e. Living as Christians generally (3:8–4:19)

e. Living as Christians generally (3:8–4:19)

e. Living as Christians generally (3:8–4:19)

1. Be humble and united in spirit (3:8)

8. This section concludes with some general instructions on relating to others, especially those who may be hostile. Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. The term translated unity of spirit means ‘sharing the same thoughts and attitudes, thinking harmoniously’—a goal too infrequently attained in Christian churches. Love of the brethren refers to love for others within the church (the primary emphasis on love for fellow Christians is missed by the NIV’s ‘love as brothers’). A tender heart is a helpful translation of a word which means ‘caring, compassionate’, not only in actions but even more in one’s feelings or emotions (note the same word in Eph. 4:32). A humble mind refers not only to ideas but also to attitudes and to general mental outlook—it is contrasted to pride in Proverbs 29:23.

2. Return blessing when evil is done to you (3:9–12)

9. Continuing with more actions which issue from a heart that is trusting in God to care for one’s needs, and which imitate the supreme example of Christ’s life, Peter tells his readers, many of whom are already suffering opposition, Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling: but on the contrary bless. (See the note at 2:23 on the related verb ‘revile’; the term refers to abusive or insulting talk, ‘speaking evil’ against someone.) Christians are not to repay evil words with more of the same, but with the opposite, following both the teaching and example of Christ (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27–29, 35; 23:34; cf. Rom. 12:14, 17–21; 1 Cor. 4:12). The reason given in the gospels is that they ought to imitate the goodness of God even to undeserving sinners (Matt. 5:45, 48; Luke 6:35–36), goodness which is meant to lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4 cf. Acts 14:17). Here is ample warrant to do good to all people, even those who do us harm. (It should be noted here, however, that the responsibility of government to punish evildoers in 2:14 means that there will be times when not for personal revenge but as a representative of the civil government a Christian will forcefully retaliate against evil; note the same distinction between the prohibition of personal revenge and the endorsement of forceful retribution by government in Rom. 12:14, 17–21 with Rom. 13:1–5.)

Here Peter gives another reason for the kind of actions and attitudes he commands: it is part of the Christian life, and a means of obtaining blessing from God: For to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing. Grammatically, this may refer either backward (to the idea of returning blessing for cursing, or to all of the righteous behaviour in vv. 8–9a) or forward (to the clause ‘that you may obtain a blessing’). (The TEV, NASB, and NEB all translate the verse in such a way that the backward reference is ruled out; other versions [such as RSV, NIV] rightly leave the Eng. translation ambiguous, reflecting the two possibilities found in the Gk. text.)

However, the sense of the passage requires that this refers backward, to the righteous conduct Peter commands them to manifest in vv. 8–9a. This is because (1) the parallel with 2:21 (‘for to this you have been called’) is very close in vocabulary, in content, and in purpose. There ‘this’ clearly points backward to righteous behaviour (and therefore a similar construction in such a similar context would be natural for Peter); and (2) Psalm 34:12–16, quoted in verses 10 to 12, clearly promises God’s blessing (God’s care and his willingness to answer prayer, v. 12) in response to righteous behaviour (not speaking evil and doing right, vv. 10–11, and being ‘righteous’, v. 12). Therefore, verses 10 to 12 make a good ground for verse 9 if it advocates righteous behaviour in order to obtain a blessing from God. But if verse 9 simply says that Christians have been called to obtain a blessing (with no explicit connection to righteous behaviour), then verses 10 to 12 do not form a good ground for it.

We may therefore represent the overall argument of verses 8 to 12 as follows: ‘Finally, all of you, be like-minded, loving toward one another, compassionate, and humble (v. 8), not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary blessing, for you have been called to such a righteous life, in order that by this righteous living you may obtain God’s blessing on your life’ (v. 9). ‘For in the Psalms God promises blessings to those who live righteously’ (vv. 10–12).

Finally, does blessing refer to the final blessing of eternal salvation or to God’s blessing in this present life? In favour of the former is the fact that the word obtain is klēronomeō (‘inherit, acquire, obtain’), a verb which often speaks of heavenly inheritance, and which is related to the noun ‘inheritance’ in 1:4 (which is clearly future, ‘kept in heaven for you’). Yet klēronomeō can be used simply to mean ‘obtain’ something in this life (cf. Heb. 12:17; and for the noun, Matt. 21:38; Luke 12:13; Heb. 11:8). Peter’s use of the term here may have been influenced by its use in the Old Testament (e.g. Ps. 37:9, 11, 22, 29) to speak of the blessings of the righteous who ‘trust in the Lord, and do good’ (Ps. 37:3) in the presence of the wicked (a theme exactly appropriate to Peter’s concern in this context).

Moreover, the blessings specified in verse 12 clearly relate to this life: ‘For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer.’ This is even clearer in the context of the quotation from Psalm 34, which speaks throughout of God’s care in this life for those who trust in him and are faithful to him (Ps. 34:4, 6, 7, 10, 17, 19).

Although Peter mentions future heavenly reward (1:4–7, 13; 4:13; 5:4), it would not be foreign to his thought to emphasize present blessings resulting from right actions. In fact, 1 Peter contains several examples of blessings in this life which are promised as a result of righteous conduct:

Verse

Right conduct

Resulting blessing in this life

1:8

loving Christ

unutterable joy

1:9

continuing faith

more benefits of salvation

1:17

holy life with fear

avoiding God’s fatherly discipline

2:2

partaking of spiritual milk

growing up toward salvation

2:19–20

trusting God and doing right while suffering

God’s approval

3:1–2

submitting to husbands

husbands won for Christ

3:7

living considerately with wives

prayers not hindered

4:14

enduring reproach for Christ

spirit of glory and of God rests upon you

5:7

casting cares on God

(implied) he will care for your needs

5:9–10

resist the devil

God will restore, establish, strengthen you

Verses 8 to 12 therefore teach that one proper motive for righteous living is the knowledge that such conduct will bring blessings from God in this life. These may take different forms but in view of the quotation from Psalm 34 they may be expected to include loving life, seeing ‘good days’, having God’s ‘eyes upon us’ to care for our needs, and having his ‘ears open’ to hear and answer our prayers (cf. Jas 5:16; 1 John 3:21–22). Nevertheless, in the larger context of the whole of 1 Peter, such blessings do not include freedom from opposition or suffering—the blessings of the New Testament age generally are more spiritual, psychological, and interpersonal, and less material or physical, than in the Old Testament (see Additional note on ‘New Covenant Rewards’ at 1:4, pp. 64f.).

10–12. The function of verses 10 to 12 has been discussed above in connection with verse 9: they provide a ‘ground’ or reason supporting verses 8 to 9 with a quotation from Psalm 34:12–16. It remains here only to comment on some specific terms.

To love life does not mean that one has a trouble-free life, either in the context of 1 Peter (for the previous verse expects ‘evil’ and ‘reviling’) or of Psalm 34 (for Ps. 34:19 concludes, ‘Many are the afflictions of the righteous’ before adding, ‘but the LORD delivers him out of them all’). It rather suggests an enjoyment of life and contentment in the life God has given, no matter what the outward circumstances (cf. Eph. 5:20; Phil. 4:4, 7, 11; 1 Thess. 5:16–18). On guile, see the note at 2:1.

To seek peace and pursue it recalls Jesus’ statement, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matt. 5:9). To work for reconciliation and harmony among people (rather than returning evil for evil) is pleasing to God.

The phrase the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous implies not merely that God sees what the righteous are doing (for that would be no greater privilege than that experienced by all people), but that he is looking after them for good, recognizing and meeting their needs (note the affirmations of God’s timely care in Ps. 34:7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19–20, 22). By contrast, the statement But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil is, in the context of Psalm 34, clearly a verdict of judgment, for the verse continues, ‘to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth’ (Ps. 34:16).

Verses 8 to 12 as a whole should not be taken as evidence for final salvation by good works, for they are addressed to those who are already Christians and already have an imperishable ‘inheritance’ kept for them in heaven (1:4). Yet this passage does present a bold affirmation of the relation between righteous living and God’s present blessing in this life. As such it provides a needed corrective to careless, half-hearted Christians living in any age, and a powerful motivation to the kind of holy living to which Peter says all Christians have been ‘called’ (v. 9).

3. How to act when you suffer for righteousness (3:13–4:19)

a. Know that you are blessed (3:13–14a)

13. Here Peter begins a new section dealing specifically with the problem of persecution by unbelievers. Although this theme has been hinted at in 1:6; 2:12, 15, 19; 3:1 and 9, this is the first time Peter confronts persecution as his primary subject and deals with it at length.

In the first sentence, the phrase to harm you may also be translated ‘who will harm you’ or ‘who is going to harm you’ (NIV). The sentence is a rhetorical question with the force, ‘Is there really anyone who will harm those who are eager to do good?’ It implies that harm is not the normal expectation, for usually those who do what is right are rewarded, not punished. (This is a witness to the restraining influence of God’s ‘common grace’ given to all people, as it finds expression in conscience and human government.)

14a. None the less, this is not always so. Though persecution of the righteous is abnormal, it does happen, so Peter recognizes the possibility that Christians may suffer for righteousness’ sake. The verb form (optative) is the one a writer would use to speak of an event he considered unlikely, and the phrase even if contributes further to the sense of unlikelihood implied. (Though suffering of all kinds may be widespread, suffering for righteousness’ sake may still be unlikely.) Yet Peter must realize that this ‘unlikely’ possibility is happening to some of his readers, and he must tell them how to respond.

You will be blessed (or, ‘you are blessed’; the Gk. text does not contain a verb but a plural adjective which applies to the readers, ‘if you suffer … (you) blessed ones’, and it most naturally indicates blessing which comes at the same time as the suffering, not after it). This blessing includes the favour of God in general, but more specifically the readers would think of the blessing promised to the ‘righteous’ in verse 12. The word makarios (‘blessed’) has the sense ‘blessed, happy’, with emphasis on blessing which comes from God (cf. Matt. 5:11–12).

b. Trust Christ (3:14b–15a)

14b. Peter makes specific reference to the persecutors when he says, Have no fear of them. The passage is an inexact but fairly close quotation from Isaiah 8:12–13 (LXX), which (at least in the Heb. text) is a warning not to fear what the faithless people fear (see NIV). But this context does not concern avoiding the groundless fears which unbelievers experience: it rather counsels Christians not to be afraid when facing hostile opposition. So the sense, ‘Do not fear a fear of them’ or ‘Do not fear them’ is preferable, and it is certainly an acceptable way of translating Peter’s words.

Though it is generally better to understand New Testament citations of the Old Testament as carrying the same sense in both places, where the New Testament context strongly favours a slight change of sense or referent we must adopt an interpretation which is faithful to its new context (especially when, as in this case, there is no formal citation but simply a duplication of several expressions). Peter is apparently borrowing a familiar phrase from the Old Testament but using it in a different context and with different application.

Nor be troubled uses a term (tarassō) which means ‘be shaken up, disturbed, frightened’, and often implies emotional turmoil (note its use in Matt. 2:3; 14:26; John 13:21; 14:1; etc.).

15a. The alternative to fear is to focus attention on someone else: But in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Reverence translates hagiazō, which normally means ‘sanctify, make holy’, but here seems to have the sense, ‘treat as holy, regard reverently’ (it has a similar sense in Matt. 6:9, ‘hallowed be thy name’, or ‘may your name be reverenced’). The phrase is also an adaptation of part of Isaiah 8:13, ‘But the LORD of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’ Thus the sense of fear or reverence for the Lord rather than fear of men is reinforced—yet Peter stops short of applying to Christ the admonitions to ‘fear’ the Lord in Isaiah 8:13. To reverence Christ as Lord means really to believe that Christ, not one’s human opponents, is truly in control of events. To have such reverence in your hearts is to maintain continually a deep-seated inward confidence in Christ as reigning Lord and King, who even now has ‘angels, authorities, and powers subject to him’ (3:22).

c. Use this opportunity to witness while doing right (3:15b–17)

15b. Yet the stance of Christians toward unbelievers must never be merely passive or neutral, and Peter does not stop with an admonition not to fear. He goes on to encourage preparation for active witness which will win the unbeliever to Christ. Peter envisages the need to respond to allegations of wrongdoing which Christians face from their opponents, so he says: Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you. The word defence (apologia) almost always has a sense of ‘reply to an accusation’ (cf. Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; Phil. 1:7, 16). Although some maintain that formal legal charges are in view here (so Beare, p. 164), Kelly’s point that always and any one are extremely general (p. 143) is well taken: whether to formal charges or informal accusations, Christians should be prepared to give an answer (Kelly notes the non-technical uses of apologia in 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Plato, Politicus 285e).

However, since the questioning is concerning the hope that is in you, Peter must be assuming that the inward hope of Christians results in lives so noticeably different that unbelievers are prompted to ask why they are so distinctive (cf. 4:4). Christians therefore should always be ready (prepared) to give an answer. Paul provides a good example of seizing the offensive and bearing testimony to Christ even when on trial himself (Acts 22:1–21; 24:10–24; 26:1–23, 25b–29). In hostile situations the opportunity for witness to Christ often comes unexpectedly; the Christian who is not always ready to answer will miss it.

Yet such witness must be given with gentleness and reverence, not attempting to overpower the unbeliever with the force of human personality or aggressiveness, but trusting the Holy Spirit himself quietly to persuade the listener. (The word gentleness and its related adjective ‘gentle’ are discussed in the note at 3:4.)

16. Keep your conscience clear (or ‘good, morally right’: agathos) demands far more than mere outward morality. This does not imply that sinless perfection is possible, but it does imply that a Christian should aim to have a ‘good conscience’ before God. This can be maintained by (1) avoiding conscious or wilful disobedience to God throughout each day; and (2) continuing to practise immediate repentance and prayer for forgiveness (and therefore for a cleansing of the conscience) whenever one becomes aware of any sin in one’s life.

While other parts of the New Testament mention effectiveness in prayer (1 John 3:21–22) and confidence of access to God in worship (Heb. 10:22) as benefits of a clear conscience, here witness to others is the motive: Christians should keep their consciences clear so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. (A similar motive for righteous conduct is given in 2:12, 15; cf. 3:1–2.) Abused refers to verbal, not physical abuse, since it translates katalaleō, ‘speak evil of’ (the same term is used in 2:12, and three times in Jas 4:11). Revile implies insulting or threatening speech, while behaviour represents anastrophē, the word Peter frequently uses to speak of conduct or pattern of life (see note at 1:15). The hope that opponents will be put to shame does not suggest that their shame is something good in itself, but that it will issue in the silencing of their slander and subsequently in their considering and believing the gospel (cf. 2:12, 15; Matt. 5:16; Rom. 12:20–21).

17. Developing a theme he had touched on earlier when addressing servants (2:19–20), Peter again emphasizes the value of suffering unjustly. Although the RSV translates it is better to suffer for doing right … than for doing wrong, the Greek text does not make it explicit that the suffering is specifically for the right that one does; this sense has to be derived from the larger context (see v. 14, where Peter speaks of suffering ‘for righteousness’ sake’). The phrase if that should be God’s will again (as in v. 14) uses the unusual optative mood, indicating something which Peter thought possible but unusual, not ordinarily to be expected.

But why is it better to suffer for doing right than for doing wrong? In this context, it is because such wrongful suffering patiently endured is so remarkable that it becomes a powerful form of witness, leading unbelievers to salvation (cf. 2:12; 3:1–2). This understanding is confirmed by the following verse, which shows that Christ himself also suffered unjustly ‘that he might bring us to God’. (Verse 18 begins with a hoti, ‘for, because’, indicating that the verse gives a reason to support v. 17.) Just as Christ endured unjust suffering for our salvation, Peter reasons, so we are blessed by God if we endure unjust suffering for the salvation of others.

Of course, the parallel is not complete at every point, for Jesus’ suffering not only bore witness, but also actually earned our salvation because he died as our substitute (see notes at 1:19; 2:24). By contrast we can in no sense bear the wrath of God against the sins of others. None the less the example of Christ’s willingness to suffer for our sake provides a powerful encouragement for us to be willing even to suffer while witnessing, in order that others might be saved (cf. Col. 1:24). This kind of suffering is much ‘better’, for deserved suffering because of wrong one has done is hardly a witness to others.

(i) For Christ suffered in order to bring you to God (3:18)

18. For the purpose of this verse, see the discussion of verse 17 above. Instead of died (apothnēskō) many manuscripts have ‘suffered’ (paschō), which makes the connection with ‘suffer’ in verse 17 more explicit. But since Christ’s suffering for sins resulted in his death, this would make little difference to the sense (the textual evidence clearly favours ‘died’, but some think it abrupt for the context). The difference between bring us to God (RSV, NASB) and ‘bring you to God’ (NIV) is also based on a difference among ancient Greek manuscripts, and again carries no great significance for the overall force of the passage.

Peter says that Christ died once (Gk. hapax, meaning ‘one time, once’) and this, together with the verb tense of died, indicates that Christ’s suffering and dying for sins has been completed. The words for all are not intended by the RSV translators to mean ‘for all people’, but simply ‘for all time’ (the words do not represent an additional phrase in the Greek text but are simply part of the translation of hapax, ‘once’). Christ’s death was for sins, a compressed way of saying that he paid the penalty for our sins. This is made more explicit when Peter adds the righteous for the unrighteous—more literally, ‘the righteous one (singular) for unrighteous people (plural)’. Precisely because Christ had no guilt of his own to pay for (he was ‘righteous’), he could be the substitute who died in our place, bearing the punishment we deserved.

