Chapter 2 verses 1-10

Exhortation to Spiritual Growth and Unity, Based on the New Birth and the Position of Living Stones in God’s Temple (2:1-10)

Our heading is indicative of the composite character of this section, which contains elements apparently so disparate as to require a break between the third and fourth verses. Yet the two segments seem intended to coalesce, however discrete milk and stone appear to be. Peter passes without a pause from food to fellowship, making Christ the key to both. How closely allied the concepts of growth and unity can be may be seen in Ephesians 2:21, 22, “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Peter is about to describe the new order of which Christians are a part, a divine society so wonderful as to require the heaping up of epithets for its delineation, a fellowship possessing such a holy dynamic that the world is bound to feel the force of its testimony to the God who called it into being (vs. 9). To attain this goal, every factor hindering the corporate development must be recognized and put away, hence the exhortation with which the chapter begins. The difficulty confronting the church is not simply that of achieving progress in spiritual things by advancing from a lower to a higher level, but also of meeting antagonistic elements in its own life and gaining the victory over them. Fully matured and ripened fruit is worthless if it be worm-eaten.

A similar statement of the case is found in Paul’s letters, notably in the Ephesian epistle, with which First Peter has such marked affinities. In 4:13 we have the goal-“till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Farther on in the chapter, attention is paid to the things which hinder fellowship with other believers and which grieve the indwelling Spirit. These things are to be put off (ἀποτίθεσθαι), which is Peter’s admonition also. James, too, employs the word in a similar connection (1:21).

The second chapter of First Peter opens in such a way as to give clear evidence of its dependence upon what has preceded, since newborn (ἀρτιγέννητα) looks back to ἀναγεγεννημένοι in 1:23, and the final appeal of chapter one, dealing with brotherly love, finds an echo in 2:1, inasmuch as the sins there enumerated are those which prove most injurious to love of the brethren. This observation serves as a hint that the emphasis on the unity of the church which is patent as the paragraph unfolds, is latent here. It is the central teaching throughout. The first sin to be labelled is malice. This is a superior rendering, in this passage, to evil, since the word is coupled with specific rather than with general shortcomings. “In malice be ye children” (1 Cor 14:20). Its running mates are guile and hypocrisy. The latter is particularly repugnant when it involves an appearance of love which is not actually present, for the pretension is reprehensible in proportion to the sacredness of the thing assumed (cf. 1:22). The list is concluded with envy and evil speaking of all kinds (cf. 2 Cor 12:20, Rom 1:30 for this word), two things which logically belong together, since envy leads to depreciation of another whenever there are ears willing to hear. Such are the sins which blast brotherhood-not gross sins of the flesh which chiefly injure oneself and advertise their folly, but subtle moods that rankle and ever and anon burst forth from under cover with devastating effect, and yet are so readily excused or even denied. These are “little foxes, that spoil the vines.” We observe, in passing, that of these five terms, the last two and possibly the middle one also, concerning which the manuscript testimony is divided, are plurals. Probably the words which occur in the singular indicate dispositions, fundamentally, whereas the plurals denote overt acts.

The putting off of these sins is prerequisite to profitable feeding upon the Word (vs. 2). As long as they are present, Christian growth is hindered and the spiritual appetite is dulled. Moody used to say that the Word keeps one from sin, and sin keeps one from the Word. Leighton, in his delightfully quaint way of stating the truth, says, “Would we know the main cause of our fruitless hearing of the Word, here it is: men bring not meek and guileless spirits to it, not minds emptied and purified to receive it, but stuffed with malice, and hypocrisy, and pride, and other such evils: and where should the Word enter, when all is so taken up? And if it did enter, how should it prosper amongst so many enemies, or at all abide amongst them? Either they will turn it out again, or choke and kill the power of it.”

Such a list of sins in a letter intended for Christian readers suggests the presence or at least the possibility of the presence of such things among believers generally. There is a thoughtless and superficial notion to which expression is sometimes given, to the effect that when people act at times in ways which are obviously unchristian, they cannot truly be Christians at all. This is to confuse action with relation. It is to ignore the power which sin can exert, even in a believer. “Every renewed man has in his flesh his unrenewed nature,-the evil heart,-the seminal principle of every species of moral evil; and I do not know what is the sin which, if he is unwatchful, unprayerful, exposed to temptation, and unrestrained by divine influence, he may not commit” (John Brown).

