1 Peter 2:11–4:11

2:11 The terms “sojourners” (paroikous) and “exiles” (parepidēmous) have already appeared in this letter, the former in 1:17 and the latter in 1:1. Achtemeier helpfully points out that “God took people who were at home and turned them into aliens and exiles. . . . It is [this] change in status . . . and [its] issuing problems that prompted the writing of this letter.”¹

There is something of a causal force in Peter’s description of his readers using these terms. It is because they are sojourners and exiles that they must obey the exhortation to abstain from passions that characterize people at home in this world. Believers should have the strength to say no to fleshly passions, because such passions belong to this world but believers do not.

Peter is not calling for cultural isolation. In fact, as verse 12 will make clear, it is precisely as we live in this world and encounter nonbelievers that our lives will, by God’s grace, have a transforming effect, all to his glory.

The “passions of the flesh” are not merely sexual sins but are any and all desires characteristic of fallen humanity, whether greed, lust, gossip, pride, or perhaps in particular the sins cited in 2:1 (malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander). Such a command implies that inward desires are not beyond our control or simply “who we are” or something to which we must acquiesce and yield; rather, they are to be consciously controlled through the power of the indwelling Spirit. We are exhorted not merely to abstain from the outward expression of sinful desire but to kill the desire itself.

The seriousness of the challenge we face is highlighted by the verb translated “wage war” (strateuomai). This image is one of armed conflict in which the deceitful desires (Eph. 4:22) of our flesh seek to overwhelm and undermine the devotion of our “souls” to a life of holiness (cf. 1 Pet. 1:14–15).

2:12 Peter again takes up the language of “conduct” or lifestyle employed earlier in 1:15 and 17 (anastrophē). It is striking that the conduct or behavior of his predominantly Gentile readership is here described as being “among the Gentiles” (en tois ethnesin). Peter clearly views them no longer as the pagan unbelievers they once were but as members of the true people of God (2:4–10).

When Peter exhorts his readers to keep their conduct “honorable,” he does not use the typical Greek word for “good” (here it is kalos, not agathos). Kalos goes beyond the idea of moral goodness or ethical righteousness and includes the element of aesthetic worth and beauty: a goodness that commends itself to the beholder by its nobility and attractiveness.

The purpose of such an honorable and attractive life is that when (or perhaps because; the participle translated “they speak against” could be either temporal or causal) non-Christians observe the behavior of believers, such nonbelievers might glorify God on the day of “visitation.” The latter term (episkopē) can refer either to a positive display of God’s power (LXX Gen. 50:24; Ex. 3:16; Luke 19:44) or, in a negative sense, to impending judgment (cf. LXX Isa. 10:3; Jer. 10:15). Here it is most likely synonymous with the return of Christ: in 1 Peter 1:5 it is at the “last time” that our salvation will be consummated; in 1:7 “the revelation of Jesus Christ” will be upon his return; 1:13 refers again to “the revelation of Jesus Christ”; and in 4:13 Jesus’ return is the moment “when his glory is revealed.”

Although slander and persecution often only intensify, the Spirit is able to make use of our “honorable” and appealing conduct in order to pierce the hardened heart and bring light to the darkened soul. In some cases those who are Gentiles or were unbelievers will come to see the beauty and splendor and sufficiency of the God we profess and will embrace Christ and thereby “glorify God” (cf. Matt. 5:14–16).

2:13–14 The aorist passive imperative hypotagēte (from hypotassō, “to subject”) governs the entire paragraph through verse 17; elsewhere in the NT this verb is often translated “submit.” The extent of one’s submission is to be wide-ranging: to “every human institution” (v. 13), or, more literally, to every “human creation” or “creature.” Peter has in mind particularly the human leaders in authority over us. Peter describes “emperors” or “kings,” as well as “governors,” as “human creatures” in order to counter the claim of the emperor cult, which typically deified the Roman ruler. They are but “creatures,” says Peter, not the Creator. There is no need to deify or worship them, but we must obey them nonetheless.

Peter was not naive about the potential for corruption or evil in those who held political power. He knew all too well about the depravity of those who wielded authority in Rome and Palestine. And yet here he tells his readers, without hesitation, to “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (v. 13), whether emperors or kings, and to “honor” them (v. 17).

Of crucial importance is the prepositional phrase “for the Lord’s sake,” or “on account of the Lord” (dia ton kyrion), which provides the rationale or underlying motivation for such obedience. We submit not only because God is the one who sets in place all civil authority (cf. Dan. 2:20, 37–38) but also so that the “ignorance of foolish people” will be silenced (1 Pet. 2:15). Our obedience to the governing authorities, therefore, is at best only secondary; our primary allegiance is to God. It is to bring honor to him, and to make known his greatness and majesty, that we give our lives in obedience to the emperor or king or president or whoever is in power.

The “him” through or by which governors are sent could be either the emperor or God himself. Their dual function, in keeping with what Paul writes in Romans 13:3–4, is to mete out punishment or justice on those who perpetrate evil (lit., “evildoers,” kakopoiōn) and to “praise” (or express appreciation and commendation to) those who do good (lit., “good-doers,” agathopoiōn; this word appears again in 1 Pet. 2:20; 3:6, 17; 4:19).

This passage perhaps implies that the persecution being endured was not state-sponsored but stemmed from the pagan populace as a whole, who took offense at the unusual behavior of Christians. But even if such persecution were state-sponsored, the obligation to submit to governing authorities would remain valid—unless it would require one to violate a God-given command (cf. Acts 4:17–21; 5:27–32).

2:15 The opening “For this” (hoti houtōs) may be retrospective, giving us the reason for the submission previously enjoined. Others take it as prospective, directing our attention to the impending exhortation of verse 15. The latter is more likely.

The participle rendered “by doing good” is instrumental, indicating the means by which the ignorance of foolish people is exposed and silenced (lit., “muzzled”). Their “ignorance” (agnōsian) is not for want of formal education but is due to their foolish rebellion against God. Paul similarly describes unbelievers as ignorant (agnoian) “due to their hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18).

The point of Peter here in verse 15 is virtually identical to his point in verse 12: we must live in such a way that our confidence in Christ and our own humility is evident to all. We must let our joyful, generous, sacrificial, Christ-centered lifestyle silence the accusations of foolish people.

2:16 The imperative “Live” is supplied by the ESV (as is “living” later in the verse). Some interpreters believe the clause is dependent on the imperative “be subject” from verse 13 (hence, “be subject . . . as free people”), but the ESV is most likely correct in taking this as an independent statement with the implied imperative “live.” Peter’s call is for Christians not to use their blood-bought freedom as a pretext or excuse (“cover-up”) for disobeying the governing authorities. He once again grounds his exhortation in our identity as God’s people, literally his “bondservants.” We submit to the authorities not because we are their servants but because we are God’s.