Being put to death in the flesh indicates the fact that Jesus’ ‘flesh’ or physical body was put to death (so NIV: ‘He was put to death in the body’). Although ‘flesh’ (sarx) has a range of meanings in the New Testament, whenever, as here, ‘flesh’ is contrasted with ‘spirit’ (pneuma), the contrast is between physical, visible things which belong to this present world and invisible things which can exist in the unseen ‘spiritual’ world of heaven and the age to come. (See 4:6; cf. Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38; John 3:6; Rom. 8:4–6; 1 Tim. 3:16; etc.)

But made alive in the spirit, in view of the contrast noted above, must mean ‘made alive in the spiritual realm, in the realm of the Spirit’s activity’. Here it refers specifically to Christ’s resurrection, because ‘made alive’ must be the opposite of ‘put to death’ in the previous phrase. ‘In the spiritual realm, the realm of the Holy Spirit’s activity, Christ was raised from the dead.’ This is important because in the New Testament generally this ‘spiritual’ realm is the realm of all that is lasting, permanent, eternal.

The NIV translation ‘but made alive by the Spirit’ (similarly, AV), is also possible since there is no distinction in Greek between ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’. But it would be somewhat unusual to expect readers to see exactly the same grammatical structure (in Greek) in parallel parts of the same sentence, and yet to know that Peter wanted the two parts understood differently (put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit).

The contrast put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit fits in with the whole letter’s emphasis on the relative unimportance of temporary suffering in this world compared to the enjoying of an eternal inheritance in the next (cf. 1:6–7, 8, 11, 13, 23; 2:11; 3:3–4, 14; 4:1–2, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19; 5:1, 4, 10). Our Lord willingly suffered physical harm, even death, for the sake of eternal, spiritual gain—that he might bring us to God. Peter’s readers should not therefore be surprised to find themselves ‘following in his steps’.

(ii) Another example: Noah witnessed when persecuted (3:19–20)

19. In which refers back to ‘in the spirit’ in verse 18. It means ‘in which realm, namely, the spiritual realm’. It does not necessarily mean ‘in the resurrection body’ (which Peter could easily have said, had he wanted to), but rather ‘in the realm of the Spirit’s activity’ (the realm in which Christ was raised from the dead, v. 18).

Peter frequently makes a transition from one section to another by the use of a relative pronoun like this (‘which’ or ‘whom’), and it should indicate to us that the following statements, while related to the overall argument of the section, may introduce a different subject. The pattern of introducing related but clearly distinct subjects in this way (sometimes with, sometimes without, a preposition) is seen in 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 22; and 3:21; and, with transitions to less different but none the less distinct material, in 1:12; 3:3, 6b; 4:4; and 5:9.

The Greek text has the word kai, ‘and, also’, following in which, giving the sense, ‘in which also he went …’. This simply adds emphasis to the impression that a distinct subject is being introduced: Christ was made alive in the spiritual realm (v. 18), and he also did something else in the spiritual realm (vv. 19–20).

That other action is this: He went and preached to the spirits in prison. The meaning of this phrase is much disputed. The issues are:

Various answers have been given to these questions; the five most common views are set out in the Appendix on p. 212. The following discussion will argue for View 1, i.e. that Christ was preaching through Noah when the ark was being built. (For a fuller discussion of these two verses, see the Appendix, pp. 211ff.)

Taken by itself, the phrase spirits in prison could refer either to human spirits in hell or to fallen angelic spirits in hell. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 speak of sinful angels being imprisoned and punished, while Luke 16:23–24 and 2 Peter 2:9 refer to unbelievers who have died and are in a place of punishment. The word spirits could refer either to angelic spirits, good and evil (Matt. 8:16; Heb. 1:14) or to human spirits of people who have died (Matt. 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 5:5; Heb. 12:23; Eccl. 12:7). This is also the case in extra-biblical literature. (For example, in 1 Enoch, which Selwyn and Dalton claim as their primary evidence for View 5 [see appendix, p. 216], pneuma refers twenty times to angelic spirits and seventeen times to human spirits, and in both cases the spirits are imprisoned and awaiting final judgment.) Some contend that when ‘spirit’ is found without a defining phrase attached to it (like ‘of men’, etc.), it means angelic or demonic spirits, never human spirits. But this argument is invalid, for pneuma by itself is simply ambiguous, and in every case where it means ‘angelic spirit’ as well as every case where it means ‘human spirit’ the context makes it clear what kind of spirit is meant.

20. The spirits in prison are those who formerly did not obey (better: ‘disobeyed’, since the word has a sense of active rebellion), when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark. These phrases indicate that only human spirits can be intended, for nowhere in the Bible or in Jewish literature outside of the Bible are angels ever said to have disobeyed ‘during the building of the ark’. Genesis 6:5–13 clearly emphasizes the human sin which provoked God to flood the earth in judgment. Furthermore, extra-biblical literature, some of which was probably familiar to many of Peter’s readers, frequently describes the mockery which Noah had to endure from his contemporaries, e.g. ‘They derided him and said, “Old man, what is this ark for?” ’ (b.Sanh. 108b). When God’s patience waited in the days of Noah also suggests human, rather than angelic, disobedience. God’s patience waited for human beings to repent before bringing the judgment of the flood (this is also a frequent theme in extra-biblical literature), but never is there any hint that fallen angels have a chance to repent—it is only given to sinful human beings (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6).

But why does Peter refer to ‘spirits’ if he has in view disobedience by human beings who were not just ‘spirits’ but bodies as well? This is best explained by understanding the text to mean ‘spirits who are now in prison’ (i.e. at the time Peter was writing), but who were people on earth at the time of Noah, when Christ was preaching to them. (The NASB translates, ‘the spirits now in prison’.) A similar expression is found a few verses later at 4:6, ‘For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead’, which is best understood to mean ‘the gospel was preached to those who are now dead’ (but who were alive when the gospel was preached to them; see discussion below). One can speak the same way in English: ‘Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926’ is an appropriate statement, even though she was not Queen when she was born—we mean ‘She who is now Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926.’

The phrase who formerly did not obey is better translated ‘when they formerly disobeyed’, thus specifying that this was the time when Christ ‘in spirit’ preached to these people: i.e. ‘when they formerly disobeyed when God’s patience was waiting in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark.’ Peter elsewhere mentions ideas similar to the thought that Christ ‘in spirit’ preached through Noah, for in 1:11 the Spirit of Christ is said to have been active in the prophets of the Old Testament era (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4).

Although Peter does not specifically call Noah a prophet in 2 Peter 2:5, he terms him a ‘herald of righteousness’, and uses the noun (kēryx) which is related to the verb ‘preached’ (kēryssō) in 3:20.

By saying that Christ went and preached rather than just saying that he ‘preached’, Peter suggests that Christ did not stay in heaven but ‘went’ to where people were disobeying, and there preached to them through the lips of Noah. The content of this preaching was not a message of final condemnation (see Views 3 and 5 on pp. 212–213) or the completion of redemption (see View 4 on p. 213), but concerned the need to repent and come to God for salvation. This is what Noah would have preached to those around him (even without extra-biblical literature we would draw this conclusion from 2 Pet. 2:4). It is the right message to preach when people are disobeying ‘while God’s patience is waiting’ (cf. 2 Pet. 3:9).

This interpretation is very appropriate to the larger context of 3:13–22. The parallel between the situation of Noah and the situation of Peter’s readers is clear at several points:

(1) Noah and his family were a minority surrounded by hostile unbelievers; so are Peter’s readers (vv. 13–14; 4:4, 12–13).

(2) Noah was righteous in the midst of a wicked world. Peter exhorts his readers to be righteous in the midst of wicked unbelievers (vv. 13–14, 16–17; 4:3–4).

(3) Noah witnessed boldly to those around him. Peter encourages his readers to be good witnesses to unbelievers around them (vv. 14, 16–17), being willing to suffer, if need be, to bring others to God (just as Christ was willing to suffer and die ‘that he might bring us to God’, v. 18).

(4) Noah realized that judgment was soon to come upon the world. Peter reminds his readers that God’s judgment is certainly coming, perhaps soon (4:5, 7; 2 Pet. 3:10).

(5) In the unseen ‘spiritual’ realm Christ preached through Noah to unbelievers around him. By saying this Peter can remind his readers of the reality of Christ’s work in the unseen spiritual realm and the fact that Christ is also in them, empowering their witness and making it spiritually effective (cf. 1:8, 11, 12, 25; 2:4). Therefore, they should not fear (v. 14) but in their hearts should ‘reverence Christ as Lord’ and should ‘always be prepared’ to tell of the hope that is in them (v. 15).

(6) At the time of Noah, God was patiently awaiting repentance from unbelievers, before he brought judgment. So it is in the situation of Peter’s readers: God is patiently awaiting repentance from unbelievers (cf. 2 Pet, 3:9) before bringing judgment on the world (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10).

