- 1 Peter
- <
- 2
- >

2
To grow you must eat
1 So then, laying aside all malignity* This refers to the deliberate effort to harm others. If they must ‘lay aside’ such attitudes and activities, the implication is that they have not yet, or at least not sufficiently—actually, if they are still involved in such activities they have quite a ways to go.—even all deceit and play-actings and envies, yes all malicious speaking— 2 crave the pure spiritual ‘milk’,† Since Peter has just referred overtly to God's Word, it is generally assumed that the “milk” here is a metaphor for that Word. Peter is not saying that they are babies, just that they should imitate the craving. like newborn babies do, so that by it you may grow into salvation,‡ Until quite recently, based upon von Soden's apparent ascribing of some 80% attestation to the shorter reading (80% of the extant Greek manuscripts), I was rather critical of the longer form; I argued that Peter was writing to the “elect” [1:2], to the “redeemed” [1:18], to the “born again” [1:23], to a “holy priesthood” [2:5], to “believers” [2:7], to “slaves of God” [2:16]—they did indeed need to grow, but not “into salvation”. However, the evidence as presented by ECM [Editio Critica Maior] looks quite different—some 65% for the longer reading, including the best line of transmission, and joined by all three ancient versions, a not insignificant witness. Time and again Peter presents both divine sovereignty and human responsibility; God guarantees His part, we must do our part. According to 1:5 above the full manifestation [at least] of our salvation is still future. Here in 2:2 the immediately following “if indeed” would appear to allow for some uncertainty as to their spiritual condition; Peter is emphasizing their responsibility. 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is benevolent. 4 Coming to Him, a living stone—rejected indeed by men but chosen by God, precious— 5 you also, as living stones, are being built§ Spiritual growth is a process, much like physical growth. into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.* Much of the preaching nowadays focuses on what we are supposed to get, rather than what we are supposed to do. We need to talk more about what God is supposed to get—‘spiritual sacrifices’. Don't sacrifices cost?
The Chief Cornerstone
6 That is why the Scripture contains:
“Attention, I am laying in Zion a chief cornerstone,
chosen, precious,
and the one who rests his trust upon Him
will absolutely not be humiliated.”† The quote is from Isaiah 28:16. I suppose that the not being humiliated refers to the final Accounting.
7 So then, this recompense is for you who believe, but to those who disobey,‡ Instead of “disobey”, perhaps 8% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘disbelieve’ (as in NIV, NASB, TEV, etc.). “the stone that the builders rejected is just the one that became the chief cornerstone,”§ The quote is from Psalm 118:22. 8 also “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;* The quote is from Isaiah 8:14. One is reminded of the Sovereign's words in Matthew 21:44. “Whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but upon whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” being disobedient to the Word, they stumble, to which, indeed, they were appointed.† Were they ‘appointed’ to stumble, a direct and necessary consequence of being disobedient to the Word, or were they ‘appointed’ to be disobedient? If the latter, this would become one of a very few passages that overtly point to ‘double predestination’ or preterition (that the lost are predestined to be lost). The answer hinges on the grammar, the antecedent of the pronoun ‘which’—is it the finite verb ‘stumble’ or the participle ‘disobey’? Being higher in rank, the finite form presumably takes precedence. Also, since there are hundreds of passages that clearly teach human responsibility, I take the former option to be the preferred interpretation.
A royal priesthood
9 But you are a chosen family, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a private-property people, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who formerly were not a people but now are God's people, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.‡ Peter alludes to a number of OT passages, including Hosea 2:23. Presumably it is in this world, this life, that we are to proclaim God's excellencies—which raises the question: how much time do we spend doing that?
Your practice should be consistent with your standing
11 Dear ones, I urge you to abstain from the lusts of the flesh, that war against the soul,§ When we indulge the flesh our soul is adversely affected; to ‘indulge’ is more than normal, necessary use. 12 keeping your way of life among the nations praiseworthy (you being foreigners and sojourners), so that wherein they speak against you as evildoers, in spite of the praiseworthy deeds they have observed,* The critics have already observed the good deeds—they know their criticism is false. they may glorify God in the day of visitation.† What “day of visitation” might this be? Is it a personal visitation wherein God touches a critic, wakes him up and he glorifies God; or is it the Day of judgment where ‘every knee will bow and every tongue confess’, only it will be too late to do them any good? In either event, we are to live in such a way that we do not furnish any pretext to those who are looking for ways to ‘justify’ their unbelief.
Respect civil authority
13 Therefore subordinate yourselves to every human institution because of the Lord, whether to a king, as being in authority, 14 or to governors, as being sent by him, both for punishment of evildoers and for praise of good-doers.‡ But what happens if the ‘government’ does just the opposite, persecutes those who fear God and protects the corrupt? We have spiritual ‘weapons’ (authority) that we should learn how to use, but the time may come when we must say with Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), and take the consequences. 15 Because such is the will of God, to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good: 16 as free (not using the freedom as a cover for evil), yet as slaves of God. 17 Respect everyone;§ Since every human being carries the ‘image of God’, that image should be respected (even when it is scarcely recognizable). love the brotherhood; fear God; honor the king.
A word for servants
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unscrupulous.* Slavery was a normal aspect of the culture at that time. Note that belonging to Christ did not automatically change one's social situation; and it did not change a bad boss. However, we can use our spiritual authority to ‘improve’ a bad boss. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God someone endures grief, suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if upon sinning and being beaten you endure patiently? But if upon doing good and suffering you endure patiently, this is commendable before God.
Christ gave the example
21 Now you have been called to this, really, because Christ also suffered in our behalf, leaving you† 15% of the Greek manuscripts have “our” and ‘us’ (1st person pl., as in TR, AV and NKJV) while a different 15% have ‘your’ and “you” (2nd person pl., as in the eclectic text currently in vogue and most modern versions)—I take it that the 85% readings are correct (“our” and “you”); in addressing his readers Peter uses the expected 2nd person, but referring to the scope of the benefits of Christ's suffering he properly uses the inclusive 1st person. an example that you should follow in His footsteps: 22 who did not commit sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth; 23 who being reviled did not revile in return, suffering did not threaten but committed it to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body‡ This refers to the human body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross. Without a body there is no blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. on the tree, so that we, having died to those sins,§ Since the Lord died for our sins, we should die to them (separate ourselves from them). might live for the* The Text has the definite article; the point being, I suppose, that there is only one true righteousness, God's. righteousness; by whose wound† “Wound” is singular in the Text; of course the familiar ‘stripes’ sounds better, but do you really suppose that the marks left by the individual blows produce our healing? It was THE WOUND, when the Father placed on the Son the sins of the world (including yours and mine). In verses 22-25 Peter obviously has Isaiah 53:4-12 in mind, though he creates his own mosaic. you were healed. 25 Yes, you were like straying sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of our‡ The evidence is split between “our” and ‘your’; both make good sense, but I take it that the best line of transmission reads “our”, inclusive. souls.

