1 Peter 1:1,2

THE PRESENT POWER OF THE FUTURE SALVATION

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

1 Peter 1:1. Peter.—This may be called his official, his apostolic name, as distinguished from his personal name Simon, or Simeon. Christ gave it to mark His estimate of his character; it has come to indicate his office. Apostle.—That is, one directly called, commissioned, and sent, by Jesus Christ Himself. Compare the name “servant,” given to themselves by James and Jude, which suggests, and seems to imply, that they were not apostles in the first sense of the term. Jesus Christ.—As St. Peter writes mainly to Jews, this name is significant as assuming the recognised Messiahship of Jesus. He is Jesus the Messiah. Strangers.—ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις; chosen strangers, or elect sojourners of the Dispersion. Compare John 7:35, “the dispersion of the Greeks,” which must mean the “dispersed Jews who live among the Greeks.” Here “the dispersed of Pontus,” etc., means “the dispersed Jews who live in these countries.” Strangers is a confusing word; sojourners is better. Jerusalem is thought of as the Jews’ home; anywhere else he is a sojourner. The tone of the epistle is adapted to the Jew, and especially to the foreign-dwelling Jew. The countries mentioned are provinces of Asia Minor. The particular occasion of the letter is not indicated even by its contents.

1 Peter 1:2. Elect.—The usual idea of the Jews as a nation. But Peter intimates that the Christian Jews were elect in a new sense. “The word and the thought that the disciples of Christ are what they are by the election or choice of God characterises the whole teaching of the New Testament.” Foreknowledge.—Plumptre says that the word hovers between a mere “prevision of the future” and the higher sense in which “knowing” means “loving” and “approving,” as in 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9, and probably Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2. God the Father.—St. Peter’s clear conception of the Sonship of Christ gave him a clear and strong impression of the Fatherhood of God. Through sanctification of the Spirit.—Which practically carries out the electing purpose of God. “Separating,” rather than “making holy,” is the idea of sanctification here, after the familiar meaning of the term to Jews. Compare “consecration.” The election of God, as a Divine purpose, realised or manifested itself in their being separated from the world, and set apart as consecrated ones. Unto obedience.—The response of the consecrated one to the grace of his separation. To secure such obedience is the purpose of God’s election, and the work of the sanctifying Spirit. So the obedience of the Jewish nation was the proper response to the national election. Sprinkling of the blood.—Which bears direct relation to infirmities in the obedience of the sanctified ones, as is even more clearly expressed in 1 John 1:7. It should be noticed that this cleansing and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus is applied to those who are Christian, who are separated or sanctified. “The daily being sprinkled by Christ’s blood, and so cleansed from all sin” (Fausset). Grace … peace.—By peace is meant that inward composure of mind which attends upon the experience of electing grace. “Peace” is the old Hebrew salutation; the addition of “grace” makes it a Christian salutation.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 1 Peter 1:1

The Called-out Ones.—The epistle to the Hebrews is evidently written for the Jewish Christians, but it had no direct address or dedication to them. The only epistle besides 1 Peter, addressed to the Jews of the Dispersion, is the epistle of James; and that epistle should be carefully compared with this, in order to discover what common conditions each writer dealt with, and what peculiar perils or weaknesses each noticed.

I. The Dispersion.—It is important to mark the distinction between St. James’ dedication and St. Peter’s. St. James addresses the “twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,” apparently not wishing to press any distinction between Jews and Christian Jews. St. Peter, as is brought out clearly by the Revised Version, addressed only those who, of the Dispersion, had accepted the faith of Christ. “To the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion.” There is consequently a general tone on the counsels of St. James, and a precise and specific tone on the counsels of St. Peter. His interest in those to whom he wrote as, like himself, Jews, is evident in the illustrations and references of the epistle; but it is equally evident that St. Peter has in mind those who share with him in a distinctly Christian experience. The term that he uses, “sojourners,” suggests that he had not in mind those of the Dispersion who had settled down and made their homes in these lands, but rather those who were taking temporary shelter in these lands, because driven from their homes by persecution, or by some prevailing famine or distress. Sojourners of the Dispersion cannot be intended to suggest the Dispersion. As those in flight, and in fear, and in distressing circumstances, St. Peter’s assurances, and sympathy would be especially comforting to them. He thinks of them as elect ones, called out ones—as those who, in the persuasions of Divine grace, had been led to accept of Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour; to them had been given “like precious faith” with him.

