at length coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downwards, himself having desired it might be in that manner.' For the time of Peter's coming to Rome, no ancient writer is now more regarded by learned moderns than Lactantius, or whoever is the author of the book of the Deaths of Persecutors; who says that Peter came thither in the time of Nero. However, it appears to me very probable that St. Peter did not come to Rome before the year of Christ 63 or 64, nor till after St. Paul's departure thence at the end of his two years' imprisonment in that city. The books of the New Testament afford a very plausible, if not certain, argument for it. After our Lord's ascension we find Peter, with the rest of the apostles, at Jerusalem. He and John were sent by the apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria, whence they returned to Jerusalem. When Paul came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, he found Peter there. Upon occasion of the tranquility of the Churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, near the end of the reign of Caligula, Peter left Jerusalem, and visited the Churches in several parts of that country, particularly at Lydda and Joppa, where he tarried many days. Thence he went to Caesarea, by the seaside, where he preached to Cornelius and his company. Thence he returned to Jerusalem, and sometime afterwards was imprisoned there by Herod Agrippa. This brings down the history of our apostle to the year 44. A few years after this he was present at the council of Jerusalem; nor is there any evidence that he came there merely on that occasion. It is more probable that he had not yet been out of Judea: soon after that council he was at Antioch, where he was reproved by St. Paul. \"The books of the New Testament afford no light for determining where Peter was for several years after that. But to me it appears not unlikely that he returned after a short time to Judea from Antioch, and that he stayed in Judea a good while before he went thence any more; and it seems to me that, when he left Judea, he went again to Antioch, the chief city of Syria. Thence he might go to other parts of the continent, particularly Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, which are expressly mentioned in the beginning of his first epistle. In those countries he might stay a good while; and it is very likely that he did so; and that he was well acquainted with the Christians there, to whom he afterwards wrote two epistles. When he left those parts, I think he went to Rome, but not till after Paul had been in that city and was gone from it. Several of St. Paul's epistles furnish out a cogent argument of Peter's absence from Rome for a considerable space of time. St. Paul, in the last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, written, as we suppose, in the beginning of the year 58, salutes many by name, without mentioning Peter; and the whole tenor of the epistle makes it reasonable to think that the Christians there had not yet had the benefit of the apostle's presence and instructions. During his two years' confinement at Rome, which ended, as we suppose, in the spring of the year 63, St. Paul wrote four or five epistles; those to the Ephesians, the Second Epistle to Timothy, to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon; in none of which is any mention of Peter, nor is any thing said or hinted whence it can be concluded that he had ever been there. I think, therefore, that Peter did not come to Rome before the year 63, or perhaps 64. And, as I suppose, obtained the crown of martyrdom in the year 64 or 65; consequently, St. Peter could not reside very long at Rome before his death. \"Cave likewise, in his life of St. Peter, written in English in 1676, places his death in 64 or 65; nor was his mind much altered when he published his Historia Literaria in 1688; for there also he supposes that St. Peter died a martyr at Rome, in the year of Christ 64, at the beginning of Nero's persecution; and indeed he expresses himself with a great deal of assurance and positiveness. Jerome concludes his article of St. Peter saying, 'He was buried at Rome, in the Vatican, near the triumphal way; and is in veneration all over the world.' \"It is not needful to make any remarks upon this tradition; but it is easy to observe it is the general, uncontradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient writers, in the several parts of the world, Greeks, Latins, and Syrians. As our Lord's prediction concerning the death of Peter is recorded in one of the four gospels, it is very likely that Christians would observe the accomplishment of it, which must have been in some place, and about this place there is no difference among Christian writers of ancient times; never any other place was named besides Rome; nor did any other city ever glory in the martyrdom of Peter. There were, in the second and third centuries, disputes between the bishop of Rome and other bishops and Churches about the time of keeping Easter, and about the baptism of heretics; yet none denied the bishop of Rome what they called the chair of Peter. It is not for our honor or interest, either as Christians or Protestants, to deny the truth of events ascertained by early and well attested tradition. If any make an ill use of such facts, we are not accountable for it. We are not, from the dread of such abuses, to overthrow the credit of all history, the consequences of which would be fatal. Fables and fictions have been mixed with the account of Peter's being at Rome; but they are not in the most early writers, but have been added since: and it is well known that fictions have been joined with histories of the most certain and important facts.1 Peter-1 \"Having written the history of the Apostle Peter, I now proceed to his epistles; concerning which three or four things are to be considered by us; their genuineness, the persons to whom they were sent, the place where, and the time when, they were written. \"The first epistle was all along considered, by catholic Christians, as authentic and genuine; this we learn from Eusebius, who says: 'Of the controverted books of the New Testament; yet well known and approved by many, are that called the Epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second and third of John.' And in another place, 'One epistle of Peter, called the first, is universally received. This the presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine; but that called his second, we have been informed, (by tradition), has not been received as a part of the New Testament; nevertheless, appearing to many to be useful, it has been carefully studied with other scriptures.' By which, I think, we may be assured that a great regard was shown to this epistle by many Christians in the time of our learned ecclesiastical historian. Jerome says, 'Peter wrote two epistles called catholic, the second of which is denied by many to be his, because of the difference of the style from the former.' And Origen before them, in his commentaries upon the gospel of St. Matthew, as cited by Eusebius, says, 'Peter, on whom the Church is built, has left one epistle universally acknowledged: let it be granted that he also wrote a second, for this has been doubted.' \"What those learned writers of the third and fourth centuries say of those two epistles, we have found agreeable to the testimony of more ancient writers, whom we have consulted: for the first epistle seems to be