Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Peter 2:8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
8. which stumble at the word ] The “word,” as before, is the sum and substance of the Gospel. Men opposing themselves to that word, looking on it as an obstacle to be got rid of, were as those who rush upon a firm-fixed stone, and who falling over it are sorely bruised.
whereunto also they were appointed ] Attempts have been made to soften the apparent fatalism of the words by carrying the antecedent of the “whereunto” as far back as 1Pe 2:5, and seeing in the words the statement that even those who stumbled were appointed, as far as God’s purpose was concerned, to be built up on Christ. It is, however, all but obvious that this puts a forced and artificial meaning on the Apostle’s words. What he really affirms is that it is part of God’s appointed order that the disobedient should stumble and be put to shame. And it may be noted that this way of looking on things is eminently characteristic of him. In the treachery of Judas he read the lesson that “the Scripture must needs have been fulfilled” (Act 1:16). Stumbling, however, was not necessarily identical with falling irretrievably (Rom 11:11).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And a stone of stumbling – A stone over which they, stumble, or against which they impinge. The idea seems to be that of a cornerstone which projects from the building, against which they dash themselves, and by which they are made to fall. See the notes at Mat 21:44. The rejection of the Saviour becomes the means of their ruin. They refuse to build on him, and it is as if one should run against a solid projecting cornerstone of a house, that would certainly be the means of their destruction. Compare the notes at Luk 2:34. An idea similar to this occurs in Mat 21:44; Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken. The meaning is, that if this foundation-stone is not the means of their salvation, it will be of their ruin. It is not a matter of indifference whether they believe on him or not – whether they accept or reject him. They cannot reject him without the most fearful consequences to their souls.
And a rock of offence – This expresses substantially the same idea as the phrase stone of stumbling. The word rendered offence, ( skandalon) means properly a trap-stick – a crooked stick on which the bait is fastened which the animal strikes against, and so springs the trap, (Robinson, Lexicon) then a trap, gin, snare; and then anything which one strikes or stumbles against; a stumbling-block. It then denotes that which is the cause or occasion of ruin. This language would be strictly applicable to the Jews, who rejected the Saviour on account of his humble birth, and whose rejection of him was made the occasion of the destruction of their temple, city, and nation. But it is also applicable to all who reject him, from whatever cause; for their rejection of him will be followed with ruin to their souls. It is a crime for which God will judge them as certainly as he did the Jews who disowned him and crucified him, for the offence is substantially the same. What might have been, therefore, the means of their salvation, is made the cause of their deeper condemnation.
Even to them which stumble at the word – To all who do this. That is, they take the same kind of offence at the gospel which the Jews did at the Saviour himself. It is substantially the same thing, and the consequences must be the same. How does the conduct of the man who rejects the Saviour now, differ from that of him who rejected him when he was on the earth?
Being disobedient – 1Pe 2:7. The reason why they reject him is, that they are not disposed to obey. They are solemnly commanded to believe the gospel; and a refusal to do it, therefore, is as really an act of disobedience as to break any other command of God.
Whereunto they were appointed – ( eis ho kai etethesan.) The word whereunto means unto which. But unto what? It cannot be supposed that it means that they were appointed to believe on him and be saved by him; for:
(1)This would involve all the difficulty which is ever felt in the doctrine of decrees or election; for it would then mean that he had eternally designated them to be saved, which is the doctrine of predestination; and,
(2)If this were the true interpretation, the consequence would follow that God had been foiled in his plan – for the reference here is to those who would not be saved, that is, to those who stumble at that stumblingstone, and are destroyed.
Calvin supposes that it means, unto which rejection and destruction they were designated in the purpose of God. So Bloomfield renders it, Unto which (disbelief) they were destined, (Critical Digest) meaning, as he supposes, that into this stumbling and disobedience they were permitted by God to fall. Doddridge interprets it, To which also they were appointed by the righteous sentence of God, long before, even as early as in his first purpose and decree he ordained his Son to be the great foundation of his church. Rosenmuller gives substantially the same interpretation. Clemens Romanus says it means that they were appointed, not that they should sin, but that, sinning, they should be punished. See Wetstein. So Macknight. To which punishment they were appointed. Whitby gives the same interpretation of it, that because they were disobedient, (referring, as he supposes, to the Jews who rejected the Messiah) they were appointed, for the punishment of that disobedience, to fall and perish.
Dr. Clark supposes that it means that they were prophesied of that they should thus fall; or that, long before, it was predicted that they should thus stumble and fall. In reference to the meaning of this difficult passage, it is proper to observe that there is in the Greek verb necessarily the idea of designation, appointment, purpose. There was some agency or intention by which they were put in that condition; some act of placing or appointing, (the word tithemi meaning to set, put, lay, lay down, appoint, constitute) by which this result was brought about. The fair sense, therefore, and one from which we cannot escape, is, that this did not happen by chance or accident, but that there was a divine arrangement, appointment, or plan on the part of God in reference to this result, and that the result was in conformity with that. So it is said in Jud 1:4, of a similar class of people, For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. The facts were these:
(1) That God appointed his Son to be the cornerstone of his church.
(2) That there was a portion of the world which, from some cause, would embrace him and be saved.
(3) That there was another portion who, it was certain, would not embrace him.
(4) That it was known that the appointment of the Lord Jesus as a Saviour would be the occasion of their rejecting him, and of their deeper and more aggravated condemnation.
