Beloved, I exhort [you], as strangers and sojourners, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
Peter calls his readers sojourners and exiles — "strangers and pilgrims" in older translations. He then warns them of a danger that works from the inside, and tells them what to do about it.
The letter changes gear here. Privilege gives way to appeal:
After this (1 Peter 2:11), the apostle begins his exhortations. Whatever privileges the Christian may have in his position, he is always seen as a pilgrim on the earth. And, as we have seen, the constant government of God is what fills the apostle's mind. But he warns them first about what is inward. He warns them about the sources from which corruptions spring. Under that government, those corruptions would dishonour the name of God and even bring in judgment.
A believer can be a stranger for two opposite reasons:
In the first verse of the letter the apostle calls the believing Jews strangers. They are outcasts from the land of Israel, scattered among the Gentiles. Here they are strangers and pilgrims along with all believers, because they belong to heaven. In the one case they are strangers because the judgment of God had driven them out of their earthly inheritance. In the other, they are strangers because the grace of God had called them from earth to heaven.
The two words are not a repetition. Each points a different direction:
"Strangers" connects with what is around; "pilgrims" with what is before. A stranger is one who shows that he does not belong to the place where he happens to be. A pilgrim shows that he is journeying on to what lies ahead of him. He has no desire to settle down until he reaches that place. Israel were strangers in Egypt; pilgrims in the wilderness.
Being away from home is not the same as having no home:
A fugitive is a man who has fled from home. A vagabond is a man who has no home. A stranger is a man who is absent from home. A pilgrim is a man who is on his way home.
Notice who does the fighting here. The passions wage the war; Peter asks for something else:
He does not say, "War against the passions of the flesh." He says, "Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul" (1 Peter 2:11). If we abstain, there is no warfare. If we do not, the enemy stirs these passions up powerfully, and they war against us. They entangle us with the very things that hinder our march on toward the possession of our inheritance.
The same writer points this outward:
The flesh in the believer wars against the spiritual progress of the soul. So we are told to abstain from the passions of the flesh, not to war against them. It is hardly our business to fight drink or impurity or other evils in the world. Our part is to show the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into light.
The danger rarely announces itself. It often arrives dressed as something warm and good:
How often, through lack of prayer and watchfulness, fleshly lusts spring out of sincere respect and pure affection! The affection slides into something sensual before anyone notices... How easily little fond familiarities follow, step by step, as the closeness of Christian love ripens into unholy freedom, if not into the worst evil. Lust may take another direction and form, such as greed or any other indulgence foreign to Christ. Men praise many of these fleshly desires as doing well for self, but they war against the soul and are detestable in God's sight.
The casualties here are inward, and often small enough to overlook:
"Abstain from the passions of the flesh," says the apostle. Peter is talking about the inner life of the soul, about those thousand and one little things that come in to spoil communion with God, and to hinder growth and the knowledge of Christ.
Abstaining is not a matter of willpower. It follows from where the heart already lives:
If our heart is where He is, if our affections are set on things above, if we lose sight of the "vain things" that charm the natural man, if we grasp by faith the heavenly calling and the heavenly home — then we shall not fight the lusts of the flesh. We shall abstain from them gladly and willingly, and flee them, as Paul urged Timothy.
- Beloved — Peter appeals; he does not command. He turns here from what believers are to how they walk.
- Stranger — grace made you foreign here, not misfortune. A stranger is absent from home, not without one.
- Pilgrim — the same grace gave you a destination, so you look ahead instead of settling down.
- Abstain — the passions do the warring; your part is to hold off. Decline the fight and there is no war.
- Soul — these small things spoil communion with God and hinder growth and the knowledge of Christ. A heart set above them abstains gladly.
having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that [as to that] in which they speak against you as evildoers, they may through [your] good works, [themselves] witnessing [them], glorify God in [the] day of visitation.
Peter has warned his readers about the wrong desires inside them; now he points to the watching world outside. Three questions follow: what life Peter asks for, why the slander comes, and what the "day of visitation" means.
Hamilton Smith ties this to the warning just before it, and shows what good conduct is for.
Having warned us against sinful desires within, the Apostle now urges us about our outward conduct before the world. We are to be careful to act with complete honesty, so that our good works prove false the hard words that call us evildoers.