The address to the readers as newborn babes is fitting after mention of the new birth in 1:23. Being now recipients of divine life, they need to be instructed as to its proper nourishment. The agent is the same in both cases; that which gave life will nurture life. In its former capacity, it is the living Word, guaranteeing everlasting life; in the latter, it is pure, insuring spiritual health and growth. The word ἀρτιγέννητα is regarded by some (Huther, e.g.) as providing proof that the readers of the epistle were recent converts. Lacking independent corroboration of this, we can

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 310

scarcely adduce it from this one word, since there is no appeal here from immaturity or backwardness to a more advanced stage, but rather an appeal equally befitting a believer many years in the faith. As Hort observes, there is no prospect held out here of a change to a stronger diet later on, as in 1 Corinthians 3:2, but rather, what lies ahead for the milk-fed child of God is nothing short of perfect, full, final salvation. In comparison with what stretches on before him into eternity, the Christian’s course of life thus far is but a few days of infancy. Peter seems to be pleading with his readers to be children in guile, ἄδολον being evidently introduced with special reference to δόλον in verse 1. For their spiritual nourishment, they are bidden to long with ardent desire. “There is nothing more guileless than a new-born babe, and there is nothing more intense than its longings for the breast” (Thornley Smith).

We encounter difficulty in handling λογικόν. Our common version renders it as though it were του̂ λόγου-“of the Word.” The Revisers retained the adjectival form of the original, rendering it spiritual, in agreement with their wording in Romans 12:1, the only other New Testament occurrence. Other attempts are reasonable, rational, etc. These would lay emphasis on the contrast between milk which nourishes the body and that sustenance which God provides for the soul. Such renderings leave the milk undefined, but the recipients of the letter would hardly be in doubt as to the meaning. The very similarity in form between λογικόν and λόγου (1:23) could easily be a reminder to them of the Word. This milk is guileless (ἄδολον) and therefore specially adapted to produce the guileless temper enjoined in verse 1. There is probably no warrant for thinking of the word as meaning unadulterated here, though this is linguistically possible (cf. Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament for this word as well as λογικόν). The sentiment is not doctrinal-free from error, but practical-producing growth. What ἄδολον does suggest is that the sins of verse 1 must be put off as a condition of

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 311

growth, for God’s pure Word cannot do its work where these abound.

On overwhelming manuscript authority, the words unto salvation should be admitted into the text of verse 2. It is impossible for unsaved persons to grow unto salvation, but it is both possible and normal for believers, those who enjoy life from God which is capable of developing indefinitely until reaching its perfected state in glory (cf. 1:5, 9).

Appropriately, the apostle introduces at this point a quotation from the Old Testament-“if ye tasted that the Lord is kind.” The full statement in Psalm 34 is “taste and see,” but the tasting alone is required by contextual necessity. We learn once more the lesson that the closest possible relation exists between the Lord and His Word. To come to the Word with longing is to find and taste the Lord Himself. We learn that He is kind (χρηστός). God’s kindness was both manifested and epitomized in Christ (cf. Titus 3:4). We tasted of Him at conversion; we continue to feed upon Him as our daily supply; we never tire of Him as did the Israelites of the manna. He always satisfies. But He will not have us resorting elsewhere for our nourishment. He is jealous of His prerogative. And as for ourselves, when feeding here, we should lose all appetite for other fare. “All delights imply repulsions. All likes necessitate dislikes. A strong taste for God implies a strong distaste for the ungodly. The more refined my taste, the more exacting becomes my standard. The more I appreciate God, the more shall I depreciate the godless. I do not wonder, therefore, that in the chapter before us the ‘tasting’ of grace is accompanied by a putting away of sin” (Jowett).

In verse 4 it is made plain that the Lord of Psalm 34 is being thought of as Christ. A like application of Κύριος in the Septuagint to our Lord Jesus Christ is observable in Paul. For Jews, steeped in monotheism, to make this transference was a difficult step which could only have been taken by the light of revelation. That it was taken is proof of their unconditional ascription of deity to Jesus of Nazareth.