(5) That the arrangement was nevertheless made, with the understanding that all this would be so, and because it was best on the whole that it should be so, even though this consequence would follow. That is, it was better that the arrangement should be made for the salvation of people even with this result, that a part would sink into deeper condemnation, than that no arrangement should be made to save any. The primary and originating arrangement, therefore, did not contemplate them or their destruction, but was made with reference to others, and notwithstanding they would reject him, and would fall. The expression whereunto ( eis ho) refers to this plan, as involving, under the circumstances, the result which actually followed. Their stumbling and falling was not a matter of chance, or a result which was not contemplated, but entered into the original arrangement; and the whole, therefore, might be said to be in accordance with a wise plan and purpose. And,
(6) It might he said in this sense, and in this connection, that those who would reject him were appointed to this stumbling and falling. It was what was foreseen; what entered into the general arrangement; what was involved in the purpose to save any. It was not a matter that was unforeseen, that the consequence of giving a Saviour would result in the condemnation of those who should crucify and reject him; but the whole thing, as it actually occurred, entered into the divine arrangement. It may be added, that as, in the facts in the case, nothing wrong has been done by God, and no one has been deprived of any rights, or punished more than he deserves, it was not wrong in him to make the arrangement. It was better that the arrangement should be made as it is, even with this consequence, than that none at all should be made for human salvation. Compare the Rom 9:15-18 notes; Joh 12:39-40 notes. This is just a statement, in accordance with what everywhere occurs in the Bible, that all things enter into the eternal plans of God; that nothing happens by chance; that there is nothing that was not foreseen; and that the plan is such as, on the whole, God saw to be best and wise, and therefore adopted it. If there is nothing unjust and wrong in the actual development of the plan, there was nothing in forming it. At the same time, no man who disbelieves and rejects the gospel should take refuge in this as an excuse. He was appointed to it no otherwise than as it actually occurs; and as they know that they are voluntary in rejecting him, they cannot lay the blame of this on the purposes of God. They are not forced or compelled to do it; but it was seen that this consequence would follow, and the plan was laid to send the Saviour notwithstanding.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. A stone of stumbling] Because in him all Jews and Gentiles who believe are united; and because the latter were admitted into the Church, and called by the Gospel to enjoy the same privileges which the Jews, as the peculiar people of God, had enjoyed for two thousand years before; therefore they rejected the Christian religion, they would have no partakers with themselves in the salvation of God. This was the true cause why the Jews rejected the Gospel; and they rejected Christ because he did not come as a secular prince. In the one case he was a stone of stumbling-he was poor, and affected no worldly pomp; in the other he was a rock of offence, for his Gospel called the Gentiles to be a peculiar people whom the Jews believed to be everlastingly reprobated, and utterly incapable of any spiritual good.
Whereunto also they were appointed.] Some good critics read the verse thus, carrying on the sense from the preceding: Also a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence: The disobedient stumble against the word, (or doctrine,) to which verily they were appointed.-Macknight.
Mr. Wakefield, leaving out, with the Syriac, the clause, The stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, reads 1Pet 2:7; 1Pet 2:8 thus: To you therefore who trust thereon, this stone is honourable; but to those who are not persuaded, (,) it is a stone to strike upon and to stumble against, at which they stumble who believe not the word; and unto this indeed they were appointed; that is, they who believe not the word were appointed to stumble and fall by it, not to disbelieve it; for the word of the Lord is either a savour of life unto life, or death unto death, to all them that hear it, according as they receive it by faith, or reject it by unbelief. The phrase is very frequent among the purest Greek writers, and signifies to attribute any thing to another, or to speak a thing of them; of which Kypke gives several examples from Plutarch; and paraphrases the words thus: This stumbling and offence, particularly of the Jews, against Christ, the corner stone, was long ago asserted and predicted by the prophets, by Christ, and by others; compare Isa 8:14; Isa 8:15; Mt 21:42; Mt 21:44; Lu 2:34; and Ro 9:32; Ro 9:33. Now this interpretation of Kypke is the more likely, because it is evident that St. Peter refers to Isa 8:14; Isa 8:15: And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, c. The disobedient, therefore, being appointed to stumble against the word, or being prophesied of as persons that should stumble, necessarily means, from the connection in which it stands, and from the passage in the prophet, that their stumbling, falling, and being broken, is the consequence of their disobedience or unbelief but there is no intimation that they were appointed or decreed to disobey, that they might stumble, and fall, and be broken. They stumbled and fell through their obstinate unbelief; and thus their stumbling and falling, as well as their unbelief, were of themselves, in consequence of this they were appointed to be broken; this was God’s work of judgment. This seems to be the meaning which our Lord attaches to this very prophecy, which he quotes against the chief priests and elders, Mt 21:44. On the whole of these passages, see the notes on Mt 21:42-44.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; i.e. a stone at which they stumble, a rock at which they are offended; and so it implies Christ not to be the cause of their stumbling, but the object of it; they of their own accord, and through the pravity of their nature, without any just occasion given by him, being offended, either because cause they find not that in him which they expected, viz. outward encouragements; or find that in him which they do not like, the holiness of his law, and purity of his doctrine, contrary to their corruptions and lusts, and especially his requiring of them faith in him for the justification of their persons, which was so contrary to the pride of their hearts, and which was one great reason of the Jews stumbling at him, as seeking to establish their own righteousness, and therefore not submitting to the righteousness of God, Rom 9:32,33, compared with Rom 10:3. This stumbling includes not only their falling into sin, but into destruction too, the punishment of sin, Isa 8:14,15; whereof Christ can be no more than the inculpable occasion, but their own unbelief the proper cause.
Which stumble at the word, being disobedient; these words may have a double reading: one according to our translation; and then the sense is, that stumble at the word of the gospel, i.e. are disobedient to it, in rejecting Christ therein offered to them: or, that stumble, being disobedient to the word; i.e. stumble at Christ preached to them in the word, and therefore will not obey it; they show that they are offended at Christ, by their not receiving his doctrine, nor accepting his offers.