referred to by Clement of Rome; it is plainly referred to by Polycarp several times; it is also referred to by the martyrs at Lyons; it was received by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch; it was quoted by Papias; it is quoted in the remaining writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian: consequently it was all along received. But we do not perceive the second epistle to be quoted by Papias, nor by Irenaeus, (though in Grabe's edition this epistle is twice quoted), nor Tertullian, nor Cyprian. However, both these epistles were generally received in the fourth and following centuries by all Christians, except the Syrians: for they were received by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, and others. \"The first epistle being allowed to be St. Peter's, we can argue in favor of the other also, in this manner: It bears in the inscription the name of the same apostle; for so it begins, 'Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.' And in Pe2 1:14 are these words: 'Knowing that I must shortly put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me.' \"The writer of this epistle may have had a particular revelation concerning the time of his death, not long before writing this. But it is probable that here is a reference to our Lord's prediction concerning St. Peter's death, and the manner of it, which are recorded in Joh 21:18, Joh 21:19. From Pe2 1:16-18, it appears that the writer was one of the disciples who were with Jesus in the mount, when he was transfigured in a glorious manner. This certainly leads us to Peter, who was there, and whose name the epistle bears in the inscription, Pe2 3:1 : 'This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;' plainly referring to the former epistle, which has been always acknowledged to be Peter's. These words are express. But it might have been argued, with some degree of probability, from Pe2 1:12, Pe2 1:15, that he had before written to the same persons. Once more, Pe2 3:15, Pe2 3:16, he calls Paul brother, and otherwise so speaks of him and his epistles as must needs be reckoned most suitable to an apostle. The writer, therefore, is the Apostle Peter, whose name the epistle bears in the inscription. We are led here to the observation which Wall placed at the head of his notes upon this second epistle: 'It is,' says he, 'a good proof of the cautiousness of the ancient Christians in receiving any book for canonical, that they not only rejected all those pieces forged by heretics under the name of apostles; but also if any good book, affirmed by some men or some Churches to have been written and sent by some apostle, were offered to them, they would not, till fully satisfied of the fact, receive it into their canon.' He adds: 'There is more hazard in denying this to be Peter's, than in denying some other books to be of that author to whom they are by tradition ascribed. For they, if they be not of that apostle to whom they are imputed, yet may be of some other apostle, or apostolical man; but this author is either the apostle, or else by setting his name, and by other circumstances, he does designedly personate him, which no man of piety and truth would do.' And then he concludes: 'This epistle being written by him but a little before his death, Pe2 1:14, and perhaps no more than one copy sent, it might be a good while before a number of copies, well attested, came abroad to the generality of the Christian Churches.' \"Certainly these epistles, and the discourses of Peter, recorded in the Acts, together with the effects of them, are monuments of Divine inspiration, and of the fulfillment of the promise which Christ made to him, when he saw him and his brother Andrew employed in their trade, and casting a net into the sea; Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men, Mat 4:19. \"Concerning the persons to whom these epistles were sent, there have been different opinions among both ancients and moderns. Mr. Wetstein argues from divers texts that the first epistle was sent to the Gentiles. Mr. Hallett, in his learned introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, observes, 'Some go upon the supposition that St. Peter's epistles were written to the Jews, but it seems to me more natural to suppose that they were written to Gentile Christians, if we consider many passages of the epistles themselves:' where he proceeds to allege many passages, and in my opinion, very pertinently; some of which will be also alleged by me by and by. \"To me it seems that St. Peter's epistles were sent to all Christians in general, Jews and Gentiles, living in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; the greatest part of whom must have been converted by Paul, and had been before involved in ignorance and sin, as all people in general were till the manifestation of the Gospel of Christ. That St. Peter wrote to all Christians in those countries is apparent, from the valedictory blessing or wish at the end of the epistle, Pe1 5:14 : Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Lewis Capellus, who thought that St. Peter's first epistle was written to Jewish believers, allows that the second epistle was written to all Christians in general, and particularly to Gentiles, induced thereto by the comprehensiveness of the address at the beginning of that epistle, To them that have obtained like precious faith with us. He should have concluded as much of the first epistle likewise, for they were both sent to the same people, as is evident from St. Peter's own words, Pe2 3:1. Moreover, the inscription of the first epistle seems to be as general as that of the second. Let us observe it distinctly: to the elect, εκλεκτοις, says Wall upon the place: 'He uses the word εκλεκτοι, choice ones, just as St. Paul does the word ἁγιοι, saints, for the word Christians: and as St. Paul directs almost all his epistles to the saints, that is, the Christians of such a place; so St. Peter here, to the elect or choice ones, that is, Christians, sojourning in the dispersions of Pontus, Galatia, and Bithynia. Strangers, παρεπιδημοις· good men, though at home, are strangers, especially if they meet with opposition, trouble, and affliction, as those Christians did to whom St. Peter is here writing; for he speaks of their trials and temptations, Pe1 1:6, Pe1 1:7, and exhorts them, Pe1 2:11, as sojourners and strangers, ὡς παροικους και παρεπιδημους, to abstain from fleshly lusts. Says Ecumenius upon Pe1 1:1, Pe1 1:2 : 'He calls them strangers, either on account of their dispersion, or because all that live religiously are called strangers on this earth; as David also says, 'I am a sojourner with thee, and a stranger, as all my fathers were,' Psa 39:12. Scattered throughout Pontus, or of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia; so he calls them, not because they had been driven out from their native country, but because he writes to the Christians of divers countries, who also were but a few or a small number in every place where they dwelt. I shall now show that these Christians were, for the most part, of the Gentile stock and original. Pe1 1:14 : 'As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance.' This might be very pertinently said to men converted from Gentilism to Christianity; but no such thing is ever said by the apostle concerning the Jewish people, who had been favored with Divine revelation, and had the knowledge of the true God. And Pe1 1:20, Pe1 1:21, he says, that 'through