Ver. 5. Fulfilment of the saying,
_ Destroy this temple and in three days
I will raise it (John ii. το). Christians live to God through Jesus Christ (Rom. vi. 11). For this development of the figure of μήν cf. especially Eph. ii. 20 Π.-- οἰκοδομεῖσθε, indicative rather than imperative. ‘‘ It isremarkable that St. Peter habitually uses the aorist for his imperatives, even when we might expect the present; the only exceptions (two or three) are preceded by words re- moving all ambiguity, ii. 11, 17, iv. 12 f.” (Hort)—otkos .. .ἅγιον, aspiritual house for an holy priesthood. ‘The con- nection with priesthood (Heb. x. 21) and the offering of sacrifices points to the special sense of the House of God, {.ε..
56
6 mveupate περιέχει ἐν γραφῆ άκρο ἍὙωνιαῖον ἔντειμον
7 καταισχυν στοῦσιν 1 δὲ λίθος ὃν a ἐ γενήθη cis κεφαλὴν
Kas θυσίας εὐπροσδέ ἰδοὺ τίθηµι ἐν Σειὼν
θη: ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τειμὴ πεδοκίµασαν οἱ οἶκο
, 1 4 γωνίας καὶ λίθος προσ
πε
κτους Θῶ διὰ Ι8 XT δι ότι
λίθον ἐκλεκτὸν
A c , yes ° na > 9
καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ av τῶ οὐ μὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν: ἄπι
δομοῦντες οὗτος
κόμματος καὶ
1 For ἀπιστοῦσιν Codex Alexandrinus, with others, reads ἀπειθοῦσιν.
the Temple;'{cf. (iv. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 5) ναὸς ὅς ἐστε tpets, 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph. ii. 21. So Heb. iii. 5 f., οὗ (Χριστοῦ) οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς .. —lepatevpa, body of priests, in Exod. xix. 6 (Heb. priests) xxiii. 22; 2 Mace. ii. 17; cf. 9 infra. Here Hort prefers the equally legi- timate sense, act of priesthood. Usage supports the first and only possible ety- mology the second. The ideal of a national priesthood is realised, Isa. 1xi. 6. --ἀνενέγκαι . . . Χριστοῦ. to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Fesus Christ—8 ra Ἰησοῦ Χ. is better taken with av. than εὐπροσδ.; cf. Heb. xiii. 15, 8° αὐτοῦ, where the thankoffering is singled out as the fit type of the Christian sacrifice. Spiritual sacrifices are in their nature acceptable to God (John iv. 23) and Christians are en- abled to offer them through Jesus Christ. ἀναφέρειν in this sense is peculiar to LXX, Jas. and Heb.
Ver. 6. περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ, {ΐ is contained in Scripture. The formula occurs in Josephus (Ant. xi. 7, βούλομαι γενέσθαι πάντα καθὼς ἐν [τῇ ἐπιστολῇ| περιέχει) and is chosen for its compre- hensiveness.—m €pté yeu is intransitive as the simple verb and other compounds often are; cf. περιοχή, contents, Acts viii. 32.—y pad q, being a technical term, has πο ατεῖο]ε.-“ἰδοὺ...καταισχυνθῇ, formal quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, preced- ing quotation from Psalms, as prophets always precede the writings. The LXX has ἰδοὺ ἐμβάλλω ἐγὼ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια (unique expansion of normal θεμελιῶ = “1D of Heb., cf. eis τὰ 6. below ; Targum,
S57) I will appoint) Σειὼν λίθον πολυ- τελῆ (π. duplicate of ἔντιμον; Heb., a stone a stone; Targum, a king a king ; pointing to Jewish Messianic interpreta- tion) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρ. ἔντ. eis τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς (a foundation a foundation, Heb.) καὶ 6 πιστεύων (+ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ΝΑ) οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (= aya for (wor of Heb. = shall not make haste; Targum, when tribulation come shall not be moved).
The chief difference is that St. Peter omits all reference to the foundation, and substitutes τίθηµι; LXX is conflate, ἐμβάλλω eis being the original reading and τὰ θεµ. added by some purist to pre- serve the meaning of the Hebrew root. This omission may be due to the fact that Christians emphasised the idea that the stone was a corner stone binding the two wings of the Church together (Eph. ii. 20) and regarded this as inconsistent with εἰς κεφ.
Ver. 7 f. Thesecond quotation is con- nected with the first by means of the parenthetic interpretation: The “ pre- cious ”-ness of the stone is for you who. believe but for the unbelievers it is... ‘‘q stone of stumbling”. Itis a stereo- typed conflation of Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. viii. 14, which are so firmly cemented together that the whole is cited here where only the latter part is in point. The same idea of the two-fold aspect of Christ occurs in St. Paul more than once; 6.6., Christ crucified to Fews a stumbling-block . . . but to you who be- lieve . . . 1 Cor.i. 23. The problem in- volved is discussed by Origen who ad- duces the different effects of the sun’s light—% τιµή, the τιµή involved in the use of the adjective ἔντιμον., or rather