Whereunto also they were appointed; either this may refer:
1. To 1Pe 2:6, where Christ is said to be laid (the same word in the (greek with that which is here translated by appointed) in Sion, as a chief corner-stone, elect and precious, on whom whosoever believeth, shall not be confounded. The apostle then adds, that even these unbelievers were appointed (viz. in their external vocation, as being taken into covenant with God) to be built on Christ by faith but they stumbled, by their unbelief, at the word of the gospel, and consequently at this stumbling-stone. And then it is a high aggravating the unbelief of the Jews, that they, being Gods peculiar people, should reject that salvation which was sent to them, and to the first offer of which they were designed, Act 13:26,46,47. Or:
2. To the words immediately going before, which stumble at the word, being disobedient; and then the sense is, (speaking concerning the reprobate Jews), that God appointed them to this stumbling, in his decreeing not to give them faith in Christ, but to leave them to their unbelief, and to punish them justly for it: see Rom 9:17; 1Th 5:9; Jud 1:4. The scope of the apostle in this whole verse seems to be, to keep weak Christians from being offended at the multitude of unbelievers, and especially at their seeing Christ rejected by the Jewish rulers and doctors; and this he doth by pointing them to the Scripture, where all this was long since foretold, and therefore not to be wondered at now, nor be any occasion of offence to them: see the like, Joh 16:1,4.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. stone of stumbling, c.quotedfrom Isa 8:14. Not merely theystumbled, in that their prejudices were offended but theirstumbling implies the judicial punishment of their receptionof Messiah; they hurt themselves in stumbling over the corner-stone,as “stumble” means in Jer 13:16;Dan 11:19.
at the wordrather,join “being disobedient to the word”; so 1Pe 3:1;1Pe 4:17.
whereuntoto penalstumbling; to the judicial punishment of their unbelief. Seeabove.
alsoan additionalthought; God’s ordination; not that God ordains or appointsthem to sin, but they are given up to “the fruit of theirown ways” according to the eternal counsel of God. The moralordering of the world is altogether of God. God appoints the ungodlyto be given up unto sin, and a reprobate mind, and itsnecessary penalty. “Were appointed,” Greek, “set,”answers to “I lay,” Greek, “set,”1Pe 2:6. God, in the active, issaid to appoint Christ and the elect (directly). Unbelievers,in the passive, are said to be appointed (God acting lessdirectly in the appointment of the sinner’s awful course) [BENGEL].God ordains the wicked to punishment, not to crime [J. CAPPEL].”Appointed” or “set” (not here “FORE-ordained”)refers, not to the eternal counsel so directly, as to the penaljustice of God. Through the same Christ whom sinners rejected, theyshall be rejected; unlike believers, they are by God appointedunto wrath as FITTEDfor it. The lost shall lay all the blame of their ruin on their ownsinful perversity, not on God’s decree; the saved shall ascribe allthe merit of their salvation to God’s electing love and grace.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,…. The apostle alludes to Isa 8:14 and which is a prophecy of the Messiah;
[See comments on Ro 9:33] and had its accomplishment in the unbelieving and disobedient Jews; who stumbled at his birth and parentage; at the manner of his birth, being born of a virgin; at the meanness of his parents, his supposed father being a carpenter, and his mother, Mary, a poor woman, when they expected the Messiah would have sprung from some rich and noble family; and at the place of his birth, which they imagined was Galilee, from his education and conversation there; they stumbled also at his education, and could not conceive how he should know letters, and from whence he should have his wisdom, having never been trained up in any of their schools and academies, or at the feet of any of their doctors and Rabbins; but, on the other hand, was brought up and employed in the trade of a carpenter; they stumbled at his outward meanness and poverty, when they expected the Messiah would be a rich, powerful, and glorious monarch; and so at the obscurity of his kingdom, which was not of this world, and came not with observation, when they dreamt of an earthly and temporal one, which should be set up in great splendour and glory; and they stumbled likewise at the company he kept, and the audience that attended him, being the poorer sort of the people, and the more illiterate, and also such who had been very profane and wicked, as publicans and harlots; moreover, they stumbled at his ministry, at the doctrine he preached, particularly at the doctrine of his divinity, and of spiritual communion with him, by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, and at the doctrines of distinguishing grace; and so at his miracles, by which he confirmed his mission and ministry, some of these being wrought on the sabbath day, and others they imputed to diabolical influence and assistance, in a word, they stumbled at his death, having imbibed a notion that Christ abideth for ever, and especially at the manner of it, the death of the cross; wherefore the preaching of Christ crucified always was, and still is, a stumbling block unto them:
even to them which stumble at the word; either the essential Word, Christ Jesus, as before; or rather at the doctrine of the Gospel, at that part of it which respects a trinity of persons in the Godhead; because their carnal reason could not comprehend it, and they refused to submit to revelation, and to receive the witness of God, which is greater than that of men; and at that part of it which regards the deity of Christ, and that for this reason, because he was a man, and in order to enervate the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice, and fearing too much honour should be given to him; and also at that part of the word which concerns the distinguishing grace of God, as eternal personal election, particular redemption, and efficacious grace in conversion; against which the carnal mind of man is continually cavilling and replying, and, in so doing, against God himself, charging him with cruelty, injustice, and insincerity; and particularly at that part of the word which holds forth the doctrine of free justification, by the righteousness of Christ; this was the grand stumbling block of the Jews, who sought for righteousness, not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and of the spirituality of the law, and of themselves, and their own righteousness, of which they had an overweening opinion:
being disobedient; to the Gospel revelation, and unwilling to submit their carnal reason to it; this is the source and cause of their stumbling at Christ and his Gospel: it is worth while to compare this with the paraphrase of Isa 8:14 which passage is here referred to; and the paraphrase of it runs thus;
“”if ye obey not”, his word shall be among you for revenge, and for a stone smiting, and for a rock of offence to both houses of the princes of Israel, and for destruction and offence to those who are divided upon the house of Judah, c.”
whereunto also they were appointed both to stumble at the word of the Gospel, and at Christ, the sum and substance of it, he being set in the counsel and purpose of God, as for the rising of some, so for the stumbling and falling of others; and also to that disobedience and infidelity which was the cause of their stumbling; for as there are some whom God appointed and foreordained to believe in Christ, on whom he has determined to bestow true faith in him, and who have it as a pure gift, in consequence of such appointment; so there are others, whom he has determined to leave in that disobedience and infidelity into which the fall brought and concluded them, through which they stumble at Christ, and his word, and, in consequence thereof, justly perish; but this is not the case of all; there are some who are the objects of distinguishing grace and favour, and who are described in the following verse.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And (). Peter now quotes Isa 8:14 and gives a new turn to the previous quotation. To the disbelieving, Christ was indeed “a stone of stumbling ( ) and rock of offence ( ),” quoted also by Paul in Ro 9:32f., which see for discussion. (from , to cut against) is an obstacle against which one strikes by accident, while is a trap set to trip one, but both make one fall. Too much distinction need not be made between (a loose stone in the path) and (a ledge rising out of the ground).