(7) Noah was finally saved, with ‘a few’ others. Peter thus encourages his readers that, though perhaps few, they too will finally be saved, for Christ has triumphed and has all things subject to him (3:22; 4:13, 19; 5:10; 2 Pet. 2:9).

This passage, once cleared of misunderstanding, should also function today as an encouragement to us to be bold in our witness (as Noah was), to be confident that, though we may be few, God will certainly save us (as he did Noah), and to remind us that just as certainly as the flood eventually came, so final judgment will certainly come to our world as well, and Christ will ultimately triumph over all the evil in the universe.

At the end of verse 20, Peter mentions that in the ark a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Although this is the usual translation, it is more likely that the sense is ‘into which (i.e. the ark) a few, that is, eight persons, escaped through water’. This is a common sense of the verb diasōzō in this form (aorist passive/deponent: so Gen. 19:19; Josh. 10:20; Judg. 3:26; 2 Kgs (LXX4 Kgs) 19:37, A text; Isa. 37:38 [all with diasōzō plus eis in the sense ‘escaped to …’]; Acts 27:44; 28:1, 4), and the idea that Noah and his family ‘escaped through water’ is consistent with Genesis 7:13, which specifies that Noah and his family entered the ark ‘on this same day’ as the flood came (v. 11). The advantage of this translation is that it gives the preposition dia its very common sense ‘through’, as well as allowing eis to mean ‘into’ (its most common sense) rather than just ‘in’ (for which we might have expected en), and it follows the sense of the construction as it is used elsewhere.

The mention of ‘eight persons’ is one of many New Testament examples where seemingly minor details in the Old Testament are quoted as historically reliable. Peter picks up the detail about Noah entering the ark with his wife, his three sons, and their wives (Gen. 6:10; 7:7) and affirms its truth. God shows his mercy to the family of a righteous man (including even children by marriage), enabling each of them to give heed to Noah’s preaching and be saved, despite the extreme wickedness (Gen. 6:5) around them.

(iii) God will save you (as he did Noah and Christ) (3:21–22)

21. ‘Through water’ (v. 20) leads Peter to make a transition to baptism: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.… The grammar of the Greek text is puzzling, but the RSV translation given here represents a good understanding of the force of the words. If our understanding of ‘escaped through water’ in verse 20 is correct, then the word which (ho) at the beginning of the verse refers back to ‘escaping through water’. Baptism corresponds to escaping through water in that the water of baptism is in some ways a counterpart to the waters of the flood. For if, as is nearly certain, baptism when Peter wrote was by immersion (going completely under the water—note how incongruous the mention of ‘removal of dirt from the body’ would be if Peter thought that only a few drops of water were sprinkled on the head), then going down into the waters of baptism was a vivid symbol of going down into the grave in death. (Cf. ‘we were buried therefore with him by baptism into death’, Rom. 6:4.)

The water of baptism is like waters of judgment—similar to the waters of the flood, and showing clearly what we deserve for our sins. Coming up out of the waters of baptism corresponds to being kept safe through the waters of the flood, the waters of God’s judgment on sin, and emerging to live in ‘newness of life’ (cf. Rom. 6:4). Baptism thus shows us clearly that in one sense we have ‘died’ and ‘been raised’ again, but in another sense we emerge from the waters knowing that we are still alive and have passed through the waters of God’s judgment unharmed. As Noah fled into the ark, so we flee to Christ, and in him we escape judgment.

But what does Peter mean by saying that baptism … now saves you? It saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body (i.e. not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body—that is not the part which saves you), but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience (i.e. as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction symbolized by the outward ceremony of baptism). We could paraphrase, ‘Baptism now saves you—not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents.’ Thus Peter guards against any ‘magical’ view of baptism which would attribute saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

An appeal to God for a clear conscience is another way of saying ‘a request for forgiveness of sins and a new heart’. When God gives a sinner a clear conscience, that person has the assurance that every sin has been forgiven and that he or she stands in a right relationship with God (Heb. 9:14 and 10:22 speak this way about the cleansing of one’s conscience through Christ). To be baptized rightly is to make such an appeal to God: ‘Please, God, as I enter this baptism which will cleanse my body outwardly I am asking you to cleanse my heart inwardly, forgive my sins, make me right before you.’ In this way baptism is an appropriate symbol for the beginning of the Christian life. Once we understand baptism in this way, we can appreciate why ‘Repent, and be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins’ (Acts 2:38) was an evangelistic command in the early church.

Some have argued that ‘pledge’ is a better word than appeal (NIV: ‘the pledge of a good conscience towards God’). This is because eperōtēma, which usually means ‘question’, has not elsewhere been found with the meaning ‘appeal’. It has the sense ‘pledge’ in later Greek papyri (but none at the time of the NT—the earliest is 2nd century AD; cf. LSJ, p. 618), so this meaning has been advocated here (so Selwyn, pp. 205–206). However, ‘pledge’ is still a derived sense which may have come into use after the time of the New Testament.

Moreover, although no examples have been discovered of the noun meaning ‘appeal’, the related verb is used with the sense to ‘make a request, ask for something’ (Matt. 16:1, ‘they asked him to show them a sign from heaven’). So this word may well have been easily understandable to Peter’s readers in the sense ‘request’.

More importantly, ‘pledge’ introduces a theological problem. If baptism is a ‘pledge to God’ to maintain a good conscience (or a pledge—to live an obedient life—which flows from a good conscience), then the emphasis is no longer on dependence on God to give salvation but on dependence on one’s own effort or strength of resolve. And since this phrase is so clearly connected with the beginning of the Christian life as the thing about baptism which ‘saves you’, the translation ‘pledge’ seems to be inconsistent with the New Testament teaching on salvation by faith alone: it would be the only place where a promise to be righteous is said to be the thing which ‘saves you’. And since the lexical data are inconclusive for both senses (while suggesting that both senses are apparently possible), it is better to adopt the translation ‘appeal’ as a sense much more in accord with the rest of the New Testament.

Those who support the view that only people who are old enough to profess faith in Christ should be baptized might well see in this verse some support for their position: baptism, it might be argued, is appropriately administered to anyone who is old enough personally to make ‘an appeal to God for a clear conscience’.

Yet it is not even a request to God for a clean conscience which actually provides the basis for our salvation. That salvation has ultimately been earned for us by Christ, and all that baptism represents comes to us not on the merits of any response from us, but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His resurrection marked his once-and-for-all exit from the realm of death and judgment on sin, and our union with him in his resurrection is the means by which God gives us new life (see note at 1:3, above). Our rising out of the waters of baptism is a picture of our being raised with Christ; by being brought safely through these ‘waters of judgment’ through Christ’s resurrection we are indeed given a clear conscience by God. (The sense ‘pledge’ would not fit this idea of a clear conscience as a gift from God nearly as well.)

22. Peter completes this discussion with a mention of Christ’s ascension into heaven. Jesus Christ has gone into heaven and now is at the right hand of God. Though modern thinkers largely reject such a notion, the New Testament writers do not hesitate to talk about heaven in spatial terms.

Jesus’ ascension to heaven also was the occasion when he received new authority and power which he had not had before as God-man. (Though, as God the Son, he had possessed infinite power for all eternity, he had not previously exercised this power in the role of the person who was both God and man.) Peter emphasizes this by saying that Jesus is at the right hand of God. In the ancient world, to sit at the right hand of a king signified that one acted with the king’s authority and power (cf. Ps. 110:1 and Eph. 1:20–21, with similar emphasis on authority). This theme of Christ’s ‘session’ (i.e. his sitting at God’s right hand) is often mentioned in the New Testament (Matt. 22:44, 26:64; Acts 2:33–34; 5:31; 7:56; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 10:12; 12:2; cf. Ps. 110:1). It is used by the New Testament authors as an indication of Christ’s present universal authority, the finality of his completed work of redemption, and his immeasurable worthiness to receive our praise (note Phil. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 5:12). Moreover, Christ’s ascension foreshadows our future ascension and rule with him (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 2:26–27; 3:21).

Peter focuses here on Christ’s authority in the unseen spiritual world: he has angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. The three terms can be applied to both good and evil spiritual beings elsewhere in Scripture, and without specific restrictions in the context it is best to understand them as a reference to all spiritual beings in the universe, both good and evil. When Paul says not only that we have been raised with Christ but also that God has ‘made us sit with him in the heavenly places’ (Eph. 2:6), it indicates that even now Christians have a share in the spiritual authority which belongs to Christ, an authority which finds expression in our lives especially in terms of power in spiritual warfare (2 Cor. 10:3–4; Eph. 6:10–18), freedom from fearing demonic powers (Eph. 6:13; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9; 1 John 4:4), and authority to rebuke, if need be, the demonic forces which oppose us (Luke 10:17–20; Acts 16:18).

d. Decide that you are willing to sufer for righteousness (4:1–6)

(i) For a Christian who has suffered for doing right has made a clear break with sin (4:1–2)

1. Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh resumes the theme Peter had begun in 3:18, the value of imitating Christ’s example of willingness to suffer, if necessary, in order to do God’s will. But whereas there his concern was to encourage his readers to give a good Christian witness, here his emphasis shifts to the related theme of willingness to suffer in order to avoid sinning.