2:17 All four imperatives in this verse are second person plural in the original Greek; the first is in the aorist tense while the final three are in the present tense. Some suggest the aorist tense is used in order to echo the aorist imperative in verse 13, “be subject.” While this is supported by the broad extent of obligation in both texts, the distance between the two makes this unlikely. In any case, classifying this aorist usage is difficult. Some believe it to be ingressive: “start/begin honoring everyone.” Others read it as a gnomic or timeless aorist, describing a universally expected mode of behavior.¹ All things considered, the latter is more likely. Thus it is not simply the governing authorities who are to be honored, but all who are created in God’s image.

The second imperative calls for love of the “brotherhood,” the community of believers (cf. 1:22). We are also to “fear God” and to “honor the emperor” (this final exhortation forms an inclusio² with 2:13).

2:18 The theme of willing submission that began in verse 13 with the imperative hypotagēte is continued in verse 18 with the participial form of the same verb, hypotassomenoi (undoubtedly imperatival in force: “be subject”). The submission in view here is of “servants” (oiketai has in view household servants) to their “masters.”

The manner or spirit in which such submission is to be embraced is “with all respect.” In view of the exhortation in verse 17 (“fear God”), the object of their “respect” (the noun form of the verb “fear” in v. 17) is not so much their masters but God himself. Throughout this larger section we see Peter grounding each of his exhortations in the believer’s devotion or commitment to God (v. 13, “for the Lord’s sake”; v. 15, “for this is the will of God”; v. 16, “living as servants of God”; v. 19, “mindful of God”; v. 20, “in the sight of God”).

A worldly perspective would call for such submission only to those masters who are “good and gentle,” but Peter extends it to include also the “unjust” (priming his readers for the example of Christ, who submitted humbly to unjust treatment at the hands of wicked executioners).

2:19–20 The reason (gar, “for”) Peter gives for this counterintuitive command is that it is a “gracious thing.” This unusual use of charis (“grace, favor”) likely has the sense of divine approval or blessing (indeed, a well-attested variant has charis para tō theō: “gracious before God,” undoubtedly influenced by charis para theō in v. 20).

Thus Peter is stating that favor and blessing from God come to those who cherish and treasure him above earthly vindication or respect (this is confirmed both by the use of “credit” in verse 20 and by Peter’s assurance to those who suffer in 3:9; cf. also Matt. 6:4, 6, 18; Luke 6:32–35).¹

“Mindful of God” might be more literally rendered “on account of conscience toward God” (the genitive theou is likely objective in meaning). Nevertheless, “mindful” is an apt rendering of syneidēsis, which has the sense of awareness or conscientiousness in 2 Corinthians 5:11 and Hebrews 10:2. The behavior of Christian servants must at all times be motivated by an awareness that God is watching and will reward accordingly.

The participle translated “while suffering” is the first occurrence in this letter of a verb that appears regularly from this point on (in 1 Pet. 2:20, 21, 23; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1(2x), 15, 19; 5:10). Faithful and submissive endurance under unjust suffering is clearly a primary theme for Peter, demonstrated both in the experience of Jesus (2:23; 3:18; 4:1) and in the lives of his followers.

The “for” with which 2:20 begins indicates that the verse provides an elaboration on what was just stated in verse 19. God often wills believers to suffer for doing good precisely so that, through their humble and faithful endurance, others will be compelled to stop and take notice, perhaps asking: “What is it about this God whom he loves that could inspire such loyalty and humility?” Bearing up under unjust suffering shines a bright and breathtaking light on the grace, glory, and value of God such that people who by nature seek their own justice are happy to wait and let God sort it out.

“Credit” (kleos) corresponds to “gracious thing” (charis) from verse 19. Such reward comes only when we “endure” (twice here) suffering in spite of our doing good. There is no “credit” for endurance when the suffering is deserved.

2:21 Peter grounds (“for,” gar) the previous instruction (vv. 18–20) in the reminder that suffering for righteousness’ sake is God’s calling on every Christian life. Far from unjust suffering being outside God’s plan or power, it is the very thing to which he has called us. The rationale or justification (“because,” hoti) for this calling is that Christ “also” (an adverbial use of kai) suffered unjustly, in our place (the substitutionary force of hyper hymōn is undeniable), and in doing so left us an example (hypogrammos) for how we should embrace suffering that we do not deserve.²

Needless to say, we cannot imitate the suffering of Christ in every respect, as his death was propitiatory and atoning whereas ours cannot be. His “example” is found in the way he chose to endure suffering without seeking to exact revenge on his persecutors. There was no complaint, bitterness, or self-justification from him when he was betrayed, tried, and condemned. Instead, he continued to trust God to sustain him and to vindicate him at the proper time.

2:22–25 These verses contain four relative clauses (the first three beginning with hos, “who,” the fourth with hou), two of which describe the response of Jesus in suffering, with a focus on his character, and two of which describe the nature and purpose of his atoning sacrifice.

The first relative clause (v. 22) introduces a quote from Isaiah 53:9 that highlights Jesus’ lack of sin in how he responded to his executioners (on this see Luke 4:34; John 6:69; 8:46; 9:16; Acts 3:14; 4:27–30; Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 1:19; 3:18; 1 John 3:5). That Christ recoiled from “deceit” (dolos; also in 1 Pet. 2:1) is a reinforcement of Peter’s earlier exhortation concerning how we are similarly to conduct ourselves (2:1).

The second relative clause (v. 23) introduces two additional features of our Lord’s response to his enemies. The translation of the two participles as temporal (“when he was reviled” and “when he suffered”) may just as easily be concessive: “although he was reviled/although he suffered.” Instead of responding in kind, Jesus chose to entrust himself to God’s care and vindication.

There is an ellipsis here, as no direct object of “entrusting” (such as “himself”) is in the original text. But “himself” seems appropriate, especially in light of what we later read in 4:19: “Let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.”

The third relative clause (lit., “who . . . himself”; 2:24) turns from a focus on the moral character of Christ to the nature and purpose of his dying. The statement that he “bore our sins in his body on the tree” simply means that Christ bore the wrath of God aroused by our sins, doing so by being nailed to a tree, a cross, where he satisfied the demands of divine justice and endured the eternal penalty our sin merited (similarly Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 5:9–10). But it is not merely the removal of our guilt or the righteous wrath of God that is in view in Christ’s death. Its purpose was also to make possible our death to sin and a life of practical righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24b).

In the fourth and final relative clause Peter declares, “by his wounds you have been healed” (v. 24c, citing Isa. 53:5). By enduring the wrath of God against willful human wickedness, Christ defeated the power of pain and infirmity, and thus Peter can aver that Christ’s death “healed” us. In other words, Jesus paid the price of sin so that one day, when he returns to glorify his people, he may wholly do away with all sickness.

Often in Scripture the sinful condition of the soul is analogous to a body suffering from various wounds (e.g., Isa. 1:5–6). Forgiveness and restoration are therefore described in terms of a bodily healing. Here the apostle portrays us in our sin as if we were a wounded body in need of physical healing—and by his atoning death the Great Physician has truly “healed” our hearts.