For they (). Causal use of the relative pronoun.
Stumble at the word, being disobedient ( ). Present active indicative of with dative case, , and present active participle of (cf. in 2:7) as in 3:1. can be construed with (stumble, being disobedient to the word).
Whereunto also they were appointed ( ). First aorist passive indicative of . See this idiom in 1Ti 2:7. “Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is” (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence.” (Gk. Kai) even a stone of (proskommatos) stumbling or-obstruction and a (Gk. petra) rock of scandalizing or offence, Rom 9:22-23; 1Co 1:23. His deity they rejected.
2) “Even to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient. Those who stumbled at the Word which first came to them (the Jews), natural Israel, did so, first through or by their own obstinate volition or rejecting will, Rom 1:16; Rom 10:1-4.
3) “Whereunto also they were appointed.” The Jews were set in order or appointed to hear the Gospel – the Word of Salvation first. They heard it, but few received it, Rom 10:20-21; Joh 1:11-12; Our Lord would have gathered more of His own race, except for their obstinate rejection of Him, Mat 11:28-30; Mat 23:37.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8 Which stumble at the word He points out here the manner in which Christ becomes a stumbling, even when men perversely oppose the word of God. This the Jews did; for though they professed themselves willing to receive the Messiah, yet they furiously rejected him when presented to them by God. The Papists do the same in the present day; they worship only the name of Christ, while they cannot endure the doctrine of the Gospel. Here Peter intimates that all who receive not Christ as revealed in the Gospel, are adversaries to God, and resist his word, and also that Christ is to none for destruction, but to those who, through headstrong wickedness and obstinacy, rush against the word of God.
And this is especially what deserves to be noticed, lest our fault should be imputed to Christ; for, as he has been given to us as a foundation, it is as it were an accidental thing that he becomes a rock of offense. In short, his proper office is to prepare us for a spiritual temple to God; but it is the fault of men that they stumble at him, even because unbelief leads men to contend with God. Hence Peter, in order to set forth the character of the conflict, said that they were the unbelieving.
Whereunto also they were appointed, or, to which they had been ordained. This passage may be explained in two ways. It is, indeed, certain that Peter spoke of the Jews; and the common interpretation is, that they were appointed to believe, for the promise of salvation was destined for them. But the other sense is equally suitable, that they had been appointed to unbelief; as Pharaoh is said to have been set up for this end, that he might resist God, and all the reprobate are destined for the same purpose. And what inclines me to this meaning is the particle καὶ (also) which is put in. (24) If, however, the first view be preferred, then it is a vehement upbraiding; for Peter does hence enhance the sin of unbelief in the people who had been chosen by God, because they rejected the salvation that had been peculiarly ordained for them. And no doubt this circumstance rendered them doubly inexcusable, that having been called in preference to others, they had refused to hear God. But, by saying that they were appointed to believe, he refers only to their outward call, even according to the covenant which God had made generally with the whole nation. At the same time their ingratitude, as it has been said, was sufficiently proved, when they rejected the word preached to them.
(24) The most obvious meaning is, to consider the phrase, “who stumble at the word,” as the antecedent to εἰς ὃ “to which:” they being disobedient or unbelieving were destined to stumble at the word, and thereby to fall and to be broken. (Isa 8:14.) To the believing it was precious, but to the unbelieving it became the stone of stumbling; and this stumbling is a judgment to which all the unpersuaded (literally) or the unbelieving, are destined. I would render the two verses thus, —
“
To you then who believe it is precious; but to the unbelieving ( with regard to the stone which the builders have rejected, the same which has become the head of the corner) even a stone of stumbling and rock of offense; that is, to those who stumble at the word, being unbelieving; to which also they have been appointed:” that is, according to the testimony of Scripture. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.Another quotation, no doubt suggested by the word a stone, but conveying a totally different metaphor. Here there is no thought whatever of the stone as a material for building; the thought is that of a mass of rock on the road, on which the terror-stricken fugitives stumble and fall. The words are taken from Isa. 8:14, and are translated directly from the Hebrew. The LXX. not only makes nonsense, but can again be hardly acquitted of guile (1Pe. 2:1) in its endeavour to make out the best possible case for Israel by deliberately inserting the word not twice over. We shall find St. Peter in 1Pe. 3:14 quoting the verses which immediately precede our present citation, and again the point lies in the context. The words are no mere phrase hastily caught up to serve the turn. They come out of the great Immanuel section of Isaiah, and immediately involve, like the quotation in 1Pe. 2:6, the sharp contrast between the Jews who trust in Immanuel (the presence of God with Israel) and the Jews who do not, but rely on confederacies. To the one party, the Lord of Hosts will be for a sanctuary; but to the other party, who are described as both houses of Israel, and specially as the inhabitant of Jerusalem, He will be for a stone of striking, and for a rock of stumbling over, and also for a snare. The sanctuary does not seem to mean a temple (though this would connect it with the preceding words of St. Peter), but rather such a sanctuary as that of Bethel (Gen. 28:18), a consecrated stone to which a man might flee as an asylum. In the flight of terror before the face of the Assyrians the very stone which afforded right of sanctuary to those who recognised and trusted it, was a vexatious and dangerous obstacle, a trap full in the way to those who did not. Once more, therefore, the Hebrews of the Dispersion, in separating themselves from both houses of Israel and the inhabitant of Jerusalem, were obeying the warnings of the Immanuel prophecy, which every Hebrew recognised as Messianic. Though the coupling of these passages of the Old Testament together certainly seems to show traces of the influence of St. Paul (comp. Rom. 9:32-33), yet St. Peter must have been present and heard the Lord of Hosts Himself put them together (Luk. 20:17-18), and probably St. Pauls use of the passages is itself to be traced back to the same origin.