Arm yourselves with the same thought means to think as Christ did about obedience and suffering: to be convinced that it is better to do right and suffer for it than to do wrong (cf. 3:17–18). The word thought means here not so much an attitude of mind but the insight which one has gained into the nature of God’s dealings with people.

There is a motive for this: they should be willing, like Christ, to suffer for doing right for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin. As a general statement, without qualification, this would not be true, for there are many people who have suffered physically and yet still sin very much. Nor is Peter simply saying that physical suffering somehow purifies and strengthens people—it strengthens some, but others become rebellious toward God and embittered. Rather, we must read the sentence in the light of the theme of suffering for doing right which is found in the preceding context (3:14, 16–18). The kind of suffering in the flesh which Peter means is defined by 3:17: ‘For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.’

Therefore whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin means ‘whoever has suffered for doing right, and has still gone on obeying God in spite of the suffering it involved, has made a clear break with sin’. The phrase has ceased from sin cannot mean ‘no longer sins at all’, for certainly that is not true of everyone who has been willing to suffer for doing right, and several passages in Scripture rule out the idea that anyone can be absolutely free from sin in this life (1 Kgs 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Jas 3:2; 1 John 1:8). It rather means ‘has made a clear break with sin’, ‘has most definitely acted in a way which shows that obeying God, not avoiding hardship, is the most important motivation for his or her action’. Thus, following through with a decision to obey God even when it will mean physical suffering has a morally strengthening effect on our lives: it commits us more firmly than ever before to a pattern of action where obedience is even more important than our desire to avoid pain.

2. Peter now explains ‘ceasing from sin’ in more detail. It is for the purpose of living a life governed not by human feelings but by God’s will: one breaks clearly with sin so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh (i.e. the rest of one’s life on earth) no longer by human passions but by the will of God. (See note on the word for passions at 1:14.)

Of course the initial repentance from sin which is part of any genuine conversion to Christ is also in some sense a ‘clear break with sin’ and a resolve to live ‘not by human passions but by the will of God’. But Peter here seems to be saying that obeying God, even though the price is physical suffering, involves an even stronger moral commitment than that first decision of the will. Yet we must be careful not to make this into some kind of uniform ‘second experience’ which all mature believers must experience in the same way. Rather, Peter is speaking of something which may happen many or few times in a Christian’s life, and with many different degrees of intensity. For Christians living under hostile governments the suffering endured may be great indeed; for those living elsewhere something related to such suffering ‘in the flesh’ may be seen in less intense form in physical weariness or other discomfort which one endures in order to be obedient to God’s will.

(ii) Give no more time to sin (4:3)

3. Let the time that is past suffice is not the best translation because it omits the conjunction ‘for’ with which Peter begins the sentence. This verse supplies a reason for living not ‘by human passions’ but ‘by the will of God’ (v. 2). Why should Peter’s readers not live by following (sinful) human passions? Because they have done enough living like that in ‘the time that is past’. Peter does not just encourage them to ‘let the time that is past’ be sufficient experience of sin; he tells them bluntly that their past experience of sin is sufficient! They should not want to live any longer the kind of life which was given to following sinful human desires. To the Christian who wonders whether ever in the future he or she might indulge in one more unrestrained time of sin, one more time of doing what the Gentiles like to do, Peter’s answer is clear: The ‘time that is past’ is ‘sufficient’, is ‘enough’ of living that way. Indeed, those who live that way will someday have to give an account to God (v. 5).

He then explains what he means by doing what the Gentiles like to do. (Since Peter has frequently viewed Christians as the new people of God, the true Israel, earlier in this letter [see the summary at 2:10] it is quite natural for him to carry through this terminology by using the term ‘Gentiles’ to refer not to people who are not Jews, but to people who are not Christians.)

To ‘do what the Gentiles like to do’ is to spend one’s time living in various kinds of sin which Peter names. Licentiousness (aselgeia) is living without any regard for moral restraint, especially in giving oneself over to acts of sexual immorality or acts of physical violence (the same word is used in Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 4:19; 2 Pet. 2:7 [of Sodom]; 2:18; Philo, Moses 1.305). Passions (epithymia) are sinful human desires which can be allowed to exert strong influence on one’s behaviour (see note at 1:14). Drunkenness (oinophlygia) is also characteristic of a life bent on following physical desires, as are revels (kōmos; banquets and feasts given to wild immorality) and carousing (potos; drinking parties or drinking bouts). The expression lawless idolatry is actually plural (athemitoi eidōlolatriai), meaning ‘lawless acts of idol worship’. The word lawless cannot mean ‘against God’s law’, for all idol worship is that. Lawless here must rather mean ‘against the civil laws’—implying particularly evil kinds of idol worship which involved or incited people to kinds of immorality even forbidden by the laws of human governments. This suggests that sensual living is often connected with idol worship and the demonic forces behind those idols which incite people to yet greater sin (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20, where, in a discussion of idol worship which uses this same word, eidōlolatreia, Paul says ‘what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God’).

(iii) There is a judgment coming for Gentiles who abuse you (4:4–5)

4. Such behaviour was part of the normal life of these Christians before their conversion, for their neighbours are surprised that you do not now join them in the same wild profligacy. The phrase join them is literally ‘running with them’, an expression which vividly reflects the frenetic pace of their continually disappointing search for true pleasure. The same wild profligacy is literally ‘the same rapid pouring out of unrestrained indulgence’ or ‘the same torrent of debauchery’ (NIV: ‘that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation’). The word translated profligacy (asōtia) refers to uncontrolled indulgence in the seeking of pleasure (the same word is used in Eph. 5:18, and the related adverb is used of the ‘loose living’ of the prodigal son in Luke 15:13—it suggests wastefulness, perhaps both of money and of life). The whole picture is one of people rushing headlong toward destruction.

The fact that unbelievers are ‘surprised’ that Christians do not join in their profligacy suggests that Peter’s readers included not only many who had been converted from Judaism, but also many won from a Gentile background, for there would be no surprise involved if former Jews, who had previously led a morally upright life, did not participate in pagan life.

But when Christians did not join in sins of unbelievers, the result was not just surprise. The unbelievers became hostile, for Peter says they abuse you. It is primarily verbal abuse and slander that are intended, for the term means ‘speak evil of, defame, injure the reputation of someone’ (so in Matt. 27:39; Luke 22:65; 23:39; Rom. 3:8; 14:16; 1 Cor. 10:30; Titus 3:2; 2 Pet. 2:2). Why did this happen? No doubt because silent non-participation in sin often implies condemnation of that sin, and rather than change their ways unbelievers will slander those who have pained their consciences, or justify their own immorality by spreading rumours that the ‘righteous’ Christians are immoral as well.

5. Yet unbelievers cannot escape responsibility for their actions as easily as that, for God will one day hold them accountable: They will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. The phrase give account is used of human accountability to an employer (Luke 16:2) or to government authorities (Acts 19:40), and also of men’s accountability to God at the final judgment (Matt. 12:36; Heb. 13:17). The fact that God is ready to judge suggests the possibility that judgment could come suddenly, without warning (cf. v. 7; Jas 5:9; 2 Pet. 3:10). It is not only the living who will be judged, but also the dead—a statement which clearly implies that death will not enable anyone to escape judgment, but that all people will consciously stand before God on that day.

(iv) For the gospel was preached to Christians who have died to save them from eternal judgment (4:6)

6. In fact, it is the fate of believers who have now died to which Peter now turns. His readers may have wondered about the benefits of being a Christian for those believers who had already died. This may have included some who died as a direct result of persecution, but the text does not allow us to limit its application to such; it simply speaks of ‘the dead’.

He says, For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead. The word this refers back to the subject of the previous sentence, the final judgment. In other words, ‘It was because of the coming final judgment that the gospel was preached, even to those who believed in Christ and then later died.’ In this way the dead means ‘those who are now dead’ (when Peter was writing), though when the gospel was preached to them they were still living on the earth. (See discussion above on the similar expression ‘the spirits in prison’ at 3:19.) The NIV has ‘those who are now dead’. The fact that they died should not trouble the minds of those left alive, for, short of the second coming of Christ, the gospel was never intended to save people from physical death. All people, both Christians and non-Christians, still have to die physically (and this is the apparent meaning of judged in the flesh like men). But even though they are judged in the flesh like men (the judgment of death which came with the sin of Adam still affects them as it does all men), the gospel of Christ was preached to them so that they might live in the spirit like God. It was with respect to the final judgment (‘for this reason’, referring to v. 5) that the gospel was preached, and it will save them from final condemnation.

