Peter now addresses the husbands, and states how they should deal with their wives. For In the same way, see 3.1. If the phrase In the same way refers specifically to the manner in which wives are to submit themselves to their husbands, it can be misunderstood in the context of verse 7, for this verse does not say that husbands should submit themselves to their wives. It may therefore be important to render In the same way as “similarly” or “in a similar way” or “in a way that is like this.”

Live with your wives is literally “living together,” with the participle having an imperative force (as in 3.1), and with wives as the implicit object. “Living together” may be understood specifically as referring to the sexual relation between the husband and the wife, but generally in a wider sense, covering their total relationship (compare New English Bible “you husbands must conduct your married life”). Live with your wives may be rendered as “live together with your wives” or “behave toward your wives.” With the proper understanding is literally “in the knowledge.” “Knowledge” may be understood in a general sense as the proper thing to do, or specifically as Christian knowledge, that is, proper understanding which is based on the gospel. The content of this understanding is twofold: that the women are the weaker sex and secondly, that they too, like their husbands, will receive … God’s gift of life. It is not shown in what way the wife is the weaker sex, whether physically, intellectually, or spiritually, but perhaps the physical and the social are intended here, that is, women were considered physically inferior to men, and during that time at least, they were of a much lower social status than men.

It may be difficult to indicate clearly the relationship between the expressions must live with your wives and with the proper understanding that they are the weaker sex. This may be expressed in some instances as “must live with your wives in such a way as to show that you realize that they are the weaker sex” or “you husbands must understand that your wives are the weaker sex and this must determine how you live with them.” The word for sex here (Greek skeuos) is literally “vessel,” or a jar, but in the New Testament it is sometimes used of people (Acts 9.15; 2 Tim 2.21), and of women in particular (1 Thes 4.4). Here perhaps this latter sense is what is intended, for to describe the women as the weaker skeuos is to imply that men are the stronger skeuos. To understand it as referring to women in this verse may give the idea that women are simply vessels or tools in the hands of men, an idea which is contrary to the spirit of the whole verse.

It may be very difficult to find a satisfactory term for sex, since any relatively close expression may suggest sexual relations rather than sex as a characteristic that contrasts women with men. Therefore, it may be better to translate they are the weaker sex as “they are weaker than men are.” In a number of instances, however, it may be better to use a negative expression such as “they are not as strong as men are,” and in the choice of a term meaning “strong” it is important to try to employ a term which will mean more than mere physical strength, for obviously social status would be a significant factor in this type of context.

Respect (literally “honor”) is usually bestowed on the strong and the powerful, but here the husbands are urged to respect their wives, for the very reason that they are weaker. But a further reason is given why the women are worthy of respect: they will also share, together with the husband, God’s gift of life (literally “joint heirs of the grace of life”). Treat them with respect may be rendered simply as “respect them” or “show them respect.”

The word “heir” is usually used of someone who inherits something after the death of his parents, and a literal translation will make this meaning primary. But here and in many parts of the New Testament, “heir” is used in an extended sense as describing someone who receives something, hence Good News Translation they will receive, with God as the implicit giver. What they will receive is “the grace of life,” with “grace” here used in the sense of “free gift.” What Peter is saying then is that the wives, together with the husbands, will receive life from God, which is his free gift to them. Life is eternal life (1.3), or more specifically the final salvation mentioned in 1.5.

Some persons have interpreted the Greek expression rendered here as they also will receive, together with you, God’s gift of life as being specifically a reference to the joint gift of procreation, that is to say, that the man and wife together are thus granted the privilege of producing offspring. Such an interpretation, however, does not seem to be justified in view of the total context, and therefore one can perhaps best translate because they also will receive, together with you, God’s gift of life as “because you and they together will receive God’s gift of life” or “… will receive life as a gift from God” or “… because God will cause you and them together to have life; this is a gift from God.”

Do this refers to the husbands’ treatment of their wives. Do this may be rendered explicitly as “live with your wives in this manner” or “treat your wives in this way.”