Peter now presents his Lord as the living Stone, and

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 312

believers as infused and energized with His life. The difficulty of associating life and energy with stone as we commonly know it only enhances the distinction of the Lord Jesus and exalts the supernaturalism of His person. There may be a personal reason for the fascination Peter found in contemplating Christ under this figure. “It is not unnatural to suppose that the signification of the name which had been given by the Lord to the apostle himself made this particular figure interesting to him; and as we see into what prominence he puts the one divine living Stone, and how entirely secondary and dependent he evidently considers his own standing and office as a πέτρος to be, one cannot but contrast apostolic Christianity and mediaeval superstition” (Johnstone).

Peter had heard Jesus prophesy the demolition of the temple in Jerusalem, stone from stone, a fitting picture of the coming desolation of a Judaism which had rejected its Messiah. He also heard from his Master’s lips two other prophecies-one, that the temple of His own body, sundered by death, would be raised up, and the other, that He would build upon the rock-foundation of His deity His own church, to endure for ever. No wonder Peter was engrossed by the subject of Christ the Rock. When he writes, “to whom coming,” we are apt to think, no doubt, of people coming to Christ in the initial act of faith, taking their places as stones, new converts, in the edifice of the true church. We are safe in saying, however, that the teaching here is rather different, for the reason that the participle προσερχόμενοι is in the present tense, signifying a continued or repeated coming, and because the word itself is characteristically used, especially in Hebrews, for approach to God in prayer, fellowship and worship. Consequently we are to think of believers here, those who enjoy access to Christ as their perennial privilege.

This approach to the living Christ is the great characteristic which distinguishes Christianity from all other faiths as heaven is high above earth. There is nothing anywhere in the religions of mankind even remotely approximating this,

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 313

for no other faith can claim a living founder who has passed through death and has risen to a triumphant station at God’s right hand, there to be continually available to the immediate fellowship of each one who trusts Him. The adjective ζω̂ντα is not exhausted by recognizing in it the truth that the risen Lord is “made after the power of an indissoluble life” (Heb 7:16), for the emphasis is on the communicative properties of this life, as in John 6:51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever” (cf. also John 14:19).

The human and the divine viewpoints are often at variance (1 Sam 16:7; Isa 55:8, 9; Luke 16:15), but never more acutely than in the appraisal of the Lord Jesus Christ, called of men a deceiver, yet full of grace and truth; a blasphemer, although the faithful and true witness; demon possessed, despite the word, “I have put my Spirit upon him”; a sinner, yet in Him was no sin, He knew no sin, He did no sin; hated without a cause, but pronounced “my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”; whom men crucified, whom God raised from the dead. Peter sums it all up by saying that the Lord Jesus was “disallowed of men, but chosen of God and precious.” The participle ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον stamps the sons of men with guilt in their treatment of Christ, for the verb means to reject only after trial, after seeing His mighty works and listening to His incomparable words. Further, the perfect tense suggests that having arrived at their estimate of Christ, men were content to rest the case and not reopen it. How bitterly the leaders of the Jews resisted the preaching about a risen Savior, Peter had ample opportunity to observe. He was not slow in his public preaching, as in his writing, to expose the unreasonable divergence of the human attitude from the divine (Acts 2:22–24; 3:13–15; 4:10, 11). The word ἐκλεκτόν might easily be taken to mean chosen in the sense of being taken out from among the dead in the act of resurrection. This would give a nicely balanced contrast to the sentence, which would then present the antithetical attitudes of men and God in the crucifixion and the resurrection respectively. But the contrast is more

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 314

latent. Jesus could not be kept in death because He was the elect and precious One of God. The thought is found for example, in Isaiah 42:1, realized in the Incarnation, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen (ἐκλεκτός, LXX) in whom my soul delighteth.” The ἐκλεκτόν in its individual reference has its complement in verse 9-an elect race, just as in the case of the living Stone and the living stones. Many, indeed, are the terms used in the New Testament for Christ and His saints alike, which is a testimony to the intimacy of the bond which unites the Redeemer and the redeemed. A second epithet for the living Stone is ἔντιμον-“held in honor, regarded as precious.” Whatever be the verdict of men regarding Jesus Christ, He is highly prized in the sight of God. The word is used of large building-stones in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:9–11), but the chief background for it is Isaiah 28:16, the basic passage for the later allusions to Messiah as the Rock or Stone.

Though Peter does not say in so many words at this point that Christ is the foundation Stone, this is a natural inference from the fact that he makes use of Isaiah 28:16 in verse 6, and from the consideration that he writes “ye also are built.” The matter is clinched by the citing of Psalm 118:22 in the seventh verse.