The expressions like men and like God are legitimate translations (BAGD, p. 407, II.5.b; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15), but it is also possible to translate them ‘according to men’ and ‘according to God’ (NIV), i.e. ‘according to the way men are judged generally’ and ‘according to the way God lives, in the spiritual realm’. There is not much difference between the views, for in both cases the expressions refer to physical death and to continuing spiritual life. (However, this translation may not be used to justify the sense ‘in the opinion of men’ and ‘in the opinion or evaluation of God’, for the Greek kata with accusative cannot take that specific sense of the English ‘according to’; cf. BAGD, p. 407, II.5.)

Since spirit is without the definite article in the Greek text, it could be translated ‘in the spiritual realm’ (see the discussion at 3:18). We are assured here that believers who have died are none the less living and enjoying blessings in the unseen ‘spiritual’ and eternal realm, which is characterized by the Holy Spirit’s activity.

On this interpretation, the word dead means ‘believers who have died’ here in verse 6, but ‘all people who have died’ in verse 5. Alford objects strongly to this, saying that if the same word can mean two different things so close together, then ‘exegesis has no longer any fixed rule, and Scripture may be made to prove anything’ (p. 374). But he himself takes ‘judge’ (krinō) in verse 5 to refer to final judgment, yet in verse 6 he says that krinō means something different, namely, physical death. There is no fixed rule in any language that when a word is used twice in close succession it must be used in the same sense both times. It is best simply to choose from the possible senses the one that best fits the context in each case. Moreover, in this case the senses ‘all who have died (physically)’ and ‘believers who have died (physically)’ are not far apart, and the transition in thought in the readers’ minds would not be difficult.

Some have argued that the gospel was preached even to the dead in this verse means ‘to those who are spiritually dead, or unbelievers’. But this is unconvincing because it allows no meaning to the word ‘even’, and does not fit the past tense of ‘was preached’ (preaching to the ‘spiritually dead’ was still happening when Peter was writing; it was not something confined to the past).

One other common view has been that this verse means that the gospel was preached to people after they died, giving them a ‘second chance’ to repent and believe the gospel. But such a meaning does not fit the context: what kind of warning would it be to say that God is ready to judge people for wickedness (v. 5) and then add that it really does not matter much what they do in this life for there will be a second chance for them to be saved after they die? Moreover, it could hardly encourage Peter’s persecuted readers to persevere as Christians in the hard path of obedience if the easy road of debauchery could all be renounced and forgiven after they died. Finally, the entire missionary activity of the early church, as well as some specific texts of the New Testament (Luke 16:26; Heb. 9:26–28; Matt. 25:10–13), argues against such a view.

e. This final judgment is near, so act this way within the church … (4:7–11)

(i) Pray more and love each other more (4:7–9)

7. The end of all things is at hand means that all the major events in God’s plan of redemption have occurred, and now all things are ready for Christ to return and rule. Rather than thinking of world history in terms of earthly kings and kingdoms, Peter thinks in terms of ‘redemptive history’. From that perspective all the previous acts in the drama of redemption have been completed—creation, fall, the calling of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt, the kingdom of Israel, the exile in Babylon and the return, the birth of Christ, his life, death and resurrection, his ascension into heaven, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to establish the church. The great ‘last act’, the church age, had been continuing for about thirty years by the time Peter wrote. Thus the curtain could fall at any time, ushering in the return of Christ and the end of the age. All things are ready: the end of all things (the ‘goal’ to which ‘all’ these events have been leading) is at hand.

Christians who realize that the end of the age could happen at any time should act in a certain way: therefore keep sane and sober for your prayers. The word translated sane means ‘having a sound mind, thinking about and evaluating situations maturely and correctly’ (the same word and its related terms are used in Luke 8:35; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 1:7; Titus 1:8). For sober, see comments at 1:13. Such attitudes of mind are in many ways opposite to the sins mentioned in verses 3 to 5.

The reason given for being sane and sober is for your prayers; the plural suggests specific, individual prayers throughout each day. The idea is not simply ‘so that you can pray’ (NIV), but ‘in order to pray more effectively, more appropriately’, Christians should be alert to events and evaluate them correctly in order to be able to pray more intelligently. Peter’s words also imply that prayer based on knowledge and mature evaluation of a situation is more effective prayer (otherwise there would be no relationship between being ‘sane and sober’ and one’s prayers). What this verse teaches could well be put into practice when reading the newspaper, listening to the news, travelling to work, and so on.

8. Above all hold unfailing your love for one another (cf. notes on the related verb for love [agapaō] at 1:22). Unfailing inadequately translates ektenēs, which here has the adverbial sense of ‘earnestly’. A better translation is therefore ‘keep loving one another earnestly’ (see note on the cognate word ektenōs at 1:22). The reason for doing so is since (or ‘because’) love covers a multitude of sins. Where love abounds in a fellowship of Christians, many small offences, and even some large ones, are readily overlooked and forgotten. But where love is lacking, every word is viewed with suspicion, every action is liable to misunderstanding, and conflicts abound—to Satan’s perverse delight (cf. Heb. 12:15; by contrast, 1 Cor. 13:4–7). A similar idea is expressed in Proverbs 10:12: ‘Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offences.’

9. Earnest love, which seeks the good of others before one’s own, finds practical expression in hospitality (v. 9) and in using every gift ‘for one another’ (v. 10). Hospitality, though a Christian duty, is to be offered ungrudgingly to one another without resenting the time and expense which may be involved. The words translated ungrudgingly are more literally ‘without grumbling’ or ‘without murmuring’ (the term is used to refer to repeated words of complaint, often spoken to others with the result of stirring up rebellion: Exod. 16:7–9; Acts 6:1; Phil. 2:14; cf. the verb in 1 Cor. 10:10). Such grumbling is ultimately a complaint against God and his ordering of our circumstances, and its result is to drive out faith, thanksgiving, and joy. Though hospitality to all people is certainly pleasing to God, Peter’s emphasis on hospitality to one another—that is, to other Christians within the household of faith—is consistent with the rest of the New Testament (cf. Gal. 6:10).

(ii) Glorify God in using your gifts (4:10–11)

10. Within the fellowship of the church, earnest love for one another (v. 8) will find expression in the use of spiritual gifts, not for self-advancement or to draw attention to ourselves, but for the benefit of others: As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

Each implies that every person in the fellowship of believers—in every church to which Peter was writing—had received a ‘spiritual gift’ (charisma) for use in the life of the church (Paul teaches this explicitly: 1 Cor. 12:7–11). The word as might mean ‘to the extent to which’, ‘to the degree that’ (BAGD, p. 391, 2), but the idea of ‘receiving’ a gift does not fit well with the idea of different degrees (either one has received a gift or one has not). It is better to take it to mean ‘in the same way in which’ each person has received a gift (i.e. freely, out of grace, not merit), ‘employ it for one another’. This sense certainly fits the context of love for one another (v. 8) and stewardship of God’s gracious gifts.

The expression a gift is indefinite and implies ‘at least one gift’, but it should not be taken to mean that each person receives one and only one gift (cf. 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 13, 39). A spiritual gift (charisma, the same word used in 1 Cor. 12–14 for ‘spiritual gifts’) is any talent or ability which is empowered by the Holy Spirit and able to be used in the ministry of the church. There are five different lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament (Rom. 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:7–11; 12:28–30; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 4:10). Since the lists are all different (no one gift is on every list, and no list includes all the gifts), and since 1 Corinthians 7:7 indicates two gifts not on any list (marriage and celibacy, which Paul calls charismata), it is legitimate to conclude that they are not exhaustive. In fact, since there are various types within any one gift (people with the gift of evangelism may differ in the kinds of evangelism they do best; similarly with teaching, helping, etc.), one could say there is an almost limitless variety of different spiritual gifts, all manifestations of the richly varied and abundant grace of God.

Varied (poikilos) means ‘many faceted, having many different aspects or differing kinds’ (note its use in Matt. 4:24, ‘various diseases’; 1 Pet. 1:6, ‘various trials’). As God’s grace is richly varied, so are the gifts flowing from his grace. Yet if all these various gifts are to be used ‘for one another’, then churches should be willing to welcome a great variety of ministries and ways of using gifts.

Good stewards of God’s gift will not hide it, but employ it for the benefit of others (cf. the parable of the talents, Matt. 25:14–30; similarly, Luke 19:11–27). God’s rule for our gifts is that we use them, with the confidence that resources expended in faithful stewardship will be replenished by a faithful Master.

11. Whoever speaks includes not just teaching or preaching, but many kinds of gifts involving speech-activity: evangelism, teaching, prophesying, and perhaps singing or snaring words of praise and testimony in the assembled congregation. In all these cases the Christian must do it as one who utters oracles of God. Oracles (logia) means ‘sayings’, but especially sayings spoken from God to man (used in Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2 of Old Testament Scripture). Yet this cannot mean ‘as claiming that the words he speaks are God’s own words’, because that would only be true of Scripture, not of every word spoken during a church meeting. It means rather ‘with the seriousness of purpose which one would use if one were speaking God’s words’.

