1 Peter 1:13–2:3

1:13–16 In the first twelve verses of 1 Peter (which in the Greek text is one long sentence), there is not a single command: no imperatives, admonitions, or exhortations. There is nothing but glorious affirmations and declarations of the saving grace of God in Christ. Thus to this point Peter has focused exclusively on what God has done. But in verses 13–16 he turns his attention to the moral and ethical responsibilities we must embrace as children of God.

The transitional conjunction “therefore” that begins verse 13 is crucial. This word tells us that all of Peter’s forthcoming exhortations depend on the grace he has been expounding in verses 1–12. The call to obedience and holiness is thus rooted in the realities of grace (our new election, our new birth, an incorruptible inheritance, etc.). The imperative is always based on the indicative. We must never reverse the order. Otherwise, we fall into legalism and works-righteousness.

The two participles in verse 13, translated “preparing your minds” and “being sober-minded,” are, technically speaking, participles of attendant circumstance and should be understood along the lines of, “as/while you are preparing your minds” and “as/while you are sober-minded.” However, both are also dependent on the imperative “set your hope” and thus are themselves imperatival in force: “Prepare your minds for action and be sober-minded.”

In ancient times, men wore loose-fitting, free-flowing garments that, although graceful and dignified in appearance, were a hindrance to rigorous activity such as running or working. Thus it was often necessary to gather up one’s garment and tuck it into the belt so as to leave the legs free to move (cf. 1 Kings 18:46). Hence, “preparing” or “girding up the loins” of one’s mind (cf. 1 Pet. 1:13 ESV mg.) finds its modern equivalent in “rolling up your sleeves.”

“Sober-mindedness” demands avoidance of mental intoxication. Here the word is used metaphorically, but with the notion of the intoxicating effects of alcohol very much in the forefront of the point. The term denotes mental alertness and self-control and disciplined attention.

The first formal imperative is to “set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13). We are to devote every ounce of mental and spiritual and emotional energy to contemplating and concentrating on the grace that is to come. Such “grace” is, of course, the consummation of the blessings of salvation outlined in verses 1–12.

Given our new identity and status as “obedient children” (v. 14), we are exhorted to holiness of life. This call to holiness has two sides, one negative and one positive. Negatively, we are not to be conformed to the “passions of your former ignorance” (v. 14). Positively, we are to “be holy as God is holy” (cf. vv. 15–16, in keeping with Lev. 11:44, although Carson¹ believes the citation is from Lev. 19:2; cf. also 20:7–8, 26).

Our way of life before we became followers of Jesus was governed by our “ignorance.” This ignorance of God’s beauty and his gracious intent in Christ is what gave rise to the lusts and sinful desires and habits that kept us in bondage.

The root meaning of the Hebrew noun “holiness” and the adjective “holy” comes from a word meaning to “cut” or “separate.” The Greek equivalent is hagios and its derivatives. It conveys the truth that God is separate from everyone and everything else. He alone is Creator. He is altogether and wholly other, in both his character and his deeds. He is transcendently different from and greater than all his creatures in every conceivable respect. Holiness, then, is not solely a reference to moral or ethical purity. It also entails transcendent and unparalleled beauty.

By this Peter does not mean that we are to strive to be utterly unique in the universe, without rival or parallel. He is not calling us to aspire to be transcendently beautiful or in another class altogether. The key to understanding his command is found in comparing verses 14 and 15. To live holy as God is holy requires separating ourselves from those sinful “passions” that characterized our lives before we came to know Christ. It means distancing ourselves from the lifestyle that used to dominate our existence. It means cutting ourselves off from whatever will desensitize us to sin or blur our spiritual vision or stir up our sinful nature.

1:17 The call to holiness in verses 13–16 is now repeated in slightly different terms, as Peter urges his readers to “conduct” (anastraphēte) themselves in a manner suitable to their relationship to God as Father. To “call on” (epikaleō) God as Father is more than simply to name him as such; it carries the notion of invoking or calling on him in prayer. Paul “called” on God to bear witness to the integrity of his behavior (2 Cor. 1:23) and also made an “appeal” (epikaloumai) to Caesar to vindicate his rights as a citizen (Acts 25:11–12; cf. also Acts 25:21).

The term used to describe God as the one who judges “impartially” (aprosōpolēmptōs) occurs only here in the NT and points to action taken without regard to rank, status, or privilege. The cognate noun prosōpolēmpsia occurs in Romans 2:11 and Ephesians 6:9 with a similar focus on God’s impartiality (cf. Acts 10:34). The same point is made later in 1 Peter 2:23, where God is described as the one who “judges justly.”