Our attention is now directed to the other stones, each one impregnated with divine life before being introduced into the corporate relationship of a spiritual house. The parallel with the figures of the vine-branch and head-members of body is clearly seen, but the other relationships are derived from organic life, whereas here the very incongruity of life in stone makes the boldness of the figure impressive. The idea in οἰκοδομει̂σθε is closely akin to that of αὐξηθη̂τε in verse 2 -growth, development, with emphasis on the welding together which is essential to the effective ministry as a corporate body of priests. This is indicated, in part, by the present tense of the verb. The mood seems to be indicative rather than imperative. We are moving here along the line of historical facts, which is evident from the οὐ̂ν at the

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 315

beginning of verse 7, where the consequence of men’s differing reception of the Stone is unfolded.

The position of Christians as a spiritual house is suggestive of something real and substantial, but position is not the ultimate goal. We pass quickly to activity, to service in the house (cf. foundation-house-vessels-use, in 2 Tim 2:19–21). The corporate character of the service is apparent in ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, answering closely to the situation in ancient Israel, where we learn much of the priesthood, but very little of individual priests. The advance over Israel’s position is obvious. All are priests here, not a selected group from the nation. Priests must have something to offer-the spiritual sacrifices befitting a spiritual house. There is no enumeration of the sacrifices, but we can supply them from other Scriptures. The body as the organ of active life is fundamental (Rom 12:1). Two others are given in Hebrews 13:15, 16, “By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Griffith Thomas has itemized these three sacrifices as person, purse and praise. In Philippians 4:18, a love gift from the church to Paul is termed a θυσί́α. As in the Hebrews passage, so in Peter, the acceptability of the sacrifices is due to the mediation of Christ (διὰ Ἰησου̂ Χριστου̂).

Before summarizing the consequences of the Christian’s attitude and relation to Christ, Peter seeks the support of Scripture for the claim of the great worth of Christ and the dignity of all who trust in Him. Both truths are seen to lie in the germ passage, Isaiah 28:16.

The force of τιμή in verse 7 is contested. If we render it honor (cf. 1:7), it yields a contrast to the shame which is the lot of those who do not believe on Him; if we render it preciousness, the thought takes the course that believers, identifying themselves with God’s estimation of Christ, find in Him something the world has never seen. Bigg objects to the latter rendering, on the ground that it departs from

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 316

the proper sense of τιμή, which is either price or honor. But we have to recognize that Peter is using the word with evident reference to the adjective ἔντιμον in verses 4 and 6, and perhaps also with an eye to the preceding reference to the blood of Christ as precious (1:19).

The Stone has had a double history since the time the builders of Israel discarded Him and God picked Him up in resurrection power. He has become the precious cornerstone of the church, to whom believers are joined by faith, and the stone of stumbling to the disbelieving (cf. Matt 21:42–46). Israel’s failure in the wilderness was due to disbelief and disobedience (Heb 3:18, 19), and to these same causes must be laid her disavowal of the Savior-ἀπιστου̂σιν (vs. 7) and ἀπειθου̂ντες (vs. 8). Are unbelievers appointed to disobedience, or simply to the stumbling which results therefrom? The latter seems preferable, the antecedent of ὅ being προσκόπτουσιν, which in turn carries back to the noun of that root in the same verse. Unbelief blinds the eye. One can do naught but stumble and so become as thoroughly outcast as the Jews intended Christ to be when they had wrought their will on Him. Unbelief carries a terrible nemesis.

Passing to a consideration of the position of the saints, therefore, is like emerging from the darkness of death into the light of life. Two Old Testament passages primarily underlie the ninth verse, Exodus 19:5, 6 and Isaiah 43:20, 21. As an elect race, believers are distinguished from others by the new birth; γένος is derived from γένω, which is related to both γίνομαι and γεννάω. We cannot fail to trace the connection of thought back to the teaching on regeneration in 1:23 and 2:2. With respect to βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, in Exodus 19:6 the emphasis is first of all on the character of the nation Israel as a kingdom, a theocratic unit, with the additional feature of possessing a priestly character. In the Hebrew, the two words are substantives in apposition with each other. But in Peter the idea is reversed, so to speak, inasmuch as the priesthood occupies the dominant role, yet it is royal because in the service of a King. The