II. The basis of their call.—“According to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” St. Paul in a similar way says, “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.” The thought is almost peculiarly a Jewish one. It was the genius of that nation to see God’s mind, God’s purpose, and God’s hand in everything. A Jew could not look upon anything without the feeling: God thought it, God meant it, God did it. They were jealous of admitting that anything could ever happen which was not first in the mind of God. And it was quite natural that the Jewish apostles should be jealous of every attempt to separate the new life in Christ from God. The Christian faith and life was no independent thing. Every one who exercised the faith, and received the life, was known of God beforehand, and within all agencies that won the man for Christ was the Divine call, based upon the Divine foreknowledge. “Them He also called.” Difficulty is often made by unnecessarily assuming that the Divine foreknowledge involves Divine interference. It is thought that because God foreknew, therefore man could not be left free to act upon motives and judgments. It is even assumed that, all being settled beforehand in the Divine councils, men could be no other than saved or unsaved, as God arranged for them. But knowledge of what will happen is quite distinct from interfering to make things happen. The Divine eye, searching the ages, may see every one that will accept the offer of salvation in Christ, and yet all the ordinary agencies for the teaching of the truth and the persuading of the will may go on unhindered. God’s foreknowledge is a sublime mystery of the Divine nature, which comes comfortingly to Jewish toned souls, but in no way affects man’s freedom to act on considerations submitted, or his responsibility for making wise and worthy decisions. Even in the small spheres of family life, parents often feel quite certain how their several children will act under the same circumstances; but that parental knowledge—though it guides parental doings—in no sense interferes with the free expression of themselves by the children.

III. The method of their call.—“The sanctification of the Spirit.” It is grammatically possible that the reference is not to the Holy Spirit, but to the man’s own spirit. And the idea of separation and consecration is that expressed by the one word “sanctification.” The call of God is an arousing of the man’s spiritual nature into activity. But God working in the spirit of man we recognise as the Holy Spirit. The first idea of sanctifying a man we express as spiritualising a man—wakening him to spiritual interests, to attention to spiritual claims and considerations, and to the making of spiritual decisions and resolves. St. Paul says, “Ye which are spiritual.” And God’s call is a “sanctifying,” because it awakens a man, and makes him spiritual. Illustration may be taken from the boy Samuel, who heard God’s call, and became spiritual from that hour. Or from Saul of Tarsus, who heard God’s call, and became spiritual from that hour. The proper act of the awakened spiritual life is consecration to God. To that God’s Spirit moves the spiritual man. That consecration is his sanctification.

IV. The purpose of their call.—“Unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Compare St. Paul’s words, “To be conformed to the image of His Son.” Obedience is the epitome of right relations between God and His creatures, between the Father and His sons. But it is the spiritual obedience of spiritual men that is referred to; an obedience which is the expression of heart-devotion. By “sprinkling of the blood” may possibly be meant that sense of acceptance with God, that joy of fellowship with God, and that guarantee of maintained relations with God, which comes to us only through the sprinkled blood. The purpose God has in their call is to bring them into that holy life, to which He can respond by giving them fully His Divine favour and friendship. The greeting of this passage, “Grace to you and peace be multiplied!” becomes interesting as the sympathetic greeting of a specially called one, called to be “an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

1 Peter 1:2. Election.—We may at once place aside, as having nothing to do with our subject, the question whether God’s knowledge of future events practically abolishes human freedom. We know absolutely nothing of the nature of God, excepting what He has revealed, and the question before us simply is, What did the writers of the New Testament mean? Who are the elect and chosen of whom they speak? Are they (whoever they are) arbitrarily chosen according to the determinate counsel of God? and if so, to what are they chosen? The apostles were Jews, and part of their mission was to explain why God should turn away from His elect people, and offer eternal life also to the Gentiles. St. Paul says, God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew, but as in the time of Elijah there was a faithful remnant, so those whose ears had been opened to hear the word of the gospel were the election of grace, as he calls it, and that they and the Gentiles who had been admitted to the privileges of hearing the word of the gospel through their fall, are now the elect people of God. In Romans 9, the apostle asserts the power of God to extend His chosen people, and reminds them that God had not acted in His choice of them as the elect people of God upon the principles of bare lineal descent, but that the revelation of His mercy and goodness has not been dependent upon any goodness of theirs, but on His sovereign will and pleasure. Not that God has no reasons, but that “He giveth not account” to His creature man “of any of His matters. God blesses some nations with peculiar blessings which He withholds from others. The Potter makes two vessels; one, the Jewish nation, God saw fit to devote to honour; the other, the Egyptian nation, He devotes to less honour, to make His power known. What were God’s favoured nation, the Jews, elected, chosen, predestinated to? Not, surely, final salvation, but to peculiar religious privileges—not to a blessing absolutely, but to a special privilege and advantage, and the offer and opportunity of obtaining temporal blessings, not extended to the other nations of the world, and of having committed to them the oracles of God. The Jews were not chosen for their obedience, for they were a peculiarly disobedient people, and their privileges were made to depend upon their obedience. They were left free to choose between blessing and cursing; a blessing if they attended to the voice of the Lord their God, and a curse if they refused to obey.—Robert Barclay.

