The expression Let us give thanks (literally “blessed be”) was a characteristic feature of Jewish prayers. This was usually followed by the name of God, to whom the thanksgiving is addressed, and the reasons for the thanksgiving. While the Jewish formula has been followed, it has been enriched by a new feature, namely, that the God to whom thanksgiving is addressed is now known as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. To put it another way, God has made himself known primarily through Jesus Christ, and the Christian cannot think of God apart from his Son. Here, God’s relationship to Jesus Christ is designated by the terms God and Father: God is both the God of Jesus Christ, and also the Father of Jesus Christ. As the one who was equal with God but who became a human being, Jesus could acknowledge God as his God; as the one who lived his life in closest harmony and relationship with God, Jesus could also address God as his Father. Jesus’ relationship to the Christian, on the other hand, is designated by the term Lord. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, or LXX), the word “Lord” (Greek kurios) was used to translate the divine name (Yahweh). The fact that Christians can now address Jesus with the title Lord indicates that they can give to Jesus the same loyalty which they would normally give to God himself. The pronoun our underscores the close relationship between the Christian and his Lord; it should be understood here in the inclusive sense, to include Peter and all his readers.

The so-called hortatory construction in Let us give thanks must not be expressed as a type of “request for permission,” which might be suggested in a literal understanding of Let. In a number of languages an equivalent of Let us give thanks is “we should give thanks” or “we must thank.”

In some languages the coordinate construction God and Father produces certain difficulties, since it may suggest two different persons rather than one. Therefore, one must sometimes use the expression “God who is the Father.”

It seems so natural in English to speak of our Lord, but in a number of languages such a possessive relationship is not possible. The equivalent phrase may be “the Lord whom we serve” or “the one who rules us.”

In some languages Lord in combination with Jesus Christ is no more than a dignified title. If one must use merely a title, it is important that it reflect usage which is applicable to deity; it should not be merely equivalent to “sir.”

In this type of context the name Jesus Christ should be understood as a proper name and not as a reference to Messiahship, such as some persons have employed in rendering Jesus Christ as “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the promised Savior.”

What follows gives the reason for giving thanks to God. But 1 Peter introduces all this by the expression Because of his great mercy. Mercy here is not simply “pity,” but “compassion”, love which is both undeserved by the recipient and which is given expecting nothing in return. In other words, what God does for people is not due to the fact that they deserve to be loved or that they can repay God for his love; it is due to God’s kindness, his care, his compassionate love.

Because of his great mercy may be rendered as a clause of cause, for example, “because God was so good to us” or “because he was so merciful to us.” In this type of context a term for “good to” should suggest kindness.

Peter asserts that because of God’s great compassionate love, he gave us new life (literally “gave us new birth”). The expression itself was not unknown during the first century. It was used to describe any decisive change or stage in nature and in history; it is even possible that the term was common among the many mystery religions during the first century which also talked about new life, or about regeneration. The metaphor of new birth was naturally adopted by the Christians to describe their new life in union with Christ; it described a decisive change, a radical transformation which can only come through God’s action. Paul’s concept of “new creation” (Gal 6.15) and John’s concept of “being born again” (John 3.3) are but different ways of expressing the same idea: a new life which arises out of a relationship with the giver of life.

It may be possible to preserve the figure of speech in “gave us new birth” by rendering “caused us to be born anew” or “… again,” but since the “new birth” is really a way of speaking about “new life,” many translators find it more meaningful to translate “he caused us to live in a new way.” It is rare that one can translate literally “gave us new life,” since in so many languages one cannot “give life” but can only “cause people to live.” Sometimes the concept of “giving” may be expressed as “he caused us to live anew as a gift from him.”

What is the relation of this new life to what follows, namely, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the living hope, and the “inheritance” in verse 4? The Greek text itself is ambiguous; literally, it reads, “Who, according to his great mercy, has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (compare Revised Standard Version). Due to the ambiguity of the Greek text, various interpretations are possible, which are reflected in many modern translations. These interpretations may be summarized as follows:
1. Good News Translation:
a. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ground for the new life which God gives to us.
b. The ground of living hope is either new life or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or both. (This in the Good News Translation is ambiguous).
c. Looking forward to possessing the inheritance (rich blessings) is a result of the possession of a living hope.
2. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch:
“He (God) has raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and has therefore given us a new beginning. Now we are full of hope; because he is holding a property for us in readiness in heaven…”
a. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ground for the new beginning (as in Good News Translation).
b. Living hope arises out of this new beginning.
c. The “inheritance” is the reason for hope.
3. Phillips:
“we men have been born again into a life full of hope, through Christ’s rising again from the dead! You can now hope for a perfect inheritance beyond the reach of change and decay….”
a. The resurrection of Christ is the ground for the new life.
b. Hope is the content of the new life.
c. The goal of this hope is the perfect inheritance.
4. Jerusalem Bible:
“Who … has given us a new birth as his sons, by raising Jesus Christ from the dead, so that we may have a sure hope and the promise of an inheritance….”
a. New birth is a result of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
b. A sure hope and the promise of an inheritance are results of the new birth.
5. New American Bible:
“he … gave us new birth; a birth unto hope which draws its life from the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; a birth to an imperishable inheritance, … a birth to a salvation.”
a. The new birth is the result of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ground for the new birth.)
b. The new birth is characterized by hope, by possession of the “inheritance,” and by “salvation.”
6. Barclay:
“Who … made our lives begin all over again, and who through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead gave us a living hope, and the certainty that one day we will enter into that … life which he promised to you….”
a. New life is a result of God’s mercy.
b. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ground for both living hope and the certainty of possessing the “inheritance.”

Whatever interpretation we want to reflect in our translation, we have to make sure that the relationships between the various parts of these verses are made clear.

The phrase living hope is a way of describing hope which is characterized by firmness, by certainty, by an expectancy which is surely grounded in God himself and in his promises, a hope which is able to survive the various trials which Christians, especially Peter’s readers, experience. Other ways of expressing the same idea are “full of hope” (Phillips); “sure hope” (Jerusalem Bible).

As can be readily noted from the preceding series of alternative interpretations, the means of expressing the relationships between the resurrection, the living hope, and the inheritance is very great indeed. If one follows Good News Translation rendering, one may render he gave us new life by raising Jesus Christ from death as “he caused us to have new life by causing Jesus Christ to rise from death” or “… causing Jesus Christ to live again.” The relationship of means expressed by by may require some restructuring in certain languages, for example, “he caused Jesus Christ to live again and this caused us to have new life.” It is then possible to render the last clause of verse 3, namely, This fills us with a living hope, as “what God did fills us with living hope.” In this way “what God did” would refer both to the raising of Christ Jesus from death and the new life which one has as a result of the resurrection. It would be difficult to insist that only one of these events is the cause of a living hope.

It is also clear that the living hope or “sure hope” not only has its basis in what God has done, but has its goal in “the inheritance.” The hope may then be related to the “inheritance” by translating “and as a result of this, we look forward to possessing the inheritance” or “the sure hope that we will possess the inheritance.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The First Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .