b. Application: you must be holy in all your conduct (1:13–25)
b. Application: you must be holy in all your conduct (1:13–25)
1. Desire the beauty of being like a holy God (1:13–16)
13. Therefore refers to the great ‘salvation’ blessings explained in verses 3 to 12. Because of their possession of these, Peter’s readers are to think and act in certain ways.
The phrase gird up your minds is in Greek literally ‘gird up the loins of your mind’ (so AV), an almost unintelligible phrase for modern readers unfamiliar with the ancient Oriental custom of gathering up one’s long robes by pulling them between the legs and then wrapping and tying them around the waist, so as to prepare for running, fast walking, or other strenuous activity (see 1 Kgs 18:46; 2 Kgs 4:29; 9:1). The NIV translation ‘prepare your minds for action’ conveys the general sense but obliterates the rich echoes of Old Testament background verses which would admonish readers to be ready to see God work and to respond to him with instant obedience (see Exod. 12:11; Job 38:3; 40:7; Jer. 1:17; cf. Luke 12:35). Such spiritual alertness is appropriate to life in a New Covenant age characterized by God’s powerful working in people’s hearts.
Be sober forbids not only physical drunkenness but also (since the phrases before and after have to do with attitudes of mind) letting the mind wander into any other kind of mental intoxication or addiction which inhibits spiritual alertness, or any laziness of mind which lulls Christians into sin through carelessness (or ‘by default’). Peter uses the same word in 4:7 and 5:8 to encourage spiritual alertness for prayer and for resisting the devil. He knows how easily Christians can lose their spiritual concentration through ‘mental intoxication’ with the things of this world (cf. Mark 4:19; Col. 3:2–3; 1 John 2:15–17). We today might well consider the dangers presented by such inherently ‘good’ things as career, possessions, recreation, reputation, friendships, scholarship, or authority.
Set your hope fully uses the common New Testament term for ‘hope’, elpizō. This term refers to an expectation which is much stronger than the vague sense of ‘wish for’ or ‘dream about’. Although ‘hope’ in the New Testament does not imply a sense of absolute certainty (see Rom. 8:24–25; 1 Tim. 3:14), it does convey a sense of confident expectation, an expectation strong enough for one to act on the basis of it (see Luke 6:34; 23:8; Phil. 2:19, 23). The word fully implies a very confident and eager expectation, a very strong hope.
Such hope in great blessings when Christ returns not only encourages downcast Christians; it also prompts a reordering of priorities according to God’s agenda (Matt. 6:19–21, 24) and inevitably leads to ethical changes in one’s life (cf. 1 John 3:3). Since Peter is about to launch into an extended section of moral commands (beginning at v. 14 and continuing with only a few interruptions through the rest of the letter), this exhortation to hope appropriately forms the transition point to the rest of the letter. If Peter’s readers will first know the great truths about their salvation (vv. 1–12) and then begin a habit of visualizing themselves personally on a path of life leading without fail to unimaginable heavenly reward (v. 13), they will be mentally and emotionally ready to strive for a life of holiness before God (vv. 14–16, etc.).
The grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ means the further store of undeserved blessings which God will pour out on them when Christ returns. (Compare ‘grace’ in v. 10 and the inheritance mentioned in v. 4; for the phrase ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’ see v. 7 and the passages cited there.) The present participle pheromenēn (literally, ‘that is being carried to you’) is unusual here (a future participle, as in 3:13, or a relative clause would more clearly mean ‘that will come to you’). This form of the word probably should be understood to convey more vivid expectation, or even to suggest some present anticipation, of those future blessings.
The grammatical structure of the whole verse suggests a sequence of actions. The first command, gird up, is in a grammatical form (aorist participle preceding the main verb) which most often signifies action that occurs before the action of the main verb in the sentence (here, the verb ‘hope’). The second command, be sober, has a form (present participle) which in this context suggests action at the same time as the main verb. We may paraphrase, ‘First, gird up your minds—get ready to think on God’s works and obey him at once. Then, while continuing to be spiritually alert, begin to expect eagerly and confidently that you will receive from God great blessings when Christ returns.’