Stumble at the word, being disobedient.It seems better to arrange the words otherwise: which stumble, being disobedient to the word. The participle thus explains the verb. A stone of stumbling He is to them; and the manner of the stumbling is in being disobedient to the gospel preaching (Leighton).
Whereunto also they were appointedi.e., unto stumbling. The present commentator believes that when St. Peter says that these unhappy Jews were appointed to stumble, he primarily means that the clear prophecies of the Old Testament which he has quoted marked them for such a destiny. It was no unforeseen, accidental consequence of the gospel. It had never been expected that all who heard the gospel would accept it. Those who stumbled by disbelief were marked out in prophecy as men who would stumble. Thus the introduction of the statement here has the direct practical purpose of confirming the faith of the readers by showing the verification of the prophecy. Still, in fairness, we must not shirk the further question which undoubtedly comes in at this point. Even though the moment of their appointment to stumble was that of the utterance of the prophecy, it cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, it was God Himself who appointed them to stumble. It will be observed, however, from the outset, that our present passage casts not a glance at the condition of the stumbling Jews after death. With this caution, we may say that God puts men sometimes into positions where, during this life, they almost inevitably reject the truth. This is implied in the very doctrine of electione.g., in 2Th. 2:13, where, if God selects one man out of the hundred to a present salvation through belief of truth, it seems to follow logically that the ninety and nine are appointed to have no share in that salvation, so far as this life is concerned, through disbelief of truth. These things remain as a trial of faith. It suffices that we know for certain that God is Love. He has brought us forth at His own option by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures (Jas. 1:18). We have but to prize more highly our own present salvation, and to trust His love for that fuller harvest of which we are but the firstfruits. In some way even their stumbling will ultimately prove His love, to them as well as to us.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And, “A stone of stumbling, and a rock to fall over,” for they stumble at the word, being disobedient, to which also they were appointed.’
But to disbelievers, rather than being the chief cornerstone, Jesus has become a something that gets in the way, a stumblingstone, and an inconvenience. As they wander round the building site they trip over the very stone which should be the foundation of their lives. The citation is taken from Isa 8:14. The point is that He does not fit into their conceptions, and yet that He is unavoidable. And so they stumble at God’s word by being disobedient. They turn from Him and refuse to enter into His obedience. They are ‘disobedient ones’. And significantly they do this because that is their destiny. It is the destiny to which they have been appointed (Rom 9:22). This may mean destined to stumble because they were disobedient, or even destined to disobedience (compare Rom 9:22).
Note the reference to being disobedient ones. Just as believers have been foreknown and sanctified in the Spirit into the obedience of Jesus Christ, so these people have been appointed to disobedience, or to stumbling because of they are ‘disobedient ones’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Pe 2:8. And a stone of stumbling, &c. We render this verse as if it were one continued sentence; but thus violence is done to the text, and the apostle’s sense is thrown into obscurity and disorder; which is restored by putting a full stop after offence, and beginning a new sentence thus: They stumble at the word. For, observe, the apostle runs a double antithesis between believers and unbelievers: To you who believe, says he, it is precious; to them who believe not, and are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected, &c. 1Pe 2:7. They stumble at the word; (1Pe 2:8.)but you are a chosen people, &c. 1Pe 2:9. The passage before us is taken from Isa 8:14-15 and is quoted by St. Paul, Rom 9:33. This is a quite different image from the last; for Christ is not here compared to a foundation or corner-stone, but to a hard stone or rock in the course or highway, against which men are apt to stumble and fall; and the swifter they move, or the more heedless they are, the more is the danger of hurting or destroying themselves. We are not to understand the last clause of this verse, as if these persons were appointed of God to reject or obey the Gospel; for how then could it be said that God would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth? 1Ti 2:4. If God appointed the unbelief of the Jewish nation, or of any particular persons, then their unbelief and rejection of the Gospel was complying with the will and appointment of God; and consequently could not be sin, or deserve punishment. From these and the like considerations it is evident, that St. Peter is not here speaking of their being appointeduntounbeliefordisobedience,butuntothepunishmentwhichtheirunbelief and disobedience deserved. They were unbelievers of whom he was speaking; persons, who voluntarily and wickedly rejected the gospel, and refused to obey its laws; and therefore it was appointed, that Christ should be to them a stumbling-block, or a rock, against which they should dash themselves to their own destruction. Dr. Heylin translates these two verses: To you, therefore, who believe, he is precious; but with regard to those who are disobedient, this same stone, (which the builders had rejected, and which is made the head of the corner) 1Pe 2:8 becomes a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to those who resist the word by their disobedience; to which also they were abandoned. “The public translation, says he, has whereunto they were appointed; which does not imply any absolute decree, with regard to those persons, but only the general one against all that are disobedient: for, 1Th 5:9 we read, God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but to obtain salvation; and yet they might incur wrath, as the tenor of that epistle, and indeed of all the Scriptures, demonstrates.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Pe 2:8 . ] links itself on to . . .: “ that is to those who ,” etc., not to what follows, as if were to be supplied: “they who stumble are those who are,” etc.
has here the same meaning as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different; there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, namely, the ground of their destruction; here, on the contrary, that they are really overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains incorrectly: verbo offenduntur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur.
] It is better to connect with than with (either: “who at the word are offended,” or: “who by the word suffer hurt”). For, on the one hand, the leading idea . would be weakened by its connection with ; and, on the other, the nearer definition requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be inappropriate “that should of a sudden take the place of Christ, who in 1Pe 2:7 is, as , the object of .” (Brckner). Wolf: qui impingunt , nempe: in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes : quo ipso et offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur.
] not equal to , “on account of which;” nor is it equal to ( sc . or ); Luther: “on which they are placed;” or similarly Bolten: “they stumble at that, on which they should have been laid” (he makes refer to the omitted object of .), but it points rather to the end of . [122]
] is here, as frequently in the N. T., “to appoint, constituere” (cf. 1Th 5:9 ). It is clear from the connection of this verse with the preceding, that does not go back to 1Pe 2:5 (Gerhard: in hoc positi sunt, videlicet, ut ipsi quoque in hunc lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be referred either to (Calvin, Beza, Piscator, and others) or to and (Estius, Pott, de Wette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger, [123] etc.), or, more correctly, to (Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter (not on ) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and . . . applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the , but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated. The it is to which they, the , were already appointed, and withal on account of their unbelief, as appears from the . This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for it is simply the and , together with the blessing and curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without any reference being made to the precise ground of faith and unbelief. Vorstius correctly: Increduli sunt designati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate.