Christ they did now believe in God;' therefore they were not worshippers till they were acquainted with the Christian revelation. In like manner, Pe1 2:9, St. Peter speaks of those to whom he writes as having been 'called out of darkness into God's marvelous light.' Moreover, they were not once God's people; Pe1 2:10 : 'Which in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.' Words resembling those of St. Paul, Rom 9:24, Rom 9:25, where he is unquestionably speaking of Gentile converts. There are also other expressions which plainly show that these persons had been Gentiles, and had lived in the sins of Gentilism; Pe1 1:18 : 'Forasmuch as ye know that ye were redeemed from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers.' And Pe1 4:3 : 'For the time past may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.' St. Peter does not charge himself with such things, but they to whom he writes had been guilty in those respects; and, by way of condescension, and for avoiding offense, and for rendering his argument more effectual, he joins himself with them. And more, when St. Peter represents the dignity of those to whom he writes, upon account of their Christian vocation, Pe1 2:9, as 'a chosen generation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood;' certainly the expressions are most pertinent and emphatical, if understood of such as had been brought from Gentilism to the faith of the Gospel, as indeed they plainly were. For he there says, 'they were to show forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into his marvelous light.' To all which might be added, what was hinted before, that the persons to whom Peter writes were for the most part the Apostle Paul's converts. This must be reckoned probable from the accounts which we have in the Acts of St. Paul's travels and preaching. Whence we know that he had been in Galatia, and the other countries mentioned by St. Peter at the beginning of his first epistle. Moreover he observes, Pe2 3:15, that 'his beloved brother Paul had written unto them.' We may reasonably suppose that he thereby intends St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, the Ephesians, and Colossians, all in those countries, and for the most part Gentile believers. Nor do I see reason to doubt that if Peter had, before now, seen and read St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy; and if we should add them, as here intended also, it would be no prejudice to our argument. For those epistles likewise were designed for the use and benefit of the Churches in those parts. To me these considerations appear unanswerable; I shall, therefore, take notice of but one objection, which is grounded upon Pe1 2:12 : 'Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.' Upon the first clause in that verse Beza says, that this place alone is sufficient to show that this epistle was sent to Jews. But I think not. From St. Paul may be alleged a text of the like sort, Co1 11:32 : 'Give no offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, (και Ἑλλησι), nor to the Church of God.' It might be as well argued from that text that the Corinthians were by descent neither Jews nor Greeks, as from this, that the persons to whom St. Peter wrote were not originally Gentiles. In the text of St. Paul just quoted, by Jews, and Gentiles or Greeks, are intended such as were unbelievers. So it is likewise in the text of St. Peter which we are considering as is apparent from the latter part of the verse above transcribed at large. St. Peter had a right to distinguish those to whom he writes from the Gentile people among whom they lived, as he had at the beginning of the epistle called them elect, or choice ones, and strangers; and they likewise went by the name of Christians, as we perceive from Pe1 4:16. \"St. Peter's two epistles, then, were sent to all Christians in general, living in those countries, the greatest part of whom had been converted from Gentilism or heathenism. \"Our next inquiry is concerning where these epistles were written. \"At the end of the first epistle St. Peter says: 'The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you;' which text, understood literally, has been thought by some to denote, 1. Babylon in Assyria; or, 2. Babylon in Egypt. 3. By others it is interpreted figuratively, and is supposed to denote Jerusalem; or, 4. Rome. So that there are four opinions concerning the place where this epistle was written. \"If St. Peter had read St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans before he wrote his first epistle, it was written after St. Paul's journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, described in Acts 20, 21; for the Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth. How much later than the time of this journey the First Epistle of Peter was written it is very difficult, for want of sufficient data, to determine. The epistle itself has hardly any marks which can guide us in deciding the year of its composition; and we know nothing of the history of St. Peter from the time of the apostolic council at Jerusalem, Acts 15., which is the last place where St. Luke mentions him, till his arrival many years afterwards at Rome, where, according to the accounts of ecclesiastical writers, he suffered martyrdom. However, a comparison of the first with the second epistle of St. Peter will enable us to form at least an opinion on this subject. St. Peter says, in his second epistle, Pe2 3:1 : Ταυτην ηδη, αγαπητοι, δευτεραν ὑμιν γραφω επιστολην· whence we may conclude that his first epistle was written to the same persons as the second. But if the second epistle was written fifteen or twenty years after the first, they who received the one were not the same persons as they who received the other; and we might rather expect that in this case St. Peter would have called his first epistle an epistle which he had written to their fathers. It appears, then, that the interval between the dates of the two epistles could not have been very long; and as the second epistle was written shortly before St. Peter's death; we may infer that the first epistle was written either not long before, or not long after, the year 60. On the other hand, Lardner assigns this epistle too late a date; for he is of opinion that it was written between 63 and 65. This reason for supposing that it was not written till after 63 is, that an earlier date cannot be assigned for St. Peter's arrival at Rome; and as he takes the word Babylon, whence St. Peter dates his epistle, not in its proper but in a mystical sense, as denoting Rome, he concludes that the epistle was not written before the time above mentioned. But if we take Babylon in its proper sense, the argument not only proves not what Lardner intended, but the very reverse; for if St. Peter's arrival in Rome is to be dated about the year 63, an epistle written by St. Peter, in Babylon, must have a date prior to that year. \"St. Peter, in the close of his epistle, sends a salutation from the Church in Babylon, which, consequently, is the place where he wrote his epistle. But commentators do not agree in regard to the meaning of the word Babylon, some taking it in its literal and proper sense, others giving it a figurative and mystical interpretation. Among the advocates for the latter sense have been men of such learning and abilities, that I was misled by their authority in the younger part of my life to subscribe to it; but at present, as I have more impartially