14. As obedient children views Peter’s readers as children in God’s family whose lives are characterized by obedience to their heavenly Father. The idea of obedience to God is prominent in Peter’s mind as he writes (the same word for obedience occurs also at vv. 2 and 22 in this chapter), and Peter, having introduced the idea of obedience in the father-children relationship here, is going to maintain it in the background of the discussion until 2:3.
Do not be conformed uses a word which occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at Romans 12:2. It means ‘to pattern one’s actions or life after’, and reminds these Christians that obedience to God and holiness of life (see v. 15) are radically different from a life that follows ‘natural’ (that is, non-Christian) desires wherever they lead. Doing God’s will is the opposite of doing what remaining sin makes us ‘feel like’ doing (Rom. 6:12; Gal. 5:16–24).
Peter refers to their pre-Christian state as their former ignorance—ignorance of God and of his ways (cf. Acts 3:17; 17:30; Eph. 4:18). Then passions dominated their pattern of life. Although this word (epithymia) is used in a positive sense (Luke 22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17), Peter always uses it in a negative sense of sinful desires which lead people to direct disobedience to God’s laws (2:11; 4:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3). Christians are to recognize these desires for what they are (some are listed in Gal. 5:19–21 and 1 John 2:16) and then strive not to let their lives be influenced by them. Phillips paraphrases this, ‘Don’t let your character be moulded by the desires of your ignorant days.’ The fact that Peter could give such a command implies that he knew that such desires still remain and have some power in the hearts of true Christians. Yet he also implies that he agreed with Paul (Rom. 6:11, 14; Gal. 5:24) that the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work has broken the ruling, dominating force of those desires, and that it is possible for Christians to have a significant measure of victory over them.
15. But signals a strong contrast with behaviour that is ‘conformed to the passions of your former ignorance’. As he who called you is holy means ‘according to the way or manner in which God is holy, you yourselves are to be holy, patterning your holiness after his’. He who called you is specifically God the Father (see 5:10; and cf. Rom. 8:28; 30; 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 3:14). By mentioning ‘calling’ here and four other times in the letter (2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10; cf. 2 Pet. 1:3) Peter reminds his readers that it was God who initiated their salvation when the gospel came to them in power, summoning them out of darkness (2:9) into fellowship with himself. It was a powerful, effectual calling into the Christian life and all it involves—a calling to live with God and to be like him.
To say that God is holy means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honour. Thus, things that were ‘holy’ in the Old Testament were both set apart from ordinary or evil use and devoted to use in glorifying God (Exod. 19:4–6; 20:11; 26:34; 29:44; Ps. 24:3; Zech. 14:20–21). God himself is the most holy one (Ps. 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; 99:9; Isa. 1:4; 5:19, 24; 6:3).
The idea of holiness for God’s people includes not simply a concept of ‘separation’ in general but a specifically moral sense of separation from evil and dedication to a life of righteousness. This is clear from the ‘not … but’ contrast in verses 14 to 15, and also from other passages where cognate nouns define ‘holiness’ in clear moral categories (Rom. 6:19; 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:10).
Be holy yourselves in all your conduct speaks of a pattern of life that transforms every day, every moment, every thought, every action. The word conduct (anastrophē) is frequent in Peter (eight of the thirteen NT occurrences are in 1 and 2 Peter). He uses it to refer to the evil pattern of life of unbelievers (1:18; 2 Pet. 2:7) and the good pattern of life of believers which is intended to lead to the salvation of others who observe it (2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; 2 Pet. 3:11).
To be holy ‘as God is holy’ includes a full and pervading holiness that reaches to every aspect of our personalities. It involves not only avoiding outward sin but also maintaining an instinctive delight in God and his holiness as an undercurrent of heart and mind throughout the day.