Following the construction of 1Pe 2:7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to the subsequent , which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of 1Pe 2:7 . Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun [124] or the method here resorted to, of connecting apodosis with protasis. The words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction. Oecumenius [125] is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answering the question: quis autem illos sic posuit? by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit.
[122] The application to the Word or to Christ occurs already in the older commentators; thus Beda says: in hoc positi sunt i. e. per naturam facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et ejus voluntati obtemperent; and Nicol. de Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: illis data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum secundum quod dicitur Gal 3 . lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo; et ipsi pro majore parte remanserunt increduli.
[123] Different interpreters seek in various ways to soften the harshness of the dea here presented. Thus Estius, by explaining only of the permission of God; Pott, by paraphrasing the idea thus: “their lot seemed to bring this with it;” Wiesinger, by asserting that “the passage here speaks of the action of God as a matter of history, not of His eternal decrees.” But what justifies any such softening down? While Hofmann, in the 1st edition of his Schriftbeweis , I. p. 210, says precisely: that God has ordained them to this, that they should not become obedient to His word, but should stumble at it and fall over it; in the 2d ed. I. p. 237, it appears that the meaning only is: “that the evil which befalls them in the very fact of their not believing, is ordained by God to those who do not obey His message of salvation, as a punishment of their disposition of mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in it the idea of in relation to is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott expressly says that unbelievers, by their own state of mind, “appoint themselves to unbelief,” he can look on unbelief only in so far as the result of a divine decree, that God has appointed faith impossible with a carnal disposition. But a limitation of this kind is here all the more inappropriate, that Peter in the passage makes no allusion to the disposition which lies at the foundation of unbelief. Hofmann in his commentary says: “it is the word which is preached to them that they refuse to obey, but by the very fact of their doing so they stumble at Christ and fall over Him, as over a stone that lies in the way. Both are one and the same thing, named from different sides; the one time from what they do, the other from what is done to them.” Yet these are two different things; the one the cause, the other the effect.
[124] Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Mat 26:50 ; but the interpretation of this passage is so doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the various interpretations in Meyer on this passage; in Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]; in Buttmann, p. 217.
[125] , , . Thus also Didymus: ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi; and Hornejus: constituti ad impingendum et non credendum ideo dicuntur, quia cum credere sermoni Dei nollent, sed ultro eum repellerent, deserti a Deo sunt et ipsius permissione traditi ut non crederent et impingerent.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Ver. 8. And a rock of offence ] Like that rock Jdg 6:21 , out of which comes fire to consume the reprobate.
Which stumble at the word ] An ill sign, and yet an ordinary sin. A bridge is made to give us a safe passage over a dangerous river; but he who stumbleth on the bridge is in danger to fall into the river. The word is given as a means to carry us over hell into heaven; but he who stumbles and quarrels at this means, shall fall in thither, from whence otherwise he had been delivered by it. Few sins are more dangerous than that of picking quarrels at God’s word, and taking up the bucklers against it, snuffing at it,Mal 1:13Mal 1:13 ; chatting against it, Rom 9:19-20 ; enviously swelling against it, Act 13:45 ; casting reproaches upon it, Jer 20:8-9 ; gathering odious consequences from it. Surely of such a man may say, as one doth of a hypocrite; I read not in Scripture, saith he, of a hypocrite’s conversion; and what wonder? for whereas after sin, conversion is left as a means to cure all other sinners; what means to recover him who hath converted conversion itself into sin? so here; what hope that he shall be saved who stumbleth at the only ordinary means of his salvation?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8 .] who stumble, being disobedient to the word ( belongs to , not as E. V. after vulg., Erasm., Luth., Beza, Estius, al., to , which is doubly objectionable, in, 1. making a mere tautology from before: 2. giving a place not prominent enough to , whereas on the other rendering it takes its proper place, as being the means of growth to the Christian, and rejected by the disobedient: 3. confining the sense of ‘stumbling’ (see above) to a mere subjective one: 4. opposing the analogy of ch. 1Pe 3:1 and 1Pe 4:17 . Cf. Wolf, in loc.: “ Qui impingunt , nempe, in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes (obedientes?): quo ipso et offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur”), for which (thing, fact, viz. the , , their whole moral course of delinquency and the at the end of it) they were also ( , besides that they reach it, there is another consideration) appointed (set where they are, or were; viz. by Him who , above, the stone of stumbling. This exposition is certain, notwithstanding the protests of c., Did., al. Nor can I see how Bengel can escape, with his , “ Positi sunt respondet pono 1Pe 2:6 ; sed cum differentia. Nam Deus Christum et electos active dicitur ponere ; infideles dicuntur poni , passive.” What inference would he deduce from this? Would he take themselves as the agents, as c., Did., “Ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi,” thus passing over , and making the clause a vapid tautology? Or would he say with Aretius, “Non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit,” thus making in the world’s moral arrangement, Satan a coordinate power with God?).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
stumbling. Greek. proskomma. See Rom 9:32.
offence. Greek. skandalon. See 1Co 1:23, and compare Rom 9:33. This is a composite quotation from Psa 118:22 and Isa 8:14. App-107.
stumble. Greek. proskopto. See Rom 9:32.
at the word, &c. = being disobedient to the word.
word. App-121.
whereunto = unto (App-104.) which.
also, &c. = they were appointed also.