In a number of languages one cannot be ambiguous with respect to the imperative statement in the final sentence of verse 7. Under such circumstances one must either say “you husbands must do this” or “you people must do this,” in which case, of course, both husbands and wives are included.

The purpose of such treatment is so that nothing will interfere with your prayers. The second person plural pronoun here may refer to husbands alone, or to both husbands and wives. Taking the former sense, Peter could mean that the husbands cannot offer proper prayers to God if they do not have good relationships with their wives. Taking this latter sense, the meaning could be that the husband and the wife cannot pray properly either separately or together, because of their broken relationship. Implicit in the statement is the idea that one’s relationship to God is somehow conditioned by or dependent on one’s relationship to others.

So that nothing will interfere with your prayers may be difficult to express in some languages, particularly since there is no qualification for the negation nothing. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of what could possibly interfere with prayers. In some languages it may therefore be useful to render so that nothing will interfere with your prayers as “so that you may be able to pray properly” or “so that you will be able to pray as you should” or “so that you will not be prevented from praying as you should.”

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 .

Peter now picks up the theme of judgment which he has already introduced earlier. Once again, he affirms the imminence of this judgment: it is about to begin. The judge is not explicitly mentioned; it could either be Christ or God, but probably the latter (compare Phillips, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “God’s judgment”). This judgment will begin with God’s own people (literally “the household of God” or “the temple of God”; compare 2.5). The background of the idea may have been Malachi 3.1-5, made famous by an anthem in Handel’s Messiah, where God suddenly comes into his temple and starts purifying the sons of Levi. The idea that God’s judgment starts with his own people is found elsewhere in the Bible (Jer 25.29; Ezek 9.6; Isa 10.12). The connection of this judgment with the sufferings of the Christians of Asia Minor is not made explicit; it can only be suggested that perhaps in Peter’s mind, the trials and persecutions being experienced by the Christians are already part of the impending judgment, perhaps as part of the messianic woes which are expected to occur before the second coming of Christ (compare 4.13; Mark 13.8-13).

It may be extremely difficult to translate more or less literally the clause The time has come for judgment to begin. In the first place a number of languages do not possess a more or less abstract term for time in the sense of “an occasion,” and they would not combine a noun meaning “judgment” and a verb meaning “begin.” However, the entire clause can be restructured as “God will soon begin to judge people.”

The passive expression God’s own people are the first to be judged may be restructured as “and God will first judge his own people” or “… those who belong to him” or “… those who worship him.”

The last part of the verse is a rhetorical question; the basic idea is that if God’s people do not escape judgment, then how much more terrible it will be for non-believers! Those who do not believe is literally “those who do not obey,” for which see notes on 2.7, 8; 3.1, 20. The Good News from God is literally “the gospel of God” (compare Revised Standard Version), and this may mean either “the Good News about God” or “the Good News from God himself”; many translations opt for this second alternative (for example, Barclay “the good news that God has sent”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “God’s good news”; Knox “God’s message”).

In a number of languages it is almost impossible to employ the kind of rhetorical question which exists in the second part of verse 17, especially one with a conditional clause such as If it starts with us. Obviously this question is not asked for the sake of information; it is simply designed to emphasize how much more difficult it will be for those who do not believe the Good News that comes from God. Accordingly, one may restructure the second sentence of verse 17 as “if God begins his judgment with us, then it will certainly be far more difficult for those who do not believe the Good News that comes from God.” In this way the contrast may be made explicit, and the rhetorical question may be turned into an emphatic statement.

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 .

As in other places, the Good News Translation has marked this as a quotation from Scripture by introducing it with And another scripture says (literally “and”). For suggested restructurings, see note on 2.3.

The stone that will make people stumble is literally “a stone which causes stumbling.” The Good News Translation‘s rendering makes the stone the actor which makes people stumble. Some other translations make people the main actor: they stumble because they trip over the stone (for example, Jerusalem Bible “A stone to stumble over…”; Moffatt “A stone over which men stumble”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “Men knock themselves against it”). The rock that will make them fall (literally “a rock of stumbling”) is treated in the same way, for example, Knox “a boulder they stumble against.” These two expressions are parallel and convey the same meaning.