16. Since (dioti, meaning ‘because’ or ‘for’) introduces the reason or ground which supports the preceding statement. Why should Christians be holy? Because it is written (that is, it stands written in Scripture and remains valid today), You shall be holy, for I am holy (Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7 [LXX]; and 20:26). The holiness of God is thus in both Testaments the ground of his requirement that his people should be holy.
This is just one example of the way the New Testament repeatedly assumes that imitation of God’s moral character is the ultimate basic for ethics. The final reason why some things are right and others wrong, and why there are moral absolutes in the universe, is that God delights in things that reflect his moral character (and thus reflect his excellence) and hates what is contrary to his character. Therefore, we are to imitate him (Eph. 5:1; Matt. 5:48; Luke 6:36; Col. 3:9–10; 1 John 3:2–3; 4:11, 19; cf. Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 2:21; 1 John 2:6), and thereby glorify him.
Peter’s reminder of the father-child theme in this context (vv. 14, 17) is appropriate, for it is the nature of children to want to imitate their parents. Christians should delight in imitating God, both because he is their Father and because his moral excellence is inherently beautiful and desirable—to be like him is the best way to be (cf. Ps. 34:8; 73:25).
2. Fear the displeasure of a Father who is an impartial Judge (1:17–21)
17. Peter now adds an additional motivation for a life of holiness: fear of God’s fatherly discipline. Invoke is a technically correct but somewhat obscure rendering of epikaleō (in the middle voice), which means ‘to call on for help, to appeal to’ (Acts 25:11–12; Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22). ‘Address as Father’ (NASB) would fit the active voice of the verb, but this is a middle, for which the meaning ‘address’ is not attested in the New Testament (cf. BAGD, p. 294). The present tense suggests regular or habitual calling to God for help—the mark of a Christian (note 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22).
And if introduces a Greek construction in which Peter assumes that the readers do pray to God regularly and know him as their Father (cf. NIV, ‘Since …’). Now Peter reminds them that their Father is also the Judge of the universe. The sense is, ‘If you call on a Father who is also the Judge who shows no favouritism (and will therefore show no favouritism to his friends or children), and who is continually judging and rewarding each person according to what he does, then live your life on earth in fear (that is, fear of his discipline).’ Membership in God’s family, great privilege though it is, must not lead to the presumption that disobedience will pass unnoticed or undisciplined.
Who judges each one impartially according to his deeds could be understood to refer to the future, final judgment in which believers will not be excluded from heaven but will be judged and rewarded according to their deeds in this life (as in Rom. 14:12; 1 Cor. 3:10–15; 2 Cor. 5:10, etc.). However, the phrase is better understood to refer primarily or even exclusively to present judgment and discipline in this life, because: (1) this Greek construction (ton krinonta, articular present participle) would naturally carry the sense ‘the one who is judging’; and (2) the exhortation to ‘fear’ would be inappropriate to address to Christians if the subject were final judgment, for Christians need have no fear of final condemnation.
A reference to God’s present discipline in this life is appropriate for Peter elsewhere recognizes God’s present activity of blessing and disciplining Christians (4:14, 17 [with the cognate word krima]; cf. Heb. 12:5–11; Matt. 6:12).
Each one is a reminder that such judgment is not restricted to non-Christians only, or to Christians only, or to some Christians who lived at another time or place. It is individual, personal judgment of all people (though in this context discipline of believers is specifically in view). Impartially is a rare word meaning ‘without showing favouritism’ (similar expressions are found in Luke 20:21; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Jas 2:1, 9).
Conduct yourselves with fear refers again to their whole pattern of life—anastrephō, ‘conduct’, is the cognate verb to the noun anastrophē, ‘conduct’, in verse 15. Fear in this context means primarily ‘fear of God’s discipline’. (The translation ‘reverent fear’ [NIV] is too comfortable for modern readers, for it suggests mainly the idea of awe during worship and allows readers to avoid the concept ‘fear of discipline’.)