ESV says "honorable" where older translations say "honest." The word covers more than being trustworthy.
In the New Testament these words are not limited to trustworthiness, the way we commonly use them today. They extend to any honourable conduct.
Kelly names both the source of this conduct and the aim behind it.
So the call is to have their behaviour attractive (Greek kalen) among the Gentiles... The spring of this conduct is the faith that looks to the Father and calls on Him. But it is also a duty to win over the unbelieving and hostile by living in a way that matches Christ, giving no opening to those who are looking for one. People of the world suspect the motives and the ways of the faithful. Yet they have a strong, if not well-informed, sense of their responsibilities, and they are always on the watch for them to stumble and fail.
The slander had a shape. Critics looked at Christian meetings and noticed what was missing.
It was an early and common accusation among the Gentiles that Christians must be atheists, because they turned from idols. In their meeting places you saw no image of gold, silver, stone, or wood, and no picture made by human hands. The Jews knew perfectly well that this was only because the living and true God had won these believers away from such empty things, to serve Him.
Darby points to the real target behind the attacks.
Christians bore the name of God. People's minds were hostile to His name. They tried to disgrace it by blaming Christians for the evil conduct they themselves practised without remorse. At the same time they complained (1 Peter 4:4) that Christians would not join them in the same excess and disorder. The Christian had only to follow the path of faithfulness to God.
Commentators differ over what this day is. Some read it as God visiting in grace, when trouble drives people to look for help.
Does this mean a visitation in judgment, or the visitation in grace? It means the second, though a visit by the chastening hand of God is not ruled out. When sorrows come, when hopes on earth collapse, when sickness makes it impossible to enjoy material things, unbelievers often turn to the people of God for help and comfort. God's grace then shows itself in the day of visitation, and this glorifies God.
Others read it another way, starting from how Scripture uses the phrase elsewhere.
It is a mark of Scripture that you can only find the meaning of a phrase from its context... For example, the words in Luke 19:44, "the time of your visitation," clearly mean the day of grace for Jerusalem through the presence and testimony of our blessed Lord... But when we come to Peter's words, "the day of visitation," the thought is judgment rather than grace — whatever effects, gracious or otherwise, the "visitation" has on the people who go through it. We take it that this is not about one particular time or day. It is any time when God steps in and shows His power openly before the eyes of men, forcing them, in one way or another, to glorify Him and to prove His people right.
Both readings end in the same place. The accusers themselves finish by speaking for God.
In the day when God visits men, these slanderers will have their will broken and their pride subdued by God's visitation. They will be brought to confess that God had acted in these Christians, and that He had been present among them. What brings them to it is the good works which, despite their slanders, had always reached their consciences.
- Watched. People of the world suspect the motives of believers. They watch for them to slip.
- Beautiful. ESV's "honorable" means more than trustworthy. It covers any conduct that looks attractive.
- Slandered. Expect the charge of being an evildoer. Critics often pin their own conduct on the people of God.
- Silenced. The reply to hard words is not argument but good works, which contradict the accusation.
- Glorified. When God visits, the accusers confess He was at work in the people they attacked. Commentators differ on whether that visit is grace or judgment.
Be in subjection [therefore] to every human institution for the Lord's sake; whether to [the] king as supreme,
Peter writes to Christians scattered among the nations, and he tells them to submit to the rulers over them. He attaches one reason: the Lord. The verse raises three questions. What must I submit to? How far does it go? And what if the ruler is a bad man?
Does "human institution" mean religious rules? One writer says no, and shows that Peter defines his own terms in the next verse.
In 1 Peter 2:13 we have nothing to do with the rules of religion on earth. Colossians 2 declares that they were nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. The apostle urges the believing Jews to behave well among the Gentiles, and to be in subjection to every human creation or institution for the Lord's sake. This he explains as civil government: "whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." Christian Jews must not be unruly like their unbelieving brothers.
Peter attaches one reason: "for the Lord's sake." Is that phrase about the ruler, or about the believer?
A republic had its claim no less than royalty. The only relation revealed for the believer is subjection. There is not one word here, or anywhere else in the New Testament, about the believer exercising authority in the present evil age. The grace of Christ is the pattern for every Christian. "For the Lord's sake" does not mean His relation to the human creation, though He is indeed Lord of all. It means His appeal to the saints themselves, that they obey Him in submission to the powers of the world.
