Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
19. but with the precious blood of Christ ] The order of the Greek, and the absence of the article before “blood,” somewhat modify the meaning. Better, with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, [even that] of Christ. That blood, the life which it represented, poured out upon the cross, took its place among the things that were not corruptible, and is contrasted accordingly with the “silver” and the “gold.” With the exception of the substitution of the “blood which is the life” for the life itself, the thought is identical with that of the two passages (Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45) already referred to. The minds of the disciples had been directed to the “blood” thus understood, as connected with remission of sins, in what we know as the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mat 26:28, Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20). In the blood being that of a “lamb,” we trace the impression made on the mind of the Apostle by the words which the Baptist had spoken in the hearing of St John (Joh 1:29), and which are reproduced with so much vividness in the Apocalypse (Rev 5:6; Rev 5:12). The question meets us, and is not easy to answer, To what special sacrifice ordained in the law of Moses do they refer? The epithet “without blemish” seems to point to the Paschal lamb (Exo 12:5), but neither of the adjectives which St Peter uses is found in the LXX. version in connexion with the Passover. As connected with the deliverance of Israel both from the angel of death and from their bondage in Egypt, the blood so shed might well come to be thought of as the instrument of redemption. Had a lamb been sacrificed on the day of Atonement, that would have seemed the natural type of the death of Christ, but there the victim was a goat (Lev 16:7); the daily morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb (Exo 29:38) fails as being unconnected with any special act of redeeming love. On the whole, perhaps, it is best to think of the comparison, suggested originally by the Baptist’s words, as pointing to the fact that whatever typical significance had attached to the lamb in any part of the complex ritual of the law had now been realised in Christ.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But with the precious blood of Christ – On the use of the word blood, and the reason why the efficacy of the atonement is said to be in the blood, see the notes at Rom 3:25. The word precious ( timios) is a word which would be applied to that which is worth much; which is costly. Compare for the use of the noun ( time) in this sense, Mat 27:6, The price of blood; Act 4:34; Act 5:2-3; Act 7:16. See also for the use of the adjective, ( timios,) Rev 17:4, gold and precious stones Rev 18:12, vessels of most precious wood. Rev 21:11, a stone most precious. The meaning here is, that the blood of Christ had a value above silver and gold; it was worth more, to wit:
(1)In itself – being a more valuable thing – and,
(2)In effecting our redemption. It accomplished what silver and gold could not do. The universe had nothing more valuable to offer, of which we can conceive, than the blood of the Son of God.
As of a lamb – That is, of Christ regarded as a lamb offered for sacrifice. See the notes at Joh 1:29.
Without blemish and without spot – Such a lamb only was allowed to be offered in sacrifice, Lev 22:20-24; Mal 1:8. This was required:
(1)Because it was proper that man should offer that which was regarded as perfect in its kind; and,
(2)Because only that would be a proper symbol of the great sacrifice which was to be made by the Son of God. The idea was thus kept up from age to age that he, of whom all these victims were the emblems, would be perfectly pure.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. The precious blood of Christ] . The valuable blood; how valuable neither is nor could be stated.
As of a lamb] Such as was required for a sin-offering to God; and THE Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.
Without blemish] In himself, and without spot from the world; being perfectly pure in his soul, and righteous in his life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Precious; because the blood not only of an innocent person, but of the Son of God, Act 20:28.
As of a lamb; i.e. who was a Lamb.
A lamb; the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, Joh 1:29; not only like a lamb, for his innocence and gentleness, Isa 53:7, but the Antitype of the lambs which under the law were offered in the daily sacrifices, and more especially of the paschal lamb; whatever was shadowed out in that, and those other sacrifices, having its accomplishment in Christ.
Without blemish; without fault, without defect, in which nothing was wanting that was requisite to its perfection; or, in which nothing could be blamed. The Greek word seems to be derived from the Hebrew Mum, so often used for a blemish; see Lev 24:19,20.