2:25 As sinners we are continually straying like sheep, but by the redemptive grace of Jesus we have been enabled to return to the shepherd and guardian of our souls. The word “for” (gar) or “because” with which verse 25 opens indicates that the “healing” in view in verse 24 is from the punishment we deserved for our spiritual “straying” in verse 25. In other words, it is primarily spiritual healing from the disease of sin, not physical restoration of the body, that Peter has in mind. Our sickness or affliction was that of having strayed from God. The healing provided by Christ, therefore, is to bring us back to God and restore our relationship with him.

3:1–2 That Peter is addressing wives, rather than women in general, is evident from his use of “your own” (idiois) in addressing the gynaikes (“wives”; some manuscripts omit the definite article hai, perhaps to focus on “wives” as a vocative). Here they are commanded (the participle is clearly imperatival in force) to be “subject” or “submissive” to their husbands. The use of hypotassomenai (participial form of hypotassō), together with the opening word “likewise” (homoiōs), indicates that the imperative in 2:13, “be subject” (hypotagēte), continues to govern Peter’s thought. Peter is not teaching that wives’ submission to their husbands will be identical in every way to that of servants to their masters (2:18ff.). But in distinctive ways, each is called to be submissive to God-ordained authority.

The purpose of wives’ willing submission is evangelistic: a believing wife married to an unbelieving husband (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12–16), that is to say, a husband who is actively hostile to “the word” (logō, an obvious reference to the gospel), might by means of her conduct perhaps bring him to saving faith. For “conduct” with reference to a life of holiness, see 1 Peter 1:15, where the same word is found (anastrophē). “Without a word” (aneu logou) points to the wives’ verbal silence. Peter does not mean that these women should never speak at all, but that their godly and loving behavior will likely be more effective in persuading their husbands of the truth of the gospel than any prolonged verbal argumentation (the verb rendered “may be won” was originally a commercial term referring to “gain” or “profit” but came to be used in the church for conversion; cf. Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 9:19–22). As an unbelieving husband observes the seemingly inexplicable joy and peace of his wife, the Spirit will use this to awaken him to the gospel.

Submission carries the implication of voluntarily yielding to a recognized authority. As already noted in 2:13–25, such subjection in no way implies (much less requires) the notion of an inferior yielding to a moral or spiritual superior. An ontological equality exists within all human hierarchical relationships. Nor does submission mean that a wife must always agree with her husband, as here she differs with him on the most important issue of all: the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Verse 2 amplifies the behavior required in verse 1. “When” an unbelieving husband observes the “respectful and pure conduct” of his wife, there is hope that such will be used by God to bring about the husband’s faith in Christ. The participle translated “when they see” could just as easily be causal (“because they see”) or even instrumental (“by seeing”). “Respectful” is the rendering of en phobō (lit., “in fear”), and in view of how the term is used elsewhere in this letter (1:17; 2:17–18), here it may point more to the wife’s reverence for God than to her respectful attitude toward her husband (although the latter is always appropriate).

3:3–4 The instruction in these two verses may have been prompted by the tendency of some women to think that their outward beauty and fashionable clothing would make life easier at home or perhaps even help in winning their unbelieving husbands to Christ. There is nothing intrinsically evil about such things, but Peter’s counsel is for women not to put their trust in them. He argues against what is overdone, excessively expensive and ostentatious, or inconsistent with Christian modesty.

Peter mentions three things in particular that constitute what is “external” or “outward”: braiding hair, wearing gold jewelry, and wearing extravagant clothing. The alternative to trusting in what is external (exōthen; v. 3) or visible is to rely on what is “hidden” (kryptos; v. 4) or invisible—certain virtues that exist wholly within the heart but are given outward expression in how one lives. Adorn the soul, says Peter, with what is “imperishable” (“beauty” is not in the original text but aptly conveys the focus on inward attractiveness over against mere physical beauty). Here Peter identifies what is inward and imperishable as a “gentle and quiet spirit” (pneumatos here is not the Holy Spirit but the human spirit or disposition, which is of course sustained and made possible by the ministry of the Spirit of God).

The antecedent of “which” (the relative pronoun ho) is the “spirit” or inner disposition of meekness and quietness, which in turn is explanatory of what the “hidden person of the heart” entails. The reason for Peter’s focus on this invisible trait is that it is “very precious,” of great value, in the sight of God.

3:5–6 In order to reinforce his point (gar, “for”), Peter appeals to godly women in the OT, particularly Sarah (the others in his mind would likely include Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah). Each exhibited precisely what Peter called for in verse 4: a preference for internal over external adornment and for godly submission to their husbands. Their “hope” in God is another way of saying that they lived en phobō (“in fear,” translated “respectful” in v. 2).

The precise way in which these OT women “used to adorn [kosmeō; the related noun form, kosmos, “adornment,” appeared in v. 3] themselves” was “by submitting” (participle of means or manner) to their own husbands. For the fourth time in this paragraph (2:11–4:11) a form of hypotassō appears (this is the third instance of it as a participle), reinforcing the earlier observation that Peter is concerned, throughout 2:13–3:7, with godly submission to divinely appointed authority.

It was precisely in “calling him lord” that Sarah “obeyed” Abraham, her husband. Peter here alludes to Genesis 18:12, where Sarah expressed disbelief in God’s promise that she would bear a child. After all, she was barren and Abraham (“my lord”) was old. This comment was a mere aside; she was talking to herself, and there is no indication that she intended Abraham or anyone else to hear her. She is thus praised because she honored him when no one was listening. (“Lord” is a term of respect, something akin to “Sir,” and was certainly not an affirmation of Abraham’s divinity!)

“Children” may be an ethical designation, pointing to someone who imitates a quality in another. Hence women are Sarah’s “children” in the sense that they behave in relation to their husbands in the same way or manner that Sarah did. But more is likely intended than that. To be the “children” of Abraham (and thus Sarah) suggests covenantal status and spiritual membership in the people of God (cf. Luke 13:16; also Matt. 3:8–9). Paul likewise speaks elsewhere of those who have become the children of promise as having Sarah as their mother (Gal. 4:21–31).

Most interpreters take the two participles in verse 6b as conditional; hence, “if you do good and do not fear.” Others object, arguing that this would make their covenantal status dependent on their works. But it may well be that these two participles are not stating conditions on which covenant status hangs but rather are indicating two ways in which the authenticity of that status is confirmed (cf. Heb. 3:6, 14). To do good and not fear bears ongoing witness (both participles are present tense) to the reality of being Sarah’s children.

Since “anything . . . frightening” or intimidating could include any individual or experience posing a threat to one’s well-being (cf. Prov. 3:25), it is likely that the danger posed by unbelieving husbands is what Peter has particularly in mind.