Whoever renders service is again a very broad category, which includes any kind of helping or encouraging ministry for the benefit of others in the church (or, by extension of the idea, any Christian service or ministry to others outside the church). The source of such service is (literally, ‘out of’) the strength which God supplies; service performed by merely human energy and for one’s own status in the eyes of others can soon become a wearying activity (see Gal. 6:9; 2 Thess. 3:13) and increase one’s pride rather than one’s faith. While service is directed to helping fellow believers (and others) and to building up the church, its ultimate purpose is that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). The translation ‘God may be praised’ (NIV) gives a connotation that is too exclusively verbal: glorified applies not only to words but also to attitudes and actions which honour God.

Finally, Peter closes this section with his own doxology. To Jesus Christ whom he knew in the flesh as a man, Peter writes words of praise appropriate only to one who is also fully God: To him belong glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. The word translated dominion can also mean ‘power’; if that is the sense here it cannot mean that Peter wants Christ (who is all powerful) to have in himself more power, but rather that he wants the powers of the creation, and especially the powers of man, to be given more fully into Christ’s service (cf. Rev. 4:11; 5:12; 7:12). But that sense is in any case very similar to dominion.

f. Do not be surprised at your trials, but rejoice (4:12–16)

Some have seen verse 12 as beginning a separate section of the letter, or even a separate letter which has been added on later, but the doxology and ‘Amen’ at the end of verse 11 do not require this (cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; 1 Tim. 1:17). However, is the subject matter so distinct that we need to think of this section as written to a different situation, one where persecution was not just a possibility but actually happening?

To answer this question we must bear in mind that 1 Peter is addressed to Christians in ten or more major churches (with no doubt other readers in many other local churches that had grown out of them) scattered through four provinces in Asia Minor (see 1:1 and ‘Destination and readers’ in the Introduction). From the first spread of the gospel there had been hostility and even violent opposition in many places—sometimes opposition stirred up by unbelieving Jews (Acts 4:1–3; 5:17–18, 40–41; 7:57–60; and 8:1–3, in Jerusalem; 13:50–52 at Pisidian Antioch; 14:4–6 at Iconium; 14:19 at Lystra; 17:5–9 at Thessalonica; 17:13 at Beroea; 18:12–17 at Corinth; 20:3 probably again at Corinth; 21:27–36 at Jerusalem); and sometimes persecution by local officials, whether for political purposes (Acts 12:1–3) or because of false accusation from Gentiles whose profits from sin were threatened (Acts 16:19–25 at Philippi, cf. Acts 19:23–20:1 at Ephesus).

Thus, we have specific evidence of violent opposition to the gospel from the time it first reached some of the cities to which Peter was writing (at least Pisidian Antioch, Iconium and nearby Lystra, and Ephesus—if Ephesus be counted as a likely recipient of the letter), and it is not unreasonable to think that similar opposition would have broken out from time to time in the other cities to which Peter was writing.

Given this historical background, we must then ask whether Peter would have written to so many different churches (1) as if none of them were experiencing persecution; (2) as if some of them were experiencing persecution; or (3) as if all of them were experiencing persecution. Even if he had not had recent news of actual persecution currently being endured, it would not be surprising if, in a general letter to spread-out groups of churches, the apostle would write as though varying degrees of formal and informal persecution were a live possibility for some readers and a present experience for others.

In fact, that is what we find in 1 Peter as a whole. Some passages regard persecution as just a possibility (1:6–7; 2:12, 21; 3:14; 4:1–2, 14, 16. Others suggest that for some readers persecution, or at least some kind of unjust treatment, is actually happening (2:15, 18–20; 3:9, 14, 16; 4:4, 17, 19; 5:9–10). And it is significant that two very clear statements about present persecution do not localize the phenomenon but rather universalize it, saying that it is the characteristic experience of the church generally: 4:17 and 5:9.

Thus, although persecution is specifically in view in verses 12 to 19, it is not necessary to see them as addressed to a different situation than the earlier parts of the letter. This section continues the long discussion, begun at 2:11, on living as a Christian in a hostile world. The theme of suffering as a Christian has been prominent since 3:13, with only verses 7 to 11 forming a minor parenthesis about life within the church in the end times.

12. Suffering as a Christian is not to be thought of as unusual or strange: Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. The word translated fiery ordeal means ‘fire, burning’ (as in Rev. 18:9, 18), but Peter probably has in mind the use of the word in Proverbs 27:21 (LXX), ‘Fire is the means of testing silver and gold.’ Because of this sense, the word could also be translated ‘refining fire’. The imagery is similar to that used in 1:7.

The image of a refiner’s fire suggests that such suffering purifies and strengthens Christians. This idea is reinforced by the fact that it comes upon you (or: ‘among you’) to prove you. Here he uses the same word (peirasmos) which he used in 1:6 (‘trials’) in its positive sense of a trial expected to have a positive outcome. The readers are encouraged to see God’s good purpose behind their difficulties, enabling them to grow stronger in faith and give more glory to God. This he explains in the following verses, showing that such trials are not to be thought unusual or strange, for they are a normal part of the Christian life.

13. Instead of being thrown off balance by trials, Christians are to rejoice in so far as (i.e. to the degree that) they share Christ’s sufferings. Both verbs have a suggestion of continuation over time: ‘In so far as you are sharing Christ’s suffering, keep on rejoicing.’ It is amazing to think that increased sufferings seem only to increase the believer’s joy in the Lord, but Scripture testifies that this is so (Acts 5:41; cf. 16:25; Rom. 5:3; Col. 1:24; Heb. 10:34). Moreover, suffering as a Christian confirms to us the fact that we are indeed Christ’s: ‘To share, therefore, in Christ’s sufferings here, is to be on the sure road to a share in His consequent glory hereafter’ (Stibbs/Walls, p. 159). This is because union with Christ involves not only union with him in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:5), but also union with him in the whole pattern of his life, which includes his suffering for righteousness (1 Pet. 2:20–21; 3:17–18; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 John 2:6).

Thus, rejoicing in suffering for Christ now will certainly lead to great rejoicing in his presence when he returns: ‘Rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed’ (cf. Rom. 8:17). The phrase rejoice and be glad is more expressively rendered, ‘rejoice with great spiritual rejoicing’, for Peter adds to this clause the verb agalliaō, ‘to exult with spiritual joy, joy in the Lord’ (see note on this term at 1:6).

14. A specific example of suffering as a Christian is now given: If you are reproached (reviled, abused, slandered) for the name of Christ. Again the verbs suggest continuation over time: ‘If you are being reproached … you are blessed … the spirit … is resting on you.’

The blessing named in verse 13 was future; the blessing named here is present. The spirit (‘Spirit’, as in NIV, NASB, TEV would be better, since it is certainly the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of God) of glory and of God rests upon you indicates an unusual fullness of the presence of the Holy Spirit to bless, to strengthen, and to give a foretaste of heavenly glory. The words echo the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 11:2, speaking of the branch out of Jesse: ‘And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him’ (the same word for ‘rest’, anapauō, is used both in the LXX and here. Peter sees this Messianic blessing extending also to those who bear the name of the Messiah (or ‘Christ’)—see some examples in Acts 5:41; 6:15; 7:55, 59–60; 16:25. Yet the word glory in the verse suggests another theme as well: the New Testament fulfilment of the Old Testament cloud of God’s glory (the ‘shekinah glory’) is to be seen in the powerful dwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christian believers (see ‘Additional note: The dwelling place of God’ at 2:5, p. 108 above).

15–16. Such a blessing is not bestowed upon every kind of suffering, however: But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer (a general term, referring to anyone who ‘works evil’), or a mischief-maker. The last term is extremely rare (only one other example of its use is known; cf. BAGD, p. 40) and various meanings have been proposed. The sense ‘meddler’ (NIV; cf. ‘troublesome meddler’, NASB) seems best, since the separate parts mean ‘one who looks carefully on others’ affairs’ (or: on the possessions of others), and the general idea would then be that of wrongdoing by meddling in affairs which are not properly one’s concern.

On the other hand, if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed. The world may think suffering for conscientious adherence to Christianity is disgraceful, but actually it is an honour in God’s sight, and should be so in the eyes of Christians as well. The word Christian is found in the New Testament only here and at Acts 11:26 and 26:28; it means ‘follower of Christ’—not ‘little Christ’, as some popular explanations claim (for it is formed like the word ‘Herodian’, see Mark 3:6; 12:13, which means ‘follower or supporter of Herod’).