And without spot; without any other deformity. The lamb might have no defect, but yet might have some spot; and it was to be perfect, Exo 12:5, which implied its having neither the one nor the other. Christ was such a Lamb, perfect in holiness, and free from all sin, Joh 8:29,46; Heb 7:26; 1Pe 2:22.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. preciousof inestimablevalue. The Greek order is, “With precious blood, as of alamb without blemish (in itself) and without spot (contractedby contact with others), (even the blood) of Christ.” Thoughvery man, He remained pure in Himself (“withoutblemish”), and uninfected by any impression of sin fromwithout (“without spot”), which would have unfitted Himfor being our atoning Redeemer: so the passover lamb, and everysacrificial victim; so too, the Church, the Bride, by her union withHim. As Israel’s redemption from Egypt required the blood of thepaschal lamb, so our redemption from sin and the curse required theblood of Christ; “foreordained” (1Pe1:20) from eternity, as the passover lamb was taken up on thetenth day of the month.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But with the precious blood of Christ,…. Christ was prophesied of as a Redeemer under the Old Testament, Isa 59:20 and the Jews frequently ascribe redemption to the word of the Lord God f; and which the apostle here attributes to the blood of Christ; whose blood is the same with ours, only not tainted with sin; the blood of an innocent person, and of one who is God, as well as man, and was freely shed in the room and stead of his people, and so a sufficient price for their redemption: and it may truly be said to be “precious”: as it is to God, to whom it is a sweet smelling sacrifice, and with which he is well pleased; not that he takes delight in the mere effusion of his blood, but as this is the ransom price, and the atonement of his chosen ones; and so it is to all them that believe, since by it they are justified; through it they have the forgiveness of their sins; their peace and reconciliation with God is made by it; and by it they are sanctified, and have boldness to enter into the holiest of all: and this blood of Christ, by which they are redeemed, is
as of a lamb without spot and blemish; Christ is comparable to any lamb, for the innocence of his nature, the meekness of his disposition and deportment, and for his patience under sufferings and in death; and to the lambs of the daily sacrifice, which were typical of the continual and constant virtue and efficacy of his sacrifice to take away sin; and particularly to the paschal lamb, he being the true passover sacrificed for us; and which, as also the lambs of the daily sacrifice, and all others, were to be without spot and blemish: and in which they prefigured Christ, who is without the stain of original, and the spot and blemish of actual sin; and so was a very fit person to be a sacrifice for sin, and a Redeemer of his people. The Jews have a notion, that the redemption of the Israelites out of Egypt, when a lamb without blemish was taken, and sacrificed and eaten, had a respect to the future redemption by the Messiah; and which, they say g, was to be in the same time of the year; that as they were redeemed in Nisan, the month in which the passover was kept, so they were to be redeemed in the same month: and indeed at that time, and in that month, was redemption obtained by the blood of Christ. Of the former, the Targumist in Ho 3:2 says,
“I have redeemed them by my word, on the fifteenth day of the month Nisan, and have given silver shekels, the atonement of their souls.”
It is observable that the Hebrew word signifies both “blood” and “money”, or price; whether some reference may not be had to this here, since both are included here, may be considered.
f Targum in Hos. i. 7. & iii. 2. & in Joel ii. 17. g Zohar in Numb. fol. 102. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But with precious blood ( ). Instrumental case of after (repeated from verse 18). Peter here applies the old adjective (from , of Christ in 1Pe 2:7) to Christ as in 1:7 to testing of faith. The blood of anyone is “precious” (costly), far above gold or silver, but that of Jesus immeasurably more so.
As of a lamb ( ). This word occurs in Lev 12:8; Num 15:11; Deut 14:4 of the lamb prescribed for the passover sacrifice (Ex 12:5). John the Baptist applies it to Jesus (John 1:29; John 1:36). It occurs also in Ac 8:32 quoted from Isa 53:7f. Undoubtedly both the Baptist and Peter have this passage in mind. Elsewhere in the N.T. is used of Christ (Rev 5:6; Rev 5:12). Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Peter sees clearly that it was by the blood of Christ that we are redeemed from sin.
Without blemish (). Without (alpha privative) spot () as the paschal lamb had to be (Le 22:21). So Heb 9:14.
Without spot (). Without (alpha privative) stain ( spot) as in Jas 1:27; 2Pet 3:14; 1Pet 6:14.
Even the blood of Christ (). Genitive case with , but in unusual position for emphasis and clearness with the participles following.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
But with the precious blood of Christ. The word Cristou, of Christ, stands at the end of the sentence, and is emphatic. Render, as Rev., with precious blood as of a lamb, etc., even the blood of Christ. Lamb. Peculiarly appropriate from Peter. See Joh 1:35 – 42. The reference is to a sacrificial lamb.
Without blemish [] . Representing the Old – Testament phrase for absence of physical defect (Exo 12:5; Lev 22:20. Compare Heb 9:14).
Without spot [] . Compare 1Ti 6:14; Jas 1:27; 2Pe 3:14. In each case in a moral sense.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But with the precious blood of Christ.” It is the blood that atones for sin, the blood of Jesus, more precious than that of bulls and goats. Lev 17:11; Heb 10:4; Heb 10:14; Eph 1:7; 1Jn 1:7.
2) “As of a lamb.” This phrase refers to the humility and resignation of Jesus Christ as the believers paschal lamb – prepared and holy, qualified to be their deliverer from sin’s bondage. Joh 1:29; Isa 53:1-12
3) “Without blemish and without spot. A “Blemish” not having (Gk. amamou). The sacrifice lamb could have no deformity of birth, sickness, or corruption – nor could it have a “spot” (Gk. aspilou) not spotted. There was to be no contracted defilement, Exodus 13, 14. Even so our Lord had no internal, inherent, or contracted sin, Heb 7:26; nor did He do any act of sin Joh 1:47; 1Pe 2:22-23; Luk 23:4.
THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
An old herdsman of Dartmoor, England, was taken to a London hospital to die. There his grandchild used to visit and read to him. One day she was reading to him the first chapter of the first epistle of John, when she reached the seventh verse,” “And the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin,” the old man raised himself and stopped the little girl saying with great earnestness: “Is that there, my dear?” “Yes, grandpa.” “Then read it to me again; I never heard the like before.” The little girl read again: “And the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” “You are quite sure that is there?” “Yes quite sure.” “Then take my hand and lay my finger on the passage, for I should like to feel it.” So she took the old blind man’s hand and placed his bony finger on the verse, when he said, “Now read it to me again.” The little girl read, with her soft, sweet voice: “And the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” “You are quite sure that is there?” “Yes quite sure.” “Then if any one should ask how I died, tell them I died in the faith of these words: ‘And the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.’ ” And with that, the old man withdrew his hand, his head fell softly back on the pillow, and he silently passed into the presence of him whose “blood cleanseth us from all sin.”
–6000 Windows For Sermons
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19 As of a lamb He means by this similitude, that we have in Christ whatever had been shadowed forth by the ancient sacrifices, though he especially alludes to the Paschal lamb. But let us hence learn what benefit the reading of the Law brings us in this respect; for, though the rite of sacrificing is abolished, yet it assists our faith not a little, to compare the reality with the type, so that we may seek in the former what the latter contains. Moses ordered a whole or perfect lamb, without blemish, to be chosen for the Passover. The same thing is often repeated as to the sacrifices, as in Lev 23:0; in Num 28:0; and in other places. Peter, by applying this to Christ, teaches us that he was a suitable victim, and approved by God, for he was perfect, without any blemish; had he had any defect in him, he could not have been rightly offered to God, nor could he pacify his wrath.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) With the precious blood of Christ.Precious means, not much prized by us, but costly, precious in itself; opposed to the perishableness of gold and silver. Notice that it is not Jesus, but Christ, i.e., the Messiah. No price short of the blood, i.e., the death, of the Messiah could free the Jews from the thraldom of their vain conversation. (Comp. 1Pe. 1:2 and Note.) How Christs death freed them from it is not explained here; but we may give a twofold explanation, as we did of His resurrection being our regeneration, in 1Pe. 1:3. Historically it did so, because when they came to realise that their Messiah could only reach His glories through suffering it gave them a new insight into the whole meaning of the system under which they had been brought up. It did also, however, doubtless, in a more mysterious way, such as we cannot imagine, procure in Gods sight their emancipation; and the following verses show that again St. Peter is thinking more of the theological than of the phenomenal side of the occurrence.
As of a lamb without blemish and without spot.We might roughly paraphrase it by, as of a sacrificial victim, to the sufficiency of whose offering no exception can be taken. The word as shows that in St. Peters mind the notion of a sacrifice, in reference to the atonement, was only a simile, or metaphor, just as it was with the notion of ransom. Once more observe that the sacrifice was offered to effect a redemption which for the readers had already taken place. (Comp. Heb. 9:14.) The primary thought in mentioning a lamb is, of course, that of sacrifice; but when we come to consider why that particular sacrificial animal was named rather than another, it is, no doubt, for two reasons. First, because of the whiteness, the helplessness, the youth, the innocence, and patience, which make it a natural symbol of our Lord. (Comp. Ecce Homo, p. 6, ed. 3.) The second reason is to be found in St. Peters own life. The first thing that we know in his history was a putting together of those two wordsMessiah, and the Lamb (Joh. 1:36; Joh. 1:40-41). Neither he nor St. John (see Rev. 5:6, et al.) ever forgot that cry of the Baptist. They, no doubt, understood that cry to refer, not primarily to the Paschal, or any other sacrifice, but to Isa. 53:7, and perhaps to Gen. 22:8. A word in the next verse will make it clearer that St. Peter really had the Baptist consciously before his mind when he thus wrote.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Precious blood The order of the Greek words is, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even of Christ.
Precious Of great value, in contrast with the corruptible things that for this purpose had no worth.
Blood Shed in expiation.
Lamb The lamb of sacrifice must be without blemish, that is, not blind, maimed, lame, or in any way defective, (Lev 22:20-24; Mal 1:8😉 and also without spot, or external defilement. Only such a lamb could be legally offered. Add, now, that this blood which redeems is the blood of Christ, God’s own sinless Son, and the very costliness of redemption becomes a weighty reason for fear lest its benefits be lost.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Pe 1:19 . ] forms the antithesis to , in so far as the perishable is destitute of true worth.
] refers not only to the death, but to the bloody death of Christ; cf. Heb 9:22 .
] is in antecedent apposition to (Wiesinger, de Wette-Brckner), as in chap. 1Pe 2:7 , where likewise is in similar apposition to ( sc . ). It is incorrect to supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, “ ” before , taking either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or connecting it directly with (Schott, Hofmann).