The standard for God’s judgment are the “works” of each individual, a theme seen consistently in both Testaments (Ps. 62:12; Hos. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rom. 6:2; Rev. 20:12–15). Peter is not saying that our works are the ground or basis of our acceptance; rather, they serve as appropriate criteria of judgment insofar as they reflect and are a visible expression of one’s inward faith commitment (cf. James 2:12–26).

Our primary responsibility is to “conduct” ourselves “with fear” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:17; in 2:18; 3:2, 15 it is translated as “respect”) during the course of our lives on earth. As was noted earlier, in the comment on 1:1, Christians are now in “exile” (paroikias), awaiting their true homeland, the new earth. Contrary to those who would argue that Peter uses this language in a political and sociological sense to describe the literal disenfranchisement of believers, the term here seems to have a spiritual focus (although the two understandings are not mutually exclusive): this earth is not our true home, as we are citizens of a heavenly city (cf. Phil. 3:20).

Although it may seem odd for Peter to speak of living in “fear” of one’s “Father” (cf. Gen. 22:12; Job 1:8; Prov. 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:17), he does not mean by this to be afraid or live in doubt or anxiety about one’s relationship to God. The emphasis is on reverence, awe, and an ever-present sense of utter dependency on the Lord’s power and mercy. Thus to “fear” God means to be conscious of his all-pervasive presence and of our absolute, moment-by-moment dependence on him for light and life, keenly sensitive to our comprehensive responsibility to do all that he has commanded, fearful of offending him, determined to obey him (Deut. 6:1–2, 24; 8:6; Pss. 112:1; 119:63; Mal. 3:5), and committed to loving him (Deut. 10:12, 20; 13:4).

1:18 Here we see yet another reason or ground for the exhortation to conduct ourselves in fear. We do so “knowing” (the participle has a causal force) the source and nature of our being ransomed from sin, by which we are stirred to fear God and conduct ourselves in holiness of life.

To be “ransomed” (elytrōthēte, from lytroō, to “set free,” “redeem,” or “liberate,” used in this sense only here and in Luke 24:21 and Titus 2:14) refers to a well-known custom in Greco-Roman culture. Slavery in the ancient world was based not on race but on economics. A slave would typically receive his freedom after money was deposited in the temple of a god or goddess and then paid to the slave’s owner. The sum paid for the redemption or ransom was referred to as the “price,” and the slave was considered to have been redeemed by the deity (cf. Mark 10:45).

According to Peter, his readers were in captivity or bondage to the “futile ways inherited from your forefathers.” In other words, they were slaves to the sinful, useless, meaningless way of life that alienated them from God. Peter’s choice of terms confirms that his audience was predominantly Gentile: “The legacy that Peter is denouncing is Greco-Roman paganism and its associated unethical practices.”²

Since “silver” and “gold” are technically not perishable metals, Peter’s use of phthartos (“subject to decay, mortal”) suggests he has in mind the contrast between what is transient and what is eternal or enduring. Peter used the adjectival antonym in 1:4 to describe the “imperishable” (aphtharton) nature of our eternal inheritance.

1:19 Although silver and gold would be inadequate to redeem us from sin, a price has indeed been paid: “the precious blood of Christ.” The adjective rendered “precious” (timios) does not mean cute, sweet, or endearing but rather priceless, costly, of infinite value. And it is precious because of whose blood it is: Christ’s, who was the “lamb without blemish or spot.” To be without blemish, spot, or stain is to lack any and all moral defects. Christ’s sacrifice was acceptable because he was morally and ceremonially perfect (cf. Ex. 12:5; Lev. 1:3–5; 22:17–25; Num. 6:14; 19:2; Heb. 9:14). Thus Peter seems to be saying, “Do not conduct yourself as though the ransom was not precious. The blood of Christ has redeemed you from a useless and meaningless and futile way of life, so do not live your new life as if the ransom price was anything less than glorious and priceless.”

1:20–21 The precious nature of the sacrificial price is emphasized yet again by Peter’s description of Christ as having been “foreknown” (observe the use of the perfect tense) “before [pro] the foundation of the world” (cf. similar language in John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; “from” (apo) the foundation of the world is more common still, as we see in Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). The point is that God’s purpose in ransoming sinners was not an afterthought but was conceived in his heart before time began.

Although planned from eternity past, God’s redemptive purpose came to fruition when Christ “was made manifest” for our sakes “in the last times.” Peter’s use of “last times” (lit., “the end of the ages/times”) is standard NT terminology to indicate the period inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection and consummated by his return (1 Pet. 5:4) at the end of history (cf. Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:3).

