1 Peter 1:11

Searching. — This further explains the “inquired and searched” above; it particularises the object of the inquiry. They knew that they spoke “concerning a salvation,” but they did not know the details. The present passage is perhaps the most striking in the whole New Testament in regard to the doctrine of prophetic inspiration. Assuming that the prophets did not speak simply of their own human calculation, but somehow under the influence of the Divine Spirit, we are brought to face the question, how far their utterances were their own, and how far suggested to them from on high. The doctrine of Montanism, which has not altogether died out of the Church yet, asserts that from first to last prophecy is superhuman; that every word and letter is forced upon the man by a power not his own, which leaves him no choice. God, and God alone, is responsible for every syllable. The human will and intelligence need not even concur in the message they deliver, nor even be conscious that they are delivering it. Thus Montanus makes God to say through him: “Lo, man is as a lyre, and I am as that which strikes the chords: the man is unconscious, and I alone wake.” On the other hand, some of the early opponents of Montanism went so far as to say that the inspired writers had a clear and immediate perception, a complete insight into the mysteries which they foretold, — that Isaiah, for instance, saw, as plainly as we do, Mary and Jesus in his prophecy of Immanuel. Our present verses show a doctrine between the two. The prophets find themselves impelled to say words which they are conscious of choosing and using, but which they feel to have a deeper meaning than they themselves were conscious of intending. It is clear to them (1 Peter 1:12) that what they meant primarily as applying to present circumstances, was in reality being overruled by the Spirit to apply more fully to the future. But what that future was they struggled, and half in vain, to know. We may apply to them what Keble says of the Greek poets: —

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

What, or what manner of time. — If this be right, it must mean, “what exact or approximate date.” But the simplest translation would be, to whom, or what period, the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing. This would give new significance to the sentence. They were aware that they were speaking of a Messiah; but who the man should be who would hold that office, or at what period of their history he would arise, this was what they longed to know. They foresaw a Christ, but they could not foresee Jesus; they could give to their Christ no definite position in future history. (Comp. Matthew 22:42; Luke 3:15; Luke 23:35; John 3:28; John 7:26; John 7:41; Acts 2:36, and often.)

The Spirit of Christ which was in them. — They are conscious of a power within them which is not themselves, “moving” them. And this power is described as “the Spirit of Christ.” Now, observe that a change has come over St. Peter’s way of speaking. Hitherto, he has always said, “Jesus Christ,” his object being to keep constantly before the eyes of these Hebrews the truth which he was the first man to enunciate, viz., “Thou art the Christ” (Matthew 16:16), that Jesus was the person who fulfilled all that was expected of the Messiah. “Christ” is not once used by St. Peter (as it is often by St. Paul) as a proper name: it always marks the office, not the person. Therefore we may not prove by this expression two doctrines, however true they may be in themselves, which are commonly sought to be supported by it, viz., the preexistence of our Lord, and the procession of the Holy Ghost from Him as well as from the Father. In spite of a well-quoted passage in Barnabas (1 Peter 5), “The prophets had the gift from Him, and prophesied of Him,” it cannot here mean, “the Holy Ghost given them by our Lord Himself.” Besides, it is theologically incorrect to say that Christ as the Anointed had any pre-existence, except as an indefinite hope in the minds of the Hebrews. The Son, the unincarnate Word, pre-existed, but it is Apollinarianism to say that Jesus had any existence before the Incarnation, — still more Christ, since it may be doubted whether the Incarnate Word became “Christ” until His baptism. That, at least, appears to be St. Peter’s doctrine (Acts 10:38). “The Spirit of Messiah,” then, at any rate when applied to the ages before Christ came, must have a different meaning. Probably not exactly “the Spirit that was to anoint and be in the Messiah,” but rather, “the Messiah-spirit” or “the Messianic spirit.” The prophets wondered who the man was, and where he would live, to whom this Messianic inspiration which they felt within was pointing. St. Peter himself, we repeat, was the first person who fully knew the answer.

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

The sufferings of Christ. — This unduly contracts the fulness of the Greek, which reads, the sufferings for Christ (just as we had before “the grace for you”), i.e., “these sufferings in reserve for Messiah.” The Old Testament passages which may be supposed to be chiefly indicated are Isaiah 53 and (still more) Daniel 9:24. If it be asked how St. Peter knew that the prophets had these longings and doubts, we answer, that it was not only a probable guess, but the result of a study of Daniel, who records again and again the prophetic agony of his search into the future. Beware of treating the title “Christ” as a proper name. Eight out of the ten times that St. Peter uses the word by itself, i.e., without “Jesus” or “the Lord,” it is in direct connection with suffering (here, and in 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 4:1; 1 Peter 4:13; 1 Peter 5:1). Conversely, he never speaks of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. That is to say, he loves to dwell upon the Passion of our Lord, not in its personal but its official aspect. The striking point is that the Messiah should have suffered thus. It was especially necessary to show this in any effort to retain the faith of the Hebrews. Comp. Luke 24:26 (Peter present); Acts 3:18 (Peter speaking); Acts 17:3 (to Hebrews); Acts 26:23. And we can see a reason for the insistence in St. Peter’s history. The very same day, apparently, when he had announced his belief that Jesus was the Messiah, he took Him to task for speaking of sufferings and shame. He never could forget the reprimand, like a sword-cut, which he received. The whole Epistle may be said to be an expansion of what Jesus said in answer (Matthew 16:23). Some commentators include in this phrase of “the sufferings in reserve for Messiah,” the thought of the sufferings of the Church as well; but it seems far-fetched, especially when we see the true meaning of the word “Christ.” Finally, we may add, that some would join very closely together the words for “signify” and “testifying beforehand,” which would give us this sense: “examining, in reserve for whom, or for what period, the Spirit, with its solemn appeal beforehand, was pointing out these sufferings in reserve for Messiah.” This is possible, and keeps the same sense, but it unnecessarily complicates the sentence.

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