] is also here not merely comparative, as, among others, Schott and Hofmann hold, maintaining that “by only an actual lamb is meant,” but it emphasizes that Christ is a blameless and spotless lamb (Gerhard, de Wette-Brckner). [91]
is, as Brckner also assumes, to be understood of a sacrificial lamb . This is clear both from the connection since the ransom by the of Christ (Lev 17:11 ) is here in question and from the attributes and , of which the former is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of animals taken for sacrifice ( , LXX.: ), to this class lambs also belonged. The precise designation: a lamb , was probably suggested to Peter by Isa 53:7 (cf. chap. 1Pe 2:22 ff.); from this it must not, however, be inferred, with Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any reference to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage in Isaiah compares the servant of God to a lamb simply on account of the patience he exhibited in the midst of his sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice, and the sufferings of Christ are so expressly presented as propitiatory, that it is easily explainable how, with this passage applied to Him, Christ could have been thought of precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not Peter’s intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ is the sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah’s prophecy; for in that case the definite article would not have been wanting (cf. Joh 1:29 , and Meyer in loc .); but alluding to the above passage, Peter styles Him generally a lamb , which, however, he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allusion (Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (de Wette-Brckner, Schott); the want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though he has justly recognised this, still firmly holds by the reference to the paschal lamb; only in thus far, however, that he terms the slaying of it “the occurrence” which “was here present to the apostle’s mind.” [92] But the fact that the blood of this lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out of Egypt, but to preserve them from the destroying angel, is opposed to any such allusion. Further, it must not be left unnoticed that in the N. T. the paschal lamb is always styled ; and in the passage treating of it in Exo 12 in the LXX., the expression only, and never , is employed.
The adjunct: , serves to specify particularly the blood of Christ as sacrificial , and not merely to give a nearer definition of its preciousness (the ), inasmuch as, “according to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence (denoted here by the two attributes) and the patience (conveyed by ) which give to the suffering its ” (as opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of the blood lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ ; its redemptive power in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without blemish and fault . [93]
With , cf. in addition to Lev 22:18 ff., especially Heb 9:14 .
] is not to be found in the LXX. and in the N. T. only metaphorically; the two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the , Lev 22:18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the commentators construe with what precedes, Hofmann only excepted, who separates it therefrom, and connects it with what follows, taking . . . as an absolute genitive ( i.e. “in that Christ was foreordained,” etc.). But this construction does not specify by whose blood the redemption was accomplished, nor does it give a clear logical connection between the thought of the participial and that of the principal clause.
[91] If be taken as instituting a comparison, there then arises the singular thought, that the blood of Christ is as precious as that of a lamb without blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoids this conclusion by supplying to not , but only, and observes that the shedding of blood alone (not the shedding of precious blood) is compared to the slaying of a spotless lamb; but there is not the slightest justification for thus separating from . The apostle would in some way hare indicated it by prefixing at least a simple to .
[92] Hofmann says: “The meaning is not, that the same was done to Christ as to the paschal lamb, but the recollection of the paschal lamb explains only how Peter came to compare the shedding of Christ’s blood with the shedding of the blood of a spotless lamb.” As to whether the paschal lamb should be considered as a sacrificial lamb (Keil on Gen 12 .) or not, is a matter of dispute, which cannot be decided here.
[93] Schott, in opposition to this, asserts: “this blood can redeem because it is that of the divine Mediator ( ), but it is valuable in that it is the blood of an innocent Saint.” This is, however, erroneous, since this blood has power to redeem only, because Christ shed it as a sacrifice for propitiation. But it is not clear why this blood should not even have its full worth from the fact that it is the blood of the Mediator.
REMARK.
It must be observed that whilst the power of propitiation, i.e. of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of the sacrifice, Lev 16:11 , the blood of Christ is here specified as the means by which we are redeemed from the . From this it must not be concluded, with Weiss (p. 279), that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the blood of offering, inasmuch “as the sacrifice can have an expiatory, but not a redemptory worth;” for the two are in no way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different from the redemption, i.e. ransom from the guilt by the blood freely shed. The redemption, however, which is here spoken of, though doubtless not identical with expiation, is yet a necessary condition of it, a circumstance which Pfleiderer also fails to observe, when he says that the passage has reference only “to the putting away of a life of sin, to moral improvement, not to expiation of the guilt of sin.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
The Precious Blood of Christ
1Pe 1:19
My heart’s desire, ever since I became a preacher of the Holy Word, has been to make known to men that there is no salvation but by blood, and not by blood only, but by the particular blood named in the text even the precious blood of Christ. I am afraid that in these latter days some of us have tried to find out some other word to use instead of this word blood. We shrink from it. A dainty piety has forced upon us a dainty vocabulary. As the intensity of our love has gone down, the intensity of our speech has gone down along with it. We speak of the life of Christ and the love of Christ, but we too seldom speak of the precious blood of Christ; that would seem to our frigid piety to be an exaggeration, and our frigid piety is encouraged by our deceitful fancy, that tells us that love is a larger term than blood, and should always be used instead of it. Beware of the temptations of a worldly fancy. If your piety become the creature or the plaything of your imagination, you will commit the keeping of your soul to the most capricious and the most irresponsible of all powers. We need some term that lies away infinitely beyond the airy and cloudy region of fancy; a broad and emphatic word a word that carries its own single and definite meaning so plainly that mistake is impossible, and that sacred and inviolable term is blood. The world over, that word has but one meaning. Even the word love may be tortured into ambiguity by men skilful in definition, but the word blood is too simple, too energetic, too solemn, to take upon it the faintest gloss of the most reluctant expositor. It is blood; it is precious blood; it is the blood of Christ; it is the blood that cleanseth from all sin; and to attemper its passion by the use of supposed equivalents, is to trifle with the supreme purpose of God in seeking the salvation of mankind. In a case like this, even reverent paraphrase is in danger of becoming almost profane. What other word can take the place of the word blood? Even love itself is a word with many aliases, or a word which admits of many changes and partial substitutes: it is regard, it is affection, it is sympathy, it is forbearance, it friendship, it is trust but how will you replace the word blood? It stands alone. It will not clothe itself in the disguises of various terms. Its unquenchable ardour burns through the snow which you scatter upon its summit. No winter can loiter upon those ardent slopes. If you mean to tax your fancy for the production of equal terms, you must go elsewhere, for the term blood can accept no humiliation and pander to no disguise.