What if the ruler is a bad man who never acknowledges God?
As honour is not at all based upon their personal character, we have nothing at all to do with their origin, how they got their power, or how they use their power. All that we have to do, as believers, is to own God and the magistrate. Perhaps the magistrate, or the king, does not own God himself. That is a serious thing for him, but it does not change our relation.
Believers hold the place of strangers in this world. That standing rules out one thing and requires another.
It would be wholly inconsistent for those who take the place of strangers in this world to attempt to form these institutions or appoint the authorities. We are, however, to be subject to them, and this with the highest motive, for the Lord's sake. We are to be subject to subordinate as well as to supreme authorities, and, again, for the reason that we view them all in relation to the Lord. Whether they exercise their authority in the fear of God or fail to do so, we are to view them as sent by God for the maintenance of the government of the world.
Subjection has a limit. One writer sets it from Peter's own words to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council.
Are we, then, advocating a blind subjection to earthly rule? By no means. When human commands conflict with the word of God, this same apostle has taught us how to act. He, with the other apostles, told the Sanhedrin: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
Refusing to obey is not the same as fighting back.
It is our duty to obey and submit ourselves to them in all things. The one condition is that they do not call on us to disobey God, or do violence to conscience. If they do this, we must — what? Resist? No, but suffer.
Peter's readers had every natural reason to resent the foreign rulers set over them, and the verse cuts across that instinct.
These scattered Christian Jews might well resent the Gentile authorities over them, whether kings or governors. They might resent the many ordinances and laws and regulations that had been set up too. Still, they were to submit. Government, they had to recognise, was a divine institution. The Christian is of course free, for he stands in the liberty of Christ. Still, he must not use his freedom as "a cover-up for evil" — in any way to vent his anger on others. He must regard it as liberty to serve God, and the service of God demands the subjection to rulers laid down here.
- Scope. The command is about civil government — kings and governors — not religious rules. Peter defines his own terms in the next verse.
- Motive. "For the Lord's sake" is an appeal to the believer, not a statement about the ruler. Obedience to Him is the reason we submit.
- Reach. The ruler's origin, character and use of power are not the believer's business. We own the highest and the lowest authorities alike.
- Limit. Subjection is not blind. Where a human command conflicts with God's word, we obey God rather than men — and then suffer instead of resisting.
- Result. Freedom in Christ is real. But it is freedom to serve God, and that service shows itself in submission, not in venting anger.
or to rulers as sent by him, for vengeance on evildoers, and praise to them that do well.
Peter writes to believers scattered across the empire. He tells them how to live under rulers they did not choose. The verse names two things at once: who governors answer to, and what they exist to do.
The wording marks out a chain of authority. Governors are not sent straight from heaven. The king sends them. The ESV reads "sent by him"; older translations render the same phrase "sent through him," and that is the wording discussed below.
The Spirit makes a distinction, even while He commands subjection to all: the king is supreme, and the governors are sent through him to punish evildoers and to praise those who do well. "Sent through him" points to the king's authority as the higher one. If God had been meant here, the phrase would, I believe, have been "by," and not the in-between word "through." Anyone can see how odd the mistake would be. It would make the divine commission belong not to the king, but only to the governors he appoints.
The two aims named here did not start with Peter. One writer traces them back to what God said to Noah after the flood.
The aim of government stated in the last part of verse 14 is quite clear. It is to punish evildoers and to encourage those who do well. God laid this broad duty on Noah after the flood. We hear of neither king nor magistrate in the world before the flood... "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen. 9:6) first laid the basic foundation of human government as it stands. Life belonged to God, and He gave this principle to Noah.
Peter covers the local official as well as the emperor. The believer's reason for obeying is not the ruler's personal godliness.
The exhortations that follow view the believer in relation to the institutions and authorities of this world. It would be wholly inconsistent for those who take the place of strangers in this world to try to form these institutions or appoint the authorities. We are, however, to be subject to them, and this with the highest motive, for the Lord's sake. We are to be subject to lower authorities as well as to supreme ones, and again for the reason that we view them all in relation to the Lord. Whether they use their authority in the fear of God or fail to do so, we are certainly to see them as sent by God to maintain the government of the world.