examined the question, it appears to me very extraordinary that, when an apostle dates his epistle from Babylon, it should ever occur to any commentator to ascribe to this work a mystical meaning, instead of taking it in its literal and proper sense. For, in the first century, the ancient Babylon, on the Euphrates, was still in existence; and there was likewise a city on the Tigris, Seleucia, not far distant from the ancient Babylon, to which the name of modern Babylon was given; but through some mistake it has been supposed that the ancient Babylon, in the time of St. Peter, was no longer in being; and in order to furnish a pretense for a mystical interpretation, it has been denied that Seleucia was ever so called. \"It is true that the ancient Babylon, in comparison of its original splendor, might be called in the first century a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a heap of ruins, nor wholly destitute of inhabitants. This appears from the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has given of it: for he says that Alexander (who died at Babylon, and who intended, if he had lived, to have made it the place of his residence) proposed to rebuild there a pyramid, which was a stadium in length, in breadth, and in height; but that his successors did not put the design into execution: that the Persians destroyed a part of Babylon, and that the Macedonians neglected it; but that Babylon had suffered the most from the building of Seleucia, by Seleucus Nicator, at the distance of three hundred stadia from it, because Seleucia then became the capital of the country, and Babylon was drained of its inhabitants. Strabo then adds: at present Seleucia is greater than Babylon, which last city has been desolated, so that one may say of it, what the comic poet said of Megalopolis in Arcadia: 'A great city is become a great desert.' If this be not sufficient proof that Babylon was still in existence in the first century, the reader may consult Cellarii Geographia, tom. ii., page 747; and Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis, t","order":60,"numberOfChapters":5,"sha256":"d0d3aeaddccc36eb7f321a1e3646882a42736e62125702fb2e42c8cbd67a138a","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1PE/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1PE","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":5,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1PE/5.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1PE","chapter":5},"totalNumberOfVerses":102},"chapter":{"number":3,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["Ye wives, be in subjection - Consider that your husband is, by God's appointment, the head and ruler of the house; do not, therefore, attempt to usurp his government; for even though he obey not the word - is not a believer in the Christian doctrine, his rule is not thereby impaired; for Christianity never alters civil relations: and your affectionate, obedient conduct will be the most likely means of convincing him of the truth of the doctrine which you have received.\nWithout the word - That your holy conduct may be the means of begetting in them a reverence for Christianity, the preaching of which they will not hear. See the notes on Co1 14:34, and the other places referred to in the margin. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["Chaste conversation - with fear - While they see that ye join modesty, chastity, and the purest manners, to the fear of God. Or perhaps fear, φοβος, is taken, as in Eph 5:33, for the reverence due to the husband. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["Whose adorning - Κοσμος. See the note on Heb 9:1, where the word κοσμος, world or ornament, is defined; and also the note on Gen 2:1.\nPlaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold - Plaiting the hair, and variously folding it about the head, was the most ancient and most simple mode of disposing of this chief ornament of the female head. It was practised anciently in every part of the east, and is so to the present day in India, in China, and also in Barbary. It was also prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, as ancient gems, busts, and statues, still remaining, sufficiently declare. We have a remarkable instance of the plaiting of the hair in a statue of Agrippina, wife of Germanicus, an exact representation of which may be seen in a work of Andre Lens, entitled Le Costume de Peuple de I' Antiquite, pl. 33. Many plates in the same work show the different modes of dressing the hair which obtained among the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and other nations. Thin plates of gold were often mixed with the hair, to make it appear more ornamental by the reflection of light and of the solar rays. Small golden buckles were also used in different parts; and among the Roman ladies, pearls and precious stones of different colors. Pliny assures us, Hist. Nat., l. ix. c. 35, that these latter ornaments were not introduced among the Roman women till the time of Sylla, about 110 years before the Christian era. But it is evident, from many remaining monuments, that in numerous cases the hair differently plaited and curled was the only ornament of the head. Often a simple pin, sometimes of ivory, pointed with gold, seemed to connect the plaits. In monuments of antiquity the heads of the married and single women may be known, the former by the hair being parted from the forehead over the middle of the top of the head, the latter by being quite close, or being plaited and curled all in a general mass.\nThere is a remarkable passage in Plutarch, Conjugalia Praecept., c. xxvi., very like that in the text: Κοσμος γαρ εστιν, ὡς ελεγε Κρατης, το κοσμουν· κοσμει δε το κοσμιωτεραν γυναικα ποιουν· ποιει δε ταυτην ου χρυσος, ουτε σμαραγδος, ουτε κοκκος, αλλ' ὁσα σεμνοτητος, ευταξιας, αιδους εμφασιν περιτιθησιν· Opera a Wyttenb., vol. i., page 390. \"An ornament, as Crates said, is that which adorns. The proper ornament of a woman is that which becomes her best. This is neither gold, nor pearls, nor scarlet; but those things which are an evident proof of gravity, regularity, and modesty.\" The wife of Phocion, a celebrated Athenian general, receiving a visit from a lady who was elegantly adorned with gold and jewels, and her hair with pearls, took occasion to call the attention of her guest to the elegance and costliness of her dress, remarking at the same time, \"My ornament is my husband, now for the twentieth year general of the Athenians.\" Plut., in vit. Phoc. How few Christian women act this part! Women are in general at as much pains and cost in their dress, as if by it they were to be recommended both to God and man. It is, however, in every case, the argument either of a shallow mind, or of a vain and corrupted heart. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["The hidden man of the heart - Ὁ κρυπτος της καρδιας ανθρωπος. This phrase is of the same import with that of St. Paul, Rom 7:22, ὁ εσω ανθρωπος, the inner man; that is, the soul, with the whole system of affections and passions. Every part of the Scripture treats man as a compound being: the body is the outward or visible man; the soul, the inward, hidden, or invisible man. The term ανθρωπος, man, is derived, according to the best etymologists, from ανα τρεπων ωπα, turning the face upward. This derivation of the word is beautifully paraphrased by Ovid. The whole passage is beautiful; and, though well known, I shall insert it. After speaking of the creation and formation of all the irrational animals, he proceeds thus: - \n\"Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius altae\nDeerat adhuc, et quod dominari in caetera posset.