In a number of languages it is rather misleading to introduce the stone or the rock as the agent of the stumbling or falling. It may therefore be preferable to indicate that “this is the stone against which people will stumble and the rock over which they will fall.” In some instances stumble is more explicitly identified as “hitting one’s foot against and then falling.”

Technically, the term rendered stone refers to an object which is generally somewhat smaller than the term rendered rock. It is also frequently used of stone which has been shaped in order to be used in building, while the term rendered rock normally refers to bedrock or field stone. However, in this particular context the parallelism of the two clauses indicates clearly that no important distinction should be introduced, for in both instances the reference is to the Lord.

The cause of this stumbling is now mentioned: they did not believe in the word. They did not believe is literally “they disobeyed,” but unbelief and disobedience are very closely linked together, with the latter being an outward expression of the former. The word, as in 1.25, is the Word of God, or the gospel. They did not believe in the word may be rendered as “they did not believe in the message from God” or even “they did not put their trust in what God had said.”

Such was God’s will for them is literally “into which also they were destined.” “Into which” may refer either to stumbling or to disobedience, or perhaps to both. That God foreordains people to stumble is found elsewhere in the New Testament (for example, Rom 8.28-30; 1 Thes 5.9; Eph 1.12; Jude 4), although predestination as a doctrine is more positive than negative, referring primarily to the act of God foreordaining people to salvation rather than to reprobation. The question of why some people believe in Christ, and others do not, even when the message is preached to them, is so deep and so great that sometimes the doctrine of predestination seems to be the only logical answer.

It is possible to soften the statement here by interpreting “stumbling” not as predestined by God, but a logical result to people’s disobedience, for example, Phillips “they stumble at the word of God for in their hearts they are unwilling to obey it—which makes stumbling a foregone conclusion.” However attractive this is, it falls short of the intent of the verse, for it removes the difficult mystery that stumbling and disobedience play in the purpose and will of God, in much the same way that believing does.

Such was God’s will for them may be rendered as “this was what God had planned for them” or “what they did was in accordance with what God had planned.”

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 .

For connects the verse with the preceding thought and gives a reason why it is better to suffer for doing good. There may be some difficulties, however, in translating For, especially in languages in which the causal connection would be with the immediately preceding clause. Obviously one does not wish to connect the first clause of verse 18 with the expression than for doing evil, nor would it be appropriate to connect the first clause of verse 18 with a final conditional clause introduced by “if.” It may therefore be necessary to repeat part of verse 17 at the beginning of verse 18, for example, “it is better to suffer for doing what is good since Christ died for sins….”

There are some textual problems in the statement Christ died for sins once and for all. First of all, many manuscripts have “suffered” instead of died, and this is preferred in some translations (for example, Phillips). This has the merit of connecting this verse more closely with the preceding verse. However, the word “died” must be preferred for two reasons. (1) The textual evidence favors it. (2) “Died” is actually the harder text, and the change from “died” to “suffered” may be explained as influenced by the preceding verse, or to remove the difficulty created by “also” (see Revised Standard Version “Christ also died…”). To say that Christ “also” died is to imply that Christians should also die, an idea which is not emphasized in the letter; moreover, the idea of the Christian “dying for sin” would be quite unacceptable.

Secondly, after for sins once and for all, some manuscripts add “for you” or “for us.” And finally, for sins, some manuscripts have “our sins” (New English Bible), while others have “your sins.” These variants are rejected by most translations, perhaps on the ground that they can be taken as natural expansions originating from copyists, and also because of the fact that as a general rule, the shorter text is usually preferred to the longer one.

For sins (literally “concerning sin” or “on behalf of sin”) is a common phrase used for the sin-offering in the Old Testament (Lev 5.7; 6.30; Ezek 43.21; compare Psa 39.8). But whereas the sin-offering has to be offered repeatedly, Christ’s death is once and for all. The phrase is also used in other parts of the New Testament (for example, Rom 6.10; Heb 7.27; 9.12, 26, 28; 10.10), and accents two closely related ideas, that Christ died only once (that is, death has no longer any power over him), and that his death is effective for all time (that is, it is no longer necessary to offer any sacrifices for sins; compare Knox). Both of these are combined in the Good News Translation (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “once—and that is valid for all times”).

A strictly literal translation of Christ died for sins can lead to an entirely wrong understanding, for it might mean “Christ died because of his own sins” or “Christ died because he had sinned.” Therefore, it may be necessary in a number of languages to translate “Christ died because of the sins of others” or “… for the sake of the sins of others.”

In a number of languages a clear distinction is made between a term for sins which indicates the act of sinning in contrast with a term for sins which refers to the resulting guilt. In this type of context, it is of course Christ’s death on behalf of the guilt which people bore, for that is what is removed by Christ’s atoning death.

It may be necessary to expand somewhat the phrase once and for all, for example, “one time and it is not necessary for him to die again” or “just once and that was all that is necessary” or “one time and nothing more is required.”

A good man on behalf of sinners (literally “the just for the unjust”) is a reminder to Christians that they, too, should suffer for the sake of sinners (that is, the heathen around them; compare 2.12). The phrase a good man accents Christ’s sinlessness (compare 2.22-23) and his innocence of the charges brought against him which led to his death, a fact which the Gospel writers emphasize (compare Luke 23.14, 15, 47); this latter aspect is taken to be the primary meaning in some translations (for example, Knox, Jerusalem Bible, “innocent”).

A good man on behalf of sinners is an expression which has a great deal of implicit information, and it may be necessary to fill out the omitted elements, for example, “a good man died on behalf of sinners” or “Christ, who was good, died for the sake of those who are bad.”

If “unjust” is understood primarily as emphasizing Jesus’ sinlessness, then “unjust” would refer to sinners, or “bad people” (compare Barclay). If, however, “just” is taken to mean “innocent,” then “unjust” would mean “guilty” (Knox, Jerusalem Bible). In order to clearly indicate the significant contrasts in good man and sinners or “just” and “unjust,” one may translate either “a man who is good died on behalf of those who are bad” or “a man who has done good died on behalf of those who have done evil” or, following the other interpretation, “a man who has no guilt died on behalf of those who are guilty.”

The purpose of Christ’s death is in order to lead you to God. There is another textual problem here, in that some manuscripts have “us” instead of “you,” and others simply omit the pronoun altogether. The manuscript evidence is strong for both “you” and “us,” and translations are somewhat divided in their preference (for “us,” Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, Barclay, Moffatt, Knox; for “you,” Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Those who favor “us” claim that it fits liturgical use better; while those favoring “you” contend that it is easier and more natural for scribes to change “you” to “us” in order to make the impact of the statement more inclusive.

Because of the complications involved in filling out the elliptical expression a good man on behalf of sinners, it may be important to introduce the first part of verse 18 just before the purpose clause, for example, “Christ died in order to lead you to God” or “… to bring you to God” or “… to cause you to come to God.”

Lead is used only here in the whole New Testament. In classical Greek, it is used of people who are being brought before a tribunal or a royal court; and in the Old Testament, it is used to describe the act of offering sacrifices to God (for example, Exo 29.10; Lev 1.2) or of consecrating people to God’s service (for example, Exo 29.4, 8; 40.12; Lev 8.24; Num 8.9, 10). In the light of this usage, to lead you to God may mean making it possible for someone to have access to God (for example, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “to open up the way to God”), or more specifically, to effect (or restore) a right relationship with God.

Two sets of antitheses appear at the end of this verse: put to death – made alive; physically – spiritually (literally “in the flesh – in the spirit”).

Put to death refers to Christ’s death on the cross, with people as the implicit actors, and made alive refers to his resurrection, with God as the implicit actor (that is, God raised him from the dead; compare John 5.21; 6.63; Rom 4.17; 8.11). In a number of languages it may be advantageous to change the passive expressions was put to death and made alive to active, for example, “people put Christ to death” and “God made Christ alive” or “God caused him to live.”