Nero ruled Rome, and he was capable of anything. A believer can still obey such a ruler, because the worst he can do cannot reach what matters most.
The place of the Christian is complete obedience to the governing authorities, even if Nero were king. Nero could not touch my portion, which is heavenly. So whatever the question is, unless it interfered with my obedience to God, I would not mind. He could only bring me into "the lion's mouth," and this might turn into a testimony. He could not touch my resurrection life... I take my example from Christ, who appealed to no one but God. Yet even in the darkest hour of wickedness, when God's priests were pressing the Roman authorities to crucify His Son, the Lord says, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above."
Doing good draws praise from rulers. One writer says that praise is worth having, then names the ambition it must never become.
There is also a praise that should never be taken lightly. Doing practical good, and submitting readily for the Lord's sake to human institutions, calls out this praise from the rulers of this world. It can be won with honour even from the very worst of human governments. On the other hand, someone who shares in the heavenly calling, whose name is registered above and whose rights as a citizen are there and not here, can never consistently seek the reputation of a social or political reformer.
Obedience is wide, but it is not unlimited. The order of Peter's own words settles which claim comes first.
Other Scriptures clearly show that the only limitation to our subjection to men is the fear of God. When men insist upon direct disobedience to God, we must set God first (Acts 4:19). So here the order is, "Fear God. Honour the king."
- Sent — the governor comes through the king, not straight from God. The chain is human, yet God stands behind the whole structure.
- Sword — government exists to punish wrong and praise right. God gave that charge to Noah after the flood and never withdrew it.
- Scope — obedience covers the local official as well as the emperor. It does not wait for a ruler to be godly.
- Safe — even a Nero can only reach the body. He cannot touch a believer's heavenly portion, so submission costs nothing eternal.
- Stop — the single limit is the fear of God: when men demand disobedience to Him, "Fear God" outranks "honour the king."
Because so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye put to silence the ignorance of senseless men;
Peter has just told scattered believers to submit to kings and governors for the Lord's sake. Now he gives the reason: this is what God wants, and it has a target — the ignorance of people who speak against Christians.
Scripture uses "the will of God" in more than one sense, and this verse is not about God's hidden purposes but about how a believer walks day by day.
In many passages the will of God has reference to the eternal counsels of God, as we read, "who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). In other passages the reference is to God's will for His people in their daily path (1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Peter 2:15, etc.).
The "doing good" Peter means is not abstract. It is the quiet submission described in the verses just before. It comes from people whose real interests lie elsewhere.
Those who belong to Christ have nothing directly to do with governing the world. Scripture says plainly that they are not of the world, just as He was not... Now is the time to suffer with Him, and to look to be glorified with Him later. So meanwhile we should be all the more eager to submit to every human institution (the literal word is "creation"), not only to a king as the highest authority, but also to the governors he sends out from time to time to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Our real interests are above; but this is our duty for the Lord's sake.
That submission has one boundary.
The word of God plainly tells His people to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17). It is not for us to question how that authority came to power, or what kind of person holds it. Our part is to obey. But when the will of man clashes with the word of God, and tries to force that will on our consciences, we must obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19).
The word behind "put to silence" is stronger than it sounds in English. And "foolish" is about not knowing God.
A weighty reason follows. "For this is the will of God (and are we not sanctified for obedience — the obedience of Jesus?), that by doing good you should put to silence (literally, muzzle) the ignorance of foolish people."... The true and fitting answer to the world's spiteful hatred is a godly life. For all men, not just some, are foolish if they do not know God. That is why they take a malicious pleasure in blaming His children for their own evils.
The ignorance is not vague. Believers faced a specific charge, and their obedience answered it.
By submitting to authority and doing good, the Christian puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men. They accuse the believer of rebelling against authority (Luke 23:14-15; Acts 24:12-13). We are free from the world. But we must not use that freedom to speak evil of this world's rulers. We are to give ourselves wholly to the service of God.
Because the accusation is about conduct, the reply is conduct. Writers facing public attack applied the verse exactly this way.
My own desire would be that you should not answer back, but that by a holy and blameless life you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men... Your best answer is "perfect silence."