1. We are sometimes asked to admit that it cannot be what is called real, literal, or merely physical blood. Why should it not be real blood, the actual blood of the actual body? Let us take care lest our vulgar conceptions deprive us of gracious meanings and privileges. It may be our notion that is at fault, and not the Word of God. The reference is unquestionably to the real blood of Jesus Christ, “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Who shall say that his bodily blood was limited, and could therefore have but limited application? Verily herein we are straitened, not in Christ, but in ourselves; yes, even in the very imagination which is supposed to create for itself such wide liberty! If the people could find no limit in the handful of bread with which Christ satisfied the throng, as the poor woman could find no limit to the oil blessed by the prophet, who shall take upon him to say that it was a shallow and measurable stream that flowed from the heart of Christ? Did he not work miracles upon his own body? Did he not conceal it? Did he not cause it to pass untouched and unhurt through the angry host upon the hill? Did he not keep it from sinking in the sea? And can he not crown these wonders by giving us his blood to drink? “How can this man give us his blood to drink?” We never could tell how Christ did his mighty works, but, praised be his sweet and tender name, dear Jesus, Heart of God, he did them, and therein is our joy satisfied! Oh, my brethren, to me the controversy is mean which contends that Christ does not give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink, in the sacred ordinance of the Supper. He who maintains the contrary can make the vulgar stare by his tricks in the use of words, and can impale on harmless horns the argument which he opposes, but he has never plumbed the depths of Christ’s power, he has never known what alone can appease the heart’s violence of grief, nor has he entered into the holiest of all, wherein the corruptible letter clothes itself with the incorruptible spirit. When my heart is stung to death by its own remorse on account of sin, when hell is moved from beneath to receive me as fit only for its devouring flames, I am in no mood to be satisfied with types and symbols; a real want demands a real remedy, a real sinner calls for a real Saviour, and real sin can be met only by real blood: in that infinite distress you must not meet me with etymologies and verbal dexterities, you must let the tormented soul have free access to the precious blood of Christ. I know well that the literalist can vex me with truisms, and confound my poof learning by his brilliant ignorance; he can tauntingly ask me, How can this man give you his blood to drink? and I have no answer in words; he entangles me in the thicket of his alphabet and holds me as his prey, but deep down in the contrite heart, in the solemn sanctuaries never defiled by common speech, I know that Christ’s word is better than man’s, when he says, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” If you ask me whether a morsel of sacramental bread is the actual body of Christ, my senses combine in a unanimous protest against an absurdity so manifest; but in this holy exercise I do not walk by sight, but by faith; my senses have slain me aforetime, so that I cannot allow them to usurp a function they have so disastrously abused; I will not allow them to speak in this sanctuary; they can but degrade its sacredness; they have been liars from the beginning, and in all heavenly mysteries they are liars still, I will listen only to the voice of the dying, mighty, holy, infinite Saviour “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.”