A harder thing to resolve is the meaning of the antithesis “in the flesh – in the spirit.” Several interpretations are possible. (1) The dative here may be taken as a dative of instrument, and “spirit” is then taken to refer to the Holy Spirit (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). The difficulty of this interpretation is that while it fits the second part of the antithesis, it does not fit the first part, for one cannot say “Christ was put to death by the flesh.” (2) Flesh and spirit may be taken as two parts of the person of Christ, the former referring to his body, and the latter to his spirit or soul, or even more pointedly, the former referring to his human nature, and the latter to his divine nature. This interpretation, aside from the fact that it introduces something which is quite foreign to the New Testament (that is, nowhere in the New Testament is it asserted that a person has an immortal soul), creates many translational problems, for while one can say that Christ’s human nature was put to death, one cannot go on and say that his divine nature was made alive. (3) A third interpretation is possible, which is taking the datives here as datives of reference, denoting spheres of existence. This would mean that while Christ was put to death in the sphere of the physical, he was made alive in the sphere of the spiritual. To put it another way, after his resurrection, Jesus Christ is no longer physical, and what he is, is defined by the term “spiritual.”

If one does not preserve the parallelism in the two related expressions put to death physically and made alive spiritually, then it is of course possible to render the last part of verse 18 as “people put to death Christ’s body, but the Spirit of God made him live again.” If, however, one wishes to preserve the parallelism, and this certainly seems to be an important element in the context, then the translation of physically and spiritually provides certain serious complications, for a number of languages have no such abstract expressions as “physically” and “spiritually.” Sometimes physically may be expressed as “in terms of having a physical body” or “as far as possessing a physical body is concerned.” Spiritually may then be translated as “as far as being a spirit is concerned” or “in terms of being a spirit.” It is, of course, essential in translating spiritually to avoid any term for “spirit” which would suggest a demon or some mischievous sprite.

If one adopts the third type of interpretation, namely, when Christ was put to death he was a physical being, but after he was raised from the dead, he became a spiritual being, one may translate “when people caused Christ to die, he was a human being; but now that God has caused him to live again, he is a spirit.”

Verses 19-22 are very difficult to interpret, so much so that many interpreters take these verses as intrusions into the thought of the passage. Some others argue that these verses are taken from the book of Enoch, and that “Enoch” was inadvertently omitted in the text, with the result that “Christ” was written in as the subject instead. Accordingly, some translations have restored Enoch as the subject (for example, Moffatt “It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits…”). There is, however, no manuscript evidence for such a textual change, and therefore it is quite dangerous to accept it. Even if it can be proved on literary grounds that these verses are an intrusion (or perhaps a later addition) to the passage in question, that would not excuse the translator from taking seriously the whole passage as it now stands. A more difficult approach, yet the only legitimate one for the translator, is to try to discover the meaning of these verses in the light of the letter as a whole, and particularly in the light of its immediate context, and to deal with translational problems accordingly. It is with this in mind that the comments below are made.

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 .

This verse starts with the Greek connective de (“but” or “and”), marking the contrast between the promise in this verse and the present state of the believers in verse 9; as such it is better translated But. In the rendering of the adversative conjunction But, it is important to avoid the implication that the believers to whom this letter is directed are to be treated in a manner different from their fellow believers in all the world. It may therefore be necessary to drop the adversative conjunction in some languages and begin verse 10 with the clause after you have suffered for a little while.

After you have suffered for a little while is actually in the middle of the verse, but most translations move it to the beginning for a more natural rendering and in order to mark the relationship between this verse and the previous one. Once again, the Christians are assured that their suffering is only temporary and their vindication is near at hand (compare 1.6).

A literal rendering of for a little while may accentuate too much the brevity of the suffering of the Christians, for it might suggest that the suffering was merely incidental to other aspects of life. A more satisfactory rendering of the first clause of verse 10 may therefore be “after you have suffered, and it will not be for long.” In this way one may suggest not only the temporary nature of the suffering but the fact that deliverance is near at hand.