Although many today dismiss fear of God as an Old Testament concept which has no place in the New Covenant, they do so to the neglect of many New Testament passages and to the impoverishment of their spiritual lives. Fear (phobos) of God’s discipline is a good and proper attitude, the sign of a New Testament church growing in maturity and experiencing God’s blessing (Acts 5:5, 11; 9:31; 2 Cor. 7:1, 15; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Pet. 2:17; and probably also 1 Pet. 2:18; 3:2; 3:15). Moreover, fear of God is connected with growth in holiness elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 2:12; cf. Rom. 3:18).
Fear of God is not inconsistent with loving him or knowing that he loves us. If it were, we would have to say that Old Testament believers who feared God could not also have loved him—which is clearly false—or that God did not love them—which is also clearly false. Rather, fear of displeasing our Father is the obverse side of loving him.
The fear here recommended is … a holy self-suspicion and fear of offending God, which may not only consist with assured hope of salvation, and with faith, and love, and spiritual joy, but is their inseparable companion … This fear is not cowardice: it doth not debase, but elevates the mind; for it drowns all lower fears, and begets true fortitude and courage to encounter all dangers, for the sake of a good conscience and the obeying of God.
The time of your exile refers to this present life, during which Peter’s readers are ‘temporary residents’ on earth. The word translated ‘exile’, paroikia, is used elsewhere in the New Testament only at Acts 13:17 (of the ‘sojourn’ in Egypt), but it is similar in sense to parepidēmoi, ‘exile’, in 1:1—note the comments there on translation and Peter’s purpose in using such terms.
18. You know that begins a new sentence in the RSV, but the Greek text actually continues the same sentence with a participial phrase, ‘knowing that …’, which can be translated in a variety of ways, depending on the sense of the context. Though it is not made explicit by Peter, the sense seems to be, ‘Conduct your lives with fear of God’s discipline (v. 17), because you know that God redeemed you out of a sinful manner of life at great cost—with the precious blood of Christ (vv. 18–19).’ (Therefore, Peter implies, God will not be pleased if you casually disregard the ethical purposes of his redemption.)
You were ransomed is a helpful English translation of the verb lutroō, for this verb has the distinctive sense ‘to purchase someone’s freedom by paying a ransom’, and was used in secular contexts of purchasing freedom for a slave or a hostage held by an enemy. The word ‘redeemed’ (NIV, NASB) also means this (especially as a technical term in systematic theology), yet it should be noted that the Greek term is much more specific than the vague general sense (roughly equal to ‘saved’) which often attaches to the word ‘redeemed’ today.
The realm from which the readers were ransomed is from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. From (ek) is not simply ‘away from’ but ‘out of’, giving the vivid image of people being physically removed from one ‘place’ (the sphere of sinful patterns of life) to another (the sphere of obedience to God). Ways is once again anastrophē, ‘pattern of life’ (see notes at v. 15). This pattern of life was futile—empty, worthless, having no meaningful or lasting results (compare this word in 1 Cor. 15:17; Titus 3:9; and the cognate noun thirteen times in the LXX of Eccl. 1–2). The remarkable change brought about by conversion to Christ is seen in the fact that these abandoned sinful patterns of life had been inherited from your fathers, an influence made weighty by the accumulation of generations of tradition in a society that valued such ancestral wisdom. The ancient tradition of home and nation is broken … because of the work of Jesus Christ who had set them free.’ A similar purpose for redemption is affirmed in Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:14. The hereditary chain of sin is broken by Christ (cf. Exod. 20:5, 6).
Peter once again shows the surpassing value of spiritual realities by calling the most precious and abiding metals perishable things such as silver or gold. ‘Perishable’, phthartos, is always used in the New Testament of things which will decay or wear out (Rom. 1:23; 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:53–54; 1 Pet. 1:23) because they belong to this world or this age (see notes on ‘imperishable’, aphthartos, in v. 4).