Another writer gave the same counsel, and added that even being called Beelzebub — a name for the devil — makes you like your Master.
Dear friends, stand firm; and I beg you, abound in the work of the Lord, and by doing good put to silence the ignorance of foolish people... Remember the word, "When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." If you are called Beelzebub, you know well why you should bear it, returning blessing for cursing. It is a privilege we rarely have, to be like our Master.
This submission is not slavery, and the freedom behind it is not an excuse for self-will.
For he is free. He does not depend on the government, though he respects it. He depends on God. And such liberty must not be twisted into mere self-will, because it is really liberty to please God as His willing servants.
- Will — The "will of God" here is not His hidden counsel. It is His will for your daily path.
- Well-doing — That will means submitting to human authority for the Lord's sake. One limit: when man's will clashes with God's word, obey God.
- Muzzle — The literal word is muzzle. "Foolish" covers everyone who does not know God, and such people blame believers for their own evils.
- Weapon — The charge is about conduct, so the answer is conduct. Not a reply, not a defence — a holy life is the best silence.
- Freedom — None of this is slavery. The Christian is free and depends on God alone. That freedom is liberty to serve Him, never a cover for self-will.
as free, and not as having liberty as a cloak of malice, but as God's bondmen.
Peter has just told believers to submit to kings and governors. Now he guards that command from the other side: those who submit are free people, and their freedom is given for serving God, not for hiding wrongdoing.
The order to submit does not cancel the Christian's freedom. One commentator holds both together.
The Christian is of course free, for he stands in the liberty of Christ. Still, he must not use his freedom as "a cloak of malice" — in any way to vent his anger on others. He must treat it as liberty to serve God, and serving God demands the subjection to rulers set out here.
This freedom is not a better position inside the world. It is freedom from belonging to the world at all.
Here the Christian receives the place of being completely free. He does not belong to the world; he belongs to heaven. He does not use his liberty as a cloak of maliciousness. He lives as the servant of God, seeking only to be a servant. Now a servant's business is simply to follow the will of his master, and God's will is that I should submit.
"A cover-up for evil" pictures freedom worn like a coat over something hidden. Older translations call it "a cloak of maliciousness." Outsiders were making that charge against Christians, and the answer to it was conduct, not argument.
The true and fitting answer to the spiteful hatred of the world is a godly course of living… This steady well-doing does not give up the liberty with which Christ set us free. We live by the Spirit, so we are to walk by it too, instead of wearing liberty as a cloak of malice — which is what our enemies claimed we did.
The accusation was political. The reply was a life that gave it nothing to hold on to.
By subjection to authority, and by well-doing, the Christian would put to silence the ignorance of senseless men. Such men charge the believer with rebellion against authority. We are free from the world. But we are not to use our freedom to speak evil of this world's authorities. Instead we are to devote ourselves wholly to the service of God.
The word behind "servants" is stronger than hired help. It reaches into every relationship named around it in this chapter.
"Servants of God" (verse 16). This is the last of the descriptions the apostle uses in this chapter, and it takes in all the rest. The word translated "servants" is really "bondmen," and speaks of those wholly devoted to the will of God. Notice the instructions that surround this description: "Be subject… to the emperor… to governors"; "Honor everyone"; "Love the brotherhood"; "Fear God"; "Honor the emperor"; "Servants, be subject to your masters." Wherever we are, whatever our sphere, our conduct should match our position as "servants of God."
Being God's bondman changes who the Christian leans on while he obeys the government.
He is free: he is not dependent on the government, though he respects it; he depends on God. And this liberty must not be twisted into mere self-will. It is liberty to please God as His willing servants.
If freedom means doing as I please, the freest man who ever lived would have been the least obedient. Jesus shows the opposite.
The liberty of the saint is not licence to do his own will. If anything could have taken away the liberty of the Lord Jesus, it would have been hindering Him from always being obedient to the will of God. All that moves in the sphere of man's will is sin… The essence of sanctification is having no will of our own… True slavery is being enslaved by our own will. True liberty means having our own will completely set aside.
The Christian submits as God's servant. So the submission stops where a human order contradicts God's word.
Obedience to the powers that be is the plain direction of the word of God for His people. We are not to raise questions about how the authority came to power, or about the character of the person who holds it. Our part is to obey. But sometimes the will of man clashes with the word of God and tries to force that will on our consciences. Then we must obey God rather than man.