Election as held by Jews.—The Old Testament containing not only the germs of the doctrine of election in the contraposition of Abraham and the world, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Judah and his brethren, but also the germs of the doctrine of decrees in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and others, not to speak of the book of Ruth, and the book of Job, those grand representative exemplifications of Divine fore-ordination, it was quite natural that the idea of Divine predestination should be found living and active among the Jews, though it was very differently developed in the different systems of Judaism. The Sadducees openly asserted that each man was the master of his own destiny; while the Pharisees, with their mechanical separation of the effects of Divine blessing from the effects of human righteousness, made human destiny depend partly on Divine ordination and partly on human actions. The Essenes, representing that form of Judaism which was most mixed up with paganism, considered destiny as an inevitable fate; the whole idea, however, being peculiarly mitigated by the religious quietism which characterised the sect. The fate of Islam is the absolute, arbitrary despotism of Allah; and when the Koran in one place teaches the inevitableness of destiny, and in another the possibility of warding off Divine punishment, it simply contradicts itself. The fatalism of Mohammed referred, probably, only to the infidels; and when to the faithful he preached absolute necessity, with respect to the hour of death, he had probably only a practical purpose in view—to make them good fighters for his religion.—Herzog’s “Encyclopædia.”

Divine Election not Absolute.—What does the word “elect” mean here? Does it refer to an absolute and unconditional election of these Christians to eternal life? Such is the interpretation put upon the word by the followers of Augustine, Calvin, and many other Church teachers; but here, at least, it is otherwise defined. It is an election “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”; and indeed, throughout the New Testament its primary signification is God’s choice of nations, or of individual men, to the enjoyment of special privileges (better say duties, obligations, missions), with a view to their eternal salvation if those privileges are rightly used. It is an election according to the foreknowledge of God—that foreknowledge which sees the end from the beginning, which embraces all the events of time, which is acquainted with the actions, lives, and motives, of all men; and which therefore, can never be taken by surprise. But God’s foreknowledge is not fore-determination. It does not interfere with human free agency. It does not deal with men as with beings who have no moral responsibility. In what way the thought of man’s freedom to will was reconcileable with that of God’s electing purpose, the writers of the New Testament did not care to discuss. They felt, we may believe, instinctively, half unconsciously, that the problem was insoluble, and were content to accept the two beliefs, which cannot logically be reconciled. In the words “the foreknowledge of God the Father” we find, perhaps, the secret of their acceptance of this aspect of the Divine government. The choice and the knowledge were not those of an arbitrary sovereign will, capricious as are the sovereigns of earth, in its favours and antipathies, seeking only to manifest its power, but of a Father whose tender mercies were over all His works, and who sought to manifest His love to all His children. From that standpoint the “choice” of some to special blessings was compatible with perfect equity to all.—Dean Plumptre.

The Election of Christian Jews.—The term “elect” here marks off the Christian Jews from the rest of the Jewish settlers in those parts. God selected these particular Hebrews out of the whole number and made them Christians: but what He elected them to is abundantly shown in the next words.—A. J. Mason, M.A.

Sprinkling.—By this word he alludeth to the sacrifices of the law, which all pointed to the sacrifice of Christ; and to show that as it had been nothing that a sacrifice had been killed, unless the blood thereof had been sprinkled upon the people (for so was the manner), so it avails nothing that Christ died, unless His blood be sprinkled upon us by the hand of a true faith, applying Jesus Christ to our consciences. It is not Christ that saves, but Christ’s death apprehended by a true and lively faith; for a particular persuasion hereof are we to labour,—John Rogers, 1657.

Inauguration by Sprinkling.—Compare Hebrews 9:19; Hebrews 12:24. As the people themselves are “sprinkled,” and not their houses, the reference cannot be to the Paschal sprinkling (Exodus 12:22), but, as in Hebrews, to the scene under Mount Sinai, in Exodus 24:8, where, once for all, the old covenant was inaugurated by the sprinkling of the people. (A curious ceremony of sprinkling the people is observed in Madagascar.) It was to the same scene that our Lord referred when He said of the Eucharistic cup, “This is My blood of the new covenant.” Thus “elect unto the sprinkling of the blood,” seems to mean, “selected for admission into the new covenant, inaugurated by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood.” But whereas the old covenant was inaugurated by sprinkling the people collectively and once for all, the new is inaugurated by individual application. Doubtless the participation of the Holy Communion is the act of “sprinkling” here before St. Peter’s mind, it being the one act which betokens membership in the new covenant-people, the new Israel.—A. J. Mason, M.A.

Daily Sprinkling.—Not sprinkling in justification through the Atonement once for all, which is expressed in the previous clauses, but (as the order proves) the daily being sprinkled by Christ’s blood, and so cleansed from all sin, which is the privilege of one already justified, and walking in the light (1 John 1:7; 1 John 1:9; compare Hebrews 12:24; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 7:14).—Fausset.