By no priestly incantation is common bread transformed into the body of Christ. I know nothing of sacerdotal magic. My soul resents with horror too solemn to be merely contemptuous the suggestion that priestly wizardry is needful to my participation in the blood of Christ. But this is my faith, the faith that brings things of heaven near, the faith that consecrates the very dust of earth, that if in the burning agony of my contrition, shame, and helplessness I put forth a trembling hand, and seize the common bread which makes the body live, and eat it for love of Christ, it will be to me the very flesh of the Son of God, a real appropriation, a holy sacrament, foolishness to the cold low world, but wisdom divine and comfort infinite to the hungering and dying heart. I will then know, not by some intellectual feat, the deep meaning of Christ’s words: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which cometh down from heaven; if a man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
2. We need what is truly called a realising faith as well as a spiritualising power. We are sometimes under the spell of two voices, and hardly know to which to yield. The one voice says, Spiritualise everything; clothe the stones of the field with mystic meanings; fill the winds with voices from worlds unknown; and turn the stars into eyes of holy watchers not yet named of man. The other voice says, Beware of making the simple mysterious; avoid the attenuation which destroys solid meanings; take the very first signification that occurs to the earnest mind, and suspect all explanations that are far to seek. These contrary voices make themselves distinctly heard in the interpretation of this text: the one voice exhorts us to escape the narrowness of a literal meaning, and the other exhorts us not to lose the real and the true in some vain search for the speculative and the doubtful. A realising faith does not make things less, it makes them more vivid, it sets them before the eyes with true naturalness, and constrains their hidden meaning into bold and noble expression. I would, then, pray to have a realising faith when I think of the blood of Christ; the life-blood; the blood that cleanses from all sin; the blood of sprinkling; the blood of atonement; the blood of the everlasting covenant. I would see it as blood. The grossness is not in the blood, it is in myself. The blood is holy. Is there aught in the great universe so holy as the blood of Christ? But we cannot realise the blood until we have realised the sin. Where there is no conviction of sin conviction amounting to the very anguish of the lost in hell there can be no felt need of so extreme a remedy as is offered by the outpouring of the blood of Christ. A self-palliating iniquity may be cleansed by water. The light dust which bespots the outer garment may be removed by gentle means. When a man feels that he has not sinned deeply he is in no mood to receive what he considers the tragic appeals of the gospel; they exceed the case; they destroy themselves by exaggeration; they speak with self-defeating violence. But let another kind of action be set up in the heart; let the man be brought to talk thus with himself “I have sinned until my very soul is thrust down into hell; my sins have clouded out the mercy of God, so that I see it no longer; I have wounded the Almighty, I have cut myself off from the fountain of life, I have blown out every light that was meant to help me upward, I am undone, lost, damned,” and then, he needs no painted cross, no typical sacrament, no ceremonial attitude, no priestly enchantment, he can be met by nothing but the sacrificial blood, the personal blood, the living blood, the precious blood of Christ.
How far it is possible to sustain in constant experience those keen and vivid realisations of the blood of Christ is known to us all. Considering the infirmities of the flesh, the deceitfulness of the world, the subtle and persistent temptations of the enemy, the continual vexations, anxieties, frets, and chafings of a life that is one daily struggle, it is not too much to say that we could not bear the incessant realisation of all that is suggested by the expression “the blood of Christ.” But if this is our weakness, and it surely is, what shall we say of the strengthening might that is stored up for us in Christ? We can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth us! For observe, that though the painful sacrifice of Christ makes an unendurable strain upon our feelings at one period of our spiritual history, it becomes to us the tenderest solace, the richest grace, the sweetest reflection, and the serenest rest, as we advance in our holy course. No longer are our sensibilities torn by it. No more do we see the wild but passing cruelty of man; the crucifixion becomes an Atonement, and then on the divine side we see the pity, the righteousness, the wisdom, and the love of God, and then can we say
3. The practical effects of realising all that is meant by “the blood of Christ” are most useful. The text ceases to be a mere expression, and becomes a most solemn and all-determining fact. It becomes indeed the regulative power of our whole life. See, for example, how it reduces us to a state of most utter and abject helplessness in the matter of self-salvation! If we could be saved by the shedding of blood only, how could we save ourselves? If Christ had saved us by some lower method, we might have been tempted to think that our redemption lay within our own power. But when it required the outpouring of every drop of blood that was in the fountain of his great heart, either he made a fatal mistake in his method or we make a fatal mistake in supposing that we could have redeemed ourselves. Immediately following this reflection is the thought that if so much was done for us, what is there that we can do in return? “How much owest thou my Lord?”
Mighty Saviour! repeat all thy miracles by taking away the guilt and torment of my infinite sin!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Ver. 19. Without blemish ] Of original pollution.
And without spot ] Of actual sin: or thus, without blemish, that is, sound within; and without spot, right in the outward parts. A lamb may be fair without that is rotten within. Christ was none such, but a complete sacrifice for sin.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 .] but with precious ( is not, as Huther, In opposition to ; nor does it signify “imperishable ,” but simply and generally ‘ precious,’ ‘of worth ’) blood, as of a lamb blameless and spotless (see Exo 12:5 ; Lev 22:20 ), ( even the blood) of Christ (this I believe to be the more natural construction. The other, adopted by E. V., De Wette, Huther, Wiesinger, and many Commentators, “ but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb ” &c., is of course legitimate; and in that case being prefixed for emphasis, is explained by the clause inserted between it and . We have a somewhat similar arrangement in Heb 12:27 , , . But I prefer the other, as bringing forward the in contrast to the , . . and then explaining the by a climax finding its highest point in .
The question, with what particular lamb Christ is here compared, will be found discussed in the main on Joh 1:29 . Our reply here however will be somewhat modified by the consideration, that the figure of buying out of the seems to contain an allusion to the bringing up out of Egypt, and the following, to the taking up of the paschal lamb beforehand, cf. Exo 12:3 ; Exo 12:6 . And thus I believe Wiesinger and Hofmann are right in maintaining here the reference to the paschal lamb. “As Israel’s redemption from Egypt required the blood of the paschal lamb, so the redemption of those brought out of heathendom required the blood of Christ, the predestination of whom from eternity is compared with the taking up of the lamb on the tenth day of the month.” Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 326. See, for a further discussion of this point, Wiesinger’s note here: and Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 194 ff.):
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Pe 1:19 . The blood of Christ, the true paschal lamb, was the (means or) agent of your redemption. The type contemplated is composite; the lamb is the yearling sheep ( , but Targum-Onkelos has lamb and is rendered in Lev 12:8 ; Num 15:11 ; Deu 14:4 ) prescribed for the Passover (Exo 12:5 ). But the description perfect ( ) is glossed by ( cf. Heb 12:14 ), which is the common translation of in this connection, and which summarises the description of sacrificial victims generally ( v. Lev 22:22 , etc.). would be unintelligible to the Gentile, because it has acquired a peculiar meaning from the Hebrew blemish . is used by Symmachus in Job 15:15 , for . Hesychius treats . and as synonyms. is set over against as . against ; cf. Psa 116:15 , and (1Pe 2:4 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Lamb. See Joh 1:29.