Grace here may be the same as in 4.10, in which case the God of all grace means “the God whose gifts are sufficient for every need and for every situation.” It is possible, however, to take grace here theologically in terms of God’s undeserved love, in which case the God of all grace would mean “the God who loves us completely.” It is significant to note that most translations keep the literal rendering without any attempt at restructuring. The God of all grace may be rendered as “the God who in all things is good” or “… kind” or “the God who loves us so much” or “the God who shows his love for us without holding back.”

For to share his eternal glory (literally “to his eternal glory”), see notes on 4.13 and 5.1, where “glory” belongs to Christ and not to God but virtually means the same thing. Eternal marks the contrast between their suffering, which is only temporary, and their vindication, which will last for all time. Who calls you to share his eternal glory may be rendered as “who has called you in order that you could share his eternal glory” or “… his greatness which will last forever” or “… his greatness which will never cease.”

In union with Christ (literally “in Christ”) may be taken with calls (compare Barclay “who through Christ called you”), in which case the meaning is “who called you to belong to Jesus Christ,” or with glory, in which case it defines more precisely what is involved in the Christian’s sharing of God’s glory. Taken in this latter sense, the Good News Translation rendering fits very well; it is significant to note that “in Christ” is a favorite expression of the apostle Paul, with the same mystical connotation.

The phrase in union with Christ may be difficult to combine with his eternal glory. Actually in union with Christ indicates the means by which God’s eternal glory is shared. It may therefore be necessary to translate the phrase in union with Christ as a separate clause, “this is possible because of our being united with Christ” or “this happens because we are one with Christ.”

What follows are four actions of God on behalf of the believers on the day of their vindication. The verbs are related in meaning and mark in a very significant way God’s care for his people. Perfect is literally “restore,” denoting the idea of putting something in order, making something complete (compare Jerusalem Bible “will see that all is well again”; Phillips “will make you whole”); it is a very fitting promise for Christians whose bodies are broken down because of persecution and whose wills are ever put to the test. A literal rendering of will himself perfect you may be misunderstood as a reference to complete sanctification in the sense of “make you perfect.” The focus here is upon restoration, not upon sanctification. An equivalent in some instances may be “will do for you all that is necessary” or “will fix everything up for you again.”

Give you firmness is literally “establish,” and it denotes the action of God in keeping them firm and steady in their faith (compare Knox “give you steadiness”). Give you firmness may be expressed negatively in some languages as “will cause you not to change in your faith” or “will cause you not to trust less.”

Give you strength (Greek sthenoun) occurs only here in the whole New Testament; it denotes the idea of God giving them strength to bear all their sufferings without wavering in their faith. A literal rendering of give you … strength might mean merely “to cause you to be physically strong.” The emphasis here, however, is on psychological strength, and therefore it may be more appropriate in some languages to render give you … strength as “cause your heart to be strong” or “to cause your thoughts to be strong.”

Give you a sure foundation is literally “establish you firmly,” indicating God’s act of making sure that they will be firmly rooted in a strong foundation of trust and confidence in him. Some manuscripts omit this fourth verb, but the evidence is clearly on the side of including it; at any rate, its exclusion does not affect the overall intent and meaning of the verse as a whole.

The area of meaning of the expression give you … a sure foundation is essentially similar to the phrase give you firmness, although give you … a sure foundation may be rendered in terms of “cause you to always endure” or “cause you not to be moved in your trust in Christ.” It is rare that one can actually retain the figurative expression foundation.

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 .

There is some divergence of opinion as to the identity of the prophets in these three verses. Some scholars would limit the reference to New Testament prophets, while others would interpret it broadly to include prophets in both the Old and the New Testament. A majority of interpreters, however, understand these prophets to be Old Testament ones, and this opinion seems to be preferred to the others. There is no article before prophets, and some have taken this to mean that their function is being emphasized; most interpreters, however, see the absence of the article as not significant.

The view expressed here about the function of the prophets was generally held in the early church. The Old Testament was looked upon primarily as prophecy, that is, as prediction of events which have been fulfilled by the coming of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church.