19. But with the precious blood of Christ affirms Christ’s blood to be much more ‘precious’ or ‘valuable’ (timios is used of precious gems in 1 Cor. 3:12; cf. ‘precious fruit’ in Jas 5:7) than gold or silver—apparently meaning precious in God’s sight and therefore inherently valuable.
The blood of Christ is the clear outward evidence that his lifeblood was poured out when he died a sacrificial death as the price of our redemption—‘the blood of Christ’ means his death in its saving aspects. Although we might think that Christ’s blood as evidence that his life had been given would have exclusive reference to the removal of our judicial guilt before God—for this is its primary reference—the New Testament authors also attribute to it several other effects. By the blood of Christ our consciences are cleansed (Heb. 9:14), we gain bold access to God in worship and prayer (Heb. 10:19), are progressively cleansed from more and more sin (1 John 1:7; cf. Rev. 1:5b), are able to conquer the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:11), and are rescued out of a sinful way of life (1 Pet. 1:19). We would do well to recover this New Testament emphasis in our preaching today.
Coupled with the idea of the payment of a ransom is the idea of Christ as a substitutionary sacrifice who bore our penalty (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24). This is emphasized in the phrase like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. While it could be argued that the primary reference is to the spotless lamb of the Passover in Exodus 12:5 (see Hort, p. 77), it is more likely that the allusion is to the frequent requirement of a ‘lamb without blemish’ for many Old Testament sacrifices (Num. 6:14; 28:3, 9; etc.), and then to the Christian understanding of Jesus as the perfect ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:31; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 5:6, 12; Isa. 53:7). So precious in God’s sight is this death and the blood which represents it that it should never be lightly esteemed by us. Nor may we underestimate its value: Christ’s blood alone could pay the price of our redemption.
20. He was destined as a translation for proginōskō follows the RSV’s translation of the cognate noun prognōsis as ‘destined’ in verse 2. Although the word in ordinary usage simply means ‘known beforehand’ (see its use in Acts 26:5 and 2 Pet. 3:17), here in verse 20 most versions translate it with some word implying predestination: ‘foreordained’ (AV); ‘predestined’ (NEB); ‘chosen’ (NIV). This is because of (1) a sense that when God knows something beforehand it is certain that that event will occur, and assuming the event to be therefore ordained by God seems to be the only alternative to the non-Christian idea of a certainty of events brought about by impersonal, mechanistic fate; (2) the fact that the use of the word when applied to God is found in contexts that suggest predestination (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2); (3) a realization that in this context it would make little sense for Peter merely to say that God the Father knew Christ before the foundation of the world. Rather, the immediately preceding context with its emphasis on Christ’s redeeming death suggests that it is as a suffering saviour that God ‘foreknew’ or thought of the Son before the foundation of the world. These considerations combine to indicate that the ‘foreknowledge’ was really an act of God in eternity past whereby he determined that his Son would come as the Saviour of mankind.
The foundation of the world is a New Testament phrase for ‘the creation of the world’ (note its use in Matt. 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Peter once again emphasizes the central place New Covenant Christians occupy in the history of redemption by noting that this eternal plan of God to send his Son remained unfulfilled until he was made manifest (or revealed) at the end of the times, that is, at the end of the ages of history of the unredeemed creation, the ‘ages’ or ‘times’ (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 16:25) which preceded this present final age of redemption. This long-awaited appearance of the Messiah was for your sake, Peter tells his readers (cf. the note on the readers’ position in the history of redemption in v. 12, above).
21. Yet Peter continues beyond the specification of the readers’ privilege to add that it is through him (i.e. through Christ) that you have confidence in God, here referring to God the Father (as is most common with the term theos, ‘God’, in the New Testament). The God who planned their redemption is now the object of their trust.