\nNatus Homo est: sive hunc divino semine fecit\nIlle opifex rerum, mundi melioris origo;\nSive recens tellus, seductaque nuper ab alto\nAethere, cognati retinebat semina coeli. - \nPronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram,\nOs Homini Sublime Dedit; Coelumque Tueri\nJussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere veltus.\"\nMetam, lib. i. ver. 76.\n\"A creature of a more exalted kind\nWas wanting yet, and then was Man design'd;\nConscious of thought, of more capacious breast,\nFor empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest.\nWhether with particles of heavenly fire\nThe God of nature did his soul inspire,\nOr earth but new divided from the sky,\nWhich still retain'd th' ethereal energy. - \nThus, while the mute creation downward bend\nTheir sight, and to their earthly mother tend,\nMan looks aloft, and with erected eyes\nBeholds his own hereditary skies.\"\nDryden.\nThe word ανθρωπος, man, is frequently applied to the soul, but generally with some epithet. Thus ὁ εσω ανθρωπος, the inner man, Rom 7:22, to distinguish it from the body, which is called ὁ εξω ανθρωπος, the outer man, Co2 4:16; ὁ κρυπτος ανθρωπος, the hidden man, as in the text; ὁ καινος ανθρωπος, the new man, the soul renewed in righteousness, Eph 2:15, to distinguish him from ὁ παλαιος ανθρωπος, the old man, that is, man unregenerate or in a state of sin, Rom 6:6. And the soul is thus distinguished by the Greek philosophers.\nA meek and quiet spirit - That is, a mind that will not give provocation to others, nor receive irritation by the provocation of others. Meekness will prevent the first; quietness will guard against the last.\nGreat price - All the ornaments placed on the head and body of the most illustrious female, are, in the sight of God, of no worth; but a meek and silent spirit are, in his sight, invaluable, because proceeding from and leading to himself, being incorruptible, surviving the ruins of the body and the ruins of time, and enduring eternally. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["For after this manner - Simplicity reigned in primitive times; natural ornaments alone were then in use. Trade and commerce brought in luxuries; and luxury brought pride, and all the excessive nonsense of Dress. No female head ever looks so well as when adorned with its own hair alone. This is the ornament appointed by God. To cut it off or to cover it is an unnatural practice; and to exchange the hair which God has given for hair of some other color, is an insult to the Creator. How the delicacy of the female character can stoop to the use of false hair, and especially when it is considered that the chief part of this kind of hair was once the natural property of some ruffian soldier, who fell in battle by many a ghastly wound, is more than I can possibly comprehend. See the notes on Co1 11:14-16 (note); and Ti1 2:9 (note).\nWho trusted in God - The women who trust Not in God are fond of dress and frippery; those who trust in God follow nature and common sense.\nBeing in subjection unto their own husbands - It will rarely be found that women who are fond of dress, and extravagant in it, have any subjection to their husbands but what comes from mere necessity. Indeed, their dress, which they intend as an attractive to the eyes of others, is a sufficient proof that they have neither love nor respect for their own husbands. Let them who are concerned refute the charge. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["Even as Sara obeyed - Almost the same words are in Rab. Tanchum, fol. 9, 3: \"The wife of Abraham reverenced him, and called him lord, as it is written, Gen 18:12 : And my lord is old.\" The words of the apostle imply that she acknowledged his superiority, and her own subjection to him, in the order of God.\nWhose daughters ye are - As Abraham is represented the father of all his male believing descendants, so Sara is represented as the mother of all her believing female posterity. A son of Abraham is a true believer; a daughter of Sarah is the same.\nAs long as ye do well - For you cannot maintain your relationship to her longer than ye believe; and ye cannot believe longer than ye continue to obey.\nAnd are not afraid with any amazement - It is difficult to extract any sense out of this clause. The original is not very easy; Μη φοβουμεναι μηδεμιαν πτοησιν may be rendered, And not fearing with any terror. If ye do well, and act conscientiously your part as faithful wives, ye will at no time live under the distressing apprehension of being found out, or terrified at every appearance of the discovery of infidelities, or improper conduct. Being not guilty of these, you will not have occasion to fear detection. On this subject a learned man has quoted these words, which I have produced elsewhere, Eph 6:14 : - \n- hic murus aheneus esto,\nNil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.\n\"Let this be my brazen wall, to be self-convicted of no private delinquency, nor to change color at being charged with a fault.\"\nHappy is the wife, and happy is the husband, who can conscientiously adopt the saying. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["Dwell with them according to knowledge - Give your wives, by no species of unkind carriage, any excuse for delinquency. How can a man expect his wife to be faithful to him, if he be unfaithful to her? and vice versa.\nGiving honor unto the wife - Using your superior strength and experience in her behalf, and thus honouring her by becoming her protector and support. But the word τιμη honor, signifies maintenance as well as respect; - maintain, provide for the wife.\nAs - the weaker vessel - Being more delicately, and consequently more slenderly, constructed. Roughness and strength go hand in hand; so likewise do beauty and frailty. The female has what the man wants - beauty and delicacy. The male has what the female wants - courage and strength. The one is as good in its place as the other: and by these things God has made an equality between the man and the woman, so that there is properly very little superiority on either side. See the note on Th1 4:4.\nBeing heirs together - Both the man and woman being equally called to eternal glory: and as prayer is one great means of obtaining a meetness for it, it is necessary that they should live together in such a manner as to prevent all family contentions, that they may not be prevented, by disputes or misunderstandings, from uniting daily in this most important duty - family and social prayer. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["Be ye all of one mind - Unity, both in the family and in the Church, being essentially necessary to peace and salvation. See on Rom 12:16 (note); Rom 15:5 (note).\nHaving compassion - Συμπαθεις· Being sympathetic; feeling for each other; bearing each other's burdens.\nLove as brethren - Φιλαδελφοι· Be lovers of the brethren.\nPitiful - Ευσπλαγχνοι· Tender-hearted; let your bowels yearn over the distressed and afflicted.\nCourteous - Φιλοφρονες· Be friendly-minded; acquire and cultivate a friendly disposition. But instead of this word, ταπεινοφρονες, be humble-minded, is the reading of ABC, more than twenty others, with the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, and some of the fathers. This is probably the true reading, and Griesbach has admitted it into the text. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["Not rendering evil for evil - Purposing, saying, doing nothing but good; and invariably returning good for evil.\nYe are thereunto called - This is your calling - your business in life, to do good, and to do good for evil, and to implore God's blessing even on your worst enemies. And this is not only your duty, but your interest; for in so doing you shall obtain God's blessing, even life for evermore. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["For he that will love life - This is a quotation from Psa 34:12-16, as it stands in the Septuagint; only the aorist of the imperative is changed from the second into the third person, etc. He who wishes to live long and prosperously, must act as he is here directed.\n1. He must refrain from evil-speaking, lying, and slandering.\n2. He must avoid flattery and fair speeches, which cover hypocritical or wicked intentions.\n3. He must avoid evil, keep going away εκκλινατω, from evil.\n4. He must do good; he must walk in the way of righteousness.\n5. He must live peaceably with all men; seek peace where it has been lost; restore it where it has been broken; and pursue it where it seems to be flying away.\nHe who lives thus must live happy in himself. And as excess in action and passion always tends to the shortening of life, and nothing preys on the constitution more than disorderly passions, he must live not only happiest but longest who avoids them. It is an edifying story that is told in the book Mussar, chap. 1., quoted by Rosenmuller: \"A certain person, travelling through the city, continued to call out, Who wants the elixir of life? The daughter of Rabbi Joda heard him, and told her father. He said, Call the man in. When he came in, the rabbi said, What is that elixir of life thou sellest? He answered, Is it not written, What man is he that loveth life, and desireth to see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking guile? This is the elixir of life, and is found in the mouth of man.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous - That is, He is continually under God's notice and his care; God continually watches for him and watches over him, and he is under his constant protection.\nAnd his ears are open unto their prayers - The original is very emphatic: The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears to their prayers. The righteous man ever attracts the Divine notice, and wherever he is, there is the ear of God; for, as every righteous man is a man of prayer, wherever he prays, there is the ear of God, into which the prayer, as soon as formed, enters.\nBut the face of the Lord - Far from his eye being upon them, or his ear open to their requests, (for prayer they have none), his face, his approbation, his providence and blessing, are turned away from them; and he only looks upon them to abhor them, and to turn the arm of his justice against them. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Who is he that will harm you - Is it possible that a man can be wretched who has God for his friend? \"All the devices which the devil or wicked men work against such must be brought to naught, and by the providence of his goodness be dispersed.\"\nIf ye be followers, etc. - Εαν Του Αγαθου μιμηται γενησθε· If ye be imitators of the good One, i.e. of God. Ὁ Αγαθος, the good One, is one of God's prime epithets, see Mat 19:17, and Satan is distinguished by the reverse, ὁ πονηρος, the Evil one, Mat 13:19 (note). Instead of μιμηται, followers, or rather imitators, ζηλωται, zealous of what is good, is the reading of ABC, fifteen others, both the Syriac, Erpen's Arabic, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Vulgate, with some of the fathers. This is a very probable reading, and Griesbach has placed it in the margin as a candidate for the place of that in the text. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["But and if ye suffer - God may permit you to be tried and persecuted for righteousness' sake, but this cannot essentially harm you; he will press even this into your service, and make it work for your good.\nHappy are ye - This seems to refer to Mat 5:10, etc. Blessed or happy, are ye when men persecute you, etc. It is a happiness to suffer for Christ; and it is a happiness, because if a man were not holy and righteous the world would not persecute him, so he is happy in the very cause of his sufferings.\nBe not afraid of their terror - Τον δε φοβον αυτων μη φοβηθητε· Fear not their fear; see Isa 8:12. Sometimes fear is put for the object of a man's religious worship; see Gen 31:42; Pro 1:26, and the place in Isaiah just quoted. The exhortation may mean, Fear not their gods, they can do you no hurt; and supposing that they curse you by them, yet be not troubled; \"He who fears God need have no other fear.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts - To sanctify God may signify to offer him the praises due to his grace, but as to sanctify literally signifies to make holy, it is impossible that God should be thus sanctified. We have often already seen that ἁγιαζω signifies to separate from earth, that is, from any common use or purpose, that the thing or person thus separated may be devoted to a sacred use. Perhaps we should understand Peter's words thus: Entertain just notions of God; of his nature, power, will, justice, goodness, and truth. Do not conceive of him as being actuated by such passions as men; separate him in your hearts from every thing earthly, human, fickle, rigidly severe, or capriciously merciful. Consider that he can neither be like man, feel like man, nor act like man. Ascribe no human passions to him, for this would desecrate not sanctify him. Do not confine him in your conceptions to place, space, vacuity, heaven, or earth; endeavor to think worthily of the immensity and eternity of his nature, of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Avoid the error of the heathens, who bound even their Dii Majores, their greatest gods, by fate, as many well-meaning Christians do the true God by decrees; conceive of him as infinitely free to act or not act, as he pleases. Consider the goodness of his nature; for goodness, in every possible state of perfection and infinitude, belongs to him. Ascribe no malevolence to him; nor any work, purpose, or decree, that implies it: this is not only a human passion, but a passion of fallen man. Do not suppose that he can do evil, or that he can destroy when he might save; that he ever did, or ever can, hate any of those whom he made in his own image and in his own likeness, so as by a positive decree to doom them, unborn, to everlasting perdition, or, what is of the same import, pass them by without affording them the means of salvation, and consequently rendering it impossible for them to be saved. Thus endeavor to conceive of him; and, by so doing, you separate him from all that is imperfect, human, evil, capricious, changeable, and unkind. Ever remember that he has wisdom without error, power, without limits, truth without falsity, love without hatred, holiness without evil, and justice without rigour or severity on the one hand, or capricious tenderness on the other. In a word, that he neither can be, say, purpose, or do, any thing that is not infinitely just, holy, wise, true, and gracious; that he hates nothing that he has made; and has so loved the world, the whole human race, as to give his only-begotten Son to die for them, that they might not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and you will ever be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in you to every serious and candid inquirer after truth. Most religious systems and creeds are incapable of rational explanation, because founded on some misconception of the Divine nature.