Rather than employ a so-called “anticipatory use” of It with the substantive clause that the prophets made careful search and investigation at the end of the clause, it may be more satisfactory to reverse the order, for example, “the prophets made careful search and investigation about this salvation.” The particular order of words in the Good News Translation text has been employed primarily to show the connection between verse 10 and verse 9.

The prophets, then, made careful search and investigation about the salvation mentioned in the previous verse. This represents two verbs in the Greek; some scholars understand a difference in their meaning, the first verb (ekzeteō) referring to the mystical side of what is being searched, and the second (exeraunaō) to its literary and theological aspects (see Selwyn, pages 133-134). The general consensus, however, is that these two verbs are synonymous, and serve to emphasize the thoroughness of the prophets’ search. The salvation which was the object of their search was of course not a fact, but a promise, and the Good News Translation makes this clear (so also New English Bible “This salvation was the theme which the prophets pondered and explored”; Moffatt; but note Phillips “The prophets of old did their utmost to discover and obtain this salvation”).

Rather than employ a double substantive expression search and investigation, it may be more satisfactory to employ a single expression for the investigation and add to this an intensifier, for example, “they carefully examined everything about this salvation” or “they studied very carefully to know all about this salvation.”

If salvation must be expressed as a verb, one may speak of this salvation as “this way in which God saves believers” or “… saves those who trust Christ.”

It is this careful investigation that enabled the prophets to prophesy about his gift that God would give. Literally about this gift is “concerning the grace.” “Grace” is used in many ways in the New Testament; in Paul it primarily means “God’s love” or “God’s favor,” but here, it refers primarily to the result of God’s love and favor, especially as it is now made available by God to non-Jews, and can be taken as synonymous with salvation itself. Accordingly, some translations make this clear (for example, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Phillips). On the other hand, many other translations simply translate the expression literally, leaving the meaning ambiguous.

It may be difficult to indicate clearly the relationship between this salvation and this gift. It may therefore be important to render the final clause of verse 10 as “they prophesied about this salvation which God would give you” or “they foretold this salvation as a kind of gift which God would give you.”

The verb prophesied could be understood as “predicted” or simply “announced” (hence, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “spoke about”).

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 .

This verse expands on verse 19 and serves as a fitting introduction to verses 21 and following, where Peter discusses the attitude of Christ toward suffering. Credit translates a Greek word which can mean “fame” or “glory,” that is, the praise and recognition one received for something. The source of the credit is not mentioned; it could be God, or people, or possibly both. The focus here, however, is not on who gives the credit, but on who gets it, and an expression like “what advantage do you have” is a close equivalent. What credit may also be rendered as “what benefit is it to you.” One might even translate “what praise do you expect to receive.”

If you endure the beatings you deserve for having done wrong is literally “if you do wrong (sin) and when beaten, endure.” The chronological sequence is apparent in this literal translation, that is, (1) you do wrong, (2) you get beaten, (3) you endure. Good News Translation restructuring has the 3, 2, 1 order and makes the relationship between the three events much clearer, for example, the beatings are a result of doing wrong. If here, as in verse 19, can either be purely conditional or simply conditional in form but not in meaning. Translations take it either way (for the conditional, see Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, Barclay, Knox; for the non-conditional “when,” see New English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

There is no special emphasis in this verse on a feat of endurance involving the beatings or suffering. The focus of attention is essentially upon the experiencing of such beatings; hence, if you endure the beatings you deserve may be rendered as “if you are beaten for what you deserve” or “if you experience the beatings you deserve.”

The beatings translates a Greek participle, the finite verb of which is literally “strike with the fist” but can have the general meaning of “treat with violence” or “maltreat.” It is the same word used in Mark 14.65 to describe the beatings given to Jesus during his trial and serves therefore as a fitting introduction to what will be said later about his example of patient suffering.

Having done wrong may refer to acts against the master, or against God; either sense is possible. The former sense fits the context much better; the beatings are due to the slave’s insubordination and to his inefficiency in performing his assigned task. Favoring the latter is the fact that the word reappears again in 2.22 and 2.24 in the sense of sin or wrongdoing against God. Most translations translate it as it is, allowing for either or both possibilities.