appointed. Greek. tithemi. Occurs ninety-six times and translated “appoint”, here; Mat 24:51. Luk 12:46. 1Th 5:9. 2Ti 1:11. Heb 1:2.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8.] who stumble, being disobedient to the word ( belongs to , not as E. V. after vulg., Erasm., Luth., Beza, Estius, al., to , which is doubly objectionable, in, 1. making a mere tautology from before: 2. giving a place not prominent enough to , whereas on the other rendering it takes its proper place, as being the means of growth to the Christian, and rejected by the disobedient: 3. confining the sense of stumbling (see above) to a mere subjective one: 4. opposing the analogy of ch. 1Pe 3:1 and 1Pe 4:17. Cf. Wolf, in loc.: Qui impingunt, nempe, in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes (obedientes?): quo ipso et offensio ipsa et ejus causa indicatur), for which (thing, fact, viz. the , , their whole moral course of delinquency and the at the end of it) they were also (, besides that they reach it, there is another consideration) appointed (set where they are, or were; viz. by Him who , above, the stone of stumbling. This exposition is certain, notwithstanding the protests of c., Did., al. Nor can I see how Bengel can escape, with his , Positi sunt respondet pono 1Pe 2:6; sed cum differentia. Nam Deus Christum et electos active dicitur ponere; infideles dicuntur poni, passive. What inference would he deduce from this? Would he take themselves as the agents, as c., Did., Ad non credendum a semetipsis sunt positi, thus passing over , and making the clause a vapid tautology? Or would he say with Aretius, Non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit, thus making in the worlds moral arrangement, Satan a coordinate power with God?).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Pe 2:8. , , who stumble, not believing the word) In 1Pe 2:7, he expressed the different judgments of believers and unbelievers respecting Christ; now he sets forth the difference itself between believers and unbelievers. Many construct , stumble at the word. But , put absolutely (as in Joh 11:9), is derived from , the word quoted from Isaiah; and the declaration follows, , not believing the word, as ch. 1Pe 4:17, ; What shall be the end of those who obey not the Gospel of God? and certainly ch. 1Pe 3:1, : If any obey not the word. It is in the Gospel-word that the preciousness of Christ is set forth: they who do not believe the word, despise Christ, and stumble at Him.- , to which also they were appointed) Which refers to stumble: they who do not believe, stumble; they who stumble are also appointed for stumbling. This appointment follows unbelief and stumbling, as even the intensive particle, also, and the order of this clause which is placed last, signify. And yet stumble is present. They were appointed has the force of a past tense; by which it is implied, that by a most just judgment of God, unbelievers stumble more and more from day to day. Are appointed answers to I lay (or appoint), 1Pe 2:6; but with some difference: for God is said, in the active, to appoint Christ and the elect: unbelievers, in the passive, are said to be appointed. Comp. Rom 9:22, note.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
stone of stumbling
Christ crucified is the Rock:
(1) Smitten that the Spirit of life may flow from Him to all who will drink Exo 17:6; 1Co 10:4; Joh 4:13; Joh 4:14; Joh 7:37-39.
(2) To the church the foundation and chief corner Stone Eph 2:20.
(3) To the Jews at His first coming a “stumbling stone” Rom 9:32; Rom 9:33; 1Co 1:23.
(4) to Israel at His second coming the “headstone of the corner” Zec 4:7.
(5) To the Gentile world-power the smiting “stone cut out without hands” Dan 2:34.
(6) In the divine purpose the Stone which, after the destruction of Gentile world- power, is to grow and fill the earth.
(7) To unbelievers the crushing Stone of judgment. Mat 21:44.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
a stone: Isa 8:14, Isa 57:14, Luk 2:34, Rom 9:32, Rom 9:33, 1Co 1:23, 2Co 2:16
being: 1Pe 2:7
whereunto: Exo 9:16, Rom 9:22, 1Th 5:9, 2Pe 2:3, Jud 1:4
Reciprocal: Exo 4:21 – I will harden Deu 32:35 – their foot 2Ki 18:12 – they obeyed not 2Ch 25:20 – it came of God Job 23:14 – appointed Psa 2:3 – General Psa 69:22 – a trap Pro 4:12 – thou shalt Pro 16:4 – yea Pro 19:21 – nevertheless Pro 21:30 – General Isa 28:13 – that Isa 37:26 – how I Jer 6:21 – I will Jer 13:16 – your Eze 3:20 – and I lay Eze 14:3 – and put Hos 14:9 – but Mal 3:2 – who may abide Mat 5:30 – offend Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 21:44 – whosoever Mar 12:10 – The stone Luk 7:23 – General Luk 20:17 – The stone Joh 3:19 – because Joh 16:1 – General Act 2:23 – being Act 4:28 – to do Rom 10:16 – But they Rom 10:21 – a disobedient Gal 5:11 – the offence Eph 2:20 – Jesus Eph 5:6 – disobedience Heb 11:31 – believed not 1Pe 4:17 – obey 2Pe 3:16 – unto their own Rev 2:14 – a stumblingblock
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Pe 2:8. Stone of stumbling and rock of offence. No part of the Bible must he interpreted in a way that will contradict another part. God does not want the anyone to do wrong or be lost (2Pe 3:9); but man can be saved only through Christ, and therefore it was necessary that He be sent into the world. If His presence is so objectionable to some that they permit Him to be a stone over which they stumble the Lord cannot be blamed for it. Stumble at the word specifies in what way certain men stumble; it is at His word. People do not like to obey that which interferes with their sinful life and hence it becomes a stumbling stone to them. James Mac-knight translates a part of his verse as follows: “The disobedient stumble against the word, to which verily they were appointed.” The thought is that they were not appointed to be dis-obedient, but to stumble at the word because of their disobedience.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Pe 2:8. and, A stone of stumbling and rook of offence. The second passage is taken from Isa 8:14, and is given according to the Hebrew, not according to the singularly divergent version of the LXX. What is said there of Jehovah of hosts, namely, that, while He is a sanctuary to those who sanctify Him, he will be a Stone for sinking against, and a rock of stumbling to the mass of the faithless people of both kingdoms, is here affirmed of Christ. The terms, too, denote not what the disbelieving feel Christ to be (so Luther, etc.), or the offence which they take at Him, but what He in point of fact must prove objectively to them. Compare Simeons declaration of what the infant Saviour was destined to be (Luk 2:34-35).A difficulty has been felt by not a few interpreters with the positive form in which Christ is here said to have been made what these prophetic statements represent Jehovah as certain to be to particular classes. But Peter says nothing more here than what Paul affirms when he speaks of the same persons being a savour of life unto life, and a savour of death unto death (2Co 2:16), and nothing beyond what had been expressedstill more strongly, indeed, and in terms of the same citation by his Lord Himself (Luk 20:17-18)the truth that Gods grace is not a neutral gift, but becomes its opposite to its scorners. Special difficulty has been felt with the statement that Christ was made to the disbelieving head of the corner. It is proposed, therefore, to construe the sentence in an entirely novel way, namely, He then who on the one hand is an Honour to the believing and to the disbelieving, on the other hand the Stone rejected of the builders, was made to the one class head of the corner, and to the other a stone of stumbling, etc. (Hofmann). Others explain it on the principle that a stone which is not recognised by the eye becomes an obstacle for the feet to strike against (Gerhard, Steiger, etc.). But the point may simply be that the Divine demonstration of Christ as made the very thing which they refused to admit in Him, itself puts the disbelieving to the shame against which the believing are declared to be secured. God thus poured into their own bosom the contempt which they had poured upon His Son (Lillie).