without blemish. Greek. amomos. See Eph 1:4 (without blame). Compare Exo 12:5.
without spot. See 1Ti 6:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] but with precious ( is not, as Huther, In opposition to ; nor does it signify imperishable, but simply and generally precious, of worth) blood, as of a lamb blameless and spotless (see Exo 12:5; Lev 22:20), (even the blood) of Christ (this I believe to be the more natural construction. The other, adopted by E. V., De Wette, Huther, Wiesinger, and many Commentators, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb &c., is of course legitimate; and in that case being prefixed for emphasis, is explained by the clause inserted between it and . We have a somewhat similar arrangement in Heb 12:27, , . But I prefer the other, as bringing forward the in contrast to the , . . and then explaining the by a climax finding its highest point in .
The question, with what particular lamb Christ is here compared, will be found discussed in the main on Joh 1:29. Our reply here however will be somewhat modified by the consideration, that the figure of buying out of the seems to contain an allusion to the bringing up out of Egypt, and the following, to the taking up of the paschal lamb beforehand, cf. Exo 12:3; Exo 12:6. And thus I believe Wiesinger and Hofmann are right in maintaining here the reference to the paschal lamb. As Israels redemption from Egypt required the blood of the paschal lamb, so the redemption of those brought out of heathendom required the blood of Christ, the predestination of whom from eternity is compared with the taking up of the lamb on the tenth day of the month. Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 326. See, for a further discussion of this point, Wiesingers note here: and Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 194 ff.):
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Pe 1:19. , precious) The blood of Christ is incorruptible, 1Pe 1:18.-, as) This explains the reason[11] for his use of the word precious.-, without blemish) Jesus Christ had in Himself () no taint of evil.-, without spot) Nor did He contract any stain from without ().
[11] This is an instance of the figure tiologia, which is used to express the reason why we make use of any particular proposition or assertion.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
with: 1Pe 2:22-24, 1Pe 3:18, Dan 9:24, Zec 13:7, Mat 20:28, Mat 26:28, Act 20:28, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:12-14, 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 2:2, Rev 1:5, Rev 5:9
as: Exo 12:5, Isa 53:7, Joh 1:29, Joh 1:36, Act 8:32-35, 1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8, Rev 5:6, Rev 7:14, Rev 14:1
Reciprocal: Gen 4:4 – the firstlings Gen 22:8 – General Gen 22:13 – in the Exo 24:6 – the blood he Exo 29:1 – without Exo 29:38 – two lambs Exo 30:12 – a ransom Exo 37:4 – with gold Lev 1:3 – a male Lev 1:17 – shall not Lev 4:35 – and the priest shall make Lev 12:6 – a lamb Lev 14:10 – he lambs Lev 15:27 – General Lev 22:19 – General Lev 23:12 – General Num 3:46 – the two hundred Num 6:14 – one ewe Num 7:15 – General Num 7:39 – General Num 19:2 – no blemish Num 28:3 – two lambs Num 28:19 – they shall Deu 16:6 – at even Deu 17:1 – General 2Sa 21:4 – We will 1Ki 20:39 – or else Job 33:24 – I Psa 19:14 – redeemer Psa 26:11 – redeem Psa 31:5 – thou Psa 34:22 – redeemeth Psa 107:2 – Let the Pro 13:8 – ransom Isa 1:27 – redeemed Isa 29:22 – who redeemed Isa 44:22 – return Isa 45:13 – let go Isa 62:12 – The redeemed Eze 43:22 – a kid Eze 45:18 – without blemish Eze 46:13 – Thou shalt daily Hos 7:13 – though Zec 13:1 – a fountain Mat 25:34 – from Mat 27:4 – the innocent Mar 8:37 – General Mar 10:45 – and to Mar 15:14 – Why Luk 23:4 – I find Luk 23:22 – Why Luk 23:41 – but Luk 24:21 – General Joh 14:30 – and Joh 18:38 – I find Joh 19:4 – that ye Rom 3:24 – through Rom 4:25 – Who was 1Co 1:30 – redemption 1Co 7:23 – are Eph 2:13 – are Eph 5:27 – not 1Ti 2:6 – gave 1Ti 6:14 – without Heb 7:26 – holy Heb 9:14 – the blood Heb 9:23 – the heavenly 1Pe 2:4 – precious Rev 13:8 – from
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Pe 1:19. They were redeemed, instead, with the precious blood of Christ. The reference to a lamb without blemish is from the requirement of that kind of animal sacrifices in former ages. The public life of Christ on earth showed one of spotless righteousness. “He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1Pe 2:22).