In saying that it is “through him” (i.e., Christ) that we are “believers in God,” Peter affirms that the sacrificial death of Jesus was the foundation and source of every spiritual and saving benefit that comes to those for whom he suffered. This would include the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:32–33) as well as the repentance and saving faith that are themselves the gift of God (Eph. 2:8–10; Acts 11:18).

That the blood of Christ was sufficient to ransom sinners from death and condemnation is demonstrated by God’s having “raised him from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:21b). The ransom Christ paid was vindicated and declared to be of immeasurable worth in achieving the redemption of sinners when God raised Christ to newness of life and “gave him glory” (a reference no doubt to his exaltation to the right hand of God and the subjection of all enemies beneath his feet; cf. 1 Cor. 15:25–28; Eph. 1:20–23; Phil. 3:20–21).

The purpose of this gracious work of redemption is that our “faith and hope” might be in God alone. Jesus Christ has done the necessary work to connect us with God in faith: he was eternally foreknown, manifested in human form, sacrificed on the cross, raised from the dead, and given glory by the Father, and through all of this we come to hope in God.

Thus Peter ends this paragraph precisely where he began. He exhorted us in verse 13 to “set” our “hope fully on the grace that will be brought” to us when Jesus appears. And now he concludes in verse 21 by reminding us that God has done everything necessary in and through Jesus to make it possible for us to put our faith and hope confidently in God alone.

1:22 The perfect participle “having purified” signifies that we are enabled to love one another because our “souls” have been purified. There is some debate concerning when this purification of the soul takes place. This may be a reference to one’s initial reception of the gospel and thus God’s act of consecrating us unto himself (cf. 1:2). However, this would not account for the active voice of the participle. Others believe that Peter envisions a purification subsequent to conversion, not so much as a final attainment at some point in time but as a consistent pattern of behavior, a lifestyle each believer actively embraces through the power of the Spirit.

The important thing to note is that obedience is a right response to truth (lit., “obedience of the truth,” the genitive being objective: the truth is what we obey). This “truth” is the Word of God, specifically the gospel that was proclaimed (cf. vv. 23, 25). Thus obeying the truth means believing in the gospel (cf. 2:8; 4:17; 2 Thess. 1:8). It is the Word of God that both produces the new birth in us (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23) and purifies our souls so that we may love one another (v. 22). To “love one another earnestly from a pure heart” (v. 22b) is essentially a restatement of “sincere brotherly love” (v. 22a), both of which emphasize that our love must not be perfunctory or external only. It must be “sincere” and “pure” (some manuscripts omit katharas, “pure,” but its inclusion is more likely).

1:23–25 The reason (“since”) our love must be sincere and pure is that we “have been born again, . . . through the living and abiding word of God.” The perfect passive participle of a verb meaning “to beget” or “to give new birth, new life” is clearly causal in force. In 1:3 we were “born again” to a living hope, and here we are “born again” to a sincere love of the brethren. The spiritual nature of the new life thus governs the spiritual nature of how it is lived.

When Peter speaks in verse 23 of the “word of God” and again in verse 25 of the “word of the Lord,” he probably has in mind both the spoken word and the written Word, both preaching and Scripture. We know he has in view the spoken word because he refers to it explicitly in verse 25 as the “good news that was preached to you.” But he also has in mind the written Scriptures, as seen in his citation of Isaiah 40:6–8 (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19–21; 3:15–16).

Peter is clearly fond of the language of perishable/imperishable: our inheritance is “imperishable” (aphtharton; 1 Pet. 1:4); the silver and gold by which we are not ransomed is “perishable” (phthartois); the “seed” by which we come into spiritual life is not “perishable” (phthartēs) but rather “imperishable” (aphthartou). The contrast in each case is between what is ephemeral and transient and what is enduring and eternal.

The instrumental cause of new birth is the “living and abiding word of God,” which likely stands in apposition to the “imperishable” seed. This word is living because it has the power to impart life. It is abiding because the life it imparts is permanent and sustained and never dies. Thus the contrast in verse 24 is not between the word of God and literal grass and flowers. The latter are cited as representative or symbolic of anything transient or impermanent in which we foolishly put our confidence.

The word “through” which we are born again (v. 23) is the gospel. The means that God employs in his work of imparting new and eternal life to the human soul is the word of the gospel that is preached and proclaimed (similarly in James 1:18).

It is difficult (and perhaps unnecessary) to determine whether “Lord” (1 Pet. 1:25a) is a reference to God the Father or to Jesus Christ. The latter is more likely insofar as Jesus is elsewhere described by Peter as “Lord” (1:3; 2:3; 3:15), and the “good news” (v. 25b) that is preached concerns the person and work of Christ. The genitive “of the Lord” is likely objective: it is the news about or concerning Jesus, although some see a genitive of source, with the reference being to the words Jesus himself spoke and taught (Mark 13:31).