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 317

word for priesthood (ἱεράτευμα), found in the New Testament only here and in verse 5, means a body of priests, after the analogy of στράτευμα, for example, a body of soldiers, an army. Masterman has a helpful note on the teaching here to the effect that “the priestly office of the Christian minister does not supersede, but rather depends on, the priesthood of the whole body.” Next comes the striking cognomen-holy nation. Dispersed among the peoples of Asia Minor, strangers and pilgrims on the earth, their citizenship in heaven, these saints were nevertheless a nation-a nation among the nations, the reason for their very existence being traceable to their holy character (cf. 1:15, 16). Lastly, they are a people for a possession (λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν). In both Isaiah 43:21 and Exodus 19:5 the root περιποιέω is used, in the first case in the verbal form, and in the second as an adjective. The verb contains the thought of making something around, that is, drawing a circle for possession and safekeeping. It is a highly expressive word for sovereign choice and guardianship (cf. Heb 10:39).

All these distinctions are but empty captions unless the company of the redeemed functions as a testimony to God’s transplanting, transforming power. The virtues of God which the saints are to proclaim are not the opposite of vices, but rather excellencies or praises. Hort comments as follows on the divine calling: “here it is spoken of as a calling by God to a sharing of His marvelous light, an admission to some power of reading the mysteries of life aright by seeing them in a measure in the same light in which they are seen by Him who created them and disposes them.”

For a final setting forth of the new state of his readers in contrast to their former state, Peter, like his brother apostle Paul in Romans 9 and 11, turns back to the language of the prophet Hosea in his discourse about Ammi and Lo-ammi. In its primary reference, the prophecy looks forward to the repentance of Israel by which that nation will regain the right to be called by the Lord His own people. Peter, like Paul, sees in the language of the prophet fitting terminology for the Gentiles now responding to the Gospel,

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 318

despite the fact that they lack the antecedent relationship to the Lord enjoyed by Israel before her unfaithfulness. Some expositors would supply, in thought, a Θεου̂ with the first clause, maintaining that the thing being established is not the lack of existence as a people formerly, but only their lack of relationship to God. However, that is taking considerable liberty with the wording, which could very easily have been changed to convey the meaning under review. Johnstone is probably right in his diagnosis of the thought-“from a religious point of view, the sinful world has no real community of life or of interest, but is merely an aggregate of isolated persons, the tendency of sin being ever, through the working of selfishness and hatred, toward social disintegration.”

As one glances back over the last two verses, he cannot fail to be impressed with the amount of terminology imported from the Old Testament, and he is bound to conclude that we are intended to see a parallel between Israel as chosen out of the nations, separated unto God as peculiarly His, and the church as chosen out from the world. There is a similar obligation to holiness and faithfulness, based on God’s gracious and sovereign choice. Going this far, we must beware lest we step beyond bounds and fall into the trap which has caught so many, namely, that of supposing that the church has supplanted Israel, so that the latter will never again enjoy a separate existence under the favor of God. Three simple considerations alone should warn us away from this pitfall. First, there are no definite articles accompanying the epithets derived from the Old Testament and here applied to the church. Hence the analogy does not pass into identification or final displacement of one by the other. Second, the numerous declarations of the prophets that Israel will never cease to be a nation and will be restored to her land and her God receive ample corroboration from the carefully reasoned argument of Paul as it reaches its climax in Romans 11. It is the nation thrust away from God for a time which will yet be saved and return to Him. If it be objected that no mention is made

BSac 98:391 (Jul 41) p. 319

by Paul of restoration to the land, it is sufficient to reply that the ancient prophecies which forecast the spiritual renewal of Israel in the last days locate it in the land. This is an integral part of the prediction (e.g., Ezek 37:21–23). If it be objected that the future converted Israel will be merged into the church, one need only point to the fact that this epochal event in Israel’s life will come only after the church is complete, after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25 compared with 11:12). Third, the Spirit of God avoids calling the church Israel. The one passage which appears to do this very thing (Gal 6:16) merely sets up a contrast between men like Paul, who had found Christ to be the end of the law for righteousness, and the Judaizers who were Israelites in the fleshly sense but nothing more. So Paul is actually using the designation Israel only for the Jewish portion of the church, not for the church in its entirety with Gentiles included. The Gentiles have been already addressed in the words, “Peace be upon them, and mercy.” How great that mercy is, only the redeemed of the Lord can know.

[1]

----

[1]Dallas Theological Seminary: Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 98. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1941; 2002, S. 98:307-319