3:7 Peter would never have us think that husbands do not also bear significant responsibility in the marriage relationship. In fact, they “likewise” must relate to their wives in a way consistent with who these women are in Christ. Once again the participial form of a verb is to be understood as imperatival: husbands are to “live” or dwell with their wives in an understanding way.

The phrase translated “in an understanding way” is, more literally, “according to knowledge.” It is unlikely that Peter means knowledge of God or of the nature of women in terms of their disposition and proclivities, over against the nature of men. The conjunction “as” (hōs) is likely providing us with the content of the knowledge in view: husbands are to live with their wives with the recognition or understanding that they are the “weaker vessel.” This refers not to moral or intellectual capacity but most likely to lesser physical strength and perhaps to social status. The comparative adjective (asthenesterō, “weaker”) requires that we recognize men to be “vessels” as well. But women, especially in the ancient world, were more vulnerable and more easily taken advantage of than men. This knowledge, then, is to govern how a husband relates to, protects, and honors his wife.

Wives are deserving of honor because they, no less so than believing men, are “heirs . . . of the grace of life.” Whether Peter intends us to understand this grace as leading to life or as life itself (likely eternal life), his point is that women are equally included in the saving benefits of Christ’s work.

Peter clearly conditions the answering of a man’s prayers on his faithful obedience to this command. We should never presume that God will answer our prayers while we continue to mistreat those who are fellow heirs with us of eternal salvation. In view of Peter’s subsequent citation in 3:12 of Psalm 34:15–16, we must assume that callous disregard of one’s wife will close God’s ears to our prayers and turn his face against us.

3:8–9 In saying, “Finally, all of you,” Peter is not bringing the letter to a close but is concluding the “household code” that began in 2:13. Pantes (“all”) indicates that he no longer has any particular group in mind but is now (3:8ff.) addressing the entire Christian community. There is obviously an ellipsis here, as no verb governs these virtues. We should probably assume some form of either eimi (“be”) or ginomai (“become”) or perhaps yet another imperatival participle.

First, Peter calls for “unity of mind,” or a common purpose among believers. Although this word appears only here in the NT, we find the same emphasis elsewhere, especially in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom. 15:5–7; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:1–2; 4:2). Peter is calling not for uniformity but rather for sharing the same spiritual values, recognizing and contending for the same theological truths, proclaiming the same gospel, and, most important of all, being devoted to and passionate about the same Christ and his supremacy and glory.

The noun translated “sympathy” is also unique to this verse in the NT and has the sense of having the same emotions or feelings as others so that one can respond with sensitivity to the need. The third virtue is the well-known term for “brotherly love” (philadelphoi). Christians must also cultivate a “tender heart” for one another: Peter’s fourth term (eusplanchnoi) is related to the standard term for intestines, which were regarded as the seat of one’s emotions. Believers are to be “tender-hearted” or “compassionate,” to “feel generous in the depths of their being”; it is the antithesis of hypocrisy, acting tenderly while harboring malice. Finally, Christians are to have a “humble mind” (tapeinophrones), a word that in ancient times was regarded as a vice but is in fact a virtue in the redeemed community. Although appearing only here in the NT, the term is closely related to tapeinophrosynē (“lowliness” or “humility of mind”) found in Acts 20:19; Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:3; Colossians 2:18, 23; 3:12; and 1 Peter 5:5.

The negative counterpart to these fruits of the Spirit is found in verse 9. The call for non-retaliation reminds us of how Jesus responded to those who reviled him (cf. 1 Pet. 2:23), suggesting that Peter has in mind our response not to those within the Christian community but to our persecutors from without (cf. Matt. 5:43–44; Luke 6:27–28; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15). Our response should be to “bless” or to invoke God’s grace upon our enemies, for this is precisely what he has done for us in Christ. Indeed, to “bless” others is the very purpose (eis touto, “unto this,” is used similarly in 1 Pet. 2:21 and 4:6) of our calling.

The conjunction hina, translated “that” (ESV), perhaps is introducing the purpose of our blessing others: “in order that you may obtain a blessing.” Alternatively, it may be expressing result: the obtaining or inheritance of a blessing comes as a result of having blessed others. The language of inheritance has been seen also in 1:4 and 3:7.

3:10–12 These three verses contain an extended citation of Psalm 34:12–16 as it reads in the LXX (numbered there as Ps. 33:13–17). The capacity to “love life and see [i.e., enjoy or experience] good days” is dependent on one’s commitment not to speak evilly or deceitfully. God simply will not bless those who seek verbal vengeance. But concrete action is also required, as the psalmist calls on us, negatively, to “turn away from evil” (apo kakou; genitive of separation) and, positively, to “do good.” To “seek” peace is the same as to “pursue” it.

God’s “eyes” are attentive to the needs of the righteous (i.e., those who resist the temptation to resort to verbal revenge) and his “ears” listen to their prayers. Those who “do evil” by using their tongues and lips to exact vengeance on those who have mistreated them will find that the Lord has turned his face “against” them. The preposition epi, used in verse 12a in the positive sense of “on” or “upon” is here in verse 12b used negatively, hence “against.” Peter once more, as in 3:7, ties answered prayer to godly obedience and humble trust in the sufficiency of God’s goodness.

3:13–14 Peter is still concerned with the necessity of godly behavior in the face of hostile opposition. This is evident from the rhetorical question with which verse 13 opens. The anticipated answer is, “No one.” All things being equal, being “zealous for what is good” ought to assure a person of escape from harm. Some take this “harm” to be ultimate or eschatological, the point being that our earthly persecutors can do nothing to undermine or destroy our eternal inheritance in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:31, 35–39). But in view of the parallelism with 1 Peter 3:14, the “harm” is more likely equivalent to the physical “suffering” we endure now in this life. Peter is clearly a realist and knows that the Christian lifestyle will often provoke opposition, something he openly confessed in 2:20–21. In saying “even if” one should suffer for righteousness, he is not questioning whether it will occur. It most certainly will. What is of utmost concern for the believer is that the suffering be provoked by righteous living and not by one’s own sin.

There can be little doubt that Peter is alluding to the beatitude of Jesus in Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In both instances the believer is declared “blessed” (makarioi), a pronouncement Peter will repeat in 4:14.

The latter half of 3:14 literally reads, “Do not fear the fear of them.” He is not instructing believers not to fear what frightens unbelievers. The genitive (“of them”) is objective. We are not to be afraid of unbelievers or intimidated by what they might do.

3:15–16 In place of fear the believer is to “honor Christ the Lord as holy.” The translation “honor . . . as holy” reflects one word in the original text, the same verb (hagiazō) used in the opening petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “hallowed” or “sanctified” be your name. The meaning is much the same whether Peter intends us to “honor Christ as the Lord” (in which case ton christon is the direct object of the verb hagiasate and kyrion is the complement) or to “honor the Lord, that is, Christ” (where kyrion is the direct object and ton christon is in apposition to it). The ESV takes a slightly different tack and makes “Lord” appositional to “Christ” (hence “Christ the Lord”).

To honor Christ as Lord means to believe truly and sincerely that Christ alone is Lord and that our enemies are not, no matter how much power and authority they may wield. He alone must be cherished in our “hearts” as utterly unique and precious above all. We must let the reality of his supremacy be preeminent in our thinking and feeling and govern our response to those who seek our harm. In this way our refusal to fear our enemies honors Christ as Lord as it shows our hope in him to be unshakable.

We must also “always” be “prepared” to defend the hope that is within us. Perhaps this defense is itself the way or means by which we honor the Lord as holy. In any case, Peter is thinking not of the scholarly apologist or of a formal courtroom setting (although cf. Acts 25:16; 2 Tim. 4:16) but of a daily (“always . . . anyone”) readiness to explain the “reason” or “ground” (logon) for why our hope is in Christ alone.

The manner of our defense matters greatly: it must be with “gentleness” and “respect.” By “gentleness” Peter refers to an absence of arrogance and pride and the presence of humility and calmness. Given Peter’s consistent use of phobos in this letter (1:17; 2:17; 3:2), the word “respect” should perhaps be rendered “fear” (phobou), referring less to one’s attitude toward other people and more to one’s reverence for God.

It may well be that “having a good conscience” (cf. 2:19) is the result of conducting oneself with “gentleness and respect.” Others treat this as an imperative: in addition to responding with gentleness and respect, one must “have a good conscience” so that when enemies slander and revile (cf. 2:23; 3:9), it is they who are put to shame. Earlier, in 2:12, the apparent purpose of such behavior was the conversion of one’s enemies, while in 2:15 Peter envisioned their being silenced. Whether or not the “shame” they here experience is a prelude to genuine conversion is difficult to know.

3:17 This verse is a virtual echo of 2:20 and anticipates what will follow in 4:15–16. John Elliott argues that the point here is “not that God wills suffering but that God wills doing what is right rather than doing what is wrong . . . even if and when this results in suffering.”¹ However, this seems to be an effort to evade an obvious and, for Elliott, uncomfortable theological conclusion—that God often wills his children to suffer in spite of their obedience to him. Peter’s point is that, if suffering should be God’s desire (lit., “if the will of God should will”), we must be sure that such suffering not be for sins we have committed.

3:18–19¹ That Jesus died “once for all” (hapax) puts his sacrifice in contrast with the OT sacrifices, which had to be repeated daily. That he died “the righteous for the unrighteous” (cf. Isa. 53:11) points us to the requirement that an atoning sacrifice be unblemished and spotless and also highlights the unmistakable substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. The aim of Christ was to overcome the alienation brought about by our sin and to bring us to God, a theme found yet again in Romans 5:2 and Ephesians 2:18.

We must not overlook the seemingly unimportant “also” (kai), which indicates that Peter is here providing the rationale for verses 13–17. In other words, we should readily embrace undeserved suffering because “Christ also” suffered in this way. Needless to say, we do not suffer in the precise way he did, as a substitutionary sacrifice to propitiate the wrath of God, but we should still find in Christ’s atonement an incentive to bear up under the oppressive persecution of the non-Christian world.

The last clause of verse 18 provides an apt transition to a focus on Christ’s triumphant defeat of all enemies, as seen in his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to the right hand of God. His “being” put to death and made alive suggests either a causal relationship, in the sense that he brought us to God because he died and was raised, or an instrumental emphasis: it was by means of his death and resurrection that we are brought near to God. The difference between these two options is minimal. There may even be a concessive force to the first participle: “Although he was put to death in the flesh, he was also made alive in the spirit.”

The terms “flesh” and “spirit” do not refer to the two elements of which we are composed—the material (body) and the immaterial (soul or spirit)—as if to suggest that the former dies but the latter survives. Such Greek categories of thought are foreign to the NT. Neither do these terms refer to the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Rather they refer to two modes or spheres of existence. As R. T. France has noted, “sarx [flesh] in the New Testament denotes the natural human sphere of existence, and pneuma [spirit] in contrast with it denotes the supernatural sphere.”² Again France explains:

Here the contrast is between Christ’s death in the natural sphere, and his risen life in the eternal, spiritual sphere. His earthly life ended, but that was succeeded by his heavenly life. Thus the second phrase [“made alive in the spirit”] does not refer to Christ disembodied, but to Christ risen to life on a new plane.³

In other words, “made alive in the spirit” does not refer to an experience of Christ prior to the resurrection, as if after he died he entered into an intermediate, disembodied state.⁴ Simply put, the final clause of verse 18 is directly descriptive of the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). He died in the earthly, temporal realm, a realm characterized by flesh, and he was made alive or raised to the heavenly, eternal realm, a realm characterized by spirit.⁵

The opening relative clause in verse 19, “in which,” clearly has as its antecedent the word pneumati (“spirit”) from verse 18. Since the latter has in view the resurrection of Christ, what follows in verse 19 must be an experience subsequent to his resurrection, not prior to it.⁶ Whereas some argue that the clause “in which” has no antecedent and should simply be translated “when,” each case they cite in 1 Peter as purportedly similar fails to convince insofar as not one of them has a masculine or neuter noun in the preceding clause that might be taken as an antecedent (cf. 1:6; 2:12; 3:16; 4:4).

The verb translated “went” in verse 19a is crucial for the proper interpretation of this passage. There is nothing in the verb suggesting the idea of a “descent” into hell: it is the standard Greek verb meaning “to go” (poreuomai). Its significance is seen in its usage in verse 22, where it describes the ascension of the risen Christ: he “has gone” (or “went”) into heaven, where he is seated at God’s right hand. As we will see below, the verb here describes the same event: the ascension and exaltation of the risen Savior. In other words, far from describing a “descent,” it actually describes an “ascent.”⁷

Who or what are the “spirits in prison” to whom Christ made proclamation? There are three primary competing views. One is that they are the “spirits” of human beings who have died physically. But, as France points out, in none of the purported parallel texts supporting such a view “is pneuma used absolutely; it is always qualified by ‘of the dead’, ‘of the righteous’ [Heb. 12:23], etc. If ta pneumata here meant ‘people who have died’, it would be a unique absolute use in this sense. This does not exclude the possibility entirely, but it casts strong doubt on it.”⁸ On the other hand, the noun pneuma is frequently used in the NT for angelic beings.⁹ One must also take into account the statement in verse 20 that these “spirits” in prison “did not obey.” If the “spirits” in question were living human beings when this rebellion occurred, we would expect Peter to refer to the “spirits of those who disobeyed.”