The word translated have confidence (pistos) can also mean ‘faithful, trustworthy’, but it cannot take that sense here, because at the end of the sentence Peter summarizes this confidence as reliance on God: so that your faith and hope are in God. When Peter says that it is ‘through’ Christ that they trust God he rules out any idea that Christians should ‘fear God but trust Christ’. Rather, as Christians trust in Christ they are also through Christ trusting in God.
The phrase who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, refers to Christ’s resurrection, his ascension into heaven, and reception of honour and glory from the Father (cf. Phil. 2:9; Eph. 1:20–23).
So that your faith and hope are in God brings Peter to the conclusion and also the main point of verses 20 to 21. After telling his readers to live holy lives (vv. 14–16) and to fear God’s discipline and displeasure if they disobey (v. 17)—for God redeemed them from sin at great cost (vv. 18–19)—he concludes by reminding them that the God whom they are to fear as Judge is also the God whom they trust as Saviour: he planned their redemption in the counsels of eternity (v. 20a), he sent forth his Son for their sake (v. 20b), he is the one whom they even now depend on (v. 21a), he raised Christ from the dead and glorified him (v. 21b), and thus he is the one in whom they place all their trust and hope (v. 21c). The God whom Christians fear is also the God whom they trust for ever, the God who has planned and done for them only good from all eternity.
3. Love one another, now and for ever (1:22–25)
22. Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth might be understood to refer either to conversion (where ‘obedience to the truth’ would mean ‘believing the gospel’) or to growth in moral purity subsequent to conversion (where ‘obedience to the truth’ would mean ‘obedience to God’s commands in daily living’).
Having purified (hēgnikotes, perfect participle) could refer to initial conversion as a completed event in the past with continuing effects, but since Peter elsewhere uses the perfect tense of events in the process of sanctification (4:1; 2 Pet. 1:12), we cannot be certain that this is in view.
More persuasive are arguments in favour of the view that Peter has post-conversion growth in moral purity in mind: (1) obedience (hypakoē) occurs fifteen times in the New Testament, and never clearly means initial saving faith’; (2) Peter uses obedience (hypakoē) in verses 2 and 14 of obedience in conduct; (3) purify (hagnizō) when employed figuratively elsewhere in the New Testament is used of moral cleansing subsequent to conversation (Jas 4:8, 1 John 3:3); (4) the context is the apostle’s call to holiness in 1:15, which suggests that the purifying obedience he has in view results from an active response to that call; (5) this ‘purification’ is something the readers have themselves done (‘having purified your souls’), but Christians are never in the New Testament said to be active agents in God’s initial cleansing of their souls at conversion. On the other hand, they are said to be active in the progressive work of sanctification (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1; Jas 4:8; 1 John 3:3).
This ‘purification’ then signifies some clear progress in gaining more purity from the moral pollution of sin, a concept very similar to that of James 4:8 and 1 John 3:3.
Your souls emphasizes the inward, spiritual nature of this purification. Though ‘soul’ (psychē) is used of the whole person (e.g. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:14), had Peter meant this he would have most probably used heatous ‘yourselves’ (as in 1 John 3:3). Psychē can also mean ‘inward spiritual nature’ (Matt. 10:28; 2 Pet. 2:8; cf. BAGD, p. 893, c.). That this is how it should be understood here is suggested by its proximity to a call to love ‘from the heart’.
By your obedience to the truth might also be translated ‘in [your] obedience to the truth’ (NASB)—both ‘by’ and ‘in’ (NASB and also AV) are linguistically acceptable and theologically true. But ‘by’ is preferable here since it is by means of a process of active obedience that a Christian ‘purifies’ his or her soul. (‘The truth’ here carries a sense of the true way pleasing to God, including not merely the gospel message but the whole of Christian teaching on doctrine and life—cf. 2 John 4; 3 John 3, 4; 2 Pet. 1:12; 2:2.)
This ‘purification’ is not likely to be a completed stage in the sanctification process, for the New Testament knows of no such unique stage in growth, nor could Peter assume that any one level of holiness had been attained by so many Christians in several different churches.
It is better to understand the phrase as the next logical step in the development of Peter’s argument. Obedience would then mean ‘obedience to the exhortations just mentioned’. We could paraphrase, ‘Then, having purified your souls by your obedience to these true commands to holiness … love one another earnestly.’ Peter thus expects that growth in holiness will lead to deeper love among Christians. (Indeed, this conclusion would be true no matter which interpretation one adopted for the phrase ‘having purified your souls’.)
A sincere love of the brethren means love that is genuine, not simply an outward appearance or profession of love. This ‘love of the brethren’ (philadelphia) is probably seen by Peter as somewhat less intense than agapē (note the progression in this verse, and the discussion of agapaō in the next phrase; cf. also 2 Pet. 1:17, which suggests some distinction).
By translating this phrase for a sincere love of the brethren, the RSV understands it to indicate purpose. But love for fellow Christians is seen in the New Testament more as a component or a result of sanctification than its goal. So it is preferable to understand this construction (eis with accusative) to indicate result (so NIV, NEB, Phillips; cf. 1:3; 2:9, 21 for the same construction used this way): ‘Until you feel sincere affection towards your brother Christians’ (NEB).
Love one another earnestly from the heart commands something which goes beyond the sincere brotherly affection of the previous phrase. Peter switches from a phileō—root (‘affection, love’) in the previous phrase to agapaō (‘love, especially strong, deep love’) here. He adds ektenōs, ‘earnestly’, a term used elsewhere of strong, deeply felt, even fervent, emotions or desires (LXX, Joel 1:14 and Jon. 3:8; also Acts 12:5; 26:7).
From a ‘pure heart’ (AV, NIV mg.; cf. NASB mg.) seems to be a better reading, since most of the earliest and best Greek manuscripts include the adjective katharos, ‘pure, clean’, and since it is natural in a sentence that earlier speaks of inward purification.
The sense of the verse is therefore, ‘Once you have begun to grow in holiness so that you have a genuine affection for one another, make your love for each other earnest, deep, and strong.’ This is Peter’s first specific application of the general commands to holiness in verses 13 to 21. It is a reminder that one of the first marks of genuine growth in holiness in individuals and in churches is earnest love for fellow Christians. It also gives encouragement that human personalities, far from being immutably fixed early in life, can be dramatically and permanently changed through the power of the gospel.
23. Though the RSV begins a new sentence here, You have been born anew …, the Greek text continues the sentence of verse 22 with a participle, ‘having been born anew’, which probably gives a reason or ground for the previous verse: ‘for you have been born again …’ (NASB). This ‘new birth’ initiates new spiritual life (see John 3:3–15; cf. John 1:12–13; Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; Titus 3:5; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3). Here Peter uses the same verb (anagennaō) as in 1:3 (see notes there). The verb form here (perfect participle) emphasizes the continuing results of that previous new birth.
Not of perishable seed but of imperishable affirms the permanent, even indestructible character of the ‘seed’ that started this new life within the readers. (See notes on the words perishable and imperishable at 1:4.) ‘Seed’ (spora) can mean either ‘sowing’ (the activity) or ‘seed’ (the thing planted or sown; see 1 Macc. 10:30; Josephus, Ant. 2.306; BAGD, p. 763), but ‘seed’ is much more likely here, since it makes little sense to speak of an activity as ‘imperishable’ (cf. 1 John 3:9).
The living and abiding word of God is either the spoken word of God (in gospel proclamation) or the written word of God (in the Bible), or both, since the quotation from Isaiah 40:6–8 in the following verse refers to the words of God spoken and/or written through the Old Testament prophets. We should probably not try to distinguish too sharply here, for the Isaiah passage is a statement about the character of God’s words generally, without reference to any particular form in which they occur.