\n\"They set at odds heaven's jarring attributes,\nAnd with one excellence another wound.\"\nThe system of humanizing God, and making him, by our unjust conceptions of him, to act as ourselves would in certain circumstances, has been the bane of both religion and piety; and on this ground infidels have laughed us to scorn. It is high time that we should no longer know God after the flesh; for even if we have known Jesus Christ after the flesh, we are to know him so no more.\nWhat I have written above is not against any particular creed of religious people, it is against any or all to whom it may justly apply, it may even be against some portions of my own; for even in this respect I am obliged daily to labor to sanctify the Lord God in my heart, to abstract him from every thing earthly and human, and apprehend him as far as possible in his own essential nature and attributes through the light of his Spirit and the medium of his own revelation. To act thus requires no common effort of soul: and just apprehensions of this kind are not acquired without much prayer, much self-reflection, much time, and much of the grace and mercy of God.\nInstead of τον Θεον, God, ABC, four others, both the Syriac, Erpen's Arabic, the Coptic, Vulgate, and Armenian, with Clement and Fulgentius, read τον Χριστον, Christ. Sanctify Christ in your hearts. This reading is at least equal to the other in the authorities by which it is supported; but which was written by St. Peter we know not.\nA reason of the hope - An account of your hope of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life in God's glory. This was the great object of their hope, as Christ was the grand object of their faith.\nThe word απολογια, which we translate answer, signifies a defense; from this we have our word apology, which did not originally signify an excuse for an act, but a defense of that act. The defences of Christianity by the primitive fathers are called apologies. See the note on Act 21:1.\nWith meekness and fear - Several excellent MSS. add the word αλλα, but, here, and it improves the sense considerably: Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, But with meekness and fear. Do not permit your readiness to answer, nor the confidence you have in the goodness of your cause, to lead you to answer pertly or superciliously to any person; defend the truth with all possible gentleness and fear, lest while you are doing it you should forget his presence whose cause you support, or say any thing unbecoming the dignity and holiness of the religion which you have espoused, or inconsistent with that heavenly temper which the Spirit of your indwelling Lord must infallibly produce. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["Having a good conscience - The testimony of God in your own soul, that in simplicity and godly sincerity you have your conversation in the world. See on the term conscience at the end of Hebrews.\nWhereas they speak evil of you - See the same sentiment in Pe1 2:11 and the note there. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["For it is better - See on Pe1 2:19, Pe1 2:20 (note). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["Christ also hath once suffered - See the notes on Rom 5:6; Heb 9:28 (note).\nPut to death in the flesh - In his human nature.\nBut quickened by the Spirit - That very dead body revived by the power of his Divinity. There are various opinions on the meaning of this verse, with which I need not trouble the reader, as I have produced that which is most likely. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["By which - Spirit, his own Divine energy and authority.\nHe went and preached - By the ministry of Noah, one hundred and twenty years.\nUnto the spirits in prison - The inhabitants of the antediluvian world, who, having been disobedient, and convicted of the most flagrant transgressions against God, were sentenced by his just law to destruction. But their punishment was delayed to see if they would repent; and the long-suffering of God waited one hundred and twenty years, which were granted to them for this purpose; during which time, as criminals tried and convicted, they are represented as being in prison - detained under the arrest of Divine justice, which waited either for their repentance or the expiration of the respite, that the punishment pronounced might be inflicted. This I have long believed to be the sense of this difficult passage, and no other that I have seen is so consistent with the whole scope of the place. That the Spirit of God did strive with, convict, and reprove the antediluvians, is evident from Gen 6:3 : My Spirit shall not always strive with man, forasmuch as he is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. And it was by this Spirit that Noah became a preacher of righteousness, and condemned that ungodly world, Heb 11:7, who would not believe till wrath - Divine punishment, came upon them to the uttermost. The word πνευμασι, spirits, is supposed to render this view of the subject improbable, because this must mean disembodied spirits; but this certainly does not follow, for the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb 12:23, certainly means righteous men, and men still in the Church militant; and the Father of spirits, Heb 12:9, means men still in the body; and the God of the spirits of all flesh, Num 16:22; Num 27:16, means men not in a disembodied state.\nBut even on this word there are several various readings; some of the Greek MSS. read πνευματι, in spirit, and one Πνευματι Ἁγιῳ, in the Holy Spirit. I have before me one of the first, if not the very first edition of the Latin Bible; and in it the verse stands thus: In quo et hiis, qui in carcere erant, Spiritualiter veniens praedicavit; \"by which he came spiritually, and preached to them that were in prison.\"\nIn two very ancient MSS. of the Vulgate before me, the clause is thus: In quo et his qui in carcere erant Spiritu venient praedicavit; \"in which, coming by the Spirit, he preached to those who were in prison.\" This is the reading also in the Complutensian Polyglot.\nAnother ancient MS. in my possession has the words nearly as in the printed copy: In quo et hiis qui in carcere Conclusi erant Spiritualiter veniens praedicavit; \"in which, coming spiritually, he preached to those who were Shut Up in prison.\"\nAnother MS., written about a.d. 1370, is the same as the printed copy.\nThe common printed Vulgate is different from all these, and from all the MSS. of the Vulgate which I have seen in reading spiritibus, \"to the spirits.\"\nIn my old MS. Bible, which contains the first translation into English ever made, the clause is the following: In whiche thing and to hem that weren closid togyder in prison, hi commynge in Spirit, prechide. The copy from which this translation was taken evidently read conclusi erdnt, with one of the MSS. quoted above, as closid togyder proves.