The other half of the verse repeats the idea of verse 19. For you have done right, see 2.15 (the good things you do). Here it is the opposite of having done wrong, and like it, has a double sense in that it could refer to acts which are in conformity with God’s will or to acts which show the slave’s obedience to his earthly master. Taking this latter sense, the expression can then be translated “when you work well.” For God will bless you for it (literally “this is grace with God”), see verse 19 above.

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 .

This verse starts with the Greek particle de (“but” or “and”), which has the dual function of marking a new section and of connecting this new section with the previous one. As already stated above, it is the mention of imminent judgment in verse 5 which leads to the affirmation in verse 7.

Most translations leave this Greek particle out, and signal the beginning of a new section by either the use of a section heading or by beginning a new paragraph.

The end of all things refers to the expected end of the world, which will be ushered in by the second coming of Jesus Christ. It is part of early Christian belief that on the day of Christ’s second coming, all human history will come to an end, the earth, together with everything in it, will pass away, and Jesus Christ will rule as the victorious and triumphant King (compare 1.5, 6; 4.13, 17; 5.1, 10). Furthermore, the early Christians believed that this event was near, which means that they expected it to happen in the very near future, perhaps the next day or the next month, but most surely during their own lifetime. The Greek word translated near is actually a perfect verb (literally “has drawn near”), and is the same word used in the preaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God (compare Mark 1.15). Many translations capture this aspect of immediacy by their restructurings (for example, New English Bible “The end of all things is upon us”; Jerusalem Bible “Everything will soon come to an end”; Barclay “It will not be long now until the end of the world comes”).

It is quite impossible in a number of languages to translate literally The end of all things as a statement related to events, for a literal rendering would simply mean a particular end of all objects. What is involved is a reference to the end of all that is happening, so that The end of all things is near must be rendered in some languages as “all that is now happening will soon come to an end” or “… will cease” or “… will happen no longer.”

It is perhaps important to note that Peter, in contrast with the apocalyptic sections of the Gospels (for example, Mark 13 and parallels; compare 1 Thes 4.15-18), simply states the belief in the imminent end of the world, without mentioning any accompanying signs. However, in conformity with other passages pertaining to this eschatological event, Peter draws out the ethical implications of such a belief, particularly in terms of proper Christian attitude and behavior (compare Matt 24.45–25.13; Mark 13.33-37; Rom 13.11-14; etc.). So he advised them, first of all, to be self-controlled and alert. (For alert, see 1.13.) The two verbs are close synonyms, with the first one (Greek sophroneō “to keep one’s head”) referring to the control of one’s mental faculties (compare Revised Standard Version “keep sane”), and the second (Greek nephō) putting emphasis on sobriety (Jerusalem Bible “a sober mind”) and watchfulness (compare Knox “keep your senses awake”). But the two verbs together denote complete control of oneself, resulting in calmness, sobriety, self-control, sensibleness, steadiness.

In some languages it may be possible to translate You must be self-controlled as literally “you must control yourselves,” but normally You must be self-controlled is expressed in more figurative language, “you must be in command of what you do” or “you must not let your thoughts go in every direction” or “you must not let your heart wander away.” Similarly, alert may be rendered as “always ready” or “be constantly watchful in your hearts” or “keeping your mind awake.”

To be able to pray translates a prepositional phrase (literally “into prayer”) connected with either alert, or more probably with both the preceding imperatives. The preposition “into” may be interpreted as temporal, in which case Peter is saying that they should be self-controlled and alert when they pray, or during their prayers (compare Revised Standard Version “keep sane and sober for your prayers”; Knox “keep your senses awake to greet the hours of prayer”). More probably, however, it expresses purpose, in which case Peter is saying that the purpose of their possessing self-control and sobriety is so that they will be able to pray better.

If one interprets the Greek phrase literally “into prayer” as expressing purpose, it may be necessary to expand somewhat the implications of the rendering to be able to pray. What Peter is trying to say is that one should be self-controlled and alert in order to be able to pray properly, and therefore one may translate to be able to pray as “in order to be able to pray as you should.”

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 .