Was the ‘imperishable seed’ the word of God (cf. Luke 8:11)? Or did Peter mean that the ‘seed’ was the working of the Holy Spirit with and through the word of God? He says they have been born again ‘of’ (ek, ‘out of, from’) imperishable seed ‘through’ (dia, ‘through, by means of’) the living and abiding word of God. The change of prepositions may indicate a change in nuance, but the distinction is not of great significance theologically, for in any case the Holy Spirit is active in causing regeneration (cf. John 3:5–8; Titus 3:5), and the word of God is the means God uses to awaken new life in an unbeliever (cf. Rom. 10:17; Jas 1:18). Yet in this text there is no explicit mention of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Peter’s emphasis on the fact that the word of God is living (cf. Heb. 4:12) suggests its power—unlike any merely human words—to awaken new life. And the fact that it is abiding (cf. Mark 13:31) reinforces the idea of the permanence of the new life generated by it. Finally, verses 24 to 25 continue to hammer home the theme of the permanence of God’s word, which would be irrelevant if the permanence of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit were the point of verse 23, but not if the permanence of the effect of the life-giving word of God is meant. While we should never try to separate the word of God from God who speaks that word, these considerations indicate that Peter is thinking specifically of the word of God as the life-giving ‘seed’. The implications for evangelism are obvious: ultimately it is neither our arguments nor our life example that will bring new life to an unbeliever, but the powerful words of God himself—words which we still have preserved today in Scripture. It is in reading or hearing these words that people are given new life. The argument is therefore:
(1) love one another earnestly (v. 22)
(2) because you have been born anew of imperishable seed (v. 23)
But how does verse 23 provide a ground for verse 22? Perhaps Peter is affirming that their new birth gives them power to love one another. But that would not explain his emphasis on the ‘imperishable’ and ‘abiding’ nature of God’s word. Moreover, while power to love might serve as a convincing reason for an affirmation that they are able to love (e.g. ‘You are able to love one another, for you have been born anew’), it is much less a convincing reason for what verse 22 actually contains, namely, a command to love.
A correct understanding of verse 23 must explain its function in a way that accounts for Peter’s stress on the permanent nature of the new life given through the word of God. This emphasis makes it most likely that Peter is stressing the eternal nature of the fellowship which his readers have come to share—‘Love one another (v. 22), for you have all been born anew into a fellowship of God’s people which will last eternally (v. 23).’ Christian growth cannot be self-centred and individualistic, for it occurs in the context of fellowship, a fellowship which must deepen and remain for all eternity.
24–25. The permanency of the word of God, mentioned in verse 23, is emphasized in these two verses. Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6–8 to contrast the frailty of human nature with the permanence of God’s words. All flesh means ‘all natural human existence’ or perhaps ‘every person’—the sense is nearly the same. Grass is a general word for grass (Matt. 6:30; 14:19) or hay (1 Cor. 3:12) which lasts for a season and is gone. All its glory refers to all human beauty, splendour, or fame. As the grass withers and the flower fades and dies, so man’s glory and greatness quickly disappear (cf. Jas 1:10–11). What then can give hope of permanence or significance? The word (rhēma, the actual spoken or written word) of the Lord abides for ever, and it is that word which Peter’s readers have heard and believed. That word—apparently including Old Testament Scriptures, New Testament apostolic proclamation, and the presentation of both in the message of first-century evangelists—is the word which quickened new life within them. Therefore, in contrast to the temporality of the withering grass and the fading flower, believers have an eternally abiding nature (cf. 1 John 2:17). (Peter here uses rhēma, ‘word’, to refer to the same thing as logos, ‘word’, in v. 23, suggesting that he saw little difference between them in meaning.)
These verses intensify the idea of the permanence of God’s word by contrasting it with the fading glory of human achievement. Strength, power, wealth, beauty, fame—all the ‘glory’ of man—will quickly fade. Christians who have been ‘born anew’ (v. 23) will live with God for ever.