- Free — the believer belongs to heaven, not to the world, and depends on God, not on any government.
- Free for — that freedom exists so he can serve God, and God's will for him now is submission to human authority.
- Not a cloak — never wear freedom as a coat over spite or self-will. Outsiders were already accusing Christians of just that.
- Bondman — "servant" here means someone wholly devoted to God's will. That title covers every sphere: rulers, masters, fellow believers, everyone.
- The one limit — do not ask how a ruler came to power; refuse only when man's will overrides God's word.
Shew honour to all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the king.
Peter ends his teaching on submission with four short commands. Each names one relationship — the world, fellow believers, God, and the ruler — so what do you owe a stranger, and what do you owe a king?
Each phrase names a party and the response that fits it:
Verse 17 sums the matter up briefly, and we find what suits "the servants of God." As to all men — honour. As to the brotherhood, that is, all believers — love. As to God — fear. As to the king, the representative of all human authority — honour. Carrying this out, we do the will of God and silence foolish opponents.
Why these four commands? One writer starts from where Christians stand in the world:
A "stranger" is one who has no home in the place where he finds himself. A "pilgrim" is one who knows where his home is and is going to it. That is our position as Christians in this scene. We have no part in the governing or ordering of the vast system called the world; if we had, we would not be strangers.
Why honour everyone? The reason is not what people do, but what God made them:
They were to "honour all men" — men as men, men in the character which God has given them as His creatures, men as the representatives of God on earth. This holds however far they may in fact have departed from it. How important to give this honour to manhood, even in the most ruined person... If they have in fact sunk to beasts, they still are not beasts. The very penalty they bring on themselves is a witness to the higher destiny God meant them for.
That honour has a practical shape. It saves us from two opposite mistakes:
Naturally we tend to go to one of two extremes, according to our bent. Either we sink too far to the level of other men, or we take on an air of superiority and act the Pharisee. Scripture points out a middle course which, if adopted, would be both a safeguard to ourselves and a help to those who are at present outside.
The verse uses two different words. One writer explains what each one carries:
We are not told to love all men. Love is for the family. We are to esteem all. Those competent to judge say the original word for "esteem" is more the act done when the occasion arises. The word for "love" implies the constant habit of mind.
Kelly adds that this constant love still takes its shape from the state of the person:
Loving the brotherhood is a constant duty; but the love takes a shape according to their state... Love would take pains with those guilty of smaller faults. It would warn the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, and stay patient with everyone. It is the very opposite of either self-seeking or indifference.
This fear is not dread of a tyrant. It is the settled awareness of who God is, and it displaces every other fear:
Then how necessary to cultivate the fear of God as a habit! Nothing is right where this fails. The holy fear of God shuts out every dishonouring fear of man, and all tormenting fear of God. We know His majesty, His holiness, and His righteous character; and we know also that He loves us beyond a father's love.
Peter wrote this while Nero ruled Rome. Commentators press the point:
Both apostles firmly insisted that the saints render obedience and honour to Nero the Emperor — one of the worst and cruellest men who ever sat on the throne of the Caesars. It is not the character of the ruler, but the office he fills, that demands the respect and reverence of the saints of God.
Honouring the king is one way of fearing God. It also shapes how we love the brotherhood:
We are to "love the brotherhood," but we are also to "honour the king." ... if the king happens to be a brother, do not forget that he is still the king, or if the master happens to be a brother, do not forget that he is still the master. This is one way in which we may fear God. For if we truly fear Him, we will also fear those He has set up, and show them reverence.
- Four-sided. One verse covers the whole of a Christian's duty: to the world, to the family of faith, to God, and to the ruler.
- Honour rests on creation. Honour every person as God's creature and representative, however far they have fallen from that — which keeps us from both looking down on people and copying them.
- Love is narrower and deeper. Esteem meets the occasion. Love is a settled habit, and it is for the family of believers.
- Fear frees. Holy fear of God drives out the fear of man and the tormenting fear of God. The God we stand in awe of loves us beyond a father's love.
- Honour the office. Respect belongs to the position, not to the character of the man who holds it. Peter wrote this while Nero ruled.