What does 1 Peter 1:11 mean by 'the sufferings' and 'the glories after these things'?
Peter is naming the two-stage structure built into OT prophecy: the Messiah's suffering at the first coming, and his exaltation at the second. The phrase 'after these things' (μετὰ ταῦτα) is the New Testament's own term for the interval between the two — the prophetic gap.
Peter is giving us the New Testament's own name for the interval between the two comings.
The context is 1 Peter 1:10–11. Peter writes that the OT prophets were searching for what their own prophecies meant — they knew something was coming, but they couldn't see the full shape. What they were searching into, Peter says, was this: "the Spirit of Christ within them was testifying beforehand to the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these things."
That last phrase — "the glories after these things" — carries everything. In Greek it is τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας (tas meta tauta doxas). The construction μετά with the accusative marks temporal sequence, not accompaniment. It doesn't mean "the glories that came with the sufferings." It means "the glories that came after the sufferings." There is an interval between the two poles. That interval is exactly what the prophets couldn't see the duration of.
Three things in 1 Peter 1:11 do the heavy work.
First, the verb. The word translated "testifying beforehand" is προμαρτυρόμενον (G4303, promartyroumenon). It occurs exactly once in the New Testament — a single instance. The prefix προ- ("before") tells you the direction: the Spirit was witnessing to both stages before either had arrived. The OT prophets weren't just predicting the suffering; they were also pre-testifying to the glory, and the two poles were already separate in the testimony.
Second, the suffering and the glory. The sufferings (παθήματα, G3804) and the glories (δόξας, G1391) describe the two-stage career of the Messiah: the cross and its shame, then the resurrection, session at God's right hand, and return. Notably, Peter uses the plural — not "the glory" but "the glories" — pointing to the full program of exaltation, not just one morning's resurrection.
Third, the gap itself. "After these things" names the interval. The prophets testified to both ends of the bridge but were not shown the span. They knew there were two stages. They didn't know how far apart they were. That is why, Peter says, they searched and inquired carefully into "what person or time" the Spirit was indicating (1 Peter 1:10–11).
"...the Spirit of Christ within them was testifying beforehand to the sufferings toward Christ and the glories after these things." — 1 Peter 1:11
This is exactly what happened at Nazareth (Luke 4:18–21). Jesus read Isaiah 61:1–2 through "the acceptable year of the LORD" (רָצוֹן, H7522) — the favor half — and stopped before "the day of vengeance of our God" (נָקָם, H5359). He declared the favor fulfilled and left the vengeance unread. Peter's sentence in 1 Peter 1:11 is the apostolic theory of that act. At Nazareth the gap appears as an event — a man stops reading. At 1 Peter 1:11 the same gap appears as a doctrine — the Spirit pre-testified to suffering and glory with an interval written between them.
The prophets were given both ends and not the span. We know the span now only in retrospect — and we are still living inside it.
The full study traces the prophetic gap from Isaiah 61 through 1 Peter 1:11, Zechariah 9, Malachi 3–4, and Psalm 110. Read The Year of Favor and the Day of Vengeance.
Do Old Testament prophecies skip over the time between Jesus’ two comings?
Yes, in at least four documented cases: the NT cites part of an OT oracle, applies it to the first coming, and leaves the remainder unapplied — not because it is spiritualized away, but because it belongs to the second coming. The interval between is real, it is just not marked in the Hebrew grammar.
Is the prophetic gap just reading things into the Bible?
No — it is reading what the New Testament actually does with the Old Testament. The gap is established by where NT authors stop quoting, not by imposing a theological grid. The evidence is citation records, not inference.
Why did Jesus stop reading Isaiah 61 in the middle of a verse?
Because only the first half had arrived. Jesus read through 'the acceptable year of the LORD,' rolled up the scroll, and declared it fulfilled — leaving 'the day of vengeance of our God' unread, because the day of vengeance belongs to the second coming, not the first.
Why does Zechariah 9 describe both Palm Sunday and the second coming in the same passage?
Because Zechariah 9:9–10 is a single prophetic oracle with a seam between its two halves: the Gospels cite verse 9 for the Triumphal Entry and stop there — verse 10's universal dominion belongs to the second coming, not the first. The conjunction that joins them carries no temporal weight.