Those who insist on taking “spirits” as a reference to human beings identify them as those men and women who rebelled in the days of Noah, perhaps especially those who mocked him for building an ark. Thus it was the preincarnate second person of the Trinity, before he became human flesh in the person of Jesus, who through or in or by means of the Holy Spirit preached to disobedient people living in the days of Noah just before the flood. Christ was not personally present at that time but by means of the Spirit spoke to them through Noah.¹⁰

A variation on the notion that “spirits” here refers to human beings argues that it was during the three days between his death and his resurrection that Christ descended into hell and preached to those who were disobedient during the days preceding the flood of Noah. From this some have concluded that he was giving them a second chance to be saved after their deaths.¹¹

The most likely view is that Peter has in mind those rebellious angels (demons) who sought unnatural and immoral unions with female humans. This is the incident recorded in Genesis 6:1–5 (cf. the parallel references in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6).¹² As punishment for their grievous sin, God consigned them to “prison” to await their final punishment in the lake of fire. It was to these demonic spirits that Christ proclaimed his victory and their judgment, after his resurrection and likely at the time of his ascension.¹³

Where or of what nature this “prison” might be is not stated by Peter. The likelihood is that the term is used figuratively to make the point that these demonic spirits are in some sense confined or restrained by God until the time of final judgment. “The main point to be established is that there is no mention of going down, or of Sheol or Hades (which is never called phylakē [prison] in biblical literature). Christ went to the prison of the fallen angels, not to the abode of the dead, and the two are never equated.”¹⁴

But when and in what way did these “spirits” or “demons” disobey, and why was it important for Jesus to proclaim his victory over them? Two other texts likely refer to this same event (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4–5 and Jude 6–7). Each is probably referring to what we read in Genesis 6:1–5, where “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive” and “took” them “as their wives.” This was the “sin” (or disobedience; 1 Pet. 3:20a) of those demons referred to, for which they are now confined in prison. This sin was not the original demonic rebellion, for why, then, would only some be confined and not all? It cannot be that only the more wicked were permanently confined, for Satan, the most wicked of all, is still free. The context in 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 (cf. Jude 6) links this “sin” with the flood of Noah, and it is likely that all three passages are referring to the event in Genesis 6.¹⁵

The time of this proclamation is clearly indicated in the relative clause with which verse 19 opens: “in which.” Although not overtly temporal in force, its antecedent in verse 18b (“made alive in the spirit”) points to a time subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. What is important to remember is that nothing in this passage suggests that the time of this proclamation was between Christ’s death and resurrection.

Did Christ “preach” the gospel or “proclaim” judgment to the spirits in prison? In favor of the former is the normal use of “herald” (kēryssō) in the NT (but cf. Luke 12:3; Rom. 2:21; Rev. 5:2 for exceptions; possibly also Luke 4:19 and 8:39). Elsewhere in 1 Peter the gospel is made known with the verb euangelizō (1:12, 25; 4:6), while kēryssō appears only this one time in the letter. In support of kēryssō denoting a proclamation of judgment is the use of “herald” in the LXX, where the verb often describes the bringing of bad news as well as good. It is also likely that what Christ “proclaimed” was his definitive triumph over and subjugation of “[fallen] angels, authorities, and powers” (v. 22). All were “subjected to him” by virtue of his death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation (cf. Eph. 1:20–22; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14).

One must also ask what relevance there would be for his readers in the first century in a proclamation of the “gospel” to humans living in the time of Noah. On the other hand, as France has noted, the triumphant declaration to the evil demonic spirits was of immediate practical help to those who were suffering persecution:

They might be called to endure the worst that anti-Christian prejudice could inflict. But even then they could be assured that their pagan opponents, and, more important, the spiritual powers of evil that stood behind them and directed them, were not outside Christ’s control: they were already defeated, awaiting final punishment. Christ had openly triumphed over them. Here is real comfort and strength for a persecuted church which took very seriously the reality and power of spiritual forces.¹⁶

3:20 Peter’s reference to the “spirits” or demons who disobeyed just before the great flood, as described in Genesis 6, provides the link to his mention of Noah and the building of the ark. Peter sees in Noah’s experience and that of the other seven people with him a pattern or type or prefiguring or foreshadowing of the experience of Christians in his day (and today as well):

• The fewness of the people saved in the ark/the minority to whom Peter is writing
• Noah and his family persecuted and slandered/Peter’s audience persecuted and slandered
• God setting apart Noah and his family in the ark/God setting apart the Christians of the first century and today through baptism

The fallen angels were (and are) in prison “because they formerly did not obey,” that is to say, “when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah.” The period during which God waited patiently falls between the rebellion of the “sons of God” (fallen angels) as described in Genesis 6:1–4 and the flood of Noah (Gen. 7:11), which most believe (based on Gen. 6:3) to have been 120 years, the time during which Noah was building the ark.

Peter’s first-century readers were undoubtedly aware of their small numbers and could easily have been overwhelmed as they compared themselves with the pagan majority around them. Thus they are here reminded that only a “few” (eight persons) were preserved from the judgment of the flood.

The ESV translates the preposition dia (followed by the genitive “water”) as local, hence “through water.” This is certainly possible, while others argue for an instrumental sense of dia, “by means of water.” France is probably correct in pointing out that “the instrumental sense is much easier when one considers the typological application: the Christian is more easily viewed as saved ‘by means of’ the water of baptism than by passing through it, though the latter is also possible. Probably Peter is deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of the word dia to assist his passage from the Old Testament story to its typological application.”¹⁷

3:21–22 The grammar in the opening of verse 21 is difficult. To simplify, we should probably understand it in this way: “which (water) now also saves you, (who) are the antitype (of Noah and his family)—(that is) baptism.” In other words, the experience of Noah and his family in the flood is the type of which Peter’s audience and their baptism is the antitype (antitypon). France is especially helpful here:

The essential principle of New Testament typology is that God works according to a regular pattern, so that what he has done in the past, as recorded in the Old Testament, can be expected to find its counterpart in his work in the decisive period of the New Testament. Thus persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament, which in themselves need have no forward reference, are cited as ‘types’, models of corresponding persons, events and institutions in the life of Christ and the Christian church. On this principle, then, . . . Peter takes the salvation of Noah in the flood as a model of the Christian’s salvation through baptism.¹⁸

Peter immediately qualifies the sense in which baptism saves us: it is not by the physical action itself, in which dirt is removed from the body. In other words, the physical action of baptism has no intrinsic saving power. There is no mechanical relationship between being immersed in water and being forgiven. The only sense in which baptism saves, says Peter, is insofar as it provides the occasion for an “appeal to God for a good conscience.”

“Appeal” (ESV) is the translation of eperōtēma, which others render as “pledge.” If the former is accurate, the one being baptized “appeals” to God, on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ (or more literally, “through” or “by means of,” if dia is instrumental; cf. 1:3), to cleanse one’s conscience and forgive one’s sins.¹⁹ In good faith or conscience we appeal to God for vindication, that we might be considered part of his victory won by Christ in the resurrection (3:21b). It is only in this light that God uses the water of baptism to save us—as it links us to Christ and his victory and promises.