- 1 Peter
- <
- 2
- >

*2:1 This refers to the deliberate effort to harm others. If they must ‘lay aside’ such attitudes and activities, the implication is that they have not yet, or at least not sufficiently—actually, if they are still involved in such activities they have quite a ways to go.

†2:2 Since Peter has just referred overtly to God's Word, it is generally assumed that the “milk” here is a metaphor for that Word. Peter is not saying that they are babies, just that they should imitate the craving.

‡2:2 Until quite recently, based upon von Soden's apparent ascribing of some 80% attestation to the shorter reading (80% of the extant Greek manuscripts), I was rather critical of the longer form; I argued that Peter was writing to the “elect” [1:2], to the “redeemed” [1:18], to the “born again” [1:23], to a “holy priesthood” [2:5], to “believers” [2:7], to “slaves of God” [2:16]—they did indeed need to grow, but not “into salvation”. However, the evidence as presented by ECM [Editio Critica Maior] looks quite different—some 65% for the longer reading, including the best line of transmission, and joined by all three ancient versions, a not insignificant witness. Time and again Peter presents both divine sovereignty and human responsibility; God guarantees His part, we must do our part. According to 1:5 above the full manifestation [at least] of our salvation is still future. Here in 2:2 the immediately following “if indeed” would appear to allow for some uncertainty as to their spiritual condition; Peter is emphasizing their responsibility.