who stumble, disobeying the word. This is not an independent sentence, whether it be construed as=They who stumble are disobedient, etc., or as=These stumble, etc., or (with Hofmann on the uncertain analogy of the use of the relative as an exclamation in Mat 26:30) as=As for those who stumble … to what a fate were they appointed! It continues the previous statement, and that, too, not as appending a reason for it (so apparently the R. V., for they stumble), but in the simple form of an explanations= that is to say, to those who stumble, or, as the A. V. puts it, even to them which stumble. The Vulgate and the other English Versions, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, as also the A. V. and the older commentators, such as Erasmus, Luther, etc., agree in making the word dependent on the stumble. Most now, however, following the Syriac, Bengel, etc., rightly connect the word with the disobeying, both because the stumble has been already sufficiently defined, and because the participle otherwise would be a pointless addition. The stumbling (again in the objective sense) and the disobedience are related to each other as simultaneous things, or as cause and effect. Christ is what He is declared to be to a certain class, when or because they disobey the Word. He is made a stone of stumbling only to those who, by rejecting that Word, in point of fact turn Gods grace in Christ to their own hurt.
whereunto also they were appointed. A solemn expression of the truth that not only is it so, but it cannot be otherwise. The apparent severity of the statement has been so acutely felt, that a variety of expedients have been attempted with a view to change or mitigate it. Three classes of interpretations have to be noticed. There are those entirely unreasonable interpretations which refuse to see that Peter has God in view as the Author of the appointment, and add to the verb were appointed some such explanation as by Jewish prejudice (Hottinger), by Satan (Aretius), or by Old Testament prophecy (Mason). There are those, again, which endeavour to make the clause a single sentence with the preceding. This is the case with Erasmus, Luther, etc., and also with several of our older English Versions. Thus Tyndale gives believe not that wherein they were set, the Rhemish neither do believe wherein also they are put, and so substantially also Wycliffe and Cranmer. But the Genevan has unto the which thing also they were ordained. There are also those (and this third class embraces the great majority) which recognise a distinct assertion of a Divine ordinance. This is undoubtedly the only valid exegesis. It is impossible to adjust the terms to any less positive idea. The opening words cannot be softened into on account of which, but denote the destiny or end which is set for the disobedient. The verb means here, as repeatedly elsewhere, ordain, constitute, appoint, and the also has its ascensive force, indicating that there is something deeper even than observed fact to be said upon the subject. The precise thing to which the disobedient are said to be ordained, however, is differently conceived. Some construe the sentence as = to which disobedience also they were appointed (Calvin preferentially, Beza, etc.); some as = to which stumbling, etc. (Grotius, Bengel, Steiger, Huther, Weiss, etc.); and some, again, as = to which disobedience and stumbling, etc. (de Wette, Wiesinger, Leighton, Hofmann, Lillie, etc.). Of these three constructions the second is the simplest and most contextual. For the main subject of the section has been neither the genesis of faith and unbelief, nor their moral merit and demerit, but the positive honour which is destined for the believer, and the positive shame or stumbling which is destined for the unbeliever. It is to be observed, too, that the verb introduced here is not the term which bears the technical sense of foreordaining, but one which (with a single doubtful exception in 1Th 5:9) is always used in the New Testament of things done in time (cf. Joh 15:16; Act 20:28; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11). There is, therefore, no affirmation here of a predestination of some to unbelief. Whatever ordination is asserted, is, as Wetstein briefly puts it, an ordination not that they shall sin, but that, if sinning, they shall be punished. Just as it is said in 1Pe 2:6, Behold, I lay (or, set) in Zion a chief corner-stone, so it is said here (for the verbs are the same) that they were appointed (or, set). In the one case it is what God has actually done in making Christ what He is to the Church; in the other it is what He has done in so relating disobedience and stumbling that the latter is the result of the former. The historical relation established between these two things has its ground in the eternal purpose of God, and the New Testament does not shrink from carrying back (and in the least qualified terms, cf. Rom 9:21, etc.) the gravest moral facts of history to the Divine mind. At present, however, Peter speaks directly not of the foreordaining counsel of God, but of the fact that things are so ordered in time, that unbelief carries in its train the turning to mens own hurt of that grace of God in Christ which brings honour to the believer. Weiss, therefore, deals more fairly than most with the exegesis of the passage, when he says that it does not speak of the foreordination of individuals to unbelief, or to exclusion from the kingdom of God; it states that in accordance with a Divine arrangement the disobedient are appointed to stumbling, i.e, however, not to going astray morally, but to destruction (Bib. Theol. i. p. 208, Eng. Trans.). This Divine order or determination of things, however, which links together subjective aversion to truth and objective penalty, is a mystery to which, not less than to that of the Divine foreordination, Leightons words apply: Here it were easier to lead you into a deep than to lead you forth again. I will rather stand on the shore and silently admire, than enter into it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Consequences of Rejecting Christ