The focus of verse 22 (based on the language of Ps. 110:1; cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 10:12; 12:2) is the exaltation and ascension of the risen Savior, which signifies his complete subjugation of all fallen and rebellious demonic powers. “Angels, authorities, and powers” is standard NT language for the fallen demonic hosts (Rom. 8:38–39; 1 Cor. 15:24–27; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15). Their subjection to Christ is undoubtedly the content of his proclamation (1 Pet. 3:19).

4:1–2 Christians must regularly “arm” themselves (for similar imagery, cf. Rom. 13:12; 2 Cor. 6:7; 10:4; Eph. 6:11–17; 1 Thess. 5:8) not with physical weaponry but with a particular attitude or disposition or mind-set when it comes to suffering for their faith. The mental framework required is the same as that seen in Jesus (the conjunction oun, “therefore,” grounds this exhortation in what was earlier said of Christ’s suffering, not only in 1 Pet. 3:18 but also in 2:21–24). Thus, just as Jesus willingly embraced the suffering that a godly life so often provokes, we too must determine, without complaint or bitterness, to endure unjust treatment (especially slander, ridicule, rejection, social ostracism) for identifying with him. On this see especially John 15:18–21.

The reason why (causal hoti) believers should embrace this mind-set is that to do so is to “[cease] from sin” (1 Pet. 4:1). Although suffering does purge and refine our faith (1:6–7), Peter does not mean that suffering renders the Christian sinless. Schreiner is surely correct when he says,

Peter emphasized . . . that those who commit themselves to suffer, those who willingly endure scorn and mockery for their faith, show that they have triumphed over sin. They have broken with sin because they have ceased to participate in the lawless activities of unbelievers and endured the criticisms that have come from such a decision. The commitment to suffer reveals a passion for a new way of life, a life that is not yet perfect but remarkably different from the lives of unbelievers in the Greco-Roman world.¹

To make a break with sin is to resolve not to live the remainder of one’s earthly life for “human passions” (cf. 2:11) but for God’s will. When one suffers for what is right, it is an indication that one has renounced sinful human desires and embraced the will of God as a higher value.

4:3 Here Peter defines more precisely what “human passions” (v. 2) entail. The six terms listed here are all datives of manner expressing the way in which “Gentiles” (i.e., unbelievers, pagans) choose to live.² “Living in sensuality,” or without regard for moral restraint, probably refers to sexual sin. “Passions” (as in v. 2) are cravings or lusts in general, including but not limited to sexual urges. “Drunkenness,” “drinking parties,” and “lawless idolatry” together describe what would occur during times of excessive feasting. The reference to “lawless idolatry” probably means rebellion against both God’s law and civil legislation. This suggests that sensual living is wrapped up in idolatry, in which it is difficult to engage in the former without falling into the latter.

Peter is adamant that “the time that is past suffices” for such behavior. The force of his language is simple: “Enough already!” Instead, believers are to arm themselves with this thought: any degree of past sinning is enough. No one could ever sin so little so as to say, “I need some more time to sin.”

4:4 As sojourners and exiles on the earth, we do not share the values of the world and thus do not fit into the social or moral fabric of the surrounding culture. We refuse to “join them” or, literally, “run with them,” which points to the urgent and energetic pursuit of any hedonistic excess. “Flood of debauchery” bears the sense of a “rapid outpouring of unrestrained indulgence” or “torrent of sinful behavior” (the obvious reference is to the sins of v. 3). The world’s response is one of both surprise and contempt. They “malign” (lit., “blaspheme”) the believer (although God may also be the object of their disdain). This probably entails some measure of social ostracism as well as verbal slander (cf. 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16; 4:14).

4:5–6 Here we see the eschatological reversal of the believer’s defense of the truth in 3:15. Now it is the unbeliever’s responsibility to provide an account for his behavior (for the same terminology in contexts of personal accountability, cf. Matt. 12:36 and Heb. 13:17). Thus, when a believer suffers for righteousness’ sake, he does not need to resort to sinful vengeance or insist on the last word. God stands ready to settle all accounts, and he will do so far better than we.

Does “the gospel was preached even to those who are dead” (1 Pet. 4:6) mean that the gospel was preached to people who had physically died, giving them a second chance, after death, to believe and be saved? Those who argue for this interpretation suggest that verse 6 is answering a question raised by verse 5: how can God judge those who have never heard the gospel? The answer, they argue, is that God can judge all because all have in fact heard, if not in this life then certainly in the next.

This interpretation is related to a particular understanding of 3:19–22, in which some contend that the “spirits” in prison are human beings who have died, and that Christ went to them between the time of his death and his resurrection to preach the gospel, giving them yet another opportunity to be saved. But as we saw, the “spirits” mentioned there are fallen angelic beings, that is to say, demons, and the proclamation to them is one of judgment, not salvation. Furthermore, in 4:6 it is the “dead” (nekrois) who hear the gospel (euēngelisthē), not “spirits” (pneumasin) to whom a proclamation (ekēryxen) is made (as in 3:19).

But even if this theory were correct, what about those who have died after Christ’s resurrection without hearing the gospel? If this verse is telling us what was done by Christ during the time between his death and resurrection, when is he supposed to have preached to everyone who has died in the subsequent two thousand years without having heard the gospel? Furthermore, the NT nowhere envisions the possibility of the dead being offered yet another opportunity to be saved (cf. Luke 16:26 and esp. Heb. 9:27).

Peter’s aim has been to encourage Christians to persevere in the face of suffering, to endure when they are mistreated for their faith because they have a future reward of eternal life. But it would hardly motivate these believers to persevere in the face of hardship and trial if the easy road of sin and safety could be overcome after death. “It would make no sense at all,” notes Schreiner, “if he were to shift gears suddenly and promise a second chance to those who have rejected the gospel during this life. If Peter were promising a second chance, the Petrine readers could not be faulted for concluding that they could deny the faith now and then embrace it after death.”³

Peter is speaking, rather, of the gospel’s having been preached to Christians who are now dead. These people had heard and believed the gospel while they were alive but have subsequently died. Hence the “dead” of 1 Peter 4:6 are people who are physically dead at the time of Peter’s writing this letter. The preaching was that done by Christian ministers and missionaries while those here described as the “dead” were still alive. And, Christ was not the one who preached to them (as was the case in 3:19); rather, in 4:6, he is the content or focus of the message that was preached (“the gospel”). These people were not physically dead when they heard the gospel; they heard the gospel and believed and subsequently died physically.

The pagan scoffers of Peter’s day seemed to have good grounds for their unbelief and their ridicule of Christians. The promised second coming of Christ had not occurred. Meanwhile, Christians were dying physically just like everyone else. Unbelievers viewed the death of believers as proof that there was no advantage in becoming a Christian, because everyone ends up in the grave. Was it in vain, therefore, that the gospel had been preached to people who had since died? No. The gospel was preached to them in order that they might live in the presence of God even though to the eyes of unbelievers they appeared to have suffered the penalty of death and gone the way of all mankind.

