(20) **For what glory is it.**—A poetical and pagan-sounding word, not elsewhere found in the New Testament; in the Old Testament it corresponds to the word “fame,” in Job 28:22. The sense may be said to be slightly humorous. “If you make a blunder” (such is the meaning of “fault” here—it might include such things as the breaking of dishes), “and receive a buffet for it” (or a box on the ear—a common punishment of slaves for trifling faults), “and bear it with fortitude” (the *meekness* of patience has no place in the word), “do you expect to be made the subject of an heroic or dithyrambic poem, to have your name resounded through the world and immortalised among posterity?” The “for” at the beginning of the clause explains why the writer added “suffering *wrongfully*” at the end of the last.
**When ye do well, and suffer for it**.—It is a pity that the translators have limited St. Peter’s meaning by the insertion of the last two words. It is unnecessary to understand the suffering to be directly *provoked* by the well-doing. It would have done just as well to say, “when ye do well, and yet are ill-treated.” The “froward” master makes his servants suffer without thinking what he makes them suffer for.
**This is acceptable with God.**—Timidity about St. Peter’s theology has caused a difference between the rendering of the same word in two consecutive verses. It should be translated “thankworthy” here as well as above, and must be taken in precisely the same sense. Observe that the Apostle does not continue, “this *is* glory,” as we might have expected; a Christian is not supposed to care for such trash as fame. But a Christian may well care to win the *thanks of God!* And such endurance of griefs for God’s sake is now distinctly said to be “thankworthy with God”—*i.e., *from God’s point of view. See 2Thessalonians 1:6, where, as here, it is assumed that the moral law is identical for God and for us, and that His principles and impulses of action are the same as those which He has implanted in us. “He will thank a man for it,” says Archbishop Leighton, not a divine to favour the doctrine of human merit, but too honest a scholar to shrink from the meaning of words. Many things are strictly duty, and yet we do not expect to find them done, and are proportionably grateful when we see that they are done. And shall we, for the sake of a doctrinal thesis like that, “that man can deserve nothing at the hand of God,” deny to God the possibility of enjoying one of the happiest exercises of love, the sense of gratitude?
Charles John Ellicott (1819–1905). Public Domain.