No distinction should be made between the “word” (logos) of God in 1 Peter 1:23 and the “word” (rhēma) in verse 25 (2x). Whereas on occasion rhēma refers to specific spoken utterances while logos has in view a collection of written truths, here they are undoubtedly synonymous and interchangeable.

2:1³ Peter continues in an unbroken train of thought by summing up the essential elements of a life of holiness. He lists five attitudes and actions undeniably inconsistent with a life devoted to the sort of “brotherly love” (1:22) to which he has called believers (that 2:1–3 is thus connected with 1:22–25 is evident from the transitional conjunction “so” or “therefore”). He tells his readers that such attitudes and actions must be “put away” (2:1a), a verb often used of disrobing or removing garments (cf. Rom. 13:12; Eph. 4:22, 25; Heb. 12:1; James 1:21). We are to put aside or strip off old sinful habits like a set of tattered, worn-out clothes.

The first filthy garment to put away is “malice” (kakian), which may well be the source of the remaining four vices. They are the evil fruit of this rotten tree, the bitter waters from this wicked well. But neither “malice” nor “envy” (phthonous) feels like a choice. Yet Peter is clearly instructing us to stop being angry, to cease feeling wrath, to terminate malicious thoughts, and to stop feeling envious of others. He evidently believes that we are responsible before God, through the power of the indwelling Spirit, to do whatever is necessary to eliminate these affections and emotions from our souls.

Second, we are to put away “all deceit.” This is Peter’s way of saying the same thing Paul says in Colossians 3:9, where he commands the Christians in Colossae, “Do not lie to one another” (Col. 3:9a). Paul goes a step beyond Peter by adding the phrase “to one another,” highlighting the urgency of this imperative within the Christian community.

We are also to put away “hypocrisy” (the opposite of that which is “sincere”; 1 Pet. 1:22), “envy,” and “slander.” “Envy” (phthonous) points to a desire for or resentment of some privilege or benefit that belongs to another. Envy is the fruit of dissatisfaction with God. If God were truly enough for us, we would not feel the need to have what others enjoy.

“Slander” (katalalias) is most often motivated by the desire for revenge and self-enhancement, often driven by a longing to deflect attention from our own failings. By shining light on someone else through slander, we may be able to deflect attention from our own darkness.

2:2–3 Finally, we must see the connection between these negative vices in verse 1 and what follows in verses 2–3. If we seek to experience ever-increasing desire for God’s Word and to taste more fully his kindness, we must realize that, as our satisfaction in God’s kindness rises, the desires of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander are destroyed. And the inverse is true as well: as we resist these temptations and lay them aside, desire for God grows stronger and more intense.

Such is the only appropriate response of those who, having been born again (1:3, 23), are God’s “newborn infants.” The latter is not a pejorative insult, as if Peter were accusing his readers of failing to grow up in Christ. The word brephos (“infant”) applies to all Christians at every stage of spiritual development. It is a term of endearment denoting the intimacy of our relationship with God as Father.

“Milk” is not a reference to the low-level introductory teachings of the faith (in contrast to the “milk” vs. “solid food” distinction in Heb. 5:12–14). Here it points to the entirety of God’s revelation to us and is modified by two words: logikon and adolon—spiritual and pure, respectively. The former, logikon, used by Paul in Romans 12:1 to describe the nature of our worship, means something along the lines of “reasonable,” “rational,” “in accordance with reality” (cf. ESV mg.). The latter, adolon (adolos), has the sense of “uncontaminated” or “pure,” standing in obvious contrast with “deceit” (dolos) in verse 1. Thus we are to desire or long for the unadulterated and pristine truth of God’s Word. It alone enables growth into the “salvation” we have already received and that we will yet experience in its consummate expression (1 Pet. 1:9).

Although we might have expected eiper (“since”; found in a few manuscripts) at the beginning of verse 3, ei is more strongly attested. Peter does not question whether his readers have genuinely “tasted” the goodness of the Lord (an obvious allusion to Ps. 34:8), thus justifying the translation “if indeed.”

An interesting play on words is found in the use of chrēstos (“good,” “kind”), which when pronounced sounds almost identical to christos (“Christ”), which likely explains why a few manuscripts contain the latter instead of the former. In sum, the initial tasting and savoring of the goodness and sweetness of the grace of God in Jesus is the motivation for the ongoing pursuit of greater nourishment in the knowledge of him through the Word of God.