We must also take note of the difficult purpose clause in verse 6b: “that (hina) though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.” “Flesh” and “spirit” should be understood as they were in 3:18, as a reference to physical earthly life and to resurrection life, respectively. Thus, with regard to their earthly existence, they were judged or evaluated “in the flesh,” i.e., by human standards, “the way people are” (lit., “according to men”; cf. Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 3:3; 9:8; 15:32; Gal. 1:11; 3:15), but with regard to the resurrection or heavenly realm they live in accordance with God’s judgment (lit., “according to God”; cf. 1 Pet. 5:2, “as God would have you”). As Mark Dubis puts it, “On the one hand, unbelievers have judged Christians in this mortal life as they have sinfully seen fit; on the other hand, God will also act as he sees fit, vindicating believers through resurrection by the Spirit in the life of the world to come.”⁴

4:7 The entire paragraph beginning with verse 7 and ending with the doxology in verse 11 is governed by the realization that “the end of all things is at hand” (v. 7a).¹ On three other occasions in the letter Peter directs the reader’s attention to the consummation, when Christ will return for a second time (cf. 1:7, 13; 4:13). Some believe the “end of all things” points to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70. Whereas the events of AD 70 were of great significance, marking the end of the Jewish age and the judgment of God against an apostate nation, it seems strange to speak of it as “the end of all things.” One also wonders how the destruction of Jerusalem could be a motivating factor to those living in northern Asia Minor. The recipients of the letter, after all, are largely Gentile believers living in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia (cf. 1:1–2).

The NT writers believed that with Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation to the right hand of the Father, the “last days” had dawned (cf. Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:1–2; 1 John 2:18). But Peter did not know if the “last of the last days” or the “end of the end times” would come in his lifetime. Christ’s death and resurrection mark the beginning of the end, although neither Peter nor we know when the end of the end will come.

The inferential conjunction “therefore” (oun) reminds us that the primary purpose of eschatological expectation is not only to deepen our confidence in God as the sovereign Lord of history but also to encourage and sustain us in practical righteousness (cf. Rom. 13:11–14; 1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Pet. 3:11–13; 1 John 3:2–3).

Five exhortations follow, two of which in verse 7 are aorist imperatives: “be self-controlled” and “[be] sober-minded.” These are virtually synonymous and should be taken as a doublet, seen in contrast to the excessive feasting and drinking prevalent among unbelievers in verse 3. Both mental alertness and vigilance are essential to effective and sustained intercession: they are “for the sake of your prayers” (v. 7b). Peter is thus calling for what might be called “eschatological clearheadedness.”²

4:8 Peter’s use of the present tense requires us to translate this third exhortation as “keep loving.” The mutual love that was already active and real must be sustained (cf. 1 Thess. 1:3). This is reinforced by the adjective translated “earnestly” (ektenē), which can also mean “constantly” (something to be perpetuated; the adverbial form has already appeared in relation to our loving one another; 1 Pet. 1:22). Love must never be half-hearted, weak, or self-serving. It must be concentrated, focused, and faithful.

An explicit reason (hoti; “since” or “because”) is given for the priority of love beyond that of the nearness of the end: “love covers a multitude of sins” (cf. Prov. 10:12; 1 Cor. 13:4–7; James 5:19–20). Peter is not suggesting that we sweep under the rug every bad thing that happens, or in the name of love let people run roughshod over us and others. His point is that when love flourishes, we are not easily offended but are willing to endure injustices. This is the love, notes Carson, “that breaks the downward spiral of wounded sensibilities, hard feelings, nurtured bitterness, dissension, and vendetta.”³ To “cover” sins is likely synonymous with forgiveness and the determination to shelter from exposure and condemnation those who have wronged us.

4:9 The fourth of a believer’s ethical responsibilities in view of the “end of all things” is to “show hospitality to one another without grumbling” (v. 9; cf. Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Heb. 13:2). Hospitality was especially important in the first century, when public lodging could not be afforded or was not available. The Christian mission depended on believers’ providing lodging, food, and finances for those traveling with the gospel (Matt. 10:11, 40; Acts 16:15; 3 John 7–11).

Peter’s qualifying phrase “without grumbling” (v. 9b) is clearly called for, as hospitality is demanding. People can take advantage of a host, and we can easily begrudge our charity toward others. “Grumbling” is often provoked by the demands placed on one’s time and resources or perhaps by the ingratitude of a guest. The grumbling might also be against God for having so ordered or arranged our lives that we are exhausted and running short of money because of the needs of those we welcome into our homes.

4:10–11 The final exhortation, still dependent on the impending “end of all things,” is to “serve one another.”⁴ The opening subordinate clause, “as each has received a gift [charisma],” reminds us that every Christian has at least one spiritual gift, although no Christian possesses them all. The purpose of every spiritual gift is to serve or build up others in the body (as Paul also declares in 1 Cor. 12:7–10). Such gifts are a trust (we are to be “good stewards” of them) and thus less a privilege than a responsibility before God.

The word “varied” (poikilēs), qualifying the “grace”⁵ of God’s gifts, reminds us that although there is only one giver (God), there are a variety of gifts (cf. Rom. 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:7–10, 27–31; Eph. 4:11–12). Here the gifts are divided by Peter into two kinds: speaking and serving. Speaking gifts include teaching, prophecy, apostleship, tongues, interpretation of tongues, exhortation, words of knowledge, words of wisdom; serving gifts include giving, leading, administration, mercy, helping, healing, and miracles.

All spiritual gifts, regardless of whether they are speaking or serving, and regardless of whether they are still granted to Christ’s church, are empowered by God’s strength, not our own (cf. 1 Cor. 12:6). The verb “supplies” is found in only one other place in the NT (2 Cor. 9:10), where it likewise points to God’s bountiful provision. Everything the Christian man or woman does, if it is to be virtuous and glorifying to God, must be done in light of the fact that God is the one who supplies the strength for everything.

Indeed, God’s glory is the goal of “everything,” not just of the exercise of spiritual gifts but of all life and ministry (cf. 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:16). That such glory and praise comes to God “through Jesus Christ” reminds us that whatever gifts we might exercise, whatever grace we might experience, and whatever praise we offer to God is grounded upon and mediated through the life, death, and resurrection of the Son.

It is uncertain whether the antecedent of the relative pronoun “him” (v. 11b) is Jesus Christ or God the Father. The proximity of the former is significant. However, God is the focus of verse 11 (being named three times) and is the one who is “glorified” in the preceding clause. It is to him, then, that glory belongs. This doxology is not a wish or a command but a statement of fact: hence the translation of the indicative estin (third person singular of eimi, to be) as “to him belong” glory and dominion forever and ever. More literally we might render this, “To him is the glory and the strength unto the ages of the ages, amen.”⁶