\nI have quoted all these authorities from the most authentic and correct copies of the Vulgate, to show that from them there is no ground to believe that the text speaks of Christ's going to hell to preach the Gospel to the damned, or of his going to some feigned place where the souls of the patriarchs were detained, to whom he preached, and whom he delivered from that place and took with him to paradise, which the Romish Church holds as an article of faith.\nThough the judicious Calmet holds with his Church this opinion, yet he cannot consider the text of St. Peter as a proof of it. I will set down his own words: Le sentiment qui veut que Jesus Christ soit descendu aux enfers, pour annoncer sa venue aux anciens patriarches, et pour les tirer de cette espece de prison, ou ils Pattendoient si long tems, est indubitable; et nous le regardons comme un article de notre foi: mais on peut douter que ce soit le sens de Saint Pierre en cet endroit. \"The opinion which states that Jesus Christ descended into hell, to announce his coming to the ancient patriarchs, and to deliver them from that species of prison, where they had so long waited for him, is incontrovertible; and we (the Catholics) consider it as an article of our faith: but we may doubt whether this be the meaning of St. Peter in this place.\" Some think the whole passage applies to the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; but the interpretation given above appears to me, after the fullest consideration, to be the most consistent and rational, as I have already remarked. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["When once the long-suffering of God waited - In Pirkey Aboth, cap. v. 2, we have these words: \"There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, that the long-suffering of God might appear; for each of these generations provoked him to anger, and went on in their iniquity, till at last the deluge came.\"\nWere saved by water - While the ark was preparing, only Noah's family believed; these amounted to eight persons; and these only were saved from the deluge δι' ὑδατος, on the water: all the rest perished in the water; though many of them, while the rains descended, and the waters daily increased, did undoubtedly humble themselves before God, call for mercy, and receive it; but as they had not repented at the preaching of Noah, and the ark was now closed, and the fountains of the great deep broken up, they lost their lives, though God might have extended mercy to their souls. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["The like figure whereunto, etc. - Dr. Macknight has translated this verse so as to make the meaning more clear: By which (water) the antitype baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) now saveth us also, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\nHe remarks that the relative ᾡ being in the neuter gender, its antecedent cannot be κιβωτος, the ark, which is feminine, but ὑδωρ, water, which is neuter.\nThere are many difficulties in this verse; but the simple meaning of the place may be easily apprehended. Noah believed in God; walked uprightly before him, and found grace in his sight; he obeyed him in building the ark, and God made it the means of his salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism implies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He who is faithful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, by the eternal Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from his sins; and through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, has the well-grounded hope of eternal glory. This is all plain; but was it the deluge, itself, or the ark, or the being saved by that ark from the deluge, that was the antitype of which St. Peter speaks? Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark; so the water of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification. The ark was not immersed in the water; had it been so they must all have perished; but it was borne up on the water, and sprinkled with the rain that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of immersion in baptism; but is rather, from the circumstance mentioned above, in favor of sprinkling. In either case, it is not the sprinkling, washing, or cleansing the body, that can be of any avail to the salvation of the soul, but the answer of a good conscience towards God - the internal evidence and external proof that the soul is purified in the laver of regeneration, and the person enabled to walk in newness of life. We are therefore strongly cautioned here, not to rest in the letter, but to look for the substance. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Who is gone into heaven - Having given the fullest proof of his resurrection from the dead, and of his having accomplished the end for which he came into the world.\nOn the right hand of God - In the place of the highest dignity, honor, and influence.\nThe Vulgate, one copy of the Itala, Augustine, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and Bede, have the following remarkable addition after the above words: Deglutiens mortem, ut vitae aeternae haeredes efficeremur. \"Having abolished (swallowed down) death, that we might be made heirs of eternal life.\" But this addition is found in no Greek copy, nor in any other of the ancient versions.\nAngels and authorities and powers - That is, all creatures and beings, both in the heavens and in the earth, are put under subjection to Jesus Christ. He has all power in the heavens and in the earth. He alone can save; and he alone can destroy. None need fear who put their trust in him, as he can do whatsoever he will in behalf of his followers, and has good and evil spirits under his absolute command. Well may his enemies tremble, while his friends exult and sing. He can raise the dead, and save to the uttermost all that come unto the Father through him.\nIf he have all power, if angels and authorities and powers be subject to him, then he can do what he will, and employ whom he will. To raise the dead can be no difficulty to him, because he has power over all things. He created the world; he can destroy it, and he can create it anew. We can conceive nothing too difficult for Omnipotence. This same omnipotent Being is the friend of man. Why then do we not come to him with confidence, and expect the utmost salvation of which our souls and bodies are capable?\n\n"]}],"introduction":"The duty of wives to their husbands, how they are to be adorned, and be in subjection as Sarah was to Abraham, Pe1 3:1-6. The duty of husbands to their wives, Pe1 3:7. How to obtain happiness, and live a long and useful life, Pe1 3:8-11. God loves and succours them that do good; but his face is against the wicked, Pe1 3:12, Pe1 3:13. They should suffer persecution patiently, and be always ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them; and preserve a good conscience, though they suffered for righteousness, Pe1 3:14-17. Christ suffered for us, and was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, Pe1 3:18. How he preached to the old world, while Noah was preparing the ark, Pe1 3:19, Pe1 3:20. The salvation of Noah and his family a type of baptism, Pe1 3:21. Christ is ascended to heaven, all creatures being subject to him, Pe1 3:22. \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1PE/3.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1PE","chapter":3},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1PE/4.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1PE","chapter":4},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/1PE/2.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"1PE","chapter":2},"numberOfVerses":21}