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Pe 1:19. but with precious blood, as of a lamb blameless and spotless, to wit Christs. The construction here is doubtful and difficult, owing to the term Christs being thrown to the end. The view which is adopted of the peculiar arrangement of the words in the original affects our understanding, not indeed of the main idea, but of the exact relation which the two terms lamb and Christ are intended to occupy to each other, and the precise force of the as by which they are connected. The clause may be construed (so Steiger, etc.) thuswith precious blood, as if with the blood of a lamb … to wit, Christ; or (so Lillie, etc.), with the precious blood, as of a lamb … of Christ; or, with precious blood, as of a lamb … the blood of Christ (so Beza, Alford, etc., and substantially Wiesinger, Huther, and the R. V.). The first of these explanations gives greater importance to the idea of the lamb than to the mention of Christ. The second is urged on the ground that blood is not of itself a true contrast to corruptible things, and that neither blood of itself nor the blood of a sacrificial animal, but only Christs blood, has value in redemption. The third is both simpler and more in harmony with Peters style, as this is not the only instance of terms introduced in antecedent opposition (cf. 1Pe 2:7). Hence we have the cost of redemption defined here first as precious blood, and not any corruptible thing (the Old Testament view of the life in the blood giving reality to the contrast), then as Christs blood, and further as blood with the ethical value of blood shed by One in the character of spotlessness and blamelessness. The as, therefore, is not a mere note of comparison, but an index to the quality of the subject, and to the worth of the life surrendered. The point of the statement is not to institute a direct comparison between Christ and a lamb, nor to represent the means by which the redemption was effected as comparable in value to the blood of a stainless lamb (Schott, etc.), nor to explain why the blood of Christ is precious beyond the preciousness of all corruptible things, namely, in so far as it is the blood of the Christ who is distinguished as the perfect Lamb (Steiger, etc.), but to exhibit the cost of the redemption from the heathen life of sin as nothing less than the surrender of a life of sinless perfection. A death was endured by Christ which had in it the ethical qualities figured by lamb-like blamelessness and spotlessness, and only such a ransom could bring in a new constraining power sufficient to break the thraldom of the vain hereditary manner of life to which these Gentiles had been helpless slaves. The reference to a lamb in this connection has an obvious fitness on Peters lips. It was in the character of the Lamb, as that name was proclaimed by the Baptist, that Simon, by his brother Andrews intervention, first recognised Jesus to be the Messiah (Joh 1:35-42), and the impression of that first recognition of the Christ could never be effaced. The terms blameless and spotless, too, are terms applicable to the lambs of the Old Testament system, with which every Israelite was so familiar. The former represents the usual Old Testament phrase for the freedom from all physical defects which was required in the sacrificial victims (Exo 12:5; Lev 22:20, and cf. Heb 9:14). The latter, though not found in the New Testament, except in a moral sense (2Pe 3:14; 1Ti 6:14; Jas 1:27), and applied properly only to persons (except perhaps 1Ti 6:14), expresses summarily other ceremonial perfections which were necessary in the offerings (Lev 22:18-25). The lamb particularly in Peters view here, is variously identified, as e.g. with the Paschal Lamb (Wiesinger, Hofmann, Alford, etc.), with the lamb of Isaiah 53 (Schott, Huther, etc.), or with the general idea signified by the various lambs of the Old Testament service and realized in Christ. The dispute is of small importance, as it is not probable that these different lambs would be sharply distinguished in the consciousness of the Israelite. The fact that Peter is dealing here with the question of a ransom from a certain bondage makes it reasonable to suppose him to have before his eye some lamb that occupied a well-understood place in Gods service under the old economy, and points, therefore, to the Paschal Lamb, which was associated with the release from the bondage of Egypt, and was also the only animal that could be used for the service to which it was dedicated. On the other hand, it may be urged in favour of the lamb of Isa 53:7, that Peter elsewhere seems to have that section of prophecy in view, that the Old Testament itself (in the Greek Version) employs a different term for the Paschal Lamb in capital sections, and that the New employs statedly another word than the one used by Peter for the Paschal Lamb. In either case the lamb is introduced here not with immediate reference to its sacrificial character, but in respect of those ethical qualities which are expressed by the adjectives. The expiatory or sacrificial value of Christs death is no doubt at the basis of the statement, and the idea of ransom from sin as a power is not disconnected from the idea of a ransom from sin as a penalty. But the redemption which Peter deals with here, being a redemption from the spell and thraldom of a vain mode of living, is an ethical redemption, and Christs death is presented immediately here as a spiritual power breaking a certain despotism. How Christs death carries this weight with it is not explained, except in so far as the whole statement suggests qualities in it which made it a new and supreme constraining power.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 19
The lamb required for the ancient sacrifice was to be without a blemish. (Leviticus 22:19,20.) This perfection may be regarded as an emblem of the spiritual purity and spotlessness of Jesus Christ.