Instead of being ashamed Peter suggests another alternative: but under that name let him glorify God. The sense is that the one being reviled as a Christian should so act and speak that God is continually honoured in his or her life. The idea of living so that in everything God is glorified is stated explicitly in verse 11, but is frequently implied in previous verses as well (see notes on 1:7, 16; 2:5, 9; 3:4).

Under that name (or, more literally, ‘in that name’) seems to have the sense ‘acting in Christ’s name, as the one who represents Christ to others’. The NIV’s ‘But praise God that you bear that name’ is difficult to derive from the Greek, unless it is based on an uncommon use of the word ‘name’ (onoma) to mean ‘category’ (BAGD, p. 573, II), which is then extended to mean ‘praise God in that matter’ (the matter of bearing Christ’s name). Yet this is unlikely, for (1) the presence of the name ‘Christian’ in the sentence makes it likely that onomati is being used in its common sense, ‘name’, rather than to mean ‘matter’; (2) the nuance of the present imperative (doxazetō, ‘let him glorify or praise’) makes better sense as ‘let him continually glorify’ (in life) than as ‘let him continually praise God’ (that he bears that name); and (3) the disciplining process of God’s judgment (v. 17, which begins with ‘for’) is a good reason to live generally in a way that glorifies God, but not nearly as clear a reason to praise God that one bears the name ‘Christian’.

(i) For God’s judgment is beginning from God’s own house (4:17–18)

17. For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God puts verses 12 to 16 in a broader theological context. ‘What is going on in the world?’ the readers might wonder. ‘Why are God’s people suffering and evildoers going unpunished?’ Peter explains that the ‘fiery ordeal’, or ‘refining fire’, of verse 12 is really a fire of God’s judgment. Yet this word for judgment (krima) does not necessarily mean ‘condemnation’ (which would be katakrima) but is a broader term which can refer to a judgment which results in good and bad evaluations, a judgment which may issue in approval or discipline as well as condemnation. The picture is that God has begun judging within the church, and will later move outward to judge those outside the church. The refining fire of judgment is leaving no one untouched, but Christians are being purified and strengthened by it—sins are being eliminated and trust in God and holiness of life are growing.

The translation household of God emphasizes the family-like nature of the church. But this translation seems hardly justifiable in terms of the Greek phrase oikos tou theou (‘house of God’). Dennis Johnson has argued persuasively that this phrase in the LXX never refers to the ‘household’ of God’s people, but always to the temple, the ‘house of God’ in terms of the building in which God dwells. Thus, it is likely that it should be translated ‘house of God’ here as well.

This argument gains support when we recall Peter’s only other use of the word oikos, ‘house’, in 2:5: ‘Coming to him, you are being built into a spiritual house’ (see note at 2:5 regarding the reference to the temple here). Moreover, the text literally reads not with but ‘from’ (apo): ‘The time has come for judgment to begin from the house of God.’

Such a translation allows Johnson correctly to see this verse in the light of two other Old Testament passages, Ezekiel 9 and Malachi 3. Ezekiel 9 pictures the Lord calling to ‘the executioners’ of judgment to ‘draw near’ (9:1) to bring judgment on Jerusalem for its horrible sins. One messenger of God puts a mark on the forehead of all who were found to ‘sigh and groan’ over the ‘abominations’ committed in Jerusalem (9:4–5). Then the ‘executioners’ of judgment are told to kill all who do not have the mark on their foreheads (9:5–6). Significantly, God tells the executioners, ‘Begin from my sanctuary,’ and Ezekiel adds, ‘So they began from the elders who were inside the house’ (9:6). The words ‘begin from’, used twice here, are the same words Peter uses to say that it is time for judgment to ‘begin from (archomai apo) the house of God’. ‘House’ (oikos) is also the same word in both places. Both 1 Peter 4:17 and Ezekiel 9:6 have mention of God’s glory before and after them (1 Pet. 4:14 and 5:1; Ezek. 9:3 and 10:4). Finally, whereas Ezekiel’s judgment begins with ‘the elders’ who are in God’s house, Peter begins his next section of admonition, ‘Therefore, I exhort the elders among you …’ (5:1; the word for ‘elders’ is presbyteroi in both cases). It seems very likely that the judgment scene of Ezekiel 9 is in Peter’s mind when he writes, indicating that God’s judgment will begin with God’s house (now the church; cf. note at 2:5) and then spread outward to destroy all unbelievers.

But the mention of the ‘fiery ordeal’ or ‘refining fire’ (v. 12) which does not destroy but purifies God’s people calls to mind a second Old Testament passage, whose vivid imagery may have been joined with that of Ezekiel 9 as Peter wrote. Malachi 3 predicts that the Lord himself ‘will suddenly come to his temple’ as ‘the messenger of the covenant’ who ‘is like a refiner’s fire’ (3:1–2; ‘fire’ is pur in the LXX, not the same word but a related word to pyrōsis, ‘refining fire’, in 1 Pet. 4:12). Malachi adds, ‘He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the LORD’ (Mal. 3:3). ‘Then I will draw near to you for judgment …’ (on unbelievers: Mal. 3:5).

Johnson rightly points out that though Peter’s language may have been more influenced by Ezekiel 9, the concepts in 1 Peter 4:12–19 are closer to the picture of Malachi 3: the Lord himself is acting as a refining fire, purifying the priests (‘the sons of Levi’; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9) so that they may offer sacrifices pleasing to the Lord (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5). Then the judgment which began at God’s house (the temple, Mal. 3:1) will move from there to unbelievers, no longer as a purifying fire but as a judgment of condemnation—which brings us directly back to 1 Peter 4:17: ‘For the time has come for judgment to begin with the house of God; and if it begins with (Greek ‘from’, apo) us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?’ ‘The thought is simply: “If the purifying fire of God’s eschatological visitation … entails, for those united to Christ, such anguish as Peter’s readers are undergoing, what shall the consummation of that purifying divine presence mean for those who have rejected God’s good news—if not a conflagration of utter destruction?” ’

The application of this passage to Peter’s readers should be clear: if the Lord is already in the midst of his new temple (i.e. his people), they should ‘not be surprised at the refining fire which comes among you (Greek en humin, ‘in the midst of you’) to prove you … the Spirit of glory and of God is resting upon you’ (vv. 12, 14). He is the ‘messenger of the covenant in whom you delight’ (Mal. 3:1), so they can ‘rejoice’ (v. 13) in his presence. But with him also comes a refining fire, and they must purify themselves of all iniquities in order to avoid the pain of his disciplining judgment, even while they continue trusting him who alone can enable them to stand before himself (v. 19).

18. This verse has the same theme, but expressed this time in words taken exactly from Proverbs 11:31 (LXX): ‘If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?’ The fire of God’s holiness is so intense that even the righteous feel pain in its discipline. The impious (a godless person, a person without true reverence for God) and sinner will, by implication, find it to be a fire of eternal destruction.

(ii) Therefore do right and trust God continually (4:19)

19. What should Christians do in such circumstances? They should do right, maintaining moral purity in their lives (cf. 1:15, etc.), and should continue not to trust themselves but to entrust their souls to a faithful Creator. In this one verse is summarized the teaching of the entire letter. Christians do not suffer accidentally or because of the irresistible forces of blind fate; rather, they suffer according to God’s will.

While this may at first seem harsh (for it implies that at times it is God’s will that we suffer), upon reflection no better comfort in suffering can be found than this: it is God’s good and perfect will. For therein lies the knowledge that there is a limit to the suffering, both in its intensity and in its duration, a limit set and maintained by the God who is our creator, our saviour, our sustainer, our Father. And therein also lies the knowledge that this suffering is only for our good: it is purifying us, drawing us closer to our Lord, and making us more like him in our lives. In all of it we are not alone, but we can depend on the care of a faithful Creator; we can rejoice in the fellowship of a Saviour who has also suffered (v. 13); we can exult in the constant presence of a Spirit of glory who delights to rest upon us (v. 14).

Some have thought that the phrase according to God’s will refers to the way Christians act while they are suffering, not to the reason for suffering. However, such an understanding is not possible because it would make the phrase do right redundant: the verse would in essence then say, ‘Let those who suffer while doing right, do right.’ But this is meaningless repetition. It is necessary, therefore, to understand the sentence to mean, ‘Let those who suffer because God has willed that they suffer do right …’.

The phrase entrust their souls does not use the usual word for ‘trusting’ God, but a verb (paratithēmi) which means ‘to give to someone for safekeeping, to turn over to someone to care for’ (cf. Luke 23:46, ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit’, quoting Ps. 31:5; see also Acts 14:23). Souls may also be translated ‘selves’ (NIV: ‘commit themselves to their faithful Creator’—however, see note on ‘soul’ at 1:22). The mention of ‘souls’ here, together with the possible echo of Jesus’ words on the cross (Luke 23:46), suggests the idea of the believer’s soul living on even after his body is destroyed, and puts the question of temporary suffering in the proper perspective.

↑ Back to top