§2:5 Spiritual growth is a process, much like physical growth.

*2:5 Much of the preaching nowadays focuses on what we are supposed to get, rather than what we are supposed to do. We need to talk more about what God is supposed to get—‘spiritual sacrifices’. Don't sacrifices cost?

†2:6 The quote is from Isaiah 28:16. I suppose that the not being humiliated refers to the final Accounting.

‡2:7 Instead of “disobey”, perhaps 8% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘disbelieve’ (as in NIV, NASB, TEV, etc.).

§2:7 The quote is from Psalm 118:22.

*2:8 The quote is from Isaiah 8:14. One is reminded of the Sovereign's words in Matthew 21:44. “Whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but upon whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

†2:8 Were they ‘appointed’ to stumble, a direct and necessary consequence of being disobedient to the Word, or were they ‘appointed’ to be disobedient? If the latter, this would become one of a very few passages that overtly point to ‘double predestination’ or preterition (that the lost are predestined to be lost). The answer hinges on the grammar, the antecedent of the pronoun ‘which’—is it the finite verb ‘stumble’ or the participle ‘disobey’? Being higher in rank, the finite form presumably takes precedence. Also, since there are hundreds of passages that clearly teach human responsibility, I take the former option to be the preferred interpretation.

‡2:10 Peter alludes to a number of OT passages, including Hosea 2:23. Presumably it is in this world, this life, that we are to proclaim God's excellencies—which raises the question: how much time do we spend doing that?

§2:11 When we indulge the flesh our soul is adversely affected; to ‘indulge’ is more than normal, necessary use.

*2:12 The critics have already observed the good deeds—they know their criticism is false.

†2:12 What “day of visitation” might this be? Is it a personal visitation wherein God touches a critic, wakes him up and he glorifies God; or is it the Day of judgment where ‘every knee will bow and every tongue confess’, only it will be too late to do them any good? In either event, we are to live in such a way that we do not furnish any pretext to those who are looking for ways to ‘justify’ their unbelief.

‡2:14 But what happens if the ‘government’ does just the opposite, persecutes those who fear God and protects the corrupt? We have spiritual ‘weapons’ (authority) that we should learn how to use, but the time may come when we must say with Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), and take the consequences.

§2:17 Since every human being carries the ‘image of God’, that image should be respected (even when it is scarcely recognizable).

*2:18 Slavery was a normal aspect of the culture at that time. Note that belonging to Christ did not automatically change one's social situation; and it did not change a bad boss. However, we can use our spiritual authority to ‘improve’ a bad boss.

†2:21 15% of the Greek manuscripts have “our” and ‘us’ (1st person pl., as in TR, AV and NKJV) while a different 15% have ‘your’ and “you” (2nd person pl., as in the eclectic text currently in vogue and most modern versions)—I take it that the 85% readings are correct (“our” and “you”); in addressing his readers Peter uses the expected 2nd person, but referring to the scope of the benefits of Christ's suffering he properly uses the inclusive 1st person.

‡2:24 This refers to the human body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross. Without a body there is no blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

§2:24 Since the Lord died for our sins, we should die to them (separate ourselves from them).

*2:24 The Text has the definite article; the point being, I suppose, that there is only one true righteousness, God's.

†2:24 “Wound” is singular in the Text; of course the familiar ‘stripes’ sounds better, but do you really suppose that the marks left by the individual blows produce our healing? It was THE WOUND, when the Father placed on the Son the sins of the world (including yours and mine). In verses 22-25 Peter obviously has Isaiah 53:4-12 in mind, though he creates his own mosaic.

‡2:25 The evidence is split between “our” and ‘your’; both make good sense, but I take it that the